2014.12.02 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
BUSINESS MEETING
DECEMBER 2, 2014
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
1.(5 Minutes)Roll Call
2.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda
3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.AM-7323 Approval of claim checks #211671 through #211743 dated November 25, 2014 for
$752,107.88 (replacement checks #211671 $200.00 and #211710 $275.70).
B.AM-7319 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Konstantine Tsourdinis ($638.94).
C.AM-7315 Authorization for the Mayor to sign the Agreement to Provide Swim Lessons to Third
Grade Students
D.AM-7321 Authorization to Execute Professional Services Agreement for the Development Code
Major Update
E.AM-7328 Deputy Director Parks job description and salary range approval
F.(10 Minutes)
AM-7326
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Services with the City of Lynnwood
4.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings
5.(10 Minutes)
AM-7327
Discussion and action regarding City Council Executive Assistant and Legislative
Assistant
Packet Page 1 of 256
6.(25 Minutes)
AM-7320
Public Hearing on the Draft Housing Element of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update
7.(30 Minutes)
AM-7316
Final Report on the Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Study and Pre-Design Project
8.(15 Minutes)
AM-7307
Discussion regarding a Diversity Commission
9.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
10.(15 Minutes)Council Comments
11.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
12.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 256
AM-7323 3. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/02/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #211671 through #211743 dated November 25, 2014 for $752,107.88
(replacement checks #211671 $200.00 and #211710 $275.70).
Recommendation
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2014
Revenue:
Expenditure:752,107.88
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $752,107.88
Claims reissued checks $475.70 (#211671 & #211710)
Attachments
Claim cks 11-25-14
Project Numbers 11-25-14
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 11/25/2014 02:25 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 11/25/2014 03:20 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/25/2014 03:58 PM
Packet Page 3 of 256
Mayor Dave Earling 11/25/2014 03:58 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 11/25/2014 05:37 PM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 11/25/2014 02:03 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2014
Packet Page 4 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211671 11/24/2014 074596 JUSINO, ELIZABETH WOTS JUSINO WOTS JUSINO
WOTS JUSINO
117.100.64.573.20.41.00 200.00
Total :200.00
211672 11/25/2014 068657 ACCOUNTEMPS 41674979 TEMPORARY HELP FINANCE DEPT WEEK ENDING
Temporary help week ending 11/07/14 - C
001.000.31.514.23.41.00 1,740.00
Total :1,740.00
211673 11/25/2014 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND DECEMBER 2014 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 12/14 - EDMONDS AC
ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 12/14
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 2,127.08
Total :2,127.08
211674 11/25/2014 070976 AMERESCO QUANTUM 2013-030 H (2-1) -01 WWTP - C457 PHASE 4 ENERGY PROJECT
Phase 4 Energy Project
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 59,236.00
Less Retainage
423.100.223.400 -2,961.80
9.5% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 5,627.42
WWTP - C457 PHASE 4 ENERGY PROJECT2013-030B(2)-01
C457 Phase 4 Energy Project
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 36,303.28
9.5% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 3,448.81
Total :101,653.71
211675 11/25/2014 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987729332 WWTP- UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS
wwtp uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80
wwtp mats & towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 74.86
9.5% Sales Tax
1Page:
Packet Page 5 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211675 11/25/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 7.11
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1987729333
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 63.12
Total :149.25
211676 11/25/2014 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST 11/21/14 AWC DECEMBER 2014 AWC PREMIUMS
DECEMBER 2014 AWC PREMIUMS
811.000.231.510 66,902.07
Total :66,902.07
211677 11/25/2014 074640 B2C PUBLISHING 1947 PROMOTIONAL AD DECEMBER 2014
Promotional ad December issue 2014
001.000.61.558.70.44.00 625.00
Total :625.00
211678 11/25/2014 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 76616-01 INV#76616-01 - EDMONDS PD - ANDERSON
SHELL OUTER JACKET
001.000.41.521.10.24.00 325.00
NAME TAG
001.000.41.521.10.24.00 4.95
SEW VELCRO ON BACK OF EMBLEM
001.000.41.521.10.24.00 5.00
HEAT STAMP REFLECTIVE LETTERS
001.000.41.521.10.24.00 6.00
SEW EMBLEM ON GARMENT
001.000.41.521.10.24.00 1.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.24.00 32.49
INV#76616-80 CR FOR OVER CHG-ANDERSON76616-80
SALE ADJ. ANDERSON'S JACKET
001.000.41.521.10.24.00 -98.90
9.5% Sales Tax
2Page:
Packet Page 6 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211678 11/25/2014 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP
001.000.41.521.10.24.00 -9.40
Total :266.14
211679 11/25/2014 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14349577 Lease of Council Office Printer/Copier
Lease of Council Office Printer/Copier
001.000.11.511.60.45.00 30.65
CANON CONTRACT CHARGES14349578
Cannon contract charges C1030
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 9.33
Cannon contract charges C1030
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.33
Cannon contract charges C1030
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.88
PARKS COPIER IRC5051 CONTRACT 001-05721014349583
PARKS COPIER IRC5051 CONTRACT
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 273.74
Lease/Plng Div Copier/Printer14349585
Lease/Plng Div Copier/Printer
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.16
Lease/Bldg Div Printer/Copier14349586
Lease/Bldg Div Printer/Copier
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.16
P&R PRINTER IRC1030IF CONTRACT 001-0572114349587
P&R PRINTER IRC1030IF CONTRACT
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 30.65
Total :438.01
211680 11/25/2014 075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATIONS 35 COMMUNICATIONS ADVISOR NOVEMBER 2014
Communications advisor for November 2014
3Page:
Packet Page 7 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211680 11/25/2014 (Continued)075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATIONS
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 2,500.00
Total :2,500.00
211681 11/25/2014 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 42834389 INV#42834389 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD
FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE-POFF
104.000.41.521.21.32.00 173.76
TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE
104.000.41.521.21.32.00 1.74
Total :175.50
211682 11/25/2014 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 451202-1410 E3GA.SERVICES THRU 10/16/14
E3GA.Services thru 10/16/14
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 4,867.43
Total :4,867.43
211683 11/25/2014 071480 CLEAR CUT PLASTICS INC 33155 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES
POLYCARB
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 148.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.06
Total :162.06
211684 11/25/2014 004095 COASTWIDE LABS GCW2704009 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OFFICE
facial tissue and jumbo paper
423.000.76.535.80.31.41 -46.59
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.41 -4.43
WWTP - SUPPLIES, OFFICEGW2719935
paper products
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 73.68
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 7.00
Total :29.66
211685 11/25/2014 073387 COLELLA, CAROL 11/20 GYM ATTENDANT 11/13 - 11/20/14 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDAN
4Page:
Packet Page 8 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211685 11/25/2014 (Continued)073387 COLELLA, CAROL
11/13 - 11/20/14 VOLLEYBALL GYM
001.000.64.575.52.41.00 70.00
Total :70.00
211686 11/25/2014 066028 DANIELS, JASON 09/11/2014 Refund for overtime average included in
Refund for overtime average included in
421.000.74.534.80.11.00 70.15
Total :70.15
211687 11/25/2014 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 350324 E1AA.SERVICES THRU 11/1/14
E1AA.Services thru 11/1/14
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 4,348.29
Total :4,348.29
211688 11/25/2014 070864 DEX MEDIA 440012003592 C/A 440001304654
Basic e-commerce hosting 11/02/14 -
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95
C/A 440001307733440012003600
11/2014 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95
Total :69.90
211689 11/25/2014 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 14-3499 Minute taker for Tree Board for the
Minute taker for Tree Board for the
001.000.11.511.60.41.00 333.30
MINUTE TAKING14-3501
Council Minutes 11/18
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 363.00
Total :696.30
211690 11/25/2014 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 11302014 STATE LOBBYIST NOVEMBER 2014
State lobbyist for November 2014
001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,600.00
Total :2,600.00
211691 11/25/2014 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025 MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLER
5Page:
Packet Page 9 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211691 11/25/2014 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
MARINA BEACH PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 386.65
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS6-00200
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 686.06
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPRINKLER6-00410
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 416.22
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS6-00475
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,099.37
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 20886-01127
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 2088
423.000.76.535.80.47.64 160.22
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 94396-01130
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 9439
423.000.76.535.80.47.64 25.63
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 50104846-01140
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 5010484
423.000.76.535.80.47.64 1,196.36
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER6-01250
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 881.23
CITY PARK PARKING LOT6-01275
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,376.48
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKLER6-02125
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 382.77
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER6-02727
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 228.65
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SPRINKLERS6-02730
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SPRINKLERS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 213.76
6Page:
Packet Page 10 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211691 11/25/2014 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N / ME6-02735
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,597.78
FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N / ME6-02736
FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.65
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 76-02737
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,193.40
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 250 5TH6-02738
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 250
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 318.03
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 7096-02825
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,871.24
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN ST6-02875
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 25.63
FAC SPRINKLER6-02900
FAC SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 583.20
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME6-02925
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,562.85
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER6-03000
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 390.18
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKLER6-03275
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 130.43
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER6-03575
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 233.15
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE6-04127
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW /
7Page:
Packet Page 11 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211691 11/25/2014 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 775.08
FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW /6-04128
FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.65
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-04400
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 198.86
SEAVIEW PARK6-04425
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 400.70
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER6-04450
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 446.33
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE6-05155
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 134.04
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 509.34
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 509.34
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 509.34
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 509.34
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 509.36
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW /6-05156
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 1.83
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 6.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 6.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
8Page:
Packet Page 12 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211691 11/25/2014 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 6.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 6.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 6.94
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER6-07775
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 520.31
YOST PARK SPRINKLER6-08500
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 922.93
YOST POOL6-08525
YOST POOL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 737.58
Total :22,707.71
211692 11/25/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 106893 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTENANCE
Maintenance for printers 11/21/14 -
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 343.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 32.68
Total :376.66
211693 11/25/2014 009880 FEDEX 2-845-84484 E3DE.CONTRACT DELIVERY
E3DE.Contract Delivery
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 31.40
Total :31.40
211694 11/25/2014 074613 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE 869-422941595 E7AC.COUNTRY FARMS ROW ACQUISTION
E7AC.Country Farms ROW Acquistion
112.200.68.595.20.61.00 414.96
Total :414.96
211695 11/25/2014 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
9Page:
Packet Page 13 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211695 11/25/2014 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 31.60
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 31.59
PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, SPARE LINES425-712-8251
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
001.000.65.518.20.42.00 15.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 79.18
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 66.51
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 66.51
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
511.000.77.548.68.42.00 88.66
CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5TH AVE N425-775-2455
CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 59.19
Total :439.08
211696 11/25/2014 074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 30726 E3GA.SERVICES THRU SEPTEMBER 2014 SITE #
E3GA.Services thru September 2014 Site
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 13,988.03
Total :13,988.03
211697 11/25/2014 012190 GORSUCH, BRUCE 19150 GENEOLOGY PLUS 19150 GENEOLOGY PLUS INSTRUCTOR FEE
19150 GENEOLOGY PLUS INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 148.00
Total :148.00
211698 11/25/2014 012560 HACH COMPANY 9112706 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC
termination box assembly
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 284.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 30.89
9.5% Sales Tax
10Page:
Packet Page 14 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211698 11/25/2014 (Continued)012560 HACH COMPANY
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 29.92
Total :344.81
211699 11/25/2014 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 80 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 83.00
Total :83.00
211700 11/25/2014 074966 HIATT, ELLEN COE_2014_11-24 COMMUNICATIONS AND MARKETING CONSULTANT
Communications and marketing tourism
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 4,525.00
Total :4,525.00
211701 11/25/2014 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1042462 0205 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES
1/2X10 HB EA, S-HOOKS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.14
0205 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES3043361
MAINT SUPPLIES: HEATPACKS, HHVALPK10PA,
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 61.31
0205 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES8566073
MAINT SUPPLIES: 32 G TRASHCANS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 98.45
Total :170.90
211702 11/25/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2458339 PAPER SUPPLIES FOR UTILITY BILLING
PAPER SUPPLIES FOR UTILITY BILLING
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 42.26
PAPER SUPPLIES FOR UTILITY BILLING
422.000.72.531.10.31.00 42.26
PAPER SUPPLIES FOR UTILITY BILLING
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 42.38
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.02
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.10.31.00 4.02
11Page:
Packet Page 15 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211702 11/25/2014 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.02
Laminator Machine for DSD2544397
Laminator Machine for DSD
001.000.62.524.10.35.00 492.71
WWTP - SUPPLIES, OFFICE2544490
paper products
423.000.76.535.80.31.23 53.02
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.23 5.04
MOUSE PAD2545056
Fellowes Mouse pad
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 24.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 2.37
Total :717.00
211703 11/25/2014 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 749064 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES
TIES, CABLE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 97.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.24
Total :106.54
211704 11/25/2014 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 638625 WWTP - SUPPLIES, HYPOCHLORITE
hypochlorite solution, 4675 gallons
423.000.76.535.80.31.53 2,587.69
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.53 245.83
Total :2,833.52
211705 11/25/2014 073780 KAMINS, CHAD E3DC.Pmt 1 E3DC.PMT 1 THRU 10/31/14
E3DC.Pmt 1 thru 10/31/14
112.200.68.595.33.65.00 46,586.52
E3DC.Ret 1
12Page:
Packet Page 16 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211705 11/25/2014 (Continued)073780 KAMINS, CHAD
112.200.223.400 -2,329.33
Total :44,257.19
211706 11/25/2014 075088 KARAM VENTURES LLC E1CA.DQ ROW 2 E1CA.DAIRY QUEEN ROW ACQUISITION
E1CA.Dairy Queen ROW Acquisition
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 20,000.00
Total :20,000.00
211707 11/25/2014 075088 KARAM VENTURES LLC E1CA.DQ ROW 1 E1CA.DAIRY QUEEN ROW ACQUISTION
E1CA.Dairy Queen ROW Acquisition
112.200.68.595.20.61.00 3,050.00
Total :3,050.00
211708 11/25/2014 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 34113 E3FH.SERVICES THRU 11/1/14
E3FH.Services thru 11/1/14
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 1,817.50
Total :1,817.50
211709 11/25/2014 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC 20187 expenses 10-14 EXPENSES
10-14 reimbursement for expenses -
001.000.36.515.31.41.00 434.05
Total :434.05
211710 11/25/2014 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 006054-00 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES
PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES: 20 OZ RED/ORANGE,
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 65.71
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.24
PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES006055-00
PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES: BODY RUBBER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 186.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.68
Total :275.70
211711 11/25/2014 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 006151-00 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES 8TH & ALDER PATHWAY
13Page:
Packet Page 17 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211711 11/25/2014 (Continued)074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO
PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES: PIPES, GLUE, 4X4,
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 501.89
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00 47.68
PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES006153-00
PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES: BODY RUBBER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 99.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.41
PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES006189-00
TOP THR KEY, BODY RUBBER COVER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -137.22
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -13.04
Total :507.76
211712 11/25/2014 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 79 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.29.00 8,086.50
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 2,835.78
Total :10,922.28
211713 11/25/2014 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 17486802 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL
polypropylene Cam & Groove Hose
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 20.47
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 6.22
Total :26.69
211714 11/25/2014 073602 MEDICAL IMAGING NORTHWEST LLP B4B0015I Pre Employment testing services
Pre Employment testing services
001.000.22.518.10.41.00 36.00
Total :36.00
14Page:
Packet Page 18 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211715 11/25/2014 072223 MILLER, DOUG 11/19 GYM MONITOR 11-5-11/19/14 GYM MONITOR AT FAC BASKETB
11-5-11/19/14 GYM MONITOR AT FAC
001.000.64.575.52.41.00 75.00
Total :75.00
211716 11/25/2014 066006 MORGAN SOUND MSI80400 WOTS MICROPHONE
WOTS MICROPHONE
117.100.64.573.20.35.00 499.00
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.64.573.20.35.00 47.41
Total :546.41
211717 11/25/2014 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 14-1590-3 E4GA.SERVICES THRU 10/31/14
E4GA.Services thru 10/31/14
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 22,573.70
Total :22,573.70
211718 11/25/2014 074306 NEBCO/NPRIT 3455964 LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums
LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums
617.000.51.522.20.23.00 1,283.53
LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 9,101.67
Total :10,385.20
211719 11/25/2014 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1068404 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65
EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET2-1068641
EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65
MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET2-1068642
MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65
MARINA BEACH PARK/DOG PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1069188
MARINA BEACH PARK/DOG PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 609.05
15Page:
Packet Page 19 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :956.0021171911/25/2014 061013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
211720 11/25/2014 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 523 Minutetaker for 11/13/14 HPC
Minutetaker for 11/13/14 HPC
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 148.50
Total :148.50
211721 11/25/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 325320 INV#325320 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
LIPPED FLOOR MAT
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 125.17
MR CLEAN MAGIC ERASER
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 5.99
MOUSE PAD
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 3.89
SMOOTHGRIP LETTER OPENER
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 3.45
WHITE SHIPPING LABELS
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 117.36
HAND SOAP REFILL
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 10.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 25.31
OFFICE SUPPLIES397207
Office Supplies
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 84.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 8.06
Total :384.76
211722 11/25/2014 074931 PEAK CMS LLC 12477 CABLE INSTALLATION PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG &
Billing for work performed 11/13/14 -
001.000.31.518.88.41.00 1,925.34
Total :1,925.34
211723 11/25/2014 073070 PERRINE, JULIE 19096 CLAY EXPLORAT 19096 CLAY EXPLORATION INSTRUCTOR FEE
19096 CLAY EXPLORATION INSTRUCTOR FEE
16Page:
Packet Page 20 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211723 11/25/2014 (Continued)073070 PERRINE, JULIE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 248.00
Total :248.00
211724 11/25/2014 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 213633 WWTP - POSTAGE
dept. of L&I, safety videos
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 19.97
Total :19.97
211725 11/25/2014 064088 PROTECTION ONE 291104 ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAINT./FS #16
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 49.44
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE
001.000.64.576.80.42.00 49.43
ACTIVATION/CONNECTION FEE
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 41.96
ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 730.00
LABOR CHARGE
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 203.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.49.00 102.84
Total :1,177.37
211726 11/25/2014 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0023025-IN WWTP - SUPPLIES, SAFETY
safety supplies
423.000.76.535.80.31.12 127.60
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.12 12.12
Total :139.72
211727 11/25/2014 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200021829581 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395
423.000.76.535.80.47.63 306.67
Total :306.67
17Page:
Packet Page 21 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211728 11/25/2014 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SOUND & DATA 21679 CAMERA UPGRADE EQUIPMENT PURCHASE
Camera upgrade equipment purchase
001.000.23.512.50.35.00 3,200.00
Camera upgrade equipment purchase
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 1,000.00
Camera upgrade equipment purchase
422.000.72.531.40.35.00 1,000.00
Camera upgrade equipment purchase
421.000.74.534.80.35.00 500.00
Camera upgrade equipment purchase
423.000.75.535.80.35.00 500.00
Camera upgrade equipment purchase
423.000.76.535.80.35.00 1,500.00
Camera upgrade equipment purchase
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 5,408.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.23.512.50.35.00 304.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 95.00
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.35.00 95.00
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.35.00 47.50
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.35.00 47.50
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.35.00 142.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 513.85
WWTP - M079 PAGODA REPAIR21682
Pelco mounts, shields, dome lens, &
423.000.76.535.80.35.00 4,358.61
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.35.00 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
18Page:
Packet Page 22 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211728 11/25/2014 (Continued)066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SOUND & DATA
423.000.76.535.80.35.00 415.97
Total :19,148.88
211729 11/25/2014 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS OE0000834A8594 PARKS MAINT PAINT AND SUPPLIES
PARKS MAINT PAINT AND SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 62.79
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.97
Total :68.76
211730 11/25/2014 068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO E3GA.Pmt 4 E3GA.PMT 4 THRU 10/24/14
E3GA.Pmt 4 thru 10/24/14
423.000.75.594.35.65.30 296,289.89
Total :296,289.89
211731 11/25/2014 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2003-8645-6 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD / METER 100
CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 99.95
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER 12004-6859-3
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 486.93
TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / METER 10002005-9295-4
TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 12006-3860-9
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 362.19
TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S / METER 10002006-7801-9
TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.27
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W / METE2012-6598-0
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 363.09
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W / M2013-7496-4
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W /
19Page:
Packet Page 23 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211731 11/25/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 39.29
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW D2014-3123-6
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 30.74
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 1002015-5174-4
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,680.55
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER 10002015-7289-8
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 74.89
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW / METE2015-9448-8
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 35.71
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN ST / METER2016-5690-7
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN ST / METER
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 242.25
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER 10002017-8264-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE2019-4248-9
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 84.39
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 320.69
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 320.69
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 320.69
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 320.69
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 320.69
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH2022-9166-2
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 4,643.94
20Page:
Packet Page 24 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211731 11/25/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT METERE2023-8937-5
STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT
111.000.68.542.68.47.00 16.49
LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTING 120 5TH2024-2158-2
LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTING 120 5TH
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 168.89
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 100012612024-3924-6
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 5,056.78
Total :15,085.46
211732 11/25/2014 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2067680-01 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LABORATORY
Sampling Boots
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 74.95
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 9.85
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 8.06
Total :92.86
211733 11/25/2014 075009 SOUNDVIEW DESIGN STUDIO 00010228 WINTER CRAZE DESIGN
WINTER CRAZE DESIGN
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,354.50
Total :1,354.50
211734 11/25/2014 075087 SPECIALITY SAFETY SERVICES INC 727 Accident Prevention Program consultant
Accident Prevention Program consultant
001.000.22.518.10.41.00 600.00
Total :600.00
211735 11/25/2014 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 1233 SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES NOVEMBER 2014
Social media services 2014
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 400.00
Total :400.00
211736 11/25/2014 068668 TCA ARCHITECTURE 4058 Green Resource Center/Remodel DSD
21Page:
Packet Page 25 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211736 11/25/2014 (Continued)068668 TCA ARCHITECTURE
Green Resource Center/Remodel DSD
001.000.66.518.30.41.00 5,415.00
Total :5,415.00
211737 11/25/2014 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50856025 E3FC.SERVICES THRU 10/31/14
E3FC.Services thru 10/31/14
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 23,225.84
WWTP - C411, TASK ORDER 5.1450859154
C4111 - Task Order 5.14
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 1,351.86
Total :24,577.70
211738 11/25/2014 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9735366226 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Bldg
001.000.62.524.20.42.00 73.26
Cell Service-Eng
001.000.67.532.20.42.00 171.37
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 116.92
Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program
001.000.64.571.23.42.00 24.33
Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.64.576.80.42.00 59.02
Cell Service-PD
001.000.41.521.22.42.00 366.14
Cell Service-PD
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 24.62
Cell Service-PD 104 Fund
104.000.41.521.21.42.00 188.66
Cell Service-PW Street
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 60.75
Cell Service-PW Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 29.42
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 46.03
22Page:
Packet Page 26 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211738 11/25/2014 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 46.03
Cell Service-PW Water
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 88.86
Cell Service-PW Sewer
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 97.59
Cell Service-WWTP
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 51.31
Total :1,444.31
211739 11/25/2014 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 8059627616 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LAB
detergent and pipette
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 296.31
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 28.15
Total :324.46
211740 11/25/2014 074901 WA FEDERAL %SHORELINE CONSTRUC E3GA.Ret 4 316-40016 E3GA.RET 4 WA FEDERAL 316-400163-2
E3GA.Ret 4 WA Federal 316-400163-2
423.000.75.594.35.65.30 14,176.55
Total :14,176.55
211741 11/25/2014 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 10595 6 MEMORIAL FIR TREES AND 1 CELEBRATION O
DOUGLAS FIRS
127.000.64.575.50.31.00 385.00
9.5% Sales Tax
127.000.64.575.50.31.00 36.58
Total :421.58
211742 11/25/2014 073739 WH PACIFIC INC 1897W-04 E1AA.SERVICES THRU 11/2/14
E1AA.Services thru 11/2/14
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 16,257.90
Total :16,257.90
211743 11/25/2014 063008 WSDOT RE-313-ATB11112138 E1AA.PM & INSPECTION
23Page:
Packet Page 27 of 256
11/25/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
1:41:44PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211743 11/25/2014 (Continued)063008 WSDOT
E1AA.PM & Inspection
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 134.76
Total :134.76
Bank total :752,583.5873 Vouchers for bank code :usbank
752,583.58Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report73
24Page:
Packet Page 28 of 256
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF
STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA
WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA
STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB
WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA
STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE
SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA
SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA
WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA
WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE
STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA
STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA
STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
Revised 11/25/2014Packet Page 29 of 256
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB
STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB
WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD
STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB
WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA
STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA
WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK
PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES m013 E7FG
Revised 11/25/2014Packet Page 30 of 256
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA
PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA
FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB
SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB
STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA
STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB
ENG Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
Revised 11/25/2014Packet Page 31 of 256
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support
WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program
FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
WTR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program
WTR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair
STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project
PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
Revised 11/25/2014Packet Page 32 of 256
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)
STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk
STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement
STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects
STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FD c409 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
STM E3FF c428 190th Pl SW Wall Construction
STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)
FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program
STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals
STR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
ENG E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept
STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
Revised 11/25/2014Packet Page 33 of 256
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update
FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park
FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program
STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
STM E7FG m013 NPDES
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking
STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program
STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project
STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation
SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
Revised 11/25/2014Packet Page 34 of 256
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)
SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail
General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program
STR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
STR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
STR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza
PM c282 E8MA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM c290 E8MB Marina Beach Additional Parking
STR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program
SWR c298 E8GA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR c301 E8GD City-Wide Sewer Improvements
SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
STM c307 E9FB Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation
STR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project
PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
WTR c324 E0IA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
STM c326 E0FC Stormwater GIS Support
FAC c327 E0LA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
STR c329 E0AA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
FAC c332 E0LB Senior Center Roof Repairs
WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program
STM c339 E1FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program
STM c341 E1FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
SWR c347 E1GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
Revised 11/25/2014Packet Page 35 of 256
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements
WTR c363 E0JA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program
STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM c374 E1FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain
STM c376 E1FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STM c378 E2FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
STM c382 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program
WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair
SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)
STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update
STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project
FAC c393 E3LA Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades
WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
STR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project
STR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements
STR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM c406 E3FA 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement
STM c407 E3FB 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects
STM c408 E3FC Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM c409 E3FD Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM c410 E3FE Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
PRK c417 E4MA City Spray Park
WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC c419 E3LB ESCO III Project
STR c420 E3AA School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant
Revised 11/25/2014Packet Page 36 of 256
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
STR c421 E3DA 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk
WTR c422 E4JA 2014 Waterline Replacement Program
STR c423 E3DB 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR c424 E3DC 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR c425 E3DD 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR c426 E3DE ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STR c427 E3AB SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STM c428 E3FF 190th Pl SW Wall Construction
STM c429 E3FG Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM c430 E3FH SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM c433 E4FA 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM c434 E4FB LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM c435 E4FC 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM c436 E4FD 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STR c438 E4CA 2014 Overlay Program
WTR c440 E4JB 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR c441 E4GA 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
FAC c443 E4MB Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
FAC c444 E4LA Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
WWTP c446 E4HA Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STR c451 E4CB 2014 Chip Seals
STR c452 E4CC 2014 Waterline Overlays
ENG c453 E4DA Train Trench - Concept
STR c454 E4DB SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM c455 E4FE Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR c456 E4GB Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
STM c459 E4FF Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
WTR c460 E4JC 2016 Water Comp Plan Update
STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STM m013 E7FG NPDES
Revised 11/25/2014Packet Page 37 of 256
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
ENG Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA
FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB
FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA
PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB
PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD
STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF
STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE
STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA
STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
Revised 11/25/2014Packet Page 38 of 256
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
STM NPDES m013 E7FG
STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC
STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB
Revised 11/25/2014Packet Page 39 of 256
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA
STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA
SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA
SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA
SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA
WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA
WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA
WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB
WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA
WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB
WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE
WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK
WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA
WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB
WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
Revised 11/25/2014Packet Page 40 of 256
AM-7319 3. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/02/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Department:City Clerk's Office
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Konstantine Tsourdinis ($638.94).
Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Konstantines Tsourdinis
1612 N. 201st Street
Shoreline, WA. 98133
($638.94)
Attachments
Tsourdinis Claim for Damages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 11/24/2014 02:52 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/25/2014 07:09 AM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 11/24/2014 02:41 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2014
Packet Page 41 of 256
Packet Page 42 of 256
Packet Page 43 of 256
Packet Page 44 of 256
Packet Page 45 of 256
Packet Page 46 of 256
AM-7315 3. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/02/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Renee McRae
Department:Parks and Recreation
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign the Agreement to Provide Swim Lessons to Third Grade Students
Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The Cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace have each been awarded a three-year grant
from Public Hospital District #2 (PHD2) to provide free swim lessons for third graders that live or go to
school in the Edmonds School District. PHD2 will reimburse the City of Edmonds for the swim lessons
provided through the Third Grade Swim Lesson Voucher program.
The Cities also requested funding to create excitement for the program in school classrooms. PHD2 will
provide $75 for the purchase of classroom-based water safety education materials and $20 for each
classroom presentation made by our staff in the Edmonds School District. Our goal in going into the
classrooms is to increase the number of third graders taking swim lessons.
This is our second three year grant with PHD2 for the third grade swim lesson program. The previous
grant was from 2012-2014. In 2012, 51 vouchers were used; in 2013, 52; and in 2014, 25 vouchers were
used at Yost Pool under this program for a total of $6,903.
Attachments
Swim Lesson Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 11/24/2014 07:30 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/24/2014 02:52 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/25/2014 07:09 AM
Form Started By: Renee McRae Started On: 11/21/2014 03:00 PM
Packet Page 47 of 256
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2014
Packet Page 48 of 256
#A199B PAGE 1 OF 5
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE SWIM LESSONS TO THIRD GRADE STUDENTS
This Agreement is made between Public Hospital District No. 2, Snohomish County,
Washington and the City of Edmonds to provide swim lessons to third graders who live or go to
school in the Edmonds School District.
1. PARTIES
1.1 Public Hospital District No. 2, Snohomish County, Washington (“PHD2”),
a public hospital district formed under Chapter 70.44 RCW; and
1.2 The City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation.
2. PURPOSE AND PROGRAM
2.1 The purpose of this Agreement is to enable the City of Edmonds to
provide the Swim Lesson program for the benefit of PHD2 residents.
2.2 The “Swim Lesson” program is designed to teach basic swimming skills,
personal water safety, and to help young people begin to develop a lifelong interest in
swimming. This program will provide training through three (3) sessions of up to ten- (10-)
lessons per year for third graders who live or attend school in the Edmonds School District.
3. AUTHORITY
3.1 PHD2 is authorized under RCW 70.44.240 to “contract” with any “legal
entity” to “provide any hospital or other health care facilities or other health care services to be
used by individuals, districts, hospitals, or others, including providing health care maintenance
services.”
3.2 The City of Edmonds is a Washington municipal corporation.
3.3 The parties, as public agencies, are authorized under RCW 39.34.030 to
enter into agreements with each other for joint and cooperative action, such as the Swim Lesson
program.
4. TERM AND TERMINATION
4.1 The Agreement will begin on the date of the second signature on this
Agreement.
4.2 The period for providing the Swim Lesson program at the City of
Edmonds Recreation Center facility is scheduled to begin on October 15, 2014 and continue
through September 15, 2017.
Packet Page 49 of 256
#A199B PAGE 2 OF 5
4.3 The Agreement will end when the final invoice and reporting per
paragraph 5.2 of this agreement by the City of Edmonds is accepted and approved by PHD2.
4.4 This Agreement may be terminated by either Party for any reason or no
reason upon ten (10) days written notice to the other Party. In the event of termination, the City
of Edmonds shall be entitled to reimbursement from PHD2 for all lessons provided prior to the
effective date of the termination,and to retain any and all classroom-based education materials
purchased by the City of Edmonds as contemplated in Section 5, below.
5. OBLIGATIONS OF PHD2
5.1 PHD2 will reimburse the City of Edmonds for delivery of the Swim
Lesson program as follows:
(a) PHD2 will make payment of $70 per child for each voucher redeemed for
a set of up to 10 lessons;
(b) PHD2 will provide funding of $75 for the purchase of classroom-based
education materials on water safety;
(c) PHD2 will provide funding of $20 per classroom presentation made in the
Edmonds School District by City of Edmonds staff on water safety.
5.2 The City of Edmonds can request payment by submitting an invoice,
vouchers, and a summary of lessons and classroom presentations provided according to the
following schedule:
Invoice due to PHD2 Payment made by PHD2 to the City
of Edmonds
December 1, 2014 December 15, 2014
March 1, 2015 March 15, 2015
June 1, 2015 June 15, 2015
September 1, 2015 September 15, 2015
December 1, 2015 December 15, 2015
March 1, 2016 March 15, 2016
June 1, 2016 June 15, 2016
September 1, 2016 September 15, 2016
December 1, 2016 December 15, 2016
March 1, 2017 March 15, 2017
Packet Page 50 of 256
#A199B PAGE 3 OF 5
June 1, 2017 June 15, 2017
September 1, 2017 September 15, 2017
5.3 Continuing payments by PHD2 are contingent, however, on the ability of
the City of Edmonds to continue to meet its obligations under this Agreement. Both parties
reserve the right to suspend or terminate these payments at any time for performance or other
reasons solely at the discretion of either party.
6. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS
6.1 In coordination with the PHD2, the Edmonds School District, and the
cities of Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace, the City of Edmonds will provide swim lessons to
third graders who present an authorized voucher that has been distributed to third graders that
live or who go to school in the Edmonds School District. Each voucher will entitle a swimmer to
a session of 10 lessons. The Swim Lessons will include an assessment of the swimmers ability
to meet basic water safety skill standards.
6.2 The City of Edmonds will track and report progress of the program. Along
with its request for payment to PHD2, the City of Edmonds will provide a list of participants in
the program that includes the swimmer’s name and whether the swimmer met the recommended
standards for basic water safety skills. The City of Edmonds will provide the report to PHD2 in
electronic spreadsheet format.
6.3 The City of Edmonds recognizes that PHD2 is a public agency subject to
audit by the Washington State Auditor. The City of Edmonds will provide PHD2 with any
accessible information that PHD2 is requested to provide to the Washington State Auditor or
otherwise required to provide to the State of Washington or to the Federal Government or
pursuant to the Washington Public Records Act.
6.4 The City of Edmonds will comply with all local, state and federal laws
including, if applicable, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(“HIPAA”).
6.5 During the term of this Agreement, the City of Edmonds will give every
consideration to suggestions by PHD2 for modifications to the Swim Lesson program to obtain
more favorable health outcomes of the participants.
6.6 The City of Edmonds will communicate to the public and other
appropriate audiences regarding the work conducted under the Swim Lesson program and will
acknowledge the contribution of PHD2 funds in support of the program in those
communications.
Packet Page 51 of 256
#A199B PAGE 4 OF 5
7. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
7.1 Relationship of the Parties. The relationship created between PHD2 and
the City of Edmonds in this Agreement is strictly that of independent contractors. The
Agreement creates no partnership or joint venture between the parties, nor may any officer or
employee of one party be considered to be an employee or agent of the other. Further, the
Agreement provides no rights to any third parties and may not be relied on by any other person
or entity. No separate legal or administrative entity is created for the administration of this
Agreement. The Agreement will be administered by the parties’ representatives, identified in
Section 7.7, below.
7.2 Applicable Law. The Agreement is entered under the laws of the State of
Washington. Any litigation arising from this Agreement must be filed in Snohomish County
Superior Court.
7.3 Liability and Insurance. The City of Edmonds will indemnify, defend and
hold PHD2 harmless from any claims, lawsuits or other actions, and judgments arising in any
way from the Swim Lesson program provided under this Agreement and caused in whole or in
part by the City of Edmonds. City of Edmonds will maintain a liability insurance policy of at
least $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 annual aggregate during the term of the
Agreement.
7.4 Entire Agreement; Amendments. This Agreement is complete and
integrates all understandings between the parties. No amendment or other change to the
Agreement will be binding on either party unless agreed to in writing and signed by each party.
7.5 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction rules any part of this
Agreement to be invalid, the remainder of the Agreement will still be in full force and effect.
7.6 Force Majeure. Neither party will be in default or liable for failure to
perform its obligations under this Agreement if that failure is due to causes beyond its reasonable
control including, but not limited to, acts of God, acts of terrorism, fires, floods, windstorms
earthquakes, labor disputes or governmental acts.
7.7 Notices and Reporting. Any notice or reporting required or otherwise
given under this Agreement will be considered delivered or given when actually delivered or 48
hours after being deposited in the U.S. Mail as certified mail addressed to the following:
To PHD2:
Carl Zapora, Superintendent
Public Hospital District No. 2, Snohomish County
PO Box 2606
Edmonds, WA 98036
Packet Page 52 of 256
#A199B PAGE 5 OF 5
To City of Edmonds:
Renée McRae
City of Edmonds
700 Main Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
7.8 Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned without the written
consent of the other party. Each party may consent to or decline a request for assignment by the
other party at the sole discretion of the party from which consent is requested.
AGREED TO:
PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 2
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
By: Date:
Carl Zapora, Superintendent
CITY OF EDMONDS
By: Date:
David O. Earling, Mayor
Attest/Authenticated:
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Sharon Cates, Office of the City Attorney
Packet Page 53 of 256
AM-7321 3. D.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/02/2014
Time:
Submitted By:Shane Hope
Department:Development Services
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to Execute Professional Services Agreement for the Development Code Major Update
Recommendation
Approve execution of the professional services agreement as part of the Consent Agenda
Previous Council Action
The City Council approved 2013 and 2014 budgets that included $75,000 in each year for the
Development Code Major Update (aka "Rewrite") for a total of $150,000.
On November 10, 2014, the City Council heard a presentation and discussed the status of the
Development Code project, along with funding options for continuing this effort. (See the November 10
agenda memo and meeting minutes for details.)
Narrative
OVERVIEW
A major update (aka "rewrite") of the Development Code has been a high priority for the City Council.
To fund this effort, the Council appropriated $150,000 over a two-year period (2013 and 2014). Of this
amount, $40,000 was expended for a legal consultant, Carol Morris, who reviewed major parts of the
Edmonds Community Development Code, identified legal issues, and provided input on various
chapters.
The next phase of the project is to draft an Edmonds-specific Development Code Update and include
public input opportunities, using the remaining $110,000 from the $150,000 appropriation. The update
will include an analysis of key code issues and will reorganize and clarify various subjects. It may also
propose some policy additions or adjustments that are consistent with state laws and the City's
Comprehensive Plan. (For example, certain code changes may be needed to align with new State
Department of Ecology guidance on stormwater management.) Any policy changes would be identified
in the materials that are developed.
An RFQ process was conducted this fall to seek professional services for the Development Code Major
Update. Four firms applied and were subject to a selection process. Based on the RFQ criteria, Makers
was selected as the firm to provide professional services for the project, pending approval of a
Packet Page 54 of 256
professional services agreement in the amount of $110,000. (This amount is the remainder of the
budgeted $150,000.)
The proposed professional services agreement is attached (Exhibit 1). The update is expected to cover
regulations for:
--Subdivisions
--Planned residential developments (PRDs)
--General zoning requirements (e.g., non-conformances)
--Criteria and procedures for land use approvals, appeals, zoning amendments, and comprehensive plan
amendments
--Off-street parking
--Bicycle facilities
--Streets and sidewalks
--Accessory dwelling units
--Multifamily residential
--Noticing and other administrative procedures
--Definitions
--Design review
--Other topics as further review and resources allow
NOTE: The timeframe for developing this phase of the Code Update and having a public process for it is
November 2014 - December 2015
FUNDING
Of the $110,000 budgeted for this project, $85,000 is included as a carryforward in the proposed 2015
budget. If any of the remaining $25,000 cannot be reasonably expended this year, a budget amendment
will be sought in early 2015 to carryforward that remaining amount.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: P.S. Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 11/25/2014 03:19 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/25/2014 03:57 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 11/25/2014 05:37 PM
Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 11/25/2014 11:05 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2014
Packet Page 55 of 256
1
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into between the City of
Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and MAKERS, hereinafter referred to as the
"Consultant".
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of the
Consultant to provide services with respect to the City of Edmonds Development Code Update;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and
between the parties hereto as follows:
1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material
necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with the Scope of
Services that is marked as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for
services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full
compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies,
equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work.
