Loading...
2014.12.16 CC Agenda Packet              AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 16, 2014             6:15 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER   1.(45 Minutes)Executive session to discuss real estate per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c) and pending litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).   BUSINESS MEETING DECEMBER 16, 2014   7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE   2.(5 Minutes)Roll Call   3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda   4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items   A.AM-7348 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of December 9, 2014.   B.AM-7370 Approval of claim checks #211873 through #212020 dated December 11, 2014 for $288,962.39 (reissued check #212000 $8.67). Approval of reissued payroll benefit check #61407 for $2,035.81 for the pay period November 16, 2014 through November 30, 2014.   C.AM-7366 Report on final construction costs for Citywide Safety Improvements Project and acceptance of project   D.AM-7372 Sister City Commission Matching Grant Request   E.AM-7352 2014 retiring Board and Commission members         Packet Page 1 of 453 F.AM-7353 Reappointment of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee members for 2015   G.AM-7354 Reappointment of Arts Commissioner Suzy Maloney   H.AM-7355 Reappointment of Neil Tibbott to the Planning Board   I.AM-7356 Reappointment of Edmonds Sister City Commissioners Rita Ikeda and Marlene Friend   J.AM-7350 Approval of special duty pay for Recreation Manager   K.AM-7374 Authorizing the Mayor to enter into a Contract Extension with James Feldman for Public Defender Services.   5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings   6.(15 Minutes) AM-7363 Proposed 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program.   7.(30 Minutes) AM-7369 Continued Discussion and Adoption of the 2015 Proposed City Budget.   8.(10 Minutes) AM-7367 Discussion and Potential Action on an Ordinance Amending the 2014 Budget   9.(15 Minutes) AM-7337 Social Media Usage Policy   10.(10 Minutes) AM-7371 Resolution of the City Council expressing intent to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Linda Coburn as the City's Municipal Court Judge, which position is expected to become vacant on midnight, January 11, 2015.    11.(10 Minutes) AM-7349 City Park Project Update and approval of project budget   12.(15 Minutes) AM-7368 Proposed 2015 Legislative Agenda   13.(15 Minutes) AM-7358 Discussion regarding Code of Ethics   14.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments   15.(15 Minutes)Council Comments   16.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).   17.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.   ADJOURN         Packet Page 2 of 453    AM-7348     4. A.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 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 9, 2014. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The draft minutes are attached. Attachments Attachment 1 - 12-09-14 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 12/08/2014 08:43 AM Final Approval Date: 12/08/2014  Packet Page 3 of 453 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES December 9, 2014 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:15 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 ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember 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 Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Deb Anderson, Accountant Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. INTERVIEW OF TREE BOARD APPLICATIONS FOR 2 VACANCIES At 6:15 p.m., the City Council met with three candidates for appointment to the Tree Board. The meeting took place in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Safety Complex. All Councilmembers and Mayor Earling were present. 2. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING REAL ESTATE PER RCW 42.30.110.1(c) At approximately 6:30 p.m., the City Council met in executive session regarding real estate per RCW 42.30.110.1(c). The executive session was scheduled to last approximately 15 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, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite and City Clerk Scott Passey. At 6:46 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional 15 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 6:59 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:02 p.m. and led the flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS. MOTION CARRIED (6- 0-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM ABSTAINED. Packet Page 4 of 453 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 ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 25, 2014 B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 2014 C. 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. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES SUBMITTED BY ROLAND TEGMAN ($569.89) E. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES FOR THE 76TH AVE. W @ 212TH ST. SW INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT F. REAPPOINTMENT OF DARCY MACPHERSON TO EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Tom Wilks, Edmonds, president of a technology company, offered his perspective of the Edmonds Business Improvement District (BID). Many other members of the BID are dissatisfied with the current situation; people are upset because they feel it was forced on them, it is not inclusive and the focus is on the retail and restaurants, the fees are too high and not appropriate for the problems being solved and the spending to date and the proposed spending will not provide any benefit to them. He recognized there were a lot of other people working very diligently to make the BID successful. He provided the following suggestions: • Re-poll or survey the membership and use assessments as a mechanism for communicating • Adjust the fee structure to place more emphasis on building ownership • Create a class of business that is exempt as some businesses will not benefit from the BID’s activities • Propose an offset to the assessment based on a contribution to a broader City-wide cause. He would rather write a check to the General Fund than to a budget that promotes Starbucks • Develop an a la carte pricing structure that allows businesses to participate at the level that is proportionate to the benefit they receive • Expand the BID’s boundaries across the highway to be all inclusive He cautioned if this is not corrected, there is a good possibility Edmonds will lose businesses; it will not be the primary reason a business leaves but will be a contributing factor. Packet Page 5 of 453 Brent Malgarin, Edmonds, recalled on November 10, 2014 in response to a question from Councilmember Petso, City Attorney Jeff Taraday said while there was a substantial effort put into collecting signatures for a petition, it was realized in course of the review of those signatures that it would not meet the legal standard for a petition. Yet Ordinance 3909 states whereas the owners and operators of businesses located within the area and representing approximately 60% or more of the assessment levied by this ordinance signed a petition in support. Those two statements are in contradiction and he pointed out a legal document cannot contain false information. He referred to RCW 98.76.175 that states, material statement means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties. He urged the Council to consider the matter, asserting the paperwork was not done legally, and suggesting the Council obtaining out counsel. Rose Cantwell, Edmonds, representing the Senior Center, commented the trend in advertising is new this and that, new and improved. The new senior citizen whose lives has been helped and extended by social security and Medicare are living longer and many are donating their time to their communities. She was very proud of the Senior Center, pointing out the Mayor is a prime example of a senior citizen serving their community; he could surely have found a much easier job. The Senior Center building is deteriorating and needs to be replaced, a problem that has been discussed for the past 15 years. The lease agreement on tonight’s agenda will allow the Senior Center to raise the funds to build a new community center. She could not think of a better use for that land that was committed to the purpose of serving senior citizens when it was sold to the City. She urged the Council to resolve the land lease so they can begin raising funds to solve this age old problem. Don Hall, Edmonds, referred to the code of ethics for elected officials on tonight’s agenda, relaying it does not include an enforcement policy, ethics board, ethics officer or mechanism to file complaint. He recalled the at July 8, 2014 Public Safety & Personnel Committee meeting, Councilmember Fraley- Monillas expressed reluctant to have an enforcement policy and if there was one, that it might be handled in executive session, a concept he disagreed with. The August 27, 2013 minutes state Councilmember Petso feared someone who did not agree with an official’s position on an issue could file an ethics complaints and that she was unlikely to support a code of ethics that included a complaint process, ethics officer and enforcement. He questioned why waste the Council’s or the public’s time with a code of ethics that did not contain an enforcement policy, complaint procedure and would not done in the open. He referred to Bainbridge Island’s code of ethics that includes an ethics board and an easy to understand complaint form. Some cities use contracted ethics officers on a complaint driven basis. Next, as a downtown retailer, he suggested giving the BID a chance to show what it can do for all of downtown. The BID was not set up to help Starbucks or any other individual retailer but to help the entire downtown generate more tax dollars and make it a better place to shop. Ferrell Fleming, Executive Director, Senior Center, referred to Agenda Item 13, identifying the context for their proposal, 1) the 47 years partnership between the City and Senior Center, 2) the Strategic Action Plan adopted in 2013, 3) Council resolution 1313 adopted March 2014, and 4) the immediate needs of their fundraising process. The vast majority of cities in the county define providing recreational and supportive services to its older citizens as an important civic function; in most cases delivered via a senior center, usually city owned, staffed and managed. If Edmonds had to fully fund the senior Center, it would cost at least what the senior center pays and probably more; their current budget is $650,000 and the City’s share is $60,000. The Senior Center wants to work with the City to define what the City wants with regard to use of the facility and he was certain language could be developed to provide appropriate flexibility over time. The intent is for the new building to be a community center, not just a senior center. The notes provided to the Council again raise the issue of relocating the center; resolution 1313 adopted in March 2014 has several references to the current site. The Strategic Action Plan rates updating the senior center on its current site as very high and rates relocating the senior center as very low. The seniors who use the center are passionately dedicated to this site. The question of who is responsible for the Packet Page 6 of 453 parking lot, parking study, design and construction can be worked out as the process moves forward and could be left as a mutual responsibility. At the end of the project the Senior Center will own the building but the park will be owned by the City. If the parking lot bulkhead is pulled back, the walkway connected going south, green space on the water’s edge increased, he was confident the City could identify considerable grant money. Their application for State capital funds, a development grant from the Hazel Miller Foundation and large donations from individual donors all require appropriate site control which a mutually agreed upon ground lease and signed option release would provide. Dave Page, Edmonds, commented the Senior Center is interviewing someone next week to assist with the capital campaign. The capital campaign cannot go forward until the lease is agreed upon. This is a time sensitive issue; the campaign needs to start as soon as possible while enthusiasm is high. With regard to the train trench, he recalled the figure $250 million was identified to start the project in 3 years. The project likely would not start for 5 years and the cost would increase to $400 million. He pointed out $400 million was City’s entire budget for 10 years. He urged the City not to spend any more money on the train trench, anticipating once digging began, problems would mount. He preferred to build something else for a lower amount over the top for emergency vehicles. Next, he questioned the need for a Diversity Commission, commenting Edmonds was the most diverse city in the universe where everyone is welcome. ACTION ITEMS 7. APPOINTMENT TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF RONALD BRIGHTMAN AND BARBARA DURR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COST FOR THE 5TH AVENUE OVERLAY PROJECT AND PROJECT ACCEPTANCE Public Works Director Phil Williams commented this is a normal close out for the Council to accept the paving and ramps on 5th Avenue. The project was largely completed last year; closeout has taken some time due to documentation issues. The construction contract the Council approved last year was $732,732 with a $73,000 management reserve; the final amount spent was $739,050, 8.3% under budget. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT, BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE FINAL CONSTRUCTION COST FOR THE 5TH AVENUE OVERLAY PROJECT AND ACCEPT THE PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. AMENDMENT TO THE WOODWAY POLICE SERVICES CONTRACT APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 3, 2014 Police Chief Al Compaan explained this matter was before Council at the November 3, 2014 meeting and at the September 9, 2014 Finance Committee meeting. On November 3 the Council approved the draft Woodway contract for a period of 6 months to allow time for further discussion/negotiation with Woodway. The existing contract expires December 31, 2014; the 6 month interim contract will begin January 1, 2015 and be effective through June 30, 2015 unless Council takes further action tonight. Council President Buckshnis corrected a statement in the agenda memo; clarifying she requested the term of the contract be reconsidered. Packet Page 7 of 453 Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding the intent of the 6 month period was to evaluate the increase in the fee by $60/month from $3,000/month to $3,060. The Council approved the contract with the 6 month term by a vote of 6-1. She was confused why this matter was being reconsidered. Councilmember Mesaros relayed his discussion with Woodway Mayor Nichols included how the contract could be extended for a longer period of time to provide them a sense of certainty regarding services they would receive from the Edmonds Police Department. During discussions with Woodway, he suggested increasing the monthly fee as well as the term of the contract. Woodway Mayor Nichols was not willing to accept that and wanted to return to a three year contract. The intent of the six month interim contract was to allow those conversations to continue. Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding additional data would be collected and provided to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas during the six months. She asked whether taking this action tonight would abdicate that commitment. Councilmember Mesaros recalled Councilmember Fraley-Monillas wanted more information but he did not recall a commitment was made. Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding was the result of the email she and Councilmember Mesaros received Friday; she will check the minutes. Councilmember Petso relayed a question regarding the legality of a city subsidizing another jurisdiction’s operations. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered there is a constitution prohibition related to the gifting of public funds. In his opinion this does not constitute a gifting of public funds even if it is considered a slight subsidy. The State Supreme Court has watered down what it means to gift public funds, it is nearly impossible to have something considered a gift of public funds. He suggested Chief Compaan answer whether there is a subsidy. From a strictly constitutional standpoint, he would be surprised if the court would overturn this contract as a gift of public funds. Councilmember Petso observed the contract only allowed it to be terminated in the event of breach. She asked if there was another termination provision based on notice. Mr. Taraday offered to check the contract. Councilmember Bloom commented this was sprung on the Council; there was a 6-1 vote to review the contract after 6 months and issues were going to be brought back to the Council for consideration including the fee assessed to Woodway. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO POSTPONE THIS UNTIL COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS IS PRESENT. Councilmember Bloom commented this is a 3 year contract; the fees are being increased only $60/month for 18 hours of service to Woodway per day. When this was last discussed, her primary concern was the tax percentage allocated was much lower for Woodway residents than Edmonds residents. The amount the City receives from Woodway is not enough to hire even one additional officer; the City needs to hire a crime prevention team that was eliminated when cuts were made. She summarized this was not a wise financial decision and more time was needed to determine whether the fee could reasonably be increased. She recalled Councilmember Fraley-Monillas felt very strongly about this and she was actively involved in the initial negotiation and voted against the $3,000/month fee. She was uncomfortable making a decision without Councilmember Fraley-Monillas at the meeting. Councilmember Mesaros referred to Councilmember Bloom’s indication the City provided 18 hours of service per day to Woodway. Chief Compaan clarified Woodway provides their own police services 8-9 hours per day and via this contract Edmonds provides the balance in the form of response to Priority 1 and 2 calls. Councilmember Bloom observed Edmonds provides approximately 16 hours of service per Packet Page 8 of 453 day to Woodway. She reiterated the percentage of tax is much lower for Woodway residents than Edmonds residents. Councilmember Mesaros clarified the 16 hours of service provided to Woodway is not same as Edmonds Police provides to Edmonds residents. Chief Compaan answered it is not the same extent as far as providing visible patrol; Edmonds Police respond to Priority 1 and 2 calls to 911. Council President Buckshnis commented this is the same argument the Council has had in the past. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed her concern and the minutes do not indicate that she required additional information. Although some people think Edmonds should force full-time service on Woodway, this contract is only for part-time, on-call, Priority 1 and 2 service to Woodway. Due diligence has been done with Chief Compaan, Finance Director Scott James, Mayor Nichols, Mayor Earling and the Finance Committee and sufficient information provided to Councilmember Mesaros to negotiate with Woodway. In response to Councilmember Petso’s earlier question, Mr. Taraday relayed the contract can be terminated without cause by the provision of 90 days written notice. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO AMEND THE WOODWAY POLICE CONTRACT APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 3, 2014, TO CHANGE THE TERM FROM A 6 MONTH TERM TO A 3 YEAR TERM. Councilmember Petso clarified even though the contract would have a term of 3 years, it can be terminated with 90 days’ notice. Mr. Taraday answered yes. He relayed his understanding of the motion was to amend the Council’s earlier action with regard to the contract in Attachment 1 to Agenda Item 9. That contract contains the language that allows termination without cause upon 90 days written notice. MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess to allow the Council to move to the table for the study session. STUDY ITEMS 10. PROPOSED 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Public Works Director Phil Williams commented there were differences between the submitted CIP in 2015 and the proposed budget. Although they do not necessarily have to match, due to the preference that they match, the numbers were changed so that they match including four items in Facilities. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite relayed that based on Councilmember Petso’s comments, a change was made to the description of City Park Improvement on CIP page 29. There are two projects listed for City Park Revitalization, one is the revitalization itself and the other is improvements to the rest of City Park. A second change was the addition of the Veteran’s Plaza to the CIP. Packet Page 9 of 453 Mr. Williams explained this item was discussion, questions and answers with the hope of scheduling it for adoption on next week’s agenda. Councilmember Petso relayed one of her concerns was balancing the building fund budget with the CIP. She referred to an email from Mr. Williams that indicates there is an extra $15,000 if something comes up. She suggested including that as miscellaneous in the budget book or CIP so that they balance. Mr. Williams was amenable to that change. Councilmember Bloom relayed her strong feeling that emergency vehicle and pedestrian access needed to be separated out in the CFP/CIP, included in Comprehensive Plan and be something that is looked at immediately. Her rationale was the alternatives study, whatever is decided to study whether it is a trench, underpass, overpass, tunnel, modified Edmonds Crossing, none of those alternatives specifically address emergency vehicle and pedestrian access. The funds to study this are in 2019 and 2020, meaning nothing will be done about emergency vehicle and pedestrian access for 5 years. This is a crucial issue and the City owes it to the citizens to begin it now. She recommended this issue be included similar to the trackside warning system that includes funding for a study next year and installation in 2016. She noted the same was done for the Sunset Avenue Walkway project; funding of the study was not constrained. She summarized emergency vehicle and pedestrian access did not have to be constrained if the City believed funding could be obtained to study it. Councilmember Bloom recalled Councilmember Petso identified 2-3 possible funding sources including the Recreation Conservation Office (RCO), Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) or a partnership with BNSF or Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The facility could be used as park; she referred to the Vancouver pedestrian only land bridge that was built some time ago for a cost of $12 million. She recognized Edmonds’ project would be more extensive as it would include a lane for emergency vehicle access. Two potential locations have been discussed by the community, Bell Street and Pt. Edwards down from the potential future Edmonds Crossing location to Admiral Way. One engineer in the public has discussed the possibility of the Bell Street location but no formal study has been done. She did not want to wait to address emergency vehicles in an alternatives study in 5 years and then an unknown number of years until it was constructed. When the Council takes action on the CFP/CIP, she intends to make a motion to add that project to the CFP/CIP and the Comprehensive Plan. She asked other Councilmembers to explain why they felt that was not a good idea. Councilmember Mesaros asked if funds for an alternative study were in next year’s budget. Mr. Williams answered it is not in the budget because there is no funding yet to pursue it. There are efforts underway to reach consensus in the legislature with regard to accessing State funds. He could not justify including it in the budget unless there was a good indication the funds would be available. Councilmember Mesaros observed there is an emphasis on moving the alternatives study forward. Mayor Earling agreed emergency vehicle and pedestrian access would be one of the issues considered in an alternatives analysis. Councilmember Bloom clarified she wanted to discuss separating emergency vehicle and pedestrian access from the alternatives study. Councilmember Mesaros was unclear why that needed to be separated. Councilmember Bloom explained because of the time involved and because there could be an accident now or someone could die over there because emergency vehicles could not reach them or there could be a blockage that affects the ferries. She anticipated there may be ways to provide emergency vehicle and pedestrian access in more rapid way to provide service to the senior center, the dog park, the dive park, the residences and restaurants and to assure citizens the City is working toward finding a solution sooner rather than waiting until the ferry and railroad problems are addressed. Mr. Williams explained the description of the alternatives analysis includes waterfront access issues emphasizing and prioritizing near term solutions to providing emergency access. If that issue is separated from the alternatives analysis, he asked the amount and source of those funds. Councilmember Bloom referred to the sources cited by Councilmember Petso. Packet Page 10 of 453 Councilmember Petso said her comment was with regard to funding options not necessarily dollar amounts. She asked how much it would cost to start looking at the possibility of a Bell or Edmonds Street overpass or near Pt. Edwards. She asked whether RCO funding could be pursued if there was a sufficient recreation component. Ms. Hite responded the recreational value add for a pedestrian walkway over the tracks would definitely qualify for RCO funding. The emergency vehicle portion would not quality so a project that included both would likely be funded on a percentage basis. Such a pedestrian walkway may be competitive if it connected to the waterfront trail system. Mr. Williams commented an emergency vehicle overpass at Bell or Pine Street would be a really big project and considering the feasibility of building it would not be a trivial endeavor. A predesign study that would take both to a certain level of design to determine which one was the most cost effective and efficacious, and 30% design to obtain design and construction funds, would be a sizable study. Councilmember Petso asked for a dollar amount for predesign to identify options. She noted funding for a train trench which would offer a complete solution was also in the out years similar to funding for the alternative study analysis. She asked how much would be required to take a first look at emergency access, similar to the citizens; proposal for the City to take a first look at the train trench idea. Mr. Williams said he would prefer to think about it and talk with a few people before he identified an amount. He reiterated building an overpass at either location would be a sizable project. Councilmember Petso commented the Council has not been discussing this proposal for several weeks like they have other proposals. She asked whether there was time to schedule and provide proper notice for a public hearing next week on the possible inclusion of these two items into the CFP and budget. City Clerk Scott Passey answered public hearing notice following the land use public hearing notice procedure which provides ten days’ notice; two weeks lead time is required to place the notice. Councilmember Petso asked whether there was a requirement that the budget and CFP/CIP have ten days’ notice. Mr. Passey answered yes for the budget which was done earlier this year. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether a public hearing would be required to make this change to the CFP/CIP. Mr. Passey answered there was not a legal requirement; it was optional if the Council wanted to notice a public hearing. Council President Buckshnis commented she looks at this from regional standpoint. She questioned whether a separate emergency vehicle and pedestrian access would compete with the alternatives analysis. Mr. Williams anticipated there would be confusion; recent conversations with legislators have been in regard to a comprehensive solution He acknowledged there may not be one single capital project to solve all the issues and there could be independent projects as a result of the alternatives analysis. The outcome of the study is unknown until it is conducted. If the intent is a flyover at Bell or Pine for the purpose of getting emergency vehicles across and possibly pedestrians but would not provide any automobile traffic or do anything to help the Washington State Ferry (WSF), it would be immensely difficult to fund even with a concept. Council President Buckshnis envisioned the projects would compete with each other for funding. The top priority for the alternatives study is waterfront access with emphasize on prioritizing near term solutions to provide emergency access. Mr. Williams commented pursuing grant funds for any CIP project is a very competitive process. Adding confusion and potential overlapping concepts would require explanation. Councilmember Bloom said she understood it would require explanation. Her concern was including something in the CFP/CIP and the Comprehensive Plan that focuses specifically on emergency vehicle and pedestrian access is long overdue and she was concerned with continuing to delay it. Delaying emergency access was a disservice to any citizen who crosses the tracks and could potentially be subject to a train breakdown, heart attack, accident, derailment, explosion, etc. She questioned the purpose of waiting any longer and reiterated the need to address emergency vehicle and pedestrian access separately; resolving the ferry at-grade crossing issue is different than emergency vehicle and pedestrian access, they Packet Page 11 of 453 do not have to be addressed together. She preferred to focus on the two options that have been proposed sooner rather than later. She was stunned to learn emergency vehicle and pedestrian access was not on any of the City’s plans. The only thing in Edmonds Crossing was an elevator which would not help if there was any serious blockage or disaster. Council President Buckshnis expressed concern with separating emergency vehicle and pedestrian access; if the legislature develops a transportation package, they will look at Edmonds’ transportation problem in its entirety. If the emergency vehicle and pedestrian access was a separate project, the City may be required to fund themselves and it will not be inexpensive. She reiterated the description of the alternatives analysis clearly states as number 1, waterfront access issue emphasizing and prioritizing near term solutions. In the State’s tight budget, that includes a $1 billion deficit, everyone needs to be on the same page. Edmonds is unique because there is not only pedestrian safety but also the at-grade crossing and ferry access on a State highway. The City should be at the top of the list for getting this done because it really needs to be done sooner rather than later. Councilmember Bloom agreed but pointed out funds for the alternatives study is not on the CIP/CFP until 2019/2020. Council President Buckshnis suggested it could be moved up. Mr. Williams explained the City is requesting the money now; it is not in the first 3 years of the CIP because there is not a reasonable expectation or any indication from a funding source that the funds will be available. There is no guarantee that funding request will be success in this legislative session. Mayor Earling commented he understood Councilmember Bloom’s concern. He recalled language was added last year regarding the emergency vehicle and pedestrian access and it was first in the priority list in response to Councilmember Bloom’s concern. Considerable work has been done to advance the idea of an alternatives analysis and there has been some preliminary success. He feared the creation of dueling projects would cause problems in getting anything out of the legislature for either project and he feared it would be difficult to find adequate funding if the focus was only on emergency vehicle and pedestrian access. Although some funds may be available via an RCO grant, there are other projects for which staff would like to obtain grants. Further, much of PSRC’s money is federal funds and since the recession, there is a huge list of priorities in the region and for the State to fund. He did not want to jeopardize the bigger picture, long term solution that would address the issues Councilmember Bloom is concerned about. He summarized identifying funding for a separate project would be difficult and he feared requesting two projects would create more problems. Councilmember Petso referred to Mayor Earling’s comment that the bigger solution would address Councilmember Bloom’s concerns; it was her understanding several of the other solutions to the train issues do not address emergency access. For example the Edmonds Crossing project did not have a provision for emergency access and she has been told WSF is adverse to permitting emergency access in conjunction with its facility for security reasons. She questioned whether that was misinformation. Mayor Earling answered probably not, but it could be considered in the alternatives analysis as add-on. The cost of the Edmonds Crossing project, without emergency vehicle and pedestrian access, is in the range of $300 million. With the numerous transportation needs statewide and in the Puget Sound area, he envisioned that putting together funding for a $300 million project would be challenging. It is in the City’s best long term interest to do a thorough analysis of potential alternatives which includes emergency vehicle and pedestrian overpass. Mayor Earling commented he has been around the block enough times to know it will be very difficult to find $5-12 million for a standalone project. Mr. Williams commented the guidelines in GMA suggested projects for which there is not a reasonable expectation of funding be placed in the last three years of the CIP. If the Council believes based on the effort underway that there is a reasonable expectation funding will be available a year earlier, there is nothing preventing moving it up a year. If funding is not found, the project can be moved back. He agreed a project tends to look like a higher priority when it is moved up on the CIP. He clarified there is a Packet Page 12 of 453 general expectation in GMA regarding a reasonable expectation of funding. The City’s policy in the past has been if there are design funds to pursue a project, that is considered a reasonable expectation that design and construction will follow and those projects are moved up. If there are no funds identified, the project is generally placed in the first of the last 3 years. Mr. Taraday agreed under GMA the first 6 years of the CFP is supposed to be the feasible phase of the plan; that does not necessarily mean the City has to identify the source of all the funds but there shouldn’t be projects for which there is not a feasible plan. Councilmember Bloom referred to Councilmember Petso’s comment that WSF would not allow emergency vehicle access with Edmonds Crossing for security reasons, and asked whether the same would be true for an over or underpass. Mr. Williams answered he had never heard that; he was not employed by the City when Edmonds Crossing was being discussed. He assumed WSF would be supportive of emergency vehicle due to the number of people that use the ferry and the potential of the train blocking access to a ferry user with a health issue. Councilmember Bloom reiterated her understanding that a tunnel would require two lanes each for unloading and one lane dedicated to emergency vehicle access. Mr. Williams did not envision having a dedicated lane for emergency vehicle access; it would be too expensive for the amount of use, and he did not envision two dedicated lanes in and two dedicated lanes out. The ferry would be loaded the same way is today, the same lanes are used for loading and unloading. Councilmember Bloom asked whether an alternatives study that prioritized emergency vehicle access would include a tunnel. Mr. Williams responded the tunnel could be 3 lanes instead of the 5 lanes Councilmember Bloom envisioned; it would depend on how vehicles are queued, etc. Mayor Earling observed the Council has had a healthy discussion about this issue and he suggested Councilmember Bloom make a motion at the next meeting if she chose. Councilmember Petso said it is still her intent to make a motion to take the term “multiuse” out of the Sunset Avenue Walkway. She has not receiving a lot of emails in support of bikes on the west side of Sunset nor do many bikes use the west side of Sunset. The road has been striped for bicycles and the walkway for pedestrian and that is how it is being used. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item for action on next week’s agenda. 11. CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2015 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET Finance Director Scott James referred to the list of Mayor’s Preliminary Budget Book Changes that is available on the City’s website. The changes will increase the ending fund balance in the General Fund by over $580,000; General Fund expenses are reduced by $201,000; and there is $379,000 in revenue increases. He suggested the Council’s discussion focus on changes to the budget, questions to staff and the allocation of the $250,000. He referred to the financial challenges he has described to the Council in the past, pointing out those are serious dollar amounts that need to be addressed. The challenges include nearly $1.2 million in ongoing costs that will need to be addressed in next year’s budget. Beyond 2015, other challenges loom. When Mayor Earling developed the 2015 budget, he chose a path of caution; his budget message stated he was trying to make prudent decisions. Although Mayor Earling received requests from staff for ongoing increases, he chose a conservative path. Future costs include additional funding for the Firemen’s Pension, the LEOFF Fund, and the Contingency Reserve Fund for which the Council’s adopted policy is 8%-16%. Councilmember Petso referred to Mr. James’ comment that the policy for the Contingency Reserve Fund is for it to contain 8%-16%. She asked whether the Contingency Reserve Fund was above 8% but not yet at 16%. Mr. James agreed. He acknowledged the City has another reserve fund, the Risk Management Packet Page 13 of 453 Reserve, that by policy is 2%; there has been some discussion about including that in the Contingency Reserve Fund to increase the percentage. Council President Buckshnis asked the difference between Council Preliminary Budget Book Changes and the list of Council Allocations of $250,000. Mr. James explained the Preliminary Budget Book Changes are suggested changes to the budget and are more of an ongoing nature with the exception of hiring a consultant to complete the develop code rewrite; the $250,000 is the amount the Mayor identified for Council allocations for one-time costs. Council President Buckshnis suggested hiring a consultant to complete the rewrite be moved to the list of allocations from the $250,000. Based on Councilmember Bloom’s comments, Councilmember Petso requested the train trench study and peer review be changed to $50,000 and a new $50,000 item, Emergency Access Preliminary Analysis, be added. She asked for details regarding what the Highway 99 Study and Planning will fund. Development Services Director Shane Hope explained $100,000 was suggested by Councilmember Fraley-Monillas to develop a plan and some standards for Highway 99 to develop streetscape, etc. There has also been discussion regarding an additional $75,000 for an environmental analysis that would be integrated. Councilmember Petso asked how the $100,000 item differs from the $10 million streetscape project in the plan. Ms. Hope answered the $10 million is for construction of the streetscape, not the plans and design standards. The plan would also address land uses in the vicinity, not just Highway 99 itself. Councilmember Petso asked whether it will include a parking study. Ms. Hope answered yes. Councilmember Johnson commented it was appropriate to discuss the Planned Action EIS as it relates to planning for Highway 99. Although she has not had an opportunity to speak to Councilmember Fraley- Monillas, she has discussed a combined effort phased over several years with Ms. Hope. Given those parameters, quite a bit could be accomplished with $100,000. However, that would require the understanding of Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. Ms. Hope commented ideally for a planned action, the planning and the environmental analysis would be done at the same time. If the entire amount was not available, the $100,000 initial study could be conducted the first year followed by $75,000 the next year for environmental review. Councilmember Johnson suggested it could begin mid-year 2015 and continue into 2016 when additional budget may be available. She observed the intent was a comprehensive analysis; the question was how to slice the dollars. Ms. Hope agreed, recalling beginning in mid-2015 and taking about a year had been discussed. Councilmember Johnson asked whether $100,000 would suffice for 2015. Ms. Hope answered yes. Councilmember Bloom asked how long the rewrite of the development by Makers will take. Ms. Hope answered the end of November 2015. Councilmember Bloom suggested the next phase of the rewrite begin as that is concluding so there is some overlap. She asked whether that was reasonable within staff’s workload, how the code rewrite relates to the Highway 99 Study and whether they could be combined to be more efficient. Ms. Hope answered Highway 99 actually needs a study and plan; it is separate from the code rewrite. While both will result in code, there needs to be a separate review although they could occur concurrently. With regard to whether the second phase of the code rewrite could begin in late 2015, Ms. Hope answered possibly; the challenge would be making that work and whether funds would be available. Councilmember Bloom recalled her proposal was $300,000 as that was the amount Ms. Hope indicated would be required in addition to the $115,000 to do a complete rewrite of the development code. She asked whether it would be reasonable in 2015 to allocate $150,000 for the code write to overlap the current effort. Ms. Hope answered the amount of work in the first phase of the code rewrite will make it challenging to do more in the first year. She recommended waiting until the 2016 budget to add more. Packet Page 14 of 453 Councilmember Petso asked for Council feedback on, 1) the Crime Prevention Officer in the event ongoing funding can be identified for at least three years, and 2) potentially combining the Contingency Reserve and the Risk Management Reserve Funds. Councilmember Peterson said he would support the Crime Prevention Officer if funding can be identified. With regard to combining the two reserve funds, the policy to create those two funds was recently adopted and he preferred to wait a couple of budget cycles before combining them especially with some of the higher profile litigation issues the City has been involved in as well as statewide litigation. He preferred to retain the Risk Management Reserve as a separate fund, observing that was a more transparent method. Councilmember Mesaros echoed Councilmember Peterson’s comments regarding support for an additional police officer if funds are available in the budget. As a newer member of the Council, Councilmember Mesaros followed Councilmember Peterson’s lead in allowing more time before the reserve funds were combined. Councilmember Petso observed the reserve funds have been through a couple budget cycles, recalling it was instituted during the Haines Wharf issue and the recognition that a major settlement was likely. Councilmember Johnson requested information regarding the total cost of the Crime Prevention Officer, including salary, benefits and other items, be provided before next week’s meeting. Councilmember Bloom asked staff to comment on Decision Package 14, Public Relations Assistant. Her understanding was that position was to provide two-way communication to the public and improve ways for the public to communicate with Council. What she has seen is press releases and public relations and little on the side of improving communication online, making information available to the public, a way to respond to the public’s questions or an increase in transparency. Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty responded the City’s website is currently under reconstruction; there is a short contract using 2014 dollars to revamp the website. The architecture the website is based on is out-of-date, pages cannot be added and it is no longer supported by the vendor. In fact a meeting was held today to discuss how the public interacts with staff, contacts and a City liaison. The “contact us” on the City’s website currently identifies contacts by department or by issue. There is also a link to Citizen Liaison which contacts Cindi Cruz who assists with identifying a contact. The upgraded website will update that in a quick link tab at the top of the website With regard to the work the public relations consultant, Carolyn Douglas, has been doing, Mr. Doherty explained there hasn’t been the platform for her to interact with the City’s website due to the need for reconstruction. Under that contract next year two new things will occur, 1) an upgraded website that would allow more interaction as well as be easier for staff to update, and 2) the Facebook page will be created pending Council approval of the social media policy next week. The Facebook page will provide information regarding achievements and accomplishments, good news, and what’s happening in the City. Once those are completed, the scope of work for the public relations consultant includes many of the things Councilmember Bloom mentioned such as engaging the public; responding to the public; providing transparency; being a conduit between Council, Mayor, directors, and staff as well as interacting with the media in a proactive manner Councilmember Bloom recalled she wanted a Council blog so people can communicate directly with Councilmembers. She did not believe that was included in the job description or the plans. She asked if there was another way for citizens to communicate; for example Mukilteo has “Ask the Mukilteo” feature that allows the public to ask questions on the website and have responses displayed on the website. She asked whether there would be a mechanism for questions and answers to be viewed on the City’s website. Mr. Doherty answered that functionality, a bulletin board, does not currently exist nor was it identified in Packet Page 15 of 453 this contract. He noted a blog would be difficult due to the Open Public Meetings Act. Councilmember Bloom said she has let go of that idea. He noted a bulletin board often contains general information and/or a running Q&A regarding large projects; many citizens have a specific question about an issue that they do not necessarily want posted. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the bulletin board could be considered in the context of this position. Mr. Doherty explained responding to questions would require the expertise of each department; the public relations consultant could be involved in the process but it was doubtful one person could respond to all questions. Mayor Earling commented although he felt having another police office was a splendid idea, staff members were also needed in the Finance Department, on the second floor and there are other personnel needs. He noted one of the premises of the budget was to limit ongoing expenses. Although a Crime Prevention Officer was only $110,000 - $120,000 a year, that cost is ongoing. He requested Councilmembers talk to the Finance and Parks Departments and the second floor about their staffing needs. Councilmember Peterson referred to Councilmember Petso’s reference to fund a Crime Prevention Officer for 3 years, explaining funding for 5 years would be necessary to attract quality applicants. Councilmember Petso said 3 years was her commitment to Chief Compaan that he would not be hiring someone that would immediately be terminated. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the City had considered an ideal staffing pattern for all departments to provide a better understanding of total staffing when a position is requested. Mayor Earling said each department could be asked to provide a list. Council President Buckshnis commented that was one of the things that would be done if the City ever moved to Budgeting By Priorities. She was hopeful the budget and CFP/CIP will be approved at next week’s meeting and encouraged Councilmembers to contact directors, her or Mayor Earling with any questions. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 12. PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICES DISCUSSION Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite referred to a memo in the Council packet regarding the new guidelines for public defender services in Washington and the most recent court ruling against the cities of Burlington and Mt. Vernon. This proposal is the result of several discussions with the City Attorney and places the City in a good position to offer public defense services for indigent defendants according to State’s guidelines. She reviewed staff’s recommendations. 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign a new contract with Feldman and Lee for 2015 The City is current under contract with Feldman and Lee for 2014. An RFQ was not prepared for 2015 awaiting the court ruling. She noted no one has been overseeing the public defender contract; it is a capacity issue as well as a question of who is responsible, whether it is the Court, the City Attorney, or Human Resources. When the Council approved an amendment to the Feldman and Lee contract in April, the City Attorney recommended that be considered as well as an RFQ process instituted for public defense services. As there is not an RFQ process underway, staff recommends securing the services of Feldman and Lee until someone is hired to assist with the RFQ process. Although the recommendation is for a six month contract with Feldman and Lee, they expressed a preference for a one year contract. If Council direction is to enter into a six month contract, that will need to be negotiated with Feldman and Lee. 3. Adopt a budget amendment for 2014 in the amount of $66,000 to cover the contract the Council adopted in March 2014 4. Add an allocation to the 2015 budget for the public defender in the amount of $70,000 due to the caseload requirements adopted by the State. Packet Page 16 of 453 5. Add a placeholder in the budget of $25,000 for a public defense supervisor, pending a recommendation by Eileen Farley (attorney who worked with Burlington and Mt. Vernon) regarding how the City can satisfy the requirements of the court ruling. Funds in the 2014 professional services budget are being used to pay Ms. Farley to draft an RFQ and analyze the City’s public defense system and services and make a recommendation. Many cities and counties are struggling to meet the mandated requirements without any funding and are adding part- time and full-time positions to oversee public defense services. She did not think Edmonds needed to do that but she wanted Ms. Farley to provide a recommendation. Mr. Taraday clarified some mechanism for ongoing supervision of the public defender is needed but it does not necessarily need to be a half-time permanent City employee. Councilmember Mesaros suggested adding an evaluation process for the public defender’s services to Item 5. He asked the term of the contract with Feldman and Lee prior to the most recent contract. Mr. Taraday answered Feldman and Lee have been the City’s public defender for decades and have been on an approximately four year contract cycle. The most recent contract that ends December 31, 2014 was approximately a nine month contract due to the caseload requirement issue. Councilmember Mesaros asked the approximate monthly caseload. Ms. Hite recalled 450-550 including traffic infractions. Mr. Taraday clarified those do not all require a public defender. Councilmember Mesaros asked the percentage of cases that utilize the services of a public defender. Mr. Taraday’s vague recollection was the indigent defense cases generated by Edmonds would be approximately 700/year. He recalled Feldman and Lee’s indication they would need two full-time attorneys to staff Edmonds. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the contract extension could be 8 months instead of 6 or 12. Ms. Hite answered a different term could be negotiated with Feldman and Lee. Mr. Taraday relayed Feldman and Lee was interested in a one year contract; he was unsure how much of their argument was leverage and how much was a legitimate, logistical staffing concern. He asked Feldman and Lee whether they would be willing to sign a six month extension and their answer was that would be difficult but they would do a one year extension. Depending on tonight’s discussion, he can approach Feldman and Lee again but he felt a six month extension would be more difficult. Councilmember Peterson commented another consideration with a six month extension is the City will have a new judge which will be chaotic enough without changing public defenders. He suggested a one year extension to not add an extra element of chaos would serve everyone well. Although an RFP may be drafted within six months, he preferred to provide a cushion to ensure the RFP was done correctly as well as addressed the changes instituted by the court. Councilmember Petso requested Ms. Hite ensure the Finance Director incorporated this increase in his budget projections. Ms. Hite agreed to relay that information to him. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item on next week’s Consent Agenda with a one year extension in Feldman and Lee’s contract. 13. SENIOR CENTER LEASE DISCUSSION Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained this is a proposed ground lease for the Senior Center. She recalled the Council unanimously passed a resolution on March 18, 2014 supporting the rebuild of the Edmonds Senior Center at its current location. On October 21, 2014 the Council unanimously approved having staff negotiate a ground lease with the Senior Center so that a capital campaign could be launched. The Senior Center has provided a draft ground lease as well as an option to lease. She explained the Senior Center is currently located in a City-owned building; the option to lease gives them control of the land so that they can launch a capital campaign. The option to lease provides the Senior Center the Packet Page 17 of 453 option to lease the ground for a term of 55 years with extensions. The lease identifies the terms of the agreement when they actually break ground on the new center. The City Attorney, Public Works Department and she have thoroughly agreed the documents. She reviewed questions that have been raised. 1. Cost of the lease. Ms. Hite recommended skipping this item for now. 2. Does the Council intend to allow the Senior Center to build on the existing site? The agenda memo includes questions posed by the City Attorney regarding whether this is the optimal location for the Senior Center, does the Council want to consider development of a Senior Center at a different location or reaffirm the resolution approved this spring. Councilmember Mesaros commented although the Council should be open to considering location options, there is a historical precedent for keeping it at its present location. The strategy for a community center that many more citizens will be able to use it makes it an ideal location. Councilmember Bloom recommended the Council honor the resolution that was unanimously approved and support the Senior Center at its current location. To be questioning the location of the Senior Center at this point would be unfortunate timing as they are ready to launch their capital campaign. Councilmember Johnson commented in the event emergency access is not provided, it would be prudent to give consideration to alternatives for providing emergency services to the people who potentially will be isolated from medical services. Council President Buckshnis commented Dr. Hickman is on staff at the Senior Center. She expressed support for the resolution previously approved by the Council. 3. Assuming the current location is the best location, the Senior Center will need to follow land use codes in designing and constructing the building. Are the City’s land use regulations enough or does the Council wish to include something in the lease that would allow the City to be involved in the site plan such as where the building is located on the site, how park redevelopment occurs, etc. This can be negotiated into the lease or the City can have legislative discretion to approve or reject the proposed site plan once one is prepared. Councilmember Petso requested either it be stated in the lease or that the City have the legislative discretion to approve or reject to ensure any approval addresses the needs of the community and the senior center. She did not want to leave that up to the development code. Ms. Hite relayed the Senior Center envisions a very collaborative process. Councilmember Peterson suggested minimizing Council guidance as the Senior Center goes through their process; he preferred Council be involved at a specific percentage of design. Ms. Hite suggested identifying a public process in the lease. 4. Does the City want to take on the responsibility of the parking lot study, design, and construction? The parking lot is part of the development around the senior center as well as the park plan which is separate from the parking lot. She recommended the City take responsibility for the park land and redevelopment around the Senior Center. For Councilmember Peterson, Ms. Hite advised responsibility meant financial, design, parking lot study and construction. Councilmember Peterson observed the parking lot is shared with beach users, envisioning there could be a negotiated amount of parking for the center and beach users and the Packet Page 18 of 453 Senior Center and the City could be responsible for a percentage of the design and construction costs. He suggested the lease indicate the parking lot would be a shared expense. He was hopeful the contracts for the building, parking lot and park could be coordinated. Councilmember Mesaros asked what was the alternative to the City accepting responsibility. Ms. Hite answered the Senior Center would be responsible. Councilmember Mesaros suggested including public access to parking in the least agreement. Councilmember Petso was okay with the parking lot being the City’s responsibility as long as it was within the City’s control. She could accept shared responsibility but feared control issues may arise. Councilmember Mesaros found a shared responsibility acceptable; a percentage that was fair to the Community Center as well as the public. Councilmember Peterson commented the ideal would be the parking spaces would be designated for the Community Center during certain hours. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the City’s land use code will dictate a minimum number of parking spaces for the center and may do the same for the park. Councilmember Mesaros commented that may solve the ratio question. Mr. Taraday envisioned once the square footage of the building is determined, the code will require a certain number of parking spaces to serve the building. 5. Should the City require a performance bond or similar security? Councilmember Mesaros was not supportive of a performance bond or similar security unless someone could provide a compelling reason. He commented the City and Senior Center were acting in good faith and the Senior Center is taking on a fundraising campaign to provide a new building. Mr. Taraday provided a hypothetical concern, what happens if the senior center started construction on the building and could not complete it for some reason, leaving an unfinished building. Councilmember Mesaros commented a performance bond seemed punitive. Mr. Taraday explained it was required of all subdivisions. Mayor Earling clarified every construction project in the City has a bond. Councilmember Petso was convinced a bond should be required, whether it was paid for by the City, the Senior Center or a shared expense. Councilmember Bloom agreed it should be required for the Senior Center if it is required for all other development. Councilmember Mesaros agreed. 6. Are there any other concerns with the proposed lease option and ground lease? Councilmember Peterson asked when details such as when the building is available for uses other than the Senior Center, who does scheduling, etc. needed to be worked out. He wanted the Senior Center to be able to proceed but envisioned in ten years there may be new ideas regarding how the community center is used by the City; it was difficult to write a contract before it the building is constructed and before the amenities are finalized. Ms. Hite suggested there could be an ability to amend the lease in the future. She agreed some specificity is necessary for the option to lease. The building is intended to be a community center and Parks & Recreation will schedule classes and programs. The current Senior Center usage is during the day Monday – Friday 8:00 a.m. to 3:00-4:00 Packet Page 19 of 453 p.m. with rentals on the weekend. She envisioned the City would request use of the facility and programming in the late afternoon until 9:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. the Frances Anderson Center is totally booked on those nights; additional space would be an asset to the citizens of Edmonds. She will propose that in the lease and it could be amended as necessary in the future. Councilmember Petso asked whether sample leases could be obtained from similar facilities. Ms. Hite offered to request other cities’ leases. Ms. Hite suggested she confer with the City Attorney, make revisions to the lease using the Council’s input, obtain other cities’ leases and return to Council in the next few weeks to include discussing the cost of the lease in executive session. 14. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS This item was postponed to a future meeting so that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas could present for the discussion. 15. DISCUSSION OF EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID) ISSUES Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty recalled the Council approved the BID’s work program and budget on November 18, 2014 and identified 3 key issues for further discussion, 1) assessment rate structure, 2) delinquent payment collections, and 3) BID boundary expansion. With regard to the assessment rate structure, Mr. Doherty referred to the existing rate structure for open door and by appointment businesses in the agenda packet. He researched 11 other BIDs; the one that is the most similar is Poulsbo in that it uses square footage of the business to determine the assessment rate. Poulsbo’s rates are very similar to the BID for businesses under 500 square feet, higher for 500-1000 and substantially lower for large businesses although Poulsbo’s cap is substantially higher. In the remainder of the BIDs/BIAs including one being proposed in Ballard, eight in Seattle, and Olympia, the assessment structures vary widely and include square footage, size of property, property owners versus business owners, gross income, number of employees, parking spaces, flat fees and a combination. If the Council wished to pursue revising the assessment structure, 3-4 options could be developed. Councilmember Mesaros asked how the current rate structure was determined. Mr. Doherty advised it was proposed by the BID proponents, discussed with staff and presented and approved by Council. Councilmember Petso explained she has meet with a number of people on this issue. She requested Mr. Doherty investigate adjusting the fee structure in the near term to take into account the following objectives: lowering the cost for smaller businesses, lowering the cost for appointment only businesses and perhaps creating an additional discount for businesses not at street grade. She suggested if those objectives could be considered promptly, there may be enough goodwill created to look at more complicated issues such as whether to charge based on number of employees, square foot, property owner, or other creative alternatives that exist. Her near term objective was to demonstrate responsiveness and this might be a way to do that without actually losing a wheel. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for revising the BID assessment rate structure. In conversations with a lot of people, owners of appointment only and open door businesses, she found a lot of contention and concern about the fees that are levied. First, there are a number of businesses who believe the BID provides them no benefit. The BID’s mission was to provide value to everyone, that there would be benefit to all members. That is already not the case. She acknowledged the BID Board was working very Packet Page 20 of 453 hard and has done a great deal of work. Second, the way the fees are structured essentially penalizes small businesses. For example, a business over 5,000 square feet such as IGA, pays $600/year; an open door business of up to 500 square feet pays $360/year, more than half as much as IGA does. In her opinion this was a significant issue. The University District uses a per square foot calculation but has a lower minimum. Councilmember Bloom relayed another issue related to the things that the BID is paying for that benefit property owners. For example, there was an allocation of over $600 for Christmas lights on Main Street. She questioned how that provided any benefit other than to those businesses and said it was a benefit to the property owner rather than the businesses because it essentially subsidized the property owners. She recommended including the property owners in a change to the assessment rate structure, commenting the best measure of the value provided by the BID was the increase in property values. Including the property owners in the rate assessment structure would also mean including condominiums. She suggested the fees could be adjusted in a way that would include property owners and lower the fee for other businesses. Councilmember Peterson disagreed with Councilmembers Bloom and Petso. He recalled an incredible amount of work went into determining the rate structure including review of all the BIDs Mr. Doherty referred to. He has talked to a lot of businesses who are thrilled with the rate structure and what the BID is doing. Any time there is a fee involved, there will be a camp of people who do not want to pay it and others who love it, whether it is federal income tax or a ferry ride. He envisioned if a per square foot price were instituted, larger footprint stores like IGA would be just as furious. He noted Christmas lights were unlikely to increase property values but they add tremendous value to every business throughout the BID especially at this time of the year to businesses and to businesses outside the core. He summarized the assessment structure was well thought out and not everyone would be happy with the fee. He was more than happy to pay the fee and felt the BID benefited the area. Councilmember Peterson pointed out the BID is very young; if the Council decides to monkey around with their fees, next year the larger stores like IGA will be complaining which will require changing the assessment again. Continually adjusting the rate structure will never allow the BID to do the work they were established to do. He suggested giving the BID time and not micromanaging the fee structure. The BID did a lot of work establishing the rate assessment, the Council approved the rate and the Council should live with it. Councilmember Mesaros relayed in speaking with one BID member about the fees and the proposal to have property owner pays the assessment instead of businesses, they were not in favor of that proposal because they feared the property owner would increase their lease, possibly even more than the assessment. The business was very supportive of the assessment rate structure, echoing some of Councilmember Peterson’s comments that no one likes to pay additional fees but they could see the long term benefit to their business and the City. He spoke with another BID member who has an office on the second floor that pays the higher amount for by appointment business. He was very pleased to be part of the BID and saw the benefits it provided their employees and in attracting employees. Councilmember Petso commented Councilmember Bloom thinks she did not go far enough and Councilmember Peterson thinks she went way too far. She repeated her suggestion in the hope that the BID Board would not object; she favored lowering the fee for small businesses, lowering the amount changed to appointment only businesses, and providing a small discount for businesses that are not at grade. The rationale for her suggestions was the last packet provided solid evidence that the BID was over-charging small businesses relative to large businesses and there was a sense and possibly fact that a lot of what the BID wants to accomplish would benefit open door businesses versus appointment only businesses. Either a fee reduction or a fee schedule that shifts more of the cost to open door businesses would help start on the path of not having a business community and Council divided on this issue. Packet Page 21 of 453 For the audience, Councilmember Peterson pointed out there currently is a significant difference in the rate structure between open door businesses and appointment only businesses. Councilmember Bloom commented what she meant about the Christmas lights was the BID was subsidizing the property owners; the lights should have been the property owners’ expense. Ultimately the only way to measure the success of the BID was an increase in property values. She has spoken with numerous businesses; Councilmember Mesaros has spoken to two businesses. Councilmember Mesaros asked for a number. Councilmember Bloom answered probably 30. Councilmember Peterson commented the intent of the BID is to increase business, not increase property values. Councilmember Bloom said she has not spoken to any appointment only businesses who feel the BID provides any benefit to their business. Councilmember Peterson relayed that he has spoken to a lot. Councilmember Bloom said not only has she talked to numerous business that do not feel there is any benefit to their business, people are really angry about the way this was done. That is another issue that Councilmember Petso is trying to address. The BID is supposed to facilitate cooperation between business owners as well as revitalize the business area which Edmonds doesn’t really need. The way the BID was formed, switching from a petition method which did not have signatures of 60% of the businesses to a resolution method even though Ordinance 3909 says there was over 60% created such bad feelings that 21-29 businesses are in collections. Some of them are voluntarily not paying their assessment because they are so upset by the fact they are being assessed; it is a matter of principle to them. In order to address the anger about being assessed without their approval and involvement, the Council needs to look at the assessment. Councilmember Mesaros commented the BID has elected a group of leaders who are representative of the membership and their meetings are open for all members to attend and provide input. He suggested members talk to the leadership group and the leadership group make recommendations. The Council needs to honor the work done by that group. If a group of businesses do not like the decisions made by the BID Board, they should approach the BID Board, not the Council. Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding that the Council was responsible for the fee schedule and in changing the fee schedule the Council was not messing with the BID Board. Mr. Taraday responded any modification of the fee schedule requires a public hearing and notice the same as the original fee schedule. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Council had an obligation to ensure there was a relationship between the revenue generated by BID and the programs the BID spend the money on. For example if 100% of the money came from appointment only businesses and the work plan proposed spending 100% of the money on advertising for open door businesses, would the Council be expected to make an adjustment. Mr. Taraday answered the primary obligation of the Council with regard to oversight is to determine that there is special benefit to the assessed businesses. The BID collects a special assessment; there is to be a relationship between the assessment and the benefit. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Taraday clarified he did not want the statement he just made to be interpreted to mean that each single business owner needs to see that benefit for him or herself. The statute does not require that level of precision. In the aggregate, there should be a relationship between the classifications of businesses that are being assessed and the assessment. Councilmember Mesaros clarified in his previous statement about honoring the recommendations of the BID, he was not intimating that the Council did not have the responsibility to approve or alter that recommendation. When an elected group that represents a body presents a recommendation, it should be Packet Page 22 of 453 the exception that the Council makes changes versus making changes because some members do not like the decisions that have been made. Council President Buckshnis commented it was unlikely the Council would reach resolution tonight. This is a small portion of the City’s $93 million budget and there are other, more pressing issues. She suggested conducting a survey using Survey Monkey. She has only heard from three people and everyone else seems satisfied. She summarized it may depend on who a Councilmember talks to. Councilmember Johnson commented she was an early supporter of the BID and she appreciated their self- governance. She did not expect 100% satisfaction; it appeared there was a 90% satisfaction rate or at least a 90% quiet majority. She encouraged anyone who was dissatisfied to participate directly in the BID process and she encouraged the Council to stay the course long enough to see the benefit of the BID structure. She did not support any changes but encouraged those who were dissatisfied to voice their concerns to the BID Board and for the BID Board to address their concerns. To Councilmember Mesaros, Councilmember Bloom explained the BID Board did not set the fee schedule. It was recommended by a group of business owners who circulated petitions to present to Council. They did not obtain 60% and the method was changed midstream which was very confusing. To Councilmember Johnson’s comment about a 90% quiet majority, Councilmember Bloom explained she has spoken to a lot of people who are afraid to come forward and many who are mad but do not have the time to get involved. Because people are unable/unwilling to come forward did not equate to a 90% quiet majority. Councilmember Bloom appreciated Council President Buckshnis’ suggestion for a survey/poll of the membership. She recommended it be done anonymously by a third party. It was the Council’s responsibility to conduct a survey because the 60% approval was not achieved and the BID was formed by resolution. The Council needs to determine if there is 60% approval. She requested Mr. Doherty research a way to do a statistically valid anonymous survey to determine if there is 60% approval. Councilmember Mesaros said he realized the Board of Directors did not recommend the fee structure. However the current Board has not recommended any changes to the structure and their budget utilized the same assessment structure. Mr. Doherty agreed. Councilmember Petso commented it is a fairness issue. If organization wants to spend 75% of the assessments on projects that have a larger benefit to open door businesses, then 75% of the assessments should come from those businesses. She hoped the BID Board would discuss and recommend a revision to the assessment rate schedule. Mr. Doherty explained the intent was at some point for a majority of the Council to indicated whether they wanted to reconsider the assessment rate structure. Council President Buckshnis commented the process took three years and during that time some businesses changed. She accepted the ruling provided by the City Attorney. She suggested an opinion poll via Survey Monkey. She preferred to let the BID go another year before changing the assessment structure. She noted 27 of the over 300 businesses did not pay their assessment. With regard to the collection policy for delinquent payments, Mr. Doherty explained the current procedure is assessments are billed quarterly. If payment is not received, a 30-day letter is sent. If a business responded in any way, staff works with the business and has worked with businesses for up to a year. If a business does not respond at all, they are eventually sent to collections which is what other cities do. In his opinion not having collections may not be legal and it would undermine the system. To illustrate the level of disagreement, Councilmember Bloom recalled a conversation with a business that is voluntarily going to collections to make a statement and he is not the only one. She was inclined to Packet Page 23 of 453 suggest collections be suspended until the matter is resolved but did not feel other Councilmembers would support that. With regard to expanding/ revising the BID boundary, Mr. Doherty explained this issue was raised by the BID in their work program but Mr. Taraday pointed out it was not an appropriate task for the BID. If the Council was interested in expanding/revising the boundary, a majority of the Council would need to direct staff to proceed. Staff’s position is that is not an issue right for the next year. He suggested the following issues be presented to the Council in the future for a vote: • An assessment study and develop options • Revisit the collection policy • Consider revising the boundary • Options for a survey Council President Buckshnis agreed with expanding the boundaries particularly with the opening of Salish Crossing. Councilmember Peterson suggested allowing Salish Crossing to get up and running for at least a year. Councilmember Bloom commented the only way she would support expanding the boundaries would be if the fees were adjusted. