2015.09.22 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
1.(60 Minutes)Convene in executive session to discuss real estate per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c) and
potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).
WORK MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
2.Roll Call
3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda
4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.AM-7951 Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of September 15, 2015.
B.AM-7989 Approval of claim checks #216145 through #216278 dated September 17, 2015 for
$831,048.61.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61788 through #61797 for $468,607.19,
benefit checks #61798 through #61802 and wire payments of $525,357.78 for the pay
period September 1, 2015 through September 15, 2015.
5.PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
A.(10 Minutes)Edmonds Historical Museum Presentation regarding Edmonds Scarecrow Festival
B.(20 Minutes)Planning Board Report
6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings
7.STUDY ITEMS
A.(10 Minutes)
AM-7988
Police Department Surplus Property
B.(20 Minutes)
AM-7986
2015 NonRepresented Compensation Study
C.(10 Minutes)
AM-7985
ESCO IV Funding Use
D.(30 Minutes)
AM-7990
Presentation of the Proposed 2016-2021 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement
Program.
E.(60 Minutes)
AM-7991
Continued Review of Critical Area Regulations Update
8.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
9.(15 Minutes)Council Comments
10.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
11.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.
ADJOURN
AM-7951 4. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/22/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Scott Passey
Department:City Clerk's Office
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of September 15, 2015.
Recommendation
Review and approve meeting minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attachment 1 - Draft Council Meeting Minutes.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - 09-15-15 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Form Review
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 08/19/2015 10:14 AM
Final Approval Date: 08/19/2015
Packet Page 3 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 15, 2015
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
September 15, 2015
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Ari Girouard, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Patrick Clark, Police Officer
Rob English, City Engineer
Sean Conrad, Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
SPECIAL MEETING
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss
collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(4)(a). 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 Sharon Cates, City Attorney’s
Office; Human Resources Manager Mary Ann Hardie; and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session
concluded at 6:55 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the flag salute.
BUSINESS MEETING
1. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 4 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 15, 2015
Page 2
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Bloom requested Item A and E be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #216051 THROUGH #216144 DATED SEPTEMBER
10, 2015 FOR $190,455.04. APPROVAL OF REPLACEMENT PAYROLL CHECK #61787
DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2015 FOR $2,421.75
C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM BIRGIT ALBIKER-
OSTERHAUG ($2,500) AND WILLLIAM WISNER (UNDETERMINED)
D. 2015-2017 TEAMSTERS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CONTRACT)
F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH QUIET ZONE
TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE WAYSIDE HORN PROJECT
G. INTERFUND LOAN NOTIFICATION
ITEM A: APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8,
2015
ITEM E: AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SETTLEMENT, RELEASE OF
LIABILITY, AND EASEMENT AGREEMENT – 9232 183RD PLACE SW
Councilmember Bloom explained she pulled these items to abstain from the vote as she was not present at
last week’s meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ITEMS A AND E. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER
BLOOM ABSTAINING.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience wished to address the Council.
5. ACTION ITEMS
A. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO
APPROVE AN APPLICATION BY MERLONE GEIER PARTNERS TO REZONE A
PORTION OF A 9.1 ACRE PROPERTY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 220TH
STREET SW AND HIGHWAY 99. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED
GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG2) WITH THE WESTERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY
ENCUMBERED BY A CONTRACT REZONE (R-02-90). THE REZONE REQUEST
WOULD REMOVE THE CONTRACT REZONE AND ITS RESTRICTIONS ON THE
WESTERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY AND LEAVE THE PROPERTY UNDER THE
CG2 ZONE. (FILE #PLN20150024)
Mayor Earling explained the purpose of the closed record hearing is for the City Council to consider the
recommendation of the Planning Board to rezone a portion of the 9.1 acre property at the northwest
corner of 220th Street SW and Highway 99. A rezone is a Type IV-B application where staff makes a
Packet Page 5 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 15, 2015
Page 3
recommendation to the Planning Board and the Planning Board forwards a recommendation to the City
Council for a final decision.
Mayor Earling opened the closed record hearing. He explained parties of record would normally include
the applicant and any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application or any
person who individually submitted written comments regarding the application at the open record public
hearing. In this case, the applicant was the only to party to speak before the Planning Board other than the
presentation from staff. Therefore only presentation from staff and the applicant will be allowed at the
close record hearing.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine (AFD) requires that this hearing be fair in form, substance and
appearance. The hearing must not only be fair, it must also appear to be fair. He asked whether any
member of the decision-making body had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents
regarding this matter outside the public hearing process. Councilmembers Petso, Johnson, Nelson, Bloom
and Buckshnis, Council President Fraley-Monillas and Mayor Earling advised they have had no
communication with opponents or proponents.
Mayor Earling asked whether any member of the Council had a conflict of interest or believed he/she
could not hear and consider this application in a fair and objective manner. Councilmembers Petso,
Johnson, Nelson, Bloom and Buckshnis, Council President Fraley-Monillas and Mayor Earling advised
they had no conflicts.
Mayor Earling asked whether any member of the audience objected to the Council’s or his participation in
this matter. No objections were voiced. Mayor Earling asked whether the Council agree to the following:
a 5 minute oral argument from the applicant. There are no other parties of record because no one else
participated at the Planning Board level or submitted written comments.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ACCEPT THE PROCESS OUTLINED BY MAYOR EARLING. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Planner Sean Conrad displayed a map of the property at Highway 99 & 220th Street SW, the former Top
Food grocery store site, now the site of Winco Foods. The property is 9.1 acres with commercial zoning
of CG2. Contract zoning was placed by the Council in 1991 on the western half of the property that
includes the existing building. The new owners are requesting the contract zoning be lifted and the
underlying CG2 zoning remain.
He displayed a zoning map, identifying the site, the area of the site with the contract zoning, commercial
CG2 zoning and medical use zoning including the hospital campus to the north of the site, commercial
CG2 and CG zoning to the south, the cities of Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood to the east that have
corresponding commercial zoning along Highway 99 and a combination of commercial CG2 zoning and
higher density residential to the west.
Mr. Conrad provided background; in 1990 the owner of the 9.1 acre property requested the property be
rezoned from high density residential to commercial. The Council considered the request and approved
the CG2 zoning and placed contract zoning on the western half of the property that implemented traffic
mitigation on 220th for anticipated traffic created by the new grocery store, established construction and
operating standards for the grocery during construction as well delivery times, and created a binding site
plan that restricted further development on the western half of the property. The binding site plan is still
in place; with approval of the rezone request, the contract zoning is lifted and additional development
could occur on the property.
Packet Page 6 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 15, 2015
Page 4
He displayed an aerial photo of the project site and surrounding area taken in 1990 and described
characteristics of the area. At the time the contract zoning was put in place, there was a mix of
commercial development and residential on Highway 99 as well as some older residential behind the site.
He displayed an aerial photo taken in 2015 and identified the grocery store, expanded hospital campus
and more intense commercial development on Highway 99.
The Planning Board held a public hearing and forwarded a positive recommendation to City Council to
rezone the property. The Planning Board’s findings found the rezone request was consistent with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance, consistent with the surrounding zoning and change
of character that has occurred in the last 24 years, and the site is suitable for additional commercial
development.
Applicant
Brian Dickerson, PacLand, civil engineer representing the applicant, explained they have worked
closely with staff and support staff’s and the Planning Board’s recommendations. The applicant team was
present to answer questions regarding the rezone application.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to discussion in the Planning Board minutes regarding mature trees.
In comparing the old and the new aerial photographs, she did not see any trees in the 2015 photograph.
Mr. Conrad said the trees referred to by the Planning Board are on the south end of the property. He
identified trees in the parking lot and along 220th.
Councilmember Bloom referred to a statement made by Mr. Lien at the Planning Board meeting after the
public hearing and staff’s presentation, “When the Planning Board formulates the recommendation to
City Council it should make mention of whether or not the application is consistent with the criterion. He
emphasized the appearance of fairness is also important. Board Members should disclose any contact they
may have had with the applicant or any other Appearance of Fairness issues.” Councilmember Bloom
said there is nothing in the minutes suggesting the Planning Board went through the process the Council
just went through and she asked why that did not occur. Development Services Director Shane Hope
answered the Planning Board typically does not go through a formal process; there is a recognition of the
AFD and the requirements they must abide by. It is consistent in that respect but not formalized.
Councilmember Bloom asked why it is not formalized. Ms. Hope answered it typically has not been done
which is common for Planning Boards and Commissions in other cities. The Planning Board has always
been reminded of the AFD and ethical constraints. Councilmember Bloom asked whether it could be
integrated into process. Ms. Hope agreed it could be and said a more formal process would be considered
for the future.
Councilmember Bloom asked what will happen to the existing mature trees. Kevin James, MCG
Architecture, said approximately 10 trees are being removed and their replacement is in excess of the
City’s 1:1 requirement. A landscape plan is proposed that will include additional trees, shrubs as well as
outdoor plaza areas. Councilmember Bloom asked if the applicant was retaining trees to the maximum
extent feasible as required by the code. Mr. James answered yes, the impacted trees are directly involved
with the placement of the building. Councilmember Bloom asked if any other trees on the property would
be retained. Mr. James answered a large number of trees on the site are not being removed.
Councilmember Johnson noted along with the contract rezone there is a concomitant agreement which
states essentially that all existing trees shall remain, meaning the mature evergreens, and that there will be
no development within the western portion of the site. If the contract rezone is removed, she noted there
was potential for additional buildings and tree removal in future. Mr. Conrad agreed.
Packet Page 7 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 15, 2015
Page 5
If the process at the Planning Board was indeed not adequate, Councilmember Petso asked whether that
affected the Council’s ability to approve tonight. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered he did not think it
did as the City Council was the ultimate decision maker. According to Ms. Hope, as the Planning Board
understands its obligations under the AFD and would disclose any issues they had, it could be presumed
they were in compliance with the AFD. In the future, he recommended the Planning Board formalize their
process as their current process was not ideal. He did not feel the Planning Board’s process prevented the
Council from approving tonight.
Councilmember Petso asked if that would be the case even if the Planning Board was not aware of their
obligation and did not make disclosures. Mr. Taraday answered yes, explaining he may feel differently if
a member of the public had come to the hearing. In this instance, the hearing was essentially non-attended
by the public; there was no opposition, so there was no reason to believe there would have been an
opponent/proponent dynamic as there was in many projects. From a risk assessment standpoint, assuming
the City Council approves the rezone, the decision could not be challenged because no one participated at
the Planning Board stage.
Councilmember Petso referred to Attachment 3 which shows a portion of the building essentially on the
property line and inquired about the setback on 220th. Mr. Conrad answered it will have the required
minimum 4-foot setback for landscaping.
Councilmember Bloom observed one Planning Board Member abstained from the vote, stating “she chose
to abstain from the vote because she felt the process was incomplete.” Councilmember Bloom noted the
minutes do not provide any detail regarding why the Planning Board Member felt the process was
incomplete. Mr. Conrad said he was not aware of why she felt the process was incomplete; she engaged in
questions and discussion regarding the merits of the project with the Board. Councilmember Bloom
agreed Board Member Rubenkonig asked numerous questions which she appreciated.
Councilmember Bloom referred to a comment in the Planning Board minutes by Mr. Lien, “When the
Planning Board formulates its recommendation to the City Council, it should make mention of whether or
not the application is consistent with the criterion.” She noted the Planning Board stated they generally
felt it was consistent but did not give rationale to support it. She asked why that was not done. Mr. Conrad
said the Planning Board’s motion adopted the file and staff findings. If the Planning Board felt one of the
findings needed to be changed, they could have made that request.
Councilmember Johnson referred to page 10 of 72 which shows the outline of the subject property,
underling zoning and the existing contract area; it appears the footprint for the proposed building could fit
on the eastern half of the site and not affect the contract rezone. However, the Planning Board minutes
state the applicant was only considering the proposed location. Mr. Conrad agreed the Planning Board
discussed whether the building could fit on the eastern portion of the property where there was no
contract rezone. The stipulations in the applicant’s contract with Winco Foods restrict their ability to put a
store between the Winco grocery store and Highway 99. Councilmember Johnson relayed her
understanding they not want to obstruct the visual identity of the Winco store, but she was unsure how
building anything on 220th would affect that.
Ross Vontver, Merlone Geier Partners (applicant), advised there was an extensive discussion about the
location of the building. They have a 40-year lease with Winco. After extensive discussion and
negotiations with Winco, the location of building is the only location they will approve and it is in the
lease. He summarized if that building is not constructed, they do not build anything.
Packet Page 8 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 15, 2015
Page 6
For Councilmember Johnson, Mr. Vontver advised they own the entire parcel and Winco is their 40 year
lease tenant. Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding Winco will only allow a 6,000 square
foot building pad at this location. Mr. Vontver answered yes.
Councilmember Bloom expressed concerned that at least one Planning Board Member felt the process
was incomplete, were no statements regarding AFD disclosures and board members did not provide
specifics regarding how the rezone met the criteria. In her review, it appears it probably or may meet the
criteria but it was not proven in the Planning Board minutes or the evidence provided to the Council. She
was also concerned that perhaps the process was incomplete and not done in an open, fair and transparent
manner. She will vote against the rezone for reasons related to process, not because of the rezone itself.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked why Board Member Rubenkonig made that statement. Ms. Hope
answered nothing was stated to explain her reasoning. Board Member Rubenkonig is one of the newer
board members and may not have been comfortable voting for a variety of reasons but apparently she did
not feel she needed to vote against it or urge others to vote against it. Ultimately five board members
voted in favor and Board Member Rubenkonig abstained. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked
whether other board members stated the reasons they supported the rezone. Mr. Conrad said the Planning
Board minutes reflect at least two board members said the rezone was appropriate given the changes in
the character of the area and felt it was the right time to lift the contract rezone.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she will support the Planning Board’s recommendation as she did not
want to implement AFD on the Planning Board since the issue was just brought up. The information
presented is well documented. She acknowledged some commissioners/board members simply decide to
abstain and sometimes do not give a reason.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REZONE. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS
JOHNSON AND BLOOM VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday asked for clarification that the Council’s vote was to direct the City Attorney to draft an
ordinance approving the rezone. Councilmembers agreed.
B. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING RESOLUTION ADOPTING
POLICY REGARDING COUNCILMEMBER PARTICIPATION BY SPEAKER PHONE
OR OTHER TECHNOLOGY
Council President Fraley-Monillas explained during last two weeks staff has been researching what has
occurred over the past few years. The agenda memo addresses MRSC’s opinion regarding
Councilmembers participating by phone. This issue was discussed by the Council in December 2013 as
well as by the Public Safety Committee. She read from the proposed resolution under what circumstances
a Councilmember may participate by speaker phone or other technology:
1. Prior approval given by the Council President for good cause, whose approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
2. All persons participating in the meeting are able to hear each other at the same time, such as by
the use of speaker phone or other technology; and
3. Councilmember must call in for the full meeting including audience comment; and
4. The Councilperson participating by speaker phone shall have reviewed all of the applicable
material and participate in the relevant portion of the Council Meeting related to the topic to
which the Council person is voting on.
5. Exception: Speaker phone or other technology will not be allowed when the Council is sitting as
a quasi-judicial body.
Packet Page 9 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 15, 2015
Page 7
Council President Fraley-Monillas noted “other technology” could include things like skype. She
explained she was seeking Council consideration of the resolution tonight as a Councilmember is on
vacation next week and she wanted them to have the ability to call in if they wished.
Main Motion
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1340, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
IMPLEMENTING A POLICY REGARDING COUNCILMEMBER PARTICIPATION BY
SPEAKER PHONE OR OTHER TECHNOLOGY.
Councilmember Bloom read an apology: “During the Council meeting of August 25, I stated that I was
concerned that remote participation by Councilmember Buckshnis could create a 3-3 tie. That motivation
disrespects our adopted Robert’s Rules and more important, the democratic process. I was wrong to state
that concern and I apologize. The correct concern is that remote participation at that time would have
disrespected both Robert’s Rules and the democratic process. Precedent is not part of Robert's Rules and
because Council never followed through with voting to allow remote participation, it should never have
been considered nor voted on during that meeting. Democracy and procedures are not ad hoc. We
establish rules and follow them precisely so politics does not interfere.”
Councilmember Bloom suggested the Council discuss amendments related to the following to ensure
there was a thorough policy and not left completely to the discretion of the Council President:
• Limit of two times per year per Councilmember
• Allow only under extraordinary circumstances for example if needed for a quorum, an issue of
high importance to the Councilmember is on the agenda, an issue for which it is important to have
all Councilmembers participate
• Limit to one item and not allow participation in an entire meeting
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Attachment 8, Council Speaker Phone Participation during Council
Meetings, which indicates Councilmembers have called in 12 times to participate in the discussion and
vote; 2 of which occurred after the Council adopted Robert's Rules. She stated democracy did not take
place on August 25; regardless of Robert's Rules, the Council has allowed participation by speaker phone
on 2 occasions. She summarized, “I don’t really care anymore.”
Council President Fraley-Monillas found a limit of two times a year acceptable. She referred to the
history, noting participation by speaker phone has not occurred very often in the past. The proposed
resolution does not include allow participation for an issue of high importance to a Councilmember
because it that is subjective to each individual. The Public Safety/Personnel Committee minutes provide
the basis for the proposed resolution.
Councilmember Nelson did not support an amendment limiting participation two times per year per
Councilmember. The history indicates some Councilmembers participated more than two times per year
and he felt Councilmembers should have that flexibility. At the same time, he acknowledged it would be
problematic for a Councilmember to miss numerous meetings as that affects their ability to effectively do
their job. It is in a Councilmember’s best interest to be present at Council meeting as often as possible. He
supported it being an exception to the norm but was not comfortable with an arbitrary limit.
Councilmember Bloom she questioned why a Councilmember’s participation by speaker phone would not
be allowed for an issue of high importance to a Councilmember; she did not feel it was subjective if
looked at in terms of something a Councilmember felt passionate about. She also supported an
amendment to allow participation on an issue for which it is important to have all Councilmembers
participate, noting some issues warrant having all Councilmembers participate.
Packet Page 10 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 15, 2015
Page 8
Amendment #1
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND TO A ADD SECTION THAT STATES, “PARTICIPATION BY SPEAKER PHONE
WILL ORDINARILY BE LIMITED TO TWO TIMES PER COUNCILMEMBER.
Councilmember Petso liked the idea of a limit and was sensitive to Councilmember Nelson’s concern that
there may be circumstances where it would be reasonable to exceed the two times per year. She preferred
to include the limit as a message it should not be done often and Councilmembers are expected to pick
and choose when to participate by phone. Including the verbiage she proposed would encourage
Councilmembers not to participate by phone often but allow for an exception if something truly odd
comes up.
Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Nelson. She referred to the history,
recalling a Councilmember who participated by phone three times in a year had had heart surgery. She
also recalled calling in when she was very ill. Although rare, there may be instances where participation
by phone could occur more than twice a year.
Councilmember Mesaros commented Councilmembers serve at the pleasure of the electorate. If
Councilmembers habitually do not show up for meetings and use electronic communication to participate,
the electorate will have something to say about that. He will vote against the amendment in support of
Councilmember Nelson’s comment and legitimate reasons for Councilmembers not to be present such as
vacation, illness or family matters. He did not find a limitation of two times per year rational.
Mr. Taraday reminded the Council under State law, Councilmembers forfeit their office if they are absent
for three consecutive meetings without being excused. State law provides a possible means of addressing
the concern.
Action on Amendment #1
MOTION FAILED (2-5) COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES.
Amendment #2
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO ALLOW PARTICIPATION BY REMOTE TECHNOLOGY IF IT IS
AN ISSUE FOR WHICH IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE ALL COUNCILMEMBERS
PARTICIPATE.
Council President Fraley-Monillas questioned who determines whether an issue is important enough.
Councilmember Bloom said she proposed this amendment because of the Woodway Fields ILA, an
example of an issue for which it was important that all Councilmembers participate in the vote. There are
many important issues that warrant having all Councilmembers’ participate in the vote; during her term
these included the Harbor Square Master Plan and the Shoreline Master Plan.
Councilmember Mesaros said when items of that level of importance are on the agenda, Councilmembers
are usually present at the meeting. For example, it was important all Councilmembers be present for
tonight’s closed record review. Having a Councilmember absent from meetings with that type of agenda
item is a rarity. He assumed the Council President, who is aware of potential absenteeism, would not
schedule such an item when Councilmembers were absent.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reiterated her question regarding the interpretation of what is
important, noting what one Councilmember deems to be the most important thing in the City, another
Packet Page 11 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 15, 2015
Page 9
may not. She summarized it was unclear who would make the determination regarding what is important
enough for all Councilmembers to participate.
Councilmember Bloom explained she made the motion in reaction to Council President Fraley-Monillas’
statement that determining issues of high importance to an individual Councilmember was subjective. In
response to Councilmember Mesaros, Councilmember Bloom said there could be a situation where a
Councilmember is ill and an issue is important to them and/or it is important to have all Councilmembers
participate. Subjectivity enters when the Council President is allowed to decide; an individual
Councilmember can determine whether an item is important to them and they want to participate and the
Council as a group can determine if it is an issue that is important to all.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the amendment. She recalled a time when Council President
Fraley-Monillas was on vacation and did not call in and requested the Council delay a vote on the budget.
She agreed it was a very subjective determination.
Action on Amendment #2
MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING YES.
Amendment #3
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND #3 TO STATE, “COUNCILMEMBERS MUST CALL IN FOR THE
FULL MEETING INCLUDING AUDIENCE COMMENTS UNTIL THE ITEM THEY ARE
WILLING TO DISCUSS IS OVER.”
Councilmember Buckshnis provided an example, a Councilmember is on the east coast and calls in for an
item at midnight eastern time; remaining on speaker phone to the end of the meeting is unnecessary. She
recalled participating by phone while in Charlotte when she was on the phone until 2:00 a.m.
Councilmember Mesaros said he understood the intent but more specific wording was necessary.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday observed the intent was any Councilmember be allowed to drop off but must
start participation at the beginning of the meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed, commenting often a
Councilmember only wants to participate in a few items. Mr. Taraday suggested the following wording:
“To be entitled to vote, Councilmembers must have participated for the full meeting up until such vote is
cast.”
Councilmember Buckshnis restated the amendment:
Amendment #3 Restated
AMEND ITEM 3 IN THE RESOLUTION TO STATE, “TO BE ENTITLED TO VOTE,
COUNCILMEMBERS MUST HAVE PARTICIPATED FOR THE FULL MEETING UP UNTIL
SUCH VOTE IS CAST.”
Councilmember Bloom expressed her support for the amendment, commenting it makes sense to allow a
Councilmember to participate just through the vote they want to participate in. She suggested the Council
President schedule that item early in agenda if possible.
Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed support for the amendment. That item was included in the
list of reasons a Councilmember may participate by phone or other technology due to complaints in the
past regarding Councilmembers calling in for one item and potentially not hearing public comment.
Action on Amendment #3
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 12 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 15, 2015
Page 10
Councilmember Johnson said it was very important for the Council to establish rules from which to
operate. According to her understanding of Robert's Rules, as long as the Council had bylaws that address
remote participation and excused absences, that was an appropriate way to deal with the issue. She was
very upset with the way things unfolded at the meeting that precipitated this discussion where the Council
devolved to the point of arguments and interaction from the audience. For that reason she chose to vote to
override the Mayor’s ruling and move on with the agenda. She was not trying to discourage anyone from
participating but felt it was not a good or civil scene. She felt this was a good step in the right direction
and supported adopting rules that could be followed in the future.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Taraday to comment on the rules in Robert's Rules
regarding Councilmembers calling in for meetings. Mr. Taraday read from Robert's Rules, “except as
authorized in the bylaws, the business of an organization can be validly transacted only at a meeting.” The
proposed resolution creates that exception. In the absence of bylaws that authorize telephonic meetings,
under Robert's Rules telephonic meetings do not happen. “A group that holds such alternative meetings
does not lose its character as a deliberative assembly so long as the meetings provide conditions of
opportunity for simultaneous oral communication. If electronic meetings are to be authorized, it is
advisable to adopt additional rules pertaining to their conduct.”
Mr. Taraday said Robert's Rules does not specifically identity those additional rules but suggests things
that might be considered are whether a person has a right to participate or whether the body may choose
to allow or disallow. Under the proposed resolution, it is up to the Council President to decide. Robert's
Rules also suggest considering conditions under which a member may raise a point of order doubting the
presence of a quorum. Mr. Taraday said that would be an issue if only three Councilmembers were
present and everyone else was participating by phone which assumed would be very unlikely. Other
things Robert's Rules mentions are methods for seeking recognition and obtaining the floor, ensuring that
non-members cannot participate in meetings, especially during any meeting in executive session.
Councilmember Bloom said a Port Commissioner participated remotely at last night’s meeting. Before
the meeting began the Commissioner was called and the Port Attorney described the guidelines for his
participation. The Commissioner was on the phone for everything even the Pledge of Allegiance. If that
was the intent, she asked whether it needed to be included in the resolution or could that just be assumed
to be part of the process. Mr. Taraday did not assume that would be part of the process. Robert's Rules
states any rules the Council wants to make about telephonic participation should be included in the
bylaws. The resolution the Council is considering is the bylaw that will govern telephonic participation,
skype participation, etc. If his reading of things Robert's Rules suggests be considered caused a
Councilmember to think about other issues, he suggested the bylaws be amended until the Council was
satisfied with them.
Action on Main Motion as amended
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. STUDY ITEMS - None
7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported the opening of the Cascadia Art Museum Thursday evening was a spectacular
success and far exceeds the expectations of most of the community. The museum is truly spectacular and
is a great addition to the community. Those in charge have a well thought out plan for how new material
will be brought in. Sunday’s car show was also spectacular. He would have picked a particular car had he
been notified there was a Mayor’s selection to be made.
Packet Page 13 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 15, 2015
Page 11
8. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Johnson announced the Artist Studio Tour this weekend. The tour, in its 10th year,
features 25 venues and 40 artists.
9. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(i)
At 8:03 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
pending litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 10 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, and Nelson. Councilmember Mesaros recused himself from the executive
session. Others present were Jeff Taraday, City Attorney and City Clerk Scott Passey. At 8:15 p.m.,
Mayor Earling emerged from the Jury Meeting Room to announce that the executive session
would be extended for five minutes. The executive session concluded at 8:19 p.m.
10. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 8:20 p.m.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Packet Page 14 of 473
AM-7989 4. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/22/2015
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 #216145 through #216278 dated September 17, 2015 for $831,048.61.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61788 through #61797 for $468,607.19, benefit checks
#61798 through #61802 and wire payments of $525,357.78 for the pay period September 1, 2015 through
September 15, 2015.
Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2015
Revenue:
Expenditure:1,825,013.38
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $831,048.61
Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $468,607.19
Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $525,357.58
Total Payroll $993,964.77
Attachments
claim cks 09-17-15
project numbers 09-17-15
payroll summary 09-18-15
Packet Page 15 of 473
payroll summary 09-18-15
payroll benefits 09-18-15
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Sarah Mager 09/18/2015 09:51 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/18/2015 09:52 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/18/2015 09:56 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/18/2015 10:00 AM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 09/17/2015 12:08 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/18/2015
Packet Page 16 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216145 9/17/2015 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 15-32076 INTERPERTER PD
interperter PD office
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 130.00
Total :130.00
216146 9/17/2015 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 354635 PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONTROL CUST 1-1
PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONTROL CUST
001.000.64.576.80.41.00 136.88
Total :136.88
216147 9/17/2015 075411 AARON & NICOLE REIMAN 2-24175 #40154079-803-TJ2 UTILITY REFUND
#40154079-803-TJ2 Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000 144.20
Total :144.20
216148 9/17/2015 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 915139 SUMMER OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE SHIRTS
SUMMER OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE SHIRTS
001.000.64.571.25.31.00 34.68
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.25.31.00 3.29
Total :37.97
216149 9/17/2015 074143 AFFORDABLE WA BACKFLOW TESTING 10978 BACKFLOW TESTS
BACKFLOW TESTS
001.000.64.576.80.41.00 1,873.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.41.00 177.96
Total :2,051.22
216150 9/17/2015 065568 ALLWATER INC 090115056 WWTP - DRINKING WATER
cooler rental
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 7.00
water
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 18.35
9.5% Sales Tax
1Page:
Packet Page 17 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216150 9/17/2015 (Continued)065568 ALLWATER INC
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 0.67
Total :26.02
216151 9/17/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988186201 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
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
WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS1988197711
uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80
mats & towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 78.99
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.51
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1988197713
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
WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS1988208962
uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80
mats & towels (with inventory
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 94.49
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 8.98
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1988208963
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 74.91
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1988208964
2Page:
Packet Page 18 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216151 9/17/2015 (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
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1988213249
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 11.96
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
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1988213648
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
3Page:
Packet Page 19 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216151 9/17/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.48
Total :378.98
216152 9/17/2015 072576 ART ACCESS 13726 ARTS ACCESS EXHIBITS ADS
ARTS ACCESS EXHIBITS ADS
123.000.64.573.20.41.00 115.00
Total :115.00
216153 9/17/2015 064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC T075390 PW - Temp Sensor
PW - Temp Sensor
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.37
Total :15.77
216154 9/17/2015 073598 AUBURN MECHANICAL, INC 20515 YOST POOL VALVE REPAIR
YOST POOL VALVE REPAIR
001.000.64.576.80.41.00 868.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.41.00 82.46
Total :950.46
216155 9/17/2015 001777 AURORA PLUMBING & ELECTRIC INV170013 Sr Center - Supplies
Sr Center - Supplies
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 170.25
9.6% Sales Tax
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.34
Total :186.59
216156 9/17/2015 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 80559 INV#80559 - EDMONDS PD
ROUTER WALL SIGN "LIVESCAN"
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 52.00
4Page:
Packet Page 20 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216156 9/17/2015 (Continued)001795 AUTOGRAPHICS
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 4.94
Total :56.94
216157 9/17/2015 071348 BERGERABAM 311337B Fishing Pier - Pro Svcs - Design
Fishing Pier - Pro Svcs - Design
016.000.66.518.30.41.00 11,614.81
Total :11,614.81
216158 9/17/2015 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 10568 E4GA/E4JB.SERVICES THRU AUGUST 2015
E4GA.Services thru August 2015
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 24,158.00
E4JB.BOND.Services thru August 2015
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 15,227.00
E5NA.SERVICES THRU AUGUST 201510576
E5NA.Services thru August 2015
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 2,132.91
E5NA.Services thru August 2015
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 2,132.92
E5NA.Services thru August 2015
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 2,132.92
Total :45,783.75
216159 9/17/2015 060141 BRANOM INSTRUMENT 555901 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICAL
convertor cable
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 132.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 11.04
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 13.59
Total :156.63
216160 9/17/2015 067391 BRAT WEAR 16411 INV#16411 - EDMONDS PD - GRIMES
EMBROIDER NAME ON SHIRT
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.00
5Page:
Packet Page 21 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216160 9/17/2015 (Continued)067391 BRAT WEAR
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 0.76
INV#16462 - EDMONDS PD - KINNEY16462
TRADITIONAL PANTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.00
S/S CONTEMPORARY SHIRT
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 82.00
EMBROIDER NAME ON SHIRT
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 17.01
INV#16463 - EDMONDS PD - BARKER16463
TRADITIONAL PANTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.46
Total :302.23
216161 9/17/2015 065341 BRIANS UPHOLSTERY 536367 Unit 134 - Seat Restoration
Unit 134 - Seat Restoration
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 650.00
8.6% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 55.90
Total :705.90
216162 9/17/2015 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC XW04685 Cisco Server for Yakima location~
Cisco Server for Yakima location~
001.000.31.594.18.64.10 10,820.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.594.18.64.10 1,020.25
Total :11,840.61
216163 9/17/2015 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN08151017 WWTP - SUPPLIES, GAS
nitrogen, oxygen, carbon monoxide
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 74.25
6Page:
Packet Page 22 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216163 9/17/2015 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 7.05
Total :81.30
216164 9/17/2015 074883 CLYBORNE, CADENCE BID-07232015 REIMBURSEMENT BALLOON, STRING, HELIUM, D
Reimbursement for custom balloons for
140.000.61.558.70.31.00 103.49
Reimbursement for string for balloons
140.000.61.558.70.31.00 18.99
Reimbursement for rental of helium and
140.000.61.558.70.31.00 201.48
Reimbursement for renewal of domain
140.000.61.558.70.49.00 230.00
Total :553.96
216165 9/17/2015 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC SEPT-15 C/A CITYOFED00001
Aug-15 Fiber Optics Internet Connection
001.000.31.518.87.42.00 406.10
Total :406.10
216166 9/17/2015 072848 COPIERS NW INV1259747 INV#1259747 ACCT#HMH636 - EDMONDS PD
IRC5045 LEASE 08/05-09/04/15
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 226.77
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 21.54
INV#1259748 ACCT#HMH636 - EDMONDS PDINV1259748
B/W METER CHARGE IRC5045
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 42.48
COLOR METER CHARGE IRC5045
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 115.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 15.03
Total :421.58
216167 9/17/2015 073912 CROWN FILMS/CUSTOM BIOPLASTICS 80802 PM DOG WASTE BAGS
7Page:
Packet Page 23 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216167 9/17/2015 (Continued)073912 CROWN FILMS/CUSTOM BIOPLASTICS
PM DOG WASTE BAGS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 885.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 84.12
Total :969.57
216168 9/17/2015 072700 CURVATURE LLC 532962 CISCO 2960G-24TC--L SWITCH
Cisco Catalyst 2960G-24TC-L Switch -
001.000.31.518.87.35.00 588.92
1000BASE-BXD SFP AND 1000BASE-BXU SFP533872
1000BASE-BXD SFP and 1000BASE-BXU SFP -
001.000.31.518.87.31.00 822.62
CISCO 1941 RACK MOUNT KIT533908
Cisco 1941 19" Rack Mount Kit - item
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 1,043.97
TECHNICAL SUPPORT533955
24x7x365 Technical Support w/next
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 67.23
Total :2,522.74
216169 9/17/2015 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 90112015070055 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for July 2015
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 1,231.40
CUSTOMER ID# D200-090112015080055
Scan Services for August 2015
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 1,231.40
Total :2,462.80
216170 9/17/2015 073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC 651150804 CEMETERY ADVERTISING
CEMETERY ADVERTISING
130.000.64.536.20.41.40 68.08
Total :68.08
216171 9/17/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3590 INV#15-3590 - EDMONDS PD
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #15-2041
8Page:
Packet Page 24 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216171 9/17/2015 (Continued)064531 DINES, JEANNIE
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 39.60
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #15-0245
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 56.10
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #13-3646
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 82.50
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 09/08/1515-3592
09/08/15 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES &
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 204.60
Total :382.80
216172 9/17/2015 072145 DISTINCTIVE WINDOWS INC 19574 City Hall Finance Remodel - Glass
City Hall Finance Remodel - Glass
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 254.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 24.22
Total :279.16
216173 9/17/2015 074554 DOMINGUEZ, EDWARD BF-008-2015 BIRD FEST SPEAKER FEE
Bird Fest speaker fee
001.000.61.558.70.49.00 75.00
Total :75.00
216174 9/17/2015 007253 DUNN LUMBER 3414446 City Hall Remodel - Supplies
City Hall Remodel - Supplies
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 67.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 6.40
Total :73.80
216175 9/17/2015 074492 EARTHCORPS 5343 317-15-01 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJ MGM
317-15-01 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJ
125.000.64.575.50.41.00 1,570.80
Total :1,570.80
216176 9/17/2015 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 001035 PM CHAIN
9Page:
Packet Page 25 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216176 9/17/2015 (Continued)074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC
PM
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.47
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.71
Total :8.18
216177 9/17/2015 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 20226 BRANTING ADRIE 20226 BRANTING ADRIENNE YOUTH SCHOLARSHI
20226 BRANTING ADRIENNE YOUTH
122.000.64.571.20.49.00 75.00
20226 BRANTING BAELFIRE YOUTH SCHOLARSHI20226 BRANTING BAELF
20226 BRANTING BAELFIRE YOUTH
122.000.64.571.20.49.00 75.00
Total :150.00
216178 9/17/2015 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 5-10351 INTERURBAN TRAIL
INTERURBAN TRAIL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 60.54
Total :60.54
216179 9/17/2015 075413 EDMUND LINDENSTEIN & J RICE 4-44275 #4245-2478833 UTILITY REFUND
#4245-2478833 Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000 49.81
Total :49.81
216180 9/17/2015 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 140035 RADIX MONTHLY MAINT AGREEMENT
Radix Monthly Maint Agreement - Oct
421.000.74.534.80.48.00 152.00
Total :152.00
216181 9/17/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR14509 WWTP - OFFICE MACHINE USE
6/10/15 to 7/09/15
423.000.76.535.80.45.41 92.89
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.45.41 8.82
COPY MACHINE FEESAR14516
10Page:
Packet Page 26 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216181 9/17/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
Copy machine monthly fees
001.000.23.523.30.45.00 2.91
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.23.523.30.45.00 0.28
COPY MACHINE FEESAR14517
Copy machine monthly fees
001.000.23.523.30.45.00 33.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.23.523.30.45.00 3.14
COPY MACHINE FEE'SAR14529
Copy machine monthly fees
001.000.23.523.30.45.00 25.06
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.23.523.30.45.00 2.38
COPY MACHAINE FEESAR14530
Copy machine monthly fee's
001.000.23.523.30.45.00 27.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.23.523.30.45.00 2.57
FLEET COPY USEAR14539
Fleet Copy Use
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.80
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.36
WATER SEWER COPY USEAR14540
Water Sewer Copy Use
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 14.37
Water Sewer Copy Use
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 14.36
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.37
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.36
PW COPY USEAR14541
11Page:
Packet Page 27 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216181 9/17/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
PW Copy Use
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 11.58
PW Copy Use
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 6.56
PW Copy Use
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 6.56
PW Copy Use
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.63
PW Copy Use
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.63
PW Copy Use
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 1.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 0.62
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 0.62
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.44
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.44
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.45
Additional Images: Dev Serv. Lrg CopierAR14859
Additional Images: Dev Serv. Lrg Copier
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 302.65
Total :578.60
216182 9/17/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH656290 Legal Description (Notice):
Legal Description (Notice):
001.000.62.558.60.41.40 87.72
Total :87.72
216183 9/17/2015 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 3464237 Sr Center - Elect Supplies
12Page:
Packet Page 28 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216183 9/17/2015 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
Sr Center - Elect Supplies
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 3,500.46
9.5% Sales Tax
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 332.54
Total :3,833.00
216184 9/17/2015 011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 258.62
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 258.62
425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET425-771-4741
425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET
130.000.64.536.20.42.00 82.77
LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES425-774-1031
LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRADE SPECIAL
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 47.12
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION425-775-1344
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
001.000.64.571.23.42.00 63.05
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-776-1281
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 52.39
LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE425-776-2742
LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACCESS LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.21
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 :885.31
216185 9/17/2015 002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 004014743 INV#004014743 ACCT#1001074529 - EDMONDS
BASEBALL CAPS
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 23.90
EMBROIDER EDMONDS POLICE
13Page:
Packet Page 29 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216185 9/17/2015 (Continued)002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 4.17
Total :48.07
216186 9/17/2015 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR 9619 INTERPERTER
Interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.66
INTERPRETER FEE9670
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.66
Total :211.32
216187 9/17/2015 012199 GRAINGER 9823942272 Fac Maint - Supplies
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 47.55
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.38
PS - Box Fans (5)9823942280
PS - Box Fans (5)
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 132.65
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.20
Total :196.78
216188 9/17/2015 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 980793877 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC
VM1L4030 Killark electric
423.000.76.535.80.31.22 464.62
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.22 21.91
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.22 46.22
Total :532.75
216189 9/17/2015 072900 GUTTMAN, BURTON C BF-002-2015 BIRD FEST SPEAKER FEE
14Page:
Packet Page 30 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216189 9/17/2015 (Continued)072900 GUTTMAN, BURTON C
Bird Fest speaker fee
001.000.61.558.70.49.00 75.00
Total :75.00
216190 9/17/2015 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 61 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 64.80
Total :64.80
216191 9/17/2015 075133 HERRIN, NICOLE BID-082015 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FOR BID AUGUST 2
Administrative services for BID for
140.000.61.558.70.41.00 580.00
Total :580.00
216192 9/17/2015 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 3062578 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL
roller cover, polysheets, brushes
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 174.35
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 16.56
WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL4593307
paint buckets and angle brushes
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 57.24
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 5.44
WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL5581529
glue
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 23.44
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 2.23
Total :279.26
216193 9/17/2015 069952 HUGHES, HOLLY 9/15 WOTS JUDGE 9/15 WOTS JUDGE HUGHES
9/15 WOTS JUDGE HUGHES
117.100.64.573.20.41.00 125.00
Total :125.00
15Page:
Packet Page 31 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216194 9/17/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2678620 DSD - Copy paper
DSD - Copy paper
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 123.60
DSD Office Supplies-colored copy paper,2679326
DSD Office Supplies-colored copy paper,
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 173.77
DSD office suplies - copy paper2679934
DSD office suplies - copy paper
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 72.26
DSD Office supplies - expanding legal2679964
DSD Office supplies - expanding legal
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 87.87
OFFICE SUPPLIES2680003
office supplies
001.000.23.523.30.31.00 182.58
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.23.523.30.31.00 17.35
DSD Office supplies - correction tape,2681338
DSD Office supplies - correction tape,
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 18.59
POST IT FLAGS AND FILE TABS2682075
Post it Message Flags & File Tabs
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 27.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 2.57
Total :705.59
216195 9/17/2015 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 762830 PM ABSORB OIL PAD
PM ABSORB OIL PAD
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 34.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.32
Total :38.27
216196 9/17/2015 070250 IRON MOUNTAIN 200733890 08-15 OFF SITE DATA STORAGE SERVICES
Aug-2015 Off site data storage services
16Page:
Packet Page 32 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216196 9/17/2015 (Continued)070250 IRON MOUNTAIN
001.000.31.518.88.41.00 177.14
Total :177.14
216197 9/17/2015 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 3698 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNECTION
Sept-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
216198 9/17/2015 075414 JOHN & DOROTHY FLEMMER 4-02750 #4245-2447776 UTILITY REFUND
#4245-2447776 Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000 222.99
Total :222.99
216199 9/17/2015 074168 JOHNSON, MELISSA 8/26 REIMB CEM AD 8/26 REIMBURSEMENT CEMETERY AD
8/26 REIMBURSEMENT CEMETERY AD
130.000.64.536.20.41.40 75.00
Total :75.00
216200 9/17/2015 073777 KOSOLA JOHNSON, JOY BF-007-2015 BIRD FEST SPEAKER FEE
Bird Fest speaker fee
001.000.61.558.70.49.00 75.00
Total :75.00
216201 9/17/2015 068024 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARD FOUND 20087 KRUCKEBERG 20087 KRUCKEBERG GARDEN
20087 KRUCKEBERG GARDEN
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 91.00
BIRD FEST PROGRAM FEESBF-001-2015
Bird Fest program fees for Birds of the
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 78.00
Total :169.00
216202 9/17/2015 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 09082015-01 INV#09082015-01 - EDMONDS PD
25 CAR WASHES @ $5.03(INC TX) 8/15
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 125.75
17Page:
Packet Page 33 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :125.752162029/17/2015 017050 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH
216203 9/17/2015 074417 LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN SMITH 120 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 700.00
Total :700.00
216204 9/17/2015 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4449713 INV#4449713 ACCT#2185-952778-819 EDMONDS
SHRED 2 TOTES @ $4.56 8/26/15
001.000.41.521.10.41.00 9.12
SHRED 3 TOTES @$19,56 8/7/15 (PURGE)
001.000.41.521.10.41.00 58.68
Total :67.80
216205 9/17/2015 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC 20213 expenses 07-15 EXPENSES
07-15 reimbursement for expenses -
001.000.36.515.31.41.00 104.00
09-15 LEGALS FEESSep-15
09-15 Legal fees
001.000.36.515.31.41.00 41,000.00
Total :41,104.00
216206 9/17/2015 073801 LONG, PRISCILLA 9/15 WOTS JUDGE 9/15 WOTS JUDGE LONG
9/15 WOTS JUDGE LONG
117.100.64.573.20.41.00 125.00
Total :125.00
216207 9/17/2015 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 651653-00 Fac Maint - Supplies
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 61.72
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.86
Total :67.58
216208 9/17/2015 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1516 INTERPRETER FEE AT FELDMAN'S OFFICE
INTERPRETER FEE AT FELDMAN'S OFFICE
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 86.90
18Page:
Packet Page 34 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216208 9/17/2015 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA
INTERPRETER FEE AT FELDMAN'S OFFICE1517
INTERPRETER FEE AT FELDMAN'S OFFICE
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 86.90
INTERPRETER FEE AT FELDMAN'S OFFICE1579
INTERPRETER FEE AT FELDMAN'S OFFICE
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 86.90
Total :260.70
216209 9/17/2015 071056 MARZLUFF, JOHN BF-003-2015 BIRD FEST SPEAKER FEES
Bird Fest speaker fees
001.000.61.558.70.49.00 500.00
Total :500.00
216210 9/17/2015 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 62 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.29.00 8,702.25
Total :8,702.25
216211 9/17/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 38002510 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL
cogged belt, threaded pipe
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 199.10
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 8.14
Total :207.24
216212 9/17/2015 075000 MECHE, JOE BF-004-2015 BIRD FEST SPEAKER FEE
Bird Fest speaker fee
001.000.61.558.70.49.00 100.00
Total :100.00
216213 9/17/2015 075408 MESAROS, THOMAS Mesaros Reimburse Councilmember Mesaros for
Reimburse Councilmember Mesaros for
001.000.11.511.60.31.00 201.57
Rental of Water Cooler for 2015
001.000.11.511.60.45.00 13.14
19Page:
Packet Page 35 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :214.712162139/17/2015 075408 075408 MESAROS, THOMAS
216214 9/17/2015 075415 MIKE DONOGHUE & MONA PETROU 3-04050 #4222-2459437 UTILITY REFUND
#4222-2459437 Utility refund - received
411.000.233.000 177.23
Total :177.23
216215 9/17/2015 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 219695 FAC - Saw Rental
FAC - Saw Rental
001.000.66.518.30.45.00 28.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.45.00 2.66
FIRE STATION 17 TRACKHOE220510
PM
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 547.05
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 51.97
WWTP - PROPANE220892
propane refill
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 36.22
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 3.44
Total :669.34
216216 9/17/2015 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 4239911 CITY PARK SPRAY PARK TEMPORARY FENCE PAN
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK TEMPORARY FENCE
132.000.64.594.76.65.00 315.36
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.64.594.76.65.00 29.96
Total :345.32
216217 9/17/2015 074356 NAVAS-RIVAS, HERNAN 9502 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 103.23
Total :103.23
216218 9/17/2015 063034 NCL 360946 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LABORATORY
20Page:
Packet Page 36 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216218 9/17/2015 (Continued)063034 NCL
DO-251, 40g vial Nitr. Inhib.
