Loading...
2015.05.05 CC Agenda Packet              AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING MAY 5, 2015               6:45 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER   1.(15 Minutes) AM-7674 Meet with Historic Preservation candidate Dave Teitzel for appointment to the HPC.   BUSINESS MEETING MAY 5, 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-7676 Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2015.   B.AM-7684 Approval of claim checks #213993 through #214104 dated April 30, 2015 for $451,516.99. Approval of payroll check #61590 dated April 29, 2015 for $616.62.   C.AM-7672 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Ryan Speer ($200.00).   D.AM-7678 February 2015 Budgetary Financial Report   E.AM-7675 Confirmation of Dave Teitzel's appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission.       Packet Page 1 of 400   F.AM-7679 Authorization for Mayor to sign easement documents from the 7500 Building for the 76th Ave/212th Street Intersection Improvements Project   G.AM-7680 Authorization for Mayor to sign easement documents from Dairy Queen for the 76th Ave/212th Street Intersection Improvements Project   H.AM-7682 Award of the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project   I.AM-7683 Authorization for Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech for the Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study   J.AM-7689 Report on bids opened April 30, 2015 for the 2015 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project and award of contract to Buno Construction, LLC   K.AM-7687 Approval of 2015 Revenue Bond Ordinance.   5.(5 Minutes) AM-7619 Proclamation declaring May "Puget Sound Starts Here Month".   6.(5 Minutes) AM-7677 Community Service Announcement:  Memorial Day Ceremony   7.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings   8.(20 Minutes) AM-7667 Public Hearing for 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Interim Public Art Project   9.(20 Minutes) AM-7681 Public Hearing on a proposed Ordinance authorizing the acquisition by negotiation or condemnation of real property interests for the 76th Ave/212th  Street Intersection Improvements project.   10.(10 Minutes) AM-7685 Approval of Findings, Conclusions, and Decision regarding Hearing Examiner recommendation on proposed field improvements at Former Woodway High School.   11.(20 Minutes) AM-7686 Discussion and Potential Action on an Ordinance Amending the 2015 Budget   12.(20 Minutes) AM-7688 Draft Streetscape/Street Trees Element for 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update   13.(10 Minutes) AM-7690 Approval of Mandatory Right of Way Dedication for Vehrs Short Plat   14.(45 Minutes) AM-7658 Discussion and potential action regarding draft code of ethics, Attachment 16. Review of Options A,B,C and D.   15.(5 Minutes) AM-7691 Approval of Settlement Agreement with New Cingular Wireless   16.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments         Packet Page 2 of 400   17.(15 Minutes)Council Comments   18.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).   19.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.   ADJOURN         Packet Page 3 of 400    AM-7674     1.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Type: Information  Information Subject Title Meet with Historic Preservation candidate Dave Teitzel for appointment to the HPC. Recommendation The Historic Preservation Commission and Mayor Earling are recommending appointment of Dave Teitzel to the HPC. Previous Council Action Narrative The Historic Preservation Commission interviewed Mr. Teitzel at a recent HPC meeting and put him forward to Mayor Earling for appointment to the Commission. Mayor Earling has interviewed Mr. Teitzel and recommends his appointment to the Commission. Mr. Teitzel is a long-time Edmonds' resident and is interested in preserving the history of Edmonds for future generations. Mayor Earling and the Commission believe Mr. Teitzel will be an excellent addition to the Commission. Attachments Teitzel_app Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 04/29/2015 08:09 AM Mayor Dave Earling 04/29/2015 08:21 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/29/2015 08:25 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 04/27/2015 04:33 PM Final Approval Date: 04/29/2015  Packet Page 4 of 400 Packet Page 5 of 400 Packet Page 6 of 400 Packet Page 7 of 400    AM-7676     4. A.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2015. Recommendation  Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action  N/A Narrative  Attachment 1 - Draft Council Meeting Minutes. Attachments Attachment 1 - 04-28-15 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 04/28/2015 08:50 AM Final Approval Date: 04/28/2015  Packet Page 8 of 400 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES April 28, 2015 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Michael Nelson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Mike Clugston, Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder SPECIAL MEETING 1. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 2. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2015 BUDGET Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled last week this item was moved tonight’s study session; however, this agenda item states discussion and potential action. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO MOVE ITEM 2 TO ITEM 6A. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. 3. CONTINUED CLOSED-RECORD REVIEW OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED FIELD IMPROVEMENTS AT THE FORMER WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL Mayor Earling observed neither the Edmonds School District’s (ESD) attorney nor anyone representing the opposition was present. He asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday whether it was appropriate to proceed. Mr. Taraday agreed it was curious so few people were present. Although a delay would be a great inconvenience to the Council, he was leery about proceeding without an understanding of why the parties were not present. Packet Page 9 of 400 Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how the parties were made aware of the meeting time change. City Clerk Scott Passey advised a special meeting notice was posted on the City’s website and locations throughout the City as well as the agenda was posted on the City’s website Friday afternoon. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Council could begin the meeting with the study session and return to this item. Mr. Taraday explained under the Open Public Meetings Act, at a special meeting the Council is limited to conducting the business identified in the special meeting notice which was Item 2 that was moved to Item 6A and this item, Continuance of the Closed Record Review which is mysteriously poorly attended. Mayor Earling observed the ESD’s attorney was now present. Councilmember Bloom asked if the Council could take a break until 6:15 p.m., the time on the agenda when this item was estimated to begin. Mr. Taraday said the Council could wait as long they wished. He was concerned there could be a claimed lack of notice. For example, if the Council proceeds with Appearance of Fairness Doctrine (AFD) disclosures, there would be no one from the opponent group present to make an objection. That concerned him because he did not want on appeal to defend the AFD compliance when the people who could have objected were not present to object. He acknowledged it was potentially bending over backward to wait for the parties to show up, but looking ahead, he was concerned about moving forward. Councilmember Mesaros said if the meeting was noticed for this time, the Council should proceed. Although he shared Mr. Taraday’s concerns, notice was given and people had anticipated this agenda item. He recommended the Council move forward. Councilmember Petso suggested recessing until 7:00 p.m. but would do whatever Mr. Taraday recommended. Mr. Taraday explained this is a Council decision. There are obvious risks and benefits; if the Council proceeds, the benefit is the meeting stays on schedule. The downside is if this matter ends up in litigation, and he acknowledged he had no idea whether it would or not but there was at least some chance based on the way the parties are currently postured, this would be one more issue that someone could raise. He clarified he was not commenting on the merits of that issue; by every indication proper notice was given of the special meeting. He summarized he was suggesting there was an excuse not to be here but that was another issue that someone could raise that would potentially need to defended. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she could understand if there were even a few people in the audience representing the opposition but the fact that no one was present led her to believe there had been a misunderstanding. She did not want to risk further litigation by proceeding even if the meeting was properly noticed. She concluded it was probably better for the City and both sides to recess until 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Petso that the Council should recess until 7:00 p.m. She found it highly unusually that no one was here given the amount of passion in the room last week. Councilmember Nelson also agreed with recessing until 7:00 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO RECESS THE MEETING UNTIL 7:00 P.M. Councilmember Johnson asked whether the Council could return to the item originally scheduled as Agenda Item 2, the 2015 budget amendment. Packet Page 10 of 400 UPON ROLL CALL VOTE, MOTION FAILED (2-5) COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON, MESAROS AND NELSON VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO TAKE UP THE CLOSED RECORD REVIEW AT 7:00 P.M. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding of a study session/work session that this item could not be moved to study session/work session. Mr. Taraday said the Council can conduct any business they want at the regular meeting after 7:00 p.m. Before 7:00 p.m. the agenda items are limited to the items that were noticed for the special meeting. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO MOVE STUDY SESSION ITEM 6A BACK TO THE SPECIAL MEETING ITEM 2. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2015 BUDGET Finance Director Scott James provided an overview of the first quarter budget amendment: • 14 decision packages o 2 decision packages have previously been discussed by Council o 12 new decision packages • $248,645 in new revenues to pay toward $766,701 in new expenditures. He displayed and reviewed the Change in Fund Balance Summary, advising the net change in ending fund balance was a decrease of $518,000. He displayed Exhibit E: Specific Accounts Amended for Decision Packages. He reviewed decision packages previously discussed by Council: • Reprinting of informational brochures for the Historical Preservation Commission - $4,000 o Originally budgeted in 2014, not expended in 2014 • Council approved $1.2 million for the Street Preservation Program in 2014 and staff withheld $260,000 to provide a local match on a federal grant to overlay 220th Street in 2015. This budget amendment will add the $260,000 that was removed during the 2015 budget preparation process. Funding will be provided by the 126 REET 1: Special Capital Project Fund. o REET 1 funds may be spent on any capital purpose identified in a capital improvement plan for the purposes of planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation or improvement. o REET 2 may be spent on items that include street projects and park projects (with the exclusion of the acquisition of land). In 2011 the Washington State Legislature temporarily changed the laws governing the use of REET 2 funds by allowing funds to be used for street and park maintenance expenditures. o 2014 actual REET 1 revenues were approximately $690,000 higher than anticipated Mr. James reviewed new decision packages: • Edmonds 125th Anniversary Celebration festivities - $5,000. o Total anticipated cost is $7,500; staff anticipates $2,500 will come from sponsors/fundraising • Increase of $4,000 in compensation for state lobbyist from $36,300 to $40,300 • Merchant fee charges paid by Development Services for each credit card transaction - $10,450 Packet Page 11 of 400 • Additional assistance with Comprehensive Plan update - $14,200 o Offset in part by $6,000 grant • Printing Wildlife of Edmonds Poster - $2,527 o Self-funded via grant from the Hubbard Family Foundation • Health & Fitness Expo Supplies - $4,000 o Self-funded via sponsorship • Update Council Chambers/Court audio and video equipment - $195,000 o If budget amendment is approved, RFP process will follow o Cost would be paid out of the Franchise Education Fee revenues ($89,000) and from the annual Washington State Judicial contribution ($20,000) with the balance from a 2-year General Fund loan paid by the end of 2017 with future Education Fees. • Hazel Miller Concerts - $8,500 o Self-funded via grant from Hazel Miller Foundation • Donation for 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Interim Art Project from Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation - $10,000 • Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study - $4,000 o Original $1,000 budget not adequate to finish reports and respond to DOE comments • Replace fleet van and convert to Bi-Fuel propane - $37,718 o Offset by $16,518 in insurance for van totaled in an accident • Replacement of Police Radios - $12,306 Mr. James displayed Exhibit A: Summary of beginning fund balance, revenue, expenses and ending fund balance; Exhibit B: Revenues; and Exhibit C: Expenditures. He summarized: • Revenues increased $248,645 • Expenditures increased $766,701 • Ending fund balance decreased $518,056 Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the $110,000 interfund loan from the General Fund for the audio upgrade and asked why it was split into two years. Mr. James answered through March there is approximately $109,000; $20,000 from the annual Washington state Judicial contribution and $89,000 from the Comcast fee. There will not be enough collected this year or in 2016 to cover the cost, therefore, a few months of revenue from 2017 will be necessary. The rate for the interfund loan is the State Pool rate of .11-.12%. Mr. James advised details are included in the PowerPoint emailed to Councilmembers. Councilmember Bloom referred to the decision package regarding $1.2 million for the Street Preservation Program in 2014 and staff withheld $260,000 to provide a local match on a federal grant to overlay 220th Street in 2015. She relayed her understanding the budget amendments total $518,000. Mr. James clarified the ending fund balance is decreased by $518,000. Councilmember Bloom asked whether that included the decision packages that were self-funded. Mr. James answered that amount is the net of all revenues and expenses. Councilmember Bloom read from the PowerPoint that this budget amendment will add the $260,000 that was removed during the 2015 budget preparation process. She referred to a summary of the Council’s discussion of this item during the budget process which indicated this amount was removed so the funds could be used for purchase of property as designated in REET. She asked the rationale for restoring those funds now when they were removed during the budget process. Mr. James explained for five years the City did not fund its Street Preservation Program so it is behind by a number of years. The Mayors budget message states his priority to catch up on street preservation and these funds help accomplish that. When the funds were removed from the budget, they were not allocated to a specific property purchase but banked for future acquisition. The City has a current need to fund streets. He suggested the City adopt a policy to maintain what currently exists. Packet Page 12 of 400 Councilmember Bloom said she understood that and said that was Mr. James’ opinion. Councilmember Bloom questioned why the $260,000 was being added as a budget amendment when it was removed during the budget process. She understood street preservation but did not understand why funds that were allocated in the 2015 budget process were being pulled from property acquisition. Mr. James explained during that process, the budget was reduced and the funds placed in fund balance; the funds were not budgeted for property acquisition. The budget amendment reallocates those funds to street preservation. Councilmember Bloom pointed out there would then not be $260,000 to potentially purchase property if property becomes available. Mr. James explained when the funds were rebalanced, he discovered there was $689,000 more in revenue than was anticipated so there is additional revenue to cover it. Councilmember Bloom reiterated if the $260,000 is allocated to street preservation program it will not be available for purchase of property. Mr. James explained when the budget was adjusted to remove that amount, it was not reallocated for property acquisition, it was moved into fund balance. The budget amendment requests the $260,000 be allocated for street preservation. The Council could still chose to allocate funds for property acquisition. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the budget amendment to allocate $260,000 for street preservation is similar to balancing your checkbook and discovering you have additional funds available. The discovery of additional REET revenue allows the $260,000 to be allocated for the 220th Street match. She expressed support for the decision package. Councilmember Petso did not support that decision package, recalling she made the motion during the budget process to not allocate property acquisition funds to paving roads. She referred to the decision package regarding upgrading Council Chambers/Court audio and video equipment and asked how much of the total project cost of $195,000 was available from Comcast fees. Mr. James answered as of today there is approximately $109,000 available, $89,000 in Comcast fees and $20,000 from the Judicial contribution. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Comcast fees are in the 001 Fund in the budget. Mr. James answered yes. Councilmember Petso observed the remaining amount was $85,000 which Mr. James said is the amount of the interfund loan. Councilmember Johnson referred to the decision package regarding merchant fee charges, and asked why the merchant fee was passed along when it was her understanding development fees should pay for themselves. The description of the decision package indicates staff is developing a plan for compensating for these charges. She questioned why the amendment proposes allocating funds for all of 2015 if staff is in process of changing it. Mr. James said the City is charged a processing fee for credit cards, there is no fee in the permit process for that. Staff is looking at either outsourcing collection of credit cards to a vender who would pass on the fee or the City charging the fee itself. He did not have an estimated timetable for when a decision would be made regarding those options. The City is currently being assessed a fee and that amount was not budgeted. Councilmember Johnson said charging the fee would be in keeping with the overall policy and she favored pursuing that. Councilmember Petso agreed with the intent of Councilmember Johnson’s comment and asked whether Council action was required to stop accepting credit cards for large fees and force people to provide a check or if that could be done administratively. Mr. James answered either the Council could make that a policy or the Mayor could provide that direction to staff. Councilmember Petso asked if the City was legally allowed to say if a credit card charge is more than $500, a check is required. Mr. James said if the City leverages a fee, it needs to be the same for everyone. Councilmember Petso asked whether the City could decline to accept credit cards for fees in excess of $500. Mr. James was not certain, the City’s soft policy is $5,000 but people get around that by using Packet Page 13 of 400 multiple credit cards. Councilmember Petso asked whether the City was legally allowed to have a policy, whether by Council or administrative action, not to accept credit cards for fees in excess $500. Mr. Taraday said he would need to research that. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the fee on $5,000 charge. Mr. James answered the fee is 3%. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the budget amendment related to the Street Preservation Program and asked Mr. James to describe again the additional $600,000 in revenue. Mr. James referred to Budget Book page 170, advising Exhibit A updates that information to reflect the revised fund balance. When the budget was prepared, the estimated fund balance was $470,000; the actual is $1.1 million. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what fund the money is in. Mr. James answered REET 1 Fund 126. Councilmember Mesaros referred to the merchant fees, observing the budgeted amount of $10,450 represents approximately $350,000 in charges with a 3% fee. He said the $10,450 is the cost of doing business in today’s world where people tend to do business with plastic rather than checkbooks. He recommended approval of that amendment but was open to recommendations to mitigate those costs. Councilmember Nelson referred to the Street Preservation Program amendment, and asked, where the funds would come from if the $260,000 was not restored. Mr. James said options are limited; the City already does a good job of maximize street preservation funds. In the past funds were transferred from the General Fund but the substantial bill from Fire District 1 last fall of $1.6 million and future higher bills eliminates that source in the future. Other options include REET; the 126 Fund has money that could be utilized for that purpose. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the 126 Fund can be used for parks acquisition. Mr. James answered yes, REET 1 (126 Fund) can be used for property acquisition; REET 2 cannot. Council President Fraley-Monillas how much money is in REET 2. Mr. James answered the budget projected $400,000; the actual will be less than that amount. He did not have the updated amounts available tonight. Councilmember Petso said even if the $260,000 is not counted toward roads, the 2015 budget still includes $550,000 from the General Fund and $750,000 from REET 2 for a total of $1.3 million. Mr. James referred to estimated amounts on page 174 of the budget book. Public Works Director Phil Williams said Councilmember Petso’s figures were likely correct. When it was realized there was an approximately $100,000 shortfall in REET funds, he agreed not to draw $50,000 into the Street Preservation Fund and Ms. Hite agreed not to spend $50,000 on park projects. Councilmember Petso observed that would reduce the Street Preservation Fund to $1.25 million not counting the $260,000 for the 220th project. Mr. Williams said there would be $1.25 million in new revenue. The $260,000 in the 2014 budget was moved into 2015 to match the federal grant for 220th. The $260,000 was subsequently taken out of the 2015 budget. Therefore the only option is to reduce the work planned in 2015 by an equal amount. He assumed the Council did not want to return the federal grant and not pave 220th. If that amount is removed from the $1.25 million, other work that was planned will not be done. Councilmember Petso said if the $260,000 decision package is not reinstated, those funds would be taken from the $1.25 million to match the 220th grant leaving close to $1 million for other paving projects. Mr. Williams agreed with that calculation. Packet Page 14 of 400 Councilmember Bloom questioned the $4,000 for the lobbyist, relaying her understanding Mr. Doubleday was “passing the wand to someone else.” Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty said lobbyist services this year have been provided by Mr. Doubleday and Jennifer Ziegler. At the end of the session, the post session follow-up and preparation for next year will be done by Ms. Ziegler. Councilmember Bloom asked when the $4,000 amount would start. Mr. Doherty explained the annual contract is $36,300. The monthly cost is higher during the session when more work occurs and lower for the remainder of the year. The additional $4,000 increases the contract total to $40,300 and will be proportionally added to the remaining months of this year. Councilmember Bloom asked if the $4,000 additional cost would continue in the future. Mr. Doherty said the City has not received a proposal for next year’s services; the baseline would be $40,300. Councilmember Bloom asked why this was not included in the 2015 budget. Mr. Doherty said Mr. Doubleday recognized the City’s recessionary years and did not ask for an increase for several years. When he submitted the request, the budget had already been prepared and he agreed to wait for a budget amendment. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE FIRST QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT. Councilmember Bloom raised a point of order, stating approving the budget amendment tonight would be contrary to the decision at the last meeting to move it to a study session as well as the decision at the beginning of the meeting to move it to the study session. She did not feel the motion for approval was appropriate when only four minutes remained and there was no time to discuss potential amendments. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mayor Earling advised this item will be scheduled for action on a future agenda. He declared a brief recess. STUDY SESSION 3. CONTINUED CLOSED-RECORD REVIEW OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED FIELD IMPROVEMENTS AT THE FORMER WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL (CON’T) Mayor Earling relayed Mr. Taraday’s indication that some of the people who it was thought would be here tonight were a school board meeting. He assumed the opposition would have been here tonight had they intended to listen to the outcome of the Council’s discussion but it was up to the Council to decide whether to move forward. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested proceeding. No Councilmembers voiced opposition to proceeding. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the Approval of the Agenda and Consent Agenda and Audience Comments would occur before the Closed Record Review. Mr. Taraday said the Closed Record Review was originally scheduled for approximately 6:15 p.m. and the Council can reorder the agenda as it wishes at a regular meeting. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, APPROVE THE AGENDA AND HAVE AUDIENCE COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE CLOSED RECORD REVIEW. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS VOTING NO. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Packet Page 15 of 400 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Johnson requested Item C be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 2015 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #213891 THROUGH #213992 DATED APRIL 23, 2015 FOR $854,676.51 (REISSUED CHECKS #213916 $25.48 & #213958 $9.85). APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECK #61589 FOR $166.66 FOR THE PAY PERIOD APRIL 1, 2015 THROUGH APRIL 15, 2015 ITEM C. CITY PARK AWARD OF BID FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SPRAY PAD AND GRANTING OF UTILITY EASEMENT Councilmember Johnson said she pulled this so it could be voted on separately. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ITEM C. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Doug Schwartz, Edmonds, recalled he spoke to the Council last week about the Council considering the purchase of the Edmonds Conference Center. He provided rationale for investigating the purchase, stating a smart city plans for its future. The Conference Center is a prime piece of real estate, located close to existing City offices, is perfect for future expansion and there are few other opportunities for expansion nearby. The building would make an excellent entrepreneurial development center; by hosting a business technology incubator, the City could generate significant revenue and promote high tech job creation. As a member of the Economic Development Commission, he has heard the City’s goal of attracting younger families which high tech jobs would do. Although there is water damage in the building, the $1 million estimate appears to be high; the repair portion of the estimate is only $438,000. The estimate from North Sound Church’s independent investigation was significant less than $500,000. Further, the State is willing to consider offsets for job creation, future revenue generation and the estimated repair costs. He summarized there has to be some price at which purchasing the building makes overwhelming sense. He encouraged the City to express interest, do its investigation into the price and investigate with the State whether a deal can be made. He had no personal interest in the building but felt allowing it to be purchased by a private party without investigation was short sighted and a mistake. Jenny Anttila, Edmonds, explained during a call to the Washington State Surplus Department, it was confirmed the City of Edmonds had not been notified via email on March 4, 2015 regarding the sale of the Edmonds Conference Center. There was an acknowledgement that the City Council had had a lack of notification and the date was extended to June 1, 2015. This gives the Council time to consider the possible use and future needs. The current City Hall was purchased 16-18 years ago recognizing the City’s growth needs. The Edmonds Conference Center could be used to accommodate future growth, as a Packet Page 16 of 400 conference center, for group meetings, rentals, weddings, events and perhaps Rick Steves who currently uses the building three days a year. The building is in a prime location and has not been marketed to its full potential. She concluded some visionaries can see the future even though they won’t be here; the ongoing community ultimately benefits. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, referred to a temporary construction easement document in tonight’s packet. Temporary construction easements must be granted to the City when the City has a true public need to use another’s property. The granting of an easement also arises during the vacation of a street easement that is not needed for public ingress/egress. For example, the City may need to maintain a utility pipe under the easement being vacated. In these situations, the Council can pass a resolution of intent to vacate the street easement as long as the property owner grants a different easement to the City in exchange for the street easement being vacated. Per the code, this condition must be met within 90 days. After reviewing Agenda Item 10, he suggested the Council consider that while the City chose to violate the code related to his property, there is no resolution of intent to vacate as required by the code. There also is no grant document related to what the City did to him; an illegal easement that caused him great harm for years. He urged the Council to look at ECC 2.01.010 which states the Mayor shall see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced. The City’s code does not state that once the City has chosen to commit an illegal act the Mayor is suddenly relieved of his duty to see that all laws and ordinances are followed. The code is clear, it is not the citizen’s burden, it is the Mayor’s. There was no grant in his situation and that should have been the end; instead the City acted as if it had a grant and used the illegal temporary construction easement to attack his private property via permanent code enforcement. Council may have been fooled before they voted on that illegal easement but have had years of opportunity to address what took place. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, said one thing outweighs all the reasons in support of purchasing the Edmonds Conference Center - the City does not have the money and evaluating the opportunity is a waste of the Mayor’s, Councilmembers’ and staff’s time. Washington cities must provide four mandatory services, public safety, streets, utilities and administration of those three services. The City needs additional police resources particularly for traffic enforcement as well as a massive amount of street work and sidewalks. The City clearly does not have sufficient funds for those two mandatory services so time should not be wasted considering what the State classifies as discretionary services. He provided an analogy, a homeowner who did not have the money to replace their roof would not evaluate the purchase of a vacation home. He urged the Council to bring any study of the purchase of the Edmonds Conference Center to an immediate conclusion and not waste time like was wasted on the Skippers property a few years ago. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, spoke regarding the Edmonds Conference Center, relaying there are water problems, there is no parking, expenses are greater than the income and the idea of marketing it is not feasible because the Edmonds Center for the Arts is not fully utilized and the City loses money on it. Next, he referred to the right-of-way discussions, expressing concern that taking property from Dairy Queen will affect their business and few vehicles make the right turn lane from 76th Avenue to eastbound 212th. With regard to the Streetscape Plan, he referred to page 157 where it states some interest was expressed regarding additional language and a note about views could be added in a later version. He suggested adding language about views now. He suggested adding on page 86 view blockage and a maximum height for trees. With regard to a note that where feasible street trees should improve the pedestrian experience; he said blocking views was not a good experience. He also recalled a suggestion to include pictures of the trees. 3. CONTINUED CLOSED-RECORD REVIEW OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED FIELD IMPROVEMENTS AT THE FORMER WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL (CON’T) Packet Page 17 of 400 Mayor Earling explained this is a continuation of the closed record hearing from April 21, 2015 in which the City Council was tasked with considering the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner related to the following applications of the Edmonds School District: • PLN20140065 (design review) • PLN20140066 (height variance for ball control fencing in the RS-8 zone) • The portion of PLN20140067 relating to a Conditional Use Permit for bleachers and ball control fencing height in the OS zone. The hearing was continued from April 21, 2015 for 2 reasons, 1) the Council packet for April 21, 2015 did not contain the 10-page Hearing Examiner summary of testimony so it was determined the Council should have an opportunity to ask questions about the summary of testimony after having had an opportunity to review it, and 2) because it was difficult to determine in real time whether oral argument during the hearing was properly confined to the record before the examiner or whether new evidence was introduced, it was determined objections to the scope of argument offered on April 21, 2015 would be allowed to be introduced on April 28, 2015. After the City Council dispenses with the very limited scope of activity this evening, it will be able to proceed with its deliberations. In accordance with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, Mayor Earling asked whether any member of the decision-making body has engaged in any oral or written communication with opponents or proponents of the project outside the presence of the other party. Councilmember Nelson said he had not had any contact with any of the parties outside the presence of the other parties. Councilmember Johnson disclosed she received some emails and read two. Subsequently the City Attorney told the Council to disregard them and inform him which emails they had read. She would need to ask the IT Department to discover them because she deleted them. The comments she read were related to the crumb rubber turf which was outside the scope of the Hearing Examiner’s decision. Councilmember Bloom said she had not had any conversations or email communications with anyone related to this topic. Councilmember Petso reported she had had no contacts this week. Councilmember Mesaros said he had not have any contacts this week. Councilmember Buckshnis said she received a number emails and read two before the Council was told not to read emails. The emails she read were outside the scope of the Hearing Examiner’s decision. She deleted all other emails she received. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she has not received anything since the last week. She submitted to Mr. Taraday notes that were attached to the plants provided to her and Mayor Earling last week. She did not read the notes but knew they were from interested parties. Mayor Earling said he has had no contact with outside parties. He did not have an opportunity to read the note attached to his plant. To supplement the record from last week’s disclosures regarding ex-parte communications, Mr. Taraday recalled Councilmember Petso asked that he or the City Clerk locate emails she received prior to his instruction not to read emails. He was able to locate what he believed to be most of those, particularly those that did not involve staff. He clarified staff was not generally considered to be opponents or Packet Page 18 of 400 proponents of the project. He shared copies of the emails with counsel for School District at approximately 6:15 p.m. tonight and she has had an opportunity to review them. He tried to share copies of the emails with someone from the opposition but had not yet seen anyone here tonight. He referenced the date and time of the emails and added hardcopies into the record: • From Valerie Stewart to Lora Petso, March 21, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. • From Lora Petso to Valerie Stewart, March 21, 2015 at 10:26 a.m. • From Carrie Hite copying Mayor Earling, Renee McRae and Valarie Stewart, and blind copying the Council, March 23, 2015 at 9:25 a.m. • From Denise Wechsler to Lora Petso, March 24, 2015 at 11:44 a.m. • From Lora Petso to Denise Wechsler, March 24, 2015 at 1:34 p.m. He asked whether any substance of the communication that occurred outside the record needed to be rebutted by parties to the proceedings, either the School District or the opponents. Kristine Wilson, counsel for Edmonds School District, said she reviewed the communications that were disclosed at the April 21, 2015 meeting. The District does not object to the participation of Councilmembers who may have read the emails. The District trusts the Councilmembers’ ability to set aside irrelevant information on matters beyond the scope of the record or issues present. The District objects to the extent the substance is outside the record if there are findings that rely upon that information. Otherwise, the District has no further objections to note. Mayor Earling asked whether any member of Council had a conflict of interest and believed he/she could not hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner. Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmembers Buckshnis, Mesaros, Petso, Bloom, Johnson and Nelson and Mayor Earling said they had no conflicts and could hear the matter in a fair and impartial manner. Mayor Earling asked if any audience member objected to his or any Councilmember’s participation as a decision-maker in the hearing. There were no objections voiced. Mayor Earling asked whether Councilmembers had any questions as result of reading the summary of testimony that was not included in last week’s packet. Councilmember Bloom said she had a lot of questions, primarily regarding the Determination of Non- Significance (DNS) which was brought up in testimony. Mr. Taraday suggested she ask the questions but clarified the reason the hearing was continued was because the Council did not have a fair opportunity to read and review the 10-page summary. Councilmember Bloom said she carefully reviewed the citizen comments. One of the comments was related to the SEPA DNS, specifically Mark Walls said the SEPA DNS should be overturned because there is information that environmental impacts will occur and the School District misrepresented the situation. She asked what a DNS was. Mr. Taraday explained under SEPA the agency that is doing the SEPA review does an environmental checklist to get a sense of the scope of adverse environmental impacts that a project might cause. A project that is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts gets a Determination of Significance which leads to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A project that does not appear likely to create significant adverse environmental impacts gets a Determination of Non-Significance which more or less ends the environmental review and no EIS follows. Mr. Taraday explained the School District was the lead SEPA agency for this proposal and because their SEPA analysis was done for the same proposal for which the City was processing applications, SEPA Packet Page 19 of 400 requires the City use that environmental document unchanged. There was no mechanism for the City to provide a SEPA appeal and no mechanism for the City to supplement the SEPA. He did not think the City analyzed whether the SEPA needed to be supplemented because staff knew it could not be supplemented. The entire environmental review under SEPA for this project is in the hands of the School District. The opponents have alleged there are problems with the SEPA review that was done; to the extent that those are legitimate problems, that will be the School District’s battle in another forum and not one the Council can take up here tonight. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding of Mr. Taraday’s explanation that there was no appeal process for the DNS by the School District. Mr. Taraday said when the City is the lead agency there is an appeal process; the City was not the lead agency in this case. There is a significant difference between a DNS prepared by the City and a DNS prepared by the School District from procedural standpoint. Councilmember Bloom said she has numerous questions about the DNS. Mr. Taraday said he cannot comment on the content of the DNS because it is outside the City’s procedure; the City did not draft the document and the City was not able to supplement or appeal it. Councilmember Bloom asked whether Councilmembers in this quasi-judicial hearing could say they objected to the DNS. Mr. Taraday said no, because the City is not the SEPA lead agency. The School District does not have an administrative appeal process; to the extent someone wants to take issue with the SEPA analysis that was done, that is for another forum. Councilmember Bloom asked what forum, noting she had a number of very important question related to this project. Mr. Taraday said he has not analyzed how the DNS could be appealed. He assumed some type of judicial appeal could be brought or could have been brought; he was uncertain whether the time period had expired. When there is not an administrative appeal; there should at least be a judicial one. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding of Mr. Taraday’s explanation that the Council cannot require SEPA evaluations be done such as regarding the wildlife preserve, traffic mitigation, air quality, etc. in advance of any project. Mr. Taraday agreed that was what he was saying. The Council’s discretion in analyzing this quasi-judicial matter is looking at the decision criteria that relate to the permits that are before the Council for consideration; SEPA is not one of those. Councilmember Bloom asked if she could still ask questions regarding air quality, traffic, parking, the wildlife preserve, etc. because it was in the packet that she was expected to review. Mr. Taraday said there was a lot of information in the packet and in testimony that in his opinion was not relevant to the decision criteria that Councilmembers can consider. Councilmembers can ask questions but when the Council deliberates, they will have tie facts in record to the decision criteria that relate to the permits that are before the Council for consideration. For example he had not considered how air quality might relate to any of the decision criteria that are before the Council and whether there was enough evidence in the record to analyze that in light of the criteria; that was the type of analysis Councilmembers would need to do. Councilmember Petso relayed the public has claimed the SEPA was inadequate and should have been withdrawn and cited the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provision. She asked for confirmation that Mr. Taraday’s legal advice was that even if City Council agreed with that claim, they could not and should not deny the requested permits on that basis. Mr. Taraday answered that is correct. He was uncertain how the Council would be in a position to have an opinion on that claim because they did not have a fully developed record to allow them to have an opinion on that claim. He was not certain how much of the SEPA materials were in the packet. His advice was for the Council to base its decision on the code criteria that relate to the permits that are before the Council and not on any SEPA criteria or SEPA analysis. To the implication it would be wrong for the Council to approve permits on an inadequate Packet Page 20 of 400 SEPA, Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding that was before the Council. Mr. Taraday reiterated the City was not the lead agency and SEPA was not within the Council’s purview. Councilmember Petso recalled “back in the olden days” rather than the Council decision being the actual Findings and Conclusions, occasionally the Council would make motions to clarify for the City Attorney the Council’s intent and the City Attorney would draft Findings and Conclusions for subsequent approval. She asked if that was what Mr. Taraday expected to occur tonight. Mr. Taraday said as the Council deliberates and votes, he will take copious notes to get a sense of what should be in the Findings and Conclusions. He likely will start with the Hearing Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions except to the extent the Council directs him to do otherwise. To the extent the Council wanted him to draft findings that differed from the Hearing Examiner’s, he requested evidence in the record and what the Finding and Conclusion should say. He will provide Findings and Conclusions for Council review at next week’s meeting. Councilmember Petso recalled asking last week if it was permissible for the Council to impose conditions related to the permits as the Architectural Design Board (ADB) and Hearing Examiner did. Mr. Taraday answered yes, as long as they were based on evidence in record and decision criteria that are relevant to the permits. To the extent comments or representations are made in record such as the City will be scheduling the playfields or the gate at 102nd will remain shut and used only for emergency access, Councilmember Petso asked whether it was within the Council’s authority to make those conditions of permit approval as long as there was review criteria that related to those items. Mr. Taraday said it would need to tie to the decision criterial. He assume if there was a representation of how the project would be utilized in the future, they were doing so because they felt it was relevant to decision criteria and the Council could convert a representation into a condition. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if all the Council was voting on tonight was the bleachers and the height of the fence. Mr. Taraday answered more or less, the Council was being asked to approve various permits: a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), design review, variances and the permits related to the bleachers and fence height. Councilmember Buckshnis applauded Mayor Earling for allowing everyone to speak at last week’s meeting. The Council subsequently received a letter from Ms. Wilson indicating certain individuals did not address the bleachers and/or fencing. She asked whether Councilmembers should disregard all the additional information that was provided regarding things that were not related to the bleachers or fencing. Mr. Taraday said it is for each Councilmember to decide what they feel is relevant or irrelevant. Mr. Taraday referred to written objections submitted by the School District that were included in the Council packet. He asked whether anyone present objected to evidence outside the record introduced at last week’s hearing other than what the School District stated in its letter. There were no objections voiced. Mayor Earling asked whether Councilmembers had any questions of staff or wished to have additional oral argument on one or more of the issues or did they wish to move into deliberations. Councilmember Petso observed the Comprehensive Plan adopted February 2014 says the community will be involved in design development. As the Council must find this application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, she asked staff to describe how the community has been involved in the design of the project since February 2014. Mr. Taraday provided a partial answer, reminding the Council one of the permits is a design review permit. He did not know whether the Comprehensive Plan language Packet Page 21 of 400 contemplated that design review permit, but that argument could be made. Planner Mike Clugston agreed with Mr. Taraday; he was not aware of any other meetings or design workshops since February 2014 in the record other than the design review meeting by the ADB. Councilmember Bloom asked how review by the ADB could be represented as community involvement. Mr. Taraday answered it is a public process that relates to design. Councilmember Bloom pointed out that occurred after the School District presented the design. Mr. Taraday was not certain what the Comprehensive Plan language intended but there was a public process related to design, the meeting before the ADB, a recommendation from the ADB to the Hearing Examiner, an open public record hearing before the Hearing Examiner on the design review permit and then this process. Councilmember Bloom asked if was typical to postpone the traffic mitigation study to after approval of the project. Mr. Clugston answered it depends, in many cases when like for like features are substituted; there are two existing fields on the site now as well as in the proposal, the engineering division commonly considers that as like for like replacement and if there were any mitigation fees, they are assessed with the building permit. Councilmember Bloom commented the location does not seem appropriate due to one road in and out, adding events but keeping the same amount of parking and with no way to monitor it. She recalled comments in the record related to traffic flow and a determination that there would sufficient parking for phase 1. She did not see this big of a project being located there with only one road in and out. She could see it at Civic Field where there are many ways in and out. She asked how it was reasonable to delay the traffic study. Mr. Clugston answered two grass fields currently exist and two fields with another surface will exist in the future. If additional fields are added in the future, there may be a need for additional traffic study. He acknowledged field use will probably be increased because the fields will be better but there is more than adequate parking for the school and athletic field uses and there is a signalized intersection at 100th. Councilmember Bloom observed the record states scheduling will be done by Parks and the Edmonds School District. She observed there are significant weekly musical theater performances at the school. She asked how evening and weekend sports events will occur at the same time as musical theater events and whether that was taken into account in the determination that 300 parking spaces was enough. Mr. Clugston answered the 307 existing parking spaces meet the requirements. He read from page 12 of the staff decision, using the assembly area 137 stalls would be required based on an estimate of where spectators would most likely congregate around the fields. The addition of 102 stalls for school use equals 239 stalls, 68 less than the 307 that currently exist. He concluded there is ample parking on the site for the proposed project. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the City and School District envisioned sports and musical theater events would occur at the same time. Ms. Hite reiterated her comment in the record that in working with the School District, the City will mitigate the concerns of the neighbor, be a good neighbor and listen to the neighbors’ concerns. The idea would be to schedule the fields during non-peak use times when the school is using the parking lot to avoid concerns with parking and traffic. Councilmember Bloom said Edmonds Heights has a musical theater program that has evening and weekend performances throughout the year that fill the lot. She asked whether the intent was not to schedule concurrent events. Ms. Hite said in discussion with the School District, the City will seek to learn about high peak uses and to schedule around it. The City is committed to working with the school regarding scheduling use around their high peak use times so that there is enough parking. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether games are currently held on both fields. Mr. Clugston answered the record states the fields are used now; he did not know the scope and extent of that use. Packet Page 22 of 400 Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the parking is used for other events such as the Taste of Edmonds or the Arts Festival. Mr. Clugston said that was not in the record and he did not know. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the staff report for design review permit PLN20140065 which includes bleachers and lighting. She asked whether the Council is to disregard the information regarding light poles even though it is in design review permit. Mr. Taraday answered the School District withdrew its lighting applications. The Findings and Conclusions the Council ultimately adopts should be consistent with the School District’s withdrawal of its lighting application. Councilmember Buckshnis said if the Council upholds the Hearing Examiner’s decision on the design review permit, it will have remove the lighting and poles. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Petso observed there is currently a soccer field on the subject property in the outfield of an existing baseball field. Her understanding was the proposal was for 2 soccer and 2 baseball fields in phase 1. Mr. Clugston displayed a drawing from Exhibit 2 that illustrates 2 side-by-side soccer fields and lined elements over the top of those fields for use of the same fields for softball or baseball but not for both sports at the same time. He clarified there were two fields that could be used for baseball, soccer, lacrosse or other purposes. Councilmember Bloom asked if the current fields were used as regularly as they would be used in the future. Mr. Clugston answered he did not know the intensity of the current use. Council indicated they were prepared to move into deliberation. Councilmember Petso recalled Mr. Taraday stated Councilmembers should indicate areas of disagreement. She did not see the proposal as like for like, there are two soccer or baseball fields in the proposal and there is currently one soccer field in the outfield of a baseball field. She disagreed with the Hearing Examiner that the installation of bleachers and ball control fencing for two fields did not represent without the lighting a significant increase in use. She viewed it as going from a single practice field that would accommodate at most one team at a time to competition fields that could accommodate up to four teams at the same time. Because the project is creating a change, she requested the Council consider making the representations made to the Hearing Examiner into conditions. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, THAT THE TRAFFIC GATE AT 102ND WILL REMAIN CLOSED TO ALL TRAFFIC EXCEPT EMERGENCY VEHICLES. Councilmember Petso said the basis for this condition was that it not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as well as a code provision governing CUPs, 16.80.020.E that states traffic impacts of the proposal are to be considered. A condition that the traffic gate at 102nd remains closed to all traffic except emergency vehicles will mitigate the traffic for the residents on 102nd. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the gate was currently closed and only used for emergency access. Mr. Clugston said there was no indication in the record that it would be opened for use as part of this project; it would remain locked for emergency use. Councilmember Mesaros asked why this motion was needed. Mr. Clugston said that is the standard practice now. There may be some document he was not aware of that the School District uses to gauge the use of the gate. The gate was originally put in to keep traffic from going from the school into that neighborhood and for emergency use. Councilmember Petso said this condition would better assure the proposal meets the criteria of the CUP. It also provides guidance to the School District and the City in operating the facility. If it was deemed Packet Page 23 of 400 advisable to open the gate in the future, rather than simply unlocking it, the CUP would need to be modified to allow the gate to be opened and that process would provide opportunity for public input. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she could not think of a reason not to pass the motion. She asked staff if there were any potential downfalls. Mr. Clugston answered there was nothing in the record to indicate one way or another. There may be multiple phases of the project with additional traffic, parking and access needs. With this phase there was no indication anything would happen with that access. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed that is a small downhill road in a residential area and is not appropriate for additional traffic. Councilmember Johnson referred to Councilmember Petso’s postulation regarding the number of practice and playing fields. She asked whether that was in the record or her personal conclusion. Mr. Clugston answered the information in the record is a proposal for two soccer/multiuse fields. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the current configuration has two fields, one above and one below. Mr. Clugston referred to the aerial photo, identifying the phase 1 area where 2 fields are proposed at the southwest corner of the site. More fields could be proposed in subsequent phases; the current proposal is for two fields to replace the existing fields. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO IMPOSE A CONDITION THAT NO PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS OR OTHER NOISE AMPLIFICATION BE PERMITTED. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how noise could be part of design review. Mr. Taraday advised there are three permits before the Council. He suggested Councilmember Petso speak to which decision this criterion relates to and whether it ties to a representation made by the School District. Councilmember Petso said to the best of her knowledge the representation was previously made by the School District. The review criterion is 16.80.020.D regarding noise and her concern is where there are bleachers there is the potential for PA announcements. Councilmember Bloom said the DNS under environmental health states related to noise, in the long term noise levels would be consistent with existing levels. She wanted to ensure noise levels were consistent with existing levels. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked where this was in the Hearing Examiner decision and subsequently found it in Item C. To Councilmember Bloom’s desire to keep noise at the existing level, Councilmember Mesaros asked what evidence exists regarding the existing levels. Councilmember Bloom suggested asking the School District due to their claim in the DNS that noise levels will be consistent with current levels. Councilmember Mesaros observed the current levels could include the use of a PA system. Councilmember Bloom said they are not currently using PA systems. Mr. Clugston said there is no indication in the record that PA systems are being used. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked why Councilmember Petso wanted to further restrict noise when the School District has agreed to have an acceptable level of noise. Councilmember Petso answered by making it a condition, it is enforceable. Packet Page 24 of 400 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON, NELSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND MESAROS VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO INCLUDE A CONDITION THAT PLAYFIELD LIGHTS ARE NOT PERMITTED PER THE HEARING EXAMINER’S DECISION, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S WITHDRAW OF THE REQUEST FOR LIGHTS AND SECTION 16.80.020.A AND B. MOTION CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO MODIFY HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION #1 WHICH ALLOWS BALL CONTROL FENCING TO A MAXIMUM OF 30 FEET PER SOME DIAGRAM; MODIFY TO ALLOW BALL CONTROL FENCING AND NETTING TO A MAXIMUM OF 30 FEET WITH FENCING AND NETTING THE MINIMUM NECESSARY FOR SAFETY. REFERENCE 16.80.020.A AND VARIANCE CRITERIA THAT STATES THE GRANT OF A VARIANCE MUST BE THE MINIMUM NECESSARY. Councilmember Mesaros asked the impact of the motion on the proposal. Mr. Clugston was unsure what the difference would be as the motion would allow ball control fencing to be a maximum of 30 feet high as indicated on the two plan sheets in the Hearing Examiner’s condition. Councilmember Petso explained to be consistent with the variance criteria, she wanted the fencing to be the minimum necessary for safety. Field fencing varies greatly, all fields will have significant fencing and netting behind home plate on baseball field but some fields will have a lower outfield fence or netting. Because the Council was allowed to consider aesthetics of the project under the review criteria and because the variance can be required to be the minimum, she hoped the fencing will not be 30 feet high all the way around and by making this modification to the criteria, it will encourage the fencing not to be 30 feet high all the way around unless it is absolutely necessary for safety. Councilmember Mesaros asked what areas are identified in the schematic for 30-foot fencing. Mr. Clugston answered roughly the area around the back stop would have higher fencing; the lower fencing, varies from 8 to 16 feet around the rest of the site. Sheets F2.5 and F2.6 of Attachment 3 do not show 30- foot fencing all around. Approving the Hearing Examiner’s condition as written locks in the fence heights shown on those sheets. Councilmember Mesaros observed if the School District found they could save money with lower fences, they would not be restricted to that height, they just could not go higher. Mr. Clugston agreed. Councilmember Bloom referred to language that states the Woodway project is intended to create adult soccer and multiuse turf fields for year-round recreation options. She asked whether adult sports require higher fences. Mr. Clugston said he was not able to answer that and was unsure it was in the record. He referred to Attachment 17, a letter from the School District about fence heights, that states there is no standard for fence heights but the heights indicated are the usual heights. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for the motion, pointing out Council Chambers are approximately 20 feet tall. Mayor Earling advised that information was not in the record. Given her stated intent to have improved aesthetics, minimize fencing and netting, and grant the minimum variance necessary for safety, Councilmember Petso asked whether the Hearing Examiner’s condition as written would do that better than her proposed modification. Mr. Clugston said the ADB reviewed the fencing height and found it acceptable. The Hearing Examiner likewise approved the fencing design. Councilmember Petso said she did not see any informative discussion in the record by either. She asked in his opinion which would produce the minimum variance and the preferred aesthetics. Mr. Clugston said that was not in record; it was for the Council to determine. Packet Page 25 of 400 Councilmember Nelson asked the purpose of the fencing. Mr. Clugston referred to Attachment 17 which indicates the purpose is safety. Councilmember Nelson expressed support for the maximum fencing and netting necessary for safety to avoid being hit by an errant ball. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON, MESAROS AND NELSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO MODIFY CONDITION 2 OR ADD A NEW CONDITION TO SAY THAT FIELD USE SHALL BE SCHEDULED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS. REFERENCE 16.80.020.D AND E AND THE MATERIALS IN THE PACKET DATED MARCH 5, 2015 FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT STATING THE FIELDS WOULD BE SCHEDULED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. Council President Fraley-Monillas did not support the motion, noting the School District will also use the fields and they should not be required to contact the City to use the fields for recess. She was confident the City and the School District could work together to schedule the fields. Councilmember Petso said the representation was made by the School District that the fields would be scheduled by the City. She found that a superior protection for citizens because that’s the way other fields and parks are scheduled. If the City schedules the fields, neighbors will speak with staff who represents City of Edmonds voters; the School District and Verdant represent residents of Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Woodway, and other cities. This condition will better meet the requirement in 16.80.020D and E. With the one exception she identified, the record states the School District agreed to let the City schedule the fields. Councilmember Johnson pointed out Condition 2, fields shall not be scheduled for non-school activities during regular school hours. Councilmember Bloom relayed concern that the musical theater performances do not occur during regular school hours; they occur on weekends and evenings. She questions how there would be no overlap if the City scheduled the fields without the participation of the School District. Councilmember Petso said she will address that in a subsequent proposed condition. Councilmember Mesaros said the Council should not restrict the management of an asset. The Council’s job is to set policy and allow the people who understand recreation to deal with the management of the property. He noted all the School District would need to do is say they wanted certain blocks of time for programs and they could then schedule them as them wished. Whether this condition exists or not, that conversation was likely to occur. Councilmember Bloom asked if there was anything in the record about how scheduling will be coordinated by the City and the School District. Mr. Clugston referred to page 11 of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner (Exhibit 1) which includes the hours of operation under the CUP criteria and states the City of Edmonds Parks & Recreation will be responsible for scheduling use of the playing fields for non- school activities and that the fields will not be used for non-school activities during the school day. A condition to this affect is proposed. Councilmember Bloom observed there was nothing about the use by school for performances. Mr. Clugston responded although there was discussion regarding performances, he did not think there was anything in the record that quantified it. Councilmember Petso said the intent is to memorialize what had already been agreed to, that the City will schedule the fields. Packet Page 26 of 400 MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING YES. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO RETAIN HEARING EXAMINER CONDITIONS 3 AND 4. Councilmember Petso said Condition 3 is applicant will give serious consideration to location of double gate to avoid need to relocate it and Condition 4 is applicant will obtain all necessary permits. Councilmember Mesaros asked why this was necessary if the conditions were in the Hearing Examiner’s decision. Councilmember Petso said #3 was added during design review and retained by the Hearing Examiner and #4 was added by the Hearing Examiner and she did not see a need to change it. MOTION FAILED (2-4-1), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES AND COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON ABSTAINING. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM TO RETAIN HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION #5, THE PERMIT IS PERSONAL TO THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT AND NOT TRANSFERABLE. Councilmember Mesaros asked why this was necessary when it was already in the record. Mr. Taraday said he will bring back Finding and Conclusions next week for Council’s final action that effectively mirror the relevant parts of the Hearing Examiner except where the Council instructs him otherwise. He did not interpret the last vote that he should not include Conditions 3 and 4 but that there was question why the motion was being made. Unless a motion is approved to delete conditions 3 and 4, he will include those in the Findings and Conclusions. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECONDER. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY BLOOM, TO ADD A CONDITION THAT FIELDS MUST BE SCHEDULED TO CONCLUDE REGULAR PLAY BY 8:30 P.M. USE IS NOT PERMITTED AFTER 9 P.M. Councilmember Petso explained the purpose of the motion was to modify the Hearing Examiner condition that pertained to lighting, that lights would be turned off at 10:15 p.m. Since the School District withdrew the permit for lighting, a condition should be included pertaining to the hours of operation and the noise standard. The relevant criteria is 16.80.020.D. Council President Fraley-Monillas said without lighting during the winter, play would be concluded by 5:00 p.m. During the summer, it would be logical to use the fields for soccer and baseball games in evening through dusk. She was uncertain why 8:30 p.m. was selected. Councilmember Petso said the criteria for decision includes among other things hours of use, noise and traffic. To ensure those standards are met as well as not detrimental to public health, safety and welfare, field scheduling that contemplates play would end at 8:30 p.m. and terminates field use at 9:00 p.m. would allow for noise for nearby residents to terminate at a reasonable hour. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to comments that the parking lot is fully utilized during musical theater performances and asked if those uses would also need to be concluded by 8:30 p.m. She assumed they extended beyond 8:30 p.m. Councilmember Petso said that was not in the record. Packet Page 27 of 400 Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the noise ordinance allowed residents to complain about noise after 10 p.m. Mr. Taraday said he was not intimately familiar with the noise ordinance but believed these fields were exempt. Mr. Clugston referred to ECC Chapter 5.30 that states sounds originating from officially sanctioned parades and other events to which the general public is solicited to attend without charge and sounds originating from league or school sponsored athletic events are exempt from the provisions of the noise abatement chapter at all times. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that meant field users could be as noisy as they wanted at midnight. Mr. Clugston answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with arbitrarily selecting 9 p.m. Councilmember Bloom said the motion makes perfect sense to her based on Councilmember Petso’s description because it allows time for overtime and emptying the parking lot. She did not want to put residents in the surrounding area in the position of complaining. Councilmember Mesaros said this is another example of the Council interfering with the professionalism of the recreation leadership at the School District and the City who he was sure did not want to run recreation programs that made the neighbors angry. He observed it was for a short time of the year because there are no lights on the fields. The very professional staff understands recreation much better than the Council. Councilmember Johnson observed this is an area where personal knowledge is being substituted for what is in record. She did not see anything in the record about the termination time and did not support the Council making a judgment on that. Councilmember Petso referred to page 11 of 21 of the staff report and the Hearing Examiner’s decision that addresses noise. It is an issue before the Council and scheduled field play is completely exempt from the noise ordinance. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it was interesting there was no time limit on scheduled field play on any other fields in Edmonds; that may be something the Council wants to look at. She found 8:30 p.m. too restrictive and preferred 10:00 p.m. Councilmember Petso said the neighbors, particularly those with small children, would prefer 8:30 p.m. MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, THAT PLAY ON THE FIELDS CONCLUDE BY 10 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND BLOOM VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO ENSURE ADEQUATE ONSITE PARKING, FIELDS WILL NOT SCHEDULED FOR USE DURING OTHER AREA EVENTS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SCHOOL PERFORMANCES OR SWIM MEETS. CONDITION IS APPROPRIATE UNDER 16.80.020.E. Councilmember Petso said there is evidence in the record that the School District sometimes uses the facility for performances which fill the parking lot. There is also evidence in the record that Klahaya occasionally holds swim meets in the area that cause parking issues. Councilmember Mesaros said scheduling of activities needs to be in the hands of professionals who have access to all calendars. If Klahaya is included, there may be other activities such as in Hickman Park or other sites. He summarized the Council is getting into the details of the management of an asset. Packet Page 28 of 400 Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested that be addressed by the School District and the City. There is the potential for one field to be used by an adult soccer team which does not have the same number of spectators compared to a little league game and activities at the school may vary in size. She suggested this was something the School District and the City would work out. Councilmember Bloom reiterated there is one road in and out and what that means for parking and traffic. Councilmember Petso’s amendment is intended to address that. She anticipated this will be nightmare of coordination. She suggested not including Klahaya and Hickman Park. Councilmember Petso commented this is not so much a function of “willy-nilly what do we like and what do we not like,” the City is required to evaluate the ability of the proposal to provide adequate onsite parking. In her evaluation, it cannot provide adequate onsite parking in the event the lot is full for a show at the same time a game is scheduled on the field. MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES. Mayor Earling asked if Mr. Taraday was interested in a motion for final passage. Mr. Taraday said that was not necessary; his intent with or without an ultimate vote would be to bring back Findings and Conclusions for Council adoption that reflect the motions that were made and adopted and unless expressly directed otherwise by the Council or unless inconsistent with the School District’s withdrawal of lighting, he will more or less use the Hearing Examiner decision recommending approval as a starting point. Mayor Earling asked if that would be ready in a week. Mr. Taraday answered he will be at a conference Wednesday through Friday but he will try. Mayor Earling advised final action will be scheduled next week. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess and asked staff to indicate what agenda items could be delayed. Upon reconvening the meeting, Mayor Earling advised Item 7, 8 and 16 will be postponed to a future meeting. 7. DRAFT STREETSCAPE/STREET TREES ELEMENT FOR 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE This item was postponed to a future meeting. 8. PROGRESS UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENT AND CRITICAL AREA CODES This item was postponed to a future meeting. 