Loading...
2015.05.19 CC Agenda Packet              AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds BUSINESS MEETING MAY 19, 2015               7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE   1.(5 Minutes)Roll Call   2.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda   3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items   A.AM-7738 Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of May 12, 2015.   B.AM-7737 Approval of claim checks #214242 through #214357 dated May 14, 2015 for $697,846.71 (reissued checks #214281 $61.73, #214309 $140.00 & #214328 $131.78) Approval of payroll check #61609 for the pay period April 16, 2015 through April 30, 2015 for $368.03.   C.AM-7722 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from State Farm ($14,106.31).   D.AM-7721 Ordinance updating the Civil Service Commission (EMC 10.25.090)  – Filling of vacancies-Probationary Period   E.AM-7724 Naming Fire Station #16.   F.AM-7732 Professional Services Agreement for management and maintenance of the City's copiers and printers.   G.AM-7728 Report of final construction costs for the 15th Street Walkway Project and acceptance of project.   4.(5 Minutes) AM-7533 Proclamation in Honor of Public Works Week May 17, 2015 through May 23, 2015       Packet Page 1 of 452   5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings   6.(30 Minutes) AM-7726 Public Hearing on Draft Capital Facilities Element for 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update   7.(40 Minutes) AM-7720 Public Hearing on Draft 2015 Transportation Plan   8.(15 Minutes) AM-7718 Resolution to Dissolve Emergency Services Coordinating Agency (ESCA)   9.(15 Minutes) AM-7733 Edmonds Fish Hatchery Lease Agreement   10.(30 Minutes) AM-7736 Marina Beach Park Master Plan Briefing   11.(20 Minutes) AM-7727 Update on Development Activities/Projects   12.(15 Minutes) AM-7729 Amending the City Code regarding delinquency charges, threshold account balances, and turn-on and turn-off charges.   13.(45 Minutes) AM-7742 Discussion and Potential Action regarding Potential Submittal of Letter of Interest to State to Acquire the Edmonds Conference Center   14.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments   15.(15 Minutes)Council Comments   16.Convene in executive session regarding a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c).   17.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.   ADJOURN         Packet Page 2 of 452    AM-7738     3. A.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/19/2015 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 12, 2015. Recommendation  Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action  N/A Narrative  Attachment 1 - Draft Council Meeting Minutes. Attachments Attachment 1 - 05-12-15 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 05/14/2015 11:27 AM Final Approval Date: 05/14/2015  Packet Page 3 of 452 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES May 12, 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. 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 STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief 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. Rob English, City Engineer Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder SPECIAL MEETING 1. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING POTENTIAL SUBMITTAL OF LETTER OF INTEREST TO STATE TO ACQUIRE THE EDMONDS CONFERENCE CENTER Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed although the title of this item states potential action, tonight will only be a study session. Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty said this item is on next week’s agenda for continued discussion. He distributed and reviewed a summary of facts: • Surplus Property Bulletin issued by the State on April 28, 2015. • Stated fair market value of the property – $2,305,000. • Deadline for submittal of Letter of Interest – June 1, 2015. Proposal would be required within ten days. • Property is 14,375 square feet with an approximately 11,252 square foot, wood-frame conference center built in 1997 with 27 parking spaces. • Wood-frame, stucco-clad building has suffered water leakage and associated damage. Rough order of magnitude cost of mitigating damage: $1,012,161.23. • Profit/loss statement, submitted by the College and State for 2013-2014, shows $276,609 in annual revenue, $329,519 in annual expenses for a year-end loss of $52,910. • The Conference Center is managed by an Edmonds Community College staff person with associated temporary staff of up to 20 part-time individuals, averaging approximately 4-5 FTE. • “Surplus Property Bulletin” states government agencies have the first opportunity to express interest in acquiring the site. Packet Page 4 of 452 • To government entities the State may sell the property for cash at market value and/or as otherwise valued in “full or part consideration” of trade, other new construction, or “mutual and offsetting benefits.” • Purchase of the facility would require funds derived from only two existing City budgetary sources: General Fund or REET 1, which would require re-appropriation from other existing priorities. In addition, an Interfund Loan could be employed. • Operation and maintenance of the facility would require ongoing funding on the order of approximately $50,000 to $100,000 per year. Mr. Doherty said since issuing the Surplus Property Bulletin, Edmonds Community College (ECC) has been very hesitant to provide information and wants information to come from the State to ensure all inquiring parties have equal access to information. He summarized the issue for consideration 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. Councilmember Bloom read from the Surplus Property Bulletin, “The Department of Enterprise Services (DES), acting on behalf of the State, may transfer, exchange, lease, the property in full or part consideration for land or improvements, or for construction of improvements at equivalent to fair market value or for mutual and offsetting benefits to any of the following governmental entities with priority given in the order listed.” She relayed her understanding of Mr. Doherty’s explanation that the Council could decide what that means if it decided to make an offer. Mr. Doherty responded the only place where he meant the Council could decide what it means is the phrase, “mutual and offsetting benefits” which is an undescribed term and open-ended. In his reading of that phrase, other governmental entities have the ability to propose to the State whatever deal points they’d wanted and theoretically the deal points could include consideration in lieu of full market value of mutually offsetting benefits, whatever those might be. The phrase “in full or in part” theoretically seems to mean the deal could be less than market price or a combination of mutually offsetting benefits and purchase price. Councilmember Bloom recalled one of the Council’s requests was for staff to explore offsets. Mr. Doherty said he made that inquiry and the State would not answer that question because that would be a proposal. His reading of the language in the Surplus Property Bulletin was that entities were free to make proposals to the State, either the stated market value or something different, for example trading another piece of property, constructing another building and/or mutually offsetting benefits. When he asked about that, the State said that would be up to the City to propose; the State is not showing their cards to just one governmental entity. If the State had had a conceptual place holder, it would have been published to all potential parties. Councilmember Bloom referred to the statement, may transfer, exchange, sell or lease and asked if there was an option to lease the property. Mr. Doherty said the bulletin indicates all those are possibilities. Councilmember Bloom said the Council could propose to lease with an option to buy. Mr. Doherty agreed anything on the list was possible, noting the language in the bulletin was standard State language. Councilmember Bloom suggested construction of improvements such as repair of the windows could be an offset to the purchase price. Mr. Doherty did not interpret the phrase, construction of improvements, to mean that; he interpreted that to be an offset. For example, an improvement that would benefit the State that is an offset to the price. An improvement to the asset that the purchaser would be acquiring would not benefit the State. He assumed construction of something that benefits the State would be like an off-ramp, something that would benefit the State, not improving the asset. Councilmember Bloom asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday if he interpreted the phrase, “construction of improvements at equivalent to market value” the same way. Mr. Taraday responded in a scenario where Packet Page 5 of 452 the State retained title and the City would also construct improvements to the facility, that could be a benefit. He said neither he nor Mr. Doherty know what the State intends. Rather than hypothesize what the State means, he suggested the Council determine if they want the property and if so, what kind of deal could be put together. He suggested deal points be discussed in executive session and discuss whether the Council wants the building or not in public. Councilmember Bloom confirmed from Mr. Taraday’s statement, there is a potential based on what the bulletin says that the City could potentially lease with an option to buy. Mr. Doherty answered it certainly seems to be. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed an independent firm looked at the damage to the building a year ago and determined the cost of repairs was approximately $1 million. She asked whether any damage had occurred since then. Mr. Doherty did not know as no one has done a verifiably level of reconnaissance of the building. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the company was hired by ECC. Mr. Doherty answered yes. Council President Fraley-Monillas requested a profit and loss statement for 2012-2013; the packet contains a statement for 2013-2014. It was her understanding ECC paid less attention to the building toward the end of 2014. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether consideration has been given to what the City could use the building for. Mr. Doherty answered theoretically there are a lot of potential uses not withstanding all the costs such as continue to use it as conference center. In speaking with the manager today, she confirmed what he has learned through the years related to other conference centers, that few conference centers run in the black; they are usually subsidized by a City, County, PFD or other public sector body. The reason for those subsidizes is the economic impact to the community. That does not mean there is not some market response to the availability of a conference center in the community for conferences, meetings, gatherings, weddings, training seminars, etc. Use as a conference center is the most ready option; ownership changes and the use stays the same. There is vacant space in City Hall but there have also been discussions about other uses on the ground floor. He summarized the conference center is larger than any space the City currently needs; there is no project or priority that that space would fulfill other than theoretically being new stewards of an existing community asset. Councilmember Mesaros agreed with Mr. Taraday that the Council should consider whether it wants the building and whether it would be useful for City. If a decision is made that the Council wants it, then the Council could discuss how to acquire it and the structure of that deal. With regard to whether the City wants the building and could put it to use, he concurred with Council President Fraley-Monillas’ request for profit and loss statement for 2012-12013. He assumed ECC has not done much maintenance due to the $1 million estimated cost. He was surprised the College did not have a full-time manager for this asset. He asked how many of the staff on sales team actually market the space. Mr. Doherty did not know how many but knew that staff did do marketing and sales. He offered to determine the FTE that did that function. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether their approach to sales was reactive or proactive. Mr. Doherty said there is a website and on occasion there have been ads which could be considered mildly proactive; he was not sure there was an aggressive promotional effort. He offered to find out what he could about that. Councilmember Mesaros offered the Council did not yet have a reason for why it wanted the building. What he has heard in the community is it would be nice; he suggested the Council go beyond nice in terms of why they want the building. He acknowledged it was a good asset but the City was in business of running a city, not a conference center. He suggested Mayor Earling poll his leadership team regarding potential uses. Mayor Earling said in general conversations there was limited use identified. He offered to have that discussion at tomorrow’s staff meeting. Councilmember Mesaros commented City staff operates the City on everyday basis and may see a bigger picture than Councilmembers and Council should be Packet Page 6 of 452 reactive to their recommendations regarding what it might be used for. If the City did acquire it, he asked Mayor Earling who would manage it. Councilmember Nelson commented on its face the financial numbers seem somewhat daunting and challenging and he was struggling to determine what the property could be used for other than the existing conference center. He asked for further information regarding the meeting space such as the capacity of the meeting rooms. He acknowledged it is a unique opportunity but has not heard what it could be used for. Councilmember Petso recalled at one point the City planned when the Public Works Department shifted to the new Public Works facility, Parks maintenance would be located in the old Public Works building. For reasons she did not know, that plan was never executed and the old Public Works building is presently being used primarily for arts purposes and Parks maintenance in still in inadequate facilities in City Park and that the City is carrying a multimillion project to someday build a Parks maintenance structure. If $5-6 million is allocated to a new Parks maintenance building, it may be less expensive to acquire this building, put the art uses in it along the arts corridor and shift the Parks maintenance function into the old Public Works facility and eliminate the need to build a new building. Although there may not be a lot of staff members around from the time when that was first proposed, she asked staff to investigate and discuss whether there was any interest in that and what the numbers might be. Councilmember Johnson encouraged the Council to look at the Capital Facilities Plan to see what other projects the facility could be used for. For example the CFP includes $5 million for an art museum that could be located on the arts corridor as well as $5 million for an indoor year-round farmers market. She suggested the Comprehensive Plan and CFP may provide answers regarding how the facility could be used. She noted the City occasionally rents the conference center for events and obviously ECC as well as other regular tenants rent the building. Councilmember Johnson observed the building was constructed 19 years ago and a facilities study was done a year ago. She asked whether any interim improvements have been done by ECC or had they not maintained the asset since it was constructed. Mr. Doherty did not know but said ECC did not respond to the damage discovered last summer because there was not a small, palliative project they could do, it was a big project. He offered to ask for the maintenance records over the 19 years. Councilmember Johnson said she has heard antidotal information that when it rained towels were rolled up on window sills. She asked whether the entire stucco exterior needs to be removed. The report indicated there were some test sites around windows but she was aware that sometimes the stucco material had to be entirely removed and when it was, there could be dry rot, black mold or additional damage. Mr. Doherty referred to the report which indicates 7-8 locations were core tested and the results extrapolated to state at a minimum mitigation would require repair around those areas. Anecdotally he has heard that the entire skin would probably be removed and he agreed more damage could be found. No one knows any more than that but in his experience, once damage is identified, it is usually not limited to what is found in the test sites. As witnessed in the region in many of the buildings built during that timeframe, the stucco was not applied correctly, the flashing was done incorrectly, the papering out from windows into the area behind was incorrect, etc. In the case of condominiums because of the liability, the entire skin of the building is usually removed and replaced. He said it was unknown whether remediation would require entirely recladding the building but that certainly wouldn’t be surprising. He offered to inquire about ongoing maintenance over the years. Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding the building was a gift to Edmonds Community College. She asked whether that would have any bearing on the price. Mr. Doherty did not know but did not see that it would. The State has published their estimate of the fair market value. The couching of the Packet Page 7 of 452 Council’s proposal to the State such as deal points, considerations and offsetting benefits theoretically could include things about the building’s past. The State’s posture at this time is this is market value, not mitigated by any history. Councilmember Johnson observed according to the bulletin, the City would be third in priority after the County and State. She asked whether the State has indicated whether any State or County agencies have expressed interest. Mr. Doherty said the State will not indicate who they are talking with; once a letter of interest is submitted, it is public record. That is why Mr. Taraday recommended potential deal points be discussed in executive session. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has attended a weekly Rotary meeting in the conference center for the past six years. Work was done on the roof about two years ago, prior to the building assessment report, which indicates not everything was corrected. She pointed out there is no parking and parking is especially difficult if two events occur at the same time. The lack of parking and the status of the building are huge considerations. Using a house remodel and the senior center as examples, she commented good money should not be thrown at something that is bad; it is preferable to start over. She questioned whether buying the building for $2.3 million, rebuilding it and still having the parking issue was what the citizenry wants. She also questioned whether the City was in the business of investing in and operating buildings. If so, the City should have bought Old Mill Town which would have been a good investment. Councilmember Petso asked whether the parking behind the building included the parking on what appears to be an adjacent parcel. Mr. Doherty answered there are 27 parking spaces on the parcel; he was not certain if there were shared use agreements and offered to research that. Councilmember Petso said it appeared some of the parking may be on an adjacent parcel and/or behind another building on the same parcel. In the event the Council decides during the week it is extremely interested in the building, Councilmember Petso suggested scheduling a placeholder executive session regarding real property on next week’s agenda. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the assessed value of property takes into account the damage to the building. Mr. Doherty answered it is not the assessed value; it is their interpretation of the fair market value. The State did not provide information regarding how that was determined. Councilmember Bloom asked whether there was any breakdown between the property and the building. Mr. Doherty said the bulletin is the entirety of what the State published. The Assessor’s Office would have a breakdown of the property and building but typically the assessed value is less than fair market value not withstanding $1 million in damage which the Assessor may not be aware of. Councilmember Bloom observed when purchasing a house, the price can be reduced if the roof needs repair. Mr. Doherty said the fair market value the State provides could be viewed as the listing price; defects could be used to negotiate the price. Councilmember Bloom asked for clarification from Councilmember Petso whether her suggestion was for this building to be used for Parks maintenance. Councilmember Petso said one possibility to consider is to use this building in part for some of the uses currently housed at the old Public Works facility, potentially freeing up the old Public Works facility to operate as the Parks maintenance building, thus eliminating the need to construction a $5-6 million Parks maintenance facility. She did not contemplate that the conference center was in any way suitable as a Parks maintenance facility. Councilmember Bloom summarized Councilmember Petso’s suggestion was to move ArtWorks to the conference center as part of the potential use for the property. Councilmember Petso suggested not everything at the old Public Works facility would be moved as it was her understanding one of the uses was storage which could be accommodated elsewhere. Moving the arts functions to the conference center makes a lot of sense due to the interest in creating an arts corridor so having a permanent art presence in the building regardless of what else occurs in the building may make sense. The idea of moving Parks Packet Page 8 of 452 maintenance to the old Public Works facility was raised a long time ago and she wanted that possibility researched. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the building’s footprint is a conference center, not an office complex. The main hall is extremely large and airy and has been the site of auctions, weddings, etc. Artists currently show their work at the conference center as part of the building’s use as a conference center and meeting space. She envisioned the footprint would need to be changed if ArtWorks and classes were moved into the facility. She noted the heat would be extremely expensive. Mr. Doherty agreed a tenant improvement would be required. Councilmember Bloom commented the ArtWorks building has one office space and two large open areas for art to occur. She did not see that as a stumbling block. An issue may be the Wade James Theater or another theater practices in the other part of the building which may require insulation. She did not envision major tenant improvements would be required to accommodate the ArtWorks functions. Mayor Earling summarized an executive session for possible consideration will be scheduled on next week’s agenda. Councilmember Petso clarified she made that request based on the assumption there would also be discussion item on next week’s agenda. Mayor Earling said the agenda included discussion and possibly decision. Councilmember Bloom referred to Comprehensive Plan language she provided related to the Edmonds Conference Center and the cooperative relationship between the Edmonds Conference Center and the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) and support by ECC. She suggested that be included in the Council’s discussion. She looked forward to more information regarding how the building was promoted, how fully it was used and whether there was a possibility for more income than ECC was able to realize. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Lynnwood Convention Center is owned by a Public Facilities District (PFD) as is the ECA. She asked whether the conference center could be added to the Edmonds PFD, noting there would then be a deficit for both buildings. Mr. Doherty responded there are many different models; for example Mt. Vernon’s performing arts and conference center is part of the college. It appears most conference centers are subsidized by a government agency; sometimes they are operated by a non- profit that is subsidized by a public agency. Councilmember Johnson suggested contacting the Edmonds PFD to see if they have any interest. Mr. Doherty said he could contact a board member or the executive director; he was unsure if the board could make a statement of interest outside of a board meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis commented in that scenario the PFD would run the conference center and the City would subsidize it and the ECA. She suggested asking the ECA if they were interested in taking on that responsibility. Mr. Doherty said there were two questions for the Edmonds PFD, whether they were interested in operating the conference center and their response to the City’s potential interest in the conference center. He agreed to inquire of the Edmonds PFD/ECA. Councilmember Bloom recalled a citizen, who is a member of the Economic Development Commission (EDC), stated the conference center would be a potentially location for an incubator project. She suggested that use be considered as an option, noting the potential for a portion of building to be used as a conference center such as the lower floor, and the upper a public/private partnership overseen by the City for an incubator project. She noted there was a fairly significant amount of interest in the community in an incubator project. She and Ms. Hite also briefly discussed the interim location of the senior center during development of their property. She supported exploring Councilmember Johnson’s questions about an art museum or year-round market. Packet Page 9 of 452 Mayor Earling summarized it has been difficult to obtain information from the State. Staff will provide as much information as they are able to obtain. At 6:50 p.m. he declared a recess until the regular meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:03 p.m. and led the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Bloom requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, 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 28, 2015 B. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 5, 2015 C. 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. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM MARISA MATERA ($2,000,000.00). E. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES ITEM F: APPROVAL OF CITY PARK CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT RESERVE Councilmember Bloom referred to the agenda memo which states that the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee was the review committee which she understood was over the years. The agenda memo also states under committee action, approve for Consent Agenda. She noted the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee no longer exists so there could not be approval by that committee. She also referred to language in the agenda memo, “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.” Councilmember Bloom said she would abstain for the vote because she did not have the time to figure everything out and she did not feel it was appropriate for the Council President to Packet Page 10 of 452 move something to the Consent Agenda. This issue was related to the dissolution of committee meetings, scheduled for discussion on June 23, which she did not think was soon enough. Councilmember Johnson said she emailed Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite today requesting she summarize the highlights of the project. She recalled at the last study session the Council made an appropriation for the bulk of the project. She requested Ms. Hite provide an overview of the project including the operational costs. Ms. Hite referred to information sent to the Council prior to tonight’s meeting based on Councilmember Johnson’s request. This project has been in front of Council 23 times over the past 3 years. The project began in 2012; the City received an RCO grant as well as grant funds from Snohomish County and the Hazel Miller Foundation in 2013. The budget to revitalize the spray and play area at City Park was $1.4 million. Mid-project in 2013 technical issues arose and staff was in front of Council 3 times to work through those issues and to ask Council for guidance whether to discontinue the project, go forward with the play area and/or engage with a different firm to explore technical issues and proceed with the spray area. All three times Council gave direction to continue with installing a new play area at City Park as well as to figure out the best location and best way to proceed with the spray pad. The City engaged with Site Workshop who took the project through 90% design and were able to address all the technical issues. Some of the issues include the high water table at City Park; the original design included a 20,000 gallon underground tank. The water system was changed from water reuse to a water recirculating system which needed only a 5,000 gallon tank. The spray pad was co-located with the City Park play area and the Park crew graded the area and a community build that included over 80 people over a 3 day weekend constructed the play area. The City went out to bid for the spray equipment and added additional pedestrian improvements, did wetland mitigation, utilities. Most of the changes were in A&E costs, not construction. The City went out to bid for construction and Council awarded the bid for construction two weeks ago. The construction bid was 10% higher than the engineer’s estimate which took the complete management reserve. Knowing the technical difficulties that arose during design, she anticipated there will be issues underground. She requested Council approve a $75,000 management reserve so that construction does not have to stop if unanticipated problems arise. The funds are available in the REET 125 fund. There was $250,000 budgeted for the Meadowdale Playfield project which is not proceeding this year; $100,000 of that has been used, leaving $150,000. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the review committee was the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee back in 2014. Ms. Hite agreed that committee began the process. She copied the agenda item forward from Agenda Quick and did not check all the settings. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO, AND COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM ABSTAINING. Councilmember Bloom clarified she abstained for process reasons, not because she does not support the project. 5. PRESENTATION OF WRPA AWARD TO BRUCE HIGGINS Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained two weeks ago at Washington Recreation & Parks Association conference, she passed the gavel to the next president of WRPA. The WRPA annual conference includes recognizing people for their contributions to parks and recreation. WRPA gives out many awards, spotlight awards for projects as well as individual awards for people who contribute a significant amount. It was her pleasure to represent this award so the citizens can see what a gem there is in the community and so the Council and Mayor can help her in congratulating him for his hard work. Packet Page 11 of 452 The Citation of Merit Award is awarded to a lay citizen who is an effective civic leader and who has contributed to the health and wellbeing of parks and recreation in their community. The Edmonds Underwater Dive Park was established in 1970 without much stewardship. After a series of dive-related fatalities in the mid-70s, there was much discussion about the park’s future. Fortunately the dive park had many champions, one being a young marine biologist, Bruce Higgins, who joined a committee to improve diver safety at the dive park. Over the past 38 years Mr. Higgins has been the lead steward for the Edmonds Underwater Dive Park. He has logged well over 20,000 hours planning, creating and maintaining this underwater treasure. Today the park is over 26 acres with 2 miles of marked underwater trails. The underwater park includes numerous manmade features including sunken boats, a railroad tie pyramid, concrete structures and habitat for many different marine critters. The availability of food and habitat has created an environment where sea life now thrives. Mr. Higgins’ principles of safety, security, maintenance and enhancement have resulted in a park known nationwide and visited by over 25,000 divers annually. Without Mr. Higgins’ many years of volunteer service, leadership and dedication to its many improvements, the Edmonds Underwater Dive Park would not be the world class underwater park and marine habitat that it is today. She provided a quote from Mayor Earling, “As the Mayor of Edmonds, I do not know of such a volunteer that has given so much to the City, the Parks Department and the residents of Edmonds. Bruce’s contributions have had an impact that reach far beyond Edmonds. Bruce is not a Parks & Recreation professional but his contributions are very significant to our Parks & Recreation system and to the overall dive population worldwide.” Ms. Hite invited the public to join her in recognizing Bruce Higgins, the 2015 Citizen Citation of Merit Award for the WRPA. Mr. Higgins said he does not do this alone. The City has a great parks system and has had a stream of incredible park directors over the years. He has also had very good corporate support from the underwater sports store on the beach. This effort is a three legged stool: the volunteers, the parks department that support them administratively and the commercial side that helps with the heavy lifting. He thanked the WRPA for the award on behalf of all the volunteers, commenting there are typically about 30 people who help every year, providing over 1500 volunteer hours at the park. 6. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING NATIONAL POLICE WEEK Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring May 10-16 as National Police Week in Edmonds. He presented the proclamation to Police Chief Al Compaan. Chief Compaan recognized the service that the members of the Edmonds Police Department provide to the community 24/7. He was honored to lead a fine of group of law enforcement officers and support staff. He invited the public to the Police Department’s annual award ceremony in Council Chambers on Thursday, May 14 at 6:00 p.m. The presentation recognizes members of the Police Department and the community who have added to public safety over the previous year. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Fred Gouge, Edmonds Port Commissioner, announced great summer programs at the Port: • Sea Jazz (award winning musicians from the Edmonds School District), June 3 – September 14, Wednesdays 5-7 pm and Sundays 1-3 pm and a special performance during the Waterfront Festival • 20th annual Waterfront Festival hosted by the Rotary Club of Edmonds, May 29-31. A major fundraiser with proceeds supporting Rotary programs and services. • Artists in Action, Sunday afternoons, June 21-September 13, sponsored by the Port, the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation in cooperation with ArtWorks. Packet Page 12 of 452 • Puget Sound Express whale watching – 4½ hours excursion out of Edmonds. He encouraged the public to visit the Port this summer. Dave Page, Edmonds, said Mr. Higgins deserves the award many times over. He has done over 100 dives at the Edmonds Underwater Dive Park and has visited many dive parks and Edmonds’ is among the top three between here and Acapulco. He provided an update on the effort to rename Edmonds Fire Station 16 after Betty Mueller. He invited the public to donate to the Betty Mueller Dedication Fund at Union Bank 123 3rd Avenue South; they are $1000 short of their goal. Next, he continued his earlier comments about the protected sea lion and killer whales populations that are eating 40% of the salmon. He supported daylighting Willow Creek but said the sea lions are eating the salmon before they go up the creek. Up to 300,000 sea lions pass through Edmonds while migrating. He summarized at some point Fish and Wildlife needed to make some changes. Council President Fraley-Monillas provided a $100 donation and challenged Councilmembers to do the same. Councilmember Buckshnis said she already donated. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to his previous comments about the Streetscape Plan and view corridors. With regard to the proposed Tree Code that will restrict tree cutting on private property, he relayed many people are upset over the idea that they will need to obtain a permit to cut a tree on their property. He reminded over-regulation sometimes kills a good system and suggested relooking at the ordinance, fines, and permits required to cut a tree, and make it simpler. Mike Echelbarger, Edmonds, spoke regarding the improvements on Sunset Avenue. He acknowledged it was a little narrow but it was not any narrower than Main Street between 5th and 6th. It works well, traffic has slowed down some, and the majority of the people using the street now are on west side enjoying the water. He urged the City to obtain the funds to widen the roadway a little bit in the right-of- way. His wife has talked to Mr. Williams about more parking on the north end of Sunset. Councilmember Bloom read a letter from Greg Toy about the Edmonds Conference Center who thought there would be would be action tonight. As the Council’s discussion regarding interest in the conference center was a study session, he was not sure when public input on the topic will be heard. Since two members of the Economic Development Commission support acquisition of the building, he suggested it would be prudent to at least look at potential revenue and cash flow models before making any final decision. It may prove to be a financial loser or could help support City operations with a lower lifecycle costs or positive revenue stream. To make a decision without the benefit of examining such options could lead to an unfortunate decision either way. He suggested the City express interest and ask the State for more time to examine the financial feasibility of any transaction. 8. PRESENTATION BY ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Kristina Gallant, Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), of which Edmonds is a member. Ms. Gallant recalled she was here six months ago to present the housing profile. She reported: • What is AHA? o Interjurisdictional partnership: 13 member cities, Snohomish County and HASCO o Work centered in three areas so far:  Housing profiles – completed for all members including Snohomish County  Comprehensive Plan support  General research • Why consider housing? o Diagram of the housing continuum – what does it mean for a family of three in Snohomish County. Packet Page 13 of 452 o Many layers in assisted housing and the appropriateness and affordability of market rate housing. • Where we’re headed: o Translating the Comprehensive Plan into practical strategies  Supporting Edmonds’ housing strategy o Expanded online “Housing Planning Guide” o Continuous tracking of housing conditions o Deeper connection with the cities o Exploring funding options Councilmember Buckshnis commented AHA has done a great job in just two years. She inquired about the timeframe and which cities are likely candidates for exploring funding options. Ms. Gallant answered funding options is a long term goal; they wanted to start with code and policy. They eventually want to pursue grants and help cities strategize. AHA is modeled after King County ARCH who has its own Housing Trust Fund. She viewed that as an item at least a couple years in the future. Councilmember Johnson reported she attended the PSRC Transit Oriented Developing working group last week. ARCH has years of experience but many other King and Pierce County agencies are getting involved. She was one of only two people there from Snohomish County; PSRC is looking at matching funding opportunity with light rail, bus rapid transit and heavy rail. She saw opportunity for Snohomish County cities particularly Edmonds in the future. Their next meeting is in September; she offered to provide contact information. Councilmember Nelson asked what Ms. Gallant sees as encouraging, helpful, insightful or would make sense in Edmonds based on ARCH’s experience. Ms. Gallant referred to ARCH’s Housing Trust Fund that has funded a lot of housing units and provides gap financing for housing projects. Some of the interesting benefits have been in consistency; ARCH, a partnership of eastside cities and King County, cities, has assisted in establishing similar strategies in those cities so there are consistent standards. When a developer approaches an ARCH-member city, they know what to expect in the affordable housing policies in each city and can compare what works in all the cities. Councilmember Nelson asked for an example. Ms. Gallant explained ARCH does both rent and homeownership subsidized projects. There are covenants recorded against the property to ensure rent restrictions or household income restrictions are held over a certain period. Another benefit ARCH provides is a venue for exploring ideas. 9. DRAFT STREETSCAPE/STREET TREES ELEMENT FOR 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope explained draft updates to the Comprehensive Plan are being reviewed one at a time. Drafts, with refinements, will be considered all together in early July. The existing Comprehensive Plan does not have a specific section regarding street trees and streetscape; however, the 2006 Streetscape Plan is adopted by reference. Time and 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 and Urban Design element. 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 She reviewed the current proposal with regard to streetscape and street trees: Packet Page 14 of 452 • Add a new Streetscape and Street Tree section into the Comprehensive Plan to address goals and policies o Based on 2006 Streetscape Plan • Do not adopt the Streetscape Plan by reference, but include it as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. • Add two tree-related implementation strategies to the Culture & Urban Design Element section of the Comprehensive 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 • Make minor adjustments to the Street Tree Plan (appendix to the Comprehensive Plan) to: 1. Improve map readability 2. Adjust street tree species in four location to encourage better performing trees Ms. Hope reviewed proposed goals and policies: • Streetscape and Street Trees Goal: o 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. 4. Promote the planting and maintenance of landscaping and street trees to enhance City gateways and connections; strengthen the character and identity 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 [change to without allowing] 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 • 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 Ms. Hope displayed the draft 2015 Street Tree Plan map. Proposed changes to trees in the Street Tree Plan include: • 3rd Avenue N between ECA and Caspers - changed species from European Hornbeam to Capital Pear • Lower Main Street between 5th Avenue N and ferry – changed species from Kwansan Cherry to Capital Pear • Civic Center – Changed species from Sargents Cherry to Bowhall Maple • Upper Main Street between 5th Avenue N and 9th Avenue N – changed species from Kwansan Cherry to Bowhall Maple • 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor – changed species from Summit Ash to mix of trees as per 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Design Implementation and Funding Plan (2009) and 4th Avenue Corridor concept Plan (2006) The Planning Board discussed the Streetscape & Street Tree Section on March 11th and April 8th and the Tree Board discussed the same material on April 9th. Tree Board is interested in providing input into Packet Page 15 of 452 Streetscape/Street Tree Plan in the future. The City Council held a public hearing on April 21. Tonight’s agenda item is for the Council to have discussion on the Streetscape & Street Tree update. More public input and a final decision on the complete Comprehensive Plan will occur in June/July. Councilmember Bloom referred to Goal 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.” and suggested replacing “encouraging” with “allowing.” Councilmember Bloom asked whether Goal 7 was a recommendation from the Planning Board. Ms. Hope said it has not been presented to the Planning Board. Councilmember Bloom suggested incorporating Goal 7 into Goal 6. Councilmember Mesaros inquired about the maximum height of the recommended tree species. Ms. Hope answered the staff who developed the species list as well as the Tree Board were very cognizant of height and type. Councilmember Mesaros suggest include their maximum height in the plan. Ms. Hope agreed, recalling there had also been a suggestion to have more pictures. She suggested including pictures, description and maximum heights in the Street Tree Plan. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the Tree City USA recognition standards are integrating into the Comprehensive Plan such as a Community Forestry Program with an annual budget of $2 per capita. She asked whether the second implementation strategy, Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017, addressed that. Ms. Hope answered yes, an Urban Forestry Management plan is recommended by Tree City USA and would provide a bigger picture look at trees in parks, street trees, etc. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Ms. Hope assured the Tree Code proposed by the Tree Board is a separate action that will be presented to the Council in the future and is not part of this update. The Comprehensive Plan contains broad level policies and goals. Councilmember Petso observed staff’s proposal was to remove the entire Streetscape Plan from the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hope said it would be included as an appendix. Councilmember Petso asked the legal effect of having it as an appendix and not part of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hope answered one of the problems with having it in the Comprehensive Plan is it contains things that are out of date. The City is legally obligated to implement its Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends keeping the Comprehensive Plan more streamlined and not adopt a lot of things by reference. She noted plans adopted by reference may be limited to revision once a year when the Comprehensive Plan is updated. Councilmember Petso said there are several sections of the existing plan that reference Westgate and she was uncertain they were consistent with the recently adopted Westgate Plan. She asked if removing the Streetscape Plan from the Comprehensive Plan would create or eliminate a problem created by that inconsistency. Ms. Hope answered if it was a problem, this would eliminate it. She clarified some things are just out of date; the Streetscape Plan, adopted in 2006, includes a lot of dated information such as the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor that needs to be updated. She has also proposed removing other things that were adopted by reference such as the Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan. She preferred those can be mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan but not adopted by reference. Councilmember Petso referred to the two implementation strategies, a Street Tree Plan and an Urban Forest Management Plan and asked whether the Streetscape Plan would be updated. Ms. Hope answered that is a bigger project than just the Street Tree Plan. Councilmember Petso recalled in November 1, 2010, the Council adopted changes to the Streetscape Plan particularly the street tree portion partial in response to tree cutting at 5th and Walnut or Dayton. There were assurances at that time that the plan would be reviewed more holistically in 2011. She recalled there were 15 changes made at that time but one Councilmember mentioned 7 changes he wanted considered when the plan was updated. She suggested Packet Page 16 of 452 one possibility, instead of taking the Streetscape Plan out of the Comprehensive Plan, updating it and having it reviewed by the Tree Board and Planning Board. There is a great deal of material in the plan including driveways, methods of service delivery to downtown, the flower program and a proposal to expand it to other business districts, not designing sidewalks for bike use, overhead wires and gateways, etc. She summarized there was a lot of good information she was not certain should be lost from the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hope said not including the material as an element was not losing it; it was still a reference point. Having it in the Comprehensive Plan it is still not a code or regulation that can be enforced. Including it in the Comprehensive Plan may give the illusion that it can be enforced. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if there any areas of Edmonds other than downtown that have street trees. Ms. Hope answered it is primarily in the downtown and the waterfront areas and a few more. The areas are identified on the Street Tree map Councilmember Nelson suggested the General section start with a statement that trees enhance the livability, character and quality of life. In the current draft, that is not mentioned until the fourth paragraph of the five paragraph General section. Councilmember Johnson recalled when she was on Planning Board, they reviewed recommendations from City Council about changes to the Streetscape Plan and the Street Tree Plan, predominantly related to tree species along Main Street. She advised there is a Streetscape Plan for Highway 99. 10. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (EMC 10.25.090) UPDATE – FILLING OF VACANCIES- PROBATIONARY PERIOD Human Resources Manager Mary Ann Hardie explained the proposed change to the Civic Service Commission (EMC 10.25.090) relates to increasing the number of candidate names on the eligibility list for both entry and lateral level police officers to allow 20 candidate names instead of 10. The testing process in the Police Department is continuous regardless of whether there are vacancies. Due to extremely competitive environment, the Police Department is experiencing challenges filling officer positions. Sharon Cates, City Attorney’s Office, Chief Compaan and she drafted an ordinance to update the code to change the number of candidates on the list from 10 to 20. That would provide more latitude for the department to consider more individuals and prevent an inordinately long wait for the list to be certified by the Civic Service Commissions that holds monthly meetings. The update will also remove reference to the fire department. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval of the ordinance on next week’s Consent Agenda. 11. NAMING FIRE STATION #16 Public Works Director Phil Williams explained staff is seeking Council action to approve placing signage on Fire Station 16. The choices of wording are: • Betty Mueller Memorial Building • Betty Mueller Fire Hall • Betty Mueller Memorial Fire Hall All three names are acceptable to the committee that met to discuss a name for the building. As mentioned during Audience Comments, approximately $1500 has been raised toward the purchase and installation of this signage. Any approval would be contingent on raising the entire amount. Packet Page 17 of 452 Councilmember Buckshnis relayed Rich Demeroutis’ opinion that Ms. Mueller would have wanted Betty Mueller Fire Hall but most other memorial building names in the City include the name followed by Memorial Building. Council President Fraley-Monillas preferred Betty Mueller Memorial Fire Hall, noting it was a memorial to her work for the Fire Department. Councilmembers Mesaros agreed, pointing out that maintained the transition of including “Memorial” in the building name. Councilmember Nelson agreed. Mr. Williams referred to the picture, suggesting the name Betty Mueller Memorial Fire Hall would require smaller letters; Betty Mueller Memorial Building fits better and could be read more easily from street. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the letters go to the edge of the building and Fire Hall has the same number of letters as Building. Councilmember Mesaros suggested placing “Betty Mueller” above “Memorial Fire Hall.” Mr. Williams commented there is a change in the texture and color of building. Councilmember Nelson pointed out Betty Mueller Memorial Building and Betty Mueller Memorial Fire Hall each have 28 letters. Councilmember Bloom suggested eliminating “The” from the name. Councilmember Johnson recalled when this was last discussed there were three options, a plaque, a sign and letters on the building. She asked whether the committee choose the lettering. Mr. Williams answered yes, they preferred the metal lettering. Councilmember Buckshnis explained the committee chose the lettering because the blue and white building signage did not fit and the plaque too small. It was the consensus of the Council to have “Betty Mueller Memorial Fire Hall” and squish it in however it fit. It was agreed to schedule approval on next week’s Consent Agenda. 12. PRESENTATION OF FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 15TH STREET WALKWAY PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT City Engineer Rob English advised construction was completed at the end of 2014. The project constructed 650 feet of 5-foot sidewalk on 15th Street between SR 104 and 8th Avenue. The award amount for Kamins Construction was $233,753; at the conclusion of the project, the final cost paid to Kamins Construction was approximately $200,000. The project was funded by a Safe Routes to Schools grant, 100% funding with no local match required. The project is now complete. Councilmember Mesaros said he walked on the walkway on Saturday afternoon and found it works well. Mr. English advised staff has heard several positive comments about the project. As someone who lives close by and often walks the entire project, Councilmember Nelson reported it is a wonderful project used on a daily basis by all ages. He suggested it would be better if vehicles slowed down. Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding the nearby school sent a letter to parents saying it was unsafe and they would no longer provide crossing guards. Now that the walkway makes it safer, she suggested staff work with the School District to encourage students to walk to school. Mr. English answered that could be considered; the School District’s concern was not necessarily the route where the sidewalk was constructed, it was the intersection of SR 104 and 226th/15th. The route has definitely been Packet Page 18 of 452 improved. Councilmember Nelson concurred with Councilmember Johnson’s suggestion to work with the School District to restore the crossing guards. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on next week’s Consent Agenda. 13. PRESENTATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD FOR THE 2015 WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained this is the introduction of the 2015 watermain replacement project, the annual watermain replacement program approved via the Water Comprehensive Plan. This year’s project is scoped for 9,400 lineal feet of watermain replacement. The project will be scaled to fit within the $2.6 million construction budget based on the construction bids. Bid opening is scheduled for Thursday, May 14. Once the bids have been opened and reviewed, staff will return to Council with a recommendation for award either on next week’s or the following week’s agenda. Councilmember Bloom said one of the replacements is in her neighborhood. She asked questions when the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee existed including whether to recuse herself because it is in her neighborhood. The map does not show the location well; after calling Public Works she learned the location had been changed and would no longer go past her house and down 8th Avenue. The location of other sections of the project are also unclear. She asked how residents were informed and how sections were identified. Mr. English said the map was incorrect; the location of #4 Aloha, Daley and 8th, the watermain replacement will only occur on Daley and Aloha. The reason for those replacements is to improve fireflow and replace cast iron pipe. During the development of the Water Comprehensive Plan, criteria was used to rank the priority of pipeline replacements. Watermains have been replaced per that schedule with the exception of replacement done at the time of a transportation project such as the Five Corners roundabout. Councilmember Bloom referred to #4 and clarified the segment on 8th Avenue between Aloha and Daley was not being done. Mr. English agreed and said the map will be updated to reflect that. Councilmember Bloom asked if the stairway would be taken out. Mr. English offered to follow up with Councilmember Bloom tomorrow. Councilmember Bloom asked how residents are notified of the project, noting it will be a significant disruption to residents who live in the area and use the walkway. Mr. English advised signs will be put up notifying of the upcoming project. The City also mails postcards to adjacent residents with the project manager’s contact information and press release is done at the time of construction with the same information. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the location of #3 and #6 and whether the “jogs” are onto private property. Mr. English said neither location would go onto private property. He offered to follow up with Councilmember Bloom. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule award of bid on next week’s or the following week’s Consent Agenda. 14. 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 Public Works Director Phil Williams said this Master Use Agreement (MUA) authorizes Sprit to use the right-of-way to erect communication facilities as has been done with several other communication companies. A Site Use Agreement would be developed for any specific sites. The agreement sites the relevant code sections, includes recommended changes in fees for facilities. Sprint needs the Site Use Agreement for their facility at 8730 Main Street. The City has MUA with three other companies with Packet Page 19 of 452 virtually identical language. He recommended scheduling the agreements on next week’s Consent Agenda for approval. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on next week’s Consent Agenda. 15. PRESENTATION OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH PSE FOR THE 238TH ST. SW WALKWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained the City secured a Safe Routes to Schools grant. That project was combined with stormwater improvements in the same general area. In 2013 PSE did a gas main replacement on 238th which included tearing out and repairing a portion of the street. Rather than a permanent patch, the City required PSE to contribute to the pavement overlay on 238th. The estimated cost of PSE’s portion is $78,000; the final amount is unknown until construction bids are received. He recommended forwarding the Interlocal Agreement to the Consent Agenda for approval. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 16. SUNSET AVENUE WALKWAY PROJECT UPDATE Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this is an informational update. He provided background: • August 19, 2014 Council approves a “trial or proof-of-concept” project along with a small budget in order to get experience with a multi-use path on the west side of Sunset • Between August 19 and September 18, Public Works crews restriped, placed bumpers, painted curbs, adjusted and placed new signage, built temporary ramps, marked crosswalks and placed stencils to delineate a pathway. Parks crews added mulch and planted low-lying roses. He displayed photographs of: • People enjoying Sunset in an unstructured way prior to the project, walking on an informal path on the west side of the curb, in the street, with their backs to traffic. • The current situation illustrating the pathway and angle parking and the mulched area with roses which will grow up and occupy more space and provide a more effective barrier to discourage people from the bank He summarized field changes vs design: • Transition of the pathway from west of the curb to east of the cub was done 600 feet south of where the final design had shown it. o This was done to fit the project within the $20,000 budget o Moved angle parking 8 feet east o Still left a full 13 feet of clear pavement o This could be increased in a full-scale project Mr. Williams displayed and reviewed a drawing of this alignment, identifying BNSF’s right-of-way. He identified changes made since September 18th and displayed a drawing identifying the location of the changes: • 4 spaces restriped for compact cars • Wheel stops (safety issue) • Pathway speed signs - 10 mph for all modes of non-motorized traffic • Parking and no parking signage • 1 parallel parking space adjacent to 218 Sunset driveway removed Packet Page 20 of 452 • PUD box will be moved out of pathway He reviewed data gathered with regard to daily traffic volumes: Average volumes per day November 2014 April 2015 300 Sunset Avenue (middle of angle parking) 840 25-40% higher 400 Sunset Avenue (400 feet south of Caspers) 880 Speeds (Average/85th percentile) 300 Sunset Avenue 16/23 16/21 400 Sunset Avenue 21/26 20/23 He commented the average and 85th percentile speed was too fast in the current configuration; 12-13 miles per hour was more appropriate. If the Council authorizes a project on Sunset, something will need to be done to better control speeds. He noted when there is more traffic and more parked cars, drivers tend to slow down. He reviewed wrong way traffic data gathered during the study period via the pneumatic tubes that count traffic volume and speeds: Wrong Way Traffic November 2014 April 2015 300 Sunset Avenue 5 4 400 Sunset Avenue 6 10 Total 11 14 If the Council authorizes a project, Mr. Williams recommended doing things at Caspers and Sunset to make wrong way traffic less likely. The data indicated a significant number of wrong way drivers hit one set of tubes but not the other, indicating they were destined for a location along Sunset or turned around. He reviewed accident history: 6 reportable accidents during 2014, 4 occurred near Main and Sunset and only 2 within the project limits. One was a backing accident in the vicinity of the angle parking but occurred before the changes were made on Sunset. The only reported accident that has occurred since the project was at the north end within 300 feet of Caspers was a backing accident out of a driveway. No accidents have occurred in 2015 but that will continue to be monitored. He commented on possible future projects: • Replace install upgraded underground utilities • Grind/overlay Sunset from Bell Street northward, including west side curb and gutter • Install methods to prevent/discourage wrong way drivers • Take steps to discourage speeding through area • Adjust angled parking to create a larger travel lane behind the parking spaces • Restripe Sunset (the rail line segment) after repaving • Consider a C-curb or other separation along the walkway where possible to create separation • Upgrade City property at south end to become a public viewpoint and rebuild Caspers Street to 3rd Avenue Mr. Williams commented on the evaluation phase: • Staff met with Council task force/committee on May 6 o Task force preferred periodic counts by staff in the field to a video recording of activity that could lead to counts later o The task force was interested in data related to usage of the walkway by various non- motorized user groups • Need to run the evaluation through this fall to get a full year of data and cover each season Packet Page 21 of 452 • Follow that with survey work and public meeting to get input from the public o Task force has mixed feeling about the cost of a statistically significant survey due to cost • Staff could use direction on other evaluation steps Councilmember Buckshnis observed the bicycle signage on the pathway has only been in place a few months so a true test did not begin in August because some bicyclist did not know they could use the pathway. Mr. Williams explained delivery of the bike stencils and the weather delayed the application of the stencils. Bike use on the pathway so far has not been heavy although that may change when the weather improves. The Edmonds Bicycle and Cascade Bicycle Clubs have notified their members. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Mr. Echelbarger’s concern about the lack of parking to the north. People picnicking in that area have no place to park, which is not conducive to families, picnickers or wheelchairs. Mr. Williams commented this was a trial project and there was no money fix driveways. A lot of the driveways are narrow and the goal was not to interfere with residents’ driveways. A project with funding could include installing new curb returns on those driveways which would allow parallel parking in a number of locations. Councilmember Buckshnis objected to videoing for privacy reasons. Councilmember Bloom clarified rather than a task force, it was a Council committee formed after the retreat. The members are Council President Fraley-Monillas, her, Mr. Williams, Mr. English, Ms. Hite and Ed Sibrel. She was opposed to spending $20,000 for statistically significant survey and preferred to obtain the information in a more inclusive, transparent, open government way. Councilmember Petso referred to her discovery of standards for the appropriate width of a multi-use pathway that includes bicycles and said the path on Sunset is not that width. She asked whether that width would be retained until this fall. Mr. Williams said that has been discussed with the State; 10 feet is the preferred width. The path on Sunset is 10 feet but 2 feet are reserved where there is parallel parking for car doors to open which effectively provides 8 feet. A deviation can be obtained from the State down to 8 feet if certain conditions are met; he was hopeful the City could obtain that. He did not anticipate a 12- foot pathway could be provided with 2 feet for car doors to provide a 10-foot path. He summarized although the existing path may not be what some manuals suggest as an ideal width, 8 feet is grant fundable and usable. Councilmember Petso assumed 10 feet was preferred because it was safer. She asked why the City was interested in asking for permission for a less safe path. Mr. Williams clarified he was not saying that. It was more to do with comfort and separation of users. Although separation was related to a feeling of safety, there was not a lot of accident statistics to back that up. Much of it has to do with two people walking side by side passing two other people walking side by side without walking single file. Councilmember Petso clarified her reference was the addition of bikes to the walkway. She questioned why the City would press for an exception to allow that to occur. Mr. Williams said the hope was to provide a southbound identified option for bicycles if they are willing to ride 10 mph on a non-motorized pathway. If bikes are riding 10 mph there should not be a significant conflict with other modes of non- motorized traffic. Councilmember Petso asked if the purpose was out of a necessity for southbound cycling on Sunset or to aid in obtaining a grant. Mr. Williams said it may be for both those reasons and others. If he was on a bicycle traveling southbound and the choice was 3rd Avenue or Sunset, he would find Sunset more fun, interesting, enjoyable to ride on although he would have to slow down a little. As long as bikes slow down to 10 mph, they are welcome on the path. The bicycle portion of the project got a late start because it wasn’t marked, the balance of the good weather will provide more data. He encouraged bikes to use the pathway to assist in identifying any concerns. Packet Page 22 of 452 By the end of the trial Councilmember Mesaros requested a recommendation and a plan for moving forward. He has received very positive comments regarding the walkway on the west. He suggested investigating how to move the walkway further west to mitigate concerns with driveways, parking, etc. and asked what the options are for working with BNSF. He expressed willingness to work with staff on discussions with BNSF. Mr. Williams commented BNSF’s interest is moving freight on the tracks and little else. If components of a project could be seen by BNSF as beneficial to them, they may be more interested. Council President Fraley-Monillas was not interested in building on BNSF property and envisioned that as lose-lose and cost prohibitive. She was concerned with building a path close to the cliff. She observed there was little parking at the north end due to driveways and the narrow roadway. She asked whether adding parking spaces would narrow the roadway for fire trucks, delivery trucks, etc. Mr. Williams said some additional parallel parking spaces could be added in the trial project and definitely in the final project by improving some of the driveways. Fire District 1 has stated they do not need 20 feet of clear pavement all along Sunset Avenue but there needs to be periodic locations with 20 feet of pavement. They need a periodic fire hydrant and the ability to drive to the hydrant, set up their outriggers; they can drag hoses a certain distance. If new waterlines were installed on Sunset Avenue in a final project, hydrants would be added in key locations; the code requires fire hydrants every 600 feet. