Loading...
2015.02.03 CC Agenda Packet              AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 3, 2015             6:30 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER   1.(30 Minutes)Convene in executive session to discuss a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c) and potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(I).   BUSINESS MEETING FEBRUARY 3, 2015   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-7452 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 27, 2015.   B.AM-7450 Approval of claim checks #212618 through #212722 dated January 29, 2015 for $700,446.27.   C.AM-7445 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Amanda Bosaw (amount undetermined) and the City of Edmonds (amount undetermined)   D.AM-7446 Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Shannon & Wilson for the final feasibility study of the Willow Creek Daylight project, to perform additional work for the Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project, and to Reduce the Flooding at Dayton St. and SR104.   5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*       Packet Page 1 of 204 5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings   6.(30 Minutes) AM-7456 Public Hearing on Draft Utilities Element for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update   7.(30 Minutes) AM-7449 Public hearing and potential action on draft ordinances to consolidate and modify animal regulations.   8.(10 Minutes) AM-7458 Discussion and potential action on an ordinance amending the 2015 Budget for Carryforward items previously discussed and approved by Council during the 2014 Budget Year.   9.(15 Minutes) AM-7451 Potential Action on Execution of Growing Transit Communities Compact and Appointment of Committee Representative   10.(45 Minutes) AM-7432 Discussion on Potential Update of Council Vacancy Interviews and Appointment Process   11.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments   12.(15 Minutes)Council Comments   13.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).   14.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.   ADJOURN         Packet Page 2 of 204    AM-7452     4. A.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:02/03/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 27, 2015. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attachment 1 - 1-27-2015 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Attachments Attach 1 - 01-27-15 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 01/29/2015 12:44 PM Final Approval Date: 01/29/2015  Packet Page 3 of 204 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES January 27, 2015 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 Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cult. Serv. Dir. Scott James, Finance Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL LITIGATION At 6:15 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i.). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 45 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Finance Director Scott James and City Clerk Scott Passey. Councilmember Mesaros left the executive session at 6:55 p.m. The executive session concluded at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:02 p.m. and led the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Bloom requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda. Packet Page 4 of 204 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CORRECTION TO APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2015 C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #212553 THROUGH #212563 DATED JANUARY 20, 2015 FOR $21,374.24 AND CLAIM CHECKS #212564 THROUGH #212617 DATED JANUARY 22, 2015 FOR 111,042.34. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61460 THROUGH #61470 FOR $476,624.22, BENEFIT CHECKS #61471 THROUGH #61479 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $515,068.54 FOR THE PAY PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2015 THROUGH JANUARY 15, 2015 ITEM B: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 2015 City Clerk Scott Passey relayed the following correction requested by Councilmember Bloom: • Page 13, last paragraph under Item 8, change first sentence to read: Councilmember Bloom explained she abstained because she did not have enough information to determine that the maximum amount of trees feasible were retained that was feasible. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM B AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Earling noted the first three names on the sign in sheet were not present: Edmonds IGA, Hamburger Harry’s, and the Pancake Haus. He assumed they were signed up to relay their concerns related to lengthy power outages as a result of windstorms. He put IGA in contact with Steve Klein, CEO, Snohomish County PUD, and they have been working to resolve the problem. Lann Pepper, Edmonds, explained their building experienced a 36-hour power failure 2 months ago. Residents must be 61 or older or have a disability to live at Soundview; over 42 residents live in each building. The power outages result in elevator failure, food spoiling and total darkness. Their building is on a grid with Woodway and they have been told Woodway does not want the trees cut back and as a result the power seems to go out more frequently than the surrounding area. For example, the condominiums above them and next to them are on the 4th Avenue grid and do not experience power failures as often. She pointed out the difficulty for IGA to operate their business during power outages and the resultant loss of food and employees unable to work. She summarized the building residents love living in Edmonds and are interested in having their power restored more quickly. Reid Huntington, Edmonds IGA, provided the letter sent to PUD describing their concern with operating a retail business with lengthy power outages. He explained the power outage is more than just a loss of product but also a loss of revenue as insurance does not cover everything. IGA has been in the Edmonds location for nearly two years; they have big plans for store but each time a lengthy power outage occurs it sets them back. He was hopeful PUD will address the issue. Mr. Huntington advised Steve Klein, CEO, Snohomish County PUD, contacted IGA and assured they are looking into the matter. Mayor Earling assured the City will follow-up. John Osterhaug, President, Board of Directors, Edmonds Senior Center, spoke in favor of Agenda Item 6, Authorization for Mayor to Sign Option to Lease and Ground Lease with the Edmonds Senior Center. The Council passed a resolution in late March 2014 in support of the Edmonds Senior Center replacing the existing aging, failing building with a new building that would serve as a senior center and a Packet Page 5 of 204 community center. On the strength of that resolution, the senior center has initiated and pursued a program to accomplish that replacement. To pursue that program, they need to qualify for funding from foundations which includes meeting several criteria, one of which is to gain control of the property which is done via the Option to Lease and the Ground Lease. He asked for the Council’s support. Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, distributed a Request for Code Enforcement Action, the form resident a completes to request code enforcement. The form has a space for a signature but a signature is not required. The Request for Code Enforcement Action has not been successful because although the Council knows about the problems with the sign code, it has not been scheduled on an agenda. She distributed the Planning Board’s extended agenda which does not include any reference to the sign code. The problems with the sign code were brought to the Council’s attention in late 2013 and a member of the planning staff stated the sign code needed a major overhaul. The handling of this issue reflects problems with Edmonds’ government and she suggested these issues be discussed at least once a month: the executive branch which suffers from chronic cronyism, the legislative branch’s lack of purpose and an understanding of the check and balance system. She summarized the sign code is a nasty piece of special legislation, it is not enforced and it is stalled at the executive level. She urged the Council to schedule review of the sign code on a future agenda. Farrell Fleming, Executive Director, Edmonds Senior Center, explained the urgency of Agenda Item #6; it is the cornerstone, foundation, lynch pin of all their fundraising efforts. The senior center cannot proceed without it to pursue government or foundation funding such as the Hazel Miller Foundation. The Option to Lease and the Ground Lease provide appropriate site control for an entity that does not own the property but wants to do something with it long term. He commended Ms. Hite and Mr. Taraday for their friendly, productive and hardworking assistance with this process. The partnership between the Edmonds Senior Center and the City began in 1967 and enabled the City to own the property in 1973 at a time when the City owned no waterfront property. The end result will be an extraordinary building that will serve all the citizens of Edmonds in a structure that is worthy of the extraordinary site. On behalf of the senior center members and everyone who uses the senior center and the many more who will use the new community center, he urged the Council to authorize the Mayor to sign Option to Lease and Ground Lease with the Edmonds Senior Center. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Fleming’s comments. With regard to Fire District 1, he pointed out the invoices all the cities received totaled $2.5 million; Edmonds’ share was $1.67 million. He asserted this was a bad deal because the City did not have a vote on the negotiating committee with the union, only a position. This is basically taxation without representation because whatever Fire District 1 negotiates, the City gets the bill. He suggested a fourth choice in Agenda Item 12 should be to terminate the agreement with Fire District 1. Another option would be to hire someone to assist the City in negotiating with Fire District 1. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, disagreed with Mr. Hertrich’s comments regarding Fire District 1. He clarified he was not supporting the continuation of the agreement with Fire District 1 simply because he voted in favor of it when he was on the Council. He supported it because an analysis of the numbers shows it is clearly the right thing for the City to continue. When the City entered into the agreement in 2010, the savings were approximately $1 million/year; the City now saves a few hundred thousand more each year. The $1.67 million bill is still less than the City likely would have paid. During the 4 years prior to the City entering into the agreement with Fire District 1, the annual rate of increase averaged 5.4%; this bill is approximately a 3.47% increase. He summarized it is still a good deal and anyone doing an objective analysis would realize it is a dumb move to go back to the City having its own fire department. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN OPTION TO LEASE AND GROUND LEASE WITH THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER Packet Page 6 of 204 Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Carrie Hite explained there has been a very collaborative process with the Edmonds Senior Center, their attorney, Mr. Taraday and she was confident that Council direction given in December had been satisfied. She recalled the Council adopted a resolution for the senior center to rebuild in the current location. In October the Council gave staff direction to negotiate the Option to Lease and the Ground Lease with the senior center. At the December 9 study session, the Council provided further direction to staff on several issues and staff proceeded to negotiate those issues. Ms. Hite reviewed the most substantive changes to the original proposal: 1. Lease Agreement is $10/year. The Council has discussed the possibility and/or longer term goal of impacting the $60,000 per year operational funds it allocates each year, as opposed to charging for the land. 2. The City and senior center worked out a mutually agreeable usage 3. The City added language to protect the desire of the Council to decide on the design and footprint of the building 4. The City added clarifying language that the park area surrounding the senior center is under control of the City, and accessible by the public 5. The City added language for the senior center to provide a performance bond 6. The City and senior center mutually agreed, and added language to share the cost of any parking study needed, the design and construction of the parking lot 7. The City revised the insurance requirements to be in alignment with the WCIA recommendations for insurance 8. At the Council’s request, added termination language Ms. Hite requested Council authorization for the Mayor to sign the Option to Lease and Ground Lease. Councilmember Petso asked why action was requested at a study session. Ms. Hite relayed the need to approve the documents before the end of January due to an upcoming deadline. She recalled during the past two months there have been action items on study session agendas prior to the study session items. Councilmember Johnson relayed her preference to approve this next week at a regular Council meeting. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE OPTION TO LEASE AND LONG TERM GROUND LEASE WITH THE SENIOR CENTER. Councilmember Buckshnis commented although the Council is in a study session format, the grant funding request has a February 1 deadline. She was agreeable to approving this tonight. Council President Fraley-Monillas said this could be moved to next week’s Consent Agenda. Ms. Hite explained the Hazel Miller Foundation indicated if this was approved tonight, they will fulfill the grant request from the senior center this month. If approval is delayed until next month, the senior center will need to wait another month for approval of the grant funding from the Hazel Miller Foundation. That is the reason it was expedited to be an action item tonight. Councilmember Mesaros urged the Council to act on this tonight. Although the Council has established a format of conducting business on the first and third Tuesdays and study sessions on the second and fourth, exceptions will arise. Were tonight not a study session, this item would have already been approved. Councilmember Johnson commented the senior center is a wonderful organization in a beautiful location and they have worked hard to implement the vision in the Strategic Action Plan. In reflecting on this decision, she realized it was a $20 million decision that will impact the City for the next 55 years; the Packet Page 7 of 204 value of the land is approximately $9 million, the value of the senior center is approximately $10 million and the improvements to the land are approximately $1 million. The same environment did not exist 47 years ago when the senior center was created. There is now a situation where trains impede development as well as conflicts with the at-grade crossing. She recalled at the December 9, 2014 meeting the City Attorney questioned whether this site was the optimal location for the senior center. There were two comments on that discussion: Councilmember Mesaros commented although the Council should be open to considering location options, there is a historical precedent for keeping it at its current location; a statement she agreed with. At that meeting, Councilmember Bloom recommended the Council honor the resolution that was unanimously approved in support of the senior center at the current location and that to question the location of the senior center at this point would be unfortunate timing as they are ready to begin their capital campaign. Councilmember Johnson recognized that as a valid point; however, in her opinion this is the time to pause and reflect about this $20 million decision. Councilmember Johnson explained the Council has a fiscal responsibility to all the citizens to carefully consider this decision that will last until 2070. For several years the Mayor, Staff and Council have discussed the increased train traffic, safety, noise, and delays. The City is asking the Legislature for funding to assist with the at-grade crossing. At the October 21, 2014 meeting where Mr. Fleming and Mr. Lovell made a presentation regarding the Option to Lease and Ground Lease, Shawn Ardussi, PSRC, also made a presentation regarding the regional impacts of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point. That presentation indicated full build out could be as early as 2019 and there will be an additional 18 trains 1.6 miles in length and will result in at-grade delays of 2-6 minutes for each train. Her take away from that information was the City has no control over what BNSF does but does have control over its capital land use siting decision. Councilmember Johnson summarized although she may be the only one speaking out in this way, she felt she had a responsibility to lay this out for the public. While she appreciated everything done to date, as a long range planner, the pieces of the puzzle need to be put in prospective. She urged the Council to take the time to make this decision very carefully and she did not think a one month delay for the funding from the Hazel Miller Foundation would make difference. She did not expect anyone to agree with her but felt it necessary to point out the obvious. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented she has paused and reflected on this for the past two years. The Council has had a great deal of discussion about the possibility of building a new senior center as well as the at-grade crossing in that area. The land for the senior center was given to the City approximately 50 years ago; it has operated as a senior center in that location and no one has died due to a train blocking the tracks. If the senior center is not concerned about building there due to the train and the at-grade crossing, she was not concerned. She was not certain what a month delay would do to change anything. She preferred to move ahead tonight and value the senior center and those who have given their time, money and talents to create the senior center. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has also reflected, met with BNSF, and understands the issues related to transportation. She totally disagreed with Councilmember Johnson, expressing concern that Councilmember Johnson’s comments make it sound like this has not been discussed at length and was something that had suddenly popped up. In fact, this has been discussed, the Council has given staff direction, passed a resolution, and the Hazel Miller Foundation is ready to assist with funding. She disagreed with delaying the senior center for transportation reasons, noting if that were done, the City may as well stop the master planning for Marina Beach. Councilmember Bloom expressed her appreciation for Councilmember Johnson’s comments. After a great deal of thought, she is ready to support this action but remains concerned that there is no emergency Packet Page 8 of 204 vehicle or pedestrian access in the Comprehensive Plan. She pointed out it is just a matter of time until something serious happens on the waterfront; there have been instances of heart pains when a train was blocking the tracks and emergency access was not possible. She was willing to support this as there was unlikely to be a different result with a one week delay but pledged to continue working to get emergency vehicle and pedestrian access in the Comprehensive Plan as soon as possible, emphasizing that is a separate issue from the alternatives study. Other considerations in addition to emergency vehicle and pedestrian access include climate change, rising tides, and recent storms that have resulted in large waves over the boardwalk which required removing people from a small house next to the senior center. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. 7. PRESENTATION OF EDMONDS DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE (AKA EDBID) GRANTS PROGRAM Development Services Director Patrick Doherty recalled the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (Ed!) presented their work plan and budget to the Council in November which the Council approved with amendments. The amendments related to the proposed grant program were to return the grant program to Council for review prior to implementation and for City staff to review each grant considered by the Ed! Board for compliance with RCW 35.87A.010 and Edmonds City Code 3.75.030 prior to awarding the grant. The grants program is a pilot program and Ed! will provide information regarding the program when presenting its 2016 work program and budget later this year. Pam Stuller, President, Ed! Members Advisory Board, explained the grants program originated via a suggestion from a property owner, Bob Rochell, whose wife is a member of Ed! The grants program is a way for Ed! to mobilize its members, encourage ideas and a way for members to propose and implement small projects. Natalie-Pascale Boisseau, Member, Ed!, explained she consulted with several people and researched what other BIDs are doing with regard to grants and supporting initiatives. The program includes two options: 1) Small Grants Program o Offered quarterly o Any member in good standing is eligible to apply or sponsor an application o Examples include back alley festival or community recycling and garbage can program 2) Partnership Program o Offered semi-annually o Requires matching funds o Any member in good standing or in a collaborative partnership with a nonprofit agency or private company may apply or sponsor an application o Examples include Swedish-Edmonds or senior center Project categories include: • Community events • Neighborhood marketing initiatives • Business recruitment and retention • Safety and cleanliness • Appearance and environment • Transportation • Historic education/heritage advocacy Ms. Boisseau reviewed general criteria for Small Grants Program and Partnership Program: Packet Page 9 of 204 • Project submitted must meet the Ed! mission and comply with the approved purposes and categories of the grants program • Project must not duplicate existing services or initiatives; • Project must be realistic in scope and qualify for readiness and feasibility; • Project must not benefit a sole enterprise, company or member; • Projects must include letters of support and/or demonstrate community support’ • Grantees must agree to include the approved Ed! logo and acknowledgement of Ed! funding in their printed materials, website and other collateral materials • Project must encourage collaborative efforts • Additional criteria for Partnership Program includes o Projects must have existing partial funding commitments, have significant matching funds, and/or generally demonstrate diverse sources of income; o Project must encourage partnerships between private enterprise, members and/or community organizations Applications will be reviewed by the Grant Committee composed of three members. Each proposed grant will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with RCW and ECC. The Grant Committee will submit its recommendation of awards to the Ed! Members Advisory Board who will approve the final awards. Applications are due quarterly for the Small Grants Program and twice-annually for the Partnership Program. Grant funds will be disbursed on a reimbursement basis after delivery to Ed! of corresponding itemized invoice(s), together with supporting receipts or other materials. One month after the completion of the Project, a final report will be sent to Ed!. The report will include: outcomes, results of measured goals, community benefits, participation, financial statement of expenses and revenues, including amount of award used. Any unused portion of award will be returned, as well as the complete award if the project is canceled within the agreed timeline. Ms. Boisseau explained this is a pilot program; implementation will be through 2016 as the program has not yet been announced. A budget of $10,000 has been allocated to this program, enough to welcome a few good projects but not too big. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she participates on the WRIA 8 Grant Funding Board and they score applications. She asked whether a scoring mechanism would be created. Ms. Boisseau advised there would be. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Council would review the scoring mechanism or would it be self-directed by Ed! and City staff. Ms. Stuller advised the intent was to be self-directed. The amount allocated to the grants program was $10,000; Ed! is not trying to deny Council information, but she was confident a decision matrix could be developed to determine grant awards. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how a three member committee to review grants was selected rather than five or seven members. Ms. Boisseau answered the intent was enough people to have a diverse point of view and an easy number to gather to review grant applications. The Advisory Board will make the final decision. Other tools will be created to measure the success of projects. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Portland’s micro lending program which is another mechanism that could be helpful to businesses. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda. 8. PRESENTATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH SHANNON & WILSON FOR THE FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJECT, TO PERFORM ADDITIONAL WORK FOR THE EDMONDS MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT, AND TO REDUCE THE FLOODING AT DAYTON ST. AND SR104 Packet Page 10 of 204 Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the contract with Shannon & Wilson is closely related to another consulting contract with SAIC who is working on the issues of flooding at SR 104 & Dayton and westward on Dayton. Data collected by the two studies has been shared and funded by grant and stormwater funds. The amendment will utilize the same funding sources to continue that work. The City was unable to obtain access to the Unocal/Chevron property to conduct a survey of old pipes that run through a corner of the marsh property until the property sale is complete. The proposal is remove and modify some tasks and reallocate the funds toward new tasks; the net result is a $38,160 increase. City Engineer Rob English reviewed the amendments. • Remove survey work associated with pipe culverts and design and permitting - $54,000 • Add Tasks 13-16 associated with the marsh and improving stormwater/flooding situation at Dayton & SR 104 - $61,000 o Task 13 - Harbor Square Outfall Storm Improvements o Task 14 - Dayton St. Isolation Survey o Task 15 - Dayton St. Isolation Analysis and Design o Task 16 - Dayton St. Isolation and Harbor Square Outfall Permits o Task 17 - Upper Marsh and Tributary Connection Surveys o Task 18 - Management Reserve Councilmember Mesaros asked why Chevron was not willing to allow access, commenting it did not appear very neighborly. Mr. Williams speculated the property transfer to the State was to someday facilitate construction of Edmonds Crossing. All the cleanup work is directed under a consent decree with the Department of Ecology who has strongly held views on what has been presented and whether it is adequate, whether additional data needs to be collected, the level of cleanup, where it is measured, etc. Chevron likely does not want to do anything to prevent an early resolution. The only reason Chevron has given is the risk associated with having a third party on the property. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to failing manholes under SR 104 and asked whether this would address that. Mr. Williams answered the two independent projects intersect in several places including Shellabarger Creek. Normally the flows in Shellabarger Creek go through 2 culvers and under SR 104 into and through the marsh. When flows are high, the capacity and slope of the culverts as well as vegetation creates enough blockage that flows go north and bubble up near Dayton on the northwest corner of the Waste Water Treatment Plan property. That contributes significantly to flooding problems as well as increases the duration, intensity and frequency. The intent is to keep the water flowing through the culverts rather than heading north and to make improvements to the culverts as well as the sides of the culverts which help solve flooding problems as well as assist the marsh. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether there were any State grants. Mr. Williams answered grants can be expected associated with the daylighting of Willow Creek and restoration of the Edmonds Marsh. The culverts themselves whether they function as designed is a maintenance issue for Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). After several meetings, WSDOT understands a key part of the future of this project will be to ensure the culverts are the right size, that they are not dilapidated or failing and will probably need to be replaced due to their age. WSDOT has a project on their unfunded project list to address that and the City would then take care of the downstream portion to ensure the water has somewhere to go. Councilmember Johnson asked whether there was a way to use the contract to estimate the cost of replacing the culvert at SR 104 and the marsh. Mr. Williams answered WSDOT has identified a project and likely have a better idea of what replacement will cost; the City will rely on their cost estimate. Whatever the cost is, it should be paid by WSDOT; it should not be Edmonds’ responsibility to identify Packet Page 11 of 204 grant funds to replace the dilapidated culverts. To the extent any berming or other modification needs to occur on the roadside channel on the east of SR 104 to direct water to those culverts may be an eligible City expense. Mr. English commented the elevation of the culvert themselves does not necessarily restrict flows, the sediment buildup within the marsh is what impedes flows. Mr. Williams said the alignment, size and depth of the culverts may be workable; if they are replaced, it may be advantageous to tweak the angle to help facilitate flows. Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding there was a sedimentation problem. Mr. Williams agreed, advising it has existed for a very long time but was much worse in the early years. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda. 9. DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT FOR THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope explained a major review of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is due to the State by mid-2015. Similar to the other elements of the plan, the intent with the Land Use Element was to update data, make minimal changes to the goals and policies and recognize planning is now through 2035 with regard to housing and job targets. Key changes to the Land Use Element include: • Updated Census, housing and population targets data • Added text to explain regional planning policies • Moved design standards for the Downtown/Waterfront to Urban Design section • Reformatted goals and policies • Updated outdated text in Open Space and Noise Pollution sections • Removed Water Resources and Drain Management section (information covered in Utilities Element) In response to a question the Council raised at the public hearing regarding Edmonds Crossing, Ms. Hope explained the plan includes language about Edmonds Crossing, simplified slightly from the original language. The advantage to retaining reference to Edmonds Crossing is it allows flexibility should the project progress while not emphasizing or requiring anything be done. Another question the Council raised was whether Westgate should be added to the two existing activity centers, Downtown/Waterfront and Highway 99 Medical. Although that could be done, it was not proposed due to the intent for a limited update of the Comprehensive Plan. In response to Council interest in emergency access to the waterfront, Planning Director Rob Chave referred to language added on packet page 210, “Increased concern about conflicts and safety issues related to the interaction of rail, ferry, vehicular and pedestrian traffic.” Language was also included in Short Term Actions (packet page 220), “Develop a short term plan and strategy to address transportation conflicts and safety issues involving the interaction of rail, ferry, vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the waterfront area.” Councilmember Petso advised she had numerous questions and asked Ms. Hope if she would be willing to meet with her. Ms. Hope answered yes. Councilmember Petso referred to discrepancies in the amount of land allocated to parks 6.5% on page 8, 6.5% and 4.4% on page 10, 6.8% on page 47, 5.27% on page 50 and 5% in open space on page 51. She recalled when reviewing the PRO Plan, park acreage was different depending on the perspective, whether land use or maintenance. She suggested for purposes of allocating park land in the Land Use Element, it be from a land use perspective and not include parks in Lynnwood, that are underwater, or the historic museum. Ms. Hope offered to review and adjust inconsistencies or if there is a difference, explain why it is different. Packet Page 12 of 204 Councilmember Petso noted there is new language regarding annexation, for example of the Esperance area, that appears to obligate the City to encourage annexation. She preferred to allow the residents to seek annexation and feared one of the standard ways of encouraging annexation was to allow annexation without assuming their share of the City’s bonded indebtedness. She preferred not to imbed those decisions in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hope explained under State law the City is supposed to move forward on annexation; whether that actually occurs will depend on a number of factors. Esperance is part of Edmonds’ urban growth area; under countywide planning policies, the City is obligated to move in that direction. Any final decisions will be via Council direction. Mentioning annexation in the Land Use Element adheres to State law and provides direction but is not a mandate. Councilmember Petso referred to the interest in de-emphasize the motor vehicle in land use planning and increase the emphasis on other methods. She referred to language regarding Highway 99 regarding access by nearby residents and visitors from other parts of the region. She did not feel she fit either of those categories and suggested wordsmithing to address that. Another example was in downtown, building design should discourage automobile access. She noted automobile access was not a problem if a person lived or had transit access to downtown but it was difficult for residents in her neighborhood because bicycling requires riding uphill. She also feared this would hurt downtown businesses that rely on people driving, walking and using transit to reach downtown. Ms. Hope offered to review the language, assuring the intent was to accommodate automobile traffic at the same time increasing opportunity for pedestrians and bicycles. Councilmember Petso commented residential growth is often emphasized in Edmonds, to the extent that Edmonds is seventh in the State for residential density. The problem with that is it seems to go along with de-emphasizing commercial which creates jobs. She questioned the ability to create more jobs, using the rezone on Highway 99 to allow residential only as an example. She suggested the plan should acknowledge that a rezone from mixed use to allow only residential will reduce the number of jobs created. Ms. Hope anticipated more jobs will be created even with more residential development due to the likelihood of commercial development that makes sense with residential development. Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding that residential mixed use was the most profitable types of development in Edmonds from an economic standpoint from the perspective of a developer or property owner. Ms. Hope answered residential development is the most profitable for developers who specialize in residential; other developers who specialize in commercial may not think that. Councilmember Bloom referred to the language Mr. Chave cited regarding emergency vehicle access on packet pages 210 and 220. She recalled staff had said emergency vehicle and pedestrian access would be addressed in the Transportation Element; she viewed it as both a land use and transportation issue. Ms. Hope answered it is primarily a transportation issue but there is a relationship to land use which is the reason there is some mention in draft Land Use Element. She acknowledged the wording could be enhanced. Councilmember Bloom requested it be enhanced as emergency vehicle and pedestrian access is a land use issue. Councilmember Bloom referred to a statement on page 210, “Edmonds Community College has expanded its downtown presence through initiatives with the Edmonds Conference Center (formerly the Edmonds Floral Conference Center) and is working with the Edmonds Center for the Arts to enhance overall operations.” She asked whether that statement should be corrected as the sale of the building is being negotiated. Ms. Hope answered not until the building is sold; the language could be revised if the sale occurs before the Comprehensive Plan is finalized. Councilmember Bloom relayed a question from the Economic Development Commission whether the building’s contract required public use. She will ask the City Attorney to research that. Packet Page 13 of 204 Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether information had been added since the public hearing such as regarding annexation. Ms. Hope answered it was already in the document. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to correcting scrivener’s errors such reference to the South County Senior Center which is now the Edmonds Senior Center. She recommended Westgate be considered an activity center and offered to submit additional comments to staff. Councilmember Johnson inquired about the February 25 open house. Ms. Hope answered the public process to date has included meetings before the Planning Board and the City Council but that does not reach everyone. She was hopeful the open house on February 25 from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall will reach a broader number. The intent of the open house is to describe the process as well as provide summaries of the draft elements reviewed to date, and identify the schedule for the remaining elements and gather input. Councilmember Petso referred to Councilmember Buckshnis’ suggestion to make Westgate an activity center. She recalled at the time of the Westgate Comprehensive Plan amendment, the Council approved a concept that would allow mixed use as well as also allow the current general business use to remain. The Council did not agree and eventually tabled adoption of specifics regarding Westgate. She asked the effect of drafting language to designate Westgate an activity center. Mr. Chave explained PSRC’s Vision 2020 identified several regional centers; Edmonds identified two areas that had all the ingredients of an activity hub – transit, pedestrian friendly, various uses, etc., Downtown/Waterfront and Highway 99 near the hospital and high school. Westgate is not large enough and although it has some of the features, it did not have the critical mass and was identified as a community commercial center, a different designation than a neighbor center such as Five Corners. Westgate is a key commercial area that attracts a wider area as well as serves the local neighborhood but does not rise to the level of an activity center. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 10. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT ORDINANCES TO CONSOLIDATE AND CLARIFY ANIMAL REGULATIONS Development Services Director Shane Hope explained to better coordinate and consolidate the regulations regarding animals, two draft ordinances have been prepared to move portions of the zoning code that reference animals into Chapter 5.05 of the City Code and make other clarifying amendments. The Planning Board held a public hearing and recommended approval. Amendments to the Zoning Code and Development Code require a public hearing at the Council; a public hearing is scheduled on February 2. Assistant Police Chief Lawless explained the intent of the changes was to consolidate all animal regulations in a single place as well as modify the animal noise language. He reviewed the proposed changes: Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance A • 5.30.130.A: Delete “Frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made by any animal except that such sounds made in animal shelters or in commercial kennels duly licensed shall be exempt.” o System of declaring a nuisance is not currently user friendly and somewhat pits neighbor against neighbor o Not comfortable with enforcement action automatically resulting in a misdemeanor • Move keeping of domesticated animals in residential zones from Section 17.35.030 to 5.05.015 • Remove 5.05.15.D: antiquated language regarding chickens • Revise Section 5.05.115.B to read, “Nuisances are hereby defined to include, but not limited to, the following:” • Revise Section 5.05.115.B.5 to read, “Any animal which howls, yelps, whines, barks or makes any noises in such a manner as to disturb any person or neighborhood to an unreasonable degree, Packet Page 14 of 204 taken to be continuous noise for a period of ten (10) or more minutes or intermittent noise that totals a period of twenty ( 20 ) or more minutes in one (1) hour, except that such sounds made in doors in animal shelters or in commercial kennels duly licensed shall be exempt.” o Previously no definition of continuous noise. • Section 5.05.115.C: delete language regarding misdemeanor with a maximum penalty • Section 5.05.115.C.1: add, “Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a civil infract ion, which shall be punishable by a fine of $100.” • Section 5.05.115.C.2: add, “Any person committing a second violation of any provision of this chapter within one calendar year shall be guilty of a civil infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine of $250” • Section 5.05.115.C.3: add “Any person committing a third violation of any provision of this chapter within one calendar year shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, be sentenced to a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or 90 days in jail.” • Move Section 17.35.040, Keeping of poultry and covered animals in residential zones, to Section 5.05.130.1 • Add Section 5.05.13.1.B: “Up to three domestic female chickens may be kept on a lot(s) or premises associated with a single - family residential dwelling unit. A chicken coop or other pen or enclosure is an accessory structure and subject to all requirements of the applicable zone. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered as a separate dwelling unit when determining the number of chickens that may be kept on a single - family lot or lots (when a single - family residence is located on more than one lot)” • Delete Sections 5.05.130.1.C – G. • Section 16.20.010.B.4: delete “the keeping of three or fewer domestic animals” • Section 16.20.010.B.5: delete “the keeping of horses, subject to the requirements of Chapter 5.05 ECC • Section 16.30.010.B.3: delete, “The keeping of one domestic animal per dwelling unit in multi- family building, according to Chapter 5.05 ECC.” ACOP Lawless advised there were several meetings held with Ms. Hope, the City Attorney, him and other staff to review several iterations of the amendments; animal control officers who provided input regarding enforceability and reasonableness. ACOP Lawless reviewed amendments to Attachment 2: Draft Ordinance B: • Section 5.30.020.E: add, “Frequent repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds” mean sounds that are continuous for a period of ten (10) or more minutes or intermittent for a period totaling twenty (20) or more minutes in one (1) hour.” • Revise Section 5.30.140 to read: “Whenever it is stated in writing by three or more persons having separate residences in a neighborhood that any person is violating any of the provisions of this chapter, the noise control administrator or his/her designee shall review such complaints. After the noise control administrator or his/her designee determines that a violation has occurred, the administrator or his/her designee shall advise the person owner of the complaint and that such violation is a nuisance and must cease. Failure of any person to cease any violation of this chapter shall be deemed a misdemeanor subject to penalties as established in this chapter.” ACOP Lawless referred to Section 15.30.020.J, explaining a noise control administrator means the person designated by the mayor to enforce noise violations or any police officer which also includes animal control officers. Packet Page 15 of 204 Mayor Earling commented this is a large problem for staff and the Mayor’s office who spend a considerable amount of time trying to solve animal control issues. He commended the Development Services and Police Department for the extraordinary work they have done. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to an email the Council received today from a citizen asking whether an animal would be allowed to bark for 20 minutes/hour at night. It does not appear the policy addresses nighttime. ACOP Lawless responded there was no delineation made with regard to hours of the day. He noted dogs typically sleep when the owners sleep and some owners want their dogs outside to alert them of prowlers; however, dogs do not distinguish between wildlife and a prowler. The proposed language is a compilation of other ordinances; none of the ordinances that staff reviewed delineated hours of the day. The proposed ordinances were developed in consultation with the City Attorney and past cases before the Municipal Court Judge. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested nighttime barking would be more disruptive than barking that occurred during the daytime. Ms. Hope pointed out dogs barking during the day may be an issue for people who sleep during the day. Council President Fraley-Monillas responded a smaller number of residents sleep during the day. She suggested reducing the amount of time noise could occur at night such as 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Ms. Hope advised that could be considered at the February 2 public hearing. Councilmember Bloom referred to reference to female chickens and asked whether other poultry such as ducks, geese and quail were allowed. ACOP Lawless advised they are allowed. Councilmember Bloom suggested other poultry such as ducks, geese, quail, etc. be specified and not just chickens. ACOP Lawless advised female chickens was specified to prevent the keeping of roosters. Councilmember Bloom suggested adding reference to ducks, geese and quail. Ms. Hope offered to research whether they were included by definition. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained based on this language, poultry is prohibited and the exception to the rule is hens. If the Council’s intent is to allow other poultry, the ordinance will need to be revised. ACOP Lawless suggested that may be a separate discussion, recalling during previous discussions the intent was to allow hens. Councilmember Petso offered to forward the letter the Council received and asked staff to provide comments related to the citizens’ other concerns. She relayed a concern that when the dog license fees were changed, the non-resident fee was less than the resident fee. ACOP Lawless advised revisions to the pet licensing fees will be a separate discussion. He advised the City has issued three licenses to Esperance residents. Non-residents are not required to license their pets in Edmonds; it is done as a mechanism to return an animal that gets loose. Input from those residents was they would not license their dogs if the fee was increased. Councilmember Buckshnis commended staff on the revisions to the ordinances. Councilmember Johnson referred to deleted Section 5.05.130.1.G that contained a definition of poultry as pheasants, quail, guinea fowl and pea fowl. She suggested instead of only referencing chickens, referencing poultry and the definition. A public hearing is scheduled for February 2, 2015. 11. PRESENTATION OF A SPRINT MASTER USE AGREEMENT AND SITE USE AGREEMENT FOR INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THEIR WIRELESS EQUIPMENT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY Packet Page 16 of 204 City Engineer Rob English explained in 2013 Sprint submitted a permit application to modify their existing wireless antenna facility at 8730 Main Street. In reviewing the application, staff found there was no existing Master Use Agreement (MUA) with Sprint for that facility. Staff and Mike Bradley, Lighthouse Law, negotiated the MUA. The conditions are similar to the MUA the City has with three other wireless providers, AT&T/Cingular, T-Mobile and Clearwire that were executed in 2005/2006. The most significant change is the fee structure; the fees in the previous agreements ranged from $2,000 – $5,000 and the range in this MUA is proposed to be $9,000 – 12,000 depending on the type of installation. Another change proposed for this MUA is a Site Use Agreement, contained in Exhibit B, that will be executed for each installation and allow staff to track and document each installation. The second attachment is the Site Use Agreement for Sprint’s wireless facility at 8730 Main Street for which the City issued a permit in October 2013. The Site Use Agreement addresses fees since installation of $11,250 and a 5% fee increase per year, the 5 year term, and potential renegotiation in 5 years. He recommended placing the ordinance on next week’s Consent Agenda. Councilmember Petso observed the MUA was not related to a specific site tower but any Sprint wireless facility. Mr. English agreed. Councilmember Petso asked whether it authorized new facilities or changed the permitting requirements for facilities. Mr. English answered new facilities still require a permit and review by Planning and Building for compliance with the code. A new facility would also require a Site Use Agreement and appropriate fees. Councilmember Petso asked whether this agreement would allow the wireless provider to circumvent any currently required notification of neighbors or opportunity for comment. Mr. English answered he was not aware that there was a public meeting requirement. Mr. Taraday answered this is primarily a franchise to allow use of City right-of-way from a property rights standpoint; it does not have much to do with land use permitting. He was not prepared tonight to answer the land use permitting question tonight. From a big picture standpoint, he suggested Councilmembers think of this as a property right that was being granted via a franchise to allow Sprint to use the public right-of-way. He summarized this was a real estate document, not a land use document. Councilmember Petso pointed out the MUA granted use in multiple unspecified locations. Mr. Taraday answered he was not prepared to explain how this interfaces with the land use code. If Councilmember Petso’s question was whether this granted the provider any easier access to a facility in Edmonds than they would otherwise have without a MUA, Public Works Director Phil Williams said the provider would still be required to satisfy all the code conditions. The MUA only provides a mechanism for approving use of the City’s rights-of-way, establishes a fee, allows tracking of facilities, etc. There was no intent to change any of the existing requirements they would otherwise be required to meet in the code Councilmember Johnson relayed a concern from a resident on Main about super tall structures with cell antennas. She asked whether that had been addressed in the development code. Mr. English answered he was not extremely familiar with the development code but any proposal to install a larger facility would go through plans review. Councilmember Johnson commented the pole was noticeably tall, approximately 30-50% taller than a standard telephone pole. Mr. Williams answered from a right-of-way standpoint, verticality is not an issue. He offered to provide Council an answer before next week’s meeting. Councilmember Petso said she has also been contacted by residents regarding those “already super high towers.” She said they may be super tall PUD structures that have cell facilities attached. Councilmember Bloom referred to language in the second attachment regarding wireless facilities at 8730 Main Street located on a Snohomish PUD pole. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda. Staff will provide answer to question regarding super tall poles. Packet Page 17 of 204 12. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO SIGN PROPOSED AMENDMENT(S) TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE FIRE DISTRICT 1'S FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Mayor Earling explained in late August Fire District 1 (FD1) provided the City an invoice for $1.67 million invoice for 2013 and 2014 which was reflective of additional costs as a result of multiple years of negotiations that the FD1 Commission had with their union membership. Since that time 25 meetings have been held either in-house with FD1 or with the other 2 contract cities, Mountlake Terrace and Brier. Of those meetings, 12 meeting had been held with FD1 including 1 meeting that Mr. James and a Councilmember had with the State Auditor. The meetings focused on a request to justify the costs; receiving a $1.67 million bill in late August with a request to pay it by September 15 with no backup material was difficult to accept. It has been difficult to get some of the requested information from FD1 over the last several months and some of the answers are still forthcoming. As important is examining the text of the original contract and seeking clarity regarding a contract written five years ago under a different administration and several different FD1 Commissioners. FD1 has taken the position that until the City pays the bill, they are not willing to entertain any negotiation with regard to the text in the existing contract. FD1 has committed in writing and verbally that they will enter into negotiations as soon as the City pays bill. FD1 has agreed to allow eight payments over two years and has extended the deadline on at least two occasions but are taking the position that it is now time to pay the bill. Mayor Earling emphasized the community has received superb service from FD1 personnel; that is not part of the issue. There are still outstanding concerns and depending on Council action, staff will move forward with further negotiations regarding the text of the contract. Finance Director Scott James explained he also found the bill much larger than expected; similar increases were sent to the other two contract cities, Brier and Mountlake Terrace. In addition to attending many meetings, he also attended meetings with the former fire chief to gain insight and with the finance directors of other two contract cities to gain additional facts regarding the retroactive bill. The three finance directors posed several questions to FD1’s finance director related to the, 1) the labor contract, and 2) the basis for the contract. The City’s contract with FD1 includes options for raising salaries according to CPI, using comparable cities and an arbitration ruling. It was discovered FD1 worked with a third party negotiator to reach an agreement. FD1’s contract with the union expired in 2012 which raises the question why the City did not better anticipate this increase. All three mayors indicate they had asked FD1 for information regarding the cost increases. FD1’s administration indicated there was no way to share that information until the union contracts were settled. As written, the City’s contract with FD1 does not provide a provision for FD1 to pass on estimated costs, only costs that are negotiated as part of a labor agreement. The City asked FD1 for a copy of Exhibit C, the costs associated with labor, overhead for administration and equipment and the basis for the rate increase which was a list of comparable cities. The State Auditor recently completed an audit of FD1’s 2013 financials and he requested a meeting with the Auditor to discuss the results. A meeting was held with FD1 Commissioners (noticed because a majority of the Commission attended), Councilmember Petso, him, FD1 administration and several staff members from the auditor’s office. His intent was to gain an understanding what was audited and if there was anything in the audit justifying rate increase. The auditors looked at Exhibit C to determine whether it matched the contract and labor costs, etc. The auditor found the cost increases were justified. The auditor declined to look at the contract itself as it was the outside scope of their audit. Mr. James relayed the City asked for concessions from FD1 related to the overhead charge. He explained FD1 was not exempt from the recession and also experienced revenue reductions as well as Packet Page 18 of 204 administration staff reduction. The City suggested Edmonds share in the administration reduction by way of a reduction in the overhead charge. FD1 declined, stating the City received the services outlined in the contract. With regard to how the bill got so large, Mr. James explained the labor agreement covers 2013 and 2014. When the City’s contract with FD1 was signed in 2009, the labor agreement had expired and a new labor agreement was negotiated that covered 2010 - 2012. Edmonds only experienced one increase of approximately $20,000 for that 3 year period. The labor group did not want FD1 to follow-up on increases in that contract due their fear concessions would need to be made such as layoffs. The labor group agreed to a 1 month increase that the City saw in 2012. The labor group did not get increases for 2010, 2011, 2011, 2013 and 2014 with the exception of the one increase in 2012. When the labor group began bargaining the new contract, the economic climate was improving and FD1 revenues were increasing. When the agreement was settled, there was a lot of ground to make up for the years that the labor group did not receive increases which is the primary reason the bill for the retro is so high. City Attorney Jeff Taraday referred to Section 4 of the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) between the City and FD1, Annual Contract and Transport Fees Payment Terms. The packet includes proposed changes to Section 4 that it is hoped FD1 will agree to in the future. It was hoped FD1 would agree to an amendment that would incorporate the City’s proposed revisions in exchange for the City’s agreeing to pay the retro payment invoice. FD1 has refused to consider those changes until after invoice paid. The reason the City is in this situation is related to Paragraph 4.4 of the ILA. When the City was preparing its 2013 budget in September 2012, the labor agreement between FD1 and the union had not yet been finalized so the City did not have the new contract payment amount that ordinarily would be adjusted by September 1 according to Paragraph 4.4. Under the ILA, the contract payment is adjusted each September 1; that cannot happen if the labor agreement is not settled. Under 4.4, once the labor agreement is settled, the District’s station personnel costs and the District’s indirect costs will be adjusted upon execution of the labor agreement but will be retroactive to January 1. The drafters of the agreement never contemplated a situation where it would take more than a year to settle the labor contract such as happened in this instance. Ideally the adjusted numbers would have been provided in September 2012; that labor agreement was settled in April 2014. While the agreement specifically addresses the payment being retroactive upon execution of the labor agreement it did not address this scenario where it occurred over a year later. With regard to whether the City could take the position of only being responsible for a year of the retro pay was evaluated, legally Mr. Taraday did not recommend the City take that position given other language in the contract and that there was no express language in the contract suggesting an intent of the parties to let the City not pay for the actual cost of service just because a labor agreement was late in being resolved. At the end of the day, the City received a service from FD1 and the City now has to pay for that service. The auditor confirmed what the City is being billed for is the actual cost of the service. Any argument to not pay to the bill is essentially an argument that the City should not pay for the actual cost of the services that were provided. The agreement does not include any language to suggest an intent of the parties that FD1 would subsidize Edmonds and allow the City not to pay a portion of its bill. Mr. Taraday said going forward the parties recognize from a budgeting standpoint not being able to identify its fire costs at the time the budget is prepared creates major problems for the City. The proposed amendments to the ILA include a new process for FD1 to communicate actual or at least anticipated labor costs to the City during the budget process. The timing of the labor contract, the lack of an estimation of actual labor costs and the lack an invoice for the estimated labor costs is what has resulted in this large bill. FD1 seems open to fixing this issue among other issues in the contract. Packet Page 19 of 204 COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO SIGN THE CONTRACT THAT EQUALIZES THE PAYMENTS OVER 2 YEARS AND PAY THE BILL. Councilmember Petso said she was able to attend the meeting with FD1 and auditors. Several questions were raised as a result of information revealed at that meeting. FD1 has not responded to all the questions regarding the amount they have billed. She will abstain from the vote because although she recognized a lot was due, she did not have sufficient information to ensure the entire amount invoiced was due. Councilmember Buckshnis said she attended a couple meetings. The City made significant cuts to salaries during the Great Recession; in 2010 to 2014 the City experienced was only a .10% increase in salaries and benefits, from $16,305,766 to $17,810,248. She complimented Mayor Earling for a great job of controlling salaries and benefits. She relayed FD1 does not see any differentiation between the process and the amount owed. Mr. Taraday agreed that was FD1’s position. FD1 has not ruled out revising the contract language to make it more workable from a budget standpoint but they are completely unwilling to allow the City to defer payment until the budgeting issue is addressed. Councilmember Buckshnis said FD1’s compromise is the payment structure. Mr. James explained FD1 has offered concessions; when they first presented the bill on August 22, the due date was September 15. Administration felt it could not be paid without conducting some due diligence and demanded an extension which FD1 allowed until November 30. FD1 later extended the deadline to January 31. Second, FD1 allowed payments over eight 8 and third; FD1 offered a $63,000 reduction in the bill. Councilmember Buckshnis said FD1 Commissioners were invited to tonight’s meeting. They declined, finding it was not to their benefit. She applauded the tremendous amount of work staff, Mr. Taraday and the mayor have done. She summarized the City has no alternative than to approve the motion and immediately begin work on amending the ILA language. Councilmember Johnson pointed out Mr. James offered several courses of action: 1) Authorize the Mayor to sign the Fire District 1's proposed amendment, and/or 2) Authorize the Mayor to sign the City's proposed amendments, and/or 3) Authorize the Mayor to sign the Fire District 1's proposed amendment upon receiving a verbal commitment from Fire District 1’s Commissioner(s) to address the City’s proposed amendments within an established time period, such as within the next two months. She asked which option the motion addressed and whether FD1 provided a verbal commitment at today’s meeting that they would address the issues within the next couple months. Council President Fraley- Monillas advised FD1 committed to renegotiate the contract. The motion is Option 1. Councilmember Bloom asked Council President Fraley-Monillas why she was proposing Option 1. Council President Fraley-Monillas answered Option 1 divides the payment into 8 equal payments. The City has the money to pay the bill in its entirety but the ability to pay it in 8 payments with a very low interest rate (the State Pool Investment rate which is currently .09%) appeals to her. Councilmember Bloom pointed out the only difference between Option 1 and 3 was in Option 3 the Council authorizes the Mayor to sign FD1’s proposed amendment upon receiving a verbal commitment to address the City’s proposed amendments. Council President Fraley-Monillas said FD1 has refused to sign or talk about any amendment until the City pays the bill. Councilmember Bloom asked what questions FD1 failed to answer with regard to the invoice. Councilmember Petso answered one of the questions that resulted from information she received at the meeting with auditor pertained to the vehicle replacement funding or apparatus funding schedule. It is not a large portion of the bill but there has been no response to the question that was raised. Mr. James agreed Packet Page 20 of 204 that question that has not been addressed. Exhibit C of the contract indicates the apparatus escalator is 4%; Exhibit D also contains an escalator of 3%. Those issues can be resolved during negotiation of the contract terms. Mayor Earling assured staff will continue to pursue the answer to that question as well as other potential financial benefits but there is a payment deadline. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled Commissioner Kenny, Fire Chief Widdis and FD1’s attorney said they were willing to open the contract to renegotiate the terms; therefore, Option 3 was the best choice. Mr. James agreed FD1 is willing to open the contract and negotiate the terms but did not commit to negotiating the City’s proposal and indicated they have some of their own requests to negotiations. Mr. James recommended the Council approve Option 1. Councilmember Bloom asked for clarification whether FD1 was willing to commit to addressing the City’s concerns. Mr. Taraday explained the City’s initial hope was to trade the City’s willingness to pay the bill for the amendment to the agreement that is included in the Council packet. If Option 3 is interpreted to be that action, that is not going to happen. Option 1 already includes a statement in the amendment that FD1 drafted that FD1 intends to work with the City to negotiate provisions that will improve the contract. Specifically, Paragraph 5 of FD1’s amendment reads, “Commencing in February, 2015, the parties agree to meet and discuss options for assessing the Agreement and to address potential amendments to the Agreement that may be desired by each party.” That statement does not say FD1 will adopt Edmonds’ proposed amendments but they recognize that will be on table for discussion. Council President Fraley-Monillas summarized FD1 is willing to discuss the contract; there just is not a specific time table. Mayor Earling commented based on the amount of progress made during the last five months; he would be reluctant to recommend the Council give direction to solve all the problems in two months. He noted it is often a challenge just to schedule meetings. There is a commitment from FD1 to begin in February looking at the City’s and FD1 issues and reaching a resolution. Councilmember Bloom Section referred to Section 8.1, Agreement Administrators, that addresses the District providing the Mayor quarterly reports and as well as two District Board Commissioners, two City Councilmembers, the District Fire Chief and Mayor meeting at least once per year on or before April 1. She asked whether those have occurred and if not, why not. In order to support Option 1, she wanted assurance FD1 was willing to amend the contract to avoid surprises in the future as well as assurance that the requirement for quarterly reports and an annual meeting as specified in the current contract would be met starting immediately. Mayor Earling answered there have been meetings but probably not quarterly. During the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) meetings, the mayors of the three cities realized they did not know how much they should be paying for fire service. The District and City interfaced on a regular basis during the RFA process and have had numerous meetings with FD1 over the past several months. He committed to calling the parties together for a meeting by April 1, recognizing several meetings regarding negotiations would also be held during that time. He suggested Council President Fraley-Monillas appoint two Councilmembers to participate in that meeting. Councilmember Bloom observed it appeared the requirement for quarterly reports/meetings had been met. She asked whether an annual meeting on or before April 1 with two District Board Commissioners, two City Councilmembers, the District Fire Chief and Mayor had been held in the past. Mayor Earling answered it has not. When he took office in 2012 he was not aware that was required by the contract and the meeting was not held in 2013 or 2014. He assured it would be held in 2015. Mr. Taraday observed the Joint Annual Meeting referenced in Section 8.2 has been held. MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINED. 13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Packet Page 21 of 204 Mayor Earling reported WSDOT is expecting to have a ribbon cutting on the SR 104 crosswalk within the next 2 weeks; the public and the Council will be notified when that is scheduled. He remarked the crosswalk will improve pedestrian safety when crossing that very busy street as well as allow people to more freely east to west. He said Go Hawks. 14. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Fraley-Monillas announced her appointment of Dulane Fleetwood to the Economic Development Commission. In response to Councilmember Johnson’s comments about the senior center and Councilmember Bloom’s comments about emergency vehicle access, Council President Fraley- Monillas commented identifying funding for a major project will be a difficult task in the coming 1-2 years. She suggested the City begin talking about providing emergency services on the waterfront such as training in CPR, operation of Automated External Defibrillators (AED) and basic first aid and having volunteers available on the west side of the tracks to provide first aid. She suggested the City could fund AEDs for buildings on the waterfront and provide first aid training to volunteers in those buildings. She suggested discussing that option along with emergency vehicle access. She said Go Hawks. On behalf of the Tree Board, Councilmember Bloom announced an open house to learn about trees that attract wildlife and are suited to small yards, help in selecting the right tree for a yard’s conditions and free trees on January 31 from 9 a.m. to 12 pm at PUD’s office at 21018 Highway 99, Edmonds. Councilmember Petso said Go Hawks. Councilmember Mesaros said he was glad to hear about WSDOT’s plans for a ribbon cutting for the SR 104 crosswalk as he crosses there when walking to and from Council meetings. He reported the power was out at Pt. Edwards for 36 hours earlier this month and for 14 hours during the last 10 days. He reiterated his offer to represent the City at the Super Bowl; he is leaving for Arizona on Thursday. Councilmember Johnson announced a series of classes offered by Pacific Science Center, Port Townsend Marine Science Center and Edmonds Community College regarding how to be toxic free. The classes will offer tips on cleaning products, personal care, home garden and food and making toxic free cleaning products. The classes will be held at the Edmonds Conference Center on Mondays January 26 through March 9 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. She said Go Hawks. Councilmember Buckshnis said Go Redwings; the hockey season has begun at her house. 15. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 16. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 17. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Packet Page 22 of 204    AM-7450     4. B.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:02/03/2015 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 #212618 through #212722 dated January 29, 2015 for $700,446.27. Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue: Expenditure:700,446.27 Fiscal Impact: Claims $700,446.27 Attachments Claim cks 01-29-15 Project Numbers 01-29-15 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 01/29/2015 11:37 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 01/29/2015 12:43 PM Mayor Dave Earling 01/29/2015 01:43 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/29/2015 03:30 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 01/29/2015 11:00 AM Packet Page 23 of 204 Final Approval Date: 01/29/2015  Packet Page 24 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212618 1/29/2015 069798 A.M. LEONARD INC CI15002324 PM TOOL COMBO, SOIL KNIFE, PRUNER, SAW, PM TOOL COMBO, SOIL KNIFE, PRUNER, SAW, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 795.16 Total :795.16 212619 1/29/2015 068657 ACCOUNTEMPS 42162598 TEMPORARY HELP FINANCE DEPT WEEK ENDING Temporary help week ending 1/16/15 - C 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 1,757.60 Total :1,757.60 212620 1/29/2015 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND FEBRUARY 2015 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 2/15 EDMONDS PD ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 2/2015 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 2,169.62 Total :2,169.62 212621 1/29/2015 069803 AIRVAC 13079 FS 20 - 4 Stage Filters Packs FS 20 - 4 Stage Filters Packs 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,500.00 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 208.00 Total :1,708.00 212622 1/29/2015 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 9627 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES 421.000.74.534.80.33.00 97,616.27 Total :97,616.27 212623 1/29/2015 065568 ALLWATER INC 012215059 WWTP - DRINKING WATER water 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 21.80 Total :21.80 212624 1/29/2015 001528 AM TEST INC 84477 WWTP - MERCURY TEST sludge metals testing 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 75.00 1Page: Packet Page 25 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :75.002126241/29/2015 001528 001528 AM TEST INC 212625 1/29/2015 074695 AMERICAN MESSAGING W4101046PA Water Watch Pager Water Watch Pager 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 4.46 Total :4.46 212626 1/29/2015 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC ZR42 WWTP - MONTHLY NPDES monthly NPDES testing 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 165.00 Total :165.00 212627 1/29/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987831968 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80 mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 74.16 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 7.05 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1987831969 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 37.02 Total :122.39 212628 1/29/2015 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0694202-IN WWTP - DIESEL FUEL ULSD #2, Dyed bulk fuel 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 2,814.68 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 267.39 Total :3,082.07 212629 1/29/2015 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 78990 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 37.39 2Page: Packet Page 26 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212629 1/29/2015 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 37.39 UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 38.51 UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 136.79 UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 136.79 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 3.55 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 3.55 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3.66 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS79165 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 33.42 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 33.42 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 34.44 UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 126.16 UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 126.15 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 3.17 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 3.17 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3.28 Total :760.84 212630 1/29/2015 001527 AWWA 7000934370 Water - Annual Renewal - K Kuhnhausen 3Page: Packet Page 27 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212630 1/29/2015 (Continued)001527 AWWA Water - Annual Renewal - K Kuhnhausen 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 85.00 Total :85.00 212631 1/29/2015 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 20370 Fleet Auto Propane 500.0 Gal Fleet Auto Propane 500.0 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 486.69 Fleet Auto Propane 557.8 Gal3168 Fleet Auto Propane 557.8 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 617.62 Fleet Auto Propane 316.7 Gal3194 Fleet Auto Propane 316.7 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 322.67 Fleet Auto Propane 33.8 Gal3211 Fleet Auto Propane 33.8 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 361.15 Fleet Auto Propane 300.2 Gal3243 Fleet Auto Propane 300.2 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 325.66 Total :2,113.79 212632 1/29/2015 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 115442 INV#115442 - EDMONDS PD - EQUIPMENT HANDCUFFS/CHAIN/NICKLE 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 128.87 WATCH CAPS/POLICE LETTERS 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 35.85 SIDEBREAK ASP BATON CASE 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 95.90 RADIO HOLDER/BW/UNIVERSAL 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 71.72 CUFF KEY CLIP 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 29.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 49.41 TACTICAL BATON W/FOAM GRIP 4Page: Packet Page 28 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212632 1/29/2015 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 157.90 Total :569.50 212633 1/29/2015 074849 BOMAR, RICK 12315 REFUND FOR TRAVEL TO SEATTLE REFUND FOR TRAVEL TO SEATTLE 001.000.23.523.30.43.00 24.75 Total :24.75 212634 1/29/2015 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14536721 PARKS COPIER IRC5051 CONTRACT 001-057210 PARKS COPIER IRC5051 CONTRACT 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 273.74 Lease - Planning Div printer14536723 Lease - Planning Div printer 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.16 Lease - Bld Division copier14536724 Lease - Bld Division copier 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.16 REC PRINTER IRC1030IF CONTRACT 001-0572114536725 REC PRINTER IRC1030IF CONTRACT 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 30.65 FLEET COPIER14543147 Fleet Copier 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 33.02 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 3.14 PW ADMIN COPIER14543148 PW Office Copier 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 68.55 PW Office Copier 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 38.85 PW Office Copier 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 38.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 6.51 9.5% Sales Tax 5Page: Packet Page 29 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212634 1/29/2015 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 2.61 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 2.61 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 2.59 PW Office Copier 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 27.42 PW Office Copier 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 27.42 PW Office Copier 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 27.41 WATER SEWER COPIER14543149 Water Sewer Copier 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 70.68 Water Sewer Copier 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 70.68 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 6.72 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 6.71 PARKS MAINT IRC1030IF SCHEDULE 001-057214543150 PARKS MAINT IRC1030IF SCHEDULE 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 36.16 Total :854.02 212635 1/29/2015 075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATIONS 38 COMMUNICATIONS ADVISOR JANUARY 2015 Communications advisor for January 2015 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,500.00 Total :2,500.00 212636 1/29/2015 068484 CEMEX LLC 9430057274 Storm - Asphalt 6Page: Packet Page 30 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212636 1/29/2015 (Continued)068484 CEMEX LLC Storm - Asphalt 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 177.10 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 16.82 Storm - Liquid Asphalt9430057275 Storm - Liquid Asphalt 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 220.00 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 20.91 Storm - Asphalt, Liquid Asphalt9430064125 Storm - Asphalt, Liquid Asphalt 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 285.70 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 27.14 Storm - Dump Fees9430071858 Storm - Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 209.60 Total :957.27 212637 1/29/2015 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 43354214 INV#43354214 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE-POFF 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 55.19 CAR WASH FOR NARCS VEHICLE 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 10.00 TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 0.65 Total :65.84 212638 1/29/2015 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I15000016 Water Quality Water Lab Analysis Water Quality Water Lab Analysis 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 275.40 Total :275.40 212639 1/29/2015 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 1-218359-279832 WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205TH ST / METER WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205TH ST / METER 7Page: Packet Page 31 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212639 1/29/2015 (Continued)035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 17.45 Total :17.45 212640 1/29/2015 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC 23K-058133 Fac Maint - Locksmith Supplies - Fac Maint - Locksmith Supplies - 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 152.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.49 Total :166.99 212641 1/29/2015 074255 COAL CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOC 120902-08 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, OPERATIONS Technical Assistance in Complying with 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 3,841.75 Total :3,841.75 212642 1/29/2015 004095 COASTWIDE LABS GW2735531 Fac Maint - Cleaners, TT, Towles Fac Maint - Cleaners, TT, Towles 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 371.81 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 35.32 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OFFICE & MECHANICALGW2738333 microfilter bags 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 16.64 c fold towel 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 51.66 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 1.58 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 4.91 Fac Maint - TT, Towels, SuppliesGW2738871 Fac Maint - TT, Towels, Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 237.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.57 Fac Maint - Access DoorsNW2718270-2 8Page: Packet Page 32 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212642 1/29/2015 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS Fac Maint - Access Doors 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 35.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.40 Fac Maint - BeltNW2730995-1 Fac Maint - Belt 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 24.26 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.30 Fac Maint - TowelsNW2735531 Fac Maint - Towels 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 121.21 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.51 Fac Maint - Air Spray, Furn Polish,NW2738871 Fac Maint - Air Spray, Furn Polish, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 253.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 24.05 Total :1,217.74 212643 1/29/2015 004867 COOPER, JACK F 2 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 617.000.51.517.20.23.00 1,428.10 Total :1,428.10 212644 1/29/2015 046150 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 170358 FAC - Elevator Cert Renewal FAC - Elevator Cert Renewal 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 141.60 Library - Elevator Cert Renewal 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 129.00 Museum - Elevator Cert Renewal 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 129.00 PW - Elevator Cert Renewal170361 PW - Elevator Cert Renewal 9Page: Packet Page 33 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212644 1/29/2015 (Continued)046150 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 129.00 Total :528.60 212645 1/29/2015 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 123114 WWTP-OPERATOR CERTIFICATION RENEWAL Jonathan Jones-Thomas 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 30.00 WWTP - PERMIT2015-WA0024058 Permit #WA0024058 423.000.76.535.80.51.00 26,967.60 Stormwater - Municipal General Permit2015-WAR045513 Stormwater - Municipal General Permit 422.000.72.531.90.51.00 13,416.00 Total :40,413.60 212646 1/29/2015 070864 DEX MEDIA 440012034217 C/A 440001304654 Basic e-commerce hosting 01/02/15 - 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95 C/A 440001307733440012034226 01/2015 Web Hosting for Internet 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95 Total :69.90 212647 1/29/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3521 MINUTE TAKING Council Minutes 01/20 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 227.70 Total :227.70 212648 1/29/2015 072145 DISTINCTIVE WINDOWS INC 19236 FAC - Misc Glass Supplies FAC - Misc Glass Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 102.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.76 Total :112.51 212649 1/29/2015 006844 DMCJA 010115 JUDGES ASSOCIATION FOR COBURN JUDGES ASSOCIATION FOR COBURN 10Page: Packet Page 34 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212649 1/29/2015 (Continued)006844 DMCJA 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 750.00 Total :750.00 212650 1/29/2015 064640 DMCMA 010115 MAMAGEMENT ASSOCIATION MAMAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 150.00 Total :150.00 212651 1/29/2015 007253 DUNN LUMBER 218476 PM PRESSURE TREATED LANDSCAPE TIMBERS 8T PM PRESSURE TREATED LANDSCAPE TIMBERS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -22.