Loading...
2015.05.12 CC Agenda Packet         AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING MAY 12, 2015           6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER   1.(60 Minutes) AM-7713 Discussion and Potential Action regarding Potential Submittal of Letter of Interest to State to Acquire the Edmonds Conference Center   STUDY SESSION MAY 12, 2015   7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE   2.Roll Call   3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda   4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items   A.AM-7704 Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2015   B.AM-7692 Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of May 5, 2015.   C.AM-7703 Approval of claim checks #214105 through #214241 dated May 7, 2015 for $329,626.25. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61591 through #61600 for $478,364.20, benefit checks #61601 through #61608 and wire payments of $415,382.63 for the pay period April 16, 2015 through April 30, 2015.   D.AM-7707 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Marisa Matera ($2,000,000.00).   E.AM-7669 Authorization to Contract with James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Vehicles         F.AM-7697 Approval of City Park Construction Management Reserve   5.(5 Minutes) AM-7698 Presentation of WRPA award to Bruce Higgins   6.(5 Minutes) AM-7696 Proclamation Recognizing National Police Week   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-7702 Presentation by Alliance for Housing Affordability   9.(15 Minutes) AM-7701 Draft Streetscape/Street Trees Element for 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update   10.(15 Minutes) AM-7671 Civil Service Commission (EMC 10.25.090) update – Filling of vacancies-Probationary Period   11.(5 Minutes) AM-7673 Naming Fire Station #16.   12.(10 Minutes) AM-7700 Presentation of final construction costs for the 15th Street Walkway Project and acceptance of project.   13.(10 Minutes) AM-7699 Presentation of the construction contract award for the 2015 Watermain Replacement Project   14.(10 Minutes) AM-7694 Presentation of a Sprint Master Use Agreement and Site Use Agreement for installation, operation and maintenance of their wireless equipment in the right of way.   15.(10 Minutes) AM-7695 Presentation of an Interlocal Agreement with PSE for the 238th St. SW Walkway and Drainage Improvements Project   16.(30 Minutes) AM-7693 Sunset Avenue Walkway Project Update   17.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments   18.(15 Minutes)Council Comments   19.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).   20.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.   ADJOURN            AM-7713     1.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 Time:60 Minutes   Submitted For:Patrick Doherty Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:Economic Development Type: Potential Action  Information Subject Title Discussion and Potential Action regarding Potential Submittal of Letter of Interest to State to Acquire the Edmonds Conference Center Recommendation Previous Council Action This item was originally scheduled for discussion on the April 28 Council Agenda, but was postponed until May 12. Narrative On 4/13/15 the State of Washington issued a "Surplus Property Bulletin" (attached here), declaring the Edmonds Conference Center, owned by Edmonds Community College, to be surplus and available for purchase, transfer, lease, etc.  The "Surplus Property Bulletin" states the fair market value of the property as $2,305,000.  The 14,375-square-foot property is developed with an approximately 11,252-square-foot, wood-frame conference center built in 1997.  The property also contains 27 paved on-site parking spaces behind the building.  Noteworthy is the fact that the wood-frame, stucco-clad building has suffered water leakage and associated damage, as assessed by Allana, Buick & Bers, Inc., last Summer.  The "rough order of magnitude" cost of mitigating said damage was estimated at $1,012,161.23.  (The full report is attached here.) Staff requested a gross profit/loss statement (expenditures versus revenue) from the State.  A simple P/L statement for the fiscal year 2013-2014 was submitted.  This P/L statement shows $276,609 in annual revenue, $329,519 in annual expenses, for a year-end loss of $52,910.   (This statement is attached here.) In addition, the Surplus Property Bulletin states that government agencies have the first opportunity to express interest in acquiring the site.  Such written expressions of interest are due by June 1, 2015 (the deadline was recently extended upon request).  Subsequently, interested parties will have ten days to provide a detailed proposal to the State.  If no governmental entities express interest in acquiring the site, the property will become immediately available to private-sector parties.  The issue in front of City Council is whether to submit a letter of interest in acquiring the Edmonds Conference Center by the due date of June 1, 2015.  Subsequent discussions of the purchase price, deal terms, etc., could be held at a future Council meeting and may be considered appropriate for an Executive Session discussion. Attachments Attachment 1 - Surplus Property Bulletin ECC Attachment 2 - Condition Assessment ECC Attachment 3 - Proforma ECC Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 05/08/2015 11:21 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/08/2015 11:22 AM Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 05/08/2015 10:38 AM Final Approval Date: 05/08/2015  PALO ALTO / SACRAMENTO / LOS ANGELES / SAN DIEGO / SEATTLE / LAS VEGAS / NEW YORK / HONOLULU 800.378.3405 / WWW.ABBAE.COM Condition Assessment, Water Testing, Limited DT, And Preliminary Budgeting Services Edmonds Conference Center 201 Fourth Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98103 Prepared for: Schreiber Starling & Lane Architects 185 University Street. Seattle, WA 98101 JN: 14–3610.01 2 Leak Investigation Report & Recommendations Edmonds Conference Center August 18, 2014 Frances Gooding Schreiber Starling & Lane Architects 185 University Street Seattle, WA 98101 Re: Condition Assessment, Water Testing, Limited Destructive Testing & Preliminary Budgeting Edmonds Conference Center 201 4th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Ms. Gooding: Allana Buick & Bers, Inc. (ABB) is pleased to provide this report outlining our findings in regards to the building leaks and failures investigated and reviewed as outlined in our proposal. ABB’s professional services were requested to investigate and evaluate building leaks caused by historical and current water infiltration problems at various areas on the property. This report presents the findings of our investigation and associated conclusions and recommendations. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to Schreiber Starling & Lane Architects, and to assist you with this project. Please call us to follow up as there are additional action items associated with identified leaks. Sincerely, ALLANA BUICK & BERS, INC. Petersen Lambert, PE, RRC Associate Principal 3 Leak Investigation Report & Recommendations Edmonds Conference Center Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Observations - Visual Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 7 Summary Observations & Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 16 APPENDIX A, Investigation Protocol APPENDIX B, Scope and Cost Estimate 4 Leak Investigation Report & Recommendations Edmonds Conference Center EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ABB reviewed and assessed the condition of the horizontal podium assemblies and other miscellaneous building envelope components. The integration of the building paper into and at critical waterproofing transitions (control joints, expansion joints and windows) was observed to be ineffective at managing the moisture that enters the stucco cladding assembly. This lack of integration is anticipated to be systemic based on the information obtained during our destructive testing. Therefore, unfortunately, the only remedial solution is to replace and reintegrate the weather resistant barrier. Location Issue Testing Observations Repair Options 1 – East Elevation Level 1, Reception Room 101 Room 102 Previous History of Window Leaks at Window o ASTM E1105. Water testing of window and the window to stucco integration provided. o Destructive Testing. Stucco removed around window perimeter. o Window unit did not leak during testing. o Window integration did leak during testing. o Window integration to waterproofing assembly leaked during testing. o Head flashing not integrated properly or installed with long term product (plastic) o Building paper deteriorated and dry rot visible. o Immediate Repair: Stucco assembly can be sealant to window frame as immediate way to stop active water intrusion but will not be a viable long term solution o Short Term (1-5 years): None feasible. o Long Term: Replace stucco and waterproofing assembly. 9,000 SF at $49 – 56/SF = $450,000 - $505,000 SF Replace Windows – TBD Soft Costs and Contingency – 25% of Construction Budget 2 – SE Elevation Level 1 Lobby Previous History of Window Leaks at Window o ASTM E1105. Water testing of window and the window to stucco integration provided. o Destructive Testing. Stucco removed around window perimeter. 3 – South Elevation Level 1 Lobby Room 100 Previous History of Window Leaks at Window o Destructive Testing. Stucco removed around window perimeter. o Window integration to waterproofing assembly leaked during testing. o Head flashing not integrated properly or installed with long term product (plastic) o Building paper deteriorated and dry rot visible. 4 – South Elevation Level 1 Meeting Hall Room 111 Stucco Cracking o Destructive Testing. Stucco removed around sill of window, control joint and existing crack Table 1 – Location, Findings and Recommendations 5 Leak Investigation Report & Recommendations Edmonds Conference Center BACKGROUND The goal of this investigation and report is to identify the cause of the reported and visible water intrusion into the Edmonds Community Center. Our investigation and report focuses on the exterior walls and fenestration of the building. The project drawings were discovered via the Building Department records documents. A printed set of the available plans was provided to ABBAE. A digital copy of the plans has been provided for future use and consideration. ABB walked the project site with representatives from SSL and Edmonds Community College to review the known, active leaks. An annotated plan view of the leaks and various building issues was provided in our Investigation Protocol. Our Investigation Protocol was provided as Appendix A. Our investigation included a review of the above-noted issues, as well as destructive testing to evaluate and document the current condition of the window and stucco assembly. The locations of our testing are provided as Appendix A. Building Envelope Systems The Community Center is a wood framed, stucco clad 1-2 story structure (See Figure 1). A split-faced CMU masonry base occurs at the base of the wall. The majority of the building is stucco, with the wall assembly outlined in the record drawings as  Stucco  Building Paper  3/8 inch gypsum (only at fire walls)  Plywood  Batt insulated wood framing  6 mil Vapor Barrier  Interior gypsum board Built in 1996 according to record documents at the City building department, the structure had the steep sloped metal roofing replaced in August of 2010. Figure 1: Typical Wall Assembly 6 Leak Investigation Report & Recommendations Edmonds Conference Center OBSERVATIONS— Visual Assessment On May 19th, 2014, ABBAE, SSL, ECC, and the Director of the Community Center walked the interior and exterior of the building to outline known and previous leak locations. This survey also allowed ABBAE to determine the wall and fenestration assemblies. Interior Survey Five known leak locations were noted during the walkthrough and identified in the plan below. Previous leaks were discussed, but their exact locations were unknown. They were believed to be related to previous roofing leaks which had been corrected. The leaks were all associated with or around window openings. The frequent leaks (Leaks 3, 4 and 5) were observed to have towels or glasses in place to mitigate damage to the interior during rain events. Figure 2 - Leak Location Diagram 7 Leak Investigation Report & Recommendations Edmonds Conference Center Exterior Survey Upon completion of the interior walkthrough, ABBAE surveyed the exterior conditions. The stucco was observed to be in poor to fair condition, with large cracking observed in several locations (Photo 1). Rust colored staining was observed beneath two of the windows (Photo 2) on the Southeast Elevation. Photo 1, South Elevation – Stucco Cracking Photo 2, South East Elevation – Staining CMU cracking was also observed in the South, North and West elevations (Photo 3) Photo 3, West Elevation – Typ. CMU Cracking Photo 4, South West Corner – Unsealed Vent 8 Leak Investigation Report & Recommendations Edmonds Conference Center Stucco Cladding and Window Leak Investigation Upon completion of the visual survey, ABBAE provided the team with our “Stucco Cladding and Window Leak Investigation” protocol dated May 22, 2014. This document outlined our plan for a two- day window water testing and limited destructive testing investigation. This document is attached as Appendix A. We conducted this investigation on May 29th and 39th at the locations outlined in Figure 3. Figure3: Investigation Plan Watertesting At Location 1, we reviewed the interior of both the Director’s Office and Reception Area windows. Only the reception area window was tested. The Director’s Office was observed to have towels and glasses in place where regular water intrusion occurs (Photo 5). The interior wood trim was removed from around the window so that the rough opening framing could be examined before and during the test (Photo 7). We observed that the trim was water stained and damaged. The sill framing was also observed to be water stained (Photo 8). Using a spray test rack (Photo 6), 20psf of water was sprayed onto the Reception window. The window leaked within 10 minutes of testing. The leaks were observed at the head (top) of the window assembly. An isolation test of the window was not conducted. 9 Leak Investigation Report & Recommendations Edmonds Conference Center Photo 5 , Directors Office – Glass and Towel Photo 6, Reception Area – Window Tested Photo 7, Reception Area Window Photo 8, Reception Area Window – Water Stain Testing at Location 2 (Photo 9) was provided in the same manner as at Location 1. We observed staining and damage to the removed trim in addition to the rough opening framing (Photos 10-12). 10 Leak Investigation Report & Recommendations Edmonds Conference Center Photo 9, Lobby Window with Trim Removed Photo 10, Lobby Window – Sill Staining Photo 11, Lobby Window – Staining Between Windows Photo 12, Lobby Window – Staining Between Windows After 10 minutes of testing, water ingress was observed at both the head and sill of the window assembly. Isolation testing of the window was conducted to evaluate the performance of the window unit itself. After 30 minutes of testing, no leaks were observed. 11 Leak Investigation Report & Recommendations Edmonds Conference Center Photo 13, Lobby Window – Water Testing Photo 14, Lobby Window – Leak at Head Photo 15, Lobby Window – Leak at Sill Photo 16 , Lobby Window – Isolation Test Destructive Testing Three locations of destructive testing were examined. With the assistance of McLeod Construction, stucco, building paper and flashing materials were carefully removed so that ABBAE could review the condition and installation of the materials. We recorded moisture readings at each location using a Delmhorst BD-2100 moisture reader. Location 2 – Lobby Window Moisture readings at both the interior wood framing (Photo 17) and exterior plywood sheathing (Photo 18) were significantly high (32-38 was recorded; 9-15 is considered acceptable). 12 Leak Investigation Report & Recommendations Edmonds Conference Center Photo 17, Location 2 – Interior Moisture Reading at Sill Framing Photo 18, Location 2 – Exterior Moisture Reading at Sheathing The condition of the exterior water resistant barrier (Building Paper) was poor (Photo 19 -20). The integrity of the paper was compromised from consistent saturation. Photo 19, Location 2 – Plastic Sheating over Metal Window Head Flashing. Building Paper behind Flashing Mislapped. Photo 20, Location 2 – Close up of Mislapped Building Paper. As observed at Location 1, the integration of the building paper to the window does not prevent water intrusion. The building paper is lapped into the opening at the head conditions (Photo 20), directing water to the inside of the building. Plastic sheeting was utilized to tie the window flange to the building paper (Photo 19). This is not a compatible or appropriate material for this application. Poor building paper condition and poor installation methods were also observed at the sill of the window (Photo 22). The lack of perimeter window flashing at the transition of the stucco “j” mold and perimeter window frame has lead to damage to the building paper, plywood (Photo 23) and stud framing. 13 Leak Investigation Report & Recommendations Edmonds Conference Center Photo 21, Location 2 – Plastic Sheating over Metal Window Head Flashing. Building Pater behind Flashing Mislapped. Photo 22 , Location 2 – Window Sill Photo 23, Location 2 – Damage at Sill Photo 24, Location 2 – Damage to Stud Appears at Surface of Stud Only Location 1 – Reception South Elevation Window The area above and around the reception window at the South Elevation had the stucco cladding removed in the same manner as at Location 2. Similar to Location 2, the head flashing and building paper was observed to be installed in a manner that promotes water intrusion (Photo 25 and 26). Water testing at this location confirmed this observation. We also observed damage extending up the wall at the head condition. Additional stucco cladding was removed and water staining, damaged building paper and dry rotted plywood was observed originating from the 2nd story windows above (Photos 26 and 27). 14 Leak Investigation Report & Recommendations Edmonds Conference Center Photo 25, Location 1 – Plastic Sheating over Metal Window Head Flashing. Building Paper behind Flashing Mislapped. Photo 26 , Location 1 – Close up of Mislapped Building Paper. Photo 27, Location 1 – Extent of Additional Stucco Cladding Removal Photo 28, Location 1 – Close up of Damage Originating from Windows Above Location 4 – South Elevation Stucco and CMU Crack at Window Sill A 1/16 inch, diagonal crack (Photo 29) was observed at the sill of a South facing reception hall window. This crack extends into the CMU below. The building paper under the cracked location was observed to be fractured (Photo 30). The underlying substrate was not observed to be cracked or water stained. Tyvek building wrap was observed behind the CMU areas in lieu of building paper. We did not removed CMU as part of this scope. 15 Leak Investigation Report & Recommendations Edmonds Conference Center Photo 29, Location 4 – Cracked Stucco Photo 30, Location 4 – Paper Fractured The lath in the stucco cladding was observed to be poorly furred into the assembly (Photo 31). This is not in compliance with building code and can lead to excessive cracking in the assembly. A control joint above the head condition of the window was observed to be bent and cracked (Photo 32). We did observe in this and other locations that the control joint furring was separated from the stucco by a piece of building paper. Also, more robust self-adhered flashing materials were not used to limit the damage to the underlying building paper. Photo 31, Location 4 – Poor Lath Embedment Photo 32, Location 2 – Bent Control Joint 16 Leak Investigation Report & Recommendations Edmonds Conference Center FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The integration of the building paper into and at critical waterproofing transitions (control joints, expansion joints and windows) is observed to be ineffective at managing the moisture that enters the stucco cladding assembly. This lack of integration is anticipated to be systemic based on the information obtained during our destructive testing. Therefore, unfortunately, the only remedial solution is to replace and reintegrate weather resistant barrier. To do so, a complete removal and replacement of the stucco cladding will be necessary. This will require that existing door and windows be removed so that they may be integrated properly into the weather resistant barrier. It is recommended that new windows and doors be provided; however, this is not required. As for the replacement, the cladding assembly can be changed or remain the same. If stucco is selected, we highly recommend that the stucco have a drainage plane via a drainage mat. We also recommend that a more robust weather resistant barrier be utilized in lieu of the building paper. A commercial grade building wrap capable of doubling as an air barrier is recommended. Contingencies for unknown and water damaged building assemblies will also be needed. We recommend that monies be allocated for replacement of damaged plywood, damaged stud framing and water logged insulation. A Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Estimate was created using RS Means data, past projects and conversations with subcontractor regarding unit prices for similar scope of work. The ROM does assume that the replacement would be a publically funded and bid project. The ROM is provided as Appendix B. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the information provided in this report, please feel free to contact us directly. Very truly yours, ALLANA BUICK & BERS, INC. Petersen Lambert, PE, RRC Associate Principal May 22, 2014 Edmonds Conference Center -Stucco Cladding & Window Leak Investigation- 201 Fourth Ave N. Edmonds, WA 9802 To All Parties Involved, The following represents the investigation protocol outlining the water testing and destructive testing scope of work associated with the reported leaks for the Edmonds Conference Center. We propose to water test 2 window locations and remove stucco at 4 window areas as described within the Destructive Testing & Investigation Schedule and supplementary plan diagrams and photo references on the following pages. The investigation will be conducted over a period of two days, with water testing the first day followed by intrusive destructive testing of the stucco cladding the following day. The first day of the investigation will encompass one Consultant to set up and execute ASTM E2128 – Standard Guide for Evaluating Water Leakage of Building Walls, and AAMA 511 – Voluntary Guideline for Forensic Water Penetration Testing of Fenestration Products which will aid us in identifying the leak sources. The second day of the investigation will encompass a licensed Contractor to conduct exploratory openings by removing specified portions of the stucco cladding, and one Consultant to review the existing envelope components and the detail interfaces that are associated with the leaks. Upon completion of the investigation we will meet on June 4th to discuss preliminary findings prior to reporting and repair estimates. A Findings Report with Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) pricing is tentatively scheduled for issuance on June 20th to all parties involved. If there are any questions or concerns regarding this investigation plan, please contact ABB prior to the investigation. Petersen Lambert, P.E., RRC, CCCA Associate Principal Jeremy Mitchell, Assoc. AIA Consultant Enclosed: Investigation Plan & Summary of Work Page 2 of 12 Investigation Dates: Thursday, May 29th – Friday, May 30th Contractor Additional Put Back Days: Monday, June 2nd – Tuesday, June 3rd Investigation Working Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. INVESTIGATION PARTIES INVOLVED Contact Phone Responsibility Allana Buick & Bers (Consultant) Jeremy Mitchell 206.678.2581 Consultant in the Field John Moellenhoff 206.604.9863 Consultant in the Field Petersen Lambert 206.240.7710 Principal in Charge Schreiber Starling & Lane Architects (Architect of Record) Francis Gooding 206.682.8300 Architect Edmonds Conference Center (Director) Gretchen Johnston 425.640.1344 Director Edmonds Community College (Owner) Francisco Gomez 425.290.2489 Owner’s Representative DT Contractor – (Contractor) TBD TBD TBD Page 3 of 12 Level 1 – Testing Locations Plan Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Legend Destructive Testing, Stucco Removal Locations Water Testing Locations Page 4 of 12 Destructive Testing & Investigation Schedule Testing Location # Elevation Photo Ref. Description Test/Work Date Scope 1 East 1-2 Level 1, Reception (room 101), Office (room 102) windows 5/29 (test) ABB: Set up rain rack. Execute AAMA 511 forensic window test. Review window integration detailing at sill, jamb and head upon removal of stucco. 5/30 (destructive test) Contractor: Remove specified amount of stucco to the nearest control joint. Remove j- screeds and sealant around window perimeter. See Summary of Work 6/2 – 6/4 (Put back) Contractor: Install WRB, j-screeds, sill trim, stucco patch work and sealant. Reinstall interior window wraps. See Summary of Work 2 South east 3-4 Level 1, Lobby (room 100) window head, clerestory window sill 5/29 (test) ABB: Set up rain rack. Execute AAMA 511 forensic window test. Review window integration detailing at sill, jamb and head upon removal of stucco. 5/30 (destructive test) Contractor: Remove specified amount of stucco to the nearest control joint. Remove j- screeds and sealant around window perimeter. See Summary of Work 6/2 – 6/4 (Put back) Contractor: Install WRB, j-screeds, stucco patch work and sealant. Reinstall interior window wraps. See Summary of Work 3 South 5-6 Level 1, Lobby (room 100) window head 5/30 (destructive test) ABB: Review window integration detailing at sill and jamb, and review control joint installation and failure modes upon removal of stucco. Contractor: Remove specified amount of stucco to the nearest control joint. Remove j- screeds and sealant around window perimeter. See Summary of Work 6/2 – 6/4 (Put back) Contractor: Install WRB, j-screeds, stucco patch work and sealant. See Summary of Work Page 5 of 12 Destructive Testing & Investigation Schedule Testing Location # Elevation Photo Ref. Description Test/Work Date Scope 4 South 7-8 Level 1, Meeting Hall (room 111) 5/30 (destructive test) ABB: Review window integration detailing at sill and jamb, and review control joint installation and failure modes upon removal of stucco. Contractor: Remove specified amount of stucco to the nearest control joint. Remove j- screeds and sealant around window perimeter. See Summary of Work 6/2 – 6/4 (Put back) Contractor: Install WRB, j-screeds, stucco patch work and sealant. See Summary of Work Page 6 of 12 Overall Site Diagram Site General Conditions A. General Conditions Requirements: 1. Temporary Protection: Provide temporary weather protection if intrusive investigation area cannot be dried in prior to the end of a work day. 2. Provide protection around existing landscaping components that may be in the way of the specified work. 3. Egress and Right of Way: Paths of egress and right of ways shall be maintained at all times during construction operations and when not actively working. 4. Safety is the full responsibility of the Contractor. 5. Provide dust control measures to mitigate dust particles from entering the building or other adjacent properties. 6. Dispose of all construction related debris legally offsite daily. Contractor shall clean around the area of work daily to ensure safety of the occupants. 7. House power is available for Contractor use. 8. Storage: If storage is needed, contractor may utilize a parking stall or a portion of the sidewalk at the facilities northwest parking lot. 9. Facilities: Contractor and laborers may use onsite restroom facilities. Contractor shall inspect restrooms at the end of each working day to verify the restrooms are clean and tidy. 10. Parking: Street parking is available for employees. A single parking stall in the northwest parking lot is available for Contractor use. 11. Uniforms/Vests: Contractors staff and subcontractors are required to wear safety shirts or vests with clear company logos for onsite staff to identify. 12. Hours of Operation: 8am to 5pm. 7:30 a.m. soft start is acceptable. No weekend work permitted unless noted otherwise by the Owner’s Representative. 13. The building tenants are responsible for moving furniture and personal items in the way of work. 14. Scaffolding/ Pump Jacks/ Ladders: Contractor is responsible for the safety and any necessary permits if scaffolding, pump jacks or ladders are to be used. 15. Provide interior floor and wall protection as needed when actively working in the interior. Areas of Destructive Testing. Refer to Testing Locations Plan Contractor Parking & Equipment Load/Un-load Area of window testing N Contractor Staff On- street Parking Alley Entry to Parking Page 7 of 12 Location Photo References Photo 1 – Location 1 overall at East elevation. Photo 2 – Location 1 stucco removal to review head, jamb and sill conditions. Roughly 40 s.f. Photo 3 – Location 2 overall at Southeast elevation Photo 4 – Location 2 stucco removal to review head condition and sill condition of clerestory window above. Roughly 8 s.f. Control Joints Page 8 of 12 Location Photo References Photo 5 – Location 3 overall at South elevation Photo 6 – Location 3 stucco removal to review substrate and window interface conditions. Roughly 12 s.f. Photo 7 – Location 4 overall at South elevation Photo 8 – Location 4 stucco removal to review substrate, window interface and thru-wall flashing at CMU interface conditions. Roughly 12 s.f. Page 9 of 12 Location Photo References Photo 9 – Interior or Office (Room 102) overall. Window testing specimen will include the removal of interior trim during the test. See photo 10. Photo 10 – Existing interior window wraps, 1x wood trim. These will be temporarily removed by ABB during the window tests, and reset by the Contractor. Contractor Scope of Work A. Stucco, Sealant and Wood Trim Removal and Installation: 1. Exterior Cutting & Patching: a. Remove stucco at specified areas using appropriate cutting tools. b. Salvage existing water resistive barrier (WRB) if practical c. Chip existing stucco back so the cut line is varied and to expose a salvaged lathe edge of 6” minimum to tie in the stucco patch work into stucco that is to remain. d. Feather finish coat into existing stucco. e. Exterior Building Enclosure: Patch components in a manner that restores enclosure to a weathertight condition. This may include the utilization of building paper, self-adhered flashing membranes and sealants prior to installing stucco patch work. f. Refer to Stucco Repair Guidelines in Appendix A 2. Exterior Installation: a. Install new WRB stripped into existing salvaged WRB (under exist. WRB) b. Install self-adhering membranes at window interfaces or where existing WRB needs to be patched. c. Install new j-channel bead casing around window perimeters within the investigation areas. Leave 3/8” joint between window frame and casing bead. d. Install 3-part scratch, brown and finish stucco system with texture and color to match existing. e. Install closed-cell backer rod and urethane sealant at window perimeters. Prime substrates as needed for proper sealant adhesion. 3. Interior Installation: a. Reinstall finish window wraps with finish nails (wraps will be removed at testing windows only. Reinstallation will include 3 window wraps (8 pieces each window for a total of 24 pieces). 4. Cleaning: a. Remove and dispose of debris and trash from construction activities . b. Clean window frames and glazing associated with the specified demolition areas. Page 10 of 12 Basis of Design Products (For Put Back) A. Cement Plaster System 1. Cement plaster system includes components listed. a. System Thickness: 7/8 inch. 2. Plaster Materials a. Pre-blended portland cement plaster (fibered): Factory proportioned, fiber reinforced portland cement plaster for trowel or pump application, field mixed with water. b. Subject to compliance with requirements, provide StoPowerwall; Sto Corporation, or approved equal for scratch and brown coat for three-coat plasterwork. 3. Finish: a. Ready-mixed flexible textured wall coating. Subject to compliance with requirements, provide Sto Powerwall Finish; Sto Corporation, or approved equal. b. Texture: To match existing c. Color: To be selected by Architect from manufacturer’s full range of colors, color shall match existing. B. Plaster Miscellaneous Materials 1. Water for Mixing: a. Potable and free of substances capable of affecting plaster set or of damaging plaster, lath, or accessories. 2. Bonding Agent: Epoxy resin adhesive. a. Product: Sikadur 32, Hi-Mod LPL; Sika. 3. Metal Lath a. Lathe to match existing lathe, or b. Self-Furring (Expanded-metal) Lath: ASTM C 847 with ASTM A 653/A 653M, G90, hot-dip galvanized zinc coating. I. Diamond-mesh Lath: Self-furring. II. Style: Continuous groove. III. Groove Depth: 1/4 inch. IV. Weight: 3.4 lb/sq. yd. 4. Weather Resistive Barrier a. Weather-Resistive Barriers: Subject to compliance with requirements, provide Two-ply Super Jumbo Tex 60 Minute; Fortifiber. 5. Self-Adhering Flashing a. Self-adhesive rubberized asphalt compound, bonded to a cross-laminated polyethylene film, to produce an overall thickness of not less than 25 mils. Subject to compliance with requirements provide Vycor Plus Self-Adhered Flashing; Grace Construction Products. I. Primer: Manufacturers recommended primer over applicable sheathing/framing substrates. 1. Product: Perm-A-Barrier WB Primer; Grace Construction Products. 6. Accessories a. Manufacturer: Subject to compliance with requirements, provide accessories by Cemco Water Management Products or approved equal. I. Material: G90 hot-dip galvanized. II. Thickness: 26 gage. Page 11 of 12 7. General: a. Comply with ASTM C 1063 and coordinate depth of trim and accessories with thickness of plaster coats. b. Provide continuous backing for securement of cement plaster accessories. 8. Fasteners a. Fasteners for Attaching Metal Lath to Substrates: Complying with ASTM C 1063. I. For Self-Furring Expanded Metal Lath at Wood Framing: Hot-dip galvanized ring shank nails by Maze Nails or equal. b. Fasteners For Attaching Weather Resistive Barrier To Substrates: I. Single chisel stainless steel staples. 9. Sealant a. Manufacturer: BASF II. Single component elastomeric polyurethane sealant End of Investigation Plan Page 12 of 12 APPENDIX – A STUCCO REPAIR GUIDELINES ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE – COST ESTIMATE Edmonds Conference Center 201 Fourth Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98103 STUCCO AND WINDOW REPLACEMENT Unit Price/ % Total General Conditions 10% 386,400 $ 38,640.00$ General Conditions (Scaffolding and Prot) 40.00$ 340 LF 13,600.00$ Demolition 16.50$ 5,500 SF 90,750.00$ Waterproofing, Drainage Mat and Flashings 12.00$ 5,500 SF 66,000.00$ Cladding (Stucco) 26.50$ 5,500 SF 145,750.00$ Windows 35.00$ 1,460 SF 51,100.00$ CMU Repair 5.00$ 200 LF 1,000.00$ Interior Repairs (Drywall and Wood Trim) 5.00$ 600 LF 3,000.00$ Dry Rot (Sheathing - 20% Assumption) 30.00$ 550 SF 16,500.00$ Dry Rot (Framing - Allowance) -$ 0 SF 5,000.00$ Insulation Replacement (Allowance) -$ 0 LF 2,500.00$ Sealant (Storefront, Louvers and Doors) 8.00$ 600 LF 4,800.00$ Sub-total 438,640.00$ Overhead (15%) 65,796.00$ Profit (11.5%) 50,443.60$ Contigency (20%) 110,975.92$ TOTAL MACC 665,855.52$ Taxes (9.5%) 63,256.27$ Permits 50,000.00$ Soft Costs of MACC (35%) 233,049.43$ TOTAL 1,012,161.23$ Quantity NOTES and EXCLUSIONS: SF = Square Feet, LF = Lineal Feet, E = Each 1. Estimate includes Contractor Overhead and Profit. Includes Sales Tax and Professional Fees. 2. Estimate is based off of RS Means and similar projects of scale and scope completed by ABB within the last two years. ABB is not responsible for actual construction cost. 3. Quantities are based off of City Documents. Actual quantities must be verified by bidding Contractor. 4. Scope reflects a "worst case scenerio." 5. Pricing reflects publically bid project with prevailing wage labor costs. 6. This document and pricing is meant to reflect a Rough Order of Magnitude cost and was not prepared by a Contractor. This is not a bid. Prepared by ABBAE 8/5/2014 JN 3610.01 Edmonds Community College Proforma P&L Conference Center 2013/14 Income Revenue 276609 $276,609 Expenses & Contracts Wages 195326 Wage Related 38907 SubTotal 234233 $234,233 Op Exp 74587 $74,587 Utilities Garbage 4867 Electricity 7998 Heat 1569 Cable 2400 (est) Water 3866 SubTotal 20699 $20,699 Total $329,519 P&L Net ($52,910)    AM-7704     4. A.