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 7½ MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 16. SISTER CITY COMMISSION MATCHING GRANT REQUEST Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty explained 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. Councilmember Petso suggested more information be included in the packet in the future such as the grant application to the other agency. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda. 17. DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE This item was postponed to the January 13 meeting. 18. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS This item was postponed to a future meeting. 19. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Packet Page 24 of 453 Mayor Earling reminded of the Town Hall meeting tomorrow at Pt. Edwards from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. He has used the green umbrellas outside City Hal and has head very positive feedback from the community including noticing the several green umbrellas in use at a time. Mayor Earling reported three candidates for the judge position have been interviewed. He will provide the Council his recommendation next week. 20. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Peterson announced his reappointment of Kevin Garrett and John Dewhirst to the Economic Development Commission. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board has completed their work on the Tree Code. Senior Planner Kernen Lien will present the Code to the Council in the future and then to the Planning Board. She relayed her thanks to the consultant Elizabeth and staff. She reported on an affordable housing symposium she attended where she met John Owens, Makers, who will be doing the development code update. Councilmember Johnson wished her father, who was born in 1926 and is 88 years old, a Happy Birthday. Council President Buckshnis relayed Mayor Earling and she are meeting with attorneys and lobbyists about the alternatives study as well as have a meeting scheduled with BNSF. Councilmember Johnson, Mayor Earling and she are also meeting with individual legislators in an effort to clarify how important emergency access and other issues with the train tracks are to Edmonds. 21. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 22. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. Packet Page 25 of 453    AM-7370     4. B.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 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 #211873 through #212020 dated December 11, 2014 for $288,962.39 (reissued check #212000 $8.67). Approval of reissued payroll benefit check #61407 for $2,035.81 for the pay period November 16, 2014 through November 30, 2014. Recommendation Approval of claim and payroll checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2014 Revenue: Expenditure:288,962.39 Fiscal Impact: Claims $288,962.39 Claims reissued check #212000 $8.67 Payroll Benefit reissued check #61407 $2,035.81 Attachments Claim cks 12-11-14 Project Numbers 12-11-14 Form Review Packet Page 26 of 453 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 12/11/2014 03:38 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 12/12/2014 07:33 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/12/2014 08:53 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/12/2014 08:58 AM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 12/11/2014 03:24 PM Final Approval Date: 12/12/2014  Packet Page 27 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211873 12/11/2014 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 342366 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL CUST 1-23276 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL CUST 1-23276 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 7.12 PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONTROL CUST 1-1342405 PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONTROL CUST 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 105.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 9.98 WWTP - PEST CONTROL343221 December Service 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 73.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 6.94 Total :277.04 211874 12/11/2014 072189 ACCESS 0832491 FILE STORAGE Storage 12/1 to 12/31 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 65.00 INV#0832586 CUST#STC61515 - EDMONDS PD0832586 SHRED 2 TOTES 11/13/2014 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 80.00 Total :145.00 211875 12/11/2014 071475 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS &2-9-15 SPOKANE COLLISION RECONSTRUCT. UPDATE - 2 FOR ED COLLISION RECON. UPDATE - ROTH~ 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 700.00 COLLISION RECON. UPDATE - HARBINSON~ 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 700.00 Total :1,400.00 211876 12/11/2014 068657 ACCOUNTEMPS 41811599 TEMPORARY HELP FINANCE DEPT WEEK ENDING Temporary help week ending 11/28/14 - C 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 1,022.25 1Page: Packet Page 28 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,022.2521187612/11/2014 068657 068657 ACCOUNTEMPS 211877 12/11/2014 070976 AMERESCO QUANTUM 2013-030 G (1-1) 3 City Project Ph3 HVAC, Lighting & City Project Ph3 HVAC, Lighting & 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 15,506.30 Retainage on Total Amount To Date 016.000.223.400 -708.05 City Project - PH3 HVAC, Lighting &3 City Project - PH3 HVAC, Lighting & 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 1,938.68 City Project - PH3 HVAC, Lighting & 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 2,568.04 Total :19,304.97 211878 12/11/2014 075090 AMERICAN COUNCIL ON CRIMINAL 14-0310 INV 14-0310 - RICHARDSON - EDMONDS PD SUPV. ROLE MANAGING USE OF FORCE 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 125.00 Total :125.00 211879 12/11/2014 074840 AMERICAN FOREST MANAGEMENT 74574 ARBORIST SERVICES HUTT PARK ARBORIST SERVICES HUTT PARK 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 300.00 Total :300.00 211880 12/11/2014 074695 AMERICAN MESSAGING W41010460L Water Watch Pager Fees Water Watch Pager Fees 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 26.41 Total :26.41 211881 12/11/2014 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987706450 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 16.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.56 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987710757 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09 2Page: Packet Page 29 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211881 12/11/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS1987710758 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987710759 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28 3Page: Packet Page 30 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211881 12/11/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987717960 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 16.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.54 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987722266 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40 4Page: Packet Page 31 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211881 12/11/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS1987722267 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987722268 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 15.35 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.46 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987729334 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 16.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.54 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987733600 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16 5Page: Packet Page 32 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211881 12/11/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS1987733601 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987733602 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72 6Page: Packet Page 33 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211881 12/11/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987740741 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 16.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.54 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987745034 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS1987745035 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 7Page: Packet Page 34 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211881 12/11/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987745036 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS, & TOWELS1987752079 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 SERVICE1987752080 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 37.74 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS, & TOWELS1987763666 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 8Page: Packet Page 35 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211881 12/11/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 7.05 Total :486.71 211882 12/11/2014 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 35287 ROUGH BOX - WALSH ROUGH BOX - WALSH 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 417.00 Total :417.00 211883 12/11/2014 075093 AVILA, CYNTHIA 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211884 12/11/2014 002170 BARTON, RONALD 12/8/14 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 332.77 Total :332.77 211885 12/11/2014 073903 BENS CLEANER SALES INC 255187 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL high pressure hoses 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 832.84 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 79.13 Total :911.97 211886 12/11/2014 071348 BERGERABAM 308505 Fishing Pier - Prof Svcs - Design Fishing Pier - Prof Svcs - Design 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 1,718.61 Landscape Design 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 1,500.56 Total :3,219.17 211887 12/11/2014 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 9395 E1GA.E3GA.E4JA.SERVICES THRU NOVEMBER 20 E1GA.Services thru November 2014 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 500.00 E3GA.Services thru November 2014 9Page: Packet Page 36 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211887 12/11/2014 (Continued)073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 5,462.50 E4JA.Services thru November 2014 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 9,256.25 Total :15,218.75 211888 12/11/2014 074131 BRAINARD, LARRY 12/5 REFUND-W/D 12/5/14 REFUND W/D MEDICAL 12/5/14 REFUND W/D MEDICAL 001.000.239.200 326.00 Total :326.00 211889 12/11/2014 067947 BROWNELLS INC 10672044.00 INV#10672044.00 ACCT#00557761 - EDMONDS MAGAZINE SPRING 001.000.41.521.23.48.00 9.70 HOOK LOOP FOR REM 870 001.000.41.521.23.48.00 16.89 Freight 001.000.41.521.23.48.00 7.95 Total :34.54 211890 12/11/2014 074776 BUCKSHNIS, DIANE Buckshnis, D Claim for expenses from July to Claim for expenses from July to 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 147.10 Total :147.10 211891 12/11/2014 074442 CAPITAL ONE 8941 Fac Maint - Supplies Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 276.55 Total :276.55 211892 12/11/2014 075092 CASCADE BICYCLE CLUB ED FNDN 20952 E3DB.SERVICES THRU 10/24/14 E3DB.Services thru 10/24/14 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 5,833.00 Total :5,833.00 211893 12/11/2014 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 210562 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 10Page: Packet Page 37 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211893 12/11/2014 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 45.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.27 Water SuppliesLY 214032 Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 45.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.27 PARKS MAINT COMPRESSED GAS, POLIFANLY 214365 PARKS MAINT COMPRESSED GAS (ARGON, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 58.51 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.56 HELIUM GYMNASTICSRN11141030 HELIUM GYMNASTICS 001.000.64.575.55.45.00 12.25 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.55.45.00 1.16 WWTP - CYLINDER RENTALRN11141031 cylinder rental 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 70.75 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 6.72 Total :253.49 211894 12/11/2014 064291 CENTURY LINK 206-Z02-0478 WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 147.60 Total :147.60 211895 12/11/2014 065403 CHAPIN, FRANCES 12/4 REIMB WOTS COFFEE POT & PLATES WOTS COFFEE POT & PLATES 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 100.50 Total :100.50 11Page: Packet Page 38 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211896 12/11/2014 061773 CHAVE, ROBERT Robert Chave LID Workshop on September 24, 2014 at LID Workshop on September 24, 2014 at 001.000.62.558.60.43.00 83.52 Total :83.52 211897 12/11/2014 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD M&O MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS 423.000.75.535.80.47.20 27,602.00 Total :27,602.00 211898 12/11/2014 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC 23K-053745 City Hall - Hole Fillers City Hall - Hole Fillers 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.61 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.68 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.45 Total :16.74 211899 12/11/2014 075095 CLEMENT, TERESA 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211900 12/11/2014 004095 COASTWIDE LABS GW2724843 Fac Maint - TT, Hand Sani Filp Tops Fac Maint - TT, Hand Sani Filp Tops 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 114.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.91 Fac Maint - Towels, Liners, Hand Soap,NW2724843 Fac Maint - Towels, Liners, Hand Soap, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 413.01 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 39.24 Total :578.05 12Page: Packet Page 39 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211901 12/11/2014 075117 CODE BLUE DESIGNS 1-1406381 INV#1-1406381 - EDMONDS PD KANINE 5.O SOFTWARE SINGLE~ 001.000.41.521.26.41.00 150.00 Total :150.00 211902 12/11/2014 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC DEC-14 C/A CITYOFED00001 Dec-14 Fiber Optics Internet Connection 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 406.00 Total :406.00 211903 12/11/2014 070323 COMCAST 8498 31 030 0721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES 820 15TH ST SW CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES 820 15TH ST SW 130.000.64.536.20.42.00 122.82 Total :122.82 211904 12/11/2014 070415 CRESSY DOOR CO INC 93947 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, FACILITY Roll up door service 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 974.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 92.53 Total :1,066.53 211905 12/11/2014 065961 CRYOTECH DEICING TECHNOLOGY IN33507 Street - CMA Deicer~ Street - CMA Deicer~ 111.000.68.542.66.31.00 13,320.00 Freight 111.000.68.542.66.31.00 2,120.11 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.66.31.00 1,466.81 Total :16,906.92 211906 12/11/2014 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2014110059 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 Scan Services for November 2014 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 940.00 Total :940.00 211907 12/11/2014 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 14-3503 INV#14-3503 - EDMONDS PD 13Page: Packet Page 40 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211907 12/11/2014 (Continued)064531 DINES, JEANNIE TRANSCRIPTION CASE #13-3321 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 122.10 TRANSCRIPTION CASE #14-3863 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 102.30 TRANSCRIPTION CASE #14-3991 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 79.20 TRANSCRIPTION CASE #IA-14-004 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 95.70 TRANSCRIPTION CASE #IA-14-006 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 128.70 TRANSCRIPTION CASE #WP14-0004 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 155.10 TRANSCRIPTION CASE #14-4404 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 105.60 TRANSCRIPTION CASE #IA14-007 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 108.90 MINUTE TAKING14-3506 Council Minutes 12/2 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 313.50 Total :1,211.10 211908 12/11/2014 075096 EBERTH, TESSA 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211909 12/11/2014 068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL 14-15429 Water Quality - Water Samples Water Quality - Water Samples 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,080.00 Total :1,080.00 211910 12/11/2014 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 42900 Traffic - Supplies Traffic - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 11.99 9.5% Sales Tax 14Page: Packet Page 41 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211910 12/11/2014 (Continued)007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1.14 Total :13.13 211911 12/11/2014 008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO R24712-1 Recycle -Tree Recycle Door Hangers Recycle -Tree Recycle Door Hangers 421.000.74.537.90.49.00 423.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.537.90.49.00 40.19 Total :463.19 211912 12/11/2014 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL 205431 INV#205431 CLIENT #5118 - EDMONDS PD SPAY CAT IMPOUND #9050 001.000.41.521.70.49.01 86.00 FELINE LEUK+FIV COMBO TEST 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 51.84 SPAY CAT IMPOUND #9087A 001.000.41.521.70.49.01 86.00 SPAY CAT IMPOUND #9087B 001.000.41.521.70.49.01 86.00 Total :309.84 211913 12/11/2014 075097 EDMUNDSON, KIERAN 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211914 12/11/2014 070676 EFFICIENCY INC 6231114 FTR RECORDER SERVICE CONTRACT FTR RECORDER SERVICE CONTRACT 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 389.09 FTR RECORDER SERVICE CONTRACT 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 389.09 FTR RECORDER SERVICE CONTRACT 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 389.09 Total :1,167.27 15Page: Packet Page 42 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211915 12/11/2014 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 130787 RADIX MONTHLY MAINT AGREEMENT Radix Monthly Maint Agreement - 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 152.00 Total :152.00 211916 12/11/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 106927 PW COPY USE PW Copy Use~ 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 20.66 PW Copy Use~ 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 11.71 PW Copy Use~ 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 8.26 PW Copy Use~ 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 8.26 PW Copy Use~ 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.25 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 1.96 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 1.11 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 1.11 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.79 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.79 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.78 PW Copy Use~ 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 11.71 FLEET COPY USE106940 Fleet Copy Use 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 21.42 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.03 16Page: Packet Page 43 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211916 12/11/2014 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES PM A7078 C1030 COPIER MAINT107446 1 PM A7078 C1030 COPIER MAINTENANCE 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 17.41 Additional images Council Office107622 1 Additional images Council Office 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 17.98 COPIER CHARGES C1030107623 Copier charge for C1030 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 5.35 Copier charge for C1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 5.35 Copier charge for C1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 5.35 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.51 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.51 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.50 WATER SEWER COPY USE107688 Water Sewer Copy Use~ 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 39.46 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.75 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.75 Water Sewer Copy Use~ 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 39.46 Total :238.22 211917 12/11/2014 008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES 19137 FRIDAY NIGHT D 19137 FRIDAY NIGHT DANCE INSTRUCTOR FEE 19137 FRIDAY NIGHT DANCE INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 203.00 Total :203.00 17Page: Packet Page 44 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211918 12/11/2014 075098 ERICSON, LAVON 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211919 12/11/2014 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH601265 Tree Code Update/ADM20140004 Tree Code Update/ADM20140004 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 67.08 Starbucks/PLN20140054/55.EDH601289 Starbucks/PLN20140054/55. 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 89.44 Advertising- Civil Service CommisionEDH602270 Advertising- Civil Service Commision 001.000.22.518.10.44.00 79.12 Total :235.64 211920 12/11/2014 071640 EVERGREEN ID SYSTEMS LLC 8636 HR ID Badge Machine/Printer repair HR ID Badge Machine/Printer repair 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 175.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 16.63 Total :191.63 211921 12/11/2014 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 112614 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 20,000.00 Total :20,000.00 211922 12/11/2014 074447 FINELLI, JAIME 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211923 12/11/2014 011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 252.36 18Page: Packet Page 45 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211923 12/11/2014 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 252.36 LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES425-774-1031 LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRADE SPECIAL 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 48.69 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-776-1281 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 50.45 LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE425-776-2742 LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACCESS LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 27.87 425-776-5316 CITY PARK425-776-5316 CITY PK 425-776-5316 CITY PARK 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 93.67 Total :725.40 211924 12/11/2014 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 120956 Fleet Tire Inventory Unit 36 - 4 Tires Fleet Tire Inventory Unit 36 - 4 Tires 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 525.60 State Tire Fee 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 4.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 49.93 Total :579.53 211925 12/11/2014 012199 GRAINGER 9601954663 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES CORK ROLL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 93.87 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.91 Total :102.78 211926 12/11/2014 075010 HAMBLEN & SONS HEATING BLD20140883 Address not in City limits. Address not in City limits. 001.000.257.620 105.00 19Page: Packet Page 46 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :105.0021192612/11/2014 075010 075010 HAMBLEN & SONS HEATING 211927 12/11/2014 075118 HANBY CONSTRUCTION CO INC E7AC.Hanby E7AC.HANBY CONSTRUCTION MOVE EXPENSE AGR E7AC.Hanby Construction Move Expense 112.200.68.595.20.61.00 4,780.00 Total :4,780.00 211928 12/11/2014 075099 HARDY, ANITA 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211929 12/11/2014 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 149719 Unit 947 - Screws Unit 947 - Screws 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.28 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.31 Unit 43 - Seat Belt and Assembly149858 Unit 43 - Seat Belt and Assembly 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 154.96 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.72 Total :173.27 211930 12/11/2014 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD D185063 Storm - Drainage Structure for Sierra Storm - Drainage Structure for Sierra 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 2,493.97 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 236.94 Storm - Storm FittingsD268343 Storm - Storm Fittings 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 371.91 7.7% sales tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 28.63 Total :3,131.45 211931 12/11/2014 064528 HI-LINE ELECTRICAL 10344288 Unit 405 - Wire SXL Cross Link 20Page: Packet Page 47 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211931 12/11/2014 (Continued)064528 HI-LINE ELECTRICAL Unit 405 - Wire SXL Cross Link 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 26.00 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.43 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.36 Total :38.79 211932 12/11/2014 075100 HINRICHS, ROGER 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211933 12/11/2014 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 5042097 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, FACILITIES soundproofing framing for interior walls 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 306.78 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 29.14 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, FACILITIES8042776 soundproofing framing for interior walls 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 12.05 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 1.14 Total :349.11 211935 12/11/2014 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1011207 Parks - Supplies 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.69 Parks - Supplies 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.24 Parks - Supplies1024767 Parks - Supplies 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 20.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.91 21Page: Packet Page 48 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211935 12/11/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Parks - Supplies1042411 Parks - Supplies 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 108.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.34 Fac Maint -Unit 5 - Supplies2042280 Fac Maint -Unit 5 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.42 Library - Hooks2042340 Library - Hooks 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 29.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.84 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Level2043488 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Level 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.18 Storm- Supplies2043497 Storm- Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 66.77 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 6.34 FAC - Valve2043583 FAC - Valve 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.82 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.65 Fac Maint Unit 26 - Supplies24822 Fac Maint Unit 26 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.44 9.5% Sales Tax 22Page: Packet Page 49 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211935 12/11/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.85 City Hall - Supplies2566819 City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.19 City Hall - Lime A Way2582313 City Hall - Lime A Way 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.14 Museum - Supplies3043355 Museum - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 66.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.33 City Hall - Supplies3043394 City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 87.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.35 Fac Maint - Supplies5024298 Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 26.18 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.49 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies5024328 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 42.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.08 Fac Maint - Lamp Light Bulbs5024329 Fac Maint - Lamp Light Bulbs 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.94 23Page: Packet Page 50 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211935 12/11/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.56 FAC - Paint Supplies5030651 FAC - Paint Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 40.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.85 Beach Ranger Station - Supplies5042034 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.74 Beach Ranger Station - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.88 Fac Maint Unit 5 - Supplies5043041 Fac Maint Unit 5 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 58.32 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.54 City Park Bldg - Plumbing Parts5073027 City Park Bldg - Plumbing Parts 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.18 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.35 PS - Lighting Supplies5566493 PS - Lighting Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 49.91 Fac Maint - Circuit Breaker Tester 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 11.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.74 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 1.09 Fac Maint Shop Supplies6011799 Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 181.94 24Page: Packet Page 51 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211935 12/11/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.28 City Hall - Supplies6024199 City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.34 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.79 Traffic Control - Supplies6036889 Traffic Control - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 17.97 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1.71 Beach Ranger Station - Wood Supply6041889 Beach Ranger Station - Wood Supply 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 21.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 2.08 Water - Supplies6591379 Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 25.88 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.46 PW - Supplies7024065 PW - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 207.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 24.55 Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 50.63 Plaza Rm - Supplies7041776 Plaza Rm - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 25.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.39 25Page: Packet Page 52 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211935 12/11/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Storm - Supplies7041788 Storm - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 57.71 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 5.48 Library - Glide slider bars7041800 Library - Glide slider bars 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.75 Sewer - Supplies7081595 Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 14.97 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.42 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Paint Supplies7261255 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Paint Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 31.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.03 City Hall - Supplies7571255 City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.95 Roadway Supplies8011520 Roadway Supplies 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 194.76 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 18.50 FS 16 - Supplies8023975 FS 16 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.64 9.5% Sales Tax 26Page: Packet Page 53 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211935 12/11/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.39 Library - Supplies8071502 Library - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.72 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.45 Fac Maint - Supplies82462 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.90 Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.97 Fac Maint Unit 5 - Supplies9024970 Fac Maint Unit 5 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 77.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.34 Museum - Supplies9030171 Museum - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 63.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.05 Museum - Supplies9080243 Museum - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 48.93 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.65 Fac Maint - Supplies9572211 Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.45 Total :1,997.48 211936 12/11/2014 075119 HOPE, SHANE Shane Hope Travel to Conference in Chelan Travel to Conference in Chelan 27Page: Packet Page 54 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211936 12/11/2014 (Continued)075119 HOPE, SHANE 001.000.62.524.10.43.00 173.60 Total :173.60 211937 12/11/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2550095 CLOROX DISINFECTING WIPES Clorox Disinfecting wipes 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 28.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 2.75 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OFFICE2554481 office supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 55.21 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 5.25 Total :92.15 211938 12/11/2014 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 000037575 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 3.24 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 0.31 EQ93PO - Floor Mats000038331 EQ93PO - Floor Mats 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 108.78 Fleet Shop Tool - Worklight 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 74.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 10.33 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 7.12 Total :204.73 211939 12/11/2014 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 515779 Fleet Exchanged Batteries Differance Fleet Exchanged Batteries Differance 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -2.05 9.5% Sales Tax 28Page: Packet Page 55 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211939 12/11/2014 (Continued)014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -0.19 Unit 413 - Battery518063 Unit 413 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 90.15 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.56 Unit 66 - Battery518076 Unit 66 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 114.75 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.90 Storm - Battery Jump Box for Trucks748171 Storm - Battery Jump Box for Trucks 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 379.95 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 36.10 Fleet Shop - Parts748214 Fleet Shop - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 198.64 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 18.87 Total :855.68 211940 12/11/2014 075102 JONES, MEGAN 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211941 12/11/2014 072728 KAVADAS, JANET 11/6 SR WT RM ORIENT 11/6 SR WT ROOM ORIENTATION INSTRUCTOR F 11/6 SR WT ROOM ORIENTATION INSTRUCTOR 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 50.00 11/7 SR WT ROOM ORIENTATION INSTRUCTOR F11/7 SR WT RM ORIENT 11/7 SR WT ROOM ORIENTATION INSTRUCTOR 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 50.00 12/4 SR WT ROOM ORIENTATION INSTRUCTOR F12/4 SR WT RM ORIENT 29Page: Packet Page 56 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211941 12/11/2014 (Continued)072728 KAVADAS, JANET 12/4 SR WT ROOM ORIENTATION INSTRUCTOR 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 50.00 19240 WEIGHT ROOM ORIENTATION INSTRUCTOR19240 WT ROOM ORIENT 19240 WEIGHT ROOM ORIENTATION 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 21.00 Total :171.00 211942 12/11/2014 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 19157 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 19157 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 19157 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 622.20 19162 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE19162 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 19162 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 439.20 19163 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE19163 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 19163 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 585.60 19164 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE19164 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 19164 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 585.60 19165 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE19165 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 19165 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 256.20 19166 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE19166 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 19166 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 256.20 Total :2,745.00 211943 12/11/2014 074240 KNIGHT, KAREN 19074 FUN FACTORY 19074 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTOR FEE 19074 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 557.23 19076 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTOR FEE19076 FUN FACTORY 19076 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 488.18 Total :1,045.41 30Page: Packet Page 57 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211944 12/11/2014 016600 KROESENS INC 23157 INV#23157 CUST#1320 - EDMONDS PD 3/4 SLEEVED POLO SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 67.50 SHIRT EMBROIDERY "JOHNSON" 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 26.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 8.95 Total :103.15 211945 12/11/2014 075094 KUPER, ALEXA 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211946 12/11/2014 068493 L.E.E.D.12021405 INV#12021405 EDMONDS PD - SWAT STREAMSLIGHT SCENE LIGHT 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 1,088.00 Freight 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 70.95 9.5% Sales Tax 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 110.10 Total :1,269.05 211947 12/11/2014 072059 LEE, NICOLE 1336 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 142.56 INTERPRETER FEE1567 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 142.56 Total :285.12 211948 12/11/2014 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 139462 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, FACILITIES heat pump repair 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 302.