Loading...
2015.05.26 CC Agenda Packet              AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING MAY 26, 2015             6:30 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER   1.(30 Minutes)Convene in Executive Session to discuss a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(b).   STUDY SESSION MAY 26, 2015     7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE   2.(5 Minutes)Roll Call   3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda   4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items   A.AM-7746 Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of May 19, 2015.   B.AM-7749 Approval of claim checks #214358 through #214465 dated May 21, 2015 for $275,890.65 (reissued check #214360 $179.44) Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61610 through #61618 and #61624 through #61626 for 471,204.58, benefit checks #61619 through #61623 and wire payments of $515,369.37 for the pay period May 1, 2015 through May 15, 2015.   C.AM-7747 Award of the 2015 Waterline Replacement Project   D.(10 Minutes) AM-7752 Presentation to Approve a Quit Claim Deed for 23727 104th Ave W for the 238th St. Walkway Project.   E.AM-7754 Edmonds Fish Hatchery Lease Agreement       Packet Page 1 of 385   5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings   6.(5 Minutes) AM-7745 Discussion of ATM Concession Agreement at Frances Anderson Center   7.(20 Minutes) AM-7743 Draft Capital Facilities Element - Comprehensive Plan Update   8.(45 Minutes) AM-7750 Discussion on Draft 2015 Transportation Plan   9.(10 Minutes) AM-7748 Presentation of Proposal to Approve a Management Reserve for the 2015 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project.   10.(30 Minutes) AM-7757 Continued discussion and Potential Action regarding the Potential Acquisition of the Edmonds Conference Center.   11.(15 Minutes)Reports on Outside Board and Committee Meetings   12.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments   13.(15 Minutes)Council Comments   14.Convene in executive session regarding a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(b) and pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).   15.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.   ADJOURN         Packet Page 2 of 385    AM-7746     4. A.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/26/2015 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 19, 2015. Recommendation  Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action  N/A Narrative  Attachment 1 - Draft Council Meeting Minutes. Attachments Attachment 1 - 05-19-15 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 05/20/2015 09:53 AM Final Approval Date: 05/20/2015  Packet Page 3 of 385 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES May 19, 2015 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Michael Nelson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Don Anderson, Assistant Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr. Leif Bjorback, Building Official Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 12, 2015 B. 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. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM STATE FARM ($14,106.31) Packet Page 4 of 385 D. ORDINANCE UPDATING THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (EMC 10.25.090) – FILLING OF VACANCIES-PROBATIONARY PERIOD E. NAMING FIRE STATION #16 F. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CITY'S COPIERS AND PRINTERS G. REPORT OF FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 15TH STREET WALKWAY PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT 4. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF PUBLIC WORKS WEEK MAY 17, 2015 THROUGH MAY 23, 2015 Mayor Earling advised the proclamation was not available as there had been an issue with the coordination of documents. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Chris Keuss congratulated the Council on the Five Corners roundabout. He was skeptical when it was first proposed, concerned about the time, effort and cost and whether it would improve traffic flow. He has passed through the roundabout many times since it was constructed and in his experience most drivers yield and are very careful and considerate. He acknowledged it was a difficult decision for the Council at the time but from his perspective it was a great improvement to the intersection and the area. The pedestrian crossing is also an improvement. With regard to the artwork in the center, he immediately related it to the waterfront and pilings. He thanked the Council for the courage to vote for that project. Dave Teitzel, Edmonds, said he was reluctant to comment on the purchase of the conference center because as a candidate for Council he did not want to politicize it but he is also an Edmonds taxpayer. After carefully reviewing the budget, he recognized the City is not flush with money and that expenses continue to exceed revenue. He was concerned the $2 million to purchase the conference center plus $500,000 to $1 million for repairs would come at the expense of other high priority items identified in the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) as well as may require other creative funding methods such as bonding. He has yet to see a clear vision of what the conference center might be used for if City purchased it. He referred to SAP Item 3a.2, downtown restrooms, which is a high priority. As the North Sound Church is also interest in in purchasing the conference center, he suggested the City partner with them for space in the building for public restrooms due to the building’s location close to downtown, the Saturday Market, the car show, etc. He urged the Council to carefully deliberate regarding the purchase. Dave Page, Edmonds, appreciated the depth and breadth of the City Council’s and Mayor’s service on a beautiful evening like tonight. With regard to the conference center, he has been in the building several times and has done some research. In his opinion, if the building was a good deal it wouldn’t be a good deal. He compared it to his boat, a hole in the water you continually feed money without expectation of any results. If the City was into real estate speculation, he acknowledged it may turn around in 5-6 years. One of the reasons Edmonds Community College wants to get rid of the building is cash flow and it is unlikely it will ever provide enough income to pay off a loan. The building is structurally obsolete, the roof and windows leak, and it is cold in the winter and hot in the summer. Although the building looks okay architecturally from outside, it is rife with problems. If the City had to pay prevailing wage to make the repairs, approximately $80/hour, the repairs would cost a lot. He referred to comments on My Edmonds News about using it for a homeless shelter which he would support but not at this time or at this cost; there were other places the City needed to spend its money. He agreed with Mr. Teitzel that Packet Page 5 of 385 purchasing the conference center was not a priority in the budget and with his idea about partnering with the church on public restrooms. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, relayed the Planning Board is holding a public hearing on May 27 on the Tree Conservation ordinance. The ordinance will require residents to obtain a permit for tree removal on private property and an inspection to determine if a tree can be cut. He summarized it was an invasion into residents’ private lives; the ability to cut foliage or a tree should be the property owner’s decision. The only way for the public to affect the ordinance is to express how they feel at the Planning Board’s May 27 public hearing. Bob Sears, Edmonds, said he recently learned about the proposed tree ordinance and “just about hit the roof.” He read in the Beacon about things developers have done which were used to stick it to homeowners. Developers will do what they want to get what they want and pass the cost onto the home buyer. He questioned who he would pass the cost onto of removing a dead, diseased, dangerous or ugly tree. He summarized he was horribly opposed to the proposed tree code. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT CAPITAL FACILITIES 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. She explained the Capital Facilities Element is: • Guided by State’s GMA • Consistent with rest of Comprehensive Plan Capital facilities means real properties, buildings and other significant physical improvements such as: • Schools and library • Civic buildings • Public parks and recreation facilities • Water supply and sewage treatment facilities • Public transit stations The purpose of the Capital Facilities Element is to ensure adequate capital facilities to meet existing and future needs. Components of the Element include: • Inventory of existing capital facilities • Goals and policies for meeting future needs • Capital improvement projects for 6-year period o With projected financing • Public facility needs for 20 year period The current proposal for the Capital Facilities Element includes: • New introduction • New maps and inventory of exiting cap facilities • “Housekeeping” changes to goals and policies • New performance measure • 6-year financial plan of cap projects* • Description of longer term projects** * Based on adopted 2015-2020 CIP ** Based on adopted Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Packet Page 6 of 385 She displayed a map of major capital facilities owned by the City and other public entities and a map of Edmonds School District’s inventory. The performance measure included in the plan (to be reported annually) is project delivery, based on comparison of expected results from approved CFP to actual results. Ms. Hope highlighted the Capital facilities Plan section: 1. General projects • 2015-2020 (with projected funding • Long term needs 2. Transportation Projects • 2015-2020 (with projected financing) • Long-term needs 3. Stormwater projects • 2015-2020 (with projected financing) • Long-term needs She noted the City’s Capital Facilities Element will not include Edmonds School District’s Capital Facilities Plan, following the intent to make the City’s Comprehensive Plan more focused on City facilities. Final refinements to the element will include: • Consolidating background narrative and CFP into one Capital Facilities Element • Adding list of existing City-owned capital facilities with acreage of parcels and/or floor area of buildings She highlighted review of the Capital Facilities Element to date: April 22, 2015 Introduction of Capital Facilities update to Planning Board May 13, 2015 Planning Board recommendation to move forward the draft Capital Facilities Element May 19, 2015 City Council public hearing May 26, 2015 City Council discussion of Capital Facilities Element June/July More public input, refinements and final decision by City Council on full Comprehensive Plan Councilmember Petso referred to the text description of Old Woodway High School and requested it be updated based on recent events. She suggested it be more general and not include as many specifics that may/may not be in an application. Councilmember Buckshnis commented staff on the Element. She referred to the timeline for the Senior Center grounds, 2021-2025, and suggested it be moved to 2017-2018 as it appears that project will be happening sooner rather than later. She referred to the cost of civic playfields in the plan, $3 million in 2015 and $3 million in 2017 and suggested revising it to be more realistic. Councilmember Mesaros referred to the drawings of Edmonds Crossing that include daylighting of Willow Creek and suggested the alignment be one of the three options under consideration. Ms. Hope advised that could be considered, pointing out this update reflects the past language. Councilmember Mesaros suggested including a note that the alignment is one of several concepts. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the project on the former Woodway High School fields, relaying that a section of the code says the City shall assure adequate public notice and participation in the siting of essential public facilities, reviewing these facilities through conditional use permit, allowing for the identification of community impacts and mitigation measures. He questioned whether that course was Packet Page 7 of 385 followed when the City dealt with the Edmonds School District and Verdant regarding the ball fields and did not think the City did. He asserted all the City’s actions are determined by how much money it can get out of Verdant. He suggested listing Verdant as part of the plan because apparently the City does whatever Verdant wants. He proposed the City withdraw funds for the two ball fields until the City regained control of its own facilities. Hearing no further comments, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of public hearing. 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT 2015 TRANSPORTATION PLAN Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss provided an outline of the report: 1. Goals and policies – includes updates from Planning Board and City Council; comparison table in appendix 2. Transportation Network – includes project list reviewed in April 3. Implementation and Financial Plan – includes new material on costs and funding With regard to recent funding sources, Mr. Hauss explained since adoption of the 2009 Transportation Plan, 16 Non-Motorized/Capital Transportation implementation projects have been/will soon be completed throughout the City. These projects were funded by: • $20,000,000 in grant funding secured→$3,300,000/year • Only $1,920,000 in Fund 112→$320,000/year All projects took place due to secured grants: • 92% of costs funded by grants • 8% of costs funded by Fund 112 (gas tax, REET, General Fund transfer) Since such an annual grant funding amount is very unlikely to reoccur and in order to complete additional transportation improvements within next 6 years, additional Fund 112 will need to be provided. Don Samdahl, Fehr & Peers, reviewed projects costs: Category Costs (Million) Roadway $ 49 Pedestrian and Bicycle $ 33 Preservation and Maintenance $ 44 Other (Traffic Calming, operations, etc.) $ 7 Total Cost $133 Randy Young, Henderson & Young, reviewed Potential Project Revenues – Current Sources: Source Amount ($M) Grants (Unsecured) $18.6 REET 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 8 of 385 He reviewed costs compared to revenue: Category Costs (Million) Existing Funding Sources $ 60 Compare to Total Costs $133 Revenue Shortfall $ 73 Potential Additional Optional Sources $144 He explained the Comprehensive Plan must demonstrate the City has the capacity/ability to generate the funds but they money does not have to be available in order to adopt the project list. He reviewed additional optional revenues sources: Source Amount ($M) TBD License Fee (requires voter approval) Assumed up to $80 per license per year $64 TBD Sales Tax (at 0.2%) $24 Business License Fee for Transportation (at $50 per year per FTE employee) $15 Red Light Violation Fine - must be used for safety projects (at $50 per violation after program costs) $29 Transportation Levy (at $0.20 per year) $8 Non-Motorized Mitigation Fee $4 Local Improvement District/Roadway Improvement District (at 20% of project costs) Not estimated Additional Grants Not Estimated Other (from Transportation Committee • School zone Speed violations • Shift more REET funds to Transportation • Utility Fee Not Estimated Total $144 Mr. Hauss identified next steps: • May 26 City Council Discussion • June 10 Public Open House • End of June Adopt Final Plan Mr. Hauss requested any financial questions be asked tonight or emailed during the week as Mr. Young is unable to attend next week’s study session. Councilmember Buckshnis complimented staff and the consultants on the report. She referred to Item 11 on page 4-2 of the report, Main Street & 9th Avenue N, install traffic signal and a footnote that states a roundabout would be an alternative. Mr. Samdahl said they were asked to look at a compact urban roundabout in that location; a quick layout indicates it may be possible so it was included in the plan as an option. When a project was designed it would be looked at further. He acknowledged it was a fairly tight location. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it would be similar to what is used in Seattle neighborhoods. Mr. Samdahl said it would not be a mini roundabout like what is used between two neighborhoods streets; this would be between a mini roundabout and a large roundabout like Five Corners. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to page 410 of the packet, noting $1.6 million per year has been budgeted for overlays in the recent past; the plan increases that to $2.4 million from 2016 to 2021 and $2.5 million from 2022 to 2035. She asked how that amount was determined when Mr. Williams has said $1.6 million. Mr. Hauss explained those amount were necessary to improve the overlay cycle from the current 60 years to 20-30 years. Public Works Director Phil Williams said the amounts mentioned in the past have been increased due to inflation as well as the significant additional cost to upgrade ramps and Packet Page 9 of 385 driveways to bring the street into ADA compliance which was not part of the calculation when this was discussed five years ago. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the plan identified a specific amount for chip seal. Mr. Williams explained this is street preservation projects; in some cases that may be a grind and overlay, in others slurry seal or chip seal may be advisable. He anticipated slurry and chip seal will have a future in the street preservation program but the exact amount will be determined later. Councilmember Petso referred to tables 3-39 and 3-40 that show various intersections that are projected to have inadequate level of service (LOS) and said she was unable to find projects to address that. For example 244th & Highway 99 has a proposed LOS E, yet there is no project proposed to address it. She asked whether all the areas expected to have a failed LOS have a project and if not, why not. Mr. Samdahl answered the section of Hwy 99 in the location has a LOS E policy based on the State’s Highway of Regional Significance. There are a couple intersections on Highway 99 that are not proposed to be brought into full compliance due to the cost to adding additional lanes. Councilmember Petso believed the LOS for that intersection was D; she referred to page 3-40 where the E indicates it is below standard. Mr. Hauss answered it is a Highway of Statewide significance so the intersections are not required to meet the City’s LOS standard. The City of Shoreline is completing improvements nearby. Mr. Samdahl corrected his earlier statement, 244th has a LOS D Highway of Statewide Significance but is not subject to concurrency. The project under construction by Shoreline was included; however, even though that project will greatly improve what would exist, the LOS is projected to be E in the future. Councilmember Petso asked whether the City has the option to design a project to improve that. Mr. Hauss said the standard for an intersection on a Highway of Statewide Significance is LOS E, so there is no requirement. Councilmember Petso clarified the LOS for that intersection is actually D. Whether the improvement was required or not, she asked whether the City had the option to improve it. Mr. Hauss said that may be something to look at. Councilmember Petso asked if there were other intersections in the list that will be below LOS but for which projects are not identified. Mr. Hauss said proposed improvements at Highway 99 @ 212th, Highway 99 @ 212th, and Highway 99 @ 220th are identified in the Transportation Plan. Mr. Samdahl clarified there are improvements identified for Highway 99 @ 212th and 220th, however, even with improvements, the intersections will still operate at LOS E or F. Additional improvements could be identified to make them meet LOS D. The Transportation Committee and staff felt the magnitude of those projects would be too expensive but it could be revisited. Councilmember Petso referred to page 3-44, accident history analysis, which indicates there were 90 accidents at Westgate, the most of any of the intersections, and the highest rate of accident per million entering vehicles of 1.4. She asked whether any projects were proposed to improve safety in that area. Mr. Samdahl answered a specific safety project is not identified other than what was discussed as part of the Westgate Plan such as making it more pedestrian friendly at the intersection to slow traffic. The higher rate of collisions is due to the high volume of traffic. Councilmember Nelson asked how roadway speed factors into accident rates. Mr. Samdahl answered speed certainly is a contributing especially with rear-end accidents but more so with the severity of accidents. Councilmember Nelson asked how Edmonds compared to other cities with regard to traffic safety. Mr. Samdahl answered Edmonds’ highest collision rates are lower than other communities which often exceed 2 collisions per million entering vehicles. There were no glaring safety locations where there was a high number of injury or fatality accidents that they felt needed a specific safety treatment. Some of the improvements proposed at intersections such as turning lanes and signals will contribute to safety. Councilmember Nelson asked the percentage of reduction. Mr. Samdahl answered that could be calculated for a specific location, but was not done as part of this plan. Packet Page 10 of 385 Councilmember Mesaros referred to table 3-8 on page 3-44, suggesting comparative information for cities Edmonds’ size or the State be included. Mr. Samdahl advised the average for the state is in the high 1s for what the State considers high collision locations. He agreed comparison information could be included. Councilmember Johnson referred to potential project revenues based on current sources. The City currently allocates the first $750,000 of REET to parks and the remainder to transportation. She recalled the Transportation Committee discussed potential funding from REET 1 and 2 for transportation, yet that was not identified on Table 4-3, Potential Additional Optional Sources. She asked about potential additional funding from REET 1 and 2. Mr. Young agreed that could be provided. Councilmember Johnson commented that policy decision was made 20-25 years ago and the Council may want to revisit it. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the proposal for a signal at Puget Drive and 88th, recalling an earlier consultant suggested improvements to the intersection to increase sight distance to make it safer. That appears to have been abandoned, and now the proposal is for a signal which he did not think would work on a hill. He referred to the proposal for a signal at Main & 9th as well as other options. He referred to Olympic Avenue, recalling in the past the neighborhood was opposed to having the road widened. He expressed concern with the optional funding sources, commenting Edmonds is not Lynwood and residents do not want a red light fee or an $80 license fee. He suggested the City be practical about what citizens want. He encouraged the Council to protect REET funds; the City has a good park system that needs REET funds and enough has been provided for transportation. Hearing no further comments, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of public hearing. 8. RESOLUTION TO DISSOLVE EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATING AGENCY (ESCA) Mayor Earling advised Councilmembers were provided individual briefings on the need to dissolve ESCA. Assistant Police Chief Don Anderson explained since 1994 the City of Edmonds has via Interlocal Agreement (ILA) received emergency management services from ESCA. This has been in partnership with other cities in southwest Snohomish County as well as three cities in northwestern King County. Governance of ESCA is by its board of directors with each member city having one board representative. At a March 26, 2015 Board meeting, the Board passed a 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 are presenting cities within Snohomish County consensus that the Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management (DEM) is a very viable alternative to ESCA. DEM is able to provide a level of service commensurate with that mandated by federal law and the RCW on the provisions of relevant comprehensive emergency management plans and programs. In addition to DEM’s ability to meet service expectations, they are also able to provide those services at lower cost to the ESCA cities. The financial specifics are noted in the fiscal impact section of the agenda memo but preliminary estimates are that DEM is able to provide this service at a savings of $49,761 annually. For these reasons discussions have occurred 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 on January 1, 2016 but to also include at no cost to the City certain bridge provisions to ensure a smooth transition from ESCA to DEM during the Packet Page 11 of 385 time period between when the ILA is ratified to the end of 2015. It is expected an ILA with DEM can be presented to the Council with the next 60 days. Staff recommends the City pass the resolution to dissolve ESCA no later than June 30, 2015 with the dissolution effective at the end of the day December 31, 2015. Mayor Earling relayed Chief Compaan is the City’s delegate to ESCA and Assistant Chief Anderson is the alternate and has been participating discussions for several months. Councilmember Nelson asked about bridge during the gap between ESCA and DEM. Assistant Chief Anderson said an ESCA committee is working on an ILA that will address equipment, volunteer coordinator services, etc. to ensure there is no gap in service. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1334, DETERMINING THAT THE EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATING AGENCY (ESCA) SHOULD BE DISSOLVED EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 2015. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. EDMONDS FISH HATCHERY LEASE AGREEMENT Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the Edmonds Fish Hatchery which has been operated by Edmonds Trout Unlimited for the past 10 years hosts many salmon hatchlings every year as well as a numerous educational programs. Trout Unlimited’s lease is up and staff is seeking a lease agreement with them for five additional years. Trout Unlimited is interested continuing to operate the fish hatchery and in the zero sum lease. The City does not have the capacity to operate the hatchery. They are only interested in five years because they believe their capacity may diminish after five years. She plans to work with them on public outreach campaigns to identify another volunteer group to steward the fish hatchery at the end of the five year lease. She requested Council review the agreement and schedule approval on next week’s Consent Agenda. Mr. Hite explained during discussions with Trout Unlimited, they also expressed concern with the number of people who use the hatchery facility without any contractual/lease arrangement. As a result language has been added to the lease to give Trout Unlimited the ability to operate the hatchery and have third party leases for insurance purposes. Trout Unlimited and the City Attorney are satisfied with the language in the agreement. Living near the fish hatchery, Councilmember Mesaros said it is a beehive of activity on the weeks and Trout Unlimited has done a great job assembling a core group who do gardening and take care of grounds, as well as provide educational activities. He summarized the fish hatchery is a great asset to the City. Ms. Hite assured that will continue to happen with the tightening of lease with regard to the use of the facility. The Park Department will continue to oversee the demonstration garden and volunteer activities, provide porta potties during events, pick up debris following a cleanup day, etc. Councilmember Nelson said he has visited the hatchery with his children to feed the salmon. He asked the potential for another group to operate the hatchery beyond five years. Ms. Hite responded Trout Unlimited is interested in working with the City to find a sustainability plan for their organization; she envisioned that organization would continue to be involved by engaging some younger people. The core group is getting older and they are concerned with their ability to continue to do the physically demanding work. Future efforts will include working with the media on recruiting volunteers to continue its sustainability. Short of that group, there is no Plan B at this time. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO SCHEDULE APPROVAL OF THE FISH HATCHERY LEASE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Packet Page 12 of 385 10. MARINA BEACH PARK MASTER PLAN BRIEFING Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the Planning Board was recently provided an update and the Council has previously been briefed on the project. Two open houses have been held; the last open house, attended by over 100 people, provided a tremendous amount of public input and began to shape ideas for the master plan. She thanked Councilmember Nelson for attending the last open house. The virtual, online open house, launched the next day, has received a lot of traffic and the City has received numerous emails. At the last briefing to the Council three alternatives were presented, A: south through the off-leash area, B: north through the main park area, and C: a combination of A and B. Using input from the first public open house, the Project Advisory Committee, the Council and Planning Board, a decision was made to follow through on two concept options that follow the north alignment and the middle alignment. Chris Jones, Landscape Architect, Walker | Macy, identified members of the Project Advisory Committee: • 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 Stakeholder meetings have been held with the following: • Dave Earling (Mayor of Edmonds) • Joan Bloom (City Council) • Dr. Kent Saltonstall (City of Woodway) • Susie Schaefer (Friends of Edmonds Marsh) • Marla Kempf, Bob McChesney and Jim Orvis (Port of Edmonds) • Kojo Fordjour (WSDOT) • Tammy Armstrong (Department of Natural Resources - DNR) • Karen Andres and Susan Tarpley (Ranger Naturalists) • -Kristiana Johnson, Lora Petso, Adrienne Fraley-Monillas (City Council) • Susan Morrow (Seal Sitters) • Ann Aldrich, Diane Buckshnis, Julie Nealey (OLAE, Off Leash Area Edmonds) • Kernen Lien (Senior Planner, City of Edmonds) • Walter Smith (Burlington Northern Santa Fe - BNSF) • Neil Tibbott and Phil Lovell (City of Edmonds Planning Board) He displayed a project schedule, explaining there have also been two open houses, the first in March, another a few weeks ago and a final open house will be held in July. He displayed the Site Analysis which Packet Page 13 of 385 was previously provided to the City Council and at the two open houses. He described stream alignment options A, B and C. He summarized comments from the 30-40 attendees at the first open house: • Disinterest in Option A • Beach, views, environment, picnic tables, seating, walking, active/passive recreation opportunities • Parking capacity • Restroom facilities • Provide more habitat and educational opportunities • Willow Creek alignment and impacts • Dog and human conflicts. Dog impacts to environment Two options were presented at Open House #2 that reflected alignments B and C. He reviewed elements of each option: Option 1 • Minimal change to park, people say the park operates successful as is • Maintains same number of parking stalls 57 (includes 3 ADA stalls) • Stream Alignment B • Off-leash dog area in same location, reduced by 15% due to the buffer area • Bridge connects parking lot to the off-leash dog area • Difference between Options 1 and 2, Option 1 has a turnaround in the parking lot o Drawing does not show 100’ radius required for fire access. Meeting with Fire Department to confirm the required radius • Lawn area reduced from existing • Added overlook area south of marina • Creek flows though park, fence on the north side of dog park to keep dogs out of creek • 2 alternative locations for restrooms – centrally located that equally serve park and dog users o Planning Board pointed out parking outside the park property; centrally located restrooms could consider that • Potential for nature play (rocks, boulders, logs) and environmental education in buffer area Option 2 • Stream alignment C • Maintains off-leash dog park in existing location • Fence on north side • Curved bridge provides more visual interest • Overlook at the current Unocal overlook • 57 parking stalls (including 3 ADA) in parking lot, not have a turn around • Maximizes lawn area where turnaround would be • 2 restrooms alternatives, centrally located and north toward bridge near parking lot • Overlook in similar location as Option 1 • Both options maximize amount of beach space He relayed a question that arose at the Planning Board regarding planting at the mouth of the creek. He provided a photograph of Carkeek Park, advising planting material would be similar to Carkeek Park with more dense materials further up the channel. Future drawings will illustrate trails and perspectives of that experience. He summarized comments from the 100+ attendees at Open House #2: • No clear preference between Option 1 vs. Option 2. Most prefer a hybrid • Primary Considerations: Packet Page 14 of 385 o Dog Park o Turnaround o Restroom Location o Parking o Open Lawn Space Mr. Jones reviewed next Steps: 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 November Adoption of Master Plan Council President Fraley-Monillas liked Option 1 because the turnaround at end of parking lot improves the ability to unload and improves ability to see cars. Councilmember Mesaros echoed the importance of the turnaround, noting it would be helpful in unloading kayaks closer to the water. Councilmember Nelson liked Option 1 because the beach was more continuous. He also supported a Fire Department-compliant turnaround. Councilmember Bloom observed the turnaround did not have sufficient radius for a fire turnaround but Option 2 does not have any turnaround. She asked whether fire equipment would be required to back out of the parking lot in Option 2. Mr. Jones answered in small parking lots a hammerhead at the end of the parking lot was a work around. Councilmember Bloom asked if the vegetation in the dog park would be part of the design. Mr. Jones answered it was for illustrative purposes only; they have heard a lot of plant material is not desirable in the dog park because it does not survive. The only way for plant material to succeed is a raised planter. Most people prefer the openness in the dog park. Councilmember Bloom asked whether there has been any discussion about partnering with the Port on restrooms. Mr. Jones identified the location of the Port restroom, relaying the Port prefers they and the City have their own facilities recognizing the use will likely be shared. Councilmember Petso liked the two overlooks in Option 2, one at the north and another by the dog park. Mr. Jones relayed comments regarding Option 1 included that the bridge seemed to only serve the dog park users and not general park users. Moving forward, the use of the bridge needs to be balanced to ensure the southern portion of the site, while primarily for dog users, also accommodates everyone else. Councilmember Johnson recalled during the first open house the focus was on people who use the off- leash area, the grassy area, etc. Her focus was on the fish; Willow Creek is being daylighted to enhance the marsh and encourage the return of fish. She asked Mr. Jones to address the proposed buffers for daylighting Willow Creek and how the gradient will work in the different tide configurations. Mr. Jones displayed Option B, explaining the planning effort began with what is required in the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), a 100-foot buffer. In discussions with Mr. Lien and Ms. Hope, they learned there is an option for a 50% buffer reduction which has been vetted with funding sources. Department of Ecology requires only a 35-foot buffer as part of their grant program. There is significant work to be done with regard to that reduction and proving it is a reasonable approach given water quality and other issues. With regard to tides, Mr. Jones relayed Shannon & Wilson’s indication that there will be a 3-5-inch water cover at low tide similar to the Carkeek Park photo and 3-5 foot water depth at the deepest locations at the mouth of the creek at high tide. Packet Page 15 of 385 Councilmember Johnson asked how a play area in the creek would affect salmon recovery. Mr. Jones explained the play area would not be within the creek. He displayed Option 1, identifying the location of the centrally located play space, and a nature play area with logs and/or boulders on the margin which can be within the buffer area. Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding from Keely O’Connell that salmon use olfactory senses to return to the marsh. She asked how that would be affected by water quality in Puget Sound. Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster said it depends. The channel is being designed for small Chinook to come into the marsh to feed, not to spawn because Willow Creek is too small for Chinook salmon. If the channel is opened and the tidal influx into the marsh and marsh water out into Puget Sound, the salmon will sense that and it will point them toward the marsh. Councilmember Mesaros said it would have been wonderful to have the two overlooks yesterday when a pod of orcas visited for nearly an hour. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Jones for his presentation and assured Councilmember Johnson Ms. O’Connell indicated the reduced buffer is workable because it is at the mouth of the stream where salmon do not need the entire 100-foot buffer. With regard to the buffers, Ms. Hite explained this is the master planning process, not permitting. She believes the project will meet the threshold for the 50-foot buffer reduction. The Council will also be considering a critical areas update in the near future, probably before permits are requested for the Marina Beach Master Plan. It has been an interesting challenge to design daylighting Willow Creek to allow salmon to feed in the marsh while preserving the park and access to Puget Sound. That will be part of discussion during the critical areas update. Ms. Hite thanked the Council for their feedback and direction. Based on Council comments and public feedback Staff will to work with Walker | Macy to fine tune the master plan and develop a hybrid option with regard to two overlooks, the restrooms, the turnaround, etc. She invited the Council and the public to the July 8 open house and encouraged Councilmembers to call or email her with any questions before then. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 11. UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES/PROJECTS Development Services Director Shane Hope explained Development Services includes Building, Engineering and Planning. She displayed photographs of the staff team, highlight 3 staff members who between them have 63 years of service. Staff works hard to serve the public; there was a total of 4,472 Building Division inspection in 2014. Through the end of April 2015, Building has performed 1,753 inspections. She highlighted land use applications received, 48 through April 2014 compared with 58 through April 2015. She displayed graphs of Development Services permit history that illustrated total Development Services revenue and number of building permits 1985 – 2014 and January through April 2001 – 2014. She provided a comparison of the number of Building Permits issued and valuation, through April 30, 2014 and April 30, 2015. She summarized both the number of permits and valuations are higher in 2015. Packet Page 16 of 385 Building Official Leif Bjorback reviewed solar permits issued 2014-2015: Year Number of Permits # of Permits Applied for Online % Online kW 2012 3 0 83% 11.0 2013 6 0 90% 41.0 2014 39 35 86% 241.4 2015 15 13 53% 93.3 Total 63 53 84% 386.7 He displayed a proclamation issued by Governor Inslee declaring Edmonds and others cities to be Northwest Solar Communities. He displayed a map of key development projects, noting major commercial projects are on Highway 99, business districts and in the bowl as well as residential projects throughout the City. He displayed photographs of residential projects, advising the Development Services Department currently has 68 active new single family residence projects in the works including the 7-lot Shoreshire, 6-lot Shaw Lane and the Woodvale subdivision. He displayed photographs and described commercial development: • Swedish Hospital project o 94,117 square foot emergency department expansion, $28 million in valuation • New post office mixed use building o 94,256 square feet, 43 residential units, post office, retail space $7.2 million in valuation. o Phase 2 will have a similar look, fronting on Main Street, retail and restaurant on street level with residential above and parking below. • Prestige Care o New 48,782 square foot skilled nursing facility on 76th Ave W, $6.9 million in valuation, less institutional and more livable • Cedarview Memory Care Center o 70,897 square feet, 80 bed $7.1 million in valuation • Campbell Nelson parking lot for extra vehicle storage Mr. Bjorback described tenant improvement projects: • Restaurant in former O’Reilly’s building • Harbor Freight • Winco Foods o Total interior overhaul of existing 90,000 square foot supermarket plus upgrades to exterior and parking lot • Salish Crossing o New tenants include Museum, distillery, bottling company Spud o Top Pot Donuts in new building in north end of parking lot • Several examples of new tenants downtown • Channel Marker moved to Harbor Square • Edmonds Museum • City Park Spray and Play – construction begins next week. Ms. Hope highlighted other development services work projects: • Development Code rewrite • Comprehensive Plan update • Critical area Ordinance updates • Engineering Standards update • SR 104 study Packet Page 17 of 385 • Electronic Plan review implementation • Permit Center/Green Room remodel She advised the Development Services Permit Center counter is closed all day on Wednesdays for a limited period of time to catch up on plan review. She displayed a photograph of staff’s bike commute challenge. Councilmember Mesaros referred to the graph that illustrates the number of building permits was down in 2008/2009 and is slowing increasing. He asked about staffing during that time. Ms. Hope offered to provide Council that information as she was not employed by the City at that time. Councilmember Mesaros commented on how staffing impacts the ability to serve the public; if there is not adequate staff, that should be considered. Councilmember Nelson asked whether Snohomish County will bring back the solarize campaign, noting it resulted in a significant increase in solar permits. Many people living in the Pacific Northwest may not realize not only can they achieve an electric bill of zero but can be a net provider of electricity using their solar panels. Ms. Hope answered there was interest in doing that. She agreed it was a great opportunity to get the word out. There is also more education happening; for example a NW Tour of ecofriendly buildings included some Edmonds projects. The availability of the online permit makes it very easy. She anticipated as more people become aware, with the City’s assistance, the momentum will continue. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether there was an opportunity for the City to put solar panels on its buildings. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite advised the City is engaged in a solar cooperative and there are a number of panels installed on the Frances Anderson Center roof. The City receives quite a discount on energy for the Frances Anderson Center via the community solar cooperative. Proceeding with part 2 with the solar cooperative has been considered but they are not yet ready. Mayor Earling highlighted the workload occurring on the 2nd floor. He recalled in 2008 people complaining that staff didn’t have enough to do which he noted was not true. The workload now is staggering, thus the decision to close the permit center on Wednesdays. Staff is available by phone and appointments. He summarized staff is doing a fabulous job even with the heavy workload, 12. AMENDING THE CITY CODE REGARDING DELINQUENCY CHARGES, THRESHOLD ACCOUNT BALANCES, AND TURN-ON AND TURN-OFF CHARGES Finance Director Scott James explained additional language has been added since this was initially presented to the Council on April 1. He reviewed revised language in the ordinance that accomplishes the following: • Section 7.10.025 o Utility billing delinquency charge changed from 10% of the outstanding balance to a flat $25 fee o Remove reference to the Finance Committee o Include provision for appeal and a $100 appeal fee o Amend the threshold for account balances to be considered delinquent from $21 to $40 o Clarifies the placement of liens for unpaid accounts and allows pursuit of foreclosure as authorized by RCW o Increase the charge for turning water on or off at the main other than during regular working hours from $75 to $125 • Section 7.10.070 o Add Section 3: “Applicability. The provisions of this ordinance shall be applicable to existing delinquent account balances and the delinquency charge on such balance shall be calculated Packet Page 18 of 385 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, 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.” Councilmember Mesaros referred to the fee for an appeal and asked if an appellant still pays the $100 fee if they win. Mr. James answered yes, the fee is intended to cover some of the cost incurred. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered that fee is consistent with other appeal processes. The purpose of the appeal fee is to defray the administrative cost of the appeal. Councilmember Mesaros commented if the administration was done right, an appeal would not have been necessary. Mr. Taraday said language could be added to excuse the appeal fee in instances where the appellant prevails. Councilmember Petso asked why an appeal fee would be charged on utility accounts and whether the City received a lot of appeals. Mr. James answered none have been brought to Council; only a few have recently been brought to the Finance Director which he, the City Attorney and Mayor have handled. Councilmember Petso observed this provision would only apply if the person has already worked with staff and is dissatisfied with staff’s decision and wants to appeal to Council. She asked whether the intent was to charge a $100 appeal fee at that point. Mr. James answered yes. Councilmember Bloom referred to the turn on and off charges and asked if that was related to a property owner asking to have the water turned on or off at their home. Mr. James answered yes. Councilmember Bloom asked whether that happened frequently. Mr. James answered it does happen; the goal is to minimize afterhours calls and recover the cost. Councilmember Bloom asked why someone would ask to have their water turned off. Mr. James answered a burst pipe, construction, etc. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained there are two time periods and costs, during working hours and afterhours. If a customer is behind on their bill and staff turns their water off during working hours, there is a $20 charge. If a customer asks to have their water turned off, there would also be a $20 charge if it is during working hours. If a customer plans to be out of town for a significant period of time, it may be cost effective to have the water turned off to avoid the fixed monthly charges that would accrue to the account. The more common occurrence is a customer who is behind on their payments and staff ends up turning the water off for which there is a $20 charge. If a customer asks to have their water turned on afterhours, the proposal is a $125 charge. Councilmember Bloom asked if someone doing construction on Saturday, an allowable time for construction, would they incur an afterhours charge if they asked have their water turned off. Mr. Williams explained most people can turn their own water off inside their house. If they were working on their service line, they can also turn off the water on their side of the meter. If the City is asked to turn off their service which includes notice to the Finance Department to discontinue service, a charge is levied. Council President Fraley-Monillas recommended adding wording that the appeal fee is waived if the citizen wins their appeal. Mr. Williams suggested staff return with a proposal, possibly related to the amount of the delinquency. He noted there are currently 9 accounts that together have $188,000 in unpaid charges. He suggested possibly an appeal of a large amount should pay a fee because the issues would be more complicated. Councilmember Petso suggested inserting a period after “mailed” and delete “and by paying an appeal fee of $100.” She noted if there is an appeal to Council, $100 is unlikely to compensate for the effort that goes into the appeal. Since it is potentially unjust, she suggested appeals be free and assume there will not be very many which has historically been the case. Packet Page 19 of 385 Councilmember Mesaros commented if the Council finds itself involved in 30 appeals a month, a fee can be reinstituted. Mayor Earling questioned whether the Council really wanted these actions coming to them for a decision. Councilmember Mesaros answered no, but did not think they would because either a customer owed the money or they didn’t. He did not mind having a penalty if a customer owed the money and was found to owe it after the appeal was completed. He did not want an appeal fee for a customer who won their appeal. Mr. James said one of the proposals was to reduce the fee to a flat $25 which would reduce the need for an appeal. He encouraged the Council adopt these revisions tonight. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4000 AMENDING ECC 7.10 REGARDING WATER SERVICE TO CLARIFY THE CALCUALTIN OF THE DELINQUENCY CHARGES AND TO AMEND THE TURN ON AND TURN OFF CHARGES. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE BY DELETING THE $100 FEE AS FOLLOWS: PUT A PERIOD AT THE END OF THE WORD “MAILED” AND DELETE “AND BY PAYING AN APPEAL FEE OF $100.” AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS MENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING POTENTIAL SUBMITTAL OF LETTER OF INTEREST TO STATE TO ACQUIRE THE EDMONDS CONFERENCE CENTER Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty reviewed responses to questions raised by the Council at the May 12, 2015 meeting (responses provided in italics): Condition of the Building/Premises 1. Has there been additional damage to the building since last summer's reconnaissance? No additional damage of note has occurred since last summer. 2. What improvements, maintenance or damage corrections have been made over the years? • Stage lights and sound system was installed in the auditorium. (The large monitors are property of the church that conducts services every week.) • The HVAC system was upgraded and considered to be in excellent condition, including new gas meters and web-based HVAC controls. Completed Fall 2013, $90,000. • LED lighting in the auditorium for energy savings performed, December 2013, $60,000. • Roof was replaced in 2013. 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? As it turns out, the Surplus Property Bulletin is incorrect. There are approximately 13 spaces on site, with approximately an additional 10 spaces on the adjacent site to the north (215 4th Avenue North, sold to a private party and containing a duplex with four exclusive parking spaces. The remaining parking spaces are covenanted to the Conference Center. Exact covenant details are not yet Packet Page 20 of 385 available.) Other parking for up to approximately 5 spaces, principally for staff, has been provided through the City’s on-street parking system.) 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, up to 400 standing room • 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. 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? Direct quotes from the College: “What are the College's marketing efforts? The marketing efforts for the College's Creative Retirement Institute, ULearn and ArtsNow programs are by TV (Channel 26, the college channel), direct mail, brochures, the College catalog which is mailed to nearly every citizen in Edmonds, Lynnwood, Brier, Mukilteo and Woodway and ads in the local newspapers.” “Is the College maximizing its efforts to develop business and usage of the Center? Yes, within the good business practices for the College's community mission activities as required by the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges. We advertise the use of the facility for community use, private industry seminars/training and private individual use such as receptions, weddings and general public activities. We do not promote facility use beyond the College's charter under state law for community colleges.” The conference center fulfills a niche for meetings and conferences for nonprofit agencies, state and governmental agencies, no so much for corporate or large professional associations or other non- meeting type uses such as weddings, gatherings, parties, class reunions. It is not Class A conference space. 