The URL can be used to link to this page

2015.08.04 CC Agenda Packet AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 4, 2015 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 1.(5 Minutes)Roll Call 2.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda 3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items A.AM-7900 Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2015. B.AM-7915 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Kaleb Real Estate Group C.AM-7911 Approval of claim checks #215404 through #215501 dated July 30, 2015 for $1,301,399.75. Approval of payroll replacement check #61721 for $18,797.94. D.AM-7913 Authorization to award a construction contract in the amount of $1,181,347.00 for the 238th St SW Walkway Project to Taylor’s Excavators, Inc. E.AM-7912 Authorization to award a construction contract for the 220th Street SW Overlay from 84th Avenue W to 76th Avenue W F.AM-7910 Report on final construction costs for the 2014 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements and acceptance of project. 4.PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS A.(20 Minutes) AM-7883 Community Transit Updates Including Plans for the Future 5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* Packet Page 1 of 291 5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 6.STUDY ITEMS A.(15 Minutes) AM-7906 June 2015 Quarterly Financial Report B.(15 Minutes) AM-7905 Municipal Court Judge Salary Recommendation C.(30 Minutes) AM-7903 Discussion of Boards and Commissions 7.ACTION ITEMS A.(15 Minutes) AM-7914 Resolution adopting the 2016-2021 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program B.(30 Minutes) AM-7907 ILA with Edmonds School District for Woodway Fields 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 291 AM-7900 3. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/04/2015 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 28, 2015. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attachment 1 - Draft Council Meeting Minutes. Attachments Attachment 1 - 07-28-15 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 07/28/2015 07:58 AM Final Approval Date: 07/28/2015 Packet Page 3 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES July 28, 2015 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Michael Nelson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Scott James, Finance Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr. Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder SPECIAL MEETING 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(4)(a) and real estate per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso, Bloom, Mesaros and Nelson (joined executive session at 6:49 p.m.). Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director, Human Resources Manager Mary Ann Hardie, Sharon Cates, City Attorney’s Office, and City Clerk Scott Passey. At 7:03 p.m., Mayor Earling announced the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional 10 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:08 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:10 p.m. and led the flag salute. STUDY SESSION 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Packet Page 4 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 2 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 21, 2015 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #215303 THROUGH #215403 DATED JULY 23, 2015 FOR $796,044.91 C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM BONNIE BERKLEY ($48.00) D. APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2015 BUDGET 5. ARTS COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2014 Frances Chapin introduced Arts Commission Chair Kevin Conefrey. Mr. Conefrey explained the Arts Commission is a group of seven volunteer members who work with the Cultural Services Division on various projects. The Commission has existed for over 40 years with the ongoing mission to ensure the arts are an integral part of the central identity, quality of life and economic vitality of Edmonds. He highlighted 2014 projects: • Write on the Sound o 29 year history o 2½ day conference o Draws attendees from through the country o 265 participants generated over 70 hotel night states • Tourism Promotion Awards to community arts and cultural organizations who advertise their events to attract visitors outside of Edmonds o Awarded $9,500 from lodging tax funds • Performing Arts o Free summer in concert series  4,000 attendees in 2014 o Hazel Miller Plaza  12 free concerts funded by the Hazel Miller Foundation • Visual Arts o Manage rotating exhibit of visual arts in Edmonds Library, Frances Anderson Center and partner with the Arts Festival Foundation on joint exhibits including a special exhibit of the NW School Artists  54 regional artists and 20 students participated in the shows o Stages of History Art by Seattle artist Judith Caldwell installed and dedicated o Five Corners Roundabout artwork by CJ Rench installed and dedicated o Oversee acquisition and upkeep of publicly owned work that includes 150 original pieces with over 30 permanently sited including the terrazzo floor in the Public Safety building lobby and outside sculptures  Curate the Hekinan collection and selections currently on exhibit in the Brackett Room  22 artist-enhanced flower basket poles located in downtown Edmonds, partially funded by donations and intended as opportunity for commemoration Packet Page 5 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 3 • Literary Arts o Best Book Poster Contest for 3rd grade students o First Edmonds literary walk • Completion and City Council adoption of the updated Community Cultural Plan The Edmonds community offers strong support for the arts through local sponsors, grants, community partnership and many volunteer hours. He thanked the Council and Edmonds community for their continued support of the arts and culture, a key component in the economic vitality and identity of Edmonds. Ms. Chapin expressed appreciation for the seven Arts Commissioners who assist with programs. In addition to the volunteer commission members, many other volunteers assist with events and with the update of the Community Cultural Plan. Councilmember Johnson recalled two years ago Mayor Earling convened an Arts Summit. She inquired about the mini Arts Summit held last Monday. Ms. Chapin explained the implementation process of the Community Cultural Plan can be challenging and it is important to keep the ideas and intent alive and people engaged. To that end, the Arts Commission has formed groups in various areas of interest; the 34 strategies in the Cultural plan were divided into 5 work groups related to arts education, space for arts, events and programs and communication. The meeting held last Monday, a mini summit, was an opportunity for all the work groups to come together to hear what others were working on and have breakout sessions/brainstorming to identify areas to focus for the coming year with the idea that another Arts Summit may be a kickoff for the cultural planning process that occurs every six years. She said a summary of the mini summit will be on the City’s website by next week. Ms. Chapin introduced the Arts Commissioners in the audience: Kevin Conefrey, Samantha Saether, Lois Rathvon, and Joanne Otness. Councilmember Mesaros thanked the Art Commissioners for their service to the City, the volunteer hours they provide and for making arts flourish in the City. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS April Osborne, Edmonds, said she is tired of talking about crumb rubber and was sure the City Council is tired of listening. She is tired of news vans in her driveway, calls from the media, and hate mail from people who read her quotes in newspapers and articles. She is here on behalf of the hundreds of citizens who signed petitions over the last month. The Edmonds School District (ESD) did not seriously looking into alternative infill; citizens contacted a local supplier of organic, non-toxic infill being installed around the region including in South Kitsap and collected facts about the project. ESD had not called to ask about it. Citizens called local communities who have installed non-toxic infill and offered names and contact information to the ESD; the ESD did not make any phone calls. Citizens collecting signatures outside PCC spoke with the president of Verdant Health and followed up with meetings with Verdant to ask them to consider additional funds for a non-toxic infill; the ESD had not asked. Citizens compiled environmental data on ground water, endangered species, air quality and the impact of heavy metals and carcinogens contained in crumb rubber on these community resources; the ESD did not. She recognized the politics of this issue were difficult and she understood ultimately the City Council did not have decision-making authority over the infill choice on ESD properties. On behalf of hundreds of citizens she asked the Council to do what it could to make their desire for non-toxic infill a reality. Andrew Markiel, Brier, suggested in light of known health issues associated with crumb rubber in addition to the potential health issues, the Council consider putting signs on any fields that use crumb Packet Page 6 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 4 rubber to notify the public of the possibilities. For example, it is well known crumb rubber can reach very high temperatures, up to 140 degrees. It would be prudent to inform parents and athletes so they can prepare for the possibility of heat stroke. He pointed out tires contain latex; it would be valuable for those with a latex allergy to be warned so they can take appropriate precautions. It would also be valuable to list the recommend precautions with regard to crumb rubber as recommended by CDC that include 1) do not eat on the field, 2) as much as possible avoid tracking crumb rubber away from the field into car and home, and 3) wash things off as quickly as possible. He summarized these were basic and prudent considerations and should be made available to the public using the fields. Steve Margo, Edmonds, relayed his concern with unsafe crumb rubber on playfields in Edmonds. Edmonds prides itself on being a safe, caring community to live; crumb rubber seems to have turned caring on its head. He was concerned there were too many unanswered health-related questions about crumb rubber including cancer and water quality. Edmonds is not the only town concerned with crumb rubber; several other cities are considering similar bans. A search for the word “crumb” on Change.org provides examples of other cities concerned with crumb rubber. Before he learned about crumb rubber hazards, his son played and practiced on crumb rubber fields. It took weeks to get out the rubber pieces out of blankets, chairs and clothes and now he is worried about his son’s future health. He has been told the ESD superintendent wants warning signs posted on the fields after crumb rubber is installed. Like the superintendent and the school board, his job as an engineer is to ensure people’s safety but unlike them, he is not trying to bring a dangerous material in contact with the people he is trying to protect. He has volunteered as a soccer coach and assistant coach with SnoKing Youth League and his son has been a goal keeper in the SnoKing League. Goal keepers dive and slide on the fields, players on the sidelines throw their water bottles on the ground between plays, players sit on the ground, younger siblings do cartwheels and tumble while watching, players eat mid-game and end of game snacks without washing their hands and babies put things in their mouths. He would like his son to continue to play soccer but if crumb rubber fields replace grass fields and SnoKing schedules games on crumb rubber, his son will not be allowed to play on that material. He recognized people have different beliefs but he preferred to not believe the science published by big business and its interests. He thanked the Council for their service to the community. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he did not attend the public hearing regarding the “toxic fill” that the ESC plans to install at the former Woodway High School. His three children played sports from a young age; parents trusted that children were safe on public fields. That cannot be said today. If ESD is allowed to install crumb rubber without any action by Council, the Council is condoning an unsafe practice and condemning children to problems later in life. The people speaking to the Council are a small, vocal group who have been exposed to the problem up close, carrying a message from all future Edmonds children, “don’t play on Edmonds fields if it has toxic fill.” the Council needs to say no to ESD with regard to the Interlocal Agreement until they considered look another fill. He suggested the Mayor Earling and Council should be talking about this in newspaper; he has not heard anyone talking about it except at Council meetings. He summarized he was very emotional about this issue and although it did not affect him personally it affects his friends who have children. Laura Johnson, Edmonds, said contrary to what a school board member stated last week, they are not a small but vocal minority. They are part of a growing national movement urging precaution with a product that people do not know enough about. The school board member’s comment was made as she stood beside Senator Marilyn Chase who months earlier had urged the school board to delay their vote on the use of crumb rubber until more was known about the affects. Like the Senator, they are working to educate others so they can make informed decisions with regard to their children’s health. It was beyond her understanding how the ESD has treated them; it is as if they feel they should have no say on a matter that concerns the health of their children, citizens and environment. It appears the ESD is so set in their decision that they are willing to risk their relationship with the City. With one simple change, substituting Packet Page 7 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 5 the infill, everyone wins. One school board member said there are alternatives widely used in Europe but somewhat unproven in the United States and the district is concerned with being leaders and taking a risk on a somewhat untested product. ESD never considered a non-toxic alternative and would not allow a western state supplier, a bidder on the field, to give them a bid for plant based infill even as citizens pleaded for safer alternatives. It appears ESD relied solely on the advice of their contractor who lumped all plant-based infill together, those that failed and those that are current proven, and wrote then all off. Crumb rubber is not the standard because it is a superior product; it is an environmental waste product that is cheap, unregulated and has almost no safety oversight. There are pros and cons for every type of infill; the main pro of plant-based infill is it is non-toxic. She agreed it was a bit more expensive but it is also better for the environment. The main con of crumb rubber infill is it contains known carcinogens and toxins. The Council has a chance to prevent exposure to a potentially harmful substance that has a suitable alternative. The question isn’t whether to use the alternative, now that the City, ESD, Verdant know the facts, the question is why not use the safe alternative. Barbara Peterson, Edmonds, said what is not talked about a lot is what cannot be seen, the dust, the carbon black nanotubes. Carbon black is considered the second worst culprit for global warming. Tires contain 20-40% carbon black. There will be 80,000 tires on the 2 fields but it apparently is okay to have them on the fields when they are cut into tiny pieces that produce dust. If they were actual tires, there would be laws against it. Once the fields’ lifetime is up, the crumb rubber is toxic waste which does not make sense. The issue is not just about children but every resident within windfall of the dust as well as fish, moss, lichen within windfall of the lead, zinc, arsenic that will be eaten by animals and down the chain eaten by people. She summarized carbon black will get into people in ways that have not yet been studied. The EPA and CPSC have backed away from the studies the ESD likes to quote. She asked the Council to do everything they could not to be strong-armed by ESD trying to flex its muscles. Citizens will stand behind the Council and be proud of the Council. Jen Carrigan, Edmonds, said like many others, a few months ago she had no idea crumb rubber was being used on playfields fields was made from shredded tires and has only been used since approximately 2002. Even proponents of crumb rubber willingly admit tires contain toxic substances such as butadiene, benzene and carbon black, known carcinogens that get into the body via contact with the skin, through inhalation and ingestion of material during active play in which developing bodies of young children are more prone to absorb. As more young athletes are showing up with various cancers, the dots are being connected and awareness has been raised on a national level. They do not represent a small vocal group, but a nationwide group of public and scientific community members who are raising concerns about the use of crumb rubber. Communities such as South Kitsap, Portland, Los Angeles and New York are listening and responding to concerns by using non-toxic alternative infill. There may be unknowns about crumb rubber but the facts to date about this unregulated product provide enough reason to stop installing it on new fields and to choose a non-toxic infill option. Kellen, Edmonds, said he and his friend play sports. He read from a bottle crumb rubber ordered from Amazon: “Black crumb rubber. Caution: avoid contact with skin and eyes. Can cause irritation. Avoid breathing vapor. Use in a well ventilated area. May cause coughing and lung irritation. If skin contact occurs, wash skin thoroughly with soap and water. Eye contact occurs, rinse immediately with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. For further precautionary and handling information, please review material safety data sheet MSDS. Warning: keep out of reach of children.” Maggie Pinson, Edmonds, hoped the Council would decide to ban crumb rubber within Edmonds. She has several concerns with Ms. Black’s presentation which can be found in the Everett Herald. Many of the people who spoke asked the Council to listen to the science. She asked about Ms. Black’s credentials, noting they are not listed in her report nor did she state them prior to her presentation. The speakers at the public hearing included three PhDs including one toxicologist, at least two people with Master’s degrees, Packet Page 8 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 6 at least two engineers who have expressed concerns about environment and human health concerns of crumb rubber. She clarified that was not to say people without degrees have any less value. She questioned why Ms. Black’s opinions had more validity than the citizens who spoke. Crumb rubber is a new material, only used in artificial turf since the early 2000s and fields have been installed at an increasing rate over the last 10-15 years. The bulk of people being exposed to crumb rubber have only been exposed in the recent years and it is too early to begin to see cancers. She was also concerned with putting the best and brightest athletes at risk. Preliminary data indicates goalies comprise approximately 9% of soccer players but 69% of soccer players with cancer; more than enough information to raise concern. She agreed more studies were needed but recommended erring on the safety and caution and protecting children and neighborhoods. She referred to a comment that football players have been exposed to this material since the first artificial turn was installed in the Astro Dome in 1964; she clarified that was a different material, not crumb rubber. There are not decades of data available on crumb rubber and not very good data is only available from 2001. She summarized there could be organic grass fields at the old Woodway fields. Erin Zachey, Edmonds, speaking on behalf of the hundreds of petitioners from whom they gathered signatures and as a concerned citizen and parent as well as her husband who is an environmental scientist, relayed many studies done thus far, as reflected in Ms. Black’s report, looking at the exposure to toxins in crumb rubber by indirect ingestion or contact. In reality the crumb rubber pellets get into cuts, skin, and coat mouthpieces which significantly increases exposure to toxins in crumb rubber. Pathways to toxins are the primary driver for determining the safety of a product. Given the recent debate on the matter and the CPSC’s retraction of approval of the product, new studies will be conducted and crumb rubber levels will exceed acceptable levels which will affect public health as well as soil contamination. At that point the issue will be a costly cleanup effort. She hoped forward-thinking leaders like the Council would step forward to make the environmentally sound choice to ban crumb rubber in Edmonds. Christi Davis, Brier, PhD in Health Services Research, said Elizabeth Black’s presentation discussed PM10 which she referred to a particulate mass 10; it is actually particulate matter, less than 10 microns in diameter or dust measured by its size not how much it weighs. Elizabeth Black’s presentation stated crumb rubber was not found in minute particle sizes in any of the articles she read. Apparently she did not carefully read the Norwegian article. Ms. Davis provided the Council information from the Norwegian study. The first page details dust found in three fields, two with crumb rubber infill and a third with a thermoplastic elastomer infill. She referred to a table that identifies the weight of the dust, pointing out there was not a clear difference in the amount of PM10 between the field types but there was significantly more PM2.5 in crumb rubber fields. She referred to elementary carbon, another name for carbon black; fields with crumb rubber have significant more carbon black than the field with thermoplastic elastomer, 50% of the dust was rubber dust compared to 5% in thermoplastic elastomer fields. Haley Zachey, Edmonds, 7 years, Edmonds, wished Edmonds a happy 125th birthday. She loves the grass and trees and creatures and people, sky, and water in Edmonds. She hoped the Council would choose the right decision for all kids in Edmonds. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Items carried over from July 14, 2015) A. ADOPTION OF 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this is a continuation of the City Council’s discussion regarding the Comprehensive Plan when the meeting ran out of time last week. The only change made in the plan was page 50 in attachment A where language was inserted at the Council’s request. He explained in reviewing the minutes, two additional words should have been added so that the first bullet reads, “Emphasizing and prioritizing near term solutions…” Otherwise all the language is the same. Packet Page 9 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 7 Councilmember Bloom agreed with Mr. Chave’s suggestion, recalling the Council voted unanimously to include that language. She recalled the intent to also include that language in the Transportation Plan. Amendment #1 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO ADD TO THE FIRST BULLET UNDER DEVELOP A SHORT TERM PLAN AND STRATEGY TO RESOLVE WATERFRONT ACCESS ISSUES, “EMPHASIZING AND PRIORITIZING NEAR TERM SOLUTIONS TO PROVIDING EMERGENCY SERVICES ACCESS.” Councilmember Buckshnis asked if all the amendment the Council made last week needed to be made again. Mr. Chave said the Comprehensive Plan in the packet reflects the amendments made at last week’s meeting. The Council voted last week on the addition of this language but it was not accurately reflected in the Comprehensive Plan in Attachment A. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the difference between emphasizing and prioritizing. Councilmember Bloom explained prioritizing means to do it first; emergency services access would be done first. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what was meant by emphasizing. Councilmember Bloom answered that was the language provided by former Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton and the intent was to adopt that language. Last week Mr. Williams recommended including all four bullet points instead of just the first one. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Chave to read the language provided by Mr. Clifton. Mr. Chave referred to the December 17, 2013 minutes: “Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton provided proposed language: Alternatives Analysis to Study, 1) Waterfront Access Issues Emphasizing Near Term Solutions to Providing Emergency Services Access…” The minutes also reflect Councilmember Buckshnis’ suggestion to use the word prioritize and Mr. Clifton’s suggestion to add “and prioritizing” following “emphasizing.” Later at that meeting the Council voted to include “Emphasizing and prioritizing…” He missed that when inserting language on page 50 of Attachment A. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Comprehensive Plan needed to be that detailed. Mr. Chave said he originally proposed the strike-out language on page 50; he preferred to keep Comprehensive Plan language more general. That language provides opportunity to be more specific during a project. Councilmember Bloom pointed out Mr. Chave was only suggesting correcting it to make it consistent with what those four points actually said. She was baffled why the Council was debating it when the Council voted unanimously last week to adopt all four points. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled previous discussions with Mr. Williams that this language was not in the CIP or CFP; those documents were more detailed than the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Bloom recalled she suggested a briefer version last week and Mr. Williams recommended including all four bullet points which included “and prioritizing.” The Council voted unanimously last week to include that language. Council discussed whether a motion was made last week to adopt the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Taraday recommended the Council move the ordinance again and then make any amendments. Mr. Chave recalled a motion was approved to incorporate the four points from the December 17, 2013 meeting in the Comprehensive Plan. Action on Amendment #1 Packet Page 10 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 8 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Main Motion COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4003, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY OF EDMOND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; ADOPTING THE 2015 UPDATE TO THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS PRESENTED. Amendment #2 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO TO AMEND PAGE 50 SO THAT THE FIRST BULLET READS, “EMPHASIZING AND PRIORITIZING NEAR TERM SOLUTIONS TO PROVIDING EMERGENCY SERVICES ACCESS.” Action on Amendment #2 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bloom asked about adding those same words to the Transportation Element. Mr. Taraday said the Transportation Element is incorporated as Exhibit B. Mr. Hauss said that was not added in the latest version but all future documents will include those four items. The Transportation Plan is a more general description but it could be added if the Council wished. He had not interpreted the action last week to include that language in the Transportation Plan. Councilmember Bloom asked if Mr. Williams’ recommendation was to add that language to both plans. Mr. Williams recall suggesting that the four bullets from the December 17, 2013 meeting be included in the Comprehensive Plan; no change was made to the Transportation Element. He advised that language will be repeated in in future planning efforts and that exact language will be include in the scope of work for the alternatives analysis. Councilmember Bloom was satisfied with that. Councilmember Bloom recalled in discussing the terms “mixed use” and “mix of uses,” Mr. Chave said they were used interchangeably. She suggested using mixed use to mean buildings that have commercial with residential above and mix of uses to be a variety of things exclusive of residential. She recalled Mr. Chave said that wasn’t possible because they were used interchangeably and he suggested she identify areas that would be exclusive of residential and commercial only. Councilmember Bloom read the paragraph on page 54 of the Comprehensive Plan Master Plan under Master Plan development, “The waterfront area south of Olympic Beach, including the Port of Edmonds and the Point Edwards and multi modal developments. This area is recognized by master plans for the Port of Edmonds, Point Edwards, and the Edmonds Crossing project as described in an FEIS issued on November 10, 2004. These areas are also developed consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, as it applies.” Amendment #3 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO ADD “THIS AREA IS APPROPRIATE FOR A MIX OF USES WITH THE EXCLUSION OF RESIDENTIAL.” Councilmember Bloom described her rationale; the WSDOT stated in a Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee last year that their multimodal development which includes the Unocal property only needs commercial space, not residential. Another reason is this area needs to be identified as not including residential because the Port Master Plan which included possibly 350 condos was withdrawn by the Port and subsequently voted down by Council. At that time Council supported a small amount of affordable housing only. Affordable housing would not be possible on the Port property because the view property Packet Page 11 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 9 would drive the purchase price up and it could not possibly be affordable. The cost to build on an earthquake liquefaction zone which the Harbor Square Master Plan includes can double in order to secure buildings to the bearing soil which makes affordable housing untenable. Harbor Square is currently zoned General Commercial. She was certain the Port will return with their Master Plan which includes residential unless that door is closed. The Port was able to propose residential because the Comprehensive Plan states that area is appropriate for a design drive master plan with a mix of uses; that phrase allowed the introduction of residential on property zoned General Commercial. She recalled one citizen accused the Council of breaking the law by not allowing the introduction of residential on that property based on that language. The City’s Shoreline Master Plan has not been finalized by the State. The Port has invested $25,000 of taxpayer money to sue the City based on the 100-foot setback. The setback recommended by the State is 150 feet; the City reduced it to 100 feet. She was convinced the Port will return with a master plan that includes residential; this amendment would prevent that. As a resident of Point Edwards and realizing that more building will occur in the Point Edwards area, Councilmember Mesaros questioned how residential could be restricted. He observed there were a number of residential units on the west side of the tracks across from Edmonds Crossing. He will vote against the amendment, noting it is a great location to consider residential in the future. He did not support including a statement in the Comprehensive Plan that there could not be residential in that area in the future. Council President Fraley-Monillas respectfully disagreed with the thought that there could never be residential on the Port property as there may be areas appropriate for 2-story residential buildings within current zoning. She did not want to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” to ensure the Port Master Plan did not include residential. She understood the concerns about liquefaction but did not hear a good reason other than the Port Master Plan to say absolute no residential. She urged caution, pointing out a decision not to have any residential could potentially be a mistake in the future. Councilmember Buckshnis appreciated what the Port Commissioners have done recently, adding new HVAC and roofs to the Harbor Square buildings. They have shelved the Harbor Square Master Plan. Harbor Square is doing well as a small business/industry park. She agreed with Councilmember Mesaros that Point Edwards is residential so she could not support no residential in that area because it already exists. With regard to WSDOT’s plans for the Unocal site, what may happen in the future is unknown and she did not want a future Council saddled with a prohibition on residential in that area. Councilmember Petso said she will support the amendment because her memory of the development on the Unocal hillside was intended to be mixed use. When the upper hill was developed 100% residential, a question arose regarding the mix of uses. She recalled being told commercial would be developed on the lower portion of the property. Her understanding is the Port Master Plan as originally presented to the Council is still the adopted Master Plan for the Port of Edmonds and formally adopted as one of their planning documents. That was a good enough reason to support the amendment. Mr. Chave said there are potentially two different areas, the Downtown Master Plan area which is largely what Councilmember Bloom read, which only applies to Harbor Square, Salish Crossing and up toward Main Street. The other area is the southern area, the rest of the Port and Unocal/Point Edwards development which is termed Master Plan Development. The paragraph Councilmember Bloom read is silent with regard to a mix of uses, it only refers to different agencies that will be involved. Councilmember Bloom said she understood the difference and planned to make a motion to add the same language to the Downtown Master Plan paragraph. Packet Page 12 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 10 Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if there was anything in that language that increased heights in the downtown area. Mr. Chave answered no, height limits are controlled by zoning; the Comprehensive Plan is silent about increasing heights. A sentence regarding increased building heights outside of view corridors has been removed. Mr. Taraday asked for clarification about the motion; he understood it to be addressing the paragraph that begins with the words “Downtown Master Plan.” Councilmember Bloom clarified that was not the paragraph she read; Master Plan Development includes waterfront south of Olympic Beach, Point Edwards, the multimodal development, the Port and the Unocal property. WSDOT’s statement to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee was they did not need that area for residential, only for commercial. Her intent was to address that area in particular and the Port. Mr. Taraday said it was clear now. Councilmember Bloom understood Point Edwards was included; she was amenable to including Unocal without the others because the Port property on the west side of the railroad tracks is limited by the Shoreline Master Plan and cannot include residential. She asked if there was a way to limit it to the Unocal property. Mr. Chave said it could be described; however, if it was referred to as the Unocal property, at one time the Unocal property was the entire Point Edwards area. That is the reason Comprehensive Plans tend to be broader in nature; specific properties and differentiating lower and upper yard, etc. is the providence of zoning. He understood what Councilmember Bloom was trying to do but said it was difficult in the context of the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out the Council prioritized the Planning Board looking at the Unocal property; that would be the avenue to address residential via zoning review Action on Amendment #3 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH AGREEMENT OF SECOND. Amendment #4 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, ON PAGE 54 OF DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PARAGRAPH ENTITLED DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN, AMEND THE SECOND SENTENCE TO READ, “THIS AREA IS APPROPRIATE FOR DESIGN-DRIVEN MASTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WHICH PROVIDES FOR A MIX OF USES WITH THE EXCLUSION OF RESIDENTIAL AND TAKES ADVANTAGE OF ITS STRATEGIC LOCATION BETWEEN THE WATERFRONT AND DOWNTOWN.” Councilmember Bloom said the rationale for this amendment is the same as the previous amendment, Harbor Square, the liquefaction zone, and that affordable housing will not happen due to the cost to build and views. She recalled the only thing the Council supported about the Port Master Plan was a small amount of affordable housing. Council President Fraley-Monillas disagreed, commenting she did not have a problem with residential if it was done appropriately via zoning and not the Comprehensive Plan. She did have a concern with the height of residential ruining the aesthetics of Edmonds. Councilmember Nelson did not support the amendment as he had an issue with being that specific in the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Petso said one of problems with this Comprehensive Plan and the pattern of Council decisions is that commercial zones throughout City are being eliminated which eliminates opportunities and the chance of ever prioritizing and emphasizing the City’s job creation targets. For example, when Highway 99 was rezoned to not require commercial, that wiped out a lot of commercially viable property, Packet Page 13 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 11 increasing economic leakage. She will vote in favor of the Comprehensive Plan because it is so huge she feels she should not oppose it due to only one issue but she is very concerned by the continued destruction of commercial zones in Edmonds. She was fine with this area being commercial rather than residential. Councilmember Buckshnis said this is a great plan and she did not view it as a destruction of commercial as a mix of uses includes residential and commercial. She recalled the discussion regarding Highway 99 included commercial, just not commercial with residential above. Councilmember Petso recalled when Highway 99 first came to Council it included mixed use. The requirement for commercial on the first floor was removed but the requirement for some commercial on the property was retained, even flexible mixed use that was not the standard Puget Sound mixed use, commercial topped by residential. That decision was later changed to entirely eliminate the commercial requirement on Highway 99. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested Council consider how commercial uses affect the City and neighborhoods. The City collects property tax from commercial uses; the City gains more in property taxes long term than it does from commercial. Councilmember Bloom pointed out the Downtown Master Plan area is identified as the Waterfront Activity Area. When the Council considers adding residential to that area, it is not only the 350 potential condominiums in the Harbor Square Master Plan but also a minimum of 350 more parking spaces and a lot more traffic. This area is most appropriate for a destination and is key to drawing visitors. Eliminating residential ensures the focus will be on a making it a destination. She feared allowing residential would allocate that area to people who live there and not visitors. The more cars and parking spaces there are for residential, the more difficult it will be for visitors to enjoy the beautiful waterfront and ribbon of parks. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. VOTE ON THE CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Action on Amendment #4 UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5); COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON, MESAROS AND NELSON VOTING NO. Amendment #5 COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REMOVE “SUBJECT TO FURTHER ANALYSIS” ON PAGE 3-77 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (WITH REGARD TO 9TH AVE S, 100TH AVE W). Councilmember Nelson said the page refers to Recommendation Bicycle Facilities, the language “subject to further analysis” is very open ended and he did not understand what it meant. Councilmember Bloom asked why that phrase was added. Mr. Hauss answered 9th/100th was identified as a primary north-south bicycle route. During discussion, staff was not certain sure if there would be bike lanes throughout corridor or sharrows. Councilmember Petso thanked staff for adding that phrase. There are questions with regard to how bike lanes or sharrows will be provided on 9th/100th under the current geometry such as 238th/Firdale, Westgate, 220th, 9th & Main, and 9th & Walnut. She will not support the motion. Councilmember Johnson expressed support for motion because this is a planning level analysis and any implementation will look at details. Packet Page 14 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 12 Action on Amendment #5 AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING NO. Amendment #6 COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED TO AMEND, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, ON PAGE 100 OF 135, FIGURE 3-18 (AND 3-90) IN THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FUTURE PRIORITY TRANSIT CORRIDORS, ADD TWO SWIFT BRT PROPOSED STOPS, ONE ON SR 104 IN THE WESTGATE AREA AND THE OTHER ON SR 104 AT THE TRANSIT CENTER. Councilmember Johnson explained the current Swift service goes from the Everett rail station to the Aurora Village transit center. Sometime in future, hopefully in the next 20 years, that will be extended as the SR 104 corridor is developed. This was discussed by the Transportation Committee. Adding those two potential locations would strengthen the plan. The plan identifies a proposed Swift BRT stop at 228th and the link light rail station in Mountlake Terrace. She suggested adding the two proposed locations as placeholders. Council President Fraley-Monillas said since Swift is operated by another agency and Swift currently follows Highway 99. She asked whether the Council could affect where Swift puts their stops. Mr. Hauss said that has been discussed with Community Transit. One of the Swift trials Community Transit is considering is on in SR 524/196th from Lynnwood to downtown Edmonds; there are no plans for Swift on SR 104. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked who determined having a Swift route on SR 524. Mr. Hauss clarified Community Transit has been discussing land use and ridership; there is more ridership on SR 524 than on SR 104 and SR 524 is a much longer corridor. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if there was any harm in including those two stops. Mr. Hauss suggested if stops on SR 104 were included, stops on SR 524 should also be included because that is a more likely location based on Community Transit’s discussions. Mayor Earling explained Community Transit will be on ballot this fall to request a 0.3% increase in sales tax. Part of that proposal focuses on one Swift line in particular, from Boeing Field to Canyon Park. They have also looked at a number of potential Swift lines with the eventual goal of connecting with other modes such as light rail. One of those is 196th from Lynwood or further east to Edmonds. He concluded there was no harm in identifying stops on SR 104 but he did not want to raise hopes that it would solve any immediate problems. Councilmember Bloom asked about discussions at the Transportation Committee about adding these stops. Councilmember Johnson recalled the stops were discussed six years ago when Councilmember Bloom and she were on the Transportation Committee and again this year. The consultant agreed to revise the language in the Plan regarding the stops; her intent was to provide more specificity about the location because SR 104 and 196th are identified as transit priority corridors. She acknowledged the City does not have control over Community Transit; Mayor Earling is the City’s representative on Community Transit. Adding those stops would strengthen the Plan in view of efforts to increase livability at Westgate and the transit station at the waterfront. Councilmember Bloom asked why the stops were not included in the Transportation Plan. Mr. Hauss answered there is reference to it in the policy section but no specifics. He referred to Figure 3-18 that identifies and east-west bus link from the Mountlake Terrace Park & Ride and the future light rail station connecting to Edmonds. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for the motion. Councilmember Mesaros suggested including SR 524 to address Community Transit’s consideration of that corridor. Councilmember Johnson said that would be absolutely appropriate in the policy discussion. In terms of the map, she was not certain of the locations on SR 524; she knew the exact locations on SR Packet Page 15 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 13 104. Councilmember Mesaros asked Mr. Hauss where the stops would be on SR 524. Mr. Hauss answered there needs to be further analysis by Community Transit. He referred to a map that highlights the Swift route on Highway 99 and suggested highlighting SR 104 and SR 524 as potential future routes; it is too early to identify proposed stops. Councilmember Mesaros agreed with Councilmember Johnson those were the logical stops on SR 104 and the Council likely could identify logical stops on SR 524. Mayor Earling suggested putting Councilmember Mesaros in touch with the Community Transit staff doing the analysis. There is no reason for a connector to Lynnwood until 2023 when the light rail station opens. Councilmember Johnson said it was appropriate to add language in the Comprehensive Plan to identify SR 524 as a transit priority corridor and possible extension of future BRT. Amendment #6A COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO HIGHLIGHT SR 524 AS A POTENTIAL SWIFT BRT ROUTE. Action on Amendment #6A MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Action on Amendment #6 as amended MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Action on Main Motion as amended MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. Mayor Earling thanked Mr. Chave, Ms. Hope and others for the extraordinary amount of work they have done on the Comprehensive Plan update. He asked to be advised of the next staff meeting so he could congratulate staff. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. B. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND FORMALLY ESTABLISHING COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS Main Motion COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4004, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE PROVISIONS RELATION TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS. Councilmember Bloom referred to Section 2, B.1, related to Council President duties, finding the language, “Make assignments to any council committees, schedule committee hearings, and otherwise supervise the committee system, if one is used.” confusing. Amendment #1 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO REVISE SECTION 2, B.1 TO READ, “ASSIGN COUNCILMEMBERS AS MEMBERS AND LIAISONS TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES AND OTHERWISE SUPERVISE THE COMMITTEE SYSTEM THAT EXISTS.” Action on Amendment #1 MOTION CARRIED (5-1). (Councilmember Johnson was not present for the vote.) Packet Page 16 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 14 Councilmember Bloom referred to Section 2, B.3 which states, “supervise any staff member whose primary responsibility is to support council.” The current support person is equally divided between the Council Executive Assistant and working under Shane Hope. Amendment #2 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO REVISED SECTION 2, B.3 TO READ, “SUPERVISE AND DIRECT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO COUNCIL.” Council President Fraley-Monillas preferred the existing language. The Council President directs the activities of any staff whose primary responsibility is to support the Council such as the video camera operator, office assistant, etc. The position that provides support to Council may not always be an executive assistant, it may have another title. Councilmember Bloom said her concern was the current Executive Assistant’s primary responsibility was not supporting Council because she works 20 hours for Council and 20 hours for Development Services. Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified Ms. Spellman is a contract employee. Mr. Taraday explained while it is true the Executive Assistant currently holds two different positions in the City, in the position of Executive Assistant, her primary duty is to support the City Council. While she holds a second position in the City, this language would not apply to her position on the 2nd floor. Council President Fraley- Monillas said the Council also signs an annual contract with Ms. Spellman. Councilmember Bloom assumed the Council would always have an Executive Assistant. She preferred B.3 read, “supervise and direct the activities of the executive assistant to council and any other staff member whose primary responsibility is to support council.” Councilmember Mesaros said the language “any staff” is fine as any staff could be the council assistant, a research assistant, a legislative assistant, etc. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE ON THE CALL FOR THE QUESTION CALLED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. Action on Amendment #2 MOTION FAILED (0-7). Amendment #3 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND SECTION 2, ITEM C, TO READ, “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 MONTHS AND $25.00 PER COUNCIL MEETING IN ORDER TO COMPENSATION HIM OR HER FOR THE TIME NECESSARY TO PREPARE THE AGENDA AND OTHER ASSOCIATED RESPONSIBILITIES. THIS TOTAL AN ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION SHALL NOT EXCEED OF $200 PER MONTH. Councilmember Buckshnis explained this clarified the additional $200/month paid to the Council President. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the intent was to retain the last sentence in the paragraph, “When the council president is absent and council president pro tempore is serving in his or her place, the city council president pro tempore shall receive the $25.00 per meeting payment.” Councilmember Buckshnis agreed that was her intent although she did not think it had ever been done. Packet Page 17 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 15 Councilmember Bloom did not support the amendment because it would result in paying the Council President $200 month even if they did not attend every meetings and an additional $25 for the Council Pro Tem if he/she were filling that position. She preferred the current language where the Council President received $100/month plus $25/meeting. She also did not support the amendment without a commensurate increase for councilmembers. If anything was done to increase the Council President salary, the Council’s salaries also needed to be increased. She said the Council President did not have that much responsibility compared to what all Councilmembers do; he/she was only responsible for three additional items. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested Councilmember Bloom follow her around and see the two days a week she spends in the office unpaid. She said the $25 per Council meeting originated when Councilmembers were paid for each meeting they attended and just was not removed from the code as it related to the Council President. She supported a flat $200/month additional salary for the Council President. She preferred to retain the language regarding compensating the Council President Pro Tem, noting he/she could choose to ask for the additional compensation. Amendment #3A COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE SENTENCE REGARDING $25 FOR THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM. Council President Fraley-Monillas supported the amendment; she did not recall a Council President Pro Tem ever asking for the compensation. Councilmember Bloom did not support the amendment because if the Council President Pro Tem assumed the duties, he/she should not have to ask to be paid. Action on Amendment #3A UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, NELSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON AND MESAROS VOTING NO. Action on Amendment #3 MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the changes will take place until next year. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Bloom said she will vote against the main motion because she does not support eliminating the committee system. Action on Main Motion as amended MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING NO. 8. ACTION ITEMS A. AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Mayor Earling said this is a rush so that work can continue. City Engineer Rob English recalled the change order was introduced to the Council a few weeks ago. The change order is in regard to 3 retaining walls on the 228th project, 2 on the east side that support the new Packet Page 18 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 16 roadway on 228th and 1 on the west side of Highway 99. The original contract called for modular block; through the submittal process the contractor discovered conflicts with the geogrid reinforcing fabric. A 150-foot section of Wall 2 was changed to a soldier pile wall as well as a 30-foot section of Wall 3. The additional cost for soldier pile walls is $168,000. The addition of the soldier pile walls results in a reduction in the cost of the modular block walls of $16,400, the net result is an increase of $151,600. That is the expected cost of the change order with Rodarte Construction. The total request is $165,000, an additional approximately 10%. A portion of the change order will be via force account cost payment, reimbursing the contractor for time and material; the addition 10% will be used to cover any additional costs that arise via that process. Mr. English explained much of the utility work is in the ground; there is still potential for future changes in the Mountlake Terrace portion that includes grinding Lakeview Drive. This change order requires City Council approval in accordance with the purchasing policy. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR THE228TH STREET SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling suggested Councilmembers look at the amazing work being done on Highway 99. 9. STUDY ITEMS A. PRESENTATION FOR AWARD OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 220TH OVERLAY PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained this project will overlay 220th between 84 and 76th Avenues and will include a 2-inch grind and pavement overlay, upgrade pedestrian curb ramps to ADA compliance, and add bike lanes. The project was advertised earlier this month and bids were opened today. Three bids were received. The apparent lower bidder was $493,693, but there appears to be problems with the disadvantaged business enterprise goal and the low bid may be rejected. The second low bidder, Lakeside Industries, was $668,866 which is within $10,000 of the engineers estimate. He expected to recommend award of the contract to Lakeside Industries on next week’s Consent Agenda. Councilmember Mesaros observed this borders Esperance on the south and asked whether Edmonds owned the complete right-of-way. Mr. English answered yes, the City owns the complete street right-of- way; Snohomish County starts on the backside of the City’s right-of-way on the south side. Councilmember Mesaros observed Snohomish County was not contributing anything to the improvement of abutting property. Mr. English answered no, advising the City received a federal grant for this project that totaled $780,000. Councilmember Johnson commented the agenda memo states the estimated total project cost is $1.04 million and the costs will be paid by a $780,000 federal grant and $260,000 in REET funds. She observed the project was considerably less than the estimates. Mr. English agreed it was, commenting there may be funds left over. Bids were opened this afternoon; staff will compile the budget numbers in next week’s agenda memo. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda with clarification regarding the low bidder. B. PRESENTATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD FOR THE 238TH ST SW WALKWAY PROJECT Packet Page 19 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 17 City Engineer Rob English reported this project was advertised earlier this month; bids will be opened tomorrow. This project will construct approximately 1200 lineal feet of sidewalk on 238th Street between 100th and 104th Avenues, 5 rain gardens and over 2500 lineal feet of storm pipe to improve the stormwater system in the area. The new stormwater system will connect to the Hickman Park infiltration system and includes restriping on 238th to add bike sharrows. The engineer’s estimate was $1.25 million; he anticipated the total construction cost will be upwards of $1.5 million which includes a 10% management reserve. Current funding sources are approximately 10% short of $1.5 million. He was hopeful bids will be favorable and the complete budget will be identified once all the costs are known. If the project is awarded at the August 4 meeting; the project is 80 working days or approximately 3-4 month duration. The recommendation is approval on the Consent Agenda but if the bid requires the budget be adjusted, staff will make a presentation. Councilmember Nelson commended the City for installing five rain gardens to help infiltrate stormwater in that area. He was appreciative of rain gardens which are a great filter system for stormwater as well as more sidewalks for students. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on the Consent Agenda or a presentation to Council if necessary. C. DISCUSSION OF AGREEMENTS WITH FRONTIER AND PUD FOR THE UNDERGROUND CONVERSION OF OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES WITHIN THE 76TH AVE AND 212TH ST. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT City Engineer Rob English advised draft agreements that outline the City’s and the utilities responsibilities to design the undergrounding as well as construct have been sent to PUD and Frontier and staff is awaiting their comments. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved documents. There will be a cost to the City to complete the undergrounding which is eligible to be reimbursed by federal funds. When comments are received from PUD and Frontier, staff will return to Council to finalize. Councilmember Mesaros asked how far from the intersection the undergrounding will occur. Mr. English answered those limits have not been identified; this contract will initiate the design. In preliminary discussion with PUD, most of the utilities will be undergrounded within the limits of project, 200-300 feet outside the intersection. Frontier requires a smaller footprint due to major above-ground utility lines on the north side, adding that would be a significant cost increase. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling announced the City will be celebrating its 125th anniversary on August 11. Four former mayors have confirmed their attendance, Harv Harrison who was the mayor for 16 years beginning about 1997, Laura Hall, Barb Fahey and Mike Cooper. Former Mayor Haakenson is returning from Europe the next day and Larry Naughton is unable to attend. Staff has done a great job obtaining sponsorships from Dicks Drive In and Harbor Square. Bartell Drugs and Washington State University will also be celebrating their 125th anniversaries. Mayor Earling said the work on the Museum Plaza will be completed by August 11 and will be dedicated as part of the celebration. There will be a street dance between the Museum and City Hall between 5:30 and 8:30 p.m. He encouraged the Council and the public to attend. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Packet Page 20 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 18 Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting included passage of the local Interlocal Agreement which will be on a future Consent Agenda, review of legislative bills for next year, and a presentation from PSRC regarding the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County. She reported WRIA 8 passed their Interlocal Agreement which will be on a future Consent Agenda. WRIA 8 received $37 million in 2015-2017 to support the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration (PSAR) grant program, $30 million for watersheds and $101 million for large capital projects (Edmonds Marsh is in WRIA8’s capital project restoration plan). WRIA 8 also received $35,560,000 for Support the Floodplains by Design grants, $16.5 million to support state salmon recovery to match federal salmon recovery funding, $907,000 for salmon recovery and $600,000 for the operating budget for Chinook salmon. The WRIA 8 meeting also included a presentation from NOAA regarding the effects of unfiltered stormwater. Councilmember Petso reported the Historic Preservation Commission plans to submit a grant request to the Council for a once in a lifetime opportunity to record the history of Edmonds underwater piling near the old shingle mill before it is destroyed. This will count as the first notice to Council and approval will be scheduled on the Consent Agenda Councilmember Petso reported the Economic Development Commission’s Tourism Subgroup is on hiatus. The EDC discussed how to improve communication regarding the Strategic Action Plan including advising the public about the status of items and items that have been completed. Councilmember Petso reported the Edmonds Public Facilities District (EPFD) is not meeting this month. She relayed information Executive Director Joe McIalwain suggested she report: • The EPFD received a state appropriation of $250,000 to make major repairs to the aging roof over the gymnasium and school building and to replace the flashing cap around the perimeter of the facility. This will extend the life of the roof by approximately 20 years and will also prevent water intrusion into the perimeter walls and internal structure. The Board and staff of the EPFD/ECA thank the City Council and Mayor for their support of this request and for making it a legislative priority. • The ECA has been very active during the summer with summer camp programs and rental events. ECA has never been as busy over the summer as it is this year. • Ticket sales for upcoming season are about 10% ahead of last year’s sales at this time. Three new events will be added to the season which will be announced in September. Councilmember Johnson reported on the Walk Back in Time at the Edmonds Cemetery. She also attended the Arts Commission’s mini art summit last Monday. She found it very exciting to see a room full of people excited about promoting the arts in Edmonds. She attended the South County Cities Dinner. She asked Mayor Earling to report on the award the group received from AWC. Councilmember Nelson reported on the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee which is in urgent need of citizens to join the committee. He also attended a Lodging Tax Advisory Committee meeting to work on their 2016 budget. Lodging is up in Edmonds which means more lodging tax to distribute. He will be introducing the summer concert in the park on August 2 which features Clave Gringa, Cuban Jazz. Councilmember Mesaros reported he has been working with Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Nelson on planning for the August 9 annual volunteer appreciation picnic at City Park. He acknowledged two sponsors of that event, The Hotel Group and Coldwell Banker. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board did not have a quorum, the Disability Board had a great meeting, and the second Port meeting of month that she attends was not held due to vacations. Packet Page 21 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 19 Councilmember Bloom reported on the meeting Councilmembers Petso, Johnson and she had with Edmonds School Superintendent Nick Brossoit and School Board President Diana White and School Board Member April Nowak. She recalled at last week’s public hearing, Council President Fraley- Monillas relayed the Superintendent made it very clear that if the Council does not enter into this partnership with the Edmonds School District, the Edmonds School District will no longer consider the City a partner in this and potentially other items. Dr. Brossoit gave Councilmember Petso, Johnson and her a different message than he gave Councilmember Buckshnis, Nelson and Council President Fraley- Monillas, saying the Interlocal Agreement is completely separate from their working relationship and separate from any negotiations about other properties in the future. Councilmember Bloom said in their meeting it was very clear the three parties were not open to discussing an alternative infill. She requested someone other than Diana White attend the meeting because she had been very clear at the public hearing where she stood and Councilmember Bloom wanted to hear from other board members. In an email, Ms. White said as President of the School Board she was elected by her colleagues to represent the views of the Board. Ms. White invited Board Member April Nowak to attend because she was the dissenting vote and is a parent at Edmonds Heights K-12. Ms. White and Dr. Brossoit felt they had done their due diligence in reviewing infills, had made the selection and were not willing to consider anything else. Ms. Nowak was the lone vote against crumb rubber and who supported the only other option offered, Nike Grind. Ms. Nowak stated said three things at the meeting that Councilmember Bloom found concerning, first she felt very alone standing up against crumb rubber and that Council had more than enough opportunity to state their opinion about crumb rubber and not done so. Ms. Nowak said emails had been sent to Council, there was information in press, and their meetings were well publicized. It became clear during the meeting that this had occurred when the Council was involved in the quasi-judicial hearing and not allowed to open emails due to the Appearance of Fairness. Ms. Nowak thought the Council had received a great deal of information but failed to come to their support. Second, Ms. Nowak said during that process Senator Chase recommended a decision on crumb rubber be delayed a year. The Board voted 2-3 not to delay the decision (Board Members Nowak and DeMun were in favor of delaying). Third, the most concerning statement was that Ms. Nowak felt the City was in support of crumb rubber because it apparently was represented by Mayor Earling’s staff that there was support for the crumb rubber infill. She requested Mayor Earling explain how and if that was conveyed to the School District. Councilmember Bloom summarized the School Board is not willing to consider a different infill, Dr. Brossoit said it will not affect other negotiations or the City’s relationship with the school district, and that there was misinformation and things that were not shared with the School Board. She was still hopeful the Council could schedule a meeting with the School Board in advance of the August 4 Council meeting and Councilmember Petso has requested that meeting be scheduled. Councilmember Bloom suggested if the entire School Board, Verdant and the City Council are present, it may be possible to relook at the issue and convince them an alternate infill is a possibility. She conveyed an urgent request for a meeting with the School Board as they have made it clear they are moving forward. Councilmember Bloom commented on the number of people who are strongly opposed to crumb rubber; she has received 45 emails from people strongly opposed to crumb rubber and only 1 email from someone who was okay with crumb rubber but not strongly in support. The 45 emails represent a large group of people, not just a small vocal group. The Council needs to do its due diligence and give the School Board another opportunity to consider a safer infill. She requested Council President Fraley-Monillas schedule that meeting on the Council’s and citizens’ behalf. Packet Page 22 of 291 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 28, 2015 Page 20 Council President Fraley-Monillas said the request she received previously was to meet with School Board Members and she felt that was accomplished via the two separate meetings with the Board. She was happy to send an email inviting the School Board to a meeting with the Council. She stood by the statement she made last week, “The superintendent made it very clear that if the Council does not enter into a partnership with the Edmonds School District, the Edmonds School District would no longer consider the City a partner in this [the fields] and potentially other items.” Council President Fraley-Monillas reported on a private tour she took of Salish Crossing and the museum the day after the new distillery had its soft opening; she was unable to attend the public open house. She anticipated it will be an exciting place to visit. She reminded of the volunteer picnic at City Park at 2:00 p.m. on August 9. She asked anyone planning to attend to call or email her or Jana Spellman. Mayor Earling reported Snohomish County Cities was recognized for cities working together, agreeing on common goals and speaking with one voice on 2-3 specific issues. Snohomish County Cities was very successful during this legislative session and received accolades from legislators acknowledging their work and the work the Snohomish County Alliance has done. During the past legislative session there were three editorials in the Herald, the most recent last Thursday, acknowledging the work of Snohomish County Cities. 12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Packet Page 23 of 291 AM-7915 3. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/04/2015 Time:Consent Submitted By:Linda Hynd Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Kaleb Real Estate Group Recommendation Acknowlege receipt of Claim for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Kaleb Real Estate Group 12600 SE 38th St Suite 226 Bellevue, WA 98006 ($465.26) Attachments Kaleb Real Estate Claim for Damages Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 07/31/2015 08:44 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/31/2015 08:45 AM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 07/31/2015 08:29 AM Final Approval Date: 07/31/2015 Packet Page 24 of 291 Packet Page 25 of 291 Packet Page 26 of 291 Packet Page 27 of 291 AM-7911 3. C. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/04/2015 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 #215404 through #215501 dated July 30, 2015 for $1,301,399.75. Approval of payroll replacement check #61721 for $18,797.94. Recommendation Approval of claim and payroll checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue: Expenditure:1,305,857.35 Fiscal Impact: Claims $1,301,399.75 Replacement payroll check $18,797.94 ($4,457.60 difference) Attachments Claim checks 07-30-15 Project Numbers 07-30-15 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 07/30/2015 09:44 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 07/30/2015 09:45 AM Packet Page 28 of 291 City Clerk Scott Passey 07/30/2015 09:45 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/30/2015 10:03 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/30/2015 10:08 AM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 07/30/2015 09:16 AM Final Approval Date: 07/30/2015 Packet Page 29 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215404 7/30/2015 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 353064 WWTP - PEST CONTROL July Service 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 73.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 6.94 PEST CONTROL CUST 1-16888 WASP NEST 7TH353290 PEST CONTROL CUST 1-16888 WASP NEST 7TH 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 224.47 Total :304.41 215405 7/30/2015 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 715067 P&R TENNIS SHIRT P&R TENNIS SHIRT 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 7.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 0.68 Total :7.83 215406 7/30/2015 075325 AHERN, ALLYSON 7/6-7/27 VOLLEYBALL 7/6-7/27/15 VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT 7/6-7/27/15 VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 160.00 Total :160.00 215407 7/30/2015 064615 AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE 42005 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL service for HV15RS S/N D131308 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 500.00 filter, lubricant, consumables 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 650.75 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 19.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 111.12 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL42008 Filters, seals, lubricant 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 400.68 Freight 1Page: Packet Page 30 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215407 7/30/2015 (Continued)064615 AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 23.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 40.25 Total :1,744.80 215408 7/30/2015 000710 ALASKAN COPPER & BRASS 330581-1 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL stainless steel seamless pipe 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 432.80 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 41.12 Total :473.92 215409 7/30/2015 065568 ALLWATER INC 072215029 WWTP - DRINKING WATER water 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 21.80 Total :21.80 215410 7/30/2015 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 161846-1575 APA DUES- JEN MACHUGA APA DUES- JEN MACHUGA 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 306.00 APA DUES- KERNEN LIEN180853-1575 APA DUES- KERNEN LIEN 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 369.00 Total :675.00 215411 7/30/2015 071407 APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NW LLP A4363 E7AC.RJ WILLY ACQUISITION E7AC.RJ Willy Acquisition~ 112.200.68.595.20.61.00 2,575.00 Total :2,575.00 215412 7/30/2015 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 9246 YOST POOL SUPPLIES: STABILIZER, PHENOL R YOST POOL SUPPLIES: STABILIZER, PHENOL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 185.10 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.58 2Page: Packet Page 31 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :202.682154127/30/2015 074718 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 215413 7/30/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988050367 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 17.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.64 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1988054675 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.33 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 5.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.13 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.48 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1988054676 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 15.62 3Page: Packet Page 32 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215413 7/30/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 9.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.49 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.89 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1988061746 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 5.18 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 54.48 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1988065990 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.33 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 5.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.13 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.48 4Page: Packet Page 33 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215413 7/30/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.48 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1988065991 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 15.62 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 9.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.49 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.89 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1988073053 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 20.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.96 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1988077314 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.33 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 5.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.13 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 5Page: Packet Page 34 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215413 7/30/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.48 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1988077315 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 9.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.89 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1988084402 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 28.03 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2.66 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1988088717 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.33 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 5.05 6Page: Packet Page 35 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215413 7/30/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.13 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.48 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1988088718 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 25.96 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 9.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 2.47 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.89 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS1988129716 uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80 mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 76.74 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.29 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE AND LOSS1988129717 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE AND LOSS 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 258.79 Total :704.96 7Page: Packet Page 36 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215414 7/30/2015 073598 AUBURN MECHANICAL, INC 20191 YOST POOL VALVE REPAIR YOST POOL VALVE REPAIR 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 1,944.00 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 184.68 Total :2,128.68 215415 7/30/2015 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 82673 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 33.58 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 34.59 UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 129.74 UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 129.74 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 3.22 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 3.22 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3.33 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 33.58 Total :371.00 215416 7/30/2015 002100 BARNARD, EARL 51 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 617.000.51.517.20.23.00 180.60 Total :180.60 215417 7/30/2015 073041 BECK & ASSOCIATES PLLC 2015-EDM-06 STRUCTURAL REVIEWS STRUCTURAL REVIEWS 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 1,400.51 Total :1,400.51 8Page: Packet Page 37 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215418 7/30/2015 075344 BIRCH, BONNIE 7/23 HMPC BIRCH 7/23/15 HMP CONCERT BONNIE BIRCH DUO 7/23/15 HMP CONCERT BONNIE BIRCH DUO 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 250.00 Total :250.00 215419 7/30/2015 067391 BRAT WEAR 15820 INV#15820 - EDMONDS PD - BOWER UNIFORM PANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 178.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.91 Total :194.91 215420 7/30/2015 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 19912 PILATES YOGA 19912 PILATES YOGA FUSION INSTRUCTOR FEE 19912 PILATES YOGA FUSION INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 171.07 19918 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE19918 YOGA 19918 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 308.70 19930 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE19930 YOGA 19930 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 222.30 19931 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE19931 YOGA 19931 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 432.00 Total :1,134.07 215421 7/30/2015 069841 BUNO CONSTRUCTION LLC E4GA.Pmt 1 E4GA.PMT 1 THRU 06/30/15 E4GA.Pmt 1 thru 6/30/15 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 204,122.24 Total :204,122.24 215422 7/30/2015 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 15125694 WWTP - COPIER RENTAL Copier Rental - July 2015 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 85.80 Total :85.80 215423 7/30/2015 075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATIONS 44 COMMUNICATIONS/OUTREACH FOR JULY 2015 9Page: Packet Page 38 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215423 7/30/2015 (Continued)075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATIONS Communications/Community Outreach 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,500.00 Total :2,500.00 215424 7/30/2015 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 44905578 INV#44905578 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE-POFF 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 163.08 TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 1.63 Total :164.71 215425 7/30/2015 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I15001773 Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 648.00 Total :648.00 215426 7/30/2015 004095 COASTWIDE LABS NW2787306-1 PM WASP & HORNET CLEANER PM WASP & HORNET CLEANER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 74.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.12 WWTP - SUPPLIES, FACILITIESNW2792255 Jentle Blue soap 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 137.36 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 13.05 Total :232.44 215427 7/30/2015 069482 COMPRESSORS NORTHWEST 72335 FS 20 - Valve Kit with Valves FS 20 - Valve Kit with Valves 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 273.00 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.19 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 27.47 10Page: Packet Page 39 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :316.662154277/30/2015 069482 069482 COMPRESSORS NORTHWEST 215428 7/30/2015 075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON 7100159332 WWTP - JULY JANITORIAL July 1-31 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 514.00 Total :514.00 215429 7/30/2015 005965 CUES INC 437480 Sewer - TV Truck Cabels, Adapters, Sewer - TV Truck Cabels, Adapters, 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 567.87 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 13.96 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 55.28 Total :637.11 215430 7/30/2015 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC E4FA.E2FB.Pmt 4 E4FA.E2FB.PMT 4 FINAL THRU 6/30/15 E4FA.Pmt 4 FINAL thru 6/30/15 422.000.72.594.31.65.20 840.00 E2FB.Pmt 4 FINAL thru 6/6 422.000.72.594.31.65.20 1,160.00 Total :2,000.00 215431 7/30/2015 070864 DEX MEDIA 440012121378 C/A 440001304654 Basic e-commerce hosting 07/02/15 - 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95 C/A 440001307733440012121385 07/2015 Web Hosting for Internet 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95 Total :69.90 215432 7/30/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3574 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 07/21/2015 07/21/15 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 488.40 Total :488.40 215433 7/30/2015 007253 DUNN LUMBER 3336630 City Hall - Finance Remodle Supplies 11Page: Packet Page 40 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215433 7/30/2015 (Continued)007253 DUNN LUMBER City Hall - Finance Remodle Supplies 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 69.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 6.59 City Hall - Finance Remodel Supplies3346998 City Hall - Finance Remodel Supplies 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 594.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 56.47 Total :726.96 215434 7/30/2015 065892 EAF FOUNDATION 7/28 TOURISM PROMO 7/28/15 TOURISM PROMO STUDIO TOUR 7/28/15 TOURISM PROMO STUDIO TOUR 123.000.64.573.20.41.00 1,000.00 Total :1,000.00 215435 7/30/2015 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 51027 Fac Maint - Compressor Oil Fac Maint - Compressor Oil 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 39.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.79 Total :43.71 215436 7/30/2015 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 000961 PM OPEN S HOOK PM OPEN S HOOK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.28 PM 18' HEATING CABLE, PIPE INSUL KIT, WE000962 PM 18' HEATING CABLE, PIPE INSUL KIT, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 63.55 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.04 Total :72.85 12Page: Packet Page 41 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215437 7/30/2015 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 19848 YSF MEYER YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 19848 MICHAEL MEYER YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 19848 MICHAEL MEYER 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 75.00 Total :75.00 215438 7/30/2015 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL SW / METE LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.77 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD / METER 73-03575 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 286.80 HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN3-07490 HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 76.88 LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE W / METE3-07525 LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE W / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.77 LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST SW / METE3-07709 LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 41.02 LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD / METER 23-09350 LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 76.88 LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT RD / METER3-09800 LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT RD / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.77 LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / METER 63-29875 LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.77 SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 92ND AVE W3-38565 SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 92ND AVE W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N / ME6-02735 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,712.68 FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N / ME6-02736 13Page: Packet Page 42 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215438 7/30/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.65 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 76-02737 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,153.41 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 250 5TH6-02738 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 250 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 916.02 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 7096-02825 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 3,495.01 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN ST6-02875 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 25.63 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME6-02925 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,886.76 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE6-04127 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 869.75 FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW /6-04128 FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.65 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE6-05155 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 120.47 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 457.78 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 457.78 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 457.78 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 457.78 14Page: Packet Page 43 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215438 7/30/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 457.79 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW /6-05156 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 1.83 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 6.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 6.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 6.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 6.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 6.94 Total :13,204.94 215439 7/30/2015 047407 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 312 000 093 ES REF # 94513310 7 Q2-15 Unemployment Insurance 001.000.39.517.78.23.00 2,655.32 Total :2,655.32 215440 7/30/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH644477 LEGAL DESC PLN20150023 LEGAL DESC PLN20150023 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 72.24 LEG NOTICE PLN20150021EDH645339 LEG NOTICE PLN20150021 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 56.76 INV#EDH645705 ACCT#14126500 - EDMONDS PEDH645705 UNCLAIMED PROPERTY AD 7/17/15 001.000.41.521.10.41.40 22.36 CITY APPLICATIONSEDH646313 CITY APPLICATIONS~ 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 37.84 15Page: Packet Page 44 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :189.202154407/30/2015 009350 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 215441 7/30/2015 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU36434 Fleet - Parts Fleet - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 29.21 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 2.77 Fleet - PartsWAMOU36478 Fleet - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 0.86 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 0.08 PM SUPPLIES: 1/2-13X1.24, NYLOK, S/S316WAMOU36573 PM SUPPLIES: 1/2-13X1.24, NYLOK, S/S316 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 47.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.51 PM SUPPLIES: PLIER SET, JOBBERSWAMOU36574 PM SUPPLIES: PLIER SET, JOBBERS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 80.46 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.64 Total :172.97 215442 7/30/2015 075347 FERRIS-TURNEY GEN CONTRACTORS 15054-1 FS 17 - Water Leak Repairs FS 17 - Water Leak Repairs 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 8,738.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 830.11 Total :9,568.11 215443 7/30/2015 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 30.87 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE253-011-1177 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 16Page: Packet Page 45 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215443 7/30/2015 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 6.38 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 24.23 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 24.23 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 24.23 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 24.23 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 24.20 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES253-012-9166 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 161.33 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 299.62 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 19.71 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 36.59 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 46.64 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 86.62 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 32.56 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 32.56 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, SPARE LINES425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 16.26 17Page: Packet Page 46 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215443 7/30/2015 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 81.28 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 68.28 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 68.28 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 91.02 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-712-8347 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 250 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 66.72 CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 MEADOWDALE RD425-745-4313 CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 134.82 CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5TH AVE N425-775-2455 CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 61.03 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE425-775-7865 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FIVE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 64.95 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 129.50 Total :1,656.14 215444 7/30/2015 002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 145480 INV#145480 - EDMONDS PD - HAWLEY REMOVE EMBLEM FROM JACKET 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 5.00 SEW GOLD EMBLEM ON JACKET 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 2.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 0.67 INV#145484 - EDMONDS PD - FROLAND145484 SEW CORP CHEVRONS ON SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 5.00 18Page: Packet Page 47 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215444 7/30/2015 (Continued)002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL CORPORAL CHEVRONS 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 5.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 1.04 Total :19.61 215445 7/30/2015 075181 GINGER'S PET PARADISE LLC AUGUST 2015 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 8/2015 EDMONDS PD ANIMAL BOARDING AUGUST 2015 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 2,169.62 Total :2,169.62 215446 7/30/2015 075346 GREATER SEATTLE FLOORS 5548 FAC - Gym Floor Repair FAC - Gym Floor Repair 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,550.00 9.5% Sales Tax 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 147.25 Total :1,697.25 215447 7/30/2015 012560 HACH COMPANY 9476228 Water Quailty - Water Chlorine Test Kits Water Quailty - Water Chlorine Test Kits 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 613.80 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 41.37 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 62.24 Total :717.41 215448 7/30/2015 075338 HANEY, DANIELLE REF ADOPTION FEE REFUND ADOPTION FEE #9216 - HANEY REFUND ADOPTION FEE #9216 001.000.345.23.000.00 65.00 Total :65.00 215449 7/30/2015 075255 HILL, FOSTER 7/7-7/21 FIELD ATTEN 7/7-7/21/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT 7/7-7/21/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 160.00 19Page: Packet Page 48 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :160.002154497/30/2015 075255 075255 HILL, FOSTER 215450 7/30/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2657050 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 71.16 OFFICE SUPPLIES2657233 OFFICE SUPPLIES 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 8.26 PENDAFLEX 1/2 CUT TAB FILE FOLDERS2658317 Pendeflex 1/2-cut tab Reversible File 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 37.43 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 3.56 SWINGLINE HEAVY DUTY STAPLES2658879 Swingline 3/8" Heavy Duty Staples 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 6.63 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 0.63 COPY PAPER2658897 COPY PAPER FOR CITY CLERKS OFFICE 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 137.36 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 13.05 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OFFICE2660234 file storage and office supply 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 71.19 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 6.76 Total :356.03 215451 7/30/2015 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD 19952 KIDS PHOTO 19952 KIDS PHOTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTION 19952 KIDS PHOTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 346.50 Total :346.50 215452 7/30/2015 075343 KEATING BUCKLIN & MCCORMACK 6517 CONSULTANT FEES FOR F TUPPER MATTER 20Page: Packet Page 49 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215452 7/30/2015 (Continued)075343 KEATING BUCKLIN & MCCORMACK Attorney consulting fees for F Tupper 011.000.39.518.60.49.00 1,965.60 Total :1,965.60 215453 7/30/2015 067568 KPG INC 610115 E5DA.SERVICES THRU 6/25/15 E5DA.Services thru 6/25/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 8,854.28 Total :8,854.28 215454 7/30/2015 074135 LAFAVE, CAROLYN 071415 MAYOR'S ANNUAL MEETING Food for Mayor's annual employee mtg 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 348.17 Total :348.17 215455 7/30/2015 068957 LYNN PEAVEY COMPANY 305174 INV#305174 CUST#980012 - EDMONDS PD 3X5 BACKING CARDS 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 47.50 Freight 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 22.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 6.60 INV#305332 CUST#980012 - EDMONDS PD305332 SK FIBER DUSTER BRUSH 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 10.35 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 0.98 INV#305640 CUST#980012 - EDMONDS PD305640 BLACK ELECTRIC POWDER 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 49.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 4.66 Total :141.09 215456 7/30/2015 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 009086-00 PM SUPPLIES: SAFETY PAINT PM SUPPLIES: SAFETY PAINT 21Page: Packet Page 50 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215456 7/30/2015 (Continued)074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 46.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.38 PM SUPPLIES: ELEC VALVE, UNIN, STD VLV,009089-00 PM SUPPLIES: ELEC VALVE, UNIN, STD VLV, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 552.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 52.48 Total :655.39 215457 7/30/2015 074099 MARTIN, GARY 7/20 YOGA SUB 7/20/15 YOGA SUBSTITUTE INSTRUCTION 1993 7/20/15 YOGA SUBSTITUTE INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 60.30 7/21/15 YOGA SUBSTITUTE INSTRUCTION 19917/21 YOGA SUB 7/21/15 YOGA SUBSTITUTE INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 53.57 7/23/15 YOGA SUBSTITUTE 199187/23 YOGA SUB 7/23/15 YOGA SUBSTITUTE 19918 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 81.90 Total :195.77 215458 7/30/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 34550984 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL cpvc strainer replacement screen 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 167.32 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 7.59 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MAINTENANCE34806831 hex nuts, screws, and anchors 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 574.72 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 17.43 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL34911802 forged flange 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 711.80 Freight 22Page: Packet Page 51 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215458 7/30/2015 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 37.09 Total :1,515.95 215459 7/30/2015 063773 MICROFLEX 00021909 06-15 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM TAX AUDIT PROGRAM 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 175.00 Total :175.00 215460 7/30/2015 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 14-1605-7 Water - Prof Engineering Svc Through Water - Prof Engineering Svc Through 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 945.40 Total :945.40 215461 7/30/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1275361 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 587.62 YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1275369 YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 309.21 EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET2-1284988 EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 111.65 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET2-1288876 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 CITY PARK OLD SEPTIC TANK PUMPED3020419 CITY PARK OLD SEPTIC TANK PUMPED 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 556.50 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 52.87 Total :1,731.70 215462 7/30/2015 074866 NORTHWEST PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT38346 CITY PARK BENCHES CITY PARK BENCHES 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 6,870.00 23Page: Packet Page 52 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215462 7/30/2015 (Continued)074866 NORTHWEST PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 652.65 Total :7,522.65 215463 7/30/2015 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 577 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMM MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMM MINUTES 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 187.00 Total :187.00 215464 7/30/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 126387 INV#126387 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD WIRE STEP FILE ORGANIZER 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 22.54 BLACK RETRACTABLE PENS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 70.92 MANILA FILE FOLDERS-LETTER 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 18.96 DYMO WHITE FILE FOLDER LABELS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 14.28 DYMO WHITE ADDRESS LABELS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 16.18 YELLOW LEGAL PADS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.92 STENO BOOKS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 23.78 MANILA FILE FOLDERS-LEGAL 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 11.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 18.14 P&R SHARPIES, POST IT NOTES, STAPLES, LE191090 P&R SHARPIES, POST IT NOTES, STAPLES, 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 25.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 2.45 PM LAM POUCHES, PENCIL SHARPENER, BINDER191127 PM LAM POUCHES, PENCIL SHARPENER, 24Page: Packet Page 53 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215464 7/30/2015 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 157.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 15.00 Total :410.33 215465 7/30/2015 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0021400 FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / METER R130 FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 205.44 Total :205.44 215466 7/30/2015 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 16484 YOST POOL SUPPLIES SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE YOST POOL SUPPLIES: 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 356.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 33.87 Total :390.37 215467 7/30/2015 064951 OTIS ELEVATOR CO SS06279G815 PW Elevator Maint Service Contract from PW Elevator Maint Service Contract from 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 3,273.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 310.95 Total :3,584.07 215468 7/30/2015 060945 PACIFIC POWER BATTERIES 19002468 Water/Sewer - 6V Spring Terminals Water/Sewer - 6V Spring Terminals 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 13.48 Water/Sewer - 6V Spring Terminals 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 13.48 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.28 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.28 Water/Sewer - Lantern Batteries83793 Water/Sewer - Lantern Batteries 25Page: Packet Page 54 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215468 7/30/2015 (Continued)060945 PACIFIC POWER BATTERIES 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 29.76 Water/Sewer - Lantern Batteries 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 29.76 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.84 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.82 Total :94.70 215469 7/30/2015 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 199092 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 120.00 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130199105 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 102.00 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130199123 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 102.00 Total :324.00 215470 7/30/2015 075183 PETERSON FRUIT CO 341892 Fruit for City Employees from Wellness Fruit for City Employees from Wellness 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 98.85 Total :98.85 215471 7/30/2015 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC H166535 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC custom sign - Main Breaker 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 43.50 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 4.13 Total :47.63 215472 7/30/2015 072384 PLAY-WELL TEKNOLOGIES 19842 LEGO CAMPS 19842 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTION 19842 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 2,470.00 26Page: Packet Page 55 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215472 7/30/2015 (Continued)072384 PLAY-WELL TEKNOLOGIES 19843 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTION19843 LEGO CAMPS 19843 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 2,210.00 19844 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTION19844 LEGO CAMPS 19844 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 2,470.00 19845 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTION19845 LEGO CAMPS 19845 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,820.00 Total :8,970.00 215473 7/30/2015 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 216118 WWTP - POSTAGE dept. L&I safety & health video 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 30.98 Total :30.98 215474 7/30/2015 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY 422.000.72.531.90.51.00 2,447.10 Total :2,447.10 215475 7/30/2015 074853 PRECOR COMMERCIAL FITNESS 19082 REPAIR CABLE ON MULTI STATION PULLDOWN/R REPAIR CABLE ON MULTI STATION 001.000.64.571.27.48.00 387.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.27.48.00 36.84 Total :424.59 215476 7/30/2015 064088 PROTECTION ONE 291104 ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAINT./FS #16 ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 21.00 ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 20.99 ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE STATION #16 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 130.38 27Page: Packet Page 56 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215476 7/30/2015 (Continued)064088 PROTECTION ONE 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 0.34 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 0.33 Total :173.04 215477 7/30/2015 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET 19999 FELDENKRAIS 19999 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTOR FEE 19999 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 234.00 Total :234.00 215478 7/30/2015 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 665.36 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER200002411383 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,121.35 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 0200007876143 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 39.65 FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW / MET200009595790 FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 90.99 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE200011439656 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 58.18 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 00052200016558856 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 68.85 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 0200016815843 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 130.95 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W /200017676343 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 55.41 28Page: Packet Page 57 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215478 7/30/2015 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE R200019375639 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 36.35 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 66.04 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE200020415911 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 3.50 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 13.29 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 13.29 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 13.29 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 13.29 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 13.30 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395200021829581 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395 423.000.76.535.80.47.63 45.60 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / METER200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 35.25 Total :2,483.94 215479 7/30/2015 075211 ROCKLER WOODWORKING & HARDWARE2932558 Boys & Girls Club - Supplies Boys & Girls Club - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 69.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.56 Total :75.56 215480 7/30/2015 075288 RODARTE CONSTRUCTION INC E7AC.Pmt 2 E7AC.PMT 2 THRU 6/30/15 29Page: Packet Page 58 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215480 7/30/2015 (Continued)075288 RODARTE CONSTRUCTION INC E7AC.Pmt 2 thru 6/30/15 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 902,159.40 Total :902,159.40 215481 7/30/2015 070127 SHIER, JASON J 7/23/15 Sick leave buy back refund for OT Sick leave buy back refund for OT 001.000.41.521.22.11.00 134.20 Total :134.20 215482 7/30/2015 065119 SIRCHIE FINGERPRINT LAB 0215386-IN INV#0215386-IN CUST#00-A98020 EDMONDS PD STANDARD FIBER BRUSHES 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 89.50 NINHYDRIN ACETONE AEROSOL 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 35.00 NINHYDRIN AEROSOL 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 56.25 Freight 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 15.00 Total :195.75 215483 7/30/2015 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 15-113 Q2-15 EMS BILLING & POSTAGE Q2-15 Ambulance billings & postage 001.000.39.522.70.41.00 12,773.95 Total :12,773.95 215484 7/30/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2003-8645-6 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD / METER 100 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 75.64 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER 12004-6859-3 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 429.08 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD / METER2004-9683-4 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 115.53 TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / METER 10002005-9295-4 30Page: Packet Page 59 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215484 7/30/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.52 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 12006-3860-9 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 256.13 TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S / METER 10002006-7801-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.44 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W / MET2007-3984-5 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 33.52 100 DAYTON ST2012-3682-5 100 DAYTON ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 442.89 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W / METE2012-6598-0 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 302.95 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W / M2013-7496-4 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 38.43 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW D2014-3123-6 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.52 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 1002015-5174-4 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,889.47 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER 10002015-7289-8 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 69.59 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW / METE2015-9448-8 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.71 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN ST / METER2016-5690-7 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN ST / METER 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 213.24 31Page: Packet Page 60 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215484 7/30/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER 10002017-8264-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 33.52 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE2019-4248-9 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 72.67 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 276.14 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 276.14 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 276.14 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 276.14 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 276.15 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH2022-9166-2 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 5,088.28 STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT METERE2023-8937-5 STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 16.76 LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTING 120 5TH2024-2158-2 LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTING 120 5TH 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 98.03 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 100012612024-3924-6 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,222.67 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10001353812030-9778-7 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 1000135381 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 26,900.01 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 102044-2584-7 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 83.81 32Page: Packet Page 61 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :39,900.122154847/30/2015 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 215485 7/30/2015 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4254697-01 WWTP - 2015 UNIFORM, BRIAN FUNK 2015 uniform - Brian Funk 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 58.89 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 5.59 Fac Maint - Work Boots P Cleveland4254843-01 Fac Maint - Work Boots P Cleveland 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 131.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 12.47 Total :208.25 215486 7/30/2015 075009 SOUNDVIEW DESIGN STUDIO 00010340 FALL CRAZE DESIGN FALL CRAZE DESIGN 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,239.00 Total :1,239.00 215487 7/30/2015 074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 934306 E4JB.SERVICES THRU 6/26/15 E4JB.Services thru 6/26/15 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 2,137.06 Total :2,137.06 215488 7/30/2015 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3003092233 INV#3003092233 CUST#6076358 - EDMONDS PD MEDIUM BOX DISPOSAL 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 51.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 1.92 Total :53.44 215489 7/30/2015 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC 19881 BEACH CAMP 19881 DAY BEACH CAMP 19881 DAY BEACH CAMP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 13,222.50 19889 OVERNIGHT BEACH CAMP19889 BEACH CAMP 19889 OVERNIGHT BEACH CAMP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 6,075.00 33Page: Packet Page 62 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :19,297.502154897/30/2015 072319 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC 215490 7/30/2015 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 1730 SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR JULY 2015 Social media services for July 2015 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 300.00 Total :300.00 215491 7/30/2015 072790 TCC PRINTING & IMAGING 87171 POSTERS FOR PUGET SOUND BIRD FEST Posters for Puget Sound Bird Fest 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 351.95 9.5% Sales Tax 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 33.44 Total :385.39 215492 7/30/2015 075334 THIRD ARM CONSTRUCTION INC BLD20150900 REFUND- CONTRACT NO LONGER WANTS SHEATHI REFUND- CONTRACT NO LONGER WANTS 001.000.257.620 45.00 Total :45.00 215493 7/30/2015 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 51022 CEMETERY INSTALL FENCE CEMETERY INSTALL FENCE 130.000.64.536.20.41.00 990.00 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.20.41.00 94.05 Total :1,084.05 215494 7/30/2015 074494 UK SOCCER ELITE 19950 UK ELITE 19950 UK ELITE SOCCER INSTRUCTION 19950 UK ELITE SOCCER INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 2,112.00 Total :2,112.00 215495 7/30/2015 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 689738 Sewer - Root-X Root Control Sewer - Root-X Root Control 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 953.88 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 79.89 9.5% Sales Tax 34Page: Packet Page 63 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215495 7/30/2015 (Continued)064423 USA BLUE BOOK 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 98.21 WWTP - SAFETY701696 Safety Signage 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 117.83 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 15.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 12.62 Total :1,277.43 215496 7/30/2015 061485 WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH DRAN.FX.00056126 INV#DRAN.FX.00056126 EDMONDS PD-DAWSON ANNUAL PENTOBARBITAL PERMIT 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 40.00 Total :40.00 215497 7/30/2015 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 53456 INV#53456 - EDMONDS PD TOW 1995 FORD EXPLORER #AQC8696 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.77 Total :181.77 215498 7/30/2015 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO 494807 Fac Maint - TT, Covers Fac Maint - TT, Covers 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 149.