Loading...
2014.12.09 CC Agenda Packet              AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 9, 2014             6:15 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER   1.(15 Minutes) AM-7334 Interview of Tree Board applications for 2 vacancies.   2.(15 Minutes)Executive Session regarding real estate per RCW 42.30.110.1(c).    BUSINESS MEETING/STUDY SESSION DECEMBER 9, 2014   7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE   3.(5 Minutes)Roll Call   4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda   5.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items   A.AM-7331 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 25, 2014.   B.AM-7332 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of December 2, 2014.   C.AM-7342 Approval of claim checks #211744 though #211872 dated December 4, 2014 for $237,297.41 (reissued check #211744 $1,266.99). Approval of reissued payroll check #61383 for $272.98, payroll direct deposit and checks #61384 through #61396 for $478,775.50, benefit checks #61397 through #61406 and wire payments of $499,109.56 for the pay period November 16, 2014 through November 30, 2014.   D.AM-7330 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages submitted by Roland Tegman ($569.89).       Packet Page 1 of 537   E.AM-7325 Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement with David Evans & Associates for the 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements project   F.AM-7318 Reappointment of Darcy MacPherson to Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board.   6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings   ACTION ITEMS   7.(5 Minutes) AM-7341 Appointment to fill two vacancies on the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board   8.(5 Minutes) AM-7335 Report on final construction cost for the 5th Avenue Overlay Project and project acceptance   9.(15 Minutes) AM-7322 Amendment to the Woodway Police Services Contract approved by the City Council on November 3, 2014.   STUDY ITEMS   10.(30 Minutes) AM-7317 Proposed 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program.   11.(60 Minutes) AM-7324 Continued Discussion regarding the 2015 Proposed City Budget.   12.(15 Minutes) AM-7340 Public Defender Services Discussion   13.(15 Minutes) AM-7338 Senior Center Lease Discussion   14.(15 Minutes) AM-7306 Discussion regarding Code of Ethics   15.(30 Minutes) AM-7336 Discussion of Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Issues   16.(10 Minutes) AM-7339 Sister City Commission Matching Grant Request   17.(25 Minutes) AM-7343 Discussion of the Draft Housing Element for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update   18.(15 Minutes)Report on Outside Board and Committee Meetings   19.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments   20.(15 Minutes)Council Comments         Packet Page 2 of 537   21.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).   22.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.   ADJOURN         Packet Page 3 of 537    AM-7334     1.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted For:Councilmember Bloom Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Committee: Type: Information Information Subject Title Interview of Tree Board applications for 2 vacancies. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative As of December 31, 2014, two positions on the Tree Board will become vacant.  The three following applications will be interviewed to fill the vacancies: Mr. Brightman at 6:15 p.m. Ms. Durr at 6:20 p.m. Ms. Travis at 6:25 p.m. Attachments Tree Board Applicants for 2015 Vacancies Redacted Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/04/2014 11:05 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/04/2014 12:26 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/04/2014 12:29 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/03/2014 10:53 AM Final Approval Date: 12/04/2014  Packet Page 4 of 537 Packet Page 5 of 537 Packet Page 6 of 537 Packet Page 7 of 537 Packet Page 8 of 537 Packet Page 9 of 537 Packet Page 10 of 537    AM-7331     5. A.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 25, 2014. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The draft minutes are attached. Attachments Attachment 1 - 11-25-14 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 12/02/2014 07:45 AM Final Approval Date: 12/02/2014  Packet Page 11 of 537 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES November 25, 2014 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Diane Buckshnis, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember (arrived 6:59 p.m.) ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Scott James, Finance Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob English, City Engineer Deb Sharp, Accountant Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 10 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso, and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite and Deputy City Clerk Linda Hynd. The executive session concluded at 6:40 p.m. 2. MEET WITH CANDIDATES PEGGY IRWIN SORAICH AND JOAN LONGSTAFF FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE CEMETERY BOARD Following the executive session, the City Council met with Peggy Irwin Soraich and Joan Logstaff, candidates for appointment to the Cemetery Board. The meeting took place in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Elected officials present were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso, and Bloom. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Packet Page 12 of 537 Mayor Earling relayed Councilmember Fraley-Monillas would not be present tonight; she was spending time with a very ill relative. Deputy City Clerk Linda Hynd called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS5 COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS ABSTAINED. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2014 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #211553 THROUGH #211670 DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2014 FOR $835,009.31 (REISSUED CHECK #211583 $33.75). APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61283 THOUGH #61292 AND #61382 FOR $467,030.85, BENEFIT CHECKS #61293 THROUGH #61298 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $447,898.00 FOR THE PAY PERIOD NOVEMBER 1, 2014 TO NOVEMBER 15, 2014. APPROVAL OF PAYMENTS FOR HOLIDAY BUY BACK (CHECK #61299 THOUGH #61348) FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMISSIONED EMPLOYEES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT SERVICE EMPLOYEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $125,150.61 AND KELLY BUY BACK (CHECK #61349 THROUGH #61381) FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMISSIONED EMPLOYEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,909.77 PER UNION CONTRACTS C. APPROVAL TO SURPLUS COMPUTER EQUIPMENT D. CONFIRMATION OF PEGGY IRWIN SORAICH AND JOAN LONGSTAFF TO THE CEMETERY BOARD IN POSITIONS #3 AND #4 E. OCTOBER 2014 BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Carla Elder, Edmonds, added her voice to the comments regarding Sunset Avenue: she really, really hates it. She referred to the one year evaluation period and asked on what basis a decision would be made to keep or change the configuration. She stated Sunset Avenue has been turned into a little, narrow claustrophobic street whereas before it was very spacious and open. Now when parking to enjoy the view it feels like you are parked in the middle of the street and the angle parking creates a narrow choke point. She summarized the charm of the street has been changed. Mayor Earling suggested she contact Public Works Director Phil Williams. Kurt Greiner, Edmonds, stated the analysis he conducted to determine where the southern slope started differed from Tetra Tech’s analysis. He later revised his analysis and provided the Council his revised report; Tetra Tech used a slope of 1.5% and he used a slope of 1.2%, not accounting for the change in elevation of the land south to north. To the comments that the City should move forward with one plan, Packet Page 13 of 537 he agreed that was best way but to do so would require evaluation of all the alternatives. He has not seen some of alternatives that have been referred to such as Edmonds Crossing light, Edmonds Crossing with emergency access, a tunnel under the tracks at Main also referred to as a cut and cover, Main street overpass, Dayton street overpass, emergency access from Pt Roberts or a Bell Street overpass. He suggested before a peer evaluation is done, the public should be informed of the cost of each alternative and benefits each provides. Charles Gold, Edmonds, explained he presented the Edmonds train trench proposal on July 12, 2012 and he and his wife, Katherine, created the website Edmondstraintrench.net. The public response to a petition on the website for a study led to the City hiring Tetra Tech to do a preliminary study. Tetra Tech, although a respected engineering firm, made major errors in their preliminary study due to their lack of experience in below water level train trench construction and the $10,000 funding. Foremost the measurement of grade that is not the correct railroad method of percentage, that is 1 foot per 100 = 1%, a calculation essential to BSNF’s acceptance. The distance between the north end of the Willow Creek structure and the south edge of Dayton, 2500 feet (+/- 20 feet), is perfect for a 1% grade to provide the required 24.5 foot clearance from the top of the rails to the bottom of the bridge and further space can be gained by ramping up Dayton crossing modestly. He cited expensive changes Tetra Tech made to the initial design such as extending the trench further south near the steep slope at Pt. Edwards and the destruction and rebuilding of the Willow Creek daylighting facility, all the result of the mis-measurement. He referred to several emails they received questioning the destruction of the marsh when the trench is the only plan offered that will clean up the marsh by preventing further contamination of soil under the tracks and runoff. Anthony’s restaurant recently signed their petition and they have not yet canvassed downtown businesses that would be severely impacted by a proposed alternative. He requested Tetra Tech publicly correct their study and its unsupported cost estimates and for the City to do same. The Reno trench went from design to operation in four years, a below water level train trench that goes through a much larger city with far more infrastructure relocations, 11 larger bridges versus the 2 smaller ones in Edmonds, curves and is 2.2 miles long. Katherine Gold, Edmonds, ceded her time. Mr. Gold continued, the fixed price bid for the Reno train trench was $1.73 million 10 years ago and there has been little inflation since. The railroad right-of-way in Edmonds was a minimum of 70 feet wide and the double tracked Reno trench was 33 feet wide including the Amtrak station. Edmonds’ straight 1.2 mile long trench with 467 yards of full depth, 2 simple short flyover bridges and one of the planned tracks has yet to be built so it does not need to be demolished. The Edmonds trench is deeper under the waterline, an engineering calculation addressed in the Tetra Tech study. Single solution studies have been done in Edmonds and rejected for over 20 years including Edmonds Crossing and Edmonds Crossing light which WSF cannot afford. Edmonds is a ferry town; moving traffic to bypass downtown and beaches will be detrimental as many people are introduced to Edmonds from the ferry. No other solution addresses both the Dayton and Main intersections. On behalf of the citizens of Edmonds Mr. Gold requested a properly funded study by Jacobs Engineering to show a real plan and the City’s seriousness to potential funding partners; Tetra Tech recommends a full design study to quantify myriad variables. The plan that does the most good for the least should be the one studied followed by the required WSDOT NEPA studies. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, asked to whom all the information regarding how to address train traffic would be presented. He understood Mayor Earling planned to contact someone at BNSF regarding the trench; he asked who Mayor Earling has found to talk to, suggesting possibly citizens should contact Warren Buffet. With regard to transparency and public involvement, he recalled some time ago Fire District 1 presented the City a huge bill. That bill has been discussed in executive session but there has not been a good discussion during a public meeting about whether the City plans to pay the bill, negotiate with Fire District 1, etc. to protect citizens’ tax money. He suggested the City may need to discuss the pros/cons of starting its own fire department again. Packet Page 14 of 537 Dave Page, Edmonds, referred to the information provided by Mr. Gold three weeks ago, commenting it reminded him of when the Port proposed their plan to develop Harbor Square; his first thought was they don’t have the votes, it won’t happen. He questioned whether the City would get the $300 million referred to by Mr. Gold for a train trench., noting if the cost was $200 million now, it would be $300 million by the time it was built. Although he was very interested in the topic as a taxpayer and would be as involved as he could, he wanted to see all the alternatives. During the last election there was a great deal of discussion about transparency in government; after the election that seems to have gone by the wayside. He expressed concern with the number of executive sessions and suggested many of the things discussed could and should be open to the public months/years later. Councilmember Bloom read a letter from Thalia Moutsanides, Edmonds, suggesting a compromise on the Sunset Avenue project. She envisioned a 3-foot walkway instead of the grant-driven project could have been accomplished without all the upheaval. She has heard the project must be kept or the City will have to pay the money back; the project should not be constructed if it does not work. A 3-foot walkway would have allowed people to walk on the west side and retain the parking along the street. She questioned a design with parking on the south end where it looks like a parking lot; eliminating the view for people driving on the street who now have to worrying about being hit, the east sidewalk is dangerous and there are many near misses. Regardless of width, the sidewalk cannot accommodate walkers, people with 1-3 dogs on leashes, bicycles, strollers, elderly, handicapped, Segways, wheelchairs, and scooters. During busy times, people spill into the street on both the west and east sidewalks as cars fly by. She recommended the sidewalk be retained for walkers with or without dogs, strollers and wheelchairs. When garbage trucks are present, cars weave across the street to get around them and cars occasionally drive on the trial sidewalk to get around cars or trucks. People drive down the middle of the street only to realize there are two parked cars at the north end and swerve to avoid them. She suggested the Council and community compromise, make the street work for everyone and not focus on how much money needs to be paid back. 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES FOR THE 76TH AVE. W @ 212TH ST. SW INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained Supplement #5 includes 3 tasks, 1) traffic analysis and conceptual design for moving the Edmonds-Woodway High School drop-off entrance from 76th to 216th, 2) additional geotechnical borings for two detention values and a sewer line, and 3) adding the conversion of overhead utilities to underground. The approximately cost of the supplement is $69,000 and will be paid by the 112 Fund, the grant and the utilities fund since the borings are being done for the stormwater detention vault and the sewer line. With regard to the conversion of the overhead utilities, Mr. English explained in preliminary discussions with PUD and Frontier, both are taking a different approach than they did at Five Corners. At Five Corners, most of the undergrounding was done on a cost share arrangement where the City did a lot of the work, building the joint utility trench and installing vaults and conduits and communications pulled the conductors which resulted in very little money being exchanged. The initial reaction by PUD and Frontier is the City would owe them money due to the existing Frontier franchise and PUD’s policy for undergrounding utilities in the City’s right-of-way and RCW language that states the City is responsible for the difference between aerial relocation to an underground conversion. Undergrounding utilities is part of the scope, but he envisioned there will be ongoing discussion regarding that issue and the Council will be kept apprised. The proposed completion date is December 31, 2015. There is a chance the scope for the geotechnical work may be revised; if so, the Council will be informed regard the change as well as any adjustment to the cost. Packet Page 15 of 537 Councilmember Petso asked about a trial for the new access to Edmonds-Woodway High School parking. Mr. English advised a conceptual layout will be designed by the end of 2015. The project includes changing the lane configuration from the existing four lanes to three lanes. He was uncertain how a trial could be accomplished due to restriping that will be required, etc. The consultant will analyze a 3-lane conversion and evaluate potential queuing as cars enter the parking lot from the south side. He did not anticipate that queue would extend to 76th Avenue. Councilmember Petso commented it is a student parking lot and located near access to the hospital. She suggested gating the current main entrance for a while and see what happens rather than just evaluating it on paper. If the cost of undergrounding becomes excessive, she asked whether the project would continue without that aspect. Mr. English commented it is always possible that part of the scope would be removed from the project and the utilities would do an aerial relocation. Councilmember Petso asked whether the City had a franchise agreement with PUD and if not, was this a time to get one in place to avoid this problem in the future. Mr. English responded the City does not have a franchise agreement with PUD. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the City’s franchise agreement with PUD expired in 1967 and has not been replaced. The PUD is citing an internal PUD policy that governs what they will/will not do with regard to relocating poles in the City’s rights-of-way. The Five Corners arrangement worked out well but PUD is not as willing to duplicate that same idea on this project. He was hopeful PUD would see the wisdom of doing this project the same way. Councilmember Petso relayed it was suggested to her that the City was exposed to liability risks without a franchise agreement. Mr. Williams explained the City began discussions with PUD about a franchise agreement when the City was interested in locating fiber optics cable in the communication space on their space on poles; PUD had little or no interest and the issue was dropped. PUD believes they are living up to the bargain in the previous agreement and without an agreement in place, they are guided by their own policy. Councilmember Johnson suggested negotiations with PUD include the size and dimensions of the cabinets to ensure they were minimal height and width. The cabinets are one of the few criticisms she has heard about the Five Corners roundabout. Mr. Williams agreed it was surprising one of the enclosures at Five Corners was so large. If the size had been known, consideration could have been given minimizing the impact such as additional screening. The only other choice is to put the equipment underground; the cost to underground the two larger enclosures at Five Corners would have been an additional $300,000. Council President Buckshnis asked whether there was an amount that would determine that undergrounding would not be done. Mr. English answered the federal funds could potentially be used for utility undergrounding which would factor into the decision. An amount has not yet been determined because the design and cost estimates for the undergrounding has not been completed. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether undergrounding saved maintenance costs for the utilities. Mr. English answered the City believes so but PUD may have a different answer. Mr. Williams said that point has been brought up with the PUD as well as providing a prorated discount on new utility poles. The PUD discounts those theories in determining what they will pay for. Councilmember Mesaros commented the City to a certain extent was doing the PUD a favor. Mr. Williams answered there is also a safety benefit of undergrounding but that is not PUD’s policy. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item on next week’s Consent Agenda. 8. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JAIL SERVICES WITH THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD Packet Page 16 of 537 Police Chief Al Compaan recalled several weeks ago he presented two other jail contracts, Snohomish County and Yakima County. Although the Lynnwood Jail is not used as regularly because it is often full with Lynnwood’s own prisoners, he felt it is a good contract to continue. The booking fee will remain $10 which not changed in many years and the daily rate will increase from $65 to $85. Councilmember Mesaros asked how priorities were set with regard to what jail to use. Chief Compaan answered Lynnwood is rarely used because it is usually full with own prisoners. The first priority is Snohomish County Jail, Yakima County is second for longer term incarcerations and Lynnwood is used on somewhat of an ad hoc basis. For example if a person has a warrant and there is also a warrant out of Lynnwood Municipal Court, the prisoner would likely be housed at Lynnwood and Edmonds would pay half the cost of the incarceration. Councilmember Bloom asked about the $20/day increase in the daily rate. Chair Compaan answered that is the cost Lynnwood included in the contract; he did not know the basis. There have been increases in past but the daily rate of $65 has existed for many years. Lynnwood has been very reasonable and a good partner. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item on next week’s Consent Agenda. 9. PRESENTATION OF THE TRAIN TRENCH CONCEPT BY TETRA TECH Mayor Earling explained due to the community’s interest in investigating the potential for a train trench, he engaged Tetra Tech for what he viewed as a preliminary look at the engineering challenges and potential cost challenges. It was not meant as a definitive study, certainly not for $10,000. Rich Schaefer, Tetra Tech, introduced James Castillo, chief of the structural team in the Bellevue office, and Sandy Glover, who has extensive experience with waterfront transportation projects. Mr. Castillo’s team led this study. Mr. Schaefer reviewed the purpose and scope: • Identify required footprint and envelope of the Train Trench concept • Develop technically feasible approach to construct the Train Trench • Identify associated design, permitting and implementation requirements • Prepare estimate of direct construction costs and the costs to implement He described Tetra Tech’s Design Team: • Local experts practicing large-scale civil/structural engineering globally o Below-grade train structures o Train trench o Massive water- and earth-retaining structures o State, National and Global award-winning projects He highlighted Tetra Tech’s experience: • University Street Station • Pioneer Square Station • Panama Canal Third Set of Locks Design-Build • IHNC Lake Borgne Surge Barrier (Louisiana) Mr. Schaefer reviewed the construction concept, advising the rail track will remain in service during construction. He identified: • Groundwater elevation Packet Page 17 of 537 • 6” road surface • 5’ drilled shaft secant pile wall • Steel bridge for road crossing • Bridge abutment • 25’ minimum height of trench • 34’ tunnel width plus wall thickness • 8” structural bottom concrete slab • 3’ concrete bottom slab He reviewed the extent of the train trench: • 7,750 feet long, 34 feet wide • 30 feet deep from Main to Dayton • Slope to climb back to grade • 3,700 feet of trench into groundwater • Below grade passenger platform • Steep slopes near Pt. Edwards, Sunset Avenue, • Regulated shorelines limit footprint and flexibility He provided an aerial photograph identifying the depth of the trench beginning of the trench, portions below the water table and the end of trench.. Mr. Schaefer provided a diagram illustrating the existing grade, the depth of the train trench, beginning of the trench, proposed Willow Creek Crossing, Dayton Avenue Intersection, Main Street Intersection, and the end of trench. Their concept includes an aggressive 1.5% slope in an effort to shorten the length of the project. Their initial approach would be to see if Willow Creek could be lengthened further south and go under the grade. He commented on his and Ms. Glover’s experience; she was responsible for coordinating work for the Mukilteo multimodal facility and he was the project manager for the conceptual design, permitting and environmental review for Seattle’s Downtown Elliott Bay Seawall Replacement Project. Although the amounts for environmental review, permitting and mitigation may seem large, they are real estimates based on experience. He reviewed construction conditions that drive costs: • Depth and length • Shallow groundwater/saturated soils • Maintaining and supporting active rails • Urban setting/confined work space • Proximity to shorelines and steep slopes • Extension of the Willow Creek project • Environmental review/permitting He commented on differences between the Edmonds train trench and other train trenches cited on the Edmondstraintrench.net website. He provided a cost estimate summary: Direct Construction $136 M Contingency, 30% - 50% $41 M – 68 M Sales Tax, 9.5% $17 M - $19 M Construction Subtotal $194 M - $223 M Management Reserve, 10% $19 M - $22 M Project Mgmt. & Administration, 3% $6 M - $7 M Engineering, 12% $23 M - $27 M Packet Page 18 of 537 Environmental Mitigations $4 M Environmental Review & Permitting $5 M Project Total $251 M - $288 M Council President Buckshnis commented she is on the WRIA 8 Board; they have spent approximately $500,000 on the design of Willow Creek daylighting. She relayed her understanding the culverts need to be moved further south. Mr. Schaefer agreed, advising the creek alignment as it is currently designed will go into the side of the trench box. He envisioned the creek would parallel the tracks further south although that raises a question about the cross-section as it approaches the hillside with two rails and the creek adjacent to the bluff. Consideration was given to permitting the construction rigs on rails in the tidelands; that possibility would need to be investigated. Councilmember Bloom referred to Mr. Schaefer’s comment about having a higher bridge crossing at Dayton and Main to reduce depth and asked whether that would provide enough clearance for Willow Creek. Mr. Schaefer did not envision it would unless there was a hump in the streets similar to the bridge in Richmond Beach. There are other things that cross at Dayton such as a storm drain which also could be rerouted as well as the outfall from wastewater treatment plant. Funds were included in the cost estimate to change it from one large pipe to four smaller pipes to provide a thinner profile crossing the tracks and reconsolidating into one pipe on the west side. He summarized there are a number of engineering approaches to raise the elevation. There have not been any discussions with BNSF with regard to whether these details are acceptable to them. Councilmember Petso asked whether the trench depth could be less than 30 feet, recalling audience comment that referred to 24 or 25 feet. Mr. Schaefer answered that assumed the road bridges could be crowned. Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding of Mr. Schaefer’s explanation that 25 feet was not enough clearance. Mr. Schaefer explained BNSF requires 23.5 feet from the rails to clear space. The bridge would be above that including 4 feet for a bridge deck, 3 foot slap underneath, etc. Councilmember Petso relayed she has been creating a matrix of options for addressing train issues. She asked whether a trench under Main and not under Dayton would eliminate the problems at the marsh. Mr. Schaefer advised the trench needs to climb up; it would be partially out of the ground at Dayton which would cut off Dayton Street. With regard to claims made about the trench, Councilmember Petso relayed she has heard it would be helpful to the marsh to keep contaminants out but his presentation indicated it may be detrimental to marsh because mitigation may be required. Mr. Schaefer explained runoff from the tracks washes into the marsh today; a trench would contain that. That runoff would need to be pumped out of the trench and treated prior to discharge either to Puget Sound or the marsh; that cost was included in the cost estimate. Mitigation can take a number of forms and it will depend on the agencies, other stakeholders and the scope of the project during environmental review. Councilmember Petso summarized mitigation is a cost component but can also be a benefit. Mr. Schaefer agreed. Councilmember Petso referred to a claim regarding safety provided by a trench from oil train shipments and asked whether there was a safety benefit with a trench lowering the trains below grade. Mr. Schaefer answered it would provide containment for an initial spill as long as it occurred within that 7,700 feet. Council President Buckshnis commented an older study indicated a cut and cover would be a lot less expensive. She asked whether a train trench was the best alternative because it was not covered or were there benefits to a cut and cover. Mr. Schaefer agreed the trench could be decked between Dayton and Main as well as to the north and south which would provide opportunities for redevelopment and broader access to the waterfront. Council President Buckshnis asked whether it would be more expensive. Mr. Packet Page 19 of 537 Schaefer answered decking on top would make it more expensive; the way the trench was constructed would not be different. Councilmember Peterson commented in an urban setting the railroad right-of-way is relatively generous. He asked if any condemnation issues were anticipated and how construction would occur in such a tight space. Mr. Schaefer answered it is more than just the two tracks, there is also a maintenance track. He proposed a portion of the through track on the surface remain in place as the maintenance track but not cross Dayton and Main. The area by Harbor Square is a pinch point where additional real estate would be required. It would be a tight working area due to staging and maintaining service; there may be a need for temporary or permanent easements. Councilmember Peterson asked the project timeframe if everything went relatively well. Mr. Schaefer answered three years. Councilmember Peterson asked how BNSF would keep freight moving during the project. Mr. Schaefer that will be one of BNSF’s concerns as well as a provision they will mandate if they have any interest in the project whatsoever. The biggest hurdle is the City does not own any of the right- of-way or the tracks; he anticipated long discussions with BNSF. He recalled negotiations between Sound Transit and BNSF took 10 years. Councilmember Peterson asked whether sea level rise was taken into account in any of the engineering estimates. Mr. Schaefer answered nothing was included to address sea level rise; that is an issue for the entire rail line not just this section. He recalled after a great deal of discussion regarding sea level rise related to the Seattle seawall, it was recognized that issue affected the entire shoreline not just the one mile seawall. Councilmember Bloom referred to the staging area for construction near the steep slopes at Pt. Edwards and Sunset Avenue and the maintenance track. Mr. Schaefer advised the track line that would continue in operation would be moved as far toward the water as possible to provide as much clear space on the east side and when the trench was complete, the track would be removed and a spur left for a maintenance track. Councilmember Bloom how much bigger the trench would be than if BNSF built a second rail. Mr. Schaefer answered it was the same size. Councilmember Bloom asked how the steep slopes would be impacted by the trench. Mr. Schaefer answered the rail bed for double tracking already exists; BNSF only needs to lay the rails. To maintain track on the water side and build a trench inland would require cutting into the slope at Sunset Avenue and the secant piles serving as a retaining wall. Councilmember Bloom observed the secant piles would provide more stability for Sunset Avenue. Mr. Schaefer answered it would provide more stability than cutting into the slope without any retaining wall. As he had not studied the stability of the slope, he could not say it would be more or less stable. If she found the potential for this project intriguing enough to have an engineering company develop a solution to the Willow Creek bridge issue, Councilmember Petso asked what the next step would be and what the cost would be. Mr. Schaefer answered there were key things to advance that approach including the concept for extending Willow Creek further south with a maintainable entrance, grades to move flows and right-sized channels throughout the year. Another key factor would be obtaining a red, green or yellow signal from the railroad. Councilmember Petso asked if he had a contact at the railroad. Mr. Schaefer answered the City does. Councilmember Petso asked if there were any engineering solutions to the Willow Creek bridge or did it need to be approached by lengthening the Willow Creek outflow. Mr. Schaefer there are a number of possibilities including a deeper trench with the creek channel on top. Packet Page 20 of 537 If the City were able to convince BNSF that their best interests could be served via this project and if BNSF were interested in assisting the City, Councilmember Petso asked the cost to obtain a preliminary answer to the Willow Creek bridge question and other questions such as sea level rise. She said citizens have suggested a budget of $50,000 - $100,000. Mr. Schaefer agreed answers could be prioritized within that amount. Council President Buckshnis observed a cut and cover of the trench would be required if Willow Creek went over. Mr. Schaefer agreed, it would be an artificial structure/bridge filled with water. Councilmember Johnson asked the order of magnitude for an alternatives study to consider all the options to solve the train issue. Mr. Schaefer answered their study did not consider the cost of engineering and evaluating alternatives because creeps into the scope of a full EIS. He was aware there have been discussions about requesting $1+ million from the State for an EIS, scoping purpose and need, and evaluation of alternatives; that is an appropriate order of magnitude for that type of study. 10. DEPUTY DIRECTOR PARKS JOB DESCRIPTION AND SALARY RANGE APPROVAL Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite recalled last year the Council unanimously approved a decision package for the Recreation Manager to work as an Interim Assistant Director. Ms. McRae has been an invaluable member of the team and has been working in that capacity during the past year. The request tonight is to make that position permanent. The packet includes a job description for a Deputy Director for Parks, a salary survey of four comparable cities with Deputy Director positions, and a recommended salary range for the Deputy Director Position. According to the nonrepresented compensation policy, anyone reclassified into a higher position receives a 5% increase. Because Ms. McRae is currently paid an extra 5% for this interim position, this proposal has no financial impact on the 2015 budget but will impact future budgets as this position moves through steps, etc. Ms. Hite explained will provide assistance to the Parks & Recreation Department and is part of a succession plan; there are 3 senior managers in the Parks Department, 1 with 40 years of service who likely will retire in the next 1-2 years, Ms. McRae has 26-27 years of service and Ms. Chapin also has a long service with the City. With Ms. McRae working at a Deputy Director level, other staff can be trained into a manager level at some point. Is there are retirements this year, she may ask the Council for funds to reorganize the Parks Department to create efficiencies and fill gaps. Councilmember Petso recalled a short time ago a decision was made so that the Human Resources Director position could be any of the City’s directors. She questioned making the Deputy Director position permanent when Ms. Hite may not be the Human Resources Director in the future. Ms. Hite agreed the Human Resources Reporting Director was at the direction of the Mayor and he could select any director to fulfill those duties. She is currently the Human Resources Reporting Director; the Deputy Director would assist her in the Parks Department. The additional value a Deputy Director adds is the City does not have a park planner. Ms. Hite relayed she does a lot of that work which takes her away from strategic and long term planning. Even if she was the full-time Parks Director, there are still deficits in the Parks Department. Councilmember Petso said she would support a proposal to reorganize the Parks Department. She understood the reason for the interim Deputy Director and supported it continuing. Ms. Hite pointed out the code only also allows an interim to be extended up to one year and it is reaching the end of a year. Councilmember Petso asked whether Council approval was required after one year. Ms. Hite offered to research that. Mayor Earling advised he foresees keeping the appointment the way it is; the Human Resources Department is running very smoothly and the changes that have instituted over time have been the right move. Packet Page 21 of 537 Councilmember Johnson pointed out this was revenue neutral for 2015. Councilmember Petso advised her concern was in regard to future years. Council President Buckshnis expressed her total support for this proposal. Ms. McRae has done a spectacular job, the proposal is revenue neutral and it is time employees who have been with the City a long time are recognized. Councilmember Peterson asked if establishing this job description would assist with attracting candidates from outside the City in the future. Ms. Hite agreed it was a very strong recruitment tool; it will be easier to recruit for a Deputy Director rather than a Recreation Manager. Councilmember Bloom observed in the past the job description would have been reviewed by the Public Service/Personnel Committee. She asked what the job description was based on. Ms. Hite explained the job description is consistent with the format of the job descriptions adopted by Council two years ago. The job description was developed by her with the knowledge of what Ms. McRae is doing and using the Deputy Director job descriptions from Issaquah, Sammamish, Lynnwood and Kirkland. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item on next week’s Consent Agenda. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 11. DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM City Engineer Rob English explained the agenda packet includes staff’s responses to questions submitted by Councilmembers. In response to a question received from Councilmember Petso late yesterday/early today regarding estimated grant reimbursements in 2015 in the 112 Fund, he distributed a matrix showing the project, the grant source and the amount anticipated to be received in 2015. He noted budgets are developed in late June/early July and numbers change over time. This was the estimate in the July timeframe. For example he anticipated a large amount of the reimbursement for the Five Corners Roundabout would be received in 2014. Reimbursement in 2015 for the 228th corridor project will depend on the contractor’s schedule. Council President Buckshnis referred to options for 9th Avenue that include a roundabout or a light. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained three options were considered for 9th & Main, temporary striping such as was done at Walnut & 9th; the future final project when traffic volumes warrant could be either a roundabout or a light. There has not been enough work done to make a definitive recommendation on either of those options. Council President Buckshnis suggested adding “either or” to the description. Council President Buckshnis referred to the language for the alternatives study in the CIP, relaying her concern with regionalism and whether the language included emergency access. Mr. Williams responded that project has the longest description of any project in the CIP. The description captures the exact language that was discussed with Council prior to adoption of last year’s CIP, language that was offered by former Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton. Council President Buckshnis observed the description would include a train trench, cut and cover, etc. Mr. Williams advised it would. Council President Buckshnis referred to the Sunset Avenue project and the timing of the $2 million in 2018 and suggested replacing the $2 million with “unknown.” She envisioned Sunset Avenue would be addressed sooner than 2018. Mr. Williams advised funding would be required before any project could be built. The earliest year was 2018 because there is no reasonable expectation of funding before that. The Packet Page 22 of 537 City already has a grant for design; further spending has been suspended pending feedback on the trial geometry. Council President Buckshnis relayed her understanding that a decision would be made regarding the design by next year. Mr. Williams explained his recommendation has been to have the trial geometry in place for a year to go through all the seasons and then the Council provide some direction regarding on how to evaluate/measure reactions to the trial. Council President Buckshnis suggested some type of survey will be necessary; she has received both positive and negative input. She felt $2 million in 2018 was grabbing a number and placing it in a far off date when she anticipated a decision would be made next year. Mr. Williams explained the cost estimate is based on the scope and the project that was identified in the grant applicants submitted to the State. There is no particular reason to change that number absent better information. If the project is changed, certainly the cost estimate can be changed. The intent is to have a number in the CIP to show the City is serious about pursuing a project if it is feasible. The City already received a design grant; leaving a hole in the CIP with regard to construction funding sends an odd signal to future funders of a project. He noted there are a number of projects in the CIP with funding amounts in future years such as the aquatics center. Council President Buckshnis recommended more money be included in the CFP for traffic calming. She also suggested researching the cost of public restrooms like those provided at the Saturday Market. With regard to traffic calming, Mr. Williams recalled one of the ways to fund the City’s agreed-upon local share of the $320,000 Pine Street crosswalk ($10,000) was from traffic coalmining. The Council preferred to have that funded from the General Fund which will require a budget amendment to carryover the $10,000 in traffic calming funds to 2015. Mayor Earling advised staff has done some exploration regarding public restrooms. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite advised the Economic Development Commission has been working on this issue for some time. The Planning Board recently made a unanimous decision to add public restrooms to the CFP in 2015. The cost to locate porta potties downtown until a more permanent restroom is built is approximately $12,000 - $14,000/year. If the Council wanted to pursue that, she recommended it be a General Fund allocation, paid from the Park Maintenance Fund like all other porta potties, rather than the CFP. That way it is an operational expense, not a capital improvement. When a restroom is built, the maintenance would be included in the Park Maintenance budget. Regarding Sunset Avenue, Councilmember Mesaros relayed his understanding the $2 million was loose estimate; he asked whether other projects on the CIP also had loose estimates. Mr. Williams explained he has been employed by the City for 4½ years; there were some estimates that he was not certain where they came from originally and they had not changed during that time. Councilmember Mesaros commented his understanding of the CIP was it was an estimate of what may happen, may being the operative word, depending on funding that is identified. Mr. Williams agreed it is related to scope and year of construction; there has not been a consensus on the scope so the number is a placeholder. Councilmember Mesaros summarized that was true for a number of other projects in the CIP. Mr. Williams agreed. Councilmember Peterson commented the $2 million for Sunset Avenue is for construction; the reason the funds are included in 2018 is because even if Council decided next year on a scope and plan, it would take time to get it engineered and designed, go through a public process, etc. Best case scenario construction would likely not occur until 2018. Mr. Williams commented the other big variable is the City does not have a funding source and would need to apply for and be successful in obtaining a grant which could take a year or more. Therefore, it does not make sense to have that project any earlier in the CIP than the earliest unconstrained financial year in the CIP. Packet Page 23 of 537 Councilmember Bloom said she has not had time to submit any questions to staff. She suggested Councilmembers ask questions on the alternatives study and the Sunset Avenue walkway separately from other projects. With regard to the inclusion of bike lanes in a project, she asked whether that was sharrows, physically separated lanes, a grade level change or something else. She learned at a recent transportation workshop that sharrows do not work; there needs to be grade separation or a physical barrier between the bicycle lane, walkway and roadway. Mr. Williams responded a lot of things work; a better bicycle facility can be built if there is enough room and enough money. Bike lanes are dedicated bike lanes, a bicycle facilities may be something different. Mr. English agreed a bike lane is a striped lane on the roadway to delineate the bike lane. Councilmember Bloom reiterated the transportation workshop she attended stated a striped bike lane is not effective; for the safety, comfort, protection and support of walkers and bikers, there should be some kind of separation either grade or a barrier even if it is as simple as candlesticks between the bike lane and the roadway. She wanted the City to begin thinking in those terms because if the intent was to encourage bicycling, a feeling of comfort or separation needed to be provided. Councilmember Bloom asked the purpose of $295,000 allocated in 2015 for the Five Corners intersection improvements. Mr. English explained when estimates were prepared in late June/early July it was anticipated some expenditures might occur in January 2015; a lot of those expenditures will occur in 2014. Councilmember Bloom referred to the proposal for a signal at the intersection of 196 & 88th. She asked whether the interim plan was a right turn only on the adjoining streets and when that was scheduled to occur. Mr. Williams responded there currently was no plan. A signal has been discussed as a possible solution but there are not sufficient warrants for a signal at that intersection; therefore a signal is not an option. The Council has discussed changing the circulation pattern at the intersection to reduce the potential for certain types of accidents. Limiting through traffic on 88th received a negative reaction and that concept was abandoned. Councilmember Bloom relayed concerns she has heard related to safety issues at the intersection including the lack of a crosswalk and hazardous left turns. She asked whether a right turn only could be considered. Councilmember Peterson advised that has been discussed in the past but was very controversial. Mr. Williams agreed that would address certain types of accidents but would not address westbound travel on 196th at too high a speed that caused a vehicle to leave the roadway. Councilmember Bloom referred to the Olympic Avenue from Main Street to Puget Drive Walkway, projected to cost $1.249 million that she said could easily quality for a Safe Routes to Schools grant. She has heard many concerns about vehicle speeds and that there is no place to walk. She questioned that being a priority #3 for long walkways, yet was not scheduled for study until 2021 – 2026. She compared that walkway to the Sunset Avenue Walkway, noting there are not the same safety issues on Sunset. Sunset is a feel good project; the Olympic Avenue Walkway is about safety for school children. She asked why it was scheduled so far out in the future and why it did not have a higher priority. Mr. Williams answered the only real source of funds is Safe Routes to Schools; staff tries to identify projects on the CIP that will score well in the competition for funds. Mr. English explained when the 2009 Transportation Plan was developed, that walkway was ranked third; one of the recommendations was to change the classification of Olympic Avenue from a local to a collector street as traffic volumes are more similar to a collector and the opportunity to obtain funding would improve if the designation was changed. There was resistance from citizens on Olympic Avenue to changing it from a local to a collector. There is an existing asphalt walkway on the east side of the road. The Council did not approve the designation change and the project was moved into the out years. Councilmember Bloom suggested that be brought to the attention of the Transportation Committee. Packet Page 24 of 537 Councilmember Bloom asked whether a description regarding how to apply for traffic calming funds was posted to the City’s website. Mr. Williams answered he will check to see whether that has been accomplished yet. Councilmember Bloom observed the Stormwater CFP is fairly short. She asked whether any other locations were identified as high flood risks after the August 29, 2013 flood that resulted in several claims filed against City due to flooding. Mr. Williams responded that storm was a good reminder of where a lot of flooding exposure exists in the system such as the Dayton/Walnut system. Mr. English added 4th Avenue was another area that experienced flooding; a project was completed in September/October 2014 to address the problem. Councilmember Petso observed there are a number of projects with a bike lane component. She recalled a concern she expressed earlier that the Bike Plan in the Transportation Plan does not identify the same locations for bike lanes. For example the Bike Plan has bike lanes on 84th and not on 76th. Mr. Williams answered that was the 2009 Transportation Plan; the update to that plan is being prepared and likely will be adopted in June 2015. Many things have changed since the 2009 Transportation Plan was adopted and there are likely a number of things that are not consistent with 2009 Transportation Plan. Mr. English pointed out the 2009 Transportation Plan identified bike lanes on 76th Avenue. Mr. Williams noted the City also has a grant for that project. Councilmember Petso asked whether it was Mr. Williams’ opinion that removing multiuse path from the Sunset Avenue Walkway description would cause the granting agency concern. Mr. Williams answered that was still his opinion; he did not know the answer but did not want take that risk. He anticipated a much better chance of a positive result in discussions with the granting agency if the City collected information and conducted a disciplined process to evaluate the trial design. Councilmember Petso recalled a comment during audience comment regarding what information the City was planning to collect. Mr. Williams advised the City is collecting speed information via speed tubes in two locations on Sunset Avenue, accident information, etc. There are no formal plans for other information gathering; the Council could decide whether to conduct a statistically valid survey or a format for people to provide input. He suggested it would be helpful to have guidance from the Council regarding the evaluation. Councilmember Petso referred to the CFP page for the Sunset Walkway that shows a walkway from Main to Caspers, the text states Bell to Caspers and some of the project variations have included Caspers Street. She asked what project was being considered, whether it was as outlined in the temporary markings. Mr. Williams answered the Council could do anything they wanted within reason on Caspers; there is plenty of right-of-way to design the elements on Caspers, there is no obvious limitation or fatal flaw. The same is true on the south end of the project where the Sunset Avenue Overlook was envisioned; none of that would be impacted by the railroad. The area where the most interest/concern was expressed was the narrowest section of the project in the middle whether the trial project is intended to gather information. Councilmember Petso asked whether the CFP should be revised if the intent was to do something on Caspers. Mr. Williams answered it was not necessary in the 2015 CFP, it could be done in the 2016 CFP if further details regarding the Caspers project was available. Councilmember Petso referred to the addition of a project at 216th & Highway 99, asking the rationale for adding that project when Highway 99 & 205th, which was a far bigger problem, was not added. Mr. Williams explained after discussions with Carl Zapora, Verdant, who owns the property; Jim Underhill, a resident in the area; and representatives of Value Village, the building tenant, interim improvements were identified that were basically paint. This included marking a crosswalk on the west side of 72nd crossing 216th, removing 3 of the 6 angle parking spaces on the south side of the building that created conflicts with traffic turning off Highway 99 traffic and backing movements and converting the remaining 3 to Packet Page 25 of 537 employee parking. Long term that corner may be repurposed by the property owner which would be the right time to require frontage improvements that tie pedestrians on the north side of Highway 99 with 76th Avenue. Councilmember Petso clarified her inquiry was the intersection improvement at Highway 99 & 216th related to protective/permissive left hand turns. Mr. English explained that project adds a dedicated left turn lane for eastbound and westbound lanes. Councilmember Petso asked whether the rational for that improvement was traffic volume or a failed interaction. She relayed the intersection at Highway 99 & 205th is failed but nothing is done. Mr. English did not recall there was a LOS F at that intersection. Assuming she wanted improvements made at other intersection such as 205th & Highway 99 and 76th & SR 104, Councilmember Petso asked how those could be included in the plan. Mr. English recommended having a project vetted through the process of updating the 2015 Transportation Plan. Councilmember Petso asked whether the another approach would be to draft a project sheet and vote it into the plan. Mr. Williams responded that was technically doable but he questioned whether it was the right way to do traffic engineering. The Council awarded a contract to a very competent traffic engineer who will evaluate the City’s intersections, update traffic counts, calculate levels of service, identify intersection movements that have failed or will fail during the planning phase and identify possible projects to include in the plan. Councilmember Petso asked why 216th & Highway 99 was being added in advance of the evaluation but not the other two. Mr. Williams advised 216th & Highway 99 was identified in the 2009 plan; the project related to Value Village was an addition. Councilmember Petso offered to follow up with staff during the next week. Councilmember Johnson commented the 2009 Transportation Plan identified some good projects that included the long walkway at Olympic View Dive. She recalled conversations about 196th & 88th, noting although it may be controversial, it warrants additional discussion either this year or next year. She concurred with Councilmember Bloom’s comments regarding that intersection. Councilmember Johnson expressed concern with inconsistencies between project descriptions and/or amounts: She asked staff to research the following examples: 1. Sunset Avenue o Page 40 CFP: Project description is a multiuse pathway and $2,350,000 project cost o Page 31 CIP: project description is a sidewalk on the west side and $1,876,000 project cost 2. Civic Center Complex Improvements o Project costs of $6.1 million and $6.3 million 3. City Park Revitalization o Different project amounts on page 29 and page 62 Councilmember Johnson expressed concern with the sequence of events related to Marina Beach. Page 35 of the CIP includes a $130,000 project for improvements including expanding the parking area, replacing play structures, etc. Page 66 includes language regarding Edmonds Marsh Willow Creek Daylighting with a 50/50 split between Parks and Stormwater with a total cost of $200,000. She was concerned doing the improvements prior to the Master Plan would be out of sequence. Ms. Hite assured the improvements would not be done prior to the Master Plan. The City executed a contract with a consultant to assist with the master planning process and she anticipated presenting a concept to Council by mid-2015. The replacement of the Marina Beach playground equipment is on the CIP for 2015. If the Master Plan identifies the location, it will be replaced in 2015; if a complete redo of the park is recommended that can be accomplished in the next 2-3 years, the playground equipment will not be replaced. If a complete redo of the park is recommended and cannot be completed within 10 years, the playground equipment likely will be replaced. The $200,000 for the Edmonds Marsh Willow Creek Daylighting is for 60% design on the actual daylighting of Willow Creek. Packet Page 26 of 537 Councilmember Johnson referred to miscellaneous open space at $200,000, recommending that amount be increased even if it meant not replacing the play equipment at Marina Beach; that was a tradeoff she was willing to consider. Councilmember Bloom referred to the PSRC’s TAP cost estimate for the Sunset Avenue Walkway. She relayed her understanding the trial walkway was east of the original walkway and mostly off BNSF property. Mr. Williams explained City’s street already occupies as much as 14-feet of BNSF property and BNSF does not seem to have an issue with that. The intent was to establish a walkway that did not extend past the existing curb. Councilmember Bloom asked about the trial striping that jogs to the west. Mr. Williams advised where the ownership changes, the trial project jogs the walkway west of the curb and paves that short section of walkway. In the area where BNSF owns a portion of the right-of-way, that dictated the geometry. There have been suggestions to remove the planter strip and sidewalk on the east and have the walkway on the west side serve as the pedestrian facility. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the estimate includes potential shoring of the hillside for a walkway. Mr. Williams answered there was thought about talking with BNSF about whether they saw value in a partnership to shore 1-2 areas. That is not included in the estimate. If that was done, it would be in addition to the current cost estimate. Councilmember Bloom asked whether stormwater and sewer improvements were included in the cost estimate. Mr. Williams answered no, explaining those assets needed attention anyway. Better stormwater drainage was needed on Sunset Avenue regardless of the walkway, the water line is old and needs to be replaced and it would be a good idea to replace the existing sewer line that runs through backyards at the north end of the street with a gravity sewer line. Councilmember Bloom asked whether those improvements were on any project list if the Sunset Avenue walkway was not pursued. Mr. Williams answered by themselves those utility projects are not top priorities; they would be done as part of the transportation project. Councilmember Bloom asked what the three estimates include and whether any of them include stormwater improvements and shoring of the hillside. Mr. English advised Council President Buckshnis asked a similar question and staff referenced the TAP estimate, $1,876,354. Because the project was placed in the out years, inflation was added to that amount, for a cost estimate of $2,099,000. The estimates for water and sewer are not included but stormwater improvements are included. He clarified there is only one estimate, $1,876,354, which was prepared when the City applied for the TAP funds. The $2,099,000 is simply the $1,876,354 inflated for the out years. Councilmember Johnson referred to a $2,350,000 estimated project cost on page 47 of the CFP. Councilmember Peterson suggested placeholder was a better word than estimate. The extent of the project is unknown so it cannot be estimated. Mr. Williams suggested the scope was needed to turn a guess into an estimate; for the Sunset Avenue project, there is not an accurate enough description to price it out. An assumed scope was used to prepare the TAP application; a detailed cost estimate cannot be prepared because so little design has been done. Councilmember Mesaros suggested the right term may be ballpark instead of estimate. Mr. Williams said ranges could be provided for projects for which little design has been done such as Tetra Tech provided for the train trench. He commented the precision of the estimate is where issues often arise. Council President Buckshnis preferred the term placeholder. Mr. English said the $2,350,000 in the CFP is the estimated total project cost and includes $2,099,000 plus $10,000 in 2015 plus costs expended to date. Packet Page 27 of 537 Councilmember Bloom said she did not understand what would be studied in the alternatives study scheduled in 2018. There is a lot of support for a trench; 148 people at least have sent emails. Edmonds Crossing is in the CIP, yet there is no plan for emergency vehicle access in the Comprehensive Plan, CIP or CFP. She has not heard any citizen support for a tunnel or overpass. She preferred to focus on the train trench, leave Edmonds Crossing in the CIP and plan for emergency vehicle access. She asked why consideration was being given to studying a tunnel or overpass when a tunnel would require two lanes of traffic each way to/from the ferry, one dedicated lane for emergency vehicle access, restrooms and the Reid Middleton study says an enclosed tunnel would be an extremely expensive solution and provide a terrible environment for ferry users waiting to load. Mr. Williams responded whatever project the City decides to pursue to achieve a grade separation at Main will need partners; the obvious partner is WSDOT Ferries Division due to their interest in alleviating trains blocking ferry loading/unloading. Before any project can proceed alternatives must be considered. He recalled the Council’s concern years ago that staff presumed a solution; the intent at that time was to name a project and then analyze alternatives. He stressed the importance of considering the pros and cons of available alternatives so that a matrix can be prepared to compare cost, efficacy, acceptability, environmental compliance, etc. It was unlikely a funding source would provide funds without an alternatives analysis. Councilmember Bloom suggested starting with the Reid Middleton study that evaluated 10 alternatives, rather than seeking funds to study a 5-lane tunnel that would be an unpleasant experience. She felt there was enough information to eliminate that option. Mr. Williams disagreed, explaining staff began with the Reid Middleton study which selected Edmonds Crossing; although a tremendous project, the project costs were too high. Another alternative was then selected and a study proposed to review that as well as other alternatives. Councilmember Bloom pointed out although the Reid Middleton study was conducted in 1990, the issues have not changed; only the costs would be much higher. She noted the Reid Middleton study stated the engineering challenges of a tunnel would exceed the cost of Edmonds Crossing. She preferred to start with the Reid Middleton study and what the community is saying rather than seeking funding for something that is not supported by the community. Councilmember Peterson pointed out technology has changed drastically since the Reid Middleton study was done in 1990. If the engineering technology exists to do a train trench, the same technology could be used for a tunnel. The most immediate question is emergency access; the only way to provide emergency access is under or over the at-grade conflict. Councilmember Bloom pointed out there is discussion about emergency access at Bell Street. Councilmember Peterson agreed there that is an alternative that needs to be studied. He disagreed there was no support in the community for a tunnel, he and other supported a tunnel but at this time the design was unknown. To be fiduciarily responsible to the citizens, the Council has to consider all the all alternatives. The alternatives need to be considered in light of new technology, new ideas and new thinking. He recalled the concern 1-2 years ago was that the City’s administration had selected a solution and were not looking at anything else. Now Councilmember Bloom was saying the train trench should be selected because 148 people have written emails. Councilmember Bloom clarified the Council needed to consider what the public was saying as well as the information in the Reid Middleton study and address emergency vehicle access separately so that it could be accomplished sooner. Councilmember Peterson pointed out one of the reasons for not separating out emergency vehicle access was there likely would be no funding from another source for that project and the City would be required to fund it in its entirety. Councilmember Petso was pleased this conversation was occurring in public. She agreed there needed to be resources for an emergency access; she anticipated mitigation money from the oil train people or an Packet Page 28 of 537 RCO grant by claiming it is recreation access to the waterfront particularly if it occurred at Pt. Edwards. The problem of train issues facing Edmonds results in one matrix; ferry issues that impact the City may result in a different matrix. Her job as a Councilmember is to address train issues that lend support to moving ahead with an emergency access or at least spending money to determine which of the alternatives might work. She agreed if something was not done to comprehensively solve all the problems, the result would one at time solutions. She suggested pursuing the three projects that solve all the problems to a level of understanding whether they will work and select one. Another approach is abandon all those solutions and focus on building an emergency access and start searching for funding partners. Councilmember Mesaros commented an alternatives study would be required to achieve what Councilmember Petso suggests; any partner will want to know what alternatives have been considered and why the selected solution was determined to be the best. He has a favorite project and was hopeful the alternatives study would support that project. Information from an alternatives study will allow the Council to make a good decision; without that information the right solution may be eliminated for the wrong reason. To Councilmember Bloom’s question regarding why alternatives needed to be studied, Councilmember Johnson explained both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) require looking at alternatives. Mayor Earling agreed with Councilmember Johnson, an EIS process would ultimately be required. An alternative analysis is necessary for the Council to reach the right answer; whatever project is selected will require funding partners. The State is a logical funding partner and if the cost is high enough, federal funds will be necessary. His idea was never a tunnel; it was a cut and cover. The process starts with studying and selecting alternatives to enter the environmental study stage before approaching the state or federal for funding. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:20 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2015 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET Finance Director Scott James displayed the list of Preliminary Budget Book Changes. He invited Council questions and amendments to the budget. Mayor Earling opened the opportunity for public comment; there were no members of the public present. If sufficient funding could be identified to restore a Crime Prevention Officer that could be sustained for a few years, Councilmember Petso asked whether sufficient equipment and staff support could be cobbled together to allow that person to function or would an additional allocation be required. Police Chief Al Compaan anticipated the amount in the draft decision package may not be adequate to support that position and fill that position in today’s very competitive market. Most of the additional cost would be salary and benefits. If the position is filled, he emphasized the importance of a sustainable funding source because it was not fair to the person hired and it also creates operational issues when a person is hired and then laid off. Councilmember Petso asked whether any other cities Edmonds’ size did not have a Crime Prevention Officer. Chief Compaan could not think of a city Edmonds’ size in the Puget Sound area that did not have a crime prevention officer. He noted that position may have a different title in other police departments; Edmonds has not had that function in its Police Department since 2009. Packet Page 29 of 537 Councilmember Petso inquired about the beginning balance of the 125 Fund. Mr. James advised an error was made in developing the budget that originated with a transfer in 2013. Half the transfer was captured in Fund 132; Fund 125 is short $100,000. In discussions with Mr. Williams and Ms. Hite, a solution was developed but that has not been reviewed with the Mayor. Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding the Council will be informed once the solution has been reviewed with the Mayor. Council President Buckshnis referred to audience comments about Fire District 1 and asked for an update. Mayor Earling advised there has been a follow-up meeting with Fire District 1 and another meeting is scheduled in mid-December. Some progress has been made on identifying more consistent numbers. There are still a couple major issues related to Edmonds and he was hopeful those could be discussed at the next meeting. In response to questions why this has not occurred in the public, he explained these are sensitive discussions that Fire District 1 would prefer occur between staff and Commissioners. He was hopefully a final report could be provided following the meeting in December. Council President Buckshnis asked why payment for retroactivity was proposed to be paid from the Contingency Reserve Fund. Mr. James relayed Fire District 1 has offered to split the amount into eight quarterly payments. The 2015 budget proposed funding it from the Contingency Reserve once this year and once next year. Once there is final approval on the eight quarterly payments, the transfers will be adjusted back to the General Fund. Council President Buckshnis urged Councilmembers to submit questions to Mr. James. The budget was originally scheduled for action on next week’s agenda but she preferred to delay action a week due to Mayor Earling’s absence next week. Councilmember Petso observed the budget includes money in the Utility Fund for overlay work; she assumed that was overlay as part of a watermain replacement. She asked about additional amounts in the budget that are direct transfers from the Utility Funds to the Street Construction Fund. Mr. Williams answered they were for same purpose; a transportation project that includes replacing utilities. The utility contributes what they would have paid to fix the pavement to the transportation project and the transportation project paves the entire segment. Councilmember Johnson alerted the Council to her suggestion that $5,000/year be budgeted for the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) calendar. Mr. James advised that is included in the list of Preliminary Budget Book Changes. He highlighted recent changes to the budget: • HPC Calendar –ongoing ($5,000) • Council meeting videotaping ($6,500) • Tree Board Minute Taking ($1,400) Councilmember Johnson suggested adding $2,000 to videotape Planning Board meetings, advising Planning Board Members were supportive of that idea. Mr. James agreed to add that to the list of proposed changes. 13. COUNCIL EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT AND LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT This item was rescheduled to the December 2 meeting. 14. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS This item was postponed to a future meeting. 15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Packet Page 30 of 537 Mayor Earling reminded of the Christmas tree lighting ceremony on Saturday at 5:15 p.m. Mayor Earling relayed Puget Sound Regional Council informed the of a $780,000 grant for the 220th Street overlay and a $3,020,000 grant for 76th & 212th intersection improvements. He thanked staff for their efforts. Mayor Earling advised five candidates for the Municipal Judge position were interviewed today. The number of candidates will be narrowed and additional interviews will be held. He intends to present a recommended candidate to the Council at the December 16 meeting. He wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. 16. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Buckshnis wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Councilmember Bloom announced the Port of Edmonds’ Holiday on the Docks beginning at noon on Sunday and Christmas Ships arrive on December 9 and leave the dock at 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Peterson wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving and said Go Hawks. Councilmember Petso commented discussion regarding the study session has be delayed. She suggested only those people who voted in favor of the study session should be required to sit with their backs to screen which would exempt her. Student Representative Eslami recognized the Edmonds-Woodway High School girls’ soccer team for winning State. He also wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving With regard to the tree lighting ceremony, Councilmember Johnson relayed there will be refreshment at Centennial Plaza beginning at 3:30 p.m. and the program begins at 4:30 p.m. 17. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 18. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 19. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Packet Page 31 of 537    AM-7332     5. B.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of December 2, 2014. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The draft minutes are attached. Attachments Attachment 1 - 12-02-14 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 12/03/2014 07:38 AM Final Approval Date: 12/03/2014  Packet Page 32 of 537 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES December 2, 2014 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Diane Buckshnis, Mayor Pro Tem Kristiana Johnson, Council President Pro Tem Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Dave Earling, Mayor Strom Peterson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Scott James, Finance Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator. Jeannie Dines, Recorder ALSO PRESENT Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative 1. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Peterson and Mayor Earling. MAYOR PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO ADD DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSIONS AS AGENDA ITEM 9. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS5 Councilmember Petso requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Bloom requested Item D be removed. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Packet Page 33 of 537 A. 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. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM KONSTANTINE TSOURDINIS ($638.94) C. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE SWIM LESSONS TO THIRD GRADE STUDENTS F. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JAIL SERVICES WITH THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD ITEM D: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE MAJOR UPDATE Councilmember Bloom asked whether this was in compliance with Ordinance 3303 Exhibit A, the Purchasing Policy. City Attorney Jeff Taraday was not certain what Ordinance 3303 was. He explained this is a contract for services. The purchasing policy authorizes the Mayor to execute contracts for goods and services under $100,000; contracts over $100,000 require Council approval. Councilmember Bloom asked whether this was subject to bid. Mr. Taraday answered it is not that kind of a contract; a service contracts follow a different process than a construction contract. Councilmember Bloom explained she pulled this item from the Consent Agenda for several reasons; first, she wanted to confirm the correct process was followed and was basing her understanding on Ordinance 3303. Mr. Taraday suggested asking the staff about the process they followed. Development Services Director Shane Hope described the process: professional service agreements under $100,000 and within the budget can proceed without Council approval; over $100,000 require Council approval. There is no requirement for bids because there is no bid process. Following an RFQ process, the best candidate is selected; all submittals are typically not provided to Council. Councilmember Bloom requested a code reference with regard to the process. Councilmember Bloom explained another reason she pulled this item was her request to include $300,000 in the budget to complete the Development Code rewrite. She suggested addressing this agreement in conjunction with that request during the budget discussion next week. If the Council is supportive of $300,000 for a full rewrite, consideration could be given to combining the contracts or proceeding in a phased manner. Councilmember Petso asked if there was any problem with delaying this decision 1-2 weeks to allow it to be discussed with budget. Ms. Hope answered it would delay starting the code rewrite. Mr. Taraday explained he was quite confident no State law applied to the award of a professional service contract for this type for service. There is a State law regarding the hiring architectural and engineering services; even in that instance staff selects the most qualified firm and negotiates a contract. If Councilmember Bloom’s concern was with the process, he found it highly unlikely there was a process reason to hold up approval of this contract. Councilmember Bloom assured that was not her only concern; she wanted to ensure the appropriate process was followed but she was also concerned this agreement was on the Consent Agenda and wanted to discuss that issue during the discussion regarding work sessions. Typically this type of agreement would have been reviewed by a Council committee. Her bigger concern was considering this agreement as part of the Council’s consideration of $300,000 for the complete code rewrite in addition to the $115,000. Councilmember Petso asked whether this was a decision package in the budget. Ms. Hope answered the decision package is to carry forward $85,000 of the $110,000. Packet Page 34 of 537 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO BRING THIS ITEM BACK WITH THE BUDGET. If the Council made a decision to add funds to the budget for the code rewrite, Councilmember Mesaros observed this agreement would not interfere with that but would expedite it. Ms. Hope agreed, advising this could be done and another set of codes could be addressed with additional funds. Councilmember Mesaros observed the code rewrite needed to start somewhere; this agreement would allow it to start now using the available funds and additional resources could be added during the budget discussions. Ms. Hope agreed. Councilmember Petso observed there could be a problem if the Council authorized this agreement and did not adopt the decision package. Ms. Hope explained staff would then request a budget amendment. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis commented this is a routine thing, it is just a carry-forward which is the reason it was on the Consent Agenda. This simply continues the process that was started two years ago. This agreement has no impact on any additional funds for the code rewrite; that could be a separate decision as part of the budget. Councilmember Bloom relayed her discussion with Ms. Hope that indicated if the Council added $300,000, the City could potentially attract firms that were more highly qualified in developing code. Allocating funds for this agreement may not be the best option if the Council makes a decision to add $300,000. For example the company selected in this agreement does not have any attorneys on staff. Councilmember Mesaros asked Ms. Hope how she wanted this to proceed. Ms. Hope said she preferred to move forward with this professional services agreement and then deal with any additional funding that may be approved. This firm is qualified; they have done codes for Ellensburg, Boise, Sammamish, Evergreen Way Plan, Tacoma, Chelan, Everett, Woodinville, Tumwater, Capitol Boulevard, Lacey, and Bellingham. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the $300,000 for the complete code rewrite. Councilmember Bloom answered that is the reason she wanted to discuss this in conjunction with the budget discussion. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the budget is pretty tight and it may behoove the Council to move forward knowing it may be difficult to identify $300,000 in the budget. Councilmember Bloom reiterated this is a discussion for next week. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND MAYOR PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND MESAROS VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM D. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), MAYOR PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND MESAROS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING NO. ITEM E: DEPUTY DIRECTOR PARKS JOB DESCRIPTION AND SALARY RANGE APPROVAL As she mentioned at the work session, Councilmember Petso was not in favor of doing this at this time. She preferred to continue to fund the current deputy director on an acting/interim basis rather than create a new position short of a full reorganization of the Parks & Recreation Department and therefore will vote no on this item. Packet Page 35 of 537 Councilmember Bloom said she will also vote no. She feared this would tie the Mayor’s hands should he want to change who oversees the Human Resources Department in the future by locking in a position that is being created to free up Ms. Hite. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite clarified this is a not a new position, it is a promotion for the existing recreation manager. She relies on this position because she spreads her time to the Human Resources but also because there are a lot of project underway. Since she was hired the City has completed the Hazel Miller Plaza, Interurban Trail, received a grant for City Park and are in the process of rehabbing City Park, completed the PROS Plan and Community Cultural Plan, etc. This position has done a great deal of the community outreach and involving the public in the processes which she does not have the capacity to do even if she were not overseeing Human Resources. It is an efficient use of resources and does not have any budget impact this year. Councilmember Petso asked if there were budget impacts in future years. Ms. Hite agreed it did. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether this was a union position. Ms. Hite answered it was currently exempt and would continue to be a nonrepresented position. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed it could be changed in the future. Ms. Hite agreed. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM E. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-3), MAYOR PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND MESAROS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON VOTING NO. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Maggie Fimia, Edmonds, spoke in favor of moving forward with creating a Diversity Commission. She recognized a Diversity Commission will not magically eliminate discrimination and fear of those who are different, but it can provide a forum for increasing understanding and tolerance and encouraging participation by those who do not normally participate in civic events and processes. She referred to model ordinances for the cities of Kent, Federal Way, Lynnwood and Bellevue. She suggested the Diversity Commission do the following as a minimum: 1. Truly represent different segments of the diversity community. 2. Include goals and strategies that help the broader community understand and appreciate other cultures and ideas. 3. Include goals and strategies that help those new to the community assimilate and participate. 4. Include as part of its mission providing real opportunities to connect and cross paths with each other like an annual folk festival where all nationalities and cultures are encouraged to participate. 5. Find venues for telling the stories of people from diverse backgrounds and those who have been here for several generations, telling the stories of their ancestors. 6. Fund it. She was encouraged the Council was getting ahead of this issue before any serious incidents take place. Emily Scott, Chair, Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission, relayed their excitement with continuing to work with the City Council. She announced the 2015 Historic Edmonds calendar is available for free at City Hall, the Log Cabin and the Museum. She requested citizens limit themselves to 5 and businesses to 20. Emily Hill, Edmonds, commented on the celebratory moment of the Council discussing the formation of a Diversity Commission. She recalled three months ago Edmonds residents proved by the outpouring of Packet Page 36 of 537 support for the Edmonds Embraces Diversity Demonstration how generous they feel toward each other. Edmonds’ proximity to SeaTac, the shores of Puget Sound and ferry and rail routes results in a diverse population. Senior Center, Edmonds School District and even a Facebook group Edmonds Moms lend a hand to those in need of food and shelter. She cited examples such as delegates from Edmonds traveling to China, the school district’s education learning center, an art show for Washington artists with disabilities sponsored by Art Works and more ethnic restaurants. In Edmonds diversity happens naturally and kindness prevails. When the Council discusses the topic of forming a Diversity Commission later on the agenda, she reminded Edmonds is a willing community with experienced activist citizens who are excited to move forward in a positive way with encouragement from neighboring cities. She urged the Council to approve the formation of a Diversity Commission, assuring Edmonds residents are ready to roll up their sleeves and step forward. Stephen Clifton, Edmonds, expressed support for the creation of a Diversity Commission and concurred with the previous speakers. He expressed his appreciation to Councilmembers Mesaros, Peterson, Buckshnis and Johnson for their action on April 15, 2014 to move the Five Corners roundabout project forward. Since the project was completed, he has heard from several friends who were once opposed to the roundabout now expressing support after using the intersection. He also expressed his thanks to Mayor Earling for his continued support of the project and ongoing leadership; Phil Williams, Rob English, Frances Chapin and the other Public Works staff who worked on the project for job well done; and Calvary Church for hosting the ribbon cutting festivities. The Five Corners roundabout is a great example of roundabouts known for improving safety and traffic efficiencies but also enhancing the overall beauty of intersections. The Five Corners roundabout is a great example that sometimes certain changes can be good for communities. Gail Ketzel, Edmonds, spoke in support of creating a Diversity Commission. She pointed out many jurisdictions have chosen to create such commissions to engage individuals, neighborhoods and the community at large in outreach and education about the inclusion of every citizen while respecting their differences. She recognized many were raised with some biases, recalling her mother’s caution about playing with classmates of color. She and her mother outgrew those fears and her son was less much affected. Although a Diversity Commission cannot cure legislate or mandate biases, it can open a door in the wall of alienation, it can be the education and outreach arm for both the dominant culture and minority cultures, be an advisory body to the Council, City and School Board and citizens, and hold educational and celebratory events that acknowledge differences and bring everyone together and strengthen the City. She hoped to see Edmonds become an even stronger and more inclusive City by engaging all its citizens; the act of creating a Diversity Commission would begin that process. Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, relayed former Finance Director Lorenzo Hines, who left Edmonds to be the Finance Director in Lynnwood, is now moving to Los Angeles, California. He announced the Carol Rowe Memorial Food Bank’s food drive at IGA on December 12, 13 and 14. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to Council discussion last week about the intersection of 196th & 88th discussed and numerous comments on My Edmonds News. He recalled the Council discussing this intersection at great length in 2007 when he was a Councilmember. In December 2007 a consultant hired to study the intersection recommended right turn only from 88th to 196th but a majority of the Council did not favor that option due to their preference for a traffic signal. Subsequently two Councilmembers and staff met with Washington State Department Transportation (WSDOT) in April 2008 but did not arrive at any agreeable solution. That intersection does not meet the warrants for a traffic signal; 5 accidents would have been prevented by a traffic signal in a 12 months period would be required to justify a signal. He suggested it would be beneficial for the Council and audience for the City’s Transportation Engineer to make presentation regarding what can and cannot be done at that intersection. Next, he referred to a Packet Page 37 of 537 $30,000 decision package in the proposed budget to support the City’s website afterhours. That was be money well spent as evidenced by the City’s website being down this weekend. Mario Brown, Edmonds, referred to the formation of a Diversity Commission. He explained his father is a Jew; his grandfather was one of the sole survivors in his family to escape Nazi Germany. At that time the United States would not accept Jews so he entered Cuba. As a result, Mr. Brown explained he is the son of a Caribbean Latino Jew. His material grandmother is Irish and Native American who had a child with a Fijian man. Growing up in Arkansas in the 40s, 50 and 60s, his mother fought against segregation. The reason his mother married a Jew was her neighbors, Auschwitz survivors, who bailed her out of jail told her she could repay them by marrying a Jew. His parents fought long and hard for him and his brothers to have a better life and now they get to live in Edmonds, a gift that does not happen to all people of color. He spoke in favor of forming a Diversity Commission and expressed his willing to serve on the commission. According to 2010 census, Edmonds has a 19.5% non-white population or 1 in 5 and of the 20%, 10% are foreign born. He encouraged the City Council to approve the formation of a Diversity Commission. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, relayed he left last week’s study session to watch the meeting on TV because he was unable to hear the discussion occurring at the table. He suggested the Council do something with microphones or sit at the dais. He reiterated a question he asked last week, who was the City’s contact person at BNSF. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis advised a meeting was scheduled but she was not certain who the BNSF representative was. Mr. Hertrich referred to Consent Agenda E, Deputy Director Parks Job Description and Salary Range Approval, and asked whether the person in that position had a degree in education, recreation, leisure management, business administration, etc. Although the job description allowed an equivalent combination of education, training and experience, he felt education should be a minimum requirement for an employee earning over $100,000/year or the person should be working toward a degree. 5. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT AND LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis recalled a full-time legislative assistant was brought up during the last two budget processes. During the past year there have been very few agenda items generated by Councilmembers; some examples include the attorney contract, attorney evaluation, Tree Board investigative work on a moratorium, Woodway Police contract, Diversity Commission, ethics policy, code of conduct, etc. and most of those do not occur on a yearly basis. She suggested the executive assistant also serve as a legislative assistant to the Council utilizing the additional 20 hours per month. Although he has supported a full-time position, Councilmember Mesaros was willing to try it as a half- time position. There were times he would like to obtain more information than was provided and a legislative assistant who could conduct research would make Councilmembers less reliant on staff. He encouraged Councilmembers to utilize the person in the position, envisioning if the individual is utilized to the fullest, by next year the Council will be asking for a full-time position. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed the Council needed some assistance. She noted the Council has changed dramatically over the years; for example she has updated/written code regarding parking, animals, etc. She relayed Councilmember Peterson’s support for some form of a legislative assistant. She was willing to try using the current executive assistant in this capacity and see how it works. She referred to the difference between the duties of a legislative assistant compared to an administrative assistant and wanted to ensure Councilmembers understand the difference. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO MOVE FORWARD. Packet Page 38 of 537 Council President Pro Tem Johnson recalled her suggestion during the last two years to have a half-time legislative assistant. Anything that can be done to support the Council in being more effective and efficient is good for the entire City. She noted there are two separate issues, 1) restoring Ms. Spellman’s hours to 20 hours/week, and 2) the legislative assistant position. She was in favor of a part-time legislative assistant and restoring Ms. Spellman to 20 hours/week. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Taraday asked for clarification on what the motion means. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her intent was to follow the draft executive assistant/legislative assistant job description. From the discussion, Mr. Taraday relayed he was uncertain whether the motion was to create a new legislative assistant position or to restore the hours of the current assistant from 16 to 20. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas said she did not include restoring the hours because that is a personnel decision. Her motion was to approve an executive assistant/legislative assistant as outlined in the packet. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis referred to Attachment 4, 2015 Draft Spellman Agreement, and Attachment 5, Spellman 2015 Job Description. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope provided background: • Comprehensive Plans are key local policy documents • Guided by GMA • Under GMA, local governments must implement and be consistent with their Comprehensive Plans She provided an overview of the process: • Under GMA, Comprehensive Plans are subject to major review and update every 8 years • Next Comprehensive Plan major update for Edmonds is due to the State mid-2015 • New planning horizon – 2035 instead of 2025 She described the approach to the 2015 update • Primary focus – data update • Update as needed • Housekeeping changes (updating or clarifying items) • Goals and policies – retaining general direction, with any minor language adjustments • Add annual performance measures and date-specific actions steps (generally one per element) to monitor progress o Criteria for performance measures  Related to community sustainability  Related to implementing specific Comprehensive Plan element  Meaningful  Easy for City to track and report on each year • Other changes for consistency • Comprehensive Plan can generally be amended no more than once per year per State law • Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is going through element-by-element review • Adoption to be scheduled only after all draft updates of elements have been reviewed and final public hearings held • Updating “Housing Element” – current topic Packet Page 39 of 537 Ms. Hope described the Housing Element process: • Presentation of housing data and discussion of Housing Performance Measure to Planning Board - September 24, 2014 • Planning Board discussion of draft Housing Element – October 22, 2014 • Presentation of housing data to City Council – October 28, 2014 • Planning Board recommendation – October 12, 2014 • City Council public hearing on Housing Element – December 2, 2014 • City Council study session on draft Housing Element – December 9, 2014 She reviewed draft Housing element changes: • Updated census, housing and population targets data • Removed outdated section on County’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy • Added partnership with Alliance For Housing Affordability • Reformatted goals and policies • Added one performance measure to track process • Added one key “Implementation Step” to follow up on future housing needs She highlighted information in the Housing Element regarding growth: • Housing targeted to grow at an average annual rate of 0.6% per Snohomish County Tomorrow • Annual growth rate from 2000-2010 was 0.5% City of Edmonds Housing Growth Census Year Housing Units Increase Percent Increase Avg Annual Income 1980 10,702 1990 12,245 1,543 21.0% 1.9% 2000 17,508 5,263 35.2% 3.1% 2010 18,378 870 5.0% 0.5% Growth target: 2015 21,168 2,790 15.2% 0.6% With regard to demographics, Ms. Hope displayed a chart illustrating the percentage of age groups in Washington, Snohomish County Edmonds under 20, 20 – 44, 45-64, and 65 and over. She noted the first baby boomers turned 65 in 2011; in 2035 baby boomers will be 71 to 89 years of age. She also displayed a chart of population growth for children 0-4, 5-9, 10-14 years of age 2000-2010 Edmonds, Snohomish County and Washington The following table illustrates the minimum income required to afford housing in Edmonds Average Rent (With Utilities) Minimum Income Required Lowest Rent Highest Rent Minimum Hourly Wage Minimum Annual Wage Studio $833 $16 33,320 $46 $1,187 1 Bed $887 $17 $35,480 $662 $1,521 2 Bed $1,097 $21 $43,880 $777 $1,916 3 Bed $1,679 $32 $67,160 $1,094 $,4215 4 Bed $2,545 $49 $101,800 $1,947 $4,347 5 Bed $2,844 $55 $113,760 $2,276 $3,771 She displayed a bar graph of home sales affordability in Edmonds 2008-2012 illustrating the percentage of homes affordable to each income level (extremely low, very low, low, moderate and middle). Housing affordability is an issue for rental as well as home sales. She reported on the projected housing need in Edmonds: Packet Page 40 of 537 Jurisdictions 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 Ms. Hope reviewed Housing Element – Goals and Policies • Goals and policies provide broad guidance for future • Draft Housing Element update o Reformats o Updates some language o Retains goal and policy direction from current Comprehensive Plan • Additions to encourage monitoring and implementation o Performance Measure: Report number of residential units permitted each year with goal of having 21,168 units total by 2035 or on average 112 additional dwelling units per year o Action Step: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs Ms. Hope described next steps: • Tonight public hearing • City Council Study session on draft Housing Element for comments, questions, direction (December 9) • Draft Housing Element to be brought back by mid-2015 as part of full Comprehensive Plan update (with more public process) Councilmember Petso observed the median income for the Bellevue area was used to evaluate affordable housing rather than using Snohomish County’s median income. She asked whether that may make housing in Edmonds less affordable because the median income in Bellevue is much higher. She asked why that choice was made and why Edmonds’ median income was not used. Ms. Hope answered there are two pieces of housing data related to affordability, one uses only Snohomish County information; using only Snohomish County information the City still needs more affordable housing. If the greater Seattle region is used, and many people think of Edmonds as part of the greater Seattle region, the income level is higher but more affordable housing is still needed. The Affordable Housing Profile used the median income for the greater Seattle region which includes Seattle, Bellevue, Shoreline, Lynnwood and other cities in the region. Councilmember Petso asked whether Edmonds could use its own median income. Ms. Hope answered either the County or the greater Seattle region could be used. Councilmember Petso referred to language added to the document regarding maximum efficiency in permitting. She wanted to ensure that did not mean efficiency to the point of eliminating public notice or appropriate plan review. Ms. Hope assured that was not the intent. Councilmember Petso asked why that language was being added and whether it was because the City was inefficient. Ms. Hope did not recall that language was added. Councilmember Bloom referred to language about developing affordable housing by 2019. Ms. Hope clarified it was to develop a strategy by 2019 for what the City can do to encourage more affordable housing. She noted there are a number of things local governments can do such as partnerships, etc. Councilmember Bloom asked whether it was necessary to include specific language regarding low income housing. Ms. Hope answered it was not necessary but it could be part of the strategy. Low income and special needs housing is included in affordable housing. Packet Page 41 of 537 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas how much the strategy would cost the Development Services Department over time. Ms. Hope explained the reason staff recommended 2019 to the Planning Board and not 2015 or 2016 was to provide more time. She referred to the City’s partnership with the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) and perhaps others. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about implementation, recognizing that low income housing takes staff time to monitor, etc. Ms. Hope envisioned implementation via partnership with other agencies, not for the City be the housing provider. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her understanding of Ms. Hope’s explanation that the strategy would not cost staff a lot of time. Ms. Hope agreed, explaining staff will help develop a strategy, identify options, pros and cons, etc. by working with partners. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis said she liked the changes that target affordability, special needs and seniors. She asked if the Housing Element will include the AHA. Ms. Hope answered the AHA is specifically identified in the draft Housing Element. Data from the Housing Profile prepared by AHA is included in the Comprehensive Plan; the Housing Profile will not be included in its entirety. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis opened the public participation portion of public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis closed the public hearing. 7. FINAL REPORT ON THE PERRINVILLE CREEK FLOW REDUCTION STUDY AND PRE- DESIGN PROJECT Stormwater Program Manager Jerry Shuster provided background on the Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Study: • 2013 budget included $200,000 for the study • Goal of study was to find ways to reduce the amount of stormwater entering Perrinville Creek • Excessive stormwater causes a number of problems including upstream bank erosion, downstream flooding, sedimentation, loss of habitat and damage to private and public infrastructure • May 2013 Council authorized acceptance of an $189,000 grant with Department of Ecology to be added to the $200,000 to do a pre-design on 2 projects to help reduce stormwater flow • May 2013 Council approved contract with Tetra Tech to conduct the study • June 2014 update to Council • August 2014 public meeting/open house to present results of the study and recommended list of projects • Tonight is information only, summary of work completed including a brief descriptions of the two projects for which pre-design was done with the grant from Department of Ecology Rick Schaefer, Senior Program Manager, Tetra Tech, displayed a map of the Perrinville Creek Watershed and described the watershed: • 764 acres • Located in Edmond and Lynnwood • Urbanized plateau in upper portion • Steep ravine in lower portion He described the project need: • Elevated flow in the creek • Channel scour • Undermined slopes o Slope failures o Degraded habitat Packet Page 42 of 537 o Water quality impacts • Sediment deposition • Risk of blocking culvert • Fish impassable culvert • Ongoing maintenance costs to remove sediment He provided photographs of the upper eroding reaches and lower depositing reaches. He provided a flowchart of objectives/outcomes that illustrated the interconnectivity between controlling runoff, reducing high flows, and reducing channel scour, improving water quality, reducing flooding risk and frequency, protecting banks and slopes, stabilizing conditions for habit, reducing sediment transport, protecting culvert from block and reducing maintenance frequency. Mr. Schaefer described the solution approach: • Facility retrofits (low-hanging fruit) • Infiltrate where you can (where outwash is accessible) • Detain and treat • Consider a basin-specific redevelopment standard He displayed a Peak Flow Duration Curve – Talbot Road that illustrated peak flow duration under the existing and retrofitted conditions. He displayed and reviewed a table illustrating flood risk in current conditions, under retrofitted conditions and the reduction in peak in years 2-100. Mr. Schaefer advised the study includes 12 recommendations. He highlighted the projects for which pre- design was prepared: • Seaview Park o Most effective project to reduce damaging flows in Creek o Intercepts runoff from over 50 acres of roadways and residences o Similar to facility installed in Hickman Park o Detention and infiltration o 120’ x 60’ under lawn o 7-foot diameter tanks o Provides water quality treatment before infiltration to outwash o 30% design, opportunity to refine o Sized to focus on certain storm events, can be configured to focus on more frequent store events o Estimated performance under existing conditions and with proposed facility o Project cost estimate: $845,000 (possibly less) • 74th Avenue W o Located in Lynnwood o Collects runoff from 28 acres of streets and residential o Detention located below a portion of street and east shoulder o 6-foot diameter tanks o 150 x 15’ o Soils do not allow infiltration o Baffles trap sediments near tank inlet o Performance under existing conditions and with proposed facility o Project cost estimate: $445,000 He described opportunities to optimize existing facilities (low hanging fruit): • Lynndale Park/Olympic View Drive Infiltration (Lynnwood) • Blue Ridge Detention Pond (Lynnwood) Packet Page 43 of 537 • Cost: $22,000 each Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis asked how Edmonds could get Lynnwood to do the three projects. Mr. Shuster answered Lynnwood has been a partner since the beginning; they come to a lot of the meetings and have provided data. One of Lynnwood’s staff expressed their willing to do the inexpensive project more maintenance fixes themselves with their funds. For example, raising the outlet to the stormwater ponds to provide additional storage. The other projects will be more difficult to accomplish because there are no flooding, sedimentation or water quality issues in Lynnwood. Lynnwood is beginning an update of their Stormwater Comprehensive Plan so there is opportunity to influence that plan. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis asked about the possibility of an interlocal agreement. Mr. Shuster agreed that was possible. He noted 60% of the watershed was located in Lynnwood; there may be other issues on which Lynnwood needs Edmonds’ help. Council President Pro Tem Johnson recalled when the City was doing the Talbot Road project there was a bypass pipe proposed for this area. This is much better because it considers more natural systems, use of right-of-way and parkland. She asked what could be done to improve Brown’s Bay and the outfall pipe above Talbot Road once these improvements were complete. Mr. Shuster referred to the executive summary of the full report that refers to improving habitat from Brown Bay to Talbot Road. That is all private property and nothing can be done without the have cooperation of the property owners. Reducing stormwater and corrosive flows in the creek is a first step. Mr. Schaefer agreed, explaining until stable conditions are created, any habitat improvements made downstream would either be blown out or buried. Councilmember Mesaros observed there were 12 project recommendations. He asked how staff would prioritize the list. Mr. Shuster answered the first would be Seaview Park because it is relatively easy to implement because the City owns the park. He submitted a grant application to the Department of Ecology for 75% of the cost to complete design and construct the project. Next would be three projects in Lynnwood that modify ponds which are relatively inexpensive and would produce a good result. The report presents a strategy/plan with 12 projects that will have the best impact. The current draft Capital Improvement Plan includes funds in the next six years to implement the plan. Councilmember Petso asked whether meaningful environmental or flood prevention could be accomplished in other areas of the City using this approach. Mr. Shuster answered yes and asked if she had a particular area in mind. Councilmember Petso suggested Shell Creek, noting there were other areas that potentially could benefit from the concept of using right-of-way and/or parkland for detention/infiltration facilities. Mr. Shuster agreed parks and other publicly owned lands are ideal for detention/infiltration. Councilmember Petso asked whether there were locations where it would be beneficial to acquire additional land for such a facility. Mr. Shuster answered the most beneficial would be acquiring land that has a creek running through it and restore it. Councilmember Petso asked whether any of these techniques would be helpful in Lake Ballinger. Mr. Shuster answered the Lake Ballinger Watershed is much larger but it probably could. 8. DISCUSSION REGARDING A DIVERSITY COMMISSION Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis thanked Tere Rider for providing information from Lynnwood. The packet contains a chart comparing Diversity Commissions in different cities, Lynnwood’s ordinance and a resolution the Council previously considered or possibly approved. She favored the language in Lynnwood’s ordinance and having nine members such as Kent, Federal Way and Lynnwood. Packet Page 44 of 537 Councilmember Mesaros agreed this was a project that needed to move forward. Although it was helpful to see examples from other cities, he said Edmonds should have been a leader in this matter. A Diversity Commission will be beneficial for Edmonds and will help the City’s richness grow. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what further direction was needed if the Council already passed a resolution to create a Diversity commission. City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised an ordinance is necessary to create a Diversity Commission; it would be codified in Title 10 along with other boards and commissions. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE CREATING A DIVERSITY COMMISSION. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis recalled the resolution was referred to a Council committee for review. Mr. Taraday suggested the Council provide specifics regarding the number of commissioners, etc. Absent that direction he would model the ordinance based on other commissions and the Council could amend it. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested each Councilmember appoint a commissioner. Mr. Taraday asked about mayoral appointments. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis suggested staggered 3 year terms. Councilmember Bloom preferred to have more than seven commissioners. To achieve the appropriate balance, she suggested the Council as a whole review the applications, interview and select members. If each Councilmember chooses a member, there may not be an appropriate balance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented Councilmembers all have different backgrounds, history and experience; features that were important to one Councilmember may not be as important to another. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis suggested 11 members, each Councilmember appoint 1 and the Council select the remainder as a group. Councilmember Mesaros suggested each Councilmember appoint one member and the Mayor provide recommendations for four that the Council then confirms. Council President Pro Tem Johnson recommended identifying the responsibilities, their mission and what the Council wants to accomplished before the commission is formed. When a Diversity Commission was discussed in 2011, there were two ideas, focus on high school students and focus on the community at large. Another option would be to allow the commission to develop their own charger, goals and accomplishments. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested at least two Councilmembers participate in the Diversity Commission at least initially. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis referred to Lynnwood’s mission for the commission that includes the annual Martin Luther King celebrations, stand against racism, host biannual educational forums, sponsor community events, multicultural events, advise the mayor and city council and outreach to the community. Federal Way and Kent’s ordinances also identify the commission’s responsibilities. She asked whether the mission statement would be developed by the commission. Mr. Taraday answered it depends on how the Council wants to set it up. The Council could create and appoint the commission and task them with developing goals and objectives for review and approval by the City Council. Packet Page 45 of 537 Councilmember Mesaros referred to Section 2.58.020 in Lynnwood’s Diversity Commission ordinance that describes the duties of the commission: the commission is hereby declared to be an advisory body of the city of Lynnwood whose duties shall be to monitor demographics 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 three items. He suggested this was starting description and provided a framework to do more. He suggested using the description of duties in Lynnwood’s ordinance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there was also some good information in Snohomish County and the State’s regulations regarding Diversity Commissions. Councilmember Mesaros suggested the members of the former Personnel Committee work with Mr. Taraday on an ordinance regarding a Diversity Commission. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out one of the members would be leaving the Council soon. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis noted some ordinances refer to nine members appointed by the City Council. She asked whether the Council wanted to appoint all the members or allow the Mayor to make some appointments. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested discussing the number of members, appointments, etc. at a study session. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis suggested that be done tonight as there was time on the agenda. Councilmember Mesaros suggested combining Councilmember Bloom’s suggestion for the Council to appoint some of the members as a group to ensure a balance and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ suggestion for each Councilmember to appoint one member to create a broader state of inclusion. He suggested the members the Council appoints as a group be recommended by the Mayor. Councilmember Petso inquired about staff support for the Diversity Commission. Ms. Hite relayed in discussions with Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis and Councilmember Peterson she offered to help figure out the commission. She was uncertain the Parks Department had the capacity to staff the commission. She recommended the Council discuss how the commission could be staffed and supported and suggested a budget be established if the Council intended to have the commission hold events/celebrations. She suggested forming a task force of citizens who spoke in support of a Diversity Commission to assist with forming a commission. Council President Pro Tem Johnson supported the idea of a task force to allow community members who spoke in favor of a Diversity Commission to present a proposal to the Council within six months. Council President Buckshnis hoped that could be accomplished sooner than six months. Councilmember Bloom agreed with the idea of task force, suggesting it not be limited only to the people who spoke tonight but also include others in the community. She agreed with identifying funds for a minute taker, for events, etc. She recalled not having dedicated staff support was one of the early problems with the Tree Board. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis asked who would be in charge of the task force. Ms. Hite said she would be happy to assist. Councilmember Petso and Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis offered to assist with the task force. Council President Pro Tem Johnson referred to a $20,000 budget proposal for board and commission support. Councilmember Mesaros suggested deferring further action until after the task force presents a proposal. Packet Page 46 of 537 If the Council favors the task force concept and Ms. Hite is tasked with overseeing that process, Mr. Taraday suggested letting the task force do its work and make a recommendation to the Council regarding an ordinance rather than adopting an ordinance first. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Ms. Hite requested the Council discuss the formation of the task force. In addition to Councilmember Petso and Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis, she noted Councilmember Peterson has also expressed interest in the Diversity Commission. Councilmember Mesaros suggested the Council delegate the composition of the task force to the interested Councilmembers and Ms. Hite. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis summarized the Councilmembers and Ms. Hite will put together a task force and return to the Council with a recommendation. Council President Pro Tem Johnson asked whether the traditional method would be used to seek task force members such as advertising and candidates submit applications for review. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis suggested the task force be similar to the Metropolitan Park District where citizens were invited to participate. Ms. Hite explained applications were not sought for the Metropolitan Park District; a press release was issued as well as targeted recruitment and everyone was welcome to participate. She suggested a concentrated effort so there would be 8-10 people who could do efficient work and bring perspective to the table in creating the commission. She envisioned a brief application process; Councilmembers Petso, Buckshnis and Peterson could vet those and bring their selection to the Council to begin the task force. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented creating a task force would necessitate reaching people for whom English may not be their first language and a notice in the Beacon or online would likely miss a lot of people. She suggested assembling a handful of people on the task force who are active and engaged such as people who attended the rally or who were in the audience tonight. The City could then advertise to reach people with different backgrounds for the commission. Ms. Hite suggested Councilmembers Petso Buckshnis and Peterson and she draft a process for the task force and make a recommendation to Council. 9. DISCUSSION REGARDING STUDY SESSIONS Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis relayed she has been working on the study session format; a number of issues have arisen that need to be addressed including the microphones, uncomfortable chairs and the configuration of the tables. She invited Council input on how study sessions could be improved. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said although she likes the study session format, she does not care for the logistics and there are a lot of bugs that need to be worked out. She liked the freer, more open process and less formal format where Councilmembers can see each other and the screen. She noted there was value in having study sessions but she was not entirely satisfied with the format as someone always had their back to the audience or the screen. Councilmember Petso liked the less formal discussions and felt the workshop sessions were great. She suggested the Council consider Councilmember Mesaros’ idea about retaining committees on the second Tuesday, a study session on the fourth Tuesday and if necessary a study session following the committee meetings on the second Tuesday regarding bigger issues. She noted tonight the Council spent a great deal Packet Page 47 of 537 of time on the authorization to hire someone to do the development code update which Councilmember Bloom had less than four days to review, it was not routine, did not go through committee and the public had limited information. She suggested it may be the best of both worlds if the Council returned to committees and study sessions; the routine items could be reviewed by committee and then scheduled on Consent Agenda and the Council can meet together to discuss bigger issues. Councilmember Mesaros agreed with Councilmember Petso, suggesting a study sessions on the fourth Tuesday and 1½ hour committee meetings on the second Tuesday followed by a study session for larger topics. Committee meetings could start at 6:00 p.m. with the study session beginning at 7:30 p.m. Councilmember Bloom recalled the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee had a large number of items, the Public Safety & Personnel Committee had the fewest and the Finance Committee was somewhere in between. She suggested moving Parks into the Public Safety & Personnel Committee. That would also allow Ms. Hite to present more topics to one committee. Ms. Hite commented Parks also works with Engineering on capital project management which could present a logistics issue but she would support it as an option. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Bloom clarified there would still be three committees meeting in separate rooms, Planning & Public Works; Public Safety, Parks & Personnel and Finance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the taped study sessions are more transparent; the only way for citizens to learn what happens in a committee meeting is to attend the meeting. She was concerned the Council would end up in same situation where the committee meetings were not transparent, topics were discussed repeatedly at the committee level before being forwarded to the Council and then the same questions were asked by the full Council. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. She relayed it was doubtful the Council could get to the point of two study sessions and two business meetings per month; it was more likely there would be one study session per month. She liked the committees but felt it better to have the items discussed by the Council as a whole and in front of the cameras. She suggested the Council continue with the study sessions a little longer; many citizens like the opportunity to see all the discussions on TV. Councilmember Petso envisioned transparency would be improved by returning to the committee structure for certain items. For example when the committee structure was in place, the Finance Director on tape reviewed the monthly and quarterly Financial Reports while several citizens watched before it was placed on the Consent Agenda. In the recent months, the Financial Report has been approved on the Consent Agenda, the TV audience does not hear any discussion and there is no presentation from the Finance Director. Because the Finance Reports are part of a larger agenda, she questioned how much time Councilmembers had to devote to the reports. Conversely if it was on the Finance Committee’s agenda, the Councilmembers assigned to that committee had an opportunity to talk to the Finance Director and could schedule it on the Consent Agenda with additional information or the full Council. She summarized Councilmembers have an opportunity to look at items in more detail if they are only reviewing one third of the items. Councilmember Bloom commented she has been spending more time reviewing Council packets. For example, two items were pulled from tonight’s Consent Agenda. The item she pulled needed further discussion. If the committee structure had been in place, that item would have been reviewed by the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee. Without the committee structure, there is no screening of items. The committees also allowed citizens to listen and be involved on a more personal level that cannot occur at Council meetings; the committee meetings are taped and detailed minutes are taken of all committee meetings. She summarized Council meetings have been much more stressful and much longer Packet Page 48 of 537 with the new structure. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis commented the longer Council meetings are also due to it being the end of the year. Councilmember Bloom said Councilmembers are actually spending more time because committees are not spending dedicated time screening items and passing it on to the Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas remarked the study session format had only been tried for a couple of months, acknowledging there were some bugs to work out. In the previous committee structure, 2-3 citizens had the opportunity to ask questions in the Finance Committee or hear what was going on. The Finance Director could make a presentation to the full Council regarding the Financial Report so the Council and all citizens have an opportunity to hear that information. She summarized it was more transparent to have everything televised versus done in committee. Council President Pro Tem Johnson commented there is an advantage to having directors directly speak to Councilmembers. If Councilmembers were provided the presentations in the packet or hardcopy they would not need to turn to look at the screen. The study sessions provide an opportunity for Councilmembers to talk in a less formal environment. She preferred continuing the study session format into the new year and discuss any possible changes at the Council retreat in February. She noted there was not enough time to change the format before the end of the year as the Council needed to complete review and adoption of the budget and the CIP/CFP. This was the way that most cities conduct their business and lacking a separate room, this was the best the Council could do for now. Councilmember Mesaros commented tonight was a good example of the reason for committees. It would have been preferable to refer the formation of the Diversity Committee to a committee to work with Ms. Hite. He summarized the committees make the work of the Council more efficient and it is still an open process. Councilmember Petso observed a motion to reestablish committees tonight likely would fail with a 3-3 vote. She hoped the Council would reestablish the committee structure in the future and that the practice of scheduling items the Council has not seen before on the Consent Agenda would cease. She noted Consent Agenda Item C, Authorization for the Mayor to Sign the Agreement to Provide Swim Lessons to Third Grade Students, was an example of an item that would have previously been reviewed by committee. Staff would have given a presentation and responded to questions such as the City’s liability. If the committee structure is not reestablished, she recommended items be reviewed at a study session prior to scheduling them on the Consent Agenda. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis commented at the end of year there are many items that take a lot of time. In the future Mr. James will be making a presentation on the financial reports. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, COMMENCING IN JANUARY THE SECOND TUESDAY BE A COMBINED COMMITTEE/STUDY SESSION NIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Bloom commented the study session format has not worked and no amount of trial period will make it work. There are things on the Consent Agenda that have not been reviewed and extra time is required to review information in the Council packet. When the committees were in place, she trusted Councilmembers to review items. She preferred to return to the committee structure where there was more review and deliberation. Another possibility would be to have one committee meeting videotaped each month. Packet Page 49 of 537 Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis commented she preferred to continue the study session format into the new year, remarking the last three months have not been typical due to the budget, the CIP/CFP and the end of the year. To Councilmember Petso, she pointed out the agreement to provide swim lessons is a renewal of an existing program. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS-MONILLAS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION MOVED, SECONDED BY MESAROS. MOTION FAILED (3-3), MAYOR PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND MESAROS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON VOTING NO. If the Council is not prepared to take action on an item on the Consent Agenda, Council President Pro Tem Johnson suggested an option would be to postpone it to a study session the following week. She tries to read everything regardless of whether it was in her committee so she did not feel the committees were a time saver. It was to her benefit to hear what everyone has to say about an agenda item. Councilmember Bloom referred to Council President Pro Tem Johnson’s suggestion and said she tried to do that tonight, to get the Council to delay a decision on the code rewrite and it failed. That is not a reasonable suggestion if Councilmembers will not support a request for a delay. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested it may have been the way the request was made; if Councilmember Bloom had requested it be postponed to next week, it may have been approved. UPON ROLL CALL FAILED (3-3) COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, MESAROS AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND MAYOR PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the procedure for a motion to reconsider. Mr. Taraday advised approval of a motion to reconsider requires a majority vote. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO DEFER AWARD OF THE CONTRACT TO MAKERS FOR THE CODE REWRITE UNTIL A STUDY SESSION. Mr. Taraday explained a motion to reconsider must be made by someone on the prevailing side. Councilmember Petso questioned that advice and requested a brief recess to research it. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis declared a brief recess. Councilmember Petso relayed Mr. Taraday was correct and she could not make a motion to reconsider as she voted against the original motion. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. 10. MAYOR’S COMMENTS – None 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Student Representative Eslami remarked the Council’s discussion tonight was fun to watch. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported her son, adopted daughter and she had a great time at the tree lighting ceremony although it was very cold. Packet Page 50 of 537 Councilmember Mesaros reported he gave the greeting at the tree lighting ceremony on behalf of the City. The event was fun and attended by approximately 1,500 people. He relayed Councilmember Peterson was also at the tree lighting ceremony. Council President Pro Tem Johnson reported she enjoyed the tree lighting ceremony. Councilmember Petso reported the Edmonds Public Facilities District and Edmonds Center for the Arts Boards are having a joint retreat. Further information can be obtained by contacting the ECA’s Executive Director Joe McIalwain. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis commented it was warmer in Green Bay than in Edmonds. She announced Councilmember Peterson’s last day will be January 6, 2015. She was sad to see him go. A process to select a new Councilmember will begin soon. 12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Packet Page 51 of 537    AM-7342     5. C.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 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 #211744 though #211872 dated December 4, 2014 for $237,297.41 (reissued check #211744 $1,266.99). Approval of reissued payroll check #61383 for $272.98, payroll direct deposit and checks #61384 through #61396 for $478,775.50, benefit checks #61397 through #61406 and wire payments of $499,109.56 for the pay period November 16, 2014 through November 30, 2014. Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2014 Revenue: Expenditure:1,215,182.47 Fiscal Impact: Claims $237,297.41 Claims reissued check #211744 $1,266.99 Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $478,775.50 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $499,109.56 Payroll reissued check #61383 $272.98 Total Payroll $977,885.06 Attachments Packet Page 52 of 537 Claim checks 12-04-14 Project Numbers 12-04-14 Payroll Summary 12-05-14 Payroll Benefit 12-05-14 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 12/04/2014 11:16 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 12/04/2014 11:22 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/04/2014 12:26 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/04/2014 12:29 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 12/04/2014 09:57 AM Final Approval Date: 12/04/2014  Packet Page 53 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211744 12/1/2014 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC TM-144060 Traffic - Yellow Traffic Paint Traffic - Yellow Traffic Paint 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 582.50 White Traffic Paint 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 290.25 Glass Beads 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 175.00 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 109.32 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 109.92 Total :1,266.99 211745 12/4/2014 072627 911 ETC INC 30220 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT Monthly 911 database maint 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 100.00 Total :100.00 211746 12/4/2014 068657 ACCOUNTEMPS 41744557 TEMPORARY HELP FINANCE DEPT WEEK ENDING Temporary help week ending 11/14/14 - C 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 1,392.00 TEMPORARY HELP FINANCE DEPT WEEK ENDING41766519 Temporary help week ending 11/21/14 - C 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 1,740.00 Total :3,132.00 211747 12/4/2014 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 1191 WWTP - NOVEMBER JANITORIAL November Janitorial 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 334.00 Total :334.00 211748 12/4/2014 065568 ALLWATER INC 112514059 WWTP - DRINKING WATER Cooler Rental 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 16.00 water 1Page: Packet Page 54 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211748 12/4/2014 (Continued)065568 ALLWATER INC 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 56.50 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1.52 Total :74.02 211749 12/4/2014 073626 ALPHA ECOLOGICAL 2468539 PS - BI-MO Maint Agreement PS - BI-MO Maint Agreement 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 108.41 Total :108.41 211750 12/4/2014 064246 ALS LABORATORY GROUP 32-EV1410012-0 Storm - Vactor Grit and Street Storm - Vactor Grit and Street 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 477.00 Total :477.00 211751 12/4/2014 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987740739 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80 mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 74.16 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 7.05 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE792103518 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 37.74 Total :123.11 211752 12/4/2014 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0660407-IN Fleet - Reg 7400 Gal Fleet - Reg 7400 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 15,492.64 WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 2,903.46 Diesel 3135 Gal 2Page: Packet Page 55 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211752 12/4/2014 (Continued)071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 7,934.69 WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 1,240.28 Bio-Diesel 165 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.13 647.18 WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.77.548.68.34.13 66.89 WA St Svc Fees 511.000.77.548.68.34.13 50.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.13 4.75 Total :28,339.89 211753 12/4/2014 073291 ATSI INV102028 Traffic Control - Calibration Traffic Control - Calibration 111.000.68.542.64.48.00 630.00 Total :630.00 211754 12/4/2014 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 77793 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 36.97 UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 36.97 UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 38.08 UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 135.20 UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 135.19 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 3.51 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 3.51 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3.62 3Page: Packet Page 56 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :393.0521175412/4/2014 070305 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 211755 12/4/2014 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE1114 New Hire Background checks New Hire Background checks 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 20.00 Total :20.00 211756 12/4/2014 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0797192-IN Fleet Auto Propane - 453 Gal Fleet Auto Propane - 453 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 730.13 Fleet Auto Propane - 424.9 Gal0797895-IN Fleet Auto Propane - 424.9 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 619.51 Fleet Auto Propane - 340 Gal0798678-IN Fleet Auto Propane - 340 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 550.80 Fleet Auto Propane - 526.6 Gal0799840-IN Fleet Auto Propane - 526.6 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 848.43 Fleet Auto Propane - 568.2 Gal0801361-IN Fleet Auto Propane - 568.2 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 890.35 Total :3,639.22 211757 12/4/2014 002800 BRAKE & CLUTCH SUPPLY 536846 Unit 138 - Parts Unit 138 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 185.42 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.62 Total :203.04 211758 12/4/2014 061966 CAMP FIRE BOYS & GIRLS 19149 BABYSITTING 19149 BABYSITTING BASICS INSTRUCTOR FEE 19149 BABYSITTING BASICS INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 225.00 Total :225.00 211759 12/4/2014 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14355635 FLEET COPIER 4Page: Packet Page 57 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211759 12/4/2014 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES Fleet Copier 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 33.02 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 3.14 PW ADMIN COPIER14355636 PW Office Copier for 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 68.55 PW Office Copier for 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 38.85 PW Office Copier for 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 38.85 PW Office Copier for 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 27.42 PW Office Copier for 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 27.42 PW Office Copier for 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 27.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 6.51 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 2.59 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 2.61 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 2.61 WATER SEWER COPIER14355637 Water Sewer Copier 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 70.68 Water Sewer Copier 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 70.68 5Page: Packet Page 58 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211759 12/4/2014 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 6.72 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 6.71 WWTP - COPIER CHARGES14370774 copier rental 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 85.80 CANON COPIER CHARGES14371805 Canon copier charges for C5051 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 83.35 Canon copier charges for C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 83.35 Canon copier charges for C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 83.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 7.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 7.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 7.91 Total :800.69 211760 12/4/2014 070334 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS STORES 2523-236320 Unit 106 - Filters Unit 106 - Filters 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 72.46 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.88 Unit 106 - Oil Filter2523-236413 Unit 106 - Oil Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.49 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.81 Fleet Return2523-236471 Fleet Return 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -4.46 6Page: Packet Page 59 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211760 12/4/2014 (Continued)070334 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS STORES 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -0.42 Total :83.76 211761 12/4/2014 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC QV78407 CISCO 1520 SERIES POWER INJECTOR Cisco 1520 Series Power Injector Item 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 199.31 Total :199.31 211762 12/4/2014 068484 CEMEX LLC 9429608558 Street - Mix Street - Mix 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 334.25 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 31.76 Roadway - Asphalt9429668475 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 416.90 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 39.61 Roadway - Asphalt9429707993 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 359.20 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 34.13 Roadway - Asphalt9429764825 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 337.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 32.03 Roadway - Asphalt9429772474 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 250.60 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 23.81 7Page: Packet Page 60 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,859.3921176212/4/2014 068484 068484 CEMEX LLC 211763 12/4/2014 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 213746 Water - Propane Tank and Propane Water - Propane Tank and Propane 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 67.81 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 6.44 Traffic - Construction FlagsLY212048 Traffic - Construction Flags 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 564.00 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 29.14 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 56.35 Traffic Control - Grind Wheel, SuppliesLY213018 Traffic Control - Grind Wheel, Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 38.62 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 3.66 Total :766.02 211764 12/4/2014 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 11142 INV#11142 CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD PRISONER R&B SEPT 2014 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 605.00 INV#11143 CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD11143 PRISONER R&B OCT 2014 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 986.67 Total :1,591.67 211765 12/4/2014 004095 COASTWIDE LABS GW2722021 Fac Maint - TT, Towels, Supplies Fac Maint - TT, Towels, Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 548.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 52.08 Fac Maint - Versamatic SuppliesNW 2714270-2 Fac Maint - Versamatic Supplies 8Page: Packet Page 61 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211765 12/4/2014 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 298.53 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.36 Fac Maint - Access DoorsNW2718270-1 Fac Maint - Access Doors 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 35.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.40 Fac Maint - Seat Covers, Kitchen TowelNW2722021 Fac Maint - Seat Covers, Kitchen Towel 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 231.14 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.96 PW Bldg - Purell Dispencers, SuppliesW2714102 PW Bldg - Purell Dispencers, Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 40.54 PW Bldg - Purell Dispencers, Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 40.54 PW Bldg - Purell Dispencers, Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 40.54 PW Bldg - Purell Dispencers, Supplies 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 40.54 PW Bldg - Purell Dispencers, Supplies 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 40.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 3.85 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.85 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.85 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 3.85 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 3.86 9Page: Packet Page 62 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,441.5021176512/4/2014 004095 004095 COASTWIDE LABS 211766 12/4/2014 075089 COMPUCOM SYSTEMS 62543385 MICROSOFT WINDOWS USER LICENSES MIcrosoft Windows Office Professional 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 16,011.32 ADOBE ACROBAT XI PRO LICENSE62549404 Adobe Acrobat XI Pro License - Qty 1 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 277.34 Total :16,288.66 211767 12/4/2014 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING NOV 2014 DRY CLEANING OCT/NOV - EDMONDS PD CLEANING/LAUNDRY OCT/NOV 2014 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 757.20 Total :757.20 211768 12/4/2014 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 120214 WWTP - INCINERATOR OPERATOR CERTIFICATIO incinerator operator certification - 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 200.00 Total :200.00 211769 12/4/2014 068654 DIJULIO DISPLAYS INC 7676 PLAZA TREE LIGHTS LIGHT SETS-PLAZA TREE LIGHTS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 504.21 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 47.90 Total :552.11 211770 12/4/2014 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 14-3502 MINUTE TAKING City Council Minutes 11/25/2014 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 386.10 Total :386.10 211771 12/4/2014 007253 DUNN LUMBER 2892878 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES CEDAR 1X2-4" GREEN BOARDS, ALUMINUM 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.26 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.60 10Page: Packet Page 63 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211771 12/4/2014 (Continued)007253 DUNN LUMBER PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES2900201 CEDAR 1X2-4' GREEN BOARDS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.32 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.32 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES2901334 1: MINI VENT BAG 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.80 Total :19.71 211772 12/4/2014 074492 EARTHCORPS 4963 MARSH BUFFER ENHANCEMENT TASK 2: MAINTENANCE & SITE PREP-SECTION 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 4,206.44 Total :4,206.44 211773 12/4/2014 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1231 AD IN CHAMBER DIRECTORY 2015 Half page ad in Edmonds Chamber 001.000.61.558.70.44.00 545.00 Total :545.00 211774 12/4/2014 008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO R24712 Recycle - Tree Door Hangers (7000) Recycle - Tree Door Hangers (7000) 421.000.74.537.90.49.00 504.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.537.90.49.00 47.88 Total :551.88 211775 12/4/2014 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2014-12-01 12/14 RECREATION SERVICES CONTRACT FEE 12/14 Recreation Services Contract Fee 001.000.39.555.00.41.00 5,000.00 Total :5,000.00 211776 12/4/2014 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL SW / METE 11Page: Packet Page 64 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211776 12/4/2014 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.65 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD / METER 73-03575 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 278.91 HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN3-07490 HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 70.53 LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE W / METE3-07525 LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE W / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.65 LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST SW / METE3-07709 LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.65 LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD / METER 23-09350 LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 70.53 LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT RD / METER3-09800 LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT RD / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.65 LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / METER 63-29875 LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.65 SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 92ND AVE W3-38565 SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 92ND AVE W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.65 Total :627.87 211777 12/4/2014 068803 EJ USA INC 3790170 Storm - Drain Frame and Lids Storm - Drain Frame and Lids 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1,748.88 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 166.15 Total :1,915.03 12Page: Packet Page 65 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211778 12/4/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 107345 METER READING Reception desk meter reading 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 19.17 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.82 COPIER CHARGES C5051107416 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 29.74 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 29.74 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 29.73 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 2.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 2.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 2.81 METER READING107422 City Clerk Copier Meter Reading 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 332.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 31.63 Total :483.29 211779 12/4/2014 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH598588 E7AC.STORMWATER GEN. PERMIT PUBLIC NOTIC E7AC.Stormwater Gen. Permit Public 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 120.40 NEWPAPER ADEDH600288 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 37.84 NEWSPAPER ADSEDH601603 Ord. 3982,3983, 3984 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 70.52 Total :228.76 13Page: Packet Page 66 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211780 12/4/2014 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C 26427 Plaza Rm - HVAC Troubleshoot Plaza Rm - HVAC Troubleshoot 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,771.