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was not interested in disturbing citizens on the east side of Sunset any more than the City already has unless there was enough money to improve their driveways, redo the sidewalk, etc. Council President Fraley-Monillas inquired about southbound bikes on the street. Mr. Williams said that was illegal. Southbound bikes often use the pathway until they reach a group of pedestrians, then veer out into the street and back on the pathway. He preferred bikes slow down, stay on the pathway and observe normally accepted rules of the road. If a bicyclist was in a hurry, he suggested they use the southbound lane on 3rd Avenue. Council President Fraley-Monillas inquired about traffic calming ideas for Sunset Avenue. Mr. Williams commented that was a rapidly growing area of traffic engineering. The conceptual design had a table top intersection at Edmonds and Sunset. Other options include speed humps, speed bumps, speed tables, signage, lowering the speed limit to 15 mph, etc. He noted speeds are slower behind the angle parking; where drivers are uncomfortable, there will be a reduction in average speed. Councilmember Johnson suggested a low cost, low tech solution to gathering data: create a simple paper questionnaire that could be distributed during the summer peak period. She suggested questions about southbound and northbound bicycles, the general concept, parking, and the speed limit. Councilmember Nelson thanked staff for their data-driven presentation, particularly the high number of wrong way drivers. For Councilmember Nelson, Mr. Williams described a C-curb, explaining he did not envision installing it on the entire pathway due to the Fire Department’s need for 20 feet of clear pavement and a C-curb is difficult for the Fire Department to mount. Councilmember Petso recalled the south end of the project was fairly clear, the center was controversial and the north end along Caspers was not resolved. She encouraged staff to bring back the Caspers piece to Council and not wait for the conclusion of this trial. Mr. Williams agreed with that thought but attracting outside funding will require a holistic project. If funding for a holistic project was not attainable, it may be appropriate to do a piece at a time. Councilmember Petso clarified she did not mean implementing a project but reaching Council and public consensus on the Caspers piece. Packet Page 23 of 452 Councilmember Mesaros said he has occasionally seen wrong way drivers and after waving at them, they turn around. Mr. Williams commented there is more northbound traffic going over the tubes on the south end which would explain U-turns. Councilmember Bloom said the Council committee discussed having discussions with BNSF and agreed that would be futile. She recalled Mr. Williams telling the subcommittee that the goal was not to build anything on BNSF property due to the lease and because doing significant improvements on their property was not feasible. She questioned Mr. Williams’ earlier response to Councilmember Mesaros about working with BNSF. Mr. Williams said he was acknowledging Councilmember Mesaros’ vision; his belief in what is doable has been blunted over the past four years by conversations with BNSF. He would like to see something done that the community can enjoy and is trying to make recommendations that are reasonable and fundable but was willing to acknowledge a larger vision if that was possible. From a practical standpoint if the goal was to do something in the next couple years, he would try not make any additional improvements on the railroad side of the existing curb. The railroad has allowed the City to have a street on their right-of-way for 70 years and. Councilmember Bloom referred to Mr. Williams’ comment about drainage improvements that would help the railroad and asked what the City would get for that, noting the railroad was unlikely to contribute. Mr. Williams did not expect to get anything from BNSF. Anything that was done on the surface of Sunset that improved the drainage and put less water into the soils on the bluff which reduces sluffing/maintenance, BNSF was not likely to see those improvements as something to complain about but rather would welcome them. Based on conversations he has had with BNSF in the past, he did not think they would have the same attitude about building new improvements west of the curb. BNSF is very touchy about safety issues and having pedestrians walk closer to the bluff which could lead them to consider fences. Fences are an unpopular topic and he did not want to tempt fate by going further west. As long as the City did not do that, BNSF has shown a willingness to work with the City. Councilmember Mesaros commented the City already has major investments and improvements on BNSF property so it is not unusual that improvements have been made and important services provided on property the City does not own. Mr. Williams agreed the City has easements with BNSF for the pump station and the alternate power on the north end that serves the pump station, a lease for a park purposes on Railroad Avenue and an easement for a guardrail. What has changed in the last several years is BNSF is no longer willing to grant easements in perpetuity that are linear to the tracks due to issues that have arisen in other communities when they try to call the lease. Councilmember Mesaros summarized the City has long term agreements with BNSF that have worked out well for the City. Mr. Williams agreed. 17. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling highlighted the efforts of Bruce Higgins, the recipient of the WRPA Citation of Merit Award, an indication of how much the community benefits from volunteers. He recognized the Floretum Garden Club who was selected as the Citizen of the Year by the Kiwanis Club. A presentation will be made at the May 28 Chamber meeting. The Floretum Garden Club and its 90+ members as well as City staff do a fabulous job on flowers for the City. Mayor Earling recognized Ms. Hite for recently completing a term as President of the Washington Recreation and Park Association as well as the fabulous job she does for the City. 18. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Mesaros commented tonight’s meeting included good discussion on a number of topics and he enjoyed hearing what his fellow Councilmembers are thinking. Packet Page 24 of 452 Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was shocked a club could be a citizen. The Floretum Garden Club deserves the award. Councilmember Nelson encouraged the public to look at videos of Bruce Higgins and the Edmonds Underwater Dive Park. Not a diver himself, he recognized that installing the underwater trails was very labor intensive. Councilmember Nelson was impressed with the level of public engagement at last week’s Marina Beach open house which was attended by 100 people, as well as how responsive the consultants have been to citizens’ concerns. Councilmember Bloom strongly encouraged Council President Fraley-Monillas to move up the discussion regarding committees. It is scheduled on the extended agenda for June 23, 6 weeks from today. Items on agendas have been rescheduled multiple times due to the lack of committees. Council President Fraley-Monillas said Councilmember Mesaros had moxie for wanting to take on the railroad. With regard to discussions with Fire District 1, Council President Fraley-Monillas reported in January the City and Fire District 1 agreed to meet and discuss potential amendments to the contract. Because the City no longer has in-house fire and EMS expertise, the administration has been looking to engage a fire and EMS consultant with that expertise. That objective knowledge will facilitate meaningful review and periodic oversight of the District’s service. Such a consultant could analyze the efficiency of the service provided by the District, compare the service to the fire and EMS service goals and ultimately make recommendations regarding how the contract might be amended to further these goals. The Mayor hopes to complete this effort in the next couple weeks. The plan is for all Councilmembers to weigh in with their thoughts on service early in the process. 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 9:47 p.m. Packet Page 25 of 452    AM-7737     3. B.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/19/2015 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 #214242 through #214357 dated May 14, 2015 for $697,846.71 (reissued checks #214281 $61.73, #214309 $140.00 & #214328 $131.78) Approval of payroll check #61609 for the pay period April 16, 2015 through April 30, 2015 for $368.03. Recommendation Approval of claim and payroll checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue: Expenditure:698,214.74 Fiscal Impact: Claims $697,846.71 reissued checks $333.51 Payroll employe check $368.03 Attachments Claim cks 05-14-15 Project Numbers 05-14-15 Payroll Summary Packet Page 26 of 452 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 05/14/2015 11:31 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/14/2015 11:33 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/14/2015 02:08 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/14/2015 02:44 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 05/14/2015 10:29 AM Final Approval Date: 05/14/2015  Packet Page 27 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214242 5/14/2015 075085 1LINGUA LLC 79 MONTHLY FEE FOR ONLINE INTERPRE SERVICE MONTHLY FEE FOR ONLINE INTERPRE SERVICE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 50.00 Total :50.00 214243 5/14/2015 073417 3M COMPANY TP39692 INV#TP39692 - ACCT#XCF5752 - EDMONDS PD MAINTENANCE PKG PLATE SYSTEM 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 300.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 28.50 Total :328.50 214244 5/14/2015 000135 ABSCO ALARMS INC 60474 MCH - 12 V Batteries MCH - 12 V Batteries 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 63.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.99 Total :68.99 214245 5/14/2015 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 415302 P&R SPRING PICKLEBALL LEAGUE SHIRTS P&R SPRING PICKLEBALL LEAGUE SHIRTS 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 46.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 4.43 P&R SPRING PICKLEBALL SINGLES LEAGUE SHI515304 P&R SPRING PICKLEBALL SINGLES LEAGUE 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 16.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 1.61 Total :69.58 214246 5/14/2015 072189 ACCESS 0969776 STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 05/01/2015-05/31/2 STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 05/01/2015 - 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 85.00 1Page: Packet Page 28 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :85.002142465/14/2015 072189 072189 ACCESS 214247 5/14/2015 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 9680 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES 421.000.74.534.80.33.00 106,853.98 Total :106,853.98 214248 5/14/2015 065568 ALLWATER INC 051215062 WWTP - DRINKING WATER cooler rental 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 16.00 water 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 34.70 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1.52 Total :52.22 214249 5/14/2015 001634 AQUA QUIP 899817-1 YOST POOL SUPPLIES: TEST KID, BIOLAB KIT YOST POOL SUPPLIES: TEST KID, BIOLAB 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 197.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 18.76 Total :215.99 214250 5/14/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988004832 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 SERVICE1988004833 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 40.95 Total :124.32 2Page: Packet Page 29 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214251 5/14/2015 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 84676 NAMETAGS NAMETAGS 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 17.50 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 1.67 Total :19.17 214252 5/14/2015 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 2015-2016 GUIDE 2015-2016 GUIDE TO EDMONDS-CEMETERY 2015-2016 GUIDE TO EDMONDS-CEMETERY 130.000.64.536.20.41.40 25.00 Total :25.00 214253 5/14/2015 073041 BECK & ASSOCIATES PLLC 2015-EDM-04 PLAN REVIEW FEES plan review fees 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 1,799.14 Total :1,799.14 214254 5/14/2015 066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC 508422 E7AC.COPIES - SPECS/CONTRACTS/PLANS E7AC.Copies - Specs/Contracts/Plans 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 1,098.12 Total :1,098.12 214255 5/14/2015 074849 BOMAR, RICK 5/12/15 TRAVEL REFUND FOR COURT TRAINING TRAVEL REFUND FOR COURT TRAINING 001.000.23.523.30.43.00 71.46 Total :71.46 214256 5/14/2015 075256 BRANTING, KITZEN 5/12 REFUND 5/12 REFUND-CLASS CANCELLED 5/12 REFUND-CLASS CANCELLED 001.000.239.200 52.00 Total :52.00 214257 5/14/2015 069295 BROWN, CANDY 19896 HUMMINGBIRDS 19896 HUMMINGBIRDS INSTRUCTOR FEE 19896 HUMMINGBIRDS INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 49.50 Total :49.50 3Page: Packet Page 30 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214258 5/14/2015 074294 BROWN, TODD 19895 MASON BEES 19895 MASON BEES INSTRUCTOR FEE 19895 MASON BEES INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 24.75 Total :24.75 214259 5/14/2015 003320 CASCADE MACHINERY & ELECTRIC 421113 YOST POOL PUMP INSTALLATION YOST POOL PUMP INSTALLATION 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 5,202.00 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 494.19 Total :5,696.19 214260 5/14/2015 074855 CASHMERE VALLEY BANK Acct 120000310 INTEREST PAYMENT FOR 2014 DEBT SERVICE Interest payment for 2014 Debt Service 232.000.39.592.21.83.00 9,200.58 Total :9,200.58 214261 5/14/2015 073221 CELLMARK FORENSICS INC 010-058628 INV#010-058628 - EDMONDS PD EVIDENCE TEST #14-2493 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 245.00 Total :245.00 214262 5/14/2015 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN04151015 HELIUM TANK RENTAL FOR GYMNASTICS HELIUM TANK RENTAL FOR GYMNASTICS 001.000.64.571.28.45.00 12.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.28.45.00 1.21 WWTP - SUPPLIES, GASESRN04151016 nitrogen, oxygen & carbon monoxide 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 74.25 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 7.05 Total :95.26 214263 5/14/2015 064291 CENTURY LINK 206-Z02-0478 WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 4Page: Packet Page 31 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214263 5/14/2015 (Continued)064291 CENTURY LINK 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 147.58 Total :147.58 214264 5/14/2015 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E3DE.SEPA E3DE.SEPA DETERMINATION E3DE.SEPA Determination 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 610.00 E3FH.SEPA DETERMINATIONE3FH.SEPA E3FH.SEPA Determiniation 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 610.00 Total :1,220.00 214265 5/14/2015 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I15000989 Water Quality Lab Analysis Water Quality Lab Analysis 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 16.20 Total :16.20 214266 5/14/2015 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD M&O MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS 423.000.75.535.80.47.20 27,602.00 Total :27,602.00 214267 5/14/2015 073851 C-N-I LOCATES LTD 18221 CITY PARK UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATE CITY PARK UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATE 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 340.00 Total :340.00 214268 5/14/2015 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 49653 CITY CODE SUPPLEMENT UPDATE CITY CODE SUPPLEMENT UPDATE 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 2,437.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 231.56 Total :2,669.06 214269 5/14/2015 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC MAY-15 C/A CITYOFED00001 May-15 Fiber Optics Internet Connection 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 406.10 5Page: Packet Page 32 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :406.102142695/14/2015 073135 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC 214270 5/14/2015 072848 COPIERS NW INV1201819 INV#1201819 ACCT#HMH636 - EDMONDS PD IRC5045 LEASE 04/05 - 05/04/15 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 226.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 21.54 INV#1201820 ACCT#HMH636 - EDMONDS PDINV1201820 B/W METER CHARGE IRC5045 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 47.60 COLOR METER CHARGE IRC5045 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 223.53 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 25.76 Total :545.20 214271 5/14/2015 072577 CORE CREATIVE TEAM 4/10 LOGO DEVELOPMEN 4/10 LOGO DEVELOPMENT CONCERT DESIGN 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 420.00 CONCERT CARDS 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 250.00 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 23.75 Total :693.75 214272 5/14/2015 068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT 31300 Sewer - Wired Squat Core Tool Sewer - Wired Squat Core Tool 423.000.75.535.80.35.00 1,770.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.35.00 168.15 Total :1,938.15 214273 5/14/2015 073912 CROWN FILMS/CUSTOM BIOPLASTICS 80729 PM DOG WASTE BAGS PM DOG WASTE BAGS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 885.45 9.5% Sales Tax 6Page: Packet Page 33 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214273 5/14/2015 (Continued)073912 CROWN FILMS/CUSTOM BIOPLASTICS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 84.12 Total :969.57 214274 5/14/2015 074818 CTS COMBINED SYSTEMS INC INV1501036 INV#1501036 - EDMONDS PD REPAIR PENN ARMS LAUNCHER 001.000.41.521.40.48.00 750.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.40.48.00 150.00 Total :900.00 214275 5/14/2015 005965 CUES INC 431580 Sewer TV Camera Repairs Sewer TV Camera Repairs 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 210.00 Parts 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 407.33 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 18.99 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 40.51 Total :676.83 214276 5/14/2015 072700 CURVATURE LLC 516489 Fiber cables 5M UPC LC Duplex 9/125 Fiber cables 5M UPC LC Duplex 9/125 001.000.31.518.87.31.00 44.14 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.87.31.00 4.19 Total :48.33 214277 5/14/2015 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 169200-00 WWTP - WIRELESS LICENSE FCC Licenses (2) 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 2,280.00 INV#385717 - EDMONDS PD385717 CALIBRATE #AS010981 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00 9.5% Sales Tax 7Page: Packet Page 34 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214277 5/14/2015 (Continued)061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 6.65 Total :2,356.65 214278 5/14/2015 069479 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PWTF-253984 LOAN #PW-02-691-019 Pr & Int Pmt CTED 2002 Sanitary Sewer 423.000.75.591.35.78.61 36,450.00 Pr & Int Pmt CTED 2002 Sanitary Sewer 423.000.75.592.35.83.61 1,333.78 Pr & Int Pmt CTED 2002 Sanitary Sewer 423.100.76.591.39.78.61 34,875.00 Pr & Int Pmt CTED 2002 Sanitary Sewer 423.100.76.592.39.83.61 1,281.47 LOAN #PW-04-691-030PWTF-255411 Pr Pmt CTED Stormwater Outfall Imp Proj 422.000.72.591.31.78.64 32,062.50 Int Pmt CTED Stormwater Outfall Imp Proj 422.000.72.592.31.83.64 1,469.53 LOAN #PW-04-691-029PWTF-257650 Pr Pmt CTED 220th St SW Improvements 112.506.68.591.95.78.63 21,176.47 Int Pmt CTED 220th St SW Improvements 112.506.68.592.95.83.63 970.59 LOAN #PW-04-691-031PWTF-258214 Pr Pmt CTED 5 Corner Pump Station Proj 421.000.74.591.34.78.65 25,838.97 Int Pmt CTED 5 Corner Pump Station Proj 421.000.74.592.34.83.65 1,184.29 LOAN #PW-02-691-PRE-123PWTF-259339 Pr Pmt CTED 220th St SW Improvements 112.506.68.591.95.78.62 18,143.28 Int Pmt CTED 220th St SW Improvements 112.506.68.592.95.83.62 665.25 LOAN #PP09-951-014PWTF-266229 Pr Pmt CTED 2009 Water Comprehensive 421.000.74.591.34.78.00 20,000.00 8Page: Packet Page 35 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214278 5/14/2015 (Continued)069479 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE LOAN #PW-06-962-012PWTF-266230 Pr Pmt CTED 100th Ave W Stabilization 112.200.68.591.95.78.67 32,881.58 Int Pmt CTED 100th Ave W Stabilization 112.200.68.592.95.83.67 1,808.49 LOAN #PW05-691-015PWTF-266242 Pr Pmt CTED 2005 Sewer Lift Station & 423.000.75.591.35.78.66 72,295.22 Int Pmt CTED 2005 Sewer Lift Station 423.000.75.592.35.83.66 3,644.88 Total :306,081.30 214279 5/14/2015 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2015040056 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 Scan Services for April 2015 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 940.00 Total :940.00 214280 5/14/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3551 VERBATIM EXCERPT 4/28/15 COUNCIL MINUTES VERBATIM EXCERPT 4/28/15 COUNCIL MEETING 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 402.60 Total :402.60 214281 5/14/2015 070790 DISTINCTIVE GLASS INC 19231 FAC - Glass for a Light Fixture FAC - Glass for a Light Fixture 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 56.37 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.36 Total :61.73 214282 5/14/2015 007253 DUNN LUMBER 3180443 PM BRAD NAILS, CEDAR PM BRAD NAILS, CEDAR 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 67.31 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.40 Total :73.71 9Page: Packet Page 36 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214283 5/14/2015 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 000791 PM FPT STRAIGHT BIBBS PM FPT STRAIGHT BIBBS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.33 Total :15.31 214284 5/14/2015 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 226263 INV#226263 CLIENT#308 - EDMONDS PD TREFEXIS 60.1-120 LB bROWN #6 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 128.94 FRONTLINE TRITAK SINGLE LG & XLG 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 26.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 14.72 Total :169.66 214285 5/14/2015 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 5-10351 INTERURBAN TRAIL INTERURBAN TRAIL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77 Total :37.77 214286 5/14/2015 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 135557 RADIX MONTHLY MAINT AGREEMENT Radix Monthly Maint Agreement - June 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 152.00 Total :152.00 214287 5/14/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 113345 1 PM PRINTER C1030 #A7078 PM PRINTER C1030 #A7078 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 29.54 ADDITIONAL COPIES113346 1 additional copies 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 26.89 ADDITONAL COPIES- BLDG113347 1 additional copies- bldg 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 29.52 Additional Copies - Council Office113348 1 10Page: Packet Page 37 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214287 5/14/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES Additional Copies - Council Office 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 10.51 Total :96.46 214288 5/14/2015 075228 ENGINUITY SYSTEMS LLC ESL 2645 YOST POOL SPA 85% COMPLETE YOST POOL SPA 85% COMPLETE 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 3,468.50 Total :3,468.50 214289 5/14/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH629943 E4JB.ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS E4JB.Advertisement for Bids 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 206.40 CITY NOTICESEDH630550 DRAFT TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 2015 COMP 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 36.12 CITY NOTICESEDH630552 DRAFT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT 2015 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 36.12 LEGAL NOTICE PLN20150016EDH630771 LEGAL NOTICE PLN20150016 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 94.60 Total :373.24 214290 5/14/2015 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU35549 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 41.48 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 3.94 Unit 66 - SuppliesWAMOU35615 Unit 66 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.11 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.30 Total :48.83 11Page: Packet Page 38 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214291 5/14/2015 072174 FRIENDS OF FRANK DEMIERO TOURISM PROMO TOURISM PROMO JAZZ FEST TOURISM PROMO JAZZ FEST 123.000.64.573.20.41.00 2,000.00 Total :2,000.00 214292 5/14/2015 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0423 WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LINE WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LINE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 68.78 425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET425-771-4741 425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET 130.000.64.536.20.42.00 82.84 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION425-775-1344 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 63.08 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LINE425-776-5316 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LINE 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 96.67 Total :311.37 214293 5/14/2015 002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 126119 INV#126119 - EDMONDS PD - ROBINSON U/A VALSETZ SIDE ZIP BOOTS 001.000.41.521.26.24.00 114.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.26.24.00 10.92 Total :125.87 214294 5/14/2015 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR 7853 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.78 INTERPRETER FEE8442 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 112.20 Total :217.98 214295 5/14/2015 011210 GC SYSTEMS INC 4220 Water - Equipment Repairs Water - Equipment Repairs 12Page: Packet Page 39 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214295 5/14/2015 (Continued)011210 GC SYSTEMS INC 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 3,796.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 360.62 Total :4,156.62 214296 5/14/2015 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA 19669 TAI CHI 19669 TAI CHI INSTRUCTOR FEE 19669 TAI CHI INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 228.00 19672 TAI CHI INSTRUCTOR FEE19672 TAI CHI 19672 TAI CHI INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 336.00 19673 TAI CHI INSTRUCTOR FEE19673 TAI CHI 19673 TAI CHI INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 462.00 19680 BETTER BALANCE INSTRUCTOR FEE19680 BETTER BALANCE 19680 BETTER BALANCE INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 124.50 19682 QIGONG INSTRUCTOR FEE19682 QIGONG 19682 QIGONG INSTRUCTOR FEE INSTRUCTOR 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 150.00 19684 QIGONG INSTRUCTOR FEE19684 QIGONG 19684 QIGONG INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 198.00 Total :1,498.50 214297 5/14/2015 012190 GORSUCH, BRUCE 19580 GENEOLOGY 19580 GENEOLOGY INSTRUCTOR FEE 19580 GENEOLOGY INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 76.00 Total :76.00 214298 5/14/2015 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 158575/1 Water Inventory - #0492 W-VALVCI-02-010 Water Inventory - #0492 W-VALVCI-02-010 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 526.00 Water Parts 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 72.50 13Page: Packet Page 40 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214298 5/14/2015 (Continued)069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 49.97 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 6.89 Water Inventory #500 W-VALVCI-08-010158923/1 Water Inventory #500 W-VALVCI-08-010 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 818.67 Water Parts 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,195.09 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 77.78 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 113.53 Total :2,860.43 214299 5/14/2015 074428 HAMILTON PRINTING SYSTEMS 928 FUN RUN SHIRTS FOR HEALTH & FITNESS EXPO FUN RUN SHIRTS FOR HEALTH & FITNESS 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 1,430.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 135.85 Total :1,565.85 214300 5/14/2015 075255 HILL, FOSTER 4/28-4/30 FIELD ATT 4/28-4/30/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT 4/28-4/30/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 80.00 Total :80.00 214301 5/14/2015 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1011751 Fac Maint Shop Supplies Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 89.13 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.47 FAC - Supplies2011585 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.55 14Page: Packet Page 41 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214301 5/14/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.15 Permit Counter Supplies2022333 Permit Counter Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 54.64 9.6% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.25 FAC - Supplies2022336 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.02 9.6% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.44 Water Supplies2086001 Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 46.48 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.42 Green Rm Counter -Soft Close23444 Green Rm Counter -Soft Close 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 113.88 Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 60.86 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.60 Storm - Supplies3011427 Storm - Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 46.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 4.42 FAC - Supplies3022169 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.82 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.33 15Page: Packet Page 42 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214301 5/14/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Green Rm - Supplies3024859 Green Rm - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 217.53 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.67 Fac Maint - Glue3593749 Fac Maint - Glue 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.66 FAC - Supplies4074539 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 49.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.66 Fac Maint Shop Supplies5015801 Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 113.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.82 FAC - Supplies5021958 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 39.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.78 Parks - Tank573792 Parks - Tank 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 40.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.89 City Park Bldg - Supplies6023037 City Park Bldg - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.18 9.6% Sales Tax 16Page: Packet Page 43 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214301 5/14/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.50 City Park Bldg Shop - Supplies6023092 City Park Bldg Shop - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 66.97 9.6% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.43 City Hall Green Rm - Supplies6084282 City Hall Green Rm - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.96 9.6% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.86 Sewer Supplies64591 Sewer Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 15.93 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.53 Storm - Gravel for Curb Pour7024329 Storm - Gravel for Curb Pour 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 10.94 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1.05 FS 17 - Repair Supplies8010836 FS 17 - Repair Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.07 9.6% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.02 FAC - Supplies8021574 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 77.31 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.34 Storm - Gravel8041470 Storm - Gravel 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 11.52 17Page: Packet Page 44 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214301 5/14/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1.11 Sewer - Cleaner9010744 Sewer - Cleaner 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 29.48 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.83 Green Rm 13" Planer9024027 Green Rm 13" Planer 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 369.00 Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 114.89 9.6% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 35.42 9.6% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.03 Street - Cleaner9064621 Street - Cleaner 111.000.68.542.66.31.00 29.88 9.6% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.66.31.00 2.87 Total :1,830.71 214302 5/14/2015 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2083642 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, FACILITIES plumbing supplies for repair 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 71.45 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 6.85 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, FACILITIES4022065 plumbing supplies, hot water tank repair 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 50.51 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 4.80 Total :133.61 18Page: Packet Page 45 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214303 5/14/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2614242 PARKS AND REC PENS, THERMAL PAPER, CARD PARKS AND REC PENS, THERMAL PAPER, CARD 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 37.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 3.59 PARKS AND REC CARD STOCK PRICE MATCH2620776 PARKS AND REC CARD STOCK PRICE MATCH 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 -3.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 -0.38 SUPPLIES2620826 SUPPLIES 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 57.42 OFFICE SUPPLIES- PLANNING2622674 Office supplies- Planning 001.000.62.558.60.31.00 44.90 OFFICE SUPPLIES-2622676 office supplies- dev serv 001.000.62.524.20.31.00 45.28 Office Supplies- visitor badges2623389 Office Supplies- visitor badges 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 10.56 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 1.00 SUPPLIES2625194 SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 42.64 Total :238.84 214304 5/14/2015 070250 IRON MOUNTAIN 200624009 04-15 OFF SITE DATA STORAGE SERVICES Apr-2015 Off site data storage services 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 191.42 Total :191.42 214305 5/14/2015 073494 KERNS, LAUREN 50815 TRAVEL REFUND FOR COURT TRAINING TRAVEL REFUND FOR COURT TRAINING 19Page: Packet Page 46 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214305 5/14/2015 (Continued)073494 KERNS, LAUREN 001.000.23.523.30.43.00 144.67 Total :144.67 214306 5/14/2015 075259 KOENIG, KIMBERLY BID-042515 REIMBURSE FOR PRINTING DISPLAY PIECES AT Reimbursement for purchasing print 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 34.60 Total :34.60 214307 5/14/2015 067568 KPG INC 413315 E3DB.SERVICES THRU 4/25/15 E3DB.Services thru 4/25/15 (Street) 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 18,772.71 E3DB.Services thru 4/25/15 (Storm) 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 10,864.74 E3DD.SERVICES THRU 4/25/15413415 E3DD.Services thru 4/25/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 2,260.68 Total :31,898.13 214308 5/14/2015 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4435869 INV#4435869 ACCT#2185-952778-819 EDMONDS SHRED 3 TOTES @ $4.38 4/22/15 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 13.14 Total :13.14 214309 5/14/2015 074867 LEONTI, AMANDA LEONTI 52714 VOLLEYBALL GYM MONITOR VOLLEYBALL GYM MONITOR 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 140.00 Total :140.00 214310 5/14/2015 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC 20200 expenses 03-15 EXPENSES 3-15 reimbursement for expenses - ABC 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 39.95 05-15 LEGALS FEESMay-15 05-15 Legal fees 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 41,000.00 Total :41,039.95 20Page: Packet Page 47 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214311 5/14/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 29233513 WWTP - SUPPLIES & TOOLS supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 57.38 tools 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 226.82 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 3.94 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 15.77 Total :303.91 214312 5/14/2015 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC 64886 GREEN RESOURCE CENTER SUPPLIES Green Resource Center Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 76.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.23 GREEN RESOURCE CENTER SUPPLIES64899 5/4 Black Walnut (15.5') 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 61.74 5/4 Black Walnut (15.5') 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 61.74 5/4 Black Walnut (15.5') 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 61.75 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5.87 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 5.87 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.86 GREEN RESOURCE CENTER SUPPLIES64926 8' Drawer Sides 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 15.93 8' Drawer Sides 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 15.93 8' Drawer Sides 21Page: Packet Page 48 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214312 5/14/2015 (Continued)020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 15.94 4" Drawer Sides 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 7.93 4" Drawer Sides 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 7.93 4" Drawer Sides 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 7.94 5x5x1/4 P/F Baltic Birch 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 26.67 5x5x1/4 P/F Baltic Birch 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 26.67 5x5x1/4 P/F Baltic Birch 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 26.66 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.80 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 4.80 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.80 GREEN RESOURCE CENTER SUPPLIES64930 4x8x3/4 #W292 Panolam Night Fall 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 74.60 4x8x3/4 #W292 Panolam Night Fall 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 74.60 4x8x3/4 #W292 Panolam Night Fall 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 74.60 4x8x3/4 IPB 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 8.65 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.04 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 9.04 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.05 22Page: Packet Page 49 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214312 5/14/2015 (Continued)020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC 4x8x3/4 IPB 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 8.65 4x8x3/4 IPB 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 8.65 8" Maple ply drawer sides 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 7.97 8" Maple ply drawer sides 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 7.97 8" Maple ply drawer sides 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 7.96 4" maple ply drawer sides 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.97 4" maple ply drawer sides 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 3.97 4" maple ply drawer sides 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.96 GREEN RESOURCE CENTER SUPPLIES64936 4x8x3/4 #W292 Panolam Night Fall 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 223.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.26 Total :1,009.87 214313 5/14/2015 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 210598 PM STARTER SPRING PM STARTER SPRING 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 20.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.94 Total :22.34 214314 5/14/2015 074720 MUELLER, SUSAN 20006 HYPNOSIS 20006 WT REDUCTION HYPNOSIS INSTRUCTOR F 20006 WT REDUCTION HYPNOSIS INSTRUCTOR 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 348.00 Total :348.00 23Page: Packet Page 50 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214315 5/14/2015 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 14-1613-2 E4JB.SERVICES THRU 01/31/15 E4JB.Services thru 01/31/15 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 915.50 E4JB.SERVICES THRU 03/31/1514-1613-3 E4JB.Services thru 03/31/15 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 2,170.00 Total :3,085.50 214316 5/14/2015 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0405186-IN Sewer - Work gloves Sewer - Work gloves 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 560.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 53.20 Total :613.20 214317 5/14/2015 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0549260-IN Fleet Filter Inventory Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 123.91 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 11.77 Unit 18 Supplies0549518-IN Unit 18 Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 36.85 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.50 Total :176.03 214318 5/14/2015 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S6448289.001 WWTP - C412 CONTROLLOGIX controllogix, multiple units 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 52,434.68 misc sales tax % 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 4,928.86 Total :57,363.54 214319 5/14/2015 068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC 1031173 Unit 38 Chipper Canopy 8.8% Sales Tax 24Page: Packet Page 51 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214319 5/14/2015 (Continued)068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC 111.000.68.542.71.35.00 747.56 Unit 38 Chipper Canopy 111.000.68.542.71.35.00 8,495.00 Total :9,242.56 214320 5/14/2015 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 61400 WWTP - SODIUM BISULFITE sodium bisulfite 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 600.60 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 57.06 Total :657.66 214321 5/14/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1164084 WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET2-1198437 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1201046 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET2-1201637 MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 600.05 Total :941.60 214322 5/14/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 321047 Water - Toner Water - Toner 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 67.16 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 6.38 INV#387794 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD387794 BUBBLE CD MAILERS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 22.49 READY INDEX TABS 25Page: Packet Page 52 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214322 5/14/2015 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 19.24 RETRACTABLE BLACK PENS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 35.46 WHITE ADDRESS LABELS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 24.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 9.63 P&R ADMIN LAM POUCH, 4 GB DRIVES422950 P&R ADMIN LAM POUCH, 4 GB DRIVES 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 57.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 5.50 P&R ADMIN LGL PAD, WITE OUT, PENS432106 19580 GENEOLOGY INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 29.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 2.83 Total :280.54 214323 5/14/2015 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 101254 PM CUST 5130 TOPSOIL PM CUST 5130 TOPSOIL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 247.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 23.51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130193862 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.00 PM DUMP CUST # 5130193873 PM DUMP CONCRETE, WOOD, SOIL, BRUSH 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 227.50 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130193893 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.00 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130193908 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 26Page: Packet Page 53 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214323 5/14/2015 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.00 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130194034 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 120.00 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130194043 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.00 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130194058 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 120.00 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130194075 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 120.77 Total :1,243.28 214324 5/14/2015 075257 PCE PACIFIC INC 50655-00 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC Precision Digital Process Meter 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 444.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 93.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 51.02 Total :588.02 214325 5/14/2015 074614 PENSER NORTH AMERICA 40214 Workers Comp. Claims Management Qtr 1 Workers Comp. Claims Management Qtr 1 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 3,409.89 Total :3,409.89 214326 5/14/2015 073871 PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC 13622 INV 13622 EDMONDS PD - APRIL 2015 PERSONNEL EVAL. PROFILES (4) 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 80.00 Total :80.00 214327 5/14/2015 008350 PETTY CASH 5/8 PARKS PETTY CASH 5/8 PARKS PETTY CASH 27Page: Packet Page 54 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214327 5/14/2015 (Continued)008350 PETTY CASH STEELE-SMITH: OFFICE MAX, CLOCK 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 7.12 STEELE-SMITH: TREASURES AND TEAS, 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 25.19 SHIELDS: QFC, SCIENCE CLASSROOM VISIT 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 3.86 STEELE-SMITH: BARTELL, HAIR TIES & 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 24.51 MCRAE: VALUE VILLAGE, YARN FOR 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 4.36 LINDSAY: EDMONDS BAKERY, DONUTS FOR 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 33.25 HITE: STARBUCKS, COFFEE FOR MARINA 125.000.64.594.75.31.00 16.37 Total :114.66 214328 5/14/2015 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 230805 INV#230805 - EDMONDS PD TSR X26 DIGITAL POWER MAG 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 110.40 Freight 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 9.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 11.43 Total :131.78 214329 5/14/2015 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 15-1378 COURT SECURITY COURT SECURITY 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 3,487.50 Total :3,487.50 214330 5/14/2015 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 99583 INV#99583 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2004 HONDA #AEV8657 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.77 28Page: Packet Page 55 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214330 5/14/2015 (Continued)070955 R&R STAR TOWING INV#99692 - EDMONDS PD99692 TOW 2004 HONDA #AEV8657 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.77 Total :363.54 214331 5/14/2015 075031 REECE, CARLY 4/2-4/30 GYM ATTEND 4/2-4/30/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTEND 4/2-4/30/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTEND 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 125.00 4/7-4/28/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTEND4/7-4/28 GYM ATTEND 4/7-4/28/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTEND 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 140.00 Total :265.00 214332 5/14/2015 070042 RICOH USA INC 94635529 ADDITIONAL IMAGES-MP171SPF ADDITIONAL IMAGES-MP171SPF 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 30.66 Total :30.66 214333 5/14/2015 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY APRIL 2015 INVOICE 4/30/15 ACCT#70014 - EDMONDS OD #162407 5 NPC - 4/2/15 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 58.55 #166531 3 NPC - 4/16/15 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 35.13 #166674 3 NPC - 4/30/15 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 35.13 Total :128.81 214334 5/14/2015 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC 26432 14108-SUPPORT APR 2015 WORK COMPLETED 14108-Support April 2015 work completed 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 1,968.75 Total :1,968.75 214335 5/14/2015 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 3056-2 PM PAINT 29Page: Packet Page 56 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214335 5/14/2015 (Continued)063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS PM PAINT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 438.72 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 41.68 Total :480.40 214336 5/14/2015 075210 SHKS ARCHITECTS PS INC 1 HISTORIC RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY HISTORIC RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY 014.000.62.557.20.41.00 1,500.00 Total :1,500.00 214337 5/14/2015 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0185071-IN Unit 335 - Lock Slide Arm Unit 335 - Lock Slide Arm 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 217.00 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.40 Unit E100PO - Locking Slide Arm0185337-IN Unit E100PO - Locking Slide Arm 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 217.00 Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 16.40 Total :466.80 214338 5/14/2015 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0499669 PM FLOWER PROGRAM GOLD CYPRESS, POINT RE PM FLOWER PROGRAM GOLD CYPRESS, POINT 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 180.90 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.19 PM FLOWER PROGRAM PERENNIALST-0499678 PM FLOWER PROGRAM PERENNIALS 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 120.82 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.48 Total :330.39 30Page: Packet Page 57 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214339 5/14/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2006-5085-1 CITY PARK RESTROOMS CITY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.70 PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP2006-5164-4 PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,073.48 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS2008-6924-6 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 66.95 HICKMAN PARK2011-8453-8 HICKMAN PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 179.70 CITY PARK GAZEBO2013-8327-0 CITY PARK GAZEBO 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.12 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS2014-5305-7 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 115.09 CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHELTER2021-1448-4 CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHELTER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 326.67 Total :1,825.71 214340 5/14/2015 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE I000382745 INV#I000382745 CUST#SSH00095 EDMONDS PD SCSO RANGE USE 10 HRS 4/27/15 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 580.00 SCSO RANGE USE 6.75 HRS 4/28/15 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 391.50 Total :971.50 214341 5/14/2015 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 66268 PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 640.00 Total :640.00 214342 5/14/2015 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT CEDM Street HEP A/B 31Page: Packet Page 58 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214342 5/14/2015 (Continued)037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT Street HEP A/B 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 135.00 Total :135.00 214343 5/14/2015 074568 SPROUT DESIGN 1218 WOTS BROCHURE WOTS BROCHURE 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 675.00 Total :675.00 214344 5/14/2015 074570 STULLER, PAM BID-042415 REIMBURSE FOR ENVELOPES, STAMPS, POSTCAR Reimbursement for purchase of supplies 140.000.61.558.70.31.00 279.14 REIMBURSE FOR PURCHASE OF ADVERTISING ONBID-042415 Reimbursement for balance of payment 140.000.61.558.70.41.40 2,460.00 Total :2,739.14 214345 5/14/2015 073970 TALLMAN, TYLER 4/7-5/4 GYM ATTEND 4/7-5/4/15 PICKLEBALL GYM ATTENDANT 4/7-5/4/15 PICKLEBALL GYM ATTENDANT 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 40.00 Total :40.00 214346 5/14/2015 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50908799 E4FB.SERVICES THRU MARCH 2015 E4FB.Services thru March 2015 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 6,040.23 Total :6,040.23 214347 5/14/2015 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 10020498 NEWSPAPER newpaper subscription 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 195.00 Total :195.00 214348 5/14/2015 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 81672 PAPER FOR KIP MACHINE PAPER FOR KIP MACHINE 001.000.62.524.20.31.00 175.38 REPAIR ON KIP MACHINE82017 32Page: Packet Page 59 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214348 5/14/2015 (Continued)072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY REPAIR ON KIP MACHINE 001.000.62.524.20.48.00 865.51 Total :1,040.89 214349 5/14/2015 062693 US BANK 0108 INV#0108 05/06/15 - EDMONDS PD - THOMPSO FRANKLIN COVEY REFILL 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 41.00 LODGING-COLL INVEST-SACKVILLE 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 910.80 TACTICAL BOOTS-CRYSTAL 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 134.99 TENERGY 40 PK CR123 BATTERIES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 44.99 CLASSIFICATION FOLDERS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 43.78 FUJITSU SCANSNAP SCANNERS 001.000.41.521.11.35.00 886.96 CERTIFICATE/DOC HOLDERS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 17.42 2014 OFFICER OF YEAR PLAQUE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 93.08 2014 EMPL;OYEE OF YEAR PLAQUE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 93.07 ENGRAVE RADAR GUN 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 14.23 ENGRAVE 2013/2014 OFF OF YR 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 20.37 ENGRAVE 2013/2014 EMPL OF YR 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 26.28 LODGING-ADV MOTOR CERT-FALK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 75.90 LODGING-ADV MOTOR CERT-HARBINSON 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 75.90 LODGING-ADV MOTOR CERT-ROTH 33Page: Packet Page 60 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214349 5/14/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 75.90 RIFLE SLING 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 76.75 NIGHTFORCE RIFLE SCOPE 001.000.41.521.23.35.00 1,575.00 ULTRALITE RING SET 001.000.41.521.23.35.00 156.00 TIPTON UNIV BORE GUIDE 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 13.99 BADGER ORDNANCE 20MOA MOUNT 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 154.98 INV#2519 05/06/15 - POLICE #1 - EDMONDS2519 FUEL/CHILD ABUSE SUMMIT-TRYKAR 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 35.29 MEAL/CHILD ABUSE SUMMIT-TRYKAR 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 132.35 FUEL/CHILD ABUSE SUMMIT-TRYKAR 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 17.56 MEAL/CHILD ABUSE SUMMIT-TRYKAR 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 11.00 LODGING/CHILD ABUSE-TRYKAR 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 554.20 MEAL/CHILD ABUSE SUMMIT-TRYKAR 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 42.36 MEAL/K9 SEMINAR-ROBINSON 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 30.82 FUEL/K9 SEMINAR-ROBINSON 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 34.91 MEAL/K9 SEMINAR-ROBINSON 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 15.20 INV#3215 05/06/15 - COMPAAN - EDMONDS PD3215 MEAL/PN FIRE INVEST-MCINTYRE 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 24.57 MEAL/PN FIRE INVST-MCINTYRE 34Page: Packet Page 61 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214349 5/14/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 19.65 HOTEL COST FOR JUDGE'S CONFERENCE3249 HOTEL COST FOR JUDGE'S CONFERENCE 001.000.23.512.50.43.00 133.97 HOTEL COST FOR PROBATION CONFERENCE 001.000.23.523.30.43.00 277.38 POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 60.60 INV#3314 05/06/15 - LAWLESS - EDMONDS PD3314 REG.LESSONS LEARNED-LAWLESS 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 56.65 FOOD FOR DETECTIVES #15-1324 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 69.81 BIG BANG EXPLOSIVES BOX 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 499.00 Plaque for Student Rep and name plaques3389 Plaque for Student Rep and name plaques 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 62.86 Robert's Rules of Order in Brief for 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 8.21 INV#3520 05/06/15 POLICE #2 - EDMONDS PD3520 MEAL/HOSTAGE NEG-FROLAND-MACK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 36.80 MEAL/HOSTAGE NEG-FORLAND-MACK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 14.96 BAG FEE/HOSTAGE NEG-MACK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 25.00 BAG FEE/HOSTAGE NEG-FROLAND 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 25.00 REG. CONF FIELD TRAIN-SACKVILLE 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 200.00 MEAL/HOSTAGE NEG-FROLAND-MACK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 207.05 CAR /HOSTAGE NEG-FROLAND-MACK 35Page: Packet Page 62 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214349 5/14/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 152.03 MEAL/HOSTAGE NEG-FROLAND-MACK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 26.80 PARKING-HOSTAGE NEG-FROLAND-MACK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 112.00 LODGING/HOSTAGE NEG-MACK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 392.64 LODGING/HOSTAGE NEG - FROLAND 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 337.64 MEAL/HOSTAGE NEG-FROLAND-MACK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 77.75 BAG FEE/HOSTAGE NEG - MACK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 25.00 BAG FEE/HOSTAGE NEG - FROLAND 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 25.00 MEAL/HOSTAGE NEG-FROLAND-MACK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 14.40 4675 PARKS CR CARD4675 ORIENTAL TRADING CO: GYMNASTICS 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 71.96 2XL CORP: GYM WIPES FOR CLEANING ROOM 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 51.66 AMAZON: CIVIC FIELD BIRD SCARE RIBBON 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.95 INSECTLORE.COM: CATERPILLARS FOR 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 22.94 CART CONCEPTS: CIVIC FIELD GEESE AWAY 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,094.97 AMAZON: INSECT & REPTILE TATTOOS 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 4.99 AMAZON: BUTTERFLY TATTOOS 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 5.49 MOORE MEDICAL: BANDAGES FOR GYMNASTICS 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 54.93 36Page: Packet Page 63 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214349 5/14/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK DOLLAR TREE: TABLE COVERS FOR EXPO 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 52.56 STAPLES: 5 POSTERS LAMINATED 001.000.64.571.23.49.00 21.90 PETSTORE.COM: TOUCH TANK SUPPLIES 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 78.46 AMAZON: CUPS FOR HEALTH & FITNESS EXPO 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 15.06 AMAZON: HERBICIDE SURFACANT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.74 CASH & CARRY: COLD CUPS 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 8.19 AMAZON: STORAGE CONTAINERS FOR HEALTH & 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 43.78 S&S WORLDWIDE: SUMMER CAMP CRAFT 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 257.03 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY: PRESCHOOL 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 14.01 AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES TRASH BAGS, 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 37.08 AMAZON: BIRD SCARE TAPE CIVIC FIELD 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.99 REPLACEMENT BATTERIES, INTERNAL HARD DRI5179 BulkRegister.com - domain name 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 13.95 USPS - shipping charges 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 20.05 BulkRegister.com - domain name 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 13.95 High-Tech Battery Solutions - APC 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 220.90 Newegg.com - Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 89.99 Newegg.com - Premier 12 month membership 37Page: Packet Page 64 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214349 5/14/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 49.99 Logicitysuite.com - Crystal reports 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 85.00 Serversupply.com - Cisco Aironet 2602I 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 405.00 USPS - shipping charges 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 6.70 ExpertsExchange.com - IT Solutions 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 19.95 Newegg.com - Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 189.98 Newegg.com - ADATA Premier Pro SP900 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 69.99 Newegg.com - HP JetDirect 615N Print 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 18.98 Newegg.com - Logitech M510 Black 5 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 65.98 USPS - shipping charges 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 27.45 QLUE Limited - Qlue Accordion for 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 17.25 Solarwinds - Kiwi Syslog Server 12 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 99.00 BulkRegister.com - Domain Name 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 55.80 CDW-G - Cisco SG300-10PP switch 10 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 351.75 MEMBERSHIP & RECORDING FEES5593 MISC RECORDED DOCUMENTS - CITY CLERK 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 143.50 SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING OF UTILITY 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 577.50 SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING OF UTILITY 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 577.50 38Page: Packet Page 65 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214349 5/14/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK WASHINGTON MUNICIPAL CLERKS ASSOCIATION 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 150.00 INTERNAL SOLID STATE DRIVES, MEMORY, CAB5639 Newegg.com - Intel NUC5iRYK CPU, ADATA 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 602.97 Newegg.com - Samsung 840 EVO 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 267.50 Newegg.com - 3ft Mini DisplayPort DP to 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 6.19 Newegg.com - High Speed Mini-HDMI (Typ 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 6.95 DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATIONS5639 BulkRegister.com - Domain Name 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 55.80 Verizon Wireless - iPad mini for C Hite5639 Verizon Wireless - iPad mini for C Hite 001.000.64.571.21.35.00 -799.34 SOFTWARE UPGRADE FOR MAPPING ON VISITEDM5923 Software upgrade for mapping on 001.000.61.558.70.31.00 69.00 REFUND- AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC6045 REFUND- AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 -730.00 VISA BILL, MULTIPLE CHARGES LISTED6045 Travelers notary bond- Denise Nelson 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 75.00 AMAZON book- shane hope 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 13.51 AMAZON- tags for building 001.000.62.524.20.31.00 30.72 AMAZON- Laser pointer- Eng 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 10.95 AMAZON- Office Supplies- Planning 001.000.62.558.60.31.00 44.38 39Page: Packet Page 66 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214349 5/14/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK AMAZON- corr tape- bldg 001.000.62.524.20.31.00 5.57 AMAZON- office supplies- planning 001.000.62.558.60.31.00 155.20 Amazon- office supplies dev serv 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 29.49 AMAZON- office supplies Dev Serv 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 113.08 Adobe creative cloud- Brad 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 54.74 seminar- Rob Chave 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 35.00 6254 PARKS CR CARD6254 AMAZON: CLOCK FOR RANGER STATION 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 10.99 AMAZON: BIRD SCARE TAPE CIVIC FIELD 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 29.90 NWA: EDMONDS GREAT ADVENTURE AD IN FALL 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 250.00 DOLLAR TREE: SAND SCULPTING BUCKETS 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 6.57 FLOWER WORLD: PM FLOWER PROGRAM TREE 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 53.84 BRINESHRIMPDIRECT: BRINE SHRIMPT TO 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 26.15 HOTEL MURANO: CARRIE CONFERENCE HOTEL 001.000.64.571.21.43.00 285.48 INV#7476 05/06/15 - BARD - EDMONDS PD7476 MINDFLASH-MO FEE FOR ONLINE TRAINING 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 199.00 REG.INVEST ANALYSIS-RICHARDSON 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 77.25 REG. INVEST ANALYSIS - SUTTON 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 77.25 40Page: Packet Page 67 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214349 5/14/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK ENCRYPTED HARDDRIVE 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 255.91 PORTABLE EXT USB HARDDRIVE 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 64.95 PORTABLE EXT USB HARDDRIVE 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 129.90 REG. SUPERVIOSR TRAING-CRYSTAL 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 350.00 ESCA TECH D-LEAD HAND SOAP 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 42.47 HYGIENE KITS 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 141.92 NIKON COOLPIX CAMERAS 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 239.94 PELICAN SOLID MICROCASE 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 15.95 LED POP UP MAGNIFIER LIGHT 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 13.21 ALS LEVEL III HOLSTER 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 167.89 ALS LEVEL II HOLSTER 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 151.99 GX 420T PRINTER 001.000.41.521.21.35.00 558.45 TLO SEARCHES 4/2015 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 19.75 CALDWELL HEARING PROTECTIONS 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 118.53 ENG. CREDIT CARD - APRIL 20158017 E4GA.JARPA Permit 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 150.00 Hauss & Shuster - Phone Cases $116.76~ 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 882.43 LODGING FOR S JAMES, GAAFR SUPPLEMENT8296 41Page: Packet Page 68 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214349 5/14/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK Campbell's Lodge - Lodging WA Municipal 001.000.31.514.20.43.00 190.00 Government Finance Officers Association 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 60.00 Adveritising8304 Adveritising 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 50.00 Catering for Police Corporal Assessment 001.000.22.521.10.49.00 183.96 Total :18,282.09 214350 5/14/2015 075155 WALKER MACY LLC P3089.01-5 MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN INVENTORY/SITE MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN INVENTORY/SITE 125.000.64.594.75.41.00 5,090.01 Total :5,090.01 214351 5/14/2015 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I15008007 INV#I15008007 EDM301 - EDMONDS PD BACKGROUND CHECKS - APRIL 2015 001.000.237.100 147.50 Total :147.50 214352 5/14/2015 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS I15-197 YOST PARK EMERGENCY STORM DAMAGE FALLEN YOST PARK EMERGENCY STORM DAMAGE FALLEN 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 290.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 27.55 Total :317.55 214353 5/14/2015 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6673 INV#6673 - EDMONDS PD 5,000 #10 POLICE ENVELOPES 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 298.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 28.31 INV#6674 - EDMONDS PD6674 RET ADD BACKGROUND ENVELOPES 42Page: Packet Page 69 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 43 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214353 5/14/2015 (Continued)073552 WELCO SALES LLC 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 55.