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 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 Approve revised April 28 meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Previous Council Action The draft City Council Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2015 were provided on the May 5 Consent Agenda. Councilmember Petso pulled the minutes from the Consent Agenda and requested that Ken Reidy's comments be provided in verbatim format. Narrative Staff recommends approval of the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. If approved, the verbatim transcript will replace the previous comments. Attachments Attachment 1 - 04-28-15 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Attachment 2 - 04-28-15 verbatim Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 05/07/2015 09:26 AM Final Approval Date: 05/07/2015  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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 1 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 2 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 3 • 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 4 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 5 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 6 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 7 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 8 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) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 9 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 10 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 11 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 12 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 13 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 14 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 15 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 16 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 17 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 18 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 19 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 20 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 21 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 22 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 23 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 24 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 25 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 26 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 Page 27 Verbatim Excerpt Edmonds City Council Meeting April 28, 2015 Ken Reidy: Hi, Ken Reidy of Edmonds. I hold in my hand a temporary construction easement document from tonight’s Council agenda packet. Temporary construction easements must be granted to the City when the City has a true public need to use another’s property. That requirement is what this grant document is all about. It is a common basic document. The granting of an easement also comes into play during the City’s vacation of a street easement that is not needed for public ingress or egress. For example, the City may need to maintain a utility pipe under the easement area being vacated. In these situations, the City 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. So please, after you review agenda item 10 tonight, please take a moment and appreciate that wow, incredibly, the City chose to violate the City’s own code related to my property. There is no resolution of intent to vacate; our code requires such. There also is no grant document like this related to what the City did to me. Our code requires a grant. As you know, the illegal easement caused great harm for years and years that lives on and on. Please look at Edmonds City Code 2.01.010 which documents the duties of the Mayor. The Mayor shall see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced. The word is shall which is mandatory. 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. Such would be crazy and would lead to great injustices. Why would any of you act as if once the City has chosen to break a law, the burden to see that the related City laws is followed is shifted to others. The code is clear. This not the citizen’s burden, the Mayor shall see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced. This is simple and basic. There was no grant. That should have been the end of story, case closed. Instead this City acted as if it had a grant and used the illegal temporary construction easement to attack my private property via permanent code enforcement. Permanent code enforcement related to a temporary easement. Okay, Council may have been fooled before they voted on that illegal easement but all have had years of opportunities to address what took place. Why the refusal to do so? How can you ask people to trust the City when the City refuses to correct its own violations of the code? Thank you.    AM-7692     4. B.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of May 5, 2015. Recommendation  Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action  N/A Narrative  Attachment 1 - Draft Council Meeting Minutes. Attachments Attachment 1 - 05-05-15 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 05/04/2015 07:22 AM Final Approval Date: 05/04/2015  EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES May 5, 2015 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember (arrived 7:00 p.m.) Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember (arrived 6:48 p.m.) Michael Nelson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Scott James, Finance Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr. Rob English, City Engineer Mike Clugston, Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder SPECIAL MEETING 1. MEET WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION CANDIDATE DAVE TEITZEL FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE HPC At 6:45 p.m., the City Council met with Dave Tietzel, Historic Preservation Commission candidate. The meeting took place in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Bloom. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the flag salute. BUSINESS MEETING 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Bloom explained it has been brought to Council’s attention that by dissolving the Council committee format at the September 2, 2014 meeting without reflecting the elimination of committees via ordinance, the Council has been violating City ordinance since September 2014 which is an urgent concern. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, THAT COUNCIL ADD AGENDA ITEM 7A TO ADDRESS PUTTING OUR COMMITTEE MEETINGS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 1 BACK IN PLACE IMMEDIATELY SO THAT WE DO NOT CONTINUE TO BREAK OUR OWN LAW. Councilmember Petso asked, 1) whether Councilmember Bloom had discussed this with the Council President, and 2) whether this item could be added after the other regular business items on tonight’s agenda. Councilmember Bloom answered she has asked that this item be scheduled on the agenda and it was added to the extended agenda for June 23. The issue was brought to the Council’s attention by a citizen this week and it was also in My Edmonds News and she has not had an opportunity to discuss it with Council President Fraley-Monillas. She wanted this scheduled as Item 7a because there was a long agenda tonight and the Council has a tendency to postpone items at the end of the agenda. Further, this was an urgent matter because to follow the law, the Council would have committee meetings next week. Councilmember Mesaros asked Mr. Taraday whether the Council was in violation of the code by not having committee meetings. Mr. Taraday read from the code, “committee meetings of the council shall be held in conjunction with work meetings of the council at such times and in accordance with such procedures as the council and its respective committees shall establish.” He said that language was pretty open ended and gives the some Council latitude to do what they have been doing. He did not see the Council not holding committee meetings as an outright violation of City code when the Council clearly by agreement has decided not to hold committee meetings until such time as the Council by agreement decides to hold them. The code does not say the City Council shall have committee meetings every second and fourth Tuesday. He summarized the Council has established not having committee meetings for at least an indefinite period of time. Council President Fraley-Monillas said when this was brought to her attention she put it on the extended agenda on a study session as soon as she could. She pointed out all the meetings in May are over 3 hours, she scheduled it on the June 23 study session when there would be enough time for a discussion. Councilmember Bloom responded this was discussed at the September 2, 2014 meeting. At that time Ms. Hope said the change needed to be made by ordinance and the City Attorney was directed to bring an ordinance back to the Council. She had intended to vote against the ordinance even though she voted in favor of the change but an ordinance was never brought back to the Council. She referenced the code section that the citizen brought to the Council’s attention, ECC 1.02.031 which states, “In addition to any other duties assigned by the city council, the council president shall have the following responsibilities: 1. Make assignments to all council committees, schedule committee hearings, and otherwise supervise the committee system.” Councilmember Bloom said this has not been done since September 2014. She felt compelled to bring this forward because the Council has been functioning as if this was put in ordinance form and it has not been. It was her impression that the Council was violating the ordinance. She reiterated the meeting minutes reflect Ms. Hope’s statement that the ordinance would need to be changed. Council President Fraley-Monillas encouraged the Council to proceed with scheduling this discussion on June 23 when there will be time to discuss it. There are only 3 other items on that agenda. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether Councilmember Bloom’s assertion was correct, that the Council was in violation of City code by the reference she provided. Mr. Taraday said he read that language in conjunction with the language that he read earlier, “at such times and in accordance with such procedures as the Council and its respective committees shall establish.” In the reference Councilmember Bloom provided, “shall establish” does not necessarily require that an ordinance be brought forward. The Council’s prior action has been established at least for the time being, that the Council is not having committee meetings, and that could be changed at any time by Council vote. Councilmember Petso said she will vote against the motion but asked Council President Fraley-Monillas to consider the urgency of the matter and see if it can be scheduled sooner than June 23. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 2 MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING YES. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Petso requested Item A and E be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Nelson requested Item C be removed. B. 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 D. FEBRUARY 2015 BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN EASEMENT DOCUMENTS FROM THE 7500 BUILDING FOR THE 76TH AVE/212TH STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT G. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN EASEMENT DOCUMENTS FROM DAIRY QUEEN FOR THE 76TH AVE/212TH STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT H. AWARD OF THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT I. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TETRA TECH FOR THE LIFT STATION #1 BASIN AND FLOW STUDY J. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED APRIL 30, 2015 FOR THE 2015 SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO BUNO CONSTRUCTION, LLC K. APPROVAL OF 2015 REVENUE BOND ORDINANCE ITEM A: APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2015 Councilmember Petso relayed a request from a citizen that a verbatim transcript of his comments during Audience Comments last week to be added to the minutes. She requested approval of the minutes be scheduled next week with that addition. ITEM C: ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM RYAN SPEER ($200.00) Councilmember Nelson explained he pulled this to highlight a claim for damages from a police officer whose personal vehicle, parked in the police employee parking lot, was vandalized while he was on patrol. Only signs separate police employee parking from public parking. He relayed the Police Chief’s indication that in the last 8 months there have been 27 incidents of vandalism, specifically tires, in that police employee lot. Councilmember Nelson found that unacceptable and issue that needs to be addressed. Remedies are being considered so this does not happen again. Mayor Earling agreed staff is meeting with the Chief to discuss options. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 3 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE ITEM C. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM E: CONFIRMATION OF DAVE TEITZEL'S APPOINTMENT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Councilmember Petso said she pulled this to abstain from the vote. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED (5-0-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM ABSTAINING. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as shown above. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Christi Davis, Brier, referred to the Findings, Conclusions and Decisions that were distributed to Council. Mr. Taraday stated she could not address the Council on a quasi-judicial matter; the hearing has been closed. He referred to the statement on the agenda under Audience Comments that the public could not speak on matters listed on the agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. The approval of Findings, Conclusions and Decision is the final stage of the closed record review and continued argument to the Council regarding the Findings and Conclusions could taint the process. The Council has heard from the public and now they will deliberate and adopt their Findings and Conclusions. Darlene Stern, Edmonds, said although she belonged to several volunteer organizations, she was speaking as a private citizen. The proposed 2015 street budget was $1.56 million; during budget deliberations, an amendment was approved to remove $260,000 that had previously been approved as a carryover from the 2014 budget which effectively reduced the amount available to address critical road repairs by 17%. The reason offered for the change was to keep the money available for the acquisition of land for future City parks. The City has 41 parks that range in size from pocket parks to the large City Park that is currently undergoing a significant upgrade and expansion of its functionality. Inasmuch as the City’s streets are deteriorating at an accelerated rate, she requested the $260,000 be returned to its original purpose. She described the poor condition of a 1/8 mile section of Meadowdale Beach Road between 76th and the Eagles Nest neighborhood, a danger to vehicles as well as residents who walk, run and use wheelchairs in this area. Mr. Taraday recognized the following speaker as someone who spoke regarding the Woodway Fields and cautioned her she could not speak regarding that subject. Laura Johnson, Edmonds, said she was scared that she may have to choose between her son playing sports and protecting his health. She felt she was battling the City and the School District for the safety of her children. The City should be concerned about the use of crumb rubber on any field. Mr. Taraday said she was not allowed to talk about the fields. Ms. Johnson clarified she was asking the City to not allow crumb rubber on any fields and to consider other safe alternatives for all fields as her son will play on other fields in the City. The only group that has expressed interest in looking in to the safety is Verdant. She referred to an online petition they started Friday that gathered the interest of 800 people and signatures they gathered at PCC this weekend. Edmonds can choose to be an example and be on the forefront rather than putting children at risk and waiting for science to connect the dots. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 4 Christi Davis, Brier, said children’s health and safety does not have to be sacrificed. She referred to a great alternative, geoturf which is used on FIFA 2 star fields. It is organic infill, crumb rubber and coconut fibers. She relayed benefits including people who say it is the best field they’ve ever played on, it doesn’t heat up during the summer, greater shock absorption, lower risk of concussion, plays more like natural grass, low risk of turf burns, fibers are softer, and it is much better for athletes than crumb rubber. Edmonds can have the best fields in Washington State if they want; the City just needs to say they want the best for the environment and for the kids because the kids are worth it. Josh Johnson, Edmonds, said there are safety concerns not just with the Woodway fields but all turf fields. He relayed federal recommendations and health warnings, both the Consumer Product Safety Commission and Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommended young children wash hands frequently after playing outside and always before they eat. The CDC recommends after playing on a field, individuals are encouraged to perform aggressive hand and body washing for at least 20 seconds using soap and warm water, clothes on the field should be removed and turned inside out as soon as possible after using the field to avoid tracking contaminated dust into other places. In a vehicle people can sit on a large towel or blanket if it is not feasible to remove clothes. The CDC recommends clothes, towels and blankets be washed separately and shoes worn on the field be kept outside the home. Eating while on a field of turf is discouraged as well as avoiding contaminating drinking containers with dust from the field by keeping them in a bag, cooler or other covered container on the side of the field. He summarized these are CDC recommendations in regard to all crumb rubber fields. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the Streetscape Plan, specifically page 307 in the packet where this is a note that some interest was expressed during testimony about adding language about views. Staff’s response was additional information or a policy about views could be added to a later version of the Streetscape/Street Tree Element as it goes through refinements such as view corridors may be considered as a factor. He suggested adding the language now as well as adding photographs of street trees. He referred to interest in the Streetscape Plan to selecting the right tree to avoid obscuring businesses. He referred to suggested language in the Plan, “where feasible street trees or other landscaping located between the travel lane and the sidewalk can improve the pedestrian experience” to which he suggested be added “without destroying the public view corridor.” On page 310 of the packet, he suggested referencing views as a factor in the selection of trees. 5. PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY "PUGET SOUND STARTS HERE MONTH" Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring May as Puget Sound Starts Here month and presented it to Public Works Director Phil Williams. On behalf of staff Mr. Williams thanked the Council for the proclamation. He explained the City continues to do its part to protect Puget Sound including street sweeping, storm drain cleaning, promoting and encouraging installation of rain gardens, partnering with local non-profits to conduct car leak checks, and strengthening the City’s stormwater code. Those things put action to the words in the proclamation. Citizens can made a difference by using a commercial car wash rather than washing their car in the street and allowing the dirty water to run down into the drain, picking up pet waste and putting in a plastic bag in the garbage to keep bacteria and other biologicals from entering the water systems, fixing leaky cars, and limiting the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to the smallest amount possible. May 16 is Puget Sound Starts Here night at the Mariners and discounted tickets are available. 6. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: MEMORIAL DAY CEREMONY Dale Hoggins, Edmonds, member of Cemetery Board, said Fred Apgar, Chaplin, VFW Post 8870 and Vietnam War Veteran assists the Board in planning the event. On behalf of the Cemetery Board and the Chair, Jerry Janacek, he invited the Council, friends and family to attend the 33rd annual Memorial Day Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 5 Ceremony at Monday, May 25 at 11 a.at the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery and Columbarium and join in honoring the memories of those who died while serving our country. September 2, 2015 is the 70th anniversary of VJ Day 1945 and is the theme of this year’s ceremony. VJ Day ended the war in the Pacific Theater and WWII. The Edmonds Cemetery’s ceremony is unique; it does not have a political agenda, the emphasis is on remembering, features youth participation and there is no sale pitch. Ceremonial flags are on loan from the families of Erwin Scott, Pearl Harbor survivor and survivor of two ships that were sunk while he was aboard and member of the submarine that fired the last torpedo before VJ Day, and Carl Svendsen, Captain, USNR, a 33 year active duty and reserve naval officer, assigned to a landing craft at Iwo Jima. Special guest will be Captain Robert “Buck” Weaver and his wife, a US Army Air Corps Fighter Pilot, assigned to the 5th Air Force 41st fighter squad who flew 137 combat missions in the Pacific. He retired in 1975 after nearly 30 years of active duty. Anyone with questions regarding the ceremony was invited to call Mr. Hoggins. 8. PUBLIC HEARING FOR 4TH AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR INTERIM PUBLIC ART PROJECT Arts Manager Frances Chapin explained for the past 10 years the community has in various ways identified the 4th Avenue Corridor between the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) and Main Street as a unique area in the downtown. When the ECA project was first proposed, the Planning Board recognized the importance of the corridor as a connection to Main Street and created BD5 zoning and called it the Arts Corridor, referring to is role in connecting key cultural aspects. The 2006 Streetscape Plan update included a concept plan for an arts corridor on 4th Avenue. Subsequent updates of the Parks Plan and the Community Cultural Plan in 2008 recognized the corridor as a unique connection for cultural assets including rich cultural history which led to an initial planning process for the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor that was completed in 2009. Community interest in this vision continued to be expressed in both the 2013 City Strategic Plan, objective 1.e.4, creation of an arts enhanced walkable corridor; and in the 2014 adopted Community Cultural Plan, strategy 1.4, to advance the cultural corridor through interim or short term projects. Retaining the big concepts of 2009 Cultural Corridor Plan, the interim art project aims to highlight this unique pedestrian connection between the vibrant ECA and downtown retail. This area is unique as a neighborhood, as a link to activity areas in the downtown and as a regional asset for cultural history. The proposed art project is part of implementation of both the Community Cultural Plan and the Strategic Plan. Community interest following those planning efforts led to the Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) convening a stakeholders advisory group which included residents, property owners and business on the 4th Avenue Corridor. A detailed update on this project was provided to Council in September 2014. The project budget of $30,000 is funded through public art funds budged for 2015 by the EAC and a $10,000 donation from the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation (EAFF) specifically designated for this project. On March 23, 2015, 3 artists presented proposals for interim art installations to the public art selection committee at a public meeting. The goal set for the artist was to create an engaging, visual connection between ECA at the north end and Main Street at the south end. The design requirements include having a life of at least five years but elements could be viable for longer period. Public comment was taken following the meeting. The selection committee for this art project included Councilmember Johnson, Arts Commissioner Samantha Saether, neighborhood resident Susan Bauer, property owner, ECA Board Member Steve Shelton, EAFF Board Member Terry Vehrs and arts professional Benson Shaw. Several of them in are in the audience. After reviewing the proposals and public comment, the selection committee unanimously recommended Iole Alessandrini’s proposal, Luminous Forest. At their April 6, 2015 meeting, the EAC unanimously Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 6 recommended the project be forwarded to City Council for consideration after a public hearing. Ms. Chapin introduced Ms. Alessandrini and described her background. Ms. Alessandrini provided photographs and described other installations she has designed, Winter Season of Light, a 700 feet long temporary light installation in downtown Tacoma in 2000; and Greener, a 25,000 square foot laser installation for the Olympic Sculpture Park’s inaugural event in Seattle in 2007. She displayed an aerial map of Edmonds, explaining what drew her to the design of Luminous Forest is Edmonds’ unique history, natural beauty and topography. From site visits and studies she noticed that 4th Avenue and other streets in old Edmonds lie almost parallel to the shoreline at a 60 degree angle with respect to NS-EW imperial American grid. For west coast towns such as Edmonds, water and forest were primary natural resources sustaining the community. The street plan of old Edmonds developed organically to benefit from these available resources. The project overlays a virtual NS-EW grid onto the 60 degree angle grid of old-Edmonds. The two grids meet at four intersections: Daley, Edmonds, Bell and Main Street. Ms. Alessandrini displayed the Luminous Forest design, explaining people walking and driving on 4th Avenue N will be greeted by stings of luminous lights connecting Main Street to the south and ECA to the north. With the two grids overlaying each other, Luminous Forest makes reference to the topographic shift coinciding with the end of the mill era and the beginning of the 20th century Edmonds and the automobile age. Each string is a compass for orientation in time and space. Luminous Forest is homage to Edmonds’ weather and forest, the primary natural resources sustaining its community. To people walking or driving onto 4th Avenue N, the luminous art provides engagement with the street at an aesthetical level. Looking north the project visually connects with ECA. Looking south it intersects Main Street, the primary arterial connecting Edmonds to both the main land and to the ferry terminal, Kingston and new horizons. The lights are on a single string with five individual LEDs per string. Spacing between the strings is about 140 feet, progressively decreasing to 60 feet in the north direction. She displayed a bird’s eye view, driver’s view and pedestrian view of the project. The lights are imbedded, solar powered LED road markers that turns on when the sun go down and charges during the day. She displayed an example of one of the lights. Ms. Alessandrini provided Luminous Forest Conclusions: People’s original vision for 4th Avenue N interim art expressed the wish for a project that would visually connect Main Street to ECA. Luminous Forest responds to their vision: 1. Entices pedestrians to walk 4th Avenue North from one end to the other and is sustainable because it uses solar energy 2. The low-level of the LED marker is both pedestrian and sky friendly, providing people a path at night on a dimly lit street 3. The project is an asset for economic development and cultural history On a sustainable level, Ms. Alessandrini hoped the project will raise people’s consciousness that here is a street which once was a forest. The light, a virtual energy itself, is a compass that orients people to the water. Luminous Forest is an original, unique and exciting art for the City of Edmonds. Ms. Alessandrini displayed a model of the entire street with RGB (color changing) lights; for this project, the intent is to use white lights. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 7 Darlene McClellan, Edmonds, relayed the EAFF’s support of the concept of interim art, not only with its attendance at committee meetings but with a $10,000 donation toward this specific project. As a member of EAFF, she was excited and encouraged by the interest of residents and businesses along the corridor who wish to see a significant reminder of things to come. It is validating to keep the concepts set forth in the 2009 4th Avenue Plan alive and in public awareness. As a member of the greater community who does not live in the bowl, she saw this as significant community engagement. Continued awareness of this area is beneficial not only to one neighborhood; this addition is for public benefit, establishing lighting for evening walks through a much loved area and it is valuable to extend the reach of artistic comment through a City that describes itself as an arts community. She appreciated the selection of Ms. Alessandrini’s statement in modern materials that recognized the historic value of the area. This interim piece conveys a significant message, advancing awareness of the corridor. David Jaffe, recently retired Chief Executive, Swedish Edmonds Hospital, ECA Board Member and a member of the Edmonds Community College Foundation Board, spoke in support of Ms. Alessandrini’s project, Luminous Forest. When he arrived in Edmonds, it did not take him long to realize how uniquely vibrant Edmonds is, particularly related to the arts. In his role at Swedish Edmonds, recognizing how critical art was in the healing process, he immediately set out to develop relationships with local artists to display their work at the hospital. The project has grown dramatically and proven to be extremely comforting to patients, visitors and staff. Luminous Forest speaks to connectivity in the community, much the same as the hospital which is such an important part of the spirt of Edmonds, providing connectivity between the ECA and Main Street. This connectivity will serve as a foundation on which the City can further build. He urged the Council to vote in support of this project. Clayton Moss, Edmonds business owner and resident, recalled in 2008/2009 the community was asked to get involved with the corridor project. A lot of time, energy, effort and money went into developing a concept; that effort was shelved for number of years due to the economy. This is a great opportunity to rekindle the project with a lot of bang for the buck. This is a great opportunity for the City to send a message to the community that if they get involved, there is something tangible at the end of that effort. Steve Shelton, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the 4th Avenue interim project. He described his background and community involvement, retired from Nordstrom, co-owner with his wife of Barclay Shelton Dance Center, President of Snohomish County PFD Board, Past President of the ECA Board, participant in the original 4th Avenue Cultural Plan and member of the citizens panel that considered the art submittals. He commended Ms. Chapin for her persistence. This is a very creative and frugal solution that keeps the vision alive of connecting the ECA to downtown Edmonds. He said it was not coincidence that since the 2007 opening of the ECA, the City has turned into a thriving destination of top rated restaurants, galleries and businesses; it is no longer Dead-monds. Top quality events at the ECA as well as the community outreach have put Edmonds on the map culturally. He urged the Council to vote in favor of proceeding with this beautiful, subtle and illuminating vision, connecting the cultural, entertainment and outreach center of the community to the charming and vibrant downtown. Joe McIalwain, Executive Director ECA, admitted when he goes downtown for lunch/coffee downtown, he often drives particularly in the dark winter months. One of the reason is there isn’t a great link between the ECA and the downtown core. Upwards of 60,000 people visit ECA each year, a lot of cars and a lot of traffic. This corridor vision is an opportunity to develop a community connection, a great walkway that makes it easy to walk those three blocks. It is not a fun walk from ECA to the downtown core in the evening, particularly in the winter months; it’s poorly lit and the sidewalks are uneven. This project connects the ECA to the restaurants downtown, a great opportunity to encouraging patrons to park at the ECA and walk downtown for a meal and return for an event. He noted there many events at the ECA in addition to ECA presentations including Rick Steves Europe Travel Festivals, the DeMiero Jazz Festival, Sno-King Music Educators. Moving buses and cars around the City takes a toll; this is a great Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 8 environmental solution, great community development solution and a step toward the vision for the 4th Avenue Corridor. He urged the Council to support the project. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented this is a novel idea. He recommended attention be paid to the sidewalks on 4th Avenue because they are difficult to walk on and they are not very wide. A better sidewalk would draw more pedestrians. If street lights are installed, he hoped they would be similar to ones on 5th Avenue and Main Street. If street lights are installed, he questioned the affect they would have on solar lights in the street. He said it was a great idea to get started and get people interested and he congratulated the artist. Allan Skoog, Worship Pastor, North Sound Church, at 4th & Bell and Director of Mosaic Choir and Orchestra spoke in favor of the proposed art project. Having lived and worked in the Edmonds area for 50 years, he appreciated the research and work that went into understanding the history and cultural of Edmonds and its relationship to Puget Sound. One of the goals of this project was to help move people from downtown Edmonds to the ECA. His groups are regularly on the stage at the ECA as well as stages around world and he understood the importance of lights and how they focus people’s attention. Lights will definitely help move people from downtown to the ECA. He expressed concern with the amount of pedestrian and vehicle traffic in Edmonds particular in the evening, recalling a tragic vehicle-pedestrian accident at the corner of 4th & Bell last year. These lights will help that situation, bringing attention to pedestrian and vehicular movement. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Councilmember Johnson explained she was the Council representative on the artist selection committee along with five others. After hearing the three presentations the committee unanimously agreed on this artist. One of the key features was the visual connection between the ECA and Main Street and they were very excited by the artist’s unique, vibrant and exciting proposal that truly addresses the challenge – to engage the public in a visual connection between the ECA and Main Street. Someday there will be a more permanent solution with improved sidewalks and streets; until then, this will be an interesting feature downtown. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THIS. Councilmember Petso preferred to do as the agenda memo recommends, to schedule this for approval on the May 12 Consent Agenda to provide her an opportunity to talk to staff about whether this type of installation in the road has any effect on safety. She suggested the motion be withdrawn and replaced with a motion to schedule it on next week’s Consent Agenda. Otherwise she would like to hear from staff regarding potential safety impacts. Councilmember Petso asked about the safety record for installations in roadway, whether it is a driver distraction. Ms. Chapin said she and Public Works Director Phil Williams have had quite a bit of discussion and have agreed that discussion will include the artist as the project moves forward. Discussion has included the type of lights – they are very low level more of a glow, the uses that they have been put to – they are used fairly extensively on edges of major highways, maintenance and whether they can be snow plowed. She commented this road has extremely slow traffic. Mr. Williams said he has no experience with these in the roadway; it would be new for Edmonds as it would be for most cities which explains its appeal, it’s a different way to bring art into the right-of-way. Ms. Chapin and he have talked extensively about this proposal, there are a lot of nuances with it and he will work with Ms. Chapin and the artists on the installation if it is approved. The street is in very poor condition, the pavement is not particularly good. It would be great if the street could be repaved and then Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 9 install these but that is not possible. He could not say how it might affect a driver, a motorcyclist or a bicyclist. They have discussed how much of the lights would be revealed above the surface and issues that might create as well as angle of the lights; the speeds on that street are very low and it is a fairly narrow street. He is willing to work through whatever growing pains there may be, recognizing it is a pilot project that may lead to a future project in a few years. He summarized neither he nor anyone in his department has any experience with these lights. Ms. Chapin added these particular lights are widely used on bicycle paths to light the path. They are not considered a distraction but a safety feature for bike paths. Councilmember Petso asked whether they were used on the edges of the path or across the path as is planned in this project. Ms. Chapin answered they are used in both ways. Councilmember Bloom asked the total cost of the project. Ms. Chapin answered the total cost with installation and some replacement lights is $30,000 for a 3½ block length. Councilmember Bloom referred to Mr. Williams’ comments that the road is in need of repair and asked if the lights could be installed without repaving. Mr. Williams answered yes, his understanding is they will be core drilled and the base set into the pavement. Councilmember Bloom asked why the lights are being installed in the street instead of the sidewalk. Ms. Alessandrini answered the corridor is for drivers and pedestrians. The sidewalks are very small and there are dips in the sidewalk of up to 6 inches especially at the intersections so the lights can be better seen from the road. Councilmember Bloom asked whether they would be a trip hazard on the sidewalk. Ms. Chapin said the sidewalks are in worse repair than the street; there are areas in the sidewalk with large dips. These lights are only ¼ inch above the surface; they are ADA approved and are not a trip hazard. Ms. Chapin said there are only six screws holding the light element in place which makes replacing the light relatively easy. Ms. Alessandrini displayed the light and described how the light was replaced. Councilmember Petso said she will abstain because she was not ready to vote on this tonight. The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and consider scheduling approval on May 12. She would have been fine scheduling approval on May 12 but she was not ready to make a decision tonight on whether or not this will be safe and she was not ready to experiment on the public. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has experience with these lights in Charlotte, North Carolina and they are fun, especially with different colors. She summarized it was a great idea and she did not feel it needed to wait until next week’s Consent Agenda. She suggested Councilmember Petso ask her questions and get her answers next week. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINING. 9. 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 City Engineer Rob English advised the packet includes a right-of-way plan that shows both permanent right-of-way and temporary construction easements for the project primarily at the four corners of the intersection. He displayed photograph of the four corners, explaining the project required right-of-way acquisition from eight parcels. The Council accepted easements from two of the parcels on the southeast corner on tonight’s Consent Agenda, Dairy Queen and the 7500 Building east of Dairy Queen. Edmonds-Woodway High School is on the southwest corner; the School District received an appraisal and negotiations will continue in the coming weeks. Discussions are also continuing with the Burger King and the Romios property owners on the northwest corner and the Grease Monkey and car wash property Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 10 owners on the northeast corner. There is a common property owner between the northwest corner and the northeast corner. Parcel No. Current Use Owner R/W Reqd (SF) TCE Reqd (SF) 1 Grease Monkey Strickland GC Properties LLC 961 694 2 Car Wash Strickland GC Properties LLC 169 250 3,4 Burger King Three Graces #3 LLC & Porterfield Dev LLC 3,643 2,166 5 Romios ET AL Three Graces #3 LLC & Porterfield Dev LLC 539 864 6 E-W High School Edmonds School Dist #13 8,662 3,808 Mr. English described the right-of-way budget which includes acquisition costs, soft costs for the consultants, time associated with preparing legal descriptions, etc. Estimated Cost Right-of-way Acquisition $790,000 Funding Source Amount Federal Grant $646,000 Local Funds $144,000 Total $790,000 Mr. English described the project schedule: • Design 60% complete • Dec 2015 – Right-of-way Certification • Feb 2016 – Advertise project for bids • Spring 2015 – Begin construction • Dec 2016 – Project complete The City received over a $3 million construction grant through PSRC and has until June 1, 2016 to obligate those funds. In order to obligate the funds, the City must certify it has all the right-of-way needed to build the project hence the importance of sticking to the proposed schedule. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of public hearing. There was no one present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Bloom referred to language in the temporary construction easement document on tonight’s Consent Agenda that states, the grantors further grant the property immediately adjacent to the temporary easement area for the purpose of performing this work. She asked whether that was standard language and if so, why. Mr. Taraday answered it was not standard language and he was not certain what the right-of-way agent intended by that except that it would clearly be some sort of use that is less than construction use such as walking on someone’s property incidentally in the course of construction. He agreed it was a little unusual. Councilmember Bloom found it curious that all the space needed for the temporary construction easement would not be allocated so the property owner knew what space would be used. Mr. Taraday answered the property that is needed is in the description of the temporary construction easement and any incidental use on adjacent property would be extremely incidental and not used for what one would normally think of as a construction use. Councilmember Bloom reiterated the question asked at the Study Session whether the City was allowed to condemn the property of another public entity such as the School District. Mr. Taraday answered this Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 11 ordinance gives the potential ability to do that; he assured condemnation action would not be filed before getting a solid answer to that question. Councilmember Bloom asked if there was reason to believe negotiations would not go well and whether authorization to condemn property was necessary for the remaining parcels. Mr. English answered at this point negotiations will continue. One of the property owners on the northwest and northeast corner also owned property at the Five Corners intersection. Condemnation action was filed on the parcel although it was settled prior to going to court. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3997, 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. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM ABSTAINING. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 10. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION REGARDING HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED FIELD IMPROVEMENTS AT FORMER WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL For the TV audience, Mayor Earling advised the Council has heard emotional and meaningful testimony. Many of the emotional issues that have been raised with regard to wildlife, etc. are not part of the Council’s decision; the Council is considering only three issues. City Attorney Jeff Taraday requested Councilmembers disclose whether they have had any ex parte communication to provide an opportunity for the public to express an objection to participation before the Council votes on the Findings and Conclusions. He will not ask about bias because the Council has already taken several votes last week and it would seem odd to state they were unbiased when the Council has already voted on several issues. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed she has received emails but did not read them and deleted them after being told by Mr. Taraday not to read them. Councilmember Nelson said he has received emails but deleted them without reading. Councilmember Johnson said she received emails and deleted them without reading and has had no other outside discussions. Councilmember Bloom advised she received and read Kate Smith’s email of May 1, 2015 to Council and others but did not respond. She also read a letter from Cliff Sanderlin who was not a party of record. She also read the My Edmonds News article and an editorial comment by Denise Wechsler. In order to provide an opportunity for objection to the substance of that communication, Mr. Taraday asked Councilmember Bloom to briefly state the substance of those communications. Councilmember Bloom said she would have to look at them because she did not have them memorized. She said they did not change the way she planned to vote tonight. Mr. Taraday asked whether they addressed matters that were within or outside the Examiner’s records. Councilmember Bloom answered Cliff Sanderlin’s addressed issues that were outside the record. Mr. Taraday asked Councilmember Bloom if she was able to vote tonight without taking into consider any of the items she read. Councilmember Bloom answered yes. Mr. Taraday asked whether anyone wished to challenge Councilmember Bloom’s participation based on that disclosure. There were no objections voiced. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 12 Councilmember Petso reported she received several emails including from Walgrins, Pinson, Sanderlin, Smiths, Wechsler and Cagey. She did not read them except to determine that they might pertain to this issue and then she filed them. Councilmember Mesaros said he received several emails this past week but deleted them when he noticed the subject matter. Council President Fraley-Monillas reported she received numerous emails but deleted them when she saw what they were about. Mayor Earling reported he received a couple emails but as soon as he determined the subject matter, he did not read them. Mr. Taraday asked whether anyone in the public wanted to challenge the participation of any Councilmember or Mayor Earling in these proceedings. There were no objections voiced and Mr. Taraday advised the Council could move forward with adoption of Findings and Conclusions. He advised the version in the packet contained the vast majority of the Findings and Conclusions. This afternoon he sent Councilmembers an updated version. He reviewed the revisions: • Page 5: delete “s” from “includes” • Page 8: delete “recommended by staff” • Page 8: add 10:00 p.m. in the blank for the field end time • Page 14: add “When an agency initiates a proposal, it is the lead agency for that proposal. See WAC 197-11-926(1). Lead agency status can be disputed by another agency such as the City, but only during the fourteen-day period after issuance of a threshold determination. See WAC 197- 11-340(2)(e). Here, the District issued a DNS on February 27, 2015. The DNS is final and binding on all agencies, subject to certain exceptions stated in WAC 197-11-390 that are not applicable here. See also ECDC 20.15A.050.C.” following “the SEPA threshold determination.” • Page, 14: removed “s” from “The District provides” • Page 14, revise sentence to read, “The District provides 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 by the City Council. Further, the City’s exercise of SEPA substantive authority as it takes governmental action on the District’s proposal must be consistent with the existing environmental documents (SEPA checklist and threshold determination) on the proposal and the limitations stated under SEPA, SEPA rules, and the City’s SEPA authorities.” • Page 22: clarify the “E” in ECDC 20.85.010E. • Condition 10: revise to read, “No field lighting is permitted under the three subject permits. o Field lighting is what is before the Council; it is conceivable there could be some other type of lighting proposed. Mr. Taraday referred to comments made during Audience Comment about crumb rubber and reminded the Council the decision about crumb rubber or the field substance is not a decision before the Council. There is no appropriate record before the Council upon which they could make that decision and it was not a subject in the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation. Once the Council approves Findings and Conclusions tonight, Councilmember Petso asked if Councilmembers were free to speak about the subject matter or did they need to wait for the expiration of some kind of appeal period. Out of an abundance of caution, noting he was unsure there was clear case law regarding the length of time the Council needed to wait, Mr. Taraday requested Councilmembers wait a good 21 days or so from now. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 13 Councilmember Petso recalled last week she voiced her disagreement with the Hearing Examiner’s conclusions regarding traffic and Comprehensive Plan compliance. She has 4-5 findings that support that as well as conclusions from those findings. She asked how to fix the Hearing Examiner’s findings to be consistent with the fact that there was no traffic analysis and no Comprehensive Plan compliance. Mr. Taraday suggested she propose amendments; any further amendments that are approved can be typed into the document displayed on the screen. Councilmember Petso relayed her proposed findings • There is presently one baseball backstop; the proposal asks for fencing for two baseball backstops plus additional stuff in subsequent phases • The proposal includes multiple bleachers for up to 60 people each • The record shows fields generate 60-90 vehicles per field per game • Traffic from field activity would exceed traditional high school uses • Nothing in the record shows public involvement in design development since Comprehensive Plan adoption in February 2014 Councilmember Petso explained as a result of those proposed findings she concluded the proposal should be denied as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requires review of traffic impacts on the neighborhood, reference 16.80.020.E and the Council must be able to find the proposal is not detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or nearby properties, reference 20.05.010.C and variance requirement E. She said the record shows a detriment in the addition of at least 60-90 trips per field per game. The proposal is adding fields and is adding bleachers which increase both the number of fields and the intensity of use. In her opinion this was not purely related to the lighting; the Hearing Examiner felt there would be more trips per day if the field were lit so more overall games could be played. According to the record when a game is played, there are 60-90 additional trips per game. The second reason Councilmember Petso recommended denying the proposal is the Comprehensive Plan states that community will be involved in design development and she did not consider the proceedings before the Architectural Design Board (ADB) to be design development; she consider that to be review per the standards of the code by a group of appointed individuals. Mr. Taraday referred to Councilmember Petso’s use of the word findings in her statement; he clarified those are Councilmember Petso’s proposed findings, not staff’s or the Examiner’s findings. Councilmember Petso agreed. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, THAT HER PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS BE INCORPORATED IN THE DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THAT THE COUNCIL DENY THE PROPOSAL. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to Councilmember Petso’s reference to Mr. Read in the record who determined 60-90 vehicles per field and asked who Mr. Read is. Councilmember Petso responded it is her understanding he is a traffic engineer; his memo was submitted by Mr. Wall and is part of the record. Mr. Taraday said the Hearing Examiner considered Mr. Read’s analysis in his recommendation to the Council and interpreted Mr. Read’s analysis to indicate the primary traffic increase would be due to the addition of lighting. When lighting is removed, it is basically replacing grass fields with turf fields and therefore not creating a significant increase in traffic. That was the basis for the Hearing Examiner rationale, but for lighting which has now been removed from the proposal, the project would satisfy the criteria. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether Mr. Read was officially hired to determine this. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding that Mr. Read did a traffic analysis at the request of Mr. Wall, an opponent, and came up with an opinion. Mr. Clugston stated Mr. Read is a PE with Transportation Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 14 Engineering NorthWest. His information was submitted as part of Mr. Walls’s Exhibit 5. Mr. Read bases his assessment on four fields rather than two. There are two existing fields and the proposal is for two fields which is a like for like change. In instances like this, traffic impact fees are addressed with the building permit. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if staff would come back to the Council if the School District proposed to add two fields. Mr. Clugston answered yes; subsequent phases of this project would have to come back for additional land use permits. Councilmember Petso said the totals in Mr. Read’s letter did deal with four fields but read the following sentence from his letter, “as peak demand for parking of sports fields averages roughly 60 vehicles per field for games and tournaments and up to 90 vehicles per field for regional or qualifying tournaments.” Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the proposal is two fields for two fields. Now suddenly Councilmember Petso wants to deny the proposal based on information in the record regarding future proposals. She asked whether the Council should separately discuss the 3-4 issues Councilmember Petso raised such as traffic and parking. Councilmember Petso wants to deny based on things she has read; however she (Councilmember Buckshnis) has read things different. Mr. Taraday responded the Council can continue to debate the merits of the proposal and the issues Councilmember Petso raised or vote on the motion. Councilmember Mesaros referred to Councilmember Petso’s comments about vehicle traffic and that there would be 60-90 vehicle for every event, noting events other than sports occur on the property such as evening events at the theater. Even if there is not a sporting event, he assumed there would be more than 60 vehicles for a theater event, maybe as many as 90-120. He assumed most of the sporting events would occur in better weather. He had great faith in the Parks Department to schedule events appropriately. He was more concerned about the amount of traffic events at the theater generate than traffic created by sporting events. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for the motion. The reasons she supports denial are based on several of the issues relayed by Councilmember Petso as well as others. One of the things that must be determined is that the proposal is 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 property and improvements unless the use is a public necessity. She referred to the Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), acknowledging the Council could not rule on that or deny it. The School District’s determination that there was no significance to any of the environmental issues resulted in ignoring significant environmental issues including the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area on the property, air quality as a result of a significant increase in traffic of approximately 300 cars regularly accessing the fields, and the elimination of acres of open space that are currently accessible to residents of all ages and abilities. The second reason Councilmember Bloom supported denial was as Councilmember Petso stated, the Comprehensive Plan adopted February 2014 says the community will be involved in design development. Last week staff acknowledged the only design review of this project was by ADB which consists of seven members which she did not consider community involvement in the design review process. The third reason she supported denial was the parking has been found to be adequate by the City but in her opinion in this instance the issues of traffic and parking go hand in hand. Traffic in area is a serious concern, especially with the recent approval of the Westgate development plan. Delaying a traffic study until after the project is approved is simply not reasonable. She summarized these fields were in a location that would be detrimental to the community and there were other sites in the community that could much better accommodate this project. She strongly supported the motion to deny. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 15 Councilmember Petso clarified she included only two issues in her motion, denial on the basis of, 1) the traffic impact, and 2) failure to comply with Comprehensive Plan. She explained these are fairly simple, there is no traffic analysis other than it will have a negative impact. The evaluation was not how one ballgame compares to a concert at the facility; it is of the additional impact of the increased number of ball fields and increased intensity of use to the existing traffic already at the facility. There is typically a fairly cursory evaluation for up to 25 trips; when there is more than 25 such as in this proposal on a per game basis as well as per project basis, a much more extensive evaluation is typically done that includes traffic analysis, access safety, level of service at nearby intersection and can even include a traffic distribution analysis by the city engineer if he deems fit. None of that was done in this case. In addition, there was no community involvement in design development that would ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Unless Councilmembers could find a traffic analysis and community involvement in design development, she requested they support her motion. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the ADB holds public hearings. Mr. Taraday responded in this case the public hearing on the design review application was held before the Hearing Examiner. The ADB considered design review at a public meeting but the actual open record hearing on the design review application was held before the Hearing Examiner where any member of the public could have participated. Councilmember Buckshnis concluded if the Hearing Examiner had a public hearing, the community had the potential to be involved. Mr. Taraday answered the public was involved at the Hearing Examiner’s hearing. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Hearing Examiner had considered these fields in the past. Mr. Clugston answered not that he was aware of. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the existing two fields were currently used for soccer matches, football games, and track activities. Mr. Clugston answered yes. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the parking lot served as the overflow for hundreds of cars for events such as Arts Festival or the Taste of Edmonds. Mr. Clugston said he was not certain that was in the record but believed it was true. Knowing that activity already occurs, Council President Fraley-Monillas was comfortable with two fields. She agreed with Councilmember Petso’s point that a traffic study may need to be done if the number of fields was increased to four. She asked what assurance the Council had that traffic and parking would be evaluated if the number of fields doubled. Mr. Taraday said the Council could add a condition; a condition was not previously included because staff felt the record was clear it was two fields replacing two fields. If the Council does not feel the record is clear, Council can condition it to say this use is limited to two fields until a subsequent permit application comes forward. Mr. Clugston assured additional land use permitting would be required at that time and with those permits additional information would likely be needed. In this case, because it is a two field for two field replacement, it did not meet the level of significance. He referred to page 5 of the Hearing Examiner discussion where he states approval of the bleachers and ball control fields [fencing] could result in increased use of the fields without the lights but the record does not suggest that this increase would be significant. Mr. Clugston said additional fields and additional traffic would result in additional studies. Council President Fraley-Monillas wanted a guarantee it would be done if two more fields were proposed. Mr. Clugston assured that would be considered. The Hearing Examiner found the site contains enough parking for the current proposal. Adding two additional fields would likely exceed the existing parking and would be something the School District would have to address. Likewise if field lighting was proposed later, the Hearing Examiner indicated in this decision that the lights could have an impact on traffic so that addition would likely require a traffic study be done up front. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 16 Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was only aware of the area since the mid ‘70s and the two lane entrance/exit existed at that time. She asked if there was another access/exit when the site was used as a high school where hundreds of kids drove to/from school every day. Mr. Clugston answered the existing access has existed for the duration of time it has been a school. He was unsure when the gated drive at 102nd Avenue North had been used or was closed off. He was certain it was used at some point when the site was a high school. Councilmember Petso commented the code requires the Council when considering a CUP to review the traffic impacts. It does not say the Council can ignore the traffic impacts and talk about it in a later phase, it doesn’t say traffic impacts can be determined at the building permit stage. In some court settings this would be remanded for a traffic study and then come back to the Council. She asked whether the Council had the option to remand for a traffic study. She did not make the motion initially because she was uncertain to whom it would remanded. Mr. Taraday explained what he and Mr. Clugston are saying is that it was the Hearing Examiner’s finding that when two fields are replaced with two fields, even if the substance of the field surface is changed, it did not create a significant impact to traffic. The Hearing Examiner did not deem a traffic study was necessary to demonstrate that because it is a status quo situation. Councilmember Petso did not recall the Hearing Examiner finding it was like for like; she recalled Mr. Clugston saying last week that he thought it was like for like. She did not agree with the assertion; one baseball backstop is being replaced with a proposal for two baseball backstops. She did not care that there was also a football field there. To the question whether there was public involvement in the design review, Mr. Clugston explained the ADB reviewed the project and provided a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner; that is how the process works for projects like this. Sometimes the ADB will hold a public hearing; in this case because the permits were joined together, the ADB provided a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. Stewart Mhyre, Director of Business Operations for Edmonds School District, providing context for the school and project, indicating the proposal was first developed in 2005 and was the product of various community groups. While there may not have been additional design work since the PROS Plan was amended in February 2014, there has clearly been design and public input on the project for at least 10 years. With regard to Councilmember Petso question regarding remand, Mr. Taraday read from ECDC 20.07.005.H, “Upon written agreement by the applicant to waive the requirement for a decision within the time periods set forth in RCW 36.70B.080, as allowed by RCW 36.70B.080(3), the city council may remand the decision with instructions to the hearing body for additional information.” Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding if the issue were only traffic, the Council could remand. However, because there has not been community involvement in design development since the date the provision for community involvement in the design development was adopted, she asked whether there was any point in doing a remand. Mr. Taraday responded reasonable minds can differ over the meaning of that language. One possible way of reading that is the City’s design review permit satisfies that criterion in the Comprehensive Plan. He acknowledged that Councilmember Petso did not see it that way but he was not certain that her interpretation was correct and his was incorrect. Councilmember Petso recalled last week it was suggested the ADB review might have been community involvement in design development. It has been suggested tonight that the meeting before the Hearing Examiner might have been community involvement in design development. She noted one of the design items was not in front of the Hearing Examiner. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 17 Councilmember Petso commented there was no point in adopting a Comprehensive Plan that states in a foregoing and affirmative manner that the City will involve the community in design development if that would not actually be done. Mr. Taraday said an entirely plausible interpretation of that language is that the City’s design review application process is involving the community in design development. Councilmember Petso suggested the public may have had design issues that the Hearing Examiner told them they could not talk about and they were almost told tonight that they could not talk to the Council about it. She felt the City had not involved the community in design development. Councilmember Johnson read from the Hearing Examiner’s Findings of Fact regarding traffic (5A), “Approval of the bleachers and ball control fields could result in increased use of the fields without the field lights, but the record does not suggest that this increase would be significant.” She also read, “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 the ball field configuration. That amount of traffic is more likely than not negligible.” She concluded the Hearing Examiner did address traffic. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the record states whether the School District had any public meetings regarding this design. Mr. Clugston was not aware of anything in the record regarding that. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Petso that community involvement was not traditionally considered to be ADB review. Community involvement is what Ms. Hite is doing regarding Marina Beach Park where there is a committee, multiple meetings are held, and emails are submitted in advance of a public hearing regarding the design. She said there is no question that no community process occurred in relation to these fields. She found parsing the words disrespectful to the community; no one would interpret ADB review as a community process. Mr. Taraday clarified his point in mentioning that plausible reading was to give the Council the ability to determine what the Comprehensive Plan means; it was not for him to say. Councilmember Petso has offered one plausible way of looking at it and he has offered another plausible way and it is for the Council to determine what it means. Councilmember Bloom said there is only one way and it is what has been done on other projects and that was not done for this project. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Council is only supposed to opine on bleachers and ball control fencing. In her opinion the community was involved. She asked whether the Hearing Examiner knew what the field surface would be when he considered this. Mr. Clugston answered the Hearing Examiner did know the surface but said that was not something he could discuss. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the Hearing Examiner could not discuss that. Mr. Taraday answered it was largely because the City does not require a permit for a particular field substance; the code basically says a field is a field is a field. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS SECONDED THE CALL FOR THE QUESTION. CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Petso paraphrased her motion: TO DENY THE PROPOSAL BECAUSE THERE WAS NO INFORMATION ON TRAFFIC AND NO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE. MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING YES. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the statement that the SEPA determination could have been disputed within 14 day period and asked how the City could have known to dispute it within 14 days Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 18 when the City was not the lead agency. Mr. Taraday clarified the School District is the lead agency. Within the 14 day time period, the City’s SEPA Official could have attempted to assert lead agency status. Mr. Clugston advised Rob Chave is the City’s SEPA Official. Mr. Taraday said that did not happen and the School District remains the lead agency. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there was a reason for the City to dispute it. Mr. Taraday presumed in the opinion of SEPA Official there was not because he did not do so. Councilmember Buckshnis concluded the Council had no control over that. Mr. Taraday agreed as the City Council is not the SEPA Official. Councilmember Johnson referred to Councilmember Petso's question regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan with regard to community involvement in design development. She asked whether that could be stated as a condition moving forward, that the community be involved in design development of the fields. Mr. Taraday said the Council could adopt that as a condition. Councilmember Johnson referred to Condition 3 and suggested the location of the double gate be made clearer in the plans. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO ADD A CONDITION #12 TO INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY IN DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL SITE AS A REGIONAL SPORTS AND RECREATION ASSET. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the design had already been adopted. Mr. Clugston answered yes, the ADB recommended approval of project design and found it in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and the Hearing Examiner agreed with that. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what passing this motion would mean. Mr. Taraday answered it was somewhat problematic in that it also causes one to wonder how to interpret that Comprehensive Plan language. Because the City is not the applicant and not in control of the project, it is somewhat presumptuous to say involve the community. Council President Fraley-Monillas said for that reason she would not support the motion although the idea as good. She was concerned with backing up and taking over someone else’s project. Councilmember Petso did not see it as taking over someone else’s project because it was required in order to grant the requested permits and a variance and a CUP requires compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hite reiterated information in the record from Mr. Mhyre about community involvement in the design of the project dating back to 2007. There were two School District meetings in March 2015 that involved the community and based on the feedback from the community, the School District pulled the lighting design because the community was not supportive of it. She also stated in the record that the City will work with the community on the scheduling and use of the fields. Councilmember Petso asked for the pages in record where there was reference to these meetings. Mr. Clugston referred to the summary of testimony from the Hearing Examiner that was included with the April 28, 2015; the testimony from Mr. Mhyre on page 3 includes how the high school has been used since 1989, development of proposal in 2005 with various input, School District community meetings on March 16 and 17 and citizens input to the School Board on March 24. An audience member asked about objecting to information provided. Mr. Taraday explained City staff is a resource to Council to help them make an informed decision. Because the record has been closed, the Council cannot talk to the applicant, proponents or opponents. He summarized the rules do not allow the hearing to go on forever; it needs to be brought to a close. Councilmember Petso asked if there was any information in the record regarding the character of the meetings, noting they obviously occurred after the SEPA determination and the design. Mr. Clugston said the information he stated is what is in record. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 19 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 MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, THAT THE DOCUMENT AS NOW SUBMITTED WITH THE AMENDMENT BE MOVED FORWARD FOR APPROVAL BY THE COUNCIL. Councilmember Petso reminded there is still no traffic analysis other than the fact that each game will generate a negative impact of 60-90 trips per field. Mr. Taraday suggested the text of condition be, “The City of Edmonds shall continue to involve the community in design development.” Councilmember Johnson said she took the language from the Hearing Examiner’s statement after the Comprehensive Plan. She asked for an opportunity to locate the language. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. Mr. Clugston said during the break Councilmember Johnson identified the sentence in the Comprehensive Plan, “Involve the community in design development.” Councilmember Petso did not recall that “continue to” was in the motion. She preferred the condition state, “The City of Edmonds shall involve the community in design development.” Councilmember Bloom agreed. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to language in the Hearing Examiner’s decision, “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 and serving a growing community. Involve the community in design development.” She read that as a continuation of what has already been done. Councilmember Johnson said her motion was simply to involve the community in design development from this day forward. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed her understanding of Councilmember Johnson’s comment that there would be some level of community involvement in the design of anything done in the next round or area. Councilmember Johnson clarified it was simply in response to a concern and stating it in a way so that the community is involved. One of conditions is to involve the community in design development. Councilmember Buckshnis questions how this could move forward. Mr. Taraday responded that is why when he translated the motion into a condition he added “continue to.” If one subscribed to the notion that design review is part of the public process, the phrase “continue to” gives some legitimacy to the design review application as being part of that process. As far as what can be done going forward, there are other decisions that the City may have influence over. Because the turf issue is not before the Council, he was uncertain whether that decision has been made, could be reconsidered or was a decision the Council could potentially influence through an alternate proceeding. It could be as simple as the location of the bleachers. There are a lot of things that could be considered involvement in design development. The addition of “continue to” reflects the interpretation of how the design review process fits into that and whether that is part of involving the community in design development. Councilmember Petso reiterated “continue to” was not part of the motion so she did not want that language included. If the condition is intended to represent the intent of the four Councilmembers who voted in favor of the motion, it should not include that phrase. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 20 Councilmember Mesaros asked the other three Councilmembers who voted in favor of the motion whether they agreed with Councilmember Petso. Councilmember Bloom answered yes. Councilmember Johnson referred to the restatement of her motion, but offered some deference to the City Attorney. Councilmember Nelson concurred with Councilmember Johnson. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND CONDITION #12 TO INCLUDE “CONTINUE TO.” MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED TO RECONSIDER CONDITION #12. Councilmember Petso explained she would not have voted in favor of the motion had she known “continue to” would be part of the condition which would have caused the motion to fail. Councilmember Mesaros raised a point of order, explaining the amendment to Condition #12 was a different motion than the one Councilmember Petso voted in favor of. Mr. Taraday said the motion Councilmember Petso voted in favor of is no longer Condition #12 as Condition #12 has since been replaced with the motion that passed 5-2. Further, Councilmember Petso was not in the majority on the 5- 2 motion and therefore cannot move to reconsider it. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AS AMENDED. Councilmember Petso said she will vote against the motion due to the failure to review traffic impacts. Councilmember Bloom said she will vote against the motion for the reasons she previously stated. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE METING TO 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2015 BUDGET Finance Director Scott James said this is the third Council meeting where this has been discussed including a lengthy discussion at the last Council meeting. He 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. Councilmember Petso recalled when the Council previously discussed this, Mr. James indicated he had changed the ending fund balance for the REET fund. She asked whether that was due to additional revenues or to a planned property acquisition that did not occur. Mr. James clarified he did not just change the ending fund balance; when the budget was prepared, it is based on estimates. When the year closed, actual balances included extra dollars that were greater than estimated. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 21 Councilmember Petso asked whether the extra dollars were a result of higher than expected REET revenue, which she did not recall, a planned property acquisition that did not go through or something else. Mr. James said it was a combination of things; REET revenue was approximately $31,000 higher than estimated, investment interest was $1500 higher than estimated, and under expenditures including a miscellaneous expenditure that was budgeted at $200,000 of which only $2500 was spent and a construction projects budgeted $521,000 of which only $48,000 was spent. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY JOHNSON TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 3998, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3991 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED TO AMEND, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO APPROVE THIS WITHOUT THE $260,000 TAKEN FROM THE REET 126 FUND. Councilmember Mesaros commented back when the 2015 budget was approved by the Council, he was one of the Councilmembers who voted to take the $260,000 out of budget and set it aside for potential land purchases. As he got more information, he realized the transfer of those funds was needed in this budget amendment to provide funds for street repairs and the matching funds for the $260,000. He will change his vote in the 2015 budget process and vote against this amendment so that those funds can be included in the budget amendment. Councilmember Petso commented in December the Council discussed the need to retain funds for property acquisition, not merely for parks but for critical areas, perhaps parking lots in or near downtown, perhaps for view preservation, or perhaps for buildings for the provision of City services. The current method is a property acquisition opportunity arises but is not given serious consideration due to lack of funds. She did not feel that was a sensible way to run the City unless the Council felt the City was as good as they could make it and the City had everything it needed. The alternative proposed is to “pave all our roads to perfection and then fix all our buildings to perfection and then maybe we can talk about allocating some money to the acquisition of additional community assets.” She did not think that worked either. Whether the amendment passed or not, she suggested Council get serious about having a policy regarding the set aside for opportunity acquisitions, not just for parks but for critical areas and any other property acquisition opportunity that the City may face and find to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because ensuring there is no money ever for property acquisitions is not a good policy. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Petso regarding long term planning. She acknowledged the City had some very difficult financial times a few years ago but should be looking at the long term needs. She relayed these funds are a carryover that was not spent in 2014. Mr. James said it could be called that; it was budgeted in 2014 but was not spent in 2014 but would be spent in 2015. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the $260,000 was taken out of the REET fund in 2014 to be used for something other than parks, park acquisition or park maintenance. Public Works Director Phil Williams said the 2014 budget included $1.2 million for street preservation; staff indicated their desire to reserve $260,000 of that for the following year to match a $780,000 federal grant to pave 220th from 76th to 84th. When the carryover was denied in the 2015 budget to not show those revenues from the 126 Fund REET 1, the $1.3 million the Council approved for street preservation essentially was reduced by $260,000 but the match was needed for the grant unless the Council did not to pursue the paving project on 220th. Staff hoped not to take the $260,000 from the $1.3 million as there are projects planned for 2015 that could not be done if those funds were not available. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 22 Councilmember Bloom pointed out the Council voted in 2014 to remove the $260,000 from the budget and leave in the 126 Fund; now the Council is being asked to reserve that decision. She acknowledged Councilmember Mesaros has been convinced that he will reverse his decision but she found it concerning to reverse a previous Council decision for a large amount from a fund that is allocated for property acquisition. Councilmember Buckshnis said many Councilmembers do long term planning and budgeting. She recognized budgeting is a very fluid process which is the reason there are budget amendments. As a relative new Councilmember, Councilmember Mesaros has learned that the City has not paved its streets for years. She assured Councilmember Petso the City’s streets would not be paved to perfection; they are being paved because they have not been paved for years. Although she would love to have more than 41 parks and to purchase critical areas, money doesn’t grow on trees and this is an important project that was part of 2014 budget and a carryover in the 2015 budget. AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING YES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING NO. It was the consensus of the Council to postpone items 14 and 15. 13. APPROVAL OF MANDATORY RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION FOR VEHRS SHORT PLAT City Engineer Rob English explained this 3-lot plat is located at the southwest corner of 6th Avenue and Forsyth lane. The official street map indicates a 60-foot wide right-of-way on 6th Avenue S; the existing street right-of-way is 55 feet. Per 18.50 a street dedication of 5 feet on 6th Avenue South is required from this property. Councilmember Petso asked for assurance the Council was not being asked to authorize anything else in conjunction with the short plat. Mr. English agreed, explaining when the short plat is approved the dedication will be provided. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION FOR THE VEHRS SHORT PLAT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. DRAFT STREETSCAPE/STREET TREES ELEMENT FOR 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE It was the consensus of the Council to postpone this item to a future meeting. 14. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING DRAFT CODE OF ETHICS, ATTACHMENT 16. REVIEW OF OPTIONS A,B,C AND D This item was postponed to a future meeting. 16. MAYOR'S COMMENTS - None 17. COUNCIL COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 23 Councilmember Mesaros referred to the closed record review, noting the Council was asked make judgment on a narrow portion of the activities at the old Woodway High School. Mr. Taraday expressed his preference that Councilmembers not comment on the decision made tonight. Councilmember Mesaros said his comment was not about the Council’s decision but regarding the bigger picture. He shared some of the community’s concerns and looked forward to City staff, the School District and Verdant responding to some of those concerns. Councilmember Petso suggested the Council take action on Item 15 tonight. 15. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained this is proposed settlement of a lawsuit. New Cingular Wireless sued the City seeking a refund of taxes it had mistakenly paid related to data services it provides customers. Further explanation is contained in the agenda memo. This is part of a global settlement involving 30-35 cities. All the cities involved essentially settled for 18 cents on the dollar. The packet contains two different versions of the settlement, one contemplates a check will be written and another that a tax credit will be given; both are for the same amount, approximately $18,000. Finance Director Scott James prefers the check version for audit trail purposes. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS IN ATTACHMENT #1 (CHECK VERSION). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 17. COUNCIL COMMENTS (CON’T) Councilmember Buckshnis reminded of the second Marina Beach Master Plan open house tomorrow at the Edmonds Library Plaza Room from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. Councilmember Nelson looked forward attending the Marina Beach Master Plan open house. Councilmember Johnson announced a land use boot camp on Friday sponsored by the Washington Planning Association at the Sammamish City Hall. Council President Fraley-Monillas apologized Council Reports on Committees was not on last week’s agenda; she will work with the City Clerk to schedule those on the last Tuesday of the month. She also apologize that tonight’s meeting exceeded the estimated time; she will meet with Mr. Passey to reschedule items. 18. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 19. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 20. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 5, 2015 Page 24    AM-7703     4. C.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 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 #214105 through #214241 dated May 7, 2015 for $329,626.25. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61591 through #61600 for $478,364.20, benefit checks #61601 through #61608 and wire payments of $415,382.63 for the pay period April 16, 2015 through April 30, 2015. Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue: Expenditure:1,223,373.08 Fiscal Impact: Claims $329,626.25 Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $478,364.20 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $415,382.63 Total Payroll $893,746.83 Attachments Claim cks 05-07-15 Project Numbers 05-07-15 Payroll Summary 05-05-15 Payroll Summary 05-05-15 Payroll Benefit 05-05-15 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 05/07/2015 03:13 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/08/2015 07:37 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/08/2015 08:11 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/08/2015 08:22 AM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 05/07/2015 09:10 AM Final Approval Date: 05/08/2015  05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214105 5/7/2015 072627 911 ETC INC 32139 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT Monthly 911 database maint 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 100.00 Total :100.00 214106 5/7/2015 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 13-24893 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 158.50 INTERPRETER FEE PUBLIC DEFENDER13-25928 INTERPRETER FEE PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 169.64 INTERPRETER FEE13-25943 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 130.00 INTERPRETER FEE15-28781 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 169.64 INTERPRETER FEE15-28847 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 143.11 Total :770.89 214107 5/7/2015 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 348363 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL CUST 1-23276 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL CUST 1-23276 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 82.12 PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONTROL CUST 1-1348423 PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONTROL CUST 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 125.92 Total :208.04 214108 5/7/2015 065568 ALLWATER INC 042815055 WWTP - DRINKING WATER water 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 27.25 Total :27.25 1Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214109 5/7/2015 001528 AM TEST INC 85829 WWTP - MERCURY TEST sludge metals testing 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 75.00 WWTP - SOLIDS TESTING85830 tss/vss testing 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 120.00 WWTP - SOLIDS TESTING85831 tss/vss testing 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 140.00 WWTP - SOLIDS TESTING85832 tss/vss testing 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 140.00 WWTP - SOLIDS TESTING85833 tss/vss testing 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 160.00 WWTP - SOLIDS TESTING85834 tss/vss 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 140.00 WWTP - SOLIDS TESTING85835 t/tvs & tss/vss testing 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 440.00 WWTP - SOLIDS TESTING85836 tss/vss testing 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 140.00 WWTP - MERCURY TEST85955 sludge metals testing 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 75.00 Total :1,430.00 214110 5/7/2015 074695 AMERICAN MESSAGING W4101046PE Water Watch Pager Water Watch Pager 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 4.46 Total :4.46 214111 5/7/2015 074674 AMERICAN PETROLEUM ENVIRO SVCS 1911050115 Fleet Filters Recycled Fleet Filters Recycled 2Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214111 5/7/2015 (Continued)074674 AMERICAN PETROLEUM ENVIRO SVCS 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 25.00 Total :25.00 214112 5/7/2015 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC AE43 WWTP - MONTHLY NPDES monthly NPDES testing 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 175.00 Total :175.00 214113 5/7/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987993339 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 SERVICE1987993340 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 40.95 Total :124.32 214114 5/7/2015 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0737475-IN WWTP - DIESEL FUEL ULSD #2 dyed bulk fuel - 1776 gallons 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 3,773.09 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 358.45 Total :4,131.54 214115 5/7/2015 074640 B2C PUBLISHING 2174 TOURISM PROMOTION AD BLUE CITY MONTHLY M Tourism promotional ad in Blue City 120.000.31.575.42.41.40 625.00 Total :625.00 214116 5/7/2015 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0415 Pre- Employment Background checks 3Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214116 5/7/2015 (Continued)069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC Pre- Employment Background checks 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 185.00 Total :185.00 214117 5/7/2015 002258 BENS EVER READY 10447 PW - Replaced 2 Fire Extinguishers PW - Replaced 2 Fire Extinguishers 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 88.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 8.36 Total :96.36 214118 5/7/2015 075252 BISBEE, RICHARD 5/4 REFUND 5/4 REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 5/4 REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 001.000.239.200 30.00 Total :30.00 214119 5/7/2015 074849 BOMAR, RICK 42215 CONFERENCE TRAVEL REFUND CONFERENCE TRAVEL REFUND 001.000.23.523.30.43.00 191.27 Total :191.27 214120 5/7/2015 060141 BRANOM INSTRUMENT 548674 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICAL pressure switch dual switches 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 357.37 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 39.33 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 37.69 Total :434.39 214121 5/7/2015 065341 BRIANS UPHOLSTERY 536364 Unit 40 - Rebuild Seat Unit 40 - Rebuild Seat 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 300.00 8.6% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 25.80 4Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214121 5/7/2015 (Continued)065341 BRIANS UPHOLSTERY Unit 455 - Rebuild Seat536366 8.6% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 17.20 Unit 455 - Rebuild Seat 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 200.00 Total :543.00 214122 5/7/2015 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 19516 PILATES YOGA F 19516 PILATES YOGA FUSION INSTRUCTOR FEE 19516 PILATES YOGA FUSION INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 319.14 19525 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE19525 YOGA 19525 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 263.16 19528 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE19528 YOGA 19528 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 156.33 19531 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE19531 YOGA 19531 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 550.80 19534 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE19534 YOGA 19534 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 351.00 19537 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE19537 YOGA 19537 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 459.00 19540 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE19540 YOGA 19540 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 421.20 Total :2,520.63 214123 5/7/2015 069295 BROWN, CANDY APRIL APRIL BIRD NATURALIST VISITS APRIL BIRD NATURALIST VISITS 001.000.64.571.23.41.00 95.20 Total :95.20 5Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214124 5/7/2015 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14840340 WWTP - COPIER RENTAL Copier Rental - April 2015 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 85.80 Total :85.80 214125 5/7/2015 074442 CAPITAL ONE 8941 Water/ Sewer - Class Supplies Water/ Sewer - Class Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 18.98 Water/ Sewer - Class Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 18.97 Units 43,38,51,32 - Backup Cameras 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 875.96 Water Sewer Street Storm Fleet Parks 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.50 Water Sewer Street Storm Fleet Parks 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.50 Water Sewer Street Storm Fleet Parks 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 3.50 Water Sewer Street Storm Fleet Parks 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.50 Water Sewer Street Storm Fleet Parks 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.47 First Air Class Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5.00 First Air Class Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.00 First Air Class Supplies 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 5.00 First Air Class Supplies 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 5.00 First Air Class Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.00 First Air Class Supplies 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.97 Water Sewer Street Storm Fleet Parks 6Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214125 5/7/2015 (Continued)074442 CAPITAL ONE 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 3.50 Total :964.85 214126 5/7/2015 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC VC26020 HP SERVER HP DL160 GEN9 E5-2603V3 LFF SRV - Part 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 999.00 HP 8GB 1RX4 PC4-2133P-R KIT - Part 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 180.00 HP GEN8 1TB 6G SATA 7.2K 3.5IN SC HD - 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 392.00 CDW HARDWARE INSTALL SERVER 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 30.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 152.10 Total :1,753.10 214127 5/7/2015 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 219583 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 135.54 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 12.87 Total :148.41 214128 5/7/2015 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E3DB.SEPA E3DB.SEPA DETERMINATION E3DB.SEPA Determination 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 610.00 E3DD.SEPA DETERMINATIONE3DD.SEPA E3DD.SEPA Determination 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 610.00 Total :1,220.00 214129 5/7/2015 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I15000840 INV#I15000840 CUST#EDMPOLI - EDMONDS PD 2015 SHARE OF TRAINING COSTS 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 600.00 INV#I15000841 CUST#EDMPOLI - EDMONDS PDI15000841 7Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214129 5/7/2015 (Continued)063902 CITY OF EVERETT 2015 SHARE OF MINDFLASH FEE 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 600.00 Total :1,200.00 214130 5/7/2015 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 11458 INV#11458 CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD NARCOTICS SGT JAN-MAR 2015 104.100.41.521.21.51.00 11,401.76 Total :11,401.76 214131 5/7/2015 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 2825 Annual Assessment for Alliance for Annual Assessment for Alliance for 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 2,381.00 Total :2,381.00 214132 5/7/2015 073617 CLIFTON, AMBER 42815 TRAINING TRAVEL REFUND TRAINING TRAVEL REFUND 001.000.23.512.50.43.00 81.57 Total :81.57 214133 5/7/2015 074241 CLUGSTON, MICHAEL Clugston CFE Claim for Expenses - Clugston- mileage Claim for Expenses - Clugston- mileage 001.000.62.558.60.43.00 71.30 Total :71.30 214134 5/7/2015 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING APRIL 2015 DRY CLEANING MAR/APR 2015 - EDMONDS PD CLEANING/LAUNDRY MAR/APR 2015 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 740.32 Total :740.32 214135 5/7/2015 075253 CROSSLIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY 005 PHOTO SHOOT FOR XFINITY ARENA DISPLAY Photoshoot for Xfinity Arena display ad. 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 340.00 Total :340.00 214136 5/7/2015 074444 DATAQUEST LLC CIEDMONDS-20150430 INV CIEDMONDS-20150430 - GRIMES PRE-HIRE CREDIT REPORT - GRIMES 8Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214136 5/7/2015 (Continued)074444 DATAQUEST LLC 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 20.00 Total :20.00 214137 5/7/2015 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 356287 E1CA.SERVICES THRU 04/11/15 E1CA.Services thru 04/11/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 1,000.52 E1CA.Services thru 04/11/15 112.200.68.595.20.61.00 1,964.98 Total :2,965.50 214138 5/7/2015 075195 DELTA INDUSTRIES INC 077740 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL impeller 2vrkc1003 5 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 1,099.56 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 46.89 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 108.91 Total :1,255.36 214139 5/7/2015 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 050515 WWTP - TRAINING WWTP Operator's Exam Application 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 50.00 Total :50.00 214140 5/7/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3550 COUNCIL MINUTES 04/28/15 04/28/15 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 409.20 Total :409.20 214141 5/7/2015 074389 DRAKE, BARB 4/28 REIMBURSEMENT 4/28 REIMBURSEMENT PANTS, MILEAGE PANTS AS PER UNION CONTRACT 001.000.64.571.23.24.00 60.00 MILEAGE 001.000.64.571.23.43.00 7.48 Total :67.48 9Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214142 5/7/2015 075127 DVERSIFIED SPORTS 1453 BALANCE BEAM RECOVERY KIT AND LABOR BALANCE BEAM RECOVERY KIT 001.000.64.571.28.35.00 450.00 LABOR 001.000.64.571.28.41.00 150.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.28.35.00 42.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.28.41.00 14.25 Total :657.00 214143 5/7/2015 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 47333 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL non clor brk pts 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 47.88 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 4.55 Total :52.43 214144 5/7/2015 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 000766 PM BOAT HOSE PM 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 23.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.28 PM BALL VALVE, ELBW, HEX NIPPLE, RED COU000767 PM BALL VALVE, ELBW, HEX NIPPLE, RED 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 22.26 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.11 PM MALE, FEMALE HOSE END000768 PM MALE, FEMALE HOSE END 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.95 PM BATTERIES000769 PM BATTERIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 50.96 10Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214144 5/7/2015 (Continued)074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.84 Total :117.37 214145 5/7/2015 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 7-05276 CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 820 15TH ST SW / CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 820 15TH ST SW / 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 147.42 Total :147.42 214146 5/7/2015 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL 210379 INV#210379 CLIENT #5118 - EDMONDS PD SPAY DOG - IMPOUND #9182 001.000.41.521.70.49.01 97.50 NEUTER DOG - IMPOUND #9170 001.000.41.521.70.49.01 108.00 Total :205.50 214147 5/7/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 112711 FLEET COPY USE Fleet Copy Use~ 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.93 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.13 WATER SEWER COPY USE113128 Water Sewer Copy Use~ 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 30.07 Water Sewer Copy Use~ 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 30.06 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.86 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.85 PW COPY USE113129 PW Copy Use~ 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 38.02 PW Copy Use~ 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 21.54 11Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214147 5/7/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES PW Copy Use~ 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 21.54 PW Copy Use~ 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 15.21 PW Copy Use~ 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 15.21 PW Copy Use~ 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 3.61 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 2.05 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 2.05 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.45 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.45 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.43 COPIER MAINT113155 COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.512.50.48.00 183.59 P&R COPIER C5051 #A7027113158 1 P&R COPIER C5051 #A7027 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 135.54 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 COPIER113159 Meter charges 03/30/15 - 04/30/15 B&W, 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 72.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 6.87 CITY CLERKS METER READ 4/27/15113166 CITY CLERKS COPIER METER READ 4/27/15 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 425.99 12Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214147 5/7/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 40.47 COPY CHARGES C10301133491 Copy charges C1030 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 6.45 Copy charges C1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 6.45 Copy charges C1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 6.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.62 Total :1,103.60 214148 5/7/2015 075247 ERIN & JEREMY VINCENT 4-04750 #611097200-SK UTILITY REFUND #611097200-SK Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 217.75 Total :217.75 214149 5/7/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH624069 E4JB.SEPA DETERMINATION ADVERTISEMENT E4JB.SEPA Determination Advertisement 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 44.72 Legal Notice: PLN 2014.0070/0071EDH626232 Legal Notice: PLN 2014.0070/0071 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 67.08 CITY APPLICATIONS 76TH AVE W @212THEDH627652 ACQUISITION PROP. 76TH AVE W @ 212TH 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 99.76 ORDINANCE 3994, 3995EDH628499 CITY ORDINANCES 3994 & 3995 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 43.00 CITY NOTICESEDH628794 13Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214149 5/7/2015 (Continued)009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 4TH AVENUE INTERIM ART PROJECT MAY 5 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 36.12 Total :290.68 214150 5/7/2015 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU35564 Sewer LS 7 - Supplies Sewer LS 7 - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.61 Total :7.01 214151 5/7/2015 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 43015 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 20,000.00 Total :20,000.00 214152 5/7/2015 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0459371 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 199.50 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 18.95 Hydrant Replacement at 20331 83rd0460793 Hydrant Replacement at 20331 83rd 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,997.26 Water Parts Pipe Non Inventory 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,016.64 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 286.32 Water - Flexnet M2 Software Support~0461407 Water - Flexnet M2 Software Support~ 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 2,230.59 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 211.91 Total :5,961.17 14Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214153 5/7/2015 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 10019642 Monthly flex plan fee Monthly flex plan fee 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 76.10 Total :76.10 214154 5/7/2015 073265 FREESE LAW OFFICES INC PS ED118 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 214155 5/7/2015 011900 FRONTIER 253-003-6887 LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 41.67 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE253-012-9189 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 41.08 WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL253-017-7256 WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 217.18 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHONE & PM IP425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHONE 001.000.64.571.29.42.00 90.11 PARKS MAINT IP LINE (10 + TAX) 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.95 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES425-771-0158 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 128.27 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE425-771-5553 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 110.46 CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH AVE N425-776-6829 CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 128.27 Total :767.99 214156 5/7/2015 002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 129464 INV#129464 - EDMONDS PD - COMM BARS 15Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214156 5/7/2015 (Continued)002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL COMM BAR - NO STARS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 43.80 COMM BAR - 1 STAR 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 14.60 COMM BAR - 2 STARS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 14.60 SLIDE HOLDER FOR COMM BARS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 16.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 8.47 INV#136319 - EDMONDS PD - SUTTON136319 BELT KEEPERS/BW/HIDDEN SNAP 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 14.95 MACE HOLDER/BW/HIDDEN SNAP 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 23.33 BELT LINER 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 25.95 DUTY BELT/BW 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 64.95 CUFF CASE/DOUBLE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 41.95 DBLE MAG POUCH/BW/HID SNAP 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 45.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 20.62 Total :335.37 214157 5/7/2015 069350 GARNEY, RENEE 41015 TRAINING TRAVEL REFUND TRAINING TRAVEL REFUND 001.000.23.512.50.43.00 65.55 Total :65.55 214158 5/7/2015 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA 19631 TAEKWON-DO 19631 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 19631 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 383.70 16Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :383.702141585/7/2015 073922 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA 214159 5/7/2015 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 122454 Fleet Tire Inventory (3) Fleet Tire Inventory (3) 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 194.85 State Tire Fee 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 3.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 18.51 Unit 58 4 Tires123570 Unit 58 4 Tires 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 548.20 State Tire Fee 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 4.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 52.08 Fleet Tire Inventory (14)123668 Fleet Tire Inventory (14) 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 1,594.30 State Tire Fees 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 14.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 151.46 Unit 72 - Tires (2)123760 Unit 72 - Tires (2) 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 158.58 State Tire Fees 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 2.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 15.07 Total :2,756.05 214160 5/7/2015 072515 GOOGLE INC 1776375518 BILLING ID# 5030-2931-5908 Google Apps Usage- Apr-2015 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 31.00 17Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :31.002141605/7/2015 072515 072515 GOOGLE INC 214161 5/7/2015 071446 GREAT FLOORS COMMERCIAL SALES 5548 FAC - Gym Floor Repairs FAC - Gym Floor Repairs 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,550.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 147.25 Total :1,697.25 214162 5/7/2015 074804 HARLES, JANINE 197327 PHOTOGRAPHY FOR APRIL 2015 Photography for April 2015 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 214163 5/7/2015 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 153326 Unit 455 - Lamp Assembly Unit 455 - Lamp Assembly 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 102.64 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.75 Unit 450 - Instrument Cluster153891 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 35.94 Unit 450 - Instrument Cluster 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 378.29 Unit 448 - RepairsFOCS387300 Unit 448 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 109.45 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 10.40 Total :646.47 214164 5/7/2015 072184 HAUSS, BERTRAND Hauss.PE License HAUSS.PE LICENSE RENEWAL Hauss.PE License Renewal 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 116.00 Total :116.00 214165 5/7/2015 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I3893184 Water Parts- Meter Boxes, Adapters, 18Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214165 5/7/2015 (Continued)010900 HD FOWLER CO INC Water Parts- Meter Boxes, Adapters, 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5,259.72 Water Inventory - W-VALVBR-02-010 #0476 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 1,073.00 W-VALVBR-01.5-030 #473 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 251.66 W-PIPECO-0.75-011 #0333 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 866.40 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 499.67 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 208.15 Water - Tapmate Drill Machine ServiceI3893187 Water - Tapmate Drill Machine Service 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 421.