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 Packet Page 21 of 385 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 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 staff members 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 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. Packet Page 22 of 385 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 staff person 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 responses can be shared here. 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. Mr. Taraday advised if the City did have any interest it would show up in a title report and none has been provided. 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? COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling advised Mr. Doherty is on vacation out of the country next week. Councilmember Bloom referred to a conversation today with a citizen who is very interested in an incubator project and who felt the upstairs room would be conductive to an incubator project. There are a handful of people very interested in an incubator project beyond those who spoke when the ECA subgroup discussed an incubator project. In that meeting Mr. Doherty relayed Mr. McIalwain had suggested perhaps they would be interested in running the conference center. Mr. Doherty said as Mr. McIalwain had not responded he assumed he was not authorized to provide an official response. If the City purchased the center and if the City continued to operate it as a conference center, there is the possibility that the PFD/ECA could respond positively to managing the facility. Councilmember Petso inquired about the process that would need to occur for the Council to move forward. Mr. Doherty explained the State extended the deadline for submittal of a letter of interest to June 1. Within 10 days of the submittal, an offer would need to be submitted, a total of approximately 20 days from now. If the Council decided tonight to submit a letter of interest, the letter would be submitted as close to June 1 as possible and during the remaining time do whatever due diligence Council requests. Councilmember Petso asked what happened if the Council voted tonight to submit a letter of interest on May 29 and then decided not to submit an offer. She asked whether the Council was bound in anyway by submittal of a letter of interest. Mr. Doherty answered no, there was no earnest money deposit, etc. In a Packet Page 23 of 385 normal private sector property transaction an earnest money deposit is made and a due diligence period is negotiated and if the purchaser walks away, the earnest money deposit may be lost. Councilmember Petso observed if the Council took action tonight to submit a letter of interest, there would be 10 days in May and 10 days in June for further investigation at the end of which the Council could decide to walk away with no downside. Mr. Taraday agreed there was no demerit against the City if the Council submitted a letter of interest but did not submit an offer. Councilmember Mesaros was in favor of submitting a letter of interest because he did not have all the facts regarding whether the City should or should not purchase the property. It was his understanding by submitting a letter of interest the City would get more information from the State. Mr. Doherty answered he did not expect to get more information from the State. There are certain things the City could do such as obtain a title report. Some of the scenarios are so complex there is no definitive way to flesh out or do proforma analysis without hiring several experts because they are so prospective. He cautioned there was not a wealth of information that would be available during that period of time; there may be some but likely little from the State. Councilmember Mesaros felt more information could found but agreed a proforma could not be done. He suggested the Council think through whether the property could be purchased at such a reasonable price that it would behoove the City to purchase it and hire a firm to operate it as a conference center or partner with the ECA. Mr. Doherty said the State will not indicate who else is contacting them for information. Councilmember Mesaros pointed out after June 1 and during the 10 days for submitting an offer, the City will know what other government agencies have submitted letters of interest. There is an opportunity to learn more after June 1; if the Council does not submit a letter of interest it will not learn anything and there is no downside to submitting the letter other than the time to write the letter. At this point he did not have enough information to say he was in favor of purchasing or not purchasing the property; submitting a letter of interest would buy time. Mayor Earling advised Mr. Doherty is leaving Thursday on vacation. Councilmember Buckshnis said she is a realist, a fiscal conservative and a pragmatic person. She had no interest in submitting a letter of interest. She did not want another aging building in the City’s inventory. The Council cannot even find $1 million for civic fields. If money grew on trees she would be in favor of purchasing it, razing it and building something else. She has been in the building every week for the past six years; when it rains, the building leaks and she was certain there was dry rot and other problems. She questioned why the Council was still talking about it; the City does not need a conference center. She urged the Council to be realistic and look at the money the City has and the projects that are already envisioned. She preferred to spend $1 million on the civic fields. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the report which includes photographs of damage, indicates there is approximately $1 million in damage as determined by an outside agency hired by Edmonds Community College. Mr. Doherty clarified the report contains photos of the damage the engineer found in the seven places they tested; that was not necessarily all the damage. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed rumors/comments from citizens that the report is inaccurate and there is only $250,000 in damage. Mr. Doherty said there is no other report from an engineering firm so he was uncertain how other estimates were determined. However, the rough order of magnitude by engineers included contingencies and ranges of costs. Theoretically if there was no more damage than what the engineers found, the 20% contingency could be removed. The engineer’s estimate was prepared using unit costs and profit was added. He summarized if everything was no worse than what the engineer found, there was potential for the cost to be less due to the contingency; however, that would only reduce the cost of repairs to approximately $800,000. Conversely, the engineers don’t know what they don’t know and the cost of repairs could be higher. Council President Fraley-Monillas summarized the cost of repairs was $800,000 and above. Packet Page 24 of 385 Council President Fraley-Monillas said the Council could discuss this again at the May 26 meeting but she questioned what additional information would be available. Mr. Doherty said he was in the office tomorrow and will monitor email while on vacation and could do specific things like request a title report. If the Council submitted a letter of interest on June 1, Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what information could be gathered by June 10. She asked whether the intent was to hire another firm to look at the damage to the building, hire someone to do a proforma, etc. Mr. Doherty said it depends on the questions the Council has. There was not enough time to write a contract to hire someone to do that work. A title report could be requested and he will send any additional questions to the State; they may/may not reply. Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed interest in learning about potential further damage in the building unless the Council intended to tear it down and build something else. Mr. Doherty was uncertain there was the ability to determine that in the timeframe. Further, the City does not own the building and therefore has no right to hire someone to do an inspection. The City would first need to ask the State for permission and then do a quick bid process; he was uncertain and inspection and report could be done within a week. He was very pessimistic about the ability to accomplish that in the timeframe provided and because the City does not own the building. Council President Fraley-Monillas said that was an important factor; she wouldn’t a buy house without knowing what the problems were and she was unsure she was willing to spend the City’s money if she didn’t know what the problems were. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bloom relayed in her conversation with Mary Heffernan Trester who runs the EdCC education program at the conference, she indicated they have only a temporary location for their program. One potential is the City could lease the space back to EdCC and they could run the program. Mr. Doherty answered theoretically that was possible. Councilmember Bloom was puzzled Mr. Doherty had not received much information form the State; in her conversation with Stephanie Fuller today, she was very forthcoming about the offsets that could be provided to purchase the property. Councilmember Bloom suggested having an executive session to allow her to share those with Council although she almost felt she should share them with the public. In response to Councilmember Bloom’s question whether this would be a space Parks would be interested in for arts or culture ,Ms. Hite said she talked to Arts and Culture Manager Frances Chapin last week and they toured the conference center on Friday. It is definitely a potential space for arts and cultural programs and activities for the City and one of the goals in the Cultural Plan is to maximize the use of space for arts and culture. The building is located on the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor and the City currently does not own any property in that corridor so the building could be a potential asset. Her concerns include the cost to purchase the property and competing priorities in the adopted CIP. One in particular she was concerned about was the City’s ability to afford the purchase of the civic fields. She recommended looking at the macro level of fixing the space in order to operate it, staff capacity to create a business plan or proforma as well as long term operating costs and staff to operate it. She summarized although it was consistent with the Cultural Plan she has concerns. Councilmember Bloom observed the purchase was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element which states the Edmonds Community College has expanded its downtown presence through initiatives with the Edmonds Conference Center, formerly the Edmonds Floral Center, and is working with Edmonds Center for the Arts to enhance overall operations. Ms. Heffernan Trester informed her they have a cooperative relationship with the ECA, Ms. Chapin and with the City. Packet Page 25 of 385 Councilmember Nelson commented it seemed like the Council was trying to put a square peg in a round hole. This is a conference center but it is not an amazing conference center. He questioned whether the City wanted to operate it as a conference center when others have struggled to make work. The net loss could be acceptable if it served some public good but he did not see any public good. The other option was to buy it, tear the building down and build something else which raises the question of what else would be built. All the ideas about making this something other than conference center do not seem to fit. For example a year-round, the market in Puyallup is in a big barn; that makes sense, this building is not that. He did not support the purchase because he did not see how it fit. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO SUBMIT A LETTER OF INTEREST PRIOR TO THE STATE’S DEADLINE. Councilmember Bloom said she really wanted to have an executive session to discuss this. Mayor Earling inquired about the grounds for an executive session. Mr. Taraday relayed the Council may go into executive session to consider the selection of a site or acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase when public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased price. There is also a basis for executive session under subsection (i), potential litigation. Councilmember Petso said one reason for her motion, in addition to Mr. Doherty being gone and therefore the Council should take action tonight, was the PFD Board meeting is next Thursday. There will at least be two pieces of information provided, a title report and information from the PFD and she was hopeful some sort of inspection could be arranged during the next 10 days. In any event there was no downside to submitting a letter of interest. To Councilmember Bloom’s request for an executive session, she said Roberts Rules allows her to demand it via calling for the orders of the day on which no vote is required. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the motion because in addition to being a fiscal conservative, the Council has not talked about parking for the building. She recalled parking has been an issue with Westgate and Highway 99 but yet no one is talking about parking for this building. In her experience when there are more than two events at the center, there is no parking. Mayor Earling suggested the Council have an executive session prior to next week’s meeting rather than tonight. Councilmember Petso preferred to vote on the motion and then discuss whether to have an executive session. Councilmember Bloom strongly supported submitting a letter of interest. Many people have talked about an overall use for the facility; one of the things Ms. Hite and she discussed was an interim plan such as a winter market instead of a year round farmers market and/or for EdCC or ECA to operate it. She said 75% of the bookings are non-profit which produce less revenue because Edmonds Community College operates it as an education facility. There could be more income potential as a result of continued rental to North Sound Church, possibly to Rick Steves, more expensive rentals, etc. She acknowledged there is a question about damage but that could be an offset to the purchase price. Submitting a letter gives the City an additional 10 days to look at issues and decide with a reasoned mind whether to move forward with submitting a bid. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the Council still had another week to work through issues. She understood Mr. Doherty would be gone but someone could do the research between now and next Tuesday. She found it difficult to support submitting a letter of interest when there were still so many questions. Packet Page 26 of 385 Councilmember Petso preferred to authorize the letter now because there was no downside. She was amenable to discussing the issue next week but there would not be an answer or information available from the PFD Board until the Council’s June 2 meeting. Councilmember Johnson said from her perspective the strongest reasons for acquiring the building were its location on the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor and the CFP contains an arts museum project. Any additional information that can be provided by Mr. Hite, Ms. Chapin or Mr. McIalwain by next week would be helpful. On the other hand she viewed this as a tremendous risk and a white elephant, but the Council needs to make a decision tonight and move forward. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON, MESAROS AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND NELSON VOTING NO. The Council agreed to have an executive session before next week’s Council meeting. 14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reminded of the Memorial Day service at 11:00 a.m. at the Edmonds Cemetery. Mayor Earling announced the City will be celebrating its 125th Anniversary on August 11. Washington State University and Bartell are also celebrating their 125th anniversaries and have agreed to join in the City’s celebration. He invited anyone who knew of other 125th anniversaries to inform the City. Mayor Earling commented although a proclamation was not read tonight, this week is Public Works Week. 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed since the City’s anniversary, August 11, is a Tuesday, there are plans to cancel the Council meeting. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed she and Mayor Earling attended the Edmonds Police Department’s award ceremony. She congratulated Officers Jason Robinson, Nicholas Bickar, Douglas Compton and Jason Shier; non-commissioned officer of the year Amy Collins, and recipient of the David Stern Memorial Award Sergeant Michael Richardson. 16. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(c) This item was not needed. 17. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 18. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Packet Page 27 of 385    AM-7749     4. B.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/26/2015 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 #214358 through #214465 dated May 21, 2015 for $275,890.65 (reissued check #214360 $179.44) Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61610 through #61618 and #61624 through #61626 for 471,204.58, benefit checks #61619 through #61623 and wire payments of $515,369.37 for the pay period May 1, 2015 through May 15, 2015. Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue: Expenditure:1,262,464.60 Fiscal Impact: Claims $275,890.65 reissued check $179.44 Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $471,204.58 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $515,369.37 Total Payroll $986,573.95 Attachments Claim cks 05-21-15 Packet Page 28 of 385 Project Numbers 05-21-15 Payroll Summary 05-20-15 Payroll Summary 05-20-15a Payroll Benefits 05-20-15 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 05/21/2015 04:05 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/21/2015 04:05 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/21/2015 04:18 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/22/2015 07:34 AM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 05/21/2015 08:08 AM Final Approval Date: 05/22/2015  Packet Page 29 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214358 5/21/2015 075199 ALESSANDRINI, IOLE 01.May 15, 2015 4TH AVE ALESS 4TH AVE ALESS APPROVAL OF CONCEPT DESIGN 117.200.64.575.50.41.00 6,000.00 Total :6,000.00 214359 5/21/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987945809 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 16.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.54 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987950077 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 1Page: Packet Page 30 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214359 5/21/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987950078 STREET/STORM DIVISION MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 2.37 STREET/STORM DIVISION MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 2.37 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 242.97 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 242.97 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.23 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.23 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 23.09 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 23.06 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987950079 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 9.07 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.86 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987957238 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 16.69 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.59 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987961494 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 2Page: Packet Page 31 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214359 5/21/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987961495 STREET/STORM DIVISION MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.47 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987961496 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 3Page: Packet Page 32 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214359 5/21/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 9.07 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.86 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987968577 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 16.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.54 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987974868 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.33 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 5.06 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.48 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 5.05 9.5% Sales Tax 4Page: Packet Page 33 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214359 5/21/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.13 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.48 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987974869 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 8.76 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.83 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987981902 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 16.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.54 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987986167 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.33 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 5.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.13 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.48 5Page: Packet Page 34 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214359 5/21/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.48 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987986168 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 8.76 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.83 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987993341 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 16.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.54 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS1988016220 uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80 mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 78.09 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.42 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1988016221 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 40.95 6Page: Packet Page 35 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214359 5/21/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS1988027474 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 SERVICE1988027475 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 40.95 Total :1,060.80 214360 5/21/2015 074912 AUNIE AUBREY-CHOE & DAVID CHOE 5-08475 #664792 UTILITY REFUND #664792 Utility refund due to estimated 411.000.233.000 179.44 Total :179.44 214361 5/21/2015 001777 AURORA PLUMBING & ELECTRIC 158874 PM PLUMBING SUPPLIES PM PLUMBING SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 107.21 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.29 Total :117.50 214362 5/21/2015 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 81053 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 125.76 UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 125.76 UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 129.58 UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 458.61 7Page: Packet Page 36 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214362 5/21/2015 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 458.60 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 12.07 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 12.07 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 12.45 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS81111 UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 89.53 UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 89.53 UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 92.23 UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 325.60 UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 325.59 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 8.59 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 8.59 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 8.86 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS81151 UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 22.99 UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 22.99 UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 23.70 UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 105.36 8Page: Packet Page 37 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214362 5/21/2015 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 105.36 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 2.21 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 2.21 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 2.27 Total :2,570.51 214363 5/21/2015 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 84831 PLAQUES PLAQUES 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 93.65 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 8.90 SPRING SOFTBALL AWARDS84837 SPRING SOFTBALL AWARDS 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 216.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 20.52 Total :339.07 214364 5/21/2015 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 4037 Fleet Auto Propane 543 Gal Fleet Auto Propane 543 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 838.93 Total :838.93 214365 5/21/2015 067391 BRAT WEAR 14976 INV#14976 - EDMONDS PD - SHOEMAKE CONTEMP UNIFORM PANTS 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 260.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 24.70 INV#14977 - EDMONDS PD - BOWER14977 S/S TRAD UNIFORM SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 59.00 9Page: Packet Page 38 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214365 5/21/2015 (Continued)067391 BRAT WEAR S/S CONTEMP SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 82.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 14.92 EMBROIDERED NAME TAGS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.00 INV#14983 - EDMONDS PD - MACK14983 S/S CONTEMP SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 164.00 EMBROIDERED NAME TAGS 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 16.