Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2015.08.18 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 18, 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-7938 Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of August 4, 2015. B.AM-7920 Approval of claim checks #215502 through #215658 dated August 6, 2015 for $241,589.67. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61722 through #61736 for $479,183.88, check #61745 for $862.78, benefit checks #61737 through #61744 and wire payments of $435,189.94 for the pay period July 16, 2015 through July 31, 2015. C.AM-7939 Approval of claim checks #215659 through #215756 dated August 13, 2015 for $434,021.38. D.AM-7933 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Yoon Kim ($50.00) and George Sly ($500,000). E.AM-7899 Approval of City Computer Equipment Surplus for Donation or Recycling F.AM-7929 Authorization for Mayor to Sign Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District #15 for Madrona K-8 G.AM-7930 Municipal Court Judge Salary Ordinance H.AM-7928 Purchase of Forklift Packet Page 1 of 411 I.AM-7937 Authorization for Mayor to sign an Agreement with PSE to fund the overlay for the 238th St. SW Walkway and Drainage Project 4.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 5.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.(45 Minutes) AM-7932 Marina Beach Master Plan Public Hearing B.(20 Minutes) AM-7909 Public Hearing on a permanent ordinance amending Chapter 20.02 ECDC including a new Section ECDC 20.02.004 to deem a development application withdrawn if an irreconcilable application is submitted later and relocating Section ECDC 20.07.007 regarding resubmission of applications after denial to new Section ECDC 20.02.006. 6.STUDY ITEMS A.(30 Minutes) AM-7916 2015 NonRepresented Compensation Survey policy discussion B.(30 Minutes) AM-7940 Discussion about Possible Creation of an Historic Preservation District. C.(10 Minutes) AM-7931 Snohomish County ILA Amendment D.(10 Minutes) AM-7941 Presentation of Council Grant Requests for Tree Board and Diversity Commission 7.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments 8.(15 Minutes)Council Comments 9.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). 10.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 411 AM-7938 3. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/18/2015 Time:Consent Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of August 4, 2015. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attachment 1 - Draft Council Meeting Minutes. Attachments Attachment 1 - 08-04-15 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 08/13/2015 08:36 AM Final Approval Date: 08/13/2015 Packet Page 3 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES August 4, 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 Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss pending litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso, Bloom, Mesaros and Nelson. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday and City Clerk Scott Passey. At 6:58 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in Council Chambers that an additional 10 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:07 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:14 p.m. and led the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO MOVE ITEM 8B, ILA WITH EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR WOODWAY FIELDS, TO ITEM 7D UNDER STUDY SESSION ITEMS. Councilmember Buckshnis explained she asked this be moved to a study session because she has a number of questions that have not been answered, there is still time to move through this process and to Packet Page 4 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 2 understand it better and it is more of a study session item tonight as the number of people in the audience indicates there will be additional comments made tonight that the Council needs to consider. Councilmember Bloom expressed concerned with continuing to delay the ILA. Councilmember Buckshnis another reason for moving this to a study session was the City Attorney and the Edmonds School District’s (ESD) attorney have not had an opportunity to review the ILA jointly. This will allow the City Attorney to present any amendments requested by the Council to the ESD’s attorney. Councilmember Mesaros expressed support for the motion because he has recommended changes to the ILA and wants the City Attorney to have an opportunity for discuss them with ESD’s attorney. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE ITEM 4D FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA TO 8B ACTION ITEMS. Council President Fraley-Monillas explained this was mentioned last week but the Council did not have an opportunity for review. Mayor Earling clarified bids were opened the day after this was presented to Council last week. Staff will report the results of the bid opening to Council. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Bloom requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 28, 2015 B. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM KALEB REAL ESTATE GROUP C. 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 F. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 2014 CITYWIDE STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT ITEM E: AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 220TH STREET SW OVERLAY FROM 84TH AVENUE W TO 76TH AVENUE W Councilmember Bloom referred to the bid rejection memo in the packet and asked if the contractor has submitted a corrected bid. Public Works Director Phil Williams said the contractor does not have an opportunity to correct their bid, it must be submitted correctly the first time. Staff obtained concurrence from WSDOT that rejecting that bid and awarding to the second low bidder was appropriate. Packet Page 5 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 3 Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding of Mr. Williams’ explanation that the contract was being awarded to the second low bidder. Mr. Williams agreed. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS A. COMMUNITY TRANSIT UPDATES INCLUDING PLANS FOR THE FUTURE Mayor Earling introduced Emmett Heath, CEO, Community Transit. Mr. Heath has been touring Snohomish County cities describing the work they are doing and potential future changes. He noted Mr. Heath was successful in very stiff competition for the CEO position and has done a fabulous job so far. Mr. Heath acknowledged the long standing relationship Community Transit has had with Edmonds. Mayor Earling joined the Community Transit Board of Directors in 1992, serving for 12 years; after a short hiatus, he returned in 2012 and has been an important voice for transportation and Community Transit. Former Edmonds Councilmember Strom Peterson was cosponsor of a bill that allowed Community Transit local authority to request a local sales tax for transportation services; that bill was recently enacted by the Governor. Mr. Heath relayed two key messages: transit investments help our economy grow and protect our quality of life. Community Transit exists to serve the needs of people in Community Transit and every year that mission expands as more people come to the community. Almost unprecedented growth has been seen recently; PSRC forecasts by 2040 Snohomish County’s population will increase by 240,000 and employment will increase by 130,000 jobs. In each of the last two years in Snohomish County, 3,500 housing units have been added, there are already about 3,600 housing permits issued for 2016 and an additional 4,000 are on tap for 2017. In the last three years, more than 1,600 residential housing units have been constructed or permitted near major transit facilities and along transit corridors. He displayed a photograph of a transit oriented development (TOD) project located adjacent to the Ash Way Park & Ride lot north of Lynnwood. This type of development helps reduce cars on the road and vehicle miles traveled and protects the quality of life for Snohomish County. Snohomish County continues to grow and remains a strong manufacturing economy with Boeing continuing to be a driver of local jobs as well as jobs in high tech, healthcare, business services and tourism. Edmonds is also experiencing growth: • Taxable retail sales increased by approximately 12% from 2013 to 2014 o Highest growth rate among major economies in Snohomish County • Hotel/motel tax is growing at rate higher than other jurisdictions in Snohomish County As Snohomish County and Edmonds grows, Community Transit also grows; on a busy day, about 40,000 people ride Community Transit buses, vanpools and DART vehicle. Approximately 71% of Edmonds residents live within walking distance of a Community Transit bus route. He displayed a map illustrating areas with a quarter mile walk to transit. Edmonds is among the best served in Snohomish County; 10 routes and 560 separate bus trips each weekday. About 2,000 riders board Community Transit buses at 185 stops within Edmonds city limits on a daily basis. Edmonds is one of the most transit friendly communities that Community Transit serves. Community Transit also operates the Swift Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route through Edmonds, the most popular route Community Transit operates. Swift BRT operates like a subway on rubber tires. Swift was launched in 2009 operating on Highway 99, with stations about a mile apart from the Aurora Village transit center north to Everett station with buses every 12 minutes. Today, about one of every six riders Packet Page 6 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 4 uses Swift on a daily basis, about 6,000 riders every day or 1.6 million riders a year. Swift has been a great success story for Community Transit; Edmonds has been a major partner and has embraced Swift service on Highway 99. Mr. Emmett relayed in June Community Transit restored Sunday service for the first time in five years. On the first Sunday, 5,000 people rode the bus. The scheduling supervisor wanted to witness the first Sunday rider, and watched he first departure at 6:04 a.m. at Aurora Village transit center. The first passenger was a woman wearing an Arby’s uniform on her way to work. Community Transit was proud to be able to make a positive difference in that person’s life and be her route to work on a Sunday morning. After giving this presentation in Marysville last week and describing how many people ride their most popular routes, 201 and 202 on State Avenue in Marysville, a Councilmember commented his business is located on State Avenue and frequent, reliable transit service is important for him, his employees and customers. Whether someone rides bus or not, it is in everyone’s best interest for people to have the ability to reach their jobs quickly and efficiently using via public transportation. Public transit plays an important role in keeping the economy healthy. Mr. Emmett explained the challenge is keeping up with demand for services. Population and employment growth are driving more people to public transit. Every bus Community Transit owns and every bus driver they employ is currently in service and they still cannot meet increasing demand. Last year ridership increased 8% and is on a trend to increase even more this year. On commuter service to Seattle, buses fill at every stop, even double decker buses that hold up to 110 passengers with a standing load. People stand in the aisle for an entire commute to Seattle or University of Washington, a trip that often exceeds 80-minutes. He provided a photograph of standing passengers on Route 412 from McCollum Park to Seattle. The first couple trips in the morning are full, and before another trip was added to 412 last fall, people were left behind at the Park & Ride. Additional service was added to some other areas to serve demand. Overall, Community Transit is stretched beyond its limits to meet demand and provide service that residents want and expect. The Governor recently signed a new state transportation funding package that included authority for Community Transit to seek new funding. The next day, Community Transit’s Board took action to place a measure on the November ballot to increase transit service. If approved, new funding would enable Community Transit to add buses to downtown and University District, alleviate crowding on popular commute routes, add buses and van pools across the entire service area, add more east-west connections in south Snohomish County such as Route 196, a recent addition that serves Edmonds. New funding would also allow new trips and new connections in north and east Snohomish County where service is not as robust. He displayed a map of a conceptual new route between Marysville and McCollum Park in south Everett, a connection Community Transit has wanted to provide for many years but has not been able to afford. This type of service is overdue for the underserved markets in Snohomish County. If the ballot measure succeeds, Community Transit could add another Swift BRT line between Paine Field and Canyon Park. That line would connect 65,000 manufacturing jobs near Boeing and Paine Field manufacturing centers with 25,000 high tech jobs in Canyon Park area and serve high density business and commercial area in between. A second Swift BRT line would also establish a network of BRT lines in Snohomish County to allow people on the first Swift line to transfer at Highway 99 and Airport Road to express service to Mill Creek, Everett station or perhaps a connection to Boeing. New funding would also enable planning for a third Swift line that would be operational by the time link light rail reaches Lynnwood in 2023. One of the corridors being considered for a third Swift line would be 196th from the vicinity of Edmonds Community College, east under the freeway and north on Alderwood Mall Parkway to 164th. If the ballot measure is approved, citizens would see the first service improvements by March Packet Page 7 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 5 2016. Allowing time for public comment and time to order new buses, more service would be added over the next two years and the second line of Swift operating by 2018 and potential a third Swift line operating before link light rail reaches Lynnwood in 2023. He concluded these transit investment are needed to help the economy grow and to protect the quality of life. Mr. Emmett commented morning is Community Transit’s busiest time; in the morning peak almost 80% of riders are on their way to work, helping to make the economy more resilient and stronger. In the afternoon, those same riders on their way home which helps protect quality of life. There is an opportunity to ensure the future in Snohomish County is just as amazing as the community is today. People appreciate having a vital, locally based transit system; Community Transit is proud to play that role in the community. With the public’s help, Community Transit can help the economy grow and protect the quality of quality of life in Snohomish County. He introduced Todd Morrow, Community Transit’s Chief of Strategic Communications, who was present to answer questions. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented her nephew who lives in central Everett came to her house at 9:00 a.m. today, riding his bike to a Swift bus stop, taking Swift from Everett to Edmonds, then riding his bike to her house. When she mentioned taking him home, he said could get home faster via Swift than she could drive him. Her son takes DART to work three days a week which has enabled him to lead a more independent life. DART has been a great program for her family. Councilmember Mesaros thanked Mr. Emmett for his presentation and Community Transit’s continued good work. He asked the average age of Community Transit’s fleet and the optimal age. Mr. Emmett answered the average age is 9.6 years and the optimal was 9.5 years. Community Transit has done a good job maintaining its infrastructure and the system is operationally and financially sustainable. Councilmember Mesaros said he often takes the Sound Transit train to his job in Seattle but when a meeting runs late, he takes Community Transit Route 416 home. Councilmember Nelson thanked Mr. Emmett for his presentation and welcomed him to his new position with Community Transit. He noted 80% of Edmonds’ workforce commutes out of the City and 50% commute out of Snohomish County. That means a lot of the community is on the roadway and reliable bus service is essential. He asked how the City Council can help Community Transit. Mr. Emmett answered the Council can help spread the message that the revenues Community Transit collects are spent efficiently and effectively but there is still unmet demand. It takes a revenue source to meet demand and Community Transit is proud to give voters the choice to fund additional service. In the immediate past when local governments have gone to citizens with a tax increase, it has been with an implied threat that service would be cut without additional funding. He summarized the Council could spread the message that Community Transit is sustainable and can continue to provide existing service but providing more service will require a new revenue source. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked him for his presentation. She commended Community Transit’s service to Seattle and the Swift service and wished Swift ran all the way to Portland. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Wendy Kendall, Edmonds, Library Board Member, thanked Mayor Earling for confirming her appointment. Representing herself tonight, not the Library Board, she said an Edmonds citizen board for the public library has been valuable. One of their responsibilities has been to inform Edmonds citizens of the helpful and amazing services available at the library. The library is funded via a property tax assessment; citizens receive a great return on investment. The Library Board hosts an annual fall open house that showcases the building and services and does media write ups such as the availability of tax help, magazines online, check out a librarian help service, summer reading programs and job search help. The Board is also involved in building issues; while on the Board, she has been involved in lobby Packet Page 8 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 6 improvements which included improved handicapped restroom access, carpet and minor building repairs. A citizen board for a place as important as the library is a community responsibility and she urged the Council to find way to keep a board with the same or clarified responsibilities. As Lady Bird Johnson said about libraries, “There’s no place in any community that’s so totally democratic. The only entrance requirement is interest.” The public is welcome at the Library Board’s next meeting on August 17 at 6:00 p.m. at the library. Chris Gradwohl, Edmonds, said he raised 3 kids in Edmonds, coached for more than 20 years in SnoKing Pacific Little League and now with Edmonds Warrior Junior Football. With the exception of a few not in my backyard neighbors who want to restrict or prevent kids from playing sports at the old Woodway High School, it seems the continuing debate has focused on the use of crumb rubber for the infill. Some people have suggested the use of alterative infills such as cork, recycled plastic or recycled tennis shoes known as Nike Grind. The objection to alternative infills is they do not perform as well and are more expensive to purchase and maintain which includes grass. Opponents of the use of crumb rubber are proposing to use inferior, more expensive alternatives based on their concerns for human health and environmental risk. However, regardless of their claims, their concerns are not based on any scientific or medical evidence. The safety of artificial and crumb rubber infill has been studied extensively by a wide variety of agencies and groups. Although opponents claim it has not been studied enough, he was certain no studies would satisfy them because their beliefs will never be changed and they will cling to anything that supports their belief and they will dismiss or deride anything that does not. He compared this to opposition to vaccinations; despite evidence and studies, adults choose not to inoculate their children which results in outbreaks of infectious diseases. Some opponents are truly sincere and care about the health of children ranging all the way to crazy. There is arrogance from many of the opponents, they elevate their own self-importance, claiming they are saving children and crumb rubber will result in dead babies in the streets. They dismiss studies, claiming they are faulty, that the industry is behind the studies, that it is greedy industry and a conspiracy, comparing it to the tobacco industry. Research has been conducted by state and local governments and many agencies. He questioned that New York, Connecticut, California, EPA and Consumer Products Safety Commission would be in the pocket of the field turf industry. Opponents refer to a soccer coach at the University of Washington who has found 82 soccer goalies with cancer; no study has been done and she still coaches on crumb rubber. He summarized carcinogens are all around us and the average American encounters thousands on a daily basis including 650,000 tons of tire dust produced every year by cars and buses. He urged the Council to look at the science and the facts and make rational decisions and choices. Beth Marriott, Edmonds, encouraged the City to partner with the ESD on the Woodway field improvements including the turf surface. As the Athletic Director at Meadowdale High School, today she kicked a soccer ball with members of her girls soccer team and chased a friend’s three-year old around the field and they rolled around in crumb rubber all day. The grass fields at her school are nothing more than straw now due to the dry weather conditions. She was confident she had not done anything to injure herself or any of the players representing her high school. David Harvey, Edmonds, a parent and athletic booster for Meadowdale High School, said when he spoke at a previous meeting, the focus was installing the fields not the infill. His concern at that time was field use and not having fields available. He has since researched crumb rubber, Geofill and Nike Grind and has not found any lawsuits or litigation that identifies proven health risks/concerns related to crumb rubber. His children have participated in sports on crumb rubber since the age of eight and he has coached then on crumb rubber. He began playing on crumb rubber at the age of ten and still plays on crumb rubber in a men’s soccer league. He would not put himself or his children at risk if he felt crumb rubber was a concern. The alternative infills have not been proven and they are new technology. Working in the technology field, new technology is not put into the marketplace until it has proven itself, it needs to be tested and researched. Crumb rubber has proven itself. With the number of professional, collegiate and Packet Page 9 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 7 high school athletes who have played on crumb rubber, if there were issues with crumb rubber, there would be ligation. There are chemicals in the air and everywhere. He understood and appreciated the concern but felt confident and safe in the School Board’s decision. If he had any concerns with crumb rubber, he would not have his children playing on it. Adam Quaintance, Edmonds, Club Director, SnoKing Youth Club, a recreational youth sports organization that serves 4,000 youth on an annual basis explained their fall soccer program serves nearly 1,100 in rec and 300 in select. The biggest issue is usable field space for practices and games. Issues with grass fields such as potholes and maintenance do not arise with turf fields. On behalf SnoKing Youth Club he relayed they serve a lot of kids in the area and need more field space for them to play. Laura Johnson, Edmonds, said everyone wants the same thing, a healthy place for children to play. If the approach is a standard that has been used for the past 15 years, crumb rubber, many studies can be found that support that decision. If the approach is the safest, healthiest sports fields and questions regarding the exposure to known toxins and carcinogens, there are plenty of science-backed studies to validate those concerns. As the parent of an athlete, she did not know about the potential for risks and had assumed the athletic fields were safe. Five months ago, the full potential for risk became apparent; now she is the parent of an athlete who will never again play on a field with crumb rubber and she is not alone. The movement against crumb rubber is growing as more parents learn about the risk and potential. There is simply not enough information about what happens when tires are ground up into small bits that degrade over time, used as infill and children are exposed through dermal contact, ingestion and inhalation. Decisions are made by comparing risk to benefit; the only benefit of using crumb rubber is a lower price. Choosing to use a product that lacks long term human health studies, contains known toxins and carcinogens, has a growing list of young athletes with blood cancers is a huge and unnecessary gamble. She urged everyone to drop the notion of sides and work together to provide the safest and healthiest play surface for children, community and environment. As currently written the ILA has very little benefit for the City but quite a bit of risk. It contains words like partnership, jointly and collaborative effort; that does not match the way ESD has work with the City. ESD expects the City to share in the risk of partnering on these fields but allows the City very little say in how they are built. The Edmonds School Board was heavily guided and influenced in its decision making by the industry that makes money from the old standard of using crumb rubber and they largely ignored citizens’ concerns. She hoped the City Council, unlike the School Board, would be heavily influenced by its constituents and not pressure from the School Board. Bill Kessler, Edmonds, attorney, voiced support for the City’s participation in the field turf project at the former Woodway High School. He was happy with ESD’s process of evaluating the field turf crumb rubber product and investigating options for playing surfaces. He has coached middle school and high school football on a variety of playing surfaces and it is always a treat for players to play and for him to coach on a crumb rubber field turf. He encouraged the City to join with ESD and Verdant in making the installation of field turf at former Woodway High School a reality. Kortney Hamilton, Edmonds, a resident within a block of the Woodway fields, expressed concerned about her health and the quality of runoff and the air. She supported having healthy places for kids to play. To the comment that the technology of non-toxic infills has not been tested, she questioned how they could be tested without utilizing them and suggested trying a non-toxic alternative. She recalled at one point lead based paint and asbestos were considered safe. She encouraged the Council to look at current data, make an objective assessment, and proceed with what is the best and does no harm to the community. Sierra Johnson, Edmonds, said she learned in her American Government class if you don’t like something and you want it changed, you must get involved in advocating for change. She was proud of Packet Page 10 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 8 the parents who have gotten involved and are trying to make a change to protect children’s future health and the health of the environment. Edmonds was the first in the state to ban the use of plastic bags, an example followed by other communities and she urged Edmonds to set an example again. She provided a petition signed by 571 citizens requesting a ban on the use of crumb rubber in Edmonds and a petition started in April signed by 543 citizens requesting a change in plan, from keeping natural grass fields to not using crumb rubber on artificial turf. Considering duplicates, these 2 petitions represent over 1,000 citizens. She and her friends also collected 152 signatures (111 from students and 41 teachers and parents) on a petition that states they do not support the installation of artificial turf with crumb rubber at the former Woodway High School site. Students’ voices are important because they will be playing on the fields and the safety of the fields outside their classroom is unknown. Crumb rubber is made from tires which have carcinogens and toxins. Children should not be unnecessary exposed to carcinogens and toxins; athletic fields should support, not endanger health. She urged the Council to pass ban on the use of crumb rubber on any property in the City to ensure the City is not in this position again and to ensure safe, healthy, and non-toxic play and athletic fields for all. Mary Jo Schafer, Edmonds, expressed 100% support of the School Board, believing they did their due diligence and did not ignore the request of all citizens. Many people who are in support believe they did enough research and stand behind the project as approved by the School Board. She assured there were definitely people in favor of this project. Steve White, Edmonds, spoke in support of the crumb rubber fields. ESD was assigned the responsibility of selecting the field material; crumb rubber is an obviously first choice as it is used on fields across the country and all seven fields in the ESD, is the cheapest option and has the longest track record of use so there can be confidence it will work in this climate. In response to citizens’ comments, ESD did respond to concerns and hired a consultant who gathered a large number of studies which the Council has seen and presumably reviewed. The consistent response in those studies is crumb rubber does not present an elevated health risk. Many of those studies were from public entities, the most comprehensive was from the State of Connecticut who stated in 2011 and confirmed in 2015 that outdoor artificial turf fields do not represent an elevated health risk. The ESD’s conclusions were crumb rubber does not represent an elevated health risk and therefore is a logical choice. Many citizens continue to disagree with that decision and expressed their concerns to Verdant, the largest funding partner. Verdant hired their own consultant, Gradient, to do an independent analysis. The summary from the Gradient study was that chemical levels found in field turf SBR and Geoturf infill do not present a risk to people playing on or using fields with these products. He urged the Council to step back and look at the facts and the ESD’s process and their conclusions, to support ESD in this project, be part of the funding and take part in ongoing scheduling and operation of the fields. Erin Zachey, Edmonds, hoped as a parent that any future discussions the Council may have with ESD would be more positive. She appreciated the Council’s caution as they moved forward. She said Elisabeth Black’s review contained inaccuracies and inconsistencies. She also had concerns with the subsequent study done by Gradient as Gradient has defended the tobacco industry, arsenic in playgrounds, BPA in baby bottles and the Synthetic Turf Council in the past. She echoed Ms. Johnson’s earlier sentiment for the City to work in partnership with ESD on this project. This project is for the kids and everyone wants healthy safe playfields. After the research that has been done, too much is known to not do what is best for kids. In looking at the Geoturf website and many other websites regarding alternative infills, those products are proven and widely used in Europe. As a parent she tries to help her children understand the importance of involvement in the community. They have helped gather petition signatures outside PCC, written and shared their thoughts, held posters outside the ESD and chanted along with her and her husband. She provided the following Dr. Seuss quote, “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better, it’s not.” Packet Page 11 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 9 Dave Page, Edmonds, said he reads My Edmonds News every morning; today there was a comment from someone who recently moved to Edmonds who said Edmonds is a wonderful place, full of wonderful, friendly, inviting and loving people. He used that approach to the debate about crumb rubber. Crumb rubber may be best solution and he knew staff has done their due diligence. Until the recent opposition, there was no debate but now with the opposition now there were 500 people angry and concerned about crumb rubber. He suggested spending $20,000-$50,000 for a like infill product to avoid alienating a significant part of the population, eliminate angst and prevent people from taking sides was worthwhile to consider. He requested the Council study the issue in that manner. He googled crumb rubber and found 97 articles with a negative connotation and 77 articles split on the pros and cons of crumb rubber pros which shows there are concerns with crumb rubber. Christi Davis, Brier, PhD in health services research and Master’s Degree in public policy analysis, said she was tired of people saying listen to the science. She suggested the Council listen to the scientists; three PhDs have testified including herself, a PhD toxicologist, and her husband, a PhD who has worked in the biotech industry. All three looked at the same studies and say the same thing – it’s not worth the risk, too little is known. There has never been a study of the toxicity of crumb rubber as a whole. Some is known about the toxicities of less than half the chemicals in crumb rubber; nothing about the toxicity when they are combined. Crumb rubber has only been used for 15 years; it typically takes longer than that for cancers to appear. The fact that any cancers are appearing is alarming, and the appearance of more lymphomas than leukemias in concerning to epidemiologists. She urged the Council to listen to the scientists, the oncology nurse, and the people who do not have vested interest in the industry. She expressed concern with Elisabeth Black’s review of articles she was provided by ESD and that she botched a lot of the science. For example, she said PM10 was particulate mass 10; it is particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter. She did not trust Ms. Black’s analysis when she could not get the basic definition of one of most important components of air pollution correct. She questioned whether the Council wanted to tie the City’s finances to ESD’s ability and willingness to work with the City. The City would be permanently on the hook for all maintenance costs regardless of whether the turf is replaced in ten years. She questioned who pays if the turf has to be replaced early if crumb rubber is tied to cancer. She urged the Council not to tie itself to ESD especially since the Verdant contract already guarantees the City of Edmonds access to the fields. Kate Smith, Edmonds, a resident in the neighborhood east of the former Woodway High School, said she gathered signatures on the petition and talked with neighbors at her 7-year old’s lemonade stand. She initially did not talk to neighbors, assuming they would be supportive of the fields; every neighbor she has talked with is concerned with the product and were willing to sign the petition. Speaking on their behalf, she asked the Council to find a compromise such as using a different infill material. When she first contacted the School Board in January she did not want artificial turf as she loved the natural space in the community, but now would like to see a compromise. She did not want the product used to harm her health as a neighbor, her water supply, air and the environment, noting there are a lot of animals living in the area. She relayed a statement from Jen Carrigan, Edmonds, asking the Council not to sign the ILA that supports the use of crumb rubber shredded tires as currently written. Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, PhD in Educational Leadership, said she is in a science program with Vermont Law School studying climate change and extinction and adaptation. A great deal of information is available about global warming and the climate crisis. She referred to practicing the precautionary principle, if there is any doubt something would cause the death of a child, the Council should practice precaution. She relayed her 14-year old grandson recently lost one of his best friends, an athlete, to leukemia. Yesterday President Obama and EPA Director Gina McCarty announced the finalization of the Clean Power Plan to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, much of which is carbon. Greenhouse gases are killing the planet, people, wildlife, and forests and much of crumb rubber is carbon. James Hansen, Goddard Institute, has stated catastrophic heat is coming and has evidence it will be much worse Packet Page 12 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 10 than anyone predicted. Human health and the health of the environment cannot be separated. Crumb rubber was not introduced until 2000; other types of turf were used prior to that time. She read from “New Approach to Environmental Law” regarding the climate emergency and the big adaptation. The public trusts elected officials to do what is best for the public and for the public’s interest. Edmonds citizens are not ready to use crumb rubber just yet. Scott Schafer, Edmonds, explained he left the meeting to pick up his son at practice in Mountlake Terrace because no fields are available nearby. He is not an expert on crumb rubber but no one in the room is an expert and everyone has heard different opinions. He supported the Edmonds School Board’s efforts to construct these fields as more fields are needed. He endorsed the City Council partnering with the ESD on the fields. He was extremely disappointed and saddened to hear people make comments from a personal standpoint attacking Edmonds School Board Members. They were doing their jobs, have done their due diligence and made a decision considering all the facts. Mark Wall, Edmonds, gave the Council the benefit of doubt with regard to the question of how did we get to this point because people haven’t been honest with the City Council. At the closed record hearing he recalled when Councilmember Bloom asked about traffic and impacts on wildlife, she was told by the City Attorney that those issues could not be considered. The City’s Planner Michael Clugston sent out an email saying, “I’m going to push the school district to include all aspects of land use review and permitting at this time rather than apply for additional land use permits. It doesn’t make any sense to me, get your land use done now, get vested. Then pull your building permits for subsequent phases when those pots of money become available.” He said a citizen would not get that treatment from staff. ESD’s lighting permit was denied by the Hearing Examiner; then ESD said they were pulling the lighting application but proceeded to install all the infrastructure for lights including bases and electrical. He compared that to a citizen installing a foundation for a home, framing and electrical and offering to apply for a permit when they had enough money. ESD said in April they were pulling the lighting application because they did not have funding. At the May 5 Council meeting in response to concerns with the lack of community involvement, the City’s Parks & Recreation Director said there was community involvement as evidenced by ESD pulling the light permit due to community interest. He summarized the Council has not been given all the answers. The massive opposition is due to the way the whole thing has been orchestrated without the Council knowing what was happening behind the scenes. Maggie Pinson, Edmonds, expressed support for Christi Davis’s comments regarding science and health concerns and that no studies have considered the toxic effects of the entire mixture. That available studies look at the toxicity of chemicals in crumb rubber as single entities, as if a person were exposed to one chemical at a time. She compared that to a person’s doctor asking about all their prescription, over-the- counter medications and supplements to allow them to look for chemical interactions and cumulative effects. That information is not available in the scientific literature. The PhD toxicologist who worked for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and testified previously said the effects of the mixture are often far greater than the effects of a single chemical, the difference between component based risk assessment and the study of the complex mixture. Her four nephews and two nieces who have played select soccer in middle school, high school and college said no soccer player they knew preferred crumb rubber over grass. She fully supported a ban on crumb rubber and an opportunity to engage in a good, effective exchange of information. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he visited the new fields at the former Woodway High School and found them so remarkably pretty, bright, and exciting looking that he wanted to run out onto the field. He understood why coaches think it is a good thing because it looks good and performs well but toxins are the issue. He recalled not allowing one of his two sons to participate on a 50-mile scout canoe hike due to his concern with the scout leader’s ability to keep his son safe. Although no one died on the hike, he was correct in his assessment and the hike was very disorganized. As a parent, he was responsible for the Packet Page 13 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 11 safety of his children; the safety of the children in Edmonds is the Council’s responsibility and he urged the Council to take that responsibility seriously before discounting people’s concerns. He found Councilmember Bloom’s description last week of her meeting with ESD very informative, totally complete, and provided a different idea of what going on compared to what had previously been represented. He referred to her comment that Mayor Earling’s team, staff, was working against her efforts by telling ESD that the City condoned crumb rubber or “toxic fill.” He hoped the Council would make a decision that was good for the safety of children. Will Schafer, Edmonds, a student athlete at Meadowdale High School playing three sports, said none of his friends or teammates prefer grass over turf fields for practice or games. They all find turf much better to play on in the rain and all weather. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, agreed with the remarks made by Mr. Schaefer defending the School Board and ESD. He was disgusted by the disparaging remarks made about ESD and the School Board, noting most of the people making those remarks only know them by job title; he knows the people. Superintendent Brossoit has a lunchtime meeting 10 months of the year; he has attended those meetings for the last 10 years and did not recognize anyone in the audience as an attendee of those meetings. No other organization is as transparent as the ESD. The Superintendent starts every meeting by answering questions from the meeting participants followed by an agenda that is set by the meeting participants. The School Board President, Diana White, attends most of the lunchtime meetings; Mr. Wambolt also knew her because he and she attend the same church. Ms. White has four children who attend or have attended ESD schools; it was unlikely she would make decisions that were not in their best interest. ESD decided on crumb rubber back in 2001 and it has been installed on several fields. He agreed with Mr. Hertrich’s assessment that the field at the former Woodway High School looks good. Whether the Council signs the ILA has nothing to do with crumb rubber; if the City does not sign the ILA the Council will be shooting itself in the foot because the City will lose the benefits of the ILA but gain nothing because crumb rubber will be installed on the field regardless. To those that think the School Board Members will not be supported by the public in the election, the incumbent Gary Nobel received 60% of the vote in tonight’s primary, his closest opponent received 24%. Alex Witenberg, Edmonds, was pleased to hear Councilmember Bloom’s comments last week recognizing the lack of communication between the School Board, citizens and the City Council regarding Woodway Fields. She indicated due to the quasi-judicial process, the Council was unable to read emails or discuss the fields with members of the School Board and citizens. As a result the City Council was unable to be responsive to emails. From her comments, Councilmember Bloom appears to have come to the conclusion that many have advocated for year, that the Council should not participate in quasi-judicial proceedings since doing so forecloses them from representing citizens with respect to important matters in the community. In 2009/2010 the Council took itself out of appeals process and then voted to return to the same process being used now. Part of the argument made in favor of the quasi- judicial process was otherwise the public was shut out and public officials were inaccessible and that citizens want appeals to go to the City Council. In fact, the Council was unable to be responsive to emails and after the appeal was concluded the City Attorney requested Councilmember wait 21 days to discuss the subject matter. The public has heard the School Board is unwilling to have a joint meeting with the City Council and work on the project is well underway. A joint meeting could not have occurred in the spring before work began because the council was engaged in an appeal process. As a result of the quasi- judicial process, the City Council was forced to be reactive and is finding the School Board will not engage in a dialogue that should have happened months ago. Councilmember Bloom’s analysis last week of the quasi-judicial process’ effects was accurate. He hoped during her last months in office she will spearhead an effort to remove the Council from that process in order to be more responsive to citizens and that other Councilmembers follow her lead. Packet Page 14 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 12 Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 7. STUDY ITEMS A. JUNE 2015 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director Scott James displayed and reviewed 2nd Quarter 2015 Revenue Summary – General Fund Types with and without revenue bond proceeds. He displayed a comparison of General Fund Revenue Budget to Actual, highlighting taxes: General Fund Resource Category YTD Actual 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 % Change Taxes Property Taxes 7,316,264 7,604,520 3.9% Sales Tax 2,812,288 3,140,830 11.7% Utility Tax 3,466,306 3,463,237 -0.1% Other Taxes 436,635 454,668 4.1% Total Taxes 14,031,493 14,663,255 4.5% He reviewed a pie chart of Sales Tax Analysis by Category, pointing out YTD the City has received $3.1 million in sales tax revenue; the major sources of sales tax revenue are retail automotive followed by contractors. He displayed a bar graph of Change in Sales Tax Revenue June 2015 compared to June 2014; pointing out sales tax is $320,000 higher. Contractors followed by miscellaneous retail trade are the leading sources of change. Mr. James displayed and reviewed 2nd Quarter 2015 Expense Summary – General Funds, noting General Fund expenses are 7.2% higher than last year due to additional amounts for Fire District 1 and inclusion of transfers in the 2nd quarter. He reviewed a General Fund Department Expense Summary, commenting the percentage spent for all departments was 50% which is on target. He reviewed 2nd Quarter 2015 Revenue Summary – Special Revenues, noting overall special revenues are up 6% compared to 2014 due in part to higher development fees including Traffic Impact Fees that are $20,000 higher than 2014 and Park Impact Fees that are $51,000 higher than last year. Councilmember Petso referred to utility tax revenue, commenting she would have expected higher utility tax revenue given the City raised a number of its utility rates. However the comparison of utility tax revenue indicates it has not increased much. Mr. James offered to research and email Council. Councilmember Bloom referred to administrative services, noting 232% of the budgeted amounts were spent in the miscellaneous category. She asked what miscellaneous was and why 232% of the budget had been spent by mid-year. Mr. James answered administrative services covered the purchase of IT equipment as well as purchasing of software licenses at the beginning of the year. He referred to a footnote that states the differences between 2014 and 2015 are due primarily to Adobe Professional and Microsoft Office Professional Licenses. Councilmember Bloom pointed out four departments, Development Services and Planning(102%), Parks & Recreation (91%), Public Works (148%) and Facilities Maintenance (284%) are over budget in small equipment and asked what small equipment had been purchased. Mr. James offered to follow up with the departments. Councilmember Buckshnis commended staff on the improved financial reports and the footnotes. She relayed greetings from former Finance Director Shawn Hunstock. Mr. James thanked Councilmember Packet Page 15 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 13 Buckshnis for her comments, relaying it is the Finance Department’s goal to make the report more useful for the reader. B. MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE SALARY RECOMMENDATION Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite requested the Council consider an increase in the Municipal Court Judge’s salary based on Washington Citizen’s Commission salary schedule adopted to begin September 1, 2015. The City receives court improvement funds and as a result is required pay the Judge 95% of the District Court Judge’s salary. If the Council chooses not to increase the salary, the City will lose approximately $15,000/year in court improvements funds. The new salary schedule calls for a 4% increase beginning September 1, 2015 and a 2% increase in 2016. The Court’s budget can cover the increase this year so no budget amendment is necessary. If the Council supports the increase, approval will be on the Consent Agenda along with a salary ordinance. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on the Consent Agenda in two weeks. C. DISCUSSION OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled at the Council retreat a task force was formed with Councilmembers Bloom and Buckshnis and Council President Fraley-Monillas to meet with her and Ms. Hite to discuss boards and commissions. One of the primary issues was staff for the Diversity Commission and additional staffing for the Tree Board. The task force held four meetings and discussed how boards and commissions are staffed, how members are appointed, roles and priorities, etc. The task force developed a recommendation that included additional staff support and a scope of work for consultants for the Diversity Commission and Tree Board. The cost of a consultant for both for the remainder of 2015 is approximately $3,000 each. The task force’s recommendation also included efficiencies, recognizing the work the boards and commissions do is important but has financial impacts. The task force also prepared a comparison of all boards and commissions and other committees (attachment 5), of average staff time, meeting location, etc. Attachment 6 compares Edmonds’ boards and commissions identified in code to other cities; Edmonds has a fair amount more than other cities. She noted that is a good thing in a lot of ways but also translates to a lot of expense. At the Council’s June 2 discussion of boards and commissions, the Council requested Mayor Earling provide a recommendation regarding staffing which is provided in tonight’s packet. Mayor Earling’s recommendation recognizes ongoing costs such as IT and staffing. She summarized Mayor Earling’s recommendation: 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. Packet Page 16 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 14 (d) Provide funding for the remainder of this year for the Diversity Commission and Tree Board to each have consultant help. (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 for board/commission meetings held outside of regular business hours (so that the public can enter without the cost of a special door monitor). Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether administration intends to add a separate line item to fund staffing and other costs of boards and commissions. Ms. Hope answered that was not planned unless it was a new board or commission. Mayor Earling said the challenge is quantifying the cost, the time staff spent at meeting as well as preparation and dissemination of information, which takes staff away from their assigned responsibilities. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for Mayor Earling’s recommendations. She was most interested in providing consultants for the Diversity Commission and the Tree Board. Once that is accomplished, the Council can revisit the other boards and commissions. People are waiting for the Diversity Commission to start meeting; it takes a special skill set to oversee that commission. The Tree Board also needs assistance; in the past the Tree Board Members have done a great deal of the work. The Tree Board Member who has oversaw the Arbor Day celebration and Tree City USA recently resigned. Mayor Earling commented on the expense of minute taking in some boards. Minutes are needed for the ADB and Planning Board; others boards and commission could have cursory notes that identify discussion topics, motions and votes. That would save a considerable amount of money over the course of a year. Councilmember Nelson expressed support for funding for the Diversity Commission and the Tree Board. He appreciated Mayor Earling’s recommendation to have staff assigned to supervise the consultants. He also supported briefer minutes where possible to save money. Councilmember Mesaros said as the Council creates boards, commissions or committees, one of the requirements should be the budget impact of that entity. The cost will vary by the expertise required. For example the Diversity Commission and Tree Board require a certain amount of expertise and to be successful the Council needs to allocate sufficient resources. He recommended determining the amount needed for a board or commission to be successful and then it was up to Council to determine whether to allocate those resources. However, due to competing resources, not every board or commission will get all the funding it desires. For example, it may be that there is not an Arbor Day celebration this year due to lack of funding. Councilmember Bloom commented Arbor Day is a bigger issue as it is required for the City to be designated a Tree City USA. The Arbor Day celebration does not cost a lot and in the past it has been done by the Tree Board Members. Tree City USA also requires documenting hours from several departments allocated toward trees; in the past a Tree Board Member gathered that information. To do that in the future, the Tree Board needs to have a consultant. Without the Tree City USA designation, the City cannot obtain a grant for the Urban Forestry Program that the Planning Board recommended, obtain matching grants for education and outreach, etc. With regard to minutes versus cursory notes, Councilmember Bloom said regardless of the type of minutes, a minute taker is still needed for some boards and commissions. The Tree Board is one of the boards that needs a minute taker. The Tree Board previously did not have a minute taker; it was very difficult for a board member to take minutes and participate in the meeting. In the past, without a minute Packet Page 17 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 15 taker for the Tree Board, the quality of the minutes varied dramatically and they often were not submitted on time. Because the Tree Board addresses the code, it is important to have a minute taker and it was just an expense the City needed to accept for the Tree Board and other boards and commissions with responsibility for code and other issues. Councilmember Mesaros assured his example about not having an Arbor Day celebration was a fictitious example of decisions that may have to be made. He felt Councilmember Bloom took his comments too literally. Councilmember Nelson referred to Councilmember Mesaros’ suggestion to create criteria for funding of boards and commission, expressing support for that broader discussion for 2016. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to Councilmember Buckshnis’ comments regarding the Tree Board’s workload, assuring none of the board members resigned due to the workload. With regard to minutes versus notes, when she served on the Transportation Committee with Councilmembers Bloom and Johnson, Councilmember Johnson occasionally took notes. The expense related to minutes is in the amount of detail. She acknowledged members could not take minutes and participate in the meeting but they could take notes. She suggested researching which boards or commissions require minutes. Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed support for Mayor Earling’s recommendations. She suggested Mayor Earling include funds in the 2016 budget for boards and commissions, noting his recommendation does not eliminate many boards or commissions. Mayor Earling observed the Council has suggested reducing expenses for boards and commissions but also wants to include additional funds in the budget. Staff is in the process of developing decision packages; there are 10-12 justifiable requests for additional staffing. He recognized they would not all be approved but requests for funds reduces potential for additional staff, funding for one-time expenses, etc. He was willing to develop a budget for boards and commissions but recognized it may not the amount that everyone envisions. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the Tree Board and Diversity Commission could be Council budget items. Council President Fraley-Monillas pointed out most of the boards and commissions were formed by the Council. Councilmember Mesaros pointed out the Council approved the formation of all the boards and commissions. If the Council forms a board or commission, the Council should allocate adequate funds for it to succeed. Councilmember Buckshnis said certain boards and commission are paid from certain line items; for example the Tree Board minute taker is paid from Council funds. Councilmember Mesaros noted it does not have to. Mayor Earling suggested an option would be for the Council to fund boards and commissions from the amount he allocates to Council. Council President Fraley-Monillas said some of the commissions and boards were formed by Council but the majority report to Council so they are considered Council committees and could be funded via the Council’s budget or the Mayor’s budget. Councilmember Bloom said the Transportation Committee was formed by the Mayor; Councilmember Johnson did not attend the first few meetings because she was not notified. In the Council task force, two Councilmembers recommended combining the Parking and Transportation Committees. She recalled Councilmember Johnson stating the Transportation Committee wanted to continue meeting quarterly. Councilmember Bloom felt the Transportation Committee was important and could be combined with the Parking Committee. She did not see the rationale for eliminating it and suggested the Council oversee it due to recommendations it provides to the Council. Packet Page 18 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 16 Councilmember Johnson spoke in favor of retaining Transportation Committee. For the first five years the committee met monthly and provided advice to the Planning Board and Mayor and Council on a variety of issues. The committee collectively disbanded over the lack of support for transportation financing, a situation that has since changed. The Citizen Advisory Transportation Committee was most recently formed to advise staff on the Transportation Element. The group agreed to continue on an ad hoc basis. There is a great deal of support for an ongoing Transportation Commission that could address issues on Highway 99, support the land use work that will be done on Highway 99, provide expertise related to transportation, and provide information on parking, bicycling, non-motorized, etc. She supported re- creating the Transportation Committee as a monthly meeting; Councilmembers Bloom, Fraley-Monillas and she who served on the committee for several years and can attest to the committee’s value. Councilmember Johnson recall the last time the Council discussed boards and commissions she expressed interest in staff providing assistance rather than a consultant. She recalled Councilmember Mesaros asked Mayor Earling to present an approach that would accomplish that without consultant fees. That information has not yet been provided and she still supports that concept. Council President Fraley-Monillas said it was not the Council’s responsibility to supervise any committees but they all should report to the Council at some point. She suggested the Council provide direction to Mayor Earling to have staff hire a consultant to get the Tree Board and Diversity Commission up and running and request Mayor Earling come back with potential ideas where to take board and commissions in the coming year, whether he was willing to include funds in the budget and whether staff needed to be hired. She noted boards and commissioners were something the City does to include citizens, staff and council. Mayor Earling offered to include a number in the 2016 when it is presented to Council in October, acknowledging the Council may not like the amount but it will be based on the evaluation by staff. Ms. Hope asked whether that was to address the boards and commission that are not fully supported now such as the Tree Board, Diversity Commission and Transportation Committee. Council President Fraley-Monillas said her intent was funding for all boards and commissions, whether they can be supported internally, where additional staff or a consultant is needed, etc. Mayor Earling said that analysis likely would not be provided by the time the budget is presented; a number will be provided in the budget with some introductory comments about what can or cannot be done. Councilmember Johnson referred to notes versus minutes, noting the Planning Board and ADB require minutes but notes would be sufficient for the remainder of the boards and commissions which could be a significant cost savings. Councilmember Bloom reiterated Tree Board Members cannot take minutes. Whether there are notes or minutes, somebody has to take them. Councilmember Johnson said the issue is the level of detail. Councilmember Bloom questioned the cost savings as a person hired to take minutes is there the same amount of time. Mayor Earling pointed out notes do not take as long to prepare. Councilmember Bloom referred to ad hoc committees and suggested that be defined. Mayor Earling recently established a task force for the railroad crossings alternatives study. She was taken aback by that because she has been very interested in, engaged in and speaking about emergency and pedestrian access for the past four years but had no idea he was forming an ad hoc committee. She learned Mayor Earling was forming an ad hoc committee from the press release. She was offended but not surprised that he did not ask her or invite Councilmembers to be on the committee. She expressed concern that Mayor Earling formed the committee completely independent of any input from Council, yet the committee will advise on a study that will use a huge amount of State, City and Port money. The Council did not have any say in the formation of the committee and interested citizens did not have an opportunity to join the committee. She found it disrespectful to citizen involvement, disrespectful to her to not be included in the formation of the committee and disrespectful to citizens who might be interested in serving on the committee. If the Packet Page 19 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 17 City has ad hoc committees, she recommended defining them and how they are formed. She did not favor having ad hoc committees and preferred all committees be open to the public and announced, everyone who wants to should be able to participate and there should be a format for forming committees. She suggested the Council have further discussion on ad hoc committees and codify what is meant by an ad hoc committee and how they are form and ensure they open public meetings, minutes taken, etc. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the Council was interested in proceeding with Item d in the Mayor’s recommendation (provide several thousand dollars for the remainder of this year for the Diversity Commission and Tree Board to each have consultant help). She was invited to participate in the Marina Beach PAC, noting an ad hoc committee is an administrative decision. Councilmember Bloom responded Councilmember Buckshnis was likely asked to be on the Marina Beach PAC due to her interest in the dog park. Participation on the alternatives study ad hoc committee was not offered to her even though she has expressed interest for several years. She supported having a process for the formation of ad hoc committees because otherwise interested Councilmembers and citizens are not included. Councilmember Mesaros recommended a comprehensive rather than a patchwork approach to funding of boards and commission. He understood that analysis may not completed by the time the budget is presented in October 1 but suggested adequate funds be allocated in 2016 to take a comprehensive approach to boards and commissions. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested the Council recommend Mayor Earling’s recommendation regard the Tree Board and Diversity Commission be enacted and the rest be determined when the funding is presented. She agreed the Transportation Committee should be part of that decision. Council agreed with her suggestion. With regard to Councilmember Bloom’s concerns, Mayor Earling explained he has the authority to appoint a group and the members include several state agencies and several outside agencies and the three citizen appointments have varying level of engineering skills. The Councilmember he appointed likely has not made any adjudication regarding an alternative; the Port, WSDOT and ferries made their own appointments. The group was formed with the idea it would be a fairly expert level. B. ILA WITH EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR WOODWAY FIELDS Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained this project has been a longtime identified goal for the City and Edmonds Parks dating back to when the former Woodway High School closed. It was officially adopted in the City’s PROS Plan in 2001 and has been identified in subsequent planning documents. There is no question Edmonds does not provide adequate field space for the amount of teams and play time that is needed. The City has had a long standing and successful partnership with ESD for use of several other fields to meet some of this need. The City currently has ILAs for the use of Meadowdale Playfields, Madrona K-8 and Edmonds Elementary. These additional fields on the Woodway campus and the only full size synthetic turf fields will provide a definite value for the citizens and athletic teams in Edmonds year round. The fields will help expand opportunities for year round fitness, increase physical activity and health opportunities. The most recent PROS Plan was adopted in February 2014l. After a tremendous amount of public input and a random sample telephone survey, this project was identified as a top priority. The ILA gives the City the right and responsibility for using, scheduling, operating and maintaining the fields. After discussing maintenance needs and regiments with ESD, the designer DA Hogan and other jurisdictions about maintenance needs of synthetic turf fields, it was determined the approximate cost of maintaining a synthetic turf field is $5,000-$10,000/year. The revenues from rental of the fields will be adequate to provide staffing and support for year round maintenance. Packet Page 20 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 18 The decision being considered tonight is the City’s role as a partner in this long standing project along with the State of Washington, Verdant Health Commission and ESD. The Council is being asked to consider authoring the Mayor to enter into an ILA with ESD to schedule, use, operate, and maintain and provide $500,000 of the $4.2 million funding for construction of the 2 fields. The capital contribution for this project has been adopted by Council as part of the 2015 budget. If the City chooses not to sign the ILA, it would impact the ability to schedule the fields, control playing time, usage, provide drop-in times for the 40,000 residents of Edmonds and the surrounding area and to control field closing times. In addition it would continue to impact the lack of field availability for Edmonds programs and accessibility for Edmonds teams. It would also impact the City’s goal and plan to install a community garden at the site as well as the City’s long standing relationship with the ESD and Verdant Health Commission. Ms. Hite addressed the issue of scheduling and field usage to allow the Council to understand the impact this decision has for Edmonds. The City currently schedules several fields and has scheduling policies and procedures to ensure access and availability to active users sin the City. That scheduling regiment can easily be applied to Woodway fields. Currently the only field where year round play is allowed is the dirt field at Civic Field. The other fields are closed from November 1 through March 15 and often earlier and later depending on weather. There are numerous rainouts in the spring. The Woodway fields would provide two additional full size fields open year round. There is currently strong interest in the Woodway fields from youth lacrosse, soccer, football and baseball teams. The City has received 71 requests over the past month from SnoKing Youth Club for the use of the fields. In addition adult teams are interested in use for lacrosse, ultimate Frisbee and soccer teams. The need and demand is enormous and the City does not have the assets to accommodate all the interest. Ms. Hite commented it is important to understand the decision regarding materials used in this project is made by ESD. In response to Councilmember Bloom’s comments last week and Mr. Hertrich’s comment tonight that the Mayor’s team condoned the use of crumb rubber, she explained she and the Parks Maintenance Manager were invited to a field turf 101 discussion with DA Hogan early in December and they were educated about the turf and maintenance needs. Staff’s questions were related to maintenance of the turf, not what materials were used. She was actually intrigued with Nike Grind at that meeting. ESD informed they use crumb rubber on all their fields and would continue to do so these fields. The City has been reassured by ESD that they have done their due diligence in selecting materials and considered comments from the public, Snohomish Health District, the State of Washington and other local experts. ESD also hired a consultant, Elisabeth Black to review studies and provide an analysis. Verdant Health Commission also commissioned a study by Gradient who also reported their findings to ESD. After performing this due diligence, the School Board voted to move forward with the project and crumb rubber infill. The packet contains a briefing memo from DA Hogan that summarizes the various infill materials. She acknowledged this has been a difficult discussion and process due to recent anecdotal reports about crumb rubber. She recognized it was not easy for the Council, the Mayor, the School Board, her or citizens. ESD has made it clear they are going ahead with the project with or without the City. Six of seven Councilmembers met with the School Board over the past two weeks and heard the same message, the fields will be installed whether or not the City uses, schedules and maintains them. As the City’s Parks Director, she hoped the Council could see the value of adding this asset to the parks system as an opportunity for the community to be active year round. She was hopeful the Council would give her and the City Attorney guidance regarding negotiating amendments to the ILA. Councilmember Mesaros thanked Ms. Hite for her articulate opening comment. He relayed several Councilmembers have concerns with crumb rubber as well as with signing ILA. His primary concern was he wanted the City involved in making choices about infill used now and in the future. As Ms. Hite and others have stated, regardless of the Council’s decision about the ILA, there will be crumb rubber at the old Woodway High School fields. Therefore the question becomes what is the goal; if the goal is not to Packet Page 21 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 19 have crumb rubber used, what is the most effective way to achieve that goal and ensure in the future the City has a say in the infill that is used. He referred to the phrase inserted in the, Item 2.1.f of the City- edited ILA under School District’s responsibilities, “For subsequent phases all decisions about fields construction and material composition shall be joint decisions of the School District and the City” and asked if that meant the City would have equal say in any infill material. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed that was the intent of that language. He has since learned from the School District’s attorney that ESD may push back on that language. Councilmember Mesaros recognized that was their prerogative but it was the Council’s prerogative to propose what they want in the ILA. Ms. Hite said ESD’s Business Operations Director was concerned with “all decisions about field construction,” questioning whether that meant the City would be on the project during construction. She suggested clarifying the statement to require joint decision-making on material composition and allow ESD to oversee construction. She noted in a project this size construction decisions are made every day. Councilmember Mesaros referred to Item 2.2.e under the City’s responsibilities which states, “The City will jointly plan with the School District for additional capital expenditures for subsequent phases, and replacement costs” and suggested inserting after “phases” the words “material composition.” That would allow the City to have a say in the material composition that is used at Woodway fields. The goal is to have some control over the infill. If the City does not have an ILA that provides that responsibility, the decision will be made by the School District and the City gains nothing. Councilmember Petso recalled during audience comment a citizen stated there is no strong need for the City to participate in the ILA because the Verdant contract already provides the City with field access. Ms. Hite said she would need to review the Verdant contract; her recollection was the contract was between Verdant and the School District and gave the School District responsibilities for community use and reporting of community use. She did not believe it gave the City any rights to field access. Councilmember Petso said she has a number of proposed changes to the ILA that she will email to staff. Because the City was already responsible for maintenance, she suggested the City assume full authority over the infill material used, not only on future fields but after these fields are constructed. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed the School Board President told her they are not about to sign an ILA that allows the City to rip out the fields after they are installed because it would be a gigantic waste of taxpayer money. She was interested in the ILA providing the City sole responsibility to install whatever fields the City deems appropriate including paying for it when it is time to replace the fields. Recognizing there has been a lot of emotional commentary, ESD is putting in the fields, and the City has no say in it. Ensuring the City has the ability to change the fields in the future and pay for it entirely would potentially give future Councils the ability to make decisions that this Council did not have the ability to make regarding the material used on the fields. She pointed out these were the only playfields in the City that will be available for community use. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:20 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON NO. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the strike outs in Sections 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 under terms and terminations. Mr. Taraday recalled those sections allowed ESD to terminate the agreement. Because the City’s primary consideration happens then the $500,000 is provided, he did not want ESD to be able to terminate the agreement and he wanted to ensure City has use of the fields. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there was a yearly maintenance fee. Ms. Hite said the ILA addresses maintaining the fields at a cost of approximately $10,000/year. Mr. Taraday said he did not see any benefit to the City in either party being able to terminate upon 180 days written notice. Councilmember Buckshnis commented it is always Packet Page 22 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 20 good to have the ability to opt out. Mr. Taraday said the parties can mutually terminate the ILA. If the City is making a big upfront payment, ESD should not be able to terminate the ILA upon 180 days’ notice. Ms. Hite recalled in her previous position in Kirkland ILAs that included reimbursement for capital contributions if the District terminated within a certain amount of time. With regard to scheduling of the fields, Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding the City did not have any control over scheduling or time play ended if the Council did not engage in the partnership with ESD. Ms. Hite agreed absent the ILA, the Council would have no control over scheduling or use of the fields. Per the Edmonds City Code, athletic events are exempt from the noise ordinance. There are no lights at the field currently but play could last until 10:00 p.m. in the summer. Her prediction without the ILA is that ESD athletic teams will use the field more and more and SnoKing Youth Club will have little access to it. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has heard from many citizens who are in favor of the fields. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for clarification regarding the language in Section 4 regarding payment, “The City shall have the right to retain all fees collected from third-party users of the Former Woodway Fields.” Ms. Hite explained it could be tournament-related rentals or rental of the fields; SnoKing and other clubs currently pay the City for use of fields which is used to maintain the fields. Staff calculated 60% use of the fields would provide approximately $30,000 in revenue; that would allow the fields to be open on Sundays and during the week for drop-in use and used after 5:00 p.m. She summarized local need and demand is enough to pay for maintenance of the fields; there is much more time available on the fields for tournaments. Councilmember Nelson relayed he has serious concerns with the infill. He asked the replacement timeline for the infill. Ms. Hite answered it has a 10-year service life. Councilmember Nelson referred to language regarding subsequent phases and replacement and asked if that was in 10 years. Ms. Hite agreed. Councilmember Nelson said he would like to see replacement before 10 years. He observed this is a contract and although ESD has said they will not move on certain issues, everything can be negotiated. He was interested working with ESD and negotiating the infill and a timeline for the infill. He summarized there was a lot more ground the parties are closer on than they realize. Councilmember Bloom commented what she said last week was misrepresented by one of the speakers. She relayed her comment from the July 28, 2015 minutes regarding Councilmembers Johnson and Petso and herself, “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.” That was one of the reasons she requested a meeting with the School Board; Diana White, the School Board President, declined on behalf of the School Board. She was hopeful the infill was negotiable due to 1,000 citizens who signed 2 different petitions and a petition circulated within the past couple weeks that has 550 signatures. She has received 56 emails from different people in the last couple weeks. She is not hearing more people in support of the fields; she is hearing people stunned to learn crumb rubber is being installed, trying figure out what can do about it and that they did not know crumb rubber was used in other fields in Edmonds. She noted citizens first began commenting at Council meetings on July 14 and then again on July 21 and 28 and today. Many people are in disbelief ESD is putting in a product that has heavy metals, known carcinogens and carbon black. She referred to Ms. Wolfe’s comments about the connection between carbon black and global warming. She agreed with Councilmember Nelson that the infill needs to be negotiated. Councilmember Bloom did not think people have spoken negatively about School Board Members. The School Board had the choice of only two infills, crumb rubber and Nike Grind; no organic alternative was presented. Ms. Hite said the School Board’s minutes state there were bids for four alternatives including Packet Page 23 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 21 Geofill and a few other products. Councilmember Bloom said according to School Board Member Nowak and others, those were not presented to the School Board. Ms. Hite said the School Board chose SBR but Board Member Nowak made motions to adopt the other alternatives bids that were not supported by other board members. She offered to send Council a link to the School Board minutes. Councilmember Bloom said she cannot support any contract that allows installation of crumb rubber because the Council would be complicit, actually aiding and abetting ESD in exposing children to heavy metals, carcinogens and carbon black. She supported Councilmember Nelson’s suggestion, to negotiate the infill. Councilmember Petso recalled during public comment two people suggested not taking sides. She agreed, commenting the Council could have reached this point a couple weeks ago. The win-win may now be more visible; there is general agreement the fields are needed and that crumb rubber contains known carcinogens and other bad stuff. Given that, it does not seem a far stretch to reach a general agreement that there could be more playfields and they do not have to use this toxic substance. She was not interested in the redlining that ESD has suggested. If ESD wants to remove the phrase that they have complete responsibility for construction of the fields and selection of materials to be used in the construction, they need to accept the potential future liability and responsibility that goes with it, otherwise they need give the City some say and negotiate. Councilmember Mesaros relayed his understanding that this phase will construct two of the four fields and that subsequent phases refer to two additional fields that may be developed sooner than ten years. He suggested the phrase “subsequent phases” is more than when the current fields wear out, but construction of two additional fields. Ms. Hite agreed. Councilmember Mesaros said if that was the case, he definitely wanted the City to have a say in the infill in the two fields that will be constructed sooner than ten years. Council President Fraley-Monillas proposed Councilmembers send their suggested language to Mr. Taraday. Mr. Taraday will attempt to present the changes to ESD and see what their response is and return to Council with ESD’s response. That is the only way the Council will learn whether ESD is willing to accept the proposed changes. Mayor Earling requested Councilmembers submit their suggested changes by Friday. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXTEND FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. ACTION ITEMS A. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2016-2021 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Due to the late hour this item was postponed. B. 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. City Engineer Rob English reported bids were opened last week and the low bidder was Taylor’s Excavators in the amount of $1,181,347. Review of bid documents is complete and staff recommends award of the bid to Taylor’s Excavators. The bid is $30,000 less than the engineers estimate. Based on the budget, an additional $50,000 in stormwater funding is needed which staff recommends come from the stormwater allocation for street projects. Packet Page 24 of 411 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 4, 2015 Page 22 COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO AWARD THE PROJECT AS DESCRIBED BY MR. ENGLISH. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported the Hekinan students delegation is in Edmonds. He is looked forward to Hekinan’s Vice Mayor and Council President who will reach Edmonds on Sunday. Mayor Earling commented there is no Council meeting next Tuesday. The public is invited to the 125th Anniversary celebration, beginning at 1:30 p.m. and culminating with a street dance 5:30 – 8:30. The celebration will include four former Mayors including Harve Harrison. The Historical Museum is having an open house this Sunday. Their new plaza will be mostly complete by then and the museum will feature a new display on the second floor celebrating the City’s 125th anniversary. Mayor Earling announced he appointed Councilmember Nelson and Port Commissioner Jim Orvis as co- chairs for the task force as he felt it was important to have local governments in a leadership role. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Bloom relayed an audience member misinterpreted her comment; she has no interest in spearheading an effort to remove the Council from quasi-judicial hearings as she felt the Council belonged in that role and it was important for the Council to continue in that role. Councilmember Mesaros thanked sponsors of volunteer picnic, The Hotel Group, Coldwell Banker and Edmonds IGA. Council President Fraley-Monillas invited volunteers to the picnic at 2:00 p.m. at City Park. She explained the City is prohibited by law from paying for guests at the volunteer picnic. Raising money via the sponsors allows volunteers’ family members to attend. She thanked Councilmember Mesaros for pursuing sponsors. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she and City Clerk Scott Passey are playing with the format of the agenda to include presentations, reports, study items and action items. The goal is make the agenda more user friendly for citizens and the Council. 11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Packet Page 25 of 411 AM-7920 3. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/18/2015 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 #215502 through #215658 dated August 6, 2015 for $241,589.67. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61722 through #61736 for $479,183.88, check #61745 for $862.78, benefit checks #61737 through #61744 and wire payments of $435,189.94 for the pay period July 16, 2015 through July 31, 2015. Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue: Expenditure:1,156,826.27 Fiscal Impact: Claims $241,589.67 Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $480,046.66 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $435,189.94 Total Payroll $915,236.60 Attachments Claim cks 08-06-15 Project Numbers 08-06-15 Payroll Summary 08-05-15 Packet Page 26 of 411 Payroll Summary 08-05-15 Payroll Summary 08-05-15a Payroll Benefits 08-05-15 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 08/06/2015 01:03 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 08/06/2015 01:07 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/06/2015 04:00 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/06/2015 04:07 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 08/06/2015 10:19 AM Final Approval Date: 08/06/2015 Packet Page 27 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215502 8/6/2015 075085 1LINGUA LLC 100 MONTHLY INTERPERTER FEE JUNE 2015 June 2015 Monthly Interperter fee 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 50.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 4.75 Total :54.75 215503 8/6/2015 041695 3M XAM3522 TP51237 Traffic - 2 Rolls Black 30"x50YD Traffic - 2 Rolls Black 30"x50YD 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 367.50 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 34.92 Total :402.42 215504 8/6/2015 072627 911 ETC INC 33430 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT Monthly 911 database maint 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 100.00 Total :100.00 215505 8/6/2015 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 353228 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL CUST 1-23276 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL CUST 1-23276 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 82.12 Total :82.12 215506 8/6/2015 063863 ADVANCED TRAFFIC PRODUCTS 0000012649 Traffic - 16x18" Countdown Model X Traffic - 16x18" Countdown Model X 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 629.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 59.76 Total :688.76 215507 8/6/2015 069156 ADVISARTS INC 7/30 BACH CCP 7/30/15 BACH CCP 7/30/15 BACH CCP 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 1,093.75 Total :1,093.75 1Page: Packet Page 28 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215508 8/6/2015 000710 ALASKAN COPPER & BRASS 330216-1 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL steel plate, water cut 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 428.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 40.66 Total :468.66 215509 8/6/2015 075349 ALLGOOD, KATIE 7/27 REFUND 7/27/15 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR FEE 7/27/15 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR FEE 001.000.239.200 22.50 Total :22.50 215510 8/6/2015 074840 AMERICAN FOREST MANAGEMENT 81383 ARBORIST SERVICES ARBORIST SERVICES 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 800.00 Total :800.00 215511 8/6/2015 074695 AMERICAN MESSAGING W4101046PH WATER WATCH PAGER FEES WATER WATCH PAGERS - Exchange postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 26.41 Total :26.41 215512 8/6/2015 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC AJC2 WWTP - NPDES TESTING NPDES testing 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 175.00 Total :175.00 215513 8/6/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988141221 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS 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 2Page: Packet Page 29 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215513 8/6/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1988141222 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 37.02 Total :125.21 215514 8/6/2015 064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC S 074862 Alerton Systems - 8/1-10/31/15 Alerton Systems - 8/1-10/31/15 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 2,866.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 272.32 Total :3,138.82 215515 8/6/2015 001777 AURORA PLUMBING & ELECTRIC 169097 PM BRASS BASIN FAUCET CHROME PM BRASS BASIN FAUCET CHROME 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 186.00 9.6% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.86 Total :203.86 215516 8/6/2015 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 82164 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing for 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 72.38 UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing for 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 72.38 UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing for 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 74.56 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 6.95 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 6.95 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 7.15 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS82770 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 149.43 3Page: Packet Page 30 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215516 8/6/2015 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 149.43 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 153.97 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 557.96 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 557.95 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 14.35 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 14.35 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 14.77 Total :1,852.58 215517 8/6/2015 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0715 Pre-Employment Background checks Pre-Employment Background checks 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 190.00 Total :190.00 215518 8/6/2015 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON 20046 TAEKWON-DO 20046 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTION 20046 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 132.50 20050 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTION20050 TAEKWON-DO 20050 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 118.00 Total :250.50 215519 8/6/2015 002100 BARNARD, EARL 53 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 617.000.51.517.20.23.00 32.00 Total :32.00 215520 8/6/2015 002258 BENS EVER READY 10824 Fleet - Fire Extinguishers (13) Yearly 4Page: Packet Page 31 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215520 8/6/2015 (Continued)002258 BENS EVER READY Fleet - Fire Extinguishers (13) Yearly 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 125.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 11.88 Total :136.88 215521 8/6/2015 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 4509 Fleet Auto Propane 509.9 Gal Fleet Auto Propane 509.9 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 834.54 Fleet Auto Propane 483.7 Gal4566 Fleet Auto Propane 483.7 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 791.13 Total :1,625.67 215522 8/6/2015 003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 40229033 Ped Walk Way Lease 8/1/15-7/31/15 Ped Walk Way Lease 8/1/15-7/31/15 111.000.68.542.31.45.00 1,909.62 Total :1,909.62 215523 8/6/2015 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING &4119 Storm Dump Fees Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 320.00 Total :320.00 215524 8/6/2015 074229 BONNIE AUBUCHON 20101 JOY OF ART 20101 JOY OF ART INSTRUCTION 20101 JOY OF ART INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 174.00 Total :174.00 215525 8/6/2015 074776 BUCKSHNIS, DIANE Bucknish CFE Bucknish Claim for Expenses from Bucknish Claim for Expenses from 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 134.37 Total :134.37 215526 8/6/2015 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 312144 PM CRUSHED ROCK YOST PARK TRAIL PM CRUSHED ROCK YOST PARK TRAIL 5Page: Packet Page 32 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215526 8/6/2015 (Continued)003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 504.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 47.88 PM CITY PARK SPRAY PARK CRUSHED ROCK312159 PM CITY PARK SPRAY PARK CRUSHED ROCK 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 504.00 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 47.88 Total :1,103.76 215527 8/6/2015 075280 BYRUM, RICHARD 7/7-7/30 UMP 7/7-7/30/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 7/7-7/30/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 100.00 Total :100.00 215528 8/6/2015 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 92512854 Roadway - Gravel Roadway - Gravel 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 247.95 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 23.56 Total :271.51 215529 8/6/2015 074442 CAPITAL ONE 8941 Fac Maint - First Aid Supplies Fac Maint - First Aid Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 276.55 Total :276.55 215530 8/6/2015 068484 CEMEX LLC 9431309148 Roadway - Asphalt Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 266.40 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 25.31 Roadway - Asphalt9431370262 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 415.32 6Page: Packet Page 33 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215530 8/6/2015 (Continued)068484 CEMEX LLC 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 39.46 Roadway - Cement9431370263 Roadway - Cement 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 301.50 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 28.64 Roadway - Asphalt9431378796 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 178.50 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 16.96 Total :1,272.09 215531 8/6/2015 075366 CHARLES & ERIKA MORALES 2-16950 #4221-2453080 UTILITY REFUND #4221-2453080 Utility refund - received 411.000.233.000 245.83 Total :245.83 215532 8/6/2015 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 11639 CREDIT ON #11639 FOR 1/2015- LYNNWOOD JA CREDIT ON 1/2015 R&B JAIL BILL 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -389.83 INV#11639 CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD11639 PRISONER R&B MARCH 2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,122.42 Total :732.59 215533 8/6/2015 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 1-218359-279832 WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205TH ST / METER WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205TH ST / METER 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 15.60 Total :15.60 215534 8/6/2015 004095 COASTWIDE LABS NW2787306-2 PM JET FORCE WASP & HORNET KILLER PM JET FORCE WASP & HORNET KILLER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 74.91 7Page: Packet Page 34 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215534 8/6/2015 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.12 Total :82.03 215535 8/6/2015 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC AUG-15 C/A CITYOFED00001 Aug-15 Fiber Optics Internet Connection 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 406.10 Total :406.10 215536 8/6/2015 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING JULY 2015 DRY CLEANING JUNE/JULY 2015 - EDMONDS PD CLEANING/LAUNDRY JUNE/JULY 2015 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 419.23 Total :419.23 215537 8/6/2015 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3303132 E4CD.INVITATION TO BID AD E4CD.Invitation to Bid Ad 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 725.40 E3DB.INVITATION TO BID AD3303164 E3DB.Invitation to Bid Ad 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 495.30 Total :1,220.70 215538 8/6/2015 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 360861 E1CA.SERVICES THRU 7/18/15 E1CA.Services thru 7/18/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 324.86 E1CA.Services thru 7/18/15 112.200.68.595.20.61.00 3,591.18 Total :3,916.04 215539 8/6/2015 075369 DAVID MATULICH 1-36650 #611102266-KK Utility refund #611102266-KK Utility refund 411.000.233.000 161.97 Total :161.97 215540 8/6/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3576 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 07/28/2015 07/28/15 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 8Page: Packet Page 35 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215540 8/6/2015 (Continued)064531 DINES, JEANNIE 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 333.30 Total :333.30 215541 8/6/2015 061384 DRIFTWOOD PLAYERS 2015 TOURISM PROMO 2015 TOURISM PROMO DRIFTWOOD PLAYERS 2015 TOURISM PROMO DRIFTWOOD PLAYERS 123.000.64.573.20.41.00 2,000.00 Total :2,000.00 215542 8/6/2015 007253 DUNN LUMBER 3350993 Finance Dept Remodel - Supplies Finance Dept Remodel - Supplies 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 50.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 4.76 PM PRESSURE TREATED HEM/FIR 4X4 POST3351127 PM PRESSURE TREATED HEM/FIR 4X4 POST 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 113.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.76 Total :178.84 215543 8/6/2015 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 51284 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL Non-Clor Brk Pts 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 47.88 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 4.55 Total :52.43 215544 8/6/2015 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1678 TOURISM PROMOTION AWARD JAN-JUNE 2015 Tourism promotion award for Edmonds 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 1,250.00 Total :1,250.00 215545 8/6/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR11630 INV#AR11630 - EDMONDS PD CANON IR1435if BW COPIER 001.000.41.521.10.35.00 653.00 9Page: Packet Page 36 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215545 8/6/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.35.00 62.04 FLEET COPY USEAR11667 Fleet Copy Use~ 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.06 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.86 WATER SEWER COPY USEAR11668 Water Sewer Copy Use 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 28.50 Water Sewer Copy Use 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 28.49 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.71 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.70 PW COPY USEAR11669 PW Copy Use~ 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 14.12 PW Copy Use~ 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 8.00 PW Copy Use~ 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 8.00 PW Copy Use~ 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5.65 PW Copy Use~ 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.65 PW Copy Use~ 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 1.34 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 0.76 9.5% Sales Tax 10Page: Packet Page 37 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215545 8/6/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 0.76 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.54 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.54 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.53 P&R PRINTER C1030 #A6995AR11672 P&R PRINTER C1030 #A6995 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 31.17 P&R COPIER C5051 #A7027AR11673 P&R COPIER C5051 #A7027 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 76.40 Total :946.47 215546 8/6/2015 070118 ELECTRONIC DATA SOLUTIONS 17995 NEW GPS SYSTEM FOR OPERATIONS New GPS System for Operations 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 4,726.62 New GPS System for Operations 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 4,726.62 New GPS System for Operations 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 4,726.63 Total :14,179.87 215547 8/6/2015 070515 EMERALD CITY HARLEY-DAVIDSON 139087 Unit 203 - Parts (including tax, see Unit 203 - Parts (including tax, see 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1,136.31 Unit 203 - Parts139378 Unit 203 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 34.99 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.32 Unit 582 - Parts for 2 invoices see139675 / 139732 Unit 582 - Parts for 2 invoices see 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 497.90 11Page: Packet Page 38 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215547 8/6/2015 (Continued)070515 EMERALD CITY HARLEY-DAVIDSON 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 47.29 Unit 585 - Parts140295 Unit 585 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.98 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.57 Unit 582 - Parts141276 Unit 582 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 309.91 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 29.44 Unit 582 - Parts141277 Unit 582 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 458.91 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 43.58 Unit 582 - Parts (including tax, see141284 Unit 582 - Parts (including tax, see 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 342.46 Unit 405 - Parts141346 Unit 405 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 107.97 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.26 Unit 582 - Parts141368 Unit 582 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 133.99 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.73 Total :3,175.61 215548 8/6/2015 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 0108639-IN INV#0108639-IN ACCT#0011847 - EDMONDS PD DIGITAL ARTWORK 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 250.00 12Page: Packet Page 39 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :250.002155488/6/2015 008975 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 215549 8/6/2015 075365 ESTATE OF DAPHNE STONE 4-15825 #685836RT Utility refund #685836RT Utility refund 411.000.233.000 264.36 Total :264.36 215550 8/6/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH645335 E3DB.INVITATION TO BID AD E3DB.Invitation to Bid Ad 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 213.28 LEGAL NOTICE SEPA DNSEDH647865 Legal Notice SEPA DNS 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 58.48 Total :271.76 215551 8/6/2015 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU36546 Fleet - Parts 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: 1/2 X 13X1.5HCWAMOU36613 PM: 1/2 X 13X1.5HC 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.32 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.98 Total :12.24 215552 8/6/2015 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 07312015 PUBLIC DEFENDER CONTRACT JULY 2015 Public Defender Contract 2015 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 20,000.00 Total :20,000.00 215553 8/6/2015 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 10025787 Flex plan participant and monthly fee Flex plan participant and monthly fee 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 76.10 Total :76.10 13Page: Packet Page 40 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215554 8/6/2015 065704 FOLSOM, ROB FOLSOM # 1 CONCERTS FOLSOM # 1 CONCERTS FOLSOM # 1 CONCERTS 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 975.00 Total :975.00 215555 8/6/2015 075367 FRANELLA LLC 8-21275 #0042149-OC-NT UTILITY REFUND #0042149-OC-NT Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 8.69 Total :8.69 215556 8/6/2015 011900 FRONTIER 253-003-6887 LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 41.81 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE253-012-9189 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 41.23 WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL253-017-7256 WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 223.48 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHONE & PM IP425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHONE 001.000.64.571.29.42.00 89.86 PARKS MAINT IP LINE (10 + TAX) 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.95 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES425-771-0158 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 129.50 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE425-771-5553 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 112.66 CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH AVE N425-776-6829 CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 129.50 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE509-022-0049 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.21 14Page: Packet Page 41 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :805.202155568/6/2015 011900 011900 FRONTIER 215557 8/6/2015 002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 140732 INV#140732 - EDMONDS PD - MCINTYRE CLOTH NAME TAGS FOR SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 14.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 1.41 INV#147634 - EDMONDS PD - DREYER147634 ATAC STORM BOOTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 115.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.93 INV#148122 - EDMONDS PD - GRIMES148122 BLACK KINETIC BOOTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 145.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 13.87 Total :302.01 215558 8/6/2015 075360 GARY & AMELIE KIDDER 8-50300 #4201-2459540 UTILITY REFUND #4201-2459540 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 422.56 Total :422.56 215559 8/6/2015 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA 19994 TAEKWON-DO 19994 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTION 19994 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 158.89 Total :158.89 215560 8/6/2015 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 125965 Unit 50 - 2 Tires Unit 50 - 2 Tires 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 234.28 St Tire Fees 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 2.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 22.26 15Page: Packet Page 42 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :258.542155608/6/2015 063137 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 215561 8/6/2015 072515 GOOGLE INC 3358377347 BILLING ID# 5030-2931-5908 Google Apps usage - Jul-2015 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 31.00 Total :31.00 215562 8/6/2015 012199 GRAINGER 9795252775 PW - V Belts PW - V Belts 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 46.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.42 Total :50.89 215563 8/6/2015 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 980098612 WWTP - OFFSITE TELEMETRY Cooper Crouse Hinds Mtl 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 114.42 Freight 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 4.99 9.5% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 11.34 Total :130.75 215564 8/6/2015 067615 GTS INTERIOR SUPPLY 4387044-00 Finance Dept Remodel Supplies Finance Dept Remodel Supplies 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 1,085.43 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 103.11 Total :1,188.54 215565 8/6/2015 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 162016/1 Water Supplies - Pipe Water Supplies - Pipe 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 607.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 57.67 Total :664.67 16Page: Packet Page 43 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215566 8/6/2015 075202 HAINES, ERIC 8/4 HMP ERIC HAINES 8/4/15 HMP ERIC HAINES 8/4/15 HMP ERIC HAINES 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 365.00 Total :365.00 215567 8/6/2015 074164 HARDY, JOHN 7/4-7/30 UMP 7/4-7/30/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 7/4-7/30/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 432.00 Total :432.00 215568 8/6/2015 074804 HARLES, JANINE 197330 PHOTOGRAPHY FOR JULY 2015 Photography for July 2015 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 215569 8/6/2015 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 156051 Fleet - Battery Clip Fleet - Battery Clip 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.70 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.21 Unit 49 - Handle156093 Unit 49 - Handle 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 28.64 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.72 Total :45.27 215570 8/6/2015 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD E252547 Storm - Pipe 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 130.78 Storm - Pipe 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1,376.64 Total :1,507.42 215571 8/6/2015 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 52 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 17Page: Packet Page 44 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215571 8/6/2015 (Continued)013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 122.99 Total :122.99 215572 8/6/2015 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 36995 E5FB.SERVICES THRU 7/30/15 E5FB.Services thru 7/30/15 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4,301.97 Total :4,301.97 215573 8/6/2015 075133 HERRIN, NICOLE BID-080115 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FOR JULY Administrative services for July 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 604.00 Total :604.00 215574 8/6/2015 066575 HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL 28118542-003 CITY PARK SPRAY PARK PROJECT EXCAVATOR R CITY PARK SPRAY PARK PROJECT EXCAVATOR 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 1,306.26 Total :1,306.26 215575 8/6/2015 074966 HIATT, ELLEN COE_2015_0730 COMMUNICATIONS MARKETING TOURISM CONSUL Communications and marketing tourism 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 1,000.00 Total :1,000.00 215576 8/6/2015 075354 HUMPHRIES, STEVE 5/5-7/30 UMP 5/28/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 5/28/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 25.00 Total :25.00 215577 8/6/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2660051 OFFICE CHAIR FOR N JACOBSON Office chair for N Jacobson 001.000.31.514.23.35.00 332.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.35.00 31.54 Office supplies2660225 Office supplies 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 184.59 18Page: Packet Page 45 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215577 8/6/2015 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 17.54 CITY CLERKS OFFICE SUPPLIES2660227 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR THE CITY 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 366.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 34.78 OFFICE SUPPLIES- BUILDING2661057 OFFICE SUPPLIES- BUILDING 001.000.62.524.20.31.00 81.12 Total :1,047.85 215578 8/6/2015 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 000049001 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 132.34 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 10.60 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 13.58 Total :156.52 215579 8/6/2015 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 760625 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 27.90 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 2.65 Total :30.55 215580 8/6/2015 075355 JACKSON, KENNETH 5/5-7/30 UMP 5/5-7/30/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 5/5-7/30/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 250.00 Total :250.00 215581 8/6/2015 075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC 001 STATE LOBBYIST JULY 2015 State lobbyist for July 2015 19Page: Packet Page 46 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215581 8/6/2015 (Continued)075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,416.67 Total :2,416.67 215582 8/6/2015 075279 JOHNSON, RONALD 7/7-7/30 UMP 7/7-7/30/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 7/7-7/30/15 SR SOFTBALL UMP 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 50.00 Total :50.00 215583 8/6/2015 074888 JOYOUS NOISE LLC 20060 KINDERMUSIK 20060 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION 20060 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 363.00 20066 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION20066 KINDERMUSIK 20066 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 269.50 20071 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION20071 KINDERMUSIK 20071 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 148.50 20516 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION20516 KINDERMUSIK 20516 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 178.75 Total :959.75 215584 8/6/2015 075359 JULIA TRO 7-03325 #0041362-OC-SI UTILITY REFUND #0041362-OC-SI Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 271.80 Total :271.80 215585 8/6/2015 075241 KELLER, DAVID FENTONS PARK CONCERT 7/26/15 FENTONS PARK CONCERT 7/26/15 FENTONS PARK CONCERT 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 215586 8/6/2015 067877 KINGSTON LUMBER SUPPLY COMPANY 217363 Traffic Control - Svc Fee Traffic Control - Svc Fee 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 25.45 20Page: Packet Page 47 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :25.452155868/6/2015 067877 067877 KINGSTON LUMBER SUPPLY COMPANY 215587 8/6/2015 068024 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARD FOUND 20085 KRUCKEBERG 20085 KRUCKEBERG INSTRUCTION 20085 KRUCKEBERG INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 136.50 20086 KRUCKEBERG INSTRUCTION20086 KRUCKEBERG 20086 KRUCKEBERG INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 22.75 Total :159.25 215588 8/6/2015 062814 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC 515846 Unit E100PO - Antenna Unit E100PO - Antenna 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 61.00 Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 14.00 Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 5.80 Total :80.80 215589 8/6/2015 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 07132015-03 City Car Washes City Car Washes 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 5.03 Total :5.03 215590 8/6/2015 070120 L E A D S.ONLINE INC 232944 INV#232944 CUST#EDWAPD - EDMONDS PD 1 YR SEARCH SERVICE PKG-RENEW 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 1,428.00 Total :1,428.00 215591 8/6/2015 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 35449 3RD PARTY REVIEW- CASPER 3RD PARTY REVIEW- CASPER 001.000.245.962 6,200.00 Total :6,200.00 215592 8/6/2015 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 80500119079 Unit 66 - Tire Unit 66 - Tire 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 503.59 21Page: Packet Page 48 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215592 8/6/2015 (Continued)067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER Tire Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 1.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 47.84 Total :552.43 215593 8/6/2015 075234 LIPPERT, PAUL HMP LIPPERT 7/28/15 HMP LIPPERT 7/28/15 HMP LIPPERT 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 700.00 Total :700.00 215594 8/6/2015 071140 MAD SCIENCE OF SNO-KING 19901 MAD SCIENCE 19901 MAD SCIENCE CAMP INSTRUCTION 19901 MAD SCIENCE CAMP INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,190.00 Total :1,190.00 215595 8/6/2015 075368 MARSHALL & JENNIFER REECE 3-37575 #0042209-OC-NT UTILITY REFUND #0042209-OC-NT Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 263.61 Total :263.61 215596 8/6/2015 075350 MARSHALL, LINDA 7/20 REFUND 7/20 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR FEE 7/20 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR FEE 001.000.239.200 52.50 Total :52.50 215597 8/6/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 35336126 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL Stainless Steel Thread Pipe Nipple 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 9.84 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 6.20 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL35508870 CPVC pipe fitting 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 71.05 Freight 22Page: Packet Page 49 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215597 8/6/2015 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 7.01 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATIONS35617736 danger signs and work gloves 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 199.21 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 8.14 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATIONS35664257 batteries 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 62.14 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 7.01 Total :370.60 215598 8/6/2015 074831 MILLER PAINT COMPANY 28868303 Traffic - Paint Supplies Traffic - Paint Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 524.65 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 49.84 Traffic - Supplies28872112 Traffic - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 69.49 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 8.50 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 7.41 Traffic - Paint28885732 Traffic - Paint 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 688.50 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 65.41 Traffic - Paint28888597 Traffic - Paint 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 229.50 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 21.81 23Page: Packet Page 50 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,665.112155988/6/2015 074831 074831 MILLER PAINT COMPANY 215599 8/6/2015 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 217498 WWTP - PROPANE propane refill 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 27.26 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 2.59 Total :29.85 215600 8/6/2015 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0553209-IN Fleet Shop Multiplex Fleet Shop Multiplex 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 870.44 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 82.69 Fleet Filter Inventory0554812-IN Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 75.90 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 7.21 Fleet Filter Inventory0556428- Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 13.11 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 1.24 Total :1,050.59 215601 8/6/2015 074724 NEWMAN-BURROW LLC 50181 EDMONDS PORTION OF FALL DIGITAL CRAZE EDMONDS PORTION OF FALL DIGITAL CRAZE 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 524.50 Total :524.50 215602 8/6/2015 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 63970 WWTP - SODIUM BISULFITE sodium bisulfite 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 943.80 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 89.66 24Page: Packet Page 51 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,033.462156028/6/2015 066391 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 215603 8/6/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1281584 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY BUCKET MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 203.65 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1291895 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET2-1292394 MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 600.05 MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET2-1292672 MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 CIVIC CENTER 6TH & EDMONDS HONEY BUCKET2-1294203 CIVIC CENTER 6TH & EDMONDS HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 Total :1,145.25 215604 8/6/2015 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 578 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 476.00 ADB MINUTES000 00 580 ADB MINUTES 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 85.00 Total :561.00 215605 8/6/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 208554 Fac Maint - Printer Ink Fac Maint - Printer Ink 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 119.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.39 Total :131.27 215606 8/6/2015 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER June, 2015 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL Emergency Medical Services & Trauma 25Page: Packet Page 52 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215606 8/6/2015 (Continued)070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER 001.000.237.120 1,682.83 PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account 001.000.237.130 30,107.38 Building Code Fee Account 001.000.237.150 204.00 State Patrol Death Investigation 001.000.237.330 140.31 Judicial Information Systems Account 001.000.237.180 5,847.09 School Zone Safety Account 001.000.237.200 129.82 Washington Auto Theft Prevention 001.000.237.250 3,317.03 Traumatic Brain Injury 001.000.237.260 650.54 Hwy Safety Acct 001.000.237.320 222.64 Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis 001.000.237.170 57.55 WSP Hwy Acct 001.000.237.340 795.61 Total :43,154.80 215607 8/6/2015 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 5,622.12 HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN & SPRINKL0060860 HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN & 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 95.27 Total :5,717.39 215608 8/6/2015 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 21-23172 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Task 01 - Emergency Svcs 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1,328.05 26Page: Packet Page 53 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,328.052156088/6/2015 065051 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 215609 8/6/2015 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 107731 INV#107731 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2015 EQUINOX #AUT1936 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.77 INV#107865 - EDMONDS PD107865 TOW 2004 SATURN #1909255A 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.77 Total :363.54 215610 8/6/2015 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20110010.000-43 E7AC.SERVICES THRU 6/28/15 E7AC.Services thru 6/28/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 12,453.21 Total :12,453.21 215611 8/6/2015 069633 PET PROS 0013250-IN INV#0013250-IN - EDMONDS PD NU HI ENDURANCE CHIC 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 58.36 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 5.60 Total :63.96 215612 8/6/2015 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC H330652 Finance Dept Remodel - Supplies Finance Dept Remodel - Supplies 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 29.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 2.80 Finance Dept Remodel - SuppliesH339681 Finance Dept Remodel - Supplies 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 170.67 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 16.21 27Page: Packet Page 54 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215612 8/6/2015 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC Finance Dept Remodel SuppliesH342319 Finance Dept Remodel Supplies 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 163.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 15.54 Finance Dept Remodel SuppliesH345715 Finance Dept Remodel Supplies 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 50.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 4.84 Total :454.04 215613 8/6/2015 072384 PLAY-WELL TEKNOLOGIES 19846 LEGO CAMP 19846 LEGO CAMP INSTRUCTION 19846 LEGO CAMP INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,820.00 19847 LEGO CAMP INSTRUCTION19847 LEGO CAMP 19847 LEGO CAMP INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 3,120.00 Total :4,940.00 215614 8/6/2015 073231 POLYDYNE INC 984257 WWTP - SUPPLIES, POLYMER polymer clarifloc 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 8,184.00 Total :8,184.00 215615 8/6/2015 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 216117 Water Watch Pager return mail Water Watch Pager return mail 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 6.45 Water Watch Pager return mail 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 6.44 Total :12.89 215616 8/6/2015 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000156650 SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-SMITH SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-SMITH 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 105.00 28Page: Packet Page 55 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215616 8/6/2015 (Continued)030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-TAYLOR00000156651 SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-TAYLOR 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 105.00 SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-KRIEBEL00000156652 SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-KRIEBEL 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 105.00 SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-MACLEAN00000156653 SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-MACLEAN 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 105.00 SHUTTER/NICHE /INSCRIPTION-MASSA00000156654 SHUTTER/NICHE /INSCRIPTION-MASSA 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 105.00 SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-HARRIS00000156655 SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION-HARRIS 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 105.00 Total :630.00 215617 8/6/2015 071702 RAILROAD MGMT CO III LLC 320749 Lic # 305234 - Meadowdale Storm Drain Lic # 305234 - Meadowdale Storm Drain 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 160.78 Lic #305683 Edmonds Storm Drain Crossing321670 Lic #305683 Edmonds Storm Drain Crossing 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 160.78 Lic #305684 - Meadowdale Storm Drain321671 Lic #305684 - Meadowdale Storm Drain 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 160.78 Lic # 305754 Meadowdale Storm Drain321690 Lic # 305754 Meadowdale Storm Drain 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 160.78 Total :643.12 215618 8/6/2015 074712 RAINIER ENVIRONMENTAL LAB 1915 WWTP - DMRQA TESTING 2015 DMRQA Testing 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 200.00 29Page: Packet Page 56 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :200.002156188/6/2015 074712 074712 RAINIER ENVIRONMENTAL LAB 215619 8/6/2015 075239 REYNOLDS, ANN 8/2 PARK CONCERT 8/2/15 PARK CONCERT CLAVE 8/2/15 PARK CONCERT CLAVE 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 800.00 Total :800.00 215620 8/6/2015 075361 RICKMARK LLC 1-16650 #640764 UTILITY REFUND #640764 Utility refund due to estimated 411.000.233.000 457.60 Total :457.60 215621 8/6/2015 006841 RICOH USA INC 5036975853 ADDITIONAL IMAGES- DEV SERV additional images 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 7.54 Total :7.54 215622 8/6/2015 075362 ROBERT & SHARON MINTON 1-20725 #643291 UTILITY REFUND #643291 Utility refund due to estimated 411.000.233.000 114.93 Total :114.93 215623 8/6/2015 075351 ROMERO, RACHEL 7/27 REFUND 7/27/15 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR FEE AND DA 7/27/15 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR FEE 001.000.239.200 30.00 7/27/15 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 500.00 Total :530.00 215624 8/6/2015 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 8151 CONFLICT PUBLIC DEFENDER AUG 2015 Conflict Public Defender Aug 2015 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 1,000.00 Total :1,000.00 215625 8/6/2015 075352 SCHLIEMAN, BRIAN 7/29 REFUND 7/29/15 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 7/29/15 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 500.00 30Page: Packet Page 57 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :500.002156258/6/2015 075352 075352 SCHLIEMAN, BRIAN 215626 8/6/2015 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC S3-673452 Unit 449 - Spark Plugs Unit 449 - Spark Plugs 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 56.32 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.35 Fleet ReturnsS3-675471 Fleet Returns 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -81.52 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -7.75 Unit 28 - BatteryS3-676363 Unit 28 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 98.74 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.38 Fleet Shop - Diagnostic SoftwareS5-671863 Fleet Shop - Diagnostic Software 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 990.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 94.05 Total :1,164.57 215627 8/6/2015 074911 SEATTLE HEALTHY POOLS 308 YOST TILE, PPM SENSOR READING REPAIRS, S REPAIR TILES, REPAIR TO PPM SENSOR 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 115.00 TEST REAGENTS, SKIMMER ASSEMBLY 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 83.84 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 10.93 Total :217.73 215628 8/6/2015 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 15-3102 Unit 106 - Part 31Page: Packet Page 58 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215628 8/6/2015 (Continued)067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO Unit 106 - Part 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 277.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 26.37 Total :303.87 215629 8/6/2015 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 2131-1 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECANICAL PR Gray & SG Ultra 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 241.69 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 22.96 Total :264.65 215630 8/6/2015 075353 SINGH, SUMITA 7/20 REFUND 7/20/15 REFUND AT CUSTOMER REQUEST 7/20/15 REFUND AT CUSTOMER REQUEST 001.000.239.200 617.00 Total :617.00 215631 8/6/2015 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0188955-IN Unit E100PO - Dominator 8 Super LED T/A Unit E100PO - Dominator 8 Super LED T/A 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 396.14 Unit 450 - Linear Strobe (3)0189118-IN Unit 450 - Linear Strobe (3) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 284.70 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.53 Total :690.37 215632 8/6/2015 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0578132 PM: FERTIL MULCH PM: 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 370.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 35.15 PM: PERENNIALS, HERBST-0581080 PM: PERENNIALS, HERBS 32Page: Packet Page 59 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215632 8/6/2015 (Continued)036955 SKY NURSERY 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 115.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 11.01 Total :532.07 215633 8/6/2015 066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS I000390974 E5CA.SERVICES THRU 6/30/15 E5CA.Services thru 6/30/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 1,337.26 Total :1,337.26 215634 8/6/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2001-2487-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W / METER 1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 65.77 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME2004-2241-8 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,862.85 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVE / METER2011-0356-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVE / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 62.85 PINE ST PARK2013-2711-1 PINE ST PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.90 CEMETERY BUILDING2015-5730-3 CEMETERY BUILDING 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 71.82 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WAY / METER 102015-6343-4 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WAY / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 49.43 OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT CEMETERY2016-1027-6 OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT CEMETERY 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.49 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 100TH AVE W /2017-0375-8 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 100TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 50.50 415 5TH AVE S2017-6210-1 33Page: Packet Page 60 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215634 8/6/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 415 5TH AVE S 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 38.33 CEMETERY WELL PUMP2021-6153-5 CEMETERY WELL PUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 589.86 CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST / METER 102042-9221-3 CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 135.16 HAZEL MILLER PLAZA2044-6743-5 HAZEL MILLER PLAZA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 78.58 Total :3,053.54 215635 8/6/2015 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE I000390599 INV#I000390599 CUST#SSH00095 - EDMONDS P SCSO RANGE USE 10 HR 6/25/15 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 580.00 INV I000390861 ELLIS EXTRADITION - EDMONI000390861 1/2 OF EXTRADITION FEE - ELLIS 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,015.00 Total :1,595.00 215636 8/6/2015 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 07/30/15 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES MEETING July SCC dinner meeting 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 35.00 SCC Dinner Mtg - attendees,7-30-2015 SCC SCC Dinner Mtg - attendees, 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 105.00 Total :140.00 215637 8/6/2015 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 550.68 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST103585 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 674.47 34Page: Packet Page 61 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215637 8/6/2015 (Continued)038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST103586 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 555.23 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N103588 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 459.89 Total :2,240.27 215638 8/6/2015 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4255215-01 Fac Maint - Work Pants (5) J Rolfe Fac Maint - Work Pants (5) J Rolfe 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 180.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 17.10 Total :197.10 215639 8/6/2015 061912 SUN SUPPLY 0253728-IN Traffic - Orange Corex 48"x96" Traffic - Orange Corex 48"x96" 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 94.08 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 8.94 Total :103.02 215640 8/6/2015 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC 19882 BEACH CAMP 19882 BEACH DAY CAMP 19882 BEACH DAY CAMP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 12,900.00 19890 BEACH SLEEPOVER CAMP19890 BEACH CAMP 19890 BEACH SLEEPOVER CAMP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 6,750.00 Total :19,650.00 215641 8/6/2015 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 11459576 Water - Parts Water - Parts 421.000.74.537.90.49.00 34.85 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.537.90.49.00 3.31 35Page: Packet Page 62 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215641 8/6/2015 (Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC Storm - Supplies11461930 Storm - Supplies 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 58.89 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 5.59 Fleet Shop Supplies11462891 Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 49.66 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 4.72 Traffic - Supplies11462892 Traffic - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 5.16 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 0.49 Total :162.67 215642 8/6/2015 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50941718 E5FA.SERVICES THRU 7/03/15 E5FA.Services thru 7/03/15 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 8,200.38 Total :8,200.38 215643 8/6/2015 075370 THOMAS & MARIA ACOB NASH 1-24775 #4-1628-KBRM Utility refund #4-1628-KBRM Utility refund 411.000.233.000 426.46 Total :426.46 215644 8/6/2015 070744 TIGER OAK PUBLICATIONS INC 2015-145870 BUSINESS ATTRACTION AD SEATTLE BUSINESS Business attraction ad in Seattle 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 2,200.00 Total :2,200.00 215645 8/6/2015 073255 TOTAL FILTRATION SERVICES, INC PSV1372396 Fac Maint - Filter Supply for City Fac Maint - Filter Supply for City 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 224.04 36Page: Packet Page 63 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215645 8/6/2015 (Continued)073255 TOTAL FILTRATION SERVICES, INC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.28 Total :245.32 215646 8/6/2015 075363 US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 1-32400 #109-1500199-MP UTILITY REFUND #109-1500199-MP Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 69.11 Total :69.11 215647 8/6/2015 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA 0618720-WA INV 0618720-WA EDMONDS PD - GRIMES HEP B VACCINE 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 82.00 Total :82.00 215648 8/6/2015 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 705459 Sewer - Manhole Bridge, Telescoping Pole Sewer - Manhole Bridge, Telescoping Pole 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 360.90 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 49.71 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 39.01 Total :449.62 215649 8/6/2015 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9749445238 C/A 571242650-0001 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bld Dept 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 221.10 iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 55.84 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 75.55 iPad Cell Service Council 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 300.10 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 77.34 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Development 37Page: Packet Page 64 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215649 8/6/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 95.54 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 655.71 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 111.06 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 95.54 iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 95.54 iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 286.91 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 40.01 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Dept 001.000.64.571.21.42.00 95.54 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 941.30 Air cards Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 858.93 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning Dept 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 40.01 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 26.54 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 7.58 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 26.54 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 7.58 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 7.59 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Street Dept 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 171.37 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Fleet 38Page: Packet Page 65 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215649 8/6/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 55.53 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 120.70 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 120.70 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer Dept 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 205.58 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 245.59 iPad Cell Service Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 175.56 iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 437.99 iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 216.91 C/A 772540262-000019749570232 Lift Station access 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 85.58 Total :5,957.36 215650 8/6/2015 071584 VILLALOBOS, JOEL 20089 MIGHTY MOVERS 20089 MIGHTY MOVERS INSTRUCTION 20089 MIGHTY MOVERS INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 345.00 Total :345.00 215651 8/6/2015 075203 VOCALS BY JACQUELINE 7/30 HMP TABOR TRIO 7/30/15 HMP TABOR TRIO 7/30/15 HMP TABOR TRIO 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 400.00 Total :400.00 215652 8/6/2015 045515 WABO 30536 Advertising- Building Inspector Combo Advertising- Building Inspector Combo 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 50.00 Total :50.00 39Page: Packet Page 66 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215653 8/6/2015 075364 WADE & KATHLEEN NASH 4-38575 #500027539-DB UTILITY REFUND #500027539-DB Utility refund - received 411.000.233.000 222.76 Total :222.76 215654 8/6/2015 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO 495960 Fac Maint - Towels, TT, Supplies Fac Maint - Towels, TT, Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 184.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.52 Total :201.99 215655 8/6/2015 075345 WATCH SYSTEMS LLC 26982 INV#26982 - EDMONDS PD DEPOSIT FOR NIPF NOTIFICATION-~ 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 500.00 Total :500.00 215656 8/6/2015 075283 WAVE BROADBAND 102-261607 FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICE High Speed Internet service 08/01/15 - 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 816.00 Total :816.00 215657 8/6/2015 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6768 Utility Billing -#9 Return Env (5000) Utility Billing -#9 Return Env (5000) 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 84.67 Utility Billing -#9 Return Env (5000) 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 84.67 Utility Billing -#9 Return Env (5000) 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 84.66 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 8.04 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 8.04 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 8.05 40Page: Packet Page 67 of 411 08/06/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 9:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :278.132156578/6/2015 073552 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 215658 8/6/2015 064213 WSSUA TREASURER 290 SOFTBALL OFFICIAL FEES SOFTBALL OFFICIAL FEES 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 2,640.00 Total :2,640.00 Bank total :241,589.67157 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 241,589.67Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report157 41Page: Packet Page 68 of 411 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 8/5/2015 Packet Page 69 of 411 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 8/5/2015 Packet Page 70 of 411 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 8/5/2015 Packet Page 71 of 411 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 8/5/2015 Packet Page 72 of 411 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 8/5/2015 Packet Page 73 of 411 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 8/5/2015 Packet Page 74 of 411 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 8/5/2015 Packet Page 75 of 411 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 8/5/2015 Packet Page 76 of 411 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 8/5/2015 Packet Page 77 of 411 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 8/5/2015 Packet Page 78 of 411 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 8/5/2015 Packet Page 79 of 411 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 8/5/2015 Packet Page 80 of 411 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 8/5/2015 Packet Page 81 of 411 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 8/5/2015 Packet Page 82 of 411 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 8/5/2015 Packet Page 83 of 411 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 8/5/2015 Packet Page 84 of 411 Pa y r o l l E a r n i n g s S u m m a r y R e p o r t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Pa y P e r i o d : 7 5 3 ( 0 7 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 5 t o 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 5 ) Ho u r s A m o u n t Ho u r T y p e H o u r C l a s s D e s c r i p t i o n Ed u c a t i o n a l P a y C o r r e c t i o n RE G U L A R H O U R S -e d 2 0. 0 0 -156.28 N O P A Y L E A V E A BS E N T 11 1 28 . 0 0 0.00 NO P A Y N O N H I R E D A BS E N T 11 2 12 8 . 0 0 0.00 SI C K L E A V E - L & I SI C K 12 0 18 9 . 0 0 4,684.25 SI C K L E A V E SI C K 12 1 52 5 . 0 0 16,621.02 VA C A T I O N VA C A T I O N 12 2 2, 2 3 7 . 5 0 78,036.19 HO L I D A Y H O U R S HO L I D A Y 12 3 64 . 0 0 2,584.09 FL O A T E R H O L I D A Y HO L I D A Y 12 4 30 . 0 0 831.02 CO M P E N S A T O R Y T I M E CO M P H O U R S 12 5 12 7 . 5 0 4,258.75 Po l i c e S i c k L e a v e L & I SI C K 12 9 19 8 . 0 0 6,845.91 Ho l i d a y C o m p en s a t i o n U s e d CO M P H O U R S 13 0 19 . 0 0 546.77 BE R E A V E M E N T BE R E A V E M E N T 14 1 24 . 0 0 823.75 Ke l l y D a y U s e d RE G U L A R H O U R S 15 0 17 4 . 0 0 6,117.67 CO M P T I M E A U T O P A Y CO M P H O U R S 15 5 70 . 3 9 2,999.15 SI C K L E A V E P A Y O F F SI C K 15 7 0. 0 0 35.38 VA C A T I O N P A Y O F F VA C A T I O N 15 8 0. 0 0 745.25 MA N A G E M E N T L E A V E VA C A T I O N 16 0 28 . 0 0 1,500.79 CO U N C I L B A S E P A Y RE G U L A R H O U R S 17 0 70 0 . 0 0 7,000.00 CO U N C I L P R E S I D E N T S P A Y RE G U L A R H O U R S 17 4 0. 0 0 200.00 CO U N C I L P A Y F O R N O M E D I C A RE G U L A R H O U R S 17 5 0. 0 0 1,389.86 RE G U L A R H O U R S RE G U L A R H O U R S 19 0 16 , 8 8 1 . 2 6 535,598.24 FI R E P E N S I O N P A Y M E N T S RE G U L A R H O U R S 19 1 4. 0 0 2,150.85 LI G H T D U T Y RE G U L A R H O U R S 19 6 52 . 0 0 1,945.67 WA T E R W A T C H S T A N D B Y OV E R T I M E H O U R S 21 5 60 . 0 0 2,797.73 ST A N D B Y T R E A T M E N T P L A N T MI S C E L L A N E O U S 21 6 16 . 0 0 1,471.13 OV E R T I M E 1 . 5 OV E R T I M E H O U R S 22 0 10 5 . 5 0 5,611.67 OV E R T I M E - D O U B L E OV E R T I M E H O U R S 22 5 12 . 7 5 750.32 WO R K I N G O U T O F C L A S S MI S C E L L A N E O U S 41 0 0. 0 0 135.28 SH I F T D I F F E R E N T I A L SH I F T D I F F E R E N T I A L 41 1 48 . 0 0 673.97 RE T R O A C T I V E P A Y RE T R O A C T I V E P A Y 60 0 0. 0 0 415.54 A CC R U E D C O M P CO M P H O U R S 60 2 76 . 0 0 0.00 Ho l i d a y C o m p 1 . 0 CO M P H O U R S 60 3 13 . 5 0 0.00 A CC R U E D C O M P T I M E CO M P H O U R S 60 4 71 . 0 0 0.00 08 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 5 Pa g e 1 of 3 Packet Page 85 of 411 Pa y r o l l E a r n i n g s S u m m a r y R e p o r t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Pa y P e r i o d : 7 5 3 ( 0 7 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 5 t o 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 5 ) Ho u r s A m o u n t Ho u r T y p e H o u r C l a s s D e s c r i p t i o n A CC R E D I T A T I O N P A Y MI S C E L L A N E O U S ac c 0. 0 0 24.70 A cc r e d i t a t i o n 1 % P a r t T i m e MI S C E L L A N E O U S ac p 0. 0 0 0.00 A CC R E D / P O L I C E S U P P O R T MI S C E L L A N E O U S ac s 0. 0 0 169.99 BO C I I C e r t i f i c a t i o n MI S C E L L A N E O U S bo c 0. 0 0 81.17 Co l l i s i o n R e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t MI S C E L L A N E O U S co l r e 0. 0 0 138.69 TR A I N I N G C O R P O R A L MI S C E L L A N E O U S c p l 0. 0 0 143.68 CE R T I F I C A T I O N I I I P A Y MI S C E L L A N E O U S cr t 0. 0 0 589.69 DE T E C T I V E P A Y MI S C E L L A N E O U S de t 0. 0 0 100.25 De t e c t i v e 4 % MI S C E L L A N E O U S de t 4 0. 0 0 962.34 ED U C A T I O N P A Y 2 % ED U C A T I O N P A Y ed 1 0. 0 0 713.39 ED U C A T I O N P A Y 4 % ED U C A T I O N P A Y ed 2 0. 0 0 852.06 ED U C A T I O N P A Y 6 % ED U C A T I O N P A Y ed 3 0. 0 0 4,449.39 FA M I L Y M E D I C A L / N O N P A I D A BS E N T fm l a 60 . 0 0 0.00 HO L I D A Y HO L I D A Y ho l 16 . 0 0 304.22 K - 9 P A Y MI S C E L L A N E O U S k9 0. 0 0 95.43 LO N G E V I T Y P A Y 2 % LO N G E V I T Y l g 1 0. 0 0 1,733.49 LO N G E V I T Y 5 . 5 % LO N G E V I T Y l g 10 0. 0 0 407.75 LO N G E V I T Y P A Y 4 % LO N G E V I T Y P A Y l g 2 0. 0 0 829.20 LO N G E V I T Y 6 % LO N G E V I T Y P A Y l g 3 0. 0 0 5,282.79 Lo n g ev i t y 1 % LO N G E V I T Y l g 4 0. 0 0 195.83 Lo n g ev i t y . 5 % LO N G E V I T Y l g 6 0. 0 0 274.38 Lo n g ev i t y 1 . 5 % LO N G E V I T Y l g 7 0. 0 0 908.73 Lo n g ev i t y 3 . 5 % LO N G E V I T Y l g 9 0. 0 0 86.45 MO T O R C Y C L E P A Y MI S C E L L A N E O U S mt c 0. 0 0 200.50 Pu b l i c D i s c l o s u r e S p ec i a l i s t MI S C E L L A N E O U S p ds 0. 0 0 46.65 PH Y S I C A L F I T N E S S P A Y MI S C E L L A N E O U S p h y 0. 0 0 1,685.92 PR O F E S S I O N A L S T A N D A R D S S MI S C E L L A N E O U S p ro f 0. 0 0 153.70 SP E C I A L D U T Y P A Y 5 % MI S C E L L A N E O U S sd p 0. 0 0 504.43 A DM I N I S T R A T I V E S E R G E A N T MI S C E L L A N E O U S s g t 0. 0 0 150.88 SI C K L E A V E A D D B A C K SI C K sl w 25 1 . 9 8 0.00 TR A F F I C MI S C E L L A N E O U S tr a f 0. 0 0 315.78 08 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 5 Pa g e 2 of 3 Packet Page 86 of 411 Pa y r o l l E a r n i n g s S u m m a r y R e p o r t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Pa y P e r i o d : 7 5 3 ( 0 7 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 5 t o 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 5 ) Ho u r s A m o u n t Ho u r T y p e H o u r C l a s s D e s c r i p t i o n To t a l N e t P a y : $ 4 7 9 , 1 8 3 . 