9. REVENUE BOND FINANCING PRESENTATION Finance Director Scott James advised the last time this was presented to Council, staff recommended a bond issuance of $14million. There was a discussion about increasing that to include 2017 needs. There was also discussion regarding a 20 year term or other length. He sought Council direction regarding the amount and the term. He advised Scott Bauer A. Dashen and Associates and Alice Ostdiek, Foster Pepper, were present to answer questions. Councilmember Buckshnis commented rates eventually go up. She preferred to bundle the two, noting bond counsel is also expensive. She also preferred a 25 year term, with the larger amount, the longer term was appropriate. With a lower payment, funds can be utilized in other ways. Packet Page 29 of 400 Councilmember Mesaros asked if there was an early payoff penalty. Scott Bauer, A. Dashen and Associates, said these bonds, like other bond issuances, will have a 10 year call; the bonds can be refinanced after 10 years without penalty. Councilmember Petso recalled the bonds were initially going to be bundled for the cost savings then it was decided to recommend unbundling due to uncertainty about the second bond issuance. Public Works Director Phil Williams said that has not changed; the spreadsheet would suggest a $3.5 million bond issue in 3 years but it was difficult to predict the size of the bond issue that would be needed. The recommendation was $14 million for 20 years; if the Council prefers, it could be $17.5 million and certainly the utilities would use that money in productive ways to replace infrastructure. Councilmember Mesaros agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis; interest rates are at historic lows, the future was unknown and interest rates certainly would not get lower. He preferred to use this opportunity to maximize the potential to use the City’s resources at the best economic time. If the City found in next 6 months a desire to bond an additional couple million for a special purpose, Councilmember Johnson asked if that should be done now, increasing the amount by $2 million. Mr. James said this is a revenue bond specifically for utilities. The other bond Councilmember Johnson was referring to would be a general obligation bond and they cannot be mixed. Councilmember Petso asked what other bond the City was considering. Mr. James said the City has a grant request at the State to purchase property and may need to issue debt for the purchase. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda as recommended by Councilmember Buckshnis and Mesaros. 10. PRESENTATION OF EASEMENT DOCUMENTS FROM THE 7500 BUILDING & DAIRY QUEEN FOR THE 76TH AVE/212TH STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT City Planner Rob English said the City has reached agreements with two property owners for right of way and easements necessary for the 76th Ave and 212th Street Intersection Improvements project: 1. The owners of the 7500 Building have agreed to 272 square feet of right of way acquisition and 739 square feet of temporary construction easement during construction of the 76th Ave and 212th Street Intersection Improvements. The total compensation provided to the property owner is $13,500. 2. The owners of Dairy Queen have agreed to 1,635 square feet of right of way acquisition and 1,261 square feet of temporary construction easement during construction of the 76th Ave and 212th Street Intersection Improvements. The total compensation provided to the property owner is $55,000. The original offer was $42,500 with a temporary construction easement of $3,300. Via negotiations via Universal Field Service and the property owner hiring an appraisal, the amount was increased to $55,000. Funds were also paid at the time of remodel to facilitate moving a door, drive-through and landscaping that would have been incurred during construction. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the comment during Audience Comment that there would be adverse impacts to Dairy Queen. Mr. Williams said the City worked extremely well with the owners; the design was adjusted to help them and they were happy with the settlement. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda. Packet Page 30 of 400 11. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY NEGOTIATION OR CONDEMNATION OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS FOR THE 76TH AVE/212TH STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT City Engineer Rob English reported right of way is needed from eight property owners to construct the 76th Ave and 212th Street Intersection Improvements. As described in the previous agenda item, agreement has been reached with 2 parcels, the 7500 building and Dairy Queen on the southeast corner. The City’s right-of-way consult continues to work with the owners of the remaining six parcels. The proposed ordinance is required prior to initiating condemnation. Negotiations in good faith will continue with property owners as well as the School District. The property owners on the northwest and northeast corners are very similar in ownership. The School District is securing an appraisal. The ordinance requires a public hearing which is scheduled next week. Councilmember Petso asked whether an offer has been made to the property owners and declined and they understand staff is seeking authorization to initiate condemnation. Mr. English said the owners understand there is a need for the project; offers have been made, property owners are questioning the values the City’s appraiser presented and are doing their own due diligence to determine the value. He assured negotiations are continuing. Mr. Williams said although property owners have not declined the City’s offer, they also have not agreed. This is an effort to control the schedule, upon approval of the ordinance, negotiations will continue in good faith. If that does not result in a deal, the project is not delayed while the ordinance is adopted. He recalled this approach was taken on the 228th and Five Corners projects. He assured it is not a hostile action but a way to control the project schedule. Mr. English advised the RCW requires property owners be notified; written notification has been provided and the City’s right-of-way consultant has talked with them. Councilmember Petso recalled she previously asked for the project design and was told the design was not complete. Mr. English said the design is currently at 60-70%. Councilmember Bloom observed the School District was one of parties the City may initiate condemnation against. Mr. English explained the Council is considering approval of the ordinance, which does not mean condemnation action will be initiated against the three parcels. It gives staff authorization to possibly pursue that in the future depending on negotiations. Councilmember Bloom asked if there was reason to believe this could not be resolved in timely manner. Mr. Williams responded property acquisition is difficult to predict. The City is working well with the School District including options to solve their queuing problems; the School District is getting an appraisal. That is moving in a positive direction and he did not anticipate the parties would not be able to agree. The other two parcels, Burger King and Grease Monkey, are privately owned and may have a different pace. The right-of-way consultant has worked with them and although he did not anticipate a problem, the ordinance allows a legal process. The ordinance requires every effort be made to reach a settlement. Councilmember Mesaros referred to the map, observing the gray areas around the corners were what the City would be acquiring. Mr. Williams answered yes. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the lines were the existing structures. For example on the School District property on the southwest corner, is he asked whether the solid black line was an existing wall. Mr. English advised that is the new curb radius and two pedestrian ramps. Councilmember Mesaros observed not much area was lost. Mr. Williams said most of the discussions with School District have not been about the corner, they acknowledge that is necessary for project, discussions have been about the queuing issue on 76th and what might be necessary there. The School District is obtaining an appraisal but they agree the City needs to acquire that land for the project. The hatched area on the map inside the solid gray area is the temporary construction easement. Packet Page 31 of 400 Councilmember Petso said it was her impression the City could not do condemnation against a public agency. Mr. Taraday answered there are instances it could be done, it depends on whether it becomes a battle of uses or if it is surplus property. Councilmember Petso said it was safe to assume Edmonds- Woodway High School was not surplus and suggest the City figure that out before the Council authorizes condemnation against the School District. Mr. Taraday assured he will work closely with staff on that issue before anything is filed. Mr. English said the City received an approximately $4 million grant for this project through PSRC. The spending requirements are such that the grant needs to obligated in a timely fashion in accordance with a deadline. If that schedule is not met, there is potential to lose nearly $4 million in grant funds for the project. It was the consensus for the Council to schedule a public hearing next week. 12. PRESENTATION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TETRA TECH FOR THE LIFT STATION #1 BASIN AND FLOW STUDY City Engineer Rob English explained this project is in the CIP for 2015, a study of Lift Station 1 located on Sunset Avenue south of Caspers. This large station serves nearly 25% of City’s service area. The City hired Tetra Tech to analyze the existing drainage area and identify potential locations where some of the upstream flows can be diverted to different service areas in the City’s sewer system to relieve flow volumes. The scope of work is included in the packet. The fee estimate is $173,000; $100,000 was budgeted in 2015. The $100,000 will be adequate for this year and additional funds will be included in the 2016 budget from the sewer main replacement program. Mr. Williams explained this lift station is underground. With regard to the interest in reducing flows, he explained there is a very shallow wet well, limited storage capacity, and flows rise rapidly in a rainstorm or snow melt and the station has comes close a few times to exceeding the capacity. Some improvements have been made in the past six months to a year to improve reliability such as alternative power but it would be good to reduce flows during peak storm events to improve reaction time. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why this analysis was necessary when improvements were made 13 years ago. Williams answered neither he nor Mr. English were employed by the City when that project was done but he assumed the net result was a compromise. There is nothing wrong with the current design but he would like to move some of the flow to avoid problems because the obvious relief valve is Puget Sound. Councilmember Petso asked whether smoke testing would be done in an effort to identify residents whose storm drains are inappropriately connected to the sewer system. Mr. Williams answered that is not the direction of this project. The intent is to identify an area in the collection system where a line could be connected to a gravity pipe that goes to the treatment plant, bypassing Lift Station 1. The study will identify the benefits and costs. Identifying storm drains that are connected to the sewer system is a very costly endeavor and most agencies have not been satisfied with the results of that process. Councilmember Bloom asked about the location of Lift Station 1. Mr. Williams said it is below grade on the west side of Sunset where the yellow hatch marks are in street between Caspers and Edmonds. The lift station was rebuilt 10-13 years ago. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the station was located in the City right-of-way. Mr. Williams answered some of it is on City property and some in on railroad property for which the City has an easement. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda. Packet Page 32 of 400 13. PRESENTATION FOR AWARD OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2015 SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT City Engineer Rob English distributes a map with the location of the 2015 sewer line replacement project. He advised bids were opened on Thursday. The engineer’s estimate is $1.4 million; the construction budget is $1.7 million. If the bids come in within budget and reference checks on the low bidder are satisfactory, the project will be presented to Council for award of bid at the May 5 Council meeting. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda. 14. PUBLIC WORKS QUARTERLY PROJECT REPORT City Engineer Rob English advised the packet contains the 1st quarter 2015 report. He asked for Council questions. Councilmember Petso asked Mr. English to clarify the rain garden question she asked previously. She recalled there was a drainage project in South Edmonds that included rain gardens but because of the public outcry, staff abandoned the rain gardens. This report again shows rain gardens and she asked if they were in a different location. Mr. Williams yes, explaining the original project was to address ponding and flooding on 238th. Because there is no storm drain system in 238th the intent was to install a collection system that took drainage toward Hickman Park where there a fairly robust infiltration system was installed with the Park. The original plan was to include a rain garden on 104th near the cemetery. After concern was expressed at a public meeting about pedestrians walking on the west side of 104th and the loss of parking, that concept was abandoned. Mr. Williams explained the City then received a Safe Routes to School grant for a sidewalk on 238th and the project was postponed for 18 months to design the sidewalk and drainage improvements. That is the project that will be built this year. When the work was done at Hickman Park’s infiltration system it was apparent at least a couple acres of impervious surface in that basin were not accounted for in the design which made it imperative the impervious surface from 238th be offset with some infiltration. That is the reason for rain gardens on 238th at a number of key corners and at the end. The project designer, KPG, and the project manager, Ryan Haug, have done a good job working with the property owners on 238th to ensure they understand what the rain gardens will look like. So far there has been a lot of enthusiasm for the rain gardens. There will still be parking on the south side between the rain gardens. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether anyone has expressed interest in the residential neighborhood traffic calming. Mr. English advised as a result of an announcement earlier this year requesting traffic calming projects, the City received eight new citizen requests. There are now 17 projects under consideration. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how they will be prioritized. Mr. English answered criteria are used to evaluate and score each request. Staff is beginning speed counts to determine the 85th percentile speeds and the ADTs which is one of the criteria. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the SR104 study is 70% complete; she asked whether it will be done by June. Mr. English answered yes. Councilmember Bloom asked whether any traffic calming requests were eliminated because they did not meet the criteria. Mr. Williams answered the initial list that began in 2009 included some non-local streets that scored very highly and would be good candidates for traffic calming. In keeping with a strict reading of the Transportation Plan, those projects would not be eligible for funding. When the Council reviews the Transportation Plan, there will be a suggestion to make some non-local streets eligible for traffic calming. Councilmember Bloom asked what was defined as a non-local street. Mr. Williams answered a collector or arterial street. Packet Page 33 of 400 It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda. 15. DISCUSSION ON THE PROJECT FUNDING AND AWARD OF THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT City Engineer Rob English distributed a new budget sheet for the 228th Corridor Improvement Project. Staff provided the Council an update on the project in March. This is actually two projects that were bid together, the 228th Corridor Improvements that will construct the missing section of 228th between Hwy 99 and 76th as well as add signals at the intersections of Hwy 99 & 228th and 76th & 228th. Other improvements include bike lanes and safety modifications. The City received federal and state grants for that project. The second project is the Hwy 99 Lighting Phase 3 that will install 19 street lights for vehicles and pedestrians. The City received 5 bids on March 26; the low bidder was Doherty Construction with a bid of $5.2 million. He reviewed the cost breakout in the bid: Construction Budget Description 228th Improvements SR99 Lighting Total Project Contract Award $4,687,440 $517,600 $5,205.040 Construction Mgmt & Testing $703,116 $73,27 $776,386 Management Reserve $468,744 $30,000 $498,744 Total $5,859,300 $620,870 $6,480,170 Construction Funding Funding 228th Improvements SR99 Lighting Total Project Federal Grant 228th Improvements $3,647,372 $3,647,372 Federal Grant SR99 Lighting $590,870 $590,870 Washington State TIB $1,441,188 $1,441,188 Water Fund $106,730 $106,730 Sewer Fund $177,254 $177,254 Stormwater Fund $68,500 $68,500 Edmonds 125 REET 2 Fund $30,000 $30,000 Mountlake Terrace $418,256 $418,256 Total $5,859,300 $620,870 $6,480,170 Staff’s recommendation is to award the project at the May 5 Council meeting. If the management reserve was not necessary, Councilmember Mesaros asked whether it will be returned to the REET fund. Mr. English answered yes. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda. 16. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL INTEREST IN ACQUIRING THE EDMONDS CONFERENCE CENTER This item was postponed to a future meeting. 17. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling announced PSRC’s Annual meeting at the Seattle Convention Center on Thursday at 11:30 a.m. Packet Page 34 of 400 Mayor Earling reported the Sound Transit Board approved the final alignment of the Lynnwood Link; it will include provisional stations at 220th, the Lynnwood station and the county line. 18. COUNCIL COMMENTS Student Representative Eslami expressed interest in the outcome of the Woodway fields. Councilmember Johnson announced the second Marina Beach Master Plan meeting on May 6 from 6:00 – 7:30 p.m. in the Edmonds Plaza Room. Councilmember Bloom reiterated her request that Council President Fraley-Monillas schedule a discussion of the committee format on the agenda as soon as possible. She noted the entire last part of tonight’s meeting with the exception of the bond financing presentation was related to Public Works and could have been expedited in committee. An inordinate of staff time is spent presenting to Council when the items could have been present in committee meetings. She urgently requested Council President Fraley-Monillas schedule a discussion soon as possible. Councilmember Mesaros agreed with Councilmember Bloom’s suggestion. He found committees a much more efficient way to review items and make recommendations. Tonight was a good example of how committees could have expedited a number of agenda items. Councilmember Buckshnis reported the WRIA 8 meeting held at the Department at DOE included a tour. WRIA 8 reviewed its budget and 3-year work plan and heard about a great success story, NOAA’s green infrastructure and shoreline restoration at the Sand Point campus. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed a discussion of committees is on the extended agenda. With regard to committees, Mayor Earling said experience has shown items are often discussed at a committee and then again at Council. While there are inefficiencies in the study session format, there are also inefficiencies in the committee structure. 19. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 20. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 21. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Packet Page 35 of 400    AM-7684     4. B.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 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 #213993 through #214104 dated April 30, 2015 for $451,516.99. Approval of payroll check #61590 dated April 29, 2015 for $616.62. Recommendation Approval of claim and payroll checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue: Expenditure:452,133.61 Fiscal Impact: Claims $451,516.99 Payroll Employee check $616.62 Attachments Claim cks 04-30-15 Project Numbers 04-30-15 Payroll Summary 04-29-15 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Packet Page 36 of 400 Finance Scott James 04/30/2015 10:19 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 04/30/2015 10:21 AM Mayor Dave Earling 04/30/2015 10:22 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/30/2015 10:30 AM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 04/30/2015 08:50 AM Final Approval Date: 04/30/2015  Packet Page 37 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 213993 4/30/2015 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC TM-147715 Street - Traffic Paint - White Street - Traffic Paint - White 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 24,707.74 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 2,347.24 Total :27,054.98 213994 4/30/2015 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 192636-1545 Conrad Planning Association APA, Conrad Planning Association APA, 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 400.00 Total :400.00 213995 4/30/2015 065378 APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECH 7004873048 Unit 138 - Parts Unit 138 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 520.90 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 49.49 Total :570.39 213996 4/30/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987981900 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80 mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 72.34 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 6.87 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1987981901 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 40.95 Total :124.32 213997 4/30/2015 071653 ARNOLD, MEREDITH 19556 CLAY 19556 PRECIOUS METAL CLAY INSTRUCTOR FEE 19556 PRECIOUS METAL CLAY INSTRUCTOR FEE 1Page: Packet Page 38 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 213997 4/30/2015 (Continued)071653 ARNOLD, MEREDITH 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 112.20 Total :112.20 213998 4/30/2015 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0728368-IN Fleet - Reg 6300 Gal Fleet - Reg 6300 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 11,732.49 WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 2,461.66 Bio Diesel - 190 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.13 724.81 WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.77.548.68.34.13 76.87 Diesel - 3610 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 6,430.49 WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 1,409.24 WA State Svc Fees 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 50.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 4.75 WWTP - DIESEL FUEL0735577-IN ULSD #2 dyed bulk fuel - 1592 gallons 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 3,187.73 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 302.83 Total :26,380.87 213999 4/30/2015 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 80252 Unit 6 - Replace Damaged Graphics Unit 6 - Replace Damaged Graphics 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 194.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 18.43 Total :212.43 214000 4/30/2015 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 80911 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS 2Page: Packet Page 39 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214000 4/30/2015 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 91.35 UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 91.35 UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 94.12 UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 333.18 UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 333.18 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 8.77 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 8.77 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 9.03 Total :969.75 214001 4/30/2015 001527 AWWA 7000980706 Water - Annual Dues- J Waite, Water Water - Annual Dues- J Waite, Water 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 1,903.00 Total :1,903.00 214002 4/30/2015 071348 BERGERABAM 310325 Fishing Pier - Pro Svcs - Design Fishing Pier - Pro Svcs - Design 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 12,429.88 Total :12,429.88 214003 4/30/2015 072696 BJORBACK, LEIF Bjorback CFE Bjorback mileage expenses to Bjorback mileage expenses to 001.000.62.524.20.43.00 146.35 Total :146.35 214004 4/30/2015 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 3868 Fleet Auto Propane 186.6 Gal Fleet Auto Propane 186.6 Gal 3Page: Packet Page 40 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214004 4/30/2015 (Continued)074307 BLUE STAR GAS 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 247.57 Fleet Auto Propane 331.6 Gal3892 Fleet Auto Propane 331.6 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 433.34 Fleet Auto Propane 240 Gal3917 Fleet Auto Propane 240 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 319.57 Fleet Auto Propane 320 Gal3949 Fleet Auto Propane 320 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 423.25 Total :1,423.73 214005 4/30/2015 067391 BRAT WEAR 14707 INV#14707 - EDMONDS PD - HWANG NAME TAGS FOR SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 24.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2.28 INV#14799 - EDMONDS PD - HARDWICK14799 S/S TRADITIONAL SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 118.00 L/S TRADITIONAL SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 64.00 NAME TAGS FOR S/S SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.00 UNIFORM PANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 178.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 35.72 INV#14800 - EDMONDS PD - R.T. SMITH14800 S/S TRADITIONAL SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 177.00 NAME TAGS FOR S/S SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 24.00 UNIFORM PANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 267.00 4Page: Packet Page 41 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214005 4/30/2015 (Continued)067391 BRAT WEAR 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 44.46 INV#14801 - EDMONDS PD - MILLS14801 S/S TRADITIONAL SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 118.00 S/S CONTEMPORARY SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 82.00 NAME TAGS FOR S/S SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 24.00 UNIFORM PANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 267.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 46.65 INV#14819 - EDMONDS PD - LEE14819 JUMPSUIT W/ITEMS INCLUDED 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 515.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 48.93 Total :2,052.04 214006 4/30/2015 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 310640 Street, Storm, Water, Sewer - Crushed Street, Storm, Water, Sewer - Crushed 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 583.98 Street, Storm, Water, Sewer - Crushed 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 583.98 Street, Storm, Water, Sewer - Crushed 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 583.98 Street, Storm, Water, Sewer - Crushed 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 583.97 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 55.48 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 55.48 9.5% Sales Tax 5Page: Packet Page 42 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214006 4/30/2015 (Continued)003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 55.48 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 55.47 Street, Storm, Water, Sewer - Crushed310641 Street, Storm, Water, Sewer - Crushed 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 145.57 Street, Storm, Water, Sewer - Crushed 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 145.57 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 13.83 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 13.83 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 13.83 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 13.83 Street, Storm, Water, Sewer - Crushed 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 145.57 Street, Storm, Water, Sewer - Crushed 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 145.56 Total :3,195.41 214007 4/30/2015 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 92387625 Storm - Cement Storm - Cement 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 164.25 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 15.60 Total :179.85 214008 4/30/2015 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14817583 Lease Plng printer/copier Lease Plng printer/copier 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.16 FLEET COPIER14825006 Fleet Copier 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 33.02 6Page: Packet Page 43 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214008 4/30/2015 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 3.14 PW ADMIN COPIER14825007 PW Office Copier for 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 68.55 PW Office Copier for 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 38.85 PW Office Copier for 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 38.85 PW Office Copier for 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 27.42 PW Office Copier for 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 27.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 6.51 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 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 for 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 27.42 WATER SEWER COPIER14825008 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 7Page: Packet Page 44 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214008 4/30/2015 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 6.71 CANON COPIER CHARGES14841534 Canon lease pmt for C5051 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 83.35 Canon lease pmt for C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 83.35 Canon lease pmt for C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 83.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 7.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 7.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 7.91 Total :751.05 214009 4/30/2015 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 19583 ADVENTURES IN 19583 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING INSTRUCTOR F 19583 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING INSTRUCTOR 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 345.00 Total :345.00 214010 4/30/2015 075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATIONS 41 COMMUNICATIONS AND PR FOR APRIL 2015 Communications and pr for April 2015. 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,500.00 Total :2,500.00 214011 4/30/2015 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC TX99800 SEAGATE 5TB BACKUP PLUS HARD DRIVE Seagate Backup Plus 5TB Hard Drive 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 190.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 18.05 WESTERN DIGITAL 4TB HARD DRIVETZ00389 Western Digital 4TB Hard Drive 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 273.00 8Page: Packet Page 45 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214011 4/30/2015 (Continued)069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 25.94 WESTERN DIGITAL 6TB MY BOOK HARD DRIVETZ12282 Western Digital My Book 6TB Hard Drive 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 254.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 24.13 Total :785.12 214012 4/30/2015 073221 CELLMARK FORENSICS INC 010-058593 INV#010-058593 - EDMONDS PD EVIDENCE TEST #14-2493 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 245.00 Total :245.00 214013 4/30/2015 068484 CEMEX LLC 9430603892 Roadway - Asphalt Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 444.90 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 42.27 Storm Dump Fees9430616759 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 302.08 Roadway - Asphalt9430640647 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 357.80 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 33.99 Roadway - Asphalt9430648779 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 211.40 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 20.08 Roadway - Asphalt9430657236 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 559.20 9Page: Packet Page 46 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214013 4/30/2015 (Continued)068484 CEMEX LLC 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 53.13 Storm Dump Fees9430692983 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 514.83 Total :2,539.68 214014 4/30/2015 067314 CERTIFIED FOLDER DISPLAY SVC 497200 TOURISM BROCHURE DISTRIBUTION FOR 2015 Tourism brochure distribution for 2015 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 4,239.65 Total :4,239.65 214015 4/30/2015 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 44118558 INV#44118558 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE-POFF 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 95.27 CAR WASH NARCS VEHICLE-POFF 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 8.68 TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 1.04 Total :104.99 214016 4/30/2015 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E1GA.SEPA E1GA.SEPA REVIEW E1GA.SEPA Review 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 610.00 Total :610.00 214017 4/30/2015 065519 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 2015 #1 NARCOTICS BUY FUND - EDMONDS 2015 #1 NARCOTICS BUY FUND - 2015 #1 104.100.41.521.21.49.00 5,000.00 Total :5,000.00 214018 4/30/2015 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 2815 EDMONDS PORTION OF CRAZE SUMMER MAILING EDMONDS PORTION OF CRAZE SUMMER MAILING 001.000.64.571.22.42.00 7,379.06 Total :7,379.06 10Page: Packet Page 47 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214019 4/30/2015 074883 CLYBORNE, CADENCE BID-03272015 REIMBURSE POSTAGE AND SUPPLIES FOR ANNUA Reimbursement for annual meeting 140.000.61.558.70.31.00 343.75 Total :343.75 214020 4/30/2015 075236 CONRAD, SEAN Conrad CFE Parking for Conference in Seattle Parking for Conference in Seattle 001.000.62.558.60.43.00 155.67 Total :155.67 214021 4/30/2015 075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON 7100157739 WWTP - APRIL JANITORIAL April 1-30 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 514.00 Total :514.00 214022 4/30/2015 005965 CUES INC 430120 Freight Freight 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 117.11 Freight430493 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 64.25 Total :181.36 214023 4/30/2015 072700 CURVATURE LLC 513490 FIBER EQUIPMENT FOR ECA CONNECTION Fiber equipment for ECA connection 001.000.31.518.87.48.00 12,123.92 Total :12,123.92 214024 4/30/2015 063519 CUZ CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC 229068 Storm - Grates 8.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 23.65 Storm - Grates 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 268.78 Total :292.43 214025 4/30/2015 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3299279 CITY PARK SPRAY LEGAL AD INVITATION TO B CITY PARK SPRAY LEGAL AD INVITATION TO 11Page: Packet Page 48 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214025 4/30/2015 (Continued)006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 125.000.64.576.80.41.40 573.30 E4GA.ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS3299732 E4GA.Advertisement for Bids 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 663.00 Total :1,236.30 214026 4/30/2015 070864 DEX MEDIA 440012078181 C/A 440001304654 Basic e-commerce hosting 04/02/15 - 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95 C/A 440001307733440012078190 Apr/2015 Web Hosting for Internet 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95 Total :69.90 214027 4/30/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3548 COUNCIL MINUTES 04/24/15 04/14/15 CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 554.40 Total :554.40 214028 4/30/2015 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 04302015 STATE LOBBYIST APRIL 2015 State lobbyist for April 2015 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 4,300.00 Total :4,300.00 214029 4/30/2015 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 15-2410.3 E5FA.TO 15-01.SERVICES THRU 4/12/15 E5FA.TO 15-01.Services thru 4/12/15 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 5,068.25 E5FA.TO 15-01.SERVICES THRU 4/19/1515-2410.4 E5FA.TO 15-01 Services thru 4/19/15 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 87.00 Total :5,155.25 214030 4/30/2015 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150 WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 CASPERS ST / WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 CASPERS ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77 EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 CASPERS ST /2-25175 12Page: Packet Page 49 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214030 4/30/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 CASPERS ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77 LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTREAM LN / MET2-26950 LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTREAM LN / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 76.88 PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AVE N / METE2-28275 PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AVE N / 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 722-29118 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.77 SAM STAMM OVERLOOK / METER 87942-37180 SAM STAMM OVERLOOK / METER 8794 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 51.63 LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL SW / METE4-34080 LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.77 Total :317.36 214031 4/30/2015 068803 EJ USA INC 3820660 Storm - Frame and Grate Storm - Frame and Grate 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 239.02 8.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 21.04 Total :260.06 214032 4/30/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 112704 METER READING 03/21/15-04/21/15 CITY CLERKS FRONT COUNTER METER READING 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 12.58 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTENANCE112795 Maintenance excess for printers 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 0.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 0.04 P&R PRINTER C1030 #A6995113023 1 13Page: Packet Page 50 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214032 4/30/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES P&R PRINTER C1030 #A6995 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 59.02 COPIER CHARGES FOR C5051113160 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 55.07 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 55.07 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 55.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 5.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 5.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 5.23 Total :252.96 214033 4/30/2015 075228 ENGINUITY SYSTEMS LLC ESL 2624 PM YOST POOL SPA YOST PARK SPA 50 % CONTRACT AMT 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 4,955.00 Total :4,955.00 214034 4/30/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH624463 CITY PARK SPRAY INVITATION TO BID LEGAL CITY PARK SPRAY INVITATION TO BID LEGAL 125.000.64.576.80.41.40 247.68 E4GA.ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDSEDH626867 E4GA.Advertisement for Bids 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 295.84 ORDINANCE 3993EDH627868 EDMONDS COMM DEVELOPMENT CODE ORDINANCE 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 30.96 Total :574.48 214035 4/30/2015 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU35361 FAC - Parts FAC - Parts 14Page: Packet Page 51 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214035 4/30/2015 (Continued)066378 FASTENAL COMPANY 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.03 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.19 Total :2.22 214036 4/30/2015 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 3321663 PM HEX WRCH PM HEX WRCH 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 166.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 15.80 Total :182.04 214037 4/30/2015 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 29.02 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES253-012-9166 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 151.72 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 281.76 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 18.53 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 34.42 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 43.86 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 81.46 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-712-8347 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 250 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 66.10 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE509-022-0049 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE 15Page: Packet Page 52 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214037 4/30/2015 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.02 Total :732.89 214038 4/30/2015 074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 31727 E3DE.SERVICES THRU MARCH 2015 E3DE.Services thru March 2015 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 52.99 Total :52.99 214039 4/30/2015 075181 GINGER'S PET PARADISE LLC MAY 2015 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 5/2015 - EDMONDS PD ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 5/2015 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 2,169.62 Total :2,169.62 214040 4/30/2015 012199 GRAINGER 9717232749 PS - Hex Keys PS - Hex Keys 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.70 Total :19.58 214041 4/30/2015 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 978393908 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC hoffman door 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 969.61 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 25.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 94.49 Total :1,089.10 214042 4/30/2015 074966 HIATT, ELLEN COE_2015_0429 TOURISM PROMOTION COMMUNICATIONS AND MAR Tourism Communications and Marketing 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 1,000.00 Total :1,000.00 214043 4/30/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2617351 HEAVY DUTY STAPLER HEAVY DUTY STAPLER FOR THE CLERKS OFFICE 16Page: Packet Page 53 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214043 4/30/2015 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 75.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 7.17 Total :82.67 214044 4/30/2015 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 1905701025116 INV#1905701025116 - EDMONDS PD 24 PACK AA BATTERIES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 43.50 12 PACK 9 VOLT BATTERIES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 35.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 7.46 CR RETURN ON #19057010251841905701025184 RETURN/NOT ORDERED-9VOLTRETURN 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 -17.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 -1.67 Total :66.79 214045 4/30/2015 074168 JOHNSON, MELISSA 4/14 REIMB PROGRAMS 4/14 REIMB CEMETERY MEM DAY PROGRAMS 4/14 REIMB CEMETERY MEM DAY PROGRAMS 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 122.64 Total :122.64 214046 4/30/2015 070255 KAR-GOR INC KI031541 Traffic - Signal Cameras (4) Traffic - Signal Cameras (4) 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 2,000.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 190.00 Total :2,190.00 214047 4/30/2015 063501 KENS CAMERA INC 71269 INV#71269 ACCT#16778 - EDMONDS PD REPRINTS CASE #93-1971 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 6.00 SCAN IM AGE CASE #76-1202 17Page: Packet Page 54 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214047 4/30/2015 (Continued)063501 KENS CAMERA INC 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 84.00 REPRINTS CASE #76-1202 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 14.00 CD CASES -#76-1202 & #93-1971 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 9.98 9.2% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 10.49 Total :124.47 214048 4/30/2015 074240 KNIGHT, KAREN 19604 FUN FACTORY 19604 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTOR FEE 19604 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 540.03 19606 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTOR FEE19606 FUN FACTORY 19606 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 520.02 Total :1,060.05 214049 4/30/2015 068493 L.E.E.D.04201503 INV#04201503 - EDMONDS PD - SWAT DEFTEC TRI-CHAMBER CS GRENADES 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 207.72 Freight 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 205.95 9.5% Sales Tax 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 39.30 Total :452.97 214050 4/30/2015 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 34949 E3FH.SERVICES THRU 3/28/15 E3FH.Services thru 3/28/15 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 11,087.25 Total :11,087.25 214051 4/30/2015 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 007426-00 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES: 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 248.83 9.5% Sales Tax 18Page: Packet Page 55 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214051 4/30/2015 (Continued)074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 23.64 Total :272.47 214052 4/30/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 27337688 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL bins, dividers, thread pipe nipple 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 205.90 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 53.60 Total :259.50 214053 4/30/2015 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 207269 PM ZAMA CARBURETOR PM ZAMA CARBURETOR 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 52.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.02 Street - Edger Blades207537 Street - Edger Blades 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 8.85 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 0.84 PM DAYTON STREET PLAZA TRACKHOE, JACK HA209358 PM DAYTON STREET PLAZA TRACKHOE, JACK 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,154.87 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 109.71 PM CARBURETOR, STARTER GRIPS, SPARK PLUG209662 PM CARBURETOR, STARTER GRIPS, SPARK PLUG 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 102.39 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.73 Total :1,444.21 214054 4/30/2015 063777 MUNIMETRIX SYSTEMS CORP.1506006 CLERK'S INDEX SOFTWARE SUPPORT 6/1/15-5/ CLERKS INDEX SOFTWARE SUPPORT FOR 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 499.00 19Page: Packet Page 56 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :499.002140544/30/2015 063777 063777 MUNIMETRIX SYSTEMS CORP. 214055 4/30/2015 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 14-1590-8 E4GA.SERVICES THRU 3/31/15 E4GA.Services thru 3/31/15 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 25,842.78 Water - Professional Engineering14-1605-5 Water - Professional Engineering 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6,366.00 Total :32,208.78 214056 4/30/2015 061654 NATIONAL BARRICADE CO LLC 258077 SOLAR TECH VARIABLE MESSAGE BOARD SOLAR TECH VARIABLE MESSAGE BOARD 111.000.68.594.42.64.00 8,975.00 SOLAR TECH VARIABLE MESSAGE BOARD 422.000.72.594.31.64.00 8,975.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.594.42.64.00 852.63 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.594.31.64.00 852.62 SOLAR TECH VARIABLE MESSAGE BOARD258078 SOLAR TECH VARIABLE MESSAGE BOARD 421.000.74.594.34.64.00 8,975.00 SOLAR TECH VARIABLE MESSAGE BOARD 423.000.75.594.35.64.00 8,975.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.594.34.64.00 852.63 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.594.35.64.00 852.62 Total :39,310.50 214057 4/30/2015 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0402840-IN Storm - Clips Storm - Clips 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 28.00 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 2.66 LS 5 - Sensors0403450-IN 20Page: Packet Page 57 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214057 4/30/2015 (Continued)064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC LS 5 - Sensors 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 860.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 81.70 Total :972.36 214058 4/30/2015 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0548251-IN Fleet Filter Inventory Unit 138 Fleet Filter Inventory Unit 138 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 103.71 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 9.85 Total :113.56 214059 4/30/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1187486 YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 309.21 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1189687 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 587.62 Total :896.83 214060 4/30/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 124840 PW Office Supplies PW Office Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 19.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 1.82 PW Office Supplies134738 PW Office Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 21.17 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 2.01 Sewer TV Truck Mouse Pad252995 Sewer TV Truck Mouse Pad 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.93 9.5% Sales Tax 21Page: Packet Page 58 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214060 4/30/2015 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.28 Total :47.49 214061 4/30/2015 073714 OLBRECHTS & ASSOC PLLC 3/15 HE Serv March 2015 Hearing Examiner Services - March 2015 Hearing Examiner Services - 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 2,161.50 Total :2,161.50 214062 4/30/2015 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 192803 Street - Top Soil Street - Top Soil 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 138.00 7.7% sales tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.63 Storm Dump Fees192992 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 96.00 Storm Dump Fees192999 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 513098841 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 271.01 Total :635.64 214063 4/30/2015 069873 PAPE MACHINERY INC 2415890 Unit 106 - Repairs Unit 106 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 5,337.02 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 507.00 Total :5,844.02 214064 4/30/2015 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 21-23072 WWTP - PLC & SCADA, PHASE 4, TASK 1&3 Phase 4, Task 1: PLC-301~ 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 38,788.03 Total :38,788.03 22Page: Packet Page 59 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214065 4/30/2015 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 106870 INV#106870 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2007 CADILLAC #APV6999 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.77 Total :181.77 214066 4/30/2015 071813 PEACOCK, WILLIAM R 2015T005A WWCPA Certificate Training - T Wichers WWCPA Certificate Training - T Wichers 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 400.00 Total :400.00 214067 4/30/2015 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20110010.000-41 E7AC.SERVICES THRU 04/14/15 E7AC.Services thru 4/14/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 5,199.57 E7AC.Services thru 4/14/15 112.200.68.595.20.61.00 72.00 E5CA.SERVICES THRU 3/29/1520150029.000-2 E5CA.Services thru 3/29/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 25,759.95 Total :31,031.52 214068 4/30/2015 008475 PETTY CASH APRIL 2015 FAC MAINT - MILEAGE REIM S BRINKLEY FAC MAINT - MILEAGE REIM S BRINKLEY 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 58.59 STREET - C HIATT CLASS MEAL FEE 111.000.68.542.90.49.00 5.00 WATER CROSS CONNECTION CERTIFICATION J 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 144.00 STORM CLASS MEAL FEE REIMBURSMENT B 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 5.00 STORM CLASS MEAL FEE REIMBURSMENT K 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 5.00 SEWER LS 7 - BATTERIES 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 16.39 FLEET WORK BOOTS D MEYERS 23Page: Packet Page 60 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214068 4/30/2015 (Continued)008475 PETTY CASH 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 81.76 Total :315.74 214069 4/30/2015 064552 PITNEY BOWES 9607730-AP15 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE~ 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 718.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 68.27 Total :786.87 214070 4/30/2015 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC G521362 PS - Supplies PS - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 66.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.33 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICG536214 nemar cover 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 31.19 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 2.96 Sewer - Pipe ClampG557542 Sewer - Pipe Clamp 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.92 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.37 PS - SuppliesG664194 PS - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.84 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.07 PS - Lighting SuppliesG671920 PS - Lighting Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 119.63 FAC - Lighting Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 69.05 24Page: Packet Page 61 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214070 4/30/2015 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.92 Total :341.86 214071 4/30/2015 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 3870 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 214072 4/30/2015 073988 PRECISION CONCRETE CUTTING W15004 Street - Concrete Grinding/ Trip Hazard Street - Concrete Grinding/ Trip Hazard 111.000.68.542.61.48.00 9,665.06 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.48.00 918.18 Total :10,583.24 214073 4/30/2015 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 234863 INV#234863 - EDMONDS PD TSR X26P CLASS III LASER 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 1,747.70 BLADE TECH HOLSTER-LEFT HAND 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 99.90 Freight 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 16.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 177.08 Total :2,041.13 214074 4/30/2015 064088 PROTECTION ONE 291104 ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAINT./FS #16 ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 21.00 ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 20.99 ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE STATION #16 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 118.53 9.5% Sales Tax 25Page: Packet Page 62 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214074 4/30/2015 (Continued)064088 PROTECTION ONE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 0.34 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 0.33 Total :161.19 214075 4/30/2015 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET 19563 FELDENKRAIS 19563 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTOR FEE 19563 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 299.00 Total :299.00 214076 4/30/2015 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,562.40 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER200002411383 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 151.92 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 0200007876143 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 213.36 FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW / MET200009595790 FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 278.10 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE200011439656 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 114.63 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 00052200016558856 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 198.59 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 0200016815843 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 602.02 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W /200017676343 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 248.25 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE R200019375639 26Page: Packet Page 63 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214076 4/30/2015 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 211.06 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 225.67 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE200020415911 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 21.46 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 81.56 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 81.56 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 81.56 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 81.56 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 81.55 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395200021829581 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395 423.000.76.535.80.47.63 789.56 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / METER200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 170.79 Total :5,195.60 214077 4/30/2015 075242 PUROCLEAN DISASTER SERVICES 150169 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, FACILITIES Cleaning Service: Water Mitigations 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 2,986.33 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 283.70 Total :3,270.03 214078 4/30/2015 075081 SCHUYLER, BEN BID-02 COMPLETION OF PHOTO SHOOT 100% COMPLETE Completion of photo shoot contract. 27Page: Packet Page 64 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214078 4/30/2015 (Continued)075081 SCHUYLER, BEN 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 120.00 Total :120.00 214079 4/30/2015 074911 SEATTLE HEALTHY POOLS 290 PM YOST POOL PPM GEL FOR SENSORS PM YOST POOL PPM GEL FOR SENSORS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 147.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.06 Total :162.01 214080 4/30/2015 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 92173 E4FC.SERVICES THRU 4/11/15 E4FC.Services thru 4/11/15 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 115.00 Total :115.00 214081 4/30/2015 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 2755-0 PM PAINT PM PAINT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 365.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 34.75 Total :400.54 214082 4/30/2015 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0499685 PM FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS PM FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 163.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 15.57 Total :179.45 214083 4/30/2015 060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARV/25462895 Fleet Shop Ratchet and Sockets Fleet Shop Ratchet and Sockets 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 75.15 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 14.95 9.5% Sales Tax 28Page: Packet Page 65 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214083 4/30/2015 (Continued)060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 8.57 Total :98.67 214084 4/30/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0254-7 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W / PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W / 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.49 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER 12003-4823-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 82.18 MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER2004-9314-6 MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 30.92 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN / ME2008-6520-2 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 129.48 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER 12016-1195-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 56.53 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER 12017-5147-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 111.31 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER 12019-0786-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 55.36 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 10002020-8787-0 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 216.34 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8912-0 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 113.18 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FS #16)2028-0763-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FIRE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 33.32 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10001353812030-9778-7 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 1000135381 29Page: Packet Page 66 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214084 4/30/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 26,176.82 Total :27,037.93 214085 4/30/2015 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2015-2559 CREDITS ON #2015-2559 - JSNO CO JAIL CR 12 HOUSING-CHAPARRO 1/2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -1,008.00 CR 1 HOUSING-PLATZ 1/2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -84.00 CR 1 BOOKING-PLATZ 1/2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -115.00 CR 4 MED /SPEC-CHAPARRO 1/2015CR 4 MED -CH 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -194.00 1 WORK RELEASE @ $20 3/2015S 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -20.00 INV#2015-2559 - EDMONDS PD2015-2559 429.83 HOUSING @ $84 - 3/15 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 36,105.72 54.83 BOOKINGS @ $115 - 3/15 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 6,305.45 57.67 MED/PREM @ $48.50 - 3/15 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 2,797.00 44 MENTAL HEALTH @$117 - 3/15 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 5,148.00 10.25 VIDEO COURT @ $115.50 - 3/15 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,183.87 1 WORK RELEASE @ $50 - 3/15 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 50.00 INV 2015-2580 EDMONDS PD - INMATE MEDS 02015-2580 INMATE MEDICATION - MARCH 2015 001.000.39.523.60.31.00 570.63 Total :50,739.67 214086 4/30/2015 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 4/16/15 SCC Mtg 4/16/15 SCC Dinner Mtg - Council 4/16/15 SCC Dinner Mtg - Council 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 35.00 30Page: Packet Page 67 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :35.002140864/30/2015 067609 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 214087 4/30/2015 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT PS 0456/PS 0457 YOST 2015 WATER RECREATION PERMIT YOST 2015 WATER RECREATION PERMIT 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 683.00 Total :683.00 214088 4/30/2015 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3002993659 INV#3002993659 CUST#6076358 - EDMONDS PD MEDIUM BOX DISPOSAL 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 51.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 1.92 Total :53.44 214089 4/30/2015 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S101226638.001 Fac Maint - Lighting Supplies Fac Maint - Lighting Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,121.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 106.53 Total :1,227.93 214090 4/30/2015 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 1527 SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES APRIL 2015 Social media services for April 2015. 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 300.00 Total :300.00 214091 4/30/2015 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 17561 LS 7 - Operator Interface LS 7 - Operator Interface 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 595.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 56.53 Total :651.53 214092 4/30/2015 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 11435123 Fleet Returns Fleet Returns 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -31.30 9.5% Sales Tax 31Page: Packet Page 68 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214092 4/30/2015 (Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -2.97 Storm First Aid Supplies11442145 Storm First Aid Supplies 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 11.58 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 1.10 Fleet Shop Supplies11444573 Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 46.85 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 4.45 Street - Orange Upside down Paint11445777 Street - Orange Upside down Paint 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 103.86 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 9.87 Unit 138 - Bolts18072667 Unit 138 - Bolts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.45 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.14 Total :145.03 214093 4/30/2015 074865 TALLMAN, TRENT 4/7-4/14 FIELD ATTEN 4/7-4/14/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT 4/7-4/14/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 385.00 Total :385.00 214094 4/30/2015 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50904669 WWTP - C412 PLC PROGRAMMING Flow Meter PLC Programming 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 1,417.50 E4CD.SERVICES THRU 3/27/1550908063 E4CD.Services thru 3/27/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 22,298.59 32Page: Packet Page 69 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :23,716.092140944/30/2015 071666 071666 TETRA TECH INC 214095 4/30/2015 075204 TIGG LLC SI0015284 WWTP - CHEMICALS, CARBON Carbon Super Saks 423.000.76.535.80.31.56 3,250.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.56 603.00 Total :3,853.00 214096 4/30/2015 074800 TURNSTYLE INC BID-3419 PRODUCTION OF TRANSIT AD Development, design, layout, and 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 2,500.00 Total :2,500.00 214097 4/30/2015 043935 UPS 00002t4t13155 UPS Shipping - Building UPS Shipping - Building 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 19.85 Total :19.85 214098 4/30/2015 062693 US BANK 5593 RECORDING FEES SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING OF UTILITY 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 115.50 SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING OF UTILITY 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 115.50 Total :231.00 214099 4/30/2015 064214 USSSA WASHINGTON STATE 770 REMAINNG SOFTBALL TEAMS REG FOR SPRING L REMAINNG SOFTBALL TEAMS REG FOR SPRING 001.000.64.571.25.49.00 245.00 Total :245.00 214100 4/30/2015 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9743881753 C/A 671247844-00001 Cell Service-Bldg 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 48.80 Cell Service-Eng 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 185.69 Cell Service Fac-Maint 33Page: Packet Page 70 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214100 4/30/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 111.75 Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 24.40 Cell Service Parks Maint 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 58.13 Cell Service-PD 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 335.81 Cell Service-PD 104 Fund 104.000.41.521.21.42.00 189.00 Cell Service-PW Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 304.87 Cell Service-PW Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 250.86 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 28.49 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 28.49 Cell Service-PW Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 93.04 Cell Service-PW Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 99.31 Cell Service-WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 270.84 Total :2,029.48 214101 4/30/2015 047200 WA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC 449 2015 CONF AWARDS BANQUET REGISTRATION-CO 2015 CONF AWARDS BANQUET 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 60.00 Total :60.00 214102 4/30/2015 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO 286767 Fac Maint - Bleach, Liners, Cleaners, Fac Maint - Bleach, Liners, Cleaners, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 950.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 90.25 34Page: Packet Page 71 of 400 04/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 8:33:00AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,040.272141024/30/2015 075154 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO 214103 4/30/2015 073472 WAPRO 691 INVOICE 691 - SPRING TRAINING - HAWLEY - WAPRO SPRING TRAINING - 4/24/15 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 165.00 Total :165.00 214104 4/30/2015 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 0000027086 Traffic- Program Card For Radar Feed Traffic- Program Card For Radar Feed 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 333.33 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 31.67 Traffic Control - Ped Audible Signal &0000027307 Traffic Control - Ped Audible Signal & 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 784.01 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 31.36 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 77.46 Total :1,257.83 Bank total :451,516.99112 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 451,516.99Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report112 35Page: Packet Page 72 of 400 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 STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB Revised 4/30/2015 Packet Page 73 of 400 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA 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)c472 E5FC 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 WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA 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 Revised 4/30/2015 Packet Page 74 of 400 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number 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 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 Revised 4/30/2015 Packet Page 75 of 400 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA ENG Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF Revised 4/30/2015 Packet Page 76 of 400 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 4/30/2015 Packet Page 77 of 400 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 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 STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines Revised 4/30/2015 Packet Page 78 of 400 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I 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 E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) SWR E5GA c469 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects WTR E5JA c468 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating 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 4/30/2015 Packet Page 79 of 400 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 4/30/2015 Packet Page 80 of 400 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 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 STR c421 E3DA 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk Revised 4/30/2015 Packet Page 81 of 400 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title 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 c463 E5CA 2015 Overlay Program STM c466 E5FA 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM c467 E5FB Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects WTR c468 E5JA 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects SWR c469 E5GA 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects Revised 4/30/2015 Packet Page 82 of 400 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title STR c470 E5AA Trackside Warning System STR c471 E5AB 2015 Traffic Calming STM c472 E5FC Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) WTR c473 E5KA Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 4/30/2015 Packet Page 83 of 400 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number ENG Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF 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 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD 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 Revised 4/30/2015 Packet Page 84 of 400 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB 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 STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA 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 STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA Revised 4/30/2015 Packet Page 85 of 400 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD Revised 4/30/2015 Packet Page 86 of 400 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA Revised 4/30/2015 Packet Page 87 of 400 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 793 (04/29/2015 to 04/29/2015) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description CLOTHING ALLOWANCEMISCELLANEOUS903 0.00 700.00 Total Net Pay:$616.62 $700.00 0.00 04/30/2015 Page 1 of 1 Packet Page 88 of 400    AM-7672     4. C.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Linda Hynd Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Ryan Speer ($200.00). Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action  N/A Narrative Ryan Speer 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 ($200.00) Attachments Speer Claim for Damages Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 04/28/2015 10:35 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/29/2015 08:25 AM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 04/27/2015 12:06 PM Final Approval Date: 04/29/2015  Packet Page 89 of 400 Packet Page 90 of 400 Packet Page 91 of 400 Packet Page 92 of 400 Packet Page 93 of 400 Packet Page 94 of 400    AM-7678     4. D.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Sarah Mager Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title February 2015 Budgetary Financial Report Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative Attachments February 2015 Monthly Financial Report Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 04/29/2015 03:44 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 04/30/2015 07:29 AM Mayor Dave Earling 04/30/2015 09:09 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/30/2015 09:13 AM Form Started By: Sarah Mager Started On: 04/29/2015 02:18 PM Final Approval Date: 04/30/2015  Packet Page 95 of 400 CITY OF EDMONDS MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT FEBRUARY 2015 Packet Page 96 of 400 1 Page 1 of 1 Fund No.Title 2015 Adopted Budget 02/28/2014 Revenues 02/28/2015 Revenues Amount Remaining % Received 001 GENERAL FUND 1 36,806,017$ 6,617,557$ 4,043,011$ 32,763,006$ 11% 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 276,200 256 383 275,817 0% 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 1,180 - 754 426 64% 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 19,800 3,364 4,000 15,800 20% 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND - - 41 (41) 0% 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 7,500 1 1 7,499 0% 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 2 513,000 187,581 45,007 467,993 9% 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 43,000 17,307 11,095 31,905 26% 111 STREET FUND 1,729,030 214,557 219,678 1,509,352 13% 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2 8,026,935 670,354 396,369 7,630,566 5% 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 78,859 364 324 78,535 0% 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 61 11 13 48 21% 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 67,675 8,995 11,067 56,608 16% 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 20,564 8,443 6,201 14,363 30% 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 1,240 9 131 1,109 11% 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 22,900 3,052 3,713 19,187 16% 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 904,000 150,089 142,925 761,075 16% 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 902,000 149,163 142,667 759,333 16% 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 46,478 18,145 24,395 22,083 52% 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND - - 28 (28) 0% 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 164,500 24,224 41,664 122,836 25% 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2 5,498,765 105,044 17,759 5,481,006 0% 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 533 93 111 422 21% 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 11,970 2,896 5,254 6,716 44% 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,212 2 1 10,211 0% 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 650,000 104,768 106,009 543,991 16% 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 28,835 32,051 (32,051) 0% 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,600 - 9,718 12,882 43% 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 28,627 30 - 28,627 0% 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 667,693 - - 667,693 0% 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 925,310 - - 925,310 0% 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 38,805 45,348 (45,348) 0% 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 7,581,442 1,112,465 1,087,330 6,494,112 14% 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 2 3,774,407 785,594 934,797 2,839,610 25% 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 9,833,310 1,325,854 1,336,070 8,497,240 14% 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 844,416 - 1 844,415 0% 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,502,567 252,252 270,869 1,231,698 18% 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 65,350 116 136 65,214 0% 81,048,141$ 11,830,222$ 8,938,918$ 72,109,223$ 11% CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY 1 Difference between 2014 and 2015 is due to the $2.7M from bond refund in February of 2014. 