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 17.10 INV#14989 - EDMONDS PD - KINNEY14989 S/S CONTEMP SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 164.00 EMBROIDERED NAME TAGS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.00 TRADITIONAL PANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 178.00 U/A SPEED FREEK BOOTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 149.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 48.26 INV#14990 - EDMONDS PD - DAWSON14990 TRADITIONAL PANTS 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 267.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 25.37 INV#15011 - EDMONDS PD - MCCLURE15011 L/S TRADITIONAL SHIRT 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 64.00 TRADITIONAL PANTS 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 89.00 10Page: Packet Page 39 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214365 5/21/2015 (Continued)067391 BRAT WEAR 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 14.54 INV#15017 - EDMONDS PD - HARDWICK15017 JUMPSUIT W/ITEMS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 515.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 48.93 INV#15018 - EDMONDS PD - LEE15018 S/S CONTEMP SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 164.00 EMBROIDERED NAME TAGS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.00 TRADITIONAL PANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 178.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 34.01 Total :2,625.82 214366 5/21/2015 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1046153 E4GA/E4JB/E4MA.PUBLISH BID DOCS E4JB.Publish BID Docs 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 88.45 E4MA.Publish BID Docs 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 125.15 E4GA.Publish BID Docs 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 45.00 Total :258.60 214367 5/21/2015 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 311358 PM CRUSHED ROCK PM CRUSHED ROCK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 397.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 37.72 Total :434.72 214368 5/21/2015 061966 CAMP FIRE BOYS & GIRLS 20096 BABYSITTING 20096 BABYSITTING BASICS INSTRUCTION FEE 11Page: Packet Page 40 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214368 5/21/2015 (Continued)061966 CAMP FIRE BOYS & GIRLS 20096 BABYSITTING BASICS INSTRUCTION FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 150.00 Total :150.00 214369 5/21/2015 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14911688 Lease Council Office printer/copier Lease Council Office printer/copier 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 30.65 CANON COPIER CHARGES14911689 Canon lease pmt for C1030 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 9.33 Canon lease pmt for C1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.33 Canon lease pmt for C1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.33 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.88 INV#14911692 CUST#572105 - EDMONDS PD14911692 B/W METER USE 03/31-04/30/15 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 84.52 COLOR METER USE 03/31-04/30/15 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 116.29 MONTHLY COPIER RENTAL (4) 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 581.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 74.34 CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE14911693 CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 466.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 44.36 PARKS & REC COPIER IRC5051 CONTRACT 001-14911694 12Page: Packet Page 41 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214369 5/21/2015 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES PARKS & REC COPIER IRC5051 CONTRACT 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 273.74 RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEASE CITY CLER14911695 RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEASE CITY 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 20.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.91 P & REC PRINTER IRC1030IF CONTRACT 001-014911698 P & REC PRINTER IRC1030IF CONTRACT 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 30.65 C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 001-0572105-00414919554 Finance dept copier contract charge 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 249.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 23.75 PARKS MAINT PRINTER IRC1030IF SCHEDULE14919558 PARKS MAINT PRINTER IRC1030IF SCHEDULE 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 36.16 Total :2,065.69 214370 5/21/2015 068484 CEMEX LLC 9430701821 Roadway - Asphalt Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 180.60 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 17.16 Roadway - Asphalt9430772507 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 321.40 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 30.53 Roadway - Asphalt9430781309 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 608.50 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 57.82 13Page: Packet Page 42 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214370 5/21/2015 (Continued)068484 CEMEX LLC Roadway - Asphalt9430800228 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 469.20 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 44.57 Roadway - Asphalt9430819020 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 287.80 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 27.34 Roadway - Asphalt9430826993 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 106.40 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.11 Roadway - Asphalt9430834799 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 177.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 16.83 Total :2,355.36 214371 5/21/2015 075262 CHANDLER, STEPHEN 5/15 DAMAGE DEP RET 5/15 DAMAGE DEPOSIT RETURN 5/15 DAMAGE DEPOSIT RETURN 001.000.239.200 200.00 Total :200.00 214372 5/21/2015 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E4MA.ENG20150208 E4MA.ENG20150208 ROW PERMIT E4MA.ENG20150208 ROW Permit 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 295.00 Total :295.00 214373 5/21/2015 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 1-218359-279832 WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205TH ST / METER WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205TH ST / METER 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 15.34 14Page: Packet Page 43 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :15.342143735/21/2015 035160 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 214374 5/21/2015 074255 COAL CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOC 120902-10 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Technical Support - Title V permit 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 1,040.00 Total :1,040.00 214375 5/21/2015 071389 COASTAL WEAR PRODUCTS INC 5536 Unit 138- Tube Broom Unit 138- Tube Broom 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 500.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 47.50 Total :547.50 214376 5/21/2015 004095 COASTWIDE LABS GW2772680 PM LINERS, 2 PLY TT PM LINERS, 2 PLY TT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 844.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 80.19 PM ECOGREEN RL TWLGW2772680-1 PM ECOGREEN RL TWL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 83.55 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.94 PM ACCLAIM, BRAWNY, SOAP, ECOGREENNW2772680 PM ACCLAIM, BRAWNY, SOAP, ECOGREEN 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 633.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 60.16 Total :1,709.25 214377 5/21/2015 071680 CODE 4 LLC 31117 INV#31117 - EDMONDS PD - SWAT STREAMLIGHT TLR-1HL 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 251.64 Freight 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 10.00 15Page: Packet Page 44 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214377 5/21/2015 (Continued)071680 CODE 4 LLC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 24.86 Total :286.50 214378 5/21/2015 070323 COMCAST 8498 31 030 0721433 CEMETERY-FINAL- BUNDLED SERVICES 820 15T CEMETERY-FINAL- BUNDLED SERVICES 820 130.000.64.536.20.42.00 14.77 Total :14.77 214379 5/21/2015 005965 CUES INC 430585 Storm - Parts for DUC Camera Storm - Parts for DUC Camera 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 911.18 Freight 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 18.91 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 88.35 Storm - Gaskit for DUC Camera431314 Storm - Gaskit for DUC Camera 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 2,354.99 Freight 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 47.78 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 228.26 Total :3,649.47 214380 5/21/2015 075261 DAKOTA FLUID POWER INC 16126 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATING Hydraulic Element 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 264.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 14.08 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 26.42 Total :304.50 214381 5/21/2015 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY E7AC.DOE WAR302597 E7AC.DOE STORMWATER PERMIT WAR302597 16Page: Packet Page 45 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214381 5/21/2015 (Continued)006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY E7AC.DOE Stormwater Permit WAR302597 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 259.88 Total :259.88 214382 5/21/2015 073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC 651150804 CEMETERY ADVERTISING CEMETERY ADVERTISING 130.000.64.536.20.41.40 68.08 Total :68.08 214383 5/21/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3555 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 05/12/15 05/12/15 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ~ 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 415.80 Total :415.80 214384 5/21/2015 008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO R24886 Water Quality - Water Quality Brochures Water Quality - Water Quality Brochures 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2,907.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 276.17 Total :3,183.17 214385 5/21/2015 067345 EDMONDS TOWING 0129631 Unit 891 - Towing Fees Unit 891 - Towing Fees 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 114.20 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 10.85 Total :125.05 214386 5/21/2015 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025 MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLER MARINA BEACH PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 177.94 FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS6-00200 FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 514.89 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPRINKLER6-00410 17Page: Packet Page 46 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214386 5/21/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 288.22 ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS6-00475 ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 829.71 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 20886-01127 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 2088 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 164.93 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 94396-01130 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 9439 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 25.63 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 50104846-01140 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 5010484 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 1,153.57 CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER6-01250 CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 142.17 CITY PARK PARKING LOT6-01275 CITY PARK PARKING LOT 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,332.09 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKLER6-02125 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 247.18 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER6-02727 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 216.76 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE PARK SPRINK6-02730 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 216.76 FAC SPRINKLER6-02900 FAC SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 223.26 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER6-03000 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 397.99 18Page: Packet Page 47 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214386 5/21/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKLER6-03275 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 142.17 MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER6-03575 MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 249.50 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-04400 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 216.76 SEAVIEW PARK6-04425 SEAVIEW PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 425.91 SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER6-04450 SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 307.24 5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGATION6-06040 5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGATION 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77 MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER6-07775 MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 275.71 YOST PARK SPRINKLER6-08500 YOST PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 970.18 YOST POOL6-08525 YOST POOL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 745.53 Total :9,301.87 214387 5/21/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 113572 WWTP - OFFICE MACHINE USE 04/10/15 to 05/10/15 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 69.63 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 6.61 19Page: Packet Page 48 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :76.242143875/21/2015 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 214388 5/21/2015 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 0108239-IN INV#108239-IN ACCT#0011847 - EDMONDS PD SERGEANTS CAP BADGE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 79.00 PACKING MATERIALS FEE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 4.50 Freight 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 15.00 Total :98.50 214389 5/21/2015 075136 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC 114083 CRITICAL AREAS UPDATE Critical Areas Update 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 8,952.50 Total :8,952.50 214390 5/21/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH631616 LEGAL NOTICE PLN20150017 LEGAL NOTICE PLN20150017 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 72.24 LEGAL NOTICE PLN20150018EDH631660 LEGAL NOTICE PLN20150018 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 58.48 CITY ORDINANCES 3996, 3997 & 3998EDH632019 CITY ORDINANCES 3996, 3997 & 3998 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 73.96 Total :204.68 214391 5/21/2015 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU35621 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 94.13 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 8.94 Total :103.07 214392 5/21/2015 071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD 443 16505 CORNER PARK TAGS CORNER PARK TAGS 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 16.50 20Page: Packet Page 49 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214392 5/21/2015 (Continued)071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 1.58 Total :18.08 214393 5/21/2015 075129 FEHR & PEERS 99688 E2AA.SERVICES THRU 3/27/15 E2AA.Services thru 3/27/155 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 19,547.29 E3AB.SERVICES THRU 3/27/1599689 E3AB.Services thru 3/27/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 16,605.23 Total :36,152.52 214394 5/21/2015 011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 258.30 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 258.30 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE253-011-1177 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 6.38 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 24.23 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 24.23 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 24.23 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 24.23 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 24.20 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 32.40 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 32.39 21Page: Packet Page 50 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214394 5/21/2015 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, SPARE LINES425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 16.22 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 81.10 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 68.12 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 68.12 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 90.84 CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 MEADOWDALE RD425-745-4313 CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 128.82 LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES425-774-1031 LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRADE SPECIAL 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 47.12 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE425-775-7865 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FIVE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 64.62 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-776-1281 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 52.05 LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE425-776-2742 LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACCESS LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 18.02 Total :1,343.92 214395 5/21/2015 002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 123116-01 INV#123116-01 - EDMONDS PD - FROLAND TDU/SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 49.99 SEW EMBLEM ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 1.00 CLOTH NAME TAG 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 4.95 22Page: Packet Page 51 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214395 5/21/2015 (Continued)002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL SEW BADGE EMBLEM ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 1.00 HEAT STAMP DETECTIVE 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 6.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 5.98 INV#126133 - EDMONDS PD - HAWLEY126133 METAL NAME TAG 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 10.95 CLOTH NAME TAGS FOR SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 9.90 CLOTH NAME TAG FOR JACKET 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 9.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 2.92 INV#131167 - EDMONDS PD - SHOEMAKE131167 S/S MED BLUE SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 107.90 SEW NAME TAGS ON SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 2.00 CLOTH NAME TAGS 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 9.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.70.24.00 11.38 INV#131639-01 - EDMONDS PD - SACKVILLE131639-01 L/S UNIFORM TACLITPRO SHIRT 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 54.99 SEW BADGE EMBLEM ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 1.00 CLOTH NAME TAG 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 4.95 SEW NAME TAG ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 1.00 9.5% Sales Tax 23Page: Packet Page 52 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214395 5/21/2015 (Continued)002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 5.88 INV#136319-01 - EDMONDS PD - SUTTON136319-01 BATON CASE/BW/ASP 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 20.49 RADIO HOLDER/BW 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 45.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 6.22 INV#138584 - EDMONDS PD - PENS138584 FISHER PEN REFILLS 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 23.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 2.26 Total :399.36 214396 5/21/2015 012199 GRAINGER 9722976918 Water - Hydrant Meter Cart Parts Water - Hydrant Meter Cart Parts 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 116.72 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 11.09 Water - Hydrant Meter Cart Parts9729090424 Water - Hydrant Meter Cart Parts 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 166.54 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 15.82 Total :310.17 214397 5/21/2015 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 978745373 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC 20m cable 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 100.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 9.50 Total :109.50 214398 5/21/2015 012560 HACH COMPANY 9368010 Water Quality - Kits, Vials, Supplies 24Page: Packet Page 53 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214398 5/21/2015 (Continued)012560 HACH COMPANY Water Quality - Kits, Vials, Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,388.80 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 66.39 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 138.24 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LAB9371711 supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 1,208.40 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 66.39 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 121.13 Total :2,989.35 214399 5/21/2015 065764 HASNER, THOMAS W 31 LEOFF 1 Medical reimbursment LEOFF 1 Medical reimbursment 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 237.72 Total :237.72 214400 5/21/2015 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I3906395 Water Quality - Sample Stands Upgrade Water Quality - Sample Stands Upgrade 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2,917.07 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 277.12 Water Inventory - #492 W-VALVCI-02-010I3908031 Water Inventory - #492 W-VALVCI-02-010 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 903.24 Water Inventory #570 W-MTRLIDDI-02-030 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 232.40 Water Parts - Clamps, Meter Boxes, 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4,791.59 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 107.89 9.5% Sales Tax 25Page: Packet Page 54 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214400 5/21/2015 (Continued)010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 455.20 Total :9,684.51 214401 5/21/2015 064528 HI-LINE ELECTRICAL 10376302 Fleet Shop - Supplies Fleet Shop - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 123.34 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 8.19 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 12.47 Total :144.00 214402 5/21/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2624471 BAND AIDS, RUBBER BANDS Band aids, Rubber Bands 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 20.31 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 1.93 Office Supplies- binders2627889 Office Supplies- binders 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 74.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 7.04 Total :103.36 214403 5/21/2015 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 12980456 C/A 768328 PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 915.09 Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 6.46 Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 6.70 Total :928.25 214404 5/21/2015 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 528649 Unit 109 - Battery Unit 109 - Battery 26Page: Packet Page 55 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214404 5/21/2015 (Continued)014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 103.47 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.83 Fleet Shop - Gloves755387 Fleet Shop - Gloves 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 67.80 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 6.44 Fleet - Shop Tool755419 Fleet - Shop Tool 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 124.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 11.87 Fleet Shop - LED UV Light755738 Fleet Shop - LED UV Light 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 18.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 1.80 Fleet Shop Supplies755741 Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 66.