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.21 Total :163.83 215499 7/30/2015 074672 WILLIAMS, JULIE 7/22 YOGA SUB 7/22/15 YOGA SUBSTITUTE INSTRUCTION 7/22/15 YOGA SUBSTITUTE INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 108.00 Total :108.00 215500 7/30/2015 051050 WYATT, ARTHUR D 50 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 35Page: Packet Page 64 of 291 07/30/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 8:12:40AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215500 7/30/2015 (Continued)051050 WYATT, ARTHUR D LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 234.00 Total :234.00 215501 7/30/2015 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1048 JUL-15 RETAINER Monthly Retainer 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 13,930.96 Total :13,930.96 Bank total : 1,301,399.7598 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 1,301,399.75Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report98 36Page: Packet Page 65 of 291 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 7/29/2015 Packet Page 66 of 291 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 7/29/2015 Packet Page 67 of 291 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 7/29/2015 Packet Page 68 of 291 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 7/29/2015 Packet Page 69 of 291 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 7/29/2015 Packet Page 70 of 291 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 7/29/2015 Packet Page 71 of 291 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 7/29/2015 Packet Page 72 of 291 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 7/29/2015 Packet Page 73 of 291 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 7/29/2015 Packet Page 74 of 291 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 7/29/2015 Packet Page 75 of 291 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 7/29/2015 Packet Page 76 of 291 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 7/29/2015 Packet Page 77 of 291 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 7/29/2015 Packet Page 78 of 291 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 7/29/2015 Packet Page 79 of 291 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 7/29/2015 Packet Page 80 of 291 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 7/29/2015 Packet Page 81 of 291 AM-7913 3. D. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/04/2015 Time:Consent Submitted For:Ryan Hague Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Action Information Subject Title Authorization to award a construction contract in the amount of $1,181,347.00 for the 238th St SW Walkway Project to Taylor’s Excavators, Inc. Recommendation Award contract to Taylor's Excavators, Inc. and authorize the Finance Director to prepare the appropriate budget amendment for the additional $50,258 from Fund 422 that is necessary to complete the project construction budget. Previous Council Action On July 28, 2015, Council discussed the project funding and award of the 238th St. SW Walkway Project and agreed to have the item forwarded to the consent agenda for the August 4, 2015 Council meeting if the necessary construction budget was less than the available funding for the project. Narrative This project received a “Safe Routes to School” transportation grant during the State’s 2012 grant cycle. This grant program seeks to increase safety and accessibility for students walking or biking to schools. 238th St SW currently has no sidewalk facilities, despite being an ideal walking route for students who attend Sherwood Elementary School. The 238th St SW Walkway project will install a sidewalk along the north side of 238th St SW from 104th Ave W to 100 th Ave W. This will increase pedestrian safety and, most likely, the number of students walking to Sherwood Elementary. The City’s right of way along 238th St is experiencing stormwater drainage issues and has been identified for quite some time as a high priority project for storm drainage upgrades. This project will install pipes and catch basins to convey stormwater to the existing infiltration system in Hickman Park as well as several rain gardens to infiltrate stormwater within the project area. After the pedestrian and stormwater facilities have been completed an overlay will upgrade the pavement throughout the limits of the project as well as on 104th Ave W between 238th St and Hickman Park. On July 29, 2015, the City received seven bids for the 238th St SW Walkway and Drainage project. The bids ranged from a low of $1.18M to a high of $1.38M. The bids have been tabulated and are attached as Exhibit 1. Taylor’s Excavators submitted the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $1,181,347.00. The engineer’s estimate was $1.25M. A review of the bidder’s record has been completed and responses are positive. Packet Page 82 of 291 The project costs are being funded by a combination of Safe Routes to School grant HLP-SR13(008), City Stormwater funds and an Interlocal Agreement with PSE for assistance with the overlay. A project construction budget is attached as Exhibit 2. The Stormwater Utility needs to provide $50,258 in additional funding above the authorized 2015 Budget to award the project. A budget amendment will be required to make those funds available. Construction is expected to begin in late August and be completed by the end of this year. Attachments Project Budget Exhibit 1 - Bid Summary Project Map Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Public Works Phil Williams 07/30/2015 02:26 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 07/30/2015 02:27 PM Mayor Dave Earling 07/30/2015 02:33 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/31/2015 08:12 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 07/30/2015 12:01 PM Final Approval Date: 07/31/2015 Packet Page 83 of 291 238th St. SW Walkway Project Proposed Construction Budget Description Amount Contract Award $1,181,347.00 Construction Management, Inspection & Testing $177,203.00 Management Reserve $118,135.00 Total = $1,476,685.00 Construction Funding Funding Amount Grant $421,000.00 422 Stormwater Funds Available $932,500.00 PSE Funded Overlay $72,927.00 Additional 422 Stormwater Funds $50,258.00 Total = $1,476,685.00 Packet Page 84 of 291 City of Edmonds 238th St SW Walkway & Drainage Project Bid Summary 29-Jul-15 Engineer's Estimate 1,377,476.00$ DPK, Inc 352,885.00$ 781,350.00$ 243,241.00$ 1,342,726.50$ 242,330.00$ 227,739.00$ 251,320.00$ 235,991.00$ 230,155.00$ 1,214,922.00$ 1,181,347.00$ 1,184,483.00$ 1,191,463.00$ 1,212,044.00$ 258,507.50$ 257,171.70$ 1,337,056.40$ TOTAL Schedule A - Walkway Improvements Schedule B - Drainage Improvements Schedule C - Roadway Improvements 617,388.00$ 571,068.00$ 501,333.00$ 589,047.00$ 653,700.00$ 355,204.00$ 382,540.00$ 431,830.00$ Taylor's Excavators 3 Kings A-1 Landscaping & Construction RL Alia Co Road Construction NorthwestKamins Construction 432,201.00$ 652,018.00$ 366,425.00$ 328,189.00$ 401,605.90$ 678,278.80$ Packet Page 85 of 291 PROJECT AREA E D M O N D S W A Y ( S R - 1 0 4 ) 1 0 0 T H A V E W 1 0 4 T H A V E W 238TH ST SW 238TH ST WALKWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Packet Page 86 of 291 AM-7912 3. E. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/04/2015 Time:Consent Submitted For:Ed Sibrel Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Action Information Subject Title Authorization to award a construction contract for the 220th Street SW Overlay from 84th Avenue W to 76th Avenue W Recommendation With WSDOT concurrence, reject the proposal from JB Asphalt as nonresponsive and award the construction contract to Lakeside Industries in the amount of $668,865.50 and authorize a 15% management reserve. Previous Council Action On May 5, 2015, City Council approved a budget amendment for $260,000 in REET funding to complete the project. On July 28, 2015, Council discussed the project funding and award of the 220th Street SW Overlay Project and forwarded the item to the consent agenda for the August 4, 2015 Council meeting. Narrative On July 28, 2015, the City received three bids for the 220th Overlay Project. The bids ranged from a low of $493,693.00 to a high of $719,800.00. The bid tabulation summary is attached as Exhibit 1. Lakeside Industries submitted the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $668,865.50. The engineer’s estimate was $658,870. JB Asphalt submitted a bid of $493,693.00; however a review of the proposal revealed material irregularities within the bid documentation, primarily in their preparation of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) forms that are required to be complete and accurate. Federal contract stipulations require rejection of bids when the DBE documents are inaccurate. The face sheet of the bid rejection memo is attached as Exhibit 2 WSDOT concurrence for award is pending. Notice to proceed will not be issued until full concurrence is recieved. This project involves improvements to 220th Street SW extending from 84th Ave to 76th Ave, including a 2-inch grind and asphalt overlay, pedestrian curb ramp upgrades, bike lanes, curb and gutter replacement, signing, and striping. The estimated total project cost is $1.04 million and the costs will be paid by a $780,000 federal transportation grant and $260,000 in local REET funding. Attachments Packet Page 87 of 291 Exhibit 1 - Bid Summary Exhibit 2 - Bid Rejection Memo Exhibit 3 - Project Budget Exhibit 4 - Project Map Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Public Works Phil Williams 07/30/2015 01:45 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 07/30/2015 02:27 PM Mayor Dave Earling 07/30/2015 02:34 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/31/2015 08:12 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 07/30/2015 09:53 AM Final Approval Date: 07/31/2015 Packet Page 88 of 291 City of Edmonds 220th St SW Overlay Bid Summary 28-Jul-15 Engineer's Estimate Schedule A - 220th Overlay Schedule B - Contract Bond Extension TOTAL 122 Transportation 235,025.00$ FHWA Grant 704,975.00$ Contingency (15%) Total 940,000.00$ There are irregularities associated with the apparent low bid. In the event the bid is declared non-responsive, the below budget is based on the second-low (lowest responsive) bid. 493,693.00$ 667,865.50$ 719,500.00$ JB Asphalt Lakeside Industries Granite Construction 2,000.00$ -$ 1,000.00$ 300.00$ 656,870.00$ 658,870.00$ 493,693.00$ 668,865.50$ 719,800.00$ Construction Budget Contract 668,865.50$ Available Funding Total 914,195.33$ CM and Testing 145,000.00$ 100,329.83$ Packet Page 89 of 291 Packet Page 90 of 291 220th St. SW Overlay Project Proposed Construction Budget Description Amount Contract Award $668,866.00 Construction Management, Engineering & Testing $145,000.00 Management Reserve (Approx. 15%) $100,330.00 Total = $914,196.00 Construction Funding Funding Amount Transportation Funds $235,025.00 FHWA Construction Funds $704,975.00 Total = $940,000.00 Packet Page 91 of 291 © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet Notes Vicinity Map Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 500.000 1:12,000 220th St Overlay STPUL-2506(004) 1,000.0 Packet Page 92 of 291 AM-7910 3. F. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/04/2015 Time:Consent Submitted For:Henry Schroder Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Action Information Subject Title Report on final construction costs for the 2014 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements and acceptance of project. Recommendation Accept project. 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. On July 14, 2015, staff presented this item to full Council and they forwarded the item to a future consent agenda for approval. 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 07/30/2015 09:22 AM Public Works Phil Williams 07/30/2015 01:37 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 07/30/2015 02:27 PM Mayor Dave Earling 07/30/2015 02:35 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/31/2015 08:12 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 07/30/2015 09:12 AM Packet Page 93 of 291 Final Approval Date: 07/31/2015 Packet Page 94 of 291 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 95 of 291 AM-7883 4. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/04/2015 Time:20 Minutes Submitted For:Council President Fraley-Monillas Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Type: Information Information Subject Title Community Transit Updates Including Plans for the Future Recommendation N/A Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Emmett Heath, CEO of Community Transit will be making the presentation. Attachments Community Transit Key Facts CT Presentation Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 07/31/2015 08:31 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/31/2015 08:42 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/31/2015 08:43 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 07/21/2015 10:41 AM Final Approval Date: 07/31/2015 Packet Page 96 of 291 Packet Page 97 of 291 Packet Page 98 of 291 Edmonds City Council Meeting the Transportation Needs of Snohomish County Presented by Emmett Heath, CEO August 4, 2015 Packet Page 99 of 291 Transit investments help our economy grow AND protect OUR quality of life Packet Page 100 of 291 Transit-Oriented Development Packet Page 101 of 291 Growth in Edmonds Packet Page 102 of 291 Edmonds Transit Map Packet Page 103 of 291 Swift Bus Rapid Transit Packet Page 104 of 291 Packet Page 105 of 291 Our Challenge: People LOVE Community Transit and need MORE! Packet Page 106 of 291 Packet Page 107 of 291 Packet Page 108 of 291 New routes, new connections Packet Page 109 of 291 Packet Page 110 of 291 Transit investments help our economy GROW and PROTECT our quality of life Packet Page 111 of 291 We bring people to work… Packet Page 112 of 291 …and we bring people home Packet Page 113 of 291 Packet Page 114 of 291 Packet Page 115 of 291 AM-7906 6. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/04/2015 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Sarah Mager Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title June 2015 Quarterly Financial Report Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative Attachments June 2015 Quaterly Financial Report Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 07/30/2015 09:41 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 07/30/2015 09:43 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/30/2015 09:45 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/30/2015 09:45 AM Form Started By: Sarah Mager Started On: 07/29/2015 03:01 PM Final Approval Date: 07/30/2015 Packet Page 116 of 291 Financial Management Report as of June 31, 2015 CITY OF MUKILTEO  General Fund first quarter 2015 operating revenue is $415,849 or 2.2 percent over last year, largely due to increased property tax, sales tax and development related reve- nues. With the inclusion of the 2014 bond refunding proceeds of $2.76 million, 2014 revenues ex- ceeded 2015 revenues by $2.3mil- lion. A detailed analysis of Gen- eral Fund revenues can be found on page 5, with sales tax perfor- mance discussed on page 20.  Special Revenue Funds 2015 revenues are $198,479 or 6 per- cent higher than 2014. The 2015 revenue increase is primarily due to:  2015 grant revenues are lower than 2014 as the Street Construc- tion Fund received $432,000 less in grant revenues than were re- ceived in 2014.  Additional Special Revenue Fund Highlights:  Street Fund 111 budgeted trans- fers from the General Fund was increased by $300,000 for the 2014 budget and this level of funding was maintained in 2015.  Street Construction Fund 112 Traffic Impact Fee revenues increased $20,540 or 118% over 2014.  Municipal Arts Acquisition Fund 117 received an additional $7,300 in donations and contributions over 2014.  Hotel/Motel Lodging tax revenues grew over 13.4% over 2014.  Real Estate Excise Tax revenues in- creased $114,269 or 27.9% over 2014.  Gifts Catalog Fund 127 received an additional $10,810 in donations and contributions over 2014.  Park Construction Fund 132 Park Impact Fees increased $50,916 or 311 percent over 2014.  Utility Funds 2015 revenues are $749,914 higher than last year. The 2015 increase is primarily due to:  Water sales increased by $240,385 or 8.3 percent over 2014.  Stormwater sales increased by $81,281 or 4.9 percent over 2014.  Sewer sales increased by $370,175 or 10 percent over 2014. Summary of All Operating Funds: Revenue INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Revenues By Fund Summary 1 Expenditures By Fund Summary 2 General Fund Revenues 3 Expenditures By Fund Details 6 General Fund Expendi- ture Detail 13 Investment Portfolio 32 Fund Balance Overview 33 Edmonds Ferry At Night By Deb Sharp Financial Management Report As of June 31, 2015 AT A GLANCE: General Fund operating revenues are on par with last year’s revenues. 2015 sales tax revenue out per- forms 2014(see page 18) 2015 Development related revenues are higher than 2014.. (see page 3) The Financial Management Report is a summary report of the City’s 2nd Quarter 2015 financial results with a comparison to 2nd Quarter Packet Page 117 of 291 Financial Management Report as of June 31, 2015 Edmonds Fish By Deb Sharp Completed Five Corners Round-About Summary of All Operating Funds: Expenditures  General Fund expenditures ended the quarter with 50% of the budget expended. Expenditures in- creased 7.2% over 2014, with ex- penditures increasing $1,305,308 over last year. The increase is due primarily to higher Fire Dis- trict 1 costs and including 2015 mid-year interfund transfers of $526,555 in the 2nd quarter, and for 2014, the mid-year interfund transfers of $22,639 were made during the 3rd quarter. General Fund expense by catego- ries are on page 6 and departmental expenses are on pages 13—16 Additional General Fund expendi- tures information can be found on pages 23—31.  Special Revenue Fund expendi- tures increased $117,012 in 2015 over 2014. A portion of this in- crease is due to extra street mainte- nance expenses ($54,328) and con- struction of City Park’s new spray park. Additional Special Revenue Fund expenditure information can be found on pages 7—10.  Utility Funds 2015 expenses in- creased $156,978 over 2014, pri- marily due to increase capital ex- penses for sewer line replacement.  The Water Fund expenditures for were $517,982 higher than 2014 mainly due to increased capital ex- penditures and increased demand for water from customers. (see page 11 for expenditure details.) Investment Portfolio  The current yield to maturity for the City’s investment portfolio in- creased over 76% over 2014 earn- ings primarily due to diversifying the portfolio. (see page 32 for additional investment details) Fund Balances  During the first half of 2015, the Gen- eral Fund balance decreased $763,689 as anticipated. The General Fund’s largest revenue source, property taxes, are primarily received twice a year, once in May and again in November.  Additional fund balance information can be found on pages 33—38. Notable Highlights  The City received a $1.67 million retro- active invoice from Fire District 1 as the result of their settled labor agreement. Subsequently to receiving this invoice, the City negotiated a small reduction and were able to pay the remaining $1,603,000 over eight quarterly pay- ments.  The City has yet to settle the 2015 labor agreements with our Teamsters and SEIU bargaining groups. Port of Edmonds Marina By Deb Sharp Packet Page 118 of 291 1 Page 1 of 1 Fund No.Title 2015 Amended Budget 06/30/2014 Revenues 06/30/2015 Revenues Amount Remaining % Received 001 GENERAL FUND 1 36,818,544$ 21,270,138$ 18,922,673$ 17,895,871$ 51% 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 2 276,200 630 139,484 136,716 51% 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 1,180 308 4,285 (3,105) 363% 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 19,800 10,675 22,594 (2,794) 114% 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND - 44 234 (234) 0% 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 9,500 2 3 9,497 0% 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 3 708,000 187,642 237,914 470,086 34% 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 43,000 19,799 11,276 31,724 26% 111 STREET FUND 2 1,729,030 666,124 907,722 821,308 52% 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 3 8,026,935 1,086,316 805,704 7,221,231 10% 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 97,359 17,080 37,748 59,611 39% 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 61 31 74 (13) 122% 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 67,675 26,777 30,743 36,932 45% 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 20,564 10,224 8,598 11,966 42% 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 1,240 68 189 1,051 15% 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 22,900 9,144 10,402 12,498 45% 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 904,000 412,628 531,403 372,597 59% 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 902,000 411,048 530,078 371,922 59% 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 46,478 23,149 34,538 11,940 74% 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND - 48,571 159 (159) 0% 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 164,500 68,693 96,753 67,747 59% 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2 5,498,765 141,498 131,214 5,367,551 2% 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 533 342 631 (98) 118% 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 11,970 8,606 12,091 (121) 101% 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,212 3,265 3,611 6,601 35% 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 650,000 340,369 339,276 310,724 52% 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 52,527 48,443 (48,443) 0% 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,600 10,148 9,718 12,882 43% 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 28,627 47 - 28,627 0% 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 667,693 84,010 75,464 592,229 11% 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 925,310 9,211 9,201 916,109 1% 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 132,280 12,880 (12,880) 0% 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 7,581,442 3,152,272 3,260,676 4,320,766 43% 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 3 3,778,407 1,789,119 2,043,886 1,734,521 54% 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 9,833,310 3,982,135 4,368,878 5,464,432 44% 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 844,416 - 337,210 507,206 40% 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,519,185 751,131 803,646 715,539 53% 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 65,350 49,969 56,725 8,625 87% 81,296,786$ 34,776,019$ 33,846,124$ 47,450,662$ 42% 3 All differences between 2014 and 2015 are due to a difference in grant funds received. CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY 1 Difference between 2014 and 2015 is due to the $2.7M from bond refund in February of 2014. 2 Differences between 2014 and 2015 are due to Mid-Year Transfers. Packet Page 119 of 291 2 Page 1 of 1 Fund No.Title 2015 Amended Budget 06/30/2014 Expenditures 06/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent 001 GENERAL FUND 39,042,952$ 18,147,195$ 19,452,503$ 19,590,449$ 50% 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 361,825 162,040 138,255 223,570 38% 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - - - - 0% 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 800,000 - 400,000 400,000 50% 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 9,900 - 3,750 6,150 38% 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 4 793,800 56,525 96,369 697,431 12% 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 76,033 15,229 18,256 57,777 24% 111 STREET FUND 1,703,419 772,044 826,372 877,047 49% 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 8,146,704 997,719 900,067 7,246,637 11% 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 152,775 21,587 27,036 125,739 18% 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - - 0% 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 70,000 15,170 25,294 44,706 36% 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,871 - - 26,871 0% 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,000 1,007 1,341 1,659 45% 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 21,500 1,864 5,501 15,999 26% 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2,485,000 64,029 113,403 2,371,597 5% 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 943,400 30,693 28,845 914,555 3% 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 43,795 917 12,631 31,164 29% 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND - 17,469 - - 0% 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 171,784 72,920 74,803 96,981 44% 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 6,001,243 152,468 223,266 5,777,977 4% 136 PARKS TRUST FUND - - - - 0% 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,400 3,538 10 10,390 0% 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 650,000 340,369 367,211 282,789 56% 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRCIT - 22,251 25,924 (25,924) 0% 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 28,567 - - 28,567 0% 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - - - - 0% 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 667,693 84,614 75,517 592,176 11% 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 925,310 9,211 9,201 916,109 1% 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 10,354,300 2,804,831 3,322,813 7,031,487 32% 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 6,973,141 1,439,087 1,315,116 5,658,025 19% 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 15,071,010 4,424,339 4,187,306 10,883,704 28% 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 845,416 340,408 358,261 487,155 42% 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,717,825 487,676 584,355 1,133,470 34% 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 77,629 30,803 24,782 52,847 32% 98,175,292$ 30,516,003$ 32,618,187$ 65,557,105$ 33% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY 4 Difference between 2014 and 2015 is due to Professional Services charges related to the Fishing Pier Design. Packet Page 120 of 291 3 Page 1 of 3 Title 2015 Amended Budget 06/30/2014 Revenues 06/30/2015 Revenues Amount Remaining % Received TAXES: REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 5 9,999,850$ 5,200,779$ 5,309,480$ 4,690,370$ 53% EMS PROPERTY TAX 5 3,395,376 1,614,411 1,802,797 1,592,579 53% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 925,309 501,074 492,243 433,066 53% LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 6 5,627,000 2,812,288 3,140,830 2,486,170 56% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 9,700 6,287 3,743 5,957 39% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 586,500 295,147 305,477 281,023 52% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,533,800 948,700 871,282 662,518 57% GAS UTILITY TAX 743,700 474,528 413,611 330,089 56% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 301,500 143,151 157,023 144,477 52% WATER UTILITY TAX 1,115,209 455,238 493,120 622,089 44% SEWER UTILITY TAX 524,200 258,405 282,765 241,435 54% STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 323,210 149,691 157,184 166,026 49% T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 819,100 344,143 423,940 395,160 52% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,371,800 692,449 664,312 707,488 48% PULLTABS TAX 45,200 22,146 24,272 20,928 54% AMUSEMENT GAMES 150 25 - 150 0% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 231,200 113,029 121,178 110,022 52% 27,552,804 14,031,493 14,663,255 12,889,549 53% LICENSES AND PERMITS: FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,210 80 215 4,995 4% POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 300 350 - 300 0% PROF AND OCC LICENSE-TAXI 630 630 - 630 0% AMUSEMENTS 4,740 4,675 4,325 415 91% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST 683,400 344,566 353,509 329,891 52% FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT 33,560 18,287 23,684 9,876 71% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER 91,500 45,127 49,706 41,794 54% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-BLACKROCK 18,100 9,541 9,091 9,009 50% FRANCHISE AGREMENT-ZAYO 5,000 - - 5,000 0% OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 261,930 126,873 134,672 127,258 51% GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 110,600 96,701 88,922 21,678 80% DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 37,200 20,590 23,090 14,110 62% NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 66,300 32,200 27,850 38,450 42% RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 9,870 - 5,388 4,482 55% BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 7 480,000 179,771 310,690 169,310 65% ANIMAL LICENSES 38,800 7,430 15,135 23,665 39% STREET AND CURB PERMIT 40,300 50,249 12,757 27,543 32% OTR NON-BUS LIC/PERMITS 10,100 7,591 6,715 3,385 66% 1,897,540 944,662 1,065,749 831,791 56% INTERGOVERNMENTAL: FEDERAL GRANTS-BUDGET ONLY 20,000 - - 20,000 0% DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 3,970 794 1,472 2,498 37% ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE GRANT 6,000 - 3,000 3,000 50% ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE II 6,000 1,000 5,250 750 88% WA ASSOC OF SHERIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT - - - - 0% WTSC X-52 DUI AND SPEEDING - - - - 0% TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 7,500 2,652 5,287 2,213 70% HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 3,000 3,560 - 3,000 0% DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE - 1,834 - - 0% WA STATE ADMIN OFFICE COURTS GRANT - - 300 (300) 0% 2014 COMMUNITY FORESTRY GRANT - - 1,000 (1,000) 0% WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT - - - - 0% NORTHWEST SOLAR COMMUNITIES GRANT - - - - 0% SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - - - - 0% PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 187,470 - - 187,470 0% MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 9,980 5,003 5,215 4,765 52% JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 12,630 6,238 8,189 4,441 65% CRIMINAL JUSTICE-SPECIAL PROGRAMS 36,890 18,654 19,160 17,730 52% DUI - CITIES 7,220 3,636 3,512 3,708 49% LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 65,000 38,720 44,733 20,267 69% LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 356,890 177,640 175,055 181,835 49% VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS 2,000 39,513 2,000 - 100% 724,550 299,243 274,174 450,376 38% REVENUES - GENERAL FUND CITY OF EDMONDS 5 Real Personal/Propety Tax is up $108,701 from 2014, and EMS Property Tax is up $188,386. 7 Building Structure Permits are up $130,919 from 2014. 6 2015 Local Retail Sales/Use Tax revenues are $328,542 higher than 2014 revenues. Please also see pages 18 & 19. Packet Page 121 of 291 4 Page 2 of 3 Title 2015 Amended Budget 06/30/2014 Revenues 06/30/2015 Revenues Amount Remaining % Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS - 791 1,120 (1,120) 0% CIVIL PROBATE FILINGS - - - - 0% ATM SURCHARGE FEES - - 67 (67) 0% COURT RECORD SERVICES 1,200 - - 1,200 0% D/M COURT REC SER 200 10 7 193 3% SHARED COURT COSTS 500 - - 500 0% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 200 366 270 (70) 135% SALE MAPS & BOOKS 100 20 - 100 0% CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS 25,086 - - 25,086 0% BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 100 - - 100 0% PHOTOCOPIES 2,000 1,144 1,111 889 56% POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,000 1,957 2,179 1,821 54% ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 272,000 104,698 108,952 163,048 40% ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 1,000 - - 1,000 0% SNO-ISLE 58,000 29,298 29,757 28,243 51% GENERAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES - - - - 0% PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 11,000 10,775 10,085 915 92% POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 7,274 1,365 24,635 5% OCDETF OVERTIME 5,500 7,724 - 5,500 0% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.12,300 3,011 3,782 8,518 31% WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 39,500 20,550 20,030 19,470 51% DRE REIMBURSEABLE - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 1,500 3,657 - 1,500 0% DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 300 96 230 70 77% FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 45,000 29,278 27,223 17,777 60% ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 50,000 33,421 31,359 18,641 63% ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI - - - - 0% BOOKING FEES 6,000 3,478 3,397 2,603 57% FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 8,000 8,446 11,293 (3,293) 141% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 18,000 8,017 5,587 12,413 31% EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 8 800,000 439,657 407,087 392,913 51% CRIM CNV FEE DUI - - - - 0% CRIM CONV FEE CT - 1,802 - - 0% CRIM CONV FEE CN - 691 - - 0% FIBER SERVICES 14,880 5,900 4,590 10,290 31% INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,200 3,600 3,600 3,600 50% FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 1,000 598 993 7 99% ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,000 1,540 1,556 4,444 26% ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 75,000 26,083 47,198 27,803 63% PLAN CHECKING FEES 292,000 328,111 259,285 32,715 89% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 2,160 3,920 5,265 (3,105) 244% PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 900 302 750 150 83% S.E.P.A. REVIEW 5,000 1,705 5,715 (715) 114% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 15,000 9,920 9,920 5,080 66% DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,000 4,342 4,747 5,253 47% SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 61,000 20,333 - 61,000 0% GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 4,800 2,641 4,109 691 86% LOCKER FEES 350 - - 350 0% SWIM CLASS FEES 30,000 10,037 - 30,000 0% PROGRAM FEES 825,000 509,123 497,941 327,059 60% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 110,000 72,878 75,715 34,285 69% SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM 34,260 34,261 - 34,260 0% BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 950 230 180 770 19% INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT-CONTRACT SVCS 1,969,500 1,004,550 422,095 1,547,405 21% 4,852,486 2,756,234 2,008,559 2,843,927 41% 8 No specific reason for the difference between 2014 and 2015; EMS transport fees for 4th quarter 2014 were less than 2013. CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND Packet Page 122 of 291 5 Page 3 of 3 Title 2015 Amended Budget 06/30/2014 Revenues 06/30/2015 Revenues Amount Remaining % Received FINES AND FORFEITURES: PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 11,100 4,008 3,497 7,603 32% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 25,300 14,100 15,950 9,350 63% NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 289,400 135,415 149,533 139,867 52% CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)24,100 10,993 12,653 11,447 53% NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 1,200 1,201 902 298 75% OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 1,000 410 316 684 32% PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 40,200 25,895 22,980 17,220 57% PR - HANDICAPPED - - - - 0% PARK/INDDISZONE 500 364 1,064 (564) 213% DWI PENALTIES 6,000 3,902 2,476 3,524 41% DUI - DP ACCT 1,800 1,211 1,408 392 78% CRIM CNV FEE DUI - 349 292 (292) 0% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 50 53 - 50 0% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 38,200 18,561 15,996 22,204 42% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT 500 904 1,221 (721) 244% CRIM CONV FEE CT 4,000 - 1,019 2,981 25% OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 100 5 91 9 91% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 5,000 3,864 6,445 (1,445) 129% COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 1,500 659 522 978 35% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN 400 471 914 (514) 228% CRIM CONV FEE CN 1,200 - 316 884 26% CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 115,600 45,617 31,836 83,764 28% PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 30,200 16,320 15,457 14,743 51% COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 100 110 256 (156) 256% BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 9 4,000 4,510 12,810 (8,810) 320% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 1,000 240 720 280 72% 602,450 289,163 298,675 303,775 50% MISCELLANEOUS: INVESTMENT INTEREST 10,600 8,520 15,772 (5,172) 149% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 1,200 109 1,728 (528) 144% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 5,000 4,290 2,868 2,132 57% PARKING 10,300 6,018 7,786 2,514 76% SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 120,000 57,697 53,925 66,075 45% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 5,000 4,320 2,120 2,880 42% LEASES LONG-TERM 166,772 85,064 88,218 78,554 53% VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 9,000 2,295 1,969 7,031 22% OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 8,400 3,375 3,300 5,100 39% DONATION/CONTRIBUTION - - - - 0% PARKS DONATIONS 15,777 10,195 9,282 6,495 59% BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 950 450 1,200 (250) 126% 125TH ANNIVERSARY CONTRIBUTIONS - - 1,700 (1,700) 0% POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES 1,000 - - 1,000 0% PARKS GRANTS - PRIVATE SOURCES - - - - 0% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 150 110 - 150 0% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 2,000 221 896 1,104 45% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 2,000 - - 2,000 0% OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 2,000 - 58 1,942 3% POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 200 88 10 190 5% CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES - 176 (87) 87 0% OTHER MISC REVENUES 1,000 1,167 8,376 (7,376) 838% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 50 25 20 30 40% NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 120 60 30 90 25% NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 800 292 174 626 22% NSF FEES - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT - - - - - FLEX-PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES 1,010 - - 1,010 - US BANK REBATE 3,210 1,557 1,829 1,381 57% 366,539 186,030 201,174 165,366 55% TRANSFERS-IN: PROCEEDS OF REFUNDING DEBT - 2,763,314 - - 0% INSURANCE RECOVERIES - - - - 0% TRANSFER FROM FUND 012 800,000 - 400,000 400,000 50% INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM 104 - - - - 0% TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 22,175 - 11,088 11,088 50% 822,175 2,763,314 411,088 411,088 50% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 36,818,544$ 21,270,138$ 18,922,673$ 17,895,871$ 51% REVENUES - GENERAL FUND CITY OF EDMONDS 9 Difference due to change in penalty from 2014 to 2015. A late fee of $50 is now assessed after 1/31, and $100 after 2/28. Packet Page 123 of 291 6 Page 1 of 6 Title 2015 Amended Budget 06/30/2014 Expenditures 06/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) SALARIES AND WAGES 13,324,648$ 6,056,514$ 6,343,286$ 6,981,362$ 48% OVERTIME 424,508 209,017 240,823 183,685 57% HOLIDAY BUY BACK 209,198 858 1,543 207,655 1% BENEFITS 4,793,021 2,260,518 2,355,934 2,437,087 49% UNIFORMS 65,610 24,389 42,017 23,593 64% SUPPLIES 375,620 179,223 176,111 199,509 47% SMALL EQUIPMENT 183,475 114,026 81,268 102,207 44% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,844,859 723,493 879,502 1,965,357 31% COMMUNICATIONS 209,127 74,316 76,661 132,466 37% TRAVEL 36,845 10,687 20,056 16,789 54% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 2,173 1,546 4,954 24% ADVERTISING - 21,815 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 906,410 467,766 456,373 450,037 50% INSURANCE 423,600 383,906 418,367 5,233 99% UTILITIES 457,800 190,703 201,261 256,539 44% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 396,359 157,955 230,990 165,369 58% MISCELLANEOUS 427,358 132,792 175,977 251,381 41% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 10 10,114,042 4,242,054 7,116,666 2,997,376 70% INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 180,000 - - 180,000 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 3,219,785 22,639 526,556 2,693,229 16% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 53,800 15,721 14,777 39,023 27% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 160,821 2,720,000 - 160,821 0% CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 65,298 64,654 65,297 1 100% OTHER DEBT 110,000 479 33 109,967 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 54,268 55,016 27,460 26,808 51% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - 16,481 - - 0% INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0% INTERFUND RENTAL - - - - 0% 39,042,952$ 18,147,195$ 19,452,503$ 19,590,449$ 50% LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009) BENEFITS 229,575$ 113,734$ 89,604$ 139,971$ 39% IN HOME LTC CLAIMS 125,000 48,032 48,376 76,625 39% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,000 - - 7,000 0% MISCELLANEOUS 250 275 275 (25) 110% 361,825$ 162,040$ 138,255$ 223,570$ 38% RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) MISCELLANEOUS -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND (012) INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 800,000$ -$ 400,000$ 400,000$ 50% 800,000$ -$ 400,000$ 400,000$ 50% HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014) SUPPLIES 100$ -$ -$ 100$ 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,700 - 3,750 3,950 49% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 - - 2,100 0% 9,900$ -$ 3,750$ 6,150$ 38% BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016) SUPPLIES -$ 914$ 1,834$ (1,834)$ 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 236,400 45,488 79,741 156,659 34% REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE 362,400 10,123 14,487 347,913 4% MISCELLANEOUS - - - - 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 195,000 - 307 194,693 0% 793,800$ 56,525$ 96,369$ 697,431$ 12% DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND (104) FUEL CONSUMED 3,000$ 3,934$ 785$ 2,215$ 26% SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 - - 5,000 0% COMMUNICATIONS 2,233 1,556 1,069 1,164 48% REPAIR/MAINT 800 - - 800 0% MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 - 5,000 15,000 25% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 45,000 9,740 11,402 33,598 25% 76,033$ 15,229$ 18,256$ 57,777$ 24% 10 Difference between years is due to increase in the annual Fire District 1 contract, as well as Retro billings for past years. EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 124 of 291 7 Page 2 of 6 Title 2015 Amended Budget 06/30/2014 Expenditures 06/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent STREET FUND (111) SALARIES AND WAGES 526,484$ 249,472$ 272,252$ 254,232$ 52% OVERTIME 18,400 12,455 7,428 10,972 40% BENEFITS 250,539 119,419 135,865 114,674 54% UNIFORMS 6,000 3,721 4,927 1,073 82% SUPPLIES 240,000 84,135 62,821 177,179 26% SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 5,659 9,243 16,757 36% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,050 5,560 5,006 9,044 36% COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 2,566 2,011 1,489 57% TRAVEL 1,000 110 300 700 30% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 191,244 91,347 94,725 96,519 50% INSURANCE 82,400 74,683 81,386 1,014 99% UTILITIES 270,170 107,404 124,057 146,113 46% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 13,494 14,248 30,752 32% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 - 1,349 6,651 17% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 3,000 754 - 3,000 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - 282 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 12,500 - 9,828 2,672 79% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 3,283 - - 3,283 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 1,849 982 925 924 50% 1,703,419$ 772,044$ 826,372$ 877,047$ 49% COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE (112) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,248,947$ 236,604$ 393,387$ 1,855,560$ 17% MISCELLANEOUS - - - - 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 114,006 - 40,956 73,050 36% LAND 792,500 154,113 82,247 710,253 10% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 4,915,290 388,496 307,832 4,607,458 6% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,203 72,201 72,201 2 100% INTEREST 3,758 4,118 3,444 314 92% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 142,186 - - 0% 8,146,704$ 997,719$ 900,067$ 7,246,637$ 11% MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117) SUPPLIES 4,400$ 39$ 520$ 3,880$ 12% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,500 - - 1,500 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 138,500 16,957 24,943 113,558 18% TRAVEL 75 11 - 75 0% ADVERTISING - 2,355 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 - - 2,000 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 - - 300 0% MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 2,225 1,573 4,427 26% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - - - - 0% 152,775$ 21,587$ 27,036$ 125,739$ 18% HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 65,500$ 4,047$ 23,212$ 42,288$ 35% ADVERTISING - 11,124 - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS 500 - 82 418 16% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - - - - 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 4,000 - 2,000 2,000 50% 70,000$ 15,170$ 25,294$ 44,706$ 36% EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121) SUPPLIES 1,785$ -$ -$ 1,785$ 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT - - - - 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25,086 - - 25,086 0% 26,871$ -$ -$ 26,871$ 0% YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) MISCELLANEOUS 3,000$ 1,007$ 1,341$ 1,659$ 45% 3,000$ 1,007$ 1,341$ 1,659$ 45% TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 17,000$ -$ 4,228$ 12,772$ 25% ADVERTISING - 1,300 - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS 4,500 564 1,273 3,227 28% 21,500$ 1,864$ 5,501$ 15,999$ 26% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Packet Page 125 of 291 8 Page 3 of 6 Title 2015 Amended Budget 06/30/2014 Expenditures 06/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 (125) SUPPLIES 21,000$ 38,457$ 30,508$ (9,508)$ 145% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 507,000 6,801 77,199 429,801 15% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE - 5,803 - - 0% UTILITIES - - - - 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 120,000 12,968 5,696 114,304 5% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,837,000 - - 1,837,000 0% 2,485,000$ 64,029$ 113,403$ 2,371,597$ 5% REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ (126) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ 0% MISCELLANEOUS - 2,500 1,200 (1,200) 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 141,525 22,204 18,263 123,263 13% LAND 400,000 273 4,000 396,000 1% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 222,000 - - 222,000 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 119,110 - - 119,110 0% INTEREST 10,765 5,717 5,382 5,383 50% 943,400$ 30,693$ 28,845$ 914,555$ 3% GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) SUPPLIES 11,620$ 917$ 1,271$ 10,349$ 11% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000 - 273 9,727 3% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 22,175 - 11,088 11,088 50% 43,795$ 917$ 12,631$ 31,164$ 29% SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - 17,469 - - 0% INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0% -$ 17,469$ -$ -$ 0% CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMENT (130) SALARIES AND WAGES 82,776$ 34,973$ 39,267$ 43,509$ 47% OVERTIME 3,500 2,600 1,388 2,112 40% BENEFITS 33,110 16,094 16,595 16,515 50% UNIFORMS 1,000 - 197 803 20% SUPPLIES 7,000 1,281 1,286 5,714 18% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 20,000 10,100 7,238 12,762 36% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,200 200 719 3,481 17% COMMUNICATIONS 1,412 719 729 683 52% TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0% ADVERTISING - 355 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 9,986 4,608 4,992 4,994 50% UTILITIES 3,800 417 434 3,366 11% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 1,573 1,958 2,042 49% 171,784$ 72,920$ 74,803$ 96,981$ 44% PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132) SUPPLIES -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 123,343 63,404 41,931 81,412 34% LAND 3,400,000 - - 3,400,000 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,477,900 89,064 177,136 2,300,764 7% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - 4,200 (4,200) 0% 6,001,243$ 152,468$ 223,266$ 5,777,977$ 4% SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) SUPPLIES 1,500$ -$ -$ 1,500$ 0% TRAVEL 4,200 3,256 - 4,200 0% MISCELLANEOUS 4,700 282 10 4,690 0% 10,400$ 3,538$ 10$ 10,390$ 0% TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (139) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% INSURANCE 5,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 50% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 645,000 337,869 364,711 280,289 57% 650,000$ 340,369$ 367,211$ 282,789$ 56% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Packet Page 126 of 291 9 Page 4 of 6 Title 2015 Amended Budget 06/30/2014 Expenditures 06/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND (140) SUPPLIES -$ -$ 14,726$ (14,726)$ 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 21,022 11,164 (11,164) 0% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS - 1,229 35 (35) 0% -$ 22,251$ 25,924$ (25,924)$ 0% LID FUND CONTROL (211) INTERFUND TRANSFER 28,567$ -$ -$ 28,567$ 0% 28,567$ -$ -$ 28,567$ 0% 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 516,265$ -$ -$ 516,265$ 0% INTEREST 150,928 84,010 75,464 75,464 50% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 500 604 54 446 11% 667,693$ 84,614$ 75,517$ 592,176$ 11% 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND (232) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 906,908$ -$ -$ 906,908$ 0% INTEREST 18,402 9,211 9,201 9,201 50% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% 925,310$ 9,211$ 9,201$ 916,109$ 1% WATER FUND (421) SALARIES AND WAGES 760,901$ 365,326$ 364,575$ 396,326$ 48% OVERTIME 24,180 6,692 9,072 15,108 38% BENEFITS 375,728 167,170 164,407 211,321 44% UNIFORMS 4,000 2,745 2,032 1,968 51% SUPPLIES 150,000 61,297 78,804 71,196 53% FUEL CONSUMED - - - - 0% WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,600,000 503,740 623,442 976,558 39% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 143,000 71,368 71,827 71,173 50% SMALL EQUIPMENT 11,000 14,851 8,072 2,928 73% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,320,480 97,225 315,687 1,004,793 24% COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 14,601 15,832 14,168 53% TRAVEL 200 - - 200 0% EXCISE TAXES - - 155,645 (155,645) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 98,107 55,122 47,697 50,410 49% INSURANCE 85,000 74,689 70,904 14,096 83% UTILITIES 40,000 18,314 11,607 28,393 29% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,000 3,799 16,612 388 98% MISCELLANEOUS 381,400 177,900 37,227 344,173 10% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 30,000 17,727 16,173 13,827 54% INTERFUND TAXES 1,115,209 455,238 493,120 622,089 44% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 295,830 - 119,415 176,415 40% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 12,500 - 9,828 2,672 79% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 3,229,920 270,338 511,166 2,718,754 16% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 2,205 - - 2,205 0% REVENUE BONDS 315,277 - - 315,277 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 45,839 45,839 45,839 0 100% INTEREST 266,524 138,667 133,799 132,725 50% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 175 31 (31) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 242,008 - - 0% INTERFUND REPAIR/MAINT - - - - 0% 10,354,300$ 2,804,831$ 3,322,813$ 7,031,487$ 32% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Packet Page 127 of 291 10 Page 5 of 6 Title 2015 Amended Budget 06/30/2014 Expenditures 06/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent STORM FUND (422) SALARIES AND WAGES 588,544$ 251,772$ 229,709$ 358,835$ 39% OVERTIME 6,000 6,371 7,374 (1,374) 123% BENEFITS 275,010 114,546 113,241 161,769 41% UNIFORMS 6,500 4,195 4,611 1,889 71% SUPPLIES 45,500 21,519 20,988 24,512 46% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,000 560 787 3,213 20% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,449,270 221,758 347,573 2,101,697 14% COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 1,839 1,611 1,589 50% TRAVEL 4,300 - - 4,300 0% EXCISE TAXES - - 35,155 (35,155) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 217,333 104,454 106,168 111,165 49% INSURANCE 8,089 36,035 39,269 (31,180) 485% UTILITES 10,500 4,423 4,451 6,049 42% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 13,000 7,301 8,576 4,424 66% MISCELLANEOUS 120,500 50,946 26,456 94,044 22% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 85,000 45,681 62,065 22,935 73% INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 323,210 149,691 157,184 166,026 49% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 53,187 - 20,254 32,933 38% LAND 11,900 - - 11,900 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 12,500 - 9,828 2,672 79% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,294,832 - - 2,294,832 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 80,507 - - 80,507 0% REVENUE BONDS 154,054 - - 154,054 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,063 32,063 32,063 1 100% INTEREST 174,142 91,970 87,739 86,403 50% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 84 15 (15) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 293,881 - - 0% 6,973,141$ 1,439,087$ 1,315,116$ 5,658,025$ 19% SEWER FUND (423) SALARIES AND WAGES 1,690,580$ 820,866$ 820,648$ 869,932$ 49% OVERTIME 81,000 39,342 48,118 32,882 59% BENEFITS 763,707 376,174 358,199 405,508 47% UNIFORMS 9,000 6,360 5,659 3,341 63% SUPPLIES 350,000 115,104 117,367 232,633 34% FUEL CONSUMED 140,000 55,404 29,588 110,412 21% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE 4,000 3,600 - 4,000 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 46,000 27,488 13,835 32,165 30% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,761,965 265,054 562,955 1,199,010 32% COMMUNICATIONS 40,000 19,070 21,014 18,986 53% TRAVEL 5,000 - - 5,000 0% EXCISE TAXES 60,000 - 67,152 (7,152) 112% RENTAL/LEASE 200,978 74,341 98,489 102,489 49% INSURANCE 156,955 128,145 139,648 17,307 89% UTILITIES 1,055,350 582,369 510,417 544,933 48% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 255,000 68,135 178,455 76,545 70% MISCELLANEOUS 193,400 99,092 29,978 163,422 16% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 408,889 53,672 74,786 334,103 18% INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 524,200 258,405 282,765 241,435 54% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,267,090 54,901 312,301 954,789 25% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 542,000 6,504 25,251 516,749 5% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 4,972,235 829,555 266,110 4,706,125 5% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 126,147 - - 126,147 0% REVENUE BONDS 70,669 - - 70,669 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 203,621 143,620 156,729 46,892 77% INTEREST 143,224 64,958 64,747 78,477 45% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 41 3,093 (3,093) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 332,139 - - 0% 15,071,010$ 4,424,339$ 4,187,306$ 10,883,704$ 28% BOND RESERVE FUND (424) REVENUE BONDS 170,000$ -$ -$ 170,000$ 0% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% INTEREST 674,416 340,408 337,208 337,209 50% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 1,000 - 21,054 (20,054) 2105% 845,416$ 340,408$ 358,261$ 487,155$ 42% EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 128 of 291 11 Page 6 of 6 Title 2015 Amended Budget 06/30/2014 Expenditures 06/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) SALARIES AND WAGES 207,189$ 102,608$ 103,968$ 103,221$ 50% OVERTIME 2,000 815 384 1,616 19% BENEFITS 96,603 46,986 47,363 49,240 49% UNIFORMS 1,000 728 815 185 81% SUPPLIES 98,000 32,207 48,481 49,519 49% FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 360 - 1,000 0% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 315,200 106,556 58,319 256,881 19% SMALL EQUIPMENT 20,306 10,921 14,698 5,608 72% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,000 486 520 10,480 5% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,077 1,006 1,994 34% TRAVEL 3,300 - 2,935 365 89% RENTAL/LEASE 15,118 6,889 7,207 7,911 48% INSURANCE 32,701 37,376 40,605 (7,904) 124% UTILITIES 14,000 6,106 6,103 7,897 44% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 60,000 23,472 20,569 39,431 34% MISCELLANEOUS 7,190 3,659 3,834 3,356 53% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 1,006 - 2,500 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 827,718 100,337 227,547 600,171 27% INTERFUND RENTAL - 6,089 - - 0% 1,717,825$ 487,676$ 584,355$ 1,133,470$ 34% FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFITS 37,633$ 16,173$ 11,527$ 26,106$ 31% PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 38,796 14,630 13,255 25,541 34% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200 - - 1,200 0% 77,629$ 30,803$ 24,782$ 52,847$ 32% TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS 98,175,292$ 30,516,003$ 32,618,187$ 65,557,105$ 33% EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 129 of 291 12 Page 1 of 1 Title 2015 Amended Budget 06/30/2014 Expenditures 06/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent CITY COUNCIL 256,160$ 110,659$ 107,828$ 148,332$ 42% OFFICE OF MAYOR 257,113 122,235 123,379 133,734 48% HUMAN RESOURCES 386,981 172,043 177,419 209,562 46% MUNICIPAL COURT 883,826 384,624 400,792 483,034 45% CITY CLERK 584,834 246,693 285,114 299,720 49% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,668,355 683,484 818,119 850,236 49% CITY ATTORNEY 664,180 279,764 329,666 334,514 50% NON-DEPARTMENTAL 15,066,682 7,709,624 8,369,406 6,697,276 56% POLICE SERVICES 8,884,373 4,215,558 4,329,129 4,555,244 49% COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEV.450,796 200,183 188,019 262,777 42% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2,405,463 826,994 1,059,255 1,346,208 44% PARKS & RECREATION 3,808,464 1,534,299 1,528,030 2,280,434 40% PUBLIC WORKS 2,263,055 964,564 1,041,687 1,221,368 46% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,462,670 696,472 694,660 768,010 47% 39,042,952$ 18,147,195$ 19,452,503$ 19,590,449$ 50% Title 2015 Amended Budget 06/30/2014 Expenditures 06/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent WATER UTILITY FUND 10,354,300$ 2,804,831$ 3,322,813$ 7,031,487$ 32% STORM UTILITY FUND 6,973,141 1,439,087 1,315,116 5,658,025 19% SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 15,071,010 4,424,339 4,187,306 10,883,704 28% BOND RESERVE FUND 845,416 340,408 358,261 487,155 42% 33,243,867$ 9,008,664$ 9,183,496$ 24,060,371$ 28% EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY CITY OF EDMONDS CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 130 of 291 13 Page 1 of 4 Title 2015 Amended Budget 06/30/2014 Expenditures 06/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent CITY COUNCIL SALARIES 132,908$ 62,404$ 62,169$ 70,739$ 47% OVERTIME 2,000 124 - 2,000 0% BENEFITS 74,512 37,027 36,893 37,619 50% SUPPLIES 2,000 407 467 1,533 23% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 1,005 832 (832) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000 521 5,062 4,938 51% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,412 1,501 1,500 50% TRAVEL 2,500 1,186 483 2,017 19% RENTAL/LEASE 490 246 296 194 60% REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE 1,500 - - 1,500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 27,250 6,326 125 27,125 0% 256,160$ 110,659$ 107,828$ 148,332$ 42% OFFICE OF MAYOR SALARIES 196,512$ 95,996$ 97,937$ 98,575$ 50% BENEFITS 46,801 22,445 22,346 24,455 48% SUPPLIES 2,000 132 352 1,648 18% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000 957 764 1,236 38% COMMUNICATION 1,400 392 200 1,200 14% TRAVEL 2,500 256 149 2,351 6% RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 1,098 1,098 1,302 46% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 959 533 2,467 18% 257,113$ 122,235$ 123,379$ 133,734$ 48% HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES 198,913$ 95,701$ 103,878$ 95,035$ 52% BENEFITS 75,651 32,663 33,959 41,692 45% SUPPLIES 2,300 1,716 624 1,676 27% SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 223 - 300 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 92,007 30,547 39,894 52,113 43% COMMUNICATIONS 700 383 476 224 68% TRAVEL 500 - 482 18 96% ADVERTISING - 2,367 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,200 1,099 1,098 1,102 50% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 6,000 6,119 7,793 (1,793) 130% MISCELLANEOUS 8,410 1,225 (10,786) 19,196 -128% 386,981$ 172,043$ 177,419$ 209,562$ 46% MUNICIPAL COURT SALARIES 538,864$ 262,429$ 259,843$ 279,021$ 48% OVERTIME 600 1,982 1,469 (869) 245% BENEFITS 202,532 81,344 87,659 114,873 43% SUPPLIES 9,930 6,402 6,627 3,303 67% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,800 240 1,360 1,440 49% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 64,000 22,863 32,067 31,933 50% COMMUNICATIONS 3,400 1,321 1,006 2,394 30% TRAVEL 2,500 1,151 2,413 87 97% RENTAL/LEASE 1,400 853 172 1,228 12% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,600 2,621 585 1,015 37% MISCELLANEOUS 56,200 3,417 7,591 48,609 14% 883,826$ 384,624$ 400,792$ 483,034$ 45% EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 131 of 291 14 Page 2 of 4 Title 2015 Amended Budget 06/30/2014 Expenditures 06/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent CITY CLERK SALARIES AND WAGES 11 326,072$ 145,881$ 170,547$ 155,525$ 52% OVERTIME - 587 742 (742) 0% BENEFITS 127,243 52,308 59,308 67,935 47% SUPPLIES 10,237 2,991 3,373 6,864 33% SMALL EQUIPMENT - - 420 (420) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,307 9,655 14,773 13,534 52% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 16,976 16,308 33,692 33% TRAVEL 1,000 - 423 577 42% ADVERTISING - 793 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 20,000 8,851 10,019 9,981 50% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,975 6,555 7,096 10,879 39% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 2,095 2,105 1,895 53% 584,834$ 246,693$ 285,114$ 299,720$ 49% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES 801,002$ 358,852$ 388,906$ 412,096$ 49% OVERTIME 6,667 4,542 1,192 5,475 18% BENEFITS 285,741 124,340 130,850 154,891 46% SUPPLIES 36,050 23,963 3,756 32,294 10% SMALL EQUIPMENT 125,627 63,042 46,301 79,326 37% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 88,900 3,282 34,614 54,286 39% COMMUNICATIONS 61,500 19,512 22,216 39,284 36% TRAVEL 1,750 348 540 1,210 31% RENTAL/LEASE 7,998 4,312 6,487 1,511 81% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 12 202,620 76,286 144,126 58,494 71% MISCELLANEOUS 12 10,500 5,005 24,354 (13,854) 232% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 40,000 - 14,777 25,223 37% 1,668,355$ 683,484$ 818,119$ 850,236$ 49% CITY ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 664,180$ 279,714$ 329,666$ 334,514$ 50% MISCELLANEOUS - 50 - - 0% 664,180$ 279,764$ 329,666$ 334,514$ 50% NON-DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES 125,000$ -$ -$ 125,000$ 0% BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 25,000 9,338 1,444 23,556 6% SUPPLIES 3,000 1,429 1,888 1,112 63% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 582,350 155,200 170,076 412,274 29% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 2,173 1,546 4,954 24% RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 3,600 - 100% INSURANCE 423,600 383,906 418,367 5,233 99% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS 74,350 42,774 46,746 27,604 63% INTERGOVT SERVICES 13 10,033,110 4,231,935 7,106,394 2,926,716 71% ECA LOAN PAYMENT 180,000 - - 180,000 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 3,219,785 22,639 526,556 2,693,229 16% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 160,821 2,720,000 - 160,821 0% INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 65,298 64,654 65,297 1 100% OTHER DEBT 110,000 - - 110,000 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 54,268 55,016 27,460 26,808 51% DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS - 16,481 - - 0% FISCAL AGENT FEES - 479 33 (33) 0% INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0% 15,066,682$ 7,709,624$ 8,369,406$ 6,697,276$ 56% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 11 Difference between 2014 and 2015 is due to a one-time retirement pay out 12 Differences between 2014 and 2015 are due primarily to Adobe Professional and Microsoft Office Professional Licenses. 