Loading...
2015.06.09 CC Agenda Packet              AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 9, 2015             6:15 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).   2.(15 Minutes) AM-7773 Meet with Planning Board candidate Nathan Monroe for appointment to the Planning Board.   STUDY SESSION JUNE 9, 2015     7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE   3.(5 Minutes)Roll Call   4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda   4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items   A.AM-7787 Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of June 2, 2015.   B.AM-7783 Approval of claim checks #214554 through #214661 dated June 4, 2015 for $244,913.65.  Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61627 through #61636 for $486,090.72, benefit checks #61637 through #61644 and wire payments of #422,066.67 for the pay period May 16, 2015 through May 31, 2015.   C.AM-7775 Revision to Penalty Adjustment Policy   D.AM-7774 Confirmation of Nathan Monroe to the Planning Board Alternate position.       Packet Page 1 of 470   E.AM-7788 April 2015 Monthly Financial Report   F.AM-7782 Loan of artwork from City Public Art Collection to Cascadia Art Museum   G.AM-7790 Public Defender Services contract amendment   5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings   6.(20 Minutes) AM-7784 Snohomish County Tourism Presentation    7.(10 Minutes) AM-7768 Renewal of Interlocal agreement with the Snohomish County Regional Drug & Gang Task Force 2015-2016.   8.(10 Minutes) AM-7781 Briefing on the 2016-2021 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program   9.(10 Minutes) AM-7780 Presentation of a Professional Services Agreement with Murray, Smith & Associates for the 2016-2017 Waterline Replacement Program   10.(10 Minutes) AM-7794 Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with KPG, Inc for the 238th St SW Walkway and Drainage Improvements project.   11.(20 Minutes) AM-7777 Acceptance of the Planning Board's Recommendation on the Proposed Tree Code   12.(10 Minutes) AM-7786 Discussion of the 2015-2019 Commute Trip Reduction Agreement   13.(25 Minutes) AM-7791 Discussion and Potential Action to Submit Proposal to Acquire the Edmonds Conference Center   14.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments   15.(15 Minutes)Council Comments   16.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).   17.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.   ADJOURN         Packet Page 2 of 470    AM-7773     2.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:06/09/2015 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Type: Information  Information Subject Title Meet with Planning Board candidate Nathan Monroe for appointment to the Planning Board. Recommendation The Mayor is recommending appointment of Nathan Monroe to the Alternate position of the Planning Board. Previous Council Action Narrative Mayor Earling has interviewed Mr. Monroe and is recommending his appointment to the Planning Board for the position of Alternate. Mr. Monroe is a professional engineer and also has a masters degree in business. He was born and raised in Edmonds and is now raising his family here. Mr. Monroe has a broad degree of experience and Mayor Earling believes he will be an excellent addition to the Planning Board. Attachments Monroe_PB_app Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 06/02/2015 01:35 PM Mayor Dave Earling 06/02/2015 05:08 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 06/03/2015 08:16 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 06/01/2015 12:16 PM Final Approval Date: 06/03/2015  Packet Page 3 of 470 Packet Page 4 of 470    AM-7787     4. A.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:06/09/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of June 2, 2015. Recommendation  Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action  N/A Narrative  Attachment 1 - Draft Council Meeting Minutes. Attachments Attachment 1 - 06-02-15 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 06/04/2015 10:38 AM Final Approval Date: 06/04/2015  Packet Page 5 of 470 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES June 2, 2015 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Michael Nelson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Don Anderson, Assistant Police Chief Mark Froland, Police Corporal Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Scott James, Finance Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr. Sharon Cates, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder SPECIAL MEETING 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(b) At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(b). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 60 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Petso, Bloom, Mesaros and Nelson. Others present were City Attorney Sharon Cates, Finance Director Scott James, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty, and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:02 p.m. and led the flag salute. BUSINESS MEETING 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Buckshnis. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Packet Page 6 of 470 COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, 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 26, 2015 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #214466 THROUGH #214553 DATED MAY 28, 2015 FOR $254,357.04 C. RESOLUTION THANKING NOUSHYAR P. ESLAMI FOR HIS SERVICE AS A STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE D. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ATM CONCESSION AGREEMENT AT FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER E. APPROVE MANAGEMENT RESERVE FOR THE 2015 SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT F. APPROVE QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR 23727 104TH AVE W FOR THE 238TH ST. WALKWAY PROJECT 5. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE TO NOUSHYAR P. ESLAMI STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE Council President Fraley-Monillas read Resolution No. 1335 thanking Noushyar P. Eslami for his service as Student Representative to the Edmonds City Council from September 2, 2014 to June 2, 2015. Mr. Eslami thanked the Council for this amazing opportunity. He said it had been great to see how government worked from the inside and he had learned a great deal from the experience that he would apply to his life moving forward. 6. MUSIC4LIFE MONTH PROCLAMATION Mayor Earling commented he has a music background, including teaching college instrumental music for 11 years. He read a proclamation declaring June as Music4Life Month in Edmonds and encouraging all citizens to donate any lovingly used musical instruments they may have to Music4Life.org and show what financial support they can to this fine home-grown organization. He presented the proclamation to Dr. Chelsea Tripp, President of Edmonds Music4Life. Dr. Tripp said the goal was to increase exposure to Music4Life in Edmonds. The Edmonds Music4Life chapter, started a year ago, continues to gather new instruments, add new board members, do fundraising to repair instruments and they have a new partner to repair instruments. Edmonds Center for the Arts is one of their donation stations. She summarized they have great connections, but need instruments to come out of storage and into the hands of children. She welcomed any instrument donations. 7. OATH OF OFFICE CEREMONY FOR POLICE CORPORAL MARK FROLAND Packet Page 7 of 470 Police Chief Al Compaan commented this is an opportunity to celebrate the achievement of a Police Department member. He commented an oath is an important public recognition of personal achievement and a personal pledge to the highest legal, ethical and professional standards critical to the law enforcement mission. He described Corporal Froland’s 25 years of law enforcement experience. He began his career at the Lynnwood Police Department, working there from 1990 to 1997. He was a school resource officer, assigned to the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force, and worked in the proac unit. He then spent 8 years at the Bellevue Police Department, achieving the rank of corporal. While at Bellevue, he was a proac plain clothes detective focusing on motor vehicle theft, spent two years as training coordinator, worked as a tac officer and instructor at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission working primarily with the Washington Police Corp group. Corporal Froland has been with the Edmonds Police Department December 2005, assigned to the street crimes unit, completed a temporary assignment as a narcotics detective and has been assigned to the detective unit since January 2015. He has also completed assignments as a background investigator, hostage negotiator and dive team member. He has been on the SWAT teams for Bellevue and Lynnwood and has been an EVOC instructor in Bellevue and Edmonds and a field training officer for new officers in all three departments. Corporal Froland introduced his wife, Brenda, and his three daughters, Rachel, Madison and Ashton. Chief Compaan administered the oath of office to Corporal Froland, pinned his badge and presented him a framed Certificate of Promotion. Chief Compaan announced Corporal Froland will be assigned as a corporal to the detective unit. Corporal Froland thanked the department for the promotion and said it was an honor to be in this profession. He grew up in Edmonds and always wanted to be a police officer. He had a great experience working for Lynnwood and Bellevue but wanted to come back to Edmonds. Having been in other departments, he said Edmonds is a fantastic city, community and police department and it is an honor to serve here. He has gotten to do everything he wanted to do in his career and to be able to continue to serve in this community and for this department is a privilege. Numerous police personnel and cadets were present in the audience. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Bob Sears, Edmonds, said last Friday he and his partner wanted to take advantage of the view of the gorgeous sunset from Sunset Avenue. They knew it be would be crowed and a lot of the parking is no longer available. When they arrived, it was very crowded and no legal or illegal parking was available from Main Street to Caspers but they enjoyed watching a beautiful sunset with hundreds of others. Apparently one of the homeowners was displeased because two police cars were dispatched to disperse those parked in the no parking zones; unattended cars were given parking tickets. What started out to be a wonderful Edmonds experience turned into a sad and unfortunate event to witness. He encouraged the City to restore parking at the north end of Sunset Avenue. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, thanked the approximately 175 people who attended last week’s Planning Board meeting. He referred to the Mayor’s comments in the newspaper where he said it was great effort by the Planning Board but the proposal was overreaching. Mr. Hertrich said the excitement in the community was due to a small board that decided to develop rules without understanding how citizens feel. Councilmembers are elected and represent the citizens; boards make decisions that do not reflect citizens’ interests. Nearly 100% of those in attendance were opposed to the tree ordinance. Next, he referred to the Edmonds School Board’s decision to use crumb rubber for the ball fields even though many citizens have expressed health concerns health with crumb rubber. He recommended the Parks & Recreation Director be directed to tell the School Board not to use crumb rubber on the fields. He opined Packet Page 8 of 470 the School Board does not listen to the people and makes their decisions without regard to the health of citizens. 9. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 20 ECDC TO DEEM A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WITHDRAWN IF AN IRRECONCILABLE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED LATER Senior Planner Kernen Lien provided background on Interim Ordinance 3992: • Passed by City Council on March 17, 2015 as an emergency ordinance • RCW 36.70A.390 requires a public hearing within 60 days and adoption of Findings of Fact o Due to an oversight, 77 days have elapsed since March 17  The City has taken steps to ensure that does not happen again  The City Attorney felt there was no substantive effect of missing the 60 day timeline and should not affect the validity of the ordinance  No applications have been received within the 60 days • Interim ordinance is effective for six months He described irreconcilable applications: • Cannot have two active applications on the same property that are in conflict with each other • If a second application is made that is on the same property as a previous application and the two projects have locations or features that would be “irreconcilable,” the first application would be deemed withdrawn and will not be process further. Mr. Lien provided irreconcilable examples: • Applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, another application is submitted for a three-lot short plat on the same property. Assuming there is not enough land for seven lots, the two applications are irreconcilable because one could not construct both short plats. Hence, the four-lot short plat is deemed withdrawn. • Applicant submits a design review application for a twenty-unit multi-family housing development. Subsequently, another design review application is submitted for a thirty-unit multi-family housing development whose footprint would substantially overlap with the footprint of the structure shown for the twenty-unit application. Because both structures would occupy substantially the same space, they are irreconcilable and the twenty-unit application would be deemed withdrawn. He described inconsistent examples: • Applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particularly property. Subsequently a building permit application is submitted for a single-family home, the footprint of which would encroach into the setbacks as measured from the proposed short plat lot lines. Because the building permit application could be corrected to properly locate the footprint, the applications are reconcilable and do not effect a withdrawal of the short plat application. • Applicant submits a landscape plan that is inconsistent in an insignificant way with civil site- improvement plans that are submitted for the same property. If the two sets of plans can be reconciled by submitting a corrected version of at least one of the two plans, then City staff would seek corrections and withdrawal would not be deemed to occur. The ordinance also addresses resubmission after denial: • Existing code language o Moved from Chapter 20.07 ECDC – closed Record Reviews to Chapter 20.02 ECDC – Development Project Permit Applications o Cannot resubmit an application within 12 months unless there has been a significant change Packet Page 9 of 470 Mr. Lien relayed staff’s recommendation to adopt the resolution included as Attachment 2 that contains findings for the interim ordinance. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. With the agreement of the Council, Councilmember Bloom read an email from Ken Reidy, Edmonds, Ordinance No. 3992 specifically mentions RCW 35A.12.130 related to whether it was the public health, public safety, public property or the public peace that needed to be protected via an emergency ordinance and language in the ordinance. He questioned why Ordinance No. 3992 had to be an emergency ordinance especially when the ordinance starts by stating that Washington courts have stated that land use applications are subject to the legal doctrine of res judicata which affords every party one, but not more than one, fair adjudication of his her application. One of the examples of irreconcilable applications mentioned in Ordinance No. 3992 is the following: Applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, another application is submitted for a three-lot short plat on the same property. Assuming there is not enough land for seven lots, the two applications are irreconcilable because one could not construct both short plats. Hence, the four-lot short plat is deemed withdrawn. Mr. Reidy referred to this situation in his own neighborhood; in that case the City told the applicant in a letter dated February 2, 2009, “The City obviously cannot simultaneously process much less approve two fundamentally different subdivision proposals for the same property. Likewise the City cannot allow construction to proceed under a right-of-way permit where the plat application upon which it is based has been abandoned or otherwise superseded by a subsequent proposal.” He asked, if the City was aware of these issues back in early 2009, why wasn’t something like Ordinance No. 3992 passed long ago if it was necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Mr. Lien said he did not have an answer to why nothing was adopted since 2009. Adopting the ordinance now provides certainty for the City and applicant in these types of circumstances. Councilmember Bloom asked why Ordinance No. 3992 had to be an emergency ordinance, especially when the ordinance states the Washington courts have stated that land use applications are subject to the legal doctrine of res judicata which affords every part one, but not more than one, fair adjudication of his her application. With regard to the reason for an emergency ordinance, Development Services Director Shane Hope said typically an ordinance goes through the Planning Board and other public notice. When an issue arises that is important to address prior to that process, the Council has the option under state law of adopting an emergency ordinance, interim ordinance or moratorium. It should not be done regularly or lightly but on occasion when the City believes there is a reason or needs to protect itself from a certain situation it can take those steps, avoiding the normal longer process of adopting an ordinance. Hearing no further public testimony, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. If the City was aware of these issues in 2009, Councilmember Bloom asked why an ordinance was not passed at that time to protect the public health and safety. Ms. Hope referred to Mr. Lien’s response, that the City was not previously aware that there was an issue and when it became aware more recently, an ordinance was proposed to make it clearer. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1336, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM ORDINANCE 3992, WHICH CLARIFIED THE EFFECT OF AN APPLICANT SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION THAT CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH A PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED APPLICATION ON THE SAME PROPERTY. Packet Page 10 of 470 Councilmember Bloom said she will abstain from the vote because she was very concerned this was not brought to the Council before the 60 day deadline. She understood those questions were answered in an email today but the ordinance states an interim ordinance can be approved as long as a hearing is held within 60 days. Council President Fraley-Monillas acknowledged errors were made but Ms. Hope is immediately putting procedures in place to avoid it occurring in future. As it served no purpose to vote against the motion, she will support it. MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM ABSTAINING. 10. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING DRAFT CODE OF ETHICS, ATTACHMENT 16. REVIEW OF OPTIONS A, B, C AND D Council President Fraley-Monillas commented the Council has discussed this in great detail for a long period of time and Councilmembers have made their views fairly clear. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE ATTACHMENT 13. Council President Fraley-Monillas viewed this as a good starting point as the Council has not previously had a code of ethics. She read the purpose paragraph, “The purpose of the Edmonds Code of Ethics is to strengthen the quality of government through ethical principles which shall govern the conduct of elected officials and appointed citizen volunteers serving in an official capacity.” She disagreed with including staff in the code of ethics because the personnel policy includes a code of ethics for them. Councilmember Bloom said she was shocked by Council President Fraley-Monillas’ action. The Council has had many discussions and she appealed to Council President Fraley-Monillas to allow her and Councilmember Buckshnis to work on the code of ethics. They developed a draft code of ethics that is much stronger and there are four items for review. She worked on this for two years in the Personnel Committee and will absolutely not support the motion as she wants the Council to review the final draft that she and Councilmember Buckshnis developed after a great deal of work. Councilmember Petso raised a point of order, stating the motion made by Council President Fraley- Monillas did not appear to be germane to the agenda item, Discussion of Attachment 16, Review of Options A, B, C and D. Council President Fraley-Monillas said Councilmember Buckshnis was not able to be here due to family reasons. She read an email from Councilmember Buckshnis, “The Council President knows my opinion about the code of ethics and my position on that. Just because my name’s on the agenda memo and I assisted Ms. Bloom in trying to add more data and pattern it after the Shoreline Code of Ethics, I’ve always been of the opinion to start small and I liked what both Mr. Peterson and Ms. Monillas put forth. So let’s march on.” Councilmember Petso requested a ruling on her point of order, that the motion was out of order. Mayor Earling ruled that was not correct. This is an opportunity for discussion. If the motion is defeated, the floor can be opened again. Councilmember Petso said her point of order was that the motion made was not an item on the agenda. Mayor Earling said the title refers to potential action and discussion; both are being addressed via the motion and opportunity for discussion. Councilmember Bloom read the subject title from the agenda memo that Councilmember Petso is referencing, “Discussion and Potential Action Regarding Draft Code of Ethics, Attachment 16. Review of Packet Page 11 of 470 Options A, B, C and D.” She said Council President Fraley-Monillas moved attachment 13 which is completely unrelated to the subject title and the recommendation. There has been no opportunity to review Attachment 16 and options A, B, C and D. She agreed the motion was completely out of order. Council President Fraley-Monillas said Attachment 16 has been part of packet for at least 3 Council meetings and is not new information. The reason she moved to approve Attachment 13 is because she rejects Attachment 16. If Councilmembers did not like Attachment 13, she respected that and Councilmembers were welcome to vote against the motion. If the motion fails, discussion can commence on Attachment 16. She felt Attachment 16 was not in the best interest of the City or the citizens. Councilmember Petso said she was very surprised. Although she was not previously inclined to vote in favor of a code of ethics, after speaking with Councilmember Bloom today for about 30 minutes, she had concluded she probably would vote in favor of a code of ethics. What surprised her most was the Council President, who has the authority to determine the agenda title, chose to make a motion at odds with the agenda title. Councilmember Petso said she studied Attachment 16, not Attachment 13. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO APPEAL THE RULING OF THE CHAIR. MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING YES. Councilmember Bloom said this was appalling to her. She disagreed with Council President Fraley- Monillas’ statement that this has been on the agenda multiple times; the Council has never discussed Attachment 16 or reviewed options A, B, C and D. The Council is not being given an opportunity to discuss Attachment 16 and is being asked to vote on what has been discussed in the past which she objected to moving forward with due to her interest in the code of ethics being more inclusive. Council President Fraley-Monillas she disagreed with Attachment 16 and chose to move forward with Attachment 13. If Councilmembers want to reject Attachment 13 and discuss Attachment 16, it will be reflected in their vote on the motion. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. (Councilmember Bloom left the meeting at 7:47 p.m.) 11. LOAN OF ARTWORK FROM CITY PUBLIC ART COLLECTION TO CASCADIA ART MUSEUM Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin explained this is a request for the loan of a significant painting in the City’s collection to be displayed at the new Cascadia Museum that is opening in September. The loan agreement was prepared by the City Attorney. She identified the painting on display in Council Chambers, “Two Workmen” by Guy Anderson, painted in 1960. The Council Chambers location was selected because the painting requires a secure site with some visibility to the public. The Arts Commission was delighted when a request was received to loan the painting because it is truly one of the stellar works in the City’s public art collection, particularly significant because Guy Anderson was once a resident of Edmonds. The Arts Commission recommends the City Council approve the one-year loan, an opportunity to show the paining to a much broader audience than it receives in City Council Chambers. Councilmember Mesaros asked how the City acquired the painting. Ms. Chapin said the painting was a gift to the City from the Yost family in the 1960s. It hung in the public library for many years but that was not a very secure location. Packet Page 12 of 470 Councilmember Petso referred to the effort to have items receive two touches by Council; she asked whether this had previously been before the Council. Ms. Chapin answered it had not. She consulted with Council President Fraley-Monillas and emailed Councilmembers regarding the request approximately a month ago so that any questions could be addressed. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the intent was to discuss it tonight and schedule it on next week’s Consent Agenda. Ms. Chapin remarked there is plenty of time to address any questions before the loan takes place. For Council President Fraley-Monillas, Ms. Chapin said Cascadia Museum will provide insurance from the time they pick up the painting until it is returned to this site and they are responsible for transportation. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed she did not want the City to incur any cost as a result of the loan. Ms. Chapin agreed there would be no cost to the City. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY NELSON, TO PUT THIS ON CONSENT FOR NEXT WEEK. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Bloom was not present for the vote.) 13. PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICES UPDATE AND CONTRACT AMENDMENT Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite recalled Council gave direction to staff in December 2014 to secure the services of Eileen Farley, an attorney who worked for the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington, to ensure their compliance with new public defense laws passed in 2012. Ms. Farley reviewed the City’s RFQ process and the contract with Feldman and Lee, the City’s current public defender, and recommended amendments to the current contract with Feldman and Lee. Ms. Farley felt the City currently did not request enough information from Feldman and Lee to ensure defendants are being adequately defended. The five areas of her recommendation include, a) data to be provided, b) contract terms such as keeping notes on the processes with each client in the event a question arises regarding whether a client was defended appropriately or adequately, c) complaint process including that any unresolved complaints come to a designated person in the City and making defendants aware a complaint process is available, d) responsibility for client files such as keeping them locked and secured, and e) scope of work including the number of cases in which the public defense firm can expect to provide representation or a mechanism for addressing dramatic increases in filings. Ms. Hite said she worked with Sharon Cates, Lighthouse Law Group, to draft the contract amendment and Ms. Cates has also reviewed the RFQ process recommended by Ms. Farley. She requested Council discuss the recommended contract amendment and forward it for approval on next week’s Consent Agenda. Next steps include an RFQ for a competitive process to hire a public defender firm, a process staff promised when presenting to Council in 2014. The intent is to send out the RFQ during the next week. The City could select Feldman and Lee but the City has not gone through a competitive process for some time. A third step will be to hire a contract person to oversee the reports provided by Feldman and Lee to ensure compliance with the adequate defense law. Councilmember Mesaros said he was glad to hear about a compliance officer to review Feldman and Lee’s work. He asked who the public defender reports to at the City. Ms. Hite answered the public defender reports to the Mayor or the Mayor’s disagree; reports are submitted to the Mayor and her. The purpose of hiring a compliance officer to review the reports is to bring a knowledge base to ensure adequate defense service is being provided. Councilmember Mesaros suggested also establishing a performance evaluation process similar to the city attorney. He felt the feedback had been helpful for the city attorney and provided a structure for good communication. Ms. Hite said Ms. Farley recommended a qualified review panel assist in the selection process of a public defense firm. She will add an evaluation process. Packet Page 13 of 470 Councilmember Nelson referred to the request for reports from the contractor such as data requests, specifically the number of pending trials, number of substantive motions on a particular case, number of hours spent by the attorney on a particularly case, use of investigators, etc. He asked whether those were based on a standard or could questions arise regarding the numbers. Ms. Hite said since the law was passed in Washington, the criteria for evaluating whether services are adequately defending a defendant is evolving and information is being collected throughout the state to create criteria. Ms. Farley incorporated that into Mount Vernon and Burlington’s procedures and the Office of Defense recommends that data be collected and looked at analytically. Councilmember Petso asked whether this was the first time the Council has seen this report. Ms. Hite answered yes. She was not requesting action tonight; she was hoping Council could get answers to their questions and schedule it for approval on next week’s Consent Agenda. Councilmember Petso asked where the assumed caseload of 600-650 came from. Ms. Hite answered that was the current caseload and what was defined in the Feldman and Lee contract but was not capped in the contract. Ms. Farley recommended defining the caseload and they should be compensated for anything above that. For example, if Feldman and Lee defends 800 cases, there currently is no mechanism for them to provide adequate staffing for 800 cases unless it is built into the contract. Councilmember Petso assumed the provision that was built into the contract was the $333. She asked how that amount was determined. City Attorney Sharon Cates answered Feldman and Lee has a $20,000/month fee. When asked how that number was determined she was told they divided their caseload of 720 by their annual amount. She told him that amount was actual be in excess of $400 and he said leave it at $333. Councilmember Petso requested prior to next week the provision regarding unanticipated caseloads be amended as it did not say $333 per case in excess of the caseload but rather $333 per case. She assumed the intent was to pay $333 per case over the expected caseload. Ms. Hite agreed to clarify that prior to next week. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO SCHEDULE AMENDMENTS TO THE FELDMAN AND LEE CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES FOR 2015 ON NEXT WEEK’S CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Bloom was not present for the vote.) 12. MARCH 2015 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director Scott James displayed and reviewed 1st Quarter 2015 Revenue Summary – General Fund Types with and without revenue bond proceeds of $2.7 million. He highlighted the General Fund was $98,054 ahead of last year. The Building Maintenance Fund is $142,000 behind last year, primarily due to fewer grants. He displayed General Fund Revenue Budget to Actual (page 161 of the packet), highlighting taxes: General Fund Resource Category YTD Actual 3/31/2014 3/31/2015 % Change Taxes Property Taxes 448,855 680,898 51.7% Sales Tax 1,477,603 1,605,365 8.6% Utility Tax 1,931,206 1,797,811 -6.9% Other Taxes 218,447 233,353 6.8% Total Taxes 4,076,111 4,317,427 5.9% Licenses & Permits Business Licenses & Misc Permits 122,017 114,091 -6.5% Packet Page 14 of 470 Franchise Fees 286,075 347,941 21.6% Development Related Permits 77,649 140,974 81.6% Total Licenses & Permits 485,741 603,006 24.1% Mr. James said General Fund taxes are 5.9% greater than last year due to earlier payers in 2015 as a result of the improved economy and 1% increase in the EMS and regular property tax levy. Sales tax continues to grow. Utility taxes are down slightly primarily due to a timing issue which will be made up next month. He referred to development related permits, up 81.6% ahead of last year. He displayed a bar graph entitled Change in General Fund Revenue for YTD March Compared to YTD March 2014, pointing out sales tax and property taxes have had the greatest increase and utility taxes are slightly behind 2014. He referred to Interfund Reimbursement, where the General Fund charges other funds for services; it is behind due to a timing issue; in fact the budget amount is higher in 2015. He reviewed a pie chart of Sales Tax Analysis by Category, pointing out the major sources of sales tax revenue is retail automotive and contractors. He displayed a bar graph of Change in Sales Tax Revenue March 2015 compared to March 2014; pointing out sales tax is $127,000 ahead and contractors are $114,000 ahead. He pointed out retail automotive is down $43,000 compared to 2014. Councilmember Mesaros found it interesting retail automotive was down as he heard a report this morning that the auto industry is having a record year. Mr. James said it may be a timing issue and Edmonds will join the rest of the nation shortly. Mr. James displayed and reviewed 1st Quarter 2015 Expense Summary – General Funds, noting expenses are lower than 2014 primarily due to timing. For example, last year the City paid the Fire District 1 bill in the first quarter; this year it will be paid in April. He reviewed a General Fund Department Expense Summary, commenting there was nothing of note. He reviewed 1st Quarter 2015 Revenue Summary – Special Revenues, noting the differences are primarily due to lower grant revenues, otherwise revenues are on par with 2014. He reviewed 1st Quarter 2015 Expense Summary – Special Revenue Funds, noting it is nearly identical to last year but $12,000 less. He displayed a graph of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenues, noting 1st quarter revenues for 2010-2015 are fairly flat. He displayed a graph of the Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax Revenues 2010-2015, noting 1st quarter lodging tax for 2015 has increased slightly over 2014. He displayed a graph of REET Revenues 1st quarter 2010-2015, noting there is an upward trend. He displayed and reviewed a 1st Quarter 205 Revenue Summary – Utility Revenue Funds, commenting revenues are up; the City is in year 2 of a 3 year rate increase. He also displayed the 1st Quarter 2015 Expense Summary – Utility Funds. 14. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite explained this was a topic identified at the Council retreat for review by a team of staff and Councilmembers. Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmembers Bloom and Buckshnis met with Ms. Hope and her for four lively discussions to develop the materials for tonight’s discussion. Part of this committee’s charge was to look at all boards and commissions and to discuss and policy level issues as well as whether the boards and commission made sense for the City, whether some efficiencies could be realized, etc. She reviewed the committee’s discussion and recommendations. 1. Staffing: The committee prepared a chart that included the location; staffing; staff person; monthly average staff time; average monthly cost; notes that identified any anomalies; whether there is a Council rep; whether the board/commission is required by City code, State Code and its priority; what kind of records are kept; and potential efficiencies. She explained the chart Packet Page 15 of 470 identifies the boards/commissions that are codified. Several are not but have been in existence for a long time such as the Highway 99 Task Force, the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee, the Parking Committee, and the Transportation Committee. She pointed out not everyone agrees; therefore it is important for the full Council to have that discussion. The committee members discussed the time allotted for each board/commission and whether that was still adequate, which boards/commission had dedicated staff and which did not. Most boards/commissions have dedicated staff that attend meetings as well as administrative staff that posts notices, minutes, etc. The committee wanted the Council to discuss whether the staff hours for each board/commission were appropriate and whether the Council will consider adding staff support for the Tree Board and the Diversity Commission (scopes of work are attached to the packet). 2. Efficiencies: The committee discussed whether any of the boards/commissions could be combined and/or whether all of them were needed. Review of the Economic Development Commission (EDC) is on a separate track and was not addressed by this committee. The committee discussed whether the Hwy 99 Taskforce could be combined with the EDC and whether the Transportation Committee and the Parking Committee could be combined. There were differences of opinion from all three Councilmembers. 3. Financial considerations: These include both the direct staff cost as well as the indirect cost of work staff cannot do while staffing a board/commission. Efficiencies were discussed such as changing the meeting location from City Hall to avoid the cost of a door monitor, whether the boards/commissions need a minute taker or could summary notes be taken and which board/commissions actually required minutes. To the question of whether staff is paid overtime to staff boards/commissions, Ms. Hite said most of the staff that support boards/commissions are manager level and up and do not incur overtime. There are instances when overtime is incurred such as when the arborist attended the Tree Board meeting. Councilmembers on the committee wanted the full Council to discuss financial considerations. 4. Administrative: The committee discussed issues related to the Open Public Meetings Act, which boards/commissions/committees post notices and agendas, whether there is a Council rep, etc. The committee recommended discussion by full Council. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested Councilmembers review the information and make suggestions. One of the areas she was concerned with was summary notes versus minutes. When she began on the City Council, there were summary notes by staff with topics and action items. The Finance Committee brought in a paid minute taker and it has gone from there. The committee discussed boards/commissions that are required to have minutes: City Council, Architectural Design Board and Planning Board. In the overall budget the cost of minutes may not seem excessive, but she is more frugal than most and thinks the City may be able to do business better in different ways. Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled another area of discussion was combining committees, for example the Parking and Transportation Committees. Transportation is not a permanent committee but maybe it should be due to issues such as overlays, traffic calming devices, etc. Another issue was whether parking is part of transportation. The Hwy 99 Task Force has been in place for 12 years; she was uncertain the difference between a task force and a committee. The committee was interested in ways that business could be done different or better. She noted transparency is also an issue; any meeting held in a locked building after business hours prevents citizens and/or committee members from attending. Packet Page 16 of 470 Ms. Hite pointed out Councilmembers on the committee did not agree on all items. Mayor Earling relayed his understanding that Council President Fraley-Monillas was seeking big picture, general feedback tonight and to provide the Council an opportunity for continued study of options. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the committee looked at the structure. He assumed the employees who staff boards/commissions report to the executive branch. Ms. Hite answered yes except for the Tree Board. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the committee considered why that is an exception. Ms. Hite answered that is the reason for the recommendation to provide staff support to the Tree Board. When the Council formed the Tree Board, there was no staff capacity to staff the Tree Board; the Council Executive Assistant provides administrative support. There is also no staff capacity to provide support for the Diversity Commission. Councilmember Mesaros suggested the committee consider whether everyone should continue to report to the executive branch and if not, why not. Council President Fraley-Monillas explained 3-4 staff attend some committee meetings and some have one staff person attend their meetings but not necessarily the same one at every meeting. The committee did not reach any resolution other than spreading staff out better so staff was not overburdened. Ms. Hite recalled the committee had several discussions regarding the role of boards and commissions which leads into the structure. Most boards/commissions are advisory to the City Council and the Council does not have staff so the Mayor provides support to assist them and help frame recommendations/advice to the City Council. Councilmember Mesaros relayed he was looking at this from a philosophical, not a technical standpoint. His understanding was the intent was to have support from the executive branch and to provide as much information as possible to the legislative branch as it works through the boards/commissions. Once the Council makes a decision, it is up to the executive branch to carry it out. He suggested if the Council wants the boards/commissions to have staffing, it needs to provide adequate budget to the executive branch to provide that staffing. Ms. Hite agreed, noting that was the intent of the scopes of work for the Tree Board and Diversity Commission. Councilmember Nelson asked the cost savings of notes versus minutes, recognizing there may be ways to save money to provide staffing for the Diversity Commission. Ms. Hite said the cost of minutes according to Councilmember Buckshnis is approximately $100/month or $1200/year per board/commission. Mayor Earling said it is not just the $100/month, it is also a staff member not doing something else. For example, two staff members served on this committee while they could have been doing something else. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the committee discussed reporting and if Council wanted to hire staff to support all boards and commissions, cuts could be made elsewhere to hire staff. The flip side to hiring staff is the disconnect when the person hired to assist the board/commission is not a direct report to the Mayor. Ms. Hite said in her experience, boards/commissions in most cities are staffed by the executive branch; they do research and provide information to assist the Council in making informed decisions at the policy level. Councilmember Nelson referred to the Hwy 99 Task Force that has existed for 12 years and asked how boards or committees died. Ms. Hite answered in her experience when they were done with their work, they disbanded. For a lot of working committees, once they are finished their work, the committee is done. Ms. Hope said some things are codified and the only way to change that is via an ordinance. There are other task forces or committees that are the result of some past action and the administration or Council could decide to dissolve it depending on the nature of the committee. Councilmember Petso recalled in one case, all members of the committee resigned and another way is to allow a commission to sunset. She asked whether the materials contained the cost of minutes or monitors. Packet Page 17 of 470 Ms. Hite said she will provide that information. Councilmember Petso asked staff to provide any other costs such as public noticing, etc., whatever constitutes the true cost of the meetings. She asked whether meeting sites had been determined to avoid paying a monitor. Ms. Hite answered that had not been done; the committee wanted the full Council to weigh in on that concept. She recommended asking staff who attend the board/commission to identify an alternate location. There have been discussions about using the police training room or a room at the Frances Anderson Center although the Frances Anderson Center closes at 8:30/9:00 so meetings would need to be concluded by then to avoid incurring extra staffing costs. The meetings that require a door monitor include the EDC, Tree Board, Historical Preservation Commission and Sister City Commission. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the committee compared Edmonds to other cities; most do not have as many boards/commissions. To Councilmember Petso’s comment about total cost, Ms. Hite relayed Mr. James’ comment that because boards/commissions are required to be on the City’s email system, the City has licensed many more emails at a cost of $26,000/year. Councilmember Johnson said in general she preferred summary notes for boards/commissions with the exception of the ADB, Planning Board and City Council. She commented approximately 1/3 of the minutes could be condensed as the minutes tend to be as elaborate as possible including almost verbatim discussion. She recalled City Clerk Scott Passey brought that to the Council’s attention a few years ago. In general she preferred staff support versus outside contractors for organizing boards/commissions. She preferred making adjustments in the work program or priorities rather than hiring an outside person due to institutional knowledge and connection. She recalled the entire Transportation Committee resigned and was recently reconstituted for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Transportation Committee worked well together and wants to continue meeting quarterly. Councilmember Petso suggested the Council Assistant double check the list of committees to ensure it includes all the boards, commissions and committees. Ms. Hite relayed there are two proposals for Council consideration tonight or at a future meeting. The Diversity Commission was codified but has no support. She has received many emails asking when the commission will be started. She has no answer other than it is in limbo until staff support is identified. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how the Council could assist in getting the Diversity Commission underway. Mayor Earling said the packet includes a cost estimate. Ms. Hite said the current proposal is to hire a consultant; neither she nor the Mayor was able to identify staff that has the capacity to staff up the Diversity Commission. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested temporarily compensating an employee. Ms. Hite answered full-time employees could have special duty pay but she was not sure that would be an incentive for someone to work more nights, more hours and more stress. She reiterated the Council took action to create the Diversity Commission and citizens are waiting for it to be implemented. Councilmember Mesaros recommended the executive look at staffing across the entire City and make a determination who would be best to staff the commission and bring the Council a recommendation. If it includes a budget cost, the Council can consider that and vote accordingly. Mayor Earling said he could look but the prospects are not good. Ms. Hite recalled Councilmember Bloom spoke out during the committee about the need for staff support for the Tree Board as well. Councilmember Mesaros requested the executive’s recommendation also include the Tree Board. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented the Tree Board has been staffed 80% of the time. Ms. Hope said staff from the Council office notices meetings, posts the agenda, and does general administrative actions. At least two people from Development Services have attended meetings to present specific issues or assist with preparing materials. They both have full-time work and are not able to Packet Page 18 of 470 provide all the staffing the Tree Board would like. Parks & Recreation have also occasionally staffed the Tree Board on occasion. Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled Councilmember Bloom's interest in the Tree Board having consistent staff. Mayor Earling recalled the request in that case is to have specific minutes taken and reported out. If the Diversity Commission is to staff up with notices, public disclosure requests, etc., that is a hidden but real cost. He was glad to follow Councilmember Mesaros’ suggestion but a cursory look has already been done and it will be difficult because the City is thinly staffed compared to other cities Edmonds’ size. Councilmember Mesaros agreed there was not an easy answer. If the Council wants multiple boards and commissions, resources need to be provided so they are staffed properly. He asked Mayor Earling to recommend what that looks like. Councilmember Nelson observed a consultant for the Diversity Commission was $4,500 for July 1 – Dec 31. Ms. Hite agreed, pointing out that is contract staff, not a current City employee. That model has been used in the City including the PIO, media relations person, etc. At Council President Fraley-Monillas’ inquiry, Councilmembers agreed they wanted to review the information provided and return at a study session with information provided by Mayor Earling regarding staffing, costs, etc. 15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported he attended Lynnwood’s State of City speech by Mayor Smith. He was excited to have an active government in Lynnwood eager to work with the other cities in South Snohomish County. With regard to the legislature, all the projects Edmonds is interested in are still included but he was uncertain how long they will be included if the legislature does not develop a budget. He congratulated the Rotary who sponsored the Waterfront Festival this past weekend; it looked like a magnificent success. 16. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Nelson congratulated Student Representative Eslami. Councilmember Petso also congratulated Student Representative Eslami and wished him good luck. Councilmember Mesaros commented Student Representative Eslami has more experience on Council than Councilmember Nelson. Councilmember Mesaros reported the SnoCom and SnoPac joint meeting included an update on the New World project and a further postponement of the new software that will enhance 911 capabilities. The pretest to determine whether the system could go live on June 9 failed. The original checklist with 44 concerns has been reduced to 3-4; he and others are hopeful by September/October the four items will be addressed and the next test simulating a catastrophic event in Snohomish County will be successful. Councilmember Mesaros reported the Edmonds-Woodway Jazz Band will be performing at Jazz Alley on June 8th. Councilmember Johnson congratulated Student Representative Eslami who will be attending the University of Washington studying chemical engineering. Councilmember Johnson announced an open house at City Hall on the Comprehensive Plan on June 10 from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. followed by a 7:00 p.m. public hearing. She reported on the Waterfront Festival, having spent most of Friday, Saturday and Sunday in response to the Rotary’s request that each member commit to four 4-hour shifts. She thanked the Port of Edmonds, the Edmonds Yacht Club, the Boy Scouts Packet Page 19 of 470 who kept everything clean, other service clubs who participated, and the Waste Warriors of Washington State Extension Club for food waste recycling. This was the 28th year the Rotary Club has put on the Waterfront Festival, a wonderful community success. She thanked everyone who attended and helped. Council President Fraley-Monillas congratulated Student Representative Eslami. She relayed a citizen’s question about the cost of the New World system. Mr. James offered to email Councilmembers tomorrow. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she spent the weekend assisting the Edmonds Special Olympics Team at Fort Lewis at the annual track meet. She congratulated the Edmonds Special Olympics Team who came home with many golds, include two won by her son. Councilmember Petso said she requested an executive session of both Council President Fraley-Monillas and the City Attorney; five minutes regarding potential or pending litigation. 17. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 8:55 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated the executive session was scheduled to last approximately five minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Petso, Mesaros and Nelson. Others present were City Attorney Sharon Cates and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 9:00 p.m. 18. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 9:00 p.m. 19. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Packet Page 20 of 470    AM-7783     4. B.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:06/09/2015 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 #214554 through #214661 dated June 4, 2015 for $244,913.65.  Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61627 through #61636 for $486,090.72, benefit checks #61637 through #61644 and wire payments of #422,066.67 for the pay period May 16, 2015 through May 31, 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:1,153,071.04 Fiscal Impact: Claims $244,913.65 Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $486,090.72 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $422,066.67 Total Payroll $908,157.39 Attachments Claim checks 06-04-15 Project Numbers 06-04-15 Payroll Summary 06-05-15 Packet Page 21 of 470 Payroll Summary 06-05-15 Payroll Benefit 06-05-15 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 06/04/2015 10:40 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 06/04/2015 10:50 AM Mayor Dave Earling 06/04/2015 10:55 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 06/04/2015 11:05 AM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 06/04/2015 09:12 AM Final Approval Date: 06/04/2015  Packet Page 22 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214554 6/4/2015 072627 911 ETC INC 32515 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT Monthly 911 database maint 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 100.00 Total :100.00 214555 6/4/2015 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 515340 SPRING COED VOLLEYBALL AWARDS SPRING COED VOLLEYBALL AWARDS 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 33.84 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 3.21 SPRING SOFTBALL AWARDS515350 SPRING SOFTBALL AWARDS 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 288.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 27.36 Total :352.41 214556 6/4/2015 074143 AFFORDABLE WA BACKFLOW TESTING 9896 PM BACKFLOW TEST PM BACKFLOW TEST 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 30.00 Total :30.00 214557 6/4/2015 065568 ALLWATER INC 052615086 WWTP - DRINKING WATER cooler 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 12.00 water 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 38.15 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1.14 Total :51.29 214558 6/4/2015 074695 AMERICAN MESSAGING W4-101046PF Water Watch Pager Water Watch Pager 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 4.46 1Page: Packet Page 23 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :4.462145586/4/2015 074695 074695 AMERICAN MESSAGING 214559 6/4/2015 072799 ANDRES, KAREN 5/19 REIMB PANTS 5/19 REIMB PANTS AS PER CONTRACT 5/19 REIMB PANTS AS PER CONTRACT 001.000.64.571.23.24.00 60.00 Total :60.00 214560 6/4/2015 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 8750 YOST POOL SPA INSTALL LEVELOR ADD WATER YOST POOL SPA INSTALL LEVELOR ADD WATER 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 1,340.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 127.30 Total :1,467.30 214561 6/4/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988038847 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80 mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 82.68 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.86 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1988038848 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 66.62 Total :161.32 214562 6/4/2015 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 80320 Units EQ97, 99, 102 - City Logos Units EQ97, 99, 102 - City Logos 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 222.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 21.09 Total :243.09 214563 6/4/2015 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 81400 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS 2Page: Packet Page 24 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214563 6/4/2015 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 37.02 UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 37.02 UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 38.14 UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 135.35 UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 135.34 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 3.55 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 3.55 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3.67 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS81571 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 33.58 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 33.58 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 34.59 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 126.69 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 126.69 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 3.22 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 3.22 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3.33 3Page: Packet Page 25 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :758.542145636/4/2015 070305 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 214564 6/4/2015 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0515 Pre Employment background checks Pre Employment background checks 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 215.00 Total :215.00 214565 6/4/2015 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON 20044 TAEKWON-DO 20044 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 20044 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 116.72 20048 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE20048 TAEKWON-DO 20048 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 69.00 Total :185.72 214566 6/4/2015 002170 BARTON, RONALD 37 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 94.00 Total :94.00 214567 6/4/2015 071348 BERGERABAM 310737 Fishing Pier - Pro Svcs - Design Fishing Pier - Pro Svcs - Design 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 16,381.74 Total :16,381.74 214568 6/4/2015 066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC 510061 E7AC.SPECS & PLANS FOR JIM WAITE E7AC.Specs & Plans for Jim Waite 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 721.34 Total :721.34 214569 6/4/2015 070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC 621 Custom Software Development Services - Custom Software Development Services - 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 2,500.00 Total :2,500.00 214570 6/4/2015 067391 BRAT WEAR 15162 INV#15162 - EDMONDS PD - BARKER TRADITIONAL PANTS 4Page: Packet Page 26 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214570 6/4/2015 (Continued)067391 BRAT WEAR 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 178.00 S/S TRADITIONAL SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 118.00 EMBROIDERED NAME TAGS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 29.64 INV#15180 - EDMONDS PD - LAWLESS15180 BALLISTIC VEST - LAWLESS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 896.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 85.12 Total :1,322.76 214571 6/4/2015 069295 BROWN, CANDY MAY BIRD NATURALIST MAY BIRD NATURALIST CLASSROOM VISITS MAY BIRD NATURALIST CLASSROOM VISITS 001.000.64.571.23.41.00 95.20 Total :95.20 214572 6/4/2015 075278 BURNS, HOUSTON 5/1-5/29 FIELD ATTEN 5/1-5/29/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT 5/1-5/29/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 205.00 Total :205.00 214573 6/4/2015 075280 BYRUM, RICHARD 5/5-5/28 UMP 5/5-5/28/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 5/5-5/28/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 150.00 Total :150.00 214574 6/4/2015 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14934979 WWTP - COPIER RENTAL Copier Rental - May 2015 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 85.80 CANON COPIER CHARGES14936144 Canon lease pmt for C5051 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 83.35 5Page: Packet Page 27 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214574 6/4/2015 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES Canon lease pmt for C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 83.35 Canon lease pmt for C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 83.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 7.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 7.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 7.91 Total :359.54 214575 6/4/2015 075274 CARLSON, SHARON 5/29 REFUND CL CANC 5/29 REFUND CLASS CANCELLED 5/29 REFUND CLASS CANCELLED 001.000.239.200 35.00 Total :35.00 214576 6/4/2015 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY220731 WWTP - SUPPLIES, GASES nitrogen 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 42.54 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 4.05 Total :46.59 214577 6/4/2015 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E4GA.ENG20150234 E4GA.ENG20150234 ROW PERMIT E4GA.ENG20150234 ROW Permit 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 295.00 E7AC.ENG20150235 ROW PERMITE7AC.ENG20150235 E7AC.ENG20150235 ROW Permit 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 385.00 Total :680.00 214578 6/4/2015 004095 COASTWIDE LABS NW2772680-2 PW DISP SOAP CONTURA PW DISP SOAP CONTURA 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 175.81 6Page: Packet Page 28 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214578 6/4/2015 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 16.70 Total :192.51 214579 6/4/2015 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 49912 CITY CODE SUPPLEMENT UPDATE MAY 2015 CITY CODE SUPPLEMENT UPDATE MAY 2015 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 3,047.93 Total :3,047.93 214580 6/4/2015 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3300443 E4JB.INVITATION TO BID E4JB.Invitation to Bid 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 475.80 Total :475.80 214581 6/4/2015 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 387480 INV#387480 - EDMONDS PD CALIBRATE #GHD-03836 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00 CALIBRATE #GHD-03890 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00 CALIBRATE #GHD-12646 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00 CALIBRATE #GHD-12654 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00 CALIBRATE #GHD-14955 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00 CALIBRATE #GHD-14984 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00 CALIBRATE #GHS-08722 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00 CALIBRATE #GHS-08723 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00 CALIBRATE #SHD-01690 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00 FUEL SURCHARGE 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 20.00 7Page: Packet Page 29 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214581 6/4/2015 (Continued)061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 61.75 Total :711.75 214582 6/4/2015 075195 DELTA INDUSTRIES INC 078005 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL Shaft & sleeve 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 1,144.99 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 61.65 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 114.63 Total :1,321.27 214583 6/4/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3559 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 05/26/15 05/26/2015 CITY COUCIL MINUTES 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 303.60 Total :303.60 214584 6/4/2015 073382 DOOLEY ENTERPRISES INC 51452 INV#51452 - EDMONDS PD USA 40 S&W FULL METAL 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 4,170.80 Total :4,170.80 214585 6/4/2015 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 05312015 STATE LOBBYIST MAY 2015 State lobbyist for May 2015 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 4,300.00 Total :4,300.00 214586 6/4/2015 007253 DUNN LUMBER 3221803 GREEN RESOURCE CENTER.BEADEX INSIDE CORN Green Resource Center.Beadex Inside 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 46.17 Green Resource Center.Beadex Inside 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 46.17 Green Resource Center.Beadex Inside 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 46.18 8Page: Packet Page 30 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :138.522145866/4/2015 007253 007253 DUNN LUMBER 214587 6/4/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 114032 1 P&R PRINTER C1030 #A6995 P&R PRINTER C1030 #A6995 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 35.04 P&R COPIER C5051 #A7027114315 1 P&R COPIER C5051 #A7027 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 115.37 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 COPIER114316 Meter charges 04/30/15 - 05/30/15 B&W, 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 137.73 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 13.08 COPY CHARGES C5051114317 Copy charges C5051 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 37.47 Copy charges C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 37.47 Copy charges C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 37.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 3.56 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 3.56 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 3.56 CITY CLERKS METER READ 5/26/2015114319 CITY CLERKS METER READ 5/26/2015 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 353.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 33.55 COPIER MAINT114364 COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.523.30.48.00 157.22 Total :968.25 9Page: Packet Page 31 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214588 6/4/2015 075273 ELEMENTAL MASSAGE THERAPY 5/27/2015 Massages at Public Works Picnic Massages at Public Works Picnic 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 330.00 Total :330.00 214589 6/4/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH632627 E3DB.SEPA ADVERTISEMENT E3DB.SEPA Advertisement 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 48.16 CITY ORDINANCES 3999, 4000EDH634893 CITY ORDINANCES 3999, 4000 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 37.84 Legal Notice: 2015 Proposed Comp PlanEDH635151 Legal Notice: 2015 Proposed Comp Plan 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 49.88 Total :135.88 214590 6/4/2015 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU35898 PM: BIKE RACK HARDWARE FOR DOWNTOWN PM: BIKE RACK HARDWARE FOR DOWNTOWN 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 41.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.93 Water/ Sewer - Marking PaintsWAMOU35909 Water/ Sewer - Marking Paints 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 178.90 Water/ Sewer - Marking Paints 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 178.90 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 17.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 16.99 Total :437.10 214591 6/4/2015 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 52915 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 20,000.00 10Page: Packet Page 32 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :20,000.002145916/4/2015 009895 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 214592 6/4/2015 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0465120 Water Meter Inventory - ~ Water Meter Inventory - ~ 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 4,545.89 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 431.86 Total :4,977.75 214593 6/4/2015 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 10021637 Monthly Flex Plan fee Monthly Flex Plan fee 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 76.10 Total :76.10 214594 6/4/2015 011900 FRONTIER 253-012-9189 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 41.23 WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL253-017-7256 WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 223.48 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHONE & PM IP425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHONE 001.000.64.571.29.42.00 89.98 PARKS MAINT IP LINE (10 + TAX) 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.95 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE425-771-5553 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 112.45 Total :478.09 214595 6/4/2015 002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 140639 INV#140639 - EDMONDS PD - HAWLEY SEW CHEVRONS ON SHIRTS/JACKET 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 7.50 SEW NAME TAGS ON SHIRTS/JACKET 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 3.00 SEW VELCRO/JACKET NAME TAG 11Page: Packet Page 33 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214595 6/4/2015 (Continued)002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 5.00 SERGEANTS CHEVRONS 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 8.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 2.31 INV#140655 - EDMONDS PD - FROLAND140655 SEW CHEVRONS ON SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 7.50 CORPORAL CHEVRONS 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 8.85 SEW YRS OF SERVICE ON SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 2.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 1.74 Total :46.75 214596 6/4/2015 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR 8184 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 105.78 INV#8550 - EDMONDS PD8550 INTERPRETER SERVICE #14-3190 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 105.78 INTERPRETER FEE8559 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.78 INTERPRETER FEE8687 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 112.20 E7AC.SPANISH INTERPRETER 5/28/158703 E7AC.Spanish Interpreter 5/28/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 105.78 Total :535.32 214597 6/4/2015 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA 19992 TAEKWON-DO 19992 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 19992 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 12Page: Packet Page 34 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214597 6/4/2015 (Continued)073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 515.00 Total :515.00 214598 6/4/2015 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 159923/1 CITY PARK SPRAY PARK PIPE, ADAPTINGS, CO CITY PARK SPRAY PARK PIPE, ADAPTINGS, 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 4,719.82 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 448.38 Water Inventory - ~160109/1 Water Inventory - ~ 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 930.42 Water - Parts 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,760.16 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 88.39 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 167.22 Total :8,114.39 214599 6/4/2015 074164 HARDY, JOHN 5/5 - 5/28 UMP 5/5 - 5/28/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 5/5 - 5/28/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 297.00 Total :297.00 214600 6/4/2015 074804 HARLES, JANINE 197328 PHOTOGRAPHY FOR MAY 2015 Photography services for May 2015. 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 214601 6/4/2015 065764 HASNER, THOMAS W 34 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 245.00 Total :245.00 214602 6/4/2015 075133 HERRIN, NICOLE BID-043015 BID ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FOR APRIL 20 13Page: Packet Page 35 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214602 6/4/2015 (Continued)075133 HERRIN, NICOLE Downtown Edmonds Alliance Ed! 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 518.00 REIMBURSE FOR NAME BADGE HOLDERS FOR BIDBID-051515 Reimbursement for purchase of name tag 140.000.61.558.70.31.00 55.81 Total :573.81 214603 6/4/2015 075255 HILL, FOSTER 5/5-5/28 FIELD ATTEN 5/5-5/28/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT 5/5-5/28/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 270.00 Total :270.00 214604 6/4/2015 074331 HOVICK, JAMES 36 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 40.00 Total :40.00 214605 6/4/2015 075275 HUFFMAN, COLLEEN 5/29 REFUND FIELD 5/29 REFUND FIELD CONFLICT WITH PLL 5/29 REFUND FIELD CONFLICT WITH PLL 001.000.239.200 10.00 Total :10.00 214606 6/4/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2629231 DSD Office Supplies DSD Office Supplies 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 256.18 DSD - Office supplies2632433 DSD - Office supplies 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 27.02 MINUTE BOOK2632996 MINUTE BOOK 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 152.25 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 14.46 Total :449.91 214607 6/4/2015 063569 INDUSTRIAL COATING & SEALANTS 5690 Grand Stands - Base Coat (1 Gal) 14Page: Packet Page 36 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214607 6/4/2015 (Continued)063569 INDUSTRIAL COATING & SEALANTS Grand Stands - Base Coat (1 Gal) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 57.10 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.42 Total :62.52 214608 6/4/2015 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 3599 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNECTION Jun-15 Fiber Optics Internet Connection 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 500.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 47.50 Total :547.50 214609 6/4/2015 075279 JOHNSON, RONALD 5/5-5/28 UMP 5/5-5/28/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 5/5-5/28/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 214610 6/4/2015 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 19687 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 19687 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 19687 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 409.20 19688 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE19688 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 19688 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 260.40 19689 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE19689 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 19689 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 334.80 19690 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE19690 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 19690 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 223.20 19691 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE19691 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 19691 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 111.60 Total :1,339.20 15Page: Packet Page 37 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214611 6/4/2015 072304 KOTIS DESIGN 538498 PM UNIFORM SHIRTS PM UNIFORM SHIRTS 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 770.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 73.15 Total :843.15 214612 6/4/2015 070285 KPLU-FM 1150536116 TOURISM PROMOTION AD ON KPLU-FM HOME PAG Tourism promotion ad on KPLU-FM home 120.000.31.575.42.41.40 175.00 TOURISM PROMOTION RADIO ADS 4/27-5/3/151150536142 Tourism promotion ads 4/27-5/3/15 on 120.000.31.575.42.41.40 2,600.00 Total :2,775.00 214613 6/4/2015 075260 LAU, PING 8549 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 109.95 Total :109.95 214614 6/4/2015 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 913882 YOST POOL VACUUM PUMP YOST POOL VACUUM PUMP 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 549.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 52.25 Total :602.24 214615 6/4/2015 072136 MANAGERPLUS SOLUTIONS LLC 425-771-02336/2/201 Fleet - Tech Software, Updates, and Fleet - Tech Software, Updates, and 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 449.00 Total :449.00 214616 6/4/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 30742696 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL repair parts, poly, stainless and galv. 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 620.72 Freight 16Page: Packet Page 38 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214616 6/4/2015 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 34.92 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL30851080 threaded pipe and clamps 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 179.11 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 8.92 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL31054431 threaded pipe and fitting 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 224.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 8.53 Total :1,076.20 214617 6/4/2015 072223 MILLER, DOUG 5/6-5/27 GYM MONITOR 5/6-5/27/15 BASKETBALL GYM MONITOR 5/6-5/27/15 BASKETBALL GYM MONITOR 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 100.00 Total :100.00 214618 6/4/2015 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 210535 CITY PARK SPRAY PARK TRACKHOE CITY PARK SPRAY PARK TRACKHOE 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 1,129.85 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 107.34 CITY PARK SPRAY PARK TRACKHOE211875 CITY PARK SPRAY PARK TRACKHOE 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 600.00 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 57.00 Total :1,894.19 214619 6/4/2015 075277 MONSON, JAMES 5/5-5/28 UMP 5/5-5/28/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 5/5-5/28/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 17Page: Packet Page 39 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214620 6/4/2015 066006 MORGAN SOUND MSI82012 PS - Restock Fees PS - Restock Fees 016.000.66.594.19.64.00 280.00 9.5% Sales Tax 016.000.66.594.19.64.00 26.60 Total :306.60 214621 6/4/2015 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 14-1590-9 E4GA.SERVICES THRU 4/30/15 E4GA.Services thru 4/30/15 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 14,064.88 E4JB.SERVICES THRU 4/30/1514-1613-4 E4JB.Services thru 4/30/15 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 1,682.00 E4JC.SERVICES THRU 4/30/1515-1662-1 E4JC.Services thru 4/30/15 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 483.00 Total :16,229.88 214622 6/4/2015 072833 MVP 5-7-15 MAY 14, 2015 POLICE AWARDS CEREMONY PHOT SHOOT PHOTOS 5/14/15 AWARDS CEREMONY 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 200.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 19.00 Total :219.00 214623 6/4/2015 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 4158483 CITY PARK SPRAY PARK FENCE RENTAL CITY PARK SPRAY PARK FENCE RENTAL 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 2,488.62 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 236.42 Total :2,725.04 214624 6/4/2015 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0551771-IN Unit 001- Filters Unit 001- Filters 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 33.53 9.5% Sales Tax 18Page: Packet Page 40 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214624 6/4/2015 (Continued)024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.19 Total :36.72 214625 6/4/2015 024600 NEUERT, L L 33 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 2,050.65 Total :2,050.65 214626 6/4/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1214568 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 587.62 Total :587.62 214627 6/4/2015 068282 OLYMPIC FLY FISHERS 20014 FLY FISHING 20014 FLY FISHING INSTRUCTION FEE 20014 FLY FISHING INSTRUCTION FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 554.40 Total :554.40 214628 6/4/2015 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 229.70 HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN & SPRINKL0060860 HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN & 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 95.02 Total :324.72 214629 6/4/2015 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20150029.000-3 E5CA.SERVICES THRU 5/3/15 E5CA.Services thru 5/3/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 1,736.25 Total :1,736.25 214630 6/4/2015 075183 PETERSON FRUIT CO 339314 Apples for employees Apples for employees 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 51.25 Total :51.25 19Page: Packet Page 41 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214631 6/4/2015 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000155043 INSCRIPTION-MACDONALD INSCRIPTION-MACDONALD 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 105.00 Total :105.00 214632 6/4/2015 075031 REECE, CARLY 5/7-5/28 GYM ATTEND 5/7-5/28/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT 5/7-5/28/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 100.00 Total :100.00 214633 6/4/2015 006841 RICOH USA INC 5036099038 Additional images - MP171SPF Additional images - MP171SPF 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 14.77 Total :14.77 214634 6/4/2015 067447 RILEY, CHARLES H.35 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 49.30 Total :49.30 214635 6/4/2015 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 8127 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 214636 6/4/2015 074911 SEATTLE HEALTHY POOLS 297 YOST POOL REPAIR OF PLASTER YOST POOL REPAIR OF PLASTER 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 345.00 YOST POOL REPAIR OF PLASTER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 61.22 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 32.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.82 Total :444.81 214637 6/4/2015 070495 SEPULVEDA, PABLO 7768 INTERPRETER FEE 20Page: Packet Page 42 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214637 6/4/2015 (Continued)070495 SEPULVEDA, PABLO INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 130.23 Total :130.23 214638 6/4/2015 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 92344 E4FC.SERVICES THRU 5/9/15 E4FC.Services thru 5/9/15 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 475.94 E4FC.SERVICES THRU 5/9/1592345 E4FC.Services thru 5/9/15 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 18,488.04 Total :18,963.98 214639 6/4/2015 068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO E3GA.Pmt 7 E3GA.PMT 7 THRU 5/29/15 E3GA.Pmt 7 thru 5/29/15 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 35,773.45 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 3,398.48 Total :39,171.93 214640 6/4/2015 071725 SKAGIT GARDENS INC 52233732 FLOWER PROGRAM FLOWERS FLOWER PROGRAM FLOWERS: ANEMONE, 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 985.16 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 93.59 Total :1,078.75 214641 6/4/2015 066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS I000383267 E5CA/E4CA.SERVICES THRU 4/30/15 E4CA.Services thru 4/30/15 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 2,060.15 E5CA.Services thru 4/30/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 3,016.58 Total :5,076.73 214642 6/4/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2013-2711-1 PINE ST PARK PINE ST PARK 21Page: Packet Page 43 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214642 6/4/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.92 CEMETERY BUILDING2015-5730-3 CEMETERY BUILDING 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 211.19 OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT CEMETERY2016-1027-6 OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT CEMETERY 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.49 415 5TH AVE S2017-6210-1 415 5TH AVE S 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.31 WWTP FLOW METER 9805 EDMONDS WAY / METER2019-9517-2 WWTP FLOW METER 9805 EDMONDS WAY / 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 32.93 CEMETERY WELL PUMP2021-6153-5 CEMETERY WELL PUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 157.87 HAZEL MILLER PLAZA2044-6743-5 HAZEL MILLER PLAZA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 76.96 Total :565.67 214643 6/4/2015 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103584 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLING WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLING 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 29.95 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPOSAL104757 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPOSAL 423.000.76.535.80.47.65 267.70 Total :297.65 214644 6/4/2015 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4252730-01 WWTP - SAFETY EQUIPMENT safety - hip boots 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 116.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 11.06 22Page: Packet Page 44 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :127.462146446/4/2015 038410 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 214645 6/4/2015 074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 902917 E4JB.SERVICES THRU 3/27/15 E4JB.Services thru 3/27/15 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 30,158.64 Total :30,158.64 214646 6/4/2015 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 1584 SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES MAY 2015 Social media services May 2015. 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 300.00 Total :300.00 214647 6/4/2015 075281 THAL, JULIANNE 6/2 REFUND 6/2 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT AND MONITOR FE 6/2 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT AND MONITOR 001.000.239.200 407.00 Total :407.00 214648 6/4/2015 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 405528 PM SHORT STEM ASSY, BONNET CAP, SAFTI-TR PM SHORT STEM ASSY, BONNET CAP, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 184.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.50 Total :201.74 214649 6/4/2015 068322 TRANE US INC 35064257 PS - Furnace Repairs PS - Furnace Repairs 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 551.10 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 52.35 PS - Installation of New Human35064258 PS - Installation of New Human 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 3,790.00 9.5% Sales Tax 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 360.05 Total :4,753.50 214650 6/4/2015 075276 TSOGNYI, JEANNIE 5/29 REFUND SHELTER 5/29 REFUND SHELTER RESERVATION CANCELLA 23Page: Packet Page 45 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214650 6/4/2015 (Continued)075276 TSOGNYI, JEANNIE 5/29 REFUND SHELTER RESERVATION 001.000.239.200 105.00 Total :105.00 214651 6/4/2015 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA 0607603-WA Fac Maint - Screening Fac Maint - Screening 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 103.00 Total :103.00 214652 6/4/2015 067726 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS 05-0155A APPRAISAL REVIEW OF CIVIC FIELD APPRAISAL REVIEW OF CIVIC FIELD 126.000.39.592.19.49.00 1,200.00 Total :1,200.00 214653 6/4/2015 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9746106205 C/A 571242650-0001 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bld Dept 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 221.10 iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 55.99 iPad Cell Service Council 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 300.10 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 75.98 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Development 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 95.54 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 75.55 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 678.32 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 111.06 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 95.54 iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 95.54 24Page: Packet Page 46 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214653 6/4/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 287.06 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 40.01 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Dept 001.000.64.571.21.42.00 95.54 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 1,084.28 Air cards Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 800.36 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning Dept 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 40.01 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 26.59 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 7.60 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 26.59 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 7.60 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 7.60 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Street Dept 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 171.52 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Fleet 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 55.53 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 120.78 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 120.77 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer Dept 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 205.58 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 245.59 25Page: Packet Page 47 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214653 6/4/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS iPad Cell Service Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 175.56 iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 217.06 C/A 772540262-000019746231063 Lift Station access 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 85.58 Total :5,625.93 214654 6/4/2015 074901 WA FEDERAL %SHORELINE CONSTRUC E3GA.Ret 7 E3GA.WAF 316-400163-2 RET 7 THRU 5/29/15 E3GA.WAF 316-400163-2 .Ret 7 thru 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 1,711.65 Total :1,711.65 214655 6/4/2015 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 20115172 INV 20115172 - DT MASTER INSTRUCTOR RECE DT MASTER INSTRUCTOR RECERTIFICATION - 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 150.00 Total :150.00 214656 6/4/2015 073832 WA ST DEPT OF ENTERPRISE SVCS 73135202 INV#73135202 ACCT#23104-000 EDMONDS PD 3,000 SILHOUETTE TARGETS 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 776.33 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 73.75 Total :850.08 214657 6/4/2015 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS I15-237 PM TREE LIMB CLEANUP 6TH & BELL PM TREE LIMB CLEANUP 6TH & BELL 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 315.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 29.93 PM STUMP GRINDING 6TH & BELLI15-238 PM STUMP GRINDING 6TH & BELL 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 280.00 9.5% Sales Tax 26Page: Packet Page 48 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214657 6/4/2015 (Continued)067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 26.60 PM REMOVE TREE, GRIND STUMPS 5TH & MAINI15-239 PM REMOVE TREE, GRIND STUMPS 5TH & MAIN 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 280.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 26.60 Total :958.13 214658 6/4/2015 045912 WASPC INV026330 INV026330 EDMONDS PD - SPRING WASPC CONF SPRING CONFERENCE - COMPAAN 001.000.41.521.10.49.00 300.00 SPRING CONFERENCE - LAWLESS 001.000.41.521.10.49.00 300.00 Total :600.00 214659 6/4/2015 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6695 Envelopes DSD and Planning Div. Envelopes DSD and Planning Div. 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 344.38 Utility Billing - #10 Window Env (5000)6702 Utility Billing - #10 Window Env (5000) 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 103.33 Utility Billing - #10 Window Env (5000) 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 103.33 Utility Billing - #10 Window Env (5000) 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 103.34 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.82 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.82 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 9.81 Total :683.83 214660 6/4/2015 064213 WSSUA TREASURER 256 SPRING SOFTBALL LEAGUE OFFICIALS FOR MAY SPRING SOFTBALL LEAGUE OFFICIALS FOR 27Page: Packet Page 49 of 470 06/04/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 9:00:23AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 214660 6/4/2015 (Continued)064213 WSSUA TREASURER 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 2,244.00 Total :2,244.00 214661 6/4/2015 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1046 MAT-15 RETAINER Monthly Retainer 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 13,930.96 Total :13,930.96 Bank total :244,913.65108 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 244,913.65Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report108 28Page: Packet Page 50 of 470 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM 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 WTR 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 Overlays c475 E5CB 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 Revised 6/4/2015 Packet Page 51 of 470 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC 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 Bikelink Project c474 E5DA 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 STR Interurban Trail c146 E2DB Revised 6/4/2015 Packet Page 52 of 470 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA 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 STR 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 SWR 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 UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA 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 Revised 6/4/2015 Packet Page 53 of 470 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR 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 6/4/2015 Packet Page 54 of 470 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STM 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 SWR 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 STR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project STR 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 6/4/2015 Packet Page 55 of 470 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 WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STR 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 6/4/2015 Packet Page 56 of 470 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 WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project 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 UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates 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 Revised 6/4/2015 Packet Page 57 of 470 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title 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 6/4/2015 Packet Page 58 of 470 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements STR E2DB c146 Interurban Trail General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STM E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs WtR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming 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 SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) Revised 6/4/2015 Packet Page 59 of 470 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement 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 STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program STR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) 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 PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk Revised 6/4/2015 Packet Page 60 of 470 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program 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 STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study 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 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 STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects WTR E5JA c468 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects SWR E5GA c469 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects Revised 6/4/2015 Packet Page 61 of 470 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM E7FG m013 NPDES UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates Revised 6/4/2015 Packet Page 62 of 470 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number 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 Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STM 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA 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 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA 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 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA 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 Revised 6/4/2015 Packet Page 63 of 470 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF 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 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 Bikelink Project c474 E5DA 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 Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA STR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA Revised 6/4/2015 Packet Page 64 of 470 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 Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA 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 SWR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA 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 Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB 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 Revised 6/4/2015 Packet Page 65 of 470 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA Revised 6/4/2015 Packet Page 66 of 470 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 748 (05/16/2015 to 05/31/2015) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description Educational Pay CorrectionREGULAR HOURS-ed2 0.00 -156.28 NO PAY LEAVEABSENT111 28.00 0.00 SICK LEAVE - L & ISICK120 71.00 2,287.53 SICK LEAVESICK121 597.75 19,425.90 VACATIONVACATION122 1,138.00 46,256.48 HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 42.00 1,499.85 FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 25.00 847.97 COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 101.00 3,663.54 Police Sick Leave L & ISICK129 88.25 3,071.74 Holiday Compensation UsedCOMP HOURS130 28.50 996.97 MILITARY LEAVEMILITARY131 12.00 324.00 Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 112.50 4,202.94 COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 82.27 3,399.60 MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 36.00 2,404.23 COUNCIL BASE PAYREGULAR HOURS170 700.00 7,000.00 COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAYREGULAR HOURS174 0.00 200.00 COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICALREGULAR HOURS175 0.00 1,389.86 REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 14,043.16 518,017.97 FIRE PENSION PAYMENTSREGULAR HOURS191 4.00 2,150.85 LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS196 126.25 5,562.94 OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 112.50 4,755.04 WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 48.00 2,344.94 STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 16.00 1,452.95 OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 301.00 19,068.70 OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 20.75 1,358.95 OUT OF CLASS - POLICEACTING PAY405 0.00 113.15 SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 673.32 RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY600 0.00 69.97 ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS602 96.75 0.00 Holiday Comp 1.0COMP HOURS603 46.00 0.00 ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS604 119.50 0.00 ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS606 14.00 0.00 Holiday Compensatory Time 1.5COMP HOURS607 4.00 0.00 ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 24.70 06/04/2015 Page 1 of 2 Packet Page 67 of 470 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 748 (05/16/2015 to 05/31/2015) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description Accreditation 1% Part TimeMISCELLANEOUSacp 0.00 0.00 ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 169.99 BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 81.17 Collision ReconstructionistMISCELLANEOUScolre 0.00 138.69 TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 143.68 CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 516.16 DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUSdet 0.00 100.25 Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 828.68 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 4,443.84 HOLIDAYHOLIDAYhol 1,171.80 44,973.37 K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 95.43 LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITYlg1 0.00 1,798.72 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 12.00 417.69 MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUSmtc 0.00 200.50 Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUSpds 0.00 46.65 PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 1,441.75 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 68.42 0.00 TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 315.78 Total Net Pay:$486,090.72 $718,376.87 19,266.40 06/04/2015 Page 2 of 2 Packet Page 68 of 470 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 748 - 05/16/2015 to 05/31/2015 Bank: usbank - US Bank Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 61637 06/05/2015 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,150.00 0.00 61638 06/05/2015 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 117.00 0.00 61639 06/05/2015 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 1,071.33 0.00 61640 06/05/2015 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 1,028.10 0.00 61641 06/05/2015 cope SEIU COPE 62.00 0.00 61642 06/05/2015 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 3,496.94 0.00 61643 06/05/2015 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 724.00 0.00 61644 06/05/2015 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,202.51 0.00 9,851.88 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 2228 06/05/2015 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 195,392.04 0.00 2229 06/05/2015 aflac AFLAC 5,106.11 0.00 2233 06/05/2015 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 88,136.37 0.00 2234 06/05/2015 us US BANK 97,399.67 0.00 2235 06/05/2015 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 20,924.50 0.00 2237 06/05/2015 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,207.60 0.00 2239 06/05/2015 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 48.50 0.00 412,214.79 0.00 422,066.67 0.00Grand Totals: Page 1 of 16/4/2015 Packet Page 69 of 470    AM-7775     4. C.