2 All differences between 2014 and 2015 are strictly due to a difference in grant funds received. Packet Page 97 of 400 2 Page 1 of 1 Fund No.Title 2015 Adopted Budget 02/28/2014 Expenditures 02/28/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent 001 GENERAL FUND 38,805,775$ 5,980,774$ 6,730,834$ 32,074,941$ 17% 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 361,825 67,441 58,126 303,699 16% 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - - - - 0% 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 800,000 - - 800,000 0% 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 7,900 - - 7,900 0% 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 598,800 394 8,823 589,977 1% 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 76,033 698 544 75,489 1% 111 STREET FUND 1,703,419 259,983 293,436 1,409,983 17% 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 8,146,704 80,736 54,338 8,092,366 1% 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 134,275 2,510 2,219 132,056 2% 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - - 0% 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 70,000 - 1,082 68,918 2% 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,871 - - 26,871 0% 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,000 267 249 2,751 8% 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 21,500 - 1,715 19,785 8% 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2,485,000 16,282 39,483 2,445,517 2% 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 683,400 2,500 - 683,400 0% 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 43,795 306 964 42,831 2% 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND - 17,469 - - 0% 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 171,784 24,472 26,912 144,872 16% 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 6,001,243 95,920 7,294 5,993,949 0% 136 PARKS TRUST FUND - - - - 0% 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,400 274 - 10,400 0% 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 650,000 104,768 106,009 543,991 16% 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRCIT - - 1,175 (1,175) 0% 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 28,567 - - 28,567 0% 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - - - - 0% 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 667,693 - 54 667,639 0% 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 925,310 - - 925,310 0% 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 10,354,300 984,320 962,551 9,391,749 9% 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 6,969,141 381,016 388,964 6,580,177 6% 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 15,071,010 1,088,341 1,282,255 13,788,755 9% 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 845,416 - 54 845,362 0% 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,667,801 157,676 123,760 1,544,041 7% 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 77,629 11,910 11,814 65,815 15% 97,408,591$ 9,278,055$ 10,102,655$ 87,305,936$ 10% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY Packet Page 98 of 400 3 Page 1 of 3 Title 2015 Adopted Budget 02/28/2014 Revenues 02/28/2015 Revenues Amount Remaining % Received TAXES: REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9,999,850$ 86,223$ 85,313$ 9,914,537$ 1% EMS PROPERTY TAX 3,395,376 25,150 27,733 3,367,643 1% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 925,309 8,154 8,067 917,242 1% LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 3 5,627,000 998,510 1,134,685 4,492,315 20% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 9,700 2,237 1,616 8,084 17% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 586,500 109,500 112,853 473,647 19% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,533,800 352,390 327,208 1,206,592 21% GAS UTILITY TAX 743,700 198,165 181,842 561,858 24% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 301,500 49,995 51,751 249,749 17% WATER UTILITY TAX 1,115,209 154,870 163,541 951,668 15% SEWER UTILITY TAX 524,200 47,881 94,028 430,172 18% STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 323,210 106,227 71,526 251,684 22% T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 819,100 137,767 70,534 748,566 9% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,371,800 248,366 240,490 1,131,310 18% PULLTABS TAX 45,200 11,054 11,837 33,363 26% AMUSEMENT GAMES 150 12 - 150 0% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 231,200 50,434 58,414 172,786 25% 27,552,804 2,586,934 2,641,438 24,911,366 10% LICENSES AND PERMITS: FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,210 40 105 5,105 2% POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 300 150 - 300 0% PROF AND OCC LICENSE-TAXI 630 330 - 630 0% AMUSEMENTS 4,740 3,950 1,500 3,240 32% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST 4 683,400 172,694 248,037 435,363 36% FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT 33,560 7,357 7,958 25,602 24% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER 91,500 22,843 24,811 66,689 27% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-BLACKROCK 18,100 4,717 5,227 12,873 29% FRANCHISE AGREMENT-ZAYO 5,000 - - 5,000 0% OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 261,930 74,829 57,968 203,962 22% GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 110,600 76,566 72,629 37,971 66% DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 37,200 4,475 6,940 30,260 19% NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 66,300 21,800 16,900 49,400 25% RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 9,870 - 5,388 4,482 55% BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 5 480,000 32,539 63,327 416,673 13% ANIMAL LICENSES 38,800 5,559 8,769 30,031 23% STREET AND CURB PERMIT 40,300 905 2,209 38,091 5% OTR NON-BUS LIC/PERMITS 10,100 1,767 2,020 8,080 20% 1,897,540 430,520 523,787 1,373,753 28% INTERGOVERNMENTAL: FEDERAL GRANTS-BUDGET ONLY 20,000 - - 20,000 0% DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 3,970 - - 3,970 0% ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE GRANT 6,000 1,000 5,250 750 88% WA ASSOC OF SHERIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT - - - - 0% WTSC X-52 DUI AND SPEEDING - - - - 0% TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 7,500 - 468 7,032 6% HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 3,000 - - 3,000 0% DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE - 721 - - 0% WA STATE ADMIN OFFICE COURTS GRANT - - 300 (300) 0% 2014 COMMUNITY FORESTRY GRANT - - - - 0% WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT - - - - 0% NORTHWEST SOLAR COMMUNITIES GRANT - - 5,250 (5,250) 0% SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - - - - 0% PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 187,470 - - 187,470 0% MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 9,980 2,487 2,608 7,372 26% JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 12,630 3,169 4,074 8,556 32% CRIMINAL JUSTICE-SPECIAL PROGRAMS 36,890 9,203 9,581 27,309 26% DUI - CITIES 7,220 1,854 1,756 5,464 24% LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 65,000 26,478 19,873 45,127 31% LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 356,890 - - 356,890 0% VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS - - - - 0% 716,550 44,911 49,160 667,390 7% REVENUES - GENERAL FUND CITY OF EDMONDS 3 2015 Local Retail Sales/Use Tax revenues are $136,175 higher than 2014 revenues 5 Building Structure Permits are up $30,788 from 2014 4 Difference between 2014 and 2015 is receipt of an additional payment for January; majority of both is for the 4th quarter payment . Packet Page 99 of 400 4 Page 2 of 3 Title 2015 Adopted Budget 02/28/2014 Revenues 02/28/2015 Revenues Amount Remaining % Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: CIVIL PROBATE FILINGS - - - - 0% COURT RECORD SERVICES 1,200 - - 1,200 0% D/M COURT REC SER 200 3 7 193 3% SHARED COURT COSTS 500 - - 500 0% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 200 95 79 121 40% SALE MAPS & BOOKS 100 9 - 100 0% CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS 25,086 - - 25,086 0% BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 100 - - 100 0% PHOTOCOPIES 2,000 206 349 1,651 17% POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,000 482 934 3,066 23% ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 6 272,000 9,405 14,434 257,566 5% ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 1,000 - - 1,000 0% SNO-ISLE 58,000 14,212 14,361 43,639 25% GENERAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES - - - - 0% PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 11,000 3,650 4,710 6,290 43% POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 - - 26,000 0% OCDETF OVERTIME 5,500 4,445 - 5,500 0% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.12,300 - 605 11,695 5% WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 39,500 9,450 10,650 28,850 27% DRE REIMBURSEABLE - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 1,500 - - 1,500 0% DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 300 39 105 195 35% FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 45,000 13,333 12,095 32,905 27% ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 50,000 12,099 11,118 38,882 22% ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI - - - - 0% BOOKING FEES 6,000 1,193 1,085 4,915 18% FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 8,000 3,307 3,657 4,343 46% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 18,000 3,244 1,205 16,795 7% EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 7 800,000 241,224 197,671 602,329 25% CRIM CNV FEE DUI - - - - 0% CRIM CONV FEE CT - 670 - - 0% CRIM CONV FEE CN - 203 - - 0% FIBER SERVICES 14,880 2,480 1,530 13,350 10% INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,200 1,200 1,200 6,000 17% FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 1,000 116 - 1,000 0% ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,000 545 674 5,326 11% ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 6 75,000 5,189 14,334 60,666 19% PLAN CHECKING FEES 6 292,000 71,059 131,353 160,647 45% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 6 2,160 1,850 2,115 45 98% PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 6 900 - - 900 0% S.E.P.A. REVIEW 6 5,000 1,095 610 4,390 12% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 15,000 2,170 2,170 12,830 14% RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS - 162 162 (162) 0% DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,000 1,447 1,582 8,418 16% SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 61,000 - - 61,000 0% GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 4,800 884 1,573 3,227 33% LOCKER FEES 350 - - 350 0% SWIM CLASS FEES 30,000 - - 30,000 0% PROGRAM FEES 8 825,000 85,114 112,396 712,604 14% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 110,000 16,202 15,866 94,134 14% SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM 34,260 - - 34,260 0% BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 950 - - 950 0% INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT-CONTRACT SVCS 1,969,500 139,137 138,529 1,830,971 7% 4,852,486 645,919 697,160 4,155,326 14% 7 No specific reason for the difference between 2014 and 2015; EMS transport fees for 4th quarter 2014 were less than 2013. CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 6 Development Services has collected a larger amount of fees in 2015 versus 2014 8 Program Fees are up $27,282 from 2014 Packet Page 100 of 400 5 Page 3 of 3 Title 2015 Adopted Budget 02/28/2014 Revenues 02/28/2015 Revenues Amount Remaining % Received FINES AND FORFEITURES: PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 11,100 1,452 880 10,220 8% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 25,300 4,301 3,920 21,380 15% NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 289,400 45,114 40,992 248,408 14% CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)24,100 3,487 3,033 21,067 13% SPEEDING DOUBLE - - - - 0% NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 1,200 1,201 - 1,200 0% OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 1,000 93 156 844 16% PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 40,200 6,834 5,995 34,205 15% PR - HANDICAPPED - - - - 0% PARK/INDDISZONE 500 281 570 (70) 114% DWI PENALTIES 6,000 1,392 1,120 4,880 19% DUI - DP ACCT 1,800 469 225 1,575 13% CRIM CNV FEE DUI - 141 69 (69) 0% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 50 18 - 50 0% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 38,200 5,343 4,459 33,741 12% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT 500 253 291 209 58% CRIM CONV FEE CT 4,000 - 385 3,615 10% OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 100 2 87 13 87% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 5,000 9,640 2,785 2,215 56% COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 1,500 246 297 1,203 20% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN 400 120 333 67 83% CRIM CONV FEE CN 1,200 - 90 1,110 7% CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 115,600 16,226 9,699 105,901 8% PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 30,200 5,294 4,567 25,633 15% COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 100 4 58 42 58% BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 9 4,000 475 6,550 (2,550) 164% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 1,000 - - 1,000 0% 602,450 102,387 86,559 515,891 14% MISCELLANEOUS: INVESTMENT INTEREST 10,600 1,729 2,264 8,336 21% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 1,200 92 310 890 26% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 5,000 1,014 1,510 3,490 30% PARKING 10,300 1,693 2,257 8,043 22% SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 120,000 3,920 6,173 113,827 5% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 5,000 1,200 1,040 3,960 21% LEASES LONG-TERM 166,772 28,528 28,252 138,520 17% VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 9,000 321 608 8,392 7% OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 8,400 - 900 7,500 11% DONATION/CONTRIBUTION - - - - 0% PARKS DONATIONS 11,250 1,800 1,000 10,250 9% BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 950 200 - 950 0% POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES 1,000 - - 1,000 0% PARKS GRANTS - PRIVATE SOURCES - - - - 0% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 150 - - 150 0% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 2,000 154 - 2,000 0% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 2,000 - - 2,000 0% OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 2,000 - 18 1,982 1% POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 200 88 - 200 0% CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES - 3 - - 0% OTHER MISC REVENUES 1,000 2,716 531 469 53% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 50 2 1 49 2% NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 120 - - 120 0% NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 800 115 45 755 6% NSF FEES - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT - - - - - FLEX-PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES 1,010 - - 1,010 - US BANK REBATE 3,210 - - 3,210 0% 362,012 43,573 44,907 317,105 12% TRANSFERS-IN: PROCEEDS OF REFUNDING DEBT - 2,763,314 - - 0% INSURANCE RECOVERIES - - - - 0% TRANSFER FROM FUND 012 800,000 - - 800,000 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM 104 - - - - 0% TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 22,175 - - 22,175 0% 822,175 2,763,314 - 822,175 0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 36,806,017$ 6,617,557$ 4,043,011$ 32,763,006$ 11% REVENUES - GENERAL FUND CITY OF EDMONDS 9 Difference due to change in penalty from 2014 to 2015. A late fee of $50 is now assessed after 1/31, and $100 after 2/28. Packet Page 101 of 400 6 Page 1 of 6 Title 2015 Adopted Budget 02/28/2014 Expenditures 02/28/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) SALARIES AND WAGES 13,312,448$ 1,943,251$ 2,126,906$ 11,185,542$ 16% OVERTIME 424,508 66,256 77,782 346,726 18% HOLIDAY BUY BACK 209,198 - - 209,198 0% BENEFITS 4,789,021 745,884 787,445 4,001,576 16% UNIFORMS 65,610 9,292 13,697 51,913 21% SUPPLIES 372,957 54,963 39,946 333,011 11% SMALL EQUIPMENT 181,357 52,622 39,151 142,206 22% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,848,190 202,955 231,450 2,616,740 8% COMMUNICATIONS 209,127 21,908 21,611 187,516 10% TRAVEL 36,845 1,026 1,154 35,691 3% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 638 377 6,123 6% ADVERTISING - 4,725 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 905,591 154,093 149,158 756,433 16% INSURANCE 423,600 383,906 418,367 5,233 99% UTILITIES 457,800 60,644 65,209 392,591 14% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 396,359 114,140 161,037 235,322 41% MISCELLANEOUS 405,650 66,205 101,956 303,694 25% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 10 10,114,042 2,081,306 2,480,779 7,633,263 25% INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 180,000 - - 180,000 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 3,132,785 - - 3,132,785 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 53,800 - 14,777 39,023 27% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 160,821 - - 160,821 0% CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 65,298 - - 65,298 0% OTHER DEBT - 479 33 (33) 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 54,268 - - 54,268 0% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - 16,481 - - 0% INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0% INTERFUND RENTAL - - - - 0% 38,805,775$ 5,980,774$ 6,730,834$ 32,074,941$ 17% LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009) BENEFITS 229,575$ 51,625$ 41,479$ 188,096$ 18% IN HOME LTC CLAIMS 125,000 15,815 16,647 108,354 13% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,000 - - 7,000 0% MISCELLANEOUS 250 - - 250 0% 361,825$ 67,441$ 58,126$ 303,699$ 16% RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) MISCELLANEOUS -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND (012) INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 800,000$ -$ -$ 800,000$ 0% 800,000$ -$ -$ 800,000$ 0% HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014) SUPPLIES 100$ -$ -$ 100$ 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,700 - - 7,700 0% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS 100 - - 100 0% 7,900$ -$ -$ 7,900$ 0% BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016) SUPPLIES -$ 294$ -$ -$ 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 236,400 - 8,823 227,577 4% REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE 362,400 100 - 362,400 0% MISCELLANEOUS - - - - 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - - - - 0% 598,800$ 394$ 8,823$ 589,977$ 1% DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND (104) FUEL CONSUMED 3,000$ 228$ 166$ 2,834$ 6% SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 - - 5,000 0% COMMUNICATIONS 2,233 469 378 1,855 17% REPAIR/MAINT 800 - - 800 0% MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 - - 20,000 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 45,000 - - 45,000 0% 76,033$ 698$ 544$ 75,489$ 1% 10 Difference between 2014 and 2015 is due to an increase in the annual Fire District 1 contract, as well as Retro billings for past years EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 102 of 400 7 Page 2 of 6 Title 2015 Adopted Budget 02/28/2014 Expenditures 02/28/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent STREET FUND (111) SALARIES AND WAGES 526,484$ 68,350$ 83,675$ 442,809$ 16% OVERTIME 18,400 6,328 2,006 16,394 11% BENEFITS 250,539 34,582 39,958 210,581 16% UNIFORMS 6,000 2,845 3,092 2,908 52% SUPPLIES 240,000 8,540 6,011 233,989 3% SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 2,197 - 26,000 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,050 4,594 4,172 9,878 30% COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 541 408 3,092 12% TRAVEL 1,000 - - 1,000 0% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 191,244 29,719 31,575 159,669 17% INSURANCE 82,400 74,683 81,386 1,014 99% UTILITIES 270,170 23,074 39,080 231,090 14% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 4,531 2,070 42,930 5% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 - - 8,000 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 3,000 - - 3,000 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 12,500 - - 12,500 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 3,283 - - 3,283 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 1,849 - - 1,849 0% 1,703,419$ 259,983$ 293,436$ 1,409,983$ 17% COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE (112) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,248,947$ 40,988$ 11,145$ 2,237,802$ 0% MISCELLANEOUS - - - - 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 114,006 - - 114,006 0% LAND 792,500 2,684 - 792,500 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 4,915,290 37,064 43,193 4,872,097 1% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,203 - - 72,203 0% INTEREST 3,758 - - 3,758 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - - - - 0% 8,146,704$ 80,736$ 54,338$ 8,092,366$ 1% MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117) SUPPLIES 4,400$ 15$ -$ 4,400$ 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,500 - - 1,500 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 120,000 1,800 1,500 118,500 1% TRAVEL 75 11 - 75 0% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 - - 2,000 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 - - 300 0% MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 685 719 5,281 12% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - - - - 0% 134,275$ 2,510$ 2,219$ 132,056$ 2% HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 65,500$ -$ 1,000$ 64,500$ 2% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS 500 - 82 418 16% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - - - - 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 4,000 - - 4,000 0% 70,000$ -$ 1,082$ 68,918$ 2% EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121) SUPPLIES 1,785$ -$ -$ 1,785$ 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT - - - - 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25,086 - - 25,086 0% 26,871$ -$ -$ 26,871$ 0% YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) MISCELLANEOUS 3,000$ 267$ 249$ 2,751$ 8% 3,000$ 267$ 249$ 2,751$ 8% TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 17,000$ -$ 1,715$ 15,285$ 10% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS 4,500 - - 4,500 0% 21,500$ -$ 1,715$ 19,785$ 8% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Packet Page 103 of 400 8 Page 3 of 6 Title 2015 Adopted Budget 02/28/2014 Expenditures 02/28/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 (125) SUPPLIES 21,000$ 12,903$ 18,328$ 2,672$ 87% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 507,000 - 18,959 488,041 4% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE - 3,379 2,196 (2,196) 0% UTILITIES - - - - 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 120,000 - - 120,000 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,837,000 - - 1,837,000 0% 2,485,000$ 16,282$ 39,483$ 2,445,517$ 2% REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ (126) MISCELLANEOUS -$ 2,500$ -$ -$ 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 141,525 - - 141,525 0% LAND 400,000 - - 400,000 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 12,000 - - 12,000 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 119,110 - - 119,110 0% INTEREST 10,765 - - 10,765 0% 683,400$ 2,500$ -$ 683,400$ 0% GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) SUPPLIES 11,620$ 306$ 691$ 10,929$ 6% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000 - 273 9,727 3% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 22,175 - - 22,175 0% 43,795$ 306$ 964$ 42,831$ 2% SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ - -$ -$ 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - 17,469 - - 0% INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0% -$ 17,469$ -$ -$ 0% CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMENT (130) SALARIES AND WAGES 82,776$ 11,791$ 13,749$ 69,027$ 17% OVERTIME 3,500 376 100 3,400 3% BENEFITS 33,110 5,245 5,557 27,553 17% UNIFORMS 1,000 - 197 803 20% SUPPLIES 7,000 1,700 134 6,866 2% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 20,000 2,502 3,641 16,359 18% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,200 - 127 4,073 3% COMMUNICATIONS 1,412 239 360 1,052 25% TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0% ADVERTISING - 118 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 9,986 1,536 1,664 8,322 17% UTILITIES 3,800 136 - 3,800 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 828 1,384 2,616 35% 171,784$ 24,472$ 26,912$ 144,872$ 16% PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132) SUPPLIES -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 123,343 95,920 7,294 116,049 6% LAND 3,400,000 - - 3,400,000 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,477,900 - - 2,477,900 0% INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0% 6,001,243$ 95,920$ 7,294$ 5,993,949$ 0% SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) SUPPLIES 1,500$ -$ -$ 1,500$ 0% TRAVEL 4,200 - - 4,200 0% MISCELLANEOUS 4,700 274 - 4,700 0% 10,400$ 274$ -$ 10,400$ 0% TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (139) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% INSURANCE 5,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 50% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 645,000 102,268 103,509 541,491 16% 650,000$ 104,768$ 106,009$ 543,991$ 16% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Packet Page 104 of 400 9 Page 4 of 6 Title 2015 Adopted Budget 02/28/2014 Expenditures 02/28/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND (140) SUPPLIES -$ -$ 1,175$ (1,175)$ 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - - - - 0% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS - - - - 0% -$ -$ 1,175$ (1,175)$ 0% LID FUND CONTROL (211) INTERFUND TRANSFER 28,567$ -$ -$ 28,567$ 0% 28,567$ -$ -$ 28,567$ 0% 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 516,265$ -$ -$ 516,265$ 0% INTEREST 150,928 - - 150,928 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 500 - 54 446 11% 667,693$ -$ 54$ 667,639$ 0% 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND (232) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 906,908$ -$ -$ 906,908$ 0% INTEREST 18,402 - - 18,402 0% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% 925,310$ -$ -$ 925,310$ 0% WATER FUND (421) SALARIES AND WAGES 760,901$ 121,877$ 123,338$ 637,563$ 16% OVERTIME 24,180 2,342 3,871 20,309 16% BENEFITS 375,728 55,455 55,260 320,468 15% UNIFORMS 4,000 505 372 3,628 9% SUPPLIES 150,000 20,370 3,062 146,938 2% FUEL CONSUMED - - - - 0% WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,600,000 100,327 194,504 1,405,496 12% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 143,000 35,889 4,322 138,678 3% SMALL EQUIPMENT 11,000 - - 11,000 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,320,480 15,904 67,998 1,252,482 5% COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 2,624 5,369 24,631 18% TRAVEL 200 - - 200 0% EXCISE TAXES - - 51,391 (51,391) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 98,107 17,684 16,232 81,875 17% INSURANCE 85,000 65,068 70,904 14,096 83% UTILITIES 40,000 10,466 4,012 35,988 10% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,000 363 8,214 8,786 48% MISCELLANEOUS 381,400 70,054 17,854 363,546 5% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 30,000 5,071 5,391 24,609 18% INTERFUND TAXES 1,115,209 154,870 163,541 951,668 15% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 295,830 - - 295,830 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 12,500 - - 12,500 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 3,229,920 266,295 166,886 3,063,034 5% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 2,205 - - 2,205 0% REVENUE BONDS 315,277 - - 315,277 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 45,839 - - 45,839 0% INTEREST 266,524 - - 266,524 0% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 175 31 (31) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 38,981 - - 0% INTERFUND REPAIR/MAINT - - - - 0% 10,354,300$ 984,320$ 962,551$ 9,391,749$ 9% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Packet Page 105 of 400 10 Page 5 of 6 Title 2015 Adopted Budget 02/28/2014 Expenditures 02/28/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent STORM FUND (422) SALARIES AND WAGES 588,544$ 97,070$ 83,157$ 505,387$ 14% OVERTIME 6,000 2,226 3,190 2,810 53% BENEFITS 275,010 42,596 40,447 234,563 15% UNIFORMS 6,500 3,220 3,073 3,427 47% SUPPLIES 45,500 4,851 8,966 36,534 20% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,000 275 787 3,213 20% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,445,270 26,075 55,660 2,389,610 2% COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 357 359 2,841 11% TRAVEL 4,300 - - 4,300 0% EXCISE TAXES - - 6,892 (6,892) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 217,333 35,102 35,722 181,611 16% INSURANCE 8,089 36,035 39,269 (31,180) 485% UTILITES 10,500 1,455 1,407 9,093 13% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 13,000 6,005 7,846 5,154 60% MISCELLANEOUS 120,500 13,518 9,325 111,175 8% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 85,000 5,026 21,322 63,678 25% INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 323,210 68,035 71,526 251,684 22% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 53,187 - - 53,187 0% LAND 11,900 - - 11,900 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 12,500 - - 12,500 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,294,832 - - 2,294,832 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 80,507 - - 80,507 0% REVENUE BONDS 154,054 - - 154,054 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,063 - - 32,063 0% INTEREST 174,142 - - 174,142 0% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 84 15 (15) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 39,086 - - 0% 6,969,141$ 381,016$ 388,964$ 6,580,177$ 6% SEWER FUND (423) SALARIES AND WAGES 1,690,580$ 283,523$ 274,194$ 1,416,386$ 16% OVERTIME 81,000 13,249 13,687 67,313 17% BENEFITS 763,707 125,742 118,388 645,319 16% UNIFORMS 9,000 4,476 1,767 7,233 20% SUPPLIES 350,000 29,437 37,467 312,533 11% FUEL CONSUMED 140,000 18,589 11,762 128,238 8% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE 4,000 - - 4,000 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 46,000 6,318 1,564 44,436 3% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,761,965 57,913 160,355 1,601,610 9% COMMUNICATIONS 40,000 4,085 5,513 34,487 14% TRAVEL 5,000 - - 5,000 0% EXCISE TAXES 60,000 - 29,055 30,945 48% RENTAL/LEASE 200,978 24,563 32,896 168,082 16% INSURANCE 156,955 128,145 139,648 17,307 89% UTILITIES 1,055,350 134,421 124,826 930,524 12% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 255,000 32,329 38,717 216,283 15% MISCELLANEOUS 193,400 28,159 11,612 181,788 6% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 408,889 38,503 61,815 347,074 15% INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 524,200 86,073 94,028 430,172 18% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,267,090 - - 1,267,090 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 542,000 - - 542,000 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 4,972,235 11,405 124,952 4,847,283 3% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 126,147 - - 126,147 0% REVENUE BONDS 70,669 - - 70,669 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 203,621 - - 203,621 0% INTEREST 143,224 - - 143,224 0% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 41 7 (7) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 61,370 - - 0% 15,071,010$ 1,088,341$ 1,282,255$ 13,788,755$ 9% BOND RESERVE FUND (424) REVENUE BONDS 170,000$ -$ -$ 170,000$ 0% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% INTEREST 674,416 - - 674,416 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 1,000 - 54 946 5% 845,416$ -$ 54$ 845,362$ 0% EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 106 of 400 11 Page 6 of 6 Title 2015 Adopted Budget 02/28/2014 Expenditures 02/28/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) SALARIES AND WAGES 207,189$ 34,803$ 34,837$ 172,352$ 17% OVERTIME 2,000 99 61 1,939 3% BENEFITS 96,603 15,670 15,766 80,837 16% UNIFORMS 1,000 418 52 948 5% SUPPLIES 98,000 5,622 9,416 88,584 10% FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 123 - 1,000 0% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 315,200 6,051 3,798 311,402 1% SMALL EQUIPMENT 8,000 6,164 12,344 (4,344) 154% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,000 52 60 10,940 1% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 281 298 2,702 10% TRAVEL 3,300 - - 3,300 0% RENTAL/LEASE 15,118 2,296 2,402 12,716 16% INSURANCE 32,701 35,893 40,605 (7,904) 124% UTILITIES 14,000 1,881 1,885 12,115 13% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 60,000 2,421 2,143 57,857 4% MISCELLANEOUS 7,190 544 - 7,190 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 - - 2,500 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 790,000 45,357 93 789,907 0% INTERFUND RENTAL - - - - 0% 1,667,801$ 157,676$ 123,760$ 1,544,041$ 7% FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFITS 37,633$ 6,692$ 7,279$ 30,354$ 19% PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 38,796 5,218 4,535 34,261 12% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200 - - 1,200 0% 77,629$ 11,910$ 11,814$ 65,815$ 15% TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS 97,408,591$ 9,278,055$ 10,102,655$ 87,305,936$ 10% EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 107 of 400 12 Page 1 of 1 Title 2015 Adopted Budget 02/28/2014 Expenditures 02/28/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent CITY COUNCIL 256,160$ 29,242$ 32,177$ 223,983$ 13% OFFICE OF MAYOR 257,113 40,990 41,879 215,234 16% HUMAN RESOURCES 386,981 60,853 58,245 328,736 15% MUNICIPAL COURT 883,826 116,841 131,534 752,292 15% CITY CLERK 584,834 85,455 113,771 471,063 19% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,668,355 292,915 382,972 1,285,383 23% CITY ATTORNEY 664,180 91,366 109,902 554,278 17% NON-DEPARTMENTAL 14,869,682 2,563,640 2,984,442 11,885,240 20% POLICE SERVICES 8,884,373 1,369,842 1,439,842 7,444,531 16% COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEV.441,796 54,146 55,912 385,884 13% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2,380,813 257,352 336,679 2,044,134 14% PARKS & RECREATION 3,801,937 486,587 470,482 3,331,455 12% PUBLIC WORKS 2,263,055 302,290 348,206 1,914,849 15% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,462,670 229,255 224,792 1,237,878 15% 38,805,775$ 5,980,774$ 6,730,834$ 32,074,941$ 17% Title 2015 Adopted Budget 02/28/2014 Expenditures 02/28/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent WATER UTILITY FUND 10,354,300$ 984,320$ 962,551$ 9,391,749$ 9% STORM UTILITY FUND 6,969,141 381,016 388,964 6,580,177 6% SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 15,071,010 1,088,341 1,282,255 13,788,755 9% BOND RESERVE FUND 845,416 - 54 845,362 0% 33,239,867$ 2,453,676$ 2,633,824$ 30,606,043$ 8% EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY CITY OF EDMONDS CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 108 of 400 13 Page 1 of 4 Title 2015 Adopted Budget 02/28/2014 Expenditures 02/28/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent CITY COUNCIL SALARIES 132,908$ 17,585$ 20,050$ 112,858$ 15% OVERTIME 2,000 34 - 2,000 0% BENEFITS 74,512 11,074 10,747 63,765 14% SUPPLIES 2,000 87 92 1,908 5% SMALL EQUIPMENT - - - - 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000 - - 10,000 0% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 270 1,132 1,868 38% TRAVEL 2,500 32 70 2,430 3% RENTAL/LEASE 490 61 85 405 17% REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE 1,500 - - 1,500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 27,250 99 - 27,250 0% 256,160$ 29,242$ 32,177$ 223,983$ 13% OFFICE OF MAYOR SALARIES 196,512$ 31,758$ 32,646$ 163,866$ 17% BENEFITS 46,801 7,468 7,717 39,084 16% SUPPLIES 2,000 51 169 1,831 8% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000 876 764 1,236 38% COMMUNICATION 1,400 85 40 1,360 3% TRAVEL 2,500 256 - 2,500 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 378 335 2,065 14% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 118 209 2,791 7% 257,113$ 40,990$ 41,879$ 215,234$ 16% HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES 198,913$ 30,723$ 34,601$ 164,312$ 17% BENEFITS 75,651 10,691 11,323 64,328 15% SUPPLIES 2,300 358 260 2,040 11% SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 - - 300 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 92,007 12,138 3,387 88,620 4% COMMUNICATIONS 700 40 95 605 14% TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0% ADVERTISING - 406 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,200 378 335 1,865 15% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 6,000 6,119 7,793 (1,793) 130% MISCELLANEOUS 8,410 - 451 7,959 5% 386,981$ 60,853$ 58,245$ 328,736$ 15% MUNICIPAL COURT SALARIES 538,864$ 78,444$ 84,274$ 454,590$ 16% OVERTIME 600 651 34 566 6% BENEFITS 202,532 26,402 28,642 173,890 14% SUPPLIES 9,930 1,165 971 8,959 10% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,800 236 1,104 1,696 39% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 64,000 8,404 11,638 52,362 18% COMMUNICATIONS 3,400 260 262 3,138 8% TRAVEL 2,500 - 901 1,599 36% RENTAL/LEASE 1,400 115 - 1,400 0% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,600 - 117 1,483 7% MISCELLANEOUS 56,200 1,163 3,592 52,608 6% 883,826$ 116,841$ 131,534$ 752,292$ 15% EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 109 of 400 14 Page 2 of 4 Title 2015 Adopted Budget 02/28/2014 Expenditures 02/28/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent CITY CLERK SALARIES AND WAGES 11 326,072$ 47,763$ 71,563$ 254,509$ 22% OVERTIME - 149 141 (141) 0% BENEFITS 127,243 17,185 20,989 106,254 16% SUPPLIES 10,237 1,839 1,771 8,466 17% SMALL EQUIPMENT - - - - 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,307 1,286 2,661 25,646 9% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 8,466 8,056 41,944 16% TRAVEL 1,000 - - 1,000 0% ADVERTISING - 244 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 20,000 2,672 2,281 17,719 11% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,975 5,085 5,624 12,351 31% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 766 685 3,315 17% 584,834$ 85,455$ 113,771$ 471,063$ 19% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES 801,002$ 118,015$ 128,399$ 672,603$ 16% OVERTIME 6,667 - 235 6,432 4% BENEFITS 285,741 37,700 44,431 241,310 16% SUPPLIES 36,050 8,622 1,561 34,489 4% SMALL EQUIPMENT 125,627 46,962 33,726 91,901 27% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 88,900 669 13,096 75,804 15% COMMUNICATIONS 61,500 6,252 5,267 56,233 9% TRAVEL 1,750 6 - 1,750 0% RENTAL/LEASE 7,998 1,649 1,499 6,499 19% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 202,620 69,474 119,785 82,835 59% MISCELLANEOUS 12 10,500 3,568 20,196 (9,696) 192% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 40,000 - 14,777 25,223 37% 1,668,355$ 292,915$ 382,972$ 1,285,383$ 23% CITY ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 664,180$ 91,316$ 109,902$ 554,278$ 17% MISCELLANEOUS - 50 - - 0% 664,180$ 91,366$ 109,902$ 554,278$ 17% NON-DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES 125,000$ -$ -$ 125,000$ 0% BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 25,000 8,481 257 24,743 1% SUPPLIES 3,000 - - 3,000 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 582,350 36,743 45,054 537,296 8% RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 3,600 - 100% INSURANCE 423,600 383,906 418,367 5,233 99% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS 74,350 42,124 46,246 28,104 62% INTERGOVT SERVICES 13 10,033,110 2,071,188 2,470,507 7,562,603 25% ECA LOAN PAYMENT 180,000 - - 180,000 0% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 638 377 6,123 6% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 3,132,785 - - 3,132,785 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 160,821 - - 160,821 0% INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 65,298 - - 65,298 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 54,268 - - 54,268 0% DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS - 16,481 - - 0% FISCAL AGENT FEES - 479 33 (33) 0% INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0% 14,869,682$ 2,563,640$ 2,984,442$ 11,885,240$ 20% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 11 Difference between 2014 and 2015 is due to a one-time retirement pay out 12 2015 expense is primarily due to $12,773 for Adobe Professional 13 Difference between 2014 and 2015 is due to an increase in the annual Fire District 1 contract, as well as Retro billings for past years Packet Page 110 of 400 15 Page 3 of 4 Title 2015 Adopted Budget 02/28/2014 Expenditures 02/28/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent POLICE SERVICES SALARIES 5,449,273$ 828,241$ 875,225$ 4,574,048$ 16% OVERTIME 396,241 63,842 74,540 321,701 19% HOLIDAY BUYBACK 209,198 - - 209,198 0% BENEFITS 1,849,940 324,614 339,118 1,510,822 18% UNIFORMS 56,910 7,676 11,432 45,478 20% SUPPLIES 87,500 19,811 9,737 77,763 11% SMALL EQUIPMENT 33,330 1,560 1,363 31,967 4% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 114,662 9,991 16,692 97,970 15% COMMUNICATIONS 26,207 2,544 2,506 23,701 10% TRAVEL 14,300 732 3 14,297 0% ADVERTISING - 21 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 575,500 100,826 95,171 480,329 17% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 16,115 593 955 15,160 6% MISCELLANEOUS 44,960 4,272 7,829 37,131 17% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 10,237 5,119 5,272 4,965 51% INTERFUND RENTAL - - - - 0% 8,884,373$ 1,369,842$ 1,439,842$ 7,444,531$ 16% COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECON DEV. SALARIES 222,050$ 36,136$ 35,992$ 186,058$ 16% BENEFITS 67,056 11,760 10,373 56,683 15% SUPPLIES 1,500 188 - 1,500 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 - - 800 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 126,300 4,300 7,997 118,303 6% COMMUNICATIONS 1,490 111 101 1,389 7% TRAVEL 2,000 - 179 1,821 9% ADVERTISING - 491 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 378 335 1,665 17% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 18,100 783 934 17,166 5% 441,796$ 54,146$ 55,912$ 385,884$ 13% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING SALARIES 1,312,415$ 178,318$ 229,935$ 1,082,480$ 18% OVERTIME 1,300 557 - 1,300 0% BENEFITS 491,227 66,203 80,331 410,896 16% UNIFORMS 500 - - 500 0% SUPPLIES 13,100 1,486 2,047 11,053 16% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,250 - 620 3,630 15% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 456,437 1,391 6,771 449,666 1% COMMUNICATIONS 6,100 465 434 5,666 7% TRAVEL 4,250 - - 4,250 0% ADVERTISING - 765 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 35,234 5,889 6,955 28,279 20% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 5,700 - - 5,700 0% MISCELLANEOUS 50,300 2,277 9,586 40,714 19% 2,380,813$ 257,352$ 336,679$ 2,044,134$ 14% ENGINEERING SALARIES 1,245,433$ 170,986$ 203,707$ 1,041,726$ 16% OVERTIME 5,000 - 672 4,328 13% BENEFITS 511,018 66,973 80,177 430,841 16% UNIFORMS 360 - - 360 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,200 1,068 - 2,200 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 105,000 - - 105,000 0% COMMUNICATIONS 10,500 699 847 9,653 8% TRAVEL 600 - - 600 0% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 14,881 3,082 2,480 12,401 17% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,800 546 - 1,800 0% MISCELLANEOUS 16,000 3,329 1,675 14,325 10% 1,912,792$ 246,682$ 289,558$ 1,623,234$ 15% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Packet Page 111 of 400 16 Page 4 of 4 Title 2015 Adopted Budget 02/28/2014 Expenditures 02/28/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent PARKS & RECREATION SALARIES 1,886,534$ 258,893$ 263,724$ 1,622,810$ 14% OVERTIME 10,000 765 1,562 8,438 16% BENEFITS 699,573 98,094 98,964 600,609 14% UNIFORMS 5,340 955 2,194 3,146 41% SUPPLIES 110,740 14,361 13,407 97,333 12% SMALL EQUIPMENT 8,050 2,796 565 7,485 7% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 468,847 35,837 13,484 455,363 3% COMMUNICATIONS 29,980 852 808 29,172 3% TRAVEL 4,445 - - 4,445 0% ADVERTISING - 2,797 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 179,804 25,766 26,401 153,403 15% PUBLIC UTILITY 175,000 14,287 20,815 154,185 12% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 52,549 19,532 14,235 38,314 27% MISCELLANEOUS 86,580 6,651 9,323 77,257 11% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 13,800 - - 13,800 0% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 70,695 5,000 5,000 65,695 7% 3,801,937$ 486,587$ 470,482$ 3,331,455$ 12% PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES 247,982$ 41,392$ 42,411$ 205,571$ 17% OVERTIME 200 - - 200 0% BENEFITS 76,327 12,467 12,634 63,693 17% SUPPLIES 7,600 215 689 6,911 9% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 - 1,479 (479) 148% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 5 5 195 2% COMMUNICATIONS 1,350 87 75 1,275 6% TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0% RENTAL/LEASE 7,404 1,040 984 6,420 13% PUBLIC UTILITY 2,800 383 370 2,430 13% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,000 - - 1,000 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,900 19 - 3,900 0% 350,263$ 55,607$ 58,648$ 291,615$ 17% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES 629,490 104,997 104,378 525,112 17% OVERTIME 2,500 259 598 1,902 24% BENEFITS 256,400 46,771 41,742 214,658 16% UNIFORMS 2,500 661 71 2,429 3% SUPPLIES 87,000 6,781 9,244 77,756 11% SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,000 - 295 2,705 10% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45,000 - - 45,000 0% COMMUNICATIONS 13,500 1,776 1,987 11,513 15% TRAVEL - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 52,680 8,260 8,696 43,984 17% PUBLIC UTILITY 280,000 45,974 44,023 235,977 16% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 88,500 12,790 12,529 75,971 14% MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 986 1,229 871 59% 1,462,670$ 229,255$ 224,792$ 1,237,878$ 15% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 38,805,775$ 5,980,774$ 6,730,834$ 32,074,941$ 17% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Packet Page 112 of 400 17 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 1,823,284$ 1,823,284$ 1,782,532$ -2.24% February 4,348,362 2,525,078 4,043,011 -7.02% March 6,484,660 2,136,298 6,029,294 -7.02% April 9,819,452 3,334,792 9,129,911 -7.02% May 17,492,062 7,672,609 16,263,734 -7.02% June 19,287,692 1,795,631 17,933,272 -7.02% July 21,281,109 1,993,416 19,786,707 -7.02% August 23,124,045 1,842,936 21,500,229 -7.02% September 24,975,938 1,851,893 23,222,078 -7.02% October 27,944,018 2,968,080 25,981,734 -7.02% November 35,048,172 7,104,154 32,587,020 -7.02% December 36,806,017 1,757,845 34,221,426 -7.02% Real Estate Excise Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 74,465$ 74,465$ 86,097$ 15.62% February 120,437 45,972 141,803 17.74% March 180,946 60,509 213,046 17.74% April 256,073 75,127 301,501 17.74% May 323,031 66,959 380,338 17.74% June 397,396 74,365 467,895 17.74% July 481,990 84,594 567,496 17.74% August 576,574 94,584 678,859 17.74% September 664,404 87,830 782,270 17.74% October 766,091 101,688 901,997 17.74% November 835,413 69,321 983,616 17.74% December 900,000 64,587 1,059,661 17.74% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-General Fund 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Real Estate Excise Tax 0 8000000 16000000 24000000 32000000 40000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC General Fund Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Real Estate Excise Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 113 of 400 18 Retail Eating & Drinking 123,293 Health & Personal Care 19,916 Contractors 222,903 Wholesale Trade 44,932 Communications 40,600 Misc Retail Trade 153,743 Accommodation 6,196 Business Services 72,317 Amusement & Recreation 9,758 Retail Food Stores 37,844 Others 60,194 Clothing and Accessories 51,182 Retail Automotive 257,714 Automotive Repair 28,571 Gasoline Stations 5,528 Sales Tax Analysis By Category Current Period: February 2015 Year-to-Date Total $1,134,691 ($20,000)$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 Retail Food Stores Business Services Amusement & Recreation Gasoline Stations Accommodation Automotive Repair Clothing and Accessories Wholesale Trade Health & Personal Care Communications Retail Eating & Drinking Others Retail Automotive Misc Retail Trade Contractors Total ($6,818) ($5,396) ($2,929) $271 $1,068 $2,190 $3,449 $3,469 $3,985 $4,376 $8,504 $11,947 $14,359 $18,000 $79,712 $136,187 Change in Sales Tax Revenue: February 2015 compared to February 2014 Packet Page 114 of 400 19 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 435,694$ 435,694$ 499,246$ 14.59% February 975,847 540,153 1,134,685 16.28% March 1,391,087 415,240 1,617,513 16.28% April 1,791,264 400,176 2,082,825 16.28% May 2,291,242 499,978 2,664,185 16.28% June 2,734,170 442,928 3,179,207 16.28% July 3,180,829 446,659 3,698,568 16.28% August 3,672,197 491,368 4,269,915 16.28% September 4,144,571 472,374 4,819,177 16.28% October 4,628,198 483,627 5,381,523 16.28% November 5,157,791 529,593 5,997,317 16.28% December 5,627,000 469,209 6,542,899 16.28% Gas Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 106,130$ 106,130$ 84,288$ -20.58% February 216,919 110,788 181,842 -16.17% March 311,490 94,571 261,120 -16.17% April 394,636 83,146 330,821 -16.17% May 462,784 68,148 387,950 -16.17% June 509,747 46,963 427,319 -16.17% July 548,655 38,908 459,935 -16.17% August 576,833 28,179 483,556 -16.17% September 602,307 25,474 504,911 -16.17% October 629,657 27,350 527,838 -16.17% November 672,464 42,807 563,723 -16.17% December 743,700 71,236 623,440 -16.17% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Sales and Use Tax 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Gas Utility Tax 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 7000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Sales and Use Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Gas Utility Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 115 of 400 20 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 123,352$ 123,352$ 139,353$ 12.97% February 224,347 100,994 240,490 7.20% March 346,461 122,114 371,390 7.20% April 464,141 117,681 497,539 7.20% May 589,261 125,119 631,661 7.20% June 702,776 113,515 753,344 7.20% July 813,739 110,963 872,291 7.20% August 924,614 110,875 991,145 7.20% September 1,034,622 110,008 1,109,068 7.20% October 1,144,101 109,479 1,226,424 7.20% November 1,246,216 102,116 1,335,888 7.20% December 1,371,800 125,584 1,470,508 7.20% Electric Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 166,797$ 166,797$ 163,683$ -1.87% February 333,580 166,783 327,208 -1.91% March 496,789 163,209 487,300 -1.91% April 655,116 158,327 642,603 -1.91% May 800,868 145,752 785,571 -1.91% June 913,622 112,754 896,171 -1.91% July 1,021,749 108,127 1,002,232 -1.91% August 1,120,601 98,852 1,099,196 -1.91% September 1,223,250 102,649 1,199,885 -1.91% October 1,313,426 90,176 1,288,339 -1.91% November 1,424,495 111,069 1,397,286 -1.91% December 1,533,800 109,305 1,504,503 -1.91% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Telephone Utility Tax 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Electric Utility Tax 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Telephone Utility Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Electric Utility Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 116 of 400 21 Meter Water Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 520,277$ 520,277$ 519,477$ -0.15% February 883,891 363,614 874,540 -1.06% March 1,398,367 514,476 1,383,573 -1.06% April 1,750,133 351,766 1,731,617 -1.06% May 2,266,493 516,360 2,242,515 -1.06% June 2,648,184 381,692 2,620,169 -1.06% July 3,236,847 588,662 3,202,603 -1.06% August 3,746,386 509,539 3,706,752 -1.06% September 4,463,965 717,579 4,416,740 -1.06% October 4,978,111 514,146 4,925,446 -1.06% November 5,584,869 606,758 5,525,786 -1.06% December 5,964,343 379,474 5,901,245 -1.06% Storm Water Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 223,883$ 223,883$ 226,620$ -1.87% February 705,681 481,798 715,253 -1.91% March 929,860 224,179 942,472 -1.91% April 1,129,150 199,290 1,144,465 -1.91% May 1,353,703 224,553 1,372,064 -1.91% June 1,552,980 199,277 1,574,044 -1.91% July 1,778,558 225,578 1,802,682 1.36% August 2,268,142 489,584 2,298,906 1.36% September 2,497,209 229,067 2,531,080 1.36% October 2,699,606 202,397 2,736,221 1.36% November 2,927,436 227,830 2,967,142 1.36% December 3,130,447 203,011 3,172,907 1.36% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Meter Water Sales 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Storm Water Sales 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Meter Water Sales Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Storm Water Sales Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 117 of 400 22 Unmeter Sewer Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 517,721$ 517,721$ 520,708$ 0.58% February 936,104 418,382 940,945 0.52% March 1,453,283 517,179 1,460,800 0.52% April 1,871,624 418,341 1,881,304 0.52% May 2,393,060 521,437 2,405,438 0.52% June 2,815,270 422,210 2,829,832 0.52% July 3,344,959 529,688 3,362,260 0.52% August 3,771,751 426,792 3,791,259 0.52% September 4,309,599 537,849 4,331,890 0.52% October 4,738,355 428,756 4,762,863 0.52% November 5,266,018 527,663 5,293,256 0.52% December 5,692,773 426,755 5,722,218 0.52% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales 2015 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Unmeter Sewer Sales Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 118 of 400 23 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 4,237,476$ 4,237,476$ 4,797,714$ 13.22% February 6,821,590 2,584,114 6,730,834 -1.33% March 9,847,928 3,026,338 9,716,909 -1.33% April 13,734,195 3,886,267 13,551,472 -1.33% May 15,782,935 2,048,740 15,572,956 -1.33% June 18,984,113 3,201,177 18,731,544 -1.33% July 22,433,051 3,448,939 22,134,597 -1.33% August 25,399,345 2,966,294 25,061,427 -1.33% September 29,195,843 3,796,498 28,807,416 -1.33% October 31,625,006 2,429,163 31,204,260 -1.33% November 34,816,271 3,191,266 34,353,068 -1.33% December 38,805,775 3,989,504 38,289,495 -1.33% Non-Departmental Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 2,542,970$ 2,542,970$ 2,944,421$ 15.79% February 3,194,155 651,185 2,984,442 -6.57% March 4,291,524 1,097,370 4,009,763 -6.57% April 6,284,988 1,993,464 5,872,346 -6.57% May 6,439,406 154,418 6,016,625 -6.57% June 7,641,323 1,201,917 7,139,631 -6.57% July 9,064,445 1,423,122 8,469,317 -6.57% August 9,897,638 833,193 9,247,807 -6.57% September 11,755,963 1,858,325 10,984,123 -6.57% October 12,203,615 447,652 11,402,384 -6.57% November 13,115,225 911,610 12,254,142 -6.57% December 14,869,682 1,754,457 13,893,410 -6.57% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-General Fund 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Non-Departmental 0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 25000000 30000000 35000000 40000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC General Fund Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 10000000 12000000 14000000 16000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Non-Departmental Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 119 of 400 24 City Council Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 18,624$ 18,624$ 15,644$ -16.00% February 39,658 21,034 32,177 -18.86% March 59,398 19,740 48,193 -18.86% April 79,090 19,692 64,171 -18.86% May 98,664 19,574 80,052 -18.86% June 121,960 23,296 98,954 -18.86% July 145,588 23,628 118,124 -18.86% August 166,249 20,661 134,888 -18.86% September 186,786 20,536 151,550 -18.86% October 207,853 21,068 168,644 -18.86% November 230,147 22,294 186,733 -18.86% December 256,160 26,013 207,838 -18.86% Office of Mayor Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 21,864$ 21,864$ 20,447$ -6.48% February 43,742 21,879 41,879 -4.26% March 64,861 21,119 62,099 -4.26% April 85,648 20,787 82,000 -4.26% May 106,706 21,058 102,161 -4.26% June 127,891 21,185 122,444 -4.26% July 150,093 22,202 143,701 -4.26% August 171,201 21,108 163,910 -4.26% September 191,760 20,559 183,593 -4.26% October 214,972 23,213 205,817 -4.26% November 236,760 21,787 226,676 -4.26% December 257,113 20,353 246,163 -4.26% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-City Council 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Office of Mayor 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC City Council Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Office of Mayor Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 120 of 400 25 Human Resources Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 29,413$ 29,413$ 23,208$ -21.10% February 59,391 29,978 58,245 -1.93% March 93,881 34,490 92,069 -1.93% April 125,170 31,288 122,753 -1.93% May 159,101 33,931 156,029 -1.93% June 189,817 30,716 186,152 -1.93% July 222,466 32,649 218,171 -1.93% August 252,627 30,161 247,749 -1.93% September 287,481 34,854 281,930 -1.93% October 316,995 29,514 310,875 -1.93% November 345,036 28,041 338,375 -1.93% December 386,981 41,945 379,510 -1.93% Municipal Court Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 65,765$ 65,765$ 64,786$ -1.49% February 137,555 71,791 131,534 -4.38% March 214,280 76,725 204,901 -4.38% April 288,496 74,215 275,867 -4.38% May 357,762 69,267 342,102 -4.38% June 432,214 74,451 413,294 -4.38% July 504,854 72,640 482,754 -4.38% August 578,153 73,300 552,845 -4.38% September 650,848 72,694 622,357 -4.38% October 725,572 74,725 693,811 -4.38% November 800,045 74,472 765,024 -4.38% December 883,826 83,781 845,137 -4.38% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Human Resources 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Municipal Court 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Human Resources Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Municipal Court Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 121 of 400 26 Community Services/Economic Development Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 25,451$ 25,451$ 25,947$ 1.95% February 67,148 41,696 55,912 -16.73% March 101,607 34,459 84,604 -16.73% April 145,328 43,721 121,009 -16.73% May 178,828 33,500 148,904 -16.73% June 209,442 30,614 174,395 -16.73% July 253,555 44,113 211,127 -16.73% August 286,178 32,623 238,291 -16.73% September 321,695 35,517 267,864 -16.73% October 358,498 36,803 298,509 -16.73% November 394,635 36,137 328,599 -16.73% December 441,796 47,161 367,869 -16.73% City Clerk Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 44,098$ 44,098$ 69,874$ 58.45% February 90,893 46,795 113,771 25.17% March 140,493 49,600 175,855 25.17% April 186,359 45,866 233,265 25.17% May 231,145 44,786 289,324 25.17% June 281,500 50,355 352,353 25.17% July 329,489 47,989 412,421 25.17% August 379,907 50,418 475,529 25.17% September 431,823 51,916 540,513 25.17% October 485,948 54,125 608,261 25.17% November 536,195 50,247 671,155 25.17% December 584,834 48,639 732,036 25.17% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Community Services/Economic Development 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-City Clerk 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Community Services/Economic Development Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC City Clerk Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 122 of 400 27 Information Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 65,374$ 65,374$ 118,077$ 80.62% February 143,513 78,139 220,041 53.32% March 203,645 60,132 312,238 53.32% April 257,305 53,660 394,512 53.32% May 309,335 52,030 474,287 53.32% June 357,815 48,480 548,619 53.32% July 421,827 64,012 646,765 53.32% August 487,733 65,906 747,816 53.32% September 534,262 46,529 819,156 53.32% October 584,987 50,725 896,930 53.32% November 660,726 75,739 1,013,057 53.32% December 822,765 162,039 1,261,503 53.32% Finance Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 89,366$ 89,366$ 61,363$ -31.34% February 150,654 61,289 162,931 8.15% March 219,118 68,464 236,974 8.15% April 291,842 72,723 315,623 8.15% May 357,788 65,947 386,944 8.15% June 426,252 68,464 460,986 8.15% July 492,125 65,873 532,227 8.15% August 558,442 66,317 603,949 8.15% September 627,617 69,175 678,761 8.15% October 701,142 73,525 758,277 8.15% November 769,647 68,505 832,364 8.15% December 845,590 75,943 914,496 8.15% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Information Services 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Finance 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Information Services Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Finance Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 123 of 400 28 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 55,348$ 55,348$ 41,000$ -25.92% February 110,697 55,348 109,902 -0.72% March 166,045 55,348 164,853 -0.72% April 221,393 55,348 219,804 -0.72% May 276,742 55,348 274,755 -0.72% June 332,090 55,348 329,706 -0.72% July 387,438 55,348 384,657 -0.72% August 442,786 55,348 439,607 -0.72% September 498,135 55,348 494,558 -0.72% October 553,483 55,348 549,509 -0.72% November 608,831 55,348 604,460 -0.72% December 664,180 55,348 659,411 -0.72% Police Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 684,644$ 684,644$ 722,157$ 5.48% February 1,375,069 690,425 1,439,842 4.71% March 2,093,316 718,247 2,191,922 4.71% April 2,792,966 699,650 2,924,530 4.71% May 3,480,496 687,530 3,644,446 4.71% June 4,233,290 752,794 4,432,701 4.71% July 4,942,853 709,563 5,175,689 4.71% August 5,650,979 708,125 5,917,170 4.71% September 6,394,403 743,425 6,695,614 4.71% October 7,113,206 718,803 7,448,277 4.71% November 8,087,358 974,152 8,468,316 4.71% December 8,884,373 797,015 9,302,875 4.71% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-City Attorney 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Police 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC City Attorney Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 10000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Police Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 124 of 400 29 Development Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 187,435$ 187,435$ 168,772$ -9.96% February 375,014 187,579 336,679 -10.22% March 573,334 198,321 514,726 -10.22% April 761,449 188,115 683,611 -10.22% May 953,613 192,164 856,132 -10.22% June 1,138,034 184,421 1,021,701 -10.22% July 1,336,785 198,751 1,200,135 -10.22% August 1,540,734 203,949 1,383,236 -10.22% September 1,740,727 199,993 1,562,785 -10.22% October 1,956,412 215,685 1,756,422 -10.22% November 2,160,592 204,180 1,939,730 -10.22% December 2,380,813 220,221 2,137,440 -10.22% Parks & Recreation Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 241,987$ 241,987$ 230,892$ -4.58% February 506,955 264,968 470,482 -7.19% March 784,761 277,806 728,302 -7.19% April 1,062,203 277,442 985,783 -7.19% May 1,363,070 300,867 1,265,004 -7.19% June 1,693,667 330,597 1,571,816 -7.19% July 2,127,556 433,889 1,974,489 -7.19% August 2,576,463 448,907 2,391,100 -7.19% September 2,906,732 330,269 2,697,607 -7.19% October 3,194,534 287,803 2,964,704 -7.19% November 3,459,132 264,598 3,210,265 -7.19% December 3,801,937 342,805 3,528,407 -7.19% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Development Services 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Parks & Recreation 0 400000 800000 1200000 1600000 2000000 2400000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Development Services Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 3000000 3500000 4000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Parks & Recreation Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 125 of 400 30 Public Works Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 28,448$ 28,448$ 28,516$ 0.24% February 56,173 27,725 58,648 4.41% March 84,122 27,949 87,829 4.41% April 111,864 27,741 116,792 4.41% May 140,136 28,273 146,310 4.41% June 168,982 28,845 176,427 4.41% July 207,749 38,768 216,902 4.41% August 235,654 27,905 246,037 4.41% September 263,562 27,908 275,174 4.41% October 292,666 29,104 305,560 4.41% November 318,921 26,255 332,972 4.41% December 350,263 31,342 365,695 4.41% Facilities Maintenance Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 113,211$ 113,211$ 117,139$ 3.47% February 237,061 123,850 224,792 -5.18% March 366,160 129,099 347,209 -5.18% April 485,233 119,073 460,120 -5.18% May 601,657 116,424 570,518 -5.18% June 718,330 116,673 681,152 -5.18% July 838,190 119,860 794,809 -5.18% August 950,657 112,468 901,456 -5.18% September 1,076,486 125,828 1,020,772 -5.18% October 1,188,234 111,748 1,126,736 -5.18% November 1,312,945 124,712 1,244,993 -5.18% December 1,462,670 149,725 1,386,969 -5.18% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Public Works 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Facilities Maintenance 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Public Works Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Facilities Maintenance Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 126 of 400 31 Engineering Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 154,718$ 154,718$ 145,471$ -5.98% February 312,048 157,330 289,558 -7.21% March 468,093 156,046 434,357 -7.21% April 622,651 154,557 577,775 -7.21% May 781,265 158,614 724,958 -7.21% June 937,599 156,334 870,024 -7.21% July 1,092,012 154,414 1,013,309 -7.21% August 1,247,959 155,947 1,158,017 -7.21% September 1,408,584 160,624 1,307,064 -7.21% October 1,577,945 169,362 1,464,220 -7.21% November 1,741,466 163,521 1,615,955 -7.21% December 1,912,792 171,326 1,774,933 -7.21% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Engineering 2015 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 1800000 2000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Engineering Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 127 of 400 32 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY (a) Term Purchase Purchase Maturity Yield to Weighted Agency / Issuer Investment Type (months) Date Price Date Maturity Average Washington State Local Government Investment Pool Investment Pool Various 9,080,512$ Various 0.135% 0.029% Snohomish County Investment Pool Investment Pool Various 25,090,930$ Various 0.76% 0.452% FHLMC Bonds 60 12/28/2012 1,000,000 12/28/2017 0.90% 0.021% FHLMC Bonds 54 12/27/2012 1,000,000 6/27/2017 0.75% 0.018% FFCB Bonds 45 12/19/2012 1,000,000 9/19/2016 0.54% 0.013% FNMA Bonds 60 9/19/2014 1,000,000 9/19/2019 1.87% 0.044% FFCB Bonds 60 9/23/2014 1,000,000 9/23/2019 2.03% 0.048% FHLMC Bonds 51 9/26/2014 1,000,000 12/26/2018 1.75% 0.041% FHLMC Bonds 42 9/19/2014 1,000,000 3/26/2018 1.38% 0.033% FICO Bonds 33 9/19/2014 1,027,000 6/6/2017 0.96% 0.023% TOTAL 42,198,443$ 0.72%0.722% Investment Mix % of Total State Investment Pool 21.5% Current 6-month treasury rate 0.07% Bonds 19.0% Current State Pool rate 0.135% Snohomish County Investment Pool 59.5% Blended Edmonds rate 0.72% 100.0% (a) To maturity. Rate Comparison City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Summary As of February 28, 2015 Packet Page 128 of 400 33 GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 1/31/2015 2/28/2015 Q1 YTD 001-General Fund 7,969,966$ 4,954,784$ 5,282,143$ -$ (3,015,182)$ 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 538,766 516,820 481,024 - (21,946) 011-Risk Management Fund 1,024,309 1,024,654 1,025,063 - 345 012-Contingency Reserve Fund 5,396,393 5,398,223 5,400,393 - 1,830 013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 55,995 56,014 56,037 - 19 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 1,065 1,066 1,066 - 1 016-Building Maintenance 323,719 325,311 359,902 - 1,592 Total General Fund 15,310,214$ 12,276,872$ 12,605,628$ -$ (3,033,342)$ GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $15.31 $12.28 $12.61 - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Dec 2014 Jan 2015 Feb 2015MillionsGeneralFund *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 are preliminary, these will be updated after the completion of the 2014 Financial Statements. Packet Page 129 of 400 34 GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 1/31/2015 2/28/2015 Q1 YTD General Fund 15,310,214$ 12,276,872$ 12,605,628$ -$ (3,033,342)$ Special Revenue 6,955,529 7,094,563 7,581,562 - 139,034 Debt Service 86,411 94,852 96,075 - 8,441 Total Governmental Funds 22,352,154$ 19,466,287$ 20,283,265$ -$ (2,885,867)$ CHANGE IN FUND BALANCESGOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $15.31 $12.28 $12.61 $6.96 $7.09 $7.58 $0.09 $0.09 $0.10 - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Dec 2014 Jan 2015 Feb 2015Millions General Fund Special Revenue Debt Service Governmental Fund Balances-By Fund GroupGovernmentalFund Balances-By Fund Group $22.35 $19.47 $20.28 - 6 12 18 24 Dec 2014 Jan 2015 Feb 2015MillionsGovernmental Fund Balances - Combined *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 are preliminary, these will be updated after the completion of the 2014 Financial Statements. Packet Page 130 of 400 35 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 1/31/2015 2/28/2015 Q1 YTD 104 - Drug Enforcement Fund 62,837$ 65,872$ 73,388$ -$ 3,035$ 111 - Street Fund 373,951 289,982 300,193 - (83,969) 112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 571,386 560,934 913,417 - (10,452) 117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 440,387 439,816 438,491 - (571) 118 - Memorial Street Tree 17,763 17,769 17,776 - 6 120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 131,900 137,092 141,885 - 5,192 121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 64,305 69,777 70,505 - 5,472 122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 14,445 14,220 14,326 - (225) 123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 76,931 78,673 78,929 - 1,742 125 - Real Estate Tax 2 1,537,317 1,614,294 1,640,759 - 76,977 126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 1,173,169 1,259,651 1,315,836 - 86,482 127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 247,795 267,066 271,225 - 19,271 129 - Special Projects Fund 46,454 46,467 46,482 - 13 130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 106,535 109,094 121,287 - 2,559 132 - Parks Construction Fund 1,006,412 1,013,964 1,016,877 - 7,552 136 - Parks Trust Fund 150,924 150,975 151,035 - 51 137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 859,799 862,079 865,053 - 2,280 138 - Sister City Commission 1,428 1,429 1,430 - 1 139 - Transportation Benefit District 25,435 25,435 25,435 - 0 140 - Business Improvement Disrict 46,357 69,974 77,233 - 23,617 Total Special Revenue 6,955,529$ 7,094,563$ 7,581,562$ -$ 139,034$ GOVERNMENTAL Special Revenue FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $6.96 $7.09 $7.58 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Dec 2014 Jan 2015 Feb 2015Millions Special Revenue Special Revenue Funds *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 are preliminary, these will be updated after the completion of the 2014 Financial Statements. Packet Page 131 of 400 36 ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 1/31/2015 2/28/2015 Q1 YTD 421 - Water Utility Fund 13,744,594$ 13,962,426$ 13,869,373$ -$ 217,832$ 422 - Storm Utility Fund 8,316,723 8,403,944 8,862,556 - 87,221 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 42,284,631 42,352,178 42,338,445 - 67,547 424 - Bond Reserve Fund 787,226 787,172 787,173 - (53) 411 - Combined Utility Operation - 23,530 45,348 - 23,530 Total Enterprise Funds 65,133,173$ 65,529,251$ 65,902,895$ -$ 396,077$ ENTERPRISE FUNDS FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $45,348 $13,869,373 $8,862,556 $42,338,445 $787,173 $- $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 Combined Utility Water Utility Storm Utility Sewer/WWTP Utility Bond Reserve Enterprise Fund Balances as of February 28, 2015 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 are preliminary, these will be updated after the completion of the 2014 Financial Statements. Packet Page 132 of 400 37 SUMMARY OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 1/31/2015 2/28/2015 Q1 YTD Governmental Funds 22,352,154$ 19,466,287$ 20,283,265$ -$ (2,885,867)$ Enterprise Funds 65,133,173 65,529,251 65,902,895 - 396,078 Internal Services Fund 7,411,496 7,464,983 7,558,605 - 53,487 Agency Funds 188,777 182,313 177,098 - (6,464) Total City-wide Total 95,085,600$ 92,642,833$ 93,921,863$ -$ (2,442,767)$ CITY-WIDE FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- $177,098 $7,558,605 $76,568 $19,561 $77,233 $25,435 $1,430 $865,053 $151,035 $1,016,877 $121,287 $46,482 $271,225 $1,315,836 $1,640,759 $78,929 $14,326 $70,505 $141,885 $17,776 $438,491 $913,417 $300,193 $73,388 $12,605,628 $1 $20,000,000 Firemen's Pension Fund Equipment Rental Fund 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund $(54) L.I.D. Guaranty Fund L.I.D. Fund Control Business Improvement District Transportation Benefit District Sister City Commission Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund Parks Trust Fund Parks Construction Fund Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement Special Projects Fund Gifts Catalog Fund Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq Real Estate Excise Tax 2 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts Youth Scholarship Fund Employee Parking Permit Fund Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund Memorial Street Fund Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund Combined Street Const/Improve Fund Street Fund Drug Enforcement Fund General Fund Governmental Fund Balances as of February 28, 2015 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 are preliminary, these will be updated after the completion of the 2014 Financial Statements. Packet Page 133 of 400 38 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 1/31/2015 2/28/2015 Q1 YTD 511 - Equipment Rental Fund 7,411,496$ 7,464,983$ 7,558,605$ -$ 53,487$ Total Internal Service Funds 7,411,496$ 7,464,983$ 7,558,605$ -$ 53,487$ INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $7.41 $7.46 $7.56 - 2 4 6 8 Dec 2014 Jan 2015 Feb 2015Millions 511 - Equipment Rental Fund Internal Service Fund Balances *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 are preliminary, these will be updated after the completion of the 2014 Financial Statements. Packet Page 134 of 400    AM-7675     4. E.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Confirmation of Dave Teitzel's appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission. Recommendation The Historic Preservation Commission and Mayor Earling recommend confirmation of Dave Teitzel's appointment to the HPC. Previous Council Action Narrative After interviewing Mr. Teitzel, Mayor Earling and the Historic Preservation Commission are recommending his appointment to Position #11 of the HPC. This position was vacated by a resignation in 2014 and expires on 12/31/15. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 04/29/2015 08:09 AM Mayor Dave Earling 04/29/2015 08:21 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/29/2015 08:25 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 04/27/2015 04:46 PM Final Approval Date: 04/29/2015  Packet Page 135 of 400    AM-7679     4. F.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Action  Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign easement documents from the 7500 Building for the 76th Ave/212th Street Intersection Improvements Project Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign easement documents. Previous Council Action On April 28, 2015, staff presented the 7500 Building easement documents and Council forwarded the item to the consent agenda for approval.  Narrative The City has reached an agreement with the property owner of the 7500 Building for right of way and easements necessary for the 76th Ave and 212th Street Intersection Improvements project. The owners have agreed to provide 272 square feet of right of way and 739 square feet of temporary construction easement for the project.  The total compensation to the property owner will be $13,500. The right of way cost will be funded by a federal transportation grant and a 13.5% match in local funds. Attachments 7500 Building - Real Property Voucher 7500 Building - Statutory Warranty Deed 7500 Builidng - Temporary Construction Easement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 04/29/2015 04:27 PM Public Works Phil Williams 04/30/2015 12:00 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 04/30/2015 12:03 PM Mayor Dave Earling 04/30/2015 02:08 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/30/2015 02:11 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 04/29/2015 02:19 PM Final Approval Date: 04/30/2015  Packet Page 136 of 400 Packet Page 137 of 400 Packet Page 138 of 400 Packet Page 139 of 400 Packet Page 140 of 400 Packet Page 141 of 400 Packet Page 142 of 400 Page 5 of 5 Tax Parcel No. 007388-000-101-00 thru 007388-000-218-00, inclusive Accepted and Approved by Grantee CITY OF EDMONDS (MAYOR) By: Date: ------------ APPROVED AS TO FORM By: Office of the City Attorney ATTESTED/AUTHENTICATED By: ----------- Scott Passey, City Clerk Packet Page 143 of 400 Packet Page 144 of 400 Packet Page 145 of 400 Packet Page 146 of 400 Packet Page 147 of 400 Packet Page 148 of 400 Packet Page 149 of 400 Packet Page 150 of 400 Packet Page 151 of 400 Packet Page 152 of 400    AM-7680     4. G.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Action  Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign easement documents from Dairy Queen for the 76th Ave/212th Street Intersection Improvements Project Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign easement documents. Previous Council Action On April 28, 2015, staff reviewed the Dairy Queen acquisition costs and Council forwarded the item to the consent agenda for approval.  Narrative The City has reached an agreement with the property owners of Dairy Queen for right of way and easements necessary for the 76th Ave and 212th Street Intersection Improvements project.  The owners of Dairy Queen have agreed to 1,635 square feet of right of way acquisition and 1,261 square feet of temporary construction easement for the project. The total compensation provided to the property owner is $55,000.   The right of way cost will be funded by a federal transportation grant and a 13.5% match in local funds. Attachments DQ - Real Property Voucher DQ - Bargain & Sale Deed DQ - Temporary Construction Easement DQ - Improvements Permit Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 04/30/2015 11:54 AM Public Works Phil Williams 04/30/2015 12:00 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 04/30/2015 12:03 PM Mayor Dave Earling 04/30/2015 02:08 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/30/2015 02:11 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 04/29/2015 03:17 PM Final Approval Date: 04/30/2015  Packet Page 153 of 400 Packet Page 154 of 400 Packet Page 155 of 400 Packet Page 156 of 400 Packet Page 157 of 400 Packet Page 158 of 400 Packet Page 159 of 400 EXHIBIT A  RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION LEGAL DESCRIPTION  TAX PARCEL NO. 00450400000201  PARENT PARCEL: LOT 3 AND THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 LYING NORTH OF THE EASTERLY PRODUCTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 3, AND WEST OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 165 FEET EASTERLY, AS MEASURED ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOTS 2 AND 3, OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3, FORSHEE'S UPLAND TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 13 OF PLATS, PAGE 57, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS BY DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 2345901. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION: A PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARENT PARCEL MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MONUMENTED CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 19, 20, 29, AND 30, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. THENCE SOUTH 88°04’36” EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29 AND THE CENTERLINE OF 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 195.75 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1°55’24” WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH MARGIN OF SAID 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST, THAT POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ABOVE DESCRIBED PARENT PARCEL AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 88°04’36” WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN FOR A DISTANCE OF 157.05 FEET TO THE EAST MARGIN OF 76TH AVENUE WEST; THENCE SOUTH 46°15’14” WEST ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN FOR A DISTANCE OF 11.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0°35’03” WEST ALONG SAID EAST MARGIN FOR A DISTANCE OF 108.35 FEET TO SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARENT PARCEL; THENCE SOUTH 88°03’54” EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARENT PARCEL FOR A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET; Packet Page 160 of 400 THENCE NORTH 0°35’03” EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 81.40 FEET TO A POINT ON AN ARC OF A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 78°03’51” FOR A DISTANCE OF 34.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78°38’55” EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 16.83 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°59’12” EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 64.89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°30’00” EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 58.82 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARENT PARCEL; THENCE NORTH 0°35’03” EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 3.67 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 1,634 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT “B” Packet Page 161 of 400 Packet Page 162 of 400 Packet Page 163 of 400 Packet Page 164 of 400 Packet Page 165 of 400 Packet Page 166 of 400 Packet Page 167 of 400 Packet Page 168 of 400 Packet Page 169 of 400 Packet Page 170 of 400 Packet Page 171 of 400 Packet Page 172 of 400    AM-7682     4. H.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Robert English Submitted By:Robert English Department:Engineering Type: Action  Information Subject Title Award of the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project Recommendation Award the contract to Rodarte Construction, Inc. in the amount of $5,205,040.13 for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project and authorize a $498,700 management reserve for changes and unforeseen conditions during construction.   Previous Council Action On March 24, 2015, the City Council discussed this project prior to the City receiving construction bids to build the project. On April 28, 2015, Council discussed the project funding and the award of the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project and forwarded the item to the consent agenda at the May 5, 2015 Council meeting. Narrative On March 26, 2015, the City received five bids for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project. The bids ranged from a low of $5,205,040 to a high of $6,334,729. The Engineer's Estimate was $5,422,348.  A summary of bid results is attached.  Rodarte Construction, Inc. submitted the low responsive bid and provided bid documents that meet the federal Disadvantage Business Enterprise Goal of 18%. A review of the low bidder's record has been completed, and responses are positive. The project will construct the missing link of roadway on 228th St from State Route (SR) 99 to 76th Ave and install two new traffic signals at the intersections of SR99 / 228th St. and 76th Ave/ 228th St. The center median will be extended on a portion of SR99 to restrict left turns and improve safety. Sidewalk and bike lanes will be included along the new section of 228th St. The project also includes the pavement reconstruction of 228th St/Lakeview Drive in the City of Mountlake Terrace. The 228th St. Corridor Improvements have been combined with the SR99 Illumination Phase 3 project. The Phase 3 improvements will install 19 new decorative pedestrian and roadway luminaires with banner arms on SR99 between 220th St and 212th St. The project is funded by a federal transportation safety grant. The proposed construction budget and funding are shown on Exhibit A.  A 10% management reserve is proposed for the 228th St. improvements and 6% management reserve for the SR99 Lighting project.   The management reserve for the SR99 Lighting project will be funded by Fund 125 (REET).  A budget Packet Page 173 of 400 amendment to program these funds will be included with the 2nd quarter budget amendment process.   Attachments Exhibit A - Budget Exhibit B - Bid Evaluation Exhibit C - Project Map Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 04/30/2015 01:32 PM Public Works Phil Williams 04/30/2015 03:30 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 04/30/2015 03:32 PM Mayor Dave Earling 04/30/2015 03:35 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/01/2015 07:24 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 04/29/2015 03:46 PM Final Approval Date: 05/01/2015  Packet Page 174 of 400 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Proposed Construction Budget Description 228th Improvements SR99 Lighting Total Project Contract Award $4,687,440 $517,600 $5,205,040 Construction Management & Testing $703,116 $73,270 $776,386 Management Reserve $468,744 $30,000 $498,744 Total =$5,859,300 $620,870 $6,480,170 Construction Funding Funding 228th Improvements SR99 Lighting Total Project Federal Grant 228th Improvements $3,647,372 $3,647,372 Federal Grant SR99 Lighting $590,870 $590,870 Washington State TIB $1,441,188 $1,441,188 Water Fund $106,730 $106,730 Sewer Fund $177,254 $177,254 Stormwater Fund $68,500 $68,500 Edmonds 125 REET 2 Fund $30,000 $30,000 Mountlake Terrace $418,256 $418,256 Total =$5,859,300 $620,870 $6,480,170 Packet Page 175 of 400 City of Edmonds 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements & SR99 Illumination Phase III Bid Summary 26-Mar-15 Engineer's Estimate 3,711,594.50$ 531,503.50$ 671,415.00$ 523,311.00$ 607,074.25$ 563,319.79$ 3,884,310.00$ 3,746,168.50$ 3,928,283.00$ 4,230,073.50$ 4,527,084.51$ 5,221,500.27$ 192,238.20$ 141,802.50$ 159,694.80$ 216,835.19$ 174,083.21$ 5,422,347.83$ 5,205,040.13$ 5,677,150.85$ 5,865,695.76$ 6,334,728.55$ TOTAL 548,876.00$ Schedule A - Roadway Schedule B - Water System Schedule C - Sanitary Sewer System Schedule D - Mountlake Terrace Works Schedule E - Adminstration Non-Fed Schedule F - SR99 Illumination Schedule G - 76th Ave Overlay Schedule H - 228th St. Overlay Schedule I - SR99 Decorative Median Treatment 463,400.00$ 517,600.00$ 572,520.00$ 187,621.68$ 78,155.63$ 85,382.63$ 148,690.05$ 119,448.08$ 230,483.10$ 89,943.30$ Rodarte Construction, Inc.Trimaxx Construction, Inc. Marshbank Construction, Inc.Titan Earthworks, LLC Award Construction , Inc. 20,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 2,400.00$ 150.00$ 500.00$ 550,770.00$ 532,207.25$ 461,675.00$ 75,707.00$ 79,062.00$ 105,757.00$ 79,751.00$ 119,736.08$ 88,092.00$ 59,254.00$ 118,000.00$ 56,050.00$ 23,600.00$ 97,350.00$ 63,012.00$ 59,000.00$ 41,661.00$ 46,471.00$ 64,791.00$ 48,007.00$ 80,548.15$ Packet Page 176 of 400 Packet Page 177 of 400    AM-7683     4. I.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Mike DeLilla Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Action  Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech for the Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign the Professional Services Agreement. Previous Council Action On April 28, 2015, Council reviewed this item and forwarded it the May 5, 2015 consent agenda. Narrative Lift Station #1 is the City’s largest sewer lift station and serves over 25% of the City’s sewer service area. The lift station was originally built in 1957 and was upgraded in 2002. The lift station is located in City right of way, north of the Edmonds ferry terminal. Effluent from the lift station is pumped to a gravity sewer main that flows to Edmonds’ Wastewater Treatment Plant. Tetra Tech will provide a basin analysis and flow study of Lift station #1. The analysis will determine: If load/flows directed to the lift station can be reduced; If an increase in wet well storage is possible; If modifications to the existing Sanitary Sewer overflow and associated tie in to the storm system pipe basin are needed, including assessing the outfall in Puget Sound; The viability/location of a scalping lift station; The benefit/possibility of installing/replacing sewer mains so that a larger portion of this basin drains by gravity directly to the treatment plant; Schematic level design and construction costs for each alternative. Statements of qualification's (SOQ) were received from five firms in response to the RFQ. Based on a review of the SOQ's and comparison to the selection criteria, Tetra Tech was selected as the preferred consultant based on their qualifications and experience. Attached is the proposed professional services agreement with Tetra Tech to complete the study.  The negotiated fee is $173,702.   The 2015 Sewer Utility budget includes $100,000 to begin work on the study and additional funds will be programmed from the annual sewer main replacement program in 2016 to complete the study.  Packet Page 178 of 400 Attachments Tetra Tech Professional Services Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 04/30/2015 03:21 PM Public Works Phil Williams 04/30/2015 03:30 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 04/30/2015 03:32 PM Mayor Dave Earling 04/30/2015 03:34 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/01/2015 07:24 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 04/29/2015 04:00 PM Final Approval Date: 05/01/2015  Packet Page 179 of 400 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Tetra Tech, Inc. hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant"; WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consulting firm to prepare a study to determine how to manage peak flows of Lift Station #1 with respect to the Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with the Scope of Services that is marked as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be on a time and expense basis as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit B, provided, in no event shall the payment for work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of $173,702. B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City biweekly during the progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City's warrant process. No billing shall be considered for payment that has not been submitted to the City Engineer three days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such late vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment cycle. C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. Packet Page 180 of 400 3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the Consultant, provided, however, that: A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become the property of the City. B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and copy any work product during normal office hours. Documents prepared under this agreement and in the possession of the Consultant may be subject to public records request and release under Chapter 42.56 RCW. C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost. 4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required governmental approvals. 5. Indemnification / Hold harmless agreement. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses, demands, or suits at law or equity arising from the acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant in the performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant’s liability, including the duty and cost to defend, hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant’s negligence. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers. The Consultant specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the Consultant’s own employees against the City and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, the Consultant specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and keep in force during the terms of the Agreement, or as otherwise required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. Packet Page 181 of 400 Insurance Coverage A. Worker’s compensation and employer’s liability insurance as required by the State. B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property damage. The per occurrence amount shall be written with limits no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000). C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit. D. Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). Excepting the Worker’s Compensation Insurance and Professional Liability Insurance secured by the Consultant, the City will be named on all policies as an additional insured. The Consultant shall furnish the City with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the Agreement. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington. The Consultant shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within fourteen days of the execution of this Agreement to the City. No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty days prior notice to the City. The Consultant’s professional liability to the City shall be limited to the amount payable under this Agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000), whichever is the greater, unless modified elsewhere in this Agreement. In no case shall the Consultant’s professional liability to third parties be limited in any way. 7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, liability for service in the armed forces of the United States, disability, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, or any other protected class status, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. 8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. 9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this agreement, the Consultant shall not perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or for any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City without written notification to the City and the City’s prior written consent. Packet Page 182 of 400 10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than ten days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document, the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exibit B. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written Agreement and any provision of Exhibits A or B, this Agreement shall control. 12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render or the City to pay for services rendered in excess of the Scope of Services in Exhibit A unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties. 13. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and any persons employed by Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent with sound engineering practices, in accordance with the schedules herein and in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of Services. 14. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 15. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the Consultant shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including Packet Page 183 of 400 regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services. The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. 18. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: Tetra Tech, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98101 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. DATED THIS _______ DAY OF __________________, 20_____. CITY OF EDMONDS TETRA TECH, INC. By By David O. Earling, Mayor Its ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Office of the City Attorney Packet Page 184 of 400 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and 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 185 of 400 4/29/2015 1 Exhibit A Scope of Work Exhibit A City of Edmonds Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study SCOPE OF WORK Project Overview Lift Station #1 is the largest sewage pump station operated by the City of Edmonds, and it serves approximately one third of the City. The City’s 2013 Sewer Plan indicates that LS#1 barely has enough pumping capacity to prevent raw sewage overflows to Puget Sound. It has a duty pump and a standby pump, each rated at 2 mgd, and both pumps must run to prevent overflows during peak wet weather events. This is contrary to Department of Ecology guidelines which require the pump station to have sufficient capacity without using the standby pump. This capacity deficiency is expected to get worse in the future if flows increase as estimated in the 2013 Sewer Plan. This Scope of Work prepares a study of the LS#1 basin to determine how to manage peak flows to avoid wastewater overflows into Puget Sound. The City wants the study to analyze the following improvement options:  Identify opportunities to reduce flows to LS #1  Redirect flows away from LS #1  Provide possible storage to manage peak flows  Upgrade LS#1 to handle peak flows  Identify viability/location for a scalping station The tasks and associated subtasks are as follows: Task 1 - Project Management Task 1 includes the effort required to manage the project. This task includes monitoring budgets, preparing and reviewing invoices, attending kick-off and progress meetings, preparing a work plan, and quality assurance review of deliverables.  Kick Off Meeting. Conduct a two hour kick off meeting with city staff and key consultant team members to discuss project approach, schedule, and anticipated deliverables.  Work Plan. The Consultant will prepare a Work Plan defining staff and subconsultant responsibilities and schedules. The Work Plan will be used as a template to identify project scope, individual work elements, responsible individuals for each work element, manpower required, and schedule requirements incorporating internal and external milestones.  Progress Meetings. Progress meetings will be held periodically to coordinate work activities and keep the City informed of progress to date. Meetings are anticipated to be approximately every three to four weeks; however, meetings may be held more or less frequently, depending on the project requirements at the time. Meetings may also be held via conference call. The Consultant will prepare agendas and meeting minutes for distribution to the project team. Meetings specific to a particular task will be included under the specific task described below. Packet Page 186 of 400 SCOPE OF WORK – LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDY 4/29/2015 2 Exhibit A Scope of Work  Progress Reports and Invoicing. Prepare a monthly written progress report and submit to the City with each monthly invoice to document the work effort during the billing period.  Quality Control Reviews. The project manager will assign reviewers independent of the project team to review all task memos, reports, and other significant work products before final issuance to the City. Comments will be incorporated into the documents or will be documented as to why comments are not included. Below is a list of documents anticipated for quality control review prior to final issuance to the City. o Flow Analysis Technical Memorandum o Draft Predesign Report o Final Predesign Report Assumptions: 1. Assumes 12 months to complete the study. 2. Assumes up to 5 progress/management meetings will be held with the city. 3. The Work Plan will be for the Predesign Phase only. Task 1 Deliverables: 1. Kick-off meeting agenda and meeting minutes. 2. Work Plan - one hard copy and one electronic copy. 3. Up to 12 monthly progress reports with the invoices. 4. Meeting minutes for up to 5 Progress/Management meetings. Task 2 – Background Information  Review Background Information. A thorough review of previous work is critical to the initiation of this planning effort. It provides the framework necessary to understand existing conditions in order to develop possible alternatives. The consultant will review historical reports and correspondence, operating records, electronic copies of topographic maps and aerial photographs, as-built drawings and data, including all pertinent city GIS files to understand the conveyance system in the LS #1 drainage basin. Included in this effort is a four hour field visit of Lift Stations #1, #2, and #3. Assumptions: 1. City to provide records for review. 2. City staff to provide access for 4 hour site visit of City lift stations. Task 3 – Flow Analysis & Modeling  Review Existing Data. Review existing sewer system information including lift station as-builts, flow monitoring data from the lift station and available information relating to system flooding events to assist in evaluation of the existing XP-SWMM model.  Survey of Overflow Weirs. The City will assist the Consultant in measuring depths of overflow weirs at Lift Station #1 and at other overflow locations identified by the City. Packet Page 187 of 400 SCOPE OF WORK – LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDY 4/29/2015 3 Exhibit A Scope of Work  Lift Station #1 Draw Down Test. The City will assist the Consultant in conducting a draw down test in Lift Station #1 to supplement existing flow information.  Review XP-SWMM Model. The Consultant will review the City’s existing sewer system model for the LS #1 basin and the data used to calibrate it, including the future flow estimates from the 2013 Sewer Plan. The Consultant will provide a brief memorandum summarizing the model adequacy for application for this project in determining peak wet weather flows and future design flows in the basin. The memo will be submitted to the City prior to meeting with the City to discuss the flow model.  Flow Meeting. The Consultant will attend one 2-hour meeting with City staff to discuss its review of the model. Where flow information is lacking, the consultant will work with the city to assess risk and determine to what level of contingency should be built into the flow model.  Update Model. The Consultant will incorporate significant changes in overflow weir elevations and future flow estimates determined from the meeting with the City.  Flow Analysis Technical Memorandum. The Consultant will provide a technical memorandum that documents the modeling effort and the flows that will be used in the LS #1 basin study. The Flow Analysis Technical Memorandum will be included in the Draft and Final Predesign Report. The report will document results of the pump draw down test and it will also identify where additional flow monitoring may be appropriate to improve model accuracy in designing the recommended alternative. Assumptions: 1. Scope of Work does not include supplemental flow monitoring. Flow monitoring can be added by amendment and conducted in the future, in the 2015-2016 or 2016-2017 wet season, if needed to confirm design flows for the recommended project. 2. Population and land use projections will be based on those shown in the City’s most recent Comprehensive Plan. 3. Recalibration of the model is not included, because little additional flow data is available since the model was calibrated in 2013. Model recalibration can be added by amendment in the future if additional data is collected to confirm design flows. Task 3 Deliverables: 1. Model Review Memorandum. 2. Flow Analysis Technical Memorandum 3. Updated XP-SWMM Model. Task 4 - Survey  Mobile GIS Data Collection. Consultant will use recently purchased mobile GIS mapping equipment to locate manholes covers and sewer lines in street right-of-way. This information will be used to supplement city GIS data files in developing general site plans and profiles for various alternatives. The base mapping will be tied to City’s vertical (NAVD 88) and horizontal (83/91) datum’s. The City will provide measure-down depths to pipe inverts in each manhole using existing City as-built information. The base maps will only show the edge of street paving, 2 to 5 foot contours, sewer lines, manhole and access covers, and pipe invert elevations in the lower half of the drainage basin. Packet Page 188 of 400 SCOPE OF WORK – LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDY 4/29/2015 4 Exhibit A Scope of Work  Follow up Field Survey (as required). Perform field checks (assume up to 2 crew days) to respond to miscellaneous field requests and to verify accuracy of the base maps. Assumptions: 1. Vertical and horizontal datum will be to City datum. 2. City provides measure-down depths from as-built information. 3. Maximum of five crew days to pick up miscellaneous field information. 4. No potholing will be required. 5. Topographical mapping will not be done on private property. 6. Base mapping will show sanitary sewers and other utilities as identified in City GIS files, except as modified by surveying in Task 4. Task 4 Deliverables: 1. Base maps showing streets, contours, sewer lines, manhole covers, manhole cover and pipe invert elevations. Task 5 – Alternative Analysis 5.1 Alternatives Identification Phase  Alternative Identification. This initial phase identifies and brainstorms possible alternatives that have potential to prevent raw sewerage overflows from entering Puget Sound from the LS #1 basin. Opportunities include alternatives that reduce I/I, add additional conveyance pipelines either by open-cut for trenchless methods, add pipeline or tank storage, upgrade LS #1, add a scalping pump station, or through a combination thereof. The Consultant will prepare a description of each alternative and identify associated advantages and disadvantages.  Alternative Identification Workshop. Of all the alternatives identified above, the Consultant will recommend to the City 8 to 10 alternatives judged to be the best in meeting the project objectives. A four-hour workshop will be held with the City to review, discuss and agree on the best alternatives to be taken forward for further evaluation during the Alternative Screening Phase. The Consultant and City will discuss and agree on the approach to the screening process and the criteria used in the evaluation. The Consultant will prepare an agenda for the workshop and provide follow up meeting minutes with action items. 5.2 Alternatives Screening Phase (8 to 10 Alternatives)  Alternative Screening. This phase screens the 8 to 10 alternatives identified in Subtask 5.1 down to 2 or 3 to carry forward to subtask 5.3. Based on available information the Consultant will prepare a preliminary evaluation matrix and ranking of the 8 to 10 alternatives. The matrix will consider factors such as feasibility, constructability, impacts to traffic and the evaluation criteria agreed to with the City in subtask 5.1.  Alternative Screening Workshop. A 4 hour workshop will be held to determine the best two or three alternatives. The City and Consultant will review the preliminary evaluation matrix and ranking prepared by the Consultant and modify it as needed during the workshop to determine the best 2 or 3 alternatives to carry forward to subtask 5.3. The Consultant and City will review and confirm the evaluation criteria, weighting factors and score for each alternative. Possible evaluation criteria may be grouped in categories of community, technical, operations, and costs. Construction costs will be generally graded as low, medium, or high. Key City engineers and operations and maintenance staff will be invited to participate in the workshop. The Consultant will prepare an agenda for the workshop and meeting minutes with action items. Packet Page 189 of 400 SCOPE OF WORK – LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDY 4/29/2015 5 Exhibit A Scope of Work 5.3 Alternative Refinement Phase (2 or 3 Alternatives)  Alternative Refinement Phase. This phase refines and clarifies the 2 or 3 best alternatives from subtask 5.2 and compares and evaluates them to facilitate selection of a Recommended Alternative. The Consultant will develop a schematic level design of the alternatives and prepare planning level estimates of capital construction costs, O&M costs and life cycle costs. Sources for the cost estimates will come from unit process cost curves, recent bid results, and/or percent allowance from equipment and structural costs.  Alternative Refinement Meeting. The Consultant will meet with the City to review the schematic designs of the alternatives and select a recommended alternative. The Consultant will document the alternatives selection process in a Predesign report. The Consultant will prepare a meeting agenda and follow up afterwards with meeting minutes with action items. Assumptions: 1. No community involvement is anticipated. 2. Geotechnical assumptions based on existing geotechnical information. 3. Alternative Identification (Task 5.1) will rely on existing utility information from the City GIS files. 4. Alternative Screening (Task 5.2) will rely on existing utility information from the City GIS files and mobile mapping from Task 4. 5. Alternative Refinement (Task 5.3) will rely on existing utility information from the City GIS files, mobile mapping, and spot field surveys from Task 4. More precise locations of buried utilities can be confirmed in a future design phase if needed, such as with potholing or ground penetrating radar and additional surveying. 6. Estimate assumes a maximum of 8 to 10 Screening Alternatives and 2 to 3 Refinement Alternatives. Task 5 Deliverables: 1. Meeting minutes with action items for the Alternative Identification Workshop. 2. Meeting minutes with action items for the Alternative Screening Workshop. 3. Meeting minutes with action items for the Alternative Refinement Meeting. Task 6 - Recommended Alternative and Report  Recommended Alternative. The preferred alternative will be further developed as the recommended plan. The plan will include more detailed design criteria, a hydraulic profile, identification of permits and implementation schedule as described below: o 10% Design Submittal. Prepare half size (11” X 17”) schematic plans at the 10 percent design level for inclusion in the predesign report. The schematic design drawings will include plan/elevation/sections of the recommended alternative. o Probable Construction Cost Estimate. The Consultant will update the Probable Construction Cost Estimate to include appropriate contingencies, including contractor’s overhead and profit and sales tax. The cost of land acquisition will be included (if applicable). Packet Page 190 of 400 SCOPE OF WORK – LIFT STATION #1 BASIN & FLOW STUDY 4/29/2015 6 Exhibit A Scope of Work o Implementation Schedule. The Consultant will develop an implementation program to reflect priority actions in the form of a schedule for construction of, and/or upgrades to, the system. o Permit Identification. The Consultant will identify all required environmental permits and agreements needed for the construction of the preferred alternative, including the strategies and requirements for acquiring all necessary permits. A listing of all permits and agreements required for this project will be included in the Final Design Report. o Predesign Report. The Consultant will prepare a draft and final predesign report complete with executive summary and description of the evaluation process. A planning level Opinion of Probable Cost will be included in the report. Consultant will send a draft copy of the report to the city for review and comment. Comments received will be incorporated into the final predesign report for presentation to City Council. The consultant will attend the City Council meeting to present report and answer questions. Assumptions: 1. Up to 10 preliminary design drawings. 2. An Ecology approved Engineering Report per WAC 173-240-060 and a SEPA checklist are not required. If required, those services can be included by amendment in the scope of work. Task 6 Deliverables: 1. Draft Predesign Report. Two hard copies and one electronic copy. 2. Final Predesign Report. Two hard copies and one electronic copy. 3. Electronic copies will be provided in MS WORD, AutoCAD 2014, pdf and XPSWMM files. Packet Page 191 of 400 Packet Page 192 of 400 Price Summary / Totals Task Pricing Totals 173,702 Specify Add'l Fees on Setup 0 Technology Use Fee (986 hrs) = $3,490 incl. in ODCs Proj Area >173,702 Submitted to: City of Edmonds (Attn: Mike DeLilla phone 425-771-0220 x 1320 ) Unit Rate >$3.54 Contract Type: T&M Unit >hour Charged to >ODC Project Phases / Tasks From Thru Months 986 102 172 402 14 - 116 - 8 - 44 20 22 16 - 70 Quantities >986 0.00%163,491 6,720 - - 3,490 173,702 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 01 Project Management 53 11 6 20 - - - - - - - - - 16 - - 53 9,823 - - - 188 10,011 Kick-off Meeting 10 3 3 4 - - - - 10 1,933 35 1,969 WorkPlan 8 1 1 6 - - - - 8 1,413 28 1,441 Progress Meetings 6 4 2 - - - - 6 1,278 21 1,299 Progress Reports and Billings 12 2 10 - - - - 12 2,075 42 2,117 QA/QC 17 1 - - - 16 - 17 3,124 60 3,184 02 Background Information 41 9 12 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - 41 7,750 - - - 145 7,896 Record Drawings / GIS 9 2 3 4 - - - - 9 1,719 32 1,751 Reports & correspondence 9 2 3 4 - - - - 9 1,719 32 1,751 Operating Records 4 4 - - - - 4 659 14 673 Population growth & Land use 2 2 - - - - 2 329 7 336 LS #1 Site visit 12 4 4 4 - - - - 12 2,358 42 2,401 City requirements 3 1 1 1 - - - - 3 590 11 600 Ecology Requirements 2 1 1 - - - - 2 376 7 383 03 Flow Analysis & Modeling 318 12 2 168 12 - 116 - - - - - 8 - - - 318 46,960 - - - 1,126 48,085 Review existing system data 40 2 2 16 - 20 - - - 40 5,740 142 5,881 Inspect overflow locations 8 8 - - - - 8 1,318 28 1,346 LS#1 drawdown test 16 4 12 - - - - 16 2,917 57 2,973 Review XPSWMM model 28 12 - 16 - - - 28 3,780 99 3,880 Model review technical memorandum 6 2 4 - - - - 6 1,087 21 1,108 Flow meeting with City 8 4 4 - - - - 8 1,515 28 1,543 Update XPSWMM Model 140 60 - 80 - - - 140 18,902 496 19,398 Technical memorandum 72 4 60 - - - 8 - 72 11,702 255 11,956 04 Surveying 76 - 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - 70 76 10,850 - - - 269 11,119 Mobile GIS Data Collection 53 3 - - - - 50 53 7,479 188 7,667 Followup Field Surveying (if needed)23 3 - - - - 20 23 3,371 81 3,453 05 Alternatives Analysis 288 44 93 115 2 - - - 4 - 24 - 6 - - - 288 52,468 5,040 - - 1,020 58,528 5.1 Alternatives Identification 62 10 21 25 - - - - - - - - 6 - - - 62 11,409 - - - 219 11,628 Alternative identification (13)44 6 17 17 - - - - - - - - 4 - - - 44 8,151 - - - 156 8,306 Flow reduction 4 1 1 1 - - - 1 - 4 710 14 724 Pipelines 10 1 8 - - - 1 - 10 2,022 35 2,057 Pump stations 15 2 4 8 - - - 1 - 15 2,710 53 2,763 Storage 15 2 4 8 - - - 1 - 15 2,710 53 2,763 Alternatives Identification Workshop 18 4 4 8 - - - - - - - - 2 - - - 18 3,258 - - - 64 3,322 Select 8-10 alternatives for screening 11 3 2 4 - - - 2 - 11 1,963 39 2,002 Identify screening criteria 7 1 2 4 - - - - 7 1,295 25 1,319 5.2 Alternatives Screening (8-10 alternatives)40 8 12 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - 40 7,536 - - - 142 7,678 Screening matrix analysis 24 4 8 12 - - - - 24 4,519 85 4,604 City Workshop 16 4 4 8 - - - - 16 3,017 57 3,074 5.3 Alternatives Refinement (2-3 alternatives)186 26 60 70 2 - - - 4 - 24 - - - - - 186 33,523 5,040 - - 658 39,221 Alternative 1 38 6 12 12 - - - 8 - 38 6,790 135 6,925 Alternative 2 38 6 12 12 - - - 8 - 38 6,790 135 6,925 Alternative 3 40 6 12 12 - - 2 - 8 - 40 6,992 142 7,133 Cost Estimates - Capital, O&M, life cycle 14 2 2 8 2 - - - - 14 2,544 5,040 50 7,633 Alternative comparison & evaluation 26 2 10 12 - - 2 - - 26 4,715 92 4,807 City Workshop 30 4 12 14 - - - - 30 5,692 106 5,799 06 Recommended Plan 210 26 53 79 - - - - 4 - 20 20 8 - - - 210 35,640 1,680 - - 743 38,064 10% Design 64 6 8 10 - - - 20 20 - 64 9,140 227 9,367 Cost Estimate 12 4 4 - - 4 - - 12 1,905 1,680 42 3,627 Implementation Schedule 3 3 - - - - 3 642 11 653 Permit Identification 3 3 - - - - 3 642 11 653 Predesign Report 128 14 41 65 - - - - - - - - 8 - - - 128 23,311 - - - 453 23,764 Draft 60 4 20 32 - - - 4 - 60 10,826 212 11,038 Final 60 4 20 32 - - - 4 - 60 10,826 212 11,038 City review & Council presentation 8 6 1 1 - - - - 8 1,659 28 1,688 Totals 986 102 172 402 14 - 116 - 8 - 44 20 22 16 - 70 Quantities >986 0.00%163,491 6,720 - - 3,490 173,702 15 Resource Lift Station #1 Basin and Flow Study Price Proposal Labor Plan P Eng CivilP Eng StructuralPlanning Study and Schematic Design Total Price Unit Rate Qty's Pricing by Resource Project ManagerSr Eng ConveyanceItems >Technology Usage*SurveyorP Eng ElectricalCADCADEditorQAQCAdministrativeTask Pricing TotalsSchedule Work Days OffWork DaysTotal Labor Hrs Subs Travel Mat'ls & Equip ODCs Labor Rate Esc.LaborP Eng Conveyance & ModelingP Eng Pump StationsP Eng CivilP Eng CivilPacket Page 193 of 400    AM-7689     4. J.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Mike De Lilla Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Action  Information Subject Title Report on bids opened April 30, 2015 for the 2015 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project and award of contract to Buno Construction, LLC Recommendation Award construction contract. Previous Council Action On April 28, 2015, staff presented this item to Council and it was forwarded to the May 5, 2015 consent agenda. Narrative On April 30, 2015, the City received six bids for the 2015 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project.  The bids ranged from a low of $1,090,411.07 to a high of $1,631,366.04.  The bid tabulation summary is attached as Exhibit A.  Buno Construction, LLC submitted the low responsive bid in the amount of $1,090,411.07.  The engineer’s estimate was $1,400,000.00.  A review of the low bidder’s record is in progress, so far all responses are positive.   This project is part of the City’s program to replace and upgrade existing sanitary sewers at various locations around the City that are reaching the end of their useful service life, are under capacity and unable to meet current requirements or have some other system deficiency.  The project will replace approximately 1,690 linear feet of sanitary sewer piping along with associated manholes and service connections at two locations around the City. The project will also make local repairs at two other sites around the City.   The project costs are being funded by the 423 Sewer Fund. Attachments Exhibit A - Bid Evaluation Exhibit B - Site Map Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Megan Luttrell 04/30/2015 05:15 PM Public Works Phil Williams 05/01/2015 09:54 AM Packet Page 194 of 400 Public Works Phil Williams 05/01/2015 09:54 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/01/2015 09:57 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/01/2015 10:58 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/01/2015 11:00 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 04/30/2015 02:22 PM Final Approval Date: 05/01/2015  Packet Page 195 of 400 City of Edmonds 2015 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project Bid Summary 30-Apr-15 Engineer's Estimate 1,631,366.04$ R. L. Alia Co. 437,989.05$ 1,092,472.74$ 55,823.10$ 45,081.15$ 1,459,144.23$ 51,136.50$ 54,312.00$ 76,759.50$ 27,156.00$ 53,874.00$ 1,402,732.23$ 1,090,411.07$ 1,236,285.11$ 1,311,508.88$ 1,376,823.44$ 59,184.75$ TOTAL 18,003.99$ Schedule A - Brookmere Drive Sanitary Sewer Replacement Schedule B - 9th Avenue and Walnut Street Sanitary Sewer Replacement Schedule C - 5th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Spot Rehabilitation Schedule D - Cascade Drive Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair 956,848.23$ 702,244.52$ 680,447.78$ 867,110.79$ 825,844.62$ 376,743.51$ 312,523.95$ 460,013.88$ Buno Construction Rodarte Construction Titan Earthworks Shoreline Construction James W. Fowler Co. 380,456.66$ 21,330.60$ 19,063.95$ 46,055.70$ 20,158.95$ 45,234.45$ 974,268.37$ 371,186.39$ 476,945.87$ Packet Page 196 of 400 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project E4GA/c441Packet Page 197 of 400    AM-7687     4. K.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Scott James Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of 2015 Revenue Bond Ordinance. Recommendation Approve 2015 Water, Sewer and Stormwater Revenue Bond Ordinance. Previous Council Action On April 7th staff, Scott Bauer of A. Dashen & Associates and Alice Ostdiek of Foster Pepper presented a revenue bond proposal to Council. During the April 7th meeting, staff recommended a 20 year term bond issue for $14 million.   On April 28th staff, Scott Bauer of A. Dashen & Associates and Alice Ostdiek of Foster Pepper presented a draft Bond Ordinance for the revenue bond proposal to Council.  During the meeting, a recommendation was made to include the  estimated 2017 bond issuance of $3,500,000 into the 2014 bond issue and to increase the term of the bond from 20 years to 25 years.  The reasoning for this recommendation was 1) Save the City some money on issuance costs, and 2) provide the City greater financial flexibility by extending the term of the bonds, which lowers the annual debt service and also knowing the fact that the bonds are callable after ten years. Narrative A proposed 2015 Revenue Bond Ordinance is presented to Council to approve, authorizing the sale of revenue bonds to fund water, sewer and stormwater projects.  Attachments 2015 Water, Sewer and Stormwater Revenue Bond Ordinance Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 05/01/2015 08:24 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/01/2015 08:25 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/01/2015 08:27 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/01/2015 08:38 AM Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 04/30/2015 10:23 AM Final Approval Date: 05/01/2015  Packet Page 198 of 400 Packet Page 199 of 400 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to the combined water and sewerage systems comprising the waterworks utility of the City; specifying, adopting and ordering the carrying out of a system or plan of additions to and betterments and extensions of the combined waterworks utility; providing for the issuance of one or more series of water and sewer revenue bonds in an aggregate amount not to exceed $20,000,000 for the purpose of providing the funds necessary: (a) to pay all or a portion of the costs of carrying out that plan of additions, (b) to make a deposit to the debt service reserve account, and (c) to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing or setting parameters with respect to certain terms and covenants of the bonds; appointing the City’s designated representative to approve the final terms of the sale of the bonds; and providing for other related matters. Passed May 5, 2015 This document prepared by: Foster Pepper PLLC 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 447-4400 Packet Page 200 of 400 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1. Findings and Determinations ......................................................................................1 Section 2. Definitions...................................................................................................................2 Section 3. Adoption of Plan of Additions ....................................................................................8 Section 4. Purpose and Authorization of the Bonds ....................................................................8 Section 5. Description of the Bonds; Appointment of Designated Representative .....................9 Section 6. Bond Registrar; Registration and Transfer of Bonds. .................................................9 Section 7. Form and Execution of Bonds ..................................................................................10 Section 8. Payment of Bonds .....................................................................................................10 Section 9. Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of Bonds. ................................11 Section 10. Failure To Pay Bonds................................................................................................12 Section 11. Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds ....................................................................12 Section 12. Security for the Bonds; Bond Fund ..........................................................................12 Section 13. Deposit of Bond Proceeds .........................................................................................14 Section 14. Flow of Funds ...........................................................................................................14 Section 15. Additional Covenants................................................................................................15 Section 16. Rate Stabilization Account .......................................................................................16 Section 17. Separate Utility Systems ...........................................................................................16 Section 18. Sale and Delivery of the Bonds; Parity Certificate ...................................................17 Section 19. Parity Conditions ......................................................................................................18 Section 20. Tax Matters. ..............................................................................................................18 Section 21. Official Statement; Continuing Disclosure. ..............................................................19 Section 22. Amendatory Ordinances. ..........................................................................................19 Section 23. General Authorization and Ratification ....................................................................21 Section 24. Severability ...............................................................................................................21 Section 25. Effective Date of Ordinance .....................................................................................22 Exhibit A Parameters for Final Terms of the Bonds Exhibit B Parity Conditions For Issuance of Future Parity Bonds Exhibit C Description of Plan of Additions Exhibit D Form of Continuing Disclosure Undertaking *The cover page, table of contents and section headings of this ordinance are for convenience of reference only, and shall not be used to resolve any question of interpretation of this ordinance. Packet Page 201 of 400 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to the combined water and sewerage systems comprising the waterworks utility of the City; specifying, adopting and ordering the carrying out of a system or plan of additions to and betterments and extensions of the combined waterworks utility; providing for the issuance of one or more series of water and sewer revenue bonds in an aggregate amount not to exceed $20,000,000 for the purpose of providing the funds necessary: (a) to pay all or a portion of the costs of carrying out that plan of additions, (b) to make a deposit to the debt service reserve account, and (c) to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing or setting parameters with respect to certain terms and covenants of the bonds; appointing the City’s designated representative to approve the final terms of the sale of the bonds; and providing for other related matters. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings and Determinations. The City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington (the “City”) makes the findings and determinations set forth below. Capitalized terms have the meanings given in Section 2. (a) Plan of Additions. The City is in need of funds with which to finance the Plan of Additions, the estimated cost of which is more than $20,000,000, and the City does not have available sufficient funds to pay the costs. The life of the improvements comprising the Plan of Additions is declared to be at least 25 years. (b) Previously Issued Bonds and Loans. The City previously issued the 2011 Bonds and the 2013 Bonds and by the Outstanding Parity Bond Ordinances provided for the issuance of Future Parity Bonds on a parity of lien with the Outstanding Parity Bonds if certain Parity Conditions are met at the time those Future Parity Bonds are issued. The City also has several outstanding Loans, which are secured by a pledge of net revenues that is junior and inferior to the pledge securing the Parity Bonds. (c) Parity Conditions Met. The City Council finds and declares that the amounts required to have been paid into the Bond Fund for the Outstanding Parity Bonds have been paid and maintained as required therein, and that all other Parity Conditions for the issuance of the Bonds as Future Parity Bonds will have been met and satisfied before the Bonds are delivered to the Purchaser. (d) Sufficiency of Gross Revenue. The City Council finds and determines that the Gross Revenue and benefits to be derived from the operation and maintenance of the Water and Sewer Utility at the rates to be charged for services from the Water and Sewer Utility will be Packet Page 202 of 400 more than sufficient to meet all Operating and Maintenance Expense and to permit the setting aside into the Bond Fund out of the Gross Revenue of amounts sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Outstanding Parity Bonds and the Bonds when due. The City Council declares that in fixing the amounts to be paid into the Bond Fund under this ordinance it has exercised due regard for Operating and Maintenance Expense and has not obligated the City to set aside and pay into the Bond Fund a greater amount of Gross Revenue of the Water and Sewer Utility than in its judgment will be available over and above such Operating and Maintenance Expense. (e) Issuance of Bonds. Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to issue and sell the Bonds to the Purchaser, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract as approved by the City’s Designated Representative consistent with this ordinance. Section 2. Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following words shall have the following meanings: (a) “2011 Bonds” means the City’s outstanding Water and Sewer Improvement and Refunding Revenue Bonds, 2011, authorized by the 2011 Bond Ordinance. (b) “2011 Bond Ordinance” means Ordinance No. 3863, passed on December 6, 2011, authorizing the issuance of the 2011 Bonds. (c) “2013 Bonds” means the City’s outstanding Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2013, authorized by the 2013 Bond Ordinance. (d) “2013 Bond Ordinance” means Ordinance No. 3933, passed on July 16, 2013, authorizing the issuance of the 2013 Bonds. (e) “Adjusted Net Revenue” means Net Revenue, plus withdrawals from the Rate Stabilization Account and less deposits into the Rate Stabilization Account. (f) “Annual Debt Service” means, for any calendar year, with respect to all Parity Bonds outstanding or maturing in that year, all amounts required to be paid in that year in respect of principal of and interest on those Parity Bonds, less all bond interest payable from the proceeds of any Parity Bonds, and less all Tax Credit Subsidy Payments scheduled to be received in that year. Parity Bonds issued as Variable Interest Rate Bonds shall be assumed to bear interest at a fixed rate equal to the higher of (i) the highest variable rate borne during the preceding 24 months by any then-outstanding Variable Interest Rate Bonds or, (ii) if no Variable Interest Rate Bonds are then outstanding, a rate determined by reference to the index to be used to determine the interest rate on the Future Parity Bonds proposed to be issued or a comparable index. (g) “Authorized Denominations” means $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof within a maturity of a Series. (h) “Average Annual Debt Service” means, as of its date of calculation, the sum of the Annual Debt Service for the current calendar year and the calendar years remaining to the last scheduled maturity of the applicable issue or issues of bonds divided by the number of those years. (i) “Beneficial Owner” means, with respect to a Bond, the owner of any beneficial interest in that Bond. Packet Page 203 of 400 (j) “Bond Counsel” means the firm of Foster Pepper PLLC, its successor, or any other attorney or firm of attorneys selected by the City with a nationally recognized standing as bond counsel in the field of municipal finance. (k) “Bond Fund” means the City’s Water and Sewer Utility Revenue Bond Fund, 2011, created by the 2011 Bond Ordinance for the payment of the principal of and interest on all Parity Bonds. (l) “Bond Insurance Policy” means a municipal bond insurance policy issued by a Bond Insurer insuring the payment when due of the principal of and interest on Parity Bonds as provided in such policy. (m) “Bond Insurer” or “Insurer” means a bond insurance company providing a Bond Insurance Policy or Reserve Securities for any outstanding Parity Bonds. (n) “Bond Purchase Contract” means an offer to purchase a Series of the Bonds, setting forth certain terms and conditions of the issuance, sale and delivery of those Bonds, which offer is authorized to be accepted by the Designated Representative on behalf of the City, if consistent with this ordinance. In the case of a competitive sale, the official notice of sale, the Purchaser’s bid and the award by the City shall constitute the Bond Purchase Contract for purposes of this ordinance. (o) “Bond Register” means the books or records maintained by the Bond Registrar for the purpose of identifying ownership of each Bond. (p) “Bond Registrar” means the Fiscal Agent, or any successor bond registrar selected by the City. (q) “Bonds” means the bonds authorized to be issued by this ordinance. (r) “City” means the City of Edmonds, Washington, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State. (s) “City Council” means the legislative authority of the City, as duly and regularly constituted from time to time. (t) “Code” means the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. (u) “Construction Fund” means the fund or account designated by the City Finance Director for the payment of the costs of the Plan of Additions. (v) “Coverage Requirement” means for any calendar year, an amount of Adjusted Net Revenue at least equal to 1.25 times the Annual Debt Service in that year on all then-outstanding Parity Bonds. For purposes of calculating the Coverage Requirement, ULID Assessments due in that year and not delinquent shall be subtracted from Annual Debt Service. (w) “Designated Representative” means the officer of the City appointed in Section 5 of this ordinance to serve as the City’s designated representative in accordance with RCW 39.46.040(2). (x) “DTC” means The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, or its nominee. Packet Page 204 of 400 (y) “Final Terms” means the terms and conditions for the sale of a Series of the Bonds including the amount, date or dates, denominations, interest rate or rates (or mechanism for determining interest rate or rates), payment dates, final maturity, redemption rights, price, and other terms or covenants. (z) “Finance Director” means the Finance Director of the City or any other City official who succeeds to the duties now delegated to that office, or the designee of such officer. (aa) “Financial Advisor” means A. Dashen and Associates of Bellevue, Washington, or any other Financial Advisor then appointed and acting as financial advisor to the City. (bb) “Fiscal Agent” means the fiscal agent of the State, as the same may be designated by the State from time to time. (cc) “Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance” means an ordinance of the City authorizing the issuance and sale and establishing the terms of Future Parity Bonds. (dd) “Future Parity Bonds” means all revenue obligations and other obligations of the City for borrowed money (including, without limitation, financing leases) issued or incurred after the date of the issuance of the Bonds, the payment of the principal of and interest on which constitutes a charge or lien on the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments equal in rank with the charge and lien upon such revenue and assessments required to be paid into the Bond Fund to pay and secure the payment of the principal of and interest on the Parity Bonds. (ee) “Government Obligations” means those obligations described under the definition of government obligations in RCW 39.53.010(4), as it now reads or hereafter may be amended, and which are otherwise lawful investments for the City. (ff) “Gross Revenue” means all of the earnings and revenues received by the City from the maintenance and operation of the Water and Sewer Utility, including but not limited to: revenues from the sale, lease or furnishing of commodities, services, properties or facilities; all earnings from the investment of money in the Bond Fund that are deposited into the Principal and Interest Account; earnings from the investment of money in any maintenance fund or similar fund; all connection and capital improvement charges collected for the purpose of defraying the cost of capital facilities of the Water and Sewer Utility; and withdrawals from the Rate Stabilization Account. However, the Gross Revenue shall not include: (a) revenues from City taxes; (b) principal proceeds of Parity Bonds or any other borrowings, or earnings or proceeds from any investments in a trust, defeasance or escrow fund created to defease or refund obligations relating to the Water and Sewer Utility (until commingled with other earnings and revenues included in the Gross Revenue) or held in a special account for the purpose of paying a rebate to the United States Government under the Code; (c) income and revenue which may not legally be pledged for revenue bond debt service; (d) improvement district assessments including ULID Assessments; (e) federal or state grants, and gifts from any source allocated to capital projects; (f) payments under bond insurance or other credit enhancement policy or device; (g) insurance or condemnation proceeds used for the replacement of capital projects or equipment; (h) proceeds from the sale of Water and Sewer Utility property; (i) earnings on bond proceeds in any construction fund or bond redemption fund; (j) deposits to the Rate Stabilization Account; (k) Tax Credit Subsidy Payments; or (l) revenue from any Separate Utility System. (gg) “Independent Utility Consultant” means a professional consultant experienced with municipal utilities of comparable size and character to the Water and Sewer Utility and in Packet Page 205 of 400 such areas as are relevant to the purpose for which he or she is being retained. Such a consultant shall be deemed independent so long as he or she is not an employee or officer of the City. (hh) “Issue Date” means, with respect to a Bond, the date of initial issuance and delivery of that Bond to the Purchaser in exchange for the purchase price of that Bond. (ii) “Letter of Representations” means the Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations dated August 6, 1996, between the City and DTC, as it may be amended from time to time, and any successor or substitute letter relating to the operational procedures of the Securities Depository. (jj) “Loans” means any State of Washington Public Works Trust Fund loans, State Drinking Water Revolving Fund loans, or similar loans entered into by the City to fund improvements to the Water and Sewer Utility, the payment of which is a claim on the Net Revenue that is junior and inferior to the lien and charge of the Parity Bonds. (kk) “Maximum Annual Debt Service” means, as of the date of calculation, the maximum amount of Annual Debt Service that will mature or come due in the current fiscal year or any future fiscal year with respect to all outstanding Parity Bonds. (ll) “Maximum Interest Rate” means, with respect to any Variable Interest Rate Bond, a numerical rate of interest that is the maximum rate of interest those Future Parity Bonds may bear at any time. (mm) “MSRB” means the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. (nn) “Net Revenue” means the Gross Revenue, less Operating and Maintenance Expenses. (oo) “Official Statement” means an offering document, disclosure document, private placement memorandum or substantially similar disclosure document provided to purchasers and potential purchasers in connection with the initial offering of a Series of the Bonds in conformance with Rule 152-12 or other applicable regulations of the SEC. (pp) “Operating and Maintenance Expenses” means all reasonable expenses incurred by the City in causing the Water and Sewer Utility to be operated and maintained in good repair, working order and condition, including payments made pursuant to contract for such service to any other municipal corporation or private entity for sewage treatment and disposal, water supply and distribution or stormwater, or other utility service (if the City combines such service into the Water and Sewer Utility), and including budget charges for the City’s administration expenses allocated to the Water and Sewer Utility, but shall not include depreciation, or any taxes (or charges in lieu of taxes) levied or imposed by the City. (qq) “Outstanding Parity Bond Ordinances” means the 2011 Bond Ordinance and the 2013 Bond Ordinance. (rr) “Outstanding Parity Bonds” means any Parity Bonds outstanding at the time of issuance of any Future Parity Bonds. As of the date of issuance of the Bonds, the Outstanding Parity Bonds will consist of the then-outstanding 2011 Bonds and 2013 Bonds. (ss) “Owner” means, without distinction, the Registered Owner and the Beneficial Owner. Packet Page 206 of 400 (tt) “Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance(s)” means, as applicable to each series of Parity Bonds, the 2011 Bond Ordinance, the 2013 Bond Ordinance, this ordinance and any Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance. (uu) “Parity Bonds” means any Outstanding Parity Bonds, the Bonds and Future Parity Bonds. (vv) “Parity Conditions” means the conditions precedent to the issuance of Future Parity Bonds, originally set forth in Exhibit A of the 2011 Bond Ordinance, and set forth in Exhibit B to this ordinance, which is incorporated by this reference. (ww) “Permitted Investments” means investments that are legal investments for the City at the time of such investment. (xx) “Plan of Additions” means the system or plan of additions and improvements to and betterments and extensions of the Water and Sewer Utility specified, adopted and ordered to be carried out by Section 3 of this ordinance. (yy) “Principal and Interest Account” means the account of that name created in the Bond Fund for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Parity Bonds. (zz) “Purchaser” means the corporation, firm, association, partnership, trust, bank, financial institution or other legal entity or group of entities selected by the Designated Representative to serve as purchaser in a private placement, underwriter or placement agent for a negotiated sale or awarded as the successful bidder in a competitive sale of any Series of the Bonds. (aaa) “Rate Stabilization Account” means the account of that name created for the purposes described in Section 16. (bbb) “Rating Agency” means a nationally recognized rating agency or agencies, if any, providing a rating on the Bonds at the request of the City. (ccc) “Record Date” means the Bond Registrar’s close of business on the 15th day of the month preceding an interest payment date. With respect to redemption of a Bond prior to its maturity, the Record Date shall mean the Bond Registrar’s close of business on the date on which the Bond Registrar sends the notice of redemption in accordance with Section 9. (ddd) “Registered Owner” means, with respect to a Bond, the person in whose name that Bond is registered on the Bond Register. For so long as the City utilizes the book–entry only system for the Bonds under the Letter of Representations, Registered Owner shall mean the Securities Depository. (eee) “Reserve Account” means the account of that name created in the Bond Fund for the purpose of securing the payment of the principal of and interest on the Parity Bonds. (fff) “Reserve Securities” means, in lieu of cash and investments, any bond insurance, collateral, security, letter of credit, guaranty, surety bond or similar credit enhancement device providing for or securing the payment of all or part of the principal of and interest on Parity Bonds, issued by an institution which has been assigned a credit rating at the time that such Reserve Security is provided, in the two highest rating categories without regard to gradations within those categories (i.e., AAA or AA). Packet Page 207 of 400 (ggg) “Reserve Requirement” means for all Parity Bonds, an amount equal to the lesser of (i) Maximum Annual Debt Service, (ii) 125% of Average Annual Debt Service, or (iii) 10% of the original proceeds of the then-outstanding Parity Bonds. The Reserve Requirement may be met by a deposit of cash, Reserve Securities, or any combination of the foregoing, and the amount payable under any Reserve Securities shall be credited against the amount otherwise required to be deposited into the Reserve Account. (hhh) “Rule 15c2-12” means Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. (iii) “SEC” means the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (jjj) “Securities Depository” means DTC, any successor thereto, any substitute securities depository selected by the City that is qualified under applicable laws and regulations to provide the services proposed to be provided by it, or the nominee of any of the foregoing. (kkk) “Separate Utility System” means any water supply, sewage collection or treatment, stormwater management or other utility service or facilities that may be created, acquired or constructed by the City as provided in Section 17 of this ordinance. (lll) “Series of the Bonds” or “Series” means a series of the Bonds issued pursuant to this ordinance. (mmm)“Sewer System” means the sanitary sewage collection and disposal system of the City, also referred to as the sewer utility. (nnn) “State” means the State of Washington. (ooo) “Stormwater System” means the stormwater management utility combined into the Water and Sewer Utility pursuant to chapter 7.60 of the Edmonds City Code. (ppp) “System of Registration” means the system of registration for the City’s bonds and other obligations set forth in Ordinance No. 2451 of the City. (qqq) “Tax Credit Subsidy Bond” means any bond that is designated by the City as a “build America bond” or other type of tax credit bond, pursuant to the Code, and which is further designated as a “qualified bond” under Section 6431 of the Code (or under similar provisions of the Code providing for “direct-pay” tax credit bonds), and with respect to which the City expects to receive a Tax Credit Subsidy Payment. (rrr) “Tax Credit Subsidy Payment” means the amounts which the City expects to receive as a tax credit payable by the United States Treasury to the City under Section 6431 of the Code (or under similar provisions of the Code providing for “direct-pay” tax credit bonds), in respect of any bonds issued as Tax Credit Subsidy Bonds. (sss) “Tax-Exempt Bonds” means any Series issued on a tax-exempt basis. (ttt) “Term Bond” means those Bonds that are designated as term bonds and are subject to mandatory redemption prior to maturity in the years and amounts set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract. (uuu) “ULID” means any utility local improvement district now existing or hereafter created for the acquisition or construction of additions, extensions or betterments of any portion of the Water and Sewer Utility, which additions, extensions or betterments are financed through Packet Page 208 of 400 the issuance of Parity Bonds. As used in this ordinance, the term ULID does not include any utility local improvement district created for the financing of additions, extensions or betterments by methods other than the issuance of Parity Bonds. (vvv) “ULID Assessments” means the assessments levied in any ULID, including installment payments of any assessment as well as the interest and penalties (if any) thereon, less any prepaid assessments permitted by law to be paid into a construction fund or account. (www) “Undertaking” means the undertaking to provide continuing disclosure entered into pursuant to Section 21 of this ordinance. (xxx) “Variable Interest Rate” means a variable interest rate or rates to be borne by a series of Future Parity Bonds or any one or more maturities within a series of Future Parity Bonds. The method of computing such a variable interest rate (or parameters with respect thereto) shall be specified in the ordinance authorizing such Future Parity Bonds, which ordinance also shall specify either (i) the particular period or periods of time or manner of determining such period or periods of time for which each value of such variable interest rate shall remain in effect or (ii) the time or times upon which any change in such variable interest rate shall become effective. (yyy) “Variable Interest Rate Bonds” means, for any period of time, Future Parity Bonds which bear a Variable Interest Rate during that period, except that Future Parity Bonds the interest rate or rates on which shall have been fixed for the remainder of the term thereof no longer shall be deemed to be Variable Interest Rate Bonds. (zzz) “Water and Sewer Utility” means the combined utility, as described in chapter 7.60 of the Edmonds City Code, including the component Water, Sewer and Stormwater Systems, together with all additions thereto and betterments and extensions thereof at any time made, and any other utility systems hereafter combined with the Water and Sewer Utility. (aaaa) “Water and Sewer Utility Fund” means, together, the Water Fund, the Sewer Fund and the Stormwater Fund, each of which has previously been established by the City. (bbbb) “Water System” means the system of water supply and transmission of the City, also referred to as the water utility. Section 3. Adoption of Plan of Additions. The City specifies, adopts and orders the carrying out of the projects described in Exhibit C as a system or plan of additions to and betterments and extensions of the Water and Sewer Utility. The Plan of Additions shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor prepared by the City’s engineers and consulting engineers. The City Council may modify the details of the Plan of Additions where, in its judgment, it appears advisable if such modifications do not substantially alter the purposes of that system or plan. The cost of the Plan of Additions, including the cost of issuance and sale of the Bonds, shall be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds and from other money available to the Water and Sewer Utility. Section 4. Purpose and Authorization of the Bonds. The City is authorized to borrow money on the credit of the City and issue water and sewer revenue bonds evidencing indebtedness in the amount of not to exceed $20,000,000 to provide the funds necessary (1) to carry out the Plan of Additions, (2) make a deposit to the Reserve Account, and (3) to pay the costs of issuance of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be allocated to paying the respective costs of the Plan of Additions in such order of time as the City determines is advisable and practicable. Packet Page 209 of 400 Section 5. Description of the Bonds; Appointment of Designated Representative. The Finance Director is appointed as the Designated Representative of the City and is authorized and directed to conduct the sale of the Bonds in the manner and upon the terms deemed most advantageous to the City, and to approve the Final Terms of each Series of the Bonds, with such additional terms and covenants as the Designated Representative deems advisable, within the parameters set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached to this ordinance and incorporated by this reference. Section 6. Bond Registrar; Registration and Transfer of Bonds. (a) Registration of Bonds. Each Bond shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and interest and the ownership of each Bond shall be recorded on the Bond Register. (b) Bond Registrar; Duties. The Fiscal Agent is appointed as initial Bond Registrar. The Bond Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds, which shall be open to inspection by the City at all times. The Bond Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the City’s paying agent for the Bonds and to carry out all of the Bond Registrar’s powers and duties under this ordinance and the System of Registration. The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the Bond Registrar’s Certificate of Authentication on each Bond. The Bond Registrar may become an Owner with the same rights it would have if it were not the Bond Registrar and, to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect the rights of Owners. (c) Bond Register; Transfer and Exchange of Bonds. The Bond Register shall contain the name and mailing address of each Registered Owner and the principal amount and number of each Bond held by each Registered Owner. A Bond surrendered to the Bond Registrar may be exchanged for a Bond or Bonds in any Authorized Denomination of an equal aggregate principal amount and of the same Series, interest rate and maturity. A Bond may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner provided thereon and surrendered to the Bond Registrar. Any exchange or transfer shall be without cost to the Owner or transferee. The Bond Registrar shall not be obligated to exchange any Bond or transfer registered ownership during the period between the applicable Record Date and the next upcoming interest payment or redemption date. (d) Securities Depository; Book-Entry Only Form. If a Bond is to be issued in book- entry form, DTC shall be appointed as initial Securities Depository and each such Bond initially shall be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as the nominee of DTC. Each Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository shall be held fully immobilized in book-entry only form by the Securities Depository in accordance with the provisions of the Letter of Representations. Registered ownership of any Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository may not be transferred except: (i) to any successor Securities Depository; (ii) to any substitute Securities Depository appointed by the City; or (iii) to any person if the Bond is no longer to be held in book-entry only form. Upon the resignation of the Securities Depository, or upon a termination of the services of the Securities Depository by the City, the City may appoint a substitute Securities Depository. If (i) the Securities Depository resigns and the City does not appoint a substitute Securities Depository, or (ii) the City terminates the services of the Securities Packet Page 210 of 400 Depository, the Bonds no longer shall be held in book-entry only form and the registered ownership of each Bond may be transferred to any person as provided in this ordinance. Neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall have any obligation to participants of any Securities Depository or the persons for whom they act as nominees regarding accuracy of any records maintained by the Securities Depository or its participants. Neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be responsible for any notice that is permitted or required to be given to a Registered Owner except such notice as is required to be given by the Bond Registrar to the Securities Depository. Section 7. Form and Execution of Bonds. (a) Form of Bonds; Signatures and Seal. Each Bond shall be prepared in a form consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and State law. Each Bond shall be signed by the Mayor and the City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon. If any officer whose manual or facsimile signature appears on a Bond ceases to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bond bearing his or her manual or facsimile signature is authenticated by the Bond Registrar, or issued or delivered by the City, that Bond nevertheless may be authenticated, issued and delivered and, when authenticated, issued and delivered, shall be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds. Any Bond also may be signed on behalf of the City by any person who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds, although he or she did not hold the required office on its Issue Date. (b) Authentication. Only a Bond bearing a Certificate of Authentication in substantially the following form, manually signed by the Bond Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance: “Certificate Of Authentication. This Bond is one of the fully registered City of Edmonds, Washington, Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2015.” The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Bond so authenticated has been duly executed, authenticated and delivered and is entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. Section 8. Payment of Bonds. Principal of and interest on each Bond shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Principal of and interest on each Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository is payable in the manner set forth in the Letter of Representations. Interest on each Bond not registered in the name of the Securities Depository is payable by electronic transfer on the interest payment date, or by check or draft of the Bond Registrar mailed on the interest payment date to the Registered Owner at the address appearing on the Bond Register on the Record Date. However, the City is not required to make electronic transfers except pursuant to a request by a Registered Owner in writing received on or prior to the Record Date and at the sole expense of the Registered Owner. Principal of each Bond not registered in the name of the Securities Depository is payable upon presentation and surrender of the Bond by the Registered Owner to the Bond Registrar. The Bonds are not subject to acceleration under any circumstances. Packet Page 211 of 400 Section 9. Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of Bonds. (a) Optional Redemption. The Bonds shall be subject to redemption at the option of the City on terms acceptable to the Designated Representative, as set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract, consistent with the parameters set forth in Exhibit A. (b) Mandatory Redemption. Each Bond that is designated as a Term Bond in the Bond Purchase Contract, consistent with the parameters set forth in Exhibit A, and except for optional redemptions as set forth below, shall be called for redemption at a price equal to the stated principal amount to be redeemed, plus accrued interest, on the dates and in the amounts as set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract. If a Term Bond is redeemed under the optional redemption provisions, defeased or purchased by the City and surrendered for cancellation, the principal amount of the Term Bond so redeemed, defeased or purchased (irrespective of its actual redemption or purchase price) shall be credited against one or more scheduled mandatory redemption installments for that Term Bond. The City shall determine the manner in which the credit is to be allocated and shall notify the Bond Registrar in writing of its allocation prior to the earliest mandatory redemption date for that Term Bond for which notice of redemption has not already been given. (c) Selection of Bonds for Redemption; Partial Redemption. If fewer than all of the outstanding Bonds are to be redeemed at the option of the City, the City shall select the Series and maturities to be redeemed. If fewer than all of the outstanding Bonds of a maturity of a Series are to be redeemed, the Securities Depository shall select Bonds registered in the name of the Securities Depository to be redeemed in accordance with the Letter of Representations, and the Bond Registrar shall select all other Bonds to be redeemed randomly in such manner as the Bond Registrar shall determine. All or a portion of the principal amount of any Bond that is to be redeemed may be redeemed in any Authorized Denomination. If less than all of the outstanding principal amount of any Bond is redeemed, upon surrender of that Bond to the Bond Registrar, there shall be issued to the Registered Owner, without charge, a new Bond (or Bonds, at the option of the Registered Owner) of the same Series, maturity and interest rate in any Authorized Denomination in the aggregate principal amount to remain outstanding. (d) Notice of Redemption. Notice of redemption of each Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository shall be given in accordance with the Letter of Representations. Notice of redemption of each other Bond, unless waived by the Registered Owner, shall be given by the Bond Registrar not less than 20 nor more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the Registered Owner at the address appearing on the Bond Register on the Record Date. The requirements of the preceding sentence shall be satisfied when notice has been mailed as so provided, whether or not it is actually received by an Owner. In addition, the redemption notice shall be mailed or sent electronically within the same period to the MSRB (if required under the Undertaking), to each Rating Agency, and to such other persons and with such additional information as the Finance Director shall determine, but these additional mailings shall not be a condition precedent to the redemption of any Bond. (e) Rescission of Optional Redemption Notice. In the case of an optional redemption, the notice of redemption may state that the City retains the right to rescind the redemption notice and the redemption by giving a notice of rescission to the affected Registered Owners at any time prior to the scheduled optional redemption date. Any notice of optional redemption that is so Packet Page 212 of 400 rescinded shall be of no effect, and each Bond for which a notice of optional redemption has been rescinded shall remain outstanding. (e) Effect of Redemption. Interest on each Bond called for redemption shall cease to accrue on the date fixed for redemption, unless either the notice of optional redemption is rescinded as set forth above, or money sufficient to effect such redemption is not on deposit in the Bond Fund or in a trust account established to refund or defease the Bond. (f) Purchase of Bonds. The City reserves the right to purchase any or all of the Bonds offered to the City at any time at any price acceptable to the City plus accrued interest to the date of purchase. Section 10. Failure To Pay Bonds. If the principal of any Bond is not paid when the Bond is properly presented at its maturity date or date fixed for redemption, the City shall be obligated to pay, from the sources pledged herein, interest on that Bond at the same rate provided in the Bond from and after its maturity or date fixed for redemption until that Bond, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the Bond Fund, or in a trust account established to refund or defease the Bond, and the Bond has been called for payment by giving notice of that call to the Registered Owner. Section 11. Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds. The City may issue refunding bonds pursuant to State law or use money available from any other lawful source to carry out a refunding or defeasance plan, which may include (a) paying when due the principal of and interest on any or all of the Bonds (the “defeased Bonds”); (b) redeeming the defeased Bonds prior to their maturity; and (c) paying the costs of the refunding or defeasance. If the City sets aside in a special trust fund or escrow account irrevocably pledged to that redemption or defeasance (the “trust account”), money and/or Government Obligations maturing at a time or times and bearing interest in amounts sufficient to redeem, refund or defease the defeased Bonds in accordance with their terms, then all right and interest of the Owners of the defeased Bonds in the covenants of this ordinance and in the funds and accounts obligated to the payment of the defeased Bonds shall cease and become void. Thereafter, the Owners of defeased Bonds shall have the right to receive payment of the principal of and interest on the defeased Bonds solely from the trust account and the defeased Bonds shall be deemed no longer outstanding. In that event, the City may apply money remaining in any fund or account (other than the trust account) established for the payment or redemption of the defeased Bonds to any lawful purpose, subject only to the rights of the Owners of any other Parity Bonds then outstanding. Unless otherwise specified by the City in a refunding or defeasance plan, notice of refunding or defeasance shall be given, and selection of Bonds for inclusion in a refunding or defeasance shall be conducted, in the manner prescribed in this ordinance for the redemption of Bonds. Section 12. Security for the Bonds; Bond Fund. (a) Pledge of Net Revenues. The Net Revenue and ULID Assessments are pledged irrevocably to the payment of the amounts required to be paid into the Bond Fund for the payment of the Bonds and all Future Parity Bonds. This pledge shall constitute a lien and charge upon the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments prior and superior to any other charges whatsoever. Packet Page 213 of 400 (b) Bond Fund; Deposits to Bond Fund. The Bond Fund has been established within the Water and Sewer Utility Fund as a special fund of the City and divided into two accounts: the Principal and Interest Account, and the Reserve Account. So long as any of the Parity Bonds are outstanding, the City obligates and binds itself to set aside and pay into the Bond Fund all ULID Assessments and, out of the Net Revenue, certain fixed amounts, without regard to any fixed proportion, namely: (1) Into the Principal and Interest Account, before each interest payment date of the Parity Bonds, an amount that will be sufficient, together with other money on deposit therein, to pay the interest on the Parity Bonds on the next succeeding interest payment date; and (2) Into the Principal and Interest Account, before each principal payment date of the Parity Bonds (including any mandatory redemption date), an amount that will be sufficient, together with other money on deposit therein, to pay the principal of the Parity Bonds on the next succeeding Principal Payment Date, including mandatory redemption amounts due on that date with respect to any Term Bonds; and (3) Into the Reserve Account, an amount sufficient that the amount on deposit in the Reserve Account satisfies the Reserve Requirement for the Parity Bonds in the time and manner required by this ordinance. When the total amount on deposit in the Bond Fund equals the total outstanding amount of principal and interest for all Parity Bonds to the last maturity thereof, no further payment need be made into the Bond Fund. The Finance Director may create sinking fund accounts or other accounts in the Bond Fund for the payment or securing the payment of Parity Bonds as long as the maintenance of such accounts does not conflict with the rights of the owners of Parity Bonds. (c) The Reserve Account; Reserve Requirement. The City covenants and agrees that it will at all times maintain in the Reserve Account an amount (including the value of all Reserve Securities deposited therein) equal to the Reserve Requirement, except for withdrawals as authorized in this subsection, until there is a sufficient amount in the Principal and Interest Account and Reserve Account to pay the principal of and interest on all outstanding Parity Bonds, at which time the money in the Reserve Account may be used to pay any such principal and interest so long as the money remaining on deposit in the Reserve Account is not less than the Reserve Requirement calculated based on the remaining outstanding Parity Bonds. The Reserve Requirement shall be deemed satisfied by any combination of Parity Bond proceeds, Reserve Securities or other legally available money equal to the Reserve Requirement, or by the deposit of available funds of the City in approximately equal annual installments so that the Reserve Requirement is funded no later than three years after the issuance of any Future Parity Bonds. If there is a deficiency in the Principal and Interest Account in the Bond Fund to make the next upcoming payment of either principal or interest, that deficiency shall be made up from the Reserve Account by the withdrawal of amounts necessary for that purpose. Any deficiency created in the Reserve Account by reason of any such withdrawal shall then be made up from the next available payments of Net Revenue and ULID Assessments after making necessary provision for the required payments into the Principal and Interest Account. Packet Page 214 of 400 (d) Investment of Money Deposited in Bond Fund. All money in the Bond Fund may be kept in cash; deposited with an institution (as permitted by law) in an amount in each institution not greater than the amount insured by any department or agency of the United States Government; or invested in Permitted Investments or other legal investments permitted to the City maturing not later than the date when needed (for investments in the Principal and Interest Account) or the last maturity of any outstanding Parity Bonds (for investments in the Reserve Account). Income from investments in the Principal and Interest Account shall be deposited in that account. Income from investments in the Reserve Account shall be deposited in that account until the amount therein is equal to the Reserve Requirement, and thereafter shall be deposited in the Principal and Interest Account or used for other Water and Sewer Utility purposes. (e) Action to Compel Payments. If the City fails to set aside and pay into the Bond Fund the amounts set forth above, the owner of any of the outstanding Parity Bonds may bring action against the City and compel the setting aside and payment. Section 13. Deposit of Bond Proceeds. On the Issue Date, proceeds of the Bonds in an amount sufficient to satisfy the Reserve Requirement shall be deposited into the Reserve Account. The remaining proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited in the Construction Fund and be used to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the Bonds and the costs of carrying out the Plan of Additions. Until needed to pay such costs, the City may invest those proceeds temporarily in any legal investment, and the investment earnings shall be retained in the Construction Fund and used for the purposes of that fund, except that earnings subject to a federal tax or rebate requirement (if applicable) may be withdrawn from the Construction Fund and used for those tax or rebate purposes. Section 14. Flow of Funds. So long as any Parity Bonds are outstanding, the City covenants that all ULID Assessments (if any) shall be paid into the Bond Fund, and the Gross Revenue shall be deposited into the Water and Sewer Utility Fund (or the respective System funds therein) to be used for the following purposes only in the following order of priority: (1) To pay Operating and Maintenance Expenses. (2) To make when due the required payments into the Principal and Interest Account in respect of interest on the Parity Bonds. (3) To make when due the required payments into the Principal and Interest Account in respect of principal of (and premium on, if any) the Parity Bonds, whether at maturity or pursuant to redemption prior to maturity. (4) To make when due all payments required to be made into the Reserve Account. (5) To make when due all payments required to be made under any reimbursement agreement with a Bond Insurer in any priority not inconsistent with this ordinance, which the City may hereafter establish by ordinance. (6) To make when due the required payments to be made into any revenue bond, note warrant or other revenue obligation redemption fund, debt service account or reserve account created to pay and secure the payment of any revenue obligations of the Water and Sewer Utility having a charge upon the Net Revenue junior and inferior to the charge thereon for the payment of the Parity Bonds. Packet Page 215 of 400 (7) Without priority, to retire by redemption or to purchase in the open market any outstanding Parity Bonds or junior lien obligations, to make necessary betterments and replacements of or repairs, additions or extensions to the Water and Sewer Utility, to make deposits into the Rate Stabilization Account, or for any other lawful purpose. Section 15. Additional Covenants. So long as any Parity Bonds are outstanding, the City covenants and agrees with the owner of each Bond at any time outstanding as follows: (a) Maintenance and Operation. The City will at all times maintain, preserve and keep the properties of the Water and Sewer Utility in good repair, working order and condition, will make all necessary and proper additions, betterments, renewals and repairs thereto, and improvements, replacements and extensions thereof, and will at all times operate or cause to be operated the properties of the Water and Sewer Utility and the business in connection therewith in an efficient manner and at a reasonable cost. (b) Establishment and Collection of Rates and Charges. The City will establish, maintain and collect rates and charges for all services and facilities provided by the Water and Sewer Utility which will be fair and nondiscriminatory. The City will adjust those rates and charges from time to time so that: (i) the Gross Revenue will at all times be sufficient to (A) pay all Maintenance and Operation Expenses on a current basis, (B) pay when due all amounts that the City is obligated to pay into the Bond Fund and the accounts therein, (C) pay all taxes (or payments in lieu thereof), assessments or other governmental charges lawfully imposed on the Water and Sewer Utility and any and all other amounts which the City may now or hereafter become obligated to pay from the Gross Revenue by law or contract; and (ii) the Adjusted Net Revenue in each fiscal year will be at least equal to the Coverage Requirement. (c) Sale or Disposition of Utility Property. The City will not sell, lease, mortgage or in any manner encumber or dispose of all the property of the Water and Sewer Utility unless provision is made for payment into the Bond Fund of a sum sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on all Parity Bonds then outstanding. Further, the City will not sell, lease, mortgage, or in any manner encumber or dispose of (each, a “disposition”) any part of the property of the Water and Sewer Utility that is used, useful and material to the operation thereof (the “affected portion”) unless provision is made for replacement thereof or for payment into the Bond Fund of an amount which shall bear the same ratio to the amount of Parity Bonds then outstanding (less the amount of cash and investments in the Bond Fund and the accounts therein) as (i) the Net Revenue from affected portion of the Water and Sewer Utility for the twelve months preceding such disposition bears to (ii) the Net Revenue from the entire Water and Sewer Utility for the same period. Any money paid into the Bond Fund as a result of such a disposition shall be used to retire that proportion of then-outstanding Parity Bonds at the earliest possible date. (d) Books and Records. The City will maintain complete books and records relating to the operation of the Water and Sewer Utility and its financial affairs, and will cause such books and records to be audited annually, and cause to be prepared an annual financial and operating statement, which shall be provided to any owner of Parity Bonds upon request. (e) No Free Service. Except to aid the poor or infirm, to provide for resource conservation or to provide for the proper handling of hazardous materials, the City will not furnish or supply or permit the furnishing or supplying of any service or facility in connection Packet Page 216 of 400 with the operation of the Water and Sewer Utility free of charge to any person, firm or corporation, public or private, other than the City. (f) Collection of Delinquent Accounts. On at least an annual basis, the City will determine all accounts that are delinquent and will take all necessary action to enforce payment of such accounts against those property owners whose accounts are delinquent. (g) Insurance. The City will at all times carry fire and such other forms of insurance on such of the buildings, equipment, facilities and properties of the Water and Sewer Utility as are ordinarily carried on such buildings, equipment, facilities, and properties by utilities engaged in the operation of similar utility systems to the full insurable value thereof, and also will carry adequate public liability insurance at all times. The City may self insure or participate in a joint intergovernmental insurance pool or similar plan, and the cost of that insurance or self insurance shall be considered a part of Operating and Maintenance Expenses. (h) ULID Assessments. The City will promptly collect all ULID Assessments and deposit such collections into the Bond Fund to pay or secure the principal of and interest on any Parity Bonds without those ULID Assessments being particularly allocated to any particular series of Parity Bonds. Section 16. Rate Stabilization Account. The Rate Stabilization Account has been previously established within the Water and Sewer Utility Fund. Deposits and withdrawals shall be made in accordance with this section at any time up to and including the date 90 days after the end of the fiscal year for which the deposit or withdrawal will be included as Adjusted Net Revenue for that fiscal year, as follows: (a) Deposits to the Rate Stabilization Account. The City may at any time, as determined by the Finance Director and as consistent with the covenants contained in this ordinance, deposit into the Rate Stabilization Account amounts of Gross Revenue and any other money received by the Water and Sewer Utility and available to be used therefor, excluding principal proceeds of Parity Bonds or other borrowing. However, no deposit of Gross Revenue may be made into the Rate Stabilization Account to the extent that such deposit would prevent the City from meeting the Coverage Requirement in the relevant fiscal year. (b) Withdrawals from the Rate Stabilization Account. The City may withdraw money from the Rate Stabilization Account at any time upon authorization of the City Council (which may be by motion, resolution or ordinance) for inclusion in the Adjusted Net Revenue for any fiscal year of the Water and Sewer Utility, except that the total amount withdrawn from the Rate Stabilization Account in any fiscal year may not exceed the Annual Debt Service in that year. Earnings from investments in the Rate Stabilization Account shall be deposited in that account and shall not be included as Adjusted Net Revenue unless and until withdrawn from that account. Section 17. Separate Utility Systems. The City may create, acquire, construct, finance, own and operate one or more additional systems for water supply, sewer service, water, sewage or stormwater transmission, treatment or other commodity or utility service. The revenue of that Separate Utility System, and any utility local improvement district assessments payable solely with respect to improvements to a Separate Utility System, shall not be included in the Gross Revenue and may be pledged to the payment of revenue obligations issued to purchase, construct, condemn or otherwise acquire or expand the Separate Utility System. Neither the Gross Revenue nor the Net Revenue may be pledged to the payment of any obligations of a Packet Page 217 of 400 Separate Utility System except that the Net Revenue may be pledged on a basis subordinate to the lien of the Parity Bonds. Section 18. Sale and Delivery of the Bonds; Parity Certificate. (a) Manner of Sale of Bonds; Delivery of Bonds. The Designated Representative is authorized to sell each Series of the Bonds by negotiated sale or private placement or by competitive sale in accordance with a notice of sale consistent with this ordinance, based on the assessment of the Designated Representative of market conditions, in consultation with appropriate City officials and staff, Bond Counsel, the Financial Advisor and other advisors. In determining the method of sale of a Series of the Bonds and accepting the Final Terms, the Designated Representative shall take into account those factors that, in the judgment of the Designated Representative, may be expected to result in the lowest true interest cost to the City. (b) Procedure for Negotiated Sale or Private Placement. If the Designated Representative determines that a Series of the Bonds is to be sold by negotiated sale or private placement, the Designated Representative shall select one or more Purchasers with which to negotiate such sale. The Bond Purchase Contract for each Series of the Bonds shall set forth the Final Terms. The Designated Representative is authorized to execute the Bond Purchase Contract on behalf of the City, so long as the terms provided therein are consistent with the terms of this ordinance. (c) Procedure for Competitive Sale. If the Designated Representative determines that a Series of the Bonds is to be sold by competitive sale, the Designated Representative shall cause the preparation of an official notice of bond sale setting forth parameters for the Final Terms and any other bid parameters that the Designated Representative deems appropriate consistent with this ordinance. Bids for the purchase of each Series of the Bonds shall be received at such time or place and by such means as the Designated Representative directs. On the date and time established for the receipt of bids, the Designated Representative (or the designee of the Designated Representative) shall open bids and shall cause the bids to be mathematically verified. The Designated Representative is authorized to award, on behalf of the City, the winning bid and accept the winning bidder’s offer to purchase that Series of the Bonds, with such adjustments to the aggregate principal amount and principal amount per maturity as the Designated Representative deems appropriate, consistent with the terms of this ordinance and such award shall constitute the Bond Purchase Contract. The Designated Representative may reject any or all bids submitted and may waive any formality or irregularity in any bid or in the bidding process if the Designated Representative deems it to be in the City's best interest to do so. If all bids are rejected, that Series of the Bonds may be sold pursuant to negotiated sale or in any manner provided by law as the Designated Representative determines is in the best interest of the City, within the parameters set forth in this ordinance. (d) Parity Certificate. At the time of issuance of the Bonds, the Designated Representative shall cause to be executed and have on file a certificate of coverage as required for the issuance of Future Parity Bonds under Section 20 of the 2011 Bond Ordinance and Section 19 of the 2013 Bond Ordinance. (e) Preparation, Execution and Delivery of the Bonds. The Bonds will be prepared at City expense and will be delivered to the Purchaser in accordance with the Bond Purchase Contract, together with the approving legal opinion of Bond Counsel regarding the Bonds. Packet Page 218 of 400 Section 19. Parity Conditions. The City reserves the right to issue Future Parity Bonds which will constitute a charge and lien upon the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments on a parity with the Bonds and the Outstanding Parity Bonds if the Parity Conditions are met and complied with at the time of the issuance of those Future Parity Bonds. Nothing contained in the Parity Conditions shall prevent the City from issuing revenue obligations having a lien on the Net Revenue that is junior to the lien thereon that secures the Parity Bonds, or from pledging to pay into a bond redemption fund or account for such junior lien obligations assessments (including interest and penalties thereon) in any utility local improvement district that are levied to pay part or all of the cost of improvements being constructed out of the proceeds of the sale of such junior lien obligations. Neither shall anything contained in this ordinance prevent the City from issuing revenue obligations to refund maturing Parity Bonds for the payment of which money is not otherwise available. Section 20. Tax Matters. (a) Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Tax-Exempt Bonds. The City covenants that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Tax-Exempt Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Bonds issued as Tax-Exempt Bonds (or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Tax-Exempt Bonds) that will cause interest on the Tax-Exempt Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City also covenants that it will, to the extent the arbitrage rebate requirements of Section 148 of the Code are applicable to the Tax-Exempt Bonds, take all actions necessary to comply (or to be treated as having complied) with those requirements in connection with the Tax-Exempt Bonds. (b) Post-Issuance Compliance. The Finance Director is authorized and directed to review and update the City’s written procedures to facilitate compliance by the City with the covenants in this ordinance and the applicable requirements of the Code that must be satisfied after the Issue Date to prevent interest on the Tax-Exempt Bonds from being included in gross income for federal tax purposes. (c) Designation of Bonds as “Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations.” A Series of the Tax-Exempt Bonds may be designated as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, if the following conditions are met: (1) the Series of Tax-Exempt Bonds does not constitute “private activity bonds” within the meaning of Section 141 of the Code; (2) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds and other obligations not required to be included in such calculation) that the City and any entity subordinate to the City (including any entity that the City controls, that derives its authority to issue tax-exempt obligations from the City, or that issues tax-exempt obligations on behalf of the City) will issue during the calendar year in which the Tax-Exempt Bonds are issued will not exceed $10,000,000; and (3) the amount of tax-exempt obligations, including the Series of Tax-Exempt Bonds, designated by the City as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code during the calendar year in which the Series of Tax-Exempt Bonds are issued does not exceed $10,000,000. Packet Page 219 of 400 Section 21. Official Statement; Continuing Disclosure. (a) Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final. The Designated Representative shall review and, if acceptable to him or her, approve the preliminary Official Statement prepared in connection with each sale of a Series of the Bonds to the public or through a Purchaser as a placement agent. For the sole purpose of the Purchaser’s compliance with paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c2-12, if applicable, the Designated Representative is authorized to deem that preliminary Official Statement final as of its date, except for the omission of information permitted to be omitted by Rule 15c2-12. The City approves the distribution to potential purchasers of the Bonds of a preliminary Official Statement that has been approved by the Designated Representative and been deemed final, if applicable, in accordance with this subsection. (b) Approval of Final Official Statement. The City approves the preparation of a final Official Statement for each Series of the Bonds to be sold to the public in the form of the preliminary Official Statement that has been approved and deemed final in accordance with subsection (a), with such modifications and amendments as the Designated Representative deems necessary or desirable, and further authorizes the Designated Representative to execute and deliver such final Official Statement to the Purchaser if required under Rules 15c2-12. The City authorizes and approves the distribution by the Purchaser of that final Official Statement so executed and delivered to purchasers and potential purchasers of a Series of the Bonds. (c) Undertaking to Provide Continuing Disclosure. If necessary to meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12, as applicable to the Purchaser acting as a participating underwriter for a Series of the Bonds, the Designated Representative is authorized to execute a written undertaking to provide continuing disclosure for the benefit of holders of a Series of the Bonds in substantially the form attached as Exhibit D. Section 22. Amendatory Ordinances. (a) This ordinance shall not be modified or amended in any respect subsequent to the initial issuance of the Bonds, except as provided in and in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section. (b) The City, from time to time, and at any time, without the consent of or notice to the Owners of the Bonds, may pass amendatory ordinances as follows: (1) To cure any formal defect, omission, inconsistency or ambiguity in this ordinance in a manner not adverse to the owner of any Parity Bonds; (2) To impose upon the Bond Registrar (with its consent) for the benefit of the registered owners of the Parity Bonds any additional rights, remedies, powers, authority, security, liabilities or duties which may lawfully be granted, conferred or imposed and which are not contrary to or inconsistent with this ordinance as theretofore in effect; (3) To add to the covenants and agreements of, and limitations and restrictions upon, the City in this ordinance, other covenants, agreements, limitations and restrictions to be observed by the City which are not contrary or inconsistent with this ordinance as theretofore in effect; Packet Page 220 of 400 (4) To confirm, as further assurance, any pledge under, and the subjection to any claim, lien or pledge created or to be created by this ordinance of any other money, securities or funds; (5) To authorize different denominations of the Bonds and to make correlative amendments and modifications to this ordinance regarding exchangeability of Bonds of different authorized denominations, redemptions of portions of Bonds of particular authorized denominations and similar amendments and modifications of a technical nature; (6) To modify, alter, amend or supplement this ordinance in any other respect which is not materially adverse to the registered owners of the Parity Bonds and which does not involve a change described in subsection (c) of this section; and (7) Because of change in federal law or rulings, to maintain the exclusion from gross income of the interest on the Bonds from federal income taxation. (c) Except for any amendatory ordinance passed into pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, subject to the terms and provisions contained in this subsection (c) and not otherwise: (1) Registered owners of not less than 50% in aggregate principal amount of the Parity Bonds then outstanding shall have the right from time to time to consent to the passage of any amendatory ordinance deemed necessary or desirable by the City for the purpose of modifying, altering, amending, supplementing or rescinding, in any particular, any of the terms or provisions contained in this ordinance. However, consent by the registered owners of all the Bonds then outstanding is required for any amendatory ordinance authorizing: (i) a change in the times, amounts or currency of payment of the principal of or interest on any outstanding Bond, or a reduction in the principal amount of redemption price of any outstanding Bond or a change in the redemption price of any outstanding Bond or a change in the method of determining the rate of interest thereon; (ii) a preference of priority of any Bond or Bonds or any other bond or bonds; or (iii) a reduction in the aggregate principal amount of Bonds. (2) Any amendatory ordinance passed for any of the purposes of this subsection (c), shall not become effective except in accordance with this subsection (c)(2). Upon passage of any such amendatory ordinance, the City shall cause notice of the proposed ordinance to be given by first class United States mail to all registered owners of the then outstanding Parity Bonds and to the Rating Agency. Such notice shall briefly describe the proposed ordinance and shall state that a copy is available from the Finance Director for inspection. The amendatory ordinance shall become effective in substantially the form described in the notice only if within two years after mailing of such notice, the City has received (i) the required consents, in writing, of the registered owners of the Parity Bonds (or of the Bonds, as applicable) and (ii) an opinion of Bond Counsel stating that such amendatory ordinance is permitted by this ordinance; that upon the effective date thereof, it will be valid and binding upon the City in accordance with its terms; and its passage will not adversely affect the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of interest on the Bonds. Packet Page 221 of 400 (3) If registered owners of not less than the percentage of Parity Bonds (or Bonds, as applicable) required by this subsection (c) have consented, no owner of the Parity Bonds shall have any right to object to the passage of the ordinance (or to any of the terms and provisions contained therein or the operation thereof), or in any manner to question the propriety of the passage thereof, or to enjoin or restrain the City from passing, or from taking any action pursuant to, the same. (d) Upon the effective date of any amendatory ordinance passed pursuant to the provisions of this Section 22, this ordinance shall be amended in accordance therewith, and the respective rights, duties and obligations under this ordinance of the City, the Bond Registrar and all Registered Owners of Bonds then outstanding, shall thereafter be determined, exercised and enforced under this ordinance subject in all respects to such amendments. Section 23. General Authorization and Ratification. The Designated Representative and other appropriate officers of the City are severally authorized to take such actions and to execute such documents as in their judgment may be necessary or desirable to carry out the transactions contemplated in connection with this ordinance, and to do everything necessary for the prompt delivery of each Series of the Bonds to the Purchaser and for the proper application, use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds. All actions taken prior to the effective date of this ordinance in furtherance of the purposes described in this ordinance and not inconsistent with the terms of this ordinance are ratified and confirmed in all respects. Section 24. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. If a court of competent jurisdiction, all appeals having been exhausted or all appeal periods having run, finds any provision of this ordinance to be invalid or unenforceable as to any person or circumstance, such offending provision shall, if feasible, be deemed to be modified to be within the limits of enforceability or validity. However, if the offending provision cannot be so modified, it shall be null and void with respect to the particular person or circumstance, and all other provisions of this ordinance in all other respects, and the offending provision with respect to all other persons and all other circumstances, shall remain valid and enforceable. Packet Page 222 of 400 Section 25. Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and five days following its publication as required by law and is not subject to referendum. PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Edmonds, Washington, at an open public meeting thereof, this 5th day of May, 2015. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Bond Counsel Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Packet Page 223 of 400 DESCRIPTION OF THE BONDS (i) Principal Amount. The Bonds may be issued in one or more Series and shall not exceed the aggregate principal amount of $20,000,000, and may be issued as either taxable or tax-exempt obligations. (ii) Date or Dates. Each Bond shall be dated the Issue Date, which date may not be later than one year after the effective date of this ordinance. (iii) Denominations, Name, etc. The Bonds shall be issued in Authorized Denominations and shall be numbered separately in the manner and shall bear any name and additional designation as deemed necessary or appropriate by the Designated Representative. (iv) Interest Rate(s). Each Bond shall bear interest at a fixed rate per annum (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) from the Issue Date or from the most recent date for which interest has been paid or duly provided for, whichever is later. One or more rates of interest may be fixed for the Bonds. No rate of interest for any Bond may exceed 5.50%, and the true interest cost to the City for each Series of the Bonds may not exceed 5.50%. (v) Payment Dates. Interest shall be payable semiannually on dates acceptable to the Designated Representative, commencing no later than one year following the Issue Date. Principal payments shall commence on a date acceptable to the Designated Representative and shall be payable at maturity or in mandatory redemption installments on dates acceptable to the Designated Representative. (vi) Final Maturity. Each Series of the Bonds shall mature no later than December 1, 2040. (vii) Redemption Rights. The Designated Representative may approve in the Bond Purchase Contract provisions for the optional and mandatory redemption of Bonds, subject to the following: (1) Optional Redemption. Any Bond may be designated as being (A) subject to redemption at the option of the City prior to its maturity date on the dates and at the prices set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract; or (B) not subject to redemption prior to its maturity date. If a Bond is subject to optional redemption prior to its maturity, it must be subject to such redemption on one or more dates occurring not more than 10½ years after the Issue Date. Packet Page 224 of 400 (2) Mandatory Redemption. Any Bond may be designated as a Term Bond, subject to mandatory redemption prior to its maturity on the dates and in the amounts set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract. (viii) Price. The purchase price for each Series of the Bonds may not be less than 97% or more than 130% of the stated principal amount of that Series. (ix) Other Terms & Conditions. The Designated Representative may determine whether it is in the City’s best interest to provide for bond insurance or other credit enhancement; and may accept such additional terms, conditions and covenants as he or she may determine are in the best in interests of the City, consistent with this ordinance. Packet Page 225 of 400 PARITY CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF FUTURE PARITY BONDS The City may issue Future Parity Bonds on a parity with the Bonds if and only if the following conditions are met and complied with at the time of issuance of those proposed Future Parity Bonds: (a) At the time of issuance of such Future Parity Bonds, there may not be any deficiency in the Principal and Interest Account or the Reserve Account of the Bond Fund. (b) The Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance must require that all ULID Assessments levied in connection with those Future Parity Bonds will be paid directly into the Bond Fund. (c) The Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance shall provide for the payment of the principal thereof and interest thereon out of the Bond Fund. (d) The Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance must provide for the deposit into the Reserve Account of amounts necessary to comply with the Reserve Requirement and Section 12 of this ordinance. (e) At the time of the issuance of such Future Parity Bonds, the City shall have on file, either: (1) A certificate from an Independent Utility Consultant showing that, in his or her professional opinion, the annual Net Revenue available for debt service on the Parity Bonds then outstanding and the Future Parity Bonds proposed to be issued shall, for each year, be at least equal to the Coverage Requirement. In making such certification, the Net Revenue for any 12 consecutive calendar months out of the immediately preceding 24 consecutive months shall be used, and the following adjustments may be made to the historical net operating revenue: (i) Any rate change that has taken place or been approved, may be reflected; (ii) Revenue may be added from customers actually added to the Water and Sewer Utility subsequent to the 12-month base period; (iii) Revenue may be added from customers to be served by the improvements being constructed out of the proceeds of the Future Parity Bonds to be issued; and (iv) A full year’s revenue may be included from any customer being served, but who has not been receiving service for the full period of operation used as a basis for the certificate; and (v) Actual or reasonably anticipated changes to the Operating and Maintenance Expenses subsequent to such 12-month period shall be added or deducted, as is applicable. (2) A certificate of the Finance Director showing that, in his or her professional opinion, the annual Net Revenue available for debt service on the Parity Bonds then outstanding and the Future Parity Bonds proposed to be issued shall, for each year, be at least equal to the Coverage Requirement. In making such certification, the Finance Director shall assume that (A) the proposed Future Parity Bonds will remain outstanding to their scheduled maturities, and (B) any Parity Bonds to be Packet Page 226 of 400 refunded by those Future Parity Bonds are not outstanding. The Finance Director shall not make any of the adjustments referred to above. However, if the Future Parity Bonds are being issued for the sole purpose of refunding then-outstanding Parity Bonds (including paying costs of issuance and providing for the Reserve Requirement), no coverage certification is required if, as result of the issuance of those Future Parity Bonds, (a) the Annual Debt Service on the Future Parity Bonds to be issued is not increased by more than $5,000 over the Annual Debt Service for that year of the bonds being refunded, and (b) the various annual maturities of the refunding Future Parity Bonds will not extend more than one year longer than the Parity Bonds being refunded. Furthermore, no certificate shall be required in connection with the issuance of Future Parity Bonds if the amount of such bonds proposed to be issued does not exceed the ULID Assessments levied in support of such Future Parity Bond issue by more than $5,000 plus any amount of the proceeds of such Future Parity Bonds deposited in the Reserve Account as capitalized reserve. Packet Page 227 of 400 DESCRIPTION OF PLAN OF ADDITIONS Water System Plan of Additions: The planned additions and betterments to the water utility consist of those set forth in the City’s Water Capital Improvement Program, as it may be amended from time to time by the City Council (the “Water CIP”). A summary of the improvements expected to be financed, in whole or in part, with proceeds of the Bonds is as follows: • Recoating and related improvements to the Five Corners Reservoirs • Pressure relief improvements needed to protect the water system from potentially high pressure that could occur during certain events • Replacement of several pressure-reducing valve stations and improvements to other stations to ensure long-term operation and reliability • Water main replacement projects for repair and replacement of water mains and related appurtenances due to age and undesirable pipe material and a need to improve flows • Any other capital project described in the then-current Water CIP, as determined by the Finance Director Sewer System Plan of Additions: The planned additions and betterments to the sewer utility consist of those set forth in the City’s Sewer Capital Improvement Program, as it may be amended from time to time by the City Council (the “Sewer CIP”). A summary of the improvements expected to be financed, in whole or in part, with proceeds of the Bonds is as follows: • Sewer main replacement project for repair and replacement of sewer pipe sections and related appurtenances needed due to age and undesirable pipe material and a need to improve flows • Rehabilitation of existing pipe with “cured in place pipe”(CIPP) to address pipe integrity problems in the sewer pipe system • Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study • Lift Station #1 Metering and Flow Study Packet Page 228 of 400 • A share of the costs of certain improvements at the Wastewater Treatment Plant: o Control system upgrades o Facility repair and improvements o Clarifier #3 Repair o Outfall study o Phase 4 Energy Work Air compressor/aeration blower/diffuser replacement o Phase 5 Energy Work Solids processing equipment replacement o Phase 6 Energy Work UV and flow shearing improvement • Any other capital project described in the then-current Sewer CIP, as determined by the Finance Director Stormwater System Plan of Additions: The planned additions and betterments to the stormwater management utility consist of those set forth in the City’s Stormwater Capital Improvement Program, as it may be amended from time to time (the “Stormwater CIP”). A summary of the improvements expected to be financed, in whole or in part, with proceeds of the Bonds is as follows: • Edmonds Marsh Restoration/Willow Creek Daylighting • Dayton Street & State Route 104 drainage improvement pump station • Drainage improvements for: o Lake Ballinger Associated Projects o 105th/106th Ave SW o Dayton Street between 3rd and 9th Avenues o 88th Avenue W & 194th Street SW o Additional City-wide drainage improvements • Perrinville Creek high flow management • Rehabilitation of Northstream pipe under Puget Drive and pipe abandonment • Storm system video assessment • Stormwater Fund contribution to transportation projects for drainage infrastructure • Any other capital project described in the then-current Stormwater CIP, as determined by the Finance Director Packet Page 229 of 400 Form of UNDERTAKING TO PROVIDE CONTINUING DISCLOSURE City of Edmonds, Washington Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2015 The City of Edmonds, Washington (the “City”) makes the following written Undertaking for the benefit of the holders of the above-referenced bonds (the “Bonds”), for the sole purpose of assisting the Purchaser in meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12, as applicable to a participating underwriter for the Bonds. Capitalized terms used but not defined below shall have the meanings given in Ordinance No. _____ of the City. (a) Undertaking to Provide Annual Financial Information and Notice of Listed Events. The City undertakes to provide or cause to be provided, either directly or through a designated agent, to the MSRB, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, accompanied by identifying information as prescribed by the MSRB: (i) Annual financial information and operating data of the type included in the final official statement for the Bonds and described in subsection (b) of this section (“annual financial information”); (ii) Timely notice (not in excess of 10 business days after the occurrence of the event) of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds: (1) principal and interest payment delinquencies; (2) non- payment related defaults, if material; (3) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (4) unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (5) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (6) adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notice of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701 – TEB) or other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the Bonds, or other material events affecting the tax status of the Bonds; (7) modifications to rights of holders of the Bonds, if material; (8) bond calls (other than scheduled mandatory redemptions of Term Bonds), if material, and tender offers; (9) defeasances; (10) release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds, if material; (11) rating changes; (12) bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the City, as such “Bankruptcy Events” are defined in Rule 15c2-12; (13) the consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving the City or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the City other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material; and (14) appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee, if material. (iii) Timely notice of a failure by the City to provide required annual financial information on or before the date specified in paragraph (b). Packet Page 230 of 400 (b) Type of Annual Financial Information Undertaken to be Provided. The annual financial information that the City undertakes to provide in paragraph (a): (i) Shall consist of (1) annual financial statements prepared (except as noted in the financial statements) in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applicable to State local governmental units such as the City, as such principles may be changed from time to time, which statements shall not be audited, except, however, that if and when audited financial statements are otherwise prepared and available to the City they will be provided; (2) [references to the specific sections of the Official Statement to be inserted upon publication of the Official Statement]; (ii) Shall be provided not later than the last day of the ninth month after the end of each fiscal year of the City (currently, a fiscal year ending December 31), as such fiscal year may be changed as required or permitted by State law, commencing with the City’s fiscal year ending December 31, 20__; and (iii) May be provided in a single or multiple documents, and may be incorporated by specific reference to documents available to the public on the Internet website of the MSRB or filed with the SEC. (c) Amendment of Undertaking. This Undertaking is subject to amendment after the primary offering of the Bonds without the consent of any holder of any Bond, or of any broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, participating underwriter, rating agency or the MSRB, under the circumstances and in the manner permitted by Rule 15c2-12. The City will give notice to the MSRB of the substance (or provide a copy) of any amendment to the Undertaking and a brief statement of the reasons for the amendment. If the amendment changes the type of annual financial information to be provided, the annual financial information containing the amended financial information will include a narrative explanation of the effect of that change on the type of information to be provided. (d) Beneficiaries. This Undertaking shall inure to the benefit of the City and the holder of each Bond, and shall not inure to the benefit of or create any rights in any other person. (e) Termination of Undertaking. The City’s obligations under this Undertaking shall terminate upon the legal defeasance of all of the Bonds. In addition, the City’s obligations under this Undertaking shall terminate if those provisions of Rule 15c2-12 which require the City to comply with this Undertaking become legally inapplicable in respect of the Bonds for any reason, as confirmed by an opinion of Bond Counsel delivered to the City, and the City provides timely notice of such termination to the MSRB. (f) Remedy for Failure to Comply with Undertaking. As soon as practicable after the City learns of any failure to comply with the Undertaking, the City will proceed with due diligence to cause such noncompliance to be corrected. No failure by the City or other obligated person to comply with the Undertaking shall constitute a default in respect of the Bonds. The sole remedy of any holder of a Bond shall be to take action to compel the City or other obligated person to comply with this Undertaking, including seeking an order of specific performance from an appropriate court. Packet Page 231 of 400 (g) Designation of Official Responsible to Administer Undertaking. The Finance Director of the City or his or her designee is authorized to take such further actions as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to carry out this Undertaking in accordance with Rule 15c2- 12, including, without limitation, the following actions: (i) Preparing and filing the annual financial information undertaken to be provided; (ii) Determining whether any event specified in subsection (a) has occurred, assessing its materiality, where necessary, with respect to the Bonds, and preparing and disseminating any required notice of its occurrence; (iii) Determining whether any person other than the City is an “obligated person” within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 with respect to the Bonds, and obtaining from such person an undertaking to provide any annual financial information and notice of listed events for that person in accordance with Rule 15c2-12; (iv) Selecting, engaging and compensating designated agents and consultants, including but not limited to financial advisors and legal counsel, to assist and advise the City in carrying out the Undertaking; and (v) Effecting any necessary amendment of the Undertaking. Packet Page 232 of 400 CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Edmonds, Washington (the “City”), hereby certify as follows: 1. The attached copy of Ordinance No. _____ (the “Ordinance”) is a full, true and correct copy of an ordinance duly passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held at the regular meeting place thereof on May 5, 2015, as that ordinance appears on the minute book of the City; 2. The Ordinance will be in full force and effect five days after publication in the City’s official newspaper, which publication date is expected to be ________, 2015; and 3. A quorum of the members of the City Council was present throughout the meeting and a majority of its members voted in the proper manner for the passage of the Ordinance. Dated May 5, 2015. CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON _____________________________________ City Clerk Packet Page 233 of 400    AM-7619     5.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Type: Information  Information Subject Title Proclamation declaring May "Puget Sound Starts Here Month". Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative The Puget Sound Starts Here (PSSH) campaign seeks to increase awareness of the magnitude of Puget Sound’s pollution problem, and to motivate residents to adopt new behaviors that will decrease the amount of pollution entering the Sound through stormwater runoff and other sources of pollution. The tools developed to achieve these goals include a recognizable brand, television advertisements, a Web site designed to foster behavior change, and public outreach tools for use by PSSH partners at a local, grassroots level. Attachments PSSH_2015 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 04/29/2015 08:09 AM Mayor Dave Earling 04/29/2015 08:20 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/29/2015 08:25 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 04/07/2015 10:01 AM Final Approval Date: 04/29/2015  Packet Page 234 of 400 Packet Page 235 of 400    AM-7677     6.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Community Service Announcement:  Memorial Day Ceremony Recommendation For information. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative A representative of the Edmonds Cemetery Board will provide information regarding the upcoming Memorial Day Program at the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery. Attachments Attachment 1 - Memorial Day Program Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 04/29/2015 11:37 AM Final Approval Date: 04/29/2015  Packet Page 236 of 400 Packet Page 237 of 400 Packet Page 238 of 400 Packet Page 239 of 400 Packet Page 240 of 400    AM-7667     8.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted By:Frances Chapin Department:Parks and Recreation Committee: Type: Action Information Subject Title Public Hearing for 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Interim Public Art Project Recommendation 1) Conduct a public hearing on the Edmonds Arts Commission recommendation for the 4th Avenue Interim art proposal by Iole Alessandrini, and 2) consider the recommendation for approval on the Consent Agenda on May 12. Previous Council Action Narrative The public art process for the City includes a presentation at City Council with a public hearing for proposed projects recommended by the Edmonds Arts Commission. On April 6, 2015 the Arts Commission met and unanimously approved the 4th Avenue Interim Art proposal "Luminous Forest" by Iole Alessandrini to bring forth to City Council with a recommendation for approval. The Arts Manager will introduce the artist to present her proposal followed by a public hearing at which public comment will be taken. The 4th Avenue interim art project is an implementation of the 2014 adopted Community Cultural Plan strategy 1.4, to advance the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor through short-term or interim projects. This interim step also contributes to the City Strategic Action Plan objective 1.e.4 regarding creation of an arts enhanced walkable corridor connecting the ECA and Main Street. Retaining the big concepts of the 2009 4th Avenue Plan, the interim art project will highlight this unique corridor in downtown Edmonds as the major pedestrian connection between the vibrant activity center of Edmonds Center for the Arts and the downtown retail center surrounding Main Street. The unique character of this corridor is as a neighborhood, as a link for economic activity in the downtown, and as a regional asset for economic development and cultural history. In response to community interest following adoption of the Community Cultural Plan in 2014, the Edmonds Arts Commission convened a stakeholders advisory group including residents, property owners, and businesses on the 4th Avenue corridor to develop an approach to moving forward a plan for interim art installations. The primary goal was to incorporate art on the corridor in 2015 that would connect and highlight the link between Edmonds Center for the Arts and Main Street. An update on the approach developed was reviewed by the Arts Commission on August 4, 2014 and presented at City Council on September 23, 2014. Project funding of $30,000 was included in the EAC 2015 budget and $10,000 of that has been donated to the project by the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation. Packet Page 241 of 400    On March 23, 2015, three artists presented proposals for interim art installations to the Selection Committee.  The neighborhood and community were invited to the public meeting through emails and local media and public comment was taken at the meeting. Thirteen members of the public attended and the majority of comments strongly preferred the proposal by Alessandrini. The six member Selection Committee included City Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Arts Commissioner Samantha Saether, neighborhood resident Susan Bauer, property owner and ECA board member Steve Shelton, EAFF board member Terry Vehrs, and arts professional Benson Shaw. After reviewing the proposals and public comment, the Selection Committee unanimously recommended selection of Iole Alessandrini's proposal option C to the Arts Commission. Her proposal consists of solar LED light elements embedded in the roadway which will visually highlight the entire corridor at night creating a surprise night time environment not seen elsewhere in the region. Public and Selection Committee comments generally concurred that it is a compelling design, very simple but effectively achieves the goal to connect the whole length of the corridor.   Attachments EAC draft April Minutes Concept Drawing Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 04/29/2015 11:39 AM Mayor Dave Earling 04/29/2015 11:49 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/29/2015 01:13 PM Form Started By: Frances Chapin Started On: 04/23/2015 12:43 PM Final Approval Date: 04/29/2015  Packet Page 242 of 400 MINUTES April 6, 2015 The Edmonds Arts Commission: dedicated to the arts, an integral part of community life. City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department PRESENT: Kevin Conefrey Samantha Saether Lois Rathvon Joanne Otness Marni Muir Kyla Blair, Student Rep STAFF Frances Chapin AUDIENCE Excused: Suzy Maloney, Beverly Shaw-Starkovich The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Kevin Conefrey, Chair INTRODUCTIONS – AGENDA – Addition of On the Fence as item A.6. MINUTES – March 2, 2015 – Saether MOVED approval, Rathvon SECONDED, MOTION Approved. REPORTS - A. Creative Programs 1. Best Book Poster Contest – The reception date is April 16 and Commissioners able to help at the event should arrive by 5:30. Volunteers for mounting and hanging the forty posters were arranged. Otness and Saether will return posters not selected to the schools. 2. WOTS – Otness provided an update on the lineup for Friday presenters and plenary speakers (Stella Cameron and Rick Steves) and reported that the committee will finish reviewing applications this month. She noted that the conference will need additional volunteers on Friday since there will be a higher volume than in the past of participants at the Frances Anderson Center that day. 3. Concerts – Conefrey asked Commissioners to sign up for Concerts in City Park. Signups for Hazel Miller will be at the next meeting. 4. Axis Dance Program at ECA – ECA is applying for a national grant to bring Axis Dance to present a program with educational and community outreach components. Commissioners discussed the program. Muir MOVED and Otness SECONDED that the EAC partner on the program and that sponsorship for Axis Dance be included in the 2016 budget at $750. MOTION Approved. 5. 4th Avenue Interim Art – Saether, Arts Commission representative on the Selection Committee, reported on the public meeting and the three different approaches presented by the artists. John Fleming presented a project using Mondrian type patterns and colors painted on sidewalk corners, two at each intersection. Bruce Myers presented a variety of elements including constellations marked by bronze insets in the sidewalks, vertical leaf catchers for existing poles, poetry stenciled on sidewalks, and maple leaf crosswalks. Iole Alessandrini presented a concept focused on early and newer street grids for a lighting project using solar LED lights in the roadway. Saether noted that everyone in the room seemed totally engaged by the Alessandrini presentation. Public comments were predominantly in favor of the proposal for lights in the street that visually connect the corridor Packet Page 243 of 400 at night. She noted that several residents commented on how dark the street is and welcomed the idea of adding low level lighting in the roadway which would make it a safer and more welcoming environment. The selection committee met after the meeting and discussed each proposal. Public comment, verbal and written, was also reviewed. The selection committee came to a consensus that it is more important to have visual impact on the corridor at night than in the day. Saether said they hoped that there might be a way in future to make the project more noticeable during the day. The Selection Committee unanimously selected Iole Alessandrini to recommend to the EAC at the April meeting. Discussion followed about how 4th Avenue has been designated as a unique and special corridor connecting ECA and downtown retail since Planning Board changed the zoning to BD5 around 2006. The big anchors on the corridor are ECA at the north end and Europe Through the Back Door at the south. They each draw significant numbers of visitors confirming the importance of pedestrian flow and visually connecting the corridor with the rest of downtown. In addition it is a popular walking route for residents. Commissioners noted that the City has declared their intent to highlight the corridor both through the special zoning and through the 2009 design process for the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor and continued inclusion of the concept in the 2014 Cultural Plan and the Strategic Action Plan. Commissioners commented that the low level solar LED lighting project is pedestrian friendly, providing a path at night on a poorly lit street, and will serve to entice pedestrians from one end to the other. This interim project is an investment in future of the street as a key part of the downtown. Muir MOVED and Otness SECONDED that the EAC recommend the lighting project by Alessandrini to City Council and following a public hearing request authorization for the Mayor to sign a contract with the selected artist. MOTION approved. 6. On the Fence – Chapin presented an application from Liz Tran. The Commission discussed the project enthusiastically. Saether MOVED and Rathvon SECONDED that Liz Tran be awarded a contract to install her proposed project for On the Fence. MOTION Approved. Further discussion ensued about scheduling and stipend. An increase in both the stipend and the exhibit time will not increase the overall budget for the program. The expectation is that there will be three to four installations a year. Otness MOVED and Muir SECONDED that the stipend be increased to $500 for a 3 month installation display period. MOTION Approved. B. Capital Projects 1. Dayton Street Plaza – Chapin reported that the schedule for demolishing has been delayed but the plan is still to have the project completed in late fall. C. Funding & Administration 1. Retreat Minutes and Strategic Work Plan – Conefrey and Chapin asked for comments on the Minutes followed by discussion. Rathvon MOVED and Otness SECONDED that the Retreat Minutes be approved with corrections. MOTION Approved. The revisions to the Strategic Work Plan were reviewed. Saether MOVED and Muir SECONDED that the 2015 revised Strategic Work Plan be approved. MOTION Approved. 2. Community Cultural Plan Work Group Meetings Update – Conefrey reported on the second meeting of the Programs and Events work group for Community Cultural Plan implementation. The group is in agreement that the main purpose of meeting is to help increase the range of events and audience, leverage existing events, and encourage development of new or expanded off season programs. Conefrey gave two examples, the new Café program aimed at having an initial event next spring, and Jazz Connection which hopes to expand their participation and outreach. Packet Page 244 of 400 STAFF REPORT – Chapin reported that the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation has donated $1,000 for support of public art maintenance in 2015. They have donated annually for a number of years, recognizing the importance of the care needed for the large outdoor sculptures in the collection. Chapin also mentioned several thank you notes from recipients of 2015 Tourism Promotion awards. OTHER BUSINESS – AUDIENCE COMMENTS – Meeting Adjourned at 7:49 PM Packet Page 245 of 400     “Luminous  Forest”  by  Iole  Alessandrini     Solar  LED  lights  embedded  in  the  4th  Avenue  N.  roadway  provide  a  subliminal  reminder  of  the   original  trees  and  highlight  the  connection  between  Edmonds  Center  for  the  Arts  and  Main   Street.           Concept  Drawing:           Packet Page 246 of 400    AM-7681     9.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Potential Action  Information Subject Title Public Hearing on a proposed Ordinance authorizing the acquisition by negotiation or condemnation of real property interests for the 76th Ave/212th Street Intersection Improvements project. Recommendation Approve Ordinance.  Previous Council Action On April 28, 2015, staff presented the proposed ordinance to Council.  Narrative Right of way is needed from eight property owners to construct the 76thAve and 212th Street Intersection Improvements. The City’s right of way consultant, Universal Field Services, Inc., is negotiating the purchase of the needed land and property rights to build the project.  