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -2.09 PM BOWL WAX RINGS2984025 PM BOWL WAX RINGS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 15.63 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.49 PM PRESSURE TREATED HEM/FIR YOST PARK BR2985272 PM PRESSURE TREATED HEM/FIR YOST PARK 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 920.41 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 87.44 Total :1,000.84 212652 1/29/2015 007287 ECONOMIC ALLIANCE SNOHOMISH CO 2015-105 2015 EASC MEMBERSHIP DUES 2015 Economic Alliance Snohomish County 001.000.39.513.10.49.00 10,000.00 Total :10,000.00 212653 1/29/2015 060983 EDMONDS SO SNO CO HISTORICAL 2015 MEMBERSHIP CEMETERY 2015 MEMBERSHIP DUES EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY 2015 130.000.64.536.20.49.00 75.00 Total :75.00 212654 1/29/2015 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-07490 HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN 11Page: Packet Page 35 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212654 1/29/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 76.88 SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 92ND AVE W3-38565 SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 92ND AVE W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N / ME6-02735 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,674.91 FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N / ME6-02736 FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.65 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 76-02737 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,236.50 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 250 5TH6-02738 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 250 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 216.76 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 7096-02825 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,387.62 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN ST6-02875 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 25.63 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME6-02925 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,471.32 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE6-04127 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 711.13 FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW /6-04128 FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.65 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE6-05155 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 121.60 12Page: Packet Page 36 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212654 1/29/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 462.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 462.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 462.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 462.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 462.08 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW /6-05156 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 1.83 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 6.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 6.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 6.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 6.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 6.94 Total :9,336.43 212655 1/29/2015 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 132368 RADIX MONTHLY MAINT AGREEMENT Radix Monthly Maint Agreement - For Feb 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 152.00 Total :152.00 212656 1/29/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 109156 FLEET COPY USE Fleet Copy Use 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.36 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.70 13Page: Packet Page 37 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212656 1/29/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES WATER SEWER COPY USE109219 Water Sewer Copy Use 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 30.23 Water Sewer Copy Use 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 30.23 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.87 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.87 PW COPY USE109228 PW Copy Use 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 29.28 PW Copy Use 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 16.59 PW Copy Use 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 16.59 PW Copy Use 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 11.71 PW Copy Use 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 2.78 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 1.58 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 1.58 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.11 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.11 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.11 PW Copy Use 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 11.71 14Page: Packet Page 38 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212656 1/29/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTENANCE109258 Maintenance for printers 01/21/15 - 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 343.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 32.68 P&R PRINTER C1030 #A6995109542 1 P&R PRINTER C1030 #A6995 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 46.21 COPIER CHARGES C5051109615 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 51.08 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 51.08 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 51.06 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 4.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 4.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 4.86 Total :771.77 212657 1/29/2015 074437 EMPLOYERS HEALTH COALITION WA 1/20/2015 Retiree Medical Program Management Fee Retiree Medical Program Management Fee 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 4,974.48 Total :4,974.48 212658 1/29/2015 047407 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 312 000 093 ES REF # 94513310 7 Q4-14 Unemployment Insurance 001.000.39.517.78.23.00 257.24 Total :257.24 212659 1/29/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH610920 NEWS PAPER AD Animal Regulations 15Page: Packet Page 39 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212659 1/29/2015 (Continued)009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 58.48 NEWS PAPER ADEDH610927 ATM Concession Agree 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 36.12 NEWS PAPER ADEDH611764 Utilities Element Comp Plan 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 36.12 Total :130.72 212660 1/29/2015 073133 EVERGREEN RURAL WATER OF WA 28088 Water System - Membership Annual Dues Water System - Membership Annual Dues 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 350.00 Water System - Membership Annual Dues 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 350.00 Total :700.00 212661 1/29/2015 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0448731 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL couplings 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 1,037.30 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 121.56 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 110.10 Total :1,268.96 212662 1/29/2015 011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 253.67 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 253.67 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE253-011-1177 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 5.48 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 20.81 16Page: Packet Page 40 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212662 1/29/2015 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 20.78 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 32.22 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 32.21 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, SPARE LINES425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 16.15 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 80.75 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 67.83 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 67.83 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 90.42 CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 MEADOWDALE RD425-745-4313 CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 128.11 LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES425-774-1031 LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRADE SPECIAL 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 38.76 CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5TH AVE N425-775-2455 CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 60.43 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE425-775-7865 17Page: Packet Page 41 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212662 1/29/2015 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FIVE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 64.28 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-776-1281 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 51.72 LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE425-776-2742 LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACCESS LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 17.83 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 128.11 Total :1,493.49 212663 1/29/2015 012199 GRAINGER 9630381466 City Park Bldg - Supplies City Park Bldg - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 143.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.67 Fac Maint - Circuit Breaker9633817268 Fac Maint - Circuit Breaker 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.76 Fac Maint - Supplies9640038411 Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 97.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.23 Total :272.83 212664 1/29/2015 012560 HACH COMPANY 9196935 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, LABORATORY sensor cap replacement 423.000.76.535.80.48.31 238.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.31 22.61 18Page: Packet Page 42 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212664 1/29/2015 (Continued)012560 HACH COMPANY WWTP - SUPPLIES, LABORATORY9203868 pipet 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 266.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 25.27 Total :551.88 212665 1/29/2015 012845 HARBOR SQUARE ATHLETIC CLUB 2015 MEMBER 2015 MEMBERSHIP FEES- EDMONDS PD 2015 GROUP MEMBERSHIP FEES 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 6,264.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 595.08 Total :6,859.08 212666 1/29/2015 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 25591 E4HA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/14 E4HA.Services thru 12/31/14 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 266.00 Total :266.00 212667 1/29/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2507005 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATIONS operator's daily diary 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 72.53 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 6.89 Office Supplies - DSD2568588 Office Supplies - DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 67.81 CALCULATOR, CALCULATOR PAPER ROLLS2569261 Sharp VX2652H Commercial Print Display 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 131.84 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 12.52 AVERY YELLOW ADDRESS LABELS, SIDE LOAD L2569343 Avery High Visibility Labels AVE5972 - 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 57.05 19Page: Packet Page 43 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212667 1/29/2015 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 5.42 EQUIPMENT2570080 EQUIPMENT 001.000.23.512.50.35.00 919.80 SPARCO CLEAN SLIT LETTER OPENERS2570085 Sparco Clean Slit Letter Openers - Qty 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 19.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 1.88 Office Supplies - DSD2570722 Office Supplies - DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 374.37 POST IT POP UP NOTE PADS2570868 Post-it Pop-up Note pads 3x3 - 24/pk 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 33.59 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 3.19 SUPPLIES2571807 SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 14.10 Total :1,720.79 212668 1/29/2015 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 643805 WWTP - SUPPLIES, HYPOCHLORITE hypochlorite, 4626 gallons 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 3,095.96 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 294.12 Total :3,390.08 212669 1/29/2015 075005 JOHNSON, ERIK BID-3 PHOTOS FOR ED! WEBSITE Photos for Ed! website 100% complete 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 20Page: Packet Page 44 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212670 1/29/2015 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 13088440-01 FS 17 - Lochinvar FS 17 - Lochinvar 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 370.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 35.22 FS 20 - Air Switch13089040-00 FS 20 - Air Switch 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.99 PS - Ignitor 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 72.72 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.81 Fac Maint - Monometer Switch Tester13089137-00 Fac Maint - Monometer Switch Tester 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 209.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 19.95 Total :737.48 212671 1/29/2015 070019 JUDICIAL CONF REGISTRAR 12515 JUDICIAL COLLEGE FOR COBURN JUDICIAL COLLEGE FOR COBURN 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 360.00 Total :360.00 212672 1/29/2015 075142 LEE, ETSUKO 1372 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 119.19 Total :119.19 212673 1/29/2015 072059 LEE, NICOLE 1568 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 143.13 Total :143.13 212674 1/29/2015 074388 LONE MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS 15435 Unit 452 - Radio Repair Unit 452 - Radio Repair 21Page: Packet Page 45 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212674 1/29/2015 (Continued)074388 LONE MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 369.50 Total :369.50 212675 1/29/2015 061900 MARC 0542320-IN WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL coil cleaner 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 173.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 12.06 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 17.58 Total :202.64 212676 1/29/2015 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1544 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1545 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1546 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1547 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1548 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1549 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1551 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 141.40 Total :671.32 22Page: Packet Page 46 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212677 1/29/2015 070028 MCA 010115 PROBATION ASSOCIATION FOR BOMAR PROBATION ASSOCIATION FOR BOMAR 001.000.23.523.30.49.00 25.00 PROBATION CONFERENCE FOR BOMAR42015 PROBATION CONFERENCE FOR BOMAR 001.000.23.523.30.49.00 150.00 Total :175.00 212678 1/29/2015 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 3 LEOFF 1 Medical reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.29.00 8,120.25 Total :8,120.25 212679 1/29/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 21257695 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINT & SUPPLIES, MECHANIC sanding pads 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 66.35 door closure 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 296.80 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 11.72 Total :374.87 212680 1/29/2015 075143 MEDVEDEV, ANDREI 1502 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 107.58 Total :107.58 212681 1/29/2015 021890 MICONTROLS INC 859312 FAC - Actuator Supplies FAC - Actuator Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 198.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.89 Total :217.72 212682 1/29/2015 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 203809 PM LOADER 8TH & ALDER PATHWAY PROJECT PM LOADER 8TH & ALDER PATHWAY PROJECT 23Page: Packet Page 47 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212682 1/29/2015 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 433.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 41.13 PM 2 CYCLE OIL203975 PM 2 CYCLE OIL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 180.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.10 Total :671.23 212683 1/29/2015 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 14-1613-1 E4JB.SERVICES THRU 12/31/14 E4JB.Services thru 12/31/14 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 4,779.00 Total :4,779.00 212684 1/29/2015 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 4071722 CITY PARK SPRAY & PLAY FENCE PANEL RENTA CITY PARK SPRAY & PLAY FENCE PANEL 125.000.64.576.80.45.00 2,005.92 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.45.00 190.56 Total :2,196.48 212685 1/29/2015 064024 NAT'L ASSOC FOR COURT MNGMNT 010115 NATIONAL COURT MANAGEMENT MEMBERSHIP NATIONAL COURT MANAGEMENT MEMBERSHIP 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 125.00 Total :125.00 212686 1/29/2015 024001 NC MACHINERY SECS0595762 Unit 63 - Switches Unit 63 - Switches 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 137.54 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.04 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.69 Unit 63 - Cable ASECS0596154 24Page: Packet Page 48 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212686 1/29/2015 (Continued)024001 NC MACHINERY Unit 63 - Cable A 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 45.93 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.04 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.98 Total :238.22 212687 1/29/2015 074306 NEBCO/NPRIT 3539237 LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums 617.000.51.517.20.23.00 1,310.62 LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 8,630.06 Total :9,940.68 212688 1/29/2015 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0541084-IN Fleet Filter Inventory Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 74.83 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 7.10 Total :81.93 212689 1/29/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1110722 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET2-1110882 MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 MARINA BEACH PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1111422 MARINA BEACH PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 609.05 PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1112727 PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET2-1112964 25Page: Packet Page 49 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212689 1/29/2015 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY BUCKET2-1113596 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 Total :1,187.30 212690 1/29/2015 075140 NORTHWEST PERMIT Bld 2015.0056 Work already permitted under remodel Work already permitted under remodel 001.000.257.620 105.00 Total :105.00 212691 1/29/2015 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 533 Planning Brd Minutetaker 1/14/15 Planning Brd Minutetaker 1/14/15 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 412.50 Total :412.50 212692 1/29/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 082052 PW Office Supplies PW Office Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 55.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 5.25 PW - Office Binders084638 PW - Office Binders 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 81.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 7.70 PW - Office Supplies900445 PW - Office Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 14.32 Water - Fatigue Mat 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 73.49 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 1.36 9.5% Sales Tax 26Page: Packet Page 50 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212692 1/29/2015 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 6.98 PW Office Supplies970139 PW Office Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 59.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 5.61 Total :310.19 212693 1/29/2015 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 92764 PM ROCKS 8TH & ALDER PM ROCKS 8TH & ALDER 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 385.00 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 36.58 PM ROCKS 8TH & ALDER92788 PM ROCKS 8TH & ALDER 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 501.34 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 47.63 Total :970.55 212694 1/29/2015 074422 PARTSMASTER, DIV OF NCH CORP 20857975 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL super cross pliers 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 18.70 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 2.81 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 2.05 Total :23.56 212695 1/29/2015 064552 PITNEY BOWES 9607730-JA15 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE Lease 12/30 - 01/30 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 718.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 68.26 27Page: Packet Page 51 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :786.862126951/29/2015 064552 064552 PITNEY BOWES 212696 1/29/2015 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC F899333 FS 16 - Supplies FS 16 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 44.52 Fac Maint - Utility Knife 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 10.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 0.95 FS 16 - SuppliesF899394 FS 16 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 60.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.77 PS - SuppliesF909761 PS - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 166.10 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.78 Total :308.10 212697 1/29/2015 073231 POLYDYNE INC 940726 WWTP - SUPPLIES, POLYMER polymer clarifloc 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 8,184.00 Total :8,184.00 212698 1/29/2015 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 214285 Sewer - Camera Shipping fees Sewer - Camera Shipping fees 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 112.71 Sewer - Cues Return Postage Fees214458 Sewer - Cues Return Postage Fees 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 12.72 WWTP - POSTAGE214492 to: Dept of L&I~ 28Page: Packet Page 52 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212698 1/29/2015 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 35.80 Total :161.23 212699 1/29/2015 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY 422.000.72.531.90.51.00 2,626.56 Total :2,626.56 212700 1/29/2015 064088 PROTECTION ONE 291104 ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAINT./FS #16 ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 21.33 ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 21.33 ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE STATION #16 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 118.53 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL31146525 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 46.89 Total :208.08 212701 1/29/2015 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 14-1053 COURT SECURITY COURT SECURITY 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 3,723.75 Total :3,723.75 212702 1/29/2015 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 96577 Unit 405 - Tow Unit 405 - Tow 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 166.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 15.77 INV#96929 - EDMONDS PD96929 TOW 2013 NISSAN LEAF #ALK5018 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.77 29Page: Packet Page 53 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :363.542127021/29/2015 070955 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 212703 1/29/2015 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 8098 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 212704 1/29/2015 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 15-0104 Storm - Gould Pumps and Gasket Kits for Storm - Gould Pumps and Gasket Kits for 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 7,055.36 Freight 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 439.54 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 712.02 Unit 124 - Supplies15-0276 Unit 124 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 140.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.34 Total :8,360.66 212705 1/29/2015 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0435409 BRACKETTS NORTH ANCHOR BED PLANTING MIX BRACKETTS NORTH ANCHOR BED PLANTING MIX 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 56.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.32 Total :61.32 212706 1/29/2015 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 Retro Pymt 1 RETRO PAY 2013-2014 LABOR AGREEMENT Retro Payment #1 for 2013-2014 Labor 001.000.39.522.20.51.00 200,507.60 Total :200,507.60 212707 1/29/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2004-9683-4 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD / METER LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 197.23 TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / METER 10002005-9295-4 30Page: Packet Page 54 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212707 1/29/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.92 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W / METER 12005-9488-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.00 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 12006-3860-9 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 707.56 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W / MET2007-3984-5 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 34.69 100 DAYTON ST2012-3682-5 100 DAYTON ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 537.80 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW D2014-3123-6 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.92 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 1002015-5174-4 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,332.83 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER 10002015-7289-8 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 95.88 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE2019-4248-9 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 88.04 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 334.55 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 334.55 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 334.55 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 334.55 31Page: Packet Page 55 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212707 1/29/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 334.53 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH2022-9166-2 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 4,911.71 STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT METERE2023-8937-5 STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 17.30 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 100012612024-3924-6 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 3,072.23 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) / N2025-7615-3 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 16,623.76 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10001353812030-9778-7 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 1000135381 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 27,100.95 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 102044-2584-7 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 276.87 LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / METER 102051-8438-5 LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 59.40 Total :57,828.82 212708 1/29/2015 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1 396299-01 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC Overhead Service Connection 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 236.00 Total :236.00 212709 1/29/2015 037075 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE I-VR-4 2014 VOTER REGISTRATION DISTRICT PORTION 2014 Voter Registration - District 001.000.39.514.90.51.00 59,215.51 Total :59,215.51 32Page: Packet Page 56 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212710 1/29/2015 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 1/23/2015 SCC&T dinner meeting for Council SCC&T dinner meeting for Council 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 70.00 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES MEETING1/23/2015M SCC monthly dinner meeting -- Jan 2015 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 35.00 Total :105.00 212711 1/29/2015 067809 SNOHOMISH COUNTY FINANCE I000377998 2015 SERS OPERATING ASSESSMENT 2015 SERS Operating Assessment 001.000.39.525.60.51.00 104,289.00 Total :104,289.00 212712 1/29/2015 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 56679 Rubber stamp for engineering. Rubber stamp for engineering. 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 27.35 Total :27.35 212713 1/29/2015 070837 SUNBELT RENTALS INC 49973426-001 PM MANLIFT RENTAL PM MANLIFT RENTAL 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,070.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 101.67 Total :1,171.87 212714 1/29/2015 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 11424530 Traffic - Exchanges Traffic - Exchanges 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 7.33 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 0.70 Fleet Shop Supplies11430134 Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 41.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 3.99 Fleet Shop Supplies11431060 33Page: Packet Page 57 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212714 1/29/2015 (Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 58.19 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 5.53 Fleet Shop Supplies11431061 Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 67.42 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 6.40 Total :191.51 212715 1/29/2015 074669 TIGER DIRECT INC L62071070101 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC Cisco Catalyst 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 1,359.90 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 16.31 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICL69065200101 16gb kit, ddr3-1600 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 159.99 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 22.24 Total :1,558.44 212716 1/29/2015 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9738791910 C/A 671247844-00001 Cell Service-Bldg 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 29.66 Cell Service-Eng 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 172.14 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 113.42 Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 24.38 Cell Service Parks Maint 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 58.81 Cell Service-PD 34Page: Packet Page 58 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 212716 1/29/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 350.47 Cell Service-PD 104 Fund 104.000.41.521.21.42.00 188.89 Cell Service-PW Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 48.82 Cell Service-PW Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 28.55 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 46.29 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 46.29 Cell Service-PW Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 87.93 Cell Service-PW Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 99.68 Cell Service-WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 57.81 Total :1,353.14 212717 1/29/2015 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS I15-018 PM 7TH & ELM TREE MAINTENANCE PM 7TH & ELM TREE MAINTENANCE 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 600.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 57.00 Street - 8th & Walnut Remove 2 AldersI15-022 Street - 8th & Walnut Remove 2 Alders 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 1,150.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 109.25 Total :1,916.25 212718 1/29/2015 026510 WCIA 101187 2015 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK INSURANCE 2015 PW Underground Storage Tank 511.000.77.548.68.46.00 1,483.00 35Page: Packet Page 59 of 204 01/29/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 9:37:52AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,483.002127181/29/2015 026510 026510 WCIA 212719 1/29/2015 048100 WEINZ, JACK D 1 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 617.000.51.517.20.23.00 1,521.19 Total :1,521.19 212720 1/29/2015 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6569 INV#6569 - EDMONDS PD DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BROCHURES 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 480.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 45.60 Total :525.60 212721 1/29/2015 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 10942 PM 8TH & ALDER PROJECT PLANTS PM 8TH & ALDER PROJECT PLANTS: 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 444.00 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 42.18 Total :486.18 212722 1/29/2015 073018 WINFIELD SOLUTIONS LLC 000059845815 PM CASORON, ROUNDUP, PN 25-0-10, CLUBHOU PM CASORON, ROUNDUP, PN 25-0-10, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2,133.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 202.64 Total :2,335.68 Bank total :700,446.27105 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 700,446.27Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report105 36Page: Packet Page 60 of 204 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC Revised 1/29/2015 Packet Page 61 of 204 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA Revised 1/29/2015 Packet Page 62 of 204 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB ENG Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF Revised 1/29/2015 Packet Page 63 of 204 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 1/29/2015 Packet Page 64 of 204 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 STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project 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 Revised 1/29/2015 Packet Page 65 of 204 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study 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 1/29/2015 Packet Page 66 of 204 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program STR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza PM c282 E8MA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM c290 E8MB Marina Beach Additional Parking STR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR c298 E8GA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR c301 E8GD City-Wide Sewer Improvements SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM c307 E9FB Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation STR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR c324 E0IA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM c326 E0FC Stormwater GIS Support FAC c327 E0LA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STR c329 E0AA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC c332 E0LB Senior Center Roof Repairs WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM c339 E1FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM c341 E1FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR c347 E1GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) Revised 1/29/2015 Packet Page 67 of 204 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR c363 E0JA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM c374 E1FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain STM c376 E1FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM c378 E2FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM c382 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project FAC c393 E3LA Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project STR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements STR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM c406 E3FA 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM c407 E3FB 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM c408 E3FC Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM c409 E3FD Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM c410 E3FE Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive PRK c417 E4MA City Spray Park WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC c419 E3LB ESCO III Project STR c420 E3AA School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant Revised 1/29/2015 Packet Page 68 of 204 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title STR c421 E3DA 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk WTR c422 E4JA 2014 Waterline Replacement Program STR c423 E3DB 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR c424 E3DC 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR c425 E3DD 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR c426 E3DE ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR c427 E3AB SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM c428 E3FF 190th Pl SW Wall Construction STM c429 E3FG Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM c430 E3FH SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM c433 E4FA 2014 Drainage Improvements STM c434 E4FB LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM c435 E4FC 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM c436 E4FD 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STR c438 E4CA 2014 Overlay Program WTR c440 E4JB 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c441 E4GA 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC c443 E4MB Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab FAC c444 E4LA Public Safety Controls System Upgrades WWTP c446 E4HA Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR c451 E4CB 2014 Chip Seals STR c452 E4CC 2014 Waterline Overlays ENG c453 E4DA Train Trench - Concept STR c454 E4DB SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing STM c455 E4FE Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR c456 E4GB Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I STM c459 E4FF Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines WTR c460 E4JC 2016 Water Comp Plan Update SWR c461 E4GC Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STR c462 E4CD 220th Street Overlay Project STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 1/29/2015 Packet Page 69 of 204 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number ENG Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB Revised 1/29/2015 Packet Page 70 of 204 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STM NPDES m013 E7FG STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC Revised 1/29/2015 Packet Page 71 of 204 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA Revised 1/29/2015 Packet Page 72 of 204    AM-7445     4. C.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:02/03/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Linda Hynd Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Amanda Bosaw (amount undetermined) and the City of Edmonds (amount undetermined) Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Amanda Bosaw 18404 Blue Ridge Dr. Lynnwood, WA 98037 (amount undetermined) City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 (amount undetermined) Attachments A. Bosaw Claim for Damages Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 01/27/2015 12:56 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/28/2015 12:00 PM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 01/27/2015 12:06 PM Final Approval Date: 01/28/2015  Packet Page 73 of 204 Packet Page 74 of 204 Packet Page 75 of 204 Packet Page 76 of 204    AM-7446     4. D.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:02/03/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Action  Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Shannon & Wilson for the final feasibility study of the Willow Creek Daylight project, to perform additional work for the Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project, and to Reduce the Flooding at Dayton St. and SR104. Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign the Supplemental Agreement. Previous Council Action On March 18, 2014, Council approved a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Shannon & Wilson for $314,459 to complete the final feasibility study of the Willow Creek Daylighting and perform additional work for the Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project. On January 27, 2015, staff presented a Supplemental Agreement with Shannon & Wilson to Council for the final feasibility study of the Willow Creek Daylight project, to perform additional work for the Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project, and to Reduce the Flooding at Dayton St. and SR104. Narrative The original scope and budget for this PSA (No. 6208) had several assumptions that have now changed.  In addition, the Willow Creek daylighting alternatives that are planned through Marina Beach Park have to be coordinated with the ongoing master planning process for that park.   The original scope assumed the City could get access to the Unocal/Chevron property for surveying.  A portion of the proposed daylighted channel would run through the southwest portion of this property. The property also contains obsolete culverts within the current open-channel portion of Willow Creek.  The original scope assumed that the City would have access to these culverts to design and permit their removal.  The City did not obtain access to the Unocal/Chevron property due to company policy prohibiting third parties on their property during an open environmental case with Washington Department of Ecology.   This supplement modifies Tasks 3 and removes Tasks 10 and 11 from the original scope (related to work on the Unocal/Chevron property).  It reallocates the funds towards the following added tasks: Task 13 - Harbor Square Outfall Storm Improvements Task 14 - Dayton St. Isolation Survey Task 15 - Dayton St. Isolation Analysis and Design Task 16 - Dayton St. Isolation and Harbor Square Outfall Permits Task 17 - Upper Marsh and Tributary Connection Surveys Packet Page 77 of 204 Task 18 - Management Reserve Tasks 13 through 16 are part of the recommendations in the July 2013 Dayton Street and SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives Study . Adding these tasks plus Task 17 to this PSA is an efficient way of making headway on both the Willow Creek Daylight/Marsh Project and the Dayton St. and SR 104 Drainage Project.   In addition, Task 12 (Public Outreach Meeting) has been revised to include consultant time to participate in the Marina Beach master planning project.  The master planning process has also extended the schedule for the project by seven months increasing the project management costs. Fiscal Impact The aforementioned deletions, changes, and added scope result in a net increase in the PSA by $38,160. Additional Tasks 13 through 16 total $61,559 and will be funded though the Dayton St. and SR 104 Drainage Project.    Note that the City has separate PSA for $90,877 with another consultant (The Louis Berger Group, Inc., formerly SAIC who completed the Dayton Street and SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives Study) to perform predesign services for a stormwater pump station on Dayton St. This pump station was also a recommended by the Dayton Street and SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives Study. With the PSA for the pump station plus addition of Tasks 13 through 16 and part of Task 18, the current 2015 authorization of $100,000 for the Dayton St. and SR 104 Drainage Project will be exceeded.  A “carry forward” budget amendment will be presented to Council in February 2015 to move $68,000 from this project authorized but unused in 2014 to the 2015 authorization.  The expenditures for the Dayton St. and SR 104 Drainage Project that exceed the current $100,000 authorization will only be expended by the consultants, if and when the “carry forward” budget amendment is approved by Council.   