8 8 $7 0 8 , 0 1 5 . 4 5 22 , 2 1 0 . 3 8 08 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 5 Pa g e 3 of 3 Packet Page 87 of 411 Pa y r o l l E a r n i n g s S u m m a r y R e p o r t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Pa y P e r i o d : 7 9 9 ( 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 t o 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 ) Ho u r s A m o u n t Ho u r T y p e H o u r C l a s s D e s c r i p t i o n RE G U L A R H O U R S RE G U L A R H O U R S 19 0 48 . 0 0 1,097.94 To t a l N e t P a y : $862.78$1,097.94 48 . 0 0 08 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 5 Pa g e 1 of 1 Packet Page 88 of 411 Be n e f i t C h e c k s S u m m a r y R e p o r t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Pa y P e r i o d : 7 5 3 - 0 7 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 5 t o 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 5 Ba n k : u s b a n k - U S B a n k Direct Deposit Ch e c k A m t Na m e Pa y ee # Da t e Ch e c k # 61 7 3 7 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 e p o a EP O A - 1 P O L I C E 1,173.00 0.00 61 7 3 8 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 e p o a 4 E P O A - 4 P O L I C E S U P P O R T 117.00 0.00 61 7 3 9 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 f l e x FL E X - P L A N S E R V I C E S , I N C 901.00 0.00 61 7 4 0 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 j ha n JO H N H A N C O C K 1,028.10 0.00 61 7 4 1 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 c o p e SE I U C O P E 57.00 0.00 61 7 4 2 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 s e i u SE I U L O C A L 9 2 5 3,518.53 0.00 61 7 4 3 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 u w UN I T E D W A Y O F SN O H O M I S H C O U N T Y 724.00 0.00 61 7 4 4 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 i c m a VA N T A G E T R A N S F E R A G E N T S 3 0 4 8 8 4 2,202.51 0.00 9,721.14 0.00 Ba n k : w i r e - U S B A N K Direct Deposit Ch e c k A m t Na m e Pa y ee # Da t e Ch e c k # 22 5 6 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 p e n s DE P T O F R E T I R E M E N T S Y S T E M S 22 0 , 7 5 5 . 9 7 0.00 22 5 7 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 a f l a c A FL A C 5,106.12 0.00 22 6 1 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 m e b t WT R I S C F B O # N 3 1 7 7 B 1 84 , 9 7 5 . 4 2 0.00 22 6 2 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 u s US B A N K 89 , 5 0 1 . 6 9 0.00 22 6 3 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 w a d c WA S H I N G T O N S T A T E T R E A S U R E R 20 , 1 2 3 . 5 0 0.00 22 6 5 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 p b NA T I O N W I D E R E T I RE M E N T S O L U T I O N 4,957.60 0.00 22 6 6 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 o e OF F I C E O F S U P P O R T E N F O R C E M E N T 48.50 0.00 42 5 , 4 6 8 . 8 0 0.00 43 5 , 1 8 9 . 9 4 0.00 Gr a n d T o t a l s : Pa g e 1 of 8/ 6 / 2 0 1 5 Packet Page 89 of 411 AM-7939 3. C. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/18/2015 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 #215659 through #215756 dated August 13, 2015 for $434,021.38. Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue: Expenditure:434,021.38 Fiscal Impact: Claims $434,021.38 Attachments Claim cks 08-13-15 Project Numbers 08-13-15 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 08/13/2015 10:35 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 08/13/2015 10:37 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/13/2015 10:43 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/13/2015 04:13 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 08/13/2015 09:51 AM Packet Page 90 of 411 Final Approval Date: 08/13/2015 Packet Page 91 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215659 8/10/2015 075263 AVR PRODUCTION SERVICES LLC 125-08112015-1 SOUND SYSTEM, OPERATORS, & EMCEE FOR 125 125th Anniversary Celebration, sound 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 750.00 Total :750.00 215660 8/10/2015 075264 JACKSON, KILE RAY 125-08112015-2 125TH ANNIVERSARY EVENING PERFORMERS THE 125th Anniversary Celebration, The 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 750.00 Total :750.00 215661 8/13/2015 072189 ACCESS 1064861 STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 08/01/2015-08/31/20 STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 85.00 Total :85.00 215662 8/13/2015 065568 ALLWATER INC 080415058 WWTP - DRINKING WATER cooler rental 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 7.00 water 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 12.90 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 0.67 Total :20.57 215663 8/13/2015 001634 AQUA QUIP 93017-1 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATING 5 - silk tabs, 25# 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 674.96 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 64.13 Total :739.09 215664 8/13/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988095706 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 35.80 9.5% Sales Tax 1Page: Packet Page 92 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215664 8/13/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.40 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1988099956 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 & MATS1988099957 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 26.50 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 9.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 2.52 9.5% Sales Tax 2Page: Packet Page 93 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215664 8/13/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.89 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1988107068 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 83.51 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 7.93 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1988111344 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 & MATS1988111345 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28 3Page: Packet Page 94 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215664 8/13/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 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 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 9.38 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1988118326 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 19.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.89 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1988122609 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 95 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215664 8/13/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.48 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1988122610 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.14 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 11.96 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1988129718 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 47.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 4.54 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1988133988 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 96 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215664 8/13/2015 (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 & MATS1988133989 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 25.96 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 11.96 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 2.47 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.13 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1988141223 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 17.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.67 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1988145267 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 97 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215664 8/13/2015 (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 & MATS1988145268 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 15.62 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 12.11 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.48 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.15 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS1988152392 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 SERVICE1988152393 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 37.02 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1988152394 7Page: Packet Page 98 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215664 8/13/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 17.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.67 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1988156639 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 & MATS1988156640 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 11.96 8Page: Packet Page 99 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215664 8/13/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.14 Total :708.33 215665 8/13/2015 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2015-145 INV 2015-145 EDMONDS PD PRE-EMPLOY EXAM 8/4/15 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 225.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 7.00 Total :232.00 215666 8/13/2015 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 210543 Fleet Shop - Type 1 Adaptor Fleet Shop - Type 1 Adaptor 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 81.54 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 7.75 Total :89.29 215667 8/13/2015 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 10430 E5NA.SERVICES THRU JULY 2015 E5NA.Services thru July 2015 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 3,355.83 E5NA.Services thru July 2015 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 3,355.83 E5NA.Services thru July 2015 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 3,355.84 Total :10,067.50 215668 8/13/2015 075278 BURNS, HOUSTON 7/2-7/30 FIELD ATTEN 7/2-7/30/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT 7/2-7/30/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 295.00 Total :295.00 215669 8/13/2015 003328 CASCADE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA 125-07162015 PERFORMANCE AT 125TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRA 9Page: Packet Page 100 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215669 8/13/2015 (Continued)003328 CASCADE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA Performance services at 125th 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 150.00 Total :150.00 215670 8/13/2015 003330 CASCADE TROPHY 34384 Employee Service Award Name Correction Employee Service Award Name Correction 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 7.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 0.71 Total :8.21 215671 8/13/2015 073221 CELLMARK FORENSICS INC 010-058865 INV#010-058865 - EDMONDS PD EVIDENCE TEST #14-4216 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 680.00 EVIDENCE TEST #15-1339 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00 EVIDENCE TEST #14-3944 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 870.00 EVIDENCE TEST #14-2503 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 795.00 EVIDENCE TEST #15-0065 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 1,100.00 EVIDENCE TEST #14-5184 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 610.00 EVIDENCE TEST #14-3657 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 550.00 EVIDENCE TEST #14-2386 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 245.00 EVIDENCE TEST #14-4393 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00 Total :5,460.00 215672 8/13/2015 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 222951 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 45.00 10Page: Packet Page 101 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215672 8/13/2015 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.27 HELIUM TANK RENTAL FOR GYMNASTICSRN07151015 HELIUM TANK RENTAL FOR GYMNASTICS 001.000.64.571.28.45.00 12.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.28.45.00 1.21 WWTP - SUPPLIES, GASRN07151016 nitrogen, oxygen & carbon monoxide 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 74.25 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 7.05 Total :144.53 215673 8/13/2015 064291 CENTURY LINK 206-Z02-0478 WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 147.54 Total :147.54 215674 8/13/2015 063615 CH MURPHY CLARK-ULLMAN INC 1507007C WWTP - ANNUAL SHUTDOWN REPAIRS lining for heat exchanger inlet plenum 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 6,100.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 579.50 WWTP - ANNUAL SHUTDOWN REPAIRS1507008C original scope of work, 2015 shutdown 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 31,440.16 additional work: inconel expansion 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 4,441.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 3,408.71 WWTP - ANNUAL SHUTDOWN REPAIRS1507009C stainless steel tube ferrules for top 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 4,080.00 9.5% Sales Tax 11Page: Packet Page 102 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215674 8/13/2015 (Continued)063615 CH MURPHY CLARK-ULLMAN INC 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 387.60 Total :50,436.97 215675 8/13/2015 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD M&O MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS 423.000.75.535.80.47.20 27,602.00 Total :27,602.00 215676 8/13/2015 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 2880 E4FD.1ST HALF OF 2015 LAKE BALLINGER WAT E4FD.1st half of 2015 Lake Ballinger 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 4,800.00 Total :4,800.00 215677 8/13/2015 075327 CLAY ANIMATION NETWORK 19903 IPAD CAMP 19903 IPAD ANIMATION CAMP INSTRUCTION 19903 IPAD ANIMATION CAMP INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,113.75 19905 IPAD ANIMATION CAMP INSTRUCTION19905 IPAD CAMP 19905 IPAD ANIMATION CAMP INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 495.00 Total :1,608.75 215678 8/13/2015 075377 CLEARLY VISIBLE PRESENTATIONS MACK 10/26-30 CLASS EDMONDS PD - LINDA MACK - OCT 26-30 CLAS OPTICS, LIGHTING, ETC CLASS - MACK 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 595.00 Total :595.00 215679 8/13/2015 074255 COAL CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOC 120902-11 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Technical Support - Title V permit 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 1,122.28 Total :1,122.28 215680 8/13/2015 072848 COPIERS NW INV1244033 INV#1244033 ACCT#HMH636 - EDMONDS PD IRC5045 LEASE 07/05 - 08/04/15 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 226.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 21.54 12Page: Packet Page 103 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215680 8/13/2015 (Continued)072848 COPIERS NW INV#1244034 ACCT#HMH636 - EDMONDS PDINV1244034 B/W METER CHARGE IRC5045 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 72.86 COLOR METER CHARGE IRC5045 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 112.57 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 17.62 Total :451.36 215681 8/13/2015 074444 DATAQUEST LLC CIEDMONDS-20150731 INV CIEDMONDS-20150731 CREDIT CHECK EDMO CREDIT CHECK - BURRELL 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 20.00 Total :20.00 215682 8/13/2015 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 391858 INV#391858 - EDMONDS PD REPAIR #GHD-03890 - RADAR GUN 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 120.00 SUPPLIES FOR REPAIR #GHD-03890 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 5.00 9.2% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 11.51 Total :136.51 215683 8/13/2015 075379 DICKSON, ROBERT 8/7 REFUND 8/7/15 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 8/7/15 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 200.00 Total :200.00 215684 8/13/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3579 MINUTE TAKER FOR ECONOMIC DEV COMMISSION Minute taker for Economic Dev 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 287.20 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 08/04/201515-3582 08/04/2015 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 369.60 Total :656.80 13Page: Packet Page 104 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215685 8/13/2015 007253 DUNN LUMBER 3246464 PM CEDAR FENCE BOARDS PM CEDAR FENCE BOARDS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.34 Total :15.50 215686 8/13/2015 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2015-08-01 08/15 RECREATION SERVICES CONTRACT FEE 08/15 Recreation Services Contract Fee 001.000.39.569.10.41.00 5,000.00 Total :5,000.00 215687 8/13/2015 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 8-40000 HICKMAN PARK STORM DRAIN & UTILITY HICKMAN PARK STORM DRAIN & UTILITY 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 947.14 Total :947.14 215688 8/13/2015 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 139282 RADIX MONTHLY MAINT AGREEMENT Radix Monthly Maint Agreement - 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 152.00 Total :152.00 215689 8/13/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR11661 METER READING 06/21/2015-07/20/2015 CITY CLERKS FRONT COUNTER METER READING 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 10.34 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 0.98 CITY CLERKS METER READ 07/29/2015AR11662 CITY CLERKS METER READ 07/29/2015 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 479.87 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 45.59 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 COPIERAR11663 Meter charges 06/30/15-07/29/15 B&W, 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 175.21 9.5% Sales Tax 14Page: Packet Page 105 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215689 8/13/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 16.64 ADDTL COPIES- PLANNINGAR11664 ADDTL COPIES- PLANNING 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 45.28 ADDTL COPIES- BUILDINGAR11666 ADDTL COPIES- BUILDING 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 24.25 Total :798.16 215690 8/13/2015 008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES 20013 FRIDAY DANCE 20013 FRIDAY DANCE INSTRUCTION 20013 FRIDAY DANCE INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 180.00 Total :180.00 215691 8/13/2015 075136 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC 115646 CRITICAL AREAS UPDATE CRITICAL AREAS UPDATE 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 3,544.13 Total :3,544.13 215692 8/13/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH647990 LEGAL NOTICE AMD20150002 LEGAL NOTICE AMD20150002 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 48.16 E5CA.TEMP NOISE VARIANCE ADVERTISEMENTEDH648249 E5CA.Temp Noise Variance Advertisement 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 84.28 CITY ORDINANCESEDH648629 CITY ORDINANCES - 4002-4004 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 46.44 CITY NOTICESEDH648636 CITY NOTICES - IRRECONCILABLE 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 44.72 CITY NOTICESEDH648656 CITY NOTICES - PUBLIC HEARING, 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 34.40 Total :258.00 15Page: Packet Page 106 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215693 8/13/2015 011900 FRONTIER 425-771-4741 425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET 425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET 130.000.64.536.20.42.00 82.77 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION425-775-1344 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 63.05 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LINE425-776-5316 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LINE 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 96.53 Total :242.35 215694 8/13/2015 074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 32389 E4GA.SERVICES THRU JULY 2015 E4GA.Services thru July 2015 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 2,286.35 Total :2,286.35 215695 8/13/2015 012560 HACH COMPANY 9500842 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LAB supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 682.87 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 41.67 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 68.84 Total :793.38 215696 8/13/2015 075375 HARTQUIST JR, JOHN 125-07272015 PERFORMANCE AT 125TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRA Performance services at 125th 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 150.00 Total :150.00 215697 8/13/2015 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1040031 City Hall - Supplies City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 74.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.08 Traffic - Supplies for Traffic Box1583392 16Page: Packet Page 107 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215697 8/13/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Traffic - Supplies for Traffic Box 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 75.90 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 7.21 PS - Supplies20033 PS - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.35 FS 17- Supplies20089 FS 17- Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.21 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Supplies2012405 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.53 City Hall - Supplies2023566 City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 33.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.15 FAC - Self Leveling Concrete2026492 FAC - Self Leveling Concrete 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 35.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.37 Fac Maint Shop Supplies25250 Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.73 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.45 17Page: Packet Page 108 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215697 8/13/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES City Hall - Supplies3013457 City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 27.73 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.63 FAC - Threshold3023452 FAC - Threshold 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.26 Fac Maint Unit 5- Truck Supplies3023470 Fac Maint Unit 5- Truck Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 23.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.25 FAC - Threshold3023471 FAC - Threshold 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.26 City Park - Supplies3024871 City Park - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.43 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.23 MCH - Supplies3026297 MCH - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.57 Fac Maint Unit 26 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.43 Water/Sewer - Supplies3093317 Water/Sewer - Supplies 18Page: Packet Page 109 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215697 8/13/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 248.03 Water/Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 248.03 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 23.57 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 23.56 City Hall - 1st Floor Finance Remodel40102 City Hall - 1st Floor Finance Remodel 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 264.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 25.09 Water - Supplies4024692 Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 24.67 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.34 Fac Maint - Shop Supplies4024717 Fac Maint - Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 66.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.31 PS - Window Cleaning Supplies5024478 PS - Window Cleaning Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.53 Fac Maint - Unit 40 Supplies585023 Fac Maint - Unit 40 Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 53.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.12 City Hall Finance Remodel Supplies6015586 City Hall Finance Remodel Supplies 19Page: Packet Page 110 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215697 8/13/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 38.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 3.64 Fac Maint Unit 26 - Supplies6020578 Fac Maint Unit 26 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 30.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.88 FAC - Supplies6025936 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.53 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.81 Street - RoundUp602654 Street - RoundUp 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 103.55 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 9.84 LS 1 - Ladder6071484 LS 1 - Ladder 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 37.97 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.61 Fac Maint - Unit 40 - Supplies6094497 Fac Maint - Unit 40 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.35 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.36 Fac Maint - Lime Away6574958 Fac Maint - Lime Away 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.14 FAC - Boiler Parts7025719 20Page: Packet Page 111 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215697 8/13/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES FAC - Boiler Parts 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.19 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.06 Fac Maint - Shop Trq Wrench7040134 Fac Maint - Shop Trq Wrench 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 69.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 6.65 FAC - Boiler Supplies8014152 FAC - Boiler Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 37.86 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.60 Fac Maint Shop Supplies8025645 Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 87.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.35 Parks- Wire for Pump at Hazel Miller8585310 Parks- Wire for Pump at Hazel Miller 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.24 Fac Maint Unit 26 - Supplies9015295 Fac Maint Unit 26 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 29.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.85 FAC - Tools, Wrench Set, Socket Set9025421 FAC - Tools, Wrench Set, Socket Set 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 66.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 6.31 21Page: Packet Page 112 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215697 8/13/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Sewer TV Truck Supplies9097039 Sewer TV Truck Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 15.02 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.42 City Hall Finance Remodel Supplies96873 City Hall Finance Remodel Supplies 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 20.55 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 1.95 Total :2,058.83 215698 8/13/2015 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2014844 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, FACILITIES lumber 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 16.55 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.23 1.57 Total :18.12 215699 8/13/2015 075380 HOOVER, KRISTA 8/10 REFUND 8/10/15 REFUND 8/10/15 REFUND 001.000.239.200 100.00 Total :100.00 215700 8/13/2015 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 26017 WWTP - CLARIFIER C465 Groundwater Monitoring 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 3,178.80 E4MA..TO 15-01.SERVICES THRU 7/25/1526020 E4MA.TO 15-01.Services thru 7/25/15 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 9,132.20 Total :12,311.00 215701 8/13/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2665666 CITY CLERKS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR THE CITY 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 211.19 22Page: Packet Page 113 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215701 8/13/2015 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 20.06 Total :231.25 215702 8/13/2015 070250 IRON MOUNTAIN 200706780 07-15 OFF SITE DATA STORAGE SERVICES Jul-2015 Off site data storage services 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 245.32 Total :245.32 215703 8/13/2015 075238 JAMES, EVERETT 8/9 BUMP KITCHEN 8/9/15 BUMP KITCHEN PARK CONCERT 8/9/15 BUMP KITCHEN PARK CONCERT 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 900.00 Total :900.00 215704 8/13/2015 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 3665 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNECTION Aug-15 Fiber Optics Internet Connection 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 500.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 47.50 Total :547.50 215705 8/13/2015 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 663347 WWTP - SUPPLIES, HYPOCHLORITE hypochlorite, 4859 gallons 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 4,015.96 Total :4,015.96 215706 8/13/2015 075378 JUMPIN J'S JUMP ROPE CHAMPS 19863 JUMP ROPE CAMP 19863 JUMP ROPE CAMP INSTRUCTION 19863 JUMP ROPE CAMP INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 2,497.30 Total :2,497.30 215707 8/13/2015 073780 KAMINS, CHAD E3DC.Ret Release E3DC.RETAINAGE RELEASE E3DC.Retainage Release 112.200.223.400 10,043.42 Total :10,043.42 23Page: Packet Page 114 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215708 8/13/2015 075265 KBA INC 3002294 E7AC.SERVICES THRU 6/30/15 E7AC.Services thru 6/30/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 59,061.26 Total :59,061.26 215709 8/13/2015 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4446281 INV#4446281 ACCT#2185-952778-819 - EDMON SHRED 3 TOTES @ $4.38 7/22/15 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 13.14 Total :13.14 215710 8/13/2015 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC Aug-15 08-15 LEGALS FEES 08-15 Legal fees 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 41,000.00 Total :41,000.00 215711 8/13/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 36089218 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATING pipe marker 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 40.66 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 6.59 Total :47.25 215712 8/13/2015 063773 MICROFLEX 00021940 07-15 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM TAX AUDIT PROGRAM 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 110.00 Total :110.00 215713 8/13/2015 071011 MIDCO-WEST INC 460003521 WWTP - FORLIFT RENTAL G25E3-5LP 423.000.76.535.80.45.21 350.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.45.21 33.25 Total :383.25 215714 8/13/2015 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC ES114785 Unit 66 - DPF Cleaning Unit 66 - DPF Cleaning 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 175.00 24Page: Packet Page 115 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215714 8/13/2015 (Continued)021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC 9.2% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 16.11 Unit 66 - AFM Device GasketsME82902 Unit 66 - AFM Device Gaskets 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 98.70 9.2% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.08 Total :298.89 215715 8/13/2015 067694 NC POWER SYSTEMS CO.PSW00112653 WWTP - GENERATOR SERVICE annual load bank test with mantenance 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 3,962.76 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 376.46 Total :4,339.22 215716 8/13/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1295013 PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY BUCKET2-1295107 CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1300260 HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 218.78 Total :446.48 215717 8/13/2015 074028 NORTHWEST PLAN SERVICES INC 15-0730 ACTUARIAL VALUATION NON-LEOFF FIRE PENSI Actuarial Valuation for Non-Leoff Fire 617.000.51.517.20.41.00 1,107.48 Actuarial Valuation for Non-Leoff Fire 009.000.39.517.20.41.00 6,642.52 Total :7,750.00 215718 8/13/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 260675 PW Office Supplies 25Page: Packet Page 116 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215718 8/13/2015 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC PW Office Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 94.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 8.96 P&R: COLORED PAPER, ARTS: SCISSORS AND L348909 P&R COLORED PAPER 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 47.85 ARTS: SCISSORS AND LABELS 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 33.95 Total :185.04 215719 8/13/2015 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 16951 YOST POOL SUPPLIES HARBORLITE, SOD HYPO, YOST POOL SUPPLIES HARBORLITE, SOD 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 854.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 81.17 Total :935.57 215720 8/13/2015 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 106961 PM TOPSOIL CUST # 5130 PM TOPSOIL CUST # 5130 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 330.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 31.35 SPRAY PARK CRUSHED ROCK CUST # 5130109547 SPRAY PARK CRUSHED ROCK CUST # 5130 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 430.92 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 40.94 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130200691 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.00 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130200709 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.00 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130200732 26Page: Packet Page 117 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215720 8/13/2015 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.00 Total :1,085.21 215721 8/13/2015 073253 PENN VALLEY PUMP CO. INC 10163 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL NEO disk Int 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 1,218.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 22.00 Total :1,240.00 215722 8/13/2015 074793 PETDATA INC 4463 INV#4463 - EDMONDS PD - JULY 2015 71 ONE YR PET LICENSES @ $3.90 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 276.90 23 LATE FEES COLLECTED @ $2.50 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 57.50 Total :334.40 215723 8/13/2015 075183 PETERSON FRUIT CO 340615 Fruit for Employees Fruit for Employees 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 81.50 Total :81.50 215724 8/13/2015 074567 PHOENIX THEATRE 125-0803158 PERFORMANCE AT 125TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRA Performance service at 125th 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 150.00 Total :150.00 215725 8/13/2015 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000156882 MARKER INSCRIPTION-WIEDER MARKER INSCRIPTION-WIEDER 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 238.00 Total :238.00 215726 8/13/2015 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 102182 INV#102182 - EDMONDS PD TOW 1998 CORVETTE #AVS1813 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.00 27Page: Packet Page 118 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215726 8/13/2015 (Continued)070955 R&R STAR TOWING 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.77 Total :181.77 215727 8/13/2015 006841 RICOH USA INC 1056440654 HARD DRIVE REMOVALS, RETURNING MACHINES HARD DRIVE REMOVALS, RETURNING MACHINES 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 766.50 ADDITIONAL IMAGES-5037210045 additonal images 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 453.16 ADDITIONAL IMAGES-5037210763 additional images 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 51.78 Total :1,271.44 215728 8/13/2015 070042 RICOH USA INC 95044031 RICOH- LEASE MPC6000 Lease MPC6000 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 443.48 COPIER LEASE- PRO907EX95044040 COPIER LEASE- PRO907EX 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 827.00 Total :1,270.48 215729 8/13/2015 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY JULY 2014 INVOICE 7/31/2015 ACCT#70014 - EDMONDS P #173169 3 NPC - 7/9/15 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 35.13 #175804 5 NPC - 7/23/15 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 58.55 Total :93.68 215730 8/13/2015 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC 27361 14108-SUPPORT JULY 2015 WORK COMPLETED 14108-Support June 30-July 28, 2015 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 2,962.50 Total :2,962.50 215731 8/13/2015 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 9444-3 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL 28Page: Packet Page 119 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215731 8/13/2015 (Continued)063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS pI Precat SG Ultra 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 47.69 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 4.53 Total :52.22 215732 8/13/2015 075210 SHKS ARCHITECTS PS INC 4 HISTORIC RECONN SURVEY HISTORIC RECONN SURVEY 014.000.62.557.20.41.00 1,500.00 Total :1,500.00 215733 8/13/2015 075372 SIEBENS, LAURA 8/3 REFUND 8/3/15 REFUND CLASS CANCELLED 8/3/15 REFUND CLASS CANCELLED 001.000.239.200 34.00 Total :34.00 215734 8/13/2015 071725 SKAGIT GARDENS INC 52236646 FLOWER PROGRAM ECHINACEA FLOWER PROGRAM ECHINACEA 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 181.19 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 17.21 Total :198.40 215735 8/13/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0255-4 WWTP FLOW METER 2400 HIGHWAY 99 / METER WWTP FLOW METER 2400 HIGHWAY 99 / METER 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 32.98 HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMONDS ST / METER2003-2646-0 HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMONDS ST / 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.90 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) / NO2017-1178-5 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 899.55 WWTP FLOW METER 8421 244TH ST SW / METER2019-2988-2 WWTP FLOW METER 8421 244TH ST SW / 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 32.98 29Page: Packet Page 120 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215735 8/13/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 WWTP FLOW METER 9805 EDMONDS WAY / METER2019-9517-2 WWTP FLOW METER 9805 EDMONDS WAY / 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 32.98 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / METER 10004452022-5063-5 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.90 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) / NO2025-2918-6 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2,731.89 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2025-2920-2 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 116.09 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) / N2025-7615-3 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 14,681.95 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) / NOT2025-7948-8 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 337.50 WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE / NOT MET2025-7952-0 WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE / NOT 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 9.07 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT M2047-1489-3 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 4.08 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) / NOT2047-1492-7 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 90.63 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2047-1493-5 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 47.75 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT2047-1494-3 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 12.13 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) / NOT2047-1495-0 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) / 30Page: Packet Page 121 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215735 8/13/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 164.81 Total :19,258.19 215736 8/13/2015 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2015-2727 INV 2015-2727 EDMONDS PD JAIL MEDICAL - INMATE MED CARE - PROVIDENCE EVERETT 001.000.39.523.60.41.00 2,029.03 INMATE MED CARE - NORTH SOUND EMERGENCY 001.000.39.523.60.41.00 824.00 INMATE MED CARE - PROVIDENCE EVERETT 001.000.39.523.60.41.00 727.90 INMATE MED CARE - NORTH SOUND EMERGENCY 001.000.39.523.60.41.00 288.33 INMATE PHARMACEUTICALS - 06/15 001.000.39.523.60.31.00 464.41 CREDIT ON JUNE 2015 JAIL MEDICAL INVOICE2015-2727 CM CREDIT INMATE MEDICAL CARE @ PROVIDENCE 001.000.39.523.60.41.00 -1,635.24 Total :2,698.43 215737 8/13/2015 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER July 2015 Crime Victims Court Remittance Crime Victims Court Remittance 001.000.237.140 726.62 Total :726.62 215738 8/13/2015 072291 SNO-KING COMMUNITY CHORALE 125-08042015 JAZZ PERFORMANCE AT 125TH ANNIVERSARY CE Jazz Ensemble performance service at 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 150.00 Total :150.00 215739 8/13/2015 075376 SNO-KING COMMUNITY CHORALE 125-800415 PERFORMANCE AT 125TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRA Performance service at 125th 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 150.00 Total :150.00 215740 8/13/2015 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103584 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLING 31Page: Packet Page 122 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215740 8/13/2015 (Continued)038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLING 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 29.95 PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING103587 PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 839.58 Total :869.53 215741 8/13/2015 075373 STAUFFER, SYLVIA 8/4 REFUND 8/4/15 REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 8/4/15 REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 001.000.239.200 100.00 Total :100.00 215742 8/13/2015 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S101296460.001 PM PHILIPS PM PHILIPS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.09 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.39 PM PHILIPSS101296460.002 PM PHILIPS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.18 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.78 Total :13.44 215743 8/13/2015 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC 19883 BEACH CAMP 19883 DAY BEACH CAMP 19883 DAY BEACH CAMP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 12,900.00 19891 SLEEPOVER BEACH CAMP19891 BEACH CAMP 19891 SLEEPOVER BEACH CAMP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 8,100.00 Total :21,000.00 215744 8/13/2015 071827 SWANK MOTION PICTURES, INC BO 1280224 MOVIE LICENSE FEE OUTDOOR MOVIE NIGHT TR MOVIE LICENSE FEE OUTDOOR MOVIE NIGHT 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 450.00 32Page: Packet Page 123 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :450.002157448/13/2015 071827 071827 SWANK MOTION PICTURES, INC 215745 8/13/2015 072790 TCC PRINTING & IMAGING 87303 HISTORY BOOK HISTORY BOOK 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 644.09 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 61.19 Total :705.28 215746 8/13/2015 075358 TECTA AMERICA SI-06741 Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Replacement Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Replacement 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 24,988.00 Retention (sales tax exempt) 016.000.223.400 -1,249.40 9.5% Sales Tax 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 2,373.86 Total :26,112.46 215747 8/13/2015 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50942712 E4CD.SERVICES THRU 6/26/15 E4CD.Services thru 6/26/15 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 5,565.61 Total :5,565.61 215748 8/13/2015 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 409671 PM FAUCET PM FAUCET 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 509.34 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 48.39 Total :557.73 215749 8/13/2015 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 3001974384 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER 220 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 265.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 25.23 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE F. ANDERSON CENTER3001974693 33Page: Packet Page 124 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215749 8/13/2015 (Continued)038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE FRANCES ANDERSON 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,116.81 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 106.10 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUM3001974943 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUM 118 5TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 346.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 32.87 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC CENTER3001975371 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC CENTER 250 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,110.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 105.47 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY3001975400 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,228.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 116.68 Total :4,453.28 215750 8/13/2015 073255 TOTAL FILTRATION SERVICES, INC PSV1376883 Fac Maint - Filter Fac Maint - Filter 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 58.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.59 Total :64.39 215751 8/13/2015 064905 TYDI CONCRETE CUTTING & CORING 791058 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE core drill 423.000.76.535.80.41.21 300.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.21 28.50 Total :328.50 34Page: Packet Page 125 of 411 08/13/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 9:27:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215752 8/13/2015 075374 VARELAS, CHANEY 8/3 REFUND 8/3/15 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR FEE 8/3/15 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR FEE 001.000.239.200 11.25 Total :11.25 215753 8/13/2015 074801 WAHL, KIM BID-07092015 REIMBURSE KIM WAHL FOR PURCHASE OF CANDY Reimbursement for purchase of candy for 140.000.61.558.70.31.00 78.28 Total :78.28 215754 8/13/2015 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I16000722 INV#I16000722 EDM301 - EDMONDS PD BACKGROUND CHECKS - JULY 2015 001.000.237.100 132.75 Total :132.75 215755 8/13/2015 075232 WETMILLER, TIMOTHY 8/6 HMP LOS FLACOS 8/6/15 HMP LOS FLACOS 8/6/15 HMP LOS FLACOS 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 600.00 Total :600.00 215756 8/13/2015 075310 WYSER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY E4MA.Pmt 2 E4MA.PMT 2 THRU 7/17/15 E4MA.Pmt 2 thru 7/17/15 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 73,474.50 E4MA.Ret 2 132.000.223.400 -3,355.00 Total :70,119.50 Bank total :434,021.3898 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 434,021.38Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report98 35Page: Packet Page 126 of 411 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 8/12/2015 Packet Page 127 of 411 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 8/12/2015 Packet Page 128 of 411 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 8/12/2015 Packet Page 129 of 411 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 8/12/2015 Packet Page 130 of 411 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 8/12/2015 Packet Page 131 of 411 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 8/12/2015 Packet Page 132 of 411 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 8/12/2015 Packet Page 133 of 411 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 8/12/2015 Packet Page 134 of 411 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 8/12/2015 Packet Page 135 of 411 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 8/12/2015 Packet Page 136 of 411 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 8/12/2015 Packet Page 137 of 411 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 8/12/2015 Packet Page 138 of 411 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 8/12/2015 Packet Page 139 of 411 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 8/12/2015 Packet Page 140 of 411 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 8/12/2015 Packet Page 141 of 411 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 8/12/2015 Packet Page 142 of 411 AM-7933 3. D. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/18/2015 Time:Consent Submitted By:Linda Hynd Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Yoon Kim ($50.00) and George Sly ($500,000). Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute-entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Yoon Kim Andy's Motel 22201 Hwy 99 Edmonds, WA 98026 ($50.00) George Sly 4120 45th Ave. SW Seattle, WA 98116 ($500,000) Attachments Yoon Kim Claim for Damages Sly Claim for Damages Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 08/11/2015 02:22 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/11/2015 02:31 PM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 08/11/2015 10:22 AM Final Approval Date: 08/11/2015 Packet Page 143 of 411 Packet Page 144 of 411 Packet Page 145 of 411 Packet Page 146 of 411 Packet Page 147 of 411 Packet Page 148 of 411 Packet Page 149 of 411 Packet Page 150 of 411 AM-7899 3. E. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/18/2015 Time:Consent Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Brian Tuley Department:Finance Review Committee: Finance Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type: Forward to Consent Information Subject Title Approval of City Computer Equipment Surplus for Donation or Recycling Recommendation Approve computer equipment surplus for donation and/or recycle. Previous Council Action Narrative Surplus of computer equipment that is obsolete, non-functional or no longer of useful service. The surplus equipment will be donated and/or recycled. Attachments surplusPC-Q12015 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 07/28/2015 08:26 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 07/28/2015 08:31 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/28/2015 09:37 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/30/2015 09:43 AM Form Started By: Brian Tuley Started On: 07/27/2015 04:31 PM Final Approval Date: 07/30/2015 Packet Page 151 of 411 The following list of computer equipment is obsolete, non-functional or no longer of useful service to the City Of Edmonds. As such, we recommend the equipment to be donated. Serial #Mfgr.Model Purchase date Form factor (no serial)ASUS generic unknown (>5 years old)Tower 2UA7010DG4 HP Compaq dc5700 5/5/2007 Tower 2UA7010DGH HP Compaq dc5700 5/5/2007 Tower 2UA7010DGP HP Compaq dc5700 5/5/2007 Tower 2UA7010DGR HP Compaq dc5700 5/5/2007 Tower 2UA7010DGR HP Compaq dc5700 5/5/2007 Tower 2UA7010DGV HP Compaq dc5700 5/5/2007 Tower 2UA7010DH0 HP Compaq dc5700 5/5/2007 Tower 2UA7010DH9 HP Compaq dc5700 5/5/2007 Tower 2UA7010DHD HP Compaq dc5700 5/5/2007 Tower 2UA85203WB HP Compaq dc5800 12/25/2008 Tower 2UB505087G HP Compaq dc5700 unknown (>5 years old)Tower C8MR771 Dell Optiplex GX60 8/19/2004 Tower CND038023W HP EliteBook 8440P 9/24/2010 Laptop CNU54304GP HP Compaq nc6220 unknown (>5 years old)Laptop CNU5480JYF HP Compaq nc8230 unknown (>5 years old)Laptop CNU54903KO HP Compaq nc8230 unknown (>5 years old)Laptop CNU6021HRM HP Compaq nc6220 unknown (>5 years old)Laptop CNU6021HRX HP Compaq nc6220 unknown (>5 years old)Laptop DJGD0F1 Dell OptiPlex 320 10/29/2008 Tower G4D8K51 Dell OptiPlex GX60 8/19/2004 Tower KCKD61R IBM 8189D8U unknown (>5 years old)Tower MXL0201651 HP EliteBook 6930P 5/26/2010 Laptop MXL0500C2K HP Compaq 6000 12/16/2010 Desktop MXL6020B48 HP Compaq dc5100 unknown (>5 years old)Tower MXL6030447 HP Compaq dc5100 unknown (>5 years old)Tower MXL81917QY HP Compaq dc5800 5/17/2008 Tower MXL81917R2 HP Compaq dc5800 5/17/2008 Tower MXL81917R7 HP Compaq dc5800 5/17/2008 Tower MXL81917R8 HP Compaq dc5800 5/17/2008 Tower MXL81917RD HP Compaq dc5800 5/17/2008 Tower MXL81917RK HP Compaq dc5800 5/17/2008 Tower MXL81917RL HP Compaq dc5800 5/17/2008 Tower MXL81917RM HP Compaq dc5800 5/17/2008 Tower MXL8501HB4 HP Compaq dc5800 12/17/2008 Tower MXL8501HB6 HP Compaq dc5800 12/17/2008 Tower Packet Page 152 of 411 AM-7929 3. F. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/18/2015 Time:Consent Submitted By:Renee McRae Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Action Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to Sign Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District #15 for Madrona K-8 Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District #15 for Madrona K-8. Previous Council Action On July 6, 2010 Council approved the current agreement, which expires August 31, 2015. Narrative The current Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District #15 for repairs, maintenance and scheduling of playfields at Madrona Nongraded K-8 School expires on August 31, 2015. This is a renewal of the current agreement with no changes, other than dates. It is also a one-year agreement, with both parties having the option to renew for four additional one-year terms. Attachments Madrona ILA Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 08/13/2015 08:35 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/13/2015 08:48 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/13/2015 08:57 AM Form Started By: Renee McRae Started On: 08/10/2015 04:06 PM Final Approval Date: 08/13/2015 Packet Page 153 of 411 Page 1 of 4 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 FOR REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE AND SCHEDULING OF PLAYFIELDS AT MADRONA NONGRADED K-8 SCHOOL THIS AGREEMENT is made this 11th day of August, 2015, by and between the Edmonds School District No. 15 and the City of Edmonds, both municipal corporations under the laws of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "District" and "City'' respectively. 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, District owns and operates Madrona Nongraded K-8 School which is located within the comprehensive planning area of the City; and WHEREAS, City operates park and recreation programs and has identified a need for additional outdoor athletic and recreational facilities; and WHEREAS, City and District agree that it would be in the best interest of the school and community to jointly repair and maintain the playfields at Madrona Nongraded K-8 School; and WHEREAS, City has allocated funds for repair and development of school fields and has determined that the repair, maintenance and scheduling of playfields at Madrona Nongraded K-8 School will be of positive benefit to the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, upon approval by each party in accordance with RCW 39.34.030, the parties agree as follows: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide a framework for the City to perform minor repairs, seasonal maintenance, and field scheduling of the baseball/softball and soccer/football fields at Madrona Nongraded K-8 School. In consideration of the City's contributions as specified in this Agreement, the City, at a minimum, shall have access to the fields for the use of its citizens and its athletic programs for the period outside of school hours, during holidays, and when school is not in session, so long as no use authorized by the City conflicts with District School Board Policy 9200, Administrative Regulation 9200R-1, or the District's mission. 2. Obligations of the District. The District shall: Packet Page 154 of 411 Page 2 of 4 2.1 Assist in the development and supervision of the repair and maintenance plans in consultation with the City Parks and Recreation staff and such other citizen input as the City Council and Mayor shall determine, provided, however, that such citizen input shall be gathered by the Edmonds Parks and Recreation Department staff and forwarded to the District. 2.2 Field use scheduling shall be done in conjunction with south county field joint field scheduling using established District I City policies. 3. Obligations of the City. 3.1 The City agrees to assume responsibility for seasonal maintenance (dragging and minor repairs) and scheduling of community users upon the baseball/softball and soccer/football fields. Such maintenance shall include furnishing to the site at the City or primary user's expense portable restrooms, to include portable restrooms accessible to the disabled, during the use of the facility during baseball/softball and soccer/football seasons (March-November). 3.2 The City agrees to abide by the District regulations governing the community use of its premises, as outlined in District School Board Policy 9200 and Administrative Regulation 9200R-1. 4. Indemnity and Legal Relations. The parties agree to the following distribution and allocation of legal responsibility and indemnification: 4.1 The parties shall separately maintain their own appropriate liability and casualty insurance policies as they, in their sole discretion, deem appropriate. The parties further agree that no indemnification shall be provided for, except as specifically set forth below, and that the respective liability of the parties to each other and to third persons shall be deemed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The District will protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, or agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments or awards of damages arising out of, or in any way resulting from, negligent acts or omissions of the District, its officers, employees, or agents. The City will protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the District, its officers, employees, or agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments or awards of damages arising out of, or in any way resulting from, negligent acts or omissions of the City, its officers, employees, or agents. In the event of concurrent liability, the parties shall have the right of contribution in proportion to the respective liability of each party. Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to waive immunities established pursuant to state statutes or to create third party rights or immunities. Packet Page 155 of 411 Page 3 of 4 5. Term and Termination. 5.1 The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the date indicated above and shall end on August 31, 2016. The City and the District have the option to renew this Agreement for four (4) additional one-year terms, and the option to renew shall be deemed exercised unless one party gives written notice to the other not less than sixty (60) days prior to the termination of the Agreement then in effect. 5.2 In the event that the District shall, in its sole discretion, elect to sell the property or to otherwise remove the premises covered by this Agreement from service or use by the general public and it therefore becomes necessary for the District to terminate this Agreement in order to comply with its statutory obligations regarding the use and disposition of school property under Chapter 28A.335RCW, or, should the District be required to recover the premises for school purposes, the District may terminate this Agreement with thirty (30) days written notice to the City. 6. Records. The City shall maintain records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles of the funds expended pursuant to this Agreement. Such records shall be available during normal working hours for the review of the District, its accounting representatives or the State Auditor. 7. Interlocal Agreement. This is an interlocal agreement entered into pursuant to the authorization of Chapter 39.34 RCW. Accordingly, the following provisions are set forth in accordance with the provisions of RCW 39.34.030. 7.1 No separate legal or administrative entity is created by this Agreement. 7.2 The Cooperative undertakings of the parties shall be financed as provided herein. Each party shall separately establish and maintain a budget for its own functions. undertakings. 7.3 No administrator or joint board shall be responsible for administering the 7.4 No joint property shall be acquired, held or disposed of. Any real or personal property used in the joint or cooperative undertaking shall be considered to be and remain the property of the party who purchased such real or personal property. 7.5 This Agreement shall be effective when posted on the website of the City or the District in accordance with RCW 39.34.040. Packet Page 156 of 411 Page 4 of 4 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 CITY OF EDMONDS Stewart Mhyre David O. Earling Executive Director, Business and Operations Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Packet Page 157 of 411 AM-7930 3. G. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/18/2015 Time:Consent Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Forward to Consent Information Subject Title Municipal Court Judge Salary Ordinance Recommendation Council approve salary ordinance on consent. 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 158 of 411 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 Salary Ordinance State notice for salary increase Judges Salary Comparison Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 08/13/2015 08:35 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/13/2015 08:47 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/13/2015 08:57 AM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 08/11/2015 08:32 AM Final Approval Date: 08/13/2015 Packet Page 159 of 411 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ECC SECTION 2.15.040 RELATING TO THE SALARY FOR THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE; SETTING THE JUDGE’S SALARY AT NINETY-FIVE PERCENT OF A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE SALARY, PRO- RATED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FTE LEVEL ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 2.56.030(22)(b), a city qualifies for at least partial state contribution of its elected municipal court judge’s salary if: (i) the judge is serving in an elected position; (ii) the city has established by ordinance that a full-time judge is compensated at a rate equivalent to at least ninety-five percent, but not more than one hundred percent, of a district court judge salary or, for a part-time judge, on a pro rata basis the same equivalent; and (iii) the city has certified to the state office of the administrator for the courts that the two conditions above have been met; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds intends to continue to pay its municipal court judge at a level that will allow it to remain eligible to receive such contribution from the state; and WHEREAS, in September 2014, the City of Edmonds increased the FTE count for the municipal court judge from 0.55 to 0.75 FTE; and WHEREAS, codification of this salary level on an ongoing basis will allow the municipal court judge’s salary to increase automatically whenever the state increases the salary of district court judges; and WHEREAS, state law requires the Washington Citizens' Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials to establish salary schedules for elected officials in the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of state government; and WHEREAS, the Commission published the salary schedules for the two-year period (September 1, 2015 - August 31,2016) following their meeting in 2015; and Packet Page 160 of 411 WHEREAS, an increase for judges of the appellate, superior and district courts was granted in September 2015, and an additional increase will be implemented on September 1, 2016; and WHEREAS, the annual salary for full-time judges of the district court will be as follows: • Effective from September 1,2015 until August 31,2016: $154,836 • Effective from September 1, 2016, until updated: $157,993 WHEREAS, the formula adopted by this ordinance would result in a municipal court judge salary of $110,320.65, beginning on September 1, 2015 ($154,836 x 95% x 0.75 FTE); and WHEREAS, the intent of this ordinance is not only to effect a salary increase for the two periods referenced above, but also to effect future municipal court judge salary increases that would be proportional to the district court judge salary approved by the Washington Citizens' Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials according to the formula set forth in this ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 2.15.040 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled “Salaries and costs,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): 2.15.040 Salaries and costs. The salary of the municipal court judge shall be determined according to a formula that multiplies ninety-five percent of the district court judge’s salary as fixed by ordinance the Washington Citizens' Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials times the FTE level that has been established for the municipal court judge by the city council (salary = district court judge salary x 95% x FTE level). The effective date of the municipal court judge salary increase shall be the same as that set for district court judges by the Washington Citizens' Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials. All costs of operating the municipal court; including but not limited to salaries of judges and court employees, dockets, books of records, forms, furnishings Packet Page 161 of 411 and supplies, shall be paid wholly out of the funds of the city. The city shall provide a suitable place for holding court and pay all expenses of maintaining it. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 162 of 411 4 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2015, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ECC SECTION 2.15.040 RELATING TO THE SALARY FOR THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE; SETTING THE JUDGE’S SALARY AT NINETY-FIVE PERCENT OF A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE SALARY, PRO-RATED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FTE LEVEL ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2015. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 163 of 411 Packet Page 164 of 411 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 165 of 411 AM-7928 3. H. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/18/2015 Time:Consent Submitted For:Pamela Randolph Submitted By:Pamela Randolph Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type: Action Information Subject Title Purchase of Forklift Recommendation Recommend approval for Wastewater Treatment Plant staff to purchase a new forklift with available authorized budget and for the forklift to be placed in the B Fund to be managed by Fleet. Previous Council Action No previous Council action. Narrative The Wastewater Treatment Plant is in need of a new forklift. A forklift is needed on a daily basis to empty screenings dumpsters, move chemical or clay pallets, move equipment and to offload trucks when equipment is delivered. The last forklift was operated well beyond it's useful life (1989) and recently experienced another failure of the break system. A new forklift with slightly larger capacity is approximately $26,000 plus tax. We anticipate receiving a minimal trade in amount for the 89' forklift. We propose to purchase the forklift out of the authorized capital budget. Authorized budget would be reallocated from the Clarifier #3 planning and predesign to the forklift purchase. The treatment plant partners will be responsible for their proportional share. The COE responsibility would approximately $14,445. After this initial purchase, we propose to move the forklift into the Fleet Managed B fund to ensure replacement dollars are allocated. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 08/11/2015 02:21 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 08/11/2015 02:31 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/11/2015 02:39 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/12/2015 12:10 PM Form Started By: Pamela Randolph Started On: 08/10/2015 03:13 PM Final Approval Date: 08/12/2015 Packet Page 166 of 411 Packet Page 167 of 411 AM-7937 3. I. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/18/2015 Time:Consent Submitted For:Ryan Hague Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Action Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign an Agreement with PSE to fund the overlay for the 238th St. SW Walkway and Drainage Project Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign Agreement with PSE. Previous Council Action On May 12, 2015, staff presented this item to the City Council and it was to be placed on the consent agenda for a future meeting. Narrative In 2014, PSE installed gas line improvements under 104th Ave from just south of 238th St SW to Hickman Park and 238 th St SW from 104th Ave W to 100 th Ave W. PSE is required to overlay portions of both of these streets as part of its participation in the Edmonds Utilities Consortium (EUC). The proposed Agreement will establish a cooperative relationship between PSE and the City of Edmonds in order for both parties to save costs and in the interest of only overlaying these stretches of roadway once. PSE's estimated reimbursement ($55,159) to the City's project has been updated based on the construction bid provided earlier this month by Taylor's Excavators, Inc. Attachments Agreement with PSE Project Map Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator)Robert English 08/13/2015 02:30 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 08/13/2015 04:13 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/14/2015 08:28 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/14/2015 08:30 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 08/12/2015 05:00 PM Final Approval Date: 08/14/2015 Packet Page 168 of 411 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW 1 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC., hereinafter referred to as “PSE”, a Washington State corporation, and THE CITY OF EDMONDS, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “CITY,” both of which are located in and existing under the laws of the State of Washington. WHEREAS, the CITY has a current active road project on 238th St SW (Project E3DB), which extends from 104th Ave W to 100th Ave W and on 104th Ave W from approximately 75 feet south of 238th St SW to approximately 455 feet north of 238th St SW, hereinafter referred to as the “PROJECT”; and WHEREAS, PSE chose to upgrade portions of its existing gas main within the limits of the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, PSE is required to install and pay for overlaying the portions of 238th St SW and 104th Ave W that are associated with its project, hereinafter referred to as the “OVERLAY”; and WHEREAS, PSE’s work, not including the OVERLAY has been completed; and WHEREAS, PSE has requested the CITY complete the OVERLAY when the CITY completes its overlay for the PROJECT and, that PSE will pay the CITY for the actual cost to the CITY for the OVERLAY when it occurs; and WHEREAS, the CITY agrees that to require PSE to overlay those sections of 238th St SW and 104th Ave W and then have the CITY remove the PSE overlay and reinstall its own overlay months later in connection with the PROJECT, is not a practical use of limited public or private resources; and WHEREAS, it is deemed to be in the best interest of the public and PSE to incorporate the OVERLAY, as requested by PSE, into the PROJECT, and to have PSE reimburse the CITY the actual costs of completing the OVERLAY; NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows: Packet Page 169 of 411 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW 2 I. PURPOSE The purpose of this AGREEMENT is to set forth the mutual obligations, responsibilities and rights of the CITY and PSE for the accomplishment of the installation of the OVERLAY described in Exhibit A, incorporated by reference herein. II. EFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION This AGREEMENT and any amendment hereto shall take effect upon execution by both of the parties and posting of the AGREEMENT or amendment on the CITY’s website pursuant to RCW 39.34.040. This AGREEMENT shall remain in effect until the OVERLAY has been completed and PSE has paid the CITY in full, unless terminated sooner, as provided herein. Weather and schedule permitting, the CITY anticipates the OVERLAY to be completed in the fall of 2015. III. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES A. The CITY shall install the OVERLAY during the construction of the PROJECT. The CITY ’s project manager shall act as the administrator of this cooperative undertaking. B. The CITY, within 60 days of completing the OVERLAY and compiling the actual costs, shall provide PSE with properly executed invoices showing actual expenditures for the OVERLAY. Undisputed amounts set forth in such invoices shall be paid by PSE within thirty (30) days of receipt by PSE without offset or deduction for any reason. Notice of any dispute or potential dispute regarding such payment request shall be made in writing within the same time period. Payment by PSE shall not constitute agreement as to the appropriateness of any item or acceptance of the work so represented. PSE shall be entitled to review upon request and during normal business hours all books and records of the CITY related to the OVERLAY. At or before the time of the CITY’s final audit for the PROJECT, all adjustments mutually agreed upon by both of the parties related to any dispute or potential dispute for which notice has been timely given shall be made and reflected in a final payment. C. Invoices shall reference PSE project number 109063925 and be mailed to: Puget Sound Energy, Inc. Attn: David Matulich P O Box 97034, m/s BOT-01G Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 IV. PSE RESPONSIBILITIES A.Subject to Section III of this AGREEMENT, PSE shall reimburse the CITY for all actual costs related to the OVERLAY in accordance with the terms of Section V of this AGREEMENT. Packet Page 170 of 411 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW 3 B. If this AGREEMENT is terminated in accordance with section VII of this AGREEMENT, prior to the OVERLAY being completed, PSE agrees to complete the OVERLAY, weather permitting, within 30 days of termination at its sole cost and expense and to the satisfaction of the CITY. C. Participation in this AGREEMENT shall in no way be construed to affect PSE's authority and responsibility for any and all utilities located within the CITY right-of- way. PSE retains sole authority and responsibility for the design, construction, repair, maintenance, and operation of its utilities before, during and after the OVERLAY and the PROJECT. This AGREEMENT shall not be construed as an assumption by the CITY of any authority, responsibility or liability with regard to the design, construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance, or operation of PSE's utilities located with the CITY right-of-way, nor shall the design, construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance, or operation of PSE's utilities located with the CITY right-of-way be considered a joint undertaking by PSE and the CITY. V. PAYMENT Subject to Section III of this AGREEMENT, PSE agrees to pay the CITY One Hundred Percent (100%) of the final actual cost of CITY expenditures associated with the OVERLAY for engineering review (labor and equipment), contract administration, construction inspection and all costs by the CITY’s contractor installing the OVERLAY, as described in Exhibit A, plus 15% administrative overhead in addition to CITY employee labor and benefit costs. The CITY ’s estimate of costs for the OVERLAY is shown in Exhibit B, incorporated by reference herein. Exhibit B is non-binding and is included for cost estimation purposes only. VI. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION A. PSE shall protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and agents, from any and all third-party claims, demands, suits, penalties, losses, damages, judgments, or costs of any kind whatsoever (hereinafter collectively, “Claims”) arising out of or in any way resulting from PSE’s officers, employees, agents, and/or subcontractors of all tiers, acts or omissions, performance or failure to perform PSE’s obligations under the terms of this Agreement, to the maximum extent provided under RCW 4.24.115, now enacted or as hereinafter amended. B. PSE's obligations to hold harmless, indemnify and defend the CITY, its officers, officials, employees and agents pursuant to Section VI.A shall apply to any and all Claims, including costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in defense thereof, for injury, sickness, disability or death to persons or damage to property or business, to the extent caused by or arising out of PSE’s negligence or misconduct in the design, construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance, or operation of its natural gas pipeline. C. The CITY shall protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless PSE, its officers, directors, employees and agents, from any and all third-party Claims arising out of or in any way resulting from the CITY’s officers, employees, agents and/or subcontractors of all tiers, acts or omissions, performance or failure to perform the CITY’s obligations Packet Page 171 of 411 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW 4 under the terms of this Agreement, to the maximum extent provided under RCW 4.24.115, now enacted or as hereinafter amended. D. The CITY's obligations to hold harmless, indemnify and defend PSE, its officers, directors, employees and agents pursuant to Section VI.C shall apply to any and all Claims, including costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in defense thereof, for injury, sickness, disability or death to persons or damage to property or business, to the extent caused by or arising out of the CITY’s negligence or misconduct in the design, construction, reconstruction or repair of the OVERLAY. VII. TERMINATION A. The CITY may terminate this AGREEMENT at any time for any reason by providing written notice to PSE. Such written notice shall specify the date on which termination is to be effective, in which case PSE shall only be responsible for costs incurred by the CITY for that portion of the OVERLAY completed up to and including the day of termination. B. PSE may terminate this AGREEMENT for any reason prior to the City’s award of a construction contract for OVERLAY by providing written notice to the CITY, in which case PSE shall only be responsible for costs incurred by the CITY for the OVERLAY prior to PSE’s notice of termination. Termination of this contract does not release PSE from its obligation to overlay those portions of 238th St SW and 104th Ave W that are associated with the work. In the event PSE terminates this AGREEMENT, PSE acknowledges that it will be responsible for obtaining from the CITY Planning and Development Services Department (PDS) all required and applicable permits required to complete the OVERLAY. VIII. INSURANCE No additional insurance will be required of either party for any work related to the OVERLAY completed according to the terms of this AGREEMENT. IX. PROJECT RECORDS During the progress of the PROJECT and for a period not less than six (6) years from the final payment to the CITY, the CITY shall keep all records and accounting pertaining to the OVERLAY available for inspection and audit by the State and copies of all records, accounts, documents or other data pertaining to the PROJECT shall be furnished upon request. If any litigation, claim, or audit is commenced, the records and accounts along with supporting documentation shall be retained by the CITY until all litigation, claim or audit finding has been resolved even though such litigation, claim, or audit may continue past the six-year retention period. X. DISPUTE RESOLUTION Packet Page 172 of 411 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW 5 A. If a dispute arises between PSE and the CITY, the parties agree that they will attempt to resolve the issue through mutual negotiation. In the event that the parties are not able to reach an agreement through such negotiation, the parties agree to engage in non-binding mediation in order to resolve the dispute. Mediation may be requested by either party, and shall be attempted prior to the institution of any lawsuit arising under this AGREEMENT. Mediation shall be conducted under the then-current Commercial Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association or some other mutually acceptable procedure. The CITY and PSE shall jointly select a neutral third-party mediator. The parties agree to share the costs of mediation equally. B. This AGREEMENT has been made pursuant to, and shall be construed according to, the laws of the State of Washington. In the event that mediation is unsuccessful and either party finds it necessary to institute legal proceedings to enforce any provision of this AGREEMENT, such proceedings may only be brought in the Superior Court of Snohomish County, Washington. XI. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE LAWS The CITY and the PSE each acknowledges, agrees and understands that the CITY is a public agency subject to certain disclosure laws, including, but not limited to Washington’s Public Records Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. PSE understands that records related to this AGREEMENT and PSE’s performance under this AGREEMENT may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act or other similar law. Neither the CITY nor PSE anticipates that the performance of either party’s obligations under this AGREEMENT will involve any confidential or proprietary information. XII. CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS Either party may request changes, amendments, or additions to any portion of this AGREEMENT; however, except as otherwise provided in this AGREEMENT, no such change, amendment, or addition to any portion of this AGREEMENT shall be valid or binding upon either party unless it is in writing and executed by both parties. All such changes shall be made part of this AGREEMENT. XIII. NOTICES Unless otherwise directed in writing, notices, reports and payments shall be delivered to each party as follows: City of Edmonds Puget Sound Energy, Inc. Engineering Division Attn: David Matulich Attn: Robert English P O Box 97034, m/s BOT-01G 121 5th Ave N Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices mailed by either party shall be deemed effective three (3) days after the date mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid certified mail, return receipt requested. Either party may Packet Page 173 of 411 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW 6 change its address for receipt of reports, notices, or payments by giving the other written notice of not less than five days’ prior to the effective date. For accounting purposes, the respective Federal Tax Identification Numbers are: City of Edmonds: 91-6001244 Puget Sound Energy: 91-0374630 XIV. ENTIRE AGREEMENT These provisions represent the entire and integrated AGREEMENT of the parties regarding the subject matter hereof and may not be modified or amended except as provided herein. Any understanding, whether oral or written, which is not incorporated herein, is expressly excluded. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT, effective on the latest date shown below. Each party represents and warrants that its signatory below possesses the authority to execute this AGREEMENT and bind on behalf of such party their respective entities. CITY OF EDMONDS PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC. By: By: DAVID O. EARLING Date [Name] Date Mayor [Title] Approved as to form only: City of Edmonds Date Office of the City Attorney Packet Page 174 of 411 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW 7 EXHIBIT A AREA AND DESCRIPTION OF THE OVERLAY ASSOCIATED WITH THE 238TH ST SW: 104TH AVE W TO 100th AVE W, PROJECT E3DB AREA AND DESCRIPTION The OVERLAY shall include grinding the existing asphalt within the limits of the OVERLAY. The limits of the OVERLAY shall be: • Width of OVERLAY: Westbound lane of 238th St SW and southbound lane of 104th Ave W roadway asphalt as it existed at the time PSE commenced work on its required and additional work (approximately 12 feet wide 1). • Length of OVERLAY: 104th Ave W from approximately 75 feet south of 238th St SW to approximately 455 feet north of 238th St SW (approximately 530 feet) and 238th St SW from 104th Ave W to the east side of the intersection of 238th St SW and 101st Pl W (approximately 900 feet.) Total approximately 1,430 feet. Depth of OVERLAY: 2-inches • Area of OVERLAY: Approximately 2,300 square yards1. 1 Because the width of the overlay area is not constant over the entire length, the square footage shown for the overlay area is based on a CAD file provided by PSE. Packet Page 175 of 411 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUGET SOUND ENERGY CONCERNING ASPHALT OVERLAY TO A SECTION OF 238TH ST SW 8 EXHIBIT B ESTIMATED COST OF OVERLAY ITEM NO. ITEM UNIT UNIT COST QUANT EST. COST 1 Mobilization LS $970.00 1 $970.00 2 Surveying LS $1,730.00 1 $1,730.00 3 Traffic Control LS $1,940.00 1 $1,940.00 4 Planing Bituminous Pavement SY $5.50 1310 $7,205.00 5 HMA CL. 1/2 IN. PG 64-22 TON $105.00 252 $26,460.00 6 Erosion/Pollution Control LS $1,100.00 1 $1,100.00 Estimated Total $ 39,405.00 Construction Contingency (10% of Estimated Total) $ 3,941.00 Sub Total $ 43,346.00 Design (10% of Subtotal) $ 4,335.00 Constr. Engineering, Contract Admin. & Const. Insp. (15% of Sub Total) $ 6,502.00 Administrative Overhead (15%) $ 976.00 Estimated Construction Total $ 55,159.00 Packet Page 176 of 411 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 177 of 411 AM-7932 5. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/18/2015 Time:45 Minutes Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Action Information Subject Title Marina Beach Master Plan Public Hearing Recommendation Council be briefed on the final draft plan, open public hearing for comment, and discuss. Forward to future meeting for approval. Previous Council Action Council has been briefed about the Marina Beach Master Plan throughout the process. Council has been interviewed as key stakeholders, invited to open houses and the virtual open houses, and Councilmember Diane Buckshnis has been represented on the Project Advisory Committee. Narrative The Parks Department has been working with Walker Macy, ltd over the past six months to complete a Master Plan for Marina Beach Park. This presentation and Public Hearing with the Council will inform the board about the process, public input, and final draft plan for Marina Beach park that is being proposed. Attached to this packet are the following: 1. Draft Master Plan 2. Presentation 3. Cost estimate of plan 4. Site Context 5. Site Analysis 6. Letter received from WSDOT Ferries 7. Depiction of Edmonds Crossing with Marina Beach plan 8. Summary notes from Open Houses 9. Summary notes from PAC team In addition, the Planning Board held a public hearing on August 12th, and is forwarding this for your discussion on several items, and eventual approval. The Planning Board would like the Council to consider the following items for discussion during the public hearing: 1. Depth of buffer on south side of creek, adjacent to OLAE; The draft plan calls for a 50 ft. buffer average on the north side of the creek, and 75 ft on the south side, in order to mitigate any impact from the off leash area. The Planning Board was concerned that there be language and/or the ability to increase the buffer if there becomes impact on the creek and salmon habitat. 2. Firepits: the Project Advisory Committee is recommending that there not be fire pits introduced at Marina Beach. There were several Planning Board members that remember there being fire pits at the park, and have a possible interest in reintroducing these. 3. Coordination with Ferries: The Planning Board was satisfied with the inclusion of WSDOT and ferries in the planning process and ultimate plan. They thought it would be important to address the Edmonds Crossing in the final Master Plan report, and acknowledge that there could be a need to reconsider portions of the park if the Edmonds Crossing comes to fruition. It was noted that the area where the current schematic is planned is mostly on Port of Edmonds property. The area that might be impacted at Marina Beach is the parking lot, and north trail to the overlook. WSDOT has reflected that there would be enough clearance for the ferry lanes to go over the parking lot, and this would be the best plan for this purpose. 4. Emergency safety considerations, due to at grade train crossings: The Planning Board discussed the need to include some language in the plan that addresses this issue, and the other efforts in the City to solve this issue. 5. Tribes as a stakeholder: The Planning Board discussed the need to consult with tribes when we bring this plan forth for development. 6. Phasing and scheduling: The Planning Board thought it would be helpful for the Council to discuss the sequencing of both the day lighting of Willow Creek and the redevelopment of Marina Beach. For reference: Why is the Marina Beach Master Plan needed? Through the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, the community identified the need to restore the Edmonds Marsh, and bring back the capacity for salmon habitat. After careful review, and the completion of a feasibility study, the best way to accomplish this is to daylight Willow Creek from the Marsh into the Puget Sound, through Marina Beach Park. The Master Planning process will help gather community input on the plan for Marina Beach with this feature. What is the Marina Beach Master Plan? The Marina Beach Master Plan will identify design concepts to improve Marina Beach Park. This includes restoring Willow Creek to become a more natural, above-ground stream – called daylighting the stream. In the feasibility study, the City identified two potential above-ground routes for Willow Creek to connect Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound through the park. Through the master planning process, we will explore these two routes with you and develop a design program, schematic, and implementation schedule. We want to be sure the Master Plan reflects how the park is currently being used, and identifies ways to mitigate any impacts due to changes at the park. What studies have been completed related to the Master Plan? Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan (Feb 2014): This plan provides comprehensive guidance on the development and management of Edmonds’ parks, recreation Packet Page 178 of 411 5. A. City Council Meeting Parks and Recreation Information Subject Title Marina Beach Master Plan Public Hearing Recommendation Council be briefed on the final draft plan, open public hearing for comment, and discuss. Forward to future meeting for approval. Previous Council Action Council has been briefed about the Marina Beach Master Plan throughout the process. Council has been interviewed as key stakeholders, invited to open houses and the virtual open houses, and Councilmember Diane Buckshnis has been represented on the Project Advisory Committee. Narrative The Parks Department has been working with Walker Macy, ltd over the past six months to complete a Master Plan for Marina Beach Park. This presentation and Public Hearing with the Council will inform the board about the process, public input, and final draft plan for Marina Beach park that is being proposed. Attached to this packet are the following: 1. Draft Master Plan 2. Presentation 3. Cost estimate of plan 4. Site Context 5. Site Analysis 6. Letter received from WSDOT Ferries 7. Depiction of Edmonds Crossing with Marina Beach plan 8. Summary notes from Open Houses 9. Summary notes from PAC team In addition, the Planning Board held a public hearing on August 12th, and is forwarding this for your discussion on several items, and eventual approval. The Planning Board would like the Council to consider the following items for discussion during the public hearing: 1. Depth of buffer on south side of creek, adjacent to OLAE; The draft plan calls for a 50 ft. buffer average on the north side of the creek, and 75 ft on the south side, in order to mitigate any impact from the off leash area. The Planning Board was concerned that there be language and/or the ability to increase the buffer if there becomes impact on the creek and salmon habitat. 2. Firepits: the Project Advisory Committee is recommending that there not be fire pits introduced at Marina Beach. There were several Planning Board members that remember there being fire pits at the park, and have a possible interest in reintroducing these. 3. Coordination with Ferries: The Planning Board was satisfied with the inclusion of WSDOT and ferries in the planning process and ultimate plan. They thought it would be important to address the Edmonds Crossing in the final Master Plan report, and acknowledge that there could be a need to reconsider portions of the park if the Edmonds Crossing comes to fruition. It was noted that the area where the current schematic is planned is mostly on Port of Edmonds property. The area that might be impacted at Marina Beach is the parking lot, and north trail to the overlook. WSDOT has reflected that there would be enough clearance for the ferry lanes to go over the parking lot, and this would be the best plan for this purpose. 4. Emergency safety considerations, due to at grade train crossings: The Planning Board discussed the need to include some language in the plan that addresses this issue, and the other efforts in the City to solve this issue. 5. Tribes as a stakeholder: The Planning Board discussed the need to consult with tribes when we bring this plan forth for development. 6. Phasing and scheduling: The Planning Board thought it would be helpful for the Council to discuss the sequencing of both the day lighting of Willow Creek and the redevelopment of Marina Beach. For reference: Why is the Marina Beach Master Plan needed? Through the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, the community identified the need to restore the Edmonds Marsh, and bring back the capacity for salmon habitat. After careful review, and the completion of a feasibility study, the best way to accomplish this is to daylight Willow Creek from the Marsh into the Puget Sound, through Marina Beach Park. The Master Planning process will help gather community input on the plan for Marina Beach with this feature. What is the Marina Beach Master Plan? The Marina Beach Master Plan will identify design concepts to improve Marina Beach Park. This includes restoring Willow Creek to become a more natural, above-ground stream – called daylighting the stream. In the feasibility study, the City identified two potential above-ground routes for Willow Creek to connect Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound through the park. Through the master planning process, we will explore these two routes with you and develop a design program, schematic, and implementation schedule. We want to be sure the Master Plan reflects how the park is currently being used, and identifies ways to mitigate any impacts due to changes at the park. What studies have been completed related to the Master Plan? Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan (Feb 2014): This plan provides comprehensive guidance on the development and management of Edmonds’ parks, recreation Packet Page 179 of 411 Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan (Feb 2014): This plan provides comprehensive guidance on the development and management of Edmonds’ parks, recreation and open space system and the services provided by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. See document at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Parks_and_Recreation/PROS_Plan_/20140225_Edmonds_PROS_Plan_Final.pdf Dayton Street and SR 104 Storm Drainage Alternatives Study: The study describes and evaluates the existing system, provides a screening and evaluation of alternatives, and recommends a preferred alternative with an implementation strategy. See document at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Public_Works/Stormwater_Utility/pdf/Dayton_SR_104_Drainage_Alternatives_Final_08-16-13.pdf Willow Creek Daylighting Early Feasibility Study: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. prepared an early feasibility study documenting historical and existing site conditions, alternative Willow Creek daylighting alignments, a preferred daylighting plan, tidal hydraulics and fish habitat assessments of the preferred plan. See document at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Public_Works/Stormwater_Utility/pdf/Final%20_Early_Feasiblity_WillowCreekDaylighting.pdf Environmental Impact Statement Willow Creek Geotechnical Assessment: HWA GeoSciences Inc. completed a geotechnical evaluation of the proposed replacement culvert under the BNSF mainline to evaluate subsurface conditions and provide geotechnical recommendations. - See document at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/website-maintenance/department-articles/388-community-services/community-services-projects/1216-edmonds-crossing.html Willow Creek Geotechnical Assessment: HWA GeoSciences Inc. completed a geotechnical evaluation of the proposed replacement culvert under the BNSF mainline to evaluate subsurface conditions and provide geotechnical recommendations. - See more at: http://marinabeach.publicmeeting.info/Media/MarinaBeach/PDFS/Overview/Willow%20Creek%20Daylight%20Project-Geotechnical%20Assessment-FINAL.pdf What is the Project Advisory Committee? The Parks Director put together a Project Advisory Committee to work in an ad hoc role to help guide the Master Planning process with the Parks Department and Consultants. This ad hoc committee will meet as needed, and throughout the process. Who is represented on the PAC? • Carrie Hite – Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director, City of Edmonds • Renee McRae – Interim Assistant Parks Director, City of Edmonds • Keeley O’Connell – Senior Project Manager, Earth Corps • Jerry Shuster – Stormwater Engineering Program Manager, City of Edmonds • Rich Lindsay – Park Maintenance Manager, City of Edmonds • Diane Buckshnis – Edmonds City Council, Edmonds Floretum Garden Club, OLAE • Valerie Stewart – Planning Board, City of Edmonds • Rick Schaeffer – Tetra Tech • Kevin Conefrey – Edmonds Arts Commission • Laura Leeman – Edmonds Moms Group • Susan Smiley – Edmonds Floretum Garden Club • Janice Noe – Edmonds Floretum Garden Club (Alternate) • Tess Cayou – Edmonds Floretum Garden Club (Alternate) Exhibits that will help understand the process: Site Context: This exhibit illustrates relevant contextual information - rail, vehicular and non-vehicular circulation, parks and significant natural resource areas, existing storm drain alignments, potential Edmonds Crossing alignment, and points of interest. Site Analysis This map illustrates existing park elements and natural features, rail, vehicular, and pedestrian circulation, vegetation, climatic information, and programmatic uses. Attachments Draft Master Plan Presentation Draft cost of plan Site Context Site Analysis Letter from Ferries Edmonds Crossing with Marina Beach plan Summary: Open House 1 Summary: Open House 2 Summary: Open Houase 3 PAC 2.6.15 PAC 5.21.15 PAC 6.30.15 Marina Beach meeting notes 1 Marina Beach meeting notes 2 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 08/13/2015 04:13 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/14/2015 08:21 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/14/2015 08:21 AM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 08/11/2015 10:14 AM Final Approval Date: 08/14/2015 Packet Page 180 of 411 Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan (Feb 2014): This plan provides comprehensive guidance on the development and management of Edmonds’ parks, recreation and open space system and the services provided by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. See document at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Parks_and_Recreation/PROS_Plan_/20140225_Edmonds_PROS_Plan_Final.pdf Dayton Street and SR 104 Storm Drainage Alternatives Study: The study describes and evaluates the existing system, provides a screening and evaluation of alternatives, and recommends a preferred alternative with an implementation strategy. See document at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Public_Works/Stormwater_Utility/pdf/Dayton_SR_104_Drainage_Alternatives_Final_08-16-13.pdf Willow Creek Daylighting Early Feasibility Study: Shannon & Wilson, Inc. prepared an early feasibility study documenting historical and existing site conditions, alternative Willow Creek daylighting alignments, a preferred daylighting plan, tidal hydraulics and fish habitat assessments of the preferred plan. See document at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Public_Works/Stormwater_Utility/pdf/Final%20_Early_Feasiblity_WillowCreekDaylighting.pdf Environmental Impact Statement Willow Creek Geotechnical Assessment: HWA GeoSciences Inc. completed a geotechnical evaluation of the proposed replacement culvert under the BNSF mainline to evaluate subsurface conditions and provide geotechnical recommendations. - See document at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/website-maintenance/department-articles/388-community-services/community-services-projects/1216-edmonds-crossing.html Willow Creek Geotechnical Assessment: HWA GeoSciences Inc. completed a geotechnical evaluation of the proposed replacement culvert under the BNSF mainline to evaluate subsurface conditions and provide geotechnical recommendations. - See more at: http://marinabeach.publicmeeting.info/Media/MarinaBeach/PDFS/Overview/Willow%20Creek%20Daylight%20Project-Geotechnical%20Assessment-FINAL.pdf What is the Project Advisory Committee? The Parks Director put together a Project Advisory Committee to work in an ad hoc role to help guide the Master Planning process with the Parks Department and Consultants. This ad hoc committee will meet as needed, and throughout the process. Who is represented on the PAC? • Carrie Hite – Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director, City of Edmonds • Renee McRae – Interim Assistant Parks Director, City of Edmonds • Keeley O’Connell – Senior Project Manager, Earth Corps • Jerry Shuster – Stormwater Engineering Program Manager, City of Edmonds • Rich Lindsay – Park Maintenance Manager, City of Edmonds • Diane Buckshnis – Edmonds City Council, Edmonds Floretum Garden Club, OLAE • Valerie Stewart – Planning Board, City of Edmonds • Rick Schaeffer – Tetra Tech • Kevin Conefrey – Edmonds Arts Commission • Laura Leeman – Edmonds Moms Group • Susan Smiley – Edmonds Floretum Garden Club • Janice Noe – Edmonds Floretum Garden Club (Alternate) • Tess Cayou – Edmonds Floretum Garden Club (Alternate) Exhibits that will help understand the process: Site Context: This exhibit illustrates relevant contextual information - rail, vehicular and non-vehicular circulation, parks and significant natural resource areas, existing storm drain alignments, potential Edmonds Crossing alignment, and points of interest. Site Analysis This map illustrates existing park elements and natural features, rail, vehicular, and pedestrian circulation, vegetation, climatic information, and programmatic uses. Attachments Draft Master Plan Presentation Draft cost of plan Site Context Site Analysis Letter from Ferries Edmonds Crossing with Marina Beach plan Summary: Open House 1 Summary: Open House 2 Summary: Open Houase 3 PAC 2.6.15 PAC 5.21.15 PAC 6.30.15 Marina Beach meeting notes 1 Marina Beach meeting notes 2 Form Review Date 08/13/2015 04:13 PM 08/14/2015 08:21 AM 08/14/2015 08:21 AM Started On: 08/11/2015 10:14 AM Final Approval Date: 08/14/2015 Packet Page 181 of 411 DRAFT Masterplan Marina Beach Masterplan Herrera Environmental Consultants | EnviroIssues | JMB Consulting Group 0 20 40 80ft N City of Edmonds, Washington | 8/6/2015 Off Leash Area Restroom With Outdoor Shower Potential Concession Paved Path Beach & Driftwood Area Picnic Table & BBQ Overlook BBQ Bench Personal Watercraft Staging 50’ Buffer Possible Pedestrian Bridge Play Area Fence Agility Course 58 Stalls + 4 ADA +2 Motorcycle +11’+9’ +11’ +9’ Pedestrian Bridge Restroom Bicycle Racks W i l l o w C r e e k Mari n a B o a r d w a l k 28 Stalls Overflow Parking 75 Stalls Overflow Parking Packet Page 182 of 411 Ma r i n a B e a c h M a s t e r P l a n Ci t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g Au g u s t 1 8 , 2 0 1 5 Packet Page 183 of 411 -- Pr o j e c t A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e C a r r i e H i t e – R e c r e a t i o n a n d C u l t u r a l S e r v i c e s D i r e c t o r , C i t y o f E d m o n d s R e n e e M c R a e – I n t e r i m A s s i s t a n t P a r k D i r e c t o r , C i t y o f E d m o n d s K e e l e y O ’ C o n n e l l – S e n i o r P r o j e c t M a n a g e r , E a r t h C o r p s J e r r y S h u s t e r – S t o r m w a t e r E n g i n e e r i n g P r o g r a m M a n a g e r , C i t y o f E d m o n d s R i c h L i n d s a y – P a r k M a i n t e n a n c e M a n a g e r , C i t y o f E d m o n d s D i a n e B u c k s h n i s – C i t y C o u n c i l , F l o r e t u m G a r d e n C l u b , O L A E V a l S t e w a r t – P l a n n i n g B o a r d , C i t y o f E d m o n d s R i c k S c h a e f f e r – T e t r a T e c h S u s a n S m i l e y – E d m o n d s F l o r e t u m G a r d e n C l u b J o e S c o r d i n o – C o m m u n i t y M e m b e r ( r e t i r e d N O A A fi s h e r i e s ) R o n B r i g h t m a n – C i t y o f E d m o n d s T r e e B o a r d L a u r a L e e m a n – C o m m u n i t y M e m b e r ( E d m o n d s M o m s G r o u p ) K e v i n C o n e f r e y – E d m o n d s A r t s C o m m i s s i o n Packet Page 184 of 411 -- St a k e h o l d e r M e e t i n g s D a v e E a r l i n g ( M a y o r o f E d m o n d s ) J o a n B l o o m ( C i t y C o u n c i l ) D r . K e n t S a l t o n s t a l l ( C i t y o f W o o d w a y ) S u s i e S c h a e f e r ( F r i e n d s o f E d m o n d s M a r s h ) M a r l a K e m p f , B o b M c C h e s n e y a n d J i m O r v i s ( P o r t o f E d m o n d s ) K o j o F o r d j o u r ( W S D O T ) T a m m y A r m s t r o n g ( D e p a r t m e n t o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s - D N R ) K a r e n A n d r e s a n d S u s a n T a r p l e y ( R a n g e r N a t u r a l i s t s ) K r i s t i a n a J o h n s o n , L o r a P e t s o , A d r i e n n e F r a l e y - M o n i l l a s ( C i t y C o u n c i l ) S u s a n M o r r o w ( S e a l S i t t e r s ) A n n A l d r i c h , D i a n e B u c k s h n i s , J u l i e N e a l e y ( O L A E , O f f L e a s h A r e a E d m o n d s ) K e r n e n L i e n ( S e n i o r P l a n n e r , C i t y o f E d m o n d s ) W a l t e r S m i t h ( B u r l i n g t o n N o r t h e r n S a n t a F e - B N S F ) N e i l T i b b o t t a n d P h i l L o v e l l ( C i t y o f E d m o n d s P l a n n i n g B o a r d ) Packet Page 185 of 411 Op e n H o u s e # 1 Open House #2 Open House #3 De c e m b e r 20 1 4 Ja n u a r y 20 1 5 Fe b r u a r y 20 1 5 Ma r c h 20 1 5 Ap r i l 20 1 5 May 2015June 2015July 2015August 2015 1. K i c k o f f m e e t i n g w i t h P A C 2. S i t e v i s i t w i t h P a r k s S t a f f 3. A s s e m b l e a n d r e v i e w b a c k g r o u n d a n d h i s t o r i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n 4. M e r g e t o p o g r a p h i c s u r v e y w i t h t h e f e r r y d e v e l o p m e n t a n d c r e e k a l i g n m e n t 5. M e e t w i t h S h a n n o n a n d W i l s o n t o g a i n b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n o n W i l l o w C r e e k 6. S i t e I n v e n t o r y a n d A n a l y s i s 7. P r e p a r e B a s e P l a n 8. C o n d u c t m e e t i n g s w i t h P a r k s , E n g i n e e r i n g , P u b l i c W o r k s , a n d P l a n n i n g 9. P r e p a r e a r e p o r t t h a t s u m m a r i z e s o p p o r t u n i t i e s a n d c o n s t r a i n t s 10 . O p e n H o u s e # 1 11 . D e v e l o p P a r k D e s i g n P r o g r a m 12 . P r e s e n t p a r k p r o g r a m a n d a n a l y s i s t o P l a n n i n g B o a r d a n d C i t y C o u n c i l f o r a p p r o v a l 1. A s s i s t P A C i n e s t a b l i s h i n g e v a l u a t i o n c r i t e r i a f o r M a s t e r P l a n a l t e r n a t i v e s 2. D e v e l o p t w o M a s t e r P l a n a l t e r n a t i v e s 3. A s s i s t c i t y s t a f f i n p r e p a r i n g o p e r a t i o n a l a n d m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t m o d e l s 4. P r e p a r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s n a r r a t i v e 5. M e e t w i t h P l a n n i n g B o a r d 6. M e e t w i t h P a r k s S t a f f 7. O p e n H o u s e # 2 8. M e e t w i t h C i t y , C o u n t y , S t a t e , a n d F e d e r a l p e r m i t t i n g a u t h o r i t i e s t o r e v i e w d e s i g n 9. M e e t w i t h P A C t o r e v i e w c o m m e n t s f r o m O p e n H o u s e # 2 10 . P r o v i d e b r i e f i n g t o t h e P l a n n i n g B o a r d a n d C i t y C o u n c i l 11 . C r e a t e a p r e f e r r e d M a s t e r P l a n a l t e r n a t i v e 12 . U p d a t e c o s t e s t i m a t e a n d o p e r a t i o n a l m o d e l s . 13 . C r e a t e a d r a f t I m p l e m e n t a t i o n S t r a t e g y / P h a s i n g P r o g r a m 14 . I d e n t i f y s c o p e a n d s c h e d u l e o f p e r m i t t i n g p r o c e s s . 15 . A t t e n d m e e t i n g s w i t h P a r k s s t a f f t o r e v i e w p r e f e r r e d M a s t e r P l a n a l t e r n a t i v e 16 . O p e n H o u s e # 3 17 . M e e t w i t h t h e P l a n n i n g B o a r d a n d C i t y C o u n c i l 18 . R e f i n e d r a f t M a s t e r P l a n a n d P h a s i n g P r o g r a m 19 . R e v i s e c o s t e s t i m a t e s 20 . M e e t w i t h P A C t o r e v i e w w o r k s h o p c o m m e n t s 21 . I n c o r p o r a t e c o m m e n t s f r o m P A C m e e t i n g P l a n n i n g B o a r d a n d C i t y C o u n c i l 22 . P r e p a r e S E P A c h e c k l i s t 23 . S u b m i t f i n a l M a s t e r P l a n t o P a r k s Ph a s e 1 - I n v e n t o r y / S i t e A s s e s s m e n t a n d P a r k P r o g r a m Ph a s e 2 - S c h e m a t i c D e s i g n a n d P r e f e r r e d A l t e r n a t i v e Legend Task Duration Meeting Open House Packet Page 186 of 411 -- Pu b l i c I n p u t Packet Page 187 of 411 Pu b l i c I n p u t Packet Page 188 of 411 Si t e C o n t e x t Packet Page 189 of 411 Si t e A n a l y s i s Packet Page 190 of 411 St r e a m A l i g n m e n t Op t i o n C St r e a m A l i g n m e n t Op t i o n B St r e a m A l i g n m e n t Op t i o n A Packet Page 191 of 411 St r e a m A l i g n m e n t Op t i o n C St r e a m A l i g n m e n t Op t i o n B Packet Page 192 of 411 -- Pu b l i c I n p u t -B e a c h , v i e w s , e n v i r o n m e n t , p i c n i c t a b l e s , s e a t i n g , w a l k - in g , a c t i v e / p a s s i v e r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s . -R e t e n t i o n o f D o g P a r k -P a r k i n g c a p a c i t y -R e s t r o o m f a c i l i t i e s -P r o v i d e m o r e h a b i t a t a n d e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s -W i l l o w C r e e k a l i g n m e n t a n d i m p a c t s -D o g a n d h u m a n c o n fl i c t s . D o g i m p a c t s t o e n v i r o n m e n t . Packet Page 193 of 411 Op t i o n 1 Ma r i n a B e a c h M a s t e r p l a n He r r e r a E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n s u l t a n t s | E n v i r o I s s u e s | J M B C o n s u l t i n g G r o u p 0 2 0 4 0 8 0 f t N Ci t y o f E d m o n d s , W a s h i n g t o n | 5 / 6 / 2 0 1 5 Dr i f t w o o d Ar e a La w n A r e a 50 ’ B u f f e r , T y p . Na t u r e P l a y A r e a Cr e e k Fe n c e Of f L e a s h A r e a - T o R e m a i n Ag i l i t y C o u r s e Pe d e s t r i a n B r i d g e So f t S u r f a c e P a t h Pl a y A r e a Re s t r o o m Pa v e d P a t h , T y p . Pi c n i c T a b l e , T y p . Ve h i c u l a r T u r n A r o u n d Sa n d V o l l e y b a l l Ov e r l o o k Mo u n d Be n c h , T y p . Pa r k i n g Option 2 Marina Beach Masterplan He r r e r a E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n s u l t a n t s | E n v i r o I s s u e s | J M B C o n s u l t i n g G r o u p 0 2 0 4 0 8 0 f t N City of Edmonds, Washington | 5/6/2015 Dr i f t w o o d Ar e a La w n A r e a 50 ’ B u f f e r , T y p . Cr e e k Fe n c e Of f L e a s h A r e a - T o R e m a i n Ag i l i t y C o u r s e Pe d e s t r i a n B r i d g e So f t S u r f a c e P a t h Pl a y Ar e a Re s t r o o m Pa v e d P a t h , T y p . Pi c n i c T a b l e , T y p . Sa n d V o l l e y b a l l Ov e r l o o k Be n c h , T y p . Parking La w n A r e a Packet Page 194 of 411 -- Pu b l i c I n p u t • 7 5 % o f a t t e n d e e s p r e f e r r e d O p t i o n 1 • L i k e p a r k i n g t u r n a r o u n d • L i k e r e s t r o o m l o c a t i o n - m a k e i t c e n t r a l l y l o c a t e d a n d / o r i n c l u d e a n a d d i t i o n a l r e s t r o o m f o r d o g p a r k u s e r s . • P r e f e r l a r g e r l a w n a r e a • P r e f e r t w o o v e r l o o k s • S e p a r a t e d o g a n d p e o p l e b e s t Packet Page 195 of 411 Aerial Packet Page 196 of 411 Pr e f e r r e d M a s t e r P l a n Packet Page 197 of 411 Key Map Be a c h & D r i f t w o o d A r e a Ov e r l o o k BB Q Pa v e d P a t h Pi c n i c T a b l e & B B Q Be n c h Pe r s o n a l W a t e r c r a f t S t a g i n g Marina Boardwalk (2) Motorcycle Stalls Packet Page 198 of 411 Packet Page 199 of 411 Packet Page 200 of 411 Packet Page 201 of 411 Packet Page 202 of 411 Key Map 50 ’ B u f f e r Un p a v e d Pa t h Pl a y A r e a Po s s i b l e P e d e s t r i a n Br i d g e W i l l o w C r e e k Re s t r o o m W i t h Ou t d o o r S h o w e r Po t e n t i a l Co n c e s s i o n 58 S t a l l s + 4 A D A Pedestrian BridgeRestroomBicycle Racks Packet Page 203 of 411 Re s t r o o m Packet Page 204 of 411 Re s t r o o m Packet Page 205 of 411 Packet Page 206 of 411 Packet Page 207 of 411 Packet Page 208 of 411 Packet Page 209 of 411 Packet Page 210 of 411 Packet Page 211 of 411 Packet Page 212 of 411 Wi l l o w C r e e k P e r s p e c t i v e Packet Page 213 of 411 Key Map Of f L e a s h A r e a Ag i l i t y C o u r s e +1 1 ’ +9 ’ Ov e r l o o k Fe n c e Packet Page 214 of 411 Pr e f e r r e d M a s t e r P l a n Packet Page 215 of 411 (A p p r o x i m a t e ) E d m o n d s Cr o s s i n g A l i g n m e n t Packet Page 216 of 411 Packet Page 217 of 411 Ma r i n a B e a c h M a s t e r P l a n Pl a n n i n g B o a r d Au g u s t 1 2 , 2 0 1 5 Packet Page 218 of 411 City of Edmonds MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN Edmonds, Washington PRE-DESIGN COST ESTIMATE R0 July 10, 2015 JMB CONSULTING GROUP Packet Page 219 of 411 4320 29th Avenue W Seattle, Washington 98199 Tel: 206.708.7280 July 10, 2015 Chris Jones Walker|Macy 105 S Main Street Suite 205 Seattle, Washington 98104 Re: City of Edmonds Subject: Marina Beach Master Plan Edmonds, Washington Dear Chris: Sincerely, Jon Bayles JMB Consulting Group LLC 14-046 Enclosures In accordance with your instructions, we enclose our cost estimate for the project referenced above. This cost estimate is a statement of reasonable and probable construction cost. It is not a prediction of low bid. We would be pleased to discuss this report with you further at your convenience. JMB CONSULTING GROUP Packet Page 220 of 411 City of Edmonds Pre-design Cost Estimate R0 Marina Beach Master Plan July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 BASIS OF COST ESTIMATE R0 Conditions of Construction The pricing is based on the following general conditions of construction A start date of July 2015 A construction period of 6 months The general contract will be hard bid There will not be small business set aside requirements The contractor will be required to pay prevailing wages The project shall be constructed in one phase JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 1 Packet Page 221 of 411 City of Edmonds Pre-design Cost Estimate R0 Marina Beach Master Plan July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 EXCLUSIONS Escalation Owner supplied and installed furniture, fixtures and equipment Loose furniture and equipment except as specifically identified Furnishing of security equipment and devices Furnishing of audio visual equipment Hazardous material handling, disposal and abatement except as identified Compression of schedule, premium or shift work, and restrictions on the contractor's working hours Design, testing, inspection or construction management fees Architectural and design fees Scope change and post contract contingencies Assessments, taxes, finance, legal and development charges Environmental impact mitigation Builder's risk, project wrap-up and other owner provided insurance program Land and easement acquisition Also see detail of each estimate JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 2 Packet Page 222 of 411 City of Edmonds Pre-design Cost Estimate R0 Marina Beach Master Plan July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 OVERALL SUMMARY Gross Site Area $ / SF $x1,000 Sitework 194,000 SF 16.33 3,168 TOTAL Building & Sitework Construction 3,168 Alternates 194,000 SF 0.57 111 NOTE: Escalation is not included and is recommended to be forecasted at a rate of 5% per year, compounded Alt 1: Additional Ped Bridge JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 3 Packet Page 223 of 411 City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Pre-design Cost Estimate R0 Sitework July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 SITEWORK AREAS Areas SF Site area Preferred Master Plan 194,000 TOTAL SITE AREA 194,000 JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 4 Packet Page 224 of 411 City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Pre-design Cost Estimate R0 Sitework July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 SITEWORK Construction Systems and Assemblies Summary Gross Site Area 194,000 SF $/SF $x1,000 G Building sitework G10 Site preparation 2.73 530 G20 Site improvements 8.72 1,692 G30 Site civil/Mechanical utilities 1.08 210 G40 Site electrical utilities 0.72 140 G90 Other site construction - - G BUILDING SITEWORK 13.26 2,572 Z General Z10 General requirements Z1010 Administration (Specified GCs, General Requirements) 6.00% 0.80 154 Z1030 Temporary facilities and temporary controls (Negotiated Support Service 0.00% - - Z1060 Fee 6.00% 0.80 154 Z10 General requirements 1.59 309 Z20 Bidding requirements, contract forms, and condition contingencies Z2010 Bidding requirements design contingency 10.00% 1.48 288 Z2020 Contract forms escalation contingency 0.00% - - Z2030 Conditions construction contingency 0.00% - - Z20 Bidding requirements, contract forms, and condition contingencies 1.48 288 Z GENERAL 3.08 597 PROBABLE COST TOTAL 16.33 3,168 Base Bid JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 5 Packet Page 225 of 411 City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Pre-design Cost Estimate R0 Sitework July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 CSI Description Quantity Unit Rate Total G - Building Sitework G10 Site preparation G1010 Site clearing Demolition of building & structures EXCLUDED Site protective construction Mobilize 1 ls 45,000.00 45,000 Traffic control 1 ls 10,000.00 10,000 Protection of existing 1 ls 10,000.00 10,000 Erosion control Construction entrances 1 ls 7,500.00 7,500 Initial set-up 1 ls 20,000.00 20,000 Dewatering allowance 194,000 sf 0.10 19,400 Street cleaning 1 ls 10,000.00 10,000 Straw wattles/sand bags/inlet protection, etc.1 ls 75,000.00 75,000 Site clearing and grading Demolition Remove existing vertical improvements 1 ls 5,000.00 5,000 Sawcut AC paving 1 ls 2,500.00 2,500 Clear/grub/scarify 12"156,000 sf 0.20 31,200 Remove AC paving 38,000 sf 0.35 13,300 Salvage items & return to Owner 1 ls 5,000.00 5,000 Demo existing utilites 1 ls 10,000.00 10,000 Earthwork Cut/fill site 156,000 sf 0.75 117,000 Import, limited 1 ls 50,000.00 50,000 Fine grade 156,000 sf 0.20 31,200 Paving prep, concrete 17,801 sf 1.50 26,702 Paving prep, asphalt 22,300 sf 1.50 33,450 Curb prep 1,292 lf 2.00 2,584 Bank stabilization rip rap 1 ls 5,000.00 5,000 G20 Site improvements G2020 Parking lots Traffic bump 1 ls 5,000.00 5,000 New striping vertical signage 22,300 sf 0.15 3,345 Curbs 1,292 lf 25.00 32,300 Vehicular concrete 6"EXCLUDED JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 6 Packet Page 226 of 411 City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Pre-design Cost Estimate R0 Sitework July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 CSI Description Quantity Unit Rate Total Vehicular AC 4"22,300 sf 5.00 111,500 Overflow parking EXCLUDED Detectable warning 1 ls 2,500.00 2,500 G2030 Pedestrian paving Ped conc paving 15,300 sf 5.50 84,150 Plaza hardscape, pavers on subslab 2,500 sf 55.00 137,500 G2040 Site development Fences & gates New fence 300 lf 75.00 22,500 Vehicle security gate EXCLUDED Security post/Bollard EXCLUDED Retaining walls EXCLUDED Terrace/overlook seat walls 176 lf 250.00 44,000 Signage 194,000 sf 0.10 19,400 Site furnishings Benches 260 lf 75.00 19,500 Trash receptacles 8 ea 600.00 4,800 Bike racks 20 ea 450.00 9,000 BBQ 5 ea 2,500.00 12,500 Picnic tables 5 ea 2,500.00 12,500 Fountains, pools and watercourses EXCLUDED Playing fields Play area 1,500 sf 2.50 3,750 Play equipment/Agility course 1 ls 50,000.00 50,000 Flagpoles EXCLUDED Miscellaneous structures Portland Loo 1 ea 100,000.00 100,000 Timber pedestrian bridge, 12'W 86 lf 1,050.00 90,300 Restroom building, all trades 250 sf 300.00 75,000 Concession building, all trades 165 sf 350.00 57,750 Allow for anit-grafitti coatings 1 ls 2,500.00 2,500 G2050 Landscaping Fine grade+soil prep+top soil 113,000 sf 1.85 209,050 Seeding and sodding Sod EXCLUDED Hydroseed 113,000 sf 0.18 20,340 Planting Trees 120 ea 400.00 48,000 Shrubs 1 ls 200,000.00 200,000 Irrigation systems 113,000 sf 1.50 169,500 JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 7 Packet Page 227 of 411 City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Pre-design Cost Estimate R0 Sitework July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 CSI Description Quantity Unit Rate Total Other landscape features Miscellaneousroot barriers, jute, edgers, etc 1 ls 15,000.00 15,000 Mulch 1 ls 10,000.00 10,000 Mow curb, CIP EXCLUDED Maintenance 12 mo 10,000.00 120,000 G30 Site civil/Mechanical utilities G3010 Water supply Connection 1 ea 50,000.00 50,000 G3020 Sanitary sewer Sanitary sewer Connection 1 ea 50,000.00 50,000 Allow for lift station 1 ea 30,000.00 30,000 G3030 Storm sewer Connection 1 ea 50,000.00 50,000 Allow for lift station 1 ea 30,000.00 30,000 G40 Site electrical utilities G4010 Electrical distribution Connection 1 ea 50,000.00 50,000 G4020 Site lighting Hardscape 40,100 sf 1.00 40,100 G4030 Site communications and security Communications ductbank, cabling by others 1 ea 50,000.00 50,000 2,571,621 JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 8 Packet Page 228 of 411 City of Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan Pre-design Cost Estimate R0 Alternates July 10, 2015 Edmonds, Washington 14-046.110 Quantity Unit Rate Total Alt 1: Additional Ped Bridge Timber pedestrian bridge, 12'W 86.00 lf 1,050.00 90,300 - Mark ups 23.20%90,300 20,950 - 111,250 JMB Consulting Group LLC Page 9 Packet Page 229 of 411 EDMONDS MARSH PROJECT SITE SHELLABARGER MARSH MAR I N A B O A R D W A L K UNOCAL PROPERTY BRACKETT’S LANDING SOUTH FISHING PIER PORT OF EDMONDS CITY PARK EDMONDS UNDERWATER PARK ADM I R A L W A Y ED M O N D S W A Y DAYTON ST SU N S E T A V E BRACKETT’S LANDING NORTH PUGET SOUND 11 7 P L W PINE ST MA K A H R D WILLOW CREEK SALMON HATCHERY EDMONDS STATION COMMUNITY TRAIL BEACH CAFE YACHT CLUB ARNIES RESTAURANT EDMONDS - KINGSTON FERRY 1/4 mi 0 mi 1/2 mi 3/4 mi 7/8 mi BNS F R A I L R O A D BNS F R A I L R O A D OLYMPIC BEACH MAI N S T EDMONDS CROSSING BREAKWATER WOODWAY HARBOR SQUARE EXISTING WILLOW CREEK OUTFALL EXISTING DAYTON ST OUTFALL POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS E D M O N D S C R O S S I NG ALIGNMENT Context City of Edmonds, Washington | 3/4/2015 Walker Macy Marina Beach Masterplan Herrera Environmental Consultants | EnviroIssues | JMB Consulting Group 0 20 40 80ft N Packet Page 230 of 411 PUGET SOUND B N S F R A I L R O A D 25 Spaces 21 S p a c e s (2 A D A ) EXISTING WILLOW CREEKOUTFALL MAR I N A B O A R D W A L K BEACH AND DRIFT WOOD AREA ADM I R A L W A Y LAWN OFF LEASH AREA EDMONDS WINTER SOLSTICE PLAY PREVAILING WIND PREVAILING WIND ORDINARY HIGH WATER FUTURE WILLOW CREEK CULVERT VIEW TO PUGET S O U N D SUMMER SOLSTICE 11 Spaces 75 Spaces TREES 28 S p a c e s RIP RAP RI P R A P RIP RAP WATER AND SEWER CONNECTION WATERCRAFT STORAGE, TYP. EXISTING WSDOT STORMDRAIN OUTFALL DRIFT WOOD BENCH, TYP.PICNIC TABLE, TYP. PORT OF EDMONDS MARINA DRY STORAGE 2 EDWARDS POINT ROCK OUTCROP AND RIP RAP AGILITY COURSE SMALL DOG AREA EXISTING VEGETATION POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Site Analysis City of Edmonds, Washington | 3/4/2015 Walker Macy Marina Beach Masterplan Herrera Environmental Consultants | EnviroIssues | JMB Consulting Group 0 20 40 80ft N Packet Page 231 of 411 Packet Page 232 of 411 Packet Page 233 of 411 (A p p r o x i m a t e ) E d m o n d s Cr o s s i n g A l i g n m e n t Packet Page 234 of 411 Online Open House #1 Summary Draft 03/12/2015 Page 1 of 3 Edmonds Marina Beach Open House #1 Summary – March 4, 2015 Updated: 3/19/2015 Overview On March 4, 2015, the City of Edmonds hosted an open house at the Edmonds Plaza Room to share information about the Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan. The open house included display boards showing: relevant contextual information about the site; analysis of the existing elements and other features of the site; two different alignment concepts for daylighting Willow Creek. Aerial boards on each table illustrated the existing conditions of Edmonds Marina Beach Park. The project team provided information on the project background, schedule, Willow Creek alignment options and connections between Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek. Attendees split into five groups to discuss what they like and don’t like about Marina Beach Park, what they hope to see in the future and their feedback on the two Willow Creek alignment concepts. Attendees were encouraged to visit the Online Open House and provide feedback through SurveyMonkey. Summary of questions and input I. What elements of Marina Beach Park did attendees like? • Beach access • Openness and unstructured nature of beach • Natural features and balance with hardscapes (e.g., driftwood, rocky inner tidal zone) • Grassy area • Sandy north beach • Separation of play area and play structure • Dog park • Ability to walk down the beach and other walking paths • Wildlife (e.g., seals, marine life, whales, birds) • Family accessible • Healthy environment • View of mountains • Active area and sports (e.g., kiteboarding, kayaking, volleyball, windsurfing, fishing) • Opportunities for interaction with naturalists and beach rangers • Accessibility for high school students to work on projects at the beach • Picnicking and BBQ • Connectivity to the port • Quiet place to sit • Pedestrian access from the north • Knoll structure • Views and photography • Sufficient ADA parking and ok parking capacity II. What elements of Marina Beach Park did attendees dislike? • Port a potties • Lack of parking and no parking turnaround • Erosion at south end • Dog park - concerns about whether dog park is best use of real estate • Dogs chasing wildlife and smell from dog park Packet Page 235 of 411 Online Open House #1 Summary Draft 03/12/2015 Page 2 of 3 III. What elements of Marina Beach Park would attendees change? What elements would attendees like to include? • Increase ADA parking • More picnic tables • Keep the rustic feel of the park • Add fire pits • More ways to walk on beach (driftwood makes walking difficult) • Relocate dog park (concerns that build- up of acid is not conducive to salmon- friendly habitat) • Better signage (entrance/dog park/from Port walkway) • More natural playground area (not primary colors) • Make parking in a loop to lessen congestion • Allow for watercraft access • Address stormwater runoff (e.g., runoff from SR 104 and Shoreline) • Connect pedestrian access to east side of railroad tracks and connect pedestrian walkways to parking • Connect beach to marsh trail • Permanent bathrooms • Replenish the sand • Provide walkway to birds • Ensure that dog park keeps dogs in • Increase salmon habitat • More seating in park area • Prefer to keep beach in its historic or natural state • Add a nature center • Create a new overlook structure • Use pier footing as overlook but soften/add seating and a telescope • More seating in the park. IV. Attendee feedback on Willow Creek alignments: • Alignment A: i. Likes: takes up less of parking area; doesn’t take park space. ii. Concerns: requires too much fencing; concerns about children near creek when water level can increase 4 or 5 feet; impacts of dog park to creek. • Alignment B: i. Likes: natural curve; more organic layout; permanent restrooms; maintains natural habitat; allows for more recreational opportunities; reduces size of park, but okay if it increases access to the boat site; more educational opportunities; more fish friendly. ii. Concerns: too disruptive; tree loss from grassy area; loss of lawn; needs a pedestrian overpass; loses more beach real estate. • Suggestions for alternative options: i. Daylight along historic pier location; instead of curving, have the stream come straight through the middle through the old pier and pipes. • General concerns/comments: where will dogs go temporarily during construction; soil testing and contamination; pedestrian bridges; putting a parking lot in the Uni-Cal area; allowing access to the marsh from the park; extending dusk hours. V. Other questions/feedback • Attendees asked how wide the creek will be – project staff said this topic would be covered at the next open house in May. Packet Page 236 of 411 Online Open House #1 Summary Draft 03/12/2015 Page 3 of 3 • One attendee, Val Stewart, suggested outreach with high school students. She offered to distribute a survey or materials at the high school to help promote engagement with the project. Attendance City of Edmonds • Dave Earling, Mayor • Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember • Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director • Renee McRae, Interim Assistant Parks Director • Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Other project team members • Chris Jones, Walker Macy • Mike Zilis, Walker Macy • Keeley O’Connell, Earth Corps • Katie DeLeuw, EnviroIssues • Nicole Lobodzinski, EnviroIssues Members of the public: Approximately 40 Packet Page 237 of 411 Online Open House #2 Summary Updated 5/15/2015 Page 1 of 3 Edmonds Marina Beach Open House #2 Summary – May 6, 2015 Updated: 5/15/2015 Overview On May 6, 2015, the City of Edmonds hosted the second in a series of three open houses at the Edmonds Plaza Room to share information about the Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan. The open house included display boards showing updated alignment concepts for daylighting Willow Creek and concepts for an Edmonds Marina Beach park plan. Aerial boards and handouts on each table illustrated the two different park plans proposed for Edmonds Marina Beach. The project team presented the project background, a recap of feedback following the first open house, and an overview of the two updated Willow Creek alignment options and Edmonds Marina Beach Park plans. Attendees split into groups to discuss their preferences related to the two Willow Creek alignment options and the park plans. They also provided feedback on park elements not included in the parks plans that they would like included in the master plan. Attendees were encouraged to visit the Online Open House and provide feedback through SurveyMonkey. Summary of small group discussions 1. Which alternative park plan do you prefer? Why? Option 1 Option 2 Feedback and questions included: Like parking turnaround Like restroom location Natural channel Closest walk to beach More people beach less loss Middle ground Less channel, lower cost Like two overlooks Option 1 is more continuous, open Don’t like restroom location in option 1; want a more centrally located restroom, or additional restrooms Add southern overlook to option 1 Separates dogs and people best Want longer walking trails Connect trail to marsh boardwalk area Keep play area natural Need better signage for dog area . Feedback and questions included: Best for salmon Better buffer creek and dog park Drop off roundabout is needed for buses Motorcycle parking Kids love the playground, nature play area More signage to limit dog park area Like a lookout options Protect from oil spill and SW Education at dog park Why did dog park stay? Is this the best use of the park? FC pollution Like consolidation of play and lawn area Second bridge on west end for both options that also provides an overlook Bathrooms are located in non-dog area; what do dog people do to access bathrooms? Packet Page 238 of 411 Online Open House #2 Summary Updated 5/15/2015 Page 2 of 3 Option 1 Option 2 Choose the less costly maintenance version Impact of coal dust on daylight Lawn area is wasted, used by dog park Southern portion will become all dog park General feedback on and questions about the park plans included: Like walkway ADA access to beach Would like tsunami info Remove park from marine sanctuary or keep as a marine sanctuary? Dogs on leash ok in park Keep play area natural Concerned about wave action causing erosion – will have to work harder to maintain Add porta potties during busier times of year Add motorcycle parking Add firepits More picnic tables Put restrooms towards entrance of parking lot, middle of parking lot and one towards the end Choose less costly option Suggest 3-point turn around because it would take less room Concern about coal dust on daylighted creek 2. Which alternative creek alignment do you prefer? Option 1 Option 2 Feedback included: Less lawn space Like second lawn area with restrooms Feedback included: Liked two lookouts and lawn area General feedback on and questions about the creek alignments included: Need another pedestrian bridge Like the auto turn around Need better signage Need signage for community education Move restroom down to other location Leave area as marine sanctuary Consider option to move restroom to entry of parking lot Want to keep as much of dog park as possible Keep lookout as is 3. What park elements are not included in the alternatives that you would like included in the master plan? Increase ADA parking Walkway at grade should be flat Keep play area natural ADA requirements for both plans Connect train into marsh Space for kiteboarding launch – space Packet Page 239 of 411 Online Open House #2 Summary Updated 5/15/2015 Page 3 of 3 More fire pits and BBQ pits Second gate to dog park (beside bridge) Extend option 1 lookout from the bridge in option 2 Showers and waterfront/fountain Outdoor fitness for adults Second walkway to cross creek on water side Some type of shelter More walking trails More picnic tables Eliminate turnaround in favor of a three point turn to get more parking clear of vegetation, unobstructed from north to south winds Additional open park area Off-leash area at Pine Ridge Park Pay parking for non-residents to cut down on traffic to create funding source Provide shuttle from top foods to park As much lawn as possible Restrooms should be more centrally located, or have additional locations Attendance City of Edmonds Mike Nelson, Edmonds City Council Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Renee McRae, Interim Assistant Parks Director Project team members Chris Jones, Walker Macy Mike Zilis, Walker Macy Keeley O’Connell, Earth Corps Dave Cline, Shannon and Wilson Katie DeLeuw, EnviroIssues Nicole Lobodzinski, EnviroIssues Members of the public: Approximately 100 Packet Page 240 of 411 Online Open House #3 Summary Updated 7/13/2015 Page 1 of 3 Edmonds Marina Beach Open House #3 Summary – July 8, 2015 Updated: 7/13/2015 Overview On July 8, 2015 the City of Edmonds hosted the third and final open house at the Edmonds Plaza Room to share information about the Edmonds Marina Beach Master Plan. The open house included display boards showing the preferred concept for the Marina Beach Master Plan, including an alignment for daylighting Willow Creek. The project team presented the project background and a recap of feedback from previous public outreach efforts, including the Project Advisory Committee, stakeholder meetings, in-person open houses and online open houses. Additionally, the project team described the two Marina Beach Park plans and Willow Creek alignment options previously under consideration. They announced the Option 1 forward per public support and described the conceptual design and benefits of this option. The presentation was followed by a Q&A session and an informal open house. Attendees were encouraged to visit the Online Open House and provide feedback through web comment form as well. Summary of Q&A 1. Q: How big is the proposed round-about? A: 45-foot diameter. We considered an option without the round-about but feedback showed overwhelming support. There is also a fire code that requires a round-about or a T-shaped end; the round-about option would solve that problem and help traffic flow in parking lot. 2. Q: Will there be a place allocated for concessions? A: Yes, there is a specific place that can be used for concessions. 3. Q: There seems to be a lot of trees in the green space. A lot of people play games that require open space yet the space is not as open as it could be. A: Good comment, we should take that into consideration. 4. Q: Do you envision the playground to be in the trees or bright and sunny? A: Bright and sunny. 5. C: I don’t like the hill in the lawn area because so much of it is sloping and can’t be used. A: The proposed hill is much lower than the existing one. 6. Q: Are the mature trees going to be able to be saved? A: No, unfortunately not. The trees were attempted to be saved but will need to be removed. 7. Q: Will there be an increase or decrease in parking spots? A: No, there will be the same number of spots. There will be an area for overflow parking as there is today. 8. Q: Can we add motorcycle spots to formalize motorcycle parking instead of taking over a whole parking spot with a motorcycle? A: Good idea, we will consider that as well. 9. Q: What’s the distance from parking to water for boat-launch area? A: We are not sure of these details off hand and will need to follow up on this. Packet Page 241 of 411 Online Open House #3 Summary Updated 7/13/2015 Page 2 of 3 10. Q: Will there be paved access to the boat-launch? A: Paved access all the way to launch is not part of the Preferred Master Plan. 11. Q: How do you reconcile marine sanctuary requirements with current lovely use of the beach? A: We have a naturalist program to teach people about the natural features. We don’t want people disturbing the natural habitat. 12. Q: What are your contingencies for moving everything southward due to major displacement? A: City of Edmonds is in discussion with the Washington State Department of Transportation and Washington State Ferries regarding Edmonds Crossing. The proposed alignment is adjacent to the north end of Marina Beach Park. Our understanding is that they are not at a point to discuss real plans at this time, and they are not sure when the crossing would move forward. As we continue to develop the Master Plan and get closer to construction, we will have better information and will continue to meet with WSF. 13. Q: Is there a practical reason why you can’t move the park/creek further south? A: Yes, moving the design to the south would result in increased sediment deposits and erosion. Geomorphically, with the shoreline drift processes, the more northerly you go the more stable the stream area is. This is based on the amount of time and strength of wind. The drift direction is generally from the south. Moving the park south would require an armored channel due to railroad tracks, and is likely to negatively affect fish, kids, dogs, etc. Open house feedback: • Preferences: o Shade at a park because of sunburn/heat. o Close proximity of dog park to kids play area to be able to keep track of both. o Flat, useable lawn. o Sunny playground. o Shower or foot washing station. o Second bridge because of view, circuit and no dogs. o Grass areas. o Concession availability. o Like the turnaround. • Questions and suggestions o How will kids use the creek? o Add recycle bins. o Want working water fountains – no bottled waters. o Lessen trees in the open lawn. o Include motorcycle parking. o Include ADA parking at port – could be more efficient and it’s possible to add spaces. Attendance City of Edmonds • Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director • Renee McRae, Interim Assistant Parks Director Project team members Packet Page 242 of 411 Online Open House #3 Summary Updated 7/13/2015 Page 3 of 3 • Chris Jones, Walker Macy • Mike Zilis, Walker Macy • Keeley O’Connell, Earth Corps • Dave Cline, Shannon and Wilson • Katie DeLeuw, EnviroIssues Members of the public: Approximately 30 Comment [KD1]: Renee should confirm based on sign-in sheets. Packet Page 243 of 411 This was the first Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting for the Marina Beach Master Plan. The PAC was asked a series of questions related to their park experiences. Carrie provided a project overview, Chris described the schedule and process, Keeley and Jerry provided a description of the Edmonds Marsh/Willow Creek daylighting project. Item Description Action by Due date 1 Question #1: “Describe the recreational opportunities at Marina Beach park.” Passive: Lawn, beach, walking, storm watching, photography, sunbathing, kite flying, picnicking. Active: Off leash dog park, kiteboarding, volleyball, other grass games, kayaking. Potential added program items include a restroom, concessions, additional parking, ADA parking, accessible loop trail, connections, shelter, fire pit, hand launch area, bike racks. Passive area (lawn) is very popular in summer. Some people bring their own volleyball set. BBQ areas are well used. Also used as bonfire pits. Bonfires are popular. Historically, concerns have been raised by the fire department due to the oil line. Natural driftwood is a nice amenity. It’s been useful for staging outdoor classes as seating elements. Don’t duplicate uses. Keep as natural as possible. 2 Diane and Rich described the high use of the off leash dog park. Approx. 30,000 plastic bags are used every six weeks. Approx. 1,000 dogs/day. Every seven seconds the dog gate opens. Attendees: Carrie Hite Diane Buckshnis Keeley O’Connell Janice Noe Tess Cayou Laura Leeman Rich Lindsay Renee McRae Richard Schaefer Jerry Shuster Valerie Stewart Chris Jones Attachments: Time: 10:00-12:00 Topic: Project Advisory Committee Meeting Date: 2/6/2015 Location: Edmonds City Hall Project: Marina Beach Master Plan Project #: P3089.01 MEETING MINUTES Packet Page 244 of 411 Project Advisory Committee Meeting #1 MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN 2/6/2015 Page 2 of 4 Item Description Action by Due date 3 Laura suggested accessibility should be addressed in the master plan. Especially to the playground, but also throughout the park, and to the beach. 4 Question #2: “Are there conflicts among park uses? And, are there any program elements that should move out of Marina Beach or be moved to Marina Beach?” Some mentioned it is not clear that dogs are not allowed at Marina Beach outside of the off leash dog area. This seems to be the only conflict in the park. Available parking is an issue. Dogs like to swim around the fence and enter the park. 5 Question #3 & #4: “Describe the time of day/night, duration of use of the park. What’s a day in the life of Marina Beach Park?” Marina Beach Park is a dusk to dawn park. The gate opens at dawn and closes at dusk. If lighting were incorporated into the park there’s a concern it would be more appealing for people to enter after hours. If lighting is added, ‘dark sky’ principals should be considered. Early mornings are quiet at the park. Park use is consistent throughout the afternoon. 6 Rich suggested there are memorial benches and picnic tables that will need to be relocated within the park. 7 Question #5: “Describe your thoughts on the daylighting of Willow Creek.” Great opportunity to create more bio- diversity, educational opportunities, and an amenity. 8 Standup paddle boards are popular. A professional said it’s dangerous for paddle boards to go out at this location. 9 Consider the ability to land and stage personal watercraft. Carrie suggested looking into Marina Beach Park’s connection to the Blue Water Trails system. Packet Page 245 of 411 Project Advisory Committee Meeting #1 MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN 2/6/2015 Page 3 of 4 Item Description Action by Due date 10 Question 7: Vehicle considerations: Buses? Maintenance Vehicles? Emergency? Fire? Garbage is gathered with a pickup truck. Buses come most frequently in spring time. Difficult to get them out if they pull in. Five or six buses at a time. It’s an issue. People come from throughout the Puget Sound and don’t need to contact the city or get a permit. Emergency vehicles and fire will need access to the site. 11 Question 6 & 8: “Are the park facilities sufficient in meeting the community’s needs? Is there interest in moving program elements from another park to Marina Beach Park? Facilities, other than parking, are sufficient in meeting the community’s needs. There’s no known need to move program elements, but the question should be asked at the open house. 12 Question 9: “Are there opportunities for more collaborative projects at Marina Beach?” ‘Coneheads’ is a popular concession stand. The appeal is that park goers do not want to move their vehicle during peak periods. Consider building upon this. Consider moving concessions out of designated parking spaces. 13 Sustainability is of high importance. Consider using local materials, natural colors, sustainable stormwater strategies, integrate nature play into natural area, encourage concessions to use compostable and recyclable goods. Look at water use. Use best practices in redevelopment. Consider a compostable toilet and waterless urinals for the restrooms. It would be very expensive to have a traditional restroom constructed on this site given the distance required to provide sewer service. Packet Page 246 of 411 Project Advisory Committee Meeting #1 MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN 2/6/2015 Page 4 of 4 Item Description Action by Due date 14 Question 10: “What are some considerations for maintenance, future uses, and the public process in re-envisioning Marina Beach Park? Considerations: Parks picks up dog waste three times a week. Irrigation system runs in late spring to summer. Trash 2-3 times a day. Tried to do pack out parks-doesn’t work. Mowing on maintenance management plan. This is a peak use park. The new park will likely have a different maintenance regime we will need to consider. 15 Question 11: “What is your perspective on the potential redevelopment efforts that could affect the park?” Ferry Terminal isn’t even in the 2040 plan. High Speed Rail will be considered. At grade crossing mitigation (train trench) is not very realistic financially. General PAC consensus…It makes sense to proceed with Master Planning while giving consideration for these future projects, but they are so far out and unknown. We should proceed with developing a park that is functional for the next 25+ years. The potential of a third rail is the potential conflict with the park program. There’s a BNSF R.O.W along Admiral Way that may impact the park. We need to find the alignment of the third rail. Will be critical area once creek is there. Packet Page 247 of 411 Marina Beach Park 1 Updates Public Open House #2 (5/6/2015) Planning Board Meeting (5/13/2015) City Council Meeting (5/19/2015) Buffers Online Open House 2 Discussion on Options 1 and 2 Parking arrangement is preferred in that it replaces existing # of stalls Turnaround is useful. PAC likes the preservation of existing program elements in the park. Preservation of existing off leash area. Lawn area is reduced in both options. Let’s expand if we can. 3 PAC team supports a turnaround idea. Need to have discussion with Fire Marshall. 4 General support for restroom location in option 1 – not good for dog park users. 5 PAC team suggestion: Add porta-potties to off leash dog area. 6 PAC suggests increasing lawn area in preferred alternative. 7 PAC suggests two bridges and/or consideration of general park users and dogs co- mingling. 2nd bridge could also add a ‘loop’ trail for walkers. 8 Consider maintenance access to lawn area in option 2 adjacent to off leash area. 9 PAC likes the idea of a constructed overlook at UNOCAL dock location. Chris mentioned the Army Corps will likely require removal of the rip rap. 10 Bridges should be designed to be vehicle rated. 11 General support voiced for southern portion of option 2 with overlook and lawn area. 12 PAC prefers replacement of existing play structure with something more natural in color and material. Attendees: Carrie Hite Diane Buckshnis Keeley O’Connell Kevin Conefrey Laura Leeman Rich Lindsay Renee McRae Richard Schaefer Jerry Shuster Susan Smiley Chris Jones Time: 9:00-10:30 Topic: Project Advisory Committee Meeting Date: 5/21/2015 Location: Edmonds City Hall Project: Marina Beach Master Plan Project #: P3089.01 PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Packet Page 248 of 411 Project Advisory Committee Marina Beach Park Master Plan 5/21/2015 Page 2 of 2 13 Discussion about play: Parents enjoy watching their kids while being able to see the water. Safety and visibility of the play area is critical. Some PAC members like the play area location as shown in Option 1. Others like it being moved away from the creek and out of the central lawn space towards the marina. All like the idea of nature play and engaging park users with the creek and potential interpretive elements. Only caveat is consideration of safety when determining the final location. We want to keep park users safe while not diminishing the park experience. 14 Provide BBQ pits not fire pits. 15 PAC agrees on moving the playground to the north and keeping the restroom centrally located. Consider movement between the two in order to minimize circulation across the dropoff. Consider nature play taking on more of a beach feel and not a woodland garden feel. 16 PAC suggests moving the off leash agility course to the south to minimize the potential of dogs going around the fence. 17 PAC suggested removing beach volleyball and providing sleeves in lawn area. 18 Discussion on Kite Boarding/Water Dependent Uses: Carrie met with a representative from the kite boarding community. The group requested a way to educate the community of their staging needs at Marina Beach. Several PAC members suggested signage. 19 Keep existing trees within the off leash area. No structures. 20 Next Steps: July 8, 2015 Open House #3 July 22, 2015 Present Master Plan to Planning Board July 28, 2015 Present Master Plan to City Council July/August Comment Period November Adoption of Master Plan Packet Page 249 of 411 Marina Beach Park 1 Discussion of Preferred Alternative 2 PAC team supports a turnaround idea. Need to have discussion with Fire Marshall. 3 General support for restroom location in option 1 – not good for dog park users. 4 PAC team suggestion: Add porta-potties to off leash dog area. 5 PAC suggests increasing lawn area in preferred alternative. 6 PAC suggests two bridges and/or consideration of general park users and dogs co- mingling. 2nd bridge could also add a ‘loop’ trail for walkers. 7 Consider maintenance access to lawn area in option 2 adjacent to off leash area. 8 PAC likes the idea of a constructed overlook at UNOCAL dock location. Chris mentioned the Army Corps will likely require removal of the rip rap. 9 Bridges should be designed to be vehicle rated. 10 General support voiced for southern portion of option 2 with overlook and lawn area. 11 PAC prefers replacement of existing play structure with something more natural in color and material. 