13 Difference between years is due to an increase in the annual Fire District 1 contract, as well as Retro billings for past years. Packet Page 132 of 291 15 Page 3 of 4 Title 2015 Amended Budget 06/30/2014 Expenditures 06/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent POLICE SERVICES SALARIES 5,449,273$ 2,571,497$ 2,612,850$ 2,836,423$ 48% OVERTIME 396,241 188,201 229,070 167,171 58% HOLIDAY BUYBACK 209,198 858 1,543 207,655 1% BENEFITS 1,849,940 989,268 1,010,101 839,839 55% UNIFORMS 56,910 19,752 36,063 20,848 63% SUPPLIES 87,500 38,927 43,669 43,831 50% SMALL EQUIPMENT 33,330 13,334 8,800 24,530 26% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 114,662 44,603 44,860 69,802 39% COMMUNICATIONS 26,207 11,332 11,120 15,087 42% TRAVEL 14,300 6,597 13,998 302 98% ADVERTISING - 21 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 575,500 303,176 286,660 288,840 50% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 16,115 3,497 4,665 11,450 29% MISCELLANEOUS 44,960 19,377 20,458 24,502 46% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 10,237 5,119 5,272 4,965 51% INTERFUND RENTAL - - - - 0% 8,884,373$ 4,215,558$ 4,329,129$ 4,555,244$ 49% COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECON DEV. SALARIES 222,050$ 130,210$ 109,166$ 112,884$ 49% BENEFITS 67,056 29,941 31,283 35,773 47% SUPPLIES 2,281 269 192 2,089 8% SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 - - 800 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 133,200 24,001 41,872 91,328 31% COMMUNICATIONS 1,490 309 454 1,036 30% TRAVEL 2,000 6 179 1,821 9% ADVERTISING - 12,530 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,819 1,099 1,098 1,721 39% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 18,600 1,819 3,774 14,826 20% 450,796$ 200,183$ 188,019$ 262,777$ 42% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING SALARIES 1,324,615$ 551,556$ 668,256$ 656,359$ 50% OVERTIME 1,300 3,195 72 1,228 6% BENEFITS 495,227 199,488 236,997 258,230 48% UNIFORMS 500 - - 500 0% SUPPLIES 13,100 6,483 7,492 5,608 57% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,250 5,189 4,338 (88) 102% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 454,437 26,558 80,990 373,447 18% COMMUNICATIONS 6,100 2,016 2,034 4,066 33% TRAVEL 4,250 611 517 3,733 12% ADVERTISING - 3,056 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 35,234 18,717 18,211 17,023 52% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 5,700 620 3,395 2,305 60% MISCELLANEOUS 60,750 9,503 36,953 23,797 61% 2,405,463$ 826,994$ 1,059,255$ 1,346,208$ 44% ENGINEERING SALARIES 1,245,433$ 534,224$ 610,990$ 634,443$ 49% OVERTIME 5,000 - 796 4,204 16% BENEFITS 511,018 209,259 239,095 271,923 47% UNIFORMS 360 109 - 360 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,200 1,663 - 2,200 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 105,000 27,554 - 105,000 0% COMMUNICATIONS 10,500 3,011 3,693 6,807 35% TRAVEL 600 86 - 600 0% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 14,881 9,246 7,440 7,441 50% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,800 699 - 1,800 0% MISCELLANEOUS 16,000 7,680 5,427 10,573 34% 1,912,792$ 793,532$ 867,442$ 1,045,350$ 45% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Packet Page 133 of 291 16 Page 4 of 4 Title 2015 Amended Budget 06/30/2014 Expenditures 06/30/2015 Expenditures Amount Remaining % Spent PARKS & RECREATION SALARIES 1,886,534$ 806,070$ 823,210$ 1,063,324$ 44% OVERTIME 10,000 9,246 5,696 4,304 57% BENEFITS 699,573 299,171 304,482 395,091 44% UNIFORMS 5,340 2,714 4,537 803 85% SUPPLIES 112,622 56,440 63,638 48,984 57% SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,168 26,816 9,205 963 91% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 468,847 97,587 84,567 384,280 18% COMMUNICATIONS 29,980 9,736 9,974 20,006 33% TRAVEL 4,445 446 871 3,574 20% ADVERTISING - 3,047 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 179,804 87,567 90,872 88,932 51% PUBLIC UTILITY 175,000 53,567 68,491 106,509 39% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 52,549 31,242 21,737 30,812 41% MISCELLANEOUS 89,107 29,929 35,749 53,358 40% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 13,800 15,721 - 13,800 0% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 70,695 5,000 5,000 65,695 7% 3,808,464$ 1,534,299$ 1,528,030$ 2,280,434$ 40% PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES 247,982$ 124,488$ 127,495$ 120,487$ 51% OVERTIME 200 - - 200 0% BENEFITS 76,327 37,433 37,926 38,401 50% SUPPLIES 7,600 2,959 1,997 5,603 26% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 583 1,479 (479) 148% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 25 27 173 13% COMMUNICATIONS 1,350 398 290 1,060 21% TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0% RENTAL/LEASE 7,404 3,120 2,952 4,452 40% PUBLIC UTILITY 2,800 1,164 1,171 1,629 42% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,000 - - 1,000 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,900 862 908 2,992 23% 350,263$ 171,032$ 174,245$ 176,018$ 50% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES 629,490 317,206 308,038 321,452 49% OVERTIME 2,500 1,140 1,785 715 71% BENEFITS 256,400 136,492 123,592 132,808 48% UNIFORMS 2,500 1,814 1,418 1,082 57% SUPPLIES 87,000 37,104 42,037 44,963 48% SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,000 1,931 8,531 (5,531) 284% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45,000 426 270 44,730 1% COMMUNICATIONS 13,500 7,520 7,388 6,112 55% TRAVEL - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 52,680 24,780 26,368 26,312 50% PUBLIC UTILITY 280,000 135,972 131,599 148,401 47% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 88,500 30,315 41,594 46,906 47% MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 1,771 2,040 60 97% 1,462,670$ 696,472$ 694,660$ 768,010$ 47% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 39,042,952$ 18,147,195$ 19,452,503$ 19,590,449$ 50% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Packet Page 134 of 291 17 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 1,823,905$ 1,823,905$ 1,782,532$ -2.27% February 4,349,842 2,525,937 4,043,011 -7.05% March 6,486,867 2,137,025 6,234,620 -3.89% April 9,822,794 3,335,927 9,527,417 -3.01% May 17,498,015 7,675,221 16,760,751 -4.21% June 19,294,257 1,796,242 18,922,673 -1.93% July 21,288,352 1,994,095 20,878,364 -1.93% August 23,131,916 1,843,564 22,686,423 -1.93% September 24,984,439 1,852,523 24,503,269 -1.93% October 27,953,529 2,969,090 27,415,178 -1.93% November 35,060,100 7,106,572 34,384,885 -1.93% December 36,818,544 1,758,444 36,109,463 -1.93% Real Estate Excise Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 74,465$ 74,465$ 86,097$ 15.62% February 120,437 45,972 141,803 17.74% March 180,946 60,509 225,747 24.76% April 256,073 75,127 312,043 21.86% May 323,031 66,959 418,573 29.58% June 397,396 74,365 524,539 31.99% July 481,990 84,594 636,198 31.99% August 576,574 94,584 761,042 31.99% September 664,404 87,830 876,972 31.99% October 766,091 101,688 1,011,194 31.99% November 835,413 69,321 1,102,694 31.99% December 900,000 64,587 1,187,945 31.99% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-General Fund 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Real Estate Excise Tax 0 8,000,000 16,000,000 24,000,000 32,000,000 40,000,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC General Fund Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Real Estate Excise Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 135 of 291 18 Retail Eating & Drinking 369,017 Health & Personal Care 50,174 Contractors 610,959 Wholesale Trade 134,161 Communications 117,157 Misc Retail Trade 375,309 Accommodation 18,045 Business Services 192,081 Amusement & Recreation 31,276 Retail Food Stores 104,645 Others 152,259 Clothing and Accessories 108,554 Retail Automotive 760,234 Automotive Repair 100,599 Gasoline Stations 16,357 Sales Tax Analysis By Category Current Period: June 2015 Year-to-Date Total $3,140,826 ($50,000)$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 Retail Food Stores Amusement & Recreation Retail Automotive Business Services Gasoline Stations Others Accommodation Health & Personal Care Clothing and Accessories Communications Wholesale Trade Automotive Repair Retail Eating & Drinking Misc Retail Trade Contractors Total ($33,656) ($5,728) ($3,461) ($3,428) ($550) ($94) $2,621 $3,548 $4,185 $7,673 $22,252 $23,508 $29,523 $32,508 $249,649 $328,547 Change in Sales Tax Revenue: June 2015 compared to June 2014 Packet Page 136 of 291 19 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 435,694$ 435,694$ 499,246$ 14.59% February 975,847 540,153 1,134,685 16.28% March 1,391,087 415,240 1,605,365 15.40% April 1,791,264 400,176 2,047,828 14.32% May 2,291,242 499,978 2,604,373 13.67% June 2,734,170 442,928 3,140,830 14.87% July 3,180,829 446,659 3,653,921 14.87% August 3,672,197 491,368 4,218,372 14.87% September 4,144,571 472,374 4,761,003 14.87% October 4,628,198 483,627 5,316,560 14.87% November 5,157,791 529,593 5,924,921 14.87% December 5,627,000 469,209 6,463,917 14.87% Gas Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 106,130$ 106,130$ 84,288$ -20.58% February 216,919 110,788 181,842 -16.17% March 311,490 94,571 252,457 -18.95% April 394,636 83,146 321,196 -18.61% May 462,784 68,148 373,735 -19.24% June 509,747 46,963 413,611 -18.86% July 548,655 38,908 445,181 -18.86% August 576,833 28,179 468,045 -18.86% September 602,307 25,474 488,714 -18.86% October 629,657 27,350 510,906 -18.86% November 672,464 42,807 545,640 -18.86% December 743,700 71,236 603,441 -18.86% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Sales and Use Tax 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Gas Utility Tax 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Sales and Use Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Gas Utility Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 137 of 291 20 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 123,352$ 123,352$ 139,353$ 12.97% February 224,347 100,994 240,490 7.20% March 346,461 122,114 358,530 3.48% April 464,141 117,681 465,785 0.35% May 589,261 125,119 564,946 -4.13% June 702,776 113,515 664,312 -5.47% July 813,739 110,963 769,201 -5.47% August 924,614 110,875 874,008 -5.47% September 1,034,622 110,008 977,995 -5.47% October 1,144,101 109,479 1,081,482 -5.47% November 1,246,216 102,116 1,178,008 -5.47% December 1,371,800 125,584 1,296,719 -5.47% Electric Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 166,797$ 166,797$ 163,683$ -1.87% February 333,580 166,783 327,208 -1.91% March 496,789 163,209 466,770 -6.04% April 655,116 158,327 625,378 -4.54% May 800,868 145,752 763,075 -4.72% June 913,622 112,754 871,282 -4.63% July 1,021,749 108,127 974,398 -4.63% August 1,120,601 98,852 1,068,668 -4.63% September 1,223,250 102,649 1,166,561 -4.63% October 1,313,426 90,176 1,252,558 -4.63% November 1,424,495 111,069 1,358,479 -4.63% December 1,533,800 109,305 1,462,719 -4.63% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Telephone Utility Tax 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Electric Utility Tax 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Telephone Utility Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Electric Utility Tax Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 138 of 291 21 Meter Water Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 520,277$ 520,277$ 519,477$ -0.15% February 883,891 363,614 874,540 -1.06% March 1,398,367 514,476 1,371,848 -1.90% April 1,750,133 351,766 1,711,250 -2.22% May 2,266,493 516,360 2,221,102 -2.00% June 2,648,184 381,692 2,636,962 -0.42% July 3,236,847 588,662 3,223,130 -0.42% August 3,746,386 509,539 3,730,510 -0.42% September 4,463,965 717,579 4,445,048 -0.42% October 4,978,111 514,146 4,957,015 -0.42% November 5,584,869 606,758 5,561,202 -0.42% December 5,964,343 379,474 5,939,068 -0.42% Storm Water Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 223,883$ 223,883$ 226,620$ -1.87% February 705,681 481,798 715,253 -1.91% March 929,860 224,179 941,830 -6.04% April 1,129,150 199,290 1,142,961 -4.54% May 1,353,703 224,553 1,369,794 -4.72% June 1,552,980 199,277 1,571,805 -4.63% July 1,778,558 225,578 1,800,118 1.21% August 2,268,142 489,584 2,295,636 1.21% September 2,497,209 229,067 2,527,480 1.21% October 2,699,606 202,397 2,732,330 1.21% November 2,927,436 227,830 2,962,922 1.21% December 3,130,447 203,011 3,168,394 1.21% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Meter Water Sales 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Storm Water Sales 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Meter Water Sales Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Storm Water Sales Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 139 of 291 22 Unmeter Sewer Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 517,721$ 517,721$ 520,708$ 0.58% February 936,104 418,382 940,945 0.52% March 1,453,283 517,179 1,448,413 -0.34% April 1,871,624 418,341 1,875,395 0.20% May 2,393,060 521,437 2,392,477 -0.02% June 2,815,270 422,210 2,829,634 0.51% July 3,344,959 529,688 3,362,025 0.51% August 3,771,751 426,792 3,790,995 0.51% September 4,309,599 537,849 4,331,588 0.51% October 4,738,355 428,756 4,762,531 0.51% November 5,266,018 527,663 5,292,886 0.51% December 5,692,773 426,755 5,721,818 0.51% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales 2015 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Unmeter Sewer Sales Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 140 of 291 23 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 4,263,375$ 4,263,375$ 4,797,714$ 12.53% February 6,863,283 2,599,908 6,730,834 -1.93% March 9,908,118 3,044,835 8,883,278 -10.34% April 13,818,137 3,910,019 12,838,447 -7.09% May 15,879,399 2,061,262 14,813,377 -6.71% June 19,100,142 3,220,742 19,452,503 1.84% July 22,570,160 3,470,018 22,986,537 1.84% August 25,554,584 2,984,424 26,026,018 1.84% September 29,374,285 3,819,702 29,916,186 1.84% October 31,818,295 2,444,009 32,405,282 1.84% November 35,029,065 3,210,770 35,675,285 1.84% December 39,042,952 4,013,887 39,763,221 1.84% Non-Departmental Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 2,576,660$ 2,576,660$ 2,944,421$ 14.27% February 3,236,472 659,812 2,984,442 -7.79% March 4,348,380 1,111,908 3,261,415 -25.00% April 6,368,254 2,019,874 5,406,181 -15.11% May 6,524,718 156,464 5,563,278 -14.74% June 7,742,559 1,217,841 8,369,406 8.10% July 9,184,535 1,441,976 9,928,127 8.10% August 10,028,766 844,231 10,840,708 8.10% September 11,911,712 1,882,945 12,876,099 8.10% October 12,365,294 453,582 13,366,404 8.10% November 13,288,981 923,687 14,364,874 8.10% December 15,066,682 1,777,701 16,286,500 8.10% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-General Fund 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Non-Departmental 0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 25000000 30000000 35000000 40000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC General Fund Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 3000000 6000000 9000000 12000000 15000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Non-Departmental Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 141 of 291 24 City Council Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 18,624$ 18,624$ 15,644$ -16.00% February 39,658 21,034 32,177 -18.86% March 59,398 19,740 54,262 -8.65% April 79,090 19,692 73,069 -7.61% May 98,664 19,574 90,440 -8.34% June 121,960 23,296 107,828 -11.59% July 145,588 23,628 128,718 -11.59% August 166,249 20,661 146,985 -11.59% September 186,786 20,536 165,141 -11.59% October 207,853 21,068 183,768 -11.59% November 230,147 22,294 203,479 -11.59% December 256,160 26,013 226,477 -11.59% Office of Mayor Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 21,864$ 21,864$ 20,447$ -6.48% February 43,742 21,879 41,879 -4.26% March 64,861 21,119 62,160 -4.16% April 85,648 20,787 82,654 -3.50% May 106,706 21,058 102,832 -3.63% June 127,891 21,185 123,379 -3.53% July 150,093 22,202 144,797 -3.53% August 171,201 21,108 165,161 -3.53% September 191,760 20,559 184,994 -3.53% October 214,972 23,213 207,388 -3.53% November 236,760 21,787 228,407 -3.53% December 257,113 20,353 248,042 -3.53% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-City Council 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Office of Mayor 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC City Council Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Office of Mayor Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 142 of 291 25 Community Services/Economic Development Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 25,970$ 25,970$ 25,947$ -0.09% February 68,515 42,546 55,912 -18.40% March 103,676 35,161 90,926 -12.30% April 148,288 44,612 129,520 -12.66% May 182,471 34,182 156,258 -14.37% June 213,708 31,238 188,019 -12.02% July 258,720 45,012 227,620 -12.02% August 292,008 33,288 256,907 -12.02% September 328,248 36,240 288,791 -12.02% October 365,801 37,553 321,830 -12.02% November 402,674 36,873 354,270 -12.02% December 450,796 48,122 396,608 -12.02% City Clerk Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 44,098$ 44,098$ 69,874$ 58.45% February 90,893 46,795 113,771 25.17% March 140,493 49,600 151,490 7.83% April 186,359 45,866 202,117 8.46% May 231,145 44,786 243,300 5.26% June 281,500 50,355 285,114 1.28% July 329,489 47,989 333,720 1.28% August 379,907 50,418 384,785 1.28% September 431,823 51,916 437,368 1.28% October 485,948 54,125 492,188 1.28% November 536,195 50,247 543,080 1.28% December 584,834 48,639 592,344 1.28% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Community Services/Economic Development 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-City Clerk 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Community Services/Economic Development Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC City Clerk Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 143 of 291 26 Human Resources Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 29,413$ 29,413$ 23,208$ -21.10% February 59,391 29,978 58,245 -1.93% March 93,881 34,490 97,488 3.84% April 125,170 31,288 118,354 -5.45% May 159,101 33,931 142,753 -10.28% June 189,817 30,716 177,419 -6.53% July 222,466 32,649 207,935 -6.53% August 252,627 30,161 236,126 -6.53% September 287,481 34,854 268,703 -6.53% October 316,995 29,514 296,290 -6.53% November 345,036 28,041 322,500 -6.53% December 386,981 41,945 361,705 -6.53% Municipal Court Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 65,765$ 65,765$ 64,786$ -1.49% February 137,555 71,791 131,534 -4.38% March 214,280 76,725 199,177 -7.05% April 288,496 74,215 262,806 -8.90% May 357,762 69,267 335,527 -6.22% June 432,214 74,451 400,792 -7.27% July 504,854 72,640 468,151 -7.27% August 578,153 73,300 536,122 -7.27% September 650,848 72,694 603,532 -7.27% October 725,572 74,725 672,824 -7.27% November 800,045 74,472 741,882 -7.27% December 883,826 83,781 819,572 -7.27% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Human Resources 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Municipal Court 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Human Resources Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Municipal Court Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 144 of 291 27 Information Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 65,374$ 65,374$ 118,077$ 80.62% February 143,513 78,139 220,041 53.32% March 203,645 60,132 265,742 30.49% April 257,305 53,660 315,850 22.75% May 309,335 52,030 351,842 13.74% June 357,815 48,480 401,221 12.13% July 421,827 64,012 472,999 12.13% August 487,733 65,906 546,900 12.13% September 534,262 46,529 599,073 12.13% October 584,987 50,725 655,952 12.13% November 660,726 75,739 740,879 12.13% December 822,765 162,039 922,575 12.13% Finance Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 89,366$ 89,366$ 61,363$ -31.34% February 150,654 61,289 162,931 8.15% March 219,118 68,464 230,381 5.14% April 291,842 72,723 292,317 0.16% May 357,788 65,947 356,315 -0.41% June 426,252 68,464 416,897 -2.19% July 492,125 65,873 481,325 -2.19% August 558,442 66,317 546,187 -2.19% September 627,617 69,175 613,844 -2.19% October 701,142 73,525 685,755 -2.19% November 769,647 68,505 752,757 -2.19% December 845,590 75,943 827,033 -2.19% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Information Services 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Finance 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Information Services Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Finance Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 145 of 291 28 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 55,348$ 55,348$ 41,000$ -25.92% February 110,697 55,348 109,902 -0.72% March 166,045 55,348 164,833 -0.73% April 221,393 55,348 219,764 -0.74% May 276,742 55,348 274,735 -0.73% June 332,090 55,348 329,666 -0.73% July 387,438 55,348 384,610 -0.73% August 442,786 55,348 439,554 -0.73% September 498,135 55,348 494,498 -0.73% October 553,483 55,348 549,443 -0.73% November 608,831 55,348 604,387 -0.73% December 664,180 55,348 659,331 -0.73% Police Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 684,644$ 684,644$ 722,157$ 5.48% February 1,375,069 690,425 1,439,842 4.71% March 2,093,316 718,247 2,171,600 3.74% April 2,792,966 699,650 2,874,990 2.94% May 3,480,496 687,530 3,599,927 3.43% June 4,233,290 752,794 4,329,129 2.26% July 4,942,853 709,563 5,054,756 2.26% August 5,650,979 708,125 5,778,913 2.26% September 6,394,403 743,425 6,539,168 2.26% October 7,113,206 718,803 7,274,245 2.26% November 8,087,358 974,152 8,270,450 2.26% December 8,884,373 797,015 9,085,509 2.26% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-City Attorney 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Police 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC City Attorney Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 10000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Police Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 146 of 291 29 Development Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 189,375$ 189,375$ 168,772$ -10.88% February 378,896 189,521 336,679 -11.14% March 579,270 200,374 538,490 -7.04% April 769,332 190,062 709,939 -7.72% May 963,486 194,154 888,971 -7.73% June 1,149,817 186,330 1,059,255 -7.88% July 1,350,625 200,809 1,244,248 -7.88% August 1,556,686 206,061 1,434,079 -7.88% September 1,758,750 202,063 1,620,228 -7.88% October 1,976,668 217,918 1,820,982 -7.88% November 2,182,962 206,294 2,011,028 -7.88% December 2,405,463 222,501 2,216,005 -7.88% Parks & Recreation Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 242,403$ 242,403$ 230,892$ -4.75% February 507,826 265,423 470,482 -7.35% March 786,108 278,283 729,804 -7.16% April 1,064,027 277,919 986,966 -7.24% May 1,365,410 301,383 1,260,011 -7.72% June 1,696,574 331,164 1,528,030 -9.93% July 2,131,209 434,634 1,919,486 -9.93% August 2,580,886 449,678 2,324,491 -9.93% September 2,911,722 330,836 2,622,460 -9.93% October 3,200,019 288,297 2,882,117 -9.93% November 3,465,071 265,052 3,120,838 -9.93% December 3,808,464 343,393 3,430,117 -9.93% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Development Services 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Parks & Recreation 0 400000 800000 1200000 1600000 2000000 2400000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Development Services Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 3000000 3500000 4000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Parks & Recreation Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 147 of 291 30 Public Works Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 28,448$ 28,448$ 28,516$ 0.24% February 56,173 27,725 58,648 4.41% March 84,122 27,949 87,405 3.90% April 111,864 27,741 116,105 3.79% May 140,136 28,273 144,875 3.38% June 168,982 28,845 174,245 3.11% July 207,749 38,768 214,220 3.11% August 235,654 27,905 242,994 3.11% September 263,562 27,908 271,771 3.11% October 292,666 29,104 301,782 3.11% November 318,921 26,255 328,855 3.11% December 350,263 31,342 361,173 3.11% Facilities Maintenance Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 113,211$ 113,211$ 117,139$ 3.47% February 237,061 123,850 224,792 -5.18% March 366,160 129,099 344,860 -5.82% April 485,233 119,073 470,418 -3.05% May 601,657 116,424 578,920 -3.78% June 718,330 116,673 694,660 -3.30% July 838,190 119,860 810,570 -3.30% August 950,657 112,468 919,332 -3.30% September 1,076,486 125,828 1,041,014 -3.30% October 1,188,234 111,748 1,149,079 -3.30% November 1,312,945 124,712 1,269,681 -3.30% December 1,462,670 149,725 1,414,473 -3.30% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Public Works 2015 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Facilities Maintenance 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Public Works Current Year Budget Prior Year 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Facilities Maintenance Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 148 of 291 31 Engineering Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January 154,718$ 154,718$ 145,471$ -5.98% February 312,048 157,330 289,558 -7.21% March 468,093 156,046 433,246 -7.44% April 622,651 154,557 577,397 -7.27% May 781,265 158,614 723,392 -7.41% June 937,599 156,334 867,442 -7.48% July 1,092,012 154,414 1,010,301 -7.48% August 1,247,959 155,947 1,154,580 -7.48% September 1,408,584 160,624 1,303,185 -7.48% October 1,577,945 169,362 1,459,874 -7.48% November 1,741,466 163,521 1,611,159 -7.48% December 1,912,792 171,326 1,769,665 -7.48% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report-Engineering 2015 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 1800000 2000000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Engineering Current Year Budget Prior Year Packet Page 149 of 291 32 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY (a) Term Purchase Purchase Maturity Yield to Weighted Agency / Issuer Investment Type (months) Date Price Date Maturity Average Washington State Local Government Investment Pool Investment Pool Various 20,428,002$ Various 0.165% 0.055% Snohomish County Investment Pool Investment Pool Various 35,282,217$ Various 0.75% 0.427% FHLMC Bonds 60 12/28/2012 1,000,000 12/28/2017 0.90% 0.015% FHLMC Bonds 54 12/27/2012 1,000,000 6/27/2017 0.75% 0.012% FFCB Bonds 45 12/19/2012 1,000,000 9/19/2016 0.54% 0.009% FNMA Bonds 60 9/19/2014 1,000,000 9/19/2019 1.87% 0.030% FFCB Bonds 60 9/23/2014 1,000,000 9/23/2019 2.03% 0.033% FICO Bonds 33 9/19/2014 1,027,000 6/6/2017 0.96% 0.016% TOTAL 61,737,218$ 0.60%0.596% Investment Mix % of Total State Investment Pool 33.1% Current 6-month treasury rate 0.11% Bonds 9.8% Current State Pool rate 0.165% Snohomish County Investment Pool 57.1% Blended Edmonds rate 0.60% 100.0% (a) To maturity. Investment interest through June of 2015 is $148,903, whereas interest through June of 2014 was $71,525; difference of $77,378. Rate Comparison City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Summary As of June 30, 2015 Packet Page 150 of 291 33 GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 3/31/2015 6/30/2015 Q2 YTD 001-General Fund 6,446,380$ 5,321,308$ 5,916,550$ 595,242$ (529,830)$ 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 539,044 456,821 540,274 83,453 1,230 011-Risk Management Fund 1,024,822 1,026,994 1,029,107 2,114 4,285 012-Contingency Reserve Fund 5,445,337 5,410,639 5,067,931 (342,709) (377,406) 013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 56,023 56,142 56,257 115 234 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 1,066 1,068 (2,681) (3,749) (3,747) 016-Building Maintenance 141,146 316,190 282,691 (33,499) 141,545 Total General Fund 13,653,818$ 12,589,162$ 12,890,129$ 300,967$ (763,689)$ GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $13.65 $12.59 $12.89 - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Dec 2014 March 2015 June 2015 Mi l l i o n s General Fund *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements. Packet Page 151 of 291 34 GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 3/31/2015 6/30/2015 Q2 YTD General Fund 13,653,818$ 12,589,162$ 12,890,129$ 300,967$ (763,689)$ Special Revenue 6,515,938 7,735,292 7,406,631 (328,660) 890,693 Debt Service 86,412 96,075 96,076 1 9,664 Total Governmental Funds 20,256,168$ 20,420,529$ 20,392,837$ (27,692)$ 136,669$ CHANGE IN FUND BALANCESGOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $13.65 $12.59 $12.89 $6.52 $7.74 $7.41 $0.09 $0.10 $0.10 - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Dec 2014 March 2015 June 2015 Mi l l i o n s General Fund Special Revenue Debt Service Governmental Fund Balances-By Fund GroupGovernmentalFund Balances-By Fund Group $20.26 $20.42 $20.39 - 6 12 18 24 Dec 2014 March 2015 June 2015 Mi l l i o n s Governmental Fund Balances - Combined *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements. Packet Page 152 of 291 35 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 3/31/2015 6/30/2015 Q2 YTD 104 - Drug Enforcement Fund 55,159$ 73,132$ 48,179$ (24,953)$ (6,980)$ 111 - Street Fund 327,150 290,404 408,500 118,095 81,350 112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 209,915 985,009 115,551 (869,458) (94,364) 117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 440,605 437,280 451,318 14,038 10,713 118 - Memorial Street Tree 17,772 17,810 17,846 37 74 120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 133,991 144,382 139,440 (4,943) 5,449 121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 64,344 71,439 72,942 1,502 8,598 122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 14,452 13,711 13,300 (411) (1,152) 123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 77,645 80,660 82,546 1,886 4,901 125 - Real Estate Tax 2 1,531,385 1,716,466 1,949,385 232,919 418,000 126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 1,166,954 1,402,147 1,668,187 266,041 501,233 127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 247,886 274,515 269,793 (4,723) 21,907 129 - Special Projects Fund 38,078 46,554 38,237 (8,316) 159 130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 108,243 114,618 130,194 15,576 21,951 132 - Parks Construction Fund 995,136 943,628 903,084 (40,544) (92,052) 136 - Parks Trust Fund 150,999 151,319 151,630 311 631 137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 860,229 867,192 872,320 5,128 12,091 138 - Sister City Commission 1,703 1,433 5,304 3,872 3,601 139 - Transportation Benefit District 27,935 25,435 0 (25,434) (27,935) 140 - Business Improvement Disrict 46,357 78,158 68,876 (9,282) 22,519 Total Special Revenue 6,515,938$ 7,735,292$ 7,406,631$ (328,660)$ 890,693$ GOVERNMENTAL Special Revenue FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $6.52 $7.74 $7.41 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dec 2014 March 2015 June 2015 Mi l l i o n s Special Revenue Special Revenue Funds *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements. Packet Page 153 of 291 36 ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 3/31/2015 6/30/2015 Q2 YTD 421 - Water Utility Fund 16,779,278$ 14,064,807$ 16,717,141$ 2,652,334$ (62,137)$ 422 - Storm Utility Fund 10,375,339 9,080,015 11,104,109 2,024,094 728,770 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 44,888,147 42,411,801 45,069,719 2,657,918 181,572 424 - Bond Reserve Fund - 787,173 (21,051) (808,225) (21,051) 411 - Combined Utility Operation - 83,625 12,880 (70,745) 12,880 Total Enterprise Funds 72,042,764$ 66,427,422$ 72,882,798$ 6,455,376$ 840,034$ ENTERPRISE FUNDS FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $12,880 $16,717,141 $11,104,109 $45,069,719 $- $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 Combined Utility Water Storm Sewer/WWTP Bond Reserve$(21,051) Enterprise Fund Balances as of June 30, 2015 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements. Packet Page 154 of 291 37 SUMMARY OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 3/31/2015 6/30/2015 Q2 YTD Governmental Funds 20,256,168$ 20,420,529$ 20,392,837$ (27,692)$ 136,669$ Enterprise Funds 72,042,764 66,427,422 72,882,798 6,455,376 840,034 Internal Services Fund 7,269,111 7,591,683 7,488,402 (103,280) 219,291 Agency Funds 188,872 173,853 220,815 46,962 31,943 Total City-wide Total 99,756,915$ 94,613,486$ 100,984,852$ 6,371,366$ 1,227,937$ CITY-WIDE FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- $220,815 $7,488,402 $76,568 $19,562 $68,876 $5,304 $872,320 $151,630 $903,084 $130,194 $38,237 $269,793 $1,668,187 $1,949,385 $82,546 $13,300 $72,942 $139,440 $17,846 $451,318 $115,551 $408,500 $48,179 $12,890,129 $1 $20,000,000 Firemen's Pension Fund Equipment Rental Fund 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund $ (54) L.I.D. Guaranty Fund L.I.D. Fund Control Business Improvement District Transportation Benefit District $ (0) Sister City Commission Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund Parks Trust Fund Parks Construction Fund Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement Special Projects Fund Gifts Catalog Fund Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq Real Estate Excise Tax 2 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts Youth Scholarship Fund Employee Parking Permit Fund Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund Memorial Street Fund Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund Combined Street Const/Improve Fund Street Fund Drug Enforcement Fund General Fund Governmental Fund Balances as of June 30, 2015 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements. Packet Page 155 of 291 38 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW 12/31/2014 3/31/2015 6/30/2015 Q2 YTD 511 - Equipment Rental Fund 7,269,111$ 7,591,683$ 7,488,402$ (103,280)$ 219,291$ Total Internal Service Funds 7,269,111$ 7,591,683$ 7,488,402$ (103,280)$ 219,291$ INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ---- $7.27 $7.59 $7.49 - 2 4 6 8 10 Dec 2014 March 2015 June 2015 Mi l l i o n s 511 - Equipment Rental Fund Internal Service Fund Balances *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements. Packet Page 156 of 291 AM-7905 6. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/04/2015 Time:15 Minutes Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Human Resources Type: Forward to Consent Information Subject Title Municipal Court Judge Salary Recommendation Recommendation Council be briefed on new judge salary guidelines from Washington State, and forward for approval on the next consent agenda. Previous Council Action In September 2014, Council approved the Judge position to increase from .55FTE to .75 FTE. In addition, the Citizens Commission that last filed a recommendation to the City Clerk's office was in 2012. The filing was effective for 2013 and 2014. This Judge's position was increased by the mandated state district court salary amount effective September 1, 2014, and Council was briefed on this in August and September 2014. Narrative In 2006, the City Council required that the position of Edmonds Municipal Court Judge become an elected position. This then brought it under the scope of the Citizens’ Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials. It also qualified the City to receive reimbursement from the State for court improvement account funds. In order to qualify for these funds, the judicial position has to be paid at a pro-rated salary equal to 95% of the salary for a District Court Judge. The Municipal Judge position is currently a part time (.75 FTE) position. The Citizens’ Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials last filing with the City was May 1, 2012, which enacted the Judge’s salary for 2013 and 2014. The Commission recommended that an appropriate increase be provided, if needed in 2013 and/or 2014 to maintain the 95% requirement to continue receiving court improvement account funds from the State. There was a state mandated increase for both 2013 and 2014, and the City was consistent with these increases. The Washington State Citizen’s Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials filed an increase of 4% for 2015, and 2% for 2016. The Attachment 1 is a letter from Washington Courts Administrative Office, outlining the salary to begin September 1, 2015. Beginning on September 1, 2015, the District Court Judge salary will be $154,836 per year. On September 2016, it will be $157,933 per year. For the City to remain eligible for court improvement funds, the City would need to compensate the Judge at the minimum of ninety five percent of the District Court Judge salary. Packet Page 157 of 291 For 2015, this would be $147,094. For 2016, this would be $150,036. As Council may recall, the Edmonds Municipal Court Judge position is compensated at a .75 FTE. This prorated amount would be equal to $110,320 for 2015, and $112,527 for 2016. Please see attachment 2 for a salary comparison. The Judge is currently compensated at $106,077. This increase would The new amount is equal to an addition of $354 per month, or $ 1416 for the period covering September 1, 2015 – December 31st, 2015. This was not calculated into the current budget, however, the court can assume this amount in the currently adopted budget authority for 2015. It is recommended that the Council approve this increase, for both 2015 and 2016, and continue to be eligible to receive court improvement funds. If approved, this amount will be built into the 2016 and 2017 budgets. Attachments State notice for salary increase Judges Salary Comparison Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 07/30/2015 10:16 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/30/2015 10:39 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/30/2015 10:55 AM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 07/29/2015 01:56 PM Final Approval Date: 07/30/2015 Packet Page 158 of 291 Packet Page 159 of 291 Judge Salary Comparison 2014 - 2016 Judges Salary 2014 2015 2016 District Court Judge Salary $ 148,881 $ 154,836 $ 157,933 95% of DCJ $ 141,436 $ 147,094 $ 150,036 .75 FTE $ 106,077 $ 110,320 $ 112,527 Monthly $ 8839.75 $ 9193.33 $ 9377.25 Packet Page 160 of 291 AM-7903 6. C. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/04/2015 Time:30 Minutes Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action 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 161 of 291 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 162 of 291 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 (Originator)Scott Passey 07/29/2015 09:49 AM Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 07/29/2015 02:55 PM Mayor Dave Earling 07/29/2015 03:31 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/30/2015 09:43 AM Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 07/29/2015 09:44 AM Final Approval Date: 07/30/2015 Packet Page 163 of 291 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 164 of 291 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 165 of 291 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 166 of 291 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 167 of 291 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 168 of 291 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 169 of 291 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 170 of 291 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 171 of 291 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 172 of 291 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 173 of 291 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 174 of 291 AM-7914 7. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/04/2015 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Action Information Subject Title Resolution adopting the 2016-2021 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program Recommendation Adopt the Resolution. Previous Council Action On June 9, 2015, the preliminary draft 2016-2021 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program was presented to the City Council. The City Council scheduled the public hearing for the July 7th, City Council meeting. On June 17, 2014, the 2015-2020 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program was approved by City Council. On July 7th, 2015, there was a Public Hearing held on the 2016-2021 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. Narrative The Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a transportation planning document that identifies funded, partially funded, and unfunded projects that are planned or needed over the next six calendar years. The TIP also identifies the expenditures and secured or reasonably expected revenues for each of the projects included in the TIP. The City practice in preparing the TIP each year has been to keep it financially constrained the first 3 years (2016-2018), but not the last 3 years (2019-2021). RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city update and adopt their TIP prior to adoption of the budget. A copy of the adopted TIP will be submitted to the Puget Sound Regional Council, Washington State Department of Transportation, and adjacent jurisdictions after it has been approved by City Council. Some of the projects in the TIP are shown as funded through secured or unsecured Federal / State grants, as well as from the local funds. Due to a shortfall in transportation funding, a number of unsecured State and Federal transportation grants have been programmed to fund projects beginning in 2019. Most transportation grants are competitive, and the success of how many grants are secured in the future will depend on other transportation needs and funding requests in the region. Projects not identified in this document may not be eligible for Federal / State funding. The following projects have been added to the TIP since it was presented on June 9, 2015: 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95th Pl. W: roadway widening to add a two-way left turn lane, Packet Page 175 of 291 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95th Pl. W: roadway widening to add a two-way left turn lane, sidewalks, and bike lanes along the stretch (on-going construction project consisting of completing missing link along 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W; construction phase to be completed in early 2016); SR-104 @ 226th St. SW Intersection Improvements (project identified in DRAFT SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis): extend westbound left turn lane, improve signage, and add exclusive pedestrian phase for the pedestrian movement going across SR-104; SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection Improvements (project identified in DRAFT SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis): traffic signal timing modifications and access management revisions with addition of C-curb; SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements (project identified in DRAFT SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis): installation of a traffic signal; 232nd St. SW Walkway project from 97th Pl. W to SR-104; Ferry Storage Improvements along SR-104 from Main St. to Pine St. (project identified in DRAFT SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis): add storage area closer to the Ferry Terminal (through striping revisions / C-Curb additions). Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers: expenditures for 2016 and 2017 have been modified, in order to be consistent with up-coming Budget documents; 238th St SW Walkway project from SR-104 to Hwy 99: project was added to the TIP so TIB grant application can be submitted in August 2015 (requirement in order to be eligible for grant funding); Bike Link Project: expenditures for 2016 and 2017 have been modified to be consistent with up-coming Budget documents; and Edmonds Waterfront Analysis: project description revised to match City Council recommendation from July 28, 2015 City Council meeting (Comprehensive Plan Council item). All projects in the 2016-2021 TIP are identified in the 2015 Transportation Plan. Attachments Final 2016-2021 TIP Resolution Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Public Works Phil Williams 07/30/2015 02:26 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 07/30/2015 02:27 PM Mayor Dave Earling 07/30/2015 02:32 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/31/2015 08:12 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 07/30/2015 12:53 PM Final Approval Date: 07/31/2015 Packet Page 176 of 291 City of Edmonds Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2016-2021) Page 1 Grant Opportunity Project (2016-2021) Project Name Purpose Phase(s)Total Cost Source(s)2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Projects added / modified to TIP since June 9th presentation Project added / modified since July 7th Public Hearing Projects added to 2016-2021 TIP / not included in 2015-2020 TIP Preservation/Maintenance Projects: Annual Street Preservation Grind pavement, overlay, chip seal,Possible Grant Engineering $2,700,000 (Federal, unsecured)$800,000 $900,000 $1,000,000 Program && $0 (State) and slurry seal Local Funds Construction $10,320,000 (Local, General Fund)$1,340,000 $1,380,000 $1,420,000 $2,000,000 $2,060,000 $2,120,000 220th St. SW Overlay from $10,000 (Federal, secured)$10,000 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W Grind pavement and overlay Secured Grant Construction $0 (State) $0 (Local) Citywide Signal Upgrade traffic signal cabinets and Possible Grant Engineering $650,000 (Federal, unsecured)$325,000 $325,000 Improvements & &$0 (State) improve technology Local Funds Construction $25,000 (Local)$25,000 Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades Possible grant Engineering $287,500 (Federal, unsecured)$37,500 $250,000 Upgrade traffic signal &&$0 (State) Local Funds Construction $212,500 (Local)$37,500 $175,000 238th @ 100th Ave. Signal Upgrades Rebuild traffic signal system Engineering $0 (Federal) with new signal mast arms, cabinet, and Possible Grant &$750,000 (State, unsecured)$750,000 video detection Construction $0 (Local) Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades Possible grant Engineering $287,500 (Federal, unsecured)$37,500 $250,000 Upgrade traffic signal & &$0 (State) Local Funds Construction $87,500 (Local)$37,500 $50,000 TOTAL $1,375,000 $2,180,000 $1,420,000 $4,050,000 $2,885,000 $3,420,000 Safety / Capacity Projects: 228th St. SW. Corridor Safety Construct missing roadway link on 228th St. SW between Secured grant $885,000 (Federal, secured)$885,000 Improvements Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W, with various utility upgrades. & Construction $100,000 (State, secured)$100,000 Local Funds $15,000 (Local)$15,000 228th St. SW. from Widen roadway to add two-way left turn lane along stretch or Possibe grant $50,000 (Federal, unsecured)$50,000 Hwy. 99 to 95th Pl. W left turn lanes at specific intersections. & Design $0 (State) Install sidewalk and bike lanes. Local Funds $50,000 (Local)$50,000 76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Re-design intersection to reduce intersection delay and $150,000 (Federal, secured)$150,000 Improvements improve level of service (LOS). Various utility ROW $0 (State) improvements are also included in the project. Secured Grants $0 (Local) $2,816,000 (Federal, secured)$2,816,000 & $225,000 (Local, Traffic Impact Fees)$225,000 Local Funds Construction $491,000 (Local, Fund 421)$491,000 $224,513 (Local, Fund 422)$224,513 $590,000 (Local, Fund 423)$590,000 SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization Install gateway elements and safety improvements Engineering $0 (Federal) along the SR-99 Corridor.Possible Grant & $10,000,000 (State, unsecured)$500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 Construction $0 (Local) SR 524 (196th St. SW) @ Design intersection improvements and addition of guardrail on Design $0 (Federal) 88th Ave W. Intersection the west side of intersection due to 12' vertical drop (grade. Possible Grant $122,000 (State, unsecured)$122,000 Improvements adjustment to improve sight distance to be considered). $71,000 (Local, traffic impact fees)$71,000 ROW acquisition ROW $0 (Federal) &$87,500 (State, unsecured)$87,500 $87,500 (Local)$87,500 Complete intersection improvements Construction $585,000 (Federal, unsecured)$585,000 Local Funds $0 (State) $0 (Local) Main St. @ 9th Ave. Installation of traffic signal or mini-roundabout.Possible grant Engineering $788,000 (Federal, unsecured)$118,000 $670,000 && $0 (State) Local Funds Construction $123,000 (Local)$18,000 $105,000 76th Av. W @ 220th St. SW Convert split phasing for eastbound and westbound movement Possible Grant Engineering,$3,732,000 (Federal, unsecured)$206,000 $975,000 $2,551,000 Intersection Improvements to protective / permissive left turn phasing. Right turn overlap & ROW, &$0 (State) would be added for the right turn movements. Local Funds Construction $582,000 (Local)$32,000 $152,000 $398,000 Arterial Street Signal Coordination Coordinate the traffic signals within 1/2 mile of each other Engineering $0 (Federal) Improvements along 76th Ave. W, 212th St. SW, and 220th St. SW to Local Funds Only & $0 (State) improve corridor efficiencies. Construction $50,000 (Local)$50,000 Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW Widen 212th St. SW to add a WB and EB left turn lane. Possible Grants Engineering,$2,427,000 (Federal, unsecured)$152,000 $943,000 $1,332,000 Intersection Improvements Provide protected / permissive left turn phasing for both & ROW, &$0 (State) movements (shared jurisdiction with City of Lynnwood)Local Funds Construction $379,000 (Local w/ City of Lynnwood)$23,000 $148,000 $208,000 Packet Page 177 of 291 City of Edmonds Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2016-2021) Page 2 Grant Opportunity Project (2016-2021) Project Name Purpose Phase(s)Total Cost Source(s)2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Widen 216th St. SW to add a WB and EB left turn lane. Possible Grants Engineering,$2,021,000 (Federal, unsecured)$142,000 $289,000 $1,590,000 Intersection Improvements Provide protected / permissive left turn phasing for both & ROW, &$0 (State, unsecured) movements.Local Funds Construction $314,000 (Local, w/ City of Lynnwood)$22,000 $45,000 $247,000 Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Widen 220th St .SW to add westbound right turn lane and Possible Grants Engineering,$2,783,000 (Federal, unsecured)$152,000 $939,000 $1,692,000 Intersection Improvements Hwy. 99 to add 2nd southbound left turn lane. & ROW, &$0 (State) Local Funds Construction $432,000 (Local, w/. City Mountlake Terrace)$23,000 $146,000 $263,000 SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW Extend SR-104 Westbound left turn lane and complete pedestrian Possible Grants Engineering,$179,000 (Federal, unsecured)$15,000 $164,000 Intersection Improvements and bicycle improvements with signage and traffic signal & &$0 (State) improvements.Local Funds Construction $15,000 (Local)$15,000 SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Modify existing signal timing to include protected left turn phasing Possible Grants Engineering,$420,000 (Federal, unsecured)$65,000 $355,000 Intersection Improvements and provide C-Curb with left turn channelization & &$0 (State) for access management. Local Funds Construction $75,000 (Local)$10,000 $65,000 SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Install traffic signal and other Possible Grants Engineering,$1,157,000 (Federal, unsecured)$173,000 $984,000 Intersection Improvements improvement intersections.& ROW, &$0 (State) Local Funds Construction $181,000 (Local)$27,000 $154,000 Citywide protected / permissive traffic Conversion from protected left-turn phasing Engineering $0 (Federal) signal conversion to protective-permissive phasing at signalized Local Funds Only & $0 (State) intersections to reduce intersection delay.Construction $20,000 (Local, General Fund)$20,000 Type 2 Raised Pavement Install Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers Engineering $100,000 (Federal, unsecured)$100,000 Markers along the centerline of arterials and collectors, improving Possible Grant & $0 (State) roadway safety during night hours and on rainy days Construction $0 (Local) Trackside Warning Systerm Install Wayside Horns $0 (Federal) at Dayton St. and Main St. at (2) railroad crossings, reducing noise levels Local Funds Only Construction $0 (State) railroad crossings (within Downtown Edmonds) during train crossings.$300,000 (Local, General Fund)$300,000 TOTAL $5,816,513 $0 $0 $2,036,000 $10,809,000 $13,966,000 Pedestrian Projects: Sunset Ave. Walkway Provide multi-use path on the west side of Sunset Av., Secured Grant, Engineering $52,650 (Federal, secured)$8,650 $44,000 from Bell St. to Caspers St.w/ various utility upgrades. $687,000 (Federal, unsecured)$687,000 Unsecured Grant, &&$650,000 (Local, Fund 421)$75,000 $575,000 $200,000 (Local, Fund 423)$50,000 $150,000 Local Funds Construction $696,350 (Local)$1,350 $8,000 $687,000 Dayton St. Walkway from 7th Ave. S to Install sidewalk on the south side of Dayton St. Possible Grant Engineering $37,500 (Federal, unsecured)$37,500 8th Ave. S & & $0 (State) Local Funds Construction $37,500 (Local)$37,500 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to Install sidewalk on one side of 232nd St. SW Possible Grant Engineering $1,055,000 (Federal, unsecured)$100,000 $955,000 SR-104 & & $0 (State) Local Funds Construction $250,000 (Local)$100,000 $150,000 238th St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. W to Provide sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW Secured Grant $0 (Federal) 104th Ave. W from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W, along with Stormwater & Construction $200,000 (State, secured)$200,000 improvements. Local Funds $100,000 (Local, Fund 422)$100,000 236th St. SW Walkway from SR-104 to Provide sidewalk on south side of 236th St.Secured Grant $366,000 (Federal,secured)$366,000 Madrona Elementary & Construction $0 (State, secured) Local Funds $177,000 (Local, Fund 422)$177,000 236th St. SW Walkway from SR-104 to Provide sidewalk on one side of 236th St. SW Possible Grant Engineering $697,500 (Federal,unsecured)$106,500 $591,000 97th Pl. W & & $0 (State) Local Funds Construction $697,500 (Local)$106,500 $591,000 84th Ave. W Walkway from 238th St. SW to Provide sidewalk on one side of 84th Ave. W Possible Grant Engineering $45,000 (Federal,unsecured)$45,000 234th St. SW && $0 (State) Local Funds Construction $45,000 (Local)$45,000 80th Ave. W Walkway from 206th St. SW to Install sidewalk to provide safe and desirable route to Possible Grant Engineering $0 (Federal) 212nd St. SW Edmonds-Woodway High School and parks. & &$450,000 (State, unsecured)$30,000 $37,000 $383,000 Local Funds Construction $450,000 (Local)$30,000 $37,000 $383,000 2nd Ave. S Walkway from James St. Engineering $0 (Federal) to Main St. Provide sidewalk along short missing link. Local Funds Only &$0 (State) Construction $30,000 (Local)$30,000 Maplewood Walkway from Main St. to Install sidewalk on Maplewood St. from Main St. to 200th St. SW,Possible Grants Engineering $1,768,000 (Federal, unsecured)$1,768,000 200th St. SW creating connection to Maplewood Elementary and Yost Park.