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 109.40
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 14.56
Total :123.96
216219 9/17/2015 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY s6695567.001 WWTP - PLC UPGRADE
PLC Upgrade
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 342.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 32.49
WWTP - PLC UPGRADES6704246.001
Controllogiix
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 1,852.86
9.5% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 176.02
WWTP - C412 CONTROLLOGIXS6704246.002
controllogix input
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 1,142.16
Freight
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 22.63
9.5% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 110.66
Total :3,678.82
216220 9/17/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1339061 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 587.62
YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1339072
YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 309.21
Total :896.83
216221 9/17/2015 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 587 ADB Meeting minutes 9/2/15
ADB Meeting minutes 9/2/15
21Page:
Packet Page 37 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216221 9/17/2015 (Continued)025690 NOYES, KARIN
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 323.00
Total :323.00
216222 9/17/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 593340 INV#593340 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
HIGH CAPACITY STAPLES
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 4.03
BLUE RETRACTABLE PENS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 45.50
SHARPIES MARKERS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 11.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.81
INV#669314 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD669314
RETRACTABLE BLACK PENS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 70.92
PATROL MEMO PADS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.90
YELLOW LEGAL PADS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.08
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 9.12
WOTS SUPPLIES: FOLDERS, NAMEBADGES, LBL,726173
ARTS COMM: WHITE FOLDERS, NAMEBADGES,
117.100.64.573.20.31.00 157.42
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.64.573.20.31.00 14.96
P&R PENS, BINDER POUCH, CALENDARS742757
P&R PENS, BINDER POUCH, CALENDARS
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 29.53
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 2.81
Total :376.74
216223 9/17/2015 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER August, 2015 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL
Emergency Medical Services & Trauma
22Page:
Packet Page 38 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216223 9/17/2015 (Continued)070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
001.000.237.120 1,290.56
PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account
001.000.237.130 27,719.95
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.237.150 130.50
State Patrol Death Investigation
001.000.237.330 103.81
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.237.180 5,411.79
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.237.200 133.92
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.237.250 2,569.52
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.237.260 494.60
Accessible Communities Acct
001.000.237.290 95.54
Multi-Model Transportation
001.000.237.300 95.56
Hwy Safety Acct
001.000.237.320 164.76
Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis
001.000.237.170 29.45
WSP Hwy Acct
001.000.237.340 588.99
Total :38,828.95
216224 9/17/2015 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 17652 YOST POOL SUPPLIES: NATURAL CLEAR
YOST POOL SUPPLIES: NATURAL CLEAR
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 167.47
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 15.91
YOST POOL SUPPLIES: ALGI-CONTROL 50 CONC17653
YOST POOL SUPPLIES: ALGI-CONTROL 50
23Page:
Packet Page 39 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216224 9/17/2015 (Continued)063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 113.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.80
Total :307.88
216225 9/17/2015 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00076346 Water - Locators
Water - Locators
421.000.74.594.34.64.00 3,015.00
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.594.34.64.00 286.43
Total :3,301.43
216226 9/17/2015 026830 PACIFIC PLUMBING SUPPLY 04258728 Sr Center Plumbing Supplies
Sr Center Plumbing Supplies
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 97.95
9.5% Sales Tax
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.31
Sr Center - Plumbing Supplies04258795
Sr Center - Plumbing Supplies
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 53.64
9.5% Sales Tax
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.10
Total :166.00
216227 9/17/2015 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 108562 CITY PARK SPRAY PARK CONCRETE DUMP
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK CONCRETE DUMP
132.000.64.594.76.65.00 565.67
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130202374
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.00
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130202403
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.00
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130202414
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
24Page:
Packet Page 40 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216227 9/17/2015 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.00
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130202510
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.00
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130202517
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 60.00
PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130202535
PM YARD WASTE DUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.00
Total :1,069.67
216228 9/17/2015 064070 PALMATIER, LISA 2 PALMATIER CONCERTS HMP
PALMATIER CONCERTS HMP
117.100.64.573.20.41.00 1,250.00
PALMATIER CONCERTS PARKSJULY-AUGUST 2015
PALMATIER CONCERTS PARKS
117.100.64.573.20.41.00 224.00
Total :1,474.00
216229 9/17/2015 075416 PATRICIA HEDGES 3-00300 #648950 UTILITY REFUND
#648950 Utility refund due to estimated
411.000.233.000 270.59
Total :270.59
216230 9/17/2015 074931 PEAK CMS LLC 12928 CABLE INSTALLATION PUBLIC WORKS SIGN SHO
Billing for work performed 4/29/15 Run
001.000.31.518.88.41.00 1,257.01
Total :1,257.01
216231 9/17/2015 073871 PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC 15329 INV 15329 EDMONDS PD
WEB-BASED PEP TEST - BYRD
001.000.41.521.10.41.00 20.00
Total :20.00
216232 9/17/2015 074793 PETDATA INC 4528 INV#4528 - EDMONDS PD - AUGUST 2015
25Page:
Packet Page 41 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216232 9/17/2015 (Continued)074793 PETDATA INC
39 1 YR PET LICENSES @ $3.90
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 152.10
3 REPLACEMENT TAGS @ $3.90
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 11.70
11 LATE FEES COLLECTED @ $2.50
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 27.50
Total :191.30
216233 9/17/2015 008350 PETTY CASH 9/15 PETTY CASH 9/15/15 PARKS PETTY CASH
PARKER: MICHAELS, PRESCHOOL CORK BOARD
001.000.64.571.29.31.00 18.01
SHIELDS: JOANN BIRD FEST MATERIAL FOR
001.000.61.558.70.31.00 33.28
LEACH: FRED MEYER BIRD FEST SUPPLIES
001.000.61.558.70.31.00 23.22
SHIELDS: QFC DISCOVERY TOUCH TANK
001.000.64.571.23.31.00 21.12
Total :95.63
216234 9/17/2015 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC H459742 WWTP - SUPPLIES, ELECTRIC
THB RB14-8F fork and rings
423.000.76.535.80.31.22 271.60
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.22 25.80
WWTP - C412 PLC UPGRADEH502592
30 pk of 25 W Xex Alto
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 410.40
9.5% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 38.99
PS - SuppliesH506419
PS - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 181.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.21
PS - SuppliesH514059
26Page:
Packet Page 42 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216234 9/17/2015 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
PS - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 133.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.65
PS - SuppliesH523628
PS - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 130.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.43
WWTP - C412 PLC UPGRADEH528429
TYN SLHD4X3G4
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 200.52
9.5% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 19.05
PW Yard - Camera SuppliesH535249
PW Yard - Camera Supplies
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 40.87
PW Yard - Camera Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 40.87
PW Yard - Camera Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 40.87
PW Yard - Camera Supplies
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 40.87
PW Yard - Camera Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 40.86
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 3.88
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.88
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.88
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 3.88
9.5% Sales Tax
27Page:
Packet Page 43 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216234 9/17/2015 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.89
WWTP - C412 PLC UPGRADEH544875
Hi density ducting
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 365.40
9.5% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 34.71
PS - SuppliesH547502
PS - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 85.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.15
PW Yard Camera SuppliesH556775
PW Yard Camera Supplies
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 7.76
PW Yard Camera Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.76
PW Yard Camera Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 7.76
PW Yard Camera Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 7.76
PW Yard Camera Supplies
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 7.74
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.31.00 0.74
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.74
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.74
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.74
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 0.72
WWTP - SUPPLIES, ELECTRICH560987
16/2 CL3R Shld Aud/cntrl reel
28Page:
Packet Page 44 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216234 9/17/2015 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
423.000.76.535.80.31.22 616.74
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.22 58.59
City Hall - PartsH565006
City Hall - Parts
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 481.01
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 45.70
Library - TimerH587691
Library - Timer
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 64.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.16
FAC - LightsH603922
FAC - Lights
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 163.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.57
City Hall Finance Remodel PartsH620090
City Hall Finance Remodel Parts
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 10.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 0.98
PS - PartsH628957
PS - Parts
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.65
PS - Audio SuppliesH633945
PS - Audio Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 308.37
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 29.30
Total :4,023.14
29Page:
Packet Page 45 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216235 9/17/2015 074853 PRECOR COMMERCIAL FITNESS 19082 REPAIR CABLE ON MULTI STATION PULLDOWN/R
REPAIR CABLE ON MULTI STATION
001.000.64.571.27.48.00 387.75
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.27.48.00 36.84
Total :424.59
216236 9/17/2015 064088 PROTECTION ONE 2010551 ALARM MONITORING MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
ALARM MONITORING CLUBHOUSE 6801 N
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 118.08
ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAINT291104
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 21.33
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE
001.000.64.576.80.42.00 21.33
ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL31146525
ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 51.11
Total :211.85
216237 9/17/2015 072898 PUGET SOUND BIRD OBSERVATORY BF-005-2015 BIRD FEST SPEAKER FEE
Bird Fest speaker fee
001.000.61.558.70.49.00 50.00
Total :50.00
216238 9/17/2015 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 15-1816 COURT SECURITY
COURT SECURITY
001.000.23.512.50.41.00 4,235.00
Total :4,235.00
216239 9/17/2015 031600 RELIABLE FLOOR COVERINGS 123716 FAC/City Hall - Roppe
FAC/City Hall - Roppe
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 189.60
FAC/City Hall - Roppe
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 568.80
9.5% Sales Tax
30Page:
Packet Page 46 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216239 9/17/2015 (Continued)031600 RELIABLE FLOOR COVERINGS
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.01
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 54.04
Total :830.45
216240 9/17/2015 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 0197-001866279 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 148.51
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD0197-0101867333
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 69.50
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW0197-0800897
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 29.81
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 113.27
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 113.27
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 113.27
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 113.27
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 113.26
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW3-0197-0801132
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 158.68
Total :972.84
216241 9/17/2015 074162 ROHANI, LORENZO BF-006-2015 BIRD FEST SPEAKER FEE
Bird Fest speaker fee
001.000.61.558.70.49.00 50.00
Total :50.00
216242 9/17/2015 075412 RONALD & SHARON DENSON 2-23300 #4245-2492239 UTILITY REFUND
31Page:
Packet Page 47 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216242 9/17/2015 (Continued)075412 RONALD & SHARON DENSON
#4245-2492239 Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000 56.75
Total :56.75
216243 9/17/2015 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY AUG 2015 INVOICE 8/31/15 ACCT#70014 - EDMONDS PD
#176497 4 NPC - 8/6/15
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 46.84
#176729 5 NPC - 8/20/15
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 58.55
Total :105.39
216244 9/17/2015 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 619218 INV#619218 CUST#1733 - EDMONDS PD (SWAT)
SIMUNITION 9MM BLANKS
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 388.00
SIMUNITION 5.56 BLANKS
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 694.00
9.5% Sales Tax
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 102.79
Total :1,184.79
216245 9/17/2015 071660 SARVEY AUDUBON SOCIETY BF-009-2015 BIRD FEST SPEAKER FEE
Bird Fest speaker/presentation fee
001.000.61.558.70.49.00 200.00
Total :200.00
216246 9/17/2015 072899 SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY BF-010-2015 BIRD FEST SPEAKER FEE
Bird Fest speaker fee
001.000.61.558.70.49.00 50.00
Total :50.00
216247 9/17/2015 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC 27752 14108-SUPPORT AUG 2015 WORK COMPLETED
14108-Support August 11 - 25, 2015 work
001.000.31.518.88.41.00 1,762.50
Total :1,762.50
216248 9/17/2015 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 0291-7 City Hall Finance - Paint Supplies
32Page:
Packet Page 48 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216248 9/17/2015 (Continued)063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
City Hall Finance - Paint Supplies
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 162.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 15.43
City Hall Finance Paint Supplies0336-0
City Hall Finance Paint Supplies
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 83.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 7.90
Total :268.89
216249 9/17/2015 075210 SHKS ARCHITECTS PS INC 5 Historic Reconnaissance Survey
Historic Reconnaissance Survey
014.000.62.557.20.41.00 750.00
Total :750.00
216250 9/17/2015 074906 SITE WORKSHOP LLC 3825 CITY PARK SPRAY & PLAY LANDSCAPE ARCHITE
CITY PARK SPRAY & PLAY LANDSCAPE
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 4,049.10
VETERAN'S PLAZA 30% DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARC3828
VETERAN'S PLAZA 30% DESIGN LANDSCAPE
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 1,500.00
Total :5,549.10
216251 9/17/2015 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0596572 9/11 MEMORIAL CYPRESS TREES
9/11 MEMORIAL CYPRESS TREES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 259.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 24.70
Total :284.66
216252 9/17/2015 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY 19972 SKYHAWKS 19972 SKYHAWKS CAMP
19972 SKYHAWKS CAMP
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 852.50
19975 SKYHAWKS CAMP19975 SKYHAWKS
33Page:
Packet Page 49 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216252 9/17/2015 (Continued)065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY
19975 SKYHAWKS CAMP
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 843.75
19979 SKYHAWKS CAMP19979 SKYHAWKS
19979 SKYHAWKS CAMP
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 1,890.00
Total :3,586.25
216253 9/17/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2006-5085-1 CITY PARK RESTROOMS
CITY PARK RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.35
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS2008-6924-6
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 60.52
HICKMAN PARK2011-8453-8
HICKMAN PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 159.93
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W / METER 12011-8789-5
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 41.87
CITY PARK GAZEBO2013-8327-0
CITY PARK GAZEBO
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.35
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS2014-5305-7
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 114.02
CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHELTER2021-1448-4
CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHELTER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 104.84
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212TH ST SW /2021-9128-4
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212TH ST SW /
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 31.90
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 190TH ST SW2025-4064-7
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 190TH ST SW
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.30
WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE / NOT MET2025-7952-0
34Page:
Packet Page 50 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216253 9/17/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE / NOT
423.000.76.535.80.47.61 9.07
Total :602.15
216254 9/17/2015 065910 SNOCOM 911 COMMUNICATIONS 15-0901-2 Q4-15 COMMUNICATIONS
Q4-15 COMMUNICATIONS
001.000.39.528.00.51.00 204,857.76
Q4-15 COMMUNICATIONS
421.000.74.534.80.51.00 5,391.00
Q4-15 COMMUNICATIONS
423.000.75.535.80.51.00 5,390.99
Q4-15 NEW WORLD ASSESSMENT15-0901-2A
Q4-15 New World Assessment
001.000.39.528.00.51.00 17,881.50
Total :233,521.25
216255 9/17/2015 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 66955 PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES
PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 996.00
ILLEGAL DUMP
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 5.00
Total :1,001.00
216256 9/17/2015 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER August 2015 Crime Victims Court Remittance
Crime Victims Court Remittance
001.000.237.140 642.63
Total :642.63
216257 9/17/2015 072291 SNO-KING COMMUNITY CHORALE 2015 TOURISM PROMO 2015 TOURISM PROMO SNO-KING C
2015 TOURISM PROMO SNO-KING C
123.000.64.573.20.41.00 1,500.00
Total :1,500.00
216258 9/17/2015 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
35Page:
Packet Page 51 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216258 9/17/2015 (Continued)038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 550.68
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLING103584
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLING
423.000.76.535.80.47.66 29.95
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST103585
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 674.47
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 :2,270.22
216259 9/17/2015 075410 STAFFORD, SHANNON E1CA.Stafford E1CA.STAFFORD.PMT FOR STATUTORY EVALUATI
E1CA.Staffor.Pmt for Statutory
112.200.68.595.20.61.00 750.00
Total :750.00
216260 9/17/2015 074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 948147 E4JB.SERVICES THRU 07/31/15
E4JB.Services thru 07/31/15
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 302.64
Total :302.64
216261 9/17/2015 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3003142413 INV#3003142413 CUST#6076358 - EDMONDS PD
MINIMUM MONTHLY CHARGE
001.000.41.521.80.41.00 10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.80.41.00 0.36
Total :10.36
216262 9/17/2015 074570 STULLER, PAM BID-08272015 REIMBURSEMENT FOR 600 TOTE BAGS
Reimbursement for purchase of 600 tote
140.000.61.558.70.31.00 600.00
36Page:
Packet Page 52 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :600.002162629/17/2015 074570 074570 STULLER, PAM
216263 9/17/2015 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 71304 Fac Maint - Garment Embroidery (Names,
Fac Maint - Garment Embroidery (Names,
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 65.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 6.22
Total :71.67
216264 9/17/2015 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50958949 WWTP - C465 CLARIFIER PROJECT
Clarifier #3 revew and TM for repair
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 4,678.82
Total :4,678.82
216265 9/17/2015 062693 US BANK 0108 INV#0108 09/07/15 - THOMPSON - EDMONDS P
ENFORCER II TINT METERS
001.000.41.521.70.35.00 169.85
ERGONOMIC KEYBOARD
001.000.41.521.21.31.00 42.32
INV#2519 09/07/15 - POLICE #1- EDMONDS P2519
LODGING/BACKGRD INV/RAMSEUR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 516.15
MEAL/BACKGRD INV/RAMSEUR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 15.59
MEAL/BACKGRD INV/RANSEUR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 53.52
MEAL/BACKGRD INV/RAMSEUR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 19.85
FUEL/BACKGRD INV/RAMSEUR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 7.75
MEAL/BACKGRD INV/RAMSEUR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 124.85
MEAL/BACKGRD INV/RANSEUR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 9.53
FUEL/BACKGRD INV/RAMSEUR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 20.25
37Page:
Packet Page 53 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216265 9/17/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK
CAR/BACKGRD INV/RAMSEUR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 179.63
LODGING/BACKGRD INV/RAMSEUR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 611.16
MEAL/BACKGRD INV/RAMSEUR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 9.99
INV#2519 09/07/15- REFUND HOTEL CHARGE-2519
REFUND HOTEL CHG/BACKGND INV/RAMSEUR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 -428.46
INV#3215 09/07/15 - COMPAAN - EDMONDS PD3215
AGENT ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.41.521.21.35.00 3,235.00
POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS3249
POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS
001.000.23.512.50.42.00 95.95
INV#3314 09/07/15 - LAWLESS - EDMONDS P3314
PLANE SEAT CHANGE/RAMSEUR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 99.00
PLANE/BACKGRD INV/RAMSEUR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 535.20
INV#3520 09/07/15 - POLICE #2 - EDMONDS3520
FEDEX CHG #15-2823,2500,2792,2670~
001.000.41.521.10.42.00 16.22
FEDEX CHG #15-0245
001.000.41.521.10.42.00 14.05
FEDEX CHG #15-3085,3068
001.000.41.521.10.42.00 12.32
4675 PARKS CR CARD4675
LABEL OUTFITTERS: WOTS TICKETS
117.100.64.573.20.31.00 28.99
PNTA: CLOTH TAPE
117.100.64.573.20.31.00 26.77
FASTSIGNS: CONCERT BANNERS
117.100.64.573.20.49.00 107.64
38Page:
Packet Page 54 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216265 9/17/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK
DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY: MEADOWDALE
001.000.64.571.29.31.00 305.25
BRINE SHRIMP DIRECT: DISCOVERY TOUCH
001.000.64.571.23.31.00 26.15
AMAZON: WOTS EQUIPMENT PRESENTATION
117.100.64.573.20.35.00 768.26
AMAZON: BIRD REPELLENT SCARE TAPE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 38.12
BADGE-A-MINIT: GYMNASTICS BUTTONS 1/2
001.000.64.571.28.31.00 33.56
MOORE MEDICAL: BANDAGES AND ICE PACKS
001.000.64.571.25.31.00 97.24
NRPA: CARRIE HITE REGISTRATION FOR
001.000.64.571.21.49.00 635.00
ESCC STUDENT DELEGATION4697
frames for ESCC host family pictures
138.100.21.557.21.31.00 9.99
lunch for Hekinan student delegation
138.200.21.557.21.49.00 91.10
Mariners tickets for student delegations
138.200.21.557.21.49.00 384.00
postage for taiko drum for 125th
001.000.21.513.10.49.00 138.45
postage for certified mailing of PSA
001.000.21.513.10.49.00 4.87
United Way Spirit of Snohomish County
001.000.21.513.10.49.00 60.00
Amazon prime membership
001.000.21.513.10.49.00 99.00
ID BADGE PRINTER, ASUS MONITORS, SSL CER5179
Bulkregister.com - Domain Name
001.000.31.518.88.49.00 210.00
Advantidge - HID Global Fargo DTC4250e
001.000.22.521.10.49.00 3,145.00
39Page:
Packet Page 55 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216265 9/17/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK
Digicert - Unified Communications
001.000.31.518.88.49.00 719.00
Snohomish County Garage - Parking for B
001.000.31.518.88.43.00 3.00
ExpertsExchange.com - IT Solutions
001.000.31.518.88.49.00 19.95
ACCIS Membership for B Tuley
001.000.31.518.88.49.00 75.00
High-Tech Battery Solutions - PS-1230
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 185.94
Newegg.com - EVGA HDMI Cable for
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 33.48
Newegg.com - Insten 675827 6 ft HDMI to
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 13.23
Newegg.com - Belkin R6G088-100 RJ-45
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 19.21
Newegg.com - Coboc EA-AD DVI2HDMI-MF
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 8.85
Monoprice.com - Apple Certified
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 61.21
Amazon - Afunta Mini HDMI Male to HDMI
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 33.49
Newegg.com - ASUS VE228H 21.5" LED LCD
001.000.41.521.80.35.00 608.91
Newegg.com = Insten 1846906 1.5 ft High
001.000.41.521.80.35.00 7.98
Newegg.com - Logitech MK520 Wireless
001.000.41.521.80.35.00 42.99
Newegg.com = Insten 1846906 1.5 ft High
001.000.62.524.20.35.00 7.98
Newegg.com - Crucial 8GB 204pin DDR3
001.000.62.524.20.35.00 46.99
Newegg.com - ASUS VE228H 21.5" LED LCD
001.000.62.524.20.35.00 557.92
40Page:
Packet Page 56 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216265 9/17/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK
BULKREGISTER.COM - SSL CERTIFICATE CREDI5179
Bulkregister.com - Domain Name
001.000.31.518.88.49.00 -210.00
RECORDING FEES & OFFICE SUPPLIES5593
SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING OF UTILITY
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 317.50
SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING OF UTILITY
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 317.50
USB FLASH DRIVE 2.0
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 22.99
FRIDGE
001.000.25.514.30.49.00 689.84
POSTERS FOR 125TH, TRADE SHOW FOR TOURIS5923
Posters for 125th celebration
001.000.61.557.20.31.00 22.96
Expenses for tourism promotion trade
001.000.61.558.70.49.00 178.84
6254 PARKS CR CARD6254
ALASKA AIR: CARRIE HITE AIRFARE TO NRPA
001.000.64.571.21.43.00 322.20
WFOA TRAINING FOR S MAGER7081
WFOA Training - Federal Grants
001.000.31.514.23.49.00 125.00
INV#7476 09/07/15 - BARD - EDMONDS PD7476
MINDFLASH-MO FEE FOR ONLINE TRAINING -
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 199.00
LG SMART LED TELEVISION
001.000.41.521.40.35.00 765.41
REG/CNOA TRAINING/POFF
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 430.00
PLANE/CNOA TRAINING/POFF
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 220.20
CABLES & ADAPTERS
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 45.43
41Page:
Packet Page 57 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216265 9/17/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK
REG/ COLLISION SAFETY/ROTH
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 675.00
TLO SEARCHES 08/2015
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 35.50
MINDFLASH-MO FEE FOR ONLINE TRAINING -
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 199.00
125TH MAYOR'S ANNIVERSARY LUNCH7483
Mayor's lunch for 125th Anniversary
001.000.21.513.10.49.00 102.16
Lunch meeting to discuss Legislative
001.000.21.513.10.49.00 27.63
Mayor's monthly luncheon meeting
001.000.21.513.10.49.00 13.00
ENG CREDIT CARD AUGUST 20158017
E4JB.Construction Notices
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 49.61
E3DB.Construction Notice
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 78.08
E5CA.Robinhood Overlay
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 77.69
Rivera.2015 Basic Waterworks Workshop
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 78.00
SHRM membership renewal for Yvonne Chan8304
SHRM membership renewal for Yvonne Chan
001.000.22.518.10.41.00 55.00
Panera- lunch for Public Defenders
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 87.06
Starbucks- Coffee for Public Defender
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 16.37
Edmonds Vitamins and Herbs- Raffle
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 32.84
Dollar Tree- Balloons and decor for
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 35.04
Office Depot- Keyboard Tray for new
42Page:
Packet Page 58 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216265 9/17/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.64.571.23.31.00 56.05
Advertising- Gymnastics Assistant
001.000.22.518.10.41.40 50.00
Advertising- Parks Maint. Worker
001.000.22.518.10.41.40 50.00
Advertising- Gynmastics Instructor 1
001.000.22.518.10.41.40 50.00
Total :19,229.14
216266 9/17/2015 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA 0624885-WA Street - DOT
Street - DOT
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 99.00
Fleet - DOT0625886-WA
Fleet - DOT
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 99.00
Total :198.00
216267 9/17/2015 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 20115685 INV 20115685 - BLEA FOR GRIMES, EDMONDS
BLEA ACADEMY #724 - GRIMES
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 3,063.00
Total :3,063.00
216268 9/17/2015 075155 WALKER MACY LLC P3089.01-9 MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN HERRARA, ENVIRO
MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN HERRARA,
125.000.64.594.75.41.00 3,276.14
Total :3,276.14
216269 9/17/2015 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 53701 INV#53701 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 2007 CHEVY COBALT #AVS0637
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.77
Total :181.77
216270 9/17/2015 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO 498711 Fac Maint - Towels, TT, Cleaning
43Page:
Packet Page 59 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216270 9/17/2015 (Continued)075154 WALTER E NELSON CO
Fac Maint - Towels, TT, Cleaning
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 329.74
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 31.33
Fac Maint - Supplies499314
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 109.28
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.38
Fac Maint - Boraxo Soap500265
Fac Maint - Boraxo Soap
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 33.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.16
Fac Maint - Supplies500556
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 81.64
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.76
Total :606.54
216271 9/17/2015 075409 WARBERG, ALAN 08062015 ESCC STUDENT DELEGATION DRIVING SERVICES
Driving services for ESCC student
138.100.21.557.21.43.00 200.00
Total :200.00
216272 9/17/2015 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I16001511 INV#I16001511 EDM301 - EDMONDS PD
BACKGROUND CHECKS -AUG 2015
001.000.237.100 162.25
Total :162.25
216273 9/17/2015 075283 WAVE BROADBAND 102-261607 FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICE
High Speed Internet service 09/01/15 -
001.000.31.518.87.42.00 816.00
44Page:
Packet Page 60 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :816.002162739/17/2015 075283 075283 WAVE BROADBAND
216274 9/17/2015 075068 WEDA 6676 WA ECON DEV ASSOC DUES FOR 2016
Washington Econ Development Association
001.000.61.558.70.49.00 400.00
Total :400.00
216275 9/17/2015 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR E 81581 Fac Maint - Boots J Rolfe
Fac Maint - Boots J Rolfe
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 196.00
Fac Maint - Truck #40 - SuppliesE 81753
Fac Maint - Truck #40 - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 31.49
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.90
Total :230.39
216276 9/17/2015 049902 WHITMAN, TIMOTHY 60 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 689.26
Total :689.26
216277 9/17/2015 075310 WYSER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY E4MA.Pmt 3 E4MA.PMT 3 THRU 08/19/15
E4MA.Pmt 3 thru 08/19/15
132.000.64.594.76.65.00 345,233.79
E4MA.Ret 3
132.000.223.400 -15,764.10
Total :329,469.69
216278 9/17/2015 075122 YAKIMA CO DEPT OF CORR 09/04/15 INV 09/04/15 INMATE HOUSING - EDMONDS PD
31 DAYS INMATE HOUSING - AUG 2015
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,697.25
Total :1,697.25
Bank total :831,048.61134 Vouchers for bank code :usbank
831,048.61Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report134
45Page:
Packet Page 61 of 473
09/17/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
11:52:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
46Page:
Packet Page 62 of 473
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 9/16/2015 Packet Page 63 of 473
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
General Edmonds Waterfront Analysis c478 E5DB
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
Revised 9/16/2015 Packet Page 64 of 473
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
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
Revised 9/16/2015 Packet Page 65 of 473
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
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 9/16/2015 Packet Page 66 of 473
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 9/16/2015 Packet Page 67 of 473
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 9/16/2015 Packet Page 68 of 473
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
General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Analysis
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
Revised 9/16/2015 Packet Page 69 of 473
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project
STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation
SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
Revised 9/16/2015 Packet Page 70 of 473
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 9/16/2015 Packet Page 71 of 473
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 9/16/2015 Packet Page 72 of 473
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 9/16/2015 Packet Page 73 of 473
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
General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Analysis
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STM E7FG m013 NPDES
UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates
Revised 9/16/2015 Packet Page 74 of 473
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 Edmonds Waterfront Analysis c478 E5DB
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
Revised 9/16/2015 Packet Page 75 of 473
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
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
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
Revised 9/16/2015 Packet Page 76 of 473
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA
Revised 9/16/2015 Packet Page 77 of 473
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 9/16/2015 Packet Page 78 of 473
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 9/16/2015 Packet Page 79 of 473
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 756 (09/01/2015 to 09/15/2015)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
Educational Pay CorrectionREGULAR HOURS-ed2 0.00 -156.28
NO PAY LEAVEABSENT111 76.88 0.00
UNPAID L & IABSENT118 2.00 0.00
SICK LEAVE - L & ISICK120 -2.38 300.48
SICK LEAVESICK121 641.25 21,700.84
VACATIONVACATION122 1,722.70 65,827.52
HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 70.00 2,487.89
FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 13.30 356.85
COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 142.25 4,726.38
Police Sick Leave L & ISICK129 47.00 1,567.01
JURY DUTYJURY DUTY132 12.00 477.36
Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 228.00 8,741.30
COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 50.40 2,181.87
MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 5.00 264.95
REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 14,468.25 498,972.75
LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS196 51.00 1,936.55
OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 119.50 4,815.24
WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 48.00 2,219.36
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 15.00 1,366.89
OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 289.50 17,806.15
OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 18.00 1,079.59
WORKING OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUS410 0.00 280.45
SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 841.91
ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS602 83.50 0.00
Holiday Comp 1.0COMP HOURS603 27.00 0.00
ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS604 124.00 0.00
ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS606 0.25 0.00
ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 24.70
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 169.99
BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 81.17
Collision ReconstructionistMISCELLANEOUScolre 0.00 138.69
TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 143.68
CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 597.57
DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUSdet 0.00 100.25
09/17/2015 Page 1 of 2
Packet Page 80 of 473
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 756 (09/01/2015 to 09/15/2015)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 962.34
EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed1 0.00 713.39
EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed2 0.00 852.06
EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed3 0.00 4,459.02
FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAIDABSENTfmla 11.12 0.00
FAMILY MEDICAL/SICKSICKfmls 71.55 1,702.73
Family Medical Leave VacationVACATIONfmlv 5.33 126.84
HOLIDAYHOLIDAYhol 1,179.80 41,459.47
K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 100.25
LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITYlg1 0.00 1,736.70
LONGEVITY 5.5%LONGEVITYlg10 0.00 543.60
LONGEVITY PAY 4%LONGEVITY PAYlg2 0.00 829.20
LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAYlg3 0.00 5,282.79
Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 224.25
Longevity .5%LONGEVITYlg6 0.00 243.86
Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 908.73
MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUSmtc 0.00 200.50
Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUSpds 0.00 46.65
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 1,688.32
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUSprof 0.00 153.70
SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%MISCELLANEOUSsdp 0.00 504.43
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTMISCELLANEOUSsgt 0.00 150.88
SICK LEAVE ADD BACKSICKslw 238.77 0.00
TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 315.78
Total Net Pay:$468,607.19
$702,256.60 19,758.97
09/17/2015 Page 2 of 2
Packet Page 81 of 473
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 756 - 09/01/2015 to 09/15/2015
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
61798 09/18/2015 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 2,808.00 0.00
61799 09/18/2015 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 436.50 0.00
61800 09/18/2015 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 901.00 0.00
61801 09/18/2015 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 4,454.00 0.00
61802 09/18/2015 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,337.51 0.00
10,937.01 0.00
Bank: wire - US BANK
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
2278 09/18/2015 awc AWC 308,336.97 0.00
2281 09/18/2015 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 85,059.33 0.00
2283 09/18/2015 us US BANK 94,075.17 0.00
2284 09/18/2015 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 21,785.00 0.00
2286 09/18/2015 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 4,957.60 0.00
2287 09/18/2015 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 158.00 0.00
2288 09/18/2015 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 48.50 0.00
514,420.57 0.00
525,357.58 0.00Grand Totals:
Page 1 of 19/17/2015
Packet Page 82 of 473
AM-7988 7. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/22/2015
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted By:Don Anderson
Department:Police Department
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Police Department Surplus Property
Recommendation
Staff recommends that all property, other than ballistic vests, be sent for outside auction or be disposed of
as noted in the attached document. Staff recommends and requests that this agenda item be forwarded for
approval via the consent agenda at the October 6, 2015 City Council Meeting.
Previous Council Action
NA
Narrative
From time to time the Police Department has surplus property that must be disposed of. The items listed
on the attached document are no longer used by the department because they are either outdated or no
longer serviceable. The property listed will be auctioned, destroyed or, in the case of the ballistic vests,
returned to the manufacturer for recycling.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2015
Revenue:
Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
The recycling manufacturer is no longer prepaying the shipping so estimated costs to return the ballistic
vests is $180.00.
Attachments
EPD 2015 Surplus Property
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/17/2015 07:49 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/17/2015 08:34 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/17/2015 08:39 AM
Packet Page 83 of 473
Form Started By: Don Anderson Started On: 09/16/2015 04:41 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/17/2015
Packet Page 84 of 473
Date Asset/Tag #Property Description Brand Model #Serial #Condition
Purchase
Price
Purchase
Date
Est. FMV
(net disposal
costs)
Minimum
Price (if
applicable)Intended Disposal Method
Jul-15 3667 Camera Canon PowerShot A530 2122057288 Broken $227 4/1/2006 $0 Destroy
Jul-14 4255 Camera Canon PowerShot A810 462063015307 Broken $80 5/21/2013 $0 Destroy
Aug-14 3947 Camera Canon PowerShot A490 52062002355 Broken $80 5/21/2013 $0 Destroy
Aug-14 4199 Camera Canon PowerShot A495 102062058410 Broken $118 4/1/2012 $0 Destroy
Aug-14 4115 Camera Canon Powershot A490 1220626019 Broken $83 5/1/2011 $0 Destroy
Aug-14 4255 Camera Canon PowerShot A810 462063015307 Broken $80 5/21/2013 $0 Destroy
4413 Camera Canon PowerSht A1400 692061010765 Broken $4 4/1/2014 $0 Destroy
May-11 EPD3569 Digital Camera Canon A95 326337144 Broken $320 2005 $0 Destroy
May-11 EPD3570 Digital Camera Canon A95 326337145 Broken $320 2005 $0 Destroy
May-11 EPD3571 Digital Camera Canon A95 326340764 Broken $320 2005 $0 Destroy
May-11 EPD3572 Digital Camera Canon A95 326340763 Broken $320 2005 $0 Destroy
May-11 EPD3575 Digital Camera Canon A95 426325662 Broken $320 2005 $0 Destroy
May-11 EPD3578 Digital Camera Canon A95 426318053 Broken $320 2005 $0 Destroy
May-11 EPD3579 Digital Camera Canon A95 426333573 Broken $320 2005 $0 Destroy
May-11
EPD3665 Digital Camera Canon PowerShot A530 2122057289 Broken
$227 2/5/2006 $0
Destroy
Apr-15 3904 Digital Camera Canon A1100IS 8622102464 Broken $188 8/5/2009 $0 Destroy
4244 Digital Camera Canon PowerShot A810 502064007726 Broken $85 2/20/2013 $0 Destroy
Dec-14 3802 Digital Recorder Panasonic WJ-HD316A GDA00010 Broken $4,109 4/24/2007 Unknown Destroyed
Digital Voice Recorder Olympus WS-311M 100174791 Broken Unknown Unknown $0 Destroy
Feb-14 Headset Peltor Tactical 7-5 316947 Broken Unknown Unknown $0 Destroy/save for parts (Roth)
Mar-15 2298 Night Binoculars Bushnell Yardage Pro 500 561765 Broken Unknown 3/10/1995 $0 Destroy
Peltor Headset Broken Unknown Unknown $0 Destroy
Jul-14 3809 (part)Projector LED Sharp XG-NC5XB 912314429 Broken Unknown Unknown $0 Destroy
Jun-14 3944 Radar gun Decatur Genesis GVPD08527 Broken $984 8/30/2010 $0 Destroy/save for parts (Traffic)
Aug-14 3559 Radar Gun Decatur Genesis GHD 03891 Broken $641 4/5/2005 $0 Destroy
Mar-14
Tactical Light (LED) with
Pressure Switch to
Mount Weaver Broken Unknown Unknown $0 Destroy
Jul-14 3653 Taser X00-156964 Broken $876 1/24/2005 $0 Destroy
Jul-14 3654 Taser X00-107013 Broken $876 1/24/2005 $0 Destroy
Jul-14 3883 Taser X00-430779 Broken $871 1/16/2009 $0 Destroy
Jul-14 3980 Taser X00-526301 Broken $785 1/26/2010 $0 Destroy
Jul-14 4168 Taser X00-157022 Broken Exchange Unknown $0 Destroy
Jul-14 4170 Taser X00-457273 Broken Exchange Unknown $0 Destroy
Jul-14 3649 Taser X00-106794 Broken $896 1/24/2005 $0 Destroy
Feb-14 3829 TV Panasonic L5AA43197 PVDF2035 Broken $200 2007 $0 Destroy
Television/VCR Sharp 25UT-660 334023 Broken Cabinet Unknown Unknown $0 Destroy
Jan-15 175 Ballistic Insert Plate Second Chance K-30 No longer used Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer
Jan-15 178 Ballistic Insert Plate Second Chance K-30 No longer used Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer
Packet Page 85 of 473
Date Asset/Tag #Property Description Brand Model #Serial #Condition
Purchase
Price
Purchase
Date
Est. FMV
(net disposal
costs)
Minimum
Price (if
applicable)Intended Disposal Method
Jan-15 181 Ballistic Insert Plate Second Chance K-30 No longer used Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer
Jan-15 185 Ballistic Insert Plate Second Chance K-30 No longer used Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer
Jan-15 189 Ballistic Insert Plate Second Chance K-30 No longer used Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer
Jan-15 193 Ballistic Insert Plate Second Chance K-30 No longer used Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer
Jan-15 197 Ballistic Insert Plate Second Chance K-30 No longer used Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer
Jan-15 209 Ballistic Insert Plate Second Chance K-30 No longer used Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer
Jan-15 210 Ballistic Insert Plate No longer used Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer
Jan-15 211 Ballistic Insert Plate No longer used Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer
Jan-15 213 Ballistic Insert Plate No longer used Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer
Jan-15 214 Ballistic Insert Plate No longer used Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer
Jan-15 221 Ballistic Insert Plate Second Chance K-30 No longer used Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer
Jan-15 Ballistic Insert Plate Second Chance K-30 No longer used Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer
Jan-15 Ballistic Insert Plate Second Chance K-30 No longer used Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer
177 Ballistic Insert Plate Unknown 4/1/1986 $0 To recycle manufacturer
220 Ballistic Insert Plate Unknown 4/1/1986 $0 To recycle manufacturer
217 Ballistic Plate Insert Second Chance K-30 No longer used Unknown 4/25/1986 $0 To recycle manufacturer
Aug-14 Ballistic Vest ABA 102-2 9933435A/439A Expired Unknown Unknown $0 To recycle manufacturer
Aug-14 3546 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3A-2 04085353/85354 Expired $707 9/1/2004 $0 To recycle manufacturer
Dec-14 3614 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3A-2 06002867/2868 Expired $707 2/21/2006 $0 To recycle manufacturer
Dec-14 3926 Ballistic Vest ABA XHP-3A 09175492/09175493 Expired Unknown 12/14/2009 $0 To recycle manufacturer
Dec-14 3583 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3A-2 05057950/05057951 Expired Unknown 5/30/2005 $0 To recycle manufacturer
Dec-14 3684 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3A-2 06089704/06089705 Expired $707 8/1/2006 $0 To recycle manufacturer
Dec-14 3699 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3A-2 06143188/06143189 Expired $707 11/1/2006 $0 To recycle manufacturer
Dec-14 3843 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3A-2 07216429/07216430 Expired Unknown 12/1/2008 $0 To recycle manufacturer
Jan-15 3330 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3A-2 01095286A/5287A Expired Unknown 12/1/2001 $0 To recycle manufacturer
3691 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3A-2 06136653/6654 Expired $707 10/1/2006 $0 To recycle manufacturer
3250 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3AF-1 00075478-A/489-A Expired Unknown 1/17/2001 $0 To recycle manufacturer
May-15 2013 Ballistic Vest 2nd Chance 322-Z-II 0220124/02201 Expired $210 2/28/1991 $0 To recycle manufacturer
2702 Ballistic Vest ABA 1602C N-9675580-A/81-A Expired Unknown 3/1/1997 $0 To recycle manufacturer
3409 Ballistic Vest Safariland 533AZ-2 1145675/676/677 Expired Unknown 10/20/2002 $0 To recycle manufacturer
Aug-14 3532 Balllistic Vest ABA XT3A-2 04014757/14758 Expired Unknown 12/1/2003 $0 To recycle manufacturer
May-15 3556 Ballistic Vest ABA XTRM-3A-FS 05016964/05016965 Expired $707 4/4/2005 $0 To recycle manufacturer
Feb-14 2623 Ballistic Vest ABA 1602C N-9625212A/216A Expired Unknown 5/1/1996 $0 To recycle/manufacturer
Feb-14 2633 Ballistic Vest ABA 1602C N-9656094A/095A Expired Unknown 10/1/1996 $0 To recycle/manufacturer
Feb-14 3591 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3A-2 05081028/029 Expired $707 8/31/2005 $0 To recycle/manufacturer
Feb-14 3596 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3A-2 05097175/176 Expired $707 10/1/2005 $0 To recycle/manufacturer
Feb-14 3701 Ballistic Vest ABA XT3A-2 06144034/035 Expired $707 11/12/2006 $0 To recycle/manufacturer
Feb-14 3852 Ballistic Vest ABA XHP-IIIA.O 08082189/190 Expired $762 8/5/2008 $0 To recycle/manufacturer
BlueTooth Headset BlueAnt Z9i NA No longer used Unknown Unknown $5 Outside Auction
Camera GAF L-ES 152792 No longer Used Unknown Unknown $10 Outside Auction
Packet Page 86 of 473
Date Asset/Tag #Property Description Brand Model #Serial #Condition
Purchase
Price
Purchase
Date
Est. FMV
(net disposal
costs)
Minimum
Price (if
applicable)Intended Disposal Method
Jan-15 Camera Case Targus NA Used Unknown Unknown $10 Outside Auction
3183 Camera Filter Tiffen 52mm Polarizer No longer used Unknown Unknown $5 Outside Auction
3181 Camera Filter SunPak UV Hase Filter No longer used Unknown Unknown $5 Outside Auction
Camera Lens Vemar CloseUp Vapiable No longer Used Unknown Unknown $1 Outside Auction
Camera Lens Minolta Maxxum AF 50 1305352 No longer Used Unknown Unknown $70 Outside Auction
Camera Lens Tominon 1:45 f-75mm No longer Used Unknown Unknown $50 Outside Auction
Camera Lens Tominon 1:45 f-105mm No longer Used Unknown Unknown $50 Outside Auction
Camera Lens Tominon 1:45 f-135mm No longer Used Unknown Unknown $60 Outside Auction
Camera Lens Chinon 55 mm f1.4 501456 No longer Used Unknown Unknown $40 Outside Auction
Jan-15 3317 Camera with case Yashica Zoomate 70Z 132293 No longer used Unknown 12/1/2001 $5 Outside Auction
Jan-14 Cartridge Collector Safe-Eject N/A N/A New/Boxed Free 2004 $20 Outside Auction
Jan-14 Cartridge Collector Safe-Eject N/A N/A New/Boxed Free 2004 $20 Outside Auction
Jan-14 Cartridge Collector Safe-Eject N/A N/A New/Boxed Free 2004 $20 Outside Auction
Jan-14 Cartridge Collector Safe-Eject N/A N/A New/Boxed Free 2004 $20 Outside Auction
Jan-14 Cartridge Collector Safe-Eject N/A N/A New/Unboxed Free 2004 $20 Outside Auction
Cartridge Printwheel II IBM Courier 10 NA No longer used Unknown Unknown $5 Outside Auction
Cartridge Printwheel II IBM Courier 10 NA No longer used Unknown Unknown $5 Outside Auction
Cartridge Printwheel II IBM Courier 10 NA No longer used Unknown Unknown $5 Outside Auction
CCTV Camera/Hsng Pelco EH3010/EM2400 No longer used Unknown Unknown $5 Outside Auction
CCTV Camera/Hsng Pelco EH3010/EM2400 No longer used Unknown Unknown $5 Outside Auction
3905 DigitalCamera Canon A1100is pc1354 Flash broken $188 8/5/2009 $10 Outside Auction
Diskette (25) - 2HD Imation IBM formatted NA No longer used Unknown Unknown $5 Outside Auction
Duffle Bag (Alert)Gall's Used Unknown Unknown $10 Outside Auction
100 Flash for Vivitar SB-4 Vivitar Auto Thyristor 2027469 No longer Used Unknown Unknown $10 Outside Auction
Jul-15 8201 Folding/Envelope MachinePitney Bowes 1011572 No longer used $10,084 2/1/1999 $500 Outside Auction
Jan-15 Handheld Calculator Hewlett Packard 48G 3709S00337 No longer used Unknown Unknown $25 Outside Auction
Lens adaptors No longer Used Unknown Unknown $3 Outside Auction
Jan-13
Light that goes in car
cigarette holder w/2
bulbs Good Unknown Unknown $5 Outside Auction
Peltor Headset No sound rt ear Unknown Unknown $0 Outside Auction
Peltor Headset No sound rt ear Unknown Unknown $0 Outside Auction
Peltor Headset No sound rt ear Unknown Unknown $0 Outside Auction
Peltor Headset No sound rt ear Unknown Unknown $0 Outside Auction
Plastic Size Indicators No longer used Unknown Unknown $5 Outside Auction
Premium Ribbon Universal IBM Selectric II NA No longer used Unknown Unknown $2 Outside Auction
Premium Ribbon Universal IBM Selectric II NA No longer used Unknown Unknown $2 Outside Auction
1179 Receiver/Microphone SIMA 80-3000 86161296 No longer used Unknown Unknown $10 Outside Auction
Ribbon Nukote IBM Selectric III NA No longer used Unknown Unknown $1 Outside Auction
Packet Page 87 of 473
Date Asset/Tag #Property Description Brand Model #Serial #Condition
Purchase
Price
Purchase
Date
Est. FMV
(net disposal
costs)
Minimum
Price (if
applicable)Intended Disposal Method
Aug-14 Rifle Slings Uncle Mikes New Unknown Unknown $15 Outside Auction
Aug-14 Rifle Slings Colt New Unknown Unknown $5 Outside Auction
Speedlight Nikon SB-83 606981 No longer Used Unknown Unknown $1 Outside Auction
Television Panasonic CT27 NA Working Unknown Unknown $25 Outside Auction
Television Panasonic CT27 NA Working Unknown Unknown $25 Outside Auction
Oct-14 Total Station Leica TCR110C 692869 Broken $11,004 3/30/2006 Unknown Outside Auction
VCR Panasonic K31A35057 Working Unknown Unknown $10 Outside Auction
4122 Wireless Headset Blackberry HS-500 NA No longer used $42 4/1/2014 $10 Outside Auction
4119 Wireless Headset Blackberry HS-500 NA No longer used $42 4/1/2014 $10 Outside Auction
4120 Wireless Headset Blackberry HS-500 NA No longer used $42 4/1/2014 $10 Outside Auction
4121 Wireless Headset Blackberry HS-500 NA No longer used $42 4/1/2014 $10 Outside Auction
4123 Wireless Headset Blackberry HS-500 NA No longer used $42 4/1/2014 $10 Outside Auction
4124 Wireless Headset Blackberry HS-500 NA No longer used $42 4/1/2014 $10 Outside Auction
Aug-14 4 Rifle Magazine Pouch Used Unknown Unknown $20 Outside Auction
2256 911 Cloth Bag Used Unknown 8/23/1994 $10 Outside Auction
Packet Page 88 of 473
AM-7986 7. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/22/2015
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted By:Mary Ann Hardie
Department:Human Resources
Committee: Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
2015 NonRepresented Compensation Study
Recommendation
Council be briefed, discuss options, and approve the 2015 NR Compensation recommendations. (Items I,
II and III)
Previous Council Action
Council adopted the most recent NonRepresented employee compensation policy in 2012.
It was adopted following a comprehensive compensation study completed by Public Sector Personnel
Consultants (PSPC).
Attached is a final form of the NonRepresented Compensation Policy adopted by Council in November of
2012.
Council discussed the 2015 NR Compensation Study in August, and had interest in discussing policy
issues with the complete information provided.
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.
Packet Page 89 of 473
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
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.
By policy, the Mayor is budgeting for a 2% COLA for NonRepresented employees (for the 2016 budget).
ITEMS I, II & III
I. COMPARATOR CITIES –(Council would approve one of the following 3 options):
For all options, the current policy uses cities plus/minus 10,000 population from Edmonds. In addition, it
defines the geographical area to be used. Staff is recommending Council consider the following options
in review of this policy.
Option 1:
Comparator cities in Snohomish, King and Pierce counties. These counties include the most similar labor
market to the City of Edmonds.
These cities include:
Bothell, City of
Burien, City of
Des Moines, City of
Issaquah, City of
Lynnwood, City of
Puyallup, City of
Sammamish, City of
University Place, City of
Option 2
Current policy comparator cities including the historic city comparators.
These cities include:
Bothell
Bremerton
Burien
Des Moines
Issaquah
Lacey
Packet Page 90 of 473
Lakewood
Lynnwood
Marysville
Kirkland
Olympia
Puyallup
Redmond
Sammamish
Shoreline
University Place
Option 3
Current policy comparator cities, including cities in King, Snohomish, Pierce, Thurston and Kitsap
Counties.
These cities include:
Bothell
Bremerton
Burien
Des Moines
Issaquah
Lacey
Lynnwood
Puyallup
Sammamish
University Place
Staff recommend Council consider Option 1. This option reflects the labor market most similar to
Edmonds from Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties.
II. POSITION ADJUSTMENTS:
There are only two positions that are significantly lower than the marketplace that staff recommend
adjusting.
1. Assistant Police Chief: In all of our police comparators, the area that we fall below is in total cost of
compensation. Given the external comparators, staff is recommending the City Council consider adding a
2.5% of a base wage deferred compensation benefit for the this position. This would bring this position
within 4% of the market. This would cost the City approximately $7,013.33 per year.
2. HR Assistant: This position also falls well below the marketplace. Staff is recommending the City
Council consider adjusting the HR Assistant wage range by 4% to bring this position in line with external
market comparators. This would cost the City approximately $988 per year.
III. ADJUST THE MINIMUM OF THE SALARY RANGES:
The minimum (starting range) of the salary ranges are consistently lower in comparison to the external
comparators by approximately 4%. For external equity purposes, it is recommended that the minimum of
Packet Page 91 of 473
all of the salary ranges be increased by removing the first step of the salary range and starting the salary
range at step 2 instead of step 1, for a total of 6 steps in the salary range.
Attached is starting salary range information comparison data from the study.
Attachments
2015 NR Salary Survey Policy
2015 Current NR Salary Ranges
2015 NR Study - Benchmark positions
Other Benefits Information
COLA History
2015 NRC Data Sheets Draft - Comparator cities
2015 NRC Data Sheets Draft - Policy comparators 9/16/15
2015 NRC Data Sheets Draft - Sno-King, Pierce 9/16/15
2015 NR Compensation Study - Salary Range Comparisons 9/15/15
2015 NR Salary Ranges - Salary Range Minimums comparison
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/17/2015 11:41 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/17/2015 01:10 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/17/2015 01:13 PM
Human Resources Linda Hynd 09/17/2015 04:33 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/17/2015 04:46 PM
Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Started On: 09/15/2015 01:37 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/17/2015
Packet Page 92 of 473
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 93 of 473
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 94 of 473
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 95 of 473
2015 Non-Represented Employees- Titles and Salary Ranges
2015NonRepTitlesandRanges 9.15 9/11/2015
Job Titles 2015 Salary
Range Minimum Midpoint Maximum
Police Chief 22 $118,791 $137,516 $159,192
PW & Utilities Director 21 $113,135 $130,968 $151,611
Community & Economic Development Director 20 $107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Development Services Director 20 $107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Finance Director 20 $107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Parks & Recreation Director 20 $107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Assistant Police Chief 19 $102,617 $118,791 $137,516
City Engineer 19 $102,617 $118,791 $137,516
WWTP Manager 17 $93,076 $107,747 $124,731
Planning Manager 16 $88,643 $102,617 $118,791
Building Official 15 $84,423 $97,730 $113,135
Human Resources Manager 15 $84,423 $97,730 $113,135
Street/Storm Water Manager 15 $84,423 $97,730 $113,135
Water/Sewer Manager 15 $84,423 $97,730 $113,135
City Clerk 14 $80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Engineering Program Manager III 14 $80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Facilities Manager 14 $80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Senior Utilities Engineer 14 $80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Storm Water Engineer 14 $80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Transportation Engineer 14 $80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Court Administrator 13 $76,574 $88,643 $102,617
WWTP Supervisor 13 $76,574 $88,643 $102,617
Accounting Supervisor 12 $72,938 $84,423 $97,730
Cultural Services Manager 12 $72,938 $84,423 $97,730
Engineering Program Manager II 12 $72,938 $84,423 $97,730
IT Supervisor 12 $72,938 $84,423 $97,730
Fleet Manager 12 $72,938 $84,423 $97,730
Parks Maintenance Manager 12 $72,938 $84,423 $97,730
Recreation Manager 12 $72,938 $84,423 $97,730
Capital Projects Manager 11 $69,455 $80,403 $93,076
Senior Planner 11 $69,455 $80,403 $93,076
Assistant Building Official 10 $66,147 $76,574 $88,643
Engineering Program Manager I 10 $66,147 $76,574 $88,643
Senior Human Resources Analyst 10 $66,147 $76,574 $88,643
Associate Planner 9 $62,997 $72,928 $84,423
Executive Assistant to the Mayor 8 $59,998 $69,455 $80,403
Human Resources Analyst 8 $59,998 $69,455 $80,403
Planner 7 $57,141 $66,147 $76,574
Recycling Coordinator 7 $57,141 $66,147 $76,574
Executive Assistant - Confidential 7 $57,141 $66,147 $76,574
Public Disclosure and Records Management Specialist (part
time)1 $20.09 $23.51 $26.93
Human Resources Assistant (part time)$17.84 $20.65 $23.91
Packet Page 96 of 473
2015 Non-Represented Employees Compensation Survey
"Benchmark" positions
2015NonRepTitlesandRanges 9.15 9/11/2015
Police Chief 22
PW & Utilities Director 21
Community & Economic Development Director 20
Development Services Director 20
Finance Director 20
Parks & Recreation Director 20
Assistant Police Chief 19
City Engineer 19
Planning Manager 16
Building Official 15
Human Resources Manager 15
Street/Storm Water Manager 15
City Clerk 14
Engineering Program Manager III 14
Senior Utilities Engineer 14
Storm Water Engineer 14
Transportation Engineer 14
Court Administrator 13
Accounting Supervisor 12
Cultural Services Manager 12
Engineering Program Manager II 12
IT Supervisor 12
Parks Maintenance Manager 12
Recreation Manager 12
Capital Projects Manager 11
Senior Planner 11
Engineering Program Manager I 10
Senior Human Resources Analyst 10
Associate Planner 9
Executive Assistant to the Mayor 8
Human Resources Analyst 8
Planner 7
Recycling Coordinator 7
Executive Assistant - Confidential 7
Human Resources Assistant (part time)1
Packet Page 97 of 473
City of Edmonds
Prevailing Benefits Practices Comparison
Page 1 of 17
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 9/16/2015
Benefit Offering Less than
Average Average Better than
Average
Medical Premium % Paid by ER
Employee Only
Employee plus Family
Dental Premium % Paid by ER
Employee Only
Employee plus Family
Vision Premium % Paid by ER
Employee Only
Employee plus Family
Pension Retirement
General
Police
Wage Replacement Benefits
Vacation
Sick
Admin or Management Leave
Comp Time
Holiday
Fringe Benefits (PD)
Vehicle Allowance N/A
Take Home Vehicle
Deferred Comp
Clothing Allowance
Packet Page 98 of 473
City of Edmonds - 2015 Benefits Survey Summary
Medical Insurance comparison - by Employer
Page 2 of 17
nr* indicates no response provided.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 9/16/2015
Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name
Monthly
Cost of
Coverage
Plan Option 1
Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
Bothell 1 Employee Only AWC -Regence Healthfirst $698.91 $698.91 100%$0.00 0%
Bothell 2. Employee + Spouse AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,403.11 $1,262.27 80%$140.84 20%
Bothell 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,749.57 $1,539.44 80%$210.13 20%
Bothell 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents AWC -Regence Healthfirst $2,036.66 $1,769.11 80%$267.55 20%
Bremerton 1 Employee Only KPS Plan B $802.39 $641.91 80%$160.48 20%
Bremerton 2. Employee + Spouse KPS Plan B $1,521.45 $1,217.16 80%$304.29 20%
Bremerton 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 KPS Plan B $1,848.58 $1,478.86 80%$369.72 20%
Bremerton 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents KPS Plan B $2,103.99 $1,683.19 80%$420.80 20%
Burien 1 Employee Only AWC Regence Healthfirst- 250 $626.50 $626.50 100%$0.00 0%
Burien 2. Employee + Spouse AWC Regence Healthfirst- 250 $1,258.26 $1,195.08 90%$63.18 10%
Burien 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 AWC Regence Healthfirst- 250 $1,569.48 $1,475.18 90%$94.30 10%
Burien 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents AWC Regence Healthfirst- 250 $1,826.78 $1,706.75 90%$120.03 10%
Des Moines 1 Employee Only AWC -Regence Healthfirst $698.91 $630.76 95%$68.14 5%
Des Moines 2. Employee + Spouse AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,403.11 $1,262.53 85%$140.58 15%
Des Moines 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,749.67 $1,557.11 85%$192.56 15%
Des Moines 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents AWC -Regence Healthfirst $2,036.76 $1,801.14 85%$235.62 15%
EDMONDS 1 Employee Only AWC -Regence Healthfirst $698.91 $566.12 90%$132.79 10%
EDMONDS 2. Employee + Spouse AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,403.11 $1,262.80 90%$140.31 10%
EDMONDS 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,749.58 $1,574.62 90%$174.96 10%
EDMONDS 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents AWC -Regence Healthfirst $2,036.67 $1,833.00 90%$203.67 10%
Issaquah 1 Employee Only Premera (self-insured plan)$708.91 $666.38 94%$42.53 6%
Issaquah 2. Employee + Spouse Premera (self-insured plan)$1,468.78 $1,392.79 90%$75.99 10%
Issaquah 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 Premera (self-insured plan)$1,887.88 $1,729.26 90%$158.62 10%
Issaquah 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents Premera (self-insured plan)$2,197.66 $2,008.06 90%$189.60 10%
Lacey 1 Employee Only AWC -Regence Healthfirst $629.02 $629.02 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey 2. Employee + Spouse AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,333.22 $1,262.80 90%$70.42 10%
Lacey 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,679.69 $1,574.62 90%$105.07 10%
Lacey 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,966.77 $1,833.00 90%$133.78 10%
Lynnwood 1 Employee Only AWC -Regence Healthfirst $698.91 $698.91 100%$0.00 0%
Lynnwood 2. Employee + Spouse AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,403.11 $1,332.69 90%$70.42 10%
Lynnwood 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,749.58 $1,644.51 90%$105.07 10%
Lynnwood 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents AWC -Regence Healthfirst $2,036.67 $1,902.89 90%$133.78 10%
Packet Page 99 of 473
City of Edmonds - 2015 Benefits Survey Summary
Medical Insurance comparison - by Employer
Page 3 of 17
nr* indicates no response provided.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 9/16/2015
Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name
Monthly
Cost of
Coverage
Plan Option 1
Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
Olympia 1 Employee Only AWC -Regence Healthfirst $698.91 $630.76 95%$68.14 5%
Olympia 2. Employee + Spouse AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,403.11 $1,262.53 85%$140.58 15%
Olympia 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,749.58 $1,557.03 85%$192.55 15%
Olympia 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents AWC -Regence Healthfirst $2,036.67 $1,801.06 85%$235.61 15%
Puyallup 1 Employee Only HMA (self-insured plan)$734.00 $734.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup 2. Employee + Spouse HMA (self-insured plan)$1,090.00 $1,090.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 HMA (self-insured plan)$1,446.00 $1,446.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents HMA (self-insured plan)$1,802.00 $1,802.00 100%$0.00 0%
Sammamish 1 Employee Only AWC -Regence Healthfirst $698.91 $698.91 100%$0.00 0%
Sammamish 2. Employee + Spouse AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,403.11 $1,346.77 92%$56.34 8%
Sammamish 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,749.57 $1,665.52 92%$84.05 8%
Sammamish 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents AWC -Regence Healthfirst $2,036.66 $1,929.64 92%$107.02 8%
University Place 1 Employee Only AWC -Regence Healthfirst $771.66 $771.66 100%$0.00 0%
University Place 2. Employee + Spouse AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,538.26 $1,346.61 75%$191.65 25%
University Place 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,973.45 $1,673.00 75%$300.45 25%
University Place 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents AWC -Regence Healthfirst $2,260.54 $1,888.32 75%$372.22 25%
Auburn 1 Employee Only AWC -Regence Healthfirst $629.02 $629.02 100%$0.00 0%
Auburn 2. Employee + Spouse AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,333.22 $1,262.80 90%$70.42 10%
Auburn 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,679.69 $1,574.62 90%$105.07 10%
Auburn 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,966.77 $1,833.00 90%$133.78 10%
Redmond 1 Employee Only RedMed (self-insured plan)$577.26 $577.26 100%$0.00 0%
Redmond 2. Employee + Spouse RedMed (self-insured plan)$1,137.54 $1,025.48 80%$112.06 20%
Redmond 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 RedMed (self-insured plan)$1,422.89 $1,253.76 80%$169.13 20%
Redmond 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents RedMed (self-insured plan)$1,708.24 $1,482.04 80%$226.20 20%
Kirkland 1 Employee Only Prime (self-insured plan)$688.41 $688.41 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 2. Employee + Spouse Prime (self-insured plan)$1,445.65 $1,445.65 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 Prime (self-insured plan)$1,755.44 $1,755.44 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents Prime (self-insured plan)$2,168.48 $2,168.48 100%$0.00 0%
Lakewood 1 Employee Only AWC -Regence Healthfirst $616.70 $616.70 100%$0.00 0%
Lakewood 2. Employee + Spouse AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,306.82 $1,306.82 100%$0.00 0%
Lakewood 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,576.29 $1,576.29 100%$0.00 0%
Lakewood 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,812.03 $1,812.03 100%$0.00 0%
Packet Page 100 of 473
City of Edmonds - 2015 Benefits Survey Summary
Medical Insurance comparison - by Employer
Page 4 of 17
nr* indicates no response provided.