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 40.00 Water Inventory - W-PIPECO-01-011 #0334I3893911 Water Inventory - W-PIPECO-01-011 #0334 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 1,128.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 107.16 Total :9,854.76 214166 5/7/2015 074638 HEALY, TERESA 19602 LITTLE FISHES 19602 LITTLE FISHES INSTRUCTOR FEE 19602 LITTLE FISHES INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 460.80 Total :460.80 214167 5/7/2015 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 29 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursment LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursment 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 2,009.46 Total :2,009.46 214168 5/7/2015 069164 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 55797051 HP WIRELESS NETWORK CARDS FOR NOTEBOOKS 19Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214168 5/7/2015 (Continued)069164 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HP lt4211 LTE/EV-DO/HSPA+WWAN wireless 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 597.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 56.72 Total :653.72 214169 5/7/2015 074746 HIGUCHI, ROD 19560 UKULELE 19560 UKULELE INSTRUCTOR FEE 19560 UKULELE INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 201.30 Total :201.30 214170 5/7/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2612283 Office supplies - DSD Office supplies - DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 111.43 Office supplies - DSD2612284 Office supplies - DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 162.75 Office supplies DSD2613008 Office supplies DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 12.61 Office supplies DSD2614751 Office supplies DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 298.61 Office supplies - DSD2617332 Office supplies - DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 22.50 OFFICE SUPPLIES2617994 Cardstock 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 54.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 5.14 SUPPLIES2618759 SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 79.94 Office supplies for Council Office -2620103 20Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214170 5/7/2015 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED Office supplies for Council Office - 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 73.44 Total :820.57 214171 5/7/2015 061844 INTL CONF OF POLICE CHAPLAINS 43732 INV 43732 KEN GAYDOS ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP - CHAPLAIN KEN GAYDOS 001.000.41.521.10.49.00 125.00 Total :125.00 214172 5/7/2015 067074 JAMES, SCOTT April2015 WPTA CONFERENCE LODGING & MILEAGE WPTA conference lodging and mileage 001.000.31.514.20.43.00 347.06 Total :347.06 214173 5/7/2015 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 3574 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNECTION May-15 Fiber Optics Internet Connection 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 500.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 47.50 Total :547.50 214174 5/7/2015 075245 JANE E GRINNELL 3-05975 Customer overpayment Customer overpayment 411.000.233.000 400.00 Total :400.00 214175 5/7/2015 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 652527 WWTP - SUPPLIES, HYPOCHLORITE hypochlorite, 4667 gallons 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 3,522.62 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 334.65 Total :3,857.27 214176 5/7/2015 015280 JONES, KENTON 30 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,504.58 21Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,504.582141765/7/2015 015280 015280 JONES, KENTON 214177 5/7/2015 073780 KAMINS, CHAD E3DC.Pmt 5 Final E3DC.PMT 5 FINAL THRU 4/23/15 E3DC.Pmt 5 Final thru 4/23/15 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 789.12 E3DC.Ret 5 112.200.223.400 -39.46 Total :749.66 214178 5/7/2015 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3905740 INV#3905740 ACCT#100828 - EDMONDS PD 10 CASES MULTI USE COPY PAPER 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 237.30 HANDLING FEE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 55.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 22.54 Total :315.04 214179 5/7/2015 073924 KEARNS, JESSIKA CHRISTINE 19600 TAEKWON-DO 19600 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 19600 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 177.00 19841 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE19841 TAEKWON-DO 19841 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 132.50 Total :309.50 214180 5/7/2015 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC INV-009930 INV#INV-009930 - EDMONDS PD REPAIR TRAFFIC PRINTER 001.000.41.521.71.48.00 412.50 TRAVEL CHG FOR 2 SERVICE CALLS 001.000.41.521.71.48.00 40.00 PARTS FOR PRINTER REPAIR 001.000.41.521.71.48.00 120.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.71.48.00 15.00 9.5% Sales Tax 22Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214180 5/7/2015 (Continued)016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 001.000.41.521.71.48.00 55.81 Total :643.31 214181 5/7/2015 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 34863 E3FH.SERVICES THRU 02/28/15 E3FH.Services thru 02/28/15 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 396.25 Total :396.25 214182 5/7/2015 074802 LATSCH, KENNETH 4/13/15 Arbitrator's cancellation fee Arbitrator's cancellation fee 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 250.00 Total :250.00 214183 5/7/2015 074417 LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN SMITH 119 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 214184 5/7/2015 072697 LAWLER, PATRICK Lawler CFE BLD Reimburse for Certificate Renewals Reimburse for Certificate Renewals 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 100.00 Total :100.00 214185 5/7/2015 075249 LENNSTROM INVESTMENTS LLC 3-04085 #611098759-AB UTILITY REFUND #611098759-AB Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 239.43 Total :239.43 214186 5/7/2015 072992 LYNNWOOD ICE CENTER 19641 ICE SKATE 19641 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRUCTOR FEE 19641 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 178.50 19642 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRUCTOR FEE19642 ICE SKATE 19642 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 119.00 19645 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRUCTOR FEE19645 ICE SKATE 19645 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRUCTOR FEE 23Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214186 5/7/2015 (Continued)072992 LYNNWOOD ICE CENTER 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 238.00 19646 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRUCTOR FEE19646 ICE SKATE 19646 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 297.50 Total :833.00 214187 5/7/2015 069862 MAKERS ARCHITECTURE AND 1438-4 Professional Services - DSD Code Update Professional Services - DSD Code Update 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 5,407.50 Total :5,407.50 214188 5/7/2015 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1593 INTERPRETER FEE PUBLIC DEFENDER INTERPRETER FEE PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 86.90 Total :86.90 214189 5/7/2015 075248 MAURISA MILLER 3-10660 #638955 UTILITY REFUND #638955 Utility refund due to estimated 411.000.233.000 104.68 Total :104.68 214190 5/7/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 28735087 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL stainless steel coupling 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 75.24 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 6.59 WWTP - SUPPLIES & REPAIR, MECHANICAL28735088 sealant & gasket 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 192.99 web sling w/ twisted eyes 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 173.88 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 4.26 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 4.81 24Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214190 5/7/2015 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL28853050 hole saws 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 40.30 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 6.20 Total :504.27 214191 5/7/2015 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC C 64918 Fac Maint - Supplies Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 38.72 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.68 Total :42.40 214192 5/7/2015 072223 MILLER, DOUG 4/1-4/29 GYM MONITOR 4/1-4/29/15 BASKETBALL GYM MONITOR 4/1-4/29/15 BASKETBALL GYM MONITOR 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 175.00 Total :175.00 214193 5/7/2015 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0404298-IN Water/Sewer - Muffs Water/Sewer - Muffs 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 59.70 Water/Sewer - Muffs 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 59.70 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5.67 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.67 Total :130.74 214194 5/7/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1194087 EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 111.65 Total :111.65 25Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214195 5/7/2015 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 556 Planning Brd minutes 4/22/15 Planning Brd minutes 4/22/15 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 459.00 Total :459.00 214196 5/7/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 270062 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 556.71 P&R CHALK, POST ITS, LABELS349245 P&R ADMIN: POST ITS, CHALK 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 12.68 CEMETERY: LABELS 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 24.45 Total :593.84 214197 5/7/2015 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER April, 2015 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL Emergency Medical Services & Trauma 001.000.237.120 1,782.33 PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account 001.000.237.130 36,385.79 Building Code Fee Account 001.000.237.150 171.00 State Patrol Death Investigation 001.000.237.330 101.72 Judicial Information Systems Account 001.000.237.180 6,380.43 School Zone Safety Account 001.000.237.200 351.51 Washington Auto Theft Prevention 001.000.237.250 3,508.61 Traumatic Brain Injury 001.000.237.260 680.05 Hwy Safety Acct 001.000.237.320 161.43 Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis 001.000.237.170 14.50 26Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214197 5/7/2015 (Continued)070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER WSP Hwy Acct 001.000.237.340 577.11 Total :50,114.48 214198 5/7/2015 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0000130 PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST SW & 84TH AV PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST SW & 84TH 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.53 CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW0001520 CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.60 CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH ST SW0001530 CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 43.06 SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR1040002930 SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR104 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.18 FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / METER R1300021400 FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 204.44 PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TH PL SW0026390 PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TH PL SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.18 Total :334.99 214199 5/7/2015 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 14774 YOST POOL SUPPLIES: SOD HYP, ACID MAG, S YOST POOL SUPPLIES: SOD HYP, ACID MAG, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,583.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 150.43 PM YOST POOL METAL-LOK14877 PM YOST POOL METAL-LOK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 500.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 47.50 27Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :2,281.432141995/7/2015 063750 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 214200 5/7/2015 072878 PACIFIC COAST CHEMICALS CO 5643 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATIONS Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 75.65 Total :75.65 214201 5/7/2015 075250 PARK, KAILI 4/30 REIMBURSEMENT 4/30 REIMBURSEMENT MILEAGE, PANTS PANTS AS PER CONTRACT 001.000.64.571.23.24.00 60.00 MILEAGE 001.000.64.571.23.43.00 23.35 Total :83.35 214202 5/7/2015 075251 PAYNICH, EMILY 5/4 REFUND 5/4 REFUND BIRTHDAY PARTY 5/4 REFUND BIRTHDAY PARTY 001.000.239.200 18.00 Total :18.00 214203 5/7/2015 073070 PERRINE, JULIE 19621 CLAY EXPLORATI 19621 CLAY EXPLORATION INSTRUCTOR FEE 19621 CLAY EXPLORATION INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 160.00 Total :160.00 214204 5/7/2015 075243 PINK ZEBRA CHEER 19648 CHEER 19648 SUPERSQUAD CHEER INSTRUCTOR FEE 19648 SUPERSQUAD CHEER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 196.00 Total :196.00 214205 5/7/2015 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC G654820 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC lashing ties 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 19.47 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 1.85 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICG666050 potw68x2Q1215 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 52.48 28Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214205 5/7/2015 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 64.74 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 11.14 Total :149.68 214206 5/7/2015 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 215416 Fleet- Setcom Postage Fleet- Setcom Postage 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 14.47 Fac Maint - SawStop Return Postage and215458 Fac Maint - SawStop Return Postage and 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 19.48 Total :33.95 214207 5/7/2015 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET 19566 FELDENKRAIS 19566 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTOR FEE 19566 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 397.00 Total :397.00 214208 5/7/2015 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 99854 INV#99854 - EDMONDS PD TOW 1994 GEO PRISM #AMS4324 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 214209 5/7/2015 006841 RICOH USA INC 5035616790 Additional images DSD Ricoh MP171SPF Additional images DSD Ricoh MP171SPF 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 12.99 Total :12.99 214210 5/7/2015 073819 ROCK SOLID LEARNING LLC 20078 TERRARIUM 20078 TERRARIUM WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR FEE 20078 TERRARIUM WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 42.90 Total :42.90 29Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214211 5/7/2015 075211 ROCKLER WOODWORKING & HARDWARE2908192 Fac Maint - Supplies Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 162.26 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.58 Total :177.84 214212 5/7/2015 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 8120 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 800.00 Total :800.00 214213 5/7/2015 071979 SACKVILLE, JODI L 4/29/15 Overtime refund for sick leave Overtime refund for sick leave 001.000.41.521.71.11.00 13.36 Total :13.36 214214 5/7/2015 075246 SCOTT BORGESON 5-09360 #500020369-KB UTILITY REFUND #500020369-KB Utility refund - received 411.000.233.000 61.65 Total :61.65 214215 5/7/2015 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 92174 E4FC.SERVICES THRU 4/11/15 E4FC.Services thru 4/11/15 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 6,220.11 Total :6,220.11 214216 5/7/2015 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-303806 Unit EQ98SO - Markers Unit EQ98SO - Markers 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 69.22 9.5% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 6.58 Total :75.80 214217 5/7/2015 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0500358 PM CITY PARK FLAGPOLE BED RENNOVATION PM CITY PARK FLAGPOLE BED RENNOVATION - 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 84.00 30Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214217 5/7/2015 (Continued)036955 SKY NURSERY 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.98 Total :91.98 214218 5/7/2015 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 15-107 2015 DEBT SERVICE PMT FIRE STN 20 2015 Prin Debt Service Pmt Fire Station 001.000.39.591.22.75.00 65,297.08 2015 Int Debt Service Pmt Fire Station 001.000.39.592.22.83.00 653.00 19656 FIRST AID/CPR INSTRUCTOR FEE19656 FIRST AID/CPR 19656 FIRST AID/CPR INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 200.00 Total :66,150.08 214219 5/7/2015 066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS I000382367 E4CA & E5CA.SERVICES THRU MARCH 2015 E4CA.Services thru March 2015 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 33,077.77 E5CA.Services thru March 2015 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 2,435.73 Total :35,513.50 214220 5/7/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0291-9 LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AVE / METER LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AVE / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 155.31 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W / METER 12002-7495-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.09 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W / METER 12004-9315-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 51.95 ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / METER 1000252006-6395-3 ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 664.67 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW / METER 12007-4860-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW / METER 31Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214220 5/7/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 30.98 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND AVE S / METE2009-1385-3 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND AVE S / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 43.53 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS WAY / METER2009-4334-8 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS WAY / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 66.91 BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 RAILROAD AVE2010-5432-7 BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 RAILROAD 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 149.54 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W / METER 12011-9222-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.28 LIFT STATION 7403 BALLINGER WAY / METER2014-2731-7 LIFT STATION 7403 BALLINGER WAY / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 30.98 LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON ST / METER2015-3292-6 LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON ST / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 335.36 TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W / METER 12015-8215-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 46.43 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) / NO2017-1178-5 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 905.92 WWTP FLOW METER 23219 74TH AVE W / METER2019-2991-6 WWTP FLOW METER 23219 74TH AVE W / 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 30.98 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE2020-7719-4 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 894.01 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 RAILROAD AV2021-3965-5 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 RAILROAD 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 44.26 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8909-6 32Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214220 5/7/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 117.51 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W / METER 12023-5673-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 59.65 LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST / METER 12024-9953-9 LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 968.56 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) / NO2025-2918-6 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2,725.02 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2025-2920-2 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 116.09 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) / N2025-7615-3 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 14,672.19 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) / NOT2025-7948-8 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 337.50 WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE / NOT MET2025-7952-0 WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE / NOT 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 8.80 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION & SUMP2026-2041-5 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION & SUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.02 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT M2047-1489-3 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 4.08 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) / NOT2047-1492-7 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 90.63 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2047-1493-5 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 47.75 33Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214220 5/7/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT2047-1494-3 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 12.13 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) / NOT2047-1495-0 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 164.81 DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 226122053-0758-0 DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 22612 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 289.30 Total :23,160.24 214221 5/7/2015 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE I000382370 INV#I000382370 CUST#SSHOOO95 EDMONDS PD SCSO RANGE USE 10 HRS 4/21/15 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 580.00 Total :580.00 214222 5/7/2015 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE SHELTON 2015 EDMONDS PD - ADV MOTOR CERT - SHELTON 2 ADV. MOTORS CERT. - ROTH 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 55.00 ADV. MOTORS CERT. - HARBINSON 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 55.00 ADV. MOTORS CERT. - FALK 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 55.00 Total :165.00 214223 5/7/2015 067809 SNOHOMISH COUNTY FINANCE I000382510 1ST HALF 2015 INTEREST 800 MHZ BILLING 1st Half 2015 800 MHZ Billing - Interest 001.000.39.592.21.83.00 11,653.21 1ST HALF 2015 SNO COM INTEREST BILLINGI000382511 1st Half 2015 SnoCom Billing - Interest 001.000.39.592.21.83.00 3,189.19 Total :14,842.40 214224 5/7/2015 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER April 2015 Crime Victims Court Remittance Crime Victims Court Remittance 34Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214224 5/7/2015 (Continued)070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 001.000.237.140 940.06 Total :940.06 214225 5/7/2015 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 550.68 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLING103584 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLING 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 29.95 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST103585 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 674.47 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST103586 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 555.23 PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING103587 PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 702.23 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N103588 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 459.89 Total :2,972.45 214226 5/7/2015 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4251684-01 WWTP - SAFETY EQUIPMENT safety - hip boots, steel toe 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 116.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 11.06 Total :127.46 214227 5/7/2015 074167 SOURCE NORTH AMERICA CORP 1252169 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICAL ethernet card & software upgrade 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 989.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 14.87 35Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214227 5/7/2015 (Continued)074167 SOURCE NORTH AMERICA CORP 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 95.37 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, ELECTRIC1252468 service department charges 423.000.76.535.80.41.22 601.50 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.22 57.15 Total :1,757.89 214228 5/7/2015 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 17604 LS #1 - Modifications LS #1 - Modifications 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 1,372.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 130.34 Total :1,502.34 214229 5/7/2015 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 11443391 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 60.29 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 5.73 Fleet Shop Supplies11445775 Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 234.53 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 22.28 Fleet Shop Supplies11445776 Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 16.52 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 1.57 Unit 138 - Supplies11447088 Unit 138 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.48 9.5% Sales Tax 36Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214229 5/7/2015 (Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.09 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL18074196 bosch 3" X 12" hex shank 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 26.64 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 2.53 Total :382.66 214230 5/7/2015 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 04/29/2015 Public Hearing Notice Public Hearing Notice 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 437.88 Total :437.88 214231 5/7/2015 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 3001799448 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,168.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 110.98 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE F. ANDERSON CENTER3001799538 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE FRANCES ANDERSON 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,116.81 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 106.10 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING LIBRARY3001799545 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SNO-ISLE 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 78.53 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTER3001799557 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTER 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 15.44 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTER3001799782 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTER 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 51.31 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER3001799791 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER 220 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 250.66 37Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214231 5/7/2015 (Continued)038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 23.81 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC CENTER3001799810 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC CENTER 250 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,050.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 99.77 Total :4,071.88 214232 5/7/2015 042750 TRIBUZIO, WALLACE 28 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 84.55 Total :84.55 214233 5/7/2015 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 21362 CHANGE SAFE COMBO CHANGE SAFE COMBO 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 117.71 PS - Keys21373 PS - Keys 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 57.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.42 Total :180.13 214234 5/7/2015 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9744423218 C/A 571242650-0001 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bld Dept 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 220.50 iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 55.99 iPad Cell Service Council 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 300.10 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 75.98 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Development 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 95.24 38Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214234 5/7/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 75.25 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 649.63 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 110.46 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 109.49 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 95.24 iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 95.24 iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 286.46 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 40.01 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Dept 001.000.64.571.21.42.00 95.24 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 883.37 Air cards Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 800.36 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning Dept 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 40.01 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 26.59 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 7.60 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 26.59 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 7.60 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 7.60 39Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214234 5/7/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Street Dept 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 188.97 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Fleet 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 55.23 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 120.63 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 120.62 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer Dept 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 205.28 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 245.29 iPad Cell Service Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 193.01 iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 264.37 C/A 772540262-000019744548188 Lift Station access 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 85.58 Total :5,583.53 214235 5/7/2015 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO 484780 Fac Maint - Cleaners, Liners, TT, Fac Maint - Cleaners, Liners, TT, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 808.64 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 76.82 Total :885.46 214236 5/7/2015 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6650 BUSINESS CARDS PUBLIC WORKS/ DEV. SERVIC RICK WICHERS BUSINESS CARDS 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 32.25 DENISE NELSON BUSINESS CARDS 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 32.50 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.08 40Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214236 5/7/2015 (Continued)073552 WELCO SALES LLC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 3.07 Water Quality - 5000 #10 Window6667 Water Quality - 5000 #10 Window 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 261.42 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 24.83 ENVELOPES6668 ENVELOPES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 286.25 Total :643.40 214237 5/7/2015 074609 WEST COAST ARMORY NORTH 16 INV#16 CUST ID#EPD - EDMONDS PD RANGE USAGE GAGNER 4/1/15 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 13.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 1.30 Total :15.00 214238 5/7/2015 061286 WESTERN FLUID COMPONENTS 631519-001 Unit EQ98SO - Supplies Unit EQ98SO - Supplies 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 101.62 9.5% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 9.66 Total :111.28 214239 5/7/2015 075244 WRIGHT, RICHARD 4/29 REFUND DEPOSIT 4/29 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 4/29 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 200.00 Total :200.00 214240 5/7/2015 064213 WSSUA TREASURER 242 SPRING ADULT SOFTBALL LEAGUE APRIL OFFIC SPRING ADULT SOFTBALL LEAGUE APRIL 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 2,145.00 Total :2,145.00 41Page: 05/07/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 8:42:39AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214241 5/7/2015 073079 ZONES INC S40898540101 INV#S40898540101 CUST#0058931122-EDMONDS PENTEX PERFORATED PAPER ROLLS 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 281.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 26.77 Total :308.53 Bank total :329,626.25137 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 329,626.25Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report137 42Page: 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 5/6/2015 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 5/6/2015 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 5/6/2015 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 5/6/2015 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 5/6/2015 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 5/6/2015 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 5/6/2015 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 5/6/2015 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 5/6/2015 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 5/6/2015 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 5/6/2015 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 5/6/2015 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 5/6/2015 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 5/6/2015 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 5/6/2015 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 746 (04/16/2015 to 04/30/2015) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description Educational Pay CorrectionREGULAR HOURS-ed2 0.00 -156.28 SICK LEAVE - L & ISICK120 8.00 183.50 SICK LEAVESICK121 382.25 12,409.71 VACATIONVACATION122 1,012.50 35,671.76 HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 97.00 3,466.97 FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 33.00 857.06 COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 249.75 8,595.63 Holiday Compensation UsedCOMP HOURS130 0.50 16.13 MILITARY LEAVEMILITARY131 48.00 1,296.00 BEREAVEMENTBEREAVEMENT141 27.00 873.69 Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 168.00 6,471.26 COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 89.00 3,933.45 MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 3.00 153.05 COUNCIL BASE PAYREGULAR HOURS170 700.00 7,000.00 COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAYREGULAR HOURS174 0.00 200.00 COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICALREGULAR HOURS175 0.00 1,389.86 REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 16,347.25 571,225.72 FIRE PENSION PAYMENTSREGULAR HOURS191 4.00 2,150.85 LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS193 85.00 2,461.66 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVEREGULAR HOURS195 18.00 1,158.87 LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS196 76.75 2,914.32 WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 36.00 1,788.11 STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 15.00 1,390.17 OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 229.75 14,966.58 OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 3.00 190.11 OUT OF CLASS - POLICEACTING PAY405 0.00 -75.31 WORKING OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUS410 0.00 690.82 SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 8.00 724.05 RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY600 0.00 1,207.78 ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS602 51.75 0.00 Holiday Comp 1.0COMP HOURS603 30.00 0.00 ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS604 163.25 0.00 CLOTHING ALLOWANCEMISCELLANEOUS903 0.00 -130.95 ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 24.70 05/05/2015 Page 1 of 2 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 746 (04/16/2015 to 04/30/2015) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description Accreditation 1% Part TimeMISCELLANEOUSacp 0.00 0.00 ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 169.99 BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 81.17 Collision ReconstructionistMISCELLANEOUScolre 0.00 138.69 TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 143.68 CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 516.16 DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUSdet 0.00 100.25 Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 975.70 EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed1 0.00 780.22 EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed2 0.00 718.40 EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed3 0.00 4,433.82 K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 95.43 LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITYlg1 0.00 1,741.27 LONGEVITY 5.5%LONGEVITYlg10 0.00 407.75 LONGEVITY PAY 4%LONGEVITY PAYlg2 0.00 829.20 LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAYlg3 0.00 5,282.79 Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 184.71 Longevity .5%LONGEVITYlg6 0.00 290.03 Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 873.74 Longevity 3.5%LONGEVITYlg9 0.00 86.45 Medical Leave SickSICKmels 66.00 2,297.28 MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUSmtc 0.00 200.50 Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUSpds 0.00 46.65 PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 1,689.84 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUSprof 0.00 153.70 SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%MISCELLANEOUSsdp 0.00 504.43 ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTMISCELLANEOUSsgt 0.00 150.88 SICK LEAVE ADD BACKSICKslw 298.65 0.00 TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 315.78 Total Net Pay:$478,364.20 $706,257.78 20,250.40 05/05/2015 Page 2 of 2 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 746 - 04/16/2015 to 04/30/2015 Bank: usbank - US Bank Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 61601 05/05/2015 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,150.00 0.00 61602 05/05/2015 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 117.00 0.00 61603 05/05/2015 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 1,071.33 0.00 61604 05/05/2015 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 1,028.10 0.00 61605 05/05/2015 cope SEIU COPE 62.00 0.00 61606 05/05/2015 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 3,500.97 0.00 61607 05/05/2015 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 724.00 0.00 61608 05/05/2015 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,199.51 0.00 9,852.91 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 2214 05/05/2015 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 194,343.22 0.00 2215 05/05/2015 aflac AFLAC 5,093.20 0.00 2219 05/05/2015 us US BANK 94,169.90 0.00 2220 05/05/2015 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 86,032.80 0.00 2221 05/05/2015 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 20,634.50 0.00 2223 05/05/2015 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,207.60 0.00 2224 05/05/2015 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 48.50 0.00 405,529.72 0.00 415,382.63 0.00Grand Totals: Page 1 of 15/5/2015    AM-7707     4. D.