The URL can be used to link to this page

2015.07.14 CC Agenda Packet AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING JULY 14, 2015 6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER 1.(60 Minutes)Convene in executive session to discuss collective bargaining and pending or potential litigation per RCWs 42.30.140(4)(a) and 42.30.110(1)(i). STUDY SESSION JULY 14, 2015 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 2.(5 Minutes)Roll Call 3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda 4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items A.AM-7856 Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of July 7, 2015. B.AM-7852 Approval of claim checks #215079 through #215168 dated July 9, 2015 for $219,169.51. C.AM-7798 Final Acceptance for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Interior Improvements Project by Tec Construction Inc. 5.(5 Minutes) AM-7854 Proclamation in recognition of Park and Recreation Month, July 2015 6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings Packet Page 1 of 224 7.STUDY ITEMS A.(10 Minutes) AM-7853 Update City's Investment Policy B.(10 Minutes) AM-7850 Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Perteet for the 228th St. SW Corridor Project. C.(30 Minutes) AM-7857 Discussion of the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis D.(10 Minutes) AM-7851 Report on final construction costs for the 2014 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements and acceptance of project. E.(30 Minutes) AM-7859 Discussion of Boards and Commissions F.(20 Minutes) AM-7858 Continued discussion regarding potential purchase of the Edmonds Conference Center G.(10 Minutes) AM-7860 Discussion of Ordinance amending the Edmonds City Code relating to Council Committee Meetings and Formally Establishing the Committee of the Whole 8.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments 9.(15 Minutes)Council Comments 10.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). 11.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 224 AM-7856 4. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/14/2015 Time:Consent Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of July 7, 2015. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attachment 1 - Draft Council Meeting Minutes. Attachments Attachment 1 - 07-07-15 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 07/09/2015 10:35 AM Final Approval Date: 07/09/2015 Packet Page 3 of 224 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES July 7, 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 Michael Nelson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Rob English, City Engineer Sean Conrad, Associate Planner 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 with the exception of Councilmember Mesaros. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADD AN AGENDA ITEM, DISCUSSION REGARDING EDMONDS CONFERENCE CENTER. Councilmember Bloom explained the City received notification last week that there are three other bids for the Edmonds Conference Center. As the bids are public, she suggested it be discussed in a public session. Council President Fraley-Monillas added it as Agenda Item 10A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE AGENDA ITEM 8 TO ITEM 6A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Packet Page 4 of 224 A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2015 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #214862 THROUGH #214863 DATED JUNE 23, 2015 FOR $18,030.32, CHECKS #214864 THROUGH #214980 DATED JUNE 25, 2015 FOR $445,807.83 (REISSUED CHECK #214883 $304.50) AND CHECKS #214981 THROUGH #215078 DATED JULY 2, 2015 FOR $2,265,404.38. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61663 THROUGH #61673 FOR $499,150.70, BENEFIT CHECKS #61674 THROUGH #61682 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $426,838.65 FOR THE PAY PERIOD JUNE 16, 2015 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2015 C. MAY 2015 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT D. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BHC FOR THE 2016-2017 SANITARY REPLACEMENT PROJECTS E. REJECTION OF ALL BIDS FOR THE SW EDMONDS – 105TH/106TH AVE W STORM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT F. REPORT OF FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND A RECOMMENDATION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2014 WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT 4. CEMETERY BOARD PRESENTATION Joan Longstaff, Cemetery Board, invited the public to a guided tour of the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery, “A Walk Back in Time,” on July 16 at 1:00 p.m. She thanked the Council for the privilege of serving on the Cemetery Board. Along with the Chamber and the Museum, the Cemetery is celebrating Edmonds’ 125th anniversary of Edmonds. “A Walk Back in Time” will honor and includes stories of the 13 former Edmonds mayors buried in cemetery. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern with City officials on Sunset Avenue doing the work of the police, telling people where they can and cannot park. The person who reported it to him is frequent user of Sunset and has seen it occur more than once. He found it interest that certain City officials feel it is their duty to enforce the rules on Sunset Avenue. He suggested returning to bike lanes and a sidewalk on Sunset Avenue, eliminating the need for City officials to enforce the law on their own. Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, said he regularly attended Council committee meetings when the format was changed to study sessions. He originally did not support the change but now likes study sessions and felt with a few revisions, study sessions could serve the Council, administration and citizens well. With the committee structure, citizens had to choose which committee to attend as they were all held on the same day and time and only two Council committee members studied an issue with staff and made recommendations to Council. Recommendations were often pulled from the Consent Agenda or rejected by the full Council, resulting in delays and requiring repetitive staff presentations. The quality of the committee minutes depending on who took the minutes. Citizens could not view the committee meetings on television or the internet and rules for citizen participation varied depending on the chair and issue being discussed. The greatest citizen benefit of study sessions is added transparency. With study sessions, citizens have equal time to comment and can view all Council discussion on television and the internet and consistent, written minutes are available to the public. He recommended the following format revisions: • Council return to the dais where microphones provide better sound quality • Staff presentations be made from the podium where presentations can be seen and heard Packet Page 5 of 224 • Discussions grouped by topic on the agenda for continuity and using Council and staff time efficiently • Council ask questions of staff before meeting to provide staff time/opportunity to prepare detailed response • Councilmembers ask questions in round-robin fashion with each Councilmember asking 2-3 questions at a time He questioned why a Council that places such a high value on transparency would consider reverting to a format that was so much less transparent and less efficient. Jenny Anttila, Edmonds, said it appeared Edmonds’ offer to purchase the Edmonds Conference was rejected and the State has given the City Council until July 15 to submit a counteroffer. She recalled some weeks ago the Council President was asked to allow the Council to vote on having a Town Hall meeting to allow Edmonds taxpayers to air their views on the potential purchase of the building and she declined to let the Council vote. If there had been an agreement to that democratic process, the Council would have citizens’ feedback/opinions regarding the purchase. She explained in 1997 a previous Council declined an offer from the property owner to give the property to the City for free and it was given to the Edmonds Community College. The City now has an opportunity to purchase the building. She has no qualms with any other entity purchasing the building but felt it would have been the right thing to do to allow taxpayers to voice their opinion. She recognized many citizens with young children who enjoy the hometown activities do not have time for small town politics. Most towns are run by older people who often lack the aspiration for a legacy. Citizens look to the City Council to balance all needs, now and in the future. What the Council thinks is too expensive now will be unattainable in the future and there will be no land for the Council to consider purchasing. She commented on the vision of people on the east coast, stating Edmonds also needs a vision. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2016-2021 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss introduced the 2016-2021 Six-Year Transportation Program (TIP): • Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires that each city update their TIP prior to July 1st • Document contains all significant transportation projects that a City possibly plans to undertake in the next six years • City of Edmonds policy: TIP financially constrained first (3) years • Federal Grants, State Grants, and Local funds are programmed as revenue source for TIP projects He reviewed scheduled projects in 2016: 76th Avenue W @ 212th St SW Intersection improvements • Project description o Add left turn lane for northbound and southbound movements on 76th Avenue W o Improve intersection delay o Add bike lanes / wider sidewalk o Utility upgrades (including conversion of overhead utilities to underground within project limits) • Schedule o Completion of Design / ROW End of 2015 o Start of Construction Spring 2016 • Funding o Estimated total project cost: $6,228,000  Design $ 412,000  Right-of-way $ 789,000  Construction $5,027,000 Packet Page 6 of 224 o Funding Sources  Federal Grant secured $3,960,000  Local Funds (Fund 112, Utility) $2,268,000 Trackside Warning System/Quiet Zone at Dayton Street & Main Street Railroad Crossings • Project Description o Install Wayside Horns at two railroad crossings to reduce noise level (within downtown Edmonds) created during many daily train crossings • Schedule o Construction 2016 • Funding o General Fund Transfer $300,000 236th Street SW Walkway from SR-104 to Madrona School • Project Description o 600 feet of sidewalk along 236th St from SR-104 to school entrance o Bicycle sharrow markings o Stormwater upgrades • Schedule o Completion of Design Fall 2015 o Start of Construction Early 2016 • Funding  Secured Safe Routes to School grant $494,000  Local Funds (Fund 422) $250,000 Citywide Bicycle Improvements (formerly known as Bike-Link) • Project Description o Complete critical missing links of bicycle’s network, with installation of bike lanes and sharrows throughout Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Edmonds o Bicycle route signage and parking at key locations o Bicycle education and outreach • Status/Schedule o Design Fall 2015 o Construction Summer 2016 • Funding o Secured Verdant grant $1.9M (~ $737,000 allocated to Edmonds) Mr. Hauss displayed and reviewed a map of the proposed improvements funded by the Verdant grant. Other projects in 2016-2021 TIP a) New projects / not identified in 2015-2020 TIP • Corridor / Intersection Improvements o 228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th Pl. W o SR-104 @ 226th St SW / 15th St. SW Intersection Improvements *** o SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection Improvements *** o SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements *** • Walkway Improvements o Dayton St. from 7th Ave. to 8th Ave o 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to SR-104 o 236th St SW from 100th Ave. W to SR-104 o 218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W o 84th Ave. W from 234th St. SW to 238th St. SW o 80th Ave. W from 206th St. SW to 212th St. SW Packet Page 7 of 224 o Citywide ADA Transition Plan • Ferry Storage Improvements from Dayton St. to Pine St *** • Waterfront At-Grade Crossing Study (*** Projects identified in Sr-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis) b) Preservation/Safety/Capacity Projects • Annual Street Preservation • Main @ 9th Ave (2019-2020) • Signal Upgrades o Puget Dr. @ OVD (2019 – 2020) o 238th St. SW @ 100th Ave. W (2019) o Main St. @ 3rd Ave. (2020 – 2021) o Citywide Conversion to Protected Permissive traffic signal conversion (2016) • Intersection Improvements o 220th St. SW @ 76th Ave. W (2019-2021) o Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW (2019–2021) o Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW (2019-2021) o Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW (2019-2021) c) Non-motorized transportation projects • Sunset Ave. (2016-2019) • 4th Ave. Corridor Enhancement Walkway (2019-2021) • Sidewalk projects near schools / parks o Maplewood Dr. Walkway (2020-2021) o Walnut St. Walkway (2019) o ADA Curb Ramp Improvements (2016-2021) Mr. Hauss provided a summary of recently secured transportation grants (last three years): Project Name Grant Type Total Grant Amount Five Corners Roundabout (2012) Federal $1,937,000 5th Ave. S Overlay from Walnut St. to Elm St (2012) Federal $525,000 228th St. W Corridor Improvement Project (2012 & 2013) Federal/State $5,934,000 Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3) (2012) Federal $684,000 236th St. SW, 238th St. SW and 15th Ave. W Walkway Projects (2013) Federal/State $1,459,000 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave. S (2013) Federal $90,000 School Zone Flashing Beacons (2013) Federal $37,500 Bike-Link (2014) Local $737,000 220th St. SW Overlay from 84th Ave. to 76th Ave. (2014) Federal $780,000 76th Ave. @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements (2015) Federal $3,020,000 Waterfront At-Grade Crossing Study (2015) State $500,000 TOTAL $15,703,500 Mr. Hauss relayed staff’s recommendation that the City Council approve the TIP. Councilmember Buckshnis gave kudos to staff for securing grants, especially the $500,000 for the Waterfront At-Grade Crossing Study. She remarked people continue to call her about Sunset Avenue; she asked whether that was still in a testing phase and how it will be tested. Public Works Director Phil Williams said it was not a test but rather an evaluation over time. He is trying to hire a summer intern who will make physical counts regarding percentage of parking used, illegal parking, etc. That data would be summarized and presented to the Council. Packet Page 8 of 224 Councilmember Buckshnis asked when the evaluation period ended. Mr. Williams answered a year would be the end of August. He was hopefully a good amount of data would be available by then. Data from the first months as everyone was learning about the new geometry may be less important and the more current data may be more relevant. Councilmember Buckshnis said the biggest concern she hears is bicycles, the path being multiuse and bicycles riding in the street when there are people on the path. She asked how the multiuse path would be evaluated. Mr. Williams commented that is difficult to measure; he has also seen bicyclists go into the street when others are using the path. He said anecdotal information as well as data is important. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the project cost morphed up to nearly $2.3 million with the entire project completed in 2019. Mr. Williams answered that was a placeholder; he doubted the project would reach that magnitude, a path for much of the length of Sunset, particularly where BNSF’s ownership intrudes onto the existing street. It would be difficult to get grant funding for a project on BNSF’s property without their express permission long term which BNSF will not provide. BNSF will lease property for a year which would grant funding difficult and likely require a short term project funded with local funds. He envisioned a considerably scaled down project from what was originally proposed. Councilmember Petso thanked staff for the exhibit that isolates the changes from last year and since June 9. One of changes proposed to be made this year is to change the Sunset project from sidewalk to multiuse path. She planned to make motion to not make that change. With regard to the changes since the June 9 presentation, she asked about the addition of the project, 228th from Hwy 99 to 95th Place, observing that goes significantly through Esperance. She asked whether the City will partner with Snohomish County for funding. Mr. Hauss said that project was identified with the 228th project that is currently underway; design in 2021 was added. The City will coordinate with Snohomish County on funding, grant applications, etc. Councilmember Petso observed most of that stretch is located in Esperance. Mr. Hauss agreed approximately two-thirds of it was in Snohomish County. Councilmember Petso concluded from his explanation there would be cooperation and funding participation from Snohomish County. Councilmember Petso referred to the ferry storage improvements from Dayton to Pine, noting that area includes City Park, the treatment plant, the marsh and a wetland. She asked whether those would be disturbed to make room for ferry traffic. Mr. Hauss answered more detailed analysis will be required but the project is envisioned as restriping of the area southbound from the terminal converting that from two lanes to one to provide more queue area in the northbound direction. The road will not be widened to extend into any of the areas Councilmember Petso mentioned. Councilmember Petso referred to the road diet to reduce travel lanes to create room for bike paths. She recalled that was designed for 76th and the numbers show it should work even though the schools present a potential problem. She recalled during Mr. Hauss’ presentation that that may be done on 212th pending investigation whether the intersection delays were tolerable. She questioned why that was still in the plan on 9th Avenue when history shows that it hasn’t worked due to the light at 220th and extra lanes at Walnut. Mr. Williams said in studying the data, the ADT is 30,000 and not 40,000 as Councilmember Petso mentioned in an email. The most recent data regarding the PM peak shows 3,073 movements through the intersection. Modeling of the existing geometry with the existing traffic movements showed a level of service (LOS) B; the City’s adopted intersection LOS at is D. Modeling of the proposed changes, a 3-lane section south of the intersection and bike lanes up to the intersection and north, the same 2-lane configuration, removing parking on one side and adding bike lanes, suggests the LOS will still be B with the current traffic volumes. Mr. Williams explained modeling of the existing and proposed geometry and projected 2035 traffic volumes which includes movements from development at Pt. Wells, redevelopment at Westgate, and traffic from assumed growth results in LOS C. He acknowledge the travel lanes would need to be Packet Page 9 of 224 maintained through the intersection and one identified as a sharrow; there would be a dedicated bike lane up to a certain distance from the intersection and then transition to a sharrow through the intersection and then back to a dedicated bike lane. He summarized that would not change the capacity of the intersection for vehicles. Councilmember Petso said if that is the plan, the correct designation in the CIP and TIP should not be road diet but bike lane/sharrow. Mr. Williams agreed the project could be identified that way. Councilmember Petso said she was not just concerned with the Westgate intersection. For example at Walnut, a temporary painting project that added a northbound lane significantly reduced peak hour backups. She envisioned undoing that would be a significant step backward and asked if the additional lane would be removed or a sharrow used at that intersection. Mr. Williams responded not all the issues on the corridor have been figured out. He agreed that interim improvement has helped in the short term. There may need to be another solution to accommodate bikes in that intersection but the design has not yet been done. He acknowledged there will be design challenges with extending that improvement from Main to Westgate including the 220th intersection. The idea of bicycle facilities on 9th/100th is meritorious and should be kept in the plan. There will be several touchpoints for the Council once a project is funded. Councilmember Petso said changing the description to bike lane/sharrow would resolve her concern. Councilmember Petso referred to the double light at 238th and 100th/Firdale where that same treatment is planned, noting the lights must be carefully timed to avoid congestion. She did not envision northbound vehicles lane could be reduced. Mr. Williams agreed that would be reviewed as part of the project design. Councilmember Bloom referred to Mr. Williams’ indication that an intern is being hired to do data collection and asked when the Council will have an opportunity to provide input regarding what data will collected and how that will be accomplished. Her understanding was Council would be involved in the process of determining whether there would be surveys and how data would be collected. Mr. Williams answered he did not see an intern contributing to a survey; that would be a different data gathering effort and staff can provide Council a draft survey. The intern would spent time on Sunset during the summer collecting objective data. Councilmember Bloom commented that should be done soon as it is July and the testing period ends in August. Mr. Williams anticipated the evaluation would occur in the fall after a full year of usage. Councilmember Bloom requested that be scheduled on the Council’s agenda. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed to work with Mr. Williams. Councilmember Bloom asked why the previous funding level of $1.9 million was increased to $2.3 million when Mr. Williams has said it is unlikely that much would be spent on BNSF property. She suggested leaving the funding at $1.9 million or even reducing it. Mr. Williams said the amount in the TIP does not make a great deal of difference it is a placeholder. Staff used the original project scope and updated the cost estimates and used information regarding utilities and improvements on Caspers. Those elements may still be done; the improvements in the middle will be more problematic. A detailed scope will not be available until after the evaluation when the Council determines what improvements should be made. The $2.3 million amount was calculated by costing out the scope in the grant application. Councilmember Bloom suggested leaving the cost the same because staff did not envision spending that much. Mr. Williams said the revised amount best reflects the increase in the costs of the original scope. Councilmember Bloom asked for a breakdown of the increase. Mr. Williams answered it included utilities, inflation, increase costs for asphalt and construction materials, etc. Councilmember Bloom asked what additional hard costs are included in the increased amount. Mr. Williams answered additional stormwater improvements, noting because little design has been done, much of it is speculative at this point. He hoped the $2.3 million was the high end. Councilmember Bloom suggested discussing Sunset Avenue separately as there are a lot of questions. Mr. Williams said there is a concept for Sunset Avenue, not a design. The scope was retained and the cost estimates updated as no decisions have been made to change it. Packet Page 10 of 224 Councilmember Nelson asked how the bike lane improvements on 9th/100th came about. Mr. Williams answered it recognizes that 9th/100th is a natural corridor for non-motorized users, the most direct route from Westgate to connections north. As a key corridor, staff sought to use the right-of-way in a way that balances motorized and non-motorized users. The City’s Bike Plan identifies that corridor and putting bike lanes on the corridor would be meritorious. Councilmember Nelson noted the difference between LOS B and D over 20 years in an additional 15 seconds of delay. Mr. Hauss said staff has had numerous meetings with the bike group regarding 9th/100th as well as many other bike projects. The bike group initially suggested the 9th/100th bike lane a couple years ago. Councilmember Johnson referred to the $625,000 Waterfront At-Grade Crossing Study of which $25,000 is provided by the Port, $500,000 from the State and $100,000 local match and the time period is 2016- 2017. Related to that project is $300,000 in 2016 for a trackside warning system. She preferred the Waterfront At-Grade Crossing Study be completed before implementing the trackside warning system which would only delay it a year. Councilmember Johnson observed typically TIP projects take years to be completed. The very quick implementation of the trackside warning system is unusual. Mr. Williams explained there are contractors who install them all over United States; it is a cookie cutter approach and not a particularly complicated design. Following an RFQ/P process, staff interviewed three teams today and will be recommending selection in the next week. He did not agree the trackside warning system was in conflict or would be contraindicated based on the results of the alternatives analysis. Whatever projects come from the At- Grade Crossing Study likely will take a long time to develop and great benefit could be realized from the wayside warning system in the meantime. Councilmember Johnson responded the $300,000 commitment from the City from the General Fund or Fund 112 could be used for other projects. To her it was a question of priorities and who makes that decision. Mr. Williams said the next touchpoint for the Council would be approval of the contract which identifies costs and timing. Taking the project off the list before that information is available may be premature. Mayor Earling said citizens frequently contact the City looking forward to installation of wayside horns. He hoped to keep that separate from the alternatives analysis. Councilmember Johnson said citizens also contact the City about pedestrian improvements to access Seaview Elementary and other missing links. She summarized this is a key question of priorities for the City Council. Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed support for retaining the full amount for Sunset Avenue in the TIP because the extent of the project is not yet known and it would be short-sighted to reduce the amount. She asked whether any other north-sound connections for bike lanes that do not go through neighborhoods had been considered. Mr. Hauss said 9th/100th is the most direct route between Edmonds and Shoreline. He identified an alternative route north of the cemetery on 226th and 15th; the route on 9th/100th from 238th to the cemetery is .75 mile and the route through the neighborhood is 1.5 miles. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the alternative route was on 2-lane residential streets. Mr. Hauss said bike improvements on residential streets would likely be sharrows and bike route signage as there is not space available for a bike lane due to parking. Council President Fraley-Monillas was not interested in having bike lanes in residential areas, envisioning that would create disaster. Mr. Hauss identified other possible alternatives that were less direct than 9th/100th. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Peter Hallson, Edmonds, said he is an avid cyclist, Co-chair of the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group (EBAG), a member of the Cascade Bike Club, a ride leader, and is responsible for safety training and tracking for the Club. He explained the EBAG worked closely with Mr. Hauss for a number of years defining safe and usable bike routes in the City and recommended bike-related facilities in the TIP that Packet Page 11 of 224 have been updated over the past year. The facilities in the plan are not just theoretical, but have been tested and accommodate commuters and recreational riders traveling in all directions. A good example is 9th/100th; it is a well-defined, busy bicycle route, a destination route through Edmonds from Shoreline to Meadowdale and points north. He supported cyclists having a way to get there in an efficient manner, considering time, distance and safety. The 9th/100th route is one of many that resulted from a study of all the routes in the area. Bike-Link, funded by Verdant over the next three years, will provide bike connections between Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds, enhancing the ability for cyclists to travel with confidence and safety to a number of important destinations. He recommended approval of TIP as presented, specifically the bicycle routes. He relayed a saying from Cascade daily rides, “act like a car,” noting bicyclists fare best when they act and are treated like drivers of vehicles. Don Feine, Edmonds, member of the EBAG and the Transportation Committee for the Transportation Master Plan, voiced his support for the TIP as presented, noting staff extensively involved the Transportation Committee and EBAG. With regard to the 9th Avenue bike route, he developed the 2000 Bikeway Comprehensive Plan while employed by the City and 9th was identified at that time. It is signed as a regional bike route and is a regional link to Shoreline and into Edmonds. It is widely used, and he uses it himself. He was highly supportive of continuing to use 9th as a bike route and making it safer for bikes. Jenny Anttila, Edmonds, expressed support for the trackside warning system, explaining Edmonds has suffering with train noise for years; delaying it again would be a travesty. The train in Edmonds is very noisy particularly at night; $300,000 is not a lot of money when the City Council has not done anything about train noise for many years. She appreciated Councilmember Johnson’s comments about sidewalks, pointing out existing sidewalks are often obstructed by overgrown vegetation. With regard to Sunset Avenue, she compared it to slowly boiling a frog; it was marked in the hope people would get used to it and slowly making people accept it. There are too many cars parked on Sunset particularly from the south end to the middle, cars often leave their engines running, and the road is very narrow. The path is too narrow for bicycles and should be wider but there is not enough street width. She hoped the Council would conclude it was a bad idea overall, the improvements are too expensive and it is a perfectly quiet street much of which the City does not own. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out the page numbers in the May 15 printing of the TIP did not match the TIP in tonight’s packet, making them difficult to compare. He suggested stormwater improvements on Sunset Avenue be funded by the Stormwater Utility. He referred to safety projects at 238th, 84th, SR-104 access management, Hwy 99 access management and 228th, pointing out no safety improvements are planned for Edmonds Way/100th/Westgate even though collisions exceed 1.0 collisions/million vehicles. Page 344 indicates that intersection had 90 collisions or 1.4 collisions/million. He concluded the traffic at Westgate has not been effectively analyzed and it remains a problem. Next, he referred to the annual street overlay, pointing out there was no mention of using chip seal as a method. Snohomish County is doing chip seal in several municipalities but not in Edmonds. He recommended chip seal be included in the City’s street preservation program. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public hearing. He advised approval of the TIP will be scheduled on next week’s agenda. Councilmember Petso requested it be an agenda item for full Council and not on the Consent Agenda as she planned to propose some changes. Councilmember Bloom inquired about chip seal. Mr. Williams said there are no chip seal projects in 2015 as no appropriate locations were identified and staff is still evaluating how the three chip seal projects area holding up. There is no implied ceasing the use of chip seal in Edmonds; there just are none proposed in the 2015 preservation program. Mr. Hauss referred to the purpose of the Annual Street Preservation Program states grind pavement, overlay, chip seal and slurry seal. A variety of methods are used; there is no chip seal in the 2015 program but it not excluded as an option in future years. Packet Page 12 of 224 6A. APPOINTMENT TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD Council President Fraley-Monillas advised Council has reviewed three applications for the Tree Board after two Tree Board members resigned. A third member, Anna Heckman, resigned from the Tree Board this week, enabling Council to appoint all three applicants. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ALL THREE APPLICANTS TO THE TREE BOARD, BARBARA CHASE, ALBERT (JED) MARSHALL AND CRANE STAVIG. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she knew Ms. Chase and Mr. Stavig, they are members of the Edmonds Floretum Garden Club and are very knowledgeable about trees, flowers, etc. Council President Fraley-Monillas said Mr. Marshall has applied for previous Tree Board vacancies and has special interest in the Tree Board. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW AND ACTION ON HEARING EXAMINER'S APPROVAL OF VARIANCE FOR 9/11 MEMORIAL (PLN20150017) Mayor Earling explained the purpose of this closed record hearing is for the City Council to consider the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner regarding the application of David Erickson on behalf of the Firefighters of Local 1828 and Snohomish County Fire District #1. The case number is PLN20150017, setback variance. Tonight’s hearing follows a Type III-B process where the Hearing Examiner forwards a recommendation to the City Council for final decision. Unlike the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, participation in tonight’s hearing is limited to parties of record (POR). POR include the applicant, any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application and any person who individually submitted written comment regarding the application at the open record public hearing. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires this hearing be fair in form, substance and appearance; the hearing must not only be fair but also must appear to be fair. Mayor Earling asked whether any member of the decision-making body had engaged in any oral or written communication with the opponents or proponents of the project outside of the presence of the other party. Councilmember Johnson said she was aware of the fundraising efforts and had attended 9/11 memorial events in the past. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has no conflicts. Councilmember Bloom said she has no conflicts. Councilmember Nelson said he has no conflict and no contact with anyone working on this project. Councilmember Petso said the only contact she has had was a short email from Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite today. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she has had no contact but attended a ceremony when the beam was brought to Edmonds. Mayor Earling said he has no conflict but also attended the ceremony where the steel beam was presented. Mayor Earling asked whether any member of Council had a conflict of interest or was unable to consider the matter in fair and objective manner. Council President Fraley-Monillas, Councilmembers Nelson, Bloom, Buckshnis, Petso and Johnson, and Mayor Earling said they were able to hear the matter in a fair and objective manner. Mayor Earling asked if anyone in the audience objected to his or any Councilmember’s participation as a decision maker in the hearing. No objections were voiced. Packet Page 13 of 224 Mayor Earling asked the Council whether they agreed to the following procedure: five minute introduction by staff, five minutes for oral argument by the applicant followed by questions of staff and/or the applicant. No other parties spoke before the hearing examiner. Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Sean Conrad, Associate Planner, who has been employed by the City for approximately a year. Mr. Conrad explained the reason the variance request was before the Council was because the applicant is public agency. Typically variances are considered by the Hearing Examiner; in this case, Snohomish County Fire District #1 is requiring a zoning variance for setback to allow installation of a 9/11 memorial monument. Per the code, when a public agency requests a zoning variance, it goes to the Hearing Examiner for recommendation and to the City Council for consideration. He displayed a vicinity map, stating the project site was approximately 500 feet north of Council Chambers at the Fallen Firefighter Memorial Park at 6th Avenue N & Sprague Street. He displayed a zoning map, explaining the park site is zoned Public Use which requires a 20-foot structure setback from streets. With those setbacks from Sprague and 6th Avenue N, a variance is needed to accommodate installation of the memorial. He displayed an aerial view of the park, identifying the approximate location of the 9/11 memorial monument and an existing memorial sculpture honoring Captain Bill Angel that will be moved slightly to the east to accommodate the installation of the 9/11 memorial. He provided a photograph of the park looking south. He displayed a site plan showing the approximate location of the 9/11 memorial monument located between Sprague Street and the parking lot and slightly within the 20-foot setbacks. He displayed a model rendering of the 9/11 memorial monument, advising it is approximately 9 feet in height, well within the height restrictions of the Public Use zone. The lighting associated with the memorial is within the standards of the zone. Mr. Conrad provided an aerial photo of the park identifying the 20-foot setback which consume approximately 90% of the park. A small area of the park is outside the setbacks but approval of the installation of the memorial monument required it be moved slightly within the 20-foot setback on Sprague Street. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on May 28, 2015. The applicant spoke in favor. The Planning Department received no comments. The Hearing Examiner recommended approval with conditions: 1. The installation of the 9/11 Memorial monument, relocation of the existing sculpture honoring Captain Bill Angel, landscaping and lighting shall substantially comply with the plans submitted with this application. 2. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to installing the monument. • Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with the building permit application for development of the site. Applicant is encouraged, wherever feasible, to incorporate pervious pavements, rain gardens and/or other low impact development techniques into the project design. • The location of the monument shall be in accordance with Edmonds City Code, 9.25, Street Obstruction and located such that the existing City utilities may be maintained, repaired, and operated. Applicant Dave Erickson, a firefighter in Edmonds for 25 years, noted there have been variances granted in the past and he did not envision this artifact would be an exception. Three items that exceed three feet (the definition of a structure) have been located in park, the first a totem pole that was subsequently removed due to decay. Following removal of the totem pole, the Fire Department created a Fallen Firefighter Packet Page 14 of 224 Memorial Park in the location and a monument honoring fallen Fire Captain Bill Angel was erected. Mr. Erickson said the park, approximately the size of the open area in front of the Council dais, also includes a fallen firefighter flagpole that honors firefighters who have died in the line of duty and flies at half-staff for three days for every firefighter that passed in America. The third item proposed to be located in the park is the 9/11 memorial monument. The artifact proposed to be included in the monument is a one-ton steel beam recovered from ground zero of the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001. Snohomish County Fire District 1 was fortunate to obtain it following a lengthy process; only 1,117 items were released from the Port Authority of New York to be used in memorials around the United States. The Port Authority had a number of contingencies for siting including no private ownership of the artifact at any time, free and constant access by the public 24 hours a day and no tax dollars used as a funding source for construction of the memorial. All the funds for the memorial are private donations. The fund raising portion of the project has been completed and the construction process is beginning. Fire District 1 had reserved the item and was looking for a suitable site shortly after the merger with Edmonds. He knew of an outstanding site, Edmonds’ existing Fallen Firefighter Memorial Park in front of Fire Station 17 that already honors fallen firefighters. The 9/11 memorial monument will honor the nearly 3,000 people who perished that day including 343 firefighters, 60 police officers and over 2,500 citizens. Many have not had an opportunity go to ground zero and it was important to bring a piece of the building to Edmonds to allow people to find solace in the very powerful and emotional piece. He was honored to have it in Edmonds and looked forward to its installation. He endorsed the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation and urged the Council’s approval of the variance. There were no Council questions. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR THE 9/11 MEMORIAL. MOTION CARRIED UNAIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling asked when the Findings of Fact would be available for Council approval. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said his interpretation of the motion was the City Council approved the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation for the variance exactly as recommended, it was debatable that findings were needed. Because the Council normally adopts finding, he will have them prepared for approval on next week’s Consent Agenda. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 9. REVIEW OF DRAFT 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE WITH REVISIONS Development Services Director Shane Hope explained under State GMA, most cities and counties must complete a major review and update of their Comprehensive Plan at least every eight years. The current deadline is June 30, 2015. She commented on the public process that has occurred as part of the update and the update schedule that included review and several public meetings on each element. Several questions arose at the Council’s last review on June 23: • Why was phrase “commercial” or mixed use” removed from description of development compatible with Edmonds Crossing project? Not clear on original reason, probably just didn’t seem necessary. If City Council wants to either reinsert the language or leave as is, no problem. • If above phrase removed, can remaining part of the Unocal hillside property be entirely multi- family (rather than mixed use)? No, Edmonds zoning does not allow it. Packet Page 15 of 224 • Suggestion to change the annual performance measure of utilities element (Lineal feet of old water, sewer and stormwater mains replace or rehabilitated). Public Works Department has confirmed this is good overall utilities performance measure. Ms. Hope reviewed minor changes made to the draft Comprehensive Plan since June 23 based on Council questions: • Refined land use data and made adjustment to text. See page 8 and figures 9 and 11 of Exhibit A (or Exhibit A packet pages 18, 49 and 51) o New figure for park acreage (using new calculation method to be closer to that used in the PROS Plan) o New figure for commercial acreage to include districts in which commercial is specifically allowed or required • Updated and streamlined Edmonds Crossing narrative o See pages 16, 44, 47 and 49-54 of Exhibit A (or Exhibit A packet pages 25, 54, 57 and 59-64) Note: A new drawing has been included because the existing one is from the Environmental Impact Statement and is the best we have for now. • Added brief “Implementation Action Performance Measure” subsection to General section o Page 17-18 of Exhibit A (or Exhibit A packet pages 27-28 of 222) Note: information on adopted measures will be reviewed annually with City Council as part of process • Took pertinent information from Stevens Memorial Master Plan (1994) and placed in Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center narrative, Goal E o See page 61 of Exhibit A or packet page 71 of 222) • Added Edmonds Urban Growth Area Map (a previous feature of Comprehensive Plan but not included in the last update) o See page 83 of Exhibit A (or packet page 98 of 222) • Minor change to Utilities Element on page 134 of Exhibit A (or Exhibit A packet page 144 of 222) o Solid Waste Goal D: Continue to investigate policies for a Zero Waste Strategy, applicable to City operations  D.1 Pursue and implement strategies to eliminate or reduce waste and pollution in the production and lifecycle of materials  D.2 Consider action plans and measure that encourage residents, businesses, and agencies to use, reuse, and recycle materials judiciously.  D.3 Eliminate or reduce use of hazardous materials in City operations  D.4 Take a leadership role in reducing waste for City operations and events • Minor updates to CFP o Arts Center/Museum – listed cost as “unknown”  This needs to be changed in one or more place (heading) o Boys & Girls Club – changed to “Work with the nonprofit to assist in accommodating the growth and changing needs of the club.” The cost changed to “unknown” o Senior Center – narrative revised on first page, removed reference about rebuilding the center o Minor revision yet to be made: slight rewording of capital facilities performance measure to say: “Project delivery results – based on comparing projects in the Capital Facilities Plan to what was actually done on the projects.” • Updated Transportation Element (Exhibit B) o Minor adjustment to project costs, including addition of projects identified I SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis o Minor edits to figures and tables o Indicated that the proposed bicycle improvements along 9th Ave/100th Ave are subject to further analysis (before final determination made) Packet Page 16 of 224 o Added reallocation of REET Funds to Transportation projects as possible funding option Appendices will include: • Streetscape Plan (2006) • Street Tree Plan(2015) including minor updates to tree species list o Several poor performing species were removed from list and replaced with other species (as discussed by Tree Board, etc.) o Could be further revised to reflect latest comments from Tree Board Member  Remove more tree species  Add new tree species  Clarify planting instructions o Or wait until more complete update of Street Tree Plan in 2016 Ms. Hope reviewed the latest Street Tree Plan suggestions (not currently incorporated but could be) • Remove following tree species: o Amur maple, ash, grafted Japanese cherry trees, little leaf liden, Keith Warren hybrid maples, Raywood ash, Norway maple, European beech • Add following trees: o Adirondack crab apple (in place of cherries) o Silver linden (in place of little leaf linden) o Golden rain (in place of ash) o Freeman maple (where adequate overhead space) o Windmill palms (in tight areas) • Clarification for planting instructions o Use same soil throughout root area with no pockets or zones of different material Documents proposed for adoption by reference: 1. Community Cultural Plan (2014 2. Pros Plan (2014) Note: Stevens Memorial Hospital Plan is removed because key content has been placed directly into Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. In existing Comprehensive Plan, 20 plans are adopted by reference. Ms. Hope explained the Comprehensive Plan originally was to be considered for adoption tonight; due to the changes, a request has been made to postpone adoption until July 21. Councilmember Bloom referred to her earlier question about mixed use versus mix of uses, acknowledging she has been told by Mr. Taraday and Ms. Hope that the terms are interchangeable. She recalled when working on the Harbor Square Master Plan a citizen who said the Council was breaking the law by not enforcing the Comprehensive Plan; their reference was the area was appropriate for a design driven Master Plan with a mix of uses. She requested defining mix of uses and mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan to be clear what is meant and suggested the definition of mix of uses as any commercial use or any use that does not include residential, and mixed use as residential above first story commercial. She was concerned with leaving it open to interpretation. Ms. Hope was cautious about narrowing mixed use to mean only one thing in the Comprehensive Plan because it may affect other areas. Currently mixed use and mix of uses means a combination of at least two different uses; it can be vertical in the same building, on different properties or parts of properties. She was concerned defining it in the Comprehensive Plan may unintentionally limit other things. If the concern was in a particular small part of the City, Mr. Taraday suggested insert a phrase in the description of that area rather than defining the term. Packet Page 17 of 224 Councilmember Bloom said her concern is with the waterfront and downtown area. When the Council voted against the Harbor Square Master Plan, they were essentially voting against residential and commercial mixed use and the area is zoned General Commercial. She was concerned with lumping multiple areas together in the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center, noting the City has not gotten final approval of the Shoreline Master Plan, there are issues related to the Unocal property, etc. She was concerned with leaving it open to interpretation. She asked whether the waterfront area could be separated out and addressed in more detail when there was clarity about Edmonds Crossing. Planning Manager Rob Chave referred to page 57-58 regarding various districts and suggested including more detail in that description rather than a definition. Councilmember Bloom asked which district description would need to be changed. Mr. Chave said if the concern was Harbor Square, that area is described under Master Plan Development on page 58. A phrase could be inserted in that district description. Councilmember Petso recalled when the changes for Westgate were approved, she was concerned the zoning map was not consistent with Comprehensive Plan map. The Westgate changes moved ahead because it would have required a separate Comprehensive Plan amendment which proponents of the Westgate plan were unwilling to wait for. It was her understanding the changes would be made with the Comprehensive Plan rewrite; however the map has not yet been changed. Ms. Hope said her focus with the update has been on the language in the Comprehensive Plan and the description of the Westgate and not on the map. In talking with staff, it was realized the zoning of two properties at the south edge of Westgate were General Commercial but they were designated otherwise in the Comprehensive Plan. It would be ideal to adjust map but she was uncertain whether more public process would be needed for a map change that had not previously been discussed. There are two options, 1) before Council adoption research whether that could be done as a matter of course, or 2) accomplish that in the next update. Councilmember Buckshnis commended staff for a great job on the update and thanked staff for incorporating the hospital information. She referred to Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goal C1 which refers to mixed use development but E1 refers mix of uses. Ms. Hope reiterated the terms mixed use and mix of uses are used interchangeably. Councilmember Buckshnis said the update of the Comprehensive Plan reads very well. Councilmember Johnson said she was ready to approve the update and looked forward to the final product. She requested Councilmembers be provided a hard copy of the Comprehensive Plan that includes PROS Plan and Community Cultural Plan. Ms. Hope said she was happy to provide that to the Councilmembers who want it. Councilmember Bloom referred to the Comprehensive Plan designation map (page 38), and asked the designation of the downtown/waterfront area that is labeled pink with spots. Mr. Chave answered that is the upper and lower yard Unocal site, the Port, commercial and condominium area, and Salish Crossing. It is designated Master Plan Development. If there was interest in specific language for a particularly area, the area would need to be specified or the language would apply to the entire designation. Councilmember Bloom asked about the green area and dark pink area. Mr. Chave answered the green is park and the marsh and the dark pink is Downtown Master Plan. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the zoning of the area labeled pink with spots. Mr. Chave answered MP1 and 2 on the Unocal property. MP1 is where the condominiums are; MP2 is the lower yard, potentially Edmonds Crossing. MP2 does not allow entirely residential; it must be commercial or mixed use. Councilmember Bloom recalled WSDOT saying they did not need residential, they only needed commercial. That property is current in escrow and is being cleaned up by Unocal. Mr. Chave said the MP2 zone is reserved for Edmonds Crossing but in the event Edmonds Crossing did not happen, it would Packet Page 18 of 224 revert to a mixed use scheme. Before it could be developed mixed use, a declaration would need to be made that Edmonds Crossing was not going to happen. Councilmember Bloom asked if developing that property mixed use was consistent with the SMP. Mr. Chave did not recall the Shoreline designation but believed it was. He summarized the zoning is MP1 and 2 on the Unocal site, across the railroad tracks to the west on the Port property is zoned Commercial Waterfront. Councilmember Bloom observed the SMP is in process. She asked whether the Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended if there were any changes such as in response to the Port’s challenge of the setbacks from the Marsh. Mr. Chave answered the SMP is part of the Comprehensive Plan. After the SMP is ultimately approved, staff will review other regulations and the Comprehensive Plan and highlight any inconsistencies. Councilmember Bloom asked when the City’s SMP will be approved. Mr. Chave answered Ecology’s review is underway. With regard to Councilmember Buckshnis’ comment about mixed use and mix of uses in the hospital district, Councilmember Bloom suggested defining mixed use as mixed use within a building with residential and mix of uses as within an area. Mr. Chave answered that would be problematic as the terms are used interchangeably. The entire Land Use Element would need to be reviewed and a differentiation made between the two terms. He recalled in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, mixed use does not have to be a single building but it can be arranged in different buildings such as a campus. Downtown is different in that generally buildings are vertical mixed use although not exclusively. He feared defining terms in an exclusive way would result in unexpected results. He suggested descriptive language targeted for specific areas. Mayor Earling advised the Comprehensive Plan update will be scheduled on the July 21, 2015 Council agenda for action. 10. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONS AND COUNCIL COMMITTEES Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled there have been numerous discussions regarding this issue and numerous opinions. Councilmember Johnson relayed she contacted each director last week to determine their preference regarding study session versus committee. All the directors preferred the current study session, including Police Chief Compaan, Finance Director Scott James, Development Services Director Shane Hope, Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty, Public Works Director Phil Williams and Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite. She also contacted Mayor Earling and the City Clerk; they both prefer the study session format. The reasons given include the openness and transparency in the decision-making process, opportunity for twice a month study session instead of once a month, everyone hears the same information at the same time, and study sessions have a better success rate for Consent Agenda approval. She noted there were also a number of recommendations for improving study sessions. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has had many discussions with citizens. She displayed several folders of documents representing hundreds of hours she and the City have spent on legal issues, financial issues and Finance Directors. She noted the finance committee meetings were audio taped. She preferred to have study sessions because the meetings were videoed. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented on the openness and transparency of Councilmembers and citizens hearing things at the same time. She could not support returning to committees meeting in separate rooms and isolating Councilmembers from citizens. The past six months have made her a better Councilmember because she is able to hear what is happening in all areas. Previously, there were separate Packet Page 19 of 224 Finance, Public Services & Human Resources and Parks, Planning & Public Works committees and Councilmembers were only able to attend one. She acknowledged there were problems with study sessions; she agreed with Mr. Witenberg’s suggested improvements such as returning to the dais due to difficulties with microphones, staff presentations at podium, grouping topics together, asking questions before the meeting, and round-robin questions. She commented in the current structure, often one Councilmember asks multiple questions which does not give other Councilmembers the ability to participate. She summarized the most important aspect of study sessions is transparency because they are televised. Councilmember Petso recognized it appeared the Council was not changing back to committees. She pointed out once committee meetings were recorded, they were fairly transparent, particularly since the recordings could have been posted on the City’s website. If the Council continues with study sessions, she asked for a greater commitment to ensuring Council has lead time; that items are not scheduled on the Consent Agenda until they have been reviewed by Council. She observed there was a tendency by one department to decide an item is not important enough for a televised presentation and review by all Councilmembers and schedule it directly on the Consent Agenda. When that happens, it reduces the Council and public to 3-4 days’ notice of an item. She requested Council be provided short presentations on the financial report, pointing out the financial report on tonight’s Consent Agenda went straight to Consent which is less transparent because there was no committee or Council discussion. She said one of the benefits of committees was lead time. If things are not important enough for full Council and they are scheduled directly on the Consent Agenda, that lead time is eliminated. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Petso’s suggestion regarding lead time. She acknowledged it was difficult to track what has been presented in a study session and how long ago. She said that would require items always be presented at a study session before scheduling it on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with losing one of the ways citizens who were not comfortable speaking at podium had to communicate with Councilmembers; the City does not have many ways for citizens to communicate. She suggested the Council consider how they can increase the ability to have a two-way conversations with citizens; that is the key to transparency, not being on camera. All the ways she has suggested to have two-way conversations with citizens, such as a Council blog, have been declined. Committees were the only way where on occasion there could be two-way conversation in a more intimate setting with people who were interested in a particular issue and may not be comfortable on camera speaking at the podium. Councilmember Bloom said Councilmembers have tried having Town Hall meetings. She did one on Westgate and the only support she had was from the Council’s Executive Assistant. The Council does not have staff support for Town Hall meetings; Mayor Earling has staff support for his Town Hall meetings but it was her understanding those were not two-way conversations. Some Councilmembers are not comfortable with two-way conversation at committee meetings; she was very comfortable with it. She recalled in previous discussions about study sessions versus committee meetings, staff said it provided an opportunity for uncivil conversations and behavior. She recalled Councilmember Johnson referencing improper behavior. She said what one person feels is uncivil or improper, another may see as robust conversation. She planned to vote against changing to study sessions because of the loss of something very significant without anything to replace it. She felt framing it as more transparent was disingenuous because it ultimately eliminated a way to communicate with citizens. Council President Fraley-Monillas said committee meetings were set up to be meetings between two Councilmembers and staff; they were not intended to be an opportunity for involvement with citizens. With regard to Town Hall meetings, Councilmember Buckshnis and she organized and held five with no staff support. Councilmember have the option to hold a Town Hall meeting any time they want to. With Packet Page 20 of 224 regard to two-way conversations, she agreed it was difficult to get input from more than a handful of people. Citizens have many ways to interact with Councilmembers; she receives emails, phone calls, has coffee with citizens, attends functions where citizens ask her questions, and is invited to speak and answer questions. She assured there were opportunities for communication; committees were never intended to be a way for citizens to express their views. She summarize the ability to listen to a taped meeting was not as transparent as seeing the Council on television and hearing the debate. Councilmember Nelson preferred Councilmembers hear information at the same time. He was troubled there was a debate about what had occurred under the previous format. He agreed there was room for improvements with the study session format but having everyone in same room, hearing the same information and discussing it together was important. He agreed with asking questions round robin so that there could be more discussion. He suggested a quarterly joint Council Town Hall where Councilmembers could engage with citizens. Councilmember Buckshnis said she always answers her phone and she hears from citizens. She referred to the audio tape of a Finance Committee meeting two years ago where a $5.2 million receivable was removed from the City’s books without the Council’s knowledge; that would not have happened if it occurred at a videotaped Council meeting. She agreed with returning to study sessions. Councilmember Johnson summarized the recommendations for improvements from directors that had not been mentioned previously: • Shorter agendas and shorter meetings • Better equipment for visual presentation • Return to dais for better sound system • Routine items go straight to Consent with good written staff report but not an advance presentation Councilmember Johnson said she liked study sessions and would like to continue that format. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO FORMALLY MOVE STUDY SESSIONS TO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. Council President Fraley-Monillas said there has been criticism in the past few months that the Council study sessions were against the code. She preferred to formalize the process by amending the code. Mr. Taraday asked whether the intent was to formalize study sessions by amending the code. Council President Fraley-Monillas said that was the intent of her motion. Mr. Taraday asked whether all meetings would start at 7:00 p.m. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed Councilmembers were nodding yes. If the motion passes, Council President Fraley-Monillas requested Councilmembers send her their issues so they can be addressed. With regard to routine items going straight to the Consent Agenda, Councilmember Petso recalled that has been a very dangerous practice in past. For example, a bond issue that was approved on the Consent Agenda has caused the City numerous troubles. She suggest developing some kind of pre-Consent process so that the public and Councilmembers have a week and a half notice of items that go straight to Consent such as a page on the website where the Consent Agenda is posted in advance. If a Councilmember did not view an item as appropriate for the Consent Agenda or would like a presentation, a presentation could be requested. Packet Page 21 of 224 Council President Fraley-Monillas said it was not her intent for issues to go straight to Consent. The Council’s preference has been to have issues discussed at a study session prior to a business meeting. She suggested she and Councilmembers Petso and Johnson flush the study session format out after she receives input from the rest of the Council. MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. Councilmember Petso said she will participate on the committee Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested. However, this was exactly why committees were needed; instead of inventing committee on the fly, the matter could have gone to committee. 10A. EDMONDS CONFERENCE CENTER PURCHASE DISCUSSION Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that following the City’s $300,000 bid, the State received a bid for $2.4 million from North Sound Church, a bid of $1.2 million from another church and another bid from a private individual. In her conversation with Stephanie Fuller, State Department of Enterprise Services, Ms. Fuller questioned why the State would sell the building to the City when the City’s offer was only $300,000 and the City planned to tear the building down. Councilmember Bloom relayed to Ms. Fuller that the City was told the building was not worth anything and that the repairs exceeded the value of the building. Ms. Fuller said that was not accurate; the repairs were much lower than were estimated. Councilmember Bloom commented the Council based its bid on a repair estimate that apparently is much higher than is accurate. Her primary concern is Ms. Anttila brought this to the Council’s attention in January and the Council finally made a bid in June. This property was known to be available by others in October. She was concerned the Council had not had a public process related to the purchase, no input from citizens regarding how the property could be used, and the bid was based on information that more than likely was inaccurate. The Council owes it to the public to increase its bid to $1 million to at least extend it enough for the State to consider it a viable bid and give the public an opportunity to comment and be involved in deciding whether it was a good public use. Councilmember Bloom said she has serious concern about a church purchasing the property; churches do not pay taxes and there will be no economic benefit of a church taking over this key property in the middle of downtown. A former Council had an opportunity to acquire the property for free. This is a valuable, key property in the Edmonds arts corridor but citizens have not been allowed to provide input regarding how it could be used. The Council has not held a public hearing, yet the property has been available since October 2014. Her primary concern was the lack of a public process. If the Council submits an offer of $1 million, obviously the City would not be able to purchase it for $1 million if the church is offering $2.4 million but it would extend the time to discuss offering more and the State has the offsets to consider. Councilmember Petso commented the Council generally discusses price in executive session. If the Council has that discussion now or next week, is it still an executive session matter or is it okay to discuss in open session. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained property acquisition is discussed in executive session when public knowledge of the price the City is willing to pay was likely to result in an increased price. He did not know the Council’s top number; that was the type of thing that should be discussed in executive session. Given that the bids of $2,4 million, $1.2 million and $1 million have been made public, the Council could have a general discussion about whether they are interested in that ballpark without settling on a specific number. It may be that that discussion will come to a quick resolution and there is no need for an executive session. Packet Page 22 of 224 Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding of Mr. Taraday’s explanation if the Council wanted to discuss a different price, an executive session would be appropriate for that topic but the Council was not necessarily the breaking law discussing it in open session. Mr. Taraday said any subsequent or higher offer the Council directed staff to make would almost immediately be made a matter of public record once it was submitted to the State. In this instance, there may be little reason to have continued discussion in executive session. Councilmember Petso said she heard tonight the City has until July 15 to revise its offer. Mr. Taraday said the State indicated last week they would be willing to wait until then to see if the City was willing to “get in the game.” Councilmember Petso said she did not recall being told that. Mr. Taraday said if she was told, it would have been confidentially; he was uncertain how the citizen found out. Councilmember Petso requested the Council discuss this at the July 14 meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was always of the opinion that the building did have some value but the Council did not have a goal for the building. There have been comments in My Edmonds News and she has received emails and phone calls; Ms. Anttilla suggested using it as a central park. She pointed out there will be a beautiful Veterans Plaza two blocks from the 4th Avenue corridor and the 9/11 memorial will be located in another plaza. She preferred to stop talking about the Edmonds Conference Center in light of the upcoming senior center/community center, Veterans Plaza, Fallen Firefighters Memorial Park as well as the Museum plaza in that area. The City does not need an aged building or even a new park among its assets. Her main goal was purchasing civic fields, a cost of $1 million, which would be beneficial to everyone and does not require any demolition. Councilmember Bloom remarked there were a lot of ideas tossed around about how the property could be used. If a church purchases the property, there is no opportunity for economic development. She envisioned a different pool of money could be accessed to purchase the building versus the civic fields because it is not open space. The people she talked to are interested in purchasing the property for a variety of purposes. Purchasing the building, tearing it down and making the property into a park was only one idea; other ideas included a parking lot, using the building as a business incubator or for ArtWorks, in a cooperative relationship with Edmonds Center for the Arts or as a conference center. She strongly believed the Council owed it to the public to have a conversation about it. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO EXTEND MEETING TO 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed Councilmember Mesaros contacted her and said he was not interested in putting any more money into this beyond the bid the City submitted. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she had difficulty justifying that level of spending for a building in the middle of a residential area with a tall apartment on one side. She did not see the value of the building compared to many other areas of Edmonds. She agreed with Councilmember Mesaros that it would be a good buy to potentially use the property for other things 10-15 year in the future when the City may have the money to develop something there. She anticipated the City would need to spend over $2 million to purchase the building. She asked about the City have the first right to purchase the building. Mr. Taraday said the State’s notice and policy state a governmental agency like Edmonds would be entitled to some priority upon disposition of the property. In a conference call he and Mr. Doherty had with the State last week regarding that prioritization, the State essentially said that was an internal policy, not legally binding and they would sell the property to the highest bidder. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the current highest bid is $2.4 million with an escalator to $2.8 million. Mr. Taraday agreed, anticipating $2.4 would be the sale price as there was currently no other offer near $2.4 million. If the City wanted to compete with the church that offered $2.4 million, the City may theoretically need to bid up to $2.8 million to outbid them. Council President Fraley-Monillas Packet Page 23 of 224 inquired about an escalator. Mr. Taraday explained an escalator is a clause a purchaser puts in the contract indicating that even though their offer is X, they are willing to pay X plus some amount to outbid another bidder. Councilmember Petso reiterated her request that this be scheduled on the next week’s agenda. She was uncertain she had been informed the Council had until July 15 to revise its offer and did not want to foreclose that possibility via a discussion tonight that was not even on the agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO BRING THIS BACK AS A DISCUSSION ITEM NEXT WEEK. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2); COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON, NELSON AND PETSO VOTING YES, AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS VOTING NO. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported the legislature sort of adjourned this week; some outstanding issues still need to be resolved. He listed the funds the City received: • $500,000 for the At-Grade Waterfront Crossing Study • Approximately $15 million in projects including $10 million for Highway 99 enhancements • $2.8 million for parks projects that could include the purchase of civic playfield as well as repair of the fishing pier • $250,000 to repair the leaking ECA roof • $1.25 million for a new senior/community center • Over $600,000 for stormwater improvements in north Edmonds Mayor Earling recognized the extraordinary effort by local legislators, staff, Councilmembers, and himself. He planned to author a column that will be published Thursday regarding the projects funded by the legislature. Mayor Earling reported the legislature authorized Community Transit to seek voter approval of a 3/10th increase for extended transit service. The Community Transit Board’s July 16 meeting will include consideration of a ballot measure. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed the budget approved by the legislature includes a number of good things for Edmonds. In response to comments by Ms. Anttila, she acknowledged she did not feel it was inappropriate for the Council to hold Town Hall meetings on one issue. In the six years she has been on the Council, dozens of issues have arisen that are of great concern to citizens. Council communication with citizens has included live testimony at Council meetings, emails, phone calls as well as individual meetings. The Council has never held Town Hall meetings on individual issues. Council has the ability to vote whatever way they wish; no one person has the ability to say whether something will not occur. If a Councilmember makes a motion to do something, the Council votes and with four affirmative votes, a matter can proceed. It does not matter what the Council President wants to do; the Council makes that decision. Councilmember Nelson thanked the Chamber of Commerce for a wonderful 4th of July parade and City staff who worked on the parade route and providing street closures as well as all the volunteers. It was a wonderful celebration of the United States’ independence. Packet Page 24 of 224 Councilmember Bloom advised she has made a formal request for the Council to discuss the crumb rubber fields on the former Woodway High School where three school programs operate. She looked forward to hearing from Mr. Taraday regarding that and hoped it could be scheduled on the agenda soon. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember Nelson’s comments; it was a great parade. She thanked staff, the Chamber and everyone involved. Councilmember Johnson reported there are a lot of events this week: • July 15 Marina Beach open house in the Plaza Room o Virtual open house available via the City’s website July 9-21 • July 15 Planning Board meeting will consider the Critical Areas Ordinance • July 16 Mayor Earling’s Town Hall meeting at the hospital • Sunday Concerts in the Park 3:00 PM, first concert Ballard Sedentary Sousa Band • July 16 Walk Back in Time at the Edmonds Cemetery at 1:00 p.m. 13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 10:15 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 that the executive session would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Action may 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, and Nelson. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, and City Clerk Scott Passey. At 10:27 p.m., Mayor Earling emerged from the Jury Meeting Room to announce that the executive session would be extended for approximately 15 minutes. The executive session concluded at 10:44 p.m. 14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:45 p.m. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ACCEPT THE OFFER OF A FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIMS BROUGHT BY FINIS TUPPER UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AS SET FORTH IN THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY CAUSE NUMBER 15-2-02484-0 IN EXCHANGE FOR THE PAYMENT OF $50,269.25 AND DIRECT THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE FORMAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO BE DRAFTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:46 p.m. Packet Page 25 of 224 AM-7852 4. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/14/2015 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 #215079 through #215168 dated July 9, 2015 for $219,169.51. Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue: Expenditure:219,169.51 Fiscal Impact: Claims $219,169.51 Attachments Claim cks 07-09-15 Project Numbers 07-09-15 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 07/09/2015 08:44 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 07/09/2015 10:33 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/09/2015 10:50 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/09/2015 02:42 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 07/09/2015 08:33 AM Packet Page 26 of 224 Final Approval Date: 07/09/2015 Packet Page 27 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215079 7/9/2015 075272 7500 BLDG LLC E1CA.7500 Building E1CA.7500 BUILIDNG TCE, IMPROVEMENTS, LA E1CA.7500 Builidng, TCE, Improvements, 112.200.68.595.20.61.00 13,500.00 Total :13,500.00 215080 7/9/2015 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 715349 P&R SPRING PICKLEBALL SHIRTS P&R SPRING PICKLEBALL SHIRTS 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 34.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 3.30 P&R SPRING VOLLEYBALL SHIRTS-CO-ED715414 P&R SPRING VOLLEYBALL SHIRTS-CO-ED 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 75.14 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 7.14 P&R BEACH DOCENT SHIRTS715451 P&R BEACH DOCENT SHIRTS 001.000.64.571.23.24.00 102.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.23.24.00 9.73 Total :232.42 215081 7/9/2015 000195 ACCENT DESIGN 2015061005 Brackett Room - Blind Repairs Brackett Room - Blind Repairs 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 5.23 Total :60.23 215082 7/9/2015 074488 ALPHA COURIER INC F085EX137 WWTP - COURIER SERVICE, LABORATORY Samples delivered to Rainier Enviro 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 62.30 Total :62.30 215083 7/9/2015 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 20165 FLOWER POLES-SARVIS 1Page: Packet Page 28 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215083 7/9/2015 (Continued)069667 AMERICAN MARKETING FLOWER POLES-SARVIS 127.200.64.573.20.41.00 129.33 9.5% Sales Tax 127.200.64.573.20.41.00 12.29 Total :141.62 215084 7/9/2015 074695 AMERICAN MESSAGING W4101046PG Water Watch Pager Water Watch Pager 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 4.46 Total :4.46 215085 7/9/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988095704 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80 mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 77.74 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.39 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1988095705 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 66.62 Total :155.91 215086 7/9/2015 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0765419-IN WWTP - DIESEL FUEL ULSD #2 dyed bulk fuel - 2601 gallons 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 5,635.74 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 535.40 Total :6,171.14 215087 7/9/2015 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 82030 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 90.93 2Page: Packet Page 29 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215087 7/9/2015 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 90.93 UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 93.69 UB Outsourcing area # 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 340.74 UB Outsourcing area # 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 340.74 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 8.73 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 8.73 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 8.99 Total :983.48 215088 7/9/2015 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0615 New hire background checks New hire background checks 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 586.00 Total :586.00 215089 7/9/2015 002258 BENS EVER READY 10804 Fleet - Service and Replace Vehicle Fleet - Service and Replace Vehicle 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 361.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 34.30 Total :395.30 215090 7/9/2015 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0841105-IN Fleet Auto Propane sales tax reversal Fleet Auto Propane sales tax reversal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 -920.28 Fleet Auto Propane 604 Gal4326 Fleet Auto Propane 604 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 983.96 Fleet Auto Propane 620.1 Gal4385 3Page: Packet Page 30 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215090 7/9/2015 (Continued)074307 BLUE STAR GAS Fleet Auto Propane 620.1 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 1,024.84 Total :1,088.52 215091 7/9/2015 067391 BRAT WEAR 15566 INV#15566 - EDMONDS PD - GRIMES T-SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 31.25 SWEATSHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 25.00 SCREEN PRINT NAME ON 7 ITEMS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 112.00 SWEATPANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 28.50 SHORTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 30.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 24.63 L/S RAGLAN T SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 31.98 INV#15604 - EDMONDS PD - GRIMES15604 5.11 TDU RIPSTOP PANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 141.75 DRESS SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 41.00 STITCH CREASES IN SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 30.00 B/W BELT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 18.95 3" CLIP ON TIE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.95 MECHANIC GLOVE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 27.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 25.43 4Page: Packet Page 31 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :576.942150917/9/2015 067391 067391 BRAT WEAR 215092 7/9/2015 002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC IM81378 EQ98SO - Part for Storm Vehicle EQ98SO - Part for Storm Vehicle 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 239.36 Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 7.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 23.49 FreightIM81878 Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 9.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 0.95 Total :281.70 215093 7/9/2015 075280 BYRUM, RICHARD 6/2-6/30 UMP 6/2-6/30/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 6/2-6/30/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 250.00 Total :250.00 215094 7/9/2015 075295 CARDNO GS INC 90388-001 City Hall - Facility Condition City Hall - Facility Condition 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 37,824.10 Total :37,824.10 215095 7/9/2015 003330 CASCADE TROPHY 34280 Employee Service Awards Employee Service Awards 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 591.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 56.15 Total :647.15 215096 7/9/2015 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN06151021 HELIUM TANK RENTAL FOR GYMNASTICS HELIUM TANK RENTAL FOR GYMNASTICS 001.000.64.571.28.45.00 12.75 5Page: Packet Page 32 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215096 7/9/2015 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.28.45.00 1.21 Total :13.96 215097 7/9/2015 075291 CLEARSTREAM RECYCLING 64062 Recycle: Billboards and sign holders Recycle: Billboards and sign holders 421.000.74.537.90.49.00 140.00 Freight 421.000.74.537.90.49.00 41.35 Total :181.35 215098 7/9/2015 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC JUL-15 C/A CITYOFED00001 Jul-15 Fiber Optics Internet Connection 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 406.10 Total :406.10 215099 7/9/2015 062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC 27269 Unit 24 - Repairs, remaining balance Unit 24 - Repairs, remaining balance 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1,000.00 Total :1,000.00 215100 7/9/2015 069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC 3-F1859 E102FM New 2015 Ford Van Replacing Unit E102FM New 2015 Ford Van Replacing Unit 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 29,859.75 Total :29,859.75 215101 7/9/2015 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING JUNE 2015 DRY CLEANING MAY/JUNE 2015 - EDMONDS PD CLEANING/LAUNDRY MAY/JUNE 2015 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 641.53 Total :641.53 215102 7/9/2015 074444 DATAQUEST LLC CIEDMONDS-20150630 EDMONDS PD JUNE 2015 CREDIT CHECKS CREDIT CHECK - PHILLIPS 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 20.00 CREDIT CHECK - ADAMS 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 20.00 6Page: Packet Page 33 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :40.002151027/9/2015 074444 074444 DATAQUEST LLC 215103 7/9/2015 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 358598 E1CA.SERVICES THRU 6/13/15 E1CA.Services thru 6/13/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 624.47 E1CA.Services thru 6/13/15 112.200.68.595.20.61.00 5,097.35 Total :5,721.82 215104 7/9/2015 073772 DIRECT MATTERS 53623 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 142.19 Total :142.19 215105 7/9/2015 007253 DUNN LUMBER 3254201 Grandstands - Lumber Grandstands - Lumber 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 56.17 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.34 PM FRAMING LUMBER, DRIED STUD3287607 PM FRAMING LUMBER, DRIED STUD 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 99.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.49 Total :170.90 215106 7/9/2015 073910 EDMONDS COMMUNITY SOLAR COOP 1st Half 2015 FAC Solar Elect System Production FAC Solar Elect System Production 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 715.06 Total :715.06 215107 7/9/2015 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2015-07-01 07/15 RECREATION SERVICES CONTRACT FEE 07/15 Recreation Services Contract Fee 001.000.39.569.10.41.00 5,000.00 Total :5,000.00 215108 7/9/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 114874 COPIER MAINT 7Page: Packet Page 34 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215108 7/9/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.512.50.48.00 9.87 WATER SEWER COPY USE115114 Water Sewer Copy Use~ 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 48.75 Water Sewer Copy Use~ 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 48.74 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.63 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.63 PW COPY USE115116 PW Copy Use~ 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 25.92 PW Copy Use~ 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 14.69 PW Copy Use~ 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 14.69 PW Copy Use~ 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.37 PW Copy Use~ 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.37 PW Copy Use~ 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.37 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 2.46 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 1.40 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 1.40 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.99 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.99 8Page: Packet Page 35 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215108 7/9/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.97 FLEET COPY USE115126 Fleet Copy Use 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.70 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.83 P&R COPIER C5051 #A7027115482 1 P&R COPIER C5051 #A7027 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 126.57 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 COPIER115483 Excess meter charges 05/30/15 - 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 77.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 7.39 COPIER MAINT115564 COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.512.50.48.00 91.99 Total :524.52 215109 7/9/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH638967 Advertising for Public Defender RFQ Advertising for Public Defender RFQ 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 61.92 Legal notice: AMD 2014 0005EDH640460 Legal notice: AMD 2014 0005 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 51.60 Legal Notice: AMD 2015 0001EDH640464 Legal Notice: AMD 2015 0001 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 49.88 CITY NOTICESEDH640662 CITY NOTICES ~ 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 43.00 CITY ORDINANCESEDH640667 CITY ORDINANCES - SPIRIT SPECTRUM L.P., 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 34.40 9Page: Packet Page 36 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215109 7/9/2015 (Continued)009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD Legal Notice: PLN 2015 0024EDH642910 Legal Notice: PLN 2015 0024 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 110.08 Legal notice: PLN 2015 0026EDH642923 Legal notice: PLN 2015 0026 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 84.28 Total :435.16 215110 7/9/2015 075129 FEHR & PEERS 100971 E2AA.SERVICES THRU 3/27/15 E2AA.Services thru 3/27/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 9,823.20 E3AB.SERVICES THRU 5/29/15100972 E3AB.Services thru 5/29/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 12,373.64 Total :22,196.84 215111 7/9/2015 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 63015 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 20,000.00 Total :20,000.00 215112 7/9/2015 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 10023884 Flex Plan participant and monthly Flex Plan participant and monthly 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 85.40 Total :85.40 215113 7/9/2015 011900 FRONTIER 425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHONE & PM IP 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 Total :100.93 215114 7/9/2015 002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 140733 INV#140733 - EDMONDS PD - RICHARDSON L/S/ BLACK TDU SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 49.99 10Page: Packet Page 37 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215114 7/9/2015 (Continued)002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL SEW MANE TAG ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 1.00 CLOTH NAME TAG 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 4.95 SEW BADGE EMBLEM ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 1.00 HEAT STAMP POLICE 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 6.00 SGT CHEVRONS 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 2.95 SEW SGT CHEVRONS ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 2.50 5.11 STRYKE PANTS 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 69.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 13.15 INV#144871 - EDMONDS PD - GRIMES144871 METAL NAME TAG "GRIMES" 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 1.04 INV#147829 - EDMONDS PD - CRYSTAL147829 B/W SAM BROWNE BELT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 49.95 BELT LINER 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 17.09 BELT KEEPERS/BW 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 14.95 CUFF CASE/BW/HIDDEN SNAP 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 25.20 DBLE MAG POUCH/BW/HID SNAP 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 34.95 BELT KEEPERS/D-RING 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.95 11Page: Packet Page 38 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215114 7/9/2015 (Continued)002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL TACTICAL HARNESS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 36.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 18.62 Total :378.18 215115 7/9/2015 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA 19993 TAEKWON-DO 19993 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 19993 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 150.00 Total :150.00 215116 7/9/2015 072515 GOOGLE INC 2014570206 BILLING ID# 5030-2931-5908 Google Apps Usage - Jun-2015 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 31.00 Total :31.00 215117 7/9/2015 012199 GRAINGER 9762093087 Fac Maint - Batteries Fac Maint - Batteries 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 41.86 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.99 Fac Maint #26 Truck Tool - Cordless9771594489 Fac Maint #26 Truck Tool - Cordless 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 241.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 22.92 Total :309.97 215118 7/9/2015 074164 HARDY, JOHN 6/2-6/30 UMP 6/2-6/30/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 6/2-6/30/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 243.00 Total :243.00 215119 7/9/2015 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 154724 Unit EQ99RE - Switches Unit EQ99RE - Switches 12Page: Packet Page 39 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215119 7/9/2015 (Continued)012900 HARRIS FORD INC 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 67.32 9.5% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 6.40 Unit 10 - Lamp155178 Unit 10 - Lamp 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 70.02 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.65 Unit 132 - Sensor155504 Unit 132 - Sensor 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.64 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.49 Total :167.52 215120 7/9/2015 075133 HERRIN, NICOLE BID-061515 ADMINISTRATIVE WORK 6/1-6/14/15 FOR BID Administrative work for BID 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 467.00 REIMBURSEMENT FOR STAMPS, PAPERBID-062315 Reimbursement for stamps and paper for 140.000.61.558.70.31.00 13.80 Total :480.80 215121 7/9/2015 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1560166 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, FACILITIES straps, blades, and tubing 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 375.01 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 35.63 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, FACILITIES6250616 Tubing Tool 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 -12.62 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 -1.20 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, FACILITIES6595499 tubing and supplies for repair 13Page: Packet Page 40 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215121 7/9/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 138.18 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 13.13 Total :548.13 215122 7/9/2015 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 25926 E4JB.SERVICES THRU 6/20/15 E4JB.Services thru 6/20/15 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 3,909.75 WWTP - CLARIFIER C46525940 Groundwater Monitoring 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 4,511.87 Total :8,421.62 215123 7/9/2015 075309 IMAGEMASTER LLC 39513 2015 W/S REV BONDS STATEMENTS Preliminary Official Statement and 424.000.71.592.38.89.00 1,250.00 Total :1,250.00 215124 7/9/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2636192 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 -30.40 SUPPLIES2638069 SUPPLIES 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 -59.98 SUPPLIES2643766 SUPPLIES 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 154.02 DSD Office Supplies2649745 DSD Office Supplies 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 234.95 Total :298.59 215125 7/9/2015 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 3632 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNECTION Jul-15 Fiber Optics Internet Connection 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 500.00 14Page: Packet Page 41 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215125 7/9/2015 (Continued)075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 47.50 Total :547.50 215126 7/9/2015 075279 JOHNSON, RONALD 6/2-6/30 UMP 6/2-6/30/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 6/2-6/30/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 275.00 Total :275.00 215127 7/9/2015 066489 KENT D BRUCE CO LLC 578 Unit E100PO - Magnetic Mic Conversion Unit E100PO - Magnetic Mic Conversion 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 69.90 Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 6.96 9.5% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 7.30 Unit E100PO - Inner Edge614 Unit E100PO - Inner Edge 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 609.00 Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 9.01 9.5% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 58.71 Total :760.88 215128 7/9/2015 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 06122015-03 City Car Washes City Car Washes 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 5.03 Total :5.03 215129 7/9/2015 068493 L.E.E.D.06271507 INV#06271507 - EDMONDS PD - SWAT DEFTEC 40MM ROUND CS 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 243.00 DEFTEC 40MM ROUND OC 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 228.72 15Page: Packet Page 42 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215129 7/9/2015 (Continued)068493 L.E.E.D. DEFTEC TRICHAMBER CS GRENADES 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 138.48 Freight 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 115.95 9.5% Sales Tax 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 68.98 Total :795.13 215130 7/9/2015 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4442816 INV#4442816 ACCT#2185-952778-819 EDMONDS SHRED 3 TOTES @$4.38 6/24/15 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 13.14 Total :13.14 215131 7/9/2015 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 80500086029 3 Truck Casing Refunds 3 Truck Casing Refunds 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -165.00 Fleet Tire Inventory Unit 10680500114595 Fleet Tire Inventory Unit 106 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 1,554.44 Tire Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 2.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 147.67 Total :1,539.11 215132 7/9/2015 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 140929 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, FACILITIES HVAC service 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 315.74 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 30.00 Total :345.74 215133 7/9/2015 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 008530-00 SPRAY PARK QUICK FIX, COUPLER, BRZ COUP, SPRAY PARK QUICK FIX, COUPLER, BRZ 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 209.73 16Page: Packet Page 43 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215133 7/9/2015 (Continued)074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 19.92 Total :229.65 215134 7/9/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 33608612 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL Gray PVC, couplings and fittings 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 138.49 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 10.73 Total :149.22 215135 7/9/2015 074979 MITEL BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC 99014724 TELEPHONE SYSTEM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE Telephone system annual maintenance S/W 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 1,538.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 146.16 Total :1,684.61 215136 7/9/2015 075277 MONSON, JAMES 6/2-6/30 UMP 6/2-6/30-15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 6/2-6/30-15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 300.00 Total :300.00 215137 7/9/2015 073076 MY ALARM CENTER 5795675 Museum - Alarm Monitoring 7/1-12/31/15 Museum - Alarm Monitoring 7/1-12/31/15 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 207.00 Total :207.00 215138 7/9/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1250690 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY BUCKET MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 275.65 Total :275.65 215139 7/9/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 809481 Water Sewer - Wall Files Water Sewer - Wall Files 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 15.82 17Page: Packet Page 44 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215139 7/9/2015 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC Water Sewer - Wall Files 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 15.82 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.51 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.49 Water Quality - HP Toner835797 Water Quality - HP Toner 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 140.85 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 13.39 Water Sewer - Wall Files852334 Water Sewer - Wall Files 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 63.28 Water Sewer - Wall Files 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 63.28 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 6.02 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.01 Water Sewer - Wall Files876025 Water Sewer - Wall Files 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 47.46 Water Sewer - Wall Files 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 47.46 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.51 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.50 Total :431.40 215140 7/9/2015 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0000130 PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST SW & 84TH AV PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST SW & 84TH 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.53 CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW0001520 18Page: Packet Page 45 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215140 7/9/2015 (Continued)026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 40.02 CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH ST SW0001530 CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 83.54 SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR1040002930 SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR104 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 30.91 PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TH PL SW0026390 PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TH PL SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.18 Total :187.18 215141 7/9/2015 060945 PACIFIC POWER BATTERIES 19002360 Unit 473 - Lever Operated Switch Unit 473 - Lever Operated Switch 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 22.90 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.18 Total :25.08 215142 7/9/2015 074422 PARTSMASTER, DIV OF NCH CORP 20909443 Fleet Shop Tools Fleet Shop Tools 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 265.71 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 16.22 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 26.79 Total :308.72 215143 7/9/2015 073070 PERRINE, JULIE 20121 3D MULTI MEDIA 20121 3D MULTI MEDIA INSTRUCTION 20121 3D MULTI MEDIA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 674.50 Total :674.50 215144 7/9/2015 008475 PETTY CASH JULY 2015 FAC MAINT - MILEAGE D JAMES 19Page: Packet Page 46 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215144 7/9/2015 (Continued)008475 PETTY CASH FAC MAINT - MILEAGE D JAMES 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 9.14 FAC MAINT - MILEAGE S BRINKLEY 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 35.59 FAC MAINT MILEAGE S BRINKLEY 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 37.95 WATER - SUPPLIES 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 42.45 SEWER - DUMP FEES 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 60.00 STREET - CELL PHONE CASE AND CORD 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 123.16 STORM - CELL PHONE CASE 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 16.41 STORM - 25 YR PLAQUE - J WARD 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 10.95 STORM - HOOK FOR COAT 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 3.22 Total :338.87 215145 7/9/2015 073546 PITNEY BOWES RESERVE ACCOUNT 07072015 REPLENISH POSTAGE METER REPLENISH POSTAGE METER 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 8,000.00 Total :8,000.00 215146 7/9/2015 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC H042056 Plaza Rm - Parts Plaza Rm - Parts 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 150.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.32 Plaza Rm - PartsH043882 Plaza Rm - Parts 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 65.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.18 20Page: Packet Page 47 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215146 7/9/2015 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC City Hall - Elect SuppliesH071133 City Hall - Elect Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 206.14 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.58 Fac Maint - Elect SuppliesH071150 Fac Maint - Elect Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 25.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.40 WWTP - SUPPLIES, ELECTRICH105074 1/2" & 3/4" galv steel conduit 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 404.13 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 38.39 City Park - Elect SuppliesH145176 City Park - Elect Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.94 Cemetary - Elect SuppliesH152752 Cemetary - Elect Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 25.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.45 Fac Maint - Elect SuppliesH152892 Fac Maint - Elect Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 57.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.43 Total :1,045.32 215147 7/9/2015 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 15-039S Q3-2015 CLEAN AIR ASSESSMENT Q3-15 Clean Air Assessment per RCW 001.000.39.553.70.51.00 7,502.00 21Page: Packet Page 48 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :7,502.002151477/9/2015 030400 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 215148 7/9/2015 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 15-1571 COURT SECURITY COURT SECURITY 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 2,891.25 Total :2,891.25 215149 7/9/2015 074712 RAINIER ENVIRONMENTAL LAB 1877 WWTP - ACUTE TESTING Fathead acute test & ~ 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 1,200.00 Total :1,200.00 215150 7/9/2015 070042 RICOH USA INC 94995938 Lease DSD RICOH MP171SPF copier/printer Lease DSD RICOH MP171SPF copier/printer 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 30.66 Total :30.66 215151 7/9/2015 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 5-005095 Unit 447 - Parts Unit 447 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 85.10 Unit 473 - Parts5-005115 Unit 473 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 157.19 Total :242.29 215152 7/9/2015 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY JUNE 2015 INVOICE 6/30/15 ACCT#70014 - EDMONDS PD #171475 9 NPC - 6/11/15 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 105.39 #172291 2 NPC - 6/25/15 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 23.42 Total :128.81 215153 7/9/2015 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC 26957 14108-Support June 2015 work completed 14108-Support June 2015 work completed 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 2,325.00 Total :2,325.00 22Page: Packet Page 49 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215154 7/9/2015 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 3629-6 Grandstand - Paint Supplies Grandstand - Paint Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.65 Grandstands - Paint Supplies6554-2 Grandstands - Paint Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 42.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.00 City Hall - Paint Supplies7488-2 City Hall - Paint Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 36.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.46 Total :105.02 215155 7/9/2015 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0187626-IN Unit E100PO - Window Mount, Ion Mirror Unit E100PO - Window Mount, Ion Mirror 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 238.56 Unit 63 - Strobe Tube0187897-IN Unit 63 - Strobe Tube 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 77.00 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.99 Unit E102FM - Amber0188035-IN Unit E102FM - Amber 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 291.96 Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 9.53 Total :627.04 215156 7/9/2015 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-307245 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 37.44 9.5% Sales Tax 23Page: Packet Page 50 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215156 7/9/2015 (Continued)036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 3.56 Total :41.00 215157 7/9/2015 066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS I000384243 E5CA.SERVICES THRU 5/31/15 E5CA.Services thru 5/31/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 50.75 E5CA.Services thru 5/31/15 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 2,432.73 Total :2,483.48 215158 7/9/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2006-6395-3 ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / METER 100025 ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 267.94 BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 RAILROAD AVE2010-5432-7 BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 RAILROAD 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 98.63 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 RAILROAD AV2021-3965-5 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 RAILROAD 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 40.53 WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE / NOT MET2025-7952-0 WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE / NOT 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 8.80 Total :415.90 215159 7/9/2015 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 Total :29.95 215160 7/9/2015 046200 STATE OF WASHINGTON Q2-15 Leasehold Tax Q2-15 LEASEHOLD TAX LIABILITY Q2-15 LEASEHOLD TAX LIABILITY 001.000.237.220 5,873.52 Total :5,873.52 215161 7/9/2015 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3003075873 INV#3003075873 CUST#6076358 - EDMONDS PD MINIMUM MONTHLY CHARGE 24Page: Packet Page 51 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215161 7/9/2015 (Continued)071585 STERICYCLE INC 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 10.