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 6.32 Total :417.93 214405 5/21/2015 074888 JOYOUS NOISE LLC 19612 KINDERMUSIK 19612 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION FEE 19612 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 979.82 19614 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION FEE19614 KINDERMUSIK 19614 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,073.21 19616 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION FEE19616 KINDERMUSIK 19616 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 490.76 19618 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION FEE19618 KINDERMUSIK 27Page: Packet Page 56 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214405 5/21/2015 (Continued)074888 JOYOUS NOISE LLC 19618 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 271.70 Total :2,815.49 214406 5/21/2015 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 19692 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 19692 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 19692 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 558.00 19693 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE19693 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 19693 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 595.20 19694 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE19694 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 19694 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 223.20 19695 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE19695 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 19695 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 297.60 19696 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE19696 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 19696 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 148.80 Total :1,822.80 214407 5/21/2015 067877 KINGSTON LUMBER SUPPLY COMPANY 367770 Traffic Control - 4x4x12 Studs Traffic Control - 4x4x12 Studs 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1,549.30 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 147.18 Total :1,696.48 214408 5/21/2015 066522 LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES INC 3254960MB Roadway - EZ St Asphalt Roadway - EZ St Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 1,214.82 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 115.40 Total :1,330.22 28Page: Packet Page 57 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214409 5/21/2015 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER Cigna June 2015 CIGNA JUNE 2015 June 2015 Cigna Premiums 811.000.231.550 10,960.58 Total :10,960.58 214410 5/21/2015 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 007644-00 PM FIELD TRANSMITTER, EXPANSION MODULE, PM FIELD TRANSMITTER, EXPANSION MODULE, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 337.53 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 32.07 CITY PARK SPRAY PAD PIPES, UNIONS, BRASS007682-00 CITY PARK SPRAY PAD PIPES, UNIONS, 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,600.75 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 152.07 PM YOST POOL BRZ NIP, UNION, RP WILKINS007720-00 PM YOST POOL BRZ NIP, UNION, RP WILKINS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 345.68 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 32.84 Total :2,500.94 214411 5/21/2015 069862 MAKERS ARCHITECTURE AND 1438-5 CONSULTANTS- DEV CODE UPDATE CONSULTANTS- DEV CODE UPDATE 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 3,150.00 Total :3,150.00 214412 5/21/2015 061900 MARC 0551718-IN WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATING energizer, super-zyme, x-treme sewer 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 1,030.30 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 97.89 Total :1,128.19 214413 5/21/2015 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 32 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 29Page: Packet Page 58 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214413 5/21/2015 (Continued)019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 009.000.39.517.20.29.00 7,830.00 Total :7,830.00 214414 5/21/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 29809905 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 8.26 compressions sleeve, sealant, threaded 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 482.29 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL29942102 steel rod & mounting clamp 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 55.97 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 23.28 Total :569.80 214415 5/21/2015 063773 MICROFLEX 00021858 04-15 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM TAX AUDIT PROGRAM 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 21.23 Total :21.23 214416 5/21/2015 071011 MIDCO-WEST INC 447016662 WWTP - FORKLIFT REPAIR forklift repair with parts and fees 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 294.37 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 27.97 Total :322.34 214417 5/21/2015 063034 NCL 355547 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LABORATORY Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 24.75 40g nitr. inhib, 50ml BOD stand, BOD 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 454.20 Total :478.95 214418 5/21/2015 074306 NEBCO/NPRIT 3701264 LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums 30Page: Packet Page 59 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214418 5/21/2015 (Continued)074306 NEBCO/NPRIT LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums 617.000.51.517.20.23.10 1,310.62 LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums 009.000.39.517.20.23.10 9,032.24 Total :10,342.86 214419 5/21/2015 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0550493-IN Fleet Filter Inventory Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 1,000.64 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 95.06 Total :1,095.70 214420 5/21/2015 073920 NELSON, HSIANG-YUN 19513 YOGA 19513 PRE AND POSTNATAL YOGA INSTRUCTOR 19513 PRE AND POSTNATAL YOGA INSTRUCTOR 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 78.00 Total :78.00 214421 5/21/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1202811 PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET2-1203034 MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 CIVIC CENTER HONEY BUCKET2-1204362 CIVIC CENTER HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET2-1206050 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1208626 HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 218.78 WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET2-1208830 WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET 31Page: Packet Page 60 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214421 5/21/2015 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 Total :788.03 214422 5/21/2015 074391 NW WA SUBSECTION AWWA 051815 2015 W WA SHORT SCHOOL REGISTRATION ERIC DUENAS, Cert #8279 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 200.00 2015 W WA SHORT SCHOOL REGISTRATION51815 JON CLAY - Cert #5796 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 200.00 Total :400.00 214423 5/21/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 382792 PW Office Supplies - Laminate Pouches PW Office Supplies - Laminate Pouches 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 81.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 7.72 PW Office Paper387492 PW Office Paper 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 63.98 PW Office Paper 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 63.98 PW Office Paper 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 63.98 PW Office Paper 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 63.98 PW Office Paper 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 63.98 PW Office Paper 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 42.65 PW Office Paper 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 63.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 6.08 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.08 32Page: Packet Page 61 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214423 5/21/2015 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 6.08 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.08 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 6.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.05 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 6.07 PW Office Supplies - AA Batteries387533 PW Office Supplies - AA Batteries 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 115.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 10.98 Sewer Truck Printer Ink398728 Sewer Truck Printer Ink 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 91.96 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 8.74 Sewer TV Truck - Stapler398780 Sewer TV Truck - Stapler 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 19.30 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.83 Water - Marking Supplies408685 Water - Marking Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 46.45 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.42 Water - Marking Supplies411242 Water - Marking Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 83.76 9.5% Sales Tax 33Page: Packet Page 62 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214423 5/21/2015 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 7.95 PW Office Supplies430663 PW Office Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 29.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 2.82 INV#437283 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD437283 SHARPIE GREEN ACCENT PENS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 8.50 FLAIR FELT TIP MARKER 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 16.06 POCKET HIGHLIGHER-ORANGE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 8.50 SHARPIE BLUE ACCENT PENS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 8.50 LETTER SIZE LAMINATE SHEETS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 36.33 LEGAL SIZE LAMINATE SHEETS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 30.92 BOTTLE ROCKET BLUE PAPER 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 4.53 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 10.77 Total :1,103.56 214424 5/21/2015 073714 OLBRECHTS & ASSOC PLLC april 2015 HEARING EXAMINERS SERVICES HEARING EXAMINERS SERVICES 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 2,219.50 Total :2,219.50 214425 5/21/2015 072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 1649636 Unit 106 -- Parts Unit 106 -- Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 21.63 Total :21.63 34Page: Packet Page 63 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214426 5/21/2015 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00075633 Unit 106 - Inlet Weldment, Debris Hose Unit 106 - Inlet Weldment, Debris Hose 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1,504.20 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 142.90 Total :1,647.10 214427 5/21/2015 060945 PACIFIC POWER BATTERIES 19001910 Unit 48 - Battery Unit 48 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 90.03 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.55 Total :98.58 214428 5/21/2015 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 21-23076 WWTP - CONTROL SYSTEM UPGRADE Phase 04, Task 01 & 03 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 39,966.15 Total :39,966.15 214429 5/21/2015 074793 PETDATA INC 4272 INV#4272 - EDMONDS PD - APRIL 2015 75 ONE YR PET LICENSES 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 292.50 1 REPLACEMENT TAG 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 3.90 21 LATE FEES COLLECTED 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 52.50 Total :348.90 214430 5/21/2015 007800 PETTY CASH April1thruMay4 APRIL1 THRU MAY 4 PETTY CASH Seminar Parking - Patrick Lawler 001.000.62.524.20.43.00 8.00 ITE Meeting - Bertrand Hauss 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 25.00 Parking @ ICC Meetings - Rob English 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 9.00 Travel for APA Conference - Kernen Lien 35Page: Packet Page 64 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214430 5/21/2015 (Continued)007800 PETTY CASH 001.000.62.558.60.43.00 41.32 Refreshments for Bicycling to work 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 74.37 Raffle prizes for the Bicycling to work 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 80.49 Total :238.18 214431 5/21/2015 064552 PITNEY BOWES 9607730-MY15 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE ~ 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 718.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 68.27 Total :786.87 214432 5/21/2015 028400 PITNEY BOWES INC 798047 Utility Billing Folding Machine Annual Utility Billing Folding Machine Annual 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 666.33 Utility Billing Folding Machine Annual 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 666.33 Utility Billing Folding Machine Annual 422.000.72.531.90.48.00 666.34 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 63.30 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 63.30 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.48.00 63.31 Total :2,188.91 214433 5/21/2015 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC G669300 WWTP - SUPPLIES, ELECTRIC custom labeling 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 99.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 9.41 WWTP - SUPPLIES, ELECTRICG704571 36Page: Packet Page 65 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214433 5/21/2015 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC blue strand 500ft 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 58.60 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 5.57 City Hall - SuppliesG767415 City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.68 Total :203.46 214434 5/21/2015 064167 POLLARD WATER 0011860 Water - Chlor Tabs Water - Chlor Tabs 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 579.00 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 25.15 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 57.40 Water - Supplies0011865 Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 431.90 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 64.95 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 47.21 Total :1,205.61 214435 5/21/2015 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 215570 WWTP - POSTAGE dept. L&I safety & health video 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 30.98 Total :30.98 214436 5/21/2015 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY 422.000.72.531.90.51.00 2,626.56 37Page: Packet Page 66 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :2,626.562144365/21/2015 029117 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 214437 5/21/2015 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 46.89 Total :46.89 214438 5/21/2015 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET 20004 FELDENKRAIS 20004 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTOR FEE 20004 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 157.50 Total :157.50 214439 5/21/2015 075031 REECE, CARLY 5/5-5/12 GYM ATTEND 5/5-5/12/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT 5/5-5/12/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 70.00 Total :70.00 214440 5/21/2015 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 0000048607 Storm - Sweeping Dump Fees Storm - Sweeping Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 1,849.19 Total :1,849.19 214441 5/21/2015 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 148.47 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW3-0197-0800897 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 29.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 113.26 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 113.26 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 113.26 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 113.26 38Page: Packet Page 67 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214441 5/21/2015 (Continued)061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 113.24 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW3-0197-0801132 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 158.65 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD3-0197-0829729 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 69.50 Total :972.71 214442 5/21/2015 006841 RICOH USA INC 5035809769 ADDITIONAL IMAGES- ENGINEERING ADDITIONAL IMAGES- ENGINEERING 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 379.94 ADDITIONAL IMAGES- DEV SERV5035810012 ADDITIONAL IMAGES- DEV SERV 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 60.79 Total :440.73 214443 5/21/2015 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 5-003867 Unit 106 - Batteries Unit 106 - Batteries 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 306.84 9.2% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 28.23 Unit 27 - Battery5-003887 Unit 27 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 140.03 Unit 449 - Battery5-003925 Unit 449 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 86.79 Units 114,44,183 - Batteries5-003960 Units 114,44,183 - Batteries 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 420.09 Unit 448 - Battery5-004197 Unit 448 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 85.10 39Page: Packet Page 68 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214443 5/21/2015 (Continued)064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC Unit 93 - Battery5-004218 Unit 93 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 85.10 Total :1,152.18 214444 5/21/2015 071979 SACKVILLE, JODI L 4/1/15 Overtime refund for sick leave Overtime refund for sick leave 001.000.41.521.71.11.00 86.84 Total :86.84 214445 5/21/2015 069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 00442-627182 Unit 132 - Repairs Unit 132 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 140.97 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 13.39 Total :154.36 214446 5/21/2015 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC S3-582794 Unit 681 - Relay Unit 681 - Relay 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 134.06 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.73 Unit 450 - Window MotorS3-588222 Unit 450 - Window Motor 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 66.13 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.28 Unit 48 - PadS3-602529 Unit 48 - Pad 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 43.86 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.17 Unit 48 - RotorsS3-602782 Unit 48 - Rotors 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 48.64 40Page: Packet Page 69 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214446 5/21/2015 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.62 Total :320.49 214447 5/21/2015 074911 SEATTLE HEALTHY POOLS 292 YOST POOL SOLAR COVER YOST POOL SOLAR COVER 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,196.24 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 113.64 YOST POOL & SPA TILE REPAIR295 YOST POOL & SPA TILE REPAIR 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 432.50 Total :1,742.38 214448 5/21/2015 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 15-1947 Fleet Shop Tool- Surface Cleaner Fleet Shop Tool- Surface Cleaner 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 749.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 71.16 Total :820.16 214449 5/21/2015 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0519045 PM FERTIL-MULCH PM FERTIL-MULCH 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 370.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 35.15 Total :405.15 214450 5/21/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2004-9683-4 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD / METER LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 132.28 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W / METER 12005-9488-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 29.30 SEAVIEW PARK2007-1403-8 41Page: Packet Page 70 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214450 5/21/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 SEAVIEW PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 82.62 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W / METER 12011-8789-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 35.00 SEAVIEW PARK2011-9708-4 SEAVIEW PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 182.83 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW D2014-3123-6 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.14 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH PL SW /2015-0127-7 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH PL SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.74 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212TH ST SW /2021-9128-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 31.06 IRRIGATION SYSTEM 1341 9TH AVE N2022-5062-7 IRRIGATION SYSTEM 1341 9TH AVE N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.25 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 102044-2584-7 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 147.67 LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / METER 102051-8438-5 LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 52.07 Total :790.96 214451 5/21/2015 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2015-2617 CREDITS ON #2015-2617 - SNO CO JAIL CR 5 HOUSING - FOX 2/2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -420.00 CR 13 HOUSING - FOX 3/2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -1,092.00 CR 1 BOOKING - FOX - 2/2015CR 1 BOOKING 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -115.00 42Page: Packet Page 71 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 43 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214451 5/21/2015 (Continued)063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE CR 12 MED/SPEC HOUSE-FOX 3/2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -582.00 CR 1 MENTAL HEALTH-FOX 3/2015S 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -117.00 7 WORK RELEASE @ $22 MATTESON 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -154.00 INV#2015-2617 - EDMONDS PD2015-2617 457 HOUSING @ $84 - 4/15 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 38,388.00 47.33 BOOKINGS @ $115 - 4/15 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 5,442.95 44 MED/PREM @ $48.50 - 4/15 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 2,667.50 28.5 MENTAL HEALTH $$117 - 4/15 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 3,334.50 10.25 VIDEO COURT @ $115.50 - 4/15 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,183.88 7 WORK RELEASE @ $50 - 4/15 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 350.00 Total :48,886.83 214452 5/21/2015 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 57360 INV#57360 - EDMONDS PD NUMBERING STAMP-DETECTIVES 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 43.20 NUMBERING STAMP-PATROL 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 43.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 4.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 4.10 Total :94.61 214453 5/21/2015 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 104757 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPOSAL WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPOSAL 423.000.76.535.80.47.65 5,059.73 43Page: Packet Page 72 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 44 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :5,059.732144535/21/2015 038300 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 214454 5/21/2015 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 11448342 Fleet Shop Hose Fleet Shop Hose 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 48.13 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 4.57 Total :52.70 214455 5/21/2015 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 70345 Water Sewer - Work Wear Personalization Water Sewer - Work Wear Personalization 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 90.00 Water Sewer - Work Wear Personalization 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 90.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 8.55 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 8.55 GYMNASTICS B-DAY PARTY T-SHIRTS70487 GYMNASTICS B-DAY PARTY T-SHIRTS 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 210.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 19.95 GYMNASTICS STAFF SHIRTS70489 GYMNASTICS STAFF SHIRTS 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 152.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 14.54 SPRING SHOW 2015 EXTRA T-SHIRTS TO SELL70490 SPRING SHOW 2015 EXTRA T-SHIRTS TO SELL 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 109.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 10.42 GYMNASTICS STAFF SHIRTS70491 GYMNASTICS STAFF SHIRTS 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 147.50 44Page: Packet Page 73 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 45 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214455 5/21/2015 (Continued)040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 14.02 GYMNASTICS STAFF SHIRTS/CAP SLEEVES70509 GYMNASTICS STAFF SHIRTS/CAP SLEEVES 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 57.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 5.47 STAFF UNIFORM EMBROIDERY70540 STAFF UNIFORM EMBROIDERY 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 13.89 STAFF UNIFORM EMBROIDERY 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 13.89 STAFF UNIFORM EMBROIDERY 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 13.89 STAFF UNIFORM EMBROIDERY 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 13.89 STAFF UNIFORM EMBROIDERY 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 27.84 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 1.32 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 1.32 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 1.32 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 1.32 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2.65 Total :1,030.44 214456 5/21/2015 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 21387 Fac Maint - Key Supplies Fac Maint - Key Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.30 9.5% Sales Tax 45Page: Packet Page 74 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 46 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214456 5/21/2015 (Continued)042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.45 Total :16.75 214457 5/21/2015 062693 US BANK 3405 Pref Syst - PS - Siga 270 Manual Station Pref Syst - PS - Siga 270 Manual Station 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 147.41 Klockit-Geneva Styles - Wall Clock 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 87.74 Guardian Sec - Old PW 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00 Fred Meyer - FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 26.21 Cummins - Sewer LS 2 Transfer Switch3439 Cummins - Sewer LS 2 Transfer Switch 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 417.80 Fleet Training Expenses C Rugg - TGI Fri7492 Fleet Training Expenses C Rugg - TGI Fri 511.000.77.548.68.43.00 28.00 Fleet Training Expenses C Rugg - Publix 511.000.77.548.68.43.00 10.32 Amazon - Fleet Shop - Computer Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 60.18 Fleet Training Expenses C Rugg - 511.000.77.548.68.43.00 25.00 Fleet Training Expenses C Rugg - Bah Brz 511.000.77.548.68.43.00 19.00 Fleet Training Expenses C Rugg - Rock 511.000.77.548.68.43.00 12.86 Fleet Training Expenses C Rugg- Dominos 511.000.77.548.68.43.00 26.82 Fleet Training Expenses C Rugg - A&W 511.000.77.548.68.43.00 13.35 Fleet Training Expenses C Rugg- Outback 511.000.77.548.68.43.00 20.00 46Page: Packet Page 75 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 47 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214457 5/21/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK Fleet Training Expenses C Rugg - Orbit 511.000.77.548.68.43.00 13.49 Fleet Training Expenses C Rugg- Buffalo 511.000.77.548.68.43.00 11.89 Fleet Training Expenses C Rugg - 511.000.77.548.68.43.00 1,074.22 Fleet Training Expenses C Rugg - Subway 511.000.77.548.68.43.00 9.64 Fleet Training Expenses C Rugg - Circle 511.000.77.548.68.43.00 14.80 Fleet Training Expenses C Rugg -Longhorn 511.000.77.548.68.43.00 26.00 Fleet Training Expenses C Rugg - AS1 511.000.77.548.68.43.00 7.01 Fleet Training Expenses C Rugg- Ak Air 511.000.77.548.68.43.00 25.00 Fisheries Supplies- Unit EQ98SO - 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 136.11 Amazon - Unit EQ98SO - Turn Signal Bulbs 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 67.96 Amsoil - Unit 449 - Gear Lube, Gear Oil 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 137.65 Talley Comm - Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 188.59 KEM Equip- Unit M16 - Kodiak Sand Trap 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 317.20 WA DOL - Unit EQ98SO - Lic Fees 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 49.25 UNIFORMS AND IPAD SUPPLIES8305 10 IPAD CHARGERS 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 50.05 10 IPAD CHARGERS 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 50.05 10 IPAD CHARGERS 47Page: Packet Page 76 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 48 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214457 5/21/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 50.06 STAFF UNIFORMS 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 14.15 STAFF UNIFORMS 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 14.15 STAFF UNIFORMS 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 14.15 STAFF UNIFORMS 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 14.15 STAFF UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 14.15 STAFF UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 14.16 Total :3,263.57 214458 5/21/2015 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA 0604534-WA INV 0604534-WA EDMONDS PD LAB - LEAD W/ZPP BLOOD - ANDERSON 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 60.00 LAB - VENIPUNCTURE FEE - ANDERSON 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 28.00 Total :88.00 214459 5/21/2015 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 5040124 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 82.59 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 82.59 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 85.08 Total :250.26 214460 5/21/2015 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 20115118 INV 20115118 EDMONDS PD - SPEER PRE-SUPV PRE-SUPERVISOR COURSE 5/4-5/8/15~ 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 200.00 48Page: Packet Page 77 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 49 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :200.002144605/21/2015 068259 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 214461 5/21/2015 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO 486193 Fac Maint - Cleaners, Hand Soap, Fac Maint - Cleaners, Hand Soap, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 251.