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.23 Total :386.54 214354 5/14/2015 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 11818 PM CYPRESS, BARBERRY, ST JOHNS WORT PM CYPRESS, BARBERRY, ST JOHNS WORT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,068.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 101.46 Total :1,169.46 214355 5/14/2015 075122 YAKIMA CO DEPT OF CORR APR 2015 APRIL 2015 INMATE HOUSING - EDMONDS PD INMATE HOUSING - APR 2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,642.50 Total :1,642.50 214356 5/14/2015 075254 YAKIMA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES J18395 REBOOT OF SAN 4/6/15 Reboot of SAN on 4/6/15; 1 hr @ $85/hr 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 85.00 HARD DRIVE REPLACEMENT LABOR CHARGEJ18442 Replacement of two hard drives; 2 hr @ 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 170.00 Total :255.00 214357 5/14/2015 073079 ZONES INC S40898540102 INV#S40898540102 CUST#0058931122-EDMONDS PENTEX PERFORATED PAPER ROLLS 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 657.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 62.46 Total :719.90 Bank total :698,180.22116 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 698,180.22Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report116 43Page: Packet Page 70 of 452 05/14/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 44 9:37:32AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 44Page: Packet Page 71 of 452 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 5/13/2015 Packet Page 72 of 452 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 5/13/2015 Packet Page 73 of 452 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 5/13/2015 Packet Page 74 of 452 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 5/13/2015 Packet Page 75 of 452 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 5/13/2015 Packet Page 76 of 452 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 5/13/2015 Packet Page 77 of 452 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 5/13/2015 Packet Page 78 of 452 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 5/13/2015 Packet Page 79 of 452 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 5/13/2015 Packet Page 80 of 452 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 5/13/2015 Packet Page 81 of 452 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 5/13/2015 Packet Page 82 of 452 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 5/13/2015 Packet Page 83 of 452 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 5/13/2015 Packet Page 84 of 452 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 5/13/2015 Packet Page 85 of 452 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 5/13/2015 Packet Page 86 of 452 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 794 (05/11/2015 to 05/11/2015) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 26.00 400.92 Total Net Pay:$368.03 $400.92 26.00 05/12/2015 Page 1 of 1 Packet Page 87 of 452    AM-7722     3. C.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/19/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Linda Hynd Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from State Farm ($14,106.31). Recommendation  Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action  N/A Narrative State Farm Insurance Company P.O Box 106172 Atlanta, GA 30348-6172 ($14106.31) Attachments State Farm Claim for Damages Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 05/13/2015 11:44 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/13/2015 11:46 AM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 05/13/2015 09:38 AM Final Approval Date: 05/13/2015  Packet Page 88 of 452 Packet Page 89 of 452 Packet Page 90 of 452 Packet Page 91 of 452 Packet Page 92 of 452 Packet Page 93 of 452 Packet Page 94 of 452 Packet Page 95 of 452    AM-7721     3. D.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/19/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Mary Ann Hardie Department:Human Resources Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Action Information Subject Title Ordinance updating the Civil Service Commission (EMC 10.25.090)  – Filling of vacancies-Probationary Period Recommendation Approval of the updated Civil Service ordinance (approved by Council at the 5/12/15 Council Study Session) on consent by full Council at the 5/19/15 Council meeting. Previous Council Action Updated ordinance approved at the 5/12/15 Council Study Session to be forwarded for full consent of Council at the 5/19/15 Council meeting.  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 Packet Page 96 of 452 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 Updated Ordinance - EMC 10.25.090 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 05/13/2015 08:08 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/13/2015 08:27 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/13/2015 08:29 AM Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Started On: 05/13/2015 07:33 AM Final Approval Date: 05/13/2015  Packet Page 97 of 452 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. 2. In the continuing testing process, the names of no more than the top 20 candidates in rank order based upon their final examination scores, including veterans’ preference, if applicable. Packet Page 98 of 452 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 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. 3. 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: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 99 of 452 APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFFREY B. TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 100 of 452 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 Packet Page 101 of 452    AM-7724     3. E.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/19/2015 Time:  Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Jim Stevens Department:Public Works Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Naming Fire Station #16. Recommendation Staff recommends that council consider for final approval the option forwarded from Committee to name Fire Station #16 as the "Betty Mueller Memorial Fire Hall." 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.  The committee decided on metal lettering as the preferred choice, and provided several options for determining the exact wording to memorialize Betty Mueller at the Council Committee night on May 12, 2015. Narrative The approved choice for the metal lettering to name Fire Station #16 (Betty Mueller Memorial Fire Hall) was determined by the Committee of the Whole on May 12th and now needs final approval by the Council.  The cost to provide this lettering is estimated to be between $1000 and $3500, depending on the vendor source, the lettering height, the lettering material, etc., and expense of this lettering is being covered entirely through citizen donations.  With the Council approval tonight, the subcommittee will move forward with the process of ordering and affixing this signage to Fire Station #16 on the exterior surface over the center apparatus bay door facing 196th St. SW. No work will proceed until confirmation of adequate available funding is received. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Public Works Phil Williams 05/13/2015 02:37 PM Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 05/14/2015 08:47 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/14/2015 09:02 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/14/2015 09:52 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/14/2015 10:07 AM Form Started By: Jim Stevens Started On: 05/13/2015 01:15 PM Final Approval Date: 05/14/2015  Packet Page 102 of 452    AM-7732     3. F.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/19/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Scott James Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Professional Services Agreement for management and maintenance of the City's copiers and printers. Recommendation Authorize Mayor or his designee to sign the Professional Services Agreement with Electronic Business Machines to manage, maintain and provide leased copy machines to the City. Previous Council Action None. Narrative We currently five different vendors providing copy machine and printer maintenance and copy machine lease services to the City.  For these services, we paid $83,985 in 2014 and we paid $81,820 in 2013. Approval of this Professional Service Agreement will  1) Consolidate the five vendors to one vendor, 2) Save the City over 5% on our annual expense for copy machine and printer maintenance, and 3) Increase our quality of service for maintenance of our copy machines and printers. Attachments Professional Services Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 05/13/2015 07:30 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/14/2015 07:19 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/14/2015 08:42 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/14/2015 09:03 AM Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 05/13/2015 05:22 PM Final Approval Date: 05/14/2015  Packet Page 103 of 452 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), is made and entered into between the City of Edmonds (the “City”), and Electronic Business Machines (the "Consultant"). WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of the Consultant to manage, monitor and maintain the City’s copy/print environment (the “Project”); WHEREAS, the City does not have sufficient staff or expertise to meet the required commitment and therefore deems it advisable and desirable to engage the assistance of a Consultant to provide the necessary services for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Consultant represents that it is in compliance with Washington State statutes relating to professional registration, if applicable, and has signified a willingness to furnish such consulting services to the City; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of Services. The scope of work shall include all services, labor and related equipment necessary to conduct and complete the work, except as specifically noted otherwise in this Agreement, which services are more fully set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work, including the lease of equipment. A. Payment for services provided under the terms of this Agreement shall be at the rates set forth on the Fee Schedule in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The total amount of this Agreement shall not exceed Two Hundred Three Thousand Dollars ($203,000) for all tasks set forth in the Scope of Work. B. All invoices shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall submit one invoice for each department for both lease and service costs each month. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each invoice to the Consultant. Invoices shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City's Purchasing Policy. No invoice shall be considered for payment that has not been submitted to the City three days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such late invoices will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment cycle. C. The cost records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. 3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, draft documents, preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for Packet Page 104 of 452 the services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the Consultant, provided, however, that: A. All final documentation prepared by the Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become the property of the City. B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and copy any work product during normal office hours. Documents prepared under this Agreement and in the possession of the Consultant may be subject to public records request and release under Chapter 42.56 RCW. C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this Agreement shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this Agreement. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost. 4. Term and time of performance. The term of this Agreement shall be from April 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017. The Consultant shall begin the performance of the work authorized by this Agreement in a timely manner after receiving the City’s authorization to proceed. 5. Hold harmless agreement. The Consultant shall indemnify and hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense all claims, demands, or suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part from the Consultant’s negligence or breach of any of its obligations under this Agreement; provided that nothing herein shall require the Consultant to indemnify the City against and hold harmless the City from claims, demands or suits based solely upon the conduct of the City, its agents, officers and employees; and provided further that if the claims or suits are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of: (a) the Consultant’s agents or employees; and (b) the City, its agents, officers and employees, this indemnity provision with respect to: (1) claims or suits based upon such negligence; and (2) the costs to the City of defending such claims and suits shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the Consultant’s negligence or the negligence of the Consultant’s agents or employees. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers. The Consultant specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the Consultant’s own employees against the City and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, the Consultant specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. 6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and keep in force during the term of the Agreement, or as otherwise required, the following insurance Packet Page 105 of 452 with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. Insurance Coverage A. Worker’s compensation and employer’s liability insurance as required by the State. B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property damage. The per occurrence amount shall not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000). C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit. D. Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). Excepting the Worker’s Compensation Insurance and Professional Liability Insurance secured by the Consultant, the City will be named on all policies as an additional insured. The Consultant shall furnish the City with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the Agreement. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington. The Consultant shall submit to the City a verification of insurance as outlined above within fourteen days of the execution of this Agreement. No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty (30) days’ prior notice to the City. The Consultant’s professional liability to the City shall be limited to the amount payable under this Agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000), whichever is the greater, unless modified elsewhere in this Agreement. In no case shall the Consultant’s professional liability to third parties be limited in any way. 7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, liability for service in the armed forces of the United States, disability, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, or any other protected class status, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. 8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement. 9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this Agreement must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not perform work for any party with respect to any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City without written notification to the City and the City’s prior written consent. 10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such Packet Page 106 of 452 termination no fewer than one hundred twenty (120) days in advance of the effective date of said termination. Any termination of the lease agreement(s) for equipment leased by the City shall be governed by the terms of such agreement(s). 11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document and Exhibit A, which together constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written Agreement and any provision of Exhibit A, this Agreement shall control. 12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render services, or the City to pay for services rendered, in excess of the Scope of Services unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties. 13. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and any persons employed by Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent with sound practices, in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of Services. 14. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 15. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the Consultant shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he or she has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he or she has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services. Packet Page 107 of 452 The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. 18. Entire agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any such prior or contemporaneous oral or written representations, statements, documents or understandings. 19. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: Electronic Business Machines 802 – 134th Street SW #170 Everett, WA 98204 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. DATED this _______ day of May, 2015. CITY OF EDMONDS ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES By By David O. Earling, Mayor Its ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) Packet Page 108 of 452 )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of May, 2015, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared _______________________, and executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Page 109 of 452 Scope of Services City of Edmonds/Electronic Business Machines (EBM) Office Equipment Service Agreement 1. The Scope of Services under this Agreement shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the current WSCA Contract 07912. 2. General Scope of Services: This agreement covers both the labor and the material for adjustments, repairs and replacement of parts as necessitated by normal use of the equipment listed below, except as hereinafter provided and a Semi-Annual asset review and re- deployment, “rightsizing”, at no charge. Damage to the equipment or their parts, arising out of misuse or causes beyond EBM’s control are not covered. 3. Availability: EBM on City premises hours are from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday, excluding EBM holidays. 4. Management Team: EBM will assign a Business Solution Representative to the City. 5. Destruction of Equipment: EBM will destroy equipment hard drives at EBM’s cost. EBM’s procedure for hard drive destruction consists of: • All digital storage from City used equipment will be sanitized in compliance with NIST standards 800-88r1 or greater. • Deletion of all Address Books, including email addresses and fax numbers. • Deletion of any and all retained jobs in the Hard Drive under “Document Filing”. 6. Performance Guarantee: EBM performance guarantee is 98.0% uptime for all devices. EBM will provide Semi-Annual Uptime and Service Reports for the City of Edmonds to monitor performance. 7. Replacement of Units: EBM will provide free shipping and disposal for units being replaced. The City of Edmonds must provide return instructions to EBM. There will be a thirty day acceptance period for City to confirm replacement machine meets quality standards and needs of City. 8. Additional Machines: Any additional machines will be serviced per the EBM Lease Agreement co-terminously. 9. Service Response: EBM will provide Service Response of 4 hours or less for all devices. 10. Replacement Parts: EBM will use only OEM parts as replacement parts with the exception of toner cartridges and for printers that are over 5 years old. EBM cannot guarantee OEM parts or service on printers over 5 years old. 11. Service Standards: EBM will service each device according to Manufacturer’s recommendations. 12. Exchanges: Printer Service loaners will be made available by EBM for printers that are out of service greater than one day. Exchange program for contract life — EBM will exchange problem units with similar models at no charge. 13. Copy Volume: The City will be billed monthly in arrears based on actual usage. What this means is at the end of each month EMB will gather the meters and bill based on the actual prior months usage. 14. Cancellation: The City of Edmonds has the right to cancel this contract if EBM fails to perform according to the Service Guarantees and fails to provide an adequate remedy within 120 days. Packet Page 110 of 452 15. Downtime: For an incident of less than 98.0% uptime for any device over the billing cycle or a response time greater than 4 hours, the parties will use the following Downtime Reimbursement Schedule for each device: Segment 1 (10-20 ppm): $10. Segment 2 (21-30 ppm): $15. Segment 3 (31-44 ppm): $20. Segment 4 (45-69 ppm): $25. Segment 5 (70-90 ppm): $30. Segment 6 (91+ ppm): $40. 16. Printer Fleet: EBM will reduce the current Printer Fleet price by 10% from .01433 to .0128. 17. MFP: All current copiers and their replacement cost per page service pricing will be lowered by 3% from current State of Washington contract pricing. This includes both B/W and Color costs. Electronic meter collection and fleet management software will be provided at no charge to allow fast and efficient meter collection of connected units. 18. End of Current Lease Options: The City of Edmonds can: 1) Return equipment. Cost of return at EBM’s expense Per WSCA Contract. 2) Continue Month-to-Month per terms of WSCA Contract. 3) Purchase equipment for fair market value. All fair market value leases shall have an end- of-term buyout to own, which is determined by the then-current market price. 4) At month 57, EBM will provide the City of Edmonds with an end-of-term purchase price for leased machines. 19. Bulk purchases: EBM will sell or lease all new equipment at or below WSCA contract per terms and conditions of current WSCA contract 07912. 20. Life of machines: EBM will use industry accepted BEI benchmarks to help consult with City on life of machines cycles. BEI provides nationwide data and benchmarks for machine specific performance, life expectancy, and service standards. Packet Page 111 of 452 Mfgr.Model SN#Department Firm ID# Monthly Lease Payment Costs Per Page Black Costs Per Page Color CANON iR-ADV C5051 GQM52321 Community Svcs a7024 249.99 0.00776 0.0455 HP LaserJet 2420 CNGJF56901 Community Svcs A7269 HP LaserJet 4100 Series USGNK03895 Human Resources A7271 CANON iR C1030 HFP03020 Mayor's Office A7068 27.99 0.00776 0.0635 CANON iR-ADV C7065 HJY50696 City Clerk A7026 466.97 679 0.047 CANON iR1025 DRL39833 City Clerk A7050 9215 HP LaserJet 4000 Series USMC008219 City Clerk N/A HP LaserJet 4100 Series USJNK24211 City Clerk CANON iR C1030 HFP03017 Council Office A7067 27.99 0.00776 0.0635 HP LaserJet 4050 Series USQB049093 Dev Svcs A7274 RICOH Aficio MP 171 V4499101636 Dev Svcs N/A RICOH Pro 907EX V5090700579 Dev Svcs N/A HP DesignJet T520 CN3AN4M07Z Dev Svcs N/A CANON iR C1030 HFP02970 Dev Svcs - Building A7066 33.02 0.00776 ,0635 HP LaserJet 4250 CNGXF77510 Dev Svcs - Building A7273 CANON iR C1030 HFP02966 Dev Svcs - Planning A7065 33.02 0.00776 0.0635 KIP 3000 10512613 Dev Svcs - Planning N/A HP Designjet 4000ps SG68JG900T Engineering HP LaserJet 5000 Series JPB3100602 Engineering A7275 RICOH Aficio MP C6000 M7990700150 Engineering N/A CANON iR-ADV C5051 GQM52286 Finance A7028 249.99 0.00776 0.0455 HP LaserJet 4250 CNGXF62422 Finance A7132 HP LaserJet 4250 CNGXF31791 Finance A7266 HP LaserJet 4350 CNRXK45809 Finance A7265 N/A HP LaserJet 4050 Series USQF047732 Municipal Court N/A CANON iR C3170 KNE01776 Municipal Court A4672 own 0.0115 0.122 CANON iR C2550 DCA00671 Municipal Court A5804 own 0.009 0.0924 HP DesignJet 1055cm SG9BJ23118 Parks & Recreation N/A CANON iR C1030 HFP02100 Parks & Recreation A6995 27.99 0.00776 0.0635 CANON iR-ADV C5051 GQM52284 Parks & Recreation A7027 249.99 0.00776 0.0455 HP LaserJet 4050 Series USQX110303 Parks & Recreation N/A CANON iR C1030 HFP02088 Parks & Recreation A7078 33.42 0.0076 0.0635 HP LaserJet 2420 CNGKJ28502 Parks & Recreation A7291 HP LaserJet 2430 CNGKJ04018 Police Dept N/A CANON iR 2022i MXD06066 Police Dept N/A CANON iR C3480 CZK05271 Police Dept N/A CANON iR-ADV C5045 GPQ56182 Police Dept N/A CANON iR5055 CXT02740 Police Dept N/A CANON iR C2550 DCA06381 Police Dept N/A HP LaserJet 4250 CNRXR39787 Police Dept A7283 HP LaserJet 2420 CNDJB52021 Police Dept N/A HP DesignJet500 Police Dept N/A HP LaserJet 4000 Series USMC008213 Police Dept N/A CANON iR C1030 HFP02139 Public Works A6947 33.42 0.0076 0.0455 HP LaserJet 4100 Series USJNF11610 Public Works A7329 CANON iR-ADV C5030 GNG59242 Public Works A7534 141.36 0.0076 0.0582 CANON iR-ADV C5045 GPQ59311 Public Works A7533 228.5 0.0076 0.0455 CANON iR C2880 JUH00307 Wastewater A4998 68.28 0.0076 0.0727 HP PRINTERS BILLED AT .0128 PER COPY, 24,000 COPIES PER MONTH BUNDLED ACROSS ALL HP PRINTERS UNDER CONTRACT ALL PRICES PLUS TAX Office Equipment/Devise List Packet Page 112 of 452    AM-7728     3. G.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/19/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Ryan Hague Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Action  Information Subject Title Report of final construction costs for the 15th Street Walkway Project and acceptance of project. Recommendation Accept project. 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. On May 12, 2015, staff presented final construction costs for the 15th Street Walkway Project to Council and they forwarded the item to the May 19, 2015 consent agenda. 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 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 05/14/2015 03:18 PM Public Works Phil Williams 05/14/2015 03:58 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/14/2015 04:04 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/14/2015 04:14 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/14/2015 04:15 PM Packet Page 113 of 452 Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 05/13/2015 03:40 PM Final Approval Date: 05/14/2015  Packet Page 114 of 452 © 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 Packet Page 115 of 452    AM-7533     4.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/19/2015 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Kody McConnell Department:Public Works Type: Action  Information Subject Title Proclamation in Honor of Public Works Week May 17, 2015 through May 23, 2015 Recommendation It is recommended that the Proclamation be signed designating the week of May 17, 2015 through May 23, 2015 as Public Works Week in the City of Edmonds. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The week of May 17, 2015, through May 23, 2015, has been selected as national public works week by the American Public Works Association. This week is intended to promote public awareness and understanding of the Public Works field and to recognize the accomplishments of Public Works employees. In the City of Edmonds, the Public Works & Utilities Department consists of the following six Divisions: Street & Stormwater Operations and Maintenance, Water & Sewer Operations and Maintenance, Facilities Maintenance, Fleet Maintenance, Wasterwater Treatment Plant Operations and Maintenance, and Engineering Services. Attachments Proclamation Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 03/04/2015 11:34 AM Mayor Dave Earling 03/04/2015 11:36 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 03/04/2015 12:00 PM Form Started By: Kody McConnell Started On: 03/04/2015 11:08 AM Final Approval Date: 03/04/2015  Packet Page 116 of 452 CITY OF EDMONDS  OFFICE OF THE MAYOR "CELEBRATING THE PEOPLE OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES" May 17, 2015 through May 23, 2015 WHEREAS, the many services provided to our community by the Department of Public Works & Utilities play an integral role in the quality of life of all our citizens; and WHEREAS, the health, safety, and comfort of all members of our community are vitally dependent on each of these systems, programs, and facilities; and WHEREAS, the support and understanding of an informed citizenry is crucial to the effective operation and design of quality public works systems and engineering programs for potable water distribution, wastewater sewage collection and treatment, stormwater drainage, public facilities, vehicle fleets, and street construction, maintenance, and traffic control; and WHEREAS, the essential services of the City of Edmonds Department of Public Works & Utilities includes the operations, maintenance, repairs, design, and construction of all of the aforementioned public works systems and facilities; and WHEREAS, the quality and efficacy of these systems, programs, and facilities depend wholly upon the team efforts and technical skills of our public works personnel; and WHEREAS, City of Edmonds Department of Public Works & Utilities employees strive to always go the extra length to provide much more than basic, routine service and readily respond to emergencies that arise at all times of all days; and WHEREAS, the extraordinary efforts of our diverse public works employees are deserving of acknowledgement for their many contributions to our citizen’s quality of life. NOW THEREFORE, I, DAVID O. EARLING, duly elected Mayor of the City of Edmonds, wish to recognize the outstanding work of the City of Edmonds Department of Public Works & Utilities personnel who consistently provide high quality service to our citizens by proclaiming the week of May 17, 2015 through May 23, 2015 as Public Works Week in the City of Edmonds. HEREBY PROCLAIMED this 19th day of May, 2015. ____________________________________ Dave O. Earling Mayor of Edmonds Packet Page 117 of 452    AM-7726     6.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/19/2015 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted For:Shane Hope Submitted By:Shane Hope Department:Development Services Type: Information  Information Subject Title Public Hearing on Draft Capital Facilities Element for 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update Recommendation Consider the information, including any public comments Previous Council Action Narrative BACKGROUND An update of the City's Comprehensive Plan is required under state law by mid-2015.  The City Council has been reviewing draft updates to each element, one at a time, since late 2014.  The element currently being reviewed and considered at a public hearing is the draft Capital Facilities Element.  All draft elements, with any refinements, will be brought together and presented to the City Council for a final decision on the whole Plan by July 7.   CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT The draft updated Capital Facilities Element contains a new introduction, an inventory of major capital facilities, various goals and policies, and a six-year financial plan for capital projects, along with a description of other longer-term capital projects.  The last two items--6-year financial plan for capital projects and a description of longer-term projects--are based on the current adopted CIP and the same illustrated description of longer-term projects used in previous comprehensive plans. Draft updates to just the narrative, goals, and polices of the Capital Facilities Element are reflected in both a "clean" version (Attachment 1) and a mark-up version (Attachment 2) to show changes from the existing Element.   A separate section, the Capital Facilities Plan or "CFP" (Attachment 3) has 3 subsections: (1) General (including parks/recreation); (2) Transportation; and (3) Stormwater.  Each CFP subsection contains relevant components of the adopted 2015-2020 CIP and a description of some longer-term capital projects.  The CFP section has no changed information from versions that the Council previously adopted.  (Note: the descriptions of capital projects that are outside of the 6-year funding cycle have not been updated in recent years.) As part of the final  refinements in the 2015 update process, both sections (narrative and capital facilities plan) will be consolidated into one Capital Facilities Element.  Also, more data on existing capital facilities owned by the City will be added. Packet Page 118 of 452 In past years, the Capital Facilities Plan of the Edmonds Schools District was also adopted by reference.  This is no longer being included.  This reflects that the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update is intended to make the Comprehensive Plan more focused and reduce the amount of non-essential documents. PUBLIC PROCESS Public process has included: --Information about the Comprehensive Plan Update process, along with draft materials, posted on the City's website --February 25, 2015 Open House --Relevant Planning Board and City Council meeting materials posted on the City's website --Planning Board public meetings (April 22--minutes in Attachment 4; and May 13--minutes not yet available) on updating the Capital Facilities Element --Notice of May 19 City Council public hearing on the draft Capital Facilities Element --Upcoming public meetings and hearings --June 10 Open House on 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION On May 13, 2015, the Planning Board recommended moving the draft Capital Facilities Element forward to the City Council. NEXT STEPS --May 19--City Council public hearing on the draft Capital Facilities Element--May 19 --May 26--City Council discussion of draft element --Final refinements to the draft element --June/July--Planning Board and City Council public hearings and discussion of the final proposed 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update (including the Capital Facilities Element and all other elements) Attachments Att. 1: CFP clean version Att. 2: CFP mark up version Att. 3 CFP Att. 4: PB minutes of 4.22.15 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 05/15/2015 11:51 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/15/2015 11:53 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/15/2015 11:54 AM Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 05/13/2015 02:46 PM Final Approval Date: 05/15/2015  Packet Page 119 of 452 Capital Facilities Element Background General. The Capital Facilities Element identifies the City’s existing and needed capital facilities to support the delivery of public services to the community and its visitors. It also provides related goals and standards for meeting the community’s needs. Capital facilities include land and buildings for public purpose. In addition to serving existing residents, capital facilities are planned to meet the community’s needs as new development occurs in the future. Because Edmonds is a mature city with a full complement of facilities and services, most capital facility planning is targeted to maintaining existing level of service standards and expanding the quality of life of its citizens with new or expanded facilities. Service standards are described in the transportation, utility and parks elements. These service standards are used to assist in developing both short and long range capital improvements projects. The capital facilities element identifies these projects and their funding sources for a six-year period. This schedule will be updated on an annual basis and integrated with the City’s budget process. The element also identifies public facility needs for the 20-year planning period. Funding sources will vary as specific projects are developed, and will include a variety of public and private sources. The City coordinates on the siting of essential public facilities with its neighboring cities and the county. Concurrency Management. Introduced in 1990 by the Washington State Legislature with the enactment of the Growth Management Act, the term “concurrency management” is specifically required for transportation facilities and is defined as the process that cities use to ensure that no development or permit is approved by the city unless the necessary capital facilities are in place or that funding is adequate to complete the required improvements within six years. Concurrency for transportation systems is tied to established level-of-service standards. The City has also established an impact fee system for parks in order to provide for growth-related facilities. Other facilities, such as water and sewer systems, are funded and maintained through utility plans and fee structures, as well as grant-supported projects. Inventory. Publicly owned capital facilities in the City are comprised primarily of those owned by the City of Edmonds. A few of these facilities, while owned by the City, are operated by other entities. For example, fire stations are currently owned by the City but operated by Fire District 1. Other facilities are owned by different governmental agencies, such as the Port of Edmonds and the Edmonds School District. Following is a map of City-owned facilities, as identified in 2015. This inventory focuses on larger properties and buildings; it does not include transportation or utility facilities, since these are discussed, repectively, in the Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Element and in functional plans referenced in the Comprehensive Plan’s Utilities Element. Packet Page 120 of 452 Note: While City-owned parks are included in this Element’s inventory, more specific details about them can be found in the Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan, which is also adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Packet Page 121 of 452 Following is a 2015 map of facilities owned by the Edmonds School District. Packet Page 122 of 452 Future Needs Future capital facility needs and projects have been identified for the City in a special section “Capital Facilities Projects” at the end of this element. The section is divided into three subsections: General, Transportation, and Stormwater. Within each subsection is a table of capital projects and their anticipated financing over a 6-year period. Each section also contains information on longer-term capital projects, for which funding may not yet be available. Some of the projects in the latter category have been considered for an extended period of time and their exact descriptions/costs have not been recently updated. The Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan, adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan, includes more information on future capital facility needs for parks, recreation, and open space. Goals and Policies This section identifies key goals for the City in managing its capital facilities. Each goal is followed by a set of numbered policies related to that goal. Capital Facilities Goal A. Establish service standards for all city-provided services in order to provide public facilities and services that meet citizens’ needs and enhance the community’s quality of life. A.1. Provide capital facility improvements in order to meet or exceed established service standards. A.2. Coordinate and set service standards that meet the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. A.3. Evaluate and prioritize capital facility projects according to how they achieve established criteria and the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. Examples of typical criteria include the following: A.3.a. Whether the project is needed to achieve or maintain a service standard. A.3.b. Whether the facility will contribute to the elimination of a public hazard or safety concern. A.3.c. Whether the facility is financially feasible. A.3.d. The extent to which the facility will impact annual and long-term budgets. A.3.e. Whether the facility is consistent with future facility needs and site considerations. A.3.f. The extent to which the facility will impact natural and cultural resources. Capital Facilities Goal B. Evaluate and coordinate the provision of capital facility improvements with both annual budgeting and long-term financial planning. B.1. Capital budget decisions will be made consistent with the Edmonds comprehensive plan in accordance with RCW 36.70A.120. Packet Page 123 of 452 B.2. If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, the comprehensive plan shall be re-examined to review how additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that established service standards will be met. B.3. Capital improvements will be planned to achieve fiscal responsibility, maintenance of existing facilities, and protect the quality of life of the community. B.4. The City will continue to adopt multi-year budgets and six-year capital improvement programs as part of its annual budget and planning process. B.5. Six-year capital improvement programs will be coordinated with long-term (at least 20-year) capital needs Capital Facilities Goal C. Seek to use a coordinated array of mechanisms and sources of revenue to fund needed capital facilities. C.1. Make use of the City’s budget and structure of funds to identify adequate funding sources for capital facilities. C.2. Seek grants and cooperative funding agreements to supplement internal City funding of capital facilities that benefit the general public or that are required to meet needs not generated solely by Edmonds residents. C.3. Make use of regulatory and incentive programs to assist in achieving service standards for City services. Capital Facilities Goal D. Strategically locate new facilities to complement the delivery of services and provide for efficient and convenient access.1 D.1. The location of new or improved capital facilities should take into account existing service delivery systems and the location and access of service populations. D.2. Ensure that the siting of essential public facilities is not precluded by the implementation of this Comprehensive Plan. Capital Facilities Goal E. Essential public facilities are necessary to support orderly growth and the delivery of public services. The City’s goal is to ensure that these facilities are sited in an efficient, timely manner while acknowledging and mitigating any community impacts created by these facilities. E.1. Essential public facilities are those defined by state law, through the City's planning process or on application of a service provider. E.2. Sponsors of essential public facilities should be encouraged to consult with the City prior to choosing a site in order to seek information about potential sites, provide information concerning project proposals, identify potential community impacts, and propose possible siting incentives or mitigation measures. Packet Page 124 of 452 E.3. The City shall assure adequate public notice and participation in the siting of essential public facilities by reviewing these facilities through a conditional use process, allowing the identification of community impacts and mitigation measures. Because the City’s normal notification requirements may not provide for adequate public notice to the project’s impact area, the project sponsor shall develop a public participation plan designed to encourage early public involvement in the siting decision and identification of impacts and mitigation measures. E.4. The City shall develop decision criteria for the siting of essential public facilities which allow the sponsor to demonstrate: E.4.a. the need for the facility, E.4.b. its consistency with adopted plans and policies, E.4.c. its location is designed to serve its service population, E.4.d. its location criteria is compatible with the siting of other essential public facilities, E.4.e. the site is physically suitable for the facility, and E.4.f. the project is able to mitigate community impacts. E.5. City policies and procedures – including any conditional use process – shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the admonition contained in the Growth Management Act that no development plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities. Concurrency Management Goal A. Provide a system of concurrency management that will assure that the facilities needed to support city services are provided in a timely and coordinated manner. A.1. For transportation facilities, assure that the facilities or services needed to meet level-of-service standards are in place at the time of development, or assure that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. These facilities or services must be provided by either the City or the appropriate public or private developer. A.2 For park facilities, new growth or development will create additional demand for park facilities. Fees collected from the “Park Impact Fee” can only be appied to projects resulting from city-wide development growth and cannot be used to mitigate existing shortfalls of the parks system. Performance MeasuresThe Comprehensive Plan contains a small number performance measures (no more than one per element) that can be used to monitor and annually report on the implementation and effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan. Performance measures, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, are specific, meaningful, and easily obtainable items that relate to sustainability and can be reported on an annual basis. They are intended to help assess progress toward achieving the goals and policy direction of each major Comprehensive Plan element. The measure identified below is specifically called out as matching the above criteria and being important to capital facilities goals and will be reported annually, along with performance measures Packet Page 125 of 452 for other Comprehensive Plan elements. It is not intended to be the only measure that the City may use for capital facilities purposes. Performance Measure: Project delivery, based on comparison of expected results from the approved Capital Facilities Plan to the actual results. Packet Page 126 of 452 Capital Facilities 1 Capital Facilities Element Capital FacilitiesBackground General. The Ccapital Ffacilities Eelement identifies the City’s existing and needed capital facilities to support the delivery of public services to the community and its visitors. It also provides the related goals and standards for meeting the community’s needs. for capital facilities. Capital facilities include land and buildings for public purpose. are those facilities support the delivery of public services to the community, as well as visitors making use of the City’s resources and services. In addition to serving existing residents, capital facilities are also planned in order to meet the community’s needs as new development occurs in the future. Because Edmonds is a mature city with a full complement of facilities and services, most capital facility planning is targeted to maintaining existing level of service standards and expanding the quality of life of its citizens with new or expanded facilities. Level-of-service (LOS)Service standards are described in the transportation, utility and parks elements. School facility needs and LOS standards are contained in the Capital Facilities Plan for Edmonds School District No. 15. These LOS service standards are used to assist in developing both short and long range capital improvements projects. The capital facilities element identifies these projects and their funding sources for a six-year period. This schedule will be updated on an annual basis and integrated with the City’s budget process. The element also identifies public facility needs for the 20-year planning period. Funding sources will vary as specific projects are developed, and will include a variety of public and private sources. The siting of essential public facilities is a common concern for jurisdictions within the county, and the City is actively participating incoordinates on the development of a common siting processsiting of essential public facilities with its neighboring cities and the county. Concurrency Management. Introduced in 1990 by the Washington State Legislature with the enactment of the Growth Management Act, the term “concurrency management” is specifically required for transportation facilities and is defined as the process that cities use to ensure that no development or permit is approved by the city unless the necessary capital facilities are in place or that funding is adequate to complete the required improvements within six years. Concurrency for transportation systems is tied to established level-of-service standards. The City has also established an impact fee system for parks in order to provide for growth-related facilities. Other facilities, such as water and sewer systems, are funded and maintained through utility plans and fee structures, as well as grant-supported projects. Inventory. Publicly owned capital facilities in the City are comprised primarily of those owned by the City of Edmonds. A few of these facilities, while owned by the City, are operated by other entities. For example, fire stations are currently owned by the City but operated by Fire District 1. Other facilities are owned by different governmental agencies, such as the Port of Edmonds and the Edmonds School District. Following is a map of City-owned facilities, as identified in 2015. This inventory focuses on larger properties and buildings; it does not include transportation or utility facilities, since these are discussed, repectively, in the Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Element and in functional plans referenced in the Comprehensive Plan’s Utilities Element. Style Definition: Heading 2 Packet Page 127 of 452 2 HousingCapital Facilities Note: While City-owned parks are included in this Element’s inventory, more specific details about them can be found in the Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan, which is also adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Packet Page 128 of 452 Capital Facilities 3 Following is a 2015 map of facilities owned by the Edmonds School District. Packet Page 129 of 452 4 HousingCapital Facilities Future Needs Future capital facility needs and projects have been identified for the City in a special section “Capital Facilities Projects” at the end of this element. The section is divided into three subsections: General, Transportation, and Stormwater. Within each subsection is a table of capital projects and their anticipated financing over a 6-year period. Each section also contains information on longer-term capital projects, for which funding may not yet be available. Some of the projects in the latter category have been considered for an extended period of time and their exact descriptions/costs have not been recently updated. The Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan, adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan, includes more information on future capital facility needs for parks, recreation, and open space. Goals and Policies This section identifies key goals for the City in managing its capital facilities. Each goal is followed by a set of numbered policies related to that goal. Capital Facilities Goal A. Establish level of service (LOS)service standards for all city-provided services in order to provide public facilities and services that meet citizens’ needs and enhance the community’s quality of life. according to the following policies: A.1. Provide capital facility improvements in order to meet or exceed established level-of-service standards. A.2. Coordinate and set level-of-service standards that meet the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. A.3. Evaluate and prioritize capital facility projects according to how they achieve established criteria and the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. Examples of typical criteria include the following: A.3.a. Whether the project is needed to achieve or maintain a LOS service standard. A.3.b. Whether the facility will contribute to the elimination of a public hazard or safety concern. A.3.c. Whether the facility is financially feasible. A.3.d. The extent to which the facility will impact annual and long-term budgets. A.3.e. Whether the facility is consistent with future facility needs and site considerations. A.3.f. The extent to which the facility will impact natural and cultural resources. Packet Page 130 of 452 Capital Facilities 5 Capital Facilities Goal B. Goal. Evaluate and coordinate the provision of capital facility improvements with both annual budgeting and long-term financial planning. consistent with the following policies: B.1. Capital budget decisions will be made consistent with the Edmonds comprehensive plan in accordance with RCW 36.70A.120. B.2. If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, the comprehensive plan shall be re-examined to review how additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that established level of service standards will be met. B.3. Capital improvements will be planned to achieve fiscal responsibility, maintenance of existing facilities, and protect the quality of life of the community. B.4. The City will continue to adopt multi-year budgets and six-year capital improvement programs as part of its annual budget and planning process. B.5. Six-year capital improvement programs will be coordinated with long-term (at least 20-year) capital needs Capital Facilities Goal C. Goal. Seek to use a coordinated array of mechanisms and sources of revenue to fund needed capital facilities. according to the following policies: C.1. Make use of the City’s budget and structure of funds to identify adequate funding sources for capital facilities. C.2. Seek grants and cooperative funding agreements to supplement internal City funding of capital facilities that benefit the general public or that are required to meet needs not generated solely by Edmonds residents. C.3. Make use of regulatory and incentive programs to assist in achieving LOS service standards for City services. Capital Facilities Goal D. Goal. Strategically locate new facilities to complement the delivery of services and provide for efficient and convenient access.1 by the community consistent with the following policies: D.1. The location of new or improved capital facilities should take into account existing service delivery systems and the location and access of service populations. D.2. Ensure that the siting of essential public facilities is not precluded by the implementation of this Comprehensive Plan. Capital Facilities Goal E. Essential public facilities are necessary to support orderly growth and the delivery of public services. The City’s goal is to ensure that these facilities are sited in an efficient, timely manner while acknowledging and mitigating any community impacts created by these facilities consistent with the following policies. Packet Page 131 of 452 6 HousingCapital Facilities E.1. Essential public facilities are those defined by state law, through the City's planning process or on application of a service provider. E.2. Sponsors of essential public facilities should be encouraged to consult with the City prior to choosing a site in order to seek information about potential sites, provide information concerning project proposals, identify potential community impacts, and propose possible siting incentives or mitigation measures. E.3. The City shall assure adequate public notice and participation in the siting of essential public facilities by reviewing these facilities through a conditional use process, allowing the identification of community impacts and mitigation measures. Because the City’s normal notification requirements may not provide for adequate public notice to the project’s impact area, the project sponsor shall develop a public participation plan designed to encourage early public involvement in the siting decision and identification of impacts and mitigation measures. E.4. The City shall develop decision criteria for the siting of essential public facilities which allow the sponsor to demonstrate: E.4.a. the need for the facility, E.4.b. its consistency with adopted plans and policies, E.4.c. its location is designed to serve its service population, E.4.d. its location criteria is compatible with the siting of other essential public facilities, E.4.e. the site is physically suitable for the facility, and E.4.f. the project is able to mitigate community impacts. E.5. City policies and procedures – including any conditional use process – shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the admonition contained in the Growth Management Act that no development plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities. Capital Improvements Program. The tables following this section summarize the six-year capital improvements program for the city. Concurrency Management Goal A. Provide a system of concurrency management that will assure that the facilities needed to support city services are provided in a timely and coordinated manner. according to the following policies: A.1. For transportation facilities, assure that the facilities or services needed to meet level-of-service standards are in place at the time of development, or assure that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. These facilities or services must be provided by either the City or the appropriate public or private developer. Packet Page 132 of 452 Capital Facilities 7 A.2 For park facilities, new growth or development will create additional demand for park facilities. Fees collected from the “Park Impact Fee” can only be appied to projects resulting from city-wide development growth and cannot be used to mitigate existing shortfalls of the parks system. Performance Measures For all capital facilities, develop concurrency management systems to manage the provision of facilities and services in order to achieve and maintain level-of-service standards. Packet Page 133 of 452 8 HousingCapital Facilities The Comprehensive Plan contains a small number performance measures (no more than one per element) that can be used to monitor and annually report on the implementation and effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan. Performance measures, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, are specific, meaningful, and easily obtainable items that relate to sustainability and can be reported on an annual basis. They are intended to help assess progress toward achieving the goals and policy direction of each major Comprehensive Plan element. The measure identified below is specifically called out as matching the above criteria and being important to capital facilities goals and will be reported annually, along with performance measures for other Comprehensive Plan elements. It is not intended to be the only measure that the City may use for capital facilities purposes. A.3.a. Performance Measure: Project delivery, based on comparison of expected results from the approved Capital Facilities Plan to the actual results. Formatted: Normal, Level 3, Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.38", Space Before: 12 pt, Keep lines together Packet Page 134 of 452 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2015-2020 Packet Page 135 of 452 Packet Page 136 of 452 CFP GENERAL Packet Page 137 of 452 Packet Page 138 of 452 $0 Public Vote Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total $5-$23 M $0 Community Unknown Conceptual $0 Partnerships $0 REET $0 Total $5 M $0 Capital Campaign Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total $5 M $0 Public Vote RCO Land Acquisitio Conceptual $2,100,000 REET 1 / Grants $1,000,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 G.O. Bonds $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $6,100,000 Total $3,000,000 $100,000 $3,000,000 Unknown $0 Library / Unknown Conceptual $0 City G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total Unknown $0 Capital Campaign Unknown Conceptual $1,330,000 REET 2 $0 $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000 $1,000,000 School District $500,000 $500,000 $5,800,000 Foundation $2,500,000 $1,750,000 $1,550,000 $2,750,000 Grants $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $10,880,000 Total $3,750,000 $40,000 $3,690,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 10-12M $0 Public Vote Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total $3 - $4M $0 Public Vote / Grants Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 Private Partnership $0 Total $1 - 2M EIS $0 Federal (Unsecured) US DOT Completed $0 State Funds $0 Total Unknown Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants $0 Total Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants $0 Total $0 $300,000 Total CFP $16,980,000 Annual CFP Totals $6,750,000 $140,000 $6,690,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 $0 Downtown Public Restroom Locate, construct, and maintain a public restroom downtown. Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations Building Edmonds / Sno-Isle Library Expand building for additional programs (Sno-Isle Capital Facilities Plan). Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)Acquire and develop property for a year round public market. Community Park / Athletic Complex - Old Woodway High School In cooperation with ESD#15 develop a community park and athletic complex. Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry / Mutimodal Facility Relocate ferry terminal to Marina Beach. Replace / Renovate deteriorating building in City Park. Senior Center Grounds Replace and expand deteriorating building on the waterfront. Edmonds School District (City has lease until 2021). Replace / Renovate (Currently subleased on Civic Playfield until 2021). Boys & Girls Club Building Civic Playfield Acquisition and/or development 2021-20252020201920182017 Art Center / Art Museum 20162015Revenue Source (2015-2020) Total Cost Current Project Phase Grant Opportunity PurposeProject Name Aquatic Facility Meet citizen needs for an Aquatics Center (Feasibility study complete August 2009). Establish a new center for the Art's Community. P a c k e t P a g e 1 3 9 o f 4 5 2 P a c k e t P a g e 1 4 0 o f 4 5 2 PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 – $23,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the current pool. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $5m - $23m * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 141 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Art Center / Art Museum ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A new Art Center/Museum facility will provide and promote Cultural / Arts facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008 update process. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority creates the need to determine feasibility for and potentially construct new visual arts related facilities. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 142 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Boys & Girls Club Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build new Boys & Girls Club facility to accommodate the growing and changing needs of this important club. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Boys & Girls Club was constructed as a field house by the Edmonds School District decades ago and is in need of major renovation or replacement. It is inadequate in terms of ADA accessibility and does not meet the needs of a modern club. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 143 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition and/or Development ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6.1M 6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire or work with the School District to develop this 8.1 acre property for continued use as an important community park, sports tourism hub and site of some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in downtown Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important park site for the citizens of Edmonds. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019-2025 Acquisition $20,000 $3M Planning/Study 100,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction $3M 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $3M $100,000 $3M * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 144 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds/Sno-Isle Library ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand building/parking to accommodate additional library needs and programs. Library improvements identified in Sno-Isle Libraries Capital Facility Plan: 2007-2025 PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements will better serve citizens needs requiring additional space and more sophisticated technology. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL Unknown * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 145 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic Complex at the Former Woodway High School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,535,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020- 2025 Planning/Study $655000 300,000 40000 150,000 Engineering & Administration 175,000 150,000 175,000 Construction $3,930,000 3,390,000 400,000 2,700,000 1% for Art 125,000 TOTAL $655000 $3,750,000 40000 $3,690,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 $10m - $12m * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 146 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the end of its useful life and is in need of major renovation or replacement. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City parks and Capital facilities for the long term. SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real estate taxes. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $3m - $4m * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 147 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Senior Center grounds ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1-2M * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitate grounds, parking, beach access and area around Senior Center, in conjunction with the construction of a new Senior Center building. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This facility is at the end of its useful life. The Edmonds Senior Center, a nonprofit, will be launching a capital campaign to reconstruct the Senior Center and seek a long term land lease with the City. It is the City’s intent to rehabilitate the grounds and beach access surrounding the Sr. Ctr when construction begins. SCHEDULE: Work with Sr. Center on timing of construction and grounds rehab. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $1-2M Packet Page 148 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry / Multimodal Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Crossing is multimodal transportation center that will provide the capacity to respond to growth while providing improved opportunities for connecting various forms of travel including rail, ferry, bus, walking and ridesharing. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide an efficient point of connection between existing and planned transportation modes. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020- 2025 Engineering & Administration Right of Way Construction 1% for Art TOTAL Unknown * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 149 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown Waterfront) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a valuable asset to Edmonds. SCHEDULE: This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished by 2017. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL Packet Page 150 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Downtown Restroom ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to locate, construct and maintain a downtown public restroom. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project satisfies goals in the Strategic Action Plan and the PROS plan. It is being supported by the Economic Development Commission and Planning Board. This will help to provide a much needed downtown amenity, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a valuable asset to Edmonds. SCHEDULE: This project depends on the ability of funds. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL 300,000 Packet Page 151 of 452 Packet Page 152 of 452 CFP TRANSPORTATION Packet Page 153 of 452 Packet Page 154 of 452 Safety / Capacity Analysis $251,046 (Federal or State secured)$251,046 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Construction $0 (Unsecured) $43,954 (Local Funds)$43,954 $295,000 Total $295,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $1,115,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$100,000 $163,000 $852,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $1,115,000 Total $100,000 $163,000 $852,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $10,000 (Local Funds)$10,000 $10,000 Total $10,000 $3,588,077 (Federal or State secured)$481,447 $3,106,630 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Possible Grant Design / ROW $0 (Unsecured) $2,134,510 (Local Funds)$230,140 $1,904,370 $5,722,587 Total $711,587 $5,011,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $4,964,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $4,964,000 Total $500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000 $5,375,000 (Federal or State secured)$3,431,500 $1,943,500 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Design / ROW $0 (Unsecured) $518,500 (Local Funds)$518,500 $5,893,500 Total $3,950,000 $1,943,500 $0 (Federal or State secured) Possible $10,000,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 State Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) Appropriation $0 (Local Funds) $10,000,000 Total $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,431,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,431,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$10,211,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $10,211,000 Project Name 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements Intersection improvements to decrease intersection delay and improve level of service. Install two-way left turn lanes to improve capacity and install sidewalk along this stretch to increase pedestrian safety (50 / 50 split with Snohomish County; total cost: ~20 Million). Highway 99 Gateway / Revitalization 2016Funding Source Project Phase Realign highly skewed intersection to address safety and improve operations; create new east-west corridor between SR-99 and I-5. 