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:06/09/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Sarah Mager Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type:  Information Subject Title Revision to Penalty Adjustment Policy Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative Due to the recent code change related to the assessment of penalties on Utility Billing accounts, a revision to the penalty adjustment policy is needed.  The revision is replacing the language related to the 10% assessment to now reflect the new $25 flat fee. Attachments Penalty Adjustment Policy Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 06/04/2015 10:36 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 06/04/2015 10:37 AM Mayor Dave Earling 06/04/2015 11:06 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 06/04/2015 11:20 AM Form Started By: Sarah Mager Started On: 06/01/2015 02:40 PM Final Approval Date: 06/04/2015  Packet Page 70 of 470 1 Penalty Adjustments on Utility Billing Accounts If a customer has been assessed a $2510% penalty due to non-payment of a utility bill, the City may allow one penalty adjustment every three years. In order to qualify for a penalty adjustment, the account must not be past due by more than the amount of current charges on a single billing statement. Additionally, an adjustment must be requested 45 days from the date the penalty was assessed; in order for it to be considered. Adjustments will be initiated by the Utility Billing Technician and approved by the Utility Accountant. Adjustments exceeding $100.00 require the approval of the Finance Director. CITY OF EDMONDS PENALTY ADJUSTMENT POLICY Subject: Penalty Adjustment Policy Original Policy Date: August 18, 2008 Originating Department: Finance Division Approved By: Scott Jameshawn Hunstock, Director, Finance & Information Services Packet Page 71 of 470    AM-7774     4. D.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:06/09/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Confirmation of Nathan Monroe to the Planning Board Alternate position. Recommendation Mayor Earling recommends Nathan Monroe's confirmation to the Planning Board Alternate position. Previous Council Action Narrative After meeting with Mr. Monroe Mayor Earling recommends his confirmation to the Planning Board Alternate position. Mr. Monroe will fill the remainder of the unexpired term of Mike Nelson which expires on 12/31/16. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 06/02/2015 01:35 PM Mayor Dave Earling 06/02/2015 05:08 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 06/03/2015 08:16 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 06/01/2015 12:42 PM Final Approval Date: 06/03/2015  Packet Page 72 of 470    AM-7788     4. E.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:06/09/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Sarah Mager Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title April 2015 Monthly Financial Report Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative Attachments April 2015 Monthly Financial Report Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 06/04/2015 10:48 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 06/04/2015 10:50 AM Mayor Dave Earling 06/04/2015 10:53 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 06/04/2015 11:05 AM Form Started By: Sarah Mager Started On: 06/04/2015 10:45 AM Final Approval Date: 06/04/2015  Packet Page 73 of 470 CITY OF EDMONDS MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT APRIL 2015 Packet Page 74 of 470 1 Page 1 of 1 Fund No.Title 2015 Amended Budget 04/30/2014 Revenues 04/30/2015 Revenues Amount Remaining % Received 001 GENERAL FUND 1 36,806,017$ 12,575,092$ 9,527,417$ 27,278,600$ 26% 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 276,200 448 1,439 274,761 1% 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 1,180 73 3,071 (1,891) 260% 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 19,800 7,390 16,299 3,501 82% 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND - 11 168 (168) 0% 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 7,500 1 3 7,497 0% 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 2 513,000 187,621 45,385 467,615 9% 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 43,000 18,173 11,227 31,773 26% 111 STREET FUND 1,729,030 417,919 434,556 1,294,474 25% 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2 8,026,935 1,017,194 611,545 7,415,390 8% 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 78,859 16,201 20,951 57,908 27% 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 61 21 53 8 87% 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 67,675 17,277 20,235 47,440 30% 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 20,564 9,331 8,062 12,502 39% 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 1,240 60 173 1,067 14% 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 22,900 5,899 6,856 16,044 30% 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 904,000 263,497 316,772 587,228 35% 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 902,000 262,101 315,790 586,210 35% 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 46,478 21,329 28,902 17,576 62% 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND - 41,902 114 (114) 0% 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 164,500 50,391 51,370 113,130 31% 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2 5,498,765 123,325 44,003 5,454,762 1% 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 533 175 452 81 85% 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 11,970 6,067 8,259 3,711 69% 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,212 3,003 2,456 7,756 24% 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 650,000 205,135 217,724 432,276 33% 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 45,745 44,216 (44,216) 0% 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,600 1,408 9,718 12,882 43% 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 28,627 47 - 28,627 0% 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 667,693 - - 667,693 0% 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 925,310 - - 925,310 0% 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 89,500 63,332 (63,332) 0% 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 7,581,442 2,097,300 2,153,302 5,428,140 28% 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 2 3,774,407 1,317,302 1,558,762 2,215,645 41% 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 9,833,310 2,548,534 2,804,535 7,028,775 29% 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 844,416 - 2 844,414 0% 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,502,567 502,843 533,898 968,669 36% 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 65,350 212 534 64,816 1% 81,048,141$ 21,852,527$ 18,861,582$ 62,186,559$ 23% CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY 1 Difference between 2014 and 2015 is due to the $2.7M from bond refund in February of 2014. 2 All differences between 2014 and 2015 are due to a difference in grant funds received. Packet Page 75 of 470 2 Page 1 of 1 Fund No.Title 2015 Amended Budget 04/30/2014 Expenditures 04/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent 001 GENERAL FUND 38,805,775$ 14,163,986$ 12,838,447$ 25,967,328$ 33% 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 361,825 124,707 101,288 260,537 28% 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - - - - 0% 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 800,000 - - 800,000 0% 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 7,900 - - 7,900 0% 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 3 598,800 13,254 65,193 533,607 11% 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 76,033 3,460 6,204 69,829 8% 111 STREET FUND 1,703,419 471,697 560,645 1,142,774 33% 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 8,146,704 422,498 411,363 7,735,341 5% 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 134,275 14,195 16,271 118,004 12% 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - - 0% 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 70,000 7,389 13,894 56,106 20% 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,871 - - 26,871 0% 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,000 731 965 2,035 32% 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 21,500 564 1,965 19,535 9% 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2,485,000 56,261 68,597 2,416,403 3% 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 683,400 2,773 - 683,400 0% 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 43,795 557 1,208 42,587 3% 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND - 17,469 - - 0% 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 171,784 47,320 49,497 122,287 29% 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 6,001,243 111,767 127,258 5,873,985 2% 136 PARKS TRUST FUND - - - - 0% 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,400 274 10 10,390 0% 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 650,000 205,135 217,724 432,276 33% 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRCIT - 13,522 18,672 (18,672) 0% 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 28,567 - - 28,567 0% 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - - - - 0% 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 667,693 604 54 667,639 0% 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 925,310 - - 925,310 0% 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 10,354,300 1,818,190 2,075,005 8,279,295 20% 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 6,969,141 922,902 813,424 6,155,717 12% 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 15,071,010 2,223,434 2,643,497 12,427,513 18% 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 845,416 - 54 845,362 0% 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,667,801 357,003 435,868 1,231,933 26% 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 77,629 20,776 18,854 58,775 24% 97,408,591$ 21,020,468$ 20,485,957$ 76,922,634$ 21% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY 3 Difference between 2014 and 2015 is due to Professional Services charges related to the Fishing Pier Design. Packet Page 76 of 470 3 Page 1 of 3 Title 2015 Amended Budget 04/30/2014 Revenues 04/30/2015 Revenues Amount Remaining % Received TAXES: REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9,999,850$ 1,708,482$ 1,511,216$ 8,488,634$ 15% EMS PROPERTY TAX 3,395,376 529,218 512,225 2,883,151 15% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 925,309 164,504 140,219 785,090 15% LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4 5,627,000 1,870,619 2,047,828 3,579,172 36% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 9,700 4,531 2,805 6,895 29% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 586,500 196,955 202,880 383,620 35% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,533,800 690,245 625,378 908,422 41% GAS UTILITY TAX 743,700 376,839 321,196 422,504 43% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 301,500 99,770 103,676 197,824 34% WATER UTILITY TAX 1,115,209 300,542 320,009 795,200 29% SEWER UTILITY TAX 524,200 171,771 187,407 336,793 36% STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 323,210 108,881 114,298 208,912 35% T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 5 819,100 205,673 280,831 538,269 34% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,371,800 470,135 465,785 906,015 34% PULLTABS TAX 45,200 17,662 24,272 20,928 54% AMUSEMENT GAMES 150 25 - 150 0% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 231,200 54,357 62,013 169,187 27% 27,552,804 6,970,211 6,922,038 20,630,766 25% LICENSES AND PERMITS: FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,210 40 145 5,065 3% POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 300 220 - 300 0% PROF AND OCC LICENSE-TAXI 630 330 - 630 0% AMUSEMENTS 4,740 4,275 4,325 415 91% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST 5 683,400 172,694 353,509 329,891 52% FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT 33,560 14,649 15,841 17,719 47% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER 91,500 45,127 49,706 41,794 54% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-BLACKROCK 18,100 4,717 5,227 12,873 29% FRANCHISE AGREMENT-ZAYO 5,000 - - 5,000 0% OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 5 261,930 126,873 57,968 203,962 22% GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 110,600 87,125 80,739 29,861 73% DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 37,200 12,925 14,890 22,310 40% NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 66,300 28,550 22,000 44,300 33% RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 9,870 - 5,388 4,482 55% BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 6 480,000 107,976 198,888 281,112 41% ANIMAL LICENSES 38,800 6,620 11,648 27,152 30% STREET AND CURB PERMIT 40,300 33,173 6,043 34,257 15% OTR NON-BUS LIC/PERMITS 10,100 4,625 3,967 6,133 39% 1,897,540 649,919 830,282 1,067,258 44% INTERGOVERNMENTAL: FEDERAL GRANTS-BUDGET ONLY 20,000 - - 20,000 0% DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 3,970 - - 3,970 0% ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE GRANT 6,000 - 3,000 3,000 50% ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE II - 1,000 5,250 (5,250) 0% WA ASSOC OF SHERIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT - - - - 0% WTSC X-52 DUI AND SPEEDING - - - - 0% TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 7,500 2,095 2,313 5,187 31% HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 3,000 535 - 3,000 0% DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE - 1,442 - - 0% WA STATE ADMIN OFFICE COURTS GRANT - - 300 (300) 0% 2014 COMMUNITY FORESTRY GRANT - - - - 0% WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT - - - - 0% NORTHWEST SOLAR COMMUNITIES GRANT - - - - 0% SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - - - - 0% PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 187,470 - - 187,470 0% MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 9,980 4,975 5,215 4,765 52% JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 12,630 6,238 8,189 4,441 65% CRIMINAL JUSTICE-SPECIAL PROGRAMS 36,890 18,411 19,160 17,730 52% DUI - CITIES 7,220 3,636 3,512 3,708 49% LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 65,000 38,720 44,733 20,267 69% LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 356,890 88,821 87,538 269,352 25% VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS - 39,513 2,000 (2,000) 0% 716,550 205,385 181,210 535,340 25% REVENUES - GENERAL FUND CITY OF EDMONDS 4 2015 Local Retail Sales/Use Tax revenues are $177,209 higher than 2014 revenues 6 Building Structure Permits are up $90,912 from 2014 5 Differences between 2014 and 2015 are due to timing differences for monthly/quarterly payments. Packet Page 77 of 470 4 Page 2 of 3 Title 2015 Amended Budget 04/30/2014 Revenues 04/30/2015 Revenues Amount Remaining % Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS - 162 396 (396) 0% CIVIL PROBATE FILINGS - - - - 0% COURT RECORD SERVICES 1,200 - - 1,200 0% D/M COURT REC SER 200 10 7 193 3% SHARED COURT COSTS 500 - - 500 0% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 200 114 224 (24) 112% SALE MAPS & BOOKS 100 18 - 100 0% CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS 25,086 - - 25,086 0% BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 100 - - 100 0% PHOTOCOPIES 2,000 770 811 1,189 41% POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,000 1,110 1,619 2,381 40% ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 272,000 62,134 47,628 224,372 18% ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 1,000 - - 1,000 0% SNO-ISLE 58,000 29,298 29,757 28,243 51% GENERAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES - - - - 0% PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 11,000 7,600 7,710 3,290 70% POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 - - 26,000 0% OCDETF OVERTIME 5,500 5,406 - 5,500 0% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.12,300 - 605 11,695 5% WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 39,500 20,550 20,030 19,470 51% DRE REIMBURSEABLE - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 1,500 - - 1,500 0% DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 300 71 155 145 52% FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 45,000 29,278 27,223 17,777 60% ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 50,000 21,363 21,059 28,941 42% ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI - - - - 0% BOOKING FEES 6,000 2,221 2,446 3,554 41% FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 8,000 5,836 7,230 770 90% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 18,000 5,261 3,658 14,342 20% EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 7 800,000 241,224 197,671 602,329 25% CRIM CNV FEE DUI - - - - 0% CRIM CONV FEE CT - 1,317 - - 0% CRIM CONV FEE CN - 467 - - 0% FIBER SERVICES 14,880 4,960 3,060 11,820 21% INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,200 2,400 2,400 4,800 33% FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 1,000 420 413 587 41% ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,000 955 919 5,081 15% ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 75,000 14,918 32,801 42,200 44% PLAN CHECKING FEES 292,000 249,335 204,463 87,537 70% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 2,160 2,930 3,825 (1,665) 177% PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 900 302 130 770 14% S.E.P.A. REVIEW 5,000 1,705 1,830 3,170 37% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 15,000 6,510 4,960 10,040 33% DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,000 2,895 3,164 6,836 32% SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 61,000 - - 61,000 0% GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 4,800 1,948 3,037 1,763 63% LOCKER FEES 350 - - 350 0% SWIM CLASS FEES 30,000 70 - 30,000 0% PROGRAM FEES 8 825,000 281,083 318,093 506,907 39% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 110,000 48,112 49,585 60,415 45% SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM 34,260 165 - 34,260 0% BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 950 30 40 910 4% INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT-CONTRACT SVCS 1,969,500 647,450 280,350 1,689,150 14% 4,852,486 1,700,399 1,277,300 3,575,186 26% 7 No specific reason for the difference between 2014 and 2015; EMS transport fees for 4th quarter 2014 were less than 2013. CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 8 Program Fees are up $37,010 from 2014 Packet Page 78 of 470 5 Page 3 of 3 Title 2015 Amended Budget 04/30/2014 Revenues 04/30/2015 Revenues Amount Remaining % Received FINES AND FORFEITURES: PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 11,100 2,935 2,236 8,864 20% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 25,300 8,867 10,181 15,119 40% NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 289,400 88,181 98,499 190,901 34% CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)24,100 6,945 7,752 16,348 32% SPEEDING DOUBLE - - - - 0% NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 1,200 1,201 (5,198) 6,398 -433% OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 1,000 285 232 768 23% PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 40,200 15,462 16,811 23,389 42% PR - HANDICAPPED - - - - 0% PARK/INDDISZONE 500 336 1,064 (564) 213% DWI PENALTIES 6,000 2,104 3,235 2,765 54% DUI - DP ACCT 1,800 826 806 994 45% CRIM CNV FEE DUI - 191 179 (179) 0% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 50 29 - 50 0% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 38,200 11,742 10,789 27,411 28% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT 500 465 774 (274) 155% CRIM CONV FEE CT 4,000 - 820 3,180 21% OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 100 4 89 11 89% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 5,000 2,395 3,789 1,211 76% COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 1,500 535 408 1,092 27% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN 400 289 619 (219) 155% CRIM CONV FEE CN 1,200 - 182 1,018 15% CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 115,600 32,697 24,296 91,304 21% PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 30,200 10,972 10,242 19,958 34% COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 100 109 253 (153) 253% BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 9 4,000 2,635 10,780 (6,780) 270% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 1,000 - - 1,000 0% 602,450 189,203 198,840 403,610 33% MISCELLANEOUS: INVESTMENT INTEREST 10,600 4,219 8,259 2,341 78% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 1,200 50 723 477 60% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 5,000 2,374 2,310 2,690 46% PARKING 10,300 3,422 4,965 5,335 48% SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 120,000 19,119 18,473 101,527 15% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 5,000 3,120 1,680 3,320 34% LEASES LONG-TERM 166,772 55,056 59,800 106,972 36% VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 9,000 1,065 1,643 7,357 18% OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 8,400 375 1,800 6,600 21% DONATION/CONTRIBUTION - - - - 0% PARKS DONATIONS 11,250 4,374 8,927 2,323 79% BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 950 450 200 750 21% POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES 1,000 - - 1,000 0% PARKS GRANTS - PRIVATE SOURCES - - - - 0% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 150 120 - 150 0% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 2,000 166 321 1,679 16% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 2,000 - - 2,000 0% OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 2,000 - 18 1,982 1% POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 200 88 10 190 5% CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES - 201 (15) 15 0% OTHER MISC REVENUES 1,000 603 8,379 (7,379) 838% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 50 21 2 48 4% NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 120 30 30 90 25% NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 800 250 67 733 8% NSF FEES - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT - - - - - FLEX-PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES 1,010 - - 1,010 - US BANK REBATE 3,210 1,557 155 3,055 5% 362,012 96,661 117,747 244,265 33% TRANSFERS-IN: PROCEEDS OF REFUNDING DEBT - 2,763,314 - - 0% INSURANCE RECOVERIES - - - - 0% TRANSFER FROM FUND 012 800,000 - - 800,000 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM 104 - - - - 0% TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 22,175 - - 22,175 0% 822,175 2,763,314 - 822,175 0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 36,806,017$ 12,575,092$ 9,527,417$ 27,278,600$ 26% REVENUES - GENERAL FUND CITY OF EDMONDS 9 Difference due to change in penalty from 2014 to 2015. A late fee of $50 is now assessed after 1/31, and $100 after 2/28. Packet Page 79 of 470 6 Page 1 of 6 Title 2015 Amended Budget 04/30/2014 Expenditures 04/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) SALARIES AND WAGES 13,312,448$ 4,003,428$ 4,226,752$ 9,085,696$ 32% OVERTIME 424,508 125,646 150,194 274,314 35% HOLIDAY BUY BACK 209,198 858 1,543 207,655 1% BENEFITS 4,789,021 1,495,529 1,569,148 3,219,873 33% UNIFORMS 65,610 17,541 26,303 39,307 40% SUPPLIES 372,957 113,120 111,630 261,327 30% SMALL EQUIPMENT 181,357 73,409 68,067 113,290 38% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,848,190 434,475 564,221 2,283,969 20% COMMUNICATIONS 209,127 42,668 55,459 153,668 27% TRAVEL 36,845 3,132 8,449 28,396 23% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 1,128 903 5,597 14% ADVERTISING - 8,395 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 905,591 310,830 301,800 603,791 33% INSURANCE 423,600 383,906 418,367 5,233 99% UTILITIES 457,800 134,780 135,513 322,287 30% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 396,359 143,969 198,863 197,496 50% MISCELLANEOUS 405,650 103,766 158,572 247,078 39% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 10 10,114,042 3,941,160 4,827,854 5,286,188 48% INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 180,000 - - 180,000 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 3,132,785 - - 3,132,785 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 53,800 - 14,777 39,023 27% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 160,821 2,720,000 - 160,821 0% CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 65,298 64,654 - 65,298 0% OTHER DEBT - 479 33 (33) 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 54,268 24,632 - 54,268 0% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - 16,481 - - 0% INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0% INTERFUND RENTAL - - - - 0% 38,805,775$ 14,163,986$ 12,838,447$ 25,967,328$ 33% LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009) BENEFITS 229,575$ 99,924$ 68,581$ 160,994$ 30% IN HOME LTC CLAIMS 125,000 24,508 32,432 92,568 26% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,000 - - 7,000 0% MISCELLANEOUS 250 275 275 (25) 110% 361,825$ 124,707$ 101,288$ 260,537$ 28% RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) MISCELLANEOUS -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND (012) INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 800,000$ -$ -$ 800,000$ 0% 800,000$ -$ -$ 800,000$ 0% HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014) SUPPLIES 100$ -$ -$ 100$ 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,700 - - 7,700 0% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS 100 - - 100 0% 7,900$ -$ -$ 7,900$ 0% BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016) SUPPLIES -$ 914$ 1,834$ (1,834)$ 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 236,400 2,217 63,359 173,041 27% REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE 362,400 10,123 - 362,400 0% MISCELLANEOUS - - - - 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - - - - 0% 598,800$ 13,254$ 65,193$ 533,607$ 11% DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND (104) FUEL CONSUMED 3,000$ 2,430$ 449$ 2,551$ 15% SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 - - 5,000 0% COMMUNICATIONS 2,233 1,030 756 1,477 34% REPAIR/MAINT 800 - - 800 0% MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 - 5,000 15,000 25% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 45,000 - - 45,000 0% 76,033$ 3,460$ 6,204$ 69,829$ 8% 10 Difference between years is due to increase in the annual Fire District 1 contract, as well as Retro billings for past years. EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 80 of 470 7 Page 2 of 6 Title 2015 Amended Budget 04/30/2014 Expenditures 04/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent STREET FUND (111) SALARIES AND WAGES 526,484$ 145,248$ 164,290$ 362,194$ 31% OVERTIME 18,400 9,471 3,944 14,456 21% BENEFITS 250,539 69,098 80,465 170,074 32% UNIFORMS 6,000 3,462 4,630 1,370 77% SUPPLIES 240,000 29,297 50,927 189,073 21% SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 3,292 - 26,000 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,050 4,932 4,816 9,235 34% COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 1,508 1,302 2,198 37% TRAVEL 1,000 110 300 700 30% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 191,244 59,438 63,150 128,094 33% INSURANCE 82,400 74,683 81,386 1,014 99% UTILITIES 270,170 65,847 81,849 188,321 30% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 5,264 13,076 31,924 29% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 - 681 7,319 9% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 3,000 48 - 3,000 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 12,500 - 9,828 2,672 79% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 3,283 - - 3,283 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 1,849 - - 1,849 0% 1,703,419$ 471,697$ 560,645$ 1,142,774$ 33% COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE (112) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,248,947$ 140,555$ 243,421$ 2,005,526$ 11% MISCELLANEOUS - - - - 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 114,006 - - 114,006 0% LAND 792,500 4,508 6,817 785,683 1% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 4,915,290 193,868 161,125 4,754,165 3% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,203 - - 72,203 0% INTEREST 3,758 - - 3,758 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 83,567 - - 0% 8,146,704$ 422,498$ 411,363$ 7,735,341$ 5% MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117) SUPPLIES 4,400$ 39$ 520$ 3,880$ 12% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,500 - - 1,500 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 120,000 10,747 14,973 105,028 12% TRAVEL 75 11 - 75 0% ADVERTISING - 2,303 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 - - 2,000 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 - - 300 0% MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 1,096 779 5,221 13% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - - - - 0% 134,275$ 14,195$ 16,271$ 118,004$ 12% HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 65,500$ 4,047$ 13,812$ 51,688$ 21% ADVERTISING - 3,343 - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS 500 - 82 418 16% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - - - - 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 4,000 - - 4,000 0% 70,000$ 7,389$ 13,894$ 56,106$ 20% EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121) SUPPLIES 1,785$ -$ -$ 1,785$ 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT - - - - 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25,086 - - 25,086 0% 26,871$ -$ -$ 26,871$ 0% YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) MISCELLANEOUS 3,000$ 731$ 965$ 2,035$ 32% 3,000$ 731$ 965$ 2,035$ 32% TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 17,000$ -$ 1,965$ 15,035$ 12% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS 4,500 564 - 4,500 0% 21,500$ 564$ 1,965$ 19,535$ 9% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Packet Page 81 of 470 8 Page 3 of 6 Title 2015 Amended Budget 04/30/2014 Expenditures 04/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 (125) SUPPLIES 21,000$ 33,113$ 25,739$ (4,739)$ 123% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 507,000 6,801 40,662 466,338 8% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE - 3,379 2,196 (2,196) 0% UTILITIES - - - - 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 120,000 12,968 - 120,000 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,837,000 - - 1,837,000 0% 2,485,000$ 56,261$ 68,597$ 2,416,403$ 3% REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ (126) MISCELLANEOUS -$ 2,500$ -$ -$ 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 141,525 - - 141,525 0% LAND 400,000 273 - 400,000 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 12,000 - - 12,000 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 119,110 - - 119,110 0% INTEREST 10,765 - - 10,765 0% 683,400$ 2,773$ -$ 683,400$ 0% GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) SUPPLIES 11,620$ 557$ 935$ 10,685$ 8% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000 - 273 9,727 3% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 22,175 - - 22,175 0% 43,795$ 557$ 1,208$ 42,587$ 3% SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - 17,469 - - 0% INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0% -$ 17,469$ -$ -$ 0% CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMENT (130) SALARIES AND WAGES 82,776$ 23,380$ 25,342$ 57,434$ 31% OVERTIME 3,500 1,204 426 3,074 12% BENEFITS 33,110 10,634 10,835 22,275 33% UNIFORMS 1,000 - 197 803 20% SUPPLIES 7,000 2,339 1,229 5,771 18% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 20,000 4,585 5,531 14,469 28% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,200 - 258 3,942 6% COMMUNICATIONS 1,412 479 548 864 39% TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0% ADVERTISING - 177 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 9,986 3,072 3,328 6,658 33% UTILITIES 3,800 277 139 3,661 4% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 1,173 1,664 2,336 42% 171,784$ 47,320$ 49,497$ 122,287$ 29% PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132) SUPPLIES -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 123,343 42,876 40,940 82,403 33% LAND 3,400,000 - - 3,400,000 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,477,900 68,892 86,317 2,391,583 3% INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0% 6,001,243$ 111,767$ 127,258$ 5,873,985$ 2% SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) SUPPLIES 1,500$ -$ -$ 1,500$ 0% TRAVEL 4,200 - - 4,200 0% MISCELLANEOUS 4,700 274 10 4,690 0% 10,400$ 274$ 10$ 10,390$ 0% TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (139) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% INSURANCE 5,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 50% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 645,000 202,635 215,224 429,776 33% 650,000$ 205,135$ 217,724$ 432,276$ 33% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Packet Page 82 of 470 9 Page 4 of 6 Title 2015 Amended Budget 04/30/2014 Expenditures 04/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND (140) SUPPLIES -$ -$ 11,137$ (11,137)$ 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 12,395 7,535 (7,535) 0% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS - 1,127 - - 0% -$ 13,522$ 18,672$ (18,672)$ 0% LID FUND CONTROL (211) INTERFUND TRANSFER 28,567$ -$ -$ 28,567$ 0% 28,567$ -$ -$ 28,567$ 0% 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 516,265$ -$ -$ 516,265$ 0% INTEREST 150,928 - - 150,928 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 500 604 54 446 11% 667,693$ 604$ 54$ 667,639$ 0% 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND (232) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 906,908$ -$ -$ 906,908$ 0% INTEREST 18,402 - - 18,402 0% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% 925,310$ -$ -$ 925,310$ 0% WATER FUND (421) SALARIES AND WAGES 760,901$ 244,718$ 244,378$ 516,523$ 32% OVERTIME 24,180 5,568 5,908 18,272 24% BENEFITS 375,728 111,984 109,894 265,834 29% UNIFORMS 4,000 1,507 1,848 2,152 46% SUPPLIES 150,000 32,936 33,403 116,597 22% FUEL CONSUMED - - - - 0% WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,600,000 286,001 385,440 1,214,560 24% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 143,000 59,352 29,976 113,024 21% SMALL EQUIPMENT 11,000 14,027 8,072 2,928 73% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,320,480 59,754 187,785 1,132,695 14% COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 7,679 11,791 18,209 39% TRAVEL 200 - - 200 0% EXCISE TAXES - - 103,489 (103,489) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 98,107 34,868 31,964 66,143 33% INSURANCE 85,000 74,689 70,904 14,096 83% UTILITIES 40,000 15,514 8,532 31,468 21% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,000 2,775 8,518 8,482 50% MISCELLANEOUS 381,400 123,785 31,151 350,249 8% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 30,000 10,302 10,782 19,218 36% INTERFUND TAXES 1,115,209 300,542 320,009 795,200 29% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 295,830 - - 295,830 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 12,500 - 9,828 2,672 79% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 3,229,920 270,338 461,301 2,768,619 14% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 2,205 - - 2,205 0% REVENUE BONDS 315,277 - - 315,277 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 45,839 - - 45,839 0% INTEREST 266,524 - - 266,524 0% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 175 31 (31) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 161,674 - - 0% INTERFUND REPAIR/MAINT - - - - 0% 10,354,300$ 1,818,190$ 2,075,005$ 8,279,295$ 20% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Packet Page 83 of 470 10 Page 5 of 6 Title 2015 Amended Budget 04/30/2014 Expenditures 04/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent STORM FUND (422) SALARIES AND WAGES 588,544$ 184,875$ 166,429$ 422,115$ 28% OVERTIME 6,000 3,661 6,172 (172) 103% BENEFITS 275,010 84,147 82,744 192,266 30% UNIFORMS 6,500 4,151 4,168 2,332 64% SUPPLIES 45,500 17,176 12,466 33,034 27% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,000 560 787 3,213 20% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,445,270 126,763 228,570 2,216,701 9% COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 1,277 1,049 2,151 33% TRAVEL 4,300 - - 4,300 0% EXCISE TAXES - - 18,670 (18,670) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 217,333 69,705 70,945 146,388 33% INSURANCE 8,089 36,035 39,269 (31,180) 485% UTILITES 10,500 3,157 3,031 7,469 29% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 13,000 6,711 7,846 5,154 60% MISCELLANEOUS 120,500 37,770 18,718 101,782 16% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 85,000 39,923 28,417 56,583 33% INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 323,210 108,881 114,298 208,912 35% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 53,187 - - 53,187 0% LAND 11,900 - - 11,900 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 12,500 - 9,828 2,672 79% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,294,832 - - 2,294,832 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 80,507 - - 80,507 0% REVENUE BONDS 154,054 - - 154,054 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,063 - - 32,063 0% INTEREST 174,142 - - 174,142 0% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 84 15 (15) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 198,028 - - 0% 6,969,141$ 922,902$ 813,424$ 6,155,717$ 12% SEWER FUND (423) SALARIES AND WAGES 1,690,580$ 547,406$ 547,630$ 1,142,950$ 32% OVERTIME 81,000 26,690 29,455 51,545 36% BENEFITS 763,707 246,802 238,303 525,404 31% UNIFORMS 9,000 5,411 5,321 3,679 59% SUPPLIES 350,000 63,966 87,547 262,453 25% FUEL CONSUMED 140,000 36,296 22,868 117,132 16% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE 4,000 - - 4,000 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 46,000 26,706 9,167 36,833 20% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,761,965 172,247 370,765 1,391,200 21% COMMUNICATIONS 40,000 11,834 12,064 27,936 30% TRAVEL 5,000 - - 5,000 0% EXCISE TAXES 60,000 - 54,986 5,014 92% RENTAL/LEASE 200,978 49,858 65,433 135,545 33% INSURANCE 156,955 128,145 139,648 17,307 89% UTILITIES 1,055,350 270,644 390,369 664,981 37% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 255,000 40,716 154,030 100,970 60% MISCELLANEOUS 193,400 63,172 21,853 171,547 11% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 408,889 43,894 67,206 341,683 16% INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 524,200 171,771 187,407 336,793 36% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,267,090 - 38,324 1,228,766 3% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 542,000 6,504 25,251 516,749 5% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 4,972,235 105,675 155,578 4,816,657 3% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 126,147 - - 126,147 0% REVENUE BONDS 70,669 - - 70,669 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 203,621 - 13,109 190,512 6% INTEREST 143,224 - 4,090 139,134 3% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 41 3,093 (3,093) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 205,656 - - 0% 15,071,010$ 2,223,434$ 2,643,497$ 12,427,513$ 18% BOND RESERVE FUND (424) REVENUE BONDS 170,000$ -$ -$ 170,000$ 0% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% INTEREST 674,416 - - 674,416 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 1,000 - 54 946 5% 845,416$ -$ 54$ 845,362$ 0% EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 84 of 470 11 Page 6 of 6 Title 2015 Amended Budget 04/30/2014 Expenditures 04/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) SALARIES AND WAGES 207,189$ 68,703$ 69,131$ 138,058$ 33% OVERTIME 2,000 234 384 1,616 19% BENEFITS 96,603 31,358 31,636 64,967 33% UNIFORMS 1,000 477 572 428 57% SUPPLIES 98,000 22,246 29,818 68,182 30% FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 234 - 1,000 0% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 315,200 54,249 45,186 270,014 14% SMALL EQUIPMENT 8,000 10,253 13,458 (5,458) 168% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,000 383 383 10,617 3% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 615 637 2,363 21% TRAVEL 3,300 - 1,196 2,104 36% RENTAL/LEASE 15,118 4,593 4,805 10,313 32% INSURANCE 32,701 37,376 40,605 (7,904) 124% UTILITIES 14,000 4,698 4,445 9,555 32% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 60,000 15,819 17,596 42,404 29% MISCELLANEOUS 7,190 3,049 825 6,365 11% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 64 - 2,500 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 790,000 96,564 175,188 614,812 22% INTERFUND RENTAL - 6,089 - - 0% 1,667,801$ 357,003$ 435,868$ 1,231,933$ 26% FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFITS 37,633$ 10,681$ 9,900$ 27,733$ 26% PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 38,796 10,094 8,954 29,842 23% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200 - - 1,200 0% 77,629$ 20,776$ 18,854$ 58,775$ 24% TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS 97,408,591$ 21,020,468$ 20,485,957$ 76,922,634$ 21% EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 85 of 470 12 Page 1 of 1 Title 2015 Amended Budget 04/30/2014 Expenditures 04/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent CITY COUNCIL 256,160$ 65,481$ 73,069$ 183,091$ 29% OFFICE OF MAYOR 257,113 82,041 82,654 174,459 32% HUMAN RESOURCES 386,981 112,767 118,354 268,627 31% MUNICIPAL COURT 883,826 257,767 262,806 621,020 30% CITY CLERK 584,834 164,667 202,117 382,717 35% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,668,355 499,111 608,167 1,060,188 36% CITY ATTORNEY 664,180 186,128 219,764 444,416 33% NON-DEPARTMENTAL 14,869,682 7,277,792 5,406,181 9,463,501 36% POLICE SERVICES 8,884,373 2,754,778 2,874,990 6,009,383 32% COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEV.441,796 160,955 129,520 312,276 29% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2,380,813 523,426 709,939 1,670,874 30% PARKS & RECREATION 3,801,937 977,642 986,966 2,814,971 26% PUBLIC WORKS 2,263,055 619,885 693,502 1,569,553 31% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,462,670 481,545 470,418 992,252 32% 38,805,775$ 14,163,986$ 12,838,447$ 25,967,328$ 33% Title 2015 Amended Budget 04/30/2014 Expenditures 04/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent WATER UTILITY FUND 10,354,300$ 1,818,190$ 2,075,005$ 8,279,295$ 20% STORM UTILITY FUND 6,969,141 922,902 813,424 6,155,717 12% SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 15,071,010 2,223,434 2,643,497 12,427,513 18% BOND RESERVE FUND 845,416 - 54 845,362 0% 33,239,867$ 4,964,526$ 5,531,979$ 27,707,888$ 17% EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY CITY OF EDMONDS CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 86 of 470 13 Page 1 of 4 Title 2015 Amended Budget 04/30/2014 Expenditures 04/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent CITY COUNCIL SALARIES 132,908$ 38,042$ 41,280$ 91,628$ 31% OVERTIME 2,000 124 - 2,000 0% BENEFITS 74,512 23,947 23,853 50,659 32% SUPPLIES 2,000 373 393 1,607 20% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 580 - - 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000 521 5,062 4,938 51% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 863 1,732 1,268 58% TRAVEL 2,500 648 483 2,017 19% RENTAL/LEASE 490 171 211 279 43% REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE 1,500 - - 1,500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 27,250 212 54 27,196 0% 256,160$ 65,481$ 73,069$ 183,091$ 29% OFFICE OF MAYOR SALARIES 196,512$ 64,239$ 65,291$ 131,221$ 33% BENEFITS 46,801 14,970 14,860 31,941 32% SUPPLIES 2,000 92 251 1,749 13% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000 957 764 1,236 38% COMMUNICATION 1,400 247 120 1,280 9% TRAVEL 2,500 256 149 2,351 6% RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 852 778 1,622 32% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 429 440 2,560 15% 257,113$ 82,041$ 82,654$ 174,459$ 32% HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES 198,913$ 63,087$ 69,277$ 129,636$ 35% BENEFITS 75,651 21,657 22,650 53,001 30% SUPPLIES 2,300 1,399 455 1,845 20% SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 164 - 300 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 92,007 17,480 24,016 67,991 26% COMMUNICATIONS 700 193 286 414 41% TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0% ADVERTISING - 1,030 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,200 853 778 1,422 35% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 6,000 6,119 7,793 (1,793) 130% MISCELLANEOUS 8,410 786 (6,902) 15,312 -82% 386,981$ 112,767$ 118,354$ 268,627$ 31% MUNICIPAL COURT SALARIES 538,864$ 174,610$ 171,887$ 366,977$ 32% OVERTIME 600 1,621 629 (29) 105% BENEFITS 202,532 52,493 58,116 144,416 29% SUPPLIES 9,930 3,698 5,311 4,619 53% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,800 236 1,104 1,696 39% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 64,000 18,501 17,666 46,334 28% COMMUNICATIONS 3,400 906 631 2,769 19% TRAVEL 2,500 847 1,109 1,391 44% RENTAL/LEASE 1,400 607 172 1,228 12% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,600 2,000 245 1,355 15% MISCELLANEOUS 56,200 2,247 5,938 50,262 11% 883,826$ 257,767$ 262,806$ 621,020$ 30% EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 87 of 470 14 Page 2 of 4 Title 2015 Amended Budget 04/30/2014 Expenditures 04/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent CITY CLERK SALARIES AND WAGES 11 326,072$ 96,916$ 121,465$ 204,607$ 37% OVERTIME - 284 729 (729) 0% BENEFITS 127,243 34,904 40,282 86,961 32% SUPPLIES 10,237 2,320 2,524 7,713 25% SMALL EQUIPMENT - - 140 (140) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,307 7,886 5,699 22,608 20% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 8,864 16,168 33,832 32% TRAVEL 1,000 - 423 577 42% ADVERTISING - 650 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 20,000 5,696 6,496 13,504 32% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,975 5,934 7,096 10,879 39% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 1,213 1,096 2,904 27% 584,834$ 164,667$ 202,117$ 382,717$ 35% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES 801,002$ 234,978$ 259,203$ 541,799$ 32% OVERTIME 6,667 1,818 235 6,432 4% BENEFITS 285,741 80,303 87,902 197,839 31% SUPPLIES 36,050 22,437 2,814 33,236 8% SMALL EQUIPMENT 125,627 61,589 39,848 85,779 32% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 88,900 2,792 29,027 59,873 33% COMMUNICATIONS 61,500 14,580 11,990 49,510 19% TRAVEL 1,750 6 3 1,747 0% RENTAL/LEASE 7,998 2,980 2,680 5,318 34% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 202,620 73,317 135,169 67,451 67% MISCELLANEOUS 12 10,500 4,311 24,518 (14,018) 234% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 40,000 - 14,777 25,223 37% 1,668,355$ 499,111$ 608,167$ 1,060,188$ 36% CITY ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 664,180$ 186,078$ 219,764$ 444,416$ 33% MISCELLANEOUS - 50 - - 0% 664,180$ 186,128$ 219,764$ 444,416$ 33% NON-DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES 125,000$ -$ -$ 125,000$ 0% BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 25,000 8,481 1,444 23,556 6% SUPPLIES 3,000 115 818 2,182 27% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 582,350 81,000 116,688 465,662 20% RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 3,600 - 100% INSURANCE 423,600 383,906 418,367 5,233 99% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS 74,350 42,274 46,746 27,604 63% INTERGOVT SERVICES 13 10,033,110 3,931,042 4,817,582 5,215,528 48% ECA LOAN PAYMENT 180,000 - - 180,000 0% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 1,128 903 5,597 14% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 3,132,785 - - 3,132,785 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 160,821 2,720,000 - 160,821 0% INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 65,298 64,654 - 65,298 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 54,268 24,632 - 54,268 0% DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS - 16,481 - - 0% FISCAL AGENT FEES - 479 33 (33) 0% INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0% 14,869,682$ 7,277,792$ 5,406,181$ 9,463,501$ 36% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 11 Difference between 2014 and 2015 is due to a one-time retirement pay out 12 2015 expense is primarily due to $12,773 for Adobe Professional 13 Difference between years is due to an increase in the annual Fire District 1 contract, as well as Retro billings for past years. Packet Page 88 of 470 15 Page 3 of 4 Title 2015 Amended Budget 04/30/2014 Expenditures 04/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent POLICE SERVICES SALARIES 5,449,273$ 1,673,391$ 1,743,997$ 3,705,276$ 32% OVERTIME 396,241 118,191 143,926 252,315 36% HOLIDAY BUYBACK 209,198 858 1,543 207,655 1% BENEFITS 1,849,940 650,029 673,352 1,176,588 36% UNIFORMS 56,910 14,076 22,351 34,559 39% SUPPLIES 87,500 26,834 28,977 58,523 33% SMALL EQUIPMENT 33,330 3,722 5,185 28,145 16% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 114,662 34,436 31,066 83,596 27% COMMUNICATIONS 26,207 6,827 6,956 19,251 27% TRAVEL 14,300 1,224 5,764 8,536 40% ADVERTISING - 21 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 575,500 201,995 190,920 384,580 33% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 16,115 2,416 1,578 14,537 10% MISCELLANEOUS 44,960 15,641 14,102 30,858 31% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 10,237 5,119 5,272 4,965 51% INTERFUND RENTAL - - - - 0% 8,884,373$ 2,754,778$ 2,874,990$ 6,009,383$ 32% COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECON DEV. SALARIES 222,050$ 117,511$ 72,601$ 149,449$ 33% BENEFITS 67,056 25,010 20,836 46,220 31% SUPPLIES 1,500 228 82 1,418 5% SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 - - 800 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 126,300 14,007 31,332 94,968 25% COMMUNICATIONS 1,490 294 277 1,213 19% TRAVEL 2,000 6 179 1,821 9% ADVERTISING - 1,477 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 853 778 1,222 39% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 18,100 1,569 3,434 14,666 19% 441,796$ 160,955$ 129,520$ 312,276$ 29% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING SALARIES 1,312,415$ 363,874$ 448,985$ 863,430$ 34% OVERTIME 1,300 1,012 72 1,228 6% BENEFITS 491,227 133,035 159,152 332,075 32% UNIFORMS 500 - - 500 0% SUPPLIES 13,100 4,519 3,989 9,111 30% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,250 280 4,338 (88) 102% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 456,437 (1,091) 42,111 414,326 9% COMMUNICATIONS 6,100 1,143 1,243 4,857 20% TRAVEL 4,250 33 338 3,912 8% ADVERTISING - 2,420 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 35,234 12,311 11,794 23,440 33% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 5,700 - 2,529 3,171 44% MISCELLANEOUS 50,300 5,887 35,387 14,913 70% 2,380,813$ 523,426$ 709,939$ 1,670,874$ 30% ENGINEERING SALARIES 1,245,433$ 352,219$ 406,816$ 838,617$ 33% OVERTIME 5,000 - 774 4,226 15% BENEFITS 511,018 137,081 159,668 351,350 31% UNIFORMS 360 - - 360 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,200 1,511 - 2,200 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 105,000 - - 105,000 0% COMMUNICATIONS 10,500 1,863 2,212 8,288 21% TRAVEL 600 40 - 600 0% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 14,881 6,164 4,960 9,921 33% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,800 699 - 1,800 0% MISCELLANEOUS 16,000 5,564 2,967 13,033 19% 1,912,792$ 505,140$ 577,397$ 1,335,395$ 30% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Packet Page 89 of 470 16 Page 4 of 4 Title 2015 Amended Budget 04/30/2014 Expenditures 04/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent PARKS & RECREATION SALARIES 1,886,534$ 524,418$ 541,566$ 1,344,968$ 29% OVERTIME 10,000 1,917 2,882 7,118 29% BENEFITS 699,573 196,644 201,281 498,292 29% UNIFORMS 5,340 1,935 2,911 2,429 55% SUPPLIES 110,740 27,733 29,835 80,905 27% SMALL EQUIPMENT 8,050 2,951 8,726 (676) 108% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 468,847 71,573 40,948 427,899 9% COMMUNICATIONS 29,980 1,778 9,099 20,881 30% TRAVEL 4,445 72 - 4,445 0% ADVERTISING - 2,797 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 179,804 56,149 58,992 120,812 33% PUBLIC UTILITY 175,000 33,550 42,337 132,664 24% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 52,549 30,175 14,877 37,672 28% MISCELLANEOUS 86,580 20,950 28,513 58,067 33% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 13,800 - - 13,800 0% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 70,695 5,000 5,000 65,695 7% 3,801,937$ 977,642$ 986,966$ 2,814,971$ 26% PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES 247,982$ 82,784$ 84,822$ 163,160$ 34% OVERTIME 200 - - 200 0% BENEFITS 76,327 24,925 25,258 51,069 33% SUPPLIES 7,600 2,573 1,347 6,253 18% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 443 1,479 (479) 148% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 15 14 186 7% COMMUNICATIONS 1,350 232 179 1,171 13% TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0% RENTAL/LEASE 7,404 2,080 1,968 5,436 27% PUBLIC UTILITY 2,800 831 798 2,002 28% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,000 - - 1,000 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,900 862 240 3,660 6% 350,263$ 114,745$ 116,105$ 234,158$ 33% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES 629,490 217,361 199,561 429,929 32% OVERTIME 2,500 680 948 1,552 38% BENEFITS 256,400 92,050 80,493 175,907 31% UNIFORMS 2,500 1,531 1,041 1,459 42% SUPPLIES 87,000 20,796 34,833 52,167 40% SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,000 1,931 7,246 (4,246) 242% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45,000 318 64 44,936 0% COMMUNICATIONS 13,500 4,877 4,564 8,936 34% TRAVEL - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 52,680 16,520 17,672 35,008 34% PUBLIC UTILITY 280,000 100,400 92,379 187,621 33% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 88,500 23,309 29,576 58,924 33% MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 1,771 2,040 60 97% 1,462,670$ 481,545$ 470,418$ 992,252$ 32% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 38,805,775$ 14,163,986$ 12,838,447$ 25,967,328$ 33% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Packet Page 90 of 470 17 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 1,823,284$ 1,823,284$ 1,782,532$ -2.24% February 4,348,362 2,525,078 4,043,011 -7.02% March 6,484,660 2,136,298 6,234,620 -3.86% April 9,819,452 3,334,792 9,527,417 -2.97% May 17,492,062 7,672,609 16,971,839 -2.97% June 19,287,692 1,795,631 18,714,067 -2.97% July 21,281,109 1,993,416 20,648,198 -2.97% August 23,124,045 1,842,936 22,436,324 -2.97% September 24,975,938 1,851,893 24,233,141 -2.97% October 27,944,018 2,968,080 27,112,949 -2.97% November 35,048,172 7,104,154 34,005,821 -2.97% December 36,806,017 1,757,845 35,711,387 -2.97% Real Estate Excise Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 74,465$ 74,465$ 86,097$ 15.62% February 120,437 45,972 141,803 17.74% March 180,946 60,509 225,747 24.76% April 256,073 75,127 315,043 23.03% May 323,031 66,959 397,421 23.03% June 397,396 74,365 488,912 23.03% July 481,990 84,594 592,986 23.03% August 576,574 94,584 709,352 23.03% September 664,404 87,830 817,407 23.03% October 766,091 101,688 942,512 23.03% November 835,413 69,321 1,027,798 23.03% December 900,000 64,587 1,107,258 23.03% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-General Fund 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Real Estate Excise Tax 0 8000000 16000000 24000000 32000000 40000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC General Fund Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Real Estate Excise Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 91 of 470 18 Retail Eating & Drinking 237,970 Health & Personal Care 34,382 Contractors 386,100 Wholesale Trade 84,706 Communications 78,749 Misc Retail Trade 257,038 Accommodation 11,293 Business Services 129,392 Amusement & Recreation 20,631 Retail Food Stores 70,054 Others 105,580 Clothing and Accessories 76,082 Retail Automotive 489,973 Automotive Repair 55,214 Gasoline Stations 10,664 Sales Tax Analysis By Category Current Period: April 2015 Year-to-Date Total $2,047,827 ($30,000)$0 $30,000 $60,000 $90,000 $120,000 $150,000 $180,000 Retail Automotive Retail Food Stores Amusement & Recreation Business Services Gasoline Stations Accommodation Clothing and Accessories Health & Personal Care Others Automotive Repair Communications Wholesale Trade Retail Eating & Drinking Misc Retail Trade Contractors Total ($25,246) ($12,908) ($2,966) ($2,760) ($429) $1,373 $4,102 $4,155 $4,432 $5,474 $5,558 $10,919 $18,380 $25,637 $141,498 $177,218 Change in Sales Tax Revenue: April 2015 compared to April 2014 Packet Page 92 of 470 19 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 435,694$ 435,694$ 499,246$ 14.59% February 975,847 540,153 1,134,685 16.28% March 1,391,087 415,240 1,605,365 15.40% April 1,791,264 400,176 2,047,828 14.32% May 2,291,242 499,978 2,619,418 14.32% June 2,734,170 442,928 3,125,787 14.32% July 3,180,829 446,659 3,636,421 14.32% August 3,672,197 491,368 4,198,168 14.32% September 4,144,571 472,374 4,738,201 14.32% October 4,628,198 483,627 5,291,098 14.32% November 5,157,791 529,593 5,896,545 14.32% December 5,627,000 469,209 6,432,959 14.32% Gas Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 106,130$ 106,130$ 84,288$ -20.58% February 216,919 110,788 181,842 -16.17% March 311,490 94,571 252,457 -18.95% April 394,636 83,146 321,196 -18.61% May 462,784 68,148 376,662 -18.61% June 509,747 46,963 414,886 -18.61% July 548,655 38,908 446,553 -18.61% August 576,833 28,179 469,487 -18.61% September 602,307 25,474 490,221 -18.61% October 629,657 27,350 512,481 -18.61% November 672,464 42,807 547,321 -18.61% December 743,700 71,236 605,301 -18.61% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Sales and Use Tax 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Gas Utility Tax 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Sales and Use Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Gas Utility Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 93 of 470 20 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 123,352$ 123,352$ 139,353$ 12.97% February 224,347 100,994 240,490 7.20% March 346,461 122,114 358,530 3.48% April 464,141 117,681 465,785 0.35% May 589,261 125,119 591,348 0.35% June 702,776 113,515 705,265 0.35% July 813,739 110,963 816,621 0.35% August 924,614 110,875 927,889 0.35% September 1,034,622 110,008 1,038,287 0.35% October 1,144,101 109,479 1,148,153 0.35% November 1,246,216 102,116 1,250,630 0.35% December 1,371,800 125,584 1,376,659 0.35% Electric Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 166,797$ 166,797$ 163,683$ -1.87% February 333,580 166,783 327,208 -1.91% March 496,789 163,209 466,770 -6.04% April 655,116 158,327 625,378 -4.54% May 800,868 145,752 764,514 -4.54% June 913,622 112,754 872,149 -4.54% July 1,021,749 108,127 975,367 -4.54% August 1,120,601 98,852 1,069,732 -4.54% September 1,223,250 102,649 1,167,722 -4.54% October 1,313,426 90,176 1,253,805 -4.54% November 1,424,495 111,069 1,359,831 -4.54% December 1,533,800 109,305 1,464,175 -4.54% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Telephone Utility Tax 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Electric Utility Tax 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Telephone Utility Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Electric Utility Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 94 of 470 21 Meter Water Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 520,277$ 520,277$ 519,477$ -0.15% February 883,891 363,614 874,540 -1.06% March 1,398,367 514,476 1,371,848 -1.90% April 1,750,133 351,766 1,711,250 -2.22% May 2,266,493 516,360 2,216,139 -2.22% June 2,648,184 381,692 2,589,351 -2.22% July 3,236,847 588,662 3,164,935 -2.22% August 3,746,386 509,539 3,663,154 -2.22% September 4,463,965 717,579 4,364,791 -2.22% October 4,978,111 514,146 4,867,514 -2.22% November 5,584,869 606,758 5,460,792 -2.22% December 5,964,343 379,474 5,831,835 -2.22% Storm Water Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 223,883$ 223,883$ 226,620$ -1.87% February 705,681 481,798 715,253 -1.91% March 929,860 224,179 941,830 -6.04% April 1,129,150 199,290 1,142,961 -4.54% May 1,353,703 224,553 1,370,260 -4.54% June 1,552,980 199,277 1,571,974 -4.54% July 1,778,558 225,578 1,800,311 1.22% August 2,268,142 489,584 2,295,883 1.22% September 2,497,209 229,067 2,527,752 1.22% October 2,699,606 202,397 2,732,624 1.22% November 2,927,436 227,830 2,963,240 1.22% December 3,130,447 203,011 3,168,735 1.22% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Meter Water Sales 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Storm Water Sales 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Meter Water Sales Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Storm Water Sales Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 95 of 470 22 Unmeter Sewer Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 517,721$ 517,721$ 520,708$ 0.58% February 936,104 418,382 940,945 0.52% March 1,453,283 517,179 1,448,413 -0.34% April 1,871,624 418,341 1,875,395 0.20% May 2,393,060 521,437 2,397,883 0.20% June 2,815,270 422,210 2,820,943 0.20% July 3,344,959 529,688 3,351,699 0.20% August 3,771,751 426,792 3,779,351 0.20% September 4,309,599 537,849 4,318,284 0.20% October 4,738,355 428,756 4,747,903 0.20% November 5,266,018 527,663 5,276,630 0.20% December 5,692,773 426,755 5,704,245 0.20% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales 2015 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Unmeter Sewer Sales Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 96 of 470 23 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 4,237,476$ 4,237,476$ 4,797,714$ 13.22% February 6,821,590 2,584,114 6,730,834 -1.33% March 9,847,928 3,026,338 8,883,278 -9.80% April 13,734,195 3,886,267 12,838,447 -6.52% May 15,782,935 2,048,740 14,753,569 -6.52% June 18,984,113 3,201,177 17,745,964 -6.52% July 22,433,051 3,448,939 20,969,962 -6.52% August 25,399,345 2,966,294 23,742,794 -6.52% September 29,195,843 3,796,498 27,291,683 -6.52% October 31,625,006 2,429,163 29,562,415 -6.52% November 34,816,271 3,191,266 32,545,545 -6.52% December 38,805,775 3,989,504 36,274,853 -6.52% Non-Departmental Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 2,542,970$ 2,542,970$ 2,944,421$ 15.79% February 3,194,155 651,185 2,984,442 -6.57% March 4,291,524 1,097,370 3,261,415 -24.00% April 6,284,988 1,993,464 5,406,181 -13.98% May 6,439,406 154,418 5,539,007 -13.98% June 7,641,323 1,201,917 6,572,865 -13.98% July 9,064,445 1,423,122 7,796,997 -13.98% August 9,897,638 833,193 8,513,688 -13.98% September 11,755,963 1,858,325 10,112,170 -13.98% October 12,203,615 447,652 10,497,228 -13.98% November 13,115,225 911,610 11,281,371 -13.98% December 14,869,682 1,754,457 12,790,509 -13.98% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-General Fund 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Non-Departmental 0 3000000 6000000 9000000 12000000 15000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Non-Departmental Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 25000000 30000000 35000000 40000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC General Fund Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 97 of 470 24 City Council Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 18,624$ 18,624$ 15,644$ -16.00% February 39,658 21,034 32,177 -18.86% March 59,398 19,740 54,262 -8.65% April 79,090 19,692 73,069 -7.61% May 98,664 19,574 91,153 -7.61% June 121,960 23,296 112,676 -7.61% July 145,588 23,628 134,505 -7.61% August 166,249 20,661 153,593 -7.61% September 186,786 20,536 172,566 -7.61% October 207,853 21,068 192,030 -7.61% November 230,147 22,294 212,627 -7.61% December 256,160 26,013 236,659 -7.61% Office of Mayor Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 21,864$ 21,864$ 20,447$ -6.48% February 43,742 21,879 41,879 -4.26% March 64,861 21,119 62,160 -4.16% April 85,648 20,787 82,654 -3.50% May 106,706 21,058 102,976 -3.50% June 127,891 21,185 123,420 -3.50% July 150,093 22,202 144,846 -3.50% August 171,201 21,108 165,216 -3.50% September 191,760 20,559 185,056 -3.50% October 214,972 23,213 207,457 -3.50% November 236,760 21,787 228,483 -3.50% December 257,113 20,353 248,125 -3.50% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-City Council 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Office of Mayor 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC City Council Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Office of Mayor Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 98 of 470 25 Community Services/Economic Development Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 25,451$ 25,451$ 25,947$ 1.95% February 67,148 41,696 55,912 -16.73% March 101,607 34,459 90,926 -10.51% April 145,328 43,721 129,520 -10.88% May 178,828 33,500 159,376 -10.88% June 209,442 30,614 186,661 -10.88% July 253,555 44,113 225,975 -10.88% August 286,178 32,623 255,050 -10.88% September 321,695 35,517 286,704 -10.88% October 358,498 36,803 319,504 -10.88% November 394,635 36,137 351,710 -10.88% December 441,796 47,161 393,741 -10.88% City Clerk Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 44,098$ 44,098$ 69,874$ 58.45% February 90,893 46,795 113,771 25.17% March 140,493 49,600 151,490 7.83% April 186,359 45,866 202,117 8.46% May 231,145 44,786 250,690 8.46% June 281,500 50,355 305,303 8.46% July 329,489 47,989 357,350 8.46% August 379,907 50,418 412,031 8.46% September 431,823 51,916 468,337 8.46% October 485,948 54,125 527,039 8.46% November 536,195 50,247 581,534 8.46% December 584,834 48,639 634,286 8.46% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Community Services/Economic Development 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-City Clerk 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Community Services/Economic Development Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC City Clerk Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 99 of 470 26 Human Resources Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 29,413$ 29,413$ 23,208$ -21.10% February 59,391 29,978 58,245 -1.93% March 93,881 34,490 97,488 3.84% April 125,170 31,288 118,354 -5.45% May 159,101 33,931 150,438 -5.45% June 189,817 30,716 179,481 -5.45% July 222,466 32,649 210,352 -5.45% August 252,627 30,161 238,871 -5.45% September 287,481 34,854 271,827 -5.45% October 316,995 29,514 299,734 -5.45% November 345,036 28,041 326,248 -5.45% December 386,981 41,945 365,909 -5.45% Municipal Court Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 65,765$ 65,765$ 64,786$ -1.49% February 137,555 71,791 131,534 -4.38% March 214,280 76,725 199,177 -7.05% April 288,496 74,215 262,806 -8.90% May 357,762 69,267 325,905 -8.90% June 432,214 74,451 393,727 -8.90% July 504,854 72,640 459,898 -8.90% August 578,153 73,300 526,671 -8.90% September 650,848 72,694 592,892 -8.90% October 725,572 74,725 660,963 -8.90% November 800,045 74,472 728,804 -8.90% December 883,826 83,781 805,124 -8.90% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Human Resources 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Municipal Court 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Human Resources Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Municipal Court Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 100 of 470 27 Information Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 65,374$ 65,374$ 118,077$ 80.62% February 143,513 78,139 220,041 53.32% March 203,645 60,132 265,742 30.49% April 257,305 53,660 315,850 22.75% May 309,335 52,030 379,719 22.75% June 357,815 48,480 439,230 22.75% July 421,827 64,012 517,807 22.75% August 487,733 65,906 598,709 22.75% September 534,262 46,529 655,825 22.75% October 584,987 50,725 718,091 22.75% November 660,726 75,739 811,063 22.75% December 822,765 162,039 1,009,972 22.75% Finance Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 89,366$ 89,366$ 61,363$ -31.34% February 150,654 61,289 162,931 8.15% March 219,118 68,464 230,381 5.14% April 291,842 72,723 292,317 0.16% May 357,788 65,947 358,370 0.16% June 426,252 68,464 426,946 0.16% July 492,125 65,873 492,926 0.16% August 558,442 66,317 559,351 0.16% September 627,617 69,175 628,639 0.16% October 701,142 73,525 702,283 0.16% November 769,647 68,505 770,900 0.16% December 845,590 75,943 846,966 0.16% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Information Services 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Finance 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Information Services Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Finance Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 101 of 470 28 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 55,348$ 55,348$ 41,000$ -25.92% February 110,697 55,348 109,902 -0.72% March 166,045 55,348 164,833 -0.73% April 221,393 55,348 219,764 -0.74% May 276,742 55,348 274,705 -0.74% June 332,090 55,348 329,646 -0.74% July 387,438 55,348 384,587 -0.74% August 442,786 55,348 439,528 -0.74% September 498,135 55,348 494,469 -0.74% October 553,483 55,348 549,409 -0.74% November 608,831 55,348 604,350 -0.74% December 664,180 55,348 659,291 -0.74% Police Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 684,644$ 684,644$ 722,157$ 5.48% February 1,375,069 690,425 1,439,842 4.71% March 2,093,316 718,247 2,171,600 3.74% April 2,792,966 699,650 2,874,990 2.94% May 3,480,496 687,530 3,582,711 2.94% June 4,233,290 752,794 4,357,613 2.94% July 4,942,853 709,563 5,088,015 2.94% August 5,650,979 708,125 5,816,937 2.94% September 6,394,403 743,425 6,582,194 2.94% October 7,113,206 718,803 7,322,107 2.94% November 8,087,358 974,152 8,324,868 2.94% December 8,884,373 797,015 9,145,289 2.94% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-City Attorney 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Police 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC City Attorney Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 10000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Police Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 102 of 470 29 Development Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 187,435$ 187,435$ 168,772$ -9.96% February 375,014 187,579 336,679 -10.22% March 573,334 198,321 538,490 -6.08% April 761,449 188,115 709,939 -6.76% May 953,613 192,164 889,104 -6.76% June 1,138,034 184,421 1,061,049 -6.76% July 1,336,785 198,751 1,246,355 -6.76% August 1,540,734 203,949 1,436,508 -6.76% September 1,740,727 199,993 1,622,972 -6.76% October 1,956,412 215,685 1,824,066 -6.76% November 2,160,592 204,180 2,014,434 -6.76% December 2,380,813 220,221 2,219,758 -6.76% Parks & Recreation Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 241,987$ 241,987$ 230,892$ -4.58% February 506,955 264,968 470,482 -7.19% March 784,761 277,806 729,804 -7.00% April 1,062,203 277,442 986,966 -7.08% May 1,363,070 300,867 1,266,522 -7.08% June 1,693,667 330,597 1,573,702 -7.08% July 2,127,556 433,889 1,976,858 -7.08% August 2,576,463 448,907 2,393,968 -7.08% September 2,906,732 330,269 2,700,843 -7.08% October 3,194,534 287,803 2,968,261 -7.08% November 3,459,132 264,598 3,214,117 -7.08% December 3,801,937 342,805 3,532,640 -7.08% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Development Services 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Parks & Recreation 0 400000 800000 1200000 1600000 2000000 2400000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Development Services Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 3000000 3500000 4000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Parks & Recreation Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 103 of 470 30 Public Works Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 28,448$ 28,448$ 28,516$ 0.24% February 56,173 27,725 58,648 4.41% March 84,122 27,949 87,405 3.90% April 111,864 27,741 116,105 3.79% May 140,136 28,273 145,450 3.79% June 168,982 28,845 175,389 3.79% July 207,749 38,768 215,626 3.79% August 235,654 27,905 244,589 3.79% September 263,562 27,908 273,555 3.79% October 292,666 29,104 303,763 3.79% November 318,921 26,255 331,014 3.79% December 350,263 31,342 363,544 3.79% Facilities Maintenance Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 113,211$ 113,211$ 117,139$ 3.47% February 237,061 123,850 224,792 -5.18% March 366,160 129,099 344,860 -5.82% April 485,233 119,073 470,418 -3.05% May 601,657 116,424 583,287 -3.05% June 718,330 116,673 696,398 -3.05% July 838,190 119,860 812,598 -3.05% August 950,657 112,468 921,632 -3.05% September 1,076,486 125,828 1,043,618 -3.05% October 1,188,234 111,748 1,151,954 -3.05% November 1,312,945 124,712 1,272,858 -3.05% December 1,462,670 149,725 1,418,011 -3.05% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Public Works 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Facilities Maintenance 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Public Works Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Facilities Maintenance Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 104 of 470 31 Engineering Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 154,718$ 154,718$ 145,471$ -5.98% February 312,048 157,330 289,558 -7.21% March 468,093 156,046 433,246 -7.44% April 622,651 154,557 577,397 -7.27% May 781,265 158,614 724,484 -7.27% June 937,599 156,334 869,456 -7.27% July 1,092,012 154,414 1,012,647 -7.27% August 1,247,959 155,947 1,157,260 -7.27% September 1,408,584 160,624 1,306,210 -7.27% October 1,577,945 169,362 1,463,263 -7.27% November 1,741,466 163,521 1,614,899 -7.27% December 1,912,792 171,326 1,773,773 -7.27% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Engineering 2015 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 1800000 2000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Engineering Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 105 of 470 32 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY (a) Term Purchase Purchase Maturity Yield to Weighted Agency / Issuer Investment Type (months) Date Price Date Maturity Average Washington State Local Government Investment Pool Investment Pool Various 7,123,960$ Various 0.143% 0.025% Snohomish County Investment Pool Investment Pool Various 26,112,206$ Various 0.77% 0.500% FHLMC Bonds 60 12/28/2012 1,000,000 12/28/2017 0.90% 0.022% FHLMC Bonds 54 12/27/2012 1,000,000 6/27/2017 0.75% 0.019% FFCB Bonds 45 12/19/2012 1,000,000 9/19/2016 0.54% 0.013% FNMA Bonds 60 9/19/2014 1,000,000 9/19/2019 1.87% 0.046% FFCB Bonds 60 9/23/2014 1,000,000 9/23/2019 2.03% 0.050% FHLMC Bonds 42 9/19/2014 1,000,000 3/26/2018 1.38% 0.034% FICO Bonds 33 9/19/2014 1,027,000 6/6/2017 0.96% 0.024% TOTAL 40,263,166$ 0.74%0.735% Investment Mix % of Total State Investment Pool 17.7% Current 6-month treasury rate 0.06% Bonds 17.5% Current State Pool rate 0.143% Snohomish County Investment Pool 64.9% Blended Edmonds rate 0.74% 100.0% (a) To maturity. Rate Comparison City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Summary As of April 30, 2015 Investment interest through April of 2015 is $100,935, whereas interest through April of 2014 was $39,603; difference of $61,332. Packet Page 106 of 470 33 GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 3/31/2015 4/30/2015 Q1 YTD 001-General Fund 6,446,380$ 5,321,308$ 3,135,349$ (2,648,658)$ (3,311,031)$ 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 539,044 456,821 439,195 (81,945) (99,849) 011-Risk Management Fund 1,024,822 1,026,994 1,027,893 2,684 3,071 012-Contingency Reserve Fund 5,445,337 5,410,639 5,461,636 14,247 16,299 013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 56,023 56,142 56,191 147 168 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 1,066 1,068 1,069 3 3 016-Building Maintenance 141,146 316,190 121,338 (7,529) (19,808) Total General Fund 13,653,818$ 12,589,162$ 10,242,672$ (2,721,052)$ (3,411,146)$ GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $13.65 $12.59 $10.24 - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Dec 2014 March 2015 April 2015 Mi l l i o n s General Fund *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements. Packet Page 107 of 470 34 GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 3/31/2015 4/30/2015 Q1 YTD General Fund 13,653,818$ 12,589,162$ 10,242,672$ (2,721,052)$ (3,411,146)$ Special Revenue 6,515,938 7,735,292 7,165,381 779,763 649,443 Debt Service 86,412 96,075 96,076 9,664 9,664 Total Governmental Funds 20,256,168$ 20,420,529$ 17,504,129$ (1,931,625)$ (2,752,039)$ CHANGE IN FUND BALANCESGOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $13.65 $12.59 $10.24 $6.52 $7.74 $7.17 $0.09 $0.10 $0.10 - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Dec 2014 March 2015 April 2015 Mi l l i o n s General Fund Special Revenue Debt Service Governmental Fund Balances-By Fund GroupGovernmentalFund Balances-By Fund Group $20.26 $20.42 $17.50 - 6 12 18 24 Dec 2014 March 2015 April 2015 Mi l l i o n s Governmental Fund Balances - Combined *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements. Packet Page 108 of 470 35 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 3/31/2015 4/30/2015 Q1 YTD 104 - Drug Enforcement Fund 55,159$ 73,132$ 60,181$ 10,294$ 5,022$ 111 - Street Fund 327,150 290,404 201,061 (83,546) (126,089) 112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 209,915 985,009 410,097 413,623 200,182 117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 440,605 437,280 445,285 (3,107) 4,680 118 - Memorial Street Tree 17,772 17,810 17,825 47 53 120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 133,991 144,382 140,332 12,483 6,341 121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 64,344 71,439 72,406 7,135 8,062 122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 14,452 13,711 13,660 (733) (792) 123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 77,645 80,660 82,536 3,728 4,891 125 - Real Estate Tax 2 1,531,385 1,716,466 1,779,560 179,149 248,175 126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 1,166,954 1,402,147 1,482,744 228,977 315,790 127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 247,886 274,515 275,580 26,720 27,694 129 - Special Projects Fund 38,078 46,554 38,192 100 114 130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 108,243 114,618 110,116 8,083 1,873 132 - Parks Construction Fund 995,136 943,628 911,882 (62,784) (83,254) 136 - Parks Trust Fund 150,999 151,319 151,451 396 452 137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 860,229 867,192 868,488 7,393 8,259 138 - Sister City Commission 1,703 1,433 4,149 4 2,446 139 - Transportation Benefit District 27,935 25,435 27,935 - - 140 - Business Improvement Disrict 46,357 78,158 71,901 31,801 25,544 Total Special Revenue 6,515,938$ 7,735,292$ 7,165,381$ 779,763$ 649,443$ GOVERNMENTAL Special Revenue FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $6.52 $7.74 $7.17 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dec 2014 March 2015 April 2015 Mi l l i o n s Special Revenue Special Revenue Funds *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements. Packet Page 109 of 470 36 ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 3/31/2015 4/30/2015 Q1 YTD 421 - Water Utility Fund 16,779,278$ 14,064,807$ 16,857,575$ 320,213$ 78,298$ 422 - Storm Utility Fund 10,375,339 9,080,015 11,120,677 763,292 745,339 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 44,888,147 42,411,801 45,049,185 127,171 161,038 424 - Bond Reserve Fund - 787,173 (52) (52) (52) 411 - Combined Utility Operation - 83,625 63,332 83,625 63,332 Total Enterprise Funds 72,042,764$ 66,427,422$ 73,090,719$ 1,294,248$ 1,047,955$ ENTERPRISE FUNDS FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $63,332 $16,857,575 $11,120,677 $45,049,185 $- $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 Combined Utility Water Utility Storm Utility Sewer/WWTP Utility Bond Reserve $ (52) Enterprise Fund Balances as of April 30, 2015 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements. Packet Page 110 of 470 37 SUMMARY OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 3/31/2015 4/30/2015 Q1 YTD Governmental Funds 20,256,168$ 20,420,529$ 17,504,129$ (1,931,625)$ (2,752,039)$ Enterprise Funds 72,042,764 66,427,422 73,090,719 1,294,248 1,047,955 Internal Services Fund 7,269,111 7,591,683 7,367,141 180,187 98,030 Agency Funds 188,872 173,853 170,552 (14,924) (18,320) Total City-wide Total 99,756,915$ 94,613,486$ 98,132,541$ (472,114)$ (1,624,374)$ CITY-WIDE FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- $170,552 $7,367,141 $76,568 $19,562 $71,901 $27,935 $4,149 $868,488 $151,451 $911,882 $110,116 $38,192 $275,580 $1,482,744 $1,779,560 $82,536 $13,660 $72,406 $140,332 $17,825 $445,285 $410,097 $201,061 $60,181 $10,242,672 $1 $20,000,000 Firemen's Pension Fund Equipment Rental Fund 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund $(54) L.I.D. Guaranty Fund L.I.D. Fund Control Business Improvement District Transportation Benefit District Sister City Commission Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund Parks Trust Fund Parks Construction Fund Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement Special Projects Fund Gifts Catalog Fund Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq Real Estate Excise Tax 2 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts Youth Scholarship Fund Employee Parking Permit Fund Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund Memorial Street Fund Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund Combined Street Const/Improve Fund Street Fund Drug Enforcement Fund General Fund Governmental Fund Balances as of April 30, 2015 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements. Packet Page 111 of 470 38 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 3/31/2015 4/30/2015 Q1 YTD 511 - Equipment Rental Fund 7,269,111$ 7,591,683$ 7,367,141$ 180,187$ 98,030$ Total Internal Service Funds 7,269,111$ 7,591,683$ 7,367,141$ 180,187$ 98,030$ INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $7.27 $7.59 $7.37 - 2 4 6 8 10 Dec 2014 March 2015 April 2015 Mi l l i o n s 511 - Equipment Rental Fund Internal Service Fund Balances *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements. Packet Page 112 of 470    AM-7782     4. F.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:06/09/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Frances Chapin Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Action  Information Subject Title Loan of artwork from City Public Art Collection to Cascadia Art Museum Recommendation Approve loan of painting by Guy Anderson for one year to Cascadia Art Museum and authorize Mayor to sign loan agreement. Previous Council Action Approved on June 2, 2015 for Consent Agenda. Narrative The new Cascadia Art Museum (CAM) has submitted a request to the City of Edmonds Arts Commission to exhibit a painting on loan from the Public Art Collection for one year, starting with their opening in September 2015.  The loan request is for the Guy Anderson painting "Two Workmen" to be included in the inaugural "Pioneers and Prophets: Northwest Modern Art Reconsidered" exhibit September 10, 2015 - September 9, 2016.   On May 4, 2015 the Edmonds Arts Commission reviewed the request and unanimously recommended the City approve an agreement with CAM to loan the painting for exhibit at the new museum. The museum, a 501 c 3 nonprofit, will acknowledge the lender and provide insurance and security for the piece while in transit and on their premises. The loan agreement has been approved by the City Attorney. The opportunity to exhibit the painting at CAM has particular significance for Edmonds because Guy Anderson was at one time a resident of Edmonds. The work is currently exhibited in the City Council Chamber, a secure space, but one with limited public access. Exhibiting the Anderson painting at the new museum would give it greater visibility, highlight the importance of the work for our community, and support the newest Edmonds arts institution in enriching local arts resources and attracting visitors. Attachments Loan Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 06/04/2015 02:26 PM Mayor Dave Earling 06/04/2015 03:14 PM Packet Page 113 of 470 Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 06/04/2015 05:19 PM Form Started By: Frances Chapin Started On: 06/03/2015 04:08 PM Final Approval Date: 06/04/2015  Packet Page 114 of 470 May 7, 2015 1 | P a g e Cascadia Art Museum 190 Sunset Avenue Edmonds, WA 98020 LOAN AGREEMENT Exhibition title: Pioneers and Prophets: Northwest Modern Art Reconsidered Opening date: September 11, 2015 Closing date: September 8, 2016 Lender’s name: City of Edmonds, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department Address:700 Main Street City, State, Zip: Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425-771-0230 Email: carrie.hite@edmondswa.gov Contact name (if different from lender): Frances Chapin, City of Edmonds Arts & Culture Manager Phone: 425.771.0228 Email: frances.chapin@edmondswa.gov Credit Line: Courtesy of the City of Edmonds Arts Commission Public Art Collection (Courtesy of… or Collection of… etc.) Shipment date/time: September 10, 2015 Shipment method: personal pick up Address from which object is to be shipped /picked up: 250 5th Ave. N., Edmonds WA Contact person: Frances Chapin Phone:425-771-0228 Address to which object is to be returned: same Contact person: Phone: Artist: Guy Anderson (1906 -1998) Title, Date: Two Workmen Medium: oil Size: H: W: D: Framed: Size: H:62 W:40 D: Crated: Size: H: W: D: Retail value (in USD): $20,000 in 2006 Weight (if >30 lbs.): EXHIBITION LENDER SHIPPING OBJECT (If multiple objects are included in the loan, see attached checklist) Packet Page 115 of 470 May 7, 2015 2 | P a g e CARE, PRESERVATION & EXHIBITION Cascadia Art Museum (hereafter referred to as the Museum) will provide the artwork lent to it with a level of care in accordance with the best practice and museum standards set forth for comparable work. Artwork will be protected from fire, theft, mishandling, dirt and insects and extremes of light, temperature and humidity while in the Museum’s custody. It is understood by the Lender and the Museum that all tangible artworks are subject to gradual inherent deterioration for which neither party is responsible. The Museum retains the right to request from the Lender a detailed condition report on the artwork being borrowed. Evidence of damage not described in Lender’s condition report at the time of receipt or while in The Museum’s custody will be reported immediately to the Lender. It is understood that artworks which in the opinion of the Museum show evidence of insect infestation or active mold will be returned promptly to the owner or may be fumigated or otherwise treated, as appropriate, under the direction of the Museum, after consultation with the owner. The Museum retains the sole right to determine when, if and for how long artworks borrowed will be exhibited. The museum retains the right to cancel the loan, before or during the loan term outlined on the face of this Agreement, upon reasonable notice to the Lender. The Museum shall notify the Lender if it intends to change the location of the exhibit, or if it intends to take the artwork off exhibit. In the latter case, the Museum shall, at Lender’s request, arrange to return the artwork to the Lender within a reasonable period of time after the artwork is taken off exhibit. The Museum shall also have the right to determine what written and interpretive materials accompany the artwork and the exhibition; provided, however, that the Museum shall obtain the Lender’s prior review and approval of any such materials provided about the artwork. Cascadia Art Museum may use temporary tags to label loans but will not mark the object(s) in a permanent fashion. Exhibition stickers for paintings may be placed on the backing or the frame. TRANSPORTATION AND PACKING The Lender certifies that the artwork is in such condition as to withstand ordinary strains of packing, transportation and handling. Condition reports will be made by Museum upon the arrival and departure of artwork. Unless otherwise agreed upon between the Lender and the Museum, costs of transportation and packing will be borne by Museum. Both parties must agree upon the method of shipment. If the artwork is to be returned at the Lender’s request (without prior written agreement) to any address other than that stated on the Loan Agreement, the Lender shall pay any additional costs necessitated by such a change, if so directed by Museum. The Museum will assure that the artwork lent is adequately and securely packed for the type of shipment agreed upon, including any special instructions from the Lender for unpacking and repacking. The artwork will be returned packed in the same or similar materials unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties. INSURANCE The artwork will be insured for the amount specified by the Lender under Museum’s “all‐risk,” wall‐to‐ wall policy subject to the following standard exclusions: wear and tear; gradual deterioration; insects, vermin or inherent vice; repairing, restoration or retouching processes; hostile or warlike action, insurrection, rebellion, etc.; nuclear reaction, nuclear radiation or radioactive contamination. Further, any pre‐existing condition, including but not limited to infestation by moths, vermin or any other pest, shall in no way be the responsibility of the Museum or its insurers. A Certificate of Insurance will be furnished separately from this Agreement. The insurance amount specified by the Lender must reflect fair market value. If the artwork has been industrially fabricated and can be replaced to the artist’s specification, the amount of such insurance shall be limited to the cost of such replacement. If the Lender fails to indicate an amount, the Museum, with the implied concurrence of the Lender, will set a value for purposes of insurance for the period of the loan. Said value is not to be considered an appraisal. The amount payable by this insurance is the sole recovery available to the Lender in the event of loss or damage. GENERAL CONDITIONS GOVERNING LOANS Packet Page 116 of 470 May 7, 2015 3 | P a g e If the Lender elects to maintain his/her own insurance coverage, prior to shipping the Museum must be supplied with a Certificate of Insurance naming the Cascadia Art Museum as an additional insured or waiving rights of subrogation. If the Lender fails to provide said Certificate, this failure shall constitute a waiver of insurance by the Lender. The Museum shall not be responsible for any error or deficiency in information furnished by the Lender to the insurer or for any lapses in such coverage. If the Lender waives the Museum’s insurance, this waiver shall constitute the agreement of the Lender to release and hold harmless Museum from any liability for damage to or loss of the artwork lent. In the case of long‐term loans, it is the responsibility of the Lender to notify the Museum of current insurance valuations. REPRODUCTION AND CREDIT The Lender agrees that the Museum may photograph, film; reproduce images or other audiovisual representations of, the artwork covered by this Agreement, and its packing, shipping, unpacking, installation and display, for educational, catalogue, marketing, website, and publicity purposes, without fees. Additionally, unless notified in writing by the Lender, the Museum may use these images partially, wholly, individually, in conjunction with other images or representations, or distorted in character or form. If the Lender is the owner of copyright in the artwork or photographic reproductions of the artwork provided by the Lender, this Agreement shall constitute, and the Lender hereby grants the Museum, a non‐exclusive worldwide license to use these images, in perpetuity, for the above listed uses and other purposes as the Museum shall determine. The Lender will make no monetary claim against the Museum for the use of these images or representations. Any reproduction of these images, or audiovisual representations, shall be credited as per the information provided on the face of this Agreement. DOCUMENTATION Cascadia Art Museum reserves the right to document the artwork covered by this Agreement, and its packing, shipping, unpacking, installation and display, via all modern methods available for such activity, whether now existing or later developed, for the purposes of its own archival, educational, catalogue, marketing, publicity, promotional, press, or editorial purposes, including, without limitation, in and on Museum’s publications and web sites on which Museum may post content, without fees. The Museum will retain all rights to this documentation. Photography by the public is permitted in the Cascadia Art Museum galleries. All requests for commercial use are subject to prior approval. The Museum will have the exhibition professionally photographed once the installation is complete and the Lender shall receive one DVD of high‐resolution files of these installation images. CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP AND/OR ADDRESS If the legal ownership of the artwork included in this Agreement should change during the Exhibition period, whether by reason of sale, insolvency, gift or otherwise, the Lender or Lender’s agent shall, prior to its return, be required to establish the legal right to receive or redirect the delivery of the artwork by proof satisfactory to the Museum. Cascadia Art Museum assumes no responsibility to search for a Lender who cannot be reached at the address of record. If the artwork is sold during the period of this Agreement, the buyer is bound to the terms of the Agreement and it is the responsibility of the original Lender to state this clearly to the buyer and to indicate in writing to the Museum that this has been done. The new owner of the art shall be responsible to pay any difference in the shipment charges due to the change of address. RETURN OF WORK Unless otherwise agreed upon, loans are to be returned to the Lender or his/her duly authorized agent within 30 days after notice is given by Museum. The work will be returned only to the Lender at the address stated in this Agreement unless the Museum is notified in writing to the contrary. The Museum’s right to return the work shall accrue absolutely at the termination of the loan. If the Museum, after making all reasonable efforts and through no fault of its own, shall be unable to Packet Page 117 of 470 May 7, 2015 4 | P a g e return the work within 60 days after such termination, then the Museum shall have the rights to place the work in storage, to charge regular storage fees and the cost of insurance therefore, and to have and enforce a lien for such fees and cost. If after five (5) years, the work has not been reclaimed, then and in consideration for its storage, insurance and safeguarding during such period, the work shall be deemed an unrestricted gift to the Cascadia Art Museum, and the Lender hereby authorizes the Museum to so proceed in accordance herewith; as per the Washington State Law RCW 63.26.030 and .040: Property subject to a loan agreement which is on loan to a museum or historical society shall be deemed to be donated to the museum or society if no claim is made or action filed to recover the property after termination or expiration of the loan and if the museum or society has given notice pursuant to RCW 63.26.040 (see below) and no assertion of title has been filed within ninety days from the date of the second published notice. When a museum or historical society is required to give notice of abandonment of property or of termination of a loan, the museum or historical society shall mail such notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the last known owner at the most recent address of such owner as shown on the museum's or society's records. If the museum or society has no address on record, or the museum or society does not receive written proof of receipt of the mailed notice within thirty days of the date the notice was mailed, the museum or society shall publish notice for two consecutive weeks. If no written assertion of title is presented by the owner to the museum or society within ninety days from the date of the second published notice, title to the property shall vest in the museum or historical society, free of all claims of the owner and of all persons claiming under the owner. One who purchases or otherwise acquires property from a museum or historical society acquires good title to the property if the museum or society has acquired title to the property under this chapter. AGREEMENT The foregoing constitutes the entire agreement of the parties and neither this clause, nor this Agreement, nor any subsequent notification, may be made except in writing signed by both parties hereto. Any changes herein of printed text or written additions must bear the initials of the parties hereto. I have read and agree to the conditions of this agreement. I certify that I have full authority to enter into this agreement. I further declare that I am the lawful and absolute owner of the artwork being loaned and there are no claims contesting my ownership or right to possess the artwork. If this Loan Agreement is signed by an agent, the agent represents that the agent has full authority to make these representations and sign on behalf of the Lender. If the artwork is jointly owned, each owner should sign below. Signature Lender / Authorized Agent For Cascadia Art Museum Date: Date: SIGNATURES Packet Page 118 of 470    AM-7790     4. G.