A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be
on a time and expense basis as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit B, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference; provided, in no event shall the payment for work
performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of $_110,000_.
B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each
voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City biweekly during the
progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed
in conjunction with the City's warrant process. No billing shall be considered for payment that
has not been submitted to the City three days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such late
vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment
cycle.
C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept
available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three years after final
payment. Copies shall be made available upon request.
3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data
and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the
services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the
Consultant and shall not be considered public records; provided, however, that:
A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant
shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and
shall at that date become public records.
Packet Page 56 of 256
B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and,
subject to the approval of the Consultant, copy any work product.
C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the
event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work
product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination,
shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a
prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared
at no additional cost.
4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by
this Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required governmental approvals.
5. Hold harmless agreement. The Consultant shall indemnify and hold the City
and its officers and employees harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense all
claims, demands, or suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part from the Consultant’s
negligence or breach of any of its obligations under this Agreement; provided that nothing herein
shall require a Consultant to indemnify the City against and hold harmless the City from claims,
demands or suits based solely upon the conduct of the City, its agents, officers and employees;
and provided further that if the claims or suits are caused by or result from the concurrent
negligence of (a) the Consultant’s agents or employees, and (b) the City, its agents, officers and
employees, this indemnity provision with respect to (1) claims or suits based upon such
negligence (2) the costs to the City of defending such claims and suits shall be valid and
enforceable only to the extent of the Consultant’s negligence or the negligence of the
Consultant’s agents or employees.
The Consultant shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics
law, including RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by
municipal officers. The Consultant specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by
the Consultant’s own employees against the City and, solely for the purpose of this
indemnification and defense, the Consultant specifically waives any immunity under the state
industrial insurance law, Title 51, RCW.
6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and keep in
force during the terms of the Agreement, or as otherwise required, the following insurance with
companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title
48 RCW.
Insurance Coverage
A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the State.
B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not
less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property
damage. The per occurrence amount shall not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000).
C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one
million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit.
D. Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000).
Packet Page 57 of 256
Excepting the Worker's Compensation Insurance and Professional Liability Insurance secured by
the Consultant, the City will be named on all policies as an additional insured. The Consultant
shall furnish the City with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the
Agreement. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required
insurance policies at any time.
All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State
of Washington. The Consultant shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within
fourteen days of the execution of this Agreement to the City.
No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty days prior notice to the
City.
The Consultant's professional liability to the City shall be limited to the amount payable under
this Agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000), whichever is the greater, unless modified
elsewhere in this Agreement. In no case shall the Consultant's professional liability to third
parties be limited in any way.
7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex,
sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, liability for service in the armed forces of the
United States, disability, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, or any
other protected class status, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification.
8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an
independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or
representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of
the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents,
employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement.
9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's
status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this Agreement
must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this Agreement, the Consultant shall
not perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds
or for any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City without written
notification to the City and the City’s prior written consent.
10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party
may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such
termination no fewer than ten days in advance of the effective date of said termination.
11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document,
the Consultant's proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Consultant’s fee schedule,
attached hereto as Exhibit B. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and
shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict
between this written Agreement and any provision of Exhibits A or B, this Agreement shall
control.
Packet Page 58 of 256
12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform
services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to
additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be
liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation
is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are
encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City understands that a
revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in
this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render or the City to pay for
services rendered in excess of the Scope of Services in Exhibit A unless or until an amendment
to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties.
13. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary
knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and
any persons employed by Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a
professional manner consistent with sound industry practices, in accordance with the schedules
herein and in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of
the type described in the Scope of Services.
14. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time
limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision.
15. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the Consultant shall not be
assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City.
16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not
employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely
for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay
any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any
fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or
resulting from the award of making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty,
the City shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability or, in its discretion to
deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such
fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement
shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including
regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and
licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to
assure quality of services.
The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes
which may be due on account of this Agreement.
18. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address:
City of Edmonds
Attn: Shane Hope
Packet Page 59 of 256
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address:
MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design, LLP
Attn: John Owen
1904 Third Avenue South
Suite 725
Seattle, WA 98101
Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice in the
U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed.
DATED THIS ______ DAY OF __December_________, 2014_____.
CITY OF EDMONDS CONSULTANT
By By
Dave Earling
Mayor Its
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 20 , before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn,
personally appeared , to me known to be the
of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said
instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and
Packet Page 60 of 256
purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said
instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above
written.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
Packet Page 61 of 256
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 1
Dev_Code_Draft_SOW_2014-11-21 rvsd.docx - 11/25/14
Exhibit A
CONSULTANT SCOPE OF WORK FOR
EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
2014-11-21
INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The consultant will research regulatory options, draft regulations for the Development Code
update, provide supporting materials (such as a summary of code issues and comparisons with
other jurisdictions), and assist with the public process. Close communication between the
consultant and the City’s project manager is expected.
Regulations to be updated will include (but are not limited to) the following topics:
Subdivisions
Planned residential developments
Design review
Off-street parking
Bicycle facilities
Streets and sidewalks
Right of way construction
General zoning requirements (e.g., non-conformances)
Criteria and procedures for land use approvals, appeals, zoning amendments, and
comprehensive plan amendments
Accessory dwelling units
Multifamily residential
Site development standards—zoning
Administrative procedures
Definitions
Principles and goals guiding the code update include:
Consistency with state laws
Consistency with Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
Predictability for development proposals
Appropriate level of flexibility
Recognition of property rights
Clear, user-friendly language and format
Enforceability
Key objectives to achieve in the code update include:
Ensuring reasonable and clear processes and thresholds for all actions
Providing expanded and up-to-date set of definitions
Encouragement of sustainable development
Protection of environment
Recognition of diverse neighborhoods and their characteristics
Encouragement of pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-friendly access
Packet Page 62 of 256
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 2
Dev_Code_Draft_SOW_2014-11-21 rvsd.docx - 11/25/14
Alignment with State Department of Ecology rules for low impact stormwater management
It is assumed that the consultant team will work closely with City staff so that Staff’s knowledge
and experience with the Development Code will be integrated into the update.
WORK TASKS
PHASE 1 (To be completed by December 31, 2014)
1 Startup and Early Analysis
1.1 Meet with staff to discuss project work, schedule, communications and administrative
activities. Begin to identify issues of concern to staff. Obtain base information.
1.2 Meet with Planning Board and Council to discuss their objectives, ideas and directions.
2. Gap Analysis and Preliminary Drafting Work.
2.1 Review current code to identify areas of concern (“gaps” the code might address better)
within code sections noted in the introduction above.
2.2 Meet with staff to discuss preliminary gap analysis findings.
2.3 Review other cities’ approaches to key issues.
2.3 Prepare outline and selected draft sections of updated code.
Product: “Gap Analysis” report describing status and relative performance of code sections of
interest.
PHASE 2 (To be completed by November 30, 2015)
3. Draft Regulations
3.1 Prepare public information materials and conduct a public open house to review the gap
analysis and take input from public regarding issues and objectives to address. The City
will be responsible for advertising and arranging the places for meetings and events.
MAKERS will be responsible for preparing materials for the events and can produce
graphics related to notices and web based information if requested.
3.2 Brief Planning Board and Council and take input regarding gap analysis and preparing
draft regulations.
3.3 Meet with staff to discuss areas of focus and document organization of the updated
code. The current Development Code organization may change.
3.4 Draft regulations. The team will prepare regulations or guidelines related to the following
current title designations:
a) Title 9 Streets (as they relate to development requirements)
b) Title 16 Zoning Districts
c) Title 17 General Zoning Regulations’
d) Title 18 Public works (as they relate to development requirements)
e) Title 20 Review criteria and procedures
f) Title 21 Definitions
Packet Page 63 of 256
MAKERS architecture and urban design Page 3
Dev_Code_Draft_SOW_2014-11-21 rvsd.docx - 11/25/14
g) Title 22 Design Standards
Products: Open house display materials. Web materials (to include an executive summary of
the draft regulations). Draft Development Code update in new organization.
3.5 Review draft with staff.
4. Conduct further gap analysis as necessary.
This may be in the form of exploring other codes for best practice models and
interviewing key stake holders to obtain their thoughts regarding the performance of the
current code.
5. Participate in and provide materials for a second public open house or
stakeholder meeting and brief Planning Board and Council. These sessions will be
to review the draft Development Code update.
Product: Meeting materials and presentations
6. Update draft Development Code in response to comments from the public and Staff.
Product: Pre-final draft of regulations for review.
7. Meet with staff to review.
8. Conduct 3rd open house or stakeholder meeting to take final public comment
Product: Presentation materials
9. Present pre-final draft to Planning Board and Council (two Council meetings)
10. SEPA evaluation final revisions
10.1 Meet with staff to identify SEPA approach and final revisions to reflect public, Planning
Board and Council Direction
10.2 Prepare SEPA documentation, including responses to written public comments
10.3 Prepare final draft of Development Code update.
Products:
SEPA analysis/checklist
Responses to written comments
Final Development Code Update in MS Word.
Packet Page 64 of 256
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
Co
d
e
Up
d
a
t
e
‐
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Bu
d
g
e
t
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
J.
Ow
e
n
@B
.
Be
n
g
f
o
r
d
@R
.
Mi
l
l
e
r
@J
.
La
u
@R
.
Wa
g
o
n
e
r
@A
.
We
b
e
r
@A
.
Le
i
g
h
t
o
n
@B. Maryman
Ta
s
k
s
$1
6
0
$
1
6
0
$
9
0
$
7
0
$
1
3
0
$8
7
$
1
5
2
$
1
2
2
Amount
1.
St
a
r
t
u
p
1.
1
Me
e
t
wi
t
h
St
a
f
f
3
3
3
3
3
2,076 $
1.
2
Me
e
t
w/
P.
B
.
& Co
u
n
c
i
l
8
‐$
2.
Ga
p
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
2.
1
Re
v
i
e
w
Co
d
e
s
8
4
4
4
4
4
4
2,820 $
2.
2
Me
e
t
Wi
t
h
St
a
f
f
3
3
3
3
3
3
1,806 $
2.
3
Re
v
i
e
w
Ot
h
e
r
Co
d
e
s
30
1
6
40
8
16
1
6
11,024 $
2.
4
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
Co
d
e
30
1
6
16
4
4,290 $
3.
Dr
a
f
t
Re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
3.
1
Pu
b
l
i
c
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
#1
4
4
1
2
6
2,752 $
3.
2
Me
e
t
wi
t
h
St
a
f
f
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2,896 $
3.
3
Dr
a
f
t
Re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
80
6
0
8
0
8
0
1
6
8
2
4
1
6
31,096 $
3.
4
Re
v
i
e
w
wi
t
h
St
a
f
f
4
4
4
4
4
2,144 $
4.
Fu
r
t
h
e
r
Ga
p
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
16
1
6
2
0
16
7,720 $
5.
Pu
b
l
i
c
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
#2
4
16
4
12
3,800 $
6.
Up
d
a
t
e
Co
d
e
40
3
0
6
0
2
0
2
0
20
8
18,856 $
7.
Me
e
t
wi
t
h
St
a
f
f
4
4
4
4
1,504 $
8.
Pu
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
#3
6
4
1
2
4
2,568 $
9.
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
to
PB
& Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
88
752 $
10
.
SE
P
A
Go
a
l
10
.
1
Me
e
t
wi
t
h
St
a
f
f
44
4
4
10
.
2
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
SE
P
A
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
4
4
16
4
0
5,920 $
10
.
3
Pe
p
a
r
e
Fi
n
a
l
Co
d
e
Dr
a
f
t
16
6
3
0
2
0
4
5,732 $
To
t
a
l
27
6
1
7
0
2
6
8
1
8
7
1
1
0
5
2
1
1
2
4
4
107,756 $
Sv
R
BH
C
Ma
k
e
r
s
Pe
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
Ho
u
r
s
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
65
of
25
6
Al
l
o
t
m
e
n
t
fo
r
tr
a
v
e
l
an
d
pr
i
n
t
i
n
g
:
$2
,
0
0
0
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
66
of
25
6
AM-7328 3. E.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/02/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:Parks and Recreation
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Deputy Director Parks job description and salary range approval
Recommendation
Council approve job description and salary range for Parks Deputy Director.
Previous Council Action
Council approved a decision package last year to add special duty pay for the current Recreation Manager
to acknowledge she was working in the capacity as an interim Assistant Director.
Council at their study session on November 25, 2014, forwarded this item for approval on the consent
calendar.
Narrative
Since the Parks Director was assigned to be the Reporting Director for Human Resources, the Recreation
Manager has been working above and beyond the job description to assist with larger Parks projects.
Some examples of this include managing our donation program, writing grants for park development,
assisting with staffing the Park Levy exploratory committee, assisting with the completion of the Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Plan. The Council approved a decision package last year to acknowledge this
and compensate the Recreation Manager accordingly by adding special duty pay.
In April of 2014, the Mayor continued to assign the Parks Director as the HR Reporting Director. The
Recreation Manager has still been assisting the Parks Director with larger departmental projects. This
request is for the Council to approve a Parks Deputy Director job description and the salary range. The
intent is for the Recreation Manager to be promoted into this position. Once this position is established,
and as the Parks department experiences a few retirements this next year, it is likely the Parks Director
will request additional latitude to reorganize in order to operate the department more efficiently.
Anticipating several retirements, the ultimate goal is to create a solid succession plan so services will
continue to be high quality and uninterrupted.
The Mayor’s proposed budget includes a 5% increase for the Recreation Manager for special duty. This
reorganization will place the Recreation Manager at a step on the Deputy Director scale that will be a 5%
increase. Because of this compensation policy, this will not have an impact on the 2015 budget, but will
have an impact on future budgets as the Deputy Director moves through the salary range.
Packet Page 67 of 256
Attachments
Deputy Director job description
Salary survey and range
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 11/26/2014 08:39 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/26/2014 09:16 AM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 11/26/2014 09:21 AM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 11/26/2014 08:30 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/26/2014
Packet Page 68 of 256
Deputy Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director November 2014
City of
EDMONDS
Washington
DEPUTY PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES DIRECTOR
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Pay Grade: NR-16
Bargaining Unit: Non-Represented FLSA Status: Exempt
Revised Date: November 2014 Reports To: Parks, Recreation & Cultural
Services Director
POSITION PURPOSE: Under the direction of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, provide
leadership, manage, supervise and administer a comprehensive Recreation program, including oversight of
community center, outdoor pool, sports and fitness, camps, outdoor education and business services. Assist
the Director with park development and planning, including strategic and long range planning for the
department, and capital project management. Develop and manage assigned budgets, and revenue and
prepare and administer department grants and grant programs.
May act on behalf of or in lieu of the department director at selected management, community, Council or
regional meetings dealing with parks, recreation and cultural services activities.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all
employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities.
Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional,
position-specific duties.
• Manages the employment and hiring process and employee relations for assigned area. Manages,
coordinates, and reviews the work of assigned staff, assigns work activities and coordinates schedules,
projects, and programs.
• Provides constructive feedback; reviews and evaluates work and makes effective suggestions and
recommendations. Provides advice and counsel to staff, develops or assists with developmental work
plans for staff; makes recommendations and/or implements corrective actions, discipline and termination
procedures as appropriate/necessary or as directed.
• Supervises, coaches, trains and motivates staff, and coordinates and/or provides staff training.
• Assist Director in evaluating existing facilities, identifying deficiencies and assists with the design of new
facilities to accomplish park goals and objectives.
• Manages, administers, maintains and oversees assigned budgets including making recommendations to
the annual budget. Assists in development and updating of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Plans;
• Monitors expenditures and identifies needs, reviews and approves reports, purchases, and payments
according to established policies and practices and makes recommendations and forecasts for future
funds needed for staffing, equipment, materials, and supplies.
• Advocates and works closely with citizens and other service providers in a cooperative community
response to recreation, park use, facilities, programs, and addressing concerns.
• Prepares, writes and administers various public and privategrants for park and recreation facility
development, proposals, evaluations and acknowledgements.
• Provides staff support to the Planning Board, City Council Committees, citizen advisory groups and
committees as needed. Prepares and presents staff reports and other necessary correspondence.
Packet Page 69 of 256
JOB DESCRIPTION
Deputy Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Deputy Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director November 2014
• Prepares reports and recommendations to the department director and on policy issues relating to
departmental operations.
• Develops schedules and implements a comprehensive recreation program.
• Works collaboratively with other agencies on program development and implementation.
• Manages and oversees staff program development and implementation, fee structures for programs and
instructors, marketing and media releases.
• Identifies and reports vandalism and safety and health hazards; purchases supplies, equipment and
materials.
• Oversees business services for the department, including the management of the Frances Anderson
Center tenant contracts, special event contracts, concessions, fee analysis and development.
• Works with the public on gifting opportunities.
• Investigates and responds to complaints and questions regarding facilities, programs, instructors and
staff.
• Receives and approves scholarship applications; discusses accommodations for special needs
programming and facility.
• Oversees department risk management; meets with various vendors and procures required supplies and
equipment.
• Assists the Director in the development and implementation of department goals, objectives, work plans
and long-range plans; establishes division goals, objectives and priorities and assists with department
project presentations.
• Provides operational leadership to assure standards are met for productivity, efficiency, continuous
quality improvement, customer satisfaction and teamwork.
• Performs work within scope of authority and training and in compliance with policies and quality
standards while monitoring assigned operations and ensuring compliance with Federal, State and local
regulations and policies.
• Implements policies and procedures and ensures the consistent application of rules and regulations.
• Attends and participates in professional group meetings; maintains awareness of new trends and
developments in the fields related to areas of assignment; incorporates new developments as
appropriate and assigned.
Required Knowledge of:
• Operational characteristics, services and activities related to recreational services and programs
including business and industry principles and practices related to work assigned.
• City and Community Center recreation programs, activities and operations.
• Principles, practices and techniques of developing and implementing a comprehensive
recreation program.
• Knowledge of applicable laws, rules, regulations and ordinances such as the Growth Management Act,
SEPA, Public Meetings Act, public bidding requirements and other.
• Knowledge of principles and practices of administration, supervision and training of personnel.
• Contract administration, modern construction methods and materials.
• Recreational needs of diverse community groups and programs in order to meet these needs.
• Up to date marketing principles and practices.
• Effective strategies for community fundraising and donations.
• Structure, organization and inter-relationships of city departments, agencies and related governmental
agencies and offices affecting assigned functions.
• Federal, state and local laws, rules, and regulations related to assigned activities and programs.
• Effective oral and written communication principles and practices to include public relations and public
speaking.
• Program/project management techniques and principles.
Packet Page 70 of 256
JOB DESCRIPTION
Deputy Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Deputy Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director November 2014
• Grant writing techniques and principles.
• Research methods and report preparation and presentation.
• Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers and computer applications
such as: word processing, spreadsheets, and statistical databases.
• English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation.
• Principles of business letter writing.
• Principles and practices of governmental budget preparation and administration.
• Supervisory and training principles, best management practices, methods and techniques.
Required Skill in:
• Supervising, leading, coaching and using best management practices to improve staff performance;
delegating tasks and workload assignments.
• Developing, scheduling and implementing a comprehensive recreation program.
• Planning, developing and administering an annual operating budget and assisting with long-range
capital improvement programs.
• Developing and implementing a variety of recreation programs and services that meet community
needs.
• Administering contracts for services.
• Preparing, submitting, administering and monitoring grant proposals.
• Analyzing situations accurately and adopting an effective course of action.
• Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work and
in compiling and preparing spreadsheets.
• Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with staff, management, vendors, outside
agencies, community groups and the general public.
• Interpreting and administering policies and procedures sufficient to administer, discuss, resolve and
explain them.
• Applying program/project management techniques and principles.
• Preparing and maintaining accurate records and reports.
• Planning and preparing various promotional materials.
• Developing and monitoring program/project operating budgets, costs and schedules.
• Communicating effectively verbally and in writing.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Education and Experience:
Bachelor’s Degree in Recreation and Leisure Management, Business Administration or related field and seven
years of experience in recreation and leisure management, recreation and leisure program development or
similar related programs and services, preferably within a municipal or public sector environment, that includes
five years of staff supervisory and budgetary responsibility for a major division or program; OR an equivalent
combination of education, training and experience.
Required Licenses or Certifications:
Valid State of Washington Driver’s License.
Must be able to successfully complete and pass background check.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Environment:
Packet Page 71 of 256
JOB DESCRIPTION
Deputy Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Deputy Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director November 2014
• Primarily an office environment.
• Constant interruptions.
• Driving a vehicle to conduct work.
Physical Abilities:
• Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person or on the phone.
• Reading and understanding a variety of materials.
• Seeing to read materials, close vision, distance vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception,
and the ability to adjust focus.
• Operating a computer keyboard or other office equipment.
• Sitting, standing or otherwise remaining in a stationary position for extended periods of time.
• Bending at the waist, kneeling, crouching, reaching above shoulders and horizontally or otherwise
positioning oneself to accomplish tasks.
• Lifting/carrying or otherwise moving or transporting up to 40 lbs.
Hazards:
• Contact with angry and/or dissatisfied customers.
Incumbent Signature: ____________________________________ Date: ________________________
Department Head: _______________________________________ Date: ________________________
Packet Page 72 of 256
Low High
1 EDMONDS Assistant Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director
2 BOTHELL NO MATCH
3 BREMERTON NO MATCH
4 BURIEN NO MATCH
5 DES MOINES NO MATCH
6 ISSAQUAH Deputy Parks Director 7,952 10,149
7 KIRKLAND Deputy Parks & Community Services Director 7,354 9,253
8 LACEY NO MATCH
9 LYNNWOOD Deputy Parks, Recreation & Cultural Arts Director 7,063 8,939
10 OLYMPIA NO MATCH
11 PUYALLUP NO MATCH
12 SAMMAMISH Depuuty Parks Director 7,872 10,774
13 UNIVERSITY PLACE NO MATCH
Ranked by Median
1 Sammamish 10,774
2 Issaquah 10,149
3 Edmonds 9,701 9,701
4 Kirkland 9,253
5 Lynnwood 8,939
$116,412
Low High
Recommended salary range: NR 16 $86,905 $116,462
DEPUTY PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES DIRECTOR
City Name Position Title Wage Range
Packet Page 73 of 256
AM-7326 3. F.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/02/2014
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Al Compaan Submitted By:Don Anderson
Department:Police Department
Type: Forward to Consent
Information
Subject Title
Interlocal Agreement for Jail Services with the City of Lynnwood
Recommendation
Approval as consent agenda item at the December 2, 2014 business meeting.
Previous Council Action
Item was approved for consent agenda during the November 25, 2014 study session.
Narrative
The current Interlocal Agreement for Jail Services with the City of Lynnwood is set to expire on
December 31, 2014. The new contract is attached and has been approved to form by the Edmonds City
Attorney. This contract replaces the original agreement signed in 1994 and not only includes a fee change
but also updated contract language. The term for this new contract will be January 1, 2014 to December
31, 2015 (agreement shall be automatically renewed annually for one year terms until terminated as
provided under the agreement or amended via a written and bilaterally executed amendment). The 2015
rate change related to this new contract is an increase in the daily bed/housing rate from $65.00 per day to
$85.00 per day. The current booking fee of $10.00 has not changed. It should be noted that this is the first
fee increase for jail services by the City of Lynnwood in 14 years. No other changes to this Interlocal
Agreement have a fiscal impact.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2015
Revenue:
Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
This fee increase was anticipated and $650,000 is built into the Mayor's 2015 budget in
Non-Departmental, Prisoner Care Intergovernmental. The budgeted amount is in consideration of the
increased fees for jail services.
Attachments
Lynnwood Jail Contract 2015
Packet Page 74 of 256
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 11/26/2014 08:26 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/26/2014 09:16 AM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 11/26/2014 09:21 AM
Form Started By: Don Anderson Started On: 11/25/2014 07:53 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/26/2014
Packet Page 75 of 256
Inmate Housing ILA #2522 1 Rev 11.4.14
CITY OF LYNNWOOD
Contract Title: INMATE HOUSING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Contract Number: 2522
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR INMATE HOUSING (hereinafter “Agreement”) is made
and entered into by and between the City of Lynnwood, a municipal corporation organized under
the laws of the State of Washington (“Lynnwood”), and the City of Edmonds, a municipal
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington (hereinafter the “City,” and
together with Lynnwood, the “Parties” or individually “Party”).
This Agreement is made in accordance with Sections 39.34.080 and 39.34.180 and Chapter 70.48
of the Revised Code of Washington (“RCW”) for the purpose of establishing the terms and
conditions pursuant to which the City will transfer custody of certain Inmates to Lynnwood to be
housed at Lynnwood’s Detention Facility.
In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, and promises contained herein, the Parties
hereto mutually agree as follows:
1. Purpose and Term. The purpose and intent of this Agreement is to establish the terms
under which Lynnwood will house certain Inmates of the City for the period January 1, 2015
through December 31, 2015. This Agreement shall be automatically renewed annually for one
year terms until terminated as provided under this Agreement, or amended through a written and
bilaterally executed amendment.
2. Definitions.
Business Day – Monday through Friday excluding Lynnwood observed holidays.
Committing Court – The court that issued the order or sentence that established the
City’s custody of a City Inmate.
Credit for Time Served – Credit authorized by the sentencing court against the number of
days to be served in confinement.
Detainer – A legal order authorizing or commanding another Party a right to take custody
of a person.
City Inmate – A person subject to City custody who is transferred to Lynnwood’s custody
under this Agreement.
Good Time – Time earned by Inmates for good behavior while in custody. Good Time will
be awarded at the conclusion of an Inmate’s sentence and will comply with restrictions imposed by
RCW 9.92.151.
Inmate – Persons transferred to Lynnwood’s custody to be housed at the Lynnwood
Detention Facility.
Lynnwood Detention Facility – The detention facility operated by Lynnwood located at
19321 44th Ave. W., Lynnwood, WA 98036.
3. General Provisions. Lynnwood shall accept and incarcerate City Inmates according to the
terms of this Agreement and shall provide housing, care, and custody of those City Inmates
pursuant to Lynnwood policies and procedures and in the same manner as it provides housing,
care and custody to other Inmates.
Lynnwood shall manage, maintain, and operate the Lynnwood Detention Facility in compliance
with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
4. Right to Refuse or Return City Inmate. To the greatest extent permitted by law, Lynnwood
shall have the right to refuse to accept a City Inmate or to return a City Inmate to the City if the City
Inmate has a current illness or injury that is listed in Attachment A – Medical Acceptability, or in
the reasonable judgment of Lynnwood presents a substantial risk of escape, or of injury to self or
Packet Page 76 of 256
Inmate Housing ILA #2522 2 Rev 11.4.14
other persons or property, or of adversely affecting or significantly disrupting the operations of the
Lynnwood Detention Facility. Lynnwood shall provide notice to the City at least one (1) business
day prior to transport if a City Inmate is being returned to the City if feasible. Lynnwood retains the
right, in its sole discrection, of refusing or to return an inmate to the City.
5. Inmate Transport and Delivery. The City shall be responsible and provide for the
transportation and delivery of City Inmates to the Lynnwood Facility and for court appearances,
including costs associated therewith. At the time of delivery, the City shall provide a court
commitment order to Lynnwood. Said order shall specify the release date for the Inmate.
6. Inmate Medical Records. Should a City Inmate receive medical care for injuries or illness at
the time of arrest, and prior to booking at the Lynnwood Detention Facility, the City shall provide
copies of medical records documenting such medical care to Lynnwood at the time of booking if
the City has access to such records. Lynnwood may require these records to determine if City
Inmates meet conditions identified in Attachment A – Medical Acceptability. If the City cannot
provide such records, Lynnwood, in its sole discretion, may refuse to accept a City Inmate.
7. Inmate Property. Lynnwood shall accept City Inmate property in accordance with
Attachment B – Property, and shall be responsible only for City Inmate property actually
delivered into Lynnwood’s possession. Lynnwood shall hold and handle each City Inmate’s
personal property pursuant to Lynnwood policies and procedures and in the same manner it holds
and handles property of other Inmates. In the event a City Inmate is being transported from a City
designated detention or correction facility, it will be the responsibility of the City to process the City
Inmate’s property not delivered and accepted into Lynnwood’s possession.
8. Booking. City Inmates shall be booked pursuant to Lynnwood’s booking policies and
procedures.
Pursuant to RCW 70.48.130, and as part of the booking procedure, Lynnwood shall obtain general
information concerning the City Inmate’s ability to pay for medical care, including insurance or
other medical benefits or resources to which a City Inmate is entitled. The information is to be
used for third party billing.
9. Classification. City Inmates shall be classified pursuant to Lynnwood’s classification
policies and procedures, and within the sole discretion and judgment of Lynnwood. The City shall
provide information regarding each City Inmate as specified in Attachment C – Classification.
10. Housing. City Inmates shall be assigned to housing pursuant to Lynnwood’s policies and
procedures, and within the sole discretion and judgment of Lynnwood.
11. Inmate Work Programs. Lynnwood may assign City Inmates to work programs such as
inside and outside work crews, kitchen and facility duties, and other appropriate duties pursuant to
Lynnwood’s policies and procedures and within the sole discretion and judgment of Lynnwood.
12. Health Care. City Inmates shall be responsible for co-payment for health services. The City
shall be responsible in the event the Inmate cannot pay these costs. No City Inmate shall be
denied necessary health care because of an inability to pay for health services.
Lynnwood shall notify the City’s designee(s) via electronic means, including e-mail or fax, at the
notice address identified in this Agreement if a City Inmate requires medical, mental health, dental,
or other medical services at an outside medical or health care facility. The City shall promptly
notify Lynnwood of any changes in its designee(s).
Lynnwood shall notify the City within a reasonable time period before the City Inmate receives
medical, mental health, dental or any other medical services outside of the Lynnwood Facility. The
City acknowledges that such notice may not be reasonably possible prior to emergency care.
The City shall pay for all medical, mental health, all prescription medications, dental or any other
medical services that are required to care for City Inmates outside of the Lynnwood Detention
Facility. Lack of prior notice shall not excuse the City from financial responsibility for related
medical expenses, and shall not be a basis for imposing financial responsibility for related medical
expenses on Lynnwood. Lynnwood shall bear the expense of any such medical care necessitated
by improper conduct of Lynnwood, or of its officers or agents.
Packet Page 77 of 256
Inmate Housing ILA #2522 3 Rev 11.4.14
If a City Inmate is admitted to a hospital, the City shall be responsible for hospital security unless
other arrangements are made with Lynnwood. Lynnwood may provide hospital security services
for an additional charge if staff is available, at Lynnwood’s sole discretion.
Outside medical expenses for City Inmates housed on behalf of more than one (1) jurisdiction shall
be the sole responsibility of the City, which will be solely responsible to recoup these expenses
from other jurisdictions.
The City shall be responsible for transportation of an Inmate to non-emergency medical
appointments outside of the Lynnwood Detention Facility.
13. Inmate Discipline. Lynnwood shall discipline City Inmates according to Lynnwood policies
and procedures and in the same manner which other Inmates are disciplined; provided, however,
nothing contained herein shall be construed to authorize the imposition of a type of discipline that
would not be imposed on a comparable Inmate, up to and including the removal of earned early
release credits as approved by the City.
14. Removal from the Lynnwood Detention Facility. Except for work programs or health care,
and during emergencies, City Inmates shall not be removed from the Lynnwood Detention Facility
without written authorization from the City or by the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Other jurisdictions may “borrow” a City Inmate only according to the provisions of Attachment D –
Borrowing. In the event of the City Inmate’s emergency removal, Lynnwood shall notify the City
by electronic means, including e-mail or fax, as soon as reasonably possible. No early release or
alternative to incarceration, home detention, or work release shall be granted to any Inmate
without written authorization by the committing court.
15. Visitation. Lynnwood shall provide reasonable scheduled visitation for attorneys, spouses,
family and friends of City Inmates, in accordance with Lynnwood policies and procedures.
16. Inmate-Attorney Communication. Confidential telephones or visitation rooms shall be
available to City Inmates to communicate with their legal counsel. The City shall provide to
Lynnwood any known telephone numbers Inmates should use to reach legal counsel.
17. Detainers. Inmates in a “Detainer” status shall be handled according to Attachment E –
Warrants/Other Court Orders/Detainers.
18. Releases. Inmates shall be released from the Lynnwood Detention Facility in accordance
with court orders.
Lynnwood shall not transfer custody of a City Inmate housed pursuant to this Agreement to any
Party other than the City, except as provided in this Agreement or as directed by the City.
19. Jail Sentence Calculations. Lynnwood shall award Good Time credits for Inmates in
custody in accordance with state law and any policies adopted by Lynnwood. The City is
responsible to notify Lynnwood of any credit days awarded for time served by use of court
commitment forms.
20. Escape. If a City Inmate escapes Lynnwood’s custody, Lynnwood shall notify the City as
soon as reasonably possible. Lynnwood shall use all reasonable efforts to pursue and regain
custody of escaped City Inmates.
21. Death. If a City Inmate dies while in Lynnwood custody, Lynnwood shall notify the City as
soon as reasonably possible. The Snohomish County Medical Examiner shall assume custody of
the City Inmate’s body. Unless another Party becomes responsible for investigation, Lynnwood
shall investigate and shall provide the City with a report of its investigation. The City may
participate in the investigation. If another Party becomes responsible for investigation, Lynnwood
shall serve as a liaison or otherwise facilitate the City’s communication with and receipt of reports
from the other Party.
The City shall provide Lynnwood with written instructions regarding the disposition of the City
Inmate’s body. The City shall pay for all reasonable expenses for the preparation and shipment of
the body. The City may request in writing that Lynnwood arrange for burial and all matters related
or incidental thereto and the City shall be responsible for all costs associated with this request.
Packet Page 78 of 256
Inmate Housing ILA #2522 4 Rev 11.4.14
22. City’s Right of Inspection. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable advance notice,
to inspect the Lynnwood Detention Facility at reasonable times. During such inspections, the City
may interview City Inmates and review City Inmates’ records. The City shall have no right to
interview Inmates housed for other jurisdictions or to review their records, unless City is properly
authorized to do so by the Inmate or the other jurisdiction.
23. Bed Rate. In consideration of Lynnwood’s commitment to house City Inmates, the City shall
pay Lynnwood based upon the rates and other applicable fees or charges stated in this Agreement.
Bed Rate per Day (or portion thereof): $85.00
Booking Fee: $10.00
All contract rates are established to recover full cost of services and may be adjusted by
Lynnwood on a yearly basis. In the event rates are to be changed, amendments to this contract
will be sent to the City no less than 180 days prior to December 31st of each year or otherwise as
the Parties agree. Any revised fees shall be attached to this Agreement as an addendum.
Nothing in this Section, or revision to fees, shall affect the right of either Party to terminate this
Agreement according to Section 30.
24. Billing and Payment. Lynnwood shall provide the City with monthly statements itemizing
the name of each City Inmate, the number of days of housing, including the date and time booked
into the Lynnwood Detention Facility and date and time released from Lynnwood and itemization
of any additional charges including a description of the service provided, date provided and reason
for service.
Lynnwood shall provide said statement for each month on or about the 15th day of the following
month. Payment shall be due to Lynnwood within 30 days from the date of the bill. Lynnwood
may bill the City electronically.
The Daily Rate for City Inmates housed on charges from multiple agencies will be divided equally
among those agencies.
25. Billing and Dispute Resolution. Withholding of any amount billed or alleging that any Party
is in violation of any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a dispute, which shall first attempt
to be resolved as follows, and as a mandatory predicate to termination as provided in Section
30(C):
A. For billing disputes, the City must provide written notice of dispute to Lynnwood
within 60 days of the disputed billing stating the reason that the charges are disputed. Lynnwood
shall respond in writing to such disputes within 60 days of receipt of such notice of dispute.
B. For both billing and other types of disputes, Lynnwood and the City shall attempt to
resolve the dispute by negotiation between staff members of each Party. If such negotiation is
unsuccessful, and the dispute involves billing issues, Lynnwood shall notify the City that the billing
remains due, and give notice that if the City does not make payment within 30 days that Lynnwood
may opt to cease accepting Inmates from the City. If the dispute involves another type of issue, or
is not resolved through staff negotiations, the Parties agree to at least one (1) meeting between
their executive leadership to attempt to reach an administrative remedy. The Parties agree that all
administrative efforts will be exhausted prior to pursing other contractual, legal, equitable or
alternative dispute resolutions.
26. Duration of Agreement. The duration of this Agreement shall be as stated in Section 1
unless otherwise terminated in accordance with Section 30 of this Agreement.
27. Independent Contractor. In providing services under this Agreement, Lynnwood is an
independent contractor and neither it nor its officers, nor its agents nor its employees shall be
deemed employees of the City for any purpose, including responsibility for any federal or state tax,
industrial insurance, or Social Security liability. The provision of services under this Agreement
Packet Page 79 of 256
Inmate Housing ILA #2522 5 Rev 11.4.14
shall not give rise to any claim of career service or civil service rights, which may accrue to an
employee of the City under any applicable law, rule or regulation. Nothing in this Agreement is
intended to create an interest in or give a benefit to third persons not signing as a Party to this
Agreement.
28. Hold Harmless, Defense, and Indemnification. Lynnwood shall hold harmless, defend,
and indemnify the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any
and all suits, actions, claims, liability, damages, judgments, costs and expenses (including
reasonable attorney’s fees) (also including but not limited to claims related to false arrest or
detention, alleged mistreatment, alleged violation of civil rights, injury, or death of any City Inmate,
or loss or damage to City Inmate property while in Lynnwood custody) that result from or arise out
of the acts or omissions of Lynnwood, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents in
connection with or incidental to the performance or non-performance of Lynnwood’s services,
duties, and obligations under this Agreement.
The City shall hold harmless, defend, and indemnify Lynnwood, its elected officials, officers,
employees, and agents from and against any and all suits, actions, claims, liability, damages,
judgments, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees) (also including but not
limited to claims related to false arrest or detention, alleged mistreatment, alleged violation of civil
rights, injury, or death of any City Inmate, or loss or damage to City Inmate property while in
Lynnwood custody) that result from or arise out of the acts or omissions of the City, its elected
officials, officers, employees, and agents in connection with or incidental to the performance or
non-performance of the City’s services, duties, and obligations under this Agreement.
In the event the acts or omissions of the officials, officers, agents, and/or employees of both the
City and Lynnwood in connection with or incidental to the performance or non-performance of the
City’s and or Lynnwood’s services, duties, and obligations under this Agreement are the subject of
any liability claims by a third party, the City and Lynnwood shall each be liable for its proportionate
concurrent negligence in any resulting suits, actions, claims, liability, damages, judgments, costs
and expenses and for their own attorney’s fees.
Nothing contained in this section or this Agreement shall be construed to create a right in any third
party to indemnification or defense.
Lynnwood and the City hereby waive, as to each other only, their immunity from suit under
industrial insurance, Title 51 RCW. This waiver of immunity was mutually negotiated by the
Parties hereto.
The provisions of this section shall survive any termination or expiration of this Agreement.
29. Insurance. Lynnwood and the City shall provide each other with evidence of insurance
coverage, in the form of a certificate or other competent evidence from an insurance provider,
insurance pool, or of self-insurance sufficient to satisfy the obligations set forth in this Agreement.
Lynnwood and the City shall each maintain throughout the term of this Agreement,
Commercial General Liability coverage with limits not less than one million dollars
($1,000,000) per occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) in the aggregate;
Employer’s Liability with limits not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per employee
and two million dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate; Police Professional or Law Enforcement
Liability with limits not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence and two
million dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate: Errors & Omissions Liability with limits not less
than one million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000)
aggregate; and Automobile Liability insurance with limits not less than one million dollars
($1,000,000) each accident. Any coverage provided on a Claims Made basis must include
a Retroactive Date that is on or prior to the effective date of this contract. Any coverage
provided on a Claims Made basis must be maintained at least three (3) years after
termination of the contract.
Packet Page 80 of 256
Inmate Housing ILA #2522 6 Rev 11.4.14
30. Termination.
A. Mutual Agreement: This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent
between Lynnwood and the City with 90 days written notice to the other party and to the State
Office of Financial Management as required by RCW 70.48.090 stating the grounds for said
termination and specifying plans for accommodating the affected City Inmates.