12 Discussion about play: Parents enjoy watching their kids while being able to see the water. Safety and visibility of the play area is critical. Some PAC members like the play area location as shown in Option 1. Others like it being moved away from the creek and out of the central lawn space towards the marina. All like the idea of nature play and engaging park users with the creek and potential interpretive elements. Only caveat is consideration of safety when determining the final location. We want to keep park users safe while not diminishing the park experience. 13 Provide BBQ pits not fire pits. 14 PAC agrees on moving the playground to the north and keeping the restroom centrally located. Consider movement between the two in order to minimize circulation across the dropoff. Consider nature play taking on more of a beach feel and not a woodland garden feel. Attendees: Carrie Hite Diane Buckshnis Keeley O’Connell Kevin Conefrey Laura Leeman Rich Lindsay Renee McRae Richard Schaefer Jerry Shuster Susan Smiley Chris Jones Time: 9:00-10:30 Topic: Project Advisory Committee Meeting Date: 6/30/2015 Location: Edmonds City Hall Project: Marina Beach Master Plan Project #: P3089.01 PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Packet Page 250 of 411 Project Advisory Committee Marina Beach Park Master Plan 6/30/2015 Page 2 of 2 15 PAC suggests moving the off leash agility course to the south to minimize the potential of dogs going around the fence. 16 PAC suggested removing beach volleyball and providing sleeves in lawn area. 17 Discussion on Kite Boarding/Water Dependent Uses: Carrie met with a representative from the kite boarding community. The group requested a way to educate the community of their staging needs at Marina Beach. Several PAC members suggested signage. 18 Keep existing trees within the off leash area. No structures. 19 Next Steps: July 8, 2015 Open House #3 July 22, 2015 Present Master Plan to Planning Board July 28, 2015 Present Master Plan to City Council July/August Comment Period November Adoption of Master Plan Packet Page 251 of 411 Marina Beach Park 1 Presented Option C-Not vetted 2 High tide-ordinary high water 10’ 3 2 purposes • Salmon-new stakeholder • Flooding-help with SR104 4 Dog park • Physical barrier on S side, esp. C to keep dogs from going in water • If you allow dogs in buffer, build a bigger buffer • Off leash area-surprised by balance-city looking at off leash area • No strong voices against • What do we show public-reduce, remove, relocate • Keep dog park in same area-smaller footprint 5 150 visitors-only 15 commenting Will we keep info from OH on website? 6 Parking alternatives • Parking reduces recreational value of park • Is there a goal to keep same # of parking spots? Yes, not increase • Types of uses you can accommodate with capacity of parking Attendees: Carrie Hite Diane Buckshnis Keeley O’Connell Kevin Conefrey Laura Leeman Rich Lindsay Renee McRae Richard Schaefer Jerry Shuster Susan Smiley Chris Jones Time: Topic: MB Pac Meeting Meeting Date: 3/27/2015 Location: Edmonds City Hall Project: Marina Beach Master Plan Project #: P3089.01 PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Packet Page 252 of 411 Project Advisory Committee Marina Beach Park Master Plan 3/27/2015 Page 2 of 2 7 Buffers: • Develop A & B using smaller buffer. • Could qualify for buffer reduction • Stream buffers are there to protect creek and wildlife in creek • If B provides larger benefit for fish, can we reduce buffer? • Southern portion of channel & buffer should be greater because of adjacent use • Larger pool of funding. Surf-funding only benefits fish • Does reducing buffer compromise federal funding • Is the 100’ based on buffer averaging? Don’t know-hasn’t been challenged yet. • What can be done in buffer? • Will look at buffered A & B-add buffer to south on C • Rain gardens, permeable pavement, concentrated buffer Waiting for this process to go through before submitting final feasibility study 8 Longer the channel, better for fish-more northerly outlet is better 9 Overall area-consideration? Not how current CAO reads 10 How much funding? $180k $200k $60k--$5 million entire project 11 To maintain federal grants-100’ buffer 12 Proportionate uses of area 13 Existing size inadequate 14 Look at creek as another use 15 More natural play area 16 With option B or C, use of area near brk ? will shift 17 Prom. Point-national separation-develop into really nice feature at park 18 Maps-fantastic • Hard to visualize • What does it feel like to be in a buffer • Provide local photos of person walking through buffer • What does it look like when creek hits the ? • Photo images of buffer Packet Page 253 of 411 Marina Beach Park 1 City is allowing for 50% buffer reduction Moving forward with 50% buffer unless we hear differently from some of the grant sources 2 Shoreline jurisdiction allows for reduction and averaging • DOE 35’-75’ • Do they agree with our interpretation? • Portion of marsh in different category • Beach eco ex-different category 3 Buffer averaging with enhancement 4 Is the gate where the marsh starts? Wherever intertidal goes falls under this jurisdiction 5 Beach buffer is sand-how to limit use-no hard surfaces, structures 6 Passive recreation in buffer Area of buffer that could be plant will be 7 Important that people understand buffer-kids can still play in sand 8 Show it as green to where you can plant 9 Area that includes buffer and creek will take 150’ of park 10 Feeling more comfortable, we can look at 50’ buffer, keep active rec. 11 Stub out for restroom on north end of park 12 Nature play in buffer area, not structured play 13 Parking • More comments-we need about the same • More parking, would include park use, overcrowd • Dog owners only stay about 1 hour • Show alternate ways of getting to park-walking paths, biking • Uses of parking different as far as staying at beach Attendees: Carrie Hite Diane Buckshnis Keeley O’Connell Kevin Conefrey Laura Leeman Rich Lindsay Renee McRae Richard Schaefer Jerry Shuster Susan Smiley Chris Jones Time: 9:00-10:30 Topic: MB PAC Meeting Meeting Date: 4/24/2015 Location: Edmonds City Hall Project: Marina Beach Master Plan Project #: P3089.01 PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Packet Page 254 of 411 Project Advisory Committee Marina Beach Park Master Plan 4/24/2015 Page 2 of 3 14 For next OH meeting • Port parking spaces • Reasonable drop off area • Circulation • Center median island • 52 stalls take up significant portion of park • Lay 50’ buffer over all alignments after alignment cuts through parking as it is today • Look at restrictions of dogs on walkways-would be hard on dog owners • Center island for storm water management 15 A Pros • Most contiguous park space remaining • Cost-won’t require a bridge • No interest in developing further property • Separates railroad tracks from park A Cons • Relocates dog park • Sharp turn-build more structures, added cost • Not a good option from fish, hydraulic, dog perspective 16 B Pros • Best for salmon • Keeps dog park in same configuration-could expand B Cons • Reduces active recreation significantly • Not cohesive for active recreation • Financial challenges-2 bridges-do we need 2? Add to flow Less likely to cross creek Would need to double back with only one bridge Limit where dogs can cross? Safer with 2 bridges More opportunity 17 Test pits- no contaminant found in ones done. Example of bridges, ? put in these over McAleer Creek at ? 18 Keep dogs fenced south of point-keep same footprint-dogs will be fenced out of portion of buffer Packet Page 255 of 411 Project Advisory Committee Marina Beach Park Master Plan 4/24/2015 Page 3 of 3 19 With 2 footbridges, use as an overlook-plaza feel in park-benches, art, solitary point 20 Creek 11’ deep at HHT How will design prevent drowning? • Restrict access • Barriers, education • Safety is a major concern • Erosion problems-Carkeek & Meadowdale We should show some due diligence When designing-need balance-can’t be too narrow Designed for small fish that can’t swim with velocity Tidal influence, more like Swinomish slough Jetty Island-ex. tidal channel feeding marsh-active rec space, ex. limitation of space • Ecola state park • Kalaloche • Nisqually • Sammamish 21 C Pros • More space for active recreation • Still have dog park 22 B & C similar Packet Page 256 of 411 AM-7909 5. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/18/2015 Time:20 Minutes Submitted By:Kernen Lien Department:Planning Type: Action Information Subject Title Public Hearing on a permanent ordinance amending Chapter 20.02 ECDC including a new Section ECDC 20.02.004 to deem a development application withdrawn if an irreconcilable application is submitted later and relocating Section ECDC 20.07.007 regarding resubmission of applications after denial to new Section ECDC 20.02.006. Recommendation Adopt ordinance provided as Attachment 1. Previous Council Action The City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 3992 (Attachment 2) as an emergency ordinance on March 17, 2015 and adopted findings of fact in support of Interim Ordinance No. 3992 in Resolution No. 1336 (Attachment 3) on June 2, 2015. Narrative The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3992 as an emergency interim zoning ordinance on March 17, 2015. Interim ordinances may be effective for not longer than six months (with the possibility of extensions). The Planning Board have reviewed regulations related to irreconcilable applications in a work session on June 10, 2015 (Attachment 4) and held a public hearing on July 8, 2015 (Attachment 5) after which the Planning Board forwarded a recommendation as incorporated in Attachment 1 as a permanent ordinance to replace Interim Ordinance No. 3992. The ordinance in Attachment 1 addresses irreconcilable applications on the same property in a new section 20.02.004 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The effect of the ordinance is that if an second application is made on the same property as a previous application and the two projects have locations or features that would be “irreconcilable”, the first application would be deemed withdrawn and will not be processed further. The following are examples that are provided in the ordinance: 1. Examples of irreconcilable applications that result in withdrawal. a. Applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, another application is submitted for a three-lot short plat on the same property. Assuming there is not enough land area for seven lots, the two applications are irreconcilable because one could not construct both short plats. Hence, the four-lot short plat is deemed withdrawn. b. Applicant submits a design review application for a twenty-unit multi-family housing development. Subsequently, another design review application is submitted for a thirty-unit multi-family housing Packet Page 257 of 411 development whose footprint would substantially overlap with the footprint of the structure shown for the twenty-unit application. Because both structures would occupy substantially the same space they are irreconcilable and the twenty-unit application would be deemed withdrawn. 2. Examples of applications that may be inconsistent but are not irreconcilable resulting in withdrawal. a. Applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, a building permit application is submitted for a single-family home the footprint of which would encroach into the setbacks as measured from the proposed short plat lot lines. Because the building permit application could be corrected to properly locate the footprint, the applications are reconcilable and do not effect a withdrawal of the short plat application. b. Applicant submits a landscaping plan that is inconsistent in an insignificant way with civil site-improvement plans that are submitted for the same property. If the two sets of plans can be reconciled by submitting a corrected version of at least one of the two plans, then city staff would seek corrections and withdrawal would not be deemed to occur. A second part of the ordinance relocates ECDC 20.07.007 to ECDC 20.02.006. This section has to do with the resubmission of an application after denial. Moving this section is proposed since Chapter 20.02 Development Project Permit Applications is a more appropriate chapter for the code to be located in than Chapter 20.07 Closed Record Appeals. Attachments Attachment 1 - Ordinance Irreconcilable Applications Attachment 2 - Interim Ordinance No. 3992 Attachment 3 - Resolution No. 1336 Attachment 4 - June 10, 2015 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Attachment 5 - July 8, 2015 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 07/30/2015 09:08 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/30/2015 09:37 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/30/2015 09:45 AM Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 07/30/2015 07:28 AM Final Approval Date: 07/30/2015 Packet Page 258 of 411 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, THAT REMOVES THE SUNSET CLAUSE FROM THE REGULATIONS INITALLY ADOPTED WITH INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE 3992, REMOVING THE SUNSET CLAUSE FROM THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO DEEMED WITHDRAWAL IN THE CASE OF IRRECONCILABLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND RECODIFICATION OF THE SECTION RELATED TO RESUBMITTAL OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AFTER DENIAL. WHEREAS, the Washington courts have stated that land use applications are subject to the legal doctrine of res judicata which affords every party one, but not more than one, fair adjudication of his or her application, Lejeune v. Clallam County, 64 Wn. App. 257, 266, 823 P.2d 1144, 1149 (1992); and WHEREAS, it would not be in the public interest for the city staff to process multiple irreconcilable applications to develop the same property when it would be physically possible to construct only one such development; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds Community Development Code had been silent on the legal effect of filing multiple irreconcilable applications to develop the same property; and WHEREAS, in fairness to both the city and future applicants, the city council sought to clarify the legal effect of filing a subsequent irreconcilable application for development; and WHEREAS, the city council adopted interim zoning ordinance 3992 on March 17, 2015, which adopted regulations clarifying the legal effect of submitting multiple irreconcilable applications to develop the same property; and WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on interim ordinance 3992 on June 2, 2015; and WHEREAS, the city council adopted findings of fact justifying interim ordinance 3992 with Resolution 1336, which was adopted on June 2, 2015; and Packet Page 259 of 411 WHEREAS, the planning board considered these regulations during a work session on June 10, 2015 and a public hearing on July 8, 2015; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2015, the planning board voted unanimously to recommend that the city council adopt the irreconcilable applications regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 20.02.004 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled “Effect of irreconcilable applications on the same property,” which was initially adopted with interim ordinance 3992 is hereby re-adopted without a sunset clause to read as follows: ECDC 20.02.004. Effect of irreconcilable applications on the same property. A. If an applicant submits an application that cannot be reconciled with a previously submitted application on the same property, the previously submitted application shall be deemed withdrawn by the applicant and it shall be rendered null and void. The director shall notify the applicant that the previously submitted application has been deemed withdrawn and will not be processed any further. Withdrawal shall be deemed to occur even when the city has finished processing the previously submitted application. B. Many inconsistencies between applications can be reconciled through corrections that are made during the development review process. This section is not intended to treat all inconsistencies as effecting a withdrawal of the earlier application. C. Without limiting the generality of subsection A, above, the following examples are intended to illustrate whether a subsequent application shall be deemed irreconcilable with an earlier application. 1. Examples of irreconcilable applications that result in withdrawal. a. Applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, another application is submitted for a three-lot short plat on the same property. Assuming there is not enough land area for seven Packet Page 260 of 411 lots, the two applications are irreconcilable because one could not construct both short plats. Hence, the four-lot short plat is deemed withdrawn. b. Applicant submits a design review application for a twenty-unit multi-family housing development. Subsequently, another design review application is submitted for a thirty-unit multi-family housing development whose footprint would substantially overlap with the footprint of the structure shown for the twenty-unit application. Because both structures would occupy substantially the same space they are irreconcilable and the twenty-unit application would be deemed withdrawn. 2. Examples of applications that may be inconsistent but are not irreconcilable resulting in withdrawal. a. Applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, a building permit application is submitted for a single-family home the footprint of which would encroach into the setbacks as measured from the proposed short plat lot lines. Because the building permit application could be corrected to properly locate the footprint, the applications are reconcilable and do not effect a withdrawal of the short plat application. b. Applicant submits a landscaping plan that is inconsistent in an insignificant way with civil site-improvement plans that are submitted for the same property. If the two sets of plans can be reconciled by submitting a corrected version of at least one of the two plans, then city staff would seek corrections and withdrawal would not be deemed to occur. Section 2. Section 20.07.007 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled “Resubmission of application,” which was initially recodified as Section 20.02.006 with interim ordinance 3992 is hereby recodified without a sunset clause to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through): ECDC 20.02.006. Resubmission of application after denial. Packet Page 261 of 411 Any permit application or other request for approval submitted pursuant to this title that is denied shall not be resubmitted or accepted by the director for review for a period of twelve months from the date of the last action by the city on the application or request unless, in the opinion of the director, there has been a significant change in the application or a significant change in conditions related to the impacts of the proposed project. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 262 of 411 5 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2015, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, THAT REMOVES THE SUNSET CLAUSE FROM THE REGULATIONS INITALLY ADOPTED WITH INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE 3992, REMOVING THE SUNSET CLAUSE FROM THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO DEEMED WITHDRAWAL IN THE CASE OF IRRECONCILABLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND RECODIFICATION OF THE SECTION RELATED TO RESUBMITTAL OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AFTER DENIAL. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2015. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 263 of 411 Packet Page 264 of 411 Packet Page 265 of 411 Packet Page 266 of 411 Packet Page 267 of 411 Packet Page 268 of 411 Packet Page 269 of 411 Packet Page 270 of 411 Packet Page 271 of 411 Packet Page 272 of 411 Packet Page 273 of 411 Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 11 tracking the action items in the SAP will also measure many of the goals and policies contained in the fore mentioned plans. He noted that there are currently 82 action items identified in the SAP, and all have been assigned leads. Again, he said the EDC is working to create a tracking mechanism that is available to the public on line to find out the status of each of the action items. Chair Tibbott said it is his understanding that most, if not all, of the Main Street Project east of 4th Avenue was funded via a grant, and the City paid for the utilities to be undergrounded. Ms. Hope said a large portion of the project was grant funded. Chair Tibbott asked if there are any grant opportunities that might be applicable to a project that improves Main Street towards the water. Ms. Hope said there are no known funding sources at this time, but staff will continue to look for opportunities. Chair Tibbott asked to what extent the Comprehensive Plan could address aesthetic issues, particularly on Highway 99. Ms. Hope answered that the Comprehensive Plan could contain broad statements, but specific codes and regulations would come as part of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan that is planned for the near future. The Development Codes would have to be updated to implement the goals and policies contained in the subarea plan once it is adopted. Board Member Stewart suggested that Policy B.2 on Page 74 of the Land Use Element should be expanded to address more than just the beach and near-shore environments. She recalled that, as a leader in the Discovery Program, she also took children into the forested areas to teach them to leave elements in place for animals to use. She suggested the language be changed to read, “Prevent unnecessary disturbances of native species in their respective habitats.” Ms. Hope referred to Board Member Stewart’s earlier suggestion that the term “natural” should be changed to “native” throughout the document. She reported that Mr. Chave reviewed the document and tried to identify when “natural” and “native” would be the appropriate. She asked for additional direction from the Board about whether or not they want to change “natural” to “native” in all cases throughout the document. She pointed out that native habitat and plants are important, but there are times when non-native plants are also very useful in the environment. Chair Tibbott asked if it would be possible to identify specific areas in the City where native plants would be required, and the term “natural” could be applied to all remaining areas. Ms. Hope explained that the language in the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies will help inform what the Development Code should be. If the Comprehensive Plan says “native” but the intent is really to allow some other “natural” species, it may be difficult to adopt or amend the code while taking this policy into account. Chair Tibbott asked if it would be possible to articulate natural landscaping, with a preference for native. Ms. Hope agreed that this approach would put the focus on native species, but it would not be exclusive. Board Member Stewart reminded the Board that the City has been identified as a National Wildlife Habitat Community, which means it should encourage property owners to plant species that benefit and support wildlife. However, she agreed that perhaps it would not be appropriate to require native species in all situations, and she encouraged the staff to use their best judgment. Chair Tibbott inquired how staff would address the comments and recommendations put forth by the Board. Ms. Hope commented that the input and suggestions provided by the Board would not be considered substantive changes in policy direction. The Board could simple make a recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan Update, including the changes the have been discussed. Chair Tibbott noted that the City Council would also have the benefit of the meeting minutes, which will become part of the public record. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PROPOSED AND INCLUDING THE INPUT AND COMMENTS DISCUSSED AND AGREED TO BY THE PLANNING BOARD DURING AND FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 10, 2015. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. INTRODUCTION TO IRRECONCILABLE APPLICATIONS CODE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 Mr. Lien reviewed that the City Council adopted Ordinance 3992 as an emergency interim zoning ordinance on March 17th. As the interim ordinance expires in six months, the Planning Board must review the language and forward a recommendation for a permanent ordinance to the City Council by September. A public hearing before the Planning Board is tentatively set for July 8th. He explained that the intent of the interim ordinance is to address irreconcilable applications on the same Packet Page 274 of 411 Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 12 property. As per the interim ordinance, if a second application is made on the same property as a previous application and the two projects have locations or features that could be irreconcilable, the first application would be deemed withdrawn and will not be processed further. To clarify the interim ordinance as it relates to irreconcilable applications that result in withdrawal, he provided the following examples: 1. An applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particularly property. Subsequently, another application is submitted for a three-lot short plat on the same property. Assuming there is not enough land area for seven lots, the two applications would be considered irreconcilable because one could not construct both short plats. Hence the four-lot short plat application would be deemed withdrawn. 2. An applicant submits an application for design review of a 20-unit, multi-family development and subsequently, another design review is submitted for a 30-unit development whose footprint would substantially overlap with the footprint of the structure shown for the 20-unit application. Because both structures would occupy the same space, they would be considered irreconcilable and the 20-unit application would be deemed withdrawn. To clarify the ordinance as it relates to applications that may be inconsistent but are not irreconcilable resulting in withdrawal, Mr. Lien provided the following examples. 1. An applicant submits a four-lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, a building permit application is submitted for a single-family home, the footprint of which would encroach into the setbacks as measured from the proposed short plat lot lines. Because the building permit application could be corrected to properly locate the footprint, the applications are reconcilable and do not effect a withdrawal of the short plat application. 2. An applicant submits a landscaping plan that is inconsistent in an insignificant way with civil site-improvement plans that are submitted for the same property. If the two sets of plans can be reconciled by submitting a correct version of at least one of the two plans, City staff would seek corrections and withdrawal would not be deemed to occur. Mr. Lien said a second part of the interim ordinance relocated a section that had to do with the resubmission of an application after denial from Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.07 (Closed Record Appeals) to ECDC 20.02 (Development Project Permit Applications). As per the language in this provision, an applicant could not be able to resubmit an application within a 12-month period of denial unless there has been a significant change. Vice Chair Lovell requested clarification of the provision that would be in ECDC 20.02.006. Mr. Lien said this provision is already in the code, and the proposed change would simply relocate it from its current location in 20.07.007. The title to the section would be changed, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig asked who would be responsible for determining whether or not there has been significant change. Mr. Lien answered that the decision would be made by the Planning Director. Board Member Rubenkonig also asked why the first application, rather than the second application would be deemed withdrawn. Mr. Lien pointed out that applications can only be submitted by property owners, and it is assumed that the most recent application would be the one the property owner wants to put forward. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the draft ordinance would be scheduled for a public hearing on July 8th. The Board took a break from 9:15 to 9:25. CONTINUED REVIEW OF DRAFT CODE FOR THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE Chair Tibbott explained that Mr. Lien would present the Staff Report relative to the CAO Update. However, due to the lateness of the hour, the Board Members would not be invited to comment and discuss the proposed changes following the presentation. Instead, the Board Members can email their comments and recommendations directly to staff so they can be incorporated into the final version that is scheduled for a public hearing in July. Packet Page 275 of 411 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 2 Mr. Blumenkamp referred to the design standards, which require that trees and shrubs be shown on the proposed landscape plan and incorporated into the landscape plan if they are reasonably attractive and of good quality. He noted that with the project he referenced earlier on 232nd Street, the developer removed approximately 13 trees that were 20 inches or more in caliper. His guess is that most of these trees were healthy and attractive. He summarized that the City needs to be very careful when writing and interpreting code, and they need to follow the adopted codes that are in place. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Mr. Chave referred the Board to the written report that was prepared by the Development Services Director and included in the Board’s packet. Vice Chair Lovell referred to the information provided in the report relative to the State Legislature approving an operating budget, including a transportation package that provides funding for a number of projects that will benefit Edmonds. The report also notes that the Legislature authorized local jurisdictions to raise their vehicle license tab fee from $20 to $40 per year to fund local transportation districts for local improvements. He asked if the City intends to pursue this option. Mr. Chave answered that the issue has not been discussed by the City Council, but it may come up as part of the upcoming budget discussions. Board Member Robles asked if the railroad crossing study would only address vehicular traffic or if it would include pedestrian and human-powered vehicles, as well. He also questioned if the study would be coordinated with the work that is being done at South County Park. Mr. Chave answered that the two projects are not related, but the City’s analysis would look at all modes of travel and not just focus on vehicular traffic. The intent is to review the alternatives and identify the best and most feasible solutions. Chair Tibbott confirmed that Vice Chair Lovell would be the Planning Board representative at the sand sculpting contest on July 17th. Vice Chair Lovell thanked the Development Services Director for producing the report on a regular basis. The report provides value and keeps the Planning Commission up to date. He commented that he is encouraged by the State Legislature’s approval of a number of items that are important to Edmonds , and he hopes it leads to some positive developments in the future. PUBLIC HEARING ON IRRECONCILABLE APPLICATIONS CODE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 (FILE NUMBER AMD20150001 Mr. Lien recalled that the proposed amendments were first introduced to the Planning Board on June 10th. He reviewed that the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance 3992 on March 17 th as an interim ordinance to address irreconcilable applications on the same property (ECDC 20.02.004). Interim ordinances may be effective for no longer than six months. The Planning Board is being asked to review the interim ordinance and make a recommendation to the City Council on a permanent ordinance that addresses irreconcilable applications. He referred to the draft ordinance (Attachment 2), noting that it is the same language that is contained in the interim ordinance. He explained that the intent of the interim ordinance is to address irreconcilable applications on the same property. As per the interim ordinance, if a second application is made on the same property as a previous application and the two projects have locations or features that could be irreconcilable, the first application would be deemed withdrawn and would not be processed further. To clarify the interim ordinance as it relates to irreconcilable applications that result in withdrawal, he provided the following examples: 1. An applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, another application is submitted for a three-lot short plat on the same property. Assuming there is not enough land area for seven lots, the two applications would be considered irreconcilable because one could not construct both short plats. Hence the four-lot short plat application would be deemed withdrawn. 2. An applicant submits an application for design review of a 20-unit, multi-family development and subsequently, another design review application is submitted for a 30-unit development whose footprint would substantially Packet Page 276 of 411 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 3 overlap with the footprint of the structure shown for the 20-unit application. Because both structures would occupy the same space, they would be considered irreconcilable and the 20-unit application would be deemed withdrawn. To clarify the ordinance as it relates to applications that may be inconsistent but are not irreconcilable resulting in withdrawal, Mr. Lien provided the following examples. 1. An applicant submits a four-lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, a building permit application is submitted for a single-family home, the footprint of which would encroach into the setbacks as measured from the proposed short plat lot lines. Because the building permit application could be corrected to properly locate the footprint, the applications are reconcilable and do not effect a withdrawal of the short plat application. 2. An applicant submits a landscaping plan that is inconsistent in an insignificant way with civil site-improvement plans that are submitted for the same property. If the two sets of plans can be reconciled by submitting a correct version of at least one of the two plans, City staff would seek corrections and withdrawal would not be deemed to occur. Mr. Lien said a second part of the interim ordinance relocated a section that had to do with the resubmission of an application after denial from Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.07 (Closed Record Appeals) to ECDC 20.02 (Development Project Permit Applications). As per the language in this provision, an applicant would not be able to resubmit an application within a 12-month period of denial unless there has been a significant change. Mr. Lien recommended the Board forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the code amendments for Irreconcilable Applications and Resubmission of Application After Denial as contained in Attachment 2. Scott Blumenkamp, Edmonds, pointed out that the term “substantial” is very open and vague. He suggested that a better definition be provided. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Vice Chair Lovell requested further clarification of the proposed language related to the resubmission of applications after denial. Mr. Lien emphasized that this proposed change would simply relocate the existing language in ECDC 20.07.007 to ECDC 20.02.006. The existing language has to do with applications that are denied at some point during the review process, and is unrelated to the proposed language relative to irreconcilable applications. As currently written, an application cannot be resubmitted within a 12-month period unless substantial changes have been made. Vice Chair Lovell referred to Mr. Blumenkamp’s comment and asked staff to provide some examples of what would be considered “substantial change” to an application that was denied that might warrant looking at it again. Mr. Lien said it would be difficult to provide specific standards for “significant change,” since the provision can apply to numerous types of projects. However, he explained that applications are denied for specific reasons, and a significant change could be that the application was altered to address the reasons for denial. For example, if a building permit is denied because it does not meet coverage or setback requirements, the applicant could alter the proposal to meet the standards and then resubmit the application without waiting for 12 months. Vice Chair Lovell suggested that perhaps the language could be revised to make it clear that revising an application to correct the findings that led to the denial would be considered a “substantial change.” Board Member Cheung reviewed that, as proposed, if a second application is made on the same property as a previous application and the two applications are considered irreconcilable, the first application would be deemed invalid and the second application would apply. He asked if staff would notify the applicant when these situations occur, and Mr. Lien answered that applicants would be notified in writing. Board Member Cheung asked if applicants would also have the ability to modify and/or clarify the first application before it is deemed invalid. Mr. Lien said applicants would have the ability to modify the first application to correct mistakes and then withdraw the second application instead. Mr. Lien explained that the interim ordinance was adopted to address an emergency situation related to a current project application that is under appeal in Superior Court. The applicant expressed a desire to submit a second application without withdrawing the first application. The interim ordinance, as well as the draft permanent ordinance, would require the Packet Page 277 of 411 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 4 applicant to choose between the first or second application. He noted that this applicant was notified of the interim ordinance right after it was adopted. Chair Tibbott asked staff to provide examples of “substantial changes” in conditions. Mr. Lien said that, in the case of a rezone application, substantial changes could include changes in the rezone criteria, encroachment of additional development, and changes to the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that it would be difficult to cite specific examples of substantial change in the code language because the provision applies to many different application types. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that rather than coming up with specific examples of what would be considered substantial change, it is more important to identify who would be responsible for making the determination. As currently written, the Development Services Director would make the determination, and he/she would be required to act within certain constraints as a representative of the City. The proposed amendment is intended to tidy up the code by placing the provision in a more appropriate location. If the City experiences a rash of situations, precedence could be established over time on how to handle the issue. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the draft language is consistent with the language that was adopted as part of the interim ordinance. Mr. Lien advised that the interim ordinance is outlined in Attachment 1, and the proposed language for the permanent ordinance is contained in Attachment 2. Although the language in both attachments is consistent, the Board is only being asked to review the draft language in Attachment 2 and forward a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Monroe asked how other cities address irreconcilable applications. Mr. Lien said he does not know how other cities address the issue. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE CODE AMENDMENTS FOR IRRECONCILABLE APPLICATIONS AND RESUBMISSION OF APPLICATION AFTER DENIAL AS CONTAINED IN ATTACHMENT 2. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT CODE FOR THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE Mr. Lien reviewed that the Board received an introduction to the CAO update on March 25 th and was provided copies of the 2015 Best Available Science (BAS) Report and 2015 Addendum, as well as a Gap Analysis Matrix (Attachments 1 and 2). Staff reviewed potential updates to the CAO (Attachment 3) on April 22 nd and June 10th. He reminded the Board that all cities and counties in the State are required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) to adopt critical areas regulations. State law also requires that the regulations be updated periodically. Critical areas include wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, critical aquifer recharge areas (none in Edmonds), frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas (erosion, landslide and seismic hazard areas). Mr. Lien advised that the City’s current CAO was last updated in 2005, and the BAS Report was last updated in 2004. The City hired consultant, ESA, to assist in updating the 2004 BAS Report and identify changes that are needed in the CAO for consistency with BAS. The consultant and staff reviewed the administrative procedures, as well. He highlighted the proposed changes as follows: Geologically Hazardous Areas. Changes to this section include revising how landslide hazard areas are defined and updating the geotechnical report requirements. In addition, rather than establishing standard buffers and setbacks from landslide hazard areas, appropriate buffers and setbacks will be determined by a geotechnical report. Wetlands. Changes in this section include updating the delineation standards and wetland categories to be consistent with the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) Guidance for Small Cities. Specifically, buf fer widths would be determined by a combination of the category of wetland and habitat score. Required mitigation ratios were also changed to be consistent with the DOE’s Guidance for Small Cities. In addition, the exemption section (ECDC 23.50.040(K) was updated to address small hydrologically isolated wetlands (Category III and IV wetlands that are less than 1,000 square feet). As proposed, certain wetland provisions would not apply to small isolated wetlands, but they would not be exempt Packet Page 278 of 411 AM-7916 6. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/18/2015 Time:30 Minutes Submitted By:Mary Ann Hardie Department:Human Resources Committee: Type: Action Information Subject Title 2015 NonRepresented Compensation Survey policy discussion Recommendation Council be briefed on existing policy, and give staff direction on policy development for this year’s study. This policy was adopted by Council in November of 2012, following a compensation study of the NonRepresented positions, including a salary process and policy developed by direction from Council coordinated through HR using Public Sector Personnel Consultants (PSPC) Discussion. Previous Council Action Council adopted the most recent non represented employee compensation policy in 2012. It was adopted following a comprehensive compensation study completed by Public Sector Personnel Consultants (PSPC). Narrative Attached is a final form of the NonRepresented Compensation Policy adopted by Council in November of 2012. Current Policy The City was successful (through Council adoption and approval) in implementing a step pay scale for the NonRepresented employees that has: 1) provided a more objective method or pay equity for employees to link pay to performance, providing a fair market salary for current employees, and 2) a pay system that prevents compression (difference in pay between subordinate and supervisor positions) and for the City to recruit and retain a competitive workforce. The compensation (salary) policy provides a 35% spread between the top and bottom of each salary range, with seven steps per range, with approximate 5% between each step. For employees with an annual performance evaluation that “meets standards,” these employees are eligible for a step increase each year until they reach the top step of the salary range. The City’ compensation philosophy has been to pay at the median of the external market salary ranges. Each position will maintain a salary range between 5% high/low of the mid-point of the comparator city median. In addition, any position whose salary exceeds the top of the approved salary range will be frozen until such time that the market rates support pay range adjustment for their job classification. Any Packet Page 279 of 411 employee whose actual salary falls below the median of their current salary range will prompt a recommendation to be assigned to a new salary range within the salary range table that places the position closest to the comparator city median. Per the policy, every three years, the HR department is to conduct compensation surveys for each of the non-represented, benchmark positions (with an approximate 80% match of duties to comparator cities) no later than September 1, every three years. The results of the survey (including any recommendations for changes as determined by the Mayor), will be brought forward to Council for review, discussion and approval. For this reason, the HR department began the survey process of the NonRepresented positions starting in May of 2015. Policy Discussion Part of the compensation review and survey process includes review of the policy as well. Staff would like to get some direction from Council on a few policy items before applying the survey results for any recommendations. Compensation survey components As the City continues working through this year’s compensation survey, there are a few items that warrant further review as follows: 1) Labor Market The labor market is a key part of the data gathering for the compensation survey. This includes the area or “market” that employees are hired from, the market employees are being hired to and in which market (public sector primarily) that the City competes in. Other components of determining the labor market to set salary factors (for comparator cities) include: • Industry- (professional, technical or executive, administrative and managerial) • Employee count • Revenue • Geography • population size • geographic area • assessed valuation • general fund and total fund budget • size of organization, services offered and span of control • non-management group comparators Currently, the policy adopted by Council in 2012 defines the labor market as Cities with plus/minus 10,000 population of Edmonds, in King, Snohomish, Pierce, Thurston, and Kitsap Counties. Initial recommendations from staff for Council to consider (with regard to the labor market) include: • Defining the labor market as Cities with plus/minus 20,000 population of Edmonds, in King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties. 2) Compensation Factors The components of compensation include base salary and other compensation or “fixed pay” including Packet Page 280 of 411 other direct payments: insurance, deferred compensation, leave, merit pay and incentive pays (education, longevity). • Both salary and fixed and incentive pays comprise compensation. • Salary alone is a primary consideration and one component compensation, but the fixed pay is a critical part of the recruitment and retention process and provides external equity, pay fairness and internal pay equity. • Not considering these items impact existing compression issues (between subordinate and supervisor compensation). When the policy was adopted by Council in 2012, salary and fixed pay (which make up total cost of compensation), reflected as " total compensation" were considered by Council. The Council was able to adopt a policy that assisted with salary concerns, and also added management leave as part of a total compensation package. Council was asked to consider a longevity incentive which mirrored the comparable cities, but did not reach an agreement on this piece of compensation. It is recommended that consideration be given to both salary and fixed pay components in order to be in the median with the external market comparators. Salary Range Adjustments As was discussed previously, the City of Edmonds provides a 35% salary range for Non Represented positions. Most of our comparator cities have a 25-30% range. Preliminarily, it appears that the City’s entry level range, step 1, start below the median of almost every City, and every position, by 5-10%. It is recommended that we compress the salary ranges by 5%, bringing the starting salary in line with the market median. This would then create a 6 step salary range. Direction from Council Staff are seeking direction from Council on the following: 1. Definition of the labor market and the comparator cities. 2. Council guidance on compensation survey data (salary and fixed and incentive pay separately or combined). 3. Change in the starting salary ranges (remove bottom step). After direction is provided by Council, it is the intention of HR to bring back the completed salary survey results for further discussion and approval of Council in September 2015. Attachments NR Compensation Policy Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 08/11/2015 08:31 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 08/11/2015 10:54 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/11/2015 02:20 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/11/2015 02:31 PM Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Started On: 08/04/2015 03:41 PM Final Approval Date: 08/11/2015 Packet Page 281 of 411 5.5 NON REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES The City’s non-represented compensation policy strives to maintain equity, by offering competitive salaries and benefits in order to attract and retain high quality staff and an effective work force. It is the policy of the City for the classification and compensation plan to provide salaries that compare favorably with other similar cities in the region for comparable jobs, and within budget limitations. It is also the policy of the City to strive to maintain salaries that are internally equitable, in proper relationship to all other jobs within the City, within reasonable budget parameters. SALARY RANGE PROGRESSION Salary ranges for non-represented positions will have a 35% spread from the bottom to the top of each salary range, and will include a seven-step scale with 5% between each of the steps. All new employees will generally be hired at the first step of their salary range; however, an entry level rate of pay above the minimum may be offered to an applicant whose education and experience exceed the minimum qualifications for the classification, or when external labor market pay practices impact recruitment. Initial step placement at higher than Step 3 of the salary range is subject to approval by the Mayor prior to the offer of employment. Employees are advanced to the next salary step increment after satisfactorily completing the first six months of probation. After this, employees advance to the next step in the salary range on the January following their anniversary date and each succeeding January after a concurrent satisfactory overall performance evaluation has been completed by their supervisor, until reaching the maximum step. An employee is considered not to have achieved a satisfactory overall performance rating if two or more performance category areas in the evaluation receive less than a “meets standards” rating. An employee who fails to achieve at least a satisfactory overall performance rating on their annual performance evaluation shall not be eligible for a step increase until their next performance evaluation rating period. Employees who do not achieve a satisfactory overall performance rating will be immediately placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP). The PIP will provide clear expectations to the employee for the work performance items that must improve in order for the employee to achieve a satisfactory overall performance rating by the next evaluation period (usually 3 and/or 6 months) as determined under the PIP. A PIP also serves as a work plan for the employee that will likely include individualized, supervisor-provided feedback and counseling on improving work performance, as well as outlining any necessary areas of training or retraining in order for the employee to succeed on the PIP. In the event of promotion of a non-represented employee to another non-represented job classification in a higher salary range, the employee will be placed on the first step of the new salary range or the lowest step in the new range that results in an increase to their current salary. After this, the employee would follow the salary range progression described above for new employees. To ensure internal equity, employees promoted from a represented position to a non- represented position in a higher pay range, will be placed on the first step of the new salary range, or the lowest step in the new range that results in an increase to their current salary, including consideration of other cash compensation being received in the former position. After Packet Page 282 of 411 this, the employee would follow the salary range progression described above for new employees. In the event of a lateral placement of a non-represented employee to another non-represented job classification in the same pay range, the employee will not receive a salary increase. ANNUAL SALARY ADJUSTMENTS The Mayor will recommend the adjustment of salary ranges for non-represented employees to the City Council for approval as part of the budget process, effective January 1 of each year. The Mayor’s recommendation will take into consideration the average adjustment negotiated and approved for represented employee groups. Each employee will maintain the same step within the newly approved salary range that they held prior to the adjustment. In addition, the City will attempt to mitigate compression issues as they arise. The Mayor will make appropriate and timely recommendations to City Council to maintain internal equity and prevent compression issues. MARKET ANALYSIS The Human Resources Department will conduct compensation surveys for each non- represented benchmark position no later than September 1, every three years. The following criteria will be used for determining which cities are comparable for the purposes of analyzing and comparing compensation (“Qualified Comparable Cities”): • Comparable cities must be located in Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, or Kitsap counties; and • Comparable cities will include all cities with a population that is no more than 10,000 over or no more than 10,000 under the population of the City of Edmonds according to the most recent population figures published by the Washington State Office of Financial Management or a similar successor government agency; and • The application of the above criteria will be utilized to select a minimum of eight agencies that are closest in population to the City of Edmonds. If this process yields fewer than eight comparable cities (not counting Edmonds) for analysis during a particular year, additional cities shall be selected for analysis by adding an additional city or cities, up to eight, with agencies that are outside the 10,000 over/under criteria, but that are the next closest in population to the City of Edmonds, with the goal of having 50% of the cities with a higher population and 50% with a lower population than Edmonds. Additionally, private sector data will be gathered and considered where it is a significant factor in the City’s competitiveness. Benchmark positions are those which are assigned clearly recognizable work at a well-defined level of responsibility, and for which comparable classifications are easily identified to ensure that sufficient data can be collected. Classifications that are selected as comparable for survey Packet Page 283 of 411 purposes must match the benchmark position by 80% in level of work and responsibility. Salaries for comparable positions that are not a complete match may be leveled up or down by a maximum of 20%, to adjust for differences in the level or scope of responsibility in work duties. Non-benchmark classifications (those for which there are not adequate comparable classifications) will be indexed to a corresponding City benchmark position, which is comparable in required qualifications, scope of work, and level of responsibility. Salary ranges for benchmarks will be determined by using the prevailing rates in the identified comparator cities. The City will be competitive within the defined market, but will not assume the position of a lead pay policy compared to the market; therefore the median or 50th percentile of the mid-range of salary data collected will be used to determine competitiveness. Every three years, based upon the survey data, the Mayor will recommend salary range market adjustments for non-represented positions to City Council. The Mayor will consider the following criteria in developing the recommendation: 1. Maintain the mid-point of each salary range between 5% high/low of the mid-point of the comparator city median. 2. Positions requiring adjustment will be assigned to the new salary range within the salary range table that places the position closest to the comparator city median. 3. Any employee whose actual salary falls below the newly adopted pay range minimum, shall be adjusted up to the new minimum upon adoption of the new pay ranges. 4. Any employee whose actual salary exceeds the top of the approved salary range, will have their salary frozen until such time that market rates support pay range adjustment for their job classification. Packet Page 284 of 411 AM-7940 6. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/18/2015 Time:30 Minutes Submitted For:Shane Hope Submitted By:Rob Chave Department:Planning Type: Information Information Subject Title Discussion about Possible Creation of an Historic Preservation District. Recommendation N/A. This is information intended to assist the Council in any future consideration of implementing an historic district. Previous Council Action This subject was identified during the Council's 2015 retreat as one to explore through a Council/director task force and bring back to the full Council for discussion. Narrative This agenda item follows the Council direction to have a temporary Council member/director task force explore the possibility of creating a historic preseraation district. The group was comprised of Council members Johnson and Petso with assistance and research by staff (Shane Hope and Rob Chave). Background. The City has an established historic preservation program and is a Certified Local Government under the Washington State Certified Local Government (CLG) Program, administered by the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Part of the City's program involves maintaining a Register of Historic Places. Properties can only be listed on the Edmonds register with the owner's permission, so that the designation of historic properties is essentially a voluntary proposition. To date, there are 18 properties listed on the Edmonds register. Historic Districts in Edmonds Code. The City's historic preservation code (ECDC 20.45) allows for the creation of historic districts, but the process has not yet been established: ECDC 20.40.020.D describes how properties are listed in the historic register: "If the commission finds that the nominated property is eligible for the Edmonds register of historic places, the commission shall make recommendation to the city council that the property be listed in the register with owner’s consent. In the case of historic districts, the commission shall research and recommend, and the city council shall adopt by ordinance, a percentage of property owners which is deemed adequate to demonstrate owner consent. The public, property owner(s) and the authors of the nomination, if different, and lessees, if any, shall be notified of the listing." [emphasis added] Packet Page 285 of 411 Considerations for Creating an Historic District. (1) Process Historic districts are very different than individual property listings. While individual property owners in Edmonds can choose whether to list their properties or not, a district creates a bounded area in which all properties within the boundary are automatically within the district, once it is established. The code section highlighted above indicates that the City has the task of determining what "percentage of property owners" constitutes "owner consent" for establishing the district. The Historic Preservation Commission and Council would have to complete this process before a district could be formally established. (2) What constitutes a District Historic districts typically consist of a defined area with an historic character. A uniform style of building isn't required, but the overall character should be identifiable so that specific guidelines for design can be established. Not all buildings will "contribute" to the character of the district; you are likely to also have properties that do not contribute (e.g. aren't historic"). Buildings in historic districts are carefully reviewed and controlled in terms of their relation to other historic structures and the specific improvements that are made, so that even colors and materials are reviewed. While providing a more detailed review and approval process than is often applied to buildings, this also ensures that the character of the district is preserved and enhanced over time. (3) Incentives vs. Controls The benefits of historic districts have been studied to a degree, and have often been shown to promote such things as economic health and tourism. Restoration can also be more economically feasible when compared to new construction. For example, commercial building owners can benefit from being in a district by accessing beneficial tax write-offs on building improvements. They can also sometimes access rehabilitation grants. On the other hand, being in an historic district will impose some additional responsibilities for maintaining (or restoring) the historic character of the building. Not every desired building "improvement" will meet the standards of the district. Some of the most important benefits can be the intangibles; people often remember and want to visit (or revisit) historic places because of their charm or character. (See Exhibit 1 for a useful summary of some of the literature.) (4) Costs and Staffing The costs of creating and maintaining a district need to be understood and considered. In general, the City does not have current staff resources that can be devoted to establishing or maintaining an historic district. As already discussed, an historic district is a departure from the City's current program of voluntary register additions. Creating a district involves identifying a boundary, surveying every property within the proposed district (how it does or does not contribute to the district), and developing the code and design guidelines that will apply to properties within the district. After talking to both district administrators and consultants, the costs for establishing a district are likely to range between $40,000-$50,000. Beyond that, because of the time needed for outreach, consultations, and detailed plan reviews, and the specific technical knowledge required for a staff person administering the program, a permanent staff position would need to be added to the City's payroll (probably equivalent to a professional planner position, at about $100,000/year). The outreach portion of the position is actually a critical part of the program, since consulting with owners/tenants prior and during improvement projects would help build support for the historic program and minimize any impact on projects and permitting. Attachments Exhibit 1: Brookings - The Economics of Historic Preservation Form Review Packet Page 286 of 411 Inbox Reviewed By Date Development Services Shane Hope 08/13/2015 04:28 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 08/14/2015 07:03 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/14/2015 08:29 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/14/2015 08:30 AM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 08/13/2015 11:47 AM Final Approval Date: 08/14/2015 Packet Page 287 of 411 Pa c k e t Pa g e 28 8 of 41 1 ______________________________________________________________________________ ECONOMICS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION: A GUIDE AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Randall Mason University of Pennsylvania A Discussion Paper Prepared for the The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program September 2005 ______________________________________________________________________________ Packet Page 289 of 411 THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM SUMMARY OF PUBLICATIONS 2005* DISCUSSION PAPERS/RESEARCH BRIEFS Hope VI and Mixed-Finance Redevelopments: A Catalyst for Neighborhood Renewal Budgeting for Basics: The Changing Landscape of City Finances The Electoral College Moves to the Sun Bel Credit Where It Counts: Maintaining a Strong Community Reinvestment Act Using Information Resources to Enhance Urban Markets Market-Based Community Economic Development Using the U.S. and U.K. Censuses for Comparative Research Public Housing Reform and Voucher Success: Progress and Challenges Space Available: The Realities of Convention Centers as Economic Development Strategy TREND SURVEYS Leaving Money (and Food) on the Table Step in the Right Direction: Recent Declines in Refund Loan Usage Among Low-Income Taxpayers ¿Tienes EITC? A Study of the Earned Income Tax Credit in Immigrant Communities The Price is Wrong: Getting the Market Right for Working Families in Philadelphia Job Sprawl and the Spatial Mismatch between Blacks and Jobs TRANSPORTATION REFORM SERIES On the Ground: Protecting America's Roads and Transit Against Terrorism Today’s Roads with Tomorrow’s Dollars: Using GARVEE Bonds to Finance Transportation Projects LIVING CITIES CENSUS SERIES Metropolitan America in the New Century: Metropolitan and Central City Demographic Shifts Since 2000 BROOKINGS/LSE COMPARATIVE URBAN ANALYSIS SERIES Mixed Communities in England Americans and Britons: Key Population Data from the Last Three U.S. and U.K. Censuses * Copies of these and previous Brookings metro program publications are available on the web site, www.brookings.edu/metro, or by calling the program at (202) 797-6414. Packet Page 290 of 411 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to thank Patricia Gail Littlefield and Elisa Vitale for research assistance. Robert Puentes, Rebecca Sohmer, David Jackson, Lisa Burcham, Kitty Higgins, Laura Skaggs, and Kate Stevenson provided support and guidance of the project. Arthur Brooks, Suzanne Copping, Joe Cronyn, David Listokin, Don Rypkema, and Richard Wagner generously provided comments, suggestions, materials, and/or review. Participants in the Getty Conservation Institute’s projects on Values and Heritage Conservation contributed a great deal to the ideas underpinning this review, in particular Marta de la Torre and David Throsby. The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program would like to thank the Fannie Mae Foundation, the George Gund Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation for their support of our work on metropolitan trends. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Randall Mason teaches in the Graduate Program in Historic Preservation at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Design, where he is associate professor of City & Regional Planning. Comments on this paper can be sent to rfmason@design.upenn.edu. The views expressed in this discussion paper are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the trustees, officers, or staff members of The Brookings Institution. Copyright © 2005 The Brookings Institution Packet Page 291 of 411 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Historic preservation is typically judged to be a sound investment. By most accounts, it is more efficient and profitable to preserve a historic building than to construct a new one. Designating a landmark or district as historical typically maintains if not boosts the value of the property, and as an economic development tool, historic preservation has proved its worth. Nearly any way the effects are measured, be they direct or indirect, historic preservation tends to yield significant benefits to the economy. However, the methods of determining the value of historic preservation vary widely, and several challenges persist in applying economic methods to the field. This discussion paper, which is followed with an extensive and annotated bibliography, reviews the current findings on the value of historic preservation and the methods used to assess that value, making the case for needed improvement if the economics of preservation is to more objectively and rigorously quantify the effects of historic preservation. The dilemmas faced in assessing the value of historic buildings include the fact that historic preservation is both public and private, and has both monetary and nonmonetary purposes. Historic preservation, for example, can be a private good in that it offers a range of goods and services consumed by individuals and traded in markets (such as real estate). On the other hand, it can be intrinsically a public good, with benefits deriving collectively and provided not by markets, but by government or nonprofit groups. These differences lead to very different methods, and degrees of complexity, in assessing its value, both of which are reviewed here. The methods reviewed in this paper are: • Basic cost studies: These include financial calculations, development pro formas, audits of existing preservation, and cost-benefit analyses. • Economic impact studies: Perhaps the most widely used, these studies gauge the effect, in dollar terms, of a particular historic preservation investment on a regional economy. • Regression analysis: hedonic, travel-cost, and property value studies. This statistical technique examines the relation between multiple variables and the market price of historic preservation. A regression analysis, for example, might predict the effect of landmark regulation on real estate property values. Hedonic methods measure the effect of a popular historic site on land values at various distances from the site. The travel-cost method assesses the various costs people are willing to incur to travel to a historic site. • Contingent valuation and choice modeling: These methods measure “nonuse” values of public goods. They are based on surveyed consumer preferences rather than actual market data. These methods create hypothetical market situations to essentially assess how much the public values historic preservation. Packet Page 292 of 411 • Case studies: Given the conceptual difficulties in quantifying preservation value, case studies—involving narratives, descriptive statistics, and clear analytical frameworks—offer a sound option for assessing value. The economics of preservation is an embryonic field compared with research in other economics disciplines, and the research is currently weighted heavily toward advocacy. The paper concludes with a call for more development in the field to be able to more objectively answer the question: Does preservation pay? Toward that end, the paper calls for a hybrid of the most promising methods and more collaboration across research fields. By combining methods, the particular shortcomings or blind spots of different methods can perhaps offset one another. Without further refinement, the ability to make conclusive, generalized statements about the economics of preservation will remain elusive. Packet Page 293 of 411 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1 II. METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................3 III. ECONOMIC AND PRESERVATION: REVIEW AND RESULTS FROM THE LITERATURE ..............5 IV. METHODS USED TO UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF PRESERVATION ................................11 V. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ..................................................................................19 VI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................21 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................................................22 REFERENCE LIST ..............................................................................................................52 Packet Page 294 of 411 1 I. INTRODUCTION This report reviews the substantial academic and professional literature concerning the economics of historic preservation. It is intended as a guide to recent work being pursued in many different professional fields and disciplines, though not as a comprehensive summary of the parts of the literature. This review is not intended to pass judgment on the validity of particular research results, nor otherwise suggest quantitative answers to the popular question, “Does preservation pay?” Rather, the review will empower professionals and decision-makers to choose, use, and better analyze the kinds of research and theoretical works existing on the subject. Finally, this report also aims to inspire and focus future research efforts on economic aspects of historic preservation. The economic costs and benefits of historic preservation are the subject of persistent and urgent questioning in public debates. Whenever historic preservation comes up in public discourse, it seems, economic arguments figure prominently. Sometimes the discussion is about whether historic preservation has some economic value, and the answer generally is “yes.” And sometimes the tougher questions are ventured: does historic preservation of a certain site have more economic value than an alternative investment might have? What are the costs and benefits of regulation? Is preservation an effective way to stimulate economic development? These are fundamentally difficult and tricky questions to study. Historic preservation is organized primarily to sustain and create cultural values, like historical associations, senses of place, cultural symbolism, the aesthetic and artistic qualities of architecture, and the like. Studying the economics of this (or any other part of the cultural sector) amounts to calculating the incalculable, or pricing the priceless. Economic analyses can easily determine partial or proxy values for the full value of historic preservation, but what do these tell us? Are they sufficient or even useful? A growing number of studies and research projects take on issues in this realm of understanding the economic values of historic preservation. The specific kinds of questions and themes addressed include: Justification of public policies and other investments (especially rehabilitation tax credits); rationales for advocating preservation over new construction; rationales for promoting generally conservative approaches to managing the built environment (falling under the rubrics of “sustainability” or “smart growth”); justifying material support for preservation as an expression of culture (in which a lot of the questioning is identical to that plaguing the arts and culture sectors in general, whether the topic is funding for museums, art, music, or other forms); and how to use economic analysis to inform management decisions for historic preservation sites and programs. Despite the growing number, range, and sophistication of studies, however, this review concludes that the field is not thoroughly studied, nor is there much agreement on answers to basic pragmatic and policy questions. The historic preservation field suffers, in general, from an absence of an intellectual and research infrastructure to support the full range of activities and debates that define the Packet Page 295 of 411 2 contemporary preservation field. There is an excellent research infrastructure supporting the work of physical science and material conservation aspects of the field; there is less in the area of historic and cultural aspects of the field; there is almost none in the realm of social sciences, including economics. Of the research that has been done on the economics of preservation, much of it is done by economists or other analysts who work outside of the preservation field, but are sympathetic to it. Such work tends to be less focused on the core ideas behind historic preservation—such as cultural significance, or the historical and aesthetic values of the built environment—and more interested in the measurable, often subsidiary benefits which are expressible as market values. This body of research is varied and seemingly incommensurable, and too little synthesis has been attempted to interpret the greater meaning of this work. There is a growing, multi-faceted effort to undertake more research and advocacy in the area of economics and historic preservation, and this paper intends to urge this work onwards and inform future directions. Packet Page 296 of 411 3 II. METHODOLOGY This report is not concerned with answering specific preservation questions such as “how to finance historic preservation,” “how to make a profit from preservation,” “why is investing public funds in historic preservation always a good idea,” or “how much does preservation pay?” Rather, the core concerns of this collection and analysis of literature is documenting how the economics of historic preservation are currently understood, measured, presented, and included in arguments for and against historic preservation activities and analyses of preservation activities of all types. The review focuses on understanding the range of methods and approaches to understanding and expressing the economic values of preservation, rather than documenting the specific economic costs and benefits of preservation. The search for precise calculations of the economic benefits of historic preservation, though compelling, is highly situational and thus intentionally different from a review. Most generalizations about the measured economic values of preservation – based as they are on very particularistic, highly conditional studies – are overreaching or misleading. The review aims for establishing the general patterns in the research on preservation economics rather than proposing empirical answers to the questions noted above. Some underlying assumptions about economic understandings of preservation have informed this review: 1. Historic preservation is a legitimate public good. Historic preservation has, by consensus, tradition and law, been considered by the majority of American voters and public officials as a legitimate function of government. The levels and kinds of public support and spending on historic preservation are up for questioning, however, and constantly debated. Thus arises an “advocacy” literature, supporting ideological beliefs in the cultural need for historic preservation with economic analyses and rationales. 