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:06/09/2015 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Public Defender Services contract amendment Recommendation Council approve amendments to the Feldman and Lee contract for Public Defense Services for 2015, and authorize the Mayor to sign. Previous Council Action Council authorized the Mayor to enter into a contract extension with Feldman and Lee, P.S. on March 18, 2014. In December 2014, Council authorized Mayor to sign new contract with Feldman and Lee, P.S. for 2015 for public defense services.  Council adopted a budget amendment for 2014 in the amount of $66,000 to cover the contract amount that was amended by Council on April 1, 2014 for public defense services.  Council allocated $240,000 to the 2015 budget for the Public Defender. Council allocated $25,000 to the 2015 budget for a Public Defense contract supervisor. Council gave direction to staff to secure the services of Eileen Farley to review our public defense services and make recommendations. On June 2, 2105, the Council forwarded these amendments for approval on consent, with one edit to section XXVII.D. Narrative Background: On January 1, 2015, the misdemeanor caseload limits for public defense attorneys adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court in the new Standards for Indigent Defense take effect. The court had in 2013 delayed the implementation of the caseload limits until that date, to provide time for the Washington State Office of Public Defense (OPD) to conduct a statewide attorney time study and to develop a model misdemeanor case weighting policy that is consistent with the indigent defense standards adopted by the Packet Page 119 of 470 court. Washington State Supreme Court Order No. 25700-A-1016, 04/08/2013. In compliance with the state Supreme Court’s order, the OPD conducted the time study and has developed a Model Misdemeanor Case Weighting Policy. Under the caseload limits in Standard 3.4, full-time public defenders should not have caseloads exceeding 300 or 400 misdemeanor cases per year, depending on whether the jurisdiction has developed a “numerical case weighting” system, described in Standard 3.6. In jurisdictions adopting a numerical case weighting system, the caseload limit is 300 cases. Recent Court Ruling In addition to these new standards, a federal district court judge ruled on December 4th, 2013 that the public defense systems provided by the cities of Burlington and Mount Vernon violated the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective assistance of legal counsel to indigent persons charged with crimes. The court found that the provision of public defense services prior to 2012 by the two cities “was marked by an almost complete absence of opportunities for the accused to confer with appointed counsel in a confidential setting,” with most interactions between counsel and their indigent clients occurring in the courtroom. The court determined that the appointment of counsel was, for the most part, little more than a formality, a stepping stone on the way to a case closure or plea bargain having almost nothing to do with the individual indigent defendant. The court deemed this situation to be “the natural, foreseeable, and expected result of the caseloads the attorneys handled.” The cities contracted with a different law firm in April 2012 and the per attorney caseload was reduced, but not to the court’s satisfaction. The court determined that the new public defense firm “continues to handle caseloads far in excess of the per attorney limits set forth in the [Washington] Supreme Court’s guidelines.” Ultimately, Judge Lasnik concluded: The public defense system in Mount Vernon and Burlington has systemic flaws that deprive indigent criminal defendants of their Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. Although counsel are appointed in a timely manner, the sheer number of cases has compelled the public defenders to adopt case management practices that result in most defendants going to court for the first time – and sometimes accepting a plea bargain – never having had the opportunity to meet with their attorneys in a confidential setting. The court’s remedy was to issue a “continuing injunction” against the cities that, among other things, required the cities to hire a “Public Defense Supervisor” to supervise and evaluate the cities’ provision of public defense services and to ensure that indigent clients are provided certain specific services and receive adequate representation. The court did not impose numerical caseload limits. While cognizant of the cities’ “interests in controlling the manner in which they perform their core functions, including the provision of services and the allocation of scarce resources,” Judge Lasnik noted that they were nevertheless obligated to comply with the dictates of the Sixth Amendment. Other cities in the state that operate municipal courts – and the states’ counties – will, of course, need to take heed of this court decision. Most of the cities ( and counties) have either hired Public Defense supervisors, or are in the process of having this discussion. Packet Page 120 of 470 Update: Based on Council direction in 2014, the City retained the services of Eileen Farley, the attorney that worked with Burlington and Mt. Vernon to come into compliance. Ms. Farley reviewed the city’s public defense contract, services with Feldman and Lee, and made recommendations for contract amendments in order to comply with this new ruling. Please see attached report. In addition, Ms. Farley drafted an RFP for the City’s use in facilitating a competitive bid process to secure public defense services for 2016 and beyond. Staff will be issuing this RFP in June, and will bring a recommendation forward to Council by September, 2015. In addition, staff will be working on securing a contract staff person to provide oversight of the City’s public defense services to ensure compliance. Council authorized funds in the 2015 budget to accomplish this. JUNE 2, 2015: Councilmember Petso requested an edit to clarify section XXVII.D. regarding caseload payment when the caseload exceeds the contract maximum.  Sharon Cates worked with Feldman Lee to clarify this section.  The edits include changing the yearly caseload limit from 600 to 650 for the current compensation.  Then, if this caseload is exceeded by 10% or more, or falls short by 10% or more, The City would pay an additional $370 per case for each case above 715 for that year.  The City will also be able to deduct $370 per case per year, if the caseload falls below 585. So, we built in 10% wiggle room on both sides, and clarified the payment per year ( not per month). Attachments Feldman and Lee Contract amendment Draft RFQ Farely report Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 06/04/2015 02:26 PM Mayor Dave Earling 06/04/2015 03:16 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 06/04/2015 05:19 PM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 06/04/2015 01:42 PM Final Approval Date: 06/04/2015  Packet Page 121 of 470 CITY OF EDMONDS CONTRACT NO. ____ JUNE 1, 2015 – DECEMBER 31, 2015 AGREEMENT FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES This Agreement is entered into between the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation, (“City”) and Feldman & Lee, P.S., a Washington professional services corporation, (“Contractor”). I. DEFINITIONS A. Attorney. Attorneys shall mean attorneys working for the law firm of Feldman & Lee, P.S., and where appropriate, shall include Rule 9 interns. B. Case. A Case shall mean the filing of a document with the court naming a person as defendant or respondent, to which an Attorney is appointed in order to provide representation. In courts of limited jurisdiction multiple citations from the same incident can be counted as one case. CB. Contractor. Contractor shall mean the law firm of Feldman & Lee, P.S., and shall mean each attorney working for the Contractor. DC. Defendant. Defendant shall mean a person charged with a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense that is filed by the City into the Edmonds Municipal Court, and for whom the Contractor must provide services pursuant to Section III of this Agreement. ED. Full Time Attorney Equivalent Position. Full-time attorney equivalent position shall mean 40 hours of attorney services per week provided pursuant to this Agreement. II. DURATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 20154, unless extended or terminated earlier in a manner permitted by this Agreement. III. SCOPE OF WORK AND DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR A. Criminal Defense Representation – To Whom Provided. Except in cases in which a conflict of interest exists, Contractor shall provide criminal defense representation to the following: 1. All Defendants for which the Contractor has been appointed by the Edmonds Municipal Court or City as attorney of record pursuant to the Court’s or City’s determination of indigence of the defendant. 2. All suspects who are permitted access to a public defender while detained pursuant to an investigation for any gross or simple misdemeanor being investigated by the City of Edmonds Police Department, including, but not limited to: the offenses of driving under the influence (RCW 46.61.502), driving under twenty-one consuming alcohol (RCW 46.61.503) or physical control of a vehicle under the influence (RCW 46.61.504) for the purposes of consulting with the Contractor prior to deciding whether to provide a sample of breath or blood. 3. All persons who are not represented by private counsel and who appear for arraignment in the Edmonds Municipal Court shall be entitled to an explanation of the rights, information regarding maximum and minimum penalties if convicted and information regarding the process and handling of the matter by the Edmonds Municipal Court. Nothing in this contact shall be Packet Page 122 of 470 construed as arising to the level of being this person’s attorney for purposes of case counting requirements as promulgated by the Washington State Supreme Court now or in the future. 4. All Defendants who, while in the custody of the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail who are not represented by private or conflict counsel, who appear in court on charges filed by the City of Edmonds, shall be entitled to the same level of contact as described above in section 3. B. Provisional and Temporary Appointments. Contractor shall be available to provide limited representation on behalf of otherwise unrepresented Defendants at arraignments and during in- custody hearings despite said Defendant not being appointed pursuant to a determination of indigence. The Contractor shall deduct from his caseload standards, one case for each four hours of time spent in preparing and appearing at any such hearings. In the event such a Defendant wishes to enter a plea of guilty, the Contractor shall request that the court accept the plea only after the defendant waives the right to an attorney in manner acceptable to the court. If Contractor is appointed to a case pursuant to determination of indigence at an arraignment or in-custody hearing, Contractor should not recommend a Defendant plead guilty without first having reviewed discovery from the prosecuting attorney and adequately discussed the case in private with the Defendant and any witnesses the Contractor deems necessary to make such recommendation. C. Representation Provided to Defendants Investigated for Gross Misdemeanor or Misdemeanor Crimes. Current contractor shall be available 24 hours per day, seven days per week, by telephone for the purposes of providing representation to otherwise unrepresented suspects or Defendants who are in custody and under investigation for any gross or simple misdemeanor being investigated by the City of Edmonds Police Department, including, but not limited to: driving under the influence (RCW 46.61.502), driving under twenty-one consuming alcohol (RCW 46.61.503), physical control of a vehicle under the influence (RCW 46.61.504) or any other misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor. Contractor shall provide the Edmonds Police Department with telephone numbers of its attorneys that provide direct access to the attorneys, and shall keep such telephone numbers up to date. Contractor may designate times in which specific attorneys may be reached, and shall provide the numbers of alternate attorneys if the designated attorney cannot be reached. D. Duration of Representation of Defendant. In cases in which the Contractor is appointed as attorney of record, and unless Contractor is permitted by the court to withdraw at an earlier time, Contractor shall represent the defendant at all stages of the criminal process, from the time of appointment as attorney of record through the appeals process (provided that funding for appeals beyond superior court shall be pursuant to the terms of Title 15 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure), as well as during any period in which the court retains jurisdiction over the terms and conditions of any sentence or deferral. E. Anticipated Caseload. The parties anticipate that 600-650 cases will be assigned to Contractor annually. IV. APPEARANCE AT HEARINGS Contractor shall appear at all hearings scheduled by the Edmonds Municipal Court in which it represents Defendants, as well as all arraignment calendars and all in-custody calendars. Contractor shall provide a sufficient number of attorneys at the various court calendars to ensure that Defendants have a sufficient amount of time to consult with the Contractor’s attorneys prior to each defendant’s Packet Page 123 of 470 case being heard, and to ensure that the court calendars are not delayed due to insufficient staffing of Contractor’s attorneys at the calendars. V. REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANTS WHILE ON THE RECORD Contractor shall be with and actively representing an appointed Defendant at all times while the appointed Defendant’s case is considered on the court record, and shall adequately inform the Defendant of the developments in his or her case such that the Defendant proceeds during any court hearing in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary manner. VI. DEFENDANT ACCESS TO CONTRACTOR A. Contact Prior to Court Hearings. Contractor shall be available to appointed Defendants to ensure that appointed Defendants are provided with effective assistance of counsel. Defendant access to the Contractor prior to court hearings is paramount. Contractor shall endeavor to confer with appointed Defendants about cases prior to court hearings. B. Toll Free Calls. Appointed Defendants shall be provided access to the Contractor by means of a toll-free local call made available by the Contractor. C. Time to Respond. Contractor shall respond to defendant inquiries within a reasonable time to ensure the effective assistance of counsel, whether such inquiries are received by letter, telephone, email, or otherwise. D. Local Office Required. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall maintain an office at its current location or within 5 miles of either the Edmonds Municipal Court or the City of Edmonds. The office of the Contractor shall accommodate confidential meetings with Defendants, shall be equipped with telephone, facsimile, and internet services, shall receive adequate cellular telephone service, and shall be the location at which mail and service of process is received. E. Availability for and Contact with In-Custody Defendants. Contractor shall evaluate the cases of all appointed Defendants in the custody of the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail prior to the time of the Defendant’s trial, and shall meet with such in-custody Defendants as the Contractor deems appropriate for providing effective assistance of counsel. At a minimum, Contractor shall meet with all appointed misdemeanant Defendants who are in-custody within two (2) business days two court days of the Contractor being notified of its appointment as that defendant’s legal representative. In addition, Contractor shall schedule no less than two periods of time each week in which to meet with appointed Defendants who are in the custody of the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail. These two periods of time shall be for the purposes of responding to inmate requests, responding to letters and telephone calls, and preparing for the defense of the jailed Defendants. These two periods shall be separate in time, not necessarily in days, from court hearings held at the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail. VII. QUALITY OF REPRESENTATION Contractor shall provide services in a professional and skilled manner consistent with Washington’s Rules of Professional Conduct, applicable case law, the Constitutions of the United States and Washington, and the court rules that define the duties of counsel and the rights of defendants. Contractor shall be familiar with and comply with the New Standards for Indigent Defense as adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court on June 15, 2012, and as thereafter amended (hereafter “the Indigent Defense Standards”). At all times during the representation of a defendant, the Contractor’s primary responsibility shall be to protect the interests of the defendant. Packet Page 124 of 470 VIII. QUALIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTOR ATTORNEYS - TRAINING A. Qualifications. All attorneys employed by Contractor for the purposes of providing the services called for in this Agreementcontract shall, at a minimum, satisfy the minimum qualifications to practice law as established by the Washington Supreme Court; be familiar with and follow the statutes, court rules, case law and constitutional law applicable to misdemeanor criminal defense work in the state of Washington; be familiar with and abide by Washington’s Rules of Professional Conduct; be familiar with and abide by the Indigent Defense Standards; be familiar with the consequences to each particular defendant of any conviction or adjudication including but not limited to jail time, financial penalties, restitution, mental health or drug and alcohol treatment obligations, license suspensions, and immigration or civil commitment implications; be familiar with mental health and substance abuse issues applicable to each defendant; be able to recognize the need for expert services including but not limited to investigators; and be able to satisfy the terms and conditions of this Agreement. B. Training. For each attorney of the Contractor providing services under this Agreement, a minimum of seven hours of reportable continuing legal education credits per year shall be in the areas of criminal defense law, criminal process, trial advocacy, legal writing, appellate work, law practice management, or any other subject that, in the opinion of the Contractor, is applicable to providing criminal defense services. If Contractor employs more than seven (7) attorneys, Contractor shall conduct in house training pursuant to the Indigent Defense Standards. IX. USE OF RULE 9 INTERNS A. Workload of Rule 9 Interns. Contractor may employ interns qualified under Admission to Practice Rule 9 who perform work pursuant to this Agreement. Rule 9 interns shall remain under the supervision of the Contractor, and an attorney for Contractor shall remain responsible for the cases for which the Rule 9 provides services. Any applicable case load limits for Rule 9 iInterns shall be one quarter (1/4) of the case load limit of an Attorney working the same number of hours. B. Qualifications of Rule 9 Interns. Rule 9 interns shall be required to abide by Sections VII and VIII except that Rule 9 interns shall not be required to complete the training requirements of Section VIII, and in place of the requirement to satisfy the minimum qualifications to practice law as established by the Washington Supreme Court, the Rule 9 intern must comply with the provisions of APR 9. Rule 9 interns shall be closely monitored by the more senior attorneys of the Contractor. X. DISCOVERY TO BE PROVIDED The City’s Prosecuting Attorney’s Office shall provide Contractor one (1) copy of all discoverable material concerning each assigned case pursuant to the rules of discovery and without charge as soon as possible after appointment. For those individuals who are held in custody, discovery shall be provided within one (1) business day. XI. NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS EMPLOYED Contractor shall employ a sufficient number of Attorneys to comply with caseload limits. XII. CASELOAD LIMITS PER FULLTIME EQUIVALENT POSITION A. Caseload Limits in General. Contractor shall maintain a caseload such that it can provide each and every Defendant effective assistance of counsel as required by this Agreement. Subject to the remaining subsections of this section, a fulltime equivalent attorney position should be appointed to Packet Page 125 of 470 no more than 400 unweighted cases per year; provided, that a fulltime equivalent attorney position may be appointed to more than 400 unweighted cases per year if the managing partner(s) of the Contractor determine that the Contractor will meet the terms of this Agreement and the Indigent Defense Standards. Under no circumstances may a fulltime equivalent attorney position be appointed to more than 500 cases per year. B. Factors In Determining Permitted Caseload. In order to determine whether an Attorney can be appointed to more or less than 400 unweighted cases per year, the Contractor shall consider the following: 1. The experience of the attorneys who perform the work called for in this Agreement. 2. The number of cases fulltime equivalent attorney positions are currently handling that are not in pre-trial status and not on appeal. 3. The complexity of the cases. 4. The services the Contractor provides to other municipalities or private clients. 5. The number of hours the Attorney works on average more or less than 40 hours per week. 6. Efficiencies created by client meetings and court appearances taking place adjacent to one another in the same location that would not occur if the Attorney were representing a fewer number of individuals in a larger number of jurisdictions. C. Case Defined. For the purposes of this section, the term “case” shall mean a group of criminal charges related to a single incident filed against a Defendant to which an Attorney is appointed pursuant to a finding of indigence. D. Caseload Limit Reduction. Each Attorney’s caseload limit shall be reduced by the approximate percentage of time the Attorney spends representing private clients or defendants that have not been formally appointed pursuant to a finding of indigence. E. Alternative Caseload limits and Case Weighting. In the event the City or Contractor determine that it is necessary or advisable to use a caseload limit that differs from the case load limits specified in this section, either party may propose to the other an alternative standard for caseload limits so long as such standard is fully consistent with the Indigent Defense Standards. If the parties agree the proposed alternative standard is fully consistent with the Indigent Defense Standards and such alternative standards do not create an undue administrative burden on either party, the alternative standard shall be formally approved by the Contractor and the City’s Mayor and incorporated within this Agreement. F. Post-Sentence Representation. All post-sentencing hearings will be counted as part of Contractor’s our continuing representation of the dDefendants as set forth in Section III, above. All new clients appointed to usContractor at post sentencing-review hearings will be counted as aone case. XIII. COMPLIANCE WITH INDIGENT DEFENSE STANDARDS A. Caseload Monitoring. Contractor shall continually monitor the caseload and performance of Contractor as a whole and each attorney providing services pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor shall provide projections at least three months in advance regarding the caseload limits based upon Packet Page 126 of 470 the number of attorneys employed by Contractor and trends in case filings. B. Caseload Level Shifting. In the event an attorney is handling a caseload such that the attorney is unable to provide effective assistance of counsel to each and every defendant or is otherwise on track to exceed his/her caseload limit, Contractor shall reduce the caseload of that attorney, and shift the reduced portion of the caseload to another Attorney employed by the Contractor. C. Certification of Compliance. Each Attorney shall be in compliance with and shall certify compliance with the Indigent Defense Standards to the Snohomish County South District Court and the Edmonds Municipal Court on a quarterly basis or more frequently as required by the Indigent Defense Standards and in the form required by the Indigent Defense Standards. XIV. EXPERTS AND INVESTIGATORS Contractor may retain experts and investigators of the Contractor’s choosing as deemed necessary to the effective defense of the defendant, and may apply to the court for such services pursuant to applicable court rules. The fees for expert witnesses shall be included in the costs that the City pays Contractor except as ordered by the Court pursuant to CrRLJ 3.1(f). The Contractor shall retain an investigator of its choosing as deemed necessary for the effective defense of the defendant, this cost shall be part of the flat fee set forth in this agreement. XV. COSTS OF TRANSCRIPTION The City agrees to reimburse the Contractor for all reasonable costs associated with obtaining and transcribing trial court records for appeal purposes if such costs have not been waived. XVI. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Contractor shall maintain a database of client information sufficient for the Contractor to determine the existence of any conflicts of interest. In the event representation of a defendant would constitute a conflict of interest, Contractor shall take such action as is appropriate pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct. In the event the Contractor is disqualified or excused as counsel of record due to a conflict of interest, Contractor shall not be required to pay any compensation to another attorney assigned to represent the defendant. XVII. INTERNAL PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND ATTORNEY SUPERVISION Contractor shall establish a program for managing the performance of attorneys who provide the services called for in this Agreement. The performance monitoring program shall have the purpose of ensuring that each defendant receives effective assistance of counsel, and the terms and conditions of this Agreement are met. Contractor shall provide the City with a blank copy of the performance evaluation form used and report to the City on an annual basis whether it has conducted annual evaluations of attorneys who provide services under this Agreement. XVIII. REMOVAL OF ATTORNEY A. Removal by Contractor. In the event Contractor determines, through its internal performance monitoring and attorney supervision program that an Attorney or Rule 9 intern working for Contractor fails to comply with the terms of this Agreement, then Contractor shall immediately take action to prevent that Attorney or Rule 9 intern from providing the services called for in this Agreement. Packet Page 127 of 470 B. Recommendation of Removal by City. In the event the City determines that an attorney working for the Contractor has breached this Agreement, the City may, at its sole discretion and as an alternative to termination of this Agreement, require Contractor to take action to prevent that attorney from providing the services called for in this Agreement or otherwise cure the breach. XIX. CITY CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR – CONTRACT OVERSIGHT This Agreement shall be managed and monitored by the City’s Mayor or by such other agent of the City as determined by the Mayor. All reports or certifications required by this Agreement shall be delivered to the Mayor or his/her designee. at the address set forth in Section XXXIII below. The City shall specify the person to whom reports shall be delivered if other than the Mayor. To assist the Mayor or his/her designee in managing and monitoring this Agreement, Contractor shall, in addition to providing the reports set forth in Section XX below, report to the Mayor or his/her designee any disciplinary action by the Washington State Bar Association against an attorney providing services under this Agreement, and any finding by a court that any such attorney has provided ineffective assistance of counsel. XX. REPORTS OF CONTRACTOR Contractor shall maintain a case reporting and case management information system, and shall submit reports to the City as follows: A. Reports shall be submitted on a no less than a quarterly basis and shall be a condition of payment pursuant to Section XXVII. B. Reports shall contain the following information: 1. The names of defendants to which Contractor was appointed during the reporting period, the charges, and the associated case numbers;, 2. The date of appointment;, 3. The case weight assigned to the case if a case weighting system has been approved and implemented;, 4. The number of appellate level cases pending;, and 5. Copies of the most recent Indigent Defense Standards Certifications filed with the Court by each Attorney providing services under this Agreement;. 6. Information on Contractor’s caseload distribution; 7. Information on Contractor’s case supervision; 8. The number of pending trials and the type(s) of charges to be addressed in each; 9. The number of substantive motions undertaken; 10. The number of hours spent by each attorney on each of their cases; 11. Information on the use of investigators; 12. Information on consultations with the Immigration and Naturalization Service; and 13. Information on the disposition of concluded cases. C. Contractor shall not be required to compromise any attorney-client privilege when providing these reports. Packet Page 128 of 470 XXI. COMPLAINTS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION A. Complaints Directed to Mayor or Designee. Any unresolved complaints regarding Contractor or an attorney or Rule 9 intern providing services pursuant to this Agreement, whether received by the City, the Contractor, or the Court, shall be directed to the Mayor or designee. B. Investigation. In the event a complaint is received by or directed to the Mayor or designee and is not timely resolved by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the complainant, the City will investigate the complaint by reviewing the complaint, discussing the matter with the complaining party, discussing the matter with the Contractor, and determining whether a violation of this Agreement has occurred. The Mayor or designee may consult with legal counsel or another expert as deemed necessary in order to resolve the complaint. In addition, the City may consult with the Washington State Bar Association when appropriate. C. Corrective Action Plan or Termination. In the event the Mayor or designee determines that a violation has occurred, he or she may develop a corrective action plan or terminate this Agreement in the event it is determined that termination is appropriate. Contractor shall cooperate in any investigation of a complaint, and any corrective action plan developed by the Mayor or designee. XXII. TERMINATION A. For Cause. The City or the Contractor may terminate this Agreement immediately in the event the other party breaches the Agreement and such breach is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the injured party in a timely manner after notice of breach has been provided to the other party. Each and every term of this Agreement is material. The failure of any party to comply with any term of this Agreement shall constitute a breach of this Agreement. B. For Reasons Beyond Control of Parties. Either party may terminate this Agreement without recourse by the other where performance is rendered impossible or impracticable for reasons beyond such party’s reasonable control such as, but not limited to, acts of nature; war or warlike operations; civil commotion; riot; labor dispute including strike, walkout, or lockout; sabotage; or superior governmental regulation or control. C. Without Cause. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause upon giving the non-terminating party not less than one hundred and twenty (120) days prior written notice. XXIII. CONTINUATION OF REPRESENTATION AFTER TERMINATION In the event of termination of this Agreement, Contractor shall continue representation of Defendants to whom Contractor was assigned prior to the termination until such time as another defense attorney has been appointed to represent such Defendants. Upon reassignment of such Defendants to another defense attorney, Contractor shall promptly deliver all related client files to such defense attorney. Except in cases in which the Contractor is unable to provide services in conformance with this Agreement, Contractor shall not submit to the court a motion to withdraw from representing defendants to which the Contractor was assigned until such time as new counsel has submitted a motion to substitute counsel. For each case in which Contractor makes one or more in-court appearances with a Defendant, not including appearances that consist solely of successful continuance motions, the City shall pay Contractor a one time payment of one hundred and fifty dollars for all post termination services provided in the case. Packet Page 129 of 470 XXIV. NON-DISCRIMINATION Contractor shall not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, nationality, sexual orientation, color, creed, disability, age, religion or any other state or federal protected category in the hiring of employees or the provision of services pursuant to a contract with the City. XXV. PROOF OF LIABILITY INSURANCE Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance of the types and in the amounts described in Exhibit A attached and incorporated by this reference. XXVI. INDEMNIFICATION Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, and employees harmless from any and all claims whatsoever related to or arising from the performance of the Contractor’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to claims arising out of the errors and omissions of the Contractor relating to the representation or lack of representation of clients, and/or by reason of accident, injury, or death caused to any persons or property of any kind occurring during the performance or lack thereof of the work required by this Agreement, or traveling to or from any place to perform the work required by this Agreement, except to the extent they are caused by the sole negligence of the City. The failure of the Contractor to carry insurance in a quantity sufficient to defend a claim or lawsuit or cover any judgment that results shall not operate to limit the Contractor’s indemnification or defense of the City. This indemnification section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. XXVII. COMPENSATION A. Payment for Services. The City shall provide to Contractor for services rendered under this Agreement the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($20,000) per month from JuneApril 1, 20154 through December 31, 20154. This payment shall be full compensation for all services and material necessary to accomplish the objectives of this Agreement, including but not limited to administrative costs associated with providing legal representation. These administrative costs include, but are not limited to: travel, telephones, law library, including electronic legal research; financial accounting; case management systems; computers and software; office space and supplies; training; meeting the reporting requirements imposed by this Agreement; and other costs necessarily incurred in the day-to-day management of this Agreement. Contractor shall bill the City each month for services rendered herein. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the Contractor’s compensation shall be prorated based upon the days which have elapsed between the effective date of the termination and the first day of the month after termination. B. Billing. The Contractor shall bill the City, in care of the Mayor or designee, on the first day of the month, or the first workday thereafter for the monthly installment set forth in subsection A of this section, and any transcription costs as permitted by this Agreement. C. Payment. The City shall make payments within thirty (30) days of receipt of Contractor’s bill. Except as provided elsewhere in this Agreement, the payment set forth in this section shall be inclusive of administrative costs, support costs, and all costs associated with the conduct of the Contractor’s business. Packet Page 130 of 470 D. Unanticipated Caseload. In the event the anticipated caseload of 650 cases, as set forth in Section III.E. above, is either exceeded by 10%/ 40 cases or falls short by 10% in any calendar year, the City shall either pay Contractor an additional $370333/ per case for each case above 715 cases for that year or deduct $370 per case for each case below 585 cases for that year. XXVIII. SUBCONTRACTING PROHIBITED Except in extraordinary circumstances or as temporarily necessary to avoid violation of the Indigent Defense Standards, Contractor shall not subcontract with another attorney or law firm to provide the services required herein. Contractor shall remain directly involved in and responsible for the representation of all assigned defendants. XXIX. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED No assignment or transfer of this Agreement or of any interest in this Agreement shall be made by either of the parties, without prior written consent of the non-assigning party. XXX. AGREEMENT APPLICABLE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS The terms of this Agreement shall apply to all persons who are employed by, or who volunteer for, the Contractor, including but not limited to attorneys, interns, paralegals, office assistants, secretaries, and investigators. XXXI. STATUS OF CONTRACTOR AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND NOT EMPLOYEE This Agreement calls for the performance of the services of the Contractor as an independent contractor and Contractor will not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. Contractor shall secure at its own expense and be responsible for any and all payment of income tax, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation, worker’s compensation, and all other payroll deductions for the Contractor and its officers, agents, and employees and the costs of all professional or business licenses in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. Contractor shall be solely responsible for any and all claims or lawsuits filed against Contractor by personnel employed by the Attorney related to the conditions or terms of employment by the Contractor, and the Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its employees and officers from any such claims or lawsuits. Contractor further agrees that its employees are not considered employees of the City for the purposes of participating in any state or federal program, including but not limited to the retirement program provided by the Washington Department of Retirement Services, and in the event that a claim is made to the contrary by any employee or volunteer of the Contractor, Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its employees and officers from any such claims or lawsuits and shall pay all awards ordered against the City for such claims or lawsuits. XXXII. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Contractor may be requested to perform additional services beyond the original scope of services as defined in section III1 of this Agreement. Such work will be undertaken only upon written authorization of the City based upon an agreed amount of compensation. XXXIII. NOTICES All notices and other written documentation shall be sent to the parties at the following addresses Packet Page 131 of 470 unless otherwise requested in writing: City of Edmonds: Contractor: Mayor’s Office Feldman & Lee PSJames A. Feldman 121 5th Ave. N 19303 44th Avenue West, Suite A Edmonds, WA 98020 Lynnwood, WA 98036 XXXIV. ENTIRE AGREEMENT – AMENDMENTS This instrument contains the entire Agreement between the parties for the contemplated work and services to commence AprilJune 1, 20154, and it may not be enlarged, modified, altered, or amended except in writing signed and endorsed by the parties. XXXV. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS This Agreement is executed in duplicate originals. XXXVI. EFFECTIVE DATE The terms of this Agreement shall take effect on JuneApril 1, 20154. WHEREFORE, the parties agree to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth above. CITY OF EDMONDS FELDMAN AND LEE P.S. _____________________________ ____________________________ David O. Earling, Mayor James A. Feldman, Managing Partner ATTEST: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Office of the City Attorney Packet Page 132 of 470 EXHIBIT A INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICES AGREEMENTS Insurance The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types described below: 1. Professional Liability insurance appropriate to the Contractor’s profession. B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance Contractor shall maintain the following insurance limits: 1. Professional Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit. C. Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance: 1. The Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance naming the City as an additional insured. 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. 2. The Contractor’s insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. 3. The City of Edmonds shall be named as an additional insured on all policies (except Professional Liability) as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Contractor and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all required insurance policies. The Contractor’s Commercial General Liability insurance shall also contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer’s liability. Packet Page 133 of 470 EXHIBIT A (Continued) D. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. E. Verification of Coverage Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Contractor before commencement of the work. F. Subcontractors Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insured’s under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage’ for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the same insurance requirements as stated herein for the Contractor. Packet Page 134 of 470 CITY OF EDMONDS’ REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE ATTORNEYS The City of Edmonds (“City”), Washington, is requesting proposals from well qualified attorneys interested in providing legal representation to indigent defendants answering criminal charges filed in Edmonds Municipal Court. DESCRIPTION The City of Edmonds is hiring a law firm to provide legal representation to approximately 800 clients charged with misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors and probation violations in Edmonds Municipal Court. The qualifying firm must also provide legal advice to defendants appearing on arraignment calendars, now held every Monday afternoon and Thursday morning. The court also conducts motions calendars every Wednesday and jury trials now set on alternate Fridays or whenever court is scheduled. The firm must also have an attorney available 24 hours a day to respond to calls from defendants arrested or under investigation by the City of Edmonds Police. Court dates and times may change over the course of the Contract for Public Defense Services. The Contract will be for a period of ___year(s) [with possible extension?]. The Edmonds Municipal Court is located within the Maxwell McGuiness Public Safety building and shares the courtroom with the City Council. Staffing in the Municipal Court consists of a Court Administrator and five full-time equivalent court clerks one full time probation officer. Packet Page 135 of 470 In 2013, the City of Edmonds filed 1,336 criminal cases and approximately 800 of the defendants charged were assigned a public defender. Current and historical caseloads can be found at http://www.courts.wa.gov/caseload/. Prosecution for the City is provided by the firm of ________________. The successful law firm must comply with the Standards for Indigent Defense Systems adopted by the Washington Supreme Court and the Washington State Bar Association Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense Representation and the Rules of Professional Conduct. The City will require the qualifying firm to report [monthly? Quarterly?] the number of cases assigned to each attorney and the attorney, investigator, staff and supervision hours spent on each case. The firm must report the number of substantive, written motions filed and the number of cases in which there was investigation, a request for expert services or a request for advice on immigration. The firm must also report how many cases were tried to either a jury or a judge. The form of the reports will be negotiated between the City and successful applicant. QUALIFICATIONS Education and Experience: Attorneys representing clients charged in Edmonds Municipal Court must satisfy the minimum requirements for practicing law in Washington as determined by the Washington Supreme Court; be familiar with the statutes, court rules, constitutional provisions and case law relevant to defense of misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor charges, the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Packet Page 136 of 470 Performance Guidelines approved by the Washington State Bar Association, the consequences of a conviction, including possible immigration consequences, mental health issues and when it appropriate to apply for expert services. Attorneys must also complete a minimum of seven [10] hours of continuing education within each calendar year in courses related to their public defense practice. An attorney representing a client on appeal to Superior Court should have had significant training or experience in either criminal appeals, criminal motions practice, extensive trial level briefing, clerking for an appellate judge or assisting a more experience attorney in preparing and arguing an appeal from a court of limited jurisdiction. Necessary Knowledge, Skills and Abilities: Considerable knowledge of the Washington State Bar Association Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense; considerable knowledge of the Criminal Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction and the Washington Rules of Evidence; working knowledge of criminal law and the Edmunds Municipal Code, ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing; ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with clients and to maintain professional relationships with Municipal Judge, City Administration, City Council, City Prosecutor, Police Department, Public Defender, Court staff, and the general public. COMPENSATION The City will enter into a legal services agreement which will address compensation, the terms of which will be negotiated. The position is currently paid _______________This position is not eligible for medical, dental and vision insurance Packet Page 137 of 470 benefits and is not covered under the state the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS). SELECTION PROCESS The Mayor and/or designees will review all proposals. Finalists will be invited for interviews. The selected candidate shall be appointed by the Mayor. The appointment is subject to confirmation by the city council. REFERENCE CHECKS The City will review any files maintained by the Washington State Bar Association or any state or federal bar association to which the attorneys who will be providing public defense services have belonged as well as conduct reference checks. INSTRUCTIONS TO REPLY TO THIS REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS To reply to the RFQ, please submit the following: (1) resume; (2) cover letter and statement of qualifications, which must include Washington State Bar Numbers for all attorneys responding to this RFQ; (3) a solely authored writing for each attorney in the firm who will be providing public defense services; (4) a release allowing the City of Edmonds access to all WSBA disciplinary investigations and/or actions; and (5) answers to the attached Questionnaire. All materials shall be submitted in one packet and provided to the Human Resources Manager. Packet Page 138 of 470 ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY: ________________. Upon the City’s discretion, proposals submitted after the due date and time may be considered. Persons responding to this RFQ accept all risks of late delivery of mailed proposals regardless of fault. Packet Page 139 of 470 City of Edmonds MUNICIPAL COURT JUDICIAL EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE Adopted from the Washington State Governor’s Office Uniform Judicial Evaluation Questionnaire Personal Information 1. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Last Name First Name Middle Name WSBA Bar Number 2. Business Address: __________________________________________________________________ Business Name __________________________________________________________________ Street or P.O. Box __________________________________________________________________ City State Zip Business Phone No. ___________________ After-hours/direct dial: Work e-mail address: 3. Home Address: __________________________________________________________________ Street or P.O. Box __________________________________________________________________ City State Zip Home Phone No. ___________________ Mobile Phone No.: ___________________ Home e-mail address: 4. City/State/Place of Birth: __________________________________________________________________ Prior Evaluation/Application History 5. Please state the date of all other judicial evaluations you sought, bar polls you participated in, and appointment applications you submitted. Please specify whether you sought appointment or election for each, from whom the evaluation was sought, the position sought, and the outcome. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Packet Page 140 of 470 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Professional History 6. Year admitted to practice law in Washington: _________________________________________________ 7. Employment History (starting with the most current): a. Start Date: End Date: ______________________________________________ Organization: ___________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________ Phone No.: _____________________________________________________________________________ Position/Title: ___________________________________________________________________________ Supervisor: _____________________________________________________________________________ Nature of Practice (including frequency of court appearances): ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Reason for leaving: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ b. Start Date: End Date: ______________________________________________ Organization: ___________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________ Phone No.: _____________________________________________________________________________ Position/Title: ___________________________________________________________________________ Supervisor: _____________________________________________________________________________ Nature of Practice (including frequency of court appearances): ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Reason for leaving: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ c. Start Date: End Date: ______________________________________________ Organization: ___________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________ Phone No.: _____________________________________________________________________________ Position/Title: ___________________________________________________________________________ Supervisor: _____________________________________________________________________________ Nature of Practice (including frequency of court appearances): ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Reason for leaving: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ d. Start Date: End Date: ______________________________________________ Organization: ___________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________ Phone No.: _____________________________________________________________________________ Packet Page 141 of 470 Position/Title: ___________________________________________________________________________ Supervisor: _____________________________________________________________________________ Nature of Practice (including frequency of court appearances): ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Reason for leaving: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ e. Start Date: End Date: ______________________________________________ Organization: ___________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________ Phone No.: _____________________________________________________________________________ Position/Title: ___________________________________________________________________________ Supervisor: _____________________________________________________________________________ Nature of Practice (including frequency of court appearances): ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Reason for leaving: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ f. Start Date: End Date: ______________________________________________ Organization: ___________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________ Phone No.: _____________________________________________________________________________ Position/Title: ___________________________________________________________________________ Supervisor: _____________________________________________________________________________ Nature of Practice (including frequency of court appearances): ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Reason for leaving: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ g. Start Date: End Date: ______________________________________________ Organization: ___________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________ Phone No.: _____________________________________________________________________________ Position/Title: ___________________________________________________________________________ Supervisor: _____________________________________________________________________________ Nature of Practice (including frequency of court appearances): ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Reason for leaving: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Please continue, if necessary, on a separate piece of paper in the above format as needed. Packet Page 142 of 470 8. Please list all other courts and jurisdictions in which you have been admitted to practice law and the dates of admission. Please provide the same information for administrative bodies having special admission requirements. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 9. Please list all bar associations and professional societies of which you are a member and give the titles and dates of any offices that you have held in such groups. ___________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 10. Are you in good standing in every bar association of which you are a member? Yes/No. If you answered “no”, please explain. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Packet Page 143 of 470 11. If you have ever been a judge, please identify any court committees on which you have served or administrative positions you have held. Please state the dates of service for each. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 12. Please list up to five of your most significant professional accomplishments. (If applicable, please provide the case and court name and the citation if a case was reported and copy of the opinion.) ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 13. Please summarize up to four of the most significant matters that you participated in as an advocate. Please include the dates of your participation and the reason each was significant to you. Please provide the citation if a case was reported. If you have been a judge, please include some cases that have been tried before you. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Educational Background 14. Please list all undergraduate and graduate (non-law school) colleges and universities attended, years of attendance, degree awarded and reason for leaving if no degree was awarded. __________________________ _____________________________ ______________________ College/University Dates of Attendance Degree __________________________ _____________________________ ______________________ College/University Dates of Attendance Degree ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 15. Please list all law schools attended, years of attendance, degree awarded and reason for leaving if no degree was awarded. __________________________ _____________________________ ______________________ Law School Dates of Attendance Degree __________________________ _____________________________ ______________________ Law School Dates of Attendance Degree Packet Page 144 of 470 ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Professional Experience 16. Please summarize, briefly, the general nature of your current law practice. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 17. If you are in a practice, please describe your typical clients and any areas of special emphasis within your practice. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 18. If your present law practice is different from any previous practice, please describe the earlier practice, including the nature of your typical clients and any area of special emphasis within your practice. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 19. Within the last five years, did you appear in trial court:  Regularly  Occasionally  Infrequently 20. Within the last five years, did you prepare appellate briefs and appear before appellate courts:  Regularly  Occasionally  Infrequently 21. Within the last five years, how often did you appear in the court for which you are applying:  Regularly  Occasionally  Infrequently 22. Career Experience (a) What percentage of your appearances in the last five years was in: (1) Federal appellate courts ________% Packet Page 145 of 470 (2) Federal trial courts ________% (3) State appellate courts ________% (4) State trial courts ________% (5) Municipal courts ________% (6) District courts ________% (7) Administrative tribunals ________% (8) Tribal courts ________% (9) Other ________% TOTAL 100% (b) What percentage of your practice in the last five years was: (1) Civil litigation (excl. family law) ________% (2) Criminal litigation ________% (3) Family law litigation ________% (4) Non-litigation ________% TOTAL 100% (c) What percentage of your trials in the last five years were: (1) Jury trials ________% (2) Non-jury trials ________% TOTAL 100% (d) Briefly describe no more than five significant litigation matters that you directly handled as the sole counsel. For each, please provide the name and telephone number of opposing counsel, the name of the judge or other judicial officer, and the citation (if applicable). ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Packet Page 146 of 470 23. Please briefly describe any legal non-litigation experience that you feel enhances your qualifications to serve as a judge. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 24. If you are now an officer or director of any business organization or otherwise engaged in the management of any business enterprises, please provide the following: the name of the enterprise, the nature of the business, the title of your position, the nature of your duties, and the term of your service. If you are appointed and do not intend to resign such position(s), please state this below along with your reasons for not resigning. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 25. Please list all chairmanships of major committees in bar associations and professional societies and memberships on any committees that you have held and believe to be of particular significance. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Judicial Interest and Experience 26. In 50 words or less, please describe why you should be appointed/elected and are seeking a judicial position. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Packet Page 147 of 470 27. In 50 words or less, please describe your judicial philosophy. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 28. Have you ever held a judicial office or have you ever been a candidate for such office? Yes/No. If you answered “yes”, please provide details, including the courts involved, whether elected or appointed, and the periods of your service. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 29. Have you ever held public office other than a judicial office, or have you ever been a candidate for such an office? Yes/No. If you answered “yes”, please provide details, including the offices involved, whether elected or appointed, and the length of your service. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 30. Please briefly identify all of your experience as a neutral decision-maker (e.g. judge (permanent or pro tem) in any jurisdiction, administrative law judge, arbitrator, hearing officer, etc.). Give courts, approximate dates, and attorneys who appeared before you. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Packet Page 148 of 470 Community and Civic Activities 31. Please list your community and civic activities, including dates and leadership roles held, over the last 10 years. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Discipline and Disputes 32. Have you ever been held, arrested, charged or convicted by federal, state, or other law enforcement authorities for violation of any federal law, state law, county or municipal law, regulation or ordinance? Yes/No. If you answered “yes”, please provide details. (Do not include traffic violations for which a fine of $150.00 or less was imposed.) Please feel free to provide your view of how it bears on your present fitness for judicial office. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 33. Has a client ever made a claim or suit against you for malpractice? Yes/No. If you answered “yes”, please provide details and the current status of the claim and/or suit. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 34. Please describe your direct experience, if any, with domestic violence and sexual harassment. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 35. Have you been a party in interest, witness, or consultant in any legal proceeding? Yes/No. If you answered “yes”, please provide details. Do not list proceedings in which you were merely a guardian ad litem or stakeholder. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 36. Have you ever been the subject of a complaint to any bar association, disciplinary committee, court, administrative agency or other professional group? Yes/No. If you answered “yes”, please provide details. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Packet Page 149 of 470 37. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for breach of ethics or unprofessional conduct? Yes/No. If you answered “yes”, please provide details. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 38. If you have served as a judge, commissioner, or in any judicial capacity, has a complaint for misconduct in that capacity ever been made against you? Yes/No. If you answered “yes”, please provide details. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Miscellaneous 39. Are you aware of anything that may affect your ability to perform the duties of a judge? Yes/No. If you answered “yes”, please provide details. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 40. Have you published any books or articles in the field of law? If so, please list them, giving the citations and dates. Also, please give the dates and forums of any Continuing Legal Education presentations that you have made. ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 41. Please list any honors, prizes, awards or other forms of recognition that you have received and whether they were professional or civic in nature. _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 42. Are you aware of anything in your background or any event you anticipate in the future that might be considered to conflict with the Code of Judicial Conduct? Yes/No. If you answered “yes”, please explain. _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ Packet Page 150 of 470 43. Please provide a writing sample of your work (between five and 10 pages long), written and edited solely by you, within the last four years. _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ Diversity in the Legal Profession 44. Please briefly describe your understanding of the issue of “diversity within the legal profession.” _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ References It is useful for evaluators to speak with attorneys and non-attorneys who are familiar with you. One or more participants in the evaluation process may contact each of your references. All telephone numbers should be current and legible. If a reference is unreachable, your rating/evaluation may be delayed. Please use a separate piece of paper for each list. You may contact references in advance if you so desire. Individuals not listed by you as a reference may be contacted to obtain information about you. 45. If you have been in practice within the past 15 years, list the names and phone numbers of five opposing counsels who know you best, including at least three opposing counsels on cases that went to trial. 46. If you have been a judge or otherwise have served as a neutral decision-maker within the past 15 years, please list the names and phone numbers of the last five attorneys who have appeared before you. 47. List the names and phone numbers of up to four non-attorney references whose opinions or observations – particularly with respect to your commitment to improving access to the judicial system for indigent populations, people of color, and disenfranchised communities – would assist in the consideration of your application. 48. List the names and phone numbers of four additional attorneys familiar with your professional qualifications, skills, experience or attributes. Packet Page 151 of 470 Certification 49. By signing below, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the information provided by me in responding to this questionnaire is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Date: ____________________ Signature: ______________________________________ RELEASE OF INFORMATION I hereby give the City of Edmonds the right to investigate my past employment, education and activities. I release from all liability all persons, companies and corporations who supply such information. I understand that any omission of facts, misrepresentation of statements or implications I might make in this application or in any other required documents shall be considered sufficient cause to deny appointment. I also understand that nothing contained in this application or in the granting of an interview is intended to imply an appointment by the City of Edmonds. I have received no promises regarding appointment and I understand that no such promise or guarantee is binding on the City of Edmonds unless made in writing. Signature ______________________________________________ Date ________________ Packet Page 152 of 470 NORTHWEST ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE 4616 25 TH AVE NORTHEAST, SUITE 164 SEATTLE, WA 98105 March 19, 2015 Ms. Carrie Hite Human Resources Reporting Director Ms. Mary Ann Hardie Human Resources Manager City of Edmonds 700 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: City of Edmonds Public Defense Dear Ms. Hite and Ms. Hardie: This letter summarizes my work, pursuant to the terms of my Professional Services Agreement with the City, to: 1-assist the City in development of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a Public Defender, 2-assist in the development and implementation of the process used to evaluate the RFQ responses and 3-to advise on issues related to the Public Defense Contract. The recommendations in this letter are based upon information I obtained after meeting with Edmonds Municipal Court Judge Linda Coburn, members of Feldman and Lee, the law firm now providing public defense services for the City and with each of you as well as a review of the City’s current Contract for Public Defense and various reports generated by Feldman and Lee. The latter were provided to me by Chris Davenport, the Feldman and Lee paralegal responsible for them. 1-Request for Qualifications. The City provided me with a public defense RFQ it had drafted and a copy of the questionnaire used by the City as part of its recent judicial selection process. I have revised the RFQ and added a section describing the data and reports the City will require its public defenders to provide. Attached with this letter is an RFQ revised from the earlier version I sent to Ms. Hardie to correct typos and some awkward sentences. I recommend that the RFQ be publicized to the Snohomish and King County bar associations and the Washington State Bar Association Criminal Law section, the Washington Defender Association, the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers listservs and provided to the Career Services office at the University of Washington and Seattle University Schools of Law. Please let me know if you would like me to assist in identifying the appropriate person to contact for each of these organizations. Packet Page 153 of 470 NORTHWEST ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE 4616 25 TH AVE NORTHEAST, SUITE 164 SEATTLE, WA 98105 I have revised the application form to require applicants, among other things, to provide the City a release allowing the Washington State Bar Association to give the City information about discipline and complaints; to disclose if they have ever been found ineffective by a court or administrative body before which they appeared; and to list the Continuing Legal Education seminars (CLE’s) the applicant attended in the past several years. The application is revised from an earlier version I sent Ms. Hardie to make the format more readable. (Attachment 1 Revised RFQ and Revised Application.) 2-Process for evaluating responses to the RFQ. After discussion the City has decided that the best time to issue the RFQ is June 2015. It is my recommendation the application period extend for six to eight weeks. The Responses should be reviewed by a panel that includes the Mayor or a representative designated by the Mayor, at least one if not more active or retired attorneys with public defense experience and possibly a retired judge. A representative of a social services agency that works with public defense clients and a representative from the jail in which most City defendants are held when they are in custody are other possible panel members. At least three prospective applicants should be interviewed. References and other persons with information about the professional qualifications should be contacted. During the interview applicants should be asked, among other things, to describe the representation they would provide defendants in certain hypothetical situations, to provide examples of how and when they have been able to work with individuals from diverse backgrounds and to discuss their knowledge of mental illness, social service resources for individuals needing chemical dependency treatment and their approach to the Legal Financial Obligations (LFO’s). 3-Issues related to the Public Defense Contract. I have reviewed the City’s 2014 April-December Public Defense Contract and the 2015 January-December Contract Extension. I have also had an extensive discussion with Mr. Davenport, the Feldman and Lee paralegal who works with the firm’s case management system about the reports the firm is developing. The City does not have, nor do I, information sufficient to make an informed decision about the quality of legal services its public defenders provide and whether they are representing indigent clients vigorously and effectively. This is not a comment on the representation provided by Feldman and Lee. The City does not require Feldman and Lee to provide that information. Attached to this letter is a list of the specific contract sections I recommend the City clarify in negotiations for the 2016 Public Defense Contract. Among other issues there seem to be efforts to exclude certain work from the “case counting” adopted by the Washington Supreme Court; a lack of clarity regarding the scope of legal services to be provided under the Contract particularly as it relates to a client’s first appearance/arraignment; and an inadequate reporting requirement. The minimal reporting called for by the Contract will not give the City information it needs to verify that the legal services provided meet the 2012 Standards for Indigent Defense Services and Certification Compliance adopted by the Supreme Court, the 2007 Standards for Packet Page 154 of 470 NORTHWEST ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE 4616 25 TH AVE NORTHEAST, SUITE 164 SEATTLE, WA 98105 Indigent Defense Services adopted by the Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors and the 2011 Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense Representation approved by the Board of Governors. (The Standards adopted by the Supreme Court are mandatory for lawyers. The Standards adopted and approved by the Board of Governors are akin to “best practices”.) In addition to reviewing the Contract for Public Defense in light of the Standards and Performance Guidelines I recommend the City evaluate its Contract in light of Judge Robert Lasnik’s decision in Wilbur v Mount Vernon No. C11-1100RSL (W.Dist.Wa.). Judge Lasnik declined to set a specific limit for public defender caseloads and focused on measures relating to the quality of public defense, including but not limited to: whether public defenders were required to maintain contemporaneous records of their work, the number and result of substantive motions filed, the number of jury and bench trials, use of investigators, expert witnesses and interpreters and disposition of cases. Below is a general grouping of my recommendations about the Contract. Attached to this letter is a more detailed discussion of these points referenced to specific terms in the current Contract. (Attachment 2 Discussion of Contract Terms) a. Data to Be Provided I recommend at minimum that the City require its public defenders to provide the City with quarterly reports of the number of cases assigned to each attorney and the charges in each case. In addition, the City should require the public defenders to report, when a case is closed, how many hours attorneys and staff spent on the case (these should be reported separately, not lumped together), how many hours of supervision time has been spent on a case, the disposition, whether the case was resolved by a plea, jury trial or bench trial and whether an appeal has been filed. b. Contract Terms to be Included The City should include in its Contract a requirement that public defenders document information related to practice standards and which, scrubbed of client identifiers, can be reported to the City at regular intervals during the contract period. Such items would include requirements that: attorneys and staff make contemporaneous notes of their work on a client’s case, document when the first client meeting took place and if, during the meeting the client was advised of the right to a jury trial, a speedy trial, the elements of the charge, the burden of proof, the right to present evidence; and document when discovery was reviewed with a client, when possible witnesses and investigation, the terms of a plea offer and consequences of a disposition were discussed. In addition and again scrubbed of client identifiers the Contract should require reports showing the frequency investigators, expert witnesses, interpreters are used and the number of times the public defender has requested advice on immigration consequences. Finally, the Contract should require the public defense provider to state how much of an attorneys time is allocated to public defense work if he or she represents clients on matters other than public defense cases in Edmonds Packet Page 155 of 470 NORTHWEST ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE 4616 25 TH AVE NORTHEAST, SUITE 164 SEATTLE, WA 98105 Municipal Court. c. Complaint Process The Contract now provides that “Any unresolved complaints…shall be directed to the Mayor or designee.” The City should work with the court to make defendants aware of the complaint process, perhaps by providing a “Comment” form in the court that is directed to the Mayor. d. Responsibility for Client Files The City should discuss with its public defense provider who is responsible for maintaining client files and where they are stored. I have sent the firm a copy of the Washington State Bar Association publication discussing best practices for file retention. It recommends client files in criminal cases should be maintained for seven years, presumably beginning after the end of any probationary period. (Attachment 3 Best Practices for File Retention Washington State Bar Association 2010) Other public defenders believe client files should never be destroyed. The City is the entity responsible for providing a constitutionally sufficient public defense system, which includes maintaining client records, and the Contract should discuss how and where those client files will be maintained. e. Scope of Work The Contract now defines the expected scope of work as providing representation to all defendants appointed to the public defense firm. The Contract does not include the number of cases in which the public defense firm can expect to provide representation or a mechanism for addressing dramatic increases in filings. Read literally, under the contract Feldman and Lee would be required to provide representation to 100 or 100,000 clients for exactly the same price. The Contract should include a more specific description of the amount of work and number of clients the parties expect the public defense firm to provide representation. I have appreciated the opportunity to meet with you, Judge Coburn and the Feldman and Lee firm. Please let me know if you have any questions about anything in this letter. Very truly yours, Eileen Farley Packet Page 156 of 470    AM-7784     6.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:06/09/2015 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted For:Stephen Clifton Submitted By:Cindi Cruz Department:Community Services Type: Information  Information Subject Title Snohomish County Tourism Presentation  Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative Amy Spain, Executive Director of the Snohomish County Tourism Bureau, will present an annual report for 2014.   Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 06/04/2015 10:37 AM Mayor Dave Earling 06/04/2015 10:52 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 06/04/2015 11:05 AM Form Started By: Cindi Cruz Started On: 06/04/2015 09:26 AM Final Approval Date: 06/04/2015  Packet Page 157 of 470    AM-7768     7.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:06/09/2015 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Don Anderson Department:Police Department Type: Information  Information Subject Title Renewal of Interlocal agreement with the Snohomish County Regional Drug & Gang Task Force 2015-2016. Recommendation Staff requests and recommends forwarding for approval via consent agenda at the June 16, 2015 Council meeting. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Since January 1988, the Snohomish County Sheriffs Office, the City of Edmonds, and numerous other Snohomish County cities have been participants in the Snohomish Regional Drug Gang Task Force (SRDGTF) with offices located in Marysville. Edmonds was one of the original participants, contributing a detective and equipment to the unit. In more recent years, Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Mountlake Terrace established the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force (SSCNTF). Since the creation of the SSCNTF, Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Mountlake Terrace have chosen to continue their support of the SRDGTF through financial contribution alone. Edmonds presently has a detective assigned to the SSCNTF. The SRDGTF receives the majority of its funding through a U.S. Department of Justice grant. The grant amount is based on the number and population of municipalities that participate in the SRDGTF. The required matching funds for the federal grant come from Snohomish County and the participating municipalities. For fiscal year 2015-2016, the Snohomish County Sheriffs Office, twenty municipalities, DSHS Child Protective Services,the Washington State Patrol, and Snohomish Health District, are pledging matching funds to the SRDGTF. Edmonds’ share for July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016 is $10,548, an increase of $4 over the last contract term. Funding for this item is included in the 2015 Edmonds Police budget. The interlocal agreement and the funding received from participating entities, is set forth in the operational framework for the SRDGTF, and has been so since 1988. The SRDGTF and SSCNTF work very closely and assist each other with staffing and equipment, as needed. For example, should we encounter a drug lab locally the SRDGTF can be called out to dismantle the lab. This assistance can literally save us thousands of dollars in overtime, training, hazardous materials and equipment expenses. A more frequent area of cooperation and assistance occurs with investigations in which the two task forces may assist each other with investigations involving mutual suspects. We request that the Council approve this matter authorizing the Mayor to sign the FY 2015-2016 interlocal agreement with SRDGTF. The ILA has been approved by the City Attorney as to form.  Packet Page 158 of 470 Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015-2016 Revenue: Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: For fiscal year 2015-2016, the Snohomish County Sheriffs Office, twenty municipalities, DSHS Child Protective Services,the Washington State Patrol, and Snohomish Health District, are pledging matching funds to the SRDGTF. Edmonds’ share for July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016 is $10,548, an increase of $4 over the last contract term. Funding for this item is included in the 2015 Edmonds Police budget.  Attachments 2015-2016 Task Force ILA SRDGTF ILA Signature Page Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 05/28/2015 11:07 AM Mayor Dave Earling 05/28/2015 11:17 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 05/28/2015 12:35 PM Form Started By: Don Anderson Started On: 05/28/2015 10:31 AM Final Approval Date: 05/28/2015  Packet Page 159 of 470 Packet Page 160 of 470 Packet Page 161 of 470 Packet Page 162 of 470 Packet Page 163 of 470 Packet Page 164 of 470 Packet Page 165 of 470 Packet Page 166 of 470 Packet Page 167 of 470 Packet Page 168 of 470 Packet Page 169 of 470 Packet Page 170 of 470 Packet Page 171 of 470 Packet Page 172 of 470 Packet Page 173 of 470 Packet Page 174 of 470 Packet Page 175 of 470 EXHIBIT D SRDGTF Executive Board Chief of Everett (Asst Chair), Chief of Lynnwood, Snohomish County Sheriff (Chair), Snohomish County Prosecutor, City of Everett Attorney, SRDGTF Commander Commander Operations Lt. SCSO Operations Sgt EPD 4 EPD Det. 1 SCSO Det DOC Agent Reserve Det P/T SCSO FBI Agent Gang Liason Officer (GLO) Operations Sgt SCSO 3 SCSO Det. 1 WSP Det. 1 Tech Det - SCSO Volunteer P/T WA State Gambling Det - P/T ICE Agent 1 Criminal Deputy Prosecutor Legal Secretary Admin Assistant EPD Admin Lt. EPD Admin Sgt SCSO 1 Financial Det - Everett PD CPS/DEC Invest - P/T Educational Deputy - SCSO National Guard Analyst LE Secretary - SCSO Educational Officer/ K9 Arlington PD IRS Agent Health District Community Mobilization / Sno Co Drug Action Team Sno County Gang Community Response Team (G-CRT) Lab Team Drug Take Back Packet Page 176 of 470 ATTEST: APPROVED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION: ________________________________ Dated Title___________________________ Jurisdiction of ATTEST: ________________________________ Jurisdiction Clerk Dated APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Jurisdiction Attorney Dated Packet Page 177 of 470    AM-7781     8.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:06/09/2015 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Information  Information Subject Title Briefing on the 2016-2021 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program Recommendation Forward the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program to the July 7th, City Council meeting.   Previous Council Action On June 19, 2014, City Council approved the 2015-2020 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. Narrative The Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a transportation planning document that identifies funded, partially funded, and unfunded projects that are planned or needed over the next six calendar years. The TIP also identifies the expenditures and secured or reasonably expected revenues for each of the projects included in the TIP. The City practice in preparing the TIP each year has been to keep it financially constrained the first 3 years (2016-2018), but not the last 3 years (2019-2021). RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city update and adopt their TIP prior to adoption of the budget. A copy of the adopted TIP will be submitted to the Puget Sound Regional Council, Washington State Department of Transportation, and adjacent jurisdictions after it has been approved by City Council. Some of the projects in the TIP are shown as funded through secured or unsecured Federal / State grants, as well as from the local funds. Due to a shortfall in transportation funding, a number of unsecured State and Federal transportation grants have been programmed to fund projects beginning in 2019. Most transportation grants are competitive, and the success of how many grants are secured in the future will depend on other transportation needs and funding requests in the region. Projects not identified in this document may not be eligible for Federal / State funding. All projects in the 2016-2021 TIP are also identified in the 2015 Transportation Plan (currently in DRAFT). This overview serves as an introduction to the 2016-2021 TIP and a Public Hearing is scheduled for the July 7 th City Council meeting.     Attachments 2016-2021 Six-Year TIP Resolution Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Packet Page 178 of 470 Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 06/04/2015 03:01 PM Public Works Kody McConnell 06/04/2015 03:54 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 06/04/2015 05:18 PM Mayor Dave Earling 06/05/2015 11:40 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 06/05/2015 11:43 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 06/03/2015 03:16 PM Final Approval Date: 06/05/2015  Packet Page 179 of 470 Grant Opportunity Project (2016-2021) Project Name Purpose Grant/Date Phase Total Cost Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 New projects to 2016-2021 TIP (not included in 2015-2020 TIP) Preservation/Maintenance Projects: Annual Street Preservation Grind pavement, overlay, chip seal,Possible Grant Engineering $2,700,000 (Federal, unsecured)$800,000 $900,000 $1,000,000 Program && $0 (State) and slurry seal Local Funds Construction $10,320,000 (Local, General Fund)$1,340,000 $1,380,000 $1,420,000 $2,000,000 $2,060,000 $2,120,000 220th St. SW Overlay from $10,000 (Federal, secured)$10,000 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W Grind pavement and overlay Secured Grant Construction $0 (State) $0 (Local) Citywide Signal Upgrade traffic signal cabinets and Possible Grant Engineering $650,000 (Federal, unsecured)$325,000 $325,000 Improvements & &$0 (State) improve technology Local Funds Construction $25,000 (Local)$25,000 Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades Possible grant Engineering $287,500 (Federal, unsecured)$37,500 $250,000 Upgrade traffic signal &&$0 (State) Local Funds Construction $212,500 (Local)$37,500 $175,000 238th @ 100th Ave. Signal Upgrades Rebuild traffic signal system Engineering $0 (Federal) with new signal mast arms, cabinet, and Possible Grant &$750,000 (State, unsecured)$750,000 video detection Construction $0 (Local) Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades Possible grant Engineering $287,500 (Federal, unsecured)$37,500 $250,000 Upgrade traffic signal & &$0 (State) Local Funds Construction $87,500 (Local)$37,500 $50,000 TOTAL $1,375,000 $2,180,000 $1,420,000 $4,050,000 $2,885,000 $3,420,000 Safety / Capacity Projects: 228th St. SW. Corridor Safety Construct missing roadway link on 228th St. SW between Secured grant $885,000 (Federal, secured)$885,000 Improvements Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W, with various utility upgrades. & Construction $100,000 (State, secured)$100,000 Local Funds $15,000 (Local)$15,000 76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Re-design intersection to reduce intersection delay and $150,000 (Federal, secured)$150,000 Improvements improve level of service (LOS). Various utility ROW $0 (State) improvements are also included in the project. Secured Grants $20,000 (Local, Traffic Impact Fees)$20,000 $2,816,000 (Federal, secured)$2,816,000 $225,000 (Local, Traffic Impact Fees)$225,000 Local Funds Construction $491,000 (Local, Fund 421)$491,000 $224,513 (Local, Fund 422)$224,513 $590,000 (Local, Fund 423)$590,000 SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization Install gateway elements and safety improvements Engineering $0 (Federal) along the SR-99 Corridor.Possible Grant & $10,000,000 (State, unsecured)$500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 Construction $0 (Local) SR 524 (196th St. SW) @ Design intersection improvements and addition of guardrail on Design $0 (Federal) 88th Ave W. Intersection the west side of intersection due to 12' vertical drop (grade. Possible Grant $122,000 (State, unsecured)$122,000 Improvements adjustment to improve sight distance to be considered). $71,000 (Local, traffic impact fees)$71,000 ROW acquisition ROW $0 (Federal) &$87,500 (State, unsecured)$87,500 $87,500 (Local)$87,500 Complete intersection improvements Construction $585,000 (Federal, unsecured)$585,000 Local Funds $0 (State) $0 (Local) Main St. @ 9th Ave. Installation of traffic signal or mini-roundabout.Possible grant Engineering $788,000 (Federal, unsecured)$118,000 $670,000 && $0 (State) Local Funds Construction $123,000 (Local)$18,000 $105,000 76th Av. W @ 220th St. SW Convert split phasing for eastbound and westbound movement Possible Grant Engineering,$3,732,000 (Federal, unsecured)$206,000 $975,000 $2,551,000 Intersection Improvements to protective / permissive left turn phasing. Right turn overlap & ROW, &$0 (State) would be added for the right turn movements. Local Funds Construction $582,000 (Local)$32,000 $152,000 $398,000 Arterial Street Signal Coordination Coordinate the traffic signals within 1/2 mile of each other Engineering $0 (Federal) Improvements along 76th Ave. W, 212th St. SW, and 220th St. SW to Local Funds Only & $0 (State) improve corridor efficiencies. Construction $50,000 (Local)$50,000 Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW Widen 212th St. SW to add a WB and EB left turn lane. Possible Grants Engineering,$2,427,000 (Federal, unsecured)$152,000 $943,000 $1,332,000 Intersection Improvements Provide protected / permissive left turn phasing for both & ROW, &$0 (State) movements (shared jurisdiction with City of Lynnwood)Local Funds Construction $379,000 (Local w/ City of Lynnwood)$23,000 $148,000 $208,000 Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Widen 216th St. SW to add a WB and EB left turn lane. Possible Grants Engineering,$2,021,000 (Federal, unsecured)$142,000 $289,000 $1,590,000 Intersection Improvements Provide protected / permissive left turn phasing for both & ROW, &$0 (State, unsecured) movements.Local Funds Construction $314,000 (Local, w/ City of Lynnwood)$22,000 $45,000 $247,000 Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Widen 220th St .SW to add westbound right turn lane and Possible Grants Engineering,$2,783,000 (Federal, unsecured)$152,000 $939,000 $1,692,000 Intersection Improvements Hwy. 99 to add 2nd southbound left turn lane. & ROW, &$0 (State) Local Funds Construction $432,000 (Local, w/. City Mountlake Terrace)$23,000 $146,000 $263,000 Citywide protected / permissive traffic Conversion from protected left-turn phasing Engineering $0 (Federal) signal conversion to protective-permissive phasing at signalized Local Funds Only & $0 (State) intersections to reduce intersection delay.Construction $20,000 (Local, General Fund)$20,000 Type 2 Raised Pavement Install Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers Engineering $100,000 (Federal, unsecured)$100,000 Markers along the centerline of arterials and collectors, improving Possible Grant & $0 (State) roadway safety during night hours and on rainy days Construction $0 (Local) Trackside Warning Systerm Install Wayside Horns $0 (Federal) at Dayton St. and Main St. at (2) railroad crossings, reducing noise levels Local Funds Only Construction $0 (State) railroad crossings (within Downtown Edmonds) during train crossings.$300,000 (Local, General Fund)$300,000 TOTAL $5,836,513 $0 $0 $1,731,000 $9,087,000 $13,866,000 Packet Page 180 of 470 Grant Opportunity Project (2016-2021) Project Name Purpose Grant/Date Phase Total Cost Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Pedestrian Projects: Sunset Ave. Walkway Provide multi-use path on the west side of Sunset Av., Secured Grant, Engineering $44,000 (Federal, secured)$44,000 from Bell St. to Caspers St.w/ various utility upgrades. $687,000 (Federal, unsecured)$687,000 Unsecured Grant, &&$650,000 (Local, Fund 421)$75,000 $575,000 $200,000 (Local, Fund 423)$50,000 $150,000 Local Funds Construction $695,000 (Local)$8,000 $687,000 Dayton St. Walkway from 7th Ave. S to Install sidewalk on the east side of Dayton St. Possible Grant Engineering $37,500 (Federal, unsecured)$37,500 8th Ave. S & & $0 (State) Local Funds Construction $37,500 (Local)$37,500 238th St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. W to Provide sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW Secured Grant $0 (Federal) 104th Ave. W from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W, along with Stormwater & Construction $200,000 (State, secured)$200,000 improvements. Local Funds $100,000 (Local, Fund 422)$100,000 236th St. SW Walkway from SR-104 to Provide sidewalk on south side of 236th St.Secured Grant $366,000 (Federal,secured)$366,000 Madrona Elementary & Construction $0 (State, secured) Local Funds $177,000 (Local, Fund 422)$177,000 236th St. SW Walkway from SR-104 to Provide sidewalk on one side of 236th St. SW Possible Grant Engineering $697,500 (Federal,unsecured)$106,500 $591,000 97th Pl. W & & $0 (State) Local Funds Construction $697,500 (Local)$106,500 $591,000 84th Ave. W Walkway from 238th St. SW to Provide sidewalk on one side of 84th Ave. W Possible Grant Engineering $45,000 (Federal,unsecured)$45,000 234th St. SW && $0 (State) Local Funds Construction $45,000 (Local)$45,000 80th Ave. W Walkway from 206th St. SW to Install sidewalk to provide safe and desirable route to Possible Grant Engineering $0 (Federal) 212nd St. SW Old Woodway High School and parks. & &$450,000 (State, unsecured)$30,000 $37,000 $383,000 Local Funds Construction $450,000 (Local)$30,000 $37,000 $383,000 2nd Ave. S Walkway from James St. Engineering $0 (Federal) to Main St. Provide sidewalk along short missing link. Local Funds Only &$0 (State) Construction $30,000 (Local)$30,000 Maplewood Walkway from Main St. to Install sidewalk on Maplewood St. from Main St. to 200th St. SW Possible Grants Engineering $1,768,000 (Federal, unsecured)$1,768,000 200th St. SW creating connection to Maplewood Elementary and Yost Park.& &$170,000 (State, unsecured)$170,000 Local Funds Construction $170,000 (Local)$170,000 218th St. SW Walkway from 76th Ave. W to Possible Grant Engineering $615,000 (Federal, unsecured)$100,000 $515,000 Install sidewalk along missing link & & $0 (State) 84th Ave. W Local Funds Construction $600,000 (Local)$100,000 $500,000 Wanut St. Walkway from 3rd Ave. to 4th Ave. Engineering $0 (Federal) Install sidewalk along short missing link Possible Grant & $105,000 (State, unsecured)$105,000 Construction $0 (Local) 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 Install 300' sidewalk on the north side of 216th St. SW Possible Grant Engineering $137,000 (Federal, unsecured)$137,000 to 72nd Ave. W & &$0 (State) from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W Local Funds Construction $20,000 (Local)$20,000 4th Ave. Corridor Enhancement Create corridor improvements to encourage pedestrian Possible Grant Engineering $3,450,000 (Federal, unsecured)$100,000 $1,000,000 $2,350,000 Walkway activity along 4th Ave. N from Main St. to & &$0 (State) 3rd Ave. N (from Downtown retail to Edmonds Center for the Arts)Local Funds Construction $675,000 (Local, Fund 125)$100,000 $150,000 $425,000 Hwy. 99 Enhancement project Installation of luminaires along SR-99 from 220th St. SW to $10,000 (Federal, secured)$10,000 (Phase 3)212th St. SW, improving pedestrian and vehicular safety Secured grant Construction $0 (State) (being constructed w/ 228th St. SW Corridor Improv. Project).$0 (Local) ADA Curb Ramps Improvements Construct Citywide ADA compliant curb ramps where Possible Grant Engineering $0 (Federal) facilities don't exist nor meet current standards &&$750,000 (State, unsecured)$250,000 $250,000 $250,000Local Funds Construction $825,000 (Local, General Fund)$25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Audible Pedestrian Install audible pedestrian signals to Engineering $25,000 (Federal, unsecured)$25,000 Signals pedestrians heads at signalized intersections to improve Possible Grant & $0 (State) pedestrians with disabilities safety Construction $0 (Local) TOTAL $1,055,000 $25,000 $25,000 $3,464,000 $3,446,000 $6,914,000 Bicycle projects Bike-Link Install bike lanes and sharrows at key bicycle locations to Engineering $0 (Federal) complete missing links (such as along 76th Ave. W, 212th St. SW...) Secured grant & $661,000 (Verdant grant)$400,000 $261,000 Add bike route signage and parking at various locations.Construction $0 (Local) TOTAL $400,000 $261,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Calming / Non-Motorized Transportation Safety Projects: Traffic Calming Program / Traffic circles, speed cushions,Engineering $0 (Federal) Non-Motorized Transportation radar feedback signs, bulb-outs, etc.Local Funds only &$0 (State) Safety Construction $120,000 (Local, General Fund) $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Packet Page 181 of 470 Grant Opportunity Project (2016-2021) Project Name Purpose Grant/Date Phase Total Cost Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Traffic Planning Projects: Grade Crossing Alternative Study (Main St.Provide safety improvements to both at-grade crossings.Port of Edmonds, Engineering $25,000 (Port of Edmonds)$12,500 $12,500 Railroad Crossings)Analysis of alternative options. Secured Grant, and &$500,000 (State, secured)$250,000 $250,000 Local Funds Planning $100,000 (Local, General Funds)$50,000 $50,000 Citywide Complete Transition Plan, identifying all non-compliant Engineering $0 (Federal) Transition Plan curb ramps, as well as long range plan on how to address Local Funds Only & $0 (State) those defficiencies. Planning $80,000 (Local, General Funds)$80,000 Transportation Plan Update Engineering $0 (Federal) Update Transportation Plan Local Funds Only &$0 (State) Planning $175,000 (Local)$175,000 TOTAL $392,500 $312,500 $0 $0 $0 $175,000 Total $62,440,513 $9,079,013 $2,486,000 $1,465,000 $9,265,000 $15,438,000 $24,395,000 Total Federal $4,281,000 $800,000 $0 $3,225,500 $6,119,500 $13,678,000 Total Federal (Secured)$4,281,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Federal (Unsecured)$0 $800,000 $0 $3,225,500 $6,119,500 $13,678,000 Total State $550,000 $250,000 $0 $1,652,000 $4,787,000 $5,633,000 Total State (Secured)$550,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total State (Unsecured)$0 $0 $0 $1,652,000 $4,787,000 $5,633,000 Total Verdant $400,000 $261,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Verdant (Secured)$400,000 $261,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Local Fund $3,860,513 $1,475,000 $1,465,000 $4,211,500 $4,174,000 $4,584,000 Total Local (Fund 112)$48,000 $0 $0 $1,116,500 $1,694,000 $1,769,000 Total Local (Fund 125) $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $150,000 $425,000 Toal Local (Fund 421)$566,000 $0 $0 $575,000 $0 $0 Total Local (Fund 422)$501,513 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Local (Fund 423)$640,000 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 Total Local (Traffic Impact Fees)$270,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Local (General Fund)$1,835,000 $1,475,000 $1,465,000 $2,270,000 $2,330,000 $2,390,000 Packet Page 182 of 470 RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE 2016-2021 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AND DIRECTING FILING OF THE ADOPTED PROGRAM WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city and town is required to adopt a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and file a copy of such adopted program with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); and WHEREAS, the TIP identifies all planned projects over the next 6 years, along with the appropriate funding source; now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Transportation Improvement Program is hereby adopted pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 to be effective on July 8th, 2015 and to continue in full force and effect until amended. A copy of such Transportation Improvement Program for the years 2016 to 2021 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby requested and directed to file a certified copy of the Transportation Improvement Program with the Washington State Department of Transportation. Packet Page 183 of 470 RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2015. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVE O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Page 184 of 470    AM-7780     9.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:06/09/2015 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted For:Mike DeLilla Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Presentation of a Professional Services Agreement with Murray, Smith & Associates for the 2016-2017 Waterline Replacement Program Recommendation Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the next Council meeting. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in February 2015 to hire a consultant to provide design engineering services for the 2016 and 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects.  The City received statements of qualifications from seven engineering firms and the selection committee selected Murray, Smith & Associates (MSA) to provide design engineering services for the 2016 and 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects.  The design engineering for the 2016 Waterline Replacement Project is expected to be complete by March 2016, with construction expected to begin in May of 2016.  If services are required for the 2017 Waterline Replacement Project, a separate scope and fee will be drafted in 2016 and submitted to City Council for approval.   In total, the 2016 plus the 2017 Waterline Replacement Project will upgrade/replace portions of the City’s potable water network by replacing approximately 14,000 linear feet of existing waterlines and associated appurtenances at various locations within the City.  The 2016 Waterline Replacement Project will replace approximately 7,000 linear feet of watermain.    The selection of the sites will be determined using the data supplied in the 2010 Comprehensive Water System Plan dated August 2010, coordinating with upcoming road, sanitary sewer, and storm drain projects, and input from Public Works.  Upgrade projects will focus on upsizing and/or looping portions of the existing network to improve flow and pressure.   Replacement projects will remove and replace pipes that are near the end of their life cycle and are requiring additional maintenance.   Attachments MSA Professional Services Agreement Project Location Map Packet Page 185 of 470 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 06/04/2015 01:52 PM Public Works Phil Williams 06/04/2015 02:15 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 06/04/2015 02:26 PM Mayor Dave Earling 06/04/2015 03:14 PM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 06/04/2015 03:40 PM Engineering (Originator)Linda Hynd 06/04/2015 03:52 PM Public Works Linda Hynd 06/04/2015 03:54 PM City Clerk Linda Hynd 06/04/2015 03:55 PM Mayor Linda Hynd 06/04/2015 03:56 PM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 06/04/2015 03:56 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 06/03/2015 02:26 PM Final Approval Date: 06/04/2015  Packet Page 186 of 470 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant"; WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consulting firm to provide design services with respect to the 2016-2017 Waterline Replacement Project; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with the Scope of Services that is marked as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be on a time and expense basis as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit B, provided, in no event shall the payment for work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of $345,282. B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City biweekly during the progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City's warrant process. No billing shall be considered for payment that has not been submitted to the City Engineer three days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such late vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment cycle. C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. Packet Page 187 of 470 3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the Consultant, provided, however, that: A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become the property of the City. B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and copy any work product during normal office hours. Documents prepared under this agreement and in the possession of the Consultant may be subject to public records request and release under Chapter 42.56 RCW. C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost. 4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required governmental approvals. 5. Indemnification / Hold harmless agreement. The Consultant shall indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses, demands, or suits at law or equity to the extent caused by the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant in the performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant’s liability, including the duty and cost to defend, hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant’s negligence. Consultant’s defense obligation under this paragraph shall include only the reimbursement of reasonable defense costs to the extent of Consultant’s actual, proportional indemnity obligation as determined by a court of law. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers. The Consultant specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the Consultant’s own employees against the City and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, the Consultant specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and keep in force during the terms of the Agreement, or as otherwise required, the following Packet Page 188 of 470 insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. Insurance Coverage A. Worker’s compensation and employer’s liability insurance as required by the State. B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property damage. The per occurrence amount shall not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000). C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit. D. Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). Excepting the Worker’s Compensation Insurance and Professional Liability Insurance secured by the Consultant, the City will be named on all policies as an additional insured. The Consultant shall furnish the City with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the Agreement. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington. The Consultant shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within fourteen days of the execution of this Agreement to the City. No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty days prior notice to the City. The Consultant’s professional liability to the City shall be limited to the amount payable under this Agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000), whichever is the greater, unless modified elsewhere in this Agreement. In no case shall the Consultant’s professional liability to third parties be limited in any way. 7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, liability for service in the armed forces of the United States, disability, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, or any other protected class status, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. 8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. 9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this agreement, the Consultant shall not perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or Packet Page 189 of 470 for any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City without written notification to the City and the City’s prior written consent. 10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than ten days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document, the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exibit B. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written Agreement and any provision of Exhibits A or B, this Agreement shall control. 12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render or the City to pay for services rendered in excess of the Scope of Services in Exhibit A unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties. 13. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and any persons employed by Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent with sound engineering practices, in accordance with the schedules herein and in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of Services. 14. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 15. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the contractor shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. Packet Page 190 of 470 17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services. The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. 18. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 1110 Everett, WA 98201-3566 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. DATED THIS _______ DAY OF __________________, 20_____. CITY OF EDMONDS MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. By By David O. Earling, Mayor Its ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Office of the City Attorney Packet Page 191 of 470 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Page 192 of 470 June 1, 2015 MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Edmonds Page 1 Engineers/Planners 2016 Waterline Scope EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK CITY OF EDMONDS 2016 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT ENGINEERING SERVICES BACKGROUND AND APPROACH Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. (MSA) was retained by the City of Edmonds (City) to provide engineering services for the 2016-2017 Waterline Replacement project, which includes ten project sites identified by the City. The two-year program will be accomplished through two separate design-bid-build packages with the first set of projects constructed in 2016 (Phase 1) and the second set of projects constructed in 2017 (Phase 2). This scope includes engineering services for the 2016 projects (Phase 1) only, but also includes preliminary alignment development for the 2017 projects (Phase 2). Waterline replacement locations identified by the City for both the 2016 and 2017 project sets are listed below and shown schematically on the attached figure. • Project #1 – Elm Street, from 6th Avenue South to 8th Avenue South (approximately 4,600 ft of 6 to 12 inch diameter water main) • Project #2 – 217th Street SW and 88th Avenue West (approximately 800 ft of 8-inch diameter water main) • Project #3 – Aloha Way and 6th Avenue North (approximately 1,200 ft of 8-inch diameter water main) • Project #4 – Between Sierra Street and 12th Avenue North (approximately 300 ft of 6- inch diameter water main to be abandoned) • Project #5 – 87th Avenue West south of 202nd Street SW (approximately 525 ft of 8-inch diameter water main) • Project #6 – Northstream Lane west of 9th Avenue North (approximately 850 ft of 8-inch diameter water main); Potential geotechnical and permitting services required, most likely to be included in the 2017 design package under Phase 2. • Project #7 – 93rd Place West near 192nd Street SW (approximately 400 ft of 8-inch diameter water main) • Project #8 – 81st Place West, 80th Place West and Sierra Drive (approximately 1,700 ft of 6 to 8 inch diameter water main) • Project #9 – 186th Street SW and 80th Avenue West (approximately 4,000 ft of 6 to 12 inch diameter water main) • Project #10 – 182nd Place SW east of 72nd Avenue West (approximately 360 ft of 8-inch diameter water main) MSA has developed the scope of work herein and accompanying fee estimate based on our understanding of the project and discussions with City staff. For estimating the level of effort in developing the fee estimate, it is anticipated that Phase 1 will consist of approximately half of the total length of all waterline replacement projects listed above. This scope includes preliminary alignment development for both 2016 and 2017 projects, design of 2016 projects, and support Packet Page 193 of 470 June 1, 2015 MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Edmonds Page 2 Engineers/Planners 2016 Waterline Scope services to assist the City on an as-needed basis for permitting, easement acquisition, bidding and construction management. The City will take the lead on accomplishing all environmental, permitting, easement acquisition, bidding and construction management. The City has determined that geotechnical engineering services are not necessary for the projects based on known suitable soil conditions for the project sites, except for Project #6, which is expected to have geotechnical investigation and environmental needs and will be deferred to Phase 2 for construction in 2017. Therefore, geotechnical engineering services are not included in this scope for Phase 1. SCOPE OF WORK MSA’s proposed work program is detailed below. Task 1 - Project Management and Coordination This task provides for management of the project and coordination with the project team. Elements of this task will include: 1.1 Correspondence and Coordination with City - All communication will be coordinated through the City’s Project Manager. Correspondence with the City Project Manager via phone conversations and e-mail will include the communication of project decisions, project status, work activities, and issues requiring City input. 1.2 Budget, Schedule, Invoices and Progress Reports - MSA’s Project Manager will monitor project costs, manage budget and project schedule, including preparation and submission of monthly invoices and progress reports. 1.3 Staff and Subconsultant Management – MSA’s Project Manager will manage project staff and subconsultants to ensure all services are in conformance with the scope of services, fee estimate, and schedule. 1.4 Kick-off and Project Coordination Meetings - Prepare for and conduct project kick-off meeting with City staff and key team members to discuss project, review project schedule and discuss key elements of the project. Prepare for and conduct project coordination or review meetings with City staff to discuss project elements during design. Prepare meeting agenda and record meeting summary to document items discussed and transmit to City. 1.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) – Coordinate and perform in-house quality assurance reviews of all deliverables. Assumptions: • MSA will prepare for and attend one (1) kick-off meeting and up to four (4) project coordination or review meetings. City Responsibilities: • Attend kick-off meeting and project coordination meetings Packet Page 194 of 470 June 1, 2015 MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Edmonds Page 3 Engineers/Planners 2016 Waterline Scope MSA Deliverables to City: • Correspondence, e-mails and other documentation • Monthly billing statements and activity reports • Meeting agendas and minutes Task 2 – Data Gathering and Utility Coordination This task consists of data gathering and utility coordination work. Elements of this task will include: 2.1 Data Collection and Review - Work under this subtask includes gathering and reviewing all relevant data to complete the preliminary engineering tasks. A number of documents and reports will be requested and reviewed as part of this task, including record drawings and previous studies or reports. MSA will develop a formal “Request for Information” process and coordinate with the City during data collection to ensure all necessary information is gathered for the project. 2.2 Utility Coordination and Analysis - Acquire utility system mapping, perform a utility conflict analysis and identify potential utility conflicts. Develop a list of potential conflict locations to obtain specific utility information, including dimensions, location and depth, utilizing potholing techniques on an as-needed basis. MSA’s subconsultant APS will conduct potholing as necessary to verify potential utility conflicts. Assumptions: • If determined by the utility conflict analysis, MSA’s subconsultant APS to perform up to ten (10) potholes on an as-needed basis under Task 8. City Responsibilities: • City to provide all available as-built documents for City facilities. MSA Deliverables to City: • Electronic copy of formal “Request for Information” • Documentation of utility conflict analysis and potholing results. Task 3 – Preliminary Design This task provides for preliminary engineering design services for the proposed waterline replacement project and includes the following elements: 3.1 Preliminary Alignment and Site Visit with City Staff – Develop preliminary alignment for all Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects after design survey is complete and meet with City Engineering and Operations staff in the field to review the preliminary alignment of each site and gather input. Conduct workshop after site visit to further discuss alignment, priorities, permitting, and grouping of projects into two separate bid packages. Also Packet Page 195 of 470 June 1, 2015 MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Edmonds Page 4 Engineers/Planners 2016 Waterline Scope discuss construction sequencing to minimize service disruptions and maintain service and fire flow during construction. Projects will be prioritized and distributed between two construction contracts, one for construction during 2016 and the other during 2017, based on criteria including but not limited to funding, permitting needs, easement or right-of- entry approvals, coordination with other projects, pavement restoration scheduling, etc. It is anticipated that Phase 1 will consist of approximately half of the total length of all waterline replacement projects. 3.2 Plans (50% Design Completion Level) - Using the project information developed in the previous tasks, prepare preliminary design drawings to the 50% design completion level for the 2016 projects. Preliminary drawings will show plan and profile views and major project elements. Drawings will be developed at 1-inch = 20-feet scale in AutoCAD electronic format. The drawings will be prepared and submitted to the City for review and comment. 3.3 Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost - A preliminary engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost to 50% design completion level will be developed and include a schedule of estimated quantities, unit prices, and total preliminary construction cost for each project site. Assumptions: • The complete Project Contract Document package (front end, specifications, appendices, etc.) will not be prepared for the preliminary design phase. • Detailed water main connection details will be developed and submitted for review during the final design phase. • MSA will follow the City’s cost estimating policy in preparing the Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost. • Approximately half of the total length of all waterline replacement projects for 2016- 2017 will be designed for 2016 construction. MSA will submit a separate scope to the City for design of the remaining projects, which will be constructed in 2017. City Responsibilities: • Complete review of the preliminary design drawings, engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost and all supporting documentation with verbal or written comments. City review period is assumed to be 2 weeks. • Participate in review meetings, site visits and workshops. • City will take the lead in assessing project specific requirements, specifically for geotechnical, environmental, and permitting elements. • All required easements will be obtained by the City. MSA Deliverables to City: • One (1) electronic copy in PDF format of the 50% preliminary design drawings. • One (1) electronic copy of engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost, detailed to provide a cost per site. • Electronic copy of 50% preliminary design drawings in the City’s latest version of AutoCAD format. Packet Page 196 of 470 June 1, 2015 MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Edmonds Page 5 Engineers/Planners 2016 Waterline Scope Task 4 – Final Design This task will produce final plans for projects scheduled for construction in 2016, based on comments from the City’s review of the preliminary design. Final design plans will be presented at the 90% completion level for review by the City. Final bid ready plans at the 100% completion level will incorporate all prior review comments and will be suitable for bidding. Elements of this task will include: 4.1 Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) - 90% Design Completion Level A. The preliminary design drawings (50% design completion level) will be revised and further developed to incorporate comments from the City’s review of the preliminary design. Develop design plans and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost estimate to approximately the 90% design completion level. B. MSA will prepare technical specifications and appendices to support the design and will include in the project Contract Documents. Specifications will be prepared based on the City’s standard technical specifications and WSDOT 2014 Standard Specifications. The City's front-end specifications will be reviewed to ensure consistency between technical specifications and contractual documents. C. An engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost will be developed and will include a schedule of estimated quantities, unit prices, and total construction cost for each project site. D. Submit 90% design package, including complete plan set, specifications, project schedule and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost, to the City for review and comment. 4.2 Final 100% Bid Ready Plans and Specifications A. The 90% design package will be revised and further developed to incorporate comments from the City’s review of the 90% design. Develop design plans, project schedule and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost that are ready for bidding. Revise bid proposal quantities to reflect a bid-ready design package. B. Submit stamped and signed bid-ready Contract Documents to City for distribution. 4.3 Constructability Review - Provide a limited constructability review of the proposed improvements in support of the City’s constructability review and identify issues that could affect the construction of the improvements as designed or the construction schedule. Packet Page 197 of 470 June 1, 2015 MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Edmonds Page 6 Engineers/Planners 2016 Waterline Scope 4.4 Permitting Support (As Needed) - Provide assistance as required in developing figures, preliminary plans, information and supporting graphic documentation for permits prepared and submitted by the City. Assumptions: • MSA shall apply a Washington Professional Engineer’s stamp with signature and date on the final bid-ready edition of the design plans and specifications. • City will take the lead in preparing permits and coordinating project elements with key stakeholders, including WSDOT, WDFW, franchised utilities and public as affected by the project. • Review comments will be received in a complete, single submittal. Multiple rounds of review comments on the same design completion submittal are not anticipated. • MSA’s support services for permitting will be performed up to the extent of the fee estimate for the permitting support task, unless otherwise approved in advance by the City through a budget amendment or authorization to invoice against the Unanticipated Task Reserve budget. • Contractor shall be responsible for the development of traffic control and erosion control plans. • City to coordinate and submit bid-ready contract documents to Builders Exchange or similar service. • No Critical Areas Study is required. • MSA will follow the City’s cost estimating policy in preparing the Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost. • Attend design review meeting at the 90% completion level. City Responsibilities: • Complete technical review of the documents at 90% design completion level with verbal or written comments. City review period for the submittal is 2 weeks. • Provide electronic files, and periodic updates, of text, forms, schedules and other components of the contract documents, including preferred front-end sections. • City will provide latest standard technical specifications and “front-end” documents to be incorporated into the contract documents. • City to provide AutoCAD drawings of standard details to be incorporated into the contract documents. • City to provide a constructability review of the proposed improvements. • City will take the lead in coordinating all State and Federal permits. • City to prepare and submit any required SEPA permit and if needed, JARPA to Department of Ecology or Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. MSA Deliverables to City: • Submission for 90% design packages include an electronic copy in PDF format of plan set, specifications (also in MS Word), project schedule, and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost (also in MS Excel) on CD or USB Drive. • Submission for 100% includes final stamped design plans, specifications, and engineer’s final construction cost estimate in PDF, MS Word, MS Excel, as applicable. Packet Page 198 of 470 June 1, 2015 MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Edmonds Page 7 Engineers/Planners 2016 Waterline Scope • Electronic copy of 90% and 100% design drawings in the City’s latest version of AutoCAD and PDF formats. Task 5 – Bidding Assistance (As Needed) This task includes supporting the City on an as-needed basis in providing assistance during bidding of the projects scheduled for construction in 2016. Anticipated elements of this task include: 5.1 Bidder Inquiries and Addenda - Respond to questions from bidders, subcontractors, equipment suppliers and other vendors regarding the project, plans and specifications. Maintain a written record of communications during the bidding process. Prepare and issue any addenda as necessary to clarify the contract documents. 5.2 Pre-Bid Conference - Attend a pre-bid conference, if held, for the project and provide support to the City for specific agenda items. Assumptions: • The City will take the lead in tasks associated with printing bid documents, document distribution, bid advertisement, addenda distribution, plan holder administration, bid evaluation, bid tabulation etc. • MSA’s support services during bidding will be performed up to the extent of the fee estimate for the Bidding Support task, unless otherwise approved in advance by the City through a budget amendment or authorization to invoice against the Unanticipated Task Reserve budget. • Bidding support services will only consist of the 2016 projects defined under Task 3. MSA Deliverables to City: • Draft addenda as required for the City to distribute to plan holders. Task 6 – Construction Management Assistance (as needed) This task represents minimal involvement by MSA during construction of 2016 projects in support of the City’s on-site inspector and construction management staff. MSA’s services will be provided on an as-needed basis and will be limited to the tasks below, all at the written notification of the City. Anticipated elements of this task will include: 6.1 Clarifications and Changes - At the request of the City, MSA will assist with issuing clarifications to the contractor and producing design changes if necessary, including review of requests for information (RFIs) and change orders. 6.2 Record Drawings (As-built Drawings) - Prepare record drawings in AutoCAD to indicate changes made during construction, based on notes and sketches provided by the City. Packet Page 199 of 470 June 1, 2015 MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Edmonds Page 8 Engineers/Planners 2016 Waterline Scope Assumptions: • MSA will not be involved in the preconstruction conference, construction meetings, on- site construction observation/inspection, submittal review and other construction administration/ management activities not identified above. • MSA’s support services during construction will be performed up to the extent of the fee estimate for the Construction Management Assistance task, unless otherwise approved in advance by the City through a budget amendment or authorization to invoice against the Unanticipated Task Reserve budget. • For the purpose of developing this scope of work and associated fee estimate, two (2) clarifications and one (1) design change is anticipated. • Geotechnical monitoring and compaction testing services during construction will be provided by a firm retained by the City. City Responsibilities: • City will provide the initial review of all requests for information. • City will provide full-time on-site inspection and will take the lead in administrating and managing the construction contract and communicating with the construction contractor. • City will provide a single copy of complete and fully-coordinated construction markups for production of record drawings. MSA Deliverables to City: • Submittal review forms in response to contractor submittals • Written clarifications and design plan modifications, as requested • One (1) electronic copy in PDF format of record drawings • Electronic copy of record drawings in AutoCAD Civil3D 2012 format Task 7 – Surveying Services (Subconsultant Services) This task will provide surveying and base mapping services by a licensed professional surveyor for both 2016 and 2017 projects and will be used by MSA to develop design plans. Surveying will be conducted by MSA’s subconsultant Duane Hartman & Associates, Inc. (DHA). MSA will coordinate the extent of the survey and review and provide comment on the base mapping to the surveyor. This task includes the following elements: 7.1 Control - Horizontal control (NAD 83/91) and vertical control (NAVD 88) shall be established from the nearest approved City control monument for each of the various project sites. Control monument selection and survey methodology to be used shall be coordinated with and approved by the City prior to beginning the control survey. All survey control work shall be recorded in a field book. 7.2 Utility Locates - Order and perform design locates (surface markings) of all known underground conductible utilities in the field, and incorporate those locations into the base maps. All other underground utility lines and services to be approximated based on painted surface markings and/or existing record as-built drawings obtained. 7.3 Survey Scope - Show all known utilities including individual service lines, water meters, curb stops, water and gas valves, manholes, catch basins, power poles, buried power Packet Page 200 of 470 June 1, 2015 MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Edmonds Page 9 Engineers/Planners 2016 Waterline Scope lines, etc. Survey the painted utility locate marks and coordinate the survey with utility locate personnel. Provide invert elevations of pipes, swales, ditches, or other conveyances for surface runoff, and lid and invert elevations for catch basins and manholes. Show right-of-way, centerline, property boundaries and easements on plans. Locate and map all private structures within City right-of-way and easements. Show property lines and field check street addresses. 7.4 Base Mapping - The preliminary survey base map will be submitted electronically for review in PDF format. Base mapping will be provided at a scale of 1-inch = 20-feet and topographic contours at 2-foot intervals. Provide full-size hard copies of the final survey control drawing for project use. Assumptions: • Right-of-way limits will be shown using available GIS and AutoCAD information • Surveyor will provide private utility locator to perform locating services. • It is anticipated no additional easements will be required for survey. City Responsibilities: • Review electronic copy of base map and provide written comments • Coordinate right-of-entry for surveying on private property MSA Deliverables to City: • Base mapping at scale of 1-inch =20-feet and topographic contours at 2-foot intervals • Copies of field notes, field book with survey control data, computer listings and computer readable files of the survey data points • Survey control drawing that is stamped and signed by a professional land surveyor Task 8 – Potholing Services (Subconsultant Services, As Needed) MSA will coordinate with Applied Professional Services (APS) to conduct Potholing services on an as-needed basis. Services under this task will include conducting field investigations utilizing air vacuum excavation test-holes, defining existing utility locations and sizes, and documenting findings in a data sheet. APS will provide the appropriate traffic control measures. MSA will coordinate the extent of the potholing and will review and provide comment on field notes/data sheets. Assumptions: • No temporary or permanent easements will be required. • Potholing services will be scheduled to allow City to provide adequate notification to public. • APS will conduct up to ten (10) test holes (approximately two holes per site) to an approximate depth of 10-feet to verify potential utility conflicts. • Test holes will be backfilled with 5/8” select, sand or pea gravel and temporary pavement EZ-street patch cap as approved by the City. • APS will prepare and submit to the City traffic control plans and permit applications needed for all lane closures or detours. Packet Page 201 of 470 June 1, 2015 MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Edmonds Page 10 Engineers/Planners 2016 Waterline Scope City Responsibilities: • Provide right-of-way use permit for potholing services. • Review proposed pothole locations and confirm proposed program MSA Deliverables to City: • PDF copies of field notes and data sheets. Task 9 – Unanticipated Task Reserve (As Needed) A reserve budget amount has been included in the fee estimate for work under this task, which may include additional unanticipated labor or expenses not specifically identified in the scope of work tasks defined above. Such work items will be undertaken only after written authorization from the City. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED SCHEDULE MSA shall begin work immediately upon receipt of Notice to Proceed from the City and proceed according to the preliminary estimated schedule presented below, which reflects the City's desire to complete all design and construction work for Phase 1 by the end of 2016. MSA will proceed according to the work program shown below, however the schedule may change due to the grouping and phasing of projects that will be determined by MSA and the City early in the project. Factors beyond MSA’s control may also require schedule modifications. Notice to Proceed June 2015 Survey, Preliminary Alignments & Project Phasing June - August 2015 Phase 1 (2016 Construction) 50% Complete Submittal November 2015 90% Complete Submittal February 2016 100% Bid-Ready Documents Submittal March 2016 Bidding and Award April 2016 Construction May - September 2016 Record Drawings October 2016 Packet Page 202 of 470 LA B O R C L A S S I F I C A T I O N ( H O U R S ) ESTIMATED FEES Pr i n c i p a l En g i n e e r I V Pr o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r V I I Pr o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r V I En g i n e e r i n g De s i g n e r I I I En g i n e e r i n g De s i g n e r I Te c h n i c i a n IV Ad m i n i s t r a t i ve I Ho u r s Total $2 0 6 $ 1 6 1 $ 1 5 2 $ 1 2 7 $ 1 1 0 $ 1 2 7 $ 7 7 TC L M G M C E B S M T M Y H 2 H C M J R APS Ta s k 1 - Pr o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t a n d C o o r d i n a t i o n Ta s k 1 . 1 - Co r r e s p o n d e n c e a n d C o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h C i t y 30 6 6 42 8, 0 5 8 $ -$ 8,058 $ Ta s k 1 . 2 - Bu d g e t , S c h e d u l e , I n v o i c e s a n d P r o g r e s s R e p o r t s 10 5 5 6 26 4, 0 8 7 $ 70 $ 4,157 $ Ta s k 1 . 3 - St a f f a n d S u b c o n s u l t a n t M a n a g e m e n t 10 4 4 2 20 3, 4 6 6 $ 50 $ 3,516 $ Ta s k 1 . 4 - Ki c k - o f f & P r o j e c t C o o r d i n a t i o n M e e t i n g s ( u p t o 5 ) 15 25 25 2 67 11 , 0 6 9 $ 250 $ 11,319 $ Ta s k 1 . 5 - Qu a l i t y A s s u r a n c e / Q u a l i t y C o n t r o l ( Q A / Q C ) 24 6 6 36 6, 8 2 2 $ -$ 6,822 $ Ta s k 1 S u b t o t a l 89 46 46 0 0 0 10 19 1 33 , 5 0 2 $ - $ -$ -$ 370 $ 33,872 $ Ta s k 2 - Da t a G a t h e r i n g a n d U t i l i t y C o o r d i n a t i o n Ta s k 2 . 1 - Da t a C o l l e c t i o n a n d R e v i e w 3 6 6 30 12 57 7, 6 2 6 $ 120 $ 7,746 $ Ta s k 2 . 2 - Ut i l i t y C o o r d i n a t i o n a n d A n a l y s i s 5 5 24 8 2 44 5, 7 4 7 $ 36 $ 5,783 $ Ta s k 2 S u b t o t a l 3 11 11 54 20 2 0 10 1 13 , 3 7 3 $ - $ -$ -$ 156 $ 13,529 $ Ta s k 3 - Pr e l i m i n a r y D e s i g n Ta s k 3 . 1 - Pr e l i m i n a r y A l i g n m e n t & S i t e V i s i t w i t h C i t y S t a f f 10 20 20 40 50 20 16 0 21 , 4 4 0 $ 385 $ 21,825 $ Ta s k 3 . 2 - Pl a n s ( 5 0 % D e s i g n C o m p l e t i o n L e v e l ) 12 30 30 80 90 12 0 36 2 47 , 1 6 2 $ 2,320 $ 49,482 $ Ta s k 3 . 3 - En g i n e e r ’ s O p i n i o n o f P r o b a b l e C o n s t r u c t i o n C o s t 2 4 4 8 10 28 3, 7 8 0 $ -$ 3,780 $ Ta s k 3 S u b t o t a l 24 54 54 12 8 15 0 14 0 0 55 0 72 , 3 8 2 $ - $ -$ -$ 2,705 $ 75,087 $ Ta s k 4 - Fi n a l D e s i g n Ta s k 4 . 1 - 90 % P S & E A. P l a n s 12 45 45 90 10 0 95 38 7 51 , 0 5 2 $ 1,870 $ 52,922 $ B. S p e c i f i c a t i o n s 5 5 5 10 10 8 43 5, 5 8 1 $ 110 $ 5,691 $ C. O p i n i o n o f C o s t 2 6 6 8 12 34 4, 6 2 6 $ -$ 4,626 $ Ta s k 4 . 2 - 10 0 % F i n a l B i d R e a d y P S & E A. P l a n s 3 10 10 25 25 40 11 3 14 , 7 5 3 $ 880 $ 15,633 $ B. S p e c i f i c a t i o n s 3 3 3 5 5 4 23 3, 0 5 0 $ 110 $ 3,160 $ C. O p i n i o n o f C o s t 1 4 5 6 6 22 3, 0 3 2 $ -$ 3,032 $ Ta s k 4 . 3 - Co n s t r u c t a b i l i t y R e v i e w 9 3 3 15 2, 7 9 3 $ -$ 2,793 $ Ta s k 4 . 4 - Pe r m i t t i n g S u p p o r t ( A s N e e d e d ) 1 2 2 3 3 4 15 2, 0 5 1 $ 72 $ 2,123 $ Ta s k 4 S u b t o t a l 36 78 79 14 7 16 1 13 9 12 65 2 86 , 9 3 8 $ - $ -$ -$ 3,042 $ 89,980 $ Ta s k 5 - Bi d d i n g A s s i s t a n c e ( A s N e e d e d ) Ta s k 5 . 1 - Bi d d e r I n q u i r i e s a n d A d d e n d a 2 4 8 8 2 2 26 3, 3 2 4 $ 36 $ 3,360 $ Ta s k 5 . 2 - Pr e - B i d C o n f e r e n c e 4 4 8 1, 4 3 2 $ 25 $ 1,457 $ Ta s k 5 S u b t o t a l 6 0 8 8 8 2 2 34 4, 7 5 6 $ - $ -$ -$ 61 $ 4,817 $ Ta s k 6 - Co n s t r u c t i o n M a n a g e m e n t A s s i s t a n c e ( A s N e e d e d ) Ta s k 6 . 1 - Cl a r i f i c a t i o n s a n d C h a n g e s ( U p t o 2 ) 1 6 12 4 23 2, 9 4 6 $ 72 $ 3,018 $ Ta s k 6 . 2 - Re c o r d D r a w i n g s ( A s - b u i l t D r a w i n g s ) 2 4 6 8 25 1 46 5, 9 1 4 $ 620 $ 6,534 $ Ta s k 6 S u b t o t a l 3 0 10 6 20 29 1 69 8, 8 6 0 $ - $ -$ -$ 692 $ 9,552 $ Ta s k 7 - Su r v e y i n g S e r v i c e s ( S u b c o n s u l t a n t S e r v i c e s ) 4 8 8 20 2, 6 4 0 $ 81,882 $ 194 $ 84,716 $ Ta s k 7 S u b t o t a l 0 0 4 8 0 8 0 20 2, 6 4 0 $ - $ -$ 81,882 $ 194 $ 84,716 $ Ta s k 8 - Po t h o l i n g S e r v i c e s ( S u b c o n s u l t a n t S e r v i c e s , A s N e e d e d ) 2 2 2 6 81 2 $ 7,917 $ -$ -$ 8,729 $ Ta s k 8 S u b t o t a l 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 6 81 2 $ - $ 7,917 $ -$ -$ 8,729 $ Ta s k 9 - Un a n t i c i p a t e d T a s k R e s e r v e ( A s N e e d e d ) Ta s k 9 S u b t o t a l 25 , 0 0 0 $ 25,000 $ T O T A L - A L L T A S K S 16 1 1 8 9 2 1 4 3 5 3 3 5 9 3 2 2 2 5 1 6 2 3 2 4 8 , 2 6 3 $ - $ 7 , 9 1 7 $ 8 1 , 8 8 2 $ 7,220$ 345,282$ FE E E S T I M A T E 20 1 6 W A T E R L I N E R E P L A C E M E N T P R O J E C T EX H I B I T B MSA Expenses Subconsultants Ge o D H A MS A L a b o r 6/ 1 / 2 0 1 5 CI T Y O F E D M O N D S Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Mu r r a y , S m i t h & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . En g i n e e r s / P l a n n e r s Page 1 Packet Page 203 of 470 MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineers/Planners EXHIBIT C BILLING RATES Personnel: Labor will be invoiced by staff classification at the following hourly rates. Principal Engineer VI $220.00 – 233.00 Principal Engineer V 212.00 – 225.00 Principal Engineer IV 206.00 – 218.00 Principal Engineer III 198.00 – 210.00 Principal Engineer II 191.00 – 202.00 Principal Engineer I 184.00 – 195.00 Professional Engineer IX 177.00 – 188.00 Professional Engineer VIII 169.00 – 179.00 Professional Engineer VII 161.00 – 171.00 Professional Engineer VI 152.00 – 161.00 Professional Engineer V 144.00 – 153.00 Professional Engineer IV 135.00 – 143.00 Engineering Designer IV 135.00 – 143.00 Professional Engineer III 127.00 – 135.00 Engineering Designer III 127.00 – 135.00 Engineering Designer II 119.00 – 126.00 Engineering Designer I 110.00 – 117.00 Technician IV 127.00 – 135.00 Technician III 115.00 – 122.00 Technician II 102.00 – 108.00 Technician I 88.00 – 93.00 Administrative III 95.00 – 101.00 Administrative II 87.00 – 92.00 Administrative I 77.00 – 82.00 Project Expenses: Expenses incurred in-house that are directly attributable to the project will be invoiced at actual cost. These expenses include the following: CADD Hardware/Software $18.00/hour Modeling and GIS Hardware/Software $10.00/hour Mileage Current IRS Rate Postage and Delivery Services At Cost Printing and Reproduction At Cost Travel, Lodging and Subsistence At Cost Outside Services: Outside technical, professional and other services will be invoiced at actual cost plus 10 percent to cover administration and overhead. Packet Page 204 of 470 Packet Page 205 of 470    AM-7794     10.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:06/09/2015 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Robert English Department:Engineering Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with KPG, Inc for the 238th St SW Walkway and Drainage Improvements project. Recommendation Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the June 16, 2015 City Council meeting. Previous Council Action On January 21, 2014, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Professional Service Agreement with KPG for the design of the 238th St SW Walkway Project. Narrative The City was awarded a Safe Routes to School grant in 2013 to fund the design and construction of a walkway on 238th St. between 100th Ave and 104th Ave. The walkway project was combined with the previously planned stormwater improvements on 238th St. The stormwater improvements will be paid by the Stormwater Utility Fund 422 and the pavement overlay on 238th St. will be paid by Fund 422 and Puget Sound Energy. The supplement will provide engineering support services during construction. The scope of work includes attending the pre-construction meeting, on-call field support, review of submittals and request for information (RFI’s), review of change orders and record drawings at the end of the project. The fee for the supplemental agreement is $26,024 and will be funded by Fund 422, the Safe Routes to School grant and Puget Sound Energy. Attachments KPG Supplemental Agreement No. 1 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 06/04/2015 05:27 PM Public Works Scott Passey 06/05/2015 01:01 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 06/05/2015 01:01 PM Mayor Dave Earling 06/05/2015 01:20 PM Packet Page 206 of 470 Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 06/05/2015 01:22 PM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 06/04/2015 04:30 PM Final Approval Date: 06/05/2015  Packet Page 207 of 470 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT 238th Street SW Walkway with Stormwater Project WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, and KPG, P.S., hereinafter referred to as the “Consultant”, entered into an underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as 238th Street SW Walkway with Stormwater Project, dated December 12, 2014; and WHEREAS, the consultant will provide support on the final design and construction of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The underlying Agreement of December 12, 2014 between the parties, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects: 1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 1.2 The $177,201.44 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $26,024.28 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this supplemental agreement. As a result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract amount is increased to a new total not-to-exceed amount of $203,225.72 ($177,201.44 plus $26,024.28). 1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached Exhibit B to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein. DONE this day of , 20 . Packet Page 208 of 470 CITY OF EDMONDS KPG, P.S. By: By: Mayor David O. Earling Title: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20____, before me, the under-signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Page 209 of 470 Exhibit A City of Edmonds 238th Street SW Walkway with Stormwater Project Supplement No. 1 Construction Engineering Support Scope of work June 4, 2015 This supplement is provided for the following work in support of final design and construction of the 238th Street SW Walkway with Stormwater Project: Task 9: Geotechnical Coordination The Consultant shall coordinate with the City’s on call geotechnical engineer (Shannon and Wilson) to obtain field infiltration rates for final design of the rain gardens. The current design is based on recommendations provided by Shannon and Wilson on nearby infiltration facilities of 2- inches per hour. Shannon and Wilson will perform additional site specific infiltration testing required to meet City Stormwater Code and validate the design facility sizing. Assumptions: • Infiltration testing is being provided to meet code requirements and verify design sizing. It is not anticipated that results of field infiltration rates will affect sizing or require re-design of engineered rain gardens that have been developed to date. Deliverables: Items to be provided by the Consultant: • Final Stormwater Technical Memorandum incorporating verified infiltration rates. Task 10: On call Construction Engineering The Consultant shall provide on-call Construction Engineering support services for the 238th Street SW Walkway with Stormwater Project. All effort on this project will be as requested by the City. It is anticipated that budgets between Tasks will be adjusted as required to provide the requested services. The Consultant shall provide notification and receive written approval prior to exceeding the approved total project budget. The scope of services and associated cost of services (Exhibit B-1) are based upon the assumptions outlined below. A. The Consultant shall provide project management of consultant staff and prepare progress reports to be included with the monthly invoices. B. Prepare for and attend pre-construction conference with the City, Contractor, and affected utilities. Meeting arrangements will be by the City. C. The Consultant shall provide the on-call field support to the City inspector for the duration of construction. The level of effort for field support time is estimated at 4 site visits. Packet Page 210 of 470 D. The Consultant shall review material submittals and RFI’s provided by the Contractor as requested by the City. Submittals pertaining to contractor means, methods, and sequencing (traffic control, erosion control, etc.) will be reviewed by the City. E. The Consultant shall review change conditions as they arise and make recommendation to the City for field changes/change orders. F. Prepare Record Drawings for the 238th Street SW Walkway with Stormwater Project based on redline drawings provided by the City. Deliverables: Items to be provided by the Consultant: • Documentation from site meetings, change conditions, and field directives. • Change orders, if required. • Full size Record Drawing .pdf Packet Page 211 of 470 HOUR AND FEE ESTIMATE Project:City of Edmonds 238th Street SW Walkway with Stormwater Project Supplement 1 - Construction Engineering Support April 23, 2014 Total Fee Proj Engr Design engr Senior Project Sen. Urb DesLandscape Survey Task Engineer Manager Proj. Surveyo Surveyor crew Technician Clerical Direct Overhead Profit Effective multiplier 64.90$ 56.56$ 40.13$ 34.62$ 50.65$ 28.85$ 21.63$ Hours Labor Cost 141.45%30%2.7145 Work Element 9 - Geotechnical Coordination A.Coordination with Shannon and Wilson 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 193 274 58 524.90$ Reimbursable expenses -$ 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 193 274 58 524.90$ Work Element 10 - On call Construction Engineering A.Project Management and Coordination 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 12 572 810 172 1,553.67$ B.Prepare for and attend pre con meeting 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 8 387 547 116 1,049.81$ C.On call field support 2 8 16 4 0 0 0 30 1,363 1,928 409 3,699.21$ D.Submittal Review / RFI responses 2 12 40 24 0 4 6 88 3,490 4,936 1,047 9,472.46$ E.Field reviews/change orders 4 8 10 4 `4 2 32 1,410 1,995 423 3,828.72$ F.Prepare Record Drawings 0 2 8 8 0 32 0 50 1,634 2,312 490 4,436.25$ G.Reimbursable Expenses Mileage 120.00$ Reproduction 100.00$ 12 38 78 40 0 40 12 220 2,684 3,529 805 24,260.13$ 12 40 80 40 0 40 12 224 2878 3803 863 $24,785.03 Management Reserve (5%)$1,239.25 Total Estimated Fee $26,024.28 Task Totals TOTAL HOURS AND ESTIMATED FEE Labor Hour Estimate Task Totals Description Packet Page 212 of 470    AM-7777     11.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:06/09/2015 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted By:Kernen Lien Department:Planning Type: Information  Information Subject Title Acceptance of the Planning Board's Recommendation on the Proposed Tree Code Recommendation Staff recommends the Council accept the Planning Board recommendation. Previous Council Action The City Council budgeted $25,000 for a tree code re-write in the 2014 City Budget. No previous council action has been taken on the draft tree code recommended by the Tree Board. Narrative Introduction The ordinance that established the Citizen’s Tree Board identified developing a tree ordinance as one of the powers and duties assigned to the Tree Board. Specifically, ECC 10.95.030.A.1 provides: Developing a tree ordinance designed to preserve and protect existing trees, encourage planting of additional trees, safeguard trees on parcels where construction or renovation is occurring or planned to occur, and encouraging the Edmonds citizenry to become active stewards of the urban forest.    Additionally, given the fragmented nature of the existing tree related codes, a goal of the tree code update has been to develop a more comprehensive tree code with a clear vision, one which is easier for citizens to understand and more efficient for staff to implement. The Edmonds City Council allotted $25,000 dollars in its 2014 budget for a re-write of the tree code and the Development Services Department successfully secured an additional $10,000 from the Community Forest Assistance Grant program to go towards the project as well. A consultant was selected to work with the City of Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board to develop the draft. In December 2014, the Tree Board recommended the draft tree code included as Attachment 1 for consideration by the Planning Board and ultimately the City Council. Major Differences in Current Tree Code vs. Draft Tree Code Tree cutting in the City of Edmonds currently is primarily regulated by ECDC 18.45 Land Clearing and Tree Cutting, Right-of-way Tree Removal or Trimming Policy adopted November 18, 2014, and the Packet Page 213 of 470 City's Critical Area regulations in ECDC 23.40 - 23.90. Various other city regulations, such as the landscaping requirements, also have some aspect that applies to regulating trees within the City. The existing tree code provides several exemptions from the requirement of a tree cutting permits. These exemptions include: The removal of trees on developed single-family lots with no critical areas which are not capable of being subdivided into more than one additional lot Routine landscape maintenance Removal of hazard trees Emergency situations The draft code would require a permit for removal of any tree not associated with a development proposal, thus eliminating most existing exceptions. Tree removal would be subject to a tiered permitting system depending on the category of tree and number of trees proposed for removal (Draft Code ECDC 23.20.030). While more comprehensive than the current permitting system, significant staff resources are likely to be required to administer and enforce the permitting requirements of the draft tree code. Additionally, the application requirements (Draft Code ECDC 23.20.060) may prove to be costly for property owners. Another major change with the draft tree code is a minimum tree density requirement for single-family property depending on the zone (Draft Code ECDC 23.20.080). The intent of the density requirement is to maintain or expand tree coverage within the City of Edmonds; however, without an Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Edmonds or other policy in place, it is difficult to establish whether these particular tree density requirements are appropriate for the community and will achieve the desired outcomes. Other changes in the draft code include new definitions (Draft Code ECDC 23.20.020), revised penalties for unpermitted tree activity (Draft Code ECDC 23.20.130), Subdivision Tree Plan (Draft Code ECDC 23.20.060.C), and the establishment of a City Tree Fund (Draft Code ECDC 23.20.130). Attachment 2 is a matrix that outlines different tree cutting scenarios, permitting requirements, removal criteria, and replacement requirements under the existing code and draft tree code. Planning Board Recommendation The Planning Board reviewed the draft tree code over four meetings from February 22, 2015 to a well-attended May 27, 2015 public hearing. The Planning Board minutes are included as Attachments 4 - 7. Following the public hearing, the Planning Board made a three part recommendation regarding the draft tree code, which is summarized as follows: A. Defer any action on the currently prepared draft. Complete development and adoption of an Urban Forestry Management Plan for the City of Edmonds as proposed within the Comprehensive Plan, B. Consolidate existing tree code sections under existing policy guidelines during the Edmonds Community Development Code rewrite process currently in progress; and, C. Following development of an Urban Forestry Management Plan, consolidation of potential revised tree code could be written consistent with policy directions provided within the Urban Forestry Management Plan. Written public comments received during the Planning Board's review are included as Attachment 3. Packet Page 214 of 470 Urban Forestry Management Plan The Planning Board’s recommendation includes the development and adoption of an Urban Forestry Management Plan (UFMP) for the City of Edmonds. The development of an UFMP by the end of 2017 has also been included as a recommended action in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update. An UFMP provides a policy framework that guides decision-making and identifies principles, priorities, goals, and strategies that will help preserve, protect, maintain, and restore the urban forest. An UFMP would provide the foundation to direct and integrate management of the many issues and opportunities posed by the City’s urban forest resources. Most plans begin by addressing those trees under the jurisdiction of the community or municipality, such as trees in parks, open space lands, street rights-of-way, and other publicly-owned properties. The next tier may include trees on properties owned or managed by other public entities such as school districts, water districts, and public utility services. A final management arena, perhaps the most difficult to scope and implement, involves trees on privately-owned property. Whether to pursue development of an UFMP—and if so, what the scope of it should be—is a decision the City Council could choose to make as part of a future work program or budget process. Attachments Attachment 1 - Tree Board Recommended Draft Tree Code Attachment 2 - Scenario Comparison Matrix Attachment 3 - Written Public Comments on Draft Tree Code Attachment 4 - February 25, 2015 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Attachment 5 - March 25, 2015 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Attachment 6 - April 22, 2015 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Attachment 7 - Draft May 27, 2015 Planning Board Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Development Services Shane Hope 06/03/2015 08:45 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 06/04/2015 07:53 AM Mayor Dave Earling 06/04/2015 10:54 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 06/04/2015 11:05 AM Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 06/03/2015 08:09 AM Final Approval Date: 06/04/2015  Packet Page 215 of 470 Chapter 23.20 ECDC - Tree Conservation Findings 23.20.010 Purpose and Intent 23.20.020 Definitions 23.20.025 Regulation 23.20.030 Permits Required 23.20.040 Exemptions 23.20.050 City Tree Protection Professional 23.20.060 Application Requirements 23.20.070 Retention Standards 23.20.080 Density Requirements 23.20.090 Replacement Standards 23.20.100 Protection Measures 23.20.110 Maintenance 23.20.120 City Tree Fund 23.20.130 Enforcement – Penalties – Mitigation 23.20.140 Performance Surety and Compliance 23.20.150 Liability (Severability) Findings [for ordinance] The city of Edmonds makes the following findings: A. The trees of Edmonds offer historic, aesthetic, ecological, economic, health, safety and welfare values to the community. Trees in the city of Edmonds: 1. Improve the value of properties; 2. Reduce runoff via canopy interception, uptake of water from the soil and evapotranspiration back into the atmosphere; 3. Reduce runoff which results in less soil erosion and stormwater which aids in protecting surface waters from sedimentation and pollution; 4. Reduce the risk of flooding and infrastructure costs; 5. Improve air quality by removing dust and particulates from the air, and remove carbon dioxide while creating oxygen; 6. Provide cooling shade for homes, buildings, and asphalt/concrete surfaces, reducing heating and cooling costs for residences and other buildings; 7. Provide screening between different land uses or other objectionable views while buffering traffic and other noise; 8. Provide food and habitat for a variety of wildlife; 9. Provide visual relief from hard lines of concrete structures and other buildings; 10. Increase consumer patronage for commercial properties and boost occupancy rates for well- treed shopping areas; 11. Store carbon; 12. Contribute to human health improvement by lowering levels of fear of residents, and less violent and aggressive behavior by its citizens; 13. Encourage better neighbor relations and better coping skills for its residents; and 14. Provide a valuable asset to the community as a whole. B. Removal of trees from communities such as Edmonds has resulted in the loss to the public of these and many more beneficial functions of trees. Packet Page 216 of 470 23.20.010 Purpose and Intent The purpose and intent of this chapter is to: A. Preserve and enhance the tree canopy of Edmonds by encouraging the protection of existing trees and stands of trees, and the replanting of new trees to replace those lost to old age, storms, development and other circumstances; B. Mitigate the economic, environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree loss through retention and tree planting on public and private land; C. Provide guidelines to protect trees from adverse impacts during development; D. Encourage project designs that utilize viable trees in the landscape; E. Protect private property rights and allow property owners to make reasonable use of their property while protecting suitable and appropriate trees for that site; and F. Maintain and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. 23.20.020 Definitions “Administrator” means the development services director or the development services director’s designee. “Best management practices (BMPs)” means adherence to tree health care standards detailed in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300, the standards for proper tree care and relevant International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) best management practices companion publications. “Border tree” means a tree whose trunk is located on both the right-of-way and private property or whose trunk is located on the property line of two adjacent parcels.. “Caliper” means the industry standard for measurement of nursery stock size. Caliper is measured six inches above the root collar for nursery stock four inches in diameter and smaller. “Canopy” means the part of the tree crown composed of leaves and small twigs or the collective branches and foliage of a group of trees’ crowns. “City tree protection professional” means a qualified tree professional as defined in this chapter that is retained or employed by the City. The individual shall also have the necessary training and experience to use and apply the appraisal methodology prescribed in the current edition of the industry’s Plant Appraisal Guide. “Critical root zone (CRZ)” means the area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one (1) foot for every inch of trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet from grade or otherwise determined by a qualified tree professional (example: one (1) foot radius per one (1) inch diameter) “Crown” means that portion of the trees stem that is occupied by branches with live foliage. “Crown raising” means the removal of a reasonable number of the lowest branches along the trunk that is appropriate to the overall size of the tree. Packet Page 217 of 470 “Crown reduction” means the reduction of the height and/or spread of a tree crown through the removal of smaller branches at their attachments to larger branches. “Crown thinning” means the removal of a number of smaller branches at their attachments to produce a uniform density of foliage around an evenly spaced branch structure. “Developed” means a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located. “Development activity” means any activity on private property requiring a permit for: (a) clearing, grading, preliminary or final plat for a single-family residential development; (b) construction of new building greater than 200 square feet in size of construction of a building addition that creates a footprint great than 200 square feet; (c) binding site plan; or (d) preliminary or final planned unit development plan. “Diameter” means the diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. Multiple stemmed tree diameters shall be determined by equating the crown of the tree to that of a single-stemmed tree. “Director” means director of public works & utilities department or director of public works & utilities department’s designee. “Dripline” of a tree is delineated by a vertical line extended from the outermost branch tips to the ground. “General tree list” means a list of trees species that is maintained by the city for planting as replacement and mitigation trees. “Hazard tree” means a tree that meets all of the following criteria: a. A tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective or exposed by recent removal of adjacent trees which makes it subject to a high probability of failure as determined by a qualified tree professional; b. The tree is in proximity to persons or property that can be damaged by tree failure; and c. The hazard condition of the tree cannot be lessened with reasonable and proper arboricultural practices. “Heritage tree” means a tree or group of trees that have been designated by the City as such. “Impact” means a condition or activity that affects a part of a tree including the trunk, branches, and roots within the dripline or critical root zone (CRZ). “Landmark tree” means a tree that measures at least 24” in diameter. “Limits of disturbance” means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree and the allowable site disturbance as determined by a qualified tree professional. Packet Page 218 of 470 “Nuisance Tree” means a tree that meets either of the following criteria, provided that the problems associated with the tree cannot be corrected by reasonable practices including but not limited to: pruning of the crown or roots of the tree, bracing, and or cabling to reconstruct a healthy crown: a. The tree is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structures and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, roof; or b. The tree has sustained damage from past maintenance practices. “Person” means any person, individual, public or private corporation, firm, association, joint venture, partnership, owner, lessee, tenant, or any other entity whatsoever or any combination of such, jointly or severally. “Protected tree” means a tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree [protection and replacement] plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction. “Pruning” means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the ANSI A300 pruning standards. “Qualified tree professional” means a person with academic and field experience that makes them an expert in urban forestry or arboriculture. The person must have competence in tree health and risk assessment, tree protection during development, and preparing professional tree plans and reports. At a minimum, the person is certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). “Right-of-way tree” means a tree located in the public right-of-way. “Significant tree” means any tree six inches or greater in diameter. “Specimen tree” means a tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city tree protection professional. “Street tree” means a tree located within the City right-of-way that meets the goals and intent of the Edmonds Street Tree Plan. “Tree” means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species, multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries. “Tree removal” means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading, or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree’s root system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown of the tree. Packet Page 219 of 470 “Tree unit” means a set value placed on replacement trees at a one unit per tree of minimum size and a set number of units for existing trees based on the size of the tree in diameter. “Understory vegetation” means small trees, shrubs, and groundcover plants, growing within the dripline or critical root zone (CRZ) of a tree. “Viable tree” means a tree that a qualified tree professional has determined to be in good health with a low risk of failure, is relatively windfirm if isolated or exposed, and is a species that is suitable for its location. “Wildlife snag” means the remaining trunk of a dead, dying, diseased, or hazard tree that is reduced in height and stripped of all live branches. To be considered as a wildlife snag, the tree must be at least 12 inches diameter and 20 feet tall. The actual snag height must consider the surrounding targets. “Windfirm” means a tree that is healthy and well-rooted and a qualified tree professional has evaluated and determined that it can withstand normal winter storms in the region. 23.20.025 Regulation A. The development services director or a designee shall administrator this chapter, as it pertains to regulation of trees on private property, and shall be referred to as the administrator. The administrator shall have the authority to develop and implement procedures to administer and enforce this chapter. B. The public works director or a designee shall administer this chapter, as it pertains to the regulation of trees within the City right-of-way, and shall be referred to as the director. The director shall have the authority to develop and implement procedures to administer and enforce this chapter. 23.20.030 Permits Required A. Permit Required. No person or their representative, directly or indirectly, shall remove any heritage, landmark, significant, or protected tree on private property or remove or prune any heritage, landmark, significant, or protected tree located within the city right-of-way without first obtaining a tree permit in accordance with this chapter, unless exempted in ECDC 20.23.040. Private property trees being removed in conjunction with a development permit are subject to the requirements of this chapter but do not require a separate permit. B. Permit Types. 1. Private Property Trees. Tree removal on private property must comply with the removal criteria set forth in ECDC 23.20.060 and be authorized by one of the following types of permits, as applicable: a. Administrative Staff Review Permit. Tree removal may be authorized by an administrative staff review permit for the removal of no more than two significant trees Packet Page 220 of 470 within any 36-month period on a single-family residential lot with a critical area waiver or erosion hazard determination. The administrator may require that proposed tree removal in relation to development activity be reviewed by the city tree protection professional for possible retention of viable trees. b. Arborist Consult Permits. The following permits require an arborist consultation in order to meet the allowable removal criteria as described in ECDC 23.20.060. i. Type I. Tree removal may be authorized by a Type I arborist consult permit for removal of nuisance tree; hazard tree; protected tree; any number of significant trees on multi- family, commercial or industrial property; or more than two significant trees within a 36- month period on a single-family residential lot with a critical area waiver or erosion hazard determination. Removal of nuisance or hazard trees does not count toward any tree removal limit if approved by the city. ii. Type II. Tree removal may be authorized by a Type II arborist consult permit for the removal of a landmark tree or trees located within a critical area (other than erosion hazard) or critical area buffer. The removal of a landmark tree on a single-family residential lot counts toward the tree removal limit of two significant trees within a 36- month period. A Type II arborist consult permit shall comply with Type II notice requirements. c. Right-of-Way Permit. Any pruning or removal of a significant tree on private property that results in falling of the tree or branches into the traveled way (e.g., street, trail or sidewalk) of the right-of-way requires a right-of-way construction permit. 2. Right-of-Way Trees. Removal or pruning of trees in the right-of-way must comply with the removal criteria set forth in ECDC 23.20.060 and be authorized by a right-of-way construction permit. C. Review. The city shall review the application in accordance with the criteria set forth in ECDC 23.20.060, and either approve, approve with conditions or modifications, deny the application, or request additional information. Any decision to deny the application shall be in writing along with the reasons for the denial and the appeal process. D. Alternative Compliance. All tree activities regulated by this chapter shall be performed in compliance with the applicable standards, as described in ECDC 23.20.070 through 23.20.110, unless the applicant demonstrates that alternate measures or procedures will be equal or superior to the provisions of this chapter in accomplishing the purposes of this chapter. E. Expiration. Administrative review and arborist consult permits expire one year after the date the permit is issued. F. Emergency work. Any person or public utility service provider undertaking emergency actions necessary to remedy an immediate threat to people or property, or public health, safety or welfare by a hazard tree shall notify the city within five working day following commencement of the emergency action and shall apply to the administrator for review of the work performed. Packet Page 221 of 470 G. Appeals. Appeals of administrative determination shall follow Chapter 20.01 ECDC. 23.20.040 Exemptions The following are exempt from the requirements of this chapter: A. Street trees are subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.85 ECDC. B. Removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department in the course of routine maintenance and/or repair of public facilities or emergency response situations. 23.20.050 City Tree Protection Professional A. The city shall employ or contract with one or more professionals that qualify as a city tree protection professional under the definition in this chapter. Said individual(s) shall be responsible for providing the information and services required of the city tree protection professional described herein. B. Individual applicants will be responsible for payment of the costs and fees of the city tree protection professional for projects necessitating work to be performed by the city tree protection professional with the exception of administrative review permits and in cases where a project is determined to be exempt. 23.20.060 Application Requirements An applicant requesting to remove trees must submit information that complies with this section. A. Administrative Review Permit Application. An application for an administrative review permit shall include the following: 1. A completed land use application form provided by the city. 2. A site plan showing the approximate location of significant trees, their size (diameter), their species, and the location of structures, driveways, access ways, easements, and utilities within the critical root zone of the tree. 3. Description of the trees requested to be removed, including reason for removal. 4. Calculation of tree density in accordance with ECDC 23.20.080 to determine if remaining trees meet the minimum for the site or if replacement trees are required. 5. If replacement trees are required to meet the minimum density, prepare a planting plan showing location, size and species of the new trees in accordance to standards set forth in ECDC 23.20.090. Packet Page 222 of 470 B. Type I Arborist Consult Permit Application. An application for a Type I arborist consult permit shall include the following: 1. A completed land use application form provided by the city. 2. A site plan showing the approximate location of significant trees, their size (diameter), their species, and the location of structures, driveways, access ways, easements, and utilities within the critical root zone of the tree. 3. Description of the trees requested to be removed, including reason for removal that meets one or more of the following criteria. a. For a hazard tree on a single-family residential lot, a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicant’s qualified tree professional explaining how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree may be required. b. For a nuisance tree on a single-family residential lot, evidence of the damage and any tree work that has been done to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant’s qualified tree professional explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance. c. For a protected tree, a report prepared by the applicant’s qualified tree professional explaining how the tree meets the definition of hazard or nuisance tree and if necessary, how the removal does not compromise the health and safety of the remaining trees. d. For trees on multi-family, commercial, and industrial property, a report prepared by the applicant’s qualified tree professional explaining how the tree meets the definition of nuisance or hazard tree and if necessary, how the removal does not compromise the health and safety of the remaining trees. e. For the removal of more than two significant trees on a single-family residential lot in a 36-month period, a management report prepared by the applicant’s qualified tree professional explaining how the removal improves the health and safety of the remaining trees and does not result in the site falling below the minimum tree density. 4. On single-family residential lots, calculation of tree density in accordance with ECDC 23.20.080 to determine if remaining trees meet the minimum for the site or if replacement trees are required. 5. For multi-family, commercial, and industrial property, required replacement is according to landscape standards set forth in Chapter 20.13 ECDC. 6. If replacement trees are required, prepare a planting plan showing location, size and species of the new trees in accordance to standards set forth in ECDC 23.20.090. B. Type II Arborist Consult Permit Application. An application for a Type II arborist consult permit shall include the following: Packet Page 223 of 470 1. A completed land use application form provided by the City. 2. A site plan showing the approximate location of significant trees, their size (diameter), their species, and the location of structures, driveways, access ways, easements, and utilities within the critical root zone of the tree. 3. Description of the trees requested to be removed, including reason for removal. a. For a landmark tree, a report from the applicant’s qualified tree professional describing the health and condition of the tree and explaining how no other arboricultural practices, such as crown raising, crown reduction or crown thinning, can achieve desired outcome. b. For the removal of trees located within a critical area (other than erosion hazard) or critical area buffer, a management report prepared by the applicant’s qualified tree professional explaining how the removal improves the health of the remaining trees and if applicable, does not result in the site falling below the minimum tree density. In addition, a critical area report and mitigation plan prepared by the applicant’s specialist demonstrating that the tree removal does not compromise the integrity of the function of the critical area. 4. Calculation of tree density in accordance with ECDC 23.20.080 to determine if remaining trees meet minimum for the site or if replacement trees are required. 5. If replacement trees are required, prepare a planting plan showing location, size and species of the new trees in accordance to standards set forth in ECDC 23.20.090. C. Subdivision Tree Plan. The application of a subdivision that includes property with significant trees shall include all the information described in this subsection. The tree assessment should be conducted as early in the project design process as possible to improve the applicant’s ability to incorporate existing trees into the project and to provide adequate protection. 1.The Tree Plan shall at a minimum include the following information: a. A completed land use application form provided by the City. b. A site map (to scale) with a north arrow depicting accurate location of site features including buildings, driveways, forest stands or open-grown single or clusters of significant trees, the dripline of the stand, cluster, or individual tree, along with any other off-site trees that may be impacted by tree removal, excavation, or grading during this project. c. A tree inventory and assessment report prepared by a qualified tree professional. Individual trees to be removed or that are in the vicinity of construction and potentially could be impacted should be numbered (with corresponding numbers placed on trees). Information on tree species, diameter, condition (health), and the minimum required critical root zone (CRZ) should be collected. Packet Page 224 of 470 d. A tree list showing which trees are to be protected and removed, along with any other necessary cultural care, including the minimum critical root zone (CRZ) distances in the list. e. Graphic detail of tree protection fence locations and any other special instructions for work that may or may not occur within critical root zone (CRZ). f. A timeline for tree protection activity describing: i. Attendance of the city tree protection professional at the pre-job conference to discuss tree protection activity. ii. Installation, inspection and maintenance of the tree protection fences. iii. Measures taken to ensure health of the tree(s) during construction. iv. Removal of fences at end of construction. v. Final inspection of protected trees by city tree protection professional. g. A description and location of tree protection measures during construction for trees to be retained. Protection measures must be in accordance with ECDC 23.20.100. h. Calculation of tree density in accordance with ECDC 23.20.080 to determine if remaining trees meet minimum for the site or if replacement trees are required. i. If replacement trees are required to meet the minimum density, prepare a planting plan showing location, size and species of the new trees in accordance to standards set forth in ECDC 23.20.090. 2. The administrator and/or director may specify conditions of construction at any stage of the application or project, as is deemed necessary to ensure the proposal’s compliance with requirements of this chapter, as well as the critical areas regulations (Chapter 23.40 ECDC), clearing, grading, and stormwater management regulations, or to protect public or private property. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, recommendation of specific work methods. D. Right-of-Way Trees. An application to remove or prune a tree within the city right-of-way shall include the following: 1. A completed right-of-way construction permit application form provided by the city. 2. Description of the right-of-way tree(s) requested to be removed or pruned, the reason for the work and how requested pruning, when applicable, complies with the ANSI A300 standards. In addition, Packet Page 225 of 470 a. For a hazard tree, a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicant’s qualified tree professional explaining how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree may be required. b. For a nuisance tree, provide evidence of the damage and any work that has been done to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant’s qualified tree professional explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance. c. For sight distance hazards caused by trees, describe the work needed to fully restore the required sight distance. d. Provide the name of licensed and bonded ISA-certified arborist performing the work and if needed, a traffic safety plan for: i. Pruning of a tree over a height of eight feet (8’) above the ground; ii. Pruning of a tree requiring or using equipment other than non-powered handheld tools (e.g., pruners, loppers, hand saw); or ii. Pruning or removal that will result in any branches or portions of the tree falling within the traveled way (e.g., street, sidewalk, etc.) of the right-of-way. e. For a landmark tree, a report from the applicant’s qualified tree professional describing the health and condition of the tree and explaining how no other arboricultural practices, such as crown raising, crown reduction or crown thinning, can achieve desired outcome and how its removal and replacement will improve the streetscape. 3. Calculation of tree units to be removed in accordance with ECDC 23.20.080 to determine the number of required replacement trees. 4. A planting plan showing location, size and species of the replacement trees in accordance to standards set forth in ECDC 23.20.090.A through C and F. 23.20.070 Retention Standards A. To the maximum extent possible, viable trees on private property must be retained. Retention efforts in relation to development activity include considering reasonable modifications to a site plan without limiting the allowed use. Such strategies include, but are not limited to, low impact development and minor adjustments to placement of the building footprint and other improvements. If a site falls below a certain tree density due to tree removal, replacement trees are required. B. Priority of tree types. Trees to be retained and protected must be healthy, windfirm, and appropriate to the site at their mature size, as identified by a qualified tree professional. The Packet Page 226 of 470 priority for protection of healthy trees in developing, redeveloping, or existing lots that are being modified is: 1. Heritage trees; 2. Specimen trees or other high quality open-grown, wind firm trees; 3. Trees in critical area buffers, or adjacent to critical area buffers; 4. Adjacent trees that are critical to the integrity of stands of other protected trees; 5. Existing healthy trees in groups or stands; 6. Other individual trees that will be wind firm, high quality trees if retained; 7. Other trees that provide wildlife or riparian habitat, screening, buffering or other amenities; 8. Trees that help to protect neighbors’ trees from windthrow, or other trees within required yard setbacks or on the perimeter; 9. Trees next to parks or other open space areas. 23.20.080 Density Requirements A. Minimum Tree Density. The required minimum tree density for both developed and developing single family lots is according to the underlying zone: Zoning Minimum Tree Units1 RS-6 2 RS-8 4 RS-10 6 RS-12 8 RS-20 12 1 On subdividable lots, the minimum number of tree units shall be determined by the multiplying the number of tree units by the number of potential lots based on area. For example, a 24,000 square foot lot in the RS-8 zone will require a minimum of 12 tree units (24,000/8,000 = 3 lots; 3 lots * 4 tree units = 12 tree units). B. Tree Unit Value for Existing Trees. For existing trees, both on private property and in the right-of-way, the number of units is based on diameter size as follows: Minimum Diameter Tree Units 3 - 5” 0.5 6 - 10” 1 12” 2 18” 3 24” 4 Packet Page 227 of 470 C. Achieving the required tree density on a single-family residential lot may consist of existing trees pursuant to the tree’s retention value shown herein, new trees, or a combination of existing and new trees. 23.20.090 Replacement Standards A. Minimum Size of Replacement Trees. The required minimum size of a replacement tree worth one (1) tree unit shall be six (6) feet tall for a conifer and 2-inch caliper for deciduous or broad-leaf evergreen tree. The city may allow smaller caliper deciduous trees of certain species to meet the requirements of this chapter. Additional credits may be awarded for larger trees. B. Replacement tree quality. Replacement trees shall meet the quality, caliper, and root-ball size standards delineated in the American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1). Trees shall be healthy and free of damage, insects, and disease, be well-branched and show evidence of cultural care in the nursery to create quality trees. C. Replacement tree species shall be selected from the city’s general tree list, which is maintained by the city. Only trees on the list can be used as replacement trees unless other tree types are approved by the city tree protection professional. D. When trees are planted on individual lots, the species shall be appropriate for the size of the lot and the space planted and, if applicable, as provided on approved re-vegetation or landscaping plans developed for the land division. E. On-Site Replacement. Replacement trees shall be planted on the site from which significant trees are removed. The administrator may waive the on-site tree replacement requirement provided that the applicant pays an amount determined by the city tree protection professional into the city tree fund that is equivalent to the total cost for purchase and installation of each replacement tree and three years of maintenance for each replacement tree. F. Right-of-Way Replacement. The number of replacement trees for a right-of-way tree removal is equal to the number of tree units for the corresponding diameter of the tree(s) removed as described in ECDC 23.20.080.B. The director may waive all or a portion of the number of replacement trees to be planted in the same location as the tree removed from the right-of-way. The director may require payment in lieu of the replacement trees not planted that is equivalent to the total cost for purchase and installation of each replacement tree and three years of maintenance for each replacement tree. 23.20.100 Protection Measures Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas and individual trees to be preserved, including any street or right-of-way trees, shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following standards: Packet Page 228 of 470 A. Placing Materials near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing solvents, storing building material or soil deposits, or dumping concrete washout or other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any potentially harmful object to any tree designated for protection. B. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, filling or any land alteration, the applicant shall: a. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of disturbance to completely surround the protected area of all retained trees or groups of trees. Fences should be constructed of chain-link and be at least six (6) feet high, unless other type of fencing is authorized by the city. b. When requested by the city, install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet along the entirety of the protective tree fence. Said sign must state at a minimum “Tree Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited” and provide the city phone number for code enforcement to report violations. c. Prohibit excavation or compaction of earth or other potentially damaging activities within the barriers; provided, that the administrator may allow such activities approved by the city tree protection professional and under the supervision of a qualified tree professional retained by the applicant. d. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until the city authorizes their removal. e. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of the barriers shall be accomplished with walk-behind machinery or hand labor. f. In addition to the above, the city may require the following: i) If equipment is authorized to operate within the critical root zone, cover the areas adjoining the critical root zone of a tree with mulch to a depth of at least six (6) inches or with plywood or similar material in order to protect roots from damage caused by heavy equipment. ii) Minimize root damage by excavating a 2-foot-deep trench, at edge of critical root zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. iii) Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery or building activity. iv) Maintenance of trees shall be achieved by the applicant throughout the construction period by watering and fertilizing. Packet Page 229 of 470 C. Grade. a. The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of trees to be preserved without the administrator’s authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional. The administrator may allow coverage of up to one-half (1/2) of the area of the tree’s critical root zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Aeration devices may be required to ensure the tree’s survival. b. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the tree’s critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent suffocation of the roots. c. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to be retained without the authorization of the administrator. The administrator may require specific construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree’s survival and to minimize the potential for root-induced damage to the impervious surface. d. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root zone of trees to be retained. The administrator or director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of trees to be retained if the administrator or director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the chances of the tree’s survival. e. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation. Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible. D. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for retention and to avoid damage to private and public infrastructure. E. Additional Requirements. The administrator may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices. 23.20.110 Maintenance A. All protected trees and required replacement trees so designated on an approved permit, retention and/or planting plan, shall be maintained in healthy condition by the property owner. B. Pruning and maintenance of protected and replacement trees shall be consistent with the ANSI A300 standards for proper pruning and management. C. Pruning existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these trees alone. Packet Page 230 of 470 23.20.120 City Tree Fund A. The city council hereby creates the City of Edmonds Tree Fund. Penalties assessed against violators of this chapter shall be placed in the fund, along with any monetary donations received from persons wishing to contribute to the fund. Expenditures of monies in the fund shall be used for the following purposes: 1. Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving forested areas within the city; 2. Planting and maintaining trees within the city; or 3. Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city council. B. The city shall credit to the city tree fund: 1. All money paid to the city under ECDC 23.20.090 and 23.20.130; and 2. Other monies allocated by the city council. 3. Donations received from persons wishing to contribute to the fund. 23.20.130 Enforcement – Penalties – Mitigation A. Violations. Violations of this chapter may be addressed by the administrator or director pursuant to the provisions set forth below. 1. Removal of existing 12” diameter or larger trees in violation of this chapter will require an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of this chapter. 2. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12” Diameter and the appraised value of trees 12” or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the city tree fund. B. Stop Work Order. If a violation of this chapter or an approved tree permit occurs on property on which work is taking place pursuant to a city development permit, the building official may suspend some or all of the work as appropriate through issuance of a stop work order. The building official shall remove the stop work order when the city determines that the violation has been corrected or when the city has reached an agreement with the violator regarding rectification of the violation. C. Any person who removes a tree in violation of the conditions of a tree removal permit or in violation of this chapter may be required to perform remedial measures ordered by the administrator and/or director. The following provisions shall apply in instances where such remedial measures are required: 1. All work shall be performed in accordance with permits obtained pursuant to this chapter. 2. Remedial measures must conform to the purposes and intent of this chapter and meet all requirements and standards of this chapter. Packet Page 231 of 470 3. Remedial measures must be completed within the time frame specified by the administrator and/or director. 4. The cost of any remedial measures necessary to correct violation(s) of this chapter shall be borne by the property owner and/or applicant. 23.20.140 Performance Surety and Compliance A. In order to assure compliance with the standards and requirements of this chapter, private foresters, arborists, and logging and land clearing contractors or others and heavy equipment operators involved in land clearing operations in the city of Edmonds shall be required to sign and submit a statement of tree conservation acknowledgment to the city of Edmonds. This statement shall attest such arborist, forester, or contractor’s knowledge of the city of Edmonds’s tree protection requirements. This statement shall be required along with the city business licensing requirements set forth in Chapter 4.72 ECC and applicable to persons performing work in the city of Edmonds. The required statement shall be in substantially the following form: 1. I, ___________, a duly licensed professional contractor in the State of Washington, or professional forester, hereby attest that I have read and am knowledgeable of Chapter 23.20, Tree Conservation, of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code. 2. I further attest that, as a professional doing land clearing work in the City of Edmonds, I am accountable for following the City’s Tree Conservation requirements, including obtaining a tree removal permit or verifying exemption prior to performing tree removal or clearing work, as defined by Chapter 23.20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, as well as following all conditions and requirements of said permit or exemption. 3. I attest that if I fail to follow tree protection requirements, I will be held jointly responsible with the landowner for any restitution required as a result of environmental damage determined by the city tree protection professional to be the result of improper tree removal or land clearing activities at the site. This may result in claims against my bond pursuant to Section 18.27.040 of the Revised Code of Washington and other monetary penalties as allowed by this Chapter or State law. B. Private professionals involved in land clearing operations who do not provide the above statement shall be prohibited from performing tree removal and land clearing services in the city of Edmonds. Said professionals who do not provide this statement and perform land clearing services in the city of Edmonds shall be considered in violation of this chapter and may be prosecuted under this chapter, the city’s civil penalties ordinance, or as otherwise provided by law. All professional arborists, foresters, loggers, or other land clearing contractors or heavy equipment operators involved in land clearing operations shall be jointly responsible with the landowner for any land clearing violation and restitution required at a site as a result of improper land clearing activity. Packet Page 232 of 470 C. Bonding and Surety. The administrator may require financial security in such form and amounts as may be deemed necessary to assure that the work shall be completed in accordance with the permit and the protected and required trees survive. A performance bond, if required, shall be furnished by the property owner, or other person or agent in control of the property at one hundred fifty percent of the estimated tree and vegetation replacement costs or appraised value as determined by the city tree protection professional. A three-year maintenance bond may also be required. 23.20.150 Liability (Severability) A. Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 23.20.030 shall be the sole responsibility of the permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shall not be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will cause no damages or injury to any person or property. B. Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 23.20.030 and/or compliance by the applicant and/or property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter. C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a nuisance. D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree removal authorized under this chapter. Packet Page 233 of 470 Tree Code Update – Tree Cutting Scenario Comparison $ Permit fees are based on current fee schedule as established by Resolution 1308. New permit fees for the draft tree cutting permit types could be established. Permit fees do not include cost to property owner of preparing the application such as the cost of an arborist report and plan preparation. $ Existing Code Draft Code Scenario Permit Required Permit Fee Application Requirements Permit Require Permit Fee Application Requirements Comments 1. Removal of tree on improved single- family property not subdividable into more than one additional lot with no critical areas or erosion hazard of less than 25% slope. a. Removal of no more than two significant trees within any 36-month period. b. Removal of more than two significant trees within any 36-month period c. Removal of any number of landmark tree (24 inch diameter and greater) Exempt $0 None. a. Administrative Staff Review Permit b. Type I Arborist Consult Permit c. Type II Arborist Consult Permit a. $250 b. $250 plus cost of city arborist review c. $820 plus cost of city arborist review a. ECDC 23.20.060.A b. ECDC 23.20.060.B c. ECDC 23.20.060.C Draft code requires compliance with tree density requirements in ECDC 23.20.080. For scenarios 1.b and 1.c under the draft code, the applicant would have arborist report preparation costs in addition to the permit fee. 2. Removal of tree on improved single- family property subdividable into more than one additional lot with no critical areas or with erosion hazard of greater than 25% slope. a. Removal of no more than two significant trees within any 36-month period. b. Removal of more than two significant trees within any 36-month period c. Removal of any number of landmark tree (24 inch diameter and greater) Type II staff decision with notice $820 ECDC 18.45.050 a. Administrative Staff Review Permit b. Type I Arborist Consult Permit c. Type II Arborist Consult Permit a. $250 b. $250 plus cost of city arborist review c. $820 plus cost of city arborist review a. ECDC 23.20.060.A b. ECDC 23.20.060.B c. ECDC 23.20.060.C Draft code requires compliance with tree density requirements in ECDC 23.20.080. For scenarios 2.b and 2.c under the draft code, the applicant would have arborist report preparation costs in addition to the permit fee. Packet Page 234 of 470 Existing Code Draft Code Scenario Permit Required Permit Fee Application Requirements Permit Require Permit Fee Application Requirements Comments 3. Removal of tree on improved single- family property, tree within critical area or critical area buffer (landslide hazard, stream or wetland) or Hazard Tree Removal. Exempt with documentation of hazard tree $0 ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b Type I Arborist Consult Permit $250 plus cost of city arborist review ECDC 23.20.060.B Draft code requires compliance with tree density requirements in ECDC 23.20.080. Generally, only the removal of hazard trees is allowed within critical areas. Draft code would require permit for removal of hazard or nuisance tree regardless of whether a critical area is present. Existing code has no provisions regarding nuisance trees. Removal of hazard and nuisance trees does not count toward the tree removal limit (2 trees in 36 month period) if approved by the City. Under both existing and draft code, application has associated arborist report costs in addition to the permit fee. Packet Page 235 of 470 Existing Code Draft Code Scenario Permit Required Permit Fee Application Requirements Permit Require Permit Fee Application Requirements Comments 4. Removal of Trees on a Commercial or Multi-Family property with an approved landscape plan. Administrative Design Review $250 Type I Arborist Consult Permit $250 plus cost of city arborist review ECDC 23.20.060.B Reviewed for consistency with the city’s landscaping requirements as detailed in Chapter 20.13 ECDC. The applicant would have arborist report preparation costs in addition to the permit fee under the draft code. 5. Removal of trees associated with a subdivision Short subdivision (four less lots) is a Type II decision. Formal subdivision (five or more lots) is a Type III decision Short subdivision - $2,645 Formal subdivision - $5,355 plus cost of Hearing Examiner Application fees noted above are only for preliminary approval, additional fees are required for civil review and final review. ECDC 20.75.040 and ECDC 20.75.060. ECDC 20.75.060.N requires the location of tree covered areas and trees over eight inches in diameter. ECDC 18.45.050.H for tree protection measures. Short subdivision (four less lots) is a Type II decision. Formal subdivision (five or more lots) is a Type III decision Short subdivision - $2,645 Formal subdivision - $5,355 plus cost of Hearing Examiner Application fees noted above are only for preliminary approval, additional fees are required for civil review and final review. Subdivision Tree Plan as detailed in draft ECDC 23.20.060.D in addition to ECDC 20.75.040 and ECDC 20.75.060. ECDC 23.20.100 for tree protection measures. Approvals for tree removal associated with a subdivision (or other development proposals) are handled under the development review process, rather than a stand-alone tree cutting permit. Under draft code subdivisions in single family zones would be required to comply with the density requirements in 23.20.080. The applicant would have arborist report preparation costs in addition to the permit fee under the draft code. Packet Page 236 of 470 Existing Code Draft Code Scenario Permit Required Permit Fee Application Requirements Permit Require Permit Fee Application Requirements Comments 6. Removal of trees located within City right-of-way. Right-of-Way Construction Permit $270 plus inspection fees. ECDC 18.60 Tree Trimming & Removal Policy Right-of-Way Construction Permit $270 plus inspection fees. ECDC 18.60 Tree Trimming & Removal Policy Tree Trimming and Removal Policy was recently revised with effective date of November 20, 2014. New policy has a replanting and replacement schedule based on the caliper of the tree being removed. Draft code has a replanting replacement schedule based on the number tree units of the tree being removed. Draft code is consistent with how the policy is applied and is intended to replace the policy. The applicant may have arborist report preparation costs in addition to the permit fee under the draft code. Packet Page 237 of 470 Pa c k e t Pa g e 23 8 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 23 9 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 24 0 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 24 1 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 24 2 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 24 3 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 24 4 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 24 5 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 24 6 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 24 7 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 24 8 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 24 9 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 25 0 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 25 1 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 25 2 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 25 3 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 25 4 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 25 5 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 25 6 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 25 7 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 25 8 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 25 9 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 26 0 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 26 1 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 26 2 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 26 3 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 26 4 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 26 5 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 26 6 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 26 7 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 26 8 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 26 9 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 27 0 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 27 1 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 27 2 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 27 3 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 27 4 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 27 5 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 27 6 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 27 7 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 27 8 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 27 9 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 28 0 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 28 1 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 28 2 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 28 3 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 28 4 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 28 5 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 28 6 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 28 7 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 28 8 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 28 9 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 29 0 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 29 1 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 29 2 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 29 3 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 29 4 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 29 5 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 29 6 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 29 7 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 29 8 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 29 9 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 30 0 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 30 1 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 30 2 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 30 3 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 30 4 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 30 5 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 30 6 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 30 7 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 30 8 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 30 9 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 31 0 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 31 1 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 31 2 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 31 3 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 31 4 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 31 5 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 31 6 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 31 7 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 31 8 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 31 9 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 32 0 of 47 0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 32 1 of 47 0 APPROVED MARCH 11TH CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 25, 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 Mike Nelson Careen Rubenkonig Daniel Robles Valerie Stewart Evan Zhao, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chair Lovell noted that the Board had a lengthy discussion at their February 11th meeting relative to the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested members of the Economic Development Commission would benefit from reviewing the minutes from that meeting. BOARD MEMBER NELSON MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2015 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Steve Hatzenbeler, Chair, Edmonds Tree Board, reported that the Tree Board had a great opportunity in 2014 to move forward with the task of updating the Tree Code, which has been on their agenda for quite a few years. The City Council was generous enough to allocate $25,000, along with a $10,000 grant, to hire a consultant who is an expert on tree code writing and has worked in other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound area. The consultant was a great resource and steered the conversation where it needed to go to move forward with the update. Mr. Hatzenbeler commented that this is a great opportunity for the City to step up and start following the lead of other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound Region. Edmonds is probably a more difficult city for adopting a new tree code because it has to address the challenge of trees competing with views. He said he anticipates views versus trees will come up often as the Tree Code moves through the public review process. He commented that the proposed language provides some teeth Packet Page 322 of 470 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 25, 2015 Page 2 related to tree removal, whereas the existing code does not. The existing code provides no disincentive for people to remove trees. Trees are removed everyday throughout the City, and few are being replaced. The Tree Board’s goal and hope is that the new Tree Code can be adopted similar to its current draft form, which would make the tree removal process a little more complicated rather than allowing removal of the tree canopy at will. He advised that members of the Tree Board were present to answer any questions the Board might have relative to the proposed language. Mike Echelbarger, Edmonds, said he is not present to talk against tree preservation. However, he is concerned about how trees can impact views. He recalled that his great grandfather built a house in Alderwood Manor about 100 years ago at the top of 188th Street near the current Alderwood Mall. He remembered his grandmother saying that they used to have a view of Puget Sound from the top of the hill. When they built the home in the early 1920s, there were no trees in Edmonds; and it is likely that few trees existing when Edmonds adopted its first tree code in 1928. He said he is concerned about the long-range impacts of the proposed Tree Code and the possibility that it could end up eliminating the view of Puget Sound from Emerald Hills, 7th Avenue, 8th Avenue, and other streets along the hillside. Mr. Echelbarger pointed out that Edmonds is located on and identifies itself with Puget Sound. He questioned how many of the fir and maple trees that are planted today on 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Avenues will grow to block views 30 years from now. He also questioned if the proposed Tree Code would place a height limit on trees. He noted that many politicians in the town have placed a great importance on maintaining the 25-foot building height limit in the downtown area, and tree heights should be germane to this discussion, as well. He questioned the need for a 25-foot height limit if the City allows 200-foot trees to block the view. The idea is to open the view for the public. He said he hopes the plan has a longer view than just planting a bunch of trees in downtown Edmonds. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Ms. Hope referred the Board to her written report. In addition to the items discussed in the report, she noted that the State Department of Ecology (DOE) has informed the City that they are in the public comment process now for the City’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP). They will continue to accept public comment through March 27th. At that point, they will consider the comments and other information and ultimately provide feedback either approving the document as written or approving the document with some changes. Vice Chair Lovell asked if the City would be required to take additional action after the DOE has completed its review and issued its findings. Ms. Hope answered that the document must still be formally adopted by the City Council, and the DOE may ask for minor changes. If they request more significant changes, the Planning Board will likely be involved in the process again, as well. Board Member Stewart asked if citizens would be privy to the comments that are submitted by others related to the SMP. Ms. Hope answered that the public process would be controlled by the DOE, and they will keep track of the comments that are submitted. Mr. Lien added that all of the public comments the DOE receives on the SMP will be sent back to the City. Just as the City staff responded to comments during the SMP update process, they will have to respond to each of the comments submitted to the DOE. All of the comments will be available to the public. Chair Tibbott said he recently reviewed the Regional Transportation Task Force’s list of recommended projects, and it appears that projects in Edmonds are low priorities. He asked Ms. Hope to describe what the transportation projects in Edmonds might look like. Ms. Hope said there are a number of processes going on now, and some of the discussion with the Regional Transportation Task Force is thinking long-term into the future and how to address transportation differently. There is also work going on at the legislative level, and the City’s proposal for $10 million to do improvements on Highway 99 was included in the conversation. The project has been included on the list of high-priority items that is making its way through the Legislature. At this time, they do not know what will eventually be funded, but the City is very hopeful. There are also funding opportunities through the Puget Sound Regional Council and Snohomish County that utilize Federal and State funds, but these processes have not opened yet. 2105 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS Ms. Hope reviewed that the Board is very familiar with the public process that is currently in progress for updating the Comprehensive Plan. The Board is reviewing each of the elements and moving them forward to the City Council for review. Given the short timeframe (mid 2015) for completing the update, the Planning Board and City Council concurred that the Packet Page 323 of 470 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 25, 2015 Page 5 levels. Ms. Hope explained that in the traditional way of measuring level of service, the LOS rating translates into seconds of delay and an LOS D is not bad. However, there are different schools of thought on whether the traditional method is a good way to measure traffic. Rather than simply looking at car traffic, there is a need to look more at the various modes of transportation when identifying level of service. While measuring vehicular traffic is reasonable, it is not the only kind of traffic that matters. The trend is to look at ways to measure bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes, as well. She emphasized that the City is not required to use the traditional method of calculating LOS. Board Member Nelson agreed with Board Member Rubenkonig that it would be helpful to have a barometer from which to measure or an explanation of what is meant by the various LOS levels. He noted that most of the streets in Edmonds are at LOS C or D, which is not considered bad. Ms. Hope agreed that this additional explanation could be provided in the full report. INTRODUCTION OF TREE CODE AND RELATED ISSUES Mr. Lien said the purpose of his presentation is to provide a broad overview and introduction of the Tree Code update. He reviewed that Edmonds was incorporated in 1980 and its first tree code was adopted in 1928. Since that time, the tree ordinance has been revised and expanded with a Municipal Tree Ordinance being adopted in 1977, a Street Tree Plan in 1982, and a Land Clearing and Tree Ordinance in 1990 and amended in 2007. The revisions over time, as well as the adoption of other environmental policies (Critical Areas Ordinance, Shoreline Master Program, and Landscape requirements), have resulted in the City’s tree-related regulations being spread throughout the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). This has made the tree regulations fragmented and difficult for citizens to understand. In addition, they are often conflicting and cumbersome for staff to implement. Mr. Lien explained that tree cutting in Edmonds is primarily regulated by ECDC 18.45 (Land Clearing and Tree Cutting), the Right-of-Way Tree Removal and Trimming Policy that was adopted in November of 2014, and the City’s Critical Area Regulations (ECDC 23.40 through 23.90). Various other City regulations, such as the landscaping requirements, also have aspects that apply to regulating trees in the City. He said the intent of the Tree Code Update is to develop a more comprehensive tree code with a clear vision that is easier for citizens to understand and for staff to implement. He reviewed that the current Tree Code identifies several exemptions from the requirement of a tree-cutting permit. These exemptions include:  Removal of trees on developed single-family lots with no critical areas which are not capable of being subdivided into more than one additional lot.  Routine landscape maintenance. Quite a few trees in the City have been topped over the years. For the past few years, topping has been considered cutting; it is bad for the trees and can open them up to disease and rot. However, the code does allow trees that were previously topped to be maintained at the previous topping level without a permit.  Removal of hazardous trees. As per the Critical Areas Ordinance, hazardous trees in a critical area or critical area buffer would be exempt from the tree-cutting permit requirement, but the City would still require documentation and an arborist evaluation.  Emergency situations. Mr. Lien explained that when permits are required as per the current code, the process and associated fee depends on the location of the trees. If a single-family property requires a tree cutting permit, the permit is a Type II Permit (staff decision with notice), with an application fee of $795 plus a $25 City surcharge. For multi-family and commercial sites, the permit would be a Type I staff decision, and design review would be required for consistency with the landscaping requirements in EDCD 20.13. The applicable fee for this permit is $225 plus a $25 City surcharge. If a property owner wants to remove a tree in an unimproved right-of-way in front of his/her property, a right-of-way construction permit would be required, and the application fee varies ($90 to $270) depending on the scope of the work. No separate permit is required for new development that involves the removal of trees, but a landscape plan or planting of street trees may be required. For example, the City’s subdivision regulations require that trees be retained whenever possible. Therefore, the City only allows the removal of the trees required for installation of the subdivision. Landscaping requirements for multi-family and commercial projects are considered as part of the building permit review process. Packet Page 324 of 470 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 25, 2015 Page 6 Mr. Lien said the proposed Tree Code is a complete overhaul of the existing code. It provides a different permitting process and would have the same permitting fees and processes for single-family, multi-family and commercial developments. As proposed, a permit would be required for the removal of any tree not associated with a development proposal, and the current exceptions would no longer apply. It also provides for a tiered permitting system depending on the category of tree and the number of trees proposed for removal. Again, he noted that although a separate permit would not be required for new development, tree removal would be considered as part of a development proposal. He referred to Attachment 2, which is a matrix outlining the different scenarios, permitting requirements, removal criteria and replacement requirements. He specifically reviewed the permit types as follows:  Administrative Staff Review Permit. Tree removal may be authorized on private properties by Administrative Staff Review Permit for the removal of no more than two significant trees within any 36-month period on a single-family residential lot with a critical area waiver or erosion hazard determination.  Type I Arborist Consult Permit (staff decision with no notice). Tree removal may be authorized by a Type I Arborist Consult Permit for removal of nuisance trees, hazard trees, protected trees, any number of significant trees on multi- family, commercial or industrial property; or more than two significant trees within a 36-month period.  Type II Arborist Consult Permit. Tree removal may be authorized by a Type II Arborist Consult Permit for the removal of a landmark tree or trees located within a critical area or critical area buffer.  Right-of-Way Permit. Any pruning or removal of a significant tree on private property that results in falling of the tree or branches into the traveled way of the right-of-way requires a Right-of-Way Construction Permit. To provide clarification, Mr. Lien reviewed that the following tree types are defined in the proposed new code:  Significant means a tree that is at least 6 inches in diameter.  Landmark Tree means a tree that measure at least 24 inches in diameter.  Protected Tree means a tree identified for retention and protection on an approved plan.  Hazardous Tree means a tree that are in a state of high probability of failure, close to target, and hazard cannot be mitigated.  Nuisance Tree means a tree that cause significant damage to infrastructure and the problem cannot be corrected. Mr. Lien summarized that the intent of the proposed Tree Code is to make it more difficult for property owners to remove trees. However, he acknowledged that it would be more comprehensive than the current permitting system and significant staff resources are likely to be required to administrate the permitting requirements. In addition, the application requirements may prove to be costly for property owners. Mr. Lien advised that another major change with the draft Tree Code is a minimum tree density requirement for single-family property, depending on the zone. He referred to the table provided in ECDC 23.20.080, which outlines the minimum tree density requirement for each of the City’s single-family residential zones. He specifically referred to the footnote just after the table that explains that for subdividable lots, the minimum number of tree units would be determined by multiplying the number of tree units by the number of potential lots based on area. Mr. Lien also referred to the table in ECDC 23.20.080, which identifies the tree unit value for each size of tree. As an example, he pointed out that a Landmark Tree (greater than 24 inches) would count as four tree units. Therefore, the tree density for an RS-8 lot (4 units) could be fulfilled by one Landmark Tree, two 12-inch trees, or four 6 to 10-inch trees. Mr. Lien explained that the intent of the density requirement is to maintain or expand tree coverage within the City. However, he acknowledged that without having an Urban Forest Management Plan for the City or some other policy in place, it will be difficult to establish tree density requirements to achieve outcomes which have not been expressed. Mr. Lien summarized that the purpose of tonight’s discussion is to introduce the draft Tree Code, and the Board will review the details at upcoming meetings. Other changes include new definitions, revised penalties for unpermitted tree activity, Packet Page 325 of 470 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 25, 2015 Page 7 subdivision tree plans, and the establishment of a City Tree Fund that will allow people to pay into a fund in lieu of planting replacement trees. Vice Chair Lovell observed that the Comprehensive Plan includes a policy that says the City will preserve, maintain and protect public view corridors. That means that trees planted by the City should not be allowed to grow to a height that obstructs the view corridors. He asked if this Comprehensive Plan policy was taken into account when the draft Tree Code was prepared. Vice Chair Lovell said it was particularly helpful for Mr. Lien to compare the current Tree Code with the proposed Tree Code so the changes could be clear. However, he is concerned about how the proposed changes might impact private property owners. The majority of the properties within the single-family residential zones are already developed with existing homes, and there are currently no limitations or restrictions on tree cutting. The proposed new Tree Code would require these property owners to obtain approval from the City via a permit, and a fee would be charged. Mr. Lien agreed that the current Tree Code exempts single-family residential properties from the permit requirement, and this exemption would be eliminated as per the proposed language. Vice Chair Lovell referenced the problems that have occurred in the downtown area as a result of street trees pushing up the sidewalk, creating a safety hazard. This appears to be a tree versus public safety conflict. He asked if the proposed language would address the need to replace these street trees with a more appropriate species that would not grow and interfere with the sidewalks. Mr. Lien answered that street trees are addressed in the Street Tree Plan rather than the Tree Code. The Tree Code only addresses trees on private properties and within unimproved rights-of-way. Mr. Lien explained that the proposed code language does not talk about tree cutting for views, which is a touchy subject that the Tree Board discussed at length. Some people think trees are the view and others think trees block the view. Relative to the public view corridors identified in the Comprehensive Plan and the City’s current policy for cutting trees in rights-of- way, he said the City does not cut trees for the purpose of preserving or creating views. He summarized that while views are talked about in the Development Code, nothing specifically addresses view. A property owner can remove two trees within a 36-month period provided they are not within critical areas or critical area buffers. The trees that are cut could end up opening a view, but that is not one of the criteria. Board Member Stewart thanked the Tree Board for moving the proposed language forward. She asked how the City would know where the landmark trees are located. Mr. Lien said the Tree Board did conduct a GIS analysis to determine the percentage of coverage in Edmonds, but there is no survey of existing trees. He suggested that an Urban Forest Management Plan would be an important aspect of moving forward to identify appropriate tree retention goals for the City. Board Member Stewart suggested the Planning Board could recommend that the City Council provide funding for an Urban Forest Management Plan. Board Member Robles thanked the Tree Board, as well. He said that while he supports tree retention and has about eight landmark trees on his property, it is also important to address tough questions such as the view amenity. He commented that views add value to people’s homes, which is significant. He noted that while the proposed Tree Code quantifies the value of trees and establishes commensurate fines for their illegal removal, it does not quantify the value of views. Board Member Robles referred to the list of values that trees offer. He specifically referred to Item 11 and asked if it technically correct to state that trees store carbon. He explained that when a tree falls down and rots, the carbon goes back into the atmosphere. He also referred to Item 12, which states that trees contribute to human health improvement by lowering levels of fear of residents, and less violent and aggressive behaviors by its citizens. He asked if this finding is supported by theory or study data. Chair Tibbott said Item 12 could be applicable to a situation where one homeowner decides against removing a hazardous tree that could potentially fall on his neighbor’s home. This situation could result in stress and fear on the part of the neighbor. Mr. Lien explained that the intent of this section is to outline the Tree Board’s findings. It will not likely be included as part of the actual Tree Code that is adopted into the ECDC. Board Member Nelson thanked the Tree Board for getting the update started. He agreed with Board Member Stewart that the Board should recommend the City Council support the creation of an Urban Forest Management Plan. Packet Page 326 of 470 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 25, 2015 Page 8 Chair Tibbott noted that the proposed language does not address trees that interfere with utilities. For example, sometimes trees grow into utility wires and poles and need to be removed. Mr. Lien pointed out that the draft language in ECDC 23.20.040 exempts street trees and tree removal by the Public Works Department, Parks Department, and Fire Department in the course of routine maintenance and/or repair of public facilities or emergency response situations. He suggested that maintenance related to utilities could also be added as an exemption. Chair Tibbott noted that most of the time, utilities are located within the rights-of-way, which means the City could choose to remove a tree or a portion of a tree if it interferes with a utility. Mr. Lien clarified that, most of the time, utilities get permits from the Engineering Division, and a tree removal permit would only be required if the tree is located on private property. Chair Tibbott noted the significant difference between permit fees for tree removal on single-family residential lots versus multi-family residential lots. Mr. Lien said this variation is related to the old code, where trees could be removed on single- family residential lots without a permit as long as they are not within a critical area or its buffer. The fees outlined in the proposed new code would require a permit for tree removal in both types of zoning. Chair Tibbott said he supports the permit requirement for all tree removal so the City can track how many trees are coming down. However, he felt the fee schedule could be different, depending on the location, number and type of trees being removed. For example, a permit to remove two smaller trees from a single-family residential property would require minimal staff time to process, so the established fee should be lower. He asked if the permit fee would be charge per tree. Mr. Lien answered that a fee would be charged for each tree cutting permit, but a tree cutting permit could include more than one tree. Chair Tibbott commented that the proposed Tree Code represents a big change over the existing code, and significant public outreach will be needed to let people know of the new requirements. He noted that the draft code language would establish fines for tree removal without a permit, and he suggested it might be appropriate to have an amnesty period as the City educates the public relative to the changes. Board Member Stewart asked where the 36-month time period came from. Mr. Lien said it was proposed by the consultant who has a number of years of experience working with jurisdictions in the region. Board Member Stewart expressed concern that if a property owner is allowed to remove three significant trees every three years, all the trees on a residential property could be removed within a six-year time period. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the proposed language also identifies a minimum tree density requirement. Board Member Stewart asked if a property owner would be required to replace trees if tree removal causes the property to go below the minimum tree units required. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Lovell asked what diameter the replacement trees would have to be. Mr. Lien answered that a replacement tree would count as one tree unit regardless of its size. Board Member Rubenkonig thanked the Tree Board for their efforts to come up with a platform to review policy for Edmonds. In looking through the materials, she struggled with where the muscle to enforce the requirements would be outlined. She said it is also important for the plan to clearly identify what they want to have happen in the City relative to trees over the next 15 to 25 years. She expressed her belief that the reasoning behind the proposal is unclear. Board Member Rubenkonig voiced concern about how the proposed new regulations would impact those who have been long standing stewards of their lands; those who have cared for their trees and have generous tree canopies in their yards. The proposed language would require these property owners to pay an $895 fee to obtain a permit to remove a tree that is hazardous. At the same time, developers of new residential properties would be required to submit a tree plan, but no additional permit would be required for tree removal. She asked if developers would be required to replace trees if more than three trees are removed from a property. If not, she questioned why long-standing stewards of trees in the community would be required to comply with the new requirements and developers would not. She suggested that developers should have a comparable replacement requirement. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that Snohomish County recently adopted a new tree ordinance that included greater requirements for tree replacement. She suggested that rather than a simple 1:1 replacement requirement, the removal of larger trees should require a greater replacement. She expressed her belief that replacing large trees with the same number of small trees will not provide a significant community benefit. She suggested the Tree Board spend more time to address this issue. She also asked that they give further attention to the idea of creating an Urban Forest Management Plan. Packet Page 327 of 470 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 25, 2015 Page 9 Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City is required to obtain a permit when removing trees within a right-of-way. Mr. Lien answered that the right-of-way policy related to trees applies to the City, as well. When removing trees in the rights-of- way, the City is required to obtain a permit from the Engineering Department and pay a fee. Board Member Rubenkonig asked where the permit fees go, and Mr. Lien answered that they go into the General Fund. Board Member Rubenkonig requested additional information about the fee-in-lieu-of program, and Mr. Lien advised that the program still needs to be established to address issues such as what the funds can be used for. Relative to the issue of views, Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that she previously served on the Architectural Design Board for eight years. During that time, it was made clear that protection of views was a private matter that property owners can take up with their neighbors. It is possible to combine easements, create covenants, etc., but views are a private issue and not something the City will enforce. Mr. Lien agreed that is still the City’s policy relative to views. Board Member Stewart asked if the proposed language would prohibit a property owner from clearing a forested lot without having a development proposal in place. Is there another type of permit that would allow the lot to be cleared? Mr. Lien answered that the existing code clearly states that properties cannot be cleared for the purpose of preparing them for development or sale. The City does not generally permit tree removal just because. He said he does know if the proposed code includes this same language, but the intent is to prevent this type of occurrence. He also noted that the subdivision code only allows a developer to remove the trees necessary to install the improvements. Board Member Stewart asked if a property owner could obtain a clearing permit to clear the trees. Mr. Lien answered that clearing on any property within the City limits would require a permit. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled an earlier situation on Olympic View Drive where an owner cleared property and sold the trees for lumber. She asked if a property owner could obtain a Forest Practices Permit from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that would allow him/her to harvest all of the trees. Mr. Lien pointed out that the properties in the City of Edmonds are not considered forestlands, so a Forest Practices Permit would not be required to cut down trees in the City. He pointed out that these permits mandate that the property cannot be developed for at least six years. Chair Tibbott observed that, based on the proposal, only a limited number of trees could be removed and a certain number of trees would have to remain on the lot. Mr. Lien agreed that a property owner would not be allowed to remove trees from a vacant lot just for the sake of clearing a property, and the land clearing regulations would remain in place after the new code language is adopted. The City would not allow a property owner to cut down all the trees on a site in preparation for a sale or other similar situation. Mr. Lien said he does not foresee situations in the City where property owners will clear cut land for lumber. Board Member Stewart pointed out where there are four lots in Edmonds that constitute over five acres of land. The property has just been placed on the market, and the owner has already threatened to log the land for lumber. She asked if this property owner could circumvent the City’s permit requirement by obtaining a permit from the DNR to clear the property. Mr. Lien said he worked closely with DNR at his previous job. He explained that there are specific requirements attached to a Forest Practices Permits. For example, a property owner would be required to replant a property within two years. He agreed to seek feedback from the DNR and provide additional information to the Board. Mr. Lien closed by advising that the Board would continue its discussion relative to the Tree Code at a future meeting, at which time more detailed information would be presented. DISCUSSION ON DRAFT COMMUNITY CULTURE AND URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Mr. Chave referred the Board to the draft Community Culture and Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Attachments 1 and 2). He explained that the “community culture” portion of the element has some additional language inserted to clarify its role as a distinct section within the overall chapter. The separate Community Cultural Plan (Attachment 3) would be adopted by reference and provides more detail and elaboration. The “Urban Design” portion of the element now consolidates all design objectives in the Comprehensive Plan, including some that were previously included in the Land Use Element. Packet Page 328 of 470 APPROVED APRIL 8TH CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 25, 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 Matt Cheung Evan Zhao, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Planner Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH BOARD MEMBERS CLOUTIER AND CHEUNG ABSTAINING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Tibbott referred the Board to the written report provided by the Development Services Director. He noted that, attached to the report, is the PowerPoint presentation of the Planning/Parks Board Report that he and Vice Chair Lovell presented to the City Council on March 17th. He explained that the presentation provided an overview of all the Board’s activities over the past few months relative to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. He encouraged the Board members to review the document. Chair Tibbott reported that, after the presentation, the City Council expressed appreciation to the Board for taking additional time in their discussion relative to the Comprehensive Plan to consider building design and form and what development would look like as the design concepts are incorporated into the Development Code. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF DRAFT TREE CODE Packet Page 329 of 470 Mr. Lien reviewed that the draft Tree Code (Attachment 1), which is recommended by the City’s Citizen Tree Board, was introduced to the Board on February 25th. Since that time, staff has prepared a number of tree cutting scenarios (Attachment 2) to demonstrate how it would be implemented. Staff has also prepared a matrix of the scenarios to illustrate how the current tree cutting permit requirements contrast with the draft Tree Code permit requirements (Attachment 3). For discussions purposes, he reviewed the following definitions found in the draft Tree Code: • Tree. A self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or multiple trunks that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries. • Significant Tree. A tree that measures at least 6 inches in diameter. • Landmark Tree. A tree that measures at least 24 inches in diameter • Hazardous Tree. A tree that is in a state of high probability of failure, is in proximity to persons or property that can be damaged by tree failure and the hazard condition of the tree cannot be lessened with reasonable and proper arboricultural practices. • Nuisance Tree. A tree that is causing significant damage to private or public structures and/or infrastructure or a tree that has sustained damage from past maintenance practices and the problem cannot be corrected. • Right-of-Way Tree. A tree that is located in the public right-of-way. • Street Tree. A tree that is located within the City’s right-of-way that meets the goals and intent of the Edmonds Street Tree Plan. • Border Tree. A tree whose trunk is located on both the right-of-way and private property or whose trunk is located on the property line of two adjacent parcels. • Protected Tree. A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract or covenant restriction. • Heritage Tree. A tree or group of trees that have been designated by the City as such. • Specimen Tree. A tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the City’s tree protection professional. Mr. Lien said it is important to understand that street trees and right-of-way trees are distinctly different. There are a lot of undeveloped rights-of-way in Edmonds. Many property owners have planted landscaping within the rights-of-way, thinking it is part of their yard. However, these trees should not be confused with street trees that are planted with development as part of a landscape plan, such as the trees along Main Street that are located within the sidewalk area. Board Member Lovell summarized that, as currently proposed, street trees would be addressed in the Street Tree Plan, and right-of-way trees would be addressed in the Tree Code. He asked if the introductory language would make it clear which code section governs each situation. Mr. Lien explained that the draft Tree Code is intended to apply mainly to trees on private property, but it also includes right-of-way trees. Street trees are required by the Street Tree Plan, which provides a map to identify the specific species of tree that must be planted with development in certain areas of the City. Street trees are generally planted in the planting strip along the sidewalk as a required element of development. Right-of-way trees are typically located in unopened rights-of-way where street trees are not required. Mr. Lien explained that application fees are generally set to cover the cost of processing and issuing permits, and the current fee schedule was established by Resolution Number 1308. However, the City Council could establish new fees commiserate with the amount of work required to process the various tree cutting permits identified in the draft Tree Code. He advised that, for illustrative purposes, the permit fees established in Resolution 1308 for Type I and Type II permits were used for the draft tree code scenarios. For permits that require an arborist review, applicants would be responsible to cover the cost of review by the City’s tree protection professional. In some instances, property owner would also incur additional costs associated with preparing a more detailed application and obtaining an arborist report. To get a better idea of what the additional costs would be, he contacted several professional arborists and learned that the typical cost for a small arborist report (1 or 2 trees) would be about $200 to $250. A tree management plan, which would be required for subdivisions, could cost as much as $1,000. Chair Tibbott noted that the draft Tree Code would be applicable to all trees that are greater than 6 inches in diameter. In his mind, a 6-inch tree does not seem “significant.” Mr. Lien explained that a permit would be required for the removal of any Packet Page 330 of 470 tree that is 6 inches in diameter or greater. A permit would also be required for the removal of protected trees that are planted as part of an approved tree plan regardless of size. The plan also addresses permit requirements for the removal of landmark trees that are greater than 24 inches in diameter, specimen trees as determined by the City’s tree protection professional, heritage trees as per the resolution recently adopted by the City Council, and border trees that are located on the property line. If a portion of a border tree is located in the right-of-way, a right-of-way permit would also be required. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if trees that are less than 6 inches in diameter would count as part of a property’s minimum tree density requirement. Mr. Lien explained that the minimum tree density requirement is based on zoning. For example, the minimum requirement in an RS-6 zone is 2 tree units, and 4 tree units would be required in an RS-8 zone. He referred to the chart in ECDC 23.20.080.B, which outlines tree unit values and explained that replacement trees would count as 1 unit, and existing trees that are smaller than 6 inches in diameter would count as ½ unit. Existing trees with greater diameters would count as more tree units. Mr. Lien explained that one purpose of the draft Tree Code is to retain viable trees on private property to the extent possible. He referred to ECDC 23.20.070.B, which outlines the priority for protection of healthy trees in development, redevelopment or existing lots that are being modified, starting with heritage trees, specimen trees, and trees located in critical area buffers. Vice Chair Lovell advised that, as per the chart in ECDC 23.20.080.B, an existing single-family residential property could be identified as under treed. If a property owner wants to remove a tree, he/she would be required to provide replacement trees consistent with the number of units required for the zone. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the City of Brier’s Tree Code lists specific trees that can be removed without a permit, such as alder, and birch. She asked if the Tree Board considered allowing the removal of less desirable tree species without a permit. Mr. Lien said the Tree Board discussed the option, but the draft Tree Code does not make this distinction. Mr. Lien reviewed the following scenarios with the Board to help them understand how the draft Tree Code would be applied: • Scenario 1 – Tree removal on improved single-family property not subdividable into more than one additional lot with no critical areas or erosion hazard of less than 25% As per the current code, removal of any number of trees on an improved single-family property with no critical areas present or erosion hazard of less than 25% slope would be exempt from the tree cutting permit requirements, and no application fee would be required. The draft Tree Code outlines three different permit processes, depending on the number of trees proposed for removal. 1. A Type I Administrative Staff Review Permit would be required for the removal of no more than two significant trees within a 36-month period. The current application fee for this type of permit is $250. As per ECDC 23.20.060.A, the property owner would be required to submit a completed land use application that includes a site plan showing the approximate size and location of all significant trees on the property; a description of the trees requested to be removed and a reason for the removal; a calculation of tree density to determine if the remaining trees meet the minimum for the site or if replacement trees would be required; and a planting plan showing the location, size and species of any required replacement trees as per ECDC 23.20.090. The application would be subject to the tree density requirement outlined in ECDC 23.20.080, which indicates that the required minimum size of a replacement tree worth 1 tree credit is 6 feet tall for a conifer and a 2-inch caliper for deciduous or broad-leaf evergreen trees. 2. A Type I Arborist Consult Permit would be required for the removal of more than two significant trees within any 36- month period. The application fee for this permit would be $250 plus the cost of the arborist review. As per ECDC 23.20.060.B, the property owner would be required to submit the same information as required for a Type I Administrative Staff Review. In addition, the applicant would be required to submit a management report from a qualified tree professional explaining how the removal would improve the health and safety of the remaining trees and would not result in the site falling below the minimum density required. Tree removal on single-family lots would be subject to the tree density requirement outlined in ECDC 23.20.080. For multi -family residential, commercial or Packet Page 331 of 470 industrial properties, the required replacement would be in accordance to the landscape standards set forth in ECDC 20.13. 3. A Type II Arborist Consult Permit would be required for the removal of any number of landmark trees. Type II permits are administrative decisions that require notice to property owners within 300 feet, publishing in the paper, and posting on the subject property. The application for the permit would be $820 plus the cost of an arborist review. As per ECDC 23.20.060.C, the applicant would be required to submit the same information as required for the Type I Administrative Staff Review. In addition, the applicant would be required to submit a report from a qualified tree professional describing the health and condition of the tree and explaining how no other arboriculture practices, such as crown raising, crown reduction or crown thinning can achieve a desirable outcome. The application would be subject to the tree density requirement outlined in ECDC 23.20.080 Vice Chair Lovell asked how the draft Tree Code would address a situation where an existing single-family property does not meet the required minimum tree density. Mr. Lien explained that, if the property owner is only proposing to remove one or two tr ees, replacement would only be required for the trees that are removed. However, if the property owner wants to remove more than two trees, he/she would be required to plant sufficient trees to bring the property into compliance with the minimum tree density. Also, if a property owner requests to remove three or more significant trees, the City would have the ability to deny the request if it would cause the property to fall below the minimum tree density required for the zone. He summarized that a property owner would be allowed to remove up to two significant trees in a 35-month period before the more stringent requirements would kick in. Board Member Rubenkonig voiced concern that the draft Tree Code would allow a property owner to remove a significant tree and replace it with a tree that is much smaller. Mr. Lien advised that professional arborists have indicated that smaller replacement trees are quicker to establish and generally do better. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the City and property owners would know if a tree is protected. Mr. Lien explained that protected trees are identified in the landscape plans that are submitted for development permits. In addition, the Tree Board believes that requiring permits for all tree removal would allow the City to track tree removal. However, he acknowledged that administering the draft Tree Code could take a significant amount of staff time. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the 36-month time period would be measured using a chronological calendar. Mr. Lien said it would be measured from the time the first tree removal occurs. Board Member Robles asked how a new property owner would know if the previous owner had already cut down two trees in the past 36 months. Board Member Cloutier said it would be up to the new owner to contact the City for this information. Mr. Lien explained that one reason for requiring a Type II Arborist Consult Permit for the removal of even one landmark tree is because these larger trees can have significance to a neighborhood. Board Member Stewart asked if a property owner would be required to pay the $820 application fee for each landmark tree that is removed. Mr. Lien answered that the fee would be $820 per application, and an application could include the removal of more than one tree. Board Member Stewart asked what replacement would be required when a landmark tree is cut down. Mr. Lien referred to the table in ECDC 23.20.080.B and answered that a landmark tree would require a replacement of four tree units. The minimum tree density on a property would be based on zoning as per the table in 23.20.080.A. • Scenario 2 – Tree removal on improved single-family property capable of being subdivided into two additional lots. As per the existing code, removal of trees on improved single-family properties that do not fall into one of the exemptions listed in ECDC 18.45.030.A would require a tree cutting permit, which would be a Type II Staff Decision. Tree removal in this scenario would also be subject to the tree density requirement of ECDC 23.20.080. Vice Chair Lovell asked if a permit would be required for a property owner who wants to remove one tree in order to subdivide his lot into two lots. Mr. Lien answered that a subdivision that creates just one additional lot would be exempt from the requirements outlined in Scenario 2, which only applies to subdivisions of two additional lots. Packet Page 332 of 470 • Scenario 3 – Improved single-family property with critical area or hazard/nuisance tree removal. Under the existing code, trees are only allowed to be cut in a critical area when they are determined to be hazard trees. No permit is required, but documentation must be provided and replacement trees are required at a ratio of 2:1. The current code does not address nuisance trees; but the Critical Areas Ordinance allows nuisance trees to be removed via a Type II Staff Decision. The application fee would be $820, and a critical areas report would be required. Under the draft Tree Code, removal of a hazard or nuisance tree in a critical area and/or buffer would require a critical area report in addition to the application requirements for the tree removal. The application fee would be $250 plus the cost of the arborist review. The applicant would be required to provide a site plan showing the approximate location, size and species of significant trees, as well as the location of structures, driveways, access ways, easements and utilities within the critical root zone of the tree. The application must also include a description of the trees to be removed, including the reason for removal. For removal of a hazard tree, the applicant may be required to provide a tree risk assessment prepared by a qualified tree professional explaining how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree. The removal of a nuisance tree would require the applicant to submit evidence of the damage and any tree work that has been done to rectify the nuisance and/or a statement from a qualified tree professional explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance. The tree replacement and tree density requirements outlined in ECDC 23.20.080 would apply. However, if approved by the City, the removal of a hazard or nuisance tree would not count toward the tree removal limit of two trees in a 36-month period. Board Member Rubenkonig voiced concern that the application fee and requirements are too punitive for property owners who have been good stewards of the critical areas and/or buffers located on their properties that benefit the entire community. These property owners would not only be required to pay an application fee for the permit; they would also be required to pay for the City’s arborist to review the application. Mr. Lien added that, as currently proposed, the property owners would also be required to replace the trees that are removed subject to the density and tree replacement requirements outlined in ECDC 23.20.080. Mr. Lien explained that, typically within a critical area and/or buffer, vegetation provides an important function and value, and the Critical Areas Ordinance has stringent requirements to prevent any alterations whatsoever. The draft code would not impact this protection; but it would provide a process by which nuisance and hazard trees can be removed. This is one situation where the draft tree code could be less costly than the current code. • Scenario 4 – Removal of trees on commercial or multi-family property with an approved landscape plan. The majority of commercial and multi-family sites throughout the City have a landscape plan that was either approved by the Architectural Design Board or by staff when the site was initially developed. Currently, this landscaping is considered to be design features subject to the City’s landscape requirements as detailed in ECDC 20.13. As a result, tree cutting within commercial and multi-family sites requires a Type I Staff Design Review. The application fee is $250 and applicants are required to provide a variety of information to show how the removal and replacement of trees would be consistent with the landscape plan that was originally approved for the site, as well as the City’s landscape requirements spelled out in ECDC 20.13. The draft Tree Code would require a Type I Arborist Consult Permit for the removal of any number of trees on a commercial or multi-family site. The application fee would be $250 plus the cost of an arborist review. In addition to the requirements outlined in the previous scenarios for Type I Arborist Consult Permits, the applicant would be required to submit a report by a qualified tree professional explaining how the tree meets the definition of a nuisance or hazard tree, and if necessary, how the removal would not compromise the health and safety of the remaining trees. Replacement would be required as per the landscape standards set forth in ECDC 20.13. • Scenario 5 – Removal of trees associated with a subdivision. Currently, tree removal associated with a subdivision or other development proposal is handled under the development review process rather than a stand-alone tree cutting permit. The fee for a short subdivision application is currently $2,645, and the fee for a formal subdivision application is $5,355 plus the cost of the Hearing Examiner. The application for a subdivision must note the location of tree-covered areas, as well as the location of trees over 8 inches in diameter. On subdivision applications with tree-covered areas, staff normally includes a condition for a tree cutting plan for the removal of trees impacted by the subdivision improvements. Any tree cutting proposed on the site that is not a hazardous situation Packet Page 333 of 470 and/or necessary as part of the subdivision improvements must be reviewed at the time of building permit application or through the appropriate land use permit application and review process. The trees that are required to be retained must be protected as per the tree protection measures outlined in ECDC 18.45.050.H. Under the draft Tree Code, approval for tree removal associated with a subdivision would still be handled under the development review process. In addition to the application requirements of the associated subdivision, a tree plan prepared by a qualified tree professional would be required as detailed in ECDC 23.20.060.D. The subdivision fees would remain the same, but the applicant would also be responsible for the cost (approximately $1,000) associated with the City tree professional’s review of the tree plan, if required. The draft Tree Code (ECDC 23.20.060.C) outlines the required elements of a tree plan. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that there are no provisions in the draft Tree Code that would require an applicant to retain a certain percentage of existing trees. Mr. Lien explained that the number of trees retained would depend on how the development fits on the site. He reminded the Board that the stormwater code would be updated in the next year, and would call for the incorporation of low-impact development (LID) standards throughout all elements of the Development Code. These LID standards could include tree retention requirements. At this time, tree retention is more of a second thought. By incorporating LID standards into the Development Code, tree retention would become one of the first things the City considers when reviewing development applications. Board Member Rubenkonig voiced concern that the draft Tree Code would be adopted prior to the new LID requirements associated with the stormwater code update. Mr. Lien referred ECDC 23.20.060.C, noting that the second sentence indicates that the tree assessment should be conducted as early in the design process as possible to improve the applicant’s ability to incorporate existing trees into the project and provide adequate protection. This language was added in anticipation of the new LID standards associated with the stormwater code. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that, currently, an application for a subdivision must note the location of tree-covered areas, as well as the location of trees over 8 inches in diameter. She asked why the current code does not require the applicant to identify the location of trees over 6 inches in diameter, since that is considered a significant tree. Mr. Lien said that although the current code only requires an applicant to identify trees that are 8 inches in diameter, applicants typically include all trees in their tree plans. • Scenario 6 – Removal of 24-inch tree located within the City right-of-way. Currently, removal of trees within the public rights-of-way is handled via a policy, and there is nothing in the code to address their removal. The City Council updated the tree policy in November, and the language in the draft Tree Code is consistent with the updated policy. Currently, a right-of-way construction permit from the Engineering Department is required for the removal of trees within rights-of-way. The application fee is $295, and an additional $90 inspection fee may be required. Under the draft Tree Code, removal of a 24-inch tree located within the City right-of-way would still require a right-of-way construction permit, and the fee would remain the same. Application requirements for a right-of-way construction permit are spelled out in ECDC 18.60, and the draft Tree Code (ECDC 23.20.060.E) spells out additional requirements consistent with the tree policy that was recently updated, including the requirement that the applicant provide a report from a qualified tree professional. Although not identified as a requirement in the tree policy, the draft Tree Code includes a replacement requirement equivalent that is tied to the diameter of the tree that is removed. For example, a 24-inch tree must be replaced with four tree units. However, there is some flexibility in both the current tree policy and the draft Tree Code that allows a professional arborist to determine the appropriate number of replacement trees. For example, if a professional arborist determines there is not enough room to plant the required replacement trees, the applicant could pay into a tree fund and the money could be used to plant trees in another location within the City. Board Member Stewart asked if it would be an adjacent property owner’s responsibility to remove hazard or nuisance trees that are located within the public right-of-way and replace them with new trees. She pointed out that, sometimes, trees within the rights-of-way cause problems with sidewalks, streets, etc. Mr. Lien answered that, typically, the City does not remove trees located in the unimproved rights-of-way; it is the adjacent property owners that come to the City with request to cut down trees. The City’s tree policy outlines when a right-of-way tree can be removed. The previous policy only allowed the remove of trees within the rights-of-way if they interfered with public infrastructure. The new policy recently approved by Packet Page 334 of 470 the City Council also allows right-of-way trees to be removed if they interfere with either public or private structures or infrastructure. Vice Chair Lovell asked if the tree policy would also allow a tree to be removed it an arborist determined it had a shallow root system and could fall on a nearby public or private structure. Mr. Lien said that, in this scenario, it would be considered a hazard tree, which could be taken down. However, a tree risk assessment by a professional arborist would be required as outlined in the draft Tree Code. The City would have the ability to deny an application for removal of a landmark tree if it is neither hazardous nor damaging to structures and infrastructure. Board Member Rubenkonig said she understands that it is illegal for property owners to place structures and/or landscaping that restricts access within the rights-of-way. Therefore, she is unclear where the replacement trees would be located and whether or not they could be counted as part of the adjacent property’s tree density. Mr. Lien answered that the right-of-way trees would not count towards the adjacent property’s tree density requirement, and the draft Tree Code would require replacement of all trees that are cut within the right-of-way. The replacement requirement would depend on the number and size of the trees removed. However, he reminded the Board that the property owner may have the option to pay into a tree fund in lieu of replacing any or all of the trees. Mr. Chave clarified that most of these situations occur in unopened rights-of- way where there is a combination of landscaping, including trees. Oftentimes, adjacent property owners do not understands that the property is considered public right-of-way. Mr. Lien reminded the Board of his previous comment that the City does not currently have an Urban Forest Management Plan, which would also address right-of-way trees. While trees in parks are identified in the City’s overall goal for canopy, there is no policy in place to back it up. Board Member Stewart said she has a number of reactions to the draft, and she hopes to have an opportunity to make some comments and suggestions before the plan is presented for a public hearing. Rather than answering questions on the fly, Mr. Lien suggested the Board Members forward their questions and comments to him. This would allow him to focus the next Staff Report on specific issues. He said he anticipates the Board would have at least one more work session prior to scheduling the draft Tree Code for a public hearing. Vice Chair Lovell noted that he already submitted written comments to staff regarding the draft Tree Code. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Tree Board discussed the opportunity to adjust the fee schedule based on income or age levels. Mr. Lien clarified that the fees identified in the draft Tree Code can only be adjusted by the City Council. He suggested the Board could forward a recommendation to the City Council relative to the fee schedule. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Tree Board contemplated an effective start date for enforcement of the new Tree Code if and when it is adopted. Mr. Lien said the effective date would be determined by the City Council. He acknowledged that the draft Tree Code represents a significant change over the existing tree code, and significant public education will be needed. Generally, when an ordinance is passed by the City Council, it becomes effective five days after it is published. However, the effective date will be spelled out in the ordinance, and the City Council could choose a later date. Mr. Chave explained that implementation of the draft Tree Code would require the City to hire a professional arborist. The new plan would be much more difficult to administer and could not be implemented with existing staff. Board Member Cloutier suggested that staff seek more input from other cities who have implemented stringent tree codes. While it seems like a great idea to have at least 8 trees on every lot in the City, they must consider that property owners will want to have vegetable gardens, solar panels, etc., which require sunlight. He does not want the Tree Code to penalize people who are making good use of their land. The draft Tree Plan must account for and accommodate these other concepts. Board Member Robles suggested the code should also consider the health benefits of having adequate sunlight. Once again, Mr. Lien stressed the need for an Urban Forest Management Plan, which is one of the ultimate goals of the draft Tree Code. Mr. Lien summarized that he would attempt to incorporate the Board’s comments into new draft code language for the Board’s continued review on April 22nd. INTRODUCTION OF CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE Packet Page 335 of 470 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 336 of 470 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 22, 2015 Page 3 Board Members have submitted written comments and questions to staff relative to the draft Tree Code. Rather than responding to each individual comment, staff grouped the comments into categories. During tonight’s presentation, he would respond to the broader issues raised by the Board and review the proposed penalty system for unauthorized tree cutting. In addition, Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager, was invited to the meeting to address the Board’s questions and concerns relative to right-of-way trees.  Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) Mr. Lien reviewed that a number of Board Members have questioned the appropriateness of adopting the draft Tree Code prior to completing an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). He explained that one of the main objectives of the tree code is to consolidate the Tree Code into code language that is more understandable for citizens and more efficient for staff to implement. The original intent was to develop the Tree Code under the Comprehensive Plan’s existing policy framework. However, as the process moved forward, it became apparent that there were insufficient goals and policies in place to support all of the proposed regulations. To address this issue, the Tree Board created a Findings Section (Page 1), which outlines additional goals and policies to support the proposed regulations. If the City Council adopts the ordinance, they should also adopt the findings to provide policy background. Mr. Lien pointed out that the Findings still do not adequately support all of the regulations contained in the draft Tree Code. For example, one of the Tree Board’s overall goals is to maintain the existing tree canopy, but this is not clearly spelled out in the Findings Section or in the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to addressing tree canopy inventory and goals and tree protection and regulation on private and public properties, the UFMP could also address issues relative to view protection and solar access. He recalled that the current Comprehensive Plan update recommends that an UFMP be completed by the end of 2017. Staff anticipates that the plan would take a significant amount of work, particularly to inventory the existing tree canopy and complete the public process. Board Member Robles said he did not submit comments to the staff relative to the draft language because he strongly believes that the City should complete an UFMP before adopting the draft Tree Code. If that is not the case, he voiced concern that the draft Tree Code seems like a people plan where trees happen to grow rather than a tree plan. He expressed his belief that tree diameter is a poor metric for the value of a tree, in general. All the reason cited for why we like trees are more a function of the vertical area of the tree, the volume of the tree, and the density of the tree. These are the things that hold the ground in place, provide shade, and create the coveted tree canopy. Board Member Robles noted that the City’s Street Tree Plan identifies specific tree species for the downtown area, which leads him to believe there is a different standard for the City versus the public. The approach could be considered a form of the “district” concept, where the downtown district would have a different way of interpreting trees than perhaps the north end of the City. He noted that this approach is used by other jurisdictions, but the concept has not been considered by the City’s Tree Board. He was hoping to address this issue as part of an UFMP, as there are a number of ways to measure forest area on a very large scale. For example, Washington State will be conducting a survey of potential landslide areas using Lydar technology. He suggested the City could discover a better basis for measuring the tree inventory so they have a clear understanding of how much is being created every year through growth and how much is being lost through tree removal. This information would allow the City to develop a quota system based on real numbers. Again, he expressed his belief that a UFMP could provide the basis for all of the City’s decisions relative to the Tree Code. Mr. Lien agreed that all of Mr. Robles concerns could be addressed via a UFMP. He also agreed that other methods, such as Lydar, could be used to measure the City’s existing tree canopy and that the City could establish different canopy cover standards for various areas of the City. However, the boundaries would have to be spelled out clearly in a UFMP.  Application Fees Mr. Lien recalled that the fees he presented as part of his scenario presentation on March 25th were based on the City’s current fee schedule (Resolution 1308) for illustrative purposes. He explained that fees are generally established to cover the cost of processing and issuing permits. However, there may be additional fees if a permit requires an arborist review. The City could either hire an arborist on staff to handle these permits, or they could require applicants to obtain the services of a licensed arborist at their own cost. He reviewed that there are a number of options for establishing a fee schedule for tree Packet Page 337 of 470 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 22, 2015 Page 4 removal. They could continue with the City’s current approach, which is to establish fees commensurate with the amount of work necessary to process various tree cutting permit types and no additional policies would be needed. Other options include establishing a lower application fee to reward good stewardship and/or establishing increased fees to discourage removal of large trees. He noted that subsidizing tree cutting permits to reward good stewardship or charging a higher fee to discourage tree cutting would need to be supported by additional goals and policies that could be identified via an UFMP. Vice Chair Lovell asked if staff plans to complete a financial analysis of associated implementation costs before the Tree Code is adopted. He felt it would be crucial for the Planning Board and City Council to have a clear understanding of the costs associated with the Tree Code’s implementation. For example, he has heard that it may be necessary to hire three additional staff to handle tree cutting permits. Mr. Lien explained that, if tree cutting permits are required for the removal of any significant tree, the City should at least have an arborist on staff to handle the required permits and deal with all other tree issues in the City. If the City establishes permit fees that cover all staff costs, there should not be any additional cost to the City. However, he acknowledged that it may be more costly for applicants if an arborist report is required. Vice Chair Lovell expressed his belief that questions relative to the cost of implementing the draft Tree Code will likely come up during the public hearing. The City is faced each year with insufficient funds for staffing and police and fire protection, and adopting a code that requires additional staff time will be a significant concern to citizens. Mr. Chave advised that the Development Services Director anticipates that three areas of cost will need to be considered: arborist review, permit processing, and enforcement. She anticipates that two or three additional staff will be needed to address all three aspects of code language as currently proposed.  Tree Cutting Applications Mr. Lien reviewed that many Board Members have expressed a desire to simplify the permit process. Some have also suggested that the diameter of what is considered a “significant tree” be increased from 6 inches to 12 inches. However, if the City’s goal is to increase or maintain the existing tree canopy, increasing the diameter of a “significant tree” would have a negative impact on tree canopy. Mr. Lien advised that Board Members have also requested that staff revisit the exemptions, particularly those that pertain to single-family properties that are flat, are not sub dividable and have no critical areas. When deciding whether or not these properties should be exempt from the tree cutting permit requirement, it is important to understand that a lot of the City’s existing tree canopy would fall under this category. Mr. Lien said Board Members also raised issues about tree size and tree species. For example, some jurisdictions do not regulate alder. He pointed out that there are numerous alder trees in the City, and they are primarily located within critical areas and provide slope stability.  Right-of-Way (ROW) Trees Ms. McConnell explained that the existing code does not include language specific to ROW trees. In order to regulate tree trimming and removal of trees within public ROWs, the City relies on a policy that was put in place by the Public Works Director and recently revised by the City Council. The draft Tree Code would include a section relative to ROW trees, which would be consistent with the recently updated policy. The proposed language is intended to provide efficiency and consistency in the administration and clarify the use of definitions. Ms. McConnell emphasized that street trees are different than ROW trees. ROW Trees are located in undeveloped portions of the ROW, between the road pavement/sidewalk and private property, unopened alleys, etc. Street trees are located in the downtown core and key gateways, typically between the sidewalk and street. She noted that street trees are addressed in the City’s Street Tree Plan and not in the draft Tree Code. She advised that City crews do regular maintenance of ROW trees to address public safety concerns. For example, they remove limbs that are hanging over a street and/or sidewalk, remove trees and/or branches that have fallen down as a result of a storm, and address trees that are damaging City facilities. She noted that the public utility district also has a tree trimming and maintenance program, which identifies trimming as the first approach to addressing a problem. However, sometimes the amount of trimming needed would damage the tree beyond what makes sense to keep the tree. Tree replacement would be required for any trees that are removed from the public ROWs. Packet Page 338 of 470 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 22, 2015 Page 5 Ms. McConnell said the City does not currently allow ROW trees to be trimmed or removed based on view issues. However, the updated policy allows the Public Works Director to authorize the removal ROW trees that are damaging infrastructure such as driveways, sidewalks, and sewer lines. In these cases, City staff would work with homeowners to assess the situation and discuss potential alternatives to protect the tree instead of just removing it. This is all done via a ROW Construction Permit from the City. Again, she reminded the Board that ROW trees are currently regulated via a policy, which would go away if and when language relative to ROW trees is incorporated into the Tree Code. Ms. McConnell reviewed that Board Members questioned why a homeowner would be required to obtain a ROW Construction Permit to remove or trim trees within the City’s ROW. She explained that, as per Edmonds City Code (ECC) 9.20, abutting property owners have the responsibility and duty to maintain, repair and reconstruct transition strips (areas between property line and curb or road). Pruning within City ROWs can be done without a ROW Construction Permit with the use of hand tools, as long as branches do not fall onto the travel lane/sidewalk. More extensive trimming and/or tree removal would require a ROW Construction Permit. Ms. McConnell said questions were also raised about why the City would require a homeowner to seek out an arborist to make a determination with regard to a ROW tree. She explained that the City does not currently have an arborist on staff. However, they do have a team of staff members from the Parks, Planning, Engineering and Public Works Departments who can conduct a tree assessment and determine the best approach for each situation. While these individuals are experienced with maintaining trees and have first-hand knowledge in the field, it may be necessary for the City to require the applicant (abutting property owner) to hire an arborist to complete a report on the condition of the tree and whether or not alternatives could be used to save it. Chair Tibbott asked how often the City requires an applicant to obtain an arborist report as part of an application to remove a ROW tree. Ms. McConnell answered that prior to the ROW Tree Policy being revised in late 2014, the City did not allow abutting property owners to remove ROW trees even if they were causing damage to private infrastructure. Therefore, there is very little data available as to how often an applicant would be required to obtain an arborist report. Chair Tibbott asked how much time would be involved with completing an arborist report. Ms. McConnell said she does not have a good estimate of what that would be, but she could review the permits that have been issued and determine how many required an arborist report. Chair Tibbott asked who would be responsible for deciding whether an arborist report would be required or not. Ms. McConnell answered that the Parks Maintenance Manager and the Public Works Operations Manager are the key staff who review applications and identify the best approach. Chair Tibbott asked if an abutting property owner would be required to submit an application and pay a fee in order for City staff to visit the site, assess the situation and make a determination as to whether or not an arborist report would be required. Ms. McConnell responded that an abutting property owner would simply need to request that the City inspect the situation. The inspection could take place prior to an application being submitted. Chair Tibbott asked the difference between the fee for a ROW Construction Permit and the fees associated with the draft Tree Code. Ms. McConnell recalled that comparisons were provided at the Board’s March 25th meeting to illustrate the current fees and the fees going forward. The policy that was revised last December is the City’s current mechanism for regulating tree removal in the ROWs, and the draft Tree Code does not propose a change as to when a ROW Construction Permit would be required. However, the earlier policy required a standard ROW Construction Permit only, and the City recently adopted a minor ROW Construction Permit, as well. Depending on the level of work to be done, there is potential for staff to determine that a minor ROW Construction Permit ($115) would be sufficient as opposed to a standard ROW Construction Permit ($270). The permit fees would be based on how much staff time is involved in processing the applications. Again, she emphasized that if trimming can be done with hand tools and no limbs will be dropped within the travelway, no ROW Construction Permit would be required. Board Member Cheung asked if it would be possible for an abutting property owner to submit pictures of a tree so that a City arborist could make an assessment. Ms. McConnell said the City does not have an arborist on staff right now. Rather than accepting pictures of the tree, staff visits the site as the first step. If it is very apparent that the tree is diseased, damaged or dead, the City would not require an arborist report as part of the application. The City would not charge the applicant a fee for this initial inspection. Packet Page 339 of 470 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 22, 2015 Page 6 Chair Tibbott asked if the same provisions would apply to pruning trees that are located on private property. Mr. Lien answered that a tree cutting permit would be required for the removal of significant trees located on private properties, but the pruning provisions would only apply to ROW trees. He explained that “tree removal” is defined as the “direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions including, but not limited to, clearing, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading or trenching within the drip line that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree’s root system; or removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown of the tree.” He emphasized that while a property owner would be allowed to prune a tree to the point where the tree had been previously topped, topping trees is not considered a good arborist practice. To further clarify, Mr. Lien advised that “pruning” is defined as “the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the ANSI A300 pruning standards.” He explained that no permit would be required for a property owner to trim a tree as per best practices. Topping a tree would be considered the same as removing a tree, and a permit would be required. Chair Tibbott voiced concern that the tree cutting regulations are confusing to a typical property owner, and it is difficult for them to clearly understand when a tree permit is required. Mr. Lien agreed that the tree regulations are complicated, and that is why the Tree Board is recommending that a permit be required for the removal of any significant tree. In the past, there have been significant problems when people did not clearly understand that a tree cutting permit was required. The proposed language makes the permit requirement clear since all tree removal would require a permit. Requiring a permit for all tree removal would also allow the City to track tree canopy in the future. Chair Tibbott asked if it would be possible for the code language to incorporate the use of technology to make decisions relative to permit requirements. He suggested that technology might allow the City to reduce the amount of staff time required to review permits, thus decreasing the permit fees. Mr. Lien cautioned against codifying references to technology, since this would require that the code be amended each time technology changes. He explained that, as a general practice, staff uses available technology to aid in the review process; and staff’s role is to assist applicants through the process. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to ECC 9.20, which states that it is the abutting property owner’s responsibility and duty to maintain, repair and reconstruct transition strips. However, this provision does not require abutting property owners to plant new trees. She questioned how the City could mandate that abutting property owners must plant trees on property that does not belong to them. She did not believe the City has the authority to require replacement trees within ROWs. She particularly expressed concern about abutting property owners being held responsible for ROW trees they did not plant. Ms. McConnell explained that if a seed is dropped within the ROW and a new tree grows, the abutting homeowner has the ability to remove the tree before it reaches the size that it is regulated by the City. If the City’s goal is to maintain the existing tree canopy, ROW trees should not be ignored in the process. The current code requires replacement if a tree is removed from the ROW, and the draft Tree Code would not alter this requirement. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that staff seek feedback from the City Attorney as to whether or not the City can require a homeowner to replace a tree that is not on his/her property. As per the code, it is the abutting property owner’s duty to maintain, repair and reconstruct transition strips, but there is no tree replacement requirement. To clarify the issue, Mr. Chave shared an example of a property owner who wants to cut down a tree on a neighboring property. Removal of the tree would require approval from the neighboring property owner, and the neighboring property owner could require that a replacement tree be planted as a condition of his/her approval. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed that this situation would be handled between the two property owners. Mr. Chave said the same would be true for the City, who owns the ROW. If someone requests that a tree be taken down in the City’s ROW, the City’s policy is to require replacement as a condition of approval.  Tree Cutting Penalties. Mr. Lien explained that the current code (ECDC 18.45.070) identifies a $1,000 penalty per tree for unauthorized tree cutting of trees up to three inches and a $3,000 penalty per tree for trees three inches or greater in size. Fines are tripled for unauthorized cutting in critical areas or rights-of-way. The draft Tree Code (ECDC 23.20.130) would apply two methods. There would be a $1,500 penalty per tree for unauthorized cutting of trees less than 12 inches in diameter. For trees greater than 12 inches in diameter, a tree trunk method would be used to appraise the value of the tree and assess the fine Packet Page 340 of 470 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 22, 2015 Page 7 accordingly. The tree trunk method takes a number of things into consideration such as the size, location, and species of the tree. It is not possible to replace a 24-inch tree with a like tree. Mr. Lien further explained that, under the current code, fines associated with unauthorized tree cutting are paid into the City’s general fund. As per the draft Tree Code, these finds would be paid into a Tree Fund to be used to maintain and plant trees throughout the City. The draft Tree Code does not add an additional fine for unauthorized tree removal in critical areas. The provision for this fine was moved to the Critical Area Ordinance. Mr. Lien summarized that the Planning Board has discussed the draft Tree Code at three separate meetings, and he has not made any changes to the Tree Board’s recommended draft. At this point in time, staff believes it would be appropriate to take the draft Tree Code to a public hearing. He will write an article for publication in the City’s newsletter to raise more public awareness; and hopefully, citizens will attend and provide comments. After the public hearing, the Planning Board can reassess and identify their next steps. He reminded the Board that the Tree Board’s open house was well attended, but the draft Tree Code was not yet available for public review. Because a lot of public awareness has been raised relative to the topic of trees, he anticipates there will be a good turnout at the Board’s hearing, as well. Vice Chair Lovell asked if staff is anticipating that the Board would forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. Mr. Lien said the Board could forward the draft Tree Code to the City Council with a recommendation of approval as written or as modified. Another option would be to forward a recommendation to the City Council that an UFMP be completed prior to adoption of the draft Tree Code. However, staff believes it would be appropriate for the Board to hear from the public before making that determination. Chair Tibbott asked if it would be possible to stipulate that the cost of staff time and attorney fees associated with a particular removal be subtracted from the amount of the penalty fee that is deposited into the tree fund. Mr. Lien agreed that could be part of the discussion. Mr. Chave pointed out that this is a budgetary and policy decision the City Council must make. The general policy is to recover permitting costs through permit fees, but funds above and beyond the permit fees, such as fines, could be used to fund a UFMP, plant trees, etc. Chair Tibbott said he would be in favor of having the fines go into the general fund rather than establishing a separate tree fund as part of the Tree Code. Maintaining the current policy would allow the City Council to decide whether or not to establish a tree fund at a later date. Board Member Cloutier recalled that when the Board first started discussions related to the draft Tree Code, the intent was to consolidate the existing code provisions into one location. They also discussed adding an additional layer of requirements and ideas. Now they are being asked to take that entire bundle to a public hearing. He suggested the Board consider a third option, which is to forward a recommendation on draft language that would consolidate and clean up the existing code and include some portions of the draft tree code, but postpone a recommendation on the remaining elements of the draft Tree Code until the UFMP has been completed. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the City Council asked them to provide a recommendation on the draft Tree Code. While the Board is not required to have a public hearing before forwarding a recommendation that adoption of the draft Tree Code be postponed until after a UFMP has been completed, it would be beneficial for the Board to at least give the public an opportunity to voice their thoughts. After the public hearing, the Board will have all the information needed to decide whether to pursue adoption of the draft Tree Code or take a different approach. Board Member Robles suggested that perhaps the regulations for street trees, ROW trees and other trees should all be located in one code section that incorporates a “district” approach. Board Member Stewart agreed with Board Member Cloutier. She suggested that, as part of the code rewrite, all of the existing provisions relative to trees could be consolidated into one section. The Board could forward a recommendation on the proposed amendments to the City Council with a request that the City Council support, fund and initiate the UFMP process prior to further consideration of the draft Tree Code. Mr. Lien explained that the draft Tree Code is being considered concurrently with the overall code update. Consolidating the existing tree provisions was not considered to be part of the larger code update, as the City Council directed the Tree Board to work on a Tree Code. Mr. Chave said that if the Planning Board decides later in the process to pursue the UFMP before doing a complete overhaul of the Tree Code, staff could attempt to pull the existing tree regulations together and consolidate them without changing the policy direction. This could be done as part of the overall code update. While this approach Packet Page 341 of 470 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 22, 2015 Page 8 would make it easier to find the tree regulations, it would not get the City where it ultimately wants to be relative to tree preservation and tree canopy. Vice Chair Lovell asked if it would hold up the code rewrite process if the Board were to recommend to the City Council that they clean up the tree code provisions in conjunction with the overall code update but hold off on implementation of the entire new tree code until a UFMP has been established. Mr. Chave answered no, but emphasized that what the City could do under the code rewrite process would be fairly limited. Board Member Robles commented that additional education is needed on the current tree cutting provisions before the Board can make a recommendation on the draft Tree Code. For example, he was unaware of the current penalties for unauthorized tree cutting. Mr. Chave agreed that the proposed changes would involve not only educating the public, but also the businesses that do tree cutting in the City. Mr. Chave announced that a public hearing on the draft Tree Code is scheduled for May 27th. Vice Chair Lovell thanked the staff for their hard work on preparing and presenting the draft Tree Code. Board Member Stewart thanked the Tree Board, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig said her understanding of the public hearing is that the public would be invited to come forward and express their issues and concerns about what they understand the tree code would be or could be, but it would not be the appropriate time for the Board to ask the public for feedback on specific issues. Mr. Lien said the public would be invited to share their thoughts on the draft Tree Code, which includes a number of issues. Chair Tibbott said staff would provide an overview of the draft Tree Code, and the public would have an opportunity to respond. The Planning Board would then have an opportunity to ask questions of staff and respond to public comments. Mr. Chave suggested that staff could highlight some of the specific issues discussed by the Board as part of their presentation. THE BOARD TOOK A SHORT BREAK AT 8:30 P.M. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:38 P.M. REVIEW OF DRAFT CODE FOR THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE Mr. Lien reviewed that the Planning Board received an introduction of the Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) update on March 25th and were provided copies of the 2015 Best Available Science Report (Attachment 2) and Gap Analysis Matrix (Attachment 2). He reminded the Board that counties and cities are required to include Best Available Science (BAS) in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. Jurisdictions are required to evaluate and revise their CAOs accordingly on a regular basis, and the City’s update is due in 2015. He reported that the City selected environmental consultants ESA to assist in updating the City’s 2004 BAS Report (Attachment 1) and to evaluate the City’s critical area regulations given the changes in science. Mr. Lien advised that the City’s existing critical area regulations are largely compliant with BAS, but there are a few areas where ESA has suggested changes to the CAO. He referred to Attachment 3, which is the working draft of a red-line/strike- out version of the City’s critical area regulations and reviewed the proposed changes as follows:  Critical Area Determination (ECDC 23.40.080.D) and Critical Area Reports (ECDC 23.40.090.F). The City has some critical area determinations and critical area reports dating back to the early 1990’s. This is a concern because science and regulations relative to critical areas change frequently. These proposed amendments would make critical area determination and critical area reports valid for a period of five years.  Innovative Mitigation (ECDC 23.40.140). This section would be amended to incorporate in-lieu-fee programs, off-site mitigation, and payments towards an identified City project as alternative mitigation approaches.  Allowed Activities (ECDC 23.40.220.C.6.d). The code currently allows trails in critical area buffers, and the consultant has recommended that this provision be revised to allow trails only in the outer 25% of critical area buffers. Where existing, legally-established development has reduced the width of the critical areas buffer, trails can be placed in the Packet Page 342 of 470 DRAFT Subject to June 10th Approval CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 27, 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 Carreen Rubenkonig Daniel Robles Matthew Cheung Evan Zhao, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier Valerie Stewart STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2015 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, observed that he has spoken to the City Council and Planning Board on a number of occasions in the 25 years since he served on the City Council, and he has never seen such a large turnout at a public hearing before the Planning Board. He said it appears that all those in attendance are present to address the same issue. Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, reported that he has attended several meetings related to the new fields at the old Woodway High School site, including meetings before the Hearing Examiner, the Edmonds School District and the Edmonds Swedish Hospital Board. He announced that citizens have until June 3rd to appeal the proposed turf materials. The fields cannot be constructed until the courts have settled appeals. Jim Wassell, Edmonds, voiced concern that he is not able to use all of the property he owns because the property line goes to within two feet of the curb on the east side of Sunset Avenue. A decision has never been made about this situation. His neighbor’s home will be set back 15 feet from the front property line, which means the house will extend out quite a ways to the west. He summarized that the situation is unacceptable, yet neither the City Council nor the Planning Board have Packet Page 343 of 470 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 2 addressed it. He also voiced concern that the City’s sidewalk is located on his property and he is responsible for maintaining it. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Ms. Hope referred the Board to the written report provided in their packets. There were no questions. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT TREE CODE Chair Tibbott reminded everyone that the Planning Board is in the very early stages of collecting public comment with regard to the Tree Code. The hearing is an opportunity for citizens to speak and the Planning Board to hear and understand the level of passion people have with regard the issue. He reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and invited Mr. Lien to present the Staff Report. Ms. Hope explained that the issue before the Board is how the City should regulate trees in the future. In particular, should a permitting system, as has been proposed, be adopted and applied to all residential properties in the City? The subject of trees generates a lot of emotion, and it impacts every household more than most any other code amendment the Planning Board would consider. Nearly everyone loves trees, especially the right trees in the right places. The question is who should decide when they can be removed and on what basis. Solar access, property rights, personal landscape decisions, and safety factors should all be part of the equation. Ms. Hope reviewed that a board of citizens (Tree Board) appointed by the City Council has been working hard to come up with a recommendation that reflects a lot of thought and their concern for trying to conserve more tree cover in Edmonds The Board will hear a lot of information, starting with the staff presentation by Kernen Lien. His presentation will include how the idea of tree regulations, as being proposed, came about; what tree regulations apply now; some key facts about the proposed permitting system; and a recommendation relative to the proposal that will be based on staff’s recommendation of the many good things that are being proposed, as well as concerns about some parts of the proposal. Staff feels a need for a broad public policy discussion and a basis in an Urban Forestry Management Plan (UFMP) before significant changes are considered communitywide. She advised that, during the hearing, the Board will hear from citizens who are passionate about the subject in one way or another. After hearing from the public and deliberating further, the Board could make a recommendation tonight or they could postpone their decision to a future meeting. Mr. Lien provided a brief history of the Tree Code. Edmonds was first incorporated in 1890, and its first Tree Ordinance was adopted in 1928. The Tree Ordinance has been updated a number of times over the years, and most of the City’s current tree regulations are found in the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance that was adopted in 1990 and spelled out in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.45. However, other City regulations apply to tree removal, as well, including the Critical Area Ordinance (ECDC 23.40-23.90), Shoreline Master Program (ECDC 23.10), Landscaping Requirements (ECDC 20.13), Street Trees (ECDC 18.85), and the Right-of-Way Tree Removal and Trimming Policy that was updated and adopted by the City Council in November of 2014. There are also policies related to trees in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lien reviewed that the City Council established the Tree Board in 2010 via Edmonds City Code (ECC) 10.95.030, and one of the Board’s duties was “Developing a tree ordinance designed to preserve and protect existing trees, encourage planting of additional trees, safeguard trees on parcels where construction or renovation is occurring or planned to occur, and encouraging the Edmonds citizenry to become active stewards of the urban forest.” Because the current regulations related to trees are spread throughout the City’s code, the intent was for the Tree Board to develop a more comprehensive tree code with clear vision and provisions that are easier for citizens to understand and more efficient for staff to implement. Mr. Lien explained that the existing code has a number of exemptions, particularly for single-family properties. A developed, single-family property that has no critical areas and is not subdividable into more than one additional lot is exempt from the permit requirements. Routine maintenance and hazard/emergency tree removal is also an allowed activity without a permit. If a single-family property does not fall under one of the exemptions, a Type II Permit is required, which is a staff decision with public notice. The current application fee for the permit is $820 ($795 plus a $25 City surcharge.) Packet Page 344 of 470 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 3 Mr. Lien said there is currently some disparity between the requirements for commercial and multi-family residential properties versus the requirements for single-family properties, and the update is intended to make the requirements more fair and balanced. Many of the current multi-family and commercial properties were developed with an approved landscape plan. When a property owner wants to remove trees, it is considered a landscape modification, which is a Type I Staff Decision with a $225 permit fee. A separate tree removal permit is not required for new construction of commercial, multi-family, or single-family. Instead, tree removal would be reviewed with the underlying development permit, and there may be landscape plan and street tree requirements. Mr. Lien explained that, as per the draft Tree Code, the permit fees for multi-family, single-family and commercial development would be the same. A permit would be required for the removal of any tree not associated with a development, so many of the exemptions in the existing code would be eliminated. The City’s current policy related to right-of-way trees would be incorporated into the Tree Code. The proposed new tiered approach identifies the following permit types:  An Administrative Staff Review Permit would be required for the removal of no more than two significant trees within a 36-month period. A significant tree is defined as 6-inch diameter at breast height (4.5 feet off the ground).  A Type I Arborist Consult Permit would be required for the removal of a nuisance tree; hazard tree; protected tree; any number of significant trees on multi-family, commercial or industrial property; or more than two significant trees within a 36-month period.  A Type II Arborist Consult Permit would be required for the removal of landmark trees or trees located within critical areas. A landmark tree is defined as a tree that is 24-inches in diameter, and a Type II Permit is a staff decision with public notice.  A Right-of-Way Permit would be required for the removal or pruning of any tree within the City’s right-of-way (ROW). Mr. Lien said another major change in the draft Tree Code is the establishment of a minimum tree density on single-family lots. He referred to the two tables included in the draft code and explained that a tree unit would be based on the diameter of the tree. As an example, he said an RS-8 zone would have a density requirement of four tree units; and one, 24-inch tree on the lot would meet the requirement because one, 24-inch tree would equal four tree units. A member of the audience asked how the City would enforce the tree-density requirement. Mr. Lien explained that staff would not drive through the City, checking the tree density on properties. The tree density would be considered as part of any development permit review. Ms. McConnell explained that existing Tree Code does not have a specific right-of-way (ROW) section. Instead, the City follows a policy that was established by the Public Works Director and recently revised and adopted by the City Council. The proposal is to pull the existing policy into the Tree Code, which would provide efficiency in administration and use of definitions. She continued to explain that ROW trees are located in the undeveloped portions of the ROW, between the road/sidewalk and the private property, unopened alleys, etc. As per ECC 9.20, abutting property owners have the responsibility and duty to maintain the ROW areas. Although many people think of ROW areas as private property, there is typically a significant portion of land that is ROW. Ms. McConnell clarified that street trees are different than ROW trees. Street trees are located in the downtown core and key gateways, typically between the sidewalk and street to provide a buffer between pedestrians and vehicles. The draft Tree Code does not address street trees. However, the Comprehensive Plan Update that is currently in progress includes some provisions related to street trees, and there may be some updates to the Street Tree Code as part of the ECDC update. She noted that the City does not currently have an arborist on staff. When citizens approach the City with a request to remove a ROW tree, an arborist review and determination may be required. In these situations, the City will ask the applicant to provide the necessary information, including an arborist report. Mr. Lien advised that many of the written public comments related to the draft Tree Code have to do with the application fees. He recalled that as part of his presentation of the draft Tree Code to the Planning Board, he prepared a number of scenarios for tree cutting permits. He emphasized that the application fees that were provided in the scenarios for illustrative purposes were based on the City’s current fee schedule, which was adopted under Resolution 1308. Generally, permit application fees are established to cover the cost of processing and issuing permits. As part of an updated Tree Code, the City Council could update the fee schedule. They could decide to continue to establish fees commensurate with the amount of work necessary to process various tree cutting permits. However, other options include establishing lower fees to reward Packet Page 345 of 470 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 4 good stewardship (subsidizing) or increasing fees to discourage removal of larger trees (punitive). Policies on fees could also be established as part of an Urban Forestry Management Plan. Mr. Lien said citizens have also raised a number of concerns about what maintenance would be allowed based on the draft code. He explained that tree maintenance (pruning consistent with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Standard) would be an allowed activity on private property. However, topping is not generally considered routine maintenance. Under both the existing and draft code, new topping is considered tree removal and a tree cutting permit would be required, but pruning to a previously topped level would be considered ordinary maintenance. Based on the current ROW Tree Policy, which is proposed to be incorporated into the draft Tree Code, a permit would be required for: pruning of a tree over a height of 8 feet above ground, pruning of a tree requiring or using equipment other than non-powered handheld tools, or pruning or removal that will result in any branches or portions of the tree falling within the traveled way. Mr. Lien recalled that the Board has discussed the concept of an Urban Forestry Management Plan (UFMP) on several occasions. He explained that an UFMP is a comprehensive plan for the City’s trees. In addition to goals, policies and objectives for forest management, it could include an inventory of the existing forest cover, goals for the overall forest cover throughout the City, policies concerning view protection and solar access, and tree protection and regulation on both private and public property. It could also address differences in goals or approaches in different parts of the City. Mr. Lien noted that questions have come up about why the City is moving forward with a draft Tree Code prior to the adoption of an UFMP. He reminded the Board that one of the objectives of the update is to consolidate the Tree Code to be more understandable for citizens and more efficient for staff to implement. When the update started, the intent was to develop the code under the existing policy framework. However, as the update progressed, the Tree Board discovered that some of the provisions did not have the policy to back them up. The Tree Board added a “Findings” section at the beginning of the draft Tree Code that is intended to address the expanded policy calls. The “Findings” section could be included in the ordinance if adopted by the City Council. He reminded the Board that the draft Comprehensive Plan Update already includes a recommendation that an UFMP be completed by the end of 2017. Mr. Lien reviewed some options the Planning Board could consider as follows: A. The Planning Board could recommend to the City Council that an UFMP be developed prior to adopting any significant changes to the existing tree regulations. B. The Planning Board could recommend that an UFMP be developed and that existing Tree Code sections be consolidated during the broader development code re-write process (near-term), rather than adopting the proposed tree code now. Then, following the development of an UFMP, the tree code could be re-written, as necessary, consistent with the policy direction provided in an UFMP. C. The Planning Board could recommend that the draft Tree Code be adopted, with any specific modifications from the Planning Board. D. The Planning Board could recommend the draft Tree Code, with any modifications from the Planning Board, be adopted now while an UFMP is being developed. The interim Tree Code could then be revisited following the development of the UFMP. Mr. Lien said staff is recommending Option B. He explained that the City is currently working on a code re-write, and one of the primary goals is to consolidate the existing code. Option B would allow the staff to consolidate the existing Tree Code policies and regulations as part of the code update. This effort could be followed by an UFMP to address the concerns and comments that have been brought forward thus far. Mr. Lien advised that all of the written comments submitted to date relative to the draft Tree Code have been provided to the Planning Board. He reviewed that, as per the extended agenda, the Planning Board is scheduled to make a recommendation to the City Council on the draft Tree Code at their June 10th meeting. The draft Tree Code is tentatively scheduled to be introduced to the City Council on July 7th. Chair Tibbott observed that those present will likely hear comments that will mirror their own thoughts. Rather than repeating the comments, members of the audience could simply note that they agree with previous statements and then present their additional thoughts. He also asked that those in the audience show respect for others who may have different Packet Page 346 of 470 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 5 points of view. The Planning Board is interested in hearing from all members of the public, and his hope is that they can all learn from each other. Once again, he briefly reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing, and then opened the public hearing. Steve Hatzenbeler, Tree Board Chair, thanked everyone for coming to the public hearing to provide comments on the draft Tree Code. He explained that the draft Tree Code is intended to address communitywide issues. The discussion specifically focused on how the relatively significant loss of tree canopy over the past several years has impacted the environment. He asked that members of the audience consider the issue as a communitywide concern. Swan Seaberg, Edmonds, said he has lived in Edmonds since 1970 and in the same house since 1971, and he does not need the government telling him how to landscape his property, as long as it does not endanger the public. He commented that examples shown on My Edmonds News illustrate why some trees need to be removed if they are too close to the road, interfere with utilities, have been topped to clear the cables or are unsightly. Asking adjoining property owners to plant trees on their property to replace those that are removed from the right-of-way would be a simple solution. He said he respects the City and the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) for removing trees that are past their useful life so the community is safer and has less chance of losing power when storms hit. He provided pictures of Edmonds in the “good old days,” and noted that it looks better now without the clear cut. He commented that every living thing on earth, including humans, will eventually die, and the goal should be to leave something better for the future. Citizens should practice permaculture that will make the City beautiful and safe for everyone in perpetuity. Requiring expensive permits will not only make it more difficult for most people to do the right thing, it will endanger everyone. He questioned who would be held responsible if a property owner can’t afford a permit and a tree falls down and kills someone. He provided a picture of his home when it was listed for sale in 1966. The cedar tree fell down in 1981, making a mess of the front yard. Its mate fell down and hit his home in 1997. He was able to fix the damage, but for most people it is very expensive. He has a large number of trees that are near the end of their useful life and are a danger to people and property. This includes his neighbor’s tree, which she cannot afford to take down. Gary Nelson, Edmonds, said he has lived in Edmonds for more than 50 years and is very troubled by the direction the draft Tree Code is taking. He referred to the findings on Page 1 of the ordinance, which attempts to rationalize the need for the legislation. He specifically noted:  Finding 1 states that trees will “improve the value of properties.” He expressed his belief that this is not an accurate statement if a tree impedes the view of a property owner or a neighboring property owner.  Finding 10 states that trees will “increase consumer patronage for commercial properties and boost occupancy rates for well-treed shopping areas.” In his research with a large number of commercial property managers, he was unable to find a basis for this claim.  Finding 13 states that trees will “encourage better neighbor relations and better coping skills for its residents.” He pointed out this is only correct if the property owner removes, scales up, or tops the trees so the neighbors can have their view restored. There are several plats in the City that have covenants and conditions to maintain the view of properties behind them. Mr. Nelson referred to ECDC 23.20.010.E, which implies that the draft Tree Code is intended to protect private property rights. After reading the proposal, he doubts this statement is true. In fact, he suggested the ordinance could earn the City the “Pinocchio Award.” He observed that the ordinance does not differentiate between the number and type of trees (evergreen and deciduous). For example, alder trees have always been considered a weed tree in the State of Washington. In the past several years, he has had to remove from his property a 40-foot holly tree and a 20-foot hawthorn tree to protect children and pedestrians from the dangerous, thorny growth that the trees provide. The ordinance would require him to obtain a permit to accomplish this protective activity. He said he is concerned that the term, “heritage tree” has yet to be defined. He is also concerned that Section 23.20.025 continues the language of authorizing the staff to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out enforcement of the draft Tree Code. In addition, Sections 23.20.050 and 23.20.060 leaves the applications requiring fees open ended, mandating that the citizen property owner pay all the cost to the City for the tree professional. Section 23.20.090 states that the replacement tree fee will be determined by the City professional, and that the type of tree will be selected by the City. This certainly doesn’t appear to be in concert with the declaration that the proposal protects private property rights. He referred to the options laid out by staff for Planning Board action and suggested they consider adding another option—that the Board not pass the draft Tree Code on to the City Council. Packet Page 347 of 470 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 6 Shelly Sessler, Edmonds, agreed with the comments provided by Mr. Nelson. She said she purchased her property on Olympic View Drive about 10 years ago when the property values were very high. She lives in a neighborhood of a lot of retired people, and they have always worked together to remove trees that impede view. She asked how the money that is collected from permits would be allocated. She suggested the City should weed their own garden before attempting to weed private properties. The property owners pay property taxes that are almost as high as the east side (Redmond, Bellevue and Kirkland), but these cities actually use the taxpayer money to replace storm drain, improve roadways, and place utilities underground. There are a lot of trees on Olympic View Drive and in Perrinville that hang into the power lines. Every time there is a storm, trees fall and the power goes out. She estimated that requiring a permit and an arborist review would increase the cost of tree removal by about 40%. Janet Henry, Edmonds, indicated her support for the previous speakers. Doc Daugherty, Edmonds, said he finds it dubious that the City wants to make the rules before outlining what it wants to have in its plan. He said he has had the opportunity to live in Haiti and has seen the devastating results of complete deforestation. However, Edmonds is far from Haiti, and the City is not becoming deforested. He expressed his belief that the proposed ordinance is a gross overstep of the City government. He lives on the west side of Edmonds, with a moderate view of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. He paid dearly for this view in the price of his home and the taxes he pays annually. He voiced concern that his view would be threatened with adoption of the overreaching proposed ordinance. He voiced concern that the proposed ordinance would impact the value of properties, and the majority of homeowners would eventually have their views disappear. He suggested Edmonds should be working to adopt a view ordinance and not a tree ordinance. He observed that homeowners in Edmonds are not removing trees in an overwhelming manner. Hence, the City should not be in the business of having to regulate privately-owned trees on privately-owned property. Nearly every property owner he encounters has taken the greatest amount of pride in planting an overabundant amount of vegetation on their property to keep it green and lush. Edmonds already has an urban forest, and it does not require gargantuan trees, which are not old, original growth. Regarding the carbon and CO2 aspect of the ordinance, Mr. Daugherty said it is commonly accepted that a mature tree will store about 48 pounds of CO2 per year and make approximately 260 pounds of oxygen annually. A 40-year-old tree will have sequestered around one ton of carbon. Conversely, an acre of grass will store around 920 pounds of carbon annually, or about 3,400 pounds of CO2. There is a positive offset that exists between trees, plants, shrubs, and grass that indicates they are not jeopardizing the local environment. He referred to a recent article written by the Woodland Manager of Clackamas County, Oregon, which states that urban forest tree ordinances, such as the one being proposed by the City, “will see fewer new trees planted on private property. Those trees that are planted will be the type that will not grow large and mature in any way. The sustainability of the urban forest must be met with encouraging private landowners to continue to be green and promote green landscaping.” Mr. Daugherty submitted written comments for inclusion in the public record, as well. Stephen Fry, Edmonds, said he has lived in Edmonds for more than 25 years. He expressed his belief that the UFMP should be developed before making changes to the existing tree regulations. The proposed permit fees are way too high, especially for single-family homeowners. He suggested that the City produce a table to exactly spell out the permit costs to remove significant and landmark trees, as well as what the civil penalty amount would be for such trees. He is guessing it would be an approximately $5,000 fine for illegally cutting down a 1-foot wide tree. He expressed his belief that trees should be measured by width not by diameter. A 2-inch wide tree equals approximately 6 inches in diameter, which is what the proposed ordinance considers a significant tree. He proposed that “significant trees” be defined as greater that 6 inches wide, and “landmark trees” as greater than 4 feet wide. Although he preserves tall trees in his yard, at some point they will become a danger to him and his neighbors, as well as a nuisance to his property. A citywide tree program surcharge should be assessed to all property owners so citizens with trees won’t be overregulated. Trees are great in many ways, but they also require a lot of work, especially after storms when branches fall on driveways and roofs. They also create a lot of needles, leaves and pollens on roofs, yards and vehicles. He expressed his belief that there would be at least 1 million regulated trees under the current proposal. Brian Potter, Edmonds, said he owns a home in Edmonds, and he is also a research scientist working in forestry. One of his strengths is taking technical material and writing it in non-technical, easily understood ways. For 20 years, he has been asked to do this as an editor for multiple research and non-technical journals, educational curricula, and administrative Packet Page 348 of 470 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 7 documents. His experience is relative because the proposed ordinance fails in terms of clarity. It is poorly organized in places and contains ambiguous text in others. He said the proposed ordinance feels like it is meant to penalize property owners. He pointed out that the well was poisoned early on when Mr. Hatzenbeler commented that the proposed language provides some teeth related to tree removal, whereas the existing code does not. This suggests that residents are not going to do it if they aren’t bitten. He voiced concern that the proposed ordinance does not include any incentives for tree planting because as soon as a homeowner plants a new tree, it brings with it new obligations and permit fees. The opportunity cost of planting may quickly exceed the benefits to the property owner. He asked if the City Council or Planning Board has considered incorporating some explicit incentives or benefits property owners could gain from planting and maintaining trees in the present context. Mr. Potter observed that the ordinance reflects a belief that trees provide societal benefits, as laid out explicitly in the findings. He specifically referred to Finding 14, which states that trees will “provide a valuable asset to the community as a whole,” and said it fails to acknowledge the tension that exists between private responsibility, the rights of the property owners, and community benefits. He suggested that successful resolution of the tension requires first that it be acknowledged, and then measures must be taken to acknowledge the interest and rights of the property owners so they see the personal benefits comparable to the responsibilities and costs associated with maintaining trees. Failure to do this will result in resentment towards public officials and representatives and ill will among neighbors, which is exactly opposite of the qualities the City claims to promote. Tim Hovde, Edmonds, agreed with the comments provided by those who spoke before him. He asked how many people were present from the Tree Board, and several people raised their hand. He said he does not agree with the City being able to regulate private properties. He works throughout the Puget Sound region. While the City of Seattle has an UFMP that requires him to replace the trees that are removed, no permit is required. He questioned why property owners should be responsible for trimming trees in the ROW. He suggested the City needs to step up and prune the ROW trees on a regular basis. He assumes the draft Tree Code was created with funding from a federal grant. Chair Tibbott clarified that it was actually funded by a state grant. Mr. Hovde pointed out that, either way, the taxpayers funded the effort. He expressed his belief that it is a poor decision to regulate trees on private property, and those present appear to agree. He suggested that Edmonds clean up its own backyard before looking at his. Beverly Shelton, Edmonds, agreed with everything that has been said so far. She urged the Board to consider low-income seniors and citizens. She questioned how the City can hire two additional employees to implement the new requirements when it cannot do the projects that are now needed because of lack of funding. She questioned if that is why the suggested fees are so high. She said she and her husband have lived in their home in Edmonds for 55 years. There were no trees on the property when they purchased it, but they planted them and cared for them properly. When they became too big, a nuisance or dangerous they removed them themselves, and the world did not come to an end. She suggested that the draft ordinance does not take Mother Nature into account. A stand of old growth fir and pine trees near her home has reached the point where the trees need to be pruned or removed. The owners of the properties cannot afford to have them taken care of, let alone pay for permits, etc. She suggested the City could do more good by educating people about what trees to plant and where to plant them. Jim McKeon, Edmonds, said he has lived in Edmonds for 25 years and most of his concerns have already been raised by previous speakers. He said the proposed ordinance is an example of how government keeps expanding. While he respects the goals the Tree Board wants to achieve, the recommendation should have the City take care of its own trees before telling private property owners how to manage theirs. For example, he noted that English ivy is growing up many of the trees along Olympic View Drive, and it will eventually kill them. The City should be doing normal maintenance to preserve trees. His house has been hit twice by falling trees, but he has no intention of cutting down his trees because he likes them. However, no one should be telling him how to manage his property. John Frame, Edmonds, indicated that the agreed with the previous speakers. Julie Johnson, Edmonds, said she has lived in Edmonds for 34 years as a property owner and taxpayer. She has enjoyed its beauty and freedoms without government intrusion, and she became alarmed when she learned of the proposed Tree Code. She said she distributed information to her neighborhood and 97% of the 40 households she contacted had never heard of the proposal. She suggested this is a serious communication gap. She said she was present to speak about stopping the control Packet Page 349 of 470 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 8 of private property by government. The proposal would impose layers of bureaucracy with costly permits and arborist reviews. The cost of a professional to remove a tree is cause enough for serious consideration by a property owner. She observed that, sometimes, trees can be detrimental to property and health, and property owners expect to be treated respectfully as people who know how to use commonsense. There are an abundance of trees nearly everywhere in Edmonds except the bowl where views and high density are valued to the extent that many trees have been removed. The Tree Board is offering an egregious proposal, and she urged the Board to recommend denial of the proposed ordinance and dissolution of the Tree Board, itself. Mary Hovde, Edmonds, agreed with the comments provided by previous speakers. She said she has lived in Edmonds for 67 years, and her husband for 77 years. They raised their family and made a living in Edmonds, and they love the City. However, she does not appreciate a handful of people on a Tree Board or City Council telling her what she can and cannot do with her property. Because she lives in a very wooded area, she has a lot of junk from neighbors’ trees in her yard all the time. The neighbors love their trees, and she loves looking at them. She does not believe the tree canopy has gone away; but trees have a typical life span and then they die. They won’t be alive forever regardless of what the Tree Board says. She questioned how the City would enforce the proposed ordinance and why it should punish people for wanting to maintain their properties. She recalled the cat leash law that was adopted a few years ago, and she questioned how many people have seen a cat on a leash. Stephen Clifton, Edmonds, said he has a Bachelor of Science in Landscape Architecture and has written landscape ordinances for a few cities. He has also worked on tree canopy and urban forestation regulations. He said does not support many of the provisions with the draft Tree Code, and he is particularly concerned about adopting it prior to an UFMP. Any person involved in the planning field or government in general knows that that a comprehensive plan serves as an overall framework or guide, and typically proceeds the adoption of regulations that that might help implement it. An UFMP, if adopted, could contain City policies, objectives and goals for Edmonds’ urban forest, as well as policies concerning view protection, solar access and tree protection and regulations both on private and public properties. It could also address differences in the goals and/or approaches in different parts of the City. Mr. Clifton noted that the agenda packet highlights that the existing tree regulations are fragmented, difficult for citizens to understand, and conflicting and cumbersome for staff to implement. He expressed his belief that citizens would support the need to develop a more effective and comprehensive Tree Code that is easier to understand and more efficient to implement, but doing so prior to adoption of the UFMP is putting the cart before the horse. As noted in the Staff Report, the Tree Board and consultant were aware that the draft code stretched beyond the existing policies. Therefore, he questioned why the draft Tree Code has been allowed to proceed ahead of adopting the kinds of policies that would serve as a framework for studying the need for new regulations related to trees. He asked that the Planning Board not even consider issuing a recommendation on any substantive language of the draft Tree Code until such time as the Council has established a process, considered public input on, and adopted an overall framework containing policies, goals and concepts related to trees. Jack Bevan, Edmonds, said he is also a forester. He asked if the draft Tree Code would apply to the City, the Port and the PUD, as well. He disagreed with the finding that the draft Tree Code is user friendly, as an $800 permit fee is not user friendly. He questioned who would determine the qualifications of the arborist, and what their charge would be. Mike Echelbarger, Edmonds, said he was present the night the Tree Board presented the draft Tree Code to the Planning Board. At that time, members of the Tree Board acknowledged that while they considered the urban cover for the City, they had not resolved anything about views. He commented that if you take the views away from Edmonds, it is no different than Woodway with a strip along the Sound that has views, and everyone else is looking at trees. The proposed plan would be more appropriate for Lake Forest Park or Lynnwood; but in Edmonds, there is potential to see more than just trees. For the ordinance to get in the way of view is wrong. He commented that the Tree Board did the job based on their interest in saving trees, which is probably what the majority of the City Council had in mind. However, a broad spectrum of City residents did not have an opportunity to review the plan prior to the public hearing. Mr. Echelbarger urged the Board to forward the draft Tree Code to the City Council and let them vote now rather than waiting until 2018 when the UFMP has been completed. He would like the Council to vote on the matter prior to the November election. Brian Borofka, Edmonds, noted that he would submit his written comments. He agreed with the comments provided by Mr. Nelson and Mr. Clifton. He said his strongest angst with the draft Tree Code is that it shifts the determination of Packet Page 350 of 470 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 9 reasonable use of private property from the owners to the City staff. However skilled and well intended their actions are, he does not believe it is appropriate to move in that direction. He suggested it is a simple question of whether the government exists for the benefit of the citizens or the citizens exist for the benefit of the government. He expressed concern about the direct cost to homeowners, as well as costs associated with extra City staff (health insurance, benefits, etc.) He also voiced concern that although the goals and objectives seek to preserve trees and enhance the urban environment, the on-site replacement section reads that the administrator may waive the on-site replacement requirement provided the applicant pays an amount determined by the City’s Tree Protection Professional into a City account that is equivalent to the total cost for the purchase, installation and maintenance of the trees. He said it appears that property owners would be able to write a check to the City rather than planting a tree. He questioned if they are looking at tree protection or revenue enhancement. While he does not believe that is staff’s intent, the proposed language needs to be improved or removed. He agreed with previous speakers that the ordinance should not go forward to the City Council before an UFMP is in place. Dawna Lahti, Edmonds, said she has lived in the City for 30 years. She acknowledged all of the hard work the Tree Board has done to create the draft Tree Code. She commented that for two centuries, the City has slaverishly imitated the English- manner lawn because it means ownership and gentility. Early Edmondites cut down all the trees. It was their livelihood, and the wilderness was the enemy of the pioneer. Later came incorporation and someone’s artistic version that trees were needed for a proper downtown and for one’s own little bit of property. She sees that culture changing everyday as majestic trees as old as the town are felled. She shared the example of Sainte-Chapelle, the oldest cathedral near Paris where the oldest stained glass is to be seen. In its life since 1900, artistic tastes have swayed widely, but at the iconoclastic moment when religious fervor would have had the glass smashed, a city administration was in place that succeeded in convincing the community that the cathedral was their heritage and that they should protect it instead. A cathedral takes 100s of years to build, as do many northwest trees. It is her hope that the City will administer wisely and preserve the heritage against the whim of fashion. The draft Tree Code is an attempted first step. It limits almost irreparable loses until more thought and study can be given. She supports the staff’s recommendation for Option B, which allows the City more time to think about what they may and gain and lose of things that cannot be replaced. Bob Hovde, Edmonds, expressed his belief that the Planning Board has more important things to do that worry about trees. He asked if the PUD would also be required to pay $800 for a permit to cut a tree. He suggested the City focus instead on enforcing and implementing the current code. For example, they need to keep the vegetation from extending out into the sidewalks. The City could require private property owners to clear the shrubbery from sidewalks, or it could do it and then charge the property owners via their water bill. Public restrooms should also be a priority for the City if they want to encourage tourism. Every other town in the area has public restrooms, except Edmonds. Again, he expressed his belief that the draft Tree Code is a waste of the City’s time. He said he constructs houses and has cut down a lot of trees. If you leave certain trees standing, they will likely blow over onto someone’s home at some point in the future. He asked if the City would pay for the damages caused by falling trees. Steve Date, Edmonds, said he lives in a small house on a small lot in downtown Edmonds that has a huge maple tree that he planted 40 years ago. He said he has had to remove very tall trees from his property, and he has also topped a tree to protect his neighbor’s view. He said he does not appreciate the City telling him what he can and can’t do with his trees. He congratulated the City on its innovative new tax scheme. He reported that, just this afternoon, a huge spruce tree was cut down on Maple Street, and his neighbor recently hired someone to cut down his tree. He suggested that the proposed Tree Code has already woken up a lot of citizens who are taking a preemptive strike on the new laws. He suggested they carefully consider the unintended consequences. He said he recently hired an arborist to teach him how to trim the Japanese maple he planted 40 years ago. It was guaranteed to not exceed 10 feet in height, and it is now about 35 feet high. He has been taking good care of his trees over the years, and he wants to keep doing so. As per the new code, he would be required to obtain a permit to trim one of his trees because the limbs might fall onto the sidewalk. There are a lot of McMansions and condominiums being developed in the City, and he doesn’t see a lot of trees being planted in these locations. He recalled that an Edmonds Beautification Project took place about 20 years ago on 228th Street from 76th Avenue to 84th Avenue. The project resulted in a beautiful canopy over 228th Street, but the City has since cut all the trees down. He does not want that to happen in other locations in Edmonds. Fred Gouge, Commissioner, Port of Edmonds, expressed concern as a citizen and taxpayer, as well as a Port Commissioner. The Port is concerned that the draft Tree Code would result in additional expense for the Port given the large number of trees that are located at Harbor Square, along Admiral Way, etc. Because of their size, each would require a Packet Page 351 of 470 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 10 permit. The cost could become so onerous that the Port would have to increase property taxes. He urged those present to also share their concerns at the public hearing before the City Council. He said he lives in the Seaview Neighborhood on a ¾-acre lot that is considered subdividable. He recently received a quote for $5,000 to remove a large cedar tree from his property, and that did not include permits. He has also asked the PUD to remove a number of trees. He noted that his property was previously a rhododendron and lilac farm. If he wants to plant rhododendrons instead of trees that grow to significant size, that is what he is going to. He said he was born in Canada and became a citizen under the constitution of the United States, and that’s what he will uphold as his property rights. He hopes other citizens will too. Gerald Bernstein, Edmonds, said it appears that the proposed ordinance would be intrusive, punitive and outrageous. In no way will it improve the existing situation, which seems quite good. Because the proposal says that permits on private property are for trees and vegetation, it would include mowing his lawn, pruning his rhododendrons and trimming his bushes. He also cautioned against the unintended consequences, besides the high cost to the City. He expressed his belief that the draft Tree Code would result in widespread cheating that the City would have to follow up on. Secondly, he said neighbors would be encouraged to report on neighbors, which does not foster a good community presence. The proposed code is discriminatory against people with limited incomes and cannot afford to cover the fees. It is also discriminatory against the elderly who would not be allowed to prune except with hand tools. They should not have to hire someone to use power tools. He pointed out that people are cutting their trees down left and right to beat the proposal to finality. He concluded that the City already has a good system in place, and he would rather they not fix it. He referred to Mr. Hatzenbeler’s earlier suggestion that citizens consider the Tree Code from a community rather than personal standpoint. He does not appreciate the sense of arrogance that somehow the community has got this one right, after getting so many other things wrong. He is strongly opposed to the draft Tree Code. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, observed that the Board has heard a lot of very candid remarks from the citizens, and he hopes that staff also has the impression that the course they are headed for is not the course they want to be on. The public is in total objection to the proposed ordinance. You have to wonder whether government is your friend or your enemy, and the ordinance pits the neighborhoods against the staff and Tree Board. He reminded the Board that the proposed ordinance was created by a small committee appointed by the City Council, with the help of a consultant. If the Board is thinking correctly, they will say it is time to end it without sending it on to the City Council. It is certainly not representative of how the citizens feel. They don’t want to have their rights tread upon. Robert Swerk, Edmonds, agreed with the previous speakers. He encouraged those present to download and read the proposed 18-page ordinance. He particularly referred to ECDC 23.20.030(A), which appears to require a permit to remove or prune any heritage, landmark (24-inch diameter), significant (6-inch diameter) or protected tree on private property or within the City’s right-of-way. He also voiced concern that, as per ECDC 23.20.060.B.3.e, the removal of more than two significant trees on a single-family resident lot in a 36-month period would require a management report prepared by a qualified tree professional explaining how the removal improves the health and safety of the remaining trees and does not result in the site falling below the minimum tree density. It appears this provision would require a property owner to plant trees to bring a property up to the required tree density. He expressed concern about the costs associated with staffing, enforcement and hiring arborists. He questioned how many new employees the City would have to hire to manage the proposed requirements. He said he recently topped a tree on his property when he learned that it was disrupting his neighbor’s view. He stressed that the ordinance must address the numerous view easements that exist in the City so they are not in conflict with what the City wants. James Martin, Edmonds, observed that Edmonds is a City and not an urban forest. He likes trees and sees Edmonds as a beautiful, unique area, with views of snow-covered mountains, Puget Sound, and ships passing by. He suggested the Tree Board should be called a “Balance Committee,” where you have a balance between trees, views, mountains, City government, etc. It is inappropriate to create a Tree Board, which is pitted against the people who are very upset about their views. The title of the Tree Board should be broader. He said he is not in favor of the draft Tree Code and stated that it is not a proven fact that the City government can do the job of managing the situation any better than the property owners. He said he was disappointed that the City staff and/or Planning Board did not make provisions for a larger meeting room that could accommodate all of the citizens who wished to attend the hearing. He noted that people left in frustration because they were unable to get into the room. He said he is not willing to trust the issue of “tree management” to the Planning Board. He cautioned that property owners have certain rights, and they do not need the government to tell them what to do with their trees. The draft Tree Code suggests that what property owners have done to date is inadequate, and yet Edmonds is a Packet Page 352 of 470 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 11 beautiful place. He observed that the draft ordinance may actually prevent some people from planting trees because they do not want to deal with the bureaucracy associated with maintaining them against the very complicated set of code requirements. He concluded that enforcement of the draft code would be costly, and the City has better ways to spend its money (i.e. sidewalks, street maintenance, and public safety) than hiring consultants and developing a tree code. Bill Phillips, Edmonds, said he has lived in Edmonds since 1951 and owns several properties within the City. He built his current residence along Shell Creek in 1973, and his wife actually received an award from Edmonds in Bloom for her beautiful yard. They have planted a lot of trees over the years, and he has had to prune them and cut some down as they became harmful to his home. They have at least 100 trees in their yard, and he does not support the City telling him how to care for them. Property owners know how to best care for their trees. Jeff Scherrer, Edmonds, said he has lived in Edmonds for 10 years and enjoys the relationship he has with his trees. Besides drawing a large crowd, he observed that the draft Tree Code achieves three things: it makes government bigger and more powerful; it creates regulations and penalties that will lead to litigation; and it puts the value of trees before the value of people. He commented that it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire two or more government employees (salaries, benefits, pension funds, and administrative costs) to administer the code. He suggested this cost is not how property owners want their tax dollars to be used. Some people believe that the draft code can curb global warming, while scientists disagree whether global warming even exists. Many believe global warming and cooling is natural. He questioned why the City is proposing to grow government and impose regulations and penalties on everyone in Edmonds just because some want to solve a global problem. He observed that the entire globe is 197 million square miles, while Edmonds is only 18.43 square miles. To think the City can solve global problems in Edmonds is like running the entire worldwide web on a single desktop computer. Mr. Scherrer suggested the City begin a campaign to build community awareness and increase people’s value in trees. The campaign could include social and print media, as well as seminars, that encourage the people of Edmonds to understand the desired impact of the Tree Code. Instead of spending money to grow government, the City could contract with private marketing firms to inform the public of the value of trees and how to maintain them. He explained that while growing up in Seattle, litter was a big problem. A public awareness campaign in the 1970s (Give a Hoot, Don’t Pollute) was very effective in reducing the amount of litter in the streets and making people more aware. The draft Tree Code assumes people do not know what they are doing and are already at fault by requiring permits to care for trees, shrubs and vegetation on their private properties. He encouraged the City to educate the citizens, not penalize them, by adopting a more people-friendly approach to trees in Edmonds. Brett Gaspers, Edmonds, said he has owned his home in Meadowdale for 20 years, and he also owns an adjacent undeveloped lot. He estimated there are between 12 to 24 significant trees on the two properties, as well as about 6 landmark trees. As an example of how the draft Tree Code would apply he said that his neighbor just removed a dead pine tree that had started developing brown needles last fall. Yesterday, the tree was brown from top to bottom. Under the tree code, the tree would be defined as a hazard tree, and removal would require a Type I Arborist Consultant Permit. He questioned why an arborist is needed to determine a tree is completely dead when it is brown from top to bottom. He noted that, as proposed, ECDC 23.20.060.B.2 would require a “site plan showing the approximate location of significant trees, their size, their species, and the location of structures, driveways, access ways, easements, and utilities within the critical root zone of the tree.” His interpretation of this provision is that a property owner would have to map out everything on his/her property in order to obtain a permit to remove the hazardous tree, and there is no exemption for the situation he described. The cost of the report and the permit fee would result in a disincentive for property owners to remove dead trees that do nothing but attract pests. Mr. Gaspers said another neighbor removed a landmark tree when it proved to be diseased. Being a professional engineer, his neighbor had a gauge on the tree and found that it was leaning more and more each year. An arborist found that the tree was suffering from heart rot. Under the draft Tree Code, his neighborhood would have to pay thousands of dollars in excess of what they paid in order to get the tree removed. The last thing he wants is for the City’s code to discourage property owners from removing diseased and dangerous trees. He said the previous owner of his vacant lot planted an apple tree that was not pruned appropriately. Although the tree was a disaster, it was still growing apples. In the interest of being a good citizen, he cut down the tree because he felt it was a haven for apple maggots and moths, which could spread to other trees throughout the State. The draft code would require him to pay hundreds of dollars to remove the tree. Packet Page 353 of 470 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 12 Dawn Runyan, Edmonds, said she has lived in Edmonds for about 40 years. Being in the real estate business, she said trees can often devalue a property physically by overhanging roofs, ruining foundations, etc. The draft Tree Code would create an additional cost for people who find themselves in these situations. She said she does not see a denuded community, but a community where there are a lot trees and people are proud of their yards. While she is not proud of the draft Tree Code, she is proud that the citizens have come to voice their concerns about such an important part of the wonderful community. No one has had to tell them how to do it; they have done it all by themselves. Vivian Olsen, Edmonds, said she has been a resident of Edmonds for 14 years. She said she submitted written comments which support Mr. Nelson’s previous comments related to the findings that the draft Tree Code was based upon. She thanked the Tree Board for caring and showing compassion for trees. Whether or not the citizens agree with it, the draft Tree Code is comprehensive and required a lot of time from Tree Board Members while the rest of the citizens stood by and did nothing. When Edmonds was named a Tree City USA in 2012, she had a feeling of what that meant, and she noticed when the City received a grant to rewrite the Tree Code. She had feeling the City was expected to come up with something that would protect the trees. She even noticed when the Tree Board was formed in 2010. She agreed with earlier statements that the Tree Board should have balanced membership. Shame on her and shame on all of those who care about the beautiful views of Puget Sound for not coming forward and making sure their voices were heard as proponents of the Puget Sound views. The ordinance does not represent those who support views. She said she does not want the government to tell her what to do on her private property. However, when and if the City decides to regulate trees, the citizens should be asking them to keep the views of Puget Sound clear for everyone to enjoy. There has been so much mitigation over beautiful views going in and out of every neighborhood in the City. She previously lived in the Seaview Neighborhood where there was an awe-inspiring view every time she left her neighborhood. This view no longer exists. While she cannot demand that the private property owner must cut his/her trees, the City should find ways to support instead of get in the way of people who want to protect views. She concluded that view proponents need a leader, and she can be that person or she will gladly follow. They must be represented in the City government, and she asked people to step up and fill that role. Chair Tibbott thanked those who have commented thus far. The hearing has provided a great opportunity for the Board to hear from a cross section of the City. They have heard different ways of expressing similar views, and they have heard from people who have lived in the City for a long time. This level of activism can help everyone understand ways to govern themselves better as a people. He suggested the Board take a short break and then reconvene the hearing. THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK FROM 9:00 P.M. TO 9:10 P.M. Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, said he attended Planning Board Meetings for a number of years. He noted the large number of citizens who have expressed opposition to the draft Tree Code and suggested that it would not be hard to obtain the required 1,600 signatures to move a petition forward that would place the draft ordinance on a ballot. Rather than the City Council making the final decision, the citizens would be asked to vote on the matter. Nicholas Kappes, Edmonds, said he spent the first 20 years of his life in a very heavily treed area in Ohio that was surrounded by forests of black walnut, hickory, etc. He spent the next 21 years in Los Angeles, enjoying the beach and the water view. He came to Washington to get away from the heat and pollution, moving into a home in Northgate with a lot of trees. After looking at 250 homes in the area, he purchased his home in Edmonds because of the trees. His property is backed up by Pine Ridge Park, with a treed right-of-way area on one side. He is also acquiring the lot on the other side, which is heavily treed. He loves trees and recognizes that tree management is important. He was sitting in a local coffee shop when he first learned of the draft ordinance, and he originally thought it was a joke for the City to legislate trees on private property. He said he currently has a property transaction in process, and he questioned how the proposed code would impact ongoing real estate transactions. Failure to disclose the tree code requirements could result in liability. He noted that lots in the view area are $500,000 or more. When talking about global warming, it is important to have a geological perspective. For example, 13,000 years ago there was 3,500 feet of ice above Edmonds and there were no people. Mr. Kappes referred to a theory put forward by the father of sociology, Emile Durkheim from France, in the 1840s that civilizations grow organically and develop an overarching bureaucracy to manage themselves until they crush civilization. He suggested the draft Tree Code might be an example of that theory. He encouraged the Board to think about the true cost of implementing the draft Tree Code, which could affect more than 1 million trees that will continue to grow. It would take Packet Page 354 of 470 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 13 an army of employees to manage all of these trees, as well as manage the people who are managing the trees, etc. The numbers are mind boggling, with an army of 10,000 people over 100 years. He estimated the true cost per employee would be $5 million over the next 50 years. Ken Peirce, Edmonds, said he has lived in Edmonds for 28 years and agrees with nearly everything that has already been said. He voiced concern that the draft Tree Code considers all trees equal. He said he runs the Rotary Club of Lynnwood’s house project, which has provided property and materials for the teacher and students in the Edmonds School District to construct a house every year since 1975. They teach them to follow the codes, their projects are inspected, and they make corrections. These are the kids who will be building homes in the future. They were practically given a double lot that had about 50 trees on it. Most of the trees were douglas fir, and many were more than 20-inches in diameter. The plan was to construct two houses, and they are currently building one. However, they have not been allowed to remove the trees on the other half of the lot. The property must be re-subdivided in order to obtain a building permit. Because there is no appeal or exemption, they tried to follow the code requirements exactly. It cost about $7,000 more to bring the logging company back on site again, and they were present when the company arrived to remove the trees. However, in the middle of the subdivision process, it was discovered that seven alders were removed without a permit and they were fined $7,500. He suggested the City’s tree code should exclude some trees such as alders and cottonwoods. He pointed out that, although the draft code repeatedly states that the City is not liable for trees with its ROW, many issues that have gone to court in other jurisdictions have shown that the City would be held liable yet the City does not have a program to manage its risks. Jeffrey Carlock, Edmonds, said his wife has lived in Edmonds her entire life, and he moved into the home she purchased 2007 before leaving for Iraq. He is happy to be a citizen of Edmonds, as he loves the trees. He said he may be more in favor of the proposal, which would provide for better seclusion, if he were young and unmarried, recently married with no children, or an empty nester. But he wants to play with his children in grassy fields at parks or in his own backyard. He does not want his daughter going alone to the park near his home where there is a wooded area with a number of homeless people. He drove by three elementary schools, two fire stations, and a police station, and none of them had large trees on site. All of the significant trees were on private property rather city-owned property. He urged the City not to make it a financial burden for private property owners to create sunny, grassy areas for their children to play. He said he loves the trees in Edmonds, but he believes the draft Tree Code is over burdensome. He agreed that the tree code should follow an UFMP and not the other way around. He recalled that a few years ago he had to replace a side sewer on his property that was damaged by tree roots. While the work met the code requirements, the City would not sign off on the project until he provided access at the end of his driveway and within a foot of the City’s access. He fears that the draft Tree Code could head down that same path. Kimberly Bailey, Edmonds, said she has lived in Edmonds for over 23 years and has spent the majority of her career working with environmental groups, including non-profit organizations and the Federal Government. She has worked in environmental protection and environmental education. She emphasized that her property has no view and no chance of ever having a view. She vehemently expressed opposition to the draft Tree Code, as it does not reflect the values of the community as a whole and is a gross overreach of power. She cautioned that when a government singles out something specific for protection or attack, whether it is a plant, animal or people group, there are negative consequences, intended and unintended, environmental and cultural. The policy is not a balanced approach to City planning. It is not a balanced environmental approach or a balanced community approach, and it does not even attempt to balance the value of its residents. She said most would agree that trees are a valuable part of any community, but so are the sun-filled gardens and the pollinators, birds and insects that they attract. All of these elements are equally as sacred as trees. Diversity in ecosystems and neighborhoods applies to the canopy cover, as well. There is no reason to single out trees for this level of protection. If anything, they need more pollinators. She observed that some residents appreciate being surrounded by large trees, but others enjoy the sunlight in their yards, natural light in their homes, and the type of landscaping and gardening that requires sunlight. There is nothing criminal or immoral about wanting to grow vegetable in your yard, yet these types of gardens require sunlight. They also support a diverse array of animals, insects, birds and plants, that the understory does not support. Ms. Bailey said she is outraged at the level of control the City is proposing to personal property. She has worked for 23 years to pay off the mortgage and pay property taxes. She has and will continue to be a good steward of the land she tends. She invited people to come see her worm bin, as she makes her own organic soil. Her greatest joy is to sit on her deck in the light and radiant heat of the sun and admire the garden. She no longer has sunlight on her deck and it is a challenge to grow vegetables in her yard. She questioned if this is how the City wants to treat the community it works for. She said the City promotes the waterfront, Edmonds in Bloom, the farmer’s market, beautiful flower baskets in downtown, and increased Packet Page 355 of 470 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 14 outdoor seating. All of these are representative of a light, sun-filled environment, and the notion that we should have an urban forest is absurd. Other communities would love to have the natural resources that Edmonds has. When people say, “Have an Edmonds kind of day,” they do not mean go sit in the cool damn shade. She concluded that the City needs a balanced Tree Code that takes in the values of all its citizens. Mark Bailey, Edmonds, said he does not live on a view property and has no potential for a view. He is disturbed about the talk of urban forest. Edmonds is not an urban forest, and he does not personally know any resident that wants it to become such. People visit Edmonds for the quaint and unique downtown, the beach, and good restaurants. Anthony’s does not have a forest café, they have a Beach Café. Putting Edmonds in the shadow of an urban forest will never bring people into the town. There are ample locations for people who love forest living very close by (Woodway and Lake Forest Park). Whether to have trees or not should be an individual choice, and he resents the City thinking it can make that choice for the property owners. Mike O’Malley, Edmonds, said he has lived in Edmonds for 30 years and supports everything that has been previously said. He urged the City to consider creating a view ordinance. A view ordinance would likely receive more positive support than the draft Tree Code. He said he is totally against the ordinance, as proposed. Denis O’Malley, Edmonds, observed that most people would say they moved to Edmonds for the million dollar view of the water. The ordinance praises trees and talks about how good they are, but there are negative aspects, as well. One of the most important things to Edmonds residents is their water views, and trees can and do devastate the values of houses in Edmonds. The City has a height ordinance that limits homes to no taller than 25 feet, and commercial buildings can be no greater than 35 feet. He questioned why this same height limit does not apply to trees, as well. Instead, the City is proposing to tell people what they can and cannot do with trees on private property. He said he has lived in Edmonds for more than 30 years, and there are more, not less trees. This has been done by private citizens without City or government control. He suggested that a view ordinance would increase the home values in Edmonds, but the tree ordinance is very wrong for Edmonds and would destroy the million dollar view for a lot of people. Jenny Anttila, Edmonds, said she has lived in the City for 30 years. While the discussion has centered around trees, the larger issue is about freedom and property rights. She referred to a book titled, Escape from Freedom, written by Eric Fromm, which talks about how people can acquiesce and let government take over and eventually wonder what on earth happened. Freedoms are lost and there are more taxes, yet citizens have lost their voice because there is too much government control. CHAIR TIBBOTT CLOSED THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING. Chair Tibbott summarized the public comments as follows:  A more balanced approach is needed.  The draft code is way too complicated.  The draft code is overreaching  The draft code imposes a loss of freedom and property rights.  There was fear of how the draft code could impact neighborliness.  There was fear of the unintended results of the draft code.  The draft code creates a disincentive to do the right thing.  The draft code could incentivize cheating.  The draft code is too punitive and overreaching in the area of imposing additional fees. Chair Tibbott thanked the public for participating in the hearing. He explained that, typically during deliberations, the Planning Board will ask clarifying questions of staff and make observations. At the conclusion of their deliberation, they may make a recommendation to the City Council. Another option would be to postpone a decision and continue the hearing to a future date. Packet Page 356 of 470 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 15 From the audience, Cynthia Carlock, Edmonds, asked if the Board has thought about how the draft Tree Code might affect home sales in Edmonds. Vice Chair Lovell asked staff to summarize the process that got the Tree Board started on the draft ordinance. He also asked about the funding sources for the draft Tree Code. Mr. Lien explained that the City Council allocated $25,000 in the 2014 budget for the Tree Code update, and the City also received a $10,000 Urban and Community Forestry Grant from the Department of Natural Resources. He said that, from the staff’s perspective, there are still insufficient policies in place to support the draft ordinance, and that is why staff is suggesting that the Board recommend that an Urban Forestry Management Plan (UFMP) be developed and that the existing tree code sections be consolidated during the broader development code re-write process rather than adopting the tree code now. Once an UFMP is in place, the tree code could be re-written, as necessary, consistent with the policy direction provided in the UFMP. He explained that, without specific goals in mind, it is difficult to spell out the density requirement. The lack of policy was discussed by the Tree Board, and the findings on page one of the draft ordinance are intended to address the issue. Vice Chair Lovell noted that several members of the audience indicated they have experience in the tree business. He asked if the Tree Board ever considered looking amongst the great amount of talent and experience in the City before hiring a consultant to help draft the tree code. Mr. Lien explained that the City followed the standard process for selecting a consultant by first sending out a request for qualifications. None of the respondents lived in Edmonds, and the consultant selected lives in Mount Vernon. There are arborists and tree professionals on the Tree Board, and the President of the Tree Board is an engineer who deals with development. Vice Chair Lovell said it appears it was determined early on that an outside consultant would be needed, and Mr. Lien concurred. Vice Chair Lovell observed that a number of comments were made about the fact that Edmonds is not an urban forest and there was other commentary about the urban forestry concept, in general. He read the following from State published resources with respect to the subject: “State and local officials work with parks and recreation departments, land-use planners, utilities and citizen organizations to promote and manage urban forestry resources. Urban forestry is the management of urban forest ecosystems. These ecosystems may be varied or complex in the form of city parks, watersheds, public rights-of-way and other public lands. These ecosystems include trees, street trees, plants, animals, natural landmarks, and waterways. The urban forest can be thought of as an infrastructure system. Investment in trees provides aesthetic benefits and much more. A well planned and managed forest can partially replace built infrastructure systems such as stormwater drain systems. Most communities lack clear goals and objectives for tree care and are not readily able to state the purposes of their work. Having a management plan helps a local government communicate goals to the public and provide for consistent actions across city departments. Washington cities have adopted code and ordinances that address trees, but inadequate or unknowledgeable staff limits enforcement. This is why we need plans such as an Urban Forestry Management Plan to provide adequate goals and policies, which would be subsequently supported by applicable codes and provisions.” Vice Chair Lovell commented that had the City gone through the UFMP thought process before starting rewriting the Tree Code, the Board would not be sitting in a room with 300 people who are opposed. A member of the audience commented that the above statement is the most important thing said at the hearing. A member of the audience asked if the grant funding came from the Federal or State Government. Mr. Lien said the grant money initiated through the forest service and was filtered through the State Department of Natural Resources. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the idea of an UFMP means different things to different cities. For example, Lake Forest Park has chosen for their UFMP to focus on tree cover. Just because the City talks about an UFMP does not mean they are advocating this same approach. She asked how many elements could be included in the UFMP. Mr. Lien said the City would decide the number of elements to include in the plan. For example, the plan could address solar access, private property rights, view protection, different policies for different areas in the City, canopy coverage, tree maintenance within City parks and ROW, and policy guidance for tree regulations on public and private property. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that although most people attended the meeting to react the draft Tree Code, many of the comments could be addressed as part of an UFMP. Mr. Lien agreed and noted that, given public awareness regarding the issue, there would likely be a good public process if the City were to embark on an UFMP. Packet Page 357 of 470 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 16 Board Member Rubenkonig reviewed that the Board has already discussed the need for a UFMP, and it appears as though they support the concept. However, funding is needed for the plan to move forward. If the Comprehensive Plan mandates that such a plan will be completed by the end of 2017, does that mean it will be a budgeted item. Ms. Hope emphasized that completion of a UFMP by 2017 is identified as a policy in the draft Comprehensive Plan, but it has not been adopted by the City Council. This is still an open decision that needs to be made. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested the Board could recommend that an UFMP be completed by 2017, without identifying where the money will come from. Board Member Cheung said it seems like the entire tree ordinance assumes that the citizens want to protect the tree canopy on both private and public property. Based on the public comments, he is not sure that is the case. He said it is important to consider the potential harm of tree canopy. Some people have raised concern about sunlight, which is needed to grow vegetables. More tree canopy will require more electricity to be used. Also, if there are more trees on private and public property, there is more likelihood of crimes such as car burglaries. The City should not simply assume that canopy is good in all cases. Sunlight and views should be considered as part of a UFMP, as well. Board Member Robles commented that the City cannot assess what it cannot measure. Since the beginning of the discussion, he has asked if the UFMP would give a measurement of how many trees there are in the City and assess how fast they are growing. From there, they could determine how many trees could be cut down before the net canopy is affected. Trees can be measured remotely with lydar data, and the State is currently doing a study. Before they reach into the hands of the public, they should at least look at every other possible option, and he does not believe the draft Tree Code covers every possible option for protecting trees. Board Member Robles asked if consolidating the existing tree code would require a lot of money or upset the current balance the City apparently has. Ms. Hope answered that there would be no additional cost associated with consolidating the existing code without changing the policies, since the City is already in the process of updating the existing code to clarify and consolidate. Board Member Robles asked if the existing code could be preserved while the City goes forward with an UFMP. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that staff is recommending Option B, which calls for developing an UFMP before doing a major re-write of the Tree Code. In the meantime, the existing Tree Code could be consolidated as part of the development code rewrite that is in progress. Board Member Robles expressed support for Option B, with the addition of providing all of the public comments to the City Council so they understand the issues. Vice Chair Lovell commented that if the Board recommends Option B, he anticipates that either the existing Tree Board or a new Tree Board would be tasked with moving the UFMP forward. He is confident that the comments and concerns raised by the public would be considered and addressed in the plan. He is not sure the Board should provide a specific list of items to include in the UFMP. Ms. Hope noted that comments from the hearing will be part of the public record and reviewed by the City Council. She reviewed the options outlined by staff. If the Board recommends the City Council move forward with an UFMP, it could address any or all of the issues raised by the public. In the meantime, the existing tree code could be consolidated as part of the code rewrite. Chair Tibbott asked staff to describe the benefits of consolidating the current code. Ms. Hope said consolidation would make it easier for property owners and residents to find the parts of the code that apply to trees. It would also be easier for staff to implement. The current tree code is found in several different chapters, and it is sometimes confusing. Having it all in one chapter would be helpful. Chair Tibbott asked the downside of maintaining the existing code. Ms. Hope said it is a bit challenging for people to find the parts of the code that apply. Chair Tibbott said that, as currently organized, it is possible that someone could violate the code and be subject to punitive measures simply because they could not find the code provisions that apply. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that two of the Board’s long-standing members are absent. She suggested the Board could direct staff to provide language for recommending Option B to the City Council, but postpone its final recommendation to the City Council until a future meeting. Chair Tibbott said Board Member Cloutier asked him to recall his earlier comments that he does not have any trees on his property in preference for gardening and solar energy. Board Member Stewart asked him to recall that she has a deep interest in recognizing the variety of trees and vegetation around Edmonds. She wants to make sure that whatever the Board considers would bring some appreciation to the diversity of sections of the City and the kinds of development that people desire in those neighborhoods. He felt that was adequate feedback to allow the Board to move forward with a recommendation. Packet Page 358 of 470 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 17 BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO THE TREE BOARD’S RECOMMENDED DRAFT TREE CODE (ECDC 23.20): a. DEFER ANY ACTION ON THE CURRENTLY PREPARED DRAFT. COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION OF AN URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR EDMONDS AS PROPOSED WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. b. CONSOLIDATE THE EXISTING TREE CODE SECTIONS UNDER EXISTING POLICY GUIDELINES DURING THE ECDC REWRITE PROCESS CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS. c. FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT OF A URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN, CONSOLIDATION OF POTENTIAL REVISED TREE CODE COULD BE WRITTEN CONSISTENT WITH POLICY DIRECTIONS PROVIDED WITHIN THE URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that once the Planning Board forwards a recommendation to the City Council, it will be the City Council’s purview to decide how to address the Urban Forestry Management Plan. At this point, the Board does not need to provide additional direction. Chair Tibbott suggested that the motion be amended to include a recommendation that, if the Tree Board continues, its members should be made up of a cross section of the community. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that this recommendation would be a duplication of what is already the City’s policy for any board. The City Council is responsible for the makeup of the Tree Board. The majority of the Board indicated support for the motion, as currently on the floor. Chair Tibbott said he would support the motion, with the understanding that the Tree Board was created for a purpose, and the City Council is responsible for assuring that the Tree Board remains viable. Board Member Robles commented that the motion on the floor would put the draft Tree Code away, and it would require considerable weight to bring it back to life. By approving the motion, the Board will speak to the intentions of the majority of the audience. Vice Chair Lovell emphasized that with resources from both the City and State, there are plenty of programs to help the City staff and Board undertake the task of creating a UFMP. Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that the Board does not currently have an agenda for the UFMP, but they would like the plan to represent what the public has said and will continue to say. The UFMP should address many more issues than just tree canopy. From the audience, Mr. Kappes observed that Vice Chair Lovell’s earlier comment pointed out that private property is not part of Urban Forestry Management. However, the motion on the floor does not specifically address this concept. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the Board is not in a position to address what an UFMP will include at this time. Vice Chair Lovell reviewed that the purpose of an UFMP is to help local government communicate government goals to the public and provide for consistent actions across city departments. His intention is not to say that an UFMP would only deal with public property. Instead, the plan should incorporate everything that was discussed at the hearing. It is possible that the UFMP would only address public and not private properties. The fact is that the City needs a vision and goals that all citizens can support. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF PROPOSED 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE This item was postponed to a future meeting. CONTINUED REVIEW OF DRAFT CODE FOR THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE UPDATE This item was postponed to a future meeting. Packet Page 359 of 470 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 18 REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan Update is scheduled for a public hearing on June 10th. Staff will provide additional background information in the Board’s packets. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Tibbott commented that the process for the previous public hearing worked well. He is proud of the level of citizen involvement, and he thanked the Planning Board Members for their investment in the process, as well. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Robles announced that Sno-Isle Regional Library is sponsoring a Ted X Conference on November 6th at the Edmonds Art Center. The topic of the event is “Creating the Future.” ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Packet Page 360 of 470    AM-7786     12.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:06/09/2015 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Discussion of the 2015-2019 Commute Trip Reduction Agreement Recommendation Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the June 16, 2015 City Council meeting. Previous Council Action On August 16, 2011, City Council approved the interlocal agreement with Community Transit for Commute Trip Reduction 2011-2015. Narrative The Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) interlocal agreements are the mechanism through which State money flows to local jurisdictions to cover the expenses of administering CTR programs. In Snohomish County, the jurisdictions have agreed to provide 100% of that funding to Community Transit (CT) to provide the employer outreach and CTR marketing for all "worksites" (defined as employers with 100 or more employees).  In Edmonds, (3) worksites exist (City of Edmonds, Swedish Hospital, and Edmonds Family Medicine Clinic). On an annual basis, a total of $5,250 is provided to CT to administer this program (based on $1,750/worksite annual contribution from the State). The main tasks associated with administering the CTR programs are writing and amending ordinances, reviewing employer annual reports and program descriptions, and coordinating with the jurisdictions.   This year Edmonds, along with seven other cities and Snohomish County, has opted to again have CT as the lead agency responsible for implementing and administering the County’s and Cities’ CTR plans and programs. The funds received from the Washington State Department of Transportation to support the  CTR base plans and programs for all participating jurisdictions will be provided to and managed by CT. The County and cities will assist CT through the enforcement of their respective CTR ordinances. The proposed interlocal agreement, Exhibit 1, is a four-year agreement for the period July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2019. The agreement is the same as the one previously approved by Council for 2011-2015. This proposed agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney’s office. Attachments CTR 2015-2019 Interlocal Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Packet Page 361 of 470 Engineering (Originator)Robert English 06/04/2015 02:23 PM Public Works Phil Williams 06/04/2015 02:38 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 06/04/2015 02:52 PM Mayor Dave Earling 06/04/2015 03:15 PM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 06/04/2015 03:42 PM Engineering (Originator)Robert English 06/04/2015 04:03 PM Public Works Kody McConnell 06/04/2015 04:04 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 06/04/2015 05:18 PM Mayor Dave Earling 06/05/2015 05:54 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 06/05/2015 07:30 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 06/04/2015 10:32 AM Final Approval Date: 06/05/2015  Packet Page 362 of 470 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ADMINISTERING COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (CTR) PLANS AND PROGRAMS This AGREEMENT, entered into by and between Snohomish County Public Transit Benefit Area (hereinafter referred to as COMMUNITY TRANSIT), and City of Arlington, City of Bothell, City of Edmonds, City of Lynnwood, City of Marysville, City of Mukilteo, City of Monroe, City of Mountlake Terrace, (hereinafter referred to as the CITIES), and hereinafter collectively referred to as the PARTIES, WITNESS THAT: WHEREAS, RCW 70.94.527 requires counties containing urban growth areas and cities and towns with “major employers,” that are located within urban growth areas with a state highway segment exceeding the threshold of one hundred person hours of delay to develop ordinances, plans and programs to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) commute trips, and thereby reduce vehicle-related air pollution, traffic congestion and energy use, and WHEREAS, COMMUNITY TRANSIT worked in partnership with the CITIES to develop a common CTR plan and ordinance that has been adopted into law by the CITIES; and WHEREAS, the PARTIES believe that it is more efficient and effective to implement the plans and programs in a common manner and to designate COMMUNITY TRANSIT as the lead agency responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of the CTR plans and programs for the CITIES; and WHEREAS, the PARTIES agree that the CITIES will assist COMMUNITY TRANSIT through the enforcement of their respective CTR ordinances; and WHEREAS, the CITIES have determined that the funds to support the CTR base plans and programs for the CITIES from the Washington State Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as WSDOT) will be provided to and managed by COMMUNITY TRANSIT to support the implementation and administration of the CTR plans and programs within the CITIES; and WHEREAS, the CITIES determine that it is within the best interest of the public to enter into an interlocal agreement with COMMUNITY TRANSIT, whereby COMMUNITY TRANSIT will be the lead agency responsible for implementing and administering the CITIES' CTR plans and programs; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of covenants, conditions, performances and promises hereinafter contained, the PARTIES hereto agree as follows: Packet Page 363 of 470 1. RECITALS: The recitals set forth above, constituting a basis of the agreement of the PARTIES, are incorporated herein by references as if fully set forth. 2. SERVICE PROVISIONS: THE PARTIES shall perform the services specified in the “STATEMENT of WORK” attached as Exhibit A, which is made a part of this AGREEMENT by this reference. 3. FUNDING: COMMUNITY TRANSIT shall receive all funds provided by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) allocated for the CITIES to support the administration of the CTR base plans and programs. 4. CHANGE IN FUNDING: This AGREEMENT is contingent upon COMMUNITY TRANSIT's receipt of funds from the WSDOT. If the WSDOT funds for CTR are reduced or eliminated, the PARTIES shall review this AGREEMENT to determine the course of future CTR activities in Snohomish County and any amendments to this AGREEMENT that may be required. 5. AGREEMENT PERIOD: This AGREEMENT is effective for COMMUNITY TRANSIT and each individual PARTY as of the date signed by COMMUNITY TRANSIT and each individual PARTY regardless of the signatures of the other parties to the agreement. The term of this AGREEMENT shall be from the effective date until June 30, 2019. 6. TERMINATION: The CITIES and/or COMMUNITY TRANSIT may terminate this AGREEMENT by providing written notice of such termination, specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days prior to such date. Reimbursement for services performed by COMMUNITY TRANSIT, and not otherwise paid for by WSDOT prior to the effective date of such termination shall be paid as a pro rate portion of the applicable WSDOT allocation amount by WSDOT. 7. SEVERABILITY: One or more of the CITIES may withdraw from this AGREEMENT by providing written notice of such intent, specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days prior to such date. Such a withdrawal shall not affect other terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT between the remaining PARTIES. To this end, a withdrawal by a City from this AGREEMENT is declared severable. 8. AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS: Any party may request changes to this AGREEMENT. Any such changes that are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated herein by written amendment of this AGREEMENT. No variation or alteration of the terms of this AGREEMENT shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the PARTIES hereto. Packet Page 364 of 470 9. NONDISCRIMINATION: The PARTIES, in performance of this AGREEMENT, shall comply with all applicable local, state, and/or federal laws and ordinances, and agree that they shall not discriminate against any person who is paid, for work completed, by funds indicated in this AGREEMENT or against any applicant for such employment on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, age, veteran status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability. The PARTIES shall make reasonable accommodations to the sensory, mental, or physical disabilities of applicants and employees throughout the personnel process. In determining the extent of reasonable accommodation, the following factors will be considered: the safe and efficient operation of the organization; feasible financial costs and expenses; and the overall type and size of the organization's operation. 10. INDEMNIFICATION: A. COMMUNITY TRANSIT shall protect, hold harmless, indemnify, and defend, at its own expense, the CITIES and their elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever, arising out of the performance of Community Transit of this Agreement, including claims by the state, COMMUNITY TRANSIT's employees or third parties, except for those damages solely caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the CITIES or their elected and appointed officials, officers, employees or agents. The CITIES shall protect, hold harmless, indemnify, and defend, at their own expense, COMMUNITY TRANSIT, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever, arising out of the performance of the indemnifying party, City of this Agreement, including claims by the state, the CITIES’ employees or third parties, except for those damages solely caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of COMMUNITY TRANSIT, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees or agents. B. It is understood and agreed that this AGREEMENT is solely for the benefit of the PARTIES hereto and gives no right to any other party. No joint venture or partnership is formed as a result of this AGREEMENT. C. This indemnification clause shall also apply to any and all causes of action arising out of performance of work activities under this AGREEMENT. Each contract for services or activities utilizing funds provided in whole or in part by this AGREEMENT shall include a provision that the PARTIES are not liable for damages or claims for damages arising from any subcontractor's performance or activities under the terms of the contracts. Packet Page 365 of 470 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City of Arlington, City of Bothell, City of Edmonds, City of Lynnwood, City of Marysville, City of Mukilteo, City of Monroe, City of Mountlake Terrace and Community Transit have executed this AGREEMENT as of the date and year written below. COMMUNITY TRANSIT CITY OF ARLINGTON __________________________ ________________________ Authorized Signature Authorized Signature Emmett Heath Barbara Tolbert Chief Executive Officer Mayor __________________________ __________________________ Date Date CITY OF BOTHELL CITY OF EDMONDS __________________________ ________________________ Authorized Signature Authorized Signature Robert Stowe David Earling City Manager Mayor __________________________ __________________________ Date Date CITY OF LYNNWOOD CITY OF MARYSVILLE __________________________ ________________________ Authorized Signature Authorized Signature Nicola Smith Jon Nehring Mayor Mayor __________________________ __________________________ Date Date Packet Page 366 of 470 CITY OF MONROE CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE __________________________ __________________________ Authorized Signature Authorized Signature Geoffrey Thomas Jerry Smith Mayor Mayor __________________________ __________________________ Date Date CITY OF MUKILTEO __________________________ Authorized Signature Jennifer Gregerson Mayor __________________________ Date Packet Page 367 of 470 EXHIBIT "A" Statement of Work ADMINISTERING COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION PLANS 1. INTRODUCTION The Cities of Arlington, Bothell, Edmonds, Lynnwood, Marysville, Mukilteo, Monroe and Mountlake Terrace (CITIES) have all adopted a similar CTR ordinance. This STATEMENT OF WORK is incorporated into the Interlocal Agreement titled "INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ADMINISTERING COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (CTR) PLANS” and outlines the tasks and responsibilities for each of the PARTIES. COMMUNITY TRANSIT TASKS 2. GENERAL TASKS 2.1 Maintain and administer the CITIES' CTR Plans and programs according to the provisions of RCW 70.94.521-551. 