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 9/16/2015
Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name
Monthly
Cost of
Coverage
Plan Option 1
Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
Shoreline 1 Employee Only AWC -Regence Healthfirst
Shoreline 2. Employee + Spouse AWC -Regence Healthfirst
Shoreline 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 AWC -Regence Healthfirst
Shoreline 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents AWC -Regence Healthfirst
Marysville 1 Employee Only AWC -Regence Healthfirst $629.02 $629.02 100%$0.00 0%
Marysville 2. Employee + Spouse AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,333.22 $1,262.80 90%$70.42 10%
Marysville 3. Employee + Spouse + Dependent 1 AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,679.69 $1,574.62 90%$105.07 10%
Marysville 4. Employee, Spouse + 2 Dependents AWC -Regence Healthfirst $1,966.77 $1,833.00 90%$133.78 10%
City pays $1635 toward (employee+family) total health insurance
premium costs
City pays $1635 toward (employee+family) total health insurance
premium costs
Packet Page 101 of 473
City of Edmonds - 2015 Benefits Survey Summary
Dental Insurance comparison - by Employer
Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name
Monthly
Cost of
Coverage
Plan Option 1
Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
Bothell 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $49.31 $49.31 100%$0.00 0%
Bothell 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $106.83 $101.08 90%$5.75 10%
Bothell Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $205.23 $189.64 90%$15.59 10%
Bothell Employee, Spouse & Dependents 1 & 2 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $205.23 $189.64 90%$15.59 10%
Bremerton 1 Employee Only WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5)$54.79 $54.79 100%$0.00 0%
Bremerton 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5)$109.58 $109.58 100%$0.00 0%
Bremerton Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5)$158.42 $158.42 100%$0.00 0%
Bremerton Employee + Family WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5)$217.00 $217.00 100%$0.00 0%
Burien 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - E Plus Orthodontia $45.69 $45.69 100%$0.00 0%
Burien 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - E Plus Orthodontia $87.53 $87.53 100%$0.00 0%
Burien Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - E Plus Orthodontia $145.87 $145.87 100%$0.00 0%
Burien Employee + Family WDS Plan - E Plus Orthodontia $145.87 $145.87 100%$0.00 0%
Des Moines 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $54.79 $54.79 100%$0.00 0%
Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $104.04 $104.04 100%$0.00 0%
Des Moines Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $181.57 $181.57 100%$0.00 0%
Des Moines Employee + Family WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $181.57 $181.57 100%$0.00 0%
EDMONDS 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $54.79 $49.31 90%$5.48 0%
EDMONDS 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $112.31 $106.55 90%$5.75 10%
EDMONDS Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $210.71 $195.12 90%$15.59 10%
EDMONDS Employee + Family WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $210.71 $195.12 90%$15.59 10%
Issaquah 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $58.20 $58.20 100%$0.00 0%
Issaquah 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $98.84 $98.84 100%$0.00 0%
Issaquah Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $150.60 $150.60 100%$0.00 0%
Issaquah Employee + Family WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $150.60 $150.60 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $49.31 $49.31 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $99.97 $94.91 90%$5.07 10%
Lacey Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $177.28 $164.48 90%$12.80 10%
Lacey Employee + Family WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $177.28 $164.48 90%$12.80 10%
Lynnwood 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $56.02 $56.02 100%$0.00 0%
Lynnwood 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $113.68 $107.91 90%$5.77 10%
Lynnwood Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $199.58 $185.22 90%$14.36 10%
Lynnwood Employee + Family WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $199.58 $185.22 90%$14.36 10%
Olympia 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - E Plus Orthodontia $48.69 $48.69 100%$0.00 0%
Packet Page 102 of 473
City of Edmonds - 2015 Benefits Survey Summary
Dental Insurance comparison - by Employer
Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name
Monthly
Cost of
Coverage
Plan Option 1
Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
Olympia 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - E Plus Orthodontia $86.35 $86.35 100%$0.00 0%
Olympia Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - E Plus Orthodontia $142.62 $142.62 100%$0.00 0%
Olympia Employee + Family WDS Plan - E Plus Orthodontia $142.62 $142.62 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup 1 Employee Only HMA Preferred - Self-Insured plan $87.00 $87.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup 2 Employee & Spouse HMA Preferred - Self-Insured plan $173.00 $173.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 HMA Preferred - Self-Insured plan $249.00 $249.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup Employee + Family HMA Preferred - Self-Insured plan $249.00 $249.00 100%$0.00 0%
Sammamish 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $54.79 $54.79 100%$0.00 0%
Sammamish 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $104.04 $100.10 92%$8.01 8%
Sammamish Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $181.57 $171.43 92%$13.71 8%
Sammamish Employee + Family WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $181.57 $171.43 92%$13.71 8%
University Place 1 Employee Only Willamette Dental $54.79 $54.79 100%$0.00 0%
University Place 2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental $106.63 $106.63 100%$0.00 0%
University Place Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 Willamette Dental $165.21 $165.21 100%$0.00 0%
University Place Employee + Family Willamette Dental $165.21 $165.21 100%$0.00 0%
Auburn 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $49.31 $49.31 100%$0.00 0%
Auburn 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $99.97 $94.90 90%$9.49 10%
Auburn Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $177.28 $164.48 90%$16.45 10%
Auburn Employee + Family WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $177.28 $164.48 90%$16.45 10%
Redmond 1 Employee Only Red-Med Dental Self-Insured plan $115.26 $115.26 100%$0.00 0%
Redmond 2 Employee & Spouse Red-Med Dental Self-Insured plan $205.16 $187.18 80%$37.44 20%
Redmond Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 Red-Med Dental Self-Insured plan $421.84 $360.52 80%$72.10 20%
Redmond Employee + Family Red-Med Dental Self-Insured plan $421.84 $360.52 80%$72.10 20%
Kirkland 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $61.55 $61.55 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $115.00 $115.00 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $183.80 $183.80 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland Employee + Family WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $183.80 $183.80 100%$0.00 0%
Lakewood 1 Employee Only WDS Plan E - Plus Ortho $48.69 $48.69 100%$0.00 0%
Lakewood 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan E - Plus Ortho $90.94 $90.94 100%$0.00 0%
Lakewood Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan E - Plus Ortho $168.23 $168.23 100%$0.00 0%
Lakewood Employee + Family WDS Plan E - Plus Ortho $168.23 $168.23 100%$0.00 0%
Shoreline 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia
Shoreline 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia
City pays $1635 toward (employee+family) total health insurance
premium costs
Packet Page 103 of 473
City of Edmonds - 2015 Benefits Survey Summary
Dental Insurance comparison - by Employer
Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name
Monthly
Cost of
Coverage
Plan Option 1
Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
Shoreline Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia
Shoreline Employee + Family WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia
Marysville 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service Plan F $54.41 $52.78 97%$0.00 0%
Marysville 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service Plan F $103.31 $100.21 97%$3.01 3%
Marysville Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 Washington Dental Service Plan F $163.18 $158.28 97%$4.75 3%
Marysville Employee + Family Washington Dental Service Plan F $163.18 $158.28 97%$4.75 3%
City pays $1635 toward (employee+family) total health insurance
premium costs
Packet Page 104 of 473
City of Edmonds - 2015 Benefits Survey
Vision Insurance comparison - by Employer
Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name
Bothell 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $10.91 $9.82 90%$1.09 10%
Bothell 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $21.82 $20.73 90%$1.09 10%
Bothell Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $32.73 $30.55 90%$2.18 10%
Bothell Employee, Spouse & Dependents 1 & WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $32.73 $30.55 90%$2.18 10%
Bremerton 1 Employee Only WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5)$14.90 $14.90 100%$0.00 0%
Bremerton 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5)$0.00 $0.00 100%$0.00 0%
Bremerton Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5)$0.00 $0.00 100%$0.00 0%
Bremerton Employee + Family WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5)$0.00 $0.00 100%$0.00 0%
Burien 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - E Plus Orthodontia $9.82 $9.82 100%$0.00 0%
Burien 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - E Plus Orthodontia $19.64 $19.64 100%$0.00 0%
Burien Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - E Plus Orthodontia $29.46 $29.46 100%$0.00 0%
Burien Employee + Family WDS Plan - E Plus Orthodontia $29.46 $29.46 100%$0.00 0%
EDMONDS 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $10.91 $9.82 90%$1.09 10%
EDMONDS 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $21.82 $20.73 90%$1.09 10%
EDMONDS Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $32.73 $30.55 90%$2.18 10%
EDMONDS Employee, Spouse & Dependents 1 & WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $32.73 $30.55 90%$2.18 10%
Issaquah 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia **100%$0.00 0%
Issaquah 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia **100%$0.00 0%
Issaquah Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia **100%$0.00 0%
Issaquah Employee + Family WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia **100%$0.00 0%
Lacey 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $9.82 $9.82 100%$0.00 0%
Lacey 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $20.73 $19.64 90%$1.09 10%
Lacey Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $31.64 $29.46 90%$2.18 10%
Lacey Employee + Family WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $31.64 $29.46 90%$2.18 10%
Lynnwood 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $9.82 $9.82 100%$0.00 0%
Lynnwood 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $0.00 $0.00 0%$9.82 100%
Lynnwood Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $0.00 $0.00 0%$19.94 100%
Lynnwood Employee + Family WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $0.00 $0.00 0%$19.94 100%
Olympia 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - E Plus Orthodontia $7.96 $7.96 100%$0.00 0%
Olympia 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - E Plus Orthodontia $16.18 $16.18 100%$0.00 0%
Olympia Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - E Plus Orthodontia $24.14 $24.14 100%$0.00 0%
Olympia Employee + Family WDS Plan - E Plus Orthodontia $24.14 $24.14 100%$0.00 0%
Plan Option 1
Monthly
Cost of
Coverage
Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
Packet Page 105 of 473
City of Edmonds - 2015 Benefits Survey
Vision Insurance comparison - by Employer
Puyallup 1 Employee Only HMA Preferred - Self-Insured plan $21.00 $21.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup 2 Employee & Spouse HMA Preferred - Self-Insured plan $42.00 $42.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 HMA Preferred - Self-Insured plan $60.00 $60.00 100%$0.00 0%
Puyallup Employee + Family HMA Preferred - Self-Insured plan $60.00 $60.00 100%$0.00 0%
Sammamish 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $7.96 $7.96 100%$0.00 0%
Sammamish 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $15.92 $15.28 92%$1.22 8%
Sammamish Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $23.87 $22.60 92%$1.81 8%
Sammamish Employee + Family WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $23.87 $22.60 92%$1.81 8%
University Place 1 Employee Only Willamette Dental $7.96 $7.96 100%$0.00 0%
University Place 2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental $15.28 $15.28 100%$0.00 0%
University Place Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 Willamette Dental $22.60 $22.60 100%$0.00 0%
University Place Employee + Family Willamette Dental $22.60 $22.60 100%$0.00 0%
Auburn 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $9.82 $9.82 100%$0.00 0%
Auburn 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $20.73 $19.64 90%$1.96 10%
Auburn Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $31.64 $29.46 90%$2.95 10%
Auburn Employee + Family WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $31.64 $29.46 90%$2.95 10%
Redmond 1 Employee Only Red-Med Dental Self-Insured plan $24.26 $24.26 100%$0.00 0%
Redmond 2 Employee & Spouse Red-Med Dental Self-Insured plan $43.69 $39.80 80%$7.96 20%
Redmond Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 Red-Med Dental Self-Insured plan $69.34 $60.32 80%$12.06 20%
Redmond Employee + Family Red-Med Dental Self-Insured plan $69.34 $60.32 80%$12.06 20%
Kirkland 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $12.59 $12.59 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $20.11 $20.11 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $32.70 $32.70 100%$0.00 0%
Kirkland Employee + Family WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $32.70 $32.70 100%$0.00 0%
Lakewood 1 Employee Only WDS Plan E - Plus Ortho $7.96 $7.96 100%$0.00 0%
Lakewood 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan E - Plus Ortho $15.92 $15.92 100%$0.00 0%
Lakewood Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan E - Plus Ortho $23.88 $23.88 100%$0.00 0%
Lakewood Employee + Family WDS Plan E - Plus Ortho $23.88 $23.88 100%$0.00 0%
Shoreline 1 Employee Only WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia
Shoreline 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia
Shoreline Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia
Shoreline Employee + Family WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia
Marysville 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service Plan G $11.30 $10.96 100%$0.00 0%
Marysville 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service Plan G $22.60 $21.92 100%$0.00 0%
Marysville Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1 Washington Dental Service Plan G $33.90 $32.88 100%$0.00 0%
Marysville Employee + Family Washington Dental Service Plan G $33.90 $32.88 100%$0.00 0%
City pays $1635 toward (employee+family) total health insurance
premium costs
City pays $1635 toward (employee+family) total health insurance
premium costs
Packet Page 106 of 473
City of Edmonds - 2015 Benefits Survey Summary
Sick Vacation Leave comparison- by Employer
Page 10 of 17
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 9/16/2015
@ 1
Year
@5
Years
@10
Years
@15
Years
@20
Years
20+
Years Sick Personal Holidays
Mgmt or
Admin
Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/Yr Days/yr Days/yr Days/yr
Bothell General 96 120 144 160 176 176 96 0 12 10 42 merit leave hours, can carry
up to 84, 40 hours professional
Bothell Police 96 120 144 160 176 176 96 0 12 10
Bremerton -NonRepresented General 120 160 200 200 200 200 96 0 11
Bremerton - Police
Management Assoc (BPMA)Police 104 104 152 192 208 208
Max carry-over 160
hrs <5yrs; 300 hrs >5
yrs
96 0 11 Max sick accrual is 1200 hrs
Bremerton - Mgmt &
Professional Employees Police 120 160 200 200 200 200 96 0 11 Max sick accrual 125 days
Burien General 96 168 8 to 14 hrs/mo based
on service 96 0 12
Des Moines General 96 120 144 168 192 192 32 hrs per year extra
to exempt ee's 96 0 12
Des Moines Police 96 120 144 168 192 192 32 hrs per year extra
to exempt ee's 96 0 12
Issaquah Vac Sched 1 w/12 sick days per
years 96 128 160 176 192 192 See Notes page 96 12 comp time up to 100 hrs
Issaquah Vac Sched 2 w/8 sick days per
years 128 160 192 208 224 224 See Notes page 64 12
Issaquah Police- Vac Sched 1 w/12 sick
days per years 128 160 176 192 192 See Notes page 64 12 Comp time up to 150 hrs for
COP
Kirkland General 104 128 136 160 192 200 96 12
Kirkland Police 104 128 136 160 192 200 96 12 5
Lacey General 120 128 152 168 192 204 See Notes page 11
Lacey - Police Police 120 128 152 168 192 204 See Notes page 11
Lakewood General 120 152 184 216 232 240 Combination Leave 64 11 6
Lakewood Police 120 152 184 216 232 240 Combination Leave 64 11 6
Lynnwood General 80 96 136 152 200 200 96 12 8
Lynnwood Police 80 96 136 168 210 210 96 12 75 hrs
Marysville General 88 104 152 184 208 208 96 1 10 10 10 admin days for directors 5 for
managers
Marysville Police 88 104 152 184 208 208 96 1 10 10 10 admin days for COP and
Commanders
Olympia General 96 108 132 156 180 192 25+ yrs= 216
hrs/year 96 10 40 Admin leave only for directors
Olympia Police 96 108 132 156 180 192 96 10 40 Admin leave only for COP
Comments
VACATION LEAVE
Employer PTO
Bank Comments
Employee Group
OTHER LEAVE
Packet Page 107 of 473
City of Edmonds - 2015 Benefits Survey Summary
Sick Vacation Leave comparison- by Employer
Page 11 of 17
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 9/16/2015
@ 1
Year
@5
Years
@10
Years
@15
Years
@20
Years
20+
Years Sick Personal Holidays
Mgmt or
Admin
Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/Yr Days/yr Days/yr Days/yr Comments
VACATION LEAVE
Employer PTO
Bank Comments
Employee Group
OTHER LEAVE
Puyallup Unaffiliated 96 128 160 200 200 200 *Non Exempt. See
Notes 96 12 2 management staff gets 2 days
for council
Puyallup Police 96 128 160 200 200 200 *Non Exempt. See
Notes 96 12 2
Redmond General 96 128 144 168 184 184 96 12 6 any admin leave not used lapses
on 12/31
Redmond Police 96 128 144 168 184 184 96 12 6
Shoreline General 103 127 144 160 184 184 96 11 3
Sammamish General 96 128 168 168 168 168 96 11 5 management leave for Directors,
Managers and Supervisors
University Place General 96 120 144 168 184 184 See Notes Page 96 10
University Place Police No police- contracted
out
Averages 94 121 159 180 198 199 95 1 11
EDMONDS Director 176 176 176 176 176 176
EDMONDS Managers 40 88 128 176 200 Max @ 25+ years =
27 days/year
EDMONDS Other Professional Exempt 88 88 128 168 176 176
Packet Page 108 of 473
City of Edmonds - 2015 Benefits Survey Summary
Sick Vacation Leave comparison notes
Page 12 of 17
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 9/16/2015
Employer Comments
Bremerton, City of
Des Moines, City of Deferred Compensation (457) - The City cashes and deposits 1 or 2 hours of sick leave, depending on sick leave
balances, to a 457 Deferred Compensation plan for Teamsters Union employees. Police Guild 457 - The City cashes
and deposits 2 or 3 hours of sick leave, depending on sick leave balances, to a 457 Deferred Compensation plan for
Police Guild employees. Police Patrol - Patorl schedule consists of an 8 day work week, with 4 days on and 4 days off.
Each workday is 12 hours in duration, resulting in a total of 2,190 hours scheduled per year. Because of this, each
employee assigned to a 12 hour schedule receives an additional 55 hours of leave (Kelly time) every 6 months (Jan 1 -
Jun 30 and Jul 1- Dec 31).
Issaquah, City of Exempt Vacation - At the time of hire and annually thereafter, employees shall have the option of selecting from two
vacation/sick leave schedules based on years of service. Once a selection is made, it will remain intact until such time
as the employee requests a different schedule. This change can only be done during the annual open enrollment
period at the end of each year. If no selection is made at the time of hire, then Schedule 1 will be assigned. Same
schedule choice for Police Management.
Marysville, City of Vacations- Employees with a perfect attendance record from January through December, which includes using up to 8
hours of sick leave, will receive 8 additional hours of vacation leave to be used during the next calendar year.
Packet Page 109 of 473
City of Edmonds
2015 Benefits Survey Summary
OTHER BENEFITS- by Employer
Page 13 of 17
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 9/16/2015
Employer Bilingual
Pay DCP Discretionary
Bonus Education: AA Education: BA Education:
MA DCP Longevity Management
Leave
Merit Pay
or Leave Comp Leave Extra Leave
On Call
Pay or
Call Out
Pay
Take
Home
Vehicles
Mileage
reimburseme
nt
VEBA/R
HS/RHA
Vehicle/Car/Ho
using
Allowance
Clothing
Allowance
Cell Phone
Allowance OTHER Comments
Bothell - Non-rep 88 hrs/year-
exempt
42 hours 8 holiday Tuition payback: sep within 1 year- 80%
repayment; 2 yrs- 60%; 3 yrs- 40%; 4 yrs-
20%
Bothell - Police Management 88 hrs/year-
exempt
42 hours 8 holiday $464
Bremerton - Non-rep 4%4%$300
Bremerton - Teamsters
Bremerton - IAFF Local 437
Bremerton - Police Officers Build
(BPOG)
Bremerton - Police Mgmt Assoc
(BPMA)
4%2%4%4%See notes $300
Burien
Des Moines 1.52%x 1%HDHP= $1500-3000 Traditonal= $580-1130
HRA-VEBA
Des Moines - Police Guild 1.52%1%
Des Moines - Police Management 2.50%4.00%5.00%32 hrs buy back x HDHP= $1500-3000 Traditonal= $580-1130
HRA-VEBA
Issaquah - Exempt Employees $300/mo
or 3.5%
Directors
2%2%2%0-4 years
= 5%, 5+
years =
7%
100 comp
hours- under
Director
(exempt) - 150
- Directors
hol 8 and ed inc
8
$1,550 2% education merit pay - all exempt
employees.
Issaquah - Police Management $300/mo
or 3.5%
PC
2%2%2%0-4 years
= 5%, 5+
years =
7%
100-ACOP,
150 PC
hol 8 and ed inc
8
Kirkland 30 supr, 40 mgr,
50 exec
8 extra hol hrs
Kirkland- Police Management 40 hrs 8 extra hol hrs all non reps
Lacey - Management Exempt 1 (non-
reps)
1-2%
certain
positions
1-2%
Lacey - Police Management 1% ACOP,
2% PC
$650
Lakewood - Non Rep 4%4%48 hours management only
Lakewood - Police Management 4%6 days COP
Lynnwood
Lynnwood - Police Management 4.00%5.40%6.85%5 year = 2%, 10
years = 3%, 15
years = 5%, 20
years = 7%
ACOP = 75
hours @ 1.5%
$1250 clothing
allowance for
COP and
Deputy Chief
$500 to ee that
recruits successful
lateral officer hired
Marysville - Non Rep 80 hours*managers and directors only
Marysville - Police Management 4%80 hours -
ACOP and COP
$500 x Command Duty
Pay - ACOP -
$7200
ACOP's are considered perpetually "on call"
and for this reason, they receive an extra
$7200/yr in Command Duty pay
Olympia 40 hours*Directors only and a few managers who
attend Council
Olympia - Police Management 10% ACOP 40 hrs COP
Puyallup - Exempt 16 hours Directors only
Puyallup - Police 4%$360
Sammamish 40 hours
Shoreline 24 hours exempt all non-reps
Remond - Non Rep 48 hours $600 2% lump sum
Redmond- Police Management 7.5% -
ACOP
48 hours $600 2% lump sum
University Place - Non Rep 40 hours all non-reps
Edmonds 24
Packet Page 110 of 473
City of Edmonds
2015 Benefits Survey Summary
Other Benefits -Notes
Page 14 of 17
PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 9/16/2015
Employer
Longevity Pay
Length of Continuous Service Rate per Hour
0 through 5 years continuous employment 0%
6 through 10 years continuous employment 1.25%
Commencing 11 through 15 years continuous employment 2.25%
Commencing 16 through 20 years continuous employment 3.50%
Commencing 21 through 25 years continuous employment 7.75%
Commencing 26 years and over continuous employment 9.00%
Burien, City of
Issaquah, City of
Master Employee Merit Pay Program- Employees hired before December 31,
2014 are eligible for an additional 5% Merit Pay after they have reached the top
step of their salary range if they meet master employee goals as determined
between them and their supervisor. After 5 years receiving the additional 5%,
that percentage goes to 7%. Educational incentive- The amounts vary per
individual as it is calculated on base wage. If an employee attends training,
they can receive up to 2% of base wage for up to 24 hours. This is paid out in a
lump sum at the end of the calendar year.
Longevity Pay
After 5th Year 2%
After 10th Year 3%
After 15th Year 5%
After 20th Year 7%
Employer paid ORCA Card for METRO, Community Transit, Everett Transit, Pierce Transit, and Sound Transit.
Comments
Bremerton - Police Mgmt Assoc.
Lynnwood, City of
Packet Page 111 of 473
2015 Other Benefits- Police Chief
Police Chief - Elements of Compensation
City Education
Incentive
Longevity
Incentive
Deferred
Comp
Admin
Leave
Management
Leave Comp Time Overtime Merit Leave Merit Pay
Clothing
Allowance as
salary
Car Allowance Cell Phone
Allowance
Holiday Buy-
Back
Bothell 96 hrs/yr 42 hrs/yr $465/yr
Bremerton 4%
Des Moines 2.5% AA 32 hrs/yr 1%
4% BA
5% MA
EDMONDS 24 hrs/yr $750
Issaquah 2%
$100/mo
plus 3.5%150 hrs/yr 7%
Kirkland 48 hrs/yr
Lacey 2% $650
Lakewood 4%80 hrs/year
Lynnwood 1.95% 45 hrs 2% - 5 yrs
75 hrs/yr @
1.5x $1,250
4% AA 3% - 10 yrs
5.4% BA 5% - 15 yrs
6.85% MA 7% - 20 yrs
Marsyville 4%80 hrs/yr $500/mo
Olympia 4%
Puyallup 4%$360
Redmond 48 hrs/yr $600/yr
* includes employer retiree (LEOFF) contributions of 5.23% and health insurance premiums paid by the City
Packet Page 112 of 473
2015 Other Benefits- Assistant Police Chief
Assistant Police Chief - Elements of Compensation
City Education
Incentive
Longevity
Incentive
Deferred
Comp
Admin
Leave
Management
Leave Comp Time Overtime Merit Leave Merit Pay
Clothing
Allowance as
salary
Car Allowance Cell Phone
Allowance
Holiday Buy-
Back
Bothell 96 hrs/yr 42 hrs/yr $465/yr
Bremerton 4%
Des Moines 2.5% AA 32 hrs/yr 1%
4% BA
5% MA
EDMONDS 24 hrs/yr $750
Issaquah 2%
$100/mo
plus 3.5%150 hrs/yr 7%
Kirkland 48 hrs/yr
Lacey 2% $650
Lakewood 4%80 hrs/year
Lynnwood 1.95% 45 hrs 2% - 5 yrs
75 hrs/yr @
1.5x $1,250
4% AA 3% - 10 yrs
5.4% BA 5% - 15 yrs
6.85% MA 7% - 20 yrs
Marsyville 4%80 hrs/yr $500/mo
Olympia 4%
Puyallup 4%$360
Redmond 48 hrs/yr $600/yr
Packet Page 113 of 473
2015 Other Benefits- Assistant Police Chief
* includes employer retiree (LEOFF) contributions of 5.23% and health insurance premiums paid by the City
Packet Page 114 of 473
K:\2015 Non-Represented Salary Survey\2015 Study documents to present to Council 8.18.15\Copy of COLAHistory9.15.15
NON-REPRESENTED 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Non-Represented 2.0%2.7%3.0%3.5%5.8%**0 0 Lump sum
(0.00459)2.0%1.4%2.0%
Non-Represented 0-5%0-5%0-3%0-3%0 0-3%1.5%0 ***N/A --
Non Represented
(not at top step)N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Placed on steps
(by Council
approval 9/25/12)
5%5%5%
Total Increase 2-7%2.7-7.7%3-6%3.5-6.5%5.80%0-3%0-1.5%0.5%-4%2-7%1.4-6.4%2-7%
* COLA's in 2009 were offset by 9 mandated furlough days, which is equivalent to a 3.5% salary reduction
REPRESENTED 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2.5%*2.0%*
1%*1.0%
SEIU 2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%5.8**2.5%0 1.5%2.0%1.4%TBD
Teamsters 2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%5.5**2.5%0 1.5%2.0%1.4%2.0%
Non-Commissioned
(Law Support)2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%6.2%0 0 1.5%2.0%0%****1.98%
Represented ( not at top s 5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%
Total Increase 2%-8%2.5%-
7.5%3% - 8%3.5%-
8.5%
5.5% -
11.2%
2.5%-
7.5%1-6%1.5-6.5%2-7%0-7%
* Awarded for first and second half of year
****2014 contract not settled
All represented groups receive a guaranteed step increase of 5% per year until they reach the top step.
All represented groups are eligible for longevity pay
All represented groups have certification pay eligibility and/or other incentive pay such as educational pay (PD).
***Non-represented employees did not receive a COLA or merit increase in 2012. Council authorized an amount, of a different % for each person, to put them on a Step on a new salary
schedule.
1.5%
STEP INCREASES
**COLA's in 2009 were offset by 9 mandated furlough days, which is equivalent to a 3.5% salary reduction for one year
0%****2.5%
CITY OF EDMONDS
History of Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) & Merit Increases for Non-Represented Employees (2005-2015)
2.0%
STEP INCREASES
COLAS
COLAS
MERIT INCREASES
3.0%3.5%6.2%0 1.0% (market
based
adjustment)
Commissioned Police
(EPOA)
Packet Page 115 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
1
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $80,400 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
NO MATCH Bothell, City of -------------
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of -------------
NO MATCH Burien, City of -------------
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -------------
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -------------
(-)Accounting Manager Lacey, City of $66,182 $67,904 $84,715 -$9,471 $24,323 $99,977 $101,698 $118,509 $847 $100,824 $102,545 $119,357
(-)Finance Supervisor Lynnwood, City of $71,772 $73,162 $90,811 -$10,153 $25,411 $107,336 $108,726 $126,374 $0 $107,336 $108,726 $126,374
Supervisor III Olympia, City of $68,160 $67,959 $82,860 -$9,264 $23,614 $101,038 $100,837 $115,738 $0 $101,038 $100,837 $115,738
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of ------------
(-)Accounting Manager Sammamish, City of $76,280 $81,308 $104,404 -$11,672 $25,484 $113,437 $118,464 $141,560 $2,008 $115,444 $120,472 $143,568
NO MATCH Shoreline, City of ------------
NO MATCH University Place, City of ------------
Accounting Supervisor Kirkland, City of $73,462 $75,709 $94,781 -$10,596 $28,620 $112,678 $114,926 $133,997 $1,732 $114,410 $116,657 $135,729
Accounting Supervisor Lakewood, City of $68,628 $70,043 $87,024 -$9,729 $24,050 $102,407 $103,823 $120,803 $5,489 $107,896 $109,312 $126,292
NO MATCH Marysville, City of -------------
(-)Accounting Manager Redmond, City of $74,358 $78,635 $100,386 -$11,223 $22,830 $108,411 $112,688 $134,439 $2,917 $111,328 $115,605 $137,356
Median:$71,772 $73,162 $90,811 Median:$107,896 $109,312 $126,374
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
Packet Page 116 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
2
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
ARTS & CULTURAL SERVICES PROGRAM MANAGER $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $97,728 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $1,128 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084
Rec & Park Planning Mgr. Bothell, City of $81,180 92,196 $103,212 $11,539 $23,859 $116,578 $127,594.10 $138,610 $6,848 $123,426 $145,458 $145,458
Athletics/Recreation Mgr.Bremerton, City of $70,392 78,078 $85,764 $9,588 $22,981 $102,961 $110,647.42 $118,333 $3,731 $106,692 $122,064 $122,064
Recreation Manager Burien, City of $77,640 86,010 $94,380 $10,552 $22,856 $111,048 $119,417.68 $127,788 $0 $111,048 $127,788 $127,788
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of ------------
Recreation Manager Issaquah, City of $89,124 $101,448 $113,772 $12,720 $25,904 $127,748 $140,072 $152,396 $20,184 $147,932 $160,256 $172,580
NO MATCH Lacey, City of ------------
Recreation Supt.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,901 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593
NO MATCH Olympia, City of ------------
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of ------------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of ------------
Recreation Supt.Shoreline, City of $84,492 $93,654 $102,816 $11,495 $19,620 $115,607 $124,769 $133,931 $1,081 $116,687 $125,849 $135,011
Recreation Manager University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
Recreation Manager Kirkland, City of $76,128 $87,174 $98,220 $10,981 $28,620 $115,729 $126,775 $137,821 $2,267 $117,996 $129,042 $140,088
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of ------------
NO MATCH Marysville, City of ------------
Recreation Manager Redmond, City of $86,820 $100,650 $114,480 $12,799 $22,830 $122,449 $136,279 $150,109 $3,242 $125,691 $139,521 $153,351
Median:$79,747 $90,324 $100,901 Median:$116,687 $127,788 $137,593
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$109,282 $120,777 $134,084
1.09 1.07 1.03 1.07 1.06 1.03
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 117 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
3
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF $102,617 $118,791 $137,516 $134,244 $7,192 $24,300 $134,109 $150,283 $169,008 $2,337 $136,446 $152,620 $171,345
Deputy Police Chief Bothell, City of $114,708 $130,278 $145,848 $7,628 $23,859 $146,195 $161,765 $177,335 $10,140 $156,335 $171,905 $187,475
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of ------------
NO MATCH Burien, City of ------------
Police Commander Des Moines, City of $113,868 $119,700 $125,532 $6,565 $24,079 $144,512 $150,344 $156,176 $9,463 $153,976 $159,808 $165,640
Deputy Police Chief Issaquah, City of $113,772 $129,480 $145,188 $7,593 $25,904 $147,269 $162,977 $178,685 $23,647 $170,916 $186,624 $202,332
Commander Lacey, City of $130,152 $131,988 $133,824 $6,999 $24,323 $161,474 $163,310 $165,146 $1,988 $163,462 $165,298 $167,134
Union- Deputy Chief Lynnwood, City of $123,636 $128,682 $133,728 $6,994 $25,411 $156,041 $161,087 $166,133 $27,004 $183,045 $188,091 $193,137
Deputy Police Chief Olympia, City of $140,844 $145,518 $150,192 $7,855 $23,614 $172,313 $176,987 $181,661 $1,502 $173,815 $178,489 $183,163
Deputy Police Chief Puyallup, City of $108,444 $124,716 $140,988 $7,374 $25,332 $141,150 $157,422 $173,694 $6,000 $147,149 $163,421 $179,693
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of ------------
NO MATCH Shoreline, City of ------------
NO MATCH University Place, City of ------------
Services Captain Kirkland, City of $110,436 $126,474 $142,512 $7,453 $28,620 $146,509 $162,547 $178,585 $3,289 $149,798 $165,836 $181,874
Assistant Police Chief Lakewood, City of $98,016 $111,168 $124,320 $6,502 $24,050 $128,568 $141,720 $154,872 $7,842 $136,410 $149,562 $162,714
Police Commander Marysville, City of $99,624 $114,918 $130,212 $6,810 $24,302 $130,736 $146,030 $161,324 $12,208 $142,944 $158,238 $173,532
Assistant Police Chief Redmond, City of $130,572 $137,106 $143,640 $7,512 $22,830 $160,914 $167,448 $173,982 $14,688 $175,602 $182,136 $188,670
Median:$113,868 $128,682 $140,988 Median:$156,335 $165,836 $181,874
Current Edmonds Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516 Current Edmonds Base Range:$136,446 $152,620 $171,345
1.11 1.08 1.03 1.15 1.09 1.06
Proposed Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516
Range 19
(2 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 118 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
4
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
ASSOCIATE PLANNER $62,997 $72,928 $84,423 $81,740 $9,438 $24,300 $96,735 $106,666 $118,161 $0 $96,735 $106,666 $118,161
NO MATCH Bothell, City of -----------
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of ------------
NO MATCH Burien, City of ------------
Land Use Planner II Des Moines, City of $63,960 $70,860 $77,760 $8,694 $24,079 $96,733 $103,633 $110,533 $0 $96,733 $103,633 $110,533
Associate Planner Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
Associate Planner Lacey, City of $67,188 $73,542 $79,896 $8,932 $24,323 $100,443 $106,797 $113,151 $799 $101,242 $107,596 $113,950
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Associate Planner Olympia, City of $63,936 $70,794 $77,652 $8,681 $23,614 $96,231 $103,089 $109,947 $0 $96,231 $103,089 $109,947
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
Associate Planner Sammamish, City of $60,996 $72,234 $83,472 $9,332 $25,484 $95,812 $107,050 $118,288 $1,605 $97,417 $108,655 $119,893
Associate Planner Shoreline, City of $62,832 $62,472 $76,464 $8,549 $19,620 $91,001 $90,641 $104,633 $882 $91,883 $91,523 $105,515
Senior Planner University Place, City of $66,228 $62,473 $87,156 $9,744 $24,914 $100,886 $97,131 $121,814 $1,676 $102,562 $98,807 $123,490
Associate Planner Kirkland, City of $69,228 $72,201 $81,444 $9,105 $28,620 $106,953 $109,926 $119,169 $313 $107,267 $110,240 $119,483
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Marysville, City of -----------
NO MATCH Redmond, City of -----------
Median:$65,094 $71,531 $80,670 Median:$99,330 $105,614 $116,717
Current Edmonds Base Range:$62,997 $72,928 $84,423 Current Edmonds Base Range:$96,735 $106,666 $118,161
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$62,997 $72,928 $84,423
Range 9
(3 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 119 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
5
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
BUILDING OFFICIAL $84,423 $97,730 $113,135 $102,612 $12,648 $24,300 $121,371 $134,678 $150,083 $1,305 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389
(-)Comm. Dev/Dpty Dir/Bldg Of Bothell, City of $93,528 $106,223 $118,919 $13,295 $23,859 $130,682 $143,377.52 $156,073 $7,890 $138,572 $151,267 $163,963
Building Official Bremerton, City of $79,644 $88,338 $97,032 $10,848 $22,981 $113,473 $122,167 $130,861 $4,181 $117,654 $126,348 $135,042
Building Official Burien, City of $85,728 $94,962 $104,196 $11,649 $22,585 $119,962 $129,196 $138,430 $0 $119,962 $129,196 $138,430
Building Official Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
Building Official Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
Building Official Lacey, City of $87,060 $87,060 $87,060 $9,733 $24,323 $121,116 $121,116 $121,116 $871 $121,987 $121,987 $121,987
Building Official Lynnwood, City of $87,708 $99,348 $110,988 $12,408 $25,411 $125,527 $137,167 $148,807 $0 $125,527 $137,167 $148,807
NO MATCH Olympia, City of -----------
Building Code Official Puyallup, City of $75,264 $86,562 $97,860 $10,941 $25,332 $111,537 $122,835 $134,133 $0 $111,501 $122,799 $134,097
Building Official Sammamish, City of $84,756 $100,374 $115,992 $12,968 $25,484 $123,208 $138,826 $154,444 $2,231 $125,439 $141,057 $156,675
Building Official Shoreline, City of $88,776 $98,394 $108,012 $12,076 $19,620 $120,472 $130,090 $139,708 $1,246 $121,718 $131,336 $140,954
(+)Building Official/Sr Bldg InspeUniversity Place, City of $85,100 $98,545 $111,989 $12,520 $24,914 $122,535 $135,979 $149,423 $2,154 $124,688 $138,133 $151,577
Building Services Mgr Kirkland, City of $95,328 $109,170 $123,012 $13,753 $28,620 $137,701 $151,543 $165,385 $473 $138,174 $152,016 $165,858
Building Official Lakewood, City of $78,828 $89,406 $99,984 $11,178 $24,050 $114,056 $124,634 $135,212 $6,307 $120,363 $130,941 $141,519
Building Official Marysville, City of $79,632 $91,854 $104,076 $11,636 $24,302 $115,570 $127,792 $140,014 $0 $115,570 $127,792 $140,014
NO MATCH Redmond, City of -----------
Median:$86,214 $97,215 $106,692 Median:$122,273 $131,616 $141,375
Current Edmonds Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135 Current Edmonds Base Range:$122,677 $135,984 $151,389
1.0212146 0.9947 0.9430503 0.99671 0.967878 93.39%
Proposed Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135
Range 15
Packet Page 120 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
6
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER No PE required $69,455 $80,403 $93,076 $86,634 $10,406 $24,300 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782 $0 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782
and supv req)(-)Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $67,092 76,194 $85,296 $9,536 $23,859 $100,487 $109,589 $118,691 $5,659 $106,146 $115,248 $124,350
Civil Engineer II Bremerton, City of $72,576 79,092 $85,608 $9,571 $22,981 $105,128 $111,644 $118,160 $3,724 $108,852 $115,368 $121,884
PE Req'd Civil Engineer II (PM)Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
CIP Project Manager Des Moines, City of $80,160 $88,800 $97,440 $10,894 $24,079 $115,133 $123,773 $132,413 $0 $115,133 $123,773 $132,413
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
PE Req'd Project Manager Lynnwood, City of $82,728 $93,378 $104,028 $11,630 $25,411 $119,769 $130,419 $141,069 $0 $119,769 $130,419 $141,069
Engineering PM Olympia, City of $76,680 $84,936 $93,192 $10,419 $23,614 $110,713 $118,969 $127,225 $0 $110,713 $118,969 $127,225
Civil Engineer Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,484 $124,205 $137,123 $150,041 $2,154 $126,360 $139,278 $152,196
Capital Projects Manager II Shoreline, City of $84,492 $93,606 $102,720 $11,484 $19,620 $115,596 $124,710 $133,824 $1,185 $116,781 $125,895 $135,009
Project Engineer University Place, City of $64,800 $75,036 $85,272 $9,533 $24,914 $99,247 $109,483 $119,719 $1,640 $100,887 $111,123 $121,359
PE Req'd CIP Project Engineer Kirkland, City of $79,296 $86,292 $93,288 $10,430 $28,620 $118,346 $125,342 $132,338 $2,153 $120,498 $127,494 $134,490
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of -----------
Project Engineer Marysville, City of $64,080 $74,988 $85,896 $9,603 $24,302 $97,985 $108,893 $119,801 $3,304 $101,289 $112,197 $123,105
Engineer Redmond, City of $69,780 $81,990 $94,200 $10,532 $22,830 $103,142 $115,352 $127,562 $2,774 $105,915 $118,125 $130,335
Median:$76,680 $84,936 $93,288 Median:$110,713 $118,969 $130,145
Current Edmonds Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076 Current Edmonds Base Range:$104,161 $115,109 $127,782
1.1040242 $1 1.0022777 1.062902 1.033533 1.0184931
Proposed Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076
Range 11
(4 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 121 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
7
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
CITY CLERK $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $102,612 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $1,243 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336
City Clerk Bothell, City of $73,548 $83,526 $93,504 $10,454 $23,859 $107,861 $117,839 $127,817 $6,204 $114,064 $124,042 $134,020
City Clerk Bremerton, City of $57,768 $64,080 $70,392 $7,870 $22,981 $88,619 $94,931 $101,243 $3,116 $91,735 $98,047 $104,359
City Clerk Burien, City of $70,344 $77,922 $85,500 $9,559 $22,585 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644 $0 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644
City Clerk Des Moines, City of $71,256 $78,936 $86,616 $9,684 $24,079 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379 $0 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379
City Clerk Issaquah, City of $80,844 $92,028 $103,212 $11,539 $25,904 $118,287 $129,471 $140,655 $18,645 $136,932 $148,116 $159,300
City Clerk Lacey, City of $66,612 $75,942 $85,272 $9,533 $24,323 $100,468 $109,798 $119,128 $853 $101,321 $110,651 $119,981
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Olympia, City of -----------
City Clerk Puyallup, City of $70,428 $80,964 $91,500 $10,230 $25,332 $105,990 $116,526 $127,062 $0 $105,990 $116,526 $127,062
City Clerk Sammamish, City of $69,576 $82,392 $95,208 $10,644 $25,484 $105,704 $118,520 $131,336 $1,831 $107,535 $120,351 $133,167
City Clerk Shoreline, City of $76,524 $84,816 $93,108 $10,409 $19,620 $106,553 $114,845 $123,137 $1,074 $107,628 $115,920 $124,212
City Clerk University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
City Clerk Kirkland, City of $78,936 $90,390 $101,844 $11,386 $28,620 $118,942 $130,396 $141,850 $392 $119,334 $130,788 $142,242
City Clerk Lakewood, City of $74,256 $84,228 $94,200 $10,532 $24,050 $108,838 $118,810 $128,782 $5,942 $114,779 $124,751 $134,723
NO MATCH Marysville, City of -----------
City Clerk Redmond, City of $85,032 $98,136 $111,240 $12,437 $22,830 $120,299 $133,403 $146,507 $3,167 $123,466 $136,570 $149,674
Median:$71,256 $82,392 $93,108 Median:$107,535 $116,526 $127,062
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$117,992 $130,665 $145,336
0.8862356 $1 0.8641354 0.911374 0.891787 0.8742596
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 122 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
8
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
CITY ENGINEER $102,617 $118,791 $137,516 $137,520 $15,375 $24,300 $142,292 $158,466 $177,191 $1,587 $143,878 $160,052 $178,777
Deputy PW Director/CE Bothell, City of $103,920 $118,026 $132,132 $14,772 $23,859 $142,551 $156,657 $170,763 $8,766 $151,318 $165,424 $179,530
City Engineer Bremerton, City of $101,940 $113,076 $124,212 $13,887 $22,981 $138,808 $149,944 $161,080 $5,268 $144,076 $155,212 $166,348
Asst. PW Director Burien, City of $101,892 $112,878 $123,864 $13,848 $22,585 $138,325 $149,311 $160,297 $0 $138,325 $149,311 $160,297
Engineering Services Mgr.Des Moines, City of $101,424 $112,356 $123,288 $13,784 $24,079 $139,287 $150,219 $161,151 $0 $139,287 $150,219 $161,151
(-)Director of PW - Engineering Issaquah, City of $112,892 $128,488 $144,083 $16,108 $25,904 $154,905 $170,500 $186,095 $24,603 $179,508 $195,103 $210,698
City Engineer Lacey, City of $123,096 $123,096 $123,096 $13,762 $24,323 $161,181 $161,181 $161,181 $1,231 $162,412 $162,412 $162,412
Deputy PW Director Lynnwood, City of $106,142 $120,224 $134,306 $15,015 $25,411 $146,569 $160,650 $174,732 $0 $146,569 $160,650 $174,732
Deputy PW Director Olympia, City of $91,548 $101,430 $111,312 $12,445 $23,614 $127,607 $137,489 $147,371 $0 $127,607 $137,489 $147,371
City Engineer Puyallup, City of $92,208 $106,050 $119,892 $13,404 $25,332 $130,944 $144,786 $158,628 $0 $130,944 $144,786 $158,628
Deputy PW Director Sammamish, City of $90,504 $107,184 $123,864 $13,848 $25,484 $129,836 $146,516 $163,196 $2,382 $132,218 $148,898 $165,578
City Engineer Shoreline, City of $113,628 $125,934 $138,240 $15,455 $19,620 $148,703 $161,009 $173,315 $1,595 $150,298 $162,604 $174,910
City Engineer University Place, City of $94,740 $109,698 $124,656 $13,937 $24,914 $133,591 $148,549 $163,507 $2,397 $135,988 $150,946 $165,904
Capital Projects Manager Kirkland, City of $95,784 $108,138 $120,492 $13,471 $28,620 $133,557 $145,911 $158,265 $463 $134,020 $146,374 $158,728
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of -----------
City Engineer Marysville, City of $92,172 $106,320 $120,468 $13,468 $24,302 $129,942 $144,090 $158,238 $4,633 $134,576 $148,724 $162,872
Assistant PW Director Redmond, City of $93,288 $115,710 $138,132 $15,443 $22,830 $131,561 $153,983 $176,405 $3,788 $135,349 $157,771 $180,193
Median:$101,424 $112,878 $123,864 Median:$138,325 $150,946 $165,578
Current Edmonds Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516 Current Edmonds Base Range:$143,878 $160,052 $178,777
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516
Range 19
Packet Page 123 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
9
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $144,396 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,857 $166,841 $186,502
.
Asst. City Mgr./Econ Dev.Bothell, City of $113,676 $129,108 $144,540 $16,160 $23,859 $153,695 $169,127 $184,559 $9,590 $163,284 $178,716 $194,148
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of -----------
(+)Economic Dev. Mgr.Burien, City of $116,381 $128,923 $141,466 $15,816 $22,585 $154,782 $167,324 $179,866 $0 $154,782 $167,324 $179,866
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
(+)Economic Dev. Director Issaquah, City of $131,419 $149,576 $167,732 $18,752 $25,904 $176,076 $194,232 $212,389 $35,553 $211,629 $229,785 $247,942
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
(+)Economic Dev. Director Lynnwood, City of $116,754 $132,244 $147,734 $16,517 $25,411 $158,682 $174,172 $189,662 $0 $158,682 $174,172 $189,662
(+)Economic Dev Director Olympia, City of $96,070 $106,418 $116,767 $13,055 $23,614 $132,738 $143,087 $153,436 $2,246 $134,984 $145,332 $155,681
(+)Economic Dev. Director Puyallup, City of $113,428 $130,449 $147,470 $16,487 $25,332 $155,247 $172,268 $189,290 $1,134 $156,381 $173,403 $190,424
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
(+)Econonomic Dev PM Shoreline, City of $109,195 $121,320 $133,445 $14,919 $19,620 $143,734 $155,859 $167,984 $1,540 $145,274 $157,399 $169,524
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
NO MATCH Kirkland, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Marysville, City of -----------
NO MATCH Redmond, City of -----------
Median:$113,676 $129,108 $144,540 Median:$156,381 $173,403 $189,662
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,857 $166,841 $186,502
1.0550271 1.035092 1.001025 1.043539 1.039331 1.0169466
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 124 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
10
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
COURT ADMINISTRATOR $76,574 $88,643 $102,617 $102,612 $11,472 $22,124 $110,170 $122,239 $136,213 $1,184 $111,354 $123,423 $137,397
Court Administrator Bothell, City of $73,548 $83,526 $93,504 $10,454 $23,859 $107,861 $117,839 $127,817 $6,204 $114,064 $124,042 $134,020
Court Administrator Bremerton, City of $81,624 $90,540 $99,456 $11,119 $22,981 $115,724 $124,640 $133,556 $4,278 $120,002 $128,918 $137,834
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Court Administrator Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
Court Administrator Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Court Administrator Lynnwood, City of $96,480 $109,278 $122,076 $13,648 $25,411 $135,539 $148,337 $161,135 $0 $135,539 $148,337 $161,135
Court Administrator Olympia, City of $76,680 $84,936 $93,192 $10,419 $23,614 $110,713 $118,969 $127,225 $0 $110,713 $118,969 $127,225
Court Administrator Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH Shoreline, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Court Administrator Kirkland, City of $78,936 $90,390 $101,844 $11,386 $28,620 $118,942 $130,396 $141,850 $392 $119,334 $130,788 $142,242
Court Administrator Lakewood, City of $75,768 $85,932 $96,096 $10,744 $24,050 $110,562 $120,726 $130,890 $6,061 $116,623 $126,787 $136,951
Court Administrator Marysville, City of $83,604 $96,432 $109,260 $12,215 $24,302 $120,121 $132,949 $145,777 $0 $120,121 $132,949 $145,777
NO MATCH Redmond, City of -----------
Median:$80,280 $90,465 $100,650 Median:$120,002 $128,918 $137,834
Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,574 $88,643 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$111,354 $123,423 $137,397
#VALUE!#VALUE!#VALUE!#VALUE!#VALUE!#VALUE!