Task 17 and part of Task 18 will be funded by Willow Creek Daylight/Edmonds Marsh Project. The portion of the PSA funded by the Willow Creek Daylight/Edmonds Marsh Project will decrease by $29,664.   None of the affected tasks are funded by the current or most recently awarded Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) grants. Attachments Shannon & Wilson Supplemental Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 01/29/2015 10:47 AM Public Works Phil Williams 01/29/2015 11:48 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 01/29/2015 12:43 PM Mayor Dave Earling 01/29/2015 01:43 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/29/2015 03:30 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 01/28/2015 02:11 PM Final Approval Date: 01/29/2015  Packet Page 78 of 204 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, and Shannon & Wilson, Inc. , hereinafter referred to as the “Consultant”, entered into an underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration project, dated March 26, 2014; and WHEREAS, additional work has been identified for the final feasibility study of the Willow Creek Daylight project; to perform additional work for the Edmonds Marsh project; and to reduce flooding at Dayton Street & SR104; NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The underlying Agreement of March 26, 2014 between the parties, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects: 1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 1.2 The $314,459 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $38,160 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this supplemental agreement. As a result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract amount is increased to a new total not-to-exceed amount of $352,619 ($314,459 plus $38,160). 1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached Exhibit A to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 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. Packet Page 79 of 204 DONE this day of , 20 . CITY OF EDMONDS SHANNON & WILSON, INC. By: By: Mayor David O. Earling Title: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20____, before me, the under-signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Page 80 of 204 ALASKA CALIFORNIA COLORADO FLORIDA MISSOURI OREGON WASHINGTON 400 NORTH 34th STREET – SUITE 100 PO BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WA 98103 206-632-8020 FAX 206-695-6777 TDD: 1-800-833-6388 www.shannonwilson.com 21-1-12393-401 January 22, 2015 Mr. Jerry Shuster Stormwater Engineering Program Manager City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: PROPOSAL – AMENDMENT TO MODIFY SCOPE AND BUDGET WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT, FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF EDMONDS CONTRACT NO. 6208 Dear Mr. Shuster: I am submitting this letter to request an amendment to our existing contract number 6208 issued by the City of Edmonds (the City) on March 26, 2014. The amendment includes reassignment of scope and budget from unused design and permitting tasks to new design and permitting tasks associated with the Willow Creek Daylight, and Dayton Street and State Route (SR) -104 stormwater projects, and request for additional funding. The proposal herein summarizes the changes, transfers of scope, revised budget and schedule. REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES The following items shall be deleted from the scope of services:  Task 10. Willow Creek Abandoned Culvert Removal Design  Task 11. Willow Creek Abandoned Culvert Removal Permits The following items shall be added/revised in the scope of services. Task 1. Project Management (REVISE)  Assumptions – Work period occurs March 1 through December 2014 July 2015. Packet Page 81 of 204 Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds January 22, 2015 Page 2 of 9 21-1-12393-401-L5/wp/cp 21-1-12393-401 Task 3. Topographic Survey (REVISE) The primary features to be surveyed include:  Daylight channel area – BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) railway crossing, future daylight channel, and Chevron Environmental Management Company (Chevron)/Unocal property bordering the daylight channel. Consultant will provide BNSF right-of-entry using BNSF’s temporary occupancy permit process. (REVISE)  Abandoned culvert demolition area. Complete topographic surveys and perform survey of wetland and OHW delineations. (REVISE) Task 12. Public Outreach Meetings (REVISE) Consultant will develop an oversize figure and presentation and attend one public outreach meeting related to the Willow Creek Daylight Feasibility Study. The Consultant will prepare and attend up to three additional preparation and public meetings associated with the Marina Beach Park Master Plan. Deliverables  Public outreach meeting materials. Assumptions  Not applicable. Task 13. Harbor Square Outfall Stormwater Improvements (ADD) The Consultant will use modeling information from the Willow Creek Daylight and Dayton Street Stormwater improvement studies and topographic surveys to evaluate pipe elevation, tidal backflow, and flood conditions for design of tidegates and grading of outfall channels at the Harbor Square Stormwater Outfalls (Attachment A-1). The target design elevations will be documented in a letter report to the City. Upon approval of the recommendations by the City, the Consultant will prepare a drawing set and construction cost estimate for the proposed improvements. It is anticipated to include a cover sheet and one detail sheet. The Consultant will prepare a bid package assuming the City’s Small Works contract procedure. Packet Page 82 of 204 Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds January 22, 2015 Page 3 of 9 21-1-12393-401-L5/wp/cp 21-1-12393-401 Deliverables  Harbor Square Outfall DRAFT Letter Report and 90 Percent Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate (2 paper copies, 1 electronic copy)  Harbor Square Outfall FINAL Letter Report and Final Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate (2 paper copies, 1 electronic copy) Assumptions  Topographic survey in the Harbor Square Outfall areas are complete.  Digital format shall be AutoCAD using the City’s CAD Standards.  Dewatering will be required and dewatering plans are not included in the design and assumed to be the Contractor’s responsibility.  Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) will use City standards and a separate TESC sheet is not necessary.  No utility relocations are required.  Stormwater improvements do not require geotechnical design and can use standard plans and specifications.  Construction Contractor will prepare required traffic control plans.  Improvements are generally simple in nature and it is assumed Consultant can proceed directly to 90 Percent design. Task 14. Dayton Isolation Survey (ADD) The additional features to be surveyed are the Dayton Street isolation berm areas north of the Shellabarger Creek marsh. The Consultant will perform limited topographic survey of the project area to support analysis and design of the proposed improvements (Attachment A-1). The survey shall include the following:  Topographic survey of an approximate 20- x 20-foot area around the proposed new manhole including all underground utilities (see Attachment A-1). The survey shall also pick up the pipe invert elevations of the closest upstream and downstream manholes that extend beyond the survey area for both the Dayton Street System and the ferry queuing area drainage system.  The existing manhole along SR 104 to be plugged (including type, size, invert elevations, pipe sizes, materials, and rim elevation).  1-foot topographic survey approximately 50- x 50-foot wide area just north of the 24-inch pipe inlet. Within this area, locate surface features (lane edges, abandoned Packet Page 83 of 204 Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds January 22, 2015 Page 4 of 9 21-1-12393-401-L5/wp/cp 21-1-12393-401 ferry queuing lane edge, sidewalk, pavement edge, trees, shrubs), changes in grade, and low point along gravel shoulder.  Surveyed cross sections (at approximately 75-foot intervals) between the above topographic surveyed area and Dayton Street. The sections shall extend from the east travel lane on SR 104 to the existing right-of-way. Survey shall pick up lane edges, abandoned ferry queuing lane edge, sidewalk, pavement edge, changes in grade, and low point in section. There shall be approximately five survey cross sections.  Survey of wetland boundary and Ordinary High Water (OHW) markers. The Consultant shall include this information on an AutoCAD base map covering the surveyed areas. Property lines shall be shown based on assessor maps. Deliverables:  Draft Survey CAD file  Final Survey CAD file (incorporating any comments from design team and/or City) Assumptions:  Datum shall be City of Edmonds  Traffic control permits will be obtained by Survey Subconsultant  Digital format shall be AutoCAD using the City’s CAD standards Task 15. Dayton Street Stormwater Isolation Stormwater Analysis and Design Consultant shall update the previously prepared XP SWMM model of this system to include the additional Dayton Street isolation topographic survey information, isolation berms and pipe plugging and new connections between the Dayton Street and Ferry Queuing area drainage system. Modeling simulations will include the 2- and 25-year storm events. Using the modeling results, the Consultant will evaluate the need for an isolation berm near the 24-inch pipe inlet. The berm was proposed as the ultimate solution in this area; it may not be appropriate as an early action improvement until such time as other improvements are made to the Shellabarger Creek system (because in the interim it could potentially lead to increased flooding of SR-104). The Consultant will use the model and make a recommendation to the City summarized in a letter report. The letter report will include recommendations for the improvements to be advanced to design as well as summarize applicable permits identified in the following task. A site visit and geotechnical review of existing reports and information in the Dayton Street and Harbor Square area will be used to provide preliminary foundation and construction design recommendations for the new catch basins and isolation berm. Packet Page 84 of 204 Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds January 22, 2015 Page 5 of 9 21-1-12393-401-L5/wp/cp 21-1-12393-401 Upon approval of the recommendations by the City, the Consultant will prepare a drawing set and construction cost estimate for the proposed improvements. It is anticipated to include a cover sheet and one detail sheet. The Consultant will prepare a bid package assuming the City’s Small Works contract procedure. Deliverables  Dayton Street Stormwater Isolation DRAFT Letter Report (2 paper copies, 1 electronic copy)  Dayton Street Stormwater Isolation Geotechnical Design Recommendations (2 paper copies, 1 electronic copy)  Dayton Street Stormwater Isolation DRAFT 90 Percent Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate (2 paper copies, 1 electronic copy)  Dayton Street Stormwater Isolation FINAL Letter Report and Final Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate (2 paper copies, 1 electronic copy) Assumptions  Digital format shall be AutoCAD using the City’s CAD Standards.  Geotechnical design recommendations will be based on reports and data to be provided by the City. No field explorations or laboratory analysis will be performed.  Dewatering will be required and dewatering plans are not included in the design and assumed to be the Contractor’s responsibility.  TESC will use City standards and a separate TESC sheet is not necessary.  No utility relocations are required.  Stormwater improvements do not require geotechnical design and can use standard plans and specifications.  Construction Contractor will prepare required traffic control plans.  Improvements are generally simple in nature and it is assumed Consultant can proceed directly to 90 Percent design. Task 16. Dayton Street Isolation and Harbor Square Outfall Permits This task involves permitting the Dayton Street Isolation and the Harbor Square Outfall retrofits in Tasks 13 and 15. The Consultant will provide environmental studies and supporting documents, as well as develop the permit applications for the construction plans. Permits included in this scope of services include: Packet Page 85 of 204 Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds January 22, 2015 Page 6 of 9 21-1-12393-401-L5/wp/cp 21-1-12393-401  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 Nationwide Permit 27 for Habitat Restoration)  Endangered Species Act review  Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval  City Shoreline and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Exemption  The Consultant will provide coordination with the permit agencies and respond to comments. Deliverables  Wetland and OHW delineation  Special Project Information Form for Endangered Species Act review under the Programmatic Restoration Biological Assessment  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Limit 8 form  Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application  Shoreline and SEPA exemption letter Assumptions  The project will falls within a SEPA and Shoreline exemption and we will provide a letter describing how the projects fall within these exemptions.  Costs for permit application fees are not included.  City will apply for any grading, demolition or other local permits that may be required.  Section 106, Department of Archaeological and Historic Preservation and tribal consultation will occur separately from this task.  90 percent plans will be submitted with the permits. Task 17. Upper Marsh and Tributary Connection Surveys The restoration project includes excavations of the upper marsh to connect Willow and Shellabarger Creeks to the tidal channels and mudflat areas. Currently, this area of the marsh is covered with dense cattails, and development of a natural tidal connection through erosion processes would take considerable time. The survey will be performed to provide a base map and support design of the tributary “creek” connections with the tidal channels in the Preliminary Design Phase of work. Packet Page 86 of 204 Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds January 22, 2015 Page 7 of 9 21-1-12393-401-L5/wp/cp 21-1-12393-401 Deliverables:  Draft Survey CAD file  Final Survey CAD file (incorporating any comments from design team and/or City) Assumptions:  Datum shall be City of Edmonds  Digital format shall be AutoCAD using City’s CAD standards Task 18. Management Reserve This task is a budget reserve item for unforeseen project circumstances. The management reserve will be made available upon authorization of the City of Edmonds Project Manager. Authorization by the City’s Project Manager will include a written summary of the additional scope, budget, deliverables, schedule and cost associated with assigned Management Reserve tasks. REVISED COST Table 1 summarizes the revised cost estimate for this contract amendment (see enclosed). The revised costs include the following deductions, transfers and additions:  Task 11 – Abandoned Task 2 – Cultural Resources (COMPLETE – ON BUDGET)  Task 3 – Survey and Utility Locates (COMPLETE – UNDER BUDGET BY $3,914)  Task 6 – Geotechnical Assessment (COMPLETE – UNDER BUDGET BY $7,244)  Task 8 – Landowner Working Meetings (IN PROGRESS – UNDER BUDGET BY $3,300)  Task 10 – Abandoned Culvert Design (NOT USED – AVAILABLE BUDGET $18,005)  Culvert Permits (NOT USED – AVAILABLE BUDGET $22,210) The current underrun budget available for transfer is $51,373, not including $3,369 that would remain in Task 8 for additional Marina Beach Park Master Plan. The $51,373 funds can be used to transfer to new tasks or add scope to existing tasks. The proposed, additional scope budgets are summarized below and shown in Table 1.  Task 1 – Project Management (6-month Extension – $2,200 Add. Note – The $2,200 amount is equal to the $2,200 originally shown for subconsultant management, but not calculated in Shannon & Wilson, Inc.’s [S&W’s] March 2014 proposal.) Packet Page 87 of 204 Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds January 22, 2015 Page 8 of 9 21-1-12393-401-L5/wp/cp 21-1-12393-401  Task 8 – Landowner Working Meetings (Transfer $3,300 budget underrun to Task 12 Public Outreach Meetings).  Task 12 – Public Outreach Meetings (Add scope for 3 additional public outreach meetings and transfer $3,300 from Task 8).  Task 13 – Harbor Square Outfall Retrofit (Add scope for outfall flapgate and tidal channel retrofit design plans and specifications for budget of $8,595).  Task 14 –Dayton Street Isolation, Topographic Survey (Add scope for topographic survey at Dayton Street Isolation area for budget of $7,500).  Task 15 – Dayton Street Isolation, Design (Add scope for design of Dayton Street Isolation from Shellabarger Creek for budget of $18,703).  Task 16 – Permits for Dayton Street Isolation and Harbor Square Outfall Retrofits (Add scope for design of Dayton Street and Harbor Square permits for budget of $23,470).  Task 17 – Upper Marsh and Tributary Connection Surveys (Add scope for surveys for budget of $10,754). The additional work amendment budget total is $61,342 (Table 1), which does not include using the $3,369 for Marina Beach Park Master Plan meeting attendance. An additional $38,160 is needed to accommodate the additions, deletions, and transfers shown in Table 2. The revise the total contract value would be $352,619. REVISED SCHEDULE The project schedule has been extended to mirror the Marina Beach Park Master Plan (Table 3). The Willow Creek Daylight schedule needs to extend through July 31, 2015, to accommodate incorporating information from the Marina Beach Park Master Plan, completing the Feasibility Study, and providing final invoicing to the City. LIMITATIONS S&W has prepared the enclosed, “Important Information About Your Geotechnical/ Environmental Proposal” to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our proposals. Packet Page 88 of 204 Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds January 22, 2015 Page 9 of 9 21-1-12393-401-L5/wp/cp 21-1-12393-401 We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal and be of service to you. Please let me know if you have questions regarding this proposal. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. David Cline, P.E., C.F.M. Vice President – Hydraulic Engineer DRC/drc Enc: Table 1 – Amendment 1 – Cost Estimate Table 2 – Amendment 1 – Cost Addition, Deletions, Transfer Summary Table 3 – Revised Schedule Attachment A-1 – Dayton Isolation Survey Area Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Proposal Packet Page 89 of 204 TA B L E 1 AM E N D M E N T 1 - C O S T E S T I M A T E SHANNON & WILSON, INC. PI C ( V . P . ) P r o j . M a n . G e o t e c h / C i v Ci v i l , Ge o t e c h , B i o C A D / G I S Ad m i n , Re p r o , W P HO U R TO T A L HO U R L A B O R SU B T O T A L S & W E x p e n s e A n c h o r Q E A C o n f l . C R C L o u i s B e r g e r D H A EXPENSE SUBTOTAL Bi l l i n g C a t e g o r y VP ( P r i n c ) S r . A s s o c . S r . P r o f P r o f I V . S r . T e c h S r . A d m i n Ta s k s De s c r i p t i o n $2 2 5 . 0 0 $ 1 8 5 . 0 0 $ 1 2 5 . 0 0 $ 1 1 5 . 0 0 $ 9 5 . 0 0 $ 9 0 . 0 0 1 Pr o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t 012 0 0 0 0 1 2 $ 2 , 2 2 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2 , 2 2 0 Mo n t h l y M e e t i n g s / C a l l s ( 6 - M o n t h s t o J u l y 2 0 1 5 ) 12 1 2 $ 2 , 2 2 0 $2,220 13 De s i g n - H a r b o r S q u a r e O u t f a l l R e t r o f i t 1 4 4 8 0 0 1 7 7 0 $ 8 , 4 9 5 $ 1 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1 0 0 $ 8 , 5 9 5 St o r m w a t e r T i d a l a n d F l o o d E l e v a t i o n R e v i e w 41 5 $ 5 9 0 $590 Pe r m i t C o o r d i n a t i o n 44 $ 5 0 0 $500 De s i g n a n d C o s t E s t i m a t e 1 4 4 0 1 6 6 1 $ 7 , 4 0 5 $ 1 0 0 $7,505 14 Da y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n - T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y 10 4 0 4 0 9 $ 1 , 1 0 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 4 , 7 5 2 $ 4 , 7 5 2 $ 5 , 8 5 7 Da y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n - T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y 14 4 9 $ 1 , 1 0 5 $4,752 $ 5 , 8 5 7 15 Da y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n - D e s i g n 9 2 1 8 0 1 4 4 4 7 $ 6 , 3 3 5 $ 1 3 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1 7 , 1 6 8 $ 0 $ 1 7 , 3 0 2 $ 2 3 , 6 3 7 Su r v e y C o o r d i n a t i o n 22 4 $ 4 4 0 $ 9 0 3 $ 1 , 3 4 3 St o r m w a t e r A n a l y s i s D a y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n 11 $ 1 2 5 $ 4 , 8 8 6 $ 5 , 0 1 1 Pe r m i t C o o r d i n a t i o n 11 $ 1 2 5 $ 1 0 , 7 2 8 $ 1 0 , 8 5 3 Ge o t e c h n i c a l D e s i g n R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s 81 2 1 2 4 3 6 $ 4 , 8 0 0 $ 1 3 5 $4,935 De s i g n a n d C o s t E s t i m a t e 12 2 5 $ 8 4 5 $ 6 5 0 $ 1 , 4 9 5 16 Pe r m i t s - D a y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n a n d H a r b o r S q u a r e O u t f a l l R e t r o f i t 11 2 0 1 3 7 3 5 1 4 1 9 9 $ 2 3 , 1 8 5 $ 2 8 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2 3 , 4 7 0 We t l a n d D e l i n e a t i o n / O r d i n a r y H i g h W a t e r 24 0 1 5 4 6 1 $ 6 , 8 3 5 $ 3 5 $6,870 Sp e c i a l P r o j e c t I n f o r m a t i o n F o r m f o r P r o g r a m m a t i c R e s t o r a t i o n B i o l o g i c a l As s e s s m e n t 22 5 4 3 1 $ 3 , 6 8 5 $ 5 0 $3,735 Jo i n t A q u a t i c R e s o u r c e P e r m i t A p p l i c a t i o n 23 2 2 0 4 5 8 $ 6 , 3 9 0 $ 5 0 $6,440 Li m i t 8 C e r t i f i c a t i o n f o r S a l m o n R e c o v e r y F u n d i n g B o a r d R e q u i r e m e n t 14 5 $ 6 8 5 $ 5 0 $735 St a t e E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y A c t / S h o r e l i n e E x e m p t i o n 22 0 2 2 4 $ 2 , 9 3 0 $ 5 0 $2,980 Pe r m i t C o o r d i n a t i o n 2 2 1 6 2 0 $ 2 , 6 6 0 $ 5 0 $2,710 17 Up p e r M a r s h a n d T r i b u t a r y C o n n e c t i o n - T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y 10 4 0 4 0 9 $ 1 , 1 0 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 9 , 6 4 9 $ 9 , 6 4 9 $ 1 0 , 7 5 4 Da y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y 14 4 9 $1 , 1 0 5 $9,649 $10,754 18 Ma n a g e m e n t R e s e r v e 00 0 0 0 0 - $1 5 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 Su b t o t a l 23 20 74 13 7 57 35 34 6 $5 7 , 4 4 5 $5 1 9 $0 $0 $0 $ 1 7 , 1 6 8 $ 1 4 , 4 0 1 $ 3 1 , 8 0 3 $89,533 Un i t A m o u n t U n i t P r i c e T o t a l 13 Su b c o n s u l t a n t D e s i g n o f D a y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n A r e a LS 1 $ 1 7 , 1 6 8 . 0 0 $ 1 7 , 1 6 8 14 Su b c o n s u t l a n t S u r v e y o f D a y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n A r e a LS 1 $ 4 , 7 5 2 . 0 0 $ 4 , 7 5 2 15 Da y t o n I s o l a t i o n G e o t e c h n i c a l F i e l d V i s i t MI 60 $0 . 5 8 $ 3 5 15 Da y t o n I s o l a t i o n G e o t e c h n i c a l R e p o r t LS 1 $1 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 0 0 15 Ha r b o r S q u a r e D e s i g n R e p o r t LS 1 $1 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 0 0 16 We t l a n d D e l i n e a t i o n / O H W F i e l d T r a v e l MI 60 $0 . 5 8 $ 3 5 16 We t l a n d D e l i n e a t i o n / O H W / P e r m i t R e p o r t s LS 1 $2 5 0 . 0 0 $ 2 5 0 17 Su b c o n s u t l a n t S u r v e y o f U p p e r M a r s h T r i b u t a r y C o n n e c t i o n s LS 1 $ 9 , 6 4 9 . 0 0 $ 9 , 6 4 9 To t a l R e i m b u r s a b l e s $3 2 , 0 8 7 No t e s : EA = e a c h GI S = g e o g r a p h i c i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m OH W = o r d i n a r y h i g h w a t e r PI C = P r i n c i p a l - i n - C h a r g e Pr o f . = P r o f e s s i o n a l Re p r o - R e p r o d u c t i o n V. P . = V i c e P r e s i d e n t WP = W o r d P r o c e s s i n g Ex p l a n a t i o n o f R e i m b u r s a b l e E x p e n s e s Ta s k s La b o r TotalExpenses 21 - 1 - 1 2 3 9 3 - 4 0 1 - L 5 - T a b l e s 21-1-12393-401 Packet Page 90 of 204 TA B L E 2 AM E N D M E N T 1 - C O S T A D D I T I O N S , D E L E T I O N S , T R A N S F E R S S U M M A R Y SH A N N O N & W I L S O N , I N C . Bi l l i n g C a t e g o r y Ta s k s De s c r i p t i o n 1 Pr o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t $1 0 , 8 7 2 $2 , 2 2 0 $13,092 2 Cu l t u r a l R e s o u r c e s R e v i e w $5 , 9 0 2 $0 $5,902 3 Su r v e y a n d U t i l i t y L o c a t e s $3 3 , 5 6 0 -$ 3 , 9 1 4 $29,646 4 Be a c h O u t l e t E v a l u a t i o n $3 3 , 6 6 6 $0 $33,666 5 Hy d r o d y n a m i c M o d e l i n g S t u d y $5 9 , 5 1 2 $0 $59,512 6 Ge o t e c h n i c a l A s s e s s m e n t $5 4 , 5 0 3 -$ 7 , 2 4 4 $47,259 7 Co n t a m i n a t e d S o i l s A s s e s s m e n t $2 5 , 0 5 8 $0 $25,058 8 Wo r ki ng M e e t i ng s w i t h C h ev r o n , B N S F R a il wa y C o m p a n y , a n d o t h er s t a k e h o ld er s $1 6 , 2 6 4 -$ 3 , 3 0 0 $12,964 9 Fi n a l F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y R e p o r t $3 1 , 9 0 9 $0 $31,909 10 Wi l l o w C r e e k - A b a n d o n e d C u l v e r t D e s i g n $1 8 , 0 0 5 -$ 1 8 , 0 0 5 $0 11 Wi l l o w C r e e k - A b a n d o n e d C u l v e r t P e r m i t s $2 2 , 2 1 0 - $ 2 2 , 2 1 0 $ 0 12 Pu b l i c O u t r e a c h M e e t i n g $2 , 9 9 8 $ 3 , 3 0 0 $ 6 , 2 9 8 13 Ha r b o r S q u a r e O u t f a l l R e t r o f i t - D e s i g n $0 $ 8 , 5 9 5 $ 8 , 5 9 5 14 Da y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n - T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y $0 $ 5 , 8 5 7 $ 5 , 8 5 7 15 Da y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n - D e s i g n $0 $ 2 3 , 6 3 7 $ 2 3 , 6 3 7 16 Pe r m i t s - D a y t o n S t r e e t I s o l a t i o n a n d H a r b o r S q u a r e O u t f a l l R e t r o f i t $0 $ 2 3 , 4 7 0 $ 2 3 , 4 7 0 17 Up p e r M a r s h a n d T r i b u t a r y C o n n e c t i o n - T o p o g r a p h i c S u r v e y $0 $ 1 0 , 7 5 4 $ 1 0 , 7 5 4 18 Ma n a g e m e n t R e s e r v e $0 $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 Su b t o t a l $3 1 4 , 4 5 9 $ 3 8 , 1 6 0 $ 3 5 2 , 6 1 9 Am e n d m e n t T o t a l Ta s k s B a s e 21 - 1 - 1 2 3 9 3 - 4 0 1 - L 5 - T a b l e s 21-1-12393-401 Packet Page 91 of 204 TABLE 3 REVISED SCHEDULE SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Tasks Description Calendar Days Estimated Date NTP 0 3/15/14 2 Cultural Resources Review Borings and Explorations 30 4/14/14 2 Cultural Resources Review - Final 90 6/13/14 3 Survey 60 5/14/14 4 Beach Outlet Alternatives Analysis - Draft Report 321 1/30/15 4 Beach Outlet Alternatives Analysis - Final Report 340 2/18/15 5 Hydrodynamic Study - Draft Report 321 1/30/15 5 Hydrodynamic Study - Final Report 340 2/18/15 6 Geotechnical Assess - Draft Report 180 9/11/14 6 Geotechnical Assess - Final Report 210 10/11/14 7 Contaminated Soils Assess - Draft Report 321 1/30/15 7 Contaminated Soils Assess - Final Report 340 2/18/15 8 Working Meetings Chevron, BNSF, WSDOT Varies Varies 9 Final Feasibility Report - Draft 360 3/10/15 9 Final Feasibility Report - Final 480 7/8/15 10 Willow Creek Culvert Demo - Draft N/A N/A 10 Willow Creek Culvert Demo - Final N/A N/A 11 Willow Creek Culvert Demo - Draft Permits N/A N/A 11 Willow Creek Culvert Demo - Final Permits N/A N/A 12 Public Outreach Mtg TBD TBD 13 Harbor Square Outfall Retrofit - Draft 360 3/10/15 13 Harbor Square Outfall Retrofit - Final 390 4/9/15 15 Dayton Isolation - Draft 360 3/10/15 15 Dayton Isolation - Final 390 4/9/15 16 Permits 390 4/9/15 9 Final Feasibility Report - Final 480 7/8/15 Notes: BNSF = BNSF Railway Company WSDOT = Washington State Department of Transportation 21-1-12393-401-L5-Tables 21-1-12393-401 Packet Page 92 of 204 Packet Page 93 of 204 Page 1 of 2 1/2015 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Attachment to and part of Proposal 21-1-12393-401 Date: January 22, 2015 To: Mr. Jerry Shuster City of Edmonds IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL PROPOSAL More construction problems are caused by site subsurface conditions than any other factor. The following suggestions and observations are offered to help you manage your risks. HAVE REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS. If you have never before dealt with geotechnical or environmental issues, you should recognize that site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions at those points where samples are taken, at the time they are taken. The data derived are extrapolated by the consultant, who then applies judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions; their reaction to construction activity; appropriate design of foundations, slopes, impoundments, recovery wells; and other construction and/or remediation elements. Even under optimal circumstances, actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, because no consultant, no matter how qualified, and no subsurface program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock, and time. DEVELOP THE SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PLAN WITH CARE. The nature of subsurface explorations—the types, quantities, and locations of procedures used—in large measure determines the effectiveness of the geotechnical/environmental report and the design based upon it. The more comprehensive a subsurface exploration and testing program, the more information it provides to the consultant, helping to reduce the risk of unanticipated conditions and the attendant risk of costly delays and disputes. Even the cost of subsurface construction may be lowered. Developing a proper subsurface exploration plan is a basic element of geotechnical/environmental design, which should be accomplished jointly by the consultant and the client (or designated professional representatives). This helps the parties involved recognize mutual concerns and makes the client aware of the technical options available. Clients who develop a subsurface exploration plan without the involvement and concurrence of a consultant may be required to assume responsibility and liability for the plan's adequacy. READ GENERAL CONDITIONS CAREFULLY. Most consultants include standard general contract conditions in their proposals. One of the general conditions most commonly employed is to limit the consulting firm's liability. Known as a "risk allocation" or "limitation of liability," this approach helps prevent problems at the beginning and establishes a fair and reasonable framework for handling them, should they arise. Various other elements of general conditions delineate your consultant's responsibilities. These are used to help eliminate confusion and misunderstandings, thereby helping all parties recognize who is responsible for different tasks. In all cases, read your consultant's general conditions carefully and ask any questions you may have. HAVE YOUR CONSULTANT WORK WITH OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS. Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a consultant's report. To help avoid misinterpretations, retain your consultant to work with other project design professionals who are affected by the geotechnical/environmental report. This allows a consultant to explain report implications to design professionals affected by them, and to review their plans and specifications so that issues can be dealt with adequately. Although some other design professionals may be familiar with geotechnical/environmental concerns, none knows as much about them as a competent consultant. Packet Page 94 of 204 Page 2 of 2 1/2015 OBTAIN CONSTRUCTION MONITORING SERVICES. Most experienced clients also retain their consultant to serve during the construction phase of their projects. Involvement during the construction phase is particularly important because this permits the consultant to be on hand quickly to evaluate unanticipated conditions, to conduct additional tests if required, and when necessary, to recommend alternative solutions to problems. The consultant can also monitor the geotechnical/environmental work performed by contractors. It is essential to recognize that the construction recommendations included in a report are preliminary, because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Because actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork and/or drilling, design consultants need to observe those conditions in order to provide their recommendations. Only the consultant who prepares the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations are valid. The consultant submitting the report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of preliminary recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction. REALIZE THAT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. If you have requested only a geotechnical engineering proposal, it will not include services needed to evaluate the likelihood of contamination by hazardous materials or other pollutants. Given the liabilities involved, it is prudent practice to always have a site reviewed from an environmental viewpoint. A consultant cannot be responsible for failing to detect contaminants when the services needed to perform that function are not being provided. ONE OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF YOUR CONSULTANT IS TO PROTECT THE SAFETY, PROPERTY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. A geotechnical/environmental investigation will sometimes disclose the existence of conditions that may endanger the safety, health, property, or welfare of the public. Your consultant may be obligated under rules of professional conduct, or statutory or common law, to notify you and others of these conditions. RELY ON YOUR CONSULTANT FOR ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE. Your consulting firm is familiar with several techniques and approaches that can be used to help reduce risk exposure for all parties to a construction project, from design through construction. Ask your consultant, not only about geotechnical and environmental issues, but others as well, to learn about approaches that may be of genuine benefit. The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the ASFE/Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland Packet Page 95 of 204    AM-7456     6.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:02/03/2015 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted For:Shane Hope Submitted By:Shane Hope Department:Development Services Type: Information  Information Subject Title Public Hearing on Draft Utilities Element for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update Recommendation Consider the presented information and any public comments at the public hearing Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan contains a Utilities Element, which is proposed to be updated as part of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update.  A new Draft Utilities Element has been prepared.  It is attached in two versions, as follows: Attachment 1: Clean version of the Utilities Element (incorporating proposed changes). Attachment 2: Utilities Element showing edits from the existing adopted plan. For updating the Utilities Element, the general idea is to update references to the various adopted utility plans while removing out-of-date items. However, the Solid Waste section is new, since unlike the other utilities (water, sewer, and stormwater), the City does not have a separately adopted "solid waste plan".  For ease of being able to follow any comments/questions, we suggest working off the "Clean" version contained in Attachment 1. On January 14, the Planning Board considered the draft Utilities Element, suggested changes, and recommended that the City Council review the attached draft. After the City Council's February 3 public hearing, the City Council will have a February 10 study session on this draft element. Attachments Attachment 1: Utilities Element, clean version Attachment 2: Utilities Element, showing proposed edits Form Review Packet Page 96 of 204 Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 01/29/2015 03:30 PM Mayor Dave Earling 01/29/2015 03:33 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/30/2015 07:34 AM Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 01/29/2015 02:02 PM Final Approval Date: 01/30/2015  Packet Page 97 of 204 Utilities Element Potable Water Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies The City of Edmonds has for many years acquired all of its finished water under a long-term wholesale purchase agreement with the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District (AWWD). AWWD, in turn, purchases its water from the City of Everett’s regional water system. Everett’s water source is the upper Sultan River and the water from that basin is collected in Spada Lake, approximately 30 miles east of downtown Everett. It flows from there to Chaplain Reservoir where it is treated and placed into one of four large transmission main lines that move it westward to the urbanized areas of Snohomish County. The City of Edmonds distributes this water on a retail basis to our customers and bills them for this service. Edmonds provides for operation, maintenance, capital improvements, and replacement of the “end-user” system that provides storage to cover peak usage periods and that further provides required fire protection volumes, and maintains the required the minimum and maximum allowable pressures. Goals, policies, and design criteria for operating this system are developed as part of the City’s Comprehensive Water System Plan and assist the Utility in establishing priorities for both its operation and maintenance budgets as well as its six-year and 20-year Capital Improvement Plans. These goals, policies, and design criteria are found in Chapter 5, Policies and Design Criteria, in the 2010 Water System Plan under the following sections: water service, water supply, and facility policies and design criteria. The City’s financial policies are described in Chapter 10 of the Water System Plan and include a recommended utility rate structure and an asset management-based replacement program designed to provide adequate on-going revenues to fully fund operations, maintenance, debt service and the recommended Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The Edmonds City Council made a decision after the approval of the 2010 Water System Plan to adopt a rate structure that has been designed to fund from current rate revenues a very long range program of replacing its aging network of water mains rather than using debt financing to fund that program. As a result rates have been adjusted in each of three recent years to get closer to that goal. The plan is to examine the utility’s financial capacity after the third year of this effort and make a decision whether or not to continue that rate adjustment for the remaining three years. Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies The City’s policy for sewer service recognizes its function is not to determine allowable land uses within its service area but to respond to the capacity and service levels needs necessary to support the land uses approved in the City’s land use planning processes. Development of the City’s Comprehensive sewer plan is currently guided by policies adopted by City Council and by the Comprehensive Plans from adjacent agencies. These plans provide guidance to the City for management and operation of its sewer system and set the timing for expansions and upgrades to sewer infrastructure over the next thirty years. The Plan serves as a guide for policy development and decision making for the City. It also provides other agencies and the public with information regarding the City’s plans for sewer system extensions within its service area. This approach allows the City to maintain its goal of providing high quality service to its customers while protecting Packet Page 98 of 204 environmental quality, primarily the water quality of both Puget Sound and the coastal streams located in Edmonds. The Plan evaluates existing and future capacity, material types of the various pieces of infrastructure, pipe inspection assessments of the sewer system, anticipated future wastewater flow rates, and the structural condition of the sewer collection system. Future wastewater flow rates are estimated from existing flow data using population growth projected within the sewer service area. This growth rate is expected to continue to be modest at an average of 0.5% per year. An implementation plan is provided as part of the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan, including an estimated timeline for constructing selected projects that are in need of maintenance or upsizing. The financial analysis includes asset management of the system along with a utility rate structure to support the policies and goals set forth in the adopted Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan. Similar to the Water Utility, as noted above, the Sewer Utility has embarked on a program to convert from debt-financing pipe replacements to one where the program can be funded directly from rate revenues. Storm and Surface Water Management Goals and Policies The City owns and operates an extensive system of drainage pipes and ditches to convey stormwater runoff to streams, lakes, and Puget Sound that are designed to prevent and minimize damage to private property, streets, and other infrastructure. Due to extensive alteration of the natural landscape in most areas of the City from development, the amount of stormwater that runs off the land in larger storm events is substantial, and runoff in all storm events carries a variety of pollutants that wash off of their source areas into receiving waters. The City is faced with the challenge of conveying stormwater runoff safely and cost-effectively while preventing or minimizing adverse high flow impacts (erosion, flooding, and sediment deposition), water quality degradation in lakes and streams receiving runoff, and degradation of aquatic habitat caused by high flows and water quality degradation. The NPDES Phase II permit has and will continue to have a significant impact on the workload and operational budget of the both the Engineering Division and the Storm Crews within the Public Works Department. Approximately 2/3 or more of the total stormwater operational budget is spent on permit-related compliance programs Goal and policies have been developed to guide the Utility to tackle the issues at hand. These goals and polices, once approved by the City Council, will replace those in the listed in the “Water Resources and Drainage Management” land use element of the City’s current Comprehensive Plan (Edmonds 2009). These current goals and policies were first approved in 1985. Over the past 25 years, the practice of stormwater management has changed significantly. These new goals and policies reflect that change. Once this plan is approved by Council, it will be incorporated by reference in the Utility Element section of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Four goals have been developed by the City for this plan. Storm and Surface Water Management Goal A. Manage the storm and surface water system by combining preservation of natural systems and engineered solutions to: • Provide for public safety; • Minimize property damage; Packet Page 99 of 204 • Preserve and enhance critical areas; • Promote sustainability; • Comply with applicable local, state, and Federal regulations. Storm and Surface Water Management Goal B. To preserve, protect, and (where feasible) restore surface water resources to provide beneficial uses to humans, fish, and wildlife. Storm and Surface Water Management Goal C. Use public education to increase understanding of sustainability and other environmental values to help protect surface water resources. Storm and Surface Water Management Goal D. Provide adequate funding through an equitable stormwater utility rate structure and outside funding sources to support necessary programs (including asset management-based replacement program) that meet goals A, B, and C. To accomplish these goals, the City developed guiding policies for the flood protection, water quality, aquatic habitat, and stormwater utility funding program areas. More detailed goals and polcies are in the current adopted version of the Storm and Suface Water Comprehensive Management Plan. Solid Waste Solid waste collection and disposal is a sophisticated system that continues to evolve in using the most efficient and economical methods. Waste prevention and recycling have risen to become an elemental part of solid waste management planning. Curbside recycling, along with yard and food waste collection service, has become the norm as everyday activities for most residences, businesses, and schools. Engagement in these beneficial behaviors conserves resources, reduces litter, saves energy and contributes to greenhouse gas reduction efforts. The City is a signatory on the Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Comprehensive Plan and an active participant on the County’s Solid Waste Advisory Committee. The County Plan provides a blueprint for which the City is able to provide education and outreach to all sectors in regards to proper disposal and recycling, and opportunities for collection and proper handling of several common unwanted materials. Solid Waste Goal A. The City of Edmonds shall continue to support and follow the directives outlined in the Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Comprehensive Plan, including: A.1 Work directly with County Solid Waste staff to implement recommendations that strengthen recycling, organics diversion, waste prevention, and product strewardship programs. A.2 Support the County’s initiatives to work with the certified solid waste haulers to harmonize services and communication formats, and to expand their educational efforts, especially classroom workshops and presentations in the schools. Solid Waste Goal B. The City of Edmonds should strengthen local controls over collection of solid waste in accordance to the following policies: B.1 Investigate the requirement for city-wide mandatory garbage collection, combined with recycling services. Packet Page 100 of 204 B.2 Update and revise the original Recycling Ordinance to reflect current and alternative collection methods and service scenarios. Solid Waste Goal C. The City of Edmonds shall continue to support and provide education and incentives for recycling and other waste diversion practices: C.1 Continue the Waste Prevention and Recycling Program which provides outreach and education to the community in all aspects of best solid waste management practices. C.2 Provide support for the establishment and expansion of public recycling opportunities, on an ongoing basis, and at all public events. C.3 Support programs that establish collection and recycling infrastructure for materials that are toxic, hazardous, hard-to-handle or under-recycled. C.4 Establish a policy that can assist in the reuse, recycling, and proper disposal of construction and demolition debris that is generated by development in the City. Solid Waste Goal D. Investigate policies and activities that will lead to development of a Zero Waste Strategy. D.1 Learn basic concepts as they apply to both waste management planning and materials management planning. D.2 Pursue waste prevention and reduction strategies. D.3 Establish a city-wide Buy Recycled policy. D.4 Eliminate or reduce use of hazardous materials in city operations. Other Utilities New utility systems and technologies are constantly developing or evolving. Rather than being reactive, the City should seek to plan for these new services as they develop. Other Utilities Goal A. Provide for public needs while protecting the character of the community and assuring consistency with other plan goals. A.1. New technologies should be planned and carefully researched prior to developing new regulations or reviewing siting proposals. Other Utilities Goal B. Public and private utility plans should be encouraged that identify long-range system needs and that are coordinated with the City’s comprehensive plan. B.1. All utility projects should be coordinated to provide opportunities for projects to address more than one system improvement or maintenance need. Packet Page 101 of 204 Other Utilities Goal C. Utility structures should be located whenever possible with similar types of structures to minimize impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. C.1. When such locations are not available, utility structures should be located or sited so that they are as unobtrusive as possible and are integrated with the design of their site and surrounding area. C.2. Free-standing structures should be discouraged when other siting opportunities are available. Packet Page 102 of 204 Utilities Element Potable Water Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies The City of Edmonds has for many years acquired all of its finished water under a long-term wholesale purchase agreement with the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District (AWWD). AWWD, in turn, purchases its water from the City of Everett’s regional water system. Everett’s water source is the upper Sultan River and the water from that basin is collected in Spada Lake, approximately 30 miles east of downtown Everett. It flows from there to Chaplain Reservoir where it is treated and placed into one of four large transmission main lines that move it westward to the urbanized areas of Snohomish County. The City of Edmonds distributes this water on a retail basis to our customers and bills them for this service. Edmonds provides for operation, maintenance, capital improvements, and replacement of the “end-user” system that provides storage to cover peak usage periods and that further provides required fire protection volumes, and maintains the required the minimum and maximum allowable pressures. Goals, policies, and design criteria for operating this system are developed as part of the City’s Comprehensive Water System Plan and assist the Utility in establishing priorities for both its operation and maintenance budgets as well as its six-year and 20-year Capital Improvement Plans. These goals, policies, and design criteria are found in Chapter 5, Policies and Design Criteria, in the 2010 Water System Plan under the following sections: water service, water supply, and facility policies and design criteria. The City’s financial policies are described in Chapter 10 of the Water System Plan and include a recommended utility rate structure and an asset management-based replacement program designed to provide adequate on-going revenues to fully fund operations, maintenance, debt service and the recommended Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). [A2] The Edmonds City Council made a decision after the approval of the 2010 Water System Plan to adopt a rate structure that has been designed to fund from current rate revenues a very long range program of replacing its aging network of water mains rather than using debt financing to fund that program. As a result rates have been adjusted in each of three recent years to get closer to that goal. The plan is to examine the utility’s financial capacity after the third year of this effort and make a decision whether or not to continue that rate adjustment for the remaining three years. Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies The City’s policy for sewer service recognizes its function is not to determine allowable land uses within its service area but to respond to the capacity and service levels needs necessary to support the land uses approved in the City’s land use planning processes. Development of the City’s Comprehensive sewer plan is currently guided by policies adopted by City Council and by the Comprehensive Plans from adjacent agencies. These plans provide guidance to the City for management and operation of its sewer system and set the timing for expansions and upgrades to sewer infrastructure over the next thirty years. The Plan serves as a guide for policy development and decision making for the City. It also provides other agencies and the public with information regarding the City’s plans for sewer system extensions within its service area. This approach allows the City to maintain its goal of providing high quality service to its customers while protecting Packet Page 103 of 204 environmental quality, primarily the water quality of both Puget Sound and the coastal streams located in Edmonds. The Plan evaluates existing and future capacity, material types of the various pieces of infrastructure, pipe inspection assessments of the sewer system, anticipated future wastewater flow rates, and the structural condition of the sewer collection system. Future wastewater flow rates are estimated from existing flow data using population growth projected within the sewer service area. This growth rate is expected to continue to be modest at an average of 0.5% per year. An implementation plan is provided as part of the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan, including an estimated timeline for constructing selected projects that are in need of maintenance or upsizing. The financial analysis includes asset management of the system along with a utility rate structure to support the policies and goals set forth in the adopted Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan. Similar to the Water Utility, as noted above, the Sewer Utility has embarked on a program to convert from debt-financing pipe replacements to one where the program can be funded directly from rate revenues. Storm and Surface Water Management Goals and Policies(updated 2010) The City owns and operates an extensive system of drainage pipes and ditches to convey stormwater runoff to streams, lakes, and Puget Sound that are designed to prevent and minimize damage to private property, streets, and other infrastructure. Due to extensive alteration of the natural landscape in most areas of the City from development, the amount of stormwater that runs off the land in larger storm events is substantial, and runoff in all storm events carries a variety of pollutants that wash off of their source areas into receiving waters. The City is faced with the challenge of conveying stormwater runoff safely and cost-effectively while preventing or minimizing adverse high flow impacts (erosion, flooding, and sediment deposition), water quality degradation in lakes and streams receiving runoff, and degradation of aquatic habitat caused by high flows and water quality degradation. The NPDES Phase II permit has and will continue to have a significant impact on the workload and operational budget of the both the Engineering Division and the Storm Crews within the Public Works Department. Approximately 2/3 or more of the total stormwater operational budget is spent on permit-related compliance programs Goal and policies have been developed to guide the Utility to tackle the issues at hand. These goals and polices, once approved by the City Council, will replace those in the listed in the “Water Resources and Drainage Management” land use element of the City’s current Comprehensive Plan (Edmonds 2009). These current goals and policies were first approved in 1985. Over the past 25 years, the practice of stormwater management has changed significantly. These new goals and policies reflect that change. Once this plan is approved by Council, it will be incorporated by reference in the Utility Element section of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Four goals have been developed by the City for this plan. Storm and Surface Water Management Goal A. Manage the storm and surface water system by combining preservation of natural systems and engineered solutions to: • Provide for public safety; Packet Page 104 of 204 • Minimize property damage; • Preserve and enhance critical areas; • Promote sustainability; • Comply with applicable local, state, and Federal regulations. Storm and Surface Water Management Goal B. To preserve, protect, and (where feasible) restore surface water resources to provide beneficial uses to humans, fish, and wildlife. Storm and Surface Water Management Goal C. Use public education to increase understanding of sustainability and other environmental values to help protect surface water resources. Storm and Surface Water Management Goal D. Provide adequate funding through an equitable stormwater utility rate structure and outside funding sources to support necessary programs (including asset management-based replacement program) that meet goals A, B, and C. To accomplish these goals, the City developed guiding policies for the flood protection, water quality, aquatic habitat, and stormwater utility funding program areas. More detailed goals and polcies are in the current adopted version of the Storm and Suface Water Comprehensive Management Plan. Packet Page 105 of 204 A. Solid Waste Solid waste collection and disposal is a sophisticated system that continues to evolve in using the most efficient and economical methods. Waste prevention and recycling have risen to become an elemental part of solid waste management planning. Curbside recycling, along with yard and food waste collection service, has become the norm as everyday activities for most residences, businesses, and schools. Engagement in these beneficial behaviors conserves resources, reduces litter, saves energy and contributes to greenhouse gas reduction efforts. The City is a signatory on the Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Comprehensive Plan and an active participant on the County’s Solid Waste Advisory Committee. The County Plan provides a blueprint for which the City is able to provide education and outreach to all sectors in regards to proper disposal and recycling, and opportunities for collection and proper handling of several common unwanted materials. B. Solid waste disposal is becoming a major problem in urban areas. Landfill sites are filling and new environmentally acceptable ones will be hard to find. Landfills can only be considered as an interim measure. There is presently a technological explosion in solid waste management. Citizens are entitled to the most efficient and economical disposal methods. Citizens now recognize that our natural resources are limited and need to be reused. Recovery of resources and/or the production of energy from solid waste could help defray costs of solid waste collection. Backyard burning of garbage is a source of irritation to nearby residents and is a cause of air pollution. Littering is unsightly as well as unsanitary. The "throwaway" philosophy is a waste of natural resources and detracts from the natural beauty of our surroundings. Solid Waste Goal A. The City of Edmonds shall continue to support and follow the directives outlined in the Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Comprehensive Plan, including: A.1 Work directly with County Solid Waste staff to implement recommendations that strengthen recycling, organics diversion, waste prevention, and product strewardship programs. A.2 Support the County’s initiatives to work with the certified solid waste haulers to harmonize services and communication formats, and to expand their educational efforts, especially classroom workshops and presentations in the schools. Solid Waste Goal B. The City of Edmonds should strengthen local controls over collection of solid waste in accordance to the following policies: B.1 Investigate the requirement for city-wide mandatory garbage collection, combined with recycling services. Packet Page 106 of 204 B.2 Update and revise the original Recycling Ordinance to reflect current and alternative collection methods and service scenarios. Solid Waste Goal C. The City of Edmonds shall continue to support and provide education and incentives for recycling and other waste diversion practices: C.1 Continue the Waste Prevention and Recycling Program which provides outreach and education to the community in all aspects of best solid waste management practices. C.2 Provide support for the establishment and expansion of public recycling opportunities, on an ongoing basis, and at all public events. C.3 Support product stewardship initiatives programs that establish collection and recycling infrastructure for materials that are toxic, hazardous, hard-to-handle or under-recycled. C.4 Establish a policy that can assist in the reuse, recycling, and proper disposal of construction and demolition debris that is generated by development in the City. Solid Waste Goal D. Investigate policies and activities that will lead to development of a Zero Waste Strategy. D.1 Learn basic concepts as they apply to both waste management planning and materials management planning. D.2 Pursue waste prevention and reduction strategies. D.3 Establish a city-wide Buy Recycled policy. D.4 Eliminate or reduce use of hazardous materials in city operations. Other Utilities C. Goal. A regional solid waste management authority should be established to coordinate solid waste disposal in accordance with the following policies: Regional sanitary landfills should be used only as an interim measure. The ultimate regional disposal system should be a resource/energy recovery system. Edmonds should work with Snohomish County and King County to establish recycling facilities that would be economically feasible. D. Goal. The City of Edmonds should strengthen local controls over collection of solid waste in accordance with the following policies: D.1. Mandatory city-wide garbage collection should be required to minimize dumping and to eliminate backyard burning and resultant air pollution. Packet Page 107 of 204 D.2. Homeowners should be charged by the garbage can to encourage recycling and separation of wastes at home. Those who use fewer cans should pay less. D.3. Edmonds should conduct a city-wide educational campaign on solid waste telling citizens how they can minimize the problem. E. Goal. Edmonds should enforce litter control and encourage community litter pickups and prevention programs. F. Goal. Edmonds should encourage recycling to conserve natural resources and reduce energy consumption in accordance with the following policies: F.1. Continuous studies should be made of proposals for recycling solid waste. Edmonds should encourage the use of returnable bottles and cans and reusable shopping bags to save energy and resources. F.2. Edmonds should work toward the elimination of excess packaging. F.3. Markets for recycled materials are fluctuating and their stabilization should be encouraged. F.4. Individuals and/or industry should be encouraged to set up recycling centers in the community. F.5. Demonstration programs should be used to determine acceptable methods of home separation of wastes, collection and recycling. Other Utilities A. New utility systems and technologies are constantly developing or evolving. Rather than being reactive, the City should seek to plan for these new services as they develop. Other Utilities Goal A. The goal is to pProvide for public needs while protecting the character of the community and assuring consistency with other plan goals. A.1. A.1. New technologies should be planned and carefully researched prior to developing new regulations or reviewing siting proposals. The goal is to provide for public needs while protecting the character of the community and assuring consistency with other plan goals. Other Utilities Goal B. Public and private utility plans should be encouraged that identify long- range system needs and that are coordinated with the City’s comprehensive plan. A.2. B.1. All utility projects should be coordinated to provide opportunities for projects to address more than one system improvement or maintenance need. Other Utilities Goal C. Utility structures should be located whenever possible with similar types of structures to minimize impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. Packet Page 108 of 204 C.1. When such locations are not available, utility structures should be located or sited so that they are as unobtrusive as possible and are integrated with the design of their site and surrounding area. A.3. C.2. Free-standing structures should be discouraged when other siting opportunities are available. Packet Page 109 of 204    AM-7449     7.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:02/03/2015 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted For:Shane Hope Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Public hearing and potential action on draft ordinances to consolidate and modify animal regulations. Recommendation Review proposed ordinances (Attachment 1 and Attachment 2). Previous Council Action Council held a discussion on January 27, 2015. Narrative To better coordinate and consolidate the regulations regarding animals, two draft ordinances have been prepared to move portions of the zoning code that reference animals into Chapter 5.05 of the City Code and make other clarifying amendments. This will consolidate all animal regulations in a single place, which will help in the understanding, interpretation, and enforcement of the regulations.  It also modifies animal noise language and provides for a graduated penalty system.  The development of the draft ordinances has been coordinated between the Police Department, which includes an animal control program, and the Development Services Department. The Planning Board held a public hearing and recommended approval on Nov. 12, 2014. The City Council discussed the ordinance at a study session on January 27. ( See attached questions Attachment 3.)  A public hearing, with potential action, is scheduled for February  3. Attachments Att.1: Draft Ordinance A Att. 2: Draft Ordinance B Att. 3: Animal Questions Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 01/29/2015 01:42 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/29/2015 03:30 PM Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 01/29/2015 09:14 AM Final Approval Date: 01/29/2015  Packet Page 110 of 204 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTERS 5.05, 5.30, 16.20, 16.30 AND 17.35, TO CONSOLIDATE EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTIONS DEALING WITH ANIMAL CONTROL INTO CHAPTER 5.05, TO AMEND THE ANIMAL NOISE PROVISION OF SECTION 5.05.115, AND TO AMEND THE SYSTEM OF PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5.05.115; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Chapter 5.05 of the Edmonds City Code (ECC) regards animal control; and WHEREAS, Section 5.30.130(A) of the Edmonds City Code regards public disturbance noises made by animals; and WHEREAS, Chapter 16.20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code regards Single Family Residential, and includes a clause referencing ECC 5.05; and WHEREAS, Chapter 16.30 of the Edmonds Community Development Code regards Multiple Residential, and includes a clause referencing ECC 5.05; and WHEREAS, Chapter 17.35 of the Edmonds City Code regards animals in the context of general zoning regulations, including the keeping of animals in residential zones; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined that all Edmonds City Code sections regarding animals must be consolidated into one chapter, and has determined to repeal and recodify chapters to integrate all animal control provisions into Chapter 5.05; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined to repeal Section 5.30.130(A) of the Edmonds City Code and amend the animal noise provision of Section 5.05.115 of the Edmonds City Code to consolidate these chapters most efficiently; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined that Section 5.05.115 of the Edmonds City Code requires further specificity about what constitutes animal noises that can disturb neighbors to an unreasonable degree; and Packet Page 111 of 204 WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined that the penalties for violations of Section 5.05.115 of the Edmonds City Code should be assessed in a tiered system, allowing for both civil infractions and criminal misdemeanors for repeated violations; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 5.30.130 of the ECC, entitled “Public disturbance noises,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): 5.30.130 Public disturbance noises. It is unlawful for any person knowingly to cause or make, or for any person in possession of property knowingly to allow to originate from the property, unreasonable noise which disturbs another, and to refuse or intentionally fail to cease the unreasonable noise when ordered to do so by a police officer. Public disturbance noises shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following sounds or combinations of sounds: A. Frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made by any animal except that such sounds made in animal shelters or in commercial kennels duly licensed shall be exempt. BA. Frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made by any horn or siren attached to a motor vehicle except such sounds that are made to warn of danger or that are specifically permitted or required by law. CB. Frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made in connection with the starting, operation, repair, rebuilding or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, race vehicle, off-highway vehicle or internal combustion engine. DC. Loud and frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made by the use of a musical instrument or instruments or other device capable of producing sound when struck by an object, of a whistle, or of a sound amplifier or other device capable of producing, amplifying or reproducing sounds. Packet Page 112 of 204 ED. Loud and frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made by the unamplified human voice or voices between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. FE. Sounds made for any duration or frequency from the starting and/or running of the engine of a race vehicle. Section 2. Section 17.35.030 of the ECC, entitled “Keeping of domesticated animals in residential zones,” is hereby recodified and amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): 17.35.030 5.05.015 Keeping of domesticated animals in residential zones. For each residential dwelling unit, regardless of the number of occupants residing within each dwelling unit, the following maximum number of domestic animals may be kept or owned within the dwelling unit upon the lot or premises associated with such dwelling unit: A. Household pets in numbers normally and commonly associated with the primary residential use of the dwelling unit. “Household pets” are animals commonly or normally kept or owned in association with a residential dwelling unit and which are generally kept or housed within the interior of the dwelling unit, including such animals as hamsters, mice, gerbils, guinea pigs, nonvenomous snakes, parakeets, canaries, finches, other songbirds, small nonvenomous reptiles and amphibians, and fish; B. Five or fewer domestic animals; C. One unweaned litter produced by any domestic animal permitted to be kept by this chapter; provided, that the total number of domestic animals kept shall not exceed that number provided in subsection B of this section more than 180 days following the birth of the litter; D. Up to three domestic female chickens on a lot(s) or premises associated with a single- family residential dwelling unit, except as otherwise grandfathered under current law. A chicken coop or other pen or enclosure is an accessory structure and shall comply with all bulk requirements of the applicable zone. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered as a separate dwelling unit when determining the number of chickens that may be kept on a single- family lot or lots (when a single-family residence is located on more than one lot). Packet Page 113 of 204 Section 3. Section 5.05.115 of the ECC, entitled “Nuisances defined,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike- through): 5.05.115 Nuisances defined. A. All violations of this chapter section are detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and are declared to be public nuisances. B. Nuisances are hereby defined to include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Any animal which chases, runs after or jumps at vehicles using public streets and alleys; 2. Any animal which habitually snaps, growls, snarls, jumps upon or otherwise threatens persons lawfully using the public sidewalks, streets, alleys or other public ways; 3. Any animal which has exhibited vicious propensities and which constitutes a danger to the safety of persons or property off his premises or lawfully on his premises; 4. A vicious animal or animal with vicious propensities which runs at large at any time, or such an animal off the owner’s premises not securely leashed on a line or confined and in the control of a person of suitable age and discretion to control or restrain such animal; 5. Any animal which howls, yelps, whines, barks or makes any noises in such a manner as to disturb any person or neighborhood to an unreasonable degree, taken to be continuous noise for a period of ten (10) or more minutes or intermittent noise that totals a period of twenty (20) or more minutes in one (1) hour, except that such sounds made indoors in animal shelters or in commercial kennels duly licensed shall be exempt; 6. Animals kept, harbored or maintained and known to have a contagious disease, unless under the treatment of a licensed veterinarian; 7. Animals running in packs; 8. Any dog running at large within the city; Packet Page 114 of 204 9. A female animal, whether licensed or not, while in season, accessible to other animals for purposes other than controlled and planned breeding; 10. Any animal which causes damage to property other than the property of the animal’s owner or person having physical charge and control of the animal; or 11. Any animal maintained in violation of any provision of this chapter. C. All nuisances under this chapter section shall be abated as provided in this chapter. In addition, any owner or person having charge of any animal who fails to abate such nuisance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of $1,000 fine and/or 90 days in jail. subject to the following penalties: 1. Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a civil infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine of $100. 2. Any person committing a second violation of any provision of this chapter within one calendar year shall be guilty of a civil infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine of $250. 3. Any person committing a third violation of any provision of this chapter within one calendar year shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, be sentenced to a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or 90 days in jail. Section 4. Section 17.35.040 of the ECC, entitled “Keeping of poultry and covered animals in residential zones,” is hereby recodified and amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): 17.35.040 5.05.130.1 Keeping of poultry and covered animals in residential zones. A. The keeping of poultry or covered animals within a residential dwelling unit, or upon the premises connected therewith, shall be prohibited except as provided herein and in ECC 5.05.015(D) in this chapter. B. Up to three domestic female chickens may be kept on a lot(s) or premises associated with a single-family residential dwelling unit. A chicken coop or other pen or enclosure is an accessory structure and subject to all requirements of the applicable zone. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered as a separate dwelling unit when determining the number of chickens Packet Page 115 of 204 that may be kept on a single-family lot or lots (when a single-family residence is located on more than one lot). BC. Covered animals are permitted to be kept on residential property zoned for single- family use (R zones) so long as they meet the requirements of ECC 5.05.130. C. Any poultry presently and permanently being kept upon the premises of a residential dwelling unit on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall be permitted under the provisions of this chapter; provided, that such use is registered with the city of Edmonds development services department as described in subsection D of this section, and that the poultry is kept in strict compliance with the provisions of Chapter 5.05 ECC. In the event that the keeping of poultry is discontinued on the premises for a continuous period of more than 90 days, the use shall be considered terminated and the continued keeping of poultry shall not be permitted. D. Commencing on February 5, 2001, a registration period of six months, ending August 6, 2001, at 5:00 p.m., is hereby established for the registration of the keeping of poultry currently occurring in single-family zones. Upon receipt of the registration, the city shall develop a schedule for the inspection of such poultry uses to determine compliance with Chapter 5.05 ECC. If the keeping of poultry is both registered and determined to be in compliance with Chapter 5.05 ECC, then the keeping of poultry shall be considered to be established as a legal nonconforming use. E. Legal nonconforming keeping of poultry shall receive a permit certificate confirming such status and listing the physical dimensions and other characteristics of the use; provided, however, that the registration and permit of a formerly illegal poultry use may be revoked and/or conditioned in accordance with the provisions of ECC 20.100.040. F. Failure to register the keeping of poultry with the city of Edmonds development services department within the time period established by the provisions of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall be considered to be presumptive proof that such activity is illegal and subject to abatement. The keeper of such poultry may overcome such a presumption only by presentation of substantial and competent evidence which establishes the legal nonconforming nature of such use by clear and convincing evidence that the use was permitted by Snohomish Packet Page 116 of 204 County or the city of Edmonds, was permitted by such agency and was in complete compliance with the applicable provisions of state law and county or city ordinance, at the date such use was initiated and established. G. The amendment of the definition of poultry was expanded by the passage of Ordinance No. 3655. In order to permit owners of poultry not previously regulated under the provisions of this code the same rights and privileges previously extended to other poultry owners, a new registration period is established commencing July 1, 2007, and extending for a period of six months, ending on December 3, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. Commencing on that date and for the period established, the keepers of pheasants, quail, guinea fowl and pea fowl may be kept as poultry as a nonconforming use if registered pursuant to the provisions of subsections (D) and (E) of this section. Section 6. Repealer. The following are hereby repealed: A. Section 17.35.010 of the ECC, entitled “Purpose.” B. Section 17.35.020 of the ECC, entitled “Definitions.” Section 7. Section 16.20.010 of the ECDC, entitled “Uses,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): 16.20.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Single-family dwelling units; 2. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020; 3. Primary schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 4. Local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; Packet Page 117 of 204 5. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. Foster homes; 2. Home occupation, subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.20 ECDC; 3. The renting of rooms without separate kitchens to one or more persons; 4. The keeping of three or fewer domestic animals; 5. The keeping of horses, subject to the requirements of Chapter 5.05 ECC; 64. The following accessory buildings: a. Fallout shelters, b. Private greenhouses covering no more than five percent of the site, c. Private stables, d. Private parking for no more than five cars, e. Private swimming pools and other private recreational facilities; 75. Private residential docks or piers; 86. Family day-care in a residential home; 97. Commuter parking lots that contain less than 10 designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. Any additionally designated parking spaces that increase the total number of spaces in a commuter parking lot to 10 or more shall subject the entire commuter parking lot to a conditional use permit as specified in subsection (D)(5) of this section, including commuter parking lots that are located upon more than one lot as specified in ECDC 21.15.075. 108. Bed and breakfasts, as in ECDC 20.23.020(A)(1). C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. High schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); Packet Page 118 of 204 2. Local public facilities that are not planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to ECDC 17.100.050; 3. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Preschools; 2. Guest house; 3. Amateur radio transmitting antennas; 4. Accessory dwelling units; and 5. Commuter parking lots with 10 or more designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. 6. Bed and breakfasts, as in ECDC 20.23.020(A)(2). Section 8. Section 16.30.010 of the ECDC, entitled “Uses,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): 16.30.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Multiple dwellings; 2. Single-family dwellings; 3. Retirement homes or congregate care facilities, assisted living facilities; 4. Group homes for the disabled, foster family homes and state-licensed group homes for foster care of minors; provided, however, that halfway houses and group homes licensed for juvenile offenders are not permitted uses in a residential zone of the city; 5. Boarding houses and rooming houses; Packet Page 119 of 204 6. Housing for low income elderly in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.25 ECDC; 7. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020; 8. Primary schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 9. Local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 10. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. All permitted secondary uses in the RS zone, if in conjunction with a single- family dwelling; 2. Home occupations, subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.20 ECDC; 3. The keeping of one domestic animal per dwelling unit in multiple-family buildings, according to Chapter 5.05 ECC; 43. The following accessory uses: a. Private parking, b. Private swimming pools and other private recreational facilities, c. Private greenhouses covering no more than five percent of the site in total; 54. Commuter parking lots containing less than 10 designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. Any additionally designated parking spaces that increase the total number of spaces in a commuter parking lot to 10 or more shall subject the entire commuter parking lot to a conditional use permit as specified in subsection (D)(2) of this section, including commuter parking lots that are located upon more than one lot as specified in ECDC 21.15.075. Packet Page 120 of 204 C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Offices, other than local public facilities; 2. Local public facilities not planned, designated, or sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 3. Day-care centers and preschools for 13 or greater children; 4. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums, and assisted living facilities; 5. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033; 6. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers; 7. High schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 8. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Day-care facilities or preschools of any size to be operated in a separate, nonresidential portion of a multifamily residential dwelling primary permitted structure operated primarily for the benefit of the residents thereof; 2. Commuter parking lots with 10 or more designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. Section 9. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Packet Page 121 of 204 Section 10. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 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 122 of 204 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 EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTERS 5.05, 5.30, 16.20, 16.30 AND 17.35, TO CONSOLIDATE EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTIONS DEALING WITH ANIMAL CONTROL INTO CHAPTER 5.05, TO AMEND THE ANIMAL NOISE PROVISION OF SECTION 5.05.115, AND TO AMEND THE SYSTEM OF PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5.05.115; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2014. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 123 of 204 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE 5.30 TO DEFINE “FREQUENT, REPETITIVE OR INTERMITTENTLY CONTINUOUS” IN SECTION 5.30.020, TO AMEND LANGUAGE REGARDING CITIZEN COMPLAINTS IN SECTION 5.30.140, AND TO AMEND THE SYSTEM OF PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 5.30 IN SECTION 5.30.150; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Section 5.30.130 of the Edmonds City Code regards public disturbance noises without defining the terms “frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous” in the “Definitions” section of the Edmonds City Code, Section 5.30.020; and WHEREAS, the amendment to Section 5.30.140 is intended to clarify the City’s role in reviewing complaints received regarding noises that may constitute a nuisance, including a review by the City’s noise control administrator; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined that the penalties for violations of Chapter 5.30 of the Edmonds City Code as identified in Section 5.30.150 should be assessed in a tiered system, allowing for both civil infractions and criminal misdemeanors for repeated violations; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 5.30.020 of the ECC, entitled “Definitions,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings. All technical terminology used in this chapter and not defined specifically herein shall be interpreted in conformance with American National Standards Institute’s Specifications. A. “dB(A)” means the sound level measured in decibels, using the “A” weighting network on a sound level meter. Packet Page 124 of 204 B. “District” means the land use zone to which the provisions of this chapter are applied. For the purposes of this chapter: 1. “Residential district” includes all R classified zones and includes the Open Space zone. 2. “Business” zone means all zones designated BN or BC. 3. “Commercial” zones include all zones classified CW or CG. C. “Emergency work” means work required to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity, work required to protect persons or property from an immediate exposure to danger, or work by private or public utilities for providing or restoring immediately necessary utility services. D. “Equipment” means any stationary or portable device or any part thereof capable of generating sound. E. “Frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds” mean sounds that are continuous for a period of ten (10) or more minutes or intermittent for a period totaling twenty (20) or more minutes in one (1) hour. EF. “Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)” means the value specified by the manufacturer as the recommended maximum loaded weight of a single vehicle. FG. “Motor vehicle” means any vehicle which is self-propelled, used primarily for transporting persons or property upon public highways. Aircraft, watercraft, and vehicles used exclusively on stationary rails or track are not motor vehicles as that term is used herein. It includes motorcycles unless distinction is made in the context of use. GH. “Motorcycle” means any motor vehicle having a saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground; except that farm tractors and vehicles powered by engines of less than five horsepower shall not be included. HI. “Muffler” means a device consisting of a series of chambers or other mechanical designs for the purpose of receiving exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine and effective in reducing sound resulting therefrom. Packet Page 125 of 204 IJ. “Noise control administrator” means the person designated by the mayor to enforce the provisions of this chapter. In addition to the noise control administrator, any police officer may enforce the provisions of this chapter. JK. “Person” means any individual, firm, association, partnership, corporation or any other entity, public or private. KL. “Property boundary” means the surveyed line at ground surface which separates the real property owned, rented or leased by one or more persons from that owned, rented or leased by another or others, and its vertical extension. LM. “Receiving property” means the real property within which sound originating from outside the property is received. MN. “Race vehicle” means a motor vehicle not licensed for use on the public streets and/or which is used primarily for sanctioned or unsanctioned racing events. Race vehicle shall also include power boats used primarily for racing events. NO. “Sound level meter” means a sound level measuring device either type I or type II certified special use meters as defined by American National Standards Institute’s Specifications. Section 2. Section 5.30.140 of the ECC, entitled “Citizen complaints,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike- through): 5.30.140 Citizen complaints. Whenever it is stated in writing by three or more persons having separate residences in a neighborhood that any person is violating any of the provisions of this chapter, the noise control administrator or his/her designee shall review such complaints. After the noise control administrator or his/her designee determines that a violation has occurred, the administrator or his/her designee shall advise the person owner of the complaint and that such violation is a nuisance and must cease. Failure of any person to cease any violation of this chapter shall be deemed a misdemeanor subject to penalties as established in this chapter. Packet Page 126 of 204 Section 3. Section 5.30.150 of the ECC, entitled “Penalties,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): 5.30.150 Penalties. A. Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a civil infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine of $100. B. Any person committing a second violation of any provision of this chapter within one calendar year shall be guilty of a civil infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine of $250. C. Any person committing a third violation of any provision of this chapter within one calendar year shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, be sentenced to a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or 90 days in jail. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 127 of 204 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 128 of 204 6 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2015, 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 EDMONDS CITY CODE 5.30 TO DEFINE “FREQUENT, REPETITIVE OR INTERMITTENTLY CONTINUOUS” IN SECTION 5.30.020, TO AMEND LANGUAGE REGARDING CITIZEN COMPLAINTS IN SECTION 5.30.140, AND TO AMEND THE SYSTEM OF PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 5.30 IN SECTION 5.30.150; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2015. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 129 of 204 Questions Raised at the January 27 City Council Meeting Q. 1 Would approving the two ordinances change anything about the keeping of ducks, geese, or other poultry? No. Draft Ordinance A eliminates the language from EDC 17.35.040 that established a now‐expired certificate process for chickens. Even though subsection G of that language cites a different Ordinance (Ordinance 3655), repealing this section does not change the fact that Ordinance 3655, which defined poultry to include ducks, etc., is not being repealed. Thus Ordinance A, as proposed, would retain the existing definition for poultry, which is found in EMC 5.05.010: N. “Poultry” means domestic fowl normally raised for eggs or meat and includes, but is not limited to, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, pheasants, quail, guinea fowl, pea fowl and other similar domesticated birds…. Q. 2 Should the proposed restriction on animal noise be amended? The proposed language in Ordinance A reads: 5. Any animal which howls, yelps, whines, barks, or makes any noises in such a manner as to disturb any person or neighborhood to an unreasonable degree, taken to be continuous noise for a period of ten (10) or more minutes or intermittent noise that totals a period of twenty (20) or more minutes in one (1) hour except that such sounds made indoors in animal shelters or in commercial kennels duly licensed shall be exempt. This new language would replace the more vague existing language now in the code i.e., “frequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made by any animal”. (This existing language has been too vague to stand up well in court.) A challenge for deciding new language is to make the noise criteria both measurable and reasonable, related to a public disturbance. Staff—who will be the ones enforcing the animal regulations—is comfortable with the new language. The City Attorney’s office, as well as the City Prosecutor’s Office, reviewed the language and in their opinionsalso found it defensible and withstanding of judicial review. However, if the City Council prefers a minor variation, one option is to remove the part about “within one hour” for intermittent noise. The section would then read: …. taken to be continuous noise for a period of ten (10) or more minutes or intermittent noise for a period of twenty (20) or more minutes… Q. 3 Should the Ordinance add a restriction on any night‐time animal noise (for example, between midnight and five a.m.)? Staff recommends against this. Such a restriction may have unintended impacts in neighborhoods where a dog makes an occasional bark during night‐time hours. Packet Page 130 of 204    AM-7458     8.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:02/03/2015 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Scott James Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Discussion and potential action on an ordinance amending the 2015 Budget for Carryforward items previously discussed and approved by Council during the 2014 Budget Year. Recommendation Council Motion:  Approve Ordinance No.XXX amending the 2015 Budget for 2014 Carryforward items not completed in 2014. Previous Council Action None Narrative Staff prepared 27 decision package requests to present Council for their review and approval to carryforward unexpended project budgets that were previously approved by Council in 2014. Background: During the development and approval of the 2015 Budget, staff included estimated budget amounts for projects that were underway.  As the 2014 Budget Year came to a close, actual project expenditures were able to be determined.   Tonight's Budget Amendment proposal will roll the unexpended 2014 Project Budgets into the 2015 Budget. Staff Presentation to Council: Each Decision Package includes budgeted amounts that Council approved during the 2014 Budget Year.  Since each item was already discussed and approved by Council, staff will be prepared to answer questions regarding the Carryfoward Budget requests.  Attachments 2015 Carryforward Budget Amendment Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Packet Page 131 of 204 Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 01/30/2015 10:30 AM Mayor Dave Earling 01/30/2015 10:35 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/30/2015 10:35 AM Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 01/30/2015 09:01 AM Final Approval Date: 01/30/2015  Packet Page 132 of 204 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3985 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 2015 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. 3985 adopting the final budget for the fiscal year 2015 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 133 of 204 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 134 of 204 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2015, 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. 3985 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 ________________,2015. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 135 of 204 2015 2015 FUND FUND BEGINNING ENDING NO.DESCRIPTION FUND BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES FUND BALANCE 001 GENERAL FUND 5,844,686 36,806,017 38,685,775 3,964,928 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 518,557 276,200 361,825 432,932 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 724,375 1,180 - 725,555 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 4,563,491 19,800 800,000 3,783,291 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.55,859 - - 55,859 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 1,062 7,500 7,900 662 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 215,149 513,000 598,800 129,349 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 42,632 43,000 76,033 9,599 111 STREET FUND 208,647 1,729,030 1,703,419 234,258 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 305,230 7,906,935 8,026,704 185,461 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 408,637 78,859 134,275 353,221 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,764 61 - 17,825 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 112,841 67,675 70,000 110,516 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 55,412 20,564 26,871 49,105 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 12,938 1,240 3,000 11,178 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 75,297 22,900 21,500 76,697 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 1,927,184 904,000 2,423,000 408,184 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 677,893 902,000 671,400 908,493 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 248,128 46,478 43,795 250,811 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 15,922 - - 15,922 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 90,325 164,500 171,784 83,041 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 1,065,746 5,498,765 6,001,243 563,268 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 150,868 533 - 151,401 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 848,760 11,970 - 860,730 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 3,190 10,212 10,400 3,002 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 650,000 650,000 - 211 LID FUND CONTROL 5,967 22,600 28,567 - 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 76,581 28,627 - 105,208 231 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVICE FUND - 667,693 667,693 - 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND - 925,310 925,310 - 421 WATER 5,693,945 7,581,442 10,354,300 2,921,087 422 STORM 4,736,346 3,774,407 6,969,141 1,541,612 423 SEWER / TREATMENT PLANT 9,585,482 9,833,310 15,071,010 4,347,782 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 843,959 844,416 845,416 842,959 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 5,520,333 1,502,567 1,667,801 5,355,099 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 179,364 65,350 77,629 167,085 Totals 44,832,570 80,928,141 97,094,591 28,666,120 Packet Page 136 of 204 ORD. NO. ORD. NO.2015 FUND FUND 3985 Amended NO.DESCRIPTION 12/26/2014 Feb-15 Budget 001 General Fund 36,806,017$ -$ 36,806,017$ 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 276,200 - 276,200 011 Risk Management Reserve Fund 1,180 - 1,180 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 19,800 - 19,800 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 7,500 - 7,500 016 Building Maintenance 356,600 156,400 513,000 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 43,000 - 43,000 111 Street Fund 1,729,030 - 1,729,030 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 7,458,211 448,724 7,906,935 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 78,859 - 78,859 118 Memorial Street Tree 61 - 61 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 67,675 - 67,675 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 20,564 - 20,564 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 1,240 - 1,240 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 22,900 - 22,900 125 Park Acq/Improvement 904,000 - 904,000 126 Special Capital Fund 902,000 - 902,000 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 46,478 - 46,478 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 164,500 - 164,500 132 Parks Construction 4,998,765 500,000 5,498,765 136 Parks Trust Fund 533 - 533 137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fd 11,970 - 11,970 138 Sister City Commission 10,212 - 10,212 139 Transportation Benefit District 650,000 - 650,000 211 Lid Fund Control 22,600 - 22,600 213 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 7,581,442 - 7,581,442 422 Storm 3,681,407 93,000 3,774,407 423 Sewer / Treatment Plant 9,833,310 - 9,833,310 424 Bond Reserve Fund 844,416 - 844,416 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,502,567 - 1,502,567 617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 65,350 - 65,350 Totals 79,730,017$ 1,198,124$ 80,928,141$ Packet Page 137 of 204 ORD. NO. ORD. NO.2015 FUND FUND 3985 0 Amended NO.DESCRIPTION 12/26/2014 Feb-15 Budget 001 General Fund 38,585,504$ 100,271$ 38,685,775$ 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 361,825 - 361,825 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 800,000 - 800,000 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 7,900 - 7,900 016 Building Maintenance 380,000 218,800 598,800 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 76,033 - 76,033 111 Street Fund 1,703,419 - 1,703,419 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 7,501,107 525,597 8,026,704 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 134,275 - 134,275 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 70,000 - 70,000 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 26,871 - 26,871 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 3,000 - 3,000 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 21,500 - 21,500 125 Park Acq/Improvement 2,361,000 62,000 2,423,000 126 Special Capital Fund 471,400 200,000 671,400 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 43,795 - 43,795 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 171,784 - 171,784 132 Parks Construction 5,362,900 638,343 6,001,243 138 Sister City Commission 10,400 - 10,400 139 Transportation Benefit District 650,000 - 650,000 211 Lid Fund Control 28,567 - 28,567 231 2012LTGO Debt Service Fund 667,693 - 667,693 232 2014 Debt Service Fund 925,310 - 925,310 421 Water 9,738,039 616,261 10,354,300 422 Storm 6,607,641 361,500 6,969,141 423 Sewer / Treatment Plant 14,235,422 835,588 15,071,010 424 Bond Reserve Fund 845,416 - 845,416 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,667,801 - 1,667,801 617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 77,629 - 77,629 Totals 93,536,231$ 3,558,360$ 97,094,591$ Packet Page 138 of 204 Fund BARS Category Debit Credit Page Description Carry Forwards from 2014 General Fund 001 000 22 521 10 41 00 Wellness Program 8,231 Wellness Program General Fund 001 000 22 518 10 41 00 Professional Services 4,776 Consultant Contract General Fund 001 000 31 518 88 35 00 Small Equipment 40,077 Small Equipment General Fund 001 000 62 524 10 41 00 Professional Services 19,477 Dev. Code Update General Fund 001 000 62 558 60 41 00 Professional Services 18,210 CAO Update General Fund 001 000 61 558 70 41 40 Professional Services 9,500 Advertising General Fund 001 000 308 00 000 00 Fund Balance 100,271 Building Maintenance 016 000 66 518 30 41 00 Professional Services 146,400 Building Maintenance 016 000 334 02 500 00 Grant 146,400 Building Maintenance 016 000 66 518 30 48 00 Repair & Maintenance 72,400 Building Maintenance 016 000 337 07 000 00 Utility Incentive 10,000 Building Maintenance 016 000 308 00 000 00 Fund Balance 62,400 REET 2 125 000 64 594 75 41 00 Professional Services 25,000 REET 2 125 000 308 30 000 00 Fund Balance 25,000 Parks Construction 132 000 64 594 76 41 00 Professional Services 37,000 Parks Construction 132 000 64 594 76 41 91 Reimb from other fund 37,000 REET 2 125 000 64 594 76 41 90 Reimb to other fund 37,000 REET 2 125 000 308 30 000 00 Fund Balance 37,000 Parks Construction 132 000 64 594 76 61 00 Land 800,000 Parks Construction 132 000 64 594 76 65 00 Construction 100,000 Parks Construction 132 000 64 594 76 61 91 Reimb from other fund 400,000 Parks Construction 132 000 337 10 000 00 SnoCo Grant 500,000 REET 1 126 000 64 594 76 61 90 Reimb to other fund 400,000 REET 1 126 000 64 594 75 61 00 Land 200,000 REET 1 126 000 308 30 000 00 Fund Balance 200,000 Parks Construction 132 000 64 594 76 65 00 Construction 60,000 Parks Construction 132 000 308 30 000 00 Fund Balance 60,000 Parks Construction 132 000 64 594 76 41 00 Professional Services 6,343 Parks Construction 132 000 308 30 000 00 Fund Balance 6,343 Parks Construction 132 000 64 594 76 41 00 Professional Services 72,000 Parks Construction 132 000 308 30 000 00 Fund Balance 72,000 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 10 Interfund Services 3,000 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 00 Professional Services 15,500 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 20 61 00 Land-Right of Way 50,000 Street Construction 112 200 333 02 205 08 Grant 68,500 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 10 Interfund Services 14,960 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 00 Professional Services 7,170 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 65 00 Construction 73,590 Street Construction 112 200 333 14 210 00 Grant 80,760 Street Construction 112 200 308 30 000 00 Fund Balance 14,960 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 10 Interfund Services 1,000 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 00 Professional Services 3,000 Street Construction 112 200 308 30 000 00 Fund Balance 4,000 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 00 Professional Services 5,120 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 65 00 Construction 57,270 Street Construction 112 200 334 30 600 05 Grant 62,390 Hwy 99 Enhancement (phase 3) 15th St Sw Walkway Fishing Pier Rehab ESCO III Sports Field Upgrade Edmonds Marsh Waterfront Acquisition Dayton Street Plaza Edmonds Marsh Wetland Mitigation City Park Revitalization 228th St Sw Corridor Improvement 3rd Ave ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades Packet Page 139 of 204 Fund BARS Category Debit Credit Carry Forwards from 2014- Continued Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 10 Interfund Services 25,000 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 91 Reimb from other fund 15,000 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 00 Professional Services 30,000 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 20 61 00 Land-Right of Way 176,413 Street Construction 112 200 308 30 000 00 Fund Balance 29,413 Street Construction 112 200 333 02 205 09 Grant 187,000 Stormwater Utility 422 000 72 594 31 41 90 Reimb to other fund 15,000 Stormwater Utility 422 000 308 00 000 00 Fund Balance 15,000 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 10 Interfund Services 46,416 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 00 Professional Services 60,658 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 91 Reimb from other fund 28,500 Street Construction 112 200 308 00 000 00 Fund Balance 28,500 Street Construction 112 200 334 03 600 04 Grant 50,074 Stormwater Utility 422 000 72 594 31 41 90 Reimb to other fund 28,500 Stormwater Utility 422 000 308 00 000 00 Fund Balance 28,500 Water Utility 421 000 74 534 80 41 00 Professional Services 42,111 Water Utility 421 000 308 00 000 00 Fund Balance 42,111 Water Utility 421 000 74 594 34 41 10 Professional Services 25,000 Water Utility 421 000 74 594 34 41 11 Interfund Services 25,000 Water Utility 421 000 74 594 34 65 10 Construction 508,920 Water Utility 421 000 308 00 000 00 Fund Balance 558,920 Water Utility 421 000 74 594 34 41 11 Interfund Services 15,230 Water Utility 421 000 308 00 000 00 Fund Balance 15,230 Stormwater Utility 422 000 72 594 31 41 12 Interfund Services 12,500 Stormwater Utility 422 000 72 594 31 41 20 Professional Services 237,500 Stormwater Utility 422 000 334 02 700 00 Grant 93,000 Stormwater Utility 422 000 308 00 000 00 Fund Balance 157,000 Stormwater Utility 422 000 72 594 31 41 12 Interfund Services 6,800 Stormwater Utility 422 000 72 594 031 41 20 Professional Services 61,200 Stormwater Utility 422 000 308 00 000 00 Fund Balance 68,000 Sewer Utility 423 000 75 594 035 65 30 Construction 196,808 Sewer Utility 423 000 308 00 000 00 Fund Balance 196,808 Sewer Utility 423 000 75 594 35 41 13 Interfund Services 10,000 Sewer Utility 423 000 75 594 35 65 30 Construction 628,780 Sewer Utility 423 000 308 00 000 00 Fund Balance 638,780 Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Water Utility Supply Ops Evaluation 2014 Waterline Replacement 2015 Waterline Replacement 76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements 238th St SW Walkway from 100th to 104th Shellabarger/ Willow Creek Daylight/ Edmonds Marsh Storm Drainage Study (Dayton St & SR104) Packet Page 140 of 204 Fund Number Change in Beginning Fund Balance Revenue Expense Change in Ending Fund Balance 001 100,271 - 100,271 - 016 62,400 156,400 218,800 - 112 76,873 448,724 525,597 - 125 62,000 - 62,000 - 126 200,000 - 200,000 - 132 138,343 500,000 638,343 - 421 616,261 - 616,261 - 422 268,500 93,000 361,500 - 423 835,588 - 835,588 - Total Change 2,360,236 1,198,124 3,558,360 - Packet Page 141 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 3,000 8,231 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 $3,000 $8,231 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,231 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 8,231 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 $8,231 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments 001.000.308.00.000.00 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Wellness Human Resources GENERALFund Name:Wellness Mary Ann Hardie 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 Wellness program budget Packet Page 142 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 5,400 4,776 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 $5,400 $4,776 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,176 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 4,776 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 $4,776 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments 001.000.308.00.000.00 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Consultant contract re: Public Defender & Public Defense standards Human Resources GENERAL Consultant Contract Fund Name:Consultant Contract Mary Ann Hardie 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 Packet Page 143 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 69,900 40,077 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 $69,900 $40,077 $0 $0 $0 $0 $109,977 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 40,077 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 $40,077 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments 001.000.308.00.000.00 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Items budgeted and ordered but not received in 2014. Items included adding UPS (Uninterruptable Power Supply) to public safety buiding and update of email spam filter / email archiver Administrative Services GENERALInformation Services Fund Name:Small Equipment Brian Tuley 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 Small equipment - UPS / Email equipment Packet Page 144 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 85,000 19,477 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 $85,000 $19,477 $0 $0 $0 $0 $104,477 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 19,477 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 $19,477 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments 001.000.308.00.000.00 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: This provides a carryforward of $19,477 for the Development Code update (budgeted in 2014 at $150,000), to reflect actual expenditures in 2014. In the 2015 budget process, Council approved carrying forward the remaining unspent amount (assumed to be $85,000) to continue the Development Code update. However, the actual unspent amount in 2014 was $104,477--a $19,477 difference. Development Services GENERALAdministrationFund Name:Development Code Update Shane Hope 620 Relates to several SAP goals and strategies (such as Action 1a.7) Admin Professional Services 62.524.10.41.00 Packet Page 145 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 40,000 18,210 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 $40,000 $18,210 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,210 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 18,210 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 $18,210 $0 $0 $0 $0 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: The Council budgeted $40,000 in 2014 and another $40,000 in 2015 for the Critical Area Ordinance Update. The purpose of this budget amendment is to carryforward the unexpended funds budgeted in 2014 ($18,210) and consolidate these with the $40,000 bedgeted for the project in 2015. With the $18,210 carried forward from 2014, the total amount allocated for the Critical Areas Ordiance Update in 2015 will be $58,210. Development Services GENERALPlanning Division Planning Prof. Svc. 62.558.60.41.00 Fund Name:CAO Update Kernen Lien 620 Total Expenses Comments 001.000.308.00.000.00 Packet Page 146 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 24,000 9,500 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 $24,000 $9,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $33,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 9,500 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 $9,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Advertising Fund Name:Arts, Culture and Tourism Advertising Patrick Doherty 1e - Effectively develop, market, and promote the City's arts and cultural heritage and brand. Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: $15,000 one-time advertising funds for arts, culture and tourism communications strategy in 2014 budget. Given that this strategy was not started until July, full implementation was not possible in 2014. In conjunction with the launch of the new tourism website, $5,500 was spent on the companion arts, culture and events calendar in 2014, but the planned advertising roll-out has just begun in early 2015. Carry-forward of the remaining $9,500 would facilitate a robust roll-out through various media in the region of our new tourism website, tourism PR strategy, etc., as originally contemplated. Economic Development & Community Services GENERALEconomic Development Total Expenses Comments 001.000.308.00.000.00 Packet Page 147 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 0 146,400 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 $146,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $146,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 146,400 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 $146,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Fishing Pier Rehabilitiation Project Design, 100% funded through a grant awarded in 2014 by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Of the grant total, 43,601.04 was expended in FY 2014. The remainder of the $190,000 is still available and is needed to complete the design work in FY 2015. Public Works BUILDING MAINTENANCE Facilities Maintenance Fund Name:Fishing Pier Rehabilitiation Project Design Jim Stevens 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 1b(4), 4b(1) Professional Services Total Expenses Comments 016.000.334.02.500.00 Packet Page 148 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 0 72,400 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 $72,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $72,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 62,400 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 10,000 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 $72,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments 016.000.308.00.000.00 Utility Reimb 016.000.337.07 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: ESCO III Project: work yet to be completed and billed against the contract for energy efficiency improvements across many of the City buildings Public Works BUILDING MAINTENANCE Facilities Maintenance Remaining Project Work ESCO III Fund Name:ESCO III Jim Stevens 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 2a(4), 4b(1) Packet Page 149 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 25,000 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 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Sports Field Upgrade Planning-Planning for Meadowdale Playfield Project: Partnership 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. $25,000 of estimated expenses for 2014 were not spent as anticipated, please carryover spending authority to 2015. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services PARK ACQ/ IMPROVEMENT Parks Fund Name:Playground Partnership-Sports Field Upgrade Carrie Hite 125.000.64.594.75.41.00 Playground Partnership-Professional Services Total Expenses Comments 125.000.308.30 Packet Page 150 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 70,000 37,000 0 0 0 0 0 (37,000)0 0 0 0 0 37,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $70,000 $37,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $107,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 37,000 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 $37,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments 125.000.308.30 Reimbursement to 132(125.000.64.594.76.41.90) Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: 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. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park. $37,000 of estimated expenses for 2014 were not spent as anticipated, please carryover spending authority to 2015. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services PARKS CONSTRUCTION Parks Edmonds Marsh 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 Reimbursement from 125(132.000.64.594.76.41.91) Fund Name:Edmonds Marsh Carrie Hite Fund 132 and Fund 125 Packet Page 151 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 0 800,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 (400,000)0 0 0 0 Reimbursement to 132(126.000.64.594.76.61.90)0 400,000 0 0 0 0 0 (200,000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $0 $700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 200,000 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 500,000 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 $700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Waterfront Acq. 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 Reimbursement from 126(132.000.64.594.76.61.91) Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: 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. $900,000 of estimated expenses for 2014 were not spent as anticipated, please carryover spending authority to 2015. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services PARKS CONSTRUCTION Parks Fund Name:Waterfront Acquisition Carrie Hite 132.000.64.594.76.61.00 Waterfront Acq. 132.000.64.594.76.61.00 Land (126.000.64.594.75.61.00) Total Expenses Comments 126.000.308.30 SnoCo Grnt 132.000.337.10 Packet Page 152 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 108,000 60,000 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 $108,000 $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $168,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 60,000 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 $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments 132.000.308.30 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Renovate small park and plaza at north end of old public works building, 2nd & Dayton Street. Improve landscaping, plaza, and accessibility. $60,000 estimate for 2014 was not spent as anticipated, please carryover spending authority to 2015. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services PARKS CONSTRUCTION Parks Dayton St. Plaza Carryover Fund Name:Dayton Street Plaza Carrie Hite 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 Packet Page 153 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 0 6,343 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 $6,343 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,343 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 6,343 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 $6,343 $0 $0 $0 $0 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: The Edmonds Community Development Code requires wetland mitigation work at the Edmonds Marsh by American Brewing Co and Jacobsens Marine in connection with property development projects on their adjacent properties and have provided sufficient funds to accomplish this mitigation work, referred to as the "Wetland Mitigation project at Edmonds Marsh." $6,343 of estimated expenses for 2014 were not spent as anticipated, please carryover spending authority to 2015. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services PARKS CONSTRUCTION Parks Fund Name:Edmonds Marsh Wetland Mitigation Carrie Hite 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 Edmonds Marsh Wetland Mitigation Total Expenses Comments 132.000.308.30 Packet Page 154 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 954,900 72,000 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 $954,900 $72,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,026,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 72,000 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 $72,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments 132.000.308.30 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Revitalize City Park play area with new play equipment and addition of a spray park amenity to be used in the summer. $72,000 of estimated expenses for 2014 were not spent as anticipated, please carryover spending authority to 2015. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services PARKS CONSTRUCTION Parks City Park Revitalization Carryover Fund Name:City Park Revitalization Carrie Hite 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 Packet Page 155 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Interfund Services 112.200.68.595.33.41.10 85,000 3,000 0 0 0 0 398,000 15,500 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 3,467,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $3,950,400 $68,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,018,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 68,500 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 $68,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 E7AC/i005 4a.7 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements: Right of way negotiations will continue in 2015 with the remaining property owner. Public Works STREETEngineeringFund Name:228th St. SW Corridor Improvement Bertrand Hauss Professional Services 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 ROW: 112.200.68.595.20.61.00 Comments 112.200.333.02.205.08 Construction 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 Total Expenses Packet Page 156 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Interfund Services 112.200.68.595.33.41.10 10,000 14,960 0 0 0 0 0 7,170 0 0 0 0 0 73,590 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $10,000 $95,720 $0 $0 $0 $0 $105,720 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 14,960 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 80,760 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 $95,720 $0 $0 $0 $0 112.200.308.30.00.00 112.200.333.14.210.00 Total Expenses Comments E3DE/c426 4a.3 Professional Services 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 Construction 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: 3rd Ave ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades: The project is under construction and the remaining work and project close-out will be completed in 2015. Public Works STREETEngineeringFund Name:3rd Ave ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades Rob English Packet Page 157 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 7,000 1,000 0 0 0 0 36,000 3,000 0 0 0 0 262,000 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 $305,000 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $309,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 4,000 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 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Professional Services 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 Construction 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3): The final design plans and contract will be completed in early 2015. Public Works STREETEngineeringFund Name:Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3) Bertrand Hauss E2AD/c405 4a.7 Interfund Services 112.200.68.595.33.41.10 Total Expenses Comments 112.200.308.30.000.00 Packet Page 158 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Interfund Services 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 6,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,120 0 0 0 0 0 57,270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $6,000 $62,390 $0 $0 $0 $0 $68,390 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 62,390 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 $62,390 $0 $0 $0 $0 112.200.334.30.600.05 Total Expenses Comments E3DC/c424 4a.3 Professional Services 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 Construction 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: 15th St. SW Walkway: The project is near final completion and the remaining pavement striping and project close-out will be completed in 2015. Public Works STREETEngineeringFund Name:15th St. SW Walkway Rob English Packet Page 159 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 3,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 Reimbursement from 422(112.200.68.595.33.41.91)15,000 (15,000)0 0 0 0 Reimbursement to 112(422.000.72.594.31.41.90)15,000 Professional Services 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 25,000 30,000 0 0 0 0 528,587 176,413 0 0 0 0 Professional Services Transfer from 421 Bar #70,000 0 0 0 0 Professional Services Transfer from 423 Bar #70,000 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $711,587 $231,413 $0 $0 $0 $0 $943,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Carryforward 15,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 29,413 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 187,000 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 $231,413 $0 $0 $0 $0 ROW 112.200.68.595.20.61.00 Total Expenses Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: 76th Ave @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements: Right of way offers were made in the fall of 2014 and negotiations to acquire the necessary right of way will continue into 2015. Public Works STREETEngineeringFund Name:76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Inter. Improvements Bertrand Hauss E1CA / c368 Not part of Strategic Task Action Item Interfund services 112.200.68.595.33.41.10 Comments 422.000.308.00.000.00 112.200.308.30.000.00 112.200.333.02.205.09 Packet Page 160 of 204 Packet Page 161 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 100,000 42,111 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 $100,000 $42,111 $0 $0 $0 $0 $142,111 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 42,111 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 $42,111 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments 421.000.308.00.000.00 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Water Utility Supply Operations Evaluation (PA# s009.wq) Project began in November, 2014, with approval of a professional services agreement with Murray, Smith, & Associates consulting engineers. Total contracted cost of project is $42,940 and was budgeted for in 2014. The Water Maintenance Division requests unspent, required budgeted funds of $42,111 for this project in 2014 be carried forward to the same professional services BARS in Public Works & Utilities WATER Water Maintenance Professional Services Fund Name:Water Utility Supply Operations Evaluation Kody McConnell 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 Packet Page 162 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Professional Svcs 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 Interfund Svcs 421.000.74.594.34.41.11 5,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 Construction 421.000.74.594.34.65.10 40,000 508,920 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $45,000 $558,920 $0 $0 $0 $0 $603,920 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 558,920 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 $558,920 $0 $0 $0 $0 E4JA/c422 N/A Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: 2014 Waterline Replacement Project: Various rain day delays and the addition of days due to change order resulted in extending the contract date further into 2015 and less work being done in 2014. Public Works WATER Engineering Fund Name:2014 Waterline Replacement Michele (Mike) De Lilla 421.000.308.00.000.00 Interfund Tran Fund 117 421.000.74.597.73.55.17 Total Expenses Comments Packet Page 163 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Professional Svcs 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 373,910 0 0 0 0 0 Interfund Svcs 421.000.74.594.34.41.11 55,241 15,230 0 0 0 0 Construction 421.000.74.594.34.65.10 2,306,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $2,737,151 $15,230 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,752,381 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 15,230 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 $15,230 $0 $0 $0 $0 Interfund Tran Fund 117 421.000.74.597.73.55.17 421.000.308.00.000.00 Total Expenses Comments E4JB/c440 N/A Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: 2015 Waterline Replacement Project: Design phase expenditure rate was not as fast as estimated, so remaining funds in 2014 are being moved to 2015. Public Works WATER Engineering Fund Name:2015 Waterline Replacement Michele (Mike) De Lilla Packet Page 164 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Interfund Svcs 422.000.72.594.31.41.12 18,150 12,500 0 0 0 0 Professional Svcs 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 381,150 237,500 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 $399,300 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $649,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 157,000 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 93,000 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 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments 422.000.308.00.000.00 422.000.334.02.700.00 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Shellabarger/Willow Creek Daylight/Edmonds Marsh Project: Project had delays coordinating with muliple stakeholders (Unocal/Chevron, Washington State Ferries, and Deparment of Ecology) and schedule changes to mesh with the Marina Beach Park Master Planning Project. Public Works STORMEngineeringFund Name:Shellabarger/Willow Creek Daylight/Edmonds Marsh Jerry Shuster E4FC/c435 2a.6 (45a) Packet Page 165 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 10,000 6,800 0 0 0 0 90,000 61,200 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 $100,000 $68,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $168,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 68,000 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 $68,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments 422.000.308.00.000.00 Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Storm Drainage Study (Dayton St. and SR104): Project got started near the end of 2014. Public Works STORMEngineering Interfund Svcs 422.000.72.594.31.41.12 Professional Svcs 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 Fund Name:Storm Drainage Study (Dayton St. and SR104) Jerry Shuster E4FE/c455 2a.3 (45a) Packet Page 166 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Interfund Services (423.000.75.594.35.41.13)22,500 0 0 0 0 0 Professional Services (423.000.75.594.35.41.30)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196,808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $22,500 $196,808 $0 $0 $0 $0 $219,308 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 196,808 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 $196,808 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction(423.000.75.594.35.65.30) Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement: Project closeout phase has taken longer than anticipated. Last contractor invoice to be completed in 2015 instead of 2014. Public Works SEWER / TREATMENT PLANT Engineering Fund Name:Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Michele (Mike) De Lilla E1GA/c347 N/A Total Expenses Comments 423.000.308.00.000.00 Packet Page 167 of 204 Budget Amendment for:Carryforward 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Interfund Services (423.000.75.594.35.41.13)5,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 Professional Services (423.000.75.594.35.41.30)0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 628,780 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $55,000 $638,780 $0 $0 $0 $0 $693,780 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 638,780 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 $638,780 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction(423.000.75.594.35.65.30) Carryforward Item If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project: Project closeout phase has taken longer than anticipated. Last contractor invoice to be completed in 2015 instead of 2014. Public Works SEWER / TREATMENT PLANT Engineering Fund Name:Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Michele (Mike) De Lilla E3GA/c398 N/A Total Expenses Comments 423.000.308.00.000.00 Packet Page 168 of 204    AM-7451     9.