B. Imperiling Conditions: The City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement
where: 1) conditions and/or circumstances at the Lynnwood Detention Facility present an
imminent risk of serious injury or death to the City’s Inmates (“Imperiling Conditions”); 2) the City
has sent Lynnwood written notice by electronic means, including e-mail or fax, as soon as
reasonably possible describing with reasonable specificity the Imperiling Conditions; and 3)
Lynnwood has failed to cure the Imperiling Conditions within a reasonable period of time, which,
unless the Parties agree in writing to a longer period, shall be no more than 45 days after
Lynnwood receives the City’s notice. Termination pursuant to this section 30(B) shall be effective
if and when: 1) after at least 45 days, Lynnwood has not cured the Imperiling Condition(s); and 2)
the City has removed its Inmates; and 3) the City has given Lynnwood formal written notice of final
termination pursuant to this Section 30(B).
C. Material Breach: Subject to compliance with Section 25 above, either Party shall
have the right to terminate this Agreement if: 1) the other Party is in material breach of any term of
this Agreement; 2) the terminating Party has sent the breaching Party written notice of its intent to
terminate this Agreement under this section by certified mail, return receipt requested describing
with reasonable specificity the basis for the termination; and 3) the breaching Party has failed to
cure the breach within 90 days, unless the Parties agree in writing to a longer cure period.
D. By Either Party. This Agreement may be terminated by written notice from either
Party to the other Party delivered by regular mail to the contact person identified herein, provided
that termination shall become effective 90 days after receipt of such notice. Within said 90 days,
the City agrees to remove its Inmate(s) from the Lynnwood Detention Facility.
31. Equal Opportunity. Neither Party shall discriminate against any person on the grounds of
race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, sexual orientation, veterans
and military status, political affiliation or belief or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical
handicap in violation of any applicable federal law, Washington State Law Against Discrimination
(chapter 49.60 RCW) or the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 USC 12110 et seq.). In the event
of the violation of this provision, the other Party may terminate this Agreement as provided in
Sections 25 and 30 above.
32. Assignment. This Agreement, or any interest herein, or claim hereunder, shall not be
assigned or transferred in whole or in part by either Party to any other person or entity without the
prior written consent of the other Party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the
event that such prior written consent to an assignment is granted, then the assignee shall assume
all duties, obligations, and liabilities of the Party stated herein.
33. Non-Waiver. The failure of either Party to insist upon strict performance of any provision of
this Agreement or to exercise any right based upon a breach thereof or the acceptance of any
performance during such breach shall not constitute a waiver of any right under this Agreement.
34. Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is changed per mutual Agreement or any
portion is held invalid by a court, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.
35. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of Washington. Any actions, suit, judicial or administrative proceeding for the
enforcement of this Agreement shall be brought and tried in the Superior Court for the State of
Washington in Snohomish County.
36. Approval and Filing. Each Party shall approve this Agreement by resolution, ordinance or
otherwise pursuant to the laws of the governing body of each Party. The signatures of the
Packet Page 81 of 256
Inmate Housing ILA #2522 7 Rev 11.4.14
authorized signatory(ies) and Lynnwood below shall constitute a presumption that such approval
was properly obtained. A copy of this Agreement shall be filed pursuant to RCW 39.34.040.
37. General Provisions. Unless otherwise agreed in writing and executed by both Parties, and
so long as this Agreement remains in effect, this document constitutes the entire Agreement
between the City and Lynnwood under which Lynnwood houses City Inmates, and no other oral or
written agreements between the Parties shall affect this Agreement.
No changes or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon either Party unless such
change or addition be in writing and executed by both Parties.
Any provision of this Agreement that is declared invalid or illegal shall in no way affect or invalidate
any other provision.
This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts.
38. Notices. Unless stated otherwise herein, all notices and demands shall be in writing and
sent or hand-delivered to the Parties to their addresses as follows:
TO CITY:
City of Edmonds
Attn: Chief Al Compann
250 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
TO CITY OF LYNNWOOD:
City of Lynnwood
Purchasing and Contracts Division
P.O. Box 5008
Lynnwood, WA 98046-5008
Phone: (425) 670-5000
AND
City of Lynnwood
Attn: Detention Commander
P.O. Box 5008
Lynnwood, WA 98046-5008
Alternatively, to such other addresses as the Parties may hereafter designate in writing. Notices
and/or demands shall be sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, or hand-delivered.
Such notices shall be deemed effective when mailed or hand-delivered at the addresses specified
above.
Packet Page 82 of 256
Inmate Housing ILA #2522 8 Rev 11.4.14
SIGNATURE BLOCKS
City of Edmonds
By:____________________________________
Printed:________________________________
Title:__________________________________
Date:__________________________________
City of Lynnwood:
By:___________________________________
Printed: Nicola Smith
Title: Mayor
Date:__________________________________
____________________________
By:___________________________________
Printed:________________________________
Title:__________________________________
Date:__________________________________
Approved as to Form:
By:__________________________________
Printed: Rosemary Larson
Title: Lynnwood City Attorney
Date:_________________________________
________________________
By:____________________________________
Printed:________________________________
Title:__________________________________
Date:__________________________________
Attest:
By:_________________________________
Printed:_____________________________
Title:_______________________________
Date:________________________________
Packet Page 83 of 256
Inmate Housing ILA #2522 9 Rev 11.4.14
ATTACHMENT A
MEDICAL ACCEPTABILITY
Lynnwood shall determine the medical and mental acceptability of Inmates for booking or housing
using the following guidelines. Lynnwood retains the right to not accept an Inmate in its sole
discretion.
Excluding criteria include but are not limited to:
1. Signs of untreated broken bones or dislocated joints.
2. Any injury or illness requiring emergency medical treatment.
3. Unconsciousness.
4. Inmates unable to stand and walk under their own power, unless they normally use an
assistive device, such as a wheelchair, for mobility.
5. Bed bound individuals.
6. Individuals with attached IV or requiring IV medications.
7. Individuals requiring the use of oxygen tanks.
8. AMA (Against Medical Advice) from the hospital.
9. Individuals having had major invasive surgery within the last 72 hours. Non-invasive
surgery such as oral surgery, laser-eye surgery and minor surgery may be evaluated on a
case by case basis.
10. Wounds with drainage tubes attached.
11. Persons with Alzheimer’s, dementia or other psychological conditions to the point where
the Inmate cannot perform activities of daily living (“ADL’s”) or who do not have the
capacity to function safely within a correctional environment.
12. Persons who are diagnosed as developmentally delayed and who do not have the capacity
to function safely within a correctional environment or who cannot perform ADL’s.
13. Persons undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiation treatment.
14. Persons undergoing dialysis.
15. Persons with suicidal ideations or gestures within the past 72 hours.
16. Persons, if prescribed and regularly using, who have not taken psychotropic medications
for at least 72 hours.
17. Persons who have by self-disclosure, admitted to attempting suicide within the last 30
days.
18. Persons who have attempted suicide during their current incarceration.
19. Persons displaying current psychotic episode.
Packet Page 84 of 256
Inmate Housing ILA #2522 10 Rev 11.4.14
ATTACHEMENT B
PROPERTY
Lynnwood retains the right to refuse to accept Inmate property in its sole discretion. The following
list of guidelines is an example only, will be amended from time to time, and be in force as
implemented for Lynnwood Jail management without the requirement for amending this contract.
Lynnwood will endeavor to notify a City of significant changes that may impact the services
outlined in this agreement.
Lynnwood may accept Inmate property as follows:
1. The property must be able to fit in a single property bag no larger than a common paper
grocery bag.
2. Money, valuables, checks and documents, and medications shall be placed in a clear
envelope within the Inmate’s property bag.
3. Lynnwood will not accept the following:
a) Backpacks, suitcases, etc.
b) Unpackaged food products or perishable food products.
c) Any type of weapon (includes pocket knives).
d) Liquids.
e) Helmets of any kind.
f) Any items that will not fit into the property bag.
g) Material deemed to be contraband.
h) Marijuana or associated drug paraphernalia.
Lynnwood will limit property returned with the Inmate to the City according to these criteria.
Packet Page 85 of 256
Inmate Housing ILA #2522 11 Rev 11.4.14
ATTACHMENT C
CLASSIFICATION
The City shall supply Lynnwood with the following Classification related information, if known to or
in possession of the City:
1. If the City Inmate has been classified to a special housing unit and/or if the City Inmate has
been classified as protective custody.
2. If the City Inmate is a violent offender or has displayed violent behavior during present or
past incarcerations.
3. If the City Inmate is an escape risk.
Packet Page 86 of 256
Inmate Housing ILA #2522 12 Rev 11.4.14
ATTACHMENT D
BORROWING
One Party may “borrow” another Party’s Inmate as follows:
1. If a Party requests the transport of another Party’s Inmate from Lynnwood the requesting
Party must notify each Party with rights to custody of the Inmate, and if each Party with
rights to custody of the Inmate notifies Lynnwood in writing (e-mail) of its approval,
Lynnwood shall provide the requested transport to the requesting Party. Lynnwood will
complete a custody transfer form that lists all outstanding detainers. The custody transfer
paperwork will accompany the Inmate.
2. Once custody of the Inmate has been transferred to the requesting Party, it is the
responsibility of the requesting Party to determine whether the Inmate shall be returned to
the custody of Lynnwood, and if so, the requesting Party shall make all necessary and
proper arrangements with Lynnwood and any Party with rights to custody of the Inmate, for
the Inmate’s return according to the terms of this Agreement. The requesting Party, to the
full extent permitted by law, defends, indemnify, save and hold harmless Lynnwood as
provided in Section 28 of the Agreement.
3. Lynnwood will not track the Inmate once he or she has left Lynnwood’s facility.
4. If the Inmate is returned to the custody of Lynnwood, the requesting Party shall provide
Lynnwood with sentencing/charge information. The requesting Party shall supply all pre-
sentence and post-sentence paperwork from agreeing Party’s that authorized the
borrowing of the Inmate. This will aid Lynnwood in determining split billing and release
dates.
Packet Page 87 of 256
Inmate Housing ILA #2522 13 Rev 11.4.14
ATTACHMENT E
WARRANTS/OTHER COURT ORDERS/DETAINERS
The following shall apply to City Inmates who are subject to warrants from other jurisdictions or to
other court orders for confinement or detainers:
1. When receiving a City Inmate, the Booking Officers shall review all paperwork provided by
the City for all grounds to hold the Inmate.
2. Prior to releasing a City Inmate, Lynnwood shall check the NCIC and WACIC systems to
determine if the Inmate is subject to any valid warrants or other detainers.
a) If the City Inmate is subject to a confirmed warrant from another Washington
jurisdiction, Lynnwood will process the Inmate for transfer on the Cooperative
Transport Chain.
Packet Page 88 of 256
AM-7327 5.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/02/2014
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Buckshnis Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Discussion and action regarding City Council Executive Assistant and Legislative Assistant
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Council Members in the past two budget cycles have requested a part-time legislative assistant as part of
one-time Council funding. Both times, funding was not supported.
November 25, 2014 Council Meeting : Due to the lateness of the hour, this item was moved to December
2, 2014. (Minutes not available at time of submission.)
Narrative
Considering the issue of a full-time legislative assistant was brought forward in concept again this year,
various alternatives to funding a full-time person was investigated considering the amount of issues
needed by Council on their own agenda memo.
Items that the Council has been responsible for this year include that are not items that will be reviewed
on a yearly bases are as follows, (but may not be all items): Attorney Contract, Attorney Evaluation, Tree
Board investigative work on the moratorium; Woodway Police Contract investigative work; Diversity
Commission Analysis, and Ethics Policies.
A description of legislative assistants is as follows: complete the administrative duties that keep an office
humming. They monitor congressional bills, research issues and oversee office staff. In the field, they
must be personable, and have strong critical thinking skills and a keen understanding of government.
Entrance into this field typically requires previous experience working in a government office.
The executive assistant performs many of these duties and has only been utilized by the Council
President in the past for legislative work; this memo is to decide if we want to increase her work
responsibility to take on the role of legislative assistant for up to 20 hours a month which means she will
report to all Council Members for legislative work. Her supervisor will remain the Council President and
should there be a need that requires an excess amount of her time for research and compilation activities
that may have nothing to do with the Council Legislative Agenda, the Council President will be allowed
to have final decision regarding workload.
Attachments
Packet Page 89 of 256
Attachment 1 - 11-19-2013 Council Minutes
Attachment 2 - 11-26-13 Council Minutes
Attachment 3 - 11-10-14 Draft Council Meeting Minutes 1
Attachment 4 - 2015 DRAFT Spellman Agreement(3)
Attachment 5- Spellman 2015 Job Description
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 11/26/2014 08:48 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/26/2014 09:16 AM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 11/26/2014 09:21 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 11/26/2014 07:46 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/26/2014
Packet Page 90 of 256
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2013
Page 20
$30,000-40,000 to hire a temporary part time department contract staff to coordinate the
strategic plan times (one-time)
Councilmember Peterson suggested this be assigned to a department rather than a direct report to Council.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained the only reason she suggested a direct report to Council was
she thought staff had enough to do and the Council assisting with coordinating the strategic plan would
lighten staff’s load. She was agreeable to this position reporting to the Economic Development Director
with funding from the funds allocated to the Council in the budget.
For Councilmember Bloom, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained the intent was for this person to
assist stakeholders identified in the strategic plan and keep Council and citizens informed of progress.
$30,000-40,000 to hire a temporary part time department contract staff to coordinate the
economic redevelopment of Highway 99 for 1 year
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested this position could report to a staff member. She observed
little progress had been made with Highway 99 over the past ten years. She referred to projects in
Shoreline and Lynnwood on Highway 99, envisioning little would happen in Edmonds without dedicated
assistance. Her proposal was a contract staff person who could speak with businesses on Highway 99,
hold community meetings, focus groups, etc. Mr. Neumaier offered to consult with Public Works,
Planning and Economic Development to determine to whom this person would report.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the Highway 99 area generates approximately 80% of the
City’s sales tax. The area is under-utilized due to a lack of staff.
Mayor Earling expressed his pleasure at the shift from Council supervision of a number of positions. He
suggested the directors and he meet tomorrow to determine whether the job responsibilities could be
integrated to avoid four separate job descriptions.
Annual Citizen Appreciation Picnic
o $1,000
Council part-time legislative analyst position (ongoing)
o $40,000
Mayor Earling asked what a legislative analyst would do, pointing out the City has a very high quality
lobbyist in Olympia. Councilmember Johnson answered this position would not duplicate any of Mr.
Doubleday’s efforts but would provide staff support to the Council with supervision by the Council
President.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether this would be a different role than Council Executive Assistant
Jana Spellman. Councilmember Johnson answered it would not be a duplication of Ms. Spellman’s work;
this position would assist the Council with research and analysis.
Transfer of $100,000 from General Fund to 112 for SR104 Study
Mr. Neumaier advised there is currently $50,000 budgeted for this effort, this would increase the amount
to $150,000.
Packet Page 91 of 256
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2013
Page 14
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO
ADOPT THE ENTIRE PACKAGE #9.
For Councilmember Yamamoto, Mr. Neumaier explained there is $2,000 allocated from the General Fund
for the brochures and the $5,000 depends on grant revenue; if the grant is not received, the expenditure will
not occur. Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding that if the grant was received, $5,000 from the
General Fund would not be needed. Mr. Chave advised the funding is currently structured as Mr. Neumaier
described. Mr. Neumaier suggested amending the package as follows:
Pkg # Amended Proposed Amendment Description Revenue $ Expense $ Fund Requester
9 Transfer from GF to Historical Preservation
Fund for reprint of historic preservation
brochures
7,000 001 Johnson
9 Transfer of Funds from General Fund for
Historic Preservation Brochures
7,000 014 Johnson
9 Historic Preservation Commission Calendar 5,000 014 Johnson
9 Historic Preservation Commission Brochure 2,000 014 Johnson
Council President Petso expressed support for the proposal. She pointed out reprinting of the historic
preservation brochure is done every few years when the HPC runs out of brochures; they were last reprinted
in 2007.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Pkg # Proposed Amendment Description Revenue $ Expense $ Fund Requester
10 Annual Citizen Appreciation Picnic 1,000 001 Johnson
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE PACKAGE #10. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Pkg # Proposed Amendment Description Revenue $ Expense $ Fund Requester
11 Council part-time legislative analyst position 40,000 001 Johnson
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
APPROVE #11, COUNCIL PART-TIME LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS POSITION, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $40,000.
Councilmember Johnson explained this would be a new position to provide support to the Council. Many
cities have legislative analysts; she suggested filling the position on a trial basis such the second and third
quarters for half the amount. That would allow time for Council to consider how the position would assist
them.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the motion, questioning the need for another position when the
Senior Executive Council Assistant to always been able to obtain whatever information she needed. Her
research found most other small local cities do not have a part-time analyst other than a council assistant.
Councilmember Bloom expressed interest in funding this position and suggested the Council discuss the
details of the position at a Council retreat. If the position is not funded, she requested it be discussed at next
year’s retreat.
Packet Page 92 of 256
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2013
Page 15
Councilmember Peterson did not support the motion, preferring to discuss it at a Council retreat before
funding it. The Council has historically had a half-time person to support the Council; he found this a radical
increase.
Councilmember Yamamoto agreed with Councilmember Peterson, relaying his preference to outline the
position before funding it.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON,
FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS
PETERSON, YAMAMOTO AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
Pkg # Proposed Amendment Description Revenue $ Expense $ Fund Requester
12 Transfer of $100,000 from General Fund to
112 for SR104 Study.
100,000 001 Johnson
12 Transfer of Funds from General Fund for SR
104 Study
100,000 112 Johnson
12 Increase Fund for SR104 Study from $50,000
to $150,000.
100,000 112 Johnson
Councilmember Johnson requested a legislative analyst be discussed at the Council retreat.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE PACKAGE #12.
Councilmember Johnson explained last year a $150,000 transportation study of the SR104 corridor from the
ferry to 76th was included in the CIP. The Council allocated $50,000 toward that study in last year’s budget;
those funds will be carried over into 2014. The additional $100,000 would provide the necessary funding for
the study. The purpose of the study is to identify what the roadway configuration would be, look at the
roadway from edge to edge, sidewalk improvements, driveway access, internal circulation and the
relationship to the built environment. It would not include any transportation modeling, traffic analysis or
traffic impact analysis. She and City staff met yesterday to discuss the project limits, scope, and funding. She
summarized it was important to do this study in conjunction with the Westgate form-based code.
Council President Petso questioned how the roadway would be designed if the study did not include traffic,
capacity or access analysis. Councilmember Johnson responded because the section of SR104 from Highway
99 to the ferry is considered a highway of statewide significance, there are no level of service requirements.
A complete transportation study done in 2009 determined no capacity improvements were needed at that
time. Two subsequent traffic analyses have been conducted for the intersection of SR104 and 100th/9th
Avenue. The transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan will be updated in 2015.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether this would include pedestrian and non-motorized improvements.
Councilmember Johnson answered yes.
Council President Petso relayed although she voted in favor of this study last year, she does not support the
study now because it has morphed into a study that will not include traffic or capacity analyses. Problems
that exist at the Westgate intersection and capacity issues at SR104/76th Avenue indicate those analyses need
to be included in the study. She questioned designing a sidewalk or bike lane only to find it needed to be
removed to create travel lanes. Councilmember Johnson answered the CIP project has not changed; it never
included that level of traffic analysis.
Packet Page 93 of 256
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 18
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed the initial thought was $150,000 would be needed to do the
entire 2-mile stretch of Highway 99. Ms. Hope advised $100,000 plus $50,000 would cover the full
planned action, codes and environmental analysis. She would work with the Council on determining the
exact area. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her interest in participating in that.
Council President Buckshnis referred to the $6500 for Council meeting videotaping, advising it is a
necessity and in the future would be included in the budget. The intent is to utilize Senior Executive
Council Assistant Jana Spellman as a legislative assistant for 4 hours/month and the proposed $6,500
would fund videotaping by Ms. Bevington.
Councilmember Petso relayed the $250,000 is intended for onetime expenditures. She suggested building
the cost for a legislative assistant and/or videotaping into the Council budget rather than from the Council
allocations.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the Council discuss using the existing council assistant as a
legislative aid. An option would be to reduce Ms. Spellman’s hours to 16/week. Council President
Buckshnis supported having Ms. Spellman provide 4 hours/week as a legislative aid because she is
already in the office, has history, is able to find things quickly, etc.
Councilmember Bloom observed it appeared the council assistant’s hours would be increased and the
additional 4 hours would be as a legislative assistant. Council President Buckshnis explained the council
assistant previously worked 20 hours which included 4 hours videotaping Council meetings. She is unable
to videotape evening meetings; therefore, her hours have been reduced to 16/week. She would like to
have a 20/hour work week, an additional 4 hours/week. Council President Buckshnis proposed rather than
an additional 4 hours as the executive assistant, she would act as a legislative aid for all Councilmembers
4 hours/week. Councilmember Bloom preferred to discuss what Councilmembers wanted in a legislative
aid, identify a job description and the hours it would entail and include that in the Council budget.
Council President Buckshnis advised Human Resources Manager MaryAnn Hardie, City Attorney Cates
and Ms. Spellman have drafted a job description for the legislative aid; she will have it sent to the
Council.
Councilmember Bloom inquired about the Building and Facility Maintenance Needs Study.
Councilmember Johnson advised it was not her idea but she wanted to champion it. This study was
discussed at the Finance Committee and would provide an inventory of needs rather than operating in a
break/fix mode. Mr. James explained this was done in Mukilteo; an inventory was done of all the
buildings, parks, facilities that included the estimated life of all the components. Mukilteo’s study cost
approximately $9,800; he added $10,000 due to Edmonds’ size.
Councilmember Mesaros agreed the legislative assistant position description and an estimate of the hours
needed to be done first. He was uncertain 4 hours/week would be sufficient to answer questions posed to
staff and to provide data and information independent of what is provided by staff. Council President
Buckshnis advised the proposal is 4 hours/week or 20 hours/month. She queried several Councilmembers
regarding their needs for legislative assistant and it was not a full-time person. Her proposal was to utilize
the existing person in that capacity.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she spends a lot of time doing what a legislative aid could
do. The current job specification for the council assistant is 4 hours/week videotaping and 16 hours in the
Council office. She asked if the proposal was for the current council assistant to work in the office 20
hours/week and the $6500 would fund a person to videotape Council meetings. Council President
Buckshnis relayed Ms. Spellman’s job duties have been reduced to 16 hours/week because she is unable
to video evening meetings. Ms. Bevington has been videotaping 4 hours/week. Her suggestion to get Ms.
Spellman back to 20 hours/week would be 4 hours/week as a legislative aid.
Packet Page 94 of 256
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 10, 2014
Page 19
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Ms. Spellman will no longer videotape Council meetings.
Council President Buckshnis advised that was correct at this time. Her contract will be adjusted to reflect
she will no longer videotape Council meetings. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented some
Councilmembers are interested in determining how many hours would be needed for legislative aid type
work.
Councilmember Petso commented she had not heard of people sharing a legislative assistant and the
concept seems very odd. For example, one Councilmember may ask the aid to research what cities have
done to help acquire parks; and another Councilmember may ask him/her to research what cities are doing
to sell off surplus parks. She was hesitant to have a single, shared legislative assistant among seven
people.
12. DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Due to the late hour, Mayor Earling advised this would be delayed to a future meeting.
13. CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS ON THE STUDY SESSIONS
This item was rescheduled to a future meeting via action taken at the conclusion of Agenda Item 9.
14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling advised Rick Schaefer, the Principle at Tetra Tech, was scheduled to make a presentation
at the November 28 meeting. His father passed away so his presentation has been rescheduled to
November 25.
Mayor Earling thanked Council and staff who attended the Five Corners ribbon cutting last week. Staff
and elected officials have endured a lot of bullets as that project moved along. Early reports, including
some from people who were opposed to the roundabout, have been positive.
Mayor Earling invited the public to the Veterans Day Ceremony at the Veterans Plaza at 11 a.m.
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Buckshnis advised she is working on the extended agenda. The Council will not be
meeting on December 23 or 30.
16. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
17. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
18. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
Packet Page 95 of 256
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT EXECUTIVE
ASSISTANT TO CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington (hereinafter "City Council") utilizes
the services of an Executive Assistant to perform a variety of confidential tasks related to
its legislative and research functions; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor of the City of Edmonds is by state statute the chief administrative officer of the
City, invested with the power to hire and fire employees and to direct their day-to-day
activities; and
WHEREAS, in the interest of fostering an appropriate working relationship between the Executive
Assistant and the City Council, the Mayor wishes to delegate the day-to-day
responsibility for the direction of said person to the City Council's President; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and Mayor wish to fill the position of Executive Assistant with an
employee, specifically answerable to the Council, under specific, limited terms and
conditions governed by the provisions of this employment agreement and not subject to
the general personnel policies of this City;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Edmonds, Washington, acting by and through its Mayor, and Jana
Spellman (hereinafter "Employee"), do hereby enter into this agreement for employment
services ("Agreement"). The Employee's employment shall be governed exclusively by
the provisions of this Agreement unless otherwise provided herein.
Term of Employment: This Agreement will take effect January 1, 2014 2015 and will expire on
December
31 31, 2014 2015, unless extended pursuant to its terms. Thereafter, this Agreement may be extended for
an unlimited number of terms of one calendar year duration at the sole discretion of the City Council. The
purpose of this term is to permit an annual review of the performance of the Employee by the outgoing City
Council President in order that the City Council President may determine whether or not it is
appropriate to renew this Agreement for an additional term. It is one of the basic understandings of this
Agreement that the Employee will work closely with the City Council President and the City Council. As
such, this position shall be one in which the confidence of the City Council President and City Council shall
be essential to the proper performance of the Employee's duties. Therefore, the City Council reserves
the right not to renew this Agreement, or to terminate this Agreement as herein provided in order to
preserve that confidence and a feeling of confidentiality between the City Council President, the City
Council and the Employee as Executive Assistant.
Duties: The Employee shall serve as the Executive Assistant for the City Council, complete legislative
research when requested by Council, and backup videographer as the occasion arises. The Employee shall
be under the general day-to-day direction of the City Council President and shall provide such
assistance as may be necessary to individual members of the City Council. In the event of a conflict in
such directions, the Employee shall rely upon the direction of the City Council President. A generalized
description of the duties of this position is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this
reference. The listing of duties in Exhibit A is intended as a descriptive tool only, and shall not limit the
City Council President or City Council to make task assignments; provided, however. that such duties
be linked to the City Council President's Office and the legislative function of the City Council and shall,
in all respects, be governed by statutory, constitutional and ordinance limitations on the duties of public
employees. The Mayor of the City of Edmonds, by his/her signature below, specifically acknowledges
that he/she has delegated his/her statutory authority to direct the day-to-day duties of this Employee,
and this Employee alone, to the City Council to be exercised by and through the City Council President.
This delegation is revocable and shall not be binding on subsequent elected or appointed mayors
unless ratified by them. .,-- .:7 ,) '/'./- 3 - ,... ··: .. 3 , _ -f
DRAFT
Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0.11", First line:
0", Right: -0.01", Space Before: 0 pt, Line
spacing: single
Packet Page 96 of 256
2014 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY COUNCIL 2
3. Hours of Work: The employee shall work office hours as assigned and directed by the City Council
through the City Council President. Such hours may normally be worked between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday., and generally, every Tuesday night until 10:00 p.m. In addition, the
Employee may perform assigned work off site. Such hours shall be within prescribed limits and
approved by the City Council President. It is anticipated that the Employee shall work up to 20 hours
per week. NOTE: The level of the Employee's benefits is based upon a proration of hours worked. This
general description of working hours shall not limit the ability of the City Council President to change
the working schedule or adjust it from time to time.
4. Wages and Benefits: The wages set forth in Section 4 hereby provides for a base rate of $30.144
$30.74 per hour. The Employee shall be paid a special hourly wage of $45.02 for hours worked
videotaping Edmonds City Council meetings that go beyond 1O:OOPM If the employee is used as the
backup videographer for Council Meetings, she will flex her hours in the Council Office to accommodate the
hours used as backup videographer as long as she is working a 20 hour week. The City will pay the
applicable employer's portion of Medicare, PERS retirement, Municipal Employee Benefit Trust
(MEBT). Washington State Industrial Taxes, and such other payments or benefits as may be required
under the provisions of state and federal law based upon the number of hours worked. MEBT benefits
shall be provided as required by law or by the provisions of a plan document. "Plan Document" shall
mean for the purposes of this Agreement the MEBT or other contract, or policy documents which
require, by their terms, the participation of all qualified employees.
The benefits to be paid to the Employee shall be governed solely by this Agreement. No benefit not
specifically addressed or listed herein shall be granted to the Employee. The provisions of this
Agreement shall control over any conflicting provision of the City ordinances, City Personnel Policy
Manual, any collective bargaining agreement or any other general grant of benefits to City employees.
The benefits which the Employee shall receive are limited to the following:
4.1 Insurance Benefits: The City will allow the Employee to participate in the City's group employee
insurance programs listed below. The City will pay the insurance premiums in accordance with the
following schedule:
INSURANCE BENEFIT/PREMIUM PAID
Dental (WDS) family coverage I 45%
Vision I 45%
Medical I 45%
Medicare /As per Federal law
Industrial Accident /As per State law
Public Employees Retirement /As per State law
Unemployment Insurance /As per State law
MEBT /As per City ordinance
The City will allow the Employee to use payroll deduction (Premium Only Pla n) to pay for the
Em ployee's cost of the above-listed insurance benefits. The City's payment is contingent on the
Em ployee's qualification for such insurance program in accordance with Plan Documents and does not
constitute an obligation to pay a sum in lieu of insurance or premium.
4.2 Vacation: Annual vacation is earned at the rate of 7 hours per month. Earned vacation can be
carried over into the next calendar year, provided the amount carried over does not exceed 168 hours
total as of January 1st of any year. Unused, accrued vacation shall be paid upon termination of
employment.
4.3 Sick Leave: Sick leave is earned at the rate of 40 hours per year. Earned sick leave can be
accumulated up to a maximum of 500 hours. Unused, accrued sick lea ve shall be forfeited upon
termination of employment.
Packet Page 97 of 256
2014 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY COUNCIL 3
4.4 Holiday Pay: The employee shall receive a pro-rated pay for all holidays during which City offices
are closed.
5. Confidentiality: One of the basic purposes of this Agreement is to provide an employee who serves
in a confidential capacity to the City Council and its City Council President. The Employee
acknowledges that she has been informed of the necessity for confidentiality and understands that she
shall report directly to the City Council President any matter which she feels would breach such
confidence or confidentiality. In the event of any apparent conflict between the needs of the City
Council and that of the City in general, the Employee shall report such matter to the City Council
President and rely on his/her direction. In keeping with this confidential relationship, the Executive
Assistant position shall not be a part of a collective bargaining unit or subject to any collective
bargaining agreement.
6. Termination of Agreement: The City, by its Mayor and City Council, and the Employee
acknowledge that this employment agreement creates an at-will employment relationship which may be
terminated any time with or without cause by either party. This paragraph shall control and supersede
any portion of this Agreement that might otherwise be construed as in any way altering the Employee's
at-will status.
7. Indemnification: As an employee of the City, the Employee shall have the right to indemnification by
and on behalf of the City for actions taken in the scope of her employment in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 2.06 of the Edmonds City Code as same exists or is hereafter amended.
8. Entire Written Agreement: This document represents the entire agreement. written or oral, between
the parties. No representative or other oral agreement by either party shall survive the execution of this
document. This document shall be amended only upon the expressed written agreement of both
parties. The City Council President shall confer with the Mayor regarding any change.
9. Severability: The provisions of this Agreement shall be severable. In the event that any provision
hereof is held to be void, illegal, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall survive, PROVIDED,
however. that in the event the provisions of paragraph 5, relating to the exclusion of this position from
any collective bargaining unit, or of paragraph 6, relating to this Agreement as one of at-will
employment, are/is held to be unenforceable, invalid, or void, this Agreement shall immediately be at an
end.
DONE THIS / :..:!!.h day of 6-t (' g zrz./.LI'
'2013'2014.
Cl'l(OF,EDMONDS Jl Yt? c
DAVID 0. EARLING, MAYOR ""'"'- J
EMPLOYEE:
JANA SPELLMAN
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFF(CE OF CITY ATTORNEY
Packet Page 98 of 256
Packet Page 99 of 256
Packet Page 100 of 256
Packet Page 101 of 256
AM-7320 6.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/02/2014
Time:25 Minutes
Submitted By:Shane Hope
Department:Development Services
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing on the Draft Housing Element of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update
Recommendation
Consider a presentation on the draft updated Housing Element, along with any public comments
Previous Council Action
On August 26, 2014, the City Council heard and discussed a presentation on affordable housing needs, as
provided by the Executive Director of the Housing Coalition of Snohomish County and Everett. (See
Exhibit 5.)
On October 28, 2014, the City Council heard and discussed a presentation on the Edmonds' Housing
Profile, as provided by the Alliance for Housing Affordability. (See Exhibit 6.)
Narrative
GENERAL BACKGROUND
A major review and update of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is due to the state by mid-2015.
Previously, the City conducted an analysis, based on state guidance, and found that the City’s existing
Comprehensive Plan was mostly in compliance with Growth Management requirements. The biggest
need is to substitute current data for the old data (some of which is 10-15 years old). Because of the short
timeline, the Planning Board and City Council have concurred that the update can be basic in nature,
focusing primarily on: (a) refreshing the data and supporting materials; (b) considering modest changes to
reflect new information and expectations through the year 2035, as well as state guidance; and (c) adding
performance measures and, as appropriate, action steps--generally one of each for each major Plan
element.
Each major element is being considered for updating on a schedule previously reviewed by the Planning
Board and City Council. While preliminary direction can be provided by the Board and Council after
reviewing each draft element, a final decision on the entire Comprehensive Plan update is expected in
mid-2015. Public hearings and other public information will be part of the process.
HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND
The Growth Management Act (GMA) includes a broad goal for housing:
--"Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this
state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing
housing stock."
Packet Page 102 of 256
Also, the GMA identifies certain things each housing element of a Comprehensive Plan must contain.
More state guidance is provided in the Washington Administrative Code. Furthermore, the Snohomish
County Countywide Planning Policies provide direction for city and county approaches to housing. In
addition, Puget Sound Regional Council (our regional planning organization) addresses housing in
VISION 2040 (our regional plan), and as technical assistance, has developed a "tool kit" of housing
information and ideas. (Note: The GMA requires city and county comprehensive plans to be consistent
with countywide and regional plans.)
On August 26, the Executive Director of the Housing Coalition of Snohomish County and Everett made a
presentation to the City Council about countywide housing needs, especially related to affordability and
our region’s growing population. (See the attached slide presentation—Exhibit 5.) This includes
important countywide data related to the need for affordable housing.
Our city is also partnering with other cities and Snohomish County in the Alliance for Housing
Affordability (AHA), a group formed from Snohomish County Tomorrow. Through AHA, an” affordable
housing profile” has been prepared for each participating jurisdiction. A presentation on the profile for
Edmonds was made to the City Council on October 28 and is attached as Exhibit 6. The full Edmonds
Housing Profile (Exhibit 7, attached) has extensive data on housing in Edmonds. (NOTE: The Profile
looks at housing affordability mostly from the perspective of the entire metropolitan region, which
includes Seattle, while the information in Exhibit 5 from the Housing Coalition looks at housing
affordability based just on the Snohomish County area--not including Seattle.)
The key take-away from both reports is that Edmonds--like other cities in our region--needs more housing
units over the next 20 years AND more affordable housing that will serve a broad spectrum of future
needs.
DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
“Housing” comprises a major element of the Comprehensive Plan. The city's existing Housing
Element covers a timeframe to 2025 and features data from the 2000 Census, with some comparisons to
1990. It also includes goals and policies.
Based on 2010 Census data and other newer information, a new draft Housing Element update has been
prepared. (See Exhibit 1 for the draft updated Housing Element, showing tracked changes from the
existing version. See Exhibit 2 for the same draft updated Housing Element--but as a "clean" document,
not showing the proposed changes.) The draft Housing Element extends the timeframe out another ten
years--to 2035, incorporates new data, and simplifies some language in the goals and policies. It also adds
one performance measure and one year-specific implementation action. The proposed housing
performance measure--the number of permitted housing units per year--was chosen, based on it being
relevant to the city's role, meaningful, and easy to measure and report each year. Because housing is a
complex topic, with many options for city involvement and policy direction, the draft Housing Element
does not go into detail about how housing goals can be achieved. Rather, an "implementation action
step" has been proposed for a strategy with more details to be developed and considered in the near
future. The proposed action step is:
--"Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse
housing needs."
The Planning Board had three public meetings (September 24, October 22, and November 12) related to
updating the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. Minutes from the first two meetings are attached as
Exhibit 3. Draft minutes from the third meeting are attached as Exhibit 4. The third meeting included a
recommendation to move forward the draft updated Housing Element to the City Council.
Packet Page 103 of 256
NEXT STEPS
The next process step, per previous Council direction, is to hold a public hearing on the draft Housing
Element so that interested parties may formally comment.
After the public hearing, steps will include:
--City Council discussion at a Study Session (tentatively December 9, 2014) and any additional direction
on the Housing Element;
--Continuing preparation of draft 2015 updates to the Comprehensive Plan on other subjects (such as land
use and transportation);
--More opportunities for public information and input, for example,an open house on the entire 2015
Comprehensive Plan Update process to be held in February 2015;
--A Planning Board public hearing and a City Council public hearing on the full draft Comprehensive
Plan update in the spring of 2015;
A recommendation by the Planning Board and a final decision by the City Council on adopting the full
draft Comprehensive Plan update by mid-2015.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Housing Element with Tracked Changes
Exhibit 2: Draft Housing Element, "Clean Version" with Edits Included
Exhibit 3: Planning Approved Minutes
Exhibit 4: Draft Planning Board minutes of 11.12.14
Exhibit 5: Housing Coalition Presentation
Exhibit 6: AHA Housing Presentation
Exhibit 7: Housing Profile
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 11/25/2014 10:44 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/25/2014 10:45 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/25/2014 11:26 AM
Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 11/24/2014 02:50 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2014
Packet Page 104 of 256
Housing 197
Housing Element
Introduction. This section looks at the character and diversity of housing in the City of
Edmonds. Part of this process includes looking at housing types and affordability. The goal of this
section is to provide the necessary information to anticipate housing needs.
A. General Background
Housing Stock and Type
According to the Office of Financial Management (OFM), there were an estimated 13,05418,378
housing units within the City of Edmonds in 19942010. This represents an increase of less than one
percent5% in the city's housing stock since 19902000, when there were 12,94517,508 dwelling
housing units (1990 2000 US Census). In comparison, over the period 1980-19901990-2000, the
city's housing stock grew 21 percent35.2%, or approximately 1.9 percent3.5% per year. Housing
stock declined (less than 1%) between 1990 and 1992, but grew (approximately 1%) between 1992
and 1994.This increase can largely be explained by annexations occurring during the 1990s in the
south and southwest portions of the city. Table 79 summarizes recent growth trends and forecasts for
the City of Edmonds.
Of the total stock of housing in 19942010, 8,67511,685 (66 percent63.6%) were single family units,
4,2296,664 (32 percent36.3%) were multi-family units, and 150 29 (2 percent0.2%) were mobile
homes or trailers. Compared with Snohomish County as a whole, Edmonds has a lower percentage of
single-family homes (63.6% vs. 66.9%, respectively) and mobile homes (0.2% vs. 6.8%, respectively)
and a higher proportion of multi-family homes (36.3% vs. 26.4%, respectively). a higher percentage
of single-family homes and a lower proportion of multi-family and mobile homes/trailers.
Much of the existing housing stock was built between 1950 and 1969 as Edmonds expanded up Main
Street, through Five Corners, over to the west side of Lake Ballinger. As part of the greater Seattle
metropolitan area, Edmonds experienced growth earlier than most in Snohomish County.
Table 8
City of Edmonds Housing Growth
Housing
Units
Increase Percentage
Increase
Average
Annual
Increase
Census: 1980 10,702
1990 12,945 2,243 21.0% 1.9%
2000 17,508 4,563 35.2% 3.1%
Growth Target: 2025 20,587 3,079 17.6% 0.7%
Source: US Census; OFM, Snohomish County Tomorrow.