220th St. SW @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements Reconfigure EB lane and add protected/permissive for the NB and SB LT to improve the intersection delay. 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th St. SW) 2021-2025 Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements 212th St SW @ 84th Ave W (5corners) Intersection Improvements 76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements Reduce intersection delay by converting 9th Ave. to (2) lanes for both the southbound and northbound movements. SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave W Intersection Improvements Main St. and 9th Ave S (Interim Solution) 2018 2019 2020 Improve safety at the intersection by converting a stop controlled intersection for NB and SB to a signalized intersection. Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 20172015 Intersection improvements to decrease intersection delay and improve level of service (LOS). Installation of a traffic signal to reduce the intersection delay and improve Level of Service (LOS). Install gateway elements and safety improvements along SR-99 Corridor. P a c k e t P a g e 1 5 5 o f 4 5 2 Project Name 2016Funding Source Project Phase 2021-2025201820192020 Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 20172015 $0 (Federal or State secured) $3,722,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $3,722,000 Total $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $5,046,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $5,046,000 Total $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $5,235,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $5,235,000 Total $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$906,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $906,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,093,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,093,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,093,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,093,000 Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200' storage length and an eastbound left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements. Convert all-way controlled intersection into signalized intersection. Widen 216th St. SW to add a left turn lane for eastbound and westbound lanes. Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements Convert all-way controlled intersection into signalized intersection. Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St. SW Intersection Improvements Main St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvement Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvement Widen 220th St. SW and Hwy 99 to add a westbound right turn lane (for 325' storage length) and a soutbound left turn lane (for 275' storage length). Install traffic signal to improve the Level of Service (LOS) and reduce intersection delay. P a c k e t P a g e 1 5 6 o f 4 5 2 2021-2025201820192020 Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source Project PhaseProject Name $0 (Federal or State secured) $1,520,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $1,520,000 Total $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 $392,109 (Federal or State secured)$392,109 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Design $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $392,109 Total $392,109 $0 (Federal or State secured) $65,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$65,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $65,000 Total $65,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $65,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$65,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $65,000 Total $65,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $82,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$82,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $82,000 Total $82,000 $8,650 (Federal or State secured)$8,650 Possible $1,816,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,816,000 RCO / TIB Grant Design $283,000 (Unsecured)$283,000 $1,350 (Local Funds)$1,350 $2,109,000 Total $10,000 $2,099,000 Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link. Non-motorized Pedestrian / Bicycle Projects 2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link. Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St. Provide sidewalk on west side of the street, facing waterfront. 236th St SW from Edmonds Way (SR- 104) to Madrona Elementary Improve pedestrian safety along 236th St. SW, creating a safe pedestrian connection between SR- 104 and Madrona Elementary Provide safe and desirable route to Seview Elementary and nearby parks. 80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr Walkway and sight distance improvements Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link. P a c k e t P a g e 1 5 7 o f 4 5 2 2021-2025201820192020 Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source Project PhaseProject Name $0 (Federal or State secured) Grant for Design $2,306,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$349,000 $1,957,000 funding currently Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) under review $0 (Local Funds) $2,306,000 Total $349,000 $1,957,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $189,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$189,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $29,000 (Local Funds)$29,000 $218,000 Total $218,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $325,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$325,000 $760,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$0 $0 (Local Funds) $325,000 Total $325,000 $760,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $190,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$190,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $190,000 Total $190,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $380,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$380,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $380,000 Total $380,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $3,900,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,000,000 $2,900,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $425,000 (Local Funds)$425,000 $4,325,000 Total $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $519,041 (Federal or State secured)$519,041 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Design $0 (Unsecured) $1,038,893 (Local Funds)$1,038,893 $1,557,934 Total $1,557,934 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,249,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,249,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$189,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $189,000 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W Provide sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W (completing missing link) Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along missing link. Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th St. SW Provide safe sidewalk, connecting to ex. sidewalk along 200th St. SW (Maplewood Elementary School). Walnut St from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S Walkway Provide short missing link. Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S Walkway Provide short missing link. 189th Pl. SW from 80th Ave. W to 78th Ave. W Walkway Provide short missing link. Olympic Ave from Main St to SR-524 / 196th St. SW Walkway Reconstruct sidewalk (ex. conditions: rolled curb / unsafe conditions) along a stretch with high pedestrian activity and elementary school. 4th Ave. Corridor Enhancement Create more attractive and safer corridor along 4th Ave. 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W Walkway and Stormwater Improvements Provide safe walking route between minor arterial and collector. P a c k e t P a g e 1 5 8 o f 4 5 2 2021-2025201820192020 Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source Project PhaseProject Name $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$175,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $175,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,050,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,050,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $70,000 (Local Funds)$20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $70,000 Total $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $6,000 (Federal or State secured)$6,000 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Construction $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $6,000 Total $6,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $350,000 (Local Funds)$50,000 $300,000 $350,000 Total $50,000 $300,000 Total CFP $50,759,130 Annual CFP Totals $6,986,630 $7,274,500 $10,000 $6,418,000 $11,942,000 $18,128,000 $18,157,000 Totals Source 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2025 $10,133,923 Total Federal & State (Secured)$5,083,793 $5,050,130 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,920,000 Total Federal & State (Unsecured)$0 $0 $0 $6,308,000 $12,669,000 $21,943,000 $760,000 $283,000 Unsecured $0 $0 $0 $283,000 $0 $0 $17,397,000 $4,592,207 Local Funds $1,902,837 $2,224,370 $10,000 $435,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 Revenue Summary by Year 84th Ave. W between 188th St. SW and 186th St. SW Walkway Provide safe walking route between those (2) local streets. 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W Walkway Provide safe walking route between principal arterial and minor arterial. Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming To assist residents and City staff in responding to neighborhood traffic issues related to speeding, cut- through traffic and safety. Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. Crossings Install Trackside Warning System and Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. Railroad Crossings in order to reduce noise level within Downtown Edmonds. 15th St SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S Provide safe walking route between minor arterial and collector. P a c k e t P a g e 1 5 9 o f 4 5 2 P a c k e t P a g e 1 6 0 o f 4 5 2 PROJECT NAME: 212th St. SW @ 84th Ave. W (5-Corners) Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,305,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The intersection of 84th Ave and 212th is 5 legged, which also includes Main Street and Bowdoin Way approaches. The intersection is stop-controlled for all approaches. A roundabout would be constructed. The project also includes various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #6). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection currently functions at LOS F and delays during the PM peak hour will worsen over time. A roundabout will improve the LOS. SCHEDULE: Construction documentation will be completed in 2015. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW Construction $295,000 1% for Art TOTAL $295,000 Packet Page 161 of 452 PROJECT NAME: SR-524 (196th St. SW)/ 88th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,115,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave. W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right-turn-only (prohibiting left-turn and through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #8). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196th St. SW. SCHEDULE: The intersection LOS must meet MUTCD traffic signal warrants and be approved by WSDOT since 196th St. SW is a State Route (SR524). No funding is currently allocated to this project (pending grant funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $100,000 $163,000 Construction $852,000 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 $163,000 $852,000 Packet Page 162 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9th Ave. S (interim solution) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a mini-roundabout or re-striping of 9th Ave. with the removal of parking on both sides of the street. (not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan project priority chart) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection is stop-controlled for all approaches and the existing intersection LOS is E (below the City’s concurrency standards: LOS D). The re- striping of 9th Ave. would improve the intersection delay to LOS C or LOS B with the installation of a mini-roundabout. SCHEDULE: 2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $1,000 Construction $9,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 Packet Page 163 of 452 PROJECT NAME: 76th Ave W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,191,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a northbound and southbound left-turn lane to convert the signal operation for those approaches from split phasing to protected-permissive phasing. Add a right- turn lane for the westbound, southbound, and northbound movements. The project also consists of various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #3). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the existing level of service from LOS D (LOS F by 2015) to LOS C. SCHEDULE: Federal grants have been secured for all project phases. Design started in 2012 and is scheduled for completion in Fall 2015. Right-of-way acquisition is anticipated to be completed in Fall 2015. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2016. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $711,587 Construction $5,011,000 1% for Art TOTAL $711,587 $5,011,000 Packet Page 164 of 452 PROJECT NAME: 220th St SW @ 76th Ave W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,964,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected-permitted phase for eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #11). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The LOS would be improved from LOS E to LOS C. SCHEDULE: Engineering and construction scheduled between 2018 and 2020 (unsecured funding). * All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $500,000 $836,000 Construction $3,628,000 1% for Art TOTAL $500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000 Packet Page 165 of 452 PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,300,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1) Extend 228th St across the unopened right-of-way to 76th Avenue West 2) Signalize the intersection of 228th St SW @ SR99 and 228th St. SW @ 76th Ave. West 3) Construct a raised median in the vicinity of 76th Avenue West. 4) Add illumination between 224th St SW and 228th St SW on SR 99 5) Overlay of 228th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to ~ 2,000’ east of 76th Ave. W. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #1). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will improve access / safety to the I-5 / Mountlake Terrace Park & Ride from SR99. This east / west connection will reduce demand and congestion along two east- west corridors (220th Street SW and SR104). Roadway safety will also be improved as SR 99/ 228th Street SW will become a signalized intersection. 228th St. SW is being overlaid from 80th Pl. W to ~ 1,000 LF east of 72nd Ave. W. as well as 76th Ave. W from 228th St. SW to Hwy. 99. The project consists of various utility upgrades. SCHEDULE: Construction scheduled to begin in 2015 and be completed in 2016. Federal and State grants were secured for the construction phase. This project is combined into one construction contract with the Hwy. 99 (Phase 3) Lighting project. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration, and ROW Construction $3,950,400 $1,943,500 1% for Art TOTAL $3,950,400 $1,943,500 * All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts Packet Page 166 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 Gateway / Revitalization ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access control and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, as well as landscaping and other softscape treatments to warm-up this harsh corridor and identify the area as being in Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled for 2018. The construction phase is scheduled for 2019 and 2020 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $500,000 Construction $4,500,000 $5,000,000 1% for Art TOTAL $500,000 4,500,000 $5,000,000 Packet Page 167 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,431,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #9). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. By 2015, the Level of Service will be F, which is below the City’s concurrency standards (LOS D). The improvement would modify the Level of Service to LOS B. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $286,000 Construction $1,145,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,431,000 Packet Page 168 of 452 PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th St. SW) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $20,422,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this project was ranked #11 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any back-up to the through lane when insufficient gaps are provided. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). The project cost is split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since half the project is in Esperance. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $2,042,000 Construction $8,169,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,211,000 Packet Page 169 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,722,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for and an eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected-permissive left turn phases for eastbound and westbound movements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020. (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW & Administration $341,000 $686,000 Construction $2,695,000 1% for Art TOTAL $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 Packet Page 170 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,046,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220th St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for 325’ storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275’ storage length. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #10). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve existing intersection delay from 72 seconds (w/o improvement) to 62 seconds (w/ improvement) in 2025. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $484,000 $737,000 Construction $3,825,000 1% for Art TOTAL $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 Packet Page 171 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,235,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200’ storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300’ storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements.(ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #13) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020. (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering, ROW, & Administration $502,000 $765,000 Construction $3,968,000 1% for Art TOTAL $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 Packet Page 172 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St. SW Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $906,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50’ storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce intersection delay. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #17) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers accessing either street. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $180,000 Construction $726,000 1% for Art TOTAL $906,000 Packet Page 173 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Main St. @ 9th Ave Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop controlled for all approaches. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #2) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service, which is currently LOS E (below City’s Level of Service standards: LOS D), to LOS B (w/ improvement). SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $220,000 Construction $873,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,093,000 Packet Page 174 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop controlled for all approaches. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #7). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $220,000 Construction $873,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,093,000 Packet Page 175 of 452 PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave W from 188th St SW to Olympic View Dr. Walkway and sight distance improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,520,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct ~ 3,000’ sidewalk on 80th Ave West between 188th St SW and 180th St SW and on 180th St SW between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive (ranked #6 in Long Walkway list in 2009 Transportation Plan). 80th Ave. W will be re-graded north of 184th St. SW, in order to improve sight distance. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provides safe pedestrian access between Seaview Park, connecting to Olympic View Drive Walkway and Southwest County Park. Would create an additional safe walking route for kids attending Seaview Elementary School (188th St. SW). SCHEDULE: Engineering and construction are scheduled between 2018 and 2020 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $125,000 $125,000 Construction $1,270,000 1% for Art TOTAL $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 Packet Page 176 of 452 PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way to Madrona Elementary School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $420,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct an ~ 800’ sidewalk on the south side of 236th St. SW from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary as well as the addition of sharrows along that stretch. (This is only part of a stretch of Walkway project, which ranked #1 in the Long Walkway list in the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route near Madrona Elementary School and along 236th St. SW. SCHEDULE: Construction is scheduled to take place in 2015. The project is funded through the Safe Routes to School Grant program. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW Construction $392,109 1% for Art TOTAL $392,109 Packet Page 177 of 452 PROJECT NAME: 2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $65,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 100’) on 2nd Ave. S between Main St. and James St. (Ranked #1 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: 2018 (Unsecured Funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $65,000 Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $65,000 Packet Page 178 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $65,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 250’) on Maple St. between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $65,000 1% for Art TOTAL $65,000 Packet Page 179 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Dayton St between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $82,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 250’) on Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S (ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $82,000 1% for Art TOTAL $82,000 Packet Page 180 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Caspers St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,350,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a multi-use path on the west side of the street, facing waterfront (~ 1/2 mile / more recent project, not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements have been installed to evaluate the alignment of the proposed multi-use path. The final design phase is on-hold until the evaluation period is completed. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study $10,000 Engineering & Administration Construction $2,099,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $2,099,000 Packet Page 181 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,306,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct sidewalk on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW (~ 2,700’). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W, adjacent to Maplewood Elementary School (rated #2 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non-motorized transportation to walk to / from school. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2018 and construction in 2019 (grant application recently submitted to fund design phase / from Pedestrian and Bicycle Program). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $349,000 Construction $1,957,000 1% for Art TOTAL $349,000 $1,957,000 Packet Page 182 of 452 PROJECT NAME: 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $218,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 150’ sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on north side of stretch). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $41,000 Construction $177,000 1% for Art TOTAL $218,000 Packet Page 183 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,085,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a sidewalk on Meadowdale Beach Dr. between 76th Ave. W and Olympic View Dr. (~3,800’). This is one of the last collectors in the City with no sidewalk on either side of the street (ranked #4 in Long Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route connecting a minor arterial w/ high pedestrian activity (Olympic View Dr.) to a collector with sidewalk on the east side of the street (76th Ave. W). Meadowdale Elementary School is directly north of the project on Olympic View Dr. SCHEDULE: Design scheduled for 2020 (unsecured funding) and construction between 2021 and 2026. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 - 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $325,000 $760,000 1% for Art TOTAL $325,000 $760,000 Packet Page 184 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $190,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 350’) on Walnut St. between 3rd Ave. S and 4th Ave. S (ranked #5 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $190,000 1% for Art TOTAL $190,000 Packet Page 185 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $380,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 700’) on Walnut St. between 6th Ave. S and 7th Ave. S (ranked #4 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2020 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $380,000 1% for Art TOTAL $380,000 Packet Page 186 of 452 PROJECT NAME: 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,700,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Corridor improvements along 4th Avenue to build on concept plan developed in the Streetscape Plan update (2006). (Project not included in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Timing for design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: Work on identifying grants for engineering services and construction is scheduled for 2018 and 2019 (pending additional grant funding and local match). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,425,000 $2,900,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,425,000 $2,900,000 Packet Page 187 of 452 PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W Walkway and Stormwater Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,657,681 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of ~ 1,200’ of sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W. as well as sharrows. Stormwater improvements will also be incorporated into the project (ranked #8 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and create a safe pedestrian connection between 100th Ave. W and 104th Ave. W. SCHEDULE Engineering and construction are scheduled between 2014 and 2015. Funding was secured for the completion of the design and construction phases (through Safe Routes to School program). Stormwater improvements will be funded by the Stormwater Utility Fund 422. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,557,934 1% for Art TOTAL $1,557,934 Packet Page 188 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Olympic Ave. from Main St. to SR-524 / 196th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,249,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #3 in Long Walkway project list in 2009 Transportation Plan. Install new sidewalk on the east side of the street. Ex. sidewalk is unsafe because of rolled curb (~ 0.75 mile / ranked #3 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and access to Yost Park and Edmonds Elementary. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $200,000 Construction $1,049,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,249,000 Packet Page 189 of 452 PROJECT NAME: 189th Pl. W from 80th Ave. W to 78th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $189,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked # 7 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5’ sidewalk on either side of the street (approximately 750’). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and create connection to ex. sidewalk on 189th Pl. W. This missing link will create a pedestrian connection from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $35,000 Construction $154,000 1% for Art TOTAL $189,000 Packet Page 190 of 452 PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W between 188th St. SW and 186th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $35,000 Construction $140,000 1% for Art TOTAL $175,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5’ sidewalk on the east side of the street (approximately 750’). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and access for school kids walking to Seaview Elementary. Packet Page 191 of 452 PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Long Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5’ sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW (approximately ½ mile). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating safe pedestrian connection between Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $210,000 Construction $840,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,050,000 Packet Page 192 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Varies * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The traffic calming program is designed to assist residents and City staff in responding to neighborhood traffic issues related to speeding, cut-through traffic and safety. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Allows traffic concerns to be addressed consistently and traffic calming measures to be efficiently developed and put into operations. SCHEDULE: Annual program COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Packet Page 193 of 452 PROJECT NAME: 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way (SR-104) to 8th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $374,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 600’) on 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave. S. (new project, not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route for kids attending Sherwood Elementary. SCHEDULE: Construction documentation will be completed in 2015. The project is 100% grant funded (through Safe Routes to School program). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $6,000 1% for Art TOTAL $6,000 Packet Page 194 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. RR Crossing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $350,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. Railroad Crossings. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce noise level throughout the Downtown Edmonds area during all railroad crossings (@ both intersections). SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled for 2015 and 2016. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration 50,000 Construction $300,000 1% for Art TOTAL $50,000 $300,000 Packet Page 195 of 452 Packet Page 196 of 452 CFP STORMWATER Packet Page 197 of 452 Packet Page 198 of 452 $0 (Federal or State secured) Design $465,318 (Federal or State unsecured)$125,000 $327,818 $12,500 $1,495,954 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$100,000 $375,000 $983,454 $37,500 $1,961,272 Total $100,000 $500,000 $1,311,272 $50,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) Possible Grant/TBD Study $5,312,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$160,000 $562,500 $825,000 $1,800,000 $1,950,000 $15,000 $1,920,500 (Debt/Stormwater)$203,000 $187,500 $275,000 $600,000 $650,000 $5,000 $7,233,000 Total $363,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) Possible Grant/TBD Design $1,672,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$135,000 $375,000 $375,000 $637,500 $112,500 $37,500 $597,500 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$85,000 $125,000 $125,000 $212,500 $37,500 $12,500 $2,270,000 Total $220,000 $500,000 $500,000 $850,000 $150,000 $50,000 Total CFP $11,464,272 Annual CFP Totals $683,000 $1,750,000 $2,911,272 $3,300,000 $2,750,000 $70,000 Totals Source 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $0 Total Federal & State (Secured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,450,318 Total Federal & State (Unsecured)$295,000 $1,062,500 $1,527,818 $2,450,000 $2,062,500 $52,500 $4,013,954 Debt / Stormwater Fees $388,000 $687,500 $1,383,454 $850,000 $687,500 $17,500 Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements. Add lift station and other new infrastructure to reduce intersection flooding. Revenue Summary by Year Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Creek/Day lighting/Restoration Daylight channel and remove sediment to allow better connnectivity with the Puget Sound to benefit fish and reduce flooding. Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/Management Project Find solution to high peak stream flows caused by excessive stormwater runoff that erodes the stream, causes flooding and has negative impacts on aquatic habitat. Project Name Purpose Grant Opportunity Grant/Date Current Project Phase (2015-2020) Total Cost 2020Revenue Source 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 P a c k e t P a g e 1 9 9 o f 4 5 2 P a c k e t P a g e 2 0 0 o f 4 5 2 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr – Daylighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,233,000 Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform. Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source: www.unocaledmonds.info/clean-up/gallery.php PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build on the feasibility study completed in 2013 that assessed the feasibility of day lighting the Willow Creek channel. The final project may include 23 acres of revegetation, construct new tide gate to allow better connectivity to the Puget Sound, removal of sediment, 1,100 linear ft of new creek channel lined with an impermeable membrane. Funds will be used for study and construction but exact breakdown cannot be assessed at this time. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The daylight of willow creek will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped. It will also help eliminate the sedimentation of the marsh and the transition to freshwater species and provide habitat for salmonids, including rearing of juvenile Chinook. SCHEDULE: 2015-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $363,000 $750,000 $20,000 Construction $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 1% for Art TOTAL $363,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000 Packet Page 201 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/Management Project ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,270,000 Perrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision that will be addressed by restoration. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A flow reduction study began in 2013 that will develop alternatives to implement in the basin. Projects are expected to begin the design and/or construction phases in 2014. It is expected that this project will be implemented with the City of Lynnwood (half the Perrinville basin is in Lynnwood) and Snohomish County (owner of the South County Park). Projects will likely be a combination of detention, infiltration, and stream bank stabilization. A $188,722 grant from the Department of Ecology is contributing funds to the 2013-2014 Study. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek Basin has increased flows in the creek, incision of the creek, and sedimentation in the low-gradient downstream reaches of the creek. Before any habitat improvements can be implemented, the flows must be controlled or these improvements will be washed away. SCHEDULE: 2015-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $20,000 $50,000 $50,000 $85,000 $20,000 $50,000 Construction $200,000 $450,000 $450,000 $765,000 $130,000 1% for Art TOTAL $220,000 $500,000 $500,000 $850,000 $150,000 $50,000 Perrinville Creek Packet Page 202 of 452 PROJECT NAME: Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,961,272 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add lift station and other new infrastructure. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To reduce flooding at the intersection of Dayton St and Hwy 104. SCHEDULE: 2015-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study $100,000 Eng. & Admin. $500,000 $50,000 Construction $1,311,272 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 $500,000 $1,311,272 $50,000 Packet Page 203 of 452 APPROVED MAY 13TH CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 22, 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 Philip Lovell, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Carreen Rubenkonig Daniel Robles Valerie Stewart Matthew Cheung BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Evan Zhao, Student Representative (excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was rearranged to place the discussion of 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Element (Item 8a) after audience comments (Item 4), followed by a continued discussion of the draft Tree Code (Item 7b), review of draft code for the Critical Area Ordinance Update (Item 7a), and the Development Services Director Report to the Planning Board (Item 5) AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting DISCUSSION ON 2015 – 2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Mr. Chave referred the Board to the clean and marked-up versions of the recommended updates to the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the update is relative to the narrative section of the element, which contains the overall goals and policies. Later in the year, the Engineering Division will present proposed updates to the Capital Facilities Plan. He explained that, rather than significant changes in policy direction, the intent of the proposed amendments is to clean up the verbiage to make sure the intent is clearly stated. Packet Page 204 of 452 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 22, 2015 Page 2 Vice Chair Lovell requested an explanation for why the term “level of service” was changed to “service” throughout the entire element. Mr. Chave explained that Level of Service (LOS) is a technical term in the Growth Management Act that is tied specifically to transportation facilities. The City has various service standards associated with parks, sewer, water, etc, but no LOS has been defined in the Growth Management Act relative to these facilities. Staff felt it would be clearer to differentiate between the two terms so the public does not become confused. Vice Chair Lovell suggested that Goal A on Page 199 uses the word “service” too many times. Mr. Chave agreed and suggested that the first reference to “service” could be eliminated. Vice Chair Lovell asked for clarification about why Goal B.2 on Page 200 was highlighted. Mr. Chave said this section was highlighted so it could be pointed out that the language came directly from the Growth Management Act. Vice Chair Lovell noted that Goal B.2 would require the City to reexamine the Comprehensive Plan if funding sources fall short of meeting the identified needs to consider how additional funding would be raised or how land-use assumptions would be reassessed to ensure that established service standards would be met. Mr. Chave clarified that the language in B.2 exists in the current Comprehensive Plan. The highlight was intended to simply highlight the source of the language. Vice Chair Lovell asked if the goals and policies outlined in the draft Capital Facilities Element are congruent with the action items called out in the City’s Strategic Action Plan (SAP). Mr. Chave answered that they are tied together. He explained that the budget has a lot to do with maintaining service and the SAP links budgeting with the long-range Comprehensive Plan. Vice Chair Lovell summarized that the SAP would be the action plan that backs up the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave agreed that the SAP, plus the capital items identified in the Capital Facilities Plan will be considered during the budgeting process. This reinforces the importance of updating the Capital Facilities Plan on a yearly basis. Vice Chair Lovell said that his interpretation of Goal B.2 is that the Capital Facilities Plan is supposed to cover six years of projects that need to get done to meet service standards. It would seem that at some point in that time period someone will start asking questions about funding so the projects can move forward. Mr. Chave clarified that the six-year time period applies to the shorter-term capital items, but the Capital Facilities Plan also includes longer term items, as well. The Growth Management Act only requires a funding plan for the projects in the six-year period. Vice Chair Lovell asked if the language in the “Concurrency Management” section (Pages 201 and 202) would produce or create any restrictions as to what the City can and cannot do with respect to projects (i.e. pedestrian crossings, improving the marsh). Mr. Chave answered that, in general, projects related to capital facilities are intended to maintain service levels over time and to respond to growth pressures. Concurrency is the mechanism by which the City can track the needs verses the facilities and try to mesh the two so that facilities can be provided as close as possible to when they are needed. The Concurrency Management requirement is specific to transportation facilities and is defined as the process that cities use to ensure that no development or permit is approved by the City unless the necessary capital facilities are in place or that funding is adequate to complete the required improvements within six years. Parks are mentioned in the Concurrency Management section because the City currently has a park impact fee program, which is an important funding mechanism even though it is not necessarily a requirement of State Law. Vice Chair Lovell said his interpretation of the proposed language is that the City could not undertake any of the projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan until they know what the funding stream will be. Mr. Chave explained that there is an inner tie between policy standards, capital projects and the budget. The Capital Facilities Plan identifies the projects that will be needed to accommodate projected traffic levels and growth that will happen over a period of time. The intent is to identify deficiencies and come up with a funding plan for moving the projects forward when needed. Impact fees are part of the equation, but concurrency means that before the City can plan for projected growth to occur in a targeted area, it must make sure the facilities are at least planned and there is a funding mechanism in place for providing the facilities when needed. Again, he emphasized that Concurrency Management is specific to transportation facilities, which are tied to growth driven change. The funding mechanisms for other services, such as water and sewer facilities, are different because they are covered by utility programs that charge customers for maintaining the system. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF DRAFT TREE CODE Mr. Lien reviewed that the Planning Board heard an introduction of the draft Tree Code on February 25th; and on March 25th, staff described a number of tree cutting scenarios to detail how the draft would be implemented. Since that time, Planning Packet Page 205 of 452    AM-7720     7.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/19/2015 Time:40 Minutes   Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Information  Information Subject Title Public Hearing on Draft 2015 Transportation Plan Recommendation For information and discussion. Previous Council Action None. Narrative  The City has been working with the consultant, Fehr and Peers, on updating the Transportation Plan since October 2014. The project is scheduled to be completed in June 2015. The plan will identify various improvements that will lead to the development of an integrated multimodal transportation system, facilitating the safe and efficient movement of people while addressing current and future transportation demand, as well as land use. The last Transportation Plan was completed in 2009. The consultant provided an update on the City’s transportation related goals and policies at the March 3, 2015 Council meeting and the project list of the Transportation Network (Roadway, Non-motorized Pedestrian and Bicycle, and Transit) at the April 21, 2015 Council meeting. Answers to Council’s questions generated at the March 3rd and April 21 st meetings are attached in Exhibit D.   The plan consists of the following sections: Goal and Policies; Transportation Network: inventory of existing network and proposed improvements; and Implementation and Financial Plan: project prioritization, costs, project revenue, and implementation strategies. City staff, the Transportation Committee and the Edmonds Bicycle Group, are currently reviewing the DRAFT Plan. The main purpose of the meeting is to obtain feedback from the Public on this document, in order to possibly incorporate proposed changes in the next revised version. The DRAFT Plan was presented to the Planning Board on May 13, 2015; their comments have not yet been incorporated into the plan. Another Transportation Plan discussion will be held at the May 26, 2015 City Council meeting. An Open House is scheduled for June 10, 2015. Attachments Exhibit A - Draft Transportation Plan Packet Page 206 of 452 Exhibit B - Presentation Exhibit C - Goals & Policies Comparison Table Exhibit D - Council Questions & Answers Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 05/14/2015 03:26 PM Public Works Phil Williams 05/14/2015 03:58 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/14/2015 04:04 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/14/2015 04:15 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/14/2015 04:15 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 05/12/2015 03:51 PM Final Approval Date: 05/14/2015  Packet Page 207 of 452 Table of Contents Comprehensive Transportation Plan Prepared by With support from: May 2015 Perteet Engineering Henderson Young & Co EnviroIssues Comprehensive Transportation Plan Packet Page 208 of 452 i 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1-1  Purpose of the Transportation Comprehensive Plan ................................................................................................ 1-1  Plan Background ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1-2  Reports, Plans and Records ........................................................................................................................................ 1-2  Land Use Review ............................................................................................................................................................. 1-2  Regulatory Framework .......................................................................................................................................................... 1-3  Growth Management Act (GMA) .............................................................................................................................. 1-3  Washington Transportation Plan .............................................................................................................................. 1-4  Puget sound regional council (PSRC) Plans ......................................................................................................... 1-4  Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies ............................................................................................ 1-5  Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.................................................................................................................................. 1-5  Public Participation ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-7  Public Open Houses ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-7  Citizen Advisory Transportation Committee ........................................................................................................ 1-7  Edmonds Bike Group ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-8  Intergovernmental Coordination .............................................................................................................................. 1-8  Overview of the Transportation Plan Elements ........................................................................................................... 1-8  2. GOALS AND POLICIES .......................................................................................................................... 2-1  Goal 1: Provide a safe and comfortable travel experience for all users ............................................................ 2-2  Goal 2: Build a transportation system that Enhances the City’s land use vision ............................................ 2-2  Goal 3: Be sustainable- financially, environmentally, and Socially ...................................................................... 2-4  Goal 4: Foster an active and healthy community ....................................................................................................... 2-6  Goal 5: Create a complete and connected system that offers Efficient transportation options ............. 2-8  Goal 6: Partner with other entities to create a logical system that integrates within the regional transportation network ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-10  3. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK ........................................................................................................... 3-14  Existing Roadway Functional Classification ................................................................................................................ 3-14  Evaluation of Road Functional Classifications ................................................................................................... 3-17  roadway System Inventory ................................................................................................................................................ 3-19  State Highways .............................................................................................................................................................. 3-19  City Streets ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3-20  Speed Limits .................................................................................................................................................................... 3-20  Traffic Control ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-22  Traffic Calming Devices .............................................................................................................................................. 3-22  Parking .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-25  Street Standards ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-25  Roadway Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-27  Existing traffic Operations ......................................................................................................................................... 3-27  Future Traffic Operations ........................................................................................................................................... 3-36  Safety Assessment ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-42  Recommended Roadway Capital Projects .................................................................................................................. 3-45  Roadway Project Priority ............................................................................................................................................ 3-51  Traffic Calming Program ............................................................................................................................................ 3-53  Preservation and Maintenance Programs and Projects ................................................................................ 3-54  Non-Motorized System ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-56  Pedestrians ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3-56  Bicycles .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-65  Packet Page 209 of 452 ii Transit ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 3-72  Existing Bus Service ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-72  Rideshare Services ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-75  Park-and-Ride Facilities .............................................................................................................................................. 3-75  Rail Service ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3-76  Washington State Ferries ........................................................................................................................................... 3-77  Future transit Improvements .................................................................................................................................... 3-78  Transportation Demand Management ......................................................................................................................... 3-81  Edmonds Waterfront At-Grade Crossing .................................................................................................................... 3-82  4. IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN ............................................................................................. 4-1  Performance Measure ........................................................................................................................................................... 4-1  Project Costs ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4-1  Revenue Sources ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4-6  Current Sources of Revenue ....................................................................................................................................... 4-6  Other Potential Financing Options .......................................................................................................................... 4-7  Implementation Plan ............................................................................................................................................................. 4-9  Transportation Improvement Plan (2016-2035) ................................................................................................. 4-9  Interjurisdictional Coordination .............................................................................................................................. 4-11  Contingency Plan in Case of Revenue Shortfall ........................................................................................................ 4-12  Packet Page 210 of 452 iii Table of Figures Figure 3-1 Functional Classification..................................................................................................................... 3-16  Figure 3-2. Speed Limits on City Streets .............................................................................................................. 3-21  Figure 3-3. Existing Traffic Control Devices ......................................................................................................... 3-24  Figure 3-4. Downtown On-Street Parking ............................................................................................................. 3-26  Figure 3-5. Study Intersections ............................................................................................................................. 3-28  Figure 3-6. Existing Level of Service .................................................................................................................... 3-35  Figure 3-7. 2035 Level of Service ......................................................................................................................... 3-41  Figure 3-8 Collision Map ...................................................................................................................................... 3-43  Figure 3-9 Recommended Capital Road Improvements ..................................................................................... 3-48  Figure 3-10. 2035 Level of Service with and without Improvements ...................................................................... 3-50  Figure 3-11. Pedestrian Intensive Land Uses......................................................................................................... 3-57  Figure 3-12. Existing Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................................................. 3-58  Figure 3-13. Recommended Walkway Projects...................................................................................................... 3-63  Figure 3-14. Existing Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................... 3-66  Figure 3-15 Recommended Bicycle Facilities ....................................................................................................... 3-69  Figure 3-16 Recommended Signed Bicycle Loops................................................................................................ 3-71  Figure 3-17. Existing Access to Local and Commuter Transit ................................................................................ 3-74  Figure 3-18. Future Priority Transit Corridors ......................................................................................................... 3-80  Packet Page 211 of 452 iv List of Tables Table 1-1. City of Edmonds Existing and Future Land Use Summary .................................................................. 1-3  Table 3-1. Miles of Roadway by Existing Federal Functional Classification ........................................................ 3-17  Table 3-2. Typical Roadway Level of Service Characteristics............................................................................. 3-29  Table 3-3. Level of Service Criteria for Intersections........................................................................................... 3-30  Table 3-4. Roadway Level of Service Standards ................................................................................................ 3-31  Table 3-5. Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS .......................................................................................... 3-33  Table 3-6. City of Edmonds Existing and Future Land Use Summary ................................................................ 3-37  Table 3-7. 2035 Intersection Level of Service ..................................................................................................... 3-39  Table 3-8. High Collision Locations ..................................................................................................................... 3-44  Table 3-9 Recommended Roadway Improvements ........................................................................................... 3-46  Table 3-10 Changes in 2035 Intersection Level of Service with Proposed Roadway Improvements .................. 3-49  Table 3-11. Prioritization Criteria for Roadway Projects ........................................................................................ 3-51  Table 3-12. Roadway Project Priority .................................................................................................................... 3-52  Table 3-13. Prioritization Criteria for Walkway Projects ........................................................................................ 3-59  Table 3-14. Recommended Walkway Projects...................................................................................................... 3-61  Table 3-15. Pedestrian Level of Service Standards .............................................................................................. 3-64  Table 3-16 Existing and Recommended Bike Facilities ....................................................................................... 3-68  Table 3-17 Bicycle Level of Service Standards .................................................................................................... 3-70  Table 3-18. Community Transit Bus Routes.......................................................................................................... 3-73  Table 3-19. Park-and-Ride Facilities Serving Edmonds ........................................................................................ 3-76  Table 3-20 Transit Priority Corridor Level of Service ........................................................................................... 3-79  Packet Page 212 of 452 v Table 4-1. Costs of Transportation Projects .......................................................................................................... 4-2  Table 4-2. Potential Transportation Revenues ...................................................................................................... 4-7  Table 4-3. Potential Revenue from Additional Optional Sources .......................................................................... 4-9  Table 4-4. Transportation Improvement Plan 2010–2025 ................................................................................... 4-10  Appendices Appendix A – Goals and Policies Comparison Table Appendix B – Roadway Functional Classifications and Inventory Appendix C – Travel Model Transportation Analysis Zones Appendix D– Walkway Project Ratings Acronyms ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADT Average Daily Traffic BRT Bus Rapid Transit CAC Citizens’ Advisory Committee CIP Capital Improvement Program CTR Commute Trip Reduction DART Dial-A-Ride Transit ECDC Edmonds Community Development Code FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTE full time equivalent GMA Growth Management Act LID Local Improvement District LOS level of service mph miles per hour PRSC Puget Sound Regional Council RID Roadway Improvement District SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SP Sidewalk Program SR State Route STP Surface Transportation Program TAC Technical Advisory Committee TAZ transportation analysis zone TBD Transportation Benefit District TIB Transportation Improvement Board TDM Transportation Demand Management TIP Transportation Improvement Program Packet Page 213 of 452 vi TSM Transportation System Management UAP Urban Arterial Program UCP Urban Corridor Program WAC Washington Administrative Code WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation WSF Washington State Ferries WTP Washington Transportation Plan Packet Page 214 of 452 vii Glossary Access The ability to enter a freeway or roadway via an on-ramp or other entry point. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) A federal act that was passed in 1990 and amended in 2008. ADA requires jurisdictions to provide accessible sidewalks primarily through the installation of ADA-compliant sidewalk ramps. The design requirements address various areas of concern such as curb alignment with crosswalks, narrower sidewalk width, obstacles such as utility poles, placement of the sidewalk adjacent to the curb, or the slope of the ramps. Deficiencies in any of these areas could render a sidewalk or sidewalk ramp to be unsafe or inaccessible for the handicapped, or those who generally have difficulty walking. Arterial A major street that primarily serves through traffic, but also provides access to abutting properties. Arterials are often divided into principal and minor classifications depending on the number of lanes, connections made, volume of traffic, nature of traffic, speeds, interruptions (access functions), and length. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) The average number of vehicles that travel on a roadway on a typical day. Capacity The maximum sustained traffic flow of a transportation facility under prevailing traffic and roadway conditions in a specified direction. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) A long-range plan established by a city or county that encompasses its vision and future needs for capital facilities, including fire, police, utilities, and transportation. The CIP also establishes the jurisdiction’s project priorities and funding methods. Commute trip reduction (CTR) Efforts related to reducing the proportion of trips made in single-occupancy vehicles during peak commuting hours. CTR efforts may include carpooling, telecommuting, compressed work weeks, or using alternative modes to get to work (e.g. walking or biking). Washington State’s CTR efforts are coordinated through WSDOT and local governments in counties with the highest levels of automobile-related air pollution and traffic congestion. Qualified employers in these counties are required by law to develop a commuter program designed to achieve reductions in vehicle trips. Packet Page 215 of 452 viii Concurrency A requirement established by Washington State’s Growth Management Act that adequate infrastructure be planned and financed to support a jurisdiction’s adopted future land use plan. For transportation, adequacy is measured by the impact on a jurisdiction’s roadway and/or intersection LOS. If an impact is anticipated to cause the adopted LOS standard to be exceeded, then the jurisdiction must have a strategy in place to increase capacity or manage demand (or a financial plan to put that strategy in place) within 6 years of the transportation impact. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) A major agency of the United States Department of Transportation responsible for ensuring that America’s roads and highways continue to be the safest and most technologically up-to-date. Functional classification A roadway category that is based on the types of trips that occur on the roadway, the roadway’s basic purpose, and the level of traffic that the roadway carries. The functional classification of a roadway can range from a freeway to principal arterial to minor arterial to collector to local access. Growth Management Act (GMA) A Washington state law that provides a framework for managing growth through comprehensive plans, development regulations, and other activities. Under the GMA, comprehensive plans must address required topics, including but not limited to land use, transportation, capital facilities, utilities, and housing. The GMA requirements also include guaranteeing the consistency of transportation and capital facilities plans with land use plans. Highways of Statewide Significance Highways identified by the Washington State Transportation Commission that provide significant statewide travel and economic linkages. Level of service (LOS) A measure of how well a roadway or local signalized intersection operates. For roadways, LOS is typically a measure of traffic congestion based on volume-to-capacity ratios. For local intersections, LOS is typically based on how long it takes a typical vehicle to clear the intersection. Different criteria may be used to gauge the operating performance of transit, non-motorized, and other transportation modes. Local Improvement District (LID) Special assessment district in which infrastructure improvements, such as water, sewer, storm water, or transportation system improvements, will benefit primarily the property owners in the district. Packet Page 216 of 452 ix Traffic calming The combination of physical measures and educational efforts to alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non- motorized street users. Physical measures may include bulb- out curb extensions, chicanes, or traffic circles, among other things. Educational efforts may include pavement markings or increased police enforcement. Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Areas with similar land use characteristics that are used in travel demand models to assess traffic conditions and operations. Transportation Benefit District (TBD) A geographic area designated by a jurisdiction that is a means to funding transportation improvement projects; funding sources can include vehicle license fees, property taxes or sales taxes. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) A set of strategies intended to maximize the efficiency of the transportation network by reducing demand on the system. Examples of TDM strategies are encouraging commuting via bus, rail, bicycle, or walking; managing the available parking supply; or creating a compressed work week. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) A long-range (6 years) plan established by a city or county that results from the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process. The TIP establishes the jurisdiction’s transportation deficiencies, project priorities, and possible funding methods. Transportation System Management (TSM) A coordinated approach to the construction, preservation, maintenance, and operations of the transportation network with the goal of maximizing efficiency, safety, and reliability. These activities include making intersection and signal improvements, constructing turn lanes, improving signage and pavement markings, and collecting data to monitor system performance. Travel Demand Forecasting Methods for estimating the desire for travel by potential users of the transportation system, including the number of travelers, the time of day, travel mode, and travel routes. Washington Transportation Plan (WTP) A long-range (20 years) statewide transportation plan adopted by the Washington Transportation Commission. The WTP describes existing transportation conditions in the state, and outlines future transportation needs. Packet Page 217 of 452 1-1 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Transportation Plan) is to guide the development of multimodal surface transportation within the City of Edmonds (City) in a manner consistent with the City’s adopted transportation goals, objectives, and policies (presented in Chapter 2). The Transportation Plan serves as the transportation element of the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan). It identifies transportation infrastructure and services needed to support projected land use within the city through the year 2035, in compliance with the State of Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) [RCW 36.70A, 1990, as amended]. Based upon existing and projected future land use and travel patterns, the Transportation Plan describes roadway, pedestrian, bicycle and transit infrastructure and services and provides an assessment of existing and projected future transportation needs. It establishes transportation priorities and guides the development of the six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The Transportation Plan also establishes implementation strategies that address the transportation needs for the city through the year 2035. PURPOSE OF THE TRANSPORTATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Based upon the directives of the City’s adopted transportation goals and policies, and the requirements of the GMA, the objectives of the Transportation Plan are as follows:  Address the total transportation needs of the city through 2035;  Identify transportation improvements necessary to provide a complete system that will function safely and efficiently through the year 2035;  Ensure consistency with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan;  Contribute to economic growth within the city through an efficient transportation system;  Provide cost-effective accessibility and mobility for people, goods, and services;  Provide multimodal travel alternatives that are safe and have convenient access to employment, education, and recreational opportunities for urban and suburban residents in the area, in support of the City’s Complete Streets Ordinance;  Identify funding needs for identified transportation improvements and the appropriate contribution by the public and private sectors of the local economy;  Comply with the requirements of the GMA and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA); and Packet Page 218 of 452 1-2  Support improvements to major transportation routes outside the city that will reduce through- traffic in the community. The Transportation Plan sets a framework for understanding, creating, and prioritizing a transportation network for Edmonds, and it provides metrics for measuring progress towards its implementation. PLAN BACKGROUND REPORTS, PLANS AND RECORDS This Transportation Plan integrates the analysis and results of numerous plans and prior reports that have been completed for the City. Information was obtained from the following sources:  City of Edmonds Transportation Element. 2009. Previous transportation plan that established citywide transportation goals and policies and infrastructure and service needs, which was updated for this Plan.  City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. 2009. Current GMA plan that presents the City’s planned future land use through 2025, and plans and policies established by the City to support that land use.  SR 99 Traffic and Circulation Study. 2006. Assesses traffic conditions on State Route (SR) 99, and recommends safety and mobility improvements to be included in the City TIP.  2012 Technical Memorandum: SR-104/Westgate Transportation Assessment  Memorandums prepared as part of the process for a future (2015) SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis, LAND USE REVIEW The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) guides development and growth within the city. Future transportation infrastructure and service needs identified in this Transportation Plan were established by evaluating the level and pattern of travel demand generated by planned future land use. Future population and employment projections for the region are provided by the state Office of Financial Management (for population) and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). Snohomish County works with local jurisdictions to determine the expected distribution and allocation of population and employment between cities and unincorporated county. The Packet Page 219 of 452 1-3 transportation analysis presented in this Transportation Plan is based upon the future population and employment allocated to the City of Edmonds, based on the countywide process. Table 1-1 summarizes the City’s existing and projected future land use growth. Based on the City of Edmonds’ adopted regional growth target, the population is expected to reach 45,550 residents by the year 2035 (increased of 5,750 from 2011). The City also anticipates by the year 2035 a total of 21,168 housing units (increase of 2,772 from 2011) and 13,948 jobs (increase of 2,269 from 2011). Table 1-1. City of Edmonds Existing and Future Land Use Summary Land Use Type Unit Existing (2014) 2035 Single Family Dwelling Units 10,990 11,790 Multi-Family Dwelling Units 6,370 8,450 Retail Jobs 2,240 3,080 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Services & Government Jobs 6,220 7,630 Wholesale, Transportation, Utilities, Manufacturing & Construction Jobs 140 170 Education Students 5,760 6,730 1. The model also includes values for park acres, marina slips, and park-and-ride spaces. 2. Excludes land use within Esperance. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (GMA) Transportation planning at the state, county and local levels is governed by the GMA, which contains requirements for the preparation of the transportation element of a Comprehensive Plan. In addition to requiring consistency with the land use element, the GMA [RCW 36.70A.070 (6)] requires that the following components be included in transportation elements:  Inventory of facilities by mode of transport;  Level of service assessment to aid in determining the existing and future operating conditions of the facilities;  Proposed actions to bring these deficient facilities into compliance;  Traffic forecasts, based upon planned future land use; Packet Page 220 of 452 1-4  Identification of infrastructure needs to meet current and future demands;  Funding analysis for needed improvements, as well as possible additional funding sources;  Identification of intergovernmental coordination efforts; and  Identification of demand management strategies as available. In addition to these elements, GMA mandates that development cannot occur unless adequate supporting infrastructure either already exists or is built concurrent with development. In addition to capital facilities, infrastructure may include transit service, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, or Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies. Under the GMA, local governments and agencies must annually prepare and adopt six-year Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs). These programs must be consistent with the transportation element of the local comprehensive plan and other state and regional plans and policies as outlined below. WASHINGTON TRANSPORTATION PLAN The Washington Transportation Plan (WTP) presents the State’s strategy for developing budgets and implementing improvements over a 20-year planning horizon. The WTP contains an overview of the current conditions of the statewide transportation system, and an assessment of the State’s future transportation investment needs. The WTP policy framework sets the course for meeting those future needs. PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL (PSRC) PLANS The PSRC is the Regional Transportation Planning Organization for the area that includes Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Kitsap counties. The PSRC works with local jurisdictions to establish regional transportation guidelines and principles and certifies that the transportation-related provisions within local jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans are consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan and conform to GMA requirements. VISION 2040 VISION 2040 is the region’s growth plan through the year 2040. Key to Vision 2040 is the establishment of Multicounty Planning Policies, which are designed to help achieve the Regional Growth Strategy and address region-wide issues within a collaborative and equitable framework. The policies are built around several key goals for transportation in the region: Packet Page 221 of 452 1-5  Maintenance, Management, and Safety – Maintain, preserve, and operate the existing transportation system in a safe and usable state.  Support the Growth Strategy – Support the regional growth strategy by focusing on connecting centers with a highly efficient multimodal transportation network.  Greater Options, Mobility, and Access – Invest in transportation systems that offer greater options, mobility, and access in support of the regional growth strategy. Each policy section contains actions that lay out steps the region will need to take to achieve VISION 2040. This Transportation Element is consistent with the Vision 2040 priorities. Destination 2040 Transportation 2040 is an action plan for transportation in the central Puget Sound region, consistent with VISION 2040. Adopted in 2010, it identifies investments to support the region’s expected growth and improve the service transportation provides to people and businesses. It lays out a financing plan that suggests a long-term shift in how we fund transportation improvements, with more reliance on users paying for transportation improvements. Transportation 2040 also proposes a strategy for reducing transportation’s contribution to climate change and its impact on important regional concerns such as air pollution and the health of Puget Sound. SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES The Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies are written policies used to establish a countywide framework from which the county and cities’ comprehensive plans are developed. The Countywide Planning Policies were last amended in 2011. Future amendments will be in response to changes in the countywide growth strategy, changes in the GMA, decisions of the Growth Management Hearings Board, and issues involving local plan implementation. The County’s transportation policies are intended to guide transportation planning by the county and cities within Snohomish County and to provide the basis for regional coordination with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and transit operating agencies. The policies ensure that the countywide transportation systems are adequate to serve the level of land development that is allowed and forecasted. EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan serves as the City’s primary growth management tool and must be consistent with the Growth Management Act. A community such as Edmonds, with attractive natural features, a pleasant residential atmosphere and proximity to a large urban center, is subject to constant growth Packet Page 222 of 452 1-6 pressures. The Plan is intended to provide a long-range strategy guiding how the City will develop and how services will be provided. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the City’s expected population, housing, and jobs through the year 2035. It contains goals, policies, maps, and narrative—all of which must be consistent and coordinated with each other. Key elements of the Comprehensive Plan include:  Community sustainability  Land use  Transportation (as represented by this Transportation Plan)  Housing  Parks, recreation, and open space  Community culture and urban design  Economic development.  Capital facilities  Utilities (City of Edmonds 2015) The comprehensive transportation plan serves as the transportation element of the city’s comprehensive plan. Packet Page 223 of 452 1-7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Comprehensive Transportation Plan has included a significant amount of community involvement at all stages of the planning and development process. Feedback obtained from open houses, citizen committee involvement, and intergovernmental coordination was very useful to the initial development and subsequent revision of the Transportation Plan, greatly enhancing its effectiveness. These efforts led to more realistic assessments of existing conditions and impacts of forecasted growth, as well as the identification of appropriate measures to address both current and future conditions. PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES Two public open houses were held at Edmonds City Hall to inform the community about the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and gather comments on transportation improvement priorities. The first open house was held on February 25, 2015. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the project to citizens, share the existing transportation inventories and existing conditions analyses that had been completed, and gather input from participants on the transportation issues they felt are most important. The second meeting was held on June 10, 2015. The purpose of this meeting was to share the draft list of recommended transportation projects, present cost estimates, discuss the financial outlook for transportation capital projects and solicit citizen input on project priorities. The public open houses were publicized through notice in the City newsletter, City website, advertisement on the local government channel, and meeting notification in the local newspaper. CITIZEN ADVISORY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The City of Edmonds Citizen Advisory Transportation Committee is comprised of ten citizens and (1) City Council member who met monthly with City engineering staff. The purpose of the Committee was to:  Monitor and make recommendations relating to motorized and non-motorized transportation issues, systems, and funding;  Contribute input to updates of the City Comprehensive Transportation Plan and monitor the City’s efforts to implement the improvements detailed in the Plan; and  Enhance communication with the public with regard to transportation needs. The Transportation Committee provided transportation recommendations for updates reflected in this Transportation Plan. City staff worked with Transportation Committee members throughout the Plan Packet Page 224 of 452 1-8 development to update the City’s transportation goals and policies, discuss Plan elements, and determine how best to produce a balanced multimodal plan. The Committee also acted as the Walkway Committee, ranking all the proposed Walkway projects (based on various criteria). EDMONDS BIKE GROUP The long-standing group meets monthly to discuss bicycle transportation issues. Membership includes over 50 residents, with about 10 members who regularly attend monthly group meetings. Members represent Edmonds, Woodway, Lynnwood, and Mountlake Terrace, and are interested in improving citywide bicycle infrastructure and conditions for bicycle travel. The Bike Group helped establish a bike map indicating existing local bicycle facilities (such as bike lanes, bike routes, and sharrows) and where those should be added as part of future projects. The Bike Group’s recommendations are also presented in Chapter 4 of this Transportation Plan. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION The following agencies reviewed this Comprehensive Transportation Plan: WSDOT, PSRC, Community Transit, Snohomish County, the City of Mountlake Terrace, the City of Shoreline, the City of Lynnwood, and the Town of Woodway. OVERVIEW OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN ELEMENTS This Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes the following elements: Chapter 2: Goals, and Policies – Presents the transportation goals and policies that guide the evaluation of existing and future conditions, and the development of the Recommended Transportation Plan.  Chapter 3: Street System – Provides an inventory of existing streets, existing and projected future traffic volumes, assessment of existing and projected future roadway operations, safety assessment, and recommended improvements to address safety and mobility needs.  Chapter 4: Non-Motorized System – Provides an inventory of existing walkways and bikeways, assessment of needs, strategy for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and recommended improvements to address pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety.  Chapter 5: Transit and Transportation Demand Management – Provides an inventory of existing transit facilities and service, including buses, rail and ferries; and presents strategies to support transit and commute trip reduction. Packet Page 225 of 452 1-9  Chapter 6: Implementation and Financial Plan – Provides a summary of the projects, project prioritization, total costs, and financial strategies and projected revenue for recommended improvements through 2035. Packet Page 226 of 452 2-1 2. GOALS AND POLICIES Assessments of existing and future conditions, as well as development of the Transportation Plan, are guided by transportation goals and policies developed by the City. Major updates of the goals and policies take place during updates of the Transportation Element, under the direction of the Citizen Advisory and Technical Advisory Committees. Goals are generalized statements which broadly relate the physical environment to values. Under each goal, Policies are listed that provide specific direction for meeting the goals. In 2011, the City of Edmonds adopted a Complete Streets Ordinance, which pledges that the City will plan, design, and implement transportation projects, accommodating bicycles, pedestrians, and transit riders. The Transportation Element has six overarching goals that work together to achieve this vision of providing a transportation system that accommodates all users: 1. Provide a safe and user-friendly travel experience for all users 2. Build a transportation system that enhances the City’s land use vision 3. Be sustainable- financially, environmentally, and socially 4. Foster an active and healthy community 5. Create a complete and connected system that offers efficient transportation options 6. Partner with other entities to create a logical system that integrates within the regional transportation network Each of these goals is described in more detail below, and includes specific policies to achieve individual goals. Appendix A provides a tabular comparison of goal and policy changes compared to the previous plan. Packet Page 227 of 452 2-2 GOAL 1: PROVIDE A SAFE AND COMFORTABLE TRAVEL EXPERIENCE FOR ALL USERS Policy 1.1 Design new streets and, when the opportunity arises, redesign streets to a standard that reduces lane width to accommodate vehicles that use the street most frequently; rather than large vehicles that may use the street only occasionally. Policy 1.2 Relate required street widths to the function and operating standards for the street. Policy 1.3 Design street improvements to enhance the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians and bicycle traffic. Incorporate traffic calming measures where appropriate. Policy 1.4 Design walking paths for use by people at all mobility levels. Improvements to walking paths and curb cuts should meet the requirements of the ADA. Policy 1.5 Place highest priority on provision of lighting on walking paths, crosswalks and bicycle facilities that regularly carry non-motorized traffic at night. Non-motorized traffic, characterized as any vehicle that does not require a license, includes motorized bicycles, scooters, and Segways, in addition to pedestrians and people riding bicycles. Policy 1.6 Seek opportunities to improve safety for those who bicycle in the city. Policy 1.7 Coordinate planning, construction, and operation of transportation facilities and programs with the State, Counties, neighboring cities, Puget Sound Regional Council, Community Transit, Sound Transit, and other entities to ensure critical infrastructure is in place to respond to both natural and human-caused disasters. GOAL 2: BUILD A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT ENHANCES THE CITY’S LAND USE VISION Policy 2.1 Locate and design transportation facilities to meet the demands of existing and projected land uses as provided for in the Comprehensive Plan. Packet Page 228 of 452 2-3 Policy 2.2 Work with transit agencies to ensure existing and planned transit creates connections to existing and future employment and activity centers. Policy 2.3 Locate and design transportation facility improvements to respect the community’s residential character, natural features, and quality of life. Policy 2.4 Design local residential streets to prevent or discourage use as shortcuts for vehicle through-traffic. Coordinate local traffic control measures with the affected neighborhood. Policy 2.5 Design street improvements to encourage downtown traffic circulation to flow in and around commercial blocks, promoting customer convenience and reducing congestion. Separate through-traffic from local traffic circulation to encourage and support customer access. Policy 2.6 Carefully review parking requirements for downtown development proposals both for autos and bikes to promote development while still ensuring adequate balance between parking supply and demand. Policy 2.7 Encourage underground parking as part of new development. Policy 2.8 Provide a complete walking path network in commercial areas, especially downtown, as an element of public open space that supports pedestrian and commercial activity. Policy 2.9 Reassess the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) annually to ensure that transportation facility needs, financing, and levels of service are consistent with the City’s land use plan. The annual update should be coordinated with the annual budget process, and the annual amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.10 Ensure city transportation facilities and services are provided concurrent with new development or redevelopment to mitigate impacts created from such development. Road improvements may be funded with impact fees, and provided at the time of or within 10 years of development. Policy 2.11 Encourage neighborhoods to fund improvements that exceed City standards (e.g. for parking, median strips, landscaping, traffic calming, walking paths or other locally- determined projects). Packet Page 229 of 452 2-4 Policy 2.12 Guide the development of new streets and maintenance of existing streets to form a well-connected network that provides for safe, direct, and convenient access to the existing roadway network for automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Prioritize transportation investments that reinforce the City’s vision of developing near transit- oriented areas. GOAL 3: BE SUSTAINABLE- FINANCIALLY, ENVIRONMENTALLY, AND SOCIALLY Policy 3.1 Minimize the adverse impact of transportation facility improvements on the natural environment both in established neighborhoods and undeveloped areas. Policy 3.2 Design streets with the minimum pavement areas needed and utilized innovative materials where feasible, to reduce impervious surfaces. Policy 3.3 Include analyses of geological, topographical, and hydrological conditions in street design. Policy 3.4 Encourage landscaping along residential streets to preserve existing trees and vegetation, increase open spaces, and decrease impervious surfaces. Landscaping may be utilized to provide visual and physical barriers but should be carefully designed not to interfere with motorists’ sight distance and traffic, pedestrian, bicycle, and wheel chair safety. Landscaping improvements should take maintenance requirements into consideration. Policy 3.5 Encourage underground placements of utilities when existing roadways are improved. Policy 3.6 Encourage placement of underground conduit for future installation of fiber optic cable as roadways are built or improved. Policy 3.7 Convert private streets to public streets only when: a. The City Council has determined that a public benefit would result. b. The street has been improved to the appropriate City public street standard. c. The City Engineer has determined that conversion will have minimal effect on the City’s street maintenance budget. Packet Page 230 of 452 2-5 d. In the case that the conversion is initiated by the owner(s) of the road, that the owner(s) finance the survey and legal work required for the conversion. Policy 3.8 Construct walking paths in an ecologically friendly manner, encouraging the use of pervious paving materials where feasible. Policy 3.9 Maximize efficiencies of existing transportation facilities through:  Transportation Demand Management  Encouraging development to use existing facilities  Technologies that improve the efficiency of travel, including signal improvements and changeable message signs. Policy 3.10 Base the financing plan for transportation facilities on estimates of local revenues and external revenues that are reasonably anticipated to be received by the City. Policy 3.11 Finance the six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) within the City's financial capacity to achieve a balance between available revenue and expenditures related to transportation facilities. If projected funding is inadequate to finance needed transportation facilities, based on adopted LOS (Level of Service) standards and forecasted growth, the City should explore one or more of the following options:  Lower the LOS standard  Change the Land Use Plan  Increase the amount of revenue from existing sources  Adopt new sources of revenue Policy 3.12 Seek funding to complete multimodal solutions to transportation needs. Policy 3.13 Ensure that ongoing operating and maintenance costs associated with a transportation facility are financially feasible prior to constructing the facility. Policy 3.14 Ensure that future development pays a proportionate share of the cost to mitigate impacts associated with growth. Future development's payments may take the form of Packet Page 231 of 452 2-6 impact fees, SEPA mitigation payments, dedications of land, provision of transportation facilities, or special assessments. Policy 3.15 Strive to conform to the Federal and State Clean Air Acts by working to help implement PSRC’s Vision 2040 and by following the requirements of Chapter 173-420 of the WAC. Policy 3.16 Support transportation investments that advance alternatives to driving alone, as a measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in turn reduce the effect of citywide transportation on global climate change. Policy 3.17 Keep roadways operating in safe condition by taking steps to secure roadway funding from a variety of sources to maintain, rehabilitate, or replace roadways. Edmonds will work with its partners to understand street maintenance and rehabilitation needs. Prioritize roadway preservation projects and consider the long term maintenance costs of new capacity as part of the up-front cost of development. Policy 3.18 Where possible, preserve easements that provide pedestrian connections and protect the natural environment. Policy 3.19 Support the transportation needs of traditionally underserved neighborhoods and vulnerable populations through investment in equitable modes of transportation, in addition to potential catch-up investment for areas in need as necessary. GOAL 4: FOSTER AN ACTIVE AND HEALTHY COMMUNITY Policy 4.1 Encourage active transportation by providing safe facilities for bicycle and pedestrians. Policy 4.2 Leverage funding opportunities and the City’s right of way to complete the arterial walking path system according to the following priority list:  Arterial roadways without walking paths or shoulders on which transit service is provided;  Arterial roadways without walking paths or shoulders on which transit service is not provided;  Arterial roadways with shoulders too narrow or in or poor walking condition for pedestrians; Packet Page 232 of 452 2-7  Arterial roadways with adequate shoulders for pedestrians but without walking paths; and  The remainder of the arterial roadway system (e.g. roads with walking paths along one side, or roads with walking paths in disrepair). Policy 4.3 As funding permits and right of way is available, complete collector walking path system according to the following priority list:  Collector roadways without walking paths or shoulders (or with narrow shoulders) on which transit service is provided; and  Collector roadways without walking paths that are adjacent to retail, schools, bus stops or parks. Policy 4.4 When appropriate, acquire easements and/or development rights in lieu of rights-of- way for installation of smaller facilities such as sidewalks, walking paths, and bikeways. Policy 4.5 Locate utilities and walking path amenities, including but not limited to poles, benches, planters, trashcans, bike racks, and awnings, so as to not obstruct non- motorized traffic or transit access. Policy 4.6 Locate walking paths and bicycle facilities to facilitate community access to parks, schools, neighborhoods, shopping centers and transit facilities/stops. Policy 4.7 Place highest priority on pedestrian safety in areas frequented by children, such as near schools, parks, and playgrounds. Provide walking paths in these areas at every opportunity. Policy 4.8 Maintain existing public walking paths. Policy 4.9 Periodically review and update walking path construction priorities in the Transportation Plan. Policy 4.10 Encourage the use of innovative crosswalk treatments, such as pedestrian actuated flashing signals or pedestrian crossing flags. Policy 4.11 Encourage collaboration across departments to develop a network of walking paths throughout the city. This network could include but not be limited to signed loop trails in neighborhoods, park-to-park walking paths, and theme-related walks. Packet Page 233 of 452 2-8 Policy 4.12 Encourage separation of walking paths from bikeways, where feasible. Multi-use paths should also be encouraged in instances which separating walk and bike paths is unreasonable. Policy 4.13 Place highest priority for improvements to bicycle facilities and installation of bike racks and lockers near schools, commercial districts, multi-family residences, recreation areas, and transit facilities. Policy 4.14 Provide bicycle lanes where feasible, to encourage the use of bicycles for transportation and recreation purposes. Sharrows can be provided on lower volume roadways to create motorist awareness. Policy 4.15 Identify bicycle routes through signage. Policy 4.16 Ensure that existing public bicycle facilities are maintained and upgraded when feasible. Policy 4.17 Prioritize connectivity to transit nodes that provide important connections to regional destinations. GOAL 5: CREATE A COMPLETE AND CONNECTED SYSTEM THAT OFFERS EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS Policy 5.1 Design all streets as complete streets that serve automobile, transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel according to City ordinance 3842, where feasible. Policy 5.2 Periodically review functional classifications of city streets and adjust the classifications when appropriate. Policy 5.3 Provide on-street parking as a secondary street function only in specifically designated areas such as in the downtown business district and in residential areas where off- street parking is limited. Streets should not be designed to provide on-street parking as a primary function, particularly in areas with frequent transit service. Policy 5.4 Encourage parking on one side rather than both sides of streets with narrow rights-of- way, with the exception of downtown. Packet Page 234 of 452 2-9 Policy 5.5 Encourage the efficient movement of people and goods through an effective and inter-connected transportation network that includes: collector and arterial streets, trails, bike paths, public transit and other transportation facilities. Policy 5.6 Design streets to accommodate emergency service vehicles. Improve emergency service access to the waterfront, especially to west side of train tracks when there is a train crossing. Policy 5.7 Coordinate traffic signals located within ½ mile of each other to decrease delay and improve operations. Policy 5.8 Use public rights-of-way only for public purposes. The private use of a public right-of- way is prohibited unless expressly granted by the City. Policy 5.9 Construct pedestrian facilities on all streets and highways, interconnecting with other modes of transportation. Policy 5.10 Locate walking paths and additional street features such as benches and shelters along transit routes to provide easy access to transit stops. Policy 5.11 Explore future funding for a city-based circulator bus that provides local shuttle service between neighborhoods (Firdale Village, Perrinville, Five Corners, Westgate) and downtown. Policy 5.12 Place priority on coordinating bus routes and bus stop sites in City plans for street lighting improvements. Policy 5.13 Consider transit stop sites in the design of roadways, walking path improvements and land use permit reviews. Policy 5.14 Design Arterial and Collector roadways to accommodate buses and other modes of public transportation including the use of high occupancy vehicle priority treatments, transit signal priority, queue bypass lanes, boarding pads and shelter pads, and transit-only lanes where appropriate. Policy 5.15 Implement multi-modal LOS standards that considers transit and non-motorized operations as well as automobile operations. Policy 5.16 Provide additional transportation facility capacity when existing facilities are used to their maximum level of efficiency consistent with adopted LOS standards. Packet Page 235 of 452 2-10 GOAL 6: PARTNER WITH OTHER ENTITIES TO CREATE A LOGICAL SYSTEM THAT INTEGRATES WITHIN THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK Policy 6.1 Provide access between private property and the public street system that is safe and convenient, and incorporates the following considerations:  Limit and provide access to the street network in a manner consistent with the function and purpose of each roadway. Restrict number of driveways located along arterials. Coordinate with local businesses and property owners to consolidate access points in commercial and residential areas.  Require new development to consolidate and minimize access points along all state highways, principal arterials, and minor arterials.  Design the street system so that the majority of direct residential access is provided via local streets.  For access onto state highways, implement Chapter 468-52 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Highway Access Management -- Access Control Classification System and Standards. Policy 6.2 Provide safe bicycle connections to existing bicycle facilities in adjacent jurisdictions. Policy 6.3 Work with transit providers to ensure that transit service within the city is:  Convenient and flexible to meet community and user needs;  Dependable, affordable, and maintains regular schedules;  Provides adequate service during evening hours, weekends, and holidays; and  Comfortable and safe for all users. Policy 6.4 Work with transit providers to ensure that public transit is accessible within a quarter (1/4) mile of any address in the city. Policy 6.5 Work with transit providers to serve designated activity centers with appropriate levels of transit service. Transit stops should be properly located throughout the activity center, and designed to serve local commuting and activity patterns, and significant concentrations of employment. Packet Page 236 of 452 2-11 Policy 6.6 Design new development and redevelopment in activity centers to provide pedestrian access to transit. Policy 6.7 Work with transit agencies to coordinate public transit with school district transportation systems to provide transit connections for school children. Policy 6.8 Form a multimodal system that links ferry, rail, bus, auto, and non-motorized travel providing access to regional transportation systems while ensuring the quality, safety, and integrity of local commercial districts and residential neighborhoods. Policy 6.9 Locate and design a multi-modal transportation center and terminal to serve the city’s needs with the following elements:  A ferry terminal that meets the operational requirements to accommodate forecast ridership demand and that provides proper separation of automobile, bicycle and walk-on passenger loading;  A train station that meets intercity passenger service and commuter rail loading requirements, and provides the requisite amenities such as waiting areas, storage and bicycle lockers;  A transit center with connections to major regional destinations;  A linkage between stations/terminals that meets the operational and safety requirements of each mode, including a link between the multi-modal station terminal to the business/commerce center in downtown Edmonds;  Safety features that include better separation between train traffic and other modes of travel, particularly vehicle and passenger ferry traffic as well as the general public; and  Overall facility design that minimizes the impact to the natural environment, in particular the adjacent marshes. Policy 6.10 Encourage joint public/private efforts to develop and implement transportation demand management and traffic reduction strategies. Policy 6.11 Work with both public and private entities to ensure the provision of adequate transportation facilities and services necessary to mitigate impacts to Edmonds’ transportation system. Policy 6.12 Participate in local and regional forums to coordinate strategies and programs that further the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Packet Page 237 of 452 2-12 Policy 6.13 Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and regional and state agencies to make transportation system improvements and assure that funding requirements are met. Policy 6.14 Encourage public transportation providers within the city to coordinate services to ensure the most effective transportation systems possible and provide comfortable stop amenities. Policy 6.15 Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and regional and state agencies to encourage their support of the City’s policies and planning processes. Policy 6.16 Participate on the boards of Community Transit and other public transit providers, and regularly share citizen and business comments regarding transit services to the appropriate provider. Policy 6.17 Work with Community Transit to provide additional passenger shelters and benches at bus stops sites within Edmonds. Policy 6.18 Coordinate with local public transit agencies and private transit providers regarding road closures or other events that may disrupt normal transit operations in order to minimize impacts to transit customers. Policy 6.19 Work with Community Transit and local employers to encourage ridesharing to employment centers and major activity centers. Policy 6.20 Coordinate with non-City providers of transportation facilities and services on a joint program for maintaining adopted LOS standards, funding and construction of capital improvements. Work in partnership with non-City transportation facility providers to prepare functional plans consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Policy 6.21 Regularly coordinate with WSDOT, Washington State Ferries, Community Transit, King County Metro, Snohomish County, the Town of Woodway, and the Cities of Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Shoreline, and Mukilteo, to ensure planning for transportation facilities is compatible. Policy 6.22 Encourage and promote the use of electric vehicles as they are developed in all automobile, truck, and commercial vehicle classes. Encourage the use of such vehicles in a way that conditions are safe and don’t impede traffic flow. Provide for a broad range of charging opportunities at public and private parking venues throughout the city, including minimum standards for new developments that provide parking facilities. Position Edmonds to respond to technical innovations, such as electric vehicles and driverless cars. Coordinate with PSRC and other regional entitles to understand Packet Page 238 of 452 2-13 regional plans for electric vehicle charging and accommodation of other alternative fuel sources. ` Due to the restructuring of sections when compared to the 2009 plan, many policy numbers have changed. Appendix A shows a comparison table. Packet Page 239 of 452 3-14 3. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK This chapter provides an inventory of the existing transportation network in Edmonds, including roadways, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, and transit service. This chapter also includes safety assessment and inventory of parking facilities. EXISTING ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION All streets in the city have a designated functional classification. The functional classification of a street depends on the types of trips that occur on it, the basic purpose for which it was designed, and the relative level of traffic volume it carries. The different classifications of roadways serve different stages of a trip, with some roadways designed to prioritize mobility while others prioritize access to adjacent land uses: Each road is classified as one of the following:  Freeway – Multi-lane, high-speed, high-capacity road intended exclusively for motorized traffic. All access is controlled by interchanges and road crossings are grade-separated. No freeways pass through Edmonds, though Interstate-5 (I-5) runs to the east of the city limits.  Principal Arterial – Road that connects major activity centers and facilities, typically constructed with limited direct access to abutting land uses. The primary function of principal arterials is to provide a high degree of vehicle mobility, but they may provide a minor amount of land access. Principal arterials serve high traffic volume corridors, carrying the greatest portion of through or long-distance traffic within a city, and serving inter-community trips. On-street parking is often limited to improve capacity for through-traffic. Typically, principal arterials are multi-lane facilities and have traffic signals at intersections with other arterials. Regional bus routes are generally located on principal arterials, as are transfer centers and park-and-ride lots. Principal arterials usually have sidewalks and sometimes have separate bicycle facilities, so that non-motorized traffic is separated from vehicle traffic.  Minor Arterial – Road that connects centers and facilities within the community and serves some through traffic, while providing a greater level of access to abutting properties. Minor arterials connect with other arterial and collector roads, and serve less concentrated traffic-generating areas, such as neighborhood shopping centers and schools. Provision for on-street parking varies by location. Although the dominant function of minor arterials is the movement of through traffic, they also provide for considerable local traffic with origins or destinations at points along the corridor. Minor arterials also carry local and commuter bus routes. They usually have sidewalks and sometimes have separate bicycle facilities, so that non-motorized traffic is separated from vehicular traffic. Packet Page 240 of 452 3-15  Collector – Road designed to fulfill both functions of mobility and land access. Collectors typically serve intra-community trips connecting residential neighborhoods with each other or activity centers, while also providing a high degree of property access within a localized area. These roadways “collect” vehicular trips from local access streets and distribute them to higher classification streets. Additionally, collectors provide direct services to residential areas, local parks, churches and areas with similar land uses. Typically, right-of-way and paving widths are narrower for collectors than arterials. They may only be two lanes wide and are often controlled with stop signs. Local bus routes often run on collectors, and they usually have sidewalks on at least one side of the street.  Local Access – Road with a primary function of providing access to residences. Typically, they are only a few blocks long, are relatively narrow, and have low speeds. Local streets are generally not designed to accommodate buses, and often do not have sidewalks. Cul-de-sacs are also considered local access streets. All streets in Edmonds that have not been designated as an arterial or a collector are local access streets. Local access streets make up the majority of the miles of roadway in the city. Higher classes (e.g. freeways and arterials) provide a high degree of mobility and have more limited access to adjacent land uses, accommodating higher traffic volumes at higher speeds. Lower classes (e.g., local access streets) provide a high degree of access to adjacent land and are not intended to serve through traffic, carrying lower traffic volumes at lower speeds. Collectors generally provide a more balanced emphasis on traffic mobility and access to land uses. Cities and counties are required to adopt a street classification system that is consistent with these guidelines (RCW 35.78.010 and RCW 47.26.090). Figure 3-1 shows the existing road functional classifications for city streets, as well as recommended classification changes. Packet Page 241 of 452 YostPark 524 104 99 Puget Dr A n d o v e r S t 174th St SW 6 t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Ro b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Suns e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F i r d ale Ave10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 186th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n 7 2 n d A v e W Maple St 184th St SW 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin Wa y 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW T a l b o t R d 68 t h A v e W 188th St SW 200th St SW 10 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 176th St SW 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 212th St SW 196th St SW 220th St SW Oly m p i c V i e w D r 76 t h A v e W Meadowdale Beach Rd K i n g s t o n -E d m o n d s F e r r y Roadway Functional Classification LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds Pine RidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark §¨¦5 Functional Classification Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Street PugetSound Figure 3-1 \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 3 _ 1 _ F u n c C l a s s . m x d MaplewoodPark DRAFT Snohomish CountyKing County Note: Dashed lines indicate a change in functional classification. Packet Page 242 of 452 3-17 Table 3-1 summarizes the total miles of roadway located within the city by existing functional classification. The table compares the miles of roadway to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines (FHWA 1989). The table shows that miles of minor arterial are slightly lower than FHWA guidelines, and miles of all other classifications are within guidelines. The total miles of principal and minor arterial are within guidelines for total amount of arterial. Table 3-1. Miles of Roadway by Existing Federal Functional Classification Functional Classification Miles of Roadway in Edmonds Proportion of Total Roadway Typical Proportion based on FHWA Guidelines1 Principal Arterial 12 8% 2% – 9% Minor Arterial 14 9% 7% – 14% Collector 17 11% 6% – 24% Local Access 114 72 % 62% – 74% Total 157 100% 1. Source: Federal Highway Administration 2013. EVALUATION OF ROAD FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS Over time, changes in traffic volumes and shifts in land use and traffic patterns may cause the function of a road to change. Thus, it is important to periodically review the functions city roads serve, and evaluate whether any changes in classification are warranted. The following guidelines are used for evaluating the classifications. 1. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) – Roadways with higher functional classifications typically carry higher traffic volumes. On high volume roadways, the demand for traffic mobility is more likely to outweigh the need for access to abutting land. Conversely, where volumes are lower the access function of the street will generally be more important than mobility for traffic. Traffic volumes alone do not provide the basis for classification, but are used in conjunction with the other criteria listed below. However, the following ranges are used as guidelines: - Minor Arterial Street: 3,000 to 15,000 ADT - Collector Street: 1,000 to 5,000 ADT 2. Non-motorized use – The accommodation of non-automobile modes, including walking, bicycling, and transit use is another important measure of a road’s function. Roads with higher classifications tend to serve more modes of travel. The more travel modes that a street accommodates, the greater the number of people that street serves, and the more important that street is to the movement of people, goods, and services throughout the city. Packet Page 243 of 452 3-18 3. Street length – A street that is longer in length tends to function at a higher classification. This is due to the fact that longer (continuous) streets allow travelers to move between distant attractions with a limited number of turns, stops, and other distractions that discourage them from using streets of lower classification. Longer streets generally supply a higher level of mobility, compared to other streets that provide more access. 4. Street spacing – Streets of higher classification usually have greater traffic carrying capacity and fewer impediments to travel. Fewer facilities are needed to serve the traffic mobility demands of the community due to their efficiency in moving traffic. This typically means that fewer streets of higher classification are needed, so there will be greater distances between them. The farther the distance of a street from a higher classification street, the more likely it is that the street will function at a similar classification. A greater number of streets of lower classification are needed to provide access to abutting land. Therefore, they must be spaced more closely and there must be many more of them. It is considered most desirable to have a network of multiple lower classification streets feeding into progressively fewer higher classified streets. Based on these guidelines, typical spacing for the different classifications of roadways are as follows: - Principal Arterials: 1.0 mile - Minor Arterials: 0.3 to 0.7 mile - Collectors: 0.25 to 0.5 mile - Local Access: 0.1 mile 5. Street connectivity – Streets that provide easy connections to other roads of higher classification are likely to function at a similar classification. This can be attributed to the ease of movement perceived by travelers who desire to make that connection. For example, state highways are generally interconnected with one another, to provide a continuous network of high order roadways that can be used to travel into and through urban areas. Urban arterials provide a similar interconnected network at the citywide level. By contrast, collectors often connect local access streets with one or two higher-level arterial streets, thus helping provide connectivity at the neighborhood scale rather than a citywide level. Local streets also provide a high degree of connectivity as a necessary component of property access. However, the street lengths, traffic control, and/or street geometry are usually designed so that anyone but local travelers would consider the route inconvenient. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 requires the use of functional highway classification to update and modify the Federal-aid highway systems. Thus, the FHWA and WSDOT have adopted a federal functional classification system for city roadways. Allocation of funds, as well as application of local agency design standards, is based on the federal classification. Federal funds may only be spent on federally classified routes. Based upon the guidelines provided above, the following changes to functional classifications are recommended: Packet Page 244 of 452 3-19  Apply for the following federal functional classification upgrade from local access to collector for the following five road segments: - 7th Avenue N, Main Street – Caspers Street - 80th Avenue W, 212th Street SW – 220th Street SW - 80th Avenue W, 200th Street SW - 196th Street SW - 96th Avenue W, 220th Street SW – Walnut Street - Dayton Street, 5th Avenue S – 100th Avenue W  Apply for the following federal functional classification upgrade from collector to minor arterial for the following six road segments: - 76th Avenue W, 212th Street SW – NE 205th Street - 84th Avenue W, 212th Street SW – 238th Street SW - 220th Street SW, 100th Avenue W – SR 99  Apply for the following federal functional classification downgrade from collector to local access for the following road segment: - Admiral Way, south of W Dayton Street Under the recommended classifications, the total proportion of minor arterial would increase slightly, and the proportion of local access street would decrease slightly, compared to existing conditions. Supporting information can be seen in Appendix B. ROADWAY SYSTEM INVENTORY STATE HIGHWAYS There are three Washington state routes located within the city.  SR 104 (Edmonds Way) runs roughly east-west between the Edmonds-Kingston Ferry dock and I- 5.  SR 524 (Puget Drive/196th Street SW) runs east-west connecting SR 104 to SR 99, I-5, and ultimately SR 522.  SR 99 runs north-south on the east side of the city, and is the highest traffic-carrying arterial in Edmonds. From Edmonds, it runs north to Everett, and south through Shoreline to Seattle and the Tacoma metropolitan area. Packet Page 245 of 452 3-20 In 1998, the Washington State Legislature passed Highways of Statewide Significance legislation (RCW 47.06.140). Highways of Statewide Significance promote and maintain significant statewide travel and economic linkages. The legislation emphasizes that these significant facilities should be planned from a statewide perspective, and thus they are not subject to local concurrency standards. (WSDOT 2007) In Edmonds, SR 104 between the Edmonds-Kingston Ferry Dock and I-5, and SR 99 between the south city limits and SR 104 have been designated as Highways of Statewide Significance. The Edmonds- Kingston ferry route is considered to be part of SR 104, and is also identified as a Highway of Statewide Significance (excluding the ferry terminal). (Washington State Transportation Commission 2009) CITY STREETS The city street system is comprised of a grid of principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and local streets. Appendix B summarizes the city roadways currently classified as principal arterial, minor arterial, or collector. The table shows the existing functional classification, speed limit, number of lanes, and walkway/bikeway characteristics for each of the roadways. SPEED LIMITS Figure 3-2 shows speed limits on collectors and arterials in Edmonds. The speed limits range from 25 miles per hour (mph) to 45 mph. The speed limit on local access streets is 25 mph. The speed limit was dropped on State Route 104, between 5th Avenue S and Dayton Street, from 40 mph to 35 mph in early 2015. Packet Page 246 of 452 n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n YostPark 524 104 99 Meadowdale Beach Rd A n d o v e r S t 174th St SW 6 t h A v e S Edmonds Way Robin H o o d D r Caspers St Suns e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F i r d ale Ave10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 186th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n 7 2 n d A v e W Maple St 184th St SW PugetDr 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin Way 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW T a l b o t R d 68 t h A v e W 188th St SW 200th St SW 10 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 176th St SW 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 212th St SW 196th St SW 220th St SW Oly m p i c V i e w D r 76 t h A v e W K i n g s t o n -E d m o n d s F e r r y Speed Limits on City Streets LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds Pine RidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark §¨¦5 Speed Limits 25 mph 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph 45 mph PugetSound Figure 3-2 \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 3 _ 2 _ S p e e d L i m i t s . m x d MaplewoodPark DRAFT Snohomish CountyKing County n School Note: All local streets are 25 mph. Packet Page 247 of 452 3-22 TRAFFIC CONTROL Traffic signals and stop signs are used to provide traffic controls at intersections with high traffic volume. These devices aid in control of traffic flow. In addition, these devices help to minimize collisions at intersections. Figure 3-3 shows the city intersections controlled by traffic signals and those controlled by all-way stop signs. There are 29 signalized intersections, two emergency signals, and 43 all-way stop controlled intersections in the city. The city maintains all signals except for some located on Highways of Statewide Significance that are maintained by WSDOT. TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES Traffic calming devices are physical devices installed on neighborhood residential streets, to discourage speeding, reduce cut-through traffic, and/or improve safety. Traffic calming devices are currently in place at many locations throughout Edmonds. These measures have been installed as part of capital improvement projects, as opportunities were presented, and occasionally in response to citizen requests. The following types of traffic calming devices are currently present within the city:  Bulb-outs – curb extensions that are used to narrow the roadway either at an intersection or at mid- block along a street corridor. Their primary purpose is to make intersections more pedestrian friendly by shortening the roadway crossing distance and drawing attention to pedestrians via raised peninsula. Additionally, a bulb-out often tightens the curb radius at the corner, which reduces the speeds of turning vehicles.  Chicane – series of curb extensions that alternate from one side of the street to the other, which narrows the roadway and requires drivers to slow down to travel through the chicane. Typically, a series of at least three curb extensions is used.  Partial closure – involves closing down one lane of a two-lane roadway along with a “Do Not Enter” or “One Way” sign, in order to reduce cut-through traffic.  Raised pavement markers – 4-inch diameter raised buttons placed in design sequence across a road, causing a vehicle to vibrate and alert the motorist to an upcoming situation. Raised pavement markers may be used in conjunction with curves, crosswalks, pavement legends and speed limit signs. They are most effective when used to alert motorists to unusual conditions ahead, and are most commonly used on approaches to stop signs, often in situations where the visibility of a stop sign is limited.  Speed hump – rounded raised area placed across the roadway that is approximately 3 to 4 inches high and 12 to 22 feet long. This treatment is used to slow vehicles by forcing them to decelerate in order to pass over them comfortably. The design speeds for speed humps are 20 to 25 mph. Packet Page 248 of 452 3-23  Traffic circle – raised island placed in the center of an intersection which forces traffic into circular maneuvers. Motorists yield to vehicles already in the intersection and only need to consider traffic approaching in one direction. Traffic circles prevent drivers from speeding through intersections by impeding straight-through movement. Packet Page 249 of 452 &A &A &A &A &A &A&A &A&A &A &A &A &A &A &A &A &A &A&A &A &A &A 99P &A &A &A &A&A&A &A&A &A &A &A &A &A&A &A &A &A &A &A &A &A èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëííí èéëìí èéëííí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí YostPark 524 104 99 Firdale Ave Meadowdale Beach Rd 95 t h P l W A n d o v e r S t 174th St SW 6 t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Ro b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Suns e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y 10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 186th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W Ti m b e r L n 7 2 n d A v e W Maple St 184th St SW Puget Dr 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin Way 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW T a l b o t R d 68 t h A v e W 188th St SW 200th St SW 10 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 176th St SW 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 212th St SW 196th St SW 220th St SW Oly m p i c V i e w D r 76 t h A v e W K i n g s t o n -E d m o n d s F e r r y Existing Traffic Control Devices LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds Pine RidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark §¨¦5 Traffic Control èéëìí Traffic Signal èéëííí Emergency Signal &A All-Way Stop 99P Roundabout PugetSound Figure 3-3 \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 3 _ 3 _ T r a f f i c C o n t r o l . m x d MaplewoodPark DRAFT Snohomish CountyKing County Packet Page 250 of 452 3-25 PARKING On-street parking is available throughout most of the city. Parking is accommodated on the street and in private parking lots associated with existing development. Public parking is provided throughout the city at no charge to drivers. In the downtown area, parking is limited to three hours along most of the downtown streets, with certain stalls designated for handicapped parking, one-hour parking, and loading/unloading. The City has established an employee permit parking program to provide more parking to the general public in high demand parking areas by encouraging Edmonds' business owners and employees to park in lower demand parking areas. The permit authorizes permit employees to park for more than three hours in three-hour parking areas if the parking is part of a commute to work. A three-hour public parking lot is provided at the Edmonds Police Department/Fire Department. Supply is currently adequate to accommodate parking demand. The City continues to monitor parking demand and supply and make adjustments as needed. Figure 3-4 shows the downtown streets on which three hour parking, one hour parking, and handicapped parking are located. STREET STANDARDS The Goals and Objectives of the Transportation Plan relate street design to the desires of the local community, and advise that design be at a scale commensurate with the function that the street serves. Guidelines are therefore important to provide designers with essential elements of street design as desired by the community. Essential functions of streets in Edmonds include vehicle mobility, pedestrian access, bicycle access and aesthetics. The City has adopted street design standards (Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.00.040, City of Edmonds Construction Standard Details and Specifications) for residential, business and commercial access roads, and follows established design guidelines for other streets. These are known as the “Edmonds Standard Details”. These standard details provide typical roadway cross-sections for different street classifications. They provide flexibility in design to accommodate a variety of physical, operational, and cost issues. Packet Page 251 of 452 ®t ®t ®t ®t ®t ®t®t ®t ®t ®t ¬15 ¬15 ®t ®t¬15 ¬15 ¬15 ¬15 ¬15 ¬l ¬l ¬l¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l Aloha St 4t h A v e Sprague St R a i l r o a d S t Cedar St Spruce St Hemlock St Laurel St JamesSt Glen St Sun s e t A v e S W Dayton St MainSt Railro a d A v e 4t h A v e S 2n d A v e S 6t h A v e S Edmo n d s S t Daley St S u n s e t A v e N Maple St Alder St 2nd A v e N 6t h A v e N 3 r d A v e S 3rd A v e N 7t h A v e N 7t h A v e S Walnut St E d m o n d s W a y Pine St BellSt Dayton St 5th A v e N 4th A v e N 5t h A v e S Kingston-EdmondsFerry Downtown On-Street Parking \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 3 _ 4 _ D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g . m x d Figure 3-4 ®t Handicapped Parking ¬15 15-Minute/5-Minute Loading/Unloading Parking ¬l Bike Parking 1-Hour On-Street Parking 3-Hour On-Street Parking Employee Permit Parking Public_Prking_Lot DRAFT Packet Page 252 of 452 3-27 ROADWAY CONDITIONS EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Traffic volumes PM peak hour traffic counts were taken at numerous locations throughout the city in November 2014, as shown in Figure 3-5. The analysis of existing operating conditions on city roadways is based on these data. Level of Service LOS is the primary measurement used to determine the operating quality of a roadway segment or intersection. The quality of traffic conditions is graded into one of six LOS designations: A, B, C, D, E, or F. Table 3-2 presents typical characteristics of the different LOS designations. LOS A and B represent the fewest traffic slow-downs, and LOS C and D represent intermediate traffic congestion. LOS E indicates that traffic conditions are at or approaching urban congestion; and LOS F indicates that traffic volumes are at a high level of congestion and unstable traffic flow. Packet Page 253 of 452 !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( YostPark 1 2 345 6 7 8910 11 12 13 14151617 18 1920 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 30 9 5 t h P l W A n d o v e r S t 6 t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Ro b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Suns e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F i r d ale Ave10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 186th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W Ti m b e r L n 7 2 n d A v e W 184th St SW Puget Dr 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin Way 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW T a l b o t R d 68 t h A v e W 188th St SW 200th St SW 10 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 176th St SW 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 212th St SW 196th St SW 220th St SW O l y m p i c V i e w D r 76 t h A v e W K i n g s t o n -E d m o n d s F e r r y Study Area Intersections LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds Pine RidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark 524 §¨¦5 PugetSound Figure 3-5 \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 3 _ 5 _ S t u d y I n t s . m x d 104 99 MaplewoodPark !( DRAFT !( Snohomish CountyKing County Packet Page 254 of 452 3-29 Table 3-2. Typical Roadway Level of Service Characteristics Level of Service Characteristic Traffic Flow A Free flow – Describes a condition of free flow with low volumes and high speeds. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. Stopped delay at intersections is minimal. B Stable flow – Represents reasonable unimpeded traffic flow operations at average travel speeds. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are not generally subjected to appreciable tensions. C Stable flow – In the range of stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are more closely controlled by the higher volumes. The selection of speed is now significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream, and maneuvering within the traffic stream required substantial vigilance on the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level. D Stable flow – Represents high-density, but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience- Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this level. E Unstable flow – Represents operating conditions at or near the maximum capacity level. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to "give way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow or minor disturbances within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns F Forced flow – Describes forced or breakdown flow, where volumes are above theoretical capacity. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount that can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations, and operations within the queue are characterized by stop-and-go waves that are extremely unstable. Vehicles may progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, and then be required to stop in a cyclical fashion. Source: Transportation Research Board 2000 Packet Page 255 of 452 3-30 Level of Service Criteria Methods described in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2010) are used to calculate the LOS for signalized and stop-controlled intersections. Table 3-3 summarizes the LOS criteria for signalized and stop-controlled intersections. LOS for intersections is determined by the average amount of delay experienced by vehicles at the intersection. For stop-controlled intersections, LOS depends on the average delay experienced by drivers on the stop-controlled approaches. Thus, for two- way or T-intersections, LOS is based on the average delay experienced by vehicles entering the intersection on the minor (stop-controlled) approaches. For all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is determined by the average delay for all movements through the intersection. The LOS criteria for stop- controlled intersections have different threshold values than those for signalized intersections, primarily because drivers expect different levels of performance from distinct types of transportation facilities. In general, stop-controlled intersections are expected to carry lower volumes of traffic than signalized intersections. Thus, for the same LOS, a lower level of delay is acceptable at stop-controlled intersections than it is for signalized intersections. Table 3-3. Level of Service Criteria for Intersections Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) LOS Designation Signalized Intersections Stop-Controlled Intersections A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B > 10 – 20 > 10 – 15 C > 20 – 35 > 15 – 25 D > 35 – 55 > 25 – 35 E > 55 – 80 > 35 – 50 F > 80 > 50 Source: Transportation Research Board 2000 Due to the complexity of calculating the LOS of Roundabouts, Sidra Solutions was used to analyze the roundabout at 212th St. SW and 84th Ave W. The Highway Capacity Manual 2010 method is used to determine an LOS, while geometrical variables are not taken into account, such as entry angle and lane width. The Highway Capacity Manual criteria for stop-controlled intersections (see Table 0-7) is applied, because drivers’ expectations for delay at a roundabout more closely resemble expectations at a stop sign than at a signal (e.g. a lower level of delay is considered acceptable). Packet Page 256 of 452 3-31 Concurrency and Level of Service Standard Under GMA, concurrency is the requirement that adequate infrastructure be planned and financed to support development as it occurs. In practice, the GMA requires that communities can demonstrate the ability to provide adequate service levels within six years of development occurring. LOS standards are used to evaluate the transportation impacts of long-term growth and concurrency. In order to monitor concurrency, the jurisdictions adopt acceptable roadway operating conditions that are then used to measure existing or proposed traffic conditions and identify deficiencies. The City has adopted LOS standards for city streets and state routes in the city that are subject to concurrency. Table 3-4 shows the roadway LOS standards. Table 3-4. Roadway Level of Service Standards Facility Standard City Streets Arterials: LOS D or better (except state routes) Collectors: LOS C or better State Routes SR 99 north of SR 104; SR 524: LOS E or better Highways of Statewide Significance SR 104; SR 99 south of SR 104: Not subject to City standard, but identify situations where WSDOT standard of D is not being met LOS is measured at intersections during a typical weekday PM peak hour, using analysis methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2010) and discussed in the previous section. For intersections of roads with different functional classifications, the standard for the higher classification shall apply. Intersections that operate below these standards are considered deficient under concurrency. Deficiencies are identified either as existing deficiencies, meaning they are occurring under existing conditions and not as the result of future development, or as projected future deficiencies, meaning that they are expected to occur under future projected conditions. Concurrency management ensures that development, in conformance with the adopted land use element of the Comprehensive Plan, will not cause a transportation facility’s operations to drop below the adopted standard. Transportation capacity expansion or demand management strategies must be in place or financially planned to be in place within six years of development use. Transportation concurrency is a term that describes whether a roadway is operating at its adopted LOS standard. The adopted standard indicates a jurisdiction’s intent to maintain transportation service at that level, which has budgetary implications. If a city adopts a high LOS standard, it will have to spend more money to maintain the roadways than if it adopts a low LOS standard. On the other hand, a standard that Packet Page 257 of 452 3-32 is too low may lead to an unacceptable service level and reduce livability for the community or neighborhood. Under the GMA, if a development would cause the LOS to fall below the jurisdiction’s adopted standard, it must be denied unless adequate improvements or demand management strategies can be provided concurrent with the development. The key is to select a balanced standard—not so high as to be unreasonable to maintain, and not so low as to allow an unacceptable level of traffic congestion. Highways of Statewide Significance (in Edmonds, SR 104, and SR 99 south of SR 104) are not subject to local concurrency standards. However, WSDOT has established a standard of LOS D for these facilities. The City monitors Highways of Statewide Significance, and coordinates with WSDOT to address any deficiencies that are identified. Existing Level of Service Table 3-5 and Figure 3-6 presents existing PM peak hour LOS for 31 intersections throughout the city. The analysis indicates that all Edmonds City intersections are running to the City’s adopted LOS standard. One Highway of Statewide Significance intersection (SR 104 & 238th St SW) is currently operating below the standard. Packet Page 258 of 452 3-33 Table 3-5. Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Intersection Traffic Control Existing LOS Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS Standard Jurisdiction 1 174th Street SW and Olympic View Drive Side Street Stop C 18 D Edmonds/ Lynnwood 2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W AWSC C 17 D Edmonds 3 196th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 51 E Lynnwood 4 Puget Drive (SR 524) and 88th Avenue W Side Street Stop B 35 E Edmonds 5 Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive Signal C 13 E Edmonds 6 Caspers Street and 9th Avenue N (SR 524) Side Street Stop A 20 E Edmonds 7 208th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 6 D Edmonds 8 212th Street SW and SR 99 Signal C 49 E Edmonds/ Lynnwood 9 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal B 21 D Edmonds 10 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W Roundabout B 13 D Edmonds 11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N AWSC D 32 D Edmonds 12 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S AWSC B 13 D Edmonds 13 Main Street and 3rd Avenue N (SR 5524) Signal B 12 E Edmonds 14 220th Street SW and SR 99 Signal D 51 E Edmonds 15 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal C 29 D Edmonds 16 220th Street SW and 84th Avenue W Signal A 8 D Edmonds 17 220th Street SW and 9th Avenue S Signal B 13 D Edmonds 18 Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue W Signal C 26 D Edmonds/ WSDOT 19 238th Street SW and SR 99 Signal B 16 E Edmonds 20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way (SR 104) Side Street Stop E1 50 D Edmonds/ WSDOT 21 244th Street SW (SR 104) and 76th Avenue W Signal C 23 D Shoreline/ WSDOT 22 244th Street SW (SR 104) and SR 99 Signal D 45 D Shoreline/ Edmonds/ WSDOT 23 238th Street SW and 100th Avenue W Signal C 22 D Edmonds 24 238th Street SW and Firdale Avenue Signal B 18 D Edmonds 25 SR 104 and Main Street Signal A 7 D WSDOT 26 SR 104 and Dayton Street Signal A 8 D WSDOT Packet Page 259 of 452 3-34 27 SR 104 and 226th Street SW Signal B 11 D WSDOT 28 SR 104 and 95th Place W Signal A 7 D WSDOT 29 SR 104 and 236th Street SW Signal A 5 D WSDOT 30 SR 99 and 216th Street SW Signal C 35 E Edmonds/ Lynnwood 31 244th Street SW and Firdale Avenue Side Street Stop B 11 D Edmonds 1. LOS exceeds WSDOT standard for Highways of Statewide Significance. Packet Page 260 of 452 " "" !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( YostPark 174th St SW 95 t h P l W A n d o v e r S t 6 t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Ro b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Suns e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F i r d ale Ave10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 186th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W Ti m b e r L n 7 2 n d A v e W 184th St SW Puget Dr MeadowdaleBeachRd 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin Way 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW T a l b o t R d 68 t h A v e W 188th St SW 200th St SW 10 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 176th St SW 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 212th St SW 196th St SW 220th St SW O l y m p i c V i e w D r 76 t h A v e W Maple St C C DEB C A DDB D B B DCAB C BE CD C B A A B A A B C K i n g s t o n -E d m o n d s F e r r y Existing Intersection Level of Service LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds Pine RidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark 524 §¨¦5 !(Meets LOS Standard !(Highway of Statewide Significance PugetSound Figure 3-6 \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 3 _ 5 _ E x L O S . m x d 104 99 MaplewoodPark !( DRAFT Level of Service (LOS) Desgination(A "Non-Edmonds City Intersection !( Snohomish CountyKing County Packet Page 261 of 452 3-36 FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS This section presents the methodology used to forecast traffic operating conditions through 2035. Travel Demand Forecasting Model The City’s travel demand forecasting model was used to analyze future travel demand and traffic patterns for the weekday PM peak hour. The PM peak hour is typically the hour in which the highest level of traffic occurs, and is the time period in which concurrency assessment is based. The major elements of the model include:  Transportation network and zone structure  Existing and future land use estimates The model uses Visum software to estimate PM peak hour vehicle trips using the following steps:  Trip generation  Trip distribution  Network assignment These fundamental model elements and the key steps of the model are described in the following sections. Key Elements of the Travel Demand Model Transportation Network and Zone Structure The roadway network is represented as a series of links (roadway segments) and nodes (intersections). Road characteristics such as capacity, length, speed, and turning restrictions at intersections are coded into the network. The geographic area covered by the model is divided into transportation analysis zones (TAZs) that have similar land use characteristics. Appendix C shows the TAZs that are used in the Edmonds model. The PSRC regional transportation model was used as the basis for both transportation network and TAZ definitions. For the more detailed Edmonds model, some larger TAZs from the regional model were subdivided into smaller TAZs, and the roadway network was analyzed in greater detail. Land Use Estimates A citywide land use inventory was completed in 2008 using assessor records, supplemental aerial photos, and field verification. Using recent data from the PSRC and Washington State Employment Security Department, it was determined that the model’s 2008 land use assumptions remain representative of Packet Page 262 of 452 3-37 existing (2014) conditions. External zones to the model were updated using the recently completed Snohomish County travel demand model to ensure regional consistency. Future year land use patterns and growth were also developed for year 2035. As with the existing year model, the Edmonds future year model was supplemented with external zone data from the 2035 Snohomish County travel demand model. Citywide land use is summarized in Table 3-6. Table 3-6. City of Edmonds Existing and Future Land Use Summary Land Use Type Unit Existing (2014) 2035 Single Family Dwelling Units 10,990 11,790 Multi-Family Dwelling Units 6,370 8,450 Retail Jobs 2,240 3,080 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Services & Government Jobs 6,220 7,630 Wholesale, Transportation, Utilities, Manufacturing & Construction Jobs 140 170 Education Students 5,760 6,730 3. The model also includes values for park acres, marina slips, and park-and-ride spaces. 4. Excludes land use within Esperance. Key Steps of the Travel Demand Model Trip Generation The trip generation step estimates the total number of trips produced by and attracted to each TAZ in the model area. The trips are estimated using statistical data on population and household characteristics, employment, economic output, and land uses. Trips are categorized by their general purpose, including:  Home-based-work, or any trip with home as one end and work as the other end;  Home-based-other, or any non-work trip with home as one end;  Non-home-based, or any trip that does not have home at either end. The trip generation model estimates the number of trips generated per household and employee during the analysis period for each of these purposes. The output is expressed as the total number of trips produced in each TAZ and the total number of trips attracted to each TAZ, categorized by trip purpose. Trip Distribution The trip distribution step allocates the trips estimated by the trip generation model to create a specific zonal origin and destination for each trip. This is accomplished using the gravity model, which distributes trips according to two basic assumptions: (1) more trips will be attracted to larger zones (defined by the Packet Page 263 of 452 3-38 number of attractions estimated in the trip generation phase, not the geographical size), and (2) more trip interchanges will take place between zones that are closer together than between zones that are farther apart. The result is a trip matrix for each of the trip purposes specified in trip generation. This matrix estimates how many trips are taken from each zone (origin) to every other zone (destination). The trips are often referred to as trip interchanges. Network Assignment Each roadway link and intersection node is assigned a functional classification, with associated characteristics of length, capacity, and speed. This information is used to determine the optimum path between all the zones based on travel time and distance. The trips are distributed from each of the zones to the roadway network using an assignment process that takes into account the effect of increasing traffic on travel times. The result is a roadway network with traffic volumes calculated for each segment of roadway. The model reflects the effects of traffic congestion on the roadway network. Model Calibration A crucial step in the modeling process is the calibration of the model. The model output, which consists of estimated traffic volumes on each roadway segment, is compared to existing traffic counts. Adjustments are made to the model inputs until the modeled existing conditions replicate actual existing conditions, within accepted parameters. Once the model is calibrated for existing conditions, it can be used as the basis for analyzing future traffic conditions and the impacts of potential improvements to the roadway network. 2035 Traffic Operations without Improvements Table 3-7 presents projected PM peak hour LOS for city intersections by 2035, and compares them to the 2015 existing conditions. Figure 3-7 identifies the 2035 LOS conditions, showing the following locations that are projected to operate below the City’s adopted LOS standards:  Olympic View Drive and 174th Street SW  Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W  196th Street SW and 88th Avenue W  212th Street SW and SR 99  Main Street and 9th Avenue N  220th Street SW and SR 99  220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Packet Page 264 of 452 3-39  SR 99 and 216th Street SW There would also be 3 intersections along Highways of Statewide Significance that do not meet WSDOT’s recommended LOS of D; however, these intersections are not subject to City concurrency standards. The City still considers exceeding LOS D to be an operational deficiency, and will work with WSDOT to address LOS conditions at these locations:  SR 104 and 238th Street SW  SR 104 and Meridian Avenue N  244th Street SW and SR 99 Table 3-7. 2035 Intersection Level of Service Intersection 2015 LOS 2015 Average Delay (sec/veh) 2035 LOS* 2035 Average Delay (sec/veh) Jurisdiction 1 174th Street SW and Olympic View Drive C 18 F 56 Edmonds/ Lynnwood 2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W C 17 F 61 Edmonds 3 196th Street SW and 76th Avenue W D 51 E 61 Lynnwood 4 Puget Drive (SR 524) and 88th Avenue W B 35 F 70 Edmonds 5 Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive C 13 D 42 Edmonds 6 Caspers Street and 9th Avenue N (SR 524) A 20 D 34 Edmonds 7 208th Street SW and 76th Avenue W D 6 A 10 Edmonds 8 212th Street SW and SR 99 C 49 F >150 Edmonds/ Lynnwood 9 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W B 21 D 46 Edmonds 10 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W B 13 C 24 Edmonds 11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N D 32 F 73 Edmonds 12 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S B 13 D 31 Edmonds 13 Main Street and 3rd Avenue N (SR 5524) B 12 B 16 Edmonds 14 220th Street SW and SR 99 D 51 F 122 Edmonds 15 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W C 29 F 93 Edmonds 16 220th Street SW and 84th Avenue W A 8 B 13 Edmonds 17 220th Street SW and 9th Avenue S B 13 C 23 Edmonds Packet Page 265 of 452 3-40 18 Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue W C 26 D 41 Edmonds/ WSDOT 19 238th Street SW and SR 99 B 16 D 47 Edmonds 20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way (SR 104) E1 50 F >150 Edmonds/ WSDOT 21 244th Street SW (SR 104) and 76th Avenue W C 23 E 77 Shoreline/ WSDOT 22 244th Street SW (SR 104) and SR 99 D 45 E 78 Shoreline/ Edmonds/ WSDOT 23 238th Street SW and 100th Avenue W C 22 A 7 Edmonds 24 238th Street SW and Firdale Avenue B 18 C 25 Edmonds 25 SR 104 and Main Street A 7 A 8 WSDOT 26 SR 104 and Dayton Street A 8 B 10 WSDOT 27 SR 104 and 226th Street SW B 11 B 16 WSDOT 28 SR 104 and 95th Place W A 7 B 12 WSDOT 29 SR 104 and 236th Street SW A 5 B 13 WSDOT 30 SR 99 and 216th Street SW C 35 F >150 Edmonds/ Lynnwood 31 244th Street SW and Firdale Avenue B 11 B 13 Edmonds * Bold indicates that LOS exceeds standard. Packet Page 266 of 452 " "" !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( YostPark 174th St SW 95 t h P l W A n d o v e r S t 6 t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Ro b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Suns e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F i r d ale Ave10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 186th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W Ti m b e r L n 7 2 n d A v e W 184th St SW Puget Dr MeadowdaleBeachRd 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin Way 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW T a l b o t R d 68 t h A v e W 188th St SW 200th St SW 10 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 176th St SW 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 212th St SW 196th St SW 220th St SW O l y m p i c V i e w D r 76 t h A v e W Maple St F F EFD D A FDC F D B FFBC D DA C A B B B B B F F EE K i n g s t o n -E d m o n d s F e r r y 2035 Intersection Level of Service LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds Pine RidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark 524 §¨¦5 !(Meets LOS Standard !(Does Not Meet LOS Standard PugetSound Figure 3-7 \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 3 _ 7 _ 2 0 3 5 L O S . m x d 104 99 MaplewoodPark !( DRAFT Level of Service (LOS) Desgination(A !( Snohomish CountyKing County "Non-Edmonds City Intersection Highway of Statewide Significance Packet Page 267 of 452 3-42 SAFETY ASSESSMENT Citywide efforts to provide safe transportation include enforcement of traffic regulations, provision of crosswalks and sidewalks for pedestrians, and provision of well-designed streets for safe driving. Safety also involves ongoing coordination with emergency service providers to ensure access for their emergency equipment. Recommendations to address safety issues are based on assessment of historical collision data, focused sub-area or corridor safety studies, or on citizen feedback. These assessments are described in the following sections. Collision History For this Transportation Plan update, historical collision data provided by WSDOT between January 2009 and September 2014 were compiled and evaluated (WSDOT 2014). Collision analysis looks both at the total number of collisions and the rate of collisions per million entering vehicles at an intersection. Both are important safety indicators. The intersections with the highest number of collisions are located along SR 99, SR 104, and in downtown Edmonds. This pattern is shown in Figure 3-8, which is a map showing the relative magnitude of collisions occurring throughout the city. An intersection that carries higher traffic volumes is more likely to experience a higher level of collisions. To account for this, and to allow collision data to be more accurately compared, the rate of collisions per million entering vehicles was also calculated for all locations. Typically, a collision rate at or greater than 1.0 collision per million entering vehicles raises indicates that further evaluation may be warranted. Table 3-8 presents the collision data for all study locations having over 0.5 collisions per million entering vehicles. The locations with the rates at or above 1.0 collision per million entering vehicles are as follows (from the highest rate to the lowest rate):  Main Street and 3rd Avenue N (SR 524)  Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue W  220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W  SR 104 and Main Street  212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W  238th Street SW and SR 99 Packet Page 268 of 452 YostPark 524 104 99 Meadowdale Beach Rd A n d o v e r S t 174th St SW 6 t h A v e S Edmonds Way Ro b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Suns e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F i r d ale Ave10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 186th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n 7 2 n d A v e W Maple St 184th St SW PugetDr 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin Way 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW T a l b o t R d 68 t h A v e W 188th St SW 200th St SW 10 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 176th St SW 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 212th St SW 196th St SW 220th St SW Oly m p i c V i e w D r 76 t h A v e W K i n g s t o n -E d m o n d s F e r r y Vehicle Collisions LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds Pine RidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark §¨¦5 CollisionsHigh Low PugetSound Figure 3-8 \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 3 _ 8 _ C o l l i s i o n s . m x d MaplewoodPark DRAFT Snohomish CountyKing County Packet Page 269 of 452 3-44 Table 3-8. High Collision Locations Intersection Collisions between January 2009 and September 2014 Average Collisions per Million Entering Vehicles Main Street and 3rd Avenue N (SR 5524) 28 1.4 Edmonds Way (SR 104) & 100th Avenue W 90 1.4 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W 51 1.2 SR 104 and Main Street 19 1.2 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W 30 1.1 238th Street SW and SR 99 75 1.1 Main Street and 9th Avenue N 25 0.9 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S 22 0.9 SR 104 and 95th Place W 33 0.8 SR 104 and Dayton Street 21 0.7 220th Street SW and SR 99 64 0.7 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W 29 0.6 212th Street SW and SR 99 48 0.6 Source: WSDOT 2014. Packet Page 270 of 452 3-45 RECOMMENDED ROADWAY CAPITAL PROJECTS Proposed roadway capital projects were identified based on the review of intersection Level of Service and safety. These capital projects supplement the list of projects within the city’s current Transportation Improvement Plan, including ongoing maintenance (e.g. overlays, signal and sidewalk upgrades), traffic calming, and other operational enhancements. The proposed roadway projects are presented in Table 3- 9 and illustrated in Figure 3-9. Level of Service Projects Capital roadway improvement projects were developed to address situations where the intersection LOS does not meet the city’s standards under existing or 2035 projected conditions. These projects are needed to improve operation and capacity at intersections that do not meet the City’s LOS standards. Safety Projects The City considers improvements to all modes (bicycle, pedestrian, and transit) in the design of road projects. The proposed intersection and road improvements will include elements to support and promote alternative mode operations and safety. Many of the projects that would improve intersection LOS also would improve intersection safety for motorists and other users. Actions are also recommended on the following streets to improve vehicle and pedestrian safety:  238th Street SW, between Edmonds Way and 84th Avenue W  84th Avenue W, between 212th Street S and 238th Street SW  SR 104 Access Management and Pedestrian Crossings  SR 99 Access Management (Tied to SR 99 Revitalization Project) State Highway Projects Intersections located on SR 104 are not subject to City’s LOS standards; however, capital roadway improvement projects were developed as part of the SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis to address intersection operations and are included in the project list. Additional projects along SR 104 have been developed to address non-motorized and safety issues. The City is working with WSDOT for implementation of these improvements, or alternative projects to meet the same mobility objectives. The project list also includes several intersection projects along SR 99, consistent with WSDOT’s and the city’s LOS standards. Packet Page 271 of 452 3-46 Table 3-9 Recommended Roadway Improvements ID Location Improvement Jurisdiction 1 174th Street SW and Olympic View Drive Widen Olympic View Drive to add a northbound left turn lane for 50-foot storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Edmonds/ Lynnwood 2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W Install traffic signal. Widen 76th to add a westbound left turn lane for 175-foot storage length.2 Edmonds 4 Puget Drive and 88th Avenue W Install traffic signal.1 Edmonds 8 212th Street SW and SR 99 Widen 212th to add a westbound left turn lane for 200-foot storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300-foot storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements. Edmonds/ Lynnwood 11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N Install traffic signal.2 Edmonds 14 220th Street SW and SR 99 Widen 220th to add a 325-foot westbound right turn lane and a 300-foot eastbound right turn lane. Widen 220th to add a second westbound left turn lane. Edmonds 15 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and a through-right lane. Change eastbound and westbound phase to provide protected- permitted phase for left turn. Provide right turn phase for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. Edmonds 20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way Install a signal and provide protected left turn phase for northbound and southbound. Edmonds/ WSDOT Packet Page 272 of 452 3-47 ID Location Improvement Jurisdiction 21 244th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Widen 244th to add second westbound left turn lane for 325-foot storage length. Provide right turn phase for northbound movement during westbound left turn phase. Edmonds/ WSDOT 30 SR 99 at 216th Street SW Widen to allow one left turn lane, one through lane and one right turn lane in eastbound and westbound directions, with 100-foot storage length for turn lanes. Add eastbound right turn overlap with northbound protected left turn. Add additional left turn lanes to northbound and southbound approaches. Edmonds/ Lynnwood A 238th Street SW, between Edmonds Way and 84th Avenue W Widen to three lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk. Edmonds B 84th Avenue W, between 212th Street S and 238th Street SW Widen to three lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes and sidewalk. Edmonds/ Snohomish County 1. Analysis indicates that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to through and right-turn-only (prohibiting left-turn movements) would also alleviate the deficiency identified. This could be implemented as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. 2. An alternative that also would meet the LOS Standard would be a roundabout. Note that the upcoming construction project at Intersection #9 (212th Street SW/76th Avenue W) will maintain an acceptable LOS at that location through 2035. Without that project, this intersection would exceed the LOS in the future. Figure 3-10 shows the 2035 LOS conditions, comparing with and without improvements. For those intersections that do not meet the city’s LOS standard, the previously listed projects were identified to improve the LOS conditions. Table 3-10 compares the LOS and delay values between the two 2035 conditions for the key intersections listed in Table 3-9. Packet Page 273 of 452 174th St SW A n d o v e r S t 6 t h A v e S Edmonds W a y Robin H o o d D r Caspers St Suns e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F i r d a l e A ve10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 186th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n 7 2 n d A v e W Maple St 184th St SW PugetDr MeadowdaleBeachRd 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin W a y 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9 t h A v e N 228th St SW T a l b o t R d 68 t h A v e W 188th St SW 200th St SW 1 0 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 176th St SW 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 212th St SW 196th St SW 220th St SW O l y m p i c V iew Dr 76 t h A v e W 1 2 4 8 11 1415 20 21 30 K i n g s t o n -E d m o n d s F e r r y Recommended Roadway Capital Projects Intersection Improvement Project Roadway Improvement Project \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 3 _ 9 _ R e c o m m e n d e d P r o j e c t s . m x d §¨¦5 Figure 3-9 LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds YostPark Pine RidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark 524 PugetSound 104 99 MaplewoodPark DRAFT Snohomish CountyKing County # A B A Packet Page 274 of 452 3-49 Table 3-10 Changes in 2035 Intersection Level of Service with Proposed Roadway Improvements Intersection 2035 LOS 2035 Average Delay (sec/veh) 2035 LOS w/ Improvements 2035 Average Delay w/ Improvements (sec/veh) Jurisdiction 1 174th Street SW and Olympic View Drive F 56 C 22 Edmonds/ Lynnwood 2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W F 61 C 19 Edmonds 4 Puget Drive (SR 524) and 88th Avenue W F 70 A 13 Edmonds 8 212th Street SW and SR 99 F >150 F 87 Edmonds/ Lynnwood 11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N F 73 B 14 Edmonds 14 220th Street SW and SR 99 F 122 E 73 Edmonds 15 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W F 93 D 44 Edmonds 20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way (SR 104) F >150 B 12 Edmonds/ WSDOT 21 244th Street SW (SR 104) and 76th Avenue W E 77 D 47 Shoreline/ WSDOT 30 SR 99 and 216th Street SW F >150 E 64 Edmonds/ Lynnwood Packet Page 275 of 452 " "" !=! ! < = ! ! < = !!=! !=! !=! !=! !< = ! !< = ! !=!!< = !!=! !=! !=! !=!!=!!=! !< = ! !=! !=! !< = !!< = !!=!!=! !=!!=! !=! !=! !=! !=! !< = ! A n d o v e r S t 6t h A v e S Ro b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Sun s e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F i r d a l e Ave10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 186th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n 7 2 n d A v e W 184th St SW Puget Dr MeadowdaleBeachRd 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin Way 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St Ol y m p i c A v e 9 8 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9 t h A v e N 228th St SW T a l b o t R d 68 t h A v e W 188th St SW 200th St SW 10 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 176th St SW 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St Ed m o n d s W a y 212th St SW 196th St SW 220th St SW O l y m p i c V i e w D r 76 t h A v e W 174th St SW Maple St 18 20 2122 27 28 29 1 2 345 6 7 8910 11 12 13 14151617 19 23 24 25 26 31 30 K i n g s t o n -E d m o n d s F e r r y 2035 Intersection Level of Service with and without Improvements LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds YostPark Pine RidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark 524 §¨¦5 PugetSound Figure 3-10 \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 3 _ 1 0 _ 2 0 3 5 L O S . m x d 104 99 MaplewoodPark DRAFT Meets Level of Service Standard Highway of Statewide Significance IntersectionsIntersections not subject to Edmonds standards. LOS D is WSDOTstandard. Congestion should still be monitored in the future. !(! Does Not Meet Level of Service Standard!( !(! < ( !# WithoutImprovements Non-Edmonds City Intersection" WithImprovements Intersection Number Snohomish CountyKing County Packet Page 276 of 452 3-51 ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY The roadway projects presented in this Transportation Plan were identified to address a variety of mobility and safety issues. The projects were prioritized according to five criteria presented in Table 3-11. Table 3-11. Prioritization Criteria for Roadway Projects Criteria Weight Description Points Concurrency 3 Is the project required to meet concurrency? 3 Existing concurrency deficiency 2 Concurrency deficiency identified in the future 1 At LOS standard, near failing 0 Does not address a concurrency deficiency Safety 3 Does the project address identified safety issues? 3 ≥ 1.5 collisions per million entering vehicles or among the highest total collisions within city 2 1.0 - 1.5 collisions per million entering vehicles and/or addresses non- motorized safety issue 1 <1.0 collisions per million entering vehicles 0 No historical vehicle safety issues identified Grant Eligibility 2 Does the project include elements, such as strong safety and/or non-motorized components, which would make it more attractive for state or federal grant funding? 3 High eligibility 2 Medium eligibility 1 Low eligibility 0 No eligibility Multimodal Elements 2 Does the project include elements that improve safety or mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and/or transit? 3 Improves transit and non-motorized travel 2 Improves non-motorized travel 1 Improves transit mobility 0 Does not include multimodal elements Magnitude of Improvement 1 At how many locations will the project improve travel conditions? 3 Improves LOS at 3 or more locations and/or improves non-motorized safety along a length of roadway 2 Improves LOS and/or improves non-motorized safety at two locations 1 Improves LOS and/or improves non-motorized safety at one location Packet Page 277 of 452 3-52 Table 3-12 lists the roadway projects in ranked order, based upon the criteria described in Table 3-11. Projected costs of the recommended roadway projects are provided in Chapter 6 (Implementation and Financial Plan) of this Transportation Plan. Table 3-12. Roadway Project Priority Wtd = Weighted = raw score X criterion weight Criteria Concurrency Safety Grant Eligibility Multimodal Elements Magnitude Weight 3 3 2 2 1 Weighted Total Rank Project Raw Wtd Raw Wtd Raw Wtd Raw Wtd Raw Wtd 1 220th St & 76th Ave. 2 6 3 9 2 4 1 2 2 2 23 1 220th St & SR 99 2 6 3 9 2 4 1 2 2 2 23 3 SR 99 & 216th St SW 2 6 3 9 1 2 2 4 1 1 22 4 Main St & 9th Ave. 2 6 1 3 2 4 3 6 1 1 20 4 212th St. & SR 99 2 6 3 9 1 2 1 2 1 1 20 6 196th St SW (SR 524) & 88th Ave. 2 6 2 6 1 2 2 4 1 1 19 6 84th Ave W, between 212th St S and 238th St SW 0 0 2 6 2 4 3 6 3 3 19 8 238th St SW, between Edmonds Way and 84th 0 0 2 6 2 4 3 6 2 2 18 9 SR 104 & 238th St 0 0 2 6 2 4 3 6 1 1 17 10 Olympic View Drive & 76th Ave W 2 6 1 3 1 2 2 4 1 1 16 10 SR 104 & Meridian Ave N 2 6 1 3 2 4 1 2 1 1 16 12 Olympic & 174th St SW 2 6 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 14 Packet Page 278 of 452 3-53 TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM The city has adopted a Neighborhood Traffic Calming program, which is designed to assist residents and the City staff in responding to neighborhood traffic issues related to speeding, cut-through traffic, and safety. Implementation of a traffic calming program allows traffic concerns to be addressed consistently and traffic calming measures to be efficiently developed and put into operation. This section summarizes key elements of the traffic calming program. The two main purposes of traffic calming techniques are to:  Reduce the use of residential streets for cut-through traffic, and  Reduce overall speeds along residential roadways. Traffic calming devices are currently in place at many locations throughout Edmonds. These measures have been installed as part of capital improvement projects, as opportunities were presented, and occasionally in response to citizen requests. A key component of any successful traffic calming program is citizen initiation and ongoing resident involvement. The traffic calming process begins when residents gather eight or more signatures on a petition, requesting that the City initiate a study. The City then undertakes a comprehensive traffic study, gathering data on vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, collision history, and nighttime lighting conditions. If the study reveals a need for traffic calming, a three-phase approach to remediate traffic issues is used. Phase 1 is the start of the process, with the residents filing a petition and the City reviewing whether or not the application qualifies. Phase 2 focuses on solutions that can be quickly deployed, including education, signage, striping modifications, and more police enforcement. If a follow up study indicates that these solutions are not sufficiently effective, Phase 3 traffic calming measures are considered. Phase 3 measures, which are generally more costly and require more time to deploy, might include physical devices such as curb bulbs, chicanes, and traffic circles. The need for citizen involvement greatly increases in Phase 3, because each potential solution requires resident approval prior to implementation. Residential Neighborhood Issues Residents periodically express concerns about speeding or a high level of cut- through traffic on residential streets. Cut-Through Traffic – When congestion occurs on arterials and collector routes motorists begin to use local streets as cut-thorough routes. Maintaining the efficiency of arterial and collector routes is the most effective way to avoid or reduce cut-through traffic. However, there are times when drivers will use residential streets as shortcuts. Speeding Traffic – Vehicles traveling well above the speed limit on residential streets reduces safety and is of concern to residents. Some residential streets have wide travel lanes that can encourage speeding because the motorist perceives the street is safe and intended for higher speeds. Packet Page 279 of 452 3-54 PRESERVATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS The City’s transportation infrastructure is comprised primarily of streets with pavements, sidewalks, illumination, and traffic control, including traffic signals, signs, and pavement marking. Transportation infrastructure requires maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, updating, and replacement to maintain serviceability, reliability, and safety, and to protect the public’s investment. Maintenance of existing infrastructure enables efficiency of transportation operations, and reduces the need for more expensive capital improvements. A detailed Citywide Pavement Rating Study was completed in 2012, and the street condition for every street was analyzed. This allowed the City to prioritize future overlay projects. Maintenance of the City’s transportation infrastructure is provided primarily by the City’s Public Works Department. Activities include the following. Annual Street Overlays The projects include spot repairs of failed pavement, full surface and taper grinding of pavement, curbing and sidewalk repairs, and minor storm water system modifications. The projects also incorporate traffic calming measures. In coordination with this transportation plan, future projects will include retrofit of curb ramps for ADA compliance, and may include delineating bike lanes and other bike route improvements (see Chapter 4 for a more detailed discussion). Selection of projects includes reviewing the capital improvement plans for water, sewer, and storm to determine if utility improvements are programmed within the roadway segment under consideration. If there are, the projects schedules will be coordinated. The Principal Arterial, Minor Arterials, and Collectors are all rated once every 2 years as part of the WSDOT Pavement Condition Survey. Those streets are assigned a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ranging from 0- 100: - 91– 100: Excellent (only routine maintenance necessary: activities are performed to maintain a safe traffic condition and include pothole patching, patching around utility structures, and crack sealing). - 61 – 90: Good (Repair activities are done within the initial 10 year life of a new pavement helps to prevent potholes from occurring. These activities may mean placing a new surface (2 inches or less) on an existing road way to provide a better all-weather surfaces, a better riding surface, and to extend or renew the pavement life). - 41 – 69: Fair (Rehabilitation work generally consists of the preparatory work activities and either thin or thick overlay. Preparatory work may involve digging out defective asphalt, base and sub base. A rehab project typically extends the roadway life between 10 –15 years). - Less than 40: Poor / Severe (Reconstruction is required as a majority of the pavement or underlying base course has failed and can no longer serve as competent foundation for flexible pavements like asphalt). Packet Page 280 of 452 3-55 Under existing conditions, 70% of city arterials and collectors are in Excellent to Fair condition, based upon these guidelines. The remaining 30% are in Poor to Fail condition. Under the ideal cycle, roads with functional classification of collector or above receive an overlay once every 20 years; and local roads receive an overlay once every 25 years. Citywide Signal Improvements As traffic signals age, their functionality becomes more limited and they become more difficult to maintain. The City regularly upgrades traffic signals to maintain functionality, and to incorporate new technology. Citywide Cabinet and Controller Upgrades A signal controller is located in a controller cabinet at each traffic signal, and determines phases and cycle length for the signal it operates. Signal controllers are comprised of many types and many manufacturers, and as they age, their functionality becomes more limited and they become more difficult to maintain. The City regularly upgrades signal controllers to maintain functionality, and to accommodate modern traffic control equipment. Arterial Street Signal Coordination Improvements The city coordinates traffic signals located within 1/2 –mile of each other, to maximize the operating efficiency of the overall roadway system. The following specific maintenance projects are also currently planned: - Puget Drive/Olympic View Drive Signal Upgrades – Rebuild signal and install video detection. - 238th Street SW/100th Avenue W Signal Upgrades – Rebuild complete signal system and install video detection. Packet Page 281 of 452 3-56 NON-MOTORIZED SYSTEM This section provides an inventory of existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities and an assessment of improvement needs. The chapter also provides recommendations to improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety. PEDESTRIANS In 2002, the City of Edmonds completed its Comprehensive Walkway Plan. The plan included goals and objectives for non-motorized transportation in the city, in addition to a walkway inventory, a review of facility standards, and recommendations for walkway projects. The Walkway Plan has been updated in subsequent years, culminating in a full update as part of the 2015 plan. Existing Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities within the city include sidewalks, walkways, roadway shoulders, and off-road trails. Those facilities are typically more concentrated in areas with high pedestrian activity, such as the downtown area, commercial and business centers, near schools and other public facilities. Figure 3-11 illustrates the locations within Edmonds that have pedestrian-intensive land uses. Figure 3-12 illustrates the existing sidewalks and walkways within the city. The figure shows that the sidewalk system is most complete inside the core area bounded by SR 104, 92nd Avenue W, and SR 524. Outside of this area, sidewalks are primarily located along roads classified as collectors or arterials. Raised and striped walkways are generally associated with schools and provide safe walking routes. The federal ADA was passed in 1990 and amended in 2008. ADA requires jurisdictions to provide accessible sidewalks primarily through the installation of ADA-compliant sidewalk ramps. The design requirements address various areas of concern such as curb alignment with crosswalks, narrower sidewalk width, obstacles such as utility poles, placement of the sidewalk adjacent to the curb, or the slope of the ramps. Most of the city’s sidewalk ramps were constructed in the 1980s or later. As pedestrian improvements are made along roadway corridors, the City has upgraded sidewalk ramps or installed new ones in accordance with current standards. Of approximately 350 intersections with existing ADA curb ramps in Edmonds, 65 intersections were found to fully meet ADA standards, and 24 intersections partially met ADA standards. Packet Page 282 of 452 YostPark 524 104 99 Sunset Ave N Maple St Meadowdale Beach Rd A n d o v e r S t 174th St SW 6 t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Ro b i n H o o d D r Caspers St A d m i r a l W a y F i r d a l e A ve 10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 186th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n 7 2 n d A v e W 184th St SW PugetDr 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin W a y 3 r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St Ol y m p i c A v e 9 8 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW Talbot Rd 68 t h A v e W 188th St SW 200th St SW 10 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 176th St SW 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W MainSt 212th St SW 196th St SW 220th St SW Oly m p i c V i e w D r 76 t h A v e W K i n g s t o n -E d m o n d s F e r r y Pedestrian Intensive Land Uses LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds Pine RidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark §¨¦5 Land Use Government Commercial Medical Park School PugetSound Figure 3-11 \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 3 _ 1 1 _ L a n d u s e . m x d MaplewoodPark DRAFT Snohomish CountyKing County Packet Page 283 of 452 I*I* I*I* I* I* I* I* I* I* I* I* Snohomish CountyKing County MaplewoodPark 186th St SW 6t h A v e S 174th St SW Edmonds Way Ro b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Suns e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F i r d ale Ave 10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n 7 2 n d A v e W Maple St 184th St SW PugetDr 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin W a y 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW T a l b o t R d 68 t h A v e W 188th St SW 200th St SW 10 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 176th St SW 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 212th St SW 196th St SW 220th St SW Oly m p i c V i e w D r 76 t h A v e W K i n g s t o n -E d m o n d s F e r r y Existing Pedestrian Facilities LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds YostPark PineRidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark 524 §¨¦5 PugetSound Figure 3-12 104 99 DRAFT Paved Walkway Unpaved Walkway I*Public Restroom Park Downtown Sidewalk Area-Sidewalks required on both sidesof the street as part of new development \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 1 2 _ E x P e d . m x d Packet Page 284 of 452 3-59 Recommended Pedestrian Improvements This section presents recommended pedestrian improvements, which consist of new sidewalk connections to improve pedestrian mobility and safety, and upgrades of curb ramps to conform to ADA standards. Selected pedestrian crossing treatments are also identified. Walkway Prioritization Process Major gaps in the city walkway system were identified by the Transportation Committee. To address those gaps, the committee developed criteria to evaluate and prioritize walkway improvement projects. These criteria were used to prioritize improvements to walkway sections that were identified based on input from public meetings, Walkway Committee meetings, and deficiencies determined from a review of the existing city walkway inventory. The criteria were weighted according to their importance. A system of points was developed to evaluate each proposed project against each criterion. The result was a weighted average score that helps to compare and prioritize proposed projects. Table 3-13 describes the walkway prioritization criteria and their relative weights and point systems. Table 3-13. Prioritization Criteria for Walkway Projects Criteria Weight Description Points Pedestrian Safety 5 How safe is the route for pedestrians? Does this improvement:  Separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic, especially in high traffic areas?  Improve width of walkway and surface conditions?  Address potential conflicts at road crossings? 3 Strong concerns for pedestrian safety along this route 2 Some concerns for pedestrian safety along this route 1 This route is very similar to other routes in Edmonds 0 Not a safety concern Connectivity to Services, Facilities, and Links 5 Does this route connect to facilities or services such as schools, parks, churches, community centers, businesses, transit routes, or existing sidewalk? Does this improvement:  Provide direct access to facilities or services?  Ensure that the route links to a safe direct access to facilities or services? 3 Route provides significant access to 3 or more services and facilities 2 Route provides access to services and facilities 1 Route provides access to 1 service or facility 0 Route does not provide access to services or facilities Packet Page 285 of 452 3-60 Criteria Weight Description Points Pedestrian Level of Activity 3 Is this a well-traveled route, or would it be, if improved? Level of activity may be determined by:  Measured counts  Identification by the public and staff, through observation and experience 3 Route is utilized by a significant number of pedestrians 2 Route is utilized consistently by pedestrians 1 Route is occasionally used by pedestrians 0 Route is not utilized by pedestrians Distance from Schools 3 Is this route within a mile of a public school? 3 Route is an Elementary school route or close proximity to school 2 Route provides access to High school students 1 Route is within 0.5 mile of school Connectivity with Transit Services 2 Is this route also a route for transit or provide access to transit? 3 This route is on a public transit route with transit stops 2 This route is within 650 feet from a public transit route with transit stops 1 This route provides a principal pedestrian access corridor to public transit where sidewalks do not exist on adjacent pedestrian routes. (Beyond 650 feet from a public transit route.) Environment al Impacts 1 Will the development of the route have any impacts on the environment? Environmental impacts include:  Wetlands  Shorelines  Wildlife habitat  Aesthetics 3 Route has no negative environmental impact and aesthetically improves the area 2 Route has some negative environmental impact but aesthetically improves the area 1 Route has some negative environmental impact 0 Route will have major negative impact on the environment Walkway sections were analyzed separately depending on the section length. Walkway sections longer than 1,000 feet are defined as “long walkways” and walkway sections shorter than 1,000 feet are defined as “short walkways”. Table 3-14 summarizes the walkways that were considered for walkway improvements by the type of projects (i.e., short walkway or long walkway). The projects are listed in ranked order by the total points and by priority level, and split up between short and long walkways. Figure 3-13 shows the locations of the walkway projects. Higher priority projects are shown in green in the figure, with lower priority projects shown in red. Projected costs of the recommended walkway projects are provided in Chapter 4 (Implementation and Financial Plan) of this Transportation Plan. A Packet Page 286 of 452 3-61 more detailed summary of each project’s limits, existing conditions, and point tally is provided in Appendix D. Table 3-14. Recommended Walkway Projects ID Street Name From To Total Points Priority Short Walkway Projects S1 Dayton St. 7th Ave. S 8th Ave. S 48 1 S2 2nd Ave. Main St. James St. 42 1 S3 Walnut St. 3rd Ave. S 4th Ave. S 39 1 S4 216th St. SW 72nd Ave. W Hwy 99 39 1 S5 84th Ave. W 188th St. SW 186th St. SW 38 1 S6 Elm Way 8th Ave. S 9th Ave. S 35 2 S7 80th Ave. W 218th St. SW 220th St. SW 34 2 S8 Maple St. West of 6th Ave. S 8th Ave. S 32 2 S9 Walnut St. 6th Ave. S 7th Ave. S 32 2 S10 Paved (184th St. SW) 80th Ave. W OVD 31 2 S11 190th Pl. SW 94th Ave. W OVD 27 2 S12 8th Ave. Walnut Ave. South of Walnut 24 2 Long Walkway Projects L1 80th Ave. W 206th St. SW 212nd St. SW 49 1 L2 218th St. SW 76th Ave. W 84th Ave. W 48 1 L3 236th St. SW / 234th St. SW SR-104 97th Pl. W 45 1 L4 84th Ave. W 238th St. SW 234th St. SW 44 1 L5 236th St. SW SR-104 East of 84th Ave. W 44 1 L6 191st. St SW 80th Ave. W 76th Ave. W 41 1 L7 95th Pl. W 224th St. SW 220th St. SW 41 1 L8 104th St. SW / Robin Hood 238th St. SW 106th Ave. W 39 1 L9 236th St. SW Hwy. 99 76th Ave. W 39 1 L10 232nd St. W 100th Ave. W 97th Ave. W 39 1 Packet Page 287 of 452 3-62 ID Street Name From To Total Points Priority L11 238th St. SW Hwy. 99 76th Ave. W 39 1 L12 80th Ave. W / 180th St. SW 188th St. SW OVD 37 1 L13 189th Pl. SW 80th Ave. W 76th Ave. W 36 1 L14 Olympic Ave. Puget Dr. Main St. 35 2 L15 192nd St. SW 84th Ave. W 88th Ave. W 35 2 L16 8th Ave. W 14th St. SW Elm Way 35 2 L17 Pine St. 9th Ave. W SR 104 32 2 L18 188th St. SW 88th Ave. W 92nd Ave. W 32 2 L19 216th St. SW 86th Ave. W 92nd Ave. W 32 2 L20 92nd Ave. W Bowndoin St. 220th St. SW 32 2 L21 Maplewood Dr. Main St. 200th St. SW 32 2 L22 72nd Ave. W OVD 176th St. SW 32 2 L23 Meadowdale Beach Rd OVD 76th Ave. W 29 2 L24 176th St. SW 72nd Ave. W OVD 27 2 L25 92nd Ave. W 189th Pl. SW 186th Pl. SW 26 2 L26 Andover St. / 184th St. SW 184th St. SW / 88th Ave. W OVD / Andover St. 26 2 L27 186th St. SW Seaview Park 8608 185th Pl SW 24 2 1. Project L26 is an L-shaped project in which sidewalks are proposed on either side of Andover Street (the north-south leg), and on the north side of 184th Street SW (the east-west leg). In addition to the walkway projects, a variety of non-motorized enhancements were identified as part of the SR 104 Corridor Analysis. Figure 3-13 shows several proposed pedestrian crossing treatments along SR 104 and connecting streets. Pedestrian access to transit stops is also a critical element of the walkway improvement program. The City will continue to work with Community Transit to ensure that access to transit stops is as convenient and safe as possible. Community Transit offers its support in securing funds related to improving access to the existing transit system and transit facilities. Packet Page 288 of 452 $+ú$+ú $+ú $+ú $+ú Snohomish CountyKing County MaplewoodPark S1 2 S4 S3 S2 S10 S9 S1 S7 S5 S 6 S 1 1 L1 7 S8 L19 L2 5 L10 L18 L4 L15 L2 L24 L6 L7 L13 L9L5 L1 L 8 L2 0 L27 L 3 L11 L2 1 L2 2 L1 2 L26 L23 L1 4 L17 174th St SW 6 t h A v e S E d m o n d s Way Ro b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Suns e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F i r d ale Ave10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 186th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n 72 n d A v e W Maple St PugetDr MeadowdaleBeachRd 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin Way 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St 98 t h A v e W 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW T a l b o t R d 68 t h A v e W 188th St SW 200th St SW 1 0 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 176th St SW 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 212th St SW 196th St SW 220th St SW Oly m p i c V i e w D r 76 t h A v e W K i n g s t o n -E d m o n d s F e r r y Recommended Pedestrian Projects \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 3 _ 1 3 _ R e c P e d . m x d LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds YostPark PineRidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark 524 §¨¦5 PugetSound Figure 3-13 104 99 DRAFT$+ú Pedestian Crossing Treatment Existing Paved Walkway Existing Unpaved Walkway 84th Ave W Safety Project(includes walkway component) Walkway Project L/S # Long/Short WalkwayProject Number Packet Page 289 of 452 3-64 Pedestrian Level of Service Standard The city has developed a pedestrian LOS standard that ties directly to the proposed walkway plan. As shown in Table 3-15, the LOS measure uses a simple red, yellow, green scale to identify the whether a pedestrian facility improvement is consistent with the proposed walkway plan. The city can use these LOS standards to monitor how well the walkway plan is being implemented over time. Table 3-15. Pedestrian Level of Service Standards LOS Within Pedestrian Priority Network Provides pedestrian facility* as shown in Walkway plan Provides a lower-level pedestrian facility* than recommended in Walkway plan No pedestrian facility provided 1. Pedestrian facility includes sidewalks and shoulders protected by a raised curb. Curb Ramp Upgrade Program In an effort to upgrade the sidewalk ramps to meet ADA requirements, the City has developed a Curb Ramp Upgrade Program that prioritizes future sidewalk ramp improvements at sub-standard locations. Citizen request for curb ramps are addressed as they occur, and are accommodated close to the time of the request unless there are circumstances which would cause them to be deferred. An example would be a pending construction project that would also provide the ramps. Priorities for future sidewalk new ramp installations or ramp upgrades are determined based on the following priority order:  Downtown intersections receive priority over other locations;  Arterial streets receive priority over local access streets;  Intersections receive higher priority if they are near community centers, senior centers, or health facilities; transit stops, schools, or public buildings; or commercial areas and parks. Implementation of the curb ramp upgrade program will occur over time, due to the costs of those upgrades. As part of asphalt overlay projects, all ramps adjacent to the paving work must be upgraded to meet ADA standards and new ramps installed where none exist. Sidewalk ramps will also be installed as part of street reconstruction and sidewalk construction projects. Private redevelopment will also fund some ramp upgrades as part of required frontage improvements. Packet Page 290 of 452 3-65 BICYCLES The City prepared a comprehensive Bikeway Plan in 2009. This plan was revised as part of the current study to outline a list of improvement projects for the bicycle system. The types of recommended bicycle facilities range from shared-use paths to bike lanes to bicycle parking.  Shared use paths and trails – off-street facilities that cater to both pedestrians and cyclists. Where paved, these facilities provide a high amenity connection for nonmotorized users of all ages and all abilities.  Bike lanes – portions of roadways that have been designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use by cyclists.  Bike routes – shared streets used by bikes and cars. Signed shared roadways are shared roadways that have been identified as preferred bike routes by posting bike route signs.  Bike Sharrows- Some bike routes are proposed to have sharrows, which are marked within the travel lane and identify that bicycles are sharing the roadway. Sharrows are commonly used to indicate where on the roadway a cyclist should ride, and also to remind motorists to share the lane with bicycles when present.  Bike Parking- There have been many bicycle parking facilities implemented over the past several years. Convenient bike parking is an important incentive to encourage more bicycling within the city. Bicycle Facility Inventory Figure 3-14 shows existing bicycle facilities within the city, which include bicycle routes, bicycle lanes, trails, sharrows and bicycle parking facilities. The Interurban Trail, which links the cities of Seattle, Shoreline, Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, and Everett, runs through the southeastern portion of Edmonds. Upgrades to the trail are included in the City’s capital improvement program. Trails are also located along the city’s beaches and within city parks. There are also easy connections for cyclists to ferries, Sound Transit’s Sounder service, and Community Transit. Bicycles are allowed on all of these systems. WSF provides a reduced fare for bicycles, Sound Transit provides bike racks, and all Community Transit vehicles have bike racks. Packet Page 291 of 452 ¬l¬l ¬l¬l ¬l¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l¬l ¬l¬l ¬l ¬l¬l¬l¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¾l Maple St Meadowdale Beach Rd Puget Dr 95 t h P l W A n d o v e r S t 174th St SW 6t h A v e S Edmon d s W a y Ro b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Sun s e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F i r d a l e A ve 10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 186th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W Ti m b e r L n 7 2 n d A v e W 184th St SW 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin Way3rd A v e S Walnut St Dayton St Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW T a l b o t R d 68 t h A v e W 188th St SW 200th St SW 1 0 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 176th St SW 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 212th St SW 196th St SW 220th St SW O l y m p i c V i ew Dr 76 t h A v e W K i n g s t o n -E d m o n d s F e r r y Existing Bicycle Facilities \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 3 _ 1 4 _ E x B i k e . m x d LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds YostPark Pine RidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark 524 §¨¦5 Ferry ¬l Bike Parking ¾l Bike Locker Trails/Path Bike Lane Bike Route Sharrows Interim Trail/Path Street PugetSound Figure 3-14 104 99 MaplewoodPark DRAFT Packet Page 292 of 452 3-67 Recommended Bicycle Facilities The city worked with the Edmonds Bike Group to develop recommended bicycle facilities. Figure 3-15 shows the recommended bicycle facilities along with the existing bicycle system for reference. The bicycle projects include bicycle lanes or bicycle routes that can be added as part of future roadway improvement projects. The projects are concentrated around two major efforts: creating east-west bicycle connections between downtown Edmonds and the Interurban Trail, and creating north-south bicycle connections between the northern and southern portions of Edmonds. The primary east-west bicycle projects include:  Main St, 212th St SW  Pine St, Elm St, 220th St SW The primary north-south bicycle projects include:  3rd Ave S, Woodway Park Rd  9th Ave S, 100th Ave W  84th Avenue W  76th Avenue W Other bicycle projects include:  Olympic View Drive  224th St SW  88th Ave W, 84th Ave W Table 3-16 shows the degree to which the bicycle plan has been implemented to date, along with the amount needed for completion. The table shows that while pedestrian trails and paths, as well as bike parking, is at or near full planned completion, other facilities are not as far along. Approximately 40% of bike lane miles have been completed, and 20% of bike route miles have been completed. Packet Page 293 of 452 3-68 Table 3-16 Existing and Recommended Bike Facilities Bicycle Facility Existing Planned Total Bike Lane (miles) 5.6 8.5 14.1 Bike Route (miles) 4.9 19.9 24.8 Bike Sharrows (miles) 1.7 2.6 4.3 Trail/Path (miles) 2.4 0 2.4 Bike Parking/ racks (locations) 63 5 68 Packet Page 294 of 452 !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! !! Puget Dr 95 t h P l W A n d o v e r S t 174th St SW 6t h A v e S Ro b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Sun s e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F i r d a l e A ve 10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 186th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W Ti m b e r L n 7 2 n d A v e W 184th St SW 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin Way 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S Ed m o n d s W a y 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW T a l b o t R d 68 t h A v e W 188th St SW 200th St SW 1 0 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 176th St SW 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 212th St SW 196th St SW 220th St SW O l y m p i c V i ew Dr 76 t h A v e W Maple St Meadowdale Beach Rd K i n g s t o n -E d m o n d s F e r r y Recommended Bicycle Facilities \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 3 _ 1 5 _ R e c o m m e n d e d B i k e . m x d LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds YostPark Pine RidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark 524 §¨¦5 !Existing Bike Parking/Locker !!Proposed Bike Parking Bike Lane Bike Route Trail/Path Bike Sharrow Existing Proposed PugetSound Figure 3-15 104 99 MaplewoodPark DRAFT Snohomish CountyKing County ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!CityPark 6t h A v e S Caspers St Suns e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y 7t h A v e N 3rd A v e N Maple St 9 t h A v e N Walnut St 9t h A v e S 5t h A v e S 3r d A v e S Dayton St Main St Ed m o n d s W a y Pine St See Downtown Inset Downtown Inset Packet Page 295 of 452 3-70 Bicycle Facility Level of Service Standards The city has developed a bicycle LOS standard that ties directly to the proposed bicycle plan. As shown in Table 3-17 the LOS measure uses a simple red, yellow, green scale to identify the whether a bicycle facility improvement is consistent with the proposed bicycle plan. The city can use these LOS standards to monitor how well the bicycle plan is being implemented over time. Table 3-17 Bicycle Level of Service Standards LOS Within Bicycle Network Provides bicycle facility* as shown in the Bicycle Plan Provides a lower-level facility* than recommended in the Bicycle Plan No bicycle facility provided * Bicycle facilities – lowest-level to highest-level of treatment: shared; bike lanes; buffered bike facility; separated trail. Bicycle Loops The bicycle plan focusses on facilities needed to provide a safe and comfortable cycling environment. As a guide to bicyclists desiring to ride around Edmonds, Figure 3-16 shows three bicycle loops of various difficulties and lengths that are recommended along roads that have low speeds and low vehicle volumes. The Edmonds Bike Group helped establish these three bicycle loops.  The short bicycle loop has an easy level of difficulty and a distance of 5 miles.  The medium bicycle loop is a medium level of difficulty route; it follows a similar route as the short bicycle loop, but has an additional 2 miles for a total length of 7 miles.  