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Linda Hynd Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Marisa Matera ($2,000,000.00). Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action  N/A Narrative Marisa Matera 6727 7th Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98117 ($2,000,000.00) Attachments Matera Claim for Damages Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 05/07/2015 01:58 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/07/2015 02:01 PM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 05/07/2015 12:08 PM Final Approval Date: 05/07/2015     AM-7669     4. E.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Kody McConnell Department:Public Works Type: Action  Information Subject Title Authorization to Contract with James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Vehicles Recommendation It is recommended that authorization be given to Public Works to contract with James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Previously, the city has utilized the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles and equipment. This has proven to be a cost effective method to manage surplus items.  The following vehicles are presented to be auctioned as surplus: Unit# 91 STR 2002 New Holland Tractor/Mower VIN 184014B Unit# 133 PRK 2003 Isuzu Flatbed Truck VIN 4KLB4B1R03J801984  Unit# 26 FAC 2010 Chevrolet Express Van VIN 1GC2GTBG5A1138001  Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue:$28,000 Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: Monies will be deposited into the 511 B-Fund replacement account. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 04/24/2015 10:42 AM Mayor Dave Earling 04/24/2015 11:11 AM Mayor Dave Earling 04/24/2015 11:11 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 04/24/2015 11:12 AM Form Started By: Kody McConnell Started On: 04/24/2015 10:09 AM Final Approval Date: 04/24/2015     AM-7697     4. F.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Approval of City Park Construction Management Reserve Recommendation Council approve a City Park construction management reserve in the amount of $72,891 be added to the City Park construction budget.  Previous Council Action Council authorized expenditures and received grants for City Park Spray and Play revitalization. Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement with MacLeod Reckord for Architectural and Engineering services for the City Park revitalization project. Council authorized the Mayor to sign an award of bid for the Play Equipment. Council authorized the Mayor to sign an award of bid for the Spray Equipment. Council terminated contracts with MacLeod Reckord and Aquatic Specialty Services Council awarded bid to Site Workshop to design the Spray pad portion of the project. Council approved updated project budget in December 2014 ( see attached). Council authorized the purchase of the spray equipment in March 2015. On April 28, 2015, Council awarded the bid to Wyser Construction, Inc. for the construction of the Spray Pad at City Park in the amount of $728,919.60. On April 29, 2015, Council authorized the granting of a utility easement on tax parcel 27032600101300 (City Park) to Snohomish County PUD No. 1 and Frontier Communications Northwest, Inc. for the purpose of providing primary power for the City Park Spray Pad. Narrative The bids that came in for the construction of the City Park Spray Pad ranged from $728,919.60 - $1,091,867.21.  Council awarded the bid to the lowest bidder on April 28,2015.  At that time, the Council agenda noted that staff would be bringing back this request to Council before the construction begins. The lowest bid construction amount was 10% over the Engineer's estimate, but still fell within the Council approved budget, but used the 10% management reserve before breaking ground.  Staff would like to request additional management reserve be approved so the construction can be managed efficiently.   If any unanticipated conditions occur, or if any type of redesign needs to happen in the field, it is common practice to have a reserve to utilize as opposed to waiting 2-3 weeks to schedule approval at a Council meeting.  This allows for efficient project management, and does not slow or stop construction awaiting approvals. The $72,891 is already authorized in REET 125, but will need to be allocated to the City Park project.   This is on the consent agenda after discussion with the Council President.  There wasn't available capacity on the Council agenda for a full presentation until June, and since this project has been in front of Council many times in the past year, it was decided to seek approval on the consent agenda.  Staff would like to break ground in mid May, so as to have ample time for the Spray Pad to open before we reach the weather window.  If Council has any questions on this, please feel free to email or call, or pull it from the consent agenda for a brief discussion.  Prior to this action, following is the background on the City Park Spray and Play revitalization project. In March, 2015, Council awarded the bid to Aquatic Specialty Services for purchase of the spray equipment.  In December 2014, Council received an update of the City park project and approved of the project budget.  Also, in preparation for the construction permit and bid documents, the City Council approved additional services for Site Workshop for design services for the pedestrian improvements into the park, and preparation of separate bid documents for the Spray Pad equipment.  The pedestrian improvements were required by the SEPA that was issued, and something that is necessary for the project.  As a recommendation from our City transportation engineer, there will be lights added to the already existing crosswalk.  Site Workshop is in the process of designing this portion so it can be included in the construction bid documents.  The design services cost an additional $1800 and were included in the Council approved budget in December 2014. Council received an update on February 25th and April 1, 2014, as staff worked through design challenges, phasing the project with the installation of the Play Equipment and contracting with Site Workshop for the redesign of the Spray Pad.  The City hosted a very successful community build project in June 2014 to replace the play equipment. We also worked with the Student Conservation Corps to begin the wetland mitigation in the wetland buffer area directly north of the park. We have been working with Site Workshop for 100% construction documents for the spray pad. A building permit was issued for the construction of the Spray Pad in December 2014.  Since then, the City bid out the Spray equipment, prepared construction bid documents, and completed a successful bid process.  We are now ready to contract for construction and are hopeful to break ground in mid May, 2015.  The approved budget for construction is attached for your reference. Attachments Spray Pad bid tabulation Wyser Construction bid City Park budget Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 05/06/2015 04:05 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/06/2015 04:07 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/07/2015 07:46 AM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 05/06/2015 11:30 AM Final Approval Date: 05/07/2015  City Park Spraypark City of Edmonds Permit Phase Cost Estimate 12/8/2014 SiteWorkshop Page 1 EDMONDS CITY PARK SPRAYPARK (DRAFT)General Contractor Markups Project Size: General Conditions:8% Bid Date: Winter 2014 Overhead & Profit 11% Duration: 5-6 Months Estimating Contingency:10% Escalation:0% Unit of Unit Total Estimated Base Bid No. Description Quantity Measure Cost Raw Cost Cost w/GC markups TESC Subtotal $16,820 $19,763 Site Clearing & Demolition Subtotal $6,450 $8,321 Earthwork Subtotal $29,050 $37,475 Storm Drainage Subtotal $66,680 $86,017 Water Service Subtotal 6,035$ 7,785$ Sanitary Sewer Subtotal 32,287$ 41,650$ Electrical (Power) Subtotal $48,564 $58,297 Surfacing, Walls, and Curbs Crosswalk Improvements on 3rd 1 Allow $20,000.00 $20,000 $25,800 Subtotal $111,072 $143,283 Site Furnishings & Fixtures Subtotal $1,200 $1,548 Play Equipment and Surfacing Subtotal $9,578 $12,356 Sprayground Mech Building/HVAC Subtotal $45,213 $46,725 Sprayground Water Quality System & Controls Subtotal $188,440 $197,401 Sprayground Play Products Subtotal $265,298 $306,332 Pre-Tax Bid Total (MACC):$826,687 $966,952 Sales Tax(9.5%):$91,860 Construction Grand Total $1,058,812    AM-7698     5.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Information  Information Subject Title Presentation of WRPA award to Bruce Higgins Recommendation Council thank Bruce Higgins for his service to the City. Previous Council Action None Narrative Annually, the Washington Recreation and Park Association award the Citation of Merit for an individual who has contributed significantly to the field of parks and recreation. This year, WRPA selected Bruce Higgins to receive this award.  This is a re-presentation of the award so Bruce's accomplishments can be recognized by the Mayor, Council, and the community in which he lives. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 05/06/2015 04:05 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/06/2015 04:07 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/07/2015 07:46 AM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 05/06/2015 11:42 AM Final Approval Date: 05/07/2015     AM-7696     6.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted For:Mayor Earling Submitted By:James Lawless Department:Police Department Type: Action  Information Subject Title Proclamation Recognizing National Police Week Recommendation N/A Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Again this year, communities across the United States will come together during National Police Week—May 10-16—to honor and remember those law enforcement officers who made the ultimate sacrifice, as well as the family members, friends and fellow officers they left behind. This year, the names of 273 officers killed in the line of duty are being added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, DC. These 273 officers include 117 officers who were killed during 2014, plus 156 officers who died in previous years but whose stories of sacrifice had been lost to history until now. The names of all 286 fallen officers nationwide will be formally dedicated on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, DC, during the 27th Annual Candlelight Vigil on the evening of May 13, 2015. So that people across the country can experience this unique and powerful ceremony, the vigil will be webcast live over the Internet beginning at 8 PM (EDT) on May 13th. To register for this free online event, visit www.LawMemorial.org/webcast. The Candlelight Vigil is one of many commemorative events taking place in the nation’s capital during National Police Week 2015. The national observance is organized by a group of organizations led by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF), Concerns of Police Survivors, the Fraternal Order of Police and the Fraternal Order of Police Auxiliary. On May 15th each year, the Fraternal Order of Police and the Fraternal Order of Police Auxiliary host a ceremony on the west steps of the U.S. Capitol to honor fallen law enforcement officers and their families. In tribute to American law enforcement officers and at the request of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, Public Law 103-322 designates May 15th National Peace Officers Memorial Day, which is one of only two days each year during which government agencies, businesses and residents are to fly their U.S. flags at half staff. By way of this proclamation, the City of Edmonds publicly recognizes the daily sacrafices made by law enforcement. Attachments Attachment 1 - Proclamation Police Week Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 05/06/2015 04:05 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/06/2015 04:07 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/07/2015 07:46 AM Form Started By: James Lawless Started On: 05/06/2015 11:30 AM Final Approval Date: 05/07/2015     AM-7702     8.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted For:Shane Hope Submitted By:Shane Hope Department:Development Services Type: Information  Information Subject Title Presentation by Alliance for Housing Affordability Recommendation Consider the information and ask any questions Previous Council Action The City Council authorized Edmonds' participation in the countywide Alliance for Housing Affordability. Narrative MAY 12 MEETING At the May 12 meeting, Kristina Gallant, analyst for the Alliance for Housing Affordability, will present information about the Alliance and the work it is doing. BACKGROUND Edmonds is a member of the Alliance for Housing Affordability, which was established in 2013 through an interlocal agreement.  The Alliance was envisioned as a venue for jurisdictions in Snohomish County to work together to understand local housing challenges and share resources to address these challenges.  Currently, 13 cities, the County, and the Housing Authority of Snohomish County comprise the Alliance's membership. One full-time professional staffs the Alliance and each jurisdiction provides its funding share (based on population) to cover Alliance staffing and related expenses.  The Alliance has a board that meets quarterly, with representation from each of the jurisdictions, to direct the organization's work.  (Councilmember Diane Buckshnis has been active in getting the organization started.) Last year, the Alliance's efforts included gathering and compilation of data to create a housing profile for most of its member jurisdictions.  The Profile was very valuable for jurisdictions in updating their Comprehensive Plans.  The Edmonds Housing Profile was presented to the City Council on October 28, 2014.  Key parts of the data were used for the Housing Element proposed for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update. For more background on the Alliance, see: www.housingallies.org.   CURRENT/FUTURE WORK The Alliance's work program includes: --Updating, synthesizing, and analyzing data --Identifying funding sources for affordable housing --Providing technical expertise to member jurisdictions --Providing education and information to assist elected officials in addressing housing issues --Facilitating collaboration on housing policies and priorities. Note:  The Edmonds Draft Comprehensive Plan includes an action step to develop a more specific housing strategy by 2019.  The Alliance could assist with this effort. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 05/07/2015 12:47 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/07/2015 01:55 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/07/2015 02:01 PM Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 05/07/2015 09:06 AM Final Approval Date: 05/07/2015     AM-7701     9.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 Time:15 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.  Include two new implementation strategies in the element (last part of 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.)    9.              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.  Include two new implementation strategies in the element (last part of 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.)  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 latter step can be accomplished through the addition of illustrative photos in the Street Tree Plan as it is updated in the near future.] NEXT STEPS --May 12 - 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 minutes of 4.8.15 Att. 7: May 12 Presentation Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 05/07/2015 12:57 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/07/2015 01:55 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/07/2015 02:01 PM Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 05/07/2015 08:57 AM Final Approval Date: 05/07/2015  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 latter step can be accomplished through the addition of illustrative photos in the Street Tree Plan as it is updated in the near future.] NEXT STEPS --May 12 - 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 minutes of 4.8.15 Att. 7: May 12 Presentation Form Review Date 05/07/2015 12:57 PM 05/07/2015 01:55 PM 05/07/2015 02:01 PM Started On: 05/07/2015 08:57 AM Final Approval Date: 05/07/2015  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. 126 Community Culture and Urban Design DRAFT 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. Community Culture and Urban Design 127 DRAFT 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 190 Community Culture and Urban Design DRAFT 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. Community Culture and Urban Design 191 DRAFT 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. 2015 STREET TREE PLAN DRAFT 2010 STREET TREE PLAN 121 Downtown street tree distribution map. 2006 STREET TREE PLAN 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. 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. APPROVED APRIL 22ND 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 Matt Cheung 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 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. APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 8, 2015 Page 2 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 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 8, 2015 Page 3 STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES City Council Meeting | May 12th, 2015 | Agenda Item #6 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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. 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. Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES Draft 2015 Street Tree Plan 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. 3rd Ave N between ECA and Caspers St. Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES 2015 Street Tree Plan changes Changed species from Kwansan Cherry to Capital Pear The Kwansan Cherry is a good tree in park-like settings, but as a street tree we have found it does not perform well due to irregular shape, difficult to prune, and roots are very invasive lifting sidewalks and streets where planted. This tree is also prone to many types of diseases and pest problems. Lower Main St between 5th Ave N and ferry Kwansan Cherry on Main St. near 9th Ave N. 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 as Amanogawa Cherry, not Sargents Cherry. In general, cherry trees have not performed well as street trees in Edmonds. The Tree Board 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. Civic Center Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES 2015 Street Tree Plan changes Changed species from Kwansan Cherry to Bowhall Maple The Kwansan Cherry is a good tree in park-like settings, but as a street tree we have found it does not perform well due to irregular shape, difficult to prune, and roots are very invasive lifting sidewalks and streets where planted. This tree is also prone to many types of diseases and pest problems. Upper Main St. between 5th Ave N. and 9th A v e N . Kwansan Cherry on Main St. near 9th Ave N. 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 4th Ave. Cultural Corridor 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. Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps STREETSCAPE & STREET TREES Planning Board •March 11t h - Introduction to Streetscape & Street Tree update. •April 8t h - 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. •M a y 12 t h - Discussion on the Streetscape & Street Tree update. •June/July – More public input & final Decision of full Comp Plan. Bowhall Maples planted at the Public Safety Building    AM-7671     10.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Mary Ann Hardie Department:Human Resources Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Forward to Consent Information Subject Title Civil Service Commission (EMC 10.25.090) update – Filling of vacancies-Probationary Period Recommendation Forward  to full Council on consent the updated change to the Civil Service Commission (EMC 10.25.090) increasing the number of candidate names on the eligibility list(s) for both entry and lateral level police officer to allow for 20 candidate names per list instead of only 10 candidate names. Previous Council Action None Narrative The entry and lateral level Police Officer testing process is a continuous one that results in respective eligibility lists. Under Civil Service Rules and Regulations (7.5 – Continuous Testing), continuous testing shall mean a periodic examination process for any class, other than promotional examinations. The filing of applications shall be open, and the examinations shall be periodically administered, according to the needs of the service. Continuous testing may, at the discretion of the Commission, be offered through the Secretary/Chief examiner or pursuant to a subscription testing agreement. Continuous testing examinations shall be administered in accordance with the Commission’s adopted standards and rules. The names of qualified candidates, who complete the examination and meet the standards established by the Commission, shall be registered into a candidate pool for a period of one calendar year, beginning with the date of examination by the subscription testing agency. Names of candidates from successive examinations shall be registered into the same candidate pool for that class. Continuous testing examinations must have public notice, stating the examination is open and providing information on the examination schedules. After the eligibility list from the each continuous testing process is compiled, this list is presently forwarded with the names of the top ten (10) candidates (in rank order based upon their final examination scores including any veteran’s preference points, if applicable) for certification at the next Civil Service meeting. The department will then proceed further with the selection/hiring process of the 10 candidate names on the list.  While 10 candidate names on the eligibility list may seem like a reasonable number of candidates, during the hiring process, the 10 candidates on the list are often hired by other agencies, “wash out” due to disqualification during the background check process, are disqualified for cause, passed over and/or may remain on the list, etc. Given these challenges combined with the nature of the hiring environment (which is an extremely competitive one), finding qualified candidates is difficult and candidates are receiving multiple offers before the department is even able to make a conditional offer of employment.  For this reason, having a list of 20 candidate names instead of 10 candidate names (some of whom may not be eligible for, may opt out of the hiring process or may be disqualified) on the Civil Service eligibility list(s) would be extremely helpful to the department in order to be able to fill vacancies for to maintain appropriate staffing levels.  In this proposal to update the code, the process would remain the same but the entry level and lateral lists would be expanded to up to 20 in rank order for certification by the Commission. If the Council approves the update to the Code and the Commission approves this change, the Civil Service Rules and Regulations will also be updated to reflect this change.  Several other minor updates to the Code are also suggested in the draft version, specifically removing references to the Fire Department, plus some additional language to conform this particular section of EMC Title 10 with other complimentary sections of the Code. Attachments 10.25 Civil Service Ordinance  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 05/01/2015 03:29 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/01/2015 05:09 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/04/2015 07:14 AM Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 05/06/2015 11:55 AM Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Started On: 04/24/2015 03:12 PM Final Approval Date: 05/06/2015  ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CERTAIN “FILLING OF VACANCIES” PROVISIONS OF ECC 10.25 (“CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION”); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined that there is a need for clarification in the Edmonds City Code regarding the intent of certain provisions of the “Filling of Vacancies” section of the Civil Service Rules adopted by the City of Edmonds’ Civil Service Commission; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds wishes to revise this section to allow for the necessary clarification; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subsection .090 of Section 10.25 of the ECC Civil Service Commission is hereby amended to read as follows (deleted text in strike-through; new text in underline): 10.25.090 Filling of vacancies – Probationary period. A. Original Appointment to Department. Whenever a vacancy exists, or upon the request of the appointing authority, the commission shall certify the names of the persons highest on the applicable eligibility list for the class who are willing to accept appointments in the following numbers: 1. For lists developed through internal testing on an annual basis, or more frequently as requested by the appointing authority, the names of the top five candidates in rank order based upon their final examination scores, including veteran’s preference, if applicable, persons highest on the applicable eligibility list for the class. 2. In the continuing testing process, the names of no more than either the top 20 candidates in rank order based upon their final examination scores, including - 1 - veterans’ preference, if applicable.10 individuals or the top 10 percent, whichever is greater. B. Promotion Appointments. Whenever the appointing authority determines that a vacancy shall be filled by a promotional appointment, the commission shall certify from the appropriate eligibility list names as follows: 1. For each and every police officer position above the rank of second class police officer, the commission shall certify the three highest names on such list, from which the appointing authority may appoint any one. 2. For each and every position above the rank of fire lieutenant in the fire department, the commission shall certify the three highest names on such list, from which the appointment authority may appoint any one. 3. For all positions in the fire department including or below the rank of fire lieutenant, the commission shall certify the highest name on the eligibility list. 24. For all other employee and noncommissioned positions covered by civil service, the commission shall certify the three highest names on the eligibility list, from which the appointing authority may appoint any one. 35. Nothing herein shall obligate the appointment authority to fill any position. … Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 3. 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: - 2 - MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: 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. - 3 - 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 CERTAIN “FILLING OF VACANCIES” PROVISIONS OF ECC 10.25 (“CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION”); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2015. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY - 4 -    AM-7673     11.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted By:Jim Stevens Department:Public Works Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Action Information Subject Title Naming Fire Station #16. Recommendation Staff recommends that council consider the presented options for appropriate verbiage to name the Fire Station, and forward this item to the next full Council meeting for finalizing the selection. Previous Council Action In June of last year Council approved a policy for naming of City facilities.  Following that policy, Council approved the naming of Fire Station #16 in honor of citizen Betty Mueller on March 3, 2015.  At that meeting, a committee was formed to make recommendations about the how, what and where of creating and placing this memorial. Narrative An ad hoc committee consisting of Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, citizens Rich Demeroutis and Dave Page, and staff member Jim Stevens has met twice in the interim since Council approved naming Fire Station #16 in honor of Betty Mueller.  Approximately $1500 in contributions have been collected for the cost of signage as of the end of April.  In order to obtain  firm quotes for this signage, the exact wording for it must first be determined.  The committee has offered three alternatives at this point: Betty Mueller Memorial Building The Betty Mueller Fire Hall The Betty Mueller Memorial Fire Hall These options are offered to the Council for consideration.  The desired type (metal lettering) and location of this signage is mocked up and  shown in the attachment to this agenda item.  It would be beneath the "Fire Station 16" lettering over the center overhead door.  Once the selection is made, the committee will continue its work to price and obtain the signage with the funds available.   Attachments Metal Lettering Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Public Works Phil Williams 04/30/2015 12:00 PM Public Works Phil Williams 04/30/2015 12:00 PM Parks and Recreation Renee McRae 04/30/2015 12:37 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: Jim Stevens Started On: 04/27/2015 12:30 PM Final Approval Date: 04/30/2015     AM-7700     12.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted For:Ryan Hague Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Presentation of final construction costs for the 15th Street Walkway Project and acceptance of project. Recommendation Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the May 19, 2015 City Council meeting. Previous Council Action On September 16, 2014, Council awarded a contract to Kamins Construction in the amount of $233,752.62 for the 15th St SW Walkway. Narrative On October 20, 2014, Kamins Construction was given the Notice to Proceed with construction, stipulating 25 working days for completion. This project is one of several “Safe Routes to School” grants won by the City of Edmonds during the 2012 grant cycle. These projects are intended to increase safety and accessibility for students walking or biking to area schools.  The project installed a sidewalk in the southernmost 5’ of the eastbound lanes of 15th St SW between Edmonds Way and 8th Ave S.  The project costs were funded by Safe Routes to School grant HLP-SR13(009). The contract award amount was $233,753 and Council approved a management reserve of $11,700. During the course of the contract, no added-cost change orders were written against the project.  The project is now complete and the final cost paid to Kamins Construction was $200,868.  Attachments Project Map Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 05/07/2015 08:40 AM Public Works Phil Williams 05/07/2015 09:13 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/07/2015 09:14 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/07/2015 09:33 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/07/2015 09:34 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 05/06/2015 02:34 PM Final Approval Date: 05/07/2015  © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet Notes Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 318.750 1:7,650 15TH St. SW Sidewalk 637.5    AM-7699     13.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted For:Mike DeLilla Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Presentation of the construction contract award for the 2015 Watermain Replacement Project Recommendation Place item on the consent agenda for approval after the construction bids have been opened and a low bidder is determined. Previous Council Action None. Narrative This project is part of the City’s program to replace and upgrade existing waterlines at various locations around the City that are reaching the end of their useful service life, are undersized and unable to meet current requirements, or has some other existing system deficiency.  The project will replace at various locations around the City approximately 9,400 linear feet of waterline piping with associated meters, fire hydrants, and two pressure reducing stations.   The project costs are being funded by the 421 Water Utility Fund and the General Funds available for fire protection costs.   Construction bids are due by May 14, 2015, which may provide an opportunity to award the project at the May 19th City Council Meeting.  The bid results, project budget and recommendation to award will be provided in the agenda memo for either the May 19th or May 26th City Council meeting.  Construction is expected to begin in June and be completed by January 2016.  Attachments Project Map Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 05/06/2015 04:47 PM Public Works Phil Williams 05/07/2015 09:13 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/07/2015 09:14 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/07/2015 09:33 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/07/2015 09:34 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 05/06/2015 02:25 PM Final Approval Date: 05/07/2015  2015 Waterline Replacement Program #10-Intertie w/Lynnwood #9-PRV @ Meadowdale Beach#8-PRV@ Meadowdale #1-Puget Drive-9th Ave to Olympic Ave #2-Sierra Pl #7-Edmonds St-10th Pl to Olympic Ave #3-Cedar St, 8th Ave & View Pl #4-Aloha St, Daley St & 8th Ave. #5-Railroad Ave. S #6-Main St, Durbin Dr & 7th Ave.76th Ave WMain St 196th St SWOlympic View D r Pine St 66th Ave W84th Ave W220th St SW88th Ave W208th St SW 7 4 t h A v e W68th Ave W9th Ave NBowdoin Wy 212th St SW Dayton St 100tn Ave WT a l b o t R d N 205th St/244th St SW3rd Ave SOlympic Ave200th St SW 80th Ave W224th St SW Timber Ln95th Pl W75th PL W72nd Ave W2 3 1 s t St SW 206th St SW 240th St SW 74th Ave WN 205th St/244th St SW80th Ave WI-5 99 104 524 City of Edmonds Mapbook    AM-7694     14.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted For:JoAnne Zulauf Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Presentation of a Sprint Master Use Agreement and Site Use Agreement for installation, operation and maintenance of their wireless equipment in the right of way. Recommendation Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval at an upcoming City Council meeting once a notice regarding the ordinance has been published in accordance with RCW 35A.47.040. Previous Council Action On January 27, 2015, staff presented the proposed documents to the City Council.  Narrative This item was presented at the City Council study session on January 27, 2015. During the discussion, a question was raised on whether the proposed MUA would change or prevent the land use code from applying to Sprint's new wireless sites in the City right of way. To address this concern, the City Attorney has added the language “requirements of Chapter 20.50 ECDC and the” to Section 2, "Authority Granted" on page 3 of the MUA.    