Table 7
City of Edmonds Housing Growth
Housing
Units
Increase Percentage
Increase
Average
Annual
Increase
Census: 1980 10,702
1990 12,945 2,243 21.0% 1.9%
2000 17,508 4,563 35.2% 3.1%
Growth Target:
2010
2035
18,378
21,168
870
2,790
5.0%
15.2%
0.5%
0.6%
Source: US Census; OFM; Snohomish County Tomorrow
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Intro, Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Lead-in Emphasis
Packet Page 105 of 256
198 Housing
4 Source: City of Edmonds
Figure 155: Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds and Snohomish
County
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey
Between 1990 and 1994, the City annexed three parcels of land totaling approximately .059 square
miles. The parcels included 64 housing units and 146 residents. These units accounted for most of
the growth (57%) in the city's housing stock since 1990.
Household Characteristics
In 2000, there were 17,508 housing units in Edmonds. This was an increase of over 35% in the
number of housing units in the city compared to 1990 (12,945). As noted earlier, this increase can
largely be explained by annexations. Over the same period, the average number of persons per
housing unit declined from 2.59 persons in 1980 to 2.37 persons in 1990, with a further decline to
2.26 persons in 2000 (US Census). The average household size showed a similar trend, falling to 2.32
persons per household by 2000. Compared with Snohomish County as a whole, Edmonds had fewer
people per household in 1990 (2.37 vs. 2.68, respectively) and in 2000 (2.32 vs. 2.65). Average
household size within the city is expected to decrease to approximately 2.26 people by 2025 (City of
Edmonds, 2004).
Based on Census data, residents of Edmonds are older than those of Snohomish County, taken as a
whole. In 1990, the median age of Edmonds residents was 38.3 years, compared with 32.2 years
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: 9 pt, Bold
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Font: 9 pt
Formatted: Centered
Packet Page 106 of 256
Housing 199
countywide. By 2000, the median age in Edmonds had increased to 42.0 years. Within the city, a
large percentage of retired and elderly persons 62-years old and over reside in the downtown area
(census tracts 504 and 505).
At the time of the 2010 Census, the total number of occupied homes in the City of Edmonds was
17,381. The average household size has declined since 1990, when it was 2.37 persons. In 2000, the
persons per household declined to 2.32 persons, and in 2010, to 2.26 persons. The average household
size within the city is expected to decrease to approximately 2.20 people by 2035 (Snohomish County
Tomorrow, 2013).
Understanding how the City’s population is changing offers insight for planning housing types that
will be in demand (fig. 16). Based on Census data, residents of Edmonds are older than those of
Snohomish County, taken as a whole. In 2000, the median age of Edmonds residents was 42.0 years,
compared with 34.7 years countywide. By 2010, the median age in Edmonds had increased to 46.3
years, compared to 37.1 years countywide. During the same period, population growth of Edmonds
residents 14 years of age and younger shrank in each age category (fig. 17). A natural increase in
population is likely to decline as an aging female population ages beyond childbearing age. These
trends are consistent with national trends.
Figure 165: Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010
2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
0 - 4
5 - 9
10 - 14
15 - 19
20 - 24
25 - 29
30 - 34
35 - 39
40 - 44
45 - 49
50 - 54
55 - 59
60 - 64
65 - 69
70 - 74
75 - 79
80 - 84
85 - 89
90 +
2010 2000
Male Female
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Packet Page 107 of 256
200 Housing
Figure 17: Population Growth, Children 14 Years of Age and Younger
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010
Household Income: In general, residents of Edmonds earn relatively more income than residents of
Snohomish County as a whole. Median 1990 2000 household income in Edmonds was
$40,51553,552, nearly 10 percent higher thanequivalent to the county's median level of
$36,84753,060 for the same period (1990 2000 US Census). By the 2000 2010 census, Edmonds’
median household income had increased to $53,55273,072, but this was nearly equivalent to7%
higher than the County median of $53,06068,338 (Edmonds was less than 136.5%% higher). This is
in contrast to per capita income, which is substantially higher in Edmonds compared to Snohomish
County ($30,07643,598 vs. $23,41731,310, respectively). These figures reflect Edmonds’ relatively
smaller household sizes.
Housing Ownership: According to the 1990 2000 Census, 65.3 percent68.1% of the housing units
within the city were owner-occupied and 32.1 percent31.9% were renter-occupied. This represented
a declinean increase in owner-occupancy from the 67.1 percent65.3% reported in the 1980 1990
Census. By 20002010, this trend had reversedcontinued, with 68.169% percent of the City’s housing
occupied by owners. The direction of the trend in housing occupancy is similar for Snohomish
County as a whole, although ownership rates countywide were slightly lowerhigher in 19902010, at
66 percent67%.
Within Edmonds, ownership patterns vary significantly between neighborhoods; between 85 and 92
percent of homes along the waterfront were owner-occupied in 1990, compared with just over 50
percent east of Highway 99.
Housing Values: According to the 1990 Census, housing values are considerably higher in the City
of Edmonds than in Snohomish County as a whole. In 1990,2012 ACS 3-year data, the median value
of owner-occupied units in Edmonds was $160,100, approximately 26 percent higher than the
countywide median of $127,200. By 2000, the median value of owner-occupied housing had
increased to $238,200 in Edmonds and $196,500 in Snohomish County, with Edmonds approximately
Formatted: Normal, Left, Indent: Left: 0.25",
Space Before: 12 pt, No page break before,
Keep with next
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not Bold
Packet Page 108 of 256
Housing 201
21 percent higher than the countywide median. had increased to $394,400 in Edmonds and $311,600
in Snohomish County, with Edmonds approximately 26.6% higher than the countywide medien.
Within Edmonds, median housing values vary considerably between neighborhoods; the highest
valued homes are found along the waterfront, while the lowest values are found within interior
neighborhoods and east of Highway 99.
Housing Affordability: For the purposes of calculating the housing affordability in Edmonds, this
document uses the median income for the Seattle-Bellevue HUD Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA)
instead of the Snohomish County Area Median Income (AMI). The Seattle-Bellevue AMI will be
used as Edmonds is considered a suburb of Seattle, not Everett. The 2012 HMFA AMI for Seattle-
Bellevue is $88,000, which is higher than Snohomish County’s 2012 AMI of $68,338. The 2012
median household income for Edmonds is $73,072.
AMI is an important calculation used by many agencies to measure housing affordability. Standard
income levels are as follows:
• Extremely low income: <30% AMI
• Very Low Income: between 30 and 50% AMI
• Low Income: between 50 and 80% AMI
• Moderate income: between 80 and 95% AMI
• Middle Income: between 95 and 120% AMI
Using rental data obtained from Dupre and Scott by the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA),
table 8 provides a clearer view of what a household looking for a home in Edmonds would expect to
pay for rent and utilities. The data includes both single family and multifamily rental units. Housing
sizes and the corresponding minimum income required for a full time worker to afford the home are
listed. For example, a family of four searching for a 3 bedroom unit could expect to pay on average
$1,679 per month for rent and utilities. In order to afford housing, the family would need an annual
income of $67,160.
Table 87: Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities)
Formatted: Intro
Formatted: Intro, Indent: Left: 0", Space
Before: 0 pt
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Packet Page 109 of 256
202 Housing
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014
Table 9 shows the distribution of rent affordability at different income levels using the Seattle-
Bellevue AMI. “Yes” means that the average rent is affordable to a household at that income level,
adjusting for size, “Limited” means that the average rent is not affordable but there are lower end
affordable units, and “No” means that the entire rent range is not affordable. As seen below, a four
bedroom home is not affordable for persons with a household income at 80% or below of the HFMA
AMI.
Table 98: Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds
Number of Bedrooms
Income Level Studio 1 2 3 4+
Extremely Low No No No No No
Very Low Limited limited Limited Limited No
Low Yes Yes Yes Limited No
Moderate Yes Yes Yes Yes Limited
Middle Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013
Between 2008 and 2012, 85% of home sales in Edmonds were three or four bedrooms in size
according to County records. According to tax assessor data, the 2012 median sales price for a single
family home in Edmonds was $339,975. Assuming a 20% down payment and using average rates of
interest, taxes, utilities, and insurance as determined by the Federal Housing Funding Board, the
monthly payment for this home would be $1,895. For a family to not be cost burdened, they would
require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City’s median income.
Figure 189 shows that the percentage of home sales affordable to each income level has changed
between 2008 and 2012.
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.25",
Space Before: 12 pt
Packet Page 110 of 256
Housing 203
Figure 189: Home Sales Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013
State Housing Policy Act – In 1993, Washington State enacted a Housing Policy Act (SB 5584)
which is directed toward developing an adequate and affordable supply of housing for all economic
segments of the population. The Act establishes an affordable housing advisory board that, together
with the State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (DCTED), is required to
prepare a five-year housing advisory plan. The plan must document the need for affordable housing
in the state; identify the extent to which the needs are being met through public and private programs;
facilitate development of plans to meet affordable housing needs; and develop strategies and
programs for affordable housing. DCTED is directed to provide technical assistance and information
to local governments to assist in the identification and removal of regulatory barriers to the
development of affordable housing. The Act also requires that by December 31, 1994, all local
governments of communities with populations over 20,000 must adopt regulations that permit
accessory units in residential zones. The Act also requires that communities treat special needs
populations in the same manner as other households living in single family units. Edmonds has
updated its development regulations to comply with both of these requirements.
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy – Jurisdictions receiving financial assistance from the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are required to prepare a Consolidated
Housing and Community Development Plan. The plan must identify the community’s housing, social
service and community development needs for the next five years. The plan describes how HUD
funds will be used to address the identified needs. In addition, the plan must be updated annually to
include the most recent spending program and demonstrate that funding decisions respond to the
strategies and objectives cited in the five-year plan. The Snohomish County Consortium, which
includes Edmonds and 18 other cities and towns along with unincorporated Snohomish County, is
responsible for the plan, and through Snohomish County’s Department of Housing and Community
Development, also prepares a yearly report called the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation
Report (CAPER). This catalogs and analyzes the status of Consolidated Plan goals and is published
for public review on a yearly basis. Key goals of the consolidated housing plan include:
1) Provide decent housing, including
• assisting homeless persons to obtain affordable housing;
Formatted: Intro, Centered
Formatted: Intro, Centered
Packet Page 111 of 256
204 Housing
• retaining affordable housing stock;
• increasing the availability of permanent housing that is affordable and available
without discrimination; and
• increasing supportive housing that includes structural features and services to enable
persons with special needs to live in dignity.
2) Provide a suitable living environment, including
• improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods;
• increasing access to quality facilities and services;
• reducing the isolation of income groups within areas by deconcentrating housing
opportunities and revitalizing deteriorating neighborhoods;
• restoring and preserving natural and physical features of special value for historic,
architectural, or aesthetic reasons; and
• conserving energy resources.
3) Expand economic opportunities, including
• creating jobs for low income persons;
• providing access to credit for community development that promotes long-term
economic an social viability; and
• assisting residents of federally assisted and public housing achieve self-sufficiency.
The main purpose of the Consolidated Plan is to develop strategies to meet the identified housing
needs. These strategies are implemented through funding decisions which distribute HUD funds to
local housing programs. Strategies to achieve the goals and needs identified in the Consolidated Plan
include:
• Increase the number of subsidized rental apartments affordable to households with
incomes of up to 50% of area median income through (1) new construction, (2)
acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing units, (3) provision of rent subsidies, and
(4) preservation of HUD Section 8 or similar subsidized housing in non-profit
ownership where there is the risk of converting these units to market-rate housing.
• Provide support for operation of existing homeless shelters and construction of
needed shelters in under-served areas and for under-served populations. Increase the
inventory of transitional housing for households needing assistance to move from
homelessness to self-sufficiency.
• Provide support for the operation and development of transitional and permanent
housing and service programs for people with special needs.
Packet Page 112 of 256
Housing 205
• Help low-income people to stay in their homes and maintain current housing stock
through home repair, rehabilitation, and weatherization services.
• Increase the incidence of home ownership using self-help construction, manufactured
housing, homebuyer education, and mortgage assistance programs.
• Improve the processes for utilizing grant funds allocated to the county.
• Enhance the resources that can be used for housing production.
• Utilized the expertise of housing providers who will create a stable and well-
maintained low-income housing stock to expand the subsidized housing inventory in
the community.
• Address the unmet public facility needs of low-income households and
neighborhoods.
• Address the unmet basic infrastructure needs of low-income households and
neighborhoods.
• Support programs that provide for the well-being of youth by providing services such
as case management, life-skills training, health care and recreation.
• Support programs that assist low-income elderly citizens, where appropriate and cost-
effective, to remain in their homes by providing housing repairs and reasonable
modifications to accommodate disabilities and by supporting provision of supportive
services.
• Support services which address the most urgent needs of low-income and moderate-
income populations and neighborhoods.
• Support eligible local planning and administration costs incident to operation of HUD
grant programs.
Housing Needs: Edmonds is projected to grow from a 2010 population of 39,709 to 45,550 by 2035.
This translates to an increase of 2,790 housing units in the city. The Buildable Lands Report for
Snohomish County indicates that the majority of this increase will be in redevelopment occurring on
multifamily properties, including mixed use projects.
Because the City of Edmonds does not construct housing itself, the housing targets are helpful in
assessing needs and providing a sense of the policy challenges that exist. Future housing needs will be
met by a combination of the housing market, housing authorities, and governmental housing agencies.
However, the City of Edmonds can do things to assist in accommodating projected housing needs,
such as adjusting zoning and land use regulations. The City may also be able to assist in supporting
the quality of housing through progressive building codes and programs for healthy living.
Forecasting future housing needs for specific populations and income ranges is difficult. One method
to arrive at an initial estimate of housing needs is to take the Edmonds’ housing target (2,790) and
apply the countywide breakdown for each income group. Data shown in table 10 is based on
Packet Page 113 of 256
206 Housing
household income from the 5-year American Community Survey in 2007-2011. The City of Edmonds
will take into account local population and housing characteristics when determining housing targets.
Table 10: Projected Housing Need, City of EdmondsSnohomish County
calculates housing needs based on households earning less than 95 percent of the
county median income and paying more than 30 percent of their incomes for gross
housing costs. Gross housing costs include rent and utility costs for renters and
principal, interest, taxes, insurance, and any homeowner-fees for owners.
Countywide, in 1990, 36,888 households countywide met the criteria for households
in need; by 2000, this had increased to 55,361 households. There are expected to
be an additional 28,557 low- and moderate-income households with housing needs
by 2025 throughout the County. There were 2,601 households with need in Edmonds
in 1990, and this had increased to 3,951 by 2000. It is anticipated that this will
increase to 4,395 by 2025.
The following chart shows how segments of the household population – and the relative
cost burden of housing – are changing over time. Low- and moderate-income
households have increased in number, and are a slightly higher proportion of Edmonds’
households compared to 1990. The implication is that affordable housing will continue to
be an important issue throughout the planning horizon.
Jurisdiction
Total Housing
Unit Growth
Need
Under 30%
AMI Housing
Need (11% of
Total)
30-50% AMI
Housing
Need (11% of
Total)
50-80% AMI
Housing Need
(17% of Total)
Edmonds 2,790 307 307 474
Source: Snohomish County Tomorrow, “Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County,” 2014
As previously mentioned, the median age of Edmonds residents is the highest in Snohomish County
at 46.3 years compared to 37.1 years countywide (2010 Census). In 2011, the Baby Boom generation
started turning 65 years of age and represents what demographers project as the fastest growing age
group over the next 20 years. An older population will require specific needs if they are to “age in
place.” In Edmonds, the effects may be particularly strong. Developing healthy, walkable
communities with nearby retail and transit options will help an aging population retain their
independence.
Formatted: Normal
Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.75", First
line: 0.25", Space Before: 18 pt, After: 12 pt,
Keep with next, Keep lines together
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Normal
Formatted Table
Formatted: Normal
Packet Page 114 of 256
Housing 207
Source: 2004 Supplement to Technical Report Fair Share Housing Allocation, Snohomish County Tomorrow
Snohomish County and its cities, through countywide planning policies, has used an allocation model
to elaborate on the indicated level of need for affordable housing in the county. The county applies
two factors to the number of households in need to give areas credit for their existing stock of low-
cost housing and assign them responsibility to house a portion of low-wage employees in the
jurisdiction. The purpose of these factors is to provide indicators of the relative housing need for
jurisdictions based on the model’s assumptions. In 2000, Edmonds' adjusted number of households in
need was 5,322 households; this is projected to increase to 5,885 by 2025 – an increase of 564
households. Therefore, Edmonds has a continuing need to provide affordable, low-cost housing
within the city.
Assisted Housing Availability: In 1995 there were two HUD-assisted developments providing a total
of 87 units for low-income, elderly senior residents within the City of Edmonds. This was more than
doubled by a new development approved in 2004 for an additional 94 units. Since 1995, 167 assisted
care living units have been built in the downtown area, specifically targeting senior housing needs.
Although the Housing Authority of Snohomish County did not operate any public housing units
within Edmonds prior to 1995, it purchased an existing housing complex totaling 131 units in 2002.
The Housing Authority continues to administer 124 Section 8 rent supplement certificates and
vouchers within the city. In addition, there are currently 36 adult family homes providing shelter for
187 residents. This is a substantial increase from the 13 adult family homes providing shelter for 66
residents in 1995.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", Space Before:
12 pt, After: 0 pt
Packet Page 115 of 256
208 Housing
Growth Management goals and policies contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan encourage
availability of resources to insure basic community services and ample provisions made for necessary
open space, parks and other recreation facilities; preservation; preservation of light (including direct
sunlight), privacy, views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, and freedom from air,
water, noise and visual pollution; and; and a balanced mixture of income and age groups. Land Use
policies encourage strategic planning for development and redevelopment that achieve a balanced and
coordinated approach to economic development, housing and cultural goals; and encourage a more
active and vital setting for new businesses supported by nearby residents, downtown commercial
activity and visitors throughout the area. Policies encourage identification and maintenance of
significant public and private social areas, cultural facilities, and scenic areas; and maintenance and
preservation of historical sites. Commercial Land Use policies encourage identification and
reservation of sufficient sites suited for a variety of commercial uses.
Housing goals are directed toward providing housing opportunities for all segments of the city's
households; supporting existing neighborhoods and preserving/rehabilitating the housing stock;
maintaining high quality residential environments; and providing assistance to developing housing
for elderly, disabled and low-income householdsfor special needs populations, such as senior,
disabled and low-income households. These goals are supported by policies which include review of
regulatory impediments to control of housing costs and affirmative measures to support construction
of housing for protected groups; encouraging expansion of the types of housing available, including
accessory dwelling units, mixed use, and multi-family housing; flexible development standards; and
review and revision of development regulations, including assessing the feasibility of establishing
time limits for permitting; consolidating permitting; implementing administrative permitting
procedures and instituting preapplication hearings.
B. Other measures to mitigate potential housing impacts include determining whether any public
land is available which could be used to help meet affordable housing targets; development of a
strategy plan, including target number of units and development timeline; technical assistance
programs or information to encourage housing rehabilitation and development of accessory units; and
a strong monitoring program with mid-course correction features (see the discussion below).
C. Strategies to Promote Affordable Housing.
In order to respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City
has undertaken a series of reasonable measures to accomplish this goal, consistent with the policy
direction indicated by Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Countywide Planning Policies. These
reasonable measures or strategies to promote affordable housing include:
Land Use Strategies
• Upzoning. The City has upzoned a substantial area of previously large lot (12,000+
square foot lots) zoning to ensure that densities can be obtained of at least 4.0 dwelling
units per acre. The City has also approved changes from single family to multi family
zoning in designated corridor areas to provide more housing units at reduced cost to
consumers.to its zoning codes to encourage more multifamilydevelopment in mixed use
areas, especially in corridors served by transit (e.g. Highway 99 along the Swift high
capacity transit corridor).
Formatted: Intro, Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Intro, Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Font: Italic
Packet Page 116 of 256
Housing 209
• Density Bonus. A targeted density bonus is offered for the provision of low income
senior housing in the City. Parking requirements are also reduced for this housing type,
making the density obtainable at lower site development cost.
• Cluster Subdivisions. This is accomplished in the city through the use of PRDs. In
Edmonds, a PRD is defined as an alternate form of subdivision, thereby encouraging its
use as a normal form of development. In addition, PRDs follow essentially the same
approval process as that of a subdivision.
• Planned Residential Development (PRD). The City has refined and broadened the
applicability of its PRD regulations. PRDs can still be used to encourage the protection of
environmentally sensitive lands; however, PRDs can also now be used to encourage infill
development and flexible housing types.
• Infill Development. The City’s principal policy direction is aimed at encouraging infill
development consistent with its neighborhoods and community character. This overall
plan direction has been termed “designed infill” and can be seen in the City’s emphasis
and continued work on streamlining permitting, revising codes to provide more flexible
standards, and improving its design guidelines. The City is also continuing the process of
developing new codes supporting mixed use development in key locations supported by
transit and linked to nearby neighborhoods.
• Conversion/Adaptive Reuse. The City has established a new historic preservation
program intended to support the preservation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings,
especially in the historic downtown center. Part of the direction of the updated plans and
regulations for the Downtown/ Waterfront area is to provide more flexible standards that
can help businesses move into older buildings and adapt old homes to commercial or
mixed use spaces. An example is the ability of buildings on the Edmonds Register of
Historic Places to get an exception for parking for projects that retain the historic
character of the site.
Administrative Procedures
• Streamlined approval processing. The City generally uses either a Hearing Examiner or
staff to review and issue discretionary land use decisions, thereby reducing permitting
timelines and providing some an increased degree of certainty to the process. The City
continues to provide and improve on an extensive array of information forms and
handouts explaining its permitting processes and standards. The City has also established
standards for permit review times, tailored to the type and complexity of the project. For
example, the mean processing time for processing land use permits in 2003 2011 was 39
36 days, less than one-third of the 120-day standard encouraged by the State’s Regulatory
Reform act.
• Use-by-Right. The City has been actively reviewing its schedule of uses and how they are
divided between uses that are permitted outright vs. permitted by some form of
conditional use. The City has expanded this effort to include providing clearer standards,
potentially allowing more approvals to be referred to staff instead of the Hearing
Examiner hearing process.
Packet Page 117 of 256
210 Housing
• Impact mitigation payment deferral. The City’s traffic mitigation impact fees are assessed
at the time of development permit application, but are not collected until just prior to
occupancy. This provides predictability while also minimizing “carrying costs” of
financing.
Development Standards
• Front yard or side yard setback requirements. Some of the City’s zones have no front or
side yard setback requirements, such as in the downtown mixed use zones. In single
family zones, average front setbacks can be used to reduce otherwise required front yard
setbacks.
• Zero lot line. This type of development pattern can be achieved using the City’s PRD
process, which is implemented as an alternative form of subdivision.
• Street design and construction. Edmonds has adopted a ‘complete streets’ policy. Street
standards are reviewed and updated on a consistent basisperiodically, taking advantage of
new technologies whenever possible. A comprehensive review and update of the city’s
codes is underway.
• Alleys. The City has an extensive system of alleys in the downtown area and makes use
of these in both mixed use and residential developments.
• Off-street parking requirements. The City has substantially revised its off-street parking
standards, reducing the parking ratios required for multi family development and in some
mixed use areas, thereby reducing housing costs and encouraging more housing in areas
that are walkable or served by transit.
• . The City also simplified and streamlined its parking requirements for the downtown
mixed use area, thereby encouraging housing downtown.
• Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Stormwater systems. Innovative techniques are explored and
utilized in both new systems and in the maintenance of existing infrastructure.
Low-Cost Housing Types
• Accessory dwellings. The City substantially revised its accessory dwelling regulations,
providing clearer standards and streamlining their approval as a standard option for any
single family lot.
• Cottage housing developments. The City is exploring this option, although it would be
expected to have limited application.
• Mixed-use development. The City has strengthened and expanded its mixed use
development approach. Downtown mixed use development no longer has a density cap,
and this – combined other regulatory changes – has resulted in residential floor space
drawing even with commercial floor space in new developments in the downtown area.
Mixed use zoning was applied in the Westgate Corridor, and revised mixed use
development regulations have been updated and intensified in are being prepared for
application in the Hospital/Highway 99 Activity Center as well as along Highway 99.
Packet Page 118 of 256
Housing 211
• Mobile/manufactured housing. The City’s regulation of manufactured homes has been
revised to more broadly permit this type of housing in single family zones.
Housing Production & Preservation Programs
• Housing preservation. The City provides strict enforcement of its building codes,
intended to protect the quality and safety of housing. The City has also instituted a
historic preservation program intended to provide incentives to rehabilitate and restore
commercial, mixed use, and residential buildings in the community.
Public housing authority / Public and nonprofit housing developers. The City supports the Housing
Authority of Snohomish County, as evidenced by its approval of the conversion of housing units to
Housing Authority ownership. Edmonds is also a participant in the Alliance for Housing Affordability
(AHA) in Snohomish County, which is a consortium of cities pooling resources to collectively address
housing needs in the county.
•
• For-profit housing builders and developers. Many of the strategies outlined above are
aimed at the for-profit building market. The City’s budget restrictions limit its ability to
directly participate in the construction or provision of affordable housing, so it has chosen
instead to affect the cost of housing by reducing government regulation, providing
flexible development standards, and otherwise minimize housing costs that can be passed
on to prospective owners or renters. However, as noted above, the City is also a
participant in the Alliance for Housing Affordability in Snohomish County, which is
intended to collaborate on housing strategies countywide.
Housing Financing Strategies
• State / Federal resourcesFederal resources. The City supports the use of State and
Federal resources to promote affordable housing through its participation in the
Snohomish County Consortium and the Community Development Block Grant program.
These are important inter-jurisdictional efforts to address countywide needs.
Jurisdictions face challenges inThere will be difficulty meeting affordability goals or significantly
reducing the current affordable housing deficit. The cityEdmonds is a mature community with
limited opportunities for new development nearly fully developed and has limited powers and
resources to produce subsidized housing on its own. However, , it is hoped that Edmonds’
participation in joint planning and coordination initiatives, such as the Alliance for Affordable
Housing will point the way to new housing initiatives in the future.
funding projects (such as non-profit organizations funded by the cities of Kirkland, Redmond and
Bellevue) would help to mitigate these impacts.
GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal - Housing Goal AI. - Discrimination and Fair Housing - Goal 1. There should beEncourage
adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the community regardless of their
race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances.
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Formatted: Normal
Formatted: Heading 2
Formatted: Font: Bold
Packet Page 119 of 256
212 Housing
D. Housing Goal B.Goal - Housing I - Discrimination and Fair Housing - Goal 2. EInsure that past
attitudes do not establish a precedent for future decisions pertaining to public accommodation and fair
housing. in accordance with the following policy:
E. Housing Goal C. Provide for special needs populations – such as low income, disabled, or senior
residents – Goal - Housing II - Low Income, Elderly and Disabled Housing. to have aA decent home
in a heathly and suitable living, including through environment for each household in accordance
with the following policies:
E.1. C.1. Encourage the utilization of the housing resources of the state or federal
government to assist in providing adequate housing opportunities for the special
needs populations, such as low income, elderly and disabled, or senior
citizensresidents.
E.2. C.2. The City should wWork with the Washington Housing ServiceAlliance
for Housing Affordability and other agencies to:
E.2.a. C.2.a. Provide current information on housing resources;
E.2.b. C.2.b. Determine the programs which will work best for the
community.
E.2.c. C.2.c. Conduct periodic assessments of the housing requirements of
special needs populations to ensure that reasonable opportunities exist
for all forms of individual and group housing within the community.
F. Housing Goal D. Goal - Housing III - Housing Rehabilitation. Preserve and rehabilitate the stock
ofMaintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and rehabilitation of the older
housing stock in the community in order to maintain a valuable housing resource in accordance with
through the following policies:
F.1. D.1. Program should be developed which Support programs that offers free or
low cost minor home maintenance service toassistance to households in need, such
as units with low income, elderly or handicapped or senior personshouseholders.
F.2. D.2. Building code enforcement should be utilizedEnforce building codes, as
appropriate, to conserve healthy neighborhoods and encourage rehabilitation of
those housing that show signs of deterioration.
F.3. D.3. Ensure that an adequate supply of housing exists to accommodate all
households that are displaced as a result of any community action.
F.4. D.4. Evaluate CCity ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent
rehabilitation of older buildings.
G. Housing Goal E. Goal. Provide opportunities for affordable housing (subsidized housing, if need
be) for elderlyspecial needs populations, such as disadvantaged, disabled, and low income, and senior
residents in proportion to the population of Edmonds in accordance with through the following
policies:
Formatted: Intro
Packet Page 120 of 256
Housing 213
E.1. The City should aAggressively pursue support efforts to funds to the
construction of housing for elderlyseniors, disabled and low income, and other
special needs populations, while recognizing that u. Units should blend into the
neighborhood and/or be designed to be an asset to to the area and create pride for
inhabitants.
G.1. [Ord. 2527 §3, 1985.]
G.2. E.2. Aim for cCity zoning regulations should to expand, not limit, housing
opportunities for all special needs populations.
H. Housing Goal F. Goal: Provide for a variety of housing for all segments of the city that is
consistent and compatible withrespects the established character of the community.
H.1. F.1. Expand and promote a variety of housing opportunities by establishing
land use patterns that provide a mixture of housing types and densities.
H.1.a. F.1.a. Provide for mixed use, multi family and single family housing
that is targeted and located according to the land use patterns established
in the land use element.
H.2. F.2. Encourage infill development that is consistent with or enhances the
character of the surrounding neighborhood.
H.2.a. F.2.a. Within single family neighborhoods, encourage infill
development by considering innovative single family development
patterns such as Planned Residential Developments (PRDs).
H.2.b. F.2.b. Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods
that to addresses the needs of extended families and encourages housing
affordability.
H.2.c. F.2.c. Provide flexible development standards for infill development,
such as non-conforming lots, when development in these situations will
be consistent with the character of the neighborhood and with the goal to
provide affordable single family housing.
I. Housing Goal G. Goal: Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers consistent with
the land use, transportation, and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
I.1. G.1. Promote development within Activity Centers that supports the centers’
economic activities and transit service.
I.1.a. G.1.a. Provide for mixed use development within Activity Centers.
I.1.b. G.1.b. Plan for housing that is located with easy access to transit and
economic activities that provide jobs and shopping opportunities.
I.1.c. G.1.c. Consider adjusting parking standards for housing within Activity
Centers to provide incentives for lower-cost housing when justified by
available transit service.
Packet Page 121 of 256
214 Housing
J. Housing Goal H. Goal: Government should rReview and monitor its permitting processes and
regulatory structures systems to assure that they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to the
extent possible, adding to the cost of housing.
J.1. H.1. Provide the maximum amount of certainty efficiency and predictability
in government permitting processes.
J.1.a. H.1.a. Consider a wide variety of measures to achieve this
objectivepredictability and efficiency, including such ideas as:
..establishing time limits for permitting processes;
..developing consolidated permitting and appeals processes;
..implementing administrative permitting procedures;
..using pre-application processes to highlight problems early.
J.2. H.2. Establish monitoring programs for permitting and regulatory processes.
J.2.a. H.2.a. Monitoring programs should be established to review the types
and effectiveness of government regulations and incentives, in order to
assess whether they are meeting their intended purpose or need to be
adjusted to meet new challenges.
Housing Goal I. Goal: Opportunities for increasing the affordability ofIncrease affordable
housing opportunities in have the best chance for success if they are coordinated with programs that
seek to achieve other community goals as well.
K. I.1. Research housing affordability and program options that address
Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives.Housing affordability should be
researched and programs developed that address multiple Comprehensive Plan
goals and objectives.
K.1. I.2. Develop housing programs to encourage housing opportunities that build
on linkages between housing and other, complementary Comprehensive Plan goals.
K.1.a. I.2.a. New programs that address housing affordability should be
coordinated with programs that address development of the arts,
encourage historic preservation, promote the continued development of
Activity Centers and transit-friendly development, and that encourage
economic development.
L. Housing Goal J. Goal: Recognize that iIn addition to traditional height and bulk standards,
design is an important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is
compatible with its surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated, as appropriate,
into the policies and regulations governing the location and design of housing.
L.1. J.1. Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types
while ensuring compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood.
L.1.a. J.1.a. Incentives and programs for historic preservation and
neighborhood conservation should be researched and established to
continue the character of Edmonds’ residential and mixed use
neighborhoods.
Packet Page 122 of 256
Housing 215
J.1.b. Design guidelines for housing should be developed to ensure
compatibility of housing with adjacent land uses.
Implementation Actions and Performance Measures.
Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address
high priority sustainability goals. Performance measures are specific, meaningful, and easily
obtainable items that can be reported on an annual basis. These are intended to help assess progress
toward achieving the goals and policy direction of this element. The actions and measures identified
here are specifically called out as being important, but are not intended to be the only actions or
measures that may be used by the City.
Action 1: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting
diverse housing needs.
Performance Measure 1: Report the number of residential units permitted each year with a goal of
reaching 21,168 units by 2035, or approximately 112 additional dwelling units per year.
L.1.b.
Formatted: Intro
Formatted: Policy 2
Packet Page 123 of 256
Housing 161
Housing Element
Introduction. This section looks at the character and diversity of housing in the City of Edmonds.
Part of this process includes looking at housing types and affordability. The goal of this section is to
provide the necessary information to anticipate housing needs.
General Background
According to the Office of Financial Management (OFM), there were an estimated 18,378 housing
units within the City of Edmonds in 2010. This represents an increase of 5% in the city's housing
stock since 2000, when there were 17,508 housing units (2000 US Census). In comparison, over the
period 1990-2000, the city's housing stock grew 35.2%, or approximately 3.5% per year. This
increase can largely be explained by annexations occurring during the 1990s in the south and
southwest portions of the city. Table 7 summarizes recent growth trends and forecasts for the City of
Edmonds.
Of the total stock of housing in 2010, 11,685 (63.6%) were single family units, 6,664 (36.3%) were
multi-family units, and 29 (0.2%) were mobile homes or trailers. Compared with Snohomish County
as a whole, Edmonds has a lower percentage of single-family homes (63.6% vs. 66.9%, respectively)
and mobile homes (0.2% vs. 6.8%, respectively) and a higher proportion of multi-family homes
(36.3% vs. 26.4%, respectively).
Much of the existing housing stock was built between 1950 and 1969 as Edmonds expanded up Main
Street, through Five Corners, over to the west side of Lake Ballinger. As part of the greater Seattle
metropolitan area, Edmonds experienced growth earlier than most in Snohomish County.
Table 7
City of Edmonds Housing Growth
Housing
Units
Increase Percentage
Increase
Average
Annual
Increase
Census: 1980 10,702
1990 12,945 2,243 21.0% 1.9%
2000 17,508 4,563 35.2% 3.1%
Growth Target:
2010
2035
18,378
21,168
870
2,790
5.0%
15.2%
0.5%
0.6%
Source: US Census; OFM; Snohomish County Tomorrow
Packet Page 124 of 256
162 Housing
Figure 15: Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds and Snohomish County
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey
Household Characteristics
At the time of the 2010 Census, the total number of occupied homes in the City of Edmonds was
17,381. The average household size has declined since 1990, when it was 2.37 persons. In 2000, the
persons per household declined to 2.32 persons, and in 2010, to 2.26 persons. The average household
size within the city is expected to decrease to approximately 2.20 people by 2035 (Snohomish County
Tomorrow, 2013).
Understanding how the City’s population is changing offers insight for planning housing types that
will be in demand (fig. 16). Based on Census data, residents of Edmonds are older than those of
Snohomish County, taken as a whole. In 2000, the median age of Edmonds residents was 42.0 years,
compared with 34.7 years countywide. By 2010, the median age in Edmonds had increased to 46.3
years, compared to 37.1 years countywide. During the same period, population growth of Edmonds
residents 14 years of age and younger shrank in each age category (fig. 17). A natural increase in
population is likely to decline as an aging female population ages beyond childbearing age. These
trends are consistent with national trends.
Packet Page 125 of 256
Housing 163
Figure 16: Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010
Figure 17: Population Growth, Children 14 Years of Age and Younger
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010
2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
0 - 4
5 - 9
10 - 14
15 - 19
20 - 24
25 - 29
30 - 34
35 - 39
40 - 44
45 - 49
50 - 54
55 - 59
60 - 64
65 - 69
70 - 74
75 - 79
80 - 84
85 - 89
90 +
2010 2000
Male Female
Packet Page 126 of 256
164 Housing
Household Income: In general, residents of Edmonds earn relatively more income than residents of
Snohomish County as a whole. Median 2000 household income in Edmonds was $53,552, nearly
equivalent to the county's median level of $53,060 for the same period (2000 US Census). By the
2010 census, Edmonds’ median household income had increased to $73,072, nearly 7% higher than
the County median of $68,338 (Edmonds was 36.5%% higher). This is in contrast to per capita
income, which is substantially higher in Edmonds compared to Snohomish County ($43,598 vs.
$31,310, respectively). These figures reflect Edmonds’ relatively smaller household sizes.
Housing Ownership: According to the 2000 Census, 68.1% of the housing units within the city were
owner-occupied and 31.9% were renter-occupied. This represented an increase in owner-occupancy
from the 65.3% reported in the 1990 Census. By 2010, this trend continued, with 69% of the City’s
housing occupied by owners. The direction of the trend in housing occupancy is similar for
Snohomish County as a whole, although ownership rates countywide were slightly lower in 2010, at
67%.
Housing Values: According to the 2012 ACS 3-year data, the median value of owner-occupied units
had increased to $394,400 in Edmonds and $311,600 in Snohomish County, with Edmonds
approximately 26.6% higher than the countywide medien. Within Edmonds, median housing values
vary considerably between neighborhoods; the highest valued homes are found along the waterfront,
while the lowest values are found within interior neighborhoods and east of Highway 99.
Housing Affordability: For the purposes of calculating the housing affordability in Edmonds, this
document uses the median income for the Seattle-Bellevue HUD Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA)
instead of the Snohomish County Area Median Income (AMI). The Seattle-Bellevue AMI will be
used as Edmonds is considered a suburb of Seattle, not Everett. The 2012 HMFA AMI for Seattle-
Bellevue is $88,000, which is higher than Snohomish County’s 2012 AMI of $68,338. The 2012
median household income for Edmonds is $73,072.
AMI is an important calculation used by many agencies to measure housing affordability. Standard
income levels are as follows:
• Extremely low income: <30% AMI
• Very Low Income: between 30 and 50% AMI
• Low Income: between 50 and 80% AMI
• Moderate income: between 80 and 95% AMI
• Middle Income: between 95 and 120% AMI
Using rental data obtained from Dupre and Scott by the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA),
table 8 provides a clearer view of what a household looking for a home in Edmonds would expect to
pay for rent and utilities. The data includes both single family and multifamily rental units. Housing
sizes and the corresponding minimum income required for a full time worker to afford the home are
listed. For example, a family of four searching for a 3 bedroom unit could expect to pay on average
$1,679 per month for rent and utilities. In order to afford housing, the family would need an annual
income of $67,160.
Packet Page 127 of 256
Housing 165
Table 8: Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities)
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014
Table 9 shows the distribution of rent affordability at different income levels using the Seattle-
Bellevue AMI. “Yes” means that the average rent is affordable to a household at that income level,
adjusting for size, “Limited” means that the average rent is not affordable but there are lower end
affordable units, and “No” means that the entire rent range is not affordable. As seen below, a four
bedroom home is not affordable for persons with a household income at 80% or below of the HFMA
AMI.
Table 9: Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds
Number of Bedrooms
Income Level Studio 1 2 3 4+
Extremely Low No No No No No
Very Low Limited limited Limited Limited No
Low Yes Yes Yes Limited No
Moderate Yes Yes Yes Yes Limited
Middle Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013
Between 2008 and 2012, 85% of home sales in Edmonds were three or four bedrooms in size
according to County records. According to tax assessor data, the 2012 median sales price for a single
family home in Edmonds was $339,975. Assuming a 20% down payment and using average rates of
interest, taxes, utilities, and insurance as determined by the Federal Housing Funding Board, the
monthly payment for this home would be $1,895. For a family to not be cost burdened, they would
require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City’s median income.
Figure 18 shows that the percentage of home sales affordable to each income level has changed
between 2008 and 2012.
Packet Page 128 of 256
166 Housing
Figure 18: Home Sales Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013
Housing Needs: Edmonds is projected to grow from a 2010 population of 39,709 to 45,550 by 2035.
This translates to an increase of 2,790 housing units in the city. The Buildable Lands Report for
Snohomish County indicates that the majority of this increase will be in redevelopment occurring on
multifamily properties, including mixed use projects.
Because the City of Edmonds does not construct housing itself, the housing targets are helpful in
assessing needs and providing a sense of the policy challenges that exist. Future housing needs will be
met by a combination of the housing market, housing authorities, and governmental housing agencies.