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 28.69 31Page: Packet Page 58 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :330.6921194812/11/2014 067631 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 211949 12/11/2014 075103 LYNAM, SUSAN 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211950 12/11/2014 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 711377 Fleet Shop - Grease Fleet Shop - Grease 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 6.23 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 0.59 Total :6.82 211951 12/11/2014 019305 MACAULAY AND ASSOC LTD 14-160a REVIEW OF PREVIOUS APPRAISAL OF CIVIC FI REVIEW OF PREVIOUS APPRAISAL OF CIVIC 126.000.39.594.75.61.00 500.00 Total :500.00 211952 12/11/2014 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 594037-00 Storm - Beach Pl Pumps Supplies Storm - Beach Pl Pumps Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 12.44 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1.18 Total :13.62 211953 12/11/2014 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1535 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1537 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1538 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1539 INTERPRETER FEE 32Page: Packet Page 59 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211953 12/11/2014 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1540 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 Total :441.60 211954 12/11/2014 075104 MCCOY, CHRISTINA 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211955 12/11/2014 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 202170 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES STIHL CARB CHAI 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 154.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.63 Total :168.63 211956 12/11/2014 075105 MILTON, JEFFERY 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211957 12/11/2014 075106 MIRONER, HOWARD 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211958 12/11/2014 075107 MURPHY, RON 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211959 12/11/2014 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 14-1605-1 WATER SUPPLY OPERATION EVALUATION COORDINATION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 433.00 33Page: Packet Page 60 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211959 12/11/2014 (Continued)072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES DATA COLLECTION & REVIEW 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 396.00 Total :829.00 211960 12/11/2014 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0392843-IN Storm Work Gloves Storm Work Gloves 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 97.20 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 9.24 Storm - O2 Sensor0392901-IN Storm - O2 Sensor 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 110.00 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 10.45 Total :226.89 211961 12/11/2014 024001 NC POWER SYSTEMS CO SEC363821 Unit 21 - Supplies Unit 21 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 47.47 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.44 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.17 Total :71.08 211962 12/11/2014 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0536397-IN Fleet Filter Inventory Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 12.79 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 1.21 Fleet Shop - Brake Pads0536915-IN Fleet Shop - Brake Pads 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 102.60 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 9.75 34Page: Packet Page 61 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211962 12/11/2014 (Continued)024302 NELSON PETROLEUM Unit G06 Filters0537175-IN Unit G06 Filters 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 61.00 Unit PS1 Filters 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 58.30 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.33 Fleet Filter Inventory0537177-IN Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 17.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 1.71 Unit PS 17 - Filters0537301-IN Unit PS 17 - Filters 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 71.50 Unit G 12 - Filters 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 68.08 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.26 Total :429.48 211963 12/11/2014 074724 NEWMAN-BURROW LLC 48884 EDMONDS PORTION OF REC DIGITAL GUIDE EDMONDS PORTION OF REC DIGITAL GUIDE 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 395.00 Total :395.00 211964 12/11/2014 072032 NORR, JULIE 19088 GINGERBREAD HS 19088 GINGERBREAD HOUSE INSTRUCTOR FEE 19088 GINGERBREAD HOUSE INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 124.80 19089 GINGERBREAD HOUSE INSTRUCTOR FEE19089 GINGERBREAD HS 19089 GINGERBREAD HOUSE INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 144.00 Total :268.80 211965 12/11/2014 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1078389 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET 35Page: Packet Page 62 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211965 12/11/2014 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 591.18 YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1078399 YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 310.99 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET2-1085761 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 Total :1,017.82 211966 12/11/2014 064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 2563108-00 Fuel Island - 12' Hose Fuel Island - 12' Hose 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 429.71 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.25 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 42.65 Fuel Island - Boot Assembly Kit2563116-00 Fuel Island - Boot Assembly Kit 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 96.65 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.31 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.26 Total :609.83 211967 12/11/2014 075108 OBRIEN, LYNDA 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211968 12/11/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 356985 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 70.95 INV#471746 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD471746 36Page: Packet Page 63 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211968 12/11/2014 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC JUMBO PAPER CLIPS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 33.06 PKS OF RUBBER BANDS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 6.09 PKG OF RUBBER BANDS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 6.24 PATROL MEMO BOOKS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.90 WITE OUT TAPE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 15.63 BLANK NOTE FLAGS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.03 SIGN HERE FLAGS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 6.64 JR LEGAL PADS (5 X 8) 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.92 STENO PADS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 23.78 YELLOW LEGAL PADS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.77 OFFICE SUPPLIES480854 Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 54.59 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 5.19 CALENDARS584416 CALENDARS FOR SALLY, TODD 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 18.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 1.78 INV#602881 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD602881 MED BINDER CLIPS 37Page: Packet Page 64 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211968 12/11/2014 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 0.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 0.05 CHAIR606520 CHAIR 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 159.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 15.20 OFFICE SUPPLIES840259 Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 11.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 1.05 Total :486.34 211969 12/11/2014 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER November, 2014 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL Emergency Medical Services & Trauma 001.000.237.120 1,034.17 PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account 001.000.237.130 22,653.92 Building Code Fee Account 001.000.237.150 137.00 State Patrol Death Investigation 001.000.237.330 68.73 Judicial Information Systems Account 001.000.237.180 3,733.71 School Zone Safety Account 001.000.237.200 43.66 Washington Auto Theft Prevention 001.000.237.250 2,039.51 Traumatic Brain Injury 001.000.237.260 396.87 Accessible Communities Acct 001.000.237.290 73.32 38Page: Packet Page 65 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211969 12/11/2014 (Continued)070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER Multi-Model Transportation 001.000.237.300 73.34 Hwy Safety Acct 001.000.237.320 109.08 Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis 001.000.237.170 82.92 WSP Hwy Acct 001.000.237.340 390.04 Total :30,836.27 211970 12/11/2014 073896 OLYMPIC BRAKE SUPPLY 2-279974 Unit 36 - Brake Parts Unit 36 - Brake Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 269.46 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 25.60 Fleet Unit 36 - Return Brake Parts2-280285 Fleet Unit 36 - Return Brake Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -206.46 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -19.61 Total :68.99 211971 12/11/2014 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 200.66 HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN & SPRINKL0060860 HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN & 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.14 Total :284.80 211972 12/11/2014 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00073807 Fleet - Part - Hydraulic Switch Fleet - Part - Hydraulic Switch 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 233.74 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.32 39Page: Packet Page 66 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211972 12/11/2014 (Continued)002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 23.85 Fleet - Hydraulic Switch00073808 Fleet - Hydraulic Switch 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 233.74 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.32 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 23.85 Total :549.82 211973 12/11/2014 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 184827 PARKS MAINT YARD WASTE DUMP FEES PARKS MAINT YARD WASTE DUMP FEES 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 144.00 YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130184879 YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 120.00 Storm Dump Fees184893 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 144.00 Storm Dump Fees184909 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130184915 YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 120.00 Total :648.00 211974 12/11/2014 075109 PERSINGER, SUSAN 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211975 12/11/2014 007800 PETTY CASH NOVE1-DEC10 NOV 01 THRU DEC 10 PETTY CASH Mileage to ICC Meetings in Everett - 40Page: Packet Page 67 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211975 12/11/2014 (Continued)007800 PETTY CASH 001.000.67.532.20.43.00 39.85 Parking for various meetings - Robert 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 36.31 Mileage to WA Sate Municipal Stormwater 001.000.67.532.20.43.00 48.50 Parking for Stormwater Conference - 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 6.00 SCCFOA Meeting BARS Training - Debra 001.000.31.514.23.43.00 22.00 Holiday Brunch Decorating Supplies - 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 10.91 25' Stanley Tap Measure - Patrick Lawler 001.000.62.524.20.35.00 10.92 SCCFOA Meeting - Scott James 001.000.31.514.20.49.00 22.00 Parking for Witness in trial - Mary 001.000.22.518.10.43.00 63.00 Holiday Brunch Supplies 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 25.65 Total :285.14 211976 12/11/2014 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC F624129 City Park Bldg - Switch for Table Saw City Park Bldg - Switch for Table Saw 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 130.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.37 Library - Lamps and Replacement BulbsF635558 Library - Lamps and Replacement Bulbs 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,629.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 154.85 Total :1,927.38 211977 12/11/2014 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 41Page: Packet Page 68 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211977 12/11/2014 (Continued)064088 PROTECTION ONE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 46.89 Total :46.89 211978 12/11/2014 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0023264-IN WWTP - SUPPLIES, SAFETY first aid supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 228.80 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 21.73 Total :250.53 211979 12/11/2014 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 20152581 Annual Registration Fee Annual Registration Fee 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 140.00 Total :140.00 211980 12/11/2014 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000150757 MARKER & VASE - LOWELL MARKER & VASE - LOWELL 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 145.00 Total :145.00 211981 12/11/2014 075110 REDRUP, RINA 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211982 12/11/2014 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 0000048163 Storm Dump Fees Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 1,502.06 Total :1,502.06 211983 12/11/2014 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 147.84 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW3-0197-0800897 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 29.73 42Page: Packet Page 69 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 43 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211983 12/11/2014 (Continued)061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 112.97 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 112.97 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 112.97 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 112.97 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 112.99 Total :742.44 211984 12/11/2014 070042 RICOH USA INC 93704349 Renewal on reception copier MP171SPF Renewal on reception copier MP171SPF 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 30.66 Total :30.66 211985 12/11/2014 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 8082 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 800.00 PUBLIC DEFENDER8087 PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 200.00 Total :1,000.00 211986 12/11/2014 069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC 31742 WINTER CRAZE PRINTING COSTS WINTER CRAZE PRINTING COSTS 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 4,732.52 WINTER CRAZE PRINTING COSTS 117.100.64.573.20.44.00 1,445.00 Total :6,177.52 211987 12/11/2014 032666 ROTO ROOTER 21718149075 BRACKETS NORTH PARK RESTROOM DRAIN SERVI BRACKETS NORTH PARK RESTROOM DRAIN 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 485.00 43Page: Packet Page 70 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 44 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211987 12/11/2014 (Continued)032666 ROTO ROOTER 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 46.08 Total :531.08 211988 12/11/2014 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 14-4593 Unit 106 - Parts Unit 106 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 316.80 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 24.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 32.42 Unit 106 - Supplies14-4792 Unit 106 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 184.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.52 Total :575.52 211989 12/11/2014 072553 SEFAC INC 91573 Fleet Lift Parts Fleet Lift Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 777.60 Annual Sevice and Inspection 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 845.00 Total :1,622.60 211990 12/11/2014 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0255-4 WWTP FLOW METER 2400 HIGHWAY 99 / METER WWTP FLOW METER 2400 HIGHWAY 99 / METER 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 33.39 HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMONDS ST / METER2003-2646-0 HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMONDS ST / 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 33.39 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVE / METER2011-0356-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVE / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 61.82 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) / NO2017-1178-5 44Page: Packet Page 71 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 45 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211990 12/11/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 891.60 ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW / MET2017-9000-3 ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 34.90 WWTP FLOW METER 8421 244TH ST SW / METER2019-2988-2 WWTP FLOW METER 8421 244TH ST SW / 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 33.39 WWTP FLOW METER 9805 EDMONDS WAY / METER2019-9517-2 WWTP FLOW METER 9805 EDMONDS WAY / 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 32.33 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / METER 10004452022-5063-5 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 33.39 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) / NO2025-2918-6 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 2,257.77 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2025-2920-2 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 100.62 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) / N2025-7615-3 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 12,712.27 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) / NOT2025-7948-8 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 292.51 WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE / NOT MET2025-7952-0 WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE / NOT 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 7.35 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT M2047-1489-3 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 3.25 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) / NOT2047-1492-7 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 72.26 45Page: Packet Page 72 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 46 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211990 12/11/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2047-1493-5 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 38.08 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT2047-1494-3 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 9.67 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) / NOT2047-1495-0 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 131.37 Total :16,779.36 211991 12/11/2014 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2014-2321 INV#2014-2321 - EDMONDS PD 52.50 BOOKINGS @ $95.94 - 11/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 5,036.85 506 HOUSING @ $66.63 - 11/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 33,714.78 13 WORK RELEASE @ $44.77 - 11/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 582.01 CREDIT ON #2014-2321 - SNO CO JAIL2014-2321 13 WORK RELEASE @$30.00 11/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -390.00 Total :38,943.64 211992 12/11/2014 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 65463 PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 436.00 Total :436.00 211993 12/11/2014 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER November 2014 Crime Victims Court Remittance Crime Victims Court Remittance 001.000.237.140 591.12 Total :591.12 211994 12/11/2014 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103587 PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING 46Page: Packet Page 73 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 47 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211994 12/11/2014 (Continued)038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 702.23 Total :702.23 211995 12/11/2014 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4243898-01 Street - Work Clothes - S Merback Street - Work Clothes - S Merback 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 200.06 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 19.01 Total :219.07 211996 12/11/2014 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO 00 637479 0002 Insurance premiums- MEBT Life Insurance premiums- MEBT Life 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 35.78 Total :35.78 211997 12/11/2014 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3002849081 INV#3002849081 CUST#6076358 - EDMONDS PD MINIMUM MONTHLY CHARGE 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 10.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 0.36 Total :10.36 211998 12/11/2014 070837 SUNBELT RENTALS INC 49147899-001 60' STR MANLIFT W/JIB 60' STR MANLIFT W/JIB 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,397.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 132.81 Total :1,530.69 211999 12/11/2014 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 11425083 Traffic Control - Red Marking Paint Traffic Control - Red Marking Paint 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 111.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 10.55 Total :121.55 47Page: Packet Page 74 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 48 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212000 12/11/2014 074760 TATINENI, MEGUMI TATINENI 02122014 RETURNING CREDIT ON ACCOUNT RETURNING CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 001.000.239.200 8.67 Total :8.67 212001 12/11/2014 072790 TCC PRINTING & IMAGING 84845 Historic Preservation Calendars for Historic Preservation Calendars for 014.000.62.557.20.49.00 4,095.25 9.5% Sales Tax 014.000.62.557.20.49.00 389.05 Total :4,484.30 212002 12/11/2014 074921 TERRA FIRMA CONSULTING 14-22 Tree Ordinance. Tree Ordinance. 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 4,550.00 Total :4,550.00 212003 12/11/2014 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50861986 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Task Order 11.14 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 1,585.64 Total :1,585.64 212004 12/11/2014 049500 THOMSON REUTERS - WEST 830690323 COURT MANUALS COURT MANUALS 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 262.26 Total :262.26 212005 12/11/2014 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR US53022 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUM ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUM 118 5TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 337.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 32.09 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE F. ANDERSON CENTERUS53301 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE FRANCES ANDERSON 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,067.77 9.5% Sales Tax 48Page: Packet Page 75 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 49 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212005 12/11/2014 (Continued)038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 101.44 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTERUS54073 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER 220 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 242.77 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 23.06 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTERUS54537 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTER 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 49.70 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTERUS54628 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTER 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 14.95 Total :1,869.58 212006 12/11/2014 042750 TRIBUZIO, WALLACE 11/25/14 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 491.47 Total :491.47 212007 12/11/2014 062693 US BANK 3389 Registration for J. Bloom to attend Registration for J. Bloom to attend 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 15.00 CONSTANT CONTENT: EMAIL MARKETING4675 PARKS CR CARD CONSTANT CONTENT: EMAIL MARKETING 123.000.64.573.20.49.00 384.36 POETS & WRITERS WOTS MAGAZINE AD 123.000.64.573.20.44.00 1,525.00 WOTS SUPPLIES-HOT CUPS 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 97.77 AFTA MEMBERSHIP 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 150.00 Lunches for judge panelists4697 Lunches for judge panelists 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 50.48 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD5593 49Page: Packet Page 76 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 50 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212007 12/11/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK Misc recorded documents 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 222.00 Recording of Utility Liens 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 216.00 Recording of Utility Liens 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 216.00 Attorney & Notary Supply stamp for S 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 133.38 WAPRO membership for City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 25.00 Web Event - Land Use Case Law Update -6045 Web Event - Land Use Case Law Update - 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 35.00 American Planning Association - PAS 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 845.00 Book - "Parking Management Best 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 74.49 AICP Exam Prep. 3.0 for Kernen Lien. 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 249.00 "Creating Happy Communities through 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 15.00 1 - 32" TV for Jen & 4- 40" TV's for 001.000.62.524.20.35.00 1,417.91 P/u charge - UPS. 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 14.34 6254 HITE CR CARD6254 HITE CR CARD SEATTLE PPG: PARKING FOR CARRIE HITE 001.000.64.571.21.43.00 17.00 IMPARK: PARKING FOR CARRIE HITE DEBBIE 001.000.64.571.21.43.00 8.00 HUMANN TRIAL PARKING FEES7483 Humann trial parking 001.000.21.513.10.43.00 16.00 Human trial parking 50Page: Packet Page 77 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 51 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212007 12/11/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK 001.000.21.513.10.43.00 21.00 Coffee -- Judge interviews 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 16.37 ENG CREDIT CARD NOVEMBER 20148313 Green Resource Center - Impervious 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 475.65 Total :6,239.75 212008 12/11/2014 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 4110119 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 63.86 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 63.86 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 65.78 Total :193.50 212009 12/11/2014 065269 VALLEY FREIGHTLINER INC 2242760013 Unit LS 12 - Coolant Unit LS 12 - Coolant 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 46.20 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.39 Total :50.59 212010 12/11/2014 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9735926800 C/A 571242650-0001 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bld Dept 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 165.14 iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 55.99 iPad Cell Service Council 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 290.11 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 131.08 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Development 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 95.11 51Page: Packet Page 78 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 52 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212010 12/11/2014 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 75.12 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 503.30 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 110.20 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 95.11 iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 95.11 iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 286.20 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 40.01 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Dept 001.000.64.571.21.42.00 55.10 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 917.91 Air cards Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 840.39 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning Dept 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 40.01 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 26.59 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 7.60 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 26.59 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 7.60 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 7.60 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Street Dept 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 115.99 52Page: Packet Page 79 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 53 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212010 12/11/2014 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Fleet 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 164.59 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 80.55 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 80.55 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer Dept 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 205.15 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 245.16 iPad Cell Service Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 120.03 iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 161.10 C/A 772540262-000019736052541 Lift Station access 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 90.57 Total :5,135.56 212011 12/11/2014 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 20114362 INV 20114362 EDMONDS PD - MEHL - INTERVI INTERVIEW & INTERROGATION - MEHL~ 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 50.00 Total :50.00 212012 12/11/2014 061485 WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH Renewals Renewals for J Waite, P Rochford, K Renewals for J Waite, P Rochford, K 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 168.00 T Harris, J Clemens 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 84.00 Total :252.00 212013 12/11/2014 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I15003964 INV#I15003964 EDM301 - EDMONDS PD BACKGROUND CHECKS - NOV 2014 001.000.237.100 247.50 53Page: Packet Page 80 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 54 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :247.5021201312/11/2014 065035 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 212014 12/11/2014 045912 WASPC 025998 INV025998 FALL CONF REGISTRATION - ANDER FALL CONFERENCE - ANDERSON 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 300.00 INV026089 WASPC FALL CONF - C OMPAAN - E026089 FALL CONFERENCE - COMPAAN 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 300.00 DUES 2014-00652 EDMONDS PD - ANDERSON2014-00652 ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP - ANDERSON 001.000.41.521.10.49.00 75.00 Total :675.00 212015 12/11/2014 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6518 INV#6518 - EDMONDS PD POLICE DEPT BUS CARD MASTER 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 389.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 36.96 Total :425.96 212016 12/11/2014 075111 WELLER, ANNA 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 212017 12/11/2014 075112 WERVEN, ROXANNE 120514 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 212018 12/11/2014 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 0000026621 Street - Controller SEPAC Training - D Street - Controller SEPAC Training - D 111.000.68.542.90.49.00 2,500.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.49.00 237.50 Total :2,737.50 54Page: Packet Page 81 of 453 12/11/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 55 2:58:10PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212019 12/11/2014 075113 WILLIAMSON, DEBORAH 12/5 REFUND-MARKER 12/5 REFUND-MARKER 12/5 REFUND-MARKER 001.000.239.200 4,432.56 Total :4,432.56 212020 12/11/2014 066678 WSDA PESTICIDE MGMT DIVISION 63681 ROCKNE 63681 ROCKNE PESTICIDE LICENSE 63681 ROCKNE PESTICIDE LICENSE 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 33.00 77744 HARRIS PESTICIDE LICENSE77744 HARRIS 77744 HARRIS PESTICIDE LICENSE 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 33.00 Total :66.00 Bank total :288,971.06147 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 288,971.06Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report147 55Page: Packet Page 82 of 453 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 12/10/2014 Packet Page 83 of 453 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 12/10/2014 Packet Page 84 of 453 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 12/10/2014 Packet Page 85 of 453    AM-7366     4. C.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Action  Information Subject Title Report on final construction costs for Citywide Safety Improvements Project and acceptance of project Recommendation Accept project. Previous Council Action On June 17, 2014, City Council authorized the Change Order for the Citywide Safety Improvements project in the amount of $36,067. On December 17, 2013, Council awarded a contract to Pioneer Cable, Inc. in the amount of $201,598 for the Citywide Safety Improvements Project and authorized a $22,400 management reserve for changes or unforeseen conditions during construction.  Narrative The Citywide Safety Improvements Project is complete.  This project consisted of upgrading five signal cabinets and installing pedestrian countdown displays at all traffic signals with pedestrian phasing, enhancing vehicular and pedestrian safety. The Citywide Safety Improvements project was designed by DKS & Associates and the construction was successfully completed, inspected and accepted by City staff with the assistance from Harris & Associates. Construction of this project was funded by a grant under the Highway Safety Improvement Program and Public Works Maintenance Funds. The final contract cost was $242,724.75.   Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Megan Luttrell 12/11/2014 09:23 AM Public Works Phil Williams 12/11/2014 11:11 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 12/11/2014 01:29 PM Mayor Dave Earling 12/11/2014 01:45 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/11/2014 01:59 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 12/11/2014 09:05 AM Final Approval Date: 12/11/2014  Packet Page 86 of 453    AM-7372     4. D.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Patrick Doherty Department:Community Services Type: Action  Information Subject Title Sister City Commission Matching Grant Request Recommendation The Mayor and staff recommend 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.  With an additional $500 from the City Council to match the $500 provided by the US Charitable Gift Trust, the Commission intends to fund the following activities/programs: 1. Japanese cultural programs targeted to grade school students, including: arts & crafts and Kamishibai storytelling 2. Membership in Sister Cities International 3. Promotional items, i.e., brochures, banners, advertisements, posters for recruitment of student delegates, student  delegation chaperones, host families and Assistant English teacher position 4. Cultural events – music, dance, tea ceremonies 5. Transportation for adult and student exchange delegations Attachments Sister City Grant Request Letters Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/12/2014 08:58 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/12/2014 09:32 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/12/2014 09:35 AM Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 12/12/2014 08:41 AM Final Approval Date: 12/12/2014  Packet Page 87 of 453 Packet Page 88 of 453 Packet Page 89 of 453    AM-7352     4. E.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Type: Information  Information Subject Title 2014 retiring Board and Commission members Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative Three Board & Commission members are retiring this year. Mayor Earling has thanked them for their service and presented each of them with a crystal paperweight. The three members are: David Bracilano who has served since 1999 on the Civil Service Commission William (Bill) Ellis who served for 4 years on the Planning Board Richard Schaefer who served for 8 years on the Architectural Design Board Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/09/2014 05:12 PM Mayor Dave Earling 12/10/2014 06:49 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/10/2014 08:14 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 12/09/2014 10:23 AM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2014  Packet Page 90 of 453    AM-7353     4. F.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Reappointment of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee members for 2015 Recommendation The Mayor and staff recommend reappointment of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee members for the 2015 term. Previous Council Action Narrative All LTAC positions expire at the end of each calendar year and reappointment by the City Council is required. The four members of the LTAC have all requested reappointment. There are no term limits for the LTAC. Current members seeking reappointment are: Jan Connor, Pat Moriarty, Joseph McIlwain and Frances Chapin. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/09/2014 05:12 PM Mayor Dave Earling 12/10/2014 06:50 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/10/2014 08:14 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 12/09/2014 02:44 PM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2014  Packet Page 91 of 453    AM-7354     4. G.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Reappointment of Arts Commissioner Suzy Maloney Recommendation The Mayor and staff recommend reappointment of Suzy Maloney to the Edmonds Arts Commission Previous Council Action Narrative Suzy Maloney has served on the Edmonds Arts Commission in Position #7 since 2011, most recently as chair. Ms. Maloney has requested reappointment to the Commission. Commission terms are for four years with a limit of two full consecutive terms. Arts Commission positions are subject to Council confirmation. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/09/2014 05:12 PM Mayor Dave Earling 12/10/2014 06:50 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/10/2014 08:14 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 12/09/2014 03:16 PM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2014  Packet Page 92 of 453    AM-7355     4. H.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Reappointment of Neil Tibbott to the Planning Board Recommendation Mayor and staff are recommending reappointment of Neil Tibbott to the Planning Board Previous Council Action Narrative Neil Tibbott has served on the Planning Board since 2011 in Position #4. Mr. Tibbott has requested reappointment to the Board. Planning Board terms are for four years and are subject to Council confirmation. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/09/2014 05:12 PM Mayor Dave Earling 12/10/2014 06:51 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/10/2014 08:14 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 12/09/2014 03:32 PM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2014  Packet Page 93 of 453    AM-7356     4. I.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Reappointment of Edmonds Sister City Commissioners Rita Ikeda and Marlene Friend Recommendation Mayor and staff are recommending reappointment of Rita Ikeda and Marlene Friend to the Edmonds Sister City Commission Previous Council Action Narrative Rita Ikeda and Marlene Friend are requesting reappointment to the Edmonds Sister City Commission. Ms. Ikeda has served on the Commission since 2003 and currently serves as Vice-Chair. Marlene Friend has served on the Commission since 2012 and currently serves as Secretary. ESCC terms are for 3 years and are subject to Council confirmation. There are no term limits. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/09/2014 05:12 PM Mayor Dave Earling 12/10/2014 06:52 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/10/2014 08:14 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 12/09/2014 03:53 PM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2014  Packet Page 94 of 453    AM-7350     4. J.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of special duty pay for Recreation Manager Recommendation Council approve 5% special duty pay for Recreation Manager. Previous Council Action Council approved a decision package last year to add special duty pay for the current Recreation Manager to acknowledge she was working in the capacity as an interim Assistant Director. Council at their study session on November 25, 2014, forwarded the Deputy Director job description and salary range to the consent agenda for approval.   On December 2nd, 2014, Council pulled this item from the consent agenda and voted on it separately.  The vote was 3-3 and failed for a lack of majority. Narrative Since the Parks Director was assigned to be the Reporting Director for Human Resources, the Recreation Manager has been working above and beyond the job description to assist with larger Parks projects. Some examples of this include managing our donation program, writing grants for park development, assisting with staffing the Park Levy exploratory committee, assisting with the completion of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. The Council approved a decision package last year to acknowledge this and compensate the Recreation Manager accordingly by adding special duty pay. In April of 2014, the Mayor continued to assign the Parks Director as the HR Reporting Director. The Recreation Manager has still been assisting the Parks Director with larger departmental projects. This request is for the Council to approve special duty pay for another year for the Recreation Manager to work in the capacity as a Deputy Director for Parks.  From the discussion at the Council meeting on December 2nd, two of the Council members that opposed this position voiced their support for this on an interim basis. Also, to reiterate, the 5% special duty pay is already built into the Mayor's budget, so will have not budgetary impact this next year. Packet Page 95 of 453 Attachments Deputy Director job description Salary survey and range Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/09/2014 05:12 PM Mayor Dave Earling 12/10/2014 06:48 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/10/2014 08:14 AM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 12/08/2014 03:12 PM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2014  Packet Page 96 of 453 City of EDMONDS Washington DEPUTY PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES DIRECTOR Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Pay Grade: NR-16 Bargaining Unit: Non-Represented FLSA Status: Exempt Revised Date: November 2014 Reports To: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director POSITION PURPOSE: Under the direction of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, provide leadership, manage, supervise and administer a comprehensive Recreation program, including oversight of community center, outdoor pool, sports and fitness, camps, outdoor education and business services. Assist the Director with park development and planning, including strategic and long range planning for the department, and capital project management. Develop and manage assigned budgets, and revenue and prepare and administer department grants and grant programs. May act on behalf of or in lieu of the department director at selected management, community, Council or regional meetings dealing with parks, recreation and cultural services activities. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional, position-specific duties. • Manages the employment and hiring process and employee relations for assigned area. Manages, coordinates, and reviews the work of assigned staff, assigns work activities and coordinates schedules, projects, and programs. • Provides constructive feedback; reviews and evaluates work and makes effective suggestions and recommendations. Provides advice and counsel to staff, develops or assists with developmental work plans for staff; makes recommendations and/or implements corrective actions, discipline and termination procedures as appropriate/necessary or as directed. • Supervises, coaches, trains and motivates staff, and coordinates and/or provides staff training. • Assist Director in evaluating existing facilities, identifying deficiencies and assists with the design of new facilities to accomplish park goals and objectives. • Manages, administers, maintains and oversees assigned budgets including making recommendations to the annual budget. Assists in development and updating of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plans; • Monitors expenditures and identifies needs, reviews and approves reports, purchases, and payments according to established policies and practices and makes recommendations and forecasts for future funds needed for staffing, equipment, materials, and supplies. • Advocates and works closely with citizens and other service providers in a cooperative community response to recreation, park use, facilities, programs, and addressing concerns. • Prepares, writes and administers various public and privategrants for park and recreation facility development, proposals, evaluations and acknowledgements. • Provides staff support to the Planning Board, City Council Committees, citizen advisory groups and committees as needed. Prepares and presents staff reports and other necessary correspondence. Packet Page 97 of 453 • Prepares reports and recommendations to the department director and on policy issues relating to departmental operations. • Develops schedules and implements a comprehensive recreation program. • Works collaboratively with other agencies on program development and implementation. • Manages and oversees staff program development and implementation, fee structures for programs and instructors, marketing and media releases. • Identifies and reports vandalism and safety and health hazards; purchases supplies, equipment and materials. • Oversees business services for the department, including the management of the Frances Anderson Center tenant contracts, special event contracts, concessions, fee analysis and development. • Works with the public on gifting opportunities. • Investigates and responds to complaints and questions regarding facilities, programs, instructors and staff. • Receives and approves scholarship applications; discusses accommodations for special needs programming and facility. • Oversees department risk management; meets with various vendors and procures required supplies and equipment. • Assists the Director in the development and implementation of department goals, objectives, work plans and long-range plans; establishes division goals, objectives and priorities and assists with department project presentations. • Provides operational leadership to assure standards are met for productivity, efficiency, continuous quality improvement, customer satisfaction and teamwork. • Performs work within scope of authority and training and in compliance with policies and quality standards while monitoring assigned operations and ensuring compliance with Federal, State and local regulations and policies. • Implements policies and procedures and ensures the consistent application of rules and regulations. • Attends and participates in professional group meetings; maintains awareness of new trends and developments in the fields related to areas of assignment; incorporates new developments as appropriate and assigned. Required Knowledge of: • Operational characteristics, services and activities related to recreational services and programs including business and industry principles and practices related to work assigned. • City and Community Center recreation programs, activities and operations. • Principles, practices and techniques of developing and implementing a comprehensive recreation program. • Knowledge of applicable laws, rules, regulations and ordinances such as the Growth Management Act, SEPA, Public Meetings Act, public bidding requirements and other. • Knowledge of principles and practices of administration, supervision and training of personnel. • Contract administration, modern construction methods and materials. • Recreational needs of diverse community groups and programs in order to meet these needs. • Up to date marketing principles and practices. • Effective strategies for community fundraising and donations. • Structure, organization and inter-relationships of city departments, agencies and related governmental agencies and offices affecting assigned functions. • Federal, state and local laws, rules, and regulations related to assigned activities and programs. • Effective oral and written communication principles and practices to include public relations and public speaking. • Program/project management techniques and principles. Packet Page 98 of 453 • Grant writing techniques and principles. • Research methods and report preparation and presentation. • Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers and computer applications such as: word processing, spreadsheets, and statistical databases. • English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation. • Principles of business letter writing. • Principles and practices of governmental budget preparation and administration. • Supervisory and training principles, best management practices, methods and techniques. Required Skill in: • Supervising, leading, coaching and using best management practices to improve staff performance; delegating tasks and workload assignments. • Developing, scheduling and implementing a comprehensive recreation program. • Planning, developing and administering an annual operating budget and assisting with long-range capital improvement programs. • Developing and implementing a variety of recreation programs and services that meet community needs. • Administering contracts for services. • Preparing, submitting, administering and monitoring grant proposals. • Analyzing situations accurately and adopting an effective course of action. • Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work and in compiling and preparing spreadsheets. • Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with staff, management, vendors, outside agencies, community groups and the general public. • Interpreting and administering policies and procedures sufficient to administer, discuss, resolve and explain them. • Applying program/project management techniques and principles. • Preparing and maintaining accurate records and reports. • Planning and preparing various promotional materials. • Developing and monitoring program/project operating budgets, costs and schedules. • Communicating effectively verbally and in writing. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Education and Experience: Bachelor’s Degree in Recreation and Leisure Management, Business Administration or related field and seven years of experience in recreation and leisure management, recreation and leisure program development or similar related programs and services, preferably within a municipal or public sector environment, that includes five years of staff supervisory and budgetary responsibility for a major division or program; OR an equivalent combination of education, training and experience. Required Licenses or Certifications: Valid State of Washington Driver’s License. Must be able to successfully complete and pass background check. WORKING CONDITIONS: Environment: Packet Page 99 of 453 • Primarily an office environment. • Constant interruptions. • Driving a vehicle to conduct work. Physical Abilities: • Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person or on the phone. • Reading and understanding a variety of materials. • Seeing to read materials, close vision, distance vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception, and the ability to adjust focus. • Operating a computer keyboard or other office equipment. • Sitting, standing or otherwise remaining in a stationary position for extended periods of time. • Bending at the waist, kneeling, crouching, reaching above shoulders and horizontally or otherwise positioning oneself to accomplish tasks. • Lifting/carrying or otherwise moving or transporting up to 40 lbs. Hazards: • Contact with angry and/or dissatisfied customers. Incumbent Signature: ____________________________________ Date: ________________________ Department Head: _______________________________________ Date: ________________________ Packet Page 100 of 453 Low High 1 EDMONDS Assistant Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director 2 BOTHELL NO MATCH 3 BREMERTON NO MATCH 4 BURIEN NO MATCH 5 DES MOINES NO MATCH 6 ISSAQUAH Deputy Parks Director 7,952 10,149 7 KIRKLAND Deputy Parks & Community Services Director 7,354 9,253 8 LACEY NO MATCH 9 LYNNWOOD Deputy Parks, Recreation & Cultural Arts Director 7,063 8,939 10 OLYMPIA NO MATCH 11 PUYALLUP NO MATCH 12 SAMMAMISH Depuuty Parks Director 7,872 10,774 13 UNIVERSITY PLACE NO MATCH Ranked by Median 1 Sammamish 10,774 2 Issaquah 10,149 3 Edmonds 9,701 9,701 4 Kirkland 9,253 5 Lynnwood 8,939 $116,412 Low High Recommended salary range: NR 16 $86,905 $116,462 DEPUTY PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES DIRECTOR City Name Position Title Wage Range Packet Page 101 of 453    AM-7374     4. K.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Human Resources Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type: Action  Information Subject Title Authorizing the Mayor to enter into a Contract Extension with James Feldman for Public Defender Services. Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to enter into a Contract Extension with James Feldman for Public Defender Services for the period January 1, 2015-December 31, 2015. Previous Council Action The proposed contract extension was discussed at the Council study session on December 9th, 2014, and forwarded to consent for approval. Narrative  The city contracts with the law firm of Feldman & Lee for public defender services and has done so for many years. On December 6, 2013, Feldman & Lee gave notice that it was terminating its contract with the city effective March 31, 2014. The city and Feldman & Lee have begun negotiating a new contract. Feldman & Lee has proposed the contract set forth in Attachment 1. A contract amendment was signed for April - December 2014.  This additional amendment will cover the period 1/1/15 - 12/31/15, and will allow the city more time to determine how it wishes to proceed with public defender over the long term.  It will also allow the city and Feldman & Lee time to evaluate the new public defender case load limits that the Supreme Court is expected to issue later this year. Attachments Public Defender 2015 Extension Final 2014 contract Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/12/2014 11:56 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/12/2014 12:18 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/12/2014 12:20 PM Packet Page 102 of 453 Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/12/2014 12:20 PM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 12/12/2014 11:49 AM Final Approval Date: 12/12/2014  Packet Page 103 of 453 Original Contract No. Supplemental Agreement No. 1 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES Effective January 1, 2015 - December 31, 2015 WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, and Feldman & Lee, P.S., hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor", entered into an underlying agreement for indigent defense services dated April 1, 2014; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to extend the term of the underlying agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The underlying Agreement of April 1, 2014 between the parties, which is incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, is amended in, but only in, the following respects: 1.1 Duration of Agreement. Section II of the underlying agreement shall be amended to revise the termination date of the agreement to December 31, 2015. 1.2 Compensation. Section XXVII of the underlying agreement, Subsection A (“Payment for Services”), shall be amended to revise the monthly payment dates under the agreement to January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. 2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein. DATED this _____ day of December, 2014 CITY OF EDMONDS FELDMAN & LEE, P.S. David O. Earling, Mayor James A. Feldman, Managing Partner ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk Packet Page 104 of 453 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of December, 2014, before me, the under-signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared _______________________, and executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be her free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that she was authorized to execute said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Page 105 of 453 1 CITY OF EDMONDS CONTRACT NO. ____ APRIL 1, 2014 – DECEMBER 31, 2014 AGREEMENT FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES This Agreement is entered into between the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation, (“City”) and Feldman & Lee, P.S., a Washington professional services corporation, (“Contractor”). I. DEFINITIONS A. Attorney. Attorneys shall mean attorneys working for the law firm of Feldman & Lee, P.S., and where appropriate, shall include Rule 9 interns. B. Contractor. Contractor shall mean the law firm of Feldman & Lee, P.S., and shall mean each attorney working for the Contractor. C. Defendant. Defendant shall mean a person charged with a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense that is filed by the City into the Edmonds Municipal Court, and for whom the Contractor must provide services pursuant to Section III of this Agreement. D. Full Time Attorney Equivalent Position. Full-time attorney equivalent position shall mean 40 hours of attorney services provided pursuant to this Agreement. II. DURATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 2014, unless extended or terminated earlier in a manner permitted by this Agreement. III. SCOPE OF WORK AND DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR A. Criminal Defense Representation – To Whom Provided. Except in cases in which a conflict of interest exists, Contractor shall provide criminal defense representation to the following: 1. All Defendants for which the Contractor has been appointed by the Edmonds Municipal Court or City as attorney of record pursuant to the Court’s or City’s determination of indigence of the defendant. 2. All suspects who are permitted access to a public defender while detained pursuant to an investigation for any gross or simple misdemeanor being investigated by the City of Edmonds Police Department, including, but not limited to: the offenses of driving under the influence (RCW 46.61.502), driving under twenty-one consuming alcohol (RCW 46.61.503) or physical control of a vehicle under the influence (RCW 46.61.504) for the purposes of consulting with the Contractor prior to deciding whether to provide a sample of breath or blood. 3. All persons who are not represented by private counsel and who appear for arraignment in the Edmonds Municipal Court shall be entitled to an explanation of the rights, information regarding maximum and minimum penalties if convicted and information regarding the process and handling of the matter by the Edmonds Municipal Court. Nothing in this contact shall be construed as arising to the level of being this person’s attorney for purposes of case counting requirements as promulgated by the Washington State Supreme Court now or in the future. Packet Page 106 of 453 2 4. All Defendants who, while in the custody of the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail who are not represented by private or conflict counsel, who appear in court on charges filed by the City of Edmonds, shall be entitled to the same level of contact as described above in section 3. B. Provisional and Temporary Appointments. Contractor shall be available to provide limited representation on behalf of otherwise unrepresented Defendants at arraignments and during in- custody hearings despite said Defendant not being appointed pursuant to a determination of indigence. The Contractor shall deduct from his caseload standards, one case for each four hours of time spent in preparing and appearing at any such hearings. In the event such a Defendant wishes to enter a plea of guilty, the Contractor shall request that the court accept the plea only after the defendant waives the right to an attorney in manner acceptable to the court. If Contractor is appointed to a case pursuant to determination of indigence at an arraignment or in-custody hearing, Contractor should not recommend a Defendant plead guilty without first having reviewed discovery from the prosecuting attorney and adequately discussed the case with the Defendant and any witnesses the Contractor deems necessary to make such recommendation. C. Representation Provided to Defendants Investigated for Gross Misdemeanor or Misdemeanor Crimes. Current contractor shall be available 24 hours per day, seven days per week, by telephone for the purposes of providing representation to otherwise unrepresented suspects or Defendants who are in custody and under investigation for any gross or simple misdemeanor being investigated by the City of Edmonds Police Department, including, but not limited to: driving under the influence (RCW 46.61.502), driving under twenty-one consuming alcohol (RCW 46.61.503), physical control of a vehicle under the influence (RCW 46.61.504) or any other misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor. Contractor shall provide the Edmonds Police Department with telephone numbers of its attorneys that provide direct access to the attorneys, and shall keep such telephone numbers up to date. Contractor may designate times in which specific attorneys may be reached, and shall provide the numbers of alternate attorneys if the designated attorney cannot be reached. D. Duration of Representation of Defendant. In cases in which the Contractor is appointed as attorney of record, and unless Contractor is permitted by the court to withdraw at an earlier time, Contractor shall represent the defendant at all stages of the criminal process, from the time of appointment as attorney of record through the appeals process (provided that funding for appeals beyond superior court shall be pursuant to the terms of Title 15 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure), as well as during any period in which the court retains jurisdiction over the terms and conditions of any sentence or deferral. IV. APPEARANCE AT HEARINGS Contractor shall appear at all hearings scheduled by the Edmonds Municipal Court in which it represents Defendants, as well as all arraignment calendars and all in-custody calendars. Contractor shall provide a sufficient number of attorneys at the various court calendars to ensure that Defendants have a sufficient amount of time to consult with the Contractor’s attorneys prior to each defendant’s case being heard, and to ensure that the court calendars are not delayed due to insufficient staffing of Contractor’s attorneys at the calendars. Packet Page 107 of 453 3 V. REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANTS WHILE ON THE RECORD Contractor shall be with and actively representing an appointed Defendant at all times while the appointed Defendant’s case is considered on the court record, and shall adequately inform the Defendant of the developments in his or her case such that the Defendant proceeds during any court hearing in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary manner. VI. DEFENDANT ACCESS TO CONTRACTOR A. Contact Prior to Court Hearings. Contractor shall be available to appointed Defendants to ensure that appointed Defendants are provided with effective assistance of counsel. Defendant access to the Contractor prior to court hearings is paramount. Contractor shall endeavor to confer with appointed Defendants about cases prior to court hearings. B. Toll Free Calls. Appointed Defendants shall be provided access to the Contractor by means of a toll-free local call made available by the Contractor. C. Time to Respond. Contractor shall respond to defendant inquiries within a reasonable time to ensure the effective assistance of counsel, whether such inquiries are received by letter, telephone, email, or otherwise. D. Local Office Required. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall maintain an office at its current location or within 5 miles of either the Edmonds Municipal Court or the City of Edmonds. The office of the Contractor shall accommodate confidential meetings with Defendants, shall be equipped with telephone, facsimile, and internet services, shall receive adequate cellular telephone service, and shall be the location at which mail and service of process is received. E. Availability for and Contact with In-Custody Defendants. Contractor shall evaluate the cases of all appointed Defendants in the custody of the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail prior to the time of the Defendant’s trial, and shall meet with such in-custody Defendants as the Contractor deems appropriate for providing effective assistance of counsel. At a minimum, Contractor shall meet with all appointed misdemeanant Defendants who are in-custody within two court days of the Contractor being notified in writing of its appointment as that defendant’s legal representative. In addition, Contractor shall schedule no less than two periods of time each week in which to meet with appointed Defendants who are in the custody of the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail. These two periods of time shall be for the purposes of responding to inmate requests, responding to letters and telephone calls, and preparing for the defense of the jailed Defendants. These two periods shall be separate in time, not necessarily in days, from court hearings held at the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail. VII. QUALITY OF REPRESENTATION Contractor shall provide services in a professional and skilled manner consistent with Washington’s Rules of Professional Conduct, applicable case law, the Constitutions of the United States and Washington, and the court rules that define the duties of counsel and the rights of defendants. Contractor shall be familiar with and comply with the New Standards for Indigent Defense as adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court on June 15, 2012, and as thereafter amended (hereafter “the Indigent Defense Standards”). At all times during the representation of a defendant, the Contractor’s primary responsibility shall be to protect the interests of the defendant. Packet Page 108 of 453 4 VIII. QUALIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTOR ATTORNEYS - TRAINING A. Qualifications. All attorneys employed by Contractor for the purposes of providing the services called for in this contract shall, at a minimum, satisfy the minimum qualifications to practice law as established by the Washington Supreme Court; be familiar with and follow the statutes, court rules, case law and constitutional law applicable to misdemeanor criminal defense work in the state of Washington; be familiar with and abide by Washington’s Rules of Professional Conduct; be familiar with and abide by the Indigent Defense Standards; be familiar with the consequences to each particular defendant of any conviction or adjudication including but not limited to jail time, financial penalties, restitution, mental health or drug and alcohol treatment obligations, license suspensions, and immigration or civil commitment implications; be familiar with mental health and substance abuse issues applicable to each defendant; be able to recognize the need for expert services including but not limited to investigators; and be able to satisfy the terms and conditions of this Agreement. B. Training. For each attorney of the Contractor providing services under this Agreement, a minimum of seven hours of reportable continuing legal education credits per year shall be in the areas of criminal defense law, criminal process, trial advocacy, legal writing, appellate work, law practice management, or any other subject that, in the opinion of the Contractor, is applicable to providing criminal defense services. If Contractor employs more than 7 attorneys, Contractor shall conduct in house training pursuant to the Indigent Defense Standards. IX. USE OF RULE 9 INTERNS A. Workload of Rule 9 Interns. Contractor may employ interns qualified under Admission to Practice Rule 9 who perform work pursuant to this Agreement. Rule 9 interns shall remain under the supervision of the Contractor, and an attorney for Contractor shall remain responsible for the cases for which the Rule 9 provides services. Any applicable case load limits for Rule 9 Interns shall be one quarter (1/4) of the case load limit of an Attorney working the same number of hours. B. Qualifications of Rule 9 Interns. Rule 9 interns shall be required to abide by Sections VII and VIII except that Rule 9 interns shall not be required to complete the training requirements of Section VIII, and in place of the requirement to satisfy the minimum qualifications to practice law as established by the Washington Supreme Court, the Rule 9 intern must comply with the provisions of APR 9. Rule 9 interns shall be closely monitored by the more senior attorneys of the Contractor. X. DISCOVERY TO BE PROVIDED The City’s Prosecuting Attorney’s Office shall provide Contractor one (1) copy of all discoverable material concerning each assigned case pursuant to the rules of discovery and without charge as soon as possible after appointment. For those individuals who are held in custody, discovery shall be provided within one (1) business day. XI. NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS EMPLOYED Contractor shall employ a sufficient number of Attorneys to comply with caseload limits. XII. CASELOAD LIMITS PER FULLTIME EQUIVALENT POSITION A. Caseload Limits in General. Contractor shall maintain a caseload such that it can provide each and every Defendant effective assistance of counsel as required by this Agreement. Subject to the remaining subsections of this section, a fulltime equivalent attorney position should be appointed to no more than 400 unweighted cases per year; provided, that a fulltime equivalent attorney position Packet Page 109 of 453 5 may be appointed to more than 400 unweighted cases per year if the managing partner(s) of the Contractor determine that the Contractor will meet the terms of this Agreement and the Indigent Defense Standards. Under no circumstances may a fulltime equivalent attorney position be appointed to more than 500 cases per year. B. Factors In Determining Permitted Caseload. In order to determine whether an Attorney can be appointed to more or less than 400 unweighted cases per year, the Contractor shall consider the following: 1. The experience of the attorneys who perform the work called for in this Agreement. 2. The number of cases fulltime equivalent attorney positions are currently handling that are not in pre-trial status and not on appeal. 3. The complexity of the cases. 4. The services the Contractor provides to other municipalities or private clients. 5. The number of hours the Attorney works on average more or less than 40 hours per week. 6. Efficiencies created by client meetings and court appearances taking place adjacent to one another in the same location that would not occur if the Attorney were representing a fewer number of individuals in a larger number of jurisdictions. C. Case Defined. For the purposes of this section, the term “case” shall mean a group of criminal charges related to a single incident filed against a Defendant to which an Attorney is appointed pursuant to a finding of indigence. D. Caseload Limit Reduction. Each Attorney’s caseload limit shall be reduced by the approximate percentage of time the Attorney spends representing private clients or defendants that have not been formally appointed pursuant to a finding of indigence. E. Alternative Caseload limits and Case Weighting. In the event the City or Contractor determine that it is necessary or advisable to use a caseload limit that differs from the case load limits specified in this section, either party may propose to the other an alternative standard for caseload limits so long as such standard is fully consistent with the Indigent Defense Standards. If the parties agree the proposed alternative standard is fully consistent with the Indigent Defense Standards and such alternative standards do not create an undue administrative burden on either party, the alternative standard shall be formally approved by the Contractor and the City’s Mayor and incorporated within this Agreement. XIII. COMPLIANCE WITH INDIGENT DEFENSE STANDARDS A. Caseload Monitoring. Contractor shall continually monitor the caseload and performance of Contractor as a whole and each attorney providing services pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor shall provide projections at least three months in advance regarding the caseload limits based upon the number of attorneys employed by Contractor and trends in case filings. B. Caseload Level Shifting. In the event an attorney is handling a caseload such that the attorney is unable to provide effective assistance of counsel to each and every defendant or is otherwise on track to exceed his/her caseload limit, Contractor shall reduce the caseload of that attorney, and shift the reduced portion of the caseload to another Attorney employed by the Contractor. Packet Page 110 of 453 6 C. Certification of Compliance. Each Attorney shall be in compliance with and shall certify compliance with the Indigent Defense Standards to the Snohomish County South District Court on a quarterly basis or more frequently as required by the Indigent Defense Standards and in the form required by the Indigent Defense Standards. XIV. EXPERTS AND INVESTIGATORS Contractor may retain experts and investigators of the Contractor’s choosing as deemed necessary to the effective defense of the defendant, and may apply to the court for such services pursuant to applicable court rules. The fees for expert witnesses shall be included in the costs that the City pays Contractor except as ordered by the Court pursuant to CrRLJ 3.1(f). The Contractor shall retain an investigator of its choosing as deemed necessary for the effective defense of the defendant, this cost shall be part of the flat fee set forth in this agreement. XV. COSTS OF TRANSCRIPTION The City agrees to reimburse the Contractor for all reasonable costs associated with obtaining and transcribing trial court records for appeal purposes if such costs have not been waived. XVI. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Contractor shall maintain a database of client information sufficient for the Contractor to determine the existence of any conflicts of interest. In the event representation of a defendant would constitute a conflict of interest, Contractor shall take such action as is appropriate pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct. In the event the Contractor is disqualified or excused as counsel of record due to a conflict of interest, Contractor shall not be required to pay any compensation to another attorney assigned to represent the defendant. XVII. INTERNAL PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND ATTORNEY SUPERVISION Contractor shall establish a program for managing the performance of attorneys who provide the services called for in this Agreement. The performance monitoring program shall have the purpose of ensuring that each defendant receives effective assistance of counsel, and the terms and conditions of this Agreement are met. XVIII. REMOVAL OF ATTORNEY A. Removal by Contractor. In the event Contractor determines, through its internal performance monitoring and attorney supervision program that an Attorney or Rule 9 intern working for Contractor fails to comply with the terms of this Agreement, then Contractor shall immediately take action to prevent that Attorney or Rule 9 intern from providing the services called for in this Agreement. B. Recommendation of Removal by City. In the event the City determines that an attorney working for the Contractor has breached this Agreement, the City may, at its sole discretion and as an alternative to termination of this Agreement, require Contractor to take action to prevent that attorney from providing the services called for in this Agreement or otherwise cure the breach. Packet Page 111 of 453 7 XIX. CITY CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR – CONTRACT OVERSIGHT This Agreement shall be managed and monitored by the City’s Mayor or by such other agent of the City as determined by the Mayor. All reports or certifications required by this Agreement shall be delivered to the Mayor or his/her designee. XX. REPORTS OF CONTRACTOR Contractor shall maintain a case reporting and case management information system, and shall submit reports to the City as follows: A. Reports shall be submitted on a no less than a quarterly basis and shall be a condition of payment pursuant to Section XXVII. B. Reports shall contain the following information: 1. The names of defendants to which Contractor was appointed during the reporting period, the charges, and the associated case numbers, 2. The date of appointment, 3. The case weight assigned to the case if a case weighting system has been approved and implemented, 4. The number of appellate level cases pending, and 5. Copies of the most recent Indigent Defense Standards Certifications filed with the Court by each Attorney providing services under this Agreement. C. Contractor shall not be required to compromise any attorney-client privilege when providing these reports. XXI. COMPLAINTS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION A. Complaints Directed to Mayor or Designee. Any unresolved complaints regarding Contractor or an attorney or Rule 9 providing services pursuant to this Agreement, whether received by the City, the Contractor, or the Court, shall be directed to the Mayor or designee. B. Investigation. In the event a complaint is received by or directed to the Mayor or designee and is not timely resolved by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the complainant, the City will investigate the complaint by reviewing the complaint, discussing the matter with the complaining party, discussing the matter with the Contractor, and determining whether a violation of this Agreement has occurred. The Mayor or designee may consult with legal counsel or another expert as deemed necessary in order to resolve the complaint. In addition, the City may consult with the Washington State Bar Association when appropriate. C. Corrective Action Plan or Termination. In the event the Mayor or designee determines that a violation has occurred, he or she may develop a corrective action plan or terminate this Agreement in the event it is determined that termination is appropriate. Contractor shall cooperate in any investigation of a complaint, and any corrective action plan developed by the Mayor or designee. XXII. TERMINATION A. For Cause. The City or the Contractor may terminate this Agreement immediately in the event the other party breaches the Agreement and such breach is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the injured party in a timely manner after notice of breach has been provided to the other party. Each Packet Page 112 of 453 8 and every term of this Agreement is material. The failure of any party to comply with any term of this Agreement shall constitute a breach of this Agreement. B. For Reasons Beyond Control of Parties. Either party may terminate this Agreement without recourse by the other where performance is rendered impossible or impracticable for reasons beyond such party’s reasonable control such as, but not limited to, acts of nature; war or warlike operations; civil commotion; riot; labor dispute including strike, walkout, or lockout; sabotage; or superior governmental regulation or control. C. Without Cause. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause upon giving the non-terminating party not less than one hundred and twenty (120) days prior written notice. XXIII. CONTINUATION OF REPRESENTATION AFTER TERMINATION In the event of termination of this Agreement, Contractor shall continue representation of Defendants to whom Contractor was assigned prior to the termination until such time as another defense attorney has been appointed to represent such Defendants. Except in cases in which the Contractor is unable to provide services in conformance with this Agreement, Contractor shall not submit to the court a motion to withdraw from representing defendants to which the Contractor was assigned until such time as new counsel has submitted a motion to substitute counsel. For each case in which Contractor makes one or more in-court appearances with a Defendant, not including appearances that consist solely of successful continuance motions, the City shall pay Contractor a one time payment of one hundred and fifty dollars for all post termination services provided in the case. XXIV. NON-DISCRIMINATION Contractor shall not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, nationality, sexual orientation, color, creed, disability, age, religion or any other state or federal protected category in the hiring of employees or the provision of services pursuant to a contract with the City. XXV. PROOF OF LIABILITY INSURANCE Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance of the types and in the amounts described in Exhibit A attached and incorporated by this reference. XXVI. INDEMNIFICATION Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, and employees harmless from any and all claims whatsoever related to or arising from the performance of the Contractor’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to claims arising out of the errors and omissions of the Contractor relating to the representation or lack of representation of clients, and/or by reason of accident, injury, or death caused to any persons or property of any kind occurring during the performance or lack thereof of the work required by this Agreement, or traveling to or from any place to perform the work required by this Agreement, except to the extent they are caused by the sole negligence of the City. The failure of the Contractor to carry insurance in a quantity sufficient to defend a claim or lawsuit or cover any judgment that results shall not operate to limit the Contractor’s indemnification or defense of the City. This indemnification section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. Packet Page 113 of 453 9 XXVII. COMPENSATION A. Payment for Services. The City shall provide to Contractor for services rendered under this Agreement the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($20,000) per month from April 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Contractor shall bill the City each month for services rendered herein. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the Contractor’s compensation shall be prorated based upon the days which have elapsed between the effective date of the termination and the first day of the month after termination. B. Billing. The Contractor shall bill the City, in care of the Mayor or designee, on the first day of the month, or the first workday thereafter for the monthly installment set forth in subsection A of this section, and any transcription costs as permitted by this Agreement. C. Payment. The City shall make payments within 30 days of receipt of Contractor’s bill. Except as provided elsewhere in this Agreement, the payment set forth in this section shall be inclusive of administrative costs, support costs, and all costs associated with the conduct of the Contractor’s business. XXVIII. SUBCONTRACTING PROHIBITED Except in extraordinary circumstances or as temporarily necessary to avoid violation of the Indigent Defense Standards, Contractor shall not subcontract with another attorney or law firm to provide the services required herein. Contractor shall remain directly involved in and responsible for the representation of all assigned defendants. XXIX. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED No assignment or transfer of this Agreement or of any interest in this Agreement shall be made by either of the parties, without prior written consent of the non-assigning party. XXX. AGREEMENT APPLICABLE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS The terms of this Agreement shall apply to all persons who are employed by, or who volunteer for, the Contractor, including but not limited to attorneys, interns, paralegals, office assistants, secretaries, and investigators. XXXI. STATUS OF CONTRACTOR AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND NOT EMPLOYEE This Agreement calls for the performance of the services of the Contractor as an independent contractor and Contractor will not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. Contractor shall secure at its own expense and be responsible for any and all payment of income tax, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation, worker’s compensation, and all other payroll deductions for the Contractor and its officers, agents, and employees and the costs of all professional or business licenses in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. Contractor shall be solely responsible for any and all claims or lawsuits filed against Contractor by personnel employed by the Attorney related to the conditions or terms of employment by the Contractor, and the Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its employees and officers from any such claims or lawsuits. Contractor further agrees that its employees are not considered employees of the City for the purposes of participating in any state or federal program, including but not limited to the retirement program provided by the Washington Department of Retirement Services, and in the event that a claim is made to the contrary by any Packet Page 114 of 453 10 employee or volunteer of the Contractor, Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its employees and officers from any such claims or lawsuits and shall pay all awards ordered against the City for such claims or lawsuits. XXXII. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Contractor may be requested to perform additional services beyond the original scope of services as defined in section 1 of this Agreement. Such work will be undertaken only upon written authorization of the City based upon an agreed amount of compensation. XXXIII. NOTICES All notices and other written documentation shall be sent to the parties at the following addresses unless otherwise requested in writing: City of Edmonds: Contractor: Mayor’s Office James A. Feldman 121 5th Ave. N 19303 44th Avenue West, Suite A Edmonds, WA 98020 Lynnwood, WA 98036 XXXIV. ENTIRE AGREEMENT – AMENDMENTS This instrument contains the entire Agreement between the parties for the contemplated work and services to commence April 1, 2014, and it may not be enlarged, modified, altered, or amended except in writing signed and endorsed by the parties. XXXV. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS This Agreement is executed in duplicate originals. XXXVI. EFFECTIVE DATE The terms of this Agreement shall take effect on April 1, 2014. WHEREFORE, the parties agree to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth above. CITY OF EDMONDS FELDMAN AND LEE P.S. _____________________________ ____________________________ David O. Earling, Mayor James A. Feldman, Managing Partner ATTEST: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Office of the City Attorney Packet Page 115 of 453 11 EXHIBIT A INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICES AGREEMENTS Insurance The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types described below: 1. Professional Liability insurance appropriate to the Contractor’s profession. B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance Contractor shall maintain the following insurance limits: 1. Professional Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit. C. Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance: 1. The Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. The Contractor’s insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. 3. The City of Edmonds shall be named as an additional insured on all policies (except Professional Liability) as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Contractor and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all required insurance policies. The Contractor’s Commercial General Liability insurance shall also contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer’s liability. Packet Page 116 of 453 12 EXHIBIT A (Continued) D. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. E. Verification of Coverage Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Contractor before commencement of the work. F. Subcontractors Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insured’s under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage’ for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the same insurance requirements as stated herein for the Contractor. Packet Page 117 of 453    AM-7363     6.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Review Committee: Committee Action: Cancel Type: Action  Information Subject Title Proposed 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program. Recommendation  Approve the CIP as amended 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 118 of 453 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 Megan Luttrell 12/11/2014 09:04 AM Packet Page 119 of 453 Public Works Phil Williams 12/11/2014 10:23 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 12/11/2014 10:26 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/11/2014 01:46 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/11/2014 01:59 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 12/10/2014 04:09 PM Final Approval Date: 12/11/2014  Packet Page 120 of 453 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2015-2020 DRAFT Packet Page 121 of 453 Packet Page 122 of 453 CFP GENERAL Packet Page 123 of 453 Packet Page 124 of 453 $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 2 5 o f 4 5 3 P a c k e t P a g e 1 2 6 o f 4 5 3 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 127 of 453 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 128 of 453 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 129 of 453 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 130 of 453 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 131 of 453 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 132 of 453 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 133 of 453 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 134 of 453 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 135 of 453 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 136 of 453 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 137 of 453 Packet Page 138 of 453 CFP TRANSPORTATION Packet Page 139 of 453 Packet Page 140 of 453 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 4 1 o f 4 5 3 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 4 2 o f 4 5 3 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 4 3 o f 4 5 3 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 4 4 o f 4 5 3 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 4 5 o f 4 5 3 P a c k e t P a g e 1 4 6 o f 4 5 3 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 147 of 453 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 148 of 453 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 149 of 453 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 150 of 453 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 151 of 453 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 152 of 453 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 153 of 453 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 154 of 453 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 155 of 453 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 156 of 453 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 157 of 453 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 158 of 453 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 159 of 453 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 160 of 453 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 161 of 453 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 162 of 453 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 163 of 453 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 164 of 453 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 165 of 453 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 166 of 453 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 167 of 453 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 168 of 453 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 169 of 453 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 170 of 453 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 171 of 453 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 172 of 453 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 173 of 453 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 174 of 453 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 175 of 453 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 176 of 453 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 177 of 453 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 178 of 453 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 179 of 453 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 180 of 453 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 181 of 453 Packet Page 182 of 453 CFP STORMWATER Packet Page 183 of 453 Packet Page 184 of 453 $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 1 8 5 o f 4 5 3 P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 6 o f 4 5 3 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 187 of 453 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 188 of 453 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 189 of 453 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2015-2020 DRAFT Packet Page 190 of 453 Packet Page 191 of 453 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 192 of 453 Packet Page 193 of 453 CIP GENERAL Packet Page 194 of 453 Packet Page 195 of 453 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 1 9 6 o f 4 5 3 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 1 9 7 o f 4 5 3 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 1 9 8 o f 4 5 3 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 1 9 9 o f 4 5 3 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 Misc. Buliding Maintenance $15,000 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 $380,000 $679,000 $215,000 $310,000 $232,000 $265,000 $2,081,000 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 2 0 0 o f 4 5 3 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)-$96,490 $152,749 $129,349 $50,349 $85,349 $25,349 $43,349 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 $729,349 $300,349 $335,349 $275,349 $293,349 Total Revenue $732,876 $509,349 $729,349 $300,349 $335,349 $275,349 $293,349 Total Project ($580,127)($380,000)($679,000)($215,000)($310,000)($232,000)($265,000) Ending Cash Balance $152,749 $129,349 $50,349 $85,349 $25,349 $43,349 $28,349 P a c k e t P a g e 2 0 1 o f 4 5 3 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 $200,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $275,000 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 $100,000 $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 $1,006,000 $842,000 $750,000 $945,000 $750,000 $255,000 $4,548,000 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 $2,411,000 $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 0 2 o f 4 5 3 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 $358,184 $266,184 $266,184 $71,184 $71,184 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 $1,258,184 $1,166,184 $1,166,184 $971,184 $971,184 Total Revenue $2,513,184 $2,769,184 $1,258,184 $1,166,184 $1,166,184 $971,184 $971,184 Total Project & Transfers ($648,000)($2,411,000)($992,000)($900,000)($1,095,000)($900,000)($405,000) Ending Cash Balance $1,865,184 $358,184 $266,184 $266,184 $71,184 $71,184 $566,184 *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 0 3 o f 4 5 3 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 0 4 o f 4 5 3 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 0 5 o f 4 5 3 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 $954,900 $954,900 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 $6,217,900 $100,000 $3,000,000 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0 $13,642,900 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$823,000 $1,386,902 -$17,989 -$117,989 -$3,117,989 -$3,117,989 $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 -$17,989 -$117,989 -$3,117,989 -$3,117,989 $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 -$17,989 -$117,989 -$1,692,989 -$217,989 $282,912 Total Construction Projects (1,361,632.00)($6,217,900)(100,000)(3,000,000)($1,425,000)(2,900,000)$0 Ending Cash Balance $1,386,902 -$17,989 -$117,989 -$3,117,989 -$3,117,989 -$3,117,989 $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 0 6 o f 4 5 3 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 0 7 o f 4 5 3 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 0 8 o f 4 5 3 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 0 9 o f 4 5 3 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 1 0 o f 4 5 3 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 1 1 o f 4 5 3 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 1 2 o f 4 5 3 P a c k e t P a g e 2 1 3 o f 4 5 3 CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Packet Page 214 of 453 Packet Page 215 of 453 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 216 of 453 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 217 of 453 PROJECT NAME: City Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $280,000 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 $200,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000 $200,000 $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 218 of 453 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 219 of 453 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 220 of 453 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 221 of 453 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 222 of 453 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 223 of 453 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 224 of 453 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 225 of 453 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 226 of 453 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 $100,000 $250,000 $0 $0 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 $250,000 $0 $0 Packet Page 227 of 453 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 228 of 453 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 229 of 453 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 230 of 453 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 231 of 453 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 232 of 453 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 233 of 453 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 234 of 453 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 235 of 453 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 236 of 453 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 237 of 453 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 238 of 453 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 $20,000 Packet Page 239 of 453 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Cemetery Mapping ESTIMATED COST:$ 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 240 of 453 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 241 of 453 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 242 of 453 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 243 of 453 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 244 of 453 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 245 of 453 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 246 of 453 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 247 of 453 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 248 of 453 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 249 of 453 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 250 of 453 PROJECT NAME: City Park Revitalization ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,435,000 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 $954,900 1% for Art TOTAL $372,100 $954,900 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts Packet Page 251 of 453 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 252 of 453 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 253 of 453 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 254 of 453 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 255 of 453 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 256 of 453 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 257 of 453 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 258 of 453 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 259 of 453 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 260 of 453 423.76 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 261 of 453 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 262 of 453 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 263 of 453 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 264 of 453 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 265 of 453 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 266 of 453 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 267 of 453 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 268 of 453 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 269 of 453 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 270 of 453 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 271 of 453 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 272 of 453 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 273 of 453 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 274 of 453 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 275 of 453 Packet Page 276 of 453 Packet Page 277 of 453 Packet Page 278 of 453 Packet Page 279 of 453 Packet Page 280 of 453 Packet Page 281 of 453 Packet Page 282 of 453 Packet Page 283 of 453 Packet Page 284 of 453 Packet Page 285 of 453 Packet Page 286 of 453 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 287 of 453 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 288 of 453 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 289 of 453 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 290 of 453 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 291 of 453 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 292 of 453 ORDINANCE NO. _______ 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. 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 293 of 453 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 294 of 453 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 4. 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 five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: Packet Page 295 of 453 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 296 of 453 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. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________,2014. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 297 of 453 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 298 of 453    AM-7369     7.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Scott James Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Continued Discussion and Adoption of the 2015 Proposed City Budget. Recommendation Council will consider the Amended Proposed Budget continued from the December 9th Budget Deliberations. Any additional amendments may be incorporated and the Council can then vote on a 2015 Budget. 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. Packet Page 299 of 453 Subsequent Council Meetings on the Proposed 2015 Budget are scheduled as scheduled as follows: On December 2nd 2015, Council continued discussion of the Proposed 2015 Budget. On December 9th 2015, Council continued discussion of the Proposed 2015 Budget. December 16th 2015 is scheduled for Final Discussion Adoption of the City's 2015 Budget. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 12/11/2014 01:36 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 12/11/2014 01:59 PM Mayor Dave Earling 12/11/2014 02:16 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/11/2014 02:18 PM Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 12/11/2014 01:29 PM Final Approval Date: 12/11/2014  Packet Page 300 of 453    AM-7367     8.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Debra Sharp Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Discussion and Potential Action on an Ordinance Amending the 2014 Budget Recommendation Approval of the Final 2014 Budget Amendment. Council Motion: Approve the 2014 4th Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance No.XXXX Previous Council Action None Narrative There are a total of 16 budget amendments. There are three budget amendments that reduce the General Fund ending cash.  The two larger items have been before Council and need budget appropriation.  The first budget amendment is for the public defender contract that was extended by Council in the spring of 2014.  The second budget amendment is for the preliminary estimate on the train trench concept.  The final amendment that reduces the General Fund ending cash is a transfer to the 2012 LTGO Debt Service Funds for administrative fees charged by the fiscal agent.  These fees have been included in the 2015 Proposed Budget.  There are five additional budget amendments for the General Fund but the remaining amendments are offset by either additional revenues or a change in expenditure coding. Two of the budget amendments for the other funds are account code changes.  The first amendment is in regards to how the City codes transfers/reimbursements to other funds.  During the 2012 audit it was determined that some of the City's transfers needed to be classified as reimbursement instead of transfers.  The classification change is included in the 2015 Proposed Budget.  The second change is for the new Department of Ecology Loan for the Treatment Plant.  The debt service payment should be out of the Sewer Operations fund instead of the Treatment Plant Capital Fund. The six remaining budget amendments are for additional costs.  Four amendments are for capital expenditures and two are for the Sister City Commission. Attachments Packet Page 301 of 453 2014 Final Budget Amendment Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 12/11/2014 01:28 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 12/11/2014 01:29 PM Mayor Dave Earling 12/11/2014 01:44 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/11/2014 01:59 PM Form Started By: Debra Sharp Started On: 12/11/2014 09:15 AM Final Approval Date: 12/11/2014  Packet Page 302 of 453 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3979 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund Transfers and increases in appropriations; and WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is transferred from one fund to another; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2014 Budget; and WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified; THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 3979 adopting the final budget for the fiscal year 2014 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, and F adopted herein by reference. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take Packet Page 303 of 453 effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY ___ JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 304 of 453 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, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3979 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, 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 305 of 453 2014 2014 FUND FUND BEGINNING ENDING NO.DESCRIPTION FUND BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES FUND BALANCE 001 GENERAL FUND 6,834,380 39,047,994 41,303,920 4,578,454 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 440,744 594,946 503,361 532,329 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 387,195 903,858 300,000 991,053 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 5,376,796 527,115 - 5,903,911 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.55,859 - - 55,859 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 1,062 8,000 8,000 1,062 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 64,762 679,800 720,200 24,362 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 91,432 20,075 81,033 30,474 111 STREET FUND 215,200 1,712,100 1,658,810 268,490 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 481,154 8,610,407 9,013,666 77,895 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 431,932 102,823 149,349 385,406 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,703 25 - 17,728 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 106,736 54,140 54,000 106,876 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 61,719 20,308 26,786 55,241 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 13,858 1,623 3,600 11,881 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 70,429 18,200 19,000 69,629 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 1,101,453 904,343 1,592,712 413,084 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 760,453 904,243 1,199,841 464,855 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 225,677 43,708 18,200 251,185 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 15,289 4,000 13,653 5,636 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 70,203 160,136 175,435 54,904 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 718,445 1,352,517 2,070,517 445 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 150,334 186 - 150,520 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 839,292 12,970 - 852,262 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 2,014 4,519 5,342 1,191 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 645,000 645,000 - 211 LID FUND CONTROL 8,744 28,600 28,600 8,744 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 47,921 28,626 - 76,547 231 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVICE FUND 496 1,022,798 1,023,294 - 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND - 966,286 966,286 - 421 WATER 15,244,015 6,249,596 10,145,476 11,348,135 422 STORM 9,184,099 3,630,158 7,233,213 5,581,044 423 SEWER / TREATMENT PLANT 43,359,087 8,470,060 14,864,346 36,964,801 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 787,224 840,816 840,816 787,224 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 6,847,165 1,478,108 1,093,279 7,231,994 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 191,014 45,379 89,615 146,778 Totals 94,203,886 79,093,463 95,847,350 77,449,999 Packet Page 306 of 453 ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO.2014 FUND FUND 3949 3963 3973 3979 Amended NO.DESCRIPTION 12/3/2013 Mar-14 Jul-14 Oct-14 Dec-14 Budget 001 General Fund 36,154,919$ 2,850,778$ 22,000$ -$ 20,297$ 39,047,994$ 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 594,946 - - - - 594,946 011 Risk Management Reserve Fund 903,858 - - - - 903,858 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 527,115 - - - - 527,115 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 8,000 - - - - 8,000 016 Building Maintenance 679,800 - - - - 679,800 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 20,075 - - - - 20,075 111 Street Fund 1,712,100 - - - - 1,712,100 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 9,121,607 40,000 69,800 - (621,000) 8,610,407 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 91,473 - 11,350 - - 102,823 118 Memorial Street Tree 25 - - - - 25 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 54,140 - - - - 54,140 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 20,308 - - - - 20,308 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 1,623 - - - - 1,623 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 18,200 - - - - 18,200 125 Park Acq/Improvement 904,343 - - - - 904,343 126 Special Capital Fund 904,243 - - - - 904,243 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 43,708 - - - - 43,708 129 Special Projects Fund 4,000 - - - - 4,000 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 160,136 - - - - 160,136 132 Parks Construction 1,340,000 200,000 12,517 - (200,000) 1,352,517 136 Parks Trust Fund 186 - - - - 186 137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fd 12,970 - - - - 12,970 138 Sister City Commission 4,519 - - - - 4,519 139 Transportation Benefit District 645,000 - - - - 645,000 211 Lid Fund Control 28,600 - - - - 28,600 213 Lid Guaranty Fund 28,626 - - - - 28,626 231 2012 LTGO Debt Service fund 1,022,689 - - - 109 1,022,798 232 2014 Debt Service Fund - 966,286 - - - 966,286 421 Water 6,241,818 7,778 - - - 6,249,596 422 Storm 3,530,158 100,000 - - - 3,630,158 423 Sewer / Treatment Plant 8,347,200 - - 59,315 63,545 8,470,060 424 Bond Reserve Fund 840,816 - - - - 840,816 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,478,108 - - - - 1,478,108 617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 174,379 (129,000) - - - 45,379 Totals 75,619,688$ 4,035,842$ 115,667$ 59,315$ (737,049)$ 79,093,463$ Packet Page 307 of 453 ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO.2014 FUND FUND 3949 3963 3973 3979 Amended NO.DESCRIPTION 12/3/2013 Mar-14 Jul-14 Oct-14 Dec-14 Budget 001 General Fund 38,034,671$ 2,983,252$ 182,741$ 6,850$ 96,406$ 41,303,920$ 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 503,361 - - - - 503,361 011 Risk Management Reserve Fund 300,000 - - - - 300,000 012 Contingency Reserve Fund - - - - - - 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 8,000 - - - - 8,000 016 Building Maintenance 720,200 - - - - 720,200 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 81,033 - - - - 81,033 111 Street Fund 1,595,810 63,000 - - - 1,658,810 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 9,488,866 73,000 72,800 - (621,000) 9,013,666 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 152,575 - (3,226) - - 149,349 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 54,000 - - - - 54,000 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 26,786 - - - - 26,786 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 3,600 - - - - 3,600 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 19,000 - - - - 19,000 125 Park Acq/Improvement 1,377,712 205,000 - - 10,000 1,592,712 126 Special Capital Fund 1,189,291 - 10,550 - - 1,199,841 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 18,200 - - - - 18,200 129 Special Projects Fund 4,000 - - 9,653 - 13,653 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 175,435 - - - - 175,435 132 Parks Construction 2,494,000 (205,000) (18,483) - (200,000) 2,070,517 138 Sister City Commission 4,500 - - - 842 5,342 139 Transportation Benefit District 645,000 - - - - 645,000 211 Lid Fund Control 28,600 - - - - 28,600 231 2012LTGO Debt Service Fund 1,022,690 - - - 604 1,023,294 232 2014 Debt Service Fund - 966,286 - - - 966,286 421 Water 9,470,504 159,620 515,352 - - 10,145,476 422 Storm 5,931,306 639,907 662,000 - - 7,233,213 423 Sewer / Treatment Plant 13,915,053 831,346 - 89,439 28,508 14,864,346 424 Bond Reserve Fund 840,816 - - - - 840,816 511 Equipment Rental Fund 979,579 113,700 - - - 1,093,279 617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 89,615 - - - - 89,615 Totals 89,174,203$ 5,830,111$ 1,421,734$ 105,942$ (684,640)$ 95,847,350$ Packet Page 308 of 453 Fund BARS Category Debit Credit Page Description Previously Discussed by Council General Fund 001 000 39 512 52 41 00 Public Defender Prf. Serv 66,000 10 General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 66,000 General Fund 001 000 67 532 20 41 00 Professional Services 10,000 11 General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 10,000 REET 2 125 000 68 595 69 65 00 Construction-Crosswalk 10,000 12 REET 2 125 000 64 508 30 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 10,000 REET 2 125 000 68 595 33 65 90 Reimb to other fund 300,000 13 REET 2 125 000 64 597 42 55 12 Interfund Transfer 300,000 REET 1 126 000 68 595 33 65 90 Reimb to other fund 321,000 REET 1 126 000 39 597 95 55 12 Interfund Transfer 321,000 REET 1 126 000 64 594 75 65 90 Reimb to other fund 200,000 REET 1 126 000 39 597 76 55 32 Interfund Transfer 200,000 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 65 91 Reimb from other fund 621,000 Street Construction 112 200 397 42 125 00 Interfund Transfer 300,000 Street Construction 112 200 397 95 126 00 Interfund Transfer 321,000 Parks Construction 132 000 64 594 76 41 91 Reimb from other fund 200,000 Parks Construction 132 000 397 76 126 00 Interfund Transfer 200,000 WWTP 423 100 76 594 39 41 10 Professional Services 9,000 14 WWTP 423 100 76 594 39 65 10 Construction 2,345 WWTP 423 100 397 38 423 20 Edmonds Interfund Trf 5,762 WWTP 423 100 374 07 010 00 Mtlk Terr Contribution 2,629 WWTP 423 100 374 07 020 00 OVWS Contribution 1,878 WWTP 423 100 374 07 030 00 Ronald Contribution 1,076 Sewer 423 000 75 597 35 55 23 Interfund Transfer 5,762 Sewer 423 000 75 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 