The City has adopted right of way procedures for federal-aid projects that require the City to offer fair and equitable compensation for the property rights being acquired. On acquisitions of more than $25,000, a full appraisal is completed by a certified appraiser to establish the compensation due for the property rights being acquired. In addition to the first appraisal, an independent appraiser reviews the first appraiser’s work to confirm that the offer is fair and equitable. On simple acquisitions less than $25,000, the appraiser can establish an offer for compensation based on market transactions and other pertinent information. However, the property owner is made aware at the time of the offer that an appraisal has not been done and that one can be prepared if they desire to have the information. The City’s goal is to ensure that property owners are fairly compensated for the value of the land and property rights needed for the Project. However, there are times when a property owner and the City cannot agree on a settlement for those property rights. When an agreement cannot be reached through negotiations, the City can pursue the purchase of the property rights by condemnation. In order to utilize this right, the City Council must adopt an ordinance authorizing condemnation. The proposed ordinance is attached and includes six out of the eight properties. Two properties, 7500 Building and Dairy Queen, both on southeast corner of the 76 th Ave and 212th Street intersection, have signed their right of way documents and those are pending City Council approval. Packet Page 247 of 400 The six property owners have been notified of the public hearing. Attachments Condemnation Ordinance ROW Plan Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 04/30/2015 12:09 PM Public Works Phil Williams 04/30/2015 12:19 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 04/30/2015 01:28 PM Mayor Dave Earling 04/30/2015 02:08 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/30/2015 02:11 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 04/29/2015 03:38 PM Final Approval Date: 04/30/2015  Packet Page 248 of 400 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY NEGOTIATION OR CONDEMNATION OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NEEDED FOR THE 76th @ 212th INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds (the “City”) is working to plan, design and construct the 76th @ 212th Intersection Improvements, which consists of improving intersection capacity with the addition of left turn lanes for the northbound and southbound movements, as well as right turn lanes for the westbound, southbound, and northbound movements. A new traffic signal will be installed with protected-permissive left turn phasing and right turn overlaps for all approaches. Additional improvements include new sidewalk, ADA compliant curb ramps, bike lanes, street lights, stormwater detention and water quality enhancements, and water / sewer pipeline replacements (collectively, the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the City issued a SEPA Determination of Non-significance, which threshold determinations are final; and WHEREAS, in order to carry out the Project, the City must obtain land and/or property rights, including any necessary easements and/or rights-of-way in or along 76th Ave. W and 212th St. SW: and WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency for the Project, and is responsible for obtaining all necessary land and property rights for the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State and Federal policies and regulations, the City is acquiring real property rights, including necessary fee simple titles, easements and rights-of-way, through negotiations with property owners in or along 212th St. SW and 76th Ave. W. WHEREAS, if the City is unable to acquire the necessary land and/or property rights, such as fee simple titles, easements and rights-of-way, in a timely manner, the City must file a petition in eminent domain (condemnation petition) in order to meet the funding and construction deadlines for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Chapter 35A.64 RCW to exercise the power of eminent domain pursuant to Chapters 8.12 and 8.28 RCW; Packet Page 249 of 400 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are hereby adopted as if set forth in full herein. Section 2. Acquisition of Real Property. The rights and interests in the real property shown in yellow highlight in the Right-of-Way Plan, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is necessary for the construction of the 76th @ 212th Intersection Improvements Project, and is condemned, appropriated, taken and damaged in fee, easement and/or right-of-way for public purposes, subject to the making or paying of just compensation to the owners thereof in the manner provided by law. Section 3. Source of Funds. The cost and expense of acquiring all rights and interests in the Property shall be paid for from a Federal grant and City funds. Section 4. Condemnation Authorization. City staff, the City Attorney, and City consultants for the Project have been negotiating with the property owners to obtain land / property rights. They have been authorized and directed to enter into any and all negotiations and agreements necessary to acquire the interests in the Property as shown in yellow highlighted parcels in Right-of-Way plan. If such negotiations fail to acquire such interests in the Property in a timely manner, as determined by the Mayor , the City Attorney is authorized to prosecute proceedings provided by law to condemn, appropriate and take the Property and carry out the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Packet Page 250 of 400 CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFFREY B. TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 251 of 400 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: ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY NEGOTIATION OR CONDEMNATION OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NEEDED FOR THE 76th @ 212th INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2015. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 252 of 400 Packet Page 253 of 400    AM-7685     10.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Michael Clugston Department:Planning Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of Findings, Conclusions, and Decision regarding Hearing Examiner recommendation on proposed field improvements at Former Woodway High School. Recommendation Approve the attached findings, conclusions and decision. Previous Council Action Council began a closed-record review of this project on April 21 and completed review and deliberation on April 28, 2015.  The City Attorney was directed to prepare a statement of findings, conclusions and decision based on the Hearing Examiner's April 10 decision and conditions, as well as those additional conditions approved by Council at their April 28 meeting. Narrative The Edmonds School District is seeking approval of land use permits for bleachers and ball control fencing for Phase 1 of an athletic field improvement project at the Former Woodway High School. The Architectural Design Board recommended approval of the project's design, with conditions, on March 4, 2015.  The Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions, of a conditional use permit and variance for the bleachers and ball control fencing on April 10, 2015. Attachments Attachment 1 - Woodway Fields Findings, Conclusions and Decision Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 04/30/2015 09:18 AM Mayor Dave Earling 04/30/2015 09:22 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/30/2015 09:34 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/01/2015 08:28 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/01/2015 08:38 AM Form Started By: Michael Clugston Started On: 04/30/2015 08:53 AM Final Approval Date: 05/01/2015  Packet Page 254 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL In RE the Application of: Woodway High School Field Improvements – Phase 1 For Design Review, a Conditional Use Permit, and a Variance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.: PLN-2014-0065, PLN-2014-0066, PLN-2014-0067 (portion) Findings, Conclusions, and Decision of the Edmonds City Council on Phase 1 of the Woodway High School Field Improvements This consolidated application came before the Edmonds City Council on April 21, 2015 for a closed-record pre-decision hearing pursuant to ECDC 17.00.030.C. The Hearing Examiner conducted an open-record hearing on March 26, 2015 after the Architectural Design Board reviewed the project and made a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner on March 4, 2015. The City Council was presented with an agenda memo on April 21, 2015, which included the following eight exhibits: 1. March 19, 2015 Report & Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner from Mike Clugston, Associate Planner, and attachments thereto; Packet Page 255 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. Powerpoint presentation used at the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner on March 26, 2015; 3. Poster from parties of record Davis and Markiel submitted at the March 26, 2015 public hearing before the Hearing Examiner; 4. Photo from party of record Cain-Lewis submitted at the March 26, 2015 public hearing before the Hearing Examiner; 5. Materials from party of record Wall submitted at the March 26, 2015 public hearing before the Hearing Examiner; 6. Public testimony sign-in sheet from the March 26, 2015 public hearing before the Hearing Examiner; 7. April 10, 2015 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation to the City Council by the Hearing Examiner; 8. April 15, 2015 letter from Edmonds School District withdrawing the applications related to field lighting (PLN-2015-0009, PLN-2015-0013, and that portion of PLN- 2014-0067 relating to field lighting). The review of this application was continued to April 28, 2015 to allow for the inclusion of the hearing examiner’s summary of testimony in the record before the council which had not been included in the April 21 agenda and to allow for objections to argument provided at the April 21 meeting that was outside of the record established by the Hearing Examiner on Packet Page 256 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 March 26, 2015. The City Council was presented with a supplemental agenda memo for April 28 which included the following two exhibits: 1. Summary of testimony compiled by the Hearing Examiner at the March 26, 2015 public hearing which was not originally included with his decision nor in the April 21 agenda memo; 2. Edmonds School District No. 15’s Objections to Testimony Offered During Closed Record Hearing (PLN20140065, PLN20140066, PLN20140067) dated April 24, 2015. Based upon the record developed before the hearing examiner (see summary of testimony and exhibits), and based upon the withdrawal of the field lighting applications subsequent to the hearing examiner’s recommendation, the City Council hereby adopts the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are largely based on the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation dated March 26, 2015 but modified as necessary to account for the withdrawal of the application for field lighting: FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. Edmonds School District Packet Page 257 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing on the subject application on March 26, 2015 at 3:00 pm in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Public Safety Complex. The City Council conducted a closed record review of the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation on April 21, 2015, which was continued to April 28, 2015. The City Council conducted an appearance of fairness doctrine inquiry on both dates, disclosed ex parte communications that are attached hereto as Exhibit A, and inquired as to whether there were any objections to participation based upon the appearance of fairness doctrine. No objections were raised. Substantive: 3. Site and Proposal Description. The applicant has applied for one conditional use permit, one variance and design review to install ball control fencing and bleachers as part of a playfield improvement project at the former Woodway High School site at 23200 100th Ave West. The project site is located in two zoning districts, specifically the Open Space (OS) and Single-Family 8 (SR-8) zones. The conditional use permit is requested for bleachers and a 30-foot high ball control fence in the OS zone. A variance is requested to exceed the height limit for the proposed thirty-foot ball control fence in the RS-8 zone. All applications for field lighting were withdrawn prior to the City Council’s closed record review. Packet Page 258 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Proposed improvements to the ball fields are divided into three phases, with the permits subject to this decision addressing Phase I. Phase I involves installing two new synthetic turf fields together with 30-foot tall ball control fencing, backstops, bleachers, and dugouts. The project site is split-zoned between Open Space (OS) and Single-Family Residential (RS-8), with most of Phase I in the OS zone and a small portion in the southeastern corner in the RS-8 zone. See Ex. 1, att. 13. The existing school buildings, parking areas and vehicular circulation patterns will remain unchanged. Phases 2 and 3 may be constructed at a future date depending upon funding availability. Phases 2 and 3 may include an identical multipurpose synthetic turf field to the North which would connect the pedestrian pathway system to the southern field constructed in Phase 1. Phase 3 may includes a one story restroom and concession building. It is not known at this time whether the abandoned field lighting application would be resubmitted in conjunction with Phase 2, Phase 3, or not at all. No portion of Phase 2 or Phase 3 is approved as part of this decision. The record is somewhat unclear as to how much ball field use will change as a result of the proposal. The testimony, which was given at the time the District was still proposing Packet Page 259 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 field lighting, suggests that the change in use will be substantial. Numerous people testified of the strong need for additional fields. Many Edmonds residents have to travel to fields outside of Edmonds because Edmonds doesn’t have enough ball fields available. A detailed summary of all the public testimony on the proposal is appended to this report as Attachment 1. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The surrounding area is primarily developed single-family residential, with some BN zoned property to the north. Adjoining uses are buffered by an existing forested area which varies between about 50 feet and 200 feet in width (Attachment 3, cover sheet). 5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. The administrative record, created at the time that the District was proposing field lighting, revealed the potential for unmitigated significant adverse traffic impacts. Had the District not abandoned the lighting application, further information would have been necessary to determine whether traffic impacts needed to be mitigated. Excluding traffic impacts associated with the abandoned field lighting applications, the proposal will not create any other significant adverse impacts or be significantly detrimental to other properties. Impacts are more specifically addressed below: Packet Page 260 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A. Traffic. Approval of the bleachers and ball control fencing could result in increased use of the fields without the field lights, but the record does not suggest that this increase would be significant. The fields are already used for daytime sports activities. The conditions of approval limit the fields to school use during school hours. There is nothing about the addition of ball control fencing and bleachers that inherently suggests a major new draw for sports leagues during off-school hours. The reconfiguration of the ball fields, with or without artificial turf, should not generate a significant amount of new traffic because there will be no increase in the total number of fields. In any case, it is only the bleachers and fencing permits that are before the city council for consideration. The field reconfiguration is not the subject of these applications. Consequently, the impacts of the bleachers and fencing has to be considered in terms of how much traffic they would generate in addition to the traffic generated by ball field reconfiguration. That amount of traffic is more likely than not negligible. The applicant represented that it would keep the emergency access gate closed to motorized vehicular traffic to 102nd Place West. So, there should be no change from the status quo in that respect. As to internal circulation, there is nothing to suggest that any mitigation or design changes are necessary. The staff report concludes that internal circulation is adequate because no changes to internal circulation are proposed. In the absence Packet Page 261 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 of any evidence to the contrary, the staff’s conclusions on this issue are determinative. B. Lighting. The proposed findings on this subject have been withdrawn as a result of the lighting applications being withdrawn. C. Noise. As conditioned, the project does not create significant noise impacts. The City Council has adopted what it deems to be acceptable noise levels in Chapter 5.30 ECC. ECC 5.30.100(G) currently exempts noise from school or league sponsored athletic events from the noise level restrictions of Chapter 5.30 ECC. This should be construed as a legislative determination that high noise levels from athletic events should not be construed as significantly detrimental to neighboring properties. Although the City Council has comprehensively regulated noise levels in Chapter 5.30 ECC, there is nothing to suggest that the Council intended these regulations to prevent the imposition of reasonable noise control measures in the conditional use review process. Simply because the Council finds high noise levels from athletic events to be tolerable doesn’t mean that it would have found it acceptable for these noise levels to go on for 24 hours a day. The conditions of approval recommended by staff reasonably limit the noise of the athletic events by requiring the events to end at ____ p.m. Coupled with the forested buffer around the athletic fields, the Packet Page 262 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 project has been reasonably designed and conditioned to limit noise impacts to adjoining property owners to reasonable levels. In any case, land use applicants cannot vest to standards expressed in a noise ordinance. If it becomes necessary to further regulate noise from the ball fields in the future, the City Council reserves the right to do so. Mr. Wall’s exhibits, Ex. 5(c), contains a memorandum from the Greenbusch Group, a consultant with some apparent expertise in noise impacts. The memorandum notes that the bleachers will raise the noise level source. It states further that upon construction of all three phases the long-term use of the fields includes the potential for four games rather than the existing two. But it would be speculative and premature to condition these permits based upon the impacts associated with the future phases of the long-term project. While noise will increase as a result of the proposal, higher noise levels are deemed legislatively acceptable for league and school sponsored athletic events. The relevant inquiry for noise impacts is whether all reasonable mitigation measures have been imposed. The Greenbusch Group memorandum does not identify any additional reasonable noise conditions that could be imposed upon the project. As noted above, however, the City Council could further regulate such noise in the future if necessary. Packet Page 263 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 D. Parking. Parking is adequate as defined by the City’s legislatively adopted parking standards. Parking for different uses is regulated by ECDC 17.50.030(C), which provides that the number of parking stalls must be the sum of the requirements for different uses. As shown on Attachment 9, there are currently 307 parking stalls on the site. For the school use, 102 parking stalls are required (1 stall per daytime employee per ECDC 17.50.020(C)(6)). For the playfield use, the requirement for outdoor places of public assembly in ECDC 17.50.020(C)(1) applies. This parking requirement indicates: “Outdoor places of public of assembly, including stadiums and arenas require one parking space per eight fixed seats or per 100 square feet of assembly area, whichever is greater.” Using the fixed seat method, 42 parking stalls would be required for the playfields. However, using the assembly area method, 137 stalls would be required based on an estimate of where spectators would most likely congregate around the fields. Summing the 137 stalls for playfield use and the 102 stalls for school use equals 239 stalls, 68 less than the 307 existing stalls on the site. The proposal is also conditioned to provide that fields will not be scheduled for non-school activities during regular school hours to reduce conflicts between school and non-school use. Mr. Wall submitted Ex. 5(D), a statement from Ryan Hague, along with photographs, identifying that on warm days and during swim meets, vehicles used by visitors to the Klahaya Swim and Packet Page 264 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Tennis Club regularly fill both sides of 238th St SW and 104th Ave W. The vehicles block driveways and sidewalks and obstruct sight distance at intersections. Mr. Wall submitted these documents as an example of why a traffic study is necessary. There is no information in the record to suggest that the parking standards applied to Klahaya are those that are being applied to the present proposal. In the absence of any evidence that the City’s parking standards will prove inadequate for the ball field proposal or that Klahaya was subject to the same parking standards, the parking deficiencies of the Klahaya complex have no relevance to the proposal under consideration. E. Wildlife. The proposed bleachers will not create any significant impacts to wildlife. The City Council has adopted standards deemed adequate to protect wildlife in its critical area regulations, which includes fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Information in the record suggests that at least portions of the forested buffer surrounding the project qualify as fish and wildlife buffers under the critical areas regulations. The Pilchuck Audubon Society submitted a letter, Ex. 5(B), suggesting that noise from the field use could adversely affect bird species in the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. The author of the Audubon letter is not identified and it is unknown if the author has any expertise on wildlife impacts. In the absence of any expert testimony that the City’s critical area regulations were not designed to Packet Page 265 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 address the type of wildlife impacts created by the proposal, the critical areas ordinances are found to adequately protect wildlife from adverse impacts. F. Compatibility. Beyond the issues already addressed, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. The 50 to 200 foot-wide buffer surrounding the ball fields is taller than the proposed 30 foot fencing and bleachers. The proposed ball control fencing and bleachers in the OS zone will be set back between 100 and 200 feet from the nearest property line and will be screened by the forest buffer. Through withdrawal of the field lighting application, off-site traffic impacts are mitigated to conform to the City’s level of service and street standards. Therefore, traffic impacts are deemed compatible with surrounding uses as well. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Decision-making Authority. ECDC 20.01.003 provides that the Hearing Examiner would ordinarily hold a hearing and issue a final decision on conditional use permit and variance applications. ECDC 20.01.002(C) requires consolidation of design review permits with the hearing examiner review of the conditional use and variance permits. ECDC 17.00.030(C) Packet Page 266 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 requires that the hearing examiner’s authority on variances be limited to recommendations to the City Council for public structures and uses. The conditional use and design review decisions are consolidated along with the variance recommendations to the City Council per ECDC 20.01.002(C) so that they are also recommendations to the City Council with the final decision being made by the City Council on the consolidated applications. Substantive: 2. Zoning Designations. Most of the project is located in the OS zone. The southeastern portion of the project is located in the RS-8 zone. Bleachers and ball control fencing are located in both zoning districts. 3. Scope. The applications under review are for bleachers and ball control fencing. The applications do not involve the artificial turf contemplated by the applicant to replace the existing grass fields. The proposed artificial turf, and particular type of artificial turf, was not a part of the consolidated application considered by the examiner and its impacts are beyond the scope of this decision. 4. SEPA Issues. Mr. Wall’s exhibits (Ex. 5) assert deficiencies in the environmental checklist and environmental Packet Page 267 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 review of the proposal under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”). SEPA issues are beyond the scope of the hearing examiner’s recommendation and this decision. The examiner and City Council only have jurisdiction to consider a timely appeal of a SEPA threshold determination or adequacy of an environmental impact statement. See WAC 197-11- 680(3)(a)(iii). Even that jurisdiction is somewhat questionable since the applicant as opposed to the City was the SEPA lead agency in this matter and issued the SEPA threshold determination. The District provided no administrative appeal of the SEPA determination, and the City did not assume lead agency status, so the adequacy of SEPA review is not an issue subject to consideration. Mr. Wall cites to WAC 197-11- 340(3)(a), which authorizes the lead agency to withdraw a SEPA determination of nonsignificance (“DNS”) if there is significant new information or the determination was procured by misrepresentation or material nondisclosure. In this case the lead agency is the applicant. The City has no authority to withdraw or overturn the DNS. 5. Permit Review Criteria. A conditional use permit is required for the portion of the project in the OS zone for the bleachers and ball control fencing over 25 feet in height pursuant to ECDC 16.80.010(C)(3) and ECDC 16.80.010(C)(4). ECDC 16.20.050(B) imposes a maximum height of 15 feet for accessory structures in the RS-8 zone. Consequently, a variance is needed Packet Page 268 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 for the 30-foot ball control fence in the RS-8 zone. Conditional use permit criteria are governed by ECDC 20.05.010. Variance criteria are governed by ECDC 20.85.010. All applicable criteria are quoted in italics below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ECDC 20.050.010: No conditional use permit may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made. A. That the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 6. Having now withdrawn the lighting application, the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As noted in the staff report to the Architectural Design Board, the playfield upgrade project was included in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan adopted by City Council in February 2014 (Attachment 10, page 3). This Plan is adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan and specifically includes Objective 2.E which describes the project: “Implement previous community process to work with the Edmonds School District to redevelop the Former Woodway High School site into a regional sports and recreation asset with adult soccer/multi-sports turf fields, providing for year-round Packet Page 269 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 recreation options and serving a growing community. Involve the community in design development.” [Chapter 4: Action Plan, page 4-4] In addition, staff feels that the proposal is consistent with the design guidance found in the Community Culture and Urban Design Element. Refer to Section G of Attachment 10 (pages 3 – 7) for further discussion on how this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ECDC 20.05.010(B): Zoning Ordinance. That the proposed use, and its location, is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zone district in which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance. 7. The staff report analysis of Zoning Ordinance compliance, located at pages 10-12 of the staff report, is adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. ECDC 20.05.010(C): Not Detrimental. That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and to nearby private property or improvements unless the use is a public necessity. Packet Page 270 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 8. While the lights may have resulted in a significant increase in traffic during nighttime hours, that portion of the proposal has now been withdrawn. Note that the hearing examiner found this criterion to be not met solely because of the traffic impacts associated with the lighting. Because the lighting application has been withdrawn, the City Council determines that traffic impacts are adequately addressed and that the criterion quoted above is satisfied and all permits under the review of this decision should be approved. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not create any significant adverse impacts now that the lighting application has been withdrawn. As to the bleachers and ball control fencing, there are no impacts associated with those structures that would be significantly detrimental to public safety and welfare. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest that those structures, limited to daylight use (without the field lights), would generate a significant increase in traffic over existing use. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no other significant impacts associated with the proposal as proposed and conditioned. The criterion quoted above is met as to the bleachers and ball control fencing. Packet Page 271 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ECDC 20.05.010(D): Transferability. The hearing examiner shall determine whether the conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal. If it runs with the land and the hearing examiner finds it in the public interest, the hearing examiner may require that it be recorded in the form of a covenant with the Snohomish County auditor. The hearing examiner may also determine whether the conditional use permit may or may not be used by a subsequent user of the same property. 9. The conditional use permit shall be personal as requested by the applicant. Given the nature of the impacts generated by the proposal, it is in the public interest to maintain ownership of the use in the hands of a public agency that is accountable to the public. The personal nature of this conditional use permit, however, shall not prohibit the District from entering into scheduling agreements for shared use with the City of Edmonds and youth sports organizations. VARIANCES ECDC 20.85.010: No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made. ECDC 20.85.010.A(1) – Special Circumstances: That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict Packet Page 272 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. a. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. b. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property; 10. The criterion is met for the variance because the ball control fencing is a public necessity, as recognized in the Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Specifically, Objective 2.E states: “Implement previous community process to work with the Edmonds School District to redevelop the Former Woodway High School site into a regional sports and recreation asset with Packet Page 273 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 adult soccer/multi-sports turf fields, providing for year-round recreation options and serving a growing community. Involve the community in design development.” [Chapter 4: Action Plan, page 4-4] ECDC 20.85.010(B) – Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; 11. A height variance for ball control fencing in the RS-8 zone based on public necessity would not constitute special privilege. Ball control fencing of a similar height shown on Sheets F-2.5 and F-2.6 of Attachment 3 is proposed for the OS- zoned portion of the site (through permit PLN20140067) and exists at athletic fields on the Edmonds-Woodway High School campus as well as Meadowdale High School, the new Lynnwood High School, and other sports field installations throughout the Puget Sound (Attachment 17 – fence letter). ECDC 20.85.101€ – Comprehensive Plan: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; 12. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the reasons identified in Conclusion of Law No. 6. Packet Page 274 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ECDC 20.85.010(D) – Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located; 13. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of the RS-8 and OS zones. One of the primary purposes of the residential zones, as expressed in ECDC 16.10.000, is to protect residential uses from hazards and nuisances, expressly including noise. The purpose of the OS zone, as expressed in ECDC 16.65.000, is to designate land acquired by public agencies for open space uses and to regulate these open space lands recognizing that they cannot be developed without severe environmental impacts. The project design and conditions of approval are designed to provide for compatibility with residential use as contemplated by ECC 16.10.000. The retention of the 50 to 200 foot forested buffer surrounding the ball fields is consistent with the purpose of the OS zone. ECDC 20.85.010€ – Not Detrimental: That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone; Packet Page 275 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 14. The criterion is met for the proposed 30-foot ball control fence variance. Installation of the ball control fencing is not a pre-requisite to nighttime use and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the fencing will directly increase traffic generated by the proposal if it is limited in a practical sense to daytime use in the absence of field lights. With the ball field lighting application being withdrawn, the ball fields will not create any other significant impacts as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. ECDC 20.85.010(F) – Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 15. The proposed heights for the ball control fencing are the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective ball field use. The criterion quoted above is met. As to the ball fields, as detailed in Ex. 1, att. 17, the 30-foot ball field fence height is necessary to protect adjoining school property users and spectators from errant balls. As further discussed in Ex. 1, att. 17, the fence height is consistent with the heights of fencing for ball fields in numerous other jurisdictions. Packet Page 276 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Design Review The findings and conclusions of the planning division on design review, Ex. 1, att. 10, were adopted by the Architectural Design Board, the Hearing Examiner, and are adopted by this decision as well. In addition, this decision adopts the conditions of approval recommended by the Architectural Design Board. DECISION Having withdrawn the lighting applications, the applicant has satisfied the general design criteria in ECDC 20.11.030, the conditional use permit criteria in ECDC 16.80.020 and ECDC 20.05.010, and the variance criteria in ECDC 20.85.010 with respect to the consolidated application at issue. The findings contained herein and adopted hereby satisfy the requirements of ECDC 16.80.020, ECDC 20.05.010, ECDC 20.10.030 and ECDC 20.85.010. The design review, conditional use permit, and variance are warranted under these circumstances. For the reasons set forth above, the City Council hereby APPROVES the applicant’s design review, conditional use permit, and variance requests. More specifically: PLN20140065 (Design Review) is approved in its entirety, except to the extent that it contemplates field lighting. PLN20140066 (Height variance for ball control fencing in the RS-8 zone) is approved. Packet Page 277 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PLN20140067 (Conditional use permit for bleachers, playfield lighting, and ball control fencing height in the OS zone) is approved for the bleachers and ball control fencing with the portion of the application related to field lighting having been withdrawn by the applicant prior to a final decision being rendered. PLN20150009 (Height variance for light poles in the RS-8 zone) was withdrawn by the applicant. PLN20150013 (Height variance for light poles in the OS zone) was withdrawn by the applicant. The approved permits shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The ball control fencing in the OS and RS-8 zoned portions of the project site shall be a maximum of 30 feet in height as shown on Sheets F-2.5 and F-2.6 of Attachment 3. 2. Fields shall not be scheduled for non-school activities during regular school hours. 3. The Applicant shall give serious consideration to the location of the double gate so as to not need to relocate it once subsequent phases of the project are implemented. 4. The Applicant must apply for and obtain all necessary permits. This application is subject to the requirements in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is up to the Applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. Packet Page 278 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5. The conditional use permit shall be personal to the Edmonds School District and is not transferable. 6. Subsequent phases of this project, including any future field lighting proposal, shall require separate land use permitting processes as necessary. 7. The applicant shall work with staff to identify an appropriate species of tree for the entry drive adjacent to the fields. 8. The applicant shall continue to keep gate closed to motorized vehicular traffic to 102nd Place West. The gate shall only be used for emergency vehicles. 9. No noise amplification devices may be used at the fields. 10. No lighting is permitted under the three subject permits. 11. Fields shall be scheduled so that normal use (e.g. normal length games) will end at 9:30 p.m. with a 30 minute extension to 10 p.m. being allowed for extra innings and other tie breakers. The fields shall not be used after 10:00 p.m. under any circumstances. DONE this 5TH day of May, 2015. CITY OF EDMONDS ___________________________________ Mayor David O. Earling Packet Page 279 of 400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ATTEST / AUTHENTICATED: Scott M. Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey B. Taraday, City Attorney 4826-7121-0505, v. 1 Packet Page 280 of 400    AM-7686     11.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:20 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 Recommendation Recommended Motion:  Approve the 2015 1st Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance No. XXXX. Previous Council Action Council discussed the 2015 First Quarter Budget Amendment during its April 28, 2015 Council Meeting. Narrative There are a total of 14 budget amendments. Two of the budget amendments have previously been discussed by Council.  The first is a request from the Historic Preservation Fund to transfer General Fund money into the Historic Preservation Fund for the printing of brochures.  The second budget amendment is for the 220th St SW Overlay project. There are five new budget amendments which reduce the General Fund ending fund balance.  Two of the requests are from the Community Services Department, one for the 125th Anniversary Celebration and the second an increase to the lobbyist contract.  Two of the requests are from the Development Services Department, one is a request for extra help with the comprehensive plan update and the second is for increased merchant fees due to increased payments with credit cards.  The final request is for the Council Chambers / Court AV Equipment.  The Equipment Rental Fund has two requests which will reduce the Equipment Rental ending fund balance.  The first request is for a vehicle replacement.  The vehicle was totaled in an accident.  The City received insurance money to cover almost half the cost of the vehicle but the remaining amount will use replacement fund money.  The second request is for the replacement of police radios.  The radios have a replacement fund similar to the vehicles. The remaining budget amendments are offset by either grants or donations, including two General Fund requests.   Attachments First Quarter 2015 Budget Amendment Packet Page 281 of 400 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 04/30/2015 10:19 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 04/30/2015 10:21 AM Mayor Dave Earling 04/30/2015 10:22 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/30/2015 10:30 AM Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 04/30/2015 10:15 AM Final Approval Date: 04/30/2015  Packet Page 282 of 400 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3991 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. 3991 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 283 of 400 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 284 of 400 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. 3991 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 285 of 400 2015 2015 FUND FUND BEGINNING ENDING NO.DESCRIPTION FUND BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES FUND BALANCE 001 GENERAL FUND 5,964,686 36,818,544 39,042,952 3,740,278 009 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 9,500 9,900 662 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 215,149 708,000 793,800 129,349 104 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 8,026,935 8,146,704 185,461 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 408,637 97,359 152,775 353,221 118 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 1,989,184 904,000 2,485,000 408,184 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 689,893 902,000 943,400 648,493 127 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 3,778,407 6,973,141 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 1,519,185 1,717,825 5,321,693 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 179,364 65,350 77,629 167,085 Totals 45,026,570 81,296,786 98,175,292 28,148,064 Packet Page 286 of 400 ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO.2015 FUND FUND 3985 3990 3991 Amended NO.DESCRIPTION 12/26/2014 2/13/2015 2/27/2015 April 2015 Budget 001 General Fund 36,806,017$ -$ -$ 12,527$ 36,818,544$ 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 - - 2,000 9,500 016 Building Maintenance 356,600 156,400 - 195,000 708,000 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 43,000 - - - 43,000 111 Street Fund 1,729,030 - - - 1,729,030 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 7,458,211 448,724 120,000 - 8,026,935 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 78,859 - - 18,500 97,359 118 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 - 4,000 3,778,407 423 Sewer / Treatment Plant 9,833,310 - - - 9,833,310 424 Bond Reserve Fund 844,416 - - - 844,416 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,502,567 - - 16,618 1,519,185 617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 65,350 - - - 65,350 Totals 79,730,017$ 1,198,124$ 120,000$ 248,645$ 81,296,786$ Packet Page 287 of 400 ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO.2015 FUND FUND 3985 3990 3991 0 Amended NO.DESCRIPTION 12/26/2014 2/13/2015 2/27/2015 April 2015 Budget 001 General Fund 38,585,504$ 100,271$ 120,000$ 237,177$ 39,042,952$ 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 361,825 - - - 361,825 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 800,000 - - - 800,000 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 7,900 - - 2,000 9,900 016 Building Maintenance 380,000 218,800 - 195,000 793,800 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 76,033 - - - 76,033 111 Street Fund 1,703,419 - - - 1,703,419 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 7,501,107 525,597 120,000 - 8,146,704 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 134,275 - - 18,500 152,775 120 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 62,000 - 2,485,000 126 Special Capital Fund 471,400 200,000 12,000 260,000 943,400 127 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 - 4,000 6,973,141 423 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 - - 50,024 1,717,825 617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 77,629 - - - 77,629 Totals 93,536,231$ 3,558,360$ 314,000$ 766,701$ 98,175,292$ Packet Page 288 of 400 Fund Number Change in Beginning Fund Balance Revenue Expense Change in Ending Fund Balance 001 - 12,527 237,177 (224,650) 014 - 2,000 2,000 - 016 - 195,000 195,000 - 117 - 18,500 18,500 - 126 - - 260,000 (260,000) 422 - 4,000 4,000 - 511 - 16,618 50,024 (33,406) Total Change - 248,645 766,701 (518,056) Packet Page 289 of 400 Fund BARS Category Debit Credit Pg#Description Previously Discussed By Council Historic Preservation 014 000 62 557 20 49 00 Miscellaneous 2,000 9 Historic Preservation 014 000 397 19 001 00 Interfund Transfer 2,000 General Fund 001 000 39 597 19 55 14 Interfund Transfer 2,000 General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 2,000 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 19 Interfund Services 7,500 10 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 91 Professional Services 42,500 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 65 91 Construction 210,000 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 10 Interfund Services 7,500 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 41 00 Professional Services 42,500 Street Construction 112 200 68 595 33 65 00 Construction 210,000 REET 1 126 000 68 595 33 41 19 Interfund Services 7,500 REET 1 126 000 68 595 33 41 90 Professional Services 42,500 REET 1 126 000 68 595 33 65 90 Construction 210,000 REET 1 126 000 39 508 30 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 260,000 Historic Preservation Printing 220th St SW Overlay Fund BARS Category Debit Credit Pg#Description New Items for Council General Fund 001 000 61 557 20 49 00 Miscellaneous 5,000 11 125th Anniversary General Fund 001 000 61 557 20 41 00 Professional Services 4,000 12 Lobbyist Contract General Fund 001 000 62 558 60 49 00 Miscellaneous 5,225 13 General Fund 001 000 62 524 20 49 00 Miscellaneous 5,225 General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 19,450 Change Ending FB General Fund 001 000 62 558 60 11 00 Salaries 10,600 14 General Fund 001 000 62 558 60 23 00 Benefits 3,600 General Fund 001 000 333 11 110 00 Solar Grant 6,000 General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 8,200 General Fund 001 000 64 571 22 49 00 Miscellaneous 2,527 15 General Fund 001 000 367 00 100 00 Donation 2,527 General Fund 001 000 64 571 22 31 00 Supplies 1,882 16 General Fund 001 000 64 571 22 35 00 Minor Equipment 2,118 General Fund 001 000 367 00 100 00 Donation 2,000 General Fund 001 000 337 20 000 00 Verdant Grant 2,000 Building Maintenance 016 000 66 594 19 64 00 Equipment 195,000 17 Building Maintenance 016 000 381 10 000 00 Interfund Loan 110,000 Building Maintenance 016 000 397 19 001 00 Interfund Transfer 85,000 General Fund 001 000 39 581 10 79 00 Interfund Loan 110,000 General Fund 001 000 39 597 19 55 16 Interfund Transfer 85,000 General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 195,000 Municipal Arts Fund 117 100 64 573 20 41 00 Professional Services 8,500 18 Municipal Arts Fund 117 100 367 00 000 00 Donation 8,500 Municipal Arts Fund 117 200 64 575 50 41 00 Professional Services 10,000 19 Municipal Arts Fund 117 200 367 00 000 00 Donation 10,000 Storm 422 000 72 594 31 41 12 Interfund Services 3,000 20 Storm 422 000 72 594 31 41 20 Professional Services 1,000 Storm 422 000 334 03 101 00 Grant 4,000 Equipment Rental 511 100 77 594 48 64 00 Equipment 37,718 21 Equipment Rental 511 100 77 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 21,100 Equipment Rental 511 100 395 20 000 00 Insurance Proceeds 16,618 Equipment Rental 511 100 77 548 68 35 00 Small Equipment 12,306 22 Equipment Rental 511 100 77 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 12,306 Merchant Fee Charges Wildlife of Edmonds Poster Health & Fitness Expo Supplies Council Chambers/Court AV Equipment Planning Extra Help Fleet Van Police Radios 4th Ave Cultural Corridor Hazel Miller Concerts Grant Funding Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Packet Page 290 of 400 Budget Amendment for:First Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 100 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $100 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)2,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 2,000 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 $0 001.000.39.597.19.55.14 - Interfund Transfer Budget Item Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:Included in 2014 Budget The Council allocated $2,000 for the reprinting of an informational brochure for the Historic Preservation Commission in the 2014 budget. The money could not be spent in 2014, but the project is still needed. This amendment would re-allocate the unspent money to the 2015 budget so that the brochures can be reprinted. Development Services HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT Planning Fund Name:Historic Preservation Printing Rob Chave 014.000.62.557.20.49.00 014.000.62.557.20.49.00 - Miscellaneous Total Expenses Comments 001.000.39.508.00.00.00 014.000.397.19.001.00 Packet Page 291 of 400 Budget Amendment for:First Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 0 (7,500)0 0 0 0 0 (42,500)0 0 0 0 0 (210,000)0 0 0 0 30,000 7,500 0 0 0 0 170,000 42,500 0 0 0 0 840,000 210,000 0 0 0 0 0 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 42,500 0 0 0 0 0 210,000 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $1,040,000 $260,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)260,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $260,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 From other Fund-Construction 112.200.68.595.33.65.91 Budget Item Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:Dec 16 2014 The City Council approved $1.2M for the Street Presevation Program in 2014 and staff withheld $260,000 to provide a local match on a federal grant to overlay 220th St. in 2015. This budget amendment will add the $260,000 that was removed during the 2015 Budget preparation process. The funding will be provided by the 126 REET 1: Special Capital Projects Fund. Public Works STREET CONSTRUCTION Engineering Fund Name:220th St. SW Overlay (76th Ave-84th Ave) Rob English c462 4a.2 (Street Maintenance) From other Fund-Interfund Svcs 112.200.68.595.33.41.19 From other Fund-Professional Svcs 112.200.68.595.33.41.91 Interfund Svcs 112.200.68.595.33.41.10 Professional Svcs 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 Construction 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 To other Fund-Interfund Svcs 126.000.68.595.33.41.19 To other Fund-Professional Svcs 126.000.68.595.33.41.90 To other Fund-Construction 126.000.68.595.33.65.90 Total Expenses Comments 126.000.39.508.30.00.00 Packet Page 292 of 400 Budget Amendment for:First Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 0 5,000 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 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)5,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Edmonds 125th Annniversary celebration festivities. Total gross estimated promotion and production costs = $7,500. Request for City funding of up to 2/3 of the cost, not to exceed $5,000, with remainder intended to be underwritten by sponsors, fundraising, etc. Community Services GENERALFund Name:125th Anniversary Celebration Patrick Doherty 001.000.61.557.20.49.00 Furthers Strategic Objective 3 Partial funding Edmonds 125th Anniversary celeb. Total Expenses Comments Packet Page 293 of 400 Budget Amendment for:First Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?On-Going Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 36,300 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 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 Sub-Total $36,300 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $40,300 $40,300 $40,300 $40,300 $40,300 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Increase of $4,000 in compensation for state lobbyist from $36,300 to $40,300 due to cost of living increase. No increase in contractor rate has been implemented for the last five years. Community Services GENERALFund Name:Lobbyist Contract Patrick Doherty 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 Supports funding & legislation for initiatives pursuant to Strategic Objectives 3, 4 & 5. Cost of living increase for lobbyist contract Total Expenses Comments Packet Page 294 of 400 Budget Amendment for:First Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?On-Going Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 0 5,225 5,225 5,225 5,225 5,225 0 5,225 5,225 5,225 5,225 5,225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $0 $10,450 $10,450 $10,450 $10,450 $10,450 $10,450 $10,450 $10,450 $10,450 $10,450 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)10,450 10,450 10,450 10,450 10,450 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $10,450 $10,450 $10,450 $10,450 $10,450 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Merchant fee charges are paid by the department for each transaction by a customer using a credit card. These fees effectively are deducted from the fees collected for land-use and building permits. In 2014 the amount of these fees totalled $10,450. This amendment updates the department budget to reflect these charges. Staff is developing a plan for compensating for these charges. Development Services GENERALPlanning and Building Fund Name:Merchant Fee Charges Leif Bjorback 62 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 Total Expenses Comments Packet Page 295 of 400 Budget Amendment for:First Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 542,788 10,600 0 0 0 0 208,692 3,600 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 $751,480 $14,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $765,680 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)8,200 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 6,000 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $14,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 Planning Benefits 62.558.60.23.00 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: The 2015 budget included funding for exta help for the Comprehensive Plan update at 20 hours a week. We have found that an additional 10 hours per week is needed through June to complete this project, including SEPA documentation, and, in July, about 25 hours of planner assistance is needed to prepare any final Plan changes and submit documentation to state agencies and PSRC. (Note: Regular full time staff are already pressed with high levels of permit activitiy, not to mention assisting with long-range projects such as the critical areas code update, the tree code update, and the major development code update.) To help offset these cost the City obtained additional funding from the Department of Commerce for the City's ongoing Rooftop Solar Challenge grant. The amended grant amount for 2015 increases the grant by an additional $6,000 ($6,000 was already budgeted for 2015, so the amended total will be $12,000). Development Services GENERALPlanningFund Name:Planning Extra Help Rob Chave 62 1a.7; 1a.8; 1b.6; 1b.8; 1b.10; 1f.1; 3a.10; 3a.11; 3a.12; 4a.7; 4a.15 Planning Salaries 62.558.60.11.00 001.000.333.11.110.00 Total Expenses Comments Packet Page 296 of 400 Budget Amendment for:First Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 71,250 2,527 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 $71,250 $2,527 $0 $0 $0 $0 $73,777 $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 2,527 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 $2,527 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments 001.000.367.00.100.00 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: We received a grant from Hubbard Family Foundation in the amount of $2,527.08 to fund the printing of a Wildlife of Edmonds poster. The grant was deposited on March 2, 2015 to the Parks Donation GL account. The printing of the poster was paid for from the Recreation Miscellaneous GL account. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services GENERALRecreationFund Name:Wildlife of Edmonds Poster Renee McRae 001.000.64.571.22 2. Maintain, enhance, and create a sustainable environment Miscellaneous - 49 Packet Page 297 of 400 Budget Amendment for:First Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 7,500 1,882 0 0 0 0 0 2,118 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 $7,500 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,500 $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 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 2,000 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 2,000 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: We have secured $4,000 in sponsorship for the Health & Fitness Expo. The monies will be used for supplies and minor equipment for the 3rd annual expo on May 16, 2015. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services GENERALRecreation Supplies - 31 Minor Equipment - 35 Fund Name:Health & Fitness Expo Supplies Renee McRae 001.000.64.571.22 3. Maintain and enhance Edmonds' community character and quality of life Total Expenses Comments 001.000.367.00.100.00 001.000.337.20.000.00 Packet Page 298 of 400 Budget Amendment for:First Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 0 195,000 0 0 0 0 0 110,000 0 0 0 0 0 85,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $0 $390,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $390,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)195,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 Interfund Transfer to Fund 016 85,000 0 0 0 0 Interfund Loan Proceeds to 016 110,000 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $390,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 General Fiund Interfund Trasfer to Fund 016 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Update Council Chambers/Court Audio and Video equipment. Cost of the update would be paid out the Franchise Education Fee revenues and from the annual Washington State Judicial contribution. As of March 31, 2015, $85,000 in Education Fees and $20,000 in Judicial contributions are availalbe to pay towards the $180,000 of project costs plus $15,000 for project contingencies. The remaining balance of $110,000 would come from a two year General Fund Loan. The loan would be paid off by the end of 2017 from future Education Fees. Facilities Maintenance GENERALPublic Works Council/Court Chamber Audio/Video Upgrade General Fund Interfund Loan to Fund 016 Fund Name:Council Chambers/Court AV Equipment Scott James 016 Building Maintenance Fund & 001 General Fund Total Expenses Comments Project Expense From General Fund From General Fund Packet Page 299 of 400 Budget Amendment for:First Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 49,000 8,500 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 $49,000 $8,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,500 $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 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 8,500 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 $8,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments 117.100.367.00.000.00 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Grant funding for Summer Concerts at Hazel Miller Plaza. The Hazel Miller Foundation has awarded a grant to fund the 12 free summer concerts presented by the Edmonds Arts Commission at the Hazel Miller Plaza in July and August. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUISITION Cultural Services Professional Services 41 Fund Name:Hazel Miller Concerts grant funding Frances Chapin 117.100.64.573.20 1.e.1 and 2, Arts and Culture organization and promotion Packet Page 300 of 400 Budget Amendment for:First Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 70,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $70,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 $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 0 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 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Donation for 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Interim Art Project from Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUISITION Cultural Services Fund Name:4th Ave Cultural Corridor Interim Art Project Frances Chapin 117.200.64.575.50 1 e 4 4th Ave Cultural Corridor Professional Services 41 Total Expenses Comments 117.200.367.00.000.00 Packet Page 301 of 400 Budget Amendment for:First Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 1,000 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 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 Sub-Total $1,000 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $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 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 4,000 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 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study - The City received comments from the Department of Ecology later than expected. The original budget for 2015 ($1,000) is not adequate to finish the reports and close out the project. Public Works STORMEngineering Interfund Svcs 422.000.72.594.31.41.12 Professional Svcs 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 Fund Name:Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit S Jerry Shuster E3FC/c408 N/A Total Expenses Comments 422.000.334.03.101.00 Packet Page 302 of 400 Budget Amendment for:First Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 0 31,518 0 0 0 0 0 6,200 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 $0 $37,718 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,718 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)21,100 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 16,618 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $37,718 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments 511.100.395.20.000.00 New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Unit # 26, a 2010 Chevrolet Van, was involved in an accident that totaled the vehicle. Our insurance company paid the City $16,618 for the loss. Budget appropriation is needed for the City to purchase a replacment vehicle. The cost of the new vehicle is $31,518. An additional $6,200 is requested to cover the cost of coverting the new van to Bi-Fuel propane. Public Works EQUIPMENT RENTALFleet 2015 Ford Transit Van Prins Bi-Fuel propane system Fund Name:Fleet Van Mike Adams 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Packet Page 303 of 400 Budget Amendment for:First Quarter Item Description: Department: Division: Title: Preparer: Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 0 12,306 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 $12,306 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,306 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)12,306 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carryforward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $12,306 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses Comments Decrease in B fund New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Replacement of Police Radios for theThree Police Motorcycles: The radios that were replaced were purchased in 2003 and went out of production in 2004/2005. The radios had been out of warranty for 10 years and out of support by the manufacturer for 7 years. One radio could no longer be repaired and the other two were quickly approaching the same situation. It was decided that it was best to replace all three with new technology that is P25 compliant and upgradable to Phase II. Police EQUIPMENT RENTALPatrolFund Name:Police Radios Jim Lawless 511.100.77.548.68.35.00 N/A (3) 7/800 Single Band APX7500 Radios Packet Page 304 of 400    AM-7688     12.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted For:Shane Hope Submitted By:Shane Hope Department:Development Services Type: Information  Information Subject Title Draft Streetscape/Street Trees Element for 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update Recommendation Discuss, ask any questions, make comments, or, by consensus, provide direction Previous Council Action City Council held an April 21 public hearing on this topic Narrative BACKGROUND Draft updates to the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan are being reviewed and discussed, one element at a time.  The drafts, with any refinements, will be considered all together for adoption in July.  The updated Comprehensive Plan is due to the state by mid-year. STREETSCAPE/STREET TREES ELEMENT The existing Comprehensive Plan does not contain a special section on streetscape or street trees.  However, one line of the text adopts by reference a 2006 Streetscape Plan prepared by the City's Parks Department.  The 2006 Streetscape Plan is available online at the Parks Department webpage:   http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Parks_and_Recreation/Documentation/Streetscape_TOTAL_doc.pdf.  It focuses on streetscape concepts for key public areas of the City.   Various aspects of that plan need updating, but doing so would take more time than current resources allow.  Instead, a new section in the Community Culture & Urban Design has been drafted that would bring streetscape and street trees into the main body of the Comprehensive Plan.  (See Attachment 1 for a "clean version" and Attachment 2 for an "edits" version.)  Note: This section was noted as a placeholder, but not discussed, during the City Council's previous review of the Culture & Urban Design Element. At that time, the section was not ripe for discussion because it had not been fully reviewed by the Planning Board or Tree Board. Thus, the current proposal is to: A.  Add a new section directly into the Comprehensive Plan about streetscape/street trees goals and policies (per Attachments 1 and 2). B.  Add two implementation strategies to the Comprehensive Plan element covering streetscape/street trees (per Attachments 1 and 2), as follows     (1) Develop and update to the Street Tree Plan by the end of 2016.     (2) Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017. C. Make minor amendments to the Street Trees appendix included in the Streetscape Plan to allow better performing trees along certain streets (See Attachments 3 and 4); D. Don't adopt by reference the Streetscape Plan (with minor Street Trees amendments) but include it as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan for the 2015 update; PLANNING BOARD AND TREE BOARD INPUT The Planning  Board Community Culture & Urban Design Element  discussed the "Streetscape and Street Trees" section of the Community Culture & Urban Design Element on March 11 and April 8.  (See Planning Board minutes, Attachments 5 and 6.)  The Tree Board discussed the same material on April 9.  (Tree Board minutes were not available when this memo was being prepared.)  Packet Page 305 of 400   12.              City Council Meeting   Shane Hope Development Services Information Subject Title Draft Streetscape/Street Trees Element for 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update Recommendation Discuss, ask any questions, make comments, or, by consensus, provide direction Previous Council Action City Council held an April 21 public hearing on this topic Narrative BACKGROUND Draft updates to the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan are being reviewed and discussed, one element at a time.  The drafts, with any refinements, will be considered all together for adoption in July.  The updated Comprehensive Plan is due to the state by mid-year. STREETSCAPE/STREET TREES ELEMENT The existing Comprehensive Plan does not contain a special section on streetscape or street trees.  However, one line of the text adopts by reference a 2006 Streetscape Plan prepared by the City's Parks Department.  The 2006 Streetscape Plan is available online at the Parks Department webpage:   http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Parks_and_Recreation/Documentation/Streetscape_TOTAL_doc.pdf.  It focuses on streetscape concepts for key public areas of the City.   Various aspects of that plan need updating, but doing so would take more time than current resources allow.  Instead, a new section in the Community Culture & Urban Design has been drafted that would bring streetscape and street trees into the main body of the Comprehensive Plan.  (See Attachment 1 for a "clean version" and Attachment 2 for an "edits" version.)  Note: This section was noted as a placeholder, but not discussed, during the City Council's previous review of the Culture & Urban Design Element. At that time, the section was not ripe for discussion because it had not been fully reviewed by the Planning Board or Tree Board. Thus, the current proposal is to: A.  Add a new section directly into the Comprehensive Plan about streetscape/street trees goals and policies (per Attachments 1 and 2). B.  Add two implementation strategies to the Comprehensive Plan element covering streetscape/street trees (per Attachments 1 and 2), as follows     (1) Develop and update to the Street Tree Plan by the end of 2016.     (2) Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017. C. Make minor amendments to the Street Trees appendix included in the Streetscape Plan to allow better performing trees along certain streets (See Attachments 3 and 4); D. Don't adopt by reference the Streetscape Plan (with minor Street Trees amendments) but include it as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan for the 2015 update; PLANNING BOARD AND TREE BOARD INPUT The Planning  Board Community Culture & Urban Design Element  discussed the "Streetscape and Street Trees" section of the Community Culture & Urban Design Element on March 11 and April 8.  (See Planning Board minutes, Attachments 5 and 6.)  The Tree Board discussed the same material on April 9.  (Tree Board minutes were not available when this memo was being prepared.)  Packet Page 306 of 400 Both bodies found acceptable the proposed general goals and policies for the main part of the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 1).  They also recognized that the Street Tree Plan appendix needed more updating but that with the short timeframe available this year, the minor proposed amendments for it were acceptable.  CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING The City Council reviewed the proposal for streetscape and street trees, asked questions, and heard comments at a public hearing on April 28.  [Note:  Some interest was expressed in testimony for adding language about views.  Additional information or a policy about views could be added to a later version of the streetscape/street tree element as it goes through any refinements.  For example, here is a possible policy that could be added:  View corridors may be considered as a factor when selecting and maintaining trees in the public realm.  A Councilmember also commented that photos of street trees would be helpful.  This can be accomplished through the addition of illustrative photos in the Streetscape Plan as it is updated in the near future.] NEXT STEPS --April 28 - City Council discussion (See Attachment 7 for presentation.) --April-June - Any final draft refinements and public input --July 7 - City Council action on adopting 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update (all elements) Attachments Att. 1: Streetscape/Street Tree section - Clean Att. 2: Streetscape/Street Tree section - edits Att. 3: Street Tree plan changes memo Att. 4: Street Tree plans Att. 5: PB minutes 3.11.15 Att. 6: PB draft minutes of 4.8.15 Att. 7: May 5 Presentation Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 04/30/2015 02:27 PM Mayor Dave Earling 04/30/2015 03:34 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/01/2015 07:24 AM Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 04/30/2015 10:34 AM Final Approval Date: 05/01/2015  Packet Page 307 of 400 Both bodies found acceptable the proposed general goals and policies for the main part of the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 1).  They also recognized that the Street Tree Plan appendix needed more updating but that with the short timeframe available this year, the minor proposed amendments for it were acceptable.  CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING The City Council reviewed the proposal for streetscape and street trees, asked questions, and heard comments at a public hearing on April 28.  [Note:  Some interest was expressed in testimony for adding language about views.  Additional information or a policy about views could be added to a later version of the streetscape/street tree element as it goes through any refinements.  For example, here is a possible policy that could be added:  View corridors may be considered as a factor when selecting and maintaining trees in the public realm.  A Councilmember also commented that photos of street trees would be helpful.  