However, the City of Edmonds can do things to assist in accommodating projected housing needs,
such as adjusting zoning and land use regulations. The City may also be able to assist in supporting
the quality of housing through progressive building codes and programs for healthy living.
Forecasting future housing needs for specific populations and income ranges is difficult. One method
to arrive at an initial estimate of housing needs is to take the Edmonds’ housing target (2,790) and
apply the countywide breakdown for each income group. Data shown in table 10 is based on
household income from the 5-year American Community Survey in 2007-2011. The City of Edmonds
will take into account local population and housing characteristics when determining housing targets.
Table 10: Projected Housing Need, City of Edmonds
Jurisdiction
Total Housing
Unit Growth
Need
Under 30%
AMI Housing
Need (11% of
Total)
30-50% AMI
Housing
Need (11% of
Total)
50-80% AMI
Housing Need
(17% of Total)
Edmonds 2,790 307 307 474
Source: Snohomish County Tomorrow, “Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County,” 2014
Packet Page 129 of 256
Housing 167
As previously mentioned, the median age of Edmonds residents is the highest in Snohomish County
at 46.3 years compared to 37.1 years countywide (2010 Census). In 2011, the Baby Boom generation
started turning 65 years of age and represents what demographers project as the fastest growing age
group over the next 20 years. An older population will require specific needs if they are to “age in
place.” In Edmonds, the effects may be particularly strong. Developing healthy, walkable
communities with nearby retail and transit options will help an aging population retain their
independence.
Assisted Housing Availability: In 1995 there were two HUD-assisted developments providing a total
of 87 units for low-income, senior residents within the City of Edmonds. This was more than doubled
by a new development approved in 2004 for an additional 94 units. Since 1995, 167 assisted care
living units have been built in the downtown area, specifically targeting senior housing needs.
Although the Housing Authority of Snohomish County did not operate any public housing units
within Edmonds prior to 1995, it purchased an existing housing complex totaling 131 units in 2002.
The Housing Authority continues to administer 124 Section 8 rent supplement certificates and
vouchers within the city. In addition, there are currently 36 adult family homes providing shelter for
187 residents. This is a substantial increase from the 13 adult family homes providing shelter for 66
residents in 1995.
Growth Management goals and policies contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan encourage
availability of resources to insure basic community services and ample provisions made for necessary
open space, parks and other recreation facilities; preservation of light (including direct sunlight),
privacy, views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, and freedom from air, water, noise
and visual pollution; and a balanced mixture of income and age groups. Land Use policies encourage
strategic planning for development and redevelopment that achieve a balanced and coordinated
approach to economic development, housing and cultural goals; and encourage a more active and
vital setting for new businesses supported by nearby residents, downtown commercial activity and
visitors throughout the area. Policies encourage identification and maintenance of significant public
and private social areas, cultural facilities, and scenic areas; and maintenance and preservation of
historical sites. Commercial Land Use policies encourage identification and reservation of sufficient
sites suited for a variety of commercial uses.
Housing goals are directed toward providing housing opportunities for all segments of the city's
households; supporting existing neighborhoods and preserving/rehabilitating the housing stock;
maintaining high quality residential environments; and providing assistance to developing housing
for special needs populations, such as senior, disabled and low-income households. These goals are
supported by policies which include review of regulatory impediments to control of housing costs and
affirmative measures to support construction of housing for protected groups; encouraging expansion
of the types of housing available, including accessory dwelling units, mixed use, and multi-family
housing; flexible development standards; and review and revision of development regulations,
including assessing the feasibility of establishing time limits for permitting; consolidating permitting;
implementing administrative permitting procedures and instituting preapplication hearings.
Other measures to mitigate potential housing impacts include determining whether any public land is
available which could be used to help meet affordable housing targets; development of a strategy
plan, including target number of units and development timeline; technical assistance programs or
information to encourage housing rehabilitation and development of accessory units; and a strong
monitoring program with mid-course correction features (see the discussion below).
Strategies to Promote Affordable Housing.
Packet Page 130 of 256
168 Housing
In order to respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City
has undertaken a series of reasonable measures to accomplish this goal, consistent with the policy
direction indicated by Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Countywide Planning Policies. These
reasonable measures or strategies to promote affordable housing include:
Land Use Strategies
• Upzoning. The City upzoned a substantial area of previously large lot (12,000+ square
foot lots) zoning to ensure that densities can be obtained of at least 4.0 dwelling units per
acre. The City has also approved changes to its zoning codes to encourage more
multifamilydevelopment in mixed use areas, especially in corridors served by transit (e.g.
Highway 99 along the Swift high capacity transit corridor).
• Density Bonus. A targeted density bonus is offered for the provision of low income
senior housing in the City. Parking requirements are also reduced for this housing type,
making the density obtainable at lower site development cost.
• Cluster Subdivisions. This is accomplished in the city through the use of PRDs. In
Edmonds, a PRD is defined as an alternate form of subdivision, thereby encouraging its
use as a normal form of development. In addition, PRDs follow essentially the same
approval process as that of a subdivision.
• Planned Residential Development (PRD). The City has refined and broadened the
applicability of its PRD regulations. PRDs can still be used to encourage the protection of
environmentally sensitive lands; however, PRDs can also be used to encourage infill
development and flexible housing types.
• Infill Development. The City’s principal policy direction is aimed at encouraging infill
development consistent with its neighborhoods and community character. This overall
plan direction has been termed “designed infill” and can be seen in the City’s emphasis
and continued work on streamlining permitting, revising codes to provide more flexible
standards, and improving its design guidelines. The City is also continuing the process of
developing new codes supporting mixed use development in key locations supported by
transit and linked to nearby neighborhoods.
• Conversion/Adaptive Reuse. The City has established a historic preservation program
intended to support the preservation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings, especially
in the historic downtown center. Part of the direction of the plans and regulations for the
Downtown/Waterfront area is to provide more flexible standards that can help businesses
move into older buildings and adapt old homes to commercial or mixed use spaces. An
example is the ability of buildings on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places to get an
exception for parking for projects that retain the historic character of the site.
Administrative Procedures
• Streamlined approval processing. The City generally uses either a Hearing Examiner or
staff to review and issue discretionary land use decisions, thereby reducing permitting
timelines and providing an increased degree of certainty to the process. The City
continues to provide and improve on an extensive array of information forms and
handouts explaining its permitting processes and standards. The City has also established
Packet Page 131 of 256
Housing 169
standards for permit review times, tailored to the type and complexity of the project. For
example, the mean processing time for processing land use permits in 2011 was 36 days,
less than one-third of the 120-day standard encouraged by the State’s Regulatory Reform
act.
• Use-by-Right. The City has been actively reviewing its schedule of uses and how they are
divided between uses that are permitted outright vs. permitted by some form of
conditional use. The City has expanded this effort to include providing clearer standards,
allowing more approvals to be referred to staff instead of the Hearing Examiner hearing
process.
• Impact mitigation payment deferral. The City’s traffic mitigation impact fees are assessed
at the time of development permit application, but are not collected until just prior to
occupancy. This provides predictability while also minimizing “carrying costs” of
financing.
Development Standards
• Front yard or side yard setback requirements. Some of the City’s zones have no front or
side yard setback requirements, such as in the downtown mixed use zones. In single
family zones, average front setbacks can be used to reduce otherwise required front yard
setbacks.
• Zero lot line. This type of development pattern can be achieved using the City’s PRD
process, which is implemented as an alternative form of subdivision.
• Street design and construction. Edmonds has adopted a ‘complete streets’ policy. Street
standards are reviewed and updated periodically, taking advantage of new technologies
whenever possible. A comprehensive review and update of the city’s codes is underway.
• Alleys. The City has an extensive system of alleys in the downtown area and makes use
of these in both mixed use and residential developments.
• Off-street parking requirements. The City has substantially revised its off-street parking
standards, reducing the parking ratios required for multi family development and in some
mixed use areas, thereby reducing housing costs and encouraging more housing in areas
that are walkable or served by transit.
• Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Stormwater systems. Innovative techniques are explored and
utilized in both new systems and in the maintenance of existing infrastructure.
Low-Cost Housing Types
• Accessory dwellings. The City substantially revised its accessory dwelling regulations,
providing clearer standards and streamlining their approval as a standard option for any
single family lot.
• Mixed-use development. The City has strengthened and expanded its mixed use
development approach. Downtown mixed use development no longer has a density cap,
and this – combined other regulatory changes – has resulted in residential floor space
Packet Page 132 of 256
170 Housing
drawing even with commercial floor space in new developments in the downtown area.
Mixed use zoning was applied in the Westgate Corridor, and revised mixed use
development regulations have been updated and intensified in the Hospital/Highway 99
Activity Center as well as along Highway 99.
• Mobile/manufactured housing. The City’s regulation of manufactured homes has been
revised to more broadly permit this type of housing in single family zones.
Housing Production & Preservation Programs
• Housing preservation. The City provides strict enforcement of its building codes,
intended to protect the quality and safety of housing. The City has also instituted a
historic preservation program intended to provide incentives to rehabilitate and restore
commercial, mixed use, and residential buildings in the community.
• Public housing authority / Public and nonprofit housing developers. The City supports the
Housing Authority of Snohomish County, as evidenced by its approval of the conversion
of housing units to Housing Authority ownership. Edmonds is also a participant in the
Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) in Snohomish County, which is a consortium
of cities pooling resources to collectively address housing needs in the county.
• For-profit housing builders and developers. Many of the strategies outlined above are
aimed at the for-profit building market. The City’s budget restrictions limit its ability to
directly participate in the construction or provision of affordable housing, so it has chosen
instead to affect the cost of housing by reducing government regulation, providing
flexible development standards, and otherwise minimize housing costs that can be passed
on to prospective owners or renters. However, as noted above, the City is also a
participant in the Alliance for Housing Affordability in Snohomish County, which is
intended to collaborate on housing strategies countywide.
Housing Financing Strategies
• State / Federal resources. The City supports the use of State and Federal resources to
promote affordable housing through its participation in the Snohomish County
Consortium and the Community Development Block Grant program. These are important
inter-jurisdictional efforts to address countywide needs.
Jurisdictions face challenges in meeting affordability goals or significantly reducing the current
affordable housing deficit. Edmonds is a mature community with limited opportunities for new
development and has limited powers and resources to produce subsidized housing on its own.
However, it is hoped that Edmonds’ participation in joint planning and coordination initiatives, such
as the Alliance for Affordable Housing will point the way to new housing initiatives in the future.
GOALS AND POLICIES
Housing Goal A. Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the
community regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances.
Packet Page 133 of 256
Housing 171
Housing Goal B. Ensure that past attitudes do not establish a precedent for future decisions
pertaining to public accommodation and fair housing.
Housing Goal C. Provide for special needs populations – such as low income, disabled, or senior
residents – to have a decent home in a heathly and suitable living, including through the following
policies:
C.1. Encourage the utilization of the housing resources of the state or federal
government to assist in providing adequate housing opportunities for special needs
populations, such as low income, disabled, or senior residents.
C.2. Work with the Alliance for Housing Affordability and other agencies to:
C.2.a. Provide current information on housing resources;
C.2.b. Determine the programs which will work best for the community.
C.2.c. Conduct periodic assessments of the housing requirements of special
needs populations to ensure that reasonable opportunities exist for all
forms of individual and group housing within the community.
Housing Goal D. Maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and
rehabilitation of the older housing stock in the community through the following policies:
D.1. Support programs that offer assistance to households in need, such as units with
low income or senior householders.
D.2. Enforce building codes, as appropriate, to conserve healthy neighborhoods and
encourage rehabilitation of housing that show signs of deterioration.
D.3. Ensure that an adequate supply of housing exists to accommodate all households
that are displaced as a result of any community action.
D.4. Evaluate City ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation
of older buildings.
Housing Goal E. Provide opportunities for affordable housing (subsidized, if need be) for special
needs populations, such as disadvantaged, disabled, low income, and senior residents through the
following policies:
E.1. Aggressively support efforts to fund the construction of housing for seniors, low
income, and other special needs populations, while recognizing that units should
blend into the neighborhood and/or be designed to be an asset to the area and create
pride for inhabitants.
E.2. Aim for city zoning regulations to expand, not limit, housing opportunities for all
special needs populations.
Housing Goal F. Provide for a variety of housing that respects the established character of the
community.
Packet Page 134 of 256
172 Housing
F.1. Expand and promote a variety of housing opportunities by establishing land use
patterns that provide a mixture of housing types and densities.
F.1.a. Provide for mixed use, multi family and single family housing that is
targeted and located according to the land use patterns established in the
land use element.
F.2. Encourage infill development that is consistent with or enhances the character of
the surrounding neighborhood.
F.2.a. Within single family neighborhoods, encourage infill development by
considering innovative single family development patterns such as
Planned Residential Developments (PRDs).
F.2.b. Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods to address
the needs of extended families and encourages housing affordability.
F.2.c. Provide flexible development standards for infill development, such as
non-conforming lots, when development in these situations will be
consistent with the character of the neighborhood and with the goal to
provide affordable single family housing.
Housing Goal G. Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers consistent with the land use,
transportation, and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
G.1. Promote development within Activity Centers that supports the centers’ economic
activities and transit service.
G.1.a. Provide for mixed use development within Activity Centers.
G.1.b. Plan for housing that is located with easy access to transit and economic
activities that provide jobs and shopping opportunities.
G.1.c. Consider adjusting parking standards for housing within Activity Centers
to provide incentives for lower-cost housing when justified by available
transit service.
Housing Goal H. Review and monitor permitting processes and regulatory systems to assure that
they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to the extent possible, adding to the cost of housing.
H.1. Provide the maximum amount of efficiency and predictability in government
permitting processes.
H.1.a. Consider a wide variety of measures to achieve predictability and
efficiency, including such ideas as:
..establishing time limits for permitting processes;
..developing consolidated permitting and appeals processes;
..implementing administrative permitting procedures;
..using pre-application processes to highlight problems early.
H.2. Establish monitoring programs for permitting and regulatory processes.
H.2.a. Monitoring programs should review the types and effectiveness of
government regulations and incentives, in order to assess whether they
Packet Page 135 of 256
Housing 173
are meeting their intended purpose or need to be adjusted to meet new
challenges.
Housing Goal I. Increase affordable housing opportunities in with programs that seek to achieve
other community goals as well.
I.1. Research housing affordability and program options that address Comprehensive
Plan goals and objectives.
I.2. Develop housing programs to encourage housing opportunities that build on
linkages between housing and other, complementary Comprehensive Plan goals.
I.2.a. New programs that address housing affordability should be coordinated
with programs that address development of the arts, encourage historic
preservation, promote the continued development of Activity Centers
and transit-friendly development, and that encourage economic
development.
Housing Goal J. Recognize that in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an
important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible with its
surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated, as appropriate, into the policies and
regulations governing the location and design of housing.
J.1. Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while
ensuring compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood.
J.1.a. Incentives and programs for historic preservation and neighborhood
conservation should be researched and established to continue the
character of Edmonds’ residential and mixed use neighborhoods.
J.1.b. Design guidelines for housing should be developed to ensure
compatibility of housing with adjacent land uses.
Implementation Actions and Performance Measures.
Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address
high priority sustainability goals. Performance measures are specific, meaningful, and easily
obtainable items that can be reported on an annual basis. These are intended to help assess progress
toward achieving the goals and policy direction of this element. The actions and measures identified
here are specifically called out as being important, but are not intended to be the only actions or
measures that may be used by the City.
Action 1: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting
diverse housing needs.
Performance Measure 1: Report the number of residential units permitted each year with a goal of
reaching 21,168 units by 2035, or approximately 112 additional dwelling units per year.
Packet Page 136 of 256
APPROVED NOVEMBER 12TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 22, 2014
Chair Cloutier called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Todd Cloutier, Chair
Neil Tibbott, Vice Chair
Bill Ellis
Philip Lovell
Daniel Robles
Careen Rubenkonig
Valerie Stewart
Mike Nelson
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. CHAIR CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIERCTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Cloutier referred the Board to the written Director’s Report. Mr. Chave noted that, since the report was written, the
City Council agreed to support the Draft Shoreline Master Update, and the document will come back for final approval on
their consent agenda in mid November. He also noted that the City Council is scheduled to potentially take action on the
Westgate Plan at their November 3rd meeting.
DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
Mr. Chave referred to the draft Comprehensive Plan Housing Element update. He advised that the majority of the proposed
changes in the first half of the element are intended to update data and integrate material from the Alliance for Affordable
Housing (AAH) report that was previously presented to the Board. The “Strategies” section (starting on Page 11) was also
updated to incorporate a goal found in the Countywide Planning Policies that talks about jurisdictions having strategies in
place to address housing affordability. In addition, formatting changes have been proposed in the “Goals and Policies”
section (beginning on Page 14) to make the format of the Housing Element consistent with the format used for the adopted
Packet Page 137 of 256
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 22, 2014 Page 2
Sustainability Element and other recently updated elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The goal is for all of the various
elements of the Comprehensive Plan to have consistent formatting.
Mr. Chave advised that a new “Implementation Actions and Performance Measures” section was added at the end of the
Housing Element. He reminded the Board of the City’s goal to incorporate implementation actions and at least one
performance measure into each of the Comprehensive Plan Elements as they are updated. Staff is proposing the following
Implementation Action and Performance Measure:
Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting
diverse housing needs.
Performance Measure: Number of residential units permitted each year.
Mr. Chave explained that the City does not currently have a strategy for increasing the supply of affordable housing.
However, having a strategy in place is one of the policies established by the Snohomish County Alliance for Housing
Affordability (AHA). The goal is to collaborate countywide to address the problem, and the idea of the proposed action is to
work with the AHA to figure out the best way to implement the policy locally. This could entail zoning requirements and/or
incentives for affordable housing that are triggered at a certain level of development. However, Edmonds does not have an
administrative mechanism in place to enforce, monitor and track affordable housing, and City staff does not have the ability
to take on this task. Working collaboratively with the AHA could provide an opportunity for the City to contract with the
Housing Authority of Snohomish County for this service. In addition to discussing zoning requirements and incentives for
affordable housing, the strategy could address other housing options, as well as an implementation mechanism.
Mr. Chave said the proposed performance measure would involve identifying the number of residential units permitted each
year. This can be easily tracked and would enable the City to identify whether or not it is providing more housing in general.
The intent of the performance measure is to identify increases in the housing supply, but also potentially measure the City’s
success at meeting other housing goals such as maintaining capacity for growth within the City.
Mr. Chave invited the Board to provide feedback regarding the Housing Element so the document can be updated before the
Board’s next meeting in November. He noted that both he and Ms. Hope worked on the draft language, with assistance from
a planner working on contract with the City.
Board Member Lovell observed that the changes proposed in the first several pages represent a statistical update. It basically
compares statistics from last time the element was updated with the new data, but it does not provide a lot of commentary as
to whether the City is better or worse off than it was ten years ago. For example, the average household size in Edmonds
decreased by nearly half a person and is at near 2 people per household. He asked if this is considered better or worse. Mr.
Chave said some of the statistical changes are consistent with national trends, and others are county and local trends. It is
difficult to place a judgment on the changes in data, most of which came from the AAH report.
Board Member Lovell referred to Page 8, which makes references to the need for local jurisdictions to have a Consolidated
Housing and Community Development Plan in place in order to obtain federal funding from the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). He asked if Edmonds has a program in place or encourages the use HUD funding for
projects in the City. Mr. Chave answered that the City does not have its own HUD program. However, they are currently in
a consortium with Snohomish County, which serves as the agency for community development programs for federal HUD
grants. The Snohomish County agency drafted and regularly updates the required Consolidated Housing and Community
Development Plan; and every few years, there is a competitive process for funding allocations to jurisdictions in Snohomish
County. With the exception of Everett, all other jurisdictions in the County participate in the joint program.
Board Member Lovell requested information about the process for applying for HUD grant funding for projects in Edmonds.
Mr. Chave explained that, typically, HUD projects are aimed at low income people; and as a general rule, the City does not
have the right demographics to qualify for HUD funding. However, there are opportunities for block grants to fund social
projects, many related to seniors. For example, the City successfully obtained block grant funding for American’s with
Disabilities Act (ADA) sidewalk ramps. Many of the social programs are based in Everett, but they serve a countywide
population.
Packet Page 138 of 256
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 22, 2014 Page 3
Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes how the Housing Element is laid out, and it is clear that the City is endeavoring to
meet the local, regional and federal goals for housing. She asked if it would be possible to provide a chart to illustrate the
relationship between the City’s goals and the regional and federal goals. She expressed her belief that the regional and
federal goals tend to shape the local policy. Mr. Chave agreed to consider the best way to provide this information.
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that various agencies and groups influence local policies on housing, and the
vocabularies used can be very different. She said she would like the terms to be as consistent as possible throughout the
Housing Element. For example, the various documents use terms such as “disabled”, “physically challenged” and
“handicapped person.” She noted that “handicapped person” is no longer an acceptable term and should be thrown out, and
the Housing Element should consistently use either “physically challenged” or “disabled.” Also, there is reference to both
“seniors” and “elderly,” and she would prefer to use the term “seniors.” She questioned what population is being referenced
by the term “special needs population.” Also, the terms “economically challenged” versus “low income.” She noted that a
person may not be considered “low-income,” but could be “economically challenged” when it comes to finding affordable
housing in Edmonds. Lastly, she asked where “mentally and emotionally challenged” individuals would fit into the housing
goals. She questioned if “housing for the disadvantaged” would cover all of the situations listed above. She summarized that
the terms need to be clarified and consistent so it is clear who the City is trying to assist in meeting housing goals.
Board Member Stewart commended staff for preparing updates to a comprehensive document. She referred to the third
bulleted item from the bottom on Page 9, which talks about increasing the incidence of home ownership. She said she
assumes this strategy is aimed at people who want to own their homes. However, the City must recognize that the current
trend is towards rentals. She expressed the need for the strategy to address all housing needs, both owned and rental. Mr.
Chave said the language was taken directly from the AHA Report.
Board Member Stewart referred to the “Housing Needs” section, starting on Page 10. She noted that the need to provide
healthy indoor air quality is missing from the language. This can be addressed through the types of materials used in
construction and by making sure no mold is occurring in the units. She suggested that the need for healthy living should be
addressed somewhere in the Housing Element.
Board Member Stewart said she supports using the concept of “designed infill,” but she questioned how the City would
ensure that infill development is designed in a way that is consistent with existing development in the neighborhood. She
suggested that perhaps the City could require design review for infill residential development. She observed that a lot of
indiscriminate infill development has occurred that is neither consistent nor in character with the surrounding neighborhood.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports the concept of requiring design review for infill residential development to
ensure that it is keeping with the neighborhood character, but design review should not apply citywide to all single-family
residential development.
Mr. Chave explained that “designed infill” was intended to be a general conceptual term used when the Comprehensive Plan
was initially adopted in 1995 as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA). The principle intent of the “designed
infill” concept is to encourage development to occur within the overall fabric of the City without doing wholesale zoning
changes that allow multi-family residential uses to creep into single-family residential neighborhoods. It was never the intent
of the City’s decision makers to require design review for single-family residential homes, and it is not currently required.
The City regulates single-family residential development via the bulk standards, and it would be very difficult to come up
with design guidelines that identify the character of each neighborhood on a street-by-street basis. It is very rare to find a
citywide single-family design review requirement in any jurisdiction. However, there are exemptions for “historic districts”
and “planned developments” where the City has an opportunity to require a specific style and/or design.
Chair Cloutier agreed that “designed infill” is a conceptual term. The idea was rather than expanding the commercial and/or
multi-family residential boundaries, the City would target the codes to encourage infill development in residential zones and
higher-density redevelopment on Highway 99, at Westgate, etc. Regardless of what alternatives the City chooses to use, it
must accommodate its allocated growth targets. He noted that jurisdictions in the region have used a number of approaches
for accomplishing this goal such as skinny houses and cottage homes that intensify the density in residential zones. Many
also have liberal requirements for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that essentially allow a second dwelling on a residential
lot.
Packet Page 139 of 256
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 22, 2014 Page 4
Board Member Stewart questioned why the City should have a policy for encouraging infill development to be consistent
with the neighborhood and community character if there is no way to implement it. She commented that developers tend to
do whatever they can to build the largest structures possible on the available land, and they do not necessarily care if it is
keeping with the neighborhood character. Mr. Chave said developers are not necessarily more likely to build homes that do
not fit in with the neighborhood. The City has received permit applications from individual property owners who are
proposing crazy designs that do not fit in.
Board Member Stewart pointed out that the proposed amendments would eliminate the concept of “cottage housing”
altogether. She felt it should be put back in, perhaps on Page 15 under the goals and policies, as a potential affordable
housing option, especially for people who own larger lots and do not want to subdivide and redevelop their property with
larger homes. She said she would like to build a cottage on her property, but it is not allowed under the current code. Mr.
Chave explained that, at the time the current Housing Element was written, the City was exploring the option of cottage
housing. The intent of this section is to summarize what the City is actually doing and what has been done. Because the City
is no longer exploring the concept, staff is recommending that it be removed. However, the goals and policies section could
specifically mention the need to explore the concept of cottage housing.
Vice Chair Tibbott suggested that Board Member Stewart is describing an ADU or guest house as opposed to a cottage
development. Mr. Chave pointed out that the current code only allows guest houses on large lot, and accessory dwelling
units must be attached to the main structure. However, the City of Seattle allows detached ADU’s that are set back on the lot
so the property appears as a single-family residence home from the street. Board Member Stewart expressed her desire for
the City to reevaluate its ADU regulations and make them more flexible.
Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that cottage housing projects typically consist of a number of units on a few acres of land.
Board Member Stewart agreed and suggested this is an attractive option for the City to consider because it allows developers
to position buildings in a way that protects the existing natural features. Mr. Chave recalled that some jurisdictions have
experimented with the concept in recent years, but many no longer allow the use. In Edmonds, the Council specifically
decided against implementing the option. However, the City offers the “planned residential development” concept as a way
to cluster lots and homes to protect existing natural features without increasing the overall density of the property. Cottage
housing, on the other hand, allows smaller homes on smaller lots, and a density bonus is traditionally offered. If the Board
wants to study the concept further, they could add it into the policy section of the element.
Board Member Lovell noted that the second bulleted item under “Low–Cost Housing Types” on Page 13 indicates that
mixed-use zoning has been applied in the Westgate Corridor. Other places in the Housing Element mentions pursuing
revised development regulations to allow more opportunities for affordable housing at Westgate. The language is written in
the context that the Westgate Plan has already been adopted, but that is not yet the case. Mr. Chave said the language
anticipates that the plan will be adopted, and it is scheduled on the City Council’s extended agenda for action on November
3rd. The Housing Element will not be adopted until sometime after that, and any changes related to the City Council’s action
can be incorporated.
Board Member Rubenkonig referred to Item 1.2 on Page 17 and suggested that the specific “activity centers” be called out in
the paragraph. Mr. Chave noted that the activity centers are called out specifically in the Land-Use Element, with a large
section talking about each one. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan Land-Use Map specifically identifies the activity
centers (Medical Use/Highway 99 and Downtown). The intent is that a person would read the Comprehensive Plan as an
entire document, and it would be a little out of context if you look only at the Housing Element. Board Member Rubenkonig
suggested it would help the reader understand the areas referred to as “activity centers” if they are specifically identified in
the Housing Element. Mr. Chave suggested that a footnote could be added to direct the reader to the Land-Use Element for
more information about activity centers.
Board Member Robles commented that Board Member Stewart’s comments about ADUs and cottage housing fall within the
spectrum of affordable housing options that seem to be under discussed. Allowing detached cottages or ADUs could benefit
groups such as seniors who want to stay in their homes, seniors who need assisted living, children who return to live at home,
etc. He expressed his belief that residential property owners should be given the same wherewithal as developers to develop
their properties. He suggested that the ADU concept needs more than a mere mention; perhaps it could be an additional
category. Mr. Chave referred to the proposed Implementation Action on Page 17, which calls for developing a strategy for
Packet Page 140 of 256
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 22, 2014 Page 5
increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. ADUs could be part of this discussion as one
option for providing affordable housing. Ideally, a housing strategy will identify a number of different options, and not just
low-income housing.
Board Member Lovell observed that, for years, it has been discussed that Edmonds is largely a residential community that is
95% built out. However, he questioned if the community, and particularly the City Council, would support a policy for
allowing people to hold on to their lots by building ADUs or cottages or subdividing their properties into two lots for smaller
units. He did not believe this concept would be supported, given the current demographics of the City, which is largely
single-family residential homeowners with higher incomes. Board Member Stewart pointed out that older residents cannot
always afford to keep their larger homes, and allowing ADUs and cottages could be a desirable option for these people.
Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that, as per the AHA Report, the City of Edmonds (36%) has a higher percentage of people
living in multi-family housing compared to the rest of the County (31%). However, the report does not provide a breakdown
of how much of the 36% is owner-occupied. Conceivably, as they continue on the path they are on where they are looking at
available land as the place for multi-family housing, the ratio would continue to increase in the City. This causes him to
wonder what direction they may be setting in motion by not considering ADUs and other options for infill development in the
single-family zones.
Chair Cloutier referred to the proposed implementation action and performance measure. Given that the City has a goal to
increase affordable housing and their action is to increase the supply of affordable housing, the performance measure should
relate specific to affordable housing rather than just number of units. For example, the performance measure could be
attached to the census or when information from other agencies is available. Mr. Chave advised that the goal is to report on
the performance measures on a yearly basis, and it would not be possible to obtain information related specifically to
affordable housing that frequently. Chair Cloutier suggested that perhaps there are other, indirect indicators that would help
the City find the needed information.
Chair Cloutier commented that using a performance measure that is based on the number of units would be good, but the
Board discussed trying to identify the total number of bedrooms available in the City. He acknowledged that this data would
be difficult to find, but it is available through the census and in the County’s records. Board Member Lovell expressed his
belief that it would be virtually impossible to establish how many bedrooms there are in the City. It would also be difficult to
equate the number of bedrooms with the number of people. No matter how many bedrooms are identified on a title, many of
them are overbooked and others are not used at all. Chair Cloutier commented that the performance measure is supposed to
be related to how much available room the City has, and identifying the number of units is less direct. If the number doesn’t
tell you what you need to know, there is no purpose for the measurement. He suggested that both numbers should be
considered.
Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that the proposed performance measure would measure new housing stock, and not existing
bedrooms or units. Information regarding the number of bedrooms could be found on the construction plans. Mr. Chave
agreed that the City could measure the number of new bedrooms that are constructed in the City. Chair Cloutier felt it would
be appropriate to measure both the number of new units and the number of new bedrooms each year to evaluate whether or
not the City is moving in a healthy direction.
Mr. Chave questioned whether tracking the number of additional bedrooms would really tell the City anything. The better
data would be changes in the number of units and the size of the average household. While the number of new units could be
collected on an annual basis, the data related to the average household size would only be available every few years. Based
on building permit data, the City can report details about the types of housing constructed, the number of bedrooms, and the
value of the units.
Board Member Lovell stressed that the most visible strategy the City needs to achieve is creating more opportunities for
multi-family residential development in the City. If they are doing that, the City, as a whole, is striving to accommodate
increased population. He cautioned against adding affordable housing, size of the units and number of bedrooms to the
equation, since these are unpredictable and outside of the City’s control. He said he supports the vernacular that says the City
is doing certain things to increase opportunities for mixed-use development and encourage multi-family housing. They need
to continue strategies that support this goal.
Packet Page 141 of 256
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 22, 2014 Page 6
Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the section related to “Assisted Housing Availability” on Page 10, and suggested that
this paragraph is very important to address when considering potential performance measures. She questioned if the Housing
Element, as currently proposed, would adequately encourage more senior housing, more assisted living, and more affordable
housing. Mr. Chave clarified that assisted care is very different than assisted housing. This paragraph is intended to report
information on different kinds of housing that receives some type of assistance, whether through Section 8 or another type of
subsidy. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the language adequately addressees whether the City needs more assisted
housing capacity. Mr. Chave referred to the note just prior to the paragraph, which indicates that City staff is in the process
of updating this section. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the language should clarify how assisted housing fits
into the diagram of affordable housing. Board Member Lovell said Board Member Rubenkonig appears to be asking if this
section would include a provision for the City to pursue more government assisted housing. Board Member Rubenkonig
agreed that she is interested in increasing the capacity over what currently exists. Mr. Chave said the AHA Report identifies
the City’s current needs, and this data can be added to the section. However, it is important to note that the City does not
have control over HUD, but it can provide information about what currently exists and what the needs are. The future
housing strategy could discuss how the City could work with HUD to address its needs.
Board Member Robles commented that if the City were to take a lot of possibilities out of the extra legal sector so someone
could report current situations such as accessory dwelling units, mother-in-law apartments, etc. as permitted uses without the
threat of being shut down, the City would be able to obtain a more accurate count of the number of bedrooms and units
available in the City.
INTRODUCTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND LAND USE ELEMENT
Mr. Chave advised that the General Introduction and Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan are being presented to
the Board for feedback, but changes have not yet been drafted. At this time, the City’s contract planner, Mr. Shipley, is
pouring through reports and finding data to update the Land Use Element, which contains a substantial amount of
background information and numbers.
Mr. Chave reviewed that, as part of the update, the City is required to update its capacity numbers. The overall planned
capacity they must address moves from 2025 in the current plan to 2035 in the new plan. Snohomish County, working with
jurisdictions through Snohomish County Tomorrow, has established initial planning targets for this time frame, including
both population and employment. Consistent with the Puget Sound Regional Council’s 2040 Plan, the population numbers
must be translated into number of units. The City must match up the existing capacity with existing zoning to figure out if
they have enough future capacity to meet the population and job targets of if zoning changes are needed.
Mr. Chave commented that the City is in a better place than many jurisdictions. For example, a tremendous amount of
growth is targeted in Everett, and they have nowhere near the capacity. Lynnwood and Bothell are having capacity issues, as
well. Because the City of Edmonds is designated as a “large city,” its growth projections are more moderate, but they do
have to analyze and show their work in terms of capacity. While Highway 99 may have more capacity than has been
considered in the past, not a lot of residential development has occurred in the area to justify the higher capacity number. If
the City indicates that more population going forward will be handled along Highway 99, it must provide justification for this
increased capacity. One example is the Planning Board’s recent recommendation on zoning changes along Highway 99 to
open more of the General Commercial zoning for residential development. This could be a significant factor when looking at
capacity.
Mr. Chave advised that, from a quick preliminary look, it appears the capacity numbers the County counts in the Buildable
Lands Report consider that residential development would occur at Harbor Square. Because the City Council took action that
eliminated this potential, the City’s capacity to accommodate growth decreased. By the same token, the Building Lands
report did not take into account additional capacity for residential uses at Westgate. He summarized that he does not believe
that wholesale policy changes will be needed at this point. The updates to the Land Use Element will be primarily related to
updating the data.
Board Member Lovell said it appears the intent behind updating the Land Use element is to investigate and measure the
City’s projections into the future to ascertain whether it can meet the GMA goals. Mr. Chave concurred. If the City finds
Packet Page 142 of 256
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 8
Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports the motion, but questioned if it would be appropriate to also include the
changes she requested earlier regarding the project descriptions. Mr. English indicated that staff would add additional
information to the project descriptions wherever possible, recognizing that some of the details are not yet available. The
Board agreed that the issue did not need to be addressed in the motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Ms. Hope said the purpose of tonight’s discussion is to talk more about the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, and
specifically the Housing Element. She recalled that, at the Board’s last meeting, staff reported that the City is partnering with
other cities and Snohomish County in the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), a group formed from Snohomish
County Tomorrow. Through this effort, an affordable housing profile has been created for each of the participating
jurisdictions. She introduced Kristina Gallant, Analyst, Alliance for Housing Affordability, who was present to walk the
Board through the findings of the Edmonds’ Affordable Housing Profile.
Kristina Gallant, Analyst, Alliance for Housing Affordability, provided a brief overview of the AHA, which consists of 13
cities in Snohomish County, Snohomish County, and the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. She reminded the Board
that there is a Growth Management Act (GMA) mandate for cities to plan for housing to accommodate all segments of the
population. The purpose of the AHA is to allow participating cities to share resources and get the help they need in a cost-
effective way. The AHA was formed in November of 2013, and since that time she has been working to assess existing
conditions and prepare profiles for each of the participating cities.
Ms. Gallant explained that, when talking about affordable housing, people typically think about heavily subsidized housing,
which is an important element, but not everything. If housing is affordable, but not appropriate for the community, it does
not work. It is important to address the different needs and preferences of each community such as adequacy of safety,
proximity to transportation, jobs, and affordability.
Ms. Gallant provided an overview of the Edmonds Housing Profile, particularly emphasizing the following key elements:
There are currently 39,950 residents living in the City, and Edmonds is projected to accommodate nearly 5,000 new
residents by 2035. This is a dramatic change over the stable population levels the City has seen over the past 20
years. The increase would require 2,790 additional housing units, which is near the City’s estimated capacity of
2,646 units.
The 2012 population includes 17,396 households with an average household size of 2.3 people compared to 2.6 for
the County. The average family size in Edmonds is 2.8 compared to 3.12 for the County.
Housing in Edmonds is mostly comprised of single-family homes, but most growth will need to be accommodated
in multi-family development. About 31% of Edmonds residents and 33% of County residents currently live in
rented homes, and the proportion of homeowners remained relatively constant between 2000 and 2010, increasing
slightly from 68% to 69%. About 36% of Edmonds population lives in multi-family homes compared with 31%
across the County.
The City’s median income ($73,072) is relative high compared to other cities in the region, and home values are
general higher, as well.
A significant number of the homes in Edmonds were built between 1950 and 1959 compared to the County overall.
Currently, 38% of Edmonds households are estimated to be cost burdened, which means they spend more than 30%
of their monthly income on rent or home ownership costs.
According to 2013 Dupre and Scott data, Edmonds rental housing market is generally affordable to households
earning at least 80% Average Median Income (AMI). Households earning between 50% and 80% AMI will find the
majority of homes smaller than five bedrooms affordable, as well.
A limited supply of small units is affordable to those earning between 30 and 50% AMI, but market rents are not
affordable to extremely low-income households.
Packet Page 143 of 256
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 9
A lack of affordable rental housing for extremely low and very low-income households is very common. Some kind
of financial assistance is typically required in order to operate a property and keep rents low enough in today’s
housing market.
Assistance can be ongoing to make up the difference between 30% of tenants’ income and market rents. Other
options include capital funding that reduces the overall project costs (considered workforce housing), making it
possible to keep rent levels down.
Edmonds currently has 303 units of subsidized housing with a range of rental assistance sources. It also has 201
units of workforce housing distributed across three properties. These units received some form of one-time subsidy
(i.e. low-income tax credit, grants, etc.) in exchange for rent restrictions, but they do not involve rental assistance
and rents are not tailored to individual household incomes. In addition, the City has 16 units of transitional housing.
However, with 5,322 households earning less than 50% AMI, there is still a need to increase the supply.
In 2012, the median sale price for a single-family home in Edmonds was $339,975. This would require an annual
income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City’s median income ($73,072).
Affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated at this time, but average assessed values suggest that home prices are
rising as the housing market continues to recover following the recession, and affordability is retreating.
Edmonds has the third highest average assessed 2014 home values in Snohomish County ($351,100), which
represents a 10.7% increase over 2013.
Edmonds has one of the highest percentages of elderly residents among Snohomish County cities; 25% of the
households have individuals 65 years or older. In addition to having generally lower incomes, seniors will require
different types of housing and services if they desire to age in place.
Ms. Gallant advised that the City has already taken a number of steps to promote affordable housing, and there is a range of
options it can consider to respond to the continuing needs of the community. In addition to promoting, adjusting and
providing incentives for housing policies where appropriate, the City should continue to monitor and evaluate its policies to
make sure there are no unnecessary regulatory barriers to affordable housing. The Housing Profile is meant to be a resource
for the City as it moves through its Comprehensive Plan update. The AHA’s goal is to continue to work with participating
cities from a technical advisory standpoint, researching what is needed to help establish goals for housing, identifying
potential methods for implementation, and identifying funding sources that are available to support infrastructure related to
housing.
Board Member Robles asked what can be done to promote house-sharing opportunities in Edmonds. He suggested that this
opportunity is not always about making money; it is about people trying to hang on to their homes. Ms. Gallant replied that
many cities have ordinances in place that allow accessory dwelling units, but they vary significantly. It is important for cities
to review their provisions for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) to make sure they are easy to understand and that the
requirements and processes are not so onerous as to be cost prohibitive. The AHA’s goal is to work with participating cities
to develop better policies and make sure there are no unnecessary barriers. At the same time, they must be cognizant to
balance the new policies with the other needs of the City.