Proposed Salary Range $76,574 $88,643 $102,617
Range 13
Packet Page 125 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
11
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $137,520 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Community Dev. Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
Director of Comm. Dev.Bremerton, City of $107,100 $118,806 $130,512 $14,591 $22,981 $144,672 $156,378 $168,084 $5,520 $150,193 $161,899 $173,605
Community Dev. Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Development Serv. Director Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $18,792 $25,904 $176,408 $194,594 $212,780 $34,425 $210,833 $229,019 $247,205
Community Dev. Director Lacey, City of $116,784 $116,784 $116,784 $13,056 $24,323 $154,163 $154,163 $154,163 $2,336 $156,499 $156,499 $156,499
Comm. Dev. Director Lynnwood, City of $106,140 $120,222 $134,304 $15,015 $25,411 $146,566 $160,648 $174,730 $0 $146,566 $160,648 $174,730
Dir Comm Plan/Dev Olympia, City of $139,164 $139,164 $139,164 $15,559 $23,614 $178,337 $178,337 $178,337 $2,676 $181,013 $181,013 $181,013
Development Serv. Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Director of Comm. Dev.Sammamish, City of $110,256 $135,708 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,758 $179,210 $204,662 $3,099 $156,857 $182,309 $207,761
NO MATCH Shoreline, City of -----------
Planning and DSD University Place, City of $100,800 $116,724 $132,648 $14,830 $24,914 $140,544 $156,468 $172,392 $2,551 $143,095 $159,019 $174,943
(+)Planning Director Kirkland, City of $123,710 $141,669 $159,628 $17,846 $28,620 $170,177 $188,135 $206,094 $4,451 $174,628 $192,587 $210,545
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of -----------
Community Dev. Director Marysville, City of $112,176 $132,786 $153,396 $17,150 $24,684 $154,010 $174,620 $195,230 $5,900 $159,910 $180,520 $201,130
(+)Planning Director Redmond, City of $126,588 $152,368 $178,147 $19,917 $24,302 $170,807 $196,586 $222,366 $4,711 $175,518 $201,298 $227,077
Median:$116,784 $132,786 $143,652 Median:$156,857 $180,520 $182,297
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
1.0838724 1.064579 0.9948751 1.046717 1.081991 0.9774597
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 126 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
12
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 3 (UNFUNDED/UNFILLED)$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $1,243 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336
Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
Managing Engineer Bremerton, City of $85,764 $95,130 $104,496 $11,683 $22,981 $120,428 $129,794 $139,160 $4,480 $124,907 $134,273 $143,639
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $93,612 $106,542 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $132,873 $145,803 $158,733 $21,015 $153,888 $166,818 $179,748
Development Review Eng.Lacey, City of $77,256 $88,044 $98,832 $11,049 $24,323 $112,628 $123,416 $134,204 $988 $113,617 $124,405 $135,193
Development Svcs. Supv.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,901 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593
Engineering PM Olympia, City of $83,052 $91,998 $100,944 $11,286 $23,614 $117,952 $126,898 $135,844 $0 $117,952 $126,898 $135,844
Engineering Services Mgr.Puyallup, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,332 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889 $0 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889
Development Review Eng.Sammamish, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,484 $124,205 $137,123 $150,041 $2,154 $126,360 $139,278 $152,196
Engineering Manager Shoreline, City of $97,968 $108,588 $119,208 $13,327 $19,620 $130,915 $141,535 $152,155 $1,375 $132,291 $142,911 $153,531
Asst City Engineer University Place, City of $81,192 $94,014 $106,836 $11,944 $24,914 $118,050 $130,872 $143,694 $2,055 $120,105 $132,927 $145,749
Development Eng. Supv Kirkland, City of $82,560 $94,542 $106,524 $11,909 $28,620 $123,089 $135,071 $147,053 $1,946 $125,035 $137,017 $148,999
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of -----------
Eng Svcs Mgr Marysville, City of $87,792 $101,256 $114,720 $12,826 $24,302 $124,920 $138,384 $151,848 $4,412 $129,332 $142,796 $156,260
NO MATCH Redmond, City of -----------
Median:$85,764 $95,130 $106,836 Median:$124,907 $136,971 $148,999
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$117,992 $130,665 $145,336
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 127 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
13
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 2 (UNFUNDED/UNFILLED)$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
(+)Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $73,801 $83,813 $93,826 $10,490 $23,859 $108,150 $118,162 $128,174 $6,225 $114,375 $124,387 $134,399
Civil Engineer III Bremerton, City of $76,740 $83,376 $90,012 $10,063 $22,981 $109,784 $116,420 $123,056 $3,900 $113,685 $120,321 $126,957
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
(+)Engineer II Issaquah, City of $84,704 $96,413 $108,121 $12,088 $25,904 $122,696 $134,405 $146,113 $19,361 $142,057 $153,765 $165,474
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
(+)Civil Engineer I Lynnwood, City of $75,346 $85,358 $95,370 $10,662 $25,411 $111,419 $121,431 $131,443 $0 $111,419 $121,431 $131,443
Engineering Project Mgr Olympia, City of $76,680 $84,936 $93,192 $10,419 $23,614 $110,713 $118,969 $127,225 $0 $110,713 $118,969 $127,225
Senior Civil Engineer Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
(+)Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $76,520 $90,625 $104,729 $11,709 $25,484 $113,713 $127,817 $141,921 $2,014 $115,727 $129,831 $143,935
Development Eng II Shoreline, City of $84,492 $93,654 $102,816 $11,495 $19,620 $115,607 $124,769 $133,931 $1,186 $116,793 $125,955 $135,117
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Project Engineer Kirkland, City of $86,640 $94,626 $102,612 $11,472 $28,620 $126,732 $134,718 $142,704 $395 $127,127 $135,113 $143,099
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of -----------
Project Engineer Marysville, City of $69,564 $82,386 $95,208 $10,644 $24,302 $104,510 $117,332 $130,154 $3,662 $108,172 $120,994 $133,816
NO MATCH Redmond, City of ------------
Median:$76,710 $87,991 $98,991 Median:$115,051 $125,171 $134,758
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 128 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
14
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 1 PE may be required $66,147 $76,574 $88,643 $88,644 $9,910 $24,300 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853 $0 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853
Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $67,092 $76,194 $85,296 $9,536 $23,859 $100,487 $109,589 $118,691 $5,659 $106,146 $115,248 $124,350
Degree/PE Civil Engineer II Bremerton, City of $72,576 $79,092 $85,608 $9,571 $22,981 $105,128 $111,644 $118,160 $3,724 $108,852 $115,368 $121,884
PE Civil Engineer Burien, City of $72,060 $79,848 $87,636 $9,798 $22,585 $104,443 $112,231 $120,019 $0 $104,443 $112,231 $120,019
Civil Engineer I Des Moines, City of $71,940 $79,698 $87,456 $9,778 $24,079 $105,797 $113,555 $121,313 $0 $105,797 $113,555 $121,313
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Civil Engineer I Lynnwood, City of $54,392 $61,589 $68,786 $7,690 $25,411 $87,493 $94,690 $101,887 $0 $87,493 $94,690 $101,887
NO MATCH Olympia, City of -----------
Civil Engineer Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $69,564 $82,386 $95,208 $10,644 $25,484 $105,692 $118,514 $131,336 $1,831 $107,523 $120,345 $133,167
Development Review Eng.Shoreline, City of $69,564 $82,386 $95,208 $10,644 $19,620 $99,828 $112,650 $125,472 $1,099 $100,927 $113,749 $126,571
Project Engineer University Place, City of $64,800 $75,036 $85,272 $9,533 $24,914 $99,247 $109,483 $119,719 $1,640 $100,887 $111,123 $121,359
NO MATCH Kirkland, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Marysville, City of -----------
NO MATCH Redmond, City of -----------
Median:$71,760 $79,698 $87,456 Median:$105,797 $113,749 $121,884
Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,147 $76,574 $88,643 Current Edmonds Base Range:$100,357 $110,784 $122,853
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$66,147 $76,574 $88,643
Range 10
Packet Page 129 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
15
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT - CONFIDENTIAL $57,141 $66,147 $76,574 $66,144 $8,561 $24,300 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435 $0 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435
Executive Assistant Bothell, City of $61,872 $70,272 $78,672 $8,796 $23,859 $94,527 $102,927 $111,327 $5,220 $99,746 $108,146 $116,546
City Manager Executive Assistant Bremerton, City of $66,996 $74,310 $81,624 $9,126 $22,981 $99,103 $106,417 $113,731 $1,570 $100,672 $107,986 $115,300
City Manager Executive Assistant Burien, City of $57,732 $63,954 $70,176 $7,846 $22,585 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607 $0 $88,536 $94,758 $100,980
City Manager Executive Assistant Des Moines, City of $59,136 $65,508 $71,880 $8,036 $24,079 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995 $0 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995
Executive Assistant- Police Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Mayor Executive Assistant Lynnwood, City of $59,925 $67,870 $75,816 $8,476 $25,411 $93,812 $101,758 $109,703 $0 $93,812 $101,758 $109,703
Executive Secretary Olympia, City of $55,332 $61,326 $67,320 -$7,526 $23,614 $86,472 $92,466 $98,460 $0 $86,472 $92,466 $98,460
City Manager Executive Assistant Puyallup, City of $51,384 $59,088 $66,792 $7,467 $25,332 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591 $0 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591
City Manager Executive Assistant Sammamish, City of $57,108 $67,632 $78,156 $8,738 $25,484 $91,330 $101,854 $112,378 $1,503 $92,833 $103,357 $113,881
City Manager Executive Assistant Shoreline, City of $59,784 $66,252 $72,720 $8,130 $19,620 $87,534 $94,002 $100,470 $839 $88,373 $94,841 $101,309
City Manager Executive Assistant University Place, City of $55,272 $64,002 $72,732 $8,131 $24,914 $88,317 $97,047 $105,777 $1,399 $89,716 $98,446 $107,176
City Manager Executive Assistant Kirkland, City of $58,188 $66,630 $75,072 $8,393 $28,620 $95,201 $103,643 $112,085 $289 $95,490 $103,932 $112,374
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of -----------
PD -Conf. Admin Asst.Marysville, City of $53,784 $62,934 $72,084 $8,059 $24,302 $86,145 $95,295 $104,445 $0 $86,145 $95,295 $104,445
Executive Assistant Redmond, City of $59,316 $68,202 $77,088 $8,618 $22,830 $90,764 $99,650 $108,536 $2,379 $93,143 $102,029 $110,915
Median:$58,662 $66,441 $73,902 Median:$92,042 $100,102 $108,440
Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574 Current Edmonds Base Range:$90,002 $99,008 $109,435
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed salary range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574
Range 7
Packet Page 130 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
16
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR $59,998 $69,455 $80,403 $80,400 $8,989 $24,300 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692 $0 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692
Executive Assistant Bothell, City of $61,872 $70,272 $78,672 $8,796 $23,859 $94,527 $102,927 $111,327 $5,220 $99,746 $108,146 $116,546
City Manager Executive Assistant Bremerton, City of $66,996 $74,310 $81,624 $9,126 $22,981 $99,103 $106,417 $113,731 $1,570 $100,672 $107,986 $115,300
City Manager Executive Assistant Burien, City of $57,732 $63,954 $70,176 $7,846 $22,585 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607 $0 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607
City Manager Executive Assistant Des Moines, City of $59,136 $65,508 $71,880 $8,036 $24,079 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995 $0 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995
City Manager Executive Assistant Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Mayor Executive Assistant Lynnwood, City of $59,916 $67,866 $75,816 $8,476 $25,411 $93,803 $101,753 $109,703 $0 $93,803 $101,753 $109,703
Executive Secretary Olympia, City of $55,332 $61,326 $67,320 -$7,526 $23,614 $86,472 $92,466 $98,460 $0 $86,472 $92,466 $98,460
City Manager Executive Assistant Puyallup, City of $51,384 $59,088 $66,792 $7,467 $25,332 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591 $0 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591
Executive Assistant Sammamish, City of $57,108 $67,632 $78,156 $8,738 $25,484 $91,330 $101,854 $112,378 $1,503 $92,833 $103,357 $113,881
City Manager Executive Assistant Shoreline, City of $59,784 $66,252 $72,720 $8,130 $19,620 $87,534 $94,002 $100,470 $839 $88,373 $94,841 $101,309
Asst to the Mayor University Place, City of $55,272 $64,002 $72,732 $8,131 $24,914 $88,317 $97,047 $105,777 $1,399 $89,716 $98,446 $107,176
City Manager Executive Assistant Kirkland, City of $58,188 $66,630 $75,072 $8,393 $28,620 $95,201 $103,643 $112,085 $289 $95,490 $103,932 $112,374
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of -----------
Executive Assistant/Analyst Marysville, City of $55,380 $64,782 $74,184 $8,294 $24,302 $87,976 $97,378 $106,780 $0 $87,976 $97,378 $106,780
Executive Assistant Redmond, City of $59,316 $68,202 $77,088 $8,618 $22,830 $90,764 $99,650 $108,536 $2,379 $93,143 $102,029 $110,915
Median:$58,662 $66,441 $74,628 Median:$92,833 $101,753 $109,703
Current Edmonds Base Range:$59,998 $69,455 $80,403 Current Edmonds Base Range:$93,287 $102,744 $113,692
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Salary Range $59,998 $69,455 $80,403
Range 8
Packet Page 131 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
17
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
FINANCE DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $124,728 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Finance Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
Director of Financial Svcs.Bremerton, City of $115,344 $127,938 $140,532 $15,711 $22,981 $154,036 $166,630 $179,224 $5,921 $159,958 $172,552 $185,146
Finance Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
Finance Director Des Moines, City of $115,080 $127,488 $139,896 $15,640 $24,079 $154,799 $167,207 $179,615 $0 $154,799 $167,207 $179,615
Finance Director Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $18,792 $25,904 $176,408 $194,594 $212,780 $34,425 $210,833 $229,019 $247,205
Finance Director Lacey, City of $130,836 $130,836 $130,836 $14,627 $24,323 $169,786 $169,786 $169,786 $2,617 $172,403 $172,403 $172,403
Finance Director Lynnwood, City of $117,811 $133,442 $149,074 $16,666 $25,411 $159,889 $175,520 $191,151 $0 $159,889 $175,520 $191,151
Administrative Services Dir Olympia, City of $143,580 $143,580 $143,580 $16,052 $23,614 $183,246 $183,246 $183,246 $2,761 $186,007 $186,007 $186,007
Finance Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Finance Director Sammamish, City of $110,263 $135,714 $161,164 $18,018 $25,484 $153,765 $179,216 $204,666 $3,099 $156,864 $182,315 $207,765
Administrative Services Dir Shoreline, City of $122,364 $135,624 $148,884 $16,645 $19,620 $158,629 $171,889 $185,149 $1,718 $160,347 $173,607 $186,867
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Finance Director Kirkland, City of $120,504 $137,994 $155,484 $17,383 $28,620 $166,507 $183,997 $201,487 $4,336 $170,843 $188,333 $205,823
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of -----------
Finance Director Marysville, City of $112,176 $132,786 $153,396 $17,150 $24,302 $153,628 $174,238 $194,848 $5,900 $159,528 $180,138 $200,748
Finance Director Redmond, City of $115,080 $138,516 $161,952 $18,106 $22,830 $156,016 $179,452 $202,888 $4,337 $160,354 $183,790 $207,226
Median:$117,694 $133,486 $148,979 Median:$160,152 $177,829 $189,009
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 132 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
18
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST $59,998 $69,455 $80,403 $72,924 $8,989 $24,300 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692 $0 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692
Human Resources Analyst Bothell, City of $61,872 $70,272 $78,672 $8,796 $23,859 $94,527 $102,927 $111,327 $5,220 $99,746 $108,146 $116,546
(+)HR Generalist Bremerton, City of $54,793 $60,779 $66,766 $7,464 $22,981 $85,239 $91,225 $97,211 $2,971 $88,209 $94,195 $100,182
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Human Resources Analyst Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
Human Resources Analyst Lacey, City of $58,884 $67,128 $75,372 $8,427 $24,323 $91,634 $99,878 $108,122 $754 $92,387 $100,631 $108,875
Human Resources Analyst Lynnwood, City of $59,928 $67,872 $75,816 $8,476 $25,411 $93,815 $101,759 $109,703 $0 $93,815 $101,759 $109,703
Personnel Analyst Olympia, City of $59,628 $66,054 $72,480 $8,103 $23,614 $91,345 $97,771 $104,197 $0 $91,345 $97,771 $104,197
(+)HR Generalist Puyallup, City of $59,756 $68,719 $77,682 $8,685 $25,332 $93,773 $102,736 $111,699 $0 $93,773 $102,736 $111,699
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH Shoreline, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
HR Analyst Kirkland, City of $62,424 $71,490 $80,556 $9,006 $28,620 $100,050 $109,116 $118,182 $310 $100,360 $109,426 $118,492
HR Analyst Lakewood, City of $59,736 $67,752 $75,768 $8,471 $24,050 $92,257 $100,273 $108,289 $4,779 $97,036 $105,052 $113,068
HR Specialist 2 Marysville, City of $55,380 $64,782 $74,184 $8,294 $24,302 $87,976 $97,378 $106,780 $0 $87,976 $97,378 $106,780
(+)HR Generalist Redmond, City of $57,724 $71,458 $85,193 $9,525 $22,830 $90,078 $103,813 $117,547 $2,566 $92,644 $106,379 $120,113
Median:$59,736 $67,872 $75,816 Median:$96,067 $104,389 $112,711
Current Edmonds Base Range:$59,998 $69,455 $80,403 Current Edmonds Base Range:$93,287 $102,744 $113,692
0.9956332 0.97721 0.9429499 1.02980 1.01601 0.99137
Proposed Base Range:$59,998 $69,455 $80,403
Range 8
Packet Page 133 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
19
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT $20,309 $27,141 $30,469 $19,864 $3,406 $23,715 $30,547 $33,875 $0 $23,715 $30,547 $33,875
NO MATCH Bothell, City of ------------
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of ------------
NO MATCH Burien, City of ------------
Administrative Asst. 2 Des Moines, City of $26,286 $29,121 $31,956 $3,573 $29,859 $32,694 $35,529 $0 $29,859 $32,694 $35,529
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of ------------
Department Asst. 3 (HR)Lacey, City of $24,384 $26,676 $28,968 $3,239 $27,623 $29,915 $32,207 $290 $27,912 $30,204 $32,496
Admin Asst - HR Lynnwood, City of $24,750 $28,038 $31,326 $3,502 $28,252 $31,540 $34,828 $0 $28,252 $31,540 $34,828
Personnel Assistant Olympia, City of $25,560 $28,311 $31,062 $3,473 $29,033 $31,784 $34,535 $0 $29,033 $31,784 $34,535
Human Resources Coord.Puyallup, City of $24,702 $28,404 $32,106 $3,589 $28,291 $31,993 $35,695 $0 $28,291 $31,993 $35,695
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of ------------
Admin Asst III Shoreline, City of $25,770 $28,557 $31,344 $3,504 $29,274 $32,061 $34,848 $362 $29,636 $32,423 $35,210
Administrative Assistant University Place, City of $27,480 $31,836 $36,192 $4,046 -$31,526 $35,882 $40,238 $696 $32,222 $36,578 $40,934
HR Assistant Kirkland, City of $25,134 $28,782 $32,430 $3,626 $28,760 $32,408 $36,056 $111 $28,870 $32,518 $36,166
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of ------------
NO MATCH Marysville, City of ------------
Administrative Assistant Redmond, City of $26,700 $28,443 $30,186 $3,375 $30,075 $31,818 $33,561 $1,297 $31,371 $33,114 $34,857
Median:$25,560 $28,443 $31,344 Median:$29,033 $32,423 $35,210
Current Edmonds Base Range:$18,928 $21,913 $25,366 Current Edmonds Base Range:$23,715 $30,547 $33,875
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$22,714 $26,295 $30,439
Packet Page 134 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
20
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER $84,423 $97,730 $113,135 $107,747 $12,648 $24,300 $121,371 $134,678 $150,083 $1,305 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389
-HR Director Bothell, City of $111,697 126,854 $142,010 $15,877 $23,859 $151,433 $166,589 $181,745 $9,422 $160,855 $176,011 $191,167
HR Manager Bremerton, City of $81,624 90,540 $99,456 $11,119 $22,981 $115,724 $124,640 $133,556 $4,278 $120,002 $128,918 $137,834
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
HR Manager Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
HR Manager Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
-HR Director Lynnwood, City of $90,750 $102,790 $114,830 $12,838 $25,411 $128,999 $141,039 $153,079 $0 $128,999 $141,039 $153,079
NO MATCH Olympia, City of -----------
HR Director Puyallup, City of $93,062 $100,827 $108,592 $12,141 $25,332 $130,535 $138,300 $146,064 $0 $130,535 $138,300 $146,064
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
Human Resources Director Shoreline, City of $94,782 $105,047 $115,312 $12,892 $19,620 $127,294 $137,559 $147,824 $1,331 $128,624 $138,889 $149,155
Human Resources Manager University Place, City of $77,364 $89,586 $101,808 $11,382 $24,914 $113,660 $125,882 $138,104 $1,958 $115,618 $127,840 $140,062
(-)HR Director Kirkland, City of $108,973 $124,796 $140,619 $15,721 $28,620 $153,314 $169,137 $184,960 $3,184 $156,498 $172,321 $188,144
(-)HR Director Lakewood, City of $86,868 $98,525 $110,181 $12,318 $24,050 $123,236 $134,893 $146,549 $6,950 $130,186 $141,843 $153,499
(-)HR Director Marysville, City of $103,615 $121,860 $140,106 $15,664 $24,302 $143,580 $161,826 $180,072 $5,389 $148,969 $167,215 $185,461
HR Program Manager Redmond, City of $77,664 $97,140 $116,616 $13,038 $22,830 $113,532 $133,008 $152,484 $3,291 $116,823 $136,299 $155,775
Median:$91,906 $101,808 $115,071 Median:$129,592 $139,964 $153,289
Current Edmonds Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135 Current Edmonds Base Range:$122,677 $135,984 $151,389
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135
Range 15
Packet Page 135 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
21
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
IT SUPERVISOR $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $93,072 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
(-)IS Manager Bothell, City of $80,654 $91,595 $102,535 $11,463 $23,859 $115,977 $126,917 $137,858 $6,803 $122,780 $133,720 $144,660
(-)IS Manager Bremerton, City of $77,188 $85,617 $94,046 $10,514 $22,981 $110,683 $119,112 $127,542 $4,062 $114,745 $123,174 $131,604
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
-IT Manager Des Moines, City of $78,030 $86,432 $94,835 $10,603 $24,079 $112,712 $121,114 $129,516 $0 $112,712 $121,114 $129,516
-IS Manager Issaquah, City of $84,251 $95,888 $107,525 $12,021 $25,904 $122,176 $133,813 $145,450 $19,274 $141,450 $153,087 $164,724
-IS Manager Lacey, City of $99,176 $99,176 $99,176 $11,088 $24,323 $134,587 $134,587 $134,587 $992 $135,579 $135,579 $135,579
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Olympia, City of -----------
-IT Manager Puyallup, City of $67,738 $77,906 $88,074 $9,847 $25,332 $102,916 $113,084 $123,253 $0 $102,916 $113,084 $123,253
-Information Sys Mgr.Sammamish, City of $76,276 $90,333 $104,389 $11,671 $25,484 $113,431 $127,487 $141,544 $2,007 $115,438 $129,495 $143,551
-IT Manager Shoreline, City of $90,385 $100,175 $109,966 $12,294 $19,620 $122,299 $132,090 $141,880 $1,269 $123,568 $133,358 $143,149
-IT Manager University Place, City of $73,440 $85,039 $96,638 $10,804 $24,914 $109,158 $120,757 $132,357 $1,858 $111,017 $122,616 $134,215
NO MATCH Kirkland, City of -----------
-IS Manager Lakewood, City of $70,945 $80,465 $89,986 $10,060 $24,050 $105,056 $114,576 $124,096 $5,676 $110,732 $120,252 $129,772
-Info Sys Mgr Marysville, City of $75,244 $86,789 $98,334 $10,994 $24,302 $110,539 $122,085 $133,630 $3,782 $114,321 $125,867 $137,412
-IS Manager Redmond, City of $83,840 $104,771 $125,701 $14,053 $22,830 $120,724 $141,654 $162,585 $3,501 $124,225 $145,155 $166,085
Median:$77,609 $88,561 $98,755 Median:$115,091 $127,681 $136,495
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
1.1496325 1.241022 1.2862089 1.148588 1.213171 1.2491736
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 136 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
22
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
PARKS MAINTENANCE MANAGER $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $97,728 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
(+)Maintenance Supervisor Bothell, City of $80,903 $91,879 $102,854 $11,499 $23,859 $116,261 $127,237 $138,213 $6,824 $123,085 $134,061 $145,037
Parks Maintenance Mgr.Bremerton, City of $70,632 $78,198 $85,764 $9,588 $22,981 $103,201 $110,767 $118,333 $3,731 $106,932 $114,498 $122,064
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Parks Division Manager Issaquah, City of $89,124 $101,448 $113,772 $12,720 $25,904 $127,748 $140,072 $152,396 $20,184 $147,932 $160,256 $172,580
(+)Parks Maint. Supervisor Lacey, City of $71,491 $81,503 $91,516 $10,231 $24,323 $106,046 $116,058 $126,070 $915 $106,961 $116,973 $126,985
(+)Parks Maint. Supt.Lynnwood, City of $72,768 $82,422 $92,076 $10,294 $25,411 $108,473 $118,127 $127,781 $0 $108,473 $118,127 $127,781
NO MATCH Olympia, City of -----------
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
Parks Superintendent Shoreline, City of $84,492 $93,654 $102,816 $11,495 $19,620 $115,607 $124,769 $133,931 $1,186 $116,793 $125,955 $135,117
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Parks Operations Mgr Kirkland, City of $83,364 $95,472 $107,580 $12,027 $28,620 $124,011 $136,119 $148,227 $2,436 $126,447 $138,555 $150,663
Parks Maintenance Mgr.Lakewood, City of $68,628 $77,826 $87,024 $9,729 $24,050 $102,407 $111,605 $120,803 $5,489 $107,896 $117,094 $126,292
Parks Maint Mgr Marysville, City of $72,216 $83,298 $94,380 $10,552 $24,302 $107,070 $118,152 $129,234 $3,630 $110,700 $121,782 $132,864
Parks Maint & OM Redmond, City of $75,300 $90,354 $105,408 $11,785 $22,830 $109,915 $124,969 $140,023 $3,032 $112,947 $128,001 $143,055
Median:$74,034 $86,826 $98,598 Median:$111,823 $123,868 $133,990
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
1.0151656 1.0285 1.0088816 1.033925 1.035263 1.0077786
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 137 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
23
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
PARKS, RECREATION & CULUTURAL SERVICES DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $144,392 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Parks & Rec Director Bothell, City of $103,920 $118,026 $132,132 $14,772 $23,859 $142,551 $156,657 $170,763 $8,766 $151,318 $165,424 $179,530
Parks & Rec Director Bremerton, City of $104,496 $115,902 $127,308 $14,233 $22,981 $141,710 $153,116 $164,522 $5,392 $147,102 $158,508 $169,914
Parks, Rec & Cultural Svcs. DBurien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
Parks & Rec & Senior Svc. D Des Moines, City of $110,652 $122,574 $134,496 $15,037 $24,079 $149,768 $161,690 $173,612 $0 $149,768 $161,690 $173,612
Parks & Rec Director Issaquah, City of $125,436 $142,764 $160,092 $17,898 $25,904 $169,238 $186,566 $203,894 $32,788 $202,026 $219,354 $236,682
Parks & Rec Director Lacey, City of $126,744 $126,744 $126,744 $14,170 $24,323 $165,237 $165,237 $165,237 $2,535 $167,772 $167,772 $167,772
Parks, Rec & Cultural Arts Lynnwood, City of $117,816 $133,446 $149,076 $16,667 $25,411 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154 $0 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154
Parks & Rec Svcs Dir.Olympia, City of $129,516 $129,516 $129,516 $14,480 $23,614 $167,610 $167,610 $167,610 $2,491 $170,101 $170,101 $170,101
Parks & Recreation Dir.Puyallup, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,332 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889 $862 $124,915 $137,833 $150,751
Director of Parks & Rec Sammamish, City of $110,263 $135,712 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,765 $179,213 $204,662 $3,099 $156,864 $182,312 $207,761
Parks, Rec & Cultural Svcs. DShoreline, City of $122,364 $135,624 $148,884 $16,645 $19,620 $158,629 $171,889 $185,149 $1,718 $160,347 $173,607 $186,867
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Parks & Comm. Svcs. Dir Kirkland, City of $114,708 $131,364 $148,020 $16,549 $28,620 $159,877 $176,533 $193,189 $4,127 $164,004 $180,660 $197,316
Parks, Rec & Comm Svcs.Lakewood, City of $99,984 $113,394 $126,804 $14,177 $24,050 $138,211 $151,621 $165,031 $7,998 $146,209 $159,619 $173,029
Parks & Rec Dir Marysville, City of $112,176 $132,786 $153,396 $17,150 $24,302 $153,628 $174,238 $194,848 $5,900 $159,528 $180,138 $200,748
Parks Director Redmond, City of $115,080 $138,516 $161,952 $18,106 $22,830 $156,016 $179,452 $202,888 $4,337 $160,354 $183,790 $207,226
Median:$117,816 $130,920 $143,652 Median:$159,528 $170,101 $182,297
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
1.0934504 1.0496 0.9948751 1.064538 1.019543 0.9774597
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 138 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
24
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
PLANNER UNFUNDED/UNFILLED $57,141 $66,147 $76,574 $8,561 $24,300 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435 $0 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435
Planner Bothell, City of $61,932 $70,566 $79,200 $8,855 $23,859 $94,646 $103,280 $111,914 $5,255 $99,900 $108,534 $117,168
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of -----------
Planner Burien, City of $62,172 $68,874 $75,576 $8,449 $22,585 $93,206 $99,908 $106,610 $0 $93,206 $99,908 $106,610
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Associate Planner Olympia, City of $63,935 $70,792 $77,649 $8,681 $23,614 $96,230 $103,087 $109,945 $0 $96,230 $103,087 $109,945
Associate Planner Puyallup, City of $54,324 $62,472 $70,620 $7,895 $25,332 $87,551 $95,699 $103,847 $0 $87,551 $95,699 $103,847
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH Shoreline, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Planner Kirkland, City of $64,824 $70,542 $76,260 $8,526 $28,620 $101,970 $107,688 $113,406 $293 $102,263 $107,981 $113,699
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of -----------
Associate Planner Marysville, City of $56,484 $66,076 $75,672 $8,460 $24,302 $89,246 $98,838 $108,434 $0 $89,246 $98,838 $108,434
Planner Redmond, City of $59,364 $69,750 $80,136 $8,959 $22,830 $91,153 $101,539 $111,925 $2,449 $93,602 $103,988 $114,374
Median:$61,932 $69,750 $76,260 Median:$93,602 $103,087 $109,945
Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574 Current Edmonds Base Range:$90,002 $99,008 $109,435
Proposed Base Range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574
Range 7
Packet Page 139 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
25
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
PLANNING MANAGER $88,643 $102,617 $118,791 $118,788 $13,281 $24,300 $126,224 $140,198 $156,372 $1,371 $127,594 $141,568 $157,742
Planning Manager Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of -----------
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Community Dev. Manager Des Moines, City of $93,780 $103,884 $113,988 $12,744 $24,079 $130,603 $140,707 $150,811 $0 $130,603 $140,707 $150,811
Land Dev. Manager Issaquah, City of $103,212 $117,462 $131,712 $14,725 $25,904 $143,841 $158,091 $172,341 $22,800 $166,641 $180,891 $195,141
Planning Manager Lacey, City of $73,536 $83,832 $94,128 $10,524 $24,323 $108,383 $118,679 $128,975 $941 $109,324 $119,620 $129,916
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Olympia, City of -----------
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
Deputy Dir of Comm Dev Sammamish, City of $96,660 $114,474 $132,288 $14,790 $25,484 $136,934 $154,748 $172,562 $2,544 $139,478 $157,292 $175,106
Planning Manager Shoreline, City of $84,492 $93,654 $102,816 $11,495 $19,620 $115,607 $124,769 $133,931 $1,186 $116,793 $125,955 $135,117
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Development Review Mgr Kirkland, City of $87,576 $100,284 $112,992 $12,633 $28,620 $128,829 $141,537 $154,245 $2,608 $131,436 $144,144 $156,852
(+)Planning Manager - Current Lakewood, City of $70,596 $79,680 $88,764 $9,924 $24,050 $104,570 $113,654 $122,738 $5,599 $110,169 $119,253 $128,337
NO MATCH Marysville, City of -----------
Planning Manager Redmond, City of $91,488 $104,586 $117,684 $13,157 $22,830 $127,475 $140,573 $153,671 $3,316 $130,791 $143,889 $156,987
Median:$89,616 $101,772 $113,928 Median:$130,791 $143,889 $156,852
Current Edmonds Base Range:$88,643 $102,617 $118,791 Current Edmonds Base Range:$127,594 $141,568 $157,742
1.0109766 $1 0.9590626 1.025051 $1 0.9943548
Proposed Base Range:$88,643 $102,617 $118,791
Range 16
Packet Page 140 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
26
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
POLICE CHIEF $118,791 $137,516 $159,192 $159,192 $8,326 $24,300 $151,417 $170,142 $191,818 $2,587 $154,004 $172,729 $194,405
Police Chief Bothell, City of $126,612 $143,796 $160,980 $8,419 $23,859 $158,890 $176,074 $193,258 $11,144 $170,035 $187,219 $204,403
Police Chief Bremerton, City of $121,176 $134,412 $147,648 $7,722 $22,981 $151,879 $165,115 $178,351 $6,206 $158,085 $171,321 $184,557
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Police Chief Des Moines, City of $119,688 $132,588 $145,488 $7,609 $24,079 $151,376 $164,276 $177,176 $2,238 $153,614 $166,514 $179,414
Police Chief Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $8,791 $25,904 $166,407 $184,593 $202,779 $34,425 $200,832 $219,018 $237,204
Police Chief Lacey, City of $152,280 $152,280 $152,280 $7,964 $24,323 $184,567 $184,567 $184,567 $3,696 $188,263 $188,263 $188,263
Police Chief Lynnwood, City of $119,472 $135,324 $151,176 $7,907 $25,411 $152,790 $168,642 $184,494 $30,364 $183,154 $199,006 $214,858
Police Chief Olympia, City of $159,276 $159,276 $159,276 $8,330 $23,614 $191,220 $191,220 $191,220 $3,063 $194,283 $194,283 $194,283
Police Chief Puyallup, City of $119,292 $137,184 $155,076 $8,110 $25,332 $152,734 $170,626 $188,518 $6,563 $159,298 $177,190 $195,082
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH Shoreline, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Police Chief Kirkland, City of $117,204 $134,214 $151,224 $7,909 $28,620 $153,733 $170,743 $187,753 $3,490 $157,223 $174,233 $191,243
Police Chief Lakewood, City of $108,228 $122,748 $137,268 $7,179 $24,050 $139,457 $153,977 $168,497 $8,658 $148,116 $162,636 $177,156
Police Chief Marysville, City of $118,380 $138,834 $159,288 $8,331 $24,302 $151,013 $171,467 $191,921 $12,998 $164,011 $184,465 $204,919
Police Chief Redmond, City of $115,080 $138,516 $161,952 $8,470 $22,830 $146,380 $169,816 $193,252 $4,337 $150,717 $174,153 $197,589
Median:$119,580 $137,850 $153,678 Median:$161,654 $180,827 $194,682
Current Edmonds Base Range:$118,791 $137,516 $159,192 Current Edmonds Base Range:$154,004 $172,729 $194,405
1.0066419 1.00243 0.9653626 1.049678 1.046886 100.14%
Proposed Base Range:$118,971 $137,516 $159,192
Range 22
Packet Page 141 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
27
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES DIRECTOR $113,135 $130,968 $151,611 $151,609 $16,950 $24,300 $154,385 $172,218 $192,861 $1,749 $156,134 $173,967 $194,610
PW Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
Director of PW & Utilities Bremerton, City of $115,344 $127,938 $140,532 $15,711 $22,981 $154,036 $166,630 $179,224 $5,921 $159,958 $172,552 $185,146
PW Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Director of PW Operations Issaquah, City of $125,436 $142,764 $160,092 $17,898 $25,904 $169,238 $186,566 $203,894 $32,788 $202,026 $219,354 $236,682
Public Works Director Lacey, City of $139,488 $139,488 $139,488 $15,595 $24,323 $179,406 $179,406 $179,406 $2,790 $182,196 $182,196 $182,196
PW Director/City Engineer Lynnwood, City of $117,816 $133,446 $149,076 $16,667 $25,411 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154 $0 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154
Public Works Director Olympia, City of $146,580 $146,580 $146,580 $16,388 $23,614 $186,582 $186,582 $186,582 $2,819 $189,400 $189,400 $189,400
Public Works Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Director of PW Sammamish, City of $110,256 $135,708 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,758 $179,210 $204,662 $3,099 $156,857 $182,309 $207,761
Public Works Director Shoreline, City of $122,364 $135,624 $148,884 $16,645 $19,620 $158,629 $171,889 $185,149 $1,718 $160,347 $173,607 $186,867
PW & Parks Dir University Place, City of $100,800 $116,724 $132,648 $14,830 $24,914 $140,544 $156,468 $172,392 $2,551 $143,095 $159,019 $174,943
Director of PW Kirkland, City of $117,204 $134,214 $151,224 $16,907 $28,620 $162,731 $179,741 $196,751 $4,217 $166,948 $183,958 $200,968
PW Director Lakewood, City of $99,984 $113,394 $126,804 $14,177 $24,050 $138,211 $151,621 $165,031 $7,998 $146,209 $159,619 $173,029
Public Wks Dir Marysville, City of $118,380 $138,834 $159,288 $17,808 $24,302 $160,490 $180,944 $201,398 $6,126 $166,617 $187,071 $207,525
PW Director Redmond, City of $115,080 $138,516 $161,952 $18,106 $22,830 $156,016 $179,452 $202,888 $4,337 $160,354 $183,790 $207,226
Median:$117,576 $134,214 $148,884 Median:$160,347 $182,196 $189,400
Current Edmonds Base Range:$113,135 $130,968 $151,611 Current Edmonds Base Range:$156,134 $173,967 $194,610
1.039254 1.02478 0.9820132 1.026981 1.047296 0.9732287
Proposed Base Range:$113,135 $130,968 $151,611
Range 21
Packet Page 142 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
28
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
RECREATION SERVICES MANAGER $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $97,730 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $1,128 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084
Rec & Park Planning Mgr. Bothell, City of $81,180 92,196 $103,212 $11,539 $23,859 $116,578 $127,594.10 $138,610 $6,848 $123,426 $145,458 $145,458
Athletics/Recreation Mgr.Bremerton, City of $70,392 78,078 $85,764 $9,588 $22,981 $102,961 $110,647.42 $118,333 $3,731 $106,692 $122,064 $122,064
Recreation Manager Burien, City of $77,640 86,010 $94,380 $10,552 $22,585 $110,777 $119,146.68 $127,517 ----
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Recreation Manager Issaquah, City of $89,124 $101,448 $113,772 $12,720 $25,904 $127,748 $140,072 $152,396 $20,184 $147,932 $160,256 $172,580
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Recreation Supt.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,907 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,599 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,599
NO MATCH Olympia, City of -----------
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
Recreation Supt.Shoreline, City of $84,492 $93,654 $102,816 $11,495 $19,620 $115,607 $124,769 $133,931 $1,081 $116,687 $125,849 $135,011
Recreation Manager University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
Recreation Manager Kirkland, City of $76,128 $87,174 $98,220 $10,981 $28,620 $115,729 $126,775 $137,821 $2,267 $117,996 $129,042 $140,088
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Marysville, City of -----------
Recreation Manager Redmond, City of $86,820 $100,650 $114,480 $12,799 $22,830 $122,449 $136,279 $150,109 $3,242 $125,691 $139,521 $153,351
Median:$79,747 $90,324 $100,907 Median:$117,342 $128,029 $138,844
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$109,282 $120,777 $134,084
1.0935032 1.069898 1.0325079 1.073751 1.060046 1.0354975
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 143 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
29
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST UNFILLED/UNFUNDED $66,147 $76,574 $88,643 $9,910 $24,300 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853 $0 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853
Senior HR Analyst Bothell, City of $66,636 $75,678 $84,720 $9,472 $23,859 $99,967 $109,009 $118,051 $5,621 $105,588 $114,630 $123,672
HR Anayst II Bremerton, City of $63,768 $70,734 $77,700 $8,687 $22,981 $95,436 $102,402 $109,368 $3,408 $98,844 $105,810 $112,776
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -----------
Senior HR Analyst Lacey, City of $71,520 $79,458 $87,396 $9,771 $24,323 $105,614 $113,552 $121,490 $874 $106,488 $114,426 $122,364
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Senior Personnel Analyst Olympia, City of $80,916 $89,652 $98,388 $11,000 $23,614 $115,530 $124,266 $133,002 $0 $115,530 $124,266 $133,002
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
Senior HR Analyst Shoreline, City of $71,076 $78,780 $86,484 $9,669 $19,620 $100,365 $108,069 $115,773 $909 $101,274 $108,978 $116,682
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Senior HR Analyst Kirkland, City of $70,728 $80,094 $89,460 $10,002 $28,620 $109,350 $118,716 $128,082 $344 $109,694 $119,060 $128,426
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Marysville, City of -----------
Senior HR Analyst Redmond, City of $68,508 $80,496 $92,484 $10,340 $22,830 $101,678 $113,666 $125,654 $2,734 $104,412 $116,400 $128,388
Median:$70,728 $79,458 $87,396 Median:$105,588 $114,630 $123,672
Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,147 $76,574 $88,643 Current Edmonds Base Range:$100,357 $110,784 $122,853
Proposed Base Range:$66,147 $76,574 $88,643
Range 10
Packet Page 144 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
30
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
SENIOR PLANNER $69,455 $80,403 $93,076 $93,072 $10,406 $24,300 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782 $0 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782
Senior Planner Bothell, City of $68,760 $78,096 $87,432 $9,775 $23,859 $102,394 $111,730 $121,066 $0 $102,394 $111,730 $121,066
Senior Planner Bremerton, City of $66,996 $74,310 $81,624 $9,126 $22,981 $99,103 $106,417 $113,731 $3,565 $102,668 $109,982 $117,296
Senior Planner Burien, City of $70,344 $77,922 $85,500 $9,559 $22,585 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644 $0 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644
Senior Planner Des Moines, City of $71,256 $78,936 $86,616 $9,684 $24,079 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379 $0 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379
Senior Planner Issaquah, City of $77,004 $87,648 $98,292 $10,989 $25,904 $113,897 $124,541 $135,185 $17,928 $131,825 $142,469 $153,113
Senior Planner Lacey, City of $67,188 $73,542 $79,896 $8,932 $24,323 $100,443 $106,797 $113,151 $799 $101,242 $107,596 $113,950
Senior Planner Lynnwood, City of $63,440 $71,854 $80,267 $8,974 $25,411 $97,825 $106,238 $114,652 $0 $97,825 $106,238 $114,652
Senior Planner Olympia, City of $68,160 $75,510 $82,860 $9,264 $23,614 $101,038 $108,388 $115,738 $0 $101,038 $108,388 $115,738
Senior Planner Puyallup, City of $63,576 $73,104 $82,632 $9,238 $25,332 $98,146 $107,674 $117,202 $0 $98,146 $107,674 $117,202
Senior Planner Sammamish, City of $65,142 $77,147 $89,151 $9,967 $25,484 $100,593 $112,598 $124,602 $1,714 $102,308 $114,312 $126,317
Senior Planner Shoreline, City of $69,324 $76,824 $84,324 $9,427 $19,620 $98,371 $105,871 $113,371 $973 $99,344 $106,844 $114,344
Principal Planner University Place, City of $77,364 $89,586 $101,808 $11,382 $24,914 $113,660 $125,882 $138,104 $1,958 $115,618 $127,840 $140,062
Senior Planner Kirkland, City of $76,632 $83,394 $90,156 $10,079 $28,620 $115,331 $122,093 $128,855 $347 $115,678 $122,440 $129,202
Senior Planner- AFSCME Lakewood, City of $65,952 $74,802 $83,652 $9,352 $24,050 $99,354 $108,204 $117,054 $5,277 $104,631 $113,481 $122,331
Senior Planner Marysville, City of $68,640 $80,310 $91,980 $10,283 $24,302 $103,225 $114,895 $126,565 $1,769 $104,994 $116,664 $128,334
Senior Planner Redmond, City of $67,596 $79,428 $91,260 $10,203 $22,830 $100,629 $112,461 $124,293 $2,706 $103,335 $115,167 $126,999
Median:$68,400 $77,534 $86,058 Median:$105,100 $114,436 $123,772
Current Edmonds Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076 Current Edmonds Base Range:$104,161 $115,109 $127,782
#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076
Range 11
Packet Page 145 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
31
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
SENIOR UTILITIES ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $107,747 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $0 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093
(-)Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $80,654 $91,595 $102,535 $11,463 $23,859 $115,977 $126,917 $137,858 $6,803 $122,780 $133,720 $144,660
Managing Engineer Bremerton, City of $85,764 $95,130 $104,496 $11,683 $22,981 $120,428 $129,794 $139,160 $4,480 $124,907 $134,273 $143,639
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $84,972 $102,222 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $124,233 $141,483 $158,733 $21,015 $145,248 $162,498 $179,748
Senior Civil Eng- Utilities Lacey, City of $77,256 $88,044 $98,832 $11,049 $24,323 $112,628 $123,416 $134,204 $988 $113,617 $124,405 $135,193
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Engineering PM Olympia, City of $83,052 $91,998 $100,944 $11,286 $23,614 $117,952 $126,898 $135,844 $0 $117,952 $126,898 $135,844
Civil Engineer - Senior Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Senior Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $79,356 $93,978 $108,600 $12,141 $25,484 $116,981 $131,603 $146,225 $2,088 $119,070 $133,692 $148,314
NO MATCH Shoreline, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Senior Project Engineer Kirkland, City of $86,640 $94,626 $102,612 $11,472 $28,620 $126,732 $134,718 $142,704 $395 $127,127 $135,113 $143,099
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Marysville, City of -----------
Senior Engineer Redmond, City of $82,068 $96,432 $110,796 $12,387 $22,830 $117,285 $131,649 $146,013 $3,157 $120,442 $134,806 $149,170
Median:$81,361 $93,306 $103,554 Median:$119,756 $133,706 $143,369
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,749 $129,422 $144,093
1.0119175 1.00247 0.9610848 1.025754 1.0331 99.50%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 146 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
32
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
STORMWATER ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $107,747 $12,035 $24,300 $116,738 $129,411 $144,082 $0 $116,738 $129,411 $144,082
Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
Managing Engineer Bremerton, City of $85,764 $95,130 $104,496 $11,683 $22,981 $120,428 $129,794 $139,160 $4,480 $124,907 $134,273 $143,639
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
Stormwater Engineer Des Moines, City of $101,436 $112,362 $123,288 $13,784 $24,079 $139,299 $150,225 $161,151 $0 $139,299 $150,225 $161,151
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $84,972 $102,222 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $124,233 $141,483 $158,733 $21,015 $145,248 $162,498 $179,748
Senior Utilities Engineer Lacey, City of $77,256 $88,044 $98,832 $11,049 $24,323 $112,628 $123,416 $134,204 $988 $113,617 $124,405 $135,193
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Engineering PM Olympia, City of $83,052 $91,998 $100,944 $11,286 $23,614 $117,952 $126,898 $135,844 $0 $117,952 $126,898 $135,844
Civil Engineer - Senior Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Sr. Stormwater PM Sammamish, City of $84,751 $100,370 $115,988 $12,967 $25,484 $123,202 $138,821 $154,439 $2,231 $125,433 $141,051 $156,670
Surface Water Utility &
Environmental Services
Mgr.Shoreline, City of $93,252 $103,350 $113,448 $12,683 $19,620 $125,555 $135,653 $145,751 $1,309 $126,865 $136,963 $147,061
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Senior Project Engineer Kirkland, City of $86,640 $94,626 $102,612 $11,472 $28,620 $126,732 $134,718 $142,704 $395 $127,127 $135,113 $143,099
NO MATCH Lakewood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Marysville, City of $75,840 $87,474 $99,108 --------
Senior Engineer Redmond, City of $82,068 $96,432 $110,796 $12,387 $22,830 $117,285 $131,649 $146,013 $3,157 $120,442 $134,806 $149,170
Median:$84,751 $95,130 $104,712 Median:$125,170 $134,959 $145,350
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,738 $129,411 $144,082
1.0540776 1.02207 0.9718322 1.072229 1.04287 100.88%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 147 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
33
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
STREET/STORMWATER MANAGER $84,423 $97,730 $113,135 $102,591 $12,648 $24,300 $121,371 $134,678 $150,083 $1,305 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389
NO MATCH Bothell, City of ----$23,859 -------
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of -----------
Street & Storm Maint. Mgr.Burien, City of $75,756 $83,916 $92,076 $10,294 $22,585 $108,635 $116,795 $124,955 $0 $108,635 $116,795 $124,955
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
(+)Operations Mgr-Streets Issaquah, City of $93,390 $106,293 $119,196 $13,326 $25,904 $132,620 $145,523 $158,426 $20,975 $153,595 $166,498 $179,401
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Olympia, City of -----------
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of
Infras & Op Maint. Mgr.Sammamish, City of $74,302 $87,995 $101,688 $11,369 $25,484 $111,155 $124,848 $138,541 $1,955 $113,110 $126,803 $140,496
NO MATCH Shoreline, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
(+)Street Division Manager Kirkland, City of $92,400 $105,818 $119,236 $13,331 $28,620 $134,351 $147,768 $161,186 $2,752 $137,102 $150,520 $163,938
(+)Surface Water Div Mgr.Lakewood, City of $86,711 $98,347 $109,982 $12,296 $24,050 $123,057 $134,693 $146,328 $6,937 $129,994 $141,630 $153,266
NO MATCH Marysville, City of -----------
NO MATCH Redmond, City of -----------
Median:$86,711 $98,347 $109,982 Median:$129,994 $141,630 $153,266
Current Edmonds Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135 Current Edmonds Base Range:$122,677 $135,984 $151,389
1.0270993 1.0063 0.9721342 1.059647 1.0415 1.0123978
Proposed Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135
Range 15
Packet Page 148 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - CITY POLICY COMPARATOR CITIES + HISTORIC COMPARATOR CITIES
34
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $102,591 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $0 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093
Transportation Engineer Bothell, City of $77,796 $88,356 $98,916 $11,059 $23,859 $112,714 $123,274 $133,834 $0 $112,714 $123,274 $133,834
Managing Engineer Bremerton, City of $85,764 $95,130 $104,496 $11,683 $22,981 $120,428 $129,794 $139,160 $4,180 $124,607 $133,973 $143,339
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -------$0 ---
Traffic Signal Oper. Eng Issaquah, City of $93,612 $106,542 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $132,873 $145,803 $158,733 $3,600 $136,473 $149,403 $162,333
(-)Transportation Design Mgr.Lacey, City of $77,256 $88,044 $98,832 $11,049 $24,323 $112,628 $123,416 $134,204 $988 $113,617 $124,405 $135,193
Traffic Engineer Lynnwood, City of $87,714 $99,351 $110,989 $12,409 $25,411 $125,533 $137,171 $148,808 $0 $125,533 $137,171 $148,808
NO MATCH Olympia, City of -----------
Traffic Engineer Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Traffic Engineer Sammamish, City of $79,355 $93,979 $108,603 $12,142 $25,484 $116,981 $131,605 $146,229 $0 $116,981 $131,605 $146,229
City Traffic Engineer Shoreline, City of $93,252 $103,350 $113,448 $12,683 $19,620 $125,555 $135,653 $145,751 $0 $125,555 $135,653 $145,751
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
(-)Transp. Eng. Mgr Kirkland, City of $82,534 $94,516 $106,499 $11,907 $28,620 $123,060 $135,043 $147,025 ----
(-)Transportation Div. Mgr Lakewood, City of $70,945 $80,465 $89,986 $10,060 $24,050 $105,056 $114,576 $124,096 ----
Traffic Engineer Marysville, City of $78,072 $90,054 $102,036 $11,408 $24,302 $113,782 $125,764 $137,746 $0 $113,782 $125,764 $137,746
Senior Engineer Redmond, City of $82,068 $96,432 $110,796 $12,387 $22,830 $117,285 $131,649 $146,013 $0 ---
Median:$80,556 $93,979 $104,712 Median:$117,288 $130,639 $142,545
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,749 $129,422 $144,093
1.0019029 1.00970 0.9718322 1.004614 1.009401 98.93%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 149 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
1
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
ARTS & CULTURAL SERVICES PROGRAM MANAGER $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $97,728 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $1,128 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084
Rec & Park Planning Mgr. Bothell, City of $81,180 92,196 $103,212 $11,539 $23,859 $116,578 $127,594.10 $138,610 $6,848 $123,426 $145,458 $145,458
Athletics/Recreation Mgr.Bremerton, City of $70,392 78,078 $85,764 $9,588 $22,981 $102,961 $110,647.42 $118,333 $3,731 $106,692 $122,064 $122,064
Recreation Manager Burien, City of $77,640 86,010 $94,380 $10,552 $22,856 $111,048 $119,417.68 $127,788 $0 $111,048 $127,788 $127,788
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of ------------
Recreation Manager Issaquah, City of $89,124 $101,448 $113,772 $12,720 $25,904 $127,748 $140,072 $152,396 $20,184 $147,932 $160,256 $172,580
NO MATCH Lacey, City of ------------
Recreation Supt.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,901 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of ------------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of ------------
Recreation Manager University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
Median:$78,694 $88,167 $97,640 Median:$113,743 $127,402 $132,690
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$109,282 $120,777 $134,084
1.08 1.04 1.00 1.04 1.05 0.99
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Packet Page 150 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
2
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF $102,617 $118,791 $137,516 $134,244 $7,192 $24,300 $134,109 $150,283 $169,008 $2,337 $136,446 $152,620 $171,345
Deputy Police Chief Bothell, City of $114,708 $130,278 $145,848 $7,628 $23,859 $146,195 $161,765 $177,335 $10,140 $156,335 $171,905 $187,475
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of ------------
NO MATCH Burien, City of ------------
Police Commander Des Moines, City of $113,868 $119,700 $125,532 $6,565 $24,079 $144,512 $150,344 $156,176 $9,463 $153,976 $159,808 $165,640
Deputy Police Chief Issaquah, City of $113,772 $129,480 $145,188 $7,593 $25,904 $147,269 $162,977 $178,685 $23,647 $170,916 $186,624 $202,332
Commander Lacey, City of $130,152 $131,988 $133,824 $6,999 $24,323 $161,474 $163,310 $165,146 $1,988 $163,462 $165,298 $167,134
Union- Deputy Chief Lynnwood, City of $123,636 $128,682 $133,728 $6,994 $25,411 $156,041 $161,087 $166,133 $27,004 $183,045 $188,091 $193,137
Deputy Police Chief Puyallup, City of $108,444 $124,716 $140,988 $7,374 $25,332 $141,150 $157,422 $173,694 $6,000 $147,149 $163,421 $179,693
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of ------------
NO MATCH University Place, City of ------------
Median:$114,288 $129,081 $137,406 Median:$159,899 $168,602 $183,584
Current Edmonds Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516 Current Edmonds Base Range:$136,446 $152,620 $171,345
1.11 1.09 1.00 1.17 1.10 1.07
Proposed Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516
Range 19
(2 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 151 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
3
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ASSOCIATE PLANNER $62,997 $72,928 $84,423 $81,740 $9,438 $24,300 $96,735 $106,666 $118,161 $0 $96,735 $106,666 $118,161
NO MATCH Bothell, City of -----------
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of ------------
NO MATCH Burien, City of ------------
Land Use Planner II Des Moines, City of $63,960 $70,860 $77,760 $8,694 $24,079 $96,733 $103,633 $110,533 $0 $96,733 $103,633 $110,533
Associate Planner Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
Associate Planner Lacey, City of $67,188 $73,542 $79,896 $8,932 $24,323 $100,443 $106,797 $113,151 $799 $101,242 $107,596 $113,950
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
Associate Planner Sammamish, City of $60,996 $72,234 $83,472 $9,332 $25,484 $95,812 $107,050 $118,288 $1,605 $97,417 $108,655 $119,893
Senior Planner University Place, City of $66,228 $62,473 $87,156 $9,744 $24,914 $100,886 $97,131 $121,814 $1,676 $102,562 $98,807 $123,490
Median:$66,228 $72,234 $83,472 Median:$101,242 $107,596 $119,893
Current Edmonds Base Range:$62,997 $72,928 $84,423 Current Edmonds Base Range:$96,735 $106,666 $118,161
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$62,997 $72,928 $84,423
Range 9
(3 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 152 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
4
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
BUILDING OFFICIAL $84,423 $97,730 $113,135 $102,612 $12,648 $24,300 $121,371 $134,678 $150,083 $1,305 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389
(-)Comm. Dev/Dpty Dir/Bldg Of Bothell, City of $93,528 $106,223 $118,919 $13,295 $23,859 $130,682 $143,377.52 $156,073 $7,890 $138,572 $151,267 $163,963
Building Official Bremerton, City of $79,644 $88,338 $97,032 $10,848 $22,981 $113,473 $122,167 $130,861 $4,181 $117,654 $126,348 $135,042
Building Official Burien, City of $85,728 $94,962 $104,196 $11,649 $22,585 $119,962 $129,196 $138,430 $0 $119,962 $129,196 $138,430
Building Official Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
Building Official Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
Building Official Lacey, City of $87,060 $87,060 $87,060 $9,733 $24,323 $121,116 $121,116 $121,116 $871 $121,987 $121,987 $121,987
Building Official Lynnwood, City of $87,708 $99,348 $110,988 $12,408 $25,411 $125,527 $137,167 $148,807 $0 $125,527 $137,167 $148,807
Building Code Official Puyallup, City of $75,264 $86,562 $97,860 $10,941 $25,332 $111,537 $122,835 $134,133 $0 $111,501 $122,799 $134,097
Building Official Sammamish, City of $84,756 $100,374 $115,992 $12,968 $25,484 $123,208 $138,826 $154,444 $2,231 $125,439 $141,057 $156,675
(+)Building Official/Sr Bldg InspeUniversity Place, City of $85,100 $98,545 $111,989 $12,520 $24,914 $122,535 $135,979 $149,423 $2,154 $124,688 $138,133 $151,577
Median:$86,214 $97,290 $108,180 Median:$123,624 $134,532 $145,020
Current Edmonds Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135 Current Edmonds Base Range:$122,677 $135,984 $151,389
1.0212146 0.9955 0.9562028 1.00772 0.98932 95.79%
Proposed Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135
Range 15
Packet Page 153 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
5
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER No PE required $69,455 $80,403 $93,076 $86,634 $10,406 $24,300 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782 $0 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782
and supv req)(-)Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $67,092 76,194 $85,296 $9,536 $23,859 $100,487 $109,589 $118,691 $5,659 $106,146 $115,248 $124,350
Civil Engineer II Bremerton, City of $72,576 79,092 $85,608 $9,571 $22,981 $105,128 $111,644 $118,160 $3,724 $108,852 $115,368 $121,884
PE Req'd Civil Engineer II (PM)Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
CIP Project Manager Des Moines, City of $80,160 $88,800 $97,440 $10,894 $24,079 $115,133 $123,773 $132,413 $0 $115,133 $123,773 $132,413
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
PE Req'd Project Manager Lynnwood, City of $82,728 $93,378 $104,028 $11,630 $25,411 $119,769 $130,419 $141,069 $0 $119,769 $130,419 $141,069
Civil Engineer Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,484 $124,205 $137,123 $150,041 $2,154 $126,360 $139,278 $152,196
Project Engineer University Place, City of $64,800 $75,036 $85,272 $9,533 $24,914 $99,247 $109,483 $119,719 $1,640 $100,887 $111,123 $121,359
Median:$76,080 $85,338 $95,004 Median:$110,919 $119,918 $129,584
Current Edmonds Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076 Current Edmonds Base Range:$104,161 $115,109 $127,782
1.0953855 $1 1.0207143 1.064878 1.041778 1.0141025
Proposed Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076
Range 11
(4 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 154 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
6
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
CITY CLERK $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $102,612 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $1,243 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336
City Clerk Bothell, City of $73,548 $83,526 $93,504 $10,454 $23,859 $107,861 $117,839 $127,817 $6,204 $114,064 $124,042 $134,020
City Clerk Bremerton, City of $57,768 $64,080 $70,392 $7,870 $22,981 $88,619 $94,931 $101,243 $3,116 $91,735 $98,047 $104,359
City Clerk Burien, City of $70,344 $77,922 $85,500 $9,559 $22,585 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644 $0 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644
City Clerk Des Moines, City of $71,256 $78,936 $86,616 $9,684 $24,079 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379 $0 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379
City Clerk Issaquah, City of $80,844 $92,028 $103,212 $11,539 $25,904 $118,287 $129,471 $140,655 $18,645 $136,932 $148,116 $159,300
City Clerk Lacey, City of $66,612 $75,942 $85,272 $9,533 $24,323 $100,468 $109,798 $119,128 $853 $101,321 $110,651 $119,981
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
City Clerk Puyallup, City of $70,428 $80,964 $91,500 $10,230 $25,332 $105,990 $116,526 $127,062 $0 $105,990 $116,526 $127,062
City Clerk Sammamish, City of $69,576 $82,392 $95,208 $10,644 $25,484 $105,704 $118,520 $131,336 $1,831 $107,535 $120,351 $133,167
City Clerk University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
Median:$70,344 $78,936 $88,428 Median:$105,019 $114,315 $124,929
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$117,992 $130,665 $145,336
0.8748927 $1 0.8207003 0.890046 0.874867 0.8595839
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 155 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
7
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
CITY ENGINEER $102,617 $118,791 $137,516 $137,520 $15,375 $24,300 $142,292 $158,466 $177,191 $1,587 $143,878 $160,052 $178,777
Deputy PW Director/CE Bothell, City of $103,920 $118,026 $132,132 $14,772 $23,859 $142,551 $156,657 $170,763 $8,766 $151,318 $165,424 $179,530
City Engineer Bremerton, City of $101,940 $113,076 $124,212 $13,887 $22,981 $138,808 $149,944 $161,080 $5,268 $144,076 $155,212 $166,348
Asst. PW Director Burien, City of $101,892 $112,878 $123,864 $13,848 $22,585 $138,325 $149,311 $160,297 $0 $138,325 $149,311 $160,297
Engineering Services Mgr.Des Moines, City of $101,424 $112,356 $123,288 $13,784 $24,079 $139,287 $150,219 $161,151 $0 $139,287 $150,219 $161,151
(-)Director of PW - Engineering Issaquah, City of $112,892 $128,488 $144,083 $16,108 $25,904 $154,905 $170,500 $186,095 $24,603 $179,508 $195,103 $210,698
City Engineer Lacey, City of $123,096 $123,096 $123,096 $13,762 $24,323 $161,181 $161,181 $161,181 $1,231 $162,412 $162,412 $162,412
Deputy PW Director Lynnwood, City of $106,142 $120,224 $134,306 $15,015 $25,411 $146,569 $160,650 $174,732 $0 $146,569 $160,650 $174,732
City Engineer Puyallup, City of $92,208 $106,050 $119,892 $13,404 $25,332 $130,944 $144,786 $158,628 $0 $130,944 $144,786 $158,628
Deputy PW Director Sammamish, City of $90,504 $107,184 $123,864 $13,848 $25,484 $129,836 $146,516 $163,196 $2,382 $132,218 $148,898 $165,578
City Engineer University Place, City of $94,740 $109,698 $124,656 $13,937 $24,914 $133,591 $148,549 $163,507 $2,397 $135,988 $150,946 $165,904
Median:$101,916 $112,977 $124,038 Median:$141,681 $153,079 $165,741
Current Edmonds Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516 Current Edmonds Base Range:$143,878 $160,052 $178,777
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516
Range 19
Packet Page 156 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
8
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $144,396 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,857 $166,841 $186,502
.