The long bicycle loop is a scenic route designed for experienced cyclists. The total distance for the long bicycle loop is 20 miles with a portion located in the Town of Woodway. Riders on these loops can take advantage of the facilities provided within the bicycle plan. Packet Page 296 of 452 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,,, , , , ,,, ,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,, ,,,,,, , , , ,,, YostPark 524 104 184th St SW Meadowdale Beach Rd 186th St SW A n d o v e r S t 174th St SW 6 t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y Ro b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Suns e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F i r d a l e A ve 10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n 7 2 n d A v e W Maple St PugetDr 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin Way 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW T a l b o t R d 68 t h A v e W 188th St SW 200th St SW 1 0 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 176th St SW 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 212th St SW 196th St SW 220th St SW O l y m p i c V i e w D r 76 t h A v e W K i n g s t o n -E d m o n d s F e r r y Recommended Signed Bicycle Loops LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds Pine RidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark §¨¦5 Bike Routes Short Loop (5 miles) Medium Loop (7 miles) Long Loop (20 miles) , , , Steep Grade/Long Hill PugetSound Figure 3-16 \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 3 _ 1 6 _ B i k e L o o p s . m x d 99 MaplewoodPark DRAFT Snohomish CountyKing County Packet Page 297 of 452 3-72 TRANSIT This section provides an inventory of existing transit facilities and services, including buses, rail and ferries. Strategies to increase transit use are also presented. EXISTING BUS SERVICE Community Transit Community Transit, the major provider of public transit for Snohomish County, operates three types of transit service in the city:  Fixed bus route service  Rideshare services  Dial-A-Ride Transit (DART) paratransit service Fixed Route Bus Service Fixed bus routes are local or commuter services that operate on a standardized schedule. Figure 3-17 shows the bus routes that serve the city. Most of this service is provided by Community Transit, although Sound Transit connections are available along I-5. SWIFT Bus Rapid Transit also operates through the city along SR 99. Table 3-18 summarizes bus routes serving the city, which provide two-way service between destinations in the city and surrounding areas, from morning through evening. Commuter bus routes serving the city, which provide service to major employment destinations in Snohomish and King Counties, are also shown. Commuter routes typically operate only during the weekday morning and evening peak commute periods. Every Community Transit bus is equipped to accommodate wheelchairs. All buses are also equipped with bicycle racks. Packet Page 298 of 452 3-73 Table 3-18. Community Transit Bus Routes Route Number Route Description Days of Operation Hours of Operation (approximate) October 2014 Average Weekday Daily Boardings 101 Aurora Village (Shoreline) to Mariner Park and Ride Weekdays and Saturdays 5:00 am – 11:00 pm (Weekdays); 6:00 am -10 pm (Saturdays) 1,603 115 Aurora Village Transit Center to Mariner Park & Ride Weekdays and Saturdays 5:00 am – 11:00 pm (Weekdays); 6:00 am -10 pm (Saturdays) 2,424 116 Edmonds to Silver Firs Weekdays and Saturdays 5:00 am – 11:00 pm (Weekdays); 6:00 am -10 pm (Saturdays) 2,131 119 Mountlake Terrace to Ash Way Park & Ride Weekdays and Saturdays 6:00 am – 11:00 pm (Weekdays); 6:00 am -10 pm (Saturdays) 545 130 Lynnwood to Edmonds Weekdays and Saturdays 5:20 am- 10:00 pm (Weekdays); 7:00 am-10:30 pm (Saturdays) 971 196 Alderwood Mall to Edmonds Weekdays and Saturdays 6:00 am-10:30 pm (Weekdays); 7:00 am-10:30 pm (Saturdays) 613 405 Downtown Seattle to Edmonds P&R Daily (Peak travel) 6:00 am-9:00 am & 3:00 pm – 7:00 pm (Weekdays) 277 416 Downtown Seattle to Edmonds Daily (Peak travel) 6:00 am-9:00 am & 3:30 pm – 7:00 pm (Weekdays) 223 871 University District to Edmonds P & R Daily (Peak travel) 6:00 am-10:30 am & 12:30 pm – 7:00 pm (Weekdays) 801 Swift Aurora Village to Everett Swift Station Weekdays and Saturdays 5:00 am – 11:00 pm (Weekdays); 6:00 am -10 pm (Saturdays) 5,667 Source: Community Transit 2015 Accessibility to fixed route transit is considered to be ideal when transit stops are located within 0.25 mile of residents. Figure 3-17 shows the proportion of Edmonds residents living within 0.25 mile of a fixed- route local or commuter transit service. Approximately 60%1 of Edmonds’ population lives within 0.25 mile of local bus service; and approximately 74% of the Edmonds population lives within 0.25 mile of either local or commuter service. Transit coverage was reduced when Community Transit eliminated some bus routes after 2010. 1 Value being confirmed and updated Packet Page 299 of 452 I1I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1I1I1 I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1 I1 I1 I1I1I1 I1 I1 I1I1 I1I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1I1 I1 I1 I1I1 I1 I1 I1I1I1I1I1I1 I1I1I1I1 I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1 I1 I1 I1I1 I1I1I1 I1 I1I1 I1 I1I1I1I1I1 I1I1 I1I1 I1 I1 I1 I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1 I1I1I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1I1 I1 I1 I1I1 I1I1 I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1 I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1I1 I1 I1I1 I1 I1I1 I1I1I1I1I1 I1I1 I1I1 I1 I1I1I1I1I1 I1I1I1I1 I1 I1I1 I1 I1 I1 I1I1I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 IA Æb Snohomish CountyKing County Maple St Meadowdale Beach Rd 95 t h P l W A n d o v e r S t 174th St SW 6t h A v e S E d m o n d s Way Robin H o o d D r Caspers St Sun s e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F i r d a l e Ave10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 186th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W Ti m b e r L n 7 2 n d A v e W 184th St SW P u get Dr 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin Way 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9 t h A v e N 228th St SW T a l b o t R d 68 t h A v e W 188th St SW 200th St SW 1 0 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 176th St SW 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W M a i n S t 2 1 2 t h StSW 196thSt SW 220th St SW O l y m p i c V i ew Dr 76 t h A v e W K i n g s t o n -E d m o n d s F e r r y Existing Access to Transit Sound Transit Express Local Route Commuter Route Swift BRT Sounder Commuter Rail I1 Transit Stop Swift BRT Stop Park & Pool Lot ¼ mile Transit Buffer IA Park and Ride Lot Æb Sounder Station / Park and Ride Lot \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 3 _ 1 7 _ E x T r a n s i t . m x d §¨¦5 Figure 3-17 LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds YostPark Pine RidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark 524 PugetSound 416 115 130 130 416 101 104 99 MaplewoodPark DRAFT 405 871 115 116 120 115 116 119 I1 I1I1I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1I1 I1 I1 I1 I1I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1I1I1 I1I1 I1I1I1 I1 I1 Æb CityPark 6t h A v e S Caspers St Suns e t A v e N Admi r a l W a y 7t h A v e N 3rd A v e N Maple St 9 t h A v e N Walnut St 9t h A v e S 5t h A v e S 3r d A v e S Dayton StMain St Ed m o n d s W a y Pine St Downtown Inset See Downtown Inset 119 130 116 196 196 416 130 116 416 Packet Page 300 of 452 3-75 RIDESHARE SERVICES For citizens who are disinclined or unable to use fixed-route bus service, the following rideshare services are available:  Commuter Vanpools – Community Transit provides vehicles, driver orientation, vehicle maintenance, and assistance in forming vanpool groups.  Carpools – Community Transit provides ride-matching services for people seeking carpool partners. DART Paratransit DART is a specialized bus service provided by Community Transit for those who are unable to use regular bus service due to a disability. Service is available to all origins and destinations within 0.75 mile of local, non-commuter bus routes. King County Metro Transit King County Metro does not provide local service within Edmonds, but connections are available between Community Transit and Metro routes at the Aurora Village Transit Center just south of the city. Sound Transit Express Bus Sound Transit provides regional bus service to the urban portions of Snohomish, King, and Pierce counties, but does not have an established express bus stop in Edmonds. Sound Transit express bus service is available at transit centers and park-and-ride lots in the vicinity of Edmonds (Swamp Creek, Lynnwood Transit Center, and Mountlake Terrace Transit Center) and can be accessed by Community Transit. PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES The primary commuter parking facility in the city is the Edmonds park-and-ride lot located at 72nd Avenue West and 213th Place SW. This facility, which has a capacity for 255 cars, is owned by WSDOT and operated by Community Transit. This facility offers bus service to Lynnwood, downtown Seattle, Redmond, Everett, Shoreline and Seattle’s University District. The average utilization rate of this facility is 71%. (Community Transit 2008) Many routes also serve the Edmonds Senior Center, Edmonds Station and Edmonds Ferry Terminal. Parking available in the vicinity of these facilities includes a total of 220 spaces near the ferry terminal and 156 spaces at the Edmonds Station. Edmonds Community College also serves as a transit hub, but no Packet Page 301 of 452 3-76 public parking is available at this location. Table 3-19 summarizes the park-and-ride lots that serve Edmonds. Table 3-19. Park-and-Ride Facilities Serving Edmonds Lot Name Location Routes Parking Capacity Edgewood Baptist Church 20406 76th Avenue W 119 10 Calvary Chapel Edmonds 8330 212th Street SW 115, 116 10 Edmonds Lutheran Church 23525 84th Avenue W 115 15 United Presbyterian Church of Seattle 8506 238th Street SW 416 64 Edmonds Park-and-Ride 21300 72nd Avenue W 405, 871 255 Mountlake Terrace Transit Center 236th Street SW and I-5 Northbound Ramp 130, 871, King County Metro 880 Edmonds Ferry Terminal SR 104 WSF 220 Edmonds Station 210 Railroad Avenue 110, 116, 130, 196, 416, Sounder, Amtrak 156 Source: Community Transit, Sound Transit and WSF Outside of the city, the Lynnwood Transit Center and Aurora Village Transit Center are the major hubs for transferring between Community Transit local routes. Other transfer hubs include Edmonds Community College and Mountlake Terrace Transit Center. These Community Transit routes connect with King County Metro service at Aurora Village, Mountlake Terrace, and Bothell; Everett Transit in the City of Everett; the Washington State Ferry at the Edmonds and Mukilteo Terminals; with Sound Transit at various park-and- ride lots in the south Snohomish County; and Island Transit in the City of Stanwood. RAIL SERVICE Passenger rail service in Edmonds is provided by Sound Transit’s Sounder commuter rail and Amtrak’s intercity rail. The rail station is located at 211 Railroad Avenue and can be accessed by Community Transit. Sounder Commuter Rail Operated by Sound Transit, the Sounder commuter rail line operates between Seattle and Everett, with stops in Edmonds and Mukilteo. Through a partnership with Amtrak, Amtrak trains are also available for commuters along this route. Sounder operates four southbound trains during the morning commute period and four northbound trains during the evening commute period. Amtrak operates one additional train in each direction during both the morning commute period and the evening commute period. Packet Page 302 of 452 3-77 Amtrak Service Amtrak operates two routes with stops in Edmonds: the Amtrak Cascades and the Empire Builder. Amtrak Cascades Edmonds serves as a stop along the Seattle – Vancouver route. Service is daily, with two northbound trains and two southbound trains stopping in Edmonds per day. From Edmonds, the two northbound trains terminate in Vancouver, British Columbia. Both southbound Cascades trains originate in Vancouver, BC. The Cascades route’s northbound service provides connections to Everett, Mount Vernon, and Bellingham in Washington State, and Surrey, Richmond, and Vancouver in British Columbia. Southbound service terminates in Seattle. Travelers who wish to take rail south to destinations between Seattle and Portland are best served by traveling to Seattle to take the Seattle–Portland route. Empire Builder The Empire Builder provides cross-country service between Seattle and Chicago. Its route traverses the states of Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Service is daily, with one eastbound train departing from Edmonds each evening (5:12 pm). One westbound train arrives in Edmonds each morning (9:10 am). WASHINGTON STATE FERRIES The Edmonds-Kingston ferry route connects the northern portion of the Kitsap Peninsula and the Olympic Peninsula with northern King and southern Snohomish Counties. The route is 4.5 nautical miles long, and takes approximately 30 minutes to traverse. The Edmonds-Kingston route operates seven days per week year round, with average headways ranging between 35 and 70 minutes. In 2013, the Edmonds-Kingston route carried 3.9 million people, at an average of 12,200 passengers per day. This is slightly less than the 4.3 million people the route carried in 2006. The annual Washington State Ferries Traffic Statistics Report indicates that in-vehicle boardings were the most prevalent, with about 86 percent of passengers boarding in this manner on the average weekday. Walk-on passengers constituted 14 percent of all passengers on an average weekday. Packet Page 303 of 452 3-78 FUTURE TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS Chapter 2 of this Transportation Plan identifies a number of specific goals and policies aimed at enhancing transit options and operations in the City. This section describes actions the City could take to improve transit availability and ease of use, working closely with transit service providers. Priority Transit Corridors Figure 3-18 depicts a future transit system with potential priority transit corridors shown in green. These priority corridors would emphasize good daily transit service and bus stop amenities to make transit attractive. With the expected opening of Link Light Rail to Lynnwood during the planning horizon, it is likely that several Community Transit bus routes will be redesigned within Edmonds and surrounding areas to integrate with light rail. Transit Level Of Service A proposed Transit Level of Service policy is shown in Table 3-20. One primary LOS measure would be related to the provision of transit stop amenities along the priority transit corridors. Providing good pedestrian access to stops would also be a goal that the city could work cooperatively with Community Transit to achieve. The final measure, Quality of Service, is outside of the city’s control, but the LOS policy would guide the city’s discussions with Community Transit and other transit providers. A green LOS would be a desired standard to strive for as the plan is implemented. Packet Page 304 of 452 3-79 Table 3-20 Transit Priority Corridor Level of Service LOS Transit Stop Amenities* Pedestrian Access Quality of Service (Optional)+ More than 80% of transit stops meet amenity minimum provisions Sidewalks and marked crosswalks serving stops All day frequent service; adequate parking at park-and-rides and stations More than 60% of transit stops meet amenity minimum provisions Sidewalks and marked crosswalks serving some stops Peak period service; may be some parking overflow at park-and- rides and stations Less than 60% of transit stops meet amenity minimum provisions General lack of sidewalks and marked crosswalks N/A * Amenities include bus stop shelter, bench, flag post, and/or concrete waiting area; these amenities are determined based on the number of people using a transit stop as defined by a transit agency. +Consider the adequacy of parking provided at park-and-rides and transit stations Additional Fixed Route Transit Service The City will continue to coordinate with Community Transit regarding additional bus transit service on Olympic View Drive or east of 76th Avenue N. In addition, the City adopted a policy (see Policy 8.12 in Chapter 2) to explore future funding for a city- based circulator bus that provides local shuttle service between neighborhoods (Firdale Village, Perrinville, Five Corners, Westgate) and downtown. Washington State Ferries WSDOT is planning to implement a ferry reservation system along commuter routes in the Central Puget Sound. Depending on its design, a reservation system could have impacts on ferry traffic arrival times and queuing areas. The City will work closely with WSDOT to implement a reservation system that meets regional and local needs. Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Facility The City is also a partner in the Edmonds Crossing multimodal ferry, bus, and rail facility. Sound Transit is planning to relocate Edmonds station as part of the larger Edmonds Crossing Multimodal project being led by WSDOT. While there is no funding for this relocation, the multimodal facility would be an important transit hub for the city. Packet Page 305 of 452 ""X ""X ""X IA Æb LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds YostPark Pine RidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark 524 PugetSound 104 99 MaplewoodPark §¨¦5 Meadowdale Beach Rd A n d o v e r S t 174th St SW 6 t h A v e S Edmonds Way Robin H o o d D r Caspers St Suns e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F i r d a l e A ve10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 186th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n 7 2 n d A v e W Maple St 184th St SW Puget Dr 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin Way 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9 t h A v e N 228th St SW T a l b o t R d 68 t h A v e W 200th St SW 1 0 0 t h A v e W 188th St SW 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 176th St SW 212th St SW 196th St SW 220th St SW O l y m p i c V i e w Dr 7 6 t h A v e W K i n g s t o n -E d m o n ds Ferry Future Priority Transit Corridors Existing Bus Route New Transit Service Options Priority Transit Corridor Proposed Link Light Rail Swift BRT Swift BRT Stop \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ F i g 3 _ 1 8 _ F u t u r e T r a n s i t . m x d Figure 3-18 DRAFT Snohomish CountyKing CountyNote: When Light Rail is open, several existinglocal and regional bus routes will be redesignedwithin Edmonds and surrounding areas. 44 t h A v e W 236th St SW Snohomish CountyKing County Packet Page 306 of 452 3-81 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT TDM consists of strategies that seek to maximize the efficiency of the transportation system by reducing demand on the system. The results of successful TDM can include the following benefits:  Travelers switch from driving alone to high-occupancy vehicle modes such as transit, vanpools, or carpools.  Travelers switch from driving to non-motorized modes such as bicycling or walking.  Travelers change the time they make trips from more congested to less congested times of day.  Travelers eliminate trips altogether either through means such as compressed work weeks, consolidation of errands, or use of telecommunications. Within the State of Washington, alternative transportation solutions are necessitated by the objectives of the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law. Passed in 1991 as a section of the Washington Clean Air Act (RCW 70.94), the CTR Law seeks to reduce workplace commute trips. The purpose of CTR is to help maintain air quality in metropolitan areas by reducing congestion and air pollution. This law requires Edmonds to adopt a CTR plan requiring private and public employers with 100 or more employees to implement TDM programs. Programs provide various incentives or disincentives to encourage use of alternative transportation modes other than the single-occupant vehicle. The City promotes TDM through policy and/or investments that may include, but are not limited to, the following:  Parking management;  Trip reduction ordinances;  Restricted access to facilities and activity centers; and  Transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly design. The City can support the CTR Law and regional vehicle trip reduction strategies by working with employers to encourage the reduction of commuter single-occupant vehicle use. Community Transit assists employers in developing plans that meet specific trip reduction needs as required by the CTR Law. Flex time, parking management, vanpooling, and carpooling are some of the available options. Community Transit offers free Employee Transportation Coordinator Training Workshops for employers affected by CTR. Transportation consulting services are also available to interested employers not affected Packet Page 307 of 452 3-82 by CTR. Community Transit also conducts community outreach programs that fall within the realm of TDM. There are three employers in Edmonds that participate in the CTR program: the City of Edmonds, Stevens Hospital, and Edmonds Family Medicine Clinic. Each employer measures its progress toward its goal of reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by conducting an employee survey every other year. Community Transit assists in this effort, and reviews the results to see if the employers are in compliance with CTR goals. EDMONDS WATERFRONT AT-GRADE CROSSING Railroad use for freight transport has greatly increased and is expected to increase even more in the future. The frequency and greater length of trains means that access between the west side and east side of the rail is blocked for longer periods of time. This has significant implications for people needing to access either side—whether for emergency, business, residential, recreational, or other needs. A priority of the city has been to find a solution to the at-grade railroad crossings at Main and Dayton Streets to the waterfront. The need is evident for providing emergency access, pedestrian/bicycle access, and access to the ferry and other land uses. Various options have been discussed, each with certain advantages, disadvantages, and costs. To determine the best option(s), the city is seeking study funds as part of the 2015 Legislative transportation package. Packet Page 308 of 452 4-1 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL PLAN This chapter provides a summary of the projects, project prioritization, total costs, projected revenue, and implementation strategies for recommended improvements through 2035. It also includes a performance measure, consistent with the criteria for performance measures in other parts of the Comprehensive Plan. PERFORMANCE MEASURE The Comprehensive Plan contains a small number of performance measures (no more than one per element) that can be used to monitor and annually report on the implementation and effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan. Performance measures, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, are specific, meaningful, and easily obtainable items that relate to sustainability and that can be reported on an annual basis. They are intended to help assess progress toward achieving the goals and policy direction of each major Comprehensive Plan element. The measure identified below is specifically called out as matching the above criteria and being important to transportation goals and will be reported annually, along with performance measures for other Comprehensive Plan elements. It is not intended to be the only measure that the City may use for transportation purposes. Performance Measure: Number of linear feet of sidewalk renovated or added to the City’s sidewalk network. PROJECT COSTS Preliminary costs for proposed transportation projects were estimated at a planning level, based on 2015 dollars. Estimates were based on typical unit costs, as applied to each type of improvement, and are not the result of preliminary engineering. Annual programs such as asphalt street overlay show projected expenditures beginning in 2010. These planning-level estimates of probable cost were the basis for the financial plan. Table 4-1 summarizes the estimated costs for the recommended transportation projects and programs through 2035. The table shows that the cost of fully funding all operations, safety, and maintenance projects and programs through 2035 is $133 Million. Packet Page 309 of 452 Co m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n May 2015 4-2 Ta b l e 4 - 1 . C o s t s o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P r o j e c t s ID L o c a t i o n P r o j e c t Cost Ro a d w a y P r o j e c t s 1 17 4 t h S t r e e t S W a n d O l y m p i c V i e w D r i v e Wi d e n O l y m p i c V i e w D r i v e t o a d d a n o r t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 5 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e le n g t h . S h i f t t h e n o r t h b o u n d l a n e s t o t h e e a s t t o p r o v i d e a n a c c e l e r a t i o n l a n e f o r ea s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n s . $610,000 2 Ol y m p i c V i e w D r i v e a n d 7 6 t h A v e n u e W In s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . W i d e n 7 6 t h t o a d d a w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 1 7 5 - f o o t st o r a g e l e n g t h . 2 $1,183,000 4 Pu g e t D r i v e a n d 8 8 t h A v e n u e W I n s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . 1 $903,000 8 21 2 t h S t r e e t S W a n d S R 9 9 Wi d e n 2 1 2 t h t o a d d a w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 2 0 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h a n d a n ea s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 3 0 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . P r o v i d e p r o t e c t e d l e f t t u r n ph a s e f o r e a s t b o u n d a n d w e s t b o u n d m o v e m e n t s . $2,806,000 11 Ma i n S t r e e t a n d 9 t h A v e n u e N I n s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . 2 $911,000 14 22 0 t h S t r e e t S W a n d S R 9 9 Wi d e n 2 2 0 t h t o a d d a 3 2 5 - f o o t w e s t b o u n d r i g h t t u r n l a n e a n d a 3 0 0 - f o o t e a s t b o u n d ri g h t t u r n l a n e . W i d e n 2 2 0 t h t o a d d a s e c o n d w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e . $3,215,000 15 22 0 t h S t r e e t S W a n d 7 6 t h A v e n u e W Re c o n f i g u r e e a s t b o u n d l a n e s t o a l e f t t u r n l a n e a n d a t h r o u g h - r i g h t l a n e . C h a n g e ea s t b o u n d a n d w e s t b o u n d p h a s e t o p r o v i d e p r o t e c t e d - p e r m i t t e d p h a s e f o r l e f t t u r n . Ad d a w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e i n o r d e r t o h a v e a l e f t , t h r ou g h a n d r i g h t t u r n ap p r o a c h . P r o v i d e r i g h t t u r n p h a s e f o r w e s t b o u n d m o v e m e n t d u r i n g s o u t h b o u n d l e f t tu r n p h a s e . $4,314,000 Packet Page 310 of 452 Co m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n May 2015 4-3 ID L o c a t i o n P r o j e c t Cost 20 23 8 t h S t r e e t S W a n d E d m o n d s W a y In s t a l l a s i g n a l a n d p r o v i d e p r o t e c t e d l e f t t u r n p h a s e f o r n o r t h b o u n d a n d so u t h b o u n d . $1,339,000 21 24 4 t h S t r e e t S W a n d 7 6 t h A v e n u e W Wi d e n 2 4 4 t h t o a d d s e c o n d w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 3 2 5 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . Pr o v i d e r i g h t t u r n p h a s e f o r n o r t h b o u n d m o v e m e n t d u r i n g w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n ph a s e . $3,017,000 30 SR 9 9 a t 2 1 6 t h S t r e e t S W Wi d e n t o a l l o w o n e l e f t t u r n l a n e , o n e t h r o u g h l a n e a n d o n e r i g h t t u r n l a n e i n ea s t b o u n d a n d w e s t b o u n d d i r e c t i o n s , w i t h 1 0 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h f o r t u r n l a n e s . Ad d e a s t b o u n d r i g h t t u r n o v e r l a p w i t h n o r t h b o u n d p r o t e c t e d l e f t t u r n . A d d a d d i t i o n a l le f t t u r n l a n e s t o n o r t h b o u n d a n d s o u t h b o u n d a p p r o a c h e s . $2,335,000 SR - 9 9 G a t e w a y / R e v i t a l i z a t i o n Ad d c e n t e r m e d i a n a n d l e f t t u r n p o c k e t a l o n g t h e c o r r i d o r ( f r o m 2 3 8 th S t . S W t o 21 2 th S t . S W ) t o p r o v i d e s a f e r a c c e s s m a n a g e m e n t t h r o u g h o u t . 10,000,000 A 84 t h A v e n u e W , b e t w e e n 2 1 2 t h S t r e e t S an d 2 3 8 t h S t r e e t S W W i d e n t o t h r e e l a n e s w i t h c u r b , g u t t e r , b i k e l a n e s , a n d s i d e w a l k . $ 1 5 , 4 4 1 , 0 0 0 B 23 8 t h S t r e e t S W , b e t w e e n E d m o n d s W a y a n d 8 4 t h Av e n u e W W i d e n t o t h r e e l a n e s w i t h c u r b , g u t t e r , b i k e l a n e s a n d s i d e w a l k . $ 2 , 5 6 8 , 0 0 0 Sub Total $48,642,000 No n - M o t o r i z e d P r o j e c t s Ci t y w i d e W a l k w a y P r o j e c t s ( S h o r t ) $2,317,500 Ci t y w i d e W a l k w a y P r o j e c t s ( L o n g ) $26,460,000 AD A T r a n s i t i o n P l a n $4,189,500 Ci t y w i d e P e d e s t r i a n L i g h t i n g $80,000 A u d i b l e Pe d e s t r i a n Si g n a l s $25,000 Packet Page 311 of 452 Co m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n May 2015 4-4 ID L o c a t i o n P r o j e c t Cost Ci t y w i d e B i k e w a y P r o j e c t s $555,000 Sub Total $33,627,000 Pr e s e r v a t i o n a n d M a i n t e n a n c e P r o g r a m s a n d P r o j e c t s An n u a l S t r e e t O v e r l a y s 20 1 6 - 2 0 2 1 G r i n d p a v e m e n t , o v e r l a y $12,000,000 20 2 2 - 2 0 3 5 $30,000,000 Ci t y w i d e S i g n a l I m p r o v e m e n t s 20 1 6 - 2 0 2 1 U p g r a d e s t o e x i s t i n g s i g n a l s , f o r m a i n t e n a n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y $25,000 20 2 2 - 2 0 3 5 $75,000 C i t y w i d e C a b i n e t a n d C o n t r o l l e r Up g r a d e s 20 1 6 - 2 0 2 1 U p g r a d e s t o e x i s t i n g t r a f f i c s i g n a l c a b i n e t s e l e m e n t s f o r m a i n t e n a n c e a n d te c h n o l o g y $160,000 20 2 2 - 2 0 3 5 $490,000 Pu g e t & O l y m p i c V i e w D r i v e S i g n a l r e b u i l d $500,000 23 8 t h / 1 0 0 t h A v e S i g n a l Up g r a d e s R e b u i l d c o mp l e t e s i g n a l s y s t e m a n d i n s t al l v i d e o d e t e c t i o n $750,000 Ma i n @ 3 rd A v e . S i g n a l U p g r a d e s R e b u i l d c o m p l e t ed s i g n a l s y s t e m $ 3 7 5 , 0 0 0 Sub Total $44,375,000 Ot h e r P r o j e c t s Ci t y w i d e T r a f f i c C a l m i n g P r o g r a m $200,000 Op e r a t i o n a l E n h a n c e m e n t s $240,000 Fu t u r e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e s $700,000 De b t S e r v i c e o n 2 2 0 t h S t r e e t S W P r o j e c t (P r o v i d e r e v i s e d a m o u n t ) $616,600 Packet Page 312 of 452 Co m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n May 2015 4-5 ID L o c a t i o n P r o j e c t Cost 4t h A v e n u e C o r r i d o r E n h a n c e m e n t $4,325,000 8 0 th A v e . W S i g h t D i s t a n c e $292,000 Ar t e r i a l S t r e e t S i g n a l C o o r d i n a t i o n $50,000 Ci t y w i d e P r o t e c t i v e / P e r m i s s i v e T r a f f i c Si g n a l C o n v e r s i o n $20,000 Tr a c k s i d e W a r n i n g S y s t e m $300,000 Sub Total $6,743,600 GR A N D T O T A L ( 2 0 1 6 - 2 0 35) $133,387,600 1. An a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t r e s t r i ct i n g n o r t h b o u n d a n d s o u t h b o u n d t r a f f i c t o t h r o u g h a n d r i g h t - t u r n - o n l y ( p r o h i b i t i n g l e f t - t u r n m o v em e n t s ) w o u l d a l s o a l l e v i at e t h e d e f i c i e n c y i d e n t i f ie d . T h i s c o u l d b e i m p l e m e n t e d a s a n i n t e r i m so l u t i o n u n t i l t r a f f i c s i gn a l w a r r a n t s a r e m e t . 2. An a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t a l s o w o u l d m ee t t h e L O S S t a n d a r d w o u l d b e a r o u n d a b o u t . Packet Page 313 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 4-6 REVENUE SOURCES CURRENT SOURCES OF REVENUE Revenue sources the City currently uses to pay for transportation improvements are listed below, and Table 4-2 lists estimates of the potential amount of revenue the City may receive during 2016 – 2035 from these current sources of revenue. The estimates for 2016-2035 are based on the annual average amount received by the City from 2008 through 2013 unless noted otherwise below.  Grants – State and federal grants may be obtained through a competitive application process. Each grant program is for specific types of projects, such as capacity, congestion relief, safety, mobility, sidewalks and/or bicycle routes. Edmonds’ success in obtaining grants depends on having projects that match each grant program’s requirements.  Real Estate Excise Tax –This is a tax on all sales of real estate, measured by the full selling price, and the City receives a tax of 0.5 percent. The 2016-2035 estimates are based on continuing the recent increases for street preservation that were appropriated in 2014 and 2015. These amounts are not guaranteed under current City policies.  General Fund – The General Fund includes a broad range of taxes and fees such as sales tax and property taxes. These revenue sources may be used for all City activities. The estimates for 2016- 2035 transportation costs are based on the average of the 2014 and 2015 appropriations for street preservation. These amounts are not guaranteed under current City policies.  Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax – The motor vehicle fuel tax is collected by the State and 2.4 cents per gallon are distributed to cities for roadway construction purposes. The money is distributed based on the population of each city.  Traffic Impact / Mitigation Fees – Impact fees are paid by developers to mitigate the impacts on the transportation system caused by their development. The 2016-2035 estimates are based on the 2009 rates of approximately $1,000 per trip for the 4,000 additional trips that are expected between 2016 and 2035.  Stormwater Funds – The City’s stormwater utility uses a portion of its revenue to pay for portions of transportation capital improvements that include stormwater control components.  Transfers from Capital Fund – The Capital Fund for stormwater also makes transfers to pay for eligible portions of transportation projects.  Interest Income – The City deposits the revenues listed above in safe interest-bearing accounts until the money is needed for capital projects. The amount of interest that is earned is used for the same capital projects.. Packet Page 314 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 4-7 Table 4-2 summarizes potential revenue projected through 2035, from the current sources described above. Table 4-2. Potential Transportation Revenues- Current Sources Source Amount Grants (unsecured) $18,594,500 Real Estate Excise Tax for Street Preservation 15,810,000 Transfers from General Fund for Street Preservation 11,290,000 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 8,000,000 Traffic Impact / Mitigation Fees 4,000,000 Stormwater Funds 1,481,900 Transfers from Capital Fund 535,800 Interest Income 56,000 TOTAL $59,768,200 . Based upon the total costs of recommended projects summarized in Table 4-1, and the potential revenue from current sources listed in Table 4-2, the estimated total revenue shortfall through 2035 is $73 Million OTHER POTENTIAL FINANCING OPTIONS The City will continue to explore new options to fund transportation projects and programs that are important to citizens. Options that could be considered include the sources described below. Estimates are provided for 2016-2035, and the basis for each estimate is summarized below.  Transportation Benefit District – Edmonds has enacted a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) with a $20 per year vehicle license fee, which is slated to fund City Street Operations. A TBD can also collect additional annual vehicle license fees of up to $80 (limited to a total of $100) per license per year and/or a 0.2% sales tax, subject to voter approval. The vehicle license fee estimate is based on the additional $80 license fee per year for 40,000 vehicles. The sales tax estimate is based on an additional 0.2% sales tax extrapolated from the amount of existing sales taxes collected in recent years by the City.  Business License Fee for Transportation – Cities have the option of including a fee to fund transportation projects as part of business license fees. This is typically an annual fee that is charged per full time equivalent (FTE) employee. In order for this type of fee to be successful, cities typically collaborate very closely with business owners, to identify projects and programs for funding that would be of most benefit to local businesses. The 2016-2035 estimate assumes $50 per year per full-time equivalent employee for 15,000 employees. Packet Page 315 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 4-8  Red Light Violation Fines– Cities can charge fines for violating red lights at signalized intersections and use the amount of fine revenue that exceeds program costs to pay for transportation safety projects. The estimate for 2016-2035 is based on a 2008 study of red light violations at specific locations in Edmonds, and an assumption that each violation would produce $50 for transportation improvements (based on the experience of another Washington city).  Transportation Levy– Cities can ask voters to approve an increase in property taxes and dedicate the levy proceeds to transportation. . The 2016-2035 estimate assumes a levy rate of $0.20 (based on the recent successful experience of another Washington city).  Non-Motorized Mitigation Fees– Some Washington cities have developed a mitigation fee program under SEPA to obtain mitigation from developers for the impacts on bicycle and pedestrian facilities caused by their development. The estimate for 2016-2035 assumes that the mitigation program will collect approximately 20% of the cost of the non-motorized projects.  Local Improvement District/Roadway Improvement District –LIDs, enabled under RCW 35.43, are a means of assisting benefitting properties in financing needed capital improvements. A special type of LID is a Roadway Improvement District (RID). LIDs may be applied to water, sewer and storm sewer facilities, as well as roads; but RIDs may only be applied to street improvements. LIDs and RIDs are special assessment districts in which improvements will specially benefit primarily the property owners in the district. They are created under the sponsorship of a municipal government and are not self-governing special purpose districts. To the extent and in the manner noted in the enabling statutes, they must be approved by both the local government and benefited property owners. No estimates are made for 2016-2035 because a study has not been conducted to determine specific projects that would meet the eligibility requirements for an LID or RID.  Additional Grants – Revenue projections summarized in Table 4-2 assume that the City will be able obtain future grant funding at levels consistent with what has been obtained historically. It may be possible for the City to obtain higher levels of grant funding than what has been historically obtained. However, state and federal grants are obtained through a highly competitive process, and other municipalities are also likely to increase their requests for grant funding to address their own revenue shortfalls. It is likely that only a small portion of the City’s revenue shortfall could be covered through additional grant funding, therefore no estimates are included for 2016-2035. Table 4-3 summarizes potential levels of revenue that could be obtained by these additional sources, if they were approved by the City Council and by citizens. The table shows that the transportation funding shortfall could be covered by a combination of these optional revenue sources. Packet Page 316 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 4-9 Table 4-3. Potential Transportation Revenue- Additional Optional Sources Source Amount TBD License Fee (at $80 per license per year) $ 64,000,000 TBD Sales Tax (at 0.2%) 24,000,000 Business License Fee for Transportation (at $50 per year per full-time equivalent employee) 15,000,000 Red Light Violation Fine (at $50 per violation after program costs) – must be used for safety projects. 29,200,000 Transportation Levy (at $0.20 per year) 7,600,000 Non-motorized Mitigation Fee (at 20% of project costs) 4,250,000 Local Improvement District / Roadway Improvement District Not Estimated Additional Grants Not Estimated $144,050,000 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (2016-2035) The Comprehensive Transportation Plan serves to guide the development of surface transportation within the City, based upon evaluation of existing conditions, projection and evaluation of future conditions that result from the City’s adopted future land use plan, and priorities stated by Edmonds citizens. A six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is prepared each year, which identifies transportation projects needed to respond to planned growth of the community, and to meet safety and mobility objectives. The TIP integrates City transportation improvement projects and resources with other agencies in order to maximize financing opportunities such as grants, bonds, city funds, donations, impact fees, and other available funding. The TIP is maintained as follows: 1. Provide for annual review by the City Council as part of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) contained in the Comprehensive Plan capital facilities element. 2. Ensure that the TIP:  Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; Packet Page 317 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 4-10  Defines a project’s need, and links it to LOS and facility plans;  Includes construction costs, timing, and funding sources; and considers operations and maintenance impacts where appropriate; and  Establishes project development priorities. Table 4-4 summarizes the recommended Transportation Improvement Plan, 2016 through 2035, which is a comprehensive multimodal plan that is based on extensive public input and reflects a major update of the 2009 Plan. The table also identifies which projects are recommended for inclusion in the 2016-2021 TIP. In comparison to revenues, the TIP has a substantial funding shortfall. Table 4-4. Transportation Improvement Plan 2016-2035 Project 2016 – 2021 2022 – 2035 Total Annual Street Overlays $ 12,000,000 $ 30,000,000 $ 42,000,000 Citywide Signal Improvements 25,000 75,000 100,000 Citywide Cabinet and Controller Upgrades 160,000 490,000 650,000 Puget & Olympic View Drive 500,000 500,000 238th / 100th Ave Signal Upgrades 750,000 236,000 Puget Drive / 196th St SW / 88th Avenue W 903,000 903,000 Main Street / 9th Avenue N 911,000 911,000 Olympic View Drive / 76th Avenue W 1,183,000 1,183,000 220th Street SW / SR 99 3,215,000 3,215,000 220th Street SW / 76th Avenue W 4,314,000 4,314,000 84th Avenue W, 212th Street SW - 238th Street SW (50% split with Snohomish County) 15,441,000 15,441,000 80th Avenue Sight Distance 292,000 292,000 Main St / 3rd Ave signal upgrade 375,000 375,000 212th Street SW / SR 99 2,806,000 2,806,000 216th Street / SR 99 2,335,000 2,335,000 174th Street SW / Olympic View Drive 610,000 610,000 238th Street SW / Edmonds Way (SR 104) 1,339,000 1,339,000 238th Street SW, SR104 - 84th Avenue W 2,568,000 2,568,000 Packet Page 318 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 4-11 Project 2016 – 2021 2022 – 2035 Total 244th Street SW (SR 104) / 76th Avenue W (50% Split cost with Shoreline) 3,017,000 3,017,000 Citywide Walkway Projects (Update accordingly) 8,222,000 20,555,500 28,777,500 ADA Transition Plan 1,571,000 2,619,500 4,189,500 Citywide Bikeway Projects 160,000 395,000 555,000 Citywide Traffic Calming Program 60,000 140,000 200,000 Future Transportation Plan Updates 250,000 450,000 700,000 Debt Service on 220th Street SW Project 230,000 386,600 616,600 4th Avenue Corridor Enhancement 4,325,000 4,325,000 SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization 10,000,000 10,000,000 Audible Pedestrian Signals 25,000 25,000 Operational Enhancements 70,000 170,000 240,000 Citywide Pedestrian Lighting 25,000 55,000 80,000 Upgrade to citywide Protected permissive phasing 20,000 20,000 Trackside Warning System 300000 300000 Arterial Street Signal Coordination $50,000 50,000 TOTAL $49,276,000 $84,111,600 $133,387,600 Projected Revenue $17,076,630 $42,671,570 $59,768,200 Shortfall, unless alternative funding identified $32,199,370 $41,420,030 $73,619,400 INTERJURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION The City will coordinate with the following agencies to implement projects and strategies presented in this Transportation Plan:  Apply to the FHWA to implement recommended updates to the federal functional classification of some city streets, as summarized in Table 3-2.  Coordinate with WSDOT on projects to address future operational deficiencies on SR 104. Packet Page 319 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 4-12  Coordinate with Snohomish County for joint agency funding of the proposed 84th Avenue improvement.  If a higher funding level of TBD is put forward and approved by voters, coordinate with PSRC to include projects in the regional transportation plan so that they will be eligible for funding.  Coordinate with WSDOT and the FHWA to move forward with the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Project.  Coordinate with Community Transit to implement transit investments that are consistent with the City’s priorities; including construction of additional bus shelters and benches, and new transit routes. CONTINGENCY PLAN IN CASE OF REVENUE SHORTFALL Some revenue sources are very secure and highly reliable. However, other revenue sources are volatile, and therefore difficult to predict with confidence. To cover the shortfall identified in the previous section, or in the event that revenue from one or more of these sources is not forthcoming in the amounts forecasted in this Transportation Plan, the City has several options:  Change the LOS standard, and therefore reduce the need for road capacity improvement projects.  Increase the amount of revenue from existing sources.  Find new sources of revenue which could include additional TBD funding, business license fee for transportation, red light violation fines, transportation levy, non-motorized mitigation fees, LID/RIDs, and/or federal and state grants.  Require developers to provide such facilities at their own expense.  Change the Land Use Element in the Comprehensive Plan to reduce the amount of development, and thus reduce the need for additional public facilities; or to further concentrate growth along higher capacity roads that are served by transit. Packet Page 320 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 1 APPENDIX A Goals and Policies Comparison Table Packet Page 321 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 1 Old Policy Number New Policy Reason 1.1 2.1 1.2 2.3 1.3 3.1 1.4 Redundant with Policy 3.1 (new reference) 1.5 Covered by Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 (new references) 2.1 3.2 2.2 4.1 2.3 Covered within Policy 3.2 (new reference) 2.4 5.1 3.1 2.4 3.2 5.2 3.3 5.3 3.4 5.4 3.5 1.1 3.6 1.2 3.7 3.3 3.8 3.4 3.9 3.5 3.10 3.6 3.11 1.3 3.12 Covered within Policy 2.4 (new reference) 3.13 2.5 3.14 2.6 3.15 6.1 3.16 2.7 4.1 5.5 4.2 Overly specific, recommend this be included in Design Standards. 4.3 4.2 4.4 5.6 Old Policy Number New Policy Reason 4.5 5.7 5.1 This should be covered in Development Standards. 5.2 5.8 5.3 4.4 5.4 3.7 6.1 5.9 6.2 1.4 6.3 The Transportation Advisory Group felt this is an ongoing process that is unnecessary to put in policy. 6.4 3.8 6.5 4.5 6.6 1.5 6.7 4.6 6.8 5.10 6.9 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a policy. 6.10 4.8 6.11 4.7 6.12 4.9 6.13 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a policy. 6.14 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a policy. 6.15 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a policy. 6.16 4.10 6.17 4.11 6.18 4.12 6.19 2.8 7.1 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a Packet Page 322 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 2 Old Policy Number New Policy Reason policy. 7.2 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a policy. 7.3 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a policy. 7.4 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a policy. 8.1 1.6 8.2 4.13 8.3 6.2 8.4 4.14 8.5 4.15 8.6 8.7 4.16 9.1 6.3 9.2 6.4 9.3 6.5 9.4 6.6 9.5 6.7 9.6 Covered by Policy 6.9 (new reference) 9.7 6.8 9.8 Covered by Policy 6.9 (new reference) 9.9 6.9 9.10 6.10 9.11 6.11 9.12 5.11 10.1 6.12 10.2 6.13 10.3 6.14 10.4 6.15 10.5 6.16 Old Policy Number New Policy Reason 11.1 5.12 11.2 11.3 5.13 11.4 6.17 12.1 5.14 12.2 6.18 13.1 Overly specific, recommend this be included in Design Standards. 13.2 Overly specific, recommend this be included in Design Standards. 13.3 Overly specific, recommend this be included in Design Standards. 14.1 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a policy. 15.1 Replaced by new multimodal LOS Policy 15.2 Replaced by new multimodal LOS Policy 15.3 Replaced by new multimodal LOS Policy 15.4 Replaced by new multimodal LOS Policy 15.5 Replaced by new multimodal LOS Policy 15.6 2.9 15.7 5.15 16.1 2.10 16.2 3.9 16.3 5.16 16.4 This policy belongs more in the Land Use Element than Transportation Element. 16.5 6.19 17.1 6.20 Packet Page 323 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 3 Old Policy Number New Policy Reason 17.2 6.21 18.1 3.10 18.2 3.11 18.3 2.11 18.4 3.12 19.1 The Transportation Advisory Group felt this is an ongoing process that is unnecessary to put in policy. 19.2 Policy was out of date 19.3 3.13 20.1 This policy was not considered enforceable. 20.2 3.14 21.1 Duplicative of Policy 6.11 (new reference). 21.2 Duplicative of Policy 6.11 (new reference). 22.1 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a policy. 22.2 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a policy. 22.3 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a policy. 22.4 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a policy. 22.5 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a policy. 22.6 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a policy. 22.7 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a policy. 22.8 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a Old Policy Number New Policy Reason policy. 22.9 This seemed like more of an implementation item than a policy. 23.1 3.15 23.2 3.16 1.7 2.2 2.12 Removed language referring to a new transit/urban center Packet Page 324 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 4-4 APPENDIX B Supplemental Data Table B-1 Summary of Existing and Recommended Federal Functional Classifications Road Location Existing Recommended No Recommended Changes SR 104 (Main Street, Sunset Avenue, Edmonds Way, 244th Street SW) Edmonds-Kingston Ferry Dock – East City Limits Principal Arterial --- 244th Street SW SR 99 – SR 104 Principal Arterial --- SR 99 244th Street SW – 208th Street SW Principal Arterial --- SR 524 (3rd Avenue N, Caspers Street, 9th Avenue N, Puget Drive, 196th Street SW) Main Street – 76th Avenue W Principal Arterial --- 3rd Avenue S Pine Street – Main Street Principal Arterial --- Pine Street Sunset Avenue – 3rd Avenue S Principal Arterial --- Main Street Sunset Avenue – 84th Avenue W Minor Arterial --- Olympic View Drive 76th Avenue W – 168th Street SW Minor Arterial --- 212th Street SW 84th Avenue W – SR 99 Minor Arterial --- 220th Street SW SR 99 – East City Limits Minor Arterial --- 228th Street SW 95th Place W – East City Limits Minor Arterial --- 228th Street SW SR 99 – East City Limits Minor Arterial --- 238th Street SW Edmonds Way – SR 99 Minor Arterial --- 244th Street SW Firdale Avenue – SR 99 Minor Arterial --- 5th Avenue S Edmonds Way – Main Street Minor Arterial --- 100th Avenue W, Firdale Avenue, 9th Avenue S, 9th Avenue N 244th Street SW – Caspers Street Minor Arterial --- 76th Avenue W 212th Street SW – Olympic View Drive Minor Arterial --- Meadowdale Beach Road 76th Avenue W – Olympic View Drive Collector --- Olympic View Drive Puget Drive – 76th Avenue W Collector --- Walnut Street, Bowdoin Way 9th Avenue S – 84th Avenue W Collector --- W Dayton Street, Dayton Street Admiral Way - 5th Avenue S Collector --- 208th Street SW 76th Avenue W – SR 99 Collector --- 76th Avenue W, 95th Place W Olympic View Drive – North City Limits Collector --- Olympic Avenue Puget Drive – Olympic View Drive Collector --- Maplewood Drive, 200th Street SW Main Street – 88th Avenue W Collector --- 84th Avenue W 212th Street SW – 240th Street SW Collector --- Packet Page 325 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 4-5 Road Location Existing Recommended 88th Avenue W 200th Street SW - Olympic View Drive Collector --- 95th Place W Edmonds Way – 220th Street SW Collector --- 226th Street SW 108th Avenue W – Edmonds Way Collector --- 3rd Avenue S Elm Street – Pine Street Collector --- Recommended Higher Classification 7th Avenue N Main Street – Caspers Street Local Street Collector 80th Avenue W 212th Street SW - 220th Street SW Local Street Collector 80th Avenue W 200th Street SW - 196th Street SW Local Street Collector 96th Avenue W 220th Street SW – Walnut Street Local Street Collector Dayton Street 5th Avenue S – 100th Avenue W Local Street Collector 76th Avenue W 212th Street SW – NE 205th Street Collector Minor Arterial 84th Avenue W 212th Street SW – 238th Street SW Collector Minor Arterial 220th Street SW 100th Avenue W – SR 99 Collector Minor Arterial Recommend Lower Classification Admiral Way South of W Dayton Street Collector Local Street Packet Page 326 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 4-6 Table B-2 Inventory of City Streets Existing City Classification Street1 Location Speed Limit (mph) Number of Lanes Sidewalk Bikeway Principal Arterial Edmonds Way Pine Street – 244th Street SW 35 – 40 4 – 5 2 sides None SR 99 244th Street SW – 212th Street SW 45 7 2 sides None Sunset Avenue Pine Street – Dayton Street 40 4 – 5 2 sides None Sunset Avenue Dayton Street – Main Street 25 3 2 sides None Main Street Sunset Avenue – Ferry Terminal 25 4 – 5 2 sides None 244th Street SW SR 99 – East City Limits 40 4 – 5 2 sides None Minor Arterial Caspers Street 3rd Avenue N – 9th Avenue N 30 2 – 3 2 sides None Firdale Avenue 244th Street SW – 238th Street SW 25-35 3 2 sides None Main Street Sunset Avenue – 84th Avenue W 25 – 30 2 2 sides None Olympic View Drive 76th Avenue W – 168th Street SW 30 2-3 2 sides None Puget Drive/196th Street SW 9th Avenue N – 76th Avenue W 30 – 35 2 – 4 2 sides partially None 3rd Avenue N Main Street – Caspers Street 25 – 30 2 2 sides None 5th Avenue S Edmonds Way – Main Street 25 2 2 sides None 9th Avenue 220th Street SW – Caspers Street 25 – 30 2 2 sides None 9th Avenue N Caspers Street – Puget Drive 30 3 2 sides None 76th Avenue W 244th Street SW – SR 99 30 2 2 sides None 76th Avenue W SR 99 – 212th Street SW 30 2 – 4 2 sides None Packet Page 327 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 4-7 Existing City Classification Street1 Location Speed Limit (mph) Number of Lanes Sidewalk Bikeway 76th Avenue W 212th Street SW – Olympic View Drive 30 2 – 4 2 sides None 100th Avenue W South City Limits – 238th Street SW 35 2 2 sides None 100th Avenue W 238th Street SW – Edmonds Way 30 – 35 4 2 sides None 100th Avenue W Edmonds Way – 220th Street SW 30 2 – 4 2 sides None 212th Street SW 84th Avenue W – 76th Avenue W 30 2 – 3 2 sides Bike route 212th Street SW 76th Avenue W – SR 99 30 4 2 sides None 220th Street SW 9th Avenue S – 84th Avenue W 30 2 2 sides Bike lanes 220th Street SW 84th Avenue W – SR 99 30 2 – 3 2 sides None 228th Street SW SR 99 – East City Limits 25 2 2 sides None 238th Street SW Edmonds Way – SR 99 30 2 2 sides partially None 228th Street SW 95th Place W – SR 99 25 2 Very short 2 sides None Collector Dayton Street Admiral Way – 9th Avenue S 25 2 – 3 2 sides None Maplewood Drive Main Street – 200th Street SW 25 2 None None Meadowdale Beach Road 76th Avenue W – Olympic View Drive 25 2 None None Olympic View Drive Puget Drive – 76th Avenue W 25 2 1 side None Walnut Street, Bowdoin Way 9th Avenue S – 84th Avenue W 25 – 30 2 2 sides None 3rd Avenue S Edmonds Way – Main Street 25 2 2 sides mostly None 7th Avenue N Main Street – Caspers Street 25 2 2 sides mostly None Packet Page 328 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 4-8 Existing City Classification Street1 Location Speed Limit (mph) Number of Lanes Sidewalk Bikeway 76th Avenue W, 75th Place W Olympic View Drive – North City Limits 25 – 30 2 1 side None 80th Avenue W 212th Street SW – 220th Street SW 25 2 1 side partially None 84th Avenue W 238th Street SW – 212th Street SW 25 2 Very short 2 sides None 88th Avenue W 200th Street SW - Olympic View Drive 25 2 1 side None 95th Place W Edmonds Way – 220th Street SW 25 2 1 side None 96th Avenue W 220th Street SW – Walnut Street 25 2 None None 200th Street SW Maplewood Drive – 76th Avenue W 25 2 1 side None 208th Street SW 76th Avenue W – East City Limits 30 2 None Bike lane 1. All other city streets not listed in this table are local access streets. Packet Page 329 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 4-9 APPENDIX C Travel Model Transportation Analysis Zones Packet Page 330 of 452 58 55 30 11 36 46 27 62 6160 59 52 56 54 53 57 25 24 21 23 22 32 31 29 33 34 41 42 43 37 50 51 47 9 7 8 14 16 6 20 5 19184 1713 12 3 2110 26 28 15 49 48 35 4538 44 39 40 YostPark 524 104 99 A n d o v e r S t 174th St SW 6 t h A v e S E d m o n d s Way R o b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Sun s e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F i r d a l e A ve 10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 226th St SW 186th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n 7 2 n d A v e W Maple St 184th St SW Puget Dr 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin W a y 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW T a l b o t R d 68 t h A v e W 188th St SW 200th St SW 10 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 176th St SW 208th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 212th St SW 196th St SW 220th St SW O l y m p i c V i e w D r 76 t h A v e W Meadowdale Beach Rd K i n g s t o n -E d m o n d s F e r r y Transportation Analysis Zones LakeBallinger City ofEdmonds Pine RidgePark LynndalePark Southwest CountyPark 5 Legend PugetSound Appendix C \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ T M P \ A p p e n d i x C _ T A Z _ Z o n e s . m x d MaplewoodPark DRAFT Snohomish CountyKing County City TAZ Boundaries Packet Page 331 of 452 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 4-10 APPENDIX D Walkway Project Ratings Packet Page 332 of 452 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Wa l k w a y R o u t e S e l e c t i o n M a t r i x Wa l k w a y S e l e c t i o n C r i t e r i a : We i g h t i n g F a c t o r ( W F ) Pe d e s t r i a n S a f e t y ( P S ) 5 Co n n e c t i v i t y - S e r v i c e s / F a c i l i t i e s / L i n k s ( C S F L ) 5 Ac t i v i t y ( A C T ) 3 Di s t a n c e f r o m S c h o o l ( D S ) 3 Co n n e c t i v i t y t o t r a n s i t r o u t e s a n d f a c i l i t i e s ( C T ) 2 En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s ( E I ) 1 Pede stri an Saf ety RATIN G = WF x Pt s. Conn ec tivity RATIN G = WF x Pt s. Acti vity RATIN G = WF x Pt s. Dist ance from schoo l RATIN G = WF x Pt s. Conn ec tivity to trans it routes and fa cilities RATIN G = WF X Pts Env ironmental Impacts RATIN G = WF x Pts. P S A pproximate T O T A L Unit Est. Pt s . L e n g t h P O I N T S C o s t C o s t 1 Da y t o n S t . 7t h A v . S 8t h A v . S Co l l e c t o r S t r e e t 31 5 3 1 5 2 6 3 9 1 2 1 1 250'48 $300/LF $75,000 2 2n d A v . Ma i n S t . Ja m e s S t . Lo c a l S t r e e t 31 5 3 1 5 2 6 1 3 1 2 1 1 100'42 $300/LF $30,000 3 Wa l n u t S t . 3r d A v . S 4t h A v . S Lo c a l S t r e e t 31 5 2 1 0 2 6 1 3 2 4 1 1 350'39 $300/LF $105,000 4 21 6 t h S t . S W 72 n d A v e . W Hw y 9 9 Lo c a l S t r e e t 21 0 2 1 0 3 9 1 3 3 6 1 1 350'39 $450/LF $157,500 5 84 t h A v . W 18 8 t h S t . S W 1 8 6 t h S t . S W Lo c a l S t r e e t 21 0 2 1 0 2 6 3 9 1 2 1 1 700'38 $450/LF $315,000 6 El m W a y 8t h A v e . S 9t h A v e . S Lo c a l S t r e e t 21 0 2 1 0 2 6 2 6 1 2 1 1 750'35 $300/LF $225,000 7 80 t h A v e . W 21 8 t h S t . S W 2 2 0 t h S t . S W Lo c a l S t r e e t 21 0 2 1 0 2 6 1 3 2 4 1 1 700'34 $450/LF $315,000 8 Ma p l e S t . We s t o f 6 t h A v . S 8 t h A v . S Lo c a l S t r e e t 21 0 2 1 0 2 6 1 3 1 2 1 1 250'32 $300/LF $75,000 9 Wa l n u t S t . 6t h A v . S 7t h A v . S Lo c a l S t r e e t 21 0 2 1 0 2 6 1 3 1 2 1 1 700'32 $300/LF $210,000 10 Pa v e d T r a i l ( 1 8 4 t h S t . S W ) 80 t h A v e . W OV D Tr a i l 21 0 2 1 0 1 3 1 3 2 4 1 1 1000'31 $450/LF $450,000 11 19 0 t h P l . S W 94 t h A v . W OV D Lo c a l S t r e e t 21 0 1 5 2 6 1 3 1 2 1 1 700'27 $450/LF $315,000 12 8t h A v . Wa l n u t A v . S o u t h o f W a l n u t L o c a l S t r e e t 15 2 1 0 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 150'24 $300/LF $45,000 Pt s . P t s . P t s . Pt s . Pt s . EI AC T D S C T ST R E E T N A M E F R O M RO A D W A Y C L A S S I F I C A T I O N Ra n k i n g TO CS F L Packet Page 333 of 452 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Wa l k w a y R o u t e S e l e c t i o n M a t r i x Wa l k w a y S e l e c t i o n C r i t e r i a : We i g h t i n g F a c t o r (W F ) Pe d e s t r i a n S a f e t y ( P S ) 5 Co n n e c t i v i t y - S e r v i c e s / F a c i l i t i e s / L i n k s ( C S F L ) 5 Ac t i v i t y ( A C T ) 3 Di s t a n c e f r o m S c h o o l ( D S ) 3 Co n n e c t i v i t y t o T r a n s i t r o u t e s a n d F a c i l i t i e s ( C T ) 2 En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s ( E I ) 1 Pedestrian S afety RATING = WF x Pts . Connectivity - S er vices / F ac ilities / Li nks RATING = WF x Pts . Activi ty ( ATC) RATING = WF x Pts . Distance From School RATING = WF x Pts . Connectivity to Transit Routes and Facili ti es RATING = WF x Pts . Envi ronmental Impacts RATING = WF x Pts . St r e e t N a m e Fr o m To P S C S F L A pp r o x i m a t e T O T A L P R I O R I T Y Unit Est. Pt s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . L e n g t h P O I N T S C o s t C o s t 1 80 t h A v . W 20 6 t h S t . S W 2 1 2 n d S t . S W 3 1 5 3 1 5 39 2 6 1 2 2 2 20 0 0 ' 4 9 1 $ 4 5 0 / L F $900,000 2 21 8 t h S t . S W 76 t h A v e . W 84 t h A v . W 3 1 5 3 1 5 39 2 6 1 2 1 1 27 0 0 ' 4 8 1 $ 4 5 0 / L F $1,215,000 3 2 3 6 t h S t . S W / 2 3 4 t h S t . S W SR - 1 0 4 97 t h P l . W 3 1 5 2 1 0 26 3 9 2 4 1 1 31 0 0 ' 4 5 1 $ 4 5 0 / L F $1,395,000 4 84 t h A v . W 23 8 t h S t . S W 23 4 t h S t . S W 3 1 5 3 1 5 26 1 3 2 4 1 1 13 0 0 ' 4 4 1 $ 4 5 0 / L F $585,000 5 23 6 t h S t . S W SR - 1 0 4 Ea s t o f 8 4 t h A v . W 3 1 5 3 1 5 26 1 3 2 4 1 1 21 0 0 ' 4 4 1 $ 4 5 0 / L F $945,000 6 19 1 s t . S t S W 80 t h A v . W 76 t h A v . W 3 1 5 3 1 5 13 1 3 2 4 1 1 14 0 0 ' 4 1 1 $ 4 5 0 / L F $630,000 7 95 t h P l . W 22 4 t h S t . S W 22 0 t h S t . S W 3 1 5 3 1 5 13 1 3 2 4 1 1 13 0 0 ' 4 1 1 $ 4 5 0 / L F $585,000 8 1 0 4 t h A v e . W / R o b i n H o o d 23 8 t h S t . S W 10 6 t h A v . W 3 1 5 2 1 0 13 2 6 2 4 1 1 22 0 0 ' 3 9 1 $ 4 5 0 / L F $990,000 9 23 6 t h S t . S W Hw y . 9 9 76 t h A v e . W 3 1 5 2 1 0 13 2 6 2 4 1 1 17 0 0 ' 3 9 1 $ 4 5 0 / L F $765,000 10 23 2 n d S t . W 10 0 t h A v . W 97 t h A v . W 3 1 5 2 1 0 13 2 6 2 4 1 1 10 0 0 ' 3 9 1 $ 4 5 0 / L F $450,000 11 23 8 t h S t . S W Hw y . 9 9 76 t h A v . W 3 1 5 2 1 0 26 1 3 2 4 1 1 26 0 0 ' 3 9 1 $ 4 5 0 / L F $1,170,000 12 8 0 t h A v . W / 1 8 0 t h S t . S W 18 8 t h S t . S W OV D 3 1 5 2 1 0 26 1 3 1 2 1 1 30 0 0 ' 3 7 1 $ 4 5 0 / L F $1,350,000 13 18 9 t h P l . S W 80 t h A v . W 76 t h A v e . W 2 1 0 3 1 5 13 1 3 2 4 1 1 13 0 0 ' 3 6 1 $ 4 5 0 / L F $585,000 14 Ol y m p i c A v . Pu g e t D r . Ma i n S t . 2 1 0 2 1 0 26 2 6 1 2 1 1 40 0 0 ' 3 5 2 $ 4 5 0 / L F $1,800,000 Ra n k i n g AC T D S C T EI \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 5 6 _ E d m o n d s _ T r a n s P l a n \ A n a l y s i s \ C o s t s \ F r o m P e r t e e t \ W a l k w a y a n d B i k e \ C o s t e d F i n a l R a n k e d L o n g W a l k w a y L i s t . x l s Page H-1 Packet Page 334 of 452 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Wa l k w a y R o u t e S e l e c t i o n M a t r i x Wa l k w a y S e l e c t i o n C r i t e r i a : We i g h t i n g F a c t o r (W F ) Pe d e s t r i a n S a f e t y ( P S ) 5 Co n n e c t i v i t y - S e r v i c e s / F a c i l i t i e s / L i n k s ( C S F L ) 5 Ac t i v i t y ( A C T ) 3 Di s t a n c e f r o m S c h o o l ( D S ) 3 Co n n e c t i v i t y t o T r a n s i t r o u t e s a n d F a c i l i t i e s ( C T ) 2 En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s ( E I ) 1 Pedestrian S afety RATING = WF x Pts . Connectivity - S er vices / F ac ilities / Li nks RATING = WF x Pts . Activi ty ( ATC) RATING = WF x Pts . Distance From School RATING = WF x Pts . Connectivity to Transit Routes and Facili ti es RATING = WF x Pts . Envi ronmental Impacts RATING = WF x Pts . St r e e t N a m e Fr o m To P S C S F L A pp r o x i m a t e T O T A L P R I O R I T Y Unit Est. Pt s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . L e n g t h P O I N T S C o s t C o s t Ra n k i n g AC T D S C T EI 15 19 2 n d S t . S W 84 t h A v . W 88 t h A v . W 2 1 0 2 1 0 26 2 6 1 2 1 1 13 0 0 ' 3 5 2 $ 4 5 0 / L F $585,000 16 8t h A v e . W 14 t h S t . S W El m W a y 2 1 0 2 1 0 26 2 6 1 2 1 1 11 0 0 ' 3 5 2 $ 4 5 0 / L F $495,000 17 Pi n e S t . 9t h A v . W SR 1 0 4 2 1 0 2 1 0 26 1 3 1 2 1 1 40 0 0 ' 3 2 2 $ 4 5 0 / L F $1,800,000 18 18 8 t h S t . S W 88 t h A v . W 92 n d A v . W 2 1 0 2 1 0 26 1 3 1 2 1 1 10 0 0 ' 3 2 2 $ 4 5 0 / L F $450,000 19 21 6 t h S t . S W 86 t h A v e . W 92 n d A v . W 2 1 0 2 1 0 26 1 3 1 2 1 1 24 5 0 ' 3 2 2 $ 4 5 0 / L F $1,102,500 20 92 n d A v . W B o w n d o i n S t . 22 0 t h S t . S W 2 1 0 2 1 0 26 1 3 1 2 1 1 22 5 0 ' 3 2 2 $ 4 5 0 / L F $1,012,500 21 Ma p l e w o o d D r . Ma i n S t . 20 0 t h S t . S W 2 1 0 2 1 0 26 1 3 1 2 1 1 27 0 0 ' 3 2 2 $ 4 5 0 / L F $1,215,000 22 72 n d A v . W OV D 17 6 t h S t . S W 2 1 0 2 1 0 26 1 3 1 2 1 1 29 0 0 ' 3 2 2 $ 4 5 0 / L F $1,305,000 23 M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R d OV D 76 t h A v . W 2 1 0 2 1 0 13 1 3 1 2 1 1 38 0 0 ' 2 9 2 $ 4 5 0 / L F $1,710,000 24 17 6 t h S t . S W 72 n d A v . W OV D 2 1 0 15 2 6 1 3 1 2 1 1 14 0 0 ' 2 7 2 $ 4 5 0 / L F $630,000 25 92 n d A v . W 18 9 t h P l . S W 18 6 t h P l . S W 2 1 0 15 1 3 1 3 2 4 1 1 10 0 0 ' 2 6 2 $ 4 5 0 / L F $450,000 26 A n d o v e r S t . / 1 8 4 t h S t . S W 18 4 t h S t . S W / 8 8 t h A v . W O V D / A n d o v e r S t . 2 1 0 15 1 3 1 3 2 4 1 1 35 0 0 ' 2 6 2 $ 4 5 0 / L F $1,575,000 27 18 6 t h S t . S W Se a v i e w P a r k 8 6 0 8 1 8 5 t h P l S W 2 1 0 15 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 17 0 0 ' 2 4 2 $ 4 5 0 / L F $765,000 \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 5 6 _ E d m o n d s _ T r a n s P l a n \ A n a l y s i s \ C o s t s \ F r o m P e r t e e t \ W a l k w a y a n d B i k e \ C o s t e d F i n a l R a n k e d L o n g W a l k w a y L i s t . x l s Page H-2 Packet Page 335 of 452 City of Edmonds Transportation Plan Update Draft Transportation Plan Packet Page 336 of 452 Report Outline 1.Introduction 2.Goals & Policies- includes updates from Planning Board and Council; comparison table in appendix 3.Transportation Network- includes project lists reviewed in April 4.Implementation and Financial Plan-includes new material on costs and funding Packet Page 337 of 452 Review of City Council Previous Comments See Attachment in Packet Policies Project List Other Packet Page 338 of 452 Project Costs Category Costs (Million) Roadway $49 Pedestrian and Bicycle $33 Preservation and Maintenance $44 Other (Traffic Calming, Operations, etc) $ 7 TOTAL COST $133 Packet Page 339 of 452 Potential Project Revenues- Current Sources Source Amount ($M) Grants (unsecured) $18.6 Real Estate Excise Tax for Street Preservation 15.8 Transfers from General Fund for Street Preservation 11.3 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 8.0 Traffic Impact / Mitigation Fees 4.0 Stormwater Funds 1.5 Transfers from Capital Fund 0.5 Interest Income 0.1 TOTAL $59.8 Packet Page 340 of 452 Compare Costs to Revenues Category Costs (Million) Existing Funding Sources (See Table 4-2) $60 Compare to Total Costs $133 Revenue Shortfall $73 Potential Additional Optional Sources (See Table 4-3) $144 Packet Page 341 of 452 Additional Optional Revenue Sources Source TBD License Fee (assumed up to $80 per license per year) TBD Sales Tax (at 0.2%) Business License Fee for Transportation (at $50 per year per full-time equivalent employee) Red Light Violation Fine (at $50 per violation after program costs) – must be used for safety projects. Transportation Levy (at $0.20 per year) Non-motorized Mitigation Fee (at 20% of project costs) Local Improvement District / Roadway Improvement District Additional Grants Packet Page 342 of 452 Next Steps May 26: City Council discussion June 10: Public Open House Packet Page 343 of 452 Questions? Bertrand Hauss Don Samdahl Packet Page 344 of 452 Packet Page 345 of 452 Packet Page 346 of 452 Packet Page 347 of 452 City Council Questions / Comments regarding Goals & Policies Item (@ March 3rd, 2015 City Council meeting) 1. Create Comparison Chart with how each Goal and Policy from last Transportation Plan was addressed: addressed in Appendix A of DRAFT Transportation Plan 2. Separation of Policy 4.12 (Policy 6.18 in previous plan) into two sentences so separate references to multi-use path and walkways: addressed by separating the two in Policy 3. Provide additional details regarding reference to Transportation Facilities in Policy 5.5 (Policy 4.1 in previous plan): details added. 4. Add reference to Transit-Oriented areas (with safe access for various modes of transportation): added in Policy 2.12 5. Clarification regarding the differences between motorized and non-motorized transportation: definitions to be added in GLOSSARY and Main Sections of the Plan ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ City Council Questions / Comments regarding Project List Item (@ April 21st, 2015 City Council meeting) 1. Modify Walkway limits a. 232nd St from 100th to SR-104 (end limit was previously 97th Ave. W): addressed / currently being re-evaluated by Transportation Committee. b. 218th St. from 92nd Ave. to 86th Ave.: no modification since sidewalk exists to the east of project limits (86th Ave.). 