Board Member Robles pointed out that ADUs were not addressed in the AHA’s report. Ms. Gallant agreed that data related
to accessory dwelling units was not included in her report, and she would definitely like to research this opportunity more.
Board Member Stewart complimented Ms. Gallant for a great report and a good start for metrics. However, she agreed with
Board Member Rubenkonig that, at some point, the City must include ADUs in the metrics. She also suggested the City
consider expanding its ADU provisions as a type of housing option to help the City meet its growth targets. She expressed
concern that the numbers provided in the report is based on the number of bedrooms and size is not factored into the
variables. Ms. Gallant agreed that the data is not as detailed as it could be, but it is intended to start the conversation.
Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the AHA has studied whether or not it is less costly to develop high-density residential versus
low-density residential units. He said it would be helpful to have information about the average cost of producing the various
types of affordable housing compared to the outcome. Ms. Gallant said she would like to study per unit development costs at
some point in the future. In general, the housing costs are reflected through the rent and home sales, and there is a lot of
debate about whether high density produces more affordable units. Increasing the supply over the long term is what needs to
happen. When there is a choke point in the supply, housing prices will rise.
Packet Page 144 of 256
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 10
Vice Chair Tibbott recalled the Board’s previous discussion point to the fact that just building small units does not mean they
will be affordable. He noted that using lower cost finishes is one approach that can reduce the cost of the units, but he
questioned if it would be possible to produce enough of these units in Edmonds to make a difference. He asked if any
thought has been given to lowering development costs or allowing different types of development so developers can produce
more affordable units. For example, the City could consider reduced permit fees or tax incentives. Ms. Gallant said the
AHA is interested in researching this issue.
Ms. Hope explained that the next step is for staff to review the current Housing Element and come back to the Board with a
revised version that incorporates the new information contained in the Housing Profile and other census data. She explained
that one aspect of updating each Comprehensive Plan element is to identify a performance measure that will be meaningful,
yet easy for the City to replicate with data annually. In addition, an action (implementation) step may be identified to help
achieve progress on certain issues. Staff is recommending that the performance measure for the Housing Element be a set
number of residential units permitted each year. The exact number could be filled in later in the year when data is ready.
This information would enable the City track its progress in allowing housing that will accommodate expected growth. Staff
is also proposing that the action item for the Housing Element be to develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of
affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. She explained that there are many different ways to address
affordability and several tools can be utilized to encourage affordable housing while looking at the overall housing needs.
The proposed performance measure can get at the overall supply of housing units in Edmonds, but it is more difficult to
measure affordability.
Chair Cloutier expressed his belief that counting the number of bedrooms is the appropriate approach since the goal is to
provide “beds for the heads.” The City could easily collect data for this metric. However, the affordability aspect is more
market driven than the City can control and it would be very difficult to measure. Board Member Robles suggested that one
option would be to offer a micro-tax incentive to encourage developers to report correctly.
Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the Growth Management Act deals with affordable housing as more population
based. However, population translates into housing, and that is why it is a good proxy for population. You have to have
housing for people to live in. The Growth Management does not define affordable housing, and it does not provide specific
policies on how to encourage more affordable housing.
Board Member Robles asked if the City can track ADUs. Ms. Hope answered affirmatively, as long as they have a valid
permit. However, it would be very difficult to track rooms for rent.
Board Member Stewart asked if a three-bedroom unit would be considered three units. Ms. Hope answered that it would
only count as one unit. Board Member Stewart pointed out that household size has decreased in Edmonds in recent years, but
the size of the units has increased.
Board Member Lovell recalled that the City has fairly stringent building restrictions with respect to ADUs. If they are
serious about meeting the Growth Management Act (GMA) targets and accommodating an increased population, this issue
will have to be addressed. He noted that the Board has been talking about the growth targets and opportunities for affordable
housing for a number of years, but the City Council has a history of not taking action to accommodate mixed-use
development with higher densities. While it is fine for the Board to discuss the issue again and put forth plans, he is not
convinced anything will change in the near future unless the makeup of the City Council changes dramatically.
Mr. Chave clarified that ADUs are not considered multi-family apartments or second dwellings. The definition remains
single-family. Extended family members and/or parents could live in a permitted ADU, as long as all the occupants in both
units are related. It gets more complicated when unrelated people live in the units. The definition of "family" says that up to
five unrelated people can live on a single-family property. For example, a family of four could rent to a single person or a
family of three could rent to two people. In addition, ADUs must be attached to the main unit, and there are size limitations.
There has been a steady uptick of ADUs in the City, particularly involving large, older homes. He noted that no permit
would be required to rent a room to someone. The key distinction is whether or not there are separate living units.
Ms. Hope added that the City has made the choice not to count ADUs as separate housing units. She suggested this is a
lesser issue compared to the policies that guide the use. Mr. Chave explained that if ADUs are counted as separate units,
Packet Page 145 of 256
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 11
requirements such as impact fees would come into plan. Chair Cloutier suggested that ADUs could be counted differently for
the metrics versus the code.
The Board expressed general support for the proposed Housing Element performance measure and action step. However,
they expressed a desire to forward with developing a strategy for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting
diverse housing needs sooner than 2019 if resources are available.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes the term “housing options” rather than “lower-income housing.” She wants to
know that people can remain in the community of Edmonds at different stages of their lives. Although sometimes they can
afford larger houses, they need smaller units.
Board Member Stewart expressed concern that the older homes in Edmonds are being torn down and redeveloped into units
that are three times more costly than the prior home. She would like the City to offer incentives to property owners to retain
their existing homes. The City must offer a variety of housing options to serve the citizens. Ms. Hope agreed and said the
issue would be addressed as part of the strategy.
Board Member Lovell referred to an article in THE SEATTLE TIMES titled, “Builders Say Land in Short Supply.” This
article applies directly to the Board’s current discussion. Until cities find ways to accommodate more multi-family housing,
the demand will remain high in the future, and the prices will continue to increase. Right now, the City does not have a great
track record for accommodating this kind of development. The City is already built out, and the only way to accommodate
more people is to allow more density.
PRESENTATION ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES
Ms. Hope and Mr. Chave made a brief presentation on development projects and activities. Ms. Hope noted that the same
presentation was made to the City Council on September 23rd. The purpose of the presentation is to recreate the story of
everything that has happened related to development in the City over the past several years, particularly highlighting the
present activity. She advised that the Development Services Department is comprised of the Engineering Division, the
Building Division and the Planning Division. Its goal is to provide assistance to people interested in improving or developing
their property via discussions, data, handouts, permitting and inspections. She reported that she has received number
compliments on the quality of service that staff provides. While not everyone is always happy, staff tries hard to be
courteous, respectful and helpful. Staff members work in different ways to serve the community. For example:
Field inspections are performed by building inspectors, engineering inspectors and planning staff. Not counting site
visits, more than 6,000 inspections have been performed over the last year.
Staff members meet together in teams to coordinate on different projects and activities.
Staff also meets with applicants and developers to provide pre-application assistance for development projects that
are being planned.
Ms. Hope advised that the Planning Division is responsible for a number of different types of permits, including short plats,
variances, and other permits related to planning and land-use codes. A number of different planning permits were approved
over the past seven months. She provided a graph to illustrate the number of permits and revenue generated from January
through August in 2001 through 2014. She noted that the data reflects the economic climate over the last several years.
There as a big jump in development permits in 2006 through 2008, but permitting dropped off quickly after that. As the
economy improves, the City is once again seeing an increase in the number of permits.
Ms. Hope said the Building Division is responsible for certain types of permits, as well, some of which are reviewed by the
Planning and Engineering Divisions, as well. These projects added $38,000 to the City of Edmonds in terms of values and
buildings. It is anticipated that upcoming key projects will double that number in just a few months. Mr. Chave noted that
Swedish Edmonds Hospital’s project was not factored into those numbers yet, and it should add $28,000 in value.
Ms. Hope reported that the City issued significantly more solar panel permits in 2014 compared to 2012 and 2013, and most
of those permits were applied for on line. Mr. Chave advised that the City’s Building Official has been working with other
cities, including Seattle, Bellevue and Ellensburg, on a program to encourage solar installations using grant funding from the
Packet Page 146 of 256
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 10, 2014 Page 5
as it relates to climate change. Board Member Stewart pointed out that certain species of native plants should be present
in riparian areas along streams. Native plants have been bread in the community and support wildlife. If the City simply
requires natural vegetation rather than native vegetation, the ecosystem could be altered. Mr. Chave agreed but pointed
out that the concern is addressed in Item A.2, which calls for the retention and enhancement of wildlife habitat areas.
Introducing native species might not accomplish this goal. He said he views “natural” as a much broader term that will
allow the City to implement appropriate development codes to protect and enhance wildlife habitat areas. The Board
agreed not to change “natural” to “native.”
Board Member Ellis asked how the City would determine which species are native and which are not. Board Member
Stewart answered that there are lists available to make this determination. Non-native species are usually invasive and
compete against the native species. Board Member Ellis stressed the importance of educating property owners about the
difference between non-native and native species. Mr. Chave said most people know the obvious invasive, non-native
species, and there are lists available from various agencies.
Environmental Quality Goal A on Page 30. Board Member Stewart advised that Ms. Tipton suggested that Item A.1
be amended to include private residential properties as potential wildlife habitat in addition to urban forests, wetlands,
etc. Board Member Stewart pointed out that wildlife habitat is not just in public spaces, but in private yards, too. The
City’s goal should be to increase wildlife habitat. Once again, Mr. Chave pointed out that the word “city” is not
capitalized, which means it is intended to apply to all wildlife habitat areas and not just those owned by the City. He
advised that urban forests include more private lands than public lands, and the goal is intended to be very broad to
encompass all wildlife habitat areas. The Board agreed that the goal was broad enough as written.
DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Mr. Chave referred to the current Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit 1) and invited the Board members to
share their comments and questions in preparation for their September 24th review and discussion on the draft Housing
Element update. He reported that the Executive Director of the Housing Coalition of Snohomish County and Everett made a
presentation (Exhibit 2) to the City Council on August 26th about countywide housing needs, especially related to
affordability and the region’s growing population. The presentation also included important countywide data related to the
need for affordable housing.
Mr. Chave also reported that the City is partnering with other cities and Snohomish County in the Alliance for Housing
Affordability (AHA), a group formed from Snohomish County Tomorrow. Through this effort, an affordable housing profile
has been created for each of the participating jurisdictions. A copy of the draft Edmonds Affordable Housing Profile was
attached to the Staff Report as Exhibit 3. The final profile should be very similar and ready for the Board’s September 24th
meeting, and Kristina Gallant from the AHA will be present at that time to walk the Board through the details. He explained
that the profile contains extensive data on housing in Edmonds and looks at housing affordability mostly from the perspective
of the entire metropolitan region, including Seattle. On the other hand, Exhibit 2 from the Housing Coalition looks at
housing affordability based just on the Snohomish County area, not including Seattle. Both documents will be useful when
updating the Housing Element.
Board Member Stewart asked when the Board would discuss potential performance measures and action items. Mr. Chave
said this topic would be part of the Board’s September 24th discussion. He encouraged Board Members to forward their
thoughts and additional comments to him via email.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Chave reviewed that in addition to the Board’s continued discussion of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, the
September 24th meeting would include a public hearing on proposed updates to the Capital Facilities and Capital
Improvement Plans for 2015-2020. The Development Services Director would also provide an overview of the development
projects and activities that are currently taking place in the City, as well as data and statistics on how the City is doing in
terms of valuation of construction. He said he anticipates the Board will need one more opportunity to discuss the
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element on October 8th. The October 8th agenda would also include a discussion on the
Packet Page 147 of 256
DRAFT
Subject to December 10th Approval
RECOMMENDATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
Mr. Chave referred the Board to Attachment 1, which is a clean version of the draft Housing Element, and Attachment 2,
which shows the edits from the current adopted Housing Element. He explained that Attachment 1 is similar to the draft
language the Board reviewed at their October 22nd meeting. However, some changes were made to update the background
data, update material on housing needs, update terminology, and include broader housing issues. In addition, the section on
the County’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy was eliminated as it is out of date and not useable in its current
form.
Mr. Chave invited the Board Members to identify additional changes and then forward the document to the City Council for
review. He noted that the Board would conduct a public hearing later in the process when they have completed their work on
all of the Comprehensive Plan elements. As the Board completes its review of each of the elements, they will be presented to
the City Council for review.
Board Member Nelson referred to the performance measure on Page 18 and pointed out a possible discrepancy in the number
of additional dwelling units each year. Mr. Chave explained that the City’s goal is to add approximately 2,800 units by 2035,
which equates to 112 units per year between 2010 and 2035. Rather than identifying the total number of dwelling units in the
City by 2035, Board Member Nelson suggested the performance measure could be to identify the number of additional 2,790
dwelling units by 2035. Mr. Chave agreed that change would be appropriate, but the Development Services Director has
recommended that the performance measure also identify the number of additional units per year. Future reports will provide
numbers for both the yearly growth and the cumulative growth since 2010.
Board Member Robles said he supports the changes that have been made to clarify that accessory structures and other forms
of infill can be utilized to meet the needs of families. He specifically referred to Housing Goal F.2.b, which calls for
providing accessory housing in single-family neighborhoods that address the needs of extended families and encourage
housing affordability. This type of housing is particularly suitable for seniors, children, and co-living situations.
Board Member Stewart asked if co-housing development would be consistent with the language proposed in the Housing
Element related to multi-family housing. Board Member Robles commented that there are co-housing developments in other
cities where kitchens and bathrooms are shared, and there are proponents of this type of housing in Edmonds, as well. He
noted that the housing type is not specifically called out in the Housing Element, but it does not appear the proposed language
would preclude it, either. Board Member Lovell pointed out the legal problems associated with co-housing development in
Seattle and cautioned against venturing into this realm in Edmonds at this time. His understanding is that the proposed
language in the Housing Element encourages more multi-family residential units. He said it will be interesting to see what
development occurs now that the City Council has approved the Planning Board’s recommendation to allow residential
development on all floors in the General Commercial (CG) and CG2 zones on Highway 99. He suggested that more
investigation is needed before the Board pushes forward a co-housing concept in Edmonds. Board Member Robles agreed
that co-housing should not be specifically mentioned in the Housing Element, but the language should not set up barriers that
impede the use, either.
Vice Chair Tibbott questioned how co-housing development would be different than single-family development that has two
master bedrooms. In either case, bedrooms can be rented out or co-owned and residents share kitchen facilities.
Chair Cloutier asked staff to respond to whether or not the proposed Housing Element would create a barrier to co-housing
opportunities. Mr. Chave answered that the proposed Housing Element is very open ended and encompasses a variety of
housing options. It will take some effort to conduct research and match the needs of the residents versus what the codes do
and do not allow and decide what direction the City wants to go. Chair Cloutier summarized that there is nothing in the
Packet Page 148 of 256
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
November 12, 2014 Page 2
Housing Element about specific kinds of development. The Housing Element clearly indicates that infill development is
desirable and this policy will guide the Board and City Council when updating the Development Code in the future.
Board Member Lovell said he reviewed the red-lined draft of the Housing Element (Attachment 2) and observed that instead
of trying to develop one program to deal with affordable housing, the City will work in partnership with the Alliance for
Affordable Housing (AAH) to help achieve its goals. The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan provides specific
policies for the various activity centers in the City, and the activity centers will become the nucleus for various forms of
development in the future. In addition, the Housing Element encourages more multi-family residential housing in the City.
Board Member Stewart said she would like the word “healthy” to be inserted into the Housing Element wherever possible.
For example, Housing Goal C could be changed by inserting the words “healthy and” before “suitable.” She expressed her
belief that it is important to emphasize the need for healthy living environments for all people. This would be consistent with
language found in the Sustainability Element.
Board Member Rubenkonig indicated support for the draft Housing Element (Attachment 1). However, she questioned if the
phrases “accessory dwelling unit,” “accessory uses,” and “accessory units” are interchangeable or should one term be used
throughout the document. She specifically referred to Housing Goal F.2.b, which calls for providing accessory housing in
single-family neighborhoods. Mr. Chave explained that “accessory dwelling unit” refers to a specific use, whereas
“accessory uses” refers to a classification of uses. The two are not interchangeable in this section. The term “accessory uses”
is broader and includes more than just accessory dwelling units. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would prefer to use
one phrase that everyone can catch on to, and hear the same thing in their minds. She asked staff to consider whether all
three terms are necessary or if one term should be used consistently throughout the document.
Chair Cloutier referred to the proposed implementation action and performance measure. Rather than simply measuring the
number of new units permitted each year, he questioned if it would be possible to obtain a meaningful estimate of the number
of units that are affordable. Mr. Chave pointed out that the implementation action calls for developing a strategy to measure
both the supply of affordable housing and the City’s progress in meeting diverse housing needs. He explained that
“affordability” is very difficult to assess and measure on an annual basis because data is scarce. In addition, affordable
housing can change significantly, and this change can have little to do with housing stock and more to do with the economy
in general. However, he agreed that “affordability” is not something the City should lose track of.
Vice Chair Tibbott observed that the entire introductory section is a study of the affordability of housing in Edmonds, so
there are clearly metrics available to measure affordable housing. He agreed that the City should have some method in place
to keep track of affordability. Board Member Lovell suggested that this issue could be addressed in the future in
collaboration with the AAH. Chair Cloutier suggested that perhaps there could be two implementation actions: one related
to a strategy for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs and another related to a
metric for accessing affordability. He acknowledged that the Board is not the correct body for solving this issue, but an
action item that says someone needs to solve the issue would be appropriate.
Mr. Chave explained that affordable housing data is generally easier to come by as you scale up. Regional data is easy to
obtain, but as you drill down to local data, it becomes more difficult to assess. Typically local jurisdictions must deal with
multiple sets of data and figure out how it all fits together.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AS DRAFTED. CHAIR CLOUTIER
SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GENERAL INTRODUCTION SECTION AND LAND
USE ELEMENT
Mr. Chave reviewed the attachments provided in the Staff Report as follows: Attachment 1 is the proposed Land Use
Element Outline, Attachment 2 provides examples of what the updated data will look like, Attachment 3 is the current
adopted Land Use Element, and Attachment 4 is Board Member Stewart’s comments dated October 30, 2014. He explained
that the intent of the Land Use Element is to update planning data and improve the overall organization of the element to be
Packet Page 149 of 256
22,000 by 2035
Affordable Housing in Snohomish
County
Presentation to Edmonds City Council
August 26, 2014
Packet Page 150 of 256
What is “Affordable”
No more that 30% of income goes to the cost of
housing, including utilities.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: In general, housing for which the occupant(s)
is/are paying no more than 30 percent of his or her income for gross
housing costs, including utilities. Please note that some jurisdictions
may define affordable housing based on other, locally determined
criteria, and that this definition is intended solely as an approximate
guideline or general rule of thumb.1
1http://www.huduser.org/portal/glossary/glossary_a.html
Packet Page 151 of 256
Calculations for Affordable Housing
Snohomish County Area Median Income for all households = $67,777 (2011)1
Affordable housing for households at 100 percent AMI
$67,777 x 100 percent = $67,777 / 12 months = $5648/mo. x 30 percent =
$1694/mo. max. housing cost
Affordable housing for households at 80 percent AMI
$67,777 x 80 percent = $54,221 / 12 months = $4518/mo. x 30 percent =
$1356/mo. max. housing cost
Affordable Housing for households at 50 percent AMI:
$67,777 x 50 percent = $33,888 / 12 months = $2824/mo. x 30 percent =
$847/mo. max. housing cost
Affordable Housing for households at 30 percent AMI:
$67,777 x 30 percent = $20,333 / 12 months = $1694/mo. x 30 percent =
$508/mo. max. housing cost
1 Source: American Communities Survey, 2011 5-year estimate
Packet Page 152 of 256
Income in Snohomish County
Income Levels1 Income Ranges Percent of Total
Households
30% and below AMI (extremely low income) $20,333 and less 11%
30-50% of AMI (very low income) $20,334 - $33,888 11%
50-80% of AMI (low income) $33,889 - $54,221 17%
Snohomish County Household Area Median Income (AMI) = $67,777
Estimate Percent
Total households 17,396 100.00%
Less than $10,000 671 3.90%
$10,000 to $14,999 488 2.80%
$15,000 to $24,999 1,326 7.60%
$25,000 to $34,999 1,419 8.20%
Total 3,904 22.50%
Subject Edmonds, Washington 2
INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2012 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)
1 Source: ACS, 2011 5-year estimates
2 Source: ACS, 2012 5-year estimates
Packet Page 153 of 256
22,000 by 2035
Housing needed by 2035 to accommodate
projected population growth
Jurisdiction Total Housing
Need (Units)
30% and less AMI
Housing Need
(11% of Total)
30-50% AMI
Housing Need
(11% of Total)
51-80% AMI
Housing Need
(17% of Total)
Sno Co1 97,128 10,684 10,684 16,512
Edmonds1 2,790 307 307 474
1 Source: 2013 Housing Characteristics & Needs in Snohomish County Report, p59
Packet Page 154 of 256
22,000 by 2035
How Do We Get There?
Reduce Poverty
•Better Education Outcomes for More Students
•Job Training
•Address Income Inequality
Packet Page 155 of 256
22,000 by 2035
How Do We Get There
Create More Affordable Housing (New/Acquisition & Rehab)
•2015 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Updates
- Strategies, goals & policies to meet housing need at
30% AMI, 30-50% AMI & 50-80% AMI
•Incentivize Affordable Housing
- Density bonuses, multi-family tax exemption, fee
waivers, reduced parking requirements, etc
•Support Policies that Increase Public Funding
- WA State Housing Trust Fund
- Local Housing Levy
Packet Page 156 of 256
22,000 by 2035
Why?
•Quality of Life in Our Communities
- Our communities and neighborhoods are better when our people are
housed
- Higher density, attractive and affordable housing promotes community
•Economic Advantages
- Each dollar of public funds invested in affordable housing generally
attracts/leverages an additional 5 dollars of private equity
- People who are in housing they can afford have more disposable
income to spend in the community
- Safe, stable, affordable housing for special needs populations
significantly reduces contact with and cost to cities public safety
services and emergency medical services
•Common Humanity
Packet Page 157 of 256
Pay Attention to Design!
Packet Page 158 of 256
Pay Attention to Design
Mercy Housing’s Eliza McCabe Townhomes, Tacoma, WA
Packet Page 159 of 256
Pay Attention to Design
King County Housing Authority, Greenbridge Apts, Seattle
Artspace Everett Lofts, Everett, WA
Packet Page 160 of 256
Resources
•Alliance for Housing Affordability Kristina Gallant, kgallant@hasco.org, 425-293-
0601
•Municipal Research Services Council,
http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/planning/housing/ords.aspx#waivers
•Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County Report,
http://snohomishcountywa.gov/1585/Housing-Characteristics-Needs-Report
•Snohomish County Demographic Trends & Initial Growth Targets,
http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/PDS/Planning_Commis
ion/DemogTrends_PlngCommission_Feb-25-2014.pdf
•Housing Consortium of Everett & Snohomish County
Mark Smith, Executive Director
425-339-1015
mark@housingsnohomish.org
Packet Page 161 of 256
ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
UPDATE
Edmonds City Council
October 28, 2012
Packet Page 162 of 256
WHAT’S THE ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY?
•Background and purpose of the Alliance
•Work to date
•Where we’re headed
Packet Page 163 of 256
HOUSING
CONSIDERATIONS
•Diverse needs and preferences
•Adequacy and safety
•Proximity to transportation, jobs, and
services
•Affordability
Packet Page 164 of 256
HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVELS
•2013 HUD regional median household
income: $86,700
•Extremely Low: <30% AMI
•Very Low: 30-50% AMI
•Low: 50-80% AMI
•Moderate: 80-95% AMI
•Middle: 95-120% AMI
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Extremely
Low
Very Low Low Moderate Middle Above
Middle
Share of Population by HUD Income Level, City of
Edmonds and Snohomish County
Edmonds Snohomish County
Packet Page 165 of 256
INCOME LEVELS IN CONTEXT
Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Middle
Food Service Employees -
Line Cooks, Servers,
Dishwashers, Baristas
Teachers Social Workers Accountants Engineers
Medical & Dental Assistants,
Home Health Aides
Real Estate Agents &
Brokers
Police Officers &
Firefighters Veterinarians
Security Guards Graphic Designers Architects Web Developers
Manicurists Hairdressers EMTs & Paramedics Electricians Construction Managers
Childcare Workers Receptionists Paralegals Registered Nurses Physical Therapists
Minimum Wage Workers Construction Workers Car Mechanics Loan Officers Financial Advisors
Edmonds households in these income brackets:
82% cost burdened 63% cost burdened 47% cost burdened 38% cost burdened 22% cost burdened
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013; US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013
Income-Based Rent Below-Market Rent Home Ownership
Packet Page 166 of 256
WHAT’S IN THE PROFILE?
•Project status
•Intended use and audience
•Content and presentation
•Data sources
Packet Page 167 of 256
POPULATION AND COMMUNITY
•Stable population with modest growth
•Accommodating growth may still be a
challenge
•Median income - $73,072
•Smaller households compared to
County overall
•69% of households 1-2 people vs. 58% across
County
•48% of renters and 34% of
homeowners are cost burdened
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000, 2010
2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
0 - 4
5 - 9
10 - 14
15 - 19
20 - 24
25 - 29
30 - 34
35 - 39
40 - 44
45 - 49
50 - 54
55 - 59
60 - 64
65 - 69
70 - 74
75 - 79
80 - 84
85 - 89
90 +
Population Pyramid, City of Edmonds, 2000-2010
2010
2000
Male Female
Packet Page 168 of 256
COST BURDEN BY INCOME LEVEL AND HOUSING TENURE,
CITY OF EDMONDS
Renters Owners All
Extremely Low 79% 82% 82%
Very Low 81% 86% 63%
Low 29% 46% 47%
Moderate 13% 43% 38%
Middle 7% 26% 22%
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Packet Page 169 of 256
EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
•Construction concentrated between
1950 and 1989
•67% single family homes
•29% renter-occupied
•42% of homes two bedrooms or less
in size, 69% of households one to two
people
•2012 median home sale - $339,975
•Third highest average assessed value
in 2014 - $351,100
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Before 1949 1950-1969 1970-1989 1990 or Later
Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds
& Snohomish County
Edmonds Snohomish County
Packet Page 170 of 256
ASSISTED HOUSING
•Subsidized Units:
•178 Section 8 Vouchers
•125 other units in 6 properties
•Workforce Units:
•201 units in 3 properties
Assisted Units by Income Level
Served
Extremely Low 233
Very Low 79
Low 194
Moderate 2
Total 508
Packet Page 171 of 256
MARKET RENTAL HOUSING
Source: Dupre and Scott, 2013
Average Rent
(With Utilities)
Minimum Income Required
Minimum
Hourly Wage
Minimum
Annual Wage
1 Bed $887 $17.06 $35,480
2 Bed $1,097 $21.10 $43,880
3 Bed $1,679 $32.29 $67,160
4 Bed $2,545 $48.94 $101,800
5 Bed $2,844 $54.69 $113,760
1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4+ Bed
Extremely
Low No No No No
Very Low Limited Limited Limited No
Low Yes Yes Limited No
Moderate Yes Yes Yes Limited
Middle Yes Yes Yes Yes
Packet Page 172 of 256
WHAT CAN WE DO?
•How the planning process can support affordability
•Working with community partners
•Exploring new opportunities with AHA
Packet Page 173 of 256
THANK YOU
Packet Page 174 of 256
Housing Profile: City of Edmonds
Prepared for the City of Edmonds by the Alliance for Housing
Affordability
September 2014
Packet Page 175 of 256
ii
Special thanks to all those who helped prepare this profile.
City Staff
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Alliance for Housing Affordability
Kristina Gallant, Analyst
Will Hallett, Intern
Acknowledgements
Packet Page 176 of 256
iii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................iv
Maps, Figures, & Tables .................................................vi
Introduction .............................................................................1
Population and Community ............................................3
Household Profiles ..................................................................................................................8
Existing Housing Stock .................................................10
Subsidized Housing Units: Permanent and Transitional .............................................12
Market Rate Rental Units ....................................................................................................13
Shared Rental Housing ........................................................................................................19
Current Challenges and Opportunities ..........................20
Maps ........................................................................................22
Appendices ....................................................................40
Appendix A: Multifamily Rent Comparables by Property, City of Edmonds ..........A1
Appendix B: Assisted Units by Property, City of Edmonds ...........................................B1
Appendix C: Single Family Home Sales, 2008-2012 ......................................................C1
Appendix D: Affordable Housing Glossary ....................................................................D1
Appendix E: Methodology .....................................................................................................1
Packet Page 177 of 256
iv
Executive Summary
The City of Edmonds, currently home to 39,950 people, is projected to accommodate nearly
6,000 new residents by 2035, a dramatic change over the stable population levels the City has
seen over the past 20 years. Housing in Edmonds is currently mostly comprised of single family
homes, though most growth will have to be accommodated in multifamily development. The
City’s median income is relatively high compared to other cities in the region, and home values
are generally higher as well. Homes are diverse in age, with a significant concentration of units
built between 1950 and 1969 compared to the County overall.
Currently 38% of Edmonds households are estimated to be cost burdened, meaning they
spend more than 30% of their monthly income on rent or home ownership costs. Cost burden
is most challenging for those with low incomes, who may have to sacrifice other essential
needs in order to afford housing. Other summary statistics are provided below.
A Summary of Edmonds by the Numbers
Population 39,9501
Total Households 17,3962
Family Households with Minor Children 4,054
Cost-Burdened Households 6,672
Households Earning Less than 50% AMI3 5,322
2012 Median Household Income $73,072
Minimum Income to Afford 2012 Median Home $75,796
Total Homes 17,396
Single Family Homes, Detached or Attached 12,047
Multifamily Homes 6,471
Manufactured Homes 126
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers 195
Other Dedicated Subsidized Housing 125
Transitional Units 16
Workforce Housing 201
Total Renter-Occupied Housing Units 5,000
Total Owner-Occupied Housing Units 12,396
Total Vacant Housing Units 1,248
According to 2013 Dupre and Scott data, Edmonds’ rental housing market is generally
affordable to households earning at least 80% AMI. Households earning between 50 and
80% AMI will find the majority of homes smaller than five bedrooms affordable as well. A
limited supply of small units is affordable to those earning between 30 and 50% AMI (Area
Median Income for the Seattle-Bellevue metropolitan area). Market rents are not affordable to
Packet Page 178 of 256
v
extremely low income households, though this is expected in almost all communities, due to the costs
of construction and maintenance in today’s market. Shared rental housing is a market rate option for
these households, though it will not work for all households, particularly families.
A lack of affordable rental housing for extremely low and very low income households is very
common, as, in order to operate a property and keep rents low enough in today’s housing market,
some kind of financial assistance is typically required. Assistance can be ongoing, to make up the
difference between 30% of tenants’ income and market rents (such units are considered ‘subsidized’
in this report), or be provided as capital funding, reducing overall project costs and making it possible
to keep rent levels down (considered ‘workforce’ units). Edmonds currently has 320 units of subsidized
housing and 201 units of workforce housing. In addition, the City has 16 units of transitional housing.
However, with 5,322 households earning less than 50% AMI, there is still a need to increase this supply.
The City is pursuing a number of strategies to address this challenge.
In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. The estimated
monthly payment for this home would be $1,895, including debt service, insurance, taxes, and utilities.
For a family to afford this payment without being cost burdened, they would require an annual income
of at least $75,796, which is just above the City’s median income.1 Affordability for 2013 cannot be
calculated at this time, but average assessed values suggest that home prices are rising as the housing
market continues to recover following the recession, and affordability is retreating. Edmonds has the
third highest average assessed 2014 home value in Snohomish County behind Woodway and Mukilteo
respectively, at $351,100, which represented a 10.7% increase over 2013. 2
1 Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
2 Snohomish County Assessor, “Snohomish County Assessor’s Annual Report for 2014 Taxes”, 2014.
Packet Page 179 of 256
vi
Maps, Figures, & Tables
Figure 1.1. Total Population, City of Edmonds, 1990-2013 .................................................................................3
Figure 1.2. Population Share by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County ....................4
Table 1.1. Cost Burden by Income and Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County .......5
Figure 1.3. Household Share by Income Level, City of Edmonds and Snohomish County ....................5
Figure 1.4. Estimated Housing & Transportation Costs as a Share of Income, City of Edmonds &
Snohomish County ....................................................................................................................................................................6
Figure 1.5. Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds ..........................................................................7
Figure 2.1. Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County ......................10
Figure 2.2. Units in Structure by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds ............................................................10
Figure 2.3. Net Newly-Permitted Units, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County .....................................11
Figure 2.4. Newly Permitted Units by Type, City of Edmonds ........................................................................11
Table 2.1. Assisted Units by Income Level Served, City of Edmonds ...........................................................12
Table 2.2. Permanent Subsidized Units by Funding Source, City of Edmonds ........................................12
Table 2.3. Workforce Units by Funding Source, City of Edmonds .................................................................13
Table 2.4. Renter-Occupied Units by Rent and Unit Size, City of Edmonds (Without Utilities) ..........14
Table 2.5. Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities) ....................14
Table 2.6. Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds .......................................................15
Table 2.7. Average Rents by Size, SIngle- and Multifamily, City of Edmonds ...........................................15
Table 2.8. Affordable Home Sales by Size, City of Edmonds, 2012 ...............................................................16
Figure 2.5. Home Sale Affordability Gap, 2012, City of Edmonds .................................................................17
Figure 2.6. Home Sale Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds ...............................................................17
Table 2.9. 2012 Affordable Home Sales by Type, City of Edmonds
Table 2.10. Size of Homes Sold by Type, 2012, City of Edmonds...................................................................19
Figure 3.1. Income allocation of projected new housing units, City of Edmonds ..................................20
Map 1.1. Total Population (Block Groups) .............................................................................................................23
Map 1.2. Average Family Size (Block Groups) ......................................................................................................24
Map 1.3. Average Household Size (Block Groups)..............................................................................................25
Map 1.4. Renter-Occupied Housing Units .............................................................................................................26
Map 1.5. Vacant Housing Units (Block Groups) ...................................................................................................27
Map 1.6. Homeowners with Mortgages ................................................................................................................28
Map 1.7. Very Low-Income Households .................................................................................................................29
Map 1.8. Cost-Burdened Renters ..............................................................................................................................30
Map 1.9. Cost-Burdened Owners ..............................................................................................................................31
Map 1.10. Housing & Transportation, Percent of Low HH Income ...............................................................32
Map 2.1. Voucher Location and Transit Access ....................................................................................................33
Map 2.2. Age of Housing Stock .................................................................................................................................34
Map 2.3. Condition of Housing Stock .....................................................................................................................35
Map 2.4. Housing Density ...........................................................................................................................................36
Map 2.7. New Single Family Permits by Census Tract, 2011 ...........................................................................37
Map 2.8. New Multifamily Permits by Census Tract, 2011 ...............................................................................38
Map 2.9. Average Renter Household Size..............................................................................................................39
Table E.1. Maximum Monthly Housing Expense by Household Size, Seattle-Bellevue HMFA 2012 ...1
Packet Page 180 of 256
1
Introduction
In Snohomish County’s Countywide Planning Policies, Housing Goal 5 states that “the cities
and the county shall collaborate to report housing characteristics and needs in a timely
manner for jurisdictions to conduct major comprehensive plan updates and to assess
progress toward achieving CPPs on housing”. Building on the County’s efforts in preparing
the countywide HO-5 Report, this profile furthers this goal by providing detailed, local
information on existing conditions for housing in Edmonds so the City can plan more
effectively to promote affordable housing and collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions. This
profile will present the full spectrum of its subsidized and market rate housing stock.
Permanent settlement in present day Edmonds dates back to 1890, making Edmonds the
oldest incorporated city in Snohomish County. Edmonds was born out of homesteading and
logging operations in the late 1800’s and, through the years, built economic foundations on
a host of platforms including milling, shingle splitting, and manufacturing, among others.
Today, Edmonds has almost 40,000 residents and over 17,000 households. Edmonds’ growth
has been modest in recent years (less than 1% annually), and this trend is expected to
continue. The majority of the City’s neighborhoods are composed of single family homes,
though future growth is likely to follow recent trends emphasizing more multifamily
development. Existing multifamily residential developments are focused on major arterials,
downtown, and near Highway 99. The Downtown/Waterfront and Highway 99 corridor areas
are considered the primary commercial centers of Edmonds, with one smaller but significant
center at Westgate (located at the intersection of Edmonds Way and 100th Avenue West).
Smaller neighborhood commercial centers are located in several neighborhoods, such as Five
Corners, Firdale, and Perrinville.
Several affordable housing-specific terms and concepts will be used throughout the profile.
Income levels will be defined by their share of “Area Median Income”, or AMI. For this report,
median income for the Seattle-Bellevue HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA) will be used
for AMI because it is the measure HUD uses to administer its programs. Housing agencies
typically define income levels as they relate to AMI. These are:
•Extremely Low Income - up to 30% AMI
•Very Low Income - up to 50% AMI
•Low Income - up to 80% AMI
•Moderate Income - up to 95% AMI
•Middle Income - up to 120% AMI
When a household spends more than 30% of their income on housing, it is considered to be
“cost burdened”, and, if lower income, will likely have to sacrifice spending on other essentials
like food and medical care. “Costvburden” is used as a benchmark to evaluate housing
affordability.
Packet Page 181 of 256
2
Packet Page 182 of 256
3
Population and Community
In 2013, Edmonds was home to an estimated 39,950 people, only slightly higher than its 2000
population of 39,544.3 The City’s population has been stable since the mid-1990s, when there
were several large jumps due to annexations in south and southwest Edmonds. The City is
projected to grow at a modest rate moving forward, accommodating an estimated 5,841
additional residents by 2035. This increase would require 2,790 additional housing units,
which is near its estimated capacity of 2,646 additional units. Of the current capacity, the vast
majority is in multifamily properties, with a high portion through redevelopment.4
Figure 1.1. Total Population, City of Edmonds, 1990-2013
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
19
9
0
19
9
1
19
9
2
19
9
3
19
9
4
19
9
5
19
9
6
19
9
7
19
9
8
19
9
9
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2013
The 20125 population includes 17,396 households with an average household size of 2.3
people, compared to 2.6 for the County. Of these, 10,997, or 63%, are family6 households.
Overall, 23.3% of households have children. In Snohomish County overall, 68% of households
are families, and 32.5% of households have children. The average family size in Edmonds is 2.8,
compared to 3.12 for the county. The average Edmonds renter household is smaller than the
average owner household – 2 people per renter household versus 2.4 per owner household.7
The share of foreign born residents in Edmonds is similar to the County overall - 13.9%
3 Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2013
4 Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee, “Housing Characteristics and Needs in
Snohomish County”, 2014
5 2012 data is used as, at time of writing, it is the most recent ACS 5-year data available
6 Based on the US Census Bureau’s definition of family, which “consists of two or more people (one of whom
is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption residing in the same housing unit.”
7 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Packet Page 183 of 256
4
versus 14.1% for the County. The population of foreign born residents who are not U.S. citizens
is lower in Edmonds than the County - 44% of foreign born residents versus 51% of foreign born
County residents. Residents born in Asia constitute 47% of the foreign born Edmonds population
while European residents make up 20% of foreign born residents. 16% of Edmonds residents speak a
language other than English in the home and 6% of residents speak English “less than very well”, both
proportions are lower than the County’s numbers.8
The share of the population living in rented homes is similar to the share Countywide. 31% of
Edmonds residents and 33% of Snohomish County residents currently live in rented homes. As shown
in Figure 1.2, the proportion of homeowners remained relatively constant between 2000 and 2010,
increasing slightly from 68% to about 69%.9 36% of Edmonds’ population lives in multifamily homes,
compared to 31% across the County (renters and owners combined). The City’s vacancy rate is 6.7%
compared to 6.4% for the County as a whole.10
Figure 1.2. Population Share by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000; US Census Bureau, 2010
The 2012 HMFA AMI for Seattle-Bellevue, which is referenced in this report as a standard for AMI, is
$88,000, higher than the County’s overall 2012 median income of $68,338. Edmonds 2012 median
income is higher than the County AMI at $73,072. However, some economic segments of the City’s
population could be at risk of being housing burdened. Compared to HUD HMFA AMI and based on
2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates:
•2,638 households, or 15% of Edmonds’ total, are considered to be extremely low income, earning
less than 30% of area median income (AMI),
•2,684, or 15%, are considered very low income, earning between 30 and 50% of AMI,
•2,604, or 15%, are considered low income, earning between 50 and 80% of AMI, and
•1,773, or 10%, are considered moderate income, earning between 80 and 90% of AMI
8 Ibid.
9 US Census Bureau, 2000; US Census Bureau, 2010
10 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Packet Page 184 of 256
5
A comparison of income distribution in the City and County is presented graphically in Figure 1.3. As
shown, Edmonds has a higher percentage of very low income households and households earning
higher than middle income than the County as a whole, but lower percentages of every other
income group. The combined percentage of extremely low, very low, and low income households is
approximately 46%, compared to about 21% moderate and middle income and 33% above middle
income. Note that these percentages are not adjusted for household size due to data constraints. Here,
a household consisting of two adults with an income level equal to another household consisting
of two adults and three children would
both be placed at the same percentage of
AMI, even though the larger family would
likely be more constrained financially.