Asst. City Mgr./Econ Dev.Bothell, City of $113,676 $129,108 $144,540 $16,160 $23,859 $153,695 $169,127 $184,559 $9,590 $163,284 $178,716 $194,148
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of -----------
(+)Economic Dev. Mgr.Burien, City of $116,381 $128,923 $141,466 $15,816 $22,585 $154,782 $167,324 $179,866 $0 $154,782 $167,324 $179,866
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
(+)Economic Dev. Director Issaquah, City of $131,419 $149,576 $167,732 $18,752 $25,904 $176,076 $194,232 $212,389 $35,553 $211,629 $229,785 $247,942
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
(+)Economic Dev. Director Lynnwood, City of $116,754 $132,244 $147,734 $16,517 $25,411 $158,682 $174,172 $189,662 $0 $158,682 $174,172 $189,662
(+)Economic Dev. Director Puyallup, City of $113,428 $130,449 $147,470 $16,487 $25,332 $155,247 $172,268 $189,290 $1,134 $156,381 $173,403 $190,424
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$116,381 $130,449 $147,470 Median:$158,682 $174,172 $190,424
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,857 $166,841 $186,502
1.0801303 1.045843 1.0213197 1.058891 1.043942 1.0210317
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 157 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
9
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
COURT ADMINISTRATOR $76,574 $88,643 $102,617 $102,612 $11,472 $22,124 $110,170 $122,239 $136,213 $1,184 $111,354 $123,423 $137,397
Court Administrator Bothell, City of $73,548 $83,526 $93,504 $10,454 $23,859 $107,861 $117,839 $127,817 $6,204 $114,064 $124,042 $134,020
Court Administrator Bremerton, City of $81,624 $90,540 $99,456 $11,119 $22,981 $115,724 $124,640 $133,556 $4,278 $120,002 $128,918 $137,834
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Court Administrator Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
Court Administrator Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Court Administrator Lynnwood, City of $96,480 $109,278 $122,076 $13,648 $25,411 $135,539 $148,337 $161,135 $0 $135,539 $148,337 $161,135
Court Administrator Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$84,162 $93,288 $102,414 Median:$121,281 $130,407 $139,533
Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,574 $88,643 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$111,354 $123,423 $137,397
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Salary Range $76,574 $88,643 $102,617
Range 13
Packet Page 158 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
10
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $137,520 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Community Dev. Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
Director of Comm. Dev.Bremerton, City of $107,100 $118,806 $130,512 $14,591 $22,981 $144,672 $156,378 $168,084 $5,520 $150,193 $161,899 $173,605
Community Dev. Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Development Serv. Director Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $18,792 $25,904 $176,408 $194,594 $212,780 $34,425 $210,833 $229,019 $247,205
Community Dev. Director Lacey, City of $116,784 $116,784 $116,784 $13,056 $24,323 $154,163 $154,163 $154,163 $2,336 $156,499 $156,499 $156,499
Comm. Dev. Director Lynnwood, City of $106,140 $120,222 $134,304 $15,015 $25,411 $146,566 $160,648 $174,730 $0 $146,566 $160,648 $174,730
Development Serv. Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Director of Comm. Dev.Sammamish, City of $110,256 $135,708 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,758 $179,210 $204,662 $3,099 $156,857 $182,309 $207,761
Planning and DSD University Place, City of $100,800 $116,724 $132,648 $14,830 $24,914 $140,544 $156,468 $172,392 $2,551 $143,095 $159,019 $174,943
Median:$110,256 $120,222 $134,304 Median:$156,499 $161,899 $175,416
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
1.023286 0.963850 0.9301346 1.044329 0.970383 0.9405608
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 159 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
11
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 3 (UNFUNDED/UNFILLED)$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $1,243 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336
Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
Managing Engineer Bremerton, City of $85,764 $95,130 $104,496 $11,683 $22,981 $120,428 $129,794 $139,160 $4,480 $124,907 $134,273 $143,639
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $93,612 $106,542 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $132,873 $145,803 $158,733 $21,015 $153,888 $166,818 $179,748
Development Review Eng.Lacey, City of $77,256 $88,044 $98,832 $11,049 $24,323 $112,628 $123,416 $134,204 $988 $113,617 $124,405 $135,193
Development Svcs. Supv.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,901 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593
Engineering Services Mgr.Puyallup, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,332 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889 $0 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889
Development Review Eng.Sammamish, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,484 $124,205 $137,123 $150,041 $2,154 $126,360 $139,278 $152,196
Asst City Engineer University Place, City of $81,192 $94,014 $106,836 $11,944 $24,914 $118,050 $130,872 $143,694 $2,055 $120,105 $132,927 $145,749
Median:$85,764 $95,130 $106,836 Median:$124,053 $134,273 $145,749
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$117,992 $130,665 $145,336
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 160 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
12
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 2 (UNFUNDED/UNFILLED)$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
(+)Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $73,801 $83,813 $93,826 $10,490 $23,859 $108,150 $118,162 $128,174 $6,225 $114,375 $124,387 $134,399
Civil Engineer III Bremerton, City of $76,740 $83,376 $90,012 $10,063 $22,981 $109,784 $116,420 $123,056 $3,900 $113,685 $120,321 $126,957
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
(+)Engineer II Issaquah, City of $84,704 $96,413 $108,121 $12,088 $25,904 $122,696 $134,405 $146,113 $19,361 $142,057 $153,765 $165,474
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
(+)Civil Engineer I Lynnwood, City of $75,346 $85,358 $95,370 $10,662 $25,411 $111,419 $121,431 $131,443 $0 $111,419 $121,431 $131,443
Senior Civil Engineer Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
(+)Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $76,520 $90,625 $104,729 $11,709 $25,484 $113,713 $127,817 $141,921 $2,014 $115,727 $129,831 $143,935
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$76,630 $87,991 $100,041 Median:$115,051 $127,030 $138,075
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 161 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
13
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 1 PE may be required $66,147 $76,574 $88,643 $88,644 $9,910 $24,300 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853 $0 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853
Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $67,092 $76,194 $85,296 $9,536 $23,859 $100,487 $109,589 $118,691 $5,659 $106,146 $115,248 $124,350
Degree/PE Civil Engineer II Bremerton, City of $72,576 $79,092 $85,608 $9,571 $22,981 $105,128 $111,644 $118,160 $3,724 $108,852 $115,368 $121,884
PE Civil Engineer Burien, City of $72,060 $79,848 $87,636 $9,798 $22,585 $104,443 $112,231 $120,019 $0 $104,443 $112,231 $120,019
Civil Engineer I Des Moines, City of $71,940 $79,698 $87,456 $9,778 $24,079 $105,797 $113,555 $121,313 $0 $105,797 $113,555 $121,313
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Civil Engineer I Lynnwood, City of $54,392 $61,589 $68,786 $7,690 $25,411 $87,493 $94,690 $101,887 $0 $87,493 $94,690 $101,887
Civil Engineer Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $69,564 $82,386 $95,208 $10,644 $25,484 $105,692 $118,514 $131,336 $1,831 $107,523 $120,345 $133,167
Project Engineer University Place, City of $64,800 $75,036 $85,272 $9,533 $24,914 $99,247 $109,483 $119,719 $1,640 $100,887 $111,123 $121,359
Median:$71,760 $79,698 $87,456 Median:$105,971 $114,401 $121,622
Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,147 $76,574 $88,643 Current Edmonds Base Range:$100,357 $110,784 $122,853
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$66,147 $76,574 $88,643
Range 10
Packet Page 162 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
14
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT - CONFIDENTIAL $57,141 $66,147 $76,574 $66,144 $8,561 $24,300 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435 $0 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435
Executive Assistant Bothell, City of $61,872 $70,272 $78,672 $8,796 $23,859 $94,527 $102,927 $111,327 $5,220 $99,746 $108,146 $116,546
City Manager Executive Assistant Bremerton, City of $66,996 $74,310 $81,624 $9,126 $22,981 $99,103 $106,417 $113,731 $1,570 $100,672 $107,986 $115,300
City Manager Executive Assistant Burien, City of $57,732 $63,954 $70,176 $7,846 $22,585 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607 $0 $88,536 $94,758 $100,980
City Manager Executive Assistant Des Moines, City of $59,136 $65,508 $71,880 $8,036 $24,079 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995 $0 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995
Executive Assistant- Police Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Mayor Executive Assistant Lynnwood, City of $59,925 $67,870 $75,816 $8,476 $25,411 $93,812 $101,758 $109,703 $0 $93,812 $101,758 $109,703
City Manager Executive Assistant Puyallup, City of $51,384 $59,088 $66,792 $7,467 $25,332 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591 $0 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591
City Manager Executive Assistant Sammamish, City of $57,108 $67,632 $78,156 $8,738 $25,484 $91,330 $101,854 $112,378 $1,503 $92,833 $103,357 $113,881
City Manager Executive Assistant University Place, City of $55,272 $64,002 $72,732 $8,131 $24,914 $88,317 $97,047 $105,777 $1,399 $89,716 $98,446 $107,176
Median:$59,136 $67,632 $75,816 Median:$92,833 $101,758 $109,703
Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574 Current Edmonds Base Range:$90,002 $99,008 $109,435
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed salary range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574
Range 7
Packet Page 163 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
15
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR $59,998 $69,455 $80,403 $80,400 $8,989 $24,300 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692 $0 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692
Executive Assistant Bothell, City of $61,872 $70,272 $78,672 $8,796 $23,859 $94,527 $102,927 $111,327 $5,220 $99,746 $108,146 $116,546
City Manager Executive Assistant Bremerton, City of $66,996 $74,310 $81,624 $9,126 $22,981 $99,103 $106,417 $113,731 $1,570 $100,672 $107,986 $115,300
City Manager Executive Assistant Burien, City of $57,732 $63,954 $70,176 $7,846 $22,585 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607 $0 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607
City Manager Executive Assistant Des Moines, City of $59,136 $65,508 $71,880 $8,036 $24,079 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995 $0 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995
City Manager Executive Assistant Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Mayor Executive Assistant Lynnwood, City of $59,916 $67,866 $75,816 $8,476 $25,411 $93,803 $101,753 $109,703 $0 $93,803 $101,753 $109,703
City Manager Executive Assistant Puyallup, City of $51,384 $59,088 $66,792 $7,467 $25,332 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591 $0 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591
Executive Assistant Sammamish, City of $57,108 $67,632 $78,156 $8,738 $25,484 $91,330 $101,854 $112,378 $1,503 $92,833 $103,357 $113,881
Asst to the Mayor University Place, City of $55,272 $64,002 $72,732 $8,131 $24,914 $88,317 $97,047 $105,777 $1,399 $89,716 $98,446 $107,176
Median:$59,136 $67,632 $75,816 Median:$93,318 $102,555 $111,792
Current Edmonds Base Range:$59,998 $69,455 $80,403 Current Edmonds Base Range:$93,287 $102,744 $113,692
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Salary Range $59,998 $69,455 $80,403
Range 8
Packet Page 164 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
16
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
FINANCE DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $124,728 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Finance Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
Director of Financial Svcs.Bremerton, City of $115,344 $127,938 $140,532 $15,711 $22,981 $154,036 $166,630 $179,224 $5,921 $159,958 $172,552 $185,146
Finance Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
Finance Director Des Moines, City of $115,080 $127,488 $139,896 $15,640 $24,079 $154,799 $167,207 $179,615 $0 $154,799 $167,207 $179,615
Finance Director Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $18,792 $25,904 $176,408 $194,594 $212,780 $34,425 $210,833 $229,019 $247,205
Finance Director Lacey, City of $130,836 $130,836 $130,836 $14,627 $24,323 $169,786 $169,786 $169,786 $2,617 $172,403 $172,403 $172,403
Finance Director Lynnwood, City of $117,811 $133,442 $149,074 $16,666 $25,411 $159,889 $175,520 $191,151 $0 $159,889 $175,520 $191,151
Finance Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Finance Director Sammamish, City of $110,263 $135,714 $161,164 $18,018 $25,484 $153,765 $179,216 $204,666 $3,099 $156,864 $182,315 $207,765
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$117,576 $130,920 $143,652 Median:$159,889 $172,552 $185,146
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 165 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
17
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST $59,998 $69,455 $80,403 $72,924 $8,989 $24,300 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692 $0 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692
Human Resources Analyst Bothell, City of $61,872 $70,272 $78,672 $8,796 $23,859 $94,527 $102,927 $111,327 $5,220 $99,746 $108,146 $116,546
(+)HR Generalist Bremerton, City of $54,793 $60,779 $66,766 $7,464 $22,981 $85,239 $91,225 $97,211 $2,971 $88,209 $94,195 $100,182
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Human Resources Analyst Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
Human Resources Analyst Lacey, City of $58,884 $67,128 $75,372 $8,427 $24,323 $91,634 $99,878 $108,122 $754 $92,387 $100,631 $108,875
Human Resources Analyst Lynnwood, City of $59,928 $67,872 $75,816 $8,476 $25,411 $93,815 $101,759 $109,703 $0 $93,815 $101,759 $109,703
(+)HR Generalist Puyallup, City of $59,756 $68,719 $77,682 $8,685 $25,332 $93,773 $102,736 $111,699 $0 $93,773 $102,736 $111,699
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$59,842 $68,296 $76,749 Median:$96,067 $104,389 $112,711
Current Edmonds Base Range:$59,998 $69,455 $80,403 Current Edmonds Base Range:$93,287 $102,744 $113,692
0.9974032 0.98331 0.9545539 1.02980 1.01601 0.99137
Proposed Base Range:$59,998 $69,455 $80,403
Range 8
Packet Page 166 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
18
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT $20,309 $27,141 $30,469 $19,864 $3,406 $23,715 $30,547 $33,875 $0 $23,715 $30,547 $33,875
NO MATCH Bothell, City of ------------
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of ------------
NO MATCH Burien, City of ------------
Administrative Asst. 2 Des Moines, City of $26,286 $29,121 $31,956 $3,573 $29,859 $32,694 $35,529 $0 $29,859 $32,694 $35,529
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of ------------
Department Asst. 3 (HR)Lacey, City of $24,384 $26,676 $28,968 $3,239 $27,623 $29,915 $32,207 $290 $27,912 $30,204 $32,496
Admin Asst - HR Lynnwood, City of $24,750 $28,038 $31,326 $3,502 $28,252 $31,540 $34,828 $0 $28,252 $31,540 $34,828
Human Resources Coord.Puyallup, City of $24,702 $28,404 $32,106 $3,589 $28,291 $31,993 $35,695 $0 $28,291 $31,993 $35,695
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of ------------
Administrative Assistant University Place, City of $27,480 $31,836 $36,192 $4,046 -$31,526 $35,882 $40,238 $696 $32,222 $36,578 $40,934
Median:$24,750 $28,404 $31,956 Median:$28,291 $31,993 $35,529
Current Edmonds Base Range:$18,928 $21,913 $25,366 Current Edmonds Base Range:$23,715 $30,547 $33,875
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$22,714 $26,295 $30,439
Packet Page 167 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
19
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER $84,423 $97,730 $113,135 $107,747 $12,648 $24,300 $121,371 $134,678 $150,083 $1,305 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389
-HR Director Bothell, City of $111,697 126,854 $142,010 $15,877 $23,859 $151,433 $166,589 $181,745 $9,422 $160,855 $176,011 $191,167
HR Manager Bremerton, City of $81,624 90,540 $99,456 $11,119 $22,981 $115,724 $124,640 $133,556 $4,278 $120,002 $128,918 $137,834
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
HR Manager Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
HR Manager Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
-HR Director Lynnwood, City of $90,750 $102,790 $114,830 $12,838 $25,411 $128,999 $141,039 $153,079 $0 $128,999 $141,039 $153,079
HR Director Puyallup, City of $93,062 $100,827 $108,592 $12,141 $25,332 $130,535 $138,300 $146,064 $0 $130,535 $138,300 $146,064
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
Human Resources Manager University Place, City of $77,364 $89,586 $101,808 $11,382 $24,914 $113,660 $125,882 $138,104 $1,958 $115,618 $127,840 $140,062
Median:$90,750 $100,827 $108,592 Median:$128,999 $138,300 $146,064
Current Edmonds Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135 Current Edmonds Base Range:$122,677 $135,984 $151,389
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135
Range 15
Packet Page 168 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
20
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
IT SUPERVISOR $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $93,072 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
(-)IS Manager Bothell, City of $80,654 $91,595 $102,535 $11,463 $23,859 $115,977 $126,917 $137,858 $6,803 $122,780 $133,720 $144,660
(-)IS Manager Bremerton, City of $77,188 $85,617 $94,046 $10,514 $22,981 $110,683 $119,112 $127,542 $4,062 $114,745 $123,174 $131,604
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
-IT Manager Des Moines, City of $78,030 $86,432 $94,835 $10,603 $24,079 $112,712 $121,114 $129,516 $0 $112,712 $121,114 $129,516
-IS Manager Issaquah, City of $84,251 $95,888 $107,525 $12,021 $25,904 $122,176 $133,813 $145,450 $19,274 $141,450 $153,087 $164,724
-IS Manager Lacey, City of $99,176 $99,176 $99,176 $11,088 $24,323 $134,587 $134,587 $134,587 $992 $135,579 $135,579 $135,579
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
-IT Manager Puyallup, City of $67,738 $77,906 $88,074 $9,847 $25,332 $102,916 $113,084 $123,253 $0 $102,916 $113,084 $123,253
-Information Sys Mgr.Sammamish, City of $76,276 $90,333 $104,389 $11,671 $25,484 $113,431 $127,487 $141,544 $2,007 $115,438 $129,495 $143,551
-IT Manager University Place, City of $73,440 $85,039 $96,638 $10,804 $24,914 $109,158 $120,757 $132,357 $1,858 $111,017 $122,616 $134,215
Median:$77,609 $88,382 $97,907 Median:$115,091 $126,334 $134,897
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 169 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
21
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PARKS MAINTENANCE MANAGER $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $97,728 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
(+)Maintenance Supervisor Bothell, City of $80,903 $91,879 $102,854 $11,499 $23,859 $116,261 $127,237 $138,213 $6,824 $123,085 $134,061 $145,037
Parks Maintenance Mgr.Bremerton, City of $70,632 $78,198 $85,764 $9,588 $22,981 $103,201 $110,767 $118,333 $3,731 $106,932 $114,498 $122,064
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Parks Division Manager Issaquah, City of $89,124 $101,448 $113,772 $12,720 $25,904 $127,748 $140,072 $152,396 $20,184 $147,932 $160,256 $172,580
(+)Parks Maint. Supervisor Lacey, City of $71,491 $81,503 $91,516 $10,231 $24,323 $106,046 $116,058 $126,070 $915 $106,961 $116,973 $126,985
(+)Parks Maint. Supt.Lynnwood, City of $72,768 $82,422 $92,076 $10,294 $25,411 $108,473 $118,127 $127,781 $0 $108,473 $118,127 $127,781
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$72,768 $82,422 $92,076 Median:$108,473 $118,127 $127,781
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
0.9978061 0.9763 0.9421467 1.002948 0.987279 0.9610765
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 170 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
22
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PARKS, RECREATION & CULUTURAL SERVICES DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $144,392 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Parks & Rec Director Bothell, City of $103,920 $118,026 $132,132 $14,772 $23,859 $142,551 $156,657 $170,763 $8,766 $151,318 $165,424 $179,530
Parks & Rec Director Bremerton, City of $104,496 $115,902 $127,308 $14,233 $22,981 $141,710 $153,116 $164,522 $5,392 $147,102 $158,508 $169,914
Parks, Rec & Cultural Svcs. DBurien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
Parks & Rec & Senior Svc. D Des Moines, City of $110,652 $122,574 $134,496 $15,037 $24,079 $149,768 $161,690 $173,612 $0 $149,768 $161,690 $173,612
Parks & Rec Director Issaquah, City of $125,436 $142,764 $160,092 $17,898 $25,904 $169,238 $186,566 $203,894 $32,788 $202,026 $219,354 $236,682
Parks & Rec Director Lacey, City of $126,744 $126,744 $126,744 $14,170 $24,323 $165,237 $165,237 $165,237 $2,535 $167,772 $167,772 $167,772
Parks, Rec & Cultural Arts Lynnwood, City of $117,816 $133,446 $149,076 $16,667 $25,411 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154 $0 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154
Parks & Recreation Dir.Puyallup, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,332 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889 $862 $124,915 $137,833 $150,751
Director of Parks & Rec Sammamish, City of $110,263 $135,712 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,765 $179,213 $204,662 $3,099 $156,864 $182,312 $207,761
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$110,652 $126,744 $134,496 Median:$156,833 $167,772 $179,530
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
1.0269613 1.0161 0.9314643 1.046559 1.005585 0.9626207
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 171 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
23
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PLANNER UNFUNDED/UNFILLED $57,141 $66,147 $76,574 $8,561 $24,300 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435 $0 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435
Planner Bothell, City of $61,932 $70,566 $79,200 $8,855 $23,859 $94,646 $103,280 $111,914 $5,255 $99,900 $108,534 $117,168
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of -----------
Planner Burien, City of $62,172 $68,874 $75,576 $8,449 $22,585 $93,206 $99,908 $106,610 $0 $93,206 $99,908 $106,610
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Associate Planner Puyallup, City of $54,324 $62,472 $70,620 $7,895 $25,332 $87,551 $95,699 $103,847 $0 $87,551 $95,699 $103,847
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$61,932 $68,874 $75,576 Median:$93,206 $99,908 $106,610
Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574 Current Edmonds Base Range:$90,002 $99,008 $109,435
Proposed Base Range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574
Range 7
Packet Page 172 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
24
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PLANNING MANAGER $88,643 $102,617 $118,791 $118,788 $13,281 $24,300 $126,224 $140,198 $156,372 $1,371 $127,594 $141,568 $157,742
Planning Manager Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of -----------
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Community Dev. Manager Des Moines, City of $93,780 $103,884 $113,988 $12,744 $24,079 $130,603 $140,707 $150,811 $0 $130,603 $140,707 $150,811
Land Dev. Manager Issaquah, City of $103,212 $117,462 $131,712 $14,725 $25,904 $143,841 $158,091 $172,341 $22,800 $166,641 $180,891 $195,141
Planning Manager Lacey, City of $73,536 $83,832 $94,128 $10,524 $24,323 $108,383 $118,679 $128,975 $941 $109,324 $119,620 $129,916
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
Deputy Dir of Comm Dev Sammamish, City of $96,660 $114,474 $132,288 $14,790 $25,484 $136,934 $154,748 $172,562 $2,544 $139,478 $157,292 $175,106
Planning Manager Shoreline, City of $84,492 $93,654 $102,816 $11,495 $19,620 $115,607 $124,769 $133,931 $1,186 $116,793 $125,955 $135,117
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$91,698 $102,828 $113,958 Median:$132,187 $143,317 $154,447
Current Edmonds Base Range:$88,643 $102,617 $118,791 Current Edmonds Base Range:$127,594 $141,568 $157,742
1.0344641 $1 0.9593151 1.035992 $1 0.9791074
Proposed Base Range:$88,643 $102,617 $118,791
Range 16
Packet Page 173 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
25
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
POLICE CHIEF $118,791 $137,516 $159,192 $159,192 $8,326 $24,300 $151,417 $170,142 $191,818 $2,587 $154,004 $172,729 $194,405
Police Chief Bothell, City of $126,612 $143,796 $160,980 $8,419 $23,859 $158,890 $176,074 $193,258 $11,144 $170,035 $187,219 $204,403
Police Chief Bremerton, City of $121,176 $134,412 $147,648 $7,722 $22,981 $151,879 $165,115 $178,351 $6,206 $158,085 $171,321 $184,557
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Police Chief Des Moines, City of $119,688 $132,588 $145,488 $7,609 $24,079 $151,376 $164,276 $177,176 $2,238 $153,614 $166,514 $179,414
Police Chief Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $8,791 $25,904 $166,407 $184,593 $202,779 $34,425 $200,832 $219,018 $237,204
Police Chief Lacey, City of $152,280 $152,280 $152,280 $7,964 $24,323 $184,567 $184,567 $184,567 $3,696 $188,263 $188,263 $188,263
Police Chief Lynnwood, City of $119,472 $135,324 $151,176 $7,907 $25,411 $152,790 $168,642 $184,494 $30,364 $183,154 $199,006 $214,858
Police Chief Puyallup, City of $119,292 $137,184 $155,076 $8,110 $25,332 $152,734 $170,626 $188,518 $6,563 $159,298 $177,190 $195,082
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$121,176 $137,184 $152,280 Median:$170,035 $187,219 $195,082
Current Edmonds Base Range:$118,791 $137,516 $159,192 Current Edmonds Base Range:$154,004 $172,729 $194,405
1.0200773 0.99759 0.9565807 1.104096 1.083889 100.35%
Proposed Base Range:$118,971 $137,516 $159,192
Range 22
Packet Page 174 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
26
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES DIRECTOR $113,135 $130,968 $151,611 $151,609 $16,950 $24,300 $154,385 $172,218 $192,861 $1,749 $156,134 $173,967 $194,610
PW Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
Director of PW & Utilities Bremerton, City of $115,344 $127,938 $140,532 $15,711 $22,981 $154,036 $166,630 $179,224 $5,921 $159,958 $172,552 $185,146
PW Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Director of PW Operations Issaquah, City of $125,436 $142,764 $160,092 $17,898 $25,904 $169,238 $186,566 $203,894 $32,788 $202,026 $219,354 $236,682
Public Works Director Lacey, City of $139,488 $139,488 $139,488 $15,595 $24,323 $179,406 $179,406 $179,406 $2,790 $182,196 $182,196 $182,196
PW Director/City Engineer Lynnwood, City of $117,816 $133,446 $149,076 $16,667 $25,411 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154 $0 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154
Public Works Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Director of PW Sammamish, City of $110,256 $135,708 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,758 $179,210 $204,662 $3,099 $156,857 $182,309 $207,761
PW & Parks Dir University Place, City of $100,800 $116,724 $132,648 $14,830 $24,914 $140,544 $156,468 $172,392 $2,551 $143,095 $159,019 $174,943
Median:$117,576 $133,446 $143,652 Median:$159,894 $175,524 $185,146
Current Edmonds Base Range:$113,135 $130,968 $151,611 Current Edmonds Base Range:$156,134 $173,967 $194,610
1.039254 1.01892 0.9475038 1.024077 1.008946 0.9513659
Proposed Base Range:$113,135 $130,968 $151,611
Range 21
Packet Page 175 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
27
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
RECREATION SERVICES MANAGER $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $97,730 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $1,128 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084
Rec & Park Planning Mgr. Bothell, City of $81,180 92,196 $103,212 $11,539 $23,859 $116,578 $127,594.10 $138,610 $6,848 $123,426 $145,458 $145,458
Athletics/Recreation Mgr.Bremerton, City of $70,392 78,078 $85,764 $9,588 $22,981 $102,961 $110,647.42 $118,333 $3,731 $106,692 $122,064 $122,064
Recreation Manager Burien, City of $77,640 86,010 $94,380 $10,552 $22,585 $110,777 $119,146.68 $127,517 ----
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Recreation Manager Issaquah, City of $89,124 $101,448 $113,772 $12,720 $25,904 $127,748 $140,072 $152,396 $20,184 $147,932 $160,256 $172,580
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Recreation Supt.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,907 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,599 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,599
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
Recreation Manager University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
Median:$78,694 $88,167 $97,644 Median:$116,439 $127,016 $137,599
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$109,282 $120,777 $134,084
1.0790574 1.044348 0.9991149 1.065496 1.051662 1.0262189
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 176 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
28
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
SENIOR PLANNER $69,455 $80,403 $93,076 $93,072 $10,406 $24,300 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782 $0 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782
Senior Planner Bothell, City of $68,760 $78,096 $87,432 $9,775 $23,859 $102,394 $111,730 $121,066 $0 $102,394 $111,730 $121,066
Senior Planner Bremerton, City of $66,996 $74,310 $81,624 $9,126 $22,981 $99,103 $106,417 $113,731 $3,565 $102,668 $109,982 $117,296
Senior Planner Burien, City of $70,344 $77,922 $85,500 $9,559 $22,585 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644 $0 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644
Senior Planner Des Moines, City of $71,256 $78,936 $86,616 $9,684 $24,079 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379 $0 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379
Senior Planner Issaquah, City of $77,004 $87,648 $98,292 $10,989 $25,904 $113,897 $124,541 $135,185 $17,928 $131,825 $142,469 $153,113
Senior Planner Lacey, City of $67,188 $73,542 $79,896 $8,932 $24,323 $100,443 $106,797 $113,151 $799 $101,242 $107,596 $113,950
Senior Planner Lynnwood, City of $63,440 $71,854 $80,267 $8,974 $25,411 $97,825 $106,238 $114,652 $0 $97,825 $106,238 $114,652
Senior Planner Puyallup, City of $63,576 $73,104 $82,632 $9,238 $25,332 $98,146 $107,674 $117,202 $0 $98,146 $107,674 $117,202
Senior Planner Sammamish, City of $65,142 $77,147 $89,151 $9,967 $25,484 $100,593 $112,598 $124,602 $1,714 $102,308 $114,312 $126,317
Principal Planner University Place, City of $77,364 $89,586 $101,808 $11,382 $24,914 $113,660 $125,882 $138,104 $1,958 $115,618 $127,840 $140,062
Median:$67,974 $77,534 $86,058 Median:$102,441 $110,898 $119,011
Current Edmonds Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076 Current Edmonds Base Range:$104,161 $115,109 $127,782
#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076
Range 11
Packet Page 177 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
29
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
SENIOR UTILITIES ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $107,747 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $0 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093
(-)Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $80,654 $91,595 $102,535 $11,463 $23,859 $115,977 $126,917 $137,858 $6,803 $122,780 $133,720 $144,660
Managing Engineer Bremerton, City of $85,764 $95,130 $104,496 $11,683 $22,981 $120,428 $129,794 $139,160 $4,480 $124,907 $134,273 $143,639
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $84,972 $102,222 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $124,233 $141,483 $158,733 $21,015 $145,248 $162,498 $179,748
Senior Civil Eng- Utilities Lacey, City of $77,256 $88,044 $98,832 $11,049 $24,323 $112,628 $123,416 $134,204 $988 $113,617 $124,405 $135,193
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Civil Engineer - Senior Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Senior Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $79,356 $93,978 $108,600 $12,141 $25,484 $116,981 $131,603 $146,225 $2,088 $119,070 $133,692 $148,314
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$80,556 $92,634 $104,496 Median:$119,070 $133,692 $143,639
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,749 $129,422 $144,093
1.0019029 0.99525 0.9698275 1.019879 1.032991 99.69%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 178 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
30
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
STORMWATER ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $107,747 $12,035 $24,300 $116,738 $129,411 $144,082 $0 $116,738 $129,411 $144,082
Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
Managing Engineer Bremerton, City of $85,764 $95,130 $104,496 $11,683 $22,981 $120,428 $129,794 $139,160 $4,480 $124,907 $134,273 $143,639
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
Stormwater Engineer Des Moines, City of $101,436 $112,362 $123,288 $13,784 $24,079 $139,299 $150,225 $161,151 $0 $139,299 $150,225 $161,151
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $84,972 $102,222 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $124,233 $141,483 $158,733 $21,015 $145,248 $162,498 $179,748
Senior Utilities Engineer Lacey, City of $77,256 $88,044 $98,832 $11,049 $24,323 $112,628 $123,416 $134,204 $988 $113,617 $124,405 $135,193
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Civil Engineer - Senior Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Sr. Stormwater PM Sammamish, City of $84,751 $100,370 $115,988 $12,967 $25,484 $123,202 $138,821 $154,439 $2,231 $125,433 $141,051 $156,670
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$84,862 $97,750 $109,320 Median:$125,170 $137,662 $150,155
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,738 $129,411 $144,082
1.0554519 1.05021 1.014599 1.072229 1.063759 104.21%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 179 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
31
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $102,591 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $0 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093
Transportation Engineer Bothell, City of $77,796 $88,356 $98,916 $11,059 $23,859 $112,714 $123,274 $133,834 $0 $112,714 $123,274 $133,834
Managing Engineer Bremerton, City of $85,764 $95,130 $104,496 $11,683 $22,981 $120,428 $129,794 $139,160 $4,180 $124,607 $133,973 $143,339
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -------$0 ---
Traffic Signal Oper. Eng Issaquah, City of $93,612 $106,542 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $132,873 $145,803 $158,733 $3,600 $136,473 $149,403 $162,333
(-)Transportation Design Mgr.Lacey, City of $77,256 $88,044 $98,832 $11,049 $24,323 $112,628 $123,416 $134,204 $988 $113,617 $124,405 $135,193
Traffic Engineer Lynnwood, City of $87,714 $99,351 $110,989 $12,409 $25,411 $125,533 $137,171 $148,808 $0 $125,533 $137,171 $148,808
Traffic Engineer Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Traffic Engineer Sammamish, City of $79,355 $93,979 $108,603 $12,142 $25,484 $116,981 $131,605 $146,229 $0 $116,981 $131,605 $146,229
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$80,070 $93,307 $104,604 Median:$117,288 $130,639 $142,545
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,749 $129,422 $144,093
0.9958584 1.00248 0.9708298 1.004614 1.009401 98.93%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 180 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $80,400 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
NO MATCH Bothell, City of -------------
NO MATCH Burien, City of -------------
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -------------
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -------------
10% level (-)Finance Supervisor Lynnwood, City of $71,772 $73,162 $90,811 -$10,153 $25,411 $107,336 $108,726 $126,374 $0 $107,336 $108,726 $126,374
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of ------------
10% level (-)Accounting Manager Sammamish, City of $76,280 $81,308 $104,404 -$11,672 $25,484 $113,437 $118,464 $141,560 $2,008 $115,444 $120,472 $143,568
NO MATCH University Place, City of ------------
Median:$74,026 $77,235 $97,607 Median:$111,390 $114,599 $134,971
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Packet Page 181 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ARTS & CULTURAL SERVICES PROGRAM MANAGER $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $97,728 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $1,128 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084
Rec & Park Planning Mgr. Bothell, City of $81,180 92,196 $103,212 $11,539 $23,859 $116,578 $127,594.10 $138,610 $6,848 $123,426 $145,458 $145,458
Recreation Manager Burien, City of $77,640 86,010 $94,380 $10,552 $22,856 $111,048 $119,417.68 $127,788 $0 $111,048 $127,788 $127,788
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of ------------
Recreation Manager Issaquah, City of $89,124 $101,448 $113,772 $12,720 $25,904 $127,748 $140,072 $152,396 $20,184 $147,932 $160,256 $172,580
Recreation Supt.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,901 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of ------------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of ------------
Recreation Manager University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
Median:$79,747 $90,324 $100,901 Median:$116,439 $127,788 $137,593
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$109,282 $120,777 $134,084
1.09 1.07 1.03 1.07 1.06 1.03
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 182 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF $102,617 $118,791 $137,516 $134,244 $7,192 $24,300 $134,109 $150,283 $169,008 $2,337 $136,446 $152,620 $171,345
Deputy Police Chief Bothell, City of $114,708 $130,278 $145,848 $7,628 $23,859 $146,195 $161,765 $177,335 $10,140 $156,335 $171,905 $187,475
NO MATCH Burien, City of ------------
Police Commander Des Moines, City of $113,868 $119,700 $125,532 $6,565 $24,079 $144,512 $150,344 $156,176 $9,463 $153,976 $159,808 $165,640
Deputy Police Chief Issaquah, City of $113,772 $129,480 $145,188 $7,593 $25,904 $147,269 $162,977 $178,685 $23,647 $170,916 $186,624 $202,332
Union- Deputy Chief Lynnwood, City of $123,636 $128,682 $133,728 $6,994 $25,411 $156,041 $161,087 $166,133 $27,004 $183,045 $188,091 $193,137
Deputy Police Chief Puyallup, City of $108,444 $124,716 $140,988 $7,374 $25,332 $141,150 $157,422 $173,694 $6,000 $147,149 $163,421 $179,693
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of ------------
NO MATCH University Place, City of ------------
Median:$113,868 $128,682 $140,988 Median:$156,335 $171,905 $187,475
Current Edmonds Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516 Current Edmonds Base Range:$136,446 $152,620 $171,345
1.11 1.08 1.03 1.15 1.13 1.09
Proposed Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516
Range 19
(2 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 183 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ASSOCIATE PLANNER $62,997 $72,928 $84,423 $81,740 $9,438 $24,300 $96,735 $106,666 $118,161 $0 $96,735 $106,666 $118,161
NO MATCH Bothell, City of -----------
NO MATCH Burien, City of ------------
Land Use Planner II Des Moines, City of $63,960 $70,860 $77,760 $8,694 $24,079 $96,733 $103,633 $110,533 $0 $96,733 $103,633 $110,533
Associate Planner Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
Associate Planner Lacey, City of $67,188 $73,542 $79,896 $8,932 $24,323 $100,443 $106,797 $113,151 $799 $101,242 $107,596 $113,950
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
Associate Planner Sammamish, City of $60,996 $72,234 $83,472 $9,332 $25,484 $95,812 $107,050 $118,288 $1,605 $97,417 $108,655 $119,893
Senior Planner University Place, City of $66,228 $62,473 $87,156 $9,744 $24,914 $100,886 $97,131 $121,814 $1,676 $102,562 $98,807 $123,490
Median:$66,228 $72,234 $83,472 Median:$101,242 $107,596 $119,893
Current Edmonds Base Range:$62,997 $72,928 $84,423 Current Edmonds Base Range:$96,735 $106,666 $118,161
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$62,997 $72,928 $84,423
Range 9
(3 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 184 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
BUILDING OFFICIAL $84,423 $97,730 $113,135 $102,612 $12,648 $24,300 $121,371 $134,678 $150,083 $1,305 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389
(-)Comm. Dev/Dpty Dir/Bldg Of Bothell, City of $93,528 $106,223 $118,919 $13,295 $23,859 $130,682 $143,377.52 $156,073 $7,890 $138,572 $151,267 $163,963
Building Official Burien, City of $85,728 $94,962 $104,196 $11,649 $22,585 $119,962 $129,196 $138,430 $0 $119,962 $129,196 $138,430
Building Official Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
Building Official Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
Building Official Lynnwood, City of $87,708 $99,348 $110,988 $12,408 $25,411 $125,527 $137,167 $148,807 $0 $125,527 $137,167 $148,807
Building Code Official Puyallup, City of $75,264 $86,562 $97,860 $10,941 $25,332 $111,537 $122,835 $134,133 $0 $111,501 $122,799 $134,097
Building Official Sammamish, City of $84,756 $100,374 $115,992 $12,968 $25,484 $123,208 $138,826 $154,444 $2,231 $125,439 $141,057 $156,675
(+)Building Official/Sr Bldg InspeUniversity Place, City of $85,100 $98,545 $111,989 $12,520 $24,914 $122,535 $135,979 $149,423 $2,154 $124,688 $138,133 $151,577
Median:$86,214 $98,946 $111,488 Median:$125,063 $137,650 $150,192
Current Edmonds Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135 Current Edmonds Base Range:$122,677 $135,984 $151,389
1.0212146 1.0124 0.9854457 1.019454 1.012252 99.21%
Proposed Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135
Range 15
Packet Page 185 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER No PE required $69,455 $80,403 $93,076 $86,634 $10,406 $24,300 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782 $0 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782
and supv req)(-)Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $67,092 76,194 $85,296 $9,536 $23,859 $100,487 $109,589 $118,691 $5,659 $106,146 $115,248 $124,350
PE Req'd Civil Engineer II (PM)Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
CIP Project Manager Des Moines, City of $80,160 $88,800 $97,440 $10,894 $24,079 $115,133 $123,773 $132,413 $0 $115,133 $123,773 $132,413
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -----------
PE Req'd Project Manager Lynnwood, City of $82,728 $93,378 $104,028 $11,630 $25,411 $119,769 $130,419 $141,069 $0 $119,769 $130,419 $141,069
Civil Engineer Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,484 $124,205 $137,123 $150,041 $2,154 $126,360 $139,278 $152,196
Project Engineer University Place, City of $64,800 $75,036 $85,272 $9,533 $24,914 $99,247 $109,483 $119,719 $1,640 $100,887 $111,123 $121,359
Median:$79,584 $88,164 $96,744 Median:$112,985 $121,565 $130,145
Current Edmonds Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076 Current Edmonds Base Range:$104,161 $115,109 $127,782
1.1458354 $1 1.0394087 1.084716 1.056087 1.0184931
Proposed Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076
Range 11
(4 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 186 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
CITY CLERK $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $102,612 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $1,243 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336
City Clerk Bothell, City of $73,548 $83,526 $93,504 $10,454 $23,859 $107,861 $117,839 $127,817 $6,204 $114,064 $124,042 $134,020
City Clerk Burien, City of $70,344 $77,922 $85,500 $9,559 $22,585 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644 $0 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644
City Clerk Des Moines, City of $71,256 $78,936 $86,616 $9,684 $24,079 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379 $0 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379
City Clerk Issaquah, City of $80,844 $92,028 $103,212 $11,539 $25,904 $118,287 $129,471 $140,655 $18,645 $136,932 $148,116 $159,300
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
City Clerk Puyallup, City of $70,428 $80,964 $91,500 $10,230 $25,332 $105,990 $116,526 $127,062 $0 $105,990 $116,526 $127,062
City Clerk Sammamish, City of $69,576 $82,392 $95,208 $10,644 $25,484 $105,704 $118,520 $131,336 $1,831 $107,535 $120,351 $133,167
City Clerk University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
Median:$70,428 $80,964 $91,500 Median:$105,990 $116,526 $127,062
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$117,992 $130,665 $145,336
0.8759375 $1 0.8492116 0.898276 0.891787 0.8742596
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 187 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
CITY ENGINEER $102,617 $118,791 $137,516 $137,520 $15,375 $24,300 $142,292 $158,466 $177,191 $1,587 $143,878 $160,052 $178,777
Deputy PW Director/CE Bothell, City of $103,920 $118,026 $132,132 $14,772 $23,859 $142,551 $156,657 $170,763 $8,766 $151,318 $165,424 $179,530
Asst. PW Director Burien, City of $101,892 $112,878 $123,864 $13,848 $22,585 $138,325 $149,311 $160,297 $0 $138,325 $149,311 $160,297
Engineering Services Mgr.Des Moines, City of $101,424 $112,356 $123,288 $13,784 $24,079 $139,287 $150,219 $161,151 $0 $139,287 $150,219 $161,151
(-)Director of PW - Engineering Issaquah, City of $112,892 $128,488 $144,083 $16,108 $25,904 $154,905 $170,500 $186,095 $24,603 $179,508 $195,103 $210,698
Deputy PW Director Lynnwood, City of $106,142 $120,224 $134,306 $15,015 $25,411 $146,569 $160,650 $174,732 $0 $146,569 $160,650 $174,732
City Engineer Puyallup, City of $92,208 $106,050 $119,892 $13,404 $25,332 $130,944 $144,786 $158,628 $0 $130,944 $144,786 $158,628
Deputy PW Director Sammamish, City of $90,504 $107,184 $123,864 $13,848 $25,484 $129,836 $146,516 $163,196 $2,382 $132,218 $148,898 $165,578
City Engineer University Place, City of $94,740 $109,698 $124,656 $13,937 $24,914 $133,591 $148,549 $163,507 $2,397 $135,988 $150,946 $165,904
Capital Projects Manager Kirkland, City of $95,784 $108,138 $120,492 $13,471 $28,620 $137,875 $150,229 $162,583 $463 $138,338 $150,692 $163,046
Median:$101,424 $112,356 $123,864 Median:$138,338 $150,692 $165,578
Current Edmonds Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516 Current Edmonds Base Range:$143,878 $160,052 $178,777
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516
Range 19
Packet Page 188 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $144,396 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,857 $166,841 $186,502
.