& &$170,000 (State, unsecured)$170,000 Local Funds Construction $170,000 (Local)$170,000 Packet Page 178 of 291 City of Edmonds Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2016-2021) Page 3 Grant Opportunity Project (2016-2021) Project Name Purpose Phase(s)Total Cost Source(s)2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 218th St. SW Walkway from 76th Ave. W to Possible Grant Engineering $615,000 (Federal, unsecured)$100,000 $515,000 Install sidewalk along missing link & & $0 (State) 84th Ave. W Local Funds Construction $600,000 (Local)$100,000 $500,000 Wanut St. Walkway from 3rd Ave. to 4th Ave. Engineering $0 (Federal) Install sidewalk along short missing link Possible Grant & $105,000 (State, unsecured)$105,000 Construction $0 (Local) 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 Install 300' sidewalk on the north side of 216th St. SW Possible Grant Engineering $137,000 (Federal, unsecured)$137,000 to 72nd Ave. W & &$0 (State) from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W Local Funds Construction $20,000 (Local)$20,000 238th St. SW Walkway from SR-104 Install 800' of sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW Possible Grant Engineering $0 (Federal) to Hwy. 99 && $400,000 (State, unsecured)$400,000 from SR-104 to Hwy. 99 Local Funds Construction $100,000 (Local)$100,000 4th Ave. Corridor Enhancement Create corridor improvements to encourage pedestrian Possible Grant Engineering $3,450,000 (Federal, unsecured)$100,000 $1,000,000 $2,350,000 Walkway activity along 4th Ave. N from Main St. to & &$0 (State) 3rd Ave. N (from Downtown retail to Edmonds Center for the Arts)Local Funds Construction $675,000 (Local, Fund 125)$100,000 $150,000 $425,000 Hwy. 99 Enhancement project Installation of luminaires along SR-99 from 220th St. SW to $10,000 (Federal, secured)$10,000 (Phase 3)212th St. SW, improving pedestrian and vehicular safety Secured grant Construction $0 (State) (being constructed w/ 228th St. SW Corridor Improv. Project).$0 (Local) ADA Curb Ramps Improvements Construct Citywide ADA compliant curb ramps where Possible Grant Engineering $0 (Federal) facilities don't exist nor meet current standards &&$750,000 (State, unsecured)$250,000 $250,000 $250,000Local Funds Construction $825,000 (Local, General Fund)$25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Audible Pedestrian Install audible pedestrian signals to Engineering $25,000 (Federal, unsecured)$25,000 Signals pedestrians heads at signalized intersections to improve Possible Grant & $0 (State) pedestrians with disabilities safety Construction $0 (Local) TOTAL $888,000 $202,000 $25,000 $3,964,000 $3,646,000 $8,019,000 Bicycle projects Bike-Link Install bike lanes and sharrows at key bicycle locations to Engineering $0 (Federal) complete missing links (such as along 76th Ave. W, 212th St. SW...) Secured grant & $626,840 (Verdant grant)$626,840 Add bike route signage and parking at various locations.Construction $0 (Local) TOTAL $626,840 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Calming / Non-Motorized Transportation Safety Projects: Traffic Calming Program / Traffic circles, speed cushions,Engineering $0 (Federal) Non-Motorized Transportation radar feedback signs, bulb-outs, etc.Local Funds only &$0 (State) Safety Construction $120,000 (Local, General Fund) $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Ferry Projects Ferry Storage Improvements from Provide additional ferry storage area closer to the Ferry Terminal Engineering $357,000 (Federal, unsecured)$357,000 Dayton St. to Pine St.(through striping revisions / C-Curb addition...).Possible Grant & $0 (State) Construction $0 (Local) Traffic Planning Projects: Edmonds Waterfront Study: 1) Waterfront Access issues emphasizing and prioritizing near term solutions t Port of Edmonds, Engineering $25,000 (Port of Edmonds)$12,500 $12,500 Analysis providing emergency access; 2) At-grade conflicts where Main and Dayton St. inters Secured Grant, and &$500,000 (State, secured)$250,000 $250,000 BNSF rail lines; 3) Pedesitrian / Bicycle Access; 4) Options to the Edmonds Crossing $0 (Federal) Multimodal Terminal Project (identified as Modified Alternative 2) within the 2004 EIS Local Funds Planning $100,000 (Local, General Funds)$50,000 $50,000 Citywide s Modified Alternative 2) within the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement.Engineering $0 (Federal) Transition Plan curb ramps, as well as long range plan on how to address Local Funds Only & $0 (State) those defficiencies. Planning $80,000 (Local, General Funds)$80,000 Transportation Plan Update Engineering $0 (Federal) Update Transportation Plan Local Funds Only &$0 (State) Planning $175,000 (Local)$175,000 TOTAL $392,500 $312,500 $0 $0 $0 $175,000 Total $66,685,353 $9,118,853 $2,714,500 $1,465,000 $10,427,000 $17,360,000 $25,600,000 Total Federal $4,245,650 $844,000 $0 $3,478,500 $7,722,500 $14,683,000 Total Federal (Secured)$4,245,650 $44,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Federal (Unsecured)$0 $800,000 $0 $3,478,500 $7,722,500 $14,683,000 Total State $550,000 $250,000 $0 $2,157,000 $5,044,500 $5,633,000 Total State (Secured)$550,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total State (Unsecured)$0 $0 $0 $2,157,000 $5,044,500 $5,633,000 Packet Page 179 of 291 City of Edmonds Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2016-2021) Page 4 Grant Opportunity Project (2016-2021) Project Name Purpose Phase(s)Total Cost Source(s)2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Verdant $626,840 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Verdant (Secured)$626,840 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Port of Edmonds $12,500 $12,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Local Fund $3,708,863 $1,608,000 $1,465,000 $4,333,500 $4,593,000 $5,284,000 Total Local (Fund 112)$41,350 $8,000 $0 $1,238,500 $2,113,000 $2,469,000 Total Local (Fund 125) $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $150,000 $425,000 Toal Local (Fund 421)$491,000 $75,000 $0 $575,000 $0 $0 Total Local (Fund 422)$501,513 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Local (Fund 423)$590,000 $50,000 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 Total Local (Traffic Impact Fees)$250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Local (General Fund)$1,835,000 $1,475,000 $1,465,000 $2,270,000 $2,330,000 $2,390,000 Packet Page 180 of 291 - 1 - RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE 2016-2021 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AND DIRECTING FILING OF THE ADOPTED PROGRAM WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city and town is required to adopt a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and file a copy of such adopted program with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); and WHEREAS, the TIP identifies all planned projects over the next 6 years, along with the appropriate funding source; now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Transportation Improvement Program is hereby adopted pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 to be effective on August 5th, 2015 and to continue in full force and effect until amended. A copy of such Transportation Improvement Program for the years 2016 to 2021 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby requested and directed to file a certified copy of the Transportation Improvement Program with the Washington State Department of Transportation. Packet Page 181 of 291 - 2 - RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2015. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVE O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Page 182 of 291 AM-7907 7. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/04/2015 Time:30 Minutes Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Potential Action Information Subject Title ILA with Edmonds School District for Woodway Fields Recommendation Council discuss the Interlocal Agreement with the Edmonds School District to operate, schedule and maintain Woodway Fields. Council authorize Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreeement, or forward to subsequent meeting for approval. Previous Council Action City Council has authorized $655,000 in the 2015 Parks CIP for the construction of Woodway Fields. In 2015, City Council conducted a closed record review for building permit variances for the bleachers and the fencing for Woodway Fields. Council approved the variances. City Council has approved the Comprehensive Plan, the PROS plan, and the Strategic Action Plan that all identify Woodway Fields partnership with the School District as a priority. City Council has adopted this project in the PROS plan as early as 2001. City Council supported and encouraged an ad hoc committee to work with the school district and community to design this project starting in 2005. Narrative The development Former Woodway Fields has been a long time goal and priority for the City. Currently, the City has no full size multi sports fields, and no synthetic turf fields offering the opportunity for year around use. Edmonds citizens have to travel to Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood in order to play. We are also continually turning teams away for use of the current fields we do operate. We just do not have enough field space to accommodate Edmonds citizens. The need for field space, and the identification of the Old Woodway HS site has been evident in the PROS plan since 2001. The City worked with the School District and community in 2005/6 to design this active community park. Since 2006, the City has worked diligently to apply for grants, State appropriations, and identify local funds to support this project. The financial puzzle was finally realized for Phase 1. The School District set aside $500,000 from the 2008 bond for this project. The State of Packet Page 183 of 291 Washington is contributing $750,000. Verdant Health Commission is contributing $2.5 million, and the City approved $655,000 in the CIP budget for 2015; $500,000 of which would be contributed to the construction, and $155,000 to construct a community garden and finance the maintenance for the first year of operations. It is possible to cover the maintenance costs with the nominal rental fees the City would charge for organized sports use of the fields. This Interlocal Agreement with the Edmonds School District identifies the capital contribution of $500,000 from the City. It also gives the City the rights and responsibilities to maintain, schedule, and use the fields as a first priority after school hours. This is a significant asset for Edmonds, and will help to meet our field needs in the community. It will also satisfy a priority that has been identified by the City for the past 15+ years. The most significant issue that has arisen from the community in this project has been the material used for the fields. The School District owns the fields, among many other fields District wide. By policy, they have used crumb rubber infill for the synthetic turf fields since 2001. They have had no complaints, concerns, health impacts that have been identified from any of the field users. They are currently laying this same product at the Edmonds Woodway High School stadium, and haven't heard any concerns from any parents or community members about this field. Crumb rubber infill is an industry standard that is used across the country for both amateur and professional sports. There have been a number of studies conducted on the material itself, and a summary of these studies, conducted by Elizabeth Black, is attached. Ms. Black has also been invited to present her findings as part of the public hearing. In addition, Verdant Health Commission hired a company to study the issue of toxicity with crumb rubber. The report and the powerpoint presentation that was developed as a result is also attached. We have been told by the Edmonds School District that whether the City enters into an ILA or not, they are proceeding with the project. The fields are currently being constructed, and will be completed by September. The City has the opportunity with the ILA to schedule, use, and maintain these fields. If the City chooses not to enter into an ILA, the City will not have the priority use or control to schedule the fields. Attached in your packet are the following: 1. ILA drafted by City and School District staff, and supported by the School District for adoption. 2. ILA redline version with City Attorney edits based on Council direction. This is currently not supported by the school district and will need to be negotiated. This also includes changes to the indemnification clause requested by Council. 3. Report from Bob Harding, DA Hogan, outlining the options of various infill materials for synthetic turf fields. 4. Elizabeth Black report 5. Gradient report from Verdant Health Commission 6. Power point from Gradient report 7. Washington State Department of Health article on Synthetic Turf: This was given to staff at the Public Hearing from the Snohomish Health District, and is an informational article. Attachments ILA School district ILA City edits DA Hogan Bob Harding memo Packet Page 184 of 291 Black Literature review Verdant Turf Report Verdant Powerpoint DOH article Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 07/30/2015 11:38 AM Mayor Scott Passey 07/30/2015 01:28 PM Parks and Recreation (Originator)Carrie Hite 07/30/2015 01:39 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 07/30/2015 01:46 PM Mayor Dave Earling 07/31/2015 08:45 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/31/2015 08:49 AM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 07/29/2015 03:44 PM Final Approval Date: 07/31/2015 Packet Page 185 of 291 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT and THE CITY OF EDMONDS FORMER WOODWAY FIELDS THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), dated as of _________, 2015, is made and entered into by and between EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 (“School District”) and THE CITY OF EDMONDS (“City”). RECITALS WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act) permits local government units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other government entities on the basis of mutual advantage and thereby to provide services and facilities in a manner pursuant to forms of governmental organizations that will accord best with geographic, economic population, and other factors influencing the needs and development of local communities; and WHEREAS, each of the signatories hereto is a public agency as defined by RCW Chapter 39.34; and WHEREAS, the School District owns real property used for school purposes on which the planned Former Woodway School Fields Phase 1 project will be located within the City of Edmonds and located at 23200 100th Avenue West, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the School District is responsible for the public education of the students in the community, including physical education and athletic activities related to the educational program; and WHEREAS, the City has established the Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services (the “Department”) for carrying out the purpose of developing and maintaining community athletic and recreation programs; and WHEREAS, the School District and the City are mutually interested in supporting programs for the community in the areas of athletics, recreation and education; and WHEREAS, the City and the School District have recognized for many years that through cooperation, these publicly-owned athletic fields and facilities can be used to meet broader community needs for education, recreation and athletic activities than either party can provide separately; and Packet Page 186 of 291 WHEREAS, the City has concluded the recreation needs of the community could be better met if the development and maintenance of certain School District facilities were enhanced to levels beyond that needed for the educational requirements of the District; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted the Former Woodway High School Athletic Fields project in its Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has approved capital funding in its Capital Facilities Plan to contribute to the development of this project; and WHEREAS, the School District has approved capital funding as a part of the 2008 Capital Levy; and WHEREAS, the City has approved $500,000 in its Capital Improvement Program to support this project; and WHEREAS, the City applied for and received an appropriation from the Washington State Legislature and the Recreational Conservation Office; and WHEREAS, the City and the School District jointly applied for and received a grant from The Verdant Health Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, the School District and the City hereby agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE AND SUBJECT MATTER The Recitals set forth above are an important and integral part of this Agreement and are hereby incorporated by reference. The subject of this Agreement is the City’s and District’s development, maintenance, scheduling, and use of Former Woodway High School Athletic Fields (“Former Woodway Fields”), located within the City of Edmonds. The parties agree that District athletic fields and facilities are intended primarily for school and educational purposes and are for the benefit of students and the school age population that reside within the District. The purpose of this Agreement is to define the rights and responsibilities of the School District and the City with regard to the use, operations, maintenance and scheduling of the Former Woodway Fields for Edmonds’ parks and recreation purposes. 2. PROPERTY USE 2.1 The School District’s responsibilities are as follows: a) The School District shall form a collaborative partnership with the City, Verdant Health Commission and the State of Washington Recreation Conservation Office to fund and develop the Former Woodway Fields for school and community athletics Packet Page 187 of 291 and recreation. b) The School District will make available the Former Woodway Fields for the City to schedule ,maintain and use the fields, c) The School District will have priority scheduling and use of the fields, and will make it available for community use as presented in section 3.2. d) The School District and City will jointly plan for the capital expenditures for subsequent phases and replacement costs. e) The School District will work closely with the City and the surrounding community in the design and approval of subsequent phases. 2.2 The City’s responsibilities are as follows: a) The City shall be responsible for the scheduling, operations, and maintenance of the Former Woodway Fields. b) The City shall contribute capital funds in the amount of $500,000 toward development of Phase 1 of the Former Woodway Fields project. c) Annually, the City will obtain an event schedule from the School District to assist in planning for parking demands. The City shall schedule around current use at the site when there is a demand on the entire parking lot that is available, including overflow parking. d) The City has the option to charge third party user groups for the use of the Former Woodway Fields. These revenues will be essential to assist in the maintenance of the fields. e) The City will jointly plan with the School District for additional capital expenditures for subsequent phases, and replacement costs. f) The City will complete a report of health and wellness outcomes for the community recreational use that is completed on the Former Woodway Fields. Annually, on January 31st, the City will submit a progress report of activities carried out under the program including summaries of outcomes and results. In partnership with the School District, the City will measure the following indicators for the community’s use of the fields: 1) the number of participants taking part in organized recreation and physical activities program at the Woodway campus, including a description of the activities; 2) periodic random counts of activity occurring at the campus, and 3) anecdotal evidence that illustrates health improvements and physical activity at the site. Packet Page 188 of 291 3. SCHEDULING THE USE OF FIELDS 3.1 The City shall act as scheduling coordinator for the District owned athletic fields at Former Woodway High School. The current guidelines of available times for use of these fields will be outside of school hours, on evenings and weekends, and during non-school days and the summer months. 3.2 The hours available for community use shall include: Academic Year September –June: Monday – Friday: 5:00 p.m. to Dusk* Saturday: 8:00 am – Dusk* Sunday: 9:00 am – 6:00 p.m. June – September: Monday – Saturday: 8:00 am – Dusk* Sunday: 9:00 am – Dusk* *All play will conclude by dusk or 10:00 pm, whichever is earlier. 4. PAYMENT Edmonds’ total funding responsibility shall be Five Hundred Thousand Dollars and zero cents ($500,000). The School District agrees not to charge the City of Edmonds for any use under this Agreement. 5. TERM AND TERMINATION 5.1 The term of this Agreement shall commence upon filing with the County Auditor or upon listing the Agreement by subject on the School District’s web site or other electronically retrievable public source in accordance with RCW 39.34.040 following mutual execution (the “Effective Date”) and shall expire on September 1, 2065. 5.2 This Agreement may be terminated by either party, upon written notice of intent to terminate at least one hundred and eighty days’ (180) prior to such action. 5.3 If the District terminates this Agreement before its full term, the District will reimburse the City for the amortized value of the development costs and cost of improvements. The value shall be calculated by using the formula: years in agreement in force x replacement value of all project costs at the time of termination. 5.4 If the City terminates this Agreement before its full term, the City will have no rights to recover any portion of its investment in the site or to use any portion of the site. Ownership of any improvement other than portable equipment items shall be vested in the District. 6. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR 6.1 Pursuant to RCW 39.34.030(4)(a), the School District and Edmonds hereby appoint the School District’s Executive Director of Business and Operations as the “Contract Administrator”, who will be responsible for Packet Page 189 of 291 administering this Agreement, and at the direction of the parties, shall take such action as is necessary to ensure this Agreement is implemented in accordance with its terms. 6.2 This Agreement does not create a separate legal or administrative entity, and consequently is being administered in accordance with RCW 39.34.030(4), as provided in paragraph 6 .1. 7. REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY 7.1 The School District owns the real property that is the subject of this Agreement. This Agreement does not contemplate the transfer of ownership of the Property, nor to limit the School District's ability to comply with its statutory obligations regarding the use and disposition of school property pursuant to RCW 28A.335. 7.2 The parties will not, during the term of and pursuant to this Agreement, jointly acquire or hold any property (real or personal) with regard to the Former Woodway Fields; provided that the parties may make available to each other, as a matter of convenience, athletic equipment and other personal property normal and incident to the use of the Former Woodway Fields. In the event that any such personal property items are shared, the parties shall maintain records indicating the nature and quantity of the items shared. Ownership and maintenance of any such personal property items shall remain with the party who purchased the personal property item. 7.3 By operation of this Agreement, Edmonds does not acquire any ownership interest in and disclaims any interest to the Former Woodway Fields, which is and will remain the School District’s property. 8. INDEMNIFICATION The parties agree to indemnify and hold the other harmless from any claims arising as a result of each party’s use of the Former Woodway Fields under this Agreement. The School District and Edmonds shall each be responsible for any and all liability resulting from any acts or omissions resulting from its own negligent and/or wrongful acts or omissions, and those of its own agents, employees, contractors, or officials, as the same shall be determined under the laws of the State of Washington or a mutually approved settlement agreement. Packet Page 190 of 291 9. MISCELLANEOUS 9.1 This Agreement and all questions concerning the capacity of the parties, execution, validity (or invalidity), and performance of this Agreement, shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in all respects in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. This Agreement has been negotiated and drafted by all parties and is not to be construed in favor of any party. 9.2 Nothing herein shall be interpreted to create any right or liability with respect to any person or entity not a signatory to this Agreement. 9.3 The parties are independent entities and nothing in this Agreement creates any agency relationship. Neither of the parties to this Agreement shall be construed to be an officer, agent or employee of the other party. 9.4 In the event of a dispute between the parties arising under this Agreement, the Superintendent of the School District and the Mayor of Edmonds shall meet to attempt to resolve the dispute within thirty (30) days’ notice from the Contract Administrator of the existence of a dispute. In the event the Superintendent and the Mayor are unable to resolve the dispute within sixty (60) days’ notice from the Contract Administrator of the dispute, the parties shall submit the dispute to a mutually agreed upon private arbitrator for binding resolution. In the event the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, one may be appointed by the presiding Judge of the Snohomish County Superior Court, with costs of arbitration borne equally. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs related to said arbitration. 9.5 All notices required to be served or given in accordance with the terms of this Agreement shall be hand delivered or mailed via the U.S. Postal Service, postage pre-paid, to the following addresses of record: 9.6 Any address changes shall be given to the other party in writing. 9.7 This Agreement and its Exhibit A represent the entire agreement between the School District and Edmonds with respect to the use of Former Woodway Fields. This Agreement shall not be amended except in writing mutually agreed to and executed by the School District and Edmonds in the same manner as this Agreement was executed by all parties hereto 9.8 This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties hereto. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid under any applicable statute or rule of law, it is to that extent to be deemed omitted, and the balance of the Agreement shall remain enforceable. 20420 68th Ave. West France Anderson Center 700 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Packet Page 191 of 291 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 CITY OF EDMONDS ___________________________ ___________________________ NICK L. BROSSOIT ED. D. DAVE EARLING, MAYOR ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: ___________________________ Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ ___________________________ of Perkins Coie LLP Office of the City Attorney Attorneys for the School District Packet Page 192 of 291 EXHIBIT A EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 Former Woodway Fields Legal Description Area 4 That portion of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 36, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, W.M. Containing: 40 acres Packet Page 193 of 291 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT and THE CITY OF EDMONDS FORMER WOODWAY FIELDS THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), dated as of _________, 2015, is made and entered into by and between EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 (“School District”) and THE CITY OF EDMONDS (“City”). RECITALS WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act) permits local government units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other government entities on the basis of mutual advantage and thereby to provide services and facilities in a manner pursuant to forms of governmental organizations that will accord best with geographic, economic population, and other factors influencing the needs and development of local communities; and WHEREAS, each of the signatories hereto is a public agency as defined by RCW Chapter 39.34; and WHEREAS, the School District owns real property used for school purposes on which the planned Former Woodway School Fields Phase 1 project will be located within the City of Edmonds and located at 23200 100th Avenue West, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the School District is responsible for the public education of the students in the community, including physical education and athletic activities related to the educational program; and WHEREAS, the City has established the Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services (the “Department”) for carrying out the purpose of developing and maintaining community athletic and recreation programs; and WHEREAS, the School District and the City are mutually interested in supporting programs for the community in the areas of athletics, recreation and education; and WHEREAS, the City and the School District have recognized for many years that through cooperation, these publicly-owned athletic fields and facilities can be used to meet broader community needs for education, recreation and athletic activities than either party can provide separately; and Packet Page 194 of 291 WHEREAS, the City has concluded the recreation needs of the community could be better met if the development and maintenance of certain School District facilities were enhanced to levels beyond that needed for the educational requirements of the District; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted the Former Woodway High School Athletic Fields project in its Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has approved capital funding in its Capital Facilities Plan to contribute to the development of this project; and WHEREAS, the School District has approved capital funding as a part of the 2008 Capital Levy; and WHEREAS, the City has approved $500,000 in its Capital Improvement Program to support this project; and WHEREAS, the City applied for and received an appropriation from the Washington State Legislature and the Recreational Conservation Office to fund a portion of this project; and WHEREAS, the City and the School District jointly applied for and received a grant from tThe Verdant Health Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, the School District and the City hereby agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE AND SUBJECT MATTER The Recitals set forth above are an important and integral part of this Agreement and are hereby incorporated by reference. The subject of this Agreement is the City’s and District’s development, maintenance, scheduling, and use of Former Woodway High School Athletic Fields (“Former Woodway Fields”), located within the City of Edmonds. The parties agree that District athletic fields and facilities are intended primarily for school and educational purposes and are for the benefit of students and the school age population that reside within the District. The purpose of this Agreement is to define the rights and responsibilities of the School District and the City with regard to the use, operations, maintenance and scheduling of the Former Woodway Fields for Edmonds’ parks and recreation purposes. 2. PROPERTY USE 2.1 The School District’s responsibilities are as follows: a) The School District shall form a collaborative partnership with the City, Verdant Health Commission and the State of Washington Recreation Conservation Office to fund and develop the Former Woodway Fields for school and community athletics Formatted: Font: Bold Packet Page 195 of 291 and recreation. a)b) The School District has taken complete responsibility for the construction of the fields and the selection of materials to be used in that construction. b)c) The Upon completion of construction, the School District will make available the Former Woodway Fields for the City to schedule , maintain and use the fields, c)d) The School District will have priority scheduling and use of the fields, and will make it available for community use as presented described in section 3.2, below. d)e) The School District and City will jointly plan for the capital expenditures for subsequent phases and replacement costs. e)f) The School District will work closely with the City and the surrounding community in the design and approval of subsequent phases. For subsequent phases, all decisions about field construction and material composition shall be joint decisions of the School District and the City. 2.2 The City’s responsibilities are as follows: a) The City shall be responsible for the scheduling, operations, and maintenance of the Former Woodway Fields. b) The City shall contribute capital funds in the amount of $500,000 toward development of Phase 1 of the Former Woodway Fields project. c) Annually, the City will obtain an event schedule from the School District to assist in planning for parking demands. The City shall schedule around current other uses at the site when there is athe School District informs the City that those other uses demand onrequire use of the entire parking lot that is available, including overflow parking. d) The City has the option to charge third party user groups for the use of the Former Woodway Fields. These revenues will be essential to assist in the maintenance of the fields. e) The City will jointly plan with the School District for additional capital expenditures for subsequent phases, and replacement costs. f) The City will complete a report of health and wellness outcomes for the community recreational use that is completed on the Former Woodway Fields. Annually, on January 31st, the City will submit a progress report of activities carried out under the program including summaries of outcomes and results. In partnership with the School District, the City will measure the following indicators for the community’s use of the Formatted: Font: Bold, Character scale: 100% Packet Page 196 of 291 fields: 1) the number of participants taking part in organized recreation and physical activities program at the Woodway campus, including a description of the activities; 2) periodic random counts of activity occurring at the campus, and 3) anecdotal evidence that illustrates health improvements and physical activity at the site. Packet Page 197 of 291 3. SCHEDULING THE USE OF FIELDS 3.1 The City shall act as scheduling coordinator for the District owned athletic fields at Former Woodway High School during the community use times, as described below. The current guidelines of available times for use of these fields will be outside of school hours, on evenings and weekends, and during non-school days and the summer months. 3.2 The hours available for community use shall include: Academic Year September –June: Monday – Friday: 5:00 p.m. to Dusk* Saturday: 8:00 am – Dusk* Sunday: 9:00 am – 6:00 p.m. June – September: Monday – Saturday: 8:00 am – Dusk* Sunday: 9:00 am – Dusk* *All play will conclude by dusk or 10:00 pm, whichever is earlier. 4. PAYMENT Edmonds’ total funding responsibility shall be Five Hundred Thousand Dollars and zero cents ($500,000). The School District agrees not to charge the City of Edmonds for any use under this Agreement. The City shall have the right to retain all fees collected from third-party users of the Former Woodway Fields. 5. TERM AND TERMINATION 5.1 The term of this Agreement shall commence upon filing with the County Auditor or upon listing the Agreement by subject on the School District’s web site or other electronically retrievable public source in accordance with RCW 39.34.040 following mutual execution (the “Effective Date”) and shall expire on September 1, 2065. 5.2 This Agreement may be terminated by either party, upon written notice of intent to terminate at least one hundred and eighty days’ (180) prior to such action. 5.3 If the District terminates this Agreement before its full term, the District will reimburse the City for the amortized value of the development costs and cost of improvements. The value shall be calculated by using the formula: years in agreement in force x replacement value of all project costs at the time of termination. 5.4 I f the City terminates this Agreement before its full term, the City will have no rights to recover any portion of its investment in the site or to use any portion of the site. Ownership of any improvement other than portable equipment items shall be vested in the District. 6. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or numbering Packet Page 198 of 291 6.1 Pursuant to RCW 39.34.030(4)(a), the School District and Edmonds hereby appoint the School District’s Executive Director of Business and Operations as the “Contract Administrator”, who will be responsible for administering this Agreement, and at the direction of the parties, shall take such action as is necessary to ensure this Agreement is implemented in accordance with its terms. 6.2 This Agreement does not create a separate legal or administrative entity, and consequently is being administered in accordance with RCW 39.34.030(4), as provided in paragraph 6 .1. 7. REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY 7.1 The School District owns the real property that is the subject of this Agreement. This Agreement does not contemplate the transfer of ownership of the Property, nor to limit the School District's ability to comply with its statutory obligations regarding the use and disposition of school property pursuant to RCW 28A.335. 7.2 The parties will not, during the term of and pursuant to this Agreement, jointly acquire or hold any property (real or personal) with regard to the Former Woodway Fields; provided that the parties may make available to each other, as a matter of convenience, athletic equipment and other personal property normal and incident to the use of the Former Woodway Fields. In the event that any such personal property items are shared, the parties shall maintain records indicating the nature and quantity of the items shared. Ownership and maintenance of any such personal property items shall remain with the party who purchased the personal property item. 7.3 By operation of this Agreement, Edmonds does not acquire any ownership interest in and disclaims any interest to the Former Woodway Fields, which is and will remain the School District’s property. 8. INDEMNIFICATION S School District shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from any claims, lawsuits, costs, and judgments arising as a result of the negligent or otherwise wrongful acts or omissions of the School District, its agents, employees, contractors, or officials in any way related to the funding, design, construction, material selection (including but not limited to the selection of crumb rubber), use by the School District of the Former Woodway Fields, and any other performance by the School District of obligations under this Agreement. City shall indemnify, defend, and hold the School District harmless from any claims, lawsuits, costs, and judgments arising as a result of the negligent or otherwise wrongful Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.56", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering Packet Page 199 of 291 acts or omissions of the City, its agents, employees, contractors, or officials in any way related to the funding, scheduling, use by the City of the Former Woodway Fields, and any other performance by the City of obligations under this Agreement. The partiesEach party agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the other party harmless from any claims, lawsuits, costs, and judgments arising as a result of each party’s involvement in the design, construction, material selection and use of the Former Woodway Fields under this Agreement. The To further describe the scope of the preceding sentence, the School District and Edmonds shall each be responsible for any and all liability resulting arising from any negligent or wrongful acts or omissions resulting from its own negligent and/or wrongful acts or omissions, andincluding those of its own agents, employees, contractors, or officials, as the same shall be determined under the laws of the State of Washington or a mutually approved settlement agreement. Packet Page 200 of 291 9. MISCELLANEOUS 9.1 This Agreement and all questions concerning the capacity of the parties, execution, validity (or invalidity), and performance of this Agreement, shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in all respects in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. This Agreement has been negotiated and drafted by all parties and is not to be construed in favor of any party. 9.2 Nothing herein shall be interpreted to create any right or liability with respect to any person or entity not a signatory to this Agreement. 9.3 The parties are independent entities and nothing in this Agreement creates any agency relationship. Neither of the parties to this Agreement shall be construed to be an officer, agent or employee of the other party. 9.4 In the event of a dispute between the parties arising under this Agreement, the Superintendent of the School District and the Mayor of Edmonds shall meet to attempt to resolve the dispute within thirty (30) days’ notice from the Contract Administrator of the existence of a dispute. In the event the Superintendent and the Mayor are unable to resolve the dispute within sixty (60) days’ notice from the Contract Administrator of the dispute, the parties shall submit the dispute to a mutually agreed upon private arbitrator for binding resolution. In the event the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, one may be appointed by the presiding Judge of the Snohomish County Superior Court, with costs of arbitration borne equally. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs related to said arbitration. 9.5 All notices required to be served or given in accordance with the terms of this Agreement shall be hand delivered or mailed via the U.S. Postal Service, postage pre-paid, to the following addresses of record: 9.6 Any address changes shall be given to the other party in writing. 9.7 This Agreement and its Exhibit A represent the entire agreement between the School District and Edmonds with respect to the use of Former Woodway Fields. This Agreement shall not be amended except in writing mutually agreed to and executed by the School District and Edmonds in the same manner as this Agreement was executed by all parties hereto 9.8 This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties hereto. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid under any applicable statute or rule of law, it is to that extent to be deemed omitted, and the balance of the Agreement shall remain enforceable. 20420 68th Ave. West France Anderson Center 700 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Packet Page 201 of 291 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 CITY OF EDMONDS ___________________________ ___________________________ NICK L. BROSSOIT ED. D. DAVE EARLING, MAYOR ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: ___________________________ Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ ___________________________ of Perkins Coie LLP Office of the City Attorney Attorneys for the School District Packet Page 202 of 291 EXHIBIT A EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 Former Woodway Fields Legal Description Area 4 That portion of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 36, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, W.M. Containing: 40 acres Packet Page 203 of 291 D.A. Hogan & Associates, Inc. (206) 285-0400 Tel 119 1st Avenue South, Suite 110 (206) 285-0480 Fax Seattle, WA 98104 MEMORANDUM To: Carrie Hite, Director of Parks and Recreation City of Edmonds From: Robert Harding, D.A. Hogan & Associates, Inc. Date: July 30, 2015 Re: Infills evaluated for use Former Woodway HS Athletic Field Improvements Carrie, As a follow up to numerous questions regarding infill options alternate to SBR, I have prepared a brief summary of all of the various options that were reviewed with you and Rich Lindsey on December 10, 2014, and subsequently discussed and reviewed by the Edmonds School Board. 1. Infill Composition of Other Fields: All of the Edmonds School District’s synthetic turf fields, including (3) at Lynnwood HS; (2) at Mountlake Terrace HS; (1) at Edmonds-Woodway HS (Central Stadium); and (1) at Meadowdale HS are fields with crumb rubber infill (SBR). Further, virtually all of the other fields installed in Western Washington are also include crumb rubber. To my knowledge there are only several fields in Western Washington with infills that are not SBR including: a. Northwest School, Seattle: This is a private high school, with a rooftop field of approximately 6,000 SF. It includes TPE (Thermoplastic) infill. There is no other outdoor play area on the campus and the field area was constructed as a lightweight solution to limit tracking of materials across a gymnasium floor below the field. b. John F. Kennedy HS, Burien: This is a private Catholic school, and not part of any park and recreation department. The City of Burien had no review role or authority over the infill selected for use. This privately funded field is infilled with a combination of Nike Grind infill and sand, and is installed over a Brock shock attenuation/drainage pad. It is approximately 75,000 SF. Installed in October 2014, and infill was completed in June, 2015. c. Pacific Cascade Middle School, Issaquah School District, King County, WA: This is a public middle school field of approximately 80,000 SF, and includes a combination of sand and Nike Grind infill, over a paved in place elastic layer pad. This was installed/completed in April, 2015. d. Beaver Lake Middle School, Issaquah School District, King County, WA: This is a public middle school of approximately 80,000 SF, and includes a combination of sand and Nike Grind infill, over a paved in place elastic layer pad. This was installed/completed in February, 2015. e. There are 3 other school fields in construction that will use alternate infills. They include: i. Liberty HS, Issaquah School District, King County, WA: This is a public school stadium field of approximately 78,000 SF, and includes a combination of sand and green coated rubber over a paved in place elastic layer pad. This will be completed in August 2015. ii. Eastlake HS, Lake Washington School District, Sammamish, WA: This is a public school stadium field of approximately 78,000 SF, and includes a combination of sand and green coated rubber over a paved in place elastic layer pad. This will be completed in August 2015. Packet Page 204 of 291 Carrie Hite City of Edmonds July 30, 2015 Former Woodway High School Field Improvements PAGE 2 OF 5 iii. South Kitsap High School: South Kitsap School District, Port Orchard, WA: This is a public school stadium field of approximately 80,000 SF, and includes an organic infill over a paved in place elastic layer pad. This will be completed in August 2015, with approximately 50% privately funded contribution. 2. What other materials were considered: Use of alternate infill materials were reviewed during a “Turf 101”. Alternate infill materials reviewed included: a. SBR b. “Nike” grind, ground up tennis shoe rubber (the components of which are not known); c. Coated SBR rubber (acrylic coating encapsulating SBR rubber); d. TPE (Plastic); e. Organic infills (combination of cork, coconut fibers and rice hulls). These alternate products all have higher cost, with different impacts on both performance and maintenance. A summary of those infills is as follows: f. Coated sands; and g. EPDM SBR Infill: This is the most common synthetic turf infill, beginning in the late 1990’s. SBR crumb rubber infill materials are used on the overwhelming majority of the 1000 +/- synthetic turf fields that have been installed each year since then. There have been many studies commissioned by various agencies relative to SBR infill and synthetic turf. As noted in these studies, there are heavy metals and other carcinogenic materials that are in the chemical make-up of the SBR material but these are essentially “locked” into the material and are typically not considered as being bio-available. Nike Grind: This material includes ground rubber from either residual material from the shoe manufacturing process or presumably from recycled (used) shoes. This material is multi-colored but has similar physical characteristics (size, shape, and resiliency) to SBR materials. Current pricing for this material is approximately $0.60 per lb. or $0.45 per lb. more expensive than SBR. Here is a link to additional Nike Grind material information: http://www.nike.com/us/en_us/c/better-world/reuse-a-shoe http://www.sole- revolution.com/system/files/1/original/Sole_Revolution_Specifications_Sheet.pdf?1290182575 We have requested more detailed health and environmental information on this material. However, their product literature says that this material does not include any heavy metals. Coated Rubber: This material includes SBR rubber with a supplemental acrylic coating, and an additional clear coating. Product is sold in several colors – Green and Tan, and has an 8 year warranty matching the Packet Page 205 of 291 Carrie Hite City of Edmonds July 30, 2015 Former Woodway High School Field Improvements PAGE 3 OF 5 typical turf warranty. Current pricing for this material is approximately $.45 per lb. or $.30 per lb. more expensive than SBR. Here is a link to more product information: www.Cushionfallsport.com TPE Infill: TPE is an acronym for Thermo Plastic Elastomer. This infill material has been used more extensively in Europe but has also been used on a number of fields in North America. It is our understanding that this material does not contain any chemicals or substances that are on the State of California Proposition 65 list of known carcinogenic materials (A listing of over 900 materials known by the State of California to cause cancer in humans). This material is typically green or tan in color and will often result in somewhat lower field surface temperatures during periods of warm or hot weather. This material is expensive but can be re-used on future turf replacements. Current pricing for this material is approximately $1.20 per lb. or $1.05 per lb. more expensive than SBR. Here is a link to more product information: http://www.ttiionline.com/products/pro-max-37-tpe-infill/ This infill was installed at the roof top field at The Northwest School as infill migration into the new gym was a big concern and the TPE has a smoother shape and less static cling and would therefore not be as susceptible to being tracked off the field. Using a reliable source for this material is critical. Nine fields installed for the Los Angeles Unified School District and a number of others that used TPE infill manufactured in Asia have failed. With high surface temperatures, the TPE infill melted and clumped together. This melting and conglomeration may impact safety of users, playability and impact attenuation. Organic Infill: These are granulated plant derived materials that include coconut husks, cork, and rice husks. We strongly recommend that fields with this infill should include a supplemental pad system as the organic materials could/will break down over time resulting in a loss of resiliency. Fields with this infill have not been installed on a wide spread basis and those that are installed are typically in much drier climates. They will require regular irrigation as well during any periods of dry weather even when they are not in use (to keep the material weighted and in place). Vendors of the product suggest maintaining at least 20% moisture level. It is our further opinion that additional study should be completed to insure that the MRSA studies previously performed on fields with SBR infill would apply to fields with organic infill. Cleanup procedures after any bleeding or vomiting on the field surface would likely be more extensive with organic infill materials. Whereas these infills have been used more extensively in Italy and other warmer and drier climates, there is more limited and short term experience in wetter and cooler climates. Boston College recently installed a field with organic infill but we are not familiar with any others in similar climatic conditions to the Puget Sound region. With high levels of moisture and moderate temperatures, Packet Page 206 of 291 Carrie Hite City of Edmonds July 30, 2015 Former Woodway High School Field Improvements PAGE 4 OF 5 resistance of the organic infill material to mold growth should also be confirmed. As an organic product, the material will tend to deteriorate over time, and vendors recommend scarification and replenishment of the infill every two years. As these are somewhat un-proven in our climate, looking at the Geofill as furnished by Shaw Sports Product may be warranted as they should be able to provide a very strong warranty (as they are a subsidiary or holding of Berkshire Hathaway). Here are some links to organic infill options: From Shaw (including the field on the Google corporate campus) http://www.shawsportsturf.com/geofill/ From Limonta (two recent installations in the Bay Area at a park and elementary school): http://www.geoturfusa.com/ Hellas Construction has become the Western US distributor of Geoplus infill. This product will have the initial installation in the Pacific NW in August, 2015. There is limited information about pricing, however it is anticipated the increase in cost will be approximately $1.50 per SF of installed field surface. There is not a product sheet available for the exact components, but limited information can be found at: http://www.hellasconstruction.com/Products/Turf/ Cork: There are several variations of cork infill. One version has been typically used as a topping, replacing the surface .25” depth of SBR infill, primarily for heat remediation. The vendor advises this is sustainably harvested, but as a lightweight material, it will tend to migrate to the surface, and require regular irrigation/watering to keep in place on the surface. An alternate cork infill combines natural cork and polyurethane into a liquid, which is then extruded and trimmed into small particle sizes. This product is new in the marketplace. Both of these products are available from only one vendor. Based upon current information, cost increases will range from $.50/SF of field surface (cork topping) to over $3.00 SF (full depth infill). Coated Sand Materials: There are a number of different infill products comprised of coated sand materials. Some of these include resilient coatings and others include harder coatings and rely on the geometry of the individual sand particles to result in displacement to absorb impacts. The resilient coatings include FlexSand. However, this material no longer listed on the manufacturer’s website and may have had some ongoing performance issues (unconfirmed). We are trying to confirm anecdotal information that there may have been problems. When we previously reviewed samples under a scope, the resilient coating around the sand was far from uniform and appeared to be easily worn off. Also, there is not much health/environmental information available on the coating itself. With the harder Packet Page 207 of 291 Carrie Hite City of Edmonds July 30, 2015 Former Woodway High School Field Improvements PAGE 5 OF 5 coatings, it has been our experience with previous generations of synthetic turf systems that included 100% sand infill was that the sand particles tended to lock together over time resulting in a fairly hard and compact surface. EPDM: EDPM is a manufactured rubber product typically used as the wearing course on running tracks as well as the colored fall protection areas below playground equipment. Current pricing for this material is approximately $1.00 per lb. or $0.85 per lb. more expensive than SBR. There have been a number of issues with the EPDM (track rubber) fields where it has either gummed up or reacted with the turf fiber resulting is a color change. Melos & Gezolan are typically the only sources we pre-approve for tracks although Melos sourced some of their product from Eastern Europe and it failed on some tracks (Stanford among a few others). Again, there is less study and data on this material than the SBR material and given the high price point, TPE may offer a better option at a similar price point. 3. Current projects and limitations were reviewed from other areas and projects by DA Hogan. A current project at UCLA totaling over 300,000 SF were evaluated by University staff, and risk management, given the current SBR concerns. The specific field will be used for international Special Olympics competition in summer 2015, and the conclusion of that University was to use SBR. 4. Use of options for natural grass were also reviewed. It is possible to develop a high performance natural turf field. However, the field would be likely worn and damaged through extensive use during winter months when natural turf does not grow, which will impact play and usability throughout the year – and require periods of non-use while the field is restored. There is no “magic cultivar” that is equal to the amount of use that a synthetic turf field can support. Maintenance requirements for a high performance natural turf field could likely not be staffed or supported by district resources. Should a high performance natural turf field be installed, regular mowing, fertilization, watering and maintenance of a drainage system will be required. I have included a summary chart with additional information regarding the various infill materials. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about the information provided. Thank you Packet Page 208 of 291 PLAYING FIELD TURF INFILL ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY Former Woodway High School Community Sports Fields Prepared By: Robert Harding, Principal Approximate Field Area 160,000 Sq.Ft. D.A. Hogan & Associates Inc. 7/30/15 Turf Infill Name Description Installation History Availability Colors Available Life Span Minimum Infill Cost per Field with Supplemental Pad Minimum Infill Cost per Field without Supplemental Pad Net Temperature Impact Irrigation Requirements SBR & Sand Recycled crumb rubber from car & truck tires More than 95% of the fields Generally unlimited supply from varoius sources of recycled tires.Black 1-2 turf cycles (10- 20 yr) 0.15 lb 2.2 lb/sf $0.33 per sf 3 lb/sf $0.45 per sf $52,800.00 $72,000.00 Direct sunlight on the fibers is what generates the heat/temperature difference on a field, and not the infill. The infill may extend/carry heat a short period of time after direct sunlight is removed (clouds/sunset). Since the fiber is what gets warm, changing the infill has only minor impact, typically with light reflection. The organic infills require water, and it is the humidity in the water which typcally provides the temperature mitigation. Turf/fiber without infills will result in the same temperature increases under direct sunlight as fiber with infills. Temperature increases vary dependent upon ambient air temperatures, but increases of up to 40 F are not uncommon, depending upon the sun angle. Ranges from none, to minimal for clean up (ie. on demand/quick coupler system via hoses)or occaisional use for cooling, depending upon infrastructure available. Irrigation spray system for cooling can accomplish short term cooling based upon water temperature. However the temperature reduction is short lived (1-2 hours max), resulting in increased humidity during evaporation. Typical fields in the Pacific NW do not require spray irrigation systems for cooling. Coated SBR & Sand Acrylic coating encapsulating recycled crumb rubber granules Multiple fields, including several pending at Eastlake HS Stadium in Samamamish and Liberty HS Stadium in Renton Generally unlilmited supply from west coast provders Green & Tan Min 1 turf cycle (8- 10 year) $0.45 lb 2.2 lb/sf $0.99 per sf 3 lb/sf $1.35 per sf $158,400.00 $216,000.00 Net reduction of 5%-10%. i.e. 145 F potentially reduces to 130 F. Ranges from none, to minimal for clean up (ie. on demand/quick coupler system via hoses)or occaisional use for cooling, depending upon infrastructure available. Irrigation spray system for cooling can accomplish short term cooling based upon water temperature. However the temperature reduction is short lived (1-2 hours max), resulting in increased humidity during evaporation. Typical fields in the Pacific NW do not require spray irrigation systems for cooling. Nike Grind & Sand Recycled shoe rubber Multiple fields in Washington inclduing Beaver Lake MS; Pacific Cascade MS; and Kennedy Catholic HS Generally limited supply, with materials generated overseas. Multi-color mix (red, green, blue, orange, white, etc.). Single colors are not available. Min 1 turf cycle (8- 10 year) $0.60 lb 2.2 lb/sf $1.32 per sf 3 lb/sf $1.80 per sf $211,200.00 $288,000.00 Documentation not Available Ranges from none, to minimal for clean up (ie. on demand/quick coupler system via hoses)or occaisional use for cooling, depending upon infrastructure available. Irrigation spray system for cooling can accomplish short term cooling based upon water temperature. However the temperature reduction is short lived (1-2 hours max), resulting in increased humidity during evaporation. Typical fields in the Pacific NW do not require spray irrigation systems for cooling. EPDM & Sand Manufactured track rubber Many fields in Europe No known supply limitiations Wide Range (black, blue, orange, gold, tan, brown, etc.) 1-2 turf cycles (10- 20 yr) $1.00 lb 2.2 lb/sf $2.20 per sf 3 lb/sf $3.00 per sf $352,000.00 $480,000.00 Documentation not Available Ranges from none, to minimal for clean up (ie. on demand/quick coupler system via hoses)or occaisional use for cooling, depending upon infrastructure available. Irrigation spray system for cooling can accomplish short term cooling based upon water temperature. However the temperature reduction is short lived (1-2 hours max), resulting in increased humidity during evaporation. Typical fields in the Pacific NW do not require spray irrigation systems for cooling. TPE & Sand Thermoplastic compliant with CA Prop 65 Multiple fields in Europe. One rooftop field of 6,000 SF at Northwest School in Seattle No known supply limitations Generally tan and green. Other colors may be available. 1-2 turf cycles (10- 20 yr) $1.20 lb 2.2 lb/sf $2.64 per sf 3 lb/sf $3.60 per sf $422,400.00 $576,000.00 Documentation not Available Ranges from none, to minimal for clean up (ie. on demand/quick coupler system via hoses)or occaisional use for cooling, depending upon infrastructure available. Irrigation spray system for cooling can accomplish short term cooling based upon water temperature. However the temperature reduction is short lived (1-2 hours max), resulting in increased humidity during evaporation. Typical fields in the Pacific NW do not require spray irrigation systems for cooling. Cork Top Coating Natural Cork used in lieu of final SBR lift. Multiple fields in US Some limitations on supply, depending upon seasonal instalallation commitments Tan Min 1 turf cycle (8- 10 year) $1.75 lb 0.4 lb/sf $0.70 per sf 0.4 lb/sf $0.70 per sf $56,000 added to the basic cost of infill. $56,000 added to the basic cost of infill. Net reduction 10% + Ranges from none, to minimal for clean up (ie. on demand/quick coupler system via hoses)or occaisional use for cooling, depending upon infrastructure available. Irrigation spray system for cooling can accomplish short term cooling based upon water temperature. However the temperature reduction is short lived (1-2 hours max), resulting in increased humidity during evaporation. Typical field in coastal zone such as Long Beach with benefit of afternoon on shore breeze typically do not have spray irrigation systems for cooling. Regular irrigation will help to settle top cork layer as it will "float" to the surface. GeoFill* & Sand Coconut Fiber Multiple fields in Italy & Google Corporate Campus No known supply limitations Tan/brown Unknown $1.25 lb 1.5 lb/sf $1.88 per sf Not Recommended lb/sf per sf $300,000.00 Not Recommended Net reduction 10% + Requires daily irrigation and annual top dressing. Cost of infill does not include the anticipated cost of irrigation system infrastructure (capital expense), or cost of water (operation expense). GeoTurf*Coconut Fiber, Cork, & Rice Husks Multiple fields in Italy & Two fields in Bay Area No known supply limitations Tan/brown Unknown $1.40 lb 1.5 lb/sf $2.10 per sf Not Recommended lb/sf per sf $336,000.00 Not Recommended Net reduction 10% + Requires daily irrigation and annual top dressing to maintain min. 20% moisture. Anticipate daily irrigation during summer months and at least 2-3X week during remainder of year. Cost of infill does not include the anticipated cost of irrigation system infrastructure (capital expense), or cost of water (operations expense). * GeoFill/Geo Turf is not recommended for fields without a supplemental pad system. Notes Regarding infill products lifespan Regarding additional costs Regarding infill Weight of Organic Infills Some products lifespan beyond initial installation period is not known. A typical turf life span is 8-10 years, and traditionally the infill materials have been removed and subsequently recycled/discarded in favor of new infill materials. There are some efforts in progress to clean and reprocess "used" infill materials in turf, but they are not yet universally avaialable. It is likely within the next 10 years new techniques and measures will be developed to reclaim and re-use infill materials. The organic materials need to be replenished every several years, and the long term viability is not yet known. Use of SBR rubber infill is the standard, and therefore the baseline from which all other infill products are compared. Typically, SBR infill will cost $.015/lb. Therefore the cost for infill on a typical field is approximately $26,400. Due to their volume, the cost per unit for organic infills is not typically measured in weight, but in volume. I have attempted to complete a correlation. Notes Regarding Heat/Temperature on Fields Regarding Supplemental Pad Direct sunlight on the fibers is what generates the heat/temperature difference on a field, and not the infill. The infill may extend/carry heat a short period of time after direct sunlight is removed (clouds/sunset). Since the fiber is what gets warm, changing the infill has only minor impact, typically with light reflection. The organic infills require water, and it is the humidity in the water which typcally provides the temperature mitigation. Turf/fiber without infills will result in the same temperature increases under direct sunlight as fiber with infills. Temperature increases vary dependent upon ambient air temperatures, but increases of up to 40 F are not uncommon, depending upon the sun angle. A Supplemental Pad (shock attenuation layer) is a long term impact attenuation reduction that will typically have a life cycle over multiple field replacements. A supplemental pad will allow reduction in pile height, and a resultant reduction in cost for the synthetic turf product. Typical supplemental pad cost range from $1- $2 per SF, depending upon the type, technique, and materials used. A paved in place elastic layer pad will likely last 30-40 years, or 4-5 turf replacement cycles, allowing the cost to be amortized over time. Min. Infill Weight Assuming use of a Supplemental Pad System Min. Unit Total Min. Infill Weight Without Use of Supplemental Pad System Unit Total Unit Cost Packet Page 209 of 291 Literature Review Proposed Synthetic Turf Installation Page 1 of 14 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 MEMORANDUM April 14, 2015 To: Matthew Finch Design & Construction Manager Edmonds School District From: Elisabeth Black, CIH EMB Consulting, LLC Re: Literature Review for Health Risks Associated with Artificial Turf/Crumb Rubber Proposed Synthetic Turf Installation Former Woodway High School __________________________________________________________________________ At your request, I have reviewed 32 separate documents provided by the Edmonds School District (ESD) related to synthetic or artificial turf/crumb rubber products. The objective of this memorandum is to summarize information from the literature related to the potential health risks associated with artificial turf and crumb rubber products and material. The review is intended to provide information for the proposed installation of artificial turf as part of field improvements at the Former Woodway High School site in Edmonds, Washington. This memorandum does not present an opinion or professional assessment by EMB Consulting on the use or health effects from artificial turf fields with crumb rubber. It is intended to provide an objective review and summary of the provided literature. The documents reviewed are presented below, cited by publishing organization, title, date of publication, and a summary of the conclusions related to health risks. I have organized the 32 documents by category of publishing entity, as follows: • Studies or information provided by or produced for public agencies (14) • Scientific peer-reviewed journal publications (5) • Public interest group writings (5) • Studies conducted or commissioned by the private turf industry (3) • Periodicals (2) • Community news (1) • Legislation (1) • Product user assessment (1) Within these groupings I have organized the material by most recent to oldest in an effort to highlight the current state-of-the-research or recent public concern. The documents are presented by type of publishing entity because each category is written for a different population with the information held to a different standard. For example, studies and information provided by public entities are intended to inform the public. Scientific journal articles are written for peer scientists, with a rigorous review of the methods and conclusions. Publications by public interest groups and community news more often present opinions about the issue. The memorandum concludes with a summary of the findings by category of publishing entity. Packet Page 210 of 291 Literature Review Proposed Synthetic Turf Installation Page 2 of 14 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 Documents Reviewed Public Agency Publications New York City and Alberta (CAN) Studies of Artificial Turf Safety. March 18, 2015. • New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene document states: o chemicals found in crumb rubber are very common in the urban environment. o health effects are unlikely from exposure to chemicals found in artificial turf. • Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada concluded that the use of tire crumb in playgrounds results in minimal hazard to children and the receiving environment. State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, Recent News Concerning Artificial Turf Fields, January 20, 2015 This memorandum was released to address a KOMO news story that aired on May 19, 2014 drawing a link between use of artificial turf fields with crumb rubber and cancer. • The document reiterates the findings of the State of Connecticut Department of Public Health investigation (2007, summarized below). • Studies conducted in Connecticut and elsewhere have shown a very low exposure potential from use of artificial turf fields with crumb rubber, less than from typical outdoor sources of pollution. • The KOMO report does not represent a correlation or causality and thus raises a concern that currently lacks scientific support. • Based on available data, outdoor artificial turf fields do not represent an elevated health risk. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Appeal Seeking Correction of Information on Synthetic Turf under the Information Quality Act. August 28, 2013. • A public interest group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), has asked the CPSC to withdraw 2008 reports and information related to synthetic turf based on PEER’s belief that it violated Information Quality requirements. • Specifically, PEER took issue with the statement by the CPSC that synthetic turf is “OK to install, OK to lay on”. • The CPSC disagreed with the assertions that the information quality requirements were not met. The appeal was denied. Packet Page 211 of 291 Literature Review Proposed Synthetic Turf Installation Page 3 of 14 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 World Health Organization (WHO). International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Carbon Black, Titanium Dioxide, and Talc. 2010. The IARC monographs present the international state-of-the-science information about confirmed and potential carcinogens. • Carbon black is currently ranked as possibly carcinogenic to humans. • There is no information in the IARC monograph related to crumb rubber or artificial turf. Most of the information that supports the listing as carbon black as a possible carcinogen is related to long-term occupational exposures. WHO. IARC. Identification of Research Needs to Resolve the Carcinogenicity of High- Priority IARC Carcinogens. July 2, 2009. This document presents the findings of an IARC and National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) meeting in Lyon, France in 2009. The document does not address crumb rubber or artificial turf, specifically. It does list carbon black and lead as specific compounds for research focus. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York State Department of Health. An Assessment of Chemical Leaching, Releases to Air and Temperature at Crumb-Rubber Infilled Synthetic Fields. May 2009. This report presents the findings of a study designed to assess potential environmental and public health impacts from the use of crumb rubber as infill material in synthetic turf fields. • Levels of chemicals and particulate in the air at synthetic turf fields do not raise a significant health concern, for cancer or non-cancer health effects. • Leaching of chemicals from the crumb rubber and turf system create no significant impact on groundwater. • Temperature survey shows significantly higher temperatures on the field than on the regular surface. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Use of Recycled Tire Materials on Playgrounds and Artificial Turf Fields. A Scoping-Level Field Monitoring Study of Synthetic Turf Fields and Playgrounds. 2009. This document presents the findings of a limited-scale scoping study to test a study protocol and monitoring methods for generating environmental data associated with the use of recycled tire material on synthetic turf fields and playgrounds. As part of this evaluation, data were collected at a limited number of sites. The full study protocol was implemented at two synthetic turf fields Packet Page 212 of 291 Literature Review Proposed Synthetic Turf Installation Page 4 of 14 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 and one playground. Additional samples were collected at four other synthetic turf fields and a second playground. Sampling sites were located in North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, and Maryland. • The document defines study parameters for validity, precision, and reliability. • Concentrations of PM10 and metals (including lead) measured in air above the turf fields were similar to background concentrations. • Concentrations of PM10 and metals at the playground site with high play activity were higher than background levels. • All PM10 concentrations were below National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM10 and Lead. • All VOCs were measured at extremely low concentrations and are typical of ambient air concentrations. • One VOC associated with tire crumb materials (methyl isobutyl ketone) was detected in the samples collected on one synthetic turf field but was not detected in the corresponding background sample. • On average, concentrations of components monitored in this study were below levels of concern. Windward Environmental, LLC. Initial Evaluation of Potential Human Health Risks Associated with Playing on Synthetic Turf Fields on Bainbridge Island. 2008 This document represents a review by toxicologist Michael Johns, PhD of the available scientific literature and publications regarding human health risks associated with synthetic turf fields for Bainbridge Island. He assessed the human exposure routes from playing on the field and runoff. His overall conclusion is provided here: Overall, the balance of the studies reviewed indicate that human health risks from playing on synthetic turf fields is minimal, even though low concentrations of some chemicals have been demonstrated to leach from the tire crumb, or volatilize as vapor. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, CDC Health Advisory #00275, Potential Exposure to Lead in Artificial Turf, June 19, 2008. This is a Centers for Disease Control Health (CDC) Advisory related to lead in turf. Lead was used in the grass blade material in older turf fields as a colorant. • Artificial turf made of nylon or nylon/polyethylene blend fibers contains levels of lead that pose a potential public health concern. Packet Page 213 of 291 Literature Review Proposed Synthetic Turf Installation Page 5 of 14 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 • Tests of artificial turf fields made with only polyethylene fibers showed that these fields contained very low levels of lead. • Some of the fields with elevated lead in either dust and/or turf fiber samples were weathered and visibly dusty The use of lead in artificial turf in this application has been reduced, if not eliminated, in the last 10 years. Connecticut Department of Public Health. Technical Fact Sheet – Health Questions about Artificial Turf. October 2007. This is a public information document that focuses on the potential health effects from playing on artificial turf fields. • The document provides a summary of gas and particle hazards. • The public is exposed to these chemicals in other ways. • The document provides a summary of the literature as of 2007. • “Based upon the current evidence, a public health risk appears unlikely. DPH does not believe there is a unique or significant exposure from chemicals that can be inhaled or ingested at these fields. However, there is still uncertainty and additional investigation is warranted.” The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. Department of Analytical Chemistry. Examination of Crumb Rubber Produced from Recycled Tires. August 2007. This is a very limited study with a budget of only $2,000. The study objective was to answer the following three questions. • Is it possible for compounds to volatilize or out-gas from the tire crumbs? • What compounds are released? • Can organic or elemental components be leached from the tire crumbs by water? The study concluded that it is possible for compounds to volatilize out, and identified the following four compounds: benzothiazole; hexadecane; 4-(tert-Octyl)-phenol; and butylated hyroxyanisole. They also found that zinc, selenium, lead, and cadmium can leach out of the material. This study is a bench test, conducted entirely in a laboratory. It does not evaluate the degree of risk to a human or environmental receptor. Packet Page 214 of 291 Literature Review Proposed Synthetic Turf Installation Page 6 of 14 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Preliminary Assessment of the Toxicity from Exposure to Crumb Rubber: its use in Playgrounds and Artificial Turf Playing Fields. June 2007. The study provided the following conclusions: • There is insufficient information to perform a complete formal exposure assessment/risk characterization on crumb rubber. • Sensitization to rubber in the project is plausible. • There is no obvious toxicological concern that crumb rubber would cause adverse health effects in the normal population. State of California. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Evaluation of Health Effects of Recycled Waste Tires in Playground and Track Products. January 2007. The playground surfaces were evaluated for the release of chemicals that could cause toxicity in children following ingestion or dermal contact. Three routes of child exposure to chemicals in the rubber were considered: 1) ingestion of loose rubber tire shreds (acute exposure), 2) ingestion via hand-to-surface contact followed by hand-to-mouth contact (chronic exposure), and 3) skin sensitization via dermal contact (acute exposure). • Evaluation of toxicity due to ingestion of tire shreds based on the existing literature: Unlikely acute health effects. Estimated cancer risk was well below one in a million. • Evaluation of toxicity due to ingestion of tire shreds based on gastric digestion simulation: Unlikely acute health effects. Estimated cancer risk was well below one in million. • Evaluation of toxicity due to chronic hand-to-surface-to-mouth activity: Unlikely acute health effects. Estimated cancer risk was slightly above one in a million. • Testing for skin sensitization by playground surfaces made of recycled tires: These surfaces would not cause skin sensitization in children, nor would they be expected to elicit skin reactions in children already sensitized to latex. • Evaluating the potential for damage to the local environment and ecology: Shredded tires used in applications above the ground water table, as is the case for playground surfaces, produced no toxicity in sentinel species. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority. Measurement of Air Pollution in Indoor Artificial Turf Halls. November 30, 2005. The study was limited to indoor turf fields. Packet Page 215 of 291 Literature Review Proposed Synthetic Turf Installation Page 7 of 14 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 • Comparison of three specific products for airborne dust, VOCs, and PAHs. • The results indicate that the use of rubber granulate from ground car tyres causes a considerable burden on the indoor environment. Scientific Journal Publications Risk Analysis. Bioaccessibility and Risk of Exposure to Metals and SVOCs in Artificial Turf Field Fill Materials and Fibers (Volume 34, No. 1, 2014). June 11, 2013. This study evaluates potential exposures from playing on artificial turf fields and associated risks to trace metals, SVOCs, and PAHs to examine typical artificial turf fibers, different types of infill, and samples from actual fields. • PAHs and SVOCs below detection limits. • Metals exposure to infill and artificial turf considered de minimus, with the exception of lead. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health (Volume 74, Issue 17, 2011). Synthetic Turf Field Investigation in Connecticut. [abstract only] 2011. The primary purpose of this study was to characterize the concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOC), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC), rubber-related chemicals such as benzothiazole (BZT) and nitrosamine, and particulate matter (PM(10)) in air at synthetic turf crumb rubber fields. • Results showed that personal concentrations were higher than stationary concentrations and were higher on turf than in background samples for certain VOCs. In some cases, personal VOC concentrations from natural grass fields were as high as those on turf. • Nitrosamine air levels were below reporting levels. • PM(10) air concentrations were not different between on-field and upwind locations. • All bulk lead (Pb) samples were below the public health target of 400 ppm. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health (Volume 74, Issue 17, 2011). Human Health Risk Assessment of Synthetic Turf Fields Based Upon Investigation of Five Fields in Connecticut. [abstract only] 2011. The State of Connecticut investigated emissions associated with four outdoor and one indoor synthetic turf field under summer conditions. On-field and background locations were sampled Packet Page 216 of 291 Literature Review Proposed Synthetic Turf Installation Page 8 of 14 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 using a variety of stationary and personal samplers. More than 20 chemicals of potential concern (COPC) were found to be above background and possibly field-related on both indoor and outdoor fields. These COPC were entered into separate risk assessments (1) for outdoor and indoor fields and (2) for children and adults. • This study found that outdoor and indoor synthetic turf fields are not associated with elevated adverse health risks. • The results are consistent with the findings of studies conducted by New York City, New York State, the EPA, and Norway. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. Hydroxypyrene in Urine of Football Players after Playing on Artificial Sports Field with Tire Crumb Infill. September 25, 2009. This study was performed to assess the exposure of football (soccer) players to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons due to sporting on artificial ground with rubber crumb infill. • Hydroxypyrene is a PAH, and was used as a marker for PAH uptake. • This study provides evidence that uptake of PAH by football players active on artificial grounds with rubber crumb infill is minimal. If there is any exposure, then the uptake is very limited and within the range of uptake of PAH from environmental sources and/or diet. Cancer Causes Control. Occupational Exposure to Carbon Black and Risk of Cancer (Volume 15. No 5). June 2004. This study was conducted to investigate cancer risk in dockyard workers exposed to carbon black in Genova, Italy. • Carbon black exposure linked to bladder cancer in dockworkers in Genova, Italy. Public Interest Group Documents Center for Environmental Health (CEH). A Cocktail of Harmful Chemicals in Artificial Turf Infill. Not Dated. The CEH is a public advocacy group with a stated mission to protect people from toxic chemicals. The CEH does not conduct or commission any of its own scientific research. This short article raises concerns about health impacts to children from artificial turf infill. Dr. Landrigan Curriculum Vitae, not dated Packet Page 217 of 291 Literature Review Proposed Synthetic Turf Installation Page 9 of 14 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 Mount Sinai Pediatrician who has raised concern over the use of crumb rubber and artificial turf. Mount Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center, What to Know about Artificial Turf, 2011. This document is a two-page public health information flyer about health risks of playing on artificial turf fields. The document was produced by Dr. Landrigan’s organization. • Proven hazards are heat and friction abrasions. • Chemical exposures are not known. • Concerns about artificial turf are primarily the heat effects, the variability of crumb rubber composition, the risks of exposures due to frequent hand to mouth behavior in young children, and the lack of research addressing multiple exposures to vulnerable populations including children. Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI). Artificial Turf: Exposure to Ground Up Rubber Tires – Athletic Fields, Playgrounds, Garden Mulch. 2007. EHHI is a public advocacy group stating that they are dedicated to protecting human health from environmental harms through research, education and promotion of sound public policy. • EHHI does not conduct any of its own scientific research. • For this publication, EHHI relies on the very limited $2,000 study conducted by the Connecticut Agricultural Research Station in 2007. • EHHI lists the following theoretical risks from using artificial turf fields: o Severe irritation of the respiratory system o Severe irritation of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes o Systemic effects on the liver and kidneys o Neurotoxic responses o Allergic reactions o Cancers o Developmental effects Environmental Research Foundation. Rachel’s Democracy and Health News #956. Hazardous Chemicals in Synthetic Turf: A Research Review. December 13, 2007. The Environmental Research Foundation was a public advocacy group with a mission of environmental justice and sustainability. They are no longer publishing, but maintain their website as an archive of former articles. Packet Page 218 of 291 Literature Review Proposed Synthetic Turf Installation Page 10 of 14 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 • Hazardous chemicals are clearly present in synthetic turf rubber granules that are made from recycled tires. • Some metals in the granules, including zinc, leach into water and, if they behave like the metals in other rubber tire material, they can kill aquatic life. However, it is not yet clear whether this leaching presents a health risk to humans and other species in ordinary life conditions. • It also is unclear whether the various toxic chemicals in the rubber granules can be absorbed into the bodies of children and athletes through inhalation, ingestion, or skin contact. Much more research is needed. • Although some reports have concluded that the risks are minimal, such conclusions are premature. Private Turf Industry Studies Teter Engineering, Analysis of Crumb Rubber Infill, SprintTurf, March 17, 2015. Two crumb rubber infill samples were analyzed for total metals, total SVOCs/PAHs, leachable metals, and leachable SVOCs/PAHs. • The concentrations of metals detected in the samples fall below the California soil screening levels (CHHSLs) for unrestricted land use, which are highly conservative for a recreational use scenario. • Although PAHs were detected in both crumb rubber infill samples, the additional cancer risk from exposure during a recreational use scenario is estimated to fall below the EPA de minimus risk level of 1:1,000,000. • The additional cancer risk from exposure to PAHs in crumb rubber was indistinguishable from the additional cancer risk from exposure to background levels of PAHs and arsenic in rural and urban surface soils. Playground Professionals News Center. New Independent Lab Testing of Synthetic Turf Crumb Rubber Infill Reconfirms Health and Safety. November 25, 2014. This report provides the result of independent testing of a field at Lower Canada College by a French laboratory. • The study concluded that their new synthetic turf field is “safe for continued use by children of all ages”. Packet Page 219 of 291 Literature Review Proposed Synthetic Turf Installation Page 11 of 14 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 Ardea Consulting. An Assessment of Environmental Toxicity and Potential Contamination from Artificial Turf using Shredded or Crumb Rubber. March 28, 2006. This was a toxicological study commissioned by Turfgrass Producers International. It was one of the earliest studies. The study concluded that there was insufficient data to draw conclusions related to the theoretical toxicity of artificial turf fields with crumb rubber. Periodicals Scientific American. Study Says Carbon Nanotubes as Dangerous as Asbestos. May 20, 2008. This magazine article identifies a risk from carbon nanotubes that may have similar properties and health effects as asbestos. There appears to be no direct link between carbon nanotubes and artificial turf or crumb rubber. Carbon nanotubes are specialized microparticles designed and constructed for specific applications. The rubber in crumb rubber is a crude product made from ground up tires, with relatively large particle sizes. There is no link that I can find between carbon nanotubes and crumb rubber. Environmental Health Perspectives. Synthetic Turf – Health Debate Takes Root. March 2008. This article provides a summary of the issues as of 2008. Community News/Blog Journalism The Heights Observer. Play it Safe with Artificial Turf. January 31, 2013. This community newspaper from Cleveland Heights, Ohio introduces the debate related to artificial turf. The article references the concerns noted by Dr. Landrigan. Legislation State of California, Senate Bill No. 47, December 17, 2014. This bill would require the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to prepare a study analyzing synthetic turf for potential adverse health impacts. Other Federation International Football Association (FIFA). An Open Letter concerning the potential cancer risk from certain granulate infills from artificial turf. July 12, 2006. • FIFA conducted a review of available data. Packet Page 220 of 291 Literature Review Proposed Synthetic Turf Installation Page 12 of 14 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 • They concluded that the studies to date have concluded that “PAHs [Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons] are not released or at most negligibly released from tyre abradate” (The University of Dortmund Institute for Environmental Research 1997). Epidemiological studies conducted by the Health Effects Institute, The World Health Organization and other investigators do not implicate tyre wear particles in ambient air as contributing to human health effects (respiratory and cardiovascular diseases) Summary of Literature Review The documents provided for review by the ESD offered a broad perspective on the issues of actual and theoretical health risks associated with artificial turf fields with crumb rubber. For the purposes of this memorandum, actual health risks are those that are not disputed and are based on scientific or physical evidence. Theoretical health risks are those that seem plausible, but are not yet substantiated by scientific or physical evidence. The documents include: • Studies and information bulletins issued by international, federal, state, and municipal regulatory agencies and departments; • Studies published in scientific journals, conducted by academics, and funded by public sources; • Studies commissioned by industry groups; • Opinions issued by public interest groups and turf users; and • Journalism sources, to include periodicals, web postings, and newsletters. Some of the documents illustrated the advantages of artificial turf fields over grass fields for safety and environmental benefits, as summarized: • artificial turf fields require reduced water usage; • installation of artificial turf fields may result in overall reduced costs and effort to maintain; • artificial turf fields may avoid the use of pesticides, herbicides, and other lawn chemicals required to maintain a grass field; • the extra cushion provided by artificial turf fields may reduce the frequency or severity of fractures and other traumatic injuries; • artificial turf fields offer the ability to play on the field during a variety of weather conditions; and • artificial turf fields provide a recycling alternative for the vast stockpile of waste tires. Packet Page 221 of 291 Literature Review Proposed Synthetic Turf Installation Page 13 of 14 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 Some documents highlight what can be considered actual health risks or hazards associated with playing on artificial turf fields with crumb rubber. These actual hazards were described in the Mount Sinai Hospital information document. These include: • Artificial turf field surfaces can develop elevated heat relative to natural surfaces, which may create a condition of discomfort for athletes. This condition only exists during high ambient temperature periods. • Athletes who fall on artificial turf fields can have friction burns or turf abrasions, which can be more severe than what would occur on natural surfaces. The larger issue, and one much more difficult to manage and address, are the theoretical risks associated with artificial turf and crumb rubber. The theoretical risks are assigned by theory based on the materials present in the artificial turf and crumb rubber and what is known about these chemicals in other applications. The chemicals and properties of concern associated with artificial turf and crumb rubber are: • Volatile organic compounds and semi-volatile organic compounds, such as benzothiazole, hexadecane, 4-(tert-Octyl)-phenol, and butylated hyroxyanisole; • Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, such as hydroxypyrene; • Metals, such as lead, zinc, selenium, and cadmium. It should be noted that the use of lead chromate in new artificial turf has been greatly reduced compared to earlier field materials; • Carbon black, which is a petroleum product formed by incomplete combustion of heavy petroleum products and which accounts for an estimated 80 percent of tire mass; • Particulate, usually studied in crumb rubber studies as PM-10, but also referenced in the documents in nano-particulate size. Cancer is the most frequently cited theoretical adverse health outcome. The 2014 KOMO news report focused on the incidence of cancer among soccer goalies and time spent on artificial turf fields with crumb rubber. There does not appear to be any scientific evidence or causal link to corroborate the findings in the KOMO report. Studies that appear to exhibit rigorous scientific validity find no additional risk from the chemicals or physical properties of artificial turf and crumb rubber. Many of the studies note that the chemicals are already prevalent in our environment. The addition of exposures from turf fields with crumb rubber do not appear to increase risk above what is already present in the population. The documents acknowledge that health assessments of artificial turf fields with crumb rubber are made more complicated by a number of factors: • the variety of material used in the products; Packet Page 222 of 291 Literature Review Proposed Synthetic Turf Installation Page 14 of 14 Edmonds School District April 14, 2015 • the variety of applications. For example, artificial turf with crumb rubber on indoor fields appears to have more evidence of potential exposures without the advantage of natural ventilation and dilution; and • the age and condition of the field material. The studies acknowledge that turf field materials contain hazardous constituents and that the public, notably children, are in contact with these hazardous constituents. What has not been demonstrated, however, is an exposure pathway by which the constituents can enter the body of the field users and do damage or initiate disease. For a hazardous material to actually present a risk for the end user there has to be a pathway of exposure and a way for the chemical to do damage. One of the chemicals proposed as a hazardous constituent of crumb rubber illustrates this point. Carbon black is classified by the IARC as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Most of the data available linking carbon black to cancer comes from occupational studies, where workers were exposed to high concentrations of fine carbon black dust for many years. The studies evaluated during this review did not document the presence of fine particulate or specifically identify carbon black. It appears likely that the carbon black in artificial turf/crumb rubber systems remains bound in the relatively large chunks of tire rubber, making it unavailable for distribution as a fine dust and therefore unavailable for uptake by the field users. Based on the scientific research, there is neither the dose, nor the exposure route, to indicate a health hazard for artificial turf/crumb rubber field users. All studies acknowledge that additional data is needed to more fully assess potential exposures and possible health risks associate with the use of artificial turf fields with crumb rubber. In the meantime, leading public health agencies, such as the EPA and Consumer Product Safety Commission, are supporting continued use of artificial turf fields with crumb rubber. Please call me if you have any questions about the information provided. Elisabeth Black CIH EMB Consulting, LLC 206.915.2395 Packet Page 223 of 291 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\r052615z.docx May 26, 2015 George Kosovich Assistant Superintendent, Programs & Community Investments Verdant Health Commission Public Hospital District No. 2, Snohomish County 4710 196th St. S.W. Lynnwood, WA 98036 Re: Evaluation of Human Health Risks for Synthetic Field Turf Dear Mr. Kosovich: We are pleased to provide you with a screening level risk assessment and literature review related to the use of artificial turf fields at the former Woodway High School fields. As discussed in our proposed scope of work provided on May 13, 2015 this is a limited assessment that has focused on publically available data, supplemented in some cases by additional data provided by manufacturers. Our proposed scope of work originally specified that three different turf infills (FieldTurf SBR, GeoTurf, and NikeGrind) would be evaluated (in addition to our general review). Unfortunately, data from only the first two of the specific products were provided in time for inclusion in this report. However, we have evaluated some preliminary data for the NikeGrind product and its risk profile does not appear to be substantially different from the other products. This evaluation is only intended to address potential risks from chemical exposures related to artificial turf products, and does not address ecological concerns, physical injuries, or heat stress. Our evaluation is intended to illustrate the current "state of the science" related to artificial turf infills. Where information was lacking we used the best information available to address data gaps and uncertainties. In addition to providing the results of our risk assessment, we have provided an introduction to many of the concepts of toxicology, exposure evaluation, and risk assessment to help provide context for our work. Those sections, the results, and conclusions of our evaluation are provided below. Based on the data publically available for this analysis, the chemical levels found in FieldTurf SBR and GeoTurf infill do not present a risk to people playing on or using the fields with these products. These conclusions are consistent with those of multiple regulatory agencies that have evaluated the risk from artificial turf products in general (e.g., CalOEHHA, 2007; New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2009; US EPA, 2009; Connecticut Dept. of Public Health, 2010; CalOEHHA, 2010), including evaluations that are more complex than this screening level assessment. Although there are limitations with a screening level risk assessment such as this one, the consistent conclusions from other evaluations that the data do not indicate an increased risk of health effects from chemical exposure lends additional support to our conclusion. Introduction to Toxicology Paracelsus, a founder of modern toxicology, was one of the first to understand that specific chemicals cause the toxic effects of a poison (EC, 2003). As such, toxicology is defined as "the study of how natural or man-made poisons cause undesirable effects in living organisms" (ATSDR, 2011). The Packet Page 224 of 291 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\r052615z.docx 2 degree to which a substance can cause damage is described as it's "toxicity", and the toxicity of a substance depends on several factors, including the amount (dose) entering the body, the route of entry into the body, and biological characteristics of the exposed individual (ATSDR, 2011; EC, 2003). These factors are critical to the study of toxicology, and are discussed in more detail below. Dose  The dose is the actual amount of a chemical that enters the body.  Paracelsus postulated that the body's response to a poison was directly related to the dose received. He is best known for coining the phrase that is the fundamental assumption in toxicology, "All substances are poisons: there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy." (Society of Toxicology, 2015).  Essentially, this means that all chemicals can be toxic and it is the amount taken into the body that determines whether or not they will cause poisonous effects. Therefore, toxicity is not caused solely by any exposure to a particular chemical, but by exposure to too much of it.  This concept is now referred to as the dose-response relationship, which correlates exposure and the spectrum of observable effects (EC, 2003).  The amount of a substance that is necessary to elicit an effect can be established by measuring the response relative to an increasing dose using experimental animal, human clinical, or cellular studies (EC, 2003).  The dose level at which a toxic effect is first encountered is known as the threshold dose (ATSDR, 2011; EC, 2003). At doses below the threshold, the body can negate the substance's effects by detoxifying or repairing any injury. However, once these protective mechanisms are overwhelmed, the injury can no longer be prevented and the severity of the damage increases. Some regulatory agencies assume for substances that cause cancer there is no threshold (ATSDR, 2011); however, research has shown that thresholds may be dependent on how the carcinogen functions.  When looking at experimental data, the threshold is referred to as the lowest observable adverse effect level (LOAEL) and the dose below it in which there was no effect is referred to as the no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) (EC, 2003). The NOAEL and the LOAEL are important doses used in risk assessment to develop health guideline levels.  The dose-response relationship can be visualized in Figure 1 below. Packet Page 225 of 291 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\r052615z.docx 3 Figure 1 Dose-response Relationship. Circles indicate experimental observations, with the yellow circle indicating the dose at which no adverse effect was observed (NOAEL) and the orange circle indicating the threshold dose, also known as the lowest observable adverse effect level (LOAEL). Adapted from Lewandowski and Norman (2015).  A real-world example of a substance that has an obvious dose-response relationship is aspirin. As shown in Figure 2, low doses of aspirin (~1-2 tablets) are recommended as a therapeutic dose as a prophylactic against heart disease and to alleviate headaches. However, once this threshold has been met, adverse effects occur, and the severity of effect increases with dose. For instance, ingesting 10 tablets may cause nausea while ingesting 100 tablets will cause death. Figure 2. The Dose-Dependent Effects of Aspirin (based on information in Hardman et al., 2001) Packet Page 226 of 291 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\r052615z.docx 4 Exposure  Chemicals need to first come into contact with the body before they can cause adverse effects (CCOHS, 2015). They then must reach the target site within the body (EC, 2003).  There are two main factors that affect an individual's exposure to a substance: (1) the route of exposure; and (2) the frequency and duration of exposure (ATSDR, 2011, EC, 2003).  Routes of exposure include oral (ingesting the substance), dermal (skin contact with the substance), or inhalation (breathing in the substance) (EC, 2003 215-4854). Biological Characteristics  Biological characteristics are factors specific to the individual exposed to the chemical. They include age, sex, diet, co-existence of infectious disease, and other genetic determinants (EC, 2003).  These factors affect exposure and dose through modifying uptake, absorption, distribution and metabolism of the chemical, and in doing so, alter the response to the insult (EC, 2003). Susceptible populations may include babies, pregnant women, and the chronically ill, and the elderly. Introduction to Risk Assessment Risk assessment is the systematic evaluation of the likelihood of an adverse effect arising from exposure in a defined population. In the context of the risk assessment, risk is defined as the "probability of an adverse outcome based upon the exposure and potency of the hazardous agent(s)." (Faustman & Omenn, 2008). What this ultimately means is that without exposure and toxicity, there is no risk. The risk assessment process contains both qualitative and quantitative components, as qualitative information (i.e., the nature of the endpoints and hazards) is incorporated with a quantitative analysis (i.e., assessment of the exposures, individual susceptibility factors, and the magnitude of the hazard) (Faustman & Omenn, 2008). The results of the risk assessment are used to facilitate risk management and guide the decision making process. Standard Regulatory Risk Assessment  The standard risk assessment framework has four key steps: hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, and risk characterization (Faustman & Omenn, 2008).  Hazard identification involves assessing the toxicity of chemicals and examines whether a stressor has the potential to cause harm to humans systems, and if so, under what circumstances (US EPA, 2012a).  It ultimately answers the question: Does the agent cause adverse health effects?  Toxicity or dose-response assessment examines the numerical relationship between exposure and effects (US EPA, 2012a).  It answers the question: What is the relationship between dose and response? Packet Page 227 of 291 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\r052615z.docx 5  This step has two components: (1) an assessment of all of the available data and the selection of the critical adverse effect (i.e., the significant adverse biological effect that occurs at the lowest exposure level, which depending on the data, is usually the LOAEL or the NOAEL) and (2) extrapolation to estimate the risk beyond the lower range of available observed data taking into account uncertainties in the data (such as variability, susceptibility, and quality of the data) (US EPA, 2012b).  The critical adverse effect is also known as the point of departure and the extrapolation to human-relevant doses is also known as calculating the reference dose (RfD). Mathematically:  RfD = point of departure / uncertainty factors  US EPA defines the RfD as, "An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime."  Exposure assessment examines what is known about the frequency, timing, and levels of contact with a hazard (US EPA, 2012a).  It answers the question: What types, levels, and duration of exposure are experienced or anticipated?  This step involves determining the sources of exposure, route, and nature of the exposure followed by an estimation of exposure to the population of interest using standard calculations. For example, to determine if the artificial turf fields pose a health hazard, one would have to know the frequency, timing, and level of contact with the field. In addition, the concentration of potential contaminants in the field would have to be known, either via measured data or modeling estimations.  Risk characterization evaluates how the data support the conclusions and the nature of the risk from the exposure at issue (US EPA, 2012a).  It answers the question: What is the extra risk of health problems in the exposed population?  The primary quantitative steps in the risk characterization are the calculation of the hazard index (HI) and cancer risk. These values are compared to "acceptable" risk levels published by regulatory agencies (in general, for non-carcinogens, an HI < 1 is acceptable, and for carcinogens a cancer risk less than 1 in a million is acceptable).  Depending on the results of the quantitative assessment, the risk characterization may provide additional detail on the toxicity of the chemicals involved, including comparison of exposure to health effects levels (as opposed to RfDs or guideline levels).  In addition, the risk characterization usually contains a discussion of uncertainty and the overall conclusions of the assessment. Screening Risk Assessment In some cases, a screening level risk assessment is conducted prior to a standard risk assessment as a means of determining whether a standard risk assessment is necessary. Screening risk assessments use a variety of conservative (i.e., health protective) assumptions in an attempt to insure that health risks are not underestimated. In other words, risks calculated in screening risk assessment are most likely Packet Page 228 of 291 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\r052615z.docx 6 overestimated. The result of this practice is that if the calculated risks in a screening risk assessment are within acceptable parameters, the risk assessor can be fairly certain that exposure to the chemical in question does not pose a health risk.  In a screening level risk assessment, hazard identification usually is already completed to some extent, and analytical data is available for the evaluation  The toxicity assessment is simplified by using screening guideline values that have already been published by various governmental or regulatory agencies. These health effect guideline values are not in units of dose (as is typical for a standard risk assessment), but are in units of the exposure medium (e.g., soil, water, air) to allow for simple comparisons to environmental sampling data.  Instead of conducting a detailed exposure assessment, simplified assumptions are used in the calculation of the screening guideline values described in the toxicity assessment. For instance, US EPA uses a standard body weight of 70 kg (154 lbs) and a water consumption rate of 2 L (0.53 gallons) to convert a US EPA RfD into a screening level that can be compared to a chemical's concentration in water.  The risk characterization portion of a screening risk assessment contains many of the similar components as a standard risk assessment. Concentrations that exceed health guideline values are discussed and evaluated, and sources of uncertainty and/or variability in the evaluation are detailed.  Example: Screening Risk Assessment for Chlorine Gas At a Public Pool  Users of a local pool have been concerned about the chlorine odor at the pool, and wonder if their exposure might put them at risk for health effects.  A local environmental consulting company has been to the pool, and collected several air samples and sent them to a laboratory for analysis. The maximum air concentration reported by the laboratory was 0.003 μg/m3.  The US EPA residential screening level (RSL) for chlorine gas is 0.015 μg/m3.  As the maximum concentration at the pool is significantly less (5-fold) than the screening level, there is no expectation of risk to the pool users.  If the maximum concentration had instead been 0.018 μg/m3 (above the RSL), that does not necessarily indicate there is a health risk due to the conservative nature of the RSL. In this situation, a risk assessor would evaluate how the RSL was derived, the uncertainty factors involved, the critical effect, the population exposed, and any number of other factors and determine if further investigation (e.g., a standard risk assessment) was warranted. Artificial Turf Risk Assessment In order to evaluate the possible risk from exposure to chemicals in the two types of artificial turf products (as well as to artificial turf products in general), a screening risk assessment was conducted in addition to a review of the literature relevant to these products. This review was extensive, but should not be considered exhaustive due to the voluminous database and limited time available. The exposure scenarios of interest include children, adolescents, or adults playing on the surface or watching from nearby. Thus several different screening guidelines that are protective of ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact were selected for this evaluation. Chemical concentrations in samples of Packet Page 229 of 291 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\r052615z.docx 7 artificial turf products were compared to US EPA RSL residential soil guidelines (US EPA, 2015), concentrations of chemicals detected in ambient air above artificial turf products were compared to US EPA RSL residential air guidelines, and concentrations detected using product leaching protocols were compared to health based groundwater protection standards (NJDEP, 2013). These guidelines should be considered to be conservative (e.g., health protective) for assessment of a product such as artificial turf. For example, the soil and air RSL guidelines are intended to be protective of people (including sensitive subpopulations and children) exposed to chemicals 365 days per year for a lifetime. For soil, these guidelines assume dermal contact with the soil, inhalation of soil dust, and ingestion of soil particles. Considerations Screening level risk assessments are intended to be simplified exercises to determine if the possible risks related to an exposure are significant enough to warrant further investigation. In many cases, as mentioned above, exceeding a screening guideline does not necessarily indicate that a risk is likely. This is particularly true for a product based risk assessment, such as for artificial turf products. Several important considerations are detailed below.  A significant volume of literature was evaluated to identify metal and organic chemical concentrations in artificial turf products, in the ambient air above those products, and in leachate from those products. The data collected can be found in Appendix A. However, the limited time frame for compilation of these data indicate that this literature search should be considered extensive, but not exhaustive.  The data collected range in date from 2008 to 2014. There are many different types of products involved, from multiple manufacturers. As two of the products of considerable interest to the Verdant Health Commission were FieldTurf SBR and GeoTurf, we have limited our summary tables in this report to data from those two products. In addition, due to the reformulation of many products due to issues related to lead in 2008, we have focused on data that have been produced since 2010. The other data evaluated are in the appendices, and will be discussed qualitatively.  