HUD’s AMI calculations include ranges for
households sized 1-8 people, and, in this
report, sensitivity for household size is used
wherever possible, as detailed in Appendix
E.
Maps 1.8 and 1.9 show the percentages
of renter and owner households in each
census tract that are cost burdened,
meaning that they spend more than 30%
of their income on housing. Overall, 38% of
households in Edmonds are cost burdened,
renters and owners combined.
Table 1.1 shows the percentage of each
income group that is cost burdened in
Edmonds and Snohomish County by
housing tenure. According to this data,
the City’s renters are all less likely to be cost burdened compared to renters Countywide, except
low income renters. While owners earning less than 50% AMI in the City are more likely to be cost
burdened, this relationship reverses above that income level. For both renters and owners, there is
a significant drop in cost burden above 50% AMI. This table does not address differences in degrees
of cost burden – for example, a household that spends 31% of its income on housing would be
considered cost burdened along with a household that spends 80% of its income on housing.11
Table 1.1. Cost Burden by Income and Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County
Income
Level
Renters Owners All
Edmonds Snohomish
County Edmonds Snohomish
County Edmonds Snohomish
County
Extremely
Low 79%80%82%73%82%78%
Very Low 81%85%86%80%63%64%
Low 29%28%46%72%47%65%
Moderate 13%18%43%48%38%40%
11 Ibid
Figure 1.3. Household Share by Income Level, City of
Edmonds and Snohomish County
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Packet Page 185 of 256
6
Middle 7%5%26%32%22%25%
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 – 2012
HUD’s Location Affordability Index uses a number of variables to estimate the affordability of a
location including both housing and transportation costs. According to the index, a “regional typical
household12” could expect to spend 49% of its income on housing and transportation if renting or
owning in Edmonds. 45% is proposed as a targeted maximum percentage of income to be spent on
housing and transportation combined to be affordable according to HUD standards. A low income
household,13 however, could expend to spend 71% of their income on housing and transportation.
A regional moderate family may have to devote up to 57% of their income on housing and
transportation.14
Housing and transportation affordability estimates for a number of different household types are
presented in Figure 1.4. In general, estimates for Edmonds residents are very close to those for the
County overall. In either case, it is estimated that owners will generally spend more on housing and
transportation than renters, regardless of jurisdiction or household type.
The 2012 unemployment rate was 4.2% in Edmonds, compared to 5.9% for the County. For employed
Edmonds residents, the mean commute time is 27 minutes, compared with 29 for the County. 71%
of City residents drive to work alone compared with 74% of all County workers. The most common
occupations for Edmonds residents are in management, business, science and arts occupations, at
12 Defined as a household with average household size, median income, and average number of commuters in
Seattle-Bellevue HUD HMFA
13 Defined as a household with 3 individuals, one commuter, and income equal to 50% AMI
14 US Department of Housing & Urban Development; Location Affordability Portal, 2013
Figure 1.4. Estimated Housing & Transportation Costs as a Share of Income, City of Edmonds &
Snohomish County
Source: US Dept. of Housing & Urban Development; Location Affordability Portal, 2013
Packet Page 186 of 256
7
49% of the employed population, followed by sales and office occupations, with 25% of the employed
population. The two most dominant industry groups employing City residents are educational
services, healthcare and assistance industries with 23% of workers, and the professional, scientific,
management, administrative and waste industries, with 13% of workers.15
According to the Puget Sound Regional Council, Edmonds is home to 12,449 jobs. The majority of
these jobs are in the services sector, with 8,540 jobs. 4,918 of those jobs are in health care and social
assistance and 1,369 jobs are in the accommodation and food service fields.16
Edmonds has 0.7 jobs for every occupied home compared to 1.2 employed people per home. Even
assuming all of these people only have one job and only local people are employed locally, this means
that a significant portion of the population must commute to work. In actuality, 80% of employed
Edmonds residents work outside the City. More than half of these commuters work outside Snohomish
County, most likely in King County. Across Snohomish County, there are only .9 jobs per occupied
home compared to 1.3 employed people per home.17
The shape of the City’s population pyramid, shown in Figure 1.5, offers additional insight into its
housing needs and how they may be changing. As shown, between 2000 and 2010 the population of
older residents grew and the population of younger residents shrank. As the baby boomer generation
continues to retire, every community will see an increase in the share of elderly people, but in
Edmonds the effects may be particularly strong – the City’s 2012 median age was 46, compared to
15 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
16 Puget Sound Regional Council; Covered Employment Estimates, 2012
17 US Census; American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Puget Sound Regional Council; Covered Employment
Estimates, 2012
Figure 1.5. Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000; US Census Bureau, 2010
Packet Page 187 of 256
8
37 across the County. Out of all age groups, the greatest increases from 2000-2010 was in residents
between the ages of 55 and 65, while the greatest decrease was in residents between 35 and 40. The
number of young children is also decreasing.
Household Profiles
These are the stories of several actual Edmonds households who receive some kind of housing
assistance from the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. All names and many nonessential details
have been changed to respect their privacy.
Beth
Beth lives in a two bedroom apartment in Edmonds with her two children. She works full time at a
grocery store and makes a total annual income of $21,079, or about $1,757 per month. This translates
to an hourly wage just under $11 per hour.
With Assistance
With her voucher administered through the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO), Beth
pays $462 in rent and $163 in utilities for her two bedroom apartment. After rent and utilities are paid,
Beth has $1,132 left over per month to support her family.
Without Assistance
Without a voucher, Beth’s monthly rent obligation would be $1,088, including utilities, more than
60% of her total monthly income. The average rent for a two bedroom unit in Edmonds is $1,066, so
finding a significantly more affordable unit could be challenging. Beth could look for a shared living
arrangement as a cheaper alternative, however, it would be difficult to find a living situation that
would accommodate her and her children. Having two children, downsizing from a two bedroom unit
is not a feasible option either. In order to afford her current apartment, Beth would need to find a job
that pays more than double her current income—about $43,520 a year, or $21 per hour.
Jamie
Jamie is an elderly disabled woman living in a one bedroom apartment in Edmonds. Jamie’s sole
source of income is Social Security payments that provide $8,672 a year, or about $723 a month.
With Assistance
Jamie receives a voucher through HASCO for $550 toward her monthly rent. The market rent for
her one bedroom apartment is $705 per month plus $62 in utilities. After her voucher is applied to
her rent, Jamie pays $155 plus $62 in utilities per month. This leaves Jamie with $506 per month to
support herself.
Without Assistance
The market rent for Jamie’s home is $767 including utilities, more than her monthly income. If
Jamie had to look for an apartment she could afford without a voucher, the most affordable studio
apartment she could expect to find would rent for around $550, including utilities, which would still
be 76% of her income. Without the means to acquire a job or family or friends who could help, Jamie
would have few options without a housing voucher.
Dave
Packet Page 188 of 256
9
Dave and his wife live in a two bedroom apartment in Edmonds. Dave works in a local warehouse
and his wife receives income from Social Security payments due to a disability. Together, they receive
employment and Social Security income totaling $18,044 per year, or $1,504 per month.
With Assistance
With his voucher, Dave and his wife pay $581 in rent plus $193 in utilities per month. This leaves Dave
and his wife with $730 left over for the month.
Without Assistance
If Dave did not receive a Section 8 Voucher, he would have to pay $1,068 per month for rent and
utilities. This would leave the couple with only $436 per month to spend on food and other essentials.
At this rate, Dave would be spending about 70% of his family’s income on rent alone. The average rent
for a two bedroom unit in Edmonds is $1,097, so finding a market rate apartment of the same size but
at a cheaper price than his current apartment could be challenging. At the time of this report, two
bedroom apartments for rent in the area range from $777 to $1,916 per month. If Dave were able to
rent the cheapest two bedroom apartment in Edmonds, without a voucher he and his wife would still
be paying 52% of their monthly income on rent, making them significantly cost burdened. As the most
they could afford with their current income would be $450, there are not even any studio units that
would be affordable.
Packet Page 189 of 256
10
Existing Housing Stock
The City of Edmonds is located in southwest Snohomish County, bounded to the west by the
Puget Sound, east by the cities of Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood, south by King County, and
north by Mukilteo. Edmonds’ primary commercial centers are the Highway 99 corridor and the
Downtown/Waterfront area. The southern portion of the Waterfront area houses a concentration
of businesses as well as the Port of Edmonds, where the Washington State Ferry provides service
to the Kitsap Peninsula. The City’s neighborhoods are mostly composed of single family homes,
which make up 66% of the total housing stock. Multifamily residential developments are
located just south and north of the downtown area. As shown in Figure 2.1, the City has a high
concentration of homes constructed between 1950 and 1969 compared to the County, and
fewer constructed after 1990. 18 The number of units projected to accommodate population
growth over the next 20 years is just over the City’s current capacity. The majority of this potential
will be in multifamily properties, and nearly half of all potential is in redevelopable parcels.19
Figure 2.2 shows the distribution of renters and owners among different types of housing,
with owners in the inner ring and renters in the outer ring. As shown, 85% of homeowners
live in single family homes. While 24% of renters also live in single family homes, the
next largest group of renters, 22% of the total, live in properties with 20 to 49 units.20
Figures 2.3 and 2.4 provide information on newly permitted units in the City in recent years.
Figure 2.3 shows the total number of net newly permitted residential units per year from 2001
to 2012 for both the City and County, with the City on the left axis and the County on the right.
Figure 2.4 shows the share of the City’s new units composed of single- and multifamily units.
18 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
19 Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee, “Housing Characteristics and Needs in
Snohomish County”, 2014
20 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Figure 2.1. Age Distribution of Housing Stock,
City of Edmonds & Snohomish County
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey
2008-2012
Figure 2.2. Units in Structure by
Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds
Source: US Census Bureau; American
Community Survey 2008-2012
Packet Page 190 of 256
11
As shown, newly permitted units peaked in 2004
in the City, just before the County did, and crashed during the recession. While newly-permitted units
began to recover across the County in 2010, as of 2012 Edmonds had not yet begun to recover at
the same pace. As shown in Figure 2.4, newly permitted units in Edmonds since 2001 have primarily
consisted of multifamily units.21
For the purposes of this report, Edmonds’ housing stock is divided into subsidized rental units, workforce
rental units, market rate rental units (both single- and multi-family), and home ownership.
Subsidized rental units are targeted toward households with the lowest incomes, typically less than
30% AMI. Populations targeted for subsidized rental units often include the disabled, elderly, and other
populations living on fixed incomes with special needs. A subsidized property is one that receives
funding, perhaps rental assistance or an operating subsidy, to insure that its residents pay rents that
are affordable for their income level. Some properties only apply their subsidy to select units. It is also
common for subsidized units to be restricted to certain groups like families, the elderly, or homeless.
A subsidized property may have also benefited from workforce-type housing subsidies, and it is also
common for just a portion of a property’s units to receive an ongoing subsidy.
Workforce rental units are targeted to working households that still cannot afford market rents.
Workforce rental units and subsidized rental units are both considered “assisted”, but differ in several
areas. The key difference between subsidized and workforce units is that workforce units have a subsidy
“built in” through the use of special financing methods and other tools, allowing (and typically requiring)
the landlord to charge less for rent. An example of this would be when a private investor benefits from
low income housing tax credits when building a new residential development. In exchange for the tax
credit savings, the property owner would have to restrict a certain number of units to a certain income
level for a certain period of time. When the owner is a for-profit entity, this often means that rents on
restricted units will become market rate units when the period of restriction has ended. While nonprofit
owners may also utilize workforce tools for capital funding, they are more likely to preserve restrictions
21 Puget Sound Regional Council, Residential Building Permit Summaries 2012
Figure 2.4. Newly Permitted Units by Type, City
of Edmonds
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2012
Figure 2.3. Net Newly-Permitted Units, City of
Edmonds & Snohomish County
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council
Packet Page 191 of 256
12
on units longer than required. The distribution of Edmonds’ assisted units by income level served, both
subsidized and workforce, is presented in Table 2.1.
Market rate rental units are the stock of all housing units
available for rent in the open market. These are units that are
privately owned and whose rents are determined by market
supply and demand pressures. A market rate rental unit can
also be a subsidized rental unit, as is the case with the Federal
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. Section 8
vouchers can be used to rent any unit, as detailed below.
Home ownership units include all single family homes for sale
– detached and attached single family homes, condominiums,
and manufactured homes.
Subsidized Housing Units: Permanent and Transitional
Edmonds has 303 units of subsidized housing with a range of rental assistance sources including
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs), HUD Supportive Housing Program, Section 8 Project-
Based Vouchers, and the Sound Families Initiative. As of July 2014, there were 195 HCVs in use in
Edmonds administered by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and the Everett
Housing Authority (EHA).22 All assisted units and buildings are listed in Appendix B. Table 2.2 shows the
distribution of permanent subsidized units by funding source.
Families making up to 50% of AMI are eligible for Section
8 housing vouchers; however, 75% of these vouchers are
limited to those making no more than 30% of AMI. Public
Housing Authorities (PHAs) receive federal funds from
the US Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to administer the HCV program. HUD sets Fair Market
Rents (FMRs) annually and PHAs determine their individual
payment standards (a percentage of FMR) by unit bedroom
size. The tenant identifies a unit, then the PHA inspects the
unit to make sure it meets federal Housing Quality Standards
and determines if the asked rent is reasonable. If the unit
is approved, the tenant pays rent equal to 30-40% of their
income, and the PHA pays the difference directly to the
landlord. While the voucher amount is set up so that a family does not need to spend more than 30%
of their income on housing, including an allowance for utilities, a family may choose to spend up to
40% of their income on housing. This happens most often when the family chooses a home that is
larger than the size approved for their voucher. The two PHAs that administer the HCV program in
Snohomish County are HASCO and the Everett Housing Authority (EHA). Vouchers issued by both
PHAs can be used in Edmonds.
Because the number of vouchers a PHA can distribute is limited by the amount of federal funding
they receive, the wait for a new applicant to receive an HCV can be extremely long and is usually
22 Housing Authority of Snohomish County, 2014; Everett Housing Authority, 2014
Table 2.1. Assisted Units by Income
Level Served, City of Edmonds
Extremely Low 233
Very Low 79
Low 194
Moderate 2
Total 508
Sources: HASCO, 2014; EHA, 2014
Table 2.2. Permanent Subsidized Units
by Funding Source, City of Edmonds
Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher 195
Section 8 Project-Based
Voucher 98
HUD Supportive Housing
Program 10
Sound Families Initiative 12
Source: HASCO, 2014
Packet Page 192 of 256
13
dependent on existing voucher holders leaving the program. Until recently, the wait to receive an HCV
from HASCO had been about 6 years. Federal funding for the HCV program was frozen during the 2013
budget sequester, at which time HASCO had to close its waitlist.
Workforce Housing
Edmonds is home to 201 units of workforce housing distributed across 3 properties, all listed in
Appendix B. Assisted workforce housing units are defined by the fact that they received some form of
one-time subsidy in exchange for rent restrictions. Workforce funding types do not involve ongoing
rental assistance, and rents are not tailored to individual household incomes. These subsidies can
include:
•Capital Financing - Low-interest-rate mortgages,
mortgage insurance, tax-exempt bond financing,
loan guarantees, and pre-development cost
reduction financing.
•Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) – Tax credits
provided to developers that can be sold for the
purposes of up front debt reduction.
•Federal, State, and County Grant Programs – Grants provided to local governments from the
federal government for construction or renovation of below-market-rate units. Community
Development Block Grants and HOME grants are two popular examples
Workforce housing in Edmonds has been funded through a variety of sources, including low-income
housing tax credits (LIHTC), tax-exempt bonds, and State and County Housing Trust Fund dollars. While
the name may suggest otherwise, it is common for developers to use workforce funding sources to
funding housing for populations like seniors. Table 2.3 shows the number of workforce units funded
per major source in Edmonds, with full information provided in Appendix B. Table 2.3 only includes
units that do not have additional rental assistance (Considered ‘subsidized’ in this report), which often
also use workforce subsidies as part of their financing. As most workforce properties use more than
one funding source, there are units counted multiple times in the different funding categories listed
in Table 2.3. Financing for any affordable housing project is often very complicated and can involve an
array of public, nonprofit, and private entities.
While not currently the case in Edmonds’ workforce properties, many workforce housing properties
only dedicate a portion of their units for lower income tenants. This is typical of properties developed
or rehabilitated by private entities using tax credits or tax-exempt bond financing in exchange for
income restrictions on the properties. In those cases, affordable housing requirements are limited to a
certain period of time, typically 20 to 30 years, after which time the property owners can increase rents
to market rates. Some properties feature both subsidized and workforce units.
Market Rate Rental Units
There are an estimated 5,000 rental units in Edmonds of every type, from single family homes to large
Table 2.3. Workforce Units by Funding
Source, City of Edmonds
Tax Credit 92
Bond 200
Housing Trust Fund
(State and County)1
Source: HASCO, 2014
Packet Page 193 of 256
14
apartment buildings. According to American Community Survey estimates, 3,739 out of 5,000 renter-
occupied housing units are in multifamily properties. This compares to 1,904 multifamily units out of
12,396 owner-occupied homes.23
Table 2.4 summarizes ACS data on the number of units available at certain rent levels by bedroom
size in Edmonds. No evidence was found of any market rents below $500, despite ACS data to the
contrary. This could be because the ACS Sample may include subsidized units and less formal rent
arrangements, such as renting rooms or mother-in-law suites in single family homes or renting from
family members that could be more affordable. ACS rent data also does not include utility allowances.
To provide a better idea of what a household looking for a home today could expect to pay in rent and
utilities in Edmonds, rent data was obtained from Dupre and Scott. This data, which includes both
multifamily and single family rental units, is summarized in Table 2.5 and presented in full in Appendix
A. Table 2.5 lists the minimum full time wage to afford each average rent in hourly and annual terms as
well as the number of hours one would have to work per week earning Washington State’s minimum
wage to afford the unit.
Table 2.6, on the following page, shows the affordability distribution of average rents in Edmonds by
size. In this table, “Yes” means that the average rent is affordable to a household at that income level,
adjusting for household size, “Limited” means that the average rent is not affordable but there are
lower end affordable units, and “No” means that the entire rent range is not affordable. As shown, the
City’s rental housing is generally affordable to households earning at least 80% AMI – the moderate
23 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Table 2.4. Renter-Occupied Units by Rent and Unit Size, City of Edmonds (Without Utilities)
No Bedrooms
1 Bedroom
Units
2 Bedroom
Units
3+ Bedroom
UnitsLess than $200 0 18 0 0$200 to $299 0 52 10 0$300 to $499 0 104 0 27$500 to $749 101 237 110 79$750 to $999 103 786 652 45$1,000 or more 0 186 1486 853
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Table 2.5. Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities)
Average Rent (w/
Utilities)
Minimum Income Required Lowest
Rent
Highest
RentPer Hour Annual
Studio $833 $ 16.02 $33,320 $ 546 $ 1,187
1 Bedroom $887 $ 17.06 $35,480 $ 662 $ 1,521
2 Bedroom $1,097 $ 21.10 $43,880 $ 777 $ 1,916
3 Bedroom $1,679 $ 32.29 $67,160 $ 1,094 $ 4,215
4 Bedroom $2,545 $ 48.94 $101,800 $ 1,947 $ 4,347
5 Bedroom $ 2,844 $ 54.69 $113,760 $ 2,276 $ 3,771
Source: Dupre & Scott, 2013; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014
Packet Page 194 of 256
15
income level and above. Average units two bedrooms or less in size are also affordable to low income
renters, with a limited supply affordable to very low income renters. There is also a limited supply of
three bedroom units affordable to this group.
The difference in minimum required income by size between single- and multifamily units is shown in
Table 2.7. As shown, multifamily units tend to be more affordable than single family homes. As
multifamily units also tend to be smaller than single family homes, there is a lack of larger affordable
units.
Even after accounting for the fact that utility allowances are not included in ACS data, the range of
rents available in the conventional market is generally higher than that reported in the ACS. Again, this
could be explained by the ACS sample including subsidized units and informal rent arrangements.
While ACS data is important as it shows what Edmonds renters are actually paying, it does not give an
accurate indication of what a typical renter searching for a market rate unit can expect to pay.
Home Ownership
Between 2008 and 2012, 61% of single family homes sold in Edmonds were three bedrooms in size.
24% of homes sold were four bedrooms in size, meaning that three and four bedroom homes together
represented 85% of sales. 9% were two bedrooms and 6% were five bedrooms or larger. This includes
freestanding single family homes, common wall single family homes (townhouses), manufactured
homes, and condominiums24.
24 Snohomish County property use codes 111, 112, 116, 117, 118, 119, 141, 142, 143
Table 2.7. Average Rents by Size, SIngle- and Multifamily, City of Edmonds
Multifamily Ave.
Rent
Minimum
Income
Single Family
Ave. Rent
Minimum
Income
Studio $833 Low n/a n/a
1 Bedroom $887 Low $1,521 Moderate
2 Bedroom $1,070 Low $1,548 Moderate
3 Bedroom $1,336 Low $1,992 Moderate
4 Bedroom n/a n/a $2,545 Middle
5 Bedroom n/a n/a $2,844 Middle
Source: Dupre and Scott, 2013
Table 2.6. Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds
Number of Bedrooms
Income Level Studio 1 2 3 4+
Extremely Low No No No No No
Very Low Limited Limited Limited Limited No
Low Yes Yes Yes Limited No
Moderate Yes Yes Yes Yes Limited
Middle Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Source: Dupre and Scott, 2013
Packet Page 195 of 256
16
In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. Assuming a 20%
down payment and using average rates of interest, property taxes, utilities and insurance as
determined by the Federal Housing Funding Board, the monthly payment for this home would be
$1,895. For a family to afford this payment without being cost burdened, they would require an annual
income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City’s median income.25
Appendix C provides statistics on sales of single family homes from 2008-2012, as well the minimum
income necessary to afford the median sale home by year. During that time period, median home
sales prices declined by 17%. In 2012 dollars this translates to a difference of more than $33,000 in
minimum income required to afford the median home.26 The housing market across the region has
since begun to recover from the recession. While home sale affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated
at this time, Edmonds currently has the County’s third highest average assessed residential value. The
2014 average assessed value of $351,100 represented a 10.7% increase over 2013.27
Table 2.8 lists the percentage of 2012 sales of homes of different sizes that are affordable to each
income level by home size. “Not affordable” means that the minimum income required is higher than
the middle income upper cutoff. All of the percentages specify the portion of homes of that size that
someone in the particular income group could afford, adjusting for household size as detailed in
Appendix E. As shown, there is decreasing affordability as size increases, though moderate and middle
income households could theoretically afford the monthly cost of most of the homes sold in 2012.
Moderate income is recommended as the minimum ideal household income for home ownership to
be a reasonable option.
Table 2.8. Affordable Home Sales by Size, City of Edmonds, 2012
Bedrooms Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate Middle Not
Affordable
Total
Sales
1-2 12%17%57%73%85%15%60
2 0%7%46%74%87%13%405
3 0%4%21%54%78%22%165
5+0%3%23%49%69%31%35
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
The “affordability gap” describes situations where there are more households at a given income level
than there are housing options affordable to those households. Figure 2.5 displays the percentage
of households in Edmonds at each income level compared with the percentage of all home sales in
2012 that each income level could afford. As Figure 2.5 compares the overall income distribution of
the City with the affordability distribution of one year, this is a rough approximation, and other factors
should be considered in examining home ownership affordability. As shown, there were plenty of
sales theoretically affordable for households earning at least 80% AMI in 2012, which is the minimum
income required for home ownership. (Moderate income and above) This analysis does not consider
25 Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
26 Ibid
27 Snohomish County Assessor, “Snohomish County Assessor’s Annual Report for 2014 Taxes”, 2014
Packet Page 196 of 256
17
whether or not these income
groups are able to access
financing, including a down
payment, or other barriers
to home ownership. There is
also sufficient supply for the
City’s low income households,
though home ownership
may only be a good choice
for certain households in this
group. Further, this does not
include competition from
households above middle
income, which comprise 33% of
the City’s total.
Figure 2.6 shows how the
percentage of sales affordable
to each income level has changed from 2008 to 2012. As shown, affordability improved dramatically
for moderate income households during this period, and all other income groups as well. As the
housing market continues
to improve following the
recession, affordability for this
group may retreat again. While
there are affordable options
for low income households,
and ownership may be a good
option for certain low income
households (those earning
between 50 and 80% AMI), these
households are considered the
exception rather than the rule.
Many of the most affordable
sales were likely only so
affordable because they were
foreclosed homes sold by banks.
517 Paradise Lane, for example,
is a three bedroom home that Wells Fargo Bank sold for $240,000 in 2012. At that price, a household
with a minimum income of $46,216 could afford the monthly debt service of around $1,155. This same
home sold for $378,000 in 2004, which is well out of reach to the household with the minimum income
necessary to afford it in 2012. While low priced foreclosed homes can put home ownership within
reach for more households, this is accomplished at the expense of previously displaced homeowners.
Additionally, these sales contribute to ongoing uncertainty about market home values. Low income
home buyers could also become cost burdened by higher property taxes on these “bargain” homes.
Figure 2.7, on the following page, shows how sales have been divided between single family homes,
condominiums, and manufactured homes between 2008 and 2012. In Edmonds, condominiums
Figure 2.5. Home Sale Affordability Gap, 2012, City of Edmonds
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008-2012;
Figure 2.6. Home Sale Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
Packet Page 197 of 256
18
represent a larger portion of the market than in other cities in Snohomish County.
Table 2.9 shows how many sales of each of these three types were affordable to each income
level in 2012. Manufactured homes were most likely to be affordable to lower income
households, with a dramatically lower median sale price, though there was still a significant
number of single family and condominium sales affordable to very low and low income
households. The median home sale prices for single family homes and condominiums were also
very close to each other in 2012. Table 2.10 shows how many homes were sold in 2012 by type
and number of bedrooms.
Table 2.9. 2012 Affordable Home Sales by Type, City of Edmonds
Single
Family
Manufactured
Home Condo
Extremely
Low 1 6 0
Very Low 37 0 2
Low 208 0 9
Moderate 171 0 17
Middle 104 0 3
Not
Affordable 108 0 0
Median Sale
Price $ 339,975 $8,150 $341,705
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
Figure 2.7. Home Sales by Type, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
Packet Page 198 of 256
19
Table 2.10. Size of Homes Sold by Type, 2012, City of Edmonds
Bedrooms Single
Family
Mobile
Home
Condo
1-2 54 6 0
3 381 0 24
4 158 0 7
5+35 0 0
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
Shared Rental Housing
A popular market rate affordable housing option is to split housing costs with other roommates. These
arrangements include renting a room, suite, or accessory dwelling unit (ADU) from a homeowner
living on site. For 8 shared rooms advertised on Craigslist in the City, the monthly cost ranged from
$500 to $650, including utilities. While they were more rooms advertised, they did not include an
address or cross streets, so it could not be verified that they were actually located within the City. Their
rents were generally not outside this range, however.
Rents in this range are easily within reach for very low income single individuals, and possibly even
extremely low income couples. Individuals seeking roommates are able to discriminate in who they
choose to share their housing, however, and often stipulate a preferred gender or bar couples from
sharing a room. It may be difficult for families with children and households with disabilities or other
special needs to find a suitable shared housing situation. In these cases, a household’s ability to find
shared housing will likely depend on whether or not they have local connections to help them find
understanding roommates.
Packet Page 199 of 256
20
Current Challenges and Opportunities
The City of Edmonds is faced with the challenge of accommodating greater growth
over the next 20 years than it has seen in the past, requiring an additional 2,790
additional housing units, when the current capacity is only 2,646 additional units. Of
the current capacity, the vast majority is in multifamily properties, with a high portion
to come through redevelopment.28 In general, the City will see a shift toward more
multifamily housing if growth continues as predicted.
Edmonds enjoys a higher median income compared to other areas in the County. All
the same, assuming that the City’s income mix stays constant, it is estimated that 1,257
units, or 55% of the total projected increase, will serve households at or below 50%
AMI. The share of projected units by income level is shown in Figure 3.1.
According to 2013 Dupre and
Scott data, Edmonds’ rental
housing market is generally
affordable to households
earning at least 80% AMI.
Households earning between
50 and 80% AMI will find the
majority of homes smaller than
five bedrooms affordable as
well. There is a limited supply
of small units affordable to
those earning between 30 and
50% AMI. Market rents are not
affordable to extremely low
income households, though
this is expected in almost all
communities, due to the costs of
construction and maintenance in
today’s market. Cost burden data
supports these conclusions, with
a significant reduction in cost burden for both renters and owners at income levels
above 50% AMI. Overall, 38% of Edmonds households are cost burdened. Renters
and owners earning less than middle income are all less likely to be cost burdened in
Edmonds when compared to the County, with the exception of homeowners below
50% AMI who are more likely to be cost burdened.29
In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. The
estimated monthly payment for this home would be $1,895, including debt service,
insurance, taxes, and utilities. For a family to afford this payment without being cost
burdened, they would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just
28 Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee, “Housing Characteristics and
Needs in Snohomish County”, 2014
29 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Figure 3.1. Income allocation of projected new housing
units, City of Edmonds
Packet Page 200 of 256
21
above the City’s median income.30 Affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated at this time, but average
assessed values suggest that home prices are rising and affordability is retreating. At $351,100,
Edmonds has the third highest average assessed 2014 home value in Snohomish County after
Woodway and Mukilteo, and it represented a 10.7% increase over 2013. 31
The age of units in Edmonds is a possible contributing factor to affordability, as the City features a
significant stock of homes constructed between 1950 and 1969. As properties are redeveloped to
build the denser housing the City needs to accommodate growth, it is likely that a portion of these
naturally affordable older units will be replaced with higher priced new units. While preservation of
older housing is an effective strategy for affordability, preservation must be balanced with the need to
accommodate growth. In addition, the higher priced new units of today will be the quality affordable
older units of tomorrow.
Edmonds has one of the highest percentages of elderly residents among all Snohomish County cities.
According to the ACS estimates, almost 25% of households in Edmonds have individuals 65 years or
older.32 In addition to having generally lower incomes, seniors will require different types of housing
and services if they desire to age in place. Additionally, as the “baby boomer” generation continues to
move into retirement, there will be an increase in the number of people with disabilities as well.
To respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City has
undertaken a series of measures and strategies to promote affordable housing including:
• Land Use Strategies: upzoning from single family to multifamily zoning, offering density bonuses
for low income and senior housing provision, clustering subdivisions, planned residential
developments to protect the environment, encouraging infill developments, and promoting
conversion/adaptive reuse programs.
• Administrative Procedures: streamlined approval processes, updated use-by-right policies, and
updated impact mitigation payment deferral.
• Development Standards: installed front and side yard setback requirements, zero lot line
development, improved street design and construction, off-street parking requirements, and
innovative sanitary, sewer, water and storm water systems.
• Low-Cost Housing Types: encourage the use of accessory dwellings, cottage houses, mixed-use
developments and mobile/manufactured housing.
In addition to promoting, adjusting, and providing incentives for these policies where appropriate,
the City should continue to monitor their use and evaluate policies to make sure there are not
unnecessary regulatory barriers to affordable housing. Additionally, the City could consider adopting a
multifamily tax abatement program for certain locations and, when opportunities arise, the City could
partner with nonprofit organizations developing housing for households earning below 30% AMI, the
income group generally not served by the traditional housing market.