Asst. City Mgr./Econ Dev.Bothell, City of $113,676 $129,108 $144,540 $16,160 $23,859 $153,695 $169,127 $184,559 $9,590 $163,284 $178,716 $194,148
20%(+)Economic Dev. Mgr.Burien, City of $116,381 $128,923 $141,466 $15,816 $22,585 $154,782 $167,324 $179,866 $0 $154,782 $167,324 $179,866
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
10%(+)Economic Dev. Director Issaquah, City of $131,419 $149,576 $167,732 $18,752 $25,904 $176,076 $194,232 $212,389 $35,553 $211,629 $229,785 $247,942
10%(+)Economic Dev. Director Lynnwood, City of $116,754 $132,244 $147,734 $16,517 $25,411 $158,682 $174,172 $189,662 $0 $158,682 $174,172 $189,662
10%(+)Economic Dev. Director Puyallup, City of $113,428 $130,449 $147,470 $16,487 $25,332 $155,247 $172,268 $189,290 $1,134 $156,381 $173,403 $190,424
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$116,381 $130,449 $147,470 Median:$158,682 $174,172 $190,424
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,857 $166,841 $186,502
1.0801303 1.045843 1.0213197 1.058891 1.043942 1.0210317
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 189 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
COURT ADMINISTRATOR $76,574 $88,643 $102,617 $102,612 $11,472 $22,124 $110,170 $122,239 $136,213 $1,184 $111,354 $123,423 $137,397
Court Administrator Bothell, City of $73,548 $83,526 $93,504 $10,454 $23,859 $107,861 $117,839 $127,817 $6,204 $114,064 $124,042 $134,020
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Court Administrator Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
Court Administrator Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
Court Administrator Lynnwood, City of $96,480 $109,278 $122,076 $13,648 $25,411 $135,539 $148,337 $161,135 $0 $135,539 $148,337 $161,135
Court Administrator Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$86,700 $96,036 $105,372 Median:$122,560 $131,896 $141,232
Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,574 $88,643 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$111,354 $123,423 $137,397
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Salary Range $76,574 $88,643 $102,617
Range 13
Packet Page 190 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $137,520 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Community Dev. Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
Community Dev. Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Development Serv. Director Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $18,792 $25,904 $176,408 $194,594 $212,780 $34,425 $210,833 $229,019 $247,205
Comm. Dev. Director Lynnwood, City of $106,140 $120,222 $134,304 $15,015 $25,411 $146,566 $160,648 $174,730 $0 $146,566 $160,648 $174,730
Development Serv. Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Director of Comm. Dev.Sammamish, City of $110,256 $135,708 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,758 $179,210 $204,662 $3,099 $156,857 $182,309 $207,761
Planning and DSD University Place, City of $100,800 $116,724 $132,648 $14,830 $24,914 $140,544 $156,468 $172,392 $2,551 $143,095 $159,019 $174,943
Median:$110,256 $130,920 $143,652 Median:$156,833 $169,565 $182,297
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
1.023286 1.049619 0.9948751 1.046559 1.016334 0.9774597
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 191 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 3 (UNFUNDED/UNFILLED)$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $1,243 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336
Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $93,612 $106,542 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $132,873 $145,803 $158,733 $21,015 $153,888 $166,818 $179,748
Development Svcs. Supv.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,901 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593
Engineering Services Mgr.Puyallup, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,332 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889 $0 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889
Development Review Eng.Sammamish, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,484 $124,205 $137,123 $150,041 $2,154 $126,360 $139,278 $152,196
Asst City Engineer University Place, City of $81,192 $94,014 $106,836 $11,944 $24,914 $118,050 $130,872 $143,694 $2,055 $120,105 $132,927 $145,749
Median:$86,196 $99,114 $112,032 Median:$124,053 $136,971 $149,889
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$117,992 $130,665 $145,336
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 192 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 2 (UNFUNDED/UNFILLED)$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
(+)Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $73,801 $83,813 $93,826 $10,490 $23,859 $108,150 $118,162 $128,174 $6,225 $114,375 $124,387 $134,399
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
(+)Engineer II Issaquah, City of $84,704 $96,413 $108,121 $12,088 $25,904 $122,696 $134,405 $146,113 $19,361 $142,057 $153,765 $165,474
(+)Civil Engineer I Lynnwood, City of $75,346 $85,358 $95,370 $10,662 $25,411 $111,419 $121,431 $131,443 $0 $111,419 $121,431 $131,443
Senior Civil Engineer Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
(+)Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $76,520 $90,625 $104,729 $11,709 $25,484 $113,713 $127,817 $141,921 $2,014 $115,727 $129,831 $143,935
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$76,520 $90,625 $104,712 Median:$115,727 $129,673 $141,751
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 193 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 1 PE may be required $66,147 $76,574 $88,643 $88,644 $9,910 $24,300 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853 $0 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853
Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $67,092 $76,194 $85,296 $9,536 $23,859 $100,487 $109,589 $118,691 $5,659 $106,146 $115,248 $124,350
PE Civil Engineer Burien, City of $72,060 $79,848 $87,636 $9,798 $22,585 $104,443 $112,231 $120,019 $0 $104,443 $112,231 $120,019
Civil Engineer I Des Moines, City of $71,940 $79,698 $87,456 $9,778 $24,079 $105,797 $113,555 $121,313 $0 $105,797 $113,555 $121,313
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -----------
Civil Engineer I Lynnwood, City of $54,392 $61,589 $68,786 $7,690 $25,411 $87,493 $94,690 $101,887 $0 $87,493 $94,690 $101,887
Civil Engineer Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $69,564 $82,386 $95,208 $10,644 $25,484 $105,692 $118,514 $131,336 $1,831 $107,523 $120,345 $133,167
Project Engineer University Place, City of $64,800 $75,036 $85,272 $9,533 $24,914 $99,247 $109,483 $119,719 $1,640 $100,887 $111,123 $121,359
Median:$70,662 $79,773 $87,546 Median:$105,797 $113,555 $121,359
Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,147 $76,574 $88,643 Current Edmonds Base Range:$100,357 $110,784 $122,853
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$66,147 $76,574 $88,643
Range 10
Packet Page 194 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT - CONFIDENTIAL $57,141 $66,147 $76,574 $66,144 $8,561 $24,300 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435 $0 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435
Executive Assistant Bothell, City of $61,872 $70,272 $78,672 $8,796 $23,859 $94,527 $102,927 $111,327 $5,220 $99,746 $108,146 $116,546
City Manager Executive Assistant Burien, City of $57,732 $63,954 $70,176 $7,846 $22,585 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607 $0 $88,536 $94,758 $100,980
City Manager Executive Assistant Des Moines, City of $59,136 $65,508 $71,880 $8,036 $24,079 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995 $0 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995
Executive Assistant- Police Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
Mayor Executive Assistant Lynnwood, City of $59,925 $67,870 $75,816 $8,476 $25,411 $93,812 $101,758 $109,703 $0 $93,812 $101,758 $109,703
City Manager Executive Assistant Puyallup, City of $51,384 $59,088 $66,792 $7,467 $25,332 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591 $0 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591
City Manager Executive Assistant Sammamish, City of $57,108 $67,632 $78,156 $8,738 $25,484 $91,330 $101,854 $112,378 $1,503 $92,833 $103,357 $113,881
City Manager Executive Assistant University Place, City of $55,272 $64,002 $72,732 $8,131 $24,914 $88,317 $97,047 $105,777 $1,399 $89,716 $98,446 $107,176
Median:$58,434 $66,570 $74,274 Median:$92,042 $100,102 $108,440
Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574 Current Edmonds Base Range:$90,002 $99,008 $109,435
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed salary range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574
Range 7
Packet Page 195 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR $59,998 $69,455 $80,403 $80,400 $8,989 $24,300 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692 $0 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692
Executive Assistant Bothell, City of $61,872 $70,272 $78,672 $8,796 $23,859 $94,527 $102,927 $111,327 $5,220 $99,746 $108,146 $116,546
City Manager Executive Assistant Burien, City of $57,732 $63,954 $70,176 $7,846 $22,585 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607 $0 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607
City Manager Executive Assistant Des Moines, City of $59,136 $65,508 $71,880 $8,036 $24,079 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995 $0 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995
City Manager Executive Assistant Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
Mayor Executive Assistant Lynnwood, City of $59,916 $67,866 $75,816 $8,476 $25,411 $93,803 $101,753 $109,703 $0 $93,803 $101,753 $109,703
City Manager Executive Assistant Puyallup, City of $51,384 $59,088 $66,792 $7,467 $25,332 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591 $0 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591
Executive Assistant Sammamish, City of $57,108 $67,632 $78,156 $8,738 $25,484 $91,330 $101,854 $112,378 $1,503 $92,833 $103,357 $113,881
Asst to the Mayor University Place, City of $55,272 $64,002 $72,732 $8,131 $24,914 $88,317 $97,047 $105,777 $1,399 $89,716 $98,446 $107,176
Median:$58,434 $66,570 $74,274 Median:$92,833 $101,753 $109,703
Current Edmonds Base Range:$59,998 $69,455 $80,403 Current Edmonds Base Range:$93,287 $102,744 $113,692
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Salary Range $59,998 $69,455 $80,403
Range 8
Packet Page 196 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
FINANCE DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $124,728 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Finance Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
Finance Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
Finance Director Des Moines, City of $115,080 $127,488 $139,896 $15,640 $24,079 $154,799 $167,207 $179,615 #REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Finance Director Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $18,792 $25,904 $176,408 $194,594 $212,780 $34,425 $210,833 $229,019 $247,205
Finance Director Lynnwood, City of $117,811 $133,442 $149,074 $16,666 $25,411 $159,889 $175,520 $191,151 $0 $159,889 $175,520 $191,151
Finance Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Finance Director Sammamish, City of $110,263 $135,714 $161,164 $18,018 $25,484 $153,765 $179,216 $204,666 $3,099 $156,864 $182,315 $207,765
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$117,576 $133,442 $149,074 Median:#REF!#REF!#REF!
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 197 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER $84,423 $97,730 $113,135 $107,747 $12,648 $24,300 $121,371 $134,678 $150,083 $1,305 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389
-HR Director Bothell, City of $111,697 126,854 $142,010 $15,877 $23,859 $151,433 $166,589 $181,745 $9,422 $160,855 $176,011 $191,167
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
HR Manager Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
HR Manager Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
-HR Director Lynnwood, City of $90,750 $102,790 $114,830 $12,838 $25,411 $128,999 $141,039 $153,079 $0 $128,999 $141,039 $153,079
HR Director Puyallup, City of $93,062 $100,827 $108,592 $12,141 $25,332 $130,535 $138,300 $146,064 $0 $130,535 $138,300 $146,064
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
Human Resources Manager University Place, City of $77,364 $89,586 $101,808 $11,382 $24,914 $113,660 $125,882 $138,104 $1,958 $115,618 $127,840 $140,062
Median:$91,906 $101,808 $111,711 Median:$129,767 $139,669 $149,572
Current Edmonds Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135 Current Edmonds Base Range:$122,677 $135,984 $151,389
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135
Range 15
Packet Page 198 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
IT SUPERVISOR $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $93,072 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
(-)IS Manager Bothell, City of $80,654 $91,595 $102,535 $11,463 $23,859 $115,977 $126,917 $137,858 $6,803 $122,780 $133,720 $144,660
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
-IT Manager Des Moines, City of $78,030 $86,432 $94,835 $10,603 $24,079 $112,712 $121,114 $129,516 $0 $112,712 $121,114 $129,516
-IS Manager Issaquah, City of $84,251 $95,888 $107,525 $12,021 $25,904 $122,176 $133,813 $145,450 $19,274 $141,450 $153,087 $164,724
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
-IT Manager Puyallup, City of $67,738 $77,906 $88,074 $9,847 $25,332 $102,916 $113,084 $123,253 $0 $102,916 $113,084 $123,253
-Information Sys Mgr.Sammamish, City of $76,276 $90,333 $104,389 $11,671 $25,484 $113,431 $127,487 $141,544 $2,007 $115,438 $129,495 $143,551
-IT Manager University Place, City of $73,440 $85,039 $96,638 $10,804 $24,914 $109,158 $120,757 $132,357 $1,858 $111,017 $122,616 $134,215
Median:$77,153 $88,382 $99,587 Median:$114,075 $126,055 $138,883
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 199 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PARKS MAINTENANCE MANAGER $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $97,728 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
(+)Maintenance Supervisor Bothell, City of $80,903 $91,879 $102,854 $11,499 $23,859 $116,261 $127,237 $138,213 $6,824 $123,085 $134,061 $145,037
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Parks Division Manager Issaquah, City of $89,124 $101,448 $113,772 $12,720 $25,904 $127,748 $140,072 $152,396 $20,184 $147,932 $160,256 $172,580
(+)Parks Maint. Supt.Lynnwood, City of $72,768 $82,422 $92,076 $10,294 $25,411 $108,473 $118,127 $127,781 $0 $108,473 $118,127 $127,781
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$80,903 $91,879 $102,854 Median:$123,085 $134,061 $145,037
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
1.1093517 1.0883 1.0524343 1.13805 1.120448 1.0908592
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 200 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PARKS, RECREATION & CULUTURAL SERVICES DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $144,392 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Parks & Rec Director Bothell, City of $103,920 $118,026 $132,132 $14,772 $23,859 $142,551 $156,657 $170,763 $8,766 $151,318 $165,424 $179,530
Parks, Rec & Cultural Svcs. DBurien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
Parks & Rec & Senior Svc. D Des Moines, City of $110,652 $122,574 $134,496 $15,037 $24,079 $149,768 $161,690 $173,612 $0 $149,768 $161,690 $173,612
Parks & Rec Director Issaquah, City of $125,436 $142,764 $160,092 $17,898 $25,904 $169,238 $186,566 $203,894 $32,788 $202,026 $219,354 $236,682
Parks, Rec & Cultural Arts Lynnwood, City of $117,816 $133,446 $149,076 $16,667 $25,411 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154 $0 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154
Parks & Recreation Dir.Puyallup, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,332 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889 $862 $124,915 $137,833 $150,751
Director of Parks & Rec Sammamish, City of $110,263 $135,712 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,765 $179,213 $204,662 $3,099 $156,864 $182,312 $207,761
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$110,652 $130,920 $143,652 Median:$156,833 $169,565 $182,297
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
1.0269613 1.0496 0.9948751 1.046559 1.016334 0.9774597
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 201 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PLANNING MANAGER $88,643 $102,617 $118,791 $118,788 $13,281 $24,300 $126,224 $140,198 $156,372 $1,371 $127,594 $141,568 $157,742
Planning Manager Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Community Dev. Manager Des Moines, City of $93,780 $103,884 $113,988 $12,744 $24,079 $130,603 $140,707 $150,811 $0 $130,603 $140,707 $150,811
Land Dev. Manager Issaquah, City of $103,212 $117,462 $131,712 $14,725 $25,904 $143,841 $158,091 $172,341 $22,800 $166,641 $180,891 $195,141
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
Deputy Dir of Comm Dev Sammamish, City of $96,660 $114,474 $132,288 $14,790 $25,484 $136,934 $154,748 $172,562 $2,544 $139,478 $157,292 $175,106
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$95,220 $109,179 $122,850 Median:$136,624 $151,609 $166,594
Current Edmonds Base Range:$88,643 $102,617 $118,791 Current Edmonds Base Range:$127,594 $141,568 $157,742
1.0741965 $1 1.0341693 1.07077 $1 1.0561156
Proposed Base Range:$88,643 $102,617 $118,791
Range 16
Packet Page 202 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
POLICE CHIEF $118,791 $137,516 $159,192 $159,192 $8,326 $24,300 $151,417 $170,142 $191,818 $2,587 $154,004 $172,729 $194,405
Police Chief Bothell, City of $126,612 $143,796 $160,980 $8,419 $23,859 $158,890 $176,074 $193,258 $11,144 $170,035 $187,219 $204,403
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Police Chief Des Moines, City of $119,688 $132,588 $145,488 $7,609 $24,079 $151,376 $164,276 $177,176 $2,238 $153,614 $166,514 $179,414
Police Chief Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $8,791 $25,904 $166,407 $184,593 $202,779 $34,425 $200,832 $219,018 $237,204
Police Chief Lynnwood, City of $119,472 $135,324 $151,176 $7,907 $25,411 $152,790 $168,642 $184,494 $30,364 $183,154 $199,006 $214,858
Police Chief Puyallup, City of $119,292 $137,184 $155,076 $8,110 $25,332 $152,734 $170,626 $188,518 $6,563 $159,298 $177,190 $195,082
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$119,688 $137,184 $155,076 Median:$170,035 $187,219 $204,403
Current Edmonds Base Range:$118,791 $137,516 $159,192 Current Edmonds Base Range:$154,004 $172,729 $194,405
1.0075511 0.99759 0.9741444 1.104096 1.083889 105.14%
Proposed Base Range:$118,971 $137,516 $159,192
Range 22
Packet Page 203 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES DIRECTOR $113,135 $130,968 $151,611 $151,609 $16,950 $24,300 $154,385 $172,218 $192,861 $1,749 $156,134 $173,967 $194,610
PW Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
PW Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Director of PW Operations Issaquah, City of $125,436 $142,764 $160,092 $17,898 $25,904 $169,238 $186,566 $203,894 $32,788 $202,026 $219,354 $236,682
PW Director/City Engineer Lynnwood, City of $117,816 $133,446 $149,076 $16,667 $25,411 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154 $0 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154
Public Works Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Director of PW Sammamish, City of $110,256 $135,708 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,758 $179,210 $204,662 $3,099 $156,857 $182,309 $207,761
PW & Parks Dir University Place, City of $100,800 $116,724 $132,648 $14,830 $24,914 $140,544 $156,468 $172,392 $2,551 $143,095 $159,019 $174,943
Median:$117,576 $133,446 $149,076 Median:$156,857 $175,524 $191,154
Current Edmonds Base Range:$113,135 $130,968 $151,611 Current Edmonds Base Range:$156,134 $173,967 $194,610
1.039254 1.01892 0.9832796 1.004627 1.008946 0.9822375
Proposed Base Range:$113,135 $130,968 $151,611
Range 21
Packet Page 204 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
RECREATION SERVICES MANAGER $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $97,730 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $1,128 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084
Rec & Park Planning Mgr. Bothell, City of $81,180 92,196 $103,212 $11,539 $23,859 $116,578 $127,594.10 $138,610 $6,848 $123,426 $145,458 $145,458
Recreation Manager Burien, City of $77,640 86,010 $94,380 $10,552 $22,585 $110,777 $119,146.68 $127,517 ----
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Recreation Manager Issaquah, City of $89,124 $101,448 $113,772 $12,720 $25,904 $127,748 $140,072 $152,396 $20,184 $147,932 $160,256 $172,580
Recreation Supt.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,907 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,599 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,599
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
Recreation Manager University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
Median:$79,747 $90,324 $100,907 Median:$119,933 $136,237 $141,529
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$109,282 $120,777 $134,084
1.0935032 1.069898 1.0325079 1.097461 1.128007 1.055523
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 205 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
SENIOR PLANNER $69,455 $80,403 $93,076 $93,072 $10,406 $24,300 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782 $0 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782
Senior Planner Bothell, City of $68,760 $78,096 $87,432 $9,775 $23,859 $102,394 $111,730 $121,066 $0 $102,394 $111,730 $121,066
Senior Planner Burien, City of $70,344 $77,922 $85,500 $9,559 $22,585 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644 $0 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644
Senior Planner Des Moines, City of $71,256 $78,936 $86,616 $9,684 $24,079 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379 $0 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379
Senior Planner Issaquah, City of $77,004 $87,648 $98,292 $10,989 $25,904 $113,897 $124,541 $135,185 $17,928 $131,825 $142,469 $153,113
Senior Planner Lynnwood, City of $63,440 $71,854 $80,267 $8,974 $25,411 $97,825 $106,238 $114,652 $0 $97,825 $106,238 $114,652
Senior Planner Puyallup, City of $63,576 $73,104 $82,632 $9,238 $25,332 $98,146 $107,674 $117,202 $0 $98,146 $107,674 $117,202
Senior Planner Sammamish, City of $65,142 $77,147 $89,151 $9,967 $25,484 $100,593 $112,598 $124,602 $1,714 $102,308 $114,312 $126,317
Principal Planner University Place, City of $77,364 $89,586 $101,808 $11,382 $24,914 $113,660 $125,882 $138,104 $1,958 $115,618 $127,840 $140,062
Median:$69,552 $78,009 $87,024 Median:$102,441 $112,214 $120,722
Current Edmonds Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076 Current Edmonds Base Range:$104,161 $115,109 $127,782
#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076
Range 11
Packet Page 206 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
SENIOR UTILITIES ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $107,747 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $0 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093
(-)Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $80,654 $91,595 $102,535 $11,463 $23,859 $115,977 $126,917 $137,858 $6,803 $122,780 $133,720 $144,660
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $84,972 $102,222 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $124,233 $141,483 $158,733 $21,015 $145,248 $162,498 $179,748
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Civil Engineer - Senior Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Senior Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $79,356 $93,978 $108,600 $12,141 $25,484 $116,981 $131,603 $146,225 $2,088 $119,070 $133,692 $148,314
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$80,556 $92,634 $104,712 Median:$119,070 $133,692 $144,660
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,749 $129,422 $144,093
1.0019029 0.99525 0.9718322 1.019879 1.032991 100.39%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 207 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
STORMWATER ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $107,747 $12,035 $24,300 $116,738 $129,411 $144,082 $0 $116,738 $129,411 $144,082
Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
Stormwater Engineer Des Moines, City of $101,436 $112,362 $123,288 $13,784 $24,079 $139,299 $150,225 $161,151 $0 $139,299 $150,225 $161,151
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $84,972 $102,222 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $124,233 $141,483 $158,733 $21,015 $145,248 $162,498 $179,748
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Civil Engineer - Senior Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Sr. Stormwater PM Sammamish, City of $84,751 $100,370 $115,988 $12,967 $25,484 $123,202 $138,821 $154,439 $2,231 $125,433 $141,051 $156,670
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$84,862 $101,071 $114,958 Median:$129,602 $143,489 $157,376
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,738 $129,411 $144,082
1.0554519 1.08589 1.0669253 1.110192 1.108784 109.23%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 208 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $102,591 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $0 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093
Transportation Engineer Bothell, City of $77,796 $88,356 $98,916 $11,059 $23,859 $112,714 $123,274 $133,834 $0 $112,714 $123,274 $133,834
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -------$0 ---
Traffic Signal Oper. Eng Issaquah, City of $93,612 $106,542 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $132,873 $145,803 $158,733 $3,600 $136,473 $149,403 $162,333
Traffic Engineer Lynnwood, City of $87,714 $99,351 $110,989 $12,409 $25,411 $125,533 $137,171 $148,808 $0 $125,533 $137,171 $148,808
Traffic Engineer Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Traffic Engineer Sammamish, City of $79,355 $93,979 $108,603 $12,142 $25,484 $116,981 $131,605 $146,229 $0 $116,981 $131,605 $146,229
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$80,070 $93,307 $106,658 Median:$117,288 $130,639 $143,990
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,749 $129,422 $144,093
0.9958584 1.00248 0.9898883 1.004614 1.009401 99.93%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 209 of 473
City of Edmonds 2015 NR Compensation Study - Salary Range comparison
2015 NR Compensation Study -Salary Range Comparisons 9.15.15 final draft 9/17/2015
CURRENT POSITION TITLES Filled/Unfilled Salary
Range
approx. % of
difference
from current
position
maximum
compared to
the market
approx. %
of
difference
from current
position
maximum
compared
to the
market
approx. %
of
difference
from current
position
maximum
compared
to the
market
Job Titles Filled/Unfilled Salary
Range Minimum Midpoint Maximum Minimum Midpoint Maximum %Minimum Midpoint Maximum Minimum Midpoint Maximum
1 Accounting Supervisor Filled 12 $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $71,772 $73,162 $90,811 7.08%$71,772 $73,162 $90,811 7.08%$74,026 $77,235 $97,607 0.13%
NB Assistant Building Official Unfilled 10 $66,147 $76,574 $88,643
2 Arts & Cultural Services Prog. Mgr.Filled 12 $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $79,747 $90,324 $100,901 -3.24%$78,694 $88,167 $97,640 0.09%$79,747 $90,324 $100,901 -3.24%
3 Assistant Police Chief Filled 19 $102,617 $118,791 $137,516 $113,868 $128,682 $140,988 -2.52%$114,288 $129,081 $137,406 0.08%$113,868 $128,682 $140,988 -2.52%
4 Associate Planner Filled 9 $62,997 $72,928 $84,423 $65,094 $71,531 $80,670 4.45%$66,228 $72,234 $83,472 1.13%$66,228 $72,234 $83,472 1.13%
5 Building Official Filled 15 $84,423 $97,730 $113,135 $86,214 $97,215 $106,692 5.69%$86,214 $97,290 $108,180 4.38%$86,214 $98,946 $111,488 1.46%
6 Capital Projects Manager Filled 12 $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $76,680 $84,936 $93,288 4.55%$76,080 $85,338 $95,004 2.79%$79,584 $88,164 $96,744 1.01%
7 City Clerk Filled 14 $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $71,256 $82,392 $93,108 13.59%$70,344 $78,936 $88,428 17.93%$70,428 $80,964 $91,500 15.08%
8 City Engineer Filled 19 $102,617 $118,791 $137,516 $101,424 $112,878 $123,864 9.93%$101,916 $112,977 $124,038 9.80%$101,424 $112,356 $123,864 9.93%
9 Community & Econ. Dev. Director Filled 20 $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $113,676 $129,108 $144,540 -0.10%$116,381 $130,449 $147,470 -2.13%$116,381 $130,449 $147,470 -2.13%
10 Court Administrator Filled 13 $76,574 $88,643 $107,747 $80,280 $90,465 $100,650 6.59%$84,162 $93,288 $102,414 4.95%$86,700 $96,036 $105,372 2.20%
11 Development Services Director Filled 20 $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $116,784 $132,786 $143,652 0.51%$110,256 $120,222 $134,304 6.99%$110,256 $130,920 $143,652 0.51%
12 Engineering Program Manager I Filled 10 $66,147 $76,574 $88,643 $71,760 $79,698 $87,456 1.34%$71,760 $79,698 $87,456 1.34%$70,662 $79,773 $87,546 1.24%
13 Engineering Program Manager II Unfilled 12 $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $76,710 $87,991 $98,991 -1.29%$76,630 $87,991 $100,041 -2.36%$76,520 $90,625 $104,712 -7.14%
14 Engineering Program Manager III Unfilled 14 $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $85,764 $95,130 $106,836 0.85%$85,764 $95,130 $106,836 0.85%$86,196 $99,114 $112,032 -3.98%
15 Executive Assistant - Confidential Filled 7 $57,141 $66,147 $76,574 $58,662 $66,441 $73,902 3.49%$59,136 $67,632 $75,816 0.99%$58,434 $66,570 $74,274 3.00%
16 Executive Assistant to the Mayor Filled 8 $59,998 $69,455 $80,403 $58,662 $66,441 $74,628 7.18%$59,136 $67,632 $75,816 5.71%$58,434 $66,570 $74,274 7.62%
NB Facilities Manager Filled 14 $80,403 $93,076 $107,747
17 Finance Director Filled 20 $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $117,694 $133,486 $148,979 -3.18%$117,576 $130,920 $143,652 0.51%$117,576 $133,442 $149,074 -3.24%
NB Fleet Manager Filled 12 $72,928 $84,423 $97,730
19 Human Resources Analyst Filled 8 $59,998 $69,455 $80,403 $59,736 $67,872 $75,816 5.71%$59,842 $68,296 $76,749 4.54%
20 Human Resources Assistant Filled $20,309 $27,141 $30,469 $25,560 $28,443 $31,344 -2.87%$24,750 $28,404 $31,956 -4.88%
21 Human Resources Manager Filled 15 $84,423 $97,730 $113,135 $91,906 $101,808 $115,071 -1.71%$90,750 $100,827 $108,592 4.02%$91,906 $101,808 $111,711 1.26%
22 IT Supervisor Filled 12 $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $77,609 $88,561 $98,755 -1.05%$77,609 $88,382 $97,907 -0.18%$77,153 $88,382 $99,587 -1.90%
23 Parks & Recreation Director Filled 20 $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $117,816 $130,920 $143,652 0.51%$110,652 $126,744 $134,496 6.85%$110,652 $130,920 $143,652 0.51%
24 Parks Maintenance Manager Filled 12 $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $74,034 $86,826 $98,598 -0.89%$72,768 $82,442 $92,076 5.79%$80,903 $91,879 $102,854 -5.24%
25 Planner Unfilled 7 $57,141 $66,147 $76,574 $61,932 $69,750 $76,260 0.41%
26 Planning Manager Filled 16 $88,643 $102,617 $118,791 $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 4.09%$91,698 $102,828 $113,958 4.07%$95,220 $109,179 $122,850 -3.42%
27 Police Chief Filled 22 $118,791 $137,516 $159,192 $119,580 $137,850 $153,678 3.46%$121,176 $137,184 $152,280 4.34%$119,688 $137,184 $155,076 2.59%
NB
Public Disclosure and Records
Management Specialist (pt)*Filled 1 $42,640 $49,361 $57,141
28 PW & Utilities Director Filled 21 $113,135 $130,968 $151,611 $117,576 $134,214 $148,884 1.80%$117,576 $133,446 $143,652 5.25%$117,576 $133,446 $149,076 1.67%
29 Recreation Services Manager Filled 12 $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $79,747 $90,324 $100,907 -3.25%$78,846 $88,167 $97,644 0.09%$79,747 $90,324 $100,907 -3.25%
NB Recycling Coordinator Filled 7 $57,141 $66,147 $76,574
31 Senior Human Resources Analyst Unfilled 10 $66,147 $76,574 $88,643 $70,728 $79,458 $87,396 1.41%
32 Senior Planner Filled 11 $69,455 $80,403 $93,076 $68,400 $77,534 $86,058 7.54%$67,974 $77,534 $86,058 7.54%$69,552 $78,009 $87,024 6.50%
33 Senior Utilities Engineer Filled 14 $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $81,361 $93,306 $103,554 2.79%$80,556 $92,634 $104,496 3.02%$80,556 $96,234 $104,712 2.82%
34 Storm Water Engineer Filled 14 $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $84,751 $95,130 $104,712 2.82%$84,862 $97,750 $109,320 -1.46%$84,862 $101,071 $114,958 -6.69%
35 Street/Storm Water Manager Filled 15 $84,423 $97,730 $113,135 $86,711 $98,347 $109,982 2.79%
36 Transportation Engineer Filled 14 $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $80,556 $93,979 $104,712 2.82%$80,070 $93,307 $104,604 2.92%$80,070 $93,307 $106,658 1.01%
NB Water/Sewer Manager Filled 15 $84,423 $97,730 $113,135
NB WWTP Manager Filled 17 $93,076 $107,747 $124,731
NB WWTP Supervisor Filled 13 $76,574 $88,643 $102,617
Comparator cities - King,
Snohomish & Pierce County only
CURRENT SALARY RANGE Current policy comparator cities
(King, Snohomish, Pierce, Kitsap
& Thurston counties) + historic
comparator cities
Policy comparator cities
Packet Page 210 of 473
City of Edmonds 2015 NR Compensation Study - Total Cost of Compensation Range comparison
2015 NR Compensation Study -Salary Range Comparisons 9.15.15 final draft 9/17/2015
CURRENT POSITION TITLES Filled/Unfilled Salary
Range
approx. %
of
difference
from
current
position
maximum
compared
to the
market
approx. %
of
difference
from current
position
maximum
compared
to the
market
approx. %
of
difference
from current
position
maximum
compared
to the
market
Job Titles Filled/Unfilled Salary
Range Minimum Midpoint Maximum Minimum Midpoint Maximum %Minimum Midpoint Maximum Minimum Midpoint Maximum
Accounting Supervisor Filled 10 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $107,896 $109,312 $126,374 4.95%$111,390 $114,599 $134,971 -1.52%
Assistant Building Official Unfilled 10 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
Arts & Cultural Services Prog. Mgr.Filled 12 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084 $116,687 $127,788 $137,593 -2.62%$113,743 $127,402 $132,690 1.04%$116,439 $127,788 $137,593 -2.62%
Assistant Police Chief Filled 19 $136,446 $152,620 $171,345 $156,608 $165,836 $181,874 -6.14%$160,035 $168,602 $183,584 -7.14%$156,335 $171,905 $187,475 -9.41%
Associate Planner Filled 9 $96,735 $106,666 $118,161 $99,330 $105,614 $116,717 1.22%$101,242 $107,596 $119,893 -1.47%$101,242 $107,596 $119,893 -1.47%
Building Official Filled 15 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389 $122,273 $131,616 $141,375 6.61%$123,624 $134,532 $145,020 4.21%$125,063 $137,650 $150,192 0.79%
Capital Projects Manager Filled 12 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782 $110,713 $118,969 $130,145 -1.85%$110,919 $119,918 $129,584 -1.41%$112,985 $121,565 $130,145 -1.85%
City Clerk Filled 14 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336 $107,535 $116,526 $127,062 12.57%$105,019 $114,315 $124,929 14.04%$105,990 $116,526 $127,062 12.57%
City Engineer Filled 19 $143,878 $160,052 $178,777 $138,325 $150,946 $165,578 7.38%$141,681 $153,079 $165,741 7.29%$138,338 $150,692 $165,578 7.38%
Community & Econ. Dev. Director Filled 20 $149,857 $166,841 $186,502 $156,381 $173,403 $189,662 -1.69%$158,682 $174,172 $190,424 -2.10%$158,682 $174,172 $190,424 -2.10%
Court Administrator Filled 13 $111,354 $123,423 $137,397 $120,002 $128,918 $137,834 -0.32%$121,281 $130,407 $139,533 -1.55%$122,560 $131,896 $141,232 -2.79%
Development Services Director Filled 20 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501 $156,857 $180,520 $182,297 2.25%$156,499 $161,899 $175,416 5.94%$156,833 $169,565 $182,297 2.25%
Engineering Program Manager I Filled 10 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853 $105,797 $113,749 $121,884 0.79%$105,971 $114,401 $121,622 1.00%$105,797 $113,555 $121,359 1.22%
Engineering Program Manager II Unfilled 12 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $115,051 $125,171 $134,758 -1.36%$115,051 $127,030 $138,075 -3.85%$115,727 $129,673 $141,751 -6.61%
Engineering Program Manager III Unfilled 14 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336 $124,907 $136,971 $148,999 -2.52%$124,053 $134,273 $145,749 -0.28%$124,053 $136,971 $149,889 -3.13%
Executive Assistant - Confidential Filled 7 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435 $92,042 $100,102 $108,440 0.91%$92,833 $101,758 $109,703 -0.24%$92,042 $100,102 $108,440 0.91%
Executive Assistant to the Mayor Filled 8 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692 $92,833 $101,753 $109,703 3.51%$93,318 $102,555 $111,792 1.67%$93,287 $102,744 $113,692 0.00%
Facilities Manager Filled 14 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336
Finance Director Filled 20 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501 $160,152 $177,829 $189,009 -1.34%$159,889 $172,552 $185,146 0.73%$156,864 $175,520 $191,151 -2.49%
Fleet Manager Filled 12 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084
Human Resources Analyst Filled 8 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692 $96,067 $104,389 $112,711 0.86%$96,067 $104,389 $112,711 0.86%
Human Resources Assistant Filled $23,715 $30,547 $33,875 $29,033 $32,423 $35,210 -3.94%$28,291 $31,993 $35,529 -4.88%
Human Resources Manager Filled 15 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389 $129,592 $139,964 $153,289 -1.26%$128,999 $138,300 $146,064 3.52%$129,767 $139,669 $149,572 1.20%
IT Supervisor Filled 12 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $115,091 $127,681 $136,495 -2.66%$115,091 $126,334 $134,897 -1.46%$114,075 $126,055 $138,883 -4.46%
Parks & Recreation Director Filled 20 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501 $159,528 $170,101 $182,297 2.25%$156,833 $167,772 $179,530 3.74%$156,833 $169,565 $182,297 2.25%
Parks Maintenance Manager Filled 12 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $111,823 $123,868 $133,990 -0.78%$108,473 $118,127 $127,781 3.89%$123,085 $134,061 $145,037 -9.09%
Planner Unfilled 7 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435 $93,602 $103,087 $109,945 -0.47%$93,206 $99,908 $106,610 2.58%
Planning Manager Filled 16 $127,594 $141,568 $157,742 $130,791 $143,889 $156,852 0.56%$132,187 $143,317 $154,447 2.09%$136,624 $151,609 $166,594 -5.61%
Police Chief Filled 22 $154,004 $172,729 $194,405 $161,654 $180,827 $194,682 -0.14%$170,035 $187,219 $195,082 -0.35%$170,035 $187,219 $204,403 -5.14%
Public Disclosure and Records
Management Specialist (part time)Filled 1 $61,071 $66,112 $71,947
PW & Utilities Director Filled 21 $156,134 $173,967 $194,610 $160,347 $182,196 $189,400 2.68%$159,894 $175,524 $185,146 4.86%$156,857 $175,524 $191,154 1.78%
Recreation Services Manager Filled 12 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084 $117,342 $128,029 $138,844 -3.55%$116,439 $127,016 $137,599 -2.62%$119,933 $136,237 $141,529 -5.55%
Recycling Coordinator Filled 7 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435
Senior Human Resources Analyst Unfilled 10 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853 $105,588 $114,630 $123,672 -0.67%$105,588 $114,426 $122,364 0.40%
Senior Planner Filled 11 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782 $105,100 $114,436 $123,772 3.14%$102,441 $110,848 $119,011 6.86%$102,441 $112,214 $120,722 5.53%
Senior Utilities Engineer Filled 14 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $119,756 $133,706 $143,369 0.50%$119,070 $133,692 $143,639 0.32%$119,070 $133,692 $144,660 -0.39%
Storm Water Engineer Filled 33 $116,738 $129,411 $144,082 $125,170 $134,959 $145,350 -0.88%$125,170 $137,662 $150,155 -4.21%$129,602 $143,489 $157,376 -9.23%
Street/Storm Water Manager Filled 15 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389 $129,994 $141,630 $153,266 -1.24%$125,170 $137,662 $150,155 0.82%
Transportation Engineer Filled 13 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $117,288 $130,639 $142,545 1.07%$117,288 $130,639 $142,545 1.07%$117,288 $130,639 $143,990 0.07%
Water/Sewer Manager Filled 15 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389
WWTP Manager Filled 17 $132,760 $147,431 $164,415
WWTP Supervisor Filled 33 $112,347 $124,416 $138,390
CURRENT TCC SALARY RANGE Current policy comparator cities
(King, Snohomish, Pierce, Kitsap
& Thurston counties) + historic
ccomparator cities
Policy comparator cities Comparator cities - King,
Snohomish & Pierce County only
Packet Page 211 of 473
City Name Population
1 Bothell 42,640
2 Bremerton 39,410
3 Burien 48,810
4 Des Moines 30,100
5 Issaquah 33,330
6 Lacey 46,020
7 Lynnwood 36,420
8 Puyallup 38,950
9 Sammamish 49,980
10 University Place 31,720
Packet Page 212 of 473
City of Edmonds 2015 NR Compensation Study - Salary Range minimum comparison
Proposed-FY2016-NRSalaryRanges- minimums 9/17/2015
CURRENT POSITION TITLES Filled/Unfilled Salary
Range
CURRENT
SALARY
RANGE
Current policy
comparator cities
(King, Snohomish,
Pierce, Kitsap &
Thurston counties)
+ historic
ccomparator cities
% of
difference
(from
current
salary range
maximum)
Policy comparator
cities
% of
difference
(from
current
salary range
maximum)
Comparator
cities - King,
Snohomish &
Pierce County
only
% of
difference
(from
current
salary range
maximum)
Job Titles Filled/Unfilled Salary
Range Minimum Minimum %Minimum Minimum
1 Accounting Supervisor Filled 12 $72,928 $71,772 1.59 $71,772 1.59 $74,026 -1.51
NB Assistant Building Official Unfilled 10 $66,147
2 Arts & Cultural Services Prog. Mgr.Filled 12 $72,928 $79,747 -9.35 $78,694 -7.91 $79,747 -9.35
3 Assistant Police Chief Filled 19 $102,617 $113,868 -10.96 $114,288 -11.37 $113,868 -10.96
4 Associate Planner Filled 9 $62,997 $65,094 -3.33 $66,228 -5.13 $66,228 -5.13
5 Building Official Filled 15 $84,423 $86,214 -2.12 $86,214 -2.12 $86,214 -2.12
6 Capital Projects Manager Filled 12 $72,928 $76,680 -5.14 $76,080 -4.32 $79,584 -9.13
7 City Clerk Filled 14 $80,403 $71,256 11.38 $70,344 12.51 $70,428 12.41
8 City Engineer Filled 19 $102,617 $101,424 1.16 $101,916 0.68 $101,424 1.16
9 Community & Econ. Dev. Director Filled 20 $107,747 $113,676 -5.50 $116,381 -8.01 $116,381 -8.01
10 Court Administrator Filled 13 $76,574 $80,280 -4.84 $84,162 -9.91 $86,700 -13.22
11 Development Services Director Filled 20 $107,747 $116,784 -8.39 $110,256 -2.33 $110,256 -2.33
12 Engineering Program Manager I Filled 10 $66,147 $71,760 -8.49 $71,760 -8.49 $70,662 -6.83
13 Engineering Program Manager II Unfilled 12 $72,928 $76,710 -5.19 $76,630 -5.08 $76,520 -4.93
14 Engineering Program Manager III Unfilled 14 $80,403 $85,764 -6.67 $85,764 -6.67 $86,196 -7.20
15 Executive Assistant - Confidential Filled 7 $57,141 $58,662 -2.66 $59,136 -3.49 $58,434 -2.26
16 Executive Assistant to the Mayor Filled 8 $59,998 $58,662 2.23 $59,136 1.44 $58,434 2.61
NB Facilities Manager Filled 14 $80,403
17 Finance Director Filled 20 $107,747 $117,694 -9.23 $117,576 -9.12 $117,576 -9.12
NB Fleet Manager Filled 12 $72,928
19 Human Resources Analyst Filled 8 $59,998 $59,736 0.44 $59,842 0.26
20 Human Resources Assistant Filled $20,309 $25,560 -25.86 $24,750 -21.87
21 Human Resources Manager Filled 15 $84,423 $91,906 -8.86 $90,750 -7.49 $91,906 -8.86
22 IT Supervisor Filled 12 $72,928 $77,609 -6.42 $77,609 -6.42 $77,153 -5.79
23 Parks & Recreation Director Filled 20 $107,747 $117,816 -9.35 $110,652 -2.70 $110,652 -2.70
24 Parks Maintenance Manager Filled 12 $72,928 $74,034 -1.52 $72,768 0.22 $80,903 -10.94
25 Planner Unfilled 7 $57,141 $61,932 -8.38
26 Planning Manager Filled 16 $88,643 $89,616 -1.10 $91,698 -3.45 $95,220 -7.42
27 Police Chief Filled 22 $118,791 $119,580 -0.66 $121,176 -2.01 $119,688 -0.76
NB
Public Disclosure and Records
Management Specialist (pt)*Filled 1 $42,640
28 PW & Utilities Director Filled 21 $113,135 $117,576 -3.93 $117,576 -3.93 $117,576 -3.93
29 Recreation Services Manager Filled 12 $72,928 $79,747 -9.35 $78,694 -7.91 $79,747 -9.35
NB Recycling Coordinator Filled 7 $57,141
31 Senior Human Resources Analyst Unfilled 10 $66,147 $70,728 -6.93
32 Senior Planner Filled 11 $69,455 $68,400 1.52 $67,974 2.13 $69,552 -0.14
33 Senior Utilities Engineer Filled 14 $80,403 $81,361 -1.19 $80,556 -0.19 $80,556 -0.19
34 Storm Water Engineer Filled 14 $80,403 $84,751 -5.41 $84,862 -5.55 $84,862 -5.55
35 Street/Storm Water Manager Filled 15 $84,423 $86,711 -2.71
36 Transportation Engineer Filled 14 $80,403 $80,556 -0.19 $80,070 0.41 $80,070 0.41
NB Water/Sewer Manager Filled 15 $84,423
NB WWTP Manager Filled 17 $93,076
NB WWTP Supervisor Filled 13 $76,574
average -4.57 -4.07 -4.52NB= Non-Benchmark positions
Packet Page 213 of 473
City of Edmonds 2015 NR Compensation Study - Salary Range minimum comparison
Proposed-FY2016-NRSalaryRanges- minimums 9/17/2015
*100% FTE salary - current incumbent is at .75% FTE
Packet Page 214 of 473
AM-7985 7. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/22/2015
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Jim Stevens
Department:Public Works
Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Forward to Consent
Information
Subject Title
ESCO IV Funding Use
Recommendation
Staff recommends Council to approve this item for the consent agenda at its next business meeting.
Previous Council Action
As part of the budget process for 2104, $210,000 was approved for a capital project through Fund 016
and designated ESCO IV. This funding was reallocated in the budget process for FY 2015 because the
project depended in part on grant funding through the State Dept. of Commerce and the next available
application period was too late in 2014 to enable completing the project during that year,
Narrative
As originally conceived, ESCO IV provided a method to address several remaining energy efficiency
opportunities along with vital building equipment replacement needs. The goal was to leverage this
effort with grant funding from the state and utilities covering approximately 30% of project costs. This
work included replacing two failing HVAC units serving the Plaza Room and integrating their operations
into our building controls system. It also encompassed auditing and repairing, as necessary, the Frances
Anderson Center steam traps. Finally, it replaced remaining high-intensity discharge lighting in various
locations on City streets, at the waterfront, and on the Fishing Pier, with LED technology.
Unfortunately, along with 2/3 of all other grant applications received by Department of Commerce during
the application period, this request was not funded. The City was left with its original $210,000 allocated
for the project, but with too much scope to fit into the available funding without access to the grant. The
original project, as proposed in the grant application to Commerce, was valued at just over $275,000 in
total.
The lighting upgrade on the Fishing Pier has since been included in the project to repair the Fishing Pier,
now set to begin in 2016. Removing this from the original proposal and taking out the remainder of street
lights (other than the Sternberg decorative lights in the waterfront area) leaves a project proposal of
$173,431, well within the $210,000 originally allocated for ESCO IV. This would still provide for the
needed replacement of critical building equipment, as well as reducing use of both natural gas and
electricity because of the steam trap work and the decorative light retrofit. Therefore, staff recommends
Council approve the use of this funding to allow the ESCO IV project to move forward and contract for
the work as outlined in the attachment provided and in this agenda item.
Packet Page 215 of 473
Attachments
ESCO IV Change
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Public Works Phil Williams 09/16/2015 02:49 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/17/2015 07:49 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/17/2015 08:35 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/17/2015 08:39 AM
Form Started By: Jim Stevens Started On: 09/15/2015 10:37 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/17/2015
Packet Page 216 of 473
Project Name: City of Edmonds Ph. 6 Facilities Upgrade AM SO
10 10 0
I. PROJECT COSTS & ENERGY SAVINGS FOR SELECTED OPTIONS
PROJECT COSTS Mech, Water,
General
Lighting Total Project
Costs
Engineering Audit -$ -$ -$
Estimated Labor and Material Cost 94,238$ 8,650$ 102,888$
M,W,G Design @ 10.0% of Labor & Material 9,424$ 9,424$
Lighting Design @ 6.0% of Labor & Material 519$ 519$
Construction Mgt @ 6.0% of Labor & Material 5,654$ 519$ 6,173$
Bonding @ 2.0% of Labor & Material 1,885$ 173$ 2,058$
ESCO Overhead and Profit @ 18.0% of Labor & Material 16,963$ 1,557$ 18,520$
1st Year of Ameresco M&V 1,055$
Subtotal:128,164$ 11,418$ 140,637$
Construction Contingency @ 5.0% of CC 4,712$ 433$ 5,145$
Subtotal - Maximum Project Cost:132,876$ 11,851$ 145,782$
Est. Sales Tax @ 9.5% of Maximum Project Cost 12,623$ 1,126$ 13,849$
0 Additional Years of M&V - Ameresco (includes tax)-$
1 Years of M&V - DES -$
DES Project Management Fees 13,800$
TOTAL PROJECT PRICE:145,499$ 12,977$ 173,431$
Estimated Utility Incentive -$ 516$ 516$
Grant Request -$
Estimated Client Net Cost (excluding add'tl years M&V)172,915$
Client Initial Cash Payment 172,915$
-$
Amount to be Financed by Client:-$
Year 1 Estimated Cash Flow:1,469$
Year 1 Cash Flow Based on Guaranteed Energy Savings
(90%):1,323$
ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS Mechanical Water Lighting General Total Annual Svg
Electrical Savings (kWh)669 0 3,443 0 4,112 217$
Electrical Savings (kW)0 0 0 0 0
Nat Gas Savings (Therms)966 0 0 0 966 1,004$
Oil (Gal)0 0 0 0 0 -$
Propane (Gal)0 0 0 0 0 -$
Water Savings (CCF)0 0 0 0 0 -$
$ Saved 1,051$ -$ 170$ -$ 1,220$ 1,221$
Template Version 3.34
September 2, 2015
1 of 1
Packet Page 217 of 473
AM-7990 7. D.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/22/2015
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Review Committee: Committee Action: Cancel
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of the Proposed 2016-2021 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program.
Recommendation
Schedule a public hearing on October 20, 2015 for both documents.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is a document updated annually and identifies capital
projects for at least the next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a
list of projects that need to be expanded or will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the
City's projected population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital
projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects
are identified within the six-year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan
projects which encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects.
CIP vs. CFP
The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to
different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying
those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital
needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City levels of service standards. The CFP is also required to be
consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are
restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP.
The proposed 2016-2021 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of
General, Transportation and Stormwater. The proposed 2016-2021 CIP is attached as Exhibit 2. The CIP
has two sections related to general and parks projects and each project list is organized by the City's
financial fund numbers. Exhibit 3 is a comparison that shows added, deleted and changed projects
between last year's CFP/CIP to the proposed CFP/CIP.
The CFP and CIP will be presented at the Planning Board Meeting on October 14, 2015.
Staff recommends a public hearing be scheduled for both documents on October 20, 2015.
Packet Page 218 of 473
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP
Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP
Exhibit 3 - CFP/CIP Comparison
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/17/2015 05:35 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/17/2015 08:48 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/18/2015 05:04 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/18/2015 07:30 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 09/17/2015 01:42 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/18/2015
Packet Page 219 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2016-2021
DRAFT
1
Packet Page 220 of 473
2
Packet Page 221 of 473
CFP
GENERAL
3
Packet Page 222 of 473
4
Packet Page 223 of 473
$0 Public Vote
Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds
$0
$0 Total $5-$23 M
$0 Community
Unknown Conceptual $0 Partnerships
$0 REET
$0 Total Unknown
$0 Public Vote
Conceptual $3,100,000 REET 1 / Grants $100,000 $3,000,000
$0 G.O. Bonds
$3,100,000 Total $100,000 $3,000,000
$0 Capital Campaign
RCO Phase1 $0 REET 2
Complete $0 School District
$0 Foundation
$0 Grants
$0 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6-8M
$0 Public Vote
Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds
$0
$0 Total $3 - $4M
$1,050,000 REET / Grants $25,000 $525,000 $500,000
Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds
$0 Private Partnership
$1,050,000 Total $25,000 $525,000 $500,000
EIS $0 Federal (Unsecured)
US DOT Completed $0 State Funds
$0 Total Unknown
Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants
$0 Total
Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants
$0 Total $300,000 $0
General Local Funds $66,670
Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants $383,330 $130,000
$0 Total $450,000 $130,000
Total CFP $4,150,000 Annual CFP Totals $875,000 $655,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $3,000,000
Edmonds Waterfront Analysis Develop alternatives to improve
emergency access and safety
improvements.
Downtown Public Restroom Locate, construct, and maintain a
public restroom downtown.
Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations
Building
Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)Acquire and develop property for a
year round public market.
Community Park / Athletic Complex -
Old Woodway High School: Phase 2 and 3
In cooperation with ESD#15 develop
a community park and athletic
complex.
Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry / Mutimodal
Facility
Relocate ferry terminal to Marina
Beach.
Replace / Renovate deteriorating
building in City Park.
Senior Center Grounds Rehabilitate grounds, parking,
beach access and area around
Senior Center.
20172016Revenue Source
(2016-2021)
Total Cost
Current
Project
Phase 2022-20352021202020192018
RCO Land
Acquisition
PurposeProject Name
Aquatic Facility Meet citizen needs for an Aquatics
Center (Feasibility study complete
August 2009).
Edmonds School District
(City has lease until 2021).
Civic Playfield Acquisition and/or development
Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study
Grant
Opportunity
Initiate feasibility study of providing
and promoting Cultural / Arts
facilities for the City of Edmonds.
5
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
4
o
f
4
7
3
6
Packet Page 225 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Facility
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 –
$23,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study
completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the
consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the
summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of
its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of
Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the
current pool.
SCHEDULE: 2021-2035
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2035
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $5m - $23m
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
7
Packet Page 226 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Cultural Arts Facility
Needs Study
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Initiate feasibility study of providing and promoting Cultural / Arts
facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high
priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008
update process.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for
public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority
creates the need to study performance, management and long term potential for arts related
facilities.
SCHEDULE:
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
8
Packet Page 227 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition
and/or Development
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,950,000
6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire Civic field from School District. Develop this 8.1 acre
property for continued use as an important community park, sports tourism hub and site of
some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in downtown Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important
park site for the citizens of Edmonds.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2035
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Acquisition $1,950,000
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $3,000,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,950,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
9
Packet Page 228 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted
or unlighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District,
community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon
successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project for all 3 phases.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained
facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled
access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized
area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees.
Phase 1 will be complete in 2015 for $4.2M, Phases 2 & 3 will be completed in the future for an
additional $6-8M.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2026
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-
2026
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $4.2 M $6-8M
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic
Complex at the Former Woodway High School
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10-12M
10
Packet Page 229 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities
Maintenance & Operations Building
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the
end of its useful life and is in need of major renovation or replacement.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this
existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City
parks and Capital facilities for the long term.
SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real
estate taxes.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2035
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $3m - $4m
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 11
Packet Page 230 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Park and
surrounding areas, beach access
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park and parking lot
when the center is rebuilt. Rebuilt center will be available as a community center in the
evenings and weekends.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain capital assets and provide safety
and better accessibility for Seniors, and be available for the whole community. One of the top
priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access.
SCHEDULE: Work with Senior Center on timing of construction and grounds rehab.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study $25,000 $25,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $500,000 $500,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $25,000 $525,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
12
Packet Page 231 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Crossing
WSDOT Ferry / Multimodal Facility
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Crossing is multimodal transportation center that will
provide the capacity to respond to growth while providing improved opportunities for connecting
various forms of travel including rail, ferry, bus, walking and ridesharing.
NOTE: The design of Marina Beach Park is a separate project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide an efficient point of connection between
existing and planned transportation modes.
SCHEDULE: 2021-2035
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-
2035
Engineering &
Administration
Right of Way
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL Unknown
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
13
Packet Page 232 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown
Waterfront)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public
market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community
gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a
valuable asset to Edmonds.
SCHEDULE:
This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners
willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished
by 2017.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2035
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL Unknown
14
Packet Page 233 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Restroom ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to locate, construct and
maintain a downtown public restroom.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project satisfies goals in the Strategic Action
Plan and the PROS plan. It is being supported by the Economic Development
Commission and Planning Board. This will help to provide a much needed
downtown amenity, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be
a valuable asset to Edmonds.