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:02/03/2015 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted For:Shane Hope Submitted By:Shane Hope Department:Development Services Type: Action  Information Subject Title Potential Action on Execution of Growing Transit Communities Compact and Appointment of Committee Representative Recommendation (1) Authorize the Mayor to sign the Growing Transit Communities Compact; (2) Appoint a representative and an alternate to the Regional Transit-Oriented Development Advisory Committee.    Previous Council Action City Council discussion on January 13, 2015 and general direction to move forward with potential City partnership Narrative OVERVIEW Information about a new regional framework for maximizing transit community opportunities was presented at the January 13 City Council meeting by a representative from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). After discussing the information, the City Council provided direction to bring back the necessary information for the City to potentially join the Growing Transit Communities partnership.  To join the partnership and have a representative on the Regional Transit-Oriented Development Advisory Committee, the City would need to sign a compact--a non-binding, good-faith agreement (see Attachment 1) to encourage equitable transit-oriented development that is also appropriate to our community.  A representative and an alternate to the regional Advisory Committee should also be named.  (Note:  The Committee meets  BACKGROUND Context: The central Puget Sound is expected to grow to 5 million people by the year 2040, a 35% increase from the year 2010.  To help address this, our region's adopted VISION 2040 calls for focusing growth within centers connected by high-capacity transit to create walkable, compact, and transit-oriented communities that maintain local character, while curbing sprawl on rural and resource lands. Transit investments exceeding $25 billion are planned for our region.  This investment will be most effective if development around transit encourages walkable community connections and equitable opportunities for people. 2011-2013: Packet Page 169 of 204 PSRC received a federal grant to lead the development of a multi-jurisdiction strategy and to take certain steps to encourage equitable transit-oriented development—including affordable housing—around existing or planned light rail stations. The first set of partners for this effort were jurisdictions within designated light rail corridors, as well as transit agencies, housing agencies, and various other interested organizations. (Edmonds was not an initial participant.)  The Growing Transit Communities effort was intended in future years to provide opportunities for other locations that had major transit service--but not necessarily a light rail station. After considerable research and discussion, a strategy was adopted with goals and actions for PSRC, local governments, transit agencies, and others. (See Attachment 2 for the Executive Summary.) Then jurisdictions and organizations signed a compact to indicate their good faith intent to implement appropriate actions, consistent with the strategy.  These included cities such as Everett and others in both Snohomish and King counties. 2014-2015: Partners in the Growing Transit Communities program work to implement and support actions encouraging appropriate development around transit investments.  (See Exhibit 3 for brochure.)  Representatives meet quarterly as a committee--with support from PSRC--to discuss progress and identify opportunities for action and coordination.  (See Exhibits 4 and 5 regarding the committee.) More Information: For more information, see the PSRC website: http://www.psrc.org/growth/growing-transit-communities. NEXT STEPS FOR FUTURE CITY INVOLVEMENT The City of Edmonds may participate in the Growing Transit Communities program by signing onto the regional compact and appointing a representative (and an alternate) to the regional committee.  The next meeting of the Regional Transit-Oriented Development Advisory Committee is February 6 in Seattle.  (See http://www.psrc.org/about/advisory/rtod/ for more details.)  If the City Council names a representative to the Committee, that person (or his/her designated alternate) is encouraged to attend the February 6 meeting. Note:  The City's designated representative should be an Edmonds elected official, presumably a City Council member.  The designated alternate may be either another elected official or a management-level City staff person. Attachments Attchmt 1: Compact Attchmt 2: Exec Summary Attchmt 3: Brochure Attchmt 4: Community Framework Attchmt 5: Committee Webpage Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Packet Page 170 of 204 City Clerk Scott Passey 01/29/2015 02:50 PM Mayor Dave Earling 01/29/2015 03:13 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/29/2015 03:30 PM Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 01/29/2015 12:32 PM Final Approval Date: 01/29/2015  Packet Page 171 of 204 Growing Transit Communities Compact │ August 23, 2013 1 Growing Transit Communities Compact Preamble VISION 2040 was approved as the central Puget Sound region’s plan for sustainable development following a broad - based, collaborative planning process. Central Puget Sound region voters also approved a series of high-capacity light rail and transit projects —a commitment of approximately $15 billion —that will serve the region’s most densely populated and diverse communities for decades to come. These investments present a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shape the region’s urban form and ensure that transpor tation improvements support sustainable development and foster vibrant, healthy neighborhoods for all. Recognizing what this unprecedented opportunity means for the region and its residents, a broad coalition of stakeholders came together to identify what will be needed to create the sustainable, equitable communities envisioned in the region’s plans. The result was the Growing Transit Communities Partnership. The Growing Transit Communities Partnership produced the Growing Transit Communities Strategy as a tool to implement VISION 2040 and local comprehensive plans adopted under the state Growth Management Act , and which is supported by this Compact. Its goals and recommendations are wide-ranging, developed with the recognition that some tools and approaches may work in some locations but not in others, and that each partner retains flexibility and discretion in pursuing the strategies most appropriate to local needs and conditions. However, the envisioned outcomes, consistent with VISION 2040, require an ongoing dedicated partnership of many interests, including cities, counties, transit agencies, businesses and employers, housing authorities, public health agencies, affordable housing providers, educational institutions, community-based organizations, and development interests. And while the Compact is not legally binding and does not mandate adoption of any particular policies or actions, it expresses the need for many and diverse partners to work together over time to achieve its goals, recognizing that opportunities for success cannot be achieved unless we work together. Therefore, as signatories to the Compact, we commit ourselves to working in partnership to achieve the goals and strategies in this Compact, while respecting the diversity of interests, perspectives, and responsibilities throughout the region. *** Packet Page 172 of 204 Growing Transit Communities Compact │ August 23, 2013 2 Whereas the central Puget Sound region has adopted VISION 2040, with the following vision statement: Our vision for the future advances the ideals of our people, our prosperity, and our planet. As we work toward achieving the region’s vision, we must protect the environment, support and create vibrant, livable, and healthy communities, offer economic opportunities for all, provide safe and efficient mobility, and use our resources wisely and efficiently. Land use, economic, and transportation decisions will be integrated in a manner that supports a healthy environment, addresses global climate change, achieves social equity, and is attentive to the needs of future generations. and; Whereas the central Puget Sound region is expected to add 1.3 million people and 1.1 million jobs by the year 2040; and Whereas VISION 2040 includes among its goals (1) maintaining a prosperous and sustainable regional economy by supporting businesses and job creation, investing in all people, sustaining environmental quality, and creating great central places, diverse communities, and a high quality of life, and (2) focusing growth within already urbanized areas to create walkable, compact, and transit oriented communities, and (3) meeting housing needs through preservation and expansion of a range of affordable, healthy and safe housing choices; and Whereas the voters of the central Puget Sound region have committed to a $15 billion investment in light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit and local streetcar service that creates a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to plan for and support the growth of communities near high capacity transit; and Whereas in 2010 the region adopted Transportation 2040, a long-range transportation plan designed to implement VISION 2040 that calls for implementation of an aggressive transit strategy to keep up with increasing population and employment growth, including completion of Sound Transit 2 projects, additional Link light rail extensions to Everett, Tacoma, and Redmond, and local transit service increases of more than 100 percent in peak periods and over 80 percent in off-peak periods; and Whereas The Regional Economic Strategy recognizes that transportation investments must address the diverse needs of the region’s economy and support key employment sectors, provide more convenient and varied transportation options, and improve travel reliability to maintain and enhance quality of life in the region for workers and support local businesses; and Whereas approximately 45% of households currently residing in proximity to existing and planned light rail corridors are moderately or severely housing cost burdened; and Whereas current income distribution for the region shows 13% of households earn between 0-30% of the area median income, 12% of households earn between 30-50% of the area median income, and 18% of households earn between 50-80% of the area median income; and Whereas new market-rate housing trends and subsidized housing resources are not providing sufficient housing choices in transit communities for households earning under 80% of the area median income; and Packet Page 173 of 204 Growing Transit Communities Compact │ August 23, 2013 3 Whereas the combined cost burden of housing plus transportation can be substantially reduced by locating affordable housing opportunities in proximity to transit; and Whereas the report “Equity, Opportunity, and Sustainability in the Central Puget Sound Region” identifies a widespread pattern within the region of unequal household access to educational, economic, transportation, environmental health, and neighborhood resources; and Whereas many communities that are now or may be served by high-capacity transit are home to low-income and minority households and small locally- and minority-owned businesses that are at a potentially higher risk of displacement due to a range of factors; and Whereas transit-oriented development is a land use pattern with many social, economic, and environmental benefits, including more sustainable and efficient use of urban land, support for regional and local economies, reduced combined housing and transportation costs per household, and improved access and mobility for residents; and Whereas the Growing Transit Communities Partnership, a diverse coalition of governmental and nongovernmental partners, was funded by a grant from the federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities for the express purpose of helping to implement VISION 2040 by leveraging regional transit investments to create thriving and equitable transit communities around light rail and other high-capacity transit stations; and Whereas the Equity Network Steering Committee has defined equity to mean that all people can attain the resources and opportunities that improve their quality of life and enable them to reach their full potential; and Whereas the Growing Transit Communities Partnership defines equitable transit communities as follows: Equitable transit communities are mixed-use, transit-served neighborhoods that provide housing and transportation choices, and greater social and economic opportunity for current and future residents. Although defined by a half-mile walking distance around high-capacity transit stations, they exist within the context of larger neighborhoods with existing residents and businesses. These communities promote local community and economic development by providing housing types at a range of densities and affordability levels, commercial and retail spaces, community services and other amenities integrated into safe, walkable neighborhoods. Successful equitable transit communities are created through inclusive planning and decision- making processes, resulting in development outcomes that accommodate future residential and employment growth, increase opportunity and mobility for existing communities, and enhance public health for socially and economically diverse populations Whereas Growing Transit Communities Partners recognize that transit communities throughout the region will have unique roles, functions, and opportunities, and will develop with different uses at varying intensities; and Whereas creating vibrant transit-oriented communities can be substantially advanced through the development of additional tools and funding for infrastructure improvements in communities along transit corridors; and Packet Page 174 of 204 Growing Transit Communities Compact │ August 23, 2013 4 Whereas Growing Transit Communities Partners believe that progress toward creating equitable transit communities will depend on active participation from a full range of partners over the long term, including transit agencies, businesses, non-profit organizations, as well as local jurisdictions and the Puget Sound Regional Council; and Whereas the Growing Transit Communities Partnership has developed a Toolkit of Strategies and Actions that recommend adoption of specific actions and tools by regional and local governments, by both public and private stakeholders, in order to create, grow, and enhance equitable transit communities throughout the region; and Whereas updates to local comprehensive plans and development regulations, transit agency plans, and the refinement of regional growth and transportation plans present continuing opportunities to implement the Toolkit of Strategies and Actions; Now, therefore, the signatories to this Regional Compact: Agree that the region’s long -range growth management, economic, environmental, and transportation goals depend heavily on continued investment in more and better public transportation services ; and Acknowledge the acute need for additional resources and tools to create and preserve affordable housing throughout the region; and Recognize that cities and counties will require new resources to create the critical physical and social infrastructure that will support growth, including transportation, utilities, recreation, and public services; and Agree that progress toward equitable transit communities requires a cooperative, regional approach with diverse partners across governmental and nongovernmental sectors that supports and builds upon existing and ongoing planning efforts by regional and local governments and transit agencies; and Commit to build upon the work of the Growing Transit Communities Partnership through the promotion of equitable transit communities in light rail station area s and transit nodes located within the region’s three long -range light rail transit corridors, and around transit nodes outside these corridors in other parts of the region; and Recognize that each corridor is at a different stage of high-capacity transit system development, and that future stations may be identified and sited that should also be considered under this Compact; and Understand that this Compact is designed to express the intent of diverse partners to work together toward common goals, with specific actions identified by partners appropriate to their roles and responsibilities; and Recognize that the policies and programs promoted by the Growing Transit Communities Partnership may also benefit community development around other transit investments and corridors, including but not limited to bus rapid transit, streetcar, commuter rail, intercity express bus, and ferries; and Support a continuing process of collaboration and coordinated action to advance the development of equitable transit communities, as guided by the following goals, signatories to this Compact will strive to: Packet Page 175 of 204 Growing Transit Communities Compact │ August 23, 2013 5 Attract more of the region's residential and employment growth to high capacity transit communities. VISION 2040 calls for a compact pattern of growth within the Urban Growth Area, particularly in regional and subregional centers served by high capacity transit. The Growing Transit Communities work program has demonstrated that the region’s light rail corridors alone have the potential to support this vision by attracting at least 25% of the housing growth and 35% of the employment growth expected in the region through the year 2040. Attracting additional TOD market demand to other regional corridors that are served by other types of high capacity transit is also essential. To advance the Regional Growth Strategy adopted in VISION 2040, promote economic development, and realize the multiple public benefits of compact growth around rapid transit investments, the signatories to this Compact will strive to:  Use a full range of tools, investments, and economic development strategies, to attract the potential demand for residential and commercial transit oriented development within transit communities consistent with and in furtherance of regional policies and plans, and  Plan for and promote residential and employment densities within transit communities that support ridership potential and contribute to accommodating growth needs within each high- capacity transit corridor. Additional transit communities along the region’s other hi gh-capacity transit mode corridors will also attract significant portions of future residential and employment growth. Provide housing choices affordable to a full range of incomes near high-capacity transit. Adopted regional policy recognizes housing as a basic human need and calls for local policies and tools that provide for an adequate supply of housing affordable at all income levels, to meet the diverse needs of both current and future residents . Region-wide, affordable housing need is defined by current household incomes, where 18% of households earn between 50% and 80% of AMI, 12% earn between 30% and 50% of AMI, and 13% earn less than 30% of AMI. In transit communities, projected need for affordable housing is higher, especially for households in the lowest income range due to their greater reliance on transit. Depending on local market conditions, efforts to meet that need will focus on new housing, housing preservation, or combined strategies. In order to meet a substantial portion of this need within walking distance of rapid transit services, the signatories to this Compact will strive to:  Use a full range of housing preservation tools to maintain the existing level of affordable housing within each transit community, and  Use a full range of housing production tools and incentives to provide sufficient affordable housing choices for all economic and demographic groups within transit corridors, including new housing in the region’s transit communities collectively that is proportional to region-wide need or greater to serve transit-dependent households. Packet Page 176 of 204 Growing Transit Communities Compact │ August 23, 2013 6 These goals apply to the region’s transit corridors collectively, and do not suggest a specific desired outcome for any individual transit community. Further, fully attaining these goals will require new tools, resources, and subsidies beyond those that exist today. Increase access to opportunity for existing and future residents of transit communities. Adopted regional policy recognizes the need to address the diverse housing, transportation and economic needs of current and future residents so that all people may prosper as the region grows. This requires special attention to communities that lack access to transportation choices, quality schools, and other social and physical neighborhood components that allow community members to thrive and succeed. In order to more equitably meet the needs of all residents of the region, the signatories to this Compact will strive to:  Improve access to opportunity in the transit corridors through targeted investments that meet the needs of residents and businesses in communities with limited access to opportunity, targeted affordable housing investments in communities with good access to opportunity, and transit connections linking areas with good access to opportunity and areas with limited access to opportunity.  Use a full range of community engagement strategies to increase the involvement of diverse and historically under-represented groups in transit community development, empower communities to influence decisions at all levels of government, and ensure opportunities for participation throughout decision-making processes. In order to maximize this historic opportunity, show regional leadership, and act as a national model of how diverse stakeholders can make transformative decisions that advance a region’s goals for its people, its prosperity, and the planet, the signatories to this Compact pledge to work individually and collaboratively toward the goals described above, and toward the implementation of the Growing Transit Communities Strategy, as appropriate to each jurisdiction and organization. PSRC will periodically convene representatives of Compact signatories as an Advisory Committee to evaluate the region’s progress over time toward achieving equitable transit communities. PSRC’s regional monitoring program will track progress of implementing and achieving the goals described in this compact. For more information on the Growing Transit Communities Partnership, please contact Program Manager Ben Bakkenta (bbakkenta@psrc.org or 206-971-3286) or visit the Growing Transit Communities website at http://www.psrc.org/growth/growing-transit-communities/ Packet Page 177 of 204 The Growing Transit Communities Strategy Executive Summary December 2013 Puget Sound Regional Council Packet Page 178 of 204 Growing Transit Communities Strategy * executive summary * December 20132 Growing Transit Communities Strategy * executive summary * December 2013 3 Executive Summary Our region has a shared vision for a sustainable future that will benefit our people, our prosperity, and our planet. VISION 2040, the central Puget Sound region’s long-range plan for growth, transportation, and economic development, describes the commitments, actions, and stewardship needed over many decades by many stakeholders to achieve far-reaching goals. As the region grows to 5 million people — a more than 30 percent increase — by the year 2040, a key goal calls for growth within existing urban areas and especially in compact, walkable communities that are linked by transit. The region’s recent commitments to invest over $25 billion in high-capacity transit (light rail, bus rapid transit, express bus, streetcar, and commuter rail) present an once- in-a-lifetime opportunity to locate housing, jobs, and services close to these transit investments, and to do so in a way that benefits surrounding communities. A region- wide coalition of businesses, developers, local governments, transit agencies, and nonprofit organizations — the Growing Transit Communities Partnership — spent three years working together to create solutions that will encourage high-quality, equitable development around rapid transit. The Challenges Growth, as envisioned in VISION 2040, should benefit all people by increasing economic development and access to jobs, expanding housing and transpor- tation choices, promoting neighborhood character and vitality, and improving public health and environmental quality. But, this is easier said than done. In particular, this growth may magnify several challenges currently facing the region: Living in and working in walkable, transit-served communities. Recent market studies show that there is significant unmet demand for housing and jobs located within walking distance of transit. Many people want to live and work in compact, complete, and connected communities, but investments in transit and in transit station areas have fallen behind. Attracting growth to tran- sit communities will require policies to encourage more housing and jobs near transit along with investments in the infrastructure and services for a growing population. Housing choices for low and moderate income households near transit. Forty-three percent of the region’s households make less than 80 percent of the area median income. However, most new market-rate housing that is accessible to transit is unaffordable to these households. With new investment in transit communities, many lower-cost units are at risk of displacement. For the lowest income households, many of whom are transit dependent, the supply of subsidized housing is far short of the need. Building mixed-income communities that meet these needs will require improved strategies to minimize displacement, and preserve and produce diverse housing types affordable to a full range of incomes. Equitable access to opportunity for all the region’s residents. Analysis of indicators across the region reveals that too many people do not have access to education, employment, mobility, health, and neighborhood services and amenities. These community resources are the building blocks that create the opportunity to succeed and thrive in life. Transit communities, with their access to the region’s jobs, institutions, and services are critical focal points for achieving greater equity for the region’s diverse residents. As these communities grow through public and private invest- ment, equitable development will require targeted community improvements and strategies to connect existing and future residents to greater regional resources. Packet Page 179 of 204 Growing Transit Communities Strategy * executive summary * December 20134 Growing Transit Communities Strategy * executive summary * December 2013 5 Why Now? In the last decade, central Puget Sound voters have approved a series of high-capacity light rail and other transit investments — a commitment of approximately $25 billion — that will serve the region’s most densely populated and diverse communities for decades to come. These investments present an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to support and improve existing communities and meet regional goals through strategies to make great places for people to live and work. In order to do this, the region must: Leverage transit investment to build sustainable communities. Transit investments, such as light rail, streetcars, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit, create value by connecting communities to the larger region. Transit communities are the best opportunity for the region to become more sustainable, prosperous, and equitable. Create new resources and tools. Current resources available to governmental and non-governmental agencies alike are not enough. New tools and funding sources will be necessary to meet infrastructure, economic development, housing, and other community needs. Work together across the region and across sectors. It will take collaboration among a wide spectrum of public, private, and nonprofit agencies and organizations working together to promote thriving and equitable transit communities. There are roles for everyone in this process. The Strategy How will this all be accomplished? The Growing Transit Communities Strategy calls for regional and local actions that respond to the challenges and opportunities in transit communities and represent major steps toward implementing the growth strategy in VISION 2040. The Strategy was developed by the Growing Transit Communities Partnership, an advisory body of various public, private, and nonprofit agencies and organizations working together to promote success- ful transit communities. The Growing Transit Communities Partnership, funded by a three-year grant from the federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities and housed at the Puget Sound Regional Council, established three main goals for the Strategy: • Attract more of the region’s residential and employment growth near high-capacity transit. • Provide housing choices affordable to a full range of incomes near high-capacity transit. • Increase access to opportunity for existing and future community members in transit communities. Toolkit of Strategies and Actions Twenty-four strategies, guided by a People + Place Implementation Typology, constitute the “playbook” for the Growing Transit Communities Strategy. From overarching regional approaches to local and individual actions, together these provide a set of coordinated steps toward ensuring a prosperous, sustainable, and equitable future. The Strategy presents 24 strategies recommended by the Growing Transit Communities Partner- ship and includes specific actions for PSRC, transit agencies, local governments, and other regional partners. The recommendations address the three main goals for transit communities. As a whole, the strategies are a call to action for partners across the region to redouble efforts to create great urban places and build equitable communities around transit. Fully recognizing the strong policy foundation embodied in regional and local plans, as well as the innovative work in implementing those plans to date, the Partnership makes these recommendations as a challenge to do more than is being doing today. The Toolkit of Strategies and Actions fall into four groupings: The Foundation Strategies recommend a regional and local framework for ongoing work to support transit communities. Modeled on the rela- tionships and values at the heart of the Growing Transit Communities Partnership, these strategies envision an ongoing regional effort involving a variety of partners and community members in decision making and implementation at all levels. 1. Establish a regional program to support thriving and equitable transit communities. 2. Build partnerships and promote collaboration. 3. Engage effectively with community stakeholders. 4. Build capacity for community engagement. 5. Evaluate and monitor impacts and outcomes. The Strategies to Attract Housing and Employment Growth recommend actions to make great urban places that are attractive to households and businesses, remove barriers to development, and support development in emerging markets. 6. Conduct station area planning. 7. Use land efficiently in transit communities. 8. Locate, design, and provide access to transit stations to support TOD. 9. Adopt innovative parking tools. 10. Invest in infrastructure and public realm improvements. Packet Page 180 of 204 Growing Transit Communities Strategy * executive summary * December 20136 Growing Transit Communities Strategy * executive summary * December 2013 7 Successful implementation will require shared commitment and collaboration among gov- ernments, major stakeholders, and community members. There are roles for many different regional and local partners, each with a distinct jurisdiction, authority, and mission. Consistent with those roles, all are asked to use the Toolkit of Strategies and Actions as a “playbook” for taking action to advance the regional vision of creat- ing thriving and equitable transit communities in a manner that is a best fit to each community. The Strategies to Provide Affordable Housing Choices recommended actions to define and quantify housing needs, preserve existing affordable housing and supply new housing choices, and capitalize on the value cre- ated by the private market — enhanced by transit investments — in order to achieve the broadest range of affordability in transit communities. 11. Assess current and future housing needs in transit communities. 12. Minimize displacement through preservation and replacement. 13. Increase housing support transit-dependent populations. 14. Implement a TOD property acquisition fund. 15. Expand value capture financing as a tool for infrastructure and affordable housing. 16. Make surplus public lands available for affordable housing. 17. Leverage market value through incentives. 18. Implement regional fair housing assessment. The Strategies to Increase Access to Opportunity recommend actions to understand regional disparities in access to opportunity, identify existing and potential new resources and tools to meet community needs, and build support for equitable opportunities through education, coalitions, and leadership. 19. Assess community needs. 20. Invest in environmental and public health. 21. Invest in economic vitality and opportunity. 22. Invest in equitable mobility options. 23. Invest in equitable access to high quality education. 24. Invest in public safety in transit communities. People + Place Implementation Typology No two transit communities are alike. Accordingly, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to the strategies that will help a transit community thrive and grow with equitable out- comes for current and future community members. The Strategy presents the People + Place Implementation Typology as a regional framework for local implementation. Working with stakeholders from each of three major light rail corridors, the Growing Transit Communities Partnership analyzed conditions in 74 study areas as a basis for a set of locally tailored recommendations. Based on indica- tors of the physical, economic, and social conditions in each transit com- munity, the results of this typology analysis suggest eight Implementa- tion Approaches. Key strategies and investments address the needs and opportunities in different communities, while also advancing regional and cor- ridor-wide goals. The Implementation Approaches and typology analysis are intended to complement and inform existing regional and, especially, local plans as they are implemented, evalu- ated, and refined in the coming years. The Next Steps The Growing Transit Communities Strategy includes a three-part imple- mentation plan to promote thriving and equitable transit communities in the central Puget Sound region. The Regional Compact affirms the support of a variety of partners from throughout the region for the Partner- ship’s work and a commitment to work toward regional goals by implementing the Strategy. The Toolkit of Strate- gies and Actions and the People + Place Implementation Typology, as described above and detailed in the body of this report, include 24 recom- mended strategies, eight implementa- tion approaches, and corridor specific priorities that will guide an evolving approach to transit com- munities. The Individual Work Plans are local government, agency, or organization specific work plans, to be developed individually and in consultation with PSRC staff, which define short- and medium-term actions that can implement the Strat- egy. The nature and format of the Individual Work Plans will vary to reflect the diversity of public and private partners, legis- lative and decision-making processes, and actions adopted. By working together, the central Puget Sound region can achieve its vision for a sustainable future that advances our people, our prosperity, and our planet. The Growing Transit Communities Strategy lays out essential tools and actions to get us there. THE PLEDGE REGIONAL COMPACT THE PLAYBOOK TOOLKIT & TYPOLOGY THE PLAN INDIVIDUAL WORKPLANS Packet Page 181 of 204 Growing Transit Communities Strategy * executive summary * December 20138 Additional copies of this document may be obtained by contacting: Puget Sound Regional Council Information Center 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1035 phone 206-464-7532 fax 206-587-4825 email info@psrc.org website psrc.org American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information: Individuals requiring reasonable accom- modations may request written materials in alternate formats, sign language interpret- ers, physical accessibility accommodations, or other reasonable accommodations by contacting the ADA Coordinator, Thu Le at 206-464-6175, with two weeks advance notice. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may contact the ADA Coordinator, Thu Le through TTY Relay 711. Funding for this document provided in part by member jurisdictions, grants from U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation. PSRC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. For more information, or to obtain a Title VI Complaint Form, see http://www.psrc.org/about/public/titlevi or call 206-587-4819. Puget Sound Regional Council Packet Page 182 of 204 Puget Sound Regional Council Transit Communities Growing What We’ve Accomplished The Growing Transit Communities Partnership created the Growing Transit Communi- ties Strategy, an action framework for partners across the region. The Strategy builds on the many products of the Growing Transit Communities work program, including: Corridor-Based Planning • Growing Transit Communities Compact, with numeric goals for growth and affordability in the region’s transit station areas, and an ongoing commitment to collaboration and action. • Toolkit of Recommended Strategies and Actions with a range of overarching region- al approaches to local and individual actions, providing a set of coordinated steps. • People + Place Implementation Typology to link strategies and investments to transit communities based on current needs and opportunities. • Comprehensive Existing Conditions Report and Transit-Oriented Development Market Study for 74 transit communities across the region. A Regional Equity Network • Cross-sector stakeholder body — the Equity Network — to provide a forum and expertise on equitable development principles and strategies. • Comprehensive regional Opportunity Mapping: “Equity, Opportunity, and Sustainability in the Central Puget Sound Region.” • 54 Capacity-Building Grants totaling $450,000 to 43 community-based organizations to support engagement, outreach, organizing, and research. • Two-day Puget Sound Equity Summit that brought together over 400 community members, activists, and representatives of the public and private sector. Affordable Housing Tools • White paper and business plan for a Regional Equitable Development Initiative (REDI) fund to encourage affordable housing preservation and production near transit. • Regional Fair Housing Equity Assessment to identify barriers to fair housing choice across the central Puget Sound region, and regional strategies to address them. • White paper and draft legislation on an Equitable Value-Capture Financing Tool to fund local infrastructure investments to support growth and affordable housing. • Inventory of Publicly Owned Lands in transit communities and recommendations for use of surplus lands. • Regional Subsidized Housing Database mapping all publicly-supported and owned housing units in the region. Innovative Demonstration Projects • Area-wide Environmental Impact Statement and Subarea Plan for Tacoma’s South Downtown neighborhood. • Urban Design Framework and Healthy Transit Communities Principles for Seattle’s Northgate station area and urban center. • Best Practices and Implementation Support for East Link station areas in Bellevue and Redmond, taking the next steps to implement station area plans. More Transit is Coming! The central Puget Sound region will invest over $25 billion in high-capacity transit in the coming decades. That means more light rail, bus rapid transit, express buses, streetcars and commuter rail. We’re Getting Ready! The Growing Transit Communities Partnership is a region-wide coalition of businesses, developers, local govern- ments, transit agencies, and nonprofit organizations working together to create great communities around rapid transit. What are Equitable Transit Communities? Equitable transit communities are transit-served neighborhoods that provide housing and transportation choices, a mix of services, amenities and businesses, and greater social and economic opportunity for current and future residents. Successful communities are created through inclusive planning and decision-making, resulting in development that accommodates future residents and jobs, increases opportunity for existing communities, and enhances public health. How Can the Region Create Equitable Transit Communities? Three Program Goals: Attract more of the region’s housing and job growth near high- capacity transit. Provide affordable housing near transit. Increase access to opportunity for existing and future members of transit communities. Packet Page 183 of 204 Transit Communities Growing For more information, visit psrc.org/growth/growing-transit-communities Three-Part Framework for Action The Growing Transit Com- munities Strategy includes three steps to promote thriving and equitable transit com- munities in the central Puget Sound region. The Regional Compact affirms the sup- port of a variety of partners from throughout the region for the Partnership’s work and a commitment to work toward regional goals by implementing the Strategy. The Toolkit of Strategies and Actions and the People + Place Implementation Typology include 24 recommended strategies, eight implementation approaches, and corridor specific priorities that will guide an evolving approach to transit communities. Individual Work Plans are local government, agency, or organization specific work plans which define short- and medium-term actions that can implement the Strategy. 