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 0.36 Total :10.36 215162 7/9/2015 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9747777241 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 56.92 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 75.55 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 76.91 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Development 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 95.54 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 658.43 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 iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 287.99 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 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 947.78 25Page: Packet Page 52 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215162 7/9/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Air cards Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 800.24 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 26.92 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 7.69 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 26.92 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 7.69 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 7.69 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Street Dept 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 172.45 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Fleet 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 55.53 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 121.24 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 121.24 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 iPad Cell Service Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 175.56 iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 217.99 C/A 571242650-00019747777241 Equipment Bill Incentive Credit on 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 -150.00 C/A 772540262-000019747900752 26Page: Packet Page 53 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215162 7/9/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Lift Station access 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 85.58 Total :5,325.93 215163 7/9/2015 074231 VPCI 36021 LASERFICHE ANNUAL SOFTWARE AND MAINTENAN Laserfiche Annual Software and 001.000.62.524.10.48.00 2,937.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.48.00 279.06 Total :3,216.54 215164 7/9/2015 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO 491644 Fac Maint - Towels, TT, Blocks, Supplies Fac Maint - Towels, TT, Blocks, Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 221.43 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.04 Total :242.47 215165 7/9/2015 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS I15-315 CHIP BRUSH PILE AT SIERRA PARK CHIP BRUSH PILE AT SIERRA PARK 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 240.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 22.80 PRUNE TREES AND CLEANUP SUNSET AND MAINI15-316 PRUNE TREES AND CLEANUP SUNSET AND MAIN 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 280.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 26.60 REMOVE DEAD TREE, CLEAN UP PINE RIDGE PAI15-317 REMOVE DEAD TREE, CLEAN UP PINE RIDGE 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 1,350.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 128.25 REMOVE DEAD TREES, LIMBS, CLEAN WWTPI15-319 REMOVE DEAD TREES, LIMBS, CLEAN WWTP 27Page: Packet Page 54 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215165 7/9/2015 (Continued)067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 1,400.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 133.00 Total :3,580.65 215166 7/9/2015 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6740 INV#6740 - EDMONDS PD POLICE DEPT BUS CARD MASTER 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 389.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 36.96 INV#6741 - EDMONDS PD6741 PRINTING 6 NEW CARDS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 100.02 SET UP OF 6 NAMES FOR CARDS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 72.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 16.34 Total :614.32 215167 7/9/2015 072834 WESTERN OFFICE INTERIORS 22258 INV#22258 - EDMONDS PD KNOLL REPLACEMENT SEATS 001.000.41.521.11.48.00 399.60 MED PNEUMATIC CYLINDERS 001.000.41.521.11.48.00 131.40 HIGH PERFORMANCE ARM RESTS 001.000.41.521.11.48.00 410.40 MECHANISM ASSEMBLY W/LEVERS 001.000.41.521.11.48.00 488.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.48.00 135.83 Total :1,565.63 215168 7/9/2015 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 12920 PM PLANTS: GOLDFLAME SPIRAEA, CINQUEFOIL PM PLANTS: GOLDFLAME SPIRAEA, CINQUEFOIL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 94.40 28Page: Packet Page 55 of 224 07/08/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 4:18:33PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215168 7/9/2015 (Continued)064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.97 Total :103.37 Bank total :219,169.5190 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 219,169.51Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report90 29Page: Packet Page 56 of 224 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 7/8/2015 Packet Page 57 of 224 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 7/8/2015 Packet Page 58 of 224 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 7/8/2015 Packet Page 59 of 224 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 7/8/2015 Packet Page 60 of 224 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 7/8/2015 Packet Page 61 of 224 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 7/8/2015 Packet Page 62 of 224 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 7/8/2015 Packet Page 63 of 224 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 7/8/2015 Packet Page 64 of 224 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 7/8/2015 Packet Page 65 of 224 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 7/8/2015 Packet Page 66 of 224 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 7/8/2015 Packet Page 67 of 224 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 7/8/2015 Packet Page 68 of 224 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 7/8/2015 Packet Page 69 of 224 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 7/8/2015 Packet Page 70 of 224 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 7/8/2015 Packet Page 71 of 224 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 7/8/2015 Packet Page 72 of 224 AM-7798 4. C. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/14/2015 Time:Consent Submitted For:Pamela Randolph Submitted By:Pamela Randolph Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Forward to Consent Information Subject Title Final Acceptance for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Interior Improvements Project by Tec Construction Inc. Recommendation It is recommended that Council approve Final Acceptance of the project. Previous Council Action Request to advertise was referred to full Council by Parks, Planning, and Public Works Committee on February 11, 2014. Request to advertise was authorized by full Council on February 18, 2014. Request authorization to award construction contract for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Interior Improvements Project to Tec Construction Inc. and authorization for Mayor Earling to sign the contract for $312,000 was presented to the Parks, Planning and Public Works committee on 4.8.14. This request was forwarded to the 4.15.14 City Council consent agenda and approved Narrative The Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Upgrade will repair, replace and remodel the existing locker rooms, a control room (4 work stations) and upgrade the lunchroom facility to accomodate staff needs. The existing building was constructed in 1988. The mens locker room was undersized for the number of occupants. The womens locker room was oversized for the typical number of occupants. The original lockers were not sized appropriatly and the "group" shower walls, grout and and tile floors showed signs of significant deterioration. The lunchroom lacked personal food storage space, an oven and adaquate counter space to prepare lunches. The control room, which is shared by both Operator and Maintenance Leads and the Pretreatment Technician was drab, had mismatched tile and furnishings. The enire space was in need of paint. The project was awarded to TEC Construction Inc. for $341,640, which includes tax. There were a total of six approved change orders amounting in an increase of $25,753.44 including tax for a total project cost of $367,393.44 which will be shared by our Wastewater Treatment Partners. The project has been finished and all paper work complete. Upon acceptance, the retainage account will Packet Page 73 of 224 be released. Substantial completion was issued on September 29, 2014 and Physical Completion was issued on June 5, 2015. Attachments Project accounting summary Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/11/2015 03:47 PM Public Works Phil Williams 06/11/2015 04:31 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 06/12/2015 05:54 AM Mayor Dave Earling 06/12/2015 08:10 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 06/12/2015 09:04 AM Form Started By: Pamela Randolph Started On: 06/05/2015 03:13 PM Final Approval Date: 06/12/2015 Packet Page 74 of 224 CONTRACT TITLE BARS / PROJECT NUMBERS Contract Amount 312,000.00$ Change Order No. 1 830.21$ Change Order No. 2 10,121.43$ Change Order No. 3 9,233.01$ Change Order No. 4 6,059.84$ Change Order No. 5 (1,396.21)$ Change Order No. 6 (1,329.16)$ Adjusted Contract Amt 335,519.12$ Total completed to date 335,519.12$ Work Completed Thru 06/05/15 Sales Tax - 9.5%31,874.32$ Total (+ tax)367,393.44$ Less: Previous Payments:Previous Retainages: No. 1 35,584.65$ No. 1 1,702.62$ No. 2 53,761.54$ No. 2 2,572.32$ No. 3 88,615.15$ No. 3 4,239.96$ No. 4 97,051.78$ No. 4 4,643.62$ No. 5 66,845.13$ No. 5 3,198.33$ No. 6 8,759.24$ No. 6 419.10$ Total 350,617.49$ Total 16,775.95$ 367,393.44$ Waste Water Treatment Plant Interior Remodel - C411 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 (c411.tp.wtp) Packet Page 75 of 224 AM-7854 5. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/14/2015 Time:5 Minutes Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Renee McRae Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Information Information Subject Title Proclamation in recognition of Park and Recreation Month, July 2015 Recommendation Join the Mayor in proclaiming July as Park and Recreation month in Edmonds. Previous Council Action Narrative This July we’re celebrating 30 years of Park and Recreation Month and the enduring importance of parks and recreation for the world. From the start, parks were created to serve the people—to give them a place to appreciate nature, exercise, socialize and have fun. This mission lives on and will continue to intensify into the future. This July, join us in celebrating the past, present and future of parks and recreation! In honor of the many cultural and recreational programs and outdoor opportunities available in Edmonds, Mayor Earling has proclaimed July 2015 as Park and Recreation Month in Edmonds. The Mayor will present the proclamation to Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director. Attachments Attachment 1 - Parks and Rec Proclamation 2015 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 07/09/2015 10:33 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/09/2015 10:50 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/09/2015 02:42 PM Form Started By: Renee McRae Started On: 07/09/2015 08:50 AM Final Approval Date: 07/09/2015 Packet Page 76 of 224 Packet Page 77 of 224 AM-7853 7. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/14/2015 Time:10 Minutes Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Scott James Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Update City's Investment Policy Recommendation Council Motion: Approve Resolution No. XXXX, Amending City's Investment Policy. Previous Council Action Narrative The Investment Policy was approved by City Council in April of 2007. Subsequently to the original approval of the policy in 2007, Council authorized staff to invest in the Snohomish County Investment Pool and also eliminated the Finance Committee. The proposed amendments to the Investment Policy addresses both of these Council approved changes and also adds a provision to include City deposits into the investment diversification formula. 1) Section 11.2 is amended to allow a maximum of 75% of the City's investment portfolio to be invested into the Snohomish County Investment Pool. 2) Section 11.5 is a new provision to the investment diversity calculation that would include City bank deposits as part of the calculation. 3) Sections 11.4 and 16 referenced the City's Finance Committee. The proposed amendments would remove both of these reference from the Investment Policy. Attachments Investment Policy Investment Policy Resolution Presentation Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 07/09/2015 10:30 AM Packet Page 78 of 224 City Clerk Scott Passey 07/09/2015 10:33 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/09/2015 10:50 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/09/2015 02:42 PM Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 07/09/2015 08:47 AM Final Approval Date: 07/09/2015 Packet Page 79 of 224 1. Policy It is the policy of the City of Edmonds to invest public funds in a manner which will provide maximum security with the highest investment return while meeting the daily cash flow demands of the City of Edmonds and conforming to all state and local statutes governing the investment of public funds. 2. Scope This investment policy applies to all financial assets of the City of Edmonds. These funds are accounted for in the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and include the following: • General Fund • Special Revenue Funds • Capital Project Funds • Enterprise Funds • Trust and Agency Funds • Retirement/Pension Funds 3. Prudence Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived. The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the "prudent person" CITY OF EDMONDS INVESTMENT POLICY Subject: Investment Policy Original Policy Date: April 4, 2007 Originating Department: Finance Division Approved By: Shawn HunstockScott James, Director, Finance & Information Services Packet Page 80 of 224 standard and shall be applied in the context of managing an overall portfolio. Investment officers acting in accordance with written procedures and the investment policy and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments. 4. Objective The primary objectives, in priority order, of the City’s investment activities shall be: • Safety: Safety of the principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments of the City of Edmonds shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. To obtain this objective, diversification is required in order that potential losses on individual securities do not exceed the income generated from the remainder of the portfolio. • Liquidity: The City’s investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City of Edmonds to meet all operating requirements that might be reasonably anticipated. • Return on Investment: The City’s investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the City’s investment risk constraints and the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio. 5. Delegation of Authority Authority to manage the City’s investment program is hereby delegated to the Finance Director who will act as the City’s Investment Officer and Treasurer. The Finance Director shall establish written procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent with this investment policy. Procedures should include reference to: safekeeping, PSA master repurchase agreements, wire transfer agreements, custody agreements and investment related banking services contracts. Such procedures shall include explicit delegation of authority to persons responsible for investment transactions. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the Finance Director, whom shall act as the City’s Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the activities of subordinate officials. 6. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business Packet Page 81 of 224 activity that may conflict with the proper execution of the investment program, or may impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Employees and investment officials shall disclose to the City Council any material financial interests in financial institutions that conduct business within this jurisdiction, and they shall further disclose any personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the City’s portfolio. Employees and officers shall subordinate their personal investment transactions to those of the City of Edmonds, particularly with regard to the timing of purchases and sales. 7. Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions The Treasurer will maintain a list of financial institutions authorized to provide investment services. In addition, a list will also be maintained of approved security broker/dealers selected by credit worthiness. These may include "primary" dealers or regional dealers that qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15C3-1 (uniform net capital rule). No public deposits shall be made except in qualified public depositaries as provided in Chapter 39.58 RCW. All brokers/dealers and financial institutions who desire to do business with the City of Edmonds must supply the Treasurer with the following: • Audited financial statements • Proof of National Association of Securities Dealers certification • Certification of having read the City’s investment policy • Proof of state registration • Copy of city and state business licenses The Treasurer will conduct an annual review of the financial condition of firms. A current audited financial statement is required to be on file for each financial institution and broker/dealer with whom the City of Edmonds invests. Investment purchases from any institution or broker/dealer which does not satisfy the criteria established herein must be approved in advance by the City Council. 8. Authorized and Suitable Investments The City of Edmonds is empowered to invest in the following types of securities: • U.S. Government obligations, U.S. government agency obligations, and U.S. government instrumentality obligations, which have a liquid market with a readily determinable market value; • U.S. Treasury securities maturing in less than ten (10) years; Packet Page 82 of 224 • Fully insured or collateralized certificates of deposit, and other evidences of deposit, at qualified financial institutions that are approved by the Washington Public Deposit Protection Commission (WPDPC). • Banker’s acceptances, and commercial paper rated in the highest tier by a nationally recognized rating agency; • Investment-grade obligations of state, local governments and public authorities located within the State of Washington; • Local government investment pools, either state-administered or through joint powers statutes and other intergovernmental agreement legislation. 9. Collateralization Collateralization is required on repurchase agreements. In order to anticipate market changes and provide a level of security for all funds, the collateralization level will be (102%) of market value of principal and accrued interest. Pursuant to state statutes (RCW 35.98) the deposit of public funds and the placement of investment deposits (i.e. time deposits, money market deposit accounts and savings deposits of public funds) will be placed only with institutions approved by the Washington Public Deposit Protection Commission (PDPC) as eligible for deposit of public funds. The maximum amount placed with any one depository will not exceed the net worth of the institution as determined by the PDPC. In accordance with PDPD regulations, such investments are 100% collateralized. Collateral will always be held by an independent third party with whom the entity has a current custodial agreement. A clearly marked evidence of ownership (safekeeping receipt) must be supplied to the City and retained. The right of substitution is granted. 10. Safekeeping and Custody All security transactions, including collateral for repurchase agreements, entered into by the City of Edmonds shall be conducted on a delivery-versus-payment (DVP) basis. Securities purchased by the entity will be delivered against payment and held in a custodial safekeeping account. The Treasurer will designate a third party custodian and safekeeping receipts will evidence all transactions. 11. Diversification The City of Edmonds will diversify its investments by security type and institution. 11.1 No more than fifty percent (50%) of the City’s portfolio, at the time of purchase, shall Packet Page 83 of 224 be in any single financial institution. 11.2 Except that no more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the City’s portfolio, at the time of purchase, shall be invested in the Washington Local Government Investment Pool, or the Snohomish County Investment Pool, and 11.3 No more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the City’s portfolio, at the time of purchase, shall be invested in U.S. Treasury or Agency securities. 11.4 The City’s Finance Committee can recommend to the City Council variance to 11.1, 11.2 or 11.3 prior to purchase if it is deemed in the best overall benefit to the City. 11.5 In calculating the City of Edmonds Investment Mix, deposits held with the City’s banking institution, will be considered. 12. Maximum Maturities To the extent possible, the City of Edmonds will attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. 12.1 At the time of investment, a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the portfolio will be comprised of investments maturing or available within one year. 12.2 At the time of investment, eighty percent (80%) of the portfolio will be comprised of investments maturing or available within five (5) years and no investments shall have a maturity exceeding ten (10) years, except when compatible with a specific fund’s investment needs. 12.3 To provide for on-going market opportunity, investment maturities should be laddered or staggered to avoid the risk resulting from overconcentration of portfolio assets in a specific maturity. 12.4 The average maturity of the portfolio shall not exceed three and one half (3 ½) years or forty-two months. 12.5 Any variance to 12.1, 12.2, 12.3 or 12.4 can be approved by City Council prior to occurrence, and if deemed in the City’s best interest. Reserve and retirement funds may be invested in securities exceeding ten (10) years if the maturity of such investments are made to coincide as nearly as practical with the expected use of the funds. 13. Internal Controls The Treasurer shall establish an annual process of independent review by an external auditor. This review will provide internal control by assuring compliance with policies and procedures. Packet Page 84 of 224 14. Performance Standards The investment portfolio will be designed to obtain an average rate of return during budgetary and economic cycles, consistent with the investment objectives and cash flow needs. The City’s investment strategy is to actively manage investment selection, maturity and yield to maximize earnings. Given this strategy, the basis used by the Treasurer to determine performance levels will be the six-month Treasury bill rate for non-reserve funds. 15. Reporting The Treasurer shall provide the City Council consistent periodic reporting on a quarterly basis. These reports shall provide an accurate and meaningful representation of the investment portfolio, its performance versus the established benchmark, and proof of compliance with the investment policy. Quarterly reports will include, at a minimum, the following: • A listing of individual securities held at the end of the reporting period. • Average life and final maturity of all investments listed. • Coupon, discount or earnings rate. • Par value, amortized book value and market value. • Percentage of the portfolio in each investment category. 16. Investment Policy Adoption The City’s investment policy shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council., upon recommendation from the Finance Committee. The policy shall be reviewed on at least a bi-n annual basis by the Mayor and/or their designeeFinance Committee and any modification to the policy will be made upon approval by the City Council. Packet Page 85 of 224 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE INVESTMENT POLICY AS ATTACHED HERTO. WHEREAS, the City Council heard a brief introduction to the City’s Investment Policy at the July 14, 2015 council meeting; and WHEREAS, the July 14, 2015 introduction focused on amending the Investment Policy to include the Snohomish County Investment Pool as an investment option for the City; now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ADOPT THE CITY OF EDMONDS INVESTMENT POLICY. The city council hereby adopts the following attached document: 1. City of Edmonds Investment Policy to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. RESOLVED this 14th day of November, 2015. CITY OF EDMONDS _______________________ MAYOR, DAVE EARLING ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. XXXX Packet Page 86 of 224 Amending City of Edmonds Investment Policy 1)On 9/17/13 Council voiced their support of the City investing in the Snohomish County Investment Pool 2)However, the City’s Investment Policy was not updated to reflect this new investment option 3)The proposed amendments to the Investment Policy will address this issue Packet Page 87 of 224 Amending Section 11.2 11.2 Except that no more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the City’s portfolio, at the time of purchase, shall be invested in the Washington Local Government Investment Pool, or the Snohomish County Investment Pool, and Packet Page 88 of 224 Amending Section 11.4 11.4 The City’s Finance Committee can recommend to the City Council variance to 11.1, 11.2 or 11.3 prior to purchase if it is deemed in the best overall benefit to the City. Packet Page 89 of 224 Amending Section 11.5 11.5 In calculating the City of Edmonds Investment Mix, deposits held with the City’s banking institution, will be considered. Packet Page 90 of 224 Amending Section 16 16 The City’s investment policy shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council., upon recommendation from the Finance Committee. The policy shall be reviewed on at least a bi-n annual basis by the Mayor and/or their designee Finance Committee and any modification to the policy will be made upon approval by the City Council. Packet Page 91 of 224 Questions? Council Motion: Move to approve amendment of City of Edmonds Investment Policy Packet Page 92 of 224 AM-7850 7. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/14/2015 Time:10 Minutes Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Robert English Department:Engineering Type: Forward to Consent Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Perteet for the 228th St. SW Corridor Project. Recommendation Forward this item to the consent agenda for the City Council meeting on July 21, 2015. Previous Council Action On October 16, 2012, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #1 with Perteet for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project. On June 11, 2013, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplement Agreement #2 with Perteet for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project. On April 15, 2014, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplement Agreement #3 with Perteet for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project. On September 9th, 2014, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplement Agreement #4 with Perteet for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project. On February 24, 2015, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplement Agreement #7 with Perteet for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project. Narrative The project requires the construction of three retaining walls adjacent to 228th St. Two of the walls are east of Highway 99 and will support the new street between 76th Ave and Highway 99. The third wall will support an existing earth embankment on the south side of the 228th St west of Highway 99. The plans call for modular block retaining walls at each location. During the review of contractor submittals, it was determined that a portion of the wall on the south side of 228th St, east of Highway 99, would have geogrid material over or near buried City utilities. The geogrid is laid behind the modular block wall and could create problems in the future, if the City needs to trench behind the wall to access and/or maintain the buried utilities. To avoid this conflict requires the modification of 150 feet of modular block wall to a cantilevered soldier pile wall. The second revision will replace 30 feet of modular block wall on the south side of 228th St, west of Packet Page 93 of 224 Highway 99. The modification is necessary since the modular block wall dimensions within this section of wall would not fit within the existing right of way. This supplemental agreement will provide the design services to design the new sections of solider pile walls. The fee is $38,020 and the cost will be paid for by project funds. Attachments Supplemental Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Megan Luttrell 07/08/2015 08:54 AM Public Works Phil Williams 07/09/2015 02:10 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 07/09/2015 02:20 PM Mayor Dave Earling 07/09/2015 02:40 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/09/2015 02:42 PM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 07/07/2015 05:10 PM Final Approval Date: 07/09/2015 Packet Page 94 of 224 DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 9/2005 Washington State Department of Transportation Supplemental Agreement Number 7 Organization and Address Perteet, Inc. 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 Everett, WA 98201 Phone: (425) 252-7700 Original Agreement Number Project Number Execution Date August 11, 2011 Completion Date June 30, 2016 Project Title City of Edmonds 228th Street S.W. Corridor New Maximum Amount Payable $ 743,219 Description of Work See attached Exhibit A-1 – Scope of Services The Local Agency of City of Edmonds desires to supplement the agreement entered into with Perteet, Inc. and executed on August 11, 2011 and identified as Agreement No. All provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows: I Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read: See Exhibit “A-1” for scope of services II Section IV, TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion of the work to read: June 30, 2016 – No change III Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows: Additional services as described in Exhibit “A-1” will cause an increase in the amount of Thirty-Eight Thousand Twenty Dollars ($38,020) as shown in Exhibit “E-1” for a new contract Maximum amount payable of Seven Hundred Forty-Three Thousand Two Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($743,219). If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the appropriate spaces below and return to this office for final action. By: Perteet, Inc. By: Crystal L. Donner, President Approving Authority Signature Date Packet Page 95 of 224 DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 9/2005 Exhibit “A-1” Scope of Services Supplemental Agreement No. 7 City of Edmonds 228th Street S.W. Corridor Improvement Project Task 34 – Soldier Pile Wall Design and Coordination The City is proposing to revise a portion of the Wall #2 and Wall #3 design from structural earth and modular block walls to permanent cantilevered soldier pile walls. The first proposed soldier pile wall would start at the beginning of Wall #2 (west end), extend approximately 150 lineal feet to the east and have a maximum retained height of approximately 10 feet. The intent of this supplemental task is to provide a design for two soldier pile walls. The Wall #3 soldier pile would extend from approximately STA 6+70 to STA 7+00, and have a maximum retained height of approximately 5 feet. This work shall include the following design construction support services: 34.1 Soldier Pile Wall Geotechnical Parameters The purpose of this sub-task is to provide geotechnical input parameters for the structural design of the soldier pile walls. Perteet will be utilizing the services of HWA GeoSciences, Inc. for this task. Work Elements: • Review Existing Data – Conduct review of existing geotechnical data and determine engineering properties to use in development of soldier pile wall earth pressures • Conduct Engineering Analyses – Active, at-rest and seismic earth pressure diagrams for the proposed soldier pile walls will be developed. • QA/QC - All design calculations and recommendations will be reviewed by a principal engineer prior to distribution to the city and the design team. • Draft and final Geotechnical Memo – Prepare a Draft and Final Geotechnical memo supporting the design of the soldier pile wall. • Project and Contract Management – Task management will be provided for the geotechnical aspects of this work. Correspondence with the City and the design team will be by emails and phone conversations. Assumptions: • No geotechnical explorations will be required for this scope of work. • No team meetings will be required as part of this work. Deliverables: • Draft and Final Geotechnical Memo with Earth Pressure Diagrams. 34.2 Soldier Pile Wall Design The purpose of this sub-task is to provide geotechnical input parameters for the structural design of two cantilevered soldier pile walls. The solider pile walls are assumed to be constructed with steel wide flange section placed in drilled shafts, then filled with concrete. Pressure-treated timber lagging will span between the piles. Perteet will be utilizing the services of CG Engineering for this task. Packet Page 96 of 224 DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 9/2005 34.3 Soldier Pile Wall Coordination The purpose of this sub-task is to provide project management and design team coordination related to the soldier pile wall designs. Optional Services Upon request, the following additional services could be added to the contract via a supplement: • Structural construction services (Shop drawing review, instruction and interpretation of the drawings, RFIs, site visits) Packet Page 97 of 224 DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 9/2005 Exhibit “E-1” Consultant Fee Determination Summary 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900, Everett, WA 98201 | P 425.252.7700 | F 425.339.6018 Project: 228th Street SW Corridor Improve Project – Supplement No. 7 Client: City of Edmonds Hourly Costs Plus Fixed Fee Estimate Classification Hours Rate Amount Sr. Associate 2.00 67.50 $135 Lead Engineer / Mgr 16.00 38.46 $615 Total Direct Salary Costs 18.00 $750 Overhead @ 162.58% $1,219 Fixed Fee @ 30.00% $225 Total Labor Costs $2,194 Reimbursables In-House Costs Qty Rate Amount 0 Total In-House Costs $0 Subconsultants Subconsultants Cost Markup Amount CG Engineering, PLLC $22,462 1.05 $23,590 HWA GeoSciences, Inc. $11,652 1.05 $12,236 Total Subconsultants $34,114 $35,826 Other CONTRACT TOTAL $38,020 Rates shown reflect the typical compensation rate of employees assigned to the billing category listed. Each category may have multiple employees assigned to that billing category and each employee may have a different hourly rate of pay. Employee compensation is subject to adjustment in June of each calendar year. Prepared By: Dustin DeKoekkoek Date: June 29, 2015 Packet Page 98 of 224 DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 9/2005 Packet Page 99 of 224 DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 9/2005 CG Engineering Packet Page 100 of 224 DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 9/2005 Packet Page 101 of 224 DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 9/2005 HWA GeoSciences, Inc. Project Cost Estimate Additional Geotechnical Engineering Services Project: 228th Street Corridor Improvements Client: City of Edmonds Consultant: HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. PM: Donald Huling, P.E. WORK TASK DESCRIPTION Principal Geotechnical Engineer V Geotechnical Engineer II CAD Clerical Total Task Hours Direct Salary Costs $72.00 $40.38 $36.06 $21.63 $20.82 . 12 29 47 7 2 97 3,923$ Review available data 2 3 5 189$ Develop active, at rest and seismic earth pressure diagrams 2 8 32 4 46 1,707$ HWA GQA/QC 6 3 9 553$ Draft and final memo 4 6 12 3 2 27 1,070$ Project and contract management 10 10 404$ Total Hours 12 29 47 7 2 97 Total Dollars (Direct Salary Cost)$864 $1,171 $1,695 $151 $42 3,923$ LABOR EXPENSE: Direct Salary $3,923 Overhead @ 166.33% of DSC $6,524.94 Fixed Fee @ 30% of DSC $1,176.87 TOTAL LABOR EXPENSE:$11,625 PROJECT TOTALS AND SUMMARY: $27 $11,625 ESTIMATED PROJECT TOTAL:$11,652 Total Labor Additional Geotechnical Design Services Report Generation Packet Page 102 of 224 AM-7857 7. C. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/14/2015 Time:30 Minutes Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Information Information Subject Title Discussion of the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis Recommendation This item will be presented at a future Council meeting for approval. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The SR-104 Corridor Analysis focuses on a 5-mile stretch of principal arterial, from 76th Ave W to the Edmonds Ferry Terminal. Due to the various modes of transportation interfacing along this regional corridor (high vehicle ADT, multiple bus stops, high pedestrian activity along certain sections, and bicycle connections), many deficiencies exist. The purpose of this analysis was to develop a corridor master plan, identifying safety, access management and streetscape improvements coordinated with Complete Streets principles and integrated with the proposed form-based code for Westgate Village (SR-104 & 100th Ave) and other zoning on SR-104. The City has been working with the engineering firm Fehr and Peers on this Analysis. The traffic modeling, accident history, access management, and safety of all modes of transportation were analyzed along the entire corridor. Recommended improvements are identified to resolve those various deficiencies and then prioritized based on a set of different criteria (safety, accessibility, identity, financial, and grant eligibility). The document also doesn’t recommend the addition of bike facilities along SR-104 and therefore identifies alternate routes (for north - south / east – west connections). The interactions between transportation and land use in the Westgate Area were also examined and future recommendations on this matter are included in Appendix C. The Study will be presented to the Planning Board at an up-coming meeting (date: TBD). The project began in October 2014 and is scheduled for completion in August 2015. Comments regarding this analysis were received from citizens at two Open Houses (on February 25, 2014 & June 10,2015), Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) at a meeting on February 27, 2015, and the SR-104 Committee (which held monthly meetings for the entire duration of the project). Attachments Draft Complete Streets Analysis Packet Page 103 of 224 Appendix A - Project Diagrams Appendix B - Prioritization Results Appendix C - Westgate Memo Appendix D - Level of Services Calcs Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Megan Luttrell 07/09/2015 11:30 AM Public Works Phil Williams 07/09/2015 02:16 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 07/09/2015 02:20 PM Mayor Dave Earling 07/09/2015 02:39 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/09/2015 02:42 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 07/09/2015 10:35 AM Final Approval Date: 07/09/2015 Packet Page 104 of 224 SR 104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis Draft July 2015 1001 4th Ave Suite 4120 Seattle, WA 98154 Prepared by Packet Page 105 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT Table of Contents STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................... 1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Guiding Principles ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Community Outreach ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 CORRIDOR PROFILE ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Character ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Land Use .................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Physical Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Roadway Cross-Section .................................................................................................................................... 9 traffic control ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 Sight Distance .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Access Management ....................................................................................................................................... 15 Transportation Operations ............................................................................................................................................ 16 Intersection traffic level of service ............................................................................................................. 19 Transit .................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Existing ................................................................................................................................................................. 32 Future .................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Washington State Ferries ............................................................................................................................................... 36 Parking .................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 RECOMMENDED PLAN ....................................................................................................................................37 Corridor Project Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 38 Project Prioritization ........................................................................................................................................................ 46 Quick Win Projects ........................................................................................................................................................... 48 Westgate Plan Concept .................................................................................................................................................. 50 Roadway Cross-Section .................................................................................................................................................. 54 Packet Page 106 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT Appendices Appendix A Project Diagrams Appendix B Prioritization Results Appendix C Westgate Memoranda Appendix D Level of Service Calculations List of Figures Figure 1. Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Planning Context FOr the SR 104 Complete Street Corridor ........................................................................... 5 Figure 3. Land Uses .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4. Roadway Cross-Sections And Traffic Control ...................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5. Sight Distance Issues ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 6. Traffic Volume .................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 7. Intersection Level of Service-PM Peak Hour ........................................................................................................ 22 Figure 8. Crashes Along SR 104 ................................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 9. Average Weekday Vehicle Speeds Along SR 104 .............................................................................................. 26 Figure 10. Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 11. Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 12. Existing Transit Service ............................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 13. Future Priority Transit Corridors ............................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 14a. Recommended Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 14B. Recommended Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 40 Packet Page 107 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT Figure 14C. Recommended Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 14D. Recommended Projects ......................................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 14E. Recommended Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 14F. Recommended Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 15. Westgate Access Management Conceptual Plan ............................................................................................ 53 Figure 16. SR 104 Preferred Cross Sections ............................................................................................................................ 55 List of Tables Table 1. Existing and Future Land Use ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2. Typical Roadway Level of Service Characteristics ............................................................................................... 20 Table 3. Level of Service Criteria for Intersections ............................................................................................................... 21 Table 4. Total Collisions And Collision Rates .......................................................................................................................... 23 Table 5. Observed Corridor Speeds ........................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 6. Recommended Projects ................................................................................................................................................. 45 Table 7. Prioritization Criteria And Weighting ....................................................................................................................... 47 Table 8. Recommended Projects ................................................................................................................................................. 48 Table 9. Quick Win Projects ........................................................................................................................................................... 49 Packet Page 108 of 224 June 2015 DRAFT S-1 Packet Page 109 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 1 STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY PROJECT OVERVIEW The SR 104 Corridor Complete Streets Corridor Analysis evaluates existing transportation conditions, relies on input from stakeholders and users, and analyzes potential safety and mobility improvements for drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians, and transit. The study identifies key improvements that may be included for future consideration in the city’s Capital Improvement Program. SR 104, shown in Figure 1, extends for four miles between Downtown Edmonds and 76th Ave W, just west of I-5. It serves as one of two primary east-west arterial connections in Edmonds. GUIDING PRINCIPLES After consulting with stakeholders, a corridor vision was developed that is based on the following guiding principles:  Support both local and regional mobility  Improve circulation and safety for biking, walking, and transit access  Reinforce land use vision, including at Westgate  Create a sense of arrival in Edmonds and tie to the waterfront  Coordinate with the state and other entities  Take a phased approach that provides benefits over time  Promote environmental sustainability and economic vitality Working with a Technical Advisory Committee and conducting extensive public outreach, the City used these principles to identify and prioritize the corridor recommendations outlined in this report. Packet Page 110 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 2 FIGURE 1. STUDY AREA COMMUNITY OUTREACH Community involvement was important in developing and implementing a successful corridor plan for SR 104. To prepare a common vision for future improvements to the corridor, the City gathered input from the community at two public open houses and use of the city’s website. A technical advisory committee Packet Page 111 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 3 was also formed to serve as a forum for information sharing among city staff, City Council, WSDOT, Community Transit, and the Planning Board. The project team conducted stakeholder interviews, created informational materials and website content, and facilitated the committee meetings. COMMUNITY OUTREACH The City identified key target audiences to engage: Businesses and residents along the project corridor and within the City of Edmonds Users of the project corridor; local and regional Local agencies, such as Edmonds School District and Community Transit Washington State Department of Transportation City of Edmonds staff Elected officials Packet Page 112 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 4 CORRIDOR PROFILE This section characterizes existing and future conditions on SR 104 in the City of Edmonds. The following sections describe the corridor in terms of character, land, use, physical conditions, and transportation operations. CHARACTER The four-mile section of SR 104 changes character several times, from a downtown environment near Puget Sound, to neighborhood zones with frequent property access, to commercial areas that serve multiple businesses. The changing character means that a single design concept may not be appropriate along the entire corridor. SR 104 can be thought of as having four primary ‘zones’, as shown in Figure 2. The project recommendations were tailored to best meet the needs of the surrounding land uses and roadway function as shown in these zones. WSDOT Main Street Design WSDOT has developed Chapter 1150 of its Design Manual (July 2014) that defines Context and Modally Integrated Design- Main Streets. WSDOT realizes that many state highway segments function as the main streets of communities. The main streets not only move people and goods, but provide a sense of place. In these locations, there is a need for design flexibility to address tradeoff aspects in design. These tradeoffs can be articulated once a community vision is created for a street. Along SR 104, WSDOT and the City of Edmonds collaborated to create a vision for the roadway, which changes character throughout its length. While SR 104 is an important highway connector within the region, and a Highway of Statewide Significance, it also serves as one of the main streets for the Edmonds community. This is particularly apparent in the Westgate area, which the City is planning to redevelop over time into a mixed use, pedestrian- oriented neighborhood. In this context, WSDOT is supportive of street design on SR 104 that facilitates safe and efficient mobility for all travel modes. This means that there are tradeoffs between such factors as vehicle speed and delay, roadway width, and pedestrian treatments. WSDOT has indicated that it has no plans to widen SR 104 or to add turning lanes throughout its length. The existing roadway configuration will allow for efficient movement of vehicles through the corridor, while still providing an opportunity to calm the traffic speeds and facilitate safe and efficient pedestrian movements. Packet Page 113 of 224 199th St SW 240th St SW 9t h A v e N Elm St 74 t h A v e W NE 205th St 80 t h A v e W 25t h A v e N W 202nd St SW 203rd St SW 2 26th St SW 70 t h A v e W 2 7 t h A v e N W 228th St SW NW 2 01st St 238th St SW 82 n d A v e W 4t h A v e S NW 195th St NW 199th St 208th St SW 1 2 t h A v e N 216th St SW 72 n d A v e W 234th St SW 7 5 t h A v e W N 205th St Bell St 8t h A v e N W 232nd St SW 12 t h A v e N W 15 t h A v e N W NW 205th St 5t h A v e S 200th St SW 212th St SW 218th St SW Pine St 236th St SW 76 t h A v e W 196th St SW 10 0 t h A v e W 220th St SW Main St 83 r d A v e W 8 1 s t A v e W 3r d A v e S 88 t h A v e W 11 4 t h A v e W 224th St SW Planning Context for the SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor Neighborhood Connections Pedestrian-Oriented Ferry Terminal Area Boulevard Commercial Figure 2 \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 2 _ C o n t e x t . m x d LakeBallinger Edmonds 104 Snohomish CountyKing County 99 Packet Page 114 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 6 Pedestrian-Oriented Ferry Waiting Area The section of SR 104 in downtown Edmonds provides access to downtown land uses and also serves as a waiting area for auto traffic entering and leaving the ferry terminal. The roadway accommodates a mix of pedestrians, stopped cars, and other multimodal activities. Insert Photo Boulevard Portions of the corridor at the east and west ends function like a boulevard, providing users with smooth flowing entry and exit points to/from the city. Property access is limited in these segments. Insert Photo Commercial The Commercial zone around the Westgate area serves all modes and trip types. The roadway in this area accommodates business access and transit stops, emphasizing multimodal interaction and gateway elements. Frequent pedestrian movements require safe crossings of SR 104 and side streets. Insert Photo Neighborhood Connections The segment from around 95th Ave W and 240th St SW emphasizes connections to neighborhoods on both sides of SR 104. The corridor in this area serves all trip types but focuses on balancing access needs from side streets and driveways with safety for bicycle, pedestrian and auto trips. Insert Photo Packet Page 115 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 7 LAND USE Land use in the vicinity of SR 104 consists largely of single and multi-family homes combined with commercial development focused in downtown Edmonds, Westgate, and SR 99. To the west of SR 104 are two elementary schools and one K-8 school, as shown in Figure 3. At the west end of the corridor, SR 104 is adjacent to Edmonds City Park and Edmonds Marsh. Along the waterfront, SR 104 provides convenient access to Brackett’s Landing and Marina Beach Park. Table 1 summarizes existing land use and the amount of growth expected to occur by 2035 both citywide and within approximately a one-half mile vicinity of SR 104. By 2035, almost 40 percent of the city’s households and 50 percent of the employment will be located within the general SR 104 corridor. TABLE 1. EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE Area Existing 2035 Total Growth Percentage Growth HH EMP HH EMP HH EMP HH EMP Corridor Vicinity 6,700 4,600 8,350 5,750 1,650 1,150 25% 25% Edmonds Citywide 19,300 10,000 22,650 12,450 3,350 2,450 17% 24% Notes: HH = Households; EMP = Employment Sources: City of Edmonds Packet Page 116 of 224 SherwoodElementarySchool WestgateElementarySchool MadronaSchool 2 0 8 t h St SW 6 t h A v e S E d mondsWay Robin H o o d D r Caspers St 212th St SW S u n s e t A v e N Ad m i r a l W a y F i r d a l e A v e 10 4 t h A v e W 7 t h A v e N 22 6 th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W 9t h A v e N Ol y m p i c A v e Ti m b e r L n Maple St 224th St SW 216th St SW 9t h A v e S Bowdoin Wa y 3r d A v e S 200th St SW Walnut St Dayton St 218th St SW 98 t h A v e W 5 t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W 88 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW 220th St SW 10 0 t h A v e W 8 0 t h A v e W 84 t h A v e W Main S t Kingston-EdmondsFerry Land Uses PugetSound Figure 3 \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 3 _ L a n d U s e s . m x d Snohomish CountyKing County Other Commercial Recreation School Medical Government Residential Vacant/Open Space City ofEdmonds 104 99 Packet Page 117 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 9 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS The guiding principles emphasize addressing safety needs for all travel modes, while maintaining the corridor’s identity. This section describes the physical conditions that frame many of the corridor’s needs. Many of the safety concerns along SR 104 relate to the physical conditions along the corridor. The following section describes:  Roadway cross-section  Traffic Control  Topography  Sight Distance  Drainage  Illumination ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION SR 104 is characterized as a four to five-lane roadway along its length. Figure 4 shows typical sections for the existing roadway. The five-lane sections typify SR 104 where left turns are required. A four-lane section is provided where SR 104 passes through the SR 99 interchange and approaching downtown Edmonds. The roadway also provides ferry vehicle queuing north of Pine Street to the Edmonds Ferry Terminal. Most of the corridor has a right-of-way width of 80 feet. However, the right-of-way is not readily usable in some sections due to slopes, vegetation, and other impediments. Bus pull-outs are provided at several bus stops along SR 104. WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY Improving safety in the corridor is very important; especially for bicycles and pedestrians Any improvements should be context sensitive of the blend between neighborhoods and commercial areas Traveling the corridor can be difficult during rush hours and during ferry loading/unloading, but there is minimal interest in widening the corridor for more automobile lanes. Providing good access to and from Westgate is important Packet Page 118 of 224 èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëííí èéëìí èéëìí PugetSound Snohomish County King County City ofEdmonds 104 99 208th St S W Admi r a l W a y 6t h A v e S Ed m o n d s W a y R o b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Suns e t A v e N Fird a l e A v e 10 4 t h A v e W 7 t h A v e N 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W 9t h A v e N Ol y m p i c A v e 212th St SW Ti m b e r L n Maple St 224th St SW 216th St SW 9t h A v e S Bowdoin Wa y 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St 200th St SW 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW 10 0 t h A v e W 220th St SW 80 t h A v e W 84 t h A v e W Main St 76 t h A v e W Kings t o n - E d m o n d s F e r r y Roadway Cross Sections and Traffic Control Figure 4 èéëìí Traffic Signal èéëííí Emergency Signal 4 Lanes 5 Lanes FerryLoadingFerryLoading Packet Page 119 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 11 TRAFFIC CONTROL Along the four-mile SR 104 corridor, eight traffic signals are in operation, as well as an emergency signal. The signals locations are as follows (see Figure 4): Traffic Signals:  Main St  Dayton St  226th St SW  100th Ave W  95th Pl W  236th St SW  244th St SW (2 SB)  76th Ave W Emergency Signal:  232nd St SW The emergency signal has a yellow light for traffic along SR 104. In the event of an emergency response, vehicles along SR 104 will then be given a red light. At 244th St SW, there are two coordinated signals for southbound traffic; northbound vehicles only experience a signal if turning onto 244th St SW from SR 104. Northbound traffic boarding the ferry has a designated holding area. This begins at the SR 104 and 5th Avenue W split, and continues along the duration of the corridor. Signs along the corridor notify drivers of the ferry loading and warn drivers of other vehicles making a right turn off of SR 104 and across the ferry loading lanes. During ferry loading/unloading, traffic is controlled manually to enable continuous movements to/from the boat. Packet Page 120 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 12 SIGHT DISTANCE The SR 104 Corridor is characterized by curving road segments with limited sight distance in some sections. Motorists need adequate sigh distance or visibility for turning onto and from SR 104. The combination of frequent driveway and side street approaches to SR 104, along with some tight roadway curves, creates several areas with challenging or severely limited sight distance. Figure 5 shows those areas with sight distance issues for side streets/driveways (i.e. drivers wanting to turn onto SR 104) and for SR 104 itself (i.e. drivers wanting to turn left from SR 104 into a side street or driveway). These locations of limited sight distance are correlated with the locations of collisions, as described in a later section. An example of sight distance issues along SR 104 can be seen going northbound when approaching Pine St. At higher speeds, vehicles may be unable to react in time to a right-turning vehicle out of Pine Street. The recent speed limit reduction has helped improve access at this location. Rockeries and overgrown brush encroach on the right of way and restrict sight distance for cars attempting to turn onto SR 104, as shown in the image on 232nd Street SW. SR 104 Corridor Functional Classification SR 104 is one of two main east-west corridor s connecting downtown Edmonds with SR 99 and I-5. It also provides a direct route to the Ferry terminal. The City of Edmonds and WSDOT classify SR 104 as a principal arterial. SR 104 connects to one other principal arterial – the north/south running SR 99. Minor arterials intersect SR 104 at 5th Ave S, 100th Ave W, 228th St SW, 238th St SW, and 76th Ave W. These arterials feed Edmonds traffic from local and collector streets onto the principal arterial routes. Packet Page 121 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 13 Packet Page 122 of 224 208th S t SW 6 th A v e S E d m o n d s W a y R o b i n H o o d D r Caspers St 212th St SW Su nse t A v e N Adm i r a l W a y Fi r d a l e A v e 10 4 t h A v e W 7 t h A v e N 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 th A v e W 95 t h P l W 9t h A v e N Ol ym p i c A v e Ti m b e r Ln Maple St 224th St SW 216th St SW 9t h Av e S Bowd oin W a y3r d A v e S 200th St SW Walnut St Dayton St 218th St SW 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW 220th St SW 10 0t h A v e W 8 0t h A ve W 84 t h A v e W Main St Kingston-Ed m ondsFerry Sight Distance Issues Figure 5 \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 5 _ S i g h t D i s t a n c e . mx d Sight Distance Issues Along SR 104 From Side Street / Driveway Puget Sound Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds 104 99 Packet Page 123 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 15 ACCESS MANAGEMENT Numerous commercial and private driveways along the corridor complicate the sight distance and traffic safety issues. WSDOT requires strict access management for new development, but the existing access patterns result in driveways that are hidden due to vegetation, topography or geometric conditions. Although there is limited access management, some locations have features in place. In the eastbound direction at 100th Ave W, a C-curb prevents vehicles from attempting an early left turn into the QFC shopping center. The C-curb also prevents the cross traffic from coming out of the Bartell’s and going straight across to QFC. LIGHTING Lighting is a direct contributor to safety. Existing light levels were determined using lighting analysis that examined average light levels (i.e. average light visible per square foot on the roadway) and what is called the uniformity ratio, the average light level to the darkest areas on the roadway. The analysis indicates that below-standard light levels on SR 104 exist at both westbound and eastbound approaches to 97th Ave. W and 236th St. SW, as well as mid corridor between 232nd Pl. SW and 236th St. SW. The remainder of the corridor appears to meet the standards in the current configuration, but may warrant upgrades with proposed improvements, such as intersection improvements to 100 th Ave. W (Westgate area). Refer to Appendix A for a lighting diagram of the corridor. Packet Page 124 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 16 TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS The guiding principles emphasize safety for all modes. Understanding the transportation operations is important to the safety issues. This section describes existing transportation operations along SR 104 for each supported transportation mode: automobile, bicycle, pedestrians, and transit. Traffic flow, corridor safety, speed, and parking are discussed as they relate to these four modes of travel. TRAFFIC FLOW Peak hour and average weekday daily traffic (AWDT) counts were collected at three locations along SR 104 in October 2014 (Figure 6). Counts were performed for a 24-hour period on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, days which represent the most typical weekday traffic conditions. Daily traffic totals for the three days were averaged to obtain the final AWDT values. The corridor carries from 11,000 daily vehicles (mostly stopped or moving slowly) at the Pine Street intersection to more than 20,000 daily vehicles travelling at 40 mph at the east end of the corridor. AM peak hour counts range from 700 vehicles at the Pine Street intersection up to 1,300 vehicles at the Westgate area near 100th Ave W. PM peak hour counts range from 900 vehicles at the west end of the corridor to 1,600 vehicles between Westgate and the east end of the corridor. Afternoon commute traffic on SR 104 is heaviest in the northbound direction, while morning commute patterns show similar volumes in both directions. As with the daily counts, AM and PM peak hour demand is heaviest near Westgate and the east end of the corridor. FERRY TRAFFIC EFFECTS Ferry loading and unloading can cause spikes in vehicle volumes during a short timeframe. Ferries leave Edmonds approximately every 45 minutes during peak periods, and with each ferry holding up to 188 vehicles, this surge of volume can affect the corridor. Packet Page 125 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 17 To better understand how peak hour travel patterns impact corridor traffic conditions, additional traffic counts were collected at eight intersections along SR 104:  100th Avenue W  238th Street  Meridian Avenue  Sunset Avenue  Dayton Street  226th Street  95th Place W  236th Street SW Packet Page 126 of 224 èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëííí èéëìí èéëìí Puget Sound Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds 104 99 ADT: 5,000 AM: 270 PM: 420ADT: 6,000 AM: 450 PM: 470 ADT: 10,300 AM: 660 PM: 900 ADT: 10,500 AM: 660 PM: 770 H H H H ADT: 11,000 AM: 680 PM: 1,010 ADT: 10,500 AM: 600 PM: 630 H H 208th S t SW Adm i r a l W a y 6t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y R o b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Sun s e t A v e N Fi r d a l e A v e 10 4 t h A v e W 7 t h A v e N 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 9 5t h Pl W 9t h A v e N O ly m p i c A v e 212th St SW Ti m b e r L n Maple St 224th St SW 216th St SW 9t h A v e S Bowd o i n W a y 3r d Av e S Walnut St Dayton St 200th St SW 98 t h Av e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW 10 0 th A v e W 220th St SW 80 t h A v e W 84 t h Av e W Main St 7 6t h A v e W Ki n g s t o n - E d m o n d s F e r ry Traffic Volumes Figure 6 \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 6 _ T r a f f i c V o l u m e s .m x d èéëìí Traffic Signal èéëííí Emergency Signal ADT: ### AM: ### PM: ### Afternoon peak hour vehicle traffic volume Morning peak hour vehicle traffic volume Average daily traffic volume Packet Page 127 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 19 INTERSECTION TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of Service (LOS) is the primary measurement used to determine the operating quality of a roadway segment or intersection. The quality of traffic conditions is graded into one of six LOS designations: A, B, C, D, E, or F. Table 2 presents typical characteristics of the different LOS designations. LOS A and B represent the fewest traffic slow-downs, and LOS C and D represent intermediate traffic congestion. LOS E indicates that traffic conditions are at or approaching urban congestion; and LOS F indicates that traffic volumes are at a high level of congestion and unstable traffic flow. Level of Service Criteria Methods described in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2010) were used to calculate the LOS for signalized and stop-controlled intersections. Table 3 summarizes the LOS criteria for signalized and stop-controlled intersections. LOS for intersections is determined by the average amount of delay experienced by vehicles at the intersection. For stop-controlled intersections, LOS depends on the average delay experienced by drivers on the stop-controlled approaches. Thus, for two-way or T- intersections, LOS is based on the average delay experienced by vehicles entering the intersection on the minor (stop-controlled) approaches. For all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is determined by the average delay for all movements through the intersection. The LOS criteria for stop-controlled intersections have different threshold values than those for signalized intersections, primarily because drivers expect different levels of performance from distinct types of transportation facilities. In general, stop-controlled intersections are expected to carry lower volumes of traffic than signalized intersections. Thus, for the same LOS, a lower level of delay is acceptable at stop-controlled intersections than it is for signalized intersections. Packet Page 128 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 20 TABLE 2. TYPICAL ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS Level of Service Characteristic Traffic Flow A Free flow – Describes a condition of free flow with low volumes and high speeds. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. Stopped delay at intersections is minimal. B Stable flow – Represents reasonable unimpeded traffic flow operations at average travel speeds. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are not generally subjected to appreciable tensions. C Stable flow – In the range of stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are more closely controlled by the higher volumes. The selection of speed is now significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream, and maneuvering within the traffic stream required substantial vigilance on the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level. D Stable flow – Represents high-density, but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience- Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this level. E Unstable flow – Represents operating conditions at or near the maximum capacity level. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to "give way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow or minor disturbances within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns F Forced flow – Describes forced or breakdown flow, where volumes are above theoretical capacity. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount that can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations, and operations within the queue are characterized by stop-and-go waves that are extremely unstable. Vehicles may progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, and then be required to stop in a cyclical fashion. Source: Transportation Research Board 2010 Packet Page 129 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 21 TABLE 3. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) LOS Designation Signalized Intersections Stop-Controlled Intersections A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B > 10 – 20 > 10 – 15 C > 20 – 35 > 15 – 25 D > 35 – 55 > 25 – 35 E > 55 – 80 > 35 – 50 F > 80 > 50 Source: Transportation Research Board 2010 Figure 7 shows the existing and 2035 forecasted LOS values along SR 104. All intersections along the corridor will experience vehicular growth between 2015 and 2035. The average intersection volumes are expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.5%. Table 4 summarizes the existing and future traffic operations at eight intersections along SR 104, listed from downtown Edmonds at Main Street to the intersection of SR 104 and 76th Ave W. The traffic operations at the Main St and Dayton St signalized intersections are strongly affected by ferry operations. While these intersections operate at LOS A during typical PM peak hour conditions, delays build temporarily during ferry loading and unloading. The signalized intersection at 100th Avenue W operates at LOS C, increasing to LOS D in 2035. Queues occasionally exceed the established left turn pockets on both northbound and southbound approaches. The intersection at 238th St. SW is a side-street stop controlled intersection. This intersection sees substantial delay on the eastbound approach (LOS E), despite having a very low traffic volume. This delay will increase substantially by 2035 due to growing volumes on SR 104 and fewer gaps available for traffic entering from 238th St. SR 104 and 76th Ave W is technically a Shoreline intersection, but it affects the overall traffic operations along SR 104. Currently it operates at LOS C, but it is expected to degrade to LOS E by 2035. Heavy westbound left turn volumes exceed the turn lane storage and affect through traffic conditions on SR 104. A table summarizing the specific intersection results is provided in Appendix D. Packet Page 130 of 224 != != != != != != != != !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( != != != != != != != != != != Puget Sound City of Edmonds 104 99 Snohomish County King County 208th S t SW Adm i r a l W a y 6 th A v e S E d m o n d s W a y R o b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Sun s e t A v e N Fi r d a le A v e 10 4 t h A v e W 7 t h A v e N 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W 212th St SW 9t h A v e N Ol y mp ic Av e T im b e r L n Maple St 224th St SW 216th St SW 9t h A v e S Bowdoin W ay3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St 200th St SW 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A ve W 8 8 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW 220th St SW 10 0 th A v e W 80 t h A v e W 84 t h A v e W Main St 76 t h A v e W C D C E A A A B B B A B A B A A A B E F Kin g s t o n - E d m o n d s F err y Intersection Level of Service - PM Peak Hour !(Unsignalized Intersection !(Signalized Intersection Figure 7 \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 7 _ L O S . m x d PM Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS) Designation !