As discussed briefly above, the soil and air RSL guidelines are intended for use at residential sites where exposure occurs from a variety of pathways over a lifetime. In addition, these guidelines assume that exposure is through the media of interest—namely, soil or air. The bioavailability1 of these chemicals from artificial turf products appears to be substantially different than from soil and possibly air. Studies that have evaluated the bioavailability of chemicals from artificial turf have noted that there is likely to be limited availability from this substance (Pavilonis et al., 2014; van Rooij and Jongeneelen, 2010; CalOEEHA 2007; US EPA, 2009). 1 The bioavailability of a substance is a measure of how much is absorbed via a particular route of exposure. For instance, when arsenic is ingested in soil, only about 60% of the total ingested is absorbed. Packet Page 230 of 291 \\ c a m f s \ G _ D r i v e \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ T e x t P r o c \ r 0 5 2 6 1 5 z . d o c x 8 Ta b l e 1 Co m p a r i s o n of Tu r f Ch e m i c a l Co n t e n t to Re s i d e n t i a l So i l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l s Ch e m i c a l Re s i d e n t i a l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l , HQ = 0. 1 (m g / k g ) Wa s h i n g t o n St a t e / Se a t t l e Ar e a Ba c k g r o u n d Le v e l s (9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e or Ra n g e ) Cu r t i s & To m p k i n s (2 0 1 1 ) fo r Li m o n t a Sp o r t US A 1 Te t e r En g i n e e r i n g (2 0 1 5 ) fo r Sp r i n t u r f 2 Li m o n t a In f i l l ‐ Pr o Ge o (m g / k g ) Li m o n t a Tu r f ‐ Ma x ‐S (m g / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f Am b i e n t Cr u m b Ru b b e r (C u r t i s & To m p k i n s , 20 1 3 b ) (m g / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f Cr y o g e n i c Cr u m b Ru b b e r (C u r t i s & To m p k i n s , 20 1 3 b ) (m g / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f Cr u m b Ru b b e r (2 Ye a r s of Ag e ) (L i o y an d We i s e l , 20 1 1 ) (m g / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f Cr u m b Ru b b e r (2 Ye a r s of Ag e ) (L i o y an d We i s e l , 20 1 2 ) (m g / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f SBR (T e s t A m e r i c a , 2011a) (mg/kg) FieldTurf SBR (TestAmerica, 2011b) (mg/kg) Me t a l s An t i m o n y 3. 1 NI N D N D 3. 7 3. 4 NA NA Co b a l t 2. 3 NA N D N D 13 0 12 0 NA NA Th a l l i u m 0. 0 7 8 NA 0. 9 ND < 0. 7 4 < 0. 8 NA NA Zi n c 2, 3 0 0 85 1 1 4 5 16 , 0 0 0 13 , 0 0 0 NA NA SV O C s an d VO C s Be n z o ( a ) a n t h r a c e n e 0. 1 5 0. 0 0 1 6 ‐6. 0 < 9.7 < 62 Be n z o ( a ) p y r e n e 0. 0 1 5 0. 0 0 1 7 ‐6. 7 < 9.7 < 62 Be n z o ( b ) f l u o r a n t h e n e 0. 1 5 0. 0 0 3 2 ‐7. 3 < 9.7 < 62 Be n z o ( k ) f l u o r a n t h e n e 1. 5 0. 0 0 1 3 ‐2. 0 < 9.7 < 62 Bi s ( 2 ‐et h y l h e x y l ) p h t h a l a t e 38 90 160 No t e s : HQ = Ha z a r d Qu o t i e n t ; SB R = St y r e n e bu t a d i e n e ru b b e r ; SV O C = Se m i v o l a t i l e Or g a n i c Co m p o u n d ; VO C = Vo l a t i l e Or g a n i c Co m p o u n d . (1 ) Da t a fr o m Cu r t i s & To m p k i n s (2 0 1 1 , pp . 5 ‐6) . (2 ) Da t a fr o m Te t e r En g i n e e r i n g (2 0 1 5 , Ap p e n d i x Ta b l e A ‐1, A ‐3) . No t e th a t th e va l u e s fr o m Ta b l e A ‐3 we r e co n v e rt e d to mg / k g fo r co m p a r i s o n ac r o s s st u d i e s . NA = No t An a l y z e d ; ND = No t de t e c t e d ; NI = No t id e n t i f i e d . Hi g h l i g h t e d ce l l s ar e th o s e wi t h va l u e s ab o v e th e i r re s p e c t i v e Re s i d e n t i a l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l s . Da t a wa s no t re p o r t e d fo r bl a n k ce l l s . Packet Page 231 of 291 \\ c a m f s \ G _ D r i v e \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ T e x t P r o c \ r 0 5 2 6 1 5 z . d o c x 9 Ta b l e 2 Co m p a r i s o n of Tu r f Le a c h i n g Re s u l t s to Re g u l a t o r y Gu i d e l i n e Le v e l s Ch e m i c a l Gu i d e l i n e Le v e l (µ g / L ) Cu r t i s & To m p k i n s (2 0 1 1 ) fo r Li m o n t a Sp o r t US A 1 Te t e r En g i n e e r i n g (2 0 1 5 ) fo r Sp r i n t u r f 2 Li m o n t a In f i l l ‐Pr o Ge o (µ g / L ) Li m o n t a Tu r f ‐Ma x ‐S (µ g / L ) Fi e l d T u r f ‐SP L P Cr y o g e n i c Cr u m b Ru b b e r (A ‐10 0 7 / T 1 2 ) (L i et al . , 20 1 0 a ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d T u r f ‐SP L P Am b i e n t Cr u m b Ru b b e r (C u r t i s & To m p k i n s , 20 1 3 b ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d T u r f ‐SP L P Cr y o g e n i c Cr u m b Ru b b e r (C u r t i s & To m p k i n s , 20 1 3 b ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d T u r f ‐WE T SB R (T e s t A m e r i c a , 20 1 1 a ) (µ g / L ) FieldTurf ‐WET SBR (TestAmerica, 2011b) (µg/L) Me t a l s Al u m i n u m 4, 0 0 0 An t i m o n y 12 0 ND ND NA < 1 < 1 < 20 0 < 200 Ar s e n i c 3 ND ND < 3. 0 < 1. 2 < 1. 2 < 20 0 < 200 Ba r i u m 12 0 , 0 0 0 43 0 ND 13 2. 8 < 1 22 0 < 200 Be r y l l i u m 20 ND ND NA < 4. 3 < 4. 3 < 80 < 80 Ca d m i u m 80 ND ND < 1 < 1. 3 < 1. 3 < 10 0 < 100 Co b a l t 2, 0 0 0 ND ND NA 1. 1 2. 4 < 20 0 < 200 Co p p e r 26 , 0 0 0 ND ND 0. 6 9 < 1 9. 7 88 0 310 Le a d 10 0 ND ND 0. 1 9 < 1 < 1 < 10 0 < 100 Ma n g a n e s e 1, 0 0 0 Me r c u r y 40 ND ND NA < 0. 2 < 0. 2 < 2 < 2 Ni c k e l 2, 0 0 0 (s o l u b l e sa l t s ) ND ND 0. 6 5 < 3. 0 < 3. 0 < 20 0 < 200 Se l e n i u m 80 0 ND ND NA < 1 < 1 < 20 0 < 200 Si l v e r 80 0 ND ND NA < 1 < 1 < 20 0 < 200 Th a l l i u m 10 ND ND NA < 1 < 1 < 20 0 < 200 Va n a d i u m 2 ND ND NA < 1. 1 < 1. 1 < 20 0 < 200 Zi n c 40 , 0 0 0 ND ND 2, 4 5 0 24 0 87 0 15 , 0 0 0 5,900 No t e s : NA = No t an a l y z e d ; ND = No t de t e c t e d ; SB R = St y r e n e bu t a d i e n e ru b b e r ; SP L P = Sy n t h e t i c pr e c i p i t a t i o n le a c h a t e pr o c e d u r e . (1 ) Da t a fr o m Cu r t i s & To m p k i n s (2 0 1 1 , pp . 13 ‐14 ) . (2 ) Da t a fr o m Ta b l e A ‐2 an d A ‐4. Da t a wa s no t re p o r t e d fo r bl a n k ce l l s . Packet Page 232 of 291 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\r052615z.docx 10 Chemical Characteristics of SBR Infill The substances that exceeded a screening guideline in at least one artificial turf product sample (using the selection criteria discussed above) are presented in Tables 1 and 2. In addition, the Washington State soil background concentrations of these substances are also presented. The implications of these exceedances are discussed below.  Of the 55 chemicals tested in the soil analyses, 51 (93%) were below their respective screening guidelines.  In every case except one, the exceedances are less than an order of magnitude (10-fold). Given the conservative nature of these RSL guidelines, it is unlikely that these exceedances are significant in terms of excess risk.  In addition to the less than 10-fold exceedances, as mentioned above these chemicals are all embedded in a matrix that multiple studies (Pavilonis et al., 2014; van Rooij and Jongeneelen, 2010; CalOEEHA, 2007; US EPA, 2009) have deemed renders them less bioavailable when ingested or exposed dermally.  The one exceedance that is greater than an order of magnitude is for cobalt. As noted previously, the use of conservative screening guidelines as well as the lack of bioavailability of this metal from the SBR make any adverse health effects unlikely. In addition, the toxicity value used to derive the cobalt RSL is called a "Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Value" (PPRTV). These are secondary toxicity values used when US EPA has not derived a value using the standard process. The PPRTV for cobalt is based on a 2 week human study that saw decreased iodine uptake in the thyroid, which was then reduced by a factor of 3,000 to address limited data. The US EPA rates the confidence in this value as "low." Based on this evaluation, the likelihood of cobalt exposure from artificial turf products constituting a health threat is low.  Data from the recent studies of FieldTurf SBR do not show detectable levels of PAHs (see Table 1); however, the limit of detection in these samples is higher than the RSL guidelines. Samples from older studies of FieldTurf SBR have detected PAHs in the product (see Appendix A). The levels detected are similar to those seen in normal Seattle residential area soils (see Table 1; WDOE, 2011).  Leaching data (Table 2) from FieldTurf SBR indicate that no applicable screening guidelines were exceeded (60 of 60 passed). Chemical Characteristics of GeoTurf Infill As with the FieldTurf SBR results, the levels of compounds found in GeoTurf are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Several important considerations are detailed below.  Of the 17 chemicals tested in the soil analyses, 16 (94%) were below their respective screening guidelines.  Only one compound in GeoTurf exceeded a US EPA RSL—thallium. This compound exceeded its RSL by over an order of magnitude. As with cobalt, the toxicity value used to derive thallium's RSL is a PPRTV. The basis for the RSL is hair follicle atrophy observed in a rat study, which was considered to be similar to effects observed in humans. The observed dose was Packet Page 233 of 291 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\r052615z.docx 11 adjusted by a 3,000 fold to address limited data. Based on this evaluation, the likelihood of thallium exposure from artificial turf products constituting a health threat is low.  There is a significant uncertainty in the evaluation of GeoTurf infill due to the lack of analytical data comparable to SBR studies. No literature data were found that evaluated any organic compounds or pesticides which might be applied to natural products. Additional data related to this was requested from the manufacturer.  Leaching data (Table 2) from GeoTurf indicate that no applicable screening guidelines were exceeded (18 of 18 passed). Overall Evaluation of Two Types of Infills Based on the data publically available for this analysis, the chemical levels found in FieldTurf SBR and GeoTurf infill do not present a risk to people playing on or using the fields with these products. In addition, for the PAH data available for SBR products, these products do not present a substantially different risk profile than playing in soil in the Seattle area. Some concern has been expressed regarding the possible carcinogenicity of SBR, either from the PAH and metal content (which do not appear to be substantially elevated or bioavailable), or from other unknown chemicals. Several studies have evaluated the in vitro genotoxicity or mutagenicity2 of actual SBR and have uniformly found that the substance tested negative or the results were comparable with urban sites in general (Birkholz et al., 2003; Schiliro et al., 2013). Uncertainty Analysis As with any scientific endeavor, there are a variety of sources of uncertainty in this analysis. Most of that uncertainty is related to the quality of the data that were identified for our screening risk assessment. Those issues are addressed specifically below. Data Quality  The air data available for this evaluation were inadequate to conduct an appropriate analysis of the risk from inhaling possible VOCs off-gassing from turf material or particulates associated with the FieldTurf SBR or GeoTurf infills. The studies of other SBR products that did conduct appropriate analyses found similar concentrations of chemicals upwind and downwind, however, which is supportive of minimal emissions from the turf surfaces. Thus, although a product specific analysis was not possible, a number of studies of other SBR surfaces indicate that chemical and particulate concentration above the fields are unlikely to pose a health risk.  The available data support that over time and across brands there is variability in the chemical composition of SBR. Data were not available related to multiple batches of GeoTurf. As noted in previous reviews, this variability adds a source of uncertainty into the analysis. However, in general, even with this uncertainty the levels of chemicals found in SBR over the years have not been found to present an unacceptable risk by multiple regulatory agencies.  There was a lack of data from GeoTurf for many of the chemicals evaluated for SBR. These include standard VOCs and SVOCs, as well as pesticides, which could be significant depending 2 In toxicology, in vitro (test tube) tests are often used to screen chemicals to determine if they might have cancer-causing potential. Packet Page 234 of 291 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\r052615z.docx 12 on where the coconut and cork components of the GeoTurf products are sourced. The impact of this uncertainty on the analysis cannot be determined without additional analytical data.  For each of the products, much of the composition data available has been determined by standard analytical methods. In some cases, there may be chemicals inherent in the base materials that have not been disclosed, or of which manufacturers are unaware. The impact of this uncertainty on the analysis cannot be determined without additional data on the source and composition of the base materials. However, in general it appears that the analytical methods chosen in each study are reasonable considering the origin of the product (i.e., it is reasonable to assume that recycled tires would contain metals, VOCs, SVOCs, etc.). Carbon Nanotubes  Carbon nanotubes are nanoparticles that may be used in tires, as well as many other products. There are many different types of nanotubes, with different physical and chemical characteristics. The toxicity of carbon nanotubes has been the subject of intense research over the last decade, with hundreds of studies being published on many different types of these materials (e.g., Manke et al., 2013; Kuempel et al., 2012).  Toxicity studies of carbon nanotubes have reported a wide range of toxicity depending on the structure of the nanotube, the nature of the test system (e.g., in vitro, animal), and type of effect (for example, see Grosse et al., 2014; Manke et al., 2013; Kuempel et al., 2012). The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has reviewed the toxicity of three different types of nanotubes; they found possible evidence of carcinogenicity for one specific type, but the data were not sufficient to classify the other two types they evaluated (Grosse et al., 2014).  Evaluating the risk from exposure to carbon nanotubes that may be present in artificial turf products is complicated by a number of factors. These include the lack of any information about concentration or type of nanotube in the source material, the lack of information on any transformation that may occur during manufacture of the tires, and the lack of information about the rate of release of the native nanotube versus an aggregated or agglomerated nanotube from the artificial turf product.  Even if the nature of the native nanotubes used to manufacture the tires used for SBR was known, it is likely that these nanotubes would undergo agglomeration or aggregation during the manufacturing process. In addition, they are embedded or encapsulated within the tire rubber. Thus, it is uncertain if the material that would be released from an artificial turf product such as SBR would resemble the original material or not. Studies of nanoparticle release from composites (Nowack et al., 2013; Froggett et al., 2014) and other products generally have found that most of the material released from the product is larger particles, with any nanomaterials imbedded within a matrix which would presumably limit their bioreactivity.  For the reasons discussed above, the impact of the uncertainties surrounding the possible addition of carbon nanotubes to tires on our analysis cannot be determined. However, based on the research conducted to date, it appears that nanotubes would not be released in their "original" chemical state, and would be weathered/eroded into chemically and/or physically different structures. Packet Page 235 of 291 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\r052615z.docx 13 Carbon Black  Carbon black is a powdered form of elemental carbon, which has a number of uses in consumer products. One of its most common uses is as reinforcing agent in rubber, including tires, but it is also used in pigments for inks, paints, plastics, and coatings. Depending on the manufacturing process, carbon black may have particle sizes ranging from nanometers to micrometers.  As with carbon nanotubes, the chemical characteristics of carbon black particles that are used to manufacture tires may not be the same characteristics as particles that may be produced as tire particles wear. Carbon black particles are expected to agglomerate and aggregate, and are embedded in the rubber matrix of tire crumb until there are released by wear and abrasion.  The toxicity of carbon black has primarily been informed by studies of carbon black workers, with high exposure levels unlikely to be relevant to artificial turf users. In relation to non-cancer effects, carbon black workers exposed to these high levels generally were subject to relatively minor respiratory tract symptoms such as cough, and bronchitis. These effects were similar to effects seen in workers exposed to other relatively inert dusts.  Given that the levels of particulate matter (which would include levels of carbon black) detected above artificial turf fields has been found to be low and consistently below general particulate matter guideline levels, it is relatively certain that carbon black exposures at artificial turf fields would be substantially lower than in worker populations.  The International Agency for Research on Cancer has labeled carbon black as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B), based primarily on epidemiology data from the worker populations discussed above. While this is a source of some uncertainty in our analysis, it is unlikely that the type of carbon black released from artificial turf products is similar to that which workers were exposed to, and the exposure levels would be expected to be much lower. Potential Allergic Reactions  Most reviews of possible health effects from exposure to artificial turf projects focus on systemic or organ-specific effects of exposure to chemicals. However, there is also the possibility for allergic responses to the chemicals in these substances. These include possible sensitization to metals, as well possible reactions to organic chemicals or biological proteins. Two organizations (Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 2006, CalOEHHA, 2010) did evaluate exposure to components of SBR and found no evidence that exposure to SBR (either metals or latex) resulted in allergic reactions. In the case of GeoTurf, some portion of the population may have an allergic response to coconut and/or cork; cases of occupational sensitization to coconut fibers and occupational asthma from cork dust have also been documented (Deschamps et al., 2003; Stutius et al., 2010; Winck et al., 2002 ; Winck et al., 2004; Wittczak et al., 2005). As noted with carbon black, it is unlikely that the levels of coconut fibers and/or cork dust about GeoTurf fields would approach those found in occupational settings. However, there are no sampling data available to determine if this is actually the case (as opposed to data with FieldTurf infills). This is not likely a source of significant uncertainty in our evaluation, but as no rigorous allergy testing or environmental sampling of GeoTurf has been conducted it should be considered. Packet Page 236 of 291 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\r052615z.docx 14 Review of Regulatory Agency (and Other) Evaluations of Artificial Turf Over the last eight years, numerous US regulatory and other governmental agencies have evaluated the potential health risks involved with exposure to chemicals associated with artificial turf fields. The focus of almost all of these evaluations has been the potential toxicity of chemicals associated with SBR. Each of these reports have limitations based on the methodology used and data available for their analysis. However, in cases where these reports conducted quantitative risk assessments, they without exception concluded that the data support that use of these fields is safe. A summary of these analyses can be found in Appendix B. Conclusions Based on the data publically available for this analysis, the chemical levels found in FieldTurf SBR and GeoTurf infill do not present a risk to people playing on or using the fields with these products. These conclusions are consistent with those of multiple regulatory agencies that have evaluated the risk from artificial turf products in general (e.g., CalOEHHA, 2007; New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2009; US EPA, 2009; Connecticut Dept. of Public Health, 2010; CalOEHHA, 2010), including evaluations that are more complex than this screening level assessment. Although there are limitations with a screening level risk assessment such as this one, the consistent conclusion that the data do not indicate an increased risk of health effects from chemical exposure lends additional support to our conclusion. We appreciate the opportunity to work with Verdant Health Commission on this project. If you have any questions or comments on our evaluation, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Michael K. Peterson, MEM, DABT Senior Toxicologist email: mpeterson@gradientcorp.com Thomas A. Lewandowski, Ph.D., DABT, ERT, ATS Principal Scientist/Member email: tlewandowski@gradientcorp.com Packet Page 237 of 291 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\r052615z.docx 15 References Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. "Toxicology Curriculum for Communities Trainer's Manual, Module One: Introduction to Toxicology." 31p. Accessed at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/training/toxmanual/pdf/module-1.pdf. Birkholz, DA; Belton, KL; Guidotti, TL. 2003. "Toxicological evaluation for the hazard assessment of tire crumb for use in public playgrounds." J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 53:903-907. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (CalOEHHA). 2007. "Evaluation of Health Effects of Recycled Waste Tires in Playground and Track Products." Report to California lntegrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), 9p. January. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (CalOEHHA). 2010. "Safety Study of Artificial Turf Containing Crumb Rubber Infill Made From Recycled Tires: Measurements of Chemicals and Particulates in the Air, Bacteria in the Turf, and Skin Abrasions Caused by Contact with the Surface." Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch. Report to California Dept. of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), DRRR-2010-009. 125p. October. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2008. "Potential Exposure to Lead in Artificial Turf: Public Health Issues, Actions, and Recommendations." CDC Health Advisory #00275. 5p., June 19. Condon, SK. [Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health, Bureau of Environmental Health]. 2015. Letter to S. Bacon (Medway Board of Health) re: Evaluation of recent information on potential exposure and health concerns for artificial turf components, including crumb rubber infill. 8p., March 23. Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. 2007. "Examination of Crumb Rubber Produced from Recycled Tires." AC005, 6p., August. Accessed at http://www.ct.gov/ caes/lib/caes/documents/publications/fact_sheets/examinationofcrumbrubberac005.pdf. Connecticut Dept. of Public Health (CT DPH). 2007. "Health Questions About Artificial Turf Fields." 7p., October. Connecticut Dept. of Public Health (CT DPH). 2010. "The CT DPH Risk Assessment of Artificial Turf Fields (Fact Sheet)." 6p., August. Accessed at http://www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/environmental_health/ eoha/pdf/artificial_turf_fs_2010.pdf. Connecticut Dept. of Public Health (CT DPH). 2010. "Human Health Risk Assessment of Artificial Turf Fields Based Upon Results from Five Fields in Connecticut." 89p., July 28. Curtis & Tompkins, Ltd. 2011. "Analytical data report for metals in Max-S and InfillPro-GEO samples." Report to Limonta Sport USA. 21p., September 7. Deschamps, F; Foudrinier, F; Dherbecourt, V; Mas, P; Prevost, E; Legrele, AM; Bellier, S; Toubas, D. 2003. "Respiratory diseases in French cork workers." Inhal. Toxicol. 15(14):1479-1486. doi: 10.1080/08958370390249120. Packet Page 238 of 291 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\r052615z.docx 16 Dvorak, J. [FIFA]. 2006. "An open letter concerning the potential cancer risk from certain granulate infills from artificial turf." 4p., July 12. European Commission (EC). 2003. "Introduction to Toxicology." Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General. 49p. Accessed at http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2003/action3/docs/ 2003_3_09_a21_en.pdf. Faustman, EM; Omenn, GS. 2008. "Risk assessment." In Casarett and Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons (Seventh Edition). Ed.: CD Klaassen. p107-128. New York, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Froggett, SJ; Clancy, SF; Boverhof, DR; Canady, RA. 2014. "A review and perspective of existing research on the release of nanomaterials from solid nanocomposites." Part. Fibre Toxicol. 11:17. doi: 10.1186/1743-8977-11-17. Ginsberg, G; Toal, B; Kurland, T. 2011. "Benzothiazole toxicity assessment in support of synthetic turf field human health risk assessment." J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 74(17):1175-1183. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2011.586943. Ginsberg, G; Toal, B; Simcox, N; Bracker, A; Golembiewski, B; Kurland, T; Hedman, C. 2011. "Human health risk assessment of synthetic turf fields based upon investigation of five fields in Connecticut." J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 74(17):1150-1174. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2011.586942. Green, LC. 2015. "Memo to P. Barlow (Shaw Industries) re: Assessment of recent media reports of cancer among soccer players using synthetic turf fields." 14p., March 4. Kuempel, ED; Geraci, CL; Schulte, PA. 2012. "Risk assessment and risk management of nanomaterials in the workplace: Translating research to practice." Ann. Occup. Hyg. 56(5):491-501. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mes040. Ledoux, T. 2007. "Preliminary Assessment of the Toxicity from Exposure to Crumb Rubber: Its use in Playgrounds and Artificial Turf Playing Fields." New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2p., June. Lewandowski, TA; Norman, J. 2015. "Chapter 3. Dose-Response Assessment." In Toxicological Risk Assessment for Beginners. (Eds.: Torres, JA; Bobst, S), Springer, Switzerland, p43-66. Manke, A; Wang, L; Rojanasakul, Y. 2013. "Mechanisms of nanoparticle-induced oxidative stress and toxicity." Biomed. Res. Int. 2013:942916. doi: 10.1155/2013/942916. Mount Sinai Children's Environmental Health Center. Undated. "What to Know About Artificial Turf Fields." 3p. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2011. "An Evaluation of Potential Exposures to Lead and Other Metals as the Result of Aerosolized Particulate Matter from Artificial Turf Playing Fields (Final)." 43p., July 14. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2013. "Development of Site-Specific Impact to Ground Water Soil Remediation Standards Using the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (Version 3.0)." 31p., November. Packet Page 239 of 291 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\r052615z.docx 17 New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC); New York State Dept. of Health (NYSDOH). 2009. "An Assessment of Chemical Leaching, Releases to Air and Temperature at Crumb- Rubber Infilled Synthetic Fields (Excerpts)." 140p., May. Norwegian Institute of Public Health. 2006. "Artificial Turf Pitches – An Assessment of the Health Risks for Football Players." Radium Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 34p., January. Accessed at http://www.isss.de/conferences/Dresden%202006/Technical/FHI%20Engelsk.pdf. Nowack, B; David, RM; Fissan, H; Morris, H; Shatkin, JA; Stintz, M; Zepp, R; Brouwer, D. 2013. "Potential release scenarios for carbon nanotubes used in composites." Environ. Int. 59:1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2013.04.003. Pavilonis, BT; Weisel, CP; Buckley, B; Lioy, PJ. 2013. "Bioaccessibility and risk of exposure to metals and SVOCs in artificial turf field fill materials and fibers." Risk Anal. 34(1):44-55. doi: 10.1111/risa.12081. Schiliro, T; Traversi, D; Degan, R; Pignata, C; Alessandria, L; Scozia, D; Bono, R; Gilli, G. 2013. "Artificial turf football fields: Environmental and mutagenicity assessment." Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 64:1-11. Simcox, N; Bracker, A; Ginsberg, G; Toal, B; Golembiewski, B; Kurland, T; Hedman, C. 2011. "Synthetic turf field investigation in Connecticut." J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 74(17):1133-1149. Society of Toxicology. 2015. "Some Basic Principles of Toxicology." Accessed at https://www.toxicology.org/AI/EO/principl.asp. Stockman, R. 2015. "CPSC no longer stands by safety of artificial turf." 2p., April 30. Accessed at http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/ Stutius, LM; Sheehan, WJ; Rangsithienchai, P; Bharmanee, A; Scott, JE; Young, MC; Dioun, AF; Schneider, LC; Phipatanakul, W. 2010. "Characterizing the relationship between sesame, coconut, and nut allergy in children." Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. 21(8):1114-1118. doi: 10.1111/j.1399- 3038.2010.00997.x. Teter, D. 2015. Letter to W. Cook (Sprinturf) re: Analysis of crumb rubber infill. San Francisco, CA, Teter Engineering. 98p., March 17 Toal, B; Ginsberg, G. [Connecticut Department of Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health Assessment]. 2015. Memo to local health departments and districts re: Recent news concerning artificial turf fields. 2p., January 20. TRC. 2008. "A Review of the Potential Health and Safety Risks from Synthetic Turf Fields Containing Crumb Rubber Infill." Report to New York City, New York, Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene. 200p., May. Accessed at http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/eode/turf_report_05-08.pdf. TRC. 2009. "Air Quality Survey of Synthetic Turf Fields Containing Crumb Rubber Infill." Report to New York City, New York, Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene. 51p., March. US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 2008a. "CPSC Staff Analysis and Assessment of Synthetic Turf 'Grass Blades.'" 6p. Accessed at http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/104716/ turfassessment.pdf. Packet Page 240 of 291 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\r052615z.docx 18 US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 2008b. "CPSC Staff Finds Synthetic Turf Fields OK to Install, OK to Play On." Release #08-348. 2p., July 30. Accessed at http://www.cpsc.gov/ cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08348.html. US EPA. 2009. "A Scoping-Level Field Monitoring Study of Synthetic Turf Fields and Playgrounds." Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, EPA/600/R-09/135. 123p. November. US EPA. 2012a. "Human Health Risk Assessment." July 31. Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/risk_assessment/health-risk.htm. US EPA. 2012b. "Step 2 - Dose-Response Assessment." July 31. Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/risk_assessment/dose-response.htm. US EPA. 2015. "Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table (TR=1E-6, HQ=0.1) (January 2015)." 11p. January. Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb- concentration_table/Generic_Tables/docs/master_sl_table_01run_JAN2015.pdf. van Rooij, JGM; Jongeneelen, FJ. 2010. "Hydroxypyrene in urine of football players after playing on artificial sports field with tire crumb infill." Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 83:105-110. doi: 10.1007/s00420-009-0465-y. Washington State Dept. of Ecology (WADOE). 2011. "Urban Seattle Area Soil Dioxin and PAH Concentrations Initial Summary Report." Toxics Cleanup Program. Publication No. 11-09-049, 113p. September. Winck, JC; Delgado, L; Murta, R; Vanzeller, M; Marques, JA. 2004. "Cork workers' occupational asthma: Lack of association with allergic sensitisation to fungi of the work environment." Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 77(4):296-300. Winck, JC; Delgado, L; Vanzeller, M; Guimaraes, T; Torres, S; Sapage, JM. 2002. "Broncho-alveolar inflammation in cork worker's asthma." Allerg. Immunol. (Paris) 34(6):199-203. Wittczak, T; Pas-Wyroslak, A; Palczynski, C. 2005. "Occupational allergic conjunctivitis due to coconut fibre dust." Allergy 60(7):970-971. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00818.x. Zhang, JJ; Han, IK; Zhang, L; Crain, W. 2008. "Hazardous chemicals in synthetic turf materials and their bioaccessibility in digestive fluids." J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 18(6):600-607. Packet Page 241 of 291 G:\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\apdx.A.header.052615z.docx Appendix A Data Tables Packet Page 242 of 291 Ta b l e A ‐1 Co m p a r i s o n of Tu r f Ch e m i c a l Co n t e n t to Re s i d e n t i a l So i l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l s Li m o n t a In f i l l ‐Pr o Ge o (m g / k g ) Li m o n t a Tu r f ‐ Ma x ‐S (m g / k g ) Gr e e n Cr u m b Ru b b e r (m g / k g ) Bl a c k Cr u m b Ru b b e r (m g / k g ) Tu r f Fi e l d In f i l l Cr u m b Ru b b e r ‐ F1 D 1 (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Tu r f Fi e l d In f i l l Crumb Ru b b e r ‐ F2 , F3 (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Turf Field Infill Crumb Rubber ‐ F4, F5, F6 (Range, mg/kg)Turf Field Blades ‐ F1D1 (Range, mg/kg)Turf Field Blades ‐ F2, F3 (Range, mg/kg)Turf Field Blades ‐ F4, F5, F6 (Range, mg/kg) An t i m o n y 3. 1 NI ND ND 4. 6 4. 1 Ar s e n i c 0. 6 7 7 0. 4 8 ND <0 . 2 4 <0 . 2 3 Ba r i u m 15 0 0 NI 10 0. 4 8 4. 5 5. 8 Be r y l l i u m 16 0. 6 ND ND <0 . 0 9 7 <0 . 0 9 3 Ca d m i u m 7 1 ND ND 0. 5 4 0. 5 3 Ch r o m i u m 12 0 0 0 48 ND ND <0 . 4 1 / 2 . 7 1 <0 . 4 1 / 1 . 7 1 0. 3 ‐1. 0 0. 4 ‐0. 9 0.3 ‐1.0 1.0 ‐73.1 1 . 2 ‐1.9 3 . 7 ‐177 Co b a l t 2. 3 NI ND ND 12 0 12 0 Co p p e r 31 0 36 4. 3 4. 2 30 27 Le a d 40 0 24 ND ND 21 26 13 . 1 ‐34 . 7 20 . 6 ‐61 . 2 10.7 ‐47.7 2.8 ‐389 2.4 ‐2.8 2.1 ‐701 Ma g n e s i u m NI NI Me r c u r y 2. 3 0. 0 7 ND ND <0 . 0 1 7 <0 . 0 1 5 Mo l y b d e n u m 39 NI 0. 2 9 0. 2 5 0. 6 3 0. 7 2 Ni c k e l 15 0 48 0. 3 8 0. 9 5 2. 2 1. 9 Se l e n i u m 39 NI ND ND <0 . 4 9 <0 . 4 6 Si l v e r 39 NI ND ND <0 . 2 4 <0 . 2 3 Th a l l i u m 0. 0 7 8 NI 0. 9 ND <0 . 4 9 <0 . 4 6 Ti t a n i u m 14 0 0 0 NI Va n d i u m NI NI 0. 7 7 ND 1. 3 0. 8 4 Zi n c 23 0 0 85 11 45 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 50 5 0 ‐19 2 0 0 31 2 0 ‐12 3 0 0 2660 ‐11400 316 ‐730 199 ‐255 131 ‐206 1, 2 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 18 0 1, 2 , 4 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o b e n z e n e 5. 8 1, 3 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e NI 1, 4 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 2. 6 2 ‐ Ch l o r o p h e n o l 39 2, 4 ‐ Di c h l o r o p h e n o l 18 2, 4 ‐ Di m e t h y l p h e n o l 12 0 2, 4 ‐ Di n i t r o p h e n o l 12 2, 4 ‐ Di n i t r o t o l u e n e 1. 7 2, 4 , 5 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o p h e n o l 62 0 2, 4 , 6 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o p h e n o l 6. 2 3, 3 ' ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z i d i n e 1. 2 Ac e n a p h t h e n e 35 0 <0 . 2 5 <0 . 4 9 Ac e n a p t h y l e n e NI <0 . 2 5 <0 . 4 9 An i l i n e 43 An t h r a c e n e 17 0 0 <0 . 2 5 <0 . 4 9 Az o b e n z e n e 5. 6 Be n z o ( a ) a n t h r a c e n e 0. 1 5 0. 8 5 1. 7 Be n z o ( a ) p y r e n e 0. 0 1 5 0. 9 5 2. 1 Be n z o ( b ) f l u o r a n t h e n e 0. 1 5 0. 9 9 2 Be n z o ( g , h, i) p e r y l e n e NI 3. 6 10 Be n z o ( k ) f l u o r a n t h e n e 1. 5 <0 . 2 5 0. 5 4 Be n z o i c ac i d 25 0 0 0 Bi s ( 2 ‐ ch l o r o e t h y l ) e t h e r 0. 2 3 Ch e m i c a l Re s i d e n t i a l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l (m g / k g ) Wa s h i n g t o n St a t e / S e a t t l e Ar e a Ba c k g r o u n d Le v e l s (9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e ) Me t a l s SV O C s an d VO C s Cu r t i s & To m p k i n s (2 0 1 1 21 5 ‐46 3 2 ) fo r Li m o n t a Sp o r t US A 1 Te t e r En g i n e e r i n g (2 0 1 5 21 5 ‐ 46 3 3 ) fo r Sp r i n t u r f 2 US EPA (2009 210 ‐1256)3 G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ S o i l Page 1 of 23 Packet Page 243 of 291 Ta b l e A ‐1 Co m p a r i s o n of Tu r f Ch e m i c a l Co n t e n t to Re s i d e n t i a l So i l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l s Li m o n t a In f i l l ‐Pr o Ge o (m g / k g ) Li m o n t a Tu r f ‐ Ma x ‐S (m g / k g ) Gr e e n Cr u m b Ru b b e r (m g / k g ) Bl a c k Cr u m b Ru b b e r (m g / k g ) Tu r f Fi e l d In f i l l Cr u m b Ru b b e r ‐ F1 D 1 (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Tu r f Fi e l d In f i l l Crumb Ru b b e r ‐ F2 , F3 (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Turf Field Infill Crumb Rubber ‐ F4, F5, F6 (Range, mg/kg)Turf Field Blades ‐ F1D1 (Range, mg/kg)Turf Field Blades ‐ F2, F3 (Range, mg/kg)Turf Field Blades ‐ F4, F5, F6 (Range, mg/kg) Ch e m i c a l Re s i d e n t i a l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l (m g / k g ) Wa s h i n g t o n St a t e / S e a t t l e Ar e a Ba c k g r o u n d Le v e l s (9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e ) Cu r t i s & To m p k i n s (2 0 1 1 21 5 ‐46 3 2 ) fo r Li m o n t a Sp o r t US A 1 Te t e r En g i n e e r i n g (2 0 1 5 21 5 ‐ 46 3 3 ) fo r Sp r i n t u r f 2 US EPA (2009 210 ‐1256)3 Bi s ( 2 ‐ ch l o r o i s o p r o p y l ) e t h e r NI Bi s ( 2 ‐ et h y l h e x y l ) p h t h a l a t e 38 Bu t y l b e n z y l ph t h a l a t e 28 0 Ca r b a z o l e NI Ch r y s e n e 15 2. 3 4. 9 Di ‐ n ‐bu t y l p h t h a l a t e 62 0 Di ‐ n ‐oc t y l p h t h a l a t e 62 Di b e n z ( a , h ) a n t h r a c e n e 0. 0 1 5 <0 . 2 5 0. 5 2 Di e t h y l ph t h a l a t e 49 0 0 Di m e t h y l p h t h a l a t e NI Di p h e n y l a m i n e 15 0 Fl u o r a n t h e n e 23 0 3 60 Fl u o r e n e 23 0 <0 . 2 5 <0 . 4 9 He x a c h l o r o b e n z e n e 0. 3 3 He x a c h l o r o b u t a d i e n e 6. 2 In d e n o ( 1 , 2 , 3 ‐cd ) p y r e n e 0. 1 5 0. 4 7 1. 3 Is o p h o r o n e 56 0 N ‐ Ni t r o s o d i p h e n y l a m i n e 11 0 Na p h t h a l e n e 3. 8 0. 7 7 1. 6 Ni t r o b e n z e n e 5. 1 Pe n t a c h l o r o p h e n o l 0. 9 9 Ph e n a n t h r e n e NI 1. 2 2. 5 Ph e n o l 18 0 0 Py r e n e 17 0 9. 3 19 No t e s : NA = No t An a l y z e d ; ND = No t De t e c t e d ; NI = No t Id e n t i f i e d ; SV O C = Se m i v o l a t i l e Or g a n i c Co m p o u n d ; VO C = Vo l a t i l e Or g a n i c Co m p o u n d . (1 ) Da t a fr o m Cu r t i s & To m p k i n s (2 0 1 1 , pp . 5 ‐6) . (2 ) Da t a fr o m Te t e r En g i n e e r i n g (2 0 1 5 , Ta b l e s 1 an d 3) . (3 ) Da t a fr o m US EP A (2 0 0 9 , Ta b l e 7, p .3 2 ) . No t e , mo r e ch e m i c a l s we r e an a l y z e d bu t th e y we r e no t re p o r t e d in su m m a r y ta b l e s . (4 ) Da t a fr o m Zh a n g et al . (2 0 0 8 , Ta b l e s 4 an d 5) . No t e th a t th e va l u e s we r e co n v e r t e d to mg / k g fo r co m p a r i s o n ac r o s s st u d i e s . (5 ) Da t a fr o m Pa v i l o n i s et al . (2 0 1 3 , Ta b l e s 2 an d 3, pp . 5, 6) . (6 ) Da t a fr o m Te t e r En g i n e e r i n g (2 0 1 5 , Ap p e n d i x Ta b l e s A ‐1 an d A ‐3) . No t e th a t th e va l u e s fr o m Ta b l e A ‐3 we r e co n v e r t e d to mg / k g fo r co m p a r i s o n ac r o s s st u d i e s . Hi g h l i g h t e d ce l l s ar e th o s e wi t h va l u e s ab o v e th e i r re s p e c t i v e Re s i d e n t i a l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l . Da t a wa s no t re p o r t e d fo r bl a n k ce l l s . G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ S o i l Page 2 of 23 Packet Page 244 of 291 Ta b l e A ‐1 Co m p a r i s o n of Tu r f Ch e m i c a l Co n t e n t to Re s i d e n t i a l So i l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l s An t i m o n y Ar s e n i c Ba r i u m Be r y l l i u m Ca d m i u m Ch r o m i u m Co b a l t Co p p e r Le a d Ma g n e s i u m Me r c u r y Mo l y b d e n u m Ni c k e l Se l e n i u m Si l v e r Th a l l i u m Ti t a n i u m Va n d i u m Zi n c 1, 2 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 2 , 4 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 3 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 4 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 2 ‐ Ch l o r o p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di c h l o r o p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di m e t h y l p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di n i t r o p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di n i t r o t o l u e n e 2, 4 , 5 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o p h e n o l 2, 4 , 6 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o p h e n o l 3, 3 ' ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z i d i n e Ac e n a p h t h e n e Ac e n a p t h y l e n e An i l i n e An t h r a c e n e Az o b e n z e n e Be n z o ( a ) a n t h r a c e n e Be n z o ( a ) p y r e n e Be n z o ( b ) f l u o r a n t h e n e Be n z o ( g , h, i) p e r y l e n e Be n z o ( k ) f l u o r a n t h e n e Be n z o i c ac i d Bi s ( 2 ‐ ch l o r o e t h y l ) e t h e r Ch e m i c a l Me t a l s SV O C s an d VO C s Sa m p l e 1 A ‐Tu r f Ru b b e r Cr u m b fr o m Ri v e r s i d e Pa r k (m g / k g ) Sa m p l e 2 A ‐Tu r f Ru b b e r Cr u m b fr o m Ri v e r s i d e Pa r k (m g / k g ) Sa m p l e 3 A ‐Tu r f Ru b b e r Cr u m b fr o m Ri v e r s i d e Pa r k (m g / k g ) Sa m p l e 4 A ‐Tu r f Fi b e r s fr o m Ri v e r s i d e Pa r k (m g / k g ) Sa m p l e 5 Fi e l d T u r f Ru b b e r Cr u m b fr o m Pa r a d e Gr o u n d s (m g / k g ) Sa m p l e 6 Fi e l d T u r f Ru b b e r Crumb fr o m Pa r a d e Grounds (m g / k g ) Sample7 FieldTurf Rubber Crumb from Sara Roosevelt Park (mg/kg)Sample 8 Astroplay Rubber Crumb from E. Rochester HS (mg/kg)New Crumb Infill ‐ Sweat (Range, mg/kg) 3. 5 5 1. 5 7 ND 0. 2 8 0.28 <0.50 <0.20 0. 2 1 0. 4 1 0. 3 7 ND 0.22 <0.090–0.11 0. 8 7 1. 6 8 0. 6 9 3. 9 3 0.93 0.70–1.2 <0.080–0.54 5. 7 6 53 . 5 4. 6 3 2. 8 3.12 0.090–1.6 <7.0–980 <1.9 <0.10 0.60–1.3 6.0–21 57 1 0 99 8 8 NA NA NA ND 0. 0 3 ND ND 0. 1 6 0. 0 9 ND ND 0. 0 3 0. 1 7 ND 0. 0 1 0. 0 3 0. 0 3 ND ND 1. 2 3 1. 2 6 0. 3 1 ND 0. 2 9 0. 9 8 0.06 ND 8. 5 8 3. 5 6 0. 7 8 0. 0 8 0. 6 1 0. 2 5 0.06 0.41 3. 3 9 2. 1 9 ND ND 1. 0 8 0. 5 8 0.2 0.43 7. 7 5 2. 6 1 2. 7 3 0. 1 1 0. 8 5 0. 4 6 2.03 ND 7. 2 9 1. 7 8 0. 1 7 ND 0. 1 4 0. 1 8 0.1 0.99 Zh a n g et al . (2 0 0 8 20 8 ‐59 1 9 ) 4 G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ S o i l Page 3 of 23 Packet Page 245 of 291 Ta b l e A ‐1 Co m p a r i s o n of Tu r f Ch e m i c a l Co n t e n t to Re s i d e n t i a l So i l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l s Ch e m i c a l Bi s ( 2 ‐ ch l o r o i s o p r o p y l ) e t h e r Bi s ( 2 ‐ et h y l h e x y l ) p h t h a l a t e Bu t y l b e n z y l ph t h a l a t e Ca r b a z o l e Ch r y s e n e Di ‐ n ‐bu t y l p h t h a l a t e Di ‐ n ‐oc t y l p h t h a l a t e Di b e n z ( a , h ) a n t h r a c e n e Di e t h y l ph t h a l a t e Di m e t h y l p h t h a l a t e Di p h e n y l a m i n e Fl u o r a n t h e n e Fl u o r e n e He x a c h l o r o b e n z e n e He x a c h l o r o b u t a d i e n e In d e n o ( 1 , 2 , 3 ‐cd ) p y r e n e Is o p h o r o n e N ‐ Ni t r o s o d i p h e n y l a m i n e Na p h t h a l e n e Ni t r o b e n z e n e Pe n t a c h l o r o p h e n o l Ph e n a n t h r e n e Ph e n o l Py r e n e Sa m p l e 1 A ‐Tu r f Ru b b e r Cr u m b fr o m Ri v e r s i d e Pa r k (m g / k g ) Sa m p l e 2 A ‐Tu r f Ru b b e r Cr u m b fr o m Ri v e r s i d e Pa r k (m g / k g ) Sa m p l e 3 A ‐Tu r f Ru b b e r Cr u m b fr o m Ri v e r s i d e Pa r k (m g / k g ) Sa m p l e 4 A ‐Tu r f Fi b e r s fr o m Ri v e r s i d e Pa r k (m g / k g ) Sa m p l e 5 Fi e l d T u r f Ru b b e r Cr u m b fr o m Pa r a d e Gr o u n d s (m g / k g ) Sa m p l e 6 Fi e l d T u r f Ru b b e r Crumb fr o m Pa r a d e Grounds (m g / k g ) Sample7 FieldTurf Rubber Crumb from Sara Roosevelt Park (mg/kg)Sample 8 Astroplay Rubber Crumb from E. Rochester HS (mg/kg)New Crumb Infill ‐ Sweat (Range, mg/kg) Zh a n g et al . (2 0 0 8 20 8 ‐59 1 9 ) 4 1. 3 2 7. 5 5 ND ND 1. 9 6 1. 3 4 0.06 4.9 3. 5 2 1. 5 5 ND ND 0. 7 1 0. 5 2 1.43 ND 0. 1 1 0. 3 7 ND ND 5. 0 8 3. 5 4 25.4 ND 0. 7 6 0. 7 7 ND ND 0. 5 0. 4 5 ND ND 0. 4 0. 3 7 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0. 1 0. 4 0. 2 0. 0 3 0. 0 3 ND 0.86 0. 0 6 4. 3 5 ND ND 2. 1 9 1. 4 6 ND ND 3. 7 3 8. 7 6 ND ND 6. 2 4 9. 6 1 2.45 13.5 G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ S o i l Page 4 of 23 Packet Page 246 of 291 Ta b l e A ‐1 Co m p a r i s o n of Tu r f Ch e m i c a l Co n t e n t to Re s i d e n t i a l So i l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l s An t i m o n y Ar s e n i c Ba r i u m Be r y l l i u m Ca d m i u m Ch r o m i u m Co b a l t Co p p e r Le a d Ma g n e s i u m Me r c u r y Mo l y b d e n u m Ni c k e l Se l e n i u m Si l v e r Th a l l i u m Ti t a n i u m Va n d i u m Zi n c 1, 2 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 2 , 4 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 3 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 4 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 2 ‐ Ch l o r o p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di c h l o r o p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di m e t h y l p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di n i t r o p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di n i t r o t o l u e n e 2, 4 , 5 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o p h e n o l 2, 4 , 6 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o p h e n o l 3, 3 ' ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z i d i n e Ac e n a p h t h e n e Ac e n a p t h y l e n e An i l i n e An t h r a c e n e Az o b e n z e n e Be n z o ( a ) a n t h r a c e n e Be n z o ( a ) p y r e n e Be n z o ( b ) f l u o r a n t h e n e Be n z o ( g , h, i) p e r y l e n e Be n z o ( k ) f l u o r a n t h e n e Be n z o i c ac i d Bi s ( 2 ‐ ch l o r o e t h y l ) e t h e r Ch e m i c a l Me t a l s SV O C s an d VO C s Ne w Tu r f Fi b e r ‐ Sw e a t (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Fi e l d Sa m p l e s ‐ Sw e a t (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Ne w Cr u m b In f i l l ‐ Di g e s t i v e (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Ne w Tu r f Fi b e r ‐ Di g e s t i v e (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Fi e l d Sa m p l e s ‐ Di g e s t i v e (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Ne w Cr u m b In f i l l ‐ Lu n g (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Ne w Tu r f Fi b e r ‐ Lu n g (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Fi e l d Sa m p l e s ‐ Lu n g (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Ne w Crumb In f i l l ‐ Nitric Acid (R a n g e , mg/kg)New Turf Fiber ‐ Nitric Acid (Range, mg/kg)Field Samples ‐ Nitric Acid (Range, mg/kg)All Samples ‐ Sweat (Maximum, mg/kg)All Samples ‐ Lung (Maximum, mg/kg) <0 . 1 0 1. 4 – 1 . 7 <0 . 1 0 – 0 . 4 8 <0 . 0 4 0 <3 . 0 <0 . 5 0 <0 . 2 0 <0 . 0 5 0 <0 . 7 0 – 0 . 8 0 <0.040–4.0 <0.70 <0 . 2 0 <0 . 2 0 <0 . 4 0 <0 . 4 0 <0 . 4 0 <0 . 5 0 <0 . 2 0 <0 . 0 3 0 <0.70 <0.040–0.51 <0.70 <0 . 0 3 0 <0 . 2 0 <4 . 0 <0 . 3 0 2. 5 – 1 1 <0 . 2 0 <0 . 0 9 0 <0 . 0 9 0 <0 . 7 0 – 1 . 1 <0.50 <0.70 0. 1 0 – 1 . 3 2. 1 – 2 . 7 <7 . 0 <0 . 6 0 – 0 . 7 4 <6 . 0 <0 . 2 0 – 0 . 6 6 <0 . 0 9 0 – 0 . 1 2 <0 . 0 5 0 <0 . 7 0 – 1 6 0.34–820 <0.70–0.92 0. 0 3 0 – 1 . 6 1. 8 – 2 . 2 <2 0 – 3 2 <1 . 0 – 1 . 6 <2 0 <0 . 4 0 – 0 . 5 8 <0 . 2 – 2 . 0 <0 . 2 0 <0 . 7 0 – 3 6 0.69–110 8.8–59 0. 0 3 0 – 1 2 <0 . 2 0 – 1 . 5 5. 3 – 6 6 <0 . 3 0 – 4 . 7 2. 5 – 2 6 0 <0 . 2 0 – 0 . 2 6 <0 . 0 2 – 0 . 6 1 <0 . 0 2 0 – 0 . 0 2 3 <0 . 0 1 0 – 1 7 0.53–4400 4.1–140 3. 3 – 1 8 <1 0 <1 0 0 0 – 4 6 0 0 <9 0 <9 0 0 65 0 – 9 7 0 77 – 3 0 0 <1 0 0 <7 . 0 – 7 8 0 0 <30–12000 <70–160 <0 . 6 0 <0 . 7 0 <0 . 9 0 – 1 . 5 <0 . 1 0 <2 . 0 <2 . 0 <0 . 9 0 <0 . 1 0 <1.0 <0.10–2.9 <0.60–1.3 <0 . 0 6 0 <0 . 7 0 <0 . 2 0 – 0 . 2 3 <0 . 2 0 <0 . 4 0 – 0 . 9 0 <0 . 5 0 <0 . 2 0 <0 . 1 0 <10 <8.0 <10 0. 1 0 – 1 . 1 3. 2 – 4 . 0 <1 0 <0 . 1 0 <1 0 1. 5 – 6 . 7 0. 2 0 – 0 . 9 6 <0 . 4 0 <0 . 7 0 – 1 8 0.81–820 1.9–9.6 0. 5 0 – 1 . 6 15 – 1 8 <1 . 0 <0 . 1 0 – 0 . 1 2 <1 . 0 0. 6 5 ‐3. 0 0. 3 9 – 1 . 5 <0 . 7 0 <0 . 1 0 – 2 . 1 <40 <0.80–0.74 <0.11 <0.05 <0.17 <0.09 <0.08 <0.04 <0.49 <0.24 <0.31 <0.16 <1.4 <0.74 <1.2 <0.56 <1.9 <0.69 Pa v i l o n i s et al . (2 0 1 3 21 4 ‐12 5 3 ) 5 G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ S o i l Page 5 of 23 Packet Page 247 of 291 Ta b l e A ‐1 Co m p a r i s o n of Tu r f Ch e m i c a l Co n t e n t to Re s i d e n t i a l So i l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l s Ch e m i c a l Bi s ( 2 ‐ ch l o r o i s o p r o p y l ) e t h e r Bi s ( 2 ‐ et h y l h e x y l ) p h t h a l a t e Bu t y l b e n z y l ph t h a l a t e Ca r b a z o l e Ch r y s e n e Di ‐ n ‐bu t y l p h t h a l a t e Di ‐ n ‐oc t y l p h t h a l a t e Di b e n z ( a , h ) a n t h r a c e n e Di e t h y l ph t h a l a t e Di m e t h y l p h t h a l a t e Di p h e n y l a m i n e Fl u o r a n t h e n e Fl u o r e n e He x a c h l o r o b e n z e n e He x a c h l o r o b u t a d i e n e In d e n o ( 1 , 2 , 3 ‐cd ) p y r e n e Is o p h o r o n e N ‐ Ni t r o s o d i p h e n y l a m i n e Na p h t h a l e n e Ni t r o b e n z e n e Pe n t a c h l o r o p h e n o l Ph e n a n t h r e n e Ph e n o l Py r e n e Ne w Tu r f Fi b e r ‐ Sw e a t (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Fi e l d Sa m p l e s ‐ Sw e a t (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Ne w Cr u m b In f i l l ‐ Di g e s t i v e (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Ne w Tu r f Fi b e r ‐ Di g e s t i v e (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Fi e l d Sa m p l e s ‐ Di g e s t i v e (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Ne w Cr u m b In f i l l ‐ Lu n g (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Ne w Tu r f Fi b e r ‐ Lu n g (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Fi e l d Sa m p l e s ‐ Lu n g (R a n g e , mg / k g ) Ne w Crumb In f i l l ‐ Nitric Acid (R a n g e , mg/kg)New Turf Fiber ‐ Nitric Acid (Range, mg/kg)Field Samples ‐ Nitric Acid (Range, mg/kg)All Samples ‐ Sweat (Maximum, mg/kg)All Samples ‐ Lung (Maximum, mg/kg) Pa v i l o n i s et al . (2 0 1 3 21 4 ‐12 5 3 ) 5 <0.35 <0.18 <1.1 <0.54 <2.0 <0.98 <0.11 <0.06 <.07 <0.03 <0.03 <0.02 <0.10 <0.05 <0.10 <0.05 G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ S o i l Page 6 of 23 Packet Page 248 of 291 Ta b l e A ‐1 Co m p a r i s o n of Tu r f Ch e m i c a l Co n t e n t to Re s i d e n t i a l So i l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l s An t i m o n y Ar s e n i c Ba r i u m Be r y l l i u m Ca d m i u m Ch r o m i u m Co b a l t Co p p e r Le a d Ma g n e s i u m Me r c u r y Mo l y b d e n u m Ni c k e l Se l e n i u m Si l v e r Th a l l i u m Ti t a n i u m Va n d i u m Zi n c 1, 2 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 2 , 4 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 3 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 4 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 2 ‐ Ch l o r o p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di c h l o r o p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di m e t h y l p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di n i t r o p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di n i t r o t o l u e n e 2, 4 , 5 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o p h e n o l 2, 4 , 6 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o p h e n o l 3, 3 ' ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z i d i n e Ac e n a p h t h e n e Ac e n a p t h y l e n e An i l i n e An t h r a c e n e Az o b e n z e n e Be n z o ( a ) a n t h r a c e n e Be n z o ( a ) p y r e n e Be n z o ( b ) f l u o r a n t h e n e Be n z o ( g , h, i) p e r y l e n e Be n z o ( k ) f l u o r a n t h e n e Be n z o i c ac i d Bi s ( 2 ‐ ch l o r o e t h y l ) e t h e r Ch e m i c a l Me t a l s SV O C s an d VO C s Al l Sa m p l e s ‐ Di g e s t i v e (M a x i m u m , mg / k g ) Al l Sa m p l e s ‐ To t a l Ex t r a c t (M a x i m u m , mg / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f 10 ‐14 Cr y o g e n i c Cr u m b Ru b b e r (C o n e s t o g a ‐ Ro v e r s , 20 0 8 ) (m g / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f Cr u m b Ru b b e r (W e l l e s l e y Fi e l d ) (C o n e s t o g a ‐ Ro v e r s , 20 0 8 ) (m g / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f Am b i e n t Cr u m b Ru b b e r (C u r t i s & To m p k i n s , 20 1 3 b ) (m g / k g ) FieldTurf Cryogenic Crumb Rubber (C u r t i s & Tompkins, 2013b)(mg/kg)FieldTurf Crumb Rubber (2 Years of Age)(Lioy and Weisel, 2011) (mg/kg)FieldTurf Crumb Rubber (2 Years of Age)(Lioy and Weisel, 2012) (mg/kg) 0. 1 8 0. 2 4 3. 7 3.4 NA NA 0. 3 9 <1 <0 . 3 7 <0.4 <0.7 <0.7 2. 2 0. 4 1 2. 7 6.4 NA NA <0 . 4 <0 . 4 <0 . 1 5 <0.16 <0.7 <0.7 1. 5 <0 . 5 <0 . 3 7 <0.4 <0.7 <0.7 0. 7 2 1. 9 1. 2 1.9 <0.7 <0.7 <5 <5 13 0 120 NA NA 11 0. 4 54 26 15 59 <0 . 3 <0 . 3 15 8.4 40 8 0. 0 1 1 <0 . 0 3 3 <0 . 1 5 <0.16 NA NA NA NA 0. 5 7 0.64 NA NA 1. 6 0. 5 2 2 2.9 NA NA 0. 3 7 <0 . 5 <0 . 7 4 <0.8 <1.2 1.3 0. 1 4 <0 . 5 <0 . 3 7 <0.4 NA NA 1 <1 <0 . 7 4 <0.8 NA NA 0. 5 2 0. 5 5 1. 2 2.2 0.71 0.74 9, 9 9 0 2. 8 16 , 0 0 0 13,000 NA NA <0 . 5 6 <0 . 0 3 <0 . 6 8 2. 4 8 <0 . 4 2 <0 . 0 2 <2 . 5 <0 . 1 2 <1 . 7 <0 . 0 8 <7 . 6 <0 . 3 7 <6 . 4 <0 . 3 1 <7 . 2 <0 . 3 4 Teter Engineering (2015 215 ‐4633) for Sprinturf 6 G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ S o i l Page 7 of 23 Packet Page 249 of 291 Ta b l e A ‐1 Co m p a r i s o n of Tu r f Ch e m i c a l Co n t e n t to Re s i d e n t i a l So i l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l s Ch e m i c a l Bi s ( 2 ‐ ch l o r o i s o p r o p y l ) e t h e r Bi s ( 2 ‐ et h y l h e x y l ) p h t h a l a t e Bu t y l b e n z y l ph t h a l a t e Ca r b a z o l e Ch r y s e n e Di ‐ n ‐bu t y l p h t h a l a t e Di ‐ n ‐oc t y l p h t h a l a t e Di b e n z ( a , h ) a n t h r a c e n e Di e t h y l ph t h a l a t e Di m e t h y l p h t h a l a t e Di p h e n y l a m i n e Fl u o r a n t h e n e Fl u o r e n e He x a c h l o r o b e n z e n e He x a c h l o r o b u t a d i e n e In d e n o ( 1 , 2 , 3 ‐cd ) p y r e n e Is o p h o r o n e N ‐ Ni t r o s o d i p h e n y l a m i n e Na p h t h a l e n e Ni t r o b e n z e n e Pe n t a c h l o r o p h e n o l Ph e n a n t h r e n e Ph e n o l Py r e n e Al l Sa m p l e s ‐ Di g e s t i v e (M a x i m u m , mg / k g ) Al l Sa m p l e s ‐ To t a l Ex t r a c t (M a x i m u m , mg / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f 10 ‐14 Cr y o g e n i c Cr u m b Ru b b e r (C o n e s t o g a ‐ Ro v e r s , 20 0 8 ) (m g / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f Cr u m b Ru b b e r (W e l l e s l e y Fi e l d ) (C o n e s t o g a ‐ Ro v e r s , 20 0 8 ) (m g / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f Am b i e n t Cr u m b Ru b b e r (C u r t i s & To m p k i n s , 20 1 3 b ) (m g / k g ) FieldTurf Cryogenic Crumb Rubber (C u r t i s & Tompkins, 2013b)(mg/kg)FieldTurf Crumb Rubber (2 Years of Age)(Lioy and Weisel, 2011) (mg/kg)FieldTurf Crumb Rubber (2 Years of Age)(Lioy and Weisel, 2012) (mg/kg)Teter Engineering (2015 215 ‐4633) for Sprinturf 6 <1 . 9 <0 . 0 9 <5 . 5 <0 . 2 7 <1 0 <0 . 4 9 <0 . 6 2 <0 . 0 3 <0 . 3 5 <0 . 0 2 <0 . 1 2 0. 2 7 <0 . 5 2 <0 . 0 2 <0 . 5 2 <0 . 0 2 G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ S o i l Page 8 of 23 Packet Page 250 of 291 Ta b l e A ‐1 Co m p a r i s o n of Tu r f Ch e m i c a l Co n t e n t to Re s i d e n t i a l So i l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l s An t i m o n y Ar s e n i c Ba r i u m Be r y l l i u m Ca d m i u m Ch r o m i u m Co b a l t Co p p e r Le a d Ma g n e s i u m Me r c u r y Mo l y b d e n u m Ni c k e l Se l e n i u m Si l v e r Th a l l i u m Ti t a n i u m Va n d i u m Zi n c 1, 2 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 2 , 4 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 3 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 4 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 2 ‐ Ch l o r o p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di c h l o r o p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di m e t h y l p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di n i t r o p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di n i t r o t o l u e n e 2, 4 , 5 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o p h e n o l 2, 4 , 6 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o p h e n o l 3, 3 ' ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z i d i n e Ac e n a p h t h e n e Ac e n a p t h y l e n e An i l i n e An t h r a c e n e Az o b e n z e n e Be n z o ( a ) a n t h r a c e n e Be n z o ( a ) p y r e n e Be n z o ( b ) f l u o r a n t h e n e Be n z o ( g , h, i) p e r y l e n e Be n z o ( k ) f l u o r a n t h e n e Be n z o i c ac i d Bi s ( 2 ‐ ch l o r o e t h y l ) e t h e r Ch e m i c a l Me t a l s SV O C s an d VO C s Fi e l d T u r f Cr u m b Ru b b e r (6 Ye a r s of Ag e ) (L i o y an d We i s e l , 20 1 3 ) (m g / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f Ru b b e r (S B R ? ) (M a x x a m , 20 0 9 ) (m g / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f Cr u m b Ru b b e r (T e s t A m e r i c a , 20 0 9 ) (m g / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f 10 ‐14 CR Y O SB R (C o n e s t o g a ‐ Ro v e r s , 20 0 8 ) (m g / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f SBR (T e s t A m e r i c a , 2011a) (m g / k g ) FieldTurf SBR (TestAmerica, 2011b) (mg/kg)FieldTurf SBR ‐ Wellesley (Conestoga ‐ Rovers, 2008) (mg/kg) NA NA <1 <0 . 7 <6 <1 NA <5 3. 9 <0 . 7 NA <0 . 4 <0 . 7 <0 . 5 0. 3 6 <0 . 7 <2 . 0 1. 3 NA 10 81 20 20 19 37 <5 36 NA NA 0. 0 1 8 NA 4 5. 6 NA <1 3. 1 <1 . 2 NA 1. 4 NA <2 <0 . 5 NA NA 0. 3 4 0. 7 3 NA 1. 3 NA 94 0 12 , 0 0 0 NA <9 . 7 <62 NA NA <9 . 7 <62 NA NA <9 . 7 <62 NA 0. 0 2 5 <9 . 7 <62 0.021 NA <9 . 7 <62 NA NA <9 . 7 <62 NA <0 . 9 9 0 <9 . 7 <62 <0.990 NA <1 9 <120 NA NA <9 . 7 <62 NA NA <9 . 7 <62 NA NA <9 . 7 <62 NA NA <2 4 <160 NA 0. 1 3 <9 . 7 <62 <0.2 NA NA NA NA <0 . 2 <9 . 7 <62 <0.2 <0 . 2 <9 . 7 <62 <0.2 <0 . 2 <9 . 7 <62 <0.2 1. 9 <9 . 7 <62 <0.2 <0 . 2 <9 . 