SCHEDULE:
This project depends on the ability of funds.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2035
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $300,000
15
Packet Page 234 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Waterfront
Analysis
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $680,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Alternative analysis to study, 1) Waterfront access issues
emphasizing and prioritizing near term solutions to providing emergency access, also
including, but not limited to, 2) At grade conflicts where Main and Dayton Streets intersect
BNSF Rail lines, 3) Pedestrian/bicycle access, and 4) Options to the Edmonds Crossing
Multimodal Terminal Project (Identified as Modified Alternative 2) within the 2004 Final
Environmental Impact Statement.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve waterfront access.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study $450,000 $130,000
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
TOTAL $450,000 $130,000
SCHEDULE: 2016-2017
16
Packet Page 235 of 473
CFP
TRANSPORTATION
17
Packet Page 236 of 473
18
Packet Page 237 of 473
Safety / Capacity Analysis
$8,650 (Federal or State secured)$8,650
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Construction $0 (Unsecured)
$1,350 (Local Funds)$1,350
$10,000 Total $10,000
$397,874 (Federal or State secured)$397,874
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Construction $0 (Unsecured)
$49,203 (Local Funds)$49,203
$447,077 Total $447,077
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$50,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$50,000 $8,690,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$50,000 (Local Funds)$50,000 $1,356,000
$100,000 Total $100,000 $10,046,000
$3,134,910 (Federal or State secured)$3,134,910
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
$0 (Unsecured)
$1,842,630 (Local Funds)$1,842,630
$4,977,540 Total $4,977,540
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$10,000,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000
State Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
Appropriation $0 (Local Funds)
$10,000,000 Total $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$744,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$122,000 $87,500 $535,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$158,500 (Local Funds)$71,000 $87,500
$903,000 Total $193,000 $175,000 $535,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$894,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$118,000 $776,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$17,000 (Local Funds)$17,000
$911,000 Total $135,000 $776,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$4,284,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$206,000 $1,127,000 $2,951,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$30,000 (Local Funds)$30,000
$4,314,000 Total $236,000 $1,127,000 $2,951,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$2,783,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$152,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$23,000 (Local Funds)$23,000
$2,806,000 Total $175,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000
2022-2035201920202021
Grant
Opportunity
(2016-2021)
Total CostPurpose 201820162017Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name
212th St SW @ 84th Ave W
(5corners) Intersection Improvements
Realign highly skewed intersection to
address safety and improve
operations; create new east-west
corridor between SR-99 and I-5.
228th St. SW Corridor Safety
Improvements
Intersection improvements to
improve intersection delay and level
of service.
228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th Pl.
W
Install two-way left turn lanes and
sidewalks to improve capacity and
pedestrian safety (project split with
Snohomish County)
ROW /
Construction
76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Intersection improvements to
improve intersection delay and level
of service (LOS).
Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection
Improvements
Widen 212th St. SW to add a
westbound left turn lane for 200'
storage length and an eastbound left
turn lane.
Highway 99 Gateway / Revitalization Install gateway elements and safety
improvements along SR-99 Corridor.
SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave W
Intersection Improvements
Improve intersection safety by
converting a stop controlled
intersection for NB and SB
movements to a signalized
intersection.
Install traffic signal to improve
intersection delay and Level of
Service (mini roundabout is an
alternative solution).
Main St. and 9th Ave S
76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Convert split phasing operation for
EB and WB movements to
concurrent through movements, with
protected / permissive LT phasing.
1
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
3
8
o
f
4
7
3
2022-2035201920202021
Grant
Opportunity
(2016-2021)
Total CostPurpose 201820162017Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$2,313,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$142,000 $334,000 $1,837,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$22,000 (Local Funds)$22,000
$2,335,000 Total $164,000 $334,000 $1,837,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$3,192,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$152,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$23,000 (Local Funds)$23,000
$3,215,000 Total $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$179,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$15,000 $164,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$15,000 (Local Funds)$15,000
$194,000 Total $30,000 $164,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$485,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$65,000 $420,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$10,000 (Local Funds)$10,000
$495,000 Total $75,000 $420,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$1,311,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$173,000 $1,138,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$27,000 (Local Funds)$27,000
$1,338,000 Total $200,000 $1,138,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,183,000
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $1,183,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$15,441,000
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $15,441,000
Install traffic signal to improve
vehicular and pedestrian safety;
revise geometry to allow for safer
turns.
Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W
Intersection Improvements
Install traffic signal to reduce the
intersection delay and improve Level
of Service.
84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th
St. SW)
Install two-way left turn lanes and
sidewalk to improve capacity and
pedestrian safety (split with
Snohomish County)
Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection
Improvement
Widen 216th St. SW to add a left
turn lane for eastbound and
westbound movements.
Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection
Improvement
Widen 220th St. SW and Hwy 99 to
add a westbound right turn lane (for
325' storage length) and a soutbound
left turn lane (for 275' storage
length).
SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Extend left turn storage area for WB
movement on SR-104 w/ various
bicycle and pedestrian
improvements.
SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection
Improvements
Convert EB and WB LT along SR-
104 to protected LT phasing;
upgrade ADA curb ramps; and add
C-Curb for access management
SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection
Improvements
2
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
3
9
o
f
4
7
3
2022-2035201920202021
Grant
Opportunity
(2016-2021)
Total CostPurpose 201820162017Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,017,468
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $1,017,468
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$3,017,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $3,017,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$610,000
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $610,000
$44,000 (Federal or State secured)$44,000
Possible $1,090,650 (Federal or State unsecured)$8,650 $1,082,000
RCO / TIB Grant Design $0 (Unsecured)
for construction $1,151,350 (Local Funds)$1,350 $133,000 $1,017,000
$2,286,000 Total $10,000 $177,000 $2,099,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$37,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$37,500
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$37,500 (Local Funds)$37,500
$75,000 Total $75,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$1,205,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$100,000 $1,105,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$100,000 (Local Funds)$100,000
$1,305,000 Total $200,000 $1,105,000
$34,954 (Federal or State secured)$34,954
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Construction $0 (Unsecured)
$113,181 (Local Funds)$113,181
$148,135 Total $148,135
$391,356 (Federal or State secured)$391,356
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Construction $0 (Unsecured)
$202,109 (Local Funds)$202,109
$593,465 Total $593,465
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$1,288,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$106,500 $1,182,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$106,500 (Local Funds)$106,500
$1,395,000 Total $213,000 $1,182,000
SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Intersection
Improvements
Add a 2nd WB left turn lane (split
with Shoreline).
Install traffic signal to improve Level
of Service and intersection delay.
Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Non-motorized Pedestrian / Bicycle Projects
Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to
Caspers St.
Provide multi-use path on the west
side of Sunset Ave, with various
utility upgrades.
SR-104 @ 100th Ave. W Intersection /
Westgate Area Improvements
Implement Westgate Circulation
Access Plan, midblock pedestrian
crossings along 100th Ave. W, and
rechannelization with bike lanes /
sharrows along 100th Ave. W.
Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S to 8th
Ave. S Walkway
Provide safe sidewalk along short
missing link.
Improve pedestrian safety along
232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. to
SR-104.
232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to
SR-104
238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to
104th Ave. W
Improve pedestrian safety along
238th St. SW from 100th Ave. to
104th Ave.
236th St SW from Edmonds Way
(SR-104) to Madrona Elementary
Improve pedestrian safety along
236th St. SW, creating a safe
pedestrian connection from
SR-104 to Madrona school.
Improve pedestrian safety along
236th St. SW, creating a safe
pedestrian connection from
SR-104.
236th St SW from Edmonds Way
(SR-104) to 97th Ave. W
2
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
4
0
o
f
4
7
3
2022-2035201920202021
Grant
Opportunity
(2016-2021)
Total CostPurpose 201820162017Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$90,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$90,000 $495,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$90,000 Total $90,000 $495,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$833,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$30,000 $37,000 $766,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$67,000 (Local Funds)$30,000 $37,000
$900,000 Total $60,000 $74,000 $766,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$30,000 (Local Funds)$30,000
$30,000 Total $30,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$1,938,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$170,000 $1,768,000
Possible grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$170,000 (Local Funds)$170,000
$2,108,000 Total $340,000 $1,768,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$978,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$100,000 $878,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$327,000 (Local Funds)$100,000 $227,000
$1,305,000 Total $200,000 $1,105,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$105,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$105,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$105,000 Total $105,000
$137,000 (Federal or State secured)$137,000
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$20,000 (Local Funds)$20,000
$157,000 Total $157,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$372,300 (Federal or State unsecured)$372,300
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$118,700 (Local Funds)$118,700
$491,000 Total $491,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$300,000 (Local Funds)$50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
$300,000 Total $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
84th Ave. W from 238th St. SW to
234th St. SW
Improve pedestrian safety along 84th
Ave. W. from 238th St. SW to 234th
St. SW.
80th Ave. W from 206th St. SW to
212th St. SW
Improve pedestrian safety along 80th
Ave. W, within proximity to Edmonds-
Woodway High School.
Provide safe sidewalk along short
missing link.
Provide safe sidewalk, connecting to
ex. sidewalk along 200th St. SW
(direct link to Maplewood Elementary
School).
218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to
84th Ave. W
Provide safe sidewalk along a
missing link of 218th St. SW. from
76th Ave. to 84th Ave.
Walnut St from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave.
S Walkway
Provide short missing link.
216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99
to 72nd Ave W
Provide sidewalk on north side of
216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd
Ave W (completing missing link)
238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. 99 Provide sidewalk on north side of
238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy.
99 (completing missing link)
Minor Sidewalk Program Complete short sidewalk stretches
throughout the City (annual program)
2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St.
Walkway
Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th
St. SW
2
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
4
1
o
f
4
7
3
2022-2035201920202021
Grant
Opportunity
(2016-2021)
Total CostPurpose 201820162017Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$630,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $630,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$585,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $585,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$990,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $990,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$225,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $225,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$315,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $315,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$315,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $315,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$357,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$357,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$357,000 Total $357,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$300,000 (Local Funds)$300,000
$300,000 Total $300,000
Total CFP $43,991,217 Annual CFP Totals $6,536,217 $227,000 $80,000 $5,490,000 $12,856,000 $18,802,000 $34,869,468
Totals Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
$581,006 Total Federal & State (Secured)$3,967,744 $44,000 $0 $137,000 $0 $0 $0
$16,943,150 Total Federal & State (Unsecured)$8,650 $0 $0 $3,735,300 $12,311,500 $18,475,000 $16,279,468
$0 Unsecured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,234,000
$2,795,309 Local Funds $2,559,823 $183,000 $80,000 $1,617,700 $544,500 $327,000 $1,356,000
Install wayside horns at both
crossings to reduce noise from train
horns.
95th Pl. W from 224th St. SW to 220th
St. SW
Provide sidewalk on one side of 95th
Pl. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St.
SW completing missing link)
104th Ave. W / Robinhood Lane from
238th St. SW to 106th Ave. W
Provide sidewalk on west side of
104th Ave. from 238th St. SW to
106th Ave. W (completing missing
link)
Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave.
S
Provide sidewalk on one side of Elm
Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
Ferry/Railroad
Traffic Planning Projects
Ferry Storage Improvements from
Pine St. to Dayton St.
Improve ferry queueing by extending
ferry storage area along SR-104
(striping changes).
Revenue Summary by Year
80th Ave. W from 218th St. SW to
220th St. SW
Provide sidewalk on one side of 80th
Ave. W from 218th St. SW to 220th
St. SW (completing missing link)
84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to
186th St. SW
Provide sidewalk on one side of 84th
Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th
St. SW
191st St. SW from 80th Ave. W to
76th Ave. W
Provide sidewalk on one side of
191th St. SW from 80th Ave. to 76th
Ave. (completing missing link)
Trackside Warning System at Dayton
St. and Main St. Railroad Crossings
2
3
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
4
2
o
f
4
7
3
24
Packet Page 243 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 212th St. SW @ 84th Ave.
W (5-Corners) Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,305,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct roundabout and new water and stormwater facilities at
the intersection of 84th Ave and 212th St.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve the intersection Level of Service and pedestrian
safety.
SCHEDULE: Construction complete. Project close-out will be completed in 2016.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
Construction $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000
25
Packet Page 244 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW Corridor
Safety Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,300,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1) Extend 228th St across the unopened right-of-way to 76th Avenue West 2)
Signalize the intersection of 228th St SW @ SR99 and 228th St. SW @ 76th Ave. West 3) Construct a raised
median in the vicinity of 76th Avenue West. 4) Add illumination between 224th St SW and 228th St SW on SR 99
5) Overlay of 228th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to ~ 2,000’ east of 76th Ave. W.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will improve access / safety to the I-5 / Mountlake
Terrace Park & Ride from SR99. This east / west connection will reduce demand and congestion along two east-
west corridors (220th Street SW and SR104). Roadway safety will also be improved as SR 99/ 228th Street SW
will become a signalized intersection. 228th St. SW is being overlaid from 80th Pl. W to ~ 1,000 LF east of 72nd
Ave. W. as well as 76th Ave. W from 228th St. SW to Hwy. 99. The project consists of various utility upgrades.
SCHEDULE: Construction began in 2015 and is scheduled to be completed in 2016. Federal and State grants
were secured for the construction phase. This project is combined into one construction contract with the Hwy. 99
(Phase 3) Lighting project.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering,
Administration, and
ROW
Construction $447,077
1% for Art
TOTAL $477,077
* All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
26
Packet Page 245 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW from Hwy.
99 to 95th Pl. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,146,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95th Pl. W to three lanes
(with two-way left turn lane), with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety and traffic
flow along this corridor.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$100,000 $1,400,000
Construction $8,646,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $100,000 $10,046,000
SCHEDULE: 2021-2035
27
Packet Page 246 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 76th Ave W @ 212th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,470,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a northbound and southbound left-turn lane to convert the signal
operation for those approaches from split phasing to protected-permissive phasing. Add a right-
turn lane for the westbound, southbound, and northbound movements. The project also consists of
various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the existing level
of service from LOS D (LOS F by 2015) to LOS C.
SCHEDULE: Federal grants have been secured for all project phases. Design started in 2012 and
is scheduled for completion in January 2016. Right-of-way acquisition is anticipated to be
completed in January 2016. Construction is scheduled to be completed in 2016.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$150,000
Construction $4,824,230
1% for Art 3,310
TOTAL $4,977,540
28
Packet Page 247 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 Gateway /
Revitalization
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement
sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access
control and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater
management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities,
landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access
management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved.
SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled for 2019. The construction phase is scheduled for
2020 and 2021.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$500,000
Construction $4,500,000 $5,000,000
1% for Art
TOTAL 500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000
29
Packet Page 248 of 473
PROJECT NAME: SR-524 (196th St. SW)/ 88th
Ave. W Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $903,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave.
W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and
southbound traffic to right-turn-only (prohibiting left-turn and through movements) would also
address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one
concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be
implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are
met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). This project was ranked #6 in the
Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the
intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196th St.
SW.
SCHEDULE: The intersection LOS must meet MUTCD traffic signal warrants and be approved
by WSDOT since 196th St. SW is a State Route (SR524). No funding is currently allocated to
this project (pending grant funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$193,000 $175,000
Construction 535,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $193,000 $175,000 $535,000
30
Packet Page 249 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $911,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a traffic signal (or mini-roundabout is an alternative
solution).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The existing intersection is stop-controlled for all
approaches and the projected intersection LOS in 2035 is LOS F (below the City’s
concurrency standards: LOS D). The installation of a traffic signal would improve the
intersection delay to LOS B. The project ranked #4 in the Roadway Project Priority of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2019 and 2021 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$135,000
Construction $776,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $135,000 $776,000
31
Packet Page 250 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 220th St SW @ 76th Ave W
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
$4,316,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right
turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected-permitted phase for
eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during
southbound left turn phase. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY #1 in 2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The
LOS would be improved from LOS E to LOS C.
SCHEDULE: Engineering, ROW, and construction scheduled between 2019 and 2021
(unsecured funding).
* All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering & ROW
&
Administration
$238,000 $1,127,000
Construction $2,951,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $238,000 $1,127,000 $2,951,000
32
Packet Page 251 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW
intersection improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,806,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane
for 200’ storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300’ storage length.
Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound
movements.(ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #4)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce
delay.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2019 and 2021 (unsecured
funding).The project cost is split between Lynnwood and Edmonds since half the
project is in Lynnwood.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering,
ROW, &
Administration
$175,000 $1,091,000
Construction $1,540,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $175,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000
33
Packet Page 252 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW
intersection improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,335,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane
for and an eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected-permissive left turn phases for
eastbound and westbound movements. This project ranked #3 in the Roadway
Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce
delay.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2019 and 2021 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
ROW &
Administration
$164,000 $334,000
Construction $1,837,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $164,000 $334,000 $1,837,000
34
Packet Page 253 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW
intersection improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,215,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220th St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for
325’ storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275’ storage
length. (ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #1).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce intersection delay and improve traffic flow
and safety.
SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2019 and 2021 (unsecured funding for
all phases).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
& ROW
$175,000 $1,085,000
Construction $1,955,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000
35
Packet Page 254 of 473
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 226th St. SW /
15th St. SW Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $194,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Extend the left turn lane for the westbound movement on SR-104.
Complete various pedestrian and bicycle intersection improvements. This project was
identified in the SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve non-motorized transportation safety at the
intersection and improve traffic flow along the SR-104 corridor.
SCHEDULE: 2019-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$30,000
Construction $164,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000 $164,000
36
Packet Page 255 of 473
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $495,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Convert LT phasing for EB and SB to protected LT phasing;
upgrade all ADA Curb Ramps; and add C-Curb for access management.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety for pedestrians and vehicles.
SCHEDULE: 2019-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$75,000
Construction $420,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $75,000 $420,000
37
Packet Page 256 of 473
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 238th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,138,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The warrants are met for such an installation.
This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in
2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2019-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$200,000
Construction $1,138,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $1,138,000
38
Packet Page 257 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave.
W Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
$1,183,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for
all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #11).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. The
projected Level of Service is LOS F in 2035, which is below the City’s concurrency standards
(LOS D). The project will improve the Level of Service to LOS B.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2022 and 2035
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction $983,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,183,000
39
Packet Page 258 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW
to 238th St. SW)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,441,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and
sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this project was ranked #6 in the Long Walkway list
of the 2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along
this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with
their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any
back-up to the through lane when insufficient gaps are provided.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2022 and 2035
(unsecured funding). The project cost is split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since
half the project is in Esperance.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$2,000,000
Construction $13,441,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $15,441,000
40
Packet Page 259 of 473
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 100th Ave. W
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,017,468
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan, install mid-block
pedestrian crossing along 100th Ave. W, and re-striping of 100th Ave. W with the potential
addition of bike lanes. This project was identified in the SR-104 Completed Streets Corridor
Analysis (completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and
improve non-motorized transportation safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$150,000
Construction $867,468
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,017,468
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
41
Packet Page 260 of 473
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,017,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a 2nd left turn lane along SR-104. This project was
identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and
improve non-motorized transportation safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$453,000
Construction $2,564,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $3,017,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035. The project cost would be split between Shoreline and Edmonds
since half the intersection is in Shoreline.
42
Packet Page 261 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St.
SW Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $610,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane
for 50’ storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration
lane for eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce
intersection delay. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #13)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers
accessing either street.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2022 and 2035
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$100,000
Construction $510,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $610,000
43
Packet Page 262 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway
from Bell St to Caspers St.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,350,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a multi-use path on the west side of the street, facing
waterfront (~ 1/2 mile / more recent project).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements have been installed to evaluate the alignment of the
proposed multi-use path. The final design phase is on-hold until the evaluation period is
completed.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study $10,000
Engineering &
Administration
$177,000
Construction $2,099,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $177,000 $2,099,000
44
Packet Page 263 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Dayton St between 7th Ave.
S and 8th Ave. S Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $75,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 250’) on
Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S (ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in
2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2019 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $75,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $75,000
45
Packet Page 264 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 232nd St. SW Walkway
from 100th Ave. W to SR-104
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,305,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to SR-104.
This project ranked #3 in the Long Walkway List of 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction $1,105,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $1,105,000
SCHEDULE: 2020-2021
46
Packet Page 265 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from 100th
Ave. W to 104th Ave. W Walkway and
Stormwater Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,677,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of ~ 1,200’ of sidewalk on the north side of 238th St.
SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W. as well as sharrows. Stormwater improvements will
also be incorporated into the project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and create a safe pedestrian
connection between 100th Ave. W and 104th Ave. W.
SCHEDULE Construction is scheduled to be completed in 2016. Funding was secured for the
completion of the design and construction phases (through Safe Routes to School program).
Stormwater improvements are funded by the Stormwater Utility Fund 422.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $148,135
1% for Art
TOTAL $148,135
47
Packet Page 266 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW from
Edmonds Way to Madrona Elementary School
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $665,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct an ~ 800’ sidewalk on the south side of 236th St.
SW from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary as well as the addition of sharrows along that
stretch. (This is only part of a stretch of Walkway project, which ranked #1 in the Long
Walkway list in the 2009 Transportation Plan)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route
near Madrona Elementary School and along 236th St. SW.
SCHEDULE: Construction is scheduled to be completed in 2016. The project is
funded through the Safe Routes to School Grant program.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
& ROW
Construction $593,465
1% for Art
TOTAL $593,465
48
Packet Page 267 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW Walkway
from Edmonds Way to 97th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,395,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk with curb and gutter along 236nd St. SW from
Edmonds Way to 97th Ave. W . This project ranked #4 in Long Walkway list of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$213,000
Construction $1,182,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $213,000 $1,182,000
SCHEDULE: 2019-2020
49
Packet Page 268 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W Walkway
from 238th St. SW to 234th ST. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 238th St .SW to 234th St.
SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$90,000
Construction $495,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $90,000 $495,000
SCHEDULE: Begin design in 2021 (unsecured funding)
50
Packet Page 269 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave. W Walkway
from 206th St. SW to 212th ST. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $900,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 206th St. SW to 212th St.
SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #1 in Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvements will improve non-motorized
transportation safety.
SCHEDULE: 2019-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$60,000 $74,000
Construction $766,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $60,000 $74,000 $766,000
51
Packet Page 270 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 2nd Ave. S from James St.
to Main St. Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 100’) on
2nd Ave. S between Main St. and James St. (Ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in
2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: 2019
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $30,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000
52
Packet Page 271 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway
from Main St. to 200th St. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,108,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct sidewalk on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW
(~ 2,700’). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W, adjacent to
Maplewood Elementary School (rated #22 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation
Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood
Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non-motorized
transportation to walk to / from school.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2020 and construction in 2021 (funding unsecured).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$340,000
Construction $1,768,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $340,000 $1,768,000
53
Packet Page 272 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 218th St. SW Walkway
from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,305,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave.
W with curb and gutter. This project ranked #2 in Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvements will improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$200,000
Construction $1,105,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $1,105,000
54
Packet Page 273 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 3rd Ave. S to 4th
Ave. S Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $105,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 350’)
on Walnut St. between 3rd Ave. S and 4th Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project
list in 2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2019 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$10,000
Construction $95,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $105,000
55
Packet Page 274 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 216th St. SW Walkway from
Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $157,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 150’ sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from
Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on north side of stretch). This project
ranked #4 in the Short Walkway List (from 2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2019 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$30,000
Construction $127,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $157,000
56
Packet Page 275 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to
SR-104 Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $491,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #12 in Long Walkway list from 2015 Transportation Plan.
Install 5’ sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating
safe pedestrian connection between Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled in 2019 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$91,000
Construction $400,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $491,000
57
Packet Page 276 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Minor Sidewalk Program ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete missing sidewalk along short segments throughout the
City.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2016-2021 (annual program)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Construction $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
58
Packet Page 277 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 191th St. SW from 80th
Ave. W to 76th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $630,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 191th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave.,
with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation
Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$90,000
Construction $540,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $630,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
59
Packet Page 278 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 95th Pl. W Walkway from
224th ST. SW to 220th St. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 95th Pl. W from 224th ST. SW to 220th ST.
SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #9 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$85,000
Construction $500,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $585,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
60
Packet Page 279 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 104th Ave. W Walkway
from 238th St. SW to 106th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $990,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 104th Ave. W from 238th ST. SW to 106th
Ave. W , with curb and gutter. This project ranked #10 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$150,000
Construction $840,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $990,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
61
Packet Page 280 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Elm Way Walkway from
8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $225,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S. This
project ranked #6 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$40,000
Construction $185,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $225,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
62
Packet Page 281 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave. W from 218th St.
SW to 220th St. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 218th ST. SW to 220th ST.
SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #7 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$55,000
Construction $260,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $315,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
63
Packet Page 282 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W from 188th St.
SW to 186th St. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th St.
SW ., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in Short Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$60,000
Construction $255,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $315,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
64
Packet Page 283 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Ferry Storage
Improvements from Pine St. Dayton St.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $357,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Modify existing lane channelization on SR104 to add vehicle
storage for ferry users.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce conflicts between ferry storage and access to
local driveways.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$50,000
Construction $307,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $357,000
SCHEDULE: 2019 (unsecured funding)
65
Packet Page 284 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Trackside Warning System
@ Dayton and Main St. RR Crossing
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $350,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @ Dayton and
Main St. Railroad Crossings.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce noise from train horns at both intersections.
SCHEDULE: Construction is scheduled for 2016.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
300,000
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $300,000
66
Packet Page 285 of 473
CFP
STORMWATER
67
Packet Page 286 of 473
68
Packet Page 287 of 473
$0 (Federal or State secured)
Design $0 (Federal or State unsecured)
$2,252,700 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$302,700 $1,900,000 $50,000
$2,252,700 Total $302,700 $1,900,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0
RCO SRF Grant $157,331 (Federal or State secured)$157,331
Possible Grant/TBD Study $4,200,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$225,000 $225,000 $1,800,000 $1,950,000
$1,467,869 (Debt/Stormwater)$47,869 $75,000 $75,000 $600,000 $650,000 $20,000
$5,825,200 Total $205,200 $300,000 $300,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000
Ecology Grant $633,750 (Federal or State secured)$123,375 $510,375
Possible Grant/TBD Design $1,087,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$337,500 $375,000 $375,000
$623,750 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$41,125 $170,125 $112,500 $125,000 $125,000 $50,000
$2,345,000 Total $164,500 $680,500 $450,000 $500,000 $500,000 $50,000
Total CFP $10,422,900 Annual CFP Totals $672,400 $2,880,500 $800,000 $2,900,000 $3,100,000 $70,000
Totals Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
$791,081 Total Federal & State (Secured)$280,706 $510,375 $0 $0 $0 $0
$5,287,500
Total Federal & State
(Unsecured)$0 $225,000 $562,500 $2,175,000 $2,325,000 $0
$4,344,319 Debt / Stormwater Fees $391,694 $2,145,125 $237,500 $725,000 $775,000 $70,000
2021Revenue Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Project Name Purpose
Grant Opportunity
Grant/Date
Current Project
Phase
(2016-2021)
Total Cost
Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage
Improvements.
Add lift station and other new infrastructure to reduce
intersection flooding.
Revenue Summary by Year
Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/ Willow
Creek/Daylighting/Restoration
Daylight channel and remove sediment to allow better
connnectivity with the Puget Sound to benefit fish and reduce
flooding.
Perrinville Creek High Flow
Reduction/Management Project -
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
Find solution to high peak stream flows caused by excessive
stormwater runoff that erodes the stream, causes flooding
and has negative impacts on aquatic habitat.
6
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
8
8
o
f
4
7
3
70
Packet Page 289 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Dayton St and Hwy 104
Drainage Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,252,700
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add lift station in the Beach Place parking lot and other new
infrastructure.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To reduce flooding at the intersection of Dayton St and
State Hwy 104.
SCHEDULE: 2016-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin. $302,700
Construction $1,881,000 $50,000
1% for Art $19,000
TOTAL $302,700 $1,900,000 $50,000
71
Packet Page 290 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh Channel
Improvements And Willow Creek Daylighting (Two
projects combined into One)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,575,200
Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform. Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source:
www.unocaledmonds.info/clean-up/gallery.php
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build on the feasibility studies completed in 2013 and 2015 that assessed
the feasibility of day lighting the Willow Creek channel. The final project may construct new tide gate to
allow better connectivity to the Puget Sound, removal of sediment, and 1,100 linear ft of new creek
channel lined with an impermeable membrane. Funds will be used for study and construction but exact
breakdown cannot be assessed at this time.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The daylight of willow creek will help reverse the negative impacts
to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped and will help reduce
the flooding problem at SR-104 and Dayton Street. It will also provide habitat for salmonids, including
rearing of juvenile Chinook.
SCHEDULE: 2016-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin. $405,200 $800,000 $50,000
Construction $300,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $405,000 $800,000 $350,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000
72
Packet Page 291 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Perrinville Creek High Flow
Reduction/Management Project
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,345,000
Perrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision that
will be addressed by restoration.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A flow reduction study for the Perrinville Creek basin was
completed in 2014. This study recommended a number of flow control and water quality
projects to improve the conditions in Perrinville Creek. The City applied for and won a grant
from the Department of Ecology for $633,750 to design and construct a stormwater infiltration
facility in Seaview Park. The 2016 and 2017 budgets are for that facility. The dollars allocated
in the out years are to implement additional water quality and flow control projects in the
Perrinville Creek basin as recommended by the Flow Reduction Study.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek Basin has increased
flows in the creek, incision of the creek, and sedimentation in the low-gradient downstream
reaches of the creek. Before any habitat improvements can be implemented, the flows must be
controlled or these improvements will be washed away.
SCHEDULE: 2016-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin. $164,500 $450,000 $50,000
Construction $673,695 $495,000 $495,000
1% for Art $6,805 $5,000 $5,000
TOTAL $164,500 $680,500 $450,000 $500,000 $500,000 $50,000
Perrinville
Creek
73
Packet Page 292 of 473
74
Packet Page 293 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2016-2021
DRAFT
1
Packet Page 294 of 473
2
Packet Page 295 of 473
CIP
GENERAL
3
Packet Page 296 of 473
4
Packet Page 297 of 473
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2016-2021)
Table of Contents
FUND DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT PAGE
GENERAL
112 Transportation Public Works 7
113
Multimodal
Transportation
Community
Services
10
116
Building
Maintenance
Public Works
11
125
Capital
Projects Fund
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
13
126
Special Capital /
Parks Acquisition
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
15
129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 16
132
Parks Construction
(Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
17
421 Water Projects Public Works 19
422 Storm Projects Public Works 20
423 Sewer Projects Public Works 22
423.76
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Public Works
24
PARKS – PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
125
Capital
Projects Fund
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
27
126
Special Capital /
Parks Acquisition
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
58
132
Parks Construction
(Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
61
5
Packet Page 298 of 473
6
Packet Page 299 of 473
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 112 - Transportation Projects
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
Preservation / Maintenance Projects
Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc.)$1,336,357 $1,137,643 $2,180,000 $1,420,000 $2,900,000 $2,060,000 $3,120,000 $12,817,643
220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave W to 84th Ave W $1,010,000 $30,000 $30,000
Citywide - Signal Improvements $325,000 $325,000 $650,000
Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades $75,000 $425,000 $500,000
Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave @ 238th St. SW $750,000 $750,000
Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 $375,000
Safety / Capacity Analysis
212th St. SW / 84th Ave (Five Corners) Roundabout X $141,226 $10,000 $10,000
228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements X $5,569,928 $447,077 $447,077
228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th Pl. W X $100,000 $100,000
76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements X $484,223 $4,974,232 $4,974,232
SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization X $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000
SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave. W - Intersection Improvements X $193,000 $175,000 $535,000 $903,000
Main St. @ 9th Ave. X $135,000 $776,000 $911,000
76th Ave. W @ 220th St SW - Intersection Improvements X $236,000 $1,127,000 $2,951,000 $4,314,000
Arterial Street Signal Coordination Improvements $50,000 $50,000
Hwy 99 @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $175,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000 $2,806,000
Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $164,000 $334,000 $1,837,000 $2,335,000
Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000 $3,215,000
SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $30,000 $164,000 $194,000
SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection Improvements X $75,000 $420,000 $495,000
SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $200,000 $1,138,000 $1,338,000
Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion $20,000 $20,000
Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers $100,000 $100,000
Non-motorized transportation projects
Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St.X $5,198 $10,000 $177,000 $2,162,000 $2,349,000
Dayton St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway X $75,000 $75,000
232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. to SR-104 X $200,000 $1,105,000 $1,305,000
238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W X $1,523,135 $148,135 $148,135
236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary X $71,002 $593,465 $593,465
236th St. SW from SR-104 to 97th Ave. W X $213,000 $1,182,000 $1,395,000
84th Ave. W from 238th St. SW to 234th St. SW X $90,000 $90,000
80th Ave. W from 206th St. SW to 212th St. SW X $60,000 $74,000 $766,000 $900,000
2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway X $30,000 $30,000
Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW Walkway X $340,000 $1,768,000 $2,108,000
218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W X $200,000 $1,015,000 $1,215,000
Walnut St. from 3rd Ave. to 4th Ave. Walkway X $105,000 $105,000
216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W X $157,000 $157,000
238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. 99 X $491,000 $491,000
ADA Curb Ramps Improvements $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,575,000
Audible Pedestrian Signals $25,000 $25,000
15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S X $30,693 $0
Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3) $585,321 $41,000 $41,000
Minor Sidewalk Program X $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000
ADA Curb Ramps along 3rd Ave S from Main St to Pine St $70,108 $0
Verdant Citywide Bicycle Improvements $109,785 $626,840 $626,840
Traffic Calming Projects
Traffic Calming Program / non-motorized transportation safety X $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $120,000
Ferry Projects
Ferry Storage Improvements from Pine St. to Dayton St.X $357,000 $357,000
Projects for 2016-2021
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
0
0
o
f
4
7
3
Traffic Planning Projects
Transportation Plan Update $107,194 $0
SR104 Transportation Corridor Study $95,026 $0
Citywide ADA Transition Plan $110,000 $110,000
Trackside Warning Sys or Quiet Zone @ Dayton/Main St. RR Crossings X $50,000 $300,000 $300,000
Total Projects $11,209,196 $8,523,392 $2,452,000 $1,515,000 $10,348,000 $16,261,000 $22,652,000 $61,751,392
Debt Service
Debt Service on Loan (1) 220th St Design $18,869 $18,778 $18,687 $18,596 $19,506 $18,415 $18,325
Debt Service on Loan (2) 220th St Construction $22,235 $22,129 $22,023 $21,917 $21,811 $21,706 $21,494
Debt Service on Loan (3) 100th Ave Road Stabilization $34,854 $34,690 $34,525 $34,361 $34,196 $34,032 $33,868
Total Debt $75,958 $75,597 $75,235 $74,874 $75,513 $74,153 $73,687
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Cash Balance $209,915 $191,938 $208,800 $297,565 $572,691 $654,478 $408,325
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax $140,000 $140,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000
Reimbursement - Fund 125 Annual Street Preservation Program $654,357 $257,643 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 Annual Street Preservation Program $12,000 $880,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000
Contribution - General Fund for Annual Street Preservation Program $670,000 $0 $650,000 $820,000 $1,100,000 $1,160,000 $1,220,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th to 84th $252,500 $7,500
Reimbursement - Fund 421 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $106,730
Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $68,500
Reimbursement - Fund 423 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $177,254
Reimbursement - Mountlake Terrace for 228th St. SW Improvements (Overlay)$386,433 $31,823
Reimbursement - Fund 421 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $70,000 $580,000
Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $15,000 $330,755
Reimbursement - Fund 423 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $70,000 $700,000
Reimbursement - Fund 421 for Sunset Ave. Walkway $75,000 $575,000
Reimbursement - Fund 423 for Sunset Ave. Walkway $50,000 $150,000
Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 238th St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W $957,610 $81,283
Reimbursement - PSE for 238th St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W $55,159
Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 236th St. SW Walkway from SR-104 to Madrona School $202,109
Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Minor Sidewalk Program $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
Reimbursement - Fund 125 - Hwy 99 Lighting (Phase 3)$30,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Traffic Calming Program $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Contribution - General Fund for SR-104 Transportation Corridor Study $95,026
Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Citywide ADA Transition Plan $110,000
Contribution - General Fund for Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone $50,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 Trackside Warning System $300,000
Reimbursement - Fund 422 (STORMWATER)$50,258 $109,000 $116,000 $120,000 $125,000 $130,000 $135,000
Traffic Impact Fees $82,982 $125,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Total Revenues $4,123,724 $4,172,051 $2,024,800 $2,162,565 $3,972,691 $3,394,478 $3,213,325
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
0
1
o
f
4
7
3
Grants 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
(Federal) for 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave to 84th Ave $757,445 $22,500
(Federal) for 212th @ 84th (Five Corners) Roundabout $122,160 $8,650
(Federal) for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements $3,435,343 $277,947
(State) for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements $1,379,576 $119,927
(Federal) for 76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $283,674 $3,134,914
(Federal) Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St.$4,496 $8,650
(State) 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W $503,765 $34,954
(State) 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S $30,693
(Federal) 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary $71,002 $391,356
(Federal) Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3)$585,321 $10,000
(Federal) ADA Curb Ramps along 3rd Ave. S from Main St. to Pine St.$70,108
(Verdant) for Verdant Citywide Bicycle Improvements $109,785 $626,840
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $7,353,368 $4,635,738 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grants 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not Secured)
Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc)$800,000 $900,000 $1,000,000
Citywide Safety Improvements - Signal Cabinet $325,000 $325,000
Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades $75,000 $425,000
Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave W @ 238th St SW $750,000
Main St @ 3rd Ave Signal Upgrades $37,500 $250,000
228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th Pl. W $50,000
SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000
196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Intersection Improvements $122,000 $87,500 $535,000
Main @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements $118,000 $776,000
76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements $206,000 $1,127,000 $2,951,000
Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $152,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000
Hwy 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements $142,000 $334,000 $1,837,000
Hwy 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements $152,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000
SR-104 @ 226th / 15th Intersection Improvements $15,000 $164,000
SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection Improvements $65,000 $420,000
SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements $173,000 $1,138,000
Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers $100,000
Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Caspers St $1,870,000
Dayton St. Walkway from 7th to 8th Ave.$37,500
232nd St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. to SR-104 $100,000 $1,105,000
236th St. SW Walkway from SR-104 to 97th Pl. W $106,500 $1,182,000
84th Ave. W Walkway from 238th to 234th $90,000
80th Ave. W Walkway from 206th to 212nd $30,000 $37,000 $766,000
Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th $170,000 $1,768,000
218th St. SW Walkway from 76th to 84th $100,000 $878,000
Walnut St. Walkway from 3rd to 4th $105,000
216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 72nd Ave W $137,000
238th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to SR-104 $372,300
ADA Curb Ramps Improvements $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
Audible Pedestrian Signals $25,000
Contribution - General Fund for Citywide Protected/permissive traffic signal conversion $20,000
Ferry Storage Improvements $357,000
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not secured) $0 $0 $800,000 $0 $7,105,300 $13,349,000 $19,975,000
Grant / Not Secured Funding Subtotal $7,353,368 $4,635,738 $800,000 $0 $7,105,300 $13,349,000 $19,975,000
Total Revenues & Grants $11,477,092 $8,807,789 $2,824,800 $2,162,565 $11,077,991 $16,743,478 $23,188,325
Total Projects ($11,209,196)($8,523,392)($2,452,000)($1,515,000)($10,348,000)($16,261,000)($22,652,000)
Total Debt ($75,958)($75,597)($75,235)($74,874)($75,513)($74,153)($73,687)
Ending Cash Balance $191,938 $208,800 $297,565 $572,691 $654,478 $408,325 $462,638
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
0
2
o
f
4
7
3
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 113 - Multimodal Transportation
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry/Multimodal Facility X Unknown
Total Project $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859
State Transportation Appropriations
Federal Funding (Unsecured)
Interest Earnings
Total Revenues $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859
Total Revenue $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859
Total Project $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Ending Cash Balance $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859
Projects for 2016-2021
1
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
0
3
o
f
4
7
3
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 116 - Building Maintenance
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
ADA Improvements- City Wide $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000
Anderson Center Accessibility $50,000 $50,000
Anderson Center Interior Painting $20,000 $30,000 $50,000
Anderson Center Exterior Painting $30,000 $30,000
Anderson Center Radiator Replacement $25,000 $85,000 $110,000
Anderson Center Exterior Repairs $75,000 $75,000
Anderson Center Blinds $5,000 $5,000
Anderson Center Asbestos Abatement $75,000 $75,000
Anderson Center Flooring/Gym $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 $65,000
Anderson Center Countertop Replacement $10,000 $10,000
Anderson Center Oil Tank Decommissioning $30,000 $30,000
Anderson Center Elevator Replacement $150,000 $150,000
Anderson Center Roof Replacement $325,000 $25,000 $350,000
Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement $0
City Hall Carpet Replacement $25,000 $50,000 $75,000
City Hall Elevator Replacement $150,000 $150,000
City Hall Exterior Cleaning and Repainting $40,000 $20,000 $60,000
City Hall Roof Repairs $0
City Hall HVAC $20,000 $20,000
City Hall Security Measures $35,000 $35,000
City Park Maint. Bldg. Roof $25,000 $25,000
ESCO III Project $60,000 $0
ESCO IV Project $170,000 $0
Fishing Pier Rehab $146,400 $0
Fire Station #16 Painting $5,000 $5,000
Fire Station #16 Carpet $20,000 $10,000 $30,000
Fire Station #16 HVAC Replacement $30,000 $30,000
Fire Station #17 Carpet $12,000 $12,000
Fire Station #17 Interior Painting $15,000 $15,000
Fire Station #20 Carpet $15,000 $15,000
Fire Station #20 Interior Painting $10,000 $10,000
Fire Station #20 Stairs and Deck Replacement $40,000 $40,000
Grandstand Exterior and Roof Repairs $100,000 $100,000
Library Plaza Appliance Replacement $4,000 $4,000
Library Plaza Brick Façade Addition $21,000 $21,000
Library Wood Trim $5,000 $5,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Replacement $28,000 $0
Meadowdale Flooring Replacement $25,000 $25,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Gutter Replacement $15,000 $10,000 $25,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Ext. Surface Cleaning $0
Meadowdale Clubhouse Fire Alarm Replacement $25,000 $25,000
Misc. Fire Sprinkler System Repairs $0
Misc. / Unanticipated Buliding Maintenance $30,000 $15,000 $15,000
Public Safety/Fire Station #17 Soffit Installation $4,000 $4,000
Public Safety Exterior Painting $20,000 $20,000
Public Safety Council Chamber Carpet $10,000 $10,000
Public Safety HVAC Repairs & Maintenance $0
Public Works Decant Improvements $0
Senior Center Misc Repairs & Maintenance $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000
Senior Center Siding/ Sealing (CDBG)$0
Total Projects $439,400 $90,000 $564,000 $310,000 $300,000 $297,000 $290,000 $1,851,000
Projects for 2016-2021
1
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
0
4
o
f
4
7
3
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$52,400 $36,000 $2,600 $13,600 $3,600 $3,600 $6,600
Interest Earnings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contribution from Gen Fund #001 and other $266,600 $56,600 $575,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
Commerce Grants $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CDBG Grant (Unsecured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WA Dept. of Ecology Grant $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WDFW Grant (Secured)$146,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WDFW Grant (Unsecured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Utility Grant Funding (Estimated)$10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WA State HCPF Grant Funding (Secured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenues $475,400 $92,600 $577,600 $313,600 $303,600 $303,600 $306,600
Total Revenue $475,400 $92,600 $577,600 $313,600 $303,600 $303,600 $306,600
Total Project ($439,400)($90,000)($564,000)($310,000)($300,000)($297,000)($290,000)
Ending Cash Balance $36,000 $2,600 $13,600 $3,600 $3,600 $6,600 $16,600
1
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
0
5
o
f
4
7
3
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 125 - Capital Projects Fund
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
Park Development Projects*
Anderson Center Field / Court / Stage $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000
Brackett's Landing Improvements $5,000 $50,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $170,000
City Park Improvements $272,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $75,000
Civic Center Improvements X $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $600,000 $640,000
Sunset Avenue Walkway $100,000 $100,000
Fishing Pier & Restrooms $175,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $225,000
Former Woodway HS Improvements (with successful capital campaign)X see below $0
Maplewood Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000
Marina Beach Park Improvements $100,000 $50,000 $350,000 $500,000 $500,000 $5,000 $1,505,000
Mathay Ballinger Park $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $35,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Grounds $75,000 $5,000 $5,000 $85,000
Meadowdale Playfields $250,000 $250,000 $500,000
Pine Ridge Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000
Seaview Park Improvements $20,000 $10,000 $5,000 $15,000
Sierra Park Improvements $70,000 $70,000
Yost Park / Pool Improvements $120,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000
Parklet development, 4th Ave cultural corridor $40,000 $40,000 $80,000
City Gateway replacements $40,000 $40,000
Outdoor Fitness Zones $50,000 $50,000
Citywide Park Improvements*
Citywide Beautification $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $126,000
Misc Paving $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $40,000
Citywide Park Improvements/Misc Small Projects $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $240,000
Sports Fields Upgrade / Playground Partnership $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $75,000
Specialized Projects*
Aquatic Center Facility (dependent upon successful capital campaign)X $0
Trail Development*
Misc Unpaved Trail / Bike Path Improvements $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000
Planning
Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study X $0
Edmonds Marsh / Hatchery Improvements X $105,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $5,000 $5,000 $130,000
Edmonds Cemetery Mapping Project $100,000 $100,000
Civic Center Master Plan $100,000 $100,000
Sr. Center/Waterfront walkway design $25,000 $25,000 $50,000
Pine Ridge Park Forest Management Study $50,000 $50,000
Total Project $718,000 $1,111,000 $786,000 $741,000 $716,000 $746,000 $786,000 $4,886,000
Reimbursements
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Sr. Center design)$25,000 $25,000
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Outdoor Fitness Zones)$50,000
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Dayton St Plaza)
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Fishing Pier rehab match)$100,000
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Former Woodway HS Improvements)X $500,000 $155,000
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (Pavement Preservation Program)$654,357 $257,643 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (Highway 99 Lighting Phase 3)$30,000
Total Reimbursements $1,154,357 $617,643 $175,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $0
Projects for 2016-2021
1
3
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
0
6
o
f
4
7
3
Total Project & Reimbursements $1,872,357 $1,728,643 $961,000 $891,000 $866,000 $896,000 $786,000
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$1,531,384 $769,727 $49,084 $88,084 $197,084 $331,084 $435,084
Real Estate Tax 1/4% $1,100,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Donations
Miscellaneous $10,700 $8,000
Total Revenues $2,642,084 $1,777,727 $1,049,084 $1,088,084 $1,197,084 $1,331,084 $1,435,084
Total Revenue $2,642,084 $1,777,727 $1,049,084 $1,088,084 $1,197,084 $1,331,084 $1,435,084
Total Project & Reimbursements ($1,872,357)($1,728,643)($961,000)($891,000)($866,000)($896,000)($786,000)
Ending Cash Balance $769,727 $49,084 $88,084 $197,084 $331,084 $435,084 $649,084
*Projects in all categories may be eligible for 1% for art with the exception of planning projects.