Attached is a proposed Master Use Agreement (MUA) with Sprint Spectrum (Sprint) to allow installation, operation and maintenance of wireless communication equipment in the City’s right of way. This agreement is consistent in form with other MUA’s previously executed with AT&T, T-Mobile and Clearwire. The terms and conditions of the MUA were negotiated between staff and Michael Bradley, of Lighthouse Law Group. In addition, Mr. Bradley recommended raising the fee structure to the following rates to be more consistent with the marketplace:  Old Fee New Fee New structure/equipment in ROW $5,000 $12,000 New structure/no equipment in ROW $3,000 $11,000 Existing/replaced structure/equipment in ROW $2,000 $10,000 Existing/replaced/no equipment in ROW $2,000 $9,000 The MUA includes a boilerplate Site Use Agreement (Exhibit B) that will be executed for each site installed within the City. The purpose of this agreement is to formalize the date, location and fee of new installations.  The Site Use Agreement is a new procedure that is being implemented with this MUA to document wireless communication sites installed within the City’s right of way. The second attachment is a Site Use Agreement for Sprint’s wireless facilities at 8730 Main St. The City issued Sprint a building permit to install an antenna on a Snohomish PUD pole on October 8, 2013. The Agreement addresses the back payment ($11,250) due for the time the facilities were installed to the finalization of the proposed MUA. If the City Council has no further changes to the documents, then a notice regarding the ordinance will need to be published before it is adopted by the City Council in accordance with RCW 35A.47.040.  Attachments Exhibit A - Sprint Master Use Agreement Exhibit B - Sprint Site Use Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 05/07/2015 04:16 PM Public Works Phil Williams 05/07/2015 04:42 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/08/2015 07:37 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/08/2015 08:13 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/08/2015 08:22 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 05/05/2015 04:06 PM Final Approval Date: 05/08/2015  ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, GRANTING TO SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ITS MEMBER, A MASTER USE AGREEMENT, TO INSTALL, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES WITHIN A CERTAIN DESIGNATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, STATE OF WASHINGTON, PRESCRIBING CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Sprint Spectrum L.P., (“Sprint” or “Permittee”) has requested that the City of Edmonds (“City”) grant it the right to install, operate, and maintain wireless communication facilities (“Communication Facilities,” as further defined hereunder) within the public ways of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found it desirable for the welfare of the City and its residents that a master use agreement (“Master Use Agreement” or “Agreement”) to address the installation of multiple Communication Facilities in the public ways be granted to Sprint; and WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority under RCW 35A.47.040 to grant such Master Use Agreement and any appropriate installation and maintenance permits (“Permits,” as further defined hereunder) as may be required to address the installation and maintenance of specific Communication Facilities in the streets and other public properties of the City; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to grant the rights requested subject to certain terms and conditions, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this Master Use Agreement, the following terms, phrases, words, and abbreviations shall have the meanings ascribed to them below. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense, words in the plural number include the singular number and words in the singular number include the plural number. a. “Affiliate” means an entity which owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership with the Permittee. b. “City” means the City of Edmonds, Washington. c. “Communication Service” shall mean any telecommunications services, telecommunications capacity, or dark fiber, provided by the Permittee using its Communication Facilities, either directly or as a carrier for its subsidiaries, or Affiliates, including, but not limited to, the transmission of voice, data or other electronic information, facsimile reproduction, burglar alarm monitoring, meter reading and home shopping, or other subsequently developed technology which carries an electronic signal over fiber optic cable. However, Communications Service shall not include the provision of cable television, open video, or similar services, as defined in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, for which a separate permit and franchise would be required. d. “Communication Facilities” or “Facilities” shall mean only the Permittee’s wireless communications installations and attendant structures constructed and operated within the City’s Public Way (as defined below), and shall include all cables, wires, conduits, ducts, pedestals, and any associated converter, equipment, or other facilities within the City’s Public Way, designed and constructed for the purpose of providing Communication Service. This definition shall include such facilities as currently installed and any additional facilities as are approved pursuant to Chapter 20.50, Wireless Communications Facilities, of the Edmonds Community Development Code and which are allowed pursuant to an associated Right- of-Way Construction Permit, as defined immediately below. e. “Right-of-Way Construction Permit” or “Permit” shall mean that permit required of Sprint by the City in order to (i) install new Facilities, (ii) perform routine maintenance activities as to existing Facilities, or (iii) to acknowledge Permittee’s access to its Facilities after the fact, immediately following resolution of emergencies having necessitated Permittee’s immediate access of its existing Facilities, within the public ways of the City, pursuant to EMC Chapter 18.60. Each Permit, issued by the City shall be attached to this Agreement as Exhibit “B.” f. “FCC” means the Federal Communications Commission or any successor federal governmental entity hereto. g. “Permittee” means Sprint Spectrum L.P., or the lawful successor, transferee, or assignee thereof. h. “Person” means an individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, corporation, or governmental entity. 2 i. “Public Way” shall mean the surface of, and any space above or below, any public street, highway, freeway, bridge, path, alley, court, boulevard, sidewalk, parkway, lane, drive circle, or other public right-of-way, including, but not limited to, public utility easements, utility strips, or rights-of-way dedicated for compatible uses and any temporary or permanent fixtures or improvements located thereon now or hereafter held by the City in the Service Area which shall entitle the City and the Permittee the use thereof for the purpose of installing, operating, repairing, and maintaining the Communication Facilities. Public Way also shall mean any easement now or hereafter held by the City within the Service Area for the purpose of public travel, or for utility or public service use dedicated for compatible uses, and shall include other easements or rights-of-way as shall within their proper use and meaning entitle the City and the Permittee to the use thereof for the purposes of installing or transmitting the Permittee’s Communication Service over poles, wires, cable, conductors, amplifiers, appliances, attachments, and other property as may be ordinarily necessary and pertinent to the Communication Facilities. Section 2. Authority Granted. The City hereby grants to the Permittee, its heirs, successors, legal representatives, and assigns, subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.50 ECDC and the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the right, privilege, and authority to construct, reconstruct, upgrade, expand, operate, maintain, replace, and use all necessary equipment thereto necessary for the operation of Permittee’s Communication Facilities. However, only the Permittee is authorized to place its Communications Facilities in, under, on, across, over, through, along, or below the Public Way of the City described in a separate Site Use Agreement, which will be attached as Exhibit “A” hereto. Section 3. Construction Right-of-Way Use Permits Required A. Prior to site-specific location and installation of any portion of its Communication Facilities within a public way, the Permittee shall apply for and obtain a Construction Right-of- Way Permit ECDC Chapter 18.60. In some situations, new or replacement structures may be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit depending on their size and location. B. Unless otherwise provided in said Permit, the Permittee shall give the City at least forty-eight (48) hours notice of the Permittee’s intent to commence work in the Public Ways. The Permittee shall file plans or maps with the City showing the proposed location of its Communication Facilities and pay all duly established Right-of-Way Construction Permit and inspection fees associated with the processing of the Right-of-Way Use Permit. In no case shall any work commence within any public way without said Permit, except as otherwise provided in this Master Use Agreement. Section 4. Grant Limited to Occupation. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to grant or convey any right, title, or interest in the Public Ways of the City to the Permittee, nor shall anything contained herein constitute a warranty of title. Section 5. Term of Master Use Agreement. The term of this Master Use Agreement shall be for a period of Five (5) years from the date of acceptance as set forth in Section 32, 3 unless sooner terminated (“Initial Term”). The Master Use Agreement shall automatically renew for three (3) additional five (5) year terms based upon the terms and conditions herein (each a “Renewal Term”). Provided, however, that either party may notify the other of its desire to renegotiate any of the terms set forth herein or of its desire to add to or delete any such terms no later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the Initial Term hereof or any subsequent Renewal Terms. If either party makes such a request, this Master Use Agreement shall not renew unless and until the City and Permittee reach an agreement on said modification, addition, and or deletions, and said agreement is approved by ordinance of the City Council. In the event that agreement cannot be reached, this Master Use Agreement shall terminate at the end of the then current term. Nothing in this Section prevents the parties from reaching agreement on renewal earlier than the time periods indicated. Section 6. Non-Exclusive Grant. This Agreement shall not in any manner prevent the City from entering into other similar agreements or granting other or further Master Use Agreements, Right-of-Way Use Permits, or F ranchise Agreements in, under, on, across, over, through, along or below any of said Public Ways of the City. However, the City shall not permit any such future Permittee or Franchisee to physically interfere with the Permittee’s Communication Facilities. In the event that such physical interference or disruption occurs, the Public Works Director may assist the Permittee and such subsequent Permittee or Franchisee in resolving the dispute. Further, this Agreement shall in no way prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its Public Ways or affect its jurisdiction over them, or any part of them, and the City shall retain power to make all necessary changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishment, improvement, dedication of the same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new Public Ways, and in compliance with Section 7, below. Section 7. Relocation of Communication Facility. A. The Permitee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate, or remove from any public way any portion of its Communication Facilities when so required by the Public Works Director by reason of traffic conditions, public safety, dedications of new Public Ways and the establishment and improvement thereof, widening and improvement of existing Public Ways, street vacations, freeway construction, change or establishment of street grade, or the construction of any public improvement or structure by any governmental agency acting in a governmental capacity; provided that the Permittee shall in all cases have the privilege to temporarily relocate, in the authorized portion of the same or similar public way upon approval by the Public Works Director, any section of cable or any other facility required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. Upon the reasonable request and prior written notice, in non-emergency situations at least sixty (60) days notice, by the Public Works Director and in order to facilitate the design of City street and right-of-way improvements, the Permittee agrees to, at its sole cost and expense, locate, and if reasonably determined necessary by the City, to excavate and expose portions of its Communication Facilities for inspection so that the location of same may be taken into account in the improvement design, PROVIDED that, Permittee shall not be required to excavate and expose 4 its Facilities unless the Permittee’s as-built plans and maps of its Facilities submitted pursuant to Section 9 of this Agreement are reasonably determined by the Public Works Director to be inadequate for purposes of this paragraph. The decision to require relocation of said Facilities in order to accommodate the City’s improvements shall be made by the Public Works Director upon review of the location and construction of the Permittee’s Facilities. If the Public Works Director determines that the project necessitates the relocation of the Permittee’s then existing Facilities, the City shall: 1. Within a reasonable time, which shall be no less than thirty (30) days , prior to the commencement of such improvement project, provide the Permittee with written notice requiring such relocation. In the event that such relocation requires land use approvals by the City, such notice period shall be extended by an additional ninety (90) days. Provided, however, that in the event an emergency posing a threat to public safety, health or welfare, or in the event of an emergency beyond the control of the City and which will result in severe financial consequences to the City, the City shall give the Permittee written notice as soon as practicable; and 2. Provide the Permittee with copies of information for such improvement project and a proposed location for the Permittee’s Facilities so that the Permittee may relocate its Facilities in other Public Ways in order to accommodate such improvement project. 3. The Permittee shall complete relocation of its Facilities at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project at least ten (10) days prior to commencement of the project. In the event of an emergency as described herein, the Permittee shall relocate its Facilities within a reasonable time period specified by the Public Works Director. The Permittee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its Facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives and advise the Permittee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the Facilities. If so requested by the City, the Permittee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by the Permittee full and fair consideration, within a reasonable time, so as to allow for the relocation work to be performed in a timely manner. In the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable alternative, the Permittee shall relocate its Facilities as otherwise provided in this Section. The provisions of this Section shall in no manner preclude or restrict the Permittee from making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its Facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the Facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City-owned, operated or maintained Facilities provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. 5 B. Except as provided in Section 16 (E), the Permittee will indemnify, hold harmless, and pay the costs of defending the City against any and all claims, suits, actions, damages, or liabilities for delays on City construction projects caused by or arising out of the failure of the Permittee to relocate its Facilities in a timely manner; provided, that the Permittee shall not be responsible for damages due to delays caused by the City or circumstances beyond the control of the Permittee. C. The parties understand that the relocation of Facilities placed in the right-of-way is partially governed by RCW 35.99, et al., and to the extent that the provisions of this section are not in compliance with the terms of RCW 35.99 et.al. (or successor statute), the provisions of the statute shall control and the terms of this section shall be amended to be in conformance thereto. Section 8. The Permittee’s Maps and Records. After construction is complete, the Permittee shall provide the City with accurate copies of all as-built plans and maps in a form and content prescribed by the Public Works Director. These plans shall be provided at no cost to the City, and shall include hard copies and digital copies in a format specified by the Public Works Director. Section 9. Work in Public Ways. During any period of relocation, construction, or maintenance, all surface structures, if any, shall be erected and used in such places and positions within said Public Ways and other public properties so as to interfere as little as possible with the free passage of traffic and the free use of adjoining property. The Permittee shall at all times post and maintain proper barricades and comply with all applicable safety regulations during such period of construction as required by the ordinances of the City or the laws of the State of Washington, including RCW 39.04.180 for the construction of trench safety systems. During the progress of the work, the Permittee shall not unnecessarily obstruct the passage of proper use of the Public Ways, and all work by the Permittee in the area covered by this Agreement and as described in this Section shall be performed in accordance with City of Edmonds Public Works Construction Standards and warranted for a period of two (2) years. If either the City or the Permittee shall at any time after the initial installation of the Facilities plan to make excavations in areas covered by this Agreement and as described in this Section, the party planning such excavation shall afford the other, upon receipt of written request to do so, an opportunity to share such an excavation. PROVIDED THAT: A. Such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the party causing the excavation to be made or unreasonably increase its costs; and B. Such joint use shall be arranged and accomplished on terms and conditions satisfactory to both parties; and C. Either party may deny such request for safety reasons or if their respective uses of the trench are incompatible; and 6 D. Such joint use shall not interfere with the operation of the Communication Facility. The joint use provisions of this Section shall apply only to joint use by the City and the Permittee. Nothing in this Section is intended to require the Permittee to afford other similar users the opportunity to share the Permittee’s excavations. Section 10. Restoration after Construction. The Permittee shall, after installation, construction, relocation, maintenance, removal, or repair of its Communication Facilities within the Public Ways, restore the surface of said Public Ways and any other City-owned property which may be disturbed by the work, to at least the same condition the public way or City-owned property was in immediately prior to any such installation, construction, relocation, maintenance, or repair, reasonable wear, and tear excepted. The Public Works Department shall have final approval of the condition of such Public Ways and City-owned property after restoration, all in accordance with the Edmonds City Code and Public Works Construction standards. All survey monuments which are to be disturbed or displaced by such work shall be referenced and restored, as per WAC 332-120, as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended, and all pertinent federal, state and local standards and specifications. The Permittee agrees to promptly complete all restoration work and to promptly repair any damage caused by such work to the Public Ways or other affected area at its sole cost and expense according to the time and terms specified in the Construction Right-of-Way Permit issued by the City, all in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Edmonds City Code, as the same now exists or as it may hereafter be amended or superseded. All work and restoration by the Permittee pursuant to this Section shall be performed in accord with City of Edmonds Public Works Construction standards and warranted for a period of two (2) year. Section 11. Emergency Work – Right-of-Way Use Permit Waiver. In the event of any emergency in which any of the Permittee’s Communication Facilities located in, above, or under any public way breaks, are damaged, cease to provide service, or if the Permittee’s construction area is otherwise in such a condition as to immediately endanger the property, life, health, or safety of any individual, the Permittee shall immediately take the proper emergency measures to repair its Facilities, to cure or remedy the dangerous conditions for the protection of property, life, health, or safety of individuals without first applying for and obtaining a Right-of-Way Construction Permit as required under this Agreement. However, this shall not relieve the Permittee from the requirement of notifying the City of the emergency work and obtaining any Permits necessary for this purpose after the emergency work. The Permittee shall notify the City by telephone immediately upon learning of the emergency and shall apply for all required Permits not later than the second succeeding day during which the Edmonds City Hall is open for business. Section 12. Dangerous Conditions, Authority for City to Abate. Whenever construction, installation, or excavation of the communication Facilities authorized by this Agreement has caused or contributed to a condition that appears to substantially impair the lateral support of the adjoining public way, street, or public place, or endangers the public, street utilities, or City- 7 owned property, the Public Works Director may reasonably require the Permittee, at the Permittee’s own expense, to take action to protect the public, adjacent public places, City-owned property, streets, utilities, and Public Ways. Such action may include compliance within a prescribed time. In the event that the Permittee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public, the adjacent streets, utilities, Public Ways, to maintain the lateral support thereof, or actions regarded as necessary safety precautions; and the Permittee shall be liable to the City for the reasonable costs thereof and any fines accrued pursuant to ECDC Chapter 20.110. Section 13. Recovery of Costs. The Permittee shall be subject to all and Right-of-Way Use Permit fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this Agreement or under the laws of the City. Where the City incurs costs and expenses for review, inspection, appraisal, audit, or supervision of activities undertaken through the authority granted in this Agreement, or any ordinances relating to any subject not addressed in this Agreement, the Permittee shall reimburse the City directly for any and all reasonable costs, after receipt of an itemized bill. In addition to the above, the Permittee shall promptly reimburse the City for any and all reasonable costs the City i ncurs in response to any emergency involving the Permittee’s Communication Facilities, after receipt of an itemized bill. The time of City employees shall be charged at their respective rate of salary, including overtime if applicable, plus benefits. All billings will be itemized as to specifically identify the costs and expenses for each project for which the City claims reimbursement. The billing may be on an annual basis, but the City shall provide the Permittee with the City’s itemization of costs at the conclusion of each project for information purposes. Section 14. Annual Consideration for Use of the Right-of-Way under this Master Use Agreement: A. For the purposes of this section, “New Support Structure(s)” means a monopole, or similar structure erected solely for the purpose of installation of wireless antennas in the Right-of-Way where previously no similar structure had existed. B. For the purposes of this section, "Existing Support Structure(s)" means existing utility poles, light poles or other similar approved structures that exist in the Right-of- Way that can be used to support wireless antennas. Buildings are considered Existing Support Structure(s) when used to support wireless antennas that encroach into or over the Right of Way. C. For the purposes of this section, "Replacement Structure(s)" means a structure that is similar to an Existing Support Structure, but either taller and/or stronger than an Existing Support Structure, and which replaces an Existing Support Structure for purposes of placement of wireless antennas. 8 D. The compensation provided for in Subsection “F,” below, shall be adjusted annually, each year of the first five-year term, by an increase of five percent (5%). An appraisal and site audit shall be conducted by the City and the parties shall meet in the fourth (4th) year and prior to each renewal anniversary thereafter, to revisit the provisions of this section and Section 17, Insurance, to establish levels of compensation, annual adjustments thereto, and insurance, consistent with that charged by comparable local jurisdictions. Neither party shall unreasonably withhold its acceptance and approval of a reasonable adjustment to the level of compensation so proposed by the other party under this section. Permittee shall pay annual compensation prior to the 15th of January of each year of this Agreement. E. In the event that the Permittee’s Facilities are out of service due to a relocation under the provisions of Section 7 for the convenience of the City, a credit equal to the prorated value of the time the Facilities are out of service shall be provided on the subsequent year’s compensation. F. In consideration for each Site Use Agreement and the use of the Right-of-Way described therein, Permittee shall commit to providing an annual payment for each approved Facility reflected in each Site Use Agreement, all of which shall be attached as Exhibit “A.” The amount of the annual payment for the first five-year term shall be as follows: 1. Antennas placed on a New Support Structure, equipment cabinets are in the Right of Way, annual payment is Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000.00). 2. Antennas placed on a New Support Structure, where no equipment cabinets are in the Right of Way, annual payment is Eleven Thousand Dollars ($11,000.00) 3. Antennas placed on an Existing Support Structure or Replacement Structure, with equipment cabinet or other associated equipment located within the public Right-of-Way, annual payment is Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). 4. Antennas placed on an Existing Support Structure or Replacement Structure, where no equipment cabinet or other associated equipment is located within the public Right-of-Way, annual payment is Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000.00). Consideration to the City under this Section for all sites constructed by Permittee shall be memorialized in each Site Use Agreement and attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and is in addition to any Construction Right-of-Way Permit fees. Section 15. Grant Fee. As additional consideration for the right and privileges granted hereunder, the Permittee agrees to pay, at the time of acceptance of this Agreement, a one-time grant fee of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) to defray the City’s legal and administrative costs and expenses associated with negotiating and approving this Master Use Agreement, provided that such expenses shall not be included in the reimbursement provisions set forth in Section 14 of this Agreement. 9 Section 16. Indemnification and Waiver. A. Permittee hereby releases, covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person arising from injury, sickness, or death of any person or damage to property: 1. For which the negligent acts or omissions of Permittee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by this Master Use Agreement are the proximate cause; 2. By virtue of the Permittee’s exercise of the rights granted herein; 3. By virtue of the City’s permitting Permittee’s use of the City’s Public Ways or other public property that are the subject of this Agreement; 4. Based on the City’s inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by Permittee, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work authorized on the Public Ways or property over which the City has control pursuant to this Agreement or pursuant to any other site- specific Permit or other approval issued in connection with this Agreement; 5. Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Permittee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction, or work upon the Public Ways, in any public way, or other Agreement. B. The provisions of Subsection “A” of this Section shall apply to claims by Permittee’s own employees and the employees of the Permittee’s agents, representatives, contractors, and subcontractors to which Permittee might otherwise be immune under Title 51 RCW. This waiver of immunity under Title 51 RCW has been mutually negotiated by the parties hereto, and Permittee acknowledges that the City would not enter into this Agreement without Permittee’s waiver thereof. C. Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by the Permittee at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided that Permittee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised with Permittee’s consent prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim, and has the right to approve any settlement or other compromise of any such 10 claim, provided that Permittee shall not be liable for such settlement or other compromise unless it has consented thereto. D. In the event that Permittee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this Section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to the matter), to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of the Permittee, then Permittee shall pay all of the City’s costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorney’s fees , and the reasonable costs and fees to City associated with recovering under this Subsection. E. The obligations of Permittee under the indemnification provisions of this Section shall apply regardless of whether liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property were caused or contributed to by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors except to the extent that such claims, actions, damages, costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees were caused by the negligence or any willful or malicious action on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that this Agreement is subject to the provisions RCW 4.24.115, the parties agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be allocated as provided therein. F. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, Permittee assumes the risk of damage to its Communication Facilities located in the Public Ways and upon City- owned property from such activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees and contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the negligence or any willful or malicious action on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Permittee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Permittee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under users of Permittee’s Facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Permittee’s Facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Section 17. Insurance. The Permittee shall procure and maintain insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and authority granted hereunder to the Permittee, its agents, representatives or employees. The Permittee shall provide to the City an insurance certificate naming the City as an additional insured for its inspection prior to the commencement of any work or installation of any Facilities pursuant to this Agreement. Such insurance certificate shall evidence: 11 A. Comprehensive general liability insurance, written on an occurrence basis, including contractual liability coverage, with limits not less than: (1) $3,000,000.00 for bodily injury or death to each person; and (2) $3,000,000.00 for property damage resulting from any one accident. B. Automobile liability for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles with a limit of $3,000,000.00 for each person and $3,000,000.00 for each accident. C. Worker’s compensation within statutory limits and employer’s liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00. The liability insurance policies required by this Section shall be maintained by the Permittee throughout the term of this Agreement, and such other period of time during which the Permittee is operating without a Right-of-Way Construction Permit hereunder, or is engaged in the removal of any of its Communication Facilities in the right of way. Payment of deductibles and self-insured retentions shall be the sole responsibility of the Permittee. The insurance certificate required by this Section shall contain a clause stating that the coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability. The Permittee’s insurance shall be primary insurance with respect to the City. Any insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, consultants, agents, and volunteers shall be in excess of the Permittee’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. In addition to the coverage requirements set forth in this Section, the insurance certificate required by this Section shall contain language which provides that the policy may not be cancelled, reduced in coverage, nor the intention not to renew be stated until at least thirty (30) days after receipt by the City of written notice of the same via U.S. mail. Within fifteen (15) days after receipt by the City of said notice, and in no event later than five (5) days prior to said cancellation or non-renewal, the Permittee shall obtain and furnish to the City replacement insurance certificate(s) meeting the requirements of this Section Section 18. Abandonment and Removal of the Permittee’s Communication Facilities. Upon the expiration, termination, or revocation of the rights granted under this Agreement, the Permittee shall remove all of its Communications Facilities from the Public Ways of the City within ninety (90) days of receiving notice from the Public Works Director. Provided, however, that the City may permit the Permittee’s improvements to be abandoned and replaced in such a manner as the parties shall agree, subsequent always to the City’s standard construction requirements for Right-of-Way use. Upon permanent abandonment, and Permittee’s agreement to transfer ownership of any Communication Facilities to the City, the Permittee shall submit to the City a proposal and instruments for transferring ownership to the City. Any such Facilities abandoned in place without City’s consent and not removed within ninety (90) days of receipt of 12 notice thereof shall automatically become the property of the City, unless Permittee is prevented from removing its Facilities by causes beyond its reasonable control including, but not limited to, acts of God, war, or governmental restrictions. In such case, Permittee’s time for performance of its obligations under this section will be extended by a reasonable period of time, not to exceed an additional thirty (30) days in any event, without City’s consent thereto. Provided, however, that nothing contained within this Section shall prevent the City from compelling the Permittee to remove any such Facilities through judicial action when the City has not consented to the Permittee’s abandonment of said Facilities in place. Section 19. Construction Bond. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this Agreement, the Permittee shall furnish a Right-of-Way Construction bond written by a corporate surety acceptable to the City equal to at least 125% of the estimated cost of restoring the Public Ways of the City to the pre-construction condition required by Section 11 of this Agreement. Said bond shall be required to remain full force until sixty (60) days after completion of the construction of Permittee's Communication Facilities and other improvements from the Public Ways of the City, and said bond, or separate bond acceptable to the City, shall warrant all such restoration work for a period of two (2) years. In the event that a bond issued to meet the requirements of this Section is canceled by the surety, after proper notice and pursuant to the terms of said bond, Permittee shall, prior to expiration of said bond, be responsible for obtaining a replacement bond which complies with the terms of this Section. Section 20. Modification. The City and the Permittee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement upon the written agreement of both parties to such alteration, amendment or modification. Said modifications shall be approved by the City by ordinance and accepted by the Permittee consistent with Section 32 hereof. Section 21. Forfeiture and Revocation. If the Permittee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the material provisions of this Agreement within thirty (30) days following receipt of written notice of such violation or failure, or through willful misconduct or gross negligence fails to heed or comply with any written notice given the Permittee by the City under the provisions of this Agreement within thirty (30) days following receipt of such notice, then the Permittee shall, at the election of the City Council, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this Agreement may be revoked, terminated or annulled by the City Council after a hearing held upon reasonable written notice to Permittee. The City Council may decide, after consideration of the reasons for the Permittee’s failure to comply with this Agreement, to allow the Permittee additional time to cure before such termination or revocation. The City may elect, in lieu of the above, and without prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the superior court having jurisdiction compelling the Permittee to comply with the provisions of this Agreement and to recover its reasonable, documented damages and costs incurred by the City as a direct result of the Permittee’s failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement. Section 22. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City’s ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this Agreement, including any valid ordinance 13 made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the locations, elevation, manner or construction and maintenance of any Facilities by the Permittee, and the Permittee shall promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause the Permittee to violate other requirements of the law. Section 23. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions, and requirements of this Agreement shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities the Permittee may have to the City at common law, by statute, or by contract. The provisions, conditions, and requirements of Sections 7, Relocation of Communication System; 9, Work in Public Ways; 10, Restoration after Construction; 12, Dangerous Conditions, Authority for City to Abate; 16, Indemnification and Waiver; 17, Insurance; and 18, Abandonment and Removal of the Permittee’s Communication Facilities, shall survive the expiration or termination of this Master Use Agreement, and any renewals or extensions thereof, and remain effective until such time as the Permittee removes its Communication Facilities from the Public Ways, transfers ownership of said Facilities to a third-party, or abandons said Facilities in place, all as provided herein. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this Agreement shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of the Permittee; and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of the Permittee shall inure to its heirs, successors, and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned wherever the Permittee is named herein. Section 24. Severability. In any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Agreement 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 Agreement. Section 25. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed, except that the Permittee may freely assign this Agreement, in whole or part, to any parent, subsidiary, or affiliated corporation, or as part of any corporate financing, reorganization, or refinancing. In the case of transfer or assignment as security by mortgage or other security instrument in whole or in part to secure indebtedness, such consent shall not be required unless and until the secured party elects to realize upon the collateral. The Permittee shall provide prompt, written notice to the City of any such assignment. Section 26. Notice. Any notice or information required or otherwise provided as between the parties under this Agreement shall be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified by the parties: City: City of Edmonds Engineering Division 121 5th Avenue N. 14 Edmonds, WA 98020 425 771-0220 Fax: 425-771-0221 Permittee: Sprint Property Services Mailstop: KSOPHT0101-Z2650 6391 Sprint Parkway Overland Park, KS 66251-2650 with a mandatory copy to: Sprint Law Department Mailstop: KSOPHT0101-Z2020 6391 Sprint Parkway Overland Park, KS 66251-2020 Attn: Real Estate Attorney Notice shall be deemed provided upon receipt in the case of personal delivery, three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail in the case of regular mail, or the next day in the case of overnight delivery. Section 27. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties hereto as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings, written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon approval and acceptance of this Agreement. Section 28. Attorneys Fees. If any suit or other action is instituted in connection with any controversy arising under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all of its costs and expenses including such sum as the court may judge reasonable for attorneys fees, including fees upon appeal of any judgment or ruling. Section 29. Non-waiver. Failure of the City to declare any such breach or default immediately upon the occurrence thereof, or delay in taking any action in connection therewith, shall not waive such breach or default, but the City shall have the right to declare any such breach or default at any time. Failure of the City to declare one breach or default does not act as a waiver of the City’s right to declare another breach or default. Section 30. Governing Law/Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The venue and jurisdiction over any dispute related to this Agreement shall be with the Snohomish County Superior Court. Section 31. Acceptance. Within sixty (60) days after the passage and approval of this ordinance, this Agreement may be accepted by Permittee by its filing with the City Clerk an 15 unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of the Permittee to so accept this Agreement within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the sixty (6 0) day period, absolutely cease and determine, unless the time period is extended by ordinance duly passed for that purpose. Section 32. 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 the passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FROM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: By: JEFF TARADAY 16 {WSS531638.DOC;1/00006.900000/ 17 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: SIGNED BY THE MAYOR: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: {WSS531638.DOC;1/00006.900000/ 18 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. ____________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 20 , 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, GRANTING TO Sprint Spectrum L.P., A MASTER USE AGREEMENT, TO INSTALL, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES WITHIN A CERTAIN DESIGNATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, STATE OF WASHINGTON, PRESCRIBING CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 201__. SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK {WSS531638.DOC;1/00006.900000/ 19 "PERMITTEE" Sprint Spectrum L.P. By: Sprint Spectrum L.P. By: Print Name: ____________________ Its: _________________________ Date: ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF ) ) ss COUNTY OF ) I CERTIFY that on , 20 , (name of signor) personally came before me and this person acknowledged under oath to my satisfaction, that: (a) this person signed, sealed and delivered the attached document as (signors title) for (company) the limited liability company named in this document; (b) this document was signed and delivered by the corporation as its voluntary act and deed, as the member of the limited liability company, on behalf of said limited liability company. Notary Public My Commission Expires: {WSS531638.DOC;1/00006.900000/ 20 EXHIBIT “A” SITE USE AGREEMENT(S) {WSS531638.DOC;1/00006.900000/ 21 EXHIBIT “B” PERMIT(S) {WSS531638.DOC;1/00006.900000/ 22 SITE USE AGREEMENT This Site Use Agreement ("SUA"), entered into this ______ day of _____________, 20__ (“SUA Effective Date”) between CITY OF EDMONDS, hereinafter designated as “City” and SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. a Delaware Limited Partnership, hereinafter designated as “Permittee.” Each may be called a “Party,” or collectively they may be called the “Parties.” 1. This SUA is pursuant to Section 14, “Annual Compensation for Use of the Right of Way under this Master Use Agreement,” of that certain Ordinance No. __________/Master Use Agreement between City and Permittee dated _________________, 20__ ("MUA"). All of the terms and conditions of the MUA are incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof without the necessity of repeating or attaching the MUA. In the event of a contradiction, modification or inconsistency between the terms of the MUA and this SUA, the terms of the MUA shall govern. Capitalized terms used in this SUA shall have the same meaning described for them in the MUA unless otherwise indicated herein. 2. Site No. and Name (if applicable): CITY: _________________________________________ PERMITTEE: 3. Permittee has established a Communications Facilities at ________________________________ where the antennas and associated equipment are located on a Snohomish PUD utility pole in City’s Right of Way as shown on Attachment A attached hereto and incorporated herein, with the associated radio cabinets located on adjacent private property. 4. In accordance with the MUA, Permittee shall pay to the City an annual fee to collocate on an Existing Support Structure, where no equipment cabinet or other associated equipment is located within the public Right-of-Way, in the annual amount of _________________________________($________)(“Annual Fee”) to commence as of ____________________ (“Commencement Date”). Permittee shall make the Annual Fee payment to the City on or before January 15th of each year beginning on _____________________and each January 15th thereafter. In accordance with Section 14, for the first five (5) years of this SUA, the Annual Fee shall be increased by five (5) percent, such escalation to occur on the anniversary of the Commencement Date. The Parties shall determine in the fifth (5th) year of the MUA what the reasonable compensation level should be under this SUA commencing at the beginning of the sixth (6th) year. 5. The term of this SUA shall be as set forth in Section 5 of the MUA 6. Notice Addresses: City, address for rent and notice: City of Edmonds Engineering Division 121 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 425 771-0220 Fax: 425-771-0221 Permittee: Sprint Property Services Mailstop: KSOPHT0101-Z2650 6391 Sprint Parkway Overland Park, KS 66251-2650 with a mandatory copy to: {WSS531638.DOC;1/00006.900000/ 23 Sprint Law Department Mailstop: KSOPHT0101-Z2020 6391 Sprint Parkway Overland Park, KS 66251-2020 Attn: Real Estate Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their respective seals the day and year first above written. City: CITY OF EDMONDS: BY: _________________________________ WITNESS__________________ PRINT NAME: ___________________________ TITLE: __________________________________ DATE: __________________________________ Permittee: SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.: BY: ___________________________________ WITNESS PRINT NAME: ____________________________ TITLE: ___________________________________ DATE: ___________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Site Plan of Communications Facilities ***NOTARIZATIONS FOLLOW ON THE NEXT PAGE*** {WSS531638.DOC;1/00006.900000/ 24 STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ________________________ Notary Public Print Name My commission expires (Use this space for notary stamp/seal) STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. {WSS531638.DOC;1/00006.900000/ 25 Dated: ________________________ Notary Public Print Name My commission expires (Use this space for notary stamp/seal) {WSS531638.DOC;1/00006.900000/ 26 ATTACHMENT 1 SITE PLAN OF COMMUNICATION FACILITIES UNDER THIS SUA {WSS531638.DOC;1/00006.900000/ 1 SITE USE AGREEMENT This Site Use Agreement ("SUA"), entered into this ______ day of _____________, 2015 (“SUA Effective Date”) between CITY OF EDMONDS, hereinafter designated as “City” and SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. a Delaware Limited Partnership, hereinafter designated as “Permittee.” Each may be called a “Party,” or collectively they may be called the “Parties.” 1. This SUA is pursuant to Section 14, “Annual Compensation for Use of the Right of Way under this Master Use Agreement,” of that certain Ordinance No. __________/Master Use Agreement between City and Permittee dated _________________, 2015 ("MUA"). All of the terms and conditions of the MUA are incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof without the necessity of repeating or attaching the MUA. In the event of a contradiction, modification or inconsistency between the terms of the MUA and this SUA, the terms of the MUA shall govern. Capitalized terms used in this SUA shall have the same meaning described for them in the MUA unless otherwise indicated herein. 2. Site No. and Name (if applicable): CITY: _________________________________________ PERMITTEE: SE63XC212.A, Pine Ridge 3. Permittee has established a Communications Facilities at 8730 Main Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 where the antennas and associated equipment are located on a Snohomish PUD utility pole in City’s Right of Way as shown on Attachment A attached hereto and incorporated herein, with the associated radio cabinets located on adjacent private property. 4. In accordance with the MUA, Permittee shall pay to the City an annual fee to collocate on an Existing Support Structure, where no equipment cabinet or other associated equipment is located within the public Right-of-Way, in the annual amount of NINE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($9,000.00) (“Annual Fee”) to commence as of January 1, 2014 (“Commencement Date”). Permittee shall make the Annual Fee payment to the City on or before January 15th of each year beginning retroactively on January 15, 2014 and each January 15th thereafter. In accordance with Section 14 of the MUA, commencing on January 1, 2015 and on each January 1 thereafter for the first five (5) years of this SUA, the Annual Fee shall be increased by five percent (5%) (“Escalator”). The Parties shall determine in the fifth (5th) year of the MUA what the reasonable compensation level should be under this SUA commencing at the beginning of the sixth (6th) year. 5. Back Fee Payment for 2013 and 2014: Notwithstanding the foregoing in Section 4 of this SUA, the Parties agree that payment of a fee is due from the date of the original installation of the facility on October 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 at the rate of $750.00 per month as well as the Annual Fee for 2014. Within forty-five (45) days of the full execution of this SUA, Permittee shall make a one-time payment of ELEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($11,250.00) which represents back rent for this Communications Facilities for the period from October 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014 (“Back Fee Payment”). No penalties or interest shall be due and payable so long as payment is received within such forty-five (45) day period. Once the Back Fee Payment is received, City shall waive any claims to back rent for this site for the period from October 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014. 6. Annual Fee for 2015: Notwithstanding the foregoing in Section 4 of this SUA, within forty-five (45) days of the full execution of this SUA, Permittee shall make a one-time payment in the amount of NINE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($9,450.00) which represents the 2015 Annual Fee for the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 and includes the Escalator (“2015 Annual Fee”). No penalties or interest shall be due and payable so long as payment is received within such forty-five (45) day period. Once the 2015 Annual Fee is received, City shall waive any claims to back rent for this site for the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. (Note: the 2016 Annual Fee shall be due by January 15, 2016 as required by Section 4 of the SUA and shall be calculated with the Escalator utilizing the 2015 Annual Fee. The 2016 Annual Fee will therefore be $9,922.50). Sprint Site ID: SE63XC212.A, Pine Ridge {WSS531638.DOC;1/00006.900000/ 2 7. Grant Fee: Pursuant to Section 15 of the MUA, within thirty (30) days following the full execution of this SUA, Sprint shall pay to City a one-time grant fee of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) to defray the City’s legal and administrative costs and expenses with negotiating and approving the MUA. 8. The term of this SUA shall be as set forth in Section 5 of the MUA 9. Notice Addresses: City, address for rent and notice: City of Edmonds Engineering Division 121 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 425 771-0220 Fax: 425-771-0221 Permittee: Sprint Property Services Mailstop: KSOPHT0101-Z2650 6391 Sprint Parkway Overland Park, KS 66251-2650 with a mandatory copy to: Sprint Law Department Mailstop: KSOPHT0101-Z2020 6391 Sprint Parkway Overland Park, KS 66251-2020 Attn: Real Estate Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their respective seals the day and year first above written. City: CITY OF EDMONDS: BY: _________________________________ WITNESS__________________ PRINT NAME: ___________________________ TITLE: __________________________________ DATE: __________________________________ Permittee: SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.: BY: ___________________________________ WITNESS PRINT NAME: ____________________________ TITLE: ___________________________________ DATE: ___________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Sprint Site ID: SE63XC212.A, Pine Ridge {WSS531638.DOC;1/00006.900000/ 3 Attachment 1: Site Plan of Communications Facilities ***NOTARIZATIONS FOLLOW ON THE NEXT PAGE*** STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ________________________ Notary Public Print Name My commission expires (Use this space for notary stamp/seal) Sprint Site ID: SE63XC212.A, Pine Ridge {WSS531638.DOC;1/00006.900000/ 4 STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ________________________ Notary Public Print Name My commission expires (Use this space for notary stamp/seal) Sprint Site ID: SE63XC212.A, Pine Ridge {WSS531638.DOC;1/00006.900000/ 5 ATTACHMENT 1 SITE PLAN OF COMMUNICATION FACILITIES UNDER THIS SUA Sprint Site ID: SE63XC212.A, Pine Ridge    AM-7695     15.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted For:Ryan Hague Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Presentation of an Interlocal Agreement with PSE for the 238th St. SW Walkway and Drainage Improvements Project Recommendation Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval on an upcoming City Council meeting.    Previous Council Action None. Narrative The 238th St. SW Walkway project will construct a walkway on the north side of 238th St. from 104th Ave to 100th Ave. This project is being combined with a drainage improvements project that will install new stormwater infrastructure and rain gardens. After construction, the entire street will be overlaid with new asphalt pavement.   In 2013, Puget Sound Energy (PSE) installed a new gas line within the limits of this project. As part of this installation, the City of Edmonds required PSE to overlay certain stretches of the roadway that were damaged for the project. It was determined that, given the pending City project, waiting to overlay the road as part of the City’s project would be a more efficient use of City and utility funds.   Attached is a draft Interlocal Agreement with PSE to address their estimated costs and responsibilities during the construction phase. Staff is presenting the initial draft for discussion and anticipates that some changes will be made before the final draft is placed on the consent agenda for approval.   Attachments Draft PSE ILA Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Megan Luttrell 05/07/2015 03:31 PM Public Works Phil Williams 05/07/2015 03:38 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/08/2015 07:37 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/08/2015 08:12 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/08/2015 08:22 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 05/05/2015 05:18 PM Final Approval Date: 05/08/2015  AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between PUGET SOUND ENERGY, hereinafter referred to as “PSE”, a Washington State Corporation, and THE CITY OF EDMONDS, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “CITY,” both of which are located in and existing under the laws of the State of Washington. WHEREAS, the CITY has a current active road project on 238th St SW (Project E3DB), which extends from 104th Ave W to 100th Ave W and on 104th Ave W from approximately 75 feet south of 238th St SW to approximately 455 feet north of 238th St SW, hereinafter referred to as the “PROJECT”; and WHEREAS, PSE chose to upgrade portions of its existing gas main within the limits of the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, PSE is required to install and pay for overlaying the portions of 238th ST SW and 104th Ave W that are associated with its project, hereinafter be referred to as the “OVERLAY”; and WHEREAS, PSE’s work, not including the OVERLAY has been completed; and WHEREAS, PSE has requested the CITY complete the OVERLAY when the CITY completes its overlay for the PROJECT and, that PSE will pay the CITY for the actual cost to the CITY for the OVERLAY when it occurs; and WHEREAS, the CITY agrees that to require PSE to overlay those sections of 238th ST SW and 104th Ave W and then have the CITY remove the PSE overlay and reinstall its own overlay months later in connection with the PROJECT, is not a practical use of limited public or private resources; and WHEREAS, it is deemed to be in the best interest of the public and PSE to incorporate the OVERLAY, as requested by PSE, into the PROJECT, and to have PSE reimburse the CITY the actual costs of completing the OVERLAY; NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows: AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW 1 I. PURPOSE The purpose of this AGREEMENT is to set forth the mutual obligations, responsibilities and rights of the CITY and PSE for the accomplishment of the installation of the OVERLAY described in Exhibit A, incorporated by reference herein. II. EFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION This AGREEMENT and any amendment shall take effect upon execution by the parties and posting of the AGREEMENT or amendment on the CITY’s website pursuant to RCW 39.34.040. This AGREEMENT shall remain in effect until the OVERLAY has been completed and PSE has paid the CITY in full, unless terminated sooner, as provided herein. Weather and schedule permitting, the CITY anticipates the OVERLAY to be completed in the fall of 2015. III. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES A. The CITY shall install the OVERLAY during the construction of the PROJECT. The CITY ’s project manager shall act as the administrator of this cooperative undertaking. B. The CITY, within 60 days of completing the OVERLAY and compiling the actual costs, shall provide PSE with properly executed invoices showing actual expenditures for the OVERLAY. Invoices shall be paid by PSE within thirty (30) days of receipt by PSE without offset or deduction for any reason. Notice of any potential dispute regarding such payment request shall be made in writing within the same time period. Payment by PSE shall not constitute agreement as to the appropriateness of any item or acceptance of the work so represented. At the time of final audit, all required adjustments related to any potential dispute for which notice has been timely given shall be made and reflected in a final payment. C. Invoices shall reference PSE project number 109063925 and be mailed to: Puget Sound Energy, Inc. Attn: David Matulich P O Box 97034, m/s BOT-01G Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 IV. PSE RESPONSIBILITIES A. PSE shall reimburse the CITY for all actual costs related to the OVERLAY in accordance with the terms of Section V of this AGREEMENT. B. If this AGREEMENT is terminated in accordance with section VII of this AGREEMENT, prior to the OVERLAY being completed, PSE agrees to complete the OVERLAY, weather permitting, within 30 days of termination at its sole cost and expense and to the satisfaction of the CITY. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW 2 C. Participation in this AGREEMENT shall in no way be construed to affect PSE's authority and responsibility for any and all utilities located with the CITY right-of-way. PSE retains sole authority and responsibility for the design, construction, repair, maintenance, and operation of its utilities before, during and after the OVERLAY and the PROJECT. This AGREEMENT shall not be construed as an assumption by the CITY of any authority, responsibility or liability with regard to the design, construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance, or operation of PSE's utilities located with the CITY right-of-way, nor shall the design, construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance, or operation of PSE's utilities located with the CITY right-of-way be considered a joint undertaking by PSE and the CITY. V. PAYMENT PSE agrees to pay the CITY One Hundred Percent (100%) of the final actual cost of CITY expenditures associated with the OVERLAY for engineering review (labor and equipment), contract administration, construction inspection and all costs by the CITY’s contractor installing the OVERLAY, as described in Exhibit A, plus 15% administrative overhead in addition to City employee labor and benefit costs. The CITY’s estimate of costs for the OVERLAY is shown in Exhibit B, incorporated by reference herein. Exhibit B is non-binding and is included for cost estimation purposes only. VI. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION A. PSE shall protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and agents, from any and all claims, demands, suits, penalties, losses, damages, judgments, or costs of any kind whatsoever (hereinafter “claims”), arising out of or in any way resulting from PSE’s officers, employees, agents, and/or subcontractors of all tiers, acts or omissions, performance or failure to perform its obligations under the terms of this Agreement, to the maximum extent permitted by law or as defined by RCW 4.24.115, now enacted or as hereinafter amended. B. PSE's obligations to hold harmless, indemnify and defend the CITY, its officers, officials, employees and agents shall apply to any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, expenses, damages and judgments of any nature whatsoever, including costs and attorney’s fees in defense thereof, for injury, sickness, disability or death to persons or damage to property or business, to the extent caused by or arising out of PSE’s negligence or misconduct in the design, construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance, or operation of its natural gas pipeline. VII. TERMINATION A. The CITY may terminate this AGREEMENT at any time for any reason by providing written notice to PSE. Such written notice shall specify the date on which termination is effective, in which case PSE shall only be responsible for costs incurred by the CITY for that portion of the OVERLAY completed up to and including the day of termination. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW 3 B. PSE may terminate this AGREEMENT for any reason prior to the City’s award of a construction contract for OVERLAY by providing written notice to the CITY, in which case PSE shall only be responsible for costs incurred by the CITY for the OVERLAY prior to PSE’s notice of termination. Termination of this contract does not release PSE from its obligation to overlay those portions of 238th ST SW and 104th Ave W that are associated with the work. In the event PSE terminates this AGREEMENT, PSE acknowledges that it will be responsible for obtaining from the CITY Planning and Development Services Department (PDS) all required and applicable permits required to complete the OVERLAY. VIII. INSURANCE No additional insurance will be required of either party for any work related to the OVERLAY completed according to the terms of this AGREEMENT. IX. PROJECT RECORDS During the progress of the PROJECT and for a period not less than six (6) years from the final payment to the CITY, the CITY shall keep all records and accounting pertaining to the OVERLAY available for inspection and audit by the State and copies of all records, accounts, documents or other data pertaining to the PROJECT shall be furnished upon request. If any litigation, claim, or audit is commenced, the records and accounts along with supporting documentation shall be retained by the CITY until all litigation, claim or audit finding has been resolved even though such litigation, claim, or audit may continue past the six-year retention period. X. DISPUTE RESOLUTION A. If a dispute arises between PSE and the CITY, the parties agree that they will attempt to resolve the issue through mutual negotiation. In the event that the parties are not able to reach an agreement through such negotiation, the parties agree to engage in mediation in order to resolve the dispute. Mediation may be requested by either party, and shall be attempted prior to the institution of any lawsuit arising under this AGREEMENT. Mediation shall be conducted under the then-current Commercial Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association or some other mutually acceptable procedure. The CITY and PSE shall jointly select a neutral third party mediator. The parties agree to share the costs of mediation equally. B. This AGREEMENT has been made pursuant to, and shall be construed according to, the laws of the State of Washington. In the event that mediation is unsuccessful and either party finds it necessary to institute legal proceedings to enforce any provision of this AGREEMENT, such proceedings may only be brought in the Superior Court of Snohomish County, Washington. XI. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE LAWS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW 4 The CITY and the PSE each acknowledges, agrees and understands that the CITY is a public agency subject to certain disclosure laws, including, but not limited to Washington’s Public Records Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. PSE understands that records related to this AGREEMENT and PSE’s performance under this AGREEMENT may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act or other similar law. Neither the CITY nor PSE anticipates that the performance of either party’s obligations under this AGREEMENT will involve any confidential or proprietary information. XII. CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS Either party may request changes, amendments, or additions to any portion of this AGREEMENT; however, except as otherwise provided in this AGREEMENT, no such change, amendment, or addition to any portion of this AGREEMENT shall be valid or binding upon either party unless it is in writing and executed by both parties. All such changes shall be made part of this AGREEMENT. XIII. NOTICES Unless otherwise directed in writing, notices, reports and payments shall be delivered to each party as follows: City of Edmonds Puget Sound Energy, Inc. Engineering Division Attn: David Matulich Attn: Robert English P O Box 97034, m/s BOT-01G 121 5th Ave N Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices mailed by either party shall be deemed effective on the date mailed. Either party may change its address for receipt of reports, notices, or payments by giving the other written notice of not less than five days’ prior to the effective date. For accounting purposes, the respective Federal Tax Identification Numbers are: City of Edmonds: 91-6001244 Puget Sound Energy: 91-0374630 XIV. ENTIRE AGREEMENT These provisions represent the entire and integrated AGREEMENT of the parties and may not be modified or amended except as provided herein. Any understanding, whether oral or written, which is not incorporated herein, is expressly excluded. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT, effective on the latest date shown below. The signatories below represent and warrant that they possess the authority to execute this AGREEMENT and bind their respective entities. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW 5 CITY OF EDMONDS PUGET SOUND ENERGY By: By: DAVID O. EARLING Date David Matulich Date Mayor Municipal Liaison Manager Approved as to form only: Approved as to form only: City of Edmonds Date Puget Sound Energy Attorney Date City Attorney AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW 6 EXHIBIT A AREA AND DESCRIPTION OF THE OVERLAY ASSOCIATED WITH THE 238TH ST SW: 104TH AVE W TO 100th Ave W, PROJECT E3DB AREA AND DESCRIPTION The OVERLAY shall also include grinding the existing asphalt within the limits of the OVERLAY. The limits of the OVERLAY shall be: • Width of OVERLAY: Westbound lane of 238th St SW and Soutbound lane of 104th Ave W roadway asphalt as it existed at the time PSE commenced work on its required and additional work (approximately 12-feet wide 1). • Length of OVERLAY: 104th Ave W from approximately 75 feet south of 238th St SW to approximately 455 feet north of 238th St SW (approximately 530 feet) and 238th St SW from 104th Ave W to the east side of the intersection of 238th St SW and 101st Pl W (approximately 900 feet.) Total approximately 1,430 feet. Depth of OVERLAY: 2-inches • Area of OVERLAY: Approximately 2,300 Square yards1. 1 Because the width of the overlay area is not constant over the entire length, the square footage shown for the overlay area is based on a CAD file provided by PSE. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW 7 EXHIBIT B ESTIMATED COST OF OVERLAY ITEM NO. ITEM UNIT UNIT COST QUANT EST. COST 1 Mobilization LS $ 2,770.00 1 $ 2,770.00 2 Unexpected Conditions LS $ 1,730.00 1 $ 1,730.00 3 Surveying LS $ 1,730.00 1 $ 1,730.00 4 Traffic Control LS $ 6,360.00 1 $ 6,360.00 5 Road Excacation CY $ 30.00 87 $ 2,610.00 6 Unsuitable Foundation Excav LS $ 526.00 1 $ 526.00 7 Crushed Surfacing Base Course TON $ 30.00 45 $ 1,350.00 8 HMA CL. 1/2 IN. PG 64-22 TON $ 100.00 252 $ 25,200.00 9 Adjust Catch Basins EA $ 300.00 4 $ 1,200.00 10 Adjust SSMH EA $ 500.00 5 $ 2,500.00 11 Adjust Water Valve EA $ 300.00 7 $ 2,100.00 12 Adjust Monument Case EA $ 500.00 5 $ 2,500.00 13 ESC Lead DAY $ 9.00 25 $ 225.00 14 Erosion/Pollution Control LS $ 350.00 1 $ 350.00 Estimated Total $ 51,151.00 Construction Contingency (20% of Estimated Total) $ 10,231.00 Sub Total $ 61,382.00 Design (10% of Subtotal) $ 6,139.00 Constr. Engineering, Contract Admin. & Const. Insp. (15% of Sub Total) $ 9,208.00 Administrative Overhead (15%) $ 1,382.00 Estimated Construction Total $ 78,111.00 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW 8    AM-7693     16.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/12/2015 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted For:Ed Sibrel Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Information  Information Subject Title Sunset Avenue Walkway Project Update Recommendation For information only. Previous Council Action On December 20, 2011, an amendment to the Capital Facilities Plan, which includes the Sunset Ave Walkway was passed.   On April 17, 2012, a Resolution of the Council in support of pursuing an RCO grant for the design of City Park and the Sunset Overlook projects was passed.   On June 4, 2013, a Resolution of the City Council in strong support of a 2013 Transportation Investment Package, including the Sunset Avenue Walkway was passed.   On December 3, 2013, Council heard public comment and discussed the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project. On March 4, 2014, Council heard public comment and discussed potential action regarding modifying or terminating the Sunset Walkway Project. On March 25, 2014, public comment and continued discussion of the Sunset Avenue Project. On April 1, 2014, Council continued discussions concerning the project. On June 24, 2014, the City’s Transportation Improvement Plan, including the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project was passed by Council. On July 16, 2014, a motion to amend the Transportation Improvement Plan to remove the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project was defeated.   On August 19, 2014, a proposal to re-stripe Sunset Avenue to emulate what the project could look like was approved Narrative The restripe of Sunset Avenue to include the walkway was completed and fully opened for public use on The restripe of Sunset Avenue to include the walkway was completed and fully opened for public use on September 18th of 2014. Several field adjustments were made to the walkway application as it was installed, and subsequent, targeted adjustments to particular areas have also been made as needed when issues have been identified. The purpose of this presentation is to provide an update on the status of the project, an overview of some current issues and a discussion of the traffic data and accident history that has already been collected since the project began. Staff will make a presentation regarding these issues and will answer questions about the project. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 05/06/2015 04:51 PM Public Works Phil Williams 05/07/2015 03:47 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/08/2015 07:37 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/08/2015 08:13 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/08/2015 08:22 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 05/05/2015 02:43 PM Final Approval Date: 05/08/2015