5,762 WWTP 423 100 76 594 39 65 00 Construction 25,000 15 WWTP 423 100 397 38 423 20 Edmonds Interfund Trf 12,697 WWTP 423 100 374 07 010 00 Mtlk Terr Contribution 5,793 WWTP 423 100 374 07 020 00 OVWS Contribution 4,138 WWTP 423 100 374 07 030 00 Ronald Contribution 2,372 Sewer 423 000 75 597 35 55 23 Interfund Transfer 12,697 Sewer 423 000 75 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 12,697 WWTP 423 100 76 594 39 41 10 Professional Services 26,000 16 WWTP 423 100 76 594 39 65 10 Construction 1,200 WWTP 423 100 397 38 423 20 Edmonds Interfund Trf 13,814 WWTP 423 100 374 07 010 00 Mtlk Terr Contribution 6,303 WWTP 423 100 374 07 020 00 OVWS Contribution 4,502 WWTP 423 100 374 07 030 00 Ronald Contribution 2,581 Sewer 423 000 75 597 35 55 23 Interfund Transfer 13,814 Sewer 423 000 75 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 13,814 Sewer 423 000 76 591 39 78 10 Debt Principal 17,570 17 Sewer 423 000 76 592 39 83 10 Debt Interest 2,720 Sewer 423 000 75 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 20,290 WWTP 423 100 76 591 39 78 10 Debt Principal 60,000 WWTP 423 100 76 592 39 83 10 Debt Interest 27,600 WWTP 423 100 76 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 87,600 WWTP Facility Upgrade Project Control System Upgrade Equipment Phase 4 Energy Improvement Project Public Defender SR104 Crosswalk Preliminary Est. on Train Trench Transfers that should be classified as reimbursements Dept of Ecology Loan Packet Page 309 of 453 Fund BARS Category Debit Page Credit New Budget Amendments General Fund 001 000 41 521 21 12 10 Overtime-Reimburseable 6,388 18 General Fund 001 000 41 521 21 23 10 Benefits OT Reimb 952 General Fund 001 000 342 10 100 00 OCDETF OT Services 7,340 General Fund 001 000 41 521 22 12 10 Overtime-Reimburseable 1,597 19 General Fund 001 000 41 521 22 23 10 Benefits OT Reimb 237 General Fund 001 000 333 97 056 00 Dockside Grant 1,834 General Fund 001 000 41 521 10 41 00 Professional Services 438 20 General Fund 001 000 41 521 21 35 00 Small Equipment 1,328 General Fund 001 000 41 521 22 35 00 Small Equipment 3,107 General Fund 001 000 367 00 400 00 Contributions 4,873 General Fund 001 000 64 575 55 31 00 Supplies 6,250 21 General Fund 001 000 367 00 100 00 Contributions 6,250 General Fund 001 000 64 571 22 41 00 Professional Services 40,524 22 General Fund 001 000 64 575 51 41 00 Professional Services 12,408 General Fund 001 000 64 575 51 11 00 Salaries 8,833 General Fund 001 000 64 575 51 23 00 Benefits 14,617 General Fund 001 000 64 575 53 11 00 Salaries 4,666 2012 LTGO Debt Serv 231 000 31 592 19 89 00 Other Debt Service Cost 604 23 2012 LTGO Debt Serv 231 000 31 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 495 2012 LTGO Debt Serv 231 000 397 19 001 00 Interfund Transfer 109 General Fund 001 000 39 597 19 55 31 Interfund Transfer 109 General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 109 Sister City Commission 138 100 21 557 21 49 00 Miscellaneous 415 24 Sister City Commission 138 100 21 508 30 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 415 Sister City Commission 138 200 21 557 21 43 00 Student Trip 256 25 Sister City Commission 138 200 21 557 21 49 00 Miscellaneous 171 Sister City Commission 138 200 21 508 30 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 427 Professional Services Recreation Sprung Floor Gymnastics ESCC Promotional Items ESCC Student Exchange Program Debt Service Fees OCDETF Overtime Reimbursement Dive Team Dockside Drills OT Grant Police Foundation Donation Packet Page 310 of 453 Fund Number Change in Beginning Fund Balance Revenue Expense Change in Ending Fund Balance 001 - 20,297 96,406 (76,109) 112 - (621,000) (621,000) - 125 - - 10,000 (10,000) 132 - (200,000) (200,000) - 138 - - 842 (842) 231 - 109 604 (495) 423 - 63,545 28,508 35,037 Total Change - (737,049) (684,640) (52,409) Packet Page 311 of 453 Budget Amendment for:Fourth Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 170,000 66,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $170,000 $66,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $236,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)66,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $66,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Item Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:February or March, 2014 The city contracts with the law firm of Feldman & Lee for public defender services and has done so for many years. On December 6, 2013, Feldman & Lee gave notice that it was terminating its contract with the city effective March 31, 2014. The city and Feldman & Lee had begun negotiating a new contract. The City Council voted to extend a new contract from April 1-December 31, 2014. This added $66,000 to the actual budget for the Public Defender. Non-Departmental GENERALNon-Departmental Fund Name:Public Defender Carrie Hite 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 Public Defender Professional Services Total Expenses Comments Packet Page 312 of 453 Budget Amendment for:Fourth Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 52,950 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $52,950 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $62,950 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)10,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments Budget Item Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:N/A Tetra Tech Preliminary Estimate on the Train Trench Concept. Public Works GENERALEngineering Fund Name:Preliminary Estimate on the Train Trench Concept Rob English 4a.9(51) Waterfront Connection Professional Services 001.000.67.532.20.41.00 Packet Page 313 of 453 Budget Amendment for:Fourth Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)10,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments Budget Item Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:N/A City's contribution to WSDOT's project to install a mid-block pedestrian crosswalk on State Route 104 north of Pine St. Public Works REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 Engineering Fund Name:SR104 Crosswalk Rob English 4a.11(50) Crosswalks Construction Projects - 125.000.68.595.69.65.00 Packet Page 314 of 453 Budget Amendment for:Fourth Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0 821,000 0 0 0 0 0 (821,000)0 0 0 0 0 (821,000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $0 ($821,000) $0 $0 $0 $0 ($821,000) $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue (821,000)0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash ($821,000) $0 $0 $0 $0 Reimb from other funds (Funds 112 & 132) Budget Item Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:November 2013 Budget Amendment During the 2012 audit, the City was notified by the Auditor's Office that some of the City's budgeted transfers should be classified as reimbursements. Reimbursements are repayments from the fund responsible for particular expenditures/expenses to the fund that initally paid for the item. We brought a similar item to Council last November (2013) for the 2013 transfers. The 2015 reimbursements are included in the proposed budget. Capital Multiple Funds Fund Name:Trfs that should be classified as reimbursements Deb Sharp N/A Reimb to other funds (Funds 125 & 126) Interfund Transfer (Funds 125 & 126) Total Expenses Comments Interfund Trfs (112 &132) Packet Page 315 of 453 Budget Amendment for:Fourth Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0 9,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $0 $11,345 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,345 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions Edmonds contribut 5,762 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy MLT contribution 2,629 0 0 0 0 New Revenue OVWS contributio 1,878 0 0 0 0 Other RSD contribution 1,076 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $11,345 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments Budget Item Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Request to Advertise by full Council on 2.18.14; Request Authorization to Awa The WWTP Facility Upgrade project is nearing completion and we are need of Professional Services from the design consultant (Tetra Tech). Plant staff have struggled with the contractor to achieve the desired finish product. The additional services are specifically to assist with project close-out which includes inspection of electrical, mechanical and HVAC systems to ensure the City receives full value. The services will total $9000. In addition, the original design intended to reuse existing vent fans in the locker rooms. Unfortunately one fan was not re-usable and had to be repaired before the system was inspected. The cost of the fan and replacement was $2345. PW SEWER / TREATMENT PLANT Wastewater Fund Name:WWTP Facility Upgrade Project Pamela Randolph n/a Professional Services 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 Construction Services 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 423.100.76.594.39 Packet Page 316 of 453 Budget Amendment for:Fourth Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions Edmonds contribut 12,697 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy MLT contribution 5,793 0 0 0 0 New Revenue OVWS contributio 4,138 0 0 0 0 Other RSD contribution 2,372 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments Budget Item Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:4.9.2014 City Council Approved Control System Upgrade Equipment Purchase. The Control System Upgrade Equipment Purchase was authorized for $308,863. During the installation of PLC 100 and preparation for PLC 500 staff installed several pieces of control equipment (switches and logic cards) and purchased a software license that was required to fully integrate and allow communications between the existing and new control system. PW SEWER / TREATMENT PLANT Wastewater Fund Name:Control System Upgrade Equipment Pamela Randolph n/a Construction Services 423.100.76.594.39.65.00 423.100.76.594.39.65. Packet Page 317 of 453 Budget Amendment for:Fourth Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0 19,000 0 0 0 0 0 7,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $0 $27,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions Edmonds contribut 13,814 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy MLT contribution 6,303 0 0 0 0 New Revenue OVWS contributio 4,502 0 0 0 0 Other RSD contribution 2,581 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $27,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments Construction- in house 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 Budget Item Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:8.19.2014 City Council Approve Phase 4 Energy Improvement Project When the Phase 4 Energy Improvement Project was approved and 2014 year expenditures for the project were developed the original audit expense was not rolled into the total expenditure for the project. This onetime expense totaled $19000 and is being invoiced in year 1 of the 2 year project. Programming support and control switches to bring the air compressors into SCADA were not considered in the original estimate because it was not existing equipment. The newer equipment is now capable of being tied into SCADA and we would like to do so as soon as possible. This will help with monitoring the system to achieve greater energy efficiency. This work has the potential to increase our energy rebate from PUD. PW SEWER / TREATMENT PLANT Wastewater Fund Name:Phase 4 Energy Improvement Project Pamela Randolph n/a Professional Services 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 Professional Services 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 423.100.76.594.39 Packet Page 318 of 453 Budget Amendment for:Fourth Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0 17,570 0 0 0 0 0 2,720 0 0 0 0 60,000 (60,000)0 0 0 0 27,600 (27,600)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $87,600 ($67,310) $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,290 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)20,290 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)(87,600)0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash ($67,310) $0 $0 $0 $0 Debt Principal 423.100.76.591.39.78.10 Budget Item Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:N/A The Department of Ecology Loan payment had originally been budgeted for in the Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital Fund (423.100) because it was going to be shared with the other partners. The City only took out a loan for the City of Edmonds' portion of the project. Since the loan is not shared with the partners, it should be in the operations fund (423.000 )and transferred to the capital fund as part of the City's contribution amount. Sewer/WWTP SEWER / TREATMENT PLANT Debt Service Fund Name:Dept of Ecology Loan Deb Sharp 231.000.31 and 001.000.39 Debt Principal 423.000.76.591.39.78.10 Debt Interest 423.000.76.592.39.83.10 Debt Interest 423.100.76.592.39.83.10 Total Expenses Comments 423.000 423.100 Packet Page 319 of 453 Budget Amendment for:Fourth Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0 6,388 0 0 0 0 0 952 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $0 $7,340 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,340 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 7,340 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $7,340 $0 $0 $0 $0 Benefits - Overtime-Reimbursable 521.21.23.10 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:N/A Edmonds PD staff assigned to the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force work on cases for which overtime is reimbursed by the federal Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. As work on OCDETF cases is unpredictable, the Police Department does not include the revenue or hours in their annual budget. This amendment increases reimbursable overtime and benefits in the Investigations budget, which is offset by the federal revenue. Police Department GENERALSupport Services/Investigations Fund Name:OCDETF Overtime Reimbursement Al Compaan 001.000.41.521.21.12.10 and 001.000.41.521.21.23.10 N/A Overtime-Reimbursable 521.21.12.10 OCDETF OT 342.10.100.00 Total Expenses Comments Packet Page 320 of 453 Budget Amendment for:Fourth Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0 1,597 0 0 0 0 0 237 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $0 $1,834 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,834 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 1,834 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $1,834 $0 $0 $0 $0 Benefits - Overtime-Reimbursable 521.22.23.10 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:N/A The Edmonds PD Dive Team participates in dockside drills with several other public safety agencies. Overtime is reimbursed by a federal grant administered by Seattle Fire Department. As this is not a regular revenue source for the department, the PD does not include either the overtime or revenue in its annual budget. The amendment increases reimbursable overtime and benefits in the Patrol budget, which is offset by revenue from Seattle Fire Department. Police Department GENERALField Services/Patrol Fund Name:Dive Team Dockside Drills Overtime Reimbursement Al Compaan 001.000.41.521.22.12.10 and 001.000.41.521.22.23.10 N/A Overtime-Reimbursable 521.22.12.10 Dockside Grant 333.97.056.00 Total Expenses Comments Packet Page 321 of 453 Budget Amendment for:Fourth Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 17,000 438 0 0 0 0 1,600 1,328 0 0 0 0 0 3,107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $18,600 $4,873 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,473 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 4,873 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $4,873 $0 $0 $0 $0 Patrol Small Equipment 521.22.35.00 Total Expenses Comments Contributions 367.00.400.00 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:N/A In April the Edmonds Police Foundation agreed to fund several pieces of equipment - a thermal imager, a forensic mannequin and laser trajectory kit for crime scene investigations. They also agreed to pay for Andy Eccleshall to do some artwork in support of the Department's new mission, vision and values. This budget amendment increases the appropriation authority in several areas, which are offset by the Police Foundation's donation. Police Department GENERALAdministration, Investigations, Patrol Admin Prof Services 521.10.41.00 Invest Small Equipment 521.21.35.00 Fund Name:Police Foundation Donation Al Compaan 001.000.41.521.10.41.00, 001.000.41.521.21.35.00 and 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 N/A Packet Page 322 of 453 Budget Amendment for:Fourth Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 4,900 6,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $4,900 $6,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 6,250 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $6,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments 001.000.367.00.100.00 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:N/A The sprung floor in our gymnastics room has aged and is in need of replacement in order for the program to continue to provide a safe space. The Edmonds Arts Festival Association has contributed $3,500 and the Hubbard Family Foundation has contributed $2,750 towards the floor. The new floor will be constructed and installed before the end of the year. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services GENERALGymnastics Gymnastics supplies - 31 Fund Name:Sprung Floor Gymnastics Renee McRae 001.000.64.575.55.31 Action 3a.3 (40): Anderson Center Packet Page 323 of 453 Budget Amendment for:Fourth Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 200,000 40,524 0 0 0 0 82,000 (12,408)0 0 0 0 17,548 (8,833)0 0 0 0 16,564 (14,617)0 0 0 0 57,820 (4,666)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $373,932 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $373,932 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Benefits - 575.51.23 Salaries - 575.53.11 Total Expenses Comments New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:N/A The recreation professional services expenditures will end the year higher than budgeted due in large part to increased enrollment in the 2014 summer beach camp. Registration revenue for the beach camp was 52% higher than 2013, resulting in higher than budgeted expenditures. Net effect to the general fund is zero as reductions were made to the aquatics cost center due to the partnership with the YMCA and to the day camp cost center due to decreased enrollment. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services GENERAL Salaries - 575.51.11 Professional Services - 571.22.41 Recreation Fund Name:Professional Services - Recreation Renee McRae 001.000.64. N/A Professional Services - 575.51.41 Packet Page 324 of 453 Budget Amendment for:Fourth Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0 604 0 0 0 0 214,163 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $214,163 $713 $0 $0 $0 $0 $214,876 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)495 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)109 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 109 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $713 $0 $0 $0 $0 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:N/A Debt service administrative fees were charged to the 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund (231). During the 2014 budget prepartion only the debt service payments were included in the Fund 231 budget. Fund 231 is a stand alone debt service fund and the additional charges will cause the fund to be overspent. The administrative fees are included as part of the 2015 budget. A transfer from the General Fund is needed to cover the cost of these fees. Finance 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVICE Debt Service Fund Fund Name:Debt Service Fees Deb Sharp 231.000.31 and 001.000.39 Other Debt Service Costs 592.19.89.00 Interfund Transfer 597.19.55.31 Total Expenses Comments Fund 231 Fund 001 Fund 231 Packet Page 325 of 453 Budget Amendment for:Fourth Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0 415 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $0 $415 $0 $0 $0 $0 $415 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)415 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $415 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:N/A Sister City Commission promotional items ~ t-shirts Mayor's Office SISTER CITY COMMISSION Sister City Commission Miscellaneous 49 Fund Name:ESCC Promotional Items Carolyn LaFave 138.100.21.557.21 N/A Packet Page 326 of 453 Budget Amendment for:Fourth Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 3,000 256 0 0 0 0 1,000 171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $4,000 $427 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,427 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)427 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $427 $0 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous 49 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:N/A Sister City Commission student exchange program -- chaperone airfare and Hekinan student visit Mayor's Office SISTER CITY COMMISSION Sister City Commission Fund Name:ESCC student exchange program Carolyn LaFave 138.200.21.557.21 N/A Student trip 43 Total Expenses Comments Packet Page 327 of 453    AM-7337     9.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Patrick Doherty Department:Community Services Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Social Media Usage Policy Recommendation Mayor and staff recommend that the proposed Social Media Usage Policy and supporting documents be approved by City Council. Previous Council Action Narrative Communication with and engagement of the public via a diverse array of methods (website, newsletter, town halls, local media, social media, etc.) is vitally important to create and maintain an efficient, effective and productive civic relationship between the city government and its citizens and stakeholders.  As a natural response to the pervasive use of social media, over the past few years municipalities have added Facebook pages, Twitter feeds and YouTube videos to their Internet presence. A quick review identified that the following nearby cities have Facebook pages: Lynnwood, Shoreline, Everett, Mukilteo, Bellevue, Redmond and Renton, among others. In many cases the Police Departments of these cities have their own, separate Facebook pages as well.  Media and public relations experts believe that the use of social media is an increasingly effective way for municipalities to engage and involve the local community. Social media can provide real-time updates regarding important community events and accomplishments, encourage dialogue and response, as well as allow for rapid and pervasive propagation of the information via “liking,” “sharing” and reposting.  For these reasons, we propose to begin usage of Facebook, more general use of Twitter (Public Works Department already uses Twitter occasionally), and potentially use of Flickr, YouTube, etc., for the purpose of achieving greater public outreach, engagement and involvement.  In order to do so, however, it is important to put in place a social media usage policy to guide the use of these media by staff, elected and appointed officials and the public.  Attached you will find a “Social Media Usage Policy” that is supplemented by “Social Media Use Guidelines,” a “Social Media Style Guide” and “Social Media Usage Application” form.  One small revision has been made to the Social Media Usage Policy since it was presented in draft form in October.  Upon the request of the City Attorney, Section 5.6(D), related to potential deletion of Packet Page 328 of 453 inappropriate content, has been revised to require consultation with the City Attorney before any such content may be deleted.  The Social Media Usage Policy provides the basic framework of a policy for the use and implementation of social media by staff, officials and the public. It lays out procedures for staff use and contribution to social media, identifies parameters for appropriate and inappropriate content, and spells out requirements for retention and production of archived information.  It should be noted that this Policy also includes a section regarding the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and its applicability to elected and appointed officials’ use of social media. Since use (be that commenting or posting) by a quorum of any elected or appointed body would constitute a “meeting” as defined by the OPMA, the Policy discourages commenting or posting on the City’s official social media tools by elected or appointed officials. In this way not only is an inadvertent “meeting” avoided, but so too are the associated, untenable complexities that would be involved in attempting to determine if a quorum of officials were accessing the site at any one time.  The supporting documents mentioned above simply provide more detailed information regarding content, links, and style. In addition, the Social Media Usage Application form is simply a one-time form to be filled out and reviewed for each Department’s appointed Social Media Content Coordinator in order to ensure that such Coordinators have been appropriately oriented to these guidelines and are competent to contribute on behalf of their respective departments.  Attachments Social Media Usage Policy Social Media Use Guidelines Social Media Style Guide Social Media Usage Application Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/04/2014 08:47 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/04/2014 10:11 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/04/2014 10:13 AM Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 12/04/2014 08:31 AM Final Approval Date: 12/04/2014  Packet Page 329 of 453 SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE POLICY Section Index: 1.0 Purpose 2.0 Policy 3.0 Related Documents 4.0 Definitions 5.0 Guidelines and Procedures 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 Recognizing that Internet-based social media tools can provide opportunities for enhanced commu- nication with residents, the City of Edmonds departments may consider using these tools to reach a broader audience. This policy establishes guidelines for the use of such social media tools and sites. 1.2 This policy supplements Appendix A, Information Services Acceptable Use Policy, of the City’s Per- sonnel policy. 1.3 This policy shall apply to all employees, officers, volunteers and contractors creating social media on behalf of the City, as defined herein. 1.4 This policy is initiated by City Administration. 1.5 The City electronic communications and technology resources are provided for the purpose of con- ducting City business. 2.0 POLICY 2.1 It is the policy of the City of Edmonds to allow use of social media in a manner that is consistent with the policies governing the use of the City’s other communications and technological resources. City employees and officers are accountable for the form and substance of all the information they post or otherwise relay for City purposes using these forms of media. All employees and officers using social media for City purposes must maintain the highest standards of propriety and professionalism in their postings. 3.0 RELATED DOCUMENTS 3.1 Social Media Comments and Use Guidelines: Standards for public comments and usage of City social media sites. 3.2 Social Media Style Guide: Standards for the writing and design of social media. Packet Page 330 of 453 City of Edmonds Social Media Usage Policy Page Page 2 of 5 3.3 Social Media Usage Application Form: Mandatory form a department must use to authorize the de- partment’s Social Media Content Coordinator to use social media. 4.0 DEFINITIONS 4.1 For the purpose of this policy, the following definitions apply: A. Social Media: Social media and Web 2.0 are umbrella terms that define the various activities that integrate technology, social interaction, and content creation. As used in this Policy, it co- vers usage of the Internet, Facebook, Twitter, Nixel, blogs, My Space, YouTube, Flickr and oth- er web tools as approved in the Social Media Style Guide. B. Content: Any text, metadata, QR codes, digital recordings, videos, graphics, photos and links on approved sites. C. PIO: Public Information Officer, either City employee or contracted professional, who manag- es the Social Media Style Guide, approves Social Media Usage Applications submitted by the departments’ Social Media Content Coordinators, and monitors public comments on social media in accordance with these policies. D. Social Media Content Coordinator: Department representative responsible for managing the content of the social media sites used by any department. The Social Media Content Coordina- tor shall maintain, manage and post all content to Social Media, as well as monitor comments, in accordance with these policies. 5.0 GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES 5.1 General This Policy has been drafted to facilitate a process by which City staff can disseminate information to the public in an efficient and effective manner. This policy shall work in conjunction with the related documents set forth in Section 3 above. Social media shall not be used by City staff other than the manner described herein. 5.2 Requests to Use Social Media A. Prior to requesting social media usage, departments should consider the time and effort needed to manage and maintain social media. Sites lose interest of their audiences when not updated regularly. As a rule of thumb social media sites should be monitored daily and updated at least once a week. B. The Role of the Social Media Content Coordinator. 1) If a department chooses to utilize social media, the department Director must ap- point a Social Media Content Coordinator to maintain and monitor social media con- tent originating and developed from within their department. 2) In compliance with sections 5.4 and 5.8, a department’s Social Media Content Coor- dinator is responsible for regularly posting information, monitoring comments and saving content required under the Public Records Act. No other City employee with- Packet Page 331 of 453 City of Edmonds Social Media Usage Policy Page Page 3 of 5 in a department shall have access to post content on social media on behalf of the City. 3) In order to ensure compliance with their obligations, the Social Media Content Co- ordinator must complete Social Media Usage Training, as described in the Social Media Usage Policy, or receive a waiver from the PIO, prior to assuming this role. Directors are responsible for ensuring their Social Media Content Coordinator follow the procedures set forth in this Social Media Policy and the Social Media Style Guide. 4) In order to utilize social media on behalf of their department, the Social Media Con- tent Coordinator must complete a one-time Social Media Usage Application Form, or otherwise receive approval from the PIO. The application shall include (1) how the department intends to utilize the social media site; (2) a brief outline of antici- pated content; and (3) how the department will comply with retention and public disclosure obligations. C. Approved Social Media. Currently, the City has approved for potential use: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr and Google+. The PIO shall provide a list of additional approved social media sites in the Social Media Style Guide. D. Retention of Passwords and log-ins. The PIO shall maintain a list of all City social media sites that are operating and the log-ins and passwords for those sites. Departments must inform the PIO if they intend to stop operating their social media sites. 5.3 Approval of social media sites and revocation of approval A. Before social media are created or used, the City Attorney or designee shall review the “Terms of Service” for each site. City Council approval of these Terms of Service may be required. B. Approval for use may be revoked if a Social Media Content Coordinator (1) fails to keep the site current; (2) fails to comply with posting approval process; (3) fails to comply with other requirements specified in the Social Media Style Guide; or (4) violates the City’s standards of propriety or professionalism as determined by the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee. 5.4 Obligations of Social Media Content Coordinator when Posting Content A. All content posted on social media sites by a Social Media Content Coordinator must conform with the procedures adopted by the PIO in the Social Media Style Guide or otherwise author- ized by the PIO. Generally, once the Social Media Content Coordinator submits a Social Media Usage Application to the PIO for approval on behalf of its department, the Social Media Con- tent Coordinator is authorized to manage content pursuant to the policies herein. B. A link to the Social Media Comments and Use Guidelines must be prominently displayed on any City-approved social media site. C. Social Media Content Coordinators shall not post or link to content that: 1. Violates copyright license agreements 2. Promotes or advertises any political campaign or ballot proposition 3. Can be used for or to promote any illegal activity Packet Page 332 of 453 City of Edmonds Social Media Usage Policy Page Page 4 of 5 4. Promotes or solicits for an outside organization or group unless authorized by the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee 5. Promotes any non-City, commercial enterprise unless authorized by the Mayor or the PIO 6. Contains libelous or slanderous material 7. Violates an individual’s right to privacy 8. Is unrelated to the mission of the City 9. Is unrelated to purposes specified in department’s application for use of social media or amendments to that application 10. Violates the City’s standards of propriety or professionalism as determined by the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee. D. The most appropriate uses of City social media sites are: (1) for time-sensitive and emergency information; and (2) as a communications/promotional/marketing tool which increases the City’s ability to broadcast its message to the widest possible audience. E. Each Department’s Social Media Content Coordinator must maintain accurate City information on social media sites by frequently reviewing and updating it as necessary and appropriate. F. A link to the City’s website must be included on all social media sites, directing users back to the City of Edmonds website for in-depth information on the posted content unless a waiver is provided by the PIO. 5.5 Open Public Meetings Act Considerations A. Councilmembers, Commissioners and other officials and appointed volunteers (e.g., members of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, Tree Board and ad hoc appointed public advisory committees) should not comment or otherwise communicate on the City’s social media sites since participating in online discussions may constitute a meeting under the State Open Public Meetings Act. 5.6 Content Posted by the Public A. For all City social media sites that allow the public to post content, those sites shall be deemed limited public forums, moderated by the PIO to ensure content posted by outsides users is appropriate. B. Posted content (including comments, photos and links) must be related to the topic(s) posted by the City to be considered appropriate. C. Inappropriate and prohibited content subject to immediate removal from the site, includes content that: 1. Is not topically related to the particular City-posted content. 2. Promotes or advertises commercial services, entities or products. 3. Supports or opposes political candidates or ballot propositions. 4. Is obscene. 5. Discusses or encourages illegal activity. Packet Page 333 of 453 City of Edmonds Social Media Usage Policy Page Page 5 of 5 6. Promotes, fosters or perpetuates discrimination on the basis of creed, color, age, reli- gion, gender, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, national origin, physical or mental disability or sexual orientation. 7. Provides information that may tend to compromise the safety or security of the public or public systems. 8. Violates legal ownership rights or copyrights. 9. Is libelous or slanderous. 10. Violates an individual’s right to privacy. D. Inappropriate content may be removed immediately by the PIO, in consultation with the City Attorney, and retained as required under the Public Records Act. 5.7 Records Retention and Disclosure A. Information posted on the City’s social media sites is subject to the Public Records Act and as- sociated retention schedule. In order to ensure appropriate retention of public records, in general content posted by the Social Media Content Coordinator on City social media sites should not be original source con- tent (content that has not been created anywhere else; i.e., only exists on the social media site), but rather a secondary copy of information that has been posted either on the City web- site or is contained in an electronic record or a hard copy. As an exception, however, the So- cial Media Content Coordinator may post original source content when necessary to provide information, a comment or blog on social media in compliance with the Social Media Usage Policy. B. Original source content posted on social media sites must be retained pursuant to State reten- tion requirements. C. Comments Posted by Outside Users: All comments posted by outside users on City social me- dia sites, including those that are inappropriate and removed by the PIO, must be retained. D. In addition, when the Social Media Content Coordinator removes inappropriate content, he/she must include his/her name and the date and time the content was removed and re- tained a record of such removal. E. City staff may retain content, comments and/or removal of content either via hard copy and/or electronic copy or the City may contract with social media archiving services to comply with these retention requirements. 