1
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
0
7
o
f
4
7
3
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 126 - Special Capital/Parks Acquisition
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
Debt Service on City Hall $0
Debt Service Marina Bch/Library Roof $84,428 $83,228 $82,028 $80,828 $79,628 $83,428 $409,140
Debt Service on PSCC Purchase $57,098 $56,198 $60,298 $54,298 $53,398 $52,498 $276,690
Debt Service on FAC Seismic retrofit $29,874 $29,957 $29,621 $29,640 $29,630 $29,981 $148,829
Estimated Debt Payment on Civic Playfield Acquisition $0
Total Debt $171,400 $169,383 $171,947 $164,766 $162,656 $165,907 $0 $834,659
Project Name
Acquistion of Civic Field
Misc. Open Space/Land $400,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,200,000
Reimbursements
Reimbursement to Fund 132 for Waterfront / Tidelands Acquisition $0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,200,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Annual Street Preservation Program $264,500 $887,500 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $2,687,500
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Trackside Warning System $300,000 $300,000
Reimbursement to Fund 111 for Signal Cabinet Upgrades $70,000 $70,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Upgrade Curb Ramps to ADA Stds $25,000 $25,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for ADA Transition Plan $110,000 $110,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Traffic Calming Program $20,000 $20,000
Reimbursement to General Fund for SR 99 Access Management Study $20,000 $20,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Minor Sidewalk Program $50,000 $50,000
Total Project & Reimbursements $664,500 $1,882,500 $850,000 $850,000 $850,000 $850,000 $400,000 $5,682,500
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$1,166,950 $1,433,050 $383,167 $363,220 $350,454 $339,798 $325,891
Real estate Tax 1/4%/1st Qtr % $1,100,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Interest Earnings $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000
Total Revenues $2,268,950 $2,435,050 $1,385,167 $1,365,220 $1,352,454 $1,341,798 $1,325,891
Grants 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured)
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenue & Grants & Subsidy $2,268,950 $2,435,050 $1,385,167 $1,365,220 $1,352,454 $1,341,798 $1,325,891
Total Debt ($171,400)($169,383)($171,947)($164,766)($162,656)($165,907)$0
Total Project & Reimbursements ($664,500)($1,882,500)($850,000)($850,000)($850,000)($850,000)($400,000)
Ending Cash Balance $1,433,050 $383,167 $363,220 $350,454 $339,798 $325,891 $925,891
Projects for 2016-2021
1
5
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
0
8
o
f
4
7
3
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 129 - Special Projects
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
$0
Total Projects $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Balance (January 1st)$17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922
Investment Interest
Total Revenues $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $0
Grants 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Grants $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenues & Grants $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $0
Total Construction Projects $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Ending Cash Balance $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $0
Projects for 2016-2021
1
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
0
9
o
f
4
7
3
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 132 - Parks Construction
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
4th Ave Corridor Enhancement $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $4,325,000
Cultural Heritage Tour and Way-Finding Signage $0
Dayton Street Plaza $168,000 $0
Civic Center Acquisition/Development $1,950,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000
Senior Center Project $25,000 $525,000 $500,000 $1,050,000
City Park Revitalization $854,900 $0
Former Woodway HS Improvements $500,000 $155,000 $155,000
Wetland Mitigation $6,343 $0
Edmonds Marsh/Daylighting Willow Creek $200,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $3,200,000
Fishing Pier Rehab $200,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000
Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)$0
Outdoor Fitness Zones $125,000 $125,000
Veteran's Plaza $10,000 $475,000 $475,000
Total Projects $3,689,243 $1,805,000 $525,000 $1,925,000 $4,400,000 $1,500,000 $3,000,000 $13,155,000
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$788,630 $422,970 $1,235,210 $1,435,210 $1,985,210 $1,835,210 $2,035,210
Beginning Cash Balance Milltown
Beginning Cash Balance Cultural Heritage Tour
Park Impact Fees $136,410 $136,410 $500,000
Reimbursement from Fund 117-200 for Cultural Heritage Tour
Reimbursement from Fund 120 for Cultural Heritage Tour
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Cultural Heritage Tour
Reimbursement from Fund 127-200 for Cultural Heritage Tour
Reimbursement from Fund 120 for Way-Finding Signage Grant Match
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Outdoor Fitness Zones $50,000
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Dayton St. Plaza
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for City Park Revitalization
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Former Woodway HS Improvements $500,000 $155,000
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Senior Center Design $25,000 $25,000
Reimbursement from Fund 126 for Waterfront Acquisition/Development $400,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
Contribution from 01 for Edmonds Marsh $200,000
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Marsh/Marina Beach $350,000 $500,000 $500,000
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Fishing Pier $100,000
Investment Interest $830 $830
Total Revenues $1,825,870 $1,290,210 $1,960,210 $1,985,210 $2,685,210 $2,535,210 $2,235,210
Grants 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Grants/ Loans (Secured)
4th Ave / Cultural Heritage Tour (Preserve America/National Park Service)
Dayton Street Plaza (Arts Fest. Found./Hubbard Trust/Ed in Bloom)
Interurban Trail (Federal CMAQ)
Interurban Trail (State RCO)
Snohomish County / City Park $80,000
RCO State grant / City Park Revitalization $500,000
Snohomish County Tourism for Way-Finding
Conservation Futures/Waterfront Acquisition $500,000
Wetland Mitigation $6,343
RCO/Civic Acquisition $1,000,000
RCO/Fishing Pier $200,000 $1,200,000
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $2,286,343 $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured)
4th Ave Corridor Enhancement (state, federal, other)$1,425,000 $2,900,000
Outdoor Fitness Zones $75,000
Sr. Ctr Project $500,000
Edmonds Marsh/Marina Beach $650,000 $1,000,000
Veterans Plaza $475,000
Civic Development $2,400,000
Bond funding/Civic
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought (not secured) $0 $550,000 $0 $1,925,000 $3,550,000 $1,000,000 $2,400,000
Projects for 2016-2021
1
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
1
0
o
f
4
7
3
Grants Subtotal $2,286,343 $1,750,000 $0 $1,925,000 $3,550,000 $1,000,000 $2,400,000
Total Revenues & Cash Balances & Grants $4,112,213 $3,040,210 $1,960,210 $3,910,210 $6,235,210 $3,535,210 $4,635,210
Total Construction Projects (3,689,243)($1,805,000)(525,000)(1,925,000)($4,400,000)(1,500,000)($3,000,000)
Ending Cash Balance $422,970 $1,235,210 $1,435,210 $1,985,210 $1,835,210 $2,035,210 $1,635,210
*Projects may be partially eligible for 1% for Art
1
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
1
1
o
f
4
7
3
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 421 - Water Projects
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
2013 Replacement Program $0
2014 Replacement Program $603,920 $0
2014 Waterline Overlays $0
2015 Replacement Program $2,291,559 $490,000 $490,000
2015 Waterline Overlays $98,284 $0
2016 Replacement Program $304,482 $2,052,028 $2,052,028
2016 Waterline Overlays $220,000 $220,000
Dayton Ave 3rd to 9th Utility Improvements $487,500 $487,500
2017 Replacement Program $302,948 $2,678,999 $2,981,947
2018 Replacement Program $400,000 $2,786,159 $3,186,159
2019 Replacement Program $416,000 $2,897,605 $3,313,605
2020 Replacement Program $432,640 $3,013,510 $3,446,150
2021 Replacement Program $449,946 $3,134,050 $3,583,996
2022 Replacement Program $467,944 $467,944
Five Corners Reservoir Recoating $100,000 $1,850,100 $1,850,100
2016 Water System Plan Update $86,100 $116,500 $116,500
Total Projects $3,484,345 $5,519,076 $3,078,999 $3,202,159 $3,330,245 $3,463,456 $3,601,994 $22,195,929
Reimbursements & Contributions
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (228th Project)$106,730 $0
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements)$70,000 $580,000 $580,000
Reimbursement to Fund 117 1% Arts (2015 Watermain)$1,886 $0
Reimbursement to Fund 117 1% Arts (2016 Watermain)$1,000 $1,000
Total Reimbursements $178,616 $581,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $581,000
Total Water Projects $3,662,961 $6,100,076 $3,078,999 $3,202,159 $3,330,245 $3,463,456 $3,601,994 $22,776,929
Revenues & Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Balance (January 1st)
Connection Fee Proceeds $316,700 $301,400 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Interfund Reimbursement from Fund 423 (Dayton 3rd to 9th)$150,000
Interfund Reimbursement from Fund 422 (Dayton 3rd to 9th)$187,500
2015 Bond $5,300,000
General Fund Fire Hydrant Improvements $100,000 $114,600 $119,184 $123,900 $128,856 $134,010 $139,370
Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc) $5,716,700 $753,500 $219,184 $223,900 $228,856 $234,010 $239,370
Unsecured Revenue 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers
Total Unsecured Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenues
Total Projects & Reimbursements
Ending Cash Balance
Projects for 2016-2021
1
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
1
2
o
f
4
7
3
CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project. X $90,486 $716,800 $716,800
Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements- Dayton St Pump Station X $115,344 $302,700 $1,900,000 $50,000 $2,252,700
Willow Cr - Final Feasibility Study / Design/Construction (See Note 1)X $293,981 $205,200 $300,000 $300,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000 $5,825,200
Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements $200,000 $500,000 $50,000 $750,000
Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation $82,500 $82,500 $550,607 $715,607
Northstream Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr - Assessment /
Stabilization $45,500 $750,000 $795,500
Rehab/Replace of Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr (See Note 1)$10,000 $140,200 $1,500,000 $500,000 $2,140,200
Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects - Seaview Infiltration (See
Note 1)X $164,500 $680,500 $450,000 $500,000 $500,000 $50,000 $2,345,000
Improvments - 88th Ave W and 194th St SW $87,500 $300,000 $387,500
Improvements - Dayton St - 3rd to 9th $88,172 $324,000 $324,000
Improvements - Sierra Pl- 12th Ave N to Olympic $84,000 $240,000 $324,000
City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects $168,776 $158,000 $150,000 $150,000 $250,000 $350,000 $500,000 $1,558,000
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects $7,009 $45,000 $64,000 $66,000 $68,000 $68,000 $70,000 $381,000
Storm System Video Assessment $23,363 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $165,000
Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan (including asset
management plan)$110,000 $110,000 $220,000
$797,131 $2,680,900 $6,297,000 $2,441,607 $3,248,000 $3,553,000 $680,000 $18,900,507
Northstream Projects
Annually Funded Projects
Storm Drainage Improvement Projects
Compliance-Related Projects
Total Project
Capital Improvements Program
PROJECT NAME
SW Edmonds Basin Study Implementation Projects
Edmonds Marsh Related Projects
Projects for 2016-2021Fund 422 Storm
Perrinville Creek Basin Projects
2
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
1
3
o
f
4
7
3
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW
Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park
Infiltration System)$957,610 $81,283 $81,283
228th SW Corridor Improvements $68,500 $0
76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $15,000 $330,575 $330,575
76th Ave W & 220th St SW Intersection Improvements $25,000 $25,000 $250,000 $300,000
226th SW Walkway Project $202,109 $202,109
Utility Replacements Dayton btwn 3rd & 9th Ave $187,500 $200,000 $1,900,000 $1,500,000 $200,000 $3,987,500
Stormwater Utility - Transportation Projects $50,258 $109,000 $112,000 $116,000 $119,000 $123,000 $125,000 $704,000
Total Reimbursements to 112 Fund $1,091,368 $910,467 $337,000 $2,041,000 $1,869,000 $323,000 $125,000 $5,605,467
105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project $6,325 $6,325
City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects $1,500 $800 $800
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW
Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park
infiltration system)$9,828 $0
228th SW Corridor Improvements $685 $0
76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $3,306 $3,306
76th Ave W & 220th St SW Intersection Improvements $2,500 $2,500
226th SW Walkway Project $1,750 $1,750
Utility Replacement Dayton btwn 3rd & 9th Ave $2,000 $19,000 $15,000 $2,000 $38,000
Total Reimbursements to 117 Fund $12,013 $12,181 $2,000 $19,000 $17,500 $2,000 $0 $52,681
$1,103,381 $922,648 $339,000 $2,060,000 $1,886,500 $325,000 $125,000 $5,658,148
$1,900,512 $3,603,548 $6,636,000 $4,501,607 $5,134,500 $3,878,000 $805,000 $24,558,655
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
$3,500,000
$52,995 $31,975 $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000
$75,000 $157,331
X $200,000 $433,750
$3,627,995 $389,306 $463,750 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
$1,125,000 $375,000
X $510,375 $337,500 $375,000 $375,000 $37,500
X $225,000 $225,000 $1,800,000 $1,950,000 $15,000
X $1,425,000 $37,500
$0 $0 $3,285,375 $975,000 $2,175,000 $2,325,000 $52,500
1. All or part of this project funded by secured grants or grants will be pursued, see Revenue section for details.
2 Assumes grant funding is 75% of total project costs per year beginning 2017
Projects for 2016-2021
Proceeds of Long-term debt (Bonds)
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
Total Project & Reimbursements
Total Reimbursements
To 117 - Arts
Reimbursements
To 112 - Street Fund
Grants (Secured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management -Seaview Infiltration
Grants (Unsecured) - Rehab/Replace of Northstream Culvert under Puget
Dr (See Note 2)
Grants (Unsecured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See
Note 2)
Grants (Unsecured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr -
Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration (See Note 2)
Grants (Unsecured) - Dayton St & Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements (See
Note 2)
Total Secured Revenues
Total Project & Transfers
Ending Cash Balance
Unsecured Revenue 2015-2021
Proceeds of Long-term debt (Bonds)
Total Unsecured Revenues
Notes:
Estimated Connection Fees (capital facilities charge)
Beginning Balance (January 1st)
Total Revenue
Grants (Secured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Final
Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration
2
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
1
4
o
f
4
7
3
CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, & 15 $3,000 $0
Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement $36,566 $0
Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement $269,344 $0
2015 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $1,460,567 $22,000 $22,000
2015 Sewerline Overlays $14,223 $0
2016 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $161,222 $1,907,104 $1,907,104
2016 Sewerline Overlays $220,000 $220,000
2017 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $278,750 $1,551,905 $1,830,655
2018 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $287,113 $1,598,462 $1,885,575
2019 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $295,726 $1,646,416 $1,942,142
2020 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $304,598 $1,695,809 $2,000,406
2021 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $313,736 $1,746,683 $2,060,419
2022 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $323,148 $323,148
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $92,000 $1,006,263 $412,000 $424,360 $437,091 $450,204 $463,710 $3,193,627
Lift Station 1 Metering & Flow Study $80,000 $120,000 $120,000
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study $10,000 $290,000 $290,000
$2,126,922 $3,844,117 $2,251,018 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $2,459,748 $2,533,541 $15,795,076
Reimbursement to Fund 421 (Dayton 3rd to 9th)$150,000 $150,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 (228th Project)$177,254 $0
Reimbursement to Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements)$70,000 $700,000 $700,000
$247,254 $850,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $850,000
$2,374,176 $4,694,117 $2,251,018 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $2,459,748 $2,533,541 $16,645,076
Projects for 2016-2021
PROJECT NAME
Fund 423 - Sewer Projects
Total Projects
Capital Improvements Program
Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitations
Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP
Infiltration & Inflow Study & Projects
Total Projects, Transfers & Reimbursements
Reimbursements & Contributions
Total Reimbursements
2
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
1
5
o
f
4
7
3
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
$384,400 $310,200 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
$8,700,000
$9,084,400 $310,200 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
Beginning Balance (January 1st)
Sewer Connection Fees
Ending Cash Balance
Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc)
Unsecured Revenue 2015-2021
New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers
Total Unsecured Revenue
Total Revenues
Total Projects & Reimbursements
2015 Bond
2
3
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
1
6
o
f
4
7
3
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 423.76 - WWTP
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
Repair and Replacement $35,664 $25,000 $25,000 $250,000 $250,000 $330,000 $330,000 $1,210,000
Construction Projects - In House $15,000 $20,000 $20,000 $40,000
Construction Projects Contracted $2,075,957 $2,856,000 $2,100,000 $250,000 $250,000 $300,000 $600,000 $6,356,000
Debt Service - Principle and Interest $257,560 $257,516 $256,163 $255,371 $255,929 $256,371 $256,902 $1,538,252
Total Project $2,384,181 $3,138,516 $2,381,163 $755,371 $755,929 $906,371 $1,206,902
Projects less revenue from outside partnership $2,221,131 $3,105,466 $2,346,113 $740,321 $740,879 $891,321 $1,191,852
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000
Intergovernmental $2,221,131 $3,105,466 $2,346,113 $740,321 $740,879 $891,321 $1,191,852
Interest Earnings $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50
Miscellaneous (biosolids, Lynnwood, etc)$13,000 $13,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Grants, Incentives and Rebate for Engergy Eff. Projects $150,000 $20,000 $20,000
Subtotal $2,584,181 $3,338,516 $2,581,163 $955,371 $1,305,929 $1,456,371 $1,756,902
Total Revenue $2,584,181 $3,338,516 $2,581,163 $955,371 $1,305,929 $1,456,371 $1,756,902
Total Project ($2,384,181)($3,138,516)($2,381,163)($755,371)($755,929)($906,371)($1,206,902)
Ending Cash Balance $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000
Interest earned estimated at 0.75% per year
Contribution breakdown by agency
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Edmonds 50.79%$1,128,046 $1,577,173 $1,191,520 $375,987 $376,270 $452,675 $605,306
Mountlake Terrace 23.17%$514,725 $719,661 $543,688 $171,562 $171,691 $206,555 $276,200
Olympic View Water & Sewer District 16.55%$367,619 $513,986 $388,305 $122,531 $122,623 $147,523 $197,263
Ronald Sewer District 9.49%$210,741 $294,647 $222,599 $70,242 $70,295 $84,569 $113,083
TOTALS 100.00%$2,221,131 $3,105,466 $2,346,113 $740,321 $740,879 $891,321 $1,191,852
*In 2019 per the agreement, fund balance will increase to $550,000.
Projects for 2016-2021
2
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
1
7
o
f
4
7
3
CIP
PARKS
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
25
Packet Page 318 of 473
26
Packet Page 319 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center
Field/Court/Stage
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $125,000
700 Main Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
2.3 acres; zoned public neighborhood park/openspace field
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrades to youth sports field, picnic and playground amenities
and children’s play equipment. Replacement and renovation of amphitheater in 2015 with
improved courtyard area and drainage.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: As a neighborhood park, the Frances Anderson Center
serves the community with various sports, playground and field activities including various
special events. Upgrade and additions essential to meet demand for use.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $100,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $100,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
27
Packet Page 320 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Brackett’s Landing
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000
South: Main Street and Railroad Avenue south of Edmonds Ferry Terminal on Puget Sound
North: 2.7 acres with tidelands and adjacent to Department of Natural Resources public tidelands with Underwater Park
South: 2.0 acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal. Regional park/Zoned commercial waterfront. Protected as public park
through Deed-of-Right; partnership funding IAC/WWRC/LWCF /DNR-ALEA & Snohomish Conservation Futures
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Landscape beautification, irrigation, furnishings/bench
maintenance, exterior painting, repairs, jetty improvements/repair, north cove sand, habitat
improvement, fences, interpretive signs, structure repairs, sidewalk improvements, restroom
phased rehabilitation in 2016 and 2018.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park,
regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $5,000 $50,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000 $50,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
28
Packet Page 321 of 473
PROJECT NAME: City Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $347,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete play/spray ground project, field renovation, continued
pathway, access improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This is for completion of the play and spray revitalization
and ongoing upgrades to City Park as referenced in the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $272,000 $0 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $272,000 $0 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
29
Packet Page 322 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Complex
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $650,000
6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Park Development
Bleacher/stadium repairs, infield mix, baseball/softball turf repair, retaining wall, fence and
play structure replacement, skate park and facility amenities, tennis and sports courts repair
and resurfacing, irrigation. Landscape and site furnishing improvements.
Master Plan in 2016, development improvements based on Master Plan in 2020.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for Civic Center Field.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study 100,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $600,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $600,000
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
30
Packet Page 323 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Sunset Avenue Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $100,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a sidewalk on the west side of Sunset Ave with expansive
views of the Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. The sidewalk will connect the downtown
business district, surrounding neighborhoods, water access points, and the existing parks and
trails system.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This sidewalk has been a priority for the City of Edmonds
for several years. It is included in 5 different City plans, the Transportation Improvement Plan,
Non-Motorized Section; the Parks Recreation and Open Plan; the City comprehensive Plan,
Capital Facilities Plan; the Capital Improvement Plan; and the Shoreline Master Program.
Specifically, the Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan identified Sunset Avenue Overlook
priorities, namely improved connectivity and multi-modal access, complete the bicycle and
pedestrian route system, identify scenic routes and view areas, and landscape improvements.
SCHEDULE:
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $100,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
31
Packet Page 324 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms ESTIMATED COST: $225,000
LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re-tile and
renovate restroom facilities. Electrical upgrade, rail and shelter replacements / renovations.
Work with WDFW on structural repairs of concrete spalling on pier subsurface.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and
enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $0 $175,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $175,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
32
Packet Page 325 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic
Complex at the Former Woodway High School
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $655,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted
fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges,
user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital
campaign. $10m - $12M project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained
facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled
access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized
area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $500,000 $155,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $500,000 $155,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
33
Packet Page 326 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $15,000
89th Place West and 197th Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County
12.7 acres (10.7 acres Open Space & 2 acres Neighborhood Park) Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the picnic, roadway, parking, play area and
natural trail system to Maplewood Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
34
Packet Page 327 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $1,505,000
South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with
federal transportation funds.
WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; Protected through Deed-of-Right RCW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace play structure in 2016. Begin development of Master
plan, daylighting Willow Creek in 2018-2020.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional
waterfront park system.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $0 $100,000 $50,000 $350,000 $500,000 $500,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $100,000 $50,000 $350,000 $500,000 $500,000 $5,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
35
Packet Page 328 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $35,000
78th Place W. & 241st. St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Install path from Interurban Trail spur terminal to parking lot. Improve picnic area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $0 $20,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $20,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
36
Packet Page 329 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse
Grounds
ESTIMATED COST: $85,000
6801 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County
1.3 acres / Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the parking area, wooded area, trail system and
landscaping of exterior clubhouse at Meadowdale Clubhouse site. Replace playground.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset with installation
that provides community use of the facility and north Edmonds programming for day care,
recreation classes and preschool activities.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $0 $75,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $75,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
37
Packet Page 330 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Playfields ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $500,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with City of Lynnwood and Edmonds School District to
renovate Meadowdale Playfields, installation of synthetic turf for year around play.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Partnership to leverage funds and increase field use for
Edmonds citizens.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $0 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
38
Packet Page 331 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $20,000
83rd Avenue West and 204th St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County
22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Forest improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, wildlife
habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking. Natural trail links under Main Street
connecting to Yost Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional
trail connections.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000
New additions meet the 1% for the Arts Ordinance requirements
39
Packet Page 332 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $35,000
80th Street West and 186th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public; Purchased and developed with LWCF funds through IAC; protected with Deed-
Of-Right
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual repair and upgrade to facilities and fields. Re-surface
tennis courts, pathway improvements, and play area maintenance. Renovate restrooms.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play
area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, restroom facilities, basketball court,
parking and tennis courts.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $5,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
40
Packet Page 333 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Sierra Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $70,000
80th Street West and 191th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve pathways and interpretive braille signs. Field renovation
to include field drainage for turf repair.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play
area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, portable restroom facilities,
basketball hoops, parking and Braille interpretive trail for the blind.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $0 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
41
Packet Page 334 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Yost Park/Pool
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $420,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pool replastering, tile work, and annual anticipated and
unanticipated repairs. Add in-pool play amenities.
Park site improvements and repairs to trails and bridges, picnicking facilities, landscaping,
parking, tennis/pickleball courts and erosion control. ADA improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for
environmental education programs as well as enjoyable setting for seasonal Yost Pool users.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $120,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $120,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
42
Packet Page 335 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Parklet Development, 4th
Avenue Cultural Corridor
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $80,000
A parklet is a small urban park that is made by creating a sidewalk extension that provides
more space and amenities for people using the street. Usually parklets are installed on top of
parking lanes and use one or more parking spaces, but do not permanently impact the
underlying street. Parklets typically extend out from the sidewalk at the level of the sidewalk to
the width of the adjacent parking space creating a patio and seating area, often including
plantings. Parklets are public space and open to everyone.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop one or more parklets on the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor.
The first parklet will be created on Sprague St. just east of 4th Avenue on the north side, based
on site concepts in the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Plan. The design will be developed with
Parks crew and an artist/landscape consultant.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide a small urban park along the 4th Avenue Cultural
Corridor with views of Puget Sound and seating on a popular walking route. Parklets as a
resting and a gathering space highlight the social function integral to streets. The importance of
additional small gathering spaces is referred to in both the Community Cultural Plan and the
PROS Plan.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Construction $40,000 $40,000
TOTAL $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $0
43
Packet Page 336 of 473
PROJECT NAME: City Gateway
Replacements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $40,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and construct new gateway elements at SR 104 and 5th
Ave. S and at Sunset and Main St. to replace aging and deteriorated signage.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The PROS Plan, Community Cultural Plan and Streetscape
Plan all refer to the importance of these visual “gateways” to the City of Edmonds. New signage
with artistic elements will enhance the gateways and reinforce Edmonds reputation as a cultural
destination for visitors.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Repairs &
Maintenance $40,000
TOTAL $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
44
Packet Page 337 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within
the park system.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health
and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while
their children play.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Construction $50,000
TOTAL $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
45
Packet Page 338 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $147,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include library, Senior Center, outdoor
plaza, city park, corner parks, irrigation, planting, mulch, FAC Center, vegetation, tree plantings,
streetscape/gateways/street tree planting, flower basket poles.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide
comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 21,000 21,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000
46
Packet Page 339 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Paving ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Includes miscellaneous small paving and park walkway
improvements citywide.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvement needs citywide in park system.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Repair & Maint $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000
* all or a portion of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
47
Packet Page 340 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park
Improvements / Misc Small Projects
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $280,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Citywide park facility and public landscaping improvements
including signage, interpretive signs, buoys, tables, benches, trash containers, drinking
fountains, backstops, bike racks, lighting, small landscaping projects, play areas and
equipment. Landscape improvements at beautification areas and corner parks, public gateway
entrances into the city and 4th Avenue Corridor from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the
Arts, SR 104, street tree and streetscape improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for citywide park facilities
and streetscape improvements in public areas.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering / Administration
Construction $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40000
48
Packet Page 341 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade /
Playground Partnerships
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $75,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with local schools, organizations, or neighboring
jurisdictions to upgrade additional youth ball field or play facilities or playgrounds to create
neighborhood park facilities at non-City facilities.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Annual partnerships with matching funds to create
additional facilities.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0
49
Packet Page 342 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Center
at Yost Park
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 –
$23,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study
completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the
consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the
summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of
its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of
Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the
current pool.
SCHEDULE:
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
50
Packet Page 343 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved
Trail/Bike Path/Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 40,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete portions of designated trail through public parks to meet the
goals of the Bicycle Plan and Pathway Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Walking and connections was listed as a high priority in the
comprehensive Park Plan from public survey data. Creating trails, paths and bike links is essential to
meet the need for the community. Provides for the implementation of the citywide bicycle path
improvements and the elements and goals of the citywide walkway plan. Linked funding with
engineering funding.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0
* all or part of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
51
Packet Page 344 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Cultural Arts Facility
Needs Study
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $unk
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Initiate feasibility study of providing and promoting Cultural / Arts
facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high
priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008
update process.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for
public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority
creates the need to study performance, management and long term potential for arts related
facilities.
SCHEDULE:
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
52
Packet Page 345 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Hatchery
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $235,000
South of Dayton Street and Harbor Square, east of BSNF railroad, west of SR 104, north of UNOCAL
23.2 acres; Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the
comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water
impacts. Continue to support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway
repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible.
Hatchery repairs as needed. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, Earthcorps and others
in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of
Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park; completion of the Marina Beach Master Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh
water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird
sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water
Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant
funds available through various agencies and foundations.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Professional
Services
$70,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $5,000 $5,000
TOTAL $105,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $5,000 $5,000
53
Packet Page 346 of 473
`
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Cemetery
Mapping
ESTIMATED COST: $ 100,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Memorial Cemetery was deeded to the City in 1982.
The City has been operating the cemetery with no markings, rows, aisles, or surveyed
mapping. It is essential that the City survey/map/and mark the cemetery so as to effectively
manage the plots.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Operations of a public cemetery, with effective and
accurate stewardship.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study $100,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
54
Packet Page 347 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition
and/or Development
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,750,000
6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire Civic field from School District. Develop this 8.1 acre
property for continued use as an important community park, sports tourism hub and site of
some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in downtown Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important
park site for the citizens of Edmonds.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Acquisition $1,750,000
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $3,000,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,750,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
55
Packet Page 348 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Park and
surrounding areas, beach access
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park and parking lot
when the center is rebuilt. Rebuilt center will be available as a community center in the
evenings and weekends.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain capital assets and provide safety
and better accessibility for Seniors, and be available for the whole community. One of the top
priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access.
SCHEDULE:
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study $25,000 $25,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $500,000 $500,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $25,000 $525,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
56
Packet Page 349 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park Forest
Management Study
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hire consultant to develop a plan for best forest management
practices in Pine Ridge Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This forest park is under stress from over-mature trees
especially alder and others. This study will give the Parks Division necessary guidance to
better manage this park to become a more healthy forest and open space.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study $50,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
57
Packet Page 350 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved
Capital Projects and Acquisitions
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,006,059
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on:
City Hall: Debt retired end of 2014
Marina Beach / Library Roof: $ $82,261
PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $55,631
Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $29,784
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
Principal &
Interest
$171,400 $169,383 $171,947 $164,766 $162,656 $165,907
TOTAL $171,400 $169,383 $171,947 $164,766 $162,656 $165,907 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
58
Packet Page 351 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open
Space/Land
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,400,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of properties when feasible that will benefit citizens that
fit the definitions and needs identified in the Parks Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Fulfills needs of citizens for parks, recreation and open
space.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Land $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
59
Packet Page 352 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront/Tidelands
Acquisition
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,200,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire waterfront parcels and tidelands wherever feasible to
secure access to Puget Sound for public use as indentified in the Parks, Recreation & Open
Space Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget
Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
60
Packet Page 353 of 473
PROJECT NAME: 4th Avenue
Corridor Enhancement
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,325,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin 4th Avenue site development with temporary and/or moveable
surface elements and amenities to begin drawing attention and interest to the corridor and create
stronger visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Possible
projects may include surface art, interpretive signage and wayfinding, or low level lighting. The
Cultural Heritage Walking Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park
Service Preserve America grant program, will be implemented in 2011-12.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will
encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will
enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the
downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for
the Arts. Timing for 30% design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will
assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project
implementation phase.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $1,425,000 $2,900,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
61
Packet Page 354 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Cultural Heritage Tour and
Way-Finding Signage
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create a downtown Edmonds walking tour highlighting a dozen historic
sites with artist made interpretive markers, and add way-finding signage for the downtown area.
Completed.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Promote tourism and economic development in the core
downtown. The walking tour and interpretive signage focuses on local history and as unique artist
made pieces also reflect the arts orientation of the community. Improved way-finding signage which
points out major attractions and services/amenities such as theaters, museums, beaches, train station,
shopping, dining and lodging promotes both tourism and economic vitality in the downtown /waterfront
activity center.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
62
Packet Page 355 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Dayton Street Plaza ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $168,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovate small park and plaza at north end of old public works
building, 2nd & Dayton Street. Improve landscaping, plaza, and accessibility.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to public gathering space and
creation of additional art amenities and streetscape improvements in downtown on main
walking route. Financial support from Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, Hubbard Foundation
and Edmonds in Bloom.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $168,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $168,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
63
Packet Page 356 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition
and/or Development
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,750,000
6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire Civic field from School District. Develop this 8.1 acre
property for continued use as an important community park, sports tourism hub and site of
some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in downtown Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important
park site for the citizens of Edmonds.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Acquisition $1,750,000
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $3,000,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,750,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
64
Packet Page 357 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Park and
surrounding areas, beach access
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park and parking lot
when the center is rebuilt. Rebuilt center will be available as a community center in the
evenings and weekends.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain capital assets and provide safety
and better accessibility for Seniors, and be available for the whole community. One of the top
priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access.
SCHEDULE:
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study $25,000 $25,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $500,000 $500,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $25,000 $525,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
65
Packet Page 358 of 473
PROJECT NAME: City Park Revitalization
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $854,900
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revitalize City Park play area with new play equipment and addition
of a spray park amenity to be used in the summer. Spray parks have become very popular in
many communities as replacements for wading pools that are no longer acceptable to increased
health department regulations. These installations create no standing water and therefore require
little maintenance and no lifeguard costs. Staff will seek voluntary donations for construction
costs.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project combines two play areas and the completion of
the master plan from 1992. This is very competitive for State grant funding, as it will be using a
repurposing water system. This will be a much valued revitalization and addition to the City’s
oldest and most cherished park.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $854,900
1% for Art
TOTAL $854,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
66
Packet Page 359 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic
Complex at the Former Woodway High School
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $655,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted
fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community
colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful
regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained
facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled
access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized
area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2026
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-
2026
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $500,000 $155,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $500,000 $155,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
67
Packet Page 360 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Wetland Mitigation ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,343
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive
management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to
support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation
of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the
Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the
marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water
marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary.
Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as
defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available
through various agencies and foundations.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $6,343
1% for Art
TOTAL $6,343 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
68
Packet Page 361 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Willow
Creek Daylighting
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,200,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive
management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to
support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation
of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the
Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the
marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water
marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary.
Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as
defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available
through various agencies and foundations.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
69
Packet Page 362 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms ESTIMATED COST: $1,500,000
LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re-tile and
renovate restroom facilities. Electrical upgrade, rail and shelter replacements / renovations.
Work with WDFW on structural repairs of concrete spalling on pier subsurface.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and
enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $200,000 $1,300,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $1,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
70
Packet Page 363 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown
Waterfront)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public
market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community
gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a
valuable asset to Edmonds.
SCHEDULE:
This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners
willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished
by 2017.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
71
Packet Page 364 of 473
PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $125,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within
the park system.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health
and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while
their children play.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Construction $125,000
TOTAL $125,000
72
Packet Page 365 of 473
PROJECT NAME:
Veteran’s Plaza
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The establishment of a Veteran’s Plaza was unanimously
approved by the City Council in 2014. It will serve as a tribute to the patriotic and courageous
men and women who served this nation. The Plaza will reflect the bravery, sacrifice and
strength they gave our country. The design will accommodate flagpoles (in their existing
location), space for display of military seals and a Plaza, seating areas for reflection, some
educational monuments or placards, and existing hardscape and significant trees. The
address is 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 and is adjacent to the Edmonds Public
Safety Building.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Veteran’s Plaza will serve as a focal point which
raises awareness of the contributions made by veterans and illustrates the high respect the
citizens of Edmonds have for the men and women who have defended the rights and
freedoms of this nation. It will provide a tribute for the men and women who have served and
are serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. The Plaza will establish a central site
for the citizens of Edmonds to conduct official observances, activities and ceremonies to honor
veterans including Veterans Day.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin. $10,000 $475,000
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $475,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
73
Packet Page 366 of 473
FU
N
D
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
CF
P
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
00
1
SR
9
9
A
c
c
e
s
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
u
d
y
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
c
c
e
s
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
22
0
t
h
S
t
a
n
d
2
2
4
t
h
S
t
.
11
2
22
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
f
r
o
m
H
w
y
.
9
9
t
o
9
5
t
h
P
l
.
W
X
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
t
w
o
w
a
y
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
l
o
n
g
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
.
11
2
AD
A
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
Up
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
w
i
t
h
Di
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
A
c
t
(
A
D
A
)
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
11
2
Mi
n
o
r
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
X
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
s
h
o
r
t
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
11
2
S
R
-
1
0
4
@
2
2
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
/
1
5
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
Ex
t
e
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
a
r
e
a
f
o
r
W
B
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
n
o
n
-
m
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
11
2
S
R
-
1
0
4
@
9
5
t
h
P
l
.
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
A
D
A
c
u
r
b
r
a
m
p
s
;
a
n
d
a
d
d
C
-
C
u
r
b
fo
r
a
c
c
e
s
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
.
11
2
S
R
-
1
0
4
@
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
v
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
.
11
2
S
R
-
1
0
4
@
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
W
e
s
t
g
a
t
e
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
,
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
m
i
d
b
l
o
c
k
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
a
l
o
n
g
1
0
0
t
h
Av
e
.
W
;
a
n
d
r
e
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
i
z
e
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
w
i
t
h
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
/
s
h
a
r
r
o
w
s
.
11
2
1
0
4
@
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
A
d
d
a
2
n
d
W
B
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
11
2
2
3
2
n
d
S
t
.
S
W
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
t
o
S
R
-
1
0
4
X
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
2
3
2
n
d
f
r
o
m
1
0
0
t
h
t
o
S
R
-
1
0
4
11
2
2
3
6
t
h
S
t
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
t
o
9
7
t
h
A
v
e
X
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
2
3
6
t
h
f
r
o
m
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
t
o
9
7
t
h
A
v
e
.
11
2
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
.
t
o
2
3
4
t
h
S
t
.
X
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
8
4
t
h
f
r
o
m
2
3
8
t
h
t
o
2
3
4
t
h
11
2
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
2
0
6
t
h
S
t
.
t
o
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
.
X
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
8
0
t
h
f
r
o
m
2
0
6
t
h
t
o
2
1
2
t
h
11
2
2
1
8
t
h
S
t
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
t
o
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
X
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
2
1
8
t
h
f
r
o
m
7
6
t
h
t
o
8
4
t
h
11
2
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
H
w
y
.
9
9
t
o
S
R
-
1
0
4
X
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
2
3
8
t
h
f
r
o
m
H
w
y
9
9
t
o
S
R
-
1
0
4
11
2
1
9
1
t
h
S
t
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
.
t
o
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
X
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
1
9
1
t
h
f
r
o
m
8
0
t
h
t
o
7
6
t
h
11
2
9
5
t
h
P
l
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
2
2
4
t
h
S
t
.
t
o
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
.
X
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
9
5
t
h
f
r
o
m
2
2
4
t
h
t
o
2
2
0
t
h
11
2
1
0
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
.
t
o
1
0
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
X
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
1
0
4
t
h
f
r
o
m
2
3
8
t
h
t
o
1
0
6
t
h
11
2
E
l
m
W
a
y
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
t
o
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
X
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
E
l
m
W
a
y
f
r
o
m
8
t
h
t
o
9
t
h
11
2
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
2
1
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
t
o
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
.
X
Im
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
8
0
t
h
f
r
o
m
2
1
8
t
h
t
o
2
2
0
t
h
01
6
A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
R
o
o
f
i
n
g
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
o
f
a
D
P
f
o
r
2
0
1
6
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
01
6
Fi
r
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
#
2
0
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
Su
b
j
e
c
t
o
f
a
D
P
f
o
r
2
0
1
6
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
.
01
6
Ci
t
y
H
a
l
l
C
a
r
p
e
t
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
St
a
r
t
i
n
g
a
c
y
c
l
e
t
o
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
a
l
l
c
a
r
p
e
t
i
n
g
01
6
Ci
t
y
H
a
l
l
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
In
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
l
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
.
M
o
v
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
o
2
0
1
6
,
a
d
d
e
d
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
01
6
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
G
u
t
t
e
r
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
In
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
l
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
.
M
o
v
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
o
2
0
1
6
,
a
d
d
e
d
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
01
6
Fi
r
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
#
1
7
B
a
y
C
e
i
l
i
n
g
Su
b
j
e
c
t
o
f
a
D
P
f
o
r
2
0
1
6
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
.
01
6
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
F
l
o
o
r
i
n
g
Su
b
j
e
c
t
o
f
a
D
P
f
o
r
2
0
1
6
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
.
CF
P
/
C
I
P
C
O
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
(
2
0
1
5
T
O
2
0
1
6
)
AD
D
E
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
5
9/17/2015 Packet Page 367 of 473
12
5
Pa
r
k
l
e
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
4
t
h
A
v
e
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
a
n
d
P
R
O
S
p
l
a
n
.
12
5
Ci
t
y
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
P
R
O
S
p
l
a
n
.
12
5
Ou
t
d
o
o
r
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
Z
o
n
e
s
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
P
R
O
S
p
l
a
n
.
12
5
Sr
.
C
t
r
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
/
P
a
r
k
D
e
s
i
g
n
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
P
R
O
S
p
l
a
n
.
12
5
Ci
v
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
x
A
f
t
e
r
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
,
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
t
o
m
a
s
t
e
r
p
l
a
n
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
p
a
r
k
.
12
5
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
P
l
a
y
f
i
e
l
d
s
Sa
m
e
a
s
l
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
,
b
u
t
c
a
r
r
y
i
n
g
i
t
o
v
e
r
:
I
n
t
a
l
l
i
n
g
t
u
r
f
f
i
e
l
d
s
,
i
n
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
w
i
t
h
Ly
n
n
w
o
o
d
a
n
d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
,
a
n
d
c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
t
u
p
o
n
g
r
a
n
t
f
u
n
d
s
.
12
6
Tr
a
c
k
s
i
d
e
W
a
r
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
M
a
i
n
&
D
a
y
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
X
20
1
6
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
u
d
g
e
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
f
u
n
d
e
d
b
y
R
E
E
T
1
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
.
12
6
Up
g
r
a
d
e
C
u
r
b
R
a
m
p
s
t
o
A
D
A
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
20
1
6
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
u
d
g
e
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
f
u
n
d
e
d
b
y
R
E
E
T
1
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
.
12
6
AD
A
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
20
1
6
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
u
d
g
e
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
f
u
n
d
e
d
b
y
R
E
E
T
1
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
.
12
6
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
20
1
6
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
u
d
g
e
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
f
u
n
d
e
d
b
y
R
E
E
T
1
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
.
12
6
SR
9
9
A
c
c
e
s
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
u
d
y
20
1
6
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
u
d
g
e
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
f
u
n
d
e
d
b
y
R
E
E
T
1
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
.
12
6
Mi
n
o
r
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
X
20
1
6
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
u
d
g
e
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
f
u
n
d
e
d
b
y
R
E
E
T
1
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
.
13
2
Ou
t
d
o
o
r
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
Z
o
n
e
s
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
P
R
O
S
p
l
a
n
13
2
Fi
s
h
i
n
g
P
i
e
r
R
e
h
a
b
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
i
s
h
i
n
g
p
i
e
r
r
e
h
a
b
42
1
20
2
2
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
c
o
s
t
s
f
o
r
w
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
42
1
Da
y
t
o
n
3
r
d
t
o
9
t
h
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
/
s
e
w
e
r
/
s
t
o
r
m
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
i
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
re
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
'
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
.
42
1
20
1
6
W
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
c
o
s
t
s
f
o
r
r
o
a
d
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
d
u
e
t
o
w
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
42
2
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
-
S
i
e
r
r
a
P
l
-
1
2
t
h
A
v
e
N
t
o
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
Ou
t
f
a
l
l
c
a
u
s
i
n
g
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
o
n
s
l
o
p
e
.
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
i
x
w
i
l
l
c
o
n
s
t
u
c
t
e
d
th
i
s
f
a
l
l
.
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
d
i
v
e
r
t
s
o
m
e
s
t
o
r
m
f
l
o
w
s
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
s
l
o
p
e
er
o
s
i
o
n
.
42
3
2
0
2
2
S
e
w
e
r
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
/
R
e
h
a
b
/
I
m
p
r
v
m
n
t
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
c
o
s
t
s
f
o
r
s
e
w
e
r
l
i
n
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
/
r
e
h
a
b
/
i
m
p
r
.
42
3
20
1
6
S
e
w
e
r
l
i
n
e
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
c
o
s
t
s
f
o
r
r
o
a
d
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
d
u
e
t
o
s
e
w
e
r
l
i
n
e
r
e
p
l
/
r
e
h
a
b
/
i
m
p
r
.
Pa
g
e
2
o
f
5
9/17/2015 Packet Page 368 of 473
FU
N
D
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
CF
P
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
11
2
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
C
o
n
v
e
r
t
A
l
l
-
w
a
y
S
t
o
p
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
11
2
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
f
r
o
m
1
8
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
t
o
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
.
a
n
d
si
g
h
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
r
o
u
t
e
t
o
S
e
a
v
i
e
w
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
a
n
d
n
e
a
r
b
y
p
a
r
k
s
11
2
Ma
p
l
e
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
7
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
t
o
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
s
h
o
r
t
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
11
2
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
d
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
11
2
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
6
t
h
t
o
7
t
h
X
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
11
2
4t
h
A
v
e
.
W
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
E
n
h
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
X
Cr
e
a
t
e
m
o
r
e
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
r
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
a
l
o
n
g
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
(
I
n
s
e
r
t
e
d
i
n
PA
R
K
S
C
F
P
)
11
2
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
t
o
S
R
-
5
2
4
X
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
11
2
1
8
9
t
h
P
l
.
S
W
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
t
o
7
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
X
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
11
2
1
5
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
f
r
o
m
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
t
o
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
X
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
5
01
6
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
G
u
t
t
e
r
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Re
m
o
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
l
i
s
t
a
t
t
h
i
s
t
i
m
e
42
1
20
1
3
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
4
.
42
1
Te
l
e
m
e
t
r
y
S
y
s
t
e
m
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
De
l
e
t
e
d
.
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
r
e
v
e
a
l
e
d
t
h
a
t
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
y
d
o
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
bu
d
g
e
t
.
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
d
o
t
h
i
s
w
o
r
k
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
t
a
s
k
s
.
42
1
20
1
4
W
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
s
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
4
.
42
1
76
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
4
.
42
3
20
1
3
C
I
P
P
S
e
w
e
r
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
4
.
42
3
22
4
t
h
S
e
w
e
r
l
i
n
e
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
4
.
CF
P
/
C
I
P
C
O
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
(
2
0
1
5
T
O
2
0
1
6
)
DE
L
E
T
E
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
Pa
g
e
3
o
f
5
9/17/2015 Packet Page 369 of 473
FU
N
D
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
CF
P
CH
A
N
G
E
00
1
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
t
o
s
t
u
d
y
,
1
)
w
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
a
c
c
e
s
s
is
s
u
e
s
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
z
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
i
n
g
n
e
a
r
t
e
r
m
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
to
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
,
a
l
s
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
li
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
,
2
)
a
t
g
r
a
d
e
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
s
w
h
e
r
e
M
a
i
n
a
n
d
D
a
y
t
o
n
st
r
e
e
t
s
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
B
N
S
F
r
a
i
l
l
i
n
e
s
,
3
)
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
ac
c
e
s
s
,
a
n
d
4
)
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
t
h
e
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
a
s
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
)
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
2
0
0
4
F
i
n
a
l
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Im
p
a
c
t
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
.
X
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
a
d
d
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
C
F
P
a
n
d
m
o
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
1
1
2
F
u
n
d
t
o
t
h
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
n
a
m
e
w
a
s
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
t
o
"
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
"
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
i
s
t
h
e
w
o
r
d
i
n
g
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
i
n
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
.
42
2
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
b
r
o
k
e
n
o
u
t
f
r
o
m
W
i
l
l
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
D
a
y
l
i
g
h
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
o
f
o
c
u
s
o
n
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
an
d
o
t
h
e
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
d
a
y
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
T
h
i
s
pr
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
l
l
a
l
s
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
c
o
n
d
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
S
R
-
1
0
4
a
n
d
D
a
y
t
o
n
S
t
.
42
3
.
7
6
R
e
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
C
l
a
r
i
f
i
e
r
#
3
h
a
s
t
u
r
n
e
d
t
o
o
u
t
b
e
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
a
c
o
a
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
I
n
20
1
5
w
e
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
s
o
i
l
a
n
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
l
a
b
w
i
l
l
n
e
e
d
t
o
b
e
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d
.
D
e
s
i
g
n
w
i
l
l
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
1
5
an
d
t
h
e
r
e
p
a
i
r
w
i
l
l
b
e
m
a
d
e
i
n
2
0
1
6
.
P
a
g
o
d
a
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
p
l
a
c
e
d
o
n
ho
l
d
f
o
r
t
i
m
e
b
e
i
n
g
.
42
3
.
7
6
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
Of
f
s
i
t
e
F
l
o
w
T
e
l
e
m
e
t
r
y
:
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
l
l
m
o
d
i
f
y
t
h
e
o
f
f
s
i
t
e
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
s
o
l
a
r
p
o
w
e
r
i
n
a
n
e
f
f
o
r
t
t
o
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
l
o
w
e
r
o
u
r
e
n
e
r
g
y
b
i
l
l
s
.
A
l
l
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
5
.
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
S
y
s
t
e
m
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
:
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
a
g
i
n
g
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
y
s
t
e
m
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
,
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
f
o
r
r
e
d
u
n
d
a
n
c
y
a
n
d
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
t
h
e
op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
p
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
.
A
t
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
2
0
1
5
a
l
l
P
L
C
'
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
6
0
0
Pl
C
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
.
T
h
e
6
0
0
P
L
C
i
s
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
f
o
r
s
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
6
.
S
S
I
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
Al
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
i
s
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
,
a
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
o
n
t
r
a
c
k
f
o
r
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
e
w
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
6
.
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
b
e
i
n
g
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
al
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
o
r
m
e
a
n
s
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
.
P
h
a
s
e
4
en
e
r
g
y
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
b
y
e
n
d
o
f
2
0
1
5
.
Co
m
p
r
e
s
s
o
r
s
w
e
r
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
i
n
2
0
1
4
,
b
l
o
w
e
r
s
a
n
d
d
i
f
f
u
s
e
r
s
i
n
2
0
1
5
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
ha
s
g
i
v
e
n
u
s
t
h
e
o
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
t
o
o
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
t
h
e
a
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
y
s
t
e
m
.
CH
A
N
G
E
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
CF
P
/
C
I
P
C
O
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
(
2
0
1
5
T
O
2
0
1
6
)
Pa
g
e
4
o
f
5
9/17/2015 Packet Page 370 of 473
42
3
.
7
6
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
a
n
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
We
w
i
l
l
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
U
V
v
s
.
H
y
p
o
f
o
r
d
i
s
i
n
f
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
b
e
g
i
n
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
f
o
r
so
l
i
d
s
s
y
t
e
m
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
l
o
o
k
a
t
g
a
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
a
f
u
t
u
r
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
t
o
th
e
S
S
I
.
M
u
c
h
o
f
t
h
i
s
w
o
r
k
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
E
S
C
O
m
o
d
e
l
a
n
d
fo
c
u
s
s
o
n
e
n
e
r
g
y
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Pa
g
e
5
o
f
5
9/17/2015 Packet Page 371 of 473
AM-7991 7. E.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:09/22/2015
Time:60 Minutes
Submitted By:Kernen Lien
Department:Planning
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Continued Review of Critical Area Regulations Update
Recommendation
Set public hearing on critical area regulations update for the October 6, 2015 Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
The Council has provided funding for Critical Area Regulation update and heard a progress report at the
June 23, 2015 Council meeting. The City Council reviewed the draft updated critical area regulation as
recommended by the Planning Board at the September 8, 2015 Council meeting (Exhibit 3).
Narrative
City Council will continue review of the critical area regulations update as required by the Growth
Management Act.
Exhibit 1 contains updated draft critical area regulations to address comments from the City Council at
the September 8, 2015 Council meeting. These updates include:
ECDC 23.40.215 Critical Area Restoration Projects
This section was updated so that the relief granted to restoration projects only applies to that portion of
the buffer that expanded as a result of the restoration project. The expanded buffer is that portion of the
stream or wetland buffer that extended landward as a result of the restoration project.
ECDC 23.50.040.F Wetland Buffers
Category I Estuarine buffer standards were inserted into the wetland buffer table consistent with the
Department of Ecology’s Guidance for Small Jurisdictions (Publication No. 10-06-002). Category III
wetland buffers were also modified to be consistent with the Guidance for Small Jurisdictions.
ECDC 23.90.040.E Bald Eagle Habitat
A new section ECDC 23.90.040.E was added to reference the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act.
Staff will discuss the above revisions as well and field any new questions from the City Council on the
Packet Page 372 of 473
updated critical area regulations.
Exhibit 2 Contains the Planning Board recommended Frequently Flooded Area amendments. Please see
the Critical Areas agenda item from the September 8, 2015 Council meeting for the 2004 Best Available
Science Report, the 2015 Best Available Science Addendum, and the Best Available Science and Gap
Analysis Matrix.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Draft Critical Area Regulations ECDC 23.40 - 23.90
Exhibit 2 - Planning Board Recommended Frequently Flooded Area Amendments
Exhibit 3 - September 8, 2015 Council Minutes Excerpt
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/18/2015 08:21 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/18/2015 09:56 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/18/2015 10:00 AM
Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 09/18/2015 07:24 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/18/2015
Packet Page 373 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 1 of 90
EDMONDS CITY CODE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
Chapter 23.40
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sections:
Part I. Purpose and General Provisions
23.40.000 Purpose.
23.40.010 Authority.
23.40.020 Relationship to other regulations.
23.40.030 Severability.
23.40.040 Jurisdiction – Critical areas.
23.40.050 Protection of critical areas.
Part II. Critical Areas Review Process
23.40.060 General requirements.
23.40.070 Critical areas preapplication consultation.
23.40.080 Notice of initial determination.
23.40.090 Critical areas report – Requirements.
23.40.100 Critical areas report – Modifications to requirements.
23.40.110 Mitigation requirements.
23.40.120 Mitigation sequencing.
23.40.130 Mitigation plan requirements.
23.40.140 Innovative mitigation.
23.40.150 Critical areas decision.
23.40.160 Review criteria.
23.40.170 Favorable critical areas decision.
Packet Page 374 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 2 of 90
23.40.180 Unfavorable critical areas decision.
23.40.190 Completion of the critical areas review.
23.40.200 Appeals.
23.40.210 Variances.
23.40.215 Critical Area Restoration Projects
Part III. Allowed Activities, Exemptions and Noncompliance Penalties
23.40.220 Allowed activities.
23.40.230 Exemptions.
23.40.240 Unauthorized critical areas alterations and enforcement.
Part IV. General Critical Areas Protective Measures
23.40.250 Critical areas markers and signs.
23.40.270 Critical areas tracts.
23.40.280 Building setbacks.
23.40.290 Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring.
23.40.300 Critical areas inspections.
Part V. Incorporation of Best Available Science
23.40.310 Best available science.
Part VI. Definitions
23.40.320 Definitions pertaining to critical areas.
Part I. Purpose and General Provisions
23.40.000 Purpose.
A. The purpose of this title is to designate and classify ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas and to
protect these areas and their functions and values, while also allowing for reasonable use of private
property.
Packet Page 375 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 3 of 90
B. This title is to implement the goals, policies, guidelines, and requirements of the comprehensive plan
and the Washington State Growth Management Act.
C. The city of Edmonds finds that critical areas provide a variety of valuable and beneficial biological
and physical functions that benefit Edmonds and its residents, and/or may pose a threat to human safety
or to public and private property. The beneficial functions and values provided by critical areas include,
but are not limited to, water quality protection and enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain
support, flood storage, conveyance and attenuation of flood waters, ground water recharge and
discharge, erosion control, wave attenuation, protection from hazards, historical, archaeological, and
aesthetic value protection, and recreation. These beneficial functions are not listed in order of priority.
D. Goals. By limiting development and alteration of critical areas, this title seeks to:
1. Protect members of the public and public resources and facilities from injury, loss of life, or property
damage due to landslides and steep slope failures, erosion, seismic events, or flooding;
2. Maintain healthy, functioning ecosystems through the protection of unique, fragile, and valuable
elements of the environment, including ground and surface waters, wetlands, and fish and wildlife and
their habitats, and to conserve the biodiversity of plant and animal species;
3. Direct activities not dependent on critical areas resources to less ecologically sensitive sites and
mitigate unavoidable impacts to critical areas by regulating alterations in and adjacent to critical areas;
and
4. Prevent cumulative adverse environmental impacts to water quality, wetlands, and fish and wildlife
habitat, and the overall net loss of wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas.
E. The regulations of this title are intended to protect critical areas in accordance with the Growth
Management Act and through the application of the best available science, as determined according to
WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and RCW 36.70A.172, and in consultation with state and
federal agencies and other qualified professionals.
F. This title is to be administered with flexibility and attention to site-specific characteristics. It is not the
intent of this title to make a parcel of property unusable by denying its owner reasonable economic use
of the property nor to prevent the provision of public facilities and services necessary to support existing
development.
G. The city of Edmonds’ enactment or enforcement of this title shall not be construed to benefit any
individual person or group of persons other than the general public. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.010 Authority.
A. As provided herein, the Edmonds development services director or his/her designee (hereafter
referred to as “the director”) is given the authority to interpret and apply, and the responsibility to
enforce, this title to accomplish the stated purpose.
Packet Page 376 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 4 of 90
B. The director may withhold, condition, or deny development permits or activity approvals to ensure
that the proposed action is consistent with this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.020 Relationship to other regulations.
A. These critical areas regulations shall apply as an overlay and in addition to zoning, site development,
stormwater management, building and other regulations adopted by the city of Edmonds.
B. Any individual critical area adjoined or overlain by another type of critical area shall have the buffer
and meet the requirements that provide the most protection to the critical areas involved. When any
provision of this title or any existing land use regulation conflicts with this title, that which provides
more protection to the critical area shall apply.
C. These critical areas regulations shall be coordinated with review conducted under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), as necessary and locally adopted.
D. Compliance with the provisions of this title does not constitute compliance with other federal, state,
and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required (for example, shoreline substantial
development permits, Hydraulic Permit Act (HPA) permits, Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, and National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permits). The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart
from the process established in this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.030 Severability.
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this title or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances shall be judged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such order or
judgment shall be confined in its operation to the controversy in which it was rendered. The decision
shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of any part thereof and to this end the provisions of each
clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this law are hereby declared to be severable. [Ord. 3527
§ 2, 2004].
23.40.040 Jurisdiction – Critical areas.
A. The director shall regulate all uses, activities, and developments within, adjacent to, or likely to affect
one or more critical areas, consistent with the best available science and the provisions herein.
B. Critical areas regulated by this title include:
1. Wetlands as designated in Chapter 23.50 ECDC, Wetlands;
2. Critical aquifer recharge areas as designated in Chapter 23.60 ECDC, Critical Aquifer Recharge
Areas;
3. Frequently flooded areas as designated in Chapter 23.70 ECDC, Frequently Flooded Areas;
Packet Page 377 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 5 of 90
4. Geologically hazardous areas as designated in Chapter 23.80 ECDC, Geologically Hazardous Areas;
and
5. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as designated in Chapter 23.90 ECDC, Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Areas.
C. All areas within the city of Edmonds meeting the definition of one or more critical areas, regardless
of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this
title.
D. Areas Adjacent to Critical Areas Subject to Regulation. Areas adjacent to critical areas shall be
considered to be within the jurisdiction of these requirements and regulations to support the intent of this
title and ensure protection of the functions and values of critical areas. “Adjacent” shall mean any
activity located:
1. On a site immediately adjoining a critical area; and
2. Areas located within 200 feet of a subject parcel containing a jurisdictional critical area. [Ord. 3527
§ 2, 2004].
23.40.050 Protection of critical areas.
Any action taken pursuant to this title shall result in equivalent or greater functions and values of the
critical areas associated with the proposed action, as determined by the best available science. All
actions and developments shall be designed and constructed in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120,
Mitigation sequencing, to avoid, minimize, and restore all adverse impacts. Applicants must first
demonstrate an inability to avoid or reduce impacts before the use of actions to mitigate potential
impacts will be allowed. No activity or use shall be allowed that results in a net loss of the functions or
values of critical areas. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part II. Critical Areas Review Process
23.40.060 General requirements.
A. As part of this review, the director shall:
1. Verify the information submitted by the applicant;
2. Evaluate the project area and vicinity for critical areas;
3. Determine whether the pro posed project is likely to impact the functions or values of critical areas;
and
Packet Page 378 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 6 of 90
4. Determine if the proposed project adequately assesses all impacts, avoids impacts, and/or mitigates
impacts to the critical area associated with the project.
B. If the proposed project is within, adjacent to, or is likely to impact a critical area, the director shall:
1. Require a critical areas report from the applicant that has been prepared by a qualified professional;
2. Review and evaluate the critical areas report;
3. Determine whether the development proposal conforms to the purposes and performance standards of
this title, including the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria;
4. Assess the potential impacts to the critical area and determine if they can be avoided or minimized;
and
5. Determine if any mitigation proposed by the applicant is sufficient to protect the functions and values
of the critical area and public health, safety, and welfare concerns consistent with the goals, purposes,
objectives, and requirements of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.070 Critical areas preapplication consultation.
Any person preparing to submit an application for development or use of land that may be regulated by
the provisions of this title may request a preapplication meeting with the director prior to submitting an
application for development or other approval. At this meeting, the director shall discuss the
requirements of this title; provide critical areas maps, scientific information, and other source materials;
outline the review process; and work with the activity proponent to identify any potential concerns that
might arise during the review process, in addition to discussing other permit procedures and
requirements. All applicants, regardless of participation in a preapplication meeting, are held fully
responsible for knowledge and disclosure of critical areas on, adjacent to, or associated