This can be accomplished through the addition of illustrative photos in the Streetscape Plan as it is updated in the near future.] NEXT STEPS --April 28 - City Council discussion (See Attachment 7 for presentation.) --April-June - Any final draft refinements and public input --July 7 - City Council action on adopting 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update (all elements) Attachments Att. 1: Streetscape/Street Tree section - Clean Att. 2: Streetscape/Street Tree section - edits Att. 3: Street Tree plan changes memo Att. 4: Street Tree plans Att. 5: PB minutes 3.11.15 Att. 6: PB draft minutes of 4.8.15 Att. 7: May 5 Presentation Form Review Date 04/30/2015 02:27 PM 04/30/2015 03:34 PM 05/01/2015 07:24 AM Started On: 04/30/2015 10:34 AM Final Approval Date: 05/01/2015  Packet Page 308 of 400 C.2 Site Design. Site design should allow for vechicular access and parking as well as safe access and circulation for pedestrians. Whenever possible, sites should provide connections between adjacent businesses and between businesses and nearby residential neighborhoods. C.3 Landscaping and Buffering. Landscaping, fencing or other appropriate techniques should be used to soften the street front of sites and also used to buffer more intensive uses from adjoining less intensive use areas (e.g. buffer commercial from residential development). Urban Design Goal D: Neighborhood Commercial Areas. Design in neighborhood commercial areas should seek to support the function of the neighborhood center while paying close attention to its place within the neighborhood setting. D.1 Landscape and Buffering. Special attention should be paid to transitions from commercial development to surrounding residential areas, using landscaping and/or gradations in building scale to provide compatible development. Streetscape and Street Trees General. “Streetscape” is a term that refers to the street environment, often including pedestrian features, landscaping, lighting, pavement materials, and signage. The streetscape plays an important role in the livability and character of Edmonds. Public streets, with their associated walkways and pedestrian spaces, provide the places for people to interact with their neighbors, accommodate public events and commerce, promote human needs for enjoyment and exercise including arts and aesthetics, and can improve the ecological function of the city. When designed properly, the streetscape complements the urban design elements incorporated into the development of private property. A Streetscape Plan was developed in 2002 by the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department and updated in 2006. It focused on the public realm along streets, certain areas of the City such as the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, Highway 99 International area, and downtown. In 2011, the City adopted a ‘Complete Streets’ program that prioritizes accommodating the needs of all users – including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and individual vehicles – in transportation projects. The intent is to create safe environments for people of all ages and abilities while improving transportation options and connections between the City’s destinations and centers of activity. A complete streets approach can improve the ability of residents and visitors to experience the City in a variety of ways while improving environmental quality, enhancing economic activity, and promoting healthy lifestyle. Where feasible, street trees or other landscaping located between the travel lane and the sidewalk can improve the pedestrian experience. This section has a key goal and several policies specifically related to streetscape and street trees within the public right of way. DRAFTPacket Page 309 of 400 Goals and Policies Streetscape and Street Trees Goal A. Enhance the public realm through streetscape and street tree choices. A.1. Encourage inprovments to streets that link parks, open spaces, recreation centers, employment centers, and transportation nodes. A.2. Balance the need for short-term parking for shoppers and loading for businesses with the need for pedestrian-oriented design, especially downtown. A.3. As opportunities arise, provide for sustainable streetscapes that can enhance the natural environment, help ensure safety, and complement the characteristics of the neighborhood or district in which they are located. A.4. Promote the planting and maintainence of landscaping and street trees to enhance City gateways and connections; strengthen the character and identify of downtown and other retail/commercial centers; and improve the pedestrian environment. A.5. Seek to maintain and retain existing healthy trees in the rights-of-way without sacrificing public safety or public infrastructure or encouraging a hazard or nuisance. A.6. Selecting trees for planting in the public rights-of-way should be based on a variety of factors, such as aesthetics, safety, maintainence, size, spacing, longevity, location, utilities, habitat compatibility, and other appropriate factors. Implementation Actions Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address high priority Streetscape and Street Tree goals. The actions identified here are specifically called out as being important, but are not intended to be the only actions or measures that may be used by the City. Action 1: Develop an update to the Street Tree Plan by the end of 2016. Action 2: Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017. DRAFTPacket Page 310 of 400 D.2.d. Landscaping: Use of landscaping berms in and around parking areas and setbacks to provide a visual screen. D.3. Neighborhood Shopping Centers General AppearanceLandscape and Buffering. Special attention should be paid to transitions from commercial development to surrounding residential areas, using landscaping and/or gradations in building scale to provide compatible development. Streetscape and Street Trees General. “Streetscape” is a term that refers to the street environment, often including pedestrian features, landscaping, lighting, pavement materials, and signage. The streetscape plays an important role in the livability and character of Edmonds. Public streets, with their associated walkways and pedestrian spaces, provide the places for people to interact with their neighbors, accommodate public events and commerce, promote human needs for enjoyment and exercise including arts and aesthetics, and can improve the ecological function of the city. When designed properly, the streetscape complements the urban design elements incorporated into the development of private property. A Streetscape Plan was developed in 2002 by the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department and updated in 2006. It focused on the public realm along streets, certain areas of the City such as the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, Highway 99 International area, and downtown. In 2011, the City adopted a ‘Complete Streets’ program that prioritizes accommodating the needs of all users – including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and individual vehicles – in transportation projects. The intent is to create safe environments for people of all ages and abilities while improving transportation options and connections between the City’s destinations and centers of activity. A complete streets approach can improve the ability of residents and visitors to experience the City in a variety of ways while improving environmental quality, enhancing economic activity, and promoting healthy lifestyle. Where feasible, street trees or other landscaping located between the travel lane and the sidewalk can improve the pedestrian experience. This section has a key goal and several policies specifically related to streetscape and street trees within the public right of way. Formatted: Keep with next Formatted: Intro DRAFTPacket Page 311 of 400 Goals and Policies Streetscape and Street Trees Goal A. Enhance the public realm through streetscape and street tree choices. A.1. Encourage inprovments to streets that link parks, open spaces, recreation centers, employment centers, and transportation nodes. A.2. Balance the need for short-term parking for shoppers and loading for businesses with the need for pedestrian-oriented design, especially downtown. A.3. As opportunities arise, provide for sustainable streetscapes that can enhance the natural environment, help ensure safety, and complement the characteristics of the neighborhood or district in which they are located. A.4. Promote the planting and maintainence of landscaping and street trees to enhance City gateways and connections; strengthen the character and identify of downtown and other retail/commercial centers; and improve the pedestrian environment. A.5. Seek to maintain and retain existing healthy trees in the rights-of-way without sacrificing public safety or public infrastructure or encouraging a hazard or nuisance. A.6. Selecting trees for planting in the public rights-of-way should be based on a variety of factors, such as aesthetics, safety, maintainence, size, spacing, longevity, location, utilities, habitat compatibility, and other appropriate factors. Implementation Actions Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address high priority Streetscape and Street Tree goals. The actions identified here are specifically called out as being important, but are not intended to be the only actions or measures that may be used by the City. Action 1: Develop an update to the Street Tree Plan by the end of 2016. Action 2: Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017. Signs: Use sign concept from downtown. Lighting: Oriented away from residential areas. Designed for safety rather than advertisement of uses. DRAFTPacket Page 312 of 400 March | 2015 Street Tree Plan: Draft 2015 Updates Key Map Changes for 2015 • Cleaned up the color palette to improve the Plan’s readability • Shortened the designated corridor for Main Street east of downtown. Previous plan indicated planting the entire corridor between Five Corners and downtown. New map stops at 9th Ave S. due to concerns about lack of space to plant trees. • Changed the following species due to concerns listed: o Prunus sargentii ‘Columnaris’ / Sargents Cherry replaced with Acer rubrum ‘Bowhall’ / Bowhall Maple in Civic Center Concerns: Poor performance, prone to disease, difficult to prune. o Prunus serrulata ‘Kwanson’ / Kwanson Flowering Cherry replaced with Pyrus colleryana ‘Capital’ / Capital Pear along Main Street Concerns: Irregular shape, difficult to prune, disease and pest problems. o Carpinus betulus ‘Fastigiata’ / Pyramidal European Hornbeam replaced with Pyrus colleryana ‘Capital’ / Capital Pear on northern portion of 3rd Ave. S Concerns: Poor performance. Shopkeepers did not like due to obscuring storefronts. o Fraximus Pennsylvania ‘Summit’ / Summit Ash replaced with Acer Rubrum ‘Karpick’ / Karpick Maple from along 4th Ave. S. from SR-104 to start of 4th Ave. Cultural Corridor Concerns: Height and width (60’ x 50’) concerns at maturity. o Changed the 4th Ave. Cultural Corridor from Fraximus Pennsylvania ‘Summit’ / Summit Ash to mix of tree species as identified in the 4th Ave Cultural Corridor Plan (2009) and 4th Ave. Arts Corridor (currently appx. E of Streetscape Plan) Concerns: Consistency with other documents. Packet Page 313 of 400 2015 STREET TREE PLAN DRAFT Packet Page 314 of 400 2010 STREET TREE PLAN Packet Page 315 of 400 121 Downtown street tree distribution map. 2006 STREET TREE PLAN Packet Page 316 of 400 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 11, 2015 Page 3 Comprehensive Plan, but there is no “values” element. He advised that the Development Services Director would like to conduct a City visioning process, but this will take a tremendous amount of time and effort, and will not be part of the current update. Chair Tibbott commented that improving the physical character of Edmonds assumes the City has values. Articulating the community’s values and choices about the character of Edmonds will be an evolving conversation, and bringing the issue to the forefront as part of the Board’s discussion about design and streetscape is appropriate. He said he hopes the City Council and public will comment regarding community values as they review the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Chair Lovell recalled that there are at least two specific examples of recent developments on SR-104 that were criticized relative to design. He asked if the Architectural Design Board (ADB) reviewed both of the projects. Mr. Chave answered that the ADB did review the Compass Development, but he is not sure design review was required for the daycare building. He recalled that the concerns relative to the Compass Development were more about bulk and configuration than design, and the Development Code was recently amended to address the problems. DISCUSSION ON DRAFT STREETSCAPE AND STREET TREE PLANS Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the list of key changes to the Street Tree Map (Attachment 3) and requested more background information about the term “poor performance.” She also asked who guided the replacement schedule. Mr. Chave answered that the proposed changes to the Street Tree Map was drafted by Rich Lindsey, Parks Maintenance Manager, and Engineering Department staff. These two groups reviewed the existing Street Tree Plan and Street Tree Map and considered how successful or unsuccessful the tree species had been. In some situations, they found that the tree species were inappropriate for the location and that they impacted the infrastructure. Board Member Rubenkonig asked who proposed the replacement species. Mr. Chave said the same staff team identified the replacement species. Based on their experience, these are tree species that have been shown to be successful. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would have liked to hear that a landscape architect had provided input. However, she supports the input from staff as it is likely the recommended species are already used successful in the City. Mr. Chave advised that the draft Street Tree Plan will be presented to the Tree Board for feedback, as well. Vice Chair Lovell also referred to Attachment 3, which explains the changes that have been proposed based on concerns about poor performance, irregular shape, difficulty pruning, disease and pest problems, and height and width concerns at maturity. It does not mention problems that occur when roots grow so large they heave up the sidewalks. Mr. Chave said that, although it is not listed in Attachment 3 as a specific concern, he knows it was considered by the staff team when drafting the proposed changes. Vice Chair Lovell voiced support for a gradual program of replacing trees that interfere with the sidewalk, are difficult to maintain, grow too large, perform poorly, etc. However, he expressed concern that there could be an overwhelming desire to save every tree in downtown Edmonds irrespective of the risk it may impose to the residents, buildings and infrastructure. Mr. Chave explained that all three maps were provided to illustrate the different versions of the map. Board Member Stewart asked Mr. Chave to describe the differences between the 2006, 2010 and 2015 Street Tree Maps. He explained that the maps are more similar than different, but there were some changes to the list of tree species. Student Representative Zhao noted that a species is spelled “Ginko Biloba” on the 2006 Street Tree Map and “Ginkgo Biloba” on the 2015 Street Tree Map. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that (Capital Pear) is the species called out in the existing plan for 3rd Avenue, and it would remain the same. As per the proposed plan, Capital Pear would also be located on Main Street from the Ferry Terminal to 5th Avenue. She noted that the existing trees have started to bloom. They are lovely and tend to guide people down 3rd Avenue. Bowhall Maple is identified for Main Street from 5th Avenue to 9th Avenue. This is a beautiful, statuesque tree that has presence. It does not continue all the way down Main Street to the Ferry Terminal because it would likely grow too large for the constrained area in the downtown and waterfront. She said she would like an opportunity to have a discussion with someone who can describe how the proposed plan is intended to flow and give importance to the different areas. Mr. Chave suggested the Board could ask Mr. Lindsey, who has on-the-ground experience with street trees, to be part of their next discussion. Chair Tibbott said it would also be helpful for Mr. Lindsey to provide pictures of the different tree species. Packet Page 317 of 400 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 11, 2015 Page 4 Mr. Chave summarized that the original Street Tree Plan was prepared by a landscape architectural firm. The intent was not to redo the plan, but to make a few adjustments where they know things are not working. He advised that the original plan that was prepared by the landscape architect is available for the Board’s review. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that reviewing the original plan could provide additional understanding as to why the Street Tree Map is the way it is. Chair Tibbott noted that, as per the Extended Agenda, the Board would continue its review of the draft Street Tree Plan on March 25th. Vice Chair Lovell asked if this would be sufficient time for the Tree Board to review the Street Tree Plan and provide feedback to the Board. Mr. Chave noted that the Tree Board is not scheduled to meet again until April. He agreed to talk with the Development Services Director to find out if she is anxious to forward the Street Tree Plan to the City Council as soon as possible or if it could wait until the Tree Board has provided feedback. He said he would be very surprised if the Tree Board recommends major changes to the Street Tree Plan, but their comments would be helpful to the process. He summarized that, given the Board’s comments, he is not sure there is much more they can do until the Tree Board has reviewed the document and provided feedback. The Board agreed to remove the discussion related to the draft Street Tree Plan from the March 25th agenda. They further agreed to review the draft Street Tree Plan again in April after the Tree Board’s review. Mr. Chave specifically referred to the goals and policies related to Streetscape and Street Trees found in the draft Community Culture and Urban Design Element (Attachment 2). He specifically noted that Policies A.5 and A.6 address the issue Vice Chair Lovell raised earlier about street trees that impact the public infrastructure. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA The Board tentatively scheduled its retreat for July 8th, and Chair Tibbott invited Board Members to forward their suggestions for agenda topics. It was noted that a briefing on the Marina Beach Master Plan is scheduled for that evening and could be added as part of the retreat agenda. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Tibbott referred to the written report provided by the Development Services Director. Vice Chair Lovell specifically referred to the report relative to the Community Profile Brochure that was prepared to highlight some key demographic facts about Edmonds. He said he obtained a copy of the brochure at the open house that took place prior to the Board’s regular meeting. He noted that the information in the brochure would also be posted on the City’s website. He expressed his belief that the brochure is an excellent public relations tool. Board Member Rubenkonig said it was wonderful to hear about the City’s progress in reducing the greenhouse gasses attributed to City facilities by 26.4%. Chair Tibbott voiced appreciation for the report, which summarizes the activities taking place around the City, as well as neighboring jurisdictions. The information is helpful to the Board Members. DEVELOPMENT CODE MAJOR UPDATE: PROGRESS REPORT Mr. Chave referred to the written report prepared by the Development Services Director to keep the Board informed of the ongoing process to update the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Tibbott announced that he and Vice Chair Lovell would present the Planning Board’s quarterly report to the City Council on March 17th. He advised that Vice Chair Lovell prepared a PowerPoint presentation to highlight the Board’s recent activities. He invited other Board Members to attend, as well. Mr. Chave agreed to confirm with the City Clerk that the presentation is scheduled on the Council’s agenda for March 17th. Packet Page 318 of 400 DRAFT Subject to April 22nd Approval CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 8, 2015 Chair Tibbott called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Neil Tibbott, Chair Todd Cloutier Carreen Rubenkonig Daniel Robles Valerie Stewart Evan Zhao, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Philip Lovell, Vice Chair STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Rich Lindsey, Parks Maintenance Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2015 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Tibbott acknowledged the written report from the Development Services Director. There were no comments and questions from the Board Members relative to the report. UPDATE ON DRAFT STREETSCAPE AND STREET TREE PLANS Mr. Chave reviewed that the Board last discussed the Streetscape and Streetscape section of the Community Culture and Urban Design Element on March 11th. At that time, they agreed to continue their discussion after the Tree Board met on April 2nd. They also requested that staff provide additional information to support the proposed changes in tree species. He reported that the Tree Board’s meeting was postponed from April 2nd to April 9th, so they have not yet had an opportunity to Packet Page 319 of 400 review the plan and provided feedback. However, he advised that Rich Lindsey, Parks Maintenance Manager, was present to address questions and provide additional information related to the proposed changes to street tree species. Mr. Lindsey explained that the City’s Street Tree Plan was originally adopted in 2002. Since that time, it has been determined that some of the species identified in the plan did not work well as street trees. For example, staff is proposing that the Columnar Sargent Cherry be replaced with Columnar Bowhall Maple. He explained that Columnar Bowhall Maples have proven to be very resilient, with brilliant spring, summer and fall colors. They are very low maintenance and disease and drought resistant, as well as slow growing and easy to prune and shape. They are also thornless, fruitless, resistant to pests, and the roots are non-invasive. They have done well in other areas of the City, and staff believes they would result in a cost savings from a maintenance point of view. Mr. Lindsey said staff is also proposing to replace the Kwanson Flowering Cherry species. Although this species is beautiful in park-like settings, they do not make good street trees. Street trees must be pruned on a regular basis, and pruning of this species causes the trunk to become enlarged. In addition, the roots become aggressive and cause sidewalks to lift. These trees have done a lot of damage throughout the City. At the Tree Board’s next meeting, he will propose that this species be replaced with Capital Pear, which is very similar to a Columnar Bowhall Maple. Capital Pear trees are very tough and have white flowers in the spring, shiny green leaves in the summer and read and purples leaves in the fall. They are draught and disease tolerant and resistant to breakage. They are also slow growing. Chair Tibbott asked if staff could provide pictures of the species identified in the plan. He suggested the City Council would likely be very interested in seeking samples of the species of trees that are currently being recommended. He expressed appreciation for the work the staff and Tree Board have done to select trees that are compatible with the sidewalks, easy to maintain, etc. Board Member Robles referred to the Columnar Sargent Maple Trees that are planted in front of City Hall, and noted that the sun conditions in this location are substantially different than in other areas of the City. The lack of morning and evening sun could tax any tree species. Mr. Lindsey agreed but said he believes the Columnar Bowhall Maple species have proven to be a good tree in any type of sun condition. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that, at their last discussion relative to the Street Tree Plan, it was noted that shopkeepers do not like a particular species of tree. She asked how members of the community can express their disinterest in a tree species. Mr. Lindsey said he deals with public complaints relative to street trees, especially pruning, on a regular basis. The goal is to select species that are hardy and slow growing so they do not disrupt pedestrian access or block views. Chair Tibbott asked if Mr. Lindsey is confident that the recommended species will fit the maintenance criteria outlined for the City, will be compatible with surrounding vegetation, and will result in satisfactory landscaping design that fits the circumstances and can be approved by the City. Mr. Lindsey said he is comfortable that the proposed species meet all of these criteria. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that the proposed Tree Code calls for the City to complete an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) by the end of 2017. Mr. Chave said that is an action item included in the draft Tree Code. Board Member Rubenkonig said it seems out of sync to adopt a new Tree Code prior to the completion of the UFMP. Board Member Cloutier recalled that the Board previously indicated preference for completing the UFMP prior to adopting the new Tree Code. Chair Tibbott questioned if it would be acceptable for the Board to postpone any action on the draft Tree Code until a UFMP has been completed. Mr. Chave agreed that would be within the scope of what the Board could recommend to the City Council. For example, the Board could specifically ask that funding for the UFMP become a priority. He suggested they could discuss the options in more detail when Mr. Lien returns with the collective comments submitted to date by the Board Members. He noted that the draft Tree Code indicates that the UFMP should be completed by the end of 2017; it doesn’t say the City must wait until the end of 2017. The goal is to provide flexibility to accommodate funding opportunities, but the UFMP must be completed by a specific date. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the City Council is supposed to take action on the Comprehensive Plan in June of 2015. If the Board is far enough along in its review of the draft Tree Code to agree that the priority belongs with the UFMP, they could make that suggestion as part of their recommendation to the City Council relative to the Comprehensive Plan update. Packet Page 320 of 400 Board Member Stewart referred to the most recent draft of the Street Tree Plan and noted that the comments she submitted to staff in writing since the last meeting have not been incorporated. Mr. Chave clarified that no changes were made to the Street Tree Plan since it was last reviewed by the Board. Staff is waiting for feedback from the Tree Board, as well as written feedback from Board Members before updating the document for the Board’s continued review. 2015 TRANSPORTATION PLAN (DRAFT PROJECT LIST/LEVEL OF SERVICE) Mr. Hauss reviewed that the City has been working with consultants from Fehr and Peers since last October to update the City’s Transportation Plan. He reminded the Board that the draft goals and policies for the Transportation Plan were presented on February 11th, and tonight’s discussion will focus on the first draft of the project list to be included in the 2015 Transportation Element update, as well as the draft Level of Service (LOS) Standards to be considered for each travel mode. He noted that the Transportation Committee, Walkway Committee and Edmonds Bicycle Club have reviewed the draft project list, as well. He advised that the draft project list and LOS Standards would be presented to the City Council in a few weeks. Chair Tibbott commented that it would be helpful to understand the difference between LOS A and LOS D. If it is essentially based on the amount of time spent at an intersection, then perhaps it would be helpful to provide some quantitative information. Mr. Hauss replied that a description of the LOS ratings and how they were applied throughout the City would be provided as a figure in the Transportation Plan. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that the Board previously reviewed the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which ranks projects based on roadway conditions and the functionality of the roadway rather than LOS. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that many of the roadway projects identified in the CIP are intended to address LOS issues, such as the Five Corners Roundabout. Mr. Samdahl emphasized that the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities to set LOS standards for arterials and transit routes. The regional planning process also anticipates that cities will set similar LOS standards for bicycles and pedestrians. He explained that LOS is basically a measure of a facility’s quality of service. In the case of roadways, the scale uses A through F. An LOS A means that the average delay when approaching an intersection is virtually zero, and an LOS D means that an intersection is not quite failing, but the average delay is about 50 seconds. LOS F indicates extreme congestion with delays in excess of one and even two minutes. He advised that, consistent with the City’s current LOS standards, the draft Transportation Plan identifies a standard of LOS D or better for arterials and LOS C or better for collector streets. Mr. Samdahl pointed out that standards for State Routes are different; and currently, the State has identified a standard of LOS E or better for SR-524 and Highway 99 north of SR-104. SR-104 and Highway 99 south of SR-104 have been designated as Highways of Statewide Significance, meaning that they are controlled by the state and connect major destinations. No City standard is defined for these roadways, which are not subject to concurrency. However, to monitor operations on Highways of Statewide Significance, the plan identifies existing and potential future deficiencies, as well as improvements that might be needed, if the State’s standard is exceeded. Mr. Samdahl explained that the proposed roadway projects were analyzed based on LOS and/or safety. He referred to Figure 1, which shows the existing LOS at intersections within the City. He summarized that all intersections currently meet the City’s adopted LOS standard; and with the exception of the intersection at 238th Street Southwest and SR-104, all intersections on Highways of Statewide Significance met the State’s LOS standard. Mr. Samdahl also referred to Figure 2, which illustrates the anticipated 2035 LOS conditions, both with and without improvements, based on growth forecasts for the City and the region over the next 20 years. He summarized that, without improvements, several intersections are anticipated to exceed the City’s LOS Standard. For those intersections that would not meet the City’s LOS standard, projects were identified to improve the conditions (Table 2). With the exception of the intersection at Highway 99 and 212th Street Southwest, the proposed improvements would get all intersections operating satisfactorily within the standard. While improvements have been proposed for the intersection of Highway 99 and 212th Street Southwest to make the situation better, widening the highway to provide additional lanes would be needed to fully address the issue. In discussions with both the Packet Page 321 of 400 STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES City Council Meeting | May 5th, 2015 | Agenda Item #12 Packet Page 322 of 400 Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES •Draft updates to the Comprehensive Plan are being reviewed one at a time. •Drafts, with refinements, will be considered all together in early July. Packet Page 323 of 400 STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES The existing Comprehensive Plan does not contain a special section on Streetscape and Street Trees. However, the 2006 Streetscape Plan is adopted by reference. Time & resources are not currently available for a major update to the 2006 Streetscape/Street Tree Plan. Instead, a simple Streetscape & Street Tree section can be added into the Community Culture & Urban Design element. Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps Packet Page 324 of 400 Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES Through meetings with key staff from multiple departments, staff identified the following key points: •The existing Street Tree Plan Map was difficult to read; •Certain tree species in the 2006 Street Tree Plan were underperforming or wrong shape/size for intended area; •A more in-depth study on street trees is needed but could occur next year. Packet Page 325 of 400 STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES CURRENT PROPOSAL: •Add a new Streetscape & Street Tree section into the Comprehensive Plan to address goals and policies; •Based on 2006 Streetscape Plan •Do not adopt the Streetscape Plan by reference, but include it as an appendix to Comprehensive Plan. Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps Packet Page 326 of 400 STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES CURRENT PROPOSAL: •Add 2 tree-related implementation strategies to the Culture & Urban Design Element of the Comp Plan: 1)Develop an update to the Street Tree Plan by the end of 2016. 2)Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017. Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps Packet Page 327 of 400 STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES CURRENT PROPOSAL: •Make minor adjustments to Street Tree Plan (appendix to Comp Plan): 1)Improve map readability 2)Adjust street tree species in 4 locations to encourage better performing trees Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps Packet Page 328 of 400 Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES Proposed Goal & Policies Streetscape and Street Trees Goal . Enhance the public realm through streetscape and street tree choices. 1.Encourage improvements to streets that link parks, open spaces, recreation centers, employment centers, and transportation nodes. 2.Balance the need for short-term parking for shoppers and loading for businesses with the need for pedestrian-oriented design, especially downtown. 3.As opportunities arise, provide for sustainable streetscapes that can enhance the natural environment, help ensure safety, and complement the characteristics of the neighborhood or district in which they are located. Packet Page 329 of 400 Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES Proposed Policies (cont’d): 4.Promote the planting and maintenance of landscaping and street trees to enhance City gateways and connections; strengthen the character and identify of downtown and other retail/commercial centers; and improve the pedestrian environment. 5.Seek to maintain and retain existing healthy trees in the rights- of-way without sacrificing public safety or public infrastructure or encouraging a hazard or nuisance. 6.Selecting trees for planting in the public rights-of-way should be based on a variety of factors, such as aesthetics, safety, maintenance, size, spacing, longevity, location, utilities, habitat compatibility, and other appropriate factors. Packet Page 330 of 400 Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES Possible additional policy that could be added as part of refining draft element: 7.View corridors may be considered as a factor when selecting and managing trees in the public realm. Packet Page 331 of 400 Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES Draft 2015 Street Tree Plan Packet Page 332 of 400 Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES 2015 Street Tree Plan changes Changed species from European Hornbeam to Capital Pear Shop owners were generally unhappy with the European Hornbeam. While the tree is pretty and performs fairly well, it obscures storefronts and attracts pests (scale and aphids); both of which were found on this specimen on April 20th, 2015. European Hornbeam on 2nd Ave. and James St. Packet Page 333 of 400 Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES 2015 Street Tree Plan changes Changed species from Kwansan Cherry to Capital Pear T h e Kwansan Cherry is a good tree in park-l i k e settings, but as a street t re e we h a v e fo u n d i t d o e s not perform well due to irregular shape, difficult to prune, and roots are very invasive lifting sidewalks and streets where planted. T h i s t re e i s a l s o pro n e t o many types of diseases and pest problems. Packet Page 334 of 400 Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES 2015 Street Tree Plan changes Changed species from Sargents Cherry to Bowhall Maple At the April 9th Tree Board meeting, Ronald Brightman correctly identified the cherry trees in front of City Hall a s Amanogawa Cherry. In general, cherry trees have not performed well as street trees in Edmonds. T h e Tre e Bo a rd recommends changing Sargents Cherry to Bowhall Maple to create a cohesive streetscape with trees planted at the Public Safety building. Amanogawa Cherry at City Hall. Packet Page 335 of 400 Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES 2015 Street Tree Plan changes Changed species from Kwansan Cherry to Bowhall Maple T h e Kwansan Cherry is a good tree in park-l i k e settings, but as a street t re e we h a v e fo u n d i t does not perform well due to irregular shape, difficult to prune, and ro o t s a re v e r y i n v a s i v e lifting sidewalks and streets where planted. T h i s t re e i s a l s o pro n e t o many types of diseases and pest problems. Packet Page 336 of 400 Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES 2015 Street Tree Plan changes Changed species from Summit Ash to mix of trees as per 4th Ave. Cultural Corridor Design Implementation and Funding Plan (2009) & 4th Ave. Arts Corridor Concept Plan (2006) Trees species listed in the plans include: •Red Oak •Rivers Purple Beech •Norway Maple •Chanticleer Flowering Pear •Sunset Maple •Frontier Elm •Little Gem Magnolia •All existing trees that are viable should be saved Packet Page 337 of 400 STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps PLANNING BOARD AND TREE BOARD INPUT Planning Board discussed proposal on March 11th & April 8th. Tree Board discussed same material on April 9th. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING City Council held public hearing on April 21st. Packet Page 338 of 400 Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES Planning Board •March 11th - Introduction to Streetscape & Street Tree update. •April 8th - Recommendation for Streetscape & Street Tree update. Tree Board •April 9th, - Review the Streetscape & Street Tree update. City Council •April 21s t - Public Hearing on the Streetscape & Street Tree update. •May 5th - Discussion on the Streetscape & Street Tree update. •June/July – More public input & final Decision of full Comp Plan. Packet Page 339 of 400 Bowhall Maples planted at the Public Safety Building Packet Page 340 of 400    AM-7690     13.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of Mandatory Right of Way Dedication for Vehrs Short Plat Recommendation Accept the street dedication and authorize Mayor to sign the short plat documents accepting the street dedication. Previous Council Action None. Narrative On October 21, 2014, the Vehrs 3-lot short plat located at 1040 6th Ave S, received preliminary short plat approval.  The official street map for the City of Edmonds indicates a 60-foot wide right-of-way along 6th Ave S, adjacent to the subject property.  As shown in Attachment 1, the survey prepared for the development indicates a 55-foot right-of-way (25-feet on the west side of 6th Ave S) at this location.   As such, a 5-foot street dedication was required as a condition of approval.  After receiving authorization from the City Council to accept the dedication and for the Mayor to sign the face of the short plat documents, the 5-foot street dedication will be deeded to the City of Edmonds upon recording of the short plat with Snohomish County. Attachments Attachment 1 - Final Short Plat Map Showing 5-Foot Street Dedication Attachment 2 - Aerial photo indicating location of street dedication is relation to the travel lane Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 04/30/2015 03:26 PM Public Works Phil Williams 04/30/2015 03:30 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 04/30/2015 03:32 PM Mayor Dave Earling 04/30/2015 03:34 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/01/2015 07:24 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 04/30/2015 02:49 PM Final Approval Date: 05/01/2015  Packet Page 341 of 400 Packet Page 342 of 400 10391054 1033 1037 1041 1061105610581060 1040520559545537 6th Ave SForsyth Ln H Area of Dedication PLN20140039 - Vehrs 3-Lot Short Plat1040 - 6th Avenue SouthFive feet Street Dedication 1 inch = 40 feetScale Packet Page 343 of 400    AM-7658     14.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:45 Minutes   Submitted For:Councilmembers Bloom and Buckshnis Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Committee: Type: Potential Action Information Subject Title Discussion and potential action regarding draft code of ethics, Attachment 16. Review of Options A,B,C and D. Recommendation Approve Code of Ethics as determined by Council. Previous Council Action 2012 Council Retreat: Council made this subject a priority for 2012 (minutes attached) April 10, 2012 Public Safety and Personal Committee :  This agenda items was discussed (minutes attached). 2013 Council Retreat:  This item was discussed (minutes attached). March 12, 2013 Public Safety and Personnel Committee:  This item was discussed (minutes attached). April 9, 2013 Public Safety and Personnel Committee:  This item was discussed (minutes attached). July 9, 2013 PS/P Committee:  This item was discussed (minutes attached). July 30, 2013 Council Meeting:  This item was put on the August 20, 2013 Council Agenda. See excerpt from July 30, 2013 minutes below: "DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS This item was moved to the August 20, 2013 Council meeting via action taken under Agenda Item 2." August 20, 2013 Council Meeting: Council President Petso suggested due to the late hour and remaining items on the agenda items that this item be postponed to a future meeting. August 27, 2013 Council Meeting: This item was discussed (minutes attached). September 9, 2014 PS/P Committee:  This item was discussed (minutes attached). December 9, 2014 Council Meeting:  Due to the lateness of the hour, this item was rescheduled for the December 16, 2014 Council Meeting. Packet Page 344 of 400 December 16, 2014 Council Meeting:  See attached minutes. January 13, 2015 Council Meeting:  See attached minutes. February 24, 2015 Council Meeting:  Due to the lateness of the hour, the Code of Ethics was put on this agenda for  discussion. April 14, 2015 Council Meeting:  Minutes attached. Narrative Discussion regarding a Code of Ethics has been ongoing since 2012.  A Code of Ethics document has been placed on this agenda for discussion.    Below is  and excerpt from Chapter 2.10, Section:  2.10.005 of the Edmonds City Code along with the link for reference if the Council wishes to peruse the whole chapter. http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/edmonds/mobile/?pg=Edmonds02/Edmonds0210.html#2.10  Chapter 2.10 CONFIRMATION AND DUTIES OF APPOINTIVE OFFICERS Sections: 2.10.005 Definitions. 2.10.005 Definitions. A. Appointive Officer. For the purposes of this chapter, “appointive officer” means the following city officers that are appointed by the mayor and subject to city council confirmation: all director-level positions in the city’s adopted budget, including the police chief.    Attachments Attach 1: 2012 Council Retreat Minutes  Attach 2 April-10-12 Minutes Public Safety, Personnel Committee Attach 3 - Exerpt from 2012 FINAL Edmonds Personnel Policies Attach 4 - Ord 3689 Conflict of Interest Attach 5: Excerpt from 2013 Council Retreat Minutes Attach 6: Minutes 3/12/13 PS/P Committee Attach 7: Minutes 7/9/13 PS/P Committee  Attach 8 - 8/27/13 Council Minutes Attach - 9 - 09-09-14 Public Safety and Personnel Committee _Attach 10 - Dec. 16 2014 Approved Council Minutes Attach 11- 04-09-13 Public Safety and Personnel Committee Packet Page 345 of 400 Attach 12 - Jan 13 2015 APPROVED Council Minutes Attach 13 - Code of Ethics REVISED BY AFM ON 4-30-15 Attach 14 - April 14, 2015 Approved Council Minutes Attach 15 - Shoreline Code of Ethics Attach 16 - FINAL DRAFT Code of Ethics UPDATED 4-30-15 B-B revisions Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 04/30/2015 10:30 AM Mayor Dave Earling 04/30/2015 02:09 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/30/2015 02:11 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 04/22/2015 01:49 PM Final Approval Date: 04/30/2015  Packet Page 346 of 400 Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 2-3, 2011 Page 17 before the Council is first a committee meeting or work session. Issues that have a financial impact will be discussed at a work session rather than just by the Finance Committee. It was the consensus of the Council to change the name of the Community Services/Development Services Committee to the Public Works, Parks and Planning Committees. • Mission Statements Committees will determine whether to develop a mission statement. Councilmembers Buckshnis and Yamamoto will develop a mission statement for the Finance Committee. • Clarify the Public Safety/Human Resources Committee It was the consensus of the Council to change the name of the Public Safety/Human Resources to Committee to the Public Safety and Personnel Committee. • Community Outreach, Tree Board Council President Peterson explained there has been a proposal to restart the Community Outreach Committee. Councilmember Plunkett recalled the Community Outreach Committee was discontinued after 3 years; no new methods of communicating were identified. Mayor Earling commented on the potential for an electronic newsletter. Discussion followed regarding whether to form a code rewrite committee so that the code rewrite is Council and citizen driven, technical expertise required for the code rewrite, having staff make periodic presentations at Council work sessions regarding the rewrite, the proposal by staff to restructure the code, providing opportunity for citizen comment but having professionals assemble the changes, citizen knowledge that could benefit the process, concern with citizens participating for their own benefit or at least that perception, proposal to have user groups test the model, ability for any citizen to identify code conflicts regardless of whether there is a committee structure, and asking staff whether forming a committee in the future could be helpful. The Council agreed to seek feedback from Planning Manager Rob Chave and Building Official Leonard Yarberry regarding forming a code rewrite committee and schedule further discussion on a work session agenda. Council President Peterson suggested enhancing the Council portion of the website with more updates, etc. and working with the Mayor on an electronic newsletter and then consider whether a Community Outreach Committee is needed. It was the consensus of the Council to add a Council liaison to the Tree Board and to make it a paid committee position. • Ethics Council President Peterson recalled there has been discussion about developing a code of ethics for Councilmembers. Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Bloom and Petso offered to serve on an ad hoc committee that would review other cities’ codes and present a draft to the Council. • Miscellaneous Mr. Taraday explained a special meeting notice must be issued for Tuesday committee meetings that begin at 6:00 p.m. If the Council wished to continue holding committee meetings at 6:00 p.m., he suggested revising the code to reflect that start time. Packet Page 347 of 400 1 PUBLIC SAFETY/PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES April 10, 2012 Committee members present: Council Member K. Michael Plunkett Council Member Joan Bloom Others present: HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie Citizen Don Hall Council Member Plunkett called the meeting to order at 7:19 pm. DISCUSSION ON CODE OF ETHICS (RELATING TO COUNCIL MEMBERS) Council Member Michael Plunkett opened the discussion by stating it was unclear as to what action/direction should be taken at this point with regard to this as Council had not given any specific direction regarding this topic although one or some council member(s) may have wanted to discuss this further. Council Member Joan Bloom stated that she had reviewed the City of Kirkland’s Code of Ethics and the Mountlake Terrace Code of Ethics and there were some concerns that she had with using a code of ethics similar to theirs. Council Member Bloom further stated that she was not aware that there was a code of ethics for Council Members. HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie affirmed this. Council Member Bloom stated that she would like to build a policy regarding a code of ethics and that this process needs to move forward. Council Member Plunkett stated that he was willing to discuss this topic since it was on the agenda, but that that he may not be interested in moving this forward [for Council consideration]. Ms. Hardie stated that she had discussed this HR Committee subject with Carrie Hite (Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director) prior to the meeting and that they both agreed that HR would likely not be the best (nor most appropriate) committee for this forum. Additionally, while HR had provided samples of codes of ethics from other cities it would seem that the City Attorney and/or the City Clerk’s Office [or Council] may be more appropriate for this process. Ms. Hardie also emphasized that HR was willing to continue to provide information as needed to the committee to assist with the process, but that this was not a [specific to] HR function since it did not pertain to employee related policies. There was some discussion that followed by the committee about what the process would be to create a code of ethics policy for Council members, creating a committee for this and whether or not the HR Committee was the appropriate committee for the discussion. Council Member Plunkett emphasized his concern about the subjectivity of some of the other policies from other cities and that [while the City may not have a specific code of ethics for Council Members] there are state laws that Council Members must follow. Council Member Bloom stated that she understood Council Member Plunkett’s concerns but that due to the expressed interest/concern from the citizens about the possible need for this policy, she felt it was important for: 1) The City of Edmonds to have this policy; 2) this information to be available to citizens (as well as being part of transparency of information and citizen participation); and 3) there to be continued work toward the creation of such a policy. Council Member Plunkett stated that he would like to make this information easier for citizens to access. Council Member Bloom stated that since there does not usually appear to be a large agenda for the HR Committee, that the work on this code of ethics policy could be done at this committee and that the Cities of Kirkland, Mountlake Terrace and another city may be reviewed for further policy consideration. Council Member Plunkett agreed that this could be kept on the HR Committee Meeting agenda and that further review of the policy will occur at the next meeting. Packet Page 348 of 400 2 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Citizen Don Hall stated that he agreed with Council Member Plunkett that some of the code of ethics policies from other cities that he had come across did appear to be too subjective. Citizen Hall further stated that he became more interested in this topic of discussion after it was discovered that Council Members were not considered to be employees of the City and are not held to the same City Personnel Policy standards although [perhaps] they should be. This process will likely require a lot of “hands on” work and will be a difficult process. The meeting adjourned at 7:44 pm Packet Page 349 of 400 53 CHAPTER X EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES AND CODE OF ETHICS 10.1 GENERAL CODE OF CONDUCT The City’s primary function is to provide service to the citizens of Edmonds. To achieve that goal, all employees are expected to treat the public as their most valued customer. All employees are expected to serve the public in a professional manner, which is courteous, efficient and helpful. Employees must maintain a clean and neat appearance appropriate to their work assignment, as determined by their position and department head. Since the proper working relationship between employees and the City depends on each employee's on-going job performance, professional conduct and behavior, the City has established certain minimum standards of personal and professional conduct. Among the City's expectations are: tact and courtesy towards the public and fellow employees; adherence to City policies, procedures, safety rules and safe work practices; compliance with directions from supervisors; preserving and protecting the City's equipment, grounds, facilities and resources; and providing orderly and cost efficient services to its citizens. In addition, all persons representing the City of Edmonds are expected to conduct business in the following manner: All persons, representing the City of Edmonds, shall conduct business in a professional manner, respecting all citizens’ rights, and showing courtesy to all. Their actions shall be conducted within compliance of the laws and regulations governing the City’s actions, including but not limited to RCW Title 42. City representatives are expected to conduct business in an open manner. They shall not engage in any conduct which would reflect unfavorably upon City government or any of the services it provides. They must avoid any action which might result in or create the impression of using their position for private gain, giving preferential treatment or privileged information to any person, or losing impartiality in conducting the City’s business. 10.2 OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Employees shall not, directly or indirectly, engage in any outside employment or financial interest which may conflict, in the City's opinion, with the best interests of the City or interfere with the employee's ability to perform his/her assigned City job. Examples include, but are not limited to, outside employment which: Packet Page 350 of 400 54 (1) prevents the employee from being available for work beyond normal working hours, such as emergencies or peak work periods, when such availability is a regular part of the employee's job; (2) is conducted during the employee's work hours; (3) utilizes City telephones, computers, supplies, credit, or any other resources, facilities or equipment; (4) is employed with a firm which has contracts with or does business with the City; or (5) may reasonably be perceived by members of the public as a conflict of interest or otherwise discredits public service. 10.3 REPORTING IMPROPER GOVERNMENT ACTION In compliance with the Local Government Employee Whistleblower Protection Act, RCW 42.41.050, this policy is created to encourage employees to disclose any improper governmental action taken by city officials or employees without fear of retaliation. This policy also safeguards legitimate employer interests by encouraging complaints to be made first to the City, with a process provided for speedy dispute resolution. Key Definitions: Improper Governmental Action is any action by a city officer or employee that is: (1) undertaken in the performance of the official's or employee's official duties, whether or not the action is within the scope of the employee's employment, and (2) in violation of any federal, state or local law or rule, is an abuse of authority, is of substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety, or is a gross waste of public funds. (3) "improper governmental action" does not include personnel actions (hiring, firing, complaints, promotions, reassignment, for example). In addition, employees are not free to disclose matters that would affect a person's right to legally protected confidential communications. City employees who become aware of improper governmental action should follow this procedure: Bring the matter to the attention of his/her supervisor, if non-involved, in writing, stating in detail the basis for the employee's belief that an improper action has occurred. This should be done as soon as the employee becomes aware of the improper action. Packet Page 351 of 400 55 Where the employee believes the improper action involves their supervisor, the employee may raise the issue directly with Human Resources, their Department Director or the Mayor. Where the employee believes the improper action involves the Mayor, the employee may raise the issue with Human Resources or the City Attorney. The Mayor or his/her designee, as the case may be, shall promptly investigate the report of improper government action. After the investigation is completed (within thirty (30) days of the employee's report), the employee shall be advised of the results of the investigation, except that personnel actions taken as a result of the investigation may be kept confidential. An employee who fails to make a good faith effort to follow this policy shall not be entitled to the protection of this policy against retaliation, pursuant to RCW 42.41.030. In the case of an emergency, where the employee believes that damage to persons or property may result if action is not taken immediately, the employee may bypass the above procedure and report the improper action directly to the appropriate government agency responsible for investigating the improper action. For the purposes of this section, an emergency is a circumstance that if not immediately changed may cause damage to persons or property. Employees may report information about improper governmental action directly to an outside agency if the employee reasonably believes that an adequate investigation was not undertaken by the City to determine whether an improper government action occurred, or that insufficient action was taken by the City to address the improper action or that for other reasons the improper action is likely to recur. Outside agencies to which reports may be directed include: Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney Washington State Auditor M/S 504 Capital Campus Everett, WA 98201 P.O. Box 40021 (425)388-3333 Olympia, WA 98504 (360)902-0370 Washington State Attorney General 1125 Washington Street SE P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504 (360)753-6200 If the above-listed agencies do not appear to appropriate in light of the nature of the improper action to be reported, contact information for other state and county agencies may be obtained via the following link: http://access.wa.gov/agency/agency.aspx. It is unlawful for a local government to take retaliatory action because an employee, in good faith, provided information that improper government action occurred. Retaliatory Packet Page 352 of 400 56 Action is any material adverse change in the terms and conditions of an employee's employment. Employees who believe they have been retaliated against for reporting an improper government action should follow this procedure: Procedure for Seeking Relief against Retaliation : (1) Employees must provide a written complaint to the supervisor within thirty (30) days of the occurrence of the alleged retaliatory action. If the supervisor is involved, the notice should go to the Mayor. If the Mayor is involved, the notice should go to the City Attorney. The written charge shall specify the alleged retaliatory action and the relief requested. (2) The Mayor or his/her designee, as the case may be, shall investigate the complaint and respond in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written charge. Additional time to respond may be necessary depending on the nature and complexity of the complaint. (3) After receiving the City's response, the employee may request a hearing before a state administrative law judges (ALJ) to establish that a retaliatory action occurred and to obtain appropriate relief under the law. The request for hearing must be delivered within the earlier of either fifteen (15) days of receipt of the City's response to the charge of retaliatory action or forty-five (45) days of receipt of the charge of retaliation to the Mayor for response. (4) Within five (5) working days of receipt of a request for hearing the City shall apply to the State Office of Administrative Hearing's for an adjudicative proceeding before an administrative law judge. Office of Administrative Hearings PO Box 42488 Olympia, WA 98504-2488 360.407.2700 800.558.4857 360.664.8721 Fax (5) At the hearing, the employee must prove that a retaliatory action occurred by a preponderance of the evidence in the hearing. The ALJ will issue a final decision not later than forty-five (45) days after the date of the request for hearing, unless an extension is granted. The Mayor or designee is responsible for implementing these policies and procedures. This includes posting the policy on the City bulletin board, making the policy available to any employee upon request, and providing the policy to all newly hired employees. Officers, managers and supervisors are responsible for ensuring the procedures are fully implemented within their areas of responsibility. Packet Page 353 of 400 57 Violations of this policy and these procedures may result in appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. 10.4 POLITICAL ACTIVITIES City employees may participate in political or partisan activities of their choosing provided that City resources and property are not utilized, and the activity does not adversely affect the responsibilities of the employees in their positions. Employees may not campaign on City time or in a City uniform or while representing the City in any way. Employees may not allow others to use City facilities or funds for political activities without a paid rental agreement. Any City employee who meets with or may be observed by the public or otherwise represents the City to the public, while performing his/her regular duties, may not wear or display any button, badge or sticker relevant to any candidate or ballot issue during working hours. Employees shall not solicit, on City property or City time, for a contribution for a partisan political cause. Except as noted in this policy, City employees are otherwise free to fully exercise their constitutional First Amendment rights. 10.5 NO SMOKING POLICY The City maintains a smoke-free workplace. No smoking of tobacco products or electronic smoking devices is permitted anywhere in the City’s buildings or vehicles, and offices or other facilities rented or leased by the City. If an employee chooses to smoke, it must be done outside at least 25 feet from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation air intakes. 10.6 PERSONAL POSSESSIONS AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS The City cannot assume responsibility for any theft or damage to the personal belongings of City employees. Therefore, the City requests that employees avoid bringing valuable personal articles to work. Employees are solely responsible for ensuring that their personal belongings are secure while at work. Employees should have no expectation of privacy as to any items or information generated/stored on City systems. Employees are advised that work-related searches of an employee’s work area, workspace, computer and electronic mail on the City’s property may be conducted without advance notice. The City reserves the right to search employee desks, lockers and personal belongings brought onto City premises if necessary. Employees who do not consent to inspections may be subject to discipline, up to and including immediate termination. Please see Attachment A - INFORMATION SERVICES - ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY - for guidelines on use of City computers. 10.7 USE OF TELEPHONES AND CITY VEHICLES Use of City phones and City cellular phones for local personal phone calls and text messaging should be kept to a minimum; long distance personal use is prohibited. Other City equipment, including vehicles, should be used by employees for City business only, unless otherwise Packet Page 354 of 400 58 approved by the Department Director. Employees' misuse of City services, telephones, vehicles, equipment or supplies can result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. The City reminds employees that Washington state law restricts the use of cell phones and PDA’s while driving. Employees must comply with applicable laws while engaging in work for the City. 10.8 BULLETIN BOARDS Information of special interest to all employees is posted regularly on the City bulletin boards. Employees may not post any information on these bulletin boards without the authorization of the Department Head. 10.9 MEDIA RELATIONS The Mayor or designated department heads shall be responsible for all official contacts with the news media during working hours, including answering of questions from the media. The Mayor or department head may designate specific employees to give out procedural, factual or historical information on particular subjects. 10.10 USE OF SAFETY BELTS Per Washington law, anyone operating or riding in City vehicles must wear seat belts at all times. 10.11 DRIVER'S LICENSE REQUIREMENTS As part of the requirements for certain specific City positions, an employee may be required to hold a valid Washington State Driver's license and/or a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL). If an employee fails his or her CDL physical examination or the license is revoked, suspended or lost, or is in any other way not current, valid, and in the employee's possession, the employee shall promptly notify his/her department head and will be immediately suspended from driving duties. The employee may not resume driving until proof of a valid, current license is provided to his/her department head. Depending on the duration of license suspension, revocation or other inability to drive, an employee may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Failure on the part of an employee to notify their department director of the revocation, suspension, or loss of driving privileges may subject the employee to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. 10.12 SOLICITATIONS Most forms of selling and solicitations are inappropriate in the workplace. They can be an intrusion on employees and citizens and may present a risk to employee safety or to the security of City or employee property. The following limitations apply: Persons not employed by the City may not solicit, survey, petition, or distribute literature on our premises at any time. This includes persons soliciting for charities, salespersons, questionnaire surveyors, labor union organizers, or any other solicitor or distributor. Exceptions to this rule may be made in special circumstances where the City determines that an exception would serve the best interests of the organization and our employees. An example of an exception might be the United Way campaign or a similar, community-based fund raising effort. Packet Page 355 of 400 59 Employees may not solicit for any purpose during work time. Reasonable forms of solicitation are permitted during non-work time, such as before or after work or during meal or break periods. Soliciting employees who are on non-work time may not solicit other employees who are on work time. Employees may not distribute literature for any purpose during work time or in work areas, or through the City’s electronic systems. The employee lunchroom is considered a non-work area under this policy. 10.13 USE OF CITY CREDIT Unless otherwise authorized by City policy or specifically authorized by the Mayor, no City employee is authorized to commit the City to any contractual agreement, especially an agreement that lends the City’s credit in any way. Employees are prohibited from conducting personal business with companies in any way which improperly implies the employee is acting as an agent of the City. 10.14 SUBSTANCE ABUSE The City's philosophy on substance abuse has two focuses: (1) a concern for the well being of the employee and (2) a concern for the safety of other employees and members of the public. As part of our employee assistance program, we encourage employees who are concerned about their alcohol or drug use to seek counseling, treatment and rehabilitation. Although the decision to seek diagnosis and accept treatment is completely voluntary, the City is fully committed to helping employees who voluntarily seek assistance to overcome substance abuse problems. In most cases, the expense of treatment may be fully or partially covered by the City's benefit program. Please see the EAP counselor for more information. In recognition of the sensitive nature of these matters, all discussions will be kept confidential. Employers who seek advice or treatment will not be subject to retaliation or discrimination. Although the City is concerned with rehabilitation, it must be understood that disciplinary action may be taken when an employee's job performance is impaired because he/she is under the influence of drugs or alcohol on the job. The City may discipline or terminate an employee possessing, consuming, selling or using alcohol, or controlled substances (other than legally prescribed) during work hours or on City premises, including break times and meal periods. The City may also discipline or terminate an employee who reports for duty or works under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances. Employees may also not report for work when their performance is impaired by the use of prescribed or over-the-counter medications. The City reserves the right to search employee work areas, offices, desks, filing cabinets etc. to ensure compliance with this policy. Employees shall have no expectation of privacy in such areas. Any employee who is convicted of a criminal drug violation in the workplace must notify the organization in writing within five calendar days of the conviction. The organization will take appropriate action within 30 days of notification. Federal contracting agencies will be notified when appropriate. Packet Page 356 of 400 60 Testing: Certain employees of the City, including those who must possess CDLs or who have safety sensitive positions, are subject to random d rug and alcohol testing. Any employee may also be required to submit to alcohol or controlled substance testing when the City has reasonable suspicion that the employee is under the influence of controlled substances or alcohol. Refusal to submit to testing, when requested, may result in immediate disciplinary action, including termination. The City may also choose to pursue criminal charges, if violations of law are suspected. The City has adopted Drug and Alcohol Testing Policies and Procedures, which more specifically describe the City’s substance abuse policy, and these are incorporated herein by reference as Appendix B. Packet Page 357 of 400 Packet Page 358 of 400 Packet Page 359 of 400 Packet Page 360 of 400 Packet Page 361 of 400 Packet Page 362 of 400 Packet Page 363 of 400 Packet Page 364 of 400 Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 1-2, 2013 Page 21 to watch the January 23 joint meeting with the Planning Board, Economic Development Commission and the consultant. With regard to student volunteers, he recalled his son was a student volunteer on the skate park and worked three years to design and build it. He used that experience in college. If the Council pursues a parks levy, he recommended including a project for students in order to engage them in campaigning for the levy. He agreed with Mr. Hertrich’s suggestion for the Council to appoint a representative to the School District and also suggested Councilmembers attend the Superintendent’s monthly roundtable meetings. 9. ETHICS BOARD AND CODE OF ETHICS Councilmember Bloom explained she wanted the Council to adopt an ethics policy that addresses board/commission, elected officials and staff. There are many policies in Washington could be adapted for Edmonds. The next step is to form an ethics committee; if a citizen has a question about something such as a conflict of interest, they can go to the ethics committee and determine whether something is potentially an ethics violation. She recommended the Council, 1) adopt an ethics policy, and 2) form an ethics committee. She sought Council approval for the Public Safety & Personnel Committee to pursue this. Ms. Hite explained the recently adopted personnel policy has an extensive ethics policy for employees; that is the best place for policies regarding employees. She encouraged the Council to develop an ethics policy for boards/commissions and elected officials but not to include employees. Discussion followed regarding other cities’ ethics policies, past unsuccessful efforts to develop a code of ethics policy, developing a policy with enough examples to provide direction, and the difference between a code of conduct and code of ethics. Summary: Refer development of code of ethics to Public Safety and Personnel Committee. 11. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION No action. 10. MISCELLANEOUS Based on yesterday’s discussion regarding public comment at committee meetings, Council President Petso distributed language for committee meeting notices and asked Councilmember to submit comments/concerns to Ms. Chase. The retreat was adjourned at 11:37 p.m. Packet Page 365 of 400 Public Safety & Personnel Committee March 12, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Action: Take item to full Council for further discussion after draft discussion points and possible ordinance language received from Officer Dawson. C. Discussion and potential action regarding possible amendment of City Code 8.48, Parking, Paragraph 8.48.215 B.2. Joan Ferebee, Court Administrator, explained she attended a Parking Committee Meeting to bring to their attention the difficulty the Municipal Court is experiencing with the section of the City Code that allows citizens who receive a parking ticket to pay a reduced fine if the individual pays the fine by the end of the next business day after the issuance of the parking ticket. Generally, the Court does not have the tickets in their system that quickly. Therefore, the individuals can become very angry and upset when they come to the Municipal Court and are not able to pay. Ms. Ferebee stated that the Parking Committee recommended removing the section of the Code that allows for a reduced fine if it is paid by the end of the next business day. Councilmember Peterson stated that he was in agreement with eliminating the reduced fine. He stated that he would work with the City Attorney to create an ordinance to place on the consent agenda. Councilmember Bloom was in agreement. Action: Councilmember Peterson will work with the City Attorney to create an ordinance eliminating the reduced fine. The Ordinance is to be placed on a future Consent Agenda for approval. D. Student and Senior Volunteers Councilmember Bloom stated she would like to support the Boards and Commissions in obtaining student volunteers. She suggested that a senior volunteer could assist Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Assistant, in getting the word out to the various schools. Councilmember Peterson suggested Ms. Spellman could email the school board or a volunteer coordinator in the school system to determine if there are students interested in volunteering. Councilmember Bloom suggested a senior volunteer could work with Jana to develop a framework for contacting all of the schools with the appropriate person to contact and to advertise. Councilmember Peterson cautioned that managing a volunteer can take more time. He suggested talking with the Council President as she is in charge of Ms. Spellman’s schedule. Councilmember Bloom also recalled that at the Council Retreat, Councilmember Johnson suggested an event be held to recognize city volunteers. Councilmember Bloom stated she will discuss with the Mayor the idea of scheduling a yearly event. E. Ethics Board and Code of Ethics Councilmember Bloom suggested narrowing down the list of sample policies from other cities for the City Attorney to work with in developing the policy for Edmonds. She suggested using the policies from the cities of Bainbridge Island, Lynnwood and Monroe. Packet Page 366 of 400 Public Safety & Personnel Committee March 12, 2013 Page 3 of 3 Councilmember Bloom stated that she would like the policy to include appointed officials (directors) in addition to elected officials and members of boards and commissions. Councilmember Peterson stated that he did not think the policy needed to address appointed officials (directors) as they answer to the Mayor. The Committee concluded that a further discussion on a Code of Ethics policy would be scheduled for the April Committee Meeting to determine which policy will be sent to the City Attorney. F. Discussion regarding taking minutes during Council Committee Meetings. Councilmember Peterson stated that if detailed/complete minutes are desired it would be necessary to pay someone to attend the meetings for this purpose. If action minutes are prepared (which is the way it has generally always been done), then he did not think councilmembers should take the minutes as it is difficult to participate in the discussion and take minutes. Councilmember Bloom agreed that councilmembers should not take minutes. After discussion, Councilmembers Bloom and Peterson agreed on the following recommendation: • Action minutes for committee meetings, prepared by staff members in attendance. • If a controversial item is scheduled, arrangements for more detailed minutes will be made. • Summary comments made by citizens should be included. Committee members will summarize citizen comments if no staff is available. • Work with Council President related to agenda items to make sure a staff member is available for each item discussed at the committee meeting. • Committee minutes are to be forwarded to committee chairs for review (as time allows). G. Public Comments There were no public comments. The committee meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Packet Page 367 of 400 Public Safety & Personnel Committee July 9, 2013 Page 5 of 5 Councilmember Peterson suggested dropping reference to 2.10.050 in this section of the code. Councilmember Bloom next pointed out that 2.10.050 refers to both finance director and community services director, however the title of the section does not reflect this. Further, Councilmember Bloom believes the positions of Executive Assistant to the Council and the Mayor’s Executive Assistant should not be part of this chapter as they are not City Officers. Committee members agreed to request the City Attorney to determine if these positions should be in a different section of the code. D. Discussion regarding Code of Ethics. Committee members discussed ethics policies from Bainbridge Island, Lynnwood and Kirkland. Councilmember Bloom referred to the policy from Bainbridge Island and would like to include the requirement for members to “disclose a conflict of interest” as a standing requirement at all city meetings for all officials. Councilmember Peterson commented that he believes the Council does a good job at this disclosure; however, having it on each agenda is a good reminder. Further discussion occurred related to policies, including the possible consideration of a Code of Ethics Officer. After discussion the committee agreed to forward to the next work session of the City Council the Bellevue and Kirkland ethics policies and the Kirkland Code of Conduct for discussion. The committee also recommended including the statement from Bainbridge Island related to disclosure of conflict of interest for all officials. After full Council discussion, direction can then be given to the City Attorney on how to proceed. Ms. Hite indicated she would bring back information on a Code of Ethics Officer. The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Packet Page 368 of 400 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 12 Councilmember Johnson said longevity compensation makes sense for employees who are at the top of their scale and have no opportunity for further advancement. She expressed interest in further information about the fiscal impact of longevity compensation retroactive to 2013 as well as the fiscal impact for outlying years. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the pay scale for nonrepresented employees is a separate issue and should be addressed separately rather than piecemealed via longevity pay. She noted longevity pay would not motivate employees to seek promotion or to remain in the City’s employment. Longevity pay is part of a compensation package that was negotiated with the other groups. She preferred to consider longevity pay for nonrepresented employees as part of a compensation package. Ms. Hite pointed out longevity compensation was part of a package for nonrepresented employees that the compensation consultant presented to the Council. The Council asked to have it pulled out for continued discussion. Councilmember Peterson agreed the Council was provided a compensation package for nonrepresented that was similar to represented employees. It was the Council’s decision to separate out some items. He suggested the next agenda memo include the complete compensation package that was presented by the compensation consultant. Ms. Hite summarized the information the Council was requesting in addition to the original compensation package includes, 1) the fiscal impact for retroactivity in 2013, 2) fiscal impact for outlying years, 3) a flat rate approach and the fiscal impact. Due to the absence of 3 Councilmembers from the September 17 and 24 meetings, Mayor Earling suggested information be provided at next week’s meeting or a full Council meeting be held on September 10. Council President Petso suggested either staff return with the information soon or it be addressed as a decision package in the 2014 budget. 11. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS Parks & Recreation/Reporting Human Resources Director Carrie Hite explained the Personnel Committee has been comparing and contrasting Codes of Ethics for cities throughout the Puget Sound region. Two documents the committee has been considering include Kirkland and Bellevue’s Code of Ethics. The committee has also discussed Bainbridge Island’s code. Kirkland adopted a Code of Conduct in addition to a Code of Ethics. She explained a Code of Conduct describes professional responsibilities; a Code of Ethics describes legal responsibilities. A Code of Ethics would apply to the Council, boards and commissions; staff is guided by a Code of Conduct in the City’s personnel policies. The Personnel Committee has also expressed interest in identifying an Ethics Officer. Some of the comparable models reviewed by the Personnel Committee identify an Ethics Officer outside the organization in order to have an objective, non-vested perspective in researching a Code of Ethics issues. For example Kirkland and Bellevue contract with an Ethics Officer on an as needed basis who is only paid when a Code of Ethics issue needs to be investigated. Neither Kirkland nor Bellevue had incurred any expenses for outside review of a Code of Ethics violation. Councilmember Bloom noted the attachments are in the August 20, 2013 packet. She clarified in addition to Councilmembers, boards and commissions, the Code of Ethics would cover all elected officials including the Mayor. Kirkland and Bellevue’s Codes of Ethics do not include a Mayor because they have a City Manager form of government. Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with including the requirement in 3.14.040 of Kirkland’s policy related to financial disclosure for all officials. Officials are defined as all members of boards and commissions. Kirkland’s policy excludes the Mayor and Council because elected officials must present Packet Page 369 of 400 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 13 all financial information on a yearly basis. She did not support requiring all members of boards and commissions to disclose their financial information and suggested that be excluded that from Edmonds’ Code of Ethics; Bellevue’s Code of Ethics does not have that requirement. She also suggested consideration be given to the complaint process and who handles complaints. For example Kirkland involves the Hearing Examiner and the City Council in the event of a complaint regarding a Councilmember. Councilmember Peterson agreed with Councilmember Bloom’s concern about requiring members of boards and commissions to disclose financial information. He agreed with the Council considering a Code of Ethics in a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach. He supported the City having a Code of Ethics for elected officials and boards and commissions, anticipating a Code of Ethics would make the Council’s work easier if an ethical issue arose. As Councilmember Buckshnis indicated, a Code of Ethics can be subjective, but responding to an ethical complaint would be even more subjective without a Code of Ethics. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised Snohomish County adopted a Code of Conduct for all boards and commissions and every commission and board member must acknowledge they have read and understand the Code of Conduct. She encouraged Councilmembers to review Snohomish County’s Code of Conduct for elected and appointed officials. Councilmember Bloom asked whether Snohomish County’s Code of Conduct was similar to Kirkland’s. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded Snohomish County may be more thorough and straightforward. Council President Petso said she was pleased to see Kirkland’s Code of Conduct in the packet and was interested in pursuing a Code of Conduct. She was concerned about the Code of Ethics and Ethics Officer and complaint enforcement. She feared a person who did not agree with an official’s position on an issue could file an ethics complaint. She indicated she was unlikely to support a Code of Ethics that included a complaint process, an Ethics Officer and enforcement. She found Bellevue’s Code of Ethics less objectionable; the statement of intent is to not to limit people who could serve on boards and commissions and elected officials. She agreed the financial disclosure in Kirkland’s Code of Ethics would likely deter citizens from volunteering for a board or commission. Council President Petso noted there are other aspects, particularly in Kirkland’s Code of Ethics that would deter citizens from volunteering to serve on a board or commission. There are events that do not constitute an ethics issue but might under a poorly drafted policy. For example when she was appointed to Council, a relative was serving on the Sister City Commission; that did not create an issue for her or him. It would have been unfortunate if the Code of Ethics forced one of them to resign their position. One of Kirkland’s policies indicated it would be a conflict if a person serving on a board of commission lived in your household. In the example she provided, the person did live in her household for a period of time but it had no impact on his ability to serve on the Sister City Commission. Council President Petso relayed the City Attorney wanted the Council to discuss whether they were interested in developing a Code of Ethics for Edmonds because it will take him a great deal of time to develop it. Less legal time would be involved in drafting a Code of Conduct. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred the Bainbridge Island Code of Ethics. She agreed with not requiring boards and commissions to disclose financial information, commenting Councilmembers file with the Public Disclosure Commission. She liked the Code of Conduct although she feared it could be subjective. She recalled recent emotionally charged conversations with a fellow Councilmember that could have been interpreted as an argument. She preferred to start with a Code of Conduct using Snohomish County as an example. Packet Page 370 of 400 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 14 Councilmember Bloom also liked Bainbridge Island’s Code of Ethics policy the best. She recalled Councilmember Peterson’s concern with Bainbridge Island’s creation of an Ethics Board and the need for staff support for such a board. She supported adopting a Code of Ethics for the Council, boards and commissions. She explained an ethics violation was not related to conduct but rather conflicts of interest. She asked the City Attorney to describe an ethics violation. City Attorney Sharon Cates answered Code of Ethics are related to conflict of interest issues, not interpersonal interaction. Councilmember Bloom commented Bainbridge Island’s policy allows citizens to ask questions about potential ethics violations and the Ethics Board decides whether to pursue a complaint. Bainbridge Island’s policy also has consequences for bringing a frivolous or unsubstantiated complaint. She asked if that was typical of ethics policies. Ms. Cates answered a solid ethics code includes a process for determining whether a complaint is an ethics violation. Councilmember Bloom noted an ethics complaint is required to be notarized and to include information about the violation. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the Personnel Committee working on a Code of Conduct similar to Kirkland’s. Councilmember Yamamoto agreed with the Committee continuing to consider a Code of Conduct and a Code of Ethics. He encouraged Councilmembers to submit suggestions/comments/concerns to the committee. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested scheduling further discussion on either the September 17 or 24 Council meetings. Council President Petso agreed it could be scheduled with the understanding it would be discussion only due to the absence of three Councilmembers. Councilmember Peterson suggested Councilmembers review Bainbridge Island’s ethics policy on their website. He agreed there were good ideas in the policy; he was opposed to creating an Ethics Board. Councilmember Bloom agreed with first establishing a Code of Conduct but did not want to abandon the idea of a Code of Ethics. The Personnel Committee has discussed it at length and the community would like the City to have an ethics policy. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Peterson’s concern with creating an Ethics Board. She preferred to use a professional Ethics Officer. 14. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Johnson reported on her participation on the review of arts and cultural aspects of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. She described efforts to gather input from the public including a survey at the recent concert in the park. There is also an online survey available. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board discussed definitions in the Tree Code including hazardous trees, nuisance trees and trees. Councilmember Bloom reported the Council interviewed a new member for the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee tonight. Councilmember Bloom reported on her first meeting as the Council liaison to the Port of Edmonds liaison. The Commission discussed budget issues and promotional efforts. The Commission was also provided a project update including expansion of Anthony’s Beach Café as well as the roof on Harbor Square building 2 which is $30,000 under budget and will last 20-30 years. Packet Page 371 of 400 Minutes PUBLIC SAFETY & PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING September 9, 2014 Elected Officials Present Staff Present Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Councilmember Strom Peterson The meeting was called to order at 7:29 p.m. A. Discussion Regarding Code of Ethics Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained the proposed code of ethics was a simplified version and was intended to cover staff, elected officials, volunteers, etc. She reviewed the bulleted items in the proposed code and suggested that enforcement be a separate policy. Committee members discussed minor amendments to the wording of the code of ethics. Action: Councilmember Fraley-Monillas will edit the code and email to Councilmember Peterson. Schedule for full Council in the future. B. Public Comment – None The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Packet Page 372 of 400 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 16, 2014 Page 25 Councilmember Peterson relayed the ECA/EPFD has been looking for different funding sources. The roof is a key element of the structure. If the roof fails the City will still own the building in the future. It seems logical to add that capital project to the City’s capital budget request. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS. CALL FOR THE QUESTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY; COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, PETSO AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to delay a vote until her questions were answered. She was concerned about the Frances Anderson Center versus the ECA. Mayor Earling relayed his conversation with staff; the Frances Anderson Center needs attention but Mr. Stevens indicated it can last a while longer whereas the failure of the ECA roof is affecting rentals. Mr. Williams felt the Frances Anderson Center roof could be delayed a year. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred speak to Mr. Stevens and determine how he prioritized projects and why funding for the Frances Anderson Center roof was moved from 2015 to 2016. Councilmember Petso relayed the ECA/EPFD has undertaken a small project to stop the leaks for now but she did not know the longevity of that project. MAIN MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINING. 13. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS Mayor Earling advised this item will be rescheduled to a January meeting. 14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling announced all the Giving Tree requests at City Hall and Frances Anderson Center have been picked up. He announced Kernen Lien was selected as Employee of the Year. He wished the Community and the Council Happy Holidays. 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS Student Representative Eslami wished everyone Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year. Councilmember Mesaros reported on his December 4 tour of the Police Department. He thanked Officer Barker for the visit to the Prism Range and Officer Sutton for the ridealong. He attended the Seashore Forum on December 5 and was the only non-King County person at the Climate and Clean Energy Meeting on Mercer Island on December 9. The meeting was very informative and included discussion regarding climate issues that will be before the legislature this session. On December 11 he attended the SnoCom Board meeting; the New World system will be launched soon. Councilmember Mesaros announced his reappointment of John Rubenkonig to the Economic Development Commission (EDC). Councilmember Peterson wished everyone a Happy Holiday and looked forward to the New Year. Councilmember Bloom announced her reappointment of Douglas Swartz to the EDC and her appointment of Jenny Antilla to the EDC. Attachment 10 Packet Page 373 of 400 Public Safety & Personnel Committee April 9, 2013 Page 2 of 4 Chief Compaan talked about the limitations about citing and with court appearances. He prefers voluntary compliance and an education program. This seems to be difficult to enforce with compliance. Councilmember Bloom asked PR Director Hite for clarification about the recreational immunity law. PR Director Hite clarified the issue with requiring helmets at the skateboard park, and/or in parks, and if the city can't enforce it, it could impact our ability to satisfy the recreational immunity law if someone gets injured. Councilmember Peterson asked if Cascade Bicycle Club and Edmonds Bicycle Club supports this. He stated that he could support this, but really would emphasize public education. Fire Marshal Westfall commented regarding the public education aspects of sports and bicycle usage. Fire District #1 has conducted Edmonds community bike rodeos at fire station open houses in the past. All fire stations have available, during daytime hours, bicycle and multi-sport helmets that can be fitted to children. The helmets are offered with a suggested donation that can be mailed to our headquarters later. The helmet fitting is also a great opportunity to discuss safety items with the kids and their parents. Additionally, FD#1 is a member of the Safe Kids Coalition of Snohomish County, part of a worldwide kids' safety network. McDonalds Corporation provided "citations" for uniformed fire and police to encourage safe riding when kids are found wearing helmets. These citations are valid for exchange of a happy meal at local McDonalds. Councilmember Bloom would also agree to a bicycle helmet ordinance. Next steps: Committee requests the City Attorney to work on an ordinance and research. Chief Compaan stated he will contact the City attorney and work with him on this. D. Resolution regarding Robert’s Rules. A presentation to Council on Robert's Rules of Order is on the extended agenda for the April 16 council meeting. Council President Petso will be asked to put the draft resolution adopting Roberts Rules of Order on the agenda for discussion and vote at a council meeting following this (April 23 or later). E. Code of Ethics The Bainbridge Island Code of Ethics will be used as the framework for our policy. Councilmember Peterson will email passages from other code of ethics that he thinks should be considered for inclusion. The City Attorney will be asked to draft a policy for Council review. Council will also discuss forming an Ethics Board. F. Public Comments Citizen Don Hall stated that when a complaint was filed by an attorney, it was revealed that there is no code of ethics for officials of the City of Edmonds. He was supportive of moving forward with putting a code of ethics in place, noting that it has been in the works for over a year. He is also of the opinion that once we have a code of ethics, we should Packet Page 374 of 400 Public Safety & Personnel Committee April 9, 2013 Page 3 of 4 go ahead with forming an Ethics Board as well, because it means nothing if there is no means of enforcement. Citizen Ken Reidy commented that the helmet law for the skateboard park of the city of Milton was repealed in response to legal advice. He questioned whether or not renewal of the Development Services Director position can go on the consent agenda due to necessity of Council approval of the appointment. Following is the text of the remainder of Mr. Reidy’s three minute comments: “I am here to express my strong support for the adoption of a comprehensive Code of Ethics and eventually an Ethics Board. In my opinion, the City Councils’ greatest priorities should be the prompt completion of the Code Rewrite, the adoption of a Code of Ethics and the establishment of an Ethics Board. During his recent State of the City Address, Mayor Earling lamented that in Edmonds, we simply do not trust each other. The City’s need to rebuild trust is critical and it requires strong action. The City can’t just simply ask for more trust – the City needs to take bold action to earn more trust. Prioritizing the Code rewrite and Ethics must be at the foundation of the City’s efforts to regain trust. Citizens should not receive emails like I have in the past stating that “By the way, Snyder mentioned they think you have been hit hard in the market and may choose not to proceed for financial reasons.” Why would the City even consider my financial situation in any City decision making process, including whether or not to employ the tool of government known as Code Enforcement? A strong commitment to Ethics is absolutely critical at the City. When Ethics don’t govern conduct, innocent citizens can be greatly harmed. In March of 2009, during an alley vacation, the City retained an easement on my property for the sole benefit of a private developer. For years, I have searched online all over the country to try and find a similar easement. I have never found one like the one retained on my property. The City Council retained the Easement in March of 2009 after Snyder told them the City was trying to balance my interests with the developer’s interests. The City Council was told right before their vote that one goal of the City was to save my shed. The City Council was not advised as to the related State (RCW 35.79.030) and City laws. The City didn’t try to balance my interests or save my shed. They immediately Code Enforced against my shed. I was able to get the City to admit that the developer's planned retaining wall ended well before my shed, but the City wouldn’t drop its Code Enforcement. Every time I convinced the City their Code Enforcement efforts were improper, they simply replaced it with a new, refined Code Enforcement order. Look at the multiple Code Enforcements I was subject to (Show multiple orders) related to the same shed. On July 17, 2009, a "Framework for Resolution" was discussed between Snyder and the local developer's attorney in which the developer offered to drop the legal action if Reidys' shed and trees were removed by the Deadline Date of August 6, 2009. I had no knowledge at that time of these private "Framework for Resolution" discussions. Packet Page 375 of 400 Public Safety & Personnel Committee April 9, 2013 Page 4 of 4 There were no Executive Sessions during the time period but the City actually took steps to get my shed and trees removed by the Deadline Date of August 6, 2009!! I am a great example of why an Ethics Board is needed. Please adopt a comprehensive Code of Ethics and an Ethics Board.” The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 PM. Packet Page 376 of 400 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 16 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. Attachment 12 Packet Page 377 of 400 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 17 Councilmember Bloom said she was not talking about all the employees; she was talking about appointed officials or officers, the directors who make decisions related to the code. Every ethical policy she has reviewed includes the officers. Mr. Taraday commented it is difficult to discuss in the abstract without knowing exactly what ethical obligation she was interested in imposing on a particular officer; it may already be in the personnel policies. Councilmember Bloom said what she has seen does not include what is in the code of ethics. She asked that the ethics policy in the personnel policy to be presented to the Council. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to Attachment 3, Employee Responsibilities and Code of Ethics. She read from Attachment 3, • All persons, representing the City of Edmonds, shall conduct business in a professional manner, respecting all citizens’ rights, and showing courtesy to all. • Their actions shall be conducted within compliance of the laws and regulations governing the City’s actions, including but not limited to RCW Title 42. • City representatives are expected to conduct business in an open manner • They shall not engage in any conduct which would reflect unfavorably upon City government or any of the services it provides. • They must avoid any action which might result in or create the impression of using their position for private gain, giving preferential treatment or privileged information to any person, or losing impartiality in conducting the City’s business Council President Fraley-Monillas said Attachment 3 also includes a section on outside employment and conflicts of interest and how to report improper government action. She was uncertain what else needed to be addressed in a code of ethics. The department directors are City staff and should adhere to the employee responsibilities and code of ethics in the personnel policies, not the proposed code of ethics. Councilmember Petso shared her concern with the code of ethics concept: there are questions regarding who it applies to, whether it only applies to Councilmembers, where it applies to appointed officers which she was told also includes members of boards and commissions. She referred to one of the vouchers the Council approved where the payee is a member of a board or commission and the service purchased from that person was related to the commission on which that person serves. She questioned whether that was somewhere the City wanted to go and what was the motivation. She discovered for each ethical conflict there are a variety of responses including, 1) do nothing and approve the voucher, or 2) investigate. She summarized possibly complying with the law is good enough. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled two instances of commissioners acting inappropriately in the last two years. She preferred the code of ethics not apply to staff as there are already personnel policies in place. She suggested starting small and expanding as necessary. Some people believe a code of ethics is very important; she believed in treating others like you want to be treated, be professional, be an adult, make decisions and move forward. She suggested minor changes could be made to the proposed code of ethics. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented ethics mean different things to different people which is why the code was shortened and bulleted. She and Councilmember Peterson began with Shoreline’s language but eliminated portions because it can be so subjective. Councilmember Mesaros suggested the Council consider the code of ethics presented by Council President Fraley-Monillas, correcting the opening paragraph to remove employees. He felt the code of ethics should apply to boards and commissions and elected officials. He liked the brevity, simplicity and clarity of the proposed code. Mayor Earling advised the directors are employees of the City and he would reject any other interpretation. If the Council included boards and commissions, he suggested the Council consider how they would present it to each board and commission to ensure they understood their responsibilities. Packet Page 378 of 400 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 13, 2015 Page 18 If this comes back to the Council again, Councilmember Johnson requested including the code of conduct that was adopted at the end of 2013. For Councilmember Petso, Council President Fraley-Monillas advised the proposed code of ethics is contained in Attachment 10. Councilmember Bloom did not agree with including the code of conduct, relaying it is different than a code of ethic and the City needs to have both. A code of ethics addresses conflict of interest; a code of conduct addresses contact and how people treat each other. She disagreed with watering down the code of ethics as people do not understand what ethics are. The bullet points in Shoreline’s code offer clarity and help people understand. She recommended having an ethic officer which could be a contract position. Councilmember Buckshnis was strongly opposed to an ethics commission because she feared it would turn into a political issue. She suggested starting small and expanding as necessary. She did not support including staff as they are already covered by the personnel policies. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested moving this to another study session. She agreed the code of conduct was far different than a code of ethics. 14. CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS ON THE STUDY SESSIONS Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reminded of the Snohomish County Cities meeting this Thursday. The meeting will include Congresswoman DelBene and election of AWC and other positions. To Councilmember Buckshnis, Mayor Earling said Go Seahawks. 16. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis said Go Pack Go. She will be not be in town for Sunday’s game but will be watching game with her husband. She thanked everyone who called her; she received numerous compliments about the last year and about various Councilmembers. She looked forward to this being a wonderful year. Councilmember Johnson also said Go Hawks. Councilmember Petso said Go Hawks. She relayed the Historic Preservation Commission is reviewing a certificate of appropriateness for work to the exterior and grounds of the museum property. She will make information available at the Council office. Councilmember Bloom concurred it will be good year. Councilmember Mesaros said he will be in Phoenix on February 1 and offered to be the City’s official representative at the Super Bowl. Council President Fraley-Monillas said Seahawks. Packet Page 379 of 400 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 conduct of elected officials and appointed citizen volunteers serving in an official capacity (i.e. Boards and Commissions). . We shall: •Be dedicated to the concepts of effective and democratic government. •Affirm the dignity and worth of the services rendered by government and maintain a sense of social responsibility. •Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships. •Recognize that the chief function of local government at all times is to serve the best interest of all the people. •Keep the community informed on municipal affairs encourage communications between the citizens and all municipal officers. Emphasize friendly and courteous service to public and each other; seek to improve the quality of public service, and confidence of citizens. •Seek no favor; do not personally benefit or profit by confidential information or by misuse of public resources. •Conduct business of the city in a manner which is not only fair in fact, but also in appearance. •Follow Washington statutes, city ordinances or regulations in the course of performing duties. Attachment 13 Attachment 13 * Packet Page 380 of 400 forwarded to the Council. The Diversity Task Force has proposed another variation. She preferred the way vacancies are filled be more consistent. Councilmember Petso said she was satisfied with adopting the ordinance as it currently reads and delay action on the funding piece until that is addressed for the Tree Board as well. With regard to the formation of the Diversity Commission, Mr. Brown explained initially each Councilmember selects one member and the Mayor selects two; the Commission selects members to fill vacancies. A Diversity Commission is somewhat unique; he envisioned few people of a minority status would be browsing the Edmonds City website to fill out an application for the Commission. It likely will take boots on the ground outreach to identify members. He did not mean to imply Councilmembers did not have strong relationships with communities of color, religious minorities, LGBT, or disabled individuals, but the Task Force wanted to make sure the Commission was diverse. Mr. Bui supported Councilmember Nelson’s comment to establish the Commission first. He encouraged the Council to talk about the substance of establishing the Diversity Commission and not the mechanics such as funding, procedures, etc. which can be resolved later. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to leave the ordinance as proposed with the terms staggered and the Commission making appointments in the future. She agreed some of the people who may want to serve on the Diversity Commission may not read the newspaper or see the notice. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley- Monillas agreed with that as well, living in diverse neighborhood herself. She cited the importance of reaching out to those for whom English is not their first language. Councilmember Mesaros agreed with Councilmember Petso’s suggestion. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule the ordinance on the Consent Agenda next week without the financial piece. Ms. Hite said she would make the change regarding the date of the annual meeting. Ms. Hite referred to the issue Council President Pro Tem Johnson raised regarding how members are appointed. Council President Pro Tem Johnson clarified the Historic Preservation Commission and the Arts Commission have the same model. Other boards and commissions such as the Planning Board and the Transportation Commission have another model. The City Council has the ability to confirm appointments but it often comes to the Council in different ways and she suggested there be one common way. Ms. Hite said she will add that to the administrative issues the Council committee on boards and commissions is discussing. 10. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas referred to Attachment 13, the last code of ethics the Council discussed, advising it incorporated the edits offered by Councilmember Buckshnis. Councilmember Bloom said she has been involved in discussions about the code of ethics since 2012 when she was on the Public Safety & Personnel Committee and was the chair most of the two years she served on the committee. Many of the attachments were related to discussions that committee had. She was concerned because much of what was discussed has been left out of Attachment 13. She referred to her comments at the last Council work session on January 13, 2015: “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. Code of ethic is a field of study; many professions are required to take code of ethic 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 Packet Page 381 of 400 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 relayed concern that the only proposal for this discussion was just the other code of ethics. She offered to review the difference between the Shoreline’s Code of Ethics and the proposed Edmonds Code of Ethics (Attachment 13). Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas explained the proposed code of ethics was the result of discussions by the Public Safety & Personnel Committee, comprised of herself and then-Councilmember Peterson. Councilmember Bloom disagreed, referencing the above comment at the January 13, 2015 meeting when the Public Safety & Personnel Committee no longer existed. Councilmember Bloom referenced the list of meetings provided by Mr. Clifton when a code of ethics has been discussed. The proposed code is a watered down version of all the issues that have been addressed in the past. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas suggested Councilmember Bloom amend the proposed code of ethics. Councilmember Bloom assumed the Council would be reviewing both the Shoreline Code of Ethics which she felt was much more substantial and much better than just the bullet points that are contained in the proposed code of ethics. She requested an opportunity to explain why she felt the Shoreline Code of Ethics was a better model than the proposed code of ethics. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas advised Attachment 13, Edmonds Code of Ethics, was the document the Public Safety & Personnel Committee produced for Council review. She asked whether the Council had to vote to remove the proposed code as presented by the committee. City Attorney Jeff Taraday responded this is a study session; like any other topic, the purpose of discussion is general direction and the Council does not need to be overly formal about how that happens. Unless there is a document that everyone wants to adopt, he suggested the Council determine which document is the most appropriate starting point from which to make any other amendments. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the January 13, 2015 minutes where Mayor Pro Tem Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember Petso and she talk about process. She referred to a comment by Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas that ethics means different things to different people which is why the code was shortened and bulleted and that Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas and then-Councilmember Peterson began with the Shoreline language but eliminated portions they felt it were too subjective. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas asked whether the January 13, 2015 minutes say anything about Councilmembers providing more information. Councilmember Buckshnis answered yes, Councilmember Mesaros suggested removing employees from the opening paragraph and she also provided some corrections which were incorporated into the draft in Attachment 13. Councilmember Petso suggested allowing Councilmember Bloom to present her concerns. Councilmember Mesaros agreed. In comparing Shoreline’s Code of Ethics and the proposed Edmonds Code of Ethics, Councilmember Bloom pointed out the statement of who the code of ethics applies to is significant different. “The purpose of the City of Shoreline Code of Ethics is to strengthen the quality of government through ethical principles which shall govern the conduct of the City’s elected and appointed officials, and employees, who shall:” The code of ethics drafted by Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas and then-Councilmember Peterson, states, “The purpose of the Edmonds Code of Ethics is to strengthen the quality of government through ethical principles which call govern the conduct of elected officials and appointed citizen volunteers serving in an official capacity (i.e. Boards and Commissions).” Mayor Pro Tem Fraley- Monillas explained appointed officials and employees was removed because the City has its own code of ethics for staff. Packet Page 382 of 400 Councilmember Bloom responded there are several issues related to that including that appointed official has never been clearly defined and a definition of an appointed official is needed. In Shoreline’s Code of Ethics, an appointed official may mean all the directors who are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by Council and it may mean all the appointed boards and commission members. She personally strongly believed at a minimum the directors who are appointed officials who enact code and law needed to be covered under the code of ethics. Councilmember Bloom referred to Attachment 3, Employee Responsibilities and Code of Ethics, and the the title of Section 10.1, General Code of Conduct. She reiterated people get code of conduct and code of ethics mixed up. Attachment 3 is a code of conduct. The only ethical issues are outside employment and conflict of interest, reporting improper government action, procedure for seeking relief against retaliation, political activities, no smoking policy, personal possessions and electronic communications. None of it includes the bullet points in the draft code of ethics. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas reiterated the directors were not included because it was determined they would be covered by the City’s code. Councilmember Bloom said there is nothing about ethics in the City’s Personnel Policies. Ms. Hite said directors are definitely covered under the Personnel Policies; they are nonrepresented employees and are not under collective bargaining agreements. A chapter was added in 2012 entitled Code of Ethics that reflected what was in the previous Personnel Policies as well as additional language to cover nonrepresented employees with regard to code of ethics. In addition, when the job descriptions were updated, the first bullet in every director’s job description is that they will follow all laws, rules, regulations and codes. The Mayor oversees, supervisors, disciplines, evaluates, and directs the work of the directors; the Council does not. Councilmember Bloom said Attachment 3 does not contain anything about a code of ethics other than conflicts of interest. Ms. Hite said the Council could discuss enhancing that section of the Personnel Policies. Councilmember Bloom reiterated she has been involved in this for more than three years. Every code of ethics she has reviewed has included appointed officials. Again, the City does not have a definition, but the directors are appointed officials. Many other codes of ethics include staff. Councilmember Mesaros asked Mr. Taraday to define appointed officials and whether directors are included in the State of Washington as appointed officials. Mr. Taraday answered he believed directors would be considered officials but so are Planning Board Members and the City Attorney. Being an official should not govern the substance of how one is treated for disciplinary processes based on a violation of a code of ethics. An official who is an employee would be treated and disciplined by the Mayor; there would be a different process for a Planning Board Member. If the City Attorney committed an ethical violation, that would be yet another process because he is a contractor to the City. There are different categories of officials and the disciplinary process differs depending on the category. Similar ethical standards can be applied that all these groups would need to live up to, but it makes sense to have all the employee-related standards in the Personnel Policies so everyone knows where to find them. For him and the Planning Board Member for whom the Personnel Policies do not apply, it may make sense to have a standalone document code of ethics that applies to non-employee officials. Councilmember Mesaros observed the draft Edmonds Code of Ethics in the packet states it shall govern the conduct of elected officials and appointed citizen volunteers. Mr. Taraday said the draft in the packet reflects an intent to apply it to City Council and boards and commissions. Councilmember Mesaros relayed Councilmember Bloom is intimating the proposed is unclear as written it applies only to elected officials and appointed citizen volunteers. Packet Page 383 of 400 Councilmember Bloom understood Mr. Taraday’s comments with regard to discipline, she was referring to what other cities do and why. The piece of the proposed Edmonds Code of Ethics that several citizens have commented on is the need for enforcement and holding people accountable. If volunteer boards and commissioners are officials, at a minimum staff appointed officials should be included. Other cities also include staff members. Disciplinary action can be meted out by whomever but there needs to be a consistent code of ethics that governs everyone and a process for a citizen to follow when they have a concern about an ethical violation and someone who will take action to hold the person accountable. She summarized there were multiple layers associated with a code of ethics. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas recalled she and then-Councilmember Peterson discussed having a board of some sort that would look at ethical violations but felt there were many resources for looking at a violation of ethics by an elected official. She pointed out technically Councilmembers are not supervised by anyone; there is no board that can take action with regard to an elected. She recalled the Edmonds Council filed a censorship on one of its Councilmembers because it was felt the situation that warranted that level of action. She and then-Councilmember Peterson did not feel it was appropriate to create a board to consider complaints regarding volunteer board and commission members because any egregious situation with a board or commission member should be addressed by the Council as a whole. She summarized they felt creating a board to consider alleged violations was creating an extra layer that was unlikely to do much good with regard to the behavior of an elected official or board/commission member. Mr. Taraday clarified what he was suggesting was not that there needs to be a substantive difference in what the standards say but there needs to be a difference in where they are located; they could say nearly the same thing. Councilmember Bloom said if there was a standard code of ethics that applied to all elected appointed officials and staff as Shoreline’s does, it could be updated as needed. What the City has needed for over three years is a code of ethics; the proposed Edmonds Code of Ethics does not do what she has been working on for years. When this process began, she used the Bainbridge Island Ethics Policy that includes a Code of Ethics, an Ethics Board, and procedures. Edmonds has none of that. Her goal was simply to get a code of ethics drafted that people can actually understand. The proposed Edmonds Code of Ethics does not have enough delineation to identify what the bullet points mean. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas said she wished something had been passed while Councilmember Bloom was on the Public Safety & Personnel Committee. When she and then-Councilmember Peterson were on the committee, the proposed code of ethics is what they forwarded to the Council. Councilmember Bloom said the Council did not want to pass anything at that point. She recognized she should not have started with the gold standard, Bainbridge Island’s Ethics Policy. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley- Monillas said the Public Safety & Personnel Committee was not tasked with looking at the policies that the committee had considered in the past. Councilmember Petso said she was not a proponent of the code of ethics concept, but supported Councilmember Bloom’s concern that the code of ethics as drafted in Attachment 13 did not have sufficient detail to give her an idea of the conduct being regulated or expected. For example, the Shoreline Code of Ethics states, “Be dedicated to the highest ideas of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationship.” That could be construed very broadly. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas asked what that meant. Councilmember Petso said that is Councilmember Bloom’s point, what does that mean. The Shoreline Code of Ethics provides details regarding what that means, conducting personal affairs in such a way that it does not appear to improperly influencing the performance of their official duties. Councilmember Petso suggested if everyone can agree that more details can be provided regarding the bullet points in the proposed Edmonds Code of Ethics as they relate to the job of a Councilmember, Councilmember Bloom and one or more Councilmembers could develop a draft that provides the detail she is seeking. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas said this is the draft that the Public Safety & Personnel Packet Page 384 of 400 Committee reviewed and forwarded to the Council. She and then-Councilmember Peterson reviewed the details in Shoreline’s Code of Ethics and felt it detracted from the bullet points. Councilmember Mesaros took exception to Councilmember Bloom’s comment that no one would understand the Attachment 13 code of ethics. There are plenty of things people would understand and see it as a higher expressed standard of how elected officials and appointed citizen volunteers should act in their official capacity representing the City. Councilmember Bloom questioned Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas’ comments about what the Public Safety & Personnel Committee was charged to do. What actually happened was the Shoreline Code of Ethics was presented by a citizen and then-Councilmember Peterson and Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas took the bullet points and removed the rest. She referred to Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas’ question about what it meant after Councilmember Petso read the bullet point regarding be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships; that is one of the bullet points in the code of ethics in Attachment 13. She referred to Shoreline’s Code of Ethics, “Seek no favor; believe that personal benefit or profit secured by confidential information or by misuse of public time is dishonest.” That was changed slightly in Attachment 13 to, “Seek no favor; do not personally benefit or profit by confidential information or by the misuse of public resources.” In the Shoreline document there are eight bullet points referring to business interests, private employment, confidential information, gifts, investments in conflict with official duties, personal relationships, and business relationships. The details in Shoreline’s code are important for Council as well as citizens; it provides a check and balance and accountability. Councilmember Buckshnis said she personally likes some of the things in Shoreline’s Code of Ethics especially considering what is happening with Bothell’s Mayor. She had no problem with adding some language to Attachment 13 although she agreed some of Shoreline’s Code of Ethics was too detailed. She suggested it may be easier to start with a draft and work through the changes. Councilmember Mesaros suggested review of Attachment 13 be scheduled on next week’s agenda and if Councilmembers want to make amendments, it could be done during a voting meeting. Council President Pro Tem Johnson said the code of ethics has been an evolution. It may not be exactly what Shoreline chose to do but she was happy with Attachment 13’s broad general approach with exception of the last bullet (Follow Washington statutes, city ordinances or regulations in the course of performing duties) because although it was implicit in the work elected officials do, it was asking too much of boards and commissions. For example, the Planning Board has an advisory role and obtains advice from City staff and she did not want them to have to follow a stricter standard. Councilmember Bloom begged the Council to let her work on this with one other person and bring it back to Council. She reiterated there was not enough delineation in the code of ethics in Attachment 13. She has been working on this since she became a Councilmember and did not want to just adopt Attachment 13. She questioned whether committees were still in place when Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas and then-Councilmember Peterson finalized Attachment 13. Councilmember Petso suggested rather than scheduling amendments to Attachment 13 on next week’s agenda, the Council allow Councilmember Bloom to submit another variation for the Council’s consideration. The alternative under Roberts Rules is to suspend the rules next week to have another wide-ranging discussion like tonight or consider Councilmember Bloom’s amendments one by one. She preferred if there was the potential for significant amendments to the code of ethics, Councilmember Bloom develop materials in advance for review by the public and Council. Packet Page 385 of 400 Councilmember Nelson recommended the Council vote on something next week and make amendments if necessary. Although there have been many references to Shoreline, many things are done in Edmonds because they make sense for Edmonds. Shoreline’s Code of Ethics can be a model but it may not necessarily be an appropriate model for Edmonds. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas observed she has heard two recommendations, 1) bring back Attachment 13 back next week for potential amendment, and 2) provide Councilmember Bloom an opportunity to provide a new draft next week. Councilmember Bloom said she could not have her version ready by next week. Councilmember Buckshnis offered to work with Councilmember Bloom. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on a future agenda to allow Councilmembers Buckshnis and Bloom time to develop another draft. 12.AMENDING THE CITY CODE REGARDING DELINQUENCY CHARGES, THRESHOLD ACCOUNT BALANCES, AND TURN-ON AND TURN-OFF CHARGES Parks & Recreation Carrie Hite relayed she was presenting this for Public Works Director Phil Williams who could not attend tonight’s meeting due to a family emergency. The intent was to clean up the code language with regard to delinquency charges: •Amend the City’s utility billing delinquency charge of 10% of the outstanding balance to $25 •Amend the threshold for account balances to be considered delinquent from $21 to $40. Accounts with overdue balances under $40 would not be considered delinquent and will not be charged the delinquent charge •Amend the City’s Turn-on and Turn-off charges for non-regular working hours from $75 to $125. Councilmember Petso expressed concern with the language in Section 7.10.025: “The decision of the administrative services director can be appealed to the Finance Committee of the Edmonds City Council” as that committee does not currently exist. She suggested moving this to a future agenda as an item for full Council discussion to provide staff time to make changes to that language. Ms. Hite suggested changing it to appeal to the Edmonds City Council. Councilmember Mesaros agreed with that change. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said Finance Director Scott James is also interested in the change to a $25 delinquency charge being retroactive to all existing delinquent accounts to simplify administration of delinquency calculations. Councilmember Petso asked if an executive session was necessary regarding that proposed change. Mr. Taraday answered only if she believed there was potential litigation related to that change. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this for full Council on a future agenda. 13.MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas reported Mayor Earling is vacationing in Hawaii. 14.COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an article in the Seattle Times Pacific NW regarding the identity crisis of the Salish Sea that reinforces Edmonds is doing the right thing daylighting Willow Creek. Another great article follows about local artists the Varnaus and their labyrinth garden. Councilmember Bloom said she was unable to open many of the attachments in the code of ethics agenda item, including the 9/9/14 Public Safety & Personnel Committee minutes. She recalled the last committee Attachment 14 Packet Page 386 of 400 Be dedicated to the concepts of eective and democratic local government. Democratic Leadership. Ocials and sta shall honor and respect the principles and spirit of representative democracy and set a positive example of good citizenship by scrupulously observing the letter and spirit of laws, rules and regulations. Arm the dignity and worth of the services rendered by government and maintain a deep sense of social responsibility as a trusted public servant. Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships. Public Condence. Ocials and sta shall conduct themselves so as to maintain public condence in city government and in the performance of the public trust. Impression of Inuence. Ocials and sta shall conduct their ocial and personal aairs in such a manner as to give the clear impression that they cannot be improperly inuenced in the performance of their ocial duties. Recognize that the chief function of local government at all times is to serve the best interests of all the people. Public Interest. Ocials and sta shall treat their oce as a public trust, only using the power and resources of public oce to advance public interests, and not to attain personal benet or pursue any other private interest incompatible with the public good. Keep the community informedon municipal aairs; encourage communication between the citizens and all municipal ocers; emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public; and seek to improve the quality and image of public service. Accountability. Ocials and sta shall assure that government is conducted openly, eciently, equitably and honorably in a manner that permits the citizenry to make informed judgments and hold city ocials accountable. Respectability. Ocials and sta shall safeguard public condence in the integrity of city government by being honest, fair, caring and respectful and by avoiding conduct creating the appearance of impropriety or which is otherwise unbetting a public ocial. Seek no favor; believe that personal benet or prot secured by condential information or by misuse of public time is dishonest. Business Interests. Ocials and sta shall have no benecial interest in any contract which may be made by, through or under his or her supervision, or for the benet of his or her oce, or accept directly or indirectly, any compensation, gratuity or reward in connection with such contract unless allowed under State law. Private Employment. Ocials and sta shall not engage in, solicit, negotiate for, or promise to accept private employment or render services for private interests or conduct a private business when such employment, service or business creates a conict with or impairs the proper discharge of their ocial duties. Condential Information. Ocials and sta shall not disclose to others, or use to further their personal interest, condential information acquired by them in the course of their ocial duties. Gifts. Ocials and employees shall not directly or indirectly solicit any gift or accept or receive any gift whether it be money, services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, promise, or any other form - under the following circumstances: (a) it could be reasonably inferred or expected that the gift was intended to inuence the performance of ocial duties; or (b) the gift was intended to serve as a reward for any ocial action on the ocial’s or employee’s part. Investments in Conict with Ocial Duties. Ocials and employees shall not invest or hold any investment, directly or indirectly, in any nancial business, commercial or other private transaction that creates a conict with their ocial duties. Personal Relationships. Personal relationships shall be disclosed in any instance where there could be the appearance of a conict of interest. Business Relationships. Ocials and sta shall not use sta time, equipment, or facilities for marketing or soliciting for private business activities. Reference Checking. Reference checking and responding to agency requests are a normal function of municipal business and is not prohibited if it does not adversely eect the operation of the City. Conduct business of the City in a manner which is not only fair in fact, but also in appearance. Personal Relationships. In quasi-judicial proceedings elected ocials shall abide by the directives of RCW 42.36 which requires full disclosure of contacts by proponents and opponents of land use projects which are before the City Council. Boards and Commissions are also subject to these fairness rules when they conduct quasi-judicial hearings. Not knowingly violate any Washington statutes, City ordinance or regulation in the course of performing their duties. Adopted by Council - Resolution No. 170 Code of Ethics The purpose of the City of Shoreline Code of Ethics is to strengthen the quality of government through ethical principles which shall govern the conduct of the City’s elected and appointed ocals, and employees, who shall: Packet Page 387 of 400 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 conduct of City officials (elected officials, appointive officers as per 2.10.005 A, and appointed volunteers serving in an official capacity on boards and commissions) which shall govern the conduct of elected officials and appointed citizen volunteers serving in an official capacity (i.e. Boards and Commissions), we shall:. . We shall: • Be dedicated to the concepts of effective and democratic government. •o Democratic Leadership: Officials shall honor and respect the principles and spirit of representative democracy and set a positive example of good citizenship by observing the letter and spirit of laws, rules, and regulations. • Affirm the dignity and worth of the services rendered by government and maintain a sense of social responsibility. • Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity. in all public and personal relationships. o Public Confidence: Officials shall conduct themselves so as to maintain public confidence in City government and in the performance of the public trust. •o Impression of Influence: Officials shall conduct themselves in such a manner as to give the clear impression that they cannot be improperly influenced in the performance of their official duties. • Recognize that the chief function of local government at all times is to serve the best interest of all the people. Packet Page 388 of 400 •o Public Interest: Officials shall treat their office as a public trust, only using the power and resources of public office to advance public interests. (OPTION A – COUNCIL DECISION: and not attain personal benefit or pursue any other private interest incompatible with the public good.) • Keep the community informed on municipal affairs encourage communications between the citizens and all municipal officers. Emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public. public and each other; seek to improve the quality of public service, and confidence of citizens. o Accountability: Officials shall assure that government is conducted openly, equitably and honorably in a manner that permits the citizenry to make informed judgments. (OPTION B - COUNCIL DECISION): and hold City officials accountable. •o Respectability: Officials shall safeguard public confidence and the integrity of City government by being honest, fair, caring, and respectful. (OPTION C – COUNCIL DECISION): and by avoiding conduct creating the appearance of impropriety. • Seek no favor; do not personally benefit or profit by confidential information or by misuse of public resources. o Business Interests: Officials shall have no beneficial interest in any contract which may be made by, through, or under his or her supervision, or for the benefit of his or her office, or accept directly or indirectly, any compensation, gratuity or reward in connection with such contract unless allowed under State law. o Private Employment: Officials shall not engage in, solicit, negotiate for, or promise to accept private employment or render services for private interests or conduct a private business when such employment, services or business creates a conflict with or impairs the proper discharge of their official duties. Packet Page 389 of 400 o Confidential Information: Officials shall not disclose to others, or use to further their personal interest, confidential information acquired by them in the course of their official duties. o Gifts: Officials shall not directly or indirectly solicit any gift or accept or receive any gift whether it be money, services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, promise, or any other form – under the following circumstances; (a) it could be reasonably inferred or expected that the gift was intended to influence the performance of official duties; or (b) the gift was intended to serve as a reward for any official action on the official’s or officer’s part. o Investments in Conflict with Official Duties: Officials shall not invest or hold any investment, directly, or indirectly, in any financial business, commercial, or other private transaction that creates a conflict with their official duties. •o Business Relationships: Officials shall not use staff time, equipment, or facilities for marketing or soliciting for private business activities. • Conduct business of the city in a manner which is not only fair in fact, but also in appearance. • Follow Washington statutes, city ordinances or regulations in the course of performing duties. (OPTION D – COUNCIL DECISION) Attachment 13 Attachment 16 Packet Page 390 of 400    AM-7691     15.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/05/2015 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted For:City Attorney Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of Settlement Agreement with New Cingular Wireless Recommendation The City Attorney recommends that the city council authorize the Mayor to sign one of the two versions of a proposed settlement agreement with New Cingular Wireless, substantially in the form attached hereto. The non-substantive blanks in the attached settlement templates will be filled in after the city council provides direction as to the preferred method of payment. One version contemplates payment of the settlement by check. The other version of the settlement involves a tax credit instead of a cash payment. Both agreements contemplate a settlement at 18% of the amount of the claim, which amounts to a settlement amount of $18,310.84. It is only the payment method that differs.  Previous Council Action No prior action, but the city council has been briefed in executive session. Narrative New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC (“NCW”) submitted to the City of Edmonds a claim dated November 1, 2010, subsequently modified by letter dated June 15, 2012, seeking the refund of $99,299.89 in Local Utility Tax (“Tax”), which Tax had previously been collected by NCW from its customers allegedly on charges for data services providing Internet access between November 1, 2005 and September 30, 2010, and which Tax previously was allegedly remitted by NCW to the City of Edmonds (the “Claim”). Similar claims were filed with several other Washington cities. The City of Edmonds has asserted various defenses to the Claim, including but not limited to an assertion that certain portions of the Claim are outside the three year limitations period for which a refund of Taxes is available under the City’s municipal code and state law. NCW is a party-defendant to the Global Class Action Settlement Agreement approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, pursuant to which the rights of the customers included in the Settlement Class (the “Settlement Class”) have been established. The Settlement Class includes customers from whom the Tax was collected, which Tax is sought in the Claim. NCW filed suit in King County Superior Court against the City of Edmonds and several other cities (the “First Lawsuit”). The City of Edmonds and several other cities were subsequently dropped as a defendant in the First Lawsuit by order pursuant to a motion for misjoinder. NCW filed a second suit in Snohomish Packet Page 391 of 400 County Superior Court against the City and several other Snohomish County cities, which the City subsequently removed to the United States District Court, Western District of Washington (the “Second Lawsuit”). The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Second Lawsuit for consolidated pretrial proceedings (together with the First and Second Lawsuit, the “Lawsuits”). NCW and the City of Edmonds desire to promptly settle the Claim and dismiss allegations against the City in the Lawsuits, and as a result resolve this matter fully and finally as between NCW and Edmonds. This proposed settlement was negotiated as a package with a group of 35 Washington cities. As a group, it was negotiated that each city would pay 18% of the claim applicable to that city. For Edmonds, this amounts to a payment of $18,310.84. The city has the option to write a check for this amount or to issue a tax credit for this amount. Attachments Attachment 1 - Settlement Agreement - TEMPLATE CHECK Attachment 2 - Settlement Agreement - TEMPLATE CREDIT Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 05/01/2015 08:28 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/01/2015 08:38 AM Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 05/01/2015 07:24 AM Final Approval Date: 05/01/2015  Packet Page 392 of 400 AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT & RELEASE BETWEEN NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS LLC AND THE CITY OF [CITY], WASHINGTON [CHECK TEMPLATE AGREEMENT] New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC (“Claimant”), the Settlement Class as described below, and the City of [CITY] (“City”), enter into the following Agreement of Settlement and Release (“Agreement”) with regard to the Claim described and defined below. WHEREAS, the Claimant and Settlement Class submitted to City a claim dated November 1, 2010, subsequently modified by letter dated June 15, 2012, seeking the refund of $[CLAIM AMOUNT] in Local Utility Tax (“Tax”), which Tax had previously been collected by the Claimant from its customers allegedly on charges for data services providing Internet access between November 1, 2005 and September 30, 2010, and which Tax previously was allegedly remitted by the Claimant to City (the “Claim”); and WHEREAS, City has asserted various defenses to the Claim, including but not limited to an assertion that certain portions of the Claim are outside the three year limitations period for which a refund of Taxes is available under the City’s municipal code and state law; and WHEREAS, the Claimant is a party-defendant to the Global Class Action Settlement Agreement approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Case No. 10-CV-02278, pursuant to which the rights of the customers included in the Settlement Class (the “Settlement Class”) have been established; and WHEREAS, the Settlement Class includes but is not limited to customers from whom the Tax was collected, which Tax is sought in the Claim; and WHEREAS, the Claimant filed suit in King County Superior Court against City and others under Case No. 12-2-15031-1 SEA (the “First Lawsuit”); and Packet Page 393 of 400 WHEREAS, the City was subsequently dropped as a defendant in the First Lawsuit by order pursuant to a motion for misjoinder, and the Claimant has not yet appealed the order dropping the City; and WHEREAS, the Claimant filed a second suit in [COUNTY] County Superior Court against the City under Case No. [STATE CASE NO.], which the City subsequently removed to the United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Case No. [FED. CASE NO.] (the “Second Lawsuit”); and WHEREAS, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Second Lawsuit for consolidated pretrial proceedings under Case No. 2:13-md-02485-JCC (together with the First and Second Lawsuit, the “Lawsuits”); and WHEREAS, the Claimant and City desire to promptly settle the Claim and dismiss allegations against the City in the Lawsuits, and as a result resolve this matter fully and finally as between the Claimant and City. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree: FIRST, the Claimant, Settlement Class and City agree that this Agreement shall be final with regard to any liability for Tax sought in the Claim. SECOND, City agrees to pay, and the Claimant and Settlement Class agree to accept payment of $[SETTLEMENT AMOUNT] in full satisfaction of any and all obligations with respect to the Claim. In exchange for this payment, the Claimant and Settlement Class agree to release City from any and all further liability, costs and attorneys fees with regard to the Claim, and further agree not to appeal the order dropping the City from the First Lawsuit, not to file a new suit, and not to take any other legal action against the City with respect to the Claim. Packet Page 394 of 400 THIRD, City shall issue a check or warrant in the amount of $[SETTLEMENT AMOUNT] in the name of “AT&T Mobility Settlement Fund” and shall within fifteen (15) days after the final execution of this Agreement, send such check or warrant via certified mail to Michael R. Scott, Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S., 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98101. FOURTH, this Agreement sets forth the entire understanding between the Claimant, Settlement Class and City with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior negotiations, agreements, understandings or arrangements between them. By entering into this Agreement, neither party admits any liability or obligations to the other. FIFTH, Claimant and City hereby authorize their respective legal counsel to execute a dismissal with prejudice and without the award of costs or attorneys’ fees to any party of all allegations and claims of Claimant against City in the Lawsuits. SIXTH, this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Claimant, Settlement Class, and all of their respective former and current officers, employees and directors, and respective successors and assigns. SEVENTH, each of the undersigned represents and warrants that he or she is fully authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of the party and in the capacity identified below. EIGHTH, this Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the dates shown below. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS LLC Packet Page 395 of 400 By Date Name Title CITY OF [CITY], WASHINGTON By Date Name Title ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONSENT TO AGREEMENT: THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, BY AND THROUGH SETTLEMENT CLASS COUNSEL By Date Name Title Packet Page 396 of 400 AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT & RELEASE BETWEEN NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS LLC AND THE CITY OF [CITY], WASHINGTON [CREDIT TEMPLATE AGREEMENT] New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC (“Claimant”), the Settlement Class as described below, and the City of [CITY] (“City”), enter into the following Agreement of Settlement and Release (“Agreement”) with regard to the Claim described and defined below. WHEREAS, the Claimant and Settlement Class submitted to City a claim dated November 1, 2010, subsequently modified by letter dated June 15, 2012, seeking the refund of $[CLAIM AMOUNT] in Local Utility Tax (“Tax”), which Tax had previously been collected by the Claimant from its customers allegedly on charges for data services providing Internet access between November 1, 2005 and September 30, 2010, and which Tax previously was allegedly remitted by the Claimant to City (the “Claim”); and WHEREAS, City has asserted various defenses to the Claim, including but not limited to an assertion that certain portions of the Claim are outside the applicable three year limitations period for which a refund of Taxes is available under the City’s municipal code and state law; and WHEREAS, the Claimant is a party-defendant to the Global Class Action Settlement Agreement approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Case No. 10-CV-02278, pursuant to which the rights of the customers included in the Settlement Class (the “Settlement Class”) have been established; and WHEREAS, the Settlement Class includes but is not limited to customers from whom the Tax was collected, which Tax is sought in the Claim; and WHEREAS, the Claimant filed suit in King County Superior Court against City and others under Cause No. 12-2-15031-1 SEA (the “First Lawsuit”); and Packet Page 397 of 400 WHEREAS, the City was subsequently dropped as a defendant in the First Lawsuit by order pursuant to a motion for misjoinder, and the Claimant has not yet appealed the order dropping the City; and WHEREAS, the Claimant filed a second suit in [COUNTY] County Superior Court against the City under Case No. [STATE CASE NO.], which the City subsequently removed to the United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Case No. [FED. CASE NO.] (the “Second Lawsuit”); and WHEREAS, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Second Lawsuit for consolidated pretrial proceedings under Case No. 2:13-md-02485-JCC (together with the First and Second Lawsuit, the “Lawsuits”); and WHEREAS, the Claimant and City desire to promptly settle the Claim and dismiss allegations against the City in the Lawsuits, and as a result resolve this matter fully and finally as between the Claimant and City. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree: FIRST, the Claimant, Settlement Class and City agree that this Agreement shall be final with regard to any liability for Tax sought in the Claim. SECOND, City agrees to grant Claimant a dollar for dollar credit against future Local Utility User Surcharge in the amount of $[SETTLEMENT AMOUNT] (“Settlement Amount”) in full satisfaction of any and all obligations with respect to the Claim. That is, the City’s payment of the Settlement Amount would be made by Claimant keeping, rather than forwarding to the City, the monthly Tax remittance from the properly imposed Tax until the full Settlement Amount is paid. In exchange for payment of the Settlement Amount, the Claimant and Settlement Class agree to release City from any and all further liability, costs and attorneys fees Packet Page 398 of 400 with regard to the Claim, and further agree not to appeal the order dropping the City from the First Lawsuit, not to file a new suit, and not to take any other legal action against the City with respect to the Claim. THIRD, City shall issue a letter reflecting such credit to Claimant, which shall include the following language: “This confirms that New Cingular may take as a credit $[SETTLEMENT AMOUNT] against future UUT.” The City shall mail such letter within 15 days after the final execution of this Agreement to Michael R. Scott, Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98101. FOURTH, this Agreement sets forth the entire understanding between the Claimant, Settlement Class and City with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior negotiations, agreements, understandings or arrangements between them. By entering into this Agreement, neither party admits any liability or obligations to the other. FIFTH, Claimant and City hereby authorize their respective legal counsel to execute a dismissal with prejudice and without the award of costs or attorneys’ fees to any party of all allegations and claims of Claimant against City in the Lawsuits. SIXTH, this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Claimant, Settlement Class, and all of their respective former and current officers, employees and directors, and respective successors and assigns. SEVENTH, each of the undersigned represents and warrants that he or she is fully authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of the party and in the capacity identified below. EIGHTH, this Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts. Packet Page 399 of 400 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the dates shown below. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS LLC By Date Name Title CITY OF [CITY], WASHINGTON By Date Name Title ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONSENT TO AGREEMENT: THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, BY AND THROUGH SETTLEMENT CLASS COUNSEL By Date Name Title Packet Page 400 of 400