2.2 Provide Washington State Department of Transit (WSDOT) with a public hearing notice and copies of any proposed amendments to the CITIES' CTR ordinance, plan, and/or administrative guidelines within the first week of the public review period, and final copies of such action within one (1) month of adoption. 2.3 Establish and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence and accounting procedures and practices, sufficient to reflect properly all direct and indirect costs of whatever nature claimed to have been incurred and anticipated to be incurred solely for the performance of this AGREEMENT. To facilitate the administration of the work described in this AGREEMENT, separate accounts shall be established and maintained within COMMUNITY TRANSIT'S existing accounting system or set up independently. Such accounts are referred to herein collectively as the “CTR Account”. All costs charged to the CTR Account, including any approved services contributed by the CITIES shall be supported by properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices, contracts, vouchers, or products evidencing in proper detail the nature and propriety of the charges. Packet Page 368 of 470 3. SERVICES PROVIDED TO EMPLOYERS Provide affected employers with access to information and services, which will enable them to plan, implement, and manage Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) programs in a way that implements the CITIES’ CTR plans and ordinances and meets individual employer goals. 3.1 Organize the content and format of a comprehensive CTR educational program for employers and jurisdictions. 3.2 Ensure that the comprehensive CTR educational program in Snohomish County is consistent with that developed by the Washington State Technical Assistance Team. 3.3 Each of the CITY ordinances requires employers to appoint an Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) who will coordinate the CTR program at that employment site. Personalized assistance to and on-site presentations will be provided to ETCs, managers and employees. 3.4 Offer free to affected employers complete ETC training at least once every six months with priority given to designated ETCs. 3.5 Provide opportunities for ETCs to network with the ETCs of other affected employers. 3.6 Continue to provide outreach assistance to affected employers, new affected employers, and potential affected employers. 3.7 Provide information and technical assistance to affected employers in preparing and revising individual trip reduction programs. Explain legal requirements and assist with initial survey and plan development. 3.8 Work with CITIES to develop new transportation demand management (TDM) programs to implement CTR Plans such as Telework, Alternative Work Hours, Subsidy/Incentives, and Parking Management. 3.9 Coordinate and facilitate employer networking, employer peer reinforcement and employer recognition programs. 3.10 Produce two annual rideshare campaigns and distribute campaign materials. 3.11 Plan, promote and implement employer transportation events, including customized worksite carpool and vanpool events, and provide event prizes. 3.12 Design and distribute CTR marketing materials, including new employee orientation materials, which employers may use or copy to implement, promote and manage CTR programs. 3.13 Provide employers with access to information, materials and programs that will enable them to adequately promote CTR programs. Produce customized marketing materials for employees upon request. Packet Page 369 of 470 3.14 Be available to attend at least one rideshare fair or employer promotion per year for each affected employer. Encourage employers to work together and hold joint events. 3.15 Support CTR programs by offering supplemental services including a regional ride matching program, vanpool program and Guaranteed Ride Home program. 3.16 Take the lead in coordinating the survey process for employers. Provide survey workshops to employers during measurement years. Distribute and collect the state “CTR Employee Questionnaires” (survey forms). Work with the appropriate agencies to coordinate the processing of the employer surveys. Ensure that employers timely receive their survey results. Offer survey follow-up meetings to all employers. Return processed surveys to employers. 3.17 Send or deliver employer surveys for processing as instructed by WSDOT. Prior to sending or delivering any surveys, notify WSDOT of the name of the worksite(s) and the employer identification code(s) for any surveys being submitted for processing. The notification should be submitted via electronic mail, fax, or U.S. Postal Services. 4. ANNUAL EMPLOYER REPORTING & PROGRAM REVIEW 4.1 Notification of Newly Affected Sites as defined by CITY ordinance 4.1.1 Identify list of potential new sites and contact person and send notification inquiry to determine if affected. 4.1.2 Confirm status and secure state ID code. 4.1.3 Create timeline and legal file. 4.2 Site Analysis and Program Review 4.2.1 Notify affected employers when quarterly and/or annual program reports are due and provide affected employers with limited direct assistance in preparing written program submissions. 4.2.2 Review program reports for completeness for new sites and for sites that made progress toward goal. 4.2.3 For sites that didn’t make progress, review survey results and recent program data and evaluate the potential for progress toward single occupant vehicle (SOV)/vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction. 4.2.4 Make recommendations to CITIES for program improvements for sites that did not make progress. 4.2.5 Generate approval/non-approval letter for CITIES signature. 4.2.6 Follow up with employers whose programs have not been approved and assist in modifying CTR program. Packet Page 370 of 470 4.3 Exemptions & Modification 4.3.1 Receive employer requests for exemptions or modifications and send copy of request to CITIES. 4.3.2 Copy request to WSDOT for comment. 4.3.3 Review and analyze request and provide comments to CITIES; CITIES reviews analysis and provides directions to COMMUNITY TRANSIT. 4.3.4 Generate and send response if directed so by CITIES. 4.4 Records Maintenance 4.4.1 Maintain database and master file records on all affected worksites. 4.4.2 Provide WSDOT with electronic or hard copy of each employer program report approved within the quarter. 5. COORDINATION 5.1 Serve as a liaison between WSDOT and the CITIES for the purposes of RCW 70.94.521-551. 5.2. Coordinate CTR outreach and marketing efforts with the CITIES and other transit agencies (including Metro CTR and Metro Rideshare) in order to create a comprehensive CTR program. 5.3 Collaborate directly with the CTR planning coordinators from the CITIES in working with affected employers to facilitate the timely development, submission, implementation, and revision of affected employer programs. 5.4 Coordinate and facilitate CTR coordinator’s group meetings consisting of the CTR planning coordinators from CITIES as needed. This group functions as an information, coordination, and collaboration group for CTR activities. 5.5 Attend jurisdiction and regional meetings representing CITIES’ issues. 5.6 Work with CITIES to develop and fund new TDM programs to implement CTR Plans such as Telework, Alternative Work Hours, Subsidy/Incentives, and Parking Management. 5.7 Help jurisdictions monitor the progress of affected employers after CTR programs are implemented. 5.8 Meet at least annually with the each CITY to discuss employer CTR programs in each jurisdiction. Packet Page 371 of 470 6. REPORTING 6.1 With an invoice voucher, submit to WSDOT quarterly progress reports in a format approved by WSDOT, that adequately and accurately assess the progress made by the CITIES in implementing RCW 70.94.521-551. These quarterly reports shall be submitted within forty-five (45) days of the end of each quarter for the first seven (7) quarters and within fifteen (15) days of the end of the final quarter. 6.2 Provide at least quarterly to WSDOT, updated employer information in the electronic format provided by WSDOT to satisfy the jurisdictions’ reporting requirement. 6.3 Provide the CITIES with quarterly progress reports including narrative summary of tasks performed. CITIES TASKS 7. GENERAL TASKS 7.1 Provide COMMUNITY TRANSIT with copies of any proposed amendments to the CTR Plan and Ordinance. 7.2 Notify COMMUNITY TRANSIT of potential CTR-affected sites. Send notification letter to new sites. COMMUNITY TRANSIT will generate letter for CITIES signature. 7.3 Review business license procedure for ways that the CITIES can more effectively and efficiently provide Community Transit with information on potential newly affected employers. 7.4 Attend CTR coordinator group meetings when scheduled. 7.5 Meet with COMMUNITY TRANSIT at least annually to discuss employer CTR programs. 7.6 Sign annual employer report approval/disapproval letters. 7.7 Attend mediation meetings with employers during program review process if necessary. 7.8 Review employer exemption/modification requests from analysis submitted by COMMUNITY TRANSIT. Provide direction to COMMUNITY TRANSIT draft response to employer (if desired by CITIES). 7.9 Report to COMMUNITY TRANSIT, at least annually, all activities made to implement the CTR Plan or Ordinance with an estimation of costs. Packet Page 372 of 470    AM-7791     13.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:06/09/2015 Time:25 Minutes   Submitted By:Patrick Doherty Department:Community Services Type: Potential Action  Information Subject Title Discussion and Potential Action to Submit Proposal to Acquire the Edmonds Conference Center Recommendation At its 6/9/15 meeting, City Council will provide direction to Mayor and staff as to whether it wishes to submit a proposal to purchase or lease of the Edmonds Conference Center and under what terms. If so, City Council will instruct Mayor and staff to prepare said proposal and submit it on or before 6/11/15. Previous Council Action On 5/19/15 the City Council continued discussion and voted to authorize the Mayor and staff to submit to the State Department of Enterprise Services (DES) before the 6/1/15 deadline a Letter of Interest to potentially acquire the property. Attached you will find minutes of the 5/12, 5/19 and 5/26/15 City Council meetings when this issue was discussed, for reference. 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. Located both on-site and on the adjacent property are 23 paved parking spaces. Noteworthy is the fact that the wood-frame, stucco-clad building has suffered water leakage and associated damage, as assessed by Allana, Buick & Bers, Inc., last Summer. The "rough order of magnitude" cost of mitigating said damage was estimated at $1,012,161.  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.  On 5/19/15 the City Council continued discussion and voted to authorize the Mayor and staff to submit to the State Department of Enterprise Services (DES) before the 6/1/15 deadline a Letter of Interest to potentially acquire the property.  On 5/26/15 the City Council continued discussion and viewed a PowerPoint presentation provided by Finance Director Scott James, attached here again for reference.  Packet Page 373 of 470 On June 1, 2015 the Mayor sent the City’s official Letter of Interest to the State DES, confirming that a proposal to acquire the property would be due by June 11, 2015.  This evening’s (6/9/15) deliberation is the final opportunity for City Council to conduct deliberations regarding the terms of a potential proposal to acquire the Edmonds Conference Center before the 6/11/15 proposal-submittal deadline.  Attached you will find all the information provided at the previous City Council meetings.  Attachments EDMONDS CONFERENCE CENTER Q&A Revised Surplus Property Bulletin 4-28-15 E Conf Center Proforma PL 2013 2014  Edmonds Conference Center PPT Additional Damage Assessment Council minutes 051215 Council Minutes 051915 Council Minutes 052615 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 06/05/2015 10:20 AM Mayor Dave Earling 06/05/2015 11:40 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 06/05/2015 11:43 AM Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 06/04/2015 02:31 PM Final Approval Date: 06/05/2015  Packet Page 374 of 470 EDMONDS CONFERENCE CENTER QUESTIONS RAISED BY CITY COUNCIL 5/12/15 Responses provided in blue. 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 Packet Page 375 of 470 Conference Center City Council Q&A Page 2 of 6 Conference Center. Exact covenant details are not yet 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 Packet Page 376 of 470 Conference Center City Council Q&A Page 3 of 6 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.” Potential Uses of the Building/Site 1. Conference Center The most obvious outcome would be continued use of the building as a conference center. As seen to date, that use requires an on-going subsidy of approximately $50,000 per year, given the current mix and frequency of uses and users. Without detailed analytics of these uses/users and a prospective pro forma by an expert in the field, it is not known at this time whether the center’s usage could be further enhanced, thereby also improving the bottom line. 2. Business incubator There is no formal concept identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan or CFP for a business incubator, but there has certainly been discussion about this concept. Recently the Business Districts Enhancement Subgroup of the Economic Development Commission raised this notion, explored it to some degree, and at their latest meeting dismissed the notion as not feasible at this time. Members of that Subgroup intend to report back their opinion at the next EDC meeting on 5/20/15. As to whether the building could serve this purpose, its current configuration is not conducive to a business incubator, which usually consists of many small, separate offices, a small number of conference rooms and/or classrooms, support space, and possibly a studio/production room. The large meeting spaces in this building are not conducive to this model. 3. Art Center/Art Museum The notion of an arts center/arts museum has been discussed over the years and is identified as a potential CFP project, with a placeholder cost estimate of $5 million. The building, as currently configured, could serve to provide space for exhibits, small 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 Packet Page 377 of 470 Conference Center City Council Q&A Page 4 of 6 The CFP identifies the notion of a public market structure near the Waterfront, conceptualized to serve a farmers market year-round, with a placeholder cost estimate of $5 million. Other cities’ year-round farmers market structures (Olympia, Puyallup, e.g.) are indoor/outdoor structures, often with roll-up type garage doors, accessible from all sides for vehicles, loading/unloading, pedestrians, etc. The structure, as currently configured, would not work well for a farmers market. The delivery, set-up and sale of produce, flowers, fish, and other “messy” items would not be compatible with this structure. There is also very little access for vehicle loading/unloading to numerous vendors simultaneously. Certainly a subset of farmers or crafts market fare, such as arts, crafts, fully canned/jarred/boxed items, etc., could occur within the building, but such vendor stalls are usually seen as an adjunct to a greater farmers market that could not occur on the site as currently configured. Also, there is very little on-site parking to accommodate vendors and visitors. While not meeting the CFP concept of a farmers market near the Waterfront, if the building were razed, the site could conceivably function to house a farmers market, including an indoor/outdoor structure. 5. Other uses in the CFP a. Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations Building The uses housed in and operating from this facility, currently in City Park, are entirely incompatible with the existing Conference Center building and site. It is possible that one or two staffmembers currently officed in that building could be sited elsewhere, but in fact they are most effective when working in proximity to the parks and facilities maintenance staff. b. Boys & Girls Club This concept is identified in the CFP with a placeholder cost estimate of $5 million. It is not clear why this project is identified as a “city” project, given that the Boys & Girls Club is a successful, nonprofit, social-services agency that develops its own facilities in most, if not all, locations. Certainly the City could contribute funding if it wishes to. The Conference Center building is not configured to meet the needs of a Boys & Girls Club, which would require multiple activity rooms, classrooms, more offices, etc. The building could 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.) Packet Page 378 of 470 Conference Center City Council Q&A Page 5 of 6 The current tenants of the old PW Building at 2nd and Dayton include ArtWorks and the Driftwood Players. Both tenants use the space for shop, production and other “messy” uses that require more of a warehouse space. The Driftwood Players have a rehearsal stage, which could theoretically be housed in the Conference Center, but then also set design (including carpentry, painting, etc.) and storage – uses incompatible with the Conference Center. ArtWorks has “hot shop” uses and other quasi-industrial arts- production activities and uses incompatible with the Conference Center. Theoretically the building could be razed, however, and a new building could be constructed to house these uses, possibly in conjunction with arts-exhibit space. 7. Would it be a useful site for "surge space" for the Senior Center during its reconstruction? The Conference Center could function relatively well as “surge space” for the Senior Center during its reconstruction. The kitchen is more of a “prep kitchen,” and not so full service as the Senior Center’s, but for an interim location it could serve the function. The principal question here would be whether this temporary use justifies purchase of the building. Perhaps if another, future use for the building and/or site were identified, this temporary use could make some sense. 8. If the City were to take over the Conference Center and use it as such, how we would we manage it? City staff? Management contract? The short answer is that it would be most cost-efficient to contract out the management of the facility either under the management of a City staffperson or entirely out-sourced. There is even a possibility that the ECA could be contracted to take over management, if they were interested. Purchase, Price, Deal Terms, etc. Some of the responses to these questions should only be answered in Executive Session. Partial response can be shared here. 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. Packet Page 379 of 470 Conference Center City Council Q&A Page 6 of 6 2. Regarding the potential price offer, do any of the following relate to the value/price, and/or can we get more information about any of the following vis-à-vis the price? a. Would the remediation of water-leakage damage be a potential deal term? b. Does the fact that it was gifted to EdCC affect the price? Per City Attorney Taraday, it appears from review of the records that the City has no legal interest or rights in the property since its donation to the College. As such, it appears this fact does not affect the price. c. Does the assessed value have any bearing on the price? What is the assessed value, including break-down between land and improvements? The assessed value per Snohomish County Assessor records is $1,892,000, comprised of $809,300 for the land, and $1,082,700 for the building. d. What would other "mutual and offsetting benefits" might be to include in deal terms? Packet Page 380 of 470 Packet Page 381 of 470 Packet Page 382 of 470 Edmonds Community College Proforma P&L Conference Center 2013/14 Income Revenue 276609 $276,609 Expenses & Contracts Wages 195326 Wage Related 38907 SubTotal 234233 $234,233 Op Exp 74587 $74,587 Utilities Garbage 4867 Electricity 7998 Heat 1569 Cable 2400 (est) Water 3866 SubTotal 20699 $20,699 Total $329,519 P&L Net ($52,910) Packet Page 383 of 470 Continued discussion and Potential Action regarding the Potential Acquisition of the Edmonds Conference Center Packet Page 384 of 470 Edmonds Conference Center Floor Plan Packet Page 385 of 470 Edmonds Conference Center Parking Recommendations Packet Page 386 of 470 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. 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. Packet Page 387 of 470 Opportunities vs. Trade-Offs, continued Opportunities, continued 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. Packet Page 388 of 470 Opportunities vs. Trade-Offs, continued 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). Packet Page 389 of 470 Opportunities vs. Trade-Offs, continued Trade -offs, continued 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. Packet Page 390 of 470 Opportunities vs. Trade-Offs, continued Trade -offs, continued •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. Packet Page 391 of 470 Opportunities vs. Trade-Offs, continued Packet Page 392 of 470 Opportunities vs. Trade-Offs, continued Packet Page 393 of 470 Opportunities vs. Trade-Offs, continued Packet Page 394 of 470 Financial Risks and Rewards Associated with Commercial Ownership Here are some of the Pros of buying •Control of Tenant Selection •Ownership of the property •Income potential Here are some of the Cons of buying •Time commitment •Professional help required •Bigger initial investment •More risks Packet Page 395 of 470 Next Steps •The Letter of Intent will be filed 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 396 of 470 Council Discussion & Questions Chrysanthemum Hall Conference Center Entrance Pending Building Repairs Packet Page 397 of 470 May 29, 2015 City of Edmonds Attn: Jim Stevens Edmonds, Washington Re: Infrared Thermographic Survey and Supplemental Destructive Testing Services Edmonds Conference Center 201 4th Ave N Edmonds, Washington 98020 ON: 1505-00635 Dear Mr. Stevens, Allana Buick & Bers, Inc. (ABBAE) is pleased to present The City of Edmonds (Client) with this proposal to provide thermography and supplemental destructive testing services for the 201 4th Ave North, Edmonds, Washington property. The Edmonds Conference Center has been experiencing water intrusion through the walls and around the windows. In 2014, ABBAE performed condition assessment, water testing, and limited destructive testing services. A report containing our findings was provided in August 2014. You have requested a proposal for infrared thermographic survey and supplemental destructive testing services for the purpose of performing future repairs. The extent of repairs due to the destructive, invasive testing in unknown and therefore we have budgeted $10,000 based on our previous experience on the project that the repair costs for those areas. After the initial thermography is complete, we will have a repair contractor provide pricing based on the final areas to be removed. Based on our understanding of your needs, we recommend the following services: SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. Infrared Thermography Survey Services a. We will meet with on-site representatives, building engineering or maintenance personnel, or other persons knowledgeable of the history of the issues pertaining to our scope of services in an effort to better comprehend the areas of concern and define our intended investigatory services. b. ABBAE will prepare an investigation protocol which will outline how and when the assessment and investigation services will be provided. The protocol will be updated based on our non-invasive visual assessment prior to the destructive testing. A copy of the protocol will be provided to the Client for review. c. We will perform an infrared thermography survey of the exterior elevations of the building. This will allow ABBAE to focus the invasive testing on areas that appear to be allowing water intrusion. d. We will document our findings with field notes, sketches and digital photographs which will be made available for your review. 2. Supplementary Destructive Testing and Reporting Services a. We will perform supplementary destructive testing of the areas described above to confirm and assess current conditions and quantify extent of damage, if found. Our destructive testing will occur over a one work day timeframe. During that time we will provide: i. Openings will be made at a minimum of four to six locations. More openings will be made if time allows. These openings will be made at low-visibility locations to the extent possible. ii. Findings will be documented with field notes, sketches, and digital photographs which will be made available for your review. Packet Page 398 of 470 Initials_______ Edmonds Conference Center– May 29, 2015 Page 2 of 4 iii. Contractor costs for the destructive testing and put back are included in this proposal. This cost estimate includes a 15% mark-up for ABBAE sub-contractor services. Stucco/EIFS repair is a week long, phased process. b. ABBAE will prepare a report documenting the conditions of the components outlined above and provide recommendations for next steps. The report will include: i. Narrative description, current condition of the building cladding components reviewed during our investigation. ii. Photo documentation of representative defective conditions. iii. Supplemental Condition assessment and repair recommendations report. FEE SUMMARY We propose to provide the above described services, including reimbursable expenses for a time and expense fee of $18,465. Our fee will be invoiced on a monthly basis in accordance with our attached General Terms and Conditions. Description of Service Task Performed By Hours Rate Total Prepare investigation protocol Consultant I 4 $ 145 $ 580 Site visit for thermography survey Consultant I 8 $ 165 $ 1,320 Consultant I 10 $ 145 $ 1,450 Contractor $ 10,000 Sub-Contractor markup $ 1,500 Prepare report Consultant III 16 $ 145 $ 2,320 Principal review Associate Principal 4 $ 195 $ 780 Meeting with client Associate Principal 2 $ 195 $ 390 $ 125 $ 18,465 Thermography Survey and DT Services Reimbursable expenses: Photos, copies, mileage Total Supplementary destructive testing with repair of openings EXCLUSIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS a) Design; preparation of repair documents; and repair phase services are excluded from this proposal; however, ABBAE can readily provide a proposal for these services, once the scope is known. b) Civil, structural, electrical and geotechnical engineering; surveying; environmental engineering and hazardous material services; are also excluded from this proposal. Packet Page 399 of 470 Initials_______ Edmonds Conference Center– May 29, 2015 Page 3 of 4 c) Our scope of services and fee proposal assume that the Owner will arrange for ABBAE to have access to all building locations necessary for our staff to safely assess conditions. d) Our proposed fees include a fixed allotment of time for various services including meetings, supervision and phone calls. Services beyond those included in our fee estimate will be considered a supplementary service, and will be invoiced in accordance with our Standard Schedule of Fees. e) We assume that we will have the ability to speak with current maintenance and management staff and receive copies of maintenance records and contracts for repairs. f) Revisions to our reports and additional site visits are to be performed on a T & M basis. g) We have proposed to provide services that will assist you in determining where problems may be occurring and where repairs may be needed. However, such evaluation is an extremely specialized building expertise; it is conceivable that we may not be able to observe hidden or latent defects, leaks, rust or damage, etc. In this type of investigation, it is not always possible to determine the extent of hidden conditions without conducting extensive destructive testing. CONSULTING SERVICES We have proposed to provide services that will assist you in confirming that the new building envelope, roofing and waterproofing assemblies, systems and components that the Owner is purchasing are being designed and installed properly. However, such construction is an extremely specialized building expertise; our proposed scope of services and fees are therefore based on the Contractor installing the assemblies and components in strict conformance with the specifications and design details. Despite our diligent efforts on your behalf, there is still a chance that a failure may occur. This typically results from improper installation, negligence by construction trades when working around the new systems or improper protection after installation. Therefore, it is expressly understood that it is the sole responsibility of the Owner’s selected construction contractor to install and protect fully functioning assemblies, systems and components. This section left blank Packet Page 400 of 470 Initials_______ Edmonds Conference Center– May 29, 2015 Page 4 of 4 AGREEMENT Our Agreement shall consist solely of this executed proposal and the enclosed General Terms and Conditions. We will initiate this project upon receipt of your written authorization to proceed. If this Agreement is acceptable, please sign and return one copy by email - contracts@abbae.com, US Mail, or FAX. In absence of this signed agreement between parties – when ABBAE is requested to perform services based on this proposal, City of Edmonds accepts this ABBAE proposal, rates, and attached schedules. If additional services requested are not described in this proposal, City of Edmonds acknowledges and approves ABBAE to provide said additional services at the rates herein. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Please call us if you have any questions regarding this proposal or other aspects of our capabilities. Very truly yours, ALLANA BUICK & BERS, INC. Petersen Lambert, PE, RRC Leilani York Associate Principal Business Development Manager Enclosures: General Terms and Conditions (2013) This proposal and attached General Terms and Conditions are accepted by: City of Edmonds _______________________________ ____________________________ ____________ Authorized Signature Printed Name Date Packet Page 401 of 470 GENERAL TERMS and CONDITIONS Washington (Updated July 2013) ABBAE General Terms and Conditions Washington Page 1 of 5 ©ABBAE 2013 The following General Terms and Conditions are incorporated into, and made part of, the attached AGREEMENT dated 05/29/2015 between Allana Buick & Bers, Inc. (ABBAE) and City of Edmonds (hereinafter referred to as “CLIENT”), and together are referred to as the “AGREEMENT”. 1. ABBAE SERVICES. 1.1. STANDARD OF CARE. In performing professional services, ABBAE will use that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by members of the profession practicing at the same time in the same or similar locality, but perfection is not promised. In accepting this AGREEMENT for professional services, CLIENT acknowledges the inherent risks associated with building evaluation and construction and therefore no warranty, express or implied, is made or intended by this AGREEMENT, by the foregoing statement of the applicable standard of care, by providing services or by furnishing oral or written reports of findings made. CLIENT acknowledges that leak detection and building forensics are inexact processes, based in part upon a process of elimination and therefore ABBAE may not determine the source of all leaks. 1.2. ASSUMPTIONS AS BASIS FOR SERVICES. The CLIENT and ABBAE have relied upon certain assumptions stated in ABBAE’s proposal. Both parties, however, recognize that such assumptions may materially change and, in that event, the CLIENT and ABBAE shall equitably adjust the schedule, ABBAE’s scope of services, and compensation. ABBAE’s services provided for remodeling, repair, or rehabilitation of any structure rely upon certain assumptions regarding existing conditions. Because these assumptions are often not verifiable without expending significant sums of money, or may require destroying otherwise functioning and serviceable portions of the structure, the client understands and agrees to be responsible for and to defend, indemnify and hold harmless ABBAE from and against any claims arising out of the professional services provided under this agreement as a result of unforeseen conditions, including but not limited to conditions encountered where forensic analysis, testing, or field verification of conditions is recommended by ABBAE but rejected by the Client. 1.3. STAFFING. As determined by ABBAE, the staff necessary to deliver our contracted scope of services will be provided. It is likely that our assigned staff will vary depending upon the type of project, experience and qualifications needed, and staff availability. Our estimated fee tables, when provided, are not a commitment, pledge, promise or assurance to provide exactly each type of staff member listed, to provide a specific individual, or a commitment to provide the exact hours estimated for each task, phase, person, staff type or activity. Fee tables, when provided, are only a general best effort at predicting the staffing and hours required to complete our scope of services based upon our initial understanding of client goals and preliminary assessment of the project. 1.4. SAMPLES. Samples and the remains of samples subjected to testing will be discarded 60 days after submission of ABBAE’s report, unless CLIENT advises ABBAE otherwise in writing. Upon request, ABBAE shall ship or deliver the samples, charges collect, or will store samples for a monthly fee until such time as CLIENT directs ABBAE how to dispose of the samples or where to ship them. 1.5. USE AND OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. ABBAE retains all intellectual property rights including copyrights in all reports, field data, notes, laboratory test data, calculations, estimates, plans, drawings, specifications and other documents, which ABBAE prepares as instruments of service. Upon full payment of ABBAE’s invoices, ABBAE grants CLIENT a nonexclusive limited license to use the drawings, specifications, reports and other instruments of service furnished by ABBAE, or its agents, but only for the project for which they are prepared and intended. If ABBAE is not paid in full for all its services CLIENT shall, upon demand, return to ABBAE all drawings, specifications reports and other work furnished by ABBAE, or its agents, along with all copies, whether tangible or intangible, and refrain from using all such documents for any purpose whatsoever. ABBAE will retain records that it deems pertinent relating to its services for five years following performance of its services, during which period the records will be made available to CLIENT at CLIENT’S sole costs. 1.6. ESTIMATES OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS. ABBAE has no control over the cost of labor, materials or equipment for construction, over any contractor’s methodology for determining bid prices, or over competitive bidding, market or negotiating conditions. Accordingly, ABBAE cannot, and does not, warrant or represent that bids or negotiated prices will not vary from any cost estimate or evaluation prepared by or under the direction of ABBAE. Any statements of estimated construction costs furnished by ABBAE are based on professional opinions and judgment, and ABBAE will not be responsible for fluctuations in construction costs. 1.7. ON-SITE SERVICES DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION. Should ABBAE’s services be provided on-site during project construction, CLIENT agrees that the project contractors(s) shall be solely responsible for jobsite conditions, including safety in, on and about the site, safety of all persons and property during the performance of the work, in compliance with applicable OSHA regulations, and that these requirements shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours. Under no circumstances shall ABBAE’s services include any review of the adequacy of the contractor’s safety measures in, on, or about the construction site. 1.8. CONTRACTORS MEANS AND METHODS. ABBAE shall not be held in any way responsible for or to guarantee any contractor’s work, nor to assume responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, sequencing or appliances used by any contractor nor to assume responsibility for a contractor’s compliance with laws and regulations or for contractor’s acts, errors, omissions, or defective work. On-site services provided by ABBAE shall not relieve CLIENT’s construction contractor of its responsibilities to perform the construction work in accordance with CLIENT’s construction agreement, the project drawings and specifications, and applicable laws. 1.9. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. If ABBAE is retained as the designer of record, it is customary and may be required by law for ABBAE to also provide Contract Administration services. Contract Administration services may also include construction administration, construction observation, and construction monitoring services if expressly included in ABBAE’s proposal. Contract Administration services may enable ABBAE to verify that ABBAE’s design intent is being complied with and to address unforeseen conditions. If Client does not retain ABBAE to provide Contract Administration services, or if for any reason ABBAE is not able to provide the minimum level of construction observation required by law, then to the fullest extent permitted by law, CLIENT shall defend, indemnify and hold ABBAE harmless from and against any and all claims arising out of the professional services provided under this agreement and the failure to comply with ABBAE’s design intent, except caused by ABBAE’s sole negligence as determined by a court or arbitration. CLIENT agrees and acknowledges that Contract Administration services provided by ABBAE, including construction monitoring, or observations, are intended only to assist the CLIENT in reducing, but not eliminating, the risks associated with construction defects and poor workmanship. Despite ABBAE’s diligent efforts, defects and failures in construction may occur. Therefore, it is agreed that CLIENT’s contractors remain solely responsibility for their acts, errors, omissions, and defects in their work and to install and protect fully functioning assemblies, systems, and components. 1.10. INSURANCE and LEGAL SERVICES. ABBAE does not provide legal counsel or insurance consultation. Upon the written direction of CLIENT, ABBAE will provide to CLIENT’s legal or insurance representatives for review, copies of reports; budgets; construction documents; agreements; and other project specific documents prepared by ABBAE. 2. CLIENT’S OBLIGATIONS. 2.1. EXISTING DOCUMENTS. Should ABBAE’s services be provided for an existing structure, the CLIENT shall provide ABBAE with a full and complete set of “As- Built”, “Record Drawings”, construction documents and progressive development sets for all construction projects. If these documents are not provided, ABBAE’s services required to perform field measurements and/or create electronic documentation shall be invoiced as additional services in accordance with the Schedule of Fees. CLIENT shall be responsible for, and ABBAE may rely upon, the accuracy and completeness of all documents, data and other information provided by CLIENT and its agents to ABBAE. 2.2. RIGHT OF ENTRY. Unless otherwise expressly included within ABBAE’s proposal, CLIENT shall furnish ABBAE with right-of-entry onto the land and/or facility for ABBAE to perform its services. ABBAE will take reasonable precautions to minimize damage to the land and facilities which could be caused by its services or its use of equipment, but our fee does not include the cost for restoration of damage that may result from our services. If requested in writing by CLIENT and agreed to by ABBAE, restoration, or repair services for the facility or land shall be a reimbursable expense in addition to ABBAE’s fees and costs. 2.3. ON-SITE TESTING, EXPLORATION, AND ACCESS. Should ABBAE’s services be provided for an existing structure, the CLIENT shall retain and provide a qualified contractor (“CLIENT ACCESS CONTRACTOR”) to provide ABBAE access to sites or portions thereof. CLIENT ACCESS CONTRACTOR shall provide scaffolding, swing stage, hydraulic man lift and other means required for ABBAE to safely access the site or portions thereof. 2.4. CLIENT shall retain and provide a qualified contractor experienced in building forensics (“CLIENT TESTING CONTRACTOR”) which shall be solely responsible to perform destructive testing, sampling of construction materials, restoration or other testing and exploration services as necessary for ABBAE to complete its services. Client understands and acknowledges that building exploration and forensic services such as but not limited to water testing, leak testing, roof core sampling, in situ destructive testing, and similar analysis may cause damage to the property and will likely require repair. CLIENT TESTING CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for patching and remedial work. Such work may not restore the property to its original, pre-destructive testing or pre-sampling condition. 2.5. Unless specifically provided for in ABBAE’s proposal, ABBAE’s fee does not include the fees and expenses of CLIENT ACCESS CONTRACTOR or CLIENT TESTING CONTRACTOR. If requested, ABBAE will provide CLIENT with a list of contractors and/or service providers that CLIENT may retain. ABBAE shall have the right to approve CLIENT ACCESS CONTRACTOR and CLIENT TESTING CONTRACTOR, but those approvals will not be unreasonably withheld. 2.6. ABBAE may provide CLIENT with a list of contractor(s) or service providers, but it does not guarantee their work and is not responsible for the quality, performance, or accuracy of work performed by such contractor(s) or service providers. Packet Page 402 of 470 GENERAL TERMS and CONDITIONS Washington (Updated July 2013) ABBAE General Terms and Conditions Washington Page 2 of 5 ©ABBAE 2013 2.7. PERMITS. Unless expressly included in ABBAE’s proposal, CLIENT shall obtain, at its cost and expense, all approvals, permissions, and permits from all governing entities having jurisdiction over construction work associated with ABBAE’s services. 2.8. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. ABBAE does not provide hazardous material investigation, environmental engineering or consulting, laboratory analysis, or similar services that require specialized environmental training. Should these services become necessary, CLIENT shall retain and provide a qualified environmental consultant(s) to perform these services. Nothing in this agreement shall impose liability upon ABBAE for claims, lawsuits, or any damages arising from or related to the discovery of, exposure to, handling of, or disposal of asbestos containing materials, PCBs, mold, mildew or other microbial growths, or any material defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as hazardous. 2.9. SERVICES OF OTHERS. If expressly included within ABBAE’s proposal, ABBAE may directly engage the specialized services of individual consultants or other companies to participate in the project. The cost of such services shall be invoiced to CLIENT in accordance with the REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES schedule outlined in Exhibit B (attached). 2.10. REQUIRED OF CONTRACTORS. CLIENT agrees to require in all construction contracts for the project, provisions that CLIENT and ABBAE shall be defended and indemnified by the contractor and its subcontractors and named additional insureds on contractor’s and subcontractor’s insurance. 3. FEES, REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, AND INVOICES. 3.1. SCHEDULE OF FEES AND REIMBURSABLES. For time and expense contracts the Fees for services are based on the actual hours worked on the project by staff personnel, the billing rates will be in accordance with the fee schedule contained within Exhibit A. ABBAE expenses shall be invoiced to client in accordance with the Reimbursable schedule contained within Exhibit B. The Schedule of Fees and Reimbursable Expenses are subject to ABBAE’s adjustment once per calendar year. 3.2. EXPERT WITNESS AND CONSULTING FEES. Fees for preparing for, travel to and appearing at depositions, mediations, arbitrations, and trials, whether as an expert witness or a percipient witness, whether requested by CLIENT or subpoenaed by others, will be invoiced to CLIENT at 1.5 times ABBAE’s base rates. 3.3. DELAYS OR SUSPENSIONS OF SERVICES. If ABBAE’s services are delayed or suspended in whole or in part by CLIENT or CLIENT’S contractors for more than forty-five (45) cumulative days through no fault of ABBAE, then ABBAE shall be entitled to an equitable adjustment of its fees to reflect reasonable costs incurred by ABBAE in connection with such delay, suspension, or reactivation. ABBAE has the right to renegotiate its fee if the scope of its services is changed or not completed within 12 months. CLIENT shall provide ABBAE fourteen (14) days written notice of its intent to suspend ABBAE’s services. ABBAE shall be entitled to invoice CLIENT for wind down costs upon suspensions and startup/mobilization costs during (re)startup. 3.4. ADDITIONAL SERVICES. ABBAE’s fee includes a fixed quantity of time for meetings and other project related communication. Additional services such as conference calls, CLIENT meetings, written correspondences, email messaging, contractor meetings, subcontractor meetings, or other coordination meetings beyond those included in ABBAE’s proposal will be considered an additional service, invoiced to CLIENT on a monthly basis in accordance with ABBAE’s Schedule of Fees in Exhibit A and ABBAE’s Reimbursable Schedule in Exhibit B. 3.5. TAXES AND OTHER LEGISLATED FEES. Unless expressly included in ABBAE’s estimates and proposals, appropriate federal, state and local taxes and other fees or costs imposed by any level of government are not included in ABBAE’s fee estimates and shall be added to all invoices as required by law prior to distributing said invoices to CLIENT for payment. 3.6. INVOICES. Invoices will generally be submitted once per month for services performed during the previous month. Payment of an invoice in full must be received by ABBAE within thirty (30) days of the date of such invoice. 3.7. EFFECT OF INVOICE. The services provided shall be deemed approved and accepted by CLIENT as and when invoiced unless CLIENT objects within fifteen (15) days of invoice date by written notice specifically stating the details in which CLIENT believes such work is incomplete or defective, and the invoice amount(s) in dispute. CLIENT shall pay undisputed amounts as provided for in the preceding paragraph. 3.8. INTEREST; SUSPENSION OF WORK. Failure of CLIENT to make full payment of an invoice so that it is received by ABBAE within thirty (30) days of the invoice date subjects the amount overdue to a delinquent account charge of one percent (1.5%) of the invoice amount per month, compounded monthly, (18% per annum), but not to exceed the maximum rate permitted by law. Failure of CLIENT to submit full payment of an invoice within thirty (30) days of the date thereof subjects this AGREEMENT and the work herein contemplated to suspension or termination at ABBAE’s discretion, without penalty or breach of AGREEMENT. 4. TERMINATION. This AGREEMENT may be terminated by either party by written notice should the other party fail substantially to perform its obligations under this AGREEMENT and continue such default after the expiration of a seven (7) day notice period. Either party may terminate this AGREEMENT without necessity of cause upon the expiration of a fourteen (14) day notice period. If this AGREEMENT is terminated by CLIENT in the absence of default by ABBAE, ABBAE shall be paid for services performed and costs incurred by it prior to its receipt of notice of termination from CLIENT, including but not limited to reimbursement for direct expenses due, wind down costs, not to exceed ten percent (10%) of charges incurred to the termination notice date, to cover services to orderly close the work and prepare project files and documentation, any additional direct expenses incurred by ABBAE including but not limited to cancellation fees or charges, plus ABBAE’s anticipated profit of fifteen percent (15%) of the value of the services not performed by the Architect. ABBAE will use reasonable efforts to minimize such additional charges. Upon termination, CLIENT agrees to pay ABBAE’s final invoice within fifteen (15) days of the invoice date. Within two (2) working days after receipt of final payment, ABBAE will mail to CLIENT one set of all completed documents and reports, if not already provided to CLIENT. 5. DISPUTES, NEGOTIATION, MEDIATION, ARBITRATION, AND ATTORNEY’S FEES. 5.1. CHOICE OF LAW FORUM. This AGREEMENT has been entered into under the laws of the State of Washington and shall be interpreted and enforced according to the laws of the State of Washington. The exclusive forum for all disputes shall be located in King County, Washington. 5.2. DISPUTES AND NEGOTIATION. The parties will first attempt in good faith to resolve through negotiation between officers or principals of the highest levels of the parties any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this AGREEMENT. To facilitate discussions, the parties shall exchange information and documents requested by the other party prior to the negotiations. 5.3. MEDIATION. Should a dispute not be resolved by face to face discussions, the parties agree to try to settle disputes through mediation before resorting to arbitration or litigation as required by this AGREEMENT. The mediator shall be an attorney or similar expert experienced in mediating construction and design professional disputes and shall be chosen by mutual agreement of the parties. If no agreement on a mediator can be reached, then a mediator shall be appointed by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in and for the County of King County, WA. Each party shall bear its own costs and expenses of the mediation, including attorney’s and expert’s fees. The fees and costs of the mediator shall be borne equally by the parties. 5.4. ARBITRATION. At ABBAE’s sole discretion, ABBAE may elect to have any claims or disputes arising out of this AGREEMENT decided by arbitration in accordance with the rules of JAMS in effect at the time of the demand for arbitration and as amended herein. 5.4.1. If ABBAE so elects, a demand for arbitration shall be filed with JAMS. Venue for such arbitration shall be in King County, WA. 5.4.2. The arbitrator shall be chosen by mutual agreement of all parties and the arbitrator shall follow all Washington Evidentiary, substantive and procedural law as if tried in a Superior Court of Washington. 5.4.3. The arbitration award shall be in writing, shall set forth detailed factual findings and conclusions of law supporting the award and shall be final and conclusive as to all parties to such dispute. Should any party fail to pay their fees required by JAMS, fail to appear, or fail to participate in such arbitration proceedings, the arbitrator may decide on the evidence presented in such proceedings by the other party to such dispute. 5.4.4. Rights of appeal shall follow the JAMS Arbitration Appeal Procedure, except the appeal to a JAMS Appeal Panel shall be as if appealed to a Washington Appellate Court. 5.5. ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES. Should litigation or arbitration occur between the parties, all reasonable litigation or arbitration expenses, collection expenses, witness fees, court costs, and attorney's fees incurred by the prevailing party shall be paid by the non prevailing party to the prevailing party. 6. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. Nothing contained in this AGREEMENT or by the action of any person, shall create a contractual relationship with, any obligation toward or a cause of action in favor of a third party against either ABBAE or its consultants or employees. 7. INSURANCE. ABBAE is protected by Worker’s Compensation Insurance, Professional Liability Insurance, and by General Liability Insurance. Upon request, ABBAE will furnish information and Certificates of Insurance. ABBAE will not be responsible for any loss, damage or liability beyond the amounts, limits and conditions of such insurance. Packet Page 403 of 470 GENERAL TERMS and CONDITIONS Washington (Updated July 2013) ABBAE General Terms and Conditions Washington Page 3 of 5 ©ABBAE 2013 8. WAIVER OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. CLIENT and ABBAE waive consequential, indirect, special, direct, delay, acceleration and interference damages for claims, disputes or other matters in question arising out of or relating to this AGREEMENT. This mutual waiver is applicable, including but not limited to and without limitation, to all consequential damages due to either party's termination in accordance with this AGREEMENT. 9. ALLOCATION OF RISK. 9.1. ABBAE and CLIENT have discussed the risks associated with this project and the extent to which those risks should be shared by ABBAE and CLIENT, and have agreed: (a) To the fullest extent permitted by law, CLIENT agrees to limit the liability of ABBAE, its officers, employees, and sub- consultants to CLIENT, all landowners, contractors, subcontractors, lenders, suppliers, manufacturers, third parties, and their employees such that the total aggregate liability, including all attorneys fees and costs shall not exceed $50,000.00 or the total fees paid for ABBAE’s services on this project, whichever is greater, but in no case greater than the available proceeds under ABBAE’s professional and general liability insurance. (b) All damages such as loss of use, profits, anticipated profits, and the like losses are consequential damages for which ABBAE is not liable. (c) ABBAE is not responsible for the acts, errors or omissions of CLIENT, any contractor or supplier. (d) CLIENT shall give written notice to ABBAE of any claim of negligent act, error or omission within one (1) year after the completion of the work performed by ABBAE. Failure to give notice herein required shall constitute a waiver of claims by CLIENT. 9.2. If prior to CLIENT’s acceptance of ABBAE’s proposal, CLIENT requests the limitation of liability to be greater than the limit specified above, ABBAE will obtain professional and general liability insurance coverage for the greater requested limits, if available. The cost to obtain the additional insurance coverage shall be paid by CLIENT. 10. CORPORATE PROTECTION. In no event shall the officers, directors, owners or employees of CLIENT or ABBAE be personally liable for any obligation under this AGREEMENT, for any alleged breach of this AGREEMENT, for any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential losses or damage of any kind or nature whatsoever. The Parties agree that the sole and exclusive remedy by all Parties for any and all obligations and claims shall be against the contracting entities (e.g., public entities, corporations, partnerships and sole proprietors) and not against any owner, shareholder, officer, director or employee. CLIENT and ABBAE expressly waive any applicable statute or regulation to the contrary. 11. The AGREEMENT represents the entire and integrated AGREEMENT between the CLIENT and ABBAE and supersedes any prior negotiations, representations or contracts, whether written or oral, and may be amended only by written instrument signed by both the CLIENT and ABBAE. If any provision or part of this AGREEMENT, including these General Terms and Conditions, are held to be ambiguous, void or unenforceable under any laws or regulations or by any arbitrator, court or administrative agency, then such ambiguous, void or unenforceable provisions shall be rewritten and enforced to the maximum extent permitted by law to accomplish as near as possible the intent of the original provision. 12. PROPOSAL VALID FOR 60 DAYS. This fee proposal will remain valid for 60 days from date of issuance. 13. NOTICE. Any notice required under this AGREEMENT shall be in writing addressed to the appropriate party at its address set forth in this AGREEMENT and either delivered personally to that party or mailed by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, or by commercial courier service. All notices shall be effective as of the date of receipt. 14. SURVIVAL OF TERMS. All terms included in this AGREEMENT, including these General Terms and Conditions, shall survive the completion or termination of AGREEMENT for any reason. 15. NONWAIVER. Non-enforcement of any provision of this AGREEMENT by either party shall not constitute a waiver of that provision and shall not affect the enforceability of that provision or of the remainder of the AGREEMENT. One or more waiver of any term, condition or other provision of this AGREEMENT by either party shall not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision. 16. PRECEDENCE OF CONDITIONS. Should any conflict exist between the terms herein and the terms of any purchase order or confirmation issued by CLIENT, the terms of these Standard Conditions shall prevail in the absence of ABBAE’s express written agreement to the contrary. 17. FORCE MAJEURE. Any delay or default in the performance of any obligation of ABBAE under this AGREEMENT resulting from any cause(s) beyond ABBAE’s reasonable control shall not be deemed a breach of this AGREEMENT. The occurrence of any such event shall suspend the obligations of ABBAE as long as performance is delayed or prevented thereby, and the fees due hereunder shall be equitably adjusted. Packet Page 404 of 470 EXHIBIT A ABBAE Standard Schedule of Fees (Updated July 2013) When Fees for services are based on the actual hours worked on the project by position, the billing rates will be in accordance with the following schedule: ©ABBAE 2013 Page 4 of 5 Position Rate Position Rate Principal I $ 250.00 Building Technologist I $ 110.00 Principal II $ 275.00 Building Technologist II $ 125.00 Principal III $ 300.00 Building Technologist III $ 140.00 Principal IV $ 350.00 Field Monitor I $ 110.00 Associate I $ 195.00 Field Monitor II $ 130.00 Associate II $ 210.00 Field Monitor III $ 140.00 Associate III $ 225.00 Field Monitor (Part-Time) $ 145.00 Associate IV $ 235.00 CAD Graphics Specialist I $ 115.00 Consultant I $ 145.00 CAD Graphics Specialist II $ 130.00 Consultant II $ 165.00 CAD Graphics Specialist III $ 145.00 Consultant III $ 185.00 Admin Services $ 85.00 Consultant IV $ 200.00 Forensic Document Specialist $ 140.00 Project Manager I $ 145.00 IT Consultant $ 135.00 Project Manager II $ 165.00 Project Manager III $ 185.00 Executive Project Manager $ 200.00 Packet Page 405 of 470 EXHIBIT B ABBAE Standard Reimbursable Schedule (Updated July 2013) ©ABBAE 2013 Page 5 of 5 1. All invoices for sub-contractors and sub-consultants retained by ABBAE shall be reimbursed based on sub-consultants or sub-contractors invoice plus a 15% service charge. Alternately, CLIENT may enter into an agreement with the subcontractor or sub-consultant directly. 2. All outside vendors, rental costs, travel costs and expenses utilized for the project such as, airline travel, car rental, man lift rental, staging costs, reproduction, etc shall be invoiced to CLIENT, plus a 15% service charge. 3. Automobile expenses for personal or company vehicles will be charged at the Internal Revenue Service reimbursement rate in effect at the time the expense was incurred. Travel time is calculated from portal to portal, or round trip to the local ABBAE office. 4. Reproduction costs for in-house plotting are $1.50 per square foot; color photocopying is $0.85 per 8 ½" x 11" page. Cost of black and white photocopying is $0.10 per 8 ½” x 11” page. Black and white printing on special paper is $0.20 per page. Cost of color printing and photocopying is $0.85 per 8 ½” x 11” page. 5. Delivery or shipping charges for samples, field testing equipment, etc. Laboratory equipment and instrumentation directly identifiable to the project. Purchase of specialized equipment and rental of equipment from outside vendors. 6. Photographs for project records and reproductions of drawings and reports. Photographs are charged at a flat rate of $35/roll of film including processing and handling. Digital photos are charged at a flat rate of $0.25 per image. Digital photos copied on to a CD or DVD are charged at a flat rate of $35 per disk. Digital photo reproduction for reports will be invoiced at $1.50/sheet. 7. Airfare, rental vehicles, other transportation, and living expenses incurred for out-of-town projects. Principals will travel on business class or better for flights longer than 2 hours in order to make efficient use of travel time. 8. For out-of-town travel, per diems will be charged according to published U.S. government rates. 9. Equipment and Other Reimbursable Expenses: 9.1. Boroscope usage will be invoiced at $200/day. 9.2. Nuclear Moisture Gauge usage will be invoiced at $600/day. 9.3. Fastener Pull Test Gauge usage will be invoiced at $200/day. 9.4. Ultrasonic Thickness Gauge usage will be invoiced at $200/day. 9.5. Infrared imaging will be invoiced at $250/day. 9.6. X-Ray imaging will be invoiced at $500/day for equipment rental, plus $100 per image. 9.7. Single Ply Membrane Seam Testing will be invoiced at $250/day, plus $25 per test. 9.8. Rebar size and cover meter usage will be invoiced at $200/day. 9.9. Half cell, potential for corrosion meter will be invoiced at $250 per day. 9.10. Impact echo testing equipment will be invoiced at $500 per day. 9.11. Spray rack(s) for water testing will be invoiced at $300/day. 9.12. Sample storage fee is $50 per month after the first 60 days of in-house storage. 9.13. Publications or other reference material needed to complete projects including AIA, AAMA, ASTM, NRCA, ASCE, ASHRAE, and similar standards. 9.14. Preparation and printing of AIA contract documents using metered AIA contract document software. 9.15. Reproduction costs for all outsourced printing, plotting photocopying, binding and other reproduction services. 9.16. Specialized sounding equipment for detection of delaminating or spalling concrete will be invoiced at $50/day. 9.17. Blower fans and room pressurization equipment will be invoiced at $250/day. 9.18. Electronic Field Vector Mapping Equipment will be invoiced at $250/day. 9.19. Temperature and Humidity Data Loggers will each be invoiced at $25/day. 9.20. Calcium Chloride Testing will be invoiced at $50/test. Packet Page 406 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES May 12, 2015 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Michael Nelson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Scott James, Finance Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Rob English, City Engineer Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder SPECIAL MEETING 1. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING POTENTIAL SUBMITTAL OF LETTER OF INTEREST TO STATE TO ACQUIRE THE EDMONDS CONFERENCE CENTER Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed although the title of this item states potential action, tonight will only be a study session. Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty said this item is on next week’s agenda for continued discussion. He distributed and reviewed a summary of facts:  Surplus Property Bulletin issued by the State on April 28, 2015.  Stated fair market value of the property – $2,305,000.  Deadline for submittal of Letter of Interest – June 1, 2015. Proposal would be required within ten days.  Property is 14,375 square feet with an approximately 11,252 square foot, wood-frame conference center built in 1997 with 27 parking spaces.  Wood-frame, stucco-clad building has suffered water leakage and associated damage. Rough order of magnitude cost of mitigating damage: $1,012,161.23.  Profit/loss statement, submitted by the College and State for 2013-2014, shows $276,609 in annual revenue, $329,519 in annual expenses for a year-end loss of $52,910.  The Conference Center is managed by an Edmonds Community College staff person with associated temporary staff of up to 20 part-time individuals, averaging approximately 4-5 FTE.  “Surplus Property Bulletin” states government agencies have the first opportunity to express interest in acquiring the site. Packet Page 407 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 2  To government entities the State may sell the property for cash at market value and/or as otherwise valued in “full or part consideration” of trade, other new construction, or “mutual and offsetting benefits.”  Purchase of the facility would require funds derived from only two existing City budgetary sources: General Fund or REET 1, which would require re-appropriation from other existing priorities. In addition, an Interfund Loan could be employed.  Operation and maintenance of the facility would require ongoing funding on the order of approximately $50,000 to $100,000 per year. Mr. Doherty said since issuing the Surplus Property Bulletin, Edmonds Community College (ECC) has been very hesitant to provide information and wants information to come from the State to ensure all inquiring parties have equal access to information. He summarized the issue for consideration is whether to submit a letter of interest in acquiring the Edmonds Conference Center by the due date of June 1, 2015. Subsequent discussions of the purchase price, deal terms, etc., could be held at a future Council meeting and may be considered appropriate for an executive session discussion. Councilmember Bloom read from the Surplus Property Bulletin, “The Department of Enterprise Services (DES), acting on behalf of the State, may transfer, exchange, lease, the property in full or part consideration for land or improvements, or for construction of improvements at equivalent to fair market value or for mutual and offsetting benefits to any of the following governmental entities with priority given in the order listed.” She relayed her understanding of Mr. Doherty’s explanation that the Council could decide what that means if it decided to make an offer. Mr. Doherty responded the only place where he meant the Council could decide what it means is the phrase, “mutual and offsetting benefits” which is an undescribed term and open-ended. In his reading of that phrase, other governmental entities have the ability to propose to the State whatever deal points they’d wanted and theoretically the deal points could include consideration in lieu of full market value of mutually offsetting benefits, whatever those might be. The phrase “in full or in part” theoretically seems to mean the deal could be less than market price or a combination of mutually offsetting benefits and purchase price. Councilmember Bloom recalled one of the Council’s requests was for staff to explore offsets. Mr. Doherty said he made that inquiry and the State would not answer that question because that would be a proposal. His reading of the language in the Surplus Property Bulletin was that entities were free to make proposals to the State, either the stated market value or something different, for example trading another piece of property, constructing another building and/or mutually offsetting benefits. When he asked about that, the State said that would be up to the City to propose; the State is not showing their cards to just one governmental entity. If the State had had a conceptual place holder, it would have been published to all potential parties. Councilmember Bloom referred to the statement, may transfer, exchange, sell or lease and asked if there was an option to lease the property. Mr. Doherty said the bulletin indicates all those are possibilities. Councilmember Bloom said the Council could propose to lease with an option to buy. Mr. Doherty agreed anything on the list was possible, noting the language in the bulletin was standard State language. Councilmember Bloom suggested construction of improvements such as repair of the windows could be an offset to the purchase price. Mr. Doherty did not interpret the phrase, construction of improvements, to mean that; he interpreted that to be an offset. For example, an improvement that would benefit the State that is an offset to the price. An improvement to the asset that the purchaser would be acquiring would not benefit the State. He assumed construction of something that benefits the State would be like an off-ramp, something that would benefit the State, not improving the asset. Councilmember Bloom asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday if he interpreted the phrase, “construction of improvements at equivalent to market value” the same way. Mr. Taraday responded in a scenario where Packet Page 408 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 3 the State retained title and the City would also construct improvements to the facility, that could be a benefit. He said neither he nor Mr. Doherty know what the State intends. Rather than hypothesize what the State means, he suggested the Council determine if they want the property and if so, what kind of deal could be put together. He suggested deal points be discussed in executive session and discuss whether the Council wants the building or not in public. Councilmember Bloom confirmed from Mr. Taraday’s statement, there is a potential based on what the bulletin says that the City could potentially lease with an option to buy. Mr. Doherty answered it certainly seems to be. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed an independent firm looked at the damage to the building a year ago and determined the cost of repairs was approximately $1 million. She asked whether any damage had occurred since then. Mr. Doherty did not know as no one has done a verifiably level of reconnaissance of the building. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the company was hired by ECC. Mr. Doherty answered yes. Council President Fraley-Monillas requested a profit and loss statement for 2012-2013; the packet contains a statement for 2013-2014. It was her understanding ECC paid less attention to the building toward the end of 2014. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether consideration has been given to what the City could use the building for. Mr. Doherty answered theoretically there are a lot of potential uses not withstanding all the costs such as continue to use it as conference center. In speaking with the manager today, she confirmed what he has learned through the years related to other conference centers, that few conference centers run in the black; they are usually subsidized by a City, County, PFD or other public sector body. The reason for those subsidizes is the economic impact to the community. That does not mean there is not some market response to the availability of a conference center in the community for conferences, meetings, gatherings, weddings, training seminars, etc. Use as a conference center is the most ready option; ownership changes and the use stays the same. There is vacant space in City Hall but there have also been discussions about other uses on the ground floor. He summarized the conference center is larger than any space the City currently needs; there is no project or priority that that space would fulfill other than theoretically being new stewards of an existing community asset. Councilmember Mesaros agreed with Mr. Taraday that the Council should consider whether it wants the building and whether it would be useful for City. If a decision is made that the Council wants it, then the Council could discuss how to acquire it and the structure of that deal. With regard to whether the City wants the building and could put it to use, he concurred with Council President Fraley-Monillas’ request for profit and loss statement for 2012-12013. He assumed ECC has not done much maintenance due to the $1 million estimated cost. He was surprised the College did not have a full-time manager for this asset. He asked how many of the staff on sales team actually market the space. Mr. Doherty did not know how many but knew that staff did do marketing and sales. He offered to determine the FTE that did that function. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether their approach to sales was reactive or proactive. Mr. Doherty said there is a website and on occasion there have been ads which could be considered mildly proactive; he was not sure there was an aggressive promotional effort. He offered to find out what he could about that. Councilmember Mesaros offered the Council did not yet have a reason for why it wanted the building. What he has heard in the community is it would be nice; he suggested the Council go beyond nice in terms of why they want the building. He acknowledged it was a good asset but the City was in business of running a city, not a conference center. He suggested Mayor Earling poll his leadership team regarding potential uses. Mayor Earling said in general conversations there was limited use identified. He offered to have that discussion at tomorrow’s staff meeting. Councilmember Mesaros commented City staff operates the City on everyday basis and may see a bigger picture than Councilmembers and Council should be Packet Page 409 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 4 reactive to their recommendations regarding what it might be used for. If the City did acquire it, he asked Mayor Earling who would manage it. Councilmember Nelson commented on its face the financial numbers seem somewhat daunting and challenging and he was struggling to determine what the property could be used for other than the existing conference center. He asked for further information regarding the meeting space such as the capacity of the meeting rooms. He acknowledged it is a unique opportunity but has not heard what it could be used for. Councilmember Petso recalled at one point the City planned when the Public Works Department shifted to the new Public Works facility, Parks maintenance would be located in the old Public Works building. For reasons she did not know, that plan was never executed and the old Public Works building is presently being used primarily for arts purposes and Parks maintenance in still in inadequate facilities in City Park and that the City is carrying a multimillion project to someday build a Parks maintenance structure. If $5-6 million is allocated to a new Parks maintenance building, it may be less expensive to acquire this building, put the art uses in it along the arts corridor and shift the Parks maintenance function into the old Public Works facility and eliminate the need to build a new building. Although there may not be a lot of staff members around from the time when that was first proposed, she asked staff to investigate and discuss whether there was any interest in that and what the numbers might be. Councilmember Johnson encouraged the Council to look at the Capital Facilities Plan to see what other projects the facility could be used for. For example the CFP includes $5 million for an art museum that could be located on the arts corridor as well as $5 million for an indoor year-round farmers market. She suggested the Comprehensive Plan and CFP may provide answers regarding how the facility could be used. She noted the City occasionally rents the conference center for events and obviously ECC as well as other regular tenants rent the building. Councilmember Johnson observed the building was constructed 19 years ago and a facilities study was done a year ago. She asked whether any interim improvements have been done by ECC or had they not maintained the asset since it was constructed. Mr. Doherty did not know but said ECC did not respond to the damage discovered last summer because there was not a small, palliative project they could do, it was a big project. He offered to ask for the maintenance records over the 19 years. Councilmember Johnson said she has heard antidotal information that when it rained towels were rolled up on window sills. She asked whether the entire stucco exterior needs to be removed. The report indicated there were some test sites around windows but she was aware that sometimes the stucco material had to be entirely removed and when it was, there could be dry rot, black mold or additional damage. Mr. Doherty referred to the report which indicates 7-8 locations were core tested and the results extrapolated to state at a minimum mitigation would require repair around those areas. Anecdotally he has heard that the entire skin would probably be removed and he agreed more damage could be found. No one knows any more than that but in his experience, once damage is identified, it is usually not limited to what is found in the test sites. As witnessed in the region in many of the buildings built during that timeframe, the stucco was not applied correctly, the flashing was done incorrectly, the papering out from windows into the area behind was incorrect, etc. In the case of condominiums because of the liability, the entire skin of the building is usually removed and replaced. He said it was unknown whether remediation would require entirely recladding the building but that certainly wouldn’t be surprising. He offered to inquire about ongoing maintenance over the years. Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding the building was a gift to Edmonds Community College. She asked whether that would have any bearing on the price. Mr. Doherty did not know but did not see that it would. The State has published their estimate of the fair market value. The couching of the Packet Page 410 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 5 Council’s proposal to the State such as deal points, considerations and offsetting benefits theoretically could include things about the building’s past. The State’s posture at this time is this is market value, not mitigated by any history. Councilmember Johnson observed according to the bulletin, the City would be third in priority after the County and State. She asked whether the State has indicated whether any State or County agencies have expressed interest. Mr. Doherty said the State will not indicate who they are talking with; once a letter of interest is submitted, it is public record. That is why Mr. Taraday recommended potential deal points be discussed in executive session. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has attended a weekly Rotary meeting in the conference center for the past six years. Work was done on the roof about two years ago, prior to the building assessment report, which indicates not everything was corrected. She pointed out there is no parking and parking is especially difficult if two events occur at the same time. The lack of parking and the status of the building are huge considerations. Using a house remodel and the senior center as examples, she commented good money should not be thrown at something that is bad; it is preferable to start over. She questioned whether buying the building for $2.3 million, rebuilding it and still having the parking issue was what the citizenry wants. She also questioned whether the City was in the business of investing in and operating buildings. If so, the City should have bought Old Mill Town which would have been a good investment. Councilmember Petso asked whether the parking behind the building included the parking on what appears to be an adjacent parcel. Mr. Doherty answered there are 27 parking spaces on the parcel; he was not certain if there were shared use agreements and offered to research that. Councilmember Petso said it appeared some of the parking may be on an adjacent parcel and/or behind another building on the same parcel. In the event the Council decides during the week it is extremely interested in the building, Councilmember Petso suggested scheduling a placeholder executive session regarding real property on next week’s agenda. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the assessed value of property takes into account the damage to the building. Mr. Doherty answered it is not the assessed value; it is their interpretation of the fair market value. The State did not provide information regarding how that was determined. Councilmember Bloom asked whether there was any breakdown between the property and the building. Mr. Doherty said the bulletin is the entirety of what the State published. The Assessor’s Office would have a breakdown of the property and building but typically the assessed value is less than fair market value not withstanding $1 million in damage which the Assessor may not be aware of. Councilmember Bloom observed when purchasing a house, the price can be reduced if the roof needs repair. Mr. Doherty said the fair market value the State provides could be viewed as the listing price; defects could be used to negotiate the price. Councilmember Bloom asked for clarification from Councilmember Petso whether her suggestion was for this building to be used for Parks maintenance. Councilmember Petso said one possibility to consider is to use this building in part for some of the uses currently housed at the old Public Works facility, potentially freeing up the old Public Works facility to operate as the Parks maintenance building, thus eliminating the need to construction a $5-6 million Parks maintenance facility. She did not contemplate that the conference center was in any way suitable as a Parks maintenance facility. Councilmember Bloom summarized Councilmember Petso’s suggestion was to move ArtWorks to the conference center as part of the potential use for the property. Councilmember Petso suggested not everything at the old Public Works facility would be moved as it was her understanding one of the uses was storage which could be accommodated elsewhere. Moving the arts functions to the conference center makes a lot of sense due to the interest in creating an arts corridor so having a permanent art presence in the building regardless of what else occurs in the building may make sense. The idea of moving Parks Packet Page 411 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 6 maintenance to the old Public Works facility was raised a long time ago and she wanted that possibility researched. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the building’s footprint is a conference center, not an office complex. The main hall is extremely large and airy and has been the site of auctions, weddings, etc. Artists currently show their work at the conference center as part of the building’s use as a c onference center and meeting space. She envisioned the footprint would need to be changed if ArtWorks and classes were moved into the facility. She noted the heat would be extremely expensive. Mr. Doherty agreed a tenant improvement would be required. Councilmember Bloom commented the ArtWorks building has one office space and two large open areas for art to occur. She did not see that as a stumbling block. An issue may be the Wade James Theater or another theater practices in the other part of the building which may require insulation. She did not envision major tenant improvements would be required to accommodate the ArtWorks functions. Mayor Earling summarized an executive session for possible consideration will be scheduled on next week’s agenda. Councilmember Petso clarified she made that request based on the assumption there would also be discussion item on next week’s agenda. Mayor Earling said the agenda included discussion and possibly decision. Councilmember Bloom referred to Comprehensive Plan language she provided related to the Edmonds Conference Center and the cooperative relationship between the Edmonds Conference Center and the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) and support by ECC. She suggested that be included in the Council’s discussion. She looked forward to more information regarding how the building was promoted, how fully it was used and whether there was a possibility for more income than ECC was able to realize. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Lynnwood Convention Center is owned by a Public Facilities District (PFD) as is the ECA. She asked whether the conference center could be added to the Edmonds PFD, noting there would then be a deficit for both buildings. Mr. Doherty responded there are many different models; for example Mt. Vernon’s performing arts and conference center is part of the college. It appears most conference centers are subsidized by a government agency; sometimes they are operated by a non- profit that is subsidized by a public agency. Councilmember Johnson suggested contacting the Edmonds PFD to see if they have any interest. Mr. Doherty said he could contact a board member or the executive director; he was unsure if the board could make a statement of interest outside of a board meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis commented in that scenario the PFD would run the conference center and the City would subsidize it and the ECA. She suggested asking the ECA if they were interested in taking on that responsibility. Mr. Doherty said there were two questions for the Edmonds PFD, whether they were interested in operating the conference center and their response to the City’s potential interest in the conference center. He agreed to inquire of the Edmonds PFD/ECA. Councilmember Bloom recalled a citizen, who is a member of the Economic Development Commission (EDC), stated the conference center would be a potentially location for an incubator project. She suggested that use be considered as an option, noting the potential for a portion of building to be used as a conference center such as the lower floor, and the upper a public/private partnership overseen by the City for an incubator project. She noted there was a fairly significant amount of interest in the community in an incubator project. She and Ms. Hite also briefly discussed the interim location of the senior center during development of their property. She supported exploring Councilmember Johnson’s questions about an art museum or year-round market. Packet Page 412 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 7 Mayor Earling summarized it has been difficult to obtain information from the State. Staff will provide as much information as they are able to obtain. At 6:50 p.m. he declared a recess until the regular meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:03 p.m. and led the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Bloom requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2015 B. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 5, 2015 C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #214105 THROUGH #214241 DATED MAY 7, 2015 FOR $329,626.25. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61591 THROUGH #61600 FOR $478,364.20, BENEFIT CHECKS #61601 THROUGH #61608 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $415,382.63 FOR THE PAY PERIOD APRIL 16, 2015 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2015 D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM MARISA MATERA ($2,000,000.00). E. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES ITEM F: APPROVAL OF CITY PARK CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT RESERVE Councilmember Bloom referred to the agenda memo which states that the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee was the review committee which she understood was over the years. The agenda memo also states under committee action, approve for Consent Agenda. She noted the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee no longer exists so there could not be approval by that committee. She also referred to language in the agenda memo, “This is on the consent agenda after discussion with the Council President. There wasn't available capacity on the Council agenda for a full presentation until June, and since this project has been in front of Council many times in the past year, it was decided to seek approval on the consent agenda.” Councilmember Bloom said she would abstain for the vote because she did not have the time to figure everything out and she did not feel it was appropriate for the Council President to Packet Page 413 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 8 move something to the Consent Agenda. This issue was related to the dissolution of committee meetings, scheduled for discussion on June 23, which she did not think was soon enough. Councilmember Johnson said she emailed Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite today requesting she summarize the highlights of the project. She recalled at the last study session the Council made an appropriation for the bulk of the project. She requested Ms. Hite provide an overview of the project including the operational costs. Ms. Hite referred to information sent to the Council prior to tonight’s meeting based on Councilmember Johnson’s request. This project has been in front of Council 23 times over the past 3 years. The project began in 2012; the City received an RCO grant as well as grant funds from Snohomish County and the Hazel Miller Foundation in 2013. The budget to revitalize the spray and play area at City Park was $1.4 million. Mid-project in 2013 technical issues arose and staff was in front of Council 3 times to work through those issues and to ask Council for guidance whether to discontinue the project, go forward with the play area and/or engage with a different firm to explore technical issues and proceed with the spray area. All three times Council gave direction to continue with installing a new play area at City Park as well as to figure out the best location and best way to proceed with the spray pad. The City engaged with Site Workshop who took the project through 90% design and were able to address all the technical issues. Some of the issues include the high water table at City Park; the original design included a 20,000 gallon underground tank. The water system was changed from water reuse to a water recirculating system which needed only a 5,000 gallon tank. The spray pad was co-located with the City Park play area and the Park crew graded the area and a community build that included over 80 people over a 3 day weekend constructed the play area. The City went out to bid for the spray equipment and added additional pedestrian improvements, did wetland mitigation, utilities. Most of the changes were in A&E costs, not construction. The City went out to bid for construction and Council awarded the bid for construction two weeks ago. The construction bid was 10% higher than the engineer’s estimate which took the complete management reserve. Knowing the technical difficulties that arose during design, she anticipated there will be issues underground. She requested Council approve a $75,000 management reserve so that construction does not have to stop if unanticipated problems arise. The funds are available in the REET 125 fund. There was $250,000 budgeted for the Meadowdale Playfield project which is not proceeding this year; $100,000 of that has been used, leaving $150,000. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the review committee was the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee back in 2014. Ms. Hite agreed that committee began the process. She copied the agenda item forward from Agenda Quick and did not check all the settings. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO, AND COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM ABSTAINING. Councilmember Bloom clarified she abstained for process reasons, not because she does not support the project. 5. PRESENTATION OF WRPA AWARD TO BRUCE HIGGINS Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained two weeks ago at Washington Recreation & Parks Association conference, she passed the gavel to the next president of WRPA. The WRPA annual conference includes recognizing people for their contributions to parks and recreation. WRPA gives out many awards, spotlight awards for projects as well as individual awards for people who contribute a significant amount. It was her pleasure to represent this award so the citizens can see what a gem there is in the community and so the Council and Mayor can help her in congratulating him for his hard work. Packet Page 414 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 9 The Citation of Merit Award is awarded to a lay citizen who is an effective civic leader and who has contributed to the health and wellbeing of parks and recreation in their community. The Edmonds Underwater Dive Park was established in 1970 without much stewardship. After a series of dive-related fatalities in the mid-70s, there was much discussion about the park’s future. Fortunately the dive park had many champions, one being a young marine biologist, Bruce Higgins, who joined a committee to improve diver safety at the dive park. Over the past 38 years Mr. Higgins has been the lead steward for the Edmonds Underwater Dive Park. He has logged well over 20,000 hours planning, creating and maintaining this underwater treasure. Today the park is over 26 acres with 2 miles of marked underwater trails. The underwater park includes numerous manmade features including sunken boats, a railroad tie pyramid, concrete structures and habitat for many different marine critters. The availability of food and habitat has created an environment where sea life now thrives. Mr. Higgins’ principles of safety, security, maintenance and enhancement have resulted in a park known nationwide and visited by over 25,000 divers annually. Without Mr. Higgins’ many years of volunteer service, leadership and dedication to its many improvements, the Edmonds Underwater Dive Park would not be the world class underwater park and marine habitat that it is today. She provided a quote from Mayor Earling, “As the Mayor of Edmonds, I do not know of such a volunteer that has given so much to the City, the Parks Department and the residents of Edmonds. Bruce’s contributions have had an impact that reach far beyond Edmonds. Bruce is not a Parks & Recreation professional but his contributions are very significant to our Parks & Recreation system and to the overall dive population worldwide.” Ms. Hite invited the public to join her in recognizing Bruce Higgins, the 2015 Citizen Citation of Merit Award for the WRPA. Mr. Higgins said he does not do this alone. The City has a great parks system and has had a stream of incredible park directors over the years. He has also had very good corporate support from the underwater sports store on the beach. This effort is a three legged stool: the volunteers, the parks department that support them administratively and the commercial side that helps with the heavy lifting. He thanked the WRPA for the award on behalf of all the volunteers, commenting there are typically about 30 people who help every year, providing over 1500 volunteer hours at the park. 6. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING NATIONAL POLICE WEEK Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring May 10-16 as National Police Week in Edmonds. He presented the proclamation to Police Chief Al Compaan. Chief Compaan recognized the service that the members of the Edmonds Police Department provide to the community 24/7. He was honored to lead a fine of group of law enforcement officers and support staff. He invited the public to the Police Department’s annual award ceremony in Council Chambers on Thursday, May 14 at 6:00 p.m. The presentation recognizes members of the Police Department and the community who have added to public safety over the previous year. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Fred Gouge, Edmonds Port Commissioner, announced great summer programs at the Port:  Sea Jazz (award winning musicians from the Edmonds School District), June 3 – September 14, Wednesdays 5-7 pm and Sundays 1-3 pm and a special performance during the Waterfront Festival  20th annual Waterfront Festival hosted by the Rotary Club of Edmonds, May 29-31. A major fundraiser with proceeds supporting Rotary programs and services.  Artists in Action, Sunday afternoons, June 21-September 13, sponsored by the Port, the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation in cooperation with ArtWorks. Packet Page 415 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 10  Puget Sound Express whale watching – 4½ hours excursion out of Edmonds. He encouraged the public to visit the Port this summer. Dave Page, Edmonds, said Mr. Higgins deserves the award many times over. He has done over 100 dives at the Edmonds Underwater Dive Park and has visited many dive parks and Edmonds’ is among the top three between here and Acapulco. He provided an update on the effort to rename Edmonds Fire Station 16 after Betty Mueller. He invited the public to donate to the Betty Mueller Dedication Fund at Union Bank 123 3rd Avenue South; they are $1000 short of their goal. Next, he continued his earlier comments about the protected sea lion and killer whales populations that are eating 40% of the salmon. He supported daylighting Willow Creek but said the sea lions are eating the salmon before they go up the creek. Up to 300,000 sea lions pass through Edmonds while migrating. He summarized at some point Fish and Wildlife needed to make some changes. Council President Fraley-Monillas provided a $100 donation and challenged Councilmembers to do the same. Councilmember Buckshnis said she already donated. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to his previous comments about the Streetscape Plan and view corridors. With regard to the proposed Tree Code that will restrict tree cutting on private property, he relayed many people are upset over the idea that they will need to obtain a permit to cut a tree on their property. He reminded over-regulation sometimes kills a good system and suggested relooking at the ordinance, fines, and permits required to cut a tree, and make it simpler. Mike Echelbarger, Edmonds, spoke regarding the improvements on Sunset Avenue. He acknowledged it was a little narrow but it was not any narrower than Main Street between 5th and 6th. It works well, traffic has slowed down some, and the majority of the people using the street now are on west side enjoying the water. He urged the City to obtain the funds to widen the roadway a little bit in the right-of- way. His wife has talked to Mr. Williams about more parking on the north end of Sunset. Councilmember Bloom read a letter from Greg Toy about the Edmonds Conference Center who thought there would be would be action tonight. As the Council’s discussion regarding interest in the conference center was a study session, he was not sure when public input on the topic will be heard. Since two members of the Economic Development Commission support acquisition of the building, he suggested it would be prudent to at least look at potential revenue and cash flow models before making any final decision. It may prove to be a financial loser or could help support City operations with a lower lifecycle costs or positive revenue stream. To make a decision without the benefit of examining such options could lead to an unfortunate decision either way. He suggested the City express interest and ask the State for more time to examine the financial feasibility of any transaction. 