=A B 20352014 Packet Page 131 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 23 SAFETY Along SR 104, the existing roadway geometry, multiple driveway access points, relatively high vehicular volumes and limited sight distance present potential safety concerns. Collision data for vehicles were collected to determine where design or operational concerns translate into safety deficiencies. Collision data were obtained from the City of Edmonds over a period of five years (January 2009 – September 2014). There were a total of 324 collisions, for an average of 68 collisions per year. Reports provided details about individual collisions, including type, probable cause, severity, and time-of-day (summarized in the text box). Vehicle collision rates at study intersections can be seen in Table 4. While the total number of collisions is larger than those on most other Edmonds roadways, this can be attributed to the larger volumes of vehicles on the corridor. The collision rates are typical of urban arterials and do not indicate a substantial safety problem. There are no recorded crashes that led to a fatality, although 33% of the collisions resulted in injuries. Despite there not being many reported pedestrian or bicycle collisions, exposure is high due to speeds and lack of separation from motor vehicles. TABLE 4. TOTAL COLLISIONS AND COLLISION RATES Location Collisions Collisions/year Collision Rate (PMEV) Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue W 90 13.24 1.18 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way (SR 104) 7 1.03 0.14 244th Street SW (SR 104) and 76th Avenue W 18 2.65 0.18 SR 104 and Main Street 19 2.79 1.03 SR 104 and Dayton Street 21 3.09 0.62 SR 104 and 226th Street SW 9 1.32 0.18 SR 104 and 95th Place W 33 4.85 0.66 SR 104 and 236th Street SW 16 2.35 0.31 COLLISION STATISTICS (JANUARY 2009 – SEPTEMBER 2014) Magnitude o SR 104 and 100th Ave W had the largest collision rate. o The segment with the most collisions is between 5th Ave S & east of 100th Ave W o No segment or intersection had high collision rates Severity o There were no reported casualties during the timeframe o 33% of the 324 total crashes led to an injury The most cited collision type was rear end. Packet Page 132 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 24 For analysis purposes, SR 104 was split into 5 segments, with each segment showing various collision statistics. (See Figure 8.) In general, most collisions that occurred on SR 104 were from rear end collisions, caused by abrupt stops or trailing vehicle unawareness. Sight distance issues were referenced multiple times. The emergency signal on 232nd St SW, which is constantly flashing yellow, led to confusion among some drivers. Drivers unaccustomed to the signal would decelerate, leading to trailing vehicles being surprised and an increase in rear end collisions. SPEED Speed is an important factor in the safety and perception of comfort along SR 104. Speed studies were conducted at three locations along SR 104 in both the northbound and southbound directions. Figure 9 and Table 5 summarize the posted speed limit and observed speed levels at these locations. Two values are shown:  85th Percentile Speed – 85 percent of motorists travel below this speed, and 15 percent of motorists exceed this speed. Typically, the 85th percentile speed is used to establish posted speed limits.  Percent of drivers exceeding the speed limit  Times of day in which over 10% of people exceeded the speed limit by at least 10 mph. TABLE 5. OBSERVED CORRIDOR SPEEDS Location on SR 104 (Refer to Figure 8) Posted Speed Limit (mph) 85th Percentile Speed (mph) Southbound Northbound North 40 47 48 Central 35 37 40 South 40 46 47 Packet Page 133 of 224 - 23 crashes (7% of total along SR 104) - 4 involving injury - 158 crashes (49% of total along SR 104) - 53 involving injury - 76 crashes (23% of total along SR 104) - 28 involving injury - 4 crashes (1% of total along SR 104) - 2 involving injury - 63 crashes (20% of total along SR 104) - 21 involving injury 208th S t SW 6 th A v e S E d m o n d s W a y R o b i n H o o d D r Caspers St 212th St SW Su nse t A v e N Adm i r a l W a y Fi r d a l e A v e 10 4 t h A v e W 7 t h A v e N 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 th A v e W 95 t h P l W 9t h A v e N Ol ym p i c A v e Ti m b e r Ln Maple St 224th St SW 216th St SW 9t h Av e S Bowd oin W a y3r d A v e S 200th St SW Walnut St Dayton St 218th St SW 98 t h A v e W 5t h A ve S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W 88 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW 220th St SW 10 0t h A v e W 8 0t h A ve W 84 t h A v e W Main St \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 8 _ A c c i d e n t s . m x d Crashes Along SR 104 (January 2009 - September 2014) Figure 8 - 324 total crashes between January 2009 - September 2014 - 68 crashes/year - 0 fatalities - 108 crashes leading to injury Puget Sound Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds 104 99 Packet Page 134 of 224 Yost Park ||¡ | | ¡ ||¡ | | ¡ ||¡ | | ¡ 99 104 104 3rd A v 208th S t S W 7 th Av e N 9t h A v e N Ol y m pi c A ve 6t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y R o b i n H o o d D r 212th St SW Adm i r a l W a y Fi r d a le A v e 10 4 t h A v e W 226th St SW 11 4 t h Av e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n Maple St 224th St SW 216th St SW 9t h Av e S Bowd o i n W a y 3r d Av e S Walnut St 218th St SW Dayton St 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A ve W 8 8 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW 220th St SW 80 t h A v e W 10 0 t h A v e W Main St 84 t h A v e W Average Weekday Vehicle Speeds Along SR 104 Speed Limit on State Route 104 35 mph 40 mph \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 9 _ S p e e d s . m x d Figure 9 City of Edmonds 30 35 40 45 50 55 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM Sp e e d ( m p h ) Time of Day 30 35 40 45 50 55 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM Sp e e d ( m p h ) Time of Day 30 35 40 45 50 55 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM Sp e e d ( m p h ) Time of Day 30 35 40 45 50 55 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM Sp e e d ( m p h ) Time of Day 30 35 40 45 50 55 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM Sp e e d ( m p h ) Time of Day 30 35 40 45 50 55 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM Sp e e d ( m p h ) Time of Day 30 35 40 45 50 55 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM Sp e e d ( m p h ) Time of Day Average daily 85th % speed: 47.9 mph Percent of drivers: Exceeding speed limit: 82% More than 10 mph over speed limit: 7% Average daily 85th % speed: 47.2 mph Percent of drivers: Exceeding speed limit: 80% More than 10 mph over speed limit: 6% Average daily 85th % speed: 36.9 mph Percent of drivers: Exceeding speed limit: 28% More than 10 mph over speed limit: <1% Average daily 85th % speed: 39.6 mph Percent of drivers: Exceeding speed limit: 51% More than 10 mph over speed limit: 2% Average daily 85th % speed: 46.1 mph Percent of drivers: Exceeding speed limit: 67% More than 10 mph over speed limit: 3% Average daily 85th % speed: 46.5 mph Percent of drivers: Exceeding speed limit: 73% More than 10 mph over speed limit: 4% 85% of people drive slower than this speed; 15% exceed this speed Posted speed limit At this time of day, over 10% of people exceed the speed limit by at least 10 mph Speed limit changed to 35mph in early 2015 Packet Page 135 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 27 The north section of the corridor (i.e., 5th Ave S to Dayton Ave) experienced a speed limit drop from 40 mph to 35 mph in early 2015. The speed data in Table 5 were collected before the speed limit change, and all values and comparisons reflect the 40 mph speed limit in place during the data collection. Results show that the majority of drivers exceed the posted speed limit throughout the study area. Speeding is more prevalent in the north and south sections, while speeds are closer to the speed limit in the commercial center section. For example, in the northern section, over 80 percent of drivers exceed the posted speed. While speeding occurs throughout the corridor, the amount of extreme speeding is relatively low. Time of day data associated with the observations indicate that most extreme speeding occurs at night, especially in the early hours before the AM peak occurs. Packet Page 136 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 28 PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS This section describes the pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the SR 104 study area. Pedestrians Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks and crosswalks. Along SR 104, sidewalks are provided on at least one side of the road for most of the study area. The lone exception occurs to the south of 5 th Ave W, where a pedestrian path is used off of the roadway instead. Figure 10 illustrates the existing sidewalks and walkways within this portion of the city. The figure shows that the sidewalk system is most complete inside the core area of downtown and the ferry terminal. Outside of this area, sidewalks are primarily located along roads classified as collectors or arterials. Raised and striped walkways are generally associated with schools, and provide safe walking routes. Marked crosswalks are provided at the following locations: Traffic Signals  Main St,  Dayton St.  226th St SW  100th Ave W  95th Pl W  236th St SW  76th Ave W Midblock Crossings  North of Pine Street (new HAWK signal)  5th Ave S (SB only) Pedestrian push buttons are located at all signalized intersections. The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1990 and amended in 2008. ADA requires jurisdictions to provide accessible sidewalks primarily through the installation of ADA-compliant sidewalk ramps. The design requirements address various areas of concern such as curb alignment with crosswalks, narrower sidewalk width, obstacles such as utility poles, placement of the sidewalk adjacent to the curb, or the slope of the ramps. Most of the SR 104 sidewalk ramps were constructed before ADA requirements. As pedestrian improvements have been made along the corridor, the City has upgraded sidewalk ramps or installed new ones in accordance with current standards. Packet Page 137 of 224 $+ú 208th S t SW 6 th A v e S E d m o n d s W a y R o b i n H o o d D r Caspers St 212th St SW S u n s e t A v e N Adm i r a l W a y Fi r d a l e A v e 10 4 t h A v e W 7 t h A v e N 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 th A v e W 95 t h P l W 9t h A v e N Ol y mp i c A v e Ti m b e r Ln Maple St 224th St SW 216th St SW 9t h Av e S Bowd oin W a y3r d A v e S 200th St SW Walnut St Dayton St 218th St SW 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW 220th St SW 10 0t h A v e W 8 0 t h A v e W 84 t h A v e W Main St Kingston-Ed m ondsFerry Pedestrian Facilities Existing Paved Walkway Proposed Walkway Project $+ú Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Figure 10 \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 1 0 _ P e d . m x d Puget Sound Snohomish County King County 104 City of Edmonds 99 Packet Page 138 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 30 Bicycles SR 104 is not a designated bicycle route and has no bicycle lanes existing along the travelled way. However, Edmonds is a well-connected city, and various bicycle facilities are available parallel to, and connecting with the corridor. Figure 11 shows existing and proposed bicycle facilities within this portion of the city. These facilities include bicycle routes, bicycle lanes, trails, sharrows and bicycle parking facilities. The bicycle projects include bicycle lanes or bicycle routes that can be added as part of future roadway improvement projects. The projects are concentrated around two major efforts: creating east-west bicycle connections between downtown Edmonds and the Interurban Trail, and creating north-south bicycle connections between the northern and southern portions of Edmonds. While SR 104 itself is not a designated bicycle route, the following roadways provide existing or proposed convenient and safe bicycle travel within the study area; East-West Travel  Main St/Dayton St  220th St SW  226th St SW  228th St SW  244th St SW  238th/236th St SW North-South Travel  3rd Ave S/Woodway Park RD  5th Ave S  9th Ave S/100th Ave W  84th Ave W Bicycle parking is available throughout the city. The areas with the most parking options are along the beaches, in downtown, and in the Westgate area. There are also easy connections for cyclists to ferries, Sound Transit’s Sounder service, and Community Transit. Bicycles are allowed on all of these systems. WSF provides a reduced fare for bicycles, Sound Transit provides bicycle racks, and all Community Transit vehicles have bicycle racks. Packet Page 139 of 224 ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l¬l¬l ¬l ¬l¬l¬l¬l ¬l¬l ¬l¬l ¬l¬l¬l¬l¬l ¬l¬l¬l¬l¬l¬l ¬l¬l¬l¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l¬l¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l An d o v e r S t 6t h A v e S EdmondsWay Robin H o o d D r Caspers St Suns e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F ir d ale Ave10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 72 n d A v e W 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 186th St SW 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n Maple St 184th St SW Puget Dr 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW 188th St SW O l y m p i c V i e w D r Bowdoin Wa y 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St 200th St SW Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 208th St SW 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW 68 t h A v e W 212th St SW 88 t h A v e W 10 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 196th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 220th St SW 76 t h A v e W Kingston-EdmondsFerry Bicycle Facilities \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 1 1 _ B i k e . m x d ¬l Proposed Bike Parking ¬l Existing Bike Parking/Locker Bike Lane Bike Route Trail/Path Bike Sharrow Existing Proposed Major Bicycle Corridor Figure 11 PugetSound Snohomish CountyKing County City ofEdmonds 104 99 !"#5 LakeBallinger Packet Page 140 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 32 TRANSIT EXISTING Community Transit provides public transit service along portions of SR 104. Figure 12 shows the two bus routes (130 and 416) that serve the corridor. Details of bus routes are described below: Route 130 – Route 130 connects Edmonds Station to Aurora Village Transit Center in Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace Transit Center and Lynnwood Transit Center. The route serves downtown Edmonds via W. Dayton St, then travels on 5th Avenue S to reach SR 104. There are only two stops each direction on SR 104 before the bus turns south onto 100th Avenue through the Firdale area. Route 130 operates weekdays at 30 minute headways until 6pm and evenings, Saturdays/Sundays/Holidays with 60-minute headways. Route 130 is the only local route that continues to serve the west side of the railroad tracks with stops at Brackett’s Landing Park and the South County Center. Route 416 – Route 416 is an express route between Edmonds and downtown Seattle. It serves SR 104 between 5th Avenue S and 238th St SW, where it turns off of SR 104 to approach the SWIFT Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station on SR 99. Route 416 operates five runs on weekdays southbound between 5:45 am – 8:00 AM and northbound between 3:30 pm – 6:00 PM. Accessibility to fixed route transit is considered to be ideal when transit stops are located within 0.25 mile of residents. Figure 12 shows that residents living along the SR 104 corridor have reasonably good walking proximity to bus stops. As discussed previously, however, there are limited safe opportunities to cross SR 104 for access to/from bus stops. Sound Transit provides four (4) round trips from Edmonds Station on the Sounder North commuter rail line. These trips travel south from Everett in the AM peak period and return north in the PM peak period. King Street Station (Downtown Seattle) is the only destination available from Edmonds. In Seattle, commuters can connect with Link Light Rail and other transit routes. Edmonds Station is also served by Amtrak Cascades and Empire Builder trains traveling to Vancouver, BC and Chicago, IL respectively. King County Metro operates peak hour express and local routes in the study area south of the Snohomish-King County line. The Rapid Ride E line BRT provides frequent direct service from Aurora Village Transit Center where it connects with Swift BRT throughout the Hwy 99 corridor to downtown Seattle. Packet Page 141 of 224 Æb I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1I1I1 I1I1I1 I1 I1 I1 I1I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1I1 I1 I1I1 I1 I1I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëííí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí 524 99 PugetSound Snohomish CountyKing County City ofEdmonds 104 99 LakeBallinger Puge t D r 6 t h A v e S Ed m onds W ay Robin H o o d D r Admi r a l W a y Caspers St Suns e t A v e N FirdaleAve 208th St SW 10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 72 n d A v e W 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n Maple St 9 t h A v e N Ol y m p i c A v e 216th St SW9t h A v e S 224th St SW Bowdoin Wa y 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St 200th St SW 98 t h A v e W 5 t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 212th St SW 218th St SW 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW10 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 84 t h A v e W Main St 220th St SW 76 t h A v e W Kingston-EdmondsFerry Existing Transit ServiceFigure 12 \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 1 2 _ T r a n s i t . m x d Community Transit Commuter Route (416) Community Transit Local Route (130) I1 Bus Stop èéëìí Traffic Signal èéëííí Emergency Signal Æb Sounder Station / Park and Ride Lot 1/4-Mile Bus Stop Zone Packet Page 142 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 34 FUTURE Figure 13 depicts a future transit system with potential priority transit corridors shown in green. These priority corridors would emphasize good daily transit service and bus stop amenities to make transit attractive. With the expected opening of Link Light Rail to Lynnwood during the planning horizon, it is likely that several Community Transit bus routes will be redesigned within Edmonds and surrounding areas to integrate with light rail. SR 104 would provide a major transit corridor to tie into Link and SWIFT BRT. As vehicle capacity on the Ferry is constrained, the walk-on transit passengers will need to increase to meet this rising demand for travel alternatives. The future transit plan also recommends new transit service along 100th Ave W/9th Ave S between Main Street and SR 104. This local bus service would provide enhanced accessibility to Westgate and provide connections to the priority transit corridor bus services. Any service changes would need to be closely coordinated with Community Transit. In addition, the city should coordinate with Sound Transit on improvements that will attract more riders to Sounder north train service and access to the SR 104 corridor. Edmonds should seek reverse peak- direction trips that could bring travelers to town in the AM peak period and return them to Seattle and points south in the PM peak period. Bus Stops along SR 104 Community Transit currently uses the bus pull-outs provided at several locations along SR 104. However, the agency prefers having buses stop in the travel lane to avoid delays reentering the traffic stream. Currently, the traffic volumes along SR 104 do not create many delays for buses, and the volume of buses on the corridor is fairly low. This could change in the future depending on the service provided along the priority transit corridors and access to Sound Transit Link light rail. At that time, the city could consider removing the bus pull-outs tied to other SR 104 enhancements. Packet Page 143 of 224 ""X ""X IA IA Æb 524 99 PugetSound Snohomish CountyKing County City ofEdmonds 104 99 Admir a l W a y 6t h A v e S Edmonds W ay Ro bin H o o d D r Caspers St O l y m p i c V i e w D r Suns e t A v e N F ir d ale Ave10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 72 n d A v e W 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n Maple St Puget Dr 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin Wa y 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St 200th St SW Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W 208th St SW 8 8 t h A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW 68 t h A v e W 10 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 212th St SW 196th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 220th St SW 76 t h A v e W Future Priority Transit CorridorsFigure 13 \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 1 3 _ F u t u r e T r a n s i t . m x d Existing Bus Route New Transit Service Options Priority Transit Corridor Proposed Link Light Rail Swift BRT Swift BRT Stop IA Park and Ride Lot Æb Sounder Train Station ""X Link Light Rail Station Note: When Light Rail is open, several existinglocal and regional bus routes will be redesignedwithin Edmonds and surrounding areas. Proposed Proposed §¨¦5 Packet Page 144 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 36 WASHINGTON STATE FERRIES The Edmonds-Kingston ferry route connects the northern portion of the Kitsap Peninsula and the Olympic Peninsula with northern King and southern Snohomish Counties. The route is 4.5 nautical miles long, and takes approximately 30 minutes to traverse. The Edmonds-Kingston route operates seven days per week year round, with average headways ranging between 35 and 70 minutes. In 2013, the Edmonds-Kingston route carried 3.9 million people, at an average of 12,200 passengers per day. This is slightly less than the 4.3 million people the route carried in 2006. The annual Washington State Ferries Traffic Statistics Report indicates that in-vehicle boardings were the most prevalent, with about 86 percent of passengers boarding in this manner on the average weekday. Walk-on passengers constituted 14 percent of all passengers on an average weekday. PARKING Parking along the SR 104 corridor is limited to private off-street lots. There is no on-street parking allowed on SR 104 itself. The largest concentration of parking is within the Westgate commercial area, with over 600 off-street spaces serving a variety of retail uses. While certain parking areas immediately adjacent to the QFC and PCC supermarkets can be busy for short periods of the day, there is ample parking capacity to meet the daily parking demands within the Westgate area. Parking supply and demand will be closely monitored by the city as Westgate redevelops over time. Packet Page 145 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 37 RECOMMENDED PLAN The SR 104 Corridor Plan contains recommended projects that meet the study’s guiding principles and can be phased over the next several years. The evaluated projects were developed in coordination with the Technical Advisory Committee, public outreach, and city staff. The following sections describe the corridor plan recommendations in further detail. The plan recognizes that SR 104 passes through a wide variety of land use zones (see Figure 2) and is a major route bisecting a predominantly conventional grid street system. This land use variety and road alignment dictates the treatments that are appropriate to address safety, access, and mobility needs. The plan contains features important to the upgrade of corridor facilities for all modes- pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. The plan features include:  Basic roadway cross-section that contains two travel lanes in each direction and a sidewalk along most sections. In some sections, the conversion of the two-way left-turn lane to a median or dedicated turn lane (also referred to as access management treatments) is an option.  Pedestrian crosswalks with flashing beacons.  Intersection treatments, such as traffic or pedestrian signal, turn pockets, turn radius reductions (to shorten pedestrian crossing distances), better sight distance, and signage.  Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility improvements. The corridor plan does not recommend the addition of vehicle travel lanes, because the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and traffic analyses completed as part of the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan did not show the need for additional vehicle capacity. Completing all of the proposed corridor projects is an expensive undertaking and will take several years to fund and implement. The plan sets priorities and identifies some ‘quick win’ projects that could be funded in the near future as funding becomes available. These ‘quick win’ projects are projects that best meet the criteria developed to support the guiding principles. Packet Page 146 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 38 CORRIDOR PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS The corridor plan consists of 20 projects grouped into six geographical regions from north (Edmonds Ferry Terminal) to south, shown in Figures 14A to 14F and summarized in Table 6. The total cost of the plan is approximately $8 million. The costs are considered to be conservative with contingencies applied. Packet Page 147 of 224 Fir Pl Alder St A d m i r a l W a y Walnut St Howell Way Dayton St 3r d A v e S 4t h A v e S Pine St Ed m o n d s W a y 2n d A v e S No o t k a R d Makah Rd \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ P r o j e c t s . m x d Recommended Projects Right of Way Figure 14-A !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! 104 99 City ofEdmonds Evaluate additional ferry storage A1A1 GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at appropriate locations A2A2 Packet Page 148 of 224 !U !U !U P a r a d i s e L n Fir Pl WhitcombPl M a k a h R d Birch St 13th Way SW 2n d A v e S 6 t h P l S Fir St E l m W a y Elm St Kulshan R d E d m o n d s W a y A A v e S W o o d w a y P a r k R d 6t h A v e S 5t h A v e S Elm P l 4t h A v e S 3r d A v e S \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ P r o j e c t s . m x d Recommended Projects Right of Way Figure 14-B !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! 104 99 City ofEdmonds B1B1 Provide ADA ramps to cross SR 104 Implement flashing beacon Speed limit feedback sign (25mpg) on exit to 5th Ave N for westbound traveling vehicles 5th Avenue GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at appropriate locations Packet Page 149 of 224 + + + + 97 t h P l W 226th Pl SW 232nd Pl SW 8t h P l S 227th Pl SW 9 9 t h A v e W 2 2 5 t h Pl SW 7t h P l S 226th St SW 8t h A v e S 1 4 t h Way SW 2 2 8 t h S t S W 232nd St SW 15th St SW E d m o n d s W a y 10 5 t h A v e W 9 8t h A v e W 1 0 2 n d P l W 10 0 t h A v e W \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ P r o j e c t s . m x d Recommended Projects Right of Way Figure 14-C !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! 104 99 City ofEdmondsC1C1 C2C2 C3C3 Install Westgate “Gateway” sign in eastbound direction Access management 100th Ave W to 102nd Pl W 226th St SW / 15th Street SW Provide signage directing pedestrians to cross south approach (across SR 104) Add “Right Turns Yield to Pedestrians” signage on eastbound 226th St Add bike detection for traffic signal Add exclusive pedestrian phase Extend SR 104 westbound left turn lane to 226th St SW GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at appropriate locations Midblock pedestrian connection (location to be determinded) Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan (see Figure 5) Midblock pedestrian connection between QFC and PCC 100th Ave W C4C4 C5C5 To Main Street C7C7 Option: Rechannelize for bicycles (along 100th Ave) C6C6 Packet Page 150 of 224 + + + 226th Pl SW 93 r d A v e W 9 6 t h P l W 231st St SW 227th St S W 232nd Pl SW 94 t h A v e W 94 th P l W 231st P l S W 93 r d P l W 97 t h A v e W 234th St SW 95 t h P l W 92 n d A v e W 228th St SW 232nd St SW E d m o n d s W a y 9 1 s t A v e W 96 t h A v e W 90 t h A v e W \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ P r o j e c t s . m x d Recommended Projects Right of Way Figure 14-D !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! 104 99 City ofEdmonds D3D3 D1D1 D2D2 Change traffic signal to protected left-turn signal phasing Update ADA Ramps Add C-curbs for access management Relocate westbound speed limit to east of intersection Install Westgate Gateway sign in westbound direction Install HAWK signal with emergency vehicle activation Maintain early emergency vehicle detections D4D4 GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at appropriate locations Packet Page 151 of 224 + + + 85 t h A v e W 91 s t P l W 234th St SW 91 s t A v e W 86 t h A v e W 89 t h P l W 87 t h A v e W 8 8 t hA v e W 234th Pl SW 242nd St SW 236th St SW 238th St SW 84 t h A v e W E d m o n d s W a y 240th St SW 88 t h P l W \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ P r o j e c t s . m x d Recommended Projects Right of Way Figure 14-E !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! 104 99 City ofEdmonds 238th Street SW Install traffic signal Coordinate signal with 236th St SW Revise geometry on 238th St SW for safer turns Add bus pullout on SR 104 on NE corner Install “Welcome to Edmonds” gateway sign westbound on SR 104 240th Street SW 236th Street SW E1E1 E2E2 E3E3 E4E4 GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at appropriate locations Provide updated curb ramps, signals, and pedestrian facilities to meet current ADA standards Coordinate traffic signal with 238th St SW Packet Page 152 of 224 + 239t h P l S W N 204th Pl 242nd Pl SW Bu r k e A v e N A s h w o r t h P l N N 201st St N 205th St 7 4t h A v eW240thStSW 77 t h P l W 241st St SW E d m o n d s W ay 78 t h P l W N 203rd St N 200th St 242nd St SW Me r i d i a n A v e N 76 t h A v e W 7 9 t h P l W N 203rd P l Wa l l i n g f o r d A v e N \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ P r o j e c t s . m x d Recommended Projects Right of Way Figure 14-F !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! 104 99 City ofEdmonds F1F1 Add Westbound Left turn lane GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at appropriate locations Packet Page 153 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 45 TABLE 6. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS #1 Project Location Project Description Estimated Cost ($1,000) Rating A1 Ferry Terminal / Main Street to Pine Street Additional Ferry Storage. $ 490 30 A2 Pine Street & SR 104 Improve west approach to meet current ADA standards. Sign restricting pedestrian crossing of SR 104. $ 66 30 B1 5th Avenue and SR 104 Add crosswalk and pedestrian actuated flashing beacons to connect pedestrian path to and from the bus stop. Speed limit feedback sign for WB traffic exiting onto 5th Ave. Provide ADA ramps to cross SR 104, accompanied by flashing beacons. $ 440 34 C1 226th Street SW/ 15th Street SW Provide signage directing pedestrians to cross south approach. Add "Right Turns Yield to Pedestrians" on eastbound 226th. Add bicycle loop for signal on 226th St. Extend SR 104 westbound left turn lane. $ 194 43 C2 Near 15th Way SW Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound. $ 55 22 C3 100th Avenue W to 102nd Place W Access Management $ 314 26 C4 Westgate Area Implement Westgate Circulation Access plan. $ 165 39 C5 100th Avenue W (North of SR 104) Midblock pedestrian connection between QFC and PCC. $ 132 43 C6 100th Avenue W (South of SR 104) Midblock pedestrian connection (Location TBD). $ 132 43 C7 100th Avenue W Rechannelize for bicycle lanes and mid-block pedestrian crossings. (See projects C5 and C6) $ 588 38 D1 West of 95th Place on SR 104 Relocate westbound speed limit to east of intersection. $ 11 26 D2 West of 95th Place W Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound. $ 55 22 D3 95th Place W Intersection Change signal to protected left-turn signal phasing. Update ADA ramps. Add C curbs for access management. $ 495 30 Packet Page 154 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 46 #1 Project Location Project Description Estimated Cost ($1,000) Rating D4 232nd Street SW Install HAWK signal with emergency vehicle activation. Maintain early emergency detections. $ 1,535 32 E1 236th Street SW Provide updated curb ramps, signals, and pedestrian facilities to meet current ADA standards. Coordinate signal with 238th St SW. $ 531 34 E2 238th Street SW Install Traffic Signal. Coordinate signal with 236th St SW. Revise geometry for safer turns. $ 1,338 36 E3 240th Street SW Include current ADA standards for side streets. Add sign to prevent pedestrian crossing of SR 104. $ 110 26 E4 West of SR 99 on SR 104 "Welcome to Edmonds" sign $ 55 22 F1 SR 104 & 76th Avenue W Add a second westbound left turn lane; bicycle lane striping through intersection on 76th Avenue $ 3,017 21 G Along the SR 104 Corridor Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at appropriate locations $ 534 38 Total $10,257 1 Corresponds to identification numbers on Figures 14A through 14F PROJECT PRIORITIZATION The projects in Table 6 were rated using criteria that were developed based on the projects guiding principles. The prioritization criteria were as follows:  Safety elements of the proposed projects were evaluated based on whether they enhanced safety. Some traffic collision data along the corridor was available to review mostly intersection related issues. Public input on locations with safety concerns were also incorporated into the evaluation. Improvements that received a higher rating improved a known high collision area or addressed a safety concern. Because there were Packet Page 155 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 47 no areas of recorded high collision rates all projects received either a lower or medium rating.  Accessibility components of the proposed projects were evaluated whether they provide access to various transportation modes along the corridor and/or connect land uses. Projects that rated high improved access for multiple modes or removed an existing access barrier (completed a movement that could not be made today).  Identity improvements were evaluated based on a proposed projects consistency with the SR 104 corridors identity and surrounding land uses. Projects that enhanced the identity of the area received a higher rating. Examples include additional ferry storage to reduce the queue length and place marker signs such as the Westgate signs. Because all projects were developed with the guiding principles in mind, no project was considered to diminish (receive a lower rating) the identity of the corridor or surrounding land uses.  Financial investment for the proposed projects was evaluated based the range of estimated improvement costs. Projects with an estimated construction cost of less than $100,000 received a higher rating while improvements over $1 million received a lower rating. These cost ranges represent a general level of complexity and difficulty for a projects implementation. Half of the proposed projects are estimated to cost less than $100,000.  Grant Eligibility was evaluated qualitatively based on the project teams (which included city staff) understanding of the current grant environment. Generally, improvements that benefited walking and bicycling, improved connections to schools, and/or addressed safety received a higher rating. Table 7 summarizes the weighting and rating for each prioritization criteria. Guidance on how the ratings were evaluated is also provided. TABLE 7. PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTING Criterion Weight Rating Lower Medium Higher Safety 5 Limited or no effect Direct safety benefit Improves high collision location Accessibility 4 Limited or no effect Improves single mode, enhances an existing crossing Improves multiple modes, completes a crossing that can’t be made today Identity 1 Diminishes identity Neutral effect Enhances identity Financial 2 High project cost (>$1,000,000) Medium project cost ($100,000-$1,000,000) Low project cost (<$100,000) Grant Eligibility 4 Low likelihood of grant funding Likely to compete for grant funds Good potential for grant/ other funding Packet Page 156 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 48 Table 6 includes the ratings (higher, medium, or lower) for each project using these criteria. Appendix B includes the detailed prioritization results and more complete project descriptions. A summary of project costs and the percent of costs for higher, medium, and lower ratings is summarized in Table 9. TABLE 8. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS Rating Cost Percent of Cost Higher $1,745 30% Medium $4,895 35% Lower $3,617 35% Total $10,257 100% Over 60 percent of the corridor plan costs are represented by proposed projects that rate as higher or medium priority. The prioritization process will be helpful to the city seeking grant funds or packaging project elements along the corridor. QUICK WIN PROJECTS Realizing the high implementation cost of the entire plan, the team identified several actions that could produce immediate benefits – “quick wins”. Table 10 lists these quick win projects in order of priority rating. The total quick win project costs total $1,305,000. Sixty (60) percent of the quick win project costs are tied to higher or medium priority projects. Several are also tied to the implementation of the Westgate Plan. Packet Page 157 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 49 TABLE 9. QUICK WIN PROJECTS # Rating1 Project Location Project Description Estimated Cost ($1,000) C1 H 226th Street SW/ 15th Street SW Provide signage directing pedestrians to cross south approach. Add "Right Turns Yield to Pedestrians" on eastbound 226th. Add bicycle loop for signal on 226th St. Extend SR 104 westbound left turn lane. $194 C4 H Westgate Area Implement Westgate Circulation Access plan. $165 C5 H 100th Avenue W (North of SR 104) Midblock pedestrian connection between QFC and PCC. $132 C6 H 100th Avenue W (South of SR 104) Midblock pedestrian connection (Location TBD). $132 B1 M 5th Avenue and SR 104 Add crosswalk and pedestrian actuated flashing beacons to connect pedestrian path to and from the bus stop. Speed limit feedback sign for WB traffic exiting onto 5th Ave. Provide ADA ramps to cross SR 104, accompanied by flashing beacons. $440 A2 M Pine Street & SR 104 Improve west approach to meet current ADA standards. Sign restricting pedestrian crossing of SR 104. $66 C2 L Near 15th Way SW Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound. $55 D1 L West of 95th Place on SR 104 Relocate westbound speed limit to east of intersection. $11 D2 L West of 95th Place W Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound. $55 E4 L West of SR 99 on SR 104 "Welcome to Edmonds" sign $55 1Rating: L=Lower; M=Medium; H=High TOTAL: $1,305 Packet Page 158 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 50 WESTGATE PLAN CONCEPT A key part of the SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis was to examine transportation and land use interactions within the Westgate area. Appendix C contains the results of this investigation, consisting of a memorandum by Joseph Tovar (1/28/15) that summarizes the team’s review of a variety of transportation, land use and urban design issues, and a memorandum by Fehr & Peers (1/26/15) that focusses on the transportation issues. This section provides additional transportation perspectives on the following questions: 1. What are the long-term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue W through Westgate? 2. How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated? 3. How should property access and internal circulation be considered? N O D E N O D E NODE N O D E Northern Gateway Southern Gateway Eastern Gateway Western Gateway DISTRICT EDGE DISTRICT EDGE D I S T R I C T E D G E D I S T R I C T E D G E DISTRICT EDGE DISTRICT EDGE DI S T R I C T E D G E MAJOR ACTIVITY NODE N O D E Packet Page 159 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 51 What are the long-term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue W through Westgate? The team evaluated the current and forecasted (2035) traffic volumes, speeds and movements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. Both SR 104 and 100th Avenue W have sufficient capacity to serve forecasted increases in traffic volumes. The City may choose to re-stripe either or both roads and re- phase the signal at the intersection to meet mobility and safety objectives; however, neither action depends on the acquisition of additional right-of-way. How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated? Bicycles Bicycle facilities are not envisioned along SR 104, but other parallel and connecting bicycle routes are included within the comprehensive transportation plan. Bicycle lanes on 100th Avenue W are included in the city’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan. 100th Avenue W is an important non-motorized north/south link between the cities of Shoreline and Edmonds. As discussed in the text box, the team examined a potential rechannelization on 100th Avenue W to accommodate bicycle lanes. Within Westgate, bicycles could be accommodated on private property pursuant to proposed amendments to the draft Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zoning district. These enhancements would tie in well with the bicycle treatments along 100th Avenue W. What About Creating Bicycle Lanes on 100th Avenue? The team analyzed an option to rechannelize 100th Avenue W (from the south city boundary to Main Street) to allow for dedicated bicycle lanes and safer pedestrian crossings. This rechannelization would have a 3-lane cross section plus bicycle lanes, planter strips and sidewalks. The traffic analysis indicated that a 3- lane section would operate acceptably under existing traffic conditions. In the future, this design would also be expected to work well to the south and north of SR 104. At the SR 104/100th Avenue intersection, vehicle delays would increase on the north and south approaches of 100th Avenue and may exceed the city’s desirable Level of Service at that location. Retaining a northbound right turn lane on 100th Avenue approaching SR 104 would reduce vehicle delays; however, some roadway widening might be needed to retain the bicycle lane in that location. The rechannelization concept represents a tradeoff between auto queueing and delay versus and creating a continuous bike lane and a ‘calmer’ traffic environment. A more in-depth corridor analysis and design is desirable to examine these tradeoffs. Packet Page 160 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 52 Pedestrians Pedestrians need to have a safe and pleasant environment along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W, crossing those streets, and internally within private properties. Pedestrians would benefit by having wider sidewalks along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W along with the installation of highly visible crosswalk panels and/or pavement at the intersection of SR 104/100th Avenue W1. Two midblock pedestrian crossings of 100th Avenue W are recommended, one connecting the entrances of the QFC and PCC to the north, and another one located to the south of SR 104. These pedestrian crossings could also serve as traffic calming and safety devices along 100th Avenue W. How should property access and internal circulation be considered? The Westgate area is bisected into four quadrants by SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. Vehicular access is provided at each quadrant by a variety of driveways, serving a mix of individual and grouped properties. The northeast quadrant has been recently redeveloped, with upgraded access points along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. The other quadrants provide a mix of access points, some of which pose safety and circulation problems. As shown in Figure 15, the Westgate plan envisions consolidation of driveways within each quadrant and encouragement of internal circulation between properties. This will reduce in- and -out driving on the arterials and encourage one-stop parking. The plan also recommends access management treatments using curbing along SR 104 to the west of 100th Avenue (see Project C-3 in Table 6). This treatment will improve safety for turning vehicles into and out of the Westgate area and facilitate driveway consolidation. The signal at the SR 104/100th Avenue W intersection provides full pedestrian crosswalks and signalization, although crossing these roadways is not always a pleasant experience. Implementing wider sidewalks and urban design features at this intersection will encourage more pedestrian connections among the four Westgate quadrants. 1 The Tovar memorandum provides details regarding the use of urban design treatments to improve the pedestrian experience in Westgate. Packet Page 161 of 224 Westgate Access Management Conceptual Plan Figure 15 Existing driveway Existing driveway link to internal circulation drive Conceptual internal circulation drive Consolidate driveways SR 104 10 0 th A v e W Packet Page 162 of 224 July 2015 DRAFT 54 ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION SR 104 is largely built-out within its 80+- foot right-of-way. However, there are opportunities to make more efficient use of the available width or to add mobility improvements by acquiring some additional right-of-way. Currently, the predominant five-lane cross section consists of four 12 foot travel lanes, a 13 foot left turn lane and sidewalks that vary in width from 5.5 to 7.5 feet. Some sections have planter strips where new infill development has occurred. Two potential cross-sections are depicted in Figure 16. The top diagram shows a ‘full-build’ section that would be preferred if the roadway were rebuilt. Slightly narrower travel lanes would provide opportunities for a wider sidewalk and planter strips. As shown, an additional 2 feet of right-of-way may be required on both sides of the corridor. The bottom diagram shows what could be accomplished with a roadway overlay project. The curb locations would not change. The travel lanes would be reduced in width, providing a 1-3 foot buffer between the outside travel lane and the sidewalk. This buffer would provide some visual separation between vehicles and pedestrians and offer a slight increase in sight distance. As new development occurs within the corridor, hybrid cross sections are possible, in which the existing curbs remain but width is added for planter strips and wider sidewalks. In some cases, this requires dedication of some right-of-way by the developer. Packet Page 163 of 224 SR 104 Preferred Cross Sections Figure 16 Packet Page 164 of 224 July 2014 FINAL A-1 APPENDIX A Project Diagrams Packet Page 165 of 224 July 2014 DRAFT C-1 APPENDIX B Prioritization Results Packet Page 166 of 224 Appendix B Project ID Rating Location Sa f e t y Ac c e s s i b i l i t y Id e n t i t y Fi n a n c i a l Gr a n t E l i g i b i l i t y Total Priority Rating Description Estimated Cost A1 M Ferry Terminal / Main Street to Pine Street 13331 30 Additional Ferry Storage. 489,500$ A2 M Pine Street & SR 104 22231 30 Improve west approach to meet current ADA standards. Sign restricting pedestrian crossing of SR-104. 66,000$ B1 M 5th Avenue and SR 104 22232 34 Add crosswalk and pedestrian actuated flashing beacons to connect pedestrian path to and from the bus stop. Speed limit feedback sign for WB traffic exiting onto 5th Ave. Provide ADA ramps to cross SR-104, accompanied by flashing beacons. 440,000$ C1 H 226th Street SW/ 15th Street SW 23333 43 Provide signage directing pedestrians to cross south approach. Add "Right Turns Yield to Pedestrians" on eastbound 226th. Add bike loop for signal on 226th St. Extend SR 104 westbound left turn lane. Modify signal to provide pedestrian only phase. 193,600$ C2 L Near 15th Way SW 11331 22 Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound.55,000$ C3 L 100th Avenue W to 102nd Place W 21231 26 Access Management 314,000$ C4 H Westgate Area 23332 39 Implement Westgate Circulation Access plan.165,000$ C5 H 100th Avenue W (North of SR 104)23333 43 Midblock pedestrian connection between QFC and PCC.132,000$ Criteria Weight Packet Page 167 of 224 Appendix B Project ID Rating Location Sa f e t y Ac c e s s i b i l i t y Id e n t i t y Fi n a n c i a l Gr a n t E l i g i b i l i t y Total Priority Rating Description Estimated Cost Criteria Weight C6 H 100th Avenue W (South of SR 104)23333 43 Midblock pedestrian connection (Location TBD).132,000$ C7 H 100th Avenue W 22233 38 Rechannelize for bicycle lanes and mid-block pedestrian crossings 588,468$ D1 L West of 95th Place on SR 10421231 26 Relocate westbound speed limit to east of intersection.11,000$ D2 L West of 95th Place W 11331 22 Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound.55,000$ D3 M 95th Place W Intersection 22231 30 Change signal to protected left-turn signal phasing. Update ADA ramps. Add C curbs for access management. 495,000$ D4 M 232nd Street SW 22222 32 Install HAWK signal with emergency vehicle activation. Maintain early emergency detections. 1,534,716$ E1 M 236th Street SW 22232 34 Provide updated curb ramps, signals, and pedestrian facilities to meet current ADA standards. Coordinate signal with 238th St SW. 531,330$ E2 M 238th Street SW 23222 36 Install Traffic Signal. Coordinate signal with 236th St SW. Revise geometry for safer turns.1,337,960$ E3 L 240th Street SW 21231 26 Include current ADA standards for side streets. Add sign to prevent pedestrian crossing of SR 104. 110,000$ E4 L West of SR 99 on SR 104 11331 22 "Welcome to Edmonds" sign 55,000$ F1 L SR 104 & 76th Avenue W 11212 21 Add a second westbound left turn lane, bicycle striping 3,017,000$ G H Along the SR 104 Corridor 23232 38 Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at appropriate locations 534,000$ 54124 TOTAL:10,257,000$ Packet Page 168 of 224 July 2014 DRAFT C-2 Appendix C Westgate Memoranda Packet Page 169 of 224 July 2014 DRAFT C-3 Appendix D Level of Service Calculations Packet Page 170 of 224 May 19, 2015 - 5:28pm rpfiefle C:\Users\RPfiefle\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_16864\20140195 PB with McD's options.dwg Layout Name: McD-Taco Bell Preferred P a c k e t P a g e 1 7 1 o f 2 2 4 Packet Page 172 of 224 Packet Page 173 of 224 Packet Page 174 of 224 Packet Page 175 of 224 1 TO: City of Edmonds FROM: Joseph W. Tovar, FAICP DATE: January 28, 2015 SUBJ: Westgate Form Based Code in the SR 104 Corridor I. Executive Summary In the fall of 2014, the City Council began its review of the Planning Board recommendation to adopt a new Chapter 16.110 entitled – Westgate Mixed Use District (WMU). At a series of study meetings, the Council considered amendments to the WMU, but decided to postpone a final decision on the proposed code until several questions about the Westgate area could be answered by the pending SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis. To assist the Council’s deliberations, the consulting team was asked to provide analysis on several key questions. A. Key Questions 1. What are the long-term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue West through Westgate? 2. What should the WMU code say about building setback requirements along these two roadways? 3. How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated? 4. What other amendments to the WMU could be adopted to highlight Westgate as a walkable, sustainable, mixed use District? 5. How should property access and internal circulation be considered? 6. What is the appropriate parking standard for commercial uses in the Westgate district? B. Conclusions and Recommendations 1. Both SR 104 and 100th Avenue West have sufficient capacity to serve forecasted increases in traffic volumes up to 2035. More detailed technical information is in the Fehr and Peers Tech Memo (Fehr and Peers Memo). 2. Bicycle facilities (e.g., bike racks or lockers) could be accommodated in redevelopment plans on private property pursuant to proposed amendments to the draft WMU zoning district. The addition of bike lanes in 100th Ave W. would do the most to enhance Westgate as a multi-modal transportation district. These could be accommodated within existing right-of-way by extending the three-lane section with bicycle lanes that now exists on Firdale Avenue north to Westgate. The reconfiguration of 100th Avenue to accommodate bicycles can be accomplished with a “road diet” which maintains acceptable levels of traffic flow Memorandum Packet Page 176 of 224 2 through the intersections of SR 104/100th Ave W. and 100th Ave W./SW 238th St.. See Fehr and Peers Memo. 3. Pedestrians will be accommodated by the 8’ wide sidewalks and adjacent 5’ wide amenity space in SR 104 and 100th Ave. W. The sidewalk area should be widened at the corners of the intersection by modifications to the WMU standards to increase building setbacks from the 12’ default to 15’. 4. Additional pedestrian accommodation in Westgate could be achieved by two capital improvement projects that should be coordinated with adjacent site plan improvements: (1) installation of highly visible crosswalk panels or pavement at the intersection of SR 104/100th Ave. W., similar to the improvements made on SR 99 in Shoreline; and (2) creation of a mid- block pedestrian crossing in 100th Ave. W. to provide a direct connection between the entrances of the QFC and PCC. 5. Internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation should meet the materials and dimensional standards for “Internal Circulation Drives” set forth in the WMU at 22.110.050. It is recommended that this section be supplemented with a map that indicates where on each block face the end points of each segment of the Internal Circulation Drive must meet the public right of way. See Fig. 18. 6. Property vehicular access within Westgate should be controlled with additional WMU zoning district access management standards. These standards would essentially: (a) “freeze” the driveway locations on SR 104 east of 100th Ave. W.; (b) eliminate or consolidate the existing driveways on 100th Ave W. (particularly the QFC and Bartell quadrants) and: (c) eliminate or consolidate the driveways on SR 104 west of 100th Ave W. Flexibility in the specific location and dimensions of driveways should be administered through the Code’s review process of future site plan/building permit applications. 7. The required building setbacks along both SR 104 and 100th Ave. W should be 12’, provided that within 40’ of the intersection corners the setback should increase to 15’. This additional setback would help accommodate the greater amount of pedestrian, transit and bicycle traffic that will concentrate approaching the crosswalks of the intersections. See Fig. 5. 8. The visual images and impressions of the “view from the road” convey a powerful message about a district’s identity and sense of place. The two major places to shape these impressions for Westgate are: (a) at the gateways into the district; and (b) at the epicenter of the district, which in this case is the intersection of SR 104 and 100th Ave W. (a) The “Edmonds Welcomes you to Westgate” sign that was erected during the City’s centennial in 1990 was recently removed. It was located not at the entry to the district, but rather well within it, adjacent to the new Walgreens. A better location for a new district gateway sign would be further east on SR 104, closer to 95th Ave W. It would also help to move the 35 mph speed limit sign even further east, in order to help slow down westbound motorists before they enter the Westgate mixed use district. (b) The WMU zoning district should amend the corner requirements for the four properties at the intersection. Strong, structural vertical elements will read best from the perspective of the motorists and take up relatively little horizontal space between the Packet Page 177 of 224 3 building and the curb. Trellis, pergola or arbor treatments could incorporate signage, sculptural motifs, and banners. Such prominent visual landmarks would be a relatively small cost to projects on these corners, but collectively create a strong visual image for Westgate. See Figures 11 through 17. 9. Although further work on other parts of the SR 104 corridor will continue into the spring, the information in this memo and the Fehr and Peers Memo answers the transportation, parking and land use questions regarding Westgate. No further work on the SR 104 Corridor Study is necessary to support the Westgate conclusions in these two Memos. II. Background Edmonds is a city of commercial districts and residential neighborhoods. Some districts are relatively large, such as Downtown Edmonds and the SR 99 commercial corridor. Others are smaller, such as Firdale, Five Corners and Westgate. While commercial districts share some objectives, circumstances and characteristics (e.g., location on arterials and typically a mix of commercial uses), each is also somewhat unique. Some, such as the Downtown, already have multifamily residential incorporated into the land use pattern while others, such as the SR 99 corridor and Westgate, may add residential as part of the use mix. Providing housing choices in commercial districts, in the form of mixed-use buildings and/or mixed-use projects, responds to an emerging market - Baby Boomers and Millennials. These two cohorts combined are the majority of today’s U.S. population – and many have strong interest in housing choices other than the traditional detached single-family home. They would be attracted to housing opportunities in mixed-use districts with good access to transit, bicycle and walkway facilities, grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants, banks, and other goods and services nearby. The Westgate District presently has many of these amenities. As a state highway, SR 104 will continue to play an important role linking the regional transit system and road network to Downtown Edmonds, the WSF Terminal, and the Amtrak/Sounder station. The Washington State Department of Transportation recognizes that many segments of the state highway system serve multiple functions – not just as parts of the regional mobility system – but also as “Main Streets” for many communities in the urban area. To evaluate potential code amendments and/or physical projects that would advance the City’s objectives, it helps to begin with an understanding of Westgate’s fundamental urban design structure and character. The following urban design terms have been used to describe the constituent parts of urban structure: • Districts are geographic sections of the city with some shared and identifying character. Always identifiable from the inside, districts frequently have distinct boundaries or edges and are traversed by paths. • Edges are the linear elements that separate districts, such as a shoreline, railroad tracks, freeways, or steep slopes. • Paths are the channels along which an observer moves. They may be streets, walkways, bike lanes, or transit lines. People observe the city while moving through it, and along these paths the other environmental elements are perceived, arranged and related. • Nodes are concentrations of uses or activities, often at the convergence of several paths, and frequently serving as destinations within a district. Packet Page 178 of 224 4 • Gateways are the points or places along paths that serve as the entrance to a district. • Landmarks are another type of point-reference, but an observer does not enter them – they are external. They are physical objects: a distinctive building, sign, or prominent natural feature, e.g., a very large tree or hill. While some landmarks have deliberate symbolic meaning, e.g., a large statue, many landmarks are simply clear and vivid objects in the environment that provide the viewer with a sense of place and orientation. Applying this methodology to Westgate (see Figure 1) it is a District, similar to other Edmonds districts in some ways, but distinct in other ways. Westgate is accessed and traversed by two major Paths (SR 104/100th Ave. W), and bordered on the north and south by strong topographic and forested Edges. The Gateways into Westgate are not now marked with public signage, but generally occur along Paths where there is a distinct shift in land use. This is most clear on 100th Ave W, less so on SR 104. Finally, there are a series of land use/activity Nodes within the district, usually sharing localized circulation and parking areas. The largest and most prominent Node in Westgate consists of the four quadrants of the intersection of SR 104 and 100th Ave. W. Unlike many urban districts and nodes, Westgate lacks prominent and vivid landmarks. The old “Robin Hood Lanes” sign was a prominent local landmark due to its size, shape and character. While a lot of commercial signage remains in Westgate, it serves localized functions identifying individual businesses, rather than an entire district or node. The four star symbols in Fig. 1 indicate a potential rather than an existing set of landmarks. This location, at the convergence of two major Paths, linking the four quadrants of the area’s major activity Node, is a major urban design opportunity to provide orientation, identity, and a strong sense of Westgate as a place. Fig. 1 The Edmonds Westgate District – Urban Design Elements NODE% NODE% NODE% N O D E % Northern( Gateway( Southern( Gateway( Eastern( Gateway( Western( Gateway( DISTRICT(EDGE( DISTRICT(EDGE( DISTRICT(E D G E ( DISTRICT(E D G E ( DISTRICT(EDGE( DISTRICT(EDGE( DI S T R I C T ( E D G E ( MAJOR% ACTIVITY% NODE% ( N O D E % Packet Page 179 of 224 5 III. Questions and Analysis 1. What are the long-term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue West through Westgate? The Fehr and Peers Memo evaluates current and forecasted traffic volumes, speeds and movements on SR 104 and 100th Ave W. It concludes in relevant part: “WSDOT sees SR 104 as a ‘Main Street Roadway’ that has a multimodal focus. Traffic forecasts and analysis show no additional through lanes or turning lanes are needed. Traffic volumes will increase along 100th Avenue W., but the traffic can be accommodated with the existing lane configuration. No additional right-of-way along 100th Avenue W. is needed to provide for traffic flow and the wider sidewalk/planter requirements.” 2. How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated? The WMU should be amended to adopt a standard for bicycle racks to be provided in both residential and commercial new developments at Westgate. The wide sidewalks required as a standard for both SR 104 and 100th Ave W. will be sufficient to provide for safe and attractive pedestrian movement along the block faces. An increased setback of 15’ from the property line near the corners of the intersection will provide additional room for both pedestrian movement and amenities such as lighting standards, bollards, and street trees. The consulting team has evaluated the opportunities for adding bicycle lanes to 100th Ave W. It would be possible to add lanes within the existing rights-of-way by restriping and making minor improvements (e.g., islands and tapers). See Figs. 2, 3 and 4. Fig. 2 Road Diet section option for 100th Ave. W. 8’ sidewalk 5’ planter 5’ bike lane 11’ travel lane 11’ travel lane 11’ travel lane 5’ bike lane 5’ planter 8’ sidewalk Fig. 3 Firdale Ave illustrates a section with 3 travel lanes and 2 bicycle lanes Packet Page 180 of 224 6 Fig. 4 Schematic of road diet, adding bicycle lanes to 100th Ave W. 3. What should the WMU code say about building setback requirements along these two roadways? The draft Code for the Westgate District departs from the conventions of traditional zoning, such as the default 20’ front yard setback. By reducing the setback to 12 feet adjacent to SR 104 and 100th Ave W., the proposed Code brings the building facade closer to the street. This conveys that the space between the building frontage and the curb is a place for people on foot or bicycle, as opposed to automobiles. The 12-foot setback (in combination with the 8 foot sidewalk in the right of way) provides sufficient width to accommodate safe and comfortable pedestrian movement along the block face, as well as room for benches, landscaping, tables, etc. This is illustrated in the two cross sections in Figure 5. Packet Page 181 of 224 7 Fig. 5 Illustrative Cross Sections at SR 104/100th Ave W. Pushing the building face further back, as the 20’ setback would do, doesn’t add much to the qualitative value of this frontage. Rather, it forces more of the “amenity” and “open space” away from the site interior, reducing the chance to maximize amenities throughout the site. Another negative consequence of the 20-foot setback is to lessen redevelopment potential by reducing the gross floor area achievable. The scale of this impact is difficult to quantify – what can be said is that it does less to encourage redevelopment than the 12 foot setback. Packet Page 182 of 224 8 The portions of sites within 40’ of the intersection have an additional and somewhat different role than the rest of the frontage. To accommodate the greater amount of pedestrian foot and bicycle traffic (at the confluence of two crosswalks) as well as the likely entryways into the buildings, a larger setback, such as 15 feet, would be appropriate. These observations are summarized for the SW Quadrant in the matrix below. 4. What amendments to the WMU could be adopted to highlight Westgate as a walkable, sustainable, mixed use District? Existing conditions at the intersection of SR 104/100th Ave W. are illustrated in Figures 6 through 10. Figure 6 is an aerial perspective, while Figures 7 through 10 are ground level perspective images of the four quadrants at this intersection. Packet Page 183 of 224 9 Fig. 6 Aerial perspective of intersection at SR 104/100th Ave W. Fig. 7 NW Corner – QFC and other retail uses and restaurants Packet Page 184 of 224 10 Fig. 8 NE Corner - PCC and Walgreen’s Pharmacy Fig. 9 SE Corner – Key Bank, etc. Fig. 10 SW Corner - Starbucks, Bartells, etc. Packet Page 185 of 224 11 In September of 2014, City staff drafted for Council’s consideration an additional amendment to Section 22.110.070 – Amenity Space, Open Space, and Green Factor Standards. The new paragraph D, titled SR-104/100th Avenue Intersection, focused on the private properties that immediately abut this intersection and proposed language to address the types of improvements that would be appropriate. Using that September draft language as a basis, I recommend the following revisions, shown with underlining and strikethroughs as follows: D. SR-104 / 100th Avenue Intersection. 1. The design objectives for configuration of development, amenity space, open space, and landscaping landscape construction features at this key intersection is intended are to provide a sense of place and convey the walkable and sustainable character of serve as a signal of arrival at the Westgate District area. 2. Building step-backs, pedestrian oriented facades and amenities are required for the portions of buildings within forty feet of the corner at each quadrant of this intersection. 3. The design objectives required setback areas at this intersection shall be designed to use addressed with a combination of landscaping, building façade treatments, public signage and amenity features (e.g. water features, art work, bollards, benches, pedestrian scale lighting, arbors, greenwalls, arcades). to signify the intersection’s importance as a focal point of the Westgate area. Paragraph 1 sets forth the City’s design objectives for the Westgate District : (1) to provide a sense of place and identity for Westgate and (2) to convey the desired walkable and sustainable character of the District. As the epicenter of Westgate, these four quadrants and the intersection itself play important functional and symbolic roles. The creation of distinct and memorable visual landmarks at these four corners can be achieved with landscape construction amenities, as discussed below. These are improvements that could be placed on the façade of new structures at the corners of the intersection, or freestanding in the open spaces between the building façade and the curb. Paragraph 2 specifies building placement, the details of building facades, and the furnishings to be placed in the public spaces between the buildings and the curb. Paragraph 3 identifies a menu of physical improvements and amenities that developers would be required to design and install. Below are examples of possible building facade treatments and landscape construction amenities. The specific details of a proposed design would be reviewed and approved through the City’s Design Review Process. Once a “unifying theme,” for example, a public sign or solar-powered light standard, is determined with the first development subject to this standard, it would inform appropriate facade treatments and landscape construction amenities as redevelopment occurs on the other three corners. Figures 11 through 16 are examples of potential “landscape construction amenities” that could be incorporated into the corner designs at this key intersection. It is recommended that these figures be included in the Westgate Code to give potential developers and their designers a clear idea of the type of furnishings that the City may require for these key public spaces. Packet Page 186 of 224 12 Fig. 11 Pergola Fig. 12 Arbor Fig. 13 Bollards Fig. 14 Green Wall Fig. 15 Public signage Fig. 16 Solar lighting An element like a pergola or arbor can also provide a location to display civic banners, public signage or lighting standards. If a major district gateway improvement is made, for example, at the easternmost entry into the Westgate District, it would be logical to coordinate design materials, fonts or other details with any such landmark improvements made at the intersection corners. One example might look like this: Fig. 17 Potential vertical gateway/landmark feature Many districts, nodes, and centers have utilized landscape construction amenities of this sort to provide orientation, convey character and provide local identity. See Attachment A for an example of how a similar treatment was done at the Crossroads District in Bellevue. The Bellevue example utilized low masonry walls with inset tile work on all four corners, with a more elaborate arbor and landscaping on the Northeast corner (by the Bank of America). 5. How should property access and internal circulation be handled? Access management to properties in Westgate will be important for safe and efficient travel within and between the four quadrants. The number, location and permitted turning movements into and out of driveways on 100th Ave W. and SR 104 should be controlled by the Westgate Packet Page 187 of 224 13 Access Management Master Plan (AMMP) See Figure 18. As permits are processed for properties in the WMU, existing driveways may be required to be relocated, reconfigured or eliminated to achieve the City’s access management objectives. Internal circulation within the four quadrants will also be controlled by the AMMP. Internal circulation drives will be subject to the dimensions and features specified at 22.110.050, and shall connect with the driveways as identified or modified in the AMMP. The specific placement of the internal circulation drives will be evaluated and approved as part of the design review process for permit applications within the WMU zone. Fig. 18 Westgate Access Management Master Plan 6. What is the appropriate parking standard for commercial uses in the Westgate district? As previously noted, Westgate shares some attributes with Downtown Edmonds and the SR 99 corridor, such as access by a state highway, transit availability and a mix of commercial activities. It is noteworthy that, compared to most other districts in Edmonds, Westgate is a very walkable district. The national Walk Score methodology measures how many daily errands can be accomplished on foot, based on the availability and proximity of typical destinations to residences. See Fig. 19. 10 0 th %A v e % W . % SR%104% %Access%Management%Master%Plan% Conceptual%internal%circula=on%drive%(approximate%loca=on)%% Exis=ng%driveway%link%to%internal%circula=on%drive%% Exis=ng%driveway%to%become%right%turns%only%% Exis=ng%driveway%to%remove% Exis=ng%driveway%to%remain% Special%Note:%consolida=on%of%these%five%driveways%is%encouraged%% 14 A major premise of the proposed innovative approach to mixed-use zoning is to tailor regulations to recognize a district’s unique circumstances, attributes and objectives. In recognition of Westgate’s high walkability, access to transit, and potential for bicycle access, the Planning Board recommended that the WMU zone have a blended parking ratio of 1 stall for each 500 sq. ft. of commercial floor area. In view of Westgate’s existing and emerging multi-modal character, this appears to be a reasonable parking standard. It has been suggested that perhaps a ratio of 1 stall per 400 sq. ft. would be appropriate, since that ratio was considered for Edmonds’ SR 99 corridor. However, as noted in Figure 18, the Westgate District is a more walkable area than the SR 99 corridor. The land use pattern of the SR 99 corridor includes very large parcels with great parcel depth back from the state highway. While the SR 99 corridor does have some uses that would be assets for a mixed-use neighborhood, such as grocery stores and restaurants, they are interspersed with institutional and auto-oriented uses (health care offices, auto sales and service). The overall large lot pattern means that walking distances are greater. In contrast, the parcels at Westgate are much smaller and most of the mix of uses (e.g., grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants) are within a much more walkable distance. Fig. 19 Walk Score Ranges in Edmonds Walk Score Edmonds Districts 90 to 100 Walker’s Paradise Daily errands do not require a car 70 to 89 Very Walkable Most errands can be accomplished on foot Downtown Edmonds (81) Westgate (70) 50 to 69 Somewhat Walkable Some errands can be accomplished on foot SR 99 – Starbucks (64) SR 99 - Ranch Market (59) Firdale (56) 25 to 49 Car dependent Most errands require a car SR 99 – Whirlyball site (49) Five Corners – (42) 0 to 24 Car dependent Almost all errands require a car Given that development and redevelopment at Westgate will occur over a number of years, there is little risk in adopting the 1 stall per 500 square feet of commercial floor area. If experience warrants, it would be a relatively simple matter for the City to amend the WMU parking ratio. Packet Page 189 of 224 15 Attachment A Intersection improvements at NE 8th Street and 156th Ave NE in Bellevue Fig. 20 Intersection detail Fig. 21 Crosswalks include patterned pavement NORTH This intersection carries comparable traffic volumes but has been improved with patterned pavement crosswalks to enhance pedestrian visibility and safety. At each of the four corners, the developers were required to incorporate into their site plans landscape construction improvements including an arbor and benches on the NE corner, and vegetation and low masonry walls with inset tile work on all four corners. Packet Page 190 of 224 16 Fig. 22 NW corner – Crossroads in Bellevue Fig. 23 NE corner – Crossroads in Bellevue Fig 24 SW corner -‐ Crossroads in Bellevue Packet Page 191 of 224 1001 4th Avenue | Suite 4120 | Seattle, WA 98154 | (206) 576-4220 | Fax (206) 576-4225 www.fehrandpeers.com MEMORANDUM Date: January 26, 2015 To: Bertrand Hauss, City of Edmonds From: Donald Samdahl, Fehr & Peers Subject: Westgate Area Transportation Analysis SE14-0360 As part of the SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis, the consulting team was asked to focus initial analysis on the Westgate area. A memorandum by Joseph Tovar (1/28/15) summarizes the team’s review of a variety of transportation, land use and urban design issues. This memorandum provides additional transportation perspectives on the following questions: 1. What are the long‐term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue W through Westgate? 2. How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated? 3. How should property access and internal circulation be considered? This memorandum provides insights into each of these issues to help the city in finalizing its form‐based code requirements. What are the long-term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue W through Westgate? The team evaluated the current and forecasted traffic volumes, speeds and movements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. This analysis took into account traffic forecasts to 2035, including the effects of WSDOT ferry traffic and the impacts from build‐out of the Point Wells development. Packet Page 192 of 224 Bertrand Hauss 1/26/2015 Page 2 of 7 SR 104 WSDOT considers SR 104 as a ‘Main Street Roadway’ that has a multimodal focus and has no plans to widen SR 104 through Edmonds. Our traffic forecasts and analysis confirm that no additional widening/capacity is needed through Westgate. 100th Avenue W Traffic volumes are anticipated to increase along 100th Avenue W; however, the projected traffic increase could be accommodated with the existing lane configuration. No additional right‐of‐ way along 100th Avenue W is needed to provide for traffic flow and the wider sidewalk/planter strip requirements. Intersection Analysis The team analyzed future (2035) traffic volumes and traffic operations at the SR 104/100th Avenue W intersection. If no changes are made to the channelization, the intersection would operate at Level of Service (LOS) D during the PM peak hour. The team also analyzed a road diet on 100th Avenue W to allow for bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks through Westgate. The road diet proposes a 3‐lane cross section plus bicycle lanes, planter strips and sidewalks (see Figures 1 and 2). On the northbound 100th Avenue W approach to SR 104, the team recommends the inclusion of a right turn lane to accommodate heavy right turning volumes (see Figure 3). Adding a northbound right‐turn lane would eliminate the planter strip for the length of the right turn lane. The resulting LOS would remain at D, although the overall intersection delay would be slightly worse with the road diet compared to existing conditions. A LOS of D meets the city’s performance threshold for acceptable intersection operations1. Under both scenarios, delays could be reduced by allowing permissive + protected left turns on the 100th Avenue W approaches to the intersection. In summary, both SR 104 and 100th Avenue W would have sufficient capacity to serve forecasted increases in traffic volumes. The City may choose to re‐stripe either or both roads and re‐phase the signal at the intersection to meet mobility and safety objectives; however, neither action depends on the acquisition of additional right‐of‐way. 1 SR 104 is a Highway of Statewide Significance and has a LOS E standard per WSDOT guidelines. Packet Page 193 of 224 Bertrand Hauss 1/26/2015 Page 3 of 7 Figure 1. Proposed SR 104/100th Avenue W Channelization Packet Page 194 of 224 Bertrand Hauss 1/26/2015 Page 4 of 7 Figure 2. 100th Avenue W with 3-Lane Cross Section Figure 3. 100th Avenue W with 3-Lane plus northbound Right-Turn Lane Cross Section Packet Page 195 of 224 Bertrand Hauss 1/26/2015 Page 5 of 7 How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated? Bicycles Bicycle facilities are not envisioned along SR 104, but other parallel and connecting bike routes are included within the comprehensive transportation plan. Bicycle lanes on 100th Avenue W are likely to become part of the city’s long‐range plan. 100th Avenue W is an important non‐motorized north/south link between the cities of Shoreline and Edmonds. As discussed above, the team examined a potential road diet on 100th Avenue W. This would convert the existing 4‐lanes into a 3‐lane configuration plus bike lanes. This layout is projected to function acceptably for traffic and provide for a continuous bicycle lane through the Westgate area. As indicated in the Tovar memorandum, bicycles could be accommodated on private property pursuant to proposed amendments to the draft Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zoning district. These enhancements would tie in well with the bicycle treatments along 100th Avenue W. Pedestrians Pedestrians need to have a safe and pleasant environment along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W, crossing those streets, and internally within private properties. As summarized by Tovar, pedestrians would benefit by having wider sidewalks along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W along with the installation of highly visible crosswalk panels and/or pavement at the intersection of SR 104/100th Avenue W2. This intersection will provide the primary pedestrian connections among the Westgate quadrants. 2 The Tovar memorandum provides details regarding the use of urban design treatments to improve the pedestrian experience in Westgate. Packet Page 196 of 224 Bertrand Hauss 1/26/2015 Page 6 of 7 A possible midblock pedestrian crossing of 100th Avenue W connecting the entrances of the QFC and PCC was also considered. The midblock crossing appears to be physically and operationally feasible, but requires additional analysis and coordination with property owners. This crossing could also serve as a traffic calming and safety device along 100th Avenue W because the nearby driveways could be reconfigured to provide right‐in/right‐out movements. How should property access and internal circulation be considered? The Westgate area is bisected into four quadrants by SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. Vehicular access is provided at each quadrant by a variety of driveways, serving a mix of individual and grouped properties. The northeast quadrant has been recently redeveloped, with upgraded access points along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. The other quadrants provide a mix of access points, some of which pose safety and circulation problems. Tovar’s memorandum encourages consolidation of driveways within each quadrant and provide maximum internal circulation between properties. This will reduce in and out driving on the arterials and encourage one‐stop parking. Tovar describes specific access treatments within each quadrant3. One access treatment to improve safety is the designation of right‐in/right‐out movements at selected driveways. Tovar’s memorandum identifies some specific locations where these restrictions may be considered. To address staff and resident concerns about vehicles ‘darting’ across SR 104 and 100th Avenue W at driveways, a detailed access management plan for this area could be developed. This plan could serve to enhance aesthetics through landscaped medians, safety through directing vehicles to turn at predictable and controlled locations, and accessibility through new and enhanced pedestrian crossing. Vehicular 3 Tovar Memorandum: Property vehicular access within Westgate should be controlled with additional WMU zoning district access management standards. These standards would essentially: (a) “freeze” the driveway locations on SR 104 east of 100th Ave. W. ;(b) eliminate or consolidate the existing driveways on 100th Ave W. (particularly the QFC and Bartell quadrants) and: (c) eliminate or consolidated the driveways on SR 104 west of 100th Ave W. Flexibility in the specific location and dimensions of driveways should be administered through the Code’s review process of future site plan/building permit applications. Packet Page 197 of 224 Bertrand Hauss 1/26/2015 Page 7 of 7 connections between quadrants take place through the SR 104/100th Avenue W intersection. Some midblock vehicle crossings of 100th Avenue W take place, notably between PCC and QFC. These movements are problematic, especially during peak periods. There are no reasonable options to provide additional signalized vehicular crossings between quadrants, but there may be opportunities for midblock pedestrian crossings. As described above, safe and efficient pedestrian connections between QFC and PCC would reduce the need for people to drive between the two sites. The signal at the SR 104/100th Avenue W intersection provides full pedestrian crosswalks and signalization, although crossing these roadways is not always a pleasant experience. Implementing wider sidewalks and urban design features at this intersection will encourage more pedestrian connections among the four Westgate quadrants. Packet Page 198 of 224 Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS A 13 B 13 B 12 B 12 BA 29 SR 104 & 236th St SW Signal D 5 28 SR 104 & 95th Pl W Signal D 7 B 16 B 16 B 10 B 10 BA 27 SR 104 & 226th St Signal D 11 26 SR 104 & Dayton Signal D 8 A 8 A 8 A25Main St. and Sunset Ave.Signal D 7 C 77 E Add 325' WB to NB right turn lane. Provide NB to EB right turn overlap with WB left.47 D >150 F Install Signal. Provided protected NB/SB left turns 11.9 BE 21 SR 104 & 76th Ave Signal D 23 20 SR 104 & 238th St Side Street Stop D 50 41 D 41 DC18SR 104 & 100th Ave.Signal D 26 Improvement Notes 2035 Improvements PM PM PM 2035 #Intersection Control LOS Standard 2015 Packet Page 199 of 224 AM-7851 7. D. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/14/2015 Time:10 Minutes Submitted For:Henry Schroder Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Forward to Consent Information Subject Title Report on final construction costs for the 2014 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements and acceptance of project. Recommendation Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the next Council meeting. Previous Council Action On August 12, 2014, Council awarded a contract to D & G Backhoe, Inc. in the amount of $337,759.43 for the 2014 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements Project. Narrative On September 10, 2014, D & G Backhoe, Inc. was given the Notice to Proceed with construction, stipulating 50 working days for completion. This project constructed drainage improvements at three different sites throughout the city due to stormwater capacity needs, pipe age and maintenance. The contractor installed 891 linear feet of storm drain lines and constructed three dry wells. The contract award amount was $337,759.43 and Council approved a management reserve of $34,000. During the course of the contract, one added-cost change order was written against the project. The project is complete and the final cost paid to D & G Backhoe, Inc. was $334,271.05. Attachments Project Locations Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Megan Luttrell 07/08/2015 09:18 AM Public Works Phil Williams 07/09/2015 02:12 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 07/09/2015 02:20 PM Mayor Dave Earling 07/09/2015 02:40 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/09/2015 02:42 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 07/08/2015 08:55 AM Final Approval Date: 07/09/2015 Packet Page 200 of 224 2 0 1 4 C i t y w i d e S t o r m 2 0 1 4 C i t y w i d e S t o r mD r a i n a g e I m p r o v e m e n t s D r a i n a g e I m p r o v e m e n t s MAPLE ST5TH A V E S W ALNUT ST 4 T H A V E S 4 T H A V E S 4 t h A v e n u e S t o r m L i n eb e t w e e n W a l n u t a n d D a y t o n · 1 0 2 N D A V E W 238TH ST SW 1 0 2 N D P L W I n f i l t r a t i o n S y s t e m1 0 2 2 0 - 2 3 8 t h S t S W 1 0 4 T H A V E W 1 0 7 T H P L W 1 0 6 T H P L W 240TH PL SW 240TH PL D r y W e l l S y s t e mC i t y A l l e y, N o r t h o f 2 4 0 t h S t S W SibrelPacket Page 201 of 224 AM-7859 7. E. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/14/2015 Time:30 Minutes Submitted By:Shane Hope Department:Development Services Type: Information Information Subject Title Discussion of Boards and Commissions Recommendation Discuss recommendations for boards and commissions, as follows: 1. In general (including the Mayor's recommendation, below) 2. For Diversity Commission 3. For Tree Board Previous Council Action City Council identified "boards and commissions" as an area needing discussion during the 2015 Council retreat. Councilmembers Joan Bloom, Diane Buckshnis, and Adrienne Fraley Monillas worked with staff to review information and bring forward recommendations for the full Council to consider. City Council discussed the initial recommendations on June 2, 2015. Narrative BACKGROUND As part of its retreat in March 2015, the City Council prioritized various topics to follow up on. For each priority topic, a subgroup consisting of volunteer Council member and City department directors were to meet and identify what should be brought forward, including any recommendations, for the full Council’s consideration. For the topic of “Boards and Commissions,” the subgroup consisted of three Councilmembers (Bloom, Buckshnis, Fraley-Monillas), and two staff members (Hite and Hope). The subgroup met four times and worked together to compile and evaluate information, and identify initial recommendations for the full Council to discussion and possibly take action on June 2. (See Attachment 1.) The initial recommendations included specific recommendations for a limited amount of organizational assistance by a consultant for: (a) the Diversity Commission and (b) the Tree Board. (See Attachments 2 and 3, respectively.) At the June 2 meeting, the City Council had extensive conversation about the issues and options for boards and commissions. (See Attachment 4,excerpt from the June 2 meeting minutes.) The Council determined to take this topic up at another meeting and asked the Mayor to provide some Packet Page 202 of 224 recommendations as well. CURRENT INFORMATION Since then, the chart of existing City of Edmonds boards/commissions/committees (Attachment 5) has been slightly refined from the previous version. In addition, a new table has been prepared to show the number and types of codifed boards and commissions that are operating in other nearby cities. The data shows that Edmonds has more appointed groups identified in code than other cities of our area. Citizen boards, commissions, and committees can be a good way of getting input on certain subjects. On the other hand, the operation of such groups comes with a cost. For example, in Edmonds, for the various boards and commissions to have City email accounts (106 accounts total), the initial software licensing cost is about $25,000 and then $5800 per year for maintenance (total for the same accounts). In addition, it’s important for the success of any group to have a clearly established role provided by the City Council (or whoever the group is advising) so the members can use their time and energy most effectively. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS The Mayor’s recommendations, as requested by the City Council, will be described in more detail at the July 14 City Council meeting. The summary version is: 1. Consider the full cost of appointed boards, commissions, etc. (staff hours, room expenses, internet/technology, etc.); recall that staff hours are not "free"; they are simply taken from something else. 2. Make sure that the charter or authority of each codified board/commission is up-to-date and clear for what is expected. (Roles that are written very broadly may go beyond the scope of the Council’s actual intent and can lead to unrealistic expectations.) 3. Specifically: (a) De-formalize or disband the Library Board, since library operations are now under the Library District. That means City staff would not attend. (b) Do not have an ongoing transportation or parking committee. Organize ad hoc committees when necessary, for example, when a new transportation plan is being developed or a special issue needs research/input. (c) Recognize that the Highway 99 Task Force, which has been meeting for more than 10 years, is not necessary at this point. However, broad input will be sought from Highway 99 area residents and businesses with the upcoming Highway 99 subarea plan. (d) Provide several thousand dollars for the remainder of this year for the Diversity Commission and Tree Board to each have consultant help for specific purposes, with some oversight of the consultants from City staff (namely Patrick Doherty for Diversity and, for the Tree Board, oversight from the Parks Director, Development Services Director, or Public Works Director—depending on whether the Tree Board’s work over the next year or so will be focused on city parks, city right of way, private property, or some combination. (e) Continue other boards and commission in existence now but recognize that if more is expected of them, additional staffing will be needed too. (f) Whenever possible, use facilities that are open after regular business hours (including the Frances Anderson Center) for board/commission meetings held outside of regular business hours (so that the public can enter without the cost of a special door monitor). Attachments Initial Group Recommendations Diversity Commission Tree Board Packet Page 203 of 224 Tree Board City Council Minutes of 6.2.15 Monthly Time for Boards & Commissions Other Cities Comparison Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 07/09/2015 10:07 PM Mayor Dave Earling 07/10/2015 05:43 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/10/2015 07:46 AM Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 07/09/2015 03:36 PM Final Approval Date: 07/10/2015 Packet Page 204 of 224 Boards and Commissions Council Task Force Recommendations Task Force included: Diane Buckshnis, Joan Bloom, Adrienne Fraley Monillas, Shane Hope, Carrie Hite. The task force defined four areas in which to discuss and bring forth recommendations. 1. Staffing of Boards and Commissions The task force compiled a chart listing all the boards and commissions/other committees, staff responsible, hours of time dedicated to each, and any pertinent notes. As is evident in the chart, the level of staffing, the amount of hours for each board or commission, and the time allocated varies. The constant was that all boards and commissions have some staff dedicated to their efforts. The exceptions to this are the Tree Board (which has some administrative assistance and other staff support, but no direct lead or staff liaison) and the newly adopted Diversity Commission (which has no dedicated administrative assistance or staff lead). It should be noted, that the task force also discussed the cost of staffing for the boards and commissions. This also varies, but if one were to multiply the hours times an average of $50 per hour (including benefits), you can see a column to right of the hours to determine the average cost. Although most of the hours dedicated to Boards and Commission are performed by exempt staff ( i.e. no overtime is incurred), there is an indirect cost of the tasks and/or priorities that do not get completed because of the amount of time spent on Boards and Commissions. Question to the full Council: Do the staff hours seem to be appropriate to each Board and/or Commission? Is there any concern about the amount of hours dedicated to each? Will the Council consider adding some staff support for the Tree Board? (Scope of work attached). Will the Council consider adding some staff support for the Diversity Commission? (Scope of work attached). 2. Efficiencies The task force discussed the possibility of combining boards and/or commission, determining if any efficiency could be gained. In the attached chart, you will also see the level of priority identified, based on whether the group is required by City code, State code, and/or as a priority of the City. The task force is recommending the following: a. Council review the Citizens Economic Development Commission (already identified as a separate process from this one). Packet Page 205 of 224 b. The Highway 99 task force is to be combined with the Citizens Economic Development Commission (“EDC”). c. Two Council members of the task force are recommending that the Parking Committee be combined with the Transportation Committee and reconstituted on an ongoing, rather than ad hoc basis. This would require additional resources and a clear understanding of the committee’s role. Aside from these above recommendations, the task force did not have any other strong recommendations to combine efforts, or create additional efficiencies. 3. Financial Considerations: The task force discussed the financial impact of the boards and commissions. The task force has several recommendations to mitigate the cost of operating boards and commissions, as follows: a. Door Monitor/Locations: Research feasibility of moving EDC, Tree Board. Historic Preservation Commission and Sister City Commission to different locations so as not to incur expenses for a monitor, and ensure the City is meeting the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). b. Notes vs. Minutes: Charge each board/commission with producing summary notes/minutes, but limit the boards/commission that the City would take verbatim minutes to: Architectural Design Board, EDC, Tree Board, and Planning Board. This will reduce the cost of hiring minute takers. c. Staff Paid Overtime: Most staff that support Boards and Commissions are exempt, and do not incur overtime. Some would incur comp time that they could take at a later date. The other cost is that the time staff spends on support of boards/commissions detracts from other work they could be performing. d. Staffing Costs: For the Tree Board and Diversity Commission, the task force is recommending that Council provide support costs for consultant help, per the two attached scopes of work, to coordinate these entities. 4. Administrative: The task force discussed issues having to do with the OPMA, who notices meetings, how minutes/agendas are made available to the public, if there is or is not Council representation on each Board/Commission, if there is or is not student representation. The task force also discussed who appoints and/or confirms and what the role is of each Board/Commission. This varies with each commission. The task force would like the full Council to discuss this, and identify any concerns and/or questions they may have about the appointment process or Council representation on each commission. Packet Page 206 of 224 Consultant to the Diversity Commission Scope of work: 1. Work with the Diversity Task Force to develop application, recruit and review applicants to seat the first Diversity Commission. 2. Assist Council/Mayor to appoint the first Commission. 3. Facilitate first Commission meetings, until officers can be appointed. 4. Assist the chair in development of the agenda, participate in monthly meetings. 5. Be liaison between the Diversity Commission and City staff • Address issues raised by the public at meetings. Direct to appropriate staff for follow up. 6. Be the primary contact for the Diversity Commission, assist the commission in developing yearly work plan, outreach, programs and events. 7. Coordinate the provision of information, education and communication 8. Post meeting notices, coordinate meeting locations, update website and post summary minutes of the meetings. Cost: 10 hours/month x $50.00 = $6000/year Prorated from July 1 – December 31, 2015: $3000 Events: $3000 per year, or $1500 prorated for 2015. Total: July 1 – December 31, 2015: $4500 Ongoing each year: $9000 Packet Page 207 of 224 Consultant to the Tree Board Scope of work: 1. Participate in monthly meetings of Tree Board, assist in development of the agenda. 2. Be liaison between the Tree Board and city staff • Address issues raised by the public at meetings. Direct to appropriate staff for follow up. 3. Be the primary contact for Tree City USA applications • Gather data • Submit yearly application 4. Pursue and manage grants 5. Organize Arbor Day and other events 6. Coordinate outreach and education • Presentations to the Tree Board and public • Noticing and advertising of events 7. Update website and post educational materials. Cost: 10 hours/month x $50.00 = $6000/year Prorated from July 1 – December 31, 2015: $3000 Packet Page 208 of 224 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2015 Page 10 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 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 209 of 224 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2015 Page 11 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 210 of 224 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2015 Page 12 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 211 of 224 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2015 Page 13 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 212 of 224 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2015 Page 14 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 213 of 224 Bo a r d s / C o m m i s s i o n s Co m m i t t e e s Level Efficiency Bo a r d / C o m m i s s i o n Na m e St a f f Na m e Mo n t h l y Av g Hr s St a f f Ti m e Av e r a g e mo n t h l y co s t ( $5 0 . 0 0 pe r No t e s Council RepRequired by Code State P r i o r i t y R e c o r d (Can it be Combined with Ar c h i t e c t u r a l De s i g n Bo a r d De v Sv c s St a f f 2 0 10 0 0 Pr e p a r i n g me e t i n g ma t e r i a l s , at t e n d i n g me e t i n g s , po s t i n g no t i c e s , et c . Do e s no t me e t ev e r y mo n t h . No x Minutes/Noyes N o Ar t s Co m m i s s i o n Fr a n c e s Ch a p i n 1 8 90 0 Di r e c t su p p o r t in c l u d i n g mo n t h l y me e t i n g s , re t r e a t , bu d g e t , an n u a l re p o r t No x x N o t e s / S t a f f No Ar t s Co m m i s s i o n La u r i e Ro s e 8 40 0 Pr e p a r e me e t i n g ma t e r i a l s , sc h e d u l e & at t e n d me e t i n g s , ad d r e s s sp e c i f i c is s u e s Ce m e t e r y Bo a r d Cl i f f Ed w a r d s 4 20 0 Sp e c i a l pr o g r a m s , at t e n d me e t i n g s No x x x N o t e s / M e m b e r N o Ce m e t e r y Bo a r d Cy n t h i a Cr u z 2 10 0 Mi n u t e s , ag e n d a s , po s t i n g s , co n v e y a n c e s , pr e p a r i n g do c u m e n t s Ce m e t e r y Bo a r d Ri c h Li n d s a y 3 15 0 Sp e c i a l pr o g r a m s , is s u e s , at t e n d me e t i n g s Ci t i z e n ' s Ec o n o m i c De v e l o p m e n t Co m m i s s C i n d i Cr u z 2 2 11 0 0 Me e t i n g s , ag e n d a s , pr e p a r a t i o n fo r in c i d e n t a l re p o r t i n g an d su b ‐gr o u p me e t i n g s Yes (Expires 12/15) x Maybe M i n / D i n e s N o Ci t i z e n ' s Ec o n o m i c De v e l o p m e n t Co m m i s s D e v Sv c s St a f f 6 30 0 Pr e p a r i n g me e t i n g ma t e r i a l s , at t e n d i n g me e t i n g s , po s t i n g no t i c e s , et c . Ci t i z e n ' s Ec o n o m i c De v e l o p m e n t Co m m i s s F r a n c e s Ch a p i n 4 . 2 5 2 1 2 . 5 As it re l a t e s to ar t s an d to u r i s m Ci t i z e n ' s Ec o n o m i c De v e l o p m e n t Co m m i s s P a t r i c k Do h e r t y 1 5 75 0 Th i s is fo r di r e c t su p p o r t of th e ED C , bu t do e s no t in c l u d e ti m e sp e n t su p p o r t i n g ec o n o m i c de v e l o p m e n t Ci t i z e n ' s Tr e e Bo a r d De v Sv c s St a f f 8 40 0 Ad d r e s s i n g sp e c i f i c is s u e s , tr e e co d e up d a t e Yes x x M i n / D i n e s N o Ci t i z e n ' s Tr e e Bo a r d Pa r k s 2 10 0 As ne e d e d , ad d r e s s i n g sp e c i f i c is s u e s Ci t i z e n ' s Tr e e Bo a r d Ja n a Sp e l l m a n 2 10 0 Mi n u t e s / w e b / p u b l i c no t i c e s / s c h e d u l e s Ci v i l Se r v i c e Co m m i s s i o n Ma r y An n Ha r d i e 4 20 0 No x x x N o t e s / S t a f f N o Di s a b i l i t y Bo a r d HR 4 20 0 Pr e p a r e no t i c e s , ag e n d a s , mi n u t e s , ma t e r i a l s Yes, 2 x x x N o t e s / s t a f f No Ed m o n d s Hi s t o r i c Pr e s e r v a t i o n Co m m i s s i o D e v Sv c s St a f f 2 0 10 0 0 Pr e p a r i n g me e t i n g ma t e r i a l s , at t e n d i n g me e t i n g s , po s t i n g no t i c e s , et c . Yes x x T a p e / N o y e s N o Ed m o n d s Si s t e r Ci t y Co m m i s s i o n Ca r o l y n La Fa v e 2 0 10 0 0 Mo r e wh e n de l e g a t i o n s ar e in to w n No x x N o t e s / M e m b e r Li b r a r y Bo a r d Cy n t h i a Cr u z 4 20 0 Mi n u t e s , ag e n d a s , po s t i n g s , at t e n d i n g me e t i n g s , ev e n t s , em a i l s No x Maybe N o t e s / M e m b e r Sno ‐Isle Lo d g i n g Ta x Ad v i s o r y Co m m i t t e e Ci n d i Cr u z 4 . 5 22 5 Qu a r t e r l y me e t i n g s , mi n u t e s , ag e n d a s , fi n a n c i a l s , bu d g e t pr e p , st a t e re p o r t i n g Yes x x x N o t e s / s t a f f No Lo d g i n g Ta x Ad v i s o r y Co m m i t t e e Fr a n c e s Ch a p i n 1 . 2 5 6 2 . 5 Lo d g i n g Ta x Ad v i s o r y Co m m i t t e e Pa t r i c k Do h e r t y 1 50 Th i s is fo r di r e c t su p p o r t of th e LT A C me e t i n g s , bu t do e s no t in c l u d e ti m e sp e n t su p p o r t i n g to u r i s m or go a l s of LT A C Pl a n n i n g / P a r k s Bo a r d Ca r r i e Hi t e 5 25 0 Pa r k is s u e s , up d a t e s , PR O S , Ma s t e r pl a n s , et c . N o x x x M i n / N o y e s N o Pl a n n i n g / P a r k s Bo a r d De v Sv c s St a f f 8 0 40 0 0 Pr e p a r i n g me e t i n g ma t e r i a l s , at t e n d i n g me e t i n g s , po s t i n g no t i c e s , et c . xxx DI V E R S I T Y CO M M I S S I O N Co m m u n i t y Se r v No XX Ot h e r Co m m i t t e e s Hi g h w a y 99 Sh a n e / P a t r i c k 3 15 0 Ad Ho c as ne e d e d Yes, 2n o notes E D C ? Ma y o r s ' Cl i m a t e Pr o t e c t i o n PW / D e v Se r v / C a r o l y n me e t i n g no t e s Yes x s t a f f notes N o Pa r k i n g Co m m i t t e e ?notes/membe r Transpo? PF D Co m m i t t e e Yes x x x N o t e s N o Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n Co m m i t t e e Be r t r a n d Ad Ho c to ge t th r o u g h Co m p Pl a n pr o c e s s Yes Notes/staf f No 7/ 9 / 2 0 1 5 ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Page 214 of 224 Boards, Committees, and Commissions Cities of Lynnwood, Bothell, Marysville, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace and Mukilteo City Boards Commissions Committees City Boards Commissions Committees Edmonds Arch. Design Civil Arts Lodging Tax Mukilteo Appeals Planning Pop: 40,896 Bldg. Appeals Civil Service Pop: 20,993 Parks & Art Cemetery Sister City Disability Diversity Planning Economic Development Public Library Historic Preservation Tree Board Bothell Landmark Presv.Civil Service Lodging Tax/Tourism Advisory Shoreline Parks/Rec/Cultural Serv Pop: 36,567 Disability Planning Pop: 53,174 Tree Planning Library Council Salary Library Parks & Recs Shorelines Lynnwood Library Arts Tourism Advisory Pop: 36,687 Park Planning Disability Historical Firemen's Pension Civil Service Diversity Marysville Library Civil Service Diversity Advisory Pop: 65,087 Parks & Recs Advisory Salary Commission Cable Television Advisory Planning Citizens Adv for Housing & Com Dev Mill Creek Appeals/Adjustment Civil Service Pop: 19,200 Design Review Planning Art/Beautification Library Parks & Rec Mountlake Terrace Library Arts Advisory Lodging Tax Pop: 20,817 Disability Rec & Parks Community Policing Planning Packet Page 215 of 224 AM-7858 7. F. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/14/2015 Time:20 Minutes Submitted For:Patrick Doherty Submitted By:Patrick Doherty Department:Community Services Type: Potential Action Information Subject Title Continued discussion regarding potential purchase of the Edmonds Conference Center Recommendation N/A Previous Council Action On 6/9/15 the City Council voted to submit an offer to purchase the Edmonds Conference Center for the sum of $300,000, subject to a deed restriction requiring public use of the property for a period of no less than 30 years. Narrative At its 7/7/15 meeting the City Council discussed the City’s offer to purchase the Edmonds Conference Center and the current state of affairs related to that sale process. Based on information garnered in a discussion between City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty and the State Department of Enterprise Services staff person and State Assistant Attorney General , there were three other offers for the property, all in excess of the City’s offer of $300,000. The other offers consist of a top offer of $2,405,000, with an escalator clause to $2,800,000, followed by an offer for $1,200,000, followed by a third offer of $1,000,000. In the continuing spirit of providing another government agency an opportunity to purchase the property, the State officials indicated they would allow until Wednesday 7/15/15 for the City to provide any additional response or amended offer. At the conclusion of the discussion at the 7/7/15 meeting Councilmembers wished to place this issue on the 7/14/15 meeting agenda for continued discussion. Attachments Edmonds Offer Letter re Edmonds Conference Center Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 07/09/2015 11:28 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/09/2015 02:37 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/09/2015 02:42 PM Packet Page 216 of 224 Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 07/09/2015 11:18 AM Final Approval Date: 07/09/2015 Packet Page 217 of 224 Packet Page 218 of 224 AM-7860 7. G. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/14/2015 Time:10 Minutes Submitted For:Jeff Taraday Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Information Information Subject Title Discussion of Ordinance amending the Edmonds City Code relating to Council Committee Meetings and Formally Establishing the Committee of the Whole Recommendation Discuss and consider the proposed ordinance. Previous Council Action On July 7, 2015, the City Council directed the City Attorney to draft a code amendment to formally establish the Council Committee of the Whole, which would replace the Council Committees. Narrative The City Council expressed its desire to formalize its practice of having a committee of the whole consisting of the full Council rather than three different committees each comprised of two Councilmembers. Attachments Attachment 1 - Ordinance regarding study session code revisions Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 07/10/2015 09:54 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/10/2015 09:55 AM Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 07/10/2015 09:40 AM Final Approval Date: 07/10/2015 Packet Page 219 of 224 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE PROVISIONS RELATING TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND FORMALLY ESTABLISHING THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. WHEREAS, the city council would like to formalize its practice of having a committee of the whole consisting of the full council rather than three different committees each comprised of two councilmembers; and WHEREAS, the city council finds that the committee of the whole provides greater transparency by allowing the entire meeting to be broadcast on television and streamed online; and WHEREAS, the committee of the whole affords an opportunity for the entire council to discuss most items before they are forwarded to the consent calendar for final action; and WHEREAS, in the course of making these amendments, the city council sees fit to make other housekeeping amendments to the code sections being amended below; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1.04.010 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled “Regular public meeting time and days,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): Regular meetings of the city council shall be held on each Tuesday of every month throughout the year in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, at 7:00 p.m. The second and fourth Tuesdays of every month are hereby designated as committee of the whole work meetings, and the city council shall not hold any public hearings for which notice is required to Packet Page 220 of 224 be given by state law or ordinance of the city unless special notice of the same is posted as provided in ECC 1.03.020. The city council does not meet on the fifth Tuesday of a month unless a special meeting is called. Council meetings shall adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on the day initiated unless such adjournment is extended by an affirmative vote of a majority of the council as a whole plus one. In the event state law requires an adoption of an ordinance or other action on other than a Tuesday, such as budget hearings, said dates are hereby declared to be additional regular meeting dates upon which date the action, ordinance, resolution or hearing may be taken and/or adopted. Committee meetings of the council shall be held in conjunction with work meetings of the council at such times and in accordance with such procedures as the council and its respective committees shall establish. The 10:00 p.m. adjournment deadline set by this section shall apply only to meetings of the council as a whole and shall not affect the ability of any council subcommittee to meet after such time when so scheduled by the chair or of the subcommittee. Section 2. Section 1.02.031 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled “Council president,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): At the first council meeting in July for the year 1989, the city council shall elect one of its members as council president who shall also be the mayor pro tempore. The council president’s term shall be for six months and until his successor is elected. Following the initial six-month term, tThe council president shall be elected for a one-year terms by the city council at the first council meeting of each year and shall serve for a one-year term until his or her successor is elected at the first council meeting of the next year. A. At the same time, the city council shall elect a council president pro tempore who shall serve in the absence of the council president. In the Packet Page 221 of 224 event that both the council president and president pro tempore are unavailable, the council president shall appoint a member of the council to fulfill his/her duties while both are unavailable. B. In addition to any other duties assigned by the city council, the council president shall have the following responsibilities: 1. Make assignments to any all council committees, schedule committee hearings, and otherwise supervise the committee system, if one is used; 2. Formulate and prepare the agenda for city council meetings; and 3. Supervise and direct the activities of the executive assistant to council. C. In addition to the salary as a member of the city council, the council president shall be entitled to receive a salary of $100.00 per month and $25.00 per council meeting in order to compensate him for the time necessary to prepare the agenda and other associated responsibilities. This total additional compensation shall not exceed $200.00 per month. When the council president is absent and council president pro tempore is serving in his place, the city council president pro tempore shall receive the $25.00 per meeting payment. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Packet Page 222 of 224 CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 223 of 224 5 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2015, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE PROVISIONS RELATING TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND FORMALLY ESTABLISHING THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. . The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2015. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 Packet Page 224 of 224