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 23.89 Total :275.33 214462 5/21/2015 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS I15-188 Street - 9th & Main Cedar stump grind Street - 9th & Main Cedar stump grind 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 480.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 45.60 PM CITY PARK REMOVE DYING FIR TREE, CLEAI15-217 PM CITY PARK REMOVE DYING FIR TREE, 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 1,700.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 161.50 Total :2,387.10 214463 5/21/2015 049208 WESTERN EQUIP DIST INC 773800.2 Unit 109 - Gearcase Plug Unit 109 - Gearcase Plug 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.41 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.96 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.75 Unit 109 - Bearings, Caster Wheel Kit,775635 Unit 109 - Bearings, Caster Wheel Kit, 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 133.04 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.92 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.06 Unit 109 - Supplies776062 49Page: Packet Page 78 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 50 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214463 5/21/2015 (Continued)049208 WESTERN EQUIP DIST INC Unit 109 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 66.92 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.99 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.50 Total :268.55 214464 5/21/2015 069969 WILLIAMS, PAMELA 5/15 ASST DISCOVERY 5/15 ASST FOR DISCOVERY MINI CAMP 5/15 ASST FOR DISCOVERY MINI CAMP 001.000.64.571.23.41.00 42.00 Total :42.00 214465 5/21/2015 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0175758 Traffic - 36x6 Sign Blanks Traffic - 36x6 Sign Blanks 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 127.80 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 11.18 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 13.20 Traffic Control - 30x6 Blanks0175762 Traffic Control - 30x6 Blanks 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 326.25 12x6 Blanks 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 92.50 18x6 Blanks 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 57.60 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 19.51 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 47.11 Traffic - 30x12 Blanks0175947 Traffic - 30x12 Blanks 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 174.00 30x12 Blanks 50Page: Packet Page 79 of 385 05/21/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 51 7:47:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214465 5/21/2015 (Continued)051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 116.00 18x12 Blanks 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 203.00 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 39.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 50.55 Traffic - 2x2x12 Perferated Tube0176161 Traffic - 2x2x12 Perferated Tube 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 886.00 3/8" Steel Econo Drive Rivet 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 105.00 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 71.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 100.90 Total :2,440.80 Bank total :276,070.09108 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 276,070.09Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report108 51Page: Packet Page 80 of 385 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 5/20/2015 Packet Page 81 of 385 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 5/20/2015 Packet Page 82 of 385 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 5/20/2015 Packet Page 83 of 385 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 5/20/2015 Packet Page 84 of 385 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 5/20/2015 Packet Page 85 of 385 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 5/20/2015 Packet Page 86 of 385 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 5/20/2015 Packet Page 87 of 385 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 5/20/2015 Packet Page 88 of 385 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 5/20/2015 Packet Page 89 of 385 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 5/20/2015 Packet Page 90 of 385 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 5/20/2015 Packet Page 91 of 385 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 5/20/2015 Packet Page 92 of 385 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 5/20/2015 Packet Page 93 of 385 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 5/20/2015 Packet Page 94 of 385 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 5/20/2015 Packet Page 95 of 385 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 747 (05/01/2015 to 05/15/2015) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description Educational Pay CorrectionREGULAR HOURS-ed2 0.00 -156.28 SICK LEAVE - L & ISICK120 116.00 3,178.38 SICK LEAVESICK121 576.25 19,724.86 VACATIONVACATION122 741.25 26,542.55 HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 39.25 1,444.49 FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 37.00 1,222.88 COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 137.75 4,633.61 Holiday Compensation UsedCOMP HOURS130 9.25 299.05 MILITARY LEAVEMILITARY131 48.00 1,717.29 Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 132.00 4,810.78 COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 126.63 5,741.21 MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 31.00 2,044.58 REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 16,147.78 574,970.41 LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS193 44.00 1,417.62 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVEREGULAR HOURS195 -18.00 -1,172.05 LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS196 158.25 6,783.59 OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 24.00 554.59 WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 48.00 2,165.40 STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 10.50 938.19 OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 266.25 16,319.11 OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 3.00 190.11 OUT OF CLASS - POLICEACTING PAY405 0.00 351.83 SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 682.34 RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY600 0.00 357.00 ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS602 66.00 0.00 ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS604 207.00 0.00 ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS606 10.50 0.00 ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 24.70 Accreditation 1% Part TimeMISCELLANEOUSacp 0.00 0.00 ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 169.99 BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 81.17 Collision ReconstructionistMISCELLANEOUScolre 0.00 138.69 TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 143.68 CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 516.16 05/19/2015 Page 1 of 2 Packet Page 96 of 385 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 747 (05/01/2015 to 05/15/2015) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUSdet 0.00 100.25 Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 822.00 EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed1 0.00 780.22 EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed2 0.00 718.40 EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed3 0.00 4,433.82 K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 95.43 LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITYlg1 0.00 1,795.38 LONGEVITY 5.5%LONGEVITYlg10 0.00 407.75 LONGEVITY PAY 4%LONGEVITY PAYlg2 0.00 829.20 LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAYlg3 0.00 5,282.79 Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 184.71 Longevity .5%LONGEVITYlg6 0.00 290.03 Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 868.15 Longevity 3.5%LONGEVITYlg9 0.00 86.45 Medical Leave SickSICKmels 66.00 2,625.47 MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUSmtc 0.00 200.50 Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUSpds 0.00 46.65 PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 1,639.72 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUSprof 0.00 153.70 SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%MISCELLANEOUSsdp 0.00 504.43 ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTMISCELLANEOUSsgt 0.00 150.88 SICK LEAVE ADD BACKSICKslw 136.84 0.00 TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 315.78 Total Net Pay:$470,191.45 $698,167.64 19,164.50 05/19/2015 Page 2 of 2 Packet Page 97 of 385 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 795 (05/19/2015 to 05/19/2015) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 13.00 336.87 CLOTHING ALLOWANCEMISCELLANEOUS903 0.00 787.50 Total Net Pay:$1,013.13 $1,124.37 13.00 05/21/2015 Page 1 of 1 Packet Page 98 of 385 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 747 - 05/01/2015 to 05/15/2015 Bank: usbank - US Bank Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 61619 05/20/2015 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 2,749.50 0.00 61620 05/20/2015 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 436.50 0.00 61621 05/20/2015 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 1,071.33 0.00 61622 05/20/2015 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 4,275.00 0.00 61623 05/20/2015 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,202.51 0.00 10,734.84 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 2222 05/20/2015 awc AWC 298,743.00 0.00 2225 05/20/2015 us US BANK 94,324.73 0.00 2226 05/20/2015 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 20,644.00 0.00 2227 05/20/2015 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 85,508.70 0.00 2230 05/20/2015 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,207.60 0.00 2231 05/20/2015 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 158.00 0.00 2232 05/20/2015 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 48.50 0.00 504,634.53 0.00 515,369.37 0.00Grand Totals: Page 1 of 15/19/2015 Packet Page 99 of 385    AM-7747     4. C.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/26/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Mike DeLilla Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Action  Information Subject Title Award of the 2015 Waterline Replacement Project Recommendation Award the construction contract to D&G Backhoe, Inc. in the amount of $2,195,456.67 for the 2015 Waterline Replacement Project and authorize a $220,000 management reserve for changes and unforeseen conditions during construction.  Previous Council Action On May 12, 2015, Council discussed the project funding and award of the 2015 Waterline Replacement project and forwarded the item to the consent agenda for the May 26, 2015 Council meeting. Narrative On May 12, 2015, the City received four bids for the 2015 Waterline Replacement Project.  The bids ranged from a low of $2,195,456.67 to a high of $3,142,545.99. A summary of bid results is attached as Exhibit A.  D&G Backhoe submitted the low responsive bid in the amount of $2,195,456.67.  The engineer’s estimate was $2,520,554.60.  A review of the low bidder’s record has been completed, and responses are positive.   This project is part of the City’s program to replace and upgrade existing waterlines at various locations around the City that are reaching the end of their useful service life, is undersized and unable to meet current requirements, or has some other existing system deficiency.  The project will replace, at various locations around the City, approximately 8,170 linear feet of waterline piping with associated meters, fire hydrants, and two pressure reducing stations.   The proposed construction budget and funding are shown on Exhibit B.  The project costs are being funded by the 421 Water Fund and the General Funds available for fire protection costs.  Attachments Exhibit A - Summary of Bid Results Exhibit B - Proposed Construction Budget Exhibit C - Project Map Form Review Packet Page 100 of 385 Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 05/21/2015 03:38 PM Public Works Kody McConnell 05/21/2015 03:43 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/21/2015 03:47 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/21/2015 04:13 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/22/2015 07:34 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 05/20/2015 02:04 PM Final Approval Date: 05/22/2015  Packet Page 101 of 385 Ci t y O f E d m o n d s 20 1 5 W a t e r l i n e R e p l a c e m e n t P r o g r a m Bi d S u m m a r y 14 , M a y 2 0 1 5 1 - P u g e t D r - 9 t h A v e t o O l y m p i c A v e 33 1 , 9 8 9 . 1 6 $ 27 5 , 9 5 9 . 2 1 $ 38 4 , 5 3 0 . 6 0 $ 36 4 , 1 5 2 . 6 5 $ 432,196.50 $ 2 - S i e r r a P l a c e 14 7 , 0 6 2 . 7 2 $ 14 0 , 3 1 4 . 3 0 $ 16 8 , 6 6 5 . 8 6 $ 19 1 , 3 8 1 . 3 6 $ 194,628.59 $ 3 - C e d a r S t , 8 t h A v e & V i e w P l 27 7 , 7 6 1 . 2 0 $ 23 4 , 8 3 9 . 7 2 $ 32 9 , 7 4 9 . 4 0 $ 33 6 , 1 8 5 . 8 1 $ 376,524.51 $ 4 - D a l e y S t & A l o h a S t 49 9 , 1 3 8 . 6 7 $ 42 3 , 9 2 8 . 5 2 $ 55 3 , 6 7 6 . 9 0 $ 53 2 , 6 2 3 . 3 3 $ 623,278.38 $ 5 - R a i l r o a d A v e S 19 8 , 7 4 4 . 6 4 $ 14 0 , 2 0 1 . 9 4 $ 19 1 , 7 0 3 . 8 4 $ 22 3 , 5 9 5 . 7 2 $ 236,235.30 $ 6 - M a i n S t , D u r b i n D r & 7 t h A v e 38 5 , 8 7 1 . 0 5 $ 32 2 , 8 6 8 . 3 8 $ 43 4 , 9 9 9 . 1 5 $ 39 8 , 2 0 2 . 7 7 $ 468,286.61 $ 7 - E d m o n d s S t - 1 0 t h P l t o O l y m p i c A v e 1 8 3 , 0 0 3 . 2 4 $ 15 8 , 1 6 2 . 0 7 $ 17 7 , 7 8 6 . 9 4 $ 21 3 , 8 9 2 . 3 7 $ 221,290.74 $ 8 - P R V @ M e a d o w d a l e 25 8 , 5 0 2 . 8 9 $ 24 1 , 1 6 7 . 0 2 $ 28 5 , 3 5 5 . 9 1 $ 30 7 , 6 5 6 . 1 3 $ 297,531.21 $ 9 - P R V @ M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h 12 4 , 8 4 5 . 6 0 $ 13 2 , 6 2 7 . 2 8 $ 15 2 , 3 3 3 . 1 2 $ 15 4 , 9 2 6 . 0 8 $ 139,339.85 $ 10 - E m e r g e n c y I n t e r t i e w / L y n n w o o d 11 3 , 6 3 5 . 4 3 $ 12 5 , 3 8 8 . 2 3 $ 15 1 , 7 1 3 . 6 2 $ 14 1 , 0 4 4 . 2 1 $ 153,234.30 $ TO T A L 2, 5 2 0 , 5 5 4 . 6 0 $ 2, 1 9 5 , 4 5 6 . 6 7 $ 2, 8 3 0 , 5 1 5 . 3 4 $ 2, 8 6 3 , 6 6 0 . 4 3 $ 3,142,545.99 $ Sc h e d u l e 3 Kings Ro d a r t e Ka r - V e l D& G B a c k h o e En g i n e e r ' s E s t . Packet Page 102 of 385 2015 Waterline Replacement Project Proposed Construction Budget Description Amount Contract Award $2,195,456.67 Construction Management, Inspection & Testing $163,500.00 1% for the arts $1,886.00 Management Reserve $220,000.00 Total =$2,580,842.67 Construction Funding Funding Amount Fire Protection $59,177.65 421 funds available for 2015 Water Replacement Project $2,522,067.00 Total =$2,581,244.65 Packet Page 103 of 385 2015 Waterline Replacement Program #10-Intertie w/Lynnwood #9-PRV @ Meadowdale Beach#8-PRV@ Meadowdale #1-Puget Drive-9th Ave to Olympic Ave #2-Sierra Pl #7-Edmonds St-10th Pl to Olympic Ave #3-Cedar St, 8th Ave & View Pl #4-Aloha St #5-Railroad Ave. S #6-Main St, Durbin Dr & 7th Ave. #4-Daley St 7 6 t h A v e W Main St 196th St SW O l y m pic View D r Pine St 6 6 t h A v e W 8 4 t h A v e W 220th St SW 8 8 t h A v e W 208th St SW 7 4 t h A v e W 6 8 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e N Bowdoin Wy 212th St SW Dayton St 1 0 0 t n A v e W T a l b o t R d N 205th St/244th St SW 3 r d A v e S Lund's Gulch Rd O l y m p i c A v e 200th St SW 8 0 t h A v e W 224th St SW T i m b e r L n 9 5 t h P l W 7 5 t h P L W 7 2 n d A v e W 2 3 1 s t St SW 206th St SW 240th St SW 7 4 t h A v e W N 205th St/244th St SW 8 0 t h A v e W I-5 99 104 524 City of Edmonds Mapbook Packet Page 104 of 385    AM-7752     4. D.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/26/2015 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted For:Ryan Hague Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Presentation to Approve a Quit Claim Deed for 23727 104th Ave W for the 238th St. Walkway Project. Recommendation Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval at the June 2, 2015 City Council meeting. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Construction of the 238 th St SW Walkway and Drainage Improvements from 104th Ave W to 100 th Ave W is expected to begin in summer, 2015. In the vicinity of the property, at 23727 104th Ave W, the sidewalk will be built directly adjacent to the back of the existing curb, a curb ramp will be installed and rain garden improvements will be installed behind the sidewalk. A corner of the property at 23727 104th Ave W extends out into the roadway which means that the proposed improvements will encroach on what is now private property. The property owners have agreed to dedicate a small corner of their property for construction of the sidewalk.  Attachments Quit Claim Deed ROW Donation Letter Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 05/21/2015 03:50 PM Public Works Kody McConnell 05/21/2015 03:52 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/21/2015 03:58 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/21/2015 04:14 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/22/2015 07:34 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 05/21/2015 11:35 AM Final Approval Date: 05/22/2015  Packet Page 105 of 385 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 6 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 7 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 8 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 9 o f 3 8 5    AM-7754     4. E.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/26/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Edmonds Fish Hatchery Lease Agreement Recommendation Council approve 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 05/21/2015 02:15 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/21/2015 02:17 PM Packet Page 110 of 385 Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/21/2015 02:21 PM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 05/21/2015 02:13 PM Final Approval Date: 05/21/2015  Packet Page 111 of 385 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 112 of 385 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 113 of 385 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 114 of 385 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 115 of 385 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 116 of 385 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 117 of 385    AM-7745     6.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/26/2015 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted By:Renee McRae Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Discussion of ATM Concession Agreement at Frances Anderson Center Recommendation Forward the concession agreement to the June 2 Council Consent agenda. Previous Council Action On January 6, 2015, City Council approved the renewal of a concession agreement with Dog Day Afternoon for an ATM at Anway Park.   On January 20, 2015, City Council approved a concession agreement with Dog Day Afternoon for an ATM outside of City Hall. Narrative Annually, the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department advertises for seasonal concessions at several park locations through the RFP process. This year, we received a proposal from Dog Day Afternoon for an ATM at the Frances Anderson Center.  The ATM will be placed next to the vending machines.   We are bringing the ATM agreement to Council for approval as it falls outside the seasonal concession category.  City Code 4.04.020 requires that City Council approve this agreement since it is not a seasonal concession agreement. Also, per City Code, the Parks and Recreation Director has reviewed this agreement and determined that it is appropriate for the park in which it will be located.  Attachments ATM FAC Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 05/20/2015 11:59 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/20/2015 12:36 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/21/2015 12:45 PM Packet Page 118 of 385 Form Started By: Renee McRae Started On: 05/20/2015 09:30 AM Final Approval Date: 05/21/2015  Packet Page 119 of 385 AGREEMENT FOR CONCESSION AT FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this 2nd day of June, 2015, by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “City”) and Dog Day Afternoon (hereinafter referred to as “Concessionaire”). WITNESSETH: City hereby grants to Concessionaire the right, license, and privilege to operate a concession at Frances Anderson Center in the manner and for the purpose hereinafter specified. The following terms, conditions, and covenants shall govern this Agreement: 1. GRANT OF CONCESSION Concessionaire is granted the right to place an ATM adjacent to the vending machines at the Frances Anderson Center. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement, unless earlier terminated as herein provided, shall be for the period beginning June 1, 2015 and ending December 31, 2020. The City may allow a holdover period to permit processing an application for renewal where, due to no fault of the applicant, the City is unable to complete its review, including a required public hearing, before the expiration date. 3. LICENSING AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS Concessionaire shall, at its own expense, obtain all necessary licenses and permits for the operation hereunder from appropriate local, regional, state and federal agencies including a City of Edmonds business license. 4. PAYMENT FOR CONCESSION Concessionaire shall pay to the City on or before the 15th of each month during the term of this Agreement an amount equal to 10% of Concessionaire’s receipts from the preceding month for all operations hereunder. The term “receipts” means the entire receipts from concessions of every kind, whether on credit or for cash, from the business hereunder, after sales tax. Concessionaire shall maintain an adequate set of bookkeeping records, from which the City may readily determine whether Concessionaire is making the payments required hereunder. City may inspect and audit the books of accounts and records at all Packet Page 120 of 385 reasonable times; the time of such inspections and audits to be at the discretion of the City. 5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement; that this is not a contract of employment; and that Concessionaire is an independent entity with respect to the business hereunder. Nothing in this Agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and employee between the parties hereto. No agent, employee or representative of Concessionaire shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Concessionaire shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the operation of the recreation concession covered by this Agreement. Concessionaire shall also be solely responsible for any payment due to its agents, employees, representatives or subcontractors, including workers compensation and related costs. Concessionaire warrants that it has conducted a criminal background check for any agent, employee, representative or other person performing services on its behalf. 6. INSURANCE Concessionaire will, at Concessionaire’s sole expense, provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing commercial general liability insurance coverage during the term of this Agreement, written on an occurrence basis, with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors, products-completed operations, stop gap liability, personal injury and advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract. The City shall be named as an insured under the Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the operations performed using ISO Additional Insured endorsement CG 20 10 10 01 and Additional Insured-Completed Operations endorsement CG 20 37 10 01 or substitute endorsements providing equivalent coverage. The Concessionaire’s Commercial General Liability insurance policies shall be endorsed to be primary insurance as respect the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. Failure on the part of the Concessionaire to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of contract, upon which the City may, after giving five business days’ notice to the Concessionaire to correct the breach, immediately terminate the contract 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 the City on demand, or at the sole discretion of the City, offset against funds due the Concessionaire from the City. A copy of the endorsement naming City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The insurance policy shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom Packet Page 121 of 385 a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer’s liability. 7. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION Concessionaire agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the City and its officers, agents, 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 out of the subject matter of this Agreement; provided, however, that nothing herein shall require Concessionaire to indemnify the City against and hold harmless the City from claims, demands, or suits based solely upon the conduct of the City, its officers, agents and employees; and provided further that if the claims or suits are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of (a) Concessionaire’s agents or employees, and (b) the City, its officers, agents or 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 Concessionaire’s negligence or the negligence of Concessionaire’s agents or employees. “Fault” as herein used shall have the same meaning as set forth in RCW 4.22.015. Concessionaire specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by Concessionaire’s own agents or employees against the City and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, Concessionaire specifically waives immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. 8. RULES GOVERNING CONCESSION OPERATION Concessionaire shall maintain the Concession to comply with all terms and conditions of this Agreement. Concessionaire represents that Concessionaire and its agents, employees and representatives have the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to competently provide the concession operation hereunder and will do so in a professional manner consistent with customary practices. Concessionaire shall not place any type of signage or advertisement of their activity on City property without first obtaining written permission and appropriate permits from the City. Any such signage or advertisement shall be at Concessionaire’s sole expense. 9. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT Each and every term and condition herein set forth and contained in this Agreement are expressly made terms, covenants, agreements and conditions, and a breach of any one of them by Concessionaire shall constitute a breach of this Agreement. In the event Concessionaire shall fail to comply with any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions of this Agreement, or in the event Concessionaire violates any local, City, County, State, or Federal law, in connection with the operation hereunder, upon giving the Concessionaire ten (10) days’ advance written notice, City may terminate this Agreement as provided herein. Provided, the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Packet Page 122 of 385 Director may order Concessionaire to cease operations hereunder immediately at any time should the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director determine that the operation is detrimental to public safety, health, or welfare. In the event of termination of this Agreement, all the rights, licenses, and privileges herein contained shall be terminated, Concessionaire shall have no further rights hereunder, and it shall be lawful for City immediately thereafter to remove all property of Concessionaire from said premises. 10. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT/MODIFICATION This Agreement, together with any and all attachments and addenda, represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended, modified or added to only by written instrument properly signed by both parties hereto. 11. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS Concessionaire shall not assign, transfer, or otherwise dispose of this Agreement or any part of this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City. 12. NONDISCRIMINATION The Concessionaire shall, in all hiring or employment made possible or resulting from this Agreement, take affirmative action to ensure that there shall be no unlawful discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex, race, age, color, creed, national origin, marital status or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. This requirement shall apply to, but not be limited to, the following: employment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for training, including apprenticeship. No person shall be denied, or subjected to discrimination in receipt of the benefit of any services or activities made possible by or resulting from this Agreement on the grounds of sex, race, age, color, creed, national origin, marital status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap. 13. NONWAIVER 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. 14. NON-ASSIGNABLE Packet Page 123 of 385 The concession services to be provided by Concessionaire shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 15. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS Concessionaire in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws and ordinances, including regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards and criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates written below: DONE this day of , 2015. Dog Day Afternoon Its: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument on oath and stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: NOTARY PUBLIC Printed Name: My commission expires: Packet Page 124 of 385 CITY OF EDMONDS Date: David O. Earling, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Office of the City Attorney Packet Page 125 of 385    AM-7743     7.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/26/2015 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted For:Shane Hope Submitted By:Shane Hope Department:Development Services Type: Information  Information Subject Title Draft Capital Facilities Element - 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.  Currently, the CFP section has no changed information from versions that the Council previously adopted.  (Note: the descriptions of some capital projects have not been updated in recent years. However, minor changes to these could be undertaken as part of the final round of refinements.) 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 Packet Page 126 of 385 facilities owned by the City will be added.  If needed, clarifications and corrections will be made. 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 in Attachment 5) 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. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING The City Council held a public hearing on the draft Capital Facilities Element May 19.  Questions and comments that Council members brought up were primarily about several projects listed in the Capital Facilities Plan, including: --Community Park/Athletic fields --Marina Beach Park --Senior Center --Civic Playfield. Any corrections to the description of these projects have not yet been made.  However, at the May 26 meeting, the need/issue for minor corrections/adjustments can be clarified and, afterward, incorporated into the final refinements.   NEXT STEPS --May 26--City Council discussion of draft element (See the planned presentation, Attachment 6.) --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 Att. 5: PB draft minutes of 5.13.15 Att. 6: 5.26.15 Presentation Packet Page 127 of 385 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 05/21/2015 02:11 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/21/2015 02:13 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/21/2015 02:15 PM Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 05/19/2015 05:05 PM Final Approval Date: 05/21/2015  Packet Page 128 of 385 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 129 of 385 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 130 of 385 Following is a 2015 map of facilities owned by the Edmonds School District. Packet Page 131 of 385 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 132 of 385 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 133 of 385 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 134 of 385 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 135 of 385 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 136 of 385 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 137 of 385 Capital Facilities 3 Following is a 2015 map of facilities owned by the Edmonds School District. Packet Page 138 of 385 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 139 of 385 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 140 of 385 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 141 of 385 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 142 of 385 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 143 of 385 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2015-2020 Packet Page 144 of 385 Packet Page 145 of 385 CFP GENERAL Packet Page 146 of 385 Packet Page 147 of 385 $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 4 8 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 1 4 9 o f 3 8 5 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 150 of 385 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 151 of 385 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 152 of 385 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 153 of 385 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 154 of 385 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 155 of 385 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 156 of 385 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 157 of 385 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 158 of 385 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 159 of 385 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 160 of 385 Packet Page 161 of 385 CFP TRANSPORTATION Packet Page 162 of 385 Packet Page 163 of 385 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 6 4 o f 3 8 5 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 6 5 o f 3 8 5 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 6 6 o f 3 8 5 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 6 7 o f 3 8 5 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 6 8 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 1 6 9 o f 3 8 5 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 170 of 385 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 171 of 385 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 172 of 385 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 173 of 385 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 174 of 385 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 175 of 385 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 176 of 385 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 177 of 385 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 178 of 385 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 179 of 385 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 180 of 385 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 181 of 385 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 182 of 385 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 183 of 385 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 184 of 385 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 185 of 385 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 186 of 385 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 187 of 385 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 188 of 385 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 189 of 385 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 190 of 385 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 191 of 385 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 192 of 385 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 193 of 385 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 194 of 385 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 195 of 385 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 196 of 385 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 197 of 385 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 198 of 385 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 199 of 385 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 200 of 385 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 201 of 385 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 202 of 385 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 203 of 385 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 204 of 385 Packet Page 205 of 385 CFP STORMWATER Packet Page 206 of 385 Packet Page 207 of 385 $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 2 0 8 o f 3 8 5 P a c k e t P a g e 2 0 9 o f 3 8 5 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 210 of 385 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 211 of 385 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 212 of 385 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 213 of 385 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 214 of 385 DRAFT May 13, 2015 Page 2 means, and a future planning staff may interpret the code differently than what is intended today. He asked the Board to consider forwarding a recommendation to the City Council that a more broad-based committee be formed to review the tree code issue. He voiced concern that the code, as currently written, would be impossible to enforce. He noted that Snohomish County adopted a similar code that lasted less than two years because it had so many problems. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Ms. Hope referred the Board to her written report and invited them to ask questions and provide comments. Vice Chair Lovell referred to the bulleted list of items that will be addressed as part of the Major Development Code Update and asked if “design review” would include design standards. Ms. Hope answered affirmatively and added that the update would also clarify the design review process where needed. Chair Tibbott referred to the changes the City is making to keep up with development activities and asked if staff has considered how extending the turnaround time for permit review would impact developers. He also asked if staff has seen a drop in the quality of the permit reviews as a result of having a very full schedule. Ms. Hope said her goal is to have all of the plans and permits reviewed as quickly as possible, while still maintaining the quality of each review. Right now, people get frustrated and upset when the City is unable to meet the target dates. The idea is to make the target dates more consistent with what they are able to do right now. The changes are intended to be interim to allow staff to catch up with the work load. Chair Tibbott asked if staff has received complaints from developers because of delays in permit review. Ms. Hope acknowledged there have been numerous complaints about target dates being missed. Although the target dates are not meant to be absolutely deadlines, people have a certain expectation that their permits will be processed within that timeframe. Staff believes that changing the target dates will help keep the expectations more reasonable and there will be fewer complaints if people know what to expect up front. Chair Tibbott asked how the extended target dates would impact developers financially. Ms. Hope answered that the impact depends on where developers are in the process and whether or not they are truly ready to move forward with a project. She acknowledged that, in some cases, extending the target dates could have an impact. Board Member Stewart recalled attending a meeting at the City of Issaquah where their Director of Development Services proposed a plan that imposes an additional fee for developers who were interested in an expedited process. The additional fee would allow the City of Issaquah to hire additional people to service the expedited permits. She suggested that the City consider this option, as well. She also suggested the City consider offering an expedited permit process for “green” building projects. Ms. Hope said she is familiar with the concept of expedited permit review, which can work under certain circumstances. The fee is typically higher because it requires a city to contract with a consultant to move the review along more quickly. The concern is that it takes some time for the consultants to become familiar with the city’s codes. Another option is to prioritize projects, and those with a higher priority could be expedited without an additional fee. Her hope is that something related to “green” development could be incorporated into the code as part of the major update. Vice Chair Lovell stressed the importance of keeping a close watch and notifying the City Council if additional staff is needed to adequately process permits. Ms. Hope recalled that in recent years, the number of planning staff was reduced. The interim change to the target dates will allow time to figure out if the surge in applications is temporary or if the trend is likely to continue, in which case she expects to bring the issue up to the City Council. Vice Chair Lovell said he finds the Development Services Director Reports to be helpful and informative, not just to the Planning Board, but to the City Council and citizens. Ms. Hope advised that staff is working to prepare a Development Activity and Project Report, which will be presented at the next City Council Meeting. The report will also be presented to the Planning Board as soon as possible. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION ON DRAFT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Mr. Chave advised that, with the exception of adding performance measures, no changes were made to the draft Capital Facilities Element (Attachment 1) since the Planning Board last reviewed it. He explained that the proposed performance Packet Page 215 of 385 DRAFT May 13, 2015 Page 3 measures were developed with the assistance of the Public Works Director. As proposed, project deliveries or the results of capital projects would be compared to what the planned project was. Not only would this give performance feedback, but it could potentially improve project planning in the future. He noted that the list of Capital Facilities Projects (CFP) for 2015- 2020 (Attachment 3) was also included for the Commission’s information. He emphasized that the CFP was previously approved by the City Council in late 2014 as part of the budget process. The CFP will be carried forward with the Capital Facilities Element and the list will be updated on an annual basis. Vice Chair Lovell noted that the projects in the CFP fall into three categories (parks, transportation and stormwater), and each project identifies a timeframe for potential funding. He asked if the funding timeframe was coordinated with the Transportation, Parks and Stormwater Elements. He also asked if there is a process in place to prioritize the projects based on the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) that was adopted by the City Council. Mr. Chave explained that the SAP is geared towards bridging the gap between annual budgeting and the City’s long-term goals and projects. The SAP is more equivalent to the CFP, which has a six-year timeframe. The CFP was developed with input from various plans (transportation, stormwater, parks, etc.), as well as coordination with the priorities called out in the SAP. He advised that the City’s Transportation Engineer could provide more information about how the transportation projects and priorities were identified. Vice Chair Lovell said he understands that a lot of work is being done to track progress with respect to the SAP. A project leader has been identified for each of the action items in the SAP, and it is likely that the leader will be tracking progress and making sure the projects are identified in the Comprehensive Plan as appropriate. Mr. Chave clarified that while the SAP may identify a few priorities, it is usually not as project specific as the CFP. Capital budgets and planning must reflect reality (available funding, grant cycles, etc.), and it requires a balancing act in terms of timing. The six-year CFP provides an estimate of the timing of projects, but the timing can be adjusted, particularly if an unanticipated funding source becomes available. That is why the projects are shuffled around each year when the list is updated. The list is intended to be a guide, but not a rigid program. Mr. Chave asked that the Planning Board review the Capital Facilities Element, make appropriate adjustments, and forward it to the City Council for review. He noted that the Planning Board would have another opportunity to review the element later when all of the Comprehensive Plan Elements are presented to them for a public hearing and recommendation. Chair Tibbott observed that, typically, staff has identified just one performance measure for each of the Comprehensive Plan Elements that have been presented to the Board to date. However, staff is recommending two performance measures for the Capital Facilities Element. Board Member Cloutier noted that the performance measure is separated into “transportation” and “parks.” Board Member Stewart said she assumes this discussion is related only to the Capital Facilities Element, which includes the CFP going out to a six-year horizon. She observed that six years will go by quickly, and things will change rapidly during that time period. She voiced concern that Edmonds keep up with the trends in neighboring jurisdiction, particularly relative to Level of Service (LOS) Standards. In her research relative to LOS, she came across a website called STREET BLOG SAN FRANCISCO, which presents a very provocative argument against the conventional LOS standard that has been used since the middle of the 20th Century. The website explains that LOS is a very simple and blunt metric for understanding the speed that vehicles can move about the City and it measures the amount of vehicular delay at intersections. It suggests that the result of relying on this poor methodology to shape the growth of cities has a profound effect on the politics of human mobility, privileging the movement of vehicles before anything else. She referred to a study that was done by the consulting firm, Nelson Nygaard, which states that, in their practice, the single greatest promoter of sprawl and the single greatest obstacle to transit-oriented and infill development is the transportation analysis convention called LOS. She agreed to provide information to the Planning Board Members and others who are writing the Transportation Element. She hopes that the element can be phrased in such a way to look not only at conventional LOS, but the number of trips generated. She recognized that they are quite far in the process, and she asked that staff at least advise the City Council of the information she can provide. Board Member Stewart stressed the importance of the City being forward thinking. The trends are clear and people, especially the younger generation, want to be able to walk to amenities and not use a car to get around. They value pedestrian and bicycle access and public transportation. When a proposal is forwarded to the City Council, it needs to take into consideration all modes of transportation. Packet Page 216 of 385 DRAFT May 13, 2015 Page 4 VICE CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW, WITH THE SUGGESTION THAT THE THINKING ON SOME OF THE SPECIFIC ELEMENTS BE CAREFULLY REVIEWED WITH RESPECT TO PRIORITIES SET FORTH WITHIN THE SAP. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Vice Chair Lovell clarified that the Capital Facilities Element includes the CFP, which identifies transportation, stormwater and park projects. The Capital Facilities Element is separate from the Parks, Stormwater and Transportation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave further clarified that the CFP will be imbedded in the Capital Facilities Element that is forwarded to the City Council for review. However, it is important to note that the CFP has already been adopted. DISCUSSION ON DRAFT 2015 TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE Mr. Hauss reviewed that the City has been working with the consultant (Fehr and Peers) on updating the Transportation Plan since October of 2014, and the project is scheduled to be completed in June 2015. The consultant provided an update on the City’s transportation related goals and policies on February 11th and the project list on April 8th. The goals and policies and project list were also presented to the City Council. Comments from both the City Council and the Planning Board have been incorporated into the draft Transportation Plan (Attachment 3), which will be the subject of tonight’s discussion. He explained that the draft Transportation Plan consists of the goals and policies; an inventory of the existing transportation network and improvements; and project prioritization, costs, projected revenue and implementation strategies. He referred to Appendix A, which is a comparison table that illustrates the modifications that have been made to the draft plan to date. Don Samdahl, Fehr and Peers, Seattle, noted that the Staff Report provides a written response to each of the questions raised by the Board at previous meetings relative to the goals and policies and project list. He noted that the Transportation Committee has reviewed the draft Transportation Plan and provided comments, as well. In addition, to the responses provided in the Staff Report, Mr. Samdahl addressed the following Board concerns:  A question was asked about whether or not the current construction projects taking place within the Lynnwood portion Highway 99 would have an impact on the projected Level of Service (LOS) at Edmonds intersections. He explained that the roadway network in Lynnwood was included as part of the travel model, but they did not consider each of the projects in detail. The Lynnwood improvements are located close to a mile away from Edmonds, and he believes there would be minimal impact to the intersections in Edmonds and the proposed recommendations for improvements.  It was suggested that the Transportation Plan include a detailed definition of “non-motorized transportation.”. He recalled the Board’s previous discussion about motorized and non-motorized vehicles. He said he had meant to include a definition for a non-motorized vehicle, but he forgot. It would be included in future drafts. In addition, the section of the plan that talks about non-motorized improvements would include a reference to the definition. Board Member Robles said the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) defines a non-motorized vehicle as something without a motor whatsoever; something that is human powered. While Policies 1.5 and 6.22 are consistent with the City’s goals, they define a non-motorized vehicle as including things that are electric. The WAC provides an even more onerous definition for electric-assisted bicycles, which allows them in bike lanes, but not on sidewalks. This sets the City up for problems where bike lanes go onto the sidewalk, such as at Five Corners. He suggested that the Transportation Plan use definitions that are consistent with those found in the WAC.  