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 168.25 City Hall - Heat Pump Installed and26468 City Hall - Heat Pump Installed and 001.000.31.594.18.64.10 6,935.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.594.18.64.10 658.83 Total :9,533.08 211781 12/4/2014 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU33962 PS & PW - Supplies PS & PW - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.73 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.92 Total :10.65 211782 12/4/2014 067004 FINE LINE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS 50151-00 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC pro vu process meter 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 728.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 21.23 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 71.18 Total :820.41 211783 12/4/2014 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 10008521 Flex Plan monthly fee Flex Plan monthly fee 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 75.00 Total :75.00 211784 12/4/2014 011900 FRONTIER 253-003-6887 LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 41.67 14Page: Packet Page 67 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211784 12/4/2014 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 29.02 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES253-012-9166 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 151.72 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 281.76 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE253-012-9189 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 41.08 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 18.53 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 34.42 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 43.86 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 81.46 WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL253-017-7256 WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 217.18 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-712-8347 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 250 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 64.75 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHONE425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHONE 001.000.64.575.56.42.00 78.93 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES425-771-0158 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 126.76 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE425-771-5553 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE 15Page: Packet Page 68 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211784 12/4/2014 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 108.63 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 126.76 CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH AVE N425-776-6829 CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 126.76 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE509-022-0049 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.02 Total :1,599.31 211785 12/4/2014 072138 FUELCARE 6893 Unit G20 Fire - Repairs Unit G20 Fire - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1,217.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 115.66 Fleet Unit 001 - Clean and Maint6894 Fleet Unit 001 - Clean and Maint 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1,972.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 187.39 Total :3,493.05 211786 12/4/2014 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA 19188 TAEKWON-DO 19188 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 19188 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 374.00 Total :374.00 211787 12/4/2014 073821 GEODESIGN INC 1114-125 E4JA.SERVICES THRU 11/21/14 E4JA.Services thru 11/21/14 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 1,280.60 Total :1,280.60 211788 12/4/2014 069571 GOBLE SAMPSON ASSOCIATES INC BINV0004628 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATING 16Page: Packet Page 69 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211788 12/4/2014 (Continued)069571 GOBLE SAMPSON ASSOCIATES INC loadsure element tl 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 682.80 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 24.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 67.19 Total :774.39 211789 12/4/2014 012199 GRAINGER 9595170276 PS - Hot Water Circulator Pump, Supplies PS - Hot Water Circulator Pump, Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 640.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 60.87 Fac Maint - Rocker Switches9598205897 Fac Maint - Rocker Switches 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 25.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.41 Uit 138 - Parts9599705630 Uit 138 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.46 FAC - Hot Water Circulator Pump,9599729648 FAC - Hot Water Circulator Pump, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 225.43 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.42 Total :993.24 211790 12/4/2014 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 976014614 WWTP - CONTROL SYSTEM UPGRADE Freight 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 15.84 9.5% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 87.78 17Page: Packet Page 70 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211790 12/4/2014 (Continued)012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC phoenix contact fl com server rs485 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 908.20 Total :1,011.82 211791 12/4/2014 012560 HACH COMPANY 9126717 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LAB buffering solutions 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 1,186.05 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 66.39 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 118.99 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LAB9128981 nutrient buffer solution 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 85.90 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 8.16 Total :1,465.49 211792 12/4/2014 074804 HARLES, JANINE 197312 PHOTOGRAPHY NOVEMBER 2014 Photography November 2014 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 211793 12/4/2014 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I3739795 Water - 1" Quick Joint Ball Valves Water - 1" Quick Joint Ball Valves 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 806.22 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 76.59 Water Inventory - w-valvbr-02-010 #0476I3768287 Water Inventory - w-valvbr-02-010 #0476 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 1,073.00 Water - Parts 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4,683.37 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 101.94 18Page: Packet Page 71 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211793 12/4/2014 (Continued)010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 444.91 Water - PartsI3792063 Water - Parts 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 33.25 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.16 Total :7,222.44 211794 12/4/2014 066575 HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL 27745460-001 Fac Maint - Platform Lift Rental Fac Maint - Platform Lift Rental 001.000.66.518.30.45.00 287.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.45.00 27.30 Total :314.54 211795 12/4/2014 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 336998 0205 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES MAINT SUPPLIES: LITTER GRABBERS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 90.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.55 Total :98.55 211796 12/4/2014 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 25520 E1FD.TO 14-01.SERVICES THRU 11/15/14 E1FD.TO 14-01.Services thru 11/15/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 648.48 E3DC.TO 14-02.SERVICES THRU 11/18/1425521 E3DC.TO 14-02.Services thru 11/18/14 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 1,316.08 Total :1,964.56 211797 12/4/2014 066256 IMSA NW CERTIFICATION 2015 Renewals Annual Renewals for D Browning #58585, Annual Renewals for D Browning #58585, 111.000.68.542.90.49.00 225.00 Total :225.00 19Page: Packet Page 72 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211798 12/4/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2532511 Office supplies DSD Office supplies DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 592.75 Return of Calendars DSD2544829 Return of Calendars DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 -80.65 Office supplies - DSD2545627 Office supplies - DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 372.65 Two chairs for DSD2548617 Two chairs for DSD 001.000.62.524.10.35.00 1,007.40 Office supplies DSD2548818 Office supplies DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 367.01 Total :2,259.16 211799 12/4/2014 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 1905701022150 INV#1905701022150 - EDMONDS PD 24 PACK AA DURCELL BATTERIES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 99.90 24 PACK AAA DURCELL BATTERIES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 59.94 CR2032 BATTERIES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 16.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 16.79 Total :193.53 211800 12/4/2014 065873 ITE WASHINGTON STATE SECTION 35424 HAUSS.ITE MEMBERSHIP DUES Hauss.ITE Membership Dues 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 284.28 Total :284.28 211801 12/4/2014 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 3457 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNECTION Dec-14 Fiber Optics Internet Connection 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 500.00 20Page: Packet Page 73 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211801 12/4/2014 (Continued)075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 47.50 Total :547.50 211802 12/4/2014 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 13087270-00 FS 17 - Fan FS 17 - Fan 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 567.85 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 53.95 Total :633.80 211803 12/4/2014 073924 KEARNS, JESSIKA CHRISTINE 19101 TAEKWON-DO 19101 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 19101 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 164.50 19105 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE19105 TAEKWON-DO 19105 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 245.00 Total :409.50 211804 12/4/2014 068401 KING CO OFFICE OF FINANCE 51276 WLRD 2014 2nd Trimester Cost Share WLRD 2014 2nd Trimester Cost Share 422.000.72.531.90.51.00 4,468.50 Total :4,468.50 211805 12/4/2014 067568 KPG INC 108414 E3DC.SERVICES THRU 10/25/14 E3DC.Services thru 10/25/14 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 3,337.84 Total :3,337.84 211806 12/4/2014 070285 KPLU-FM 1141134947 PROMOTIONAL RADIO AD 11/24-11/28/14 Promotional radio ad week of 11/24 - 001.000.61.558.70.44.00 840.00 Total :840.00 21Page: Packet Page 74 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211807 12/4/2014 068024 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARD FOUND 19254 WREATH 19254 WREATH WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR FEE 19254 WREATH WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 58.50 19255 WREATH WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR FEE19255 WREATH 19255 WREATH WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 117.00 19837 WREATH WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR FEE19837 WREATH 19837 WREATH WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 78.00 Total :253.50 211808 12/4/2014 070778 LIM, DAVIDSON LIM WATCH REIMBURSEMENT FOR BROKEN WATCH - LIM REIMBURSEMENT FOR BROKEN WATCH - CASE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 228.95 Total :228.95 211809 12/4/2014 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 139369 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, FACILITIES exhaust fan installation 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 2,141.13 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 203.41 Total :2,344.54 211810 12/4/2014 074388 LONE MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS 15238 Unit 405 - Repairs Unit 405 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 180.00 Total :180.00 211811 12/4/2014 074848 LONG BAY ENTERPRISES INC 2012-216 SAP IMPLEMENTATION CONSULTANT 94.07% COM Strategic Action Plan implementation 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 632.50 Total :632.50 211812 12/4/2014 072376 MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY 3887012 Fac Maint - Supplies Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 282.72 22Page: Packet Page 75 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211812 12/4/2014 (Continued)072376 MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 26.87 Total :309.59 211813 12/4/2014 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 590461-00 Roadway - Supplies Roadway - Supplies 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 0.95 Total :10.95 211814 12/4/2014 073602 MEDICAL IMAGING NORTHWEST LLP 688569 Preemployment medical screening Preemployment medical screening 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 138.00 Total :138.00 211815 12/4/2014 072010 MEISER, GARLAND 11/24 MONITOR 11/3-11/24/14 PICKLEBALL MONITOR 11/3-11/24/14 PICKLEBALL MONITOR 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 40.00 Total :40.00 211816 12/4/2014 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 201823 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES SAFETY GLASSES, GLOVES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 141.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.43 Total :154.81 211817 12/4/2014 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0391023-IN Storm - Work Gloves Storm - Work Gloves 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 189.60 Freight 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 15.59 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 19.49 23Page: Packet Page 76 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :224.6821181712/4/2014 064570 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 211818 12/4/2014 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0535543-IN Unit 138 - Filter Unit 138 - Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.63 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.20 Total :13.83 211819 12/4/2014 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1070501 PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET2-1070856 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 CIVIC CENTER HONEY BUCKET2-1071773 CIVIC CENTER HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1073122 HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 220.77 WILLOW CREEK HONEY BUCKET2-1076191 WILLOW CREEK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 Total :683.37 211820 12/4/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 007984 PW Admin - Envelopes, Batteries PW Admin - Envelopes, Batteries 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 84.20 Water - Battries 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 52.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 8.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.94 Water - Returned Batteries020812 24Page: Packet Page 77 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211820 12/4/2014 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC Water - Returned Batteries 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 -52.02 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 -4.94 Water - Toner, Supplies204418 Water - Toner, Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 69.50 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 6.61 520437 PARKS & REC OFFICE SUPPLIES460156 OFFICE SUPPLIES: FILE FOLDERS 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 7.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 0.69 520437 PARKS & REC OFFICE SUPPLIES818174 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CALENDAR 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 17.63 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 1.68 PW Admin Office - Stapler830054 PW Admin Office - Stapler 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 76.01 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 7.22 PW Admin Returned Stapler874631 PW Admin Returned Stapler 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 -76.01 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 -7.22 520437 PARKS & REC OFFICE SUPPLIES887877 OFFICE SUPPLIES: ENVELOPES 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 11.24 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 1.07 25Page: Packet Page 78 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :207.9021182012/4/2014 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 211821 12/4/2014 075060 O'NEILL, CAITLIN 11/26 PRESCHOOL SUB 11/26 PRESCHOOL SUB 11/26 PRESCHOOL SUB 001.000.64.575.56.41.00 40.00 Total :40.00 211822 12/4/2014 072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 3745-376085 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES SHIFT KNOB 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 14.99 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 1.42 Total :16.41 211823 12/4/2014 063588 PACIFIC POWER PRODUCTS CO 6402602--00 Unit 304 - Repairs Unit 304 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 5,264.92 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 500.17 Total :5,765.09 211824 12/4/2014 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 182686 Storm Dump Fees Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 96.00 Storm Dump Fees182699 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 96.00 Storm Dump Fees182711 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 96.00 Storm Dump Fees182729 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 96.00 Storm Dump Fees182905 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 26Page: Packet Page 79 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211824 12/4/2014 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS Storm Dump Fees182942 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees182953 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees182963 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees182976 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees183390 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees183489 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees183496 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees183503 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees183515 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees183829 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees184129 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees184141 Storm Dump Fees 27Page: Packet Page 80 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211824 12/4/2014 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees184155 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees184162 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees184294 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees184303 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Total :2,424.00 211825 12/4/2014 069873 PAPE MACHINERY INC 9228751 Unit 138 - Water Pump and Supplies Unit 138 - Water Pump and Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 216.37 8.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 18.39 Total :234.76 211826 12/4/2014 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 18-82087 E1FD.SERVICES THRU 11/1/14 E1FD.Services thru 11/1/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 7,074.79 Total :7,074.79 211827 12/4/2014 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 105545 INV#105545 - EDMONDS PD TOW 1997 TOYOTA #AJG2008 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.77 Total :181.77 211828 12/4/2014 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC F608965 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC 28Page: Packet Page 81 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211828 12/4/2014 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 600v fuses 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 144.56 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 13.73 Total :158.29 211829 12/4/2014 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 213634 Fleet Return Postage to Setcom Fleet Return Postage to Setcom 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 27.95 WWTP - POSTAGE, DEPT OF L&I SAFETY VIDEO213737 dept of L&I safety and health videos 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 29.23 Total :57.18 211830 12/4/2014 064088 PROTECTION ONE 2010551 ALARM MONITORING MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE ALARM MONITORING CLUBHOUSE 6801 N 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 112.47 Total :112.47 211831 12/4/2014 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET 19185 FELDENKRAIS 19185 FELDENKRAIS WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR FE 19185 FELDENKRAIS WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 128.00 Total :128.00 211832 12/4/2014 066833 PUBLIC FLEET MGRS ASSOC 1040 Fleet - Ford Police Interceptor & Fleet - Ford Police Interceptor & 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 660.00 Total :660.00 211833 12/4/2014 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,574.47 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER200002411383 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 151.92 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 0200007876143 29Page: Packet Page 82 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211833 12/4/2014 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 311.41 FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW / MET200009595790 FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 535.13 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE200011439656 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 292.78 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 00052200016558856 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 358.97 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 0200016815843 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 813.84 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W /200017676343 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 177.07 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE R200019375639 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 177.44 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 321.38 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE200020415911 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 21.20 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 80.55 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 80.55 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 80.55 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 80.55 30Page: Packet Page 83 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211833 12/4/2014 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 80.53 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / METER200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 201.61 Total :5,339.95 211834 12/4/2014 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000150522 MARKER INS-HOWARD MARKER INS-HOWARD 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 100.00 MARKER-CONNELL00000150654 MARKER-CONNELL 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 521.00 Total :621.00 211835 12/4/2014 075031 REECE, CARLY 11/25 GYM ATTENDANT 11/4-11/25/14 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT 11/4-11/25/14 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 105.00 Total :105.00 211836 12/4/2014 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SOUND & DATA 21685 WWTP - SERVICE CALL, FRONT DOOR Maxxess adjustment 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 144.75 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 13.75 Total :158.50 211837 12/4/2014 006841 RICOH USA INC 5033399636 Additional images Ricoh MP171SPF Additional images Ricoh MP171SPF 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 7.69 Total :7.69 211838 12/4/2014 065784 RUDD COMPANY INC INV-149921 Traffic Control - Paint Gun Parts Traffic Control - Paint Gun Parts 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 2,061.00 31Page: Packet Page 84 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211838 12/4/2014 (Continued)065784 RUDD COMPANY INC Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 10.68 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 196.81 Total :2,268.49 211839 12/4/2014 072725 SAGACITY CUSTOM PUBLISHING 2014-6393 TOURISM AD IN SEA VISITORS GUIDE WINTER/ Tourism ad in Seattle Visitor's Guide 120.000.31.575.42.44.00 1,802.00 Total :1,802.00 211840 12/4/2014 072725 SAGACITY CUSTOM PUBLISHING 11142014 TOURISM AD WA STATE VISITORS GUIDE 50% Tourism ad in WA State Visitor's Guide 120.000.31.575.42.44.00 1,082.50 Total :1,082.50 211841 12/4/2014 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2354588 Roadway - Cold Patch Asphalt Roadway - Cold Patch Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 1,317.90 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 125.20 Total :1,443.10 211842 12/4/2014 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO A141727 Street - Deicer Equipment Repairs Street - Deicer Equipment Repairs 111.000.68.542.66.48.00 532.85 Shop Fees 111.000.68.542.66.48.00 6.90 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.66.48.00 50.63 Total :590.38 211843 12/4/2014 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 1146-2 FAC - Paint FAC - Paint 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 162.40 32Page: Packet Page 85 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211843 12/4/2014 (Continued)063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.43 Total :177.83 211844 12/4/2014 068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO 140903 Hydrant Use Permit - Deposit Refund Hydrant Use Permit - Deposit Refund 421.000.245.110 950.00 Total :950.00 211845 12/4/2014 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0177999-IN Unit EQ93PO - Filler Plate Unit EQ93PO - Filler Plate 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 23.10 Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 9.15 Unit 283 - Black Perimeter Lights0178494-IN Unit 283 - Black Perimeter Lights 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 260.00 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.15 Total :301.40 211846 12/4/2014 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-296767 Fleet shop supplies Fleet shop supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 69.44 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 6.60 Unit EQ93PO - Supplies14-296813 Unit EQ93PO - Supplies 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 67.52 9.5% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 6.41 Total :149.97 211847 12/4/2014 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2001-2487-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W / METER 1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W / METER 33Page: Packet Page 86 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211847 12/4/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 66.64 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME2004-2241-8 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,767.84 PINE ST PARK2013-2711-1 PINE ST PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.27 CEMETERY BUILDING2015-5730-3 CEMETERY BUILDING 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 233.94 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WAY / METER 102015-6343-4 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WAY / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 48.05 OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT CEMETERY2016-1027-6 OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT CEMETERY 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.49 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 100TH AVE W /2017-0375-8 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 100TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 51.75 415 5TH AVE S2017-6210-1 415 5TH AVE S 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 49.95 CEMETERY WELL PUMP2021-6153-5 CEMETERY WELL PUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 143.71 CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST / METER 102042-9221-3 CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 149.00 HAZEL MILLER PLAZA2044-6743-5 HAZEL MILLER PLAZA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 74.67 Total :3,633.31 211848 12/4/2014 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE I000368955 INV#I000368955 CUST#SSH00010 EDMONDS PD TASK FORCE JULY-DEC 2014 34Page: Packet Page 87 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211848 12/4/2014 (Continued)063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 001.000.41.521.10.51.00 5,272.00 Total :5,272.00 211849 12/4/2014 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 11/24/14 SCC dinner meeting 10/16/14 - 3 SCC dinner meeting 10/16/14 - 3 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 105.00 SCC Dinner Meeting 11/13/14 - 311/25/14 SCC Dinner Meeting 11/13/14 - 3 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 105.00 SCC OCTOBER MEETING11242014 October SCC Meeting 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 35.00 SCC NOVEMBER MEETING11252014 November SCC meeting 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 35.00 Total :280.00 211850 12/4/2014 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 550.68 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLING103584 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLING 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 29.95 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST103585 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 674.47 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST103586 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 555.23 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N103588 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 459.89 Total :2,270.22 211851 12/4/2014 074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 854887 E4JB.SERVICES THRU 10/31/14 35Page: Packet Page 88 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211851 12/4/2014 (Continued)074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES E4JB.Services thru 10/31/14 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 32,956.13 Total :32,956.13 211852 12/4/2014 074506 SUNBELT RENTALS 48649240-015 COOLING SYSTEM RENTAL - SERVER ROOM CITY Cooling system rental - 10/14/14 - 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 750.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 71.25 Total :821.25 211853 12/4/2014 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 11423337 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 64.49 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 6.13 Total :70.62 211854 12/4/2014 073970 TALLMAN, TYLER 11/25 GYM MONITOR 11/4-11/25/14 PICKLEBALL GYM MONITOR 11/4-11/25/14 PICKLEBALL GYM MONITOR 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 30.00 Total :30.00 211855 12/4/2014 060167 TEREX UTILITIES 90229355 Unit 100 - Inspection and Testing Unit 100 - Inspection and Testing 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1,919.78 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 182.37 Total :2,102.15 211856 12/4/2014 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 393113 Museum - Water Main Vent Valves Museum - Water Main Vent Valves 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 234.20 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.44 36Page: Packet Page 89 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211856 12/4/2014 (Continued)027269 THE PART WORKS INC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 23.25 Total :267.89 211857 12/4/2014 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR US53294 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,168.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 110.98 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC CENTERUS53869 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC CENTER 250 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,050.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 99.77 Total :2,429.22 211858 12/4/2014 074669 TIGER DIRECT INC L62091620102 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC catalyst, 2960c & gigabit ethernet 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 1,733.86 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 26.10 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICL62187630101 cisco gigabiit ethernet transceiver 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 373.96 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 8.98 Total :2,142.90 211859 12/4/2014 073255 TOTAL FILTRATION SERVICES, INC PSV1274699 Fac Maint - Filters Fac Maint - Filters 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 434.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 41.30 Total :476.06 37Page: Packet Page 90 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211860 12/4/2014 042260 TRAFFIC SAFETY SUPPLY CO 990414 Traffic - Mini Base for 3" Streetscape Traffic - Mini Base for 3" Streetscape 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 105.00 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 8.37 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 10.77 Total :124.14 211861 12/4/2014 062693 US BANK 3355 Cable Supply - Fish Tape for Signals Cable Supply - Fish Tape for Signals 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 429.09 Suntoya - PS - Loch-Heat Tile3405 Suntoya - PS - Loch-Heat Tile 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 278.46 Suntoya - PS - Main Burner 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 139.90 Guardian Security - Old PW 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00 Sound Publishing - Edmonds Legal Ads3546 Sound Publishing - Edmonds Legal Ads 016.000.66.518.30.49.00 175.44 Amazon - PW Car Chargers 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 78.78 Green River CC - WETRC Class - J Waite 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 185.00 Green River CC - WETRC Classes (3) V 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 545.00 Tidelines - Storm - Tide Calendars 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 37.90 Exterminators Inc - Sewer - Rat Bait~ 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 606.08 Maaco - Unit 21 - Paint Services7299 Maaco - Unit 21 - Paint Services 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1,888.72 38Page: Packet Page 91 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211861 12/4/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK Adv Sound - Unit 537 - Window Tint 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 65.00 Safeway - Shop Supplies - A&H Baking 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 3.96 QFC - Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 2.99 Walgreens - Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 21.88 Energy Systems - FS17 Generator Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 697.60 The Truck Shop - Unit 98 Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 156.33 The Truck Stop - Unit 98 - Cover Plate 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 101.05 SetCom - Unit 405 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 58.77 RadioShack - Software Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 27.35 Good to Go - Unit 15 - Fees 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.40 Fisheries - Unit 449 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.90 Wesco - Unit 449 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.17 Total :5,594.77 211862 12/4/2014 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA 0576162-WA Water - 1 DOT Water - 1 DOT 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 99.00 Total :99.00 211863 12/4/2014 064649 VERMEER NW SALES INC W03900 Water - Mole Equipment Repairs Water - Mole Equipment Repairs 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 223.72 misc sales tax % 39Page: Packet Page 92 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211863 12/4/2014 (Continued)064649 VERMEER NW SALES INC 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 21.04 Total :244.76 211864 12/4/2014 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 20114314 INV 20114314 EDMONDS PD - LEE - DT RECER DT CONTROL LEVEL 1 - RECERT - LEE 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 200.00 Total :200.00 211865 12/4/2014 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 52000 INV#52000 - EDMONDS PD TOW 1999 LEXIS #128JMD 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.77 Total :181.77 211866 12/4/2014 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-9919 Street - Tree Romoval (dead tree) 23930 Street - Tree Romoval (dead tree) 23930 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 360.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 34.20 Street - Limb Trimming for Truck06-9920 Street - Limb Trimming for Truck 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 260.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 24.70 Total :678.90 211867 12/4/2014 074609 WEST COAST ARMORY NORTH 13 INV#13 CUST ID#EPD - EDMONDS PD RANGE USE - GAGNER 11/30/14 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 13.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 1.30 Total :15.00 211868 12/4/2014 061286 WESTERN FLUID COMPONENTS P25708-0 Unit 22 - Supplies 40Page: Packet Page 93 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211868 12/4/2014 (Continued)061286 WESTERN FLUID COMPONENTS Unit 22 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 34.70 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.30 Total :38.00 211869 12/4/2014 066678 WSDA PESTICIDE MGMT DIVISION 39844 MCGOWAN 39844 MCGOWAN PESTICIDE LICENSE 39844 MCGOWAN PESTICIDE LICENSE 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 33.00 46620 EDHOUSE PESTICIDE LICENSE46620 EDHOUSE 46620 EDHOUSE PESTICIDE LICENSE 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 33.00 53955 CURRAN PESTICIDE LICENSE53955 CURRAN 53955 CURRAN PESTICIDE LICENSE 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 33.00 77736 DILL PESTICIDE LICENSE77736 DILL 77736 DILL PESTICIDE LICENSE 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 33.00 80090 BIRD PESTICIDE LICENSE80090 BIRD 80090 BIRD PESTICIDE LICENSE 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 33.00 Total :165.00 211870 12/4/2014 067374 XPEDITER TECHNOLOGY LLC 3991 INV#3991 EDMONDS PD ANN MAINT AGMT 12/14 TO 12/15 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 5,237.54 Total :5,237.54 211871 12/4/2014 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1035 NOV-14 RETAINER Monthly Retainer 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 13,657.80 Total :13,657.80 211872 12/4/2014 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0173062 Traffic Control - Blanks 12x24 Traffic Control - Blanks 12x24 41Page: Packet Page 94 of 537 12/04/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 8:37:14AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211872 12/4/2014 (Continued)051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 260.00 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 16.18 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 26.24 Total :302.42 Bank total :238,564.40129 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 238,564.40Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report129 42Page: Packet Page 95 of 537 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 12/3/2014 Packet Page 96 of 537 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 12/3/2014 Packet Page 97 of 537 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 12/3/2014 Packet Page 98 of 537 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 12/3/2014 Packet Page 99 of 537 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 12/3/2014 Packet Page 100 of 537 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 12/3/2014 Packet Page 101 of 537 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 12/3/2014 Packet Page 102 of 537 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 12/3/2014 Packet Page 103 of 537 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 12/3/2014 Packet Page 104 of 537 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 12/3/2014 Packet Page 105 of 537 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 12/3/2014 Packet Page 106 of 537 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 12/3/2014 Packet Page 107 of 537 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 678 (11/16/2014 to 11/30/2014) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description Educational Pay CorrectionREGULAR HOURS-ed2 0.00 -156.28 10% OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUS00c1 0.00 256.35 NO PAY LEAVEABSENT111 24.00 0.00 NO PAY NON HIREDABSENT112 53.00 0.00 SICK LEAVESICK121 612.00 21,972.64 VACATIONVACATION122 1,125.45 40,270.76 HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 213.75 7,491.55 FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 25.00 703.46 COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 164.15 5,959.78 Holiday Compensation UsedCOMP HOURS130 11.35 376.34 JURY DUTYJURY DUTY132 24.00 783.75 Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 180.50 6,365.95 COMPTIME BUY BACKCOMP HOURS152 16.00 501.97 COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 61.26 2,470.03 VACATION PAYOFFVACATION158 51.39 1,612.28 MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 51.00 2,615.85 COUNCIL BASE PAYREGULAR HOURS170 700.00 7,000.00 COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAYREGULAR HOURS174 0.00 200.00 COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICALREGULAR HOURS175 0.00 694.93 REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 12,277.40 455,418.32 FIRE PENSION PAYMENTSREGULAR HOURS191 4.00 2,267.58 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVEREGULAR HOURS195 107.00 3,754.61 LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS196 3.00 122.24 OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 191.39 8,311.64 WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 48.00 2,251.70 STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 15.00 1,348.80 OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 225.30 13,107.98 OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 38.25 2,312.97 SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 709.16 ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS602 106.75 0.00 Holiday Comp 1.0COMP HOURS603 9.00 0.00 ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS604 88.60 0.00 ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS606 4.00 0.00 Holiday Compensatory Time 1.5COMP HOURS607 19.00 0.00 12/04/2014 Page 1 of 3 Packet Page 108 of 537 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 678 (11/16/2014 to 11/30/2014) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description COMP TIME - INFORMALCOMP HOURS608 4.00 234.34 CLOTHING ALLOWANCEMISCELLANEOUS903 0.00 700.00 ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 24.22 Accreditation 1% Part TimeMISCELLANEOUSacp 0.00 0.00 ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 166.65 BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 81.17 Repayment AgreementREGULAR HOURScell 0.00 -60.96 Collision ReconstructionistMISCELLANEOUScolre 0.00 135.29 TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 140.18 CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 516.16 DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUSdet 0.00 97.80 Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 942.14 EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed1 0.00 761.21 EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed2 0.00 700.90 EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed3 0.00 4,360.95 HOLIDAYHOLIDAYhol 2,421.60 90,815.92 K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 198.25 LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITYlg1 0.00 1,747.33 LONGEVITY 5.5%LONGEVITYlg10 0.00 399.81 LONGEVITY PAY 4%LONGEVITY PAYlg2 0.00 801.96 LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAYlg3 0.00 5,379.00 Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 183.43 Longevity .5%LONGEVITYlg6 0.00 315.72 Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 830.93 Longevity 3.5%LONGEVITYlg9 0.00 84.77 Medical Leave Absent (unpaid)ABSENTmela 48.00 0.00 Medical Leave SickSICKmels 4.00 164.22 Medical Leave VacationVACATIONmelv 12.00 492.68 MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUSmtc 0.00 195.60 Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUSpds 0.00 45.74 PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 1,447.23 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUSprof 0.00 149.96 SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%MISCELLANEOUSsdp 0.00 494.56 ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTMISCELLANEOUSsgt 0.00 149.96 12/04/2014 Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 109 of 537 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 678 (11/16/2014 to 11/30/2014) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 308.07 Total Net Pay:$478,775.50 $701,729.55 18,939.14 12/04/2014 Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 110 of 537 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 678 - 11/16/2014 to 11/30/2014 Bank: usbank - US Bank Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 61397 12/05/2014 all ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES 378.71 0.00 61398 12/05/2014 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,173.00 0.00 61399 12/05/2014 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 117.00 0.00 61400 12/05/2014 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 700.76 0.00 61401 12/05/2014 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 1,028.10 0.00 61402 12/05/2014 cope SEIU COPE 92.00 0.00 61403 12/05/2014 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 3,475.71 0.00 61404 12/05/2014 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 504.00 0.00 61405 12/05/2014 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,035.81 0.00 61406 12/05/2014 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 109,760.37 0.00 119,265.46 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 2151 12/05/2014 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 223,071.50 0.00 2152 12/05/2014 aflac AFLAC 5,250.94 0.00 2156 12/05/2014 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 24,043.50 0.00 2157 12/05/2014 us US BANK 121,311.06 0.00 2158 12/05/2014 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,943.60 0.00 2160 12/05/2014 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 223.50 0.00 379,844.10 0.00 499,109.56 0.00Grand Totals: Page 1 of 112/4/2014 Packet Page 111 of 537    AM-7330     5. D.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Linda Hynd Department:City Clerk's Office Committee: Type: Action Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages submitted by Roland Tegman ($569.89). Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Roland Tegman 7924 236th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 ($569.89) Attachments Tegman Claim for Damages Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 12/04/2014 10:08 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/04/2014 10:13 AM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 12/01/2014 03:22 PM Final Approval Date: 12/04/2014  Packet Page 112 of 537 Packet Page 113 of 537 Packet Page 114 of 537 Packet Page 115 of 537 Packet Page 116 of 537 Packet Page 117 of 537    AM-7325     5. E.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Action  Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement with David Evans & Associates for the 76 th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements project Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign the Supplemental Agreement. Previous Council Action On September 13, 2011, City Council authorized the Mayor to advertise for Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to complete the design and right-of-way acquisition phases for the 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvement project. On August 21, 2012, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #2 with David Evans & Associates for the 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvement project. On September 17, 2013, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #4 with David Evans & Associates for the 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvement project. On November 25, 2014, City Council forward this item to the consent agenda for approval. Narrative 76th Ave W at 212th St SW is one of the busiest signalized intersections in the City and is served by two federally classified minor arterial streets. The intersection experiences long queues during peak commute and school hours due to the limited capacity of the intersection. Both approaches of 76th Ave W have two shared lanes with no dedicated left turn lane. The left turn volumes are very high, and are timed independently by split phasing signal timing. The proposed improvement will provide dedicated left turn lanes on 76th Avenue and concurrent turning movements during the protected left turn phase. This project will increase the capacity and improve intersection signal operation, traffic flow, vehicle delay, and air quality by reducing vehicle emissions. Various utility upgrades and overhead utility conversion are being incorporated in the project. Bike lanes will also be added on all approaches as part of this project, extending approximately 300’ from the intersection. The supplement adds the following design tasks:  • Conceptual Design Plans at the Edmonds Woodway High School: due to the proximity of the drop-off school entrance from 76th Ave W (less than 200’), the queue frequently extends onto 76th Packet Page 118 of 537 Ave W. The additional services will analyze this problem and evaluate drop-off and pick-up circulation at the high school and recommend modifications to address the problem. The City has had preliminary discussions with the School District to reconfigure the striping within the parking lot and have traffic enter from 216th and exit from the existing driveway on 76th Ave. • Underground utility conversion: Snohomish County PUD, Frontier, Comcast, Blackrock Cable, and Washington State Department of Transportation have overhead utilities crossing the intersection. PSE gas lines may also need to be relocated. This task will prepare the plans, specifications and cost estimates to convert the overhead utilities to underground. • Geotechnical investigation in the vicinity of the proposed sanitary sewer system; and • Geotechnical investigation in the vicinity of the proposed storm drainage system.   The design fee for Supplement #5 is $69,444 and will be funded by City Funds (Fund 112, Fund 422, and Fund 423) and the CMAQ grant. The stormwater and sewer improvements incorporated into this supplement are funded by the respective utility funds (Fund 422 and 423). The design and right of way phases are scheduled to be completed in 2015. A federal construction grant is anticipated to be awarded by December 2014, in the amount of $3,020,000 (with 13.5% local match from Fund 112). Construction is scheduled for spring 2016. Utility Funds 421, 422, and 423 will contribute to the cost of the project. Attachments David Evans & Associates Supplemental Agreement  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 12/04/2014 04:04 PM Public Works Kody McConnell 12/04/2014 04:16 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 12/05/2014 07:17 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/05/2014 08:11 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/05/2014 08:20 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 11/25/2014 04:36 PM Final Approval Date: 12/05/2014  Packet Page 119 of 537 P a c k e t P a g e 1 2 0 o f 5 3 7 P a c k e t P a g e 1 2 1 o f 5 3 7 P a c k e t P a g e 1 2 2 o f 5 3 7 P a c k e t P a g e 1 2 3 o f 5 3 7 P a c k e t P a g e 1 2 4 o f 5 3 7 P a c k e t P a g e 1 2 5 o f 5 3 7 P a c k e t P a g e 1 2 6 o f 5 3 7 P a c k e t P a g e 1 2 7 o f 5 3 7 P a c k e t P a g e 1 2 8 o f 5 3 7 P a c k e t P a g e 1 2 9 o f 5 3 7 Flie No. 00138-029-01 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES 76TH AVENUE W AND 212TH STREET SW INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON GeoEngineers is pleased to present our proposed scope of services for additional geotechnical engineering services for the 76th Avenue W and 212th Street SW intersection improvements in Edmonds, Washington. Our additional geotechnical engineering services are requested to complete additional borings at the location of two proposed vaults, two borings along the proposed new sanitary sewer, and to provide an addendum memorandum. Our additional geotechnical engineering services will include the following tasks: 1. Mark Boring Locations and Complete Utility Locate a. Arrange for traffic control and mark the boring locations in the field. We assume a street use permit is not required for drilling the borings for this City project (the borings will require approximately 7 to 8 hours, or about 1½ hours at each boring). We anticipate traffic control will include closing down the outside lane of the roadways with approved signs and cones (traffic will be diverted with appropriate signs and cones to use the inside lane, flaggers are not anticipated). b. Complete a site visit to meet with utility representatives and clear boring locations. 2. Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing a. Evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions for the proposed improvements by drilling hollow-stem auger borings at the following areas:  Two borings to a depth of about 20 feet each at the proposed detention vault located on the west side of the intersection and south side of 212 th Street SW. We understand the detention vault will be 65 by 20 feet in plan, and the excavation will be about 12 to 15 feet deep.  One boring in the vicinity of the proposed Flogard Perk Filter Vault to be located on the south side of the intersection and west side of 76th Avenue W. This boring will be drilled to a depth of about 15 feet.  Two borings along the alignment of the proposed sanitary sewer located along the east side of 76th Avenue W. We understand the new sewer will extend roughly 1,000 lineal feet and will require excavations of about 10 to 12 feet deep. We propose to drill the borings to a depth of about 20 feet each. Disturbed soil samples will be collected for laboratory testing. The field exploration will be completed under the direction of a geotechnical engineer or geologist from our firm. Our representative will maintain a detailed log of the exploration and obtain samples of the various materials encountered. We assume soil cuttings will not be contaminated and we will have the driller haul the cuttings off-site for disposal. c. Perform laboratory tests on representative samples of the soils, including tests for moisture content (ASTM D 2216) and particle size distribution (ASTM D 422 and D 1140). Packet Page 130 of 537 Flie No. 00138-029-01 Environmental tests of suspected contaminants are not included in our scope. If suspected contamination is encountered during drilling, we will consult with our environmental staff and recommend an additional scope of testing and consultation as necessary. Refer to our previous report prepared for the project titled, “Hazardous Materials Discipline Report” dated October 28, 2013 for additional information and recommendations regarding hazardous material sites of concern. d. Evaluate pertinent physical and engineering characteristics of the soils based on the results of the field exploration, laboratory testing and our experience. 3. Prepare an Addendum Geotechnical Memorandum Including: a. A summary of subsurface soil conditions encountered based on results of our previous tasks above. b. Provide recommendations for earthwork and site preparation including suitability of on- site soils for reuse as trench and vault backfill, and recommendations for placement and compaction of backfill. c. Provide recommendations for subgrade preparation for the vault and sewer line including recommendations for base rock and pipe bedding. d. Recommend inclinations for temporary slopes and geotechnical parameters for temporary shoring, as applicable. e. Provide construction dewatering considerations including an estimate of hydraulic conductivity of the subsurface soils based on the results of grain size analyses tests. A range of groundwater flow rate will be estimated for the planned excavation of the vault based on the estimated hydraulic conductivity, the planned excavation size, and the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered during drilling. f. Evaluate geotechnical parameters for below-grade wall design including lateral pressures and resistance, buoyancy evaluation and allowable bearing pressures. Packet Page 131 of 537    AM-7318     5. F.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Councilmember Bloom Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Reappointment of Darcy MacPherson to Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board. Recommendation Reappointment of Darcy MacPherson to Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board. Previous Council Action June 4, 2013 Council Meeting:  Ms. MacPherson was appointed to fill a Tree Board vacancy (see attached minutes and 6/4/13 Agenda Memo cover sheet). Narrative Ms. MacPherson's term  is due to expire on December 31, 2014.  She has  asked to be reappointed.  Upon her appointment she will serve a 4-year term.   Attachments Attach 1 - 6-4-14 Copy of Tree Board Applicants AM Attach 2 - 06-04-13_Approved_City_Council_Minutes Attach 3 - MacPherson Updated Application Redacted Attach 4 -MacPherson Orginal App for Tree Board RD Tree Board City Code Chapter Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/04/2014 10:57 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/04/2014 12:27 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/04/2014 12:29 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 11/24/2014 11:21 AM Final Approval Date: 12/04/2014  Packet Page 132 of 537    AM-5816     3. B.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:06/04/2013 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Council President Petso Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Appointment of Applicants to the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board. Recommendation Previous Council Action During the May 28, 2013 Council Meeting, the following candidates were interviewed for possible appointment to the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board: Darcy J. Macpherson 5:45 p.m. Roy Smith 6:00 p.m. Douglas Swartz 6:15 p.m.   Narrative This item has been placed on the Consent Agenda for approval of the following two candidates for  appointment to the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board. Darcy J. Macpherson Roy Smith Attachments Tree Board Applicants Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Linda Hynd 05/30/2013 04:00 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/31/2013 09:04 AM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 05/31/2013 09:25 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 05/30/2013 03:42 PM Final Approval Date: 05/31/2013  Packet Page 133 of 537 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES June 4, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Strom Peterson, Councilmember Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Walker Kasinadhuni, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Rob English, City Engineer Leif Bjorback, Building Official Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jen Machuga, Associate Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. ROLL CALL City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Petso relayed the following changes to the agenda: • Delete Item 6 and reschedule it on July 2 • Move Item 11 to follow the executive session • Revise Item 14 to include potential litigation COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #202341 THROUGH #202433 DATED MAY 30, 2013 FOR $144,262.47 (REISSUED CHECK #202368 $1,250.00). B. APPOINTMENT OF APPLICANTS TO THE EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Jennifer Martin, Edmonds, requested the Council review the current code with regard to junk vehicles, unused building materials, the size of unpermitted outbuildings, the number of cars allowed on a property including cars parked in the right-of-way adjacent to properties and consider whether the code is Packet Page 134 of 537 Packet Page 135 of 537 Packet Page 136 of 537 Packet Page 137 of 537 Packet Page 138 of 537 Chapter 10.95 CITIZENS’ TREE BOARD Sections: 10.95.010 Board created – Membership. 10.95.020 Officers of board – Meetings – Forum. 10.95.030 Powers and duties. 10.95.010 Board created – Membership. A. There is hereby created a citizens’ tree board consisting of up to seven members plus one alternate. Citizens must be Edmonds residents. It is recommended the board include citizens from throughout the city (representing different watersheds and neighborhoods). Additionally, those with professional or hobbyist interest/experience in urban forestry, horticulture, and habitat enviroscaping are preferred; these may include arborists, botanists, horticulturists, native plant experts, master gardeners, wildlife experts, and related. The members shall be appointed in the following manner: Within 30 days after the ordinance codified in this chapter is passed, the city shall draft and publish an announcement seeking applicants for board membership. The standard city of Edmonds citizen board and commission application will be used. Prospective board members will have 30 days to submit their application. Initially, each councilmember will appoint one tree board member within 30 days following the close of the application period. The alternate member shall be appointed by the council president or mayor (as determined by the council). The selections shall be made based on the qualifications described per the applications; councilmembers may also interview applicants at their discretion. Subsequent to the initial appointments, recommendations for renewal/replacements, when required, will be made by the full council. B. The term of appointment shall be four years. However, initially, to ensure transitional consistency three members shall be appointed to four-year terms and four members (plus the alternate) shall be appointed to two-year terms. Councilmembers whose terms expire in 2011 shall appoint members to initial two-year terms. Councilmembers whose terms expire in 2013 shall appoint members to initial four-year terms. Thereafter, appointments shall coincide with the terms of newly elected councilmembers. Each member, at his or he r discretion, may seek renewal for one additional term. [Ord. 3807 § 1, 2010]. 10.95.020 Officers of board – Meetings – Forum. Members of the commission shall meet and organize by election, from the members of the board, a chair and vice chair and othe r officers as may be determined by the board. It shall be the duty of the chair to preside at all meetings. The vice chair shall perform this duty in the absence of the chair. A majority of the filled positions on the board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The board is expected to meet monthly or as otherwise agreed to by the board. The regular public meeting of the board shall be held at such time or place as may be determined by the chair or a majority of the members of the board. [Ord. 3807 § 1, 2010]. 10.95.030 Powers and duties. A. The board is empowered to advise and make recommendations to the mayor and city council and, as appropriate, to the planning board and other boards or commissions of the city on such matters including but not limited to: 1. Developing a tree ordinance designed to preserve and protect existing trees, encourage planting of additional trees, safeguard trees on parcels where construction or renovation is occurring or planned to occur, and encouraging the Edmonds citizenry to become active stewards of the urban forest. 2. Increasing community outreach and education regarding the value of trees, proper selection of trees, and correct methods for planting of and caring for trees. 3. Working with civic, religious, and citizen groups to organize invasive plant removal and native vegetation planting in accord with the department of parks, recreation and cultural services. 4. Coordinating with other citizen groups to specific projects. 5. Facilitating relevant grant applications supporting ecology and watershed protection projects. 6. Sponsoring an annual Arbor Day Event. 7. Working towards achievement of Tree City USA® status. B. The board shall provide an annual report to the city council in December of each year. [Ord. 3807 § 1, 2010]. Packet Page 139 of 537    AM-7341     7.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted For:Councilmember Bloom Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Committee: Type: Action Information Subject Title Appointment to fill two vacancies on the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board Recommendation Previous Council Action December 9, 2014 Council Meeting:  Council interviewed 3 candidates for two Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board Vacancies ending on December 31, 2014. Narrative Appointment to fill 2 vacancies on Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board from the following applicants: Mr. Brightman Ms. Durr Ms. Travis Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/04/2014 11:05 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/04/2014 12:27 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/04/2014 12:29 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/04/2014 09:19 AM Final Approval Date: 12/04/2014  Packet Page 140 of 537    AM-7335     8.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted For:Ed Sibrel Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Report on final construction cost for the 5th Avenue Overlay Project and project acceptance Recommendation Forward this item to the consent agenda at the December 16, 2014 Council meeting. Previous Council Action On August 6, 2013, Council voted to award the contract in the amount of $732,732.25 for the overlay project to Interwest Construction, Inc. Narrative On August 7, 2013, Interwest Construction was given the Notice to Proceed with construction.  The project provided a 2-inch pavement grind and overlay on 5th Ave between Elm Way and Walnut St.  Pedestrian curb ramps were upgraded, when possible, to comply with ADA requirements.    The contract award amount was $732,732.25 and Council approved a management reserve of $73,000.  During the course of the contract, two change orders ($8,007 and $32,467) were approved that increased the total construction contract amount to $773,206.  However, significant underruns of the quantities of Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) and thermoplastic striping brought the total amount paid for the contract to $739,050.03, or less than 1% over budget. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 12/04/2014 05:43 PM Public Works Phil Williams 12/05/2014 05:39 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 12/05/2014 07:17 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/05/2014 08:11 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/05/2014 08:20 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 12/03/2014 02:46 PM Final Approval Date: 12/05/2014  Packet Page 141 of 537    AM-7322     9.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted For:Police Chief Al Compaan Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Type: Potential Action  Information Subject Title Amendment to the Woodway Police Services Contract approved by the City Council on November 3, 2014. Recommendation Previous Council Action Discussed by Finance Committee on September 9, 2014, with committee request that the matter be scheduled for full council discussion. Discussed during November 3, 2014 Council Meeting:  Minutes attached. The Council approved the proposed contract for a six-month term.  Narrative Council requested that this item return to Council for reconsideration of the contract term. If the Council wishes to amend the contract previously approved by the Council, the following motion would be in order: "I move to amend the Woodway Police Services Contract approved by the City Council on November 3, 2014, to change the term from a six-month term to a three-year term." Attachments Woodway Police Services Contract Proposed 2015-2017 09-18-2012 Approved City Council Minutes Nov 3, 2014 Approved Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Linda Hynd 11/25/2014 03:23 PM City Council (Originator)Jana Spellman 11/25/2014 03:29 PM City Clerk Linda Hynd 11/25/2014 03:33 PM Mayor Dave Earling 11/25/2014 03:57 PM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 11/25/2014 05:37 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 11/25/2014 01:06 PM Final Approval Date: 11/25/2014  142 1 AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SERVICES PURSUANT TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT CHAPTER 39.34 RCW WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington is an optional code city constituted in accordance with the provisions of Title 35A of the Revised Code of Washington; and WHEREAS, the Town of Woodway is a Town organized pursuant to certain provisions of Title 35 of the Revised Code of Washington; and WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 of the Interlocal Cooperation Act authorizes public agencies, including municipal corporations, to exercise their respective powers and any power capable of being exercised by either party pursuant to an interlocal agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds and the Town Council of the Town of Woodway deem it to be in the public interest to enter into an interlocal agreement for the provision of police services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises set forth in this interlocal agreement and the mutual benefits to be derived, the City of Edmonds, Washington, (hereinafter "Edmonds") and the Town of Woodway, (hereinafter "Woodway") have entered into this interlocal agreement in accordance with the provisions set forth below: I. TERM THIS AGREEMENT for Police Services (“Agreement”) shall have a three (3) year term commencing on January 1, 2015 and expiring on December 31, 2017. 1.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party without cause by the provision of ninety (90) days written notice addressed to the respective City or Town Clerk, at his/her regular business address. 1.2 This Agreement may be terminated by either party for cause if, but only if: 1.2.1 Prior written notice of an alleged breach of the terms of the Agreement is provided to City or Town Clerk; and 1.2.2 The breach is not cured within 48 hours of the actual receipt of the written notification of breach. II. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED THIS AGREEMENT does not create a separate entity for the provision of services. Rather it is the intent of the parties that Edmonds shall provide back-up police services as Packet Page 143 of 537 2 described herein when a Woodway officer is not on duty or is otherwise unavailable to respond to the call. In such event, the Southwest Snohomish County Communications Agency (“SNOCOM”) shall dispatch an Edmonds officer in or on an appropriate vehicle and with appropriate back-up when needed for: 2.1 All priority one (1) in-progress calls, which currently include, but are not limited to, abduction, bank alarm, robbery hold-up alarm, assault, assault with weapon, burglary, fight with weapon, hostage situation, prowler, rape, robbery and strong-arm robbery; and/or 2.2 Priority two (2) in-progress calls, which currently include, but are not limited to, theft, threats to life or property, residential alarms, panic alarms, suspicious persons, suspicious circumstances, traffic accidents, and 911 hang-up calls. 2.3 Priority one and priority two calls shall be defined in accordance with the definition established for such calls by SNOCOM, such definitions to be incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. The determination of SNOCOM regarding the characterization of any call shall be final and determinative. 2.4 If a Woodway police officer is on regular scheduled duty and back-up is required, the Edmonds police department will continue to assist, if an officer is available, at no charge, in accordance with other existing mutual aid agreements. III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES 3.1 The Edmonds Police Department shall: 3.1.1 Conduct an initial investigation of incidents; 3.1.2 Assist victims and witnesses at the crime scene; 3.1.3 Preserve crime scenes; 3.1.4 Take reports on minor incidents; 3.1.5 Provide a written report on every dispatched call; and 3.1.6 As required, attend and testify at any prosecution arising from the call. 3.2 The Woodway Police Department shall: 3.2.1 Provide any follow-up investigation, report or action required relative to an assault, burglary or crime with possible suspects by call-out of a Woodway police officer. 3.2.2 Provide any crime scene investigation regarding burglaries, multiple property crimes, serious accidents, or similar events of a serious or felonious nature. Packet Page 144 of 537 3 3.2.3 Call out an officer to provide service in the event that arrest and booking of a suspect is required. Woodway police department citation forms shall be used and an "assist other agency" report and statement prepared. If no Woodway police department officer is reasonably available, an Edmonds citation form may be used. In such event, the Edmonds police department policy regarding issuance of citations on state charges shall be followed. 3.2.4 Retain evidence at the Woodway police department. 3.2.5 Refer juveniles to the Woodway police department for processing, including appropriate report and referral. IV. OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING 4.1 The Edmonds and Woodway Police Departments’ Chiefs of Police, or their designees, shall act as administrators of this Agreement for purposes of RCW 39.34.030. 4.2 A written report shall be provided by Edmonds regarding all calls to which an Edmonds officer is dispatched. 4.3 The original shall remain with the Edmonds police department. 4.4 Copies shall be sent immediately to the Woodway police department. V. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS No Special Duty or Third Party Right Created. The parties understand and agree that in the event of an emergent situation in Edmonds, services under this Agreement may be delayed or suspended. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to create any third party right, nor is any special duty to any third party, private party, person or entity created as a result of this Agreement. VI. BILLING PROCESS 6.1 Woodway shall pay to Edmonds the sum of $3,060.00 per month for the services provided by Edmonds under the terms of this Agreement, which sum shall include a maximum of ten (10) calls, for the first year of this Agreement. For the second and third years, this monthly amount will be adjusted yearly by 100% of the CPI-U June to June Index for Seattle- Tacoma-Bremerton. Services for additional calls beyond the first ten shall be assessed at a flat rate of $100.00 per fifteen (15) minute increment for the Edmonds officer’s time based on the nearest 15 minute increment of time spent on the call. This flat rate shall be in effect for the entire term of the Agreement. 6.2 If a call requires more than one Edmonds officer to respond, and that additional officer(s) is on the Woodway call in excess of 15 minutes from time of arrival, an additional cost will be assessed for police services at the flat rate of $100.00 per fifteen (15) minute increment for each additional officer(s) time based on the nearest 15 minute increment. The individual officer’s unit history will be used for the record for time spent in Woodway. Packet Page 145 of 537 4 6.3 Edmonds shall provide a detailed quarterly billing which shall include at a minimum the Edmonds police department case number and the date of the incident. Payment shall be remitted within 30 days of billing. In the event of a dispute regarding billing, the parties agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration or such other form of alternative dispute resolution (mediation) as the parties shall approve. VII. SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT Edmonds shall provide services through use of its own vehicles and equipment and be responsible for all costs associated therewith, including but not limited to damage from any kind or nature and normal wear and tear. Edmonds shall also utilize its own reports and forms with the exception of citations as herein provided. Edmonds citations shall only be used when no Woodway citations are reasonably available. VIII. LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY 8.1 Edmonds shall indemnify and hold harmless Woodway, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, cause or liability of any kind or nature whatsoever arising from or out of the negligence or wrongful tortious act of an Edmonds officer or employee in the provision of services under this Agreement by Edmonds officers. This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall include a waiver of the immunity provided by Title 51 RCW, to, but only to the extent necessary to fully effectuate its promise. 