2. Reconciling economic and cultural notions of value is a source of confusion. Different conceptions of the value of things—some priceable, some priceless—have traditionally separated those working in the culture and economics fields. Since historic preservation trades on, and generates, both kinds of value, it requires seeing value through these very different lens. 3. The value of historic preservation need not be expressed and analyzed only in quantitative terms. Qualitative expressions of the value of preservation often are dismissed by economists simply because they are not susceptible to standard economic (mathematically driven) methods of analysis. But these cultural values—resisting easy quantification and mathematical treatment—are essential to the nature of historic preservation and there must somehow remain part of the discourse on decision-making and other economic discourses on preservation. In other words, applying standard quantitative, market-derived measures of historic preservation will not suffice—a priori—to express the full value of preservation as cultural expression and public good. 4. The methodologies of a few different disciplines need to be considered in this review. These disciplines range from economics and historic preservation fields per se to planners, policy Packet Page 297 of 411 4 analysts, architects, social scientists, and community activists. This stems from the realization that historic preservation, by seeking to preserve a wide range of values attached to older built environments, draws on the skills, knowledge, and methodologies belonging to these different spheres. 5. The purpose of this study is advancing the debate about the economic values of historic preservation to strengthen our understanding of the roles preservation can play in managing the built environment and creating a healthy and democratic public realm. A belief that more, better designed, somewhat disinterested academic research is needed to support advocacy and improve the practice of preservation. Practically, this review has proceeded in a number of different, simultaneous directions to collect relevant literature. The historic preservation and urban planning fields, as well as the economics discipline (and specifically the sub-discipline of cultural economics), were canvassed first. This was done by collecting bibliographic work already published and available, by consulting informally with experts in the field, and by keyword database searches. The works included here are intended to be characteristic of the kinds of published work available; it is not a comprehensive review. Only more recent works are included here (generally focused on the last ten years); earlier literature is surveyed in previous bibliographies (for example Listokin, Lahr, McLendon and Klein, 2002).1 1 The author wishes to continue building and updating this bibliography; additional references should be sent directly to the author’s email, and updates will be periodically posted to http://www.design.upenn.edu/new/hist/research.htm Packet Page 298 of 411 5 III. ECONOMIC AND PRESERVATION: REVIEW AND RESULTS FROM THE LITERATURE There is broad agreement that the benefits of historic preservation outweigh the costs. More specifically, the economic costs of preservation are outweighed by the benefits—both economic and cultural—of a robust historic preservation sector. The literature is conclusive about the overall positive benefits of historic preservation—sometimes explicitly, often tacitly. Much of the literature is therefore concerned either with articulating these benefits, often in quantitative, monetized terms, or finding those points on the cost-benefit curve at which the best marginal improvements to benefit can be made. A number of studies in the literature on the economics and preservation have yielded empirical results documenting, in many instances, the positive economic benefits of historic preservation. This section of the report summarizes some of the most prominent of these results. There is no clearly dominant model for how preservation benefits and costs should be expressed. No study creates a total picture of economic benefits, or finds a magical formula for profitability. But significant evidence of positive economic benefits of historic preservation activity is offered in a number of studies surveyed briefly below. The adequacy of the literature depends upon the question one is asking, and there are a wide variety of questions asked of historic preservation. They range across issues at the level of government policy decisions to those of individual consumers; questions regarding the proper pricing of historic preservation benefits to the evaluation of alternative decision choices. This review concludes that adequate tools and studies exist to analyze the private values of historic preservation, but studying these alone is inadequate to the task of making informed decisions about historic preservation. To enable better decisions, the public values of preservation need to be better analyzed. In particular, replicable model studies of the empirical relationships between historic preservation activity and economic factors are needed. And these studies should be designed to answer directly the kinds of questions practitioners and policy makers have about the relationship between preservation and economics. There is a growing literature on this front—in particular, the research falling under the headings of contingent valuation and other stated-preference methods— that is yet inadequate to everyday application by historic preservation practitioners, other professionals, and decision-makers. A. The Economics of Individual Historic Preservation Projects It has been demonstrated time and again that individual historic preservation projects are, under certain conditions, comparable economically to projects involving new construction—in other words, preservation can pay. Donovan Rypkema (1991) makes the clearest case for this, debunking “myths” about relative costs of building rehabilitation versus new construction. New construction is not necessarily less expensive or more profitable than rehabilitation, his work shows. “If no demolition is required, a major commercial rehabilitation will probably cost from 12 percent less to 9 percent more than the cost of comparable new construction with the typical building cost saving being about 4 percent…On the other hand, if new construction requires incurring the costs of razing Packet Page 299 of 411 6 an existing building, the cost savings from rehabilitation should range from 3 percent to 16 percent.” (p.7) In other words, Rypkema identifies the commonplace conditions under which preservation makes more economic sense than new construction. Rypkema goes on to show detailed calculations for new-construction and rehabilitation options of a hypothetical rehabilitation project. These pro forma calculations, and the accompanying explanations, demonstrates that, “Historic preservation is a rational and effective economic response” to a number of development situations. (1991, p.21) There is no law dictating that preservation will always be profitable, or always more profitable than new construction, but Rypkema’s line-by-line pro formas compare the costs and benefits in a manner that empirically helps preservationists make a determination about the prospects of a particular project. And they are adaptable to many particular kinds of projects and circumstances. Important variables in the equations determining the economics of individual projects are existing and proposed public subsidies, such as tax deductions, credits, or abatements. A report sponsored by the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia presents examples of historic preservation pro formas using a proposed (at the time) Federal Historic Homeownership Tax Credits, showing the changed project costs once these and other subsidies were applied (Preservation Action 1999). A study by Wolf, Horn, and Ramirez (1999) analyzes the same question specifically for the federal stock of historic buildings managed by the General Services Administration and reach the same conclusion: in many cases, it is more efficient and profitable to preserve historic buildings than to construct a new building. This general line of analysis is advanced by closer consideration of the issue of energy-efficiency of preserving historic buildings vs. new construction, as evidenced by Webster and Cohen’s (2002) account of energy efficiency arguments for reuse of Army buildings. Still more sophisticated efforts attempt to account for historic and cultural qualities (i.e., non-use values) of buildings as part of life-cycle cost analysis. The methodology outlined in Whole Building Design Guide [2003] employs a multi-attribute decision analysis method that consider non-monetary as well as monetary attributes. It is fairly rare to find published the economics of individual projects from the private sector, however a number of case studies exist and provide some financial documentation of successful historic-preservation-led development projects (see, for example, the case studies of commercial rehabilitation in Lipman Frizzell & Mitchell LLC (2002), the wide range of projects described in National Trust for Historic Preservation (2002), the valuable Development Case Studies available by subscription from the Urban Land Institute, and in any number of the publications on affordable housing cited below). B. The Effects of Historic Preservation on Property Values Perhaps the most-often asked economic question regarding historic preservation is whether the designation and public regulation of historic districts and landmarks increases or decreases the Packet Page 300 of 411 7 economic value of the properties designated. The economics literature clearly comes down in favor of a positive effect of historic districting on property values. “Virtually every analysis that has been done on the economic impact of [historic district] protection has indicated that values have maintained at worst, and usually are enhanced, because of historic district status,” writes real estate and historic preservation expert Donovan Rypkema (1994b). He goes on to cite evidence from Canada as well: a 1993 study found that, “In every heritage district designated in Canada in the last 20 years, property values have risen despite the fact that development potential has been reduced.” New York City’s Independent Budget Office recently conducted a study of the effect of local historic district designation and regulation on real-estate prices and “[found evidence of a statistically significant price premium associated with inclusion [of a property] in an historic district. The extent of the premium varied from year to year, ranging from 22.6%... to 71.8%.” (New York City Independent Budget Office 2003, p.2). An exhaustive academic study by Robin Leichenko, Edward Coulson and David Listokin (2001) found that local historic district designation had a positive effect on property values in seven of the nine Texas cities they studied (in the other two cities, results were inconclusive). Historic designation, they found, increased property values in the range of 5-20 percent. In a study of National Register districts in Philadelphia, economists Paul Asabere and Forrest Huffman wrote: “Residential parcels located within historic districts appear to attract a substantial price premium of 131 percent. The price premium associated with nonresidential parcels within historic districts are, however, insignificant.” (Asabere and Huffman 1991, p.6) Other studies have been inconclusive, or have documented some negative effects, but the weight of evidence is toward positive effects. In New Jersey, it was found that, “Properties listed on the national, state or local historic registers [throughout the state of New Jersey] have a market value of $6 billion, of which about $300 million can be attributed to the value-enhancing effect of historic designation.” (New Jersey Historic Trust 1998, p.6) C. The Economics of Preservation in Local or Regional Economies Another important set of questions relates to the effects of historic preservation as an economic development tool. Does public policy stimulating or investing in historic preservation yield positive fiscal benefits for the public sector. Such questions are often approached by performing economic impact studies. The question posed by economic impact studies is what effect investment in historic preservation activity has on the economy of a particular region. In other words, these studies ask the question, “Does preservation pay?” on more than a project-by-project basis. A significant number of these studies have been undertaken across the U.S., and the answer to this question is a resounding “yes”—historic preservation yields significant benefits to the economy. Packet Page 301 of 411 8 An appraisal of the economics of historic preservation by academics in the urban planning field (Listokin, Listokin and Lahr, 1998) notes the basic relationship at the heart of economic impact studies: “… the direct benefits associated with historic preservation, such as enhanced rehabilitation and heritage tourism spending, have advantageous multiplier effects.” The dollars spent on preservation rebound through the economy, magnifying the “direct” effects of investment with positive “indirect” effects. Table 8 from this article in Housing Policy Debate (p.459) compares the measurable economic impacts of $1 million investment in historic preservation (residential rehabilitation) versus equal investments in book publishing, pharmaceutical production and electrical component production. Nearly any way the impacts are measured—generation of jobs, income, state and local tax revenues—historic preservation exceeds the other sectors. (Questions are often raised about the partiality of economic impact study methods—they always yield positive benefits of preservation investment, and usually fail to consider its opportunity costs. Critique of economic impact methods can be found in Seaman, 2003, and Mason, ed., 1999.) Economic Impacts per Million Dollars of Initial Expenditure Economic Effect (National) Residential Historic Rehabilitation Book Publishing Pharmaceutical Production Electronic Component Production Employment (jobs) 36 35 28 30 Income ($000) 1,240 1,160 1,045 1,018 GDP 1,672 1,722 1,546 1,483 State taxes ($000) 106 103 93 87 Local taxes ($000) 89 86 79 74 Source: Listokin, Listokin and Lahr 1998 Economic impact is often expressed in statistics relating to several different aspects of historic preservation, such as rehabilitation work on buildings, heritage tourism, production of housing. And the measures offered come in different forms: total expenditures on historic preservation activities, number of jobs and businesses created through those expenditures, or relative measures of the impact of investment in preservation versus another sector. The following excerpts from the most up-to-date economic impact studies give an indication of the overwhelmingly positive economic impacts that have been reported for historic preservation. A Colorado Historical Society report (based on an economic study conducted by Clarion Associates, et al, 2002) began, “Studies across the country have shown that historic preservation acts as a powerful economic engine, creating tens of thousands of jobs and generating significant household income. Our research shows that this is especially true in Colorado….” Between 1981 and 2002, the study reports $1.5 billion in total expenditures on historic rehabilitation projects in the state, which generated $522.7 million in total household earnings, 21,327 jobs, $4 million in business income taxes, $10.8 million in personal income taxes and $27.4 million in state sales taxes. (Colorado Historical Society 2002) A state-wide study of economic impacts for Florida—Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in Florida: Executive Summary (Center for Governmental Responsibility, University of Packet Page 302 of 411 9 Florida Levin College of Law and the Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University 2002, based on an exhaustive study by Listokin, Lahr, McLendon and Klein 2002)—begins: “The Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in Florida … reveals the startling statistic that for every dollar generated in Florida’s historic preservation grants, two dollars return to the state in direct revenues. A dollar directed to the Florida Main Street program… shows a tenfold return.” (p.2, emphasis in original) Annual economic activities in the state attributable to preservation equaled $4.2 billion, which translated to 123,242 jobs and $2.766 billion in income. This includes economic activity related to historic building rehabilitation, heritage tourism, Main Street programs, and historical museums operation. Reporting the results of a similar study undertaken for the state of New Jersey, New Jersey Historic Trust 1998 (summarizing results from an extensive study conducted by David Listokin and Michael Lahr of Rutgers’ Center for Urban Policy Research) maintains that: “Each $1 million spent on non-residential historic rehabilitation creates two jobs more than the same money spent on new construction. It also generates $79,000 more in income, $13,000 more in taxes, and $111,000 more in wealth.” (p.2) In the sector of heritage tourism—an important part of the economic contributions of historic preservation—the researchers found that heritage tourists stay 4.7 nights longer than the average tourist, and spend 78% more in restaurants than other travelers. (p.6) The study also reports that “[p]reservation in New Jersey creates 21,575 jobs each year, 10,140 of them in the state” (p.2), and concludes that historic preservation investments create more wealth and more jobs than an equal investment in either new construction or highway construction. An economic impact study conducted for Maryland (Lipman, Frizzell and Mitchell 2002) reached similarly positive conclusions specifically with respect to the impacts of the state of Maryland’s rehabilitation tax credit, a major stimulus for preservation investment. In the two years covered by the study (2001-2), the following economic impacts were calculated as positive impacts of the historic rehabilitation tax credits in the Maryland state economy and in local jurisdictions: • “The tax credit program spurred total rehabilitation investment by private developers and homeowners of $155.5 million during the two-year period.” • “An estimated 2,454 jobs were created throughout the state and in many sectors of its economy: only half were construction sector jobs on-site. Total output in the Maryland economy was increased by $260.5 million and wages increased by $81.6 million.” • “Public revenues increased by an estimated $20.0 million due to the increased rehabilitation spending.” • “The rehabilitation qualified for $38.9 million in State historic preservation tax credits. Each $1.00 in State investment has leveraged $4.00 in construction spending and $.80 in federal tax credits.” In addition to these state-wide measures, the study looked closely at three financially successful, private, case-study projects that had used the rehabilitation tax credits. The study found, “Total public revenues (including counties and municipalities) have been increased as a result of the Packet Page 303 of 411 10 State's investment, yielding a present value of $1.30 to $5.02 in revenues for every $1.00 of State tax credit investment.” A study specifically focused on heritage tourism in a nine-county area of western Pennsylvania found direct annual economic impacts of $12.2 million and indirect impacts of $5.6 million. This economic activity was found to support 337 jobs annually. (Strauss, Lord and Powell 2002) Under the auspices of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Main Street Program has spread to hundreds of communities across the country. One of Main Street’s main goals is economic revitalization, and Program data consistently report positive economic impacts in their communities. Main Street programs have been undertaken in more than 1,700 communities since the early 1980s, accumulating these impressive economic impact statistics: • Total public and private reinvestment: $17 billion • Average reinvestment per community: $9.5 million • Net gain in businesses: 57,470 • Net gain in jobs: 231,682 • Number of buildings rehabilitated: 93,734 All in all, the “reinvestment ratio” (average number of dollars generated in a community per dollar used to operate the local Main Street program) is documented as $40.35 for every $1 spent.2 The types of studies cited in this section demonstrate the positive economic benefits of investment in historic preservation activities of several types: building rehabilitation, tax credits, heritage tourism, Main Street revitalization programs, and so on. This is not to say the benefits are guaranteed, or that they always outweigh the costs of preservation. But these studies do present convincing evidence that “preservation pays” (or can pay) when viewed simply in economic terms— both from the perspective of individual investors, and from a public, fiscal policy perspective. These conclusions, coupled with the anecdotal but logical arguments about preservation’s catalytic effect on other economic development activities (forcefully argued in Listokin, Listokin and Lahr, in Rypkema’s many works, and others) leads to the conclusion that historic preservation can (and often does) have net positive effects on a regional or local economy. As Listokin and his colleagues conclude in their New Jersey study, “Our research showed that preservation was often a superior economic catalyst compared with other investments. For example, in New Jersey, $1 million in non-residential historic rehabilitation was found to generate 38.3 jobs nationally and 19.3 jobs in-state. In comparison, $1 million in new nonresidential construction was found to generate fewer jobs: 36.1 jobs nationally and 16.7 jobs in-state.” (Listokin and Lahr, 2000) 2 Data according to the most recent statistics available, posted on the National Main Street Center’s web site, http://www.mainstreet.org/About/numbers.htm, accessed September 5, 2004. Packet Page 304 of 411 11 IV. METHODS USED TO UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF PRESERVATION While there is consensus that historic preservation often makes good economic sense, simple quantitative statements to this effect remain elusive. There are a number of challenges in applying economic methods to historic preservation, given the mix of cultural and economic values embodied in any preservation activity. A number of methodologies are currently being used to try to accurately understand all aspects of the value of historic preservation activities. This section describes the basic challenges of studying historic preservation, and then summarizes the types of methodologies currently being used. Dilemmas facing researchers of historic preservation phenomena are quite similar to those encountered by researchers looking at the arts and other cultural fields. Indeed, many of the approaches and methods used for studying preservation are borrowed from economics of arts and culture (see section on “Economics of the Arts and Culture” below). One of the basic dilemmas in the economics of preservation is that historic preservation is both public and private. Historic preservation is in some aspects a private good—a range of goods and services consumed by individuals and traded on markets (real estate, the services of a restoration carpenter). In other important respects, historic preservation is a public good, of value collectively and provided not by markets but by government or nonprofit institutions. Like national defense, street lights, elementary education, and sewage systems, historic preservation meets in some respects the definition of the “public good”3 (Hutter and Rizzo 1997; Throsby 2001; or any other “overview” works). The distinction between private and public is generally congruent with the categories of use and nonuse values used in economics. Most germane to this review, the distinction between private goods/use values and public goods/non-use values leads directly to different kinds of economic methodologies. The specific methods are discussed below. Some of the methods draw on market data to measure the value of historic preservation as a private good; other methods, seeking to express public-good aspects of historic preservation quantitatively, rely on various ways of making estimates of prices in hypothetical markets. Market- based valuation methodologies include: economic impact studies, regression analyses (comparing, for instance, the effect of historic district designation on property markets), and straightforward development cost calculations (like real estate pro formas). Non-market valuation methodologies applied to preservation include revealed-preference studies (hedonic pricing or travel cost methods) as well as stated-preference studies, particularly contingent valuation or willingness to pay studies. In addition, the economic values of preservation are often communicated through case studies or other analyses that depend on narrative arguments. 3 Technical definition of public goods—non-rival and non-exclusive in consumption. Packet Page 305 of 411 12 A. Basic Cost Studies Basic cost studies include financial calculations, development pro formas, audits of existing preservation programs, and cost-benefit analyses (CBA). What they hold in common is that they rely primarily on straightforward math and descriptive statistics. Some studies present collected market data, other project market costs based on practical assumptions of future costs. The most straightforward way of studying the economics of preservation is simply calculating the market costs of a particular project. What is important in evaluating these studies is which factors and data are included in the analysis—not so much the methods for manipulating them, which are straightforward arithmetic. For instance, are demolition and disposal costs factored in to the cost calculations for a project? These include the type of the economic analysis associated with most any project—the pro forma financial analysis (Miles, Berens and Weiss 2000 gives a detailed overview of real estate practices; Rypkema 1991a is specific to historic preservation), carried out more for project development, budgeting and fund-raising than for making any comparative study of alternative (i.e., non-preservation) investments. The well-known work of preservationist and real-estate consultant Donovan Rypkema stands out in this area. His work details and compares costs of developing historic preservation projects to traditional, new-construction development. Fundamentally, cost-benefit analyses are measurements made to assist in decision-making, particularly to decide between alternatives.4 At a simple level, they involve balance-sheet mathematics, measuring use values (incomes and outlays) attached to a particular action, accruing to a consumers, firm, government agency, or other entity. They are generally not concerned with nonuse values. Cost-benefit analysis, though it sounds commonplace and simple, highlights some difficult issues in analyzing the economics of preservation. Many of the types of studies carried out and reviewed here relate to parts of the full cost-benefit equation, but don’t entertain the full spectrum of issues and alternatives invoked by true CBA—which would require that the economic alternatives to preservation measures should be calculated and compared. In the preservation literature, cost-benefit analyses are common and often quite simple— comparing the estimated market costs of alternative actions—for example, stabilization of a structure vs. rehabilitation vs. full restoration. These are found in many typical preservation studies and plans, often portrayed as options for justifying different levels of investment. Since CBA is such a wide, generic umbrella methodologically, they sometimes go by other names—for instance, “fiscal impact 4 "Cost-benefit analysis shows how choices should be made so as to pursue some given objective as efficiently as possible." "It has two essential characteristics, consistency and explicitness. Consistency is the principle that decisions between alternatives should be consistent with objectives....Cost-benefit analysis is explicit in that it seeks to show that particular decisions are the logical implications of particular, stated, objectives." Sugden, Robert and Alan Williams. 1978. The Principles of Cost-benefit Analysis. Oxford University Press. Packet Page 306 of 411 13 analyses” are often carried out to estimate the market costs and revenues expected from a particular, projected investments and are standard fare from economic and real-estate advisory firms. Because they weigh the known and measurable costs and benefits using what data is available, CBAs are often not comprehensive. Decisions about which costs and benefits are included in the frame of a particular study should be examined carefully. B. Economic Impact Studies “For too many years, preservation has been defended solely on aesthetic grounds. [Economic impact]-type studies show that preservation also provides significant economic benefits” (Listokin and Lahr, 2000). Because they quantify preservation activity in dollar terms, economic impact studies are perhaps the most widely used and frequently cited type of economic analysis of historic preservation. They have proven popular and useful as rhetorical aids to preservation advocacy, the perception being that officials and other decision-makers are susceptible mostly to quantitative arguments about how much preservation pays. Economic impacts studies measure the use values of historic preservation activities—the aspects of historic preservation that are expressed as market activity—within the context of a particular regional economy. Economic impact studies are premised on the idea that the flow of economic activity multiplies the benefits of the initial investment, producing positive externalities. Economic impact studies are designed to gauge the effect of particular investment and spending activities on a regional economy. They are commonly used to analyze and justify policy programs and decisions. They effectively present the argument that historic preservation is a legitimate category of economic activity and investment, and a contributor to regional/urban economies. Implicitly, they presume that generation of use values leads to generation of nonuse values; that increasing private values reflects greater public values. Often, public and private values cannot both be maximized. Market data on direct spending in the various preservation activities (for example, building rehabilitation costs, admission prices to heritage sites, related wages, etc.—studies differ according to data availability) is collected from existing data sources or through surveys undertaken specifically for the study. These “direct spending” amounts for each sub-sector are plugged in to an input-output model of the regional economy5, which yields a total amount of revenue attributable to the direct spending. The ratio of total spending calculated to direct spending observed is termed the “multiplier.” Once the total dollars of effect are calculated (total investment times the multiplier) this is commonly converted to number of jobs represented by that increase in net revenue. The kind of result often cited from EIS’s is “one dollar of preservation spending yields X dollars of economic activity.” 5 One recurrent theme in the economic impact study literature is the choice of which input-output is used. Refinement and expansion of i/o models is one of the clear trajectories being followed in this area of research. Packet Page 307 of 411 14 One of the first economic impact studies performed on historic preservation focused on Rhode Island (reported in Sanderson 1994; based on University of Rhode Island 1993). The research yielded strongly positive effects of historic preservation investment in Rhode Island over a 20-year period, looking specifically at the economic impact on other expenditures. “Over the last twenty years, for each dollar appropriated by the Rhode Island General Assembly for historic preservation, the state has received $1.69 in new state tax revenue. The overall benefit to the state’s economy was $29 for each state dollar appropriated. In other words, state spending for historic preservation actually makes money.” (Sanderson, 1994) David Listokin and his colleagues associated with Rutgers University’s Center for Urban Policy Research done the most sophisticated economic impact studies of historic preservation activity. Through their large-scale studies of several states, they have refined the input-output models to get more accurate calculations of effects and multipliers of preservation investment in different economic sectors: tax, property values, job creation, and tourism. The economic impact studies for New Jersey and Texas are the most advanced (Listokin and Lahr, 1997; Listokin et al, 2002). These studies examined several kinds of economic activity representing the preservation sector: historic rehabilitation, heritage tourism, Main Street investment, operation of historic sites and organizations, and property value and property tax contributions of historic properties. The results of the study enable the authors to draw clear conclusions in favor of the fiscal sense of preservation public policies: “the results of the New Jersey investigation… show that the public cost of capital grants for historic rehabilitation that were distributed by the New Jersey Historic Trust was easily offset by state tax revenues resulting from those investments.” (Listokin and Lahr, 2000) Though popular, economic impact methods have weaknesses and blind spots. Economic impact studies account for some of aspects of historic preservation well, but cannot account for the whole range of preservation values. Aspects of preservation that cannot be represented by market prices are excluded from the studies. Because they account for only the easiest-to-measure economic aspects of preservation activity, the conclusions based on them are not necessarily complete. While they do gauge the magnitude of spending in the sector being studied, they don’t account for the opportunity costs of preservation investments—in other words, the potential impact those dollars would have had if spent on something other than historic preservation (see Bluestone in Mason, ed., 1999; Seaman, 2003). Economic Impact studies are based on gross assumptions. They tend to be used to present economic impacts as absolute amounts, instead of scrutinizing the relative impact of preservation and other activities (a question that is pertinent to many public policy debates about preservation). For instance, Sanderson (1994) concluded, “For each dollar received in state appropriations, RIHPC generated $129 in preservation work.” But how many of those $129 would have accrued anyway to investment in something else—such as golf-course construction, or casino gambling, or school spending? (Listokin, Listokin and Lahr, 1998 is a notable exception to this, as the study specifically includes an analysis of economic impact projected for preservation scenarios vis-à-vis other kinds of development options.) Packet Page 308 of 411 15 Because of this, economic impact studies are more effective and meaningful when measuring the effect of investment being imported (not re-circulated) in to a particular, bounded regional economy—for instance, a tourism project drawing most of its visitors from outside the region. Finally, there are logistical impediments to improving the implementation and reach of EI’s: they are time consuming, resource intensive (in terms of money and people), and the data required to fuel them often is not readily available. C. Regression Analyses: Hedonic, Travel-cost, Property Value Studies Regression analysis is a statistical technique for studying multiple variables and examining their relation to one another. Regression is commonly used in the social sciences to explore causal relationships between phenomena thought to be related (expressed as “variables”). These studied relationships are, in turn, used to make predictions. To take a non-preservation example, regression analysis might try to determine the whether individuals’ educational attainment or race has a greater power to predict income level. Various statistical measures are used to express the strength or weakness of the relation theorized between the variables (or rather, the level of confidence that the relationships expressed in the statistical tests actually represent “the real world”). For studying preservation issues, regression analysis does not aim to measure or predict the price of heritage goods directly, but rather tries to determine the effect of (mostly) non-economic factors on market prices of other goods—the most common and important examples of this are studies that look at the effect of landmark regulations on real-estate property values. Hypothetically, though, a type of regression study called the “hedonic method” could be used to measure the effect of a popular historic site on land values at various distances from the site; or, what place the presence of an historic site plays in the value of adjoining land by comparing it statistically to similar land not in proximity to an historic site. Another version of regression called the “travel-cost method” has been used to understand economic behavior related to historic sites by measuring the varied costs people are willing to incur to travel to visit them. This method is often used to study the economics of recreational and natural- resource sites. D. Stated-Preference Studies: Contingent Valuation and Choice Modeling Contingent valuation (CV) studies are designed to measure nonuse values of public goods. They are a type of “stated-preference study”—based on data collected by asking potential consumers’ preferences rather than on data representing actual market transactions (which are known as “revealed-preference studies”). Packet Page 309 of 411 16 As discussed above, economic investment in historic preservation produces both private benefits (for individuals, owners, investors, and others involved in direct economic activity) and public benefits (for social groups). The private benefits can be measured straightforwardly, using market data (as in economic impact studies or simple cost-benefit analyses). The public benefits are of at least two kinds: economic (use) values quite susceptible to economic methods, and non- economic, nonuse values for which economic methods are ill-suited (values of beauty, memorial power, attachment, and other “priceless” qualities). The public benefits are foundations of modern historic preservation practice—the collective, cultural benefits6 that are the reason we do historic preservation at all—often are the crux of determining the fate of public support for a preservation project or policy. Therefore, devising ways of measuring these values is a major challenge—“pricing the priceless”—and an opportunity for research in the economics of preservation. Facing the difficulty in quantitatively measuring the public benefits of historic preservation, economists have cleverly devised methods to estimate their dollar value. Stated preference methods create hypothetical market situations to derive price estimates for the public, non-market benefits of historic preservation activity. These methods often rely on some kind of survey instrument or other means of asking respondents to speculate about what would be a reasonable price if a market for the public good would exist. Hypothetically, for instance, if an area of older homes in your town were to be rehabilitated and maintained how much more would you be willing to pay in taxes? Survey results are converted into “willingness to pay” for the historic preservation good, expressed as a price (thus joining qualitative and quantitative methods).. The studies are sometimes termed “willingness to pay” (WTP) or “willingness to accept loss” (WTA) studies. Contingent valuation methods (abbreviated as CV, or sometimes CVM) were developed in the environmental economics field, where they have been used extensively. They gained wide notoriety, and validation, when CV methods were used to support public policy decisions in the legal cases stemming from the Exxon Valdez disaster and compensation for the public, ecological benefits lost. In recent years, CV methods have increasingly been applied to historic preservation situations. CV studies are perhaps the biggest recent innovation in the economics of historic preservation, and major alternative to impact studies, and other economic analyses derived directly from market data. There now exists a strong and burgeoning literature on the application of CV to historic preservation. Among the most notable recent works are studies of Bulgarian monasteries (in Navrud and Ready, 2002); different road development options for the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge (Maddison and Mourato, 2001); tourism to Fes, Morocco, (Carson, et al, in Navrud and Ready, 2002). Carson, Wilks and Imber (1994) employs contingent valuation as one input to a cost- benefit analysis evaluating different development options for Australia’s Kakadu National Park (a natural and cultural World Heritage Site). 6 These benefits are described in a variety of ways: cultural values, historic and aesthetic values, intrinsic values, and more. For a review, see Avrami and Mason, 2000; de la Torre 2002. Packet Page 310 of 411 17 Chambers, Chambers and Whitehead (1996) conducted a study confirming the validity of the contingent valuation methods as a way of studying the perception of economic benefits from historic preservation projects. Their study focused on the potential preservation of a school in Missouri, asking people, through a detailed survey, what they would be “willing to pay” to see the school project completed. While the most frequent willingness-to-pay response was $0 (about 60% of respondents to their survey), about 40% of respondents indicated a positive WTP for the benefits of this potential project. Contingent valuation studies generate insight on how the public values historic preservation. But they are problematic for several reasons, too. Like other economic methods, they reduce the values of preservation to the singular proxy of price, but CV is (theoretically, at least) more sensitive to the multiple values of heritage because the surveys can be designed to elicit responses in a number of ways: narrative, visual, and scenario-based, as well as posing individual economic decisions themselves. Some criticize CV methods at the conceptual level because they are not based on actual markets and data from actual transactions. This is based on the idea that only actual market transactions are credible enough to draw valid results. Along these same lines, the hypothetical nature of the “transaction” used to elicit responses is seen as a potentially enormous source of error and confusion—since people don’t actually have to pay what they report to be “willing” to pay, the price data derived from surveys/interviews may be quite inaccurate. Indeed, some economists have studied the difference between actual and reported willingness-to-pay, and report that the different is often substantial (Leggett, et al., 2003; Cultural Policy Center, University of Chicago, 2002). Related to these uncertainties, there is great variability in the design of how the information in a CV study is presented to survey respondents. The quality of the information design and presentation has a large effect on results. Because there are no effective ways of controlling what kinds of formats are used, and study parameters vary widely, different studies are incommensurable. Finally, like many other economic methods, wide, practical use of CVM is hampered by its expense. No economists have undertaken the development of shorthand, less-resource-intensive versions of CV methods, but the potential exists (de la Torre 2002). E. Choice Modeling Choice modeling is, like CV, a survey-based method of gauging people’s preferences for nonmarket goods. It presents more sophisticated means of eliciting preferences among complex choices, asking respondents to rank rather than just choose among alternatives. Choice modeling was developed to extend the insights of CV methods. A choice modeling (CM) study would work like this: The good or scenario in question is described in detail, its many different attributes articulated (not just price, but look, feel, etc.). The respondents rank these different attributes, giving a more fine-grained account of how the different attributes are valued. In other words, it tries to expose and analyze the detail of what goes on inside the “black box” of consumer decisions in markets. CM studies would attempt to answer, for instance, the reasons why a person would be willing to visit a Packet Page 311 of 411 18 certain historic site, instead of just asking them how much they would pay and having this price be the proxy for all the different attributes they are considering in their decision. Mourato and Mazzanti (2002) provide the best non-expert overview of CM as applied to historic preservation. Mazzanti (2001) specifically addresses the application of CM to historic preservation (cultural heritage conservation) situations. Hanley, Mourato, and Wright (2001) makes the case for choice modeling as an advanced method for valuation of environmental goods. Foster and Mourato (2003) discusses the relative merits of CM and CV (again, around issues of environmental goods, but with parallels to historic preservation). F. Case Studies Qualitative assessments of historic preservation value remain prominent in the literature on economic aspects of preservation, and should remain so, given the conceptual difficulties involved in quantifying important preservation values. The best case studies have clear analytical frameworks, and not merely anecdotal documentation. The persuasive power of straightforward, narrative case studies should therefore not be dismissed as a significant part of the literature on economics and preservation. Most case studies engage issues of preservation policy and practice, not the efforts to value preservation goods per se. Though many case studies employ findings from qualitative, analytically rigorous kinds of studies—or at least make some use of relating quantitative data (usually through descriptive statistics)—the case studies noted here do not, for the most part, represent new research. However, they are an effective means of disseminating information about new policy developments or results of research. Packet Page 312 of 411 19 V. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS There is a relative lack of academic research on the economics of preservation (as compared with other economic sectors, or as compared to the literature on preservation’s cultural aspects generated from within the field itself). This is due to two factors, respectively: on the first point, cultural topics in general are seen as relatively unimportant, less serious, and less desirable subjects of economic research (there are many incentives for economists to work on traditional, market-centered topics); on the second point, preservation being a field, not a discipline, there is no established academic infrastructure and base of research institutions to support sustained research on the topic (or many other preservation topics) over time. Not surprisingly, the literature is weighted toward advocacy studies. Academic approaches are often enlisted for advocacy causes, however, so there are not always clear advocacy-or- academic distinctions to be made. There are relatively few analyses with enough critical distance and honest questioning of the value of alternatives to historic preservation be looked at more seriously. Perhaps the most important factor to mind in this regard is the motive behind the research, and whether it is clearly in service of preservation advocacy or adopting a more objective stance. A number of future research directions stand out as excellent opportunities to generate relevant knowledge for the preservation field and make it more effective. The suggestions below both extend existing lines of inquiry and develop new ones to fill research gaps. One clear research direction identified in the literature revolves around creating hybrid methodologies able to gauge both economic and cultural benefits and values of preservation in more sophisticated ways. By combining methods, the particular short-comings or blind-spots of different methods can perhaps offset one another. CVM was created to address this challenge, but it has remained in the realm of technical economic studies, for the most part, and can be pushed into further innovation by combining it with the work of other disciplines and professionals. More attention needs to be focused on the relative value of preservation versus other kinds of investment. How does one rationalize an investment in preservation as a better trade-off than an investment, say, in a mall, or big-box retail, or a new sports stadium? Such questions are important to justifying public and public-sector support for historic preservation, but are rarely studied. Well- designed studies accounting for the wide range of costs and benefits—across the whole range of use and non-use (economic and cultural) values of heritage—would be very illuminating (even though they would probably not be totally conclusive.) And rigorous study of the political frameworks in which these decisions are made would be of great value. Research in historic preservation suffers because of the field’s lack of understanding of the whole system of culture, memory, built environment relations of which historic preservation is part (when seen, for instance, from an ecological or anthropological perspective). Research premised on understanding the whole system of built-environment relations of which historic preservation is a Packet Page 313 of 411 20 part—which is to say not portraying historic preservation as a stand-alone activity—would represent a step ahead conceptually. Further, with a systemic model to work against, particular studies could explore public-health arguments in favor of historic preservation (such as those being done for smart growth/sprawl), broader quality-of-life or social-capital arguments in favor of preservation, or studies that explore the costs of not investing in historic preservation (and, to be fair, the potential benefits of not doing so). Packet Page 314 of 411 21 VI. CONCLUSION The literature on economic aspects of historic preservation is growing in both variety and depth, and there is much to build upon. The literature includes straightforward applications of standard econometric analyses, as well as creative approaches addressing the key conceptual disconnects in this area of research—the multivalent nature of historic preservation benefits, and the fairly incommensurable ways that the economics and cultural fields have for measuring and describing the benefits of preservation. This paper echoes a number of thoughtful scholars and practitioners from both the economics and historic preservation fields in calling for new, hybrid, collaborative research to bridge some of the gaps. While conclusive, scientifically verifiable answers to preservation economics questions are elusive at best, a number of reasonable conclusions can be drawn about the economic benefits of historic preservation on the basis of the literature reviewed here. Historic preservation has important economic values and produces certain economic benefits for both private actors and the public at large. Preservation projects can be profitable; and preservation policies do make sound fiscal sense. However, the economic impacts and measures of historic preservation activities are too situational to be able to extrapolate widely. Making conclusive, generalized statements about the economics of preservation on the basis of a great variety of empirical studies is a future goal, perhaps, but not a current reality. Packet Page 315 of 411 22 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY A. “First Ten Readings” This list is identifies ten works drawn from the review that would best initiate and inform a reader new to economics-preservation issues. 1. David Throsby’s Economics and Culture (2001), an academic though readable treatment of the concepts and philosophies shaping the way the economics field looks at historic preservation (and other spheres of culture as well). 2. Economics and Heritage Conservation (Mason ed., 1999), contains a summary and short briefing paper for a Getty conservation Institute seminar involving economists and preservation specialists. 3. A sampling of Donovan Rypkema’s path-breaking work developing arguments supporting the economic viability of historic preservation: The Economics of Rehabilitation (1991), The Economics of Historic Preservation: a Community Leader’s Guide (1994, updated 2005). 4. Listokin, Listokin and Lahr (1998), a pro-preservation scholarly essay on “The Contributions of Historic Preservation to Housing and Economic Development.” 5. Mourato and Mazzanti (in de la Torre ed., 2002), a comprehensive account of economists’ successes, failures, and prospects for studying the economic values of heritage (from the perspective of economists, but written for preservation professionals); also in this vein is Hutter and Rizzo (1997), an edited collection that is an excellent survey of cultural economists’ work as applied to specific issues of historic preservation. 6. Navrud and Reilly, eds. (2002), a current collection of academic economists studying preservation phenomena, weighted toward the use of contingent valuation methods. 7. Cultural Policy Center, University of Chicago (2002), the proceedings of a conference at which leading economists parse arguments for and against the two main methodologies for studying the economics of preservation: economic impact studies and contingent valuation methods. 8. One of the state-level economic impact studies by David Listokin and his colleagues: Listokin et al (2002) for Florida; Center for Urban Policy Research et al (1999) for Texas; or New Jersey Historic Trust and Center for Urban Policy Research (1997) for New Jersey. 9. Ashworth (2002), which looks carefully at the “economic context of decision making” and the presumption that historic designation has a positive effect on property values. 10. The RAND Corporation report The Gifts of the Muse (McCarthy, et al., 2004) summarizes policy debates surrounding public investment in the arts, with many parallels to historic preservation, and also includes useful theoretical reviews of economic and non-economic rationales for cultural policy. Packet Page 316 of 411 23 B. Overarching Works on Economics and Historic Preservation Studying the economics of preservation remains outside the mainstream of the economics field. The conventional, well-established British economist Sir Alan Peacock, in a published lecture, felt the need to justify his interest in the subject: “Having established that the economics of heritage is worthy of attention and presents some fascinating intellectual problems….” (Peacock, 1995, chapter 1). In light of the variety and complexity of possible approaches to the economic of historic preservation, works designed to explain the range of approaches to analyzing the economics of historic preservation are particularly valuable. They provide a map of the whole literature— describing known features as well as the terra incognita of unexplored issues—and establish a framework for relating single works to the whole literature. There are a range of approaches to the economics of preservation is best described by the extent to which the authors problematize the whole prospect of measuring the economic values of historic preservation. In some works, the economic measures are seen as unproblematic—a simple application of proven economic analyses to a different sort of good/service, and following from this a simple input to existing decision-making apparatuses (Pagiola, 1996; some chapters in Hutter and Rizzo, 1997). Elsewhere, the difficulty in pricing nonuse values and the built-in uncertainties and politics of cultural policy are identified as a central problematic (Throsby, 2001). There is a general trend toward more sophisticated analysis of nonuse values, extending economists’ analytical reach farther into the nonuse realm with new methods tools, without determining how far these methods can actually take our understanding (Mourato and Mazzanti, 2002). The following works offer invaluable overviews of the concepts, frameworks, and methodologies connecting economics and historic preservation: • Throsby 2001; a thorough overview, written mostly for economists though not exclusively, adapting the tools of environmental economics and economics of art to culture in general and specifically to the field of historic preservation; • Hutter and Rizzo 1997; collecting the work of the leading cultural economists working on historic preservation-related topics, along with a clear overview of research issues, problems, and concepts; • Mourato and Mazzanti 2002: an excellent, recent overview of the range of methodological approaches, as well as some new and novel suggestions (choice modeling—see below); • Klamer and Zuidhof 1999: interpreting the range of economic approaches to heritage, specifically in light of the distinction between cultural and economic values of heritage: • Pagiola 1996: writing from the applied economist perspective, applying the tested methods of environmental economics directly to cultural heritage situations in support of analyzing World Bank financing and lending decisions. • Ashworth 2002 gives an overview of the problematic issues joining economics and preservation, as seen through the lens of a widely debated pragmatic and policy issue—the Packet Page 317 of 411 24 effect of historic district designation, one of the most common preservation policy tools, on property values. • These synthetic works connect economic concepts and analyses to matters of cultural policy: Peacock 1995; Peacock and Rizzo 1994; Schuster and de Monchaux 1997. Applied Economics. "Valuing the Public Benefits of Heritage Listing of Commercial Buildings: Prepared for the New South Wales Heritage Office." Sydney: 2000. Ascroft, Sheila. "Preservation Pays: the Economics of Heritage Conservation." Ottawa: The Heritage Canada Foundation, 2002. Ashworth, G. J. "Conservation Designation and the Revaluation of Property: the Risk of Heritage Innovation." International Journal of Heritage Studies 8, no. 1 (2002): pp. 9-23. Australian Heritage Commission. "Heritage Economics: Challenges for Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Development in the 21st Century." Australia: Australian Heritage Commission, 2001. Baer, William. “When Old Buildings Ripen for Historic Preservation: a Predictive Approach to Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 61/1, Winter 1995. Brabec, Elizabeth, and Andrew L. Zehner. "The Economics of Community Character Preservation: an Annotated Bibliography." Washington, D.C.: Government Finance Research Center, Government Finance Officers Association, 1991. Brand, Stewart. How Buildings Learn. New York: Penguin, 1995. English Heritage. The Heritage Dividend. London: English Heritage, 1999. Frey, Bruno S. "The Evaluation of Cultural Heritage: Some Critical Issues." Economic Perspectives on Cultural Heritage Michael and Ilde Rizzo editors Hutter. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997. Greffe, X. La Valeur Economique Du Patrimoine: La Demande Et L'Offre De Monuments. Paris: Anthropos, 1990. Greffe, Xavier. " Managing Our Cultural Heritage, trans. Latika Sahgal. New Delhi: Aryan Books International in association with Cultural Section of the Embassy of France, 2001. Hutter, Michael and Ilde Rizzo editors. Economic Perspectives on Cultural Heritage. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997. Klamer, Arjo and Peter-Wim Zuidhof. "The Values of Cultural Heritage: Merging Economic and Cultural Appraisals." Economics and Heritage Conservation. ed. Randall Mason, 23-58. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 1999. Lichfield, Nathaniel. "Economics in Urban Conservation." Cambridge University Press, 1988. Mason, Randall ed. Economics and Heritage Conservation. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 1999. Mohr, E. and J. Schmidt. "Aspects of Economic Valuation of Cultural Heritage." Saving Our Architectural Heritage: The Conservation of Historic Stone Structures , Baer and Snethlage, eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997. Mourato, Susana and Massimiliano Mazzanti. "Economic Valuation of Cultural Heritage: Evidence and Prospects." Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage. de la Torre, ed. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 2002. National Trust for Historic Preservation. "Economic Benefits of Preserving Old Buildings." Packet Page 318 of 411 25 Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books, 1976. Ost, Christian and Nathalie Van Droogenbroeck. Report on the Economics of Conservation: An Appraisal of Theories, Principles and Methods. ICOMOS International Economics Committee, 1998. Peacock, Alan ed. Does the Past Have a Future? The Political Economy of Heritage. London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1998. ---. 1995. “A Future for the Past: The Political Economy of Heritage.” Proceedings of the British Academy, 87, pp.189-243. Pearce, David and Susana Mourato. "Economic and Financial Analysis for Cultural Heritage Projects--Valuation Methods and Techniques. ""Milan Lin-Rodrigo" , 19?? Rypkema, Donovan D. The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community Leader's Guide. Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1994. Seaman, Bruce A. "Beyond Economic Impact." The Arts in a New Millennium: Research and the Arts Sector. editors Valerie B. Morris and David B. Pancratz Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003. Stefano Pagiola. "Economic Analysis of Investments in Cultural Heritage: Insights From Environmental Economics." Washington: Environment Department, World Bank, 1996. Throsby, David. 2001. Economics and Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. Vivian, Daniel, Mark Gilberg, and David Listokin. "Analyzing the Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation." Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Forum Journal, 2000. C. Economics of the Arts and Culture Beginning in earnest in the 1960s, a subfield of economics concerned with the arts has emerged as a recognized area of research. The thrust of this work is applying the concepts and tools of neoclassical economics to the spheres of art and culture—looking at artworks and cultural performances as another kind of commodity/sphere of economic activity, though with some novel aspects. Because of the obvious nonuse values of art and culture—the raison d’etre of art and culture being by definition beyond economic and pragmatic concerns—this area of economics has itself been a creative center. Methodologies have been built to address the inclusion of art and culture in the normal, normative discourse of economics; in many cases, environmental economics have been the source of methodologies for cultural economics. The leading works cited below convey an overview of issues and methods used in the studying the arts and cultural spheres as kinds of economic activity. Academic writing about the arts as an economic activity goes back at least to John Kenneth Galbraith in the 1960s7, but was more fully developed by Baumol (Baumol and Bowen 1966). A number of excellent collections and overviews have been published, including Peacock and Rizzo 1994; Throsby 2001; Towse and Khakee 1992; and Towse 1997. These and a number of other economists regularly publish research in the Journal of Cultural Economics and in the proceedings of biannual conferences of the Association of Cultural Economics International. 7 Throsby, 2001, p.12. Packet Page 319 of 411 26 Baumol, William J. and William G. Bowen. Performing Arts, the Economic Dilemma; a Study of Problems Common to Theater, Opera, Music, and Dance. New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1966. Grampp, William. Pricing the Priceless: Arts, Artists, and Economics. New York: Basic Books, 1989. Guetzkow, Joshua. "How the Arts Impact Communities: An Introduction to Literature on Arts Impact Studies." New Jersey: Princeton University, 2002. Hansen, Trine Bille. "Measuring the Value of Culture." Cultural Policy vol. 1,no. 2 (1995): pp. 309- 22. Klamer, Arjo editor. The Value of Culture: On The Relationship Between Economics and Arts. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1996. McCarthy, Kevin, Elizabeth Ondaatje, Laura Zakaris, and Arthur Brooks. 2004. Gifts of the Muse: Reframing the Debate about the Benefits of the Arts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Peacock, Alan and Ilde Rizzo editors. Cultural Economics and Cultural Policies. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994. Throsby, David. "Culture, Economics and Sustainability." Journal of Cultural Economics 19 (1995): 199-206. ———. Economics and Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Towse, Ruth and Addul Khakee eds. Cultural Economics. Berlin / New York: Springer Verlag, 1992. Towse, Ruth editor. Cultural Economics: The Arts, the Heritage, and the Media Industries . International Library of Critical Writings in Economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1997. D. Environmental Economics The issues and methods involved in studying environmental or natural-resource conservation mirror very closely the issues regarding cultural resources in general and historic preservation specifically. A number of economic concepts and methodologies developed in the field of environmental economics (also known as ecological economics) over the last several decades provide important jumping-off points for studying the economics of historic preservation. Given that the literature on environmental economics is considerable and well-developed, it constitutes an important foundation for developing the economics of preservation. Both cultural and natural resources are treated by economists as having both private-good and public-good qualities. Consequently, extra-market measures of natural-resource values have been a focus of economists working in this area. Contingent valuation methods, for instance, were pioneered in environmental economics and only more recently have been applied to historic preservation and other cultural resources. A number of cultural economists began working on natural-resource issues and explicitly discuss the borrowing of methods and concepts from environmental economics (for instance, Pagiola, 1996; Throsby, 2001). There are many useful overview works represented the considerable accomplishments of the environmental economics subfield. These works often have a very strong orientation toward the applied, given that many environmental economic tools have developed out of the practical needs of institutions such as the World Bank. Of particular note are the work of Robert Costanza (Costanza Packet Page 320 of 411 27 1996), Herman Daly, and John Dixon (Dixon and Sherman 1990; Dixon et al 1994). As with much literature from the economics field, much of the material in environmental economics is quite technical, with mathematical equations forming an important part of the discourse; Edward-Jones et al (2000) provides an excellent introduction for non-economists. Rietbergen-McCracken and Abaza (2000) presents a number of creative applications of environmental economics methodologies, many of them relevant to cultural heritage issues. A number of interesting, more specialized works on particular aspects of environmental economics are available. Some examples include Attfield (1998) on typologizing the values of ecology and building methodological approaches following from this, and Howarth and Farber (2002), who attempt to account for externalities such as “the quiet of the woods” in accounting for economic valuation of the natural environment. Complementing these academically focused studies, there is a substantial stock of advocacy-focused studies on environmental issues such as open space protection, smart growth/growth management, or other policies. In this vein, see Lerner and Poole (1999), an extensive and persuasive report for the Trust for Public Land enumerating the benefits (economic and otherwise) or open-space preservation. Like many other advocacy reports, their study relays the results of extensive research in fairly attenuated form—i.e., selecting and presenting a few of the most striking and memorable results. In addition, articles appearing in such academic journals as Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Environmental Values, and Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, should be watched as sources of innovation and comparison to cultural-resource issues. The web site ecosystemvaluation.org gives a useful and non-technical introduction to environmental economics issues and tools. The work of economist Mark Sagoff warrants special note as a critical voice in the use of environmental economics and the shaping of resource protection policy. Many of his articles take issue with common assumptions and received wisdom in the field, looking more closely at some of the assumptions behind environmental economics, and casting some doubt of them (Sagoff, 1994, 1997). The academic literature on growth management (a.k.a. Smart Growth) is expansive, and potentially quite relevant to historic preservation policy issues and methodological challenges. The intangible aesthetic and “quality of life” factors that play a role in the analysis and advocacy of growth management are parallel to the nonuse values of historic preservation. Therefore, while state-of-the-art measures of sprawl continue to exclude cultural factors for the most part (Song and Knapp 2004), efforts such as the Costs of Sprawl study by the Transportation Research Board (1998), and Jackson and Kochtitsky (2002) are potentially of great relevance for preservation. Berkes, Fikret and Carl Folke. 1994. "Investing in Cultural Capital for Sustainable Use of Natural Capital." Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Packet Page 321 of 411 28 A. Jansson, M. Hammer, C. Folke, and R. Costanza, eds., Washington: Island Press. Collados, Cecilia and Duane Timothy P. "Natural Capital and Quality of Life: a Model for Evaluating the Sustainability of Alternative Regional Development Paths." Ecological Economics 30, no. 3 (1999): 441-60. Costanza, Robert et al. eds. "Getting Down to Earth: Practical Applications of Ecological Economics." Integrated Envisioning, Analysis, and Implementation of a Sustainable and Desirable Society. Robert et al. Costanza, pp. 1-13. Washington: International Society for Ecological Economics/Island Press, 1996. Costanza, Robert, ed. 1991. Ecological Economics: the Science and Management of Sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991. Dixon, J. A. L. F. Scura R. A. Carpenter and P. B. Sherman. Economic Analysis of Environmental Impacts. London: Earthscan, 1994. Dixon, John A. and John B. Sherman. Economics of Protected Areas: A New Look at Benefits and Costs. Washington: Island Press, 1990. Edwards-Jones, Gareth Ben Davies Salman Hussain. Ecological Economics: An Introduction. Malden. MA: Blackwell Science, 2000. Haab, Timothy C. and Kenneth E. McConnell. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2002. Howarth, Richard B. and Farber Stephen. "Accounting for the Value of Ecosystem Services." Ecological Economics 41, no. 3 (2002): pp. 421-29. Jackson, Richard and Chris Kochtitzky. 2002. Creating a Healthy Environment: the Impact of the Built Environment on Public Health. Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse Monograph Series. Lerner, Steve and William Poole. 1999. The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space: How Land Conservation Helps Communities Grow Smart and Protect the Bottom Line. California: Trust for Public Land. Pagiola, Stefano. Economic Analysis of Investments in Cultural Heritage: Insights From Environmental Economics. Environment Department, World Bank, 1996. Rietbergen-McCracken, Jennifer and Abaza Hussein, eds. 2000. Environmental Valuation: a World- Wide Compendium of Case Studies. UK: Earthscan Publications Limited. Sagoff, Mark. 1997. "Environmental Economics." Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. (Ruth Chadwick, ed.) New York: Academic Press. ———. 1994. "Four Dogmas of Environmental Economics." Environmental Values. v.3, n.4, 285- 310. Tibbetts, John. Open Space Conservation: Investing In Your Community's Economic Health . Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1998. Trust for Public Land. "Bibliography: The Economic Benefits of Open Space." Web page, 1996 [accessed 2003]. Available at http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cdl.cfm?content_item_id=1076&folder_id=726. ———. The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space: How Land Conservation Helps Communities Grow Smart and Protect the Bottom Line. 1999. Worrall, Douglas G. "Economics and the Conservation of Land." Maryland: Wright, Constable & Skeen, L.L.P., 1998. Packet Page 322 of 411 29 E. Works on the Notion of Value The conceptual issues regarding the economics of preservation are extremely important to understanding the existing literature, the absences in it, and the fundamental methodological challenges.8 The concept of value is foremost. As it is used here, “values” refers to the different qualities of a certain building, place or preservation activity. Every preserved building or preservation project has, by its nature, several different types of value—it may be valued for its historical associations, its beauty, its use as a social gathering spot, as part of an ecosystem, or financially. Efforts to classify all the different values of historic preservation have yielded many different types (Avrami and Mason, 2000); for the purposes of this review, the broad distinction between cultural values and economic values is most relevant. The conceptual distinction between economic and cultural values of historic preservation is important because they represent incommensurable ways of looking at the same phenomena and thus to different methodological choices (Mason, ed., 1999; Avrami and Mason, 2000; de la Torre, 2002). Consider, for instance, how an historian would describe the value of an old building, as opposed to how an economist would describe it. In the parlance of economics, the value of historic buildings falls into two clear categories: use and non-use values. Use values are consumable and tradable through markets and therefore are fairly simple to price and analyze with standard economic methods that calculate prices in straightforward manner. Non-use values are not consumable by individuals or tradable through markets, and are consonant with the notion of public goods. These two broad categories relate to respective kinds of methodologies that have been created to study them. Use values are measured with data from markets; non-use values have to be have prices estimated for them. In any historic preservation project, both these value types are present, creating some confusion about which methodologies are most appropriate. Because some of the most important benefits (or, impacts) of historic preservation are cultural, the fundamental difficulty in measuring culture looms large in any effort to quantify the values of preservation (Klamer 1996; Selwood 2002). Despite the range of economic tools available for quantifying intangible, “priceless” phenomena, there remains a fundamental blind spot in economic analyses of the value of historic preservation: costs and benefits that resist quantification are often simply excluded from economic studies of preservation, because of the admitted difficulties in quantifying them. Attfield, Robin. "Existence Value and Intrinsic Value." Ecological Economics 24, no. 2-3 (1998): pp. 163-68. Avrami, Erica and Randall Mason eds. "Values and Heritage Conservation." Los Angeles, California: 8 There is some justifiable impatience among practitioners when it comes to discussing conceptual issues—it seems to delay discussion of specific, “real” results—but some discussion of concepts is indispensable. But the specific results of this review, and the individual studies, would be meaningless without an understanding of the concepts underlying them and the context within which they are set. Packet Page 323 of 411 30 The Getty Conservation Institute, 2001. Benedikt, Michael ed. Center 10/Value. Austin, TX: Center for Architecture and Design, School of Architecture, University of Texas, 1997. de la Torre, Marta ed. "Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage." Los Angeles, California: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2002. Kellert, Stephen. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. Washington: Island Press, 1996. Klamer, Arjo, ed.. 1996. The Value of Culture: On The Relationship Between Economics and Arts. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Mason, Randall ed. Economics and Heritage Conservation. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 1999. Selwood, Sara. 2002. "Measuring Culture." Spiked. 30 December 2002. Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. Contingencies of Value: Alternative Perspectives for Critical Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. Smith, Charles. Auctions: the Social Construction of Value. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989. F. Basic Cost Studies / Descriptive Works This group of studies documents and describes the economic factors of preservation projects or policies in fairly straightforward ways that skirt the methodological difficulties cited above. Common types of studies include cost-benefit studies undertaken by state agencies to evaluate the fiscal basis for particular policies—especially rehabilitation tax credits (Missouri Economic Research & Information Center, 2002; Thompson, 2004). There are a few regular reports on specific, nation-wide programs: Statistical report on annual activity with the federal rehabilitation tax credit (National Park Service, 2002a); National Main Street Trends Survey (2003) gathering statistics and survey data gleaned from 1500 community organizations running Main Street programs. For some state-level Main Street programs, one can find simple reporting of statistics (jobs created, number of projects completed, dollars of reinvestment) from the areas with Main Street policies in place. These reports combine simple descriptive statistics and reporting of measured costs with some other figures derived from economic impact studies (especially job creation). See, for instance: • New Jersey- http://www.state.nj.us/dca/dhcr/msstats.htm • Maine: http://www.mdf.org/downtown/economic_impact.html • Wisconsin: http://www.commerce.state.wi.us/CD/CD-bdd-impact.html] United States Defense Department, n.d. offers cost-benefit arguments to commanders of military installations, along with guidance on other aspects of heritage management. National Park Service Director’s Order 90 (2002b) outlines a system for value engineering NPS projects, including the tool termed “Choosing by Advantages,” essentially a synonym for cost- Packet Page 324 of 411 31 benefit analysis. The Order defines cost-benefit analysis as: “A system of concepts and methods to structure decision-making. CBA quantifies the relative importance of non-monetary advantages or benefits for a set of alternatives and allows subsequent benefit and cost consideration during decision-making.” (National Park Service, 2002b). The methodology itself is not outlined. Coburn, Leslie. "Analysis of the Effect of a 25% Tax Credit for the Cost of Rehabilitation of Eligible Historic Properties on Minnesota State Tax Revenues." Minnesota: Preservation Alliance of Minnesota, Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Initiative, 2000. Coulson, N. Edward and Robin Leichenko. "The Internal and External Impact of Historical Designation on Property Values." Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 23, no. 1 (2001): 113-24. Heinzerling, Lisa and Frank Ackerman. Pricing the Priceless: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Protection. Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, Georgetown University Law Center, 2002. Lichfield, Nathaniel, William Hendon, Peter Nijkamp, Christian Ost, Almerico Realfonzo, and Peitro Rostirolla. 1993. "Conservation Economics, Cost Benefit Analysis for the Cultural Built Heritage: Principles and Practice." Paris: ICOMOS International Scientific Committee. Miles, Mike E., Gayle Berens, and Marc A. Weiss. 2000. Real Estate Development: Principles and Process. Washington: Urban Land Institute. Missouri Economic Research & Information Center, Missouri Department of Economic Development. 2002. The Economic and State Revenue Impacts of Projects Completed Using The Missouri Historic Tax Credit Program. National Main Street Center. "2002 National Main Street Trends Survey." Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Main Street Center, 2002. National Park Service, National Center for Cultural Resources Heritage Preservation Services Division Technical Preservation Services. "Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, Statistical Report and Analysis (Annual) ."1996. Preservation Action and Heritage Consulting Group. 1999. "Home Again in Philadelphia: Revitalizing Philadelphia With the Historic Homeownership Assistance Act." (Elise Vider, ed.). Philadelphia: Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia. ———. No date. "Home Again in San Antonio: Revitalizing San Antonio With the Historic Homeownership Assistance Act." Texas: San Antonio Conservation Society. Rypkema, Donovan. 1991. The Economics of Rehabilitation. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. ———. 1991. The Investor Looks at an Historic Building. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Rypkema, Donovan and Katherine Wiehagen. 1998. The Economic Benefits of Preserving Philadelphia's Past. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Spencer, Brenda. 1995. An Analysis of the Economic Impact of Physical Improvements on Retail Sales. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. National Park Service, National Center for Cultural Resources, Heritage Preservation Services Division, Technical Preservation Services. 2002. "Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Packet Page 325 of 411 32 Historic Buildings: Statistical Report and Analysis for Fiscal Year 2001." Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. Thompson, Eric. 2004. "Economic and Fiscal Analysis of an Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program for Kentucky Homes." Lexington, KY: Center for Business and Economic Research, Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky. Urban Land Institute. 1996. New Uses of Obsolete Buildings. Washington: Urban Land Institute. G. Economic Impact Studies The basic features and methods of economic impact studies are described above (in sections III.C and IV.B). In addition to the works noted there, a few others deserve special mention: • Vivian, Gilberg and Listokin (2000) takes stock of recent economic impact studies of preservation, as well as future prospects, noting the increasing precision and accuracy of economic impact studies (based on the increasing sophistication of the underlying input- output models, and the increasingly broad range of the direct and indirect effects of preservation spending that are included in the studies). They report on the discussions at a one-day seminar of experts, including difficulties of data availability; the impulse to quantify quality of life factors (understood as significant benefits of historic preservation activities); and the difficulty of doing so. • Lipman Frizzell & Mitchell studies offer detailed analyses in advocating for the continued success of Maryland’s state rehabilitation tax credits • The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Dollars and Sense series includes 19 place- specific studies, mostly using economic impact methods to establish the positive economic effects of preservation on local economies, property values, etc. Four studies are offered as empirical examples of specific, preservation-project-related economic impact studies: • MASS MoCA [Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art, which involved reuse of a number of historic industrial buildings] Economic Impact Report: reports the actual economic impacts several years after initial feasibility studies and implementation of the museum and associated commercial developments. [http://www.downsideupthemovie.org/interact/MASSMoCA_EIR.pdf] • City of Sacramento Sports and Entertainment District Concept Plan: used economic impact studies to evaluate three different development scenarios according to the magnitude of economic impact of each [http://www.cityofsacramento.org/SED/Economic_Impact_Analysis.pdf] • Weston State Hospital (West Virginia) reuse planning: economic impact studies were included as part of the criteria for scoring proposals solicited for the reuse of this site [http://www.westonlandmark.com/adaptive_reuse_proposal_criteria.pdf] Packet Page 326 of 411 33 • Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. (2001) uses economic impact methods to analyze the catalytic role of renovating historic train stations as part of downtown revitalization programs. Argersinger, Floyd. " Washington State Special Valuation for Improvements to Historic Properties." Washington: Washington State Department of Community Development, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 1993. Athens-Clarke County Planning Department. "Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in Georgia: A Study of Three Communities, Athens, Rome, and Tifton ." Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books, 1996. Bauer, Matthew. "Use It or Lose It." Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books, 1996. Bay Area Economics. "Economic Impact of Historic Preservation Income Tax Credits Proposed for the State of Oregon.” Oregon: Oregon State Historic Preservation Office; Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, 2002. Cegielski, Michele, Ben Janeczko, Trevor Mules, and Josette Wells. "Economic Value of Tourism to Places of Cultural Heritage Significance: A Case Study of Three Towns With Mining Heritage.” Australia: CRC for Sustainable Tourism, University of Canberra, n.d. Clarion Associates. "Investing in Michigan's Future: The Economic Benefit of Michigan's Historic Preservation Tax Credit.” Michigan: Michigan Historic Preservation Network, 2002. Clarion Associates, BBC Research and Consulting, and Place Economics. "The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in Colorado.” Colorado: Colorado Historical Foundation; Colorado Historical Society , 2002. Cronyn, Joseph M., and LLC Lipman Frizzell & Mitchell. "The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Local Historic Districts in Maryland: A Summary of Six Case Studies.” Maryland: Maryland Association of Historic District Commissions, 1999. Government Finance Research Center. "The Economic Benefits of Preserving Community Character: A Case Study From Fredericksburg, Virginia." Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books, 1996. ———. "The Economic Benefits of Preserving Community Character: A Case Study From Galveston, Texas." eds. Michael E. Fleenor, Bridget Hartman, and Alison Hinchman, Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books, 1996. Great American Station Foundation. "Economic Impact of Station Revitalization."2001. Hammer, Siler George Associates. "The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Historic District Designation: Lower Downtown Denver, Colorado." Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books, 1990. Johnson, Daniel G., and Jay Sullivan. "Economic Impacts of Civil War Battlefield Preservation: An Ex Ante Evaluation.” Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1992. Legg Mason Realty Group, Inc. Government Finance Group. "Community Heritage Investment Tax Credit: Estimated Fiscal and Economic Impacts.” Maryland: Maryland Historic Trust, 1996. Leithe, Joni, and Patricia Tigue. "Profiting From the Past: The Economic Impact of Historic Preservation in Georgia.” Georgia: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books, 1999. Packet Page 327 of 411 34 Leithe, Joni. 1991. The Economic Benefits of Preserving Community Character: A Practical Methodology. National Trust for Historic Preservation. Lipman Frizzell & Mitchell LLC. 2003. "Historic Rehabilitation & Economic Revitalization Tax Credit Act: Economic & Fiscal Impacts." Pittsburgh: Downtown Pittsburgh Partnership. ———. 2002. "State of Maryland Heritage Structure Rehabilitation Tax Credits: Economic and Fiscal Impacts." Baltimore: Preservation Maryland. Listokin, David, and Michael L. Lahr. "Economic Impacts of Preservation in New Jersey and Texas." Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Forum Journal, 2000. Listokin, David, Michael L. Lahr, Kevin St. Martin, Nomel Francisco, Michele B. McGlyn, and Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research. "Profile and Economic Impacts of the Missouri Historic Preservation Tax Credit Program.” Missouri: Missouri Downtown Association; Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Parks, Historic Preservation Program, 2001. Listokin, David, Mike L. Lahr, Kevin St. Martin, Nomel Francisco, and Michele B. McGlyn. "Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in Missouri.” Missouri: Missouri Downtown Association, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Outreach and Assistance Center, State Historic Preservation Office, 2001. Listokin, David and Michael L. Lahr. "Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation.” New Jersey: New Jersey Historic Trust, 1997. Listokin, David Lahr Mike L. McLendon Timothy and Klein JoAnn. "Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in Florida.” University of Florida Levin College of Law, 2002. Missouri Economic Research & Information Center, Missouri Department of Economic Development. The Economic and State Revenue Impacts of Projects Completed Using The Missouri Historic Tax Credit Program. 2002. Missouri Office of the State Auditor. "Review of State Tax Credits Administered by the Department of Economic Development."2002. National Center for Preservation Technology and Training. "A Seminar on Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation." Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1999. Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. 1992. "Economic Impact and Fiscal Analysis of Oregon's Special Tax Assessment of Historic Properties." Oregon: Parks and Recreation Department. Roddewig, Richard J., Julia H. Miller, and Cheryl A. Ingraham. "Economic Benefits From Rehabilitation of Certified Historic Structures in Illinois.” Illinois: Preservation Services, Illinois Department of Conservation, 1984. ———. "Economic Benefits From Rehabilitation of Certified Historic Structures in Texas.” Texas: Texas Historical Commission, 1985. Rypkema, Donovan. 1998. "Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation." Forum News (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.4, n.5. ———. "Historic Preservation and the Economy of the Commonwealth: Kentucky's Past at Work for Kentucky's Future." Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books, 1997. ———. "Job Creation Through Rehabilitation: State by State Analysis." Washington, D.C.: Real Estate Services Group, 1993. ———. "Virginia's Economy and Historic Preservation: The Impact of Preservation on Jobs, Packet Page 328 of 411 35 Business, and Community." Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books, 1995. Sanderson, Edward. 1994. The Economic Effects of Historic Preservation in Rhode Island. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Shapiro, Lisa. 2000. Short-Term Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis of the [New Hampshire] Land and Community Heritage Investment Program. http://www.gcglaw.com/resources/economic/land.html Strauss, Charles H., Bruce E. Lord and Michael J. Powell. 2002. "Path of Progress Heritage System: Visitor Characteristics and Economic Impacts. Economic Impact of Tourism With a Multi- County Region." Hollidaysburg, PA: Westsylvania Heritage Corporation. http://www.westsylvania.org/documents/PSUResearch2002.pdf Taylor, David T., R. Fletcher, and T. Clabaugh. 1993. "A Comparison of Characteristics, Regional Expenditures, and Economic Impact of Visitors to Historical Sites and Other Recreational Visitors." Journal of Travel Research, v.32, n.1, pp.30-35. The Center for Urban Policy and Research at Rutgers University, Texas Perspectives, and The LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. 1999. "Historic Preservation at Work for the Texas Economy." Texas: The Texas Historical Commission, Preservation Dallas, City of Abilene, City of Fort Worth, City of Grapevine, City of Laredo, City of Lubbock, City of Nacogdoches, City of San Antonio, Grapevine Heritage Foundation. Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. "The Great American Station Foundation: Economic Impact of Station Revitalization." The Great American Station Foundation New Mexico: The Great American Station Foundation , 2001. University of Rhode Island, Intergovernmental Policy Analysis Program. 1993. "Economic Effects of the Rhode Island Historical Preservation Commission Program Expenditures From 1971 to 1993."Rhode Island: University of Rhode Island, Intergovernmental Policy Analysis Program. Vivian, Daniel, Mark Gilberg, and David Listokin. 2000. Analyzing the Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation. Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.14, n.3. West Virginia University Bureau of Business and Economic Research. 1999. "A Summary of the Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in West Virginia." West Virginia: Preservation Alliance of West Virginia. H. Regression Analyses The ideas behind regression analyses are introduced above, in section IV.C. In practice, a number of regression-analysis-based studies relating landmarking to property values have been carried out. Does historic-preservation designation and protection decrease or increase property values? If so, how much? There are conflicting theories about how this relationship works, and regression analyses have been used to test these theories. Because of differences in the particular assumptions, data availability, and specific questions pursued by these varied studies, there is no single conclusive answer to which theory is “right.” However, most studies report that historic preservation (most often in the form of local historic district designation) has a positive effect on property values—that is, property values rise somewhat higher, or somewhat faster, inside historic districts than outside them. Packet Page 329 of 411 36 Studies reporting positive economic effects of landmarking include: • NYC Independent Budget Office 2003 • Coulson and Leichenko 2001 • Asabere and Huffman 2001 • Clark and Herrin 1997 Studies reporting a negative effect of landmarking on property values include: • Ashworth 2002 • Asabere, Huffman and Mehdian 1994 Other examples of regression analyses are referenced in Hutter and Rizzo 1997 and Navrud and Ready 2002. Asabere, Paul K. and Forrest Huffman. 1991. "Historic Districts and Land Values." Journal of Real Estate Research, v.6, n.1, pp. 1-8. Asabere, Paul K. Forrest E. Huffman and Seyed Mehdian. 1994. "The Adverse Impacts of Local Historic Designation: The Case of Small Apartment Buildings in Philadelphia." Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. v.8, n.3, pp. 225-34. Clark, David and William Herrin. 1997. "Historical Preservation Districts and Home Sale Prices: Evidence From the Sacramento Housing Market." Review of Regional Studies, v.27,n.1, pp.29-48. Coffin, Donald A. 1989. "The Impact of Historic Districts on Residential Property Values." Eastern Economic Journal v.XV, n.3, pp.221-8. Dombrow, Jonathan, Mauricio Rodriguez and C. F. Sirmans. 2000. “The Market Value of Mature Trees in Single-Family Housing Markets.” Appraisal Journal, v.68, n.1 (January), pp. 39-43. Gale, Dennis. 1991. "The Impacts of Historic District Designation in Washington, D.C." Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Haughey, Patrick and Victoria Basolo. 2000. "The Effect of Dual Local and National Register Historic Designations on Single-Family Housing Prices in New Orleans." Chicago: Appraisal Institute. Kilpatrick, John A. 1985. "House Price Implications of Historic District Designations." South Carolina: Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics, Department of Banking, Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, College of Business Administration, University of South Carolina. Leichenko, Robin M., Edward Coulson, and David Listokin. 2001. "Historic Preservation and Residential Property Values: An Analysis of Texas Cities." Urban Studies. v.38, n.11, pp. 1973-87. Leimenstoll, Jo Ramsay. 1996. Assessing the Impact of Local Historic Districts on Property Values in Greensboro, North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Maryland Association of Historic District Commissions. 1999. The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Local Historic Districts in Maryland, a Summary of Six Case Studies. Frederick, MD: Packet Page 330 of 411 37 Maryland Association of Historic District Commissions. Morton, Elizabeth. 2000. "Historic Districts Are Good for Your Pocketbook: The Impacts of Local Historic Districts on House Prices in South Carolina." South Carolina: South Carolina Department of Archives & History. Navrud, Stale and Richard Ready, eds. 2002. Valuing Cultural Heritage: Applying Environmental Valuation Techniques to Historic Buildings, Monuments and Artifacts. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. New York City Independent Budget Office. 2003. The Impact of Historic Districts of Residential Property Values. New York: New York City Independent Budget Office. Schaeffer, Peter V. and Cecily Ahern Millerick. 1991. "The Impact of Historic Designation on Property Values: an Empirical Study." Economic Development Quarterly, v.5, n.4, pp. 301- 11. Shipley, Robert. 2000. "Heritage Designation and Property Values: Is There an Effect?" International Journal of Heritage Studies. v.6, n.1, pp. 83-100. I. Stated-Preference Studies: Contingent Valuation and Choice Modeling Stated-preference studies are introduced above in section IV.D. Two published works are excellent guides to the concepts, application scenarios, and pragmatic issues of designing and implementing contingent valuation (CV) studies. They are also clear about both the benefits, problems, and limitations involved in doing and interpreting CV: Mourato and Mazzanti (2002) and Navrud and Ready (2002). Mourato and Mazzanti, as noted above in the section on “overview” works, locate CV studies in the broader spectrum of economic concepts and methods applicable to studying the economics of preservation. Navrud and Ready present in their collection a number of chapters reporting on empirical applications of CV studies of historic preservation projects/policies (many undertaken by scholars coming from the very applied world of environmental economics), as well as good explanations of the concepts and uses of CV. The University of Chicago’s Cultural Policy Center hosted a conference (in February 2002), bringing together the leading scholars and latest thinking on contingent valuation methods related to culture. Of particular note in the conference proceedings (unpublished, but papers are available on the web site http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/cvmconf.html) is the exhaustive bibliography on the CV literature by Doug Noonan (Noonan 2002). Bruce Seaman’s essay relaying criticisms of both CV and EI methods, and prospects for joining them, is another useful overview. Apostolakis, Alexandros and Shabbar Jaffry. 2005. “A Choice Modeling Application for Greek Heritage Attractions.” Journal of Travel Research, v.43, n.3, pp.309-318. Cultural Policy Center, University of Chicago. 2002. The Contingent Valuation of Culture [conference]. [http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/cvmconf.html] Carson, Richard T., Leanne Wilks and David Imber. 1994. "Valuing the Preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone." Oxford Economic Papers, v.46 (new series), pp.727-49. Chambers, Catherine M. Paul E. Chambers and John C. Whitehead. 1998. “Contingent Valuation of Quasi-Public Goods: A Validity and Reliability Assessment.” Public Finance Review, v.26, Packet Page 331 of 411 38 n.2, pp.137-54. ----. 1997. “Historical Resources, Uncertainty and Preservation Values: An Application of Option and Optimal Stopping Models.” Journal of Economics and Finance, v.21, n.2, pp.51- 61. Foster, Vivien and Susana Mourato. 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope: Do Contingent and Choice Experiments Give the Same Results?" Environmental and Resource Economics 24, n.2, pp.141-60. Hanley, Nick, Susana Mourato and Robert E. Wright. 2001. "Choice Modeling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?" Journal of Economic Surveys, v.15, n.3, pp.435-62. Harvard University Unit for Housing and Urbanization, Graduate School of Design and Agence pour la Dedensification at la Rehabilitaion de la Medina de Fes. 1999. Case Study: Fez, Morocco- -Rehabilitation of the Fez Medina. Washington: World Bank. Maddison, D. and S. Mourato. "Valuing Different Road Options for Stonehenge." Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, v.4, pp.203-12. Morey, Edward. 2001. "Valuing and Preserving Site-Specific Cultural Resources in Italy: Some of the Issues." unpublished working paper. http://www.colorado.edu/Economics/morey/papers/valuation-italy.pdf. Noonan, Doug. 2002. "Contingent Valuation Studies in the Arts and Culture: An Annotated Bibliography." Working paper, Cultural Policy Center, University of Chicago. [http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/workingpapers/Noonan11.pdf] Pagiola, Stefano. 1998. "Economic Analysis of the Conservation of the Historic Center of Split, Croatia." World Bank project document [http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/44ByDocName/EconomicAnalysisofConserv ationoftheHistoricCenterofSplitCroatia199896KPDF/$FILE/EconomicAnalysisofConservation oftheHistoricCenterofSplitCroatia1998.pdf] Sagoff, Mark. 1998. “Aggregation and Deliberation in Valuing Environmental Public Goods.” Ecological Economics. v.24, n.2-3, pp.213-30. J. Appraisal Studies The literature on property appraisal techniques responsive to the subtleties of the values of historic properties is on the increase. This is confirmed by a recent presentation by Richard Roddewig, who noted, “that professional appraisers’ experience with historic properties has increased dramatically in recent years, and useful information about key issues such as easements and landmarks ordinances is now readily available. Historic property appraisals are consequently becoming increasingly accurate. Thus, while economists still need to examine appraised values with a measure of caution, these concerns should become less of a factor as appraisers experience with historic properties continues to improve in the coming years” (Vivian, Gilberg and Listokin, 2000). A scan of the literature for professional property appraisers yields a number of works relevant to the challenges of determining more accurately the market value of historic properties. The best overview is Reynolds 2002, published by the National Trust. Most of the works cited are Packet Page 332 of 411 39 fairly technical, though see Reynolds 1977, Listokin 1985, and Land Trust Alliance 1999 for more general treatments. Also of note are several works concerning easements and other valuation issues related to scenic and natural (environmental) qualities of properties. As with other methodologies and applications, the issues raised by environmental goods are quite similar to those raised by preservation and other cultural goods. Austin, Michael and Hays Donna Moore. 2000. "Historic and Scenic Property Exemptions Raise Questions." Assessment Journal . v.7, n.3 (May), p.39. James H. Boykin. 2000. “Valuing Scenic Land Conservation Easements.” Appraisal Journal. v.68, n.4, pp. 420-426. Minck, Craig L. and Michael Byrne. 2000. “Understanding the Evolution of Conservation Easement Appraisal Through Case Law.” Appraisal Journal. v.68, n.4, pp.411-19. Danner, John C. 1997. “TDR's--Great Idea but Questionable Value.” Appraisal Journal. v.65, n.2, pp.133-42. Englebrecht, Ted D. 1999. “An Analysis of the Tax and Valuation Attributes of Scenic Easements.” Appraisal Journal, v.67, n.2, pp.147-52. Guarino, Donald P. Jr. 2000. “Valuation of Affordable Housing With Tax Credits.” Appraisal Journal. v.68, n.4, pp.406-10. Harrison, Frank E. 1996. Appraising the Tough Ones. Chicago: Appraisal Institute. Land Trust Alliance. 1999. Appraising Easements--Guidelines for Valuation of Land Conservation and Historic Preservation Easements. Washington: Land Trust Alliance. Lipscomp, John H. 2002. “Second-Generation Industrial Buildings: Value Determinants.” Appraisal Journal. v.70, n.3, pp.298-303. Listokin, David. 1985. "The Appraisal of Designated Historic Properties." Appraisal Journal. (April.) Lusvardi, Wayne C. 1998. “Is the Notion of Preservation Value Extinct?” Appraisal Journal. v.70, n.3, pp.82-90. Mundy, Bill and William Kinnard, Jr. 1998. “Public Interest Value, Market Value, and Economic Use.” Appraisal Journal. v.66, n.2, pp. 207-14. Steven R. Norris. 1999. “Valuing March Air Force Base.” Valuation, insights, and perspectives, v.4, n.2, p. 34. Reynolds, Judith. 2002. Appraising Historic Properties. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation (revised edition). Rinehart, James R. and Jeffrey J. Pompe. 1999. "Estimating the Effect of a View on Undeveloped Property Values." The Appraisal Journal. v.67, n.1. pp.57-62. Roberson, Jerry D. 1997. “Tradition or Stagnation? In Defense of Non-Economic Highest and Best Use.” Appraisal Journal. v.65, n.2, pp.113-19. K. Policy and Decision-Making Support This eclectic group of works share an orientation of directly shedding light on evaluating historic preservation policies or otherwise understanding decision-making for historic preservation policies. They range from documentation and description to examples of specific types of analysis. Packet Page 333 of 411 40 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 2001. "Caring for the Past, Managing for the Future: Federal Stewardship and America's Historic Legacy." Washington, D.C. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Ashworth, G. J. (rapporteur). 2001. "Group Report: Paradigms for Rational Decision-Making in the Preservation of Cultural Property." Rational Decision-Making in the Preservation of Cultural Property. eds. N. S. Baer and F. Snickars. Berlin: Dahlem University Press. General Services Administration. 2000. Held in Public Trust: PBS [Public Buildings Service] Strategy for Using Historic Buildings [Peck Report]. Washington: GSA. General Services Administration. 1999. "Financing Historic Federal Buildings--an Analysis of Current Practice." Washington: General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Office of Business Performance. Lage-Filho, Lauro and Arthur Darling. 2001. “Establishing Priorities for the Preservation of Historic Cities.” Historic Cities and Sacred Sites: Cultural Roots for Urban Futures. (Ismail Serageldin, Ephim Shluger and Joan Martin-Brown, eds.) Washington: World Bank. United States Department of Defense. No date. Benefits of Cultural Resource Conservation: Commander’s Guide. www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/ES- Programs/Conservation/Benefits/one.html Webster, Julie L. and Gordon L. Cohen. 2002. “The Next Big Thing in Energy Conservation: Back to the Future.” Public Works Digest, v.14, n.5 (September), pp. 10-11. Whole Building Design Guide Cost-Effective Committee. No date. “Quantify Non-Monetary Benefits Such As Beauty, Historic Preservation or Safety.” http://www.wbdg.org/design/index.php?cn=2.3.3&cx=0 Wolf, Bradley, Donald Horn, and Constance Ramirez. 1999. Financing Historic Federal Buildings: an Analysis of Current Practice. Washington: General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Office of Business Performance. L. Case Studies The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a clearing house for many case studies relating successful efforts in specific American cities. These are found in the Trust’s publication Forum Journal (for example, see Slaughter, 1997; Lyon, 1993; and Hunter, 1995), as well as through the Forum website, which regularly features new, short accounts on recent developments in the preservation field (often related to economic development issues) (https://forum.nationaltrust.org/; paid membership is required for access). The Trust also creates publications around specific issues—of particular note is the 19-volume Dollars and Sense series (from 1996-2000) and a recent booklet summarizing the wide range of economic redevelopment strategies employing historic preservation (NTHP, 2002). (The literature on the history of the historic preservation field presents some historical cases of the engagement of historic preservation and economic development. See Page and Mason, 2004.) Other valuable case studies on the combination of historic preservation and economic development can be found in the urban planning literature. Particularly useful examples focusing on downtown revitalization are: Bunnell (2002); Collins, Waters and Dotson (1995); and Gratz 1994. Packet Page 334 of 411 41 The Urban Land Institute’s series of Development Case Studies contains a number of detailed financial and development case studies, particularly for adaptive reuse projects (they are part of a subscription series available at www.uli.org). At the international level, the World Bank and other multi-laterals have produced a number of interesting case-study documents regarding the economic values of historic preservation. World Bank (1999) and Serageldin, Shluger, and Martin-Brown (2001) offer broad surveys of the few points of engagement between historic preservation and the international development. Hankey (1999) and Harvard University Unit for Housing and Urbanization (1999) report on two of the Bank’s lending projects, and the economic analyses underlying them, in Lahore, Pakistan and Fes, Morocco. The Inter-American Development Bank has been very progressive in undertaking urban development projects with significant historic preservation components. Rojas (1999) is a good compendium and introduction to IADB’s work. At a more conceptual and advocacy level, a few UNESCO publications (1995; 2000) have attempted to place economic questions alongside other cultural, political, and education issues vis-a-via globalization threats. Finally, a series of four case studies on the management of heritage sites, sponsored by the Getty Conservation Institute, places economic values in the context of the larger spectrum of policy and management issues affecting how particular sites are managed (de la Torre 2004). Bennett, Ann. 1996. The Economic Benefits of Historic Designation: Knoxville, Tennessee. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Bunnell, Gene. 2002. Making Places Special: Stories of Real Places Made Better by Planning. Chicago: American Planning Association. Carew, Michael G. 1993. "History and Dollars: The Economic Consequences of Historic-Site Preservation." Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation). v.7, n.2. Chen, Kim. 1990. The Importance of Historic Preservation in Downtown Richmond: Franklin Street, A Case Study. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. City of Savannah, Preservation Action, and Heritage Consulting Group. 1998. "Home Again in Savannah, Applying the Proposed Federal Historic Homeownership Tax Credit: Four Case Studies." Georgia: City of Savannah. Collins, Richard C., Elizabeth B. Waters and A. Bruce Dotson. 1995. America's Downtowns: Growth, Politics and Preservation. Washington: Preservation Press/Wiley. De la Torre, Marta, Margaret G.H. MacLean, Randall Mason, and David Myers. 2005. Heritage Values in Site Management: Four Case Studies. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute. Elizabeth Lyon. 1993. "Historic Preservation and Successful Communities: A Strategy for Economic and Community Development." Forum Journal. v.7, n.5. Gratz, Roberta. 1994. The Living City: How America's Cities Are Being Revitalized by Thinking Small in a Big Way. Washington: The Preservation Press. Houston, Cynthia. 2001. “Fort Bliss--Tops in Historic Preservation.” Public Works Digest, v.17 (April). Hunter, Craig. 1995. “Transforming History into Economic Development.” Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.9, n.4. Linn, Charles. 2000. “Practice Matters--PSFS Adaptive Reuse Illustrates Preservation Tax Credits at Work.” Architectural Record. October 2000, p.63. Packet Page 335 of 411 42 National Park Service. Various. Case Studies in Affordable Housing Through Historic Preservation, a Series. www.nps.gov National Trust for Historic Preservation. 2002. Rebuilding Community: A Best Practices Toolkit for Historic Preservation and Redevelopment. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation. National Trust for Historic Preservation (various authors). 1996. New Life for White Elephants. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation. Rojas, Eduardo. 1999. Old Cities, New Assets: Preserving Latin America's Urban Heritage. Washington, D.C.: Published by the Inter-American Development Bank: Distributed by the Johns Hopkins University Press. Serageldin, Ismail, Ephim Shluger and Joan Martin-Brown. 2001. Historic Cities and Sacred Sites: Cultural Roots for Urban Futures. Washington: World Bank. Slaughter, Howard B. Jr. 1997. “Integrating Economic Development and Historic Preservation in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.” Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.11, n.3, pp. 41-44. Super, David. 2000. Still Serving: Reusing America's Historic National Guard Armories. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation; National Guard Bureau, 2000. Webb, Amy Jordan, and Suzanne Dane. 2001. Stories Across America: Opportunities for Rural Tourism. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Webster, Ronald. 2001. “Recycled Army Buildings Build New Communities.” Public Works Digest, v.17, August 2001, p. 34. World Bank. 1999. Culture and Sustainable Development--A Framework for Action. Washington: World Bank. M. Economic Development And Historic Preservation Listokin, Listokin and Lahr (1998) is a good mainstream overview of various historic- preservation-as-economic-development arguments. The authors come down squarely on the side that preservation is a strong economic development choice, simply by virtue of its economic benefits. The economic impact of historic preservation remains elusive, even to the most practiced scholars of economic analysis of the field. The catalyst effect of preservation on downtown development “is observed more anecdotally than statistically” (p.443). The journal Housing Policy Debate published the article along with some criticisms (Werwath, 1998; Smith, 1998). The critics do not focus on the economic impact/multiplier methodology, but on the suggestion that historic preservation is well- suited as a community revitalization tool. Stough (1994) portrays preservation as a “secondary goal” in many economic development projects; indeed, “few preservation projects today could be accomplished without providing an economic development rationale.” The author outlines three main types of economic development theory—economic base, growth pole, and infrastructure investment—and the different opportunities they present for “preservation-led development.” Overall, he presents a useful summary of different types of economic development policy practiced in recent decades, filtered through the question of how preservation has, and could, fit with them. Some recent works aimed at broader economic Packet Page 336 of 411 43 development and business audiences attempt to put preservation and other cultural activities at the center of future growth strategies (Florida, 2004; Cunningham, 2002). The Main Street Program, an outreach project of the National Trust for Historic Preservation since the 1970s, is perhaps the most successful program in recent memory to join historic preservation and local economic development goals. While detailed statistics are kept to track the activity of Main Street related investments, the reporting is based on descriptive statistics and economic impact results only; there is a dearth of serious study of this widely renown and successful program. Calvit, Elizabeth. 1998. "Dynamic Partnerships: Economic Development and Historic Preservation." New Orleans: University of New Orleans, College of Urban and Public Affairs, Culture and Preservation Partnerships. Cunningham, Storm. 2002. The Restoration Economy. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler. Florida, Richard. 2004 (reprint). The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books. Green, Bruce, and Linda Wilkes. 1997. Office of Downtown Development, Downtown Tax Base Study. Atlanta: Georgia Municipal Association, Office of Downtown Development, 1997. Hunter, Craig. 1995. "Transforming History into Economic Development." Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.9, n.4. Listokin, David, Barbara Listokin, and Michael Lahr. 1998. "The Contributions of Historic Preservation to Housing and Economic Development." Housing Policy Debate, v.9, n.3. Mignolli, Cuido and Peter Nijkamp. 2001. "Values and Effects of Local Identity Preservation: a Taxonomic Approach." Serie Research Memorandum 2001-23, Free University of Amsterdam. ftp://zappa.ubvu.vu.nl/20010023.pdf Rypkema, Donovan. 2001. "The Economic Power of Restoration." Speech at Restoration and Renovation Conference. http://www.restorationandrenovation.com/RandR/newsletter/rypkema.htm Slaughter, Howard B. Jr. 1997. “Integrating Economic Development and Historic Preservation in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.” Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.11, n.3, pp. 41-44. Smith, Neil. 1998. "Comment on David Listokin, Barbara Listokin, and Michael Lahr's "The Contributions of Historic Preservation to Housing and Economic Development": Historic Preservation in a Neoliberal Age." Housing Policy Debate, v.9, n.3., pp.479-85. Sohmer, Rebecca and Robert E. Lang. 1998. "Beyond This Old House: Historic Preservation in Community Development." Housing Policy Debate, v.9, n.3., pp. Stough, Roger R. 1994. "Economic Development Theory and Practice: Heritage Based Development." Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.8, n.4. Wagner, Richard D. 1993. "Urban Downtown Revitalization and Historic Preservation." Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.7, n.5. ———. 1992. Downtown Development Handbook. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute. Werwath, David. 1998. "Comment on David Listokin, Barbara Listokin, and Michael Lahr's "The Contributions of Historic Preservation to Housing and Economic Development." Housing Policy Debate, v.9, n.3., pp.487-95. Packet Page 337 of 411 44 Wonjo, Christopher T. 1991. "Historic Preservation and Economic Development." Journal of Planning Literature, v.15, n.3., pp.296-307. N. Gentrification Gentrification is an important critical theme tying economics and economic development to historic preservation. Relatively few works directly analyze the connections between preservation and gentrification, though the common wisdom holds that the connections are strong and clear. created since Smith and Williams’ 1986 collection; recent works by Freeman and Braconi 2002 and Hackworth 2002 warrant attention more recently. Freeman, Lance and Frank Braconi. 2002. "Gentrification and Displacement." The Urban Prospect v.8, n.1. Hackworth, Jason. 2002. “Postrecession Gentrification in New York City.” Urban Affairs Review, v.37, n.6, pp. 815-43. Mele, Christopher. 2000. Selling the Lower East Side. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Rypkema, Donovan. 2004. “The Oversimplification of Gentrification.” Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.18, n.4. Smith, Neil and Peter Williams. 1986. Gentrification of the City. Boston: Allen & Unwin. O. Affordable Housing and Historic Preservation In the past few decades there have been a number of efforts to link historic preservation policies to the provision of affordable housing. Many of the sources cites here address means of strategically and pragmatically linking these goals. At the same time, the issue of mass abandonment of inner-city housing has been an acute problem in large cities like Baltimore and Philadelphia, raising both preservation and housing issues. Cohen 2001 (and responses Page 2001 and Culhane and Hillier 2001) replay the challenges abandonment presents to both economic development and historic preservation policies. Ceraso, K. 1999. "Eyesore to Community Asset: Historic Preservation Creates Affordable Housing and Livable Neighborhoods." Shelterforce, v.21, n.4. Clark, Kitty and Byrd Wood. 1989. Affordable Housing in Older Neighborhoods: Multiple Strategies. Washington: National Park Service; National Trust for Historic Preservation. Cohen, James. 2001. “Abandoned Housing: Exploring Lessons From Baltimore.” Housing Policy Debate, v.12, n.3, pp. 415-48. ---. 1998. "Combining Historic Preservation and Income Class Integration: A Case Study of the Butchers Hill Neighborhood of Baltimore." Housing Policy Debate, v.9, n.3, pp. 663-97. Culhane, Dennis P. and Amy E. Hillier. 2001. “Comment on James R. Cohen’s ‘Abandoned Housing: Exploring Lessons From Baltimore.’” Housing Policy Debate, v.12, n.3, pp. 449-55. Gebhardt, Gary, and Jeri C. Rosenzweig. 1998. "Low-Income Housing and the Secretary's Standards." Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.2, n.2. Haughy, Richard. 2001. Urban Infill Housing: Myth and Fact. Washington: Urban Land Institute. Packet Page 338 of 411 45 Leith-Tetrault, John. 1995. "A Mortgage Program Tailored for Rehabs." Forum News (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.1, n.5. Listokin, David. 1983. Housing Rehabilitation; Economic, Social and Policy Perspectives. New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research. Listokin, David, and Barbara Listokin. 2001a. Barriers to the Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing: Volume I of II, Findings and Analysis. Washington: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. ---. 2001b. “Historic Preservation and Affordable Housing: Leveraging Old Resources for New Opportunities.” Housing Facts and Figures (Fannie Mae Foundation), v.3, n.2. MacIntosh, Heather, and Kim Carey. 2002. How Affordable Housing Incentive Programs Fund Historic Preservation. Seattle: Historic Seattle. Mick, Susan, George A. Reigeluth, and Deborah Swift. 1979. Historic Preservation and Housing Rehabilitation: Volume II. Washington: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Urban Institute. Millennial Housing Commission. 2002. Meeting Our Nation’s Housing Challenges. Washington, D.C.: Millennial Housing Commission. Page, Max. 2001. “Comment on James R. Cohen’s ‘Abandoned Housing: Exploring Lessons From Baltimore.’” Housing Policy Debate, v.12, n.3, pp. 457-63. Rypkema, Donovan. 2003. “Historic Preservation and Affordable Housing: the Missed Connection.” Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.17, n.3. P. Urbanization and Historic Preservation A few political scientists and other social scientists have studied the urban political process and institutional behavior surrounding the role of historic preservation in urban growth/management debates in American cities. These studies include: Reichl (1997) examining the fate of preservation in the face of progrowth politics in New York, Atlanta and New Orleans; Newman (2001) studying the failure of preservation to garner political support in Atlanta; and Strom’s (2002) focus on museums and other cultural organizations, which are analogous and often related to historic preservation institutions and efforts. Baer, William. 1995. “When Old Buildings Ripen for Historic Preservation: a Predictive Approach to Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association, v.61, n.1. Boyer, M. Christine. 1992. "Cities for Sale: Merchandising History at South Street Seaport." Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space (Michael Sorkin, ed.). New York: Noonday Press. Chadbourne, Christopher, Philip Walker and Mark Wolfe. 1997. Gambling, Economic Development, and Historic Preservation. Washington: APA Planning Advisory Service. Graham, Brian J., G. J. Ashworth and J. E. Tunbridge. 2000. A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture, and Economy. New York: Oxford University Press. Lewinsohn-Zamir, Daphna. 1997. "The "Conservation Game": The Possibility of Voluntary Cooperation in Preserving Buildings of Cultural Importance." Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 20, no. 3, pp. 773-89. Packet Page 339 of 411 46 Listokin, David. 1997. "Growth Management and Historic Preservation: Best Practices for Synthesis." The Urban Lawyer, v.29, n.2, pp.199-213. ———. 1985. Living Cities, Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Urban Preservation Policies. New York: Priority Press Publications. Newman, Harvey K. 2001. “Historic Preservation Policy and Regime Politics in Atlanta.” Journal of Urban Affairs, v.23, n.1, pp. 71-86. Norquist, John O. 1998. The Wealth of Cities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Reichl, Alexander J. 1997. “Historic Reservation and Progrowth Politics in U. S. Cities.” Urban Affairs Review, v.32, n.4, pp.513-33. Schuster, Mark and John de Monchaux eds. 1997. Preserving the Built Heritage: Tools for Implementation. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. Strom, Elizabeth. 2002. "Converting Pork into Porcelain: Cultural Institutions and Downtown Development." Urban Affairs, v.38, n.1, pp.3-21. Walsh, Kevin. 1992. The Representation of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-Modern World. London: Routledge. UNESCO. 2000. World Culture Report 2. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. ----. 1995. The cultural dimension of development: Towards a Practical Approach. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Q. Tax Issues And Historic Preservation Some of the most popular, and most contentious, public policy issues stemming from historic preservation investment relates to the use tax incentives to stimulate private preservation activities. The long-standing federal tax credits, as well as robust state-level programs, have generated a number of how-to publications as well as some evaluation studies. Archibald, Lauren C., Gregory F. Esterman, Jared Z. Mintz, and Christopher R. Tilley. 1992. "Historic Preservation in the 1990s." Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania/Wharton Real Estate Center. Beaumont, Constance E. and Elizabeth Pianca. 2001. State Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation: A State-by-State Summary. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation. Boyle, Jayne F., Stuart M. Ginsberg, Sally G. Oldham, and Ian D. Spatz. 1986. Guide to Tax- Advantaged Rehabilitation. Washington: Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer and Wood; National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Carrier, Michael and James M. Hamrick Jr. 2000. "2000 Legislative Report on the Special Assessment of Historic Property Program." Salem: Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. Curran, Thomas R. 1998. "Historic Preservation, Affordable Housing, and Community Development: Structuring Rehabilitation Tax Credits Projects.” Journal of Affordable Housing, v.7, n.2, pp. 154-63. Dufour, Kate. 2000. “Standards for Historic Preservation and Scenic Views.” Assessment Journal,, v.7, n.3, p. 34. Escherich, Susan M. Stephen J. Farneth and Bruce D. Judd. Affordable Housing Through Historic Packet Page 340 of 411 47 Preservation: Tax Credits and the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. Washington: GPO, 1996. Kerr, Gordon et al. 2002. "Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits: Today and Tomorrow." Forum News, v.8, n.3. Leith-Tetrault, John. 2002. "State Tax Credits Help Finance Difficult Rehabs." Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.6, n.4. Lipman Frizzell & Mitchell LLC. 2003. "Historic Rehabilitation & Economic Revitalization Tax Credit Act: Economic & Fiscal Impacts." Pittsburgh: Downtown Pittsburgh Partnership. ———. 2002. "State of Maryland Heritage Structure Rehabilitation Tax Credits: Economic and Fiscal Impacts." Baltimore: Preservation Maryland. Listokin, David. 1982. "Landmark Preservation and the Property Tax." New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy and Research; New York Landmarks Conservancy, 1982. Morton, Elizabeth. 1999. Compilation of Research on State Income Tax Credits for Historic Preservation. South Carolina: South Carolina State Archives and History Center. Nagy, John. 2002. “Preservation Tax Credits Working Too Well?” www.stateline.org, March 21, 2002. National Park Service. 2004. Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings: Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2004. Washington: National Park Service, National Center for Cultural Resources, Technical Preservation Services. Pianca, Elizabeth G., and Harry K. Schwartz. 2001. "State Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation." Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.7, n.3. Robinson, Susan G. 1989. "The Effectiveness and Fiscal Impact of Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation." Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.2, n.4. Rybeck, Walter. 1991. "Pennsylvania's Experiments in Property Tax Modernization." Columbus, OH: National Tax Association. Rypkema, Donovan, and Ian D. Spatz. "Rehab Takes a Fall." Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1992. Schwartz, Harry. 1999. Special Property Tax Assessments for Rehabilitated Historic Buildings in South Carolina: An Evaluation and Report to the South Carolina Department of Archives and History. Columbia, SC: South Carolina Department of Archives and History. ---. 1998. "State Mortgage Credits for Historic Rehabilitation of Owner-Occupied Homes." Preservation Law Reporter (National Trust for Historic Preservation). January-March. R. Tourism And Historic Preservation Tourism is an economic sector with strong connections to historic. The connections between tourism and preservation actually relate to two distinct bodies of literature: First, and more central to this paper, the tourism development field generates a substantial “how-to” literature about effectively hitching historic preservation to the economic development juggernaut of tourism-development strategies. Tourism undeniably is an important economic sector in many American cities and regions. To the extent that it imports dollars to a particular region, it is even more coveted. There is evidence that a substantial amount of tourism activity is specifically motivated by visiting heritage sites—43% of American adults traveling in 2001 included a visit to an historic site in their itineraries. (Pennsylvania Tourism and Lodging Association, 2003, p.9, citing Travel Industry Association data). Packet Page 341 of 411 48 Several of the economic impact studies cited earlier (see the various studies and articles by David Listokin and colleagues, in particular) specifically analyze tourism as a sector of economic activity central to historic preservation (along with building rehabilitation). Academic and professional journals on tourism management abound, many of them focusing on how-to, best-practices research for developing and managing tourism sites and programs. In addition, many tourism industry groups and government agencies charged with tourism development or management have also produced some useful guidance. • Australian Heritage Commission (2000) on best practices and case studies of successful partnerships • Pennsylvania Tourism & Lodging Association (2003) on a comprehensive set of policies and actions to implement a state-wide heritage tourism system • Webb and Dane (2001a and 2001b) present successful case studies of heritage tourism • US Travel Data Center is a good source of updated statistics, along with the Travel Industry Association of America (2001, and see web site—www.tia.org). Second is the literature on tourism as a factor in cultural change and an object of public policy in the broad sense. There are myriad disciplinary and political takes on the cultural effects of preservation, many of them inflected with political economic critiques, which makes them relevant to this paper. This substantial scholarly literature is generally quite critical of the social and cultural effects of tourism, whatever its economic successes. See, for instance: Bendixen, 1997; Boyer, 1992; Graham, Ashworth and Tunbridge, 2000; Herbert, 1995; Kirschenblatt-Gimblett, 1998; MacCannell, 1999; and Urry, 1995. Bendixen, Peter. 1997. “Cultural Tourism--Economic Success at the Expense of Culture?” Cultural Policy, v.4, n.1, pp. 21-46. Boyer, M. Christine. 1992. “Cities for Sale: Merchandising History at South Street Seaport.” Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space. (Michael Sorkin, ed.) New York: Noonday Press. Brink, Peter. 1998. "Heritage Tourism in the United States of America." APT Anniversary Journal (Association for Preservation Technology). Endresen, Kris. 1999. Sustainable Tourism and Cultural Heritage: a Review of Development Assistance and Its Potential to Promote Sustainability. Washington: World Bank. Graham, Brian J., G. J. Ashworth and J. E. Tunbridge. 2000. A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture, and Economy. New York: Oxford University Press. Green, Joslyn, and Amy Jordan Webb. 1999. Getting Started: How to Succeed in Heritage Tourism. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books, 1999. Herbert, David T., ed. 1995. Heritage, Tourism and Society. London: Mansell. Kirschenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. 1998. Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage . Berkeley: University of California Press. MacCannell, Dean. 1999. The tourist: a New Theory of the Leisure Class . Berkeley: University of California Press. National Endowment for the Arts. 2001. Share Your Heritage: Who's Who Directory of Statewide Packet Page 342 of 411 49 Cultural Heritage Tourism Programs. Washington: National Endowment for the Arts. Pennsylvania Tourism and Lodging Association. 2003. Heritage Tourism Development: a Policy Framework for Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Tourism and Lodging Association. Roddewig, Richard J. 1988. “Selling America's Heritage...Without Selling Out." Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.2, n.3. Sinclair, M. Thea and Mike Stabler. 1997. The Economics of Tourism. New York: Routledge. Travel Industry Association of America. 2003. The Historic/Cultural Traveler, 2001 Edition. Washington: Travel Industry Association of America. Urry, John. 1995. Consuming Places. New York: Routledge. Webb, Amy Jordan, and Suzanne Dane. Share Your Heritage: Cultural Heritage Tourism Success Stories. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books, 2001. S. Preservation Advocacy Preservation organizations—mostly the NGO’s, but sometimes government agencies as well—often issue publications stating and rationalizing the case for economic and political support of historic preservation activities. The best of these are quite persuasive, though there is a good deal of repetition or arguments and rationales among the various reports. In large part, however, the advocacy literature is less oriented toward “research”—in the sense of shedding light on a question of interest with some objectivity—and rather more oriented to convincing others that preservation is a good investment. The methods and evidence are therefore quite partial. Advocacy studies remain important for researchers because they most clearly state the case for the positive economic benefits of preservation. Particularly comprehensive and impressive examples include reports prepared by state-wide preservation advocacy organizations—Maryland (Rypkema, 1999), Colorado (Colorado Historical Society, 2003; based on Clarion Associates, 2002), and New Jersey (New Jersey Historic Trust, 1998, based on New Jersey Historic Trust and Center for Urban Policy Research, 1997). The web sites of many of these state-wide organizations are excellent starting points for advocacy publications, economic impact studies, tax policy information related to preservation, and other information. English Heritage (England’s leading quasi-governmental historic preservation organization) has published a report directly advocating the view that historic preservation is a wise investment and excellent economic development policy. The Heritage Dividend documents several case studies, as well as general policy successes, for a variety of building types, reuse projects, and revitalization settings (English Heritage, 1999/2002). Also of interest is English Heritage’s Power of Place, marshaling a broad argument for why and how the public values the country’s heritage, based on an extensive public opinion survey. Beaumont, Constance. 1997. Smart States, Better Communities: How State Governments Can Help Citizens Preserve Their Communities. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Packet Page 343 of 411 50 Cisneros, Henry. 1996. "Linking Historic Preservation and Community Revitalization." Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.10, n.2. Clarion Associates, BBC Research and Consulting, and Place Economics. 2002. The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in Colorado. Colorado: Colorado Historical Foundation; Colorado Historical Society . Douthat, Carolyn. 1994. "Economic Incentives for Historic Preservation in Oakland, California." Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.9, n.1. English Heritage. 2000. Power of Place: The Future of the Historic Environment. London: English Heritage/Power of Place Office. ---. 1999 (rev. 2002). The Heritage Dividend. London: English Heritage. Forest, Ben. 1999. “New Jersey Revs Up Its Rehabs.” Planning, v.65, n.8, pp. 10-16. Governor's Task Force on Historic Preservation and Heritage Tourism. 2000. "Investing in South Carolina's Future by Preserving Our Past." South Carolina: Governor's Task Force on Historic Preservation and Heritage Tourism. Lennox, Chad and Jennifer Revels. 2002. Smiling Faces Historic Places: the Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in South Carolina. Spartanburg, SC: Palmetto Conservation Foundation. Moravec, Joe. 2002. "GSA's Commitment to Preserving Historic Federal Buildings." Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.16, n.2. New Jersey Historic Trust. 1998. Partners in Prosperity: The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in New Jersey. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Historic Trust. New Jersey Historic Trust and Center for Urban Policy Research. 1997. Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Historic Trust. Pianca, Elizabeth G. 2001. "Smart Codes: A New Approach to Building Codes." Forum News (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.7, n.5. National Trust for Historic Preservation. "Preserving Our Past: Building Our Future [Video]." Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books, 1999. Oldham, Sally G. 1990. "The Business of Preservation Is Bullish and Diverse." Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.3, n.4. Renner, Lisanne. 1998. Partners in Prosperity: The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in New Jersey. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Rimel, Rebecca W. 1999. "The Art and Economics of Historic Preservation." Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.13, n.2. Rypkema, Donovan. 2005 (revised). The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community Leader's Guide. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation. ———. 2002. "The (Economic) Value of National Register Listing." CRM (National Park Service), v.25, n.1. ———. 2001. New York: Profiting Through Preservation. New York: Preservation League of New York State. ———. 1999. The Value of Historic Preservation in Maryland. Baltimore: Preservation Maryland. ———. 1998. Profiting From the Past: The Impact of Historic Preservation on the North Carolina Economy. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. ———. 1997. Preservation and Property Values in Indiana. Indianapolis: Historic Landmarks Packet Page 344 of 411 51 Foundation of Indiana. ———. 1996. "Community, Place and the Economics of Historic Preservation [transcript]." New Jersey: New Jersey Historic Preservation Office. (www.state.nj.us/dep/hpo/4sustain/spkrseries1.pdf) ———. 1995. "Economics and Historic Preservation." Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.9, n.2. Shaw, Tom M. 1996. "Studying the Dollar Value of History." Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.3, n.1. Skaggs, Laura, and Byrd Wood. 2002. "Rehab Tax Credit Users Join Forces." Forum News (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.8, n.6. Smith, Kennedy Lawson. 1995. "Main Street at 15." Forum Journal (National Trust for Historic Preservation), v.9, n.3. Stipe, Robert E., ed. 2003. With Heritage So Rich: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Packet Page 345 of 411 52 REFERENCE LIST Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 2001. Caring for the Past, Managing for the Future: Federal Stewardship and America's Historic Legacy. Washington: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Apostolakis, Alexandros, and Shabbar Jaffry. 2005. “A Choice Modeling Application for Greek Heritage Attractions.” Journal of Travel Research 43 (3): 309–318. Archibald, Lauren C., and others. 1992. Historic Preservation in the 1990s. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania/Wharton Real Estate Center. Argersinger, Floyd. 1993. Washington State Special Valuation for Improvements to Historic Properties. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Community Development, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Asabere, Paul K., and Forrest Huffman. 1991. "Historic Districts and Land Values." Journal of Real Estate Research 6 (1): 1–8. Asabere, Paul K., Forrest E. Huffman, and Seyed Mehdian. 1994. "The Adverse Impacts of Local Historic Designation: The Case of Small Apartment Buildings in Philadelphia." Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 8 (3): 225–234. Ascroft, Sheila. 2002. Preservation Pays: The Economics of Heritage Conservation. Ottawa: The Heritage Canada Foundation. Ashworth, G. J. (rapporteur). 2001. "Group Report: Paradigms for Rational Decision-Making in the Preservation of Cultural Property." In N. S. Baer and F. Snickars, eds., Rational Decision- Making in the Preservation of Cultural Property. Berlin: Dahlem University Press. ———. 2002. "Conservation Designation and the Revaluation of Property: The Risk of Heritage Innovation," International Journal of Heritage Studies 8 (1): 9–23. Athens-Clarke County Planning Department. 1996. Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in Georgia: A Study of Three Communities, Athens, Rome, and Tifton. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Attfield, Robin. 1998. "Existence Value and Intrinsic Value." Ecological Economics 24 (2-3): 163– 168. Austin, Michael, and Hays Donna Moore. 2000. "Historic and Scenic Property Exemptions Raise Questions." Assessment Journal 7 (3): 39. Australian Heritage Commission. 2001. Heritage Economics: Challenges for Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Development in the 21st Century. Canberra, Australia. Avrami, Erica, and Randall Mason, eds. 2000. "Values and Heritage Conservation." Research report. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute. Baer, William. 1995. “When Old Buildings Ripen for Historic Preservation: A Predictive Approach to Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 61 (1). Bauer, Matthew. 1996. Use It or Lose It. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Baumol, William J., and William G. Bowen. 1966. Performing Arts, the Economic Dilemma: A Study of Problems Common to Theater, Opera, Music, and Dance. New York: Twentieth Century Fund. Packet Page 346 of 411 53 Bay Area Economics. 2002. Economic Impact of Historic Preservation Income Tax Credits Proposed for the State of Oregon. Salem, OR: Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. Beaumont, Constance. 1997. Smart States, Better Communities: How State Governments Can Help Citizens Preserve Their Communities. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Beaumont, Constance E., and Elizabeth Pianca. 2001. State Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation: A State-by-State Summary. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation. Bendixen, Peter. 1997. “Cultural Tourism--Economic Success at the Expense of Culture?” Cultural Policy 4 (1): 21–46. Benedikt, Michael, ed. 1997. Center 10/Value. Austin, TX: Center for Architecture and Design, School of Architecture, University of Texas. Bennett, Ann. 1996. The Economic Benefits of Historic Designation: Knoxville, Tennessee. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Berkes, Fikret, and Carl Folke. 1994. "Investing in Cultural Capital for Sustainable Use of Natural Capital." In A. Jansson and others, eds., Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Washington: Island Press. Boyer, M. Christine. 1992. "Cities for Sale: Merchandising History at South Street Seaport." In Michael Sorkin, ed., Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space. New York: Noonday Press. Boykin, James H. 2000. “Valuing Scenic Land Conservation Easements.” Appraisal Journal 68 (4): 420–426. Boyle, Jayne F., and others. 1986. Guide to Tax-Advantaged Rehabilitation. Washington: Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer and Wood; National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Brabec, Elizabeth, and Andrew L. Zehner. 1991. The Economics of Community Character Preservation: An Annotated Bibliography. Washington: Government Finance Research Center, Government Finance Officers Association. Brand, Stewart. 1995. How Buildings Learn. Penguin. Brink, Peter. 1998. "Heritage Tourism in the United States of America." APT Anniversary Journal (Association for Preservation Technology). Bunnell, Gene. 2002. Making Places Special: Stories of Real Places Made Better by Planning. Chicago: American Planning Association. Calvit, Elizabeth. 1998. "Dynamic Partnerships: Economic Development and Historic Preservation." New Orleans: University of New Orleans, College of Urban and Public Affairs, Culture and Preservation Partnerships. Carew, Michael G. 1993. "History and Dollars: The Economic Consequences of Historic-Site Preservation." Forum Journal 7 (2): National Trust for Historic Preservation). Carrier, Michael, and James M. Hamrick, Jr. 2000. 2000 Legislative Report on the Special Assessment of Historic Property Program. Salem: Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. Carson, Richard T., Leanne Wilks, and David Imber. 1994. "Valuing the Preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone." Oxford Economic Papers 46: 727–749. Packet Page 347 of 411 54 Cegielski, Michele, and others. n.d. Economic Value of Tourism to Places of Cultural Heritage Significance: A Case Study of Three Towns With Mining Heritage. Canberra, Australia: CRC for Sustainable Tourism, University of Canberra. Center for Urban Policy and Research at Rutgers University; Texas Perspectives; and the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. 1999. Historic Preservation at Work for the Texas Economy. Austin: The Texas Historical Commission, Preservation Dallas, City of Abilene, City of Fort Worth, City of Grapevine, City of Laredo, City of Lubbock, City of Nacogdoches, City of San Antonio, Grapevine Heritage Foundation. Ceraso, K. 1999. "Eyesore to Community Asset: Historic Preservation Creates Affordable Housing and Livable Neighborhoods." Shelterforce 21 (4) Chadbourne, Christopher, Philip Walker, and Mark Wolfe. 1997. Gambling, Economic Development, and Historic Preservation. Washington: APA Planning Advisory Service. Chambers, Catherine M., Paul E. Chambers, and John C. Whitehead.1997. “Historical Resources, Uncertainty, and Preservation Values: An Application of Option and Optimal Stopping Models.” Journal of Economics and Finance 21 (2): 51–61. ———. 1998. “Contingent Valuation of Quasi-Public Goods: A Validity and Reliability Assessment.” Public Finance Review 26 (2): 137–154. Chen, Kim. 1990. The Importance of Historic Preservation in Downtown Richmond: Franklin Street, A Case Study. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Cisneros, Henry. 1996. "Linking Historic Preservation and Community Revitalization." Forum Journal 10 (2) (National Trust for Historic Preservation). City of Savannah, Preservation Action, and Heritage Consulting Group. 1998. Home Again in Savannah: Applying the Proposed Federal Historic Homeownership Tax Credit: Four Case Studies. Savannah, GA: City of Savannah. Clarion Associates, BBC Research and Consulting, and Place Economics. 2002. The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in Colorado. Denver: Colorado Historical Foundation; Colorado Historical Society. Clarion Associates. 2002. Investing in Michigan's Future: The Economic Benefit of Michigan's Historic Preservation Tax Credit. Lansing, MI: Michigan Historic Preservation Network, 2002. Clark, David, and William Herrin. 