8. PRESENTATION BY ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Kristina Gallant, Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), of which Edmonds is a member. Ms. Gallant recalled she was here six months ago to present the housing profile. She reported:  What is AHA? o Interjurisdictional partnership: 13 member cities, Snohomish County and HASCO o Work centered in three areas so far:  Housing profiles – completed for all members including Snohomish County  Comprehensive Plan support  General research  Why consider housing? o Diagram of the housing continuum – what does it mean for a family of three in Snohomish County. Packet Page 416 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 11 o Many layers in assisted housing and the appropriateness and affordability of market rate housing.  Where we’re headed: o Translating the Comprehensive Plan into practical strategies  Supporting Edmonds’ housing strategy o Expanded online “Housing Planning Guide” o Continuous tracking of housing conditions o Deeper connection with the cities o Exploring funding options Councilmember Buckshnis commented AHA has done a great job in just two years. She inquired about the timeframe and which cities are likely candidates for exploring funding options. Ms. Gallant answered funding options is a long term goal; they wanted to start with code and policy. They eventually want to pursue grants and help cities strategize. AHA is modeled after King County ARCH who has its own Housing Trust Fund. She viewed that as an item at least a couple years in the future. Councilmember Johnson reported she attended the PSRC Transit Oriented Developing working group last week. ARCH has years of experience but many other King and Pierce County agencies are getting involved. She was one of only two people there from Snohomish County; PSRC is looking at matching funding opportunity with light rail, bus rapid transit and heavy rail. She saw opportunity for Snohomish County cities particularly Edmonds in the future. Their next meeting is in September; she offered to provide contact information. Councilmember Nelson asked what Ms. Gallant sees as encouraging, helpful, insightful or would make sense in Edmonds based on ARCH’s experience. Ms. Gallant referred to ARCH’s Housing Trust Fund that has funded a lot of housing units and provides gap financing for housing projects. Some of the interesting benefits have been in consistency; ARCH, a partnership of eastside cities and King County, cities, has assisted in establishing similar strategies in those cities so there are consistent standards. When a developer approaches an ARCH-member city, they know what to expect in the affordable housing policies in each city and can compare what works in all the cities. Councilmember Nelson asked for an example. Ms. Gallant explained ARCH does both rent and homeownership subsidized projects. There are covenants recorded against the property to ensure rent restrictions or household income restrictions are held over a certain period. Another benefit ARCH provides is a venue for exploring ideas. 9. DRAFT STREETSCAPE/STREET TREES ELEMENT FOR 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope explained draft updates to the Comprehensive Plan are being reviewed one at a time. Drafts, with refinements, will be considered all together in early July. The existing Comprehensive Plan does not have a specific section regarding street trees and streetscape; however, the 2006 Streetscape Plan is adopted by reference. Time and resources are not currently available for a major update to the 2006 Streetscape/Street Tree Plan. Instead, a simple Streetscape & Street Tree section can be added into the Community Culture and Urban Design element. Through meetings with key staff from multiple departments, staff identified the following key points:  The existing Street Tree Plan Map was difficult to read  Certain tree species in the 2006 Street Tree Plan were underperforming or wrong shape/size for intended area  A more in-depth study on street trees is needed but could occur next year She reviewed the current proposal with regard to streetscape and street trees: Packet Page 417 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 12  Add a new Streetscape and Street Tree section into the Comprehensive Plan to address goals and policies o Based on 2006 Streetscape Plan  Do not adopt the Streetscape Plan by reference, but include it as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan.  Add two tree-related implementation strategies to the Culture & Urban Design Element section of the Comprehensive Plan 1. Develop an update to the Street Tree Plan by the end of 2016 2. Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017  Make minor adjustments to the Street Tree Plan (appendix to the Comprehensive Plan) to: 1. Improve map readability 2. Adjust street tree species in four location to encourage better performing trees Ms. Hope reviewed proposed goals and policies:  Streetscape and Street Trees Goal: o Enhance the public realm through streetscape and street tree choices. 1. Encourage improvements to streets that link parks, open spaces, recreation centers, employment centers, and transportation nodes. 2. Balance the need for short-term parking for shoppers and loading for businesses with the need for pedestrian-oriented design, especially downtown. 3. As opportunities arise, provide for sustainable streetscapes that can enhance the natural environment, help ensure safety, and complement the characteristics of the neighborhood or district in which they are located. 4. Promote the planting and maintenance of landscaping and street trees to enhance City gateways and connections; strengthen the character and identity of downtown and other retail/commercial centers; and improve the pedestrian environment. 5. Seek to maintain and retain existing healthy trees in the rights-of-way without sacrificing public safety or public infrastructure or encouraging [change to without allowing] a hazard or nuisance. 6. Selecting trees for planting in the public rights-of-way should be based on a variety of factors, such as aesthetics, safety, maintenance, size, spacing, longevity, location, utilities, habitat compatibility, and other appropriate factors  Possible additional policy that could be added as part of refining draft element: 7. View corridors may be considered as a factor when selecting and managing trees in the public realm Ms. Hope displayed the draft 2015 Street Tree Plan map. Proposed changes to trees in the Street Tree Plan include:  3rd Avenue N between ECA and Caspers - changed species from European Hornbeam to Capital Pear  Lower Main Street between 5th Avenue N and ferry – changed species from Kwansan Cherry to Capital Pear  Civic Center – Changed species from Sargents Cherry to Bowhall Maple  Upper Main Street between 5th Avenue N and 9th Avenue N – changed species from Kwansan Cherry to Bowhall Maple  4th Avenue Cultural Corridor – changed species from Summit Ash to mix of trees as per 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Design Implementation and Funding Plan (2009) and 4th Avenue Corridor concept Plan (2006) The Planning Board discussed the Streetscape & Street Tree Section on March 11th and April 8th and the Tree Board discussed the same material on April 9th. Tree Board is interested in providing input into Packet Page 418 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 13 Streetscape/Street Tree Plan in the future. The City Council held a public hearing on April 21. Tonight’s agenda item is for the Council to have discussion on the Streetscape & Street Tree update. More public input and a final decision on the complete Comprehensive Plan will occur in June/July. Councilmember Bloom referred to Goal 5, “Seek to maintain and retain existing healthy trees in the rights-of-way without sacrificing public safety or public infrastructure or encouraging a hazard or nuisance.” and suggested replacing “encouraging” with “allowing.” Councilmember Bloom asked whether Goal 7 was a recommendation from the Planning Board. Ms. Hope said it has not been presented to the Planning Board. Councilmember Bloom suggested incorporating Goal 7 into Goal 6. Councilmember Mesaros inquired about the maximum height of the recommended tree species. Ms. Hope answered the staff who developed the species list as well as the Tree Board were very cognizant of height and type. Councilmember Mesaros suggest include their maximum height in the plan. Ms. Hope agreed, recalling there had also been a suggestion to have more pictures. She suggested including pictures, description and maximum heights in the Street Tree Plan. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the Tree City USA recognition standards are integrating into the Comprehensive Plan such as a Community Forestry Program with an annual budget of $2 per capita. She asked whether the second implementation strategy, Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017, addressed that. Ms. Hope answered yes, an Urban Forestry Management plan is recommended by Tree City USA and would provide a bigger picture look at trees in parks, street trees, etc. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Ms. Hope assured the Tree Code proposed by the Tree Board is a separate action that will be presented to the Council in the future and is not part of this update. The Comprehensive Plan contains broad level policies and goals. Councilmember Petso observed staff’s proposal was to remove the entire Streetscape Plan from the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hope said it would be included as an appendix. Councilmember Petso asked the legal effect of having it as an appendix and not part of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hope answered one of the problems with having it in the Comprehensive Plan is it contains things that are out of date. The City is legally obligated to implement its Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends keeping the Comprehensive Plan more streamlined and not adopt a lot of things by reference. She noted plans adopted by reference may be limited to revision once a year when the Comprehensive Plan is updated. Councilmember Petso said there are several sections of the existing plan that reference Westgate and she was uncertain they were consistent with the recently adopted Westgate Plan. She asked if removing the Streetscape Plan from the Comprehensive Plan would create or eliminate a problem created by that inconsistency. Ms. Hope answered if it was a problem, this would eliminate it. She clarified some things are just out of date; the Streetscape Plan, adopted in 2006, includes a lot of dated information such as the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor that needs to be updated. She has also proposed removing other things that were adopted by reference such as the Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan. She preferred those can be mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan but not adopted by reference. Councilmember Petso referred to the two implementation strategies, a Street Tree Plan and an Urban Forest Management Plan and asked whether the Streetscape Plan would be updated. Ms. Hope answered that is a bigger project than just the Street Tree Plan. Councilmember Petso recalled in November 1, 2010, the Council adopted changes to the Streetscape Plan particularly the street tree portion partial in response to tree cutting at 5th and Walnut or Dayton. There were assurances at that time that the plan would be reviewed more holistically in 2011. She recalled there were 15 changes made at that time but one Councilmember mentioned 7 changes he wanted considered when the plan was updated. She suggested Packet Page 419 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 14 one possibility, instead of taking the Streetscape Plan out of the Comprehensive Plan, updating it and having it reviewed by the Tree Board and Planning Board. There is a great deal of material in the plan including driveways, methods of service delivery to downtown, the flower program and a proposal to expand it to other business districts, not designing sidewalks for bike use, overhead wires and gateways, etc. She summarized there was a lot of good information she was not certain should be lost from the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hope said not including the material as an element was not losing it; it was still a reference point. Having it in the Comprehensive Plan it is still not a code or regulation that can be enforced. Including it in the Comprehensive Plan may give the illusion that it can be enforced. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if there any areas of Edmonds other than downtown that have street trees. Ms. Hope answered it is primarily in the downtown and the waterfront areas and a few more. The areas are identified on the Street Tree map Councilmember Nelson suggested the General section start with a statement that trees enhance the livability, character and quality of life. In the current draft, that is not mentioned until the fourth paragraph of the five paragraph General section. Councilmember Johnson recalled when she was on Planning Board, they reviewed recommendations from City Council about changes to the Streetscape Plan and the Street Tree Plan, predominantly related to tree species along Main Street. She advised there is a Streetscape Plan for Highway 99. 10. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (EMC 10.25.090) UPDATE – FILLING OF VACANCIES- PROBATIONARY PERIOD Human Resources Manager Mary Ann Hardie explained the proposed change to the Civic Service Commission (EMC 10.25.090) relates to increasing the number of candidate names on the eligibility list for both entry and lateral level police officers to allow 20 candidate names instead of 10. The testing process in the Police Department is continuous regardless of whether there are vacancies. Due to extremely competitive environment, the Police Department is experiencing challenges filling officer positions. Sharon Cates, City Attorney’s Office, Chief Compaan and she drafted an ordinance to update the code to change the number of candidates on the list from 10 to 20. That would provide more latitude for the department to consider more individuals and prevent an inordinately long wait for the list to be certified by the Civic Service Commissions that holds monthly meetings. The update will also remove reference to the fire department. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval of the ordinance on next week’s Consent Agenda. 11. NAMING FIRE STATION #16 Public Works Director Phil Williams explained staff is seeking Council action to approve placing signage on Fire Station 16. The choices of wording are:  Betty Mueller Memorial Building  Betty Mueller Fire Hall  Betty Mueller Memorial Fire Hall All three names are acceptable to the committee that met to discuss a name for the building. As mentioned during Audience Comments, approximately $1500 has been raised toward the purchase and installation of this signage. Any approval would be contingent on raising the entire amount. Packet Page 420 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 15 Councilmember Buckshnis relayed Rich Demeroutis’ opinion that Ms. Mueller would have wanted Betty Mueller Fire Hall but most other memorial building names in the City include the name followed by Memorial Building. Council President Fraley-Monillas preferred Betty Mueller Memorial Fire Hall, noting it was a memorial to her work for the Fire Department. Councilmembers Mesaros agreed, pointing out that maintained the transition of including “Memorial” in the building name. Councilmember Nelson agreed. Mr. Williams referred to the picture, suggesting the name Betty Mueller Memorial Fire Hall would require smaller letters; Betty Mueller Memorial Building fits better and could be read more easily from street. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the letters go to the edge of the building and Fire Hall has the same number of letters as Building. Councilmember Mesaros suggested placing “Betty Mueller” above “Memorial Fire Hall.” Mr. Williams commented there is a change in the texture and color of building. Councilmember Nelson pointed out Betty Mueller Memorial Building and Betty Mueller Memorial Fire Hall each have 28 letters. Councilmember Bloom suggested eliminating “The” from the name. Councilmember Johnson recalled when this was last discussed there were three options, a plaque, a sign and letters on the building. She asked whether the committee choose the lettering. Mr. Williams answered yes, they preferred the metal lettering. Councilmember Buckshnis explained the committee chose the lettering because the blue and white building signage did not fit and the plaque too small. It was the consensus of the Council to have “Betty Mueller Memorial Fire Hall” and squish it in however it fit. It was agreed to schedule approval on next week’s Consent Agenda. 12. PRESENTATION OF FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 15TH STREET WALKWAY PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT City Engineer Rob English advised construction was completed at the end of 2014. The project constructed 650 feet of 5-foot sidewalk on 15th Street between SR 104 and 8th Avenue. The award amount for Kamins Construction was $233,753; at the conclusion of the project, the final cost paid to Kamins Construction was approximately $200,000. The project was funded by a Safe Routes to Schools grant, 100% funding with no local match required. The project is now complete. Councilmember Mesaros said he walked on the walkway on Saturday afternoon and found it works well. Mr. English advised staff has heard several positive comments about the project. As someone who lives close by and often walks the entire project, Councilmember Nelson reported it is a wonderful project used on a daily basis by all ages. He suggested it would be better if vehicles slowed down. Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding the nearby school sent a letter to parents saying it was unsafe and they would no longer provide crossing guards. Now that the walkway makes it safer, she suggested staff work with the School District to encourage students to walk to school. Mr. English answered that could be considered; the School District’s concern was not necessarily the route where the sidewalk was constructed, it was the intersection of SR 104 and 226th/15th. The route has definitely been Packet Page 421 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 16 improved. Councilmember Nelson concurred with Councilmember Johnson’s suggestion to work with the School District to restore the crossing guards. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on next week’s Consent Agenda. 13. PRESENTATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD FOR THE 2015 WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained this is the introduction of the 2015 watermain replacement project, the annual watermain replacement program approved via the Water Comprehensive Plan. This year’s project is scoped for 9,400 lineal feet of watermain replacement. The project will be scaled to fit within the $2.6 million construction budget based on the construction bids. Bid opening is scheduled for Thursday, May 14. Once the bids have been opened and reviewed, staff will return to Council with a recommendation for award either on next week’s or the following week’s agenda. Councilmember Bloom said one of the replacements is in her neighborhood. She asked questions when the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee existed including whether to recuse herself because it is in her neighborhood. The map does not show the location well; after calling Public Works she learned the location had been changed and would no longer go past her house and down 8th Avenue. The location of other sections of the project are also unclear. She asked how residents were informed and how sections were identified. Mr. English said the map was incorrect; the location of #4 Aloha, Daley and 8th, the watermain replacement will only occur on Daley and Aloha. The reason for those replacements is to improve fireflow and replace cast iron pipe. During the development of the Water Comprehensive Plan, criteria was used to rank the priority of pipeline replacements. Watermains have been replaced per that schedule with the exception of replacement done at the time of a transportation project such as the Five Corners roundabout. Councilmember Bloom referred to #4 and clarified the segment on 8th Avenue between Aloha and Daley was not being done. Mr. English agreed and said the map will be updated to reflect that. Councilmember Bloom asked if the stairway would be taken out. Mr. English offered to follow up with Councilmember Bloom tomorrow. Councilmember Bloom asked how residents are notified of the project, noting it will be a significant disruption to residents who live in the area and use the walkway. Mr. English advised signs will be put up notifying of the upcoming project. The City also mails postcards to adjacent residents with the project manager’s contact information and press release is done at the time of construction with the same information. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the location of #3 and #6 and whether the “jogs” are onto private property. Mr. English said neither location would go onto private property. He offered to follow up with Councilmember Bloom. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule award of bid on next week’s or the following week’s Consent Agenda. 14. PRESENTATION OF A SPRINT MASTER USE AGREEMENT AND SITE USE AGREEMENT FOR INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THEIR WIRELESS EQUIPMENT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY Public Works Director Phil Williams said this Master Use Agreement (MUA) authorizes Sprit to use the right-of-way to erect communication facilities as has been done with several other communication companies. A Site Use Agreement would be developed for any specific sites. The agreement sites the relevant code sections, includes recommended changes in fees for facilities. Sprint needs the Site Use Agreement for their facility at 8730 Main Street. The City has MUA with three other companies with Packet Page 422 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 17 virtually identical language. He recommended scheduling the agreements on next week’s Consent Agenda for approval. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on next week’s Consent Agenda. 15. PRESENTATION OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH PSE FOR THE 238TH ST. SW WALKWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained the City secured a Safe Routes to Schools grant. That project was combined with stormwater improvements in the same general area. In 2013 PSE did a gas main replacement on 238th which included tearing out and repairing a portion of the street. Rather than a permanent patch, the City required PSE to contribute to the pavement overlay on 238th. The estimated cost of PSE’s portion is $78,000; the final amount is unknown until construction bids are received. He recommended forwarding the Interlocal Agreement to the Consent Agenda for approval. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 16. SUNSET AVENUE WALKWAY PROJECT UPDATE Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this is an informational update. He provided background:  August 19, 2014 Council approves a “trial or proof-of-concept” project along with a small budget in order to get experience with a multi-use path on the west side of Sunset  Between August 19 and September 18, Public Works crews restriped, placed bumpers, painted curbs, adjusted and placed new signage, built temporary ramps, marked crosswalks and placed stencils to delineate a pathway. Parks crews added mulch and planted low-lying roses. He displayed photographs of:  People enjoying Sunset in an unstructured way prior to the project, walking on an informal path on the west side of the curb, in the street, with their backs to traffic.  The current situation illustrating the pathway and angle parking and the mulched area with roses which will grow up and occupy more space and provide a more effective barrier to discourage people from the bank He summarized field changes vs design:  Transition of the pathway from west of the curb to east of the cub was done 600 feet south of where the final design had shown it. o This was done to fit the project within the $20,000 budget o Moved angle parking 8 feet east o Still left a full 13 feet of clear pavement o This could be increased in a full-scale project Mr. Williams displayed and reviewed a drawing of this alignment, identifying BNSF’s right-of-way. He identified changes made since September 18th and displayed a drawing identifying the location of the changes:  4 spaces restriped for compact cars  Wheel stops (safety issue)  Pathway speed signs - 10 mph for all modes of non-motorized traffic  Parking and no parking signage  1 parallel parking space adjacent to 218 Sunset driveway removed Packet Page 423 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 18  PUD box will be moved out of pathway He reviewed data gathered with regard to daily traffic volumes: Average volumes per day November 2014 April 2015 300 Sunset Avenue (middle of angle parking) 840 25-40% higher 400 Sunset Avenue (400 feet south of Caspers) 880 Speeds (Average/85th percentile) 300 Sunset Avenue 16/23 16/21 400 Sunset Avenue 21/26 20/23 He commented the average and 85th percentile speed was too fast in the current configuration; 12-13 miles per hour was more appropriate. If the Council authorizes a project on Sunset, something will need to be done to better control speeds. He noted when there is more traffic and more parked cars, drivers tend to slow down. He reviewed wrong way traffic data gathered during the study period via the pneumatic tubes that count traffic volume and speeds: Wrong Way Traffic November 2014 April 2015 300 Sunset Avenue 5 4 400 Sunset Avenue 6 10 Total 11 14 If the Council authorizes a project, Mr. Williams recommended doing things at Caspers and Sunset to make wrong way traffic less likely. The data indicated a significant number of wrong way drivers hit one set of tubes but not the other, indicating they were destined for a location along Sunset or turned around. He reviewed accident history: 6 reportable accidents during 2014, 4 occurred near Main and Sunset and only 2 within the project limits. One was a backing accident in the vicinity of the angle parking but occurred before the changes were made on Sunset. The only reported accident that has occurred since the project was at the north end within 300 feet of Caspers was a backing accident out of a driveway. No accidents have occurred in 2015 but that will continue to be monitored. He commented on possible future projects:  Replace install upgraded underground utilities  Grind/overlay Sunset from Bell Street northward, including west side curb and gutter  Install methods to prevent/discourage wrong way drivers  Take steps to discourage speeding through area  Adjust angled parking to create a larger travel lane behind the parking spaces  Restripe Sunset (the rail line segment) after repaving  Consider a C-curb or other separation along the walkway where possible to create separation  Upgrade City property at south end to become a public viewpoint and rebuild Caspers Street to 3rd Avenue Mr. Williams commented on the evaluation phase:  Staff met with Council task force/committee on May 6 o Task force preferred periodic counts by staff in the field to a video recording of activity that could lead to counts later o The task force was interested in data related to usage of the walkway by various non- motorized user groups  Need to run the evaluation through this fall to get a full year of data and cover each season Packet Page 424 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 19  Follow that with survey work and public meeting to get input from the public o Task force has mixed feeling about the cost of a statistically significant survey due to cost  Staff could use direction on other evaluation steps Councilmember Buckshnis observed the bicycle signage on the pathway has only been in place a few months so a true test did not begin in August because some bicyclist did not know they could use the pathway. Mr. Williams explained delivery of the bike stencils and the weather delayed the application of the stencils. Bike use on the pathway so far has not been heavy although that may change when the weather improves. The Edmonds Bicycle and Cascade Bicycle Clubs have notified their members. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Mr. Echelbarger’s concern about the lack of parking to the north. People picnicking in that area have no place to park, which is not conducive to families, picnickers or wheelchairs. Mr. Williams commented this was a trial project and there was no money fix driveways. A lot of the driveways are narrow and the goal was not to interfere with residents’ driveways. A project with funding could include installing new curb returns on those driveways which would allow parallel parking in a number of locations. Councilmember Buckshnis objected to videoing for privacy reasons. Councilmember Bloom clarified rather than a task force, it was a Council committee formed after the retreat. The members are Council President Fraley-Monillas, her, Mr. Williams, Mr. English, Ms. Hite and Ed Sibrel. She was opposed to spending $20,000 for statistically significant survey and preferred to obtain the information in a more inclusive, transparent, open government way. Councilmember Petso referred to her discovery of standards for the appropriate width of a multi-use pathway that includes bicycles and said the path on Sunset is not that width. She asked whether that width would be retained until this fall. Mr. Williams said that has been discussed with the State; 10 feet is the preferred width. The path on Sunset is 10 feet but 2 feet are reserved where there is parallel parking for car doors to open which effectively provides 8 feet. A deviation can be obtained from the State down to 8 feet if certain conditions are met; he was hopeful the City could obtain that. He did not anticipate a 12- foot pathway could be provided with 2 feet for car doors to provide a 10-foot path. He summarized although the existing path may not be what some manuals suggest as an ideal width, 8 feet is grant fundable and usable. Councilmember Petso assumed 10 feet was preferred because it was safer. She asked why the City was interested in asking for permission for a less safe path. Mr. Williams clarified he was not saying that. It was more to do with comfort and separation of users. Although separation was related to a feeling of safety, there was not a lot of accident statistics to back that up. Much of it has to do with two people walking side by side passing two other people walking side by side without walking single file. Councilmember Petso clarified her reference was the addition of bikes to the walkway. She questioned why the City would press for an exception to allow that to occur. Mr. Williams said the hope was to provide a southbound identified option for bicycles if they are willing to ride 10 mph on a non-motorized pathway. If bikes are riding 10 mph there should not be a significant conflict with other modes of non- motorized traffic. Councilmember Petso asked if the purpose was out of a necessity for southbound cycling on Sunset or to aid in obtaining a grant. Mr. Williams said it may be for both those reasons and others. If he was on a bicycle traveling southbound and the choice was 3rd Avenue or Sunset, he would find Sunset more fun, interesting, enjoyable to ride on although he would have to slow down a little. As long as bikes slow down to 10 mph, they are welcome on the path. The bicycle portion of the project got a late start because it wasn’t marked, the balance of the good weather will provide more data. He encouraged bikes to use the pathway to assist in identifying any concerns. Packet Page 425 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 20 By the end of the trial Councilmember Mesaros requested a recommendation and a plan for moving forward. He has received very positive comments regarding the walkway on the west. He suggested investigating how to move the walkway further west to mitigate concerns with driveways, parking, etc. and asked what the options are for working with BNSF. He expressed willingness to work with staff on discussions with BNSF. Mr. Williams commented BNSF’s interest is moving freight on the tracks and little else. If components of a project could be seen by BNSF as beneficial to them, they may be more interested. Council President Fraley-Monillas was not interested in building on BNSF property and envisioned that as lose-lose and cost prohibitive. She was concerned with building a path close to the cliff. She observed there was little parking at the north end due to driveways and the narrow roadway. She asked whether adding parking spaces would narrow the roadway for fire trucks, delivery trucks, etc. Mr. Williams said some additional parallel parking spaces could be added in the trial project and definitely in the final project by improving some of the driveways. Fire District 1 has stated they do not need 20 feet of clear pavement all along Sunset Avenue but there needs to be periodic locations with 20 feet of pavement. They need a periodic fire hydrant and the ability to drive to the hydrant, set up their outriggers; they can drag hoses a certain distance. If new waterlines were installed on Sunset Avenue in a final project, hydrants would be added in key locations; the code requires fire hydrants every 600 feet. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was not interested in disturbing citizens on the east side of Sunset any more than the City already has unless there was enough money to improve their driveways, redo the sidewalk, etc. Council President Fraley-Monillas inquired about southbound bikes on the street. Mr. Williams said that was illegal. Southbound bikes often use the pathway until they reach a group of pedestrians, then veer out into the street and back on the pathway. He preferred bikes slow down, stay on the pathway and observe normally accepted rules of the road. If a bicyclist was in a hurry, he suggested they use the southbound lane on 3rd Avenue. Council President Fraley-Monillas inquired about traffic calming ideas for Sunset Avenue. Mr. Williams commented that was a rapidly growing area of traffic engineering. The conceptual design had a table top intersection at Edmonds and Sunset. Other options include speed humps, speed bumps, speed tables, signage, lowering the speed limit to 15 mph, etc. He noted speeds are slower behind the angle parking; where drivers are uncomfortable, there will be a reduction in average speed. Councilmember Johnson suggested a low cost, low tech solution to gathering data: create a simple paper questionnaire that could be distributed during the summer peak period. She suggested questions about southbound and northbound bicycles, the general concept, parking, and the speed limit. Councilmember Nelson thanked staff for their data-driven presentation, particularly the high number of wrong way drivers. For Councilmember Nelson, Mr. Williams described a C-curb, explaining he did not envision installing it on the entire pathway due to the Fire Department’s need for 20 feet of clear pavement and a C-curb is difficult for the Fire Department to mount. Councilmember Petso recalled the south end of the project was fairly clear, the center was controversial and the north end along Caspers was not resolved. She encouraged staff to bring back the Caspers piece to Council and not wait for the conclusion of this trial. Mr. Williams agreed with that thought but attracting outside funding will require a holistic project. If funding for a holistic project was not attainable, it may be appropriate to do a piece at a time. Councilmember Petso clarified she did not mean implementing a project but reaching Council and public consensus on the Caspers piece. Packet Page 426 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 21 Councilmember Mesaros said he has occasionally seen wrong way drivers and after waving at them, they turn around. Mr. Williams commented there is more northbound traffic going over the tubes on the south end which would explain U-turns. Councilmember Bloom said the Council committee discussed having discussions with BNSF and agreed that would be futile. She recalled Mr. Williams telling the subcommittee that the goal was not to build anything on BNSF property due to the lease and because doing significant improvements on their property was not feasible. She questioned Mr. Williams’ earlier response to Councilmember Mesaros about working with BNSF. Mr. Williams said he was acknowledging Councilmember Mesaros’ vision; his belief in what is doable has been blunted over the past four years by conversations with BNSF. He would like to see something done that the community can enjoy and is trying to make recommendations that are reasonable and fundable but was willing to acknowledge a larger vision if that was possible. From a practical standpoint if the goal was to do something in the next couple years, he would try not make any additional improvements on the railroad side of the existing curb. The railroad has allowed the City to have a street on their right-of-way for 70 years and. Councilmember Bloom referred to Mr. Williams’ comment about drainage improvements that would help the railroad and asked what the City would get for that, noting the railroad was unlikely to contribute. Mr. Williams did not expect to get anything from BNSF. Anything that was done on the surface of Sunset that improved the drainage and put less water into the soils on the bluff which reduces sluffing/maintenance, BNSF was not likely to see those improvements as something to complain about but rather would welcome them. Based on conversations he has had with BNSF in the past, he did not think they would have the same attitude about building new improvements west of the curb. BNSF is very touchy about safety issues and having pedestrians walk closer to the bluff which could lead them to consider fences. Fences are an unpopular topic and he did not want to tempt fate by going further west. As long as the City did not do that, BNSF has shown a willingness to work with the City. Councilmember Mesaros commented the City already has major investments and improvements on BNSF property so it is not unusual that improvements have been made and important services provided on property the City does not own. Mr. Williams agreed the City has easements with BNSF for the pump station and the alternate power on the north end that serves the pump station, a lease for a park purposes on Railroad Avenue and an easement for a guardrail. What has changed in the last several years is BNSF is no longer willing to grant easements in perpetuity that are linear to the tracks due to issues that have arisen in other communities when they try to call the lease. Councilmember Mesaros summarized the City has long term agreements with BNSF that have worked out well for the City. Mr. Williams agreed. 17. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling highlighted the efforts of Bruce Higgins, the recipient of the WRPA Citation of Merit Award, an indication of how much the community benefits from volunteers. He recognized the Floretum Garden Club who was selected as the Citizen of the Year by the Kiwanis Club. A presentation will be made at the May 28 Chamber meeting. The Floretum Garden Club and its 90+ members as well as City staff do a fabulous job on flowers for the City. Mayor Earling recognized Ms. Hite for recently completing a term as President of the Washington Recreation and Park Association as well as the fabulous job she does for the City. 18. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Mesaros commented tonight’s meeting included good discussion on a number of topics and he enjoyed hearing what his fellow Councilmembers are thinking. Packet Page 427 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 12, 2015 Page 22 Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was shocked a club could be a citizen. The Floretum Garden Club deserves the award. Councilmember Nelson encouraged the public to look at videos of Bruce Higgins and the Edmonds Underwater Dive Park. Not a diver himself, he recognized that installing the underwater trails was very labor intensive. Councilmember Nelson was impressed with the level of public engagement at last week’s Marina Beach open house which was attended by 100 people, as well as how responsive the consultants have been to citizens’ concerns. Councilmember Bloom strongly encouraged Council President Fraley-Monillas to move up the discussion regarding committees. It is scheduled on the extended agenda for June 23, 6 weeks from today. Items on agendas have been rescheduled multiple times due to the lack of committees. Council President Fraley-Monillas said Councilmember Mesaros had moxie for wanting to take on the railroad. With regard to discussions with Fire District 1, Council President Fraley-Monillas reported in January the City and Fire District 1 agreed to meet and discuss potential amendments to the contract. Because the City no longer has in-house fire and EMS expertise, the administration has been looking to engage a fire and EMS consultant with that expertise. That objective knowledge will facilitate meaningful review and periodic oversight of the District’s service. Such a consultant could analyze the efficiency of the service provided by the District, compare the service to the fire and EMS service goals and ultimately make recommendations regarding how the contract might be amended to further these goals. The Mayor hopes to complete this effort in the next couple weeks. The plan is for all Councilmembers to weigh in with their thoughts on service early in the process. 19. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 20. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 21. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m. Packet Page 428 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED 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 429 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 2 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 430 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 3 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 431 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 4 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 432 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 5 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 433 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 6 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 434 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 7 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 435 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 8 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 436 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 9 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 437 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 10 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 438 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 11 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 439 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 12 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 440 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 13 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 441 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 14 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 442 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 15  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 443 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 16 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 444 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 17 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 445 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 18 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 446 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 19 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 b e 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 447 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 20 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 448 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 21 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 449 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 22 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 450 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 23 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 451 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 24 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. Packet Page 452 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 2015 Page 25 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 453 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCILAPPROVED MINUTES May 26, 2015 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Michael Nelson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Scott James, Finance Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(b) At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(b). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso, Bloom, Mesaros and Nelson. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Finance Director Scott James, and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:02 p.m. and led the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Fraley-Monillas requested Consent Agenda Item D be moved to Item 5A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Packet Page 454 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 19, 2015 B. 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. AWARD OF THE 2015 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT E. EDMONDS FISH HATCHERY LEASE AGREEMENT 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, reminded the public of the Planning Board’s public hearing tomorrow night. Although he had hoped My Edmonds News would announce the public hearing, instead there was a Guest View from the Tree Board Chair on why Edmonds needs a new Tree Code. He urged property owners who feel they have rights with regard to their property to attend the public hearing. He relayed 80% of the comments on My Edmonds News were opposed to the proposed Tree Code. Bob Sears, Edmonds, a resident in the Meadowdale area, said the Tree Code is about more than just trees, it is an assault on the American dream of owning your own home and the property rights and responsibility of stewardship of one’s own property. He and his partner moved to Edmonds 15 years ago after falling in love with the City; now the Tree Code threatens to take away part of their dream. 5A. PRESENTATION TO APPROVE A QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR 23727 104TH AVE W FOR THE 238TH ST. WALKWAY PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained the walkway will be constructed on the north side of 238th Street; the project also includes stormwater drainage improvements. This is a quit claim of 424 square feet from a property owner on the northeast corner of 104th and 238th, a corner cut that provides the necessary radius for the new sidewalk. Approximately 1/3-1/2 of the area being quit claimed currently has street pavement on it. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the property owners are donating this property because they feel it is an improvement to the area. Using the assessed value of their entire property, the value of their donation is approximately $8,000. He recognized and thanked the property owners, Denis and Melanie McDonald, for their generosity. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda. 6. DISCUSSION OF ATM CONCESSION AGREEMENT AT FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the City’s code allows seasonal concessions in parks without a public hearing or Council approval. This is a year-round concession that would be located at the Frances Anderson Center. She requested Council consideration and recommended approval on next week’s Consent Agenda. Packet Page 455 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 3 Councilmember Petso asked if the agreement was substantially in the same format as the agreement for the ATM in front of City Hall. Ms. Hite said it was. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the location, recalling the ATM at City Hall is located outside. Mr. Hite explained this ATM would be located inside the Frances Anderson Center near the vending machines which is the vendor’s as well as the City’s preferred location. She preferred not to have an ATM outside the Frances Anderson Center as it is not located near the Police Department like the ATM at City Hall. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda. 7. DRAFT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the Council packet contains two versions of the Capital Facilities Element, a clean version and markup version as well as a memo, Planning Board minutes and the PowerPoint provided at last week’s meeting. She explained the capital facilities element is part of Comprehensive Plan update along with other elements. Drafts, with refinements, will be considered all together in early July to meet the State’s deadline of mid-2015 for adoption. She explained the Capital Facilities Element guided by the State’s GMA and one of the requirements is that it be consistent with the rest of the 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 and maps of major capital facilities owned by the City and other public entities and a map of Edmonds School District’s inventory  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 existing capital facilities  “Housekeeping” changes to goals and policies  New performance measure (to be reported annually) related to project delivery, based on comparison of expected results from approved CFP to actual results.  6-year financial plan of capital projects (based on adopted 2015-2020 CIP)  Description of longer term projects (based on adopted Capital Facilities Plan) Ms. Hope highlighted the Capital facilities Plan (CFP) section: 1. General projects  2015-2020 (with projected funding Packet Page 456 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 4  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 Ms. Hope 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. She relayed staff’s response to Council inquiries at the last meeting:  Is the description of the Community Park/Athletic Complex at the former Woodway High School was still appropriate. She relayed Parks & Recreation Commission Carrie Hite indication that it was still consistent and summarizes the basic intent/ideas and did not differ from what has been included in the plan for several years.  The Edmonds Crossing project does not reflect the Willow Creek alignments currently under consideration. Add a note to recognize it is a concept.  Timing of the Senior Center project. The timeframe and the dollar amount could be changed. For example to $2 million in 2017. As the project progresses, the timeframe and amounts can be changed the following the year.  Timing of the Civic Playfield. In discussions with Ms. Hite, she recommended the amount in the CFP be changed to $1-2 million and to keep the amount for improvements ($3 million) the same. She advised 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: May 26 City Council discussion of draft Capital Facilities Element June 10 Open House 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) July Final decision Councilmember Petso referred to packet page 148, observing all projects have either a dollar amount or “unknown” except for the year-round market. She requested “unknown” be added to the year-round market. Ms. Hope agreed. Councilmember Petso referred to packet page 155, the playfield at the former Woodway High School, and asked whether lighting should be removed from the description since the School District withdrew their application for lights. If the intent was to include details, she asked whether Council should discuss what other details to include in the project description or was it better to remove the details and simply state an athletic complex. Ms. Hope suggested removing reference to lights as that level of detail was not needed. Ms. Hite relayed her understanding from discussions with the School District that they intend to apply for lights in the future. If the lights are not included in the detail, it does not prohibit the City from that discussion but if “lighted fields” was removed, she suggested making the description very generic with no details. Packet Page 457 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 5 Councilmember Petso referred to packet page 154, a project related to the SnoIsle Library, that includes reference to SnoIsle’s Capital Facilities Plan. She said that is in contrast to removing reference to the Edmonds School District’s Capital Facilities Plan. Ms. Hope agreed it could be removed. Councilmember Petso referred to the Sunset Walkway project and asked whether there was now consensus on the Council to return the project to a walkway by removing the multiuse aspect of the project. Councilmember Buckshnis responded it is still in a trial period. Councilmember Petso pointed out the Council’s decision on the Comprehensive Plan will occur prior to the conclusion of the trial process. She described seeing a cyclist riding in the road southbound, noting it probably does not matter what cyclist are told to do. She also recently learned there is a standard for the width of a multiuse walkway and the proposed walkway on Sunset is narrower. She asked whether the Council would be interested in a motion in July to return that to a walkway project. Observing there is no consensus and the trial period has not concluded, Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the project description could be changed in the future. Ms. Hope answered it could be changed next year. Councilmember Nelson referred to the performance measure, comparing actual results with expected results, and suggested it be reworded to make what is being measured clearer. Ms. Hope agreed, noting each major chapter of the Comprehensive Plan includes an easily measured performance measure that relates to the Element and sustainability. Councilmember Johnson inquired about the history of the art museum project which has been in CFP for several years such as the next step for implementation. The CFP has included $5 million in concept and there is a private museum opening soon. Councilmember Buckshnis added she read the 2014 Cultural Plan and Goal 4 no longer includes a museum but states enhancing space and experience of a museum. Ms. Hope explained the art museum being discussed is likely different in concept than the one envisioned in the CFP. Ms. Hite commented there was a lengthy discussion during the update of the Cultural Plan; the language regarding an art museum was made more generic but the goal of an art center/museum was not eliminated. The City was aware of the plans for a private art museum when the Cultural Plan was adopted. She recommended the Arts Center/Art Museum remain in the CFP until the Arts Commission further defines it and until the private art museum opens to see if there is still a need to pursue that. The $5 million amount is a placeholder and is not tied to any plans. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to language in the Cultural Plan, past CCPs focused on the need to develop spaces; today our emphasis is to get the most out of each and every space, and agreed with the way that was written. Ms. Hite said the community was clear in developing the Cultural plan and PROS Plan that they were interested in partnerships and collaborations and using existing resources instead of building or creating new spaces. 8. DISCUSSION ON DRAFT 2015 TRANSPORTATION PLAN Public Works Director Phil Williams offered to have staff and the consultant respond to Council questions. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss referred to an email he sent this morning in response to Council questions including average collision rates. Councilmember Petso referred to conducting traffic counts in November, relaying her research on the internet indicated guidelines for using March to October as well as not using a seasonal adjustment of more than 30%. She suggested using a November traffic count could result in understating actual traffic conditions at an intersection. She asked if using November traffic counts was within the range of industry standard. Don Samdahl, Fehr & Peers, answered it is within the industry standard. He agreed counts vary month to month, day to day and week to week; it was typical to conduct traffic counts from fall to Packet Page 458 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 6 the week before Thanksgiving and then after January. He noted traffic counts were not typically done during the summer because the goal was to get the average peak condition not the peak of the peak. Councilmember Petso asked whether a seasonal adjustment was applied. Mr. Samdahl answered for existing conditions, they used the actual count; for future conditions, they used the travel model which forecasts into the future what a typical peak condition would be so it is not specific to any particular month. Mr. Williams commented the 2009 plan used a similar timing; it makes sense to have it done about the same time of year in order to compare the 2009 plan data to today. Councilmember Petso referred to a statement on packet page 3-25, “Supply is current adequate to accommodate parking demand” and asked whether there were any facts to back that up. Without data reasonable minds could differ whether downtown parking was adequate to accommodate demand. If there is no data, she suggested deleting that sentence. Mr. Hauss advised a parking study was done 10 years ago; there is no more recent data. That statement is an assumption and not based on concrete data and could be removed. Councilmember Petso referred to intersections for which a sub-target level of service (LOS) is predicted but there is no project to address the loss in LOS. She identified the intersections of 196 & 76th, SR-104 & 76th, and 244th & Highway 99 as intersections where the plan projects a LOS E but there are no projects to improve it. Mr. Williams referred to Mr. Hauss’ email that addressed that question; two of the three intersections Councilmember Petso identified are State routes so the State sets the LOS. Staff has considered improvements for State intersections that are inside the City that do not meet the City’s LOS but there is no compelling legal reason for a project. For intersections the City is the legal entity, it is obliged to identify a project that could be implemented to address that future LOS deficit. Lynnwood owns all four corners of the 196 & 76th intersection; they manage the signals and recently made changes to the channelization. Councilmember Petso asked why that intersection is listed if nothing will be done about it. Mr. Hauss answered the intersection of 196th & 76th is on a Highway of Regional Significance so the standard is LOS E. He referred to Figure 3-10 where that intersection is identified as LOS E in 2035 which meets the LOS standards for a Highway of Regional Significance. Councilmember Petso pointed out the City has plans for a project at SR-104 & 238th. She asked why a project was not planned for SR-104 & 76th. Mr. Williams answered SR-104 is a Highway of Statewide Significance; there is no LOS that is obliged to be met. That does not mean a project cannot be done there but a specific project does not have to be listed in the plan. The City of Shoreline is doing a project on all 4 corners of the intersection at 244th & Highway 99 including channelization improvements which should help the LOS. It is an optional project, it is not required. Councilmember Petso referred to SR-104 & 76th and asked whether it could be treated the same as SR- 104 & 238th or SR104 @ Westgate. Mr. Williams answered yes. Councilmember Petso asked why there is no project for SR-104 & 76th when the LOS is projected to be E. Mr. Williams referred to the first project on page 4-11, 244th Street SW (SR 104) / 76th Avenue W (50% split cost with Shoreline), $3 million cost 2022-2035. The project will widen 244th to add a second westbound left turn lane with 325 feet of storage. Councilmember Petso referred to 244th & Highway 99 for which the City does not set a LOS standard but will work with and notify the State when the intersection does not operate at LOS E. That intersection is projected to be LOS E; she asked whether there was a plan for working with the State. Mr. Samdahl answered with the improvements currently being made and the existing traffic volumes that intersection operates at LOS D, the standard for Highways of Statewide Significance. With no additional Packet Page 459 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 7 improvements in 2035 that intersection goes to LOS E which technically is beyond the State standard; no additional improvements are identified. Councilmember Petso asked whether the intent is to wait until the intersection exceeds the LOS before considering a project. Mr. Samdahl said that could be discussed with Shoreline and the State. There are several other intersections on Highway 99 between Edmonds and Seattle that do not meet the State’s standard. That does not mean something should not be done but it is not an unusual occurrence. As the improvements Shoreline is making should operate well for several years, no additional projects are identified that Edmonds commits to funding. Mr. Williams added this is based on modeling. There are a lot of unknowns when projecting traffic volumes 2022-2035. He suggested watching the intersection and gathering data to determine when the intersection LOS will fail and initiate a project at the right time. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if any of this be addressed with the phases of the Highway 99 project. Ms. Hope answered that may provide another opportunity for monitoring as well as the next round of planning. Mr. Williams referred to a $10 million funding request of the Legislature for Highway 99, noting were the type of things that could be addressed if additional resources were available. Councilmember Petso referred to page 4-4, 238th / 100th signal upgrades, rebuild complete signal system and install video detection. Mr. Williams said it was video detection to operate the signal, not a red light camera. Councilmember Nelson referred to Project 8 on Table 3-10, 212th Street SW and SR 99. The table indicates the LOS is currently F and is still F with improvements. He observed the improvements would reduce the delay from 2 minutes and 30 seconds to 1 minute 27 seconds. He asked if it was a cost or the nature of the roadway. Mr. Samdahl agreed the improvements considerably reduce the delay. The only other action they identified that would make it operate better is to add dual left turn lanes on Highway 99 which would be a considerable cost due to right-of-way impacts. It was felt the magnitude of that project was not consistent with the overall objectives of the Highway 99 vision. It certainly could be considered further after the other study is complete. Mr. Williams commented should the City receive $10 million from the State, there would be discussions regarding Highway 99 frontage in Edmonds as well as ways to stimulate the retail environment which may be in conflict with projects to move more cars in the corridor. Councilmember Nelson referred to Mr. Hauss’ email regarding the collision rates, noting the data suggests Edmonds drivers are better drivers than other cities’ drivers with regard to collisions. Mr. Samdahl answered he had no idea, that was data the State provided. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Project 22 on Figure 3-10, which has a LOS F on a Highway of Statewide Significance. Mr. Williams answered Shoreline is making interim improvements on all four corners; the intersection is still projected to have a failed LOS by the end of the planning period. Mr. Hauss explained the improvements include the addition of north and southbound Business Access and Transit (BAT) lanes north of SR-104 to 220th and a right turn lane westbound. The project will be completed by the end of 2016. Mr. Williams acknowledged that will not solve the future LOS problem. Councilmember Johnson referred to the financing plan that Randy Young presented last week. There are costs of $133 million of which $60 million have existing funding sources and a revenue shortfall $73 million. She suggested summarizing the actions the Council has taken to meet those shortfalls. The menu of options includes options the Council has already attempted such as the proposition to add $40 to the TBD license fee that was defeated 2 to 1. The City does not have a business license fee. A previous Council considered and rejected red light cameras but there is some interested in school zone cameras. Transportation levies have also been attempted and have not been successful. Local improvement districts Packet Page 460 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 8 have potential but require extensive staff time. She suggested an executive summary of the history related to those funding sources. Councilmember Bloom referred to the goal to locate fiber optics when improvements are done and asked whether that is routinely done. Mr. Williams answered it is not routinely done; fiber is addressed in projects such as on Highway 99 where signal connectivity is an issue. Private sector companies such as Comcast are also accommodated during projects. Opportunities to underground above-ground utilities are also considered although it is often difficult to identify funding or enthusiasm for such projects, referring to complexities encountered on 228th as an example. When power lines are undergrounded the other utilities including fiber are also undergrounded. Councilmember Bloom summarized her understanding of Mr. Williams’ explanation was the decision was made on a case-by-case basis depending on the cost and feasibility. Mr. Williams agreed, recalling there was great cooperation in undergrounding the utilities at Five Corners. Councilmember Petso recalled the Council requested a Complete Streets Study for the SR-104 corridor and asked when that study will be complete. Mr. Samdahl answered they are working on it now; it will be available for staff review in 2-3 weeks. Mr. Hauss anticipated it will be to Council in early July. Councilmember Petso preferred to see it before the Council takes action on Comprehensive Plan if that is possible. Councilmember Petso referred to page 4-4 and $700,000 for future Transportation Plan updates. She asked how many plans that would fund. Mr. Williams answered updates are done every 6 years at a cost of approximately $150,000 each. Councilmember Petso asked whether Table 4-1 identifies every transportation project until 2035. Mr. Williams answered that is the goal; it is everything that can be envisioned with the knowledge available today but things change which is why it is updated every six years. Councilmember Petso suggested an option would be a financial projection that included the next Comprehensive Plan update rather than each subsequent possible update for a determined time period. She noted the City’s transportation needs were so severe there was no need to exaggerate them. Mr. Williams said the State requires a 6-year plan and a 20-year plan; everyone understands it gets a little hazy in 20 years. Councilmember Petso referred to an item on page 4-4, Debt Service on 220th Street SW Project (provide revised amount). She asked whether the amount in the plan was the revised number or did it need to be revised. Mr. Hauss answered that is revised number; it is an annual amount until 2021-2026. Councilmember Petso referred to the second bullet on page 4-12 that states, “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.” She asked why the City’s cooperation with PSRC was dependent on a higher TBD fee. Mr. Williams suggested rewording that item; the idea is if voters a approve funding source, the funds can be used to support projects and those projects will need to be added to the State’s TIP. Councilmember Petso observed that would apply regardless of the funding source. Mr. Samdahl recommended removing the first clause and stating only “Coordinate with PSRC to include projects in the regional transportation plan so that they will be eligible for funding.” Councilmember Petso referred to the issue raised by Councilmember Nelson regarding an intersection that is at LOS F and may remain at LOS F even with improvements. Her understanding of concurrency was failed intersections stop development that depend on that intersection. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered if is a State highway there is a different legal scheme because the City cannot enforce its concurrency ordinance on State highways. If it is a City street, it would be out of compliance with GMA but the City has a six year period to be in compliance. If the planning horizon more than six years in the future shows failed LOS and it cannot be improved to the LOS standard, the City could change its LOS to Packet Page 461 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 9 reflect the reality of the situation. Councilmember Petso asked if development could be restricted. Mr. Taraday answered restriction on development is an option under concurrency but there are obviously legal risks associated with that. Consideration would need to be given to whether that was appropriate under the circumstances. Ms. Hope agreed the City could not enforce concurrency requirements on State highways. However, for City streets, GMA states concurrency applies when development occurs and they cause the LOS to go below the adopted standard. Just because the City cannot achieve the LOS does not restrict development. Mr. Taraday summarized it means development should have been denied 20 years ago. Mr. Williams commented instead of establishing a LOS for each intersection, some communities establish a LOS for the corridor. Councilmember Bloom referred to Councilmember Petso’s question about the statement on page 3-25, “Supply is currently adequate to accommodate parking demand,” and asked whether that statement could be removed or did the parking demand need to be reevaluated. Mr. Hauss agreed with removing sentence. Councilmember Bloom thanked everyone who read article from People for Bikes.org that she sent out, “The Feds Jump on Board: Projected Bike Lanes Are Now Official Federal Policy.” She asked Mr. Hauss to clarify his response that protected bike lanes do not work on streets with driveways. Mr. Hauss explained for example if there is 100 feet between driveways, there would be a curb cuts in the C-curb which creates a safety hazard. The article cites large cities that have protected bike lanes but they are not in areas where there are driveways. Councilmember Bloom asked if there were any streets in Edmonds that do not have driveways where a C-curb could be considered in the future. She suggested including a policy to implement protected bike lanes where possible. Mr. Hauss suggested it was preferable to be consistent throughout the entire system rather than protected lanes in one area and general bike lanes in another. For example going from a protected bike lane to a general bike lane at a crossing raises safety concerns. Councilmember Bloom questioned why Edmonds was not considering protected bike lanes if the federal government supports them. Mr. Williams said “where possible” could be added. He was not sure there were many locations in Edmonds where that would be possible any time soon. A protected bike lane raises other issues in addition to curb cuts; it almost requires a complete redesign of the street and raises issues with drainage, snow removal and other operational considerations. Mr. Samdahl commented the word “protected” means many things; some cities are providing buffered bike lanes which are typically a painted 1-2 foot buffer to provide separation but not a physical curb. Councilmember Bloom said the federal guidelines are related to an actual buffer not just paint. She understood it would be more expensive and takes more space but she wanted to have it included as a goal. Mr. Williams said the article includes a priority list of things to protect bicyclists and to encourage bicycling such as sharrows, on-street bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, protected bike lanes, etc.; there are a wide variety of treatments. He suggested referring to that priority list subject to funding, constructability, applicability to the circumstance, etc. Councilmember Petso referred to page 3-15 and a proposed bike lane on 9th Avenue from north of Main to south of Westgate. She noted many of improvements made in recent years have been to increase vehicle travel lanes on that street such as striping at Walnut and a signal at 220th. She asked whether the intent was to combine cars and bikes in that area or acquire additional right-of-way to provide space for bikes and vehicles. Mr. Williams acknowledged the interim, nearly no cost project at Walnut & 9th that helps move vehicles through the 4-way stop precludes marked bike lanes for the distance of that improvement. A future interim project could extend that 4-lane treatment to Main to improve automobile performance at 9th & Main. Staff does not recommend that at this time due to the potential impact on a future bike corridor on 9th Avenue as well as impacts on parking. The plan contains a permanent solution Packet Page 462 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 10 such as signal or roundabout in the out years. The intent is inexpensive fixes to postpone that project as long as possible. Councilmember Petso asked whether the exhibit should be altered to show a sharrow until a determination is made regarding how to fit vehicle and bike improvements in the same stretch of road. Mr. Williams answered suggested adding interim improvements to 9th Avenue and staff could return with a specific proposal. He acknowledged 4-lanes on 9th may not be the answer; it may be a combination of 2 lanes with bike lanes and 4 lanes with sharrows. Councilmember Petso expressed concern with the proposal for bike lanes from Main through the intersection south of 238th as it sounds like bikes versus cars in that stretch. She suggested a sharrow would not prevent installation of a bike lane in the future. Mr. Williams responded he did not characterize it as bikes versus cars, although he recognized tensions between the two uses need to be balanced. Dedicated bike lanes can be installed south of Westgate; there may need to be sharrows to get bikes through the intersection and then back to a bike lane to the north. He assured staff will give the solution more thought before an idea is proposed. Councilmember Johnson referred to a transit priority corridor for SR-104, recognizing it as a good comprehensive concept. The proposed plan does not include an explicit policy requesting the expansion of Swift on SR-104 down to the multimodal station. Since this is a long range plan and the City coordinates with Community Transit and Snohomish County, it may be appropriate to provide explicit policy direction due to the promotion of Westgate as multi-modal corridor. Mr. Williams agreed Community Transit has been active partner; he offered to talk with them about that. Councilmember Nelson commented bikes and cars should be able to commute in harmony. He supported bike lanes on 9th as far as possible without debilitating traffic. 9. PRESENTATION OF PROPOSAL TO APPROVE A MANAGEMENT RESERVE FOR THE 2015 SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained authorization for a management reserve was omitted when the 2015 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project was awarded at the May 5 City Council meeting. This is a request for a 10% management reserve, $110,000, to cover unforeseen conditions or change orders that may arise during construction of the project. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess 8:30-8:35 10. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING THE POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF THE EDMONDS CONFERENCE CENTER Finance Director Scott James displayed a photograph of the conference center and a floor plan, explaining it has 2 floors, 3 meeting rooms with a capacity of 400, and parking behind the center for 24 vehicles. The conference center website includes parking recommendations which refers to 35 spaces in the Public Safety parking lot, the Edmonds United Methodist Church as a shuttle parking lot, as well as on-street parking. He reviewed opportunities and trade-offs: Opportunities:  Control o With ownership, City controls the use of the facility  City has a larger degree of flexibility in services that can be offered o Meeting space is increased  Increases the potential to bring City-business related conferences to Edmonds  City has more space for art/cultural programs and activities Packet Page 463 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 11 o Office space is increased  City would have increased flexibility to rent lease office space to current/future tenants  Could provide future space for City staff  Location: o Building located on 4th Avenue Corridor which has been promoted as arts corridor Trade-offs:  Primary trade-off is City will expend both capital and operating funds 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 ($1 million) b. Frances Anderson Center stage c. City Park Spray Pad ($854,000) d. Fishing Pier rehab ($100,000 in matching grant funds) e. Edmonds March Daylighting of Willow Creek (set aside for grant match). f. Former Woodway High School field project ($650,000) g. Transportation projects ($1,516,000) h. Senior Center building contribution i. Meadowdale preschool play area ($5,000) j. Boys & Girls Club contribution  Building currently in need of some very expensive and extensive repairs, the fully extent is unknown Mr. James referred to a condition assessment report, Leak Investigation Report and Recommendation for the Edmonds Conference Center, issued August 14, 2014 by Allana Buick & Burrs. He displayed a slide included in the report that identifies five known leak locations and photographs of some of the leak locations and damage to the building. He reviewed financial risks and rewards associated with commercial ownership (assumes would continue to be operated as conference center):  Pros of buying: o Control of tenant selection o Potential to reconfigure the building o Ownership of the property o Income potential  Cons of buying: o Time commitment o Professional help required o Bigger initial investment o More risk He identified next steps:  Letter of intent will be filed with the State prior to their deadline  The City will have to: o Conduct an appraise of an estimated cost $2000 - $5000 o Decide how we are going to pay for purchase o Decide how we are going to pay for 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 we are going to make to offset the new costs o State has ordered a title report and will provide as soon as received Packet Page 464 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 12 He displayed photographs of the conference center entrance, the Chrysanthemum Hall, and pending building repairs. Councilmember Bloom referred to the need for an appraisal, noting an appraisal was done by Edmonds Community College (EdCC) as well as an estimated property value and a damage repair estimate. Mr. James answered the condition assessment report is only an assessment of the building, it is not an appraisal of the building and the property. The assessment report provides some remedies and potential costs but an appraisal has not been done. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether an appraisal needed to be done prior to the City making an offer or could the City’s offer be contingent on an appraisal. Mr. James said it behooves the City to get an appraisal so a value is established before an offer is made. If the City makes an offer, it can be subject to any limitations the Council wishes. Councilmember Bloom referred to the list a lot of capital funding trade-offs, commenting a number of them could utilize other funding sources. For example, the Civic Field acquisition is considered open space so the City could seek funding from Washington Conservation. Mr. James explained the list was potential capital projects that could be impacted by the purchase of the conference center. The 2015 budget includes $3 million for the Civic Fields purchase of which $2 million is a grant. The remaining $1 million is in the form of a loan, bonds, or existing City resources. All the other projects on the list are in the budget with the exception of the Frances Anderson Center stage, the Senior Center and the Boys & Girls Club. Mr. James said those are examples of capital projects that could be affected; funds for purchasing the conference center have to come from somewhere. Even if the funds were borrowed, borrowing would potentially impact what is spent on other projects as well as have future impacts. Councilmember Petso asked whether there were any known funding sources to assist with repairs to the building. For example, some government organizations received funds if they set up a facility for emergency use or have obtained community development grants. Mr. James said that has not been researched; grant funds may be available. The legislature has already met and made decisions regarding capital funding requests. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the City would probably need to know how it planned to use the facility before seeking grants or other funding sources. Mr. James agreed any granting agency would be cautious about providing funds until they knew how the building would be used. Councilmember Bloom referred to Mr. James’ comment that the conference center has historically operated at a lost. She noted there is limited information available, only last year’s profit and loss was provided and EdCC’s marketing efforts are unknown. It was her understanding that 75% of EdCC’s bookings are educational which is at the lower, nonprofit rate and only 25% are at the private rate. Further, people have known about the potential sale for quite a long time so bookings have dropped off significantly. She asked whether there was any way to project potential income generation rather than using past experience. Anticipating the building would continue to be used for conferences and other bookings, she asked whether a spreadsheet could be created to project how much the building would need to be leased to private parties to breakeven rather than using what has not worked for EdCC. Mr. James recalled Mr. Doherty talked with the conference center staff about their marketing efforts. The conference center has a daily and hourly rental rate for each room; staff could guestimate revenue generation. He cautioned City staff is not experienced with operating a conference center so the numbers in a spreadsheet would not be based on experience and he was not certain how meaningful the numbers would be. Councilmember Bloom commented partnering with the Edmonds Center for the Arts (EDC) is also a possibility. Packet Page 465 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 13 Councilmember Buckshnis commented if the City purchased the conference center, a consulting firm would need to be hired to manage it. She asked Mayor Earling about staffing and potentialities of owning a conference center. She noted the Lynnwood Conference Center which is a much nicer facility with a much larger kitchen would be in direct competition. Mayor Earling suggested he provide comment after Council questions have been answered. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested checking with the Yacht Club, Senior Center and the Library regarding room rentals. She suggested reducing the rental amount by half because those venues have views. Councilmember Johnson observed the City has a tight timeline; the Council authorized a letter of intent that is due by June 1. It has been suggested an appraisal be done prior to an offer and the offer is due June 10/11. Mr. James answered the letter of intent is due June 1 and an offer is due 10 days later. He suggested an offer could be subject to an appraisal as he did not think an appraisal could be done in that amount of time. Councilmember Petso suggested checking the rental rates at Embassy Suites which does not have extensive catering or a view. She relayed a citizen’s suggestion for a public meeting similar to the meeting Councilmember Bloom held regarding Westgate. If the Council identified potential dates, she offered to contact Faith Community Church to arrange a Town Hall/public meeting. That citizen also suggested a Town Hall/public meeting at the conference center would be a vastly superior option. Councilmember Mesaros explained one of the reasons he voted in favor of submitting a letter of intent was to get more information. He also wanted the Council to think outside box; the property itself is great asset and the building is a detriment to the asset due to the necessary repairs. Rather than looking at this as operating a conference center, he suggested looking at it as a way to acquire an asset for less than market value. If there is an opportunity to get the property “on the cheap” and then take time to ponder the best use of the asset for the City, it is worth pursuing. It was not of value to the City if the City paid anywhere near market value because the City was not in the business of operating a conference center and did not have the time to hold it to determine the best use. He was interested in acquiring it at the lowest possible price which is why he suggested not doing an appraisal before an offer is submitted because he does not envision the City’s offer will be near market value. Councilmember Nelson viewed this as more of a liability than asset. With regard to Mr. James’ comment about the City being risk adverse, he said this seems risky. It did not make sense to him to seek creative ways to fund other capital projects in the budget in order to fund purchase of the conference center. Councilmember Bloom found the idea of a Town Hall meeting interesting and suggested it would be best to hold it at the Edmonds Conference Center. She suggested it would be best if a Town Hall was supported and coordinated by staff and the Mayor. It could potentially be helpful to hear input from citizens who are supportive as well as opposed to the purchase as well as people who have ideas about what how the conference center could be used. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was not sure she wanted to throw good money into a project like this although Councilmember Mesaros’ idea about the City owning the property possibly has some value. She was unsure why a Town Hall meeting was necessary; citizens can call, email and speak at the podium regarding this issue and they have. She did not want the Council to spin its wheels and hear from the same people who are passionate about purchasing or not purchasing the conference center. Packet Page 466 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 14 Councilmember Bloom expressed concern about the lack of process. She was concerned that Councilmember Nelson has already decided the property is a liability. She encouraged the Council to keep an open mind and discuss potential uses. She suggested looking at the building with creativity and thought to the future with regard to the possibilities as well as the detriments. She found it disturbing that a number of Councilmembers have their minds made up and closed to any possibility regarding the future use of the conference center. The Council needs to think of the City’s future which includes the arts corridor. This is a key building in the arts corridor and the EdCC and the ECA have a cooperative working relationship that includes sharing equipment and event planning. She acknowledged the building is damaged and needs repair but if the City can get it at a good price, it can be operated for a while and then a determination made regarding how it can be operated in a way that brings more economic development into the City. She said Mr. Doherty tried to have Edmonds as a location for a Lodging Tax Conference but was turned down due to the lack of conference space. She was frustrated with some Councilmembers’ willingness to pass up this opportunity without doing due diligence. In response to Councilmember Bloom’s comment, Councilmember Petso said she did not expect action tonight but rather future discussions. The City is awaiting a title report and the Edmonds Public Facilities District (PFD) meets on Thursday. She acknowledged some Councilmembers’ comments reflect their vote last week. She suggested Councilmembers relax and let the new information come in. Council President Fraley-Monillas assured some Councilmembers have done what they believe to be their due diligence. Councilmembers may have differences of opinions and different life experiences that determine whether they like or do not like something. She objected to Councilmember Bloom saying Councilmembers have not done their due diligence because they are not interested in spending the City’s money on purchasing the conference center. In response to Councilmember Buckshnis’ earlier question, Mayor Earling explained Mr. Doherty is on vacation this week; he is in email contact and has been working while on vacation. A few more responses have been received from the State including that a title report will be provided and that City representatives can walk through the facility. During Mr. Doherty’s absence, he asked Mr. James to assist and he has done a fair amount this week and there is potentially more work to be done. He was open to gathering as much information as the City can obtain, acknowledging it can be slow working with the State. With regard to an appraisal, Mayor Earling suggested the Council not to try to get an appraisal done before the June 10 because there is no way to identify a competent appraiser or accomplish an appraisal in that amount of time. Any offer should include that as a condition. Mayor Earling agreed there was still a lot of information that should be considered and he was open to gathering as much information as possible. He expressed concern with the unknown ongoing operational expense; the City does not have a clue what those are without a project. He agreed a proforma needs to be prepared but that cannot be done until a project is identified. The building needs approximately $1,012,000 in repairs, likely more because that cost was established in 2014. Staff has looked at the assessment and the general feeling is the cost of repairs could be another $500,000. Mayor Earling was also concerned the number of parking spaces is also unknown, acknowledging the title report may provide that information. There is also no strategy for paying the purchase price. He agreed there are trade-offs the Council needs to consider; the City does not have an agreed upon price with the School District for the Civic Fields. Although a grant request has been submitted to the State for approximately $900,000; the source of remainder is unknown. The City is currently in good financial standing. With the many unresolved issues, he was concerned this project could be a constant drain on the City and until a proforma was developed, it would be difficult to address the financial reality of the facility. He acknowledged answers may be provided that changed his mind but right now, without a definitive plan, it was difficult to assess moving forward. Packet Page 467 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 15 11. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Council President Fraley-Monillas reported the Snohomish County Health District is interested in providing the Council a briefing and she offered to schedule a presentation by Dr. Goldbaum. She reported she also attended committee meetings regarding the Sunset Walkway, Highway 99, and Boards and Commissions. Councilmember Johnson reported the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is surveying potential additions to the Edmonds Historic Register. The HPC will be dedicating two new properties on the Edmonds Historic Register, Chanterelles on June 2 at 10:00 a.m. and the Palmer House on Main Street on June 11 at 10:00 a.m. Councilmember Johnson reported she attended the Transit Oriented Development Committee at PSRC; that effort is largely focused on light rail and housing affordability around rail transit stations. Members of the Committee were asked to conduct a self-assessment regarding how they are meeting the goals and objectives of the group. Councilmember Buckshnis reported the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council included review of grant requests. Meadowdale Beach was provided $250,000 to help with design of the removal of the barrier. There was also a presentation on how stormwater pushes toxins into storm drains; stormwater is becoming an even larger problem for the environment. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board meeting included discussion regarding the draft Tree Code and the public’s reaction, an Arbor Day event, the Heritage Tree Program, issues related to public education and Tree Board Member Brightman provided an update on the Marina Beach Advisory Committee. She also attended the Boards and Commissions committee meeting and the Sunset Avenue Walkway committee meeting and Councilmember Petso and she met with Police Chief Compaan to discuss emergency vehicle and pedestrian access. She anticipated there would be reports regarding the Council committee meetings (formed at the Council retreat) in the near future. Councilmember Buckshnis reported she also attended the Marina Beach Master Plan PAC; they are working on a hybrid of Options A and B. Councilmember Mesaros reported the featured program at the SeaShore Transportation Forum meeting was the expansion of the SeaTac Airport. The airport is planning a major expansion in the next 3-5 years including a new international terminal and numerous new international flights. One statistics provided was every new international flight into SeaTac brings in an additional $24 million annually. With population growth and Delta’s creation of this major international hub, SeaTac will be at full capacity in 20 years which will require another regional airport. There was also discussion regarding Paine Field; the Snohomish County Council recently voted to allow regional flights at Paine Field within next 2 years. He noted there are pros and cons to regional flights at Pain Field. He has anecdotally heard a number of people are glad because they will no longer have to drive to SeaTac. Seattle City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen will host the next SeaShore Forum in Seattle on June 5. That meeting will include discussion regarding Seattle’s decision to fund Metro service via levy. The surrounding communities, Lake Forest Park, Kenmore, and Shoreline, are interested in how transit in their cities will connect to that new service. Councilmember Mesaros reported the Port is meeting tonight due to the holiday. SnoCom is holding a joint meeting with SnoPac on May 28; the implementation date for New World is June 9. New World will provide enhanced service to the community. Packet Page 468 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 16 Councilmember Petso reports she attended Council retreat committees related to emergency access, a downtown historic district and Highway 99. She also remotely attended the Regional Transit Oriented Development meeting. The HPC meeting also included discussion regarding their objective to educate the public about historic preservation including recognizing that any structure over 50 years old is potentially eligible as historic. She urged residents to contact the HPC with questions about whether their home could be listed on the register or before doing a remodel. For example her hopes that she had a perfect example of a 70s split level were dashed when she learned the remodel that attempted to match the existing roofline and windows actually hurt its authenticity. Councilmember Petso reported the Economic Development Commission briefly discussed the conference center. She plans to attend the PFD meeting on Thursday which will include discussion regarding the conference center. Councilmember Nelson reported the Climate Protection Committee is reinvigorating the Green Business Program and a draft zero waste resolution was circulated. The Committee’s new co-chair, Steve Fisher, is a staff member which highlights the ongoing challenge of increasing public involvement on the committee. The residential solar program resulted in a significant increase from 6 solar permits in 2013 to 39 in 2014. Snohomish County PUD is considering a similar program to encourage solar installations on commercial properties. Mayor Earling reported the objective at this Thursday’s Sound Transit meeting is to finalize the alignment for Sound Transit 3 which will connect the line from Everett to Tacoma to Redmond. It will require voter approval, likely 2016 at the earliest. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported on the wonderful celebration yesterday at the Edmonds Cemetery. He thanked Councilmember Mesaros, Nelson, Fraley-Monillas, Johnson and Buckshnis for attending. Mayor Earling said he received a call from the local press about an article regarding Paine Field. He recalled the Council passed a strong resolution opposing commercial traffic at Paine Field and in support of Mukilteo’s effort. He will reiterate that to the press until the Council advises him otherwise. Councilmember Mesaros suggested that was a topic worthy of consideration. He flies three times a month and it is a long drive to SeaTac. Although most of the flights he takes would still leave from SeaTac, it would be easier to take a regional flight such as to Spokane from Paine Field. He is not the only Edmonds resident taking such flights and suggested the Council should discuss that as well as the transportation impacts. Mayor Earling said the Council could have that discussion but he intends to reiterate the City’s opposition to the press. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented the issue was not convenience but flights overhead. She recalled citizens telling the Council they do not want Paine Field opened to more flights and that they preferred to drive to SeaTac to keep planes from flying overhead. Councilmember Bloom commented planes flying overhead also affect property values. She noted the issue is everyone’s needs not just individuals’ personal convenience. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the City’s existing position and continuing to support Mukilteo. 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Packet Page 469 of 470 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 26, 2015 Page 17 Council President Fraley-Monillas reported yesterday was the tenth Memorial Day ceremony she has attended. She commended Mayor Earling for his speech. The event was well attended and she found the story provided by the WWII aviator amazing. She referred to the Memorial Day story written by an Edmonds-Woodway freshman, commenting she was one best speakers she had heard in a very long time. Councilmember Johnson thanked Dale Hoggins, the Cemetery Board and the Cemetery Sexton for the hometown Memorial Day event. She reminded of the June 10 open house on all the Comprehensive Plan elements at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the Waterfront Festival is this weekend, beginning Friday at 11:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m. Sunday. There will be great weather, beer garden, games, boats, etc. Councilmember Bloom invited the public to the public hearing on the draft Tree Code tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. The meeting will also be live streamed. Councilmember Nelson thanked the Cemetery Board and everyone who organized the Memorial Day ceremony. He commented on the stories provided by Colonel Robert “Buck" who flew 137 combat missions in the South Pacific and was the only surviving member of his unit as well as stories about the 400 veterans buried in the cemetery. Student Representative Eslami reported on an assignment in his history class to research legislative representatives. Students were reporting on Representative Strom Peterson and he could say he sat next to him on the Council. 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) This item was not needed. 15. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 16. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m. Packet Page 470 of 470