8.2 Woodway shall indemnify and hold harmless Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, cause or liability of any kind or nature whatsoever arising from or out of the negligence or wrongful tortious act of a Woodway officer or employee in the provision of services under this Agreement by Woodway officers. This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall include a waiver of the immunity provided by Title 51 RCW, to, but only to the extent necessary to fully effectuate its promise. 8.3 In the event of a claim, loss or liability based upon the alleged concurrent or joint negligence or tortious act of the parties, the parties shall bear their respective liability, including costs, in accordance with an assignment of their respective liability established in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. IX. INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENTS Edmonds and Woodway recognize and agree that each is an independent governmental entity. Except for the specific terms herein, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the discretion of the governing bodies of each party. Specifically and without limiting the foregoing, Edmonds shall have the sole discretion and the obligation to determine the exact method by which the services are to be provided unless otherwise stipulated within this Agreement. Neither Edmonds nor Woodway, except as expressly set forth herein or as required by law, shall be liable for any debts or obligations of the other party. Packet Page 146 of 537 5 X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 10.1 Noticing Procedures. All notices, demands, requests, consents and approvals which may, or are required to be given by any party to any other party hereunder, shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered personally, sent by facsimile, sent by nationally recognized overnight delivery service, or if mailed or deposited in the United States mail, sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid to: For the City of Edmonds: City Clerk AND Chief of Police City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Police Department 121 5th Avenue North 250 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 For the Town of Woodway: Clerk Treasurer AND Chief of Police Town of Woodway Town of Woodway Police Department 23920 113 Pl. W 23920 113 Pl. W. Woodway, WA 98020 Woodway, WA 98020 Or, to such other address as the parties may from time to time designate in writing and deliver in a like manner. All notices shall be deemed complete upon actual receipt or refusal to accept delivery. Facsimile or electronic mail transmission of any signed original document and retransmission of any signed facsimile or electronic mail transmission shall be the same as delivery of an original document. 10.2 Other Cooperative Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the parties from entering into contracts for services in support of this Agreement. 10.3 Public Duty Doctrine. This Agreement shall not be construed to provide any benefits to any third parties. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, this Agreement shall not create or be construed as creating an exception to the Public Duty Doctrine. The parties shall cooperate in good faith and execute such documents as necessary to effectuate the purposes and intent of this Agreement. 10.4 Entire Agreement. This is the entire agreement between the parties. Any prior understanding, written or oral, shall be deemed merged with its provisions. This Agreement shall not be amended except in writing with the express written consent of the City Council and Town Council of the respective parties. Packet Page 147 of 537 6 10.5 Jurisdiction and Venue. Jurisdiction and venue for this Agreement lies exclusively in Snohomish County, Washington. EXECUTED this ______ day of _____________________, 2014. CITY OF EDMONDS TOWN OF WOODWAY By: By: Mayor David O. Earling Mayor Carla A. Nichols ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED By: By: Scott Passey, City Clerk Joyce Bielefeld, Clerk Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY: By: By: Packet Page 148 of 537 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 18, 2012 Page 6 other swimmers. She summarized many children and families enjoy swimming at Yost Pool. She complimented the staff at Yost Pool who are very accommodating. When completing a survey staff distributed at the pool, she simply wrote FUN. She looked forward to many more summers swimming at Yost Pool. Mayor Earling assured at this time there are no cuts anticipated for Yost Pool. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to the police contract with the Town of Woodway. He explained the Edmonds Police Department responded to 30,413 incidents during 2011 and 22,018 incidents not including traffic stops. Calls to Woodway are included in the 22,018. The Police Department budget for 2012 is $9.5 million. Assuming the number of non-traffic incidents in 2012 will be the same as 2011 and applying 100% of the Police Department’s expenses to the 22,108 incidents, equates to $431 per incident. A calculation of $431 multiplied by 10 calls as proposed in Woodway’s contract equates to $4,310/month. The charge should be something less than that amount because Edmonds Police do not patrol Woodway for crime prevention or do any parking enforcement. To those that think Edmonds Police Department’s time is excessively diluted by calls to Woodway, the annual report indicates there were 822 incidents per Field Services Officer in 2012. Assuming the same would be true in 2012, Woodway’s 120 calls are only 15% of one of those officers’ time. His understanding was without this contract with Woodway, the City will lose revenue but not lose any expenses. Edmonds has not been subsidizing Woodway as some have suggested. He urged the Council to make an unemotional and objective assessment and approve the proposed contract. Jenny Anttila, Edmonds, commented everyone loves Edmonds but there is a silent killer in Edmonds, the train. The number of trains is increasing and a quiet zone is needed which she acknowledged is expensive. She recalled a meeting this summer regarding problems created with access to the waterfront by the increasing number of trains but it did not address the noise. Until the City can afford a quiet zone, she recommended the City discuss with Burlington Northern how often the train horn is activated when traveling through Edmonds day and night. She commented on the potential for noise from planes from Paine Field and the noise from ferries, summarizing the train noise is particularly bothersome and getting worse. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 5, Budget Schedule, commenting the budget is an important issue to many citizens. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented regarding the City needing to deal with the Edmonds School District (ESD) on several park properties. Projects listed in the CIP include a pool complex and the old Edmonds- Woodway High School for ballfields only. He recommended combining those projects because there is space at the old Edmonds-Woodway High School for a pool. He recommended appointing a Council representative to the ESD Board, similar to the Council liaison to the Port in order to establish a rapport with the School District and the Board. He also commented that he was glad to see there is a presentation on tonight’s agenda regarding chip sealing. 6. POLICE SERVICES CONTRACT - TOWN OF WOODWAY (Councilmember Yamamoto participated in this item by phone.) Police Chief Al Compaan explained this matter was last before the Council on August 6. Since that time, Council President Peterson has engaged with representatives from Woodway to reach terms acceptable to both parties. The proposed Police Services Contract is a flat fee of $3,000/month for up to 10 police responses into the Town of Woodway and an additional charge pro-rated every 15 minutes for a second officer on a response. Councilmember Petso asked whether the proposed contract included a cost escalator or cost of living adjustment after one year. Chief Compaan answered it did not. The contract has a two year term with an option for a two year renewal. Packet Page 149 of 537 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 18, 2012 Page 7 Councilmember Petso asked for a typical escalator in department costs. Chief Compaan answered the Consumer Price Index (CPI-W) increase June 2011 to June 2012 was 2.7%. Councilmember Petso asked whether Police Department costs increased in line with CPI-W. Chief Compaan answered roughly they do. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE POLICE SERVICE CONTRACT WITH THE TOWN OF WOODWAY. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Council President Peterson for negotiating this contract with Woodway. She ran the numbers and the proposed $3,000/month contract covers overtime and other costs. She supported the proposed contract, pointing out there was a social equity issue that also needs to be considered. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION SO THAT THE CONTRACT RATE BE INCREASED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CPI AT THE END OF ONE YEAR. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if CPI was approximately 5%. Chief Compaan answered the CPI-W increase 2011-2012 was 2.7%. Councilmember Buckshnis observed that would be approximately an $80/month increase. Chief Compaan relayed Woodway’s request that the City bill them on a quarterly basis if the Council approved the proposed contract. Councilmember Bloom recalled the comment that Edmonds would provide services to Woodway even without a contract. Her understanding of that comment was that it would only be in an emergency, life and death situation. Chief Compaan agreed. Councilmember Bloom asked how many emergency, life and death situations there have been. Chief Compaan responded Priority 1 calls are approximately 10% of the total number of calls in Woodway in a year. Councilmember Bloom summarized her understanding was if Edmonds did not have a contract with Woodway to provide police services, Edmonds Police would still provide service but only for a very small number of calls. Chief Compaan agreed. Councilmember Bloom asked if that was also true of Esperance. Chief Compaan agreed it was. Councilmember Bloom referred to comments that the benefit of the police services contract with Woodway was the City would get some money for services the Police Department would provide anyway. However, her understanding was the amount of service the Edmonds Police Department would provide without a contract would be very minimal. Chief Compaan agreed. Councilmember Bloom recalled when this issue was last discussed there was a cost comparison of the 2012 per capita spending on police services between Edmonds and Woodway. She supported a full service contract rather than the previously proposed contract, because the cost of direct police services per $1000 of assessed value in Edmonds is $1.50 versus $0.36 in Woodway. She asked Chief Compaan to comment on how a cost per call was used to determine the proposed contract versus using assessed valuation. Chief Compaan answered there were a myriad of ways of calculating reasonable compensation for providing police services to Woodway. What is reasonable and fair is what both parties are willing to pay/receive. The $3,000 proposed monthly cost was determined by the total number of calls in Edmonds in a year divided into the 2012 budget which equates to approximately $300/call. He acknowledged it is a different calculation than was shared by Mr. Wambolt but neither is incorrect; they are just different ways of looking at the same set of data. Council President Peterson reached agreement with Woodway on a contract amount that he determined was a responsible amount and that Woodway was willing to pay. Packet Page 150 of 537 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 18, 2012 Page 8 UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO, BUCKSHNIS AND JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the number of police were determined, whether it was based on population or historical calls. Chief Compaan answered both, there is no magic formula; it is very dependent on the community, the demand for services, crime rate and population. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked him to describe the L-5 population indicator that is used to determine the number of patrol officers. Chief Compaan answered it depends on the community; the City of Seattle has a much higher ratio of police officers per 1,000 residents than Edmonds but the nature of police activity is also different. Edmonds currently has approximately 1.3 officers per 1,000 residents; Seattle is significantly higher. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether population of L-5 cities is considered for salaries and benefits. Chief Compaan answered yes with regard to the compensation policy; that is different than the number of police officers in a community. Councilmember Petso recalled when she contacted the Edmonds Police Department for a breakdown between residential and commercial burglary calls, staff indicated that data was not available at this time but would be available with the New World system. Chief Compaan explained when the New World system is operational, hopefully next year, the recovery of data to such inquiries would be much easier. Today it is very difficult if not impossible to extract that data. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO STRIKE SECTION 1.3, WHICH STATES, “THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE EXTENDED ONCE FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO YEAR PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1, 2015 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2016 ON THE SAME TERMS OR SUCH OTHER TERMS AS THE PARTIES MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE.” Councilmember Johnson recognized the City is facing a budget deficit; it would be prudent to limit the City’s commitment to two years and continue to evaluate the contract in the coming years to consider all options. Council President Peterson indicated he would support the proposed amendment. During the next two years the New World system will be able to provide more specific data. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented having an outstanding relationship with a neighboring city is always important but continuing a partnership is a reciprocal relationship. The contract as proposed is a detriment to the taxpayers of Edmonds. The Council has not done its due diligence to get cost comparisons. Woodway has gotten estimates from surrounding police forces of the cost to provide police services; Woodway has not provided the City those estimates but she has been told they are more than 10 times more than what Woodway would pay under the proposed contract with Edmonds. To the question of what is the right amount to charge Woodway, she pointed out that was unknown as the contract was based on good fiscal times when staffing levels in the Police Department were much higher. The only cost comparison is what Woodway pays Fire District 1 which is over $500,000/year. The money Woodway pays Fire District 1 is their insurance policy. The cost for fire service is based on population, not number of calls as Woodway would like to pay Edmonds for police services. Woodway had less than 30 fire calls/year which equates to approximately $17,000 per call. Edmonds bases its number of police, types of specialists in the Edmonds Police Department such as drug taskforce, reconstructionists, detectives, hostage teams, property managers, etc. and hard costs such as Kelly hours, callback, leave accruals, salaries, specialty pay, etc. on population. L-5 has been the tool used for salary and benefit costs which is based on population, not the number of calls or whether calls are residential or commercial. The size of the City’s police force is not determined by number of calls. Packet Page 151 of 537 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 18, 2012 Page 9 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained the Edmonds Police Department budget is approximately $9.5 million/year; 25-33% of the City’s total budget. The 39,000 Edmonds citizens support the $9.5 million budget, approximately $245/person/year. Woodway has approximately 1500 citizens; a cost for police services of $360,000/year based on this population data. Less the average of 8 hours/day of Woodway’s current coverage, means Woodway should pay approximately $240,000/year or $20,000 month to break even. When someone purchases an insurance policy or police services for their home, it is insurance in case something happens. She has been purchasing homeowners insurance for 25 years and has never filed a claim but if she needed to, it would be there. She will respectfully support the citizens of Edmonds and the Edmonds Police Department and will vote no on subsidizing Woodway. Councilmember Petso did not support the motion as she did not feel a per call fee, a flat fee or partial service was a reasonable way to pay for police services. She supported Chief Compaan’s earlier suggestion to offer Woodway a full service contract and the benefits that would provide both cities. She pointed out the difficulty pricing partial service; using the numbers Councilmember Fraley-Monillas provided, Edmonds citizens pay $245/person; under the proposed contract, Woodway citizens would pay $24/person which is not equitable. She referred comments that this as a backup service contract, pointing out in police service there is no backup service; the service provided is that a citizen can call anytime something happens and police personnel will come with the right equipment to address the situation. That is the service citizens are paying for even though they never or rarely have the need to call the police. Councilmember Petso explained the difficulty of a partial service contract. She used the example of Edmonds residents living in a secure complex with alarms and fences who never call the police; should they get a partial service contract like Woodway? They would not because citizens pay for the availability of the service, not based on how much they personally use the service. She did not support the motion and preferred a full service contract with Woodway for police services. Councilmember Bloom thanked Councilmember Fraley-Monillas for her research and Councilmember Petso for her comments. She also did not support the motion. She pointed out the per capita comparison was presented when the Council last discussed this contract. That information indicated if Woodway paid the same $1.50/$1000 assessed value as Edmonds, Woodway’s budget for direct police services would be $663,944/year. If Woodway paid the same $246 per capita as Edmonds, Woodway’s budget for direct police services would be $321,030. She could not support the proposed contract of $36,000 to provide 16 hours of service/day to Woodway. She felt that devalued the excellent Edmonds Police force and gave away police services. Councilmember Bloom pointed out another issue is this contract is proposed in advance of a budget that the Council does not know whether will include cutting a police officer or more; $36,000/year does not even cover the cost of one officer. She could possibly consider a compromise, covering the cost of one police officer. She concluded there was no way she would put this on the back of citizens, expecting them to pay for services provided to Woodway. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is not a black and white issue. There are Woodway citizens that sit on City boards and at the Edmonds Center for the Arts, dine at restaurants in the Edmonds, and shop in Edmonds. She acknowledged $36,000/year to some is not worth bothering with but there is a social equity issue. Once Edmonds begins Budgeting By Priorities (approximately when this contract expires and when the New World system will be operational) more data will be available regarding an appropriate amount. She did not support increasing the police services contract with Woodway from $7,000, the amount they paid last year, to $420,000 or $265,000. She summarized $36,000/year, based on hours of service plus $75 per 15 minute increment is a fair contract amount. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas summarized she was standing for the citizens of Edmonds, not the citizens of Woodway. Woodway should not be rewarded for sitting on boards or coming to Edmonds via a gift of public funds. Packet Page 152 of 537 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 18, 2012 Page 10 UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-3); COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON, YAMAMOTO, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING NO. (Councilmember Yamamoto discontinued his participation in the Council meeting by phone.) 4. INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FARMERS MARKETS IN BUSINESS COMMERCIAL (BC) AND BUSINESS DOWNTOWN (BD) ZONES. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained the City has been approached by the Edmonds Historical Museum regarding operating a produce-only farmers market on Wednesday evenings in the BC (Commercial Business) or BD (Downtown Business) zones beginning in late September this year and extending through approximately November. The City’s Development Code does not expressly list farmers markets as a permitted use in the BC or BD zones. The code allows seasonal markets to operate but only during May to September. If approved by the City Council, the proposed interim zoning ordinance would allow farmers markets in the BC and BD zones. In addition to the issue of farmers markets, staff looked at other areas of the code and found the licensing section, 4.90, also needs significant revisions. If the City Council desires to extend the life of the existing Saturday Market or create a year-round farmers market, that would not be allowed under the current licensing provisions. For example, the licensing section only allows the market to take place on Saturday or Sunday in public rights-of-way between the months of July and September. The current market, which operates between May and October, does not adhere to the existing code. The City’s code references community open air markets; a year-round market would likely need to be indoors during the winter months. The code also references the year 1994 and a “test.” He summarized the current market is well beyond the testing phase and has proven to be very successful. Another issue that needs to be reviewed is the possibility of allowing community markets in the public right-of-way as well as on public and private property. The proposed interim zoning ordinance would allow the produce-only farmers market in the BC and BD zones through November. Within the next 60 days, staff will draft code revisions to address the issues of farmers markets, community-oriented market, community-oriented open air market, etc. as well as how the markets would operate on public right-of-way, public property or private property. A question was raised at the Parks, Planning, and Public Works Committee meeting regarding operation of a market within a densely populated area, specifically BD4 and BD5. Mr. Clifton explained the BD5 zone is located on 4th Avenue between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts; there are no suitable locations for the type of market the Edmonds Historical Museum wants to operate, up to 27 vendors. The Edmonds Historical Museum likely would operate along the waterfront such as on Port property or the Antique Mall property. The Historical Museum inquired about operating in the Public Works Maintenance Yard at 2nd & Dayton but that is not feasible due to the existing tenants’ utilization of the parking lot on Wednesday evenings. Councilmember Buckshnis asked where the Wednesday farmers market could be located and suggested the atrium on the other side of Artworks on 2nd & Dayton. Mr. Clifton replied that site would not be large enough for 27 vendors. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if streets would be closed to accommodate the Wednesday market. Mr. Clifton explained the Wednesday market would likely be located at the Port or the Antique Mall property. After researching the downtown area, those are the two areas that could host such an event. Councilmember Bloom thanked Mr. Clifton for the work that was done on this. In the strategic planning process, a year-round market was one of citizens’ highest priorities; this is a step in that direction. She relayed her understanding that the proposed interim ordinance would allow a produce-only market but not crafts such as the current summer market offers. Mr. Clifton agreed, explaining the produce-only market might include Packet Page 153 of 537 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 3, 2014 Page 18 COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO RETAIN THE CURRENT 20-FOOT SETBACK. Councilmember Peterson raised a point of order, stating Councilmember Johnson’s amendment changed the intent of the original motion. Mayor Earling ruled Councilmember Johnson’s motion changed the intent of main motion. Councilmember Petso appealed the ruling of the chair, stating the main motion combined adoption of the ordinance with a change to the setback from 20 feet to 16 feet which makes Councilmember Johnson’s amendment in order. It was the consensus of the Council that Councilmember Johnson’s motion was in order. Councilmember Johnson explained the Council has two choices, 1) retain the current standard, wait for the transportation analysis and then make a change, or 2) make a change now and when the transportation analysis is completed, make another change. She suggested staying the course, maintaining the current standards and changing it as necessary when the transportation analysis is complete. Action on Amendment #6 UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY- MONILLAS, JOHNSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not agree necessarily with the 20 foot setback but she felt the transportation study should be completed first and it will be done within the first quarter of 2015. Although making changes will require going back through the Planning Board process, that may be required anyway depending on the findings of the traffic study. Councilmember Peterson expressed concern if the Council approves a setback and the corridor study finds a different setback is appropriate, the Planning Board process will have to start again. Although it pained him to do so, he made the following motion: Motion to Table COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO TABLE DISCUSSION UNTIL THE CORRIDOR STUDY IS COMPLETE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. WOODWAY POLICE SERVICES CONTRACT Police Chief Al Compaan advised the current agreement between the City and Woodway for police services expires December 31, 2014. The draft contact adds a CIP escalator and changes the incremental 15 -minute billing rate the City charges Woodway for police services. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Chief Compaan had provided the rest of the statistics. Chief Compaan answered he sent statistics for the past two years to Council this morning. Councilmember Bloom observed the packet did not include information regarding the comparative percentage of tax allocated to police services in Woodway versus Edmonds. She recalled that was discussed when the Council last reviewed the contract and was part of the reason she voted against the contract. Chief Compaan said he did not provide that information; it was his understanding Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman was researching that for Council. Councilmember Petso referred to an email she received from Councilmember Mesaros that contained different terms than in the packet. She asked Councilmember Mesaros to comment on the status of his proposal. Councilmember Mesaros relayed he had a very productive discussion with Woodway Mayor Nichols last Friday but they were not able to reach agreement on the terms he suggested. He felt there was Packet Page 154 of 537 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 3, 2014 Page 19 more research to be done to reach an agreement between the City and Woodway including the statistics and approach offered by Mr. Wambolt. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT AS PRESENTED BY CHIEF COMPAAN WITH A 6 MONTH TERM TO PROVIDE TIME TO REVIEW STATISTICS AND NEGOTIATE FURTHER WITH WOODWAY. Councilmember Bloom did not support the motion for the same reason she did not support the previous contract. She recalled the percentage of tax assessment for Woodway residents was much lower than Edmonds residents were assessed for police services. She pointed out the former $36,000/year contract and the current $40,000/year was not enough to cover an additional police officer. Minimally the contract should fund one more officer when Edmonds is providing 18 hours/day of service to Woodway. Assuming the motion passed, she was hopeful the issues she raised could be considered in the six month timeframe. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the City had not done a good job of determining the real cost of the contract such as vehicles, training, supplies, etc. Further, the issue of development at Pt. Wells and the potential for 5,000 more people is still up in air. She referred to her discussion with Chief Compaan regarding the amount of crime and traffic from a development with 5,000 residents. She suggested those issues be discussed with Woodway during the six month term of the contract. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. Council President Buckshnis recalled this same argument was made the last time the contract was renewed, attempting to charge Woodway for a full-time contract when Edmonds provides part-time services. She expressed concern with giving up the contract with Woodway when the revenue funds approximately half of one employee. She did not object to a six month term to allow further research and negotiation. She asked whether the Edmonds Police logged overtime when assisting in Woodway. Chief Compaan agreed there had been little overtime; if an officer is reaching the end of a shift, he/she is relieved with an oncoming officer. Under the terms of the contract, the City bills Woodway in 15-minute increments for officer responses beyond the base 10 calls/month. Council President Buckshnis relayed the City has been providing Woodway police services for 28-29 years; there is a great deal of social equity as Woodway residents shop, dine, etc. in Edmonds. Councilmember Peterson observed the contract states Edmonds responds to Priority 1 and 2 in-process calls. He asked whether Edmonds responds to Priority 1 and 2 calls under mutual aid agreements the City has with neighboring communities. Chief Compaan explained if Woodway has an officer on duty and they assist Edmonds on a call, Woodway does not bill them. If Edmonds assists when a Woodway officer is on duty, the City does not bill Woodway. Under the terms of the agreement, Edmonds bills Woodway when they do not have an officer on duty. Councilmember Peterson asked if the City discontinued the contract with Woodway and 911 received a call for a panic alarm which is a Priority 2 in-progress call, would Edmonds police respond to that call. Chief Compaan answered yes if it is a life and death situation; alarms are not typically life or death. He felt it best to have a written agreement for police and fire. Councilmember Peterson assumed the Police Department would respond to certain calls whether there was an agreement in place or not. Chief Compaan agreed. Councilmember Peterson was willing to research issues further during the six months but felt the contract has served Edmonds and Woodway well in the past. Packet Page 155 of 537 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 3, 2014 Page 20 Councilmember Johnson expressed support for the Woodway contract, finding it fair and equitable. As Mr. Wambolt stated, the City would lose revenue by not approving the contract but would not lose anything by approving the contract. She asked what happened when the current contract expired. Chief Compaan said the Council could continue the existing contract for six months or adopt the proposed contract for a six month period. Councilmember Mesaros relayed the intent of his motion was to adopt the new contract with a six month term. He relayed his intent was not to discontinue the contract with Woodway but to reach consensus on a longer term agreement such as five years. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed in an emergency situation, Edmonds Police would respond to Shoreline, Lynnwood, Mukilteo, Brier, etc. Chief Compaan agreed, under mutual aid. He noted some of the smaller cities in northeast Snohomish County have contracts for police services with Snohomish County. The proposed contract between the City and Woodway provides a higher level of service than might be available under mutual aid. To the comment that the City has nothing to lose by approving the contract with Woodway, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out police officers could be doing other things such as crime prevention if they were not responding to Woodway. Chief Compaan agreed when officers are called to Woodway, they are not available to respond in Edmonds and it could cause a delayed response in the Edmonds. He assured more emergent calls take priority whether in Edmonds or Woodway. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested any information that is available on Pt. Wells. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for re-evaluating the contract in six months. Mayor Earling asked whether Woodway was agreeable to a six month term. Councilmember Mesaros answered he mentioned it in passing to Mayor Nichols but had not waited for a response. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. 13. PRESENTATION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE PROPOSED EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET FOR YEAR 2015 This item rescheduled to November 10 via action taken under Agenda Item 5. 14. LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLCC AGREEMENT RENEWAL Council President Buckshnis explained the packet contains the old agreement and the new agreement. The new agreement contains a new Section 4 whereby Lighthouse would pursue an hourly rate structure if the City wanted to pursue litigation on small matters such as liens and utility bills. The Council can approve the agreement as written, remove Section 4, or have it reviewed by another attorney. City Attorney Jeff Taraday clarified what Paragraph 4 is intended to do. Under no circumstances would Lighthouse bill the City on an hourly basis; Lighthouse’s contract with City would still be a flat fee. Paragraph 4 would allow them to keep track of their time on hourly basis and bill/collect from a third party under certain circumstances. For example, Lighthouse is asked to initiate a lawsuit to foreclose on a $5,000 utility lien; if the court awarded attorney fees to the prevailing party, Lighthouse would receive the attorney fees. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP AGREEMENT RENEWAL. Packet Page 156 of 537 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 3, 2014 Page 21 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented if the agreement is substantially same with the exception Paragraph 4, it was not necessary to have another attorney review it. Councilmember Petso said ordinary practice would suggest Mr. Taraday should not write his own contract. When she was asked if outside counsel should review the contract, she said of course. However, she would likely support the motion as the agreement had not been changed significantly and it was doubtful the Council would support having it reviewed by another attorney. Council President Buckshnis assured the only change was the addition of Paragraph 4. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 7 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. 15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reminded the Council was meeting on Monday, November 10 due to due to Veterans Day. He reporting having a great time during trick or treat on Halloween until the rain started; then many people discovered the awnings. He reported on last Saturday’s open house for Jacobsen’s Marine; a fabulous facility and a great addition to the community. In response to public comments, Mayor Earling explained the $10,000 analysis by Tetra Tech was nothing more than preliminary work because the City had no idea about the engineering challenges. He had not anticipated the analysis would provide hard costs but it provided some measure of what the pricing might be. Staff is in process of scheduling a meeting with BNSF. 16. COUNCIL COMMENTS Student Representative Eslami reported the Cross Country Team took the last spot for State. Councilmember Petso congratulated the Cross country Team, noting they performed extremely well to earn the last spot. She will work with staff to revise her proposed budget amendment regarding a peer review of the Tetra Tech study as it was clear from the Mayor’s and the public’s comments that an amendment funding a more in-depth study and peer review was necessary. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on the Museum auction which Mayor Earling also attended. She relayed that thoughts and prayers are with the families and students at Marysville-Pilchuck High School. She has family that attends the school but they were not in the in cafeteria. She noted anyone with children could have been one of those parents. Councilmember Peterson reminded of the Veterans Day ceremony on November 11 at 11:11 at the Veterans Plaza in front of Public Safety Building. He reported handing out upwards of 2,000 treats on Halloween. He reminded tomorrow is Election Day and voters have until 8 p.m. tomorrow to drop off their ballots at the Edmonds Library. Councilmember Mesaros commented he was surprised at the number of people downtown on Halloween. Mayor Earling remarked it was a smaller crowd than usual. Council President Buckshnis reaffirmed her appointment of Nichol Hughes to the Economic Development Commission. She reminded of the Five Corners Roundabout ribbon cutting on Friday. Packet Page 157 of 537 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 3, 2014 Page 22 17. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 18. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 19. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Packet Page 158 of 537    AM-7317     10.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Review Committee: Committee Action: Cancel Type: Information  Information Subject Title Proposed 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the 2015-2020 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and an ordinance be prepared to adopt the 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan as amended by the City Council.   Previous Council Action On September 23, 2014, Council reviewed the process to approve the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program.  On October 28, 2014, Council reviewed the proposed Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program. On November 3, 2014, a public hearing was held to receive public comment. On November 10, 2014, the City Council rescheduled the item to the November 18th City Council meeting. On November 18, 2014, the City Council discussed the item and scheduled it for further discussion at the November 25, 2014 study session. On November 25, 2014, the City Council discussed the item and scheduled it for further discussion at the December 2, 2014 meeting. Narrative The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is a document updated annually and identifies capital projects for at least the next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a list of projects that need to be expanded or will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the City's projected population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects are identified within the six-year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan projects which encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects. Packet Page 159 of 537 CIP vs. CFP The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City levels of service standards. The CFP is also required to be consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP. The proposed 2015-2020 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of General, Transportation and Stormwater. The proposed 2015-2020 CIP is attached as Exhibit 2. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks projects and each project list is organized by the City's financial fund numbers. Exhibit 3 is a comparison that shows added, deleted and changed projects between last year's CFP/CIP to the proposed CFP/CIP. The CFP and CIP were presented and a public hearing was held at the Planning Board meeting on September 24, 2014. The Planning Board recommended the CFP and CIP be forwarded to the City Council for approval. The draft minutes from the Planning Board meeting are attached as Exhibit 4. Attached is the Sunset Walkway cost information for the trial project and project design costs to date.  The City has received $78,527 in reimbursement for design costs from the federal grant through the second quarter of 2014.  The PSRC TAP preliminary cost estimate for the $2,099,000 figure in the proposed CIP/CFP in 2018 is also attached for reference.  The difference between the cost estimate and the number in the CIP/CFP is an estimate of inflation from the date of estimate to the assumed date of construction (2018).   The TAP estimate did not include costs for design and construction of water and sewer utilities that may be built, if the project goes forward.  Attached are answers in response to questions raised by Councilmembers and a resolution approved by the Economic Development Commission supporting the addition of a project to the CFP for public restrooms in the downtown area. Revisions have been made to Fund 116 on pages 11 and 12 of the CIP document.  Attachments Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP 2015-2020 Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP 2015-2020 Exhibit 3 - CFP/CIP Comparison (2014 to 2015) Exhibit 4 - Draft Planning Board Minutes Sunset Walkway Trial Project Costs  Sunset Walkway Design Costs PSRC TAP Estimate EDC Resolution of Support for Downtown Restroom Project Councilmember Questions & Answers Draft Budget & CFP Ordinance Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 11/26/2014 10:57 AM Packet Page 160 of 537 Public Works Kody McConnell 11/26/2014 11:59 AM City Clerk Linda Hynd 11/26/2014 12:00 PM Mayor Scott Passey 12/04/2014 07:40 AM Engineering Robert English 12/04/2014 05:08 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 12/05/2014 07:17 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/05/2014 08:11 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/05/2014 08:20 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 11/24/2014 10:31 AM Final Approval Date: 12/05/2014  Packet Page 161 of 537 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2015-2020 DRAFT Packet Page 162 of 537 Packet Page 163 of 537 CFP GENERAL Packet Page 164 of 537 Packet Page 165 of 537 $0 Public Vote Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total $5-$23 M $0 Community Unknown Conceptual $0 Partnerships $0 REET $0 Total $5 M $0 Capital Campaign Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total $5 M $0 Public Vote RCO Land Acquisitio Conceptual $2,100,000 REET 1 / Grants $1,000,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 G.O. Bonds $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $6,100,000 Total $3,000,000 $100,000 $3,000,000 Unknown $0 Library / Unknown Conceptual $0 City G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total Unknown $0 Capital Campaign Unknown Conceptual $1,330,000 REET 2 $0 $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000 $1,000,000 School District $500,000 $500,000 $5,800,000 Foundation $2,500,000 $1,750,000 $1,550,000 $2,750,000 Grants $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $10,880,000 Total $3,750,000 $40,000 $3,690,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 10-12M $0 Public Vote Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total $3 - $4M $0 Public Vote / Grants Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 Private Partnership $0 Total $1 - 2M EIS $0 Federal (Unsecured) US DOT Completed $0 State Funds $0 Total Unknown Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants $0 Total Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants $0 Total $0 $300,000 Total CFP $16,980,000 Annual CFP Totals $6,750,000 $140,000 $6,690,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 $0 Downtown Public Restroom Locate, construct, and maintain a public restroom downtown. Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations Building Edmonds / Sno-Isle Library Expand building for additional programs (Sno-Isle Capital Facilities Plan). Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)Acquire and develop property for a year round public market. Community Park / Athletic Complex - Old Woodway High School In cooperation with ESD#15 develop a community park and athletic complex. Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry / Mutimodal Facility Relocate ferry terminal to Marina Beach. Replace / Renovate deteriorating building in City Park. Senior Center Grounds Replace and expand deteriorating building on the waterfront. Edmonds School District (City has lease until 2021). Replace / Renovate (Currently subleased on Civic Playfield until 2021). Boys & Girls Club Building Civic Playfield Acquisition and/or development 2021-20252020201920182017 Art Center / Art Museum 20162015Revenue Source (2015-2020) Total Cost Current Project Phase Grant Opportunity PurposeProject Name Aquatic Facility Meet citizen needs for an Aquatics Center (Feasibility study complete August 2009). Establish a new center for the Art's Community. P a c k e t P a g e 1 6 6 o f 5 3 7 P a c k e t P a g e 1 6 7 o f 5 3 7 PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 – $23,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the current pool. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $5m - $23m * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 168 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Art Center / Art Museum ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A new Art Center/Museum facility will provide and promote Cultural / Arts facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008 update process. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority creates the need to determine feasibility for and potentially construct new visual arts related facilities. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 169 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Boys & Girls Club Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build new Boys & Girls Club facility to accommodate the growing and changing needs of this important club. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Boys & Girls Club was constructed as a field house by the Edmonds School District decades ago and is in need of major renovation or replacement. It is inadequate in terms of ADA accessibility and does not meet the needs of a modern club. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 170 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition and/or Development ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6.1M 6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire or work with the School District to develop this 8.1 acre property for continued use as an important community park, sports tourism hub and site of some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in downtown Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important park site for the citizens of Edmonds. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019-2025 Acquisition $20,000 $3M Planning/Study 100,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction $3M 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $3M $100,000 $3M * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 171 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds/Sno-Isle Library ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand building/parking to accommodate additional library needs and programs. Library improvements identified in Sno-Isle Libraries Capital Facility Plan: 2007-2025 PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements will better serve citizens needs requiring additional space and more sophisticated technology. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL Unknown * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 172 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic Complex at the Former Woodway High School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,535,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020- 2025 Planning/Study $655000 300,000 40000 150,000 Engineering & Administration 175,000 150,000 175,000 Construction $3,930,000 3,390,000 400,000 2,700,000 1% for Art 125,000 TOTAL $655000 $3,750,000 40000 $3,690,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 $10m - $12m * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 173 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the end of its useful life and is in need of major renovation or replacement. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City parks and Capital facilities for the long term. SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real estate taxes. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $3m - $4m * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 174 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Senior Center grounds ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1-2M * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitate grounds, parking, beach access and area around Senior Center, in conjunction with the construction of a new Senior Center building. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This facility is at the end of its useful life. The Edmonds Senior Center, a nonprofit, will be launching a capital campaign to reconstruct the Senior Center and seek a long term land lease with the City. It is the City’s intent to rehabilitate the grounds and beach access surrounding the Sr. Ctr when construction begins. SCHEDULE: Work with Sr. Center on timing of construction and grounds rehab. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $1-2M Packet Page 175 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry / Multimodal Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Crossing is multimodal transportation center that will provide the capacity to respond to growth while providing improved opportunities for connecting various forms of travel including rail, ferry, bus, walking and ridesharing. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide an efficient point of connection between existing and planned transportation modes. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020- 2025 Engineering & Administration Right of Way Construction 1% for Art TOTAL Unknown * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 176 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown Waterfront) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a valuable asset to Edmonds. SCHEDULE: This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished by 2017. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL Packet Page 177 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Downtown Restroom ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to locate, construct and maintain a downtown public restroom. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project satisfies goals in the Strategic Action Plan and the PROS plan. It is being supported by the Economic Development Commission and Planning Board. This will help to provide a much needed downtown amenity, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a valuable asset to Edmonds. SCHEDULE: This project depends on the ability of funds. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL 300,000 Packet Page 178 of 537 Packet Page 179 of 537 CFP TRANSPORTATION Packet Page 180 of 537 Packet Page 181 of 537 Safety / Capacity Analysis $251,046 (Federal or State secured)$251,046 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Construction $0 (Unsecured) $43,954 (Local Funds)$43,954 $295,000 Total $295,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $1,115,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$100,000 $163,000 $852,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $1,115,000 Total $100,000 $163,000 $852,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $10,000 (Local Funds)$10,000 $10,000 Total $10,000 $3,588,077 (Federal or State secured)$481,447 $3,106,630 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Possible Grant Design / ROW $0 (Unsecured) $2,134,510 (Local Funds)$230,140 $1,904,370 $5,722,587 Total $711,587 $5,011,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $4,964,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $4,964,000 Total $500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000 $5,375,000 (Federal or State secured)$3,431,500 $1,943,500 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Design / ROW $0 (Unsecured) $518,500 (Local Funds)$518,500 $5,893,500 Total $3,950,000 $1,943,500 $0 (Federal or State secured) Possible $10,000,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 State Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) Appropriation $0 (Local Funds) $10,000,000 Total $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,431,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,431,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$10,211,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $10,211,000 Project Name 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements Intersection improvements to decrease intersection delay and improve level of service. Install two-way left turn lanes to improve capacity and install sidewalk along this stretch to increase pedestrian safety (50 / 50 split with Snohomish County; total cost: ~20 Million). Highway 99 Gateway / Revitalization 2016Funding Source Project Phase Realign highly skewed intersection to address safety and improve operations; create new east-west corridor between SR-99 and I-5. 220th St. SW @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements Reconfigure EB lane and add protected/permissive for the NB and SB LT to improve the intersection delay. 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th St. SW) 2021-2025 Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements 212th St SW @ 84th Ave W (5corners) Intersection Improvements 76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements Reduce intersection delay by converting 9th Ave. to (2) lanes for both the southbound and northbound movements. SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave W Intersection Improvements Main St. and 9th Ave S (Interim Solution) 2018 2019 2020 Improve safety at the intersection by converting a stop controlled intersection for NB and SB to a signalized intersection. Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 20172015 Intersection improvements to decrease intersection delay and improve level of service (LOS). Installation of a traffic signal to reduce the intersection delay and improve Level of Service (LOS). Install gateway elements and safety improvements along SR-99 Corridor. P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 2 o f 5 3 7 Project Name 2016Funding Source Project Phase 2021-2025201820192020 Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 20172015 $0 (Federal or State secured) $3,722,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $3,722,000 Total $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $5,046,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $5,046,000 Total $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $5,235,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $5,235,000 Total $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$906,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $906,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,093,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,093,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,093,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,093,000 Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200' storage length and an eastbound left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements. Convert all-way controlled intersection into signalized intersection. Widen 216th St. SW to add a left turn lane for eastbound and westbound lanes. Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements Convert all-way controlled intersection into signalized intersection. Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St. SW Intersection Improvements Main St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvement Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvement Widen 220th St. SW and Hwy 99 to add a westbound right turn lane (for 325' storage length) and a soutbound left turn lane (for 275' storage length). Install traffic signal to improve the Level of Service (LOS) and reduce intersection delay. P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 3 o f 5 3 7 2021-2025201820192020 Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source Project PhaseProject Name $0 (Federal or State secured) $1,520,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $1,520,000 Total $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 $392,109 (Federal or State secured)$392,109 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Design $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $392,109 Total $392,109 $0 (Federal or State secured) $65,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$65,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $65,000 Total $65,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $65,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$65,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $65,000 Total $65,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $82,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$82,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $82,000 Total $82,000 $8,650 (Federal or State secured)$8,650 Possible $1,816,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,816,000 RCO / TIB Grant Design $283,000 (Unsecured)$283,000 $1,350 (Local Funds)$1,350 $2,109,000 Total $10,000 $2,099,000 Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link. Non-motorized Pedestrian / Bicycle Projects 2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link. Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St. Provide sidewalk on west side of the street, facing waterfront. 236th St SW from Edmonds Way (SR- 104) to Madrona Elementary Improve pedestrian safety along 236th St. SW, creating a safe pedestrian connection between SR- 104 and Madrona Elementary Provide safe and desirable route to Seview Elementary and nearby parks. 80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr Walkway and sight distance improvements Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link. P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 4 o f 5 3 7 2021-2025201820192020 Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source Project PhaseProject Name $0 (Federal or State secured) Grant for Design $2,306,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$349,000 $1,957,000 funding currently Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) under review $0 (Local Funds) $2,306,000 Total $349,000 $1,957,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $189,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$189,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $29,000 (Local Funds)$29,000 $218,000 Total $218,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $325,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$325,000 $760,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$0 $0 (Local Funds) $325,000 Total $325,000 $760,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $190,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$190,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $190,000 Total $190,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $380,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$380,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $380,000 Total $380,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $3,900,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,000,000 $2,900,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $425,000 (Local Funds)$425,000 $4,325,000 Total $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $519,041 (Federal or State secured)$519,041 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Design $0 (Unsecured) $1,038,893 (Local Funds)$1,038,893 $1,557,934 Total $1,557,934 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,249,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,249,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$189,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $189,000 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W Provide sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W (completing missing link) Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along missing link. Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th St. SW Provide safe sidewalk, connecting to ex. sidewalk along 200th St. SW (Maplewood Elementary School). Walnut St from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S Walkway Provide short missing link. Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S Walkway Provide short missing link. 189th Pl. SW from 80th Ave. W to 78th Ave. W Walkway Provide short missing link. Olympic Ave from Main St to SR-524 / 196th St. SW Walkway Reconstruct sidewalk (ex. conditions: rolled curb / unsafe conditions) along a stretch with high pedestrian activity and elementary school. 4th Ave. Corridor Enhancement Create more attractive and safer corridor along 4th Ave. 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W Walkway and Stormwater Improvements Provide safe walking route between minor arterial and collector. P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 5 o f 5 3 7 2021-2025201820192020 Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source Project PhaseProject Name $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$175,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $175,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,050,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,050,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $60,000 (Local Funds)$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 Total $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $6,000 (Federal or State secured)$6,000 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Construction $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $6,000 Total $6,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $350,000 (Local Funds)$50,000 $300,000 $350,000 Total $50,000 $300,000 Total CFP $50,749,130 Annual CFP Totals $6,976,630 $7,274,500 $10,000 $6,418,000 $11,942,000 $18,128,000 $18,157,000 Totals Source 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2025 $10,133,923 Total Federal & State (Secured)$5,083,793 $5,050,130 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,920,000 Total Federal & State (Unsecured)$0 $0 $0 $6,308,000 $12,669,000 $21,943,000 $760,000 $283,000 Unsecured $0 $0 $0 $283,000 $0 $0 $17,397,000 $4,582,207 Local Funds $1,892,837 $2,224,370 $10,000 $435,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 Revenue Summary by Year 84th Ave. W between 188th St. SW and 186th St. SW Walkway Provide safe walking route between those (2) local streets. 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W Walkway Provide safe walking route between principal arterial and minor arterial. Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming To assist residents and City staff in responding to neighborhood traffic issues related to speeding, cut- through traffic and safety. Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. Crossings Install Trackside Warning System and Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. Railroad Crossings in order to reduce noise level within Downtown Edmonds. 15th St SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S Provide safe walking route between minor arterial and collector. P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 6 o f 5 3 7 P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 7 o f 5 3 7 PROJECT NAME: 212th St. SW @ 84th Ave. W (5-Corners) Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,305,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The intersection of 84th Ave and 212th is 5 legged, which also includes Main Street and Bowdoin Way approaches. The intersection is stop-controlled for all approaches. A roundabout would be constructed. The project also includes various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #6). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection currently functions at LOS F and delays during the PM peak hour will worsen over time. A roundabout will improve the LOS. SCHEDULE: Construction documentation will be completed in 2015. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW Construction $295,000 1% for Art TOTAL $295,000 Packet Page 188 of 537 PROJECT NAME: SR-524 (196th St. SW)/ 88th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,115,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave. W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right-turn-only (prohibiting left-turn and through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #8). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196th St. SW. SCHEDULE: The intersection LOS must meet MUTCD traffic signal warrants and be approved by WSDOT since 196th St. SW is a State Route (SR524). No funding is currently allocated to this project (pending grant funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $100,000 $163,000 Construction $852,000 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 $163,000 $852,000 Packet Page 189 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9th Ave. S (interim solution) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a mini-roundabout or re-striping of 9th Ave. with the removal of parking on both sides of the street. (not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan project priority chart) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection is stop-controlled for all approaches and the existing intersection LOS is E (below the City’s concurrency standards: LOS D). The re- striping of 9th Ave. would improve the intersection delay to LOS C or LOS B with the installation of a mini-roundabout. SCHEDULE: 2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $1,000 Construction $9,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 Packet Page 190 of 537 PROJECT NAME: 76th Ave W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,191,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a northbound and southbound left-turn lane to convert the signal operation for those approaches from split phasing to protected-permissive phasing. Add a right- turn lane for the westbound, southbound, and northbound movements. The project also consists of various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #3). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the existing level of service from LOS D (LOS F by 2015) to LOS C. SCHEDULE: Federal grants have been secured for all project phases. Design started in 2012 and is scheduled for completion in Fall 2015. Right-of-way acquisition is anticipated to be completed in Fall 2015. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2016. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $711,587 Construction $5,011,000 1% for Art TOTAL $711,587 $5,011,000 Packet Page 191 of 537 PROJECT NAME: 220th St SW @ 76th Ave W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,964,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected-permitted phase for eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #11). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The LOS would be improved from LOS E to LOS C. SCHEDULE: Engineering and construction scheduled between 2018 and 2020 (unsecured funding). * All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $500,000 $836,000 Construction $3,628,000 1% for Art TOTAL $500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000 Packet Page 192 of 537 PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,300,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1) Extend 228th St across the unopened right-of-way to 76th Avenue West 2) Signalize the intersection of 228th St SW @ SR99 and 228th St. SW @ 76th Ave. West 3) Construct a raised median in the vicinity of 76th Avenue West. 4) Add illumination between 224th St SW and 228th St SW on SR 99 5) Overlay of 228th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to ~ 2,000’ east of 76th Ave. W. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #1). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will improve access / safety to the I-5 / Mountlake Terrace Park & Ride from SR99. This east / west connection will reduce demand and congestion along two east- west corridors (220th Street SW and SR104). Roadway safety will also be improved as SR 99/ 228th Street SW will become a signalized intersection. 228th St. SW is being overlaid from 80th Pl. W to ~ 1,000 LF east of 72nd Ave. W. as well as 76th Ave. W from 228th St. SW to Hwy. 99. The project consists of various utility upgrades. SCHEDULE: Construction scheduled to begin in 2015 and be completed in 2016. Federal and State grants were secured for the construction phase. This project is combined into one construction contract with the Hwy. 99 (Phase 3) Lighting project. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration, and ROW Construction $3,950,400 $1,943,500 1% for Art TOTAL $3,950,400 $1,943,500 * All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts Packet Page 193 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 Gateway / Revitalization ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access control and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, as well as landscaping and other softscape treatments to warm-up this harsh corridor and identify the area as being in Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled for 2018. The construction phase is scheduled for 2019 and 2020 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $500,000 Construction $4,500,000 $5,000,000 1% for Art TOTAL $500,000 4,500,000 $5,000,000 Packet Page 194 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,431,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #9). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. By 2015, the Level of Service will be F, which is below the City’s concurrency standards (LOS D). The improvement would modify the Level of Service to LOS B. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $286,000 Construction $1,145,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,431,000 Packet Page 195 of 537 PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th St. SW) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $20,422,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this project was ranked #11 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any back-up to the through lane when insufficient gaps are provided. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). The project cost is split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since half the project is in Esperance. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $2,042,000 Construction $8,169,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,211,000 Packet Page 196 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,722,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for and an eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected-permissive left turn phases for eastbound and westbound movements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020. (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW & Administration $341,000 $686,000 Construction $2,695,000 1% for Art TOTAL $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 Packet Page 197 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,046,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220th St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for 325’ storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275’ storage length. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #10). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve existing intersection delay from 72 seconds (w/o improvement) to 62 seconds (w/ improvement) in 2025. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $484,000 $737,000 Construction $3,825,000 1% for Art TOTAL $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 Packet Page 198 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,235,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200’ storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300’ storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements.(ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #13) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020. (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering, ROW, & Administration $502,000 $765,000 Construction $3,968,000 1% for Art TOTAL $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 Packet Page 199 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St. SW Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $906,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50’ storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce intersection delay. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #17) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers accessing either street. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $180,000 Construction $726,000 1% for Art TOTAL $906,000 Packet Page 200 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Main St. @ 9th Ave Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop controlled for all approaches. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #2) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service, which is currently LOS E (below City’s Level of Service standards: LOS D), to LOS B (w/ improvement). SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $220,000 Construction $873,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,093,000 Packet Page 201 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop controlled for all approaches. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #7). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $220,000 Construction $873,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,093,000 Packet Page 202 of 537 PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave W from 188th St SW to Olympic View Dr. Walkway and sight distance improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,520,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct ~ 3,000’ sidewalk on 80th Ave West between 188th St SW and 180th St SW and on 180th St SW between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive (ranked #6 in Long Walkway list in 2009 Transportation Plan). 80th Ave. W will be re-graded north of 184th St. SW, in order to improve sight distance. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provides safe pedestrian access between Seaview Park, connecting to Olympic View Drive Walkway and Southwest County Park. Would create an additional safe walking route for kids attending Seaview Elementary School (188th St. SW). SCHEDULE: Engineering and construction are scheduled between 2018 and 2020 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $125,000 $125,000 Construction $1,270,000 1% for Art TOTAL $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 Packet Page 203 of 537 PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way to Madrona Elementary School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $420,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct an ~ 800’ sidewalk on the south side of 236th St. SW from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary as well as the addition of sharrows along that stretch. (This is only part of a stretch of Walkway project, which ranked #1 in the Long Walkway list in the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route near Madrona Elementary School and along 236th St. SW. SCHEDULE: Construction is scheduled to take place in 2015. The project is funded through the Safe Routes to School Grant program. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW Construction $392,109 1% for Art TOTAL $392,109 Packet Page 204 of 537 PROJECT NAME: 2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $65,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 100’) on 2nd Ave. S between Main St. and James St. (Ranked #1 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: 2018 (Unsecured Funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $65,000 Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $65,000 Packet Page 205 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $65,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 250’) on Maple St. between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $65,000 1% for Art TOTAL $65,000 Packet Page 206 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Dayton St between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $82,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 250’) on Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S (ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $82,000 1% for Art TOTAL $82,000 Packet Page 207 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Caspers St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,350,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a multi-use path on the west side of the street, facing waterfront (~ 1/2 mile / more recent project, not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements have been installed to evaluate the alignment of the proposed multi-use path. The final design phase is on-hold until the evaluation period is completed. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study $10,000 Engineering & Administration Construction $2,099,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $2,099,000 Packet Page 208 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,306,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct sidewalk on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW (~ 2,700’). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W, adjacent to Maplewood Elementary School (rated #2 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non-motorized transportation to walk to / from school. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2018 and construction in 2019 (grant application recently submitted to fund design phase / from Pedestrian and Bicycle Program). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $349,000 Construction $1,957,000 1% for Art TOTAL $349,000 $1,957,000 Packet Page 209 of 537 PROJECT NAME: 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $218,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 150’ sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on north side of stretch). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $41,000 Construction $177,000 1% for Art TOTAL $218,000 Packet Page 210 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,085,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a sidewalk on Meadowdale Beach Dr. between 76th Ave. W and Olympic View Dr. (~3,800’). This is one of the last collectors in the City with no sidewalk on either side of the street (ranked #4 in Long Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route connecting a minor arterial w/ high pedestrian activity (Olympic View Dr.) to a collector with sidewalk on the east side of the street (76th Ave. W). Meadowdale Elementary School is directly north of the project on Olympic View Dr. SCHEDULE: Design scheduled for 2020 (unsecured funding) and construction between 2021 and 2026. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 - 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $325,000 $760,000 1% for Art TOTAL $325,000 $760,000 Packet Page 211 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $190,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 350’) on Walnut St. between 3rd Ave. S and 4th Ave. S (ranked #5 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $190,000 1% for Art TOTAL $190,000 Packet Page 212 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $380,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 700’) on Walnut St. between 6th Ave. S and 7th Ave. S (ranked #4 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2020 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $380,000 1% for Art TOTAL $380,000 Packet Page 213 of 537 PROJECT NAME: 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,700,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Corridor improvements along 4th Avenue to build on concept plan developed in the Streetscape Plan update (2006). (Project not included in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Timing for design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: Work on identifying grants for engineering services and construction is scheduled for 2018 and 2019 (pending additional grant funding and local match). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,425,000 $2,900,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,425,000 $2,900,000 Packet Page 214 of 537 PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W Walkway and Stormwater Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,657,681 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of ~ 1,200’ of sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W. as well as sharrows. Stormwater improvements will also be incorporated into the project (ranked #8 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and create a safe pedestrian connection between 100th Ave. W and 104th Ave. W. SCHEDULE Engineering and construction are scheduled between 2014 and 2015. Funding was secured for the completion of the design and construction phases (through Safe Routes to School program). Stormwater improvements will be funded by the Stormwater Utility Fund 422. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,557,934 1% for Art TOTAL $1,557,934 Packet Page 215 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Olympic Ave. from Main St. to SR-524 / 196th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,249,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #3 in Long Walkway project list in 2009 Transportation Plan. Install new sidewalk on the east side of the street. Ex. sidewalk is unsafe because of rolled curb (~ 0.75 mile / ranked #3 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and access to Yost Park and Edmonds Elementary. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $200,000 Construction $1,049,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,249,000 Packet Page 216 of 537 PROJECT NAME: 189th Pl. W from 80th Ave. W to 78th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $189,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked # 7 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5’ sidewalk on either side of the street (approximately 750’). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and create connection to ex. sidewalk on 189th Pl. W. This missing link will create a pedestrian connection from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $35,000 Construction $154,000 1% for Art TOTAL $189,000 Packet Page 217 of 537 PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W between 188th St. SW and 186th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $35,000 Construction $140,000 1% for Art TOTAL $175,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5’ sidewalk on the east side of the street (approximately 750’). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and access for school kids walking to Seaview Elementary. Packet Page 218 of 537 PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Long Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5’ sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW (approximately ½ mile). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating safe pedestrian connection between Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $210,000 Construction $840,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,050,000 Packet Page 219 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Varies * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The traffic calming program is designed to assist residents and City staff in responding to neighborhood traffic issues related to speeding, cut-through traffic and safety. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Allows traffic concerns to be addressed consistently and traffic calming measures to be efficiently developed and put into operations. SCHEDULE: Annual program COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Packet Page 220 of 537 PROJECT NAME: 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way (SR-104) to 8th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $374,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 600’) on 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave. S. (new project, not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route for kids attending Sherwood Elementary. SCHEDULE: Construction documentation will be completed in 2015. The project is 100% grant funded (through Safe Routes to School program). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $6,000 1% for Art TOTAL $6,000 Packet Page 221 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. RR Crossing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $350,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. Railroad Crossings. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce noise level throughout the Downtown Edmonds area during all railroad crossings (@ both intersections). SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled for 2015 and 2016. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration 50,000 Construction $300,000 1% for Art TOTAL $50,000 $300,000 Packet Page 222 of 537 Packet Page 223 of 537 CFP STORMWATER Packet Page 224 of 537 Packet Page 225 of 537 $0 (Federal or State secured) Design $465,318 (Federal or State unsecured)$125,000 $327,818 $12,500 $1,495,954 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$100,000 $375,000 $983,454 $37,500 $1,961,272 Total $100,000 $500,000 $1,311,272 $50,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) Possible Grant/TBD Study $5,312,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$160,000 $562,500 $825,000 $1,800,000 $1,950,000 $15,000 $1,920,500 (Debt/Stormwater)$203,000 $187,500 $275,000 $600,000 $650,000 $5,000 $7,233,000 Total $363,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) Possible Grant/TBD Design $1,672,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$135,000 $375,000 $375,000 $637,500 $112,500 $37,500 $597,500 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$85,000 $125,000 $125,000 $212,500 $37,500 $12,500 $2,270,000 Total $220,000 $500,000 $500,000 $850,000 $150,000 $50,000 Total CFP $11,464,272 Annual CFP Totals $683,000 $1,750,000 $2,911,272 $3,300,000 $2,750,000 $70,000 Totals Source 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $0 Total Federal & State (Secured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,450,318 Total Federal & State (Unsecured)$295,000 $1,062,500 $1,527,818 $2,450,000 $2,062,500 $52,500 $4,013,954 Debt / Stormwater Fees $388,000 $687,500 $1,383,454 $850,000 $687,500 $17,500 Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements. Add lift station and other new infrastructure to reduce intersection flooding. Revenue Summary by Year Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Creek/Day lighting/Restoration Daylight channel and remove sediment to allow better connnectivity with the Puget Sound to benefit fish and reduce flooding. Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/Management Project Find solution to high peak stream flows caused by excessive stormwater runoff that erodes the stream, causes flooding and has negative impacts on aquatic habitat. Project Name Purpose Grant Opportunity Grant/Date Current Project Phase (2015-2020) Total Cost 2020Revenue Source 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 P a c k e t P a g e 2 2 6 o f 5 3 7 P a c k e t P a g e 2 2 7 o f 5 3 7 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr – Daylighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,233,000 Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform. Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source: www.unocaledmonds.info/clean-up/gallery.php PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build on the feasibility study completed in 2013 that assessed the feasibility of day lighting the Willow Creek channel. The final project may include 23 acres of revegetation, construct new tide gate to allow better connectivity to the Puget Sound, removal of sediment, 1,100 linear ft of new creek channel lined with an impermeable membrane. Funds will be used for study and construction but exact breakdown cannot be assessed at this time. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The daylight of willow creek will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped. It will also help eliminate the sedimentation of the marsh and the transition to freshwater species and provide habitat for salmonids, including rearing of juvenile Chinook. SCHEDULE: 2015-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $363,000 $750,000 $20,000 Construction $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 1% for Art TOTAL $363,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000 Packet Page 228 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/Management Project ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,270,000 Perrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision that will be addressed by restoration. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A flow reduction study began in 2013 that will develop alternatives to implement in the basin. Projects are expected to begin the design and/or construction phases in 2014. It is expected that this project will be implemented with the City of Lynnwood (half the Perrinville basin is in Lynnwood) and Snohomish County (owner of the South County Park). Projects will likely be a combination of detention, infiltration, and stream bank stabilization. A $188,722 grant from the Department of Ecology is contributing funds to the 2013-2014 Study. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek Basin has increased flows in the creek, incision of the creek, and sedimentation in the low-gradient downstream reaches of the creek. Before any habitat improvements can be implemented, the flows must be controlled or these improvements will be washed away. SCHEDULE: 2015-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $20,000 $50,000 $50,000 $85,000 $20,000 $50,000 Construction $200,000 $450,000 $450,000 $765,000 $130,000 1% for Art TOTAL $220,000 $500,000 $500,000 $850,000 $150,000 $50,000 Perrinville Creek Packet Page 229 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,961,272 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add lift station and other new infrastructure. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To reduce flooding at the intersection of Dayton St and Hwy 104. SCHEDULE: 2015-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study $100,000 Eng. & Admin. $500,000 $50,000 Construction $1,311,272 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 $500,000 $1,311,272 $50,000 Packet Page 230 of 537 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2015-2020 DRAFT Packet Page 231 of 537 Packet Page 232 of 537 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2015-2020) Table of Contents FUND DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT PAGE GENERAL 112 Transportation Public Works 7 113 Multimodal Transportation Community Services 10 116 Building Maintenance Public Works 11 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 13 126 Special Capital / Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 15 129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 16 132 Parks Construction (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 17 421 Water Projects Public Works 18 422 Storm Projects Public Works 19 423 Sewer Projects Public Works 21 423.76 Waste Water Treatment Plant Public Works 23 PARKS – PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 27 126 Special Capital / Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 54 132 Parks Construction (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 57 Packet Page 233 of 537 Packet Page 234 of 537 CIP GENERAL Packet Page 235 of 537 Packet Page 236 of 537 Capital Improvements Program Fund 112 - Transportation Projects PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Preservation / Maintenance Projects Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc.)$940,000 $1,300,000 $1,650,000 $2,500,000 $2,800,000 $2,900,000 $3,000,000 $14,150,000 5th Ave S Overlay from Elm Way to Walnut St $15,799 $0 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave W to 84th Ave W $1,040,000 $1,040,000 Citywide - Signal Improvements $258,000 $3,000 $325,000 $325,000 $653,000 Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave @ 238th St. SW $750,000 $750,000 Safety / Capacity Analysis 212th St. SW / 84th Ave (Five Corners) Roundabout X $3,426,637 $295,000 $295,000 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements X $308,501 $3,950,400 $1,943,500 $5,893,900 76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements X $146,125 $711,587 $5,011,000 $5,722,587 SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave. W - Guardrail $50,000 $50,000 SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave. W - Intersection Improvements X $100,000 $163,000 $852,000 $1,115,000 Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 $375,000 Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 $375,000 Main St. @ 9th Ave. S (Interim solution)X $10,000 $10,000 220th St. SW @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements X $500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000 $4,964,000 Arterial Street Signal Coordination Improvements $50,000 $50,000 Hwy 99 @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 $5,235,000 Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 $3,722,000 Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 $5,046,000 Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion $20,000 $20,000 SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization X $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 Non-motorized transportation projects Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St.X $40,203 $10,000 $2,099,000 $2,109,000 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W X $99,747 $1,557,934 $1,557,934 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S X $323,196 $6,000 $6,000 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary X $27,931 $392,109 $392,109 Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3) $29,407 $305,000 $349,593 $654,593 ADA Curb Ramps along 3rd Ave S from Main St to Pine St $128,222 $10,000 $10,000 ADA Curb Ramps Improvements (as part of Transition Plan)$150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000 80th Ave W from 188th St SW to Olympic View Dr. Walkway Sight Distance Improvements X $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 $1,520,000 2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway X $65,000 $65,000 Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW Walkway X $349,000 $1,957,000 $2,306,000 Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway X $325,000 $325,000 Walnut St. from 3rd Ave. to 4th Ave. Walkway X $190,000 $190,000 Walnut St. from 6th Ave. to 7th Ave. Walkway X $380,000 $380,000 Audible Pedestrian Signals $25,000 $25,000 Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway X $65,000 $65,000 Dayton St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway X $82,000 $82,000 216th ST. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W X $218,000 $218,000 Re-Striping of 76th Ave W from 220th St. SW to OVD $140,000 $650,000 $790,000 Citywide Bicycle Connections (additional bike lanes, sharrows & signage)$120,000 $120,000 $240,000 Traffic Calming Projects Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming (Sunset Ave, other stretches)X $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 7 o f 5 3 7 Traffic Planning Projects Transportation Plan Update $40,000 $140,000 $140,000 SR104 Transportation Corridor Study $44,000 $106,000 $106,000 Trackside Warning Sys or Quiet Zone @ Dayton/Main St. RR Crossings X $50,000 $300,000 $350,000 Alternatives Analysis to Study, 1) Waterfront Access Issues Emphasizing and Prioritizing Near Term Solutions to Providing Emergency Access, Also Including, But Not Limited to, 2) At Grade Conflicts Where Main and Dayton Streets Intersection BNSF Rail Lines, 3) Pedestrian/Bicycle Access, and 4) Options to the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal Project (Identified as Modified Alternative 2) within the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 Total Projects $5,837,768 $10,147,030 $10,044,093 $2,510,000 $9,875,000 $14,529,000 $26,403,000 $73,508,123 Transfers Transfer to Fund 117 (212th St SW / 84th Ave W (Five Corners) Roundabout)$2,122 Debt Service Debt Service on Loan (1) 220th St Design $18,959 $18,869 $18,778 $18,687 $18,596 $19,506 $18,415 Debt Service on Loan (2) 220th St Construction $22,341 $22,235 $22,129 $22,023 $21,917 $21,811 $21,706 Debt Service on Loan (3) 100th Ave Road Stabilization $35,018 $34,854 $34,690 $34,525 $34,361 $34,196 $34,032 Total Debt & Transfers $78,440 $75,958 $75,597 $75,235 $74,874 $75,513 $74,153 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance $481,154 $293,232 $246,479 $39,919 $300,684 $253,810 $523,297 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax $140,000 $140,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 Transfer in - Fund 125 - REET 2 - Annual Street Preservation Program $300,000 $750,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Transfer in - Fund 126 - REET 1 - Annual Street Preservation Program $321,000 $260,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 Transfer in - General Fund for Annual Street Preservation Program $319,000 $550,000 $1,050,000 $650,000 $2,200,000 $850,000 $2,400,000 Transfer in - General Fund for Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone $50,000 $300,000 Transfer in - Fund 421 for 212th @ 84th (Five Corners) Roundabout $665,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for 212th @ 84th (Five Corners) Roundabout $762,000 Transfer in - Fund 421 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $200,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $68,500 Transfer in - Fund 423 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $250,000 Transfer in - Mountlake Terrace for 228th St. SW Improvements (Overlay)$4,000 Transfer in - Fund 421 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $30,000 $70,000 $645,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $15,000 $15,000 $106,000 Transfer in - Fund 423 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $30,000 $70,000 $774,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W $29,909 $1,038,893 Transfer in - General Fund for SR-104 Transportation Corridor Study $44,000 $106,000 Transfer in- Fund 422 (STORMWATER)$103,000 $106,000 $109,000 $116,000 $120,000 $125,000 $130,000 Traffic Impact Fees $100,000 $74,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Total Revenues $3,340,063 $4,045,625 $4,060,479 $1,635,919 $3,450,684 $2,058,810 $3,883,297 P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 8 o f 5 3 7 Grants 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 (Federal) for 5th Ave S Overlay $13,667 (Federal) for 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave to 84th Ave $780,000 (Federal) - for Citywide - Cabinet Improvements / Ped. Countdown Display $258,000 $3,000 (Federal) for 212th @ 84th (Five Corners) Roundabout $1,674,451 $251,046 (Federal) for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements $286,588 $3,431,900 $1,943,500 (Federal) for 76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $61,523 $467,096 $3,106,630 (Federal) Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St.$34,776 $8,650 (State) 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W $69,838 $519,041 (State) 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S $323,196 $6,000 (Federal) 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary $27,931 $392,109 (Federal) Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3)$29,407 $305,000 $279,000 (Federal) ADA Curb Ramps along 3rd Ave. S from Main St. to Pine St.$90,000 (Verdantl) for Re-striping of 76th Ave from 220th St. SW to OVD $140,000 $650,000 (Verdant) for Citywide Bicycle Connections (bike lanes, sharrows & signage)$120,000 $120,000 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $2,869,377 $6,423,842 $6,099,130 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grants 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not Secured) Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc)$1,250,000 $1,450,000 Citywide Safety Improvements - Signal Cabinet $325,000 $325,000 Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave W @ 238th St SW $750,000 76th @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements 196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Guardrail $50,000 196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Intersection Improvements $100,000 $163,000 $852,000 Main St @ 3rd Ave Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 220th St SW @ 76th Ave W Intersection Improvements $500,000 $836,000 $3,625,000 Arterial Street Signal Coordination Improvements $50,000 Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 Hwy 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion $20,000 Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Caspers St $1,816,000 ADA Curb Ramps Improvements (as part of Transition Plan)$150,000 $150,000 $150,000 80th Ave / 188th St SW / Olympic View Dr Walkway & Sight Distance Improvements $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 2nd Ave From Main St to James St $65,000 Maplewood Dr. Walkway $349,000 $1,957,000 Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway $325,000 Walnut from 3rd to 4th Ave. Walkway $190,000 Walnut St. from 6th to 7th Ave. Walkway $380,000 Audible Pedestrian Signals $25,000 Maple St. from 7th to 8th Ave. Walkway $65,000 Dayton St. from 7th to 8th Ave. Walkway $82,000 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 72nd Ave W $189,000 Alternatives Study to Resolve Conflicts at Dayton St/Main St RR Crossings $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not secured) $0 $0 $0 $1,250,000 $6,753,000 $13,069,000 $23,390,000 Grant / Not Secured Funding Subtotal $2,869,377 $6,423,842 $6,099,130 $1,250,000 $6,753,000 $13,069,000 $23,390,000 Total Revenues & Grants $6,209,440 $10,469,467 $10,159,609 $2,885,919 $10,203,684 $15,127,810 $27,273,297 Total Projects ($5,837,768)($10,147,030)($10,044,093)($2,510,000)($9,875,000)($14,529,000)($26,403,000) Total Debt ($78,440)($75,958)($75,597)($75,235)($74,874)($75,513)($74,153) Ending Cash Balance $293,232 $246,479 $39,919 $300,684 $253,810 $523,297 $796,144 P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 9 o f 5 3 7 Capital Improvements Program Fund 113 - Multimodal Transportation PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry/Multimodal Facility X Unknown Total Project $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 State Transportation Appropriations - Current Law -Local Matching $ Federal Funding (Unsecured) ST2 Interest Earnings Total Revenues $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 Total Revenue $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 Total Project $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ending Cash Balance $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 0 o f 5 3 7 Capital Improvements Program Fund 116 - Building Maintenance PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) ADA Improvements- City Wide $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $30,000 Anderson Center Accessibility $17,874 $50,000 $50,000 Anderson Center Interior Painting $20,000 $20,000 $40,000 Anderson Center Exterior Painting $30,000 $30,000 Anderson Center Radiator Replacement $25,000 $85,000 $110,000 Anderson Center Exterior Repairs $75,000 $75,000 Anderson Center Blinds $10,000 $10,000 Anderson Center Asbestos Abatement $75,000 $75,000 Anderson Center Flooring/Gym $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 $65,000 Anderson Center Countertop Replacement $10,000 $10,000 Anderson Center Oil Tank Decommissioning $30,000 $30,000 Anderson Center Elevator Replacement $150,000 $150,000 Anderson Center Roof Replacement $300,000 $25,000 $325,000 Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement $10,000 $10,000 City Hall Carpet Replacement $50,000 $50,000 City Hall Elevator Replacement $150,000 $150,000 City Hall Exterior Cleaning and Repainting $25,000 $20,000 $45,000 City Hall Security Measures $20,000 $20,000 City Park Maint. Bldg. Roof $25,000 $25,000 ESCO III Project $269,253 $0 ESCO IV Project $300,000 $300,000 Fishing Pier Rehab $190,000 $0 Fire Station #16 Painting $5,000 $5,000 Fire Station #16 Carpet $30,000 $30,000 Fire Station #16 HVAC Replacement $30,000 $30,000 Fire Station #17 Carpet $12,000 $12,000 Fire Station #17 Interior Painting $15,000 $15,000 Fire Station #20 Carpet $15,000 $15,000 Fire Station #20 Interior Painting $10,000 $10,000 Fire Station #20 Stairs and Deck Replacement $40,000 $40,000 Grandstand Exterior and Roof Repairs $35,000 $50,000 $85,000 Library Plaza Appliance Replacement $4,000 $4,000 Library Plaza Brick Façade Addition $21,000 $21,000 Library Wood Trim $5,000 $5,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Replacement $20,000 $20,000 Meadowdale Flooring Replacement $25,000 $25,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Gutter Replacement $20,000 $10,000 $30,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Ext. Surface Cleaning $0 Meadowdale Clubhouse Fire Alarm Replacement $25,000 $25,000 Misc. Fire Sprinkler System Repairs $0 Public Safety/Fire Station #17 Soffit Installation $4,000 $4,000 Public Safety Exterior Painting $20,000 $20,000 Public Safety Council Chamber Carpet $10,000 $10,000 Public Safety HVAC Repairs & Maintenance $43,000 $0 Public Works Decant Improvements $60,000 $0 Senior Center Misc Repairs & Maintenance $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 Senior Center Siding/ Sealing (CDBG)$0 Total Projects $580,127 $365,000 $679,000 $215,000 $310,000 $232,000 $265,000 $2,066,000 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 1 o f 5 3 7 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)-$96,490 $152,749 $144,349 $65,349 $100,349 $40,349 $58,349 Interest Earnings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfer from Gen Fund #001 and other $379,800 $266,600 $600,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Commerce Grants $187,566 $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CDBG Grant (Unsecured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WA Dept. of Ecology Grant $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WDFW Grant (Secured)$190,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WDFW Grant (Unsecured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Utility Grant Funding (Estimated)$12,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WA State HCPF Grant Funding (Secured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenues $732,876 $509,349 $744,349 $315,349 $350,349 $290,349 $308,349 Total Revenue $732,876 $509,349 $744,349 $315,349 $350,349 $290,349 $308,349 Total Project ($580,127)($365,000)($679,000)($215,000)($310,000)($232,000)($265,000) Ending Cash Balance $152,749 $144,349 $65,349 $100,349 $40,349 $58,349 $43,349 P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 2 o f 5 3 7 Capital Improvements Program Fund 125 - Capital Projects Fund PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Park Development Projects* Anderson Center Field / Court / Stage $20,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $125,000 Brackett's Landing Improvements $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $125,000 City Park Improvements $5,000 $100,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $175,000 Civic Center Improvements X $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 Sunset Avenue Walkway $200,000 $200,000 Fishing Pier & Restrooms $10,000 $100,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $150,000 Former Woodway HS Improvements (with successful capital campaign)X see below $0 $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000 $0 $1,330,000 Maplewood Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 Marina Beach Park Improvements $0 $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $130,000 Mathay Ballinger Park $0 $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 $30,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Grounds $0 $75,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $90,000 Meadowdale Playfields $250,000 $250,000 Pine Ridge Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 Seaview Park Improvements $0 $20,000 $5,000 $10,000 $35,000 Sierra Park Improvements $40,000 $70,000 $110,000 Yost Park / Pool Improvements $120,000 $120,000 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000 $100,000 $485,000 Citywide Park Improvements* Citywide Beautification $30,000 $21,000 $22,000 Not Eligible Not Eligible Not Eligible N/A $43,000 Misc Paving $1,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 Citywide Park Improvements/Misc Small Projects $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $360,000 Sports Fields Upgrade / Playground Partnership $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $75,000 Specialized Projects* Aquatic Center Facility (dependent upon successful capital campaign)X $0 Trail Development* Misc Unpaved Trail / Bike Path Improvements $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 Planning Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study X $0 Edmonds Marsh / Hatchery Improvements X $60,000 $70,000 $60,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000 $235,000 Edmonds Cemetery Mapping Project $100,000 $100,000 Civic Center Master Plan $100,000 Pine Ridge Park Forest Management Study $50,000 $50,000 Total Project $323,000 $1,056,000 $842,000 $750,000 $945,000 $750,000 $255,000 $4,598,000 Transfers Transfer to Park Fund 132 (4th Ave Cultural Corridor)$25,000 Transfer to Park Fund 132 (Cultural Heritage Tour) Transfer to Park Fund 132 (Dayton St Plaza) Transfer to Park Fund 132 (City Park Revitalization) Transfer to Park Fund 132 (Former Woodway HS Improvements)X $655,000 Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Pavement Preservation Program)$300,000 $750,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Total Transfers $325,000 $1,405,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Total Project &Transfers $648,000 $2,461,000 $992,000 $900,000 $1,095,000 $900,000 $405,000 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 3 o f 5 3 7 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$1,508,584 $1,865,184 $308,184 $216,184 $216,184 $21,184 $21,184 Real Estate Tax 1/4% $1,000,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 Donations (Milltown, unsecured) Interest Earnings $4,600 $4,000 Total Revenues $2,513,184 $2,769,184 $1,208,184 $1,116,184 $1,116,184 $921,184 $921,184 Total Revenue $2,513,184 $2,769,184 $1,208,184 $1,116,184 $1,116,184 $921,184 $921,184 Total Project & Transfers ($648,000)($2,461,000)($992,000)($900,000)($1,095,000)($900,000)($405,000) Ending Cash Balance $1,865,184 $308,184 $216,184 $216,184 $21,184 $21,184 $516,184 *Projects in all categories may be eligible for 1% for art with the exception of planning projects. P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 4 o f 5 3 7 Capital Improvements Program Fund 126 - Special Capital/Parks Acquisition PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Debt Service on City Hall $300,003 $0 Debt Service Marina Bch/Library Roof $80,528 $84,428 $83,228 $82,028 $80,828 $79,628 $83,428 $493,568 Debt Service on PSCC Purchase $57,998 $57,098 $56,198 $60,298 $54,298 $53,398 $52,498 $333,788 Debt Service on FAC Seismic retrofit $29,763 $29,874 $29,957 $29,621 $29,640 $29,630 $29,981 $178,703 Estimated Debt Payment on Civic Playfield Acquisition $0 $100,000 $153,750 $153,750 $153,750 $153,750 $153,750 $868,750 Total Debt $468,292 $271,400 $323,133 $325,697 $318,516 $316,406 $319,657 $1,874,809 Project Name Acquistion of Civic Field Misc. Open Space/Land $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,200,000 Transfers Transfer to 132 for Waterfront / Tidelands Acquisition $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfer to Fund 112 for Annual Street Preservation Program $321,000 $260,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $2,510,000 Total Project & Transfers $521,000 $460,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $3,710,000 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$464,855 $477,893 $648,493 $577,360 $503,663 $437,147 $372,741 Real estate Tax 1/4%/1st Qtr % $1,000,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 Interest Earnings $2,330 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Total Revenues $1,467,185 $1,379,893 $1,550,493 $1,479,360 $1,405,663 $1,339,147 $1,274,741 Grants 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured) Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenue & Grants & Subsidy $1,467,185 $1,379,893 $1,550,493 $1,479,360 $1,405,663 $1,339,147 $1,274,741 Total Debt ($468,292)($271,400)($323,133)($325,697)($318,516)($316,406)($319,657) Total Project & Transfers ($521,000)($460,000)($650,000)($650,000)($650,000)($650,000)($650,000) Ending Cash Balance $477,893 $648,493 $577,360 $503,663 $437,147 $372,741 $305,084 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 5 o f 5 3 7 Capital Improvements Program Fund 129 - Special Projects PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) State Route (SR) 99 International District Enhancements $13,653 $0 Total Projects $13,653 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Balance (January 1st)$6,894 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 Investment Interest Total Revenues $6,894 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 Grants 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2106 2017 2018 2019 2020 PSRC Transportation Enhancement Grant (Secured) $22,681 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Grants $22,681 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenues & Grants $29,575 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 Total Construction Projects ($13,653)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ending Cash Balance $15,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 6 o f 5 3 7 Capital Improvements Program Fund 132 - Parks Construction PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement $0 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $4,325,000 Cultural Heritage Tour and Way-Finding Signage $7,015 $0 Dayton Street Plaza $60,000 $108,000 $108,000 Civic Center Acquisition $3,000,000 $100,000 $3,000,000 $6,100,000 Senior Center Parking Lot / Drainage $0 City Park Revitalization $372,100 $854,900 $854,900 Former Woodway HS Improvements $0 $655,000 $655,000 Waterfront Acquisition, demo, rehab $900,000 $0 Wetland Mitigation $12,517 Edmonds Marsh/Daylighting Willow Creek $200,000 Fishing Pier Rehab $1,300,000 Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)$0 Veteran's Plaza $10,000 Total Projects $1,361,632 $6,117,900 $100,000 $3,000,000 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0 $13,542,900 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$823,000 $1,386,902 $82,011 -$17,989 -$3,017,989 -$3,017,989 $282,912 Beginning Cash Balance Milltown Beginning Cash Balance Cultural Heritage Tour $2,500 Transfer in from Fund 117-200 for Cultural Heritage Tour Transfer in from Fund 120 for Cultural Heritage Tour Transfer in from Fund 125 for Cultural Heritage Tour Transfer in from Fund 127-200 for Cultural Heritage Tour $2,500 Transfer in from Fund 120 for Way-Finding Signage Grant Match Transfer in from Fund 125 for 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement Transfer in from Fund 125 for Dayton St. Plaza Transfer in from Fund 125 for City Park Revitalization Transfer in from Fund 125 for Former Woodway HS Improvements $500,000 Transfer in from Fund 125 for Senior Center Parking Lot Transfer in from Fund 126 for Waterfront Acquisition $200,000 $200,000 Transfer in from 01 for Edmonds Marsh $200,000 Transfer in from Fund 125 for Fishing Pier $100,000 Total Revenues $1,728,000 $1,686,902 $82,011 -$17,989 -$3,017,989 -$3,017,989 $282,912 Grants 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Grants/ Loans (Secured) 4th Ave / Cultural Heritage Tour (Preserve America/National Park Service)$2,500 Dayton Street Plaza (Arts Fest. Found./Hubbard Trust/Ed in Bloom) Interurban Trail (Federal CMAQ) Interurban Trail (State RCO) City Park Snohomish County Grant $80,000 City Park Spray Park (donations)$270,000 RCO State grant / City Park Revitalization $155,517 $313,009 Snohomish County Tourism for Way-Finding Conservation Futures/Waterfront Acquisition $500,000 Wetland Mitigation $12,517 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $1,020,534 $313,009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured) 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement (state, federal, other)$1,425,000 $2,900,000 RCO land acquisition grant $1,000,000 Bond funding $2,000,000 Grants/RCO Fishing Pier $1,200,000 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought (not secured) $0 $4,200,000 $0 $0 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0 Grants Subtotal $1,020,534 $4,513,009 $0 $0 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0 Total Revenues & Cash Balances & Grants $2,748,534 $6,199,911 $82,011 -$17,989 -$1,592,989 -$117,989 $282,912 Total Construction Projects (1,361,632.00)($6,117,900)(100,000)(3,000,000)($1,425,000)(2,900,000)$0 Ending Cash Balance $1,386,902 $82,011 -$17,989 -$3,017,989 -$3,017,989 -$3,017,989 $282,912 *Projects may be partially eligible for 1% for Art Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 7 o f 5 3 7 Capital Improvements Program Fund 421 - Water Projects PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 Total (2015-2020) 2013 Replacement Program $53,000 $0 2014 Replacement Program $1,860,784 $45,000 $45,000 2014 Waterline Overlays $190,000 $0 2015 Replacement Program $175,541 $2,737,151 $2,737,151 2015 Waterline Overlays $124,000 $124,000 2016 Replacement Program $391,788 $2,044,722 $2,436,510 2017 Replacement Program $302,948 $2,678,999 $2,981,947 2018 Replacement Program $400,000 $2,786,159 $3,186,159 2019 Replacement Program $416,000 $2,897,605 $3,313,605 2020 Replacement Program $432,640 $3,013,510 $3,446,150 2021 Replacement Program $449,946 $449,946 Five Corners Reservoir Recoating $110,000 $1,090,100 $1,200,100 76th Ave Waterline Replacement (includes PRV Impr)$87,870 $2,000 $2,000 Telemetry System Improvements $20,000 $71,100 $11,900 $12,400 $12,900 $13,400 $13,900 $135,600 2016 Water System Plan Update $86,100 $89,500 $175,600 Total Projects $2,387,195 $3,567,139 $3,539,170 $3,091,399 $3,215,059 $3,343,645 $3,477,356 $20,233,768 Transfers & Reinbursements Reinbursement to Sewer Utility Fund 423 (Ph1 SS Repl.)$380,000 $0 Reinbursement to Sewer Utility Fund 423 (Ph2 SS Repl.)$325,000 Reinbursement to Street Fund 112 (Five Corners)$665,000 $0 Reinbursement to Street Fund 112 (228th Project)$200,000 $200,000 Reinbursement to Street Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements)$30,000 $70,000 $70,000 Transfer to Fund 117 1% Arts (2014 Watermain)$833 $0 Transfer to Fund 117 1% Arts (2015 Watermain)$2,000 $2,000 Total Transfers $1,400,833 $272,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $272,000 Total Water Projects $3,788,028 $3,839,139 $3,539,170 $3,091,399 $3,215,059 $3,343,645 $3,477,356 $20,505,768 Revenues & Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Balance (January 1st) Connection Fee Proceeds $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Interfund Transfer in from Fund 411 General Fund Fire Hydrant Improvements 2013 Watermain Fund 423 Reinbursement for 2014 WL Overlay $50,000 General Fund Fire Hydrant Improvements $180,000 $150,000 $114,600 $119,184 $123,900 $128,856 $134,010 2013 Bond Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc) $255,000 $175,000 $139,600 $144,184 $148,900 $153,856 $159,010 Unsecured Revenue 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers $5,400,000 $1,200,000 Total Unsecured Revenue $0 $0 $5,400,000 $0 $1,200,000 $0 $0 Total Revenues Total Projects & Transfers Ending Cash Balance Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 8 o f 5 3 7 CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 1 - Replace Infiltration Pipe (near 107th Pl W) + infiltration system for 102nd Ave W. (See Note 1)X $369,614 $2,000 $2,000 105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project. (See Note 2)$73,000 $517,255 $517,255 Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements X $17,500 $100,000 $500,000 $1,311,272 $50,000 $1,961,272 Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation $550,607 $10,000 $560,607 Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Dr/Willow Cr - Final Feasibility Study / Marsh Restoration (See Note 2 & 4)X $274,000 $363,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000 $7,233,000 Northstream Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr - Assessment / Stabilization $28,000 $433,356 $433,356 Rehabilitation of Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr $50,000 $25,000 $75,000 Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction and Retrofit Study (See Note 2) $300,809 $1,000 $1,000 Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See Note 2)X $50,000 $220,000 $500,000 $500,000 $850,000 $150,000 $50,000 $2,270,000 Vactor Waste handling (Decant) facility upgrade (See Note 2)$152,681 $2,000 $2,000 88th Ave W and 194th St SW $25,000 $253,400 $253,400 Improvements Dayton St. between 3rd & 9th $0 $108,809 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $2,308,809 City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects $236,000 $224,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000 $1,500,000 $5,724,000 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects $20,000 $62,000 $64,000 $66,000 $68,000 $68,000 $70,000 $398,000 Storm System Video Assessment $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $50,000 $50,000 $1,100,000 Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan (including asset management plan)$128,750 $132,613 $261,363 $1,546,604 $2,586,820 $4,368,357 $5,469,885 $4,818,000 $4,168,000 $1,690,000 $23,101,062 Perrinville Creek Basin Projects Total Project Capital Improvements Program PROJECT NAME SW Edmonds Basin Study Implementation Projects Edmonds Marsh Related Projects Projects for 2015-2020Fund 422 Storm Northstream Projects Annually Funded Projects 5 Year Cycle Projects Public Works Yard Water Quality Upgrades Storm Drainage Improvement Projects P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 9 o f 5 3 7 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System)$25,909 $709,180 $709,180 Five Corners Roundabout $762,000 $100,000 $100,000 228th SW Corridor Improvements $0 $68,500 $68,500 76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $15,000 $30,000 $30,000 Stormwater Utility - Transportation Projects $103,000 $106,000 $109,000 $112,000 $116,000 $19,000 $123,000 $585,000 Total Transfer to 112 Fund $905,909 $913,680 $109,000 $212,000 $116,000 $19,000 $123,000 $1,492,680 SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 1 - Replace infiltration pipe (near 107th Pl W) + infiltration system for 102nd Ave W.$3,546 $0 SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park infiltration system)$0 $5,904 $5,904 Five Corners Roundabout $7,620 $0 228th SW Corridor improvements $0 $685 $685 76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $0 $0 $0 Total Transfer to 117 Fund $11,166 $6,589 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,589 $917,075 $920,269 $109,000 $212,000 $116,000 $19,000 $123,000 $1,499,269 $2,463,679 $3,507,089 $4,477,357 $5,681,885 $4,934,000 $4,187,000 $1,813,000 $24,600,331 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $200,000 $70,000 $168,852 X $50,000 $115,000 $623,852 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $3,500,000 $258,628 X $160,000 $562,500 $825,000 $1,800,000 $1,950,000 $15,000 X $135,000 $375,000 $375,000 $637,500 $112,500 $37,500 X $0 $125,000 $327,818 $12,500 $0 $0 $0 $553,628 $4,562,500 $1,527,818 $2,450,000 $2,062,500 $52,500 1. 238th St SW drainage project has been merged with sidewalk project and is now under "Transfers to 112- Street Fund." 2. All or part of this project funded by secured grants or grants will be pursued, see Revenue section for details. 3. Assumed 50% grant funded in 2015 4. Assumes grant funding is 75% of total project costs per year beginning 2016 5. Assumes grant funding is 25% of total project costs per year beginning 2016 Grants (Unsecured) - Dayton St & Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements (See Note 4) Total Secured Revenues Total Project & Transfers Ending Cash Balance Unsecured Revenue 2014-2020 Proceeds of Long-term debt (Bonds) Total Unsecured Revenues Grants (Unsecured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See Note 3 & 4) Notes: Estimated Connection Fees (capital facilities charge) Beginning Balance (January 1st) Total Revenue Grants (Secured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration Grants (Secured) - Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction & Retrofit Study Grants (Secured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects Grants (Secured) - Waste handling facility upgrade Grants (Unsecured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration (See Note 4) Grant (Secured) - 105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project Grant (Unsecured) - 105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project (Seet Note 3) Projects for 2014-2019 Proceeds of Long-term debt (Bonds) Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 Total Project & Transfers Total Transfers To 117 - Arts Transfers To 112 - Street Fund P a c k e t P a g e 2 5 0 o f 5 3 7 CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, & 15 $245,000 $3,000 $3,000 Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement $1,530,799 $22,500 $22,500 Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement $2,149,970 $55,000 $55,000 2015 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $184,961 $2,051,073 $2,051,073 2015 Sewerline Overlays $117,600 $117,600 2016 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $411,622 $1,506,704 $1,918,326 2017 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $278,750 $1,551,905 $1,830,655 2018 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $287,113 $1,598,462 $1,885,575 2019 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $295,726 $1,646,416 $1,942,142 2020 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $304,598 $1,695,809 $2,000,406 2021 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $313,736 $313,736 2013 CIPP Rehabilitation $58,706 $0 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $5,000 $524,600 $400,000 $412,000 $424,360 $437,091 $450,204 $2,648,254 224th Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project $30,895 $0 Lift Station 1 Metering & Flow Study $100,000 $100,000 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study $100,000 $100,000 $4,205,331 $3,385,395 $2,185,454 $2,251,018 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $2,459,748 $14,988,267 Reinbursement to Fund 421 (2014 WL Overlay)$50,000 $0 Reinbursement to Fund 112 (228th Project)$250,000 $250,000 Reinbursement to Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements)$30,000 $70,000 $70,000 $80,000 $320,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $320,000 $4,285,331 $3,705,395 $2,185,454 $2,251,018 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $2,459,748 $15,308,267 Capital Improvements Program Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitations Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP Infiltration & Inflow Study & Projects Total Projects, Transfers & Reinbursements Transfers & Reinbursements Total Transfers Projects for 2015-2020 PROJECT NAME Fund 423 - Sewer Projects Total Projects P a c k e t P a g e 2 5 1 o f 5 3 7 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $380,000 $325,000 $733,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $0 $0 $5,800,000 $900,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,800,000 $0 $900,000 $0 $0 Reinbursement in Fund 421 (Phase 2 Sewer Replacement) Reinbursement in Fund 421 (Phase 1 Sewer Replacement) Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 Beginning Balance (January 1st) Sewer Connection Fees Ending Cash Balance Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc) Unsecured Revenue 2014-2020 New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers Total Unsecured Revenue Total Revenues Total Projects & Transfers P a c k e t P a g e 2 5 2 o f 5 3 7 Capital Improvements Program Fund 423.76 - WWTP PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Repair and Replacement $18,000 $200,000 $300,000 $100,000 $125,000 $725,000 Construction Projects - In House $133,000 $20,000 $50,000 $70,000 Construction Projects Contracted $955,728 $1,482,247 $2,691,424 $2,000,000 $5,350,000 $875,000 $875,000 $13,273,671 Debt Service - Principle and Interest $255,385 $256,166 $256,296 $255,117 $254,499 $255,231 $255,848 $1,533,157 Total Project $1,362,113 $1,758,413 $2,997,720 $2,455,117 $5,904,499 $1,230,231 $1,255,848 Projects less revenue from outside partnership $1,290,913 $1,459,713 $2,984,520 $2,441,917 $5,891,299 $1,217,031 $1,255,848 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Intergovernmental $1,290,913 $1,459,713 $2,984,520 $2,441,917 $5,891,299 $1,217,031 $1,255,848 Interest Earnings $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 Miscellaneous (biosolids, Lynnwood, etc)$13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 Grants, Incentives and Rebate for Engergy Eff. Projects $58,000 $285,500 Subtotal $1,562,113 $1,958,413 $3,197,720 $2,655,117 $6,104,499 $1,430,231 $1,455,848 Total Revenue $1,562,113 $1,958,413 $3,197,720 $2,655,117 $6,104,499 $1,430,231 $1,455,848 Total Project ($1,362,113)($1,758,413)($2,997,720)($2,455,117)($5,904,499)($1,230,231)($1,255,848) Ending Cash Balance $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Interest earned estimated at 0.75% per year Contribution breakdown by agency 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Edmonds 50.79%$655,616 $741,344 $1,515,748 $1,240,176 $2,992,014 $618,094 $637,808 Mountlake Terrace 23.17%$299,156 $338,274 $691,633 $565,890 $1,365,250 $282,035 $291,030 Olympic View Water & Sewer District 16.55%$213,659 $241,597 $493,968 $404,162 $975,069 $201,431 $207,855 Ronald Sewer District 9.49%$122,482 $138,498 $283,171 $231,689 $558,966 $115,472 $119,155 TOTALS 100.00%$1,290,913 $1,459,713 $2,984,520 $2,441,917 $5,891,299 $1,217,031 $1,255,848 Projects for 2014-2019 P a c k e t P a g e 2 5 3 o f 5 3 7 P a c k e t P a g e 2 5 4 o f 5 3 7 CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Packet Page 255 of 537 Packet Page 256 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center Field/Court/Stage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $145,000 700 Main Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 2.3 acres; zoned public neighborhood park/openspace field PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrades to youth sports field, picnic and playground amenities and children’s play equipment. Replacement and renovation of amphitheater in 2015 with improved courtyard area and drainage. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: As a neighborhood park, the Frances Anderson Center serves the community with various sports, playground and field activities including various special events. Upgrade and additions essential to meet demand for use. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $20,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 257 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Brackett’s Landing Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $125,000 South: Main Street and Railroad Avenue south of Edmonds Ferry Terminal on Puget Sound North: 2.7 acres with tidelands and adjacent to Department of Natural Resources public tidelands with Underwater Park South: 2.0 acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal. Regional park/Zoned commercial waterfront. Protected as public park through Deed-of-Right; partnership funding IAC/WWRC/LWCF /DNR-ALEA & Snohomish Conservation Futures PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Landscape beautification, irrigation, furnishings/bench maintenance, exterior painting, repairs, jetty improvements/repair, north cove sand, habitat improvement, fences, interpretive signs, structure repairs, sidewalk improvements, restroom repairs. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park, regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 258 of 537 PROJECT NAME: City Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $180,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete play/spray ground project, field renovation, continued pathway, access improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This is for ongoing upgrades to City Park as referenced in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $5,000 $100,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000 $100,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts Packet Page 259 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Complex Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $700,000 6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Park Development Bleacher/stadium repairs, infield mix, baseball/softball turf repair, retaining wall, fence and play structure replacement, skate park and facility amenities, tennis and sports courts repair and resurfacing, irrigation. Landscape and site furnishing improvements. Master Plan in 2016, development improvements based on Master Plan in 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for Civic Center Field. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 260 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Sunset Avenue Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,876,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a sidewalk on the west side of Sunset Ave with expansive views of the Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. The sidewalk will connect the downtown business district, surrounding neighborhoods, water access points, and the existing parks and trails system. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This sidewalk has been a priority for the City of Edmonds for several years. It is included in 5 different City plans, the Transportation Improvement Plan, Non-Motorized Section; the Parks Recreation and Open Plan; the City comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan; the Capital Improvement Plan; and the Shoreline Master Program. Specifically, the Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan identified Sunset Avenue Overlook priorities, namely improved connectivity and multi-modal access, complete the bicycle and pedestrian route system, identify scenic routes and view areas, and landscape improvements. SCHEDULE: COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $200,000 1% for Art TOTAL $200,000 Packet Page 261 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms ESTIMATED COST: $1,350,000 LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re-tile and renovate restroom facilities. Electrical upgrade, rail and shelter replacements / renovations. Work with WDFW on structural repairs of concrete spalling on pier subsurface. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $10,000 $1,300,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $1,300,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 262 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic Complex at the Former Woodway High School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,830,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $500,000 $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000 1% for Art TOTAL $500,000 $ $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 263 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park Improvements ESTIMATED COST: $15,000 89th Place West and 197th Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 12.7 acres (10.7 acres Open Space & 2 acres Neighborhood Park) Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the picnic, roadway, parking, play area and natural trail system to Maplewood Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2013, 2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $5,000 $5,000 $5000 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 264 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park Improvements ESTIMATED COST: $130,000 South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with federal transportation funds. WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; Protected through Deed-of-Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand parking area. Portable restroom upgrades. Repair and improvements to off-leash area. Replace play structure and install interpretive sign. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 265 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000 78th Place W. & 241st. St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install path from Interurban Trail spur terminal to parking lot. Replace play structure and improve picnic area. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2013 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 266 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse Grounds ESTIMATED COST: $90,000 6801 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 1.3 acres / Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the parking area, wooded area, trail system and landscaping of exterior clubhouse at Meadowdale Clubhouse site. Replace playground. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset with installation that provides community use of the facility and north Edmonds programming for day care, recreation classes and preschool activities. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $75,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $75,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 267 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Playfields ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with City of Lynnwood and Edmonds School District to renovate Meadowdale Playfields, installation of synthetic turf for year around play. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Partnership to leverage funds and increase field use for Edmonds citizens. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Engineering & Administration Construction 250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 1% for Art TOTAL $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 Packet Page 268 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,000 83rd Avenue West and 204th St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County 22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Forest improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, wildlife habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking. Natural trail links under Main Street connecting to Yost Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional trail connections. SCHEDULE: 2015 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 New additions meet the 1% for the Arts Ordinance requirements Packet Page 269 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park Improvements ESTIMATED COST: $35,000 80th Street West and 186th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public; Purchased and developed with LWCF funds through IAC; protected with Deed- Of-Right PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual repair and upgrade to facilities and fields. Re-surface tennis courts, pathway improvements, and play area maintenance. Renovate restrooms. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, restroom facilities, basketball court, parking and tennis courts. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $20,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $10,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 270 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Sierra Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $110,000 80th Street West and 191th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve pathways and interpretive braille signs. Field renovation to include field drainage for turf repair. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, portable restroom facilities, basketball hoops, parking and Braille interpretive trail for the blind. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $40,000 $70,000 1% for Art TOTAL $40,000 $70,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 271 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Yost Park/Pool Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $605,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pool replastering, tile work, and annual anticipated and unanticipated repairs. Add in-pool play amenities. Park site improvements and repairs to trails and bridges, picnicking facilities, landscaping, parking, tennis/pickleball courts and erosion control. ADA improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for environmental education programs as well as enjoyable setting for seasonal Yost Pool users. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $120,000 $120,000 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000 $100,000 1% for Art TOTAL $120,000 $120,000 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000 $100,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 272 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $73,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include library, Senior Center, outdoor plaza, city park, corner parks, irrigation, planting, mulch, FAC Center, vegetation, tree plantings, streetscape/gateways/street tree planting, flower basket poles. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 After 2016, this expense will no longer be eligible out of REET. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $30,000 $21,000 $22,000 1% for Art TOTAL $30,000 $21,000 $22,000 Not Eligible Packet Page 273 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Paving ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $31,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Includes miscellaneous small paving and park walkway improvements citywide. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvement needs citywide in park system. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 * all or a portion of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 274 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park Improvements / Misc Small Projects ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $400,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Citywide park facility and public landscaping improvements including signage, interpretive signs, buoys, tables, benches, trash containers, drinking fountains, backstops, bike racks, lighting, small landscaping projects, play areas and equipment. Landscape improvements at beautification areas and corner parks, public gateway entrances into the city and 4th Avenue Corridor from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the Arts, SR 104, street tree and streetscape improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for citywide park facilities and streetscape improvements in public areas. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering / Administration Construction $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 1% for Art TOTAL $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 70000 Packet Page 275 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade / Playground Partnerships ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $100,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with local schools, organizations, or neighboring jurisdictions to upgrade additional youth ball field or play facilities or playgrounds to create neighborhood park facilities at non-City facilities. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Annual partnerships with matching funds to create additional facilities. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Engineering & Administration Construction $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 1% for Art TOTAL $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 Packet Page 276 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Center at Yost Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 – $23,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the current pool. SCHEDULE: COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 277 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved Trail/Bike Path/Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 30,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete portions of designated trail through public parks to meet the goals of the Bicycle Plan and Pathway Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Walking and connections was listed as a high priority in the comprehensive Park Plan from public survey data. Creating trails, paths and bike links is essential to meet the need for the community. Provides for the implementation of the citywide bicycle path improvements and the elements and goals of the citywide walkway plan. Linked funding with engineering funding. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL 0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 * all or part of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 278 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $unk PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Initiate feasibility study of providing and promoting Cultural / Arts facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008 update process. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority creates the need to study performance, management and long term potential for arts related facilities. SCHEDULE: COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 279 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Hatchery Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $295,000 South of Dayton Street and Harbor Square, east of BSNF railroad, west of SR 104, north of UNOCAL 23.2 acres; Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Hatchery repairs as needed. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available through various agencies and foundations. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018 2020 Planning/Study 35,000 $45,000 Engin. & Admin. Construction $25,000 $25,000 $60,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000 1% for Art TOTAL $60,000 $70,000 $60,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000 Packet Page 280 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Cemetery Mapping ESTIMATED COST:$ 100,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Memorial Cemetery was deeded to the City in 1982. The City has been operating the cemetery with no markings, rows, aisles, or surveyed mapping. It is essential that the City survey/map/and mark the cemetery so as to effectively manage the plots. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Operations of a public cemetery, with effective and accurate stewardship. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study $100,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 281 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Complex Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $700,000 6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Park Development Bleacher/stadium repairs, infield mix, baseball/softball turf repair, retaining wall, fence and play structure replacement, skate park and facility amenities, tennis and sports courts repair and resurfacing, irrigation. Landscape and site furnishing improvements. Master Plan in 2016, development improvements based on Master Plan in 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for Civic Center Field. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 282 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park Forest Management Study ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hire consultant to develop a plan for best forest management practices in Pine Ridge Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This forest park is under stress from over-mature trees especially alder and others. This study will give the Parks Division necessary guidance to better manage this park to become a more healthy forest and open space. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study $50,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $50,000 Packet Page 283 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved Capital Projects and Acquisitions ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,006,059 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on: City Hall: Debt retired end of 2014 Marina Beach / Library Roof: $ $82,261 PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $55,631 Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $29,784 PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $592,564 $171,400 $169,383 $171,947 $164,766 $162,656 165,907 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 284 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open Space/Land ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of properties when feasible that will benefit citizens that fit the definitions and needs identified in the Parks Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Fulfills needs of citizens for parks, recreation and open space. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $0 0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 200,000 200,000 Packet Page 285 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Waterfront/Tidelands Acquisition ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,400,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire waterfront parcels and tidelands wherever feasible to secure access to Puget Sound for public use as indentified in the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Packet Page 286 of 537 PROJECT NAME: 4th Avenue Corridor Enhancement ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,325,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin 4th Avenue site development with temporary and/or moveable surface elements and amenities to begin drawing attention and interest to the corridor and create stronger visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Possible projects may include surface art, interpretive signage and wayfinding, or low level lighting. The Cultural Heritage Walking Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park Service Preserve America grant program, will be implemented in 2011-12. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Timing for 30% design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,425,000 $2,900,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,425,000 $2,900,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 287 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Cultural Heritage Tour and Way-Finding Signage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7015 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create a downtown Edmonds walking tour highlighting a dozen historic sites with artist made interpretive markers, and add way-finding signage for the downtown area. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Promote tourism and economic development in the core downtown. The walking tour and interpretive signage focuses on local history and as unique artist made pieces also reflect the arts orientation of the community. Improved way-finding signage which points out major attractions and services/amenities such as theaters, museums, beaches, train station, shopping, dining and lodging promotes both tourism and economic vitality in the downtown /waterfront activity center. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $7015 1% for Art TOTAL $7015 Packet Page 288 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Dayton Street Plaza ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $168,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovate small park and plaza at north end of old public works building, 2nd & Dayton Street. Improve landscaping, plaza, and accessibility. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to public gathering space and creation of additional art amenities and streetscape improvements in downtown on main walking route. Financial support from Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, Hubbard Foundation and Edmonds in Bloom. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $60,000 $108,000 1% for Art TOTAL $60,000 $108,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 289 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition and/or Development ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6.1M 6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire or work with the School District to develop this 8.1 acre property for continued use as an important community park, sports tourism hub and site of some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in downtown Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important park site for the citizens of Edmonds. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019-2025 Acquisition $20,000 $3M Planning/Study 100,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction $3M 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $3M $100,000 $3M * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 290 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Parking Lot/Drainage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $500,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitate South County Senior Center parking lot including pavement re-surfacing, storm water/drainage management, effective illumination and landscaping. Seek grant opportunities and partnership opportunities. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain capital assets and provide safety and better accessibility for Seniors. SCHEDULE: COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 291 of 537 PROJECT NAME: City Park Revitalization ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,335,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revitalize City Park play area with new play equipment and addition of a spray park amenity to be used in the summer. Spray parks have become very popular in many communities as replacements for wading pools that are no longer acceptable to increased health department regulations. These installations create no standing water and therefore require little maintenance and no lifeguard costs. Staff will seek voluntary donations for construction costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project combines two play areas and the completion of the master plan from 1992. This is very competitive for State grant funding, as it will be using a repurposing water system. This will be a much valued revitalization and addition to the City’s oldest and most cherished park. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $372,100 $854,900 1% for Art TOTAL $372,100 $854,900 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts Packet Page 292 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic Complex at the Former Woodway High School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,535,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020- 2025 Planning/Study $655,000 Engineering & Administration Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $655,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 293 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation of land ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $900,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire waterfront parcel, demolish existing structure, and restore beachfront to its natural state. This has been a priority in the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound, restoration of natural habitat. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL 900,000 Packet Page 294 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Wetland Mitigation ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,517 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available through various agencies and foundations. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $12,517 1% for Art TOTAL $12,517 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 295 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Willow Creek Daylighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $200,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available through various agencies and foundations. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $200,000 1% for Art TOTAL $200,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 296 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown Waterfront) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a valuable asset to Edmonds. SCHEDULE: This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished by 2017. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL Packet Page 297 of 537 PROJECT NAME: Veteran’s Plaza ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The establishment of a Veteran’s Plaza was unanimously approved by the City Council in 2014. It will serve as a tribute to the patriotic and courageous men and women who served this nation. The Plaza will reflect the bravery, sacrifice and strength they gave our country. The design will accommodate flagpoles (in their existing location), space for display of military seals and a Plaza, seating areas for reflection, some educational monuments or placards, and existing hardscape and significant trees. The address is 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 and is adjacent to the Edmonds Public Safety Building. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Veteran’s Plaza will serve as a focal point which raises awareness of the contributions made by veterans and illustrates the high respect the citizens of Edmonds have for the men and women who have defended the rights and freedoms of this nation. It will provide a tribute for the men and women who have served and are serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. The Plaza will establish a central site for the citizens of Edmonds to conduct official observances, activities and ceremonies to honor veterans including Veterans Day. SCHEDULE: 2015-2021 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. 10,000 Construction 1% for Art TOTAL 10,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 298 of 537 FUND PROJECT NAME CFP DESCRIPTION 112 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave to 84th Ave.2" pavement grind and overlay with ADA curb ramp upgrades 112 Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements X Widen 216th St. SW to add a WB and EB left turn lane. Provide protective / permissive left turn phasing for both movements. 112 Re-striping of 76th Ave. W from 220th to OVD Re-striping of 76th with addition of bike lanes on both sides of the street 112 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W X Installation of 150' of sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW. 112 Trackside Warning System / Quiet Zone (Dayton and Main RR crossings)X Installation of trackside warning system or Quiet Zone system at (2) railroad crossings (Main St. and Dayton St.) 116 Anderson Center Roofing Project Subject of a DP for 2015 funding 116 Anderson Center Accessibility CDBG Grant application coming in 2014 for wheelchair lift. 116 City Hall Security Measures Subject of a DP for 2015 funding. 116 Grandstand Exterior and Roof Repairs If deemed necessary per on-going investigation. 125 Sunset Avenue Walkway X Alignment with Fund 112 CIP. 125 Fishing Pier Rehab In partnership with WDFW, contingent upon grant funds. 125 Pavement Preservation Program 125 REET Parks and 125 REET Transportation combined into one spreadsheet titled 125 Capital Projects Fund. Added transfer to the 112 Street Fund. 125 Meadowdale Playfields Intalling turf fields, in partnership with Lynnwood and Edmonds School District, and contingent upon grant funds. 132 Civic Center Acquisitoin X Purchase of Civic Center from the School District 421 2021 Replacement Program Estimated future costs for waterline replacements. 421 2015 Waterline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements. 422 105th/106 Ave SW Drianage Improvements This project was in 2012-2017 CIP but removed the following year. Advanced maintenance by the Public Worls Crews worked for a few years, but now the system needs to be replaced. 423 2021 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Imprvmnts Estimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/impr. 423 2015 Sewerline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to sewerline repl/rehab/impr. 423 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study Estimated cost for Study to determine how to replace/rehab/improve trunk sewerline located directly west of Lake Ballinger. Preliminary costs for this project will be generated under this task. CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2014 TO 2015) ADDED PROJECTS Packet Page 299 of 537 FUND PROJECT NAME CFP DESCRIPTION 112 Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers Project removed from list to accommodate higher priorities. 112 Main St. from 5th to 6th X Completed in 2013. 112 School zone flashing beacons Completed in 2013. 116 Anderson Center Countertop Replacement Delayed until 2016. 116 Anderson Center Radiator Replacement Delayed until 2017. 116 City Hall Exterior Cleaning/Repainting Delayed another year. 116 Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Delayed another year. 116 Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement Delayed another year. 125 Haines Wharf Park & Walkway Project Completed in 2013. 421 2011 Replacement Program Completed in 2013. 421 2012 Replacement Program Completed in 2013. 421 2012 Waterline Overlays Completed in 2013. 421 224th Waterline Replacement Completed in 2013. 422 Southwest Edmonds Basin Study Project 2 - Connect Sumps near Robin Hood Lane X Project not needed at this point due to upstream improvements by Public Works Crews. 422 Goodhope Pond Basin Study/Projects New system with detention installed as part of 5 Corners Roundabout project. Future need for this project will be assessed. 423 Meter Installations Basin Edmonds Zone Deleted. Discussions with operations and engineering staff were done to prioritize metering needs. It was determined that the metering in the Lift Station 1 zone and the Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study are more pressing in their need to be completed. 423 Smoke Test in Basin Edmonds Zone Deleted. Discussions with operations and engineering staff were done to prioritize smoke testing. It was determined that the Lift Station 1 study and the Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study are more pressing in their need to be completed. CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2014 TO 2015) DELETED PROJECTS Packet Page 300 of 537 FUND PROJECT NAME CFP CHANGE 112 Citywide - Signal Improvements Combined w/ Citywide Safety Impr.- Signal Cabinet / Ped. Countdown Displ. 112 Citywide Bicycle Connections Combined with Bicycle Route Signing 116 ESCO IV To be done in 2015. No streetlights. FAC steam system component. 421 Five Corners 3.0 MG Reservoir Recoating Project merged into one project called Five Corners Reservoir Recoating. 421 Five Corners 1.5 MG Reservoir Recoating Project merged into one project called Five Corners Reservoir Recoating. 422 Storm Drainage Improvement Project: Dayton St. Between 6th & 8th Now called: Dayton St. between 3rd & 9th. More extensive improvements are needed to reduce the frequency of flooding. 422 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects X Removed from CFP. Culvert/Bridge projects constructed by City of Mountlake Terrace. No additional capital projects currently planned. Project will remain in the CIP to work with neighboring jursidictions on policy and other issues. 423 2012 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Impr Renamed to Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement 423 2013 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Impr Renamed to Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement 423 Meter Installation Basin LS-01 Project merged into one project called Lift Station 1 metering and flow study 423 Smoke Test Basin LS-01 Project merged into one project called Lift Station 1 metering and flow study CHANGED PROJECTS CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2014 TO 2015) Packet Page 301 of 537 423.76 Repair and Replacement Repairs to the Pagoda, Secondary Clarifier #3 and coating projects will be focussed on in late 2014 anf early 2015. 423.76 Upgrades Offsite Flow Telemetry: This project will modify the offsite monitoring stations to solar power in an effort to significantly lower our energy bills. One station was completed in 2014, the remaininig station will be completed in 2015. Control System Upgrade: Replace aging control system equipment, provide for redundancy and upgrade the operating platform. In 2014 PLC 100 will be replaced. In 2015 PLC 500 and PLC 300 will be replaced. This project will be completed in 2016. SSI rpoject: In late 2014 we will purchaes the mercury absortion modules and install them late 2015 or early 2016. Phase 4 energy improvements: in late 2014 we will replace the plant air compressors and in 2015 we will retrofit A basin 2 with fine bubble diffusers and install a new blower. 423.76 Studies and Consulting We will continue to evaluate UV vs. Hypo for disinfection, begin the design for solids sytem enhancements and look at gasification as a future alternative to the SSI. Much of this work will be accomplished under the ESCO model and focuss on energy improvements. Packet Page 302 of 537 DRAFT Subject to October 8th Approval CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 24, 2014 Chair Cloutier called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Todd Cloutier, Chair Neil Tibbott, Vice Chair Philip Lovell Daniel Robles Careen Rubenkonig Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Ellis (excused) STAFF PRESENT Shane Holt, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Rob English, City Engineer Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. CHAIR CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Ms. Hope referred the Board to the written Director’s Report. In addition to the items outlined on the report, she announced that the public has invited to a free program that asks the question, “What Does a Vibrant City of the Future Look Like?” The event is being sponsored by Community Transit, Puget Sound Regional Council, and 8-80 Cities and will take place on September 25th at the Lynnwood Convention Center starting at 6:30 p.m. Gil Penalosa, Executive Director of the Canadian non-profit organization 8-80 Cities will speak about how to create vibrant cities and healthy communities for everyone. She encouraged Board Member to attend. Board Member Lovell requested a status report on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). He recalled that the Council is currently considering a modification to the Board’s recommendation that would increase the setback area for development to 150 feet and the buffer area to 50 feet. Ms. Hope emphasized that the City Council has not taken final action on the SMP yet, but the majority appear to be leaning towards a greater setback. Board Member Lovell advised that the Port of Edmonds has Packet Page 303 of 537 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 2 gone on record in opposition to the increased setback and indicated they would likely take legal action if the greater setbacks are adopted. Ms. Hope said staff indicated support for the 50-foot buffer, as recommended by the Planning Board and supported by Best Available Science. Board Member Stewart clarified that the City Council is proposing the increased setback requirement on a 2-year interim basis. At the end of the two years, the setback could be renegotiated. Chair Cloutier noted that the City Council is also considering significant modifications to the Board’s recommendation related to Highway 99 zoning. Ms. Hope acknowledged that the Council conducted a public hearing and voted to amend the recommendation, but they will not take formal action until a revised ordinance is presented to them at a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) (FILE NUMBER AMD20150006 Mr. English explained that the CFP and CIP are different documents and have different purposes. The CIP is used as a budgeting tool and includes both capital and maintenance projects. The CFP is mandated by the Growth Management Act and is intended to identify longer-term capital needs (not maintenance) to implement the City’s level of service standards and growth projections. The CFP must be consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and it can only be amended once a year. He provided a graph to illustrate how the two plans overlap. He advised that the CFP is comprised of three sections: general, transportation and stormwater. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks projects, and each project is organized by the City’s financial fund numbers. He announced that, this year, the 125 funds were combined to include both transportation and parks projects to be consistent with the City’s budget. Mr. English noted that a description of each project was included in the draft CIP. He reviewed some of the projects identified in the CIP and CFP, as well as the progress that was made over the past year as follows:  The 5 Corners Roundabout Project is nearing completion. This significant project is intended to improve the level of service (LOS) of the intersection and improve air quality by moving traffic more efficiently through the intersection.  The City Council approved a $1.6 million budget for a Street Preservation Program in 2014. This has enabled staff to overlay two streets and apply chip seal applications to three streets. Staff is proposing a budget of $1.56 million for the Street Preservation Program in 2015.  The 228th Street Corridor Improvement Project will start in 2015. As proposed, 228th Street Southwest will be extended across the unopened right-of-way to 76th Avenue West, and the intersections at Highway 99 and 76th Avenue West will be signalized. 228th Street Southwest will be overlaid from 80th Place West to 2,000 feet east of 72nd Avenue West, and 76th Avenue West will be overlaid from 228th Street Southwest to Highway 99. Chair Cloutier questioned if the proposed improvements would extend all the way to the border of Mountlake Terrace. Mr. English answered affirmatively and noted that Mountlake Terrace is also planning improvements for its portion of 228th Street Southwest.  Intersection improvements at 76th Avenue West and 212th Street Southwest are currently under design and the City is in the process of acquiring additional right-of-way. Construction is planned to start in 2016.  76th Avenue West will be restriped between 220th Street Southwest and Olympic View Drive. The section that is currently four lanes will be reduced to three lanes, with a bike lane. Pre-design work for this project will start in 2015, with construction in 2016.  Design money has been identified to start the process of looking at the potential of creating a quiet zone or a trackside warning system at the Dayton and Main Street railroad crossings. A consultant contract was recently approved, and a kick-off meeting is scheduled for next week.  The Sunset Avenue Walkway Project has received a lot of discussion at the Council level in recent months. The Council recently approved a temporary alignment for the walkway as a trail and these improvements will likely be finished within the next week or two. Packet Page 304 of 537 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 3  A sidewalk will be installed on 15th Street between SR-104 and 8th Avenue utilizing grant funding from the Safe Routes To School Program. The project should be completed by November of 2014.  Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) curb ramps will be installed on 3rd Avenue, and the project will be advertised this week.  A sidewalk will be installed on the north side of 238th Street Southwest from 100th Avenue West to 104th Avenue West. Stormwater improvements will also be included with this project, which will be funded via a Safe Routes To School Grant and Utilities Fund 422.  A walkway will be constructed on the south side of 236th Street Southwest from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary School. Sharrows will also be added along this stretch. This project is also being funded through the Safe Routes to School Program.  10,000 feet of water main was replaced in 2014, and two pressure reducing valves were replaced. The City just completed 2,000 feet of street overlay where water mains were previously replaced. In 2015, they plan to replace 7,000 feet of water main, as well as some pressure reducing valves.  The 4th Avenue Stormwater Project is in progress and is intended to address flooding issues in the downtown caused by heavy rains. This project should be completed within the next month.  The vactor waste handling facility was completed this year, and they are working to replace the filtration pipes.  The City will build on the study completed in 2013 that assessed the feasibility of daylighting the Willow Creek channel as part the Edmonds Marsh Project. Daylighting the creek will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and the Edmond Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped.  A lift station and other new infrastructure will be installed at Dayton Street and SR-104 to improve drainage and reduce flooding at the intersection.  A flow reduction study has been completed for the Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/Management Project, and the project is currently at the pre-design phase.  Sewer main on Railroad Avenue was replaced in July, and more work is scheduled in 2015. By the end of 2014, the City will have replaced over 6,000 feet of sewer main in several locations. In 2015, staff is proposing 1,500 feet of cured-in- place pipe application, 4,000 feet of sewer main replacement, and improvements at the Wastewater Treatment Plan. Board Member Lovell noted that Meadowdale Beach Road is in poor condition, and it does not make sense to install a sidewalk before the roadway has been repaved. Mr. English pointed out that repaving Meadowdale Beach Road is identified as a project in the Roadway Preservation Program. If funding is available, it will move forward in 2015. He cautioned that the street may need more than an overlay to address the problems. Vice Chair Tibbott asked Mr. English to describe the differences between the cured-in-place pipe application and replacing sewer mains. Mr. English said that the cured-in-place application is a trenchless technology that the City has used on a few projects in the last several years. If a pipeline is cracked but has not lost its grade, you can apply a new interior coating. This can be done by accessing the manholes within the pipe without having to excavate or cut the street. Staff has spent a significant amount of time this year collecting data on the existing condition of the pipes to identify those in which the cured- in-place option would be appropriate. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the cured-in-place application would address root problems. Mr. English answered that the application is a good way to take care of roots. Depending on the age of the pipes, they are most likely to connect at the joints, which provide a pathway for roots. The cured-in-place application would be a continuous inner lining for the pipe so the potential for roots to find gaps or cracks goes away once it is installed. Packet Page 305 of 537 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 4 Vice Chair Tibbott asked Mr. English to describe how the Dayton Street Lift Station would work. Mr. English explained that there are a lot of different inputs into the stormwater issues in this location such as the Edmonds Marsh, Shellebarger Creek, and stormwater runoff. In this particular case, when the tide elevation is high, the water cannot drain into the Sound and flooding occurs at the intersection of Dayton Street and SR-104. The marsh does not drain as well, either. The proposed project will re-establish the flow through the marsh, and install a lift station that will mechanically lift the water during high tide so it can be discharged to Puget Sound. Board Member Stewart referred to the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project and asked about the definition for “multi-use pathways.” Mr. English answered that there is not really a definition for multi-use pathways. The concept is based more on width. Ten feet is the standard width for a multi-use pathway, but some are as narrow as 8 feet or as wide as 12 feet. The goal is to have walkers and bikers use the route together. Board Member Stewart asked if it would be possible to allow some wheeled access on the pathway, while bikes are routed to the sharrows on the roadway. Mr. English agreed that would be possible. He noted that while the sharrows for north bound bikers are not in place, bikers going south can use the trail that is striped. Board Member Stewart asked if the City would consider green infrastructure as a method of stormwater improvement such as rain gardens, bioswales, and pervious pavement. Mr. English said they are considering a few green options for stormwater. For example, the Shellebarger Creek High Flow Reduction Study recommends building bio-retention facilities within the residential areas. These projects are about 90% designed, and the City plans to apply for grants to build them in 2015. There is also an infiltration facility at Sea View Park to take some of the high flow off Perrinville Creek. Two previously mentioned projects utilize infiltration methods versus collection and putting the water into the Sound. Board Member Stewart suggested that these efforts should be noted in the plans. Board Member Rubenkonig said she enjoyed the project descriptions. She particularly found the history to be helpful in understanding how each project originated. She would also like each project description to reference the plan that supports it and explained why it was proposed. She noted that some of the descriptions provide details about the size of the projects (i.e. length, square footage, acreage, etc.) She found this helpful to make a connection between a project’s size and its anticipated cost. She suggested that this information should be provided for each of the project descriptions. Mr. English agreed that more information could be provided in the project descriptions related to size, but the City does not yet have this detailed information for some of the projects in the CIP. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that walkway projects are referred to as both sidewalks and walkways. She asked if there is a reason to make this distinction. Mr. English agreed that the terms could be more consistent. The City secured grant funding for three sidewalk projects from the Safe Routes to School Program. His guess is that throughout the application process, the projects were probably identified as walkways as opposed to sidewalks. Ms. Hite advised that approximately $120,000 is set aside each year in the CIP for park maintenance items. She explained that although it is not common for cities to use Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) funds strictly for parks operations and maintenance, the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) allows it. However, this provision will sunset at the end of 2016. Unless it is extended for an additional time period, the City will have to be creative in 2017 to fill the funding gap. Ms. Hite provided a brief overview of the accomplishments in 2014 related to parks, as well as projects anticipated for 2015:  A new play area was installed at City Park. However, because of issues with drainage and the existing water table, the spray pad had to be redesigned. Permits for the project were submitted earlier in the week, and the goal is to obtain the permits and get the project out to bid before the end of the year so construction can start in February or March. It is anticipated the spray pad will open by Memorial Day 2015. She briefly described some of the features of the new play area and spray pad.  The Dayton Street Plaza Project has been on the City’s plan for the past few years, and demolition work started this month. She provided a schematic design of the project for the Board’s information.  Some historic preservation plaques were installed on the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor, as well as other locations throughout the downtown. In addition, the Arts Commission has been working on a temporary installation on 4th Packet Page 306 of 537 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 5 Avenue to bring visibility to the corridor. They are holding public meetings regarding the project at this time. However, the City does not currently have funding to create permanent features along the corridor.  The City has set aside $655,000 in the CIP and the School District has agreed to contribute $500,000 for redevelopment of the Woodway High School Athletic Field. In 2013, the City received a $750,000 state appropriation from local representatives, as well as a capital grant of $2.5 million from Verdant Health Care. They now have a total of $4.2 million for the project. In addition to a sports field for soccer, softball, lacrosse and ultimate Frisbee, the play area will be upgraded and a new walking path will be provided to connect to the oval track around the football field. The project is currently in the design phase. The district will construct the project and the City will maintain it and have operational control of the fields. The redeveloped facility is set to open in September of 2015.  The Yost Pool boiler was replaced in 2014. In addition, new plaster was applied to the bottom of the pool, and a new hot water tank was installed. They just recently discovered that the spa has a leak that will cost about $100,000 to fix, and this money was built into the 2015 budget.  The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department is working in partnership with the Stormwater Division on the Marina Beach Master Plan, which will include daylighting of Willow Creek. Burlington Northern Santa Fe installed a culvert that can be used for this purpose, and they are currently considering two different alignment options, both of which will have impacts to Marina Beach Park and/or the dog park. Staff will work with the design team and the public to come up with the best solution, and they are hoping the work can be completed by next September.  The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and Community Cultural Plan were updated this year.  The Anderson Field Amphitheater and Meadowdale Club House Playfield will be replaced in 2015.  The City is working in partnership with the City of Lynnwood and the Edmonds School District to further develop and maintain the Meadowdale Playfields. They are looking at installing turf on the fields so they can be used year round. The School District has allotted $1 million for the project, and the Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood have agreed to contribute, as well. They have applied for a grant to help fund the project, and they are hoping to have enough money put together to start within the next three years.  The City has an aggressive goal to acquire waterfront property and has set aside about $900,000 from a Conservations Future Grant and REET dollars for this purpose. The City has been negotiating with a property owner, and she is optimistic that an agreement can be reached.  Rehabilitation of the Fishing Pier has been on the City’s radar since 2009. The facility is located on property owned by the Port of Edmonds, but the facility is owned by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WSDFW). The City maintains the facility. While the pier looks nice on the outside and is safe, it was constructed 35 years ago and the salt water environment has caused significant deterioration. WSDFW has offered to give the pier to the City, but the City would like the rehabilitation work to be completed before ownership is transferred. The City is working in partnership with the WSDFW to obtain the needed funds, which is estimated to cost about $1.5 million. About $200,000 has been allocated to the project, and the WSDFW has submitted a grant request to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) for $1.3 million. The grant scored well, and they are hoping it will be funded so the project can move forward in 2015.  The City has been working with the Edmonds School District to acquire the Civic Center Playfield. An appraiser was hired to come up with an appraisal that is acceptable to both parties, and third-party appraiser was also hired to confirm the findings. The City submitted a grant request for $1 million to the RCO, and the project scored within the range of projects that were funded last year. However, if there are cuts in the RCO’s budget, the grant may not be funded. If the City is able to complete the acquisition in 2015, some money will be set aside in 2016 to do a master plan. Packet Page 307 of 537 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 6 Board Member Lovell asked if the City would continue to maintain the Civic Center Playfield in its current state until such time as it is acquired and redeveloped. Ms. Hite answered that short-term goal is to acquire the property and maintain it as is until a master plan has been completed and the park is redeveloped. Board Member Lovell asked if the senior center was identified on the CFP as a placeholder or if the City will dedicate funding for the project. Ms. Hite said this project will require a partnership with other entities. The City will support the project as much as possible, but it will not be a City project. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the City will partner with the Edmonds School District to redevelop the Civic Center Playfield. Ms. Hite answered that the City is now pursuing a complete acquisition of the site. The district has indicated it does not have a developer. Ms. Hite agreed that is possible, but the current lease, which runs through 2020, gives the City the first right to purchase. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the new sports field at the Old Woodway High School would be turf. Ms. Hite answered affirmatively. She explained that this is something that is desperately needed in the area. Because the City does not have any turf fields at this time, the season is limited to just over four months each year. The City will continue to maintain its grass fields, but having an amenity that allows year-round play is important to the parks system. Vice Chair Tibbott noted that some parks in the City are underutilized. When it comes to thinking of bigger projects like an aquatics center or acquiring property, he asked if the City has considered selling some of the underutilized park land to provide funding for new parks and/or needed improvements. Ms. Hite answered that the City currently has a good balance of neighborhood, community and regional parks, and there are still some deficiencies near Highway 99. They have not considered the option of selling park land because they do not feel there are surplus parks in the system. All of the parks are utilized, and even those that just provide green space are desirable to the community. Board Member Robles referred to Ms. Hite’s report that the City obtained the services of a third-party appraiser to study the Civic Center Playfield. He asked if the City also uses third-party consultants to conduct condition assessments and feasibility studies or is the work done in house. Ms. Hite answered that this work is contracted out, and the various grant guidelines have very rigid rules for assessments and appraisals for parkland acquisition. Board Member Stewart noted that rest room repairs are identified for Brackett’s Landing. She asked if the City has considered turning the restrooms over to a concessionaire. Ms. Hite said the City has a program for encouraging concessionaires in parks, but none have located at Brackett’s Landing to date. Every January, the City sends out a Request for Proposals, inviting vendors who might want to operate a concession stand in a City-owned park. In total, concessions brought in $10,000 last year to help with parks. She expressed her belief that the program is a win-win. It provides additional amenities in parks, as well as funds for park improvements. Board Member Stewart asked if the City has considered meters in parking areas that serve City parks. Ms. Hite said this option has been discussed, but it has not received a lot of support from the City Council. If the Board is interested in pursuing the option, she can facilitate the discussion. Board Member Stewart noted that the project description for the Sunset Walkway Project indicates that a sidewalk will be provided on the west side. She asked if this is the same project identified in the CFP. Ms. Hite answered affirmatively, noting that the $200,000 identified for the project in 2018 will come from the Parks Fund. However, most of the funding for the project will come from grants and the City’s street improvement fund. Board Member Stewart referred to the Fishing Pier and Restroom Project and noted that no funding has been set aside for the Beach Ranger Station, which is old and very small. Ms. Hite agreed that there has been no discussion about replacing the station, and it was not included as a project in the PROS Plan. However, staff could explore this option further as directed by the Board. Board Member Stewart referred to Page 48 of the draft CIP, which talks about Miscelleneous Unpaved Trail/Bike Path Improvements. He asked if the City’s website provides a map showing where the bike paths are located within parks. Ms. Packet Page 308 of 537 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 7 Hite said there are not a lot of bicycle trails through parks, but the City’s goal is to provide exterior connections. These are not currently listed on the City’s website, but they could be added. Board Member Stewart observed that, although the draft CIP identifies $1.4 million for waterfront acquisition, the allocations would be spread out over a seven year period. She suggested the City look for opportunities to partner with non-profits and apply for grants to obtain additional funding. When land becomes available, the City must move quickly. Developers have ready cash and the City doesn’t, and that can result in missed opportunities. Ms. Hite agreed that the City needs to create new funding sources so they are ready to move forward when opportunities come up. The goal is to continue to add money to the fund each year, but there are also competing priorities for the available park dollars. She emphasized that waterfront acquisition is identified as a high priority in the PROS Plan, and maintaining a separate fund for this purpose should also be a priority. Once again, Board Member Rubenkonig asked that each project description reference the plan/plans that support it and explain why it was proposed. This allows the community to have a clear understanding of why the project is identified as a priority for funding. She also asked that the descriptions provide details about the size of the project. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the 4th Avenue arts walk, which starts at Main Street, extends all the way to 3rd Avenue. Ms. Hite answered that it ends at the Performing Arts Center. Ms. Hite said that in addition to the projects identified in the CFP, members of the Economic Development Commission have requested that the City study the option of installing a restroom in the downtown area. She suggested that the concept could be identified in the CFP as a potential project for the City Council’s future consideration. She acknowledged that there is no money available for a restroom right now, but including it on the CFP allows the City to explore funding opportunities. She noted that the community has also indicated support for a public restroom in the downtown. The Board indicated support for the concept, as well. Mr. English reviewed the schedule for moving the CIP and CFP forward to the City Council for final review and approval. He noted that the plans were introduced to the City Council on September 23rd. Both documents, along with the Board’s recommendation, will be presented to the City Council for a study session on October 14th. From that point, the City Council will conduct a public hearing and take final action. Once approved, the CFP will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. English thanked the Board for providing comments. The documents are large and he appreciates the Board’s thorough review and thoughtful comments. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that impact fees were not identified in either plan as a potential funding source for transportation and walkway improvements. Mr. English said this revenue stream is identified in the CIP under Fund 112. He explained that the City has both transportation and park impact fee programs, and funds are collected when development occurs within the City. However, it is important to understand that the money can only be used for certain projects. For example, transportation impact fee dollars can only be used to address concurrency or LOS. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if some of the funding for the 5 Corners Roundabout Project will be used to study how well the roundabout is working to determine if it meets its LOS expectation. Mr. English explained that projects of this magnitude that are funded with federal dollars take quite some time to close out. The money identified in 2015 will be used for this purpose. Chair Cloutier opened the public hearing. As there was no one in the audience, the hearing was closed. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE 2015 – 2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND SUBSEQUENT ADOPTION, AS WRITTEN, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TAKE UP THE MATTER OF A POTENTIAL PUBLIC RESTROOM IN THE DOWNTOWN. VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. Packet Page 309 of 537 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 8 Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports the motion, but questioned if it would be appropriate to also include the changes she requested earlier regarding the project descriptions. Mr. English indicated that staff would add additional information to the project descriptions wherever possible, recognizing that some of the details are not yet available. The Board agreed that the issue did not need to be addressed in the motion. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Ms. Hope said the purpose of tonight’s discussion is to talk more about the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, and specifically the Housing Element. She recalled that, at the Board’s last meeting, staff reported that the City is partnering with other cities and Snohomish County in the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), a group formed from Snohomish County Tomorrow. Through this effort, an affordable housing profile has been created for each of the participating jurisdictions. She introduced Kristina Gallant, Analyst, Alliance for Housing Affordability, who was present to walk the Board through the findings of the Edmonds’ Affordable Housing Profile. Kristina Gallant, Analyst, Alliance for Housing Affordability, provided a brief overview of the AHA, which consists of 13 cities in Snohomish County, Snohomish County, and the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. She reminded the Board that there is a Growth Management Act (GMA) mandate for cities to plan for housing to accommodate all segments of the population. The purpose of the AHA is to allow participating cities to share resources and get the help they need in a cost- effective way. The AHA was formed in November of 2013, and since that time she has been working to assess existing conditions and prepare profiles for each of the participating cities. Ms. Gallant explained that, when talking about affordable housing, people typically think about heavily subsidized housing, which is an important element, but not everything. If housing is affordable, but not appropriate for the community, it does not work. It is important to address the different needs and preferences of each community such as adequacy of safety, proximity to transportation, jobs, and affordability. Ms. Gallant provided an overview of the Edmonds Housing Profile, particularly emphasizing the following key elements:  There are currently 39,950 residents living in the City, and Edmonds is projected to accommodate nearly 5,000 new residents by 2035. This is a dramatic change over the stable population levels the City has seen over the past 20 years. The increase would require 2,790 additional housing units, which is near the City’s estimated capacity of 2,646 units.  The 2012 population includes 17,396 households with an average household size of 2.3 people compared to 2.6 for the County. The average family size in Edmonds is 2.8 compared to 3.12 for the County.  Housing in Edmonds is mostly comprised of single-family homes, but most growth will need to be accommodated in multi-family development. About 31% of Edmonds residents and 33% of County residents currently live in rented homes, and the proportion of homeowners remained relatively constant between 2000 and 2010, increasing slightly from 68% to 69%. About 36% of Edmonds population lives in multi-family homes compared with 31% across the County.  The City’s median income ($73,072) is relative high compared to other cities in the region, and home values are general higher, as well.  A significant number of the homes in Edmonds were built between 1950 and 1959 compared to the County overall.  Currently, 38% of Edmonds households are estimated to be cost burdened, which means they spend more than 30% of their monthly income on rent or home ownership costs.  According to 2013 Dupre and Scott data, Edmonds rental housing market is generally affordable to households earning at least 80% Average Median Income (AMI). Households earning between 50% and 80% AMI will find the majority of homes smaller than five bedrooms affordable, as well.  A limited supply of small units is affordable to those earning between 30 and 50% AMI, but market rents are not affordable to extremely low-income households. Packet Page 310 of 537 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 9  A lack of affordable rental housing for extremely low and very low-income households is very common. Some kind of financial assistance is typically required in order to operate a property and keep rents low enough in today’s housing market.  Assistance can be ongoing to make up the difference between 30% of tenants’ income and market rents. Other options include capital funding that reduces the overall project costs (considered workforce housing), making it possible to keep rent levels down.  Edmonds currently has 303 units of subsidized housing with a range of rental assistance sources. It also has 201 units of workforce housing distributed across three properties. These units received some form of one-time subsidy (i.e. low-income tax credit, grants, etc.) in exchange for rent restrictions, but they do not involve rental assistance and rents are not tailored to individual household incomes. In addition, the City has 16 units of transitional housing. However, with 5,322 households earning less than 50% AMI, there is still a need to increase the supply.  In 2012, the median sale price for a single-family home in Edmonds was $339,975. This would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City’s median income ($73,072).  Affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated at this time, but average assessed values suggest that home prices are rising as the housing market continues to recover following the recession, and affordability is retreating.  Edmonds has the third highest average assessed 2014 home values in Snohomish County ($351,100), which represents a 10.7% increase over 2013.  Edmonds has one of the highest percentages of elderly residents among Snohomish County cities; 25% of the households have individuals 65 years or older. In addition to having generally lower incomes, seniors will require different types of housing and services if they desire to age in place. Ms. Gallant advised that the City has already taken a number of steps to promote affordable housing, and there is a range of options it can consider to respond to the continuing needs of the community. In addition to promoting, adjusting and providing incentives for housing policies where appropriate, the City should continue to monitor and evaluate its policies to make sure there are no unnecessary regulatory barriers to affordable housing. The Housing Profile is meant to be a resource for the City as it moves through its Comprehensive Plan update. The AHA’s goal is to continue to work with participating cities from a technical advisory standpoint, researching what is needed to help establish goals for housing, identifying potential methods for implementation, and identifying funding sources that are available to support infrastructure related to housing. Board Member Robles asked what can be done to promote house-sharing opportunities in Edmonds. He suggested that this opportunity is not always about making money; it is about people trying to hang on to their homes. Ms. Gallant replied that many cities have ordinances in place that allow accessory dwelling units, but they vary significantly. It is important for cities to review their provisions for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) to make sure they are easy to understand and that the requirements and processes are not so onerous as to be cost prohibitive. The AHA’s goal is to work with participating cities to develop better policies and make sure there are no unnecessary barriers. At the same time, they must be cognizant to balance the new policies with the other needs of the City. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that ADUs were not addressed in the AHA’s report. Ms. Gallant agreed that data related to accessory dwelling units was not included in her report, and she would definitely like to research this opportunity more. Board Member Stewart complimented Ms. Gallant for a great report and a good start for metrics. However, she agreed with Board Member Rubenkonig that, at some point, the City must include ADUs in the metrics. She also suggested the City consider expanding its ADU provisions as a type of housing option to help the City meet its growth targets. She expressed concern that the numbers provided in the report is based on the number of bedrooms and size is not factored into the variables. Ms. Gallant agreed that the data is not as detailed as it could be, but it is intended to start the conversation. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the AHA has studied whether or not it is less costly to develop high-density residential versus low-density residential units. He said it would be helpful to have information about the average cost of producing the various types of affordable housing compared to the outcome. Ms. Gallant said she would like to study per unit development costs at some point in the future. In general, the housing costs are reflected through the rent and home sales, and there is a lot of debate about whether high density produces more affordable units. Increasing the supply over the long term is what needs to happen. When there is a choke point in the supply, housing prices will rise. Packet Page 311 of 537 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 10 Vice Chair Tibbott recalled the Board’s previous discussion point to the fact that just building small units does not mean they will be affordable. He noted that using lower cost finishes is one approach that can reduce the cost of the units, but he questioned if it would be possible to produce enough of these units in Edmonds to make a difference. He asked if any thought has been given to lowering development costs or allowing different types of development so developers can produce more affordable units. For example, the City could consider reduced permit fees or tax incentives. Ms. Gallant said the AHA is interested in researching this issue. Ms. Hope explained that the next step is for staff to review the current Housing Element and come back to the Board with a revised version that incorporates the new information contained in the Housing Profile and other census data. She explained that one aspect of updating each Comprehensive Plan element is to identify a performance measure that will be meaningful, yet easy for the City to replicate with data annually. In addition, an action (implementation) step may be identified to help achieve progress on certain issues. Staff is recommending that the performance measure for the Housing Element be a set number of residential units permitted each year. The exact number could be filled in later in the year when data is ready. This information would enable the City track its progress in allowing housing that will accommodate expected growth. Staff is also proposing that the action item for the Housing Element be to develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. She explained that there are many different ways to address affordability and several tools can be utilized to encourage affordable housing while looking at the overall housing needs. The proposed performance measure can get at the overall supply of housing units in Edmonds, but it is more difficult to measure affordability. Chair Cloutier expressed his belief that counting the number of bedrooms is the appropriate approach since the goal is to provide “beds for the heads.” The City could easily collect data for this metric. However, the affordability aspect is more market driven than the City can control and it would be very difficult to measure. Board Member Robles suggested that one option would be to offer a micro-tax incentive to encourage developers to report correctly. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the Growth Management Act deals with affordable housing as more population based. However, population translates into housing, and that is why it is a good proxy for population. You have to have housing for people to live in. The Growth Management does not define affordable housing, and it does not provide specific policies on how to encourage more affordable housing. Board Member Robles asked if the City can track ADUs. Ms. Hope answered affirmatively, as long as they have a valid permit. However, it would be very difficult to track rooms for rent. Board Member Stewart asked if a three-bedroom unit would be considered three units. Ms. Hope answered that it would only count as one unit. Board Member Stewart pointed out that household size has decreased in Edmonds in recent years, but the size of the units has increased. Board Member Lovell recalled that the City has fairly stringent building restrictions with respect to ADUs. If they are serious about meeting the Growth Management Act (GMA) targets and accommodating an increased population, this issue will have to be addressed. He noted that the Board has been talking about the growth targets and opportunities for affordable housing for a number of years, but the City Council has a history of not taking action to accommodate mixed-use development with higher densities. While it is fine for the Board to discuss the issue again and put forth plans, he is not convinced anything will change in the near future unless the makeup of the City Council changes dramatically. Mr. Chave clarified that ADUs are not considered multi-family apartments or second dwellings. The definition remains single-family. Extended family members and/or parents could live in a permitted ADU, as long as all the occupants in both units are related. It gets more complicated when unrelated people live in the units. The definition of "family" says that up to five unrelated people can live on a single-family property. For example, a family of four could rent to a single person or a family of three could rent to two people. In addition, ADUs must be attached to the main unit, and there are size limitations. There has been a steady uptick of ADUs in the City, particularly involving large, older homes. He noted that no permit would be required to rent a room to someone. The key distinction is whether or not there are separate living units. Packet Page 312 of 537 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 11 Ms. Hope added that the City has made the choice not to count ADUs as separate housing units. She suggested this is a lesser issue compared to the policies that guide the use. Mr. Chave explained that if ADUs are counted as separate units, requirements such as impact fees would come into plan. Chair Cloutier suggested that ADUs could be counted differently for the metrics versus the code. The Board expressed general support for the proposed Housing Element performance measure and action step. However, they expressed a desire to forward with developing a strategy for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs sooner than 2019 if resources are available. Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes the term “housing options” rather than “lower-income housing.” She wants to know that people can remain in the community of Edmonds at different stages of their lives. Although sometimes they can afford larger houses, they need smaller units. Board Member Stewart expressed concern that the older homes in Edmonds are being torn down and redeveloped into units that are three times more costly than the prior home. She would like the City to offer incentives to property owners to retain their existing homes. The City must offer a variety of housing options to serve the citizens. Ms. Hope agreed and said the issue would be addressed as part of the strategy. Board Member Lovell referred to an article in THE SEATTLE TIMES titled, “Builders Say Land in Short Supply.” This article applies directly to the Board’s current discussion. Until cities find ways to accommodate more multi-family housing, the demand will remain high in the future, and the prices will continue to increase. Right now, the City does not have a great track record for accommodating this kind of development. The City is already built out, and the only way to accommodate more people is to allow more density. PRESENTATION ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Ms. Hope and Mr. Chave made a brief presentation on development projects and activities. Ms. Hope noted that the same presentation was made to the City Council on September 23rd. The purpose of the presentation is to recreate the story of everything that has happened related to development in the City over the past several years, particularly highlighting the present activity. She advised that the Development Services Department is comprised of the Engineering Division, the Building Division and the Planning Division. Its goal is to provide assistance to people interested in improving or developing their property via discussions, data, handouts, permitting and inspections. She reported that she has received number compliments on the quality of service that staff provides. While not everyone is always happy, staff tries hard to be courteous, respectful and helpful. Staff members work in different ways to serve the community. For example:  Field inspections are performed by building inspectors, engineering inspectors and planning staff. Not counting site visits, more than 6,000 inspections have been performed over the last year.  Staff members meet together in teams to coordinate on different projects and activities.  Staff also meets with applicants and developers to provide pre-application assistance for development projects that are being planned. Ms. Hope advised that the Planning Division is responsible for a number of different types of permits, including short plats, variances, and other permits related to planning and land-use codes. A number of different planning permits were approved over the past seven months. She provided a graph to illustrate the number of permits and revenue generated from January through August in 2001 through 2014. She noted that the data reflects the economic climate over the last several years. There as a big jump in development permits in 2006 through 2008, but permitting dropped off quickly after that. As the economy improves, the City is once again seeing an increase in the number of permits. Ms. Hope said the Building Division is responsible for certain types of permits, as well, some of which are reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Divisions, as well. These projects added $38,000 to the City of Edmonds in terms of values and buildings. It is anticipated that upcoming key projects will double that number in just a few months. Mr. Chave noted that Swedish Edmonds Hospital’s project was not factored into those numbers yet, and it should add $28,000 in value. Packet Page 313 of 537 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 12 Ms. Hope reported that the City issued significantly more solar panel permits in 2014 compared to 2012 and 2013, and most of those permits were applied for on line. Mr. Chave advised that the City’s Building Official has been working with other cities, including Seattle, Bellevue and Ellensburg, on a program to encourage solar installations using grant funding from the State Department of Commerce. The program has been implemented in a few cities as a pilot to figure out how to streamline and reduce the costs of solar permitting. A few incentive programs were rolled out recently in Edmonds. He summarized that it is through a combination of programs that the City is seeing a significant increase in the number of solar permits. This speaks directly to the work they have done to improve the process and provide more information. The City will continue to work hard to encourage solar in the community, and he anticipates the numbers will continue to increase. Ms. Hope reported that for the period between September 1, 2013 and August 31, 2104, the Engineering Division issued 591 engineering permits, for total permit fees of $93,285.44. They also performed 1094 inspections, for total inspection fees of $124,815.82. In addition, they completed an estimated 1,200 reviews of plans. Ms. Hope provided a map identifying the location of key development projects in Edmonds. Mr. Chave explained that the Development Services Department currently has a total of 544 active issued building permits. These building permits are typically issued early in the year and take time to progress through. There is still a tremendous amount of work to be done on most of them. Mr. Chave specifically noted the following:  There are currently 52 active new single-family residence permits. This is a significant increase, and one particularly large project is a 27-lot subdivision in the southwest part of the City that is starting to develop.  Swedish Edmonds Hospital recently completed its three-story parking garage. This was an $8.4 million project with over 108,000 square feet of space. They are currently working on an expansion that will add a 94,000 square foot, state-of-the-art facility valued at about $28 million. This project was not reflected in the numbers provided earlier.  Clearing and excavating work is currently taking place for a new mixed-use building in the downtown that will include a somewhat down-sized post office. The project will provide 94,256 square feet of space, with 43 residential units, the post office, and retail space. The project is valued at $7.2 million.  The Community Health Clinic is a new 24,750 facility that houses a medical and dental clinic. The project was completed in July of 2014 and is valued at $2.6 million.  The Salish Crossing Project will be a complete remodel of the “old Safeway site” into five new tenant spaces and a museum within the existing building. Parking lot and pedestrian improvements are also proposed as part of the project.  The Jacobsen’s Marine Project will create a new 10,120 square foot marine service building valued at $810,000 on Port of Edmonds property. This will be a big deal in terms of retail sales, as the company is a significant seller of boats and marine supplies.  Prestige Care is developing a new 48,782 square foot skilled nursing facility on 76th Avenue West. The project is valued at $6.9 million. The new building will replace the existing facility.  Excavation work is going on now for the 5th Avenue Animal Hospital, which will be a 10,562 square foot veterinary clinic that is valued at $891,000. The new building will help fill the gap between the strong retail uses on the south end of 5th Avenue and the downtown retail area.  The City is transitioning to new technology, particularly on-line permit applications and digital permit reviews. Chair Cloutier thanked Ms. Holt and Mr. Chave for the report, which he found to be enlightening and helped him understand the big projects that are occurring in the City. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA The Board did not review their extended agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cloutier thanked the Board Members for enduring a long meeting. There was a lot on their plate and the issues are important. He also thanked Vice Chair Tibbott for presenting the Planning Board’s quarterly report to the City Council. Packet Page 314 of 537 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 13 PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Rubenkonig said she enjoyed being able to download the meeting packet. Mr. Chave explained that he will work with the City Clerk to learn how to in bed page numbers into the documents so they are easier for the Board to use. Board Member Stewart referred to the two links to videos that were forwarded to Board Members by Ms. Hope. The first video is general about the value of comprehensive plans and important issues to consider when updating them. The second video is called “Planning Roles and Citizen Participation.” She said she reviewed both videos, and she encouraged the other Board Members, as well as City Council Members, to do the same. She particularly recommended the second video, which shows some striking parallels to not only the Planning Board’s role, but how they interact with the City Council. Board Member Stewart reminded the Board of the tour of the marsh and Shoreline that is scheduled for October 4th from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. The tour will be led by Keeley O’Connell and a representative from the Tribes. Participants should meet in front of the Harbor Square Athletic Club. She explained that the tour is part of her citizen project called “Students Saving Salmon.” In addition to the students, members of the Planning Board, City Council and Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee are invited to attend. Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that if the City is expected to accommodate an additional 5,000 residents before 2035, this equates to about 250 addition people per year. If this number is divided by the average household size of just over two, the number of new units needed each year is 125. This year the City added just 33 new single-family residential homes and no duplexes or multi-family units. Mr. Chave clarified that the post office project will provide an additional 43 multi-family residential units for a total of about 76 new residential units. It is likely the number will grow before the end of the year. The best report to look at will be the year-end report that captures all the projects that were completed in 2014. He suspects the final number will be about 100, which is a good year for the City. Vice Chair Tibbott provided a brief review of the quarterly report he presented to the City Council on behalf of the Board. He reported that several City Council Members said they read the Board’s comments and recommendations and they appreciated their work. One City Council Member was somewhat critical of the one meeting the Board held when there was not a quorum of members, yet they reported information that was put together that evening. He didn’t go into the details about the nature of the meeting, but the City Council Member expressed concern that it seemed like the Board was pushing forward an agenda that neither the City Council nor the City staff was ready for. Mr. Chave clarified that there was some confusion about the timeline. The City Council had actually talked about the Highway 99 stuff at their retreat before the Board met with the Highway 99 Task Force. The Board’s discussion was a follow up to the points made by the City Council. He did not feel the Board was out in front of the City Council in this situation. Board Member Lovell asked if any progress has been made to fill the vacant Planning Board position. Mr. Chave answered that Mayor Earling is in the process of interviewing four candidates. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Packet Page 315 of 537 Date Hours Funds Purpose Materials 12‐Sep 4 3,400.00$          Fogging of Sunset/project start Engineering 13‐Sep 0 14‐Sep 0 15‐Sep 36 726.88$             swept /layout and paint materials from stock 16‐Sep 27 1,005.96$          paint/HC stalls/x‐walks materials from stock 17‐Sep 35 685.44$             install curb stops Cuz Concrete 18‐Sep 42 370.00$             prep for sidewalk pave 20yrds crush Stock 19‐Sep 7 77.78$                adjust m/h in sidewalk materials from stock 20‐Sep 0 21‐Sep 0 22‐Sep 27 148.00$             prep for sidewalk pave 8yrds crush Stock 23‐Sep 27 1,388.13$          pave walkway 18 ton Cemex 24‐Sep 18 148.00$             prep for sidewalk pave 8yrds crush  Stock 25‐Sep 36 845.45$             pave walkway 11 ton  Cemex 26‐Sep 6 prep curb for paint 27‐Sep 28‐Sep 0 29‐Sep 18 170.34$             paint yellow curb materials from stock 30‐Sep 0 55.50$                prep ramps 3y rock from stock 30‐Sep 27 386.32$             prep and pave ramps 5ton Cemex Sept Totals 310 9,407.80$           1‐Oct 18 37.00$                form bench pads 2 yrds crush  Stock 2‐Oct 24 261.43$             pour bench pads 2.5yrds Cemex 3‐Oct 2 break down forms 4‐Oct 0 5‐Oct 0 6‐Oct 9 70.00$                hot tape stock material 6‐Oct 0 92.85$                black paint to hide old center line Miller Paint 6‐Oct 36 3,236.52$          hot tape/spread chips Ennis Flint 7‐Oct 23 92.85$                black paint to hide old center line Miller Paint 8‐Oct 6 140.00$             pave around benches Cemex / Partial Cost 9‐Oct 0 10‐Oct 0 11‐Oct 0 12‐Oct 0 13‐Oct 0 14‐Oct 0 15‐Oct 18 spread wood chips free chips 17‐Oct 0 500.00$             fuel estimate 18‐Oct 0 19‐Oct 0 20‐Oct 0 21‐Oct 0 22‐Oct 27 3,925.58$          assist parks with plantings plants 23‐Oct 107 Parks department hours to date 24‐Oct 0 25‐Oct 0 26‐Oct 0 27‐Oct 0 28‐Oct 0 29‐Oct 0 30‐Oct 0 31‐Oct 0 Oct Totals 270 8,356.23$           Project Totals 575 17,764.03$        Sunset Walkway Public Works Cost Estimates Packet Page 316 of 537 Packet Page 317 of 537 Packet Page 318 of 537 Packet Page 319 of 537 Packet Page 320 of 537 Packet Page 321 of 537 Packet Page 322 of 537 Packet Page 323 of 537 Packet Page 324 of 537 Packet Page 325 of 537 Packet Page 326 of 537 Packet Page 327 of 537 SUNSET WALKWAY PROJECT PRE-ENGINEERING AND RCO GRANT APPLICATION (Prior to 2013) No. Item Cost 1 DHA, Inc. $2,965 2 Parametrix $26,661 3 BNSF $600 4 Staff Time $3,246 Total =$33,472 DESIGN (2013-to date) No. Item Cost 1 MacLeod Reckord $83,297 2 Post Cards $86 3 Daily Journal of Commerce $372 4 Everett Herald $172 5 Public Records Requests $656 6 Staff Time $25,148 Total = $109,731 Packet Page 328 of 537 Prepared by: C. Reckord 8/26/2013 ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION OF ITEM EST QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PREPARATION 1 MOBILIZATION (10%)1 L.S.$92,498 $92,498 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1 L.S.$10,000 $10,000 3 REMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB 2,219 L.F.$8 $17,752 4 REMOVE ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT 4,134 S.Y.$10 $41,342 5 ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCLUDING HAUL 2,756 C.Y.$12.00 $33,074 6 GRAVEL BORROW INCL. HAUL 2,067 TN.$15.00 $31,007 SURFACING 7 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE - CONCRETE UNDERLAY 878 TN.$22.00 $19,321 8 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE - HMA UNDERLAY 508 TN.$22.00 $11,183 9 VACANT 10 NEW HMA 254 TN.$125.00 $31,771 STORM SEWER 11 FILTERRA 6 EA $15,000 $90,000 12 CATCH BASIN TYPE I 8 EA $1,200 $9,600 13 CATCH BASIN TYPE II 3 EA $2,500 $7,500 14 STORM SEWER (12" PVC)2,200 LF $22 $48,400 15 ADJUST MANHOLE 8 EA $500 $4,000 EROSION CONTROL AND PLANTING 16 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 1 L.S.$8,000 $8,000 17 TESC PLAN 1 L.S.$2,500 $2,500 18 PLANT BED AREA (PSIPE 1 YEAR)1,393 S.Y.$50 $69,650 19 TOPSOIL 18" DEPTH 697 C.Y.$35 $24,378 TRAFFIC 20 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 L.S.$40,000 $40,000 21 CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER 2,219 L.F.$18 $39,942 22 SIGNING AND STRIPING 1 L.S.$15,000 $15,000 23 WHEEL STOPS 26 EA.$250 $6,500 24 SPEED TABLE CROSSINGS 1 EA.$16,000 $16,000 OTHER ITEMS 25 INTERPRETIVE SIGNS 3 EA.$2,000 $6,000 26 ENTRANCE SIGNS 2 EA.$2,500 $5,000 27 BENCHES 5 EA.$2,000 $10,000 28 PICNIC TABLES 4 EA.$2,000 $8,000 29 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK 10' - 12' WIDE 2,635 S.Y.$45 $118,560 30 CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP 6 EA.$6,000 $36,000 31 DECORATIVE GUARD RAIL 1,550 L.F.$90 $139,500 32 VIEWING AREAS 1 EA.$25,000 $25,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,017,477 CONTINGENCY (30%)$305,243 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,322,720 OTHER COSTS 22 SURVEY 1 L.S.$28,000 $28,000 23 GEOTECHNICAL 1 L.S.$23,000 $23,000 24 DESIGN, PUBLIC OUTREACH & PERMITTING (18%)1 L.S.$238,090 $238,090 25 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15%)1 L.S.$198,408 $198,408 26 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND ADMIN (5%)1 L.S.$66,136 $66,136 27 $0 SUBTOTAL OTHER COSTS $553,634 GRAND TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,876,354 CONSTRUCTION COSTS CITY OF EDMONDS - SUNSET AVENUE OVERLOOK TRAIL PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE 7/23/2014 1 MacLeod Reckord Packet Page 329 of 537 RESOLUTION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGARDING DOWNTOWN RESTROOMS Motion Passed November 19, 2014 Whereas, convenient and accessible public restrooms are lacking in the downtown Edmonds retail shopping core; and Whereas, numerous restrooms are located around the periphery of the downtown; however, many are not publicly known or easily accessible, and few are always open especially on weekends and holidays; and Whereas, the Strategic Action Plan recognizes the need for public restrooms in Objective 3a.2(37) assigning a “very high” priority with implementation by 2016 by downtown participants with the City and Chamber of Commerce as leads; and Whereas, the public has expressed the need and desire for public restrooms numerous times over the years, while the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce receives inquires almost daily as to the location of public restrooms in the downtown. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED after research and discussion of public restrooms in the downtown core, the Citizen’s Economic Development Commission recommends that the City Council include downtown restrooms in the update of the City’s Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). Motion passed unanimously. Packet Page 330 of 537 QUESTIONS RAISED BY COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS: Question 1 - Sunset $2.0MM in 2018 - I would like to reduce to a lower number or as what was done last year when the open market was criticized at $5.0MM and "unknown is given Reason for this - we need to allow for the design to finish its year-long testing. I would like to focus on pedestrian safety since we have had three accidents this year - BUT THE QUESTION TO ANSWER IS - How did you come up with $2.0MM and if you say placeholder - that is fine...but you don't have a round number - you have a specific number. Answer: The PSRC TAP preliminary cost estimate for the $2,099,000 figure in the proposed CIP/CFP in 2018 is attached for reference. The difference between the cost estimate and the number in the CIP/CFP is an estimate of inflation from the date of estimate to the assumed date of construction (2018). The TAP estimate did not include costs for design and construction of water and sewer utilities that may be built, if the project goes forward. Question 2- Sunset in the Parks are of the CIP has funding for Sunset - remove that as we are not considering it to be a transportation element. Answer: This is for the southern portion of Sunset to improve the bluff/park area. Question 3- CFP Project Name and description: Work with community partners to locate and construct a public restroom; 1) I would like to see a temporary fix or permanent porto-units placed somewhere (like what is done for the summer market). We have maintained permanent porto-units at Marina Beach for years, so let's find a spot and see how that spot works and then move to the permanent if the place is correct. HOW MUCH would this cost? We have been batting this around since they closed the bathrooms in the OLD Milltown, so let's just find a place and try it out? Answer: The City has expressed a desire in its Strategic Plan, with the Chamber of Commerce listed as the lead entity, and in the PROS plan (Parks) to site and construct, or contract for, public restroom availability and maintenance in downtown Edmonds. This is being pursued to serve a need resulting, in large part, due to peak demands from a number of events and festivals which occur each year and contribute to the City’s ambience, appeal, and retail success. For year around, with service, one ADA and one non ADA, and considering the peak season service level, it would cost approximately $12,000 per year. I would suggest allocating this from the general fund park maintenance budget, not taking it out of the Capital budget. Packet Page 331 of 537 Question 4- CFP - Transportation Walnut and 9th - make it optional - small roundabout or signal. Personally, I think it works fine now with the "temp" marking. Answer: The transportation section of the CFP includes a project for intersection improvements at the intersection of 9th Ave and Walnut (Page 41 of the CFP). The project description calls for a new traffic signal possibly in years 2021-2026. Two projects were identified in previous CFP’s to address the level of service at this intersection. The first project added striping on 9th Ave to provide an additional lane of traffic to the northbound and southbound approaches to the intersection. This work was completed in 2012. The second and longer term solution may require a traffic signal. This project was placed in the out years beyond the 6-year plan for the Transportation Improvement Program. It is difficult to forecast when the intersection’s level of service will drop to a condition where a traffic signal will be warranted. The intersection’s level of service, along with other key intersections in Edmonds, will typically be evaluated every 6 years as part of future Transportation Plan Updates. At some point in the future, it may be determined that adding a traffic signal at the intersection is a priority to address a degrading or failing level of service. A mini-roundabout may be an option, but an engineering study should be completed to determine the cost/benefits of either solution. Question 5- CFP Traffic Calming - I believe we have changed that to 20K? If so, please change and I would prefer that we even make it higher if we can as there was yet another pedestrian accident. Staff recommends the City Council amend the proposed budget to carry forward the $10,000 in traffic calming funds from 2014 to the 2015 budget. This action would result in $20,000 being available for traffic calming in 2015. Question 6- CIP Alternative Study - Can you just explain the rationale of the split and timing. Also, would we not include the train trench cost in this item now? Do we not have and old cut and cover analysis that was performed at the save our beach rally? I would also like to understand the "regionalism" aspect of this as we talked about this last year. If we decided to do a specific method, exclusive of "an alternative" report, will we still be a player in the transportation funding coming from the State and PSRC? I really would like us to discuss this in detail as I am a bit concerned that certain citizens think that we threw $10K away by having the Tetra Tech study. Like Sunset, this is a contentious issue and I have been constantly ask to attend meetings to hear much of the same information. Answer: The Alternatives Analysis in Fund 112 on page 8 of the CIP is programmed for $1M in years 2019 and 2020. The years 2019 and 2020 were chosen because the City’s practice is to keep the first 3 years of both documents financially constrained. Only projects that have secured funding or are reasonably Packet Page 332 of 537 expected to secure funding are programmed in the first three years. For this reason, staff moved the analysis to years 2019 and 2020. It does not seem appropriate at this time to include the preliminary conceptual cost estimate for the train trench, since an alternatives analysis will determine the priority, scope and preliminary cost of project(s) to address the waterfront/railroad access issues. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO: Question 1- Please find below a partial list of inconsistencies between the CIP and 2015 budget: Fund 116 Anderson Center Accessibility, Revised budget 0, CIP $50,000 Fund 116 City Hall Security, Revised budget $20,000, CIP $25,000 Fund 116 Meadowdale Roof Replacement, Revised budget 20,000, CIP 0 Fund 116 Grandstand Repairs, Revised Budget 0, CIP $35,000 Assuming we allow the documents to proceed with inconsistencies, which controls? Answer: The 116 Fund draft budget originally anticipated that Decision Packages for several items would be approved. Based on our current revenue and expense forecasts for 2015 it was not possible to recommend approval of these items in 2015. As a result the 116 Fund CIP has been revised (see attached) to make it consistent with the 2015 recommended budget. This was done by 1) moving the FAC Accessibility analysis and the Grandstand repairs to 2016 in the CIP; 2) revising the amount listed in the 2015 CIP for City Hall security system upgrades from $25,000 down to $20,000, and adding the Meadowdale roof replacement at $20,000 to the 2015 CIP. In addition to these items that were mentioned in Councilmember Petso’s e-mail the $300,000 listed in the 2015 CIP was moved to 2016. If there is a discrepancy between the CIP and the 2015 budget, then the 2015 Budget controls since it represents the funding that has been programmed for 2015. Packet Page 333 of 537 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TOADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2015; ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, on or before the first business day in the third month prior to the beginning of the fiscal year of 2015, the Finance Director submitted to the Mayor the estimates of revenues and expenditures for the next fiscal year as required by law; and, WHEREAS, the Mayor reviewed the estimates and made such revisions and/or additions as deemed advisable and prior to sixty days before January 1, 2015, filed the said revised preliminary budget with the City Clerk together with a budget message, as recommendation for the final budget;, and WHEREAS, the City Clerk provided sufficient copies of such preliminary budget and budget message to meet the reasonable demands of taxpayers therefore and published and posted notice of filing and the availability of said preliminary budget together with the date of a public hearing for the purpose of fixing a final budget, all as required by the law;, and WHEREAS, the City Council scheduled hearings on the preliminary budget for the purpose of providing information regarding estimates and programs;, and WHEREAS, the City Council did meet on November 3, 2014 which was on or before the first Monday of the month next preceding the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year, for Packet Page 334 of 537 the purpose of fixing a final budget at which hearing all taxpayers were heard who appeared for or against any part of said budget;, and WHEREAS, following the conclusion of said hearing the City Council made such adoptions and changes as it deemed necessary and proper;, WHEREAS, on September 23, 2014, City Council reviewed the proposed 2015- 2020 Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, the Capital Facilities Plan was presented and a Public Hearing was held before the Planning Board on September 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2014, the proposed 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program were presented to the Council for review and discussion; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2014, a Public Hearing on the Capital Facilities Plan Element Update for 2015-2020 to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program was held; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2014, City Council discussed the Capital Facilities Plan Element Update for 2015-2020 to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, on November 25, 2014, City Council discussed the Capital Facilities Plan Element Update for 2015-2020 to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council expressly finds that, consistent with RCW 36.70A.130, the adoption of these amendments to the Capital Facilities Plan concurrently with the adoption of the City’s 2015 budget meets one of the permissible exceptions to the general Packet Page 335 of 537 rule requiring concurrent review of all amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, NOW, THEREFORE; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Attached hereto and identified as Exhibit A, in summary form, are the totals of estimated revenues and appropriations for each separate fund and the aggregate totals for all such funds combined, and by this reference said Exhibit A is incorporated herein as if set forth in full and the same is hereby adopted in full. The Finance Director is authorized to update year-end fund balances in the final budget document as projected prior to printing the final budget document. Section 2. A complete copy of the final budget for 2015, as adopted, together with a copy of this adopting ordinance shall be transmitted by the City Clerk to the Division of Municipal Corporations of the Office of the State Auditor and to the Association of Washington Cities. Section 3. The Capital Facilities Plan element of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 43. This ordinance is a legislative act delegated by statute to the City Council of the City of Edmonds, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect January 1, five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title2015. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Underline Packet Page 336 of 537 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY ___ CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 337 of 537 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2014, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2015; ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________,2014. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 338 of 537 EXHIBIT "A" 2015 BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND Fund No.Fund Description Revenue Expenditure Difference (Rev - Exp) * 001 General Fund 36,426,741$ 38,703,143$ (2,276,402)$ 009 LEOFF Medical Insurance Reserve Subfund 276,200$ 361,825$ (85,625)$ 011 Risk Management Reserve Subfund 1,180$ -$ 1,180$ 012 Contingency Reserve Subfund 19,800$ 800,000$ (780,200)$ 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 7,500$ 7,900$ (400)$ 016 Building Maintenance Subfund 356,600$ 380,000$ (23,400)$ 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 43,000$ 81,033$ (38,033)$ 111 Street Fund 1,729,030$ 1,714,315$ 14,715$ 112 Street Construction Fund 7,458,211$ 7,395,107$ 63,104$ 117 Municipal Arts Acquisition Fund 78,859$ 134,275$ (55,416)$ 118 Memorial Tree Fund 61$ -$ 61$ 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 67,675$ 55,000$ 12,675$ 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 20,564$ 26,871$ (6,307)$ 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 1,240$ 3,000$ (1,760)$ 123 Tourism Promotional Arts Fund 22,900$ 21,500$ 1,400$ 125 REET 2 904,000$ 2,461,000$ (1,557,000)$ 126 Special Capital/Parks Acquisition 902,000$ 731,400$ 170,600$ 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 46,478$ 43,795$ 2,683$ 129 Special Projects Fund -$ -$ -$ 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Imp. Fund 164,500$ 158,325$ 6,175$ 132 Parks Construction Fund 4,998,765$ 5,162,900$ (164,135)$ 136 Parks Trust Fund 533$ -$ 533$ 137 Cemetery Maintenance Fund 11,970$ -$ 11,970$ 138 Sister City Commission Fund 10,212$ 10,400$ (188)$ 139 Transportation Benefit District Fund 650,000$ 650,000$ -$ 211 LID Control Fund 22,600$ 28,567$ (5,967)$ 213 LID Guaranty Fund 28,627$ -$ 28,627$ 231 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund 667,693$ 667,693$ -$ 232 2014 Debt Service Fund 925,310$ 925,310$ 421 Water Utility Fund 7,581,442$ 9,757,910$ (2,176,468)$ 422 Water Utility Fund 3,681,407$ 6,618,792$ (2,937,385)$ 423 Water Utility Fund 9,833,310$ 14,267,292$ (4,433,982)$ 424 Water Utility Fund 844,416$ 845,416$ (1,000)$ 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,502,567$ 1,672,461$ (169,894)$ 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 65,350$ 77,629$ (12,279)$ Totals 79,350,741$ 93,762,859$ (14,412,118)$ * Amount represents a contribution of (use of) fund balance Packet Page 339 of 537    AM-7324     11.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 Time:60 Minutes   Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Scott James Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Continued Discussion regarding the 2015 Proposed City Budget. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative Mayor Earling presented the Proposed 2015 Budget to City Council during their October 7th City Council meeting. On October 21, the following departments presented their 2015 budget requests to Council: 1. City Clerk; 2. Mayor's Office; 3. Human Resources; 4. Economic Development; 5. Finance & Information Services; 6. Nondepartmental (Presented by Finance); 7. Development Services; and 8, Parks, and 9. Municipal Court. On October 28th Council Meeting, the following departments will presented their 2015 budget requests to Council: 1. Police; 2. Public Works Utilities; 3. Public Works Roads; and 4. Public Works Administration, Facilities Maintenance, ER&R & Engineering. On November 3rd, Council held a Public Hearing on the Proposed 2015 Budget and received public comments. On November 10th 2015, Council continued discussing the Proposed 2015 Budget during their Study Session. On November 18th 2015 Public Comments were received on the Proposed 2015 and included brief Budget discussion. On November 25th 2015 Public Comments were received on the Proposed 2015 Budget and Council continued their discussion and suggested Amendments to the proposed budget. Subsequent Council Meetings on the Proposed 2015 Budget are scheduled as scheduled as follows: December 2nd 2015 is scheduled for continued discussion of the Proposed 2015 Budget and potential action on the Budget. Packet Page 340 of 537 action on the Budget. December 9th 2015 is scheduled for Adoption of the 2015 Budget. Attachments Attachment 1 - Draft Budget & CFP Ordinance Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 11/25/2014 02:34 PM City Clerk Linda Hynd 11/25/2014 03:20 PM Mayor Linda Hynd 11/26/2014 09:54 AM Finance Scott James 11/26/2014 09:59 AM City Clerk Linda Hynd 11/26/2014 10:02 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/04/2014 10:07 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/04/2014 10:13 AM Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 11/25/2014 02:26 PM Final Approval Date: 12/04/2014  Packet Page 341 of 537 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TOADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2015; ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, on or before the first business day in the third month prior to the beginning of the fiscal year of 2015, the Finance Director submitted to the Mayor the estimates of revenues and expenditures for the next fiscal year as required by law; and, WHEREAS, the Mayor reviewed the estimates and made such revisions and/or additions as deemed advisable and prior to sixty days before January 1, 2015, filed the said revised preliminary budget with the City Clerk together with a budget message, as recommendation for the final budget;, and WHEREAS, the City Clerk provided sufficient copies of such preliminary budget and budget message to meet the reasonable demands of taxpayers therefore and published and posted notice of filing and the availability of said preliminary budget together with the date of a public hearing for the purpose of fixing a final budget, all as required by the law;, and WHEREAS, the City Council scheduled hearings on the preliminary budget for the purpose of providing information regarding estimates and programs;, and WHEREAS, the City Council did meet on November 3, 2014 which was on or before the first Monday of the month next preceding the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year, for Packet Page 342 of 537 the purpose of fixing a final budget at which hearing all taxpayers were heard who appeared for or against any part of said budget;, and WHEREAS, following the conclusion of said hearing the City Council made such adoptions and changes as it deemed necessary and proper;, WHEREAS, on September 23, 2014, City Council reviewed the proposed 2015- 2020 Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, the Capital Facilities Plan was presented and a Public Hearing was held before the Planning Board on September 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2014, the proposed 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program were presented to the Council for review and discussion; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2014, a Public Hearing on the Capital Facilities Plan Element Update for 2015-2020 to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program was held; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2014, City Council discussed the Capital Facilities Plan Element Update for 2015-2020 to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, on November 25, 2014, City Council discussed the Capital Facilities Plan Element Update for 2015-2020 to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council expressly finds that, consistent with RCW 36.70A.130, the adoption of these amendments to the Capital Facilities Plan concurrently with the adoption of the City’s 2015 budget meets one of the permissible exceptions to the general Packet Page 343 of 537 rule requiring concurrent review of all amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, NOW, THEREFORE; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Attached hereto and identified as Exhibit A, in summary form, are the totals of estimated revenues and appropriations for each separate fund and the aggregate totals for all such funds combined, and by this reference said Exhibit A is incorporated herein as if set forth in full and the same is hereby adopted in full. The Finance Director is authorized to update year-end fund balances in the final budget document as projected prior to printing the final budget document. Section 2. A complete copy of the final budget for 2015, as adopted, together with a copy of this adopting ordinance shall be transmitted by the City Clerk to the Division of Municipal Corporations of the Office of the State Auditor and to the Association of Washington Cities. Section 3. The Capital Facilities Plan element of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 43. This ordinance is a legislative act delegated by statute to the City Council of the City of Edmonds, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect January 1, five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title2015. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Underline Packet Page 344 of 537 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY ___ CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 345 of 537 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2014, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2015; ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________,2014. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 346 of 537 EXHIBIT "A" 2015 BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND Fund No.Fund Description Revenue Expenditure Difference (Rev - Exp) * 001 General Fund 36,426,741$ 38,703,143$ (2,276,402)$ 009 LEOFF Medical Insurance Reserve Subfund 276,200$ 361,825$ (85,625)$ 011 Risk Management Reserve Subfund 1,180$ -$ 1,180$ 012 Contingency Reserve Subfund 19,800$ 800,000$ (780,200)$ 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 7,500$ 7,900$ (400)$ 016 Building Maintenance Subfund 356,600$ 380,000$ (23,400)$ 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 43,000$ 81,033$ (38,033)$ 111 Street Fund 1,729,030$ 1,714,315$ 14,715$ 112 Street Construction Fund 7,458,211$ 7,395,107$ 63,104$ 117 Municipal Arts Acquisition Fund 78,859$ 134,275$ (55,416)$ 118 Memorial Tree Fund 61$ -$ 61$ 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 67,675$ 55,000$ 12,675$ 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 20,564$ 26,871$ (6,307)$ 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 1,240$ 3,000$ (1,760)$ 123 Tourism Promotional Arts Fund 22,900$ 21,500$ 1,400$ 125 REET 2 904,000$ 2,461,000$ (1,557,000)$ 126 Special Capital/Parks Acquisition 902,000$ 731,400$ 170,600$ 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 46,478$ 43,795$ 2,683$ 129 Special Projects Fund -$ -$ -$ 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Imp. Fund 164,500$ 158,325$ 6,175$ 132 Parks Construction Fund 4,998,765$ 5,162,900$ (164,135)$ 136 Parks Trust Fund 533$ -$ 533$ 137 Cemetery Maintenance Fund 11,970$ -$ 11,970$ 138 Sister City Commission Fund 10,212$ 10,400$ (188)$ 139 Transportation Benefit District Fund 650,000$ 650,000$ -$ 211 LID Control Fund 22,600$ 28,567$ (5,967)$ 213 LID Guaranty Fund 28,627$ -$ 28,627$ 231 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund 667,693$ 667,693$ -$ 232 2014 Debt Service Fund 925,310$ 925,310$ 421 Water Utility Fund 7,581,442$ 9,757,910$ (2,176,468)$ 422 Water Utility Fund 3,681,407$ 6,618,792$ (2,937,385)$ 423 Water Utility Fund 9,833,310$ 14,267,292$ (4,433,982)$ 424 Water Utility Fund 844,416$ 845,416$ (1,000)$ 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,502,567$ 1,672,461$ (169,894)$ 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 65,350$ 77,629$ (12,279)$ Totals 79,350,741$ 93,762,859$ (14,412,118)$ * Amount represents a contribution of (use of) fund balance Packet Page 347 of 537    AM-7340     12.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Action  Information Subject Title Public Defender Services Discussion Recommendation Recommendation: 1. Council discuss new public defender requirements, recent court action, and best path forward.  2. Authorize Mayor to sign new contract with Feldman and Lee, P.S. for 2015 for public defense services. This can be brought forward on consent next week. 3. Adopt a budget amendment for 2014 in the amount of $66,000 to cover the contract amount that was amended by Council on April 1, 2014 for public defense services. This can be brought forward as part of the budget amendment process. 4. Add allocation to the 2015 budget for the Public Defender in the amount of $70,000 ( for a total of $240,000). 5. Add allocation to the 2015 budget for a Public Defense contract supervisor in the amount of $25,000.  Previous Council Action Council authorized the Mayor to enter into a contract extension with Feldman and Lee, P.S. on March 18, 2014. Narrative On January 1, 2015, the misdemeanor caseload limits for public defense attorneys adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court in the new Standards for Indigent Defense take effect. The court had in 2013 delayed the implementation of the caseload limits until that date, to provide time for the Washington State Office of Public Defense (OPD) to conduct a statewide attorney time study and to develop a model misdemeanor case weighting policy that is consistent with the indigent defense standards adopted by the court. Washington State Supreme Court Order No. 25700-A-1016, 04/08/2013. In compliance with the state Supreme Court’s order, the OPD conducted the time study and has developed a Model Misdemeanor Case Weighting Policy. Under the caseload limits in Standard 3.4, full-time public defenders should not have caseloads exceeding 300 or 400 misdemeanor cases per year, depending on whether the jurisdiction has developed a “numerical case weighting” system, described in Standard 3.6. In jurisdictions adopting a numerical case weighting system, the caseload limit is 300 cases.  Recent Court Ruling Packet Page 348 of 537 In addition to these new standards, a federal district court judge ruled on December 4th, 2013 that the public defense systems provided by the cities of Burlington and Mount Vernon violated the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective assistance of legal counsel to indigent persons charged with crimes.  The court found that the provision of public defense services prior to 2012 by the two cities “was marked by an almost complete absence of opportunities for the accused to confer with appointed counsel in a confidential setting,” with most interactions between counsel and their indigent clients occurring in the courtroom. The court determined that the appointment of counsel was, for the most part, little more than a formality, a stepping stone on the way to a case closure or plea bargain having almost nothing to do with the individual indigent defendant. The court deemed this situation to be “the natural, foreseeable, and expected result of the caseloads the attorneys handled.” The cities contracted with a different law firm in April 2012 and the per attorney caseload was reduced, but not to the court’s satisfaction. The court determined that the new public defense firm “continues to handle caseloads far in excess of the per attorney limits set forth in the [Washington] Supreme Court’s guidelines.” Ultimately, Judge Lasnik concluded: The public defense system in Mount Vernon and Burlington has systemic flaws that deprive indigent criminal defendants of their Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. Although counsel are appointed in a timely manner, the sheer number of cases has compelled the public defenders to adopt case management practices that result in most defendants going to court for the first time – and sometimes accepting a plea bargain – never having had the opportunity to meet with their attorneys in a confidential setting. The court’s remedy was to issue a “continuing injunction” against the cities that, among other things, required the cities to hire a “Public Defense Supervisor” to supervise and evaluate the cities’ provision of public defense services and to ensure that indigent clients are provided certain specific services and receive adequate representation. The court did not impose numerical caseload limits. While cognizant of the cities’ “interests in controlling the manner in which they perform their core functions, including the provision of services and the allocation of scarce resources,” Judge Lasnik noted that they were nevertheless obligated to comply with the dictates of the Sixth Amendment. Other cities in the state that operate municipal courts – and the states’ counties – will, of course, need to take heed of this court decision. Most of the cities ( and counties) have either hired Public Defense supervisors, or are in the process of having this discussion. Discussion and Recommendations Mayor and staff are recommending the following action items: 1. In order to provide indigent defense services for 2015, it is recommended that the City extend the contract with Feldman and Lee, P.S. for either 6 months or a year at the same cost amount ( $20,000 per month). Feldman is interested in a one year extension. The City believes we can complete an RFP process for competition and award a bid within the first six months. The Council can either opt to enter into a one year contract extension, or direct staff to try to negotiate a six month contract extension.  2. Retain the service of Eileen Farley, (attorney that worked with Burlington and Mt Vernon to resolve their compliance issues) for a limited scope of work. Staff are recommending that Ms. Farley draft an RFP for Public Defense Services, and review and recommend supervisory service level for our public defense services. This is a limited scope of work, costing $5400 and can be signed by the HR reporting Packet Page 349 of 537 director, and can be assumed in the 2014 adopted budget.  3. As Council may recall, the City amended the contract with Feldman and Lee, P.S. for April – December 2014. This increased the contractual amount to $20,000 month. No subsequent budget amendment was adopted. Therefore, it is recommended that Council adopt a budget amendment for $66,000 for 2014. 4. Currently, the 2015 budget has $170,000 allocated for public defense services. The amount to be contracted with Feldman and Lee, P.S. will be $240,000. This will need to be considered in the 2015 budget. If Council is interested in a 6 month contract, and we are successful in negotiating a six month contract, there is a chance this amount can be reduced through the RFP process.  5. Based on the recent changes, and the court ruling, many cities are hiring Public Defense Supervisor’s to oversee their public defense services. It is highly recommended the City secure a contract supervisor to ensure compliance. Staff recommend the City Council allocate $25,000 to secure this service for 2015. This is a placeholder, until Eileen Farley can review and assess our public defense services and make a recommendation.  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/04/2014 09:11 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/04/2014 10:10 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/04/2014 10:13 AM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 12/04/2014 09:05 AM Final Approval Date: 12/04/2014  Packet Page 350 of 537    AM-7338     13.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Action  Information Subject Title Senior Center Lease Discussion Recommendation Council review and discuss option to lease and ground lease proposed by Senior Center. Give staff direction on key items listed below. Previous Council Action City Council Passed Resolution 1313 on March 18, 2014 supporting rebuilding of the Edmonds Senior Center at its current location. City Council unanimously approved having staff negotiate a lease with the Senior Center on October 21, 2014. Narrative The Senior Center brought forth a proposed lease option agreement and ground lease for construction of a new facility. These documents have been reviewed by the Parks Director, Public Works and the City Attorney. The purpose of this discussion is to share these documents with City Council, and have City Council provide direction on some of the lease terms.  1. Does the city want to lease the property for essentially no money? While it may be able to do this legally (if one considers seniors to be “infirm”), other city’s charge real rent to their senior centers (Mountlake Terrace, for example).  There is built in language to allow the City to use the facility, but this is not defined. What is the interest of the City to use the facility, and can this be used a leverage for a zero sum lease? 2. This ground lease allows the senior center to tie up the property for 55 years (60 years if one counts the option term). As a practical matter, assuming that the new structure built there will have a useful life of longer than 55 years, the property wouldn’t likely be put to another use until the useful life of the new structure has expired. In light of the contemplated new construction and the associated long term of lease, the City should carefully evaluate whether there are any other better uses that could be made of that property over the next at least 55 years. Packet Page 351 of 537 o Is this the optimal location for the senior center? Because a brand new building is being contemplated, it could theoretically be built anywhere. Consideration should be given to whether this is the best location in the city for this use from the city’s perspective. o Development at another location could give the city a basis to acquire/condemn property that we do not own today if we determine that the ideal location for the senior center is on property that we do not currently control. o Development at another location could allow for an easier transition and less down time. o If new building will occupy the same footprint as the old building, where will the senior center operate during construction? 3. Assuming that we determine that this is the ideal property for the new senior center to be located, additional consideration should be given to the site layout. Does the city have site design goals that should be specified in the ground lease? Our land use regulatory power may not be sufficient to get the site designed the way that we want the site designed. For example, if we have competing park needs on that property, the city should not rely on the land use permitting process to address those needs. Rather, any competing needs for the property (e.g. any shared uses, locations of open space, etc., should be negotiated in the ground lease OR the city should have legislative discretion to approve or reject the proposed site plan once one is prepared). Some goals to consider would be the location as it relates to the adjacent buildings, park development, water walkway development, bulkhead and shoreline development. 4. Does the City want to take on the responsibility of the parking lot study, design, construction? This could be a significant cost, and would require the City to work in coordination/timing with the construction of the senior center.  5. Should the city require a performance bond or similar security? Otherwise, what remedy would the city have if the senior center started construction on the building but could not complete it for some reason? 6. Are there any other concerns the Council has given this proposed lease option and ground lease? Attachments Sr Ctr draft Option to Lease Sr Ctr Draft Ground Lease Sr Ctr Overview of Ground Lease Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/04/2014 09:05 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/04/2014 10:10 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/04/2014 10:13 AM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 12/04/2014 09:02 AM Final Approval Date: 12/04/2014  Packet Page 352 of 537 OPTION TO LEASE THIS OPTION TO LEASE (this “Option”) is made and entered into as of this _____ day of _________________, 2014, by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, ( the "City"), and the EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, (the "Optionee"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Optionee desires to obtain an Option To Lease certain real property from the City, which is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto (the “Property”), and which lease terms and conditions are specified in the Ground Lease attached hereto as Exhibit B the “Ground Lease”); and WHEREAS, Optionee and the City currently have a lease for the Property whereby the Optionee leases the Property and an existing building for a remaining term until 2020 together with two five-year extension periods (the “Current Lease”). WHEREAS, the Current Lease would be superseded by the Ground Lease which is the subject of the Option. WHEREAS, the City is willing to enter into an Option To Lease the Property to Optionee for development and operation of a Senior Center and related uses. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the performance and observance of the terms, covenants and conditions hereafter set forth, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. GRANT OF OPTION: Subject to the conditions set forth in this Option, the City hereby grants to Optionee an Option To Lease the Property (“Option”) for the Term (as defined in Section 2 below) and in accordance with the covenants and conditions set forth in the Ground Lease. 2. OPTION TERM: Unless otherwise extended by written agreement of the parties, the term (“Term”) of this Option shall commence on _________________, 2014 (“Commencement Date”) and shall expire at 5:00 p.m. on June 30, 2019; provided, however, Optionee, in its sole and absolute discretion, may extend the dates for completion of the conditions in Section 5 below and elsewhere herein and the Term of this Agreement by up to Eighteen (18) Months, if Optionee has made substantial progress in its fundraising goals as specified in Section 5 below. Optionee may exercise its right to extend this Option following (i) written request from Optionee to the City requesting such extension(s); and (ii) Optionee documenting in writing that it has made substantial progress in its fundraising goals and stating the reasons for such extension(s). Notwithstanding any other provision of this Option, Optionee’s right to exercise the Option and execute the Lease will terminate and be of no further force and effect if the conditions set forth in this Option are not timely satisfied, and the Option is not exercised, before the expiration of the Term. Packet Page 353 of 537 3. OPTIONEE’S PROJECT: Optionee’s development is a non-profit community resource center serving the needs of the local senior citizen population, including, without limitation, operation of a thrift store and café along with programs serving poor, infirm and otherwise vulnerable seniors. The Optionee may, from time to time, utilize portions of the property for revenue generating events, including, but not limited to, weddings, dances, class reunions, holiday activities and similar types of festivities. 4. OPTION AGREEMENT CONSIDERATION: Optionee shall pay to the City the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) as consideration for this Option To Lease (the “Option consideration”). The Option consideration shall be paid to the City at the time Optionee executes and delivers the Option To Lease. 5. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT: Optionee will have no right to exercise the Option unless and until the conditions set forth below in this Section 5 have been satisfied. 5.1 Optionee Fundraising Thresholds: Optionee shall meet the following fundraising threshold through private donations, grants or other sources: 5.1.1 ___________________________________________________ 5.1.2 _____________________________________________________ 6. EXERCISE OF OPTION: If, at any time before the expiration of the Term or earlier termination of this Option, all of the conditions precedent to the exercise of the Option set forth in this Option have been satisfied by the dates specified herein, the City shall prepare the Ground Lease negotiated and approved under the terms of this Option for execution, which preparation shall include, but is not limited to, inserting the Commencement Date, Termination Date, among other final details. Optionee may exercise the Option by delivering to the City written notice of its election to do so, accompanied by properly executed copies of the Lease in duplicate, including the Lease Guaranty. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease Option as of the date and the year first above written. CITY OF EDMONDS By: Printed Name: EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a non-profit corporation By: Printed Name: Printed Title: Packet Page 354 of 537 Approved as to form: CITY ATTORNEY By: Printed Name: Attest: CITY OF EDMONDS CITY CLERK By:___________________________________ Printed Name:__________________________ Packet Page 355 of 537 GROUND LEASE THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER Packet Page 356 of 537 TABLE OF CONTENTS Packet Page 357 of 537 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A Property Description EXHIBIT B Packet Page 358 of 537 GROUND LEASE CITY OF EDMONDS/EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER THIS GROUND LEASE (this “Lease”), effective the ___ day of __________, 201__ (“Effective Date”) is between THE CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (the “City”) and THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of Washington (the “Senior Center”). WHEREAS, the City and the Senior Center entered into a Lease dated December 1, 2008, the Term of which was scheduled to expire in 2020 unless extended by one or both of the two five-year extensions in that Lease (the 2008 Lease). WHEREAS, the 2008 Lease encompasses the same real property as this Lease and the parties intend that this Lease supersede the 2008 Lease. The parties, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and intending to be legally bound by the terms and conditions of this Lease, agree as follows: SECTION 1. AGREEMENT TO LEASE PROPERTY 1.1 Agreement to Lease and Description of Property. The City hereby leases to the Senior Center and the Senior Center leases from the City that certain real property described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto together with all improvements located thereon or to be located thereon (the “Property”). The Property consists of 2.63 acres. As used in this Lease, the term “Improvements” shall mean all buildings, driveways, sidewalks, infrastructure improvements, utilities, paved or unpaved parking areas (collectively “Parking Lot”), landscaping and any other enhancements located on the Property or to be located on the Property during the term of this Lease and made to the Property by the Senior Center. 1.2 Use of the Property. 1.2.1 Allowed Uses of the Property by the Senior Center. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Senior Center shall use the Property for the purpose of operating a non- profit community resource center serving the needs of the local population, in particular, poor, infirm and otherwise vulnerable seniors and other members of the community. 1.2.1.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Senior Center may from time to time utilize portions of the Property for revenue-generating activities including, but not limited to, rentals, events and the operation of a thrift store and cafe, provided that all revenues generated therefrom are utilized by the Senior Center exclusively for the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.1, above. Packet Page 359 of 537 1.2.2 Allowed Uses of the Property by the City. The City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department shall be given access to the building so they may offer programs that help them meet their mission of providing services that ensure a healthy, active, quality of life for citizens of the community. These programs will be scheduled in such a way that they do not interfere with Senior Center programs and fund raising activities. SECTION 2. TERM 2.1 Initial Term. The term of this Lease (“Lease Term”) shall extend for a period of Forty (40) years commencing on ______, 201_, and terminating on _______, 20__, subject to the right of the Senior Center to extend the Lease Term as provided herein. 2.2 Extension Term. The Lease Term may be extended by the Senior Center for an additional period of Fifteen (15) years 2.2.1 Conditions of Extension. In order for the Senior Center to extend the Lease Term, it shall (i) not be in material default at the time of providing Notice of its Lease Extension and thereafter; (ii) it shall provide written Notice of its Lease Extension at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the Termination of the Lease Term. 2.2.2 Process for Extension. No sooner than three hundred sixty-five (365) days and no later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the Lease Term, Senior Center shall provide written notice of its intention to exercise the Extension Term. The City and Senior Center shall meet no later than six (6) months prior to the expiration of the Lease Term to confirm the Extension Term, discuss any matters pertaining thereto and sign a Lease Addendum incorporating the Extension Term and any mutually acceptable matters pertaining to the Extension Term. SECTION 3. RENT 3.1 Rent. In consideration for the use of the Property as specified in this Lease, the Senior Center shall pay to the City a total payment of Ten Dollars ($10.00) per year, and such sum shall be paid within ten (10) days from the date of execution of this Lease and within ten (10) days following January 1st of each calendar year of each year during the Term of this Lease. The parties mutually agree and acknowledge that the Senior Center’s operation of the Senior Center upon the Property effectuates a fundamental government purpose and public benefit such as to obviate the necessity of additional rental payment compensation. SECTION 4. SENIOR CENTER’S OTHER OBLIGATIONS 4.1 Construction of Improvements. 4.1.1 City Approval and Ownership. Senior Center shall undertake no demolition, construction, alteration, or changes ("Work") on or to the Property without the prior written consent of the City which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any deviation from approved plans which would be visible from the outside of the structure must be pre- approved, in writing, by the City. Interior modifications not visible from outside of the structure Packet Page 360 of 537 need not be approved. Improvements made by Senior Center during the term of this Lease shall be considered Senior Center's until the date this Lease is terminated. Upon termination of the Lease Term, together with Extension, if applicable, all Improvements located on the Property shall become the property of the City, excepting trade fixtures which may be removed by Senior Center at its option. 4.1.2 Permits. Once preliminary approval has been given by the City, no Work may commence until Senior Center obtains and delivers to the City copies of all necessary governmental permits. Senior Center must also supply the City with a copy of any occupancy permit required and any certification required by the fire marshal, prior to Senior Center's occupancy of the Property. 4.1.3 Construction Schedule. Construction Work must be completed within two (2) years of the Commencement Date of this Lease. If construction is begun within one (1) year of the Commencement Date and diligently performed thereafter, the City will grant Senior Center a one (1) year extension to complete construction, if needed, so long as Senior Center notifies the City of its need for additional time at least thirty (30) days in advance. Failure to complete construction within the specified time shall be an event of Default under Section7.1 unless any delay in construction occurred as a result of failure by the City to allow Senior Center’s construction to commence in a timely manner in which case, the Senior Center shall be give a commensurate amount of time for completion of construction. All Work done on the Property at any time during the term of this Lease must be done in a good workman-like manner and in accordance with all applicable laws and all building permit requirements. All Work shall be done with reasonable dispatch. If requested by the City, within thirty (30) days after the completion of any Work, Senior Center shall deliver to the City complete and fully detailed as- built drawings of the completed Work, in both electronic and paper forms, prepared by an architect licensed by the State of Washington. All landscaping shall be designed by a landscape architect licensed in the State of Washington. 4.2 Maintenance. At all times during the Lease Term and any Extension Term, Senior Center shall reasonably keep and maintain the Senior Center Improvements located on the Property in good repair and operating condition and shall make all necessary and appropriate preventive maintenance, repairs, and replacements. On each fifth anniversary of this Lease (meaning every five years), the City and Senior Center shall conduct a thorough inspection of the Senior Center Improvements on the Property and City shall inform Senior Center of any needed repairs, maintenance or clean-up to be done in order to maintain the quality of any Senior Center Improvements to the Property, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Such repairs, maintenance and clean-up shall be done with reasonable dispatch. Prior to entering into any Extension Term of this Lease such an inspection will also be required and all reasonable repairs and maintenance needed to be done must be done to the Improvements before an Extension Term of the Lease commences. 4.3 No Liens. Senior Center agrees to pay, when due, all sums for labor, services, materials, supplies, utilities, furnishings, machinery, or equipment which have been provided to the Property. If any lien is filed against the Work which Senior Center wishes to protest, then Senior Center shall immediately deposit cash with the City, or procure a bond acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of removing the lien from the Work. Failure to Packet Page 361 of 537 remove the lien or furnish the cash or bond acceptable to the City within thirty (30) days shall constitute an Event of Default under this Lease and the City shall automatically have the right, but not the obligation, to pay the lien in full with no notice to Senior Center and Senior Center shall immediately reimburse the City for any sums so paid to remove any such lien. Senior Center shall not encumber the Property or any Improvements thereon without prior written approval of the City. 4.4 Utilities and Services. Senior Center must make arrangements for all utilities and shall promptly pay all utility charges before they become delinquent. Senior Center is solely responsible for verifying the existence, location, capacity and availability of all utilities it may need for Senior Center's planned use of the Property. Senior Center shall be solely responsible for the cost of extending any existing utility lines into the Property; the Property, as made available to Senior Center by the City, shall include utility access for water, sewer, electrical power and telephone to the edge (back of curb) of the Property. Senior Center shall be solely responsible for meeting and securing all jurisdictional and zoning permits and for meeting all requirements necessary to achieve all of the above. 4.5 Signs. Any signs erected by Senior Center must comply with all local sign ordinances. Senior Center shall remove all signs and sign hardware upon termination of this Lease and restore the sign location(s) to its (their) former state(s), unless the City elects to retain all or any portion(s) of the signage. Signage requirements may reasonably change during the term and, to maintain uniformity and continuity, Senior Center will comply with such new requirements SECTION 5. CITY AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATIONS 5.1 Delivery of Property. Senior Center shall have the right to possession of the Property as of the Commencement Date. In the event the City shall permit Senior Center to occupy the Property prior to the Commencement Date, such occupancy shall be subject to all provisions of this Lease. Early or delayed possession shall not advance or defer the Expiration Date of this Lease. 5.2 Quiet Enjoyment. Subject to Senior Center performing all of Senior Center's obligations under this Lease and subject to the City's rights under this Lease and its rights of condemnation under Washington law, Senior Center's possession of the Property will otherwise not be disturbed by the City. This quiet enjoyment provision shall apply to Senior Center's sublessees, if any, who are in compliance with this Lease. The City agrees to gives this assurance directly, in writing, to a sublessee, if so requested. 5.3 Condition of Property. The City makes no warranties or representations regarding the condition of the Property, including, without limitation, the suitability of the Property for Senior Center's intended uses or, the availability of accessible utilities or roadways needed for Senior Center's intended purposes. Senior Center has inspected the Property, conducted its own feasibility and due diligence analysis, and, as of the date its environmental audit is completed and the report provided to Senior Center or Senior Center’s commencement of construction, whichever occurs first, Senior Center accepts the Property in "AS IS" condition, upon taking possession. Packet Page 362 of 537 5.4 City Design, Construction and Repair Obligations. 5.4.1 City Design. The City shall design a Parking Lot acceptable to the Senior Center and that meets the requirements for the Senior Center’s Building as well as the City’s Regional Park facilities. The parties anticipate that the Parking Lot will have one hundred (100) parking spaces but the final number shall be determined by a parking study undertaken by the City. The parking study shall specifically consider the needs of the Senior Center and the City’s Regional Park designation for the Property. The total number of parking spaces incorporated into the design for the Parking Lot shall accommodate as closely as possible the anticipated parking demands for the Senior Center Property and the City’s Regional Park activities. The Parking Lot design shall incorporate all aspects necessary for construction including, without limitation, storm drainage, and shall be completed in time for submittal with the Senior Center site development permits. 5.4.2 City Construction. The City shall pay the full cost of and construct the Parking Lot on the Property according to the design plans as provided to Senior Center in Section 5.4.1, above. As an alternative to the City constructing the Parking Lot, by mutual agreement, the City may pay the cost of constructing the Parking Lot to Senior Center and Senior Center’s contractor shall build the Parking Lot as part of Senior Center’s construction of its Building and related improvements. In the event the parties agree that Senior Center’s contractor will construct the Parking Lot and the City will pay that cost, the parties will implement such agreement in writing. The Parking Lot must be constructed contemporaneously with Senior Center’s Building so that it is complete when the Building and related improvements are complete. Except as specified herein, the City shall have no responsibility for the repair or maintenance of the Property or for construction of any roadways, utilities or any other improvements on or off of the Property. Should the City of its own accord undertake any repair or maintenance work on the Property itself, the City shall do so in a manner that does not interfere with Senior Center's use of the Property or create a constructive eviction or other eviction of the Senior Center. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City will be responsible to Senior Center for any actual damages caused by any City employee who performs work which damages Senior Center's property, so long as Senior Center was not in Default under this Lease at the time such damage occurred. Rent shall not be reduced during any such repair period. Any repair of damage caused by negligence or breach of this Lease by the Senior Center, its employees, agents, contractors or invitees, shall be the Senior Center's responsibility and shall be made at the Senior Center's sole expense. 5.4.3 City Maintenance and Repair of Parking Lot. The City shall be responsible for repair, maintenance and any capital improvements required for the Parking Lot. The City shall undertake regular inspections of the Parking Lot consistent for a property of that type and implement necessary and appropriate maintenance activities at reasonable intervals to keep the Parking Lot in good condition. When capital renovations are required to restore the Parking Lot to good condition during the Lease Term, the City shall undertake such capital improvements. Packet Page 363 of 537 5.4.4 City Maintenance of Regional Park Grounds. The Property is owned by the City and has been designated a regional park. The City shall maintain the regional park grounds, including landscaping, irrigation, general refuse removal (but not the garbage utility from the Senior Center facility). The City is not responsible for repair and/or maintenance of the Building; provided, however, as part of the City’s allowed use of the Building and/or portions of the Property, the City may be charged fees. SECTION 6. INDEMNITY, INSURANCE 6.1 General Indemnity. Upon the Commencement Date of this Lease, the Senior Center agrees to defend (using legal counsel reasonably acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold the City harmless from and against any and all actual or alleged claims, damages, expenses, costs, fees (including, but not limited to, attorney, accountant, paralegal, expert, and escrow fees), fines, and/or penalties, (collectively "Costs"), which may be imposed upon or claimed against the City, and which, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, arise from or are in any way connected with: Any act, omission or negligence of the Senior Center or its Sublessees; any use, occupation, management or control of the Property by the Senior Center; any condition created in, on or about the Property by Senior Center, an agent or sublessee, including any accident, injury or damage occurring in, on or about the Property after the Effective Date; any breach, violation, or nonperformance of any of Senior Center's obligations under this Lease by Senior Center or its Sublessees; any damage caused by Senior Center or its Sublessees on or to the Property. The Senior Center's obligations and liabilities hereunder shall commence on the Effective Date of this Lease, if earlier than the Commencement Date and if caused by the activities of the Senior Center or its agents or invitees on the Property. As used herein, the indemnification provided by the Senior Center is intended to include indemnification for the actions of the Senior Center and its employees and other agents and all of the Senior Center's Sublessees and all of their respective employees and other agents. The Senior Center's obligations to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City hereunder includes indemnification of the employees, agents and elected officials of the City. 6.2 Insurance Requirements. The insurance requirements set forth below do not in any way limit the amount or scope of liability of Senior Center under this Lease. The amounts listed indicate only the minimum amounts of insurance coverage the City is willing to accept to help insure full performance of all terms and conditions of this Lease. All insurance required by Senior Center under this Lease shall meet the following minimum requirements: 6.2.1 Certificates: Notice of Cancellation. On or before the Commencement Date, Senior Center shall provide the City with certificates of insurance establishing the existence of all insurance required under Section 6.3. Thereafter, the City must receive notice of the expiration or renewal of any policy at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration or cancellation of any insurance policy. No insurance policy may be canceled, revised, terminated or allowed to lapse without at least thirty (30) days prior written notice being given to the City. Insurance must be maintained without any lapse in coverage during the entire Lease Term and any Extension Term. Insurance shall not be canceled without City consent. The City shall also be given copies of Senior Center's policies of insurance, upon request. Packet Page 364 of 537 6.2.2 Additional Insured. The City shall be named as an additional insured in each required policy using ISO Additional Insured-Managers or Lessors of Premises Form CG 20 11 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage and, for purposes of damage to the Property, as a loss payee to the extent of its interest therein. Such insurance shall not be invalidated by any act, neglect or breach of contract by Senior Center and shall not in any way be construed by the carrier to make the City liable for payment of any of Senior Center's insurance premiums. 6.2.3 Primary Coverage. The required policies shall provide that the coverage is primary, and will not seek any contribution from any insurance or self-insurance carried by the City. 6.2.4 Company Ratings. All policies of insurance must be written by companies having an A.M. Best rating of "A" or better, or equivalent. The City may, upon thirty (30) days written notice to Senior Center, require Senior Center to change any carrier whose rating drops below an A rating. 6.3 Required Insurance. At all times during this Lease, Senior Center shall provide and maintain the following types of coverage: 6.3.1 General Liability Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain an occurrence form commercial general liability policy (including coverage for broad form contractual liability; and personal injury liability) for the protection of Senior Center and the City, insuring Senior Center and the City against liability for damages because of personal injury, bodily injury, death, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof, and occurring on or in any way related to the Property or occasioned by reason of the operations of Senior Center. Such coverage shall name the City as an additional insured. Coverage shall be in an amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage for all coverage specified herein. 6.3.2 Property Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain, in full force and effect during the Lease Term, "All Risk" property insurance covering all buildings, fixtures, equipment, and all other Improvements located on the Property. Coverage shall be in an amount equal to One Hundred Percent (100%) of the new replacement value thereof. Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured and loss payee as to its full interest in the insured property and shall include the insurer's waiver of subrogation in accordance with Section 6.5. 6.3.3 Automobile Liability Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain for all of Senior Center's employees who are present on the Property or are involved in the operations conducted on the Property an occurrence form automobile liability policy insuring Senior Center and the City against liability for damage because of bodily injury, death, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof, and occurring in any way related to the use, loading or unloading of Senior Center's owned, hired and non-owned vehicles on and around the Property. Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured. Coverage shall be in an amount of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence. Packet Page 365 of 537 6.3.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain in force Workers' Compensation insurance for all of Senior Center's employees who are present on the Property or are involved in the operations conducted on the Property, including coverage for Employer's Liability. In lieu of such insurance, Senior Center may maintain a self-insurance program meeting the requirements of the State of Washington and a policy of Excess Workers' Compensation with a limit of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident above the self-insured retention. Senior Center has indicated that none of its employees will be on the Property since Senior Center intends to hire a management company to oversee the Property. In that case, Senior Center shall be responsible to require that its management company provides workers' compensation insurance for its employees on the Property and Senior Center shall fully defend and indemnify the City against any workers' compensation claim. 6.3.5 Builder's Risk. Senior Center shall maintain, in full force and effect during construction of Senior Center’s facility described in this Lease, "Builder's-Risk" coverage including fire and extended property insurance coverage, to the extent of one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the Property. Coverage shall include: 1) formwork in place; 2) all materials and equipment on the Property; 3) all structures including temporary structures; and 4) all supplies related to the Work being performed. The insurance required hereunder shall have a deductible of not more than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000). 6.4 Waiver of Subrogation. The parties hereto waive any right of action that they and/or their insurance carriers might have against the other for loss or damage, to the extent that such loss or damage is covered by any All-Risk property insurance policy or policies and to the extent that proceeds (which proceeds are free and clear of any interest of third parties) are received by the party claiming the loss or damages. This waiver of subrogation shall not extend to any applicable' deductibles under such policy or policies. 6.6 Periodic Review. The City shall have the right to periodically review the limits and terms of insurance coverage. In the event the City determines that such limits, and/or terms should be changed, the City will give Senior Center a minimum of thirty (30) days’ notice of such determination and Senior Center shall modify its coverage to comply with the new insurance requirements of the City. The City agrees that it shall be reasonable in any coverage change required, and that such change will be in accordance with standard market requirements for senior center facilities or similar activity centers. Senior Center shall also provide the City with proof of such compliance by giving the City an updated certificate of insurance within thirty (30) days. SECTION 7. DEFAULT 7.1 Senior Center Default. 7.1.1 The occurrence of any one or more of the following shall constitute a material default and breach of this Lease by the Senior Center: 7.1.1.1 Vacating the Property. The vacating or abandonment of the Property by the Senior Center for more than thirty (30) days. Packet Page 366 of 537 7.1.1.2 Failure to Pay Rent. The failure by the Senior Center to make any payment of rent or any other payment required to be made by the Senior Center under this Lease, as and when due, where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof by the City to the Senior Center. 7.1.1.3 Unpermitted Use of the Property. The use of the Property for any purpose not authorized by Section 1.2.1 of this Lease where such unpermitted use of the Property shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof shall be grounds for default. 7.1.1.4 Failure to Perform. Failure by the Senior Center to observe or perform any of the covenants or provisions of this Lease to be observed or performed by the Senior Center, specifically including, without limitation, the Senior Center’s utilization of the Property for purposes materially inconsistent with those set forth in this Lease where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from the City to the Senior Center. Provided, that if the nature of the Senior Center’s default is such that more than thirty (30) days are reasonably required for its cure, then the Senior Center shall not be deemed to be in default if the Senior Center shall commence such cure within the thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligent prosecute such cure to completion. 7.1.2 Remedies in Default. In the event of any default or breach by the Senior Center under this Lease, in addition to any other remedies at law or in equity, the City may: 7.1.2.1 Terminate the Lease. Terminate the Senior Center’s right to possession of the Property by any lawful mean; 7.1.2.2 Continue the Lease. Maintain the Senior Center’s right to possession in which case the Lease shall continue in effect whether or not the Senior Center shall have abandoned the Lease Premises. In such event, the City shall be entitled to enforce all Landlord’s right and remedies under this Lease; and/or 7.1.2.3 Other remedies. Pursue any other remedy now or hereafter available to a Landlord under the laws of the State of Washington. The City expressly reserves the right to recover from the Senior Center any and all actual expenses, costs and damages caused in any manner by reason of the Senior Center’s default or breach. 7.1.3 Legal Expenses. If either party is required to bring or maintain any action (including insertion of any counterclaim or cross claim or claim in a proceeding in bankruptcy, receivership or other proceeding instituted by a party hereto or by others) or otherwise refers this Lease to any attorney for the enforcement of any of the covenants, terms or conditions of this Lease, the prevailing party in such action shall, in addition to all other payments required herein, receive from the other party all costs incurred by prevailing party, including reasonable attorney’s fees. 7.2 Default by the City. The City shall not be in default unless the City fails to perform obligations required of the City within a reasonable time, but in no event later than thirty (30) days after written notice by the Senior Center to the City. The notice shall specify wherein Packet Page 367 of 537 the City has failed to perform such obligations; provided, that the nature of the City’s obligation is such that more than thirty (30) days are required for performance then the City shall not be in default if the City commences performance within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes the same to completion. The Senior Center further agrees not to invoke any remedies until such thirty (30) days have elapsed. SECTION 8. REPRESENTATIONS 8.1 Representations of Senior Center. 8.1.1 Senior Center is a duly organized and legally existing corporation under the laws of the State of Washington. 8.1.2 Senior Center’s execution, delivery and performance of all of the terms and conditions of this Lease have been duly authorized by all requisite corporate action on the part of Senior Center. This Lease constitutes Senior Center’s legal, valid and binding obligations, enforceable against Senior Center in accordance with its terms subject to the effects of bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent conveyance or similar laws affecting creditor’s rights and to equitable principles. Execution of the Lease does not conflict with any provision of Senior Center’s Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws or other corporate documents. 8.1.3 There is no claim, action, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the actual knowledge of Senior Center, threatened in writing, nor is there any legal determination or injunction that calls into question Senior Center’s authority or right to enter into this Lease or perform the obligations specified in the Lease. 8.1.4 Senior Center has not employed any broker, finder, consultant or other intermediary in connection with the Lease who might be entitled to a fee or commission in connection with Senior Center and the City entering into the Lease. 8.2 Representations of the City. 8.2.1 The City is a municipal corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Washington, with full power and authority own and lease the Property. The City has the power to enter into and perform its obligations pursuant to this Lease. 8.2.2 The City’s execution, delivery and performance of this Lease have been duly authorized consistent with its requirements under Washington law. 8.2.3 There is no claim, action, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the actual knowledge of the City, threatened in writing, nor is there any outstanding judicial determination or injunction that calls into question the City’s authority or right to enter into this Lease. SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS Packet Page 368 of 537 9.1 No Partnership. It is understood and agreed that this Lease does not create a partnership or joint venture relationship between the City and Senior Center. The City assumes no liability hereunder or otherwise for the operation of the business of Senior Center. The provisions of this Lease with reference to rents are for the sole purpose of fixing and determining the total rents to be paid by Senior Center to the City. 9.2 Governing Law. This Lease shall be governed and construed according to the laws of the State of Washington, without regard to its choice of law provisions. Venue shall be in Snohomish County. 9.3 No Benefit to Third Parties. The City and Senior Center are the only parties to this Lease and as such are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Lease gives or shall be construed to give or provide any benefit, direct, indirect, or otherwise to third parties. Nothing in this Lease shall be construed as intending to create a special relationship with any third party; neither the City not the Senior Center intend to create benefits in favor of any third parties as a result of this Lease. 9.4 Notices. All notices required or desired to be given under this Lease shall be in writing and may be delivered by hand delivery, in certain cases sent by facsimile, or by placement in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, as certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the City at: The City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attn: Mayor and to Senior Center at: Edmonds Senior Center P.O. Box 717 Edmonds,, Washington 98020 Attn: Executive Director and to a Permitted Leasehold Mortgagee, if any, as described in Section ____. Any notice delivered by hand delivery shall be conclusively deemed received by the addressee upon actual delivery; any notice delivered by facsimile shall be conclusively deemed received by the addressee upon receipt of a confirmation of facsimile by the party sending the notice; any notice delivered by certified mail as set forth herein shall be conclusively deemed received by the addressee on the third Business Day after deposit. The addresses and facsimile numbers to which notices are to be delivered may be changed by giving notice of such change in accordance with this notice provision. Packet Page 369 of 537 9.5 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of and adherence to each and every covenant and condition of this Lease. 9.6 Non-waiver. Waiver by the City or Senior Center of strict performance of any provision of this Lease shall not be deemed a waiver of or prejudice the City's or Senior Center's right to require strict performance of the same provision in the future or of any other provision. 9.7 Survival. Any covenant or condition (including, but not limited to, indemnification agreements), set forth in this Lease, the full performance of which is not specifically required prior to the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, and any covenant or condition which by their terms are to survive, shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease and shall remain fully enforceable thereafter. 9.8 Partial Invalidity. If any provision of this Lease is held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each provision of this Lease shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 9.9 Calculation of Time. All periods of time referred to in this Lease shall include Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. However, if the last day of any period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the period shall be extended to include the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. "Legal Holiday" shall mean any holiday observed by the Federal Government. As used in this Lease, "Business Days" shall exclude Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays and the week between December 25 and January 1. 9.10 Headings. The article and section headings contained herein are for convenience in reference and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provisions of this Lease. 9.11 Exhibits Incorporated by Reference. All Exhibits attached to this Lease are incorporated by reference herein for all purposes. 9.12 Modification. This Lease may not be modified except by a writing signed by the parties hereto. 9.13 Engagement of Brokers. Senior Center and the City each represent to one another that if a broker’s commission is claimed, the party who engaged the broker shall pay any commission owed and shall defend, indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any such claim. 9.14 Right of Parties and Successors in Interest. The rights, liabilities and remedies provided for herein shall extend to the heirs, legal representatives, successors and, so far as the terms of this Lease permit, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The words "City" and "Senior Center" and their accompanying verbs or pronouns, wherever used in this Lease, shall apply equally to all persons, firms, or corporations which may be or become such parties hereto. Packet Page 370 of 537 9.15 Execution of Multiple Counterparts. This Lease may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one instrument. 9.16 Defined Terms. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings given them in the text of this Lease. 9.17 No Limit on City's Powers. Nothing in this Lease shall limit, in any way, the power and right of the City to exercise its governmental rights and powers, including its powers of eminent domain. 9.18 Non-Binding Mediation. Should any dispute arise between the parties to this Lease, other than a dispute regarding the failure to pay Rent or other payments (including taxes) as required by this Lease, it is agreed that such dispute will be submitted to a mediator prior to any arbitration or litigation. The parties shall exercise good faith efforts to agree on a mediator. The mediation fee shall be shared equally by the City and Senior Center. Mediation shall be non-binding and will be conducted in Edmonds, Washington. Both parties agree to exercise good faith efforts to resolve disputes covered by this section through this mediation process. If a party requests mediation and the other party fails to respond within ten (10) days, or if the parties fail to agree on a mediator within ten (10) days, a mediator shall be appointed by the presiding judge of the Snohomish County Superior Court upon the request of either party. The finding of the mediator shall only become binding upon the parties if both parties so agree and thereafter execute a settlement agreement based on the mediator's findings or recommendation. 