2. Responses to several comments / questions were sent out (via email) to all City Council members the day after the meeting (April 22nd, 2015) a. Council Member Petso question: how were the limits chosen for Walkway Project L10 (232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. to 97th Ave.) and L19 (188th St. from 88th Ave. W to 92nd Ave. W)? L10 is the same stretch that was identified in the 2009 Transportation Plan. The project limits are currently from a minor arterial to a local street. The Packet Page 348 of 452 project limits should be extended to SR-104 (instead of 97th Ave. W), creating a connection to a Principal Arterial and therefore making a future grant application more competitive. This information will be forwarded to the Transportation Committee to see what effect this has on the Long Walkway Ranking. For L19, the proposed stretch creates a connection from a T-Intersection to a Collector Street (88th Ave. W) and no extension is needed. b. Council Member Bloom question: From the 2009 Walkway Plan, what projects have been completed and what projects have been added to the 2015 Walkway Plan? The following projects have been completed or will be completed in 2015 or 2016: • 226th St. SW from 106th Ave. W to SR-104 (S6); • 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W (L9 / project to be completed in 2015); and • 236th St. SW from SR-104 to 97th Ave. (L1): a section of that project (SR- 104 to Madrona Elementary) will be completed in 2016. The following projects are new additions (not included in 2009 Walkway Plan): • 216th St. SW from 72nd Ave. to Hwy 99 (S4 / Committee addition) • 80th Ave. W from 218th to 220th (S7 / Committee addition) • Elm Way from 8th Ave. to 9th Ave. (S6 / Open House addition) • 236th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W (L9 / Committee addition) • 189th Pl. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W. (L14 / Committee addition) • 95th Pl. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW (L7 / Open House addition) • 8th Av. W from 14th St. SW to Elm Way (L17 / Open House addition) • Sunset Ave. from Bell St. to Caspers St. (being evaluated by Transportation Committee) c. Council Member Bloom question: what crosswalks are being proposed in this Walkway Plan? What crosswalks have been added over the last couple of years? What is the process if someone is requesting the addition of a crosswalk? Crosswalks are being proposed at several locations along SR-104, such as 232nd St. SW intersection (existing emergency signal), south end of 5th Ave. S (connection to existing bus stop), and along 100th Ave. W (north and south of Westgate). The locations were identified as part the SR-104 Study, currently Packet Page 349 of 452 being completed and with the same schedule as the 2015 Transportation Plan. Crosswalks have been added at several locations over the last couple of years, such as Main St. between 5th Ave. and 6th Ave and on the west side of the 216th St. SW @ 72nd Ave. W intersection. As discussed last night, the addition of a new crosswalk may create less safe pedestrian conditions in the case where the number of pedestrians crossing are very low (driver isn’t expecting pedestrian activity at that location). Prior to any crosswalk addition, the City typically looks at different criterias to see if such an installation is warranted or not, such as the number of pedestrians crossing at that location, the street classification, the existing sight distance, and the average daily traffic (ADT). d. Council Member Fraley-Monillas question: the crosswalk at the intersection of 76th Ave. W @ 236th St. SW needs to be re-installed or the orange blinking lights should be removed? The blinking lights at the intersection were most likely installed to call attention to the up-coming stop sign for east / west vehicular traffic (to prevent accidents should a driver fail to see the STOP sign during the day or night hours while traveling in those directions / long straight-away with no stopping). It doesn’t appear to have been installed to warm drivers about pedestrian activity at the intersection. The blinking amber light also has the additional benefit of calming traffic for the northbound and southbound movements on 76th. Both of these positive impacts from the light also provide some benefits to any pedestrian traffic at all legs of the intersection. City of Edmonds (like many other jurisdictions) is opposed to installing crosswalks where the appropriate warrants aren't met. It really can be counter-productive to pedestrian safety. Packet Page 350 of 452    AM-7718     8.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/19/2015 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Al Compaan Department:Police Department Type: Action  Information Subject Title Resolution to Dissolve Emergency Services Coordinating Agency (ESCA) Recommendation Passage of the resolution Previous Council Action Narrative The City of Edmonds has been a partner with the Emergency Services Coordinating Agency (ESCA) by Inter-Local Agreement (ILA) since 1994. The cities in southwest Snohomish County, as well as three cities in northwestern King County, have comprised the member agencies of ESCA, a separate governmental entity tasked with emergency management coordinating activities for its members. Governance of ESCA is by its Board of Directors, with each member city having one Board representative. At the March 26, 2015, meeting of the ESCA Board of Directors, the Board discussed the future of ESCA. Action taken at that meeting was passage of a Board resolution recommending to the city councils of ESCA cities the dissolution of ESCA and termination of the ILA, effective December 31, 2015. Formal action by those city councils and notification to the ESCA Director of action taken is requested by June 30, 2015. Members of the ESCA Board representing respective cities within Snohomish County are of consensus that the Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management (DEM) is a very viable alternative to ESCA. DEM is able to provide level of service commensurate with that mandated by federal law and the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 38.52 on the provision of relevant comprehensive emergency management plans and programs. In addition to DEM's ability to meet service expectations, DEM is also able to provide those services at a lower cost to the ESCA cities than has been the case under the present ILA with ESCA. The financial specifics are noted in the Fiscal Impact section. For these reasons, discussion has taken place between representatives of the ESCA Board and representatives of DEM, to include development of an ILA that can be presented for city council approval. The intent is for an ILA with DEM to take effect 1-1-2016, but to also include at no cost to our city certain "bridge" provisions to ensure smooth transition from ESCA to DEM during the time period between when the ILA is ratified to the end of 2015. It is expected that an ILA with DEM can be presented to Edmonds City Council within the next 60 days. Packet Page 351 of 452 Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue: Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: City of Edmonds allocation to ESCA for 2015: General Fund allocation for ESCA $94,505 Federal Grant Funds to ESCA on behalf of city of Edmonds $26,226 Total paid to ESCA for 2015 = $120,731 Pro-Forma allocation to DEM for 2015: General Fund allocation to DEM $44,744 (based on per-capita charge of $1.12 and Edmonds population of 39,950) Federal Grant Funds to DEM on behalf of city of Edmonds $26,226 Total to DEM for 2015 = $70,970 Pro-Forma savings with DEM for 2015 = $49,761 Attachments Resolution - ESCA Dissolution Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 05/12/2015 11:44 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/12/2015 11:49 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/12/2015 11:50 AM Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 05/11/2015 01:28 PM Final Approval Date: 05/12/2015  Packet Page 352 of 452 RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DETERMINING THAT THE EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATING AGENCY (ESCA) SHOULD BE DISSOLVED EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 2015. WHEREAS, in 1994, the City of Edmonds joined with several other cities to form the Emergency Services Coordinating Agency or ESCA; and WHEREAS, these cities entered into a May 16, 1994 Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for the Emergency Services Coordinating Agency (hereinafter, “ESCA ILA”) that created a separate governmental entity constituted of the member cities to combine emergency management coordinating activities; and WHEREAS, under Section 7 of the ESCA ILA, the ESCA ILA may be terminated at any time by the agreement of a majority of the parties; and WHEREAS, after consideration and discussion, on March 26, 2015, the Board of Directors of ESCA adopted a resolution recommending the dissolution of ESCA and the termination of the (ILA), effective December 31, 2015, to the city councils of the ESCA members, for formal action by those city councils and notification to the ESCA Director by June 30, 2015; and WHEREAS, the city council has been fully advised regarding the rationale behind the recommendation to dissolve ESCA and believes that it is in the City of Edmonds’ best interest to have ESCA dissolved, now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. It is the City Council’s determination that ESCA should be dissolved by action taken no later than June 30, 2015, with dissolution becoming effective at the end of the day on December 31, 2015. Section 2. The City of Edmonds’ duly authorized ESCA board representative shall cast a vote to dissolve ESCA when that question comes again before the ESCA board. RESOLVED this _____ day of May, 2015. CITY OF EDMONDS _______________________ MAYOR, DAVE EARLING Packet Page 353 of 452 ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. ____ Packet Page 354 of 452    AM-7733     9.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/19/2015 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Edmonds Fish Hatchery Lease Agreement Recommendation Council discuss and forward to next meeting for approval on the consent agenda. Previous Council Action None Narrative The Edmonds Fish Hatchery has been operated by the Edmonds Trout Unlimited organization for the past 10 years.  They have been instrumental in rearing 80,000 salmon yearlings every year.  They release them in Swamp creek and North creek,  to find their way to the Puget Sound.  They also operate the netpen project every year. Their services are very valuable to the City, and without them, we do not have the capacity to operate the hatchery. This lease has been drafted by Lighthouse, and reviewed by Edmonds Trout Unlimited.  As Council can see, the agreement is for 5 years.  Edmonds Trout Unlimited is concerned about their ability to operate and maintain the Hatchery beyond this.  Staff will work with them to figure out a succession plan for the hatchery. It also should be known that there are several other groups in the Edmonds area that use the hatchery building with permission of the Trout Unlimited group.  Based on this lease, the language clearly gives the Edmonds Trout Unlimited responsibility for allowing and/or limiting the use of the facility based on their own operating costs, insurance requirements, and third party agreements.   The exception to this is reserved use by the City. Attachments Fish Hatchery Lease  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 05/14/2015 11:26 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/14/2015 02:05 PM Packet Page 355 of 452 Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/14/2015 02:44 PM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 05/14/2015 09:17 AM Final Approval Date: 05/14/2015  Packet Page 356 of 452 1 CITY OF EDMONDS / LAEBUGTEN SALMON CHAPTER LEASE of CITY HATCHERY PROPERTY THIS LEASE is made this _____ day of __________ 2015, between City of Edmonds, Washington, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Lessor”) and Edmonds Trout Unlimited (hereinafter referred to as “Lessee”). 1. Premises. The Lessor leases to Lesee, and Lessee leases from Lessor those certain premises situated in the City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington described on Schedule A attached hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “Premises”). 2. Purpose and Uses. The Premises are to be used for the purpose of conducting therein a fish hatching and rearing facility and other fish related activities, and the parties stipulate that Lessee serves public educational and environmental enhancement purposes. The Premises has been designated as a “special use” area under Lessor’s Parks and Open Space Plan. a. Lessee Use. The Lessee shall have the right to use the Premises for the purposes outlined above, as well as the right to provide access to the Premises by community groups for similar purposes. Lessee may charge a rental fee to such groups and will maintain a schedule for such use. b. Lessor Use. The Lessor expressly reserves the right to conduct environmental education, public tours and open houses at the Premises. Lessor further reserves the right in the future to locate and construct, at its sole discretion and expense, an interpretative center for City Discovery or other programs as well as provision for an expanded connection to the site and Lessee’s hatchery by means of viewing areas in or adjacent to the Lessor’s Edmonds Marsh. The City will consult with Laebugten Salmon Chapter to ensure that any proposed City use does not unreasonably impair the primary use by Laebugten of the site for hatchery purposes. 3. Term. The term of this lease shall be for five (5) years and shall commence on April 7, 2015 and end on April 6, 2020. Either party may terminate the lease without cause upon giving the other party one (1) year written notice. The parties may extend the term of the lease for future terms upon their mutual agreement. 4. Rent. Lessee will pay Lessor an annual rental of One Dollar ($1.00) in advance on the 1st day of March each calendar year of the lease term. This rental amount is based upon the public purposes set forth in paragraph 2 above and the limited commercial value of the Premises due to the joint use therein provided. 5. Utilities. Lessee will pay all charges for heat, electricity, water, sewer and garbage, and for all other public utilities which shall be used in or charged against the leased premises during the full term of this lease due to its use. The Lessor shall pay any such costs Packet Page 357 of 452 attributable to its future use of the Premises pursuant to paragraph 2 above. Lessor shall not be liable for the failure of any such service for any reason whatsoever. 6. Indemnity. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Trout Unlimited Chapter/Council shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City of Edmonds harmless, solely to the extent of Chapter/Council’s insurance, from and against any and all claims, suits, damages, liability, loss, and costs, which may be brought against or suffered by the City of Edmonds arising from any bodily injury or property damage caused by the negligent acts of Chapter/Council, its employees, or its volunteers in connection with work or other activities done pursuant to this agreement. This indemnification does not cover any claims resulting from the negligent or wrongful acts of any of the contractors or vendors identified by Chapter. All such contractors and vendors shall separately execute indemnity agreements that are acceptable to the City of Edmonds covering their activities, in addition to naming Chapter/Council as an additional insured. 7. Insurance. Lessee shall procure and maintain, for the duration of the lease: (a) insurance policy or policies covering the Premises and insuring the same against all perils insurable under the standard form of fire and extended coverage insurance policies available in the State of Washington. Said insurance policy or policies shall be in an amount not less than the replacement value of any and all leased buildings located on the Premises; and (b) commercial general liability and property damage insurance covering any and all claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with Lessee’s operation and use of the Premises. Such insurance shall be in an aggregate amount of not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death, and property damage, with a per occurrence amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000). Such policy or policies shall name Lessor as an additional insured, and shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the provision that they are the primary insurance as respects Lessor. Any insurance, self-insurance or insurance pool coverage maintained by Lessor shall be in excess of Lessee’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. Lessee and Lessor hereby release and discharge each other from all claims, losses and liabilities arising from or caused by any hazard covered by property insurance on or in connection with the premises or building. This release shall apply only to the extent that such claim, loss or liability is covered by insurance. Required insurance shall be obtained from a company or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW, and all insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington with an A.M. Best rating of not less than A: VII. Lessee shall submit to Lessor a verification of insurance as outlined above, along with copies of all endorsements, within fourteen days of the execution of this lease. Lessor reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. Lessee shall provide Lessor with written notice of any policy cancellation within two (2) business days of Lessee’s receipt of such notice. No cancellation by Lessee of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty (30) days prior notice to Lessor. Packet Page 358 of 452 Lessee’s maintenance of insurance as required by this lease shall not be construed to limit Lessor’s recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. Failure on the part of Lessee to maintain the insurance as required in this lease shall constitute a material breach of the lease, upon which Lessor may, after first giving five (5) business days’ notice to Lessee to correct the breach, terminate the lease or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to Lessor on demand. Lessee further agrees to indemnify and hold Lessor harmless from any and all claims not otherwise insured under this lease arising out of Lessee’s activities and programs conducted on or about said Premises, including all third party use of the Premises. Lessee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Lessor, its officers, officials, employees, representatives and volunteers from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, or liabilities for injury or death of any person, or for loss or damage to property, which arise out of Lessee’s or third parties’ use of the Premises, or from the conduct of Lessee’s business, or from any activity, work or thing done, permitted, or suffered by Lessee in or about the Premises, except such injury or damage as shall have been occasioned by the sole negligence of Lessor. 8. Repairs and Use. The Premises, including all fixtures and appurtenances, have been inspected and are accepted by Lessee in their present condition. No representation as to the condition or repair of the Premises has been expressed by Lessor, and neither Lessor, nor its representatives, employees or agents shall be liable for loss of or damage to any property of Lessee arising from any defect in the construction of the Premises, whether known or unknown. Lessee will permit no waste, damage or injury to the Premises, and will maintain the Premises and promptly make all necessary repairs, including but not limited to all repair and maintenance of plumbing, electrical and related items, at its sole cost and expense. Lessee shall, at all times, use said Premises in accordance with, and comply with the laws of the state of Washington and ordinances of the City of Edmonds and Snohomish County, and in accordance with all directions, rules and regulations of any proper officer of said city and county, at the sole cost and expense of Lessee. At the expiration or sooner termination of this lease, Lessee will remove its improvements and surrender the Premises in a graded condition with no excavations. a. Lessor shall not be called upon to make any improvement or repair of any kind upon said Premises or the services thereto. b. The use rights granted hereunder are not exclusive and are subject to the rights reserved in paragraph 2(b) above. 9. Accidents. All personal property on said leased Premises shall be at the risk of Lessee. Lessor, or Lessor’s agent, shall not be liable for theft or any damage, either to person or property, sustained by Lessee or others, caused by any defects now in the Premises, or any service facilities, or hereafter occurring therein. 10. Liens. Lessee shall keep the leased Premises and the property in which the leased Premises are situated free from any liens arising out of any work performed, materials furnished or obligations incurred by Lessee. Packet Page 359 of 452 11. Nonassignment. Lessee shall not assign this lease or any part thereof and shall not let or sublet the whole or any portion of the Premises without the written consent of Lessor or Lessor’s agent. This lease shall not be assignable by operation of law. Any assignment of this lease shall not extinguish or diminish the liability of the Lessee herein. If consent is once given by the Lessor to the assignment of this lease, or any interest therein, Lessor shall not be barred from afterwards refusing to consent to any further assignment. 12. Access. Lesse will allow Lessor or Lessor’s agent free access at all reasonable times to said Premises for the purpose of inspection, any right reserved under paragraph 2 above, or of making repairs, additions or alterations to the Premises or any property owned by or under the control of Lessor; PROVIDED this right shall not be construed as an agreement on the part of the Lessor to make any repairs, all of such repairs to be made by the Lessee as aforesaid. The Lessor shall have the right to place and maintain signs in conspicuous place(s) on the Premises to the effect that Lessor’s vehicles shall have the right of way at all times on or near the Premises. Lessor reserves an easement for ingress and egress over the Premises for the purposes set forth in paragraph 2(b) above. 13. Signs. All signs placed on the Premises shall be subject to the prior written approval of the Lessor. Any signs placed on the Premises shall be so placed based upon the understanding and agreement that Lessee will remove the same at the termination of the tenancy herein created, and repair any damage or injury to the Premises caused thereby, and if not so removed by Lessee, then Lessor may have same so removed at Lessor’s expense. Lessor reserves the right to place signage on the Premises related to the uses described in paragraph 2(b) above. 14. Alterations. Lessee shall not make any alterations, additions or improvements in the Premises, or to the fixtures or affixed equipment located or to be located on the Premises, without first obtaining the consent of Lessor in writing and obtaining an satisfying all required permits, including but not limited to building and electrical permits. All alterations, additions and improvements which shall be made, shall be made at the sole cost and expense of Lessee. All such improvements shall be consistent with the rights reserved pursuant to paragraph 2(b) above. If the Lessee shall perform work with the consent of the Lessor, as aforesaid, Lessee agrees to comply with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of the City of Edmonds and Snohomish County and any other authorized public authority. The Lessee further agrees to save the Lessor free and harmless from damage, loss or expense arising out of the work. In making any alterations, Lessee shall cut or remove as few trees as possible. 15. Default. If Lessee shall violate or default on any of the covenants and agreements herein contained, then Lessor may cancel this lease upon giving the notice required by law, and re-enter said Premises. 16. Successors. Subject to the provisions hereof, pertaining to assignment and subletting, this lease shall be binding upon the legal representatives, successors and assigns of any or all of the parties hereto. Packet Page 360 of 452 17. Costs and Attorneys’ Fees. In the event of a failure of either of the parties to perform any obligation created by this lease, the defaulting party agrees to pay all damages and costs reasonably incurred by the injured party, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. 18. Nonwaiver of Breach. The failure of a party to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants or agreements contained in this lease, or to exercise any option or remedy herein conferred, in any one or more instances, shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of any such provision, or any other covenants, agreements or remedies, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this lease the day and year first above written. LESSOR: LESSEE: CITY OF EDMONDS LAEBUGTEN SALMON CHAPTER By: ___________________________ David O. Earling, Mayor Its: ___________________________ ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ________________________________ Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Office of the City Attorney Packet Page 361 of 452 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 2015, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared the President of LAEBUGTEN SALMON CHAPTER and stated that he/she is authorized to execute this document on behalf of said corporation for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC Printed Name: My commission expires: Packet Page 362 of 452    AM-7736     10.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/19/2015 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Information  Information Subject Title Marina Beach Park Master Plan Briefing Recommendation Listen to presentation and give staff feedback/direction. Previous Council Action Council discussed on March 25, 2015 Narrative The Parks Department is currently working with Walker Macy, Ltd, to complete a Master planning process for Marina Beach Park. This presentation to the Planning Board will inform the board about the process and progress to date, facilitate a discussion about two alternative concepts and ask the Planning Board for input. Why is the Master Plan needed? Through the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, the community identified the need to restore the Edmonds Marsh, and bring back the capacity for salmon habitat. After careful review, and the completion of a feasibility study, we’ve determined that the best way to accomplish this is to daylight Willow Creek from the Marsh into the Puget Sound, through Marina Beach Park. The Master Planning process will help gather community input on the plan for Marina Beach with this feature.  What studies have been completed related to the Master Plan? • Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan: This plan provides comprehensive guidance on the development and management of Edmonds’ parks, recreation and open space system and the services provided by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. • Dayton Street and SR 104 Storm Drainage Alternatives Study: The study describes and evaluates the existing system, provides a screening and evaluation of alternatives, and recommends a preferred alternative with an implementation strategy. • Drainage Diagram • Willow Creek Daylighting Early Feasibility Study: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. prepared an early feasibility study documenting historical and existing site conditions, alternative Willow Creek daylighting alignments, a preferred daylighting plan, tidal hydraulics and fish habitat assessments of the preferred plan. • Environmental Impact Statement • Willow Creek Geotechnical Assessment: HWA GeoSciences Inc. completed a geotechnical evaluation Packet Page 363 of 452 of the proposed replacement culvert under the BNSF mainline to evaluate subsurface conditions and provide geotechnical recommendations. Currently, Willow Creek runs through a pipe to the Edmonds Marina. Who are the PAC members? • Carrie Hite – Recreation and Cultural Services Director, City of Edmonds • Renee McRae – Interim Assistant Park Director, City of Edmonds • Keeley O’Connell– Senior Project Manager, Earth Corps • Jerry Shuster – Stormwater Engineering Program Manager, City of Edmonds • Rich Lindsay – Park Maintenance Manager, City of Edmonds • Diane Buckshnis – City Council, Floretum Garden Club, OLAE • Val Stewart – Planning Board, City of Edmonds • Rick Schaeffer – Tetra Tech • Susan Smiley – Edmonds Floretum Garden Club • Joe Scordino – Community Member (retired NOAA fisheries) • Ron Brightman – City of Edmonds Tree Board • Laura Leeman – Community Member (Edmonds Moms Group) • Kevin Conefrey – Edmonds Arts Commission What has been the process so far? The consultant team compiled information regarding the site context, technical analyses, and other project considerations earlier this year. This information helped inform community discussions at our first online and in-person open houses in March. Since then, we’ve been working to develop preliminary concepts. We have created two concepts based on the project considerations and community input. Feedback on these concepts will help inform our decision on a preferred concept to be published in the final Marina Beach Master Plan. What information is being considered in developing the Master Plan? There are many factors to take into account as we develop the Master Plan. The images below show the site context and site analysis that help inform our concepts. Community input is another major consideration. Here’s a summary of what we heard from you in our first online and in-person open house in March:  • Elements of Marina Beach Park that people like: There was a wide variety, including the dog park, beach access, natural features, passive recreation (e.g. wildlife viewing, picnicking, enjoying beach views), active recreation (e.g. sports activities), beach access, educational opportunities, group events, family activities. • Elements of Marina Beach Park that people dislike: Lack of permanent restrooms, lack of parking, erosion, interactions between dogs and wildlife. • Potential improvements to Marina Beach Park: Common themes included more parking, more picnic tables and seating, better signage, permanent bathrooms, better trails/connections, dog park fencing. • Willow Creek alignments: Participants generally seemed to like the more natural alignment of Option B but thought it was more disruptive to the park than Option A. After receiving public input, we decided to consider a hybrid of Options A and B, which is now Option C. What are the concepts being evaluated for the Master Plan? Option 1 This option incorporates Willow Creek Option C which will outlet just north of the existing overlook area. This creek allows for the most contiguous park space while maintaining the off leash dog area in its Packet Page 364 of 452 current location. Park elements have been reconfigured to maintain the current uses. A restroom, picnic tables, nature play and an overlook have been added to improve the park experience. In this scheme, a significant portion of the park remains dedicated to a driftwood zone while allowing flexible space for active and passive recreation opportunities, like beach volleyball. A bridge over Willow Creek provides access to the dog park. The reconfigured parking lot maintains the existing number of stalls ( standard and ADA) while providing a formal drop off and pick up. Option 2 Option 2 incorporates Willow Creek Option B which bisects the current lawn mounds, parking areas and the existing beach and driftwood zone. This alignment is slightly more advantageous to fish habitat. The off leash dog area remains in its current location. Park elements have been reconfigured to maintain the current uses. A restroom, picnic tables, nature play and an overlook have been added to improve the parks user experience. A curved bridge provides access to the dog park, an overlook and a waterfront lawn area. This lawn area is intended for active and passive recreation as well as staging personal watercraft. The reconfigured parking lot maintains the existing number of stalls (standard and ADA). What are the potential routes for Willow Creek through Marina Beach Park? The Marina Beach Master Plan includes restoring Willow Creek to become a more natural, above-ground stream – called daylighting the stream. We presented three potential routes for Willow Creek at the March Open House. We weighed the pros and cons of each, considered the public input from the open house, virtual open house, and emails received by citizens, and also discussed the options with the Planning Board and City Council. After this, we decided to discard Option A and develop an Option C that combines Options A and B. Through the remainder of the master planning process, we will advance Option B and a new Option C, to develop a design program and organization of the park elements with you. We want to be sure the Master Plan reflects how the park is currently being used, and work with the community to enhance the experience at Marina Beach, and identify ways to mitigate any impacts due to park changes.  How will Willow Creek look and function? What can we expect? Daylighting Willow Creek at Marina Beach Park will reconnect Edmonds Marsh with the Puget Sound. The new channel will be driven primarily by tidal flow exchange to and from Edmonds Marsh. A portion of the flow will also be freshwater, from Willow and Shellabarger Creeks.  Here are some of the technical details regarding the stream’s design:  • New channel location: Intertidal zone, near the mean tide level. • Channel bed material: Sandy-gravel. • Location of top of the channel banks along the eastern portion of the park: Five to ten feet above the storm line and mean higher high water line, respectively.  • Location of tidal channel banks: Two to four feet above the mean higher high water line in the open beach western park areas; below the storm line in the open beach areas.  • Stream dimensions at low tide: Several inches deep across a roughly ten to fifteen foot wide channel. • Stream dimensions at high tide: Three and five feet deep and roughly thirty to forty feet wide. • Stream dimensions during winter storm surge and/or extreme tide conditions: As much as seven to eight feet deep, for a short period of time. The storm line currently is higher than the existing beach elevation, which will not change with the project.  Vegetation along the channel on the eastern side of the park will be a mosaic of native upland trees and shrubs along top and upper portions of the bank. Lower bank areas along the channel in the eastern side of the park will transition to salt-tolerant shrubs, sedges and grasses to an elevation above the mean tide Packet Page 365 of 452 level. Vegetation along the channel in the western side of the park and current open beach area will look very similar to today’s beach. The upper channel banks will have sporadic patchwork of drift wood and salt-grasses, and the bed of the channel will have similar sandy-gravelly materials. Next Steps: • May 13, 2015: Planning Board Meeting • May 19, 2015: City Council Meeting • July 8, 2015: Open House #3 • July 22, 2015: Present Master Plan to Planning Board • July 28, 2015: Present Master Plan to City Council July/August: Comment Period Attachments Presentation Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 05/14/2015 03:32 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/14/2015 04:11 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/14/2015 04:15 PM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 05/14/2015 09:34 AM Final Approval Date: 05/14/2015  Packet Page 366 of 452 Ma r i n a B e a c h M a s t e r P l a n Ci t y C o u n c i l Ma y 1 9 , 2 0 1 5 Packet Page 367 of 452 -- Pr o j e c t A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e • C a r r i e H i t e – R e c r e a t i o n a n d C u l t u r a l S e r v i c e s D i r e c t o r , C i t y o f E d m o n d s • R e n e e M c R a e – I n t e r i m A s s i s t a n t P a r k D i r e c t o r , C i t y o f E d m o n d s • K e e l e y O ’ C o n n e l l – S e n i o r P r o j e c t M a n a g e r , E a r t h C o r p s • J e r r y S h u s t e r – S t o r m w a t e r E n g i n e e r i n g P r o g r a m M a n a g e r , C i t y o f E d m o n d s • R i c h L i n d s a y – P a r k M a i n t e n a n c e M a n a g e r , C i t y o f E d m o n d s • D i a n e B u c k s h n i s – C i t y C o u n c i l , F l o r e t u m G a r d e n C l u b , O L A E • V a l S t e w a r t – P l a n n i n g B o a r d , C i t y o f E d m o n d s • R i c k S c h a e f f e r – T e t r a T e c h • S u s a n S m i l e y – E d m o n d s F l o r e t u m G a r d e n C l u b • J o e S c o r d i n o – C o m m u n i t y M e m b e r ( r e t i r e d N O A A fi s h e r i e s ) • R o n B r i g h t m a n – C i t y o f E d m o n d s T r e e B o a r d • L a u r a L e e m a n – C o m m u n i t y M e m b e r ( E d m o n d s M o m s G r o u p ) • K e v i n C o n e f r e y – E d m o n d s A r t s C o m m i s s i o n Packet Page 368 of 452 -- St a k e h o l d e r M e e t i n g s -D a v e E a r l i n g ( M a y o r o f E d m o n d s ) -J o a n B l o o m ( C i t y C o u n c i l ) -D r . K e n t S a l t o n s t a l l ( C i t y o f W o o d w a y ) -S u s i e S c h a e f e r ( F r i e n d s o f E d m o n d s M a r s h ) -M a r l a K e m p f , B o b M c C h e s n e y a n d J i m O r v i s ( P o r t o f E d m o n d s ) -K o j o F o r d j o u r ( W S D O T ) -T a m m y A r m s t r o n g ( D e p a r t m e n t o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s - D N R ) -K a r e n A n d r e s a n d S u s a n T a r p l e y ( R a n g e r N a t u r a l i s t s ) -K r i s t i a n a J o h n s o n , L o r a P e t s o , A d r i e n n e F r a l e y - M o n i l l a s ( C i t y C o u n c i l ) -S u s a n M o r r o w ( S e a l S i t t e r s ) -A n n A l d r i c h , D i a n e B u c k s h n i s , J u l i e N e a l e y ( O L A E , O f f L e a s h A r e a E d m o n d s ) -K e r n e n L i e n ( S e n i o r P l a n n e r , C i t y o f E d m o n d s ) -W a l t e r S m i t h ( B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n S a n t a F e - B N S F ) -N e i l T i b b o t t a n d P h i l L o v e l l ( C i t y o f E d m o n d s P l a n n i n g B o a r d ) Packet Page 369 of 452 De c e m b e r 20 1 4 Ja n u a r y 20 1 5 Fe b r u a r y 20 1 5 Ma r c h 20 1 5 Ap r i l 20 1 5 Ma y 20 1 5 June 2015July 2015August 2015 1. K i c k o f f m e e t i n g w i t h P A C 2. S i t e v i s i t w i t h P a r k s S t a f f 3. A s s e m b l e a n d r e v i e w b a c k g r o u n d a n d h i s t o r i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n 4. M e r g e t o p o g r a p h i c s u r v e y w i t h t h e f e r r y d e v e l o p m e n t a n d c r e e k a l i g n m e n t 5. M e e t w i t h S h a n n o n a n d W i l s o n t o g a i n b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n o n W i l l o w C r e e k 6. S i t e I n v e n t o r y a n d A n a l y s i s 7. P r e p a r e B a s e P l a n 8. C o n d u c t m e e t i n g s w i t h P a r k s , E n g i n e e r i n g , P u b l i c W o r k s , a n d P l a n n i n g 9. P r e p a r e a r e p o r t t h a t s u m m a r i z e s o p p o r t u n i t i e s a n d c o n s t r a i n t s 10 . O p e n H o u s e # 1 11 . D e v e l o p P a r k D e s i g n P r o g r a m 12 . P r e s e n t p a r k p r o g r a m a n d a n a l y s i s t o P l a n n i n g B o a r d a n d C i t y C o u n c i l f o r a p p r o v a l 1. A s s i s t P A C i n e s t a b l i s h i n g e v a l u a t i o n c r i t e r i a f o r M a s t e r P l a n a l t e r n a t i v e s 2. D e v e l o p t w o M a s t e r P l a n a l t e r n a t i v e s 3. A s s i s t c i t y s t a f f i n p r e p a r i n g o p e r a t i o n a l a n d m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t m o d e l s 4. P r e p a r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s n a r r a t i v e 5. M e e t w i t h P l a n n i n g B o a r d 6. M e e t w i t h P a r k s S t a f f 7. O p e n H o u s e # 2 8. M e e t w i t h C i t y , C o u n t y , S t a t e , a n d F e d e r a l p e r m i t t i n g a u t h o r i t i e s t o r e v i e w d e s i g n 9. M e e t w i t h P A C t o r e v i e w c o m m e n t s f r o m O p e n H o u s e # 2 10 . P r o v i d e b r i e f i n g t o t h e P l a n n i n g B o a r d a n d C i t y C o u n c i l 11 . C r e a t e a p r e f e r r e d M a s t e r P l a n a l t e r n a t i v e 12 . U p d a t e c o s t e s t i m a t e a n d o p e r a t i o n a l m o d e l s . 13 . C r e a t e a d r a f t I m p l e m e n t a t i o n S t r a t e g y / P h a s i n g P r o g r a m 14 . I d e n t i f y s c o p e a n d s c h e d u l e o f p e r m i t t i n g p r o c e s s . 15 . A t t e n d m e e t i n g s w i t h P a r k s s t a f f t o r e v i e w p r e f e r r e d M a s t e r P l a n a l t e r n a t i v e 16 . O p e n H o u s e # 3 17 . M e e t w i t h t h e P l a n n i n g B o a r d 18 . R e f i n e d r a f t M a s t e r P l a n a n d P h a s i n g P r o g r a m 19 . R e v i s e c o s t e s t i m a t e s 20 . M e e t w i t h P A C t o r e v i e w w o r k s h o p c o m m e n t s 21 . I n c o r p o r a t e c o m m e n t s f r o m P A C m e e t i n g 22 . P r e p a r e S E P A c h e c k l i s t 23 . S u b m i t f i n a l M a s t e r P l a n t o P a r k s Ph a s e 1 - I n v e n t o r y / S i t e A s s e s s m e n t a n d P a r k P r o g r a m Ph a s e 2 - S c h e m a t i c D e s i g n a n d P r e f e r r e d A l t e r n a t i v e Legend Task Duration Meeting Open House Packet Page 370 of 452 Context Packet Page 371 of 452 Si t e A n a l y s i s Packet Page 372 of 452 St r e a m A l i g n m e n t Option A Packet Page 373 of 452 St r e a m A l i g n m e n t Option B Packet Page 374 of 452 St r e a m A l i g n m e n t Option C Packet Page 375 of 452 -- Op e n H o u s e # 1 Packet Page 376 of 452 -- Op e n H o u s e # 1 Packet Page 377 of 452 -- Op e n H o u s e # 1 S u m m a r y -D i s i n t e r e s t i n O p t i o n A -B e a c h , v i e w s , e n v i r o n m e n t , p i c n i c t a b l e s , s e a t i n g , w a l k - in g , a c t i v e / p a s s i v e r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s . -P a r k i n g c a p a c i t y -R e s t r o o m f a c i l i t i e s -P r o v i d e m o r e h a b i t a t a n d e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s -W i l l o w C r e e k a l i g n m e n t a n d i m p a c t s -D o g a n d h u m a n c o n fl i c t s . D o g i m p a c t s t o e n v i r o n m e n t . Packet Page 378 of 452 Option 1 Dr i f t w o o d Ar e a La w n A r e a 50 ’ B u f f e r , T y p . Na t u r e P l a y A r e a Cr e e k Fe n c e Of f L e a s h A r e a - T o R e m a i n Ag i l i t y C o u r s e Pe d e s t r i a n B r i d g e So f t S u r f a c e P a t h Pl a y A r e a Re s t r o o m Pa v e d P a t h , T y p . Pi c n i c T a b l e , T y p . Ve h i c u l a r T u r n A r o u n d Sa n d V o l l e y b a l l Ov e r l o o k Mo u n d Be n c h , T y p . Pa r k i n g Packet Page 379 of 452 Packet Page 380 of 452 Packet Page 381 of 452 Option 2 Dr i f t w o o d Ar e a La w n A r e a 50 ’ B u f f e r , T y p . Cr e e k Fe n c e Of f L e a s h A r e a - T o R e m a i n Ag i l i t y C o u r s e Pe d e s t r i a n B r i d g e So f t S u r f a c e P a t h Pl a y Ar e a Re s t r o o m Pa v e d P a t h , T y p . Pi c n i c T a b l e , T y p . Sa n d V o l l e y b a l l Ov e r l o o k Be n c h , T y p . Pa r k i n g La w n A r e a Packet Page 382 of 452 Packet Page 383 of 452 -- Op e n H o u s e # 2 S u m m a r y -1 0 0 + A t t e n d e e s -N o c l e a r p r e f e r e n c e O p t i o n 1 v s . O p t i o n 2 . M o s t p r e f e r a H y b r i d . -P r i m a r y C o n s i d e r a t i o n s : - D o g P a r k - T u r n a r o u n d - R e s t r o o m L o c a t i o n - P a r k i n g - O p e n L a w n S p a c e Packet Page 384 of 452 -- NE X T S T E P S Ju l y 8 , 2 0 1 5 O p e n H o u s e # 3 Ju l y 2 2 , 2 0 1 5 P r e s e n t M a s t e r P l a n t o P l a n n i n g B o a r d Ju l y 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 P r e s e n t M a s t e r P l a n t o C i t y C o u n c i l Ju l y / A u g u s t C o m m e n t P e r i o d No v e m b e r A d o p t i o n o f M a s t e r P l a n Packet Page 385 of 452 Qu e s t i o n s ? Packet Page 386 of 452 Packet Page 387 of 452 Packet Page 388 of 452 Packet Page 389 of 452 Packet Page 390 of 452 Packet Page 391 of 452 Packet Page 392 of 452 Packet Page 393 of 452 Packet Page 394 of 452 Packet Page 395 of 452 Packet Page 396 of 452    AM-7727     11.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/19/2015 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted For:Shane Hope Submitted By:Shane Hope Department:Development Services Type: Information  Information Subject Title Update on Development Activities/Projects Recommendation Consider the information and have any discussion Previous Council Action Narrative BACKGROUND A key role of the Development Services Department is to assist people who are interested in improving or developing their property and to help make sure the improvements will be safe and meet community standards.  This assistance includes providing verbal information, data, and hand-outs, in addition to actual permitting, inspections, and record-keeping.  The last presentation on development activities was provided to the City Council on September 23, 2014. REPORT Development activity has been greatly increasing in Edmonds.  This is partly a function of the economy--people and finance agencies feel more confident these days--and partly a function of Edmonds being a desirable place for homes and businesses.  For example, here are two notable facts about building permits: • The valuation of projects in April 2015 was nearly triple the valuation of projects in April 2014. • The number of permits was 136% greater in the first 4 months of 2015 than for the same period in 2014. For a graphic view of annual building permit activity and revenues between 1985 and 2014, see Attachment 1. MAY 19 PRESENTATION The May 19 presentation to Council will include slides about projects and permit levels.  Our intent is to proactively share highlights of development projects and activities in Edmonds.  Attachments Attchmt 1: Permit Graphic Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Packet Page 397 of 452 Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 05/14/2015 11:13 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/14/2015 02:11 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/14/2015 02:44 PM Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 05/13/2015 03:10 PM Final Approval Date: 05/14/2015  Packet Page 398 of 452 02004006008001,0001,2001,400 $0 $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $4 0 0 , 0 0 0 $6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $8 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 9 8 5 1 9 8 6 1 9 8 7 1 9 8 8 1 9 8 9 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 De v e l o p m e n t  Se r v i c e s  Pe r m i t  Hi s t o r y To t a l  De v e l  Sv c  Re v e n u e # Bu i l d i n g  Pe r m i t s Packet Page 399 of 452    AM-7729     12.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/19/2015 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Scott James Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Amending the City Code regarding delinquency charges, threshold account balances, and turn-on and turn-off charges. Recommendation  Recommended Motion:  Approve Ordinance No. XXX, amending Edmonds City Code 7.10 to amend the calculation of delinquency charges and to amend the turn on and turn off charges. Previous Council Action  Council discussed these amendments during their April 14th 2015 Council meeting.  During the meeting, Council requested that reference to the Finance Committee be changed to the City Council. Narrative The attached Ordinance proposes: 1a)  Section 1 of the Ordinance amends the City Code 7.10.025 regarding utility billing delinquency charge of 10% of the outstanding balance to a flat fee of $25.00, and 1b)  Amends the threshold for account balances to be considered delinquent from $21.00 to $40.00, in other words accounts with overdue balances under $40.00 will not be considered delinquent and will not be charged the delinquent charge, and 2) Amend the City Code 7.10.025 to include the additional language of Ordinance Section 3.  Section 3 would make the initial applicability of the new $25 penalty only to accounts where the new penalty would not increase the customer's penalty.   For example: Say we had a customer that was late paying their $100 bill. They would have had a $10 penalty applied to their account.  The new Section 3 would allow us to avoid adjusting the customer’s penalty in my example above for the first late penalty. However, if this same customer is late paying on any subsequent bill, they would be assessed the $25 late penalty. 3) Amend the City Code to increase Turn-on and Turn-off charges for non-regular working hours from $75.00 to $125.00. Background: Packet Page 400 of 452 Delinquency Charges Current City Code Section 7.10.025 for delinquency charges states:  "A charge equal to 10 percent of the outstanding balance of the delinquent utility bill shall be added as a fee..." The basis for amending the delinquent charge is to standardize the charge for all accounts and bring the City's delinquent charges in line with how other utilities are assessing this charge. Turn on and Turn off Charges Current City Code Section 7.10.070 for turn on and turn off charges states"....If the water is turned in or off at any time other than during regular working hours, the charge shall be $75.00. The basis for amending this charge is to recover the costs incurred by staff working after normal business hours.  Please see attached cost analysis. Attachments Ordinance Amending City Code 7.10 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 05/14/2015 04:43 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/15/2015 07:55 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/15/2015 11:52 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/15/2015 11:53 AM Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 05/13/2015 04:25 PM Final Approval Date: 05/15/2015  Packet Page 401 of 452 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE 7.10 REGARDING WATER SERVICE TO CLARIFY THE CALCULATION OF DELINQUENCY CHARGES, AND TO AMEND THE TURN ON AND TURN OFF CHARGES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Code does not clarify the method of calculation of delinquency charges for utility bills; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the delinquency charge should be imposed using a flat $25 fee; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to raise the dollar amount at which an account is considered delinquent; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that turn on and turn off charges for the water utility shall be raised where a water customer requests a turn on after regular working hours; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 7.10.025 of the ECC, entitled “Delinquency charge,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike- through): 7.10.025 Delinquency charge. A charge equal to 10 percent of the outstanding balance of the delinquent utility bill twenty five (25) dollars shall be added as a fee to each delinquent utility bill, except in cases of extraordinary hardship as determined by the administrative services finance director or his/her designee. The decision of the administrative services finance director can be appealed to the finance committee of the Edmonds city council by filing an appeal with the city clerk no later Packet Page 402 of 452 than fourteen days after the director’s decision was mailed and by paying an appeal fee of one hundred dollars. The account shall be considered delinquent if full payment is not made within 35 days after the sending of the regular billing. Such delinquency notice and billing will be provided 35 days following the mailing of a regular utility bill. This charge shall be applicable to all delinquent utility billing accounts. In order to be considered delinquent the outstanding principle balance of an account must total at least $21 40.00 or more of delinquency, and no delinquency charge shall be levied against any delinquent account balance under $21 40.00. This delinquency charge shall be paid prior to the application of any payment against the fee or charge initially assessed and nothing herein shall be interpreted to limit the city’s collection of its attorneys’ fees and other reasonable costs and charges in the event it is forced to seek judicial remedy for collection. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to limit the city’s ability to enforce a sewerage lien on properties for delinquent and unpaid sewerage utility bills, as authorized by RCW 35.67.200 through 35.67.290, including terminating water service until charges are paid and/or pursuing sewerage lien foreclosure. Section 2. Section 7.10.070 of the ECC, entitled “Turn on and turn off charges,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): 7.10.070 Turn on and turn off charges. The charge for turning off the water at the main shall be $20.00 and the charge for turning on or off the water other than at the main shall be $20.00 if done during regular working hours. If the water is turned on or off at any time other than during regular working hours, there charge shall be an additional charge of $75.00 $125.00. Section 3. Applicability. The provisions of this ordinance shall be applicable to existing delinquent account balances and the delinquency charge on such balances shall be calculated in conformance with Section 1, above, except in cases where applying the fee calculated under Section 1 would increase the amount of the delinquency charge, in which case, Packet Page 403 of 452 the delinquency charge calculated under Section 1 would only be added to accounts that continue to be delinquent after the effective date of this ordinance. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance, being administrative in nature, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 404 of 452 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2015, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE 7.10 REGARDING WATER SERVICE TO CLARIFY THE CALCULATION OF DELINQUENCY CHARGES, AND TO AMEND THE TURN ON AND TURN OFF CHARGES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2015. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 405 of 452    AM-7742     13.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/19/2015 Time:45 Minutes   Submitted By:Patrick Doherty Department:Community Services 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 initially discussed at the 5/12/15 City Council meeting, at which times numerous questions were posed by Councilmembers. A document is attached that lists these questions, with responses provided where available at this time.  Additional responses will be provided up until the 5/19/15 City Council meeting as information from the Conference Center and/or State is forthcoming. 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 in a revised Surplus Property Bulletin, issued 4/28/15).  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 Packet Page 406 of 452 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. At the 5/12/15 City Council meeting, Councilmembers posed numerous questions for response by the 5/19/15 meeting.  The attached document ("Edmonds Conference Center Q&A") lists these questions and provides responses to many with information available to date.  Additional information is anticipated to be forthcoming from the Conference Center and/or State and will be provided during the interim as well as at the 5/19/15 Council meeting.  Attachments Conference Center Profit-Loss 2013-2014 Edmonds Conference Center Q&A Condition Assessment Edmonds Conference Center Revised Surplus Property Bulletin 4-28-15 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 05/15/2015 01:52 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/15/2015 01:58 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/15/2015 01:58 PM Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 05/15/2015 01:36 PM Final Approval Date: 05/15/2015  Packet Page 407 of 452 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) Packet Page 408 of 452 EDMONDS CONFERENCE CENTER QUESTIONS RAISED BY CITY COUNCIL 5/12/15 Responses provided in blue. Where no response given, information is still pending as of this date from the College or State. Additional information will be provided up to and at 5/19/15 City Council meeting. Condition of the Building/Premises 1. Has there been additional damage to the building since last Summer's reconnaissance? 2. What improvements, maintenance or damage corrections have been made over the years? (Diane added that the roof had been repaired two years ago.) 3. Would repair of the damage assessed by the engineers entail just repair of identified damage or an entire recladding of the building? The engineer’s report proposes entire recladding of the building, estimated to cost $1,012,161.23. Edmonds Facilities Maintenance Manager Jim Stevens believes that the type of water leakage experienced at the Conference Center could lead to additional damage not identified by the engineers, deeper under the cladding system, such as dry rot in supporting members, damaged insulation, etc. The total cost of remediation could very likely be greater. In addition, once the cost of remediation approaches/exceeds the total value of the building, it is often prudent to consider rebuilding, not repair. 4. In addition to the 27 on-site parking spaces, are there any other spaces associated with the Center, such as through shared-parking arrangements on near-by properties? 5. What is the Center's capacity for meetings, gatherings, conferences, etc.? The Conference Center includes the following facilities for meetings, conferences, etc: Chrysanthemum Hall, 3,410 SF, approximately 220 theater-style seating Orchid Room, 1,380 SF, approximately 90 theater-style seating Rhododendron Room, 930 SF, approximately 60 theater-style seating Total occupant load, per Fire Code, is 750 – which is standing room only. The facility includes a “prep” kitchen, four small offices, and restrooms upstairs and downstairs. Packet Page 409 of 452 Conference Center City Council Q&A Page 2 of 5 Operations, Pro Forma 1. Could we have previous and/or earlier years' Profit/Loss statements? The College and/or State are not providing additional years’ P/L statements, but the official response from the State is that the 2013-2014 P/L ending balance (-$52,910) is representative of previous years’ losses. 2. What are the College’s marketing efforts? Is the College maximizing its efforts to develop business and usage of the Center? Potential Uses of the Building/Site 1. Conference Center The most obvious outcome would be continued use of the building as a conference center. As seen to date, that use requires an on-going subsidy of approximately $50,000 per year, given the current mix and frequency of uses and users. Without detailed analytics of these uses/users and a prospective pro forma by an expert in the field, it is not known at this time whether the center’s usage could be further enhanced, thereby also improving the bottom line. 2. Business incubator There is no formal concept identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan or CFP for a business incubator, but there has certainly been discussion about this concept. Recently the Business Districts Enhancement Subgroup of the Economic Development Commission raised this notion, explored it to some degree, and at their latest meeting dismissed the notion as not feasible at this time. Members of that Subgroup intend to report back their opinion at the next EDC meeting on 5/20/15. As to whether the building could serve this purpose, its current configuration is not conducive to a business incubator, which usually consists of many small, separate offices, a small number of conference rooms and/or classrooms, support space, and possibly a studio/production room. The large meeting spaces in this building are not conducive to this model. 3. Art Center/Art Museum The notion of an arts center/arts museum has been discussed over the years and is identified as a potential CFP project, with a placeholder cost estimate of $5 million. The building, as currently configured, could serve to provide space for exhibits, small Packet Page 410 of 452 Conference Center City Council Q&A Page 3 of 5 performance, gatherings, instruction, but would not meet the demands for art- production or shop space contemplated in this art center/art museum concept. This concept would also require continual public subsidy. Lastly, if the building were razed, a new development could conceivably meet these needs on this site. 4. Indoor Farmers Market The CFP identifies the notion of a public market structure near the Waterfront, conceptualized to serve a farmers market year-round, with a placeholder cost estimate of $5 million. Other cities’ year-round farmers market structures (Olympia, Puyallup, e.g.) are indoor/outdoor structures, often with roll-up type garage doors, accessible from all sides for vehicles, loading/unloading, pedestrians, etc. The structure, as currently configured, would not work well for a farmers market. The delivery, set-up and sale of produce, flowers, fish, and other “messy” items would not be compatible with this structure. There is also very little access for vehicle loading/unloading to numerous vendors simultaneously. Certainly a subset of farmers or crafts market fare, such as arts, crafts, fully canned/jarred/boxed items, etc., could occur within the building, but such vendor stalls are usually seen as an adjunct to a greater farmers market that could not occur on the site as currently configured. Also, there is very little on-site parking to accommodate vendors and visitors. While not meeting the CFP concept of a farmers market near the Waterfront, if the building were razed, the site could conceivably function to house a farmers market, including an indoor/outdoor structure. 5. Other uses in the CFP a. Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations Building The uses housed in and operating from this facility, currently in City Park, are entirely incompatible with the existing Conference Center building and site. It is possible that one or two staffmembers currently officed in that building could be sited elsewhere, but in fact they are most effective when working in proximity to the parks and facilities maintenance staff. b. Boys & Girls Club This concept is identified in the CFP with a placeholder cost estimate of $5 million. It is not clear why this project is identified as a “city” project, given that the Boys & Girls Club is a successful, nonprofit, social-services agency that develops its own facilities in most, if not all, locations. Certainly the City could contribute funding if it wishes to. The Conference Center building is not configured to meet the needs of a Boys & Girls Club, which would require multiple activity rooms, classrooms, more offices, etc. The building could Packet Page 411 of 452 Conference Center City Council Q&A Page 4 of 5 theoretically be gutted and reconfigured to meet this need. Further, the building could be razed to potentially meet the needs of a Boys & Girls Club, which could be negotiated with that entity. 6. Some of the uses in the old Public Works Building (ArtWorks, Driftwood Players, etc.) The current tenants of the old PW Building at 2nd and Dayton include ArtWorks and the Driftwood Players. Both tenants use the space for shop, production and other “messy” uses that require more of a warehouse space. The Driftwood Players have a rehearsal stage, which could theoretically be housed in the Conference Center, but then also set design (including carpentry, painting, etc.) and storage – uses incompatible with the Conference Center. ArtWorks has “hot shop” uses and other quasi-industrial arts- production activities and uses incompatible with the Conference Center. Theoretically the building could be razed, however, and a new building could be constructed to house these uses, possibly in conjunction with arts-exhibit space. 7. Would it be a useful site for "surge space" for the Senior Center during its reconstruction? The Conference Center could function relatively well as “surge space” for the Senior Center during its reconstruction. The kitchen is more of a “prep kitchen,” and not so full service as the Senior Center’s, but for an interim location it could serve the function. The principal question here would be whether this temporary use justifies purchase of the building. Perhaps if another, future use for the building and/or site were identified, this temporary use could make some sense. 8. If the City were to take over the Conference Center and use it as such, how we would we manage it? City staff? Management contract? The short answer is that it would be most cost-efficient to contract out the management of the facility either under the management of a City staffperson or entirely out-sourced. There is even a possibility that the ECA could be contracted to take over management, if they were interested. Purchase, Price, Deal Terms, etc. Some of the responses to these questions should only be answered in Executive Session. Partial response can be shared here. Packet Page 412 of 452 Conference Center City Council Q&A Page 5 of 5 1. Would the PFD be interested in either a) our acquisition of the Center and/or b) in any affiliated usage and/or operations with the Center? ECA Director Joe McIalwain has indicated he intends to provide some level of response to these queries. 2. Regarding the potential price offer, do any of the following relate to the value/price, and/or can we get more information about any of the following vis-à-vis the price? a. Would the remediation of water-leakage damage be a potential deal term? b. Does the fact that it was gifted to EdCC affect the price? Per City Attorney Taraday, it appears from review of the records that the City has no legal interest or rights in the property since its donation to the College. As such, it appears this fact does not affect the price. c. Does the assessed value have any bearing on the price? What is the assessed value, including break-down between land and improvements? The assessed value per Snohomish County Assessor records is $1,892,000, comprised of $809,300 for the land, and $1,082,700 for the building. d. What would other "mutual and offsetting benefits" might be to include in deal terms? Packet Page 413 of 452 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 Packet Page 414 of 452 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 Packet Page 415 of 452 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 Packet Page 416 of 452 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 Packet Page 417 of 452 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 Packet Page 418 of 452 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 Packet Page 419 of 452 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 Packet Page 420 of 452 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. Packet Page 421 of 452 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). Packet Page 422 of 452 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. Packet Page 423 of 452 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). Packet Page 424 of 452 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. Packet Page 425 of 452 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). Packet Page 426 of 452 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. Packet Page 427 of 452 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 Packet Page 428 of 452 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 Packet Page 429 of 452 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 Packet Page 430 of 452 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 Packet Page 431 of 452 Level 1 – Testing Locations Plan Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Legend Destructive Testing, Stucco Removal Locations Water Testing Locations Packet Page 432 of 452 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 Packet Page 433 of 452 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 Packet Page 434 of 452 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 Packet Page 435 of 452 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 Packet Page 436 of 452 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. Packet Page 437 of 452 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. Packet Page 438 of 452 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. Packet Page 439 of 452 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 Packet Page 440 of 452 APPENDIX – A STUCCO REPAIR GUIDELINES Packet Page 441 of 452 P a c k e t P a g e 4 4 2 o f 4 5 2 P a c k e t P a g e 4 4 3 o f 4 5 2 P a c k e t P a g e 4 4 4 o f 4 5 2 P a c k e t P a g e 4 4 5 o f 4 5 2 P a c k e t P a g e 4 4 6 o f 4 5 2 P a c k e t P a g e 4 4 7 o f 4 5 2 P a c k e t P a g e 4 4 8 o f 4 5 2 P a c k e t P a g e 4 4 9 o f 4 5 2 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 Packet Page 450 of 452 Packet Page 451 of 452 Packet Page 452 of 452