30 Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
31 Snohomish County Assessor, “Snohomish County Assessor’s Annual Report for 2014 Taxes”, 2014
32 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Packet Page 201 of 256
22
Maps
Packet Page 202 of 256
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
Population (Block Groups)
MUGA
City Limits
0 - 464
465 - 958
959 - 1284
1285 - 1553
1554 - 2040 ¡
0 0.750.375 1.5 Miles
Map 1.1. Total Population (Block Groups)
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
Packet Page 203 of 256
24
196th St SW 196th St SW9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
Puget Drive
¡
0 0.750.375 1.5 Miles
Family Size
0.00
0.01 - 2.15
2.16 - 2.95
2.96 - 3.34
3.35 - 4.12
City Limits
MUGA
Map 1.2. Average Family Size (Block Groups)
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Household Size
0.00 - 1.70
1.71 - 2.30
2.31 - 2.77
2.78 - 3.42
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 204 of 256
25
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Household Size
0.00 - 1.70
1.71 - 2.30
2.31 - 2.77
2.78 - 3.42
City Limits
MUGA
Map 1.3. Average Household Size (Block Groups)
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
Packet Page 205 of 256
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Renter-Occupied Homes
(By Block Group)
0% - 7%
8% - 17%
18% - 27%
28% - 41%
42% - 72%
City Limits
MUGA
26
Map 1.4. Renter-Occupied Housing Units
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
Packet Page 206 of 256
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Vacant Homes
(By Block Group)
0% - 2%
3% - 7%
8% - 10%
11% - 19%
20% - 25%
City Limits
MUGA
27
Map 1.5. Vacant Housing Units (Block Groups)
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
Packet Page 207 of 256
28
Map 1.6. Homeowners with Mortgages
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Mortgaged Homes
0%
1% - 64%
65% - 73%
74% - 79%
80% - 95%
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 208 of 256
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.750.375 1.5 Miles
Households
<50%AMI
0% - 12%
13% - 20%
21% - 33%
34% - 46%
47% - 68%
City Limits
MUGA
29
Map 1.7. Very Low-Income Households
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
Packet Page 209 of 256
30
Map 1.8. Cost-Burdened Renters
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Cost-Burdened
Renters
0%
1% - 35%
36% - 52%
53% - 78%
79% - 100%
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 210 of 256
31
Map 1.9. Cost-Burdened Owners
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Cost-Burdened
Owners
0% - 10%
11% - 28%
29% - 36%
37% - 48%
49% - 65%
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 211 of 256
32
Map 1.10. Housing & Transportation, Percent of Low HH Income
Sources: US Housing & Urban Developme nt, 2013; Snohomish County Information Services, 2012
196th St SW 196th St SW9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
Puget Drive
¡
0 0.750.375 1.5 Miles
Percent of Income
51% - 58%
59% - 65%
66% - 73%
74% - 81%
82% - 100%
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 212 of 256
33
Map 2.1. Voucher Location and Transit Access
Sources: HASCO 2014; Snohomish County Community Transit, 2014; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Year Built
Voucher
Bus Stop Range
(1/4 mile walk)
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 213 of 256
34
Map 2.2. Age of Housing Stock
Sources: Snohomish County Assessor, 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2012
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Year Built
1872 - 1904
1905 - 1918
1919 - 1934
1935 - 1948
1949 - 1957
1958 - 1964
1965 - 1972
1973 - 1983
1984 - 1997
1998 - 2013
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 214 of 256
35
Map 2.3. Condition of Housing Stock
Sources: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
196th St SW 196th St SW9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
Puget Drive
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Condition (For Age)
Excellent
Very Good
Above Normal
Normal
Below Normal
Poor
Very Poor
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 215 of 256
36
Map 2.4. Housing Density
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Housing
Units/Acre (By
Block Group)
0.0 - 1.4
1.5 - 3.0
3.1 - 4.3
4.4 - 6.6
6.7 - 11.7
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 216 of 256
37
Map 2.7. New Single Family Permits by Census Tract, 2011
Sources: Snohomish County Information Services, 2012; PSRC, 2011
37
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Net Newly-
Permitted Units by
-6
-5 - 0
1 - 2
3 - 4
5 - 8
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 217 of 256
38
Map 2.8. New Multifamily Permits by Census Tract, 2011
Sources: Snohomish County Information Services, 2012; PSRC, 2011
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Net Newly-
Permitted Units by
Tract
-4
-3 - 0
1
2 - 8
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 218 of 256
39
Map 2.9. Average Renter Household Size
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Average HH Size -
Renters
0.00 - 1.65
1.66 - 2.18
2.19 - 2.68
2.69 - 3.73
3.74 - 7.42
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 219 of 256
40
Appendices
Packet Page 220 of 256
Units in
Building Age Studio Rent Utilities Total Minimum
Income
Units in
Building Age 1Bd-Rent Utilities Total Minimum
Income
Units in
Building Age 2/1-Rent Utilities Total Minimum
Income
Units in
Building Age 2/2-Rent Utilities Total Minimum
Income
Units in
Building Age 3/1-Rent Utilities Total Minimum
Income
Units in
Building Age 3/2-Rent Utilities Total Minimum
Income
Units in
Building Age 4Bed-Rent Utilities Total Minimum
Income
Units in
Building Age 5Bed-Rent Utilities Total Minimum
Income
4:20+ 1945 $500 46$ $546 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $725 171$ $896 Low 4:20+ 1965 $830 191$ $1,021 Low 3:4-19 1975 $866 $77 $943 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $953 220$ $1,173 Low 4:20+ 1965 $1,200 220$ $1,420 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,895 247$ $2,142 Moderate 1:SF 1945 $2,400 276$ $2,676 Middle
4:20+ 2010 $1,035 152$ $1,187 Low 4:20+ 1965 $689 171$ $860 Low 4:20+ 1965 $770 191$ $961 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $870 $191 $1,061 Low 4:20+ 1965 $985 220$ $1,205 Low 4:20+ 1965 $1,066 220$ $1,286 Low 1:SF 1945 $2,200 247$ $2,447 Middle 1:SF 1945 $2,000 276$ $2,276 Moderate
4:20+ 1975 $682 152$ $834 Low 4:20+ 1965 $850 62$ $912 Low 4:20+ 1965 $950 77$ $1,027 Low 4:20+ 1965 $875 $77 $952 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $1,050 94$ $1,144 Low 4:20+ 1965 $1,050 94$ $1,144 Low 1:SF 1965 $1,700 247$ $1,947 Moderate 1:SF 2000 $3,495 276$ $3,771 Not Affordable
4:20+ 1975 $690 152$ $842 Low 4:20+ 1965 $785 171$ $956 Low 4:20+ 1965 $1,050 191$ $1,241 Low 3:4-19 1985 $1,015 $77 $1,092 Low 4:20+ 1945 $1,000 94$ $1,094 Very Low 4:20+ 1985 $1,200 220$ $1,420 Low 1:SF 2000 $2,100 247$ $2,347 Moderate 1:SF 1975 $2,395 276$ $2,671 Middle
4:20+ 1975 $685 152$ $837 Low 4:20+ 1945 $810 171$ $981 Low 4:20+ 1945 $795 191$ $986 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $925 $77 $1,002 Low 4:20+ 1975 $976 220$ $1,196 Low 3:4-19 1985 $1,100 94$ $1,194 Low 1:SF 1975 $1,995 247$ $2,242 Moderate 1:SF 2000 $2,550 276$ $2,826 Middle
4:20+ 1965 $425 152$ $577 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $775 62$ $837 Low 4:20+ 1945 $725 77$ $802 Very Low 4:20+ 1985 $1,025 $191 $1,216 Low 4:20+ 1965 $875 220$ $1,095 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $910 220$ $1,130 Very Low 1:SF 1975 $2,295 247$ $2,542 Middle
4:20+ 1985 $793 152$ $945 Low 4:20+ 1945 $650 62$ $712 Very Low 4:20+ 1945 $845 77$ $922 Very Low 4:20+ 2010 $1,431 $191 $1,622 Moderate 1:SF 1945 $1,400 220$ $1,620 Low 4:20+ 1985 $1,293 220$ $1,513 Low 1:SF 1975 $2,000 247$ $2,247 Moderate
3:4-19 1975 $850 46$ $896 Low 4:20+ 1945 $619 62$ $681 Very Low 3:4-19 1975 $810 77$ $887 Very Low 3:4-19 1965 $895 $77 $972 Very Low 1:SF 1945 $1,895 220$ $2,115 Moderate 1:SF 1945 $2,200 220$ $2,420 Middle 1:SF 1990 $1,895 247$ $2,142 Moderate
4:20+ 1965 $670 62$ $732 Very Low 4:20+ 1985 $955 191$ $1,146 Low 4:20+ 1985 $1,050 $191 $1,241 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,595 220$ $1,815 Moderate 1:SF 1965 $1,695 220$ $1,915 Moderate 1:SF 2000 $4,100 247$ $4,347 Not Affordable
4:20+ 1985 $800 171$ $971 Low 3:4-19 1975 $925 77$ $1,002 Low 4:20+ 1985 $925 $77 $1,002 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,650 220$ $1,870 Moderate 1:SF 1965 $1,800 220$ $2,020 Moderate 1:SF 1975 $2,800 247$ $3,047 Middle
3:4-19 1985 $725 62$ $787 Very Low 4:20+ 1975 $820 191$ $1,011 Low 4:20+ 1985 $875 $77 $952 Very Low 1:SF 1965 $1,375 220$ $1,595 Low 1:SF 1945 $3,995 220$ $4,215 Not Affordable
4:20+ 1975 $760 171$ $931 Low 4:20+ 2010 $1,325 191$ $1,516 Moderate 4:20+ 1975 $950 $77 $1,027 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,250 220$ $1,470 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,495 220$ $1,715 Moderate
4:20+ 2010 $1,207 171$ $1,378 Moderate 4:20+ 1985 $770 191$ $961 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $880 $77 $957 Very Low 1:SF 1945 $1,395 220$ $1,615 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,395 220$ $1,615 Low
4:20+ 1985 $710 171$ $881 Low 4:20+ 1975 $932 191$ $1,123 Low 4:20+ 1975 $992 $191 $1,183 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,250 220$ $1,470 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,595 220$ $1,815 Moderate
4:20+ 1985 $825 62$ $887 Low 4:20+ 1975 $891 191$ $1,082 Low 4:20+ 1975 $975 $191 $1,166 Low 3:4-19 1945 $1,400 94$ $1,494 Low 1:SF 1945 $2,400 220$ $2,620 Middle
4:20+ 1975 $744 171$ $915 Low 4:20+ 1975 $750 191$ $941 Very Low 4:20+ 1975 $840 $191 $1,031 Low 3:4-19 1945 $1,100 94$ $1,194 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,395 220$ $1,615 Low
4:20+ 1965 $695 62$ $757 Very Low 4:20+ 1975 $795 191$ $986 Very Low 4:20+ 1975 $850 $77 $927 Very Low 3:4-19 1975 $1,000 94$ $1,094 Very Low
4:20+ 1975 $786 171$ $957 Low 4:20+ 1975 $885 77$ $962 Very Low 4:20+ 1985 $1,028 $191 $1,219 Low 3:4-19 1975 $2,195 94$ $2,289 Middle
4:20+ 1975 $700 171$ $871 Low 4:20+ 1965 $795 191$ $986 Very Low 1:SF 1945 $1,725 $191 $1,916 Middle 3:4-19 1965 $1,200 94$ $1,294 Low
4:20+ 1975 $715 171$ $886 Low 4:20+ 1985 $957 191$ $1,148 Low 3:4-19 1975 $700 $77 $777 Very Low 2:2-3 2000 $1,425 220$ $1,645 Low
4:20+ 1975 $705 171$ $876 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,150 191$ $1,341 Low 1:SF 1900 $1,195 $191 $1,386 Low 2:2-3 2000 $1,425 220$ $1,645 Low
4:20+ 1975 $735 62$ $797 Very Low 3:4-19 1945 $850 77$ $927 Very Low 3:4-19 1975 $850 $77 $927 Very Low 2:2-3 1945 $1,295 94$ $1,389 Low
4:20+ 1965 $710 171$ $881 Low 3:4-19 1965 $840 77$ $917 Very Low 2:2-3 1965 $1,475 $77 $1,552 Moderate 1:SF 2000 $2,250 220$ $2,470 Middle
4:20+ 1985 $860 171$ $1,031 Low 3:4-19 1945 $985 77$ $1,062 Low 2:2-3 1945 $1,495 $191 $1,686 Moderate 1:SF 1975 $1,675 220$ $1,895 Moderate
1:SF 1900 $1,350 171$ $1,521 Moderate 3:4-19 1945 $900 77$ $977 Very Low 2:2-3 1945 $1,200 $191 $1,391 Low 1:SF 1975 $1,975 220$ $2,195 Middle
3:4-19 1975 $755 62$ $817 Very Low 3:4-19 1945 $839 77$ $916 Very Low 1:SF 1975 $1,995 220$ $2,215 Middle
3:4-19 1945 $750 62$ $812 Very Low 2:2-3 1945 $925 77$ $1,002 Low 1:SF 1985 $1,400 220$ $1,620 Low
3:4-19 1965 $710 62$ $772 Very Low 1:SF 1985 $1,670 220$ $1,890 Moderate
3:4-19 1945 $800 62$ $862 Low
3:4-19 1945 $631 62$ $693 Very Low
3:4-19 1945 $600 62$ $662 Very Low
4 Bedroom 5 BedroomStudio1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom, 1 Bath 2 Bedroom, 2 Bath 3 Bedroom, 1 Bath 3 Bedroom, 2 Bath
A1
Appendix A: Multifamily Rent Comparables by Property, City of Edmonds
Packet Page 221 of 256
B1
PROPERTY NAME STREET ADDRESS PARCEL ID Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate SUBSIDIZED UNITS WORKFORCE UNITS TRANSITIONAL UNITS OWNER POPULATION SERVED FUNDING SOURCES
Section 8 Housing Choice
Vouchers (HASCO)Various Various 122 33 21 2 178 Public (HASCO)Vaious HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Section 8 Housing Choice
Vouchers (EHA)Various Various 14 2 1 17 Public (EHA)Various HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Aurora House 20903 70th Ave W 27042000302700 16 16 Public (HASCO)Mentally Ill Bond
Ballinger Court Apts.22707 76th Ave. W 27042900308400 28 64 92 Private Nonprofit (SHAG)Seniors Tax Credit, Bond
Edmonds Highlands 23326 Edmonds Way 00555300100300 108 12 108 Public (HASCO)Family Section 8 Project-Based Vouchers, Bond, Sound
Families
McKinney House 19515 73rd Ave W 27041700303300 5 5 Private Nonprofit (Compass
Health)Mentally Ill HUD Supportive Housing Program
Olympic View Apartments 303 Howell Way 27032600100300 43 43 Public (HASCO)Seniors
Section 8 Project-Based Voucher, Tax Credit,
Bond, County Housing Trust Fund, State Housing
Trust Fund
Sound View Apartments 417 Third Ave S 27032600100500 43 43 Public (HASCO)Seniors
Section 8 Project-Based Voucher, Tax Credit,
Bond, County Housing Trust Fund, State Housing
Trust Fund
Tri-level House 8629 196th St SW 27041800309900 5 5 Private Nonprofit (Compass
Health)Mentally Ill HUD Supportive Housing Program
Zeigen House 20208 73rd Ave W 00400600001400 1 1 Private Nonprofit (Compass
Health)Mentally Ill State Housing Trust Fund, County Housing Trust
Fund
ASSISTED UNITS BY INCOME LEVEL
Appendix B: Assisted Units by Property, City of Edmonds
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Number of Sales 416 517 577 586 666
Average Sale Price 465,736$ 409,870$ 404,634$ 359,465$ 383,157$
Median Sale Price 411,000$ 355,000$ 346,500$ 315,000$ 339,975$
Median Sale Price Home Affordability
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mortgage Amount 328,800$ 284,000$ 277,200$ 252,000$ 271,980$
Interest Rate 6.09% 5.06% 4.83% 4.58% 3.66%
Monthly PITI
Principal + Interest 1,990$ 1,535$ 1,459$ 1,289$ 1,246$
Property Taxes 343$ 296$ 289$ 263$ 283$
Insurance 130$ 112$ 110$ 100$ 108$
Utilities 269$ 269$ 276$ 281$ 258$
TOTAL 2,463$ 1,943$ 1,858$ 1,651$ 1,637$
Minimum Annual Income 98,522$ 77,730$ 74,315$ 66,044$ 65,468$
in 2012 Dollars 105,061$ 83,186$ 78,247$ 67,411$
First Quartile Sale Price Home Affordability
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mortgage Amount 264,000$ 240,000$ 218,305$ 192,000$ 200,000$
Interest Rate 6.09% 5.06% 4.83% 4.58% 3.66%
Monthly PITI
Principal + Interest 1,598$ 1,297$ 1,149$ 982$ 916$
Property Taxes 275$ 250$ 227$ 200$ 208$
Insurance 105$ 95$ 86$ 76$ 79$
Utilities 269$ 269$ 276$ 281$ 258$
TOTAL 2,247$ 1,911$ 1,739$ 1,539$ 1,462$
Minimum Annual Income 89,867$ 76,444$ 69,566$ 61,557$ 58,470$
in 2012 Dollars 95,832$ 81,810$ 73,247$ 62,831$
Packet Page 222 of 256
C1
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Number of Sales 416 517 577 586 666
Average Sale Price 465,736$ 409,870$ 404,634$ 359,465$ 383,157$
Median Sale Price 411,000$ 355,000$ 346,500$ 315,000$ 339,975$
Median Sale Price Home Affordability
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mortgage Amount 328,800$ 284,000$ 277,200$ 252,000$ 271,980$
Interest Rate 6.09% 5.06% 4.83% 4.58% 3.66%
Monthly PITI
Principal + Interest 1,990$ 1,535$ 1,459$ 1,289$ 1,246$
Property Taxes 343$ 296$ 289$ 263$ 283$
Insurance 130$ 112$ 110$ 100$ 108$
Utilities 269$ 269$ 276$ 281$ 258$
TOTAL 2,463$ 1,943$ 1,858$ 1,651$ 1,637$
Minimum Annual Income 98,522$ 77,730$ 74,315$ 66,044$ 65,468$
in 2012 Dollars 105,061$ 83,186$ 78,247$ 67,411$
First Quartile Sale Price Home Affordability
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mortgage Amount 264,000$ 240,000$ 218,305$ 192,000$ 200,000$
Interest Rate 6.09% 5.06% 4.83% 4.58% 3.66%
Monthly PITI
Principal + Interest 1,598$ 1,297$ 1,149$ 982$ 916$
Property Taxes 275$ 250$ 227$ 200$ 208$
Insurance 105$ 95$ 86$ 76$ 79$
Utilities 269$ 269$ 276$ 281$ 258$
TOTAL 2,247$ 1,911$ 1,739$ 1,539$ 1,462$
Minimum Annual Income 89,867$ 76,444$ 69,566$ 61,557$ 58,470$
in 2012 Dollars 95,832$ 81,810$ 73,247$ 62,831$
Appendix C: Single Family Home Sales, 2008-2012
Packet Page 223 of 256
D1
Appendix D: Affordable Housing Glossary
Affordable Housing: For housing to be considered affordable, a household should not pay
more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. This includes all costs related to housing
- rent, mortgage payments, utilities, etc.
AMI: Area Median Income. The measure of median income used in this report is that of the
Seattle-Bellevue HMFA. This measure is used in administering the Section 8 voucher program in
Snohomish County.
Cost-Burdened: Households that spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing.
Extremely Low Income: Households that make up to 30 percent of AMI.
Fair Market Rent: HUD determines what a reasonable rent level should be for a geographic
area, and sets this as the area’s fair market rent. Section 8 voucher holders are limited to selecting
units that do not rent for more than fair market rent.
HMFA: HUD Metro FMR Area
Low Income: Households that make up to 80 percent of AMI.
Median Income: The median income for a community is the annual income at which half the
households earn less and half earn more.
Middle Income: Households that make up to 120 percent of AMI.
Moderate Income: Households that make up to 95 percent of AMI.
PHA: Public Housing Agency
Section 8: HUD’s Section 8 Housing Choice voucher program. Qualifying households can take
their voucher to any housing unit which meets HUD safety and market rent standards. HUD
funds are administered by PHAs.
Severely Cost-Burdened: Households that spend more than 50 percent of their income on
housing.
Subsidized Rental Unit: A unit which benefits from a direct, monthly rent subsidy. This subsidy
will vary to ensure that a household does not spend more than 30% of their income on housing.
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers are an example of a direct rent subsidy.
Very Low Income: Households that make up to 50 percent of AMI.
Workforce Rental Housing: Workforce rental units have rents which are set in order to be
affordable to households at certain income levels. While a household may need to have income
below a certain level to apply for a workforce rental unit, the rent level does not adjust to their
actual income. A property may feature units with rents affordable to households with 50% AMI,
Packet Page 224 of 256
D2
but a household earning 30% AMI would still have to pay the same rent
Packet Page 225 of 256
1
Appendix E: Methodology
Affordability - Adjustment for Household Size
Where it is indicated that housing cost affordability is assessed adjusting for household size,
several factors are considered. First, using HUD standards, the appropriate size range that
could inhabit the housing unit in question is determined. For example, the appropriate range
for a 2 bedroom unit would be 2-4 people. Next, the cutoff income levels are averaged across
the household size range, and this average is used for comparison.
To assess whether or not a 2 bedroom unit is affordable to extremely low income households
using this method, one would first average the extremely low cutoff levels for 2-, 3-, and 4-person
households. For 2012, these levels were $21,150, $23,800, and $26,400. Their average is $23,783.
A household with this income can afford to spend no more than $595 per month on housing.
If the unit in question rents for less than this amount, then one can say that, on average, it is
affordable to extremely low income households, adjusting for household size.
Table E.1, below, shows the maximum a household at each income level can afford to
spend on housing per month by household size.
Home ownership affordability
Home ownership affordability was calculated using similar techniques to the California
Association of Realtor’s Housing Affordability Index. First, property sale data was acquired from
the Snohomish County Assessor, and single family home sales in Everett were separated. Next,
the monthly payment for these homes was calculated using several assumptions:
• Assuming a 20% down payment, the loan amount is then 80% of the total sale price
• Mortgage term is 30 years
• Interest rate is the national average effective composite rate for previously occupied
homes as reported by the Federal Housing Finance Board
• Monthly property taxes are assumed to be 1% of the sale price divided by 12
• Monthly insurance payments are assumed to be 0.38% of the sale price divided by 12
Table E.1. Maximum Monthly Housing Expense by Household Size, Seattle-Bellevue HMFA 2012
Number of Persons Per Household HMFA Overall
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Extremely
Low $455 $520 $585 $650 $703 $755 $806 $859 $650
Very Low $759 $868 $976 $1,084 $1,171 $1,258 $1,345 $1,431 $1,084
Low $1,128 $1,289 $1,450 $1,610 $1,740 $1,869 $1,998 $2,126 $1,734
Moderate $1,442 $1,648 $1,855 $2,059 $2,225 $2,389 $2,556 $2,719 $2,059
Middle $1,821 $2,082 $2,343 $2,601 $2,811 $3,018 $3,228 $3,435 $2,601
Source: US Department of Housing & Urban Development, 2012
Packet Page 226 of 256
2
Using all of these assumptions, the monthly payment is t he sum of principal and interest; taxes; and
insurance.
Household Income Levels
Area Median Income, or AMI, is an important part of many housing affordability calculations. In
Snohomish County, HUD uses the Seattle-Bellevue HMFA median income as AMI. This is recalculated
every year, both as an overall average and by household size up to 8 individuals. Standard income
levels are as follows:
•Extremely low income: <30% AMI
•Very low income: between 30 and 50% AMI
•Low income: between 50 and 80% AMI
•Moderate income: between 80 and 95% AMI
•Middle income: between 95 and 120% AMI
Household Profiles
Information on households was gathered from Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher data from both the
Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and Everett Housing Authority (EHA). All names
have been changed as well as many other nonessential details to protect privacy.
Packet Page 227 of 256
AM-7316 7.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/02/2014
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Final Report on the Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Study and Pre-Design Project
Recommendation
For information only.
Previous Council Action
On January 15, 2013, Council approved the authorization to advertise a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
for the Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study.
On May 14, 2013, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a $188,722 Grant Agreement with the
Department of Ecology for the Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study, enabling the
project to move into preliminary design.
On May 21, 2013, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Tetra
Tech for Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study that included additional tasks
funded by the grant.
On June 24, 2014 Council, the Mayor and the public were given an update on this project that included a
summary of the work to date and the schedule for completion of this project.
Narrative
This presentation will provide the Council, the Mayor, and the public a brief summary of the work
completed, including two pre-design reports for recommended projects to reduce the stormwater flows
entering Perrinville Creek.
Since the last Council update in June of this year, a Public Meeting was held on August 14, 2014. At that
meeting, the results of the watershed analyses were presented together with alternative remedies
(projects) designed to improve conditions in Perrinville Creek. City staff and the consultant shared a
draft of this plan with the Public and received feedback.
The primary goal of this project is to reduce flows in Perrinville Creek, a tributary to Puget Sound, by
reducing stormwater runoff. The flow reduction can provide multiple hydrologic and biological benefits
to both the Creek and Brown's Bay in the Sound, such as: potentially allowing for the replacement of an
anadromous fish barrier culvert, reducing erosion and sedimentation that is impacting aquatic habitat and
City infrastructure, and reducing the amount of pollutants in the aquatic environment.
Packet Page 228 of 256
The scope of this stormwater retrofit plan to reduce flows in Perrinville Creek focuses on capital
improvements in public rights-of-way and on city-owned parcels (Edmonds and Lynnwood). The
identification of specific capital project opportunities emphasizes sites in the City of Edmonds; however,
several projects were identified in Lynnwood, particularly cost effective structural retrofits to existing
flow control facilities. This analysis identified 30 discrete flow reduction opportunities within public
rights-of-way and on public properties (specifically park lands). Evaluating the 30 candidate
opportunities, the plan recommends that 12 projects be advanced to design and implementation. Of these
12, two moved ahead to the preliminary design stage, an infiltration facility in Seaview Park and a
detention facility near 7223 192 nd Place in Lynnwood.
One of the most important conclusions from the study is that by implementing the two of the
recommended projects (Project 16-1 Seaview Park infiltration facility) and Project 22-1 Blue Ridge Pond
modifications in Lynnwood), creek flows will be sufficiently reduced to allow replacement of the fish
barrier culvert without increasing flood risk to properties downstream of Talbot Road. The City is in
discussion with Lynnwood on the Blue Ridge Pond modifications, which are more of a maintenance fixes
rather than a large construction project that warrants a preliminary design report.
Fiscal Impact:
The City of Edmonds has allocated $200,000 of stormwater utility funding to perform a watershed-based
analysis of stormwater flow and to develop alternatives to reduce the flows (including Low Impact
Development retrofits) in the Perrinville Creek watershed. A $188,772 grant from the Department of
Ecology allowed the City to move the project beyond the analysis stage and into the predesign phase,
thereby accelerating retrofit of the watershed.
The City has applied for a grant with the Department of Ecology to complete the design and construct the
Seaview Park infiltration facility. The grant request is for $633,750, 75% of the estimated total project
cost.
Attachments
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Robert English 11/24/2014 01:40 PM
Public Works Kody McConnell 11/26/2014 09:18 AM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 11/26/2014 09:21 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/26/2014 09:30 AM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 11/26/2014 10:04 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 11/24/2014 08:38 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/26/2014
Packet Page 229 of 256
Grant Number G1400022
Perrinville Creek Stormwater
Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
October 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Packet Page 230 of 256
Executive Summary
i
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction
Retrofit Study
Executive Summary
Grant Number G1400022
October 2014
Prepared by:
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
Prepared for:
City of Edmonds
Public Works Department
Engineering Division
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Packet Page 231 of 256
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project is funded in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Puget Sound
Ecosystem Restoration and Protection Cooperative Agreement Grant PC-00J20101 with Washington
State Department of Ecology (Ecology Grant Number G1400022). The contents of this document do not
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Packet Page 232 of 256
Appendix I – Capital Project Descriptions
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Edmonds (“City”) desires to improve the water quality and aquatic habitat in Perrinville
Creek. The 764-acre watershed, located both within the City of Edmonds and the City of Lynnwood,
largely developed prior to modern stormwater quantity and quality controls. Perrinville Creek has the
three conditions typical of Puget Sound coastal watersheds: a broad headwater plateau, urban land use,
and runoff concentrated in storm drains. The creek drops about 260 feet in elevation over 1 mile, first
passing through the heavily-wooded, undeveloped Southwest County Park, then through residential yards,
under Talbot Road, and ultimately discharging into Browns Bay in Puget Sound adjacent to residential
properties. Approximately 90 percent of the watershed is residential land use; the remaining 10 percent is
commercial.
In the mid-1990s, the City installed a flow bypass structure in the lower reach of Perrinville Creek. The
purpose the bypass was to protect homes downstream from flooding, capture sediment, and prevent
washout of the culvert under the BNSF railroad tracks at the creek mouth. Due to its location and the
characteristics of the creek, this bypass is subject to excessive sedimentation that requires frequent
maintenance to preserve its function.
The 30-inch-diameter Perrinville Creek culvert under Talbot Road near Puget Sound is a fish barrier for
anadromous fish (RW Beck 1991). The City has completed a preliminary design report for replacing the
existing culvert with a larger fish-friendly box culvert to permit access to some upstream habitat located
on private property (Herrera 2012). Replacing this culvert, however, also could broaden sedimentation
deposition and flooding risk in the lower reaches of Perrinville Creek, since the existing culvert restricts
some high creek flows. According to a fish presence and habitat survey done by Pentec Environmental
(1998), replacing this culvert can result in fish access to approximately 600 feet of upstream habitat.
Allowing fish access to this upstream habitat, however, would require substantial re-engineering of the
existing stream channel on private property to remove fish passage barriers.
The City would initially like to improve aquatic habitat in the reach between Talbot Road and the creek
mouth at Puget Sound prior to improvements upstream of Talbot Road. This first reach, approximately
500 feet long, will also require substantial improvements of the existing stream channel located on private
property. The City also wants to reduce the level of maintenance required to keep the bypass structure
functioning and, eventually, be able to safely remove the structure. Achieving all of these objectives
necessitates flow reduction in Perrinville Creek.
The primary goal of this project is to reduce flows in Perrinville Creek that are causing erosion in the
upper reaches and sedimentation and some flooding in the lower reaches. This goal will be accomplished
by reducing the amount of stormwater runoff that flows directly into Perrinville Creek. The flow
reduction will provide multiple hydrologic and biological benefits to both the creek and Browns Bay in
Puget Sound, such as allowing for the replacement of an anadromous fish barrier culvert, reducing
erosion and sedimentation that are impacting aquatic habitat and City infrastructure, and reducing the
amount of pollutants in the aquatic environment. This study evaluates and recommends means to reduce
the erosive degradation in Perrinville Creek and the consequent sediment deposition in the creek’s lower
reaches, as well as to mitigate the potential flood risk from replacing the Talbot Road culvert.
The study process for this project developed a hydrologic model of the watershed draining to Perrinville
Creek and flow monitoring data collected over the 2013-2014 wet season was used to calibrate the model
to assure it is representative of current flow regime experienced in the creek. Conditions in the creek
were analyzed to assess instabilities in the stream channel and to estimate the flow thresholds at which
significant erosion occurs. Geotechnical explorations and tests were performed across the watershed to
Packet Page 233 of 256
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
2
characterize the surficial soils, the underlying geology, and the ability to infiltrate stormwater runoff in
various locations.
The scope of this stormwater retrofit plan to reduce flows in Perrinville Creek focuses on capital
improvements in public rights-of-way and on city-owned parcels. The identification of specific capital
project opportunities emphasizes sites in the City of Edmonds; however, several projects were identified
in Lynnwood, particularly cost effective structural retrofits to existing flow control facilities. This
analysis identified 30 discrete flow reduction opportunities within public rights-of-way and on public
properties (specifically park lands). Evaluating the 30 candidate opportunities, it recommended that 12
projects be advanced to design and implementation in the near term, listed in Table ES-1.
Table ES-1. Recommended Project Summary
ID RETROFIT
TYPE
NEW/
MODIFIED
FACILITY
LOCATION CITY TOTAL
TRIBUTARY
AREA (AC)
2-YEAR PEAK
FLOW
REDUCTION
(CFS)
COST
ESTIMATE
10-1 Bio-retention New 18027 73
rd Ave
W
Edmonds 1.9 0.18 $89,000
11-1 Bio-retention New 17922 72
nd Ave
W
Edmonds 0.8 0.18 $37,000
13-1 Bio-retention New 7418 Ridge Way Edmonds 3.5 0.24 $77,000
16-1 Infiltration
Facility
New Seaview Park Edmonds 52.8 3.50 $841,000
19-1 Vault New 7300 196
th St
SW
Lynnwood 35.7 4.50 $1,123,000
20-1 Pond Modify Copper Ridge Lynnwood 3.8 0.38 $22,000
22-1 Pond Modify Blue Ridge Lynnwood 55.2 2.55 $22,000
25-1 Bio-retention New 7226 182
nd St
SW
Edmonds 1.3 0.28 $96,000
26-1 Vault New 7332 192
nd Pl
SW
Lynnwood 28.1 1.39 $286,000
27-1 Pond Modify Olympic View
Crest
Edmonds 3.1 0.32 $74,000
28-1 Infiltration
Facility
Modify Lynndale Park Lynnwood 82.1 0.20 $22,000
29-1 Infiltration
Facility
New Olympic View
Dr/ 76
th St SW
Edmonds 4.0 0.25 $233,000
Two of the recommended projects, No. 16-1 in Seaview Park and No. 26-1 at 74
th Avenue W and 192
nd
Place SW, are in preliminary design as part of this project.
Packet Page 234 of 256
Appendix I – Capital Project Descriptions
3
The hydraulic effects on the stream channel from implementing the recommended projects were
evaluated using the calibrated hydrologic model developed for this study. Two retrofit scenarios were
modeled as follows to better understand the corresponding effects. These scenarios are as follows:
Recommended Projects - This scenario evaluates effects from constructing the 12 capital projects
for near-term implementation (approximate cost $2.9M).
Basin Wide LID retrofit – This scenario evaluates the effect of implementing LID retrofits more
comprehensively within city rights-of-way throughout the watershed (approximate additional cost
$2.8M).
Results from the modeled scenarios, summarized in Table ES-2, indicate an average 20% reduction in the
magnitude of peak flood flows for 2-year through the 100-year return period for the 12 recommended
projects. When a comparison is made between existing conditions and those following implementation of
the 12 recommended projects, it is observed that the frequency of flooding at any given rate is reduced
roughly by half; by example, the current 25-year flood flow of 99 cfs approximates the 50-year flood flow
under the retrofitted condition. This represents a substantial reduction in flooding risk with the
recommended projects implemented.
Table ES-2. Selected Peak Flood Flow Reduction at Talbot Road Crossing
RETURN
PERIOD
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
(CFS)
RETROFIT WITH
RECOMMENDED
PROJECTS (CFS)
REDUCTION
BASIN-WIDE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
RETROFIT
(CFS)
2-Year 41 31 26%28
10-Year 77 59 25%56
25-Year 99 87 14%80
50-Year 126 100 22%99
100-Year 135 115 15%105
Table ES-2 also indicates that implementing additional right-of-way BMPs basin-wide provides limited
additional flood flow reduction beyond that of the recommended projects.
Implementing the recommended projects will reduce flood flows sufficiently to allow replacement of the
fish barrier culvert without increasing flood risk to properties downstream of Talbot Road. Sufficient
flood flow reduction will be achieved to mitigate removal of the existing culvert by construction of two of
the most highly effective of the recommended projects: Project 16-1 (Seaview Park facility) and Project
22-1 (Blue Ridge Pond modifications).
Implementing the recommended near-term projects was also shown to reduce the amount of scour along
the Perrinville Creek channel. The generation of new sediment material occurs when discharge in the
stream channel exceeds the mobilization flow rate of approximately 7.2 cfs. Reducing the amount of time
that flows exceed this erosive threshold represents reductions in the amounts of damage to the stream
channel, new sediment generated in the stream, sediment deposited in the lower reaches, and sediment
needing removal from the City’s sediment control facility. The recommended projects would reduce
erosive flows by 18%.
Packet Page 235 of 256
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
4
Similarly, the threshold at which sediment existing in the creek channel is transported downstream is
reduced from 22 percent to 18 percent of the 60-year period of record used in the model. This represents
an 18% reduction in the duration of sediment transporting flows. The percent exceedances are
summarized below in Table ES-3. Again, implementing right-of-way BMPs basin wide provides limited
additional benefit.
Table ES-3. Erosive Flow Duration Reduction in Perrinville Creek
THRESHOLD
FLOW (CFS)
PERCENT OF TIME
THRESHOLD
EXCEEDED UNDER
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PERCENT OF TIME
THRESHOLD EXCEEDED
WITH RECOMMENDED
PROJECTS
PERCENT REDUCTION
IN DURATION OF
FLOW EXCEEDING
THRESHOLD
4.5 transport 22%18%21%
7.2 scour 14%11%18%
It should be noted that city-owned and controlled properties, consisting of road rights-of-way and parks,
account for only approximately 13 percent of the Perrinville Creek watershed, with the balance owned by
private businesses and individuals or other public entities (such as school districts, community college).
Because most of the watershed were developed in the absence of stormwater flow control or water quality
treatment standards, there is a large collective opportunity for flow reduction and water quality
improvement in the basin as these properties redevelop under modern technical standards. Hence, it is
recommended that a flow control standard be developed and placed into effect for the Perrinville Creek
watershed to reduce the erosive flows.
The first step in developing a flow control standard would be to evaluate if the flow control standard in
the Department of Ecology’s 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington is adequate
for this creek. If not, a stricter flow control standards should be developed and implemented throughout
the Perrinville Creek watershed. In addition, flow control requirements should strongly promote
infiltration of runoff, particularly in areas of the watershed where outwash soils can be accessed within 10
feet of the ground surface, as mapped in this study. This mimics the predevelopment condition by
reducing the amount of surface runoff entering the creek.
In addition to occasions of redevelopment, private initiatives such as a rain garden program can improve
flow control and water quality of runoff. Both redevelopment and private initiatives can improve
conditions in Perrinville Creek, but as their timing and scope are indeterminate, their benefits to the creek
are not modeled in this study.
This study has located those reaches of Perrinville Creek that are most prone to scour during erosive
flows. These areas, however, are predominately located within a deep canyon in the undeveloped
Snohomish County Park and immediately below the park. While it may be beneficial to stabilize these
areas, thus potentially raising the threshold flow rates where scour and transport occur, the inaccessibility
of these areas likely makes this work very costly. Further study of options for stabilizing these areas may
be warranted.
Finally, with this study’s understanding of the basin hydrology, the cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood can
appropriately consider flow control enhancements as they make improvements to drainage systems over
time. Examples of these types of interventions include:
Packet Page 236 of 256
Appendix I – Capital Project Descriptions
5
Oversizing storm drainage system replacements to incorporate storage and flow control of smaller
events
Incorporating bioretention or infiltration systems and pervious pavements, and/or reducing in
impervious areas when reconstructing roadways
Collaborating with redeveloping property owners to expand flow control capacity beyond that
strictly required for their project.
The recommended improvements involve substantial investment to redress the hydrologic effects of
historical urbanization in the watershed. The benefits to accrue to the community, however, are several:
The sediment loading to the City’s sediment trapping facility that protects the lower reaches of
the stream will be reduced, and bring a corresponding reduction in maintenance costs for cleaning
the facility
The degradation of the stream channel and hillslope failures through public and private properties
will be slowed, and stream reaches will become more stable
The risk of blockage to the existing Talbot Road culvert will be reduced, and with it the risk of
overtopping the roadway (and damaging city-owned water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure).
Flood flow magnitudes will be reduced, lowering risk of damage to Talbot Road and properties
below and immediately above the road
Flood frequencies will be reduced by one-half
The rate of sediment deposited in the lower reaches of Perrinville Creek and at the shoreline of
Browns Bay will be reduced, along with the associated damage to aquatic habitat
The reduction in flood magnitudes will allow construction of the fish-friendly culvert proposed
for Talbot Road without increasing flood risks.
These benefits align with regional, statewide and national objectives to protect and improve water quality
and habitat function in coastal ecosystems. This alignment promotes the eligibility of the recommended
projects for continued outside funding support.
Packet Page 237 of 256
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
6
This page left intentionally blank.
Packet Page 238 of 256
AM-7307 8.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/02/2014
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilmember Peterson Submitted By:Jana
Spellman
Department:City Council
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Discussion regarding a Diversity Commission
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
The Edmonds City Council has been discussing the subject of a Diversity Commission since 2011 (see
attachments).
Narrative
Edmonds, like our neighboring areas, is increasingly diverse. According to the 2010 census, 9.9% of
Edmonds residents are classified as “foreign born.” Moreover, 11.6% of Edmonds residents speak a
language other than English in the home. The City of Edmonds has responded to this important and
changing demographic by highlighting and promoting the International District on Highway 99. The
Council is also on record supporting the creation of a Human Rights Commission at Snohomish County
with the express authority to investigate threats or actions taken against our diverse community.
However, the diversity in Edmonds goes beyond language and ethnicity. Edmonds is also one of the more
economically diverse cities in our region, home to some of the most affluent citizens of Puget Sound, and
some of the more disadvantaged populations as well.
Increases in age diversity is apparent, as well. Edmonds has a significant and active senior citizen
community, and has attracted recently an influx of young families.
Edmonds is home to wide range of sexual orientations, as well. Our community includes one of the
Legislature’s openly gay members in Rep. Marko Liias, and active LGBT organizations in our high
schools.
Attached to this agenda is an ordinance from Lynnwood. It is for informational purposes only, and will
not be a model Edmonds follows. Also attached is a resolution expressing the interest of the Council to
see future ordinances and discussion regarding the creation of a Diversity and/or Youth Commission.
On Sunday, September 7, at 7 p.m. Emily Hill, a citizen of this community, organized the Edmond
Embraces Diversity event in support of an Edmonds family that was threatened and subjected to racial
slurs while walking on Sunset Avenue. The speaker was a former Edmonds Chamber of Commerce
Packet Page 239 of 256
Board Member, Tung Bui who emigrated to this country from Vietnam. The event was started with a
community welcome by Edmonds City Councilmember Strom Peterson.
Attachments
Attach 1 - Diversity Commission Resolution
Attach 2 - Lynnwood Diversity Ord.
Attach 3 - 8-2-11 Approved Council Minute
Attach 4 - Diversity Info -City of Lynnwood
Attach 5 - Diversity-Board-Comission Comparison Chart
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 11/26/2014 12:55 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/26/2014 01:03 PM
Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 11/26/2014 01:21 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 11/19/2014 08:42 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/26/2014
Packet Page 240 of 256
No:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS
SUPPORTING THE CREATION OF AN ORDINANCE(S) FOR THE PURPOSES OF FUTURE DELIBERATION
REGARDING THE CREATION OF COMMISSION STRUCTURES RELATED TO OUTREACH, EDUCATION AND
ENGAGEMENT
Whereas, the City Council recognizes the increasing demographic, economic, ethnic and other
diversity arising within and around the City of Edmonds, and
Whereas, the City Council appreciates the efforts by citizen leaders who wish to make our city
government even more inclusive and engaging of our diverse community, and
Whereas, the City Council sees future deliberation on the creation of formal commission structures
to further support these citizen efforts and with which to prioritize City efforts to reach
out and engage relevant communities,
Now Therefore be it Resolved that the Council supports the creation of an ordinance(s) for the purposes
of future deliberation regarding the creation of commission structures related to
outreach, education, and engagement, and be it
Further Resolved that the Council recognizes and appreciates the diversity within our Edmonds
community and recognizes those populations may warrant additional effort on the part of
the City to engage in our representative form of democracy.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _____, 2011.
____________________________________
MAYOR, MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
_____________________________________
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO:
Packet Page 241 of 256
CITY OF L YNN\VOOD
ORDINANCE NO. 2488
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD,
'¥ASHINGTON, ESTABLISIDNG A NEW CHAPTER OF
THE LYNNWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING A
NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEMOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY
COMl\USSION AND SETTING FORnI THE DUTIES,
MEMBERSHIP,AND APPLICATION OF ADVISORY BODY
GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO;AND ALSO
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AN EFFECTIVE DATE,
AND FOR SUl\1MARY PUBLICATION.
WHEREAS,the national 2000 census provides important objective information on racial
and ethnic diversity;on the aging, income, employment and standard of living of our citizens,
and also on housing and places of work;and
'VHEREAS,the national 2000 census shows that the City of Lynnwood is rapidly
becoming a more demographically diverse community and home to people from many different
cultures and countries; and
WHEREAS, the Lynnwood City Council has previously adopted Resolution No.2002-
19 supporting our citizens' efforts to participate in encouraging mutual understanding about our
increasing demographic diversity in our city through a diversity project; and
WHEREAS,Resolution No.2002-19 stated in paragraph 6,«that upon recommendations
of the citizens involved in the diversity project,the City of Lynnwood will consider and
determine the nature and scope of the types of support which it can provide to most likely ensure
the success of the project in OUT community;" and
'WHEREAS, a citizens Diversity Task Force has presented to the Lynnwood City
Council its report and recommendations dated February 23,2004; and
'VHEREAS,the members of the Diversity Task Force and the City of Lynnwood have
been recognized by the Association for Washington Cities for its leadership in developing a
diversity project; and
\VHEREAS,good stewardship of our city and community means making and following
through on commitments to reach out to our citizens, and ensuring that City Government and its
Internal Operations, programs and services are accessible and understandable by everyone,and
in helping strengthen our sense of community;and
WHEREAS,RCW 35A.l1 authorizes the City Council to organize and regulate internal
city operations and processes,and to define the functions,duties and authority of city officers
and staff;
NOW, THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY LYNNWOOD DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN:
Section 1.New Lynnwood Municipal Code Chapter and Sections. There is hereby
IfIII
Packet Page 242 of 256
Position No.1: Ending December 31,2006
Position NO.2: Ending December 31,2006
Position No.3: Ending December 31, 2006
Position No.4: Ending December 31.2007
Position No.5:Ending December 31, 2007
Position No.6: Ending December 31,2007
Position No.7:Ending December 31,2007
established in the Lynnwood Municipal Code, Chapter 2.58 entitled, "Neighborhoods &
Demographic Diversity Advisory Commission." Each section herein, is a new section to be
included within Chapter 2.58.
2.58.010 Created.
There is hereby created and established a Neighborhood and Demographic Diversity
Advisory Commission of the city of Lynnwood composed of seven members as
hereinafter provided.
2.58.020 Duties.
The commission is hereby declared to be an advisory body of the city of Lynnwood
whose duties shall be to monitor demographic trends in our city and to identify and
recommend to the mayor and city council ways to encourage mutual understanding
among our citizens about the increasing demographic diversity of our city through, but
not limited to:
1.Connecting and partnering with neighborhood,community, educational,
business, and social service groups and organizations;
2.Sponsoring city-wide, neighborhood and community events, which would
include opportunities for heritage and cultural events; and
3.Programs for engaging citizens and community leaders in an wholistic approach
including dialogues, education, and training about diversity issues.
2.58.030 Membership appointment - Term.
Members of the commission shall be appointed to a position for a term of two years (or
for fulfillment of an unexpired term).Appointees shall serve terms as follows:
Any person may be removed from the commission by the mayor, with approval of the
city council.
2.58.040 General Advisory Provisions - Compliance
The commission structure, operations and appointments thereto, shall comply with the
general provisions for advisory bodies in LMC 2.24.
Section 2. Severability. If any section,sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section,sentence,clause OT phrase of this ordinance.
Packet Page 243 of 256
SIGNED AND APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Lynnwood, Washington,this
12th day of October, 2004.
Section 3.Effective Date and Summary Publication. This ordinance,being an
exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body,is not subject to
referendum, and shall take effect January 1, 2005 and publication of an approved summary
thereof consisting of the title.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Lynnwood,Washington,at its regular
meeting held the 11th day of October,2004.
Attested!Authenticated by:
~'--¥'-'ic~~~-!e---r=fo~~~'~~
Finance Director
Approved As To Fonn
Office of the City Attorney:
Packet Page 244 of 256
Packet Page 245 of 256
Packet Page 246 of 256
Packet Page 247 of 256
Packet Page 248 of 256
Packet Page 249 of 256
Packet Page 250 of 256
Packet Page 251 of 256
Packet Page 252 of 256
Packet Page 253 of 256
Packet Page 254 of 256
Packet Page 255 of 256
Packet Page 256 of 256