9.19 This Lease Supersedes. This Lease shall replace and supersede the 2008 Lease. The parties hereby terminate the 2008 Lease in its entirety. 9.20 Recording. A Memorandum of this Lease may be recorded after execution by the parties. 9.21 Entire Agreement. This Lease represents the entire agreement between the City and Senior Center relating to Senior Center's leasing of the Property. It is understood and agreed by both parties that neither party nor an official or employee of a party has made any representations or promises with respect to this Lease or the making or entry into this Lease, except as expressly set forth in this Lease. No claim for liability or cause for termination shall be asserted by either party against the other for, and neither party shall be liable by reason of, any claimed breach of any representations or promises not expressly set forth in this Lease; all oral agreements with the parties are expressly waived by both parties. This Lease has been extensively negotiated between the parties. Therefore, no alleged ambiguity or other drafting issues of the terms of this Lease shall be construed, by nature of the drafting, against either party. Packet Page 371 of 537 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have subscribed their names hereto effective as of the day, month and year first written above. LESSEE: LESSOR: EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER. THE CITY OF EDMONDS By: Its: By: David Earling As Its Mayor APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: ATTEST: __________________________________ __________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Counsel for the City of Edmonds Packet Page 372 of 537 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I have evidence that David Earling is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor of the City of Edmonds, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: _________________________ ____________________________________ PRINTED NAME: ________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. My commission expires: _______________ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I have evidence that __________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the President of the Edmonds Senior Center, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: _________________________ ____________________________________ PRINTED NAME: ________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. My commission expires: _______________ Packet Page 373 of 537 Overview of Edmonds Senior Center’s proposed Ground Lease with the City of Edmonds Section 1: Agreement to Lease Property • Expands description of the property • Expands sub-section on use of the property by the Center, particularly related to allowable fund raising activities. Fund raising activities no longer require written consent from the city. • Adds sub-section defining City’s use of the property. Section 2: Term • Forty year term with fifteen year extension term; extension does not require city approval, however, the Center cannot be in material default at the time the lease is extended. • The current lease terminates December 31, 2020; it shall be automatically extended for two five year periods unless either party provides written notice of intent to terminate the lease two months prior to its expiration. Section 3: Rent • No change; $10.00 per year Section 4: Senior Center’s Other Obligations • This section describes in detail, the Center’s responsibilities for construction of improvements, maintenance of these improvements and other incidental items such as liens, utility and services, and signage. The key difference between this and the existing lease is ownership of improvements by the Center until the expiration of the lease. Section 5: City Authority and Obligations • The key provision is the City’s responsibility for the design, construction and maintenance of the parking lot and grounds. Section 6: Indemnity, Insurance • This is a new section, currently the Center’s insurance responsibilities to the City are spelled out in the Recreational Service Agreement. The major change is the Center’s responsibility for securing property insurance on the Center owned building. Section 7: Default • This section is greatly expanded in accordance with current legal practices; it is consistent with the current lease. Section 8: Representations • This is a new section consistent with current legal practices; it describes legal authority of Center and City to enter into an agreement. Section 9: General Provisions • This is a new section, it contains general “boilerplate” provisions consistent with current legal practices. Packet Page 374 of 537    AM-7306     14.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted For:Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Peterson, and Bloom Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Committee: Type: Information Information Subject Title Discussion regarding Code of Ethics Recommendation Previous Council Action 2012 Council Retreat: Council made this subject a priority for 2012 (minutes attached) April 10, 2012 Public Safety and Personal Committee :  This agenda items was discussed (minutes attached). 2013 Council Retreat:  This item was discussed (minutes attached). March 12, 2013 Public Safety and Personnel Committee:  This item was discussed (minutes attached). July 9, 2013 PS/P Committee:  This item was discussed (minutes attached). July 30, 2013 Council Meeting:  This item was put on the August 20, 2013 Council Agenda. See excerpt from July 30, 2013 minutes below: "DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS This item was moved to the August 20, 2013 Council meeting via action taken under Agenda Item 2." August 20, 2013 Council Meeting: Council President Petso suggested due to the late hour and remaining items on the agenda items that this item be postponed to a future meeting. August 27, 2013 Council Meeting: This item was discussed (minutes attached). September 9, 2014 PS/P Committee:  This item was discussed (minutes attached). Narrative Discussion regarding a Cope of Ethics has been ongoing since 2013.  A Code of Ethics document has been placed on this agenda for discussion. Attachments Packet Page 375 of 537 Attach 1: 2012 Council Retreat Minutes  Attach 2 April-10-12 Minutes Public Safety, Personnel Committee Attach 3 - Exerpt from 2012 FINAL Edmonds Personnel Policies Attach 4 - Ord 3689 Conflict of Interest Attach 5: Excerpt from 2013 Council Retreat Minutes Attach 6: Minutes 3/12/13 PS/P Committee Attach 7: Minutes 7/9/13 PS/P Committee  Attach 8 - 8/27/13 Council Minutes Attach - 9 - 09-09-14 Public Safety and Personnel Committee Attach 10 - Code of Ethics 11-21-14 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/04/2014 11:05 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/04/2014 12:27 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/04/2014 12:29 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 11/18/2014 03:33 PM Final Approval Date: 12/04/2014  Packet Page 376 of 537 Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 2-3, 2011 Page 17 before the Council is first a committee meeting or work session. Issues that have a financial impact will be discussed at a work session rather than just by the Finance Committee. It was the consensus of the Council to change the name of the Community Services/Development Services Committee to the Public Works, Parks and Planning Committees. • Mission Statements Committees will determine whether to develop a mission statement. Councilmembers Buckshnis and Yamamoto will develop a mission statement for the Finance Committee. • Clarify the Public Safety/Human Resources Committee It was the consensus of the Council to change the name of the Public Safety/Human Resources to Committee to the Public Safety and Personnel Committee. • Community Outreach, Tree Board Council President Peterson explained there has been a proposal to restart the Community Outreach Committee. Councilmember Plunkett recalled the Community Outreach Committee was discontinued after 3 years; no new methods of communicating were identified. Mayor Earling commented on the potential for an electronic newsletter. Discussion followed regarding whether to form a code rewrite committee so that the code rewrite is Council and citizen driven, technical expertise required for the code rewrite, having staff make periodic presentations at Council work sessions regarding the rewrite, the proposal by staff to restructure the code, providing opportunity for citizen comment but having professionals assemble the changes, citizen knowledge that could benefit the process, concern with citizens participating for their own benefit or at least that perception, proposal to have user groups test the model, ability for any citizen to identify code conflicts regardless of whether there is a committee structure, and asking staff whether forming a committee in the future could be helpful. The Council agreed to seek feedback from Planning Manager Rob Chave and Building Official Leonard Yarberry regarding forming a code rewrite committee and schedule further discussion on a work session agenda. Council President Peterson suggested enhancing the Council portion of the website with more updates, etc. and working with the Mayor on an electronic newsletter and then consider whether a Community Outreach Committee is needed. It was the consensus of the Council to add a Council liaison to the Tree Board and to make it a paid committee position. • Ethics Council President Peterson recalled there has been discussion about developing a code of ethics for Councilmembers. Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Bloom and Petso offered to serve on an ad hoc committee that would review other cities’ codes and present a draft to the Council. • Miscellaneous Mr. Taraday explained a special meeting notice must be issued for Tuesday committee meetings that begin at 6:00 p.m. If the Council wished to continue holding committee meetings at 6:00 p.m., he suggested revising the code to reflect that start time. Packet Page 377 of 537 1 PUBLIC SAFETY/PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES April 10, 2012 Committee members present: Council Member K. Michael Plunkett Council Member Joan Bloom Others present: HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie Citizen Don Hall Council Member Plunkett called the meeting to order at 7:19 pm. DISCUSSION ON CODE OF ETHICS (RELATING TO COUNCIL MEMBERS) Council Member Michael Plunkett opened the discussion by stating it was unclear as to what action/direction should be taken at this point with regard to this as Council had not given any specific direction regarding this topic although one or some council member(s) may have wanted to discuss this further. Council Member Joan Bloom stated that she had reviewed the City of Kirkland’s Code of Ethics and the Mountlake Terrace Code of Ethics and there were some concerns that she had with using a code of ethics similar to theirs. Council Member Bloom further stated that she was not aware that there was a code of ethics for Council Members. HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie affirmed this. Council Member Bloom stated that she would like to build a policy regarding a code of ethics and that this process needs to move forward. Council Member Plunkett stated that he was willing to discuss this topic since it was on the agenda, but that that he may not be interested in moving this forward [for Council consideration]. Ms. Hardie stated that she had discussed this HR Committee subject with Carrie Hite (Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director) prior to the meeting and that they both agreed that HR would likely not be the best (nor most appropriate) committee for this forum. Additionally, while HR had provided samples of codes of ethics from other cities it would seem that the City Attorney and/or the City Clerk’s Office [or Council] may be more appropriate for this process. Ms. Hardie also emphasized that HR was willing to continue to provide information as needed to the committee to assist with the process, but that this was not a [specific to] HR function since it did not pertain to employee related policies. There was some discussion that followed by the committee about what the process would be to create a code of ethics policy for Council members, creating a committee for this and whether or not the HR Committee was the appropriate committee for the discussion. Council Member Plunkett emphasized his concern about the subjectivity of some of the other policies from other cities and that [while the City may not have a specific code of ethics for Council Members] there are state laws that Council Members must follow. Council Member Bloom stated that she understood Council Member Plunkett’s concerns but that due to the expressed interest/concern from the citizens about the possible need for this policy, she felt it was important for: 1) The City of Edmonds to have this policy; 2) this information to be available to citizens (as well as being part of transparency of information and citizen participation); and 3) there to be continued work toward the creation of such a policy. Council Member Plunkett stated that he would like to make this information easier for citizens to access. Council Member Bloom stated that since there does not usually appear to be a large agenda for the HR Committee, that the work on this code of ethics policy could be done at this committee and that the Cities of Kirkland, Mountlake Terrace and another city may be reviewed for further policy consideration. Council Member Plunkett agreed that this could be kept on the HR Committee Meeting agenda and that further review of the policy will occur at the next meeting. Packet Page 378 of 537 2 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Citizen Don Hall stated that he agreed with Council Member Plunkett that some of the code of ethics policies from other cities that he had come across did appear to be too subjective. Citizen Hall further stated that he became more interested in this topic of discussion after it was discovered that Council Members were not considered to be employees of the City and are not held to the same City Personnel Policy standards although [perhaps] they should be. This process will likely require a lot of “hands on” work and will be a difficult process. The meeting adjourned at 7:44 pm Packet Page 379 of 537 53 CHAPTER X EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES AND CODE OF ETHICS 10.1 GENERAL CODE OF CONDUCT The City’s primary function is to provide service to the citizens of Edmonds. To achieve that goal, all employees are expected to treat the public as their most valued customer. All employees are expected to serve the public in a professional manner, which is courteous, efficient and helpful. Employees must maintain a clean and neat appearance appropriate to their work assignment, as determined by their position and department head. Since the proper working relationship between employees and the City depends on each employee's on-going job performance, professional conduct and behavior, the City has established certain minimum standards of personal and professional conduct. Among the City's expectations are: tact and courtesy towards the public and fellow employees; adherence to City policies, procedures, safety rules and safe work practices; compliance with directions from supervisors; preserving and protecting the City's equipment, grounds, facilities and resources; and providing orderly and cost efficient services to its citizens. In addition, all persons representing the City of Edmonds are expected to conduct business in the following manner: All persons, representing the City of Edmonds, shall conduct business in a professional manner, respecting all citizens’ rights, and showing courtesy to all. Their actions shall be conducted within compliance of the laws and regulations governing the City’s actions, including but not limited to RCW Title 42. City representatives are expected to conduct business in an open manner. They shall not engage in any conduct which would reflect unfavorably upon City government or any of the services it provides. They must avoid any action which might result in or create the impression of using their position for private gain, giving preferential treatment or privileged information to any person, or losing impartiality in conducting the City’s business. 10.2 OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Employees shall not, directly or indirectly, engage in any outside employment or financial interest which may conflict, in the City's opinion, with the best interests of the City or interfere with the employee's ability to perform his/her assigned City job. Examples include, but are not limited to, outside employment which: Packet Page 380 of 537 54 (1) prevents the employee from being available for work beyond normal working hours, such as emergencies or peak work periods, when such availability is a regular part of the employee's job; (2) is conducted during the employee's work hours; (3) utilizes City telephones, computers, supplies, credit, or any other resources, facilities or equipment; (4) is employed with a firm which has contracts with or does business with the City; or (5) may reasonably be perceived by members of the public as a conflict of interest or otherwise discredits public service. 10.3 REPORTING IMPROPER GOVERNMENT ACTION In compliance with the Local Government Employee Whistleblower Protection Act, RCW 42.41.050, this policy is created to encourage employees to disclose any improper governmental action taken by city officials or employees without fear of retaliation. This policy also safeguards legitimate employer interests by encouraging complaints to be made first to the City, with a process provided for speedy dispute resolution. Key Definitions: Improper Governmental Action is any action by a city officer or employee that is: (1) undertaken in the performance of the official's or employee's official duties, whether or not the action is within the scope of the employee's employment, and (2) in violation of any federal, state or local law or rule, is an abuse of authority, is of substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety, or is a gross waste of public funds. (3) "improper governmental action" does not include personnel actions (hiring, firing, complaints, promotions, reassignment, for example). In addition, employees are not free to disclose matters that would affect a person's right to legally protected confidential communications. City employees who become aware of improper governmental action should follow this procedure: Bring the matter to the attention of his/her supervisor, if non-involved, in writing, stating in detail the basis for the employee's belief that an improper action has occurred. This should be done as soon as the employee becomes aware of the improper action. Packet Page 381 of 537 55 Where the employee believes the improper action involves their supervisor, the employee may raise the issue directly with Human Resources, their Department Director or the Mayor. Where the employee believes the improper action involves the Mayor, the employee may raise the issue with Human Resources or the City Attorney. The Mayor or his/her designee, as the case may be, shall promptly investigate the report of improper government action. After the investigation is completed (within thirty (30) days of the employee's report), the employee shall be advised of the results of the investigation, except that personnel actions taken as a result of the investigation may be kept confidential. An employee who fails to make a good faith effort to follow this policy shall not be entitled to the protection of this policy against retaliation, pursuant to RCW 42.41.030. In the case of an emergency, where the employee believes that damage to persons or property may result if action is not taken immediately, the employee may bypass the above procedure and report the improper action directly to the appropriate government agency responsible for investigating the improper action. For the purposes of this section, an emergency is a circumstance that if not immediately changed may cause damage to persons or property. Employees may report information about improper governmental action directly to an outside agency if the employee reasonably believes that an adequate investigation was not undertaken by the City to determine whether an improper government action occurred, or that insufficient action was taken by the City to address the improper action or that for other reasons the improper action is likely to recur. Outside agencies to which reports may be directed include: Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney Washington State Auditor M/S 504 Capital Campus Everett, WA 98201 P.O. Box 40021 (425)388-3333 Olympia, WA 98504 (360)902-0370 Washington State Attorney General 1125 Washington Street SE P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504 (360)753-6200 If the above-listed agencies do not appear to appropriate in light of the nature of the improper action to be reported, contact information for other state and county agencies may be obtained via the following link: http://access.wa.gov/agency/agency.aspx. It is unlawful for a local government to take retaliatory action because an employee, in good faith, provided information that improper government action occurred. Retaliatory Packet Page 382 of 537 56 Action is any material adverse change in the terms and conditions of an employee's employment. Employees who believe they have been retaliated against for reporting an improper government action should follow this procedure: Procedure for Seeking Relief against Retaliation : (1) Employees must provide a written complaint to the supervisor within thirty (30) days of the occurrence of the alleged retaliatory action. If the supervisor is involved, the notice should go to the Mayor. If the Mayor is involved, the notice should go to the City Attorney. The written charge shall specify the alleged retaliatory action and the relief requested. (2) The Mayor or his/her designee, as the case may be, shall investigate the complaint and respond in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written charge. Additional time to respond may be necessary depending on the nature and complexity of the complaint. (3) After receiving the City's response, the employee may request a hearing before a state administrative law judges (ALJ) to establish that a retaliatory action occurred and to obtain appropriate relief under the law. The request for hearing must be delivered within the earlier of either fifteen (15) days of receipt of the City's response to the charge of retaliatory action or forty-five (45) days of receipt of the charge of retaliation to the Mayor for response. (4) Within five (5) working days of receipt of a request for hearing the City shall apply to the State Office of Administrative Hearing's for an adjudicative proceeding before an administrative law judge. Office of Administrative Hearings PO Box 42488 Olympia, WA 98504-2488 360.407.2700 800.558.4857 360.664.8721 Fax (5) At the hearing, the employee must prove that a retaliatory action occurred by a preponderance of the evidence in the hearing. The ALJ will issue a final decision not later than forty-five (45) days after the date of the request for hearing, unless an extension is granted. The Mayor or designee is responsible for implementing these policies and procedures. This includes posting the policy on the City bulletin board, making the policy available to any employee upon request, and providing the policy to all newly hired employees. Officers, managers and supervisors are responsible for ensuring the procedures are fully implemented within their areas of responsibility. Packet Page 383 of 537 57 Violations of this policy and these procedures may result in appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. 10.4 POLITICAL ACTIVITIES City employees may participate in political or partisan activities of their choosing provided that City resources and property are not utilized, and the activity does not adversely affect the responsibilities of the employees in their positions. Employees may not campaign on City time or in a City uniform or while representing the City in any way. Employees may not allow others to use City facilities or funds for political activities without a paid rental agreement. Any City employee who meets with or may be observed by the public or otherwise represents the City to the public, while performing his/her regular duties, may not wear or display any button, badge or sticker relevant to any candidate or ballot issue during working hours. Employees shall not solicit, on City property or City time, for a contribution for a partisan political cause. Except as noted in this policy, City employees are otherwise free to fully exercise their constitutional First Amendment rights. 10.5 NO SMOKING POLICY The City maintains a smoke-free workplace. No smoking of tobacco products or electronic smoking devices is permitted anywhere in the City’s buildings or vehicles, and offices or other facilities rented or leased by the City. If an employee chooses to smoke, it must be done outside at least 25 feet from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation air intakes. 10.6 PERSONAL POSSESSIONS AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS The City cannot assume responsibility for any theft or damage to the personal belongings of City employees. Therefore, the City requests that employees avoid bringing valuable personal articles to work. Employees are solely responsible for ensuring that their personal belongings are secure while at work. Employees should have no expectation of privacy as to any items or information generated/stored on City systems. Employees are advised that work-related searches of an employee’s work area, workspace, computer and electronic mail on the City’s property may be conducted without advance notice. The City reserves the right to search employee desks, lockers and personal belongings brought onto City premises if necessary. Employees who do not consent to inspections may be subject to discipline, up to and including immediate termination. Please see Attachment A - INFORMATION SERVICES - ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY - for guidelines on use of City computers. 10.7 USE OF TELEPHONES AND CITY VEHICLES Use of City phones and City cellular phones for local personal phone calls and text messaging should be kept to a minimum; long distance personal use is prohibited. Other City equipment, including vehicles, should be used by employees for City business only, unless otherwise Packet Page 384 of 537 58 approved by the Department Director. Employees' misuse of City services, telephones, vehicles, equipment or supplies can result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. The City reminds employees that Washington state law restricts the use of cell phones and PDA’s while driving. Employees must comply with applicable laws while engaging in work for the City. 10.8 BULLETIN BOARDS Information of special interest to all employees is posted regularly on the City bulletin boards. Employees may not post any information on these bulletin boards without the authorization of the Department Head. 10.9 MEDIA RELATIONS The Mayor or designated department heads shall be responsible for all official contacts with the news media during working hours, including answering of questions from the media. The Mayor or department head may designate specific employees to give out procedural, factual or historical information on particular subjects. 10.10 USE OF SAFETY BELTS Per Washington law, anyone operating or riding in City vehicles must wear seat belts at all times. 10.11 DRIVER'S LICENSE REQUIREMENTS As part of the requirements for certain specific City positions, an employee may be required to hold a valid Washington State Driver's license and/or a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL). If an employee fails his or her CDL physical examination or the license is revoked, suspended or lost, or is in any other way not current, valid, and in the employee's possession, the employee shall promptly notify his/her department head and will be immediately suspended from driving duties. The employee may not resume driving until proof of a valid, current license is provided to his/her department head. Depending on the duration of license suspension, revocation or other inability to drive, an employee may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Failure on the part of an employee to notify their department director of the revocation, suspension, or loss of driving privileges may subject the employee to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. 10.12 SOLICITATIONS Most forms of selling and solicitations are inappropriate in the workplace. They can be an intrusion on employees and citizens and may present a risk to employee safety or to the security of City or employee property. The following limitations apply: Persons not employed by the City may not solicit, survey, petition, or distribute literature on our premises at any time. This includes persons soliciting for charities, salespersons, questionnaire surveyors, labor union organizers, or any other solicitor or distributor. Exceptions to this rule may be made in special circumstances where the City determines that an exception would serve the best interests of the organization and our employees. An example of an exception might be the United Way campaign or a similar, community-based fund raising effort. Packet Page 385 of 537 59 Employees may not solicit for any purpose during work time. Reasonable forms of solicitation are permitted during non-work time, such as before or after work or during meal or break periods. Soliciting employees who are on non-work time may not solicit other employees who are on work time. Employees may not distribute literature for any purpose during work time or in work areas, or through the City’s electronic systems. The employee lunchroom is considered a non-work area under this policy. 10.13 USE OF CITY CREDIT Unless otherwise authorized by City policy or specifically authorized by the Mayor, no City employee is authorized to commit the City to any contractual agreement, especially an agreement that lends the City’s credit in any way. Employees are prohibited from conducting personal business with companies in any way which improperly implies the employee is acting as an agent of the City. 10.14 SUBSTANCE ABUSE The City's philosophy on substance abuse has two focuses: (1) a concern for the well being of the employee and (2) a concern for the safety of other employees and members of the public. As part of our employee assistance program, we encourage employees who are concerned about their alcohol or drug use to seek counseling, treatment and rehabilitation. Although the decision to seek diagnosis and accept treatment is completely voluntary, the City is fully committed to helping employees who voluntarily seek assistance to overcome substance abuse problems. In most cases, the expense of treatment may be fully or partially covered by the City's benefit program. Please see the EAP counselor for more information. In recognition of the sensitive nature of these matters, all discussions will be kept confidential. Employers who seek advice or treatment will not be subject to retaliation or discrimination. Although the City is concerned with rehabilitation, it must be understood that disciplinary action may be taken when an employee's job performance is impaired because he/she is under the influence of drugs or alcohol on the job. The City may discipline or terminate an employee possessing, consuming, selling or using alcohol, or controlled substances (other than legally prescribed) during work hours or on City premises, including break times and meal periods. The City may also discipline or terminate an employee who reports for duty or works under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances. Employees may also not report for work when their performance is impaired by the use of prescribed or over-the-counter medications. The City reserves the right to search employee work areas, offices, desks, filing cabinets etc. to ensure compliance with this policy. Employees shall have no expectation of privacy in such areas. Any employee who is convicted of a criminal drug violation in the workplace must notify the organization in writing within five calendar days of the conviction. The organization will take appropriate action within 30 days of notification. Federal contracting agencies will be notified when appropriate. Packet Page 386 of 537 60 Testing: Certain employees of the City, including those who must possess CDLs or who have safety sensitive positions, are subject to random d rug and alcohol testing. Any employee may also be required to submit to alcohol or controlled substance testing when the City has reasonable suspicion that the employee is under the influence of controlled substances or alcohol. Refusal to submit to testing, when requested, may result in immediate disciplinary action, including termination. The City may also choose to pursue criminal charges, if violations of law are suspected. The City has adopted Drug and Alcohol Testing Policies and Procedures, which more specifically describe the City’s substance abuse policy, and these are incorporated herein by reference as Appendix B. Packet Page 387 of 537 Packet Page 388 of 537 Packet Page 389 of 537 Packet Page 390 of 537 Packet Page 391 of 537 Packet Page 392 of 537 Packet Page 393 of 537 Packet Page 394 of 537 Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 1-2, 2013 Page 21 to watch the January 23 joint meeting with the Planning Board, Economic Development Commission and the consultant. With regard to student volunteers, he recalled his son was a student volunteer on the skate park and worked three years to design and build it. He used that experience in college. If the Council pursues a parks levy, he recommended including a project for students in order to engage them in campaigning for the levy. He agreed with Mr. Hertrich’s suggestion for the Council to appoint a representative to the School District and also suggested Councilmembers attend the Superintendent’s monthly roundtable meetings. 9. ETHICS BOARD AND CODE OF ETHICS Councilmember Bloom explained she wanted the Council to adopt an ethics policy that addresses board/commission, elected officials and staff. There are many policies in Washington could be adapted for Edmonds. The next step is to form an ethics committee; if a citizen has a question about something such as a conflict of interest, they can go to the ethics committee and determine whether something is potentially an ethics violation. She recommended the Council, 1) adopt an ethics policy, and 2) form an ethics committee. She sought Council approval for the Public Safety & Personnel Committee to pursue this. Ms. Hite explained the recently adopted personnel policy has an extensive ethics policy for employees; that is the best place for policies regarding employees. She encouraged the Council to develop an ethics policy for boards/commissions and elected officials but not to include employees. Discussion followed regarding other cities’ ethics policies, past unsuccessful efforts to develop a code of ethics policy, developing a policy with enough examples to provide direction, and the difference between a code of conduct and code of ethics. Summary: Refer development of code of ethics to Public Safety and Personnel Committee. 11. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION No action. 10. MISCELLANEOUS Based on yesterday’s discussion regarding public comment at committee meetings, Council President Petso distributed language for committee meeting notices and asked Councilmember to submit comments/concerns to Ms. Chase. The retreat was adjourned at 11:37 p.m. Packet Page 395 of 537 Public Safety & Personnel Committee March 12, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Action: Take item to full Council for further discussion after draft discussion points and possible ordinance language received from Officer Dawson. C. Discussion and potential action regarding possible amendment of City Code 8.48, Parking, Paragraph 8.48.215 B.2. Joan Ferebee, Court Administrator, explained she attended a Parking Committee Meeting to bring to their attention the difficulty the Municipal Court is experiencing with the section of the City Code that allows citizens who receive a parking ticket to pay a reduced fine if the individual pays the fine by the end of the next business day after the issuance of the parking ticket. Generally, the Court does not have the tickets in their system that quickly. Therefore, the individuals can become very angry and upset when they come to the Municipal Court and are not able to pay. Ms. Ferebee stated that the Parking Committee recommended removing the section of the Code that allows for a reduced fine if it is paid by the end of the next business day. Councilmember Peterson stated that he was in agreement with eliminating the reduced fine. He stated that he would work with the City Attorney to create an ordinance to place on the consent agenda. Councilmember Bloom was in agreement. Action: Councilmember Peterson will work with the City Attorney to create an ordinance eliminating the reduced fine. The Ordinance is to be placed on a future Consent Agenda for approval. D. Student and Senior Volunteers Councilmember Bloom stated she would like to support the Boards and Commissions in obtaining student volunteers. She suggested that a senior volunteer could assist Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Assistant, in getting the word out to the various schools. Councilmember Peterson suggested Ms. Spellman could email the school board or a volunteer coordinator in the school system to determine if there are students interested in volunteering. Councilmember Bloom suggested a senior volunteer could work with Jana to develop a framework for contacting all of the schools with the appropriate person to contact and to advertise. Councilmember Peterson cautioned that managing a volunteer can take more time. He suggested talking with the Council President as she is in charge of Ms. Spellman’s schedule. Councilmember Bloom also recalled that at the Council Retreat, Councilmember Johnson suggested an event be held to recognize city volunteers. Councilmember Bloom stated she will discuss with the Mayor the idea of scheduling a yearly event. E. Ethics Board and Code of Ethics Councilmember Bloom suggested narrowing down the list of sample policies from other cities for the City Attorney to work with in developing the policy for Edmonds. She suggested using the policies from the cities of Bainbridge Island, Lynnwood and Monroe. Packet Page 396 of 537 Public Safety & Personnel Committee March 12, 2013 Page 3 of 3 Councilmember Bloom stated that she would like the policy to include appointed officials (directors) in addition to elected officials and members of boards and commissions. Councilmember Peterson stated that he did not think the policy needed to address appointed officials (directors) as they answer to the Mayor. The Committee concluded that a further discussion on a Code of Ethics policy would be scheduled for the April Committee Meeting to determine which policy will be sent to the City Attorney. F. Discussion regarding taking minutes during Council Committee Meetings. Councilmember Peterson stated that if detailed/complete minutes are desired it would be necessary to pay someone to attend the meetings for this purpose. If action minutes are prepared (which is the way it has generally always been done), then he did not think councilmembers should take the minutes as it is difficult to participate in the discussion and take minutes. Councilmember Bloom agreed that councilmembers should not take minutes. After discussion, Councilmembers Bloom and Peterson agreed on the following recommendation: • Action minutes for committee meetings, prepared by staff members in attendance. • If a controversial item is scheduled, arrangements for more detailed minutes will be made. • Summary comments made by citizens should be included. Committee members will summarize citizen comments if no staff is available. • Work with Council President related to agenda items to make sure a staff member is available for each item discussed at the committee meeting. • Committee minutes are to be forwarded to committee chairs for review (as time allows). G. Public Comments There were no public comments. The committee meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Packet Page 397 of 537 Public Safety & Personnel Committee July 9, 2013 Page 5 of 5 Councilmember Peterson suggested dropping reference to 2.10.050 in this section of the code. Councilmember Bloom next pointed out that 2.10.050 refers to both finance director and community services director, however the title of the section does not reflect this. Further, Councilmember Bloom believes the positions of Executive Assistant to the Council and the Mayor’s Executive Assistant should not be part of this chapter as they are not City Officers. Committee members agreed to request the City Attorney to determine if these positions should be in a different section of the code. D. Discussion regarding Code of Ethics. Committee members discussed ethics policies from Bainbridge Island, Lynnwood and Kirkland. Councilmember Bloom referred to the policy from Bainbridge Island and would like to include the requirement for members to “disclose a conflict of interest” as a standing requirement at all city meetings for all officials. Councilmember Peterson commented that he believes the Council does a good job at this disclosure; however, having it on each agenda is a good reminder. Further discussion occurred related to policies, including the possible consideration of a Code of Ethics Officer. After discussion the committee agreed to forward to the next work session of the City Council the Bellevue and Kirkland ethics policies and the Kirkland Code of Conduct for discussion. The committee also recommended including the statement from Bainbridge Island related to disclosure of conflict of interest for all officials. After full Council discussion, direction can then be given to the City Attorney on how to proceed. Ms. Hite indicated she would bring back information on a Code of Ethics Officer. The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Packet Page 398 of 537 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 12 Councilmember Johnson said longevity compensation makes sense for employees who are at the top of their scale and have no opportunity for further advancement. She expressed interest in further information about the fiscal impact of longevity compensation retroactive to 2013 as well as the fiscal impact for outlying years. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the pay scale for nonrepresented employees is a separate issue and should be addressed separately rather than piecemealed via longevity pay. She noted longevity pay would not motivate employees to seek promotion or to remain in the City’s employment. Longevity pay is part of a compensation package that was negotiated with the other groups. She preferred to consider longevity pay for nonrepresented employees as part of a compensation package. Ms. Hite pointed out longevity compensation was part of a package for nonrepresented employees that the compensation consultant presented to the Council. The Council asked to have it pulled out for continued discussion. Councilmember Peterson agreed the Council was provided a compensation package for nonrepresented that was similar to represented employees. It was the Council’s decision to separate out some items. He suggested the next agenda memo include the complete compensation package that was presented by the compensation consultant. Ms. Hite summarized the information the Council was requesting in addition to the original compensation package includes, 1) the fiscal impact for retroactivity in 2013, 2) fiscal impact for outlying years, 3) a flat rate approach and the fiscal impact. Due to the absence of 3 Councilmembers from the September 17 and 24 meetings, Mayor Earling suggested information be provided at next week’s meeting or a full Council meeting be held on September 10. Council President Petso suggested either staff return with the information soon or it be addressed as a decision package in the 2014 budget. 11. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS Parks & Recreation/Reporting Human Resources Director Carrie Hite explained the Personnel Committee has been comparing and contrasting Codes of Ethics for cities throughout the Puget Sound region. Two documents the committee has been considering include Kirkland and Bellevue’s Code of Ethics. The committee has also discussed Bainbridge Island’s code. Kirkland adopted a Code of Conduct in addition to a Code of Ethics. She explained a Code of Conduct describes professional responsibilities; a Code of Ethics describes legal responsibilities. A Code of Ethics would apply to the Council, boards and commissions; staff is guided by a Code of Conduct in the City’s personnel policies. The Personnel Committee has also expressed interest in identifying an Ethics Officer. Some of the comparable models reviewed by the Personnel Committee identify an Ethics Officer outside the organization in order to have an objective, non-vested perspective in researching a Code of Ethics issues. For example Kirkland and Bellevue contract with an Ethics Officer on an as needed basis who is only paid when a Code of Ethics issue needs to be investigated. Neither Kirkland nor Bellevue had incurred any expenses for outside review of a Code of Ethics violation. Councilmember Bloom noted the attachments are in the August 20, 2013 packet. She clarified in addition to Councilmembers, boards and commissions, the Code of Ethics would cover all elected officials including the Mayor. Kirkland and Bellevue’s Codes of Ethics do not include a Mayor because they have a City Manager form of government. Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with including the requirement in 3.14.040 of Kirkland’s policy related to financial disclosure for all officials. Officials are defined as all members of boards and commissions. Kirkland’s policy excludes the Mayor and Council because elected officials must present Packet Page 399 of 537 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 13 all financial information on a yearly basis. She did not support requiring all members of boards and commissions to disclose their financial information and suggested that be excluded that from Edmonds’ Code of Ethics; Bellevue’s Code of Ethics does not have that requirement. She also suggested consideration be given to the complaint process and who handles complaints. For example Kirkland involves the Hearing Examiner and the City Council in the event of a complaint regarding a Councilmember. Councilmember Peterson agreed with Councilmember Bloom’s concern about requiring members of boards and commissions to disclose financial information. He agreed with the Council considering a Code of Ethics in a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach. He supported the City having a Code of Ethics for elected officials and boards and commissions, anticipating a Code of Ethics would make the Council’s work easier if an ethical issue arose. As Councilmember Buckshnis indicated, a Code of Ethics can be subjective, but responding to an ethical complaint would be even more subjective without a Code of Ethics. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised Snohomish County adopted a Code of Conduct for all boards and commissions and every commission and board member must acknowledge they have read and understand the Code of Conduct. She encouraged Councilmembers to review Snohomish County’s Code of Conduct for elected and appointed officials. Councilmember Bloom asked whether Snohomish County’s Code of Conduct was similar to Kirkland’s. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded Snohomish County may be more thorough and straightforward. Council President Petso said she was pleased to see Kirkland’s Code of Conduct in the packet and was interested in pursuing a Code of Conduct. She was concerned about the Code of Ethics and Ethics Officer and complaint enforcement. She feared a person who did not agree with an official’s position on an issue could file an ethics complaint. She indicated she was unlikely to support a Code of Ethics that included a complaint process, an Ethics Officer and enforcement. She found Bellevue’s Code of Ethics less objectionable; the statement of intent is to not to limit people who could serve on boards and commissions and elected officials. She agreed the financial disclosure in Kirkland’s Code of Ethics would likely deter citizens from volunteering for a board or commission. Council President Petso noted there are other aspects, particularly in Kirkland’s Code of Ethics that would deter citizens from volunteering to serve on a board or commission. There are events that do not constitute an ethics issue but might under a poorly drafted policy. For example when she was appointed to Council, a relative was serving on the Sister City Commission; that did not create an issue for her or him. It would have been unfortunate if the Code of Ethics forced one of them to resign their position. One of Kirkland’s policies indicated it would be a conflict if a person serving on a board of commission lived in your household. In the example she provided, the person did live in her household for a period of time but it had no impact on his ability to serve on the Sister City Commission. Council President Petso relayed the City Attorney wanted the Council to discuss whether they were interested in developing a Code of Ethics for Edmonds because it will take him a great deal of time to develop it. Less legal time would be involved in drafting a Code of Conduct. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred the Bainbridge Island Code of Ethics. She agreed with not requiring boards and commissions to disclose financial information, commenting Councilmembers file with the Public Disclosure Commission. She liked the Code of Conduct although she feared it could be subjective. She recalled recent emotionally charged conversations with a fellow Councilmember that could have been interpreted as an argument. She preferred to start with a Code of Conduct using Snohomish County as an example. Packet Page 400 of 537 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 14 Councilmember Bloom also liked Bainbridge Island’s Code of Ethics policy the best. She recalled Councilmember Peterson’s concern with Bainbridge Island’s creation of an Ethics Board and the need for staff support for such a board. She supported adopting a Code of Ethics for the Council, boards and commissions. She explained an ethics violation was not related to conduct but rather conflicts of interest. She asked the City Attorney to describe an ethics violation. City Attorney Sharon Cates answered Code of Ethics are related to conflict of interest issues, not interpersonal interaction. Councilmember Bloom commented Bainbridge Island’s policy allows citizens to ask questions about potential ethics violations and the Ethics Board decides whether to pursue a complaint. Bainbridge Island’s policy also has consequences for bringing a frivolous or unsubstantiated complaint. She asked if that was typical of ethics policies. Ms. Cates answered a solid ethics code includes a process for determining whether a complaint is an ethics violation. Councilmember Bloom noted an ethics complaint is required to be notarized and to include information about the violation. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the Personnel Committee working on a Code of Conduct similar to Kirkland’s. Councilmember Yamamoto agreed with the Committee continuing to consider a Code of Conduct and a Code of Ethics. He encouraged Councilmembers to submit suggestions/comments/concerns to the committee. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested scheduling further discussion on either the September 17 or 24 Council meetings. Council President Petso agreed it could be scheduled with the understanding it would be discussion only due to the absence of three Councilmembers. Councilmember Peterson suggested Councilmembers review Bainbridge Island’s ethics policy on their website. He agreed there were good ideas in the policy; he was opposed to creating an Ethics Board. Councilmember Bloom agreed with first establishing a Code of Conduct but did not want to abandon the idea of a Code of Ethics. The Personnel Committee has discussed it at length and the community would like the City to have an ethics policy. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Peterson’s concern with creating an Ethics Board. She preferred to use a professional Ethics Officer. 14. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Johnson reported on her participation on the review of arts and cultural aspects of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. She described efforts to gather input from the public including a survey at the recent concert in the park. There is also an online survey available. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board discussed definitions in the Tree Code including hazardous trees, nuisance trees and trees. Councilmember Bloom reported the Council interviewed a new member for the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee tonight. Councilmember Bloom reported on her first meeting as the Council liaison to the Port of Edmonds liaison. The Commission discussed budget issues and promotional efforts. The Commission was also provided a project update including expansion of Anthony’s Beach Café as well as the roof on Harbor Square building 2 which is $30,000 under budget and will last 20-30 years. Packet Page 401 of 537 Minutes PUBLIC SAFETY & PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING September 9, 2014 Elected Officials Present Staff Present Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Councilmember Strom Peterson The meeting was called to order at 7:29 p.m. A. Discussion Regarding Code of Ethics Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained the proposed code of ethics was a simplified version and was intended to cover staff, elected officials, volunteers, etc. She reviewed the bulleted items in the proposed code and suggested that enforcement be a separate policy. Committee members discussed minor amendments to the wording of the code of ethics. Action: Councilmember Fraley-Monillas will edit the code and email to Councilmember Peterson. Schedule for full Council in the future. B. Public Comment – None The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Packet Page 402 of 537 CODE OF ETHICS The purpose of the Edmonds Code of Ethics is to strengthen the quality of government through ethical principals principles which shall govern the conduct of elected and appointed officials, and employees We shall: • Be dedicated to the concepts of effective and democratic government • Affirm the dignity and worth of the services rendered by government and maintain a sense of social responsibility • Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships • Recognize that the chief function of local government at all times is to serve the best interest of all the people • Keep the community informed on municipal affairs encourage communications between the citizens and all municipal officers. Emphasize friendly and courteous service to public and each other, seek to improve the quality and image of public service • Seek no favor; believe that do not personally benefit or profit secured by confidential information or by misuse of public time to be dishonest • Conduct business of the city in a manner which is not only fair in fact, but also in appearance. • Not knowingly violate any Washington statutes, city ordinances or regulations in the course of performing duties Packet Page 403 of 537    AM-7336     15.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted By:Patrick Doherty Department:Community Services Type: Information  Information Subject Title Discussion of Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Issues Recommendation Provide direction to Mayor and staff. Previous Council Action On 11/18/14 the City Council reviewed and approved the EDBID 2015 proposed Work Program and Budget. Narrative Upon City Council approval of the EDBID 2015 proposed Work Program and Budget on 11/18/14, City Council identified three issues for further consideration: the BID assessment rate structure, the delinquent payments collections policy, and potential expansion or revision of the BID boundaries.   Attached is a memo that provides more detailed information about each of these three issue areas.   Options:  BID assessment rate structure:  Since no clear template or middle ground from other BIDs has been identified, if City Council wishes to consider this issue further, options for direction to Mayor and staff are:  1. Direct Mayor and staff to research further potential revisions to the BID assessment rate structure and return to City Council with potential revision options in 2015.  2. Request no additional work on this issue.  Delinquent payment collections:   1. Direct Mayor and staff to present to City Council potential revision(s) to the EDCC provisions related to collection of delinquent payments in 2015.  2. Request no additional work on this issue.  BID boundary expansion:   1. Direct Mayor and staff to research the appropriateness of potential BID boundary expansion(s), Packet Page 404 of 537 pursuant to RCW provisions and limitations, in 2015. 2. Request no additional work on this issue.  Attachments EDBID Issues Memo Seattle BIA assessment formulae table Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/04/2014 07:21 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/04/2014 10:09 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/04/2014 10:13 AM Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 12/03/2014 04:16 PM Final Approval Date: 12/04/2014  Packet Page 405 of 537 EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (EDBID) ISSUES FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION Assessment Rate Structure The existing rate structure for “open door” and “by appointment” businesses in the EDBID is as follows: Square footage Open Door By Appointment 0-499 $360/year $90/quarter $120/year $30/quarter 500-999 $420 /year $105/quarter $180/year $45/quarter 1000-1999 $480/year $120/quarter $240/year $60/quarter 2000-4999 $540/year $135/quarter $300/year $75/quarter 5000 and over $600 annual $150/quarter $360/year $90/quarter Questions have arisen as to whether this is the appropriate rate structure. A quick review of other business improvement district/area rate structures reveals the conclusion that rates vary widely, with no clear pattern, middle ground or average. Poulsbo Poulsbo is one of the few BIDs with a similarly constructed rate structure. In Poulsbo the rates are: Retail businesses: $300/year per 1,000 SF; minimum of $240/year and maximum of $2,400/year. Non-retail businesses: $180/year per 1,000 SF, minimum of $180/year and maximum of $1,800/year. Compared with Poulsbo, the EDBID rates are very similar for the businesses under 500 SF, higher for retail businesses 500-1,000 SF, but substantially lower for larger businesses. In addition, the EDBID maximum annual rate is only one-fourth of the maximum rate in Poulsbo. Packet Page 406 of 537 EDBID Issues Memo Page 2 of 2 Ballard A business improvement area (BIA) is proposed for Ballard. The rate structure is entirely different from the EDBID, assessed on property owners, not businesses, and it includes residential properties. Minimum assessment rates vary but are based on the size of the building. Seattle Existing BIAs Elsewhere in the city of Seattle there are eight BIAs. The assessment methods and rates vary from BIA to BIA. A table is attached to this memo that summarizes the assessment formulas for these BIAs. While two of these BIAs (including the University District) assess based on business square footage, as does the EDBID, in both instances additional assessments are also made based on square footage of the property, number of parking spaces, etc. This invalidates comparison with these assessment formulas. Olympia The Olympia BIA has three zones (A, B and C). Different from all of the above, the rates are charged on categories of businesses, based on their size (large, medium, small), as determined by numbers of FTE employees. Minimums range from $150-250/yr, while maximums range from $300-750/yr. In summary, as mentioned above, the rate structures vary considerably, providing no obvious template or middle ground to emulate. Each community’s rate structure is based on its unique circumstances. Collections Policy for Delinquent Payments Questions have arisen as to the appropriateness of the collections process for delinquent payments within the EDBID. It should be noted that the EDBID has a unique provision that exempts all new businesses from the BID assessment for the first full year of operation. Subsequently, payments are to be made quarterly. For those BID members who do not pay, the City sends them a 30-day notice, reminding them to pay, make payment arrangements with the City, or ultimately face collections actions by an agency. Short of full payment of outstanding assessments, the City allows members to work out payment arrangements, such as structured payments over up to a year’s time. If all of this fails, the City engages a collections agency to seek payment. Failure by the City to seek payment of delinquent assessments would undermine the BID assessment structure. If members learn that there is no penalty or consequence to nonpayment, a snow-ball effect of nonpayment could ensue. EDBID Boundary EDBID members raised the notion of considering potential expansion(s) to the BID boundaries in 2015. State law (RCW 35.87A.075) permits expansion of BIDs once a year by up to an additional 10% of the existing assessment value. No specific proposal is currently on the table for EDBID boundary expansion, but staff could research this issue for Council consideration in 2015 if desired. Packet Page 407 of 537 &+$37(521(BIA BEST PRACTICES_ BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREAS: At Work in Seattle | 2012 Assessment Formulas Assessment Factor Br o a d w a y Co l u m b i a C i t y Ch i n a t o w n / In t e r n a t i o n a l Di s t r i c t Me t r o p o l i t a n Im p r o v e m e n t Di s t r i c t Se a t t l e T o u r i s m Im p r o v e m e n t A r e a Pi o n e e r S q u a r e Un i v e r s i t y D i s t r i c t We s t S e a t t l e Gross Retail Sales       Gross Business Income         Floor Area of Business    „ SF   „ SF  Square Footage of Lot „ SF  „ SF „ SF   „ SF  Total Assessed Property Value „ „    Parking Spaces     space  space   VSDFH Hotel Rooms     URRP   RFFXSLHG URRP night  URRP  Flat Fee    ±    9DULHV Apartments (maximum) PD[ Condominiums (maximum) PD[ Maximum Assessment       Minimum Assessment   9DULHV    Packet Page 408 of 537    AM-7339     16.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Patrick Doherty Department:Community Services Type: Information  Information Subject Title Sister City Commission Matching Grant Request Recommendation The Mayor and staff recommend that City Council forward this item to the 12/16/14 consent agenda for approval. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The Edmonds Sister City Commission received a $500 grant from the US Charitable Gift Trust to support activities related to the mission of the Sister City Commission, which is to promote international communication and understanding through exchanges of people, ideas and culture.  One of the goals of the Commission for 2015 is to present a series of cultural/educational events at local schools intended to introduce children in the Edmonds community to the Japanese culture. With an additional $500 from the City Council to match the $500 provided by the US Charitable Gift Trust, the Sister City Commission will be able to carry out this program.  Attachments Sister City Grant Request Letters Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/04/2014 09:16 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/04/2014 10:08 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/04/2014 10:13 AM Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 12/04/2014 09:03 AM Final Approval Date: 12/04/2014  Packet Page 409 of 537 Packet Page 410 of 537 Packet Page 411 of 537    AM-7343     17.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/09/2014 Time:25 Minutes   Submitted By:Shane Hope Department:Development Services Type: Information  Information Subject Title Discussion of the Draft Housing Element for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update Recommendation To have discussion and provide by consensus any direction for the draft Housing Element. (No final action) Previous Council Action On December 2, 2014, the City Council held a public hearing on the draft updated Housing Element. 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 Packet Page 412 of 537 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." 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." Packet Page 413 of 537 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. On December 2, 2014, the City Council held a public hearing on the draft updated Housing Element.  No one testified during the public comment time. NEXT STEPS --City Council discussion at a Study Session (tentatively December 9, 2014) and any additional direction by consensus on the Housing Element; --Any further proofing/corrections by staff of the draft Housing Element --Continuing preparation by staff 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 Board 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 12/05/2014 09:04 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/05/2014 10:48 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/05/2014 10:48 AM Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 12/05/2014 08:32 AM Final Approval Date: 12/05/2014  Packet Page 414 of 537 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 415 of 537 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 416 of 537 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 417 of 537 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 418 of 537 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 419 of 537 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 420 of 537 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 421 of 537 • 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 422 of 537 • 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 423 of 537 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 424 of 537 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 425 of 537 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 426 of 537 • 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 427 of 537 • 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 428 of 537 • 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 429 of 537 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 430 of 537 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 431 of 537 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 432 of 537 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 433 of 537 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 434 of 537 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 435 of 537 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 436 of 537 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 437 of 537 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 438 of 537 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 439 of 537 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 440 of 537 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 441 of 537 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 442 of 537 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 443 of 537 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 444 of 537 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 445 of 537 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 446 of 537 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 447 of 537 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 448 of 537 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 449 of 537 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 450 of 537 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 451 of 537 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 452 of 537 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 453 of 537 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 454 of 537 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 455 of 537 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 456 of 537 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 457 of 537 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 458 of 537 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 459 of 537 22,000 by 2035 Affordable Housing in Snohomish County Presentation to Edmonds City Council August 26, 2014 Packet Page 460 of 537 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 461 of 537 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 462 of 537 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 463 of 537 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 464 of 537 22,000 by 2035 How Do We Get There? Reduce Poverty •Better Education Outcomes for More Students •Job Training •Address Income Inequality Packet Page 465 of 537 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 466 of 537 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 467 of 537 Pay Attention to Design! Packet Page 468 of 537 Pay Attention to Design Mercy Housing’s Eliza McCabe Townhomes, Tacoma, WA Packet Page 469 of 537 Pay Attention to Design King County Housing Authority, Greenbridge Apts, Seattle Artspace Everett Lofts, Everett, WA Packet Page 470 of 537 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 471 of 537 ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY UPDATE Edmonds City Council October 28, 2012 Packet Page 472 of 537 WHAT’S THE ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY? •Background and purpose of the Alliance •Work to date •Where we’re headed Packet Page 473 of 537 HOUSING CONSIDERATIONS •Diverse needs and preferences •Adequacy and safety •Proximity to transportation, jobs, and services •Affordability Packet Page 474 of 537 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 475 of 537 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 476 of 537 WHAT’S IN THE PROFILE? •Project status •Intended use and audience •Content and presentation •Data sources Packet Page 477 of 537 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 478 of 537 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 479 of 537 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 480 of 537 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 481 of 537 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 482 of 537 WHAT CAN WE DO? •How the planning process can support affordability •Working with community partners •Exploring new opportunities with AHA Packet Page 483 of 537 THANK YOU Packet Page 484 of 537 Housing Profile: City of Edmonds Prepared for the City of Edmonds by the Alliance for Housing Affordability September 2014 Packet Page 485 of 537 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 486 of 537 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 487 of 537 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 488 of 537 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 489 of 537 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 490 of 537 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 491 of 537 2 Packet Page 492 of 537 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 493 of 537 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 494 of 537 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 495 of 537 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 496 of 537 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 497 of 537 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 498 of 537 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 499 of 537 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 500 of 537 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 501 of 537 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 502 of 537 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 503 of 537 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 504 of 537 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 505 of 537 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 506 of 537 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 507 of 537 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 508 of 537 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 509 of 537 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 510 of 537 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 511 of 537 22 Maps Packet Page 512 of 537 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 513 of 537 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 514 of 537 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 515 of 537 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 516 of 537 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 517 of 537 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 518 of 537 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 519 of 537 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 520 of 537 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 521 of 537 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 522 of 537 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 523 of 537 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 524 of 537 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 525 of 537 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 526 of 537 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 527 of 537 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 528 of 537 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 529 of 537 40 Appendices Packet Page 530 of 537 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 $600 62$ $662 Very Low 4 Bedroom 5 BedroomStudio1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom, 1 Bath 2 Bedroom, 2 Bath 3 Bedroom, 1 Bath 3 Bedroom, 2 Bath A1 Appendix A: Multifamily Rent Comparables by Property, City of Edmonds Packet Page 531 of 537 B1 PROPERTY NAME STREET ADDRESS PARCEL ID Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate SUBSIDIZED UNITS WORKFORCE UNITS TRANSITIONAL UNITS OWNER POPULATION SERVED FUNDING SOURCES Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HASCO)Various Various 122 33 21 2 178 Public (HASCO)Vaious HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (EHA)Various Various 14 2 1 17 Public (EHA)Various HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Aurora House 20903 70th Ave W 27042000302700 16 16 Public (HASCO)Mentally Ill Bond Ballinger Court Apts.22707 76th Ave. W 27042900308400 28 64 92 Private Nonprofit (SHAG)Seniors Tax Credit, Bond Edmonds Highlands 23326 Edmonds Way 00555300100300 108 12 108 Public (HASCO)Family Section 8 Project-Based Vouchers, Bond, Sound Families McKinney House 19515 73rd Ave W 27041700303300 5 5 Private Nonprofit (Compass Health)Mentally Ill HUD Supportive Housing Program Olympic View Apartments 303 Howell Way 27032600100300 43 43 Public (HASCO)Seniors Section 8 Project-Based Voucher, Tax Credit, Bond, County Housing Trust Fund, State Housing Trust Fund Sound View Apartments 417 Third Ave S 27032600100500 43 43 Public (HASCO)Seniors Section 8 Project-Based Voucher, Tax Credit, Bond, County Housing Trust Fund, State Housing Trust Fund Tri-level House 8629 196th St SW 27041800309900 5 5 Private Nonprofit (Compass Health)Mentally Ill HUD Supportive Housing Program Zeigen House 20208 73rd Ave W 00400600001400 1 1 Private Nonprofit (Compass Health)Mentally Ill State Housing Trust Fund, County Housing Trust Fund ASSISTED UNITS BY INCOME LEVEL Appendix B: Assisted Units by Property, City of Edmonds 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Number of Sales 416 517 577 586 666 Average Sale Price 465,736$ 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 532 of 537 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 533 of 537 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 534 of 537 D2 but a household earning 30% AMI would still have to pay the same rent Packet Page 535 of 537 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 536 of 537 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 537 of 537