1997. "Historical Preservation Districts and Home Sale Prices: Evidence from the Sacramento Housing Market." Review of Regional Studies 27 (1): 29–48. Clark, Kitty, and Byrd Wood. 1989. Affordable Housing in Older Neighborhoods: Multiple Strategies. Washington: National Park Service; National Trust for Historic Preservation. Coburn, Leslie. 2000. "Analysis of the Effect of a 25% Tax Credit for the Cost of Rehabilitation of Eligible Historic Properties on Minnesota State Tax Revenues." St Paul: Preservation Alliance of Minnesota, Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Initiative. Coffin, Donald A. 1989. "The Impact of Historic Districts on Residential Property Values." Eastern Economic Journal 25 (3): 221–228. Cohen, James. 1998. "Combining Historic Preservation and Income Class Integration: A Case Study of the Butchers Hill Neighborhood of Baltimore." Housing Policy Debate 9 (3): 663– 697. ———. 2001. “Abandoned Housing: Exploring Lessons from Baltimore.” Housing Policy Debate 12 (3): 415–448. Packet Page 348 of 411 55 Collados, Cecilia, and Duane Timothy P. 1999. "Natural Capital and Quality of Life: A Model for Evaluating the Sustainability of Alternative Regional Development Paths." Ecological Economics 30 (3): 441–460. Collins, Richard C., Elizabeth B. Waters, and A. Bruce Dotson. 1995. America's Downtowns: Growth, Politics and Preservation. Washington: Preservation Books/Wiley. Costanza, Robert, ed. 1991. Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. Columbia University Press. Costanza, Robert, and others. 1996. "Getting Down to Earth: Practical Applications of Ecological Economics." In Robert Costanza and others, eds., Integrated Envisioning, Analysis, and Implementation of a Sustainable and Desirable Society. Washington: International Society for Ecological Economics/Island Press. Coulson, N. Edward, and Robin Leichenko. 2001. "The Internal and External Impact of Historical Designation on Property Values." Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 23, (1): 113–124. Cronyn, Joseph M., and Lipman, Frizzell, and Mitchell, LLC. 1999. The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Local Historic Districts in Maryland: A Summary of Six Case Studies. Frederick, MD: Maryland Association of Historic District Commissions. Culhane, Dennis P., and Amy E. Hillier. 2001. “Comment on James R. Cohen’s ‘Abandoned Housing: Exploring Lessons from Baltimore.’” Housing Policy Debate 12 (3): 449–455. Cultural Policy Center, University of Chicago. 2002. The Contingent Valuation of Culture [February 1–2, 2002 conference]. Proceedings and presented papers available online. (http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/cvmconf.html). Cultural Policy Center. 2002. Proceedings of the Conference, The Contingent Valuation of Culture, University of Chicago, February 1–2. (http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/cvmconf.html. [August 30, 2005]). Cunningham, Storm. 2002. The Restoration Economy. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler. Curran, Thomas R. 1998. "Historic Preservation, Affordable Housing, and Community Development: Structuring Rehabilitation Tax Credits Projects.” Journal of Affordable Housing 7 (2): 154– 163. Danner, John C. 1997. “TDR's: Great Idea but Questionable Value.” Appraisal Journal 65 (2): 133– 142. de la Torre, Marta, ed. 2002. "Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage." Research report. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute. de la Torre, Marta, Margaret G.H. MacLean, Randall Mason, and David Myers. 2005. Heritage Values in Site Management: Four Case Studies. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute. Dixon, John, A. L. F. Scura, R. A. Carpenter, and P. B. Sherman. 1994. Economic Analysis of Environmental Impacts. London: Earthscan. Dixon, John A., and John B. Sherman. 1990. Economics of Protected Areas: A New Look at Benefits and Costs. Washington: Island Press. Dombrow, Jonathan, Mauricio Rodriguez, and C. F. Sirmans. 2000. “The Market Value of Mature Trees in Single-Family Housing Markets.” Appraisal Journal 68 (1): 39–43. Douthat, Carolyn. 1994. "Economic Incentives for Historic Preservation in Oakland, California." Forum Journal 9 (1): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Packet Page 349 of 411 56 Dufour, Kate. 2000. “Standards for Historic Preservation and Scenic Views.” Assessment Journal 7 (3): 34. Edwards-Jones, Gareth Ben Davies, and Salman Hussain. 2000. Ecological Economics: An Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science. Endresen, Kris. 1999. Sustainable Tourism and Cultural Heritage: A Review of Development Assistance and Its Potential to Promote Sustainability. Washington: World Bank. Englebrecht, Ted D. 1999. “An Analysis of the Tax and Valuation Attributes of Scenic Easements.” Appraisal Journal 67 (2): 147–152. English Heritage. 1999 (rev. 2002). The Heritage Dividend. London. English Heritage. 2000. Power of Place: The Future of the Historic Environment. London. Escherich, Susan M., Stephen J. Farneth, and Bruce D. Judd. 1996. Affordable Housing through Historic Preservation: Tax Credits and the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. Washington: GPO. Florida, Richard. 2004 (reprint). The Rise of the Creative Class. Basic Books. Forest, Ben. 1999. “New Jersey Revs Up Its Rehabs.” Planning 65 (8): 10–16. Foster, Vivien, and Susana Mourato. 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope: Do Contingent and Choice Experiments Give the Same Results?" Environmental and Resource Economics 24 (2): 141–160. Freeman, Lance, and Frank Braconi. 2002. "Gentrification and Displacement." The Urban Prospect 8 (1). Frey, Bruno S. 1997. "The Evaluation of Cultural Heritage: Some Critical Issues." In Michael Hutter and Ilde Rizzo, eds., Economic Perspectives on Cultural Heritage. St. Martin's Press. Gale, Dennis. 1991. The Impacts of Historic District Designation in Washington, D.C. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Gebhardt, Gary, and Jeri C. Rosenzweig. 1998. "Low-Income Housing and the Secretary's Standards." Forum Journal 2 (2): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). General Services Administration. 1999. Financing Historic Federal Buildings: An Analysis of Current Practice." Washington: GSA, Public Buildings Service, Office of Business Performance. General Services Administration. 2000. Held in Public Trust: PBS [Public Buildings Service] Strategy for Using Historic Buildings [Peck Report]. Washington. Government Finance Research Center. 1996. The Economic Benefits of Preserving Community Character: A Case Study from Fredericksburg, Virginia. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Governor's Task Force on Historic Preservation and Heritage Tourism. 2000. Investing in South Carolina's Future by Preserving Our Past. Charleston. Graham, Brian J., G. J. Ashworth, and J. E. Tunbridge. 2000. A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture, and Economy. Oxford University Press. Grampp, William. 1989. Pricing the Priceless: Arts, Artists, and Economics. Basic Books. Gratz, Roberta. 1994. The Living City: How America's Cities Are Being Revitalized by Thinking Small in a Big Way. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Great American Station Foundation. 2001. Economic Impact of Station Revitalization. Albany, NY. Green, Bruce, and Linda Wilkes. 1997. Office of Downtown Development, Downtown Tax Base Study. Atlanta: Georgia Municipal Association, Office of Downtown Development. Packet Page 350 of 411 57 Green, Joslyn, and Amy Jordan Webb. 1999. Getting Started: How to Succeed in Heritage Tourism. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Greffe, X. 1990. La Valeur Economique Du Patrimoine: La Demande Et L'Offre De Monuments. [The Economic Value of Cultural Heritage: The Demand and Supply of Monuments.] Paris: Anthropos. ———. Managing Our Cultural Heritage, trans. Latika Sahgal. New Delhi: Aryan Books International in association with Cultural Section of the Embassy of France. Guarino, Donald P., Jr. 2000. “Valuation of Affordable Housing with Tax Credits.” Appraisal Journal 68 (4): 406–410. Guetzkow, Joshua. 2002. "How the Arts Impact Communities: An Introduction to Literature on Arts Impact Studies." New Jersey: Princeton University. Haab, Timothy C., and Kenneth E. McConnell. 2002. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Hackworth, Jason. 2002. “Postrecession Gentrification in New York City.” Urban Affairs Review 37 (6): 815–843. Hammer, Siler George Associates. 1990. The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Historic District Designation: Lower Downtown Denver, Colorado. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Hanley, Nick, Susana Mourato, and Robert E. Wright. 2001. "Choice Modeling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?" Journal of Economic Surveys 15 (3): 435–462. Hansen, Trine Bille. 1995. "Measuring the Value of Culture." Cultural Policy 1 (2): 309–322. Harrison, Frank E. 1996. Appraising the Tough Ones. Chicago: Appraisal Institute. Harvard University, Unit for Housing and Urbanization, Graduate School of Design, and Agence pour la Dedensification at la Rehabilitaion de la Medina de Fes. 1999. Case Study: Fez, Morocco: Rehabilitation of the Fez Medina. Washington: World Bank. Haughy, Richard. 2001. Urban Infill Housing: Myth and Fact. Washington: Urban Land Institute. Haughey, Patrick, and Victoria Basolo. 2000. "The Effect of Dual Local and National Register Historic Designations on Single-Family Housing Prices in New Orleans." The Appraisal Journal 68(3): 283-289. Heinzerling, Lisa, and Frank Ackerman. 2002. Pricing the Priceless: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Protection. Washington: Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, Georgetown University Law Center. Herbert, David T., ed. 1995. Heritage, Tourism, and Society. London: Mansell. Houston, Cynthia. 2001. “Fort Bliss:Tops in Historic Preservation.” Public Works Digest 17. Howarth, Richard B., and Stephen Farber. 2002. "Accounting for the Value of Ecosystem Services." Ecological Economics 41 (3): 421–429. Hunter, Craig. 1995. "Transforming History into Economic Development." Forum Journal 9 (4): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Hutter, Michael, and Ilde Rizzo, eds. 1997. Economic Perspectives on Cultural Heritage. St. Martin’s Press. Packet Page 351 of 411 58 Jackson, Richard, and Chris Kochtitzky. 2002. Creating a Healthy Environment: The Impact of the Built Environment on Public Health. Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse Monograph Series. Washington: Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse. Johnson, Daniel G., and Jay Sullivan. 1992. Economic Impacts of Civil War Battlefield Preservation: An Ex Ante Evaluation. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Kellert, Stephen. 1996. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. Washington: Island Press. Kerr, Gordon, and others. 2002. "Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits: Today and Tomorrow." Forum News 8 (3): National Trust for Historic Preservation). Kilpatrick, John A. 1985. "House Price Implications of Historic District Designations." Columbia, SC: Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics, Department of Banking, Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, College of Business Administration, University of South Carolina. Kirschenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. 1998. Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage. University of California Press. Klamer, Arjo, ed. 1996. The Value of Culture: On the Relationship between Economics and Arts. Amsterdam University Press. Klamer, Arjo, and Peter-Wim Zuidhof. 1999. "The Values of Cultural Heritage: Merging Economic and Cultural Appraisals." In Randall Mason, ed., Economics and Heritage Conservation. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute. Lage-Filho, Lauro, and Arthur Darling. 2001. “Establishing Priorities for the Preservation of Historic Cities.” In Ismail Serageldin, Ephim Shluger, and Joan Martin-Brown, eds., Historic Cities and Sacred Sites: Cultural Roots for Urban Futures. Washington: World Bank. Land Trust Alliance. 1999. Appraising Easements: Guidelines for Valuation of Land Conservation and Historic Preservation Easements. Washington: Land Trust Alliance. Legg Mason Realty Group, Inc., Government Finance Group. 1996. "Community Heritage Investment Tax Credit: Estimated Fiscal and Economic Impacts.” Crownsville, MD: Maryland Historic Trust. Leichenko, Robin M., Edward Coulson, and David Listokin. 2001. "Historic Preservation and Residential Property Values: An Analysis of Texas Cities." Urban Studies 38 (11): 1973– 1987. Leimenstoll, Jo Ramsay. 1996. Assessing the Impact of Local Historic Districts on Property Values in Greensboro, North Carolina. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Leithe, Joni. 1991. The Economic Benefits of Preserving Community Character: A Practical Methodology. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation. Leithe, Joni, and Patricia Tigue. 1999. Profiting From the Past: The Economic Impact of Historic Preservation in Georgia. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Leith-Tetrault, John. 1995. "A Mortgage Program Tailored for Rehabs." Forum News 1 (5): (National Trust for Historic Preservation) . ———. 2002. "State Tax Credits Help Finance Difficult Rehabs." Forum Journal 6 (4): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Lennox, Chad, and Jennifer Revels. 2002. Smiling Faces Historic Places: The Economic Benefits of Packet Page 352 of 411 59 Historic Preservation in South Carolina. Spartanburg, SC: Palmetto Conservation Foundation. Lerner, Steve, and William Poole. 1999. The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space: How Land Conservation Helps Communities Grow Smart and Protect the Bottom Line. San Francisco, CA: Trust for Public Land. Lewinsohn-Zamir, Daphna. 1997. "The "Conservation Game": The Possibility of Voluntary Cooperation in Preserving Buildings of Cultural Importance." Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 20 (3): 773–789. Lichfield, Nathaniel. 1988. Economics in Urban Conservation. Cambridge University Press. Lichfield, Nathaniel, and others. 1993. "Conservation Economics, Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Cultural Built Heritage: Principles and Practice." Paris: ICOMOS International Scientific Committee. Linn, Charles. 2000. “Practice Matters: PSFS Adaptive Reuse Illustrates Preservation Tax Credits at Work.” Architectural Record (October 2000), p. 63. Lipman Frizzell, and Mitchell LLC. 2002. State of Maryland Heritage Structure Rehabilitation Tax Credits: Economic and Fiscal Impacts. Baltimore: Preservation Maryland. ———. 2003. Historic Rehabilitation and Economic Revitalization Tax Credit Act: Economic and Fiscal Impacts. Pittsburgh: Downtown Pittsburgh Partnership. Lipscomp, John H. 2002. “Second-Generation Industrial Buildings: Value Determinants.” Appraisal Journal 70 (3): 298–303. Listokin, David. 1982. Landmark Preservation and the Property Tax. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy and Research; New York Landmarks Conservancy. ———. 1983. Housing Rehabilitation; Economic, Social, and Policy Perspectives. Rutgers, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University. ———. 1985. "The Appraisal of Designated Historic Properties." Appraisal Journal (April.) ———. 1985. Living Cities, Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Urban Preservation Policies. New York: Priority Press Publications. ———.1997. "Growth Management and Historic Preservation: Best Practices for Synthesis." The Urban Lawyer 29 (2): 199–213. Listokin, David, and Michael L. Lahr. 1997. Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation. Trenton: New Jersey Historic Trust. ———. 2000. “Economic Impacts of Preservation in New Jersey and Texas,” Forum Journal: (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Listokin, David, Michael Lahr, Timothy McLendon, and JoAnn Klein. 2002. Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in Florida. University of Florida, Levin College of Law. Listokin, David, Mike L. Lahr, Kevin St. Martin, Nomel Francisco, and Michele B. McGlyn. 2001. Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in Missouri. St Louis: Missouri Downtown Association, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Outreach and Assistance Center, State Historic Preservation Office. Listokin, David, Michael L. Lahr, Kevin St. Martin, Nomel Francisco, Michele B. McGlyn, and Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research. 2001. Profile and Economic Impacts of the Missouri Historic Preservation Tax Credit Program. St Louis: Missouri Downtown Packet Page 353 of 411 60 Association; Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Parks, Historic Preservation Program. Listokin, David, and Barbara Listokin. 2001. Barriers to the Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing: Volume I of II, Findings and Analysis. Washington: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. ———. 2001. “Historic Preservation and Affordable Housing: Leveraging Old Resources for New Opportunities.” Housing Facts and Figures 3 (2): (Fannie Mae Foundation). Listokin, David, Barbara Listokin, and Michael Lahr. 1998. "The Contributions of Historic Preservation to Housing and Economic Development." Housing Policy Debate 9 (3): 479– 485 Lusvardi, Wayne C. 1998. “Is the Notion of Preservation Value Extinct?” Appraisal Journal, 70 (3): 82–90. Lyon, Elizabeth. 1993. "Historic Preservation and Successful Communities: A Strategy for Economic and Community Development." Forum Journal 7 (5): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). MacCannell, Dean. 1999. The Tourist: a New Theory of the Leisure Class. University of California Press. MacIntosh, Heather, and Kim Carey. 2002. How Affordable Housing Incentive Programs Fund Historic Preservation. Seattle: Historic Seattle. Maddison, D., and S. Mourato. 1999. "Valuing Different Road Options for Stonehenge." Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 4: 203–212. Maryland Association of Historic District Commissions. 1999. The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Local Historic Districts in Maryland, a Summary of Six Case Studies. Frederick, MD: Maryland Association of Historic District Commissions. Mason, Randall, ed. 1999. Economics and Heritage Conservation. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute. McCarthy, Kevin, and others. 2004. Gifts of the Muse: Reframing the Debate about the Benefits of the Arts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Mele, Christopher. 2000. Selling the Lower East Side. University of Minnesota Press. Mick, Susan, George A. Reigeluth, and Deborah Swift. 1979. Historic Preservation and Housing Rehabilitation: Volume II. Washington: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Urban Institute. Mignolli, Cuido, and Peter Nijkamp. 2001. "Values and Effects of Local Identity Preservation: A Taxonomic Approach." Series Research Memorandum 2001-23. Free University of Amsterdam (ftp://zappa.ubvu.vu.nl/20010023.pdf). Miles, Mike E., Gayle Berens, and Marc A. Weiss. 2000. Real Estate Development: Principles and Process. Washington: Urban Land Institute. Millennial Housing Commission. 2002. Meeting Our Nation’s Housing Challenges. Washington. Minck, Craig L., and Michael Byrne. 2000. “Understanding the Evolution of Conservation Easement Appraisal through Case Law.” Appraisal Journal 68 (4): 411–419. Missouri Economic Research and Information Center, Missouri Department of Economic Development. 2002. The Economic and State Revenue Impacts of Projects Completed Packet Page 354 of 411 61 Using the Missouri Historic Tax Credit Program. Jefferson City, MO. Missouri Office of the State Auditor. 2002. Review of State Tax Credits Administered by the Department of Economic Development. Jefferson City, MO. Mohr, E., and J. Schmidt. 1997. "Aspects of Economic Valuation of Cultural Heritage." In Baer and Snethlage, eds., Saving Our Architectural Heritage: The Conservation of Historic Stone Structures. John Wiley & Sons. Moravec, Joe. 2002. "GSA's Commitment to Preserving Historic Federal Buildings." Forum Journal 16 (2): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Morey, Edward. 2001. "Valuing and Preserving Site-Specific Cultural Resources in Italy: Some of the Issues." Unpublished working paper. University of Colorado, Department of Economics. (www.colorado.edu/Economics/morey/papers/valuation-italy.pdf [August 2005]). Morton, Elizabeth. 1999. Compilation of Research on State Income Tax Credits for Historic Preservation. Columbia, SC: South Carolina State Archives and History Center. Morton, Elizabeth. 2000. Historic Districts Are Good for Your Pocketbook: The Impacts of Local Historic Districts on House Prices in South Carolina. Columbia, SC: South Carolina Department of Archives and History. Mourato, Susana, and Massimiliano Mazzanti. 2002. "Economic Valuation of Cultural Heritage: Evidence and Prospects." In Marta de la Torre, ed., Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute. Mundy, Bill, and William Kinnard, Jr. 1998. “Public Interest Value, Market Value, and Economic Use.” Appraisal Journal 66 (2): 207–214. Nagy, John. March 21, 2002. “Preservation Tax Credits Working Too Well?” (www.stateline.org). National Center for Preservation Technology and Training. 1999. A Seminar on Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation. Washington: National Park Service. National Endowment for the Arts. 2001. Share Your Heritage: Who's Who Directory of Statewide Cultural Heritage Tourism Programs. Washington. National Main Street Center. 2002. 2002 National Main Street Trends Survey. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Main Street Center. National Park Service, National Center for Cultural Resources Heritage Preservation Services Division Technical Preservation Services. 1996. Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, Statistical Report and Analysis (Annual) Washington. ———. 2002. Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings: Statistical Report and Analysis for Fiscal Year 2001. Washington. ———. 2004. Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings: Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2004. Washington: National Park Service, National Center for Cultural Resources, Technical Preservation Services. ———. Various years. Case Studies in Affordable Housing through Historic Preservation, a Series. Washington. (www.nps.gov). National Trust for Historic Preservation. 1976. "Economic Benefits of Preserving Old Buildings." Paper from the Economic Benefits of Preserving Old Buildings Conference, Seattle, WA, July 31–August 2, 1975. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. ———. 1996. New Life for White Elephants. Washington Packet Page 355 of 411 62 ———. 1999. "Preserving Our Past: Building Our Future [Video]." Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. ———. 2002. Rebuilding Community: A Best Practices Toolkit for Historic Preservation and Redevelopment. Washington. Navrud, Stale, and Richard Ready, eds. 2002. Valuing Cultural Heritage: Applying Environmental Valuation Techniques to Historic Buildings, Monuments and Artifacts. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. New Jersey Historic Trust. 1998. Partners in Prosperity: The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in New Jersey. Trenton. New Jersey Historic Trust and Center for Urban Policy Research. 1997. Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Historic Trust. New York City Independent Budget Office. 2003. The Impact of Historic Districts of Residential Property Values. New York. Newman, Harvey K. 2001. “Historic Preservation Policy and Regime Politics in Atlanta.” Journal of Urban Affairs 23 (1): 71–86. Noonan, Doug. 2002. "Contingent Valuation Studies in the Arts and Culture: An Annotated Bibliography." Working paper, Cultural Policy Center, University of Chicago. (http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/workingpapers/Noonan11.pdf). Norquist, John O. 1998. The Wealth of Cities. Addison-Wesley. Norris, Steven R. 1999. “Valuing March Air Force Base.” Valuation, Insights, and Perspectives 4 (2): 34. Oldham, Sally G. 1990. "The Business of Preservation Is Bullish and Diverse." Forum Journal 3 (4): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. 1992. Economic Impact and Fiscal Analysis of Oregon's Special Tax Assessment of Historic Properties. Salem, OR: Parks and Recreation Department. Ost, Christian, and Nathalie Van Droogenbroeck. 1998. Report on the Economics of Conservation: An Appraisal of Theories, Principles and Methods. Paris: ICOMOS International Economics Committee. Page, Max. 2001. “Comment on James R. Cohen’s ‘Abandoned Housing: Exploring Lessons from Baltimore.’” Housing Policy Debate 12 (3): 457–463. Pagiola, Stefano. 1996. Economic Analysis of Investments in Cultural Heritage: Insights from Environmental Economics. Washington: Environment Department, World Bank. ———. 1998. "Economic Analysis of the Conservation of the Historic Center of Split, Croatia." World Bank project document (http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/44ByDocName/EconomicAnalysisofConserv ationoftheHistoricCenterofSplitCroatia199896KPDF/$FILE/EconomicAnalysisofConservation oftheHistoricCenterofSplitCroatia1998.pdf). Peacock, Alan, ed. 1998. Does the Past Have a Future? The Political Economy of Heritage. London: Institute of Economic Affairs. Peacock, Alan, and Ilde Rizzo, eds. 1994. Cultural Economics and Cultural Policies. Boston: Kluwer. Packet Page 356 of 411 63 ———. 1995. “A Future for the Past: The Political Economy of Heritage.” Proceedings of the British Academy, 87: 189–243. Pearce, David, and Susana Mourato. 1996. Economic and Financial Analysis for Cultural Heritage Projects: Valuation Methods and Techniques. Milan: Lin-Rodrigo Pennsylvania Tourism and Lodging Association. 2003. Heritage Tourism Development: A Policy Framework for Pennsylvania. Harrisburg. Pianca, Elizabeth G. 2001. "Smart Codes: A New Approach to Building Codes." Forum News 7 (5): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Pianca, Elizabeth G., and Harry K. Schwartz. 2001. "State Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation." Forum Journal 7 (3): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Preservation Action and Heritage Consulting Group. 1999. Home Again in Philadelphia: Revitalizing Philadelphia with the Historic Homeownership Assistance Act. (Elise Vider, ed.). Philadelphia: Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia. ———. n.d. Home Again in San Antonio: Revitalizing San Antonio with the Historic Homeownership Assistance Act. San Antonio, TX: San Antonio Conservation Society. Reichl, Alexander J. 1997. “Historic Reservation and Progrowth Politics in U. S. Cities.” Urban Affairs Review 32 (4): 513–533. Renner, Lisanne. 1998. Partners in Prosperity: The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation in New Jersey. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Reynolds, Judith. 2002. Appraising Historic Properties (rev. ed). Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Rietbergen-McCracken, Jennifer, and Abaza Hussein, eds. 2000. Environmental Valuation: A World- Wide Compendium of Case Studies. London: Earthscan. Rimel, Rebecca W. 1999. "The Art and Economics of Historic Preservation." Forum Journal 13 (2): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Rinehart, James R., and Jeffrey J. Pompe. 1999. "Estimating the Effect of a View on Undeveloped Property Values." The Appraisal Journal 67 (1): 57–62. Roberson, Jerry D. 1997. “Tradition or Stagnation? In Defense of Non-Economic Highest and Best Use.” Appraisal Journal 65 (2): 113–119. Robinson, Susan G. 1989. "The Effectiveness and Fiscal Impact of Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation." Forum Journal 2 (4): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Roddewig, Richard J. 1988. “Selling America's Heritage...without Selling Out." Forum Journal 2 (3): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Roddewig, Richard J., Julia H. Miller, and Cheryl A. Ingraham. 1984. Economic Benefits from Rehabilitation of Certified Historic Structures in Illinois. Springfield, IL: Preservation Services, Illinois Department of Conservation. ———. 1985. Economic Benefits from Rehabilitation of Certified Historic Structures in Texas. Austin: Texas Historical Commission. Rojas, Eduardo. 1999. Old Cities, New Assets: Preserving Latin America's Urban Heritage. Washington: Inter-American Development Bank, Johns Hopkins University Press, distributor. Rybeck, Walter. 1991. Pennsylvania's Experiments in Property Tax Modernization. Columbus, OH: National Tax Association. Rypkema, Donovan. 1991a. The Economics of Rehabilitation. Washington: National Trust for Packet Page 357 of 411 64 Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. ———. 1991b. The Investor Looks at an Historic Building. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. ———. 1993. Job Creation through Rehabilitation: State by State Analysis. Washington: Real Estate Services Group. ———. 1994. The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community Leader's Guide. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. ———. 1995. "Economics and Historic Preservation." Forum Journal 9 (2): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). ———. 1995. Virginia's Economy and Historic Preservation: The Impact of Preservation on Jobs, Business, and Community. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. ———. 1996. "Community, Place and the Economics of Historic Preservation” [transcript]. New Jersey: Trenton Historic Preservation Office. (www.state.nj.us/dep/hpo/4sustain/spkrseries1.pdf). ———. 1997. Historic Preservation and the Economy of the Commonwealth: Kentucky's Past at Work for Kentucky's Future. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. ———. 1997. Preservation and Property Values in Indiana. Indianapolis: Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana. ———. 1998. "Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation." Forum News 4 (5) (National Trust for Historic Preservation). ———. 1998. Profiting from the Past: The Impact of Historic Preservation on the North Carolina Economy. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. ———. 1999. The Value of Historic Preservation in Maryland. Baltimore: Preservation Maryland. ———. 2001. "The Economic Power of Restoration." Speech given at Restoration and Renovation Conference. ———. 2001. New York: Profiting through Preservation. New York: Preservation League of New York State. ———. 2002. "The (Economic) Value of National Register Listing." CRM 25 (1): (National Park Service). ———. 2003. “Historic Preservation and Affordable Housing: The Missed Connection.” Forum Journal 17 (3): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). ———. 2004. “The Oversimplification of Gentrification.” Forum Journal 18, (4): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). ———. 2005, rev. The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community Leader's Guide. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation. Rypkema, Donovan, and Ian D. Spatz. 1992. Rehab Takes a Fall. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation. Rypkema, Donovan, and Katherine Wiehagen. 1998. The Economic Benefits of Preserving Philadelphia's Past. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Sagoff, Mark. 1994. "Four Dogmas of Environmental Economics." Environmental Values 3 (4): 285– Packet Page 358 of 411 65 310. ———. 1997. "Environmental Economics." In Ruth Chadwick, ed., Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. Academic Press. ———. 1998. “Aggregation and Deliberation in Valuing Environmental Public Goods.” Ecological Economics 24 (2–3): 213–230. Sanderson, Edward. 1994. The Economic Effects of Historic Preservation in Rhode Island. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Schaeffer, Peter V., and Cecily Ahern Millerick. 1991. "The Impact of Historic Designation on Property Values: An Empirical Study." Economic Development Quarterly 5 (4): 301–311. Schuster, Mark, and John de Monchaux, eds. 1997. Preserving the Built Heritage: Tools for Implementation. University Press of New England. Schwartz, Harry. 1998. "State Mortgage Credits for Historic Rehabilitation of Owner-Occupied Homes." Preservation Law Reporter (January–March): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). ———. 1999. Special Property Tax Assessments for Rehabilitated Historic Buildings in South Carolina: An Evaluation and Report to the South Carolina Department of Archives and History. Columbia: South Carolina Department of Archives and History. Seaman, Bruce A. 2003. "Beyond Economic Impact." In Valerie B. Morris and David B. Pancratz, eds., The Arts in a New Millennium: Research and the Arts Sector. Praeger. Selwood, Sara. 2002. "Measuring Culture." Spiked 30 (December) Serageldin, Ismail, Ephim Shluger, and Joan Martin-Brown. 2001. Historic Cities and Sacred Sites: Cultural Roots for Urban Futures. Washington: World Bank. Shapiro, Lisa. 2000. Short-Term Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis of the [New Hampshire] Land and Community Heritage Investment Program. Testimony before the New Hampshire House Finance Committee on Senate Bill 401, May 2001. (www.gcglaw.com/resources/economic/land.html [August 2005]). Shaw, Tom M. 1996. "Studying the Dollar Value of History." Forum Journal 3 (1): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Shipley, Robert. 2000. "Heritage Designation and Property Values: Is There an Effect?" International Journal of Heritage Studies 6 (1): 83–100. Sinclair, M. Thea, and Mike Stabler. 1997. The Economics of Tourism. Routledge. Skaggs, Laura, and Byrd Wood. 2002. "Rehab Tax Credit Users Join Forces." Forum News 8 (6): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Slaughter, Howard B., Jr. 1997. “Integrating Economic Development and Historic Preservation in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.” Forum Journal 11 (3): 41–44 (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. 1988. Contingencies of Value: Alternative Perspectives for Critical Theory. Harvard University Press. Smith, Charles. 1989. Auctions: The Social Construction of Value. University of California Press. Smith, Kennedy Lawson. 1995. "Main Street at 15." Forum Journal 9 (3): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Smith, Neil. 1998. "Comment on David Listokin, Barbara Listokin, and Michael Lahr's ‘The Contributions of Historic Preservation to Housing and Economic Development’: Historic Packet Page 359 of 411 66 Preservation in a Neoliberal Age." Housing Policy Debate 9 (3): 479–485. Smith, Neil, and Peter Williams. 1986. Gentrification of the City. Allen & Unwin. Sohmer, Rebecca, and Robert E. Lang. 1998. "Beyond This Old House: Historic Preservation in Community Development." Housing Policy Debate 9 (3): Spencer, Brenda. 1995. An Analysis of the Economic Impact of Physical Improvements on Retail Sales. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Stipe, Robert E., ed. 2003. With Heritage So Rich: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century. University of North Carolina Press. Stough, Roger R. 1994. "Economic Development Theory and Practice: Heritage Based Development." Forum Journal 8 (4): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Strauss, Charles H., Bruce E. Lord, and Michael J. Powell. 2002. Path of Progress Heritage System: Visitor Characteristics and Economic Impacts. Economic Impact of Tourism with a Multi- County Region. Hollidaysburg, PA: Westsylvania Heritage Corporation. (www.westsylvania.org/documents/PSUResearch2002.pdf). Strom, Elizabeth. 2002. "Converting Pork into Porcelain: Cultural Institutions and Downtown Development." Urban Affairs 38 (1): 3–21. Super, David. 2000. Still Serving: Reusing America's Historic National Guard Armories. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation; National Guard Bureau. Taylor, David T., R. Fletcher, and T. Clabaugh. 1993. "A Comparison of Characteristics, Regional Expenditures, and Economic Impact of Visitors to Historical Sites and Other Recreational Visitors." Journal of Travel Research 32 (1): 30–35. Thompson, Eric. 2004. "Economic and Fiscal Analysis of an Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program for Kentucky Homes." Lexington, KY: Center for Business and Economic Research, Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky. Throsby, David. 1995. "Culture, Economics, and Sustainability." Journal of Cultural Economics 19: 199–206. ———. 2001. Economics and Culture. Cambridge University Press. Tibbetts, John. 1998. Open Space Conservation: Investing In Your Community's Economic Health. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Towse, Ruth, ed. 1997. Cultural Economics: The Arts, the Heritage, and the Media Industries . International Library of Critical Writings in Economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Towse, Ruth, and Addul Khakee, eds. 1992. Cultural Economics. Springer Verlag. Transportation Economics and Management Systems. 2001. The Great American Station Foundation: Economic Impact of Station Revitalization. : The Great American Station Foundation. Travel Industry Association of America. 2003. The Historic/Cultural Traveler, 2001 Edition. Washington: Travel Industry Association of America. Trust for Public Land. 1996. "Bibliography: The Economic Benefits of Open Space." San Francisco (www.tpl.org/tier3_cdl.cfm?content_item_id=1076&folder_id=726 [August 2005]). ———. 1999. The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space: How Land Conservation Helps Communities Grow Smart and Protect the Bottom Line. San Francisco. U.S. Department of Defense. n.d. Benefits of Cultural Resource Conservation: Commander’s Guide. Washington. (www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/ES-Programs/Conservation/Benefits/one.html Packet Page 360 of 411 67 [August 2005). UNESCO. 1995. The Cultural Dimension of Development: Towards a Practical Approach. Paris. ———. 2000. World Culture Report 2. Paris. University of Rhode Island, Intergovernmental Policy Analysis Program. 1993. Economic Effects of the Rhode Island Historical Preservation Commission Program Expenditures from 1971 to 1993. Kingston, RI. Urban Land Institute. 1996. New Uses of Obsolete Buildings. Washington: Urban Land Institute. Urry, John. 1995. Consuming Places. Routledge. Vivian, Daniel, Mark Gilberg, and David Listokin. 2000. "Analyzing the Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation." Forum Journal 14 (3) (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Wagner, Richard, D. 1992. Downtown Development Handbook. Washington: Urban Land Institute. ———. 1993. "Urban Downtown Revitalization and Historic Preservation." Forum Journal 7 (5): (National Trust for Historic Preservation). Walsh, Kevin. 1992. The Representation of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-Modern World. London: Routledge. Webb, Amy Jordan, and Suzanne Dane. 2001. Share Your Heritage: Cultural Heritage Tourism Success Stories. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. ———. 2001. Stories Across America: Opportunities for Rural Tourism. Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Books. Webster, Julie L., and Gordon L. Cohen. 2002. “The Next Big Thing in Energy Conservation: Back to the Future.” Public Works Digest 14 (5): 10–11. Webster, Ronald. 2001. “Recycled Army Buildings Build New Communities.” Public Works Digest 17: 34. Werwath, David. 1998. "Comment on David Listokin, Barbara Listokin, and Michael Lahr's ‘The Contributions of Historic Preservation to Housing and Economic Development.’” Housing Policy Debate 9 (3): 487–495. West Virginia University, Bureau of Business and Economic Research. 1999. A Summary of the Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in West Virginia. Charleston, WV: Preservation Alliance of West Virginia. Whole Building Design Guide Cost-Effective Committee. n.d. Quantify Nonmonetary Benefits such as Beauty, Historic Preservation, or Safety. (www.wbdg.org/design/index.php?cn=2.3.3&cx=0). Wolf, Bradley, Donald Horn, and Constance Ramirez. 1999. Financing Historic Federal Buildings: An Analysis of Current Practice. Washington: General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Office of Business Performance. Wonjo, Christopher T. 1991. "Historic Preservation and Economic Development." Journal of Planning Literature 15 (3): 296–307. World Bank. 1999. Culture and Sustainable Development: A Framework for Action. Washington. Worrall, Douglas G. 1998. "Economics and the Conservation of Land." Baltimore: Wright, Constable, and Skeen, L.L.P. Packet Page 361 of 411 Pa c k e t Pa g e 36 2 of 41 1 AM-7931 6. C. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/18/2015 Time:10 Minutes Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Forward to Consent Information Subject Title Snohomish County ILA Amendment Recommendation Council forward this item to consent, authorizing the Mayor to sign the amendment to the Snohomish County ILA. Previous Council Action Council authorized the Mayor to sign the original ILA with Snohomish County for acquisition of a beachfront property on 11/19/13. Narrative The City entered into an Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County to receive $500,000 on Conservation Futures funds for acquisition of a beachfront property. After many discussions and three formal purchase offers, the owner of the property declined to sell it. In June, 2015, the City presented a proposal to the Conservation Futures Board; use the funds allocated for the beachfront property acquisition for Civic field acquisition. The Board voted unanimously to allow the City to use the funds to help acquire Civic field. Attached is the amendment to the original ILA authorizing this transaction. Attachments Original ILA Snohomish County ILA Amendment Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 08/11/2015 10:54 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/11/2015 02:20 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/11/2015 02:31 PM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 08/11/2015 08:33 AM Final Approval Date: 08/11/2015 Packet Page 363 of 411 Packet Page 364 of 411 Packet Page 365 of 411 Packet Page 366 of 411 Packet Page 367 of 411 Packet Page 368 of 411 Packet Page 369 of 411 Packet Page 370 of 411 Packet Page 371 of 411 Packet Page 372 of 411 Packet Page 373 of 411 Packet Page 374 of 411 Packet Page 375 of 411 Packet Page 376 of 411 Packet Page 377 of 411 Packet Page 378 of 411 Packet Page 379 of 411 Packet Page 380 of 411 Packet Page 381 of 411 Packet Page 382 of 411 Packet Page 383 of 411 Packet Page 384 of 411 Packet Page 385 of 411 Packet Page 386 of 411 Packet Page 387 of 411 Packet Page 388 of 411 Packet Page 389 of 411 Packet Page 390 of 411 Packet Page 391 of 411 Packet Page 392 of 411 1 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON CONCERNING ACQUISTION OF PROPERTY WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY CONSERVATION FUTURES FUNDING THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to that certain Interlocal Agreement between Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds, Washington concerning acquisition of property with Snohomish County Conservation Futures Funding (the “Agreement”) dated March 12, 2014, is made by and between Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (the “County”), and the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (the “City”). NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits conferred on both parties, the parties agree to AMENDMENT NO. 1 as follows: 1. The RECITALS of the Agreement are hereby amended to add Recital F, which reads as follows: F. The Snohomish County Conservation Futures Program Advisory Board, at its June 2, 2015 meeting reviewed a request by the City to transfer the recommended funding to another property known as Civic Field, addressed as 310 6th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington, and, after consideration, the Board recommended approval of this request. 2. Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 1. Identification of Property: The Property is located in the City of Edmonds, Washington and is generally legally described as follows: For APN/Parcel ID(s): 004342-099-001-00, 004342-100-000-00 and 004342-101-021-00 Lots 1 through 20, Block 99, all of Block 100, and Lots 21 through 40, Block 101, plat of the City of Edmonds, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, page 39, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. 3. Section 5.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: Packet Page 393 of 411 2 5.1 Acquire the Property within twenty-four (24) months of the Effective Date of this Agreement and upon closing maintain, operate and conserve the Property for open space and passive park purposes. The City shall undertake all reasonable efforts to acquire the Property but if the owner of is not a willing seller, the City shall not utilize the power of eminent domain to acquire the Property. 4. Section 5.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 5.2 Immediately following acquisition of the Property, execute and record an instrument conveying a Conservation Easement for the Property to the County in substantially the form of attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Conservation Easement”). EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY MODIFIED IN THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1, ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. In witness whereof, the parties hereby execute this Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement. “COUNTY” “CITY” SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITY OF EDMONDS By: __________________________ By: ___________________________ John Lovick, Executive David O. Earling, Mayor Date Signed:___________________ Date Signed:__________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attest: ______________________________ _______________________ Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ City Attorney Date Packet Page 394 of 411 3 Exhibit A Conservation Easement Packet Page 395 of 411 4 After Recording Return to: Assistant Clerk Snohomish County Council 3000 Rockefeller Avenue MS 609 Everett, WA 98201 Document Title: Grant of Conservation Easement Reference Numbers: Grantor: City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington Grantee: Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington Abbreviated Legal Description: Lots 1-20, Bl 99; all Bl 100, Lots 21-40, Bl 101, City of Edmonds Additional legal on page 15 Assessor’s Property Tax Parcel No.: 00434209900100, 00434210000000 and 00434210102100 GRANT OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT This grant of a perpetual CONSERVATION EASEMENT (hereinafter “Conservation Easement”) is made this ____ day of __________, 201__, by the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (hereinafter “Grantor”), to Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (hereinafter “Grantee” or “County”), in perpetuity as holder of the Conservation Easement pursuant to RCW 64.04.130. RECITALS A. Grantor is the sole owner in fee simple of the property legally described on Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Protected Property”), which consists of approximately eight (8) acres of land, located on tax parcel 00434209900100, 00434210000000 and 00434210102100 Snohomish County, Washington; and B. Grantor warrants that Grantor has good legal title to the Protected Property, as well as the right to convey this Conservation Easement, and that the Protected Property is free and clear of any encumbrances except those general exceptions contained in the title policy and any special exceptions shown on the Preliminary Commitment that are accepted by the Grantee; and C. Grantor warrants that Grantor has no actual knowledge of a release or threatened release of hazardous substances or waste on the Protected Property; and D. The Protected Property possesses significant long-term natural and open space values (“Conservation Values”) of great importance to the people of Snohomish County for passive recreation; and E. This Conservation Easement is authorized by RCW 64.04.130, the provision of state law governing conservation easements; and Packet Page 396 of 411 5 F. The Grantor and the Grantee intend and have the common purpose of retaining the Protected Property for open space and passive recreation by placing restrictions on the use of the Protected Property, which shall continue as a servitude running with the land, and authorizing Grantee to monitor and enforce such restrictions, as described herein; and G. To document the present condition of the Protected Property so that Grantee or its assigns are able to monitor future uses and assure compliance with the terms of this Conservation Easement, Grantee has, at its expense, prepared baseline data consisting of photographs and other documentation summarized in Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full (the “Baseline Documentation”) that the parties agree provide an accurate representation of the Protected Property as of the date of this Conservation Easement; and H. Snohomish County, as the Grantee of this Conservation Easement, is a qualified holder of conservation easements under RCW 64.04.130; and I. This Conservation Easement is being purchased with funds provided, in part, by the County’s Conservation Futures Program pursuant to RCW 84.34.200, RCW 84.34.210, RCW 84.34.220 and chapter 4.14 SCC, which authorizes Snohomish County to purchase conservation easements for the purpose of protecting open space and timber land through restrictions on incompatible uses of the land; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above recitals and the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions contained herein and in payment of one dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration by Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Grantor, and pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington, including chapters 64.04 and 84.34 of the Revised Code of Washington, the parties agree as follows: I. Grant. Grantor hereby grants to the Grantee a perpetual Conservation Easement over, under, across and through the Protected Property, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto, to protect, preserve, maintain, improve, restore, limit future use of or otherwise conserve the Protected Property as open space pursuant to chapter 84.34 RCW. II. Purpose. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to assure that the Protected Property will be retained forever in its natural and open space condition and to prevent any use of the Protected Property that will significantly impair or interfere with the Conservation Values. Grantor intends that this Conservation Easement will confine the use of, or activity on, the Protected Property to such uses and activities that are consistent with this purpose. This statement of purpose is intended as a substantive provision of the Conservation Easement. Any ambiguity or uncertainty regarding the application of the provisions of this Conservation Easement will be resolved so as to further this purpose. III. Rights of the Grantee. Grantor hereby conveys to the Grantee all rights necessary to accomplish the purpose of this Conservation Easement, including, without limitation, the following: A. The right to protect, conserve, maintain, improve and restore the Conservation Values of the Protected Property; Packet Page 397 of 411 6 B. The right to enter the Protected Property or allow Grantee’s invitees or licensees to enter, at a reasonable time and upon prior written notice to the Grantor, for the following purposes (i) to make general inspection of the Protected Property to monitor compliance with this Conservation Easement; (ii) to protect, preserve, maintain, improve and restore the Conservation Values of the Protected Property; and (iii) to mitigate or terminate any violation or otherwise enforce the provisions of this Conservation Easement. C. The right to enjoin any use of, or activity on, the Protected Property that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement, including trespasses by members of the public, and to require the restoration of such area or features of the Protected Property as may be damaged by uses or activities inconsistent with the provisions of this Conservation Easement, all in accordance with Section XI. D. The right to enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement, consistent with Section XI. E. The right to place a sign on the Protected Property which acknowledges this Conservation Easement, any conditions on access, and any funding contribution to the acquisition of the Conservation Easement. The foregoing are rights, not obligations, and shall not create any third party rights of enforcement. IV. Permitted Uses and Activities. A. Grantor reserves to itself, and to its successors and assigns all rights accruing from its ownership of the Protected Property, including the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in all uses of the Protected Property that are not prohibited herein and are not inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. In the event Grantor plans to undertake actions that could be inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement, Grantor shall provide Grantee written notice of such intent not less than sixty (60) days prior to the date Grantor intends to undertake the activity in question. The notice shall describe the nature, scope, design, location, timetable, and any other material aspect of the proposed activity in sufficient detail to permit Grantee to make an informed judgment as to its consistency with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. Grantee shall grant or withhold its approval in writing within sixty (60) days of receipt of Grantor’s notice. Grantee’s approval may be withheld only upon a reasonable determination by Grantee that the action proposed would be inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. B. Any improvements to the Protected Property shall be limited to those which are passive in nature and meet the requirements and intent of RCW 84.34.200-220. Passive improvements include, but are not limited to, trails, interpretive centers, viewpoints, picnicking facilities, access, restrooms, playgrounds and restoration projects. Active recreational improvements are prohibited. Such improvements include, but are not limited to ball fields, use by motorized vehicles, swimming pools, and recreation centers. Packet Page 398 of 411 7 C. Nothing herein precludes the Grantor from demolishing, removing, and remediating existing improvements on the property as of the date of this Conservation Easement. V. Prohibited Uses and Activities. Neither Grantor nor its licensees or invitees shall use the Protected Property for any activity or purpose that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Easement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities are expressly prohibited in the Protected Property: A. The placement or construction of any buildings, structures, improvements or equipment of any kind except as permitted in subsection IV. B; B. The continuation, creation, expansion or intensification of any use or activity that is contrary to the purpose of this Conservation Easement or prohibited in this section; C. Mining or extraction of soil, sand, gravel, oil, natural gas or other mineral; D. Dumping or accumulation of trash or refuse; E. The use of motorized vehicles except for those necessary to conduct the uses permitted under this Conservation Easement; and F. Any construction, expansion, repair or other development activity that would result in more than ten percent (10%) of the area of the Protected Property being covered with impervious surfaces, including, without limitation, asphalt, concrete, gravel, buildings, or ponds. VI. Transfer of Property. The Grantor agrees to: A. Incorporate the terms of this Conservation Easement by reference in any deed or other legal instrument by which it divests itself of any interest in all or a portion of the Protected Property, including, without limitation, leasehold interests. B. Describe the Conservation Easement in and append it to any contract for the transfer of any interest in the Protected Property. C. Give written notice to the Grantee of the transfer of any interest in all or any portion of the Protected Property no later than forty five (45) days prior to the date of such transfer. Such notice to the Grantee shall include the name, address and telephone number of the prospective transferee or the prospective transferee’s representative. The failure of the Grantor to perform any act required by this subsection shall not impair the validity of this Conservation Easement or limit its enforceability. VII. Extinguishment. This Conservation Easement may be terminated or extinguished, whether in whole or in part, only under one or more of the following circumstances: Packet Page 399 of 411 8 A. By judicial determination, by a court having jurisdiction over the Conservation Easement, those circumstances have rendered the purpose of this Conservation Easement impossible to achieve. B. In the event all or any of the Protected Property is taken by exercise of the power of eminent domain or acquired in lieu of condemnation, whether by public, corporate or other authority, except by the parties hereto. VIII. Proceeds. In the event of termination or extinguishment of this Conservation Easement, Grantee shall be compensated by Grantor for the fair market value of its interest in the Protected Property as determined by either a real estate appraiser licensed by the State of Washington or a court of competent jurisdiction. IX. Transfer or Assignment of the Conservation Easement. This Conservation Easement is transferable, but Grantee may assign its rights under this Conservation Easement only to an agency or organization that is authorized to acquire and hold conservation easements under RCW 64.04.130 or RCW 84.34.250, or otherwise qualified at the time of transfer under §170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. As a condition of such transfer, Grantee shall require that the transferee exercise its rights under the assignment consistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. X. Costs and Liabilities. Grantor retains all responsibilities and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind related to ownership, operation, upkeep, and maintenance of the Protected Property. A. Taxes. Grantor shall continue to be solely responsible for payment of all taxes and assessments levied against the Protected Property. B. Attorneys’ fees and costs for enforcement. If the Grantee commences and successfully prosecutes an enforcement action pursuant to Section XI below, the Grantor shall pay all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the enforcement action, including but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees. XI. Enforcement & Monitoring. Grantee shall have the authority to enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement. To exercise this authority and thereby further the purpose of this Conservation Easement, the Grantee shall have the following rights under this Conservation Easement, which are subject to the stated limitations: A. Entry onto Protected Property with Reasonable Notice. If the Grantee has reason to believe that a violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement has occurred or is occurring, the Grantee shall have the right to enter the Protected Property, provided that reasonable advance notice is given to the Grantor, for the purpose of inspecting it for violations of any requirement set forth in this Conservation Easement. Additionally, the Grantee shall have the right to enter the Protected Property at least once a year, at a mutually agreed time, for purposes of inspection and compliance monitoring regardless of whether Grantee has reason to believe that a violation of this Conservation Easement exists. B. Enforcement Mechanisms and Remedial Measures. If the Grantee finds what it believes to be a violation of this Conservation Easement, it may, at its discretion, Packet Page 400 of 411 9 use any available legal or equitable remedy to secure compliance, including but not limited to seeking injunctive relief and/or specific performance requiring the Grantor to cease and desist all activity in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement and to return the Protected Property to its condition prior to any violation(s). Except when an imminent violation could irreversibly diminish or impair the Conservation Values of the Protected Property, the Grantee shall give the Grantor written notice of the violation and thirty (30) days in which to take corrective action prior to commencing any legal action. The failure of Grantee to discover a violation or to take immediate legal action shall not bar it from doing so at a later time or constitute a waiver of its rights. Grantee may use the Baseline Documentation as a basis for enforcing the provisions of this Conservation Easement, but is not limited to the use of the Baseline Documentation to show a change of conditions. C. Emergency Enforcement. If Grantee, in its sole discretion, determines that circumstances require immediate action to prevent or mitigate significant damages to the Conservation Values of the Protected Property, Grantee may pursue its remedies under this section without prior notice to Grantor or without waiting for the period provided for cure to expire. D. Scope of Relief. Grantee’s rights under this section apply equally in the event of either actual or threatened violations of the terms of this Conservation Easement. Grantor agrees that the Grantee’s remedies at law for any violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement are inadequate and that Grantee shall be entitled to the injunctive relief described in this section, both prohibitive and mandatory, in addition to such other relief to which Grantee may be entitled, including specific performance of the terms of this Conservation Easement, without the necessity of proving either actual damages or the inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies. Grantee’s remedies described in this section shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all remedies now or hereafter existing at law or in equity. E. Costs of Enforcement. In the event Grantee must enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement, any costs of restoration necessitated by acts or omissions of Grantor, its agents, employees, contractors, invitees or licensees in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement and Grantee’s reasonable enforcement expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ and consultants’ fees and costs, shall be borne by Grantor, its successors or assigns. F. Waiver of Defenses. Grantor acknowledges it has carefully reviewed this Conservation Easement and has consulted or had the opportunity to consult with counsel of its terms and requirements. In full knowledge of the provisions of this Conservation Easement, Grantor hereby waives any claim or defense it may have against Grantee or its successors or assigns under or pertaining to this Conservation Easement based upon waiver, laches, estoppel or prescription. G. Acts Beyond Grantor’s Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to entitle the Grantee to bring any action against Grantor to abate, correct or restore any condition in the Protected Property or to recover damages for any injury to or change in the Protected Property resulting from causes beyond Grantor’s control, including fire, flood, storm, and earth movement or the like. Packet Page 401 of 411 10 XII. Hold Harmless. Grantor hereby agrees to release and hold harmless, indemnify and defend Grantee, its officers, elected and appointed officials, employees and agents (collectively “Indemnified Parties”) from all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims, demands or judgments, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ and consultants’ fees arising from or in any way connected with: A. Injury to or the death of any person, or physical damage to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition or other matter related to or occurring on or about the Protected Property that is not a consequence of an activity of the Indemnified Parties undertaken under the rights granted to Grantee under this Conservation Easement; B. Violations or alleged violations of, or other failure to comply with, any federal, state or local law or regulation relating to pollutants or hazardous, toxic or dangerous substances or materials, including without limitation CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and MTCA (ch. 70.105D RCW), by any person other than any of the Indemnified Parties, in any way affecting, involving or relating to the Protected Property, unless such violations or alleged violations are due to the sole acts or omissions of any of the Indemnified Parties on the Protected Property; C. The presence or release in, on, from or about the Protected Property, at any time, of any substance now or hereafter defined, listed or otherwise classified pursuant to any federal, state or local law, regulation or requirement of any substance hazardous, toxic or dangerous to the air, water or soil, or in any way harmful or threatening to human health or the environment, unless caused solely by any of the Indemnified Parties. XIII. Recordation. Grantee shall record this instrument in the Office of the Snohomish County Auditor and may re-record it at any time. XIV. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that any party desires or is required to give to another party under the terms of this Conservation Easement shall be in writing and either served at or mailed to: Grantee: Snohomish County County Executive Office 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, M/S #407 Everett, WA 98201 Grantor(s): City of Edmonds Office of the Mayor 700 Main Street Edmonds, W A 98020 or to such other address as any party from time to time shall designate by written notice to others. Packet Page 402 of 411 11 XV. General Provisions. A. Amendment. If circumstances arise under which an amendment to this Conservation Easement would be appropriate, the Grantor and Grantee may jointly amend this Conservation Easement by a written instrument to be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor, provided that such an amendment does not diminish the effectiveness of this Conservation Easement in carrying out its purpose to permanently preserve and protect in perpetuity the Conservation Values of the Protected Property. B. Controlling Law. The interpretation or performance of this Conservation Easement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington and the Laws of the United States. Any legal proceeding regarding this Conservation Easement shall be initiated in Snohomish County Superior Court. C. Interpretation. This Conservation Easement shall be interpreted to resolve any ambiguities and questions of the validity of specific provisions to give maximum effect to its preservation purpose, as stated in Section II, above. If the Grantor has any doubt concerning the Conservation Easement, covenants, conditions, limitations or restrictions herein contained with respect to any particular use of the said Protected Property, it may submit a written request to the Grantee for consideration and approval of such use. D. Definitions. Any masculine term used in this Conservation Easement shall include the female gender. The terms “Grantor” and “Grantee,” wherever used in this Conservation Easement, and any pronouns used in their place, shall be held to mean and include respectively the above named Grantor, its successors, and assigns, and the above-named Grantee, its successors and assigns. E. Entire agreement. This Conservation Easement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the issues addressed herein and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, or agreements relating to these issues, all of which are merged herein. F. No forfeiture. Nothing in this Conservation Easement shall result in a forfeiture or revision of Grantor’s title in any respect. G. Successors. As stated in the above recitals, all covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this Conservation Easement shall run with the land and be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. H. Severability. If any portion of this Conservation Easement is declared unlawful or invalid, the remainder of the Conservation Easement shall remain in full force and effect. Packet Page 403 of 411 12 I. Authority of signatories. The individuals executing this Conservation Easement warrant and represent that they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Conservation Easement. J. No merger. If Grantee at some future time acquires the underlying fee title in the Protected Property, the interest conveyed by this Deed will not merge with fee title but will continue to exist and be managed as a separate estate. XVI. Environmental Compliance. A. Grantor represents and warrants that, after reasonable investigation and to the best of Grantor’s knowledge, Grantor and the Protected Property are in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, regulations and requirements applicable to the Protected Property and its use, including without limitation all federal, state and local environmental laws, regulations and requirements. B. Grantor further represents and warrants that there has been no release, dumping, burying, abandonment or migration from offsite onto the Property of any substances, materials or wastes that are hazardous, toxic, dangerous or harmful or are designated as, or contain components that are subject to regulation as hazardous, toxic, dangerous or harmful by any federal, state or local law, regulation, statute or ordinance. There is no pending or threatened litigation affecting the Property or any portion of the Property that will materially impair the Conservation Values. No civil or criminal proceedings have been instigated or are pending against Grantor or its predecessors by government agencies or third parties arising out of alleged violations of environmental laws, and neither Grantor nor its predecessors in interest have received any notice of violation, penalties, claims, demand letters or other notifications relating to a breach of environmental laws. C. Remediation. If at any time there occurs or has occurred a release in, on or about the Property of any substances now or hereafter defined, listed or otherwise classified pursuant to any federal, state or local law, regulation or requirement as hazardous, toxic or dangerous to the air, water or soil, or in any way harmful or threatening to human health or environment, Grantor agrees to take all steps necessary to assure its containment and remediation, including any cleanup that may be required, unless the release was caused by the Grantee, in which case Grantee shall be responsible for remediation. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto GRANTEE SNOHOMISH COUNTY, its respective successors and assigns forever. Packet Page 404 of 411 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have, by their authorized officers, set their own hands as of the day and year first stated above. GRANTOR: _________________________________ By: David O. Earling Its: City Mayor STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I, _____________________________________ certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ________________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument; on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument; and acknowledged it, as the _____________________ of the __________________________, the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. ___________________________________ Printed Name: _______________________ NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at _______________. My Commission Expires: ______________. Attest: _________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM _________________________ City Attorney Date Packet Page 405 of 411 14 ACCEPTED BY GRANTEE: On _______ __, 201_ the Snohomish County Council adopted Motion ___-___ authorizing the County Executive to accept the Conservation Easement, pursuant to RCW 64.04.130. GRANTEE: SNOHOMISH COUNTY By: John Lovick Snohomish County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I, ____________________________________ certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ________________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument; on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument; and acknowledged it, as the _____________________ of Snohomish County, the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. ___________________________________ Printed Name: _______________________ NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at _______________. My Commission Expires: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date Packet Page 406 of 411 15 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO CONSERVATION EASEMENT For APN/Parcel ID(s): 004342-099-001-00, 004342-100-000-00 and 004342-101-021-00 Lots 1 through 20, Block 99, all of Block 100, and Lots 21 through 40, Block 101, plat of the City of Edmonds, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, page 39, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. Packet Page 407 of 411 16 EXHIBIT B (BASELINE DOCUMENTATION) I. CURRENT CONDITIONS II. PROPERTY DATA A. Present Use. B. Accessibility and Road Frontage. C. Land Area. D. Land Shape. E. Land Contour and Elevations. F. Minerals and Soil. G. Flood Zone Information. H. Flora. I. Wetlands. Packet Page 408 of 411 17 III. PICTORIAL ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS The following photographs of the Protected Property are not in recordable form and are available and on file with the Snohomish County Parks and Recreation Department: • • • Said photographs demonstrate current site conditions, features, typical flora, and impact of human development Packet Page 409 of 411 AM-7941 6. D. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/18/2015 Time:10 Minutes Submitted For:Patrick Doherty Submitted By:Patrick Doherty Department:Community Services Type: Forward to Consent Information Subject Title Presentation of Council Grant Requests for Tree Board and Diversity Commission Recommendation Forward to 8/25/15 Consent Agenda for approval. Previous Council Action City Council approved $20,000 in the 2015 budget for grants to Boards and Commissions for their programs and activities, with a total of $8,400 allocated during the budget approval process to the following Boards/Commissions: 1) $5,000 for the Historic Preservation Commission for the 2016 Calendar, 2) $1,400 to the Tree Board for minutes-taking, and 3) $2,000 to the Planning Board for video taping of meetings. $11,600 remains in the fund balance. Narrative Tree Board Request $3,000 is requested from the City Council’s Grant Program for Boards/Commissions to assist the Tree Board for the rest of 2015. Specifically the intent is to hire a consultant to conduct the following scope of services under the direction of Development Services Department Director, Shane Hope: Assist the Tree Board by: (a) Attending the Tree Board’s monthly meetings and helping address questions/information about tree issues—especially to follow up with city departments as needed. (b) Coordinating/developing the Board’s application (with Board input) to continue being certified for Tree City USA (c) Facilitate planning for an Arbor Day event (including ideas for outreach & education) (d) Providing other information/support, as time allows Diversity Commission Request $3,000 is requested from the City Council’s Grant Program for Boards/Commissions to assist in the establishment of the Council-approved Diversity Commission. Specifically the intent is to hire a consultant to conduct the following scope of services under the direction of the Economic Development/Community Services Director, Patrick Doherty: Packet Page 410 of 411 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 a 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. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 08/13/2015 04:13 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/14/2015 08:29 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/14/2015 08:30 AM Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 08/13/2015 01:56 PM Final Approval Date: 08/14/2015 Packet Page 411 of 411