Policy 4.3 identifies certain priorities for walkways on collector streets, and there are similar priorities for walkways on arterial streets in Policy 4.2. A question was raised about whether or not it is necessary to retain Policy 4.3. As currently written, the policy sets a hierarchy for sidewalks for transit, schools and retail. After talking with Mr. Hauss, it was agreed that the wording in Policy 4.3 should be changed to implement walkway improvements on collector streets as funding permits to provide access to transit, retail, schools, etc. rather than setting distinct priorities. Chair Tibbott asked how changing the wording of Policy 4.3 would impact the prioritization of walkway projects. Mr. Samdahl answered that the change would not impact the prioritization of walkway projects, since all of the proposed Packet Page 217 of 385 Capital Facilities City Council Meeting | May 26, 2015 | Packet Page 218 of 385 Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT •Draft updates to the Comprehensive Plan are being reviewed one at a time. •Drafts, with refinements, will be considered all together in early July. Packet Page 219 of 385 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Guided by state Growth Management Act Consistent with rest of Comprehensive Plan Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps Packet Page 220 of 385 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps Capital facilities means real properties, buildings, and other significant physical improvements, such as: •Schools & libraries •Civic buildings •Public parks & recreation facilities •Water supply & sewage treatment facilities •Public transit stations Packet Page 221 of 385 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Purpose: Adequate capital facilities to meet existing & future needs Components: •Inventory of existing capital facilities •Goals & policies for meeting future needs •Capital improvement projects for 6-year period •With projected financing •Public facility needs for 20-year period Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps Packet Page 222 of 385 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps Current proposal: •New introduction •New maps & inventory of existing capital facilities •“Housekeeping” changes to goals & policies •New performance measure •6-year financial plan for capital projects* •Description of longer-term projects** * Based on adopted 2015-2020 CIP ** Based on adopted Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Packet Page 223 of 385 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps Map of Major Capital Facilities Owned by Public Entities Packet Page 224 of 385 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps Edmonds School District Inventory Map Packet Page 225 of 385 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps Performance measure (to be reported annually): •Project delivery, based on comparison of expected results from approved Capital Facilities Plan to actual results Packet Page 226 of 385 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Capital Facilities Plan section (currently same as previously adopted versions): 1.General projects •2015-2020 (with projected financing) •Long-term needs 2. Transportation projects •2015-2020 (with projected financing) •Long-term needs 3.Stormwater projects •2015-2020 (with projected financing) •Long-term needs Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps Packet Page 227 of 385 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Note: City’s Capital Facilities Element would not include Edmonds School District’s Capital Facilities Plan o Following intent to make City’s Comprehensive Plan more focused & reduce amount of non- essential documents Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps Packet Page 228 of 385 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT At May 19 meeting, City Council had comments/questions related to several Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) projects, including: Communty Park/Athletic Complex Marina Beach Senior Center Cost for Civic Playfield Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps Packet Page 229 of 385 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Final refinements to include: •City Council direction, etc. •Consolidating background narrative & Capital Facilities Plan into one Capital Facilities element •Adding list of existing city-owned capital facilities with acreage of parcels and/or floor area of buildings •Making any technical corrections or clarifications Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps Packet Page 230 of 385 Background Key Points Proposed Changes Maps Next Steps CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Planning Board •April 22nd - Introduction to Capital Facilities Update •May 13th - Recommendation for moving forward draft Capital Facilities element City Council •May 19th - Public Hearing on updating Capital Facilities Element •May 26th - Discussion of Capital Facilities element •June 10 – OPEN HOUSE •June/July – More public input, refinements & final decision on full Comprehensive Plan Packet Page 231 of 385 Fire Station #17 Packet Page 232 of 385    AM-7750     8.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/26/2015 Time:45 Minutes   Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Information  Information Subject Title Discussion 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. On May 19, 2015, there was a public hearing held at the Council meeting regarding the Transportation Plan.   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 City Council 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.  An Open House is scheduled for June 10, 2015. Attachments Exhibit A - Draft Transportation Plan Packet Page 233 of 385 Exhibit B - Presentation Exhibit C - Goals & Policies Comparison Table Exhibit D - Council Questions & Answers Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 05/21/2015 03:54 PM Public Works Kody McConnell 05/21/2015 03:56 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/21/2015 03:58 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/21/2015 04:14 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/22/2015 07:34 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 05/21/2015 10:01 AM Final Approval Date: 05/22/2015  Packet Page 234 of 385 Table of Contents Comprehensive Transportation Plan Prepared by With support from: May 2015 Perteet Engineering Henderson Young & Co EnviroIssues Comprehensive Transportation Plan Packet Page 235 of 385 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 236 of 385 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 237 of 385 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 238 of 385 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 239 of 385 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 240 of 385 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 241 of 385 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 242 of 385 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 243 of 385 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 244 of 385 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 245 of 385 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 246 of 385 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 247 of 385 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 248 of 385 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 249 of 385 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 250 of 385 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 251 of 385 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 252 of 385 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 253 of 385 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 254 of 385 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 255 of 385 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 256 of 385 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 257 of 385 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 258 of 385 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 259 of 385 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 260 of 385 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 261 of 385 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 262 of 385 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 263 of 385 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 264 of 385 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 265 of 385 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 266 of 385 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 267 of 385 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 268 of 385 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 269 of 385 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 270 of 385 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 271 of 385 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 272 of 385 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 273 of 385 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 274 of 385 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 275 of 385 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 276 of 385 &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 277 of 385 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 278 of 385 ®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 279 of 385 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 280 of 385 !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 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 281 of 385 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 282 of 385 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 283 of 385 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 284 of 385 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 285 of 385 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 286 of 385 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 287 of 385 " "" !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 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 288 of 385 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 289 of 385 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 290 of 385 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 291 of 385 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 292 of 385 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 293 of 385 " "" !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( 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 294 of 385 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 295 of 385 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 296 of 385 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 297 of 385 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 298 of 385 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 299 of 385 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 300 of 385 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 301 of 385 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 302 of 385 " "" !=! ! < = ! ! < = !!=! !=! !=! !=! !< = ! !< = ! !=!!< = !!=! !=! !=! !=!!=!!=! !< = ! !=! !=! !< = !!< = !!=!!=! !=!!=! !=! !=! !=! !=! !< = ! 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 303 of 385 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 304 of 385 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 305 of 385 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 306 of 385 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 307 of 385 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 308 of 385 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 309 of 385 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 310 of 385 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 311 of 385 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 312 of 385 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 313 of 385 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 314 of 385 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 315 of 385 $+ú$+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 316 of 385 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 317 of 385 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 318 of 385 ¬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 319 of 385 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 320 of 385 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 321 of 385 !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! !! 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 322 of 385 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 323 of 385 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,,, , , , ,,, ,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,, ,,,,,, , , , ,,, 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 324 of 385 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 325 of 385 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 326 of 385 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 327 of 385 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 328 of 385 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 329 of 385 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 330 of 385 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 331 of 385 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 332 of 385 ""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 333 of 385 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 334 of 385 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 335 of 385 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 336 of 385 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 337 of 385 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 338 of 385 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 339 of 385 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 340 of 385 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 341 of 385 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 342 of 385 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 343 of 385 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 344 of 385 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 345 of 385 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 346 of 385 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 347 of 385 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 1 APPENDIX A Goals and Policies Comparison Table Packet Page 348 of 385 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 349 of 385 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 350 of 385 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 351 of 385 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 352 of 385 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 353 of 385 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 354 of 385 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 355 of 385 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 356 of 385 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 4-9 APPENDIX C Travel Model Transportation Analysis Zones Packet Page 357 of 385 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 dsWay 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 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 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 358 of 385 Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 2015 4-10 APPENDIX D Walkway Project Ratings Packet Page 359 of 385 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 360 of 385 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 361 of 385 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 362 of 385 City of Edmonds Transportation Plan Update Draft Transportation Plan Packet Page 363 of 385 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 364 of 385 Review of City Council Previous Comments See Attachment in Packet Policies Project List Other Packet Page 365 of 385 Project Costs Category Costs (Million) Roadway $49 Pedestrian and Bicycle $33 Preservation and Maintenance $44 Other (Traffic Calming, Operations, etc) $ 7 TOTAL COST $133 Packet Page 366 of 385 Potential Project Revenues- Current Sources Source Amount ($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 367 of 385 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 368 of 385 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 369 of 385 Next Steps May 26: City Council discussion June 10: Public Open House Packet Page 370 of 385 Questions? Bertrand Hauss Don Samdahl Packet Page 371 of 385 Packet Page 372 of 385 Packet Page 373 of 385 Packet Page 374 of 385 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 375 of 385 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 376 of 385 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 377 of 385    AM-7748     9.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/26/2015 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Robert English Department:Engineering Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Presentation of Proposal to Approve a Management Reserve for the 2015 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project. Recommendation Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval at the June 2, 2015 City Council meeting. Previous Council Action On April 28, 2015, staff presented this item to Council and it was forwarded to the May 5, 2015 consent agenda. On May 5, 2015, City Council authorized the award of the 2015 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project to Buno Construction, LLC.  Narrative On May 5, 2015, the City Council authorized the award of the 2015 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project to Buno Construction, LLC in the amount of $1,090,411.07.  The construction budget for the project includes the following items: 2015 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project Proposed Construction Budget   Description Budget Contract Award $1,090,411 Construction Management & Testing $170,000 Management Reserve $110,000 Total =$1,370,411 The agenda memo to award the construction contract did not include authorization of a management reserve.  Staff is requesting approval of a 10% ($110,000) management reserve for changes and unforeseen conditions during construction.  The project costs will be funded by the sewer utility fund.  Packet Page 378 of 385   Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 05/21/2015 04:52 PM Public Works Phil Williams 05/22/2015 10:15 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/22/2015 10:28 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/22/2015 11:10 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/22/2015 11:50 AM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 05/20/2015 04:43 PM Final Approval Date: 05/22/2015  Packet Page 379 of 385    AM-7757     10.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:05/26/2015 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted For:Patrick Doherty Submitted By:Scott James Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Potential Action  Information Subject Title Continued discussion and Potential Action regarding the Potential Acquisition of the Edmonds Conference Center. Recommendation Previous Council Action On May 19, 2015, Council discussed the submittal of a Letter of Interest to the State to acquire the Edmonds Conference Center. Narrative For Narrative, please see attached document titled "Narrative." Attachments Narrative Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 05/21/2015 04:05 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 05/21/2015 04:05 PM Mayor Dave Earling 05/21/2015 04:15 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/22/2015 07:34 AM Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 05/21/2015 03:37 PM Final Approval Date: 05/22/2015  Packet Page 380 of 385 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 over $1 million. 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. Tonight’s Council meeting Agenda Bill was prepared by Finance Director Scott James, as Community Services and Economic Development Director, Patrick Doherty is on vacation. Tonight’s Council is scheduled to address the opportunities vs. trade-offs of acquiring the building, open the discussion of what it may mean for the City to own “commercial property” and review some of the surrounding Pros and Cons of ownership of the facility. Packet Page 381 of 385 The Conference Center Floor Plan • The center has three meeting - exhibition rooms spread over two stories with a maximum capacity of 400 guests • Parking lots directly behind the Center accommodate approximately 20 vehicles Packet Page 382 of 385 Edmonds Conference Center Parking Recommendations Any type of property acquisition, whether it’s commercial real estate, waterfront or open space, has the potential to provide new opportunities for the City. However, before investing, we have to weigh these new potential opportunities of acquiring new property against the downstream trade-offs of having less resources to allocate in the future. More on this later. Another factor, specifically related to commercial property acquisition that has to be considered are the financial risks and rewards associated with commercial ownership. As we examine commercial property ownership, we should develop a collective understanding of the pros and cons what investing in commercial property entails so that we make a more informed investment decision that’s right for our citizens. Opportunities vs. Trade-offs Opportunities • Control. o With ownership, we control the use of the facility. a. Through ownership, the City will have a larger degree of flexibility in services we can offer. Packet Page 383 of 385 o Meeting space is increased. b. As an example, with the increased meeting space, we also increase the potential to bring city-business related conferences to Edmonds. 1. One such example is the City would have more space for art/cultural programs and activities. o Office space is increased. c. City would have increased flexibility to rent/lease office space to current/future tenants • Location o The building is located on the 4th Avenue corridor. Trade-offs • The primary trade-off is the City will expend both capital and operating funds that are allocated for other purposes, as the acquisition and operation of the conference center is not included in any of the City’s future plans or budgets. o List of potential capital funding trade-offs can include: a. Civic Field acquisition from school district b. Frances Anderson Center stage c. City Park Spray Pad d. Fishing Pier rehab (matching grant funds) e. Edmonds March Daylighting of Willow Creek (set aside for grant match) f. Former Woodway High School field project g. Transportation projects h. Senior Center building contribution i. Meadowdale preschool play area j. Boys & Girls Club contribution o The addition of unbudgeted operating expenses further stretches the City’s lien operating budget even more so. a. The conference center has historically operated at a loss. Although the annual loss is not material to the City’s General Fund, nevertheless, the added expense would reduce the City’s future financial flexibility. b. There are options to address the new expense. Please note: We are not recommending any of these options. We are just identifying options available to pay for the additional expense. 1. Increase taxes 2. Reduce a current on-going operating expense, or 3. Use Fund Balance • Another impending trade-off is the building currently is in need of some very expensive and extensive repairs, to which we do not know the full extent. It has been stated that the repairs could be a million dollars or more. Again this expense not included in any of the City’s future plans or budgets. Financial Risks and Rewards Associated with Commercial Ownership There are nuances to managing commercial properties. To paint a general picture of what it’s like investing in commercial property, let’s examine the pros and cons of investing in the conference center. Packet Page 384 of 385 • Here are some of the pros of buying o Control of Tenant Selection. With ownership, the City would have sole discretion over use of the building. o Ownership of the Property. If the City were to acquire the property, we could reconfigure the building, sublet to others or contract with another agency to manage the building. o Income potential. There is a market for meeting space, weddings, social gathers, etc. Although the conference center already receives a concerted marketing effort, there is always room for improvement. • The Downside of Investing in Commercial Property. While there may be positive reasons to invest in conference center, there are also negative issues to consider. o Time commitment. If the City were to take ownership of the building, we would have to manage the building. We can’t be an absentee landlord and maximize the return on our investment. With commercial property, we will have to deal with renting/leasing the property, marketing the property, maintain the property and either having to hire additional staff or contract with others to keep the building operating. o Professional help required. The City will have to handle the maintenance issues at conference center. Currently, we are not prepared to handle the additional maintenance issues ourselves and you we need to hire additional help with on-going maintenance, emergencies and repairs. While this added cost isn’t ideal, we’ll need to add it on to our set of expenses in order to properly care for the property. Remember to factor in property management expenses when evaluating the price to pay for a commercial investment property. However, the City can charge extra rent revenue to cover these additional expenses. o Bigger initial investment. Acquiring the conference center will require additional capital up front than merely the purchase price of the building. The building is in need of repairs. o More risks. Properties intended for commercial use have more public visitors and therefore have more people on the property each day that can get hurt or do something to damage your property. Cars can hit other cars in parking lots, people can slip on ice during the winter, and vandals can spray paint the sides of the building. Incidents like these can occur anywhere, but chances of experiencing something like these events go up when investing in commercial properties. As a city government, we tend to be risk adverse, and we may want to look more closely at putting our money elsewhere. Next Steps • The Letter of Intent will be files with the State prior to their deadline • The City will have to: o Conduct an appraisal at an estimated cost of $2,000 to $5,000 o Decide how we are going to pay for the purchase o Decide how we are going to pay for the repairs o Decide how we plan to utilize the building o Decide how we plan to manage and market the building o Decide what trade-offs (listed above on page 4) we are going to make to offset the new costs. Packet Page 385 of 385