5.8 Monitoring A. Social Media Content Coordinators will monitor City authorized social media sites that allows public interaction to facilitate accurate information on behalf of the City. Monitoring respon- sibilities are defined in the City of Edmonds Social Media Style Guide. Packet Page 334 of 453 CITY OF EDMONDS SOCIAL MEDIA USE GUIDELINES The following constitute the guidelines regarding the use of City of Edmonds social media tools and posting of comments. A. Privacy Policy and Disclaimer Any individual accessing, browsing and using a City of Edmonds social media site accepts without limitation or qualification these Social Media Use Guidelines (hereafter “Guidelines”). These terms and conditions apply only to the social media sites that are managed by the City of Edmonds. The City of Edmonds maintains the right to modify these Guidelines without notice. Any modification is effective immediately upon posting the modification on the Social Media Policy page, unless otherwise stated. Continued use of a City of Edmonds social media site following the posting of any modification signifies acceptance of such modification. All users of a City of Edmonds social media site are also subject to the site’s own Privacy Policy. The City of Edmonds has no control over a site’s privacy policy or their modifications to it. The City of Edmonds likewise has no control over content, commercial advertisements, or other postings produced by the social media site that appear on the City of Edmonds social media site as part of the site’s environment. The City of Edmonds operates and maintains its social media sites as a public service to provide information about City programs, services, projects, issues, events and activities. The City of Edmonds assumes no liability for any inaccuracies these social media sites may contain and does not guarantee that the social media sites will be uninterrupted or error-free. B. Comments Policy Although we encourage posts and comments on social media sites managed by the City of Edmonds, the City’s social media sites and other sites are limited public forums and are moderated by City staff. All posted content (comments, photos, links, etc.) must be related to the topic at hand. The following types of posts and comments are prohibited: • Not topically related to the particular article being commented upon; • Promoting or advertising commercial services, entities or products; • Supporting or opposing political candidates or ballot propositions; • Obscene content; • Related to illegal activity or encouraging or discussing illegal activity; Packet Page 335 of 453 City of Edmonds Social Media Use Guidelines Page 2 of 3 • Promoting, fostering or perpetuating discrimination on the basis of creed, color, age, religion, gender, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, national origin, physical or mental disability, or sexual orientation; • Information that may tend to compromise the safety or security of the public or public systems; • Content that violates legal ownership rights or copyrights; • Content that violates an individual’s right to privacy. The City of Edmonds reserves the right to remove posted content that does not comply with these Guidelines. All posts and comments downloaded to the City of Edmonds social media sites will be periodically reviewed. All posts and comments are public records subject to public disclosure under the Washington State Public Records Act. C. Links Policy A. Links to other social media sites and external websites provided on City of Edmonds social media sites. The City of Edmonds may select links to other social media sites and outside websites that offer helpful resources for users. Once an individual links to another page or site, the City’s Guidelines no longer apply and one becomes subject to the policies of that page or site. The City of Edmonds’ social media sites are intended specifically to share information about City programs, events and services. The City of Edmonds is not responsible for the content that appears on these outside links and provides these links as a convenience only. Users should be aware that these external pages and sites and the information found on those pages and sites are not controlled by, provided by or endorsed by the City of Edmonds. The City reserves the right to delete at any time without notice links posted by outside individuals that violate the City’s Links Policy. B. Links by other entities to City of Edmonds social media sites. It is not necessary to get advance permission to link to City of Edmonds social media sites; however, entities and individuals linking to City of Edmonds social media sites may not capture any of the City’s social media sites within frames, present City of Edmonds content as their own or otherwise misrepresent any of the City’s social media site content. Furthermore, they shall not misinform third parties about the origin or ownership of City of Edmonds social media site content. Links to City of Edmonds social media sites should not in any way suggest that the City has any relationship or affiliation with an organization or that the City endorses, sponsors or recommends the information, products or services of another site. D. Copyright Policy All information and materials generated by the City of Edmonds and provided on City of Edmonds social media sites are the property of the City of Edmonds. The City retains copyright on all text, graphic images and other content that was produced by the City of Edmonds and found on the page. Users may print copies of information and material for your own noncommercial use, provided that they retain the Packet Page 336 of 453 City of Edmonds Social Media Use Guidelines Page 3 of 3 copyright symbol or other such proprietary notice intact on any copyrighted materials you copy. Users must include a credit line reading: “Credit: City of Edmonds Facebook (or Twitter) page” or “Courtesy of the City of Edmonds.” Commercial use of text, City logos, photos and other graphics is prohibited without the express written permission of the City of Edmonds. Use of the City logo is prohibited for any nongovernmental purposes. Any person reproducing or redistributing a third-party copyright must adhere to the terms and conditions of the third-party copyright holder. A copyright holder who believes that the City of Edmonds has not used an appropriate credit line, he/she may notify the City Public Information Officer with detailed information about the circumstances so that the copyright information may be added or the material in question may be removed. E. Contact If a user has any questions or concerns about the City of Edmonds Social Media Policy or its implementation, or finds incorrect information or is interested in seeking permissions that fall outside the Guidelines above, he/she contact the City’s Public Information Officer. Packet Page 337 of 453 CITY OF EDMONDS SOCIAL MEDIA STYLE GUIDE Introduction: Social media have changed communications throughout the public and private sectors. Social media markets are growing at an incredible pace. That’s why we need to use social media to reach out to our audiences. Social media are dynamic – they are changing all the time, with new services, tools and functionalities. We approach social media very differently from traditional marketing. Social media allow us to create real-time relationships with the people we serve in a very public environment. If we develop these relationships correctly, our social media community network will support us in a variety of ways. Social media are the best of word-of-mouth marketing and will allow us to develop a positive social reputation. This Social Media Style Guide provides our management plan and strategy through the dos and don’ts of social media marketing. Facebook and Twitter are essential components of any social media marketing plan. To be successful, we must maintain all of the social media sites we create. You must comply with these three rules of thumb: 1. Post 2. Monitor 3. Reply To make your social media ventures successful, here’s a more in-depth look into how you will need to manage your City social media accounts: Facebook • Use all the components of your Facebook page. These include (and are always expanding): your wall, events section, pictures. Packet Page 338 of 453 City of Edmonds Social Media Style Guide Page 2 of 2 • Monitor each business day and update a few times per week. • Reply to comments as needed or appropriate, but when doing so, without delay. • Your content should generally be a replica of information you have posted or shared with the public elsewhere (City’s website, articles, publications, etc.) • Retain all posts on your site for the public record. • If you have questions about a post or interaction with a user, contact the Public Information Officer. Twitter • Give a brief description to tease the information to a link. Think of the brief description as an advertisement or movie trailer of what we are about to see. Never just post a link without teasing it. • Understand the information you are sharing so you can summarize it creatively and to fit your audience needs. • Use appropriate letter case in sentences. Typing in all lower case does not gain character space. Unless you are fighting for space, find a way to use proper grammar. • Do not retweet someone else’s Tweet. • Use hashtags (#) appropriately and sparingly. A hashtag is a keyword with a pound sign in front of it that people can include in their Tweets. Hashtags make it easy to search for topics, but too many in one tweet causes clutter. • Be sure to engage in live Tweets at the events you have promoted via Tweets. YouTube • Due to the nature of this Social Media Tool, the City will operate only one YouTube account. If you would like to know more about how you may be able to benefit from the use of this tool, please contact the City’s Public Information Officer. Packet Page 339 of 453 CITY OF EDMONDS SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE APPLICATION Social Media Management: A department’s use of social media is governed by the City’s Social Media Usage Policy. Department Directors should review that policy before filling out this application. Department Directors and Social Media Content Coordinators should also review the Social Media Use Guidelines and Social Media Style Guide. Department Directors and the City Public Information Officer will oversee social media content. The Department Director will designate a Social Media Content Coordinator who will be responsible for content and updates in a timely manner. The Social Media Content Coordinator will update information in a clear and effective way at least once each week and must comply with the Social Media Style Guide. Content will be removed if it violates the criteria listed in sections 5.4(c) and 5.6(c) of the Social Media Usage Policy. Social Media Content: 1. What social media tool would you like to use? □ Facebook □ Twitter □ YouTube □ Flickr □ Other Packet Page 340 of 453 City of Edmonds Social Media Usage Application Page 2 of 3 2. Provide rationale for your proposed use of this social media tool: 3. Provide an outline of anticipated content: 4. If you do not intend to use the City’s standard social media archiving service, explain how you will retain content, including user comments, and how you will produce content if requested in a Public Records Request: 5. Describe how you will monitor the site/medium and keep its content up to date: User Agreement: • I will comply with the City’s Social Media Usage Policy, Social Media Use Guidelines and Social Media Style Guide; • I will comply with all user agreements set forth in this Social Media Usage Application as well as the agreements of the social media tool; • I will not use the social media tools to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, disrespectful, unprofessional or discriminatory; • I will not post content that is derogatory, threatening, pornographic, or that contains nudity, graphic or gratuitous violence or offensive language; • I will adhere to all intellectual property rights, to include all media content and forms. If I have a question about content rights, I will verify with Department Director and/or City Public Information Officer; • I will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user; • I will report in a timely manner to department management and the City Public Information Officer offensive, vulgar or pornographic content received. Packet Page 341 of 453 City of Edmonds Social Media Usage Application Page 3 of 3 I, _____________________________________________, have read and understand the City of Edmonds Social Media Usage Application and agree to all policies outlined above. ________________________________________ ________________________ Signature Date ________________________________________ Department Packet Page 342 of 453    AM-7371     10.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted For:Mayor's Office Submitted By:Mary Ann Hardie Department:Human Resources Type: Action  Information Subject Title Resolution of the City Council expressing intent to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Linda Coburn as the City's Municipal Court Judge, which position is expected to become vacant on midnight, January 11, 2015.  Recommendation Council adopt resolution of the City Council expressing intent to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Linda Coburn as the City's Municipal Court Judge, which position is expected to become vacant on midnight, January 11, 2015. Previous Council Action Municipal Court Judge appointments are subject to Council approval per EMC 2.15.030.  Narrative The current Municipal Court Judge (the Honorable Judge Doug Fair) will be leaving Edmonds to serve in another elected Judge position in another jurisdiction at the beginning of January 2015. His last day at the City will be 1/11/15. The current term he is serving under started on 1/1/14 and will not end until 12/31/17.  The City sent out a Request For Qualifications (RFQ) for a Municipal Court Judge in November 2014 to fill the unexpired portion of the Municipal Court Judge term with the impending vacancy. There were five qualified candidates interviewed.  The interview panel was comprised of retired judges and a member of the community (the Honorable Judge Joseph Thibodeau -retired Supreme Court Judge), the Honorable Judge Stephen J. Dwyer (Washington State Court of Appeals Judge) and Mark Ericks (Deputy Executive Director for Snohomish County and former Bothell Police Chief) with HR present as well.   Following the interview panel process, the interview panel recommended 3 candidates for a second interview with the Mayor.  After those interviews, the Mayor determined that Linda Coburn is the candidate that he intends to appoint to the Municipal Court Judge position, subject to the successful completion of a background check, reference check, credit history check and educational history check.  This appointment is subject to Council confirmation upon vacancy of the position on January 12, 2015.  Ms. Coburn is an Edmonds resident who received her Juris Doctorate in Law (Cum Laude) from Seattle University in 2005.  She also has an MS in Journalism from Ohio University and BA in Communications Packet Page 343 of 453 from the University of Washington.  She has an extensive background in law and has been a practicing attorney since 2005.  Linda is currently a Public Defender with the Snohomish County Public Defender Association and has also served Pro-Tem Judge with the City of Edmonds. She is a member of the Washington State Bar Association, the Snohomish County Bar Association, the Washington Defender Association, the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Asian Bar Association.  Following EMC 2.15.030, the Mayor is bringing this candidate forward with a resolution for Council to adopt expressing the intent to confirm his appointment of Linda Coburn as the Municipal Court Judge, which position is expected to become vacant on midnight, 1/11/15.    Attachments Coburn application Resolution expressing intent Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 12/12/2014 12:05 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 12/12/2014 12:15 PM Mayor Dave Earling 12/12/2014 12:57 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/12/2014 12:59 PM Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Started On: 12/11/2014 04:05 PM Final Approval Date: 12/12/2014  Packet Page 344 of 453 Packet Page 345 of 453 Packet Page 346 of 453 Packet Page 347 of 453 Packet Page 348 of 453 Packet Page 349 of 453 Packet Page 350 of 453 Packet Page 351 of 453 Packet Page 352 of 453 Packet Page 353 of 453 Packet Page 354 of 453 Packet Page 355 of 453 Packet Page 356 of 453 Packet Page 357 of 453 Packet Page 358 of 453 Packet Page 359 of 453 Packet Page 360 of 453 Packet Page 361 of 453 Packet Page 362 of 453 Packet Page 363 of 453 Packet Page 364 of 453 Packet Page 365 of 453 Packet Page 366 of 453 Packet Page 367 of 453 Packet Page 368 of 453 Packet Page 369 of 453 Packet Page 370 of 453 Packet Page 371 of 453 Packet Page 372 of 453 Packet Page 373 of 453 Packet Page 374 of 453 Packet Page 375 of 453 Packet Page 376 of 453 Packet Page 377 of 453 Packet Page 378 of 453 Packet Page 379 of 453 Packet Page 380 of 453 Packet Page 381 of 453 Packet Page 382 of 453 Packet Page 383 of 453 Packet Page 384 of 453 Packet Page 385 of 453 Packet Page 386 of 453 Packet Page 387 of 453 Packet Page 388 of 453 Packet Page 389 of 453 Packet Page 390 of 453 Packet Page 391 of 453 Packet Page 392 of 453 Packet Page 393 of 453 Packet Page 394 of 453 Packet Page 395 of 453 Packet Page 396 of 453 Packet Page 397 of 453 Packet Page 398 of 453 Packet Page 399 of 453 Packet Page 400 of 453 Packet Page 401 of 453 Packet Page 402 of 453 Packet Page 403 of 453 Packet Page 404 of 453 Packet Page 405 of 453 Packet Page 406 of 453 Packet Page 407 of 453 Packet Page 408 of 453 Packet Page 409 of 453 RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXPRESSING INTENT TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR’S APPOINTMENT OF LINDA COBURN AS THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE, WHICH POSITION IS EXPECTED TO BECOME VACANT ON JANUARY 12, 2015, WHEN JUDGE FAIR’S RESIGNATION BECOMES EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City operates a municipal court under chapter 3.50 RCW; and WHEREAS, the duly elected judge of that court, the Honorable Douglas J. Fair, has announced that he intends to resign his position effective January 12, 2015; and WHEREAS, that resignation will create a vacancy that is filled through city council confirmation of a mayoral appointment; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to have the position of judge vacant for as short a period as possible; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to have an orderly transition from one judge to the next; and WHEREAS, an orderly transition would be facilitated if the city were able to have the future appointee observe the court’s operations while Judge Fair is still in office; and WHEREAS, an orderly transition would be facilitated by giving the future appointee a reasonable basis to begin winding up his/her other business affairs now to ensure that he/she has the capacity to assume the responsibilities of the office immediately upon his/her appointment as judge; and WHEREAS, Mayor Earling has interviewed 3 candidates for the expected vacancy and, after careful consideration, has decided that he will be appointing Linda Coburn to fill the vacancy, now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The city council intends to confirm the mayor’s appointment of Linda Coburn to fill the vacancy that will be created upon the effective date of Judge Fair’s resignation from office. Section 2. The city council intends to actually confirm the mayor’s appointment of Linda Coburn on the consent calendar for the meeting of January 12, 2015, and have the new judge sworn into office at that meeting. RESOLVED this _____ day of December, 2014. CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 410 of 453 _______________________ MAYOR, DAVE EARLING ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SANDRA CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. ____ 4851-5533-3898, v. 1 Packet Page 411 of 453    AM-7349     11.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title City Park Project Update and approval of project budget Recommendation Council receive update and forward project budget to the consent agenda for approval. Previous Council Action Council authorized expenditures and received grants for City Park Spray and Play revitalization. Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement with MacLeod Reckord for Architectural and Engineering services for the City Park revitalization project.  Council authorized the Mayor to sign an award of bid for the Play Equipment. Council authorized the Mayor to sign an award of bid for the Spray Equipment. Council terminated contracts with MacLeod Reckord and Aquatic Specialty Services Council awarded bid to Site Workshop to design the Spray pad portion of the project. Narrative Since the last update to Council on February 25th and April 1, 2014, staff have been working on replacement of the Play equipment, and continued design of the spray pad with a recirculating water system.  We hosted a very successful community build project in June of this year to replace the play equipment.  We also worked with the Student Conservation Corps to begin the wetland mitigation in the wetland buffer area directly north of the park.  We have been working with Site Workshop for 100% construction documents for the spray pad. A building permit has been issued for the construction.  We will soon be going out to bid for both the spray features and the general site construction for the play/spray area revitalization.   As Council may remember, there were several technical difficulties with the water table and the actual viability of construction.  Site Workshop has worked through this issues and created a design that is both Packet Page 412 of 453 feasible and cost effective.  The cost estimate for construction is attached.  Several factors added to the cost, including pedestrian improvements, and storm drainage improvements.  The total raw cost is still under budget, but when you add in the management reserve and tax it adds approx. $100,000 to the budget.  Staff is seeking Council approval to adopt this project budget and move forward to issue the construction bid documents.   The project budget would allocate $631,610 for construction and $335,342 for the Spray pad equipment, for a total of $966,952.   This additional amount has been reallocated in the Parks REET 125, as the Meadowdale Playfield project will not be moving forward this year.  MEMO from February 25, 2014, for context: The City Park Revitalization project has been underway since January 2013. The project has several moving parts of which I will attempt to describe in this narrative. After a formal bidding process, MacLeod Reckord was awarded the A/E bid from Council in March 2013. Staff have been working with MacLeod Reckord to complete 95% design and bid documents for the construction of City Park Play and Spray revitalization. There are several components of this project that staff have completed and bid separately from the A/E contract in order to avoid the markup costs and to save money. To date, the City staff have facilitated the completion of the survey and wetland delineation for this project. In addition, staff have published formal bid processes for both the Play equipment and Spray equipment. Council has awarded a bid for the Play equipment and Spray equipment. We have now completed the 95% construction documents and they are in the process of review by the building department. In the review process, there were several concerns raised, the largest concern being the actual construction process given the geotechnical report. The geotechnical report demonstrates an artesian flow of water directly below the construction area of the spray pad. Design and specific earthwork projects often includes some uncertainty, multiple options for construction methods, design parameters, and strategies specifying and bidding the project, all with varying degrees of cost vs. risk. The design team, the geotechnical consultant, Public Works and Parks staff met on January 24, 2014 to discuss these concerns and explore options for this project weighing both the cost and the risk for construction. It was determined that the best possible alternative in moving forward with this project was to conduct additional geotechnical work, and possibly redesign the location of the catchment tank to the hillside. This would undoubtedly be dryer ground, and give the depth to install the tank without disturbing the artesian water flow. It was also determined that the best possible time to construct this would be in the dryer months of August – October. Considering the additional geotechnical work, the redesign, and the 95% construction costs, attached is the updated budget for this project.  Total expenditures, with tax and contingency would total $1,672,419. Revenues for the project currently total 1,350,000. This includes $500,000 from the Parks CIP, $500,000 from the State Recreation and Conservation Office, $270,000 from Hazel Miller Foundation, and $80,000 from Snohomish County. The City has several options in reviewing this project. Packet Page 413 of 453 Options: 1. Approve additional budget expenditure and go forward in the redesign and construction of the project. We do have $155,000 in the 125 and $170,000in the 132 that could realistically be directed to this project.  2. Cease the project. To date we have spent $106,000 on survey, design, wetland mitigation and permitting. We also have paid deposits for both the spray equipment and play equipment, totaling $169,000 that could be refundable. 3. Continue with replacement of the play area, research options for a new location at City Park of the spray area that would allow us to use a recirculating system for the water. We would need to contact the State RCO, Hazel Miller Foundation, and Snohomish County to determine if we could redirect the grants to a stand alone spray area in City Park. We would also need to dedicate some funds to geotechnical work and design for a new area.  Attachments City Park budget City Park Budget to date Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/10/2014 11:45 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/11/2014 07:16 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/11/2014 07:35 AM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 12/08/2014 02:43 PM Final Approval Date: 12/11/2014  Packet Page 414 of 453 EDMONDS CITY PARK SPRAYPARK (DRAFT)General Contractor Markups Project Size: General Conditions:8% Bid Date: Winter 2014 Overhead & Profit 11% Duration: 5-6 Months Estimating Contingency:10% Escalation:0% Unit of Unit Total Estimated Base Bid No. Description Quantity Measure Cost Raw Cost Cost w/GC markups TESC Subtotal $16,820 $19,763 Site Clearing & Demolition Subtotal $6,450 $8,321 Earthwork Subtotal $29,050 $37,475 Storm Drainage Subtotal $66,680 $86,017 Water Service Subtotal 6,035$ 7,785$ Sanitary Sewer Subtotal 32,287$ 41,650$ Electrical (Power) Subtotal $48,564 $58,297 Surfacing, Walls, and Curbs Crosswalk Improvements on 3rd 1 Allow $20,000.00 $20,000 $25,800 Subtotal $111,072 $143,283 Site Furnishings & Fixtures Subtotal $1,200 $1,548 Play Equipment and Surfacing Subtotal $9,578 $12,356 Sprayground Mech Building/HVAC Subtotal $45,213 $46,725 Sprayground Water Quality System & Controls Subtotal $188,440 $197,401 Sprayground Play Products Subtotal $265,298 $306,332 Pre-Tax Bid Total (MACC):$826,687 $966,952 Sales Tax(9.5%):$91,860 Construction Grand Total $1,058,812 Packet Page 415 of 453 RCO budget As of: 12/1/2014 Project est Total Project A&E 168,480.00$ 180,087.00$ 85,000.00$ 265,087.00$ Development 1,123,173.00$ 226,439.00$ 631,610.00$ 858,049.00$ Survey ( Dev)17,000.00$ 14,119.00$ Wetland Mitigation ( Dev)15,000.00$ 10,969.00$ Permits( Dev)17,354.00$ Geotech( Dev)5,871.00$ 5,870.00$ Play Equipment 177,122.00$ 178,127.00$ Spray Equipment 335,342.00$ 335,342.00$ Total 1,458,478.00$ -$ -$ -$ Total ( includes 10% management reserve)1,458,478.00$ Tax ( 9.5%)91,860.00$ Total Expenses 1,550,338.00$ Revenues 1,450,000.00$ Revenue Budget Needed 100,338.00$ CIP/REET 125 500,000.00$ Hazel Miller Foundation 270,000.00$ RCO grant 500,000.00$ Snohomish County 80,000.00$ REET 125/2015 100,000.00$ Total 1,450,000.00$ Packet Page 416 of 453 -$ Packet Page 417 of 453    AM-7368     12.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Patrick Doherty Department:Community Services Type: Action  Information Subject Title Proposed 2015 Legislative Agenda Recommendation Approve the proposed 2015 Legislative Agenda. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached you will find a final draft of the proposed 2015 Legislative Agenda for review and approval. Attachments 2015 Edmonds Legislative Agenda Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/11/2014 01:29 PM Mayor Dave Earling 12/12/2014 12:19 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/12/2014 12:20 PM Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 12/11/2014 01:22 PM Final Approval Date: 12/12/2014  Packet Page 418 of 453 Draft 2015 Edmonds Leg Agenda Page 1 D R A F T City of Edmonds 2015 State Legislation Agenda TOP PRIORITIES 1. Transportation • Support a statewide transportation revenue package that includes: • $1.25 million for a waterfront at-grade train-crossing alternatives analysis. • $10 million for concept design, environmental work, design development, and construction of the first phase of the multiphase SR 99 Edmonds Gateway project. • A local option revenue package including an increase in the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) councilmanic authority from $20 to $40. • Additional Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) funding so that more local projects can move ahead. 2. Oil and Coal Transportation by Rail • Monitor state legislation or rule making regarding safety measures the state can implement to ensure the safer transportation of flammable crude oil. Packet Page 419 of 453 Draft 2015 Edmonds Leg Agenda Page 2 • Monitor any state legislation or rule making regarding the rail transport of coal. 3. Local Revenues • Support reinstatement of state shared revenues to cities, including liquor profits and taxes, and the Public Works Assistance Account. • Support sharing recreational marijuana revenues with cities. • Support new revenue authority for cities, if a state revenue package is developed. 4. Capital Budget Project • $250,000 towards replacement of a failing roof at the Edmonds Center for the Arts MONITOR / SUPPORT ISSUES 1. Capital Facilities • Extend the Optional Authority for Cities & Counties to Use “REET” Proceeds for Capital Facilities M&O Support the Washington Recreation and Parks Association (WRPA) efforts to extend the flexible use of Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) proceeds for maintenance and operations (M&O) of capital facilities. Under legislation enacted in 2011 cities and counties, at their option, have the authority to use a portion of their REET revenues toward M&O expenditures Packet Page 420 of 453 Draft 2015 Edmonds Leg Agenda Page 3 of capital facilities. Without extension, this discretionary authority will expire on Dec. 31, 2016. • Enhance the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP) funding in 2015-17 Capital Budget (Capital Budget) Work in alliance with WRPA and Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition (WWRC) and others to promote a $97 million funding level for WWRP in the 2015-17 state capital budget. WWRP funding is a competitive process that ranks and scores projects on their merits. • Re-establish Competitive Grant Funding for the Youth Athletic Facilities (YAF) program (Capital Budget) Support WRPA efforts to ensure $12 million in funding in the 2015-17 Capital Budget for the YAF program. The YAF was created in 1997 with an initial $10 million private donation, however,YAF has not had sustainable competitive grant funding established. The YAF is a vital program for restoring, improving and constructing athletic fields for youth and for entire communities. • Support Key Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Outdoor Recreation Support key recommendations of Governor Inslee’s Blue Ribbon Packet Page 421 of 453 Draft 2015 Edmonds Leg Agenda Page 4 Task Force on Outdoor Recreation. The Task Force report includes nine key near-term recommendations, including YAF funding, a new office of Outdoor Recreation, protection of dedicated accounts for outdoor recreation, and enhanced funding for the No Child Left Inside program. 2. Climate Change • Monitor the climate change issue for impacts to Edmonds. 3. Public Defense Costs • Supports efforts to identify funding for cities facing increased public defense costs because of an unfunded mandate. 4. Edmonds Community/Senior Center • Support efforts by the Edmonds Community/Senior Center to secure funds for construction of a new facility. 5. Public Records Cost Recovery • Support public agency efforts to obtain cost recovery for harassing and abusive public records requests that Packet Page 422 of 453 Draft 2015 Edmonds Leg Agenda Page 5 can exceed a public agency’s, and Edmonds’, ability to pay for. 6. Fish Consumption • Monitor legislation to set new water quality rules in Washington 7. Cultural Access Authority • Support efforts to establish a 0.1% sales tax authority for ballot approval, for cultural organizations including the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Packet Page 423 of 453    AM-7358     13.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:12/16/2014 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). December 9, 2014 Council Meeting:  Due to the lateness of the hour, this item was rescheduled for the December 16, 2014 Council Meeting. Narrative Discussion regarding a Code of Ethics has been ongoing since 2013.  A Code of Ethics document has Packet Page 424 of 453 Discussion regarding a Code of Ethics has been ongoing since 2013.  A Code of Ethics document has been placed on this agenda for discussion. Attachments 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 Attach 11 - Shoreline Code of Ethics Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 12/11/2014 10:26 AM Mayor Dave Earling 12/12/2014 09:32 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 12/12/2014 09:35 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/10/2014 10:44 AM Final Approval Date: 12/12/2014  Packet Page 425 of 453 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 426 of 453 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 427 of 453 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 428 of 453 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 429 of 453 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 430 of 453 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 431 of 453 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 432 of 453 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 433 of 453 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 434 of 453 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 435 of 453 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 436 of 453 Packet Page 437 of 453 Packet Page 438 of 453 Packet Page 439 of 453 Packet Page 440 of 453 Packet Page 441 of 453 Packet Page 442 of 453 Packet Page 443 of 453 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 444 of 453 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 445 of 453 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 446 of 453 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 447 of 453 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 448 of 453 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 449 of 453 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 450 of 453 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 451 of 453 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 452 of 453 Be dedicated to the concepts of eective and democratic local government. Democratic Leadership. Ocials and sta shall honor and respect the principles and spirit of representative democracy and set a positive example of good citizenship by scrupulously observing the letter and spirit of laws, rules and regulations. Arm the dignity and worth of the services rendered by government and maintain a deep sense of social responsibility as a trusted public servant. Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships. Public Condence. Ocials and sta shall conduct themselves so as to maintain public condence in city government and in the performance of the public trust. Impression of Inuence. Ocials and sta shall conduct their ocial and personal aairs in such a manner as to give the clear impression that they cannot be improperly inuenced in the performance of their ocial duties. Recognize that the chief function of local government at all times is to serve the best interests of all the people. Public Interest. Ocials and sta shall treat their oce as a public trust, only using the power and resources of public oce to advance public interests, and not to attain personal benet or pursue any other private interest incompatible with the public good. Keep the community informedon municipal aairs; encourage communication between the citizens and all municipal ocers; emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public; and seek to improve the quality and image of public service. Accountability. Ocials and sta shall assure that government is conducted openly, eciently, equitably and honorably in a manner that permits the citizenry to make informed judgments and hold city ocials accountable. Respectability. Ocials and sta shall safeguard public condence in the integrity of city government by being honest, fair, caring and respectful and by avoiding conduct creating the appearance of impropriety or which is otherwise unbetting a public ocial. Seek no favor; believe that personal benet or prot secured by condential information or by misuse of public time is dishonest. Business Interests. Ocials and sta shall have no benecial interest in any contract which may be made by, through or under his or her supervision, or for the benet of his or her oce, or accept directly or indirectly, any compensation, gratuity or reward in connection with such contract unless allowed under State law. Private Employment. Ocials and sta shall not engage in, solicit, negotiate for, or promise to accept private employment or render services for private interests or conduct a private business when such employment, service or business creates a conict with or impairs the proper discharge of their ocial duties. Condential Information. Ocials and sta shall not disclose to others, or use to further their personal interest, condential information acquired by them in the course of their ocial duties. Gifts. Ocials and employees shall not directly or indirectly solicit any gift or accept or receive any gift whether it be money, services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, promise, or any other form - under the following circumstances: (a) it could be reasonably inferred or expected that the gift was intended to inuence the performance of ocial duties; or (b) the gift was intended to serve as a reward for any ocial action on the ocial’s or employee’s part. Investments in Conict with Ocial Duties. Ocials and employees shall not invest or hold any investment, directly or indirectly, in any nancial business, commercial or other private transaction that creates a conict with their ocial duties. Personal Relationships. Personal relationships shall be disclosed in any instance where there could be the appearance of a conict of interest. Business Relationships. Ocials and sta shall not use sta time, equipment, or facilities for marketing or soliciting for private business activities. Reference Checking. Reference checking and responding to agency requests are a normal function of municipal business and is not prohibited if it does not adversely eect the operation of the City. Conduct business of the City in a manner which is not only fair in fact, but also in appearance. Personal Relationships. In quasi-judicial proceedings elected ocials shall abide by the directives of RCW 42.36 which requires full disclosure of contacts by proponents and opponents of land use projects which are before the City Council. Boards and Commissions are also subject to these fairness rules when they conduct quasi-judicial hearings. Not knowingly violate any Washington statutes, City ordinance or regulation in the course of performing their duties. Adopted by Council - Resolution No. 170 Code of Ethics The purpose of the City of Shoreline Code of Ethics is to strengthen the quality of government through ethical principles which shall govern the conduct of the City’s elected and appointed ocals, and employees, who shall: Packet Page 453 of 453