1. Establish a regional program to support thriving and equitable transit communities. 2. Build partnerships and promote collaboration. 3. Engage effectively with community stakeholders. 4. Build capacity for community engagement. 5. Evaluate and monitor impacts and outcomes. Implementation Eight Implementation Approaches There is no one-size-fits-all approach for the strategies that will help a transit community thrive and grow. The People + Place Implementation Typology is a regional framework for local action with eight unique approaches that identify appropriate implementation strategies. Big Tent of Partners It will take collaboration among a wide spectrum of public, private, and nonprofit agencies and organizations working to- gether to promote thriving and equitable transit communities. Signing on to the Growing Transit Communities Compact demonstrates a commitment to working collaboratively toward common goals for the region’s transit station areas. By working together, the central Puget Sound region can achieve its vision for a sustainable future that advances our people, our prosperity, and our planet. 6. Conduct station area planning. 7. Use land efficiently in transit communities. 8. Locate, design, and provide access to transit stations to support TOD. 9. Adopt innovative parking tools. 10. Invest in infrastructure and public realm improvements. Everett Seattle Tacoma A Toolkit of TWENTy-FouR Strategies The Toolkit presents 24 strategies with 228 specific actions for agencies, local governments, and other regional partners. As a whole, the Toolkit is a call to action for partners across the region to intensify efforts to create great urban places and build equitable communities around transit. FoundationStrategies HousingChoices Access to OpportunityAttractGrowth Puget Sound Regional Council 1011 Western Ave., Suite 500 • Seattle, WA 98104 206-464-7090 • psrc.org • December 2013 11. Assess current and future housing needs in transit communities. 12. Minimize displacement through affordable housing preservation and replacement. 13. Increase housing resources to support transit-dependent populations. 14. Implement a TOD prop- erty acquisition fund. 15. Expand value capture financing as a tool for infrastructure and affordable housing. 16. Make surplus public lands available for affordable housing. 17. Leverage market value through incentives for affordability. 18. Implement recommen- dations of regional fair housing assessment. 19. Assess community needs. 20. Invest in environmental and public health. 21. Invest in economic vitality and opportunity. 22. Invest in equitable mobility options. 23. Invest in equitable access to high quality education. 24. Invest in public safety in transit communities. Mukilteo Lynnwood Edmonds Mountlake Terrace Kenmore Kirkland Bellevue Redmond Shoreline Issaquah Sammamish Mercer Island Renton Tukwila Burien Des Moines SeaTac Federal Way Fife Kent Packet Page 184 of 204 P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 5 o f 2 0 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 6 o f 2 0 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 7 o f 2 0 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 8 8 o f 2 0 4    AM-7432     10.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:02/03/2015 Time:45 Minutes   Submitted For:Council President Fraley-Monillas Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Committee: Type: Potential Action Information Subject Title Discussion on Potential Update of Council Vacancy Interviews and Appointment Process Recommendation Previous Council Action January 6, 2015 Council Meeting:  The Council rescheduled the discussion of the Council vacancy interviews and appointment  process to the January 13, 2015 Council Meeting.  The application form was discussed, a few changes were made, and it was approved (see Attachment 3).  Former Councilmember Peterson was present during this meeting and was able to vote regarding the questionnaire.  Although he is not longer a member of the Council, it should be noted that he worked very hard, along with Council President Fraley-Monillas on this process. January 13, 2015 Council Meeting:  See attached minutes. Narrative This agenda item has been placed on this agenda for further discussion. Attachments Attach 1 - FINAL UPDATE Edmonds City Council Candidate Interview and Voting Process 1-28-15 Attachment 2 Edmonds City Code Chapter 1.02.035 Filling vacant council positions  Attachment 3 - 20150106 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt Attach 4 - Approved 1-13-15 Council Minutes (2) Attachment 5 OPTION C - COUNCILMEMBER SELECTION PROCESS OPTIONS Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 01/29/2015 09:18 AM Mayor Dave Earling 01/29/2015 09:39 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 01/29/2015 09:41 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 01/21/2015 11:28 AM Final Approval Date: 01/29/2015  Packet Page 189 of 204 Edmonds City Council Candidate Interview and Voting Process Prior to the Interview Meeting: Staff will provide either a paper or electronic copy of all application materials for each candidate, along with a list of candidates and their interview times. At least 2 business days prior to the scheduled interview meeting, Councilmembers will submit two questions each to the Council President, who may also submit a question for a total of 12 questions. Process to determine the interview order of candidates. The applicants’ order of appearance is determined by random selection by the Council Executive Assistant and City Clerk. Council may call applicants with independent questions prior to interview FINAL UPDTE 1/28/15 Attachment 1 Packet Page 190 of 204 Open Public Interview Meeting: For fair and open process the interviews will not be live streamed but will be played after interviews are completed. Interviews for a vacant City Council position will be conducted in an open public meeting. Each interview of an applicant/candidate will be no longer than 40 minutes in length as follows: 1. Only the applicant being interviewed will be allowed in Council chambers; the other applicants will be waiting in an area to be determined by the City Clerk. After completing their interview, each applicant may remain in Council chambers. 2. The applicant may make an opening statement to the City Council. 3. The City Council will ask a predetermined set of questions which must be responded to by the applicant. Each applicant will be asked and will answer the same set of questions. 4. After pre-determined questions are asked, and as time permits, Councilmembers may engage in an informal question and answer period in which they may ask and receive answers to miscellaneous questions. (each councilmember will ask a question and applicant will have 2 minutes for response) 5. Applicant will have the opportunity for a closing statement 6. The City Council may reduce the 40 minute interview time if the number of applicants exceeds six (6) candidates, or alternatively, the Council may elect not to interview all of the applicants if the number exceeds six (6) candidates. The decision as to which applicants to interview will be based on the information contained in the application and/or supporting materials, which may include endorsements, letters of reference, etc. 7. At the conclusion of the interviews, the City Council may adjourn into an Executive Session to discuss the qualifications of the applicants. However, all interviews, deliberations, nominations and votes taken by the City Council shall be in an open public session. Packet Page 191 of 204 Executive Session The City Attorney should facilitate the discussion of determining each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses to determine qualifications. Councilmembers may share their individual rankings of candidates. The Council shall not conduct any straw polls or voting during the Executive Session. At the completion of the discussion, Council adjourns the Executive Session and reconvenes the public meeting. Packet Page 192 of 204 Reconvening the Public Open Meeting for Voting - OPTION A: 1. Each Councilmember shall submit a signed written ballot nominating their top five candidates to the City Clerk. Once all ballots are submitted, the Clerk will read aloud the Councilmember’s name and their selections. The Council will, by consensus, agree to eliminate 5 candidates receiving the fewest votes. 2. After this, and each round of voting, Councilmembers may deliberate on such matters as criteria for selection and the nominated group of candidates. Following that discussion, the Mayor shall poll Councilmembers to ascertain that Councilmembers are prepared to vote. 3. Repeat Step One using the new list of candidates, but Councilmembers select only their top three candidates. The Council will again, by consensus, eliminate candidates receiving the fewest votes. 4. At any time during the election process, the Council may postpone elections until a later date or regular meeting if a majority vote has not been received 5. In a final step, the Council can choose by majority vote to select their single top candidate by written ballot or roll call. 6. The City Clerk shall proceed with a roll-call vote (or written ballot) with each Councilmember expressing his or her preference for the appointed Councilmember. If no applicant receives four or more votes after the roll call, then a second roll call is conducted, but with the nominee who received the fewest votes on the first roll call removed from consideration. 7. Repeat Step Three using the new list of candidates, but Councilmembers select only their top two candidates. The Council will again, by consensus, eliminate candidates receiving the fewest votes. 8. Elections will continue until a nominee receives a majority vote of the remaining Councilmembers. Packet Page 193 of 204 Rules For Nomination/Election To Fill Council Vacancy (current rules) – OPTION B: Nominations Each Councilmember may nominate one candidate from the list of applicants by placing an “X” beside the name of the applicant of his or her choice on the form supplied for that purpose by the City Clerk, and by signing the nomination form. The City Clerk will announce and maintain a permanent record of the nominations and of the Councilmember nominating each candidate. The Election Each Councilmember may vote for one candidate by placing an “X” beside the name of the candidate of his or her choice on the ballot supplied for that purpose by the City Clerk, and by signing the ballot. The City Clerk will announce and maintain a permanent record of each ballot and who voted for each candidate. A Deadlock A deadlock occurs after each Councilmember votes the same way on three consecutive ballots. In the event the City Council should deadlock, then previous nominations are declared null and void and the Council may begin a new round of nominations. • Nothing in this policy shall prevent the City Council from reconvening into Executive Session to further discuss the applicant/candidate qualifications. • The Mayor shall declare the nominee receiving the majority vote as the new Councilmember and he or she shall be sworn into office by the City Clerk at the earliest opportunity or no later than the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting and will complete the unexpired term for the Position. • If the City Council does not appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy within 90 days of the declared vacancy, the Revised Code of Washington delegates appointment powers to Snohomish County. (RCW 42.12.070(4)) C:\Users\SPELLMAN\Documents\WORDATA\2015 POSTION #2 PETERSON COUNCIL VACANCY\FINAL UPDATE Edmonds City Council Candidate Interview and Voting Process 11-28-14.docx Packet Page 194 of 204 1.02.035 Filling vacant council positions. A. In the event a vacancy or vacancies shall occur on the city council, such position(s) shall be filled until a successor to such position(s) can be elected for the remainder of the unexpired term(s) at the next municipal election. Such election process shall comply with the requirements of RCW 35A.12.050 and Chapter 42.12 RCW. In addition the city council shall establish a process commensurate with the time available which includes, at a minimum, public notification by posting and publication in the city’s legal newspaper, the establishment of an application process with a clearly stated deadline for the submission of letters of interest, the development of questionnaires to assist the city council in its process, a public interview process conducted by the city council and nominations and selection by the city council during an open public meeting. All portions of this process shall be open to the public unless the city council in its discretion elects to discuss the qualifications of a candidate for public office in executive session as provided for by RCW 42.30.110(h). B. In the event that a council member shall resign or otherwise become ineligible to hold office after the date when the council position has been filled by election but prior to the date on which the newly elected council member is eligible to take office, the city council may in its sole discretion elect to dispense with the procedures established in subsection A of this section and appoint the newly elected successor to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term. [Ord. 3382 § 1, 2001; Ord. 3005 § 1, 1995; Ord. 1841 § 2, 1976]. Attachment 2 Packet Page 195 of 204 section of pipe on the Port’s property that the City’s stormwater flows through and the City pays a quarterly lease for use of the pipe. Councilmember Petso asked whether this project offers an opportunity to relocate that pipe to eliminate that lease. Mr. Williams answered the project offers opportunity to have that conversation with the Port. The pipe could have a use in the after condition as part of an active system to help with flooding problems. The flooding study, which is also a companion to this project, has not been completed. This project will remove the creek flow from that pipe and may provide opportunity to use the pipe for another useful purpose. Councilmember Petso commented the payment is not an insignificant amount and she was hopeful the project would reduce that obligation. Councilmember Johnson pointed out the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes a significant unfunded project, the relocation of the ferry to this general area. She asked whether that was considered in the feasibility studies. Ms. Hite answered yes; Walker Macy is considering the conceptual drawings in the Master Plan of Marina Beach. Councilmember Johnson referred to the alternatives analysis that may include a train trench and asked how that was considered. Mr. Williams answered the alternatives analysis could provide more information than currently exists regarding what a train trench would look like, design options for the trench, etc. There may be ways to make this project and that project compatible but that would need to be studied further. He recalled challenges identified during Tetra Tech’s presentation regarding vertical curves, linear distance required to reach a certain depth, etc. Initial estimates of the length of the train trench would put it in conflict with the current location of the bridge. Further preliminary design would need to be done to provide answers. Councilmember Johnson inquired about the public information process for the Marina Mark Master Plan. Ms. Hite answered the Project Advisory Committee will help guide the process and three public open houses are planned as well as touch points with the Planning Board, Council and public hearings. The process will include public open house, outreach to park users on initial concepts, schematic design process, another public open house to look at alternatives, presentation of alternatives to the Council and final decision on a concept. She summarized this is a Master Plan so it will be a concept design. 17. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PARK CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH DOG DAY AFTERNOON FOR AN ATM AT RICHARD F. ANWAY PARK Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite advised this is the same agreement signed last year. The Edmonds City Code allows her and the Mayor to authorize concessions in parks. Because the code addresses seasonal concessions and this is a year-round concession, she brought this to the Council for approval. This concession is appropriate for the park, many people use the ATM before boarding the ferry and it adds to Park Department revenues. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN PARK CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH DOG DAY AFTERNOON FOR AN ATM AT RICHARD F. ANWAY PARK. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how much the City receives from this concession. Ms. Hite answered $200 during the first 6 month; she offered to inform the Council when a full year’s revenue was reported. In total the City receives $10,000 for all park concessions. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 18. DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL UPDATE OF COUNCIL VACANCY INTERVIEWS, APPOINTMENT PROCESS, AND APPLICATION FORM QUESTIONS Packet Page 196 of 204 Mayor Earling advised Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Peterson have been working on this. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to Attachment 1, Edmonds City Council Candidate Interview and Voting Process. She clarified neither she nor Councilmember Peterson had any vested interest in the process but were presenting options in an effort to make the process smoother than it was the last time. Councilmember Peterson explained he and Council President Fraley-Monillas were tasked with codifying the process. Proposed changes include: • Expanding the application to include some basic questions • Councilmembers submitting interview questions so there was consistency between interviews • In lieu of interviewing all applicants, each Councilmember would identify five to be interviewed Councilmember Peterson explained the addition of basic questions and Councilmembers each identifying five candidates to be interviewed may allow the Council to begin the interview process with some semblance of agreement. He clarified Councilmembers were not required to vote for a candidate they identified to be interviewed. When the process reaches voting, many cities do different things; he felt voting was democracy in action. Council President Fraley-Monillas said Councilmember are also encouraged to contact applicants in advance of the interview to get questions answered. She recalled a lot of time had been spent during past interviews asking candidates questions related to Councilmember’s individual interests. Extra Council questions are proposed to be limited to one per Councilmember and the suggested interview timeframe is 40 minutes which is an increase from the current 30 minutes. The proposed process addresses the order of appearance, not allowing candidates in the Council Chambers until they are interviewed, two minute opening statement, formal and informal questions, two minute closing statement, and adjourning to executive session. Due to the late hour, Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the Council address the application tonight and continue discussing the other issues at future meetings. She asked what changes had been made to the application. Council President Fraley-Monillas advised volunteer experience, strengths and weaknesses, and greatest challenge were added. Councilmember Mesaros suggested changing the title to reflect Position 2. Council President Fraley- Monillas suggested eliminating the position number from the application. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that whoever was appointed to Position 2 would run for office in the fall to retain their position. Councilmember Peterson agreed. Council President Fraley- Monillas suggested adding that information at the top of the application. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the Council also discuss live streaming of the interviews at a future meeting. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION WITH THE CHANGES DISCUSSED AND SCHEDULE THE REMAINDER OF THE DISCUSSION FOR A WORK SESSION. Councilmember Johnson asked when applications were due. Mr. Taraday advised it is up to Council to make that decision. Councilmember Peterson suggested making the changes to the application, make the application available Monday, January 12, and require applications be submitted by Monday, February 2 which would provide three weeks to apply. The deadline for submitting the application is provided on the last page of the application. Packet Page 197 of 204 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO EXTEND FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Student Rep Eslami commented when filling out college applications, the question was often asked why this college. He suggested adding a question to the application about why the person wanted to serve. President Fraley-Monillas suggested amending Question 6 to read, “Why do you wish to serve and what do you believe to be the greatest challenge for our council?” Councilmember Johnson pointed out a typo in Question 5, yours should be your. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 18A. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2015 (Continued) Councilmember Petso asked if the meeting could be continued to a date certain, January 13, and therefore comply with the requirement that the Council President Pro Tem be elected at the first meeting. City Attorney Jeff Taraday responded that is an interesting idea but raises questions regarding the Open Public Meeting Act Special Meeting notice and seems a little contrived. Councilmember Petso agreed it was contrived but thought the Council had the ability to continue a meeting to a date certain. Mr. Taraday answered the Council can certainly continue hearings but he was not certain how Roberts Rules of Order addressed continuing a meeting. If this matter is not decided tonight, whether the meeting is continued or adjourned, the Council has given itself an argument that they have technically complied with City code. Councilmember Petso relayed her preference to comply with the code. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the language was at the first meeting or could this agenda item be moved to another meeting and the current Council President Pro Tem remain until a new one is elected. Mr. Taraday relayed the language in the code states, “at the same time.” Whether a continued meeting would be at the same time was an interesting question. Nominee Votes Councilmember Ballot 14 Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom Councilmember Mesaros 2 Peterson, Mesaros Councilmember Petso 1 Petso Abstain Fraley-Monillas Ballot 15 Councilmember Johnson 3 Johnson, Buckshnis, Bloom Councilmember Mesaros 2 Peterson, Mesaros Councilmember Petso 1 Petso Abstain Fraley-Monillas Councilmember Bloom reiterated her earlier statement that electing Councilmember Mesaros who only has ten months in office was a bad precedent to set and it was disrespectful to citizens. Councilmember Johnson has much more experience than Councilmember Mesaros. She still strongly supports Councilmember Petso and feels she is the best candidate for job but she strongly opposes appointing someone with so little experience and felt it was a disservice to the voters. She commented nothing prepares a person to be a Councilmember except being a Councilmember, not previous leadership, or any previous experience. A Councilmember is a political position and it is not comparable to anything Councilmember Mesaros had done in the past. She could not support someone who had so little experience. Packet Page 198 of 204 Councilmember Bloom referred to Conversion/Adaptive Reuse on page 209, and asked whether anything could be done to increase the number of structures on the Edmonds Registry of Historic Places. Ms. Hope suggested continuing to work with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Councilmember Johnson relayed the HPC has begun to track demolitions as demolitions are often historic homes. Councilmember Petso relayed she met with a citizen today who provided information regarding a method of demolition that recycles and reuses materials. Ms. Hope anticipated the code update will consider what can be done to encourage and in some cases require recycling of materials. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 8:45 12. DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL UPDATE OF COUNCIL VACANCY INTERVIEWS AND APPOINTMENT PROCESS Council President Fraley-Monillas advised the application was made available today; applicants have until February 2 to return applications. She suggested interviews be held February 17 and 18 and, to provide time for Councilmembers to call applicants, Council deliberations be held on Tuesday, March 3. Councilmember Petso advised she would be unable to attend the Economic Development Commission meeting on February 18. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed there were numerous conflicts; Councilmembers will need to prioritize the interviews as appointing a seventh Councilmember is the most important. It was agreed to start interviews at 5:00 p.m. on February 17 and at 6:00 p.m. on February 18 with 40 minutes per interview. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the intent was to also conduct a business meeting on March 3. Council President Fraley-Monillas answered she hoped the meeting would primarily be deliberations. It was agreed to begin deliberations at 6:00 p.m. on March 3. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the interview/voting process. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding last year that the equipment does not allow the meeting to be taped but not live streamed. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed IT is able to tape the meeting and air it later. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned whether applicants actually watched the live stream and said she preferred to live steam the interviews. Councilmember Mesaros relayed when he appointed, there were 14 interviews. The first six applicants were waiting for their turn; the later applicants had watched the interviews and knew the questions. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the interviews will be conducted over two days; both she and Councilmember Peterson felt it was better not to live stream the interviews but tape and air them after the interviews are concluded. She offered to double-check with IT regarding taping but not live streaming. Council President Fraley-Monillas reviewed the proposed Edmonds City Council Interview and Voting Process: • Prior to the Interview Meeting: o Staff will provide either a paper or electronic copy of all application materials for each candidate, along with a list of candidates and their interview times, and a Composite Scoring Sheet. Packet Page 199 of 204 o At least two business days prior to the scheduled interview meeting, Councilmembers will submit one question each to the Council President, who may also submit a question for a total of seven questions. o Council may call applicants with independent questions prior to interview Councilmember Buckshnis suggested there may need to be more questions or less time. She suggested each Councilmember provide two questions. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to Item 4 below. Council President Fraley-Monillas continued her review of the proposed Edmonds City Council Interview and Voting Process: • Open Public Interview Meeting o For fair and open process the interviews will not be live streamed but will be played after interviews are completed. Interviews for a vacant City Council position will be conducted in an open public meeting. Each interview of an applicant/candidate will be no longer than 40 minutes in length as follows: 1. The applicants’ order of appearance is determined by the order in which their applications were received. 2. Only the applicant being interviewed will be allowed in Council Chambers; the other applicants will be waiting in an area to be determined by the City Clerk. After completing their interview, each applicant may remain in Council chambers. 3. The applicant will have an opening statement to the City Council. ( 2 minutes ) 4. The City Council will ask a predetermined set of questions which must be responded to by the applicant. Each applicant will be asked and will answer the same set of questions, and will have 2 minutes to answer each question. (15 minutes ) 5. Councilmembers may engage in an informal question and answer period in which they may ask and receive answers to miscellaneous questions. (each councilmember will have 1 minute for a question and applicant will have 2 minutes for response) 6. Applicant will have the opportunity for a 2 minute closing statement 7. Councilmembers should score each applicant during the interview. 8. The City Council may reduce the 40 minute interview time if the number of applicants exceeds six (6) candidates, or alternatively, the Council may elect not to interview all of the applicants if the number exceeds six (6) candidates. 9. At the conclusion of the interviews, the City Council may adjourn into an Executive Session to discuss the qualifications of the applicants. However, all interviews, deliberations, nominations and votes taken by the City Council shall be in an open public session. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the section regarding Reconvening the Public Meeting for Voting, under #1 each Councilmember shall submit a signed written ballot nominating their top three candidates to the City Clerk. Once all ballots are submitted, the Clerk will read aloud the Councilmember’s name and their selections. The Council will, by consensus, agree to eliminate 5 candidates receiving the fewest votes, was taken from another cities’ process in an effort to narrow the field of applicants. Councilmember Bloom referred to #8 above and asked when a determination would be made whether to interview all applicants. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to #1 on the second page under Reconvening the Public Meeting for Voting. Councilmember Mesaros suggested this would occur before interviews were conducted. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to alternatives for determining the interview order of candidates and voting. Councilmember Mesaros said he liked the process described under #1 on the Packet Page 200 of 204 second page (Each Councilmember shall submit a signed written ballot nominating their top three candidates to the City Clerk. Once all ballots are submitted, the Clerk will read aloud the Councilmember’s name and their selections. The Council will, by consensus, agree to eliminate 5 candidates receiving the fewest votes.), envisioning it would provide an idea of Councilmembers’ top candidates prior to interviews. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed that was her and Councilmember Peterson’s intent; somehow narrowing the field of applicants to be interviewed and narrow the field further after interviews which may allow the process to proceed more smoothly than it has in the past. Councilmember Petso said #1 on the second page is in regard to voting, not limiting the pool of applicants for interview. She did not mind limiting the pool of applicants for interview as much although she did not understand why that would be done and she will personally talk to all the applicants regardless of whether the pool of applicants is narrowed. She was not comfortable with limiting candidates during voting. She recalled instances when a compromise emerged during deliberations. She anticipated it would be more difficult to reach a compromise when a Councilmember had to vote for their first choice throughout voting. She recalled during the process of selecting a City Attorney, the Council made the mistake of reducing to two candidates. She did not support reducing candidates during nominations, anticipating it would make it harder to reach a compromise. Councilmember Johnson commented the goal is to improve the process, be more efficient, and yet be fair. She objected to there being an opportunity through this process for a coalition that influenced the process via the elimination. She supported the idea of keeping it to a small number but it requires four votes to select a Councilmember. She suggested each Councilmember vote for their top ten to ensure a broader process. She suggested only interviewing candidates who could get four votes. Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled she and Councilmember Peterson discussed the number because it could vary. She anticipated 20 applicants could be reduced to 10-14. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if this was Mukilteo’s process. Council President Fraley-Monillas said most of it is Mukilteo’s, part of it is Shoreline’s. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out some people do not plan to apply because they plan to run for the open seat. She suggested expanding the list to 10. She summarized this will be a different selection process because the person will need to run a campaign to retain their seat. Councilmember Petso said rather than reducing then number of ballots by reducing the number of candidates, she preferred to change the deadlock provision. Under the current process, nominations are made and voting continues until the vote is the same three times. She recalled sometimes the vote will be the same twice and then a Councilmember changes their vote followed by several rounds of unproductive voting. She suggested the Council be allowed to declare a deadlock by motion and reopen nominations and even precede that with a break if necessary rather than repeated votes to reach three identical votes. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it may be difficult to reach a consensus on a deadlock. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked for input regarding the number of candidates to interview. Councilmember Bloom did not want to limit the number of candidate interviews, feeling it would not be fair not to give applicants an interview. For some it is an opportunity to share concerns and talk about issues that matter to them. If they take the time to complete the application, they should be interviewed. Councilmember Mesaros commented if the City receives 25 applications, that is a lot of interviews. Every Council meeting provides citizens an opportunity to share their thoughts. This effort is to select a new Councilmember, not to provide a forum for sharing thoughts. Most interview processes provide an opportunity to select applicants to be interviewed. The Council needs to be smart enough to make that Packet Page 201 of 204 determination. He suggested making this decision on February 3 based on the number of applicants. This was the consensus of the Council. Councilmember Johnson suggested only interviewing applicants that can be selected which honors everyone who applies and results in a more efficient process. During the last selection process, the Council interviewed 14 applicants and the 30 minute time limit did not include the time to provide the introduction or asking questions. Council President Fraley-Monillas pointed out one of the reason for changing the questions on the application was to gather more/better information from applicants. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked for input regarding the proposed interview process such as the two minute opening statement, predetermined questions, and an opportunity to submit a question. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested not limiting the time for an opening statement. Councilmember Mesaros agreed with not limiting the time for an opening statement but suggested applicants be informed of the 40 timeframe, that there will be 6 questions and 1 from each Councilmember and allow the applicant to manage their time. This was the consensus of the Council. Councilmember Johnson commented the time limits will depend on the number of people that are interviewed. Councilmember Bloom commented some people do not know how long they are talking. She suggested provide a cue when they have reached two minutes. Councilmember Petso referred to #7 above regarding scoring applicants and said applicants are scored, she will provide her score sheet later to allow her time to re-watch portions of the interviews, etc. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked for input regarding the process of voting, whether Councilmembers wanted to continue with the existing method or change it. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to retain the way it has been done in the past. Last time was an anomaly; it had not been that time consuming in the past. Councilmember Johnson did not like the existing process and did not want to go through 59 votes. She suggested some way of identifying people that can be selected. One way would be for Councilmembers to indicate who they would consider. Another would be to only consider people who can receive four votes. She recalled there was a voting block last time that resulted in a great deal of inefficiency. Councilmember Petso asked what Councilmember Johnson meant by only vote on those people that can be selected. If a person can get 4 votes, they can be selected. She was unsure why people who could get four votes would be identified first and then select among them. Councilmember Johnson replied many people could get four votes and many would not. She wanted to avoid the 58 votes that did not result in 1 person receiving 4 votes. Councilmember Mesaros suggested if ten people applied, the Council could interview them all. Or, to narrow the field, each Councilmember could vote for their top 4 out of the 10, and the Council would interview the 6 applicants that get the most votes or further narrow the field by voting on the top 3. Council President Fraley-Monillas said that was Mukilteo’s process. Councilmember Bloom asked how the individuals who would get four votes would be identified in advance. Councilmember Johnson explained if the Council interviewed all applicants, rather than selecting the top 5, Councilmembers could vote for a predetermined number of candidates and voting would only progress on the applicants that received 4 votes. Councilmember Bloom did not agree a lot of candidates would receive four votes. She also did not agree with Councilmember Johnson about the Packet Page 202 of 204 voting block; she voted for the candidate she felt was best and she made a very reasoned choice. She preferred Councilmember Mesaros’ suggestion but starting with a large number of applicants. Councilmember Petso said the process Councilmember Mesaros described is exactly what she is trying to avoid as it reminded her of the City Attorney process where a compromise choice was eliminated with only two candidates. She encouraged the Council not to do that, finding it very manipulative. Councilmember Bloom suggested the Council may want to go into executive session more frequently to discuss the candidates if there are deadlocks. Council President Fraley-Monillas summarized: • Consensus reached to make a decision on February 3 regarding whether all candidates will be interviewed • Consensus reached regarding the 40 minute interview length and informing applicants about the length of time • No consensus reached regarding the voting process (discuss at future Council meeting) 13. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS Councilmember Bloom said the code of ethics proposed by Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Peterson was essentially the major bullet points in Shoreline’s Code of Ethics but not the sub-points. Her research found a lot of confusion between what ethics are and what conduct is. Ethics is a field of study and many professions are required to take code of ethics classes to maintain their licenses. Not including the sub-points expects the public to know what is meant by the bullet points. Shoreline’s policy is succinct and gives examples under each bullet. She did not want to eliminate the specific examples, finding that watered the code down to where it was not understandable. A citizen reading the code needs those details to determine whether someone has committed a breach of ethics. Councilmember Bloom referred to Shoreline’s policy, specifically seek no favor; believe that personal benefit or profit secured by confidential information or by misuse of public time is dishonest. She asked Mr. Taraday to explain the last bullet point regarding 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 affect the operation of the City. Mr. Taraday suggested asking Shoreline. Councilmember Bloom summarized that was the only thing in Shoreline’s policy that may need to be removed. Council President Fraley-Monillas read from the proposed code of ethics, The purpose of the Edmonds Code of Ethics is to strengthen the quality of government through ethical principles which shall govern the conducted of elected and appointed officials and employees. She pointed out appointed officials and employees are covered under the code of ethics that exists for staff including department directors. The proposed code of ethics addresses only Councilmembers. Councilmember Bloom said all other codes of ethics include elected and appointed officials which would include all the directors who are nominated by the Mayor and approved by Council. Council President Fraley-Monillas reiterated there is a separate code of ethics for staff. Councilmember Bloom asked to see staff’s code of ethics. Mr. Taraday explained all employees are subject to the personnel policies which include obligations that could be considered ethical obligations. To the extent Council feels there is a gap in the obligations already placed on employees in the personnel policies, he recommended fixing that gap by supplementing the personnel policies so that anything that applies to an employee is contained in the personnel policies. He cautioned against having 2-3 different documents that outline staff’s obligations. Packet Page 203 of 204 COUNCILMEMBER SELECTION PROCESS OPTIONS OPTION C Step One. Public Statement Allow each applicant to provide a 3-minute statement about their interest in and qualifications for the position. This may take one hour, given approximately 20 candidates. The following are two optional intermediate steps if the Council wishes to narrow the candidates to a pool of finalists: Optional Step Two. Council Identification of Top Candidates Each Councilmember fills out a ballot with their top three candidates. The City Clerk tallies up each candidate selected and the number of times any candidate is selected. Those candidates selected by two or more Councilmembers will constitute the Final Candidate Pool. Optional Step Three. Interview of Final Candidate Pool If additional information is desired of the finalists, this process may be used. Each candidate will be asked three key questions, with 3 minutes to answer each question. This should amount to approximately 10 minutes per candidate. With approximately 3 to 5 finalists anticipated by this method, this process should take under one hour. Step Two (or Step Four if above options are selected). Nomination and Vote Random-Order Nomination and Vote Each Councilmember’s position is entered into a random-number selection tool (available online) that will produce a random ordering of the Councilmembers by position number. Starting with the first position in randomly selected order, each Councilmember will make a nomination and state his/her rationale. Each nomination must receive a “second.” If seconded, City Clerk will call for roll-call vote. This process continues until a candidate receives a nomination, second and majority vote by Council. Attachment 5 Packet Page 204 of 204