7 <62 <0.2 NA NA NA NA 4 <4 8 <31 <0.2 Te t e r En g i n e e r i n g (2015 215 ‐4633) for Sprinturf 6 G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ S o i l Page 9 of 23 Packet Page 251 of 291 Ta b l e A ‐1 Co m p a r i s o n of Tu r f Ch e m i c a l Co n t e n t to Re s i d e n t i a l So i l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l s Ch e m i c a l Bi s ( 2 ‐ ch l o r o i s o p r o p y l ) e t h e r Bi s ( 2 ‐ et h y l h e x y l ) p h t h a l a t e Bu t y l b e n z y l ph t h a l a t e Ca r b a z o l e Ch r y s e n e Di ‐ n ‐bu t y l p h t h a l a t e Di ‐ n ‐oc t y l p h t h a l a t e Di b e n z ( a , h ) a n t h r a c e n e Di e t h y l ph t h a l a t e Di m e t h y l p h t h a l a t e Di p h e n y l a m i n e Fl u o r a n t h e n e Fl u o r e n e He x a c h l o r o b e n z e n e He x a c h l o r o b u t a d i e n e In d e n o ( 1 , 2 , 3 ‐cd ) p y r e n e Is o p h o r o n e N ‐ Ni t r o s o d i p h e n y l a m i n e Na p h t h a l e n e Ni t r o b e n z e n e Pe n t a c h l o r o p h e n o l Ph e n a n t h r e n e Ph e n o l Py r e n e Fi e l d T u r f Cr u m b Ru b b e r (6 Ye a r s of Ag e ) (L i o y an d We i s e l , 20 1 3 ) (m g / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f Ru b b e r (S B R ? ) (M a x x a m , 20 0 9 ) (m g / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f Cr u m b Ru b b e r (T e s t A m e r i c a , 20 0 9 ) (m g / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f 10 ‐14 CR Y O SB R (C o n e s t o g a ‐ Ro v e r s , 20 0 8 ) (m g / k g ) Fi e l d T u r f SBR (T e s t A m e r i c a , 2011a) (m g / k g ) FieldTurf SBR (TestAmerica, 2011b) (mg/kg)FieldTurf SBR ‐ Wellesley (Conestoga ‐ Rovers, 2008) (mg/kg) Te t e r En g i n e e r i n g (2015 215 ‐4633) for Sprinturf 6 NA <9 . 7 <62 NA 17 0 90 160 <0.990 NA NA NA NA <0 . 2 <9 . 7 <62 <0.2 4. 8 <9 . 7 <62 <0.990 <0 . 9 9 0 <9 . 7 <62 <0.990 <0 . 2 <1 2 <78 <0.2 0. 2 5 <9 . 7 <62 <0.990 <0 . 9 9 0 <9 . 7 <62 <0.990 NA NA NA NA 7. 4 <9 . 7 <62 <0.2 0. 2 <9 . 7 <62 <0.2 NA <9 . 7 <62 NA NA <9 . 7 <62 NA <0 . 2 <9 . 7 <62 <0.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1. 5 <9 . 7 <62 <0.2 NA <9 . 7 <62 NA NA <2 4 <160 NA 3. 6 <9 . 7 <62 <0.2 1. 9 <9 . 7 <62 <0.2 16 <9 . 7 <62 <0.2 G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ S o i l Page 10 of 23 Packet Page 252 of 291 Ta b l e A - 2 C o m p a r i s o n o f A i r b o r n e C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f T u r f C o n s t i t u e n t s t o R e s i d e n t i a l A i r S c r e e n i n g L e v e l s DPH (2010 212 ‐739 A DRRR (2010 212 ‐7602 ES (2007 215 ‐460 Fi e l d F SF ‐1 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d F SF ‐2 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d F SF ‐3 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d F SF ‐4 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d F SF ‐5 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d G SF ‐1 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d G SF ‐2 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d G SF ‐3 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d G SF ‐4 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d G SF ‐5 (µ g / m 3 ) Sy n t h e t i c Tu r f Fi e l d s (R a n g e , µg / m 3 )Background ‐ Grass/Upwind (Range, µg/m 3 )Max. Detect at 4 Crumb Rubber Fields (µg/m 3 )Max. Detect in 4 Towns with Crumb Rubber Fields (µg/m 3 )Crumb Rubber (ng/mL air)Thomas Jefferson Field Max. On ‐field (µg/m 3 ) Ca d m i u m 0. 0 0 1 ND ND Ch r o m i u m NI 0. 8 7 ‐1. 4 ND ‐1.8 Co p p e r NI ND ND Ir o n NI ND ND Le a d 0. 1 5 ND ND Ma n g a n e s e 0. 0 0 5 2 ND ND Ni c k e l 0. 0 0 9 4 ND ND Si l v e r NI ND ND Ti n NI ND ND Zi n c NI ND ND ‐83 PM 2. 5 1. 2 0. 0 0 3 ‐0. 0 4 8 0.003 ‐0.05 PM 10 15 0 PM 10 (C r ) NI PM 10 (P b ) 0. 1 5 PM 10 (Z n ) NI 1, 2 , 4 ‐Tr i m e t h y l b e n z e n e 0. 7 3 10.7 1, 3 ‐Bu t a d i e n e , 2 ‐me t h y l NI 1, 3 ‐Pe n t a d i e n e NI 0.46 1, 3 ‐Pe n t a d i e n e , (E ‐) NI NR 1, 4 ‐Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 0. 2 6 0.12 1, 4 ‐Pe n t a d i e n e NI NR 1 ‐Me t h y l n a p t h a l e n e NI 9.3x10 ‐3 2 ‐Bu t a n o n e (M E K ) 52 0 ND ‐3 ND 2.94 2 ‐Pr o p a n o l 21 1.9 4 ‐(t e r t ‐oc t y l ) p h e n o l NI <0 . 1 9 <0 . 2 0 <0 . 1 9 <0 . 1 9 <0 . 2 0 <0 . 2 1 <0 . 2 1 <0 . 2 1 <0 . 2 1 <0 . 2 1 5.64 4 ‐Et h y l t o l u e n e NI 6.3 4 ‐Me t h y l ‐2 ‐pe n t a n o n e 31 0 3.39 ND Ac e n a p h t h e n e NI ND ND Ac e n a p t h y l e n e NI ND ND 6.6x10 ‐3 Ac e t o n e 32 0 0 9. 3 ‐51 ND ‐11 52.2 An t h r a c e n e NI ND ND Be n z a l d e h y d e , et h y l ‐ NI Be n z e n e 0. 3 6 1.56 0.4 Be n z e n e , 1 ‐et h y l ‐4 ‐me t h y l NI 0.41 Be n z o ( a ) a n t h r a c e n e 0. 0 0 9 2 ND ND 1.1x10 ‐4 Be n z o ( a ) p y r e n e 0. 0 0 0 9 2 ND ND 1.9x10 ‐4 Be n z o ( b ) f l u o r a n t h e n e 0. 0 0 9 2 ND ND 2.1x10 ‐4 Be n z o ( e ) p y r e n e NI 2.6x10 ‐4 Be n z o ( g , h, i) p e r y l e n e NI ND ND 1.4x10 ‐4 Be n z o ( k ) f l u o r a n t h e n e 0. 0 0 9 2 ND ND 8x10 ‐5 Be n z o t h i a z o l e NI <0 . 1 9 <0 . 2 0 <0 . 1 9 <0 . 1 9 <0 . 2 0 0. 3 9 <0 . 2 1 <0 . 2 1 <0 . 2 1 <0 . 2 1 ND ND 1.2 225.87 Bu t a n e NI NR Bu t y l a t e d hy d r o x y a n i s o l e (B H T al t e r a t i o n pr o d u c t ) 49 13.89 Pa r t i c u l a t e Ma t t e r SV O C s an d VO C s Ch e m i c a l Re s i d e n t i a l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l (µ g / m 3 ) Mi l o n e & Ma c B r o o m (2 0 0 8 21 5 ‐38 9 1 ) (F i e l d T u r f ‐ Cr u m b Ru b b e r ) 1 NY C DH M H (2009 212 ‐7391)2 Me t a l s G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ A i r Page 11 of 23 Packet Page 253 of 291 Ta b l e A - 2 C o m p a r i s o n o f A i r b o r n e C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f T u r f C o n s t i t u e n t s t o R e s i d e n t i a l A i r S c r e e n i n g L e v e l s DPH (2010 212 ‐739 A DRRR (2010 212 ‐7602 ES (2007 215 ‐460 Fi e l d F SF ‐1 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d F SF ‐2 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d F SF ‐3 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d F SF ‐4 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d F SF ‐5 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d G SF ‐1 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d G SF ‐2 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d G SF ‐3 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d G SF ‐4 (µ g / m 3 ) Fi e l d G SF ‐5 (µ g / m 3 ) Sy n t h e t i c Tu r f Fi e l d s (R a n g e , µg / m 3 )Background ‐ Grass/Upwind (Range, µg/m 3 )Max. Detect at 4 Crumb Rubber Fields (µg/m 3 )Max. Detect in 4 Towns with Crumb Rubber Fields (µg/m 3 )Crumb Rubber (ng/mL air)Thomas Jefferson Field Max. On ‐field (µg/m 3 ) Ch e m i c a l Re s i d e n t i a l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l (µ g / m 3 ) Mi l o n e & Ma c B r o o m (2 0 0 8 21 5 ‐38 9 1 ) (F i e l d T u r f ‐ Cr u m b Ru b b e r ) 1 NY C DH M H (2009 212 ‐7391)2 Ca r b o n Di s u l f i d e 73 0.47 Ca r b o n te t r a c h l o r i d e 0. 4 7 Ch l o r o f o r m 0. 1 2 ND ‐2. 9 ND ND Ch r o m e t h a n e 9. 4 ND ‐1. 1 ND ‐1.1 1.7 Ch r y s e n e 0. 0 9 2 ND ND 3.4x10 ‐4 Cy c l o h e x a n e 63 0 17.5 1.2 Cy c l o h e x a n e , 1, 1 , 3 ‐tr i m e t h y l NI Cy c l o h e x a n e , 1, 4 ‐di m e t h y l NI De c a n a l NI NR Di b e n z ( a , h ) a n t h r a c e n e 0. 0 0 0 8 4 ND ND Di c h l o r o d i f l u o r o m e t h a n e 10 Et h a n o l NI 6. 2 ‐22 5.1 ‐8.9 Et h y l be n z e n e 1. 1 4.29 Fl u o r a n t h e n e NI ND ND 6.8x10 ‐3 Fl u o r e n e NI ND ND Fr e o n 11 NI 0.34 Fr e o n 11 3 NI 0.085 Fr e o n 12 NI He p t a n e NI 5.72 0.31 He x a d e c a n e NI 1.58 In d e n o ( 1 , 2 , 3 ‐cd ) p y r e n e 0. 0 0 9 2 ND ND Is o p r o p y l b e n z e n e 42 (c u m e n e ) 11.6 Me t h y l c h l o r i d e 9. 4 (c h l o r o m e t h a n e ) Me t h y l e n e Ch l o r i d e 63 ND ‐9 ND ‐6.9 14.1 0.11 Na p h t h a l e n e 0. 0 8 3 ND ND n ‐He x a n e 73 ND ‐2. 1 ND 31.3 Ni t r o s o d i b u t y l a m i n e (n ‐) 0. 0 0 1 8 <1 . 1 <1 . 1 <1 . 4 <1 . 1 <1 <1 . 3 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 Ni t r o s o d i e t h y l a m i n e (n ‐) 0. 0 0 0 0 2 4 <1 . 1 <1 . 1 <1 . 4 <1 . 1 <1 <1 . 3 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 Ni t r o s o d i m e t h y l a m i n e (n ‐) 0. 0 0 0 0 7 2 <1 . 1 <1 . 1 <1 . 4 <1 . 1 <1 <1 . 3 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 Ni t r o s o d i p r o p y l a m i n e (n ‐) 0. 0 0 1 4 <1 . 1 <1 . 1 <1 . 4 <1 . 1 <1 <1 . 3 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 Ni t r o s o m o r p h o l i n e (n ‐) 0. 0 0 1 5 <1 . 1 <1 . 1 <1 . 4 <1 . 1 <1 <1 . 3 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 Ni t r o s o p i p e r i d i n e (n ‐) 0. 0 0 1 <1 . 1 <1 . 1 <1 . 4 <1 . 1 <1 <1 . 3 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 Ni t r o s o p y r r o l i d i n e (n ‐) 0. 0 0 4 6 <1 . 1 <1 . 1 <1 . 4 <1 . 1 <1 <1 . 3 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 <1 . 4 No n a n e 2. 1 1.1 Pe n t a n e 10 0 Pe n t a n e , 2 ‐me t h y l NI Ph e n a n t h r e n e NI ND ND Py r e n e NI ND ND 6.9x10 ‐3 St y r e n e 10 0 1.96 To l u e n e 52 0 ND ‐2. 7 ND ‐2 52.7 6.4 Tr i c h l o r o ‐fl u o r o m e t h a n e 73 Tr i c h l o r o ‐tr i f l u o r o m e t h a n e NI Xy l e n e s 10 14.7 44.3 No t e s : ND = No t De t e c t e d ; NI = No t Id e n t i f i e d ; NR = No t Re p o r t e d ; SV O C = Se m i v o l a t i l e Or g a n i c Co m p o u n d ; VO C = Vo l a t i l e Or g a n i c Co m p o u n d . (1 ) Da t a fr o m Mi l o n e & Ma c B r o o m (2 0 0 8 , Se c t i o n 2, Ta b l e s 2, 3, 5, an d 6, pp . 10 ‐11 , 15 ) . (2 ) Da t a fr o m NY C DH M H (2 0 0 9 , Ta b l e B ‐1, p. ). No t e , mo r e ch e m i c a l s we r e an a l y z e d bu t th e y we r e ND . (3 ) Da t a fr o m CT DP H (2 0 1 0 , Ta b l e 2, p. 35 ) . No t e , mo r e ch e m i c a l s we r e an a l y z e d bu t th e y we r e ND . (4 ) Da t a fr o m CA DR R R (2 0 1 0 , Ta b l e 11 , p. 25 ) . No t e , mo r e ch e m i c a l s we r e an a l y z e d bu t we r e le f t ou t be c a u s e th e y we r e ND or co n s i d e r e d co n t a m i n a t i o n an d no t fu r t h e r ev a l u a t e d . (5 ) Da t a fr o m CA E S (2 0 0 7 , Ta b l e 2, p. 5) . Ou t ‐ga s s i n g ex p e r i m e n t . No t e th a t th e va l u e s we r e co n v e r t e d to µg / m 3 fo r co m p a r i s o n ac r o s s st u d i e s . (6 ) Da t a fr o m NY DH (2 0 0 9 , Ta b l e s 8. 4 an d 8. 5 ) . No t e , mo r e ch e m i c a l s we r e an a l y z e d bu t th e y we r e no t se l e c t e d fo r he a l t h ri s k ev a l u a t i o n . (7 ) Da t a fr o m US EP A (2 0 0 9 , Ta b l e 6, p .3 1 ) . No t e , mo r e ch e m i c a l s we r e an a l y z e d bu t th e y we r e no t re p o r t e d in su m m a r y ta b l e s . No t e th a t th e va l u e s we r e co n v e r t e d to µg / m 3 when necessary for comparison across studies. Hi g h l i g h t e d ce l l s ar e th o s e wi t h va l u e s ab o v e th e i r re s p e c t i v e Re s i d e n t i a l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l . Da t a wa s no t re p o r t e d fo r bl a n k ce l l s . G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ A i r Page 12 of 23 Packet Page 254 of 291 Ta b l e A - 2 C o m p a r i s o n o f A i r b o r n e C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f T u r f C o n s t i t u e n t s t o R e s i d e n t i a l A i r S c r e e n i n g L e v e l s Ca d m i u m Ch r o m i u m Co p p e r Ir o n Le a d Ma n g a n e s e Ni c k e l Si l v e r Ti n Zi n c PM 2. 5 PM 10 PM 10 (C r ) PM 10 (P b ) PM 10 (Z n ) 1, 2 , 4 ‐Tr i m e t h y l b e n z e n e 1, 3 ‐Bu t a d i e n e , 2 ‐me t h y l 1, 3 ‐Pe n t a d i e n e 1, 3 ‐Pe n t a d i e n e , (E ‐) 1, 4 ‐Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 4 ‐Pe n t a d i e n e 1 ‐Me t h y l n a p t h a l e n e 2 ‐Bu t a n o n e (M E K ) 2 ‐Pr o p a n o l 4 ‐(t e r t ‐oc t y l ) p h e n o l 4 ‐Et h y l t o l u e n e 4 ‐Me t h y l ‐2 ‐pe n t a n o n e Ac e n a p h t h e n e Ac e n a p t h y l e n e Ac e t o n e An t h r a c e n e Be n z a l d e h y d e , et h y l ‐ Be n z e n e Be n z e n e , 1 ‐et h y l ‐4 ‐me t h y l Be n z o ( a ) a n t h r a c e n e Be n z o ( a ) p y r e n e Be n z o ( b ) f l u o r a n t h e n e Be n z o ( e ) p y r e n e Be n z o ( g , h, i) p e r y l e n e Be n z o ( k ) f l u o r a n t h e n e Be n z o t h i a z o l e Bu t a n e Bu t y l a t e d hy d r o x y a n i s o l e (B H T al t e r a t i o n pr o d u c t ) Pa r t i c u l a t e Ma t t e r SV O C s an d VO C s Ch e m i c a l Me t a l s Th o m a s Je f f e r s o n Fi e l d Up w i n d (µ g / m 3 ) Th o m a s Je f f e r s o n Fi e l d Ma x . Do w n w i n d (µ g / m 3 ) Jo h n Mu l l a l y Fi e l d Ma x On ‐fi e l d (µ g / m 3 ) Jo h n Mu l l a l y Fi e l d Up w i n d (µ g / m 3 ) Jo h n Mu l l a l y Fi e l d Ma x . Do w n w i n d (µ g / m 3 ) Sy n t h e t i c Tu r f Fi e l d F1 D 1 ‐ On ‐fi e l d (µ g / m 3 ) Sy n t h e t i c Tu r f Fi e l d F1 D 1 ‐ Ba c k g r o u n d (µ g / m 3 ) Synthetic Turf Field F1D2 ‐ On ‐field (µg/m 3 )Synthetic Turf Field F1D2 ‐ Background (µg/m 3 )Synthetic Turf Field F2 ‐ On ‐field (µg/m 3 )Synthetic Turf Field F2 ‐Background (µg/m 3 )Synthetic Turf Field F4 ‐ On Field (µg/m 3 )Synthetic Turf Field F4 ‐Background (µg/m 3 ) 27 . 8 29 . 5 29.8 29.5 NR NR 31.8 28.6 0. 0 0 2 9 0. 0 0 2 0.0036 0.0033 NR NR ND ND ND ND 0.0077 0.0063 NR NR ND ND 0. 0 1 0 8 0. 0 2 3 8 0.0118 0.0116 NR NR 0.0314 0.0217 NR 0. 2 3 NR 1. 1 0. 5 8 NR 0. 5 2 0. 5 3 NR 0. 6 2 0. 1 8 0. 1 3 NR 0. 5 2 1. 3 9 1. 3 0 1.12 1.06 1.21 1.09 1.27 1.30 1. 2 ND ND 0. 7 8 ND 0. 5 3 ND 0.49 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0. 5 6 ND NR 9. 6 NR 0. 5 4 0. 4 1 0. 2 9 0. 2 2 0.26 0.29 0.35 0.38 0.64 0.38 0. 6 7 0. 5 5 ND 6. 5 ND 0. 4 8 0. 3 4 NY DH (2 0 0 9 21 5 ‐46 0 6 ) 6 US EPA (2009 210 ‐1256)7 G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ A i r Page 13 of 23 Packet Page 255 of 291 Ta b l e A - 2 C o m p a r i s o n o f A i r b o r n e C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f T u r f C o n s t i t u e n t s t o R e s i d e n t i a l A i r S c r e e n i n g L e v e l s Ch e m i c a l Ca r b o n Di s u l f i d e Ca r b o n te t r a c h l o r i d e Ch l o r o f o r m Ch r o m e t h a n e Ch r y s e n e Cy c l o h e x a n e Cy c l o h e x a n e , 1, 1 , 3 ‐tr i m e t h y l Cy c l o h e x a n e , 1, 4 ‐di m e t h y l De c a n a l Di b e n z ( a , h ) a n t h r a c e n e Di c h l o r o d i f l u o r o m e t h a n e Et h a n o l Et h y l be n z e n e Fl u o r a n t h e n e Fl u o r e n e Fr e o n 11 Fr e o n 11 3 Fr e o n 12 He p t a n e He x a d e c a n e In d e n o ( 1 , 2 , 3 ‐cd ) p y r e n e Is o p r o p y l b e n z e n e Me t h y l c h l o r i d e Me t h y l e n e Ch l o r i d e Na p h t h a l e n e n ‐He x a n e Ni t r o s o d i b u t y l a m i n e (n ‐) Ni t r o s o d i e t h y l a m i n e (n ‐) Ni t r o s o d i m e t h y l a m i n e (n ‐) Ni t r o s o d i p r o p y l a m i n e (n ‐) Ni t r o s o m o r p h o l i n e (n ‐) Ni t r o s o p i p e r i d i n e (n ‐) Ni t r o s o p y r r o l i d i n e (n ‐) No n a n e Pe n t a n e Pe n t a n e , 2 ‐me t h y l Ph e n a n t h r e n e Py r e n e St y r e n e To l u e n e Tr i c h l o r o ‐fl u o r o m e t h a n e Tr i c h l o r o ‐tr i f l u o r o m e t h a n e Xy l e n e s Th o m a s Je f f e r s o n Fi e l d Up w i n d (µ g / m 3 ) Th o m a s Je f f e r s o n Fi e l d Ma x . Do w n w i n d (µ g / m 3 ) Jo h n Mu l l a l y Fi e l d Ma x On ‐fi e l d (µ g / m 3 ) Jo h n Mu l l a l y Fi e l d Up w i n d (µ g / m 3 ) Jo h n Mu l l a l y Fi e l d Ma x . Do w n w i n d (µ g / m 3 ) Sy n t h e t i c Tu r f Fi e l d F1 D 1 ‐ On ‐fi e l d (µ g / m 3 ) Sy n t h e t i c Tu r f Fi e l d F1 D 1 ‐ Ba c k g r o u n d (µ g / m 3 ) Synthetic Turf Field F1D2 ‐ On ‐field (µg/m 3 )Synthetic Turf Field F1D2 ‐ Background (µg/m 3 )Synthetic Turf Field F2 ‐ On ‐field (µg/m 3 )Synthetic Turf Field F2 ‐Background (µg/m 3 )Synthetic Turf Field F4 ‐ On Field (µg/m 3 )Synthetic Turf Field F4 ‐Background (µg/m 3 ) NY DH (2 0 0 9 21 5 ‐46 0 6 ) 6 US EPA (2009 210 ‐1256)7 0. 5 7 0. 6 3 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.50 0.57 0.63 0. 1 5 0. 0 8 4 ND 0. 9 6 0. 1 5 ND 0. 1 0. 1 NR 0. 6 NR NR 1. 1 NR 0. 4 6 NR 2. 5 7 2. 7 2 2.47 2.77 2.77 2.52 2.37 2.67 0. 6 9 0. 4 0. 4 0. 6 9 0. 7 0. 1 3 0. 1 0. 0 9 2 0. 2 2 0. 1 6 0. 7 4 1 1. 1 0. 4 3 0. 3 0. 9 7 0 . 9 9 0 . 9 7 0 . 9 5 0 . 9 3 0 . 9 3 0 . 9 9 1 . 0 7 0. 1 7 0. 2 9 0. 1 9 2. 3 3 0. 2 4 0. 2 1 ND ND 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0. 7 4 0. 2 1 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.49 0.18 2. 5 2. 3 NR 0. 4 6 NR NR NR 0. 3 5 1. 5 8 0. 5 7 0.41 0.45 0.68 0.72 1.05 0.72 1. 4 6 1. 5 7 1.46 1.52 1.52 1.40 1.35 1.68 0. 0 8 (p p b V ) 0. 0 8 (p p b V ) 0.08 (ppbV)0.08 (ppbV)0.08 (ppbV)0.07 (ppbV)0.07(ppbV)0.15 (ppbV) 0. 7 4 0. 3 5 0.43 ND 0.30 0.35 0.61 ND G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ A i r Page 14 of 23 Packet Page 256 of 291 Ta b l e A - 3 C o m p a r i s o n o f T u r f L e a c h i n g R e s u l t s t o R e g u l a t o r y G u i d e l i n e L e v e l s Li m o n t a In f i l l ‐Pr o Ge o (µ g / L ) Li m o n t a Tu r f ‐Ma x ‐S (µ g / L ) Ra w Cr u m b Ru b b e r (µ g / L ) Fi e l d F (4 mo n t h s ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d F (6 mo n t h s ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d G (6 mo n t h s ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d F (1 ye a r ) (µ g / L ) Field E (4 months)(µg/L)Green Crumb Rubber ‐ SPLP 1 (µg/L)Green Crumb Rubber ‐ SPLP 2 (µg/L)Black Crumb Rubber ‐ SPLP 1 (µg/L)Black Crumb Rubber ‐ SPLP 2 (µg/L) Al u m i n u m 4, 0 0 0 An t i m o n y 12 0 ND ND Ar s e n i c 3 ND ND <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 Ba r i u m 12 0 , 0 0 0 43 0 ND <5 0 <5 0 <5 0 <5 0 <5 0 <50 Be r y l l i u m 20 ND ND Br o m i d e NI ND ND Ca d m i u m 80 ND ND <5 <5 <1 <1 <5 <5 Ca l c i u m NI Ch r o m i u m NI ND ND <5 0 <5 0 <5 0 <5 0 <5 0 <50 Co b a l t 2, 0 0 0 ND ND Co p p e r 26 , 0 0 0 ND ND <4 0 <4 0 <4 0 <4 0 NA NA Ir o n NI Le a d 10 0 ND ND <1 3 <1 3 6 4 <1 3 <13 Ma g n e s i u m NI Ma n g a n e s e 1, 0 0 0 Me r c u r y 40 ND ND <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 Mo l y b d e n u m NI ND ND Ni c k e l 20 0 0 (s o l u b l e sa l t s ) ND ND <5 0 <5 0 <5 0 <5 0 NA NA Po t a s s i u m NI Se l e n i u m 80 0 ND ND <1 0 <1 0 <2 <2 <1 0 <10 Si l v e r 80 0 ND ND <2 0 <2 0 <2 0 <2 0 <2 0 <20 So d i u m NI Th a l l i u m 10 ND ND Va n a d i u m 2 ND ND Zi n c 40 , 0 0 0 ND ND 16 0 0 91 0 19 0 0 11 0 0 24 0 0 4700 8.4 110 38 69 1H ‐is o i n d o l e ‐1, 3 ( 2 H ) ‐di o n e NI 1, 2 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 12 , 0 0 0 1, 2 , 4 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o b e n z e n e 18 0 1, 3 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 12 , 0 0 0 1, 4 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 5 0 0 2 ‐ Ch l o r o p h e n o l 80 0 2( 3 H ) ‐be n z o t h i a z o l o n e NI 2, 4 ‐ Di c h l o r o p h e n o l 40 0 2, 4 ‐Di m e t h y l p h e n o l 2, 0 0 0 2, 4 ‐ Di n i t r o p h e n o l 20 0 2, 4 ‐ Di n i t r o t o l u e n e NI 2 ‐Me r c a p t o b e n z o t h i a z o l e NI 2 ‐Me t h y l p h e n o l NI 2, 4 , 5 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o p h e n o l 14 , 0 0 0 2, 4 , 6 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o p h e n o l 20 4 ‐Me t h y l p h e n o l NI 3, 3 ' ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z i d i n e 30 Ch e m i c a l Gu i d e l i n e Le v e l (µ g / L ) Me t a l s SV O C s an d VO C s Cu r t i s & To m p k i n s (2 0 1 1 21 5 ‐46 3 2 ) 1 Mi l o n e & Ma c B r o o m (2 0 0 8 21 5 ‐38 9 1 ) (F i e l d T u r f ‐ Cr u m b Ru b b e r ) 2 Teter Engineering (2015 215 ‐4633) for Sprinturf 3 G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ L e a c h i n g Page 15 of 23 Packet Page 257 of 291 Ta b l e A - 3 C o m p a r i s o n o f T u r f L e a c h i n g R e s u l t s t o R e g u l a t o r y G u i d e l i n e L e v e l s Li m o n t a In f i l l ‐Pr o Ge o (µ g / L ) Li m o n t a Tu r f ‐Ma x ‐S (µ g / L ) Ra w Cr u m b Ru b b e r (µ g / L ) Fi e l d F (4 mo n t h s ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d F (6 mo n t h s ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d G (6 mo n t h s ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d F (1 ye a r ) (µ g / L ) Field E (4 months)(µg/L)Green Crumb Rubber ‐ SPLP 1 (µg/L)Green Crumb Rubber ‐ SPLP 2 (µg/L)Black Crumb Rubber ‐ SPLP 1 (µg/L)Black Crumb Rubber ‐ SPLP 2 (µg/L) Ch e m i c a l Gu i d e l i n e Le v e l (µ g / L ) Cu r t i s & To m p k i n s (2 0 1 1 21 5 ‐46 3 2 ) 1 Mi l o n e & Ma c B r o o m (2 0 0 8 21 5 ‐38 9 1 ) (F i e l d T u r f ‐ Cr u m b Ru b b e r ) 2 Teter Engineering (2015 215 ‐4633) for Sprinturf 3 Ac e n a p h t h e n e 4, 2 0 0 Ac e t o p h e n o n e 14 , 0 0 0 An i l i n e NI <9.6 <9.4 <9.6 <9.4 An t h r a c e n e 43 Be n z a l d e h y d e , 3 ‐hy d r o x y l ‐4 ‐me t h o x y NI Be n z o ( a ) a n t h r a c e n e 1 Be n z o ( a ) p y r e n e 0. 1 Be n z o ( b ) f l u o r a n t h e n e 1 Be n z o ( k ) f l u o r a n t h e n e 0. 8 Be n z o i c Ac i d NI Be n z o t h i a z o l e NI Be n z y l al c o h o l NI Bi s ( 2 ‐ ch l o r o e t h y l ) e t h e r 7 Bi s ( 2 ‐ ch l o r o i s o p r o p y l ) e t h e r 6, 0 0 0 Bi s ( 2 ‐et h y l h e x y l ) ph t h a l a t e 40 Bu t y l b e n z y l ph t h a l a t e 2, 0 0 0 Ca r b a z o l e NI Ch r y s e n e 2 Cy c l o h e x a n e , is o t h i o c y a n a t o ‐ NI Cy c l o h e x a n e a m i n e , N ‐cy c l o h e x y l NI Cy c l o h e x a n o n e NI Di b e n z ( a , h ) a n t h r a c e n e 0. 3 Di e t h y l ph t h a l a t e 12 0 , 0 0 0 Di m e t h y l p h t h a l a t e NI Di ‐n ‐bu t y l ph t h a l a t e 11 , 0 0 0 Di ‐ n ‐oc t y l p h t h a l a t e 20 Di p h e n y l a m i n e NI Fl u o r a n t h e n e 21 0 Fl u o r e n e 20 0 0 Fo r m a m i d e , N ‐cy c l o h e x y l ‐ NI He x a c h l o r o b e n z e n e 0. 4 He x a c h l o r o b u t a d i e n e 8 (H e x a c h l o r o ‐1, 3 ‐bu t a d i e n e ) He x a n e d i o i c ac i d , bi s ( 2 ‐et h y l h e x y l ) NI In d e n o ( 1 , 2 , 3 ‐ cd ) p y r e n e 0. 2 Is o p h o r o n e 80 0 Me t h a n e , di e t h o x y ‐cy c l o h e x a n e NI Me t h y l is o b u t y l ke t o n e NI Na p t h a l e n e 6, 0 0 0 Ni t r o b e n z e n e 80 n ‐Ni t r o s o d i p h e n y l a m i n e 14 0 o ‐cy a n o b e n z o i c ac i d NI Pe n t a c h l o r o p h e n o l 6 G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ L e a c h i n g Page 16 of 23 Packet Page 258 of 291 Ta b l e A - 3 C o m p a r i s o n o f T u r f L e a c h i n g R e s u l t s t o R e g u l a t o r y G u i d e l i n e L e v e l s Li m o n t a In f i l l ‐Pr o Ge o (µ g / L ) Li m o n t a Tu r f ‐Ma x ‐S (µ g / L ) Ra w Cr u m b Ru b b e r (µ g / L ) Fi e l d F (4 mo n t h s ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d F (6 mo n t h s ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d G (6 mo n t h s ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d F (1 ye a r ) (µ g / L ) Field E (4 months)(µg/L)Green Crumb Rubber ‐ SPLP 1 (µg/L)Green Crumb Rubber ‐ SPLP 2 (µg/L)Black Crumb Rubber ‐ SPLP 1 (µg/L)Black Crumb Rubber ‐ SPLP 2 (µg/L) Ch e m i c a l Gu i d e l i n e Le v e l (µ g / L ) Cu r t i s & To m p k i n s (2 0 1 1 21 5 ‐46 3 2 ) 1 Mi l o n e & Ma c B r o o m (2 0 0 8 21 5 ‐38 9 1 ) (F i e l d T u r f ‐ Cr u m b Ru b b e r ) 2 Teter Engineering (2015 215 ‐4633) for Sprinturf 3 Ph e n a n t h r e n e NI Ph e n o l 40 , 0 0 0 37 15 37 15 Ph t h a l i m i d e NI No t e s : NA = No t An a l y z e d ; ND = No t De t e c t e d ; NI = No t Id e n t i f i e d ; SB R = St y r e n e Bu t a d i e n e Ru b b e r ; SP L P = Sy n t h e t i c Pr e c i p i t a t i o n Le a c h a t e Pr o c e d u r e ; SVOC = Semivolatile Organic Compound; TCLP = Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure; (1 ) Da t a fr o m Cu r t i s & To m p k i n s (2 0 1 1 , pp . 13 ‐14 ) . (2 ) Da t a fr o m Mi l o n e & Ma c B r o o m (2 0 0 8 , Se c t i o n 3, Ta b l e 4, p. 7) . No t e th a t th e va l u e s we r e co n v e r t e d to µg/ L fo r co m p a r i s o n ac r o s s st u d i e s . (3 ) Da t a fr o m Te t e r En g i n e e r i n g (2 0 1 5 , Ta b l e 2) . (4 ) Da t a fr o m Ba u m a n n (2 0 1 4 , Ta b l e 1, p. 5) . (5 ) Da t a fr o m CA E S (2 0 0 7 , Ta b l e 3, p. 6) . (6 ) Da t a fr o m NY DH (2 0 0 9 , Ta b l e s 2. 2 , 2. 3 , an d 2. 4 ) . No t e , mo r e ch e m i c a l s we r e an a l y z e d bu t th e y we r e ND . (7 ) Da t a fr o m OE E H A (2 0 0 7 , Ta b l e 14 , p. 54 ) . No t e , mo r e ch e m i c a l s we r e an a l y z e d bu t th e y we r e no t re p o r t e d in su m m a r y ta b l e . (8 ) Da t a fr o m Te t e r En g i n e e r i n g (2 0 1 5 , Ta b l e s A ‐2 an d A ‐4) . Hi g h l i g h t e d ce l l s ar e th o s e wi t h va l u e s ab o v e th e i r re s p e c t i v e Re s i d e n t i a l Sc r e e n i n g Le v e l . Da t a wa s no t re p o r t e d fo r bl a n k ce l l s . G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ L e a c h i n g Page 17 of 23 Packet Page 259 of 291 Ta b l e A - 3 C o m p a r i s o n o f T u r f L e a c h i n g R e s u l t s t o R e g u l a t o r y G u i d e l i n e L e v e l s Al u m i n u m An t i m o n y Ar s e n i c Ba r i u m Be r y l l i u m Br o m i d e Ca d m i u m Ca l c i u m Ch r o m i u m Co b a l t Co p p e r Ir o n Le a d Ma g n e s i u m Ma n g a n e s e Me r c u r y Mo l y b d e n u m Ni c k e l Po t a s s i u m Se l e n i u m Si l v e r So d i u m Th a l l i u m Va n a d i u m Zi n c 1H ‐is o i n d o l e ‐1, 3 ( 2 H ) ‐di o n e 1, 2 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 2 , 4 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 3 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 4 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 2 ‐ Ch l o r o p h e n o l 2( 3 H ) ‐be n z o t h i a z o l o n e 2, 4 ‐ Di c h l o r o p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐Di m e t h y l p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di n i t r o p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di n i t r o t o l u e n e 2 ‐Me r c a p t o b e n z o t h i a z o l e 2 ‐Me t h y l p h e n o l 2, 4 , 5 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o p h e n o l 2, 4 , 6 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o p h e n o l 4 ‐Me t h y l p h e n o l 3, 3 ' ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z i d i n e Ch e m i c a l Me t a l s SV O C s an d VO C s Ba u m a n n (2 0 1 4 21 5 ‐46 3 8 ) 4 NY DH (2 0 0 9 21 5 ‐46 0 6 ) 6 Sy n t h e t i c Tu r f (µ g / L ) Cr u m b Ru b b e r ‐ Am o u n t in Wa t e r (µ g / k g ti r e ) Cr u m b Ru b b e r ‐ Am o u n t in Ac i d i f i e d Wa t e r (µ g / k g ti r e ) Cr u m b Ru b b e r (3 1 sa m p l e s , av e r a g e µg / L ) Ti r e Sa m p l e "G " (µ g / L ) Ti r e Sa m p l e "S " (µ g / L ) Tire Sa m p l e "C" (µg/L)FieldTurf ‐ SPLP 10 ‐14 Cryogenic Crumb Rubber (Conestoga ‐ Rovers, 2008) (µg/L)FieldTurf ‐ SPLP Crumb Rubber (Wellesley Field)(Conestoga ‐ Rovers, 2008) (µg/L)FieldTurf ‐ SPLP Cryogenic Crumb Rubber (A ‐1007/T12)(Li et al ., 2010a) (µg/L) ND ND 11 0 42 1.7 <10 <10 NA <5 0 ND 6. 1 5. 4 4.7 <10 <10 <3.0 30 . 4 13 0 11 0 870 6.3 0.74 13 ND <4 <4 NA <4 0. 0 7 0. 2 6 ND 2. 2 2. 8 1.1 <5 <5 <1 24 4 3 . 5 <5 ND 41 57 35 <5 1.7 <1 ND 45 50 33 1.4 <50 NA 9. 8 15 0 0 96 0 1600 0.93 5 0.69 17 0 4 . 8 <4 0 1. 8 5 3. 2 6 12 . 8 14 0 12 0 48 <100 <100 0.19 ND 20 . 7 <0 . 5 ND <0.2 <0.2 NA ND 11 18 8.5 NA NA NA ND 27 27 22 <40 <40 0.65 ND 24 6 26 0 ND 18 10 7.1 NA NA NA ND <5 <5 NA ND ND <10 <10 NA ND 9 9. 5 5.8 <50 1.1 NA 95 20 9 5 7 55 0 1 0 19 4 7 . 4 17 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 13000 342 4.3 2,450 ND 49 0 ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <5.0 <5.0 NA NA NA NA 26 1 . 9 64 0 45 0 480 NA NA NA 2. 6 2.7 <10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 52 . 4 1. 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3. 2 NA NA NA CA E S (2 0 0 7 21 5 ‐46 0 3 ) 5 OE E H A (2 0 0 7 21 5 ‐46 1 4 ) 7 G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ L e a c h i n g Page 18 of 23 Packet Page 260 of 291 Ta b l e A - 3 C o m p a r i s o n o f T u r f L e a c h i n g R e s u l t s t o R e g u l a t o r y G u i d e l i n e L e v e l s Ch e m i c a l Ac e n a p h t h e n e Ac e t o p h e n o n e An i l i n e An t h r a c e n e Be n z a l d e h y d e , 3 ‐hy d r o x y l ‐4 ‐me t h o x y Be n z o ( a ) a n t h r a c e n e Be n z o ( a ) p y r e n e Be n z o ( b ) f l u o r a n t h e n e Be n z o ( k ) f l u o r a n t h e n e Be n z o i c Ac i d Be n z o t h i a z o l e Be n z y l al c o h o l Bi s ( 2 ‐ ch l o r o e t h y l ) e t h e r Bi s ( 2 ‐ ch l o r o i s o p r o p y l ) e t h e r Bi s ( 2 ‐et h y l h e x y l ) ph t h a l a t e Bu t y l b e n z y l ph t h a l a t e Ca r b a z o l e Ch r y s e n e Cy c l o h e x a n e , is o t h i o c y a n a t o ‐ Cy c l o h e x a n e a m i n e , N ‐cy c l o h e x y l Cy c l o h e x a n o n e Di b e n z ( a , h ) a n t h r a c e n e Di e t h y l ph t h a l a t e Di m e t h y l p h t h a l a t e Di ‐n ‐bu t y l ph t h a l a t e Di ‐ n ‐oc t y l p h t h a l a t e Di p h e n y l a m i n e Fl u o r a n t h e n e Fl u o r e n e Fo r m a m i d e , N ‐cy c l o h e x y l ‐ He x a c h l o r o b e n z e n e He x a c h l o r o b u t a d i e n e He x a n e d i o i c ac i d , bi s ( 2 ‐et h y l h e x y l ) In d e n o ( 1 , 2 , 3 ‐ cd ) p y r e n e Is o p h o r o n e Me t h a n e , di e t h o x y ‐cy c l o h e x a n e Me t h y l is o b u t y l ke t o n e Na p t h a l e n e Ni t r o b e n z e n e n ‐Ni t r o s o d i p h e n y l a m i n e o ‐cy a n o b e n z o i c ac i d Pe n t a c h l o r o p h e n o l Ba u m a n n (2 0 1 4 21 5 ‐46 3 8 ) 4 NY DH (2 0 0 9 21 5 ‐46 0 6 ) 6 Sy n t h e t i c Tu r f (µ g / L ) Cr u m b Ru b b e r ‐ Am o u n t in Wa t e r (µ g / k g ti r e ) Cr u m b Ru b b e r ‐ Am o u n t in Ac i d i f i e d Wa t e r (µ g / k g ti r e ) Cr u m b Ru b b e r (3 1 sa m p l e s , av e r a g e µg / L ) Ti r e Sa m p l e "G " (µ g / L ) Ti r e Sa m p l e "S " (µ g / L ) Tire Sa m p l e "C" (µg/L)FieldTurf ‐ SPLP 10 ‐14 Cryogenic Crumb Rubber (Conestoga ‐ Rovers, 2008) (µg/L)FieldTurf ‐ SPLP Crumb Rubber (Wellesley Field)(Conestoga ‐ Rovers, 2008) (µg/L)FieldTurf ‐ SPLP Cryogenic Crumb Rubber (A ‐1007/T12)(Li et al ., 2010a) (µg/L) CA E S (2 0 0 7 21 5 ‐46 0 3 ) 5 OE E H A (2 0 0 7 21 5 ‐46 1 4 ) 7 <2.0 <2.1 NA 2. 3 10 3 . 4 28 0 0 30 0 0 6700 <2.0 <2.1 NA <2.0 <2.1 NA ND ND ND <2.0 <2.1 NA <2.0 <2.1 NA <2.0 3.9 NA <2.0 <2.1 NA 19 . 8 NA NA NA 52 6 . 3 32 0 45 0 390 2. 8 <2.0 <2.1 NA NA NA NA 1. 6 <10 <10 NA <10 <10 NA 1. 4 <2.0 <2.1 NA 12 9 . 6 20 8 . 1 19 0 41 0 ND ND ND 48 <2.0 <2.1 NA 1. 7 3 <10 NA <10 <10 NA 1. 2 <10 <10 NA 4.1 <10 NA <2.0 <2.1 NA <2.0 <2.1 NA ND ND 110 NA NA NA NA NA NA ND ND ND <2.0 <2.1 NA 3. 6 NA NA NA 33 0 17 3 . 5 1. 4 0.93 <2.1 NA NA NA NA 3. 6 NA NA NA 99 0 ND 910 NA NA NA G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ L e a c h i n g Page 19 of 23 Packet Page 261 of 291 Ta b l e A - 3 C o m p a r i s o n o f T u r f L e a c h i n g R e s u l t s t o R e g u l a t o r y G u i d e l i n e L e v e l s Ch e m i c a l Ph e n a n t h r e n e Ph e n o l Ph t h a l i m i d e Ba u m a n n (2 0 1 4 21 5 ‐46 3 8 ) 4 NY DH (2 0 0 9 21 5 ‐46 0 6 ) 6 Sy n t h e t i c Tu r f (µ g / L ) Cr u m b Ru b b e r ‐ Am o u n t in Wa t e r (µ g / k g ti r e ) Cr u m b Ru b b e r ‐ Am o u n t in Ac i d i f i e d Wa t e r (µ g / k g ti r e ) Cr u m b Ru b b e r (3 1 sa m p l e s , av e r a g e µg / L ) Ti r e Sa m p l e "G " (µ g / L ) Ti r e Sa m p l e "S " (µ g / L ) Tire Sa m p l e "C" (µg/L)FieldTurf ‐ SPLP 10 ‐14 Cryogenic Crumb Rubber (Conestoga ‐ Rovers, 2008) (µg/L)FieldTurf ‐ SPLP Crumb Rubber (Wellesley Field)(Conestoga ‐ Rovers, 2008) (µg/L)FieldTurf ‐ SPLP Cryogenic Crumb Rubber (A ‐1007/T12)(Li et al ., 2010a) (µg/L) CA E S (2 0 0 7 21 5 ‐46 0 3 ) 5 OE E H A (2 0 0 7 21 5 ‐46 1 4 ) 7 <2.0 0.76 NA 12 . 8 19 0 ND ND 35 0.86 NA 10 8 . 6 ; VO C = Vo l a t i l e Or g a n i c Co m p o u n d . G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ L e a c h i n g Page 20 of 23 Packet Page 262 of 291 Ta b l e A - 3 C o m p a r i s o n o f T u r f L e a c h i n g R e s u l t s t o R e g u l a t o r y G u i d e l i n e L e v e l s Al u m i n u m An t i m o n y Ar s e n i c Ba r i u m Be r y l l i u m Br o m i d e Ca d m i u m Ca l c i u m Ch r o m i u m Co b a l t Co p p e r Ir o n Le a d Ma g n e s i u m Ma n g a n e s e Me r c u r y Mo l y b d e n u m Ni c k e l Po t a s s i u m Se l e n i u m Si l v e r So d i u m Th a l l i u m Va n a d i u m Zi n c 1H ‐is o i n d o l e ‐1, 3 ( 2 H ) ‐di o n e 1, 2 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 2 , 4 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 3 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 1, 4 ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z e n e 2 ‐ Ch l o r o p h e n o l 2( 3 H ) ‐be n z o t h i a z o l o n e 2, 4 ‐ Di c h l o r o p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐Di m e t h y l p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di n i t r o p h e n o l 2, 4 ‐ Di n i t r o t o l u e n e 2 ‐Me r c a p t o b e n z o t h i a z o l e 2 ‐Me t h y l p h e n o l 2, 4 , 5 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o p h e n o l 2, 4 , 6 ‐ Tr i c h l o r o p h e n o l 4 ‐Me t h y l p h e n o l 3, 3 ' ‐ Di c h l o r o b e n z i d i n e Ch e m i c a l Me t a l s SV O C s an d VO C s Fi e l d T u r f ‐ SP L P Am b i e n t Cr u m b Ru b b e r (C u r t i s & To m p k i n s , 20 1 3 b ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d T u r f ‐ SP L P Cr y o g e n i c Cr u m b Ru b b e r (C u r t i s & To m p k i n s , 20 1 3 b ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d T u r f ‐ TC L P 10 ‐14 Cr y o g e n i c Cr u m b Ru b b e r (C o n e s t o g a ‐ Ro v e r s , 20 0 8 ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d T u r f ‐ TCLP Cr u m b Ru b b e r (W e l l e s l e y Field) (C o n e s t o g a ‐ Ro v e r s , 2008) (µ g / L ) FieldTurf ‐ WET SBR (TestAmerica, 2011a) (µg/L)FieldTurf ‐ WET SBR (TestAmerica, 2011b) (µg/L) <1 <1 NA NA <200 <200 <1 . 2 <1 . 2 13 0 14 0 <200 <200 2. 8 <1 29 2. 5 220 <200 <4 . 3 <4 . 3 NA NA <80 <80 <1 . 3 <1 . 3 <1 0 0 <1 0 0 <100 <100 <1 <1 3 3. 5 100 <100 1. 1 2. 4 NA NA <200 <200 <1 9. 7 NA NA 880 310 <1 <1 3. 3 <5 0 0 <100 <100 <0 . 2 <0 . 2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 . 2 <3 . 2 NA NA <400 <400 <3 . 0 <3 . 0 NA NA <200 <200 <1 <1 <2 5 0 <2 5 0 <200 <200 <1 <1 <5 0 0 <5 0 0 <200 <200 <1 <1 NA NA <200 <200 <1 . 1 <1 . 1 NA NA <200 <200 24 0 87 0 NA NA 15,000 5,900 <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 <5 0 <5 0 <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <5 0 <5 1 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 <5 0 <5 0 <1 0 <1 0 <5 0 <5 0 <1 0 <1 0 <5 0 <5 0 <2 0 <2 0 NA NA Te t e r En g i n e e r i n g (2 0 1 5 21 5 ‐46 3 3 ) fo r Sp r i n t u r f 8 G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ L e a c h i n g Page 21 of 23 Packet Page 263 of 291 Ta b l e A - 3 C o m p a r i s o n o f T u r f L e a c h i n g R e s u l t s t o R e g u l a t o r y G u i d e l i n e L e v e l s Ch e m i c a l Ac e n a p h t h e n e Ac e t o p h e n o n e An i l i n e An t h r a c e n e Be n z a l d e h y d e , 3 ‐hy d r o x y l ‐4 ‐me t h o x y Be n z o ( a ) a n t h r a c e n e Be n z o ( a ) p y r e n e Be n z o ( b ) f l u o r a n t h e n e Be n z o ( k ) f l u o r a n t h e n e Be n z o i c Ac i d Be n z o t h i a z o l e Be n z y l al c o h o l Bi s ( 2 ‐ ch l o r o e t h y l ) e t h e r Bi s ( 2 ‐ ch l o r o i s o p r o p y l ) e t h e r Bi s ( 2 ‐et h y l h e x y l ) ph t h a l a t e Bu t y l b e n z y l ph t h a l a t e Ca r b a z o l e Ch r y s e n e Cy c l o h e x a n e , is o t h i o c y a n a t o ‐ Cy c l o h e x a n e a m i n e , N ‐cy c l o h e x y l Cy c l o h e x a n o n e Di b e n z ( a , h ) a n t h r a c e n e Di e t h y l ph t h a l a t e Di m e t h y l p h t h a l a t e Di ‐n ‐bu t y l ph t h a l a t e Di ‐ n ‐oc t y l p h t h a l a t e Di p h e n y l a m i n e Fl u o r a n t h e n e Fl u o r e n e Fo r m a m i d e , N ‐cy c l o h e x y l ‐ He x a c h l o r o b e n z e n e He x a c h l o r o b u t a d i e n e He x a n e d i o i c ac i d , bi s ( 2 ‐et h y l h e x y l ) In d e n o ( 1 , 2 , 3 ‐ cd ) p y r e n e Is o p h o r o n e Me t h a n e , di e t h o x y ‐cy c l o h e x a n e Me t h y l is o b u t y l ke t o n e Na p t h a l e n e Ni t r o b e n z e n e n ‐Ni t r o s o d i p h e n y l a m i n e o ‐cy a n o b e n z o i c ac i d Pe n t a c h l o r o p h e n o l Fi e l d T u r f ‐ SP L P Am b i e n t Cr u m b Ru b b e r (C u r t i s & To m p k i n s , 20 1 3 b ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d T u r f ‐ SP L P Cr y o g e n i c Cr u m b Ru b b e r (C u r t i s & To m p k i n s , 20 1 3 b ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d T u r f ‐ TC L P 10 ‐14 Cr y o g e n i c Cr u m b Ru b b e r (C o n e s t o g a ‐ Ro v e r s , 20 0 8 ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d T u r f ‐ TCLP Cr u m b Ru b b e r (W e l l e s l e y Field) (C o n e s t o g a ‐ Ro v e r s , 2008) (µ g / L ) FieldTurf ‐ WET SBR (TestAmerica, 2011a) (µg/L)FieldTurf ‐ WET SBR (TestAmerica, 2011b) (µg/L) Te t e r En g i n e e r i n g (2 0 1 5 21 5 ‐46 3 3 ) fo r Sp r i n t u r f 8 <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <5 0 <5 1 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 11 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 <5 0 <5 0 <1 0 <1 0 <5 0 <5 0 <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 <5 0 <5 0 <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <2 0 <2 0 <2 5 0 <2 5 0 G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ L e a c h i n g Page 22 of 23 Packet Page 264 of 291 Ta b l e A - 3 C o m p a r i s o n o f T u r f L e a c h i n g R e s u l t s t o R e g u l a t o r y G u i d e l i n e L e v e l s Ch e m i c a l Ph e n a n t h r e n e Ph e n o l Ph t h a l i m i d e Fi e l d T u r f ‐ SP L P Am b i e n t Cr u m b Ru b b e r (C u r t i s & To m p k i n s , 20 1 3 b ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d T u r f ‐ SP L P Cr y o g e n i c Cr u m b Ru b b e r (C u r t i s & To m p k i n s , 20 1 3 b ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d T u r f ‐ TC L P 10 ‐14 Cr y o g e n i c Cr u m b Ru b b e r (C o n e s t o g a ‐ Ro v e r s , 20 0 8 ) (µ g / L ) Fi e l d T u r f ‐ TCLP Cr u m b Ru b b e r (W e l l e s l e y Field) (C o n e s t o g a ‐ Ro v e r s , 2008) (µ g / L ) FieldTurf ‐ WET SBR (TestAmerica, 2011a) (µg/L)FieldTurf ‐ WET SBR (TestAmerica, 2011b) (µg/L) Te t e r En g i n e e r i n g (2 0 1 5 21 5 ‐46 3 3 ) fo r Sp r i n t u r f 8 <1 0 <1 0 NA NA <1 0 <1 0 NA NA G RA D I E N T G: \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 5 0 7 0 _ V e r d a n t _ T u r f \ 1 5 0 5 2 6 _ A p p e n d i x A _ D a t a T a b l e s \ L e a c h i n g Page 23 of 23 Packet Page 265 of 291 G:\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\apdx.B.header.052615z.docx Appendix B Conclusions From Regulatory and Other Agencies Packet Page 266 of 291 1 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\apdx.B.052615z.docx Appendix B: Conclusions From Regulatory and Other Agencies California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (2007)  In 2007, CalOEHHA performed an extensive evaluation of possible exposure to and effects from chemicals in SBR. They evaluated ingestion, gastric bioavailability, and chronic hand-to-mouth activity. The performed a detailed risk assessment that involved calculating hazard indices and cancer risks for these scenarios. They found that none of the scenarios evaluated were associated with unacceptable risks.  CalOEHHA acknowledges limitations of its study, including uncertainties that might increase or decrease risk estimates, as well as uncertainty in the data evaluated. They also did not perform an evaluation of possible risks related to inhalation exposure. Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station (2007)  This is a "very modest study" of artificial turf infill conducted to determine if compounds volatilized from infill and whether chemicals could leach from the infill. The authors concluded that chemicals did volatilize (including benzothiazole) and leach (zinc, selenium, lead, and cadmium) from the materials under laboratory conditions. They further state that additional data should be collected, in particular from field studies. No statements related to the health implications of the volatilization or leaching are provided. Connecticut Department of Public Health (2007)  This "Technical Fact Sheet" was produced in response to concerns related to exposures from artificial turf. It is a general review of the literature available at the time. The authors note that people are exposed to the chemical of concern (metals, PAHs, particulate matter) during everyday activity, and also note that in some urban areas approximately 1-2% of the ambient particulate matter is composed of tire material.  The evaluation concludes, "Based upon the current evidence, a public health risk appears unlikely. DPH does not believe there is a unique or significant exposure from chemicals that can be inhaled or ingested at these fields. However, there is still uncertainty and additional investigation is warranted." New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection (2007)  This document is a literature review and evaluation of possible toxicity from ingestion, dermal, and inhalation of component of artificial turf. In general, the authors states that there is not enough information to complete a standard risk assessment. However, the evaluation concludes, "…with the possible exception of allergic reactions among individuals sensitized to latex, rubber and related products, there was no obvious toxicological concern raised that crumb rubber in its intended outdoor use on playgrounds and playing fields would cause adverse health effects in the normal population." Packet Page 267 of 291 2 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\apdx.B.052615z.docx CDC (2008)  This document is a CDC health advisory that is related to lead samples taken on artificial turf fields. The advisory notes that nylon/polyethylene blend turf fibers may have levels of lead that are a public health concern. Fields with polyethylene fibers only had low levels of lead.  As noted previously, after 2008 the lead content of artificial turf fields has decreased substantially. Consumer Product Safety Commission (2008a)  This is a limited study that evaluated potential risks from exposure to lead at artificial turf fields. The evaluation concluded that young children are not at risk from exposure to lead in these fields. The limitations of the study are explicitly addressed, including sample uniformity, sample method quality, and the uncertain bioavailability of lead from fields. TRC/New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (2008)  This document is a literature review and compilation of the other risk assessments conducted up until 2008. They note that, "Eleven different risk assessments applied various available concentrations of COPCs [Chemicals of Potential Concern] and none identified an increased risk for human health effects as a result of ingestion, dermal or inhalation exposure to crumb rubber." New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (2009)  Based upon possible data gaps from an earlier review of the literature, an air monitoring study was conducted to determine concentrations of SVOCs, VOCs, metals, and particulate matter above artificial turf fields.  The only chemicals detected were considered to be either a) at similar levels to background samples, or b) at levels below those associated with possible health effects. None of the PAHs were detected, and a marker for synthetic rubber (benzothiazole) was also not detected.  Based on the lack of detected and/or elevated concentrations, a risk assessment was not deemed to be necessary. The report did note that one bulk sample contained elevated levels of lead. However, since this time period the levels of lead used in artificial turf products has decreased significantly. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (2009)  This study evaluated the potential toxicity associated with SBR using a number of different experiments.  The leaching investigation (using the SPLP protocol) found that "Zinc (solely from truck tires), aniline, and phenol have the potential to be released above groundwater standards or guidance Packet Page 268 of 291 3 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\apdx.B.052615z.docx values." However, when the New York dilution-attenuation factor was applied to the results, it indicated that there was unlikely to be an impact on groundwater.  An evaluation of SBR digested in acid revealed that the levels of lead did not exceed federal standards.  Ambient air sampling at artificial turf fields did not reveal concentrations that were above normal urban levels or above health guideline levels. Particulate matter samples were not elevated, which the authors indicate is likely because most of the particulate in SBR is not the respirable size range. They conclude, "A public health evaluation was conducted on the results from the ambient air sampling and concluded that the measured levels of chemicals in air at the Thomas Jefferson and John Mullaly Fields do not raise a concern for non-cancer or cancer health effects for people who use or visit the fields."  Limitations of this study are discussed by the authors, "This report is not intended to broadly address all synthetic turf issues, including the potential public health implications associated with the presence of lead-based pigments in synthetic turf fibers." US EPA (2009)  The US EPA conducted a limited scale air monitoring study for VOCs and particulate matter at several artificial turf fields in 2008. In addition, they analyzed multiple artificial turf and wipe samples.  The air monitoring results did not find that particulate matter or VOCs were elevated above background at the fields, with the exception of one detection of methyl isobutyl ketone. Concentrations of lead in the extraction tests were below levels of concern. The authors note that the aggressive nature of the extraction tests likely overestimates the availability of metals from SBR.  The report concludes, "On average, concentrations of components monitored in this study were below levels of concern; however, given the very limited nature of this study (i.e., limited number of components monitored, samples sites [sic], and samples taken at each site) and the wide diversity of tire crumb material, it is not possible to reach any more comprehensive conclusions without the consideration of additional data." Connecticut Dept. of Public Health (2010)  This evaluation involved air sampling at four outdoor fields and one indoor field in Connecticut, as well as laboratory off-gas studies. A human health risk assessment was prepared using the analytical results.  The study reported that 27 chemicals were evaluated in the risk assessment due to their detection above the indoor or outdoor fields, and the fact that they were potentially associated with the artificial surface. The authors indicate that conservative, health protection assumptions were used in their assessment.  The authors report that despite the conservative nature of the assessment, only the indoor scenario showed a risk (slightly) above de minimis levels. Non-cancer hazards were not elevated in any scenario. The evaluation concludes, "Based upon these findings, the use of outdoor and indoor artificial turf fields is not associated with elevated health risks." Packet Page 269 of 291 4 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\apdx.B.052615z.docx  The results of this Connecticut study have been published in three peer-reviewed articles (Ginsberg et al., 2011a,b; Simcox et al., 2011 ). Mount Sinai Children's Environmental Health Center (Undated)  This document is a fact sheet that presents a brief review of the literature. Potential exposure routes, chemical of concern, and exposure levels are discussed. The fact sheet notes that exposure where health effects have been observed from chemicals associated with artificial turf infills are much higher than exposures at artificial turf fields. Several recommendations for minimizing exposure (washing, wearing shoes, etc.) are presented. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection (2011)  This document presents the results of a limited study of airborne lead concentrations associated with several artificial turf fields in New Jersey. The study observed higher levels of lead were detected during sampling with either a robotic sampler or a soccer player. They also found that where significant amounts of lead were found via wipe samples at a field that there was the potential for inhalation exposure. The author concluded, "While it is not possible to draw broad conclusions from this limited sample of fields the results suggest that there is a potential for inhalable lead to be present on turf fields that have significant amounts of lead present as detectable by surface wipes. It also would appear likely from this sample that if the lead is present to any appreciable extent in the wipes it will likely be present in the breathing zone of players who are active on these fields, and that furthermore, these levels potentially exceed ambient EPA standards."  The levels found in ambient air at fields where high lead levels were observed were approximately half of the US EPA guideline level for lead. CalOEHHA (2010)  CalOEHHA undertook a second evaluation of artificial turf in 2010 under contract to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. The primary focus of their evaluation was VOC and PM2.5 (including metals) concentrations above playing fields using SBR.  The PM2.5 (and associated metals) samples did not show elevations above the detection limit or normal background. Most VOCs were also below the limit of detection. For those VOCs that were detected, they were generally not consistent across the fields evaluated. Regardless, seven VOCs were evaluated in a screening risk assessment and all were found to be below health based screening levels.  Interestingly, the report notes that increasing temperatures were not correlated with increasing VOC levels from the fields. Packet Page 270 of 291 5 \\camfs\G_Drive\Projects\215070_Verdant_Turf\TextProc\apdx.B.052615z.docx Consumer Product Safety Commission (2013)  This document is a letter response to an appeal from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). PEER appealed for the removal of CPSC's conclusions regarding artificial turf from 2008, specifically the conclusion in the 2008 press release, "OK to install, OK to play on." PEER believed that headline was misleading given the limited scope of the study. They specifically requested the removal of all materials related to artificial turf from the CPSC's website, the dissemination of a warning regarding exposure to contaminants in artificial turf, and the commissioning of an ambient air study of artificial turf fields.  The letter denies the appeal request, except for adding an explanatory note about the limitations of the study to the previously posted press release.  There have been subsequent news stories (e.g., Stockman, 2015) indicating that CPSC has withdrawn its determination that artificial turf is safe. However, we were unable to find any documentation of that on their website, and the 2008 press release (with the added note) is still posted. It is uncertain what these news reports are referring to, but it is possible that the addition of the note on limitations was misinterpreted as a retraction. Connecticut Dept. of Public Health (2015)  This document is a letter in response to concerns expressed by a university soccer coach regarding possible cancer clusters related to artificial turf fields. The Connecticut Department of Public Health reiterated its opinion that "…outdoor artificial turf fields do not represent an elevated health risk…"  The document also states that the cancer cluster reports are anecdotal in nature, and the current news reports of cancer "…does not constitute a correlation or causality and thus raises a concern that currently lacks scientific support."  Subsequent investigations of this proposed cancer cluster have raised doubts about its validity (Green, 2015), however, as Dr. Green notes in her review there has been no systematic collection of data for these cases so a cluster investigation is not possible currently. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health (2015)  This document is a letter reviewing more recent literature and risk assessment related to artificial turf components. In addition, the author discussed the possible cancer cluster discussed above.  The review indicates that the recent literature continues to "…suggest that exposure opportunities to artificial turf fields are not generally expected to result in health effects." In addition, the author discusses several issues related to the proposed cluster, including the wide variety of cancers reported. Packet Page 271 of 291 Risks from Chemicals in Artificial Turf: State of the Science Michael Peterson, MEM, DABT Thomas A. Lewandowski, Ph.D., DABT, ERT, ATS Sara Pacheco-Shubin, Ph.D. Verdant Health Commission Board Meeting Lynnwood, WA May 27, 2015 Packet Page 272 of 291 2 Copyright Gradient 2015 Gradient Overview Gradient is known for our scientific specialties and abilities to communicate complex solutions to diverse stakeholders. Product Liability, Stewardship and Registration Environmental Chemistry and Forensics Toxicology, Epidemiology and Human Health Risk Assessment Contaminant Fate and Transport Ecological and Natural Resource Assessments Packet Page 273 of 291 3 Copyright Gradient 2015 Outline •Previous Artificial Turf Experience •Toxicology/Exposure/Risk Assessment Basics •Artificial Turf Screening Risk Assessment •Summary of Regulatory Conclusions •Discussion/Questions Packet Page 274 of 291 4 Copyright Gradient 2015 Dose - THE KEY CONCEPT in Toxicology “All things are poisonous, only the dose makes it non-poisonous.” Dose alone determines toxicity All chemicals—synthetic or natural— have the capacity to be toxic Father of Modern Toxicology Paracelsus—1564 Packet Page 275 of 291 5 Copyright Gradient 2015 Dose Determines Whether a Chemical Will Be Beneficial or Poisonous Beneficial Dose Toxic Dose Aspirin 300 –1,000 mg 1,000 – 30,000 mg Vitamin A 5000 units/day 50,000 units/day Oxygen 20% (Air)50 – 80% (Air) Packet Page 276 of 291 6 Copyright Gradient 2015 Exposure •In order for a chemical to produce a biological effect, it must first reach a target individual •Then the chemical must reach a target site within the body (bioavailability) •Toxicity is a function of the effective dose (how much) of a chemical at its target site, integrated over time (how long). •Individual factors such as body weight will influence the dose at the target site X = Packet Page 277 of 291 7 Copyright Gradient 2015 Exposure Route of Exposure •The route (site) of exposure is an important determinant of the ultimate dose—different routes may result in different rates of absorption. Dermal (skin) Inhalation (lung) Oral ingestion (Gastrointestinal) Injection •The route of exposure may be important if there are tissue-specific toxic responses. •Toxic effects may be local or systemic Packet Page 278 of 291 8 Copyright Gradient 2015 Screening Risk Assessments •Compare media (e.g., product chemistry, air samples, etc.) concentrations to toxicity screening levels •Screening levels designed to be conservative (health protective, even for sensitive populations) Soil screening levels •Assume exposure 365 days/yr •Assume ingestion of ~ 2 teaspoons each day •Also incorporate inhalation of soil dust and dermal contact •Assume 100% bioavailability Calculated using data from tox studies adjusted for uncertainty •Set at “de minimus” levels (1 in a million risk, HQ = 0.1) Packet Page 279 of 291 9 Copyright Gradient 2015 Artificial Turf Screening Risk Assessment •Evaluate the literature for analytical data on chemicals in artificial turf products •Use those data to evaluate possible exposure for people using the surface (dermal, ingestion, inhalation) •Compare those exposure data to toxicity screening levels developed by US EPA Air concentrations to inhalation screening values Product composition concentrations to soil screening values Leaching concentrations to regulatory standards •State of the Science evaluation of literature and regulatory evaluations Packet Page 280 of 291 10 Copyright Gradient 2015 Show Excel Table Packet Page 281 of 291 11 Copyright Gradient 2015 Soil Screening Comparison US EPA RSL (mg/kg) Seattle/ Puget Sound Background Infill-Pro Geo (mg/kg) Turf-Max-S (mg/kg) FieldTurf Crumb Rubber (mg/kg) FieldTurf Crumb Rubber (mg/kg) Metals Antimony 3.1 NI ND ND 3.7 3.4 Cobalt 2.3 NA ND ND 130 120 Thallium 0.078 NA 0.9 ND < 0.74 < 0.8 Zinc 2300 85 11 45 16,000 13,000 SVOCs and VOCs B(a)A 0.15 0.0016-6.0 < 9.7 < 62 B(a)P 0.015 0.0017-6.7 < 9.7 < 62 B(b)F 0.15 0.0032-7.3 < 9.7 < 62 B(k)F 1.5 0.0013-2.0 < 9.7 < 62 B(2-EH)P 38 90 160 Packet Page 282 of 291 12 Copyright Gradient 2015 Leaching Guidelines Comparison Regulatory Guidelines (ug/L) Infill-Pro Geo (µg/L) Turf-Max-S (µg/L) FieldTurf- SPLP Crumb Rubber (µg/L) FieldTurf-SPLP Crumb Rubber (µg/L) FieldTurf-SPLP Crumb Rubber (µg/L) FieldTurf- WET SBR (µg/L) FieldTurf- WET SBR (µg/L) Metals Aluminum 4,000 Antimony 120 ND ND NA < 1 < 1 < 200 < 200 Arsenic 3 ND ND < 3.0 < 1.2 < 1.2 < 200 < 200 Barium 120,000 430 ND 13 2.8 < 1 220 < 200 Beryllium 20 ND ND NA < 4.3 < 4.3 < 80 < 80 Cadmium 80 ND ND < 1 < 1.3 < 1.3 < 100 < 100 Cobalt 2,000 ND ND NA 1.1 2.4 < 200 < 200 Copper 26,000 ND ND 0.69 < 1 9.7 880 310 Lead 100 ND ND 0.19 < 1 < 1 < 100 < 100 Manganese 1,000 Mercury 40 ND ND NA < 0.2 < 0.2 < 2 < 2 Nickel 2000 (soluble salts) ND ND 0.65 < 3.0 < 3.0 < 200 < 200 Selenium 800 ND ND NA < 1 < 1 < 200 < 200 Silver 800 ND ND NA < 1 < 1 < 200 < 200 Thallium 10 ND ND NA < 1 < 1 < 200 < 200 Vanadium 2 ND ND NA < 1.1 < 1.1 < 200 < 200 Zinc 40,000 ND ND 2,450 240 870 15,000 5,900 Packet Page 283 of 291 13 Copyright Gradient 2015 Screening Risk Conclusions •Based on the available data, neither FieldTurf SBR or GeoTurf present a risk from chemical exposures •PAH exposures from using the turf are similar to those observed from playing in Seattle/Puget Sound area soils •Uncertainty Analysis NikeGrind: late data, but preliminary analysis appears okay Data Quality: GeoTurf missing data; organic? Inhalation Data: Similar SBR products support low emissions Carbon nanotubes/carbon black: no data for FieldTurf, but wear products likely different Allergens: no data for GeoTurf, but unlikely to reach occupational levels Packet Page 284 of 291 14 Copyright Gradient 2015 Regulatory/Public Health Organization Documents •Artificial turf reports from 17 different organizations were reviewed US EPA, Connecticut DPH, Massachusetts DPH, CalOEHHA, CPSC, New Jersey DEP, New York City, New York State Some early (~2007/2008) reviews advised re: lead; a 2011 study submitted to NJDEP also discussed lead Organizations that performed actual risk assessments universally found risks below levels of concern Some expressed concern related to data gaps or limitations Packet Page 285 of 291 15 Copyright Gradient 2015 What does CPSC Say? •CPSC 2008 study only looked at lead; no risks from lead exposure 2008 study explicitly detailed limitations •In 2013, denied an appeal to retract 2008 study and issue warnings (added limitations to press release) •In 2015, spokesperson indicates director believes small 2008 sample size did not support conclusions either way; no changes to CPSC website •Due to funding issues, no plans to do reanalysis Packet Page 286 of 291 16 Copyright Gradient 2015 Other Topics: Injuries/Heat •Injuries Older studies note issues with abrasion/turf burn Epidemiology studies of newer surfaces (including systematic review) generally find either lower or comparable injury rates when compared to natural turf •Heat Artificial fields exhibit higher temperatures than natural turf No epidemiology studies of heat stress were located Regulatory agencies generally recommend having water available or increasing breaks Packet Page 287 of 291 17 Copyright Gradient 2015 Summary •Chemical levels found in FieldTurf SBR and GeoTurf infill do not present a risk to people playing on or using the fields with these products •Conclusions are consistent with those of multiple regulatory agencies that have evaluated the risk from SBR •There are limitations; however, the remarkable consistency of the available reviews is comforting Packet Page 288 of 291 Questions? May 27, 2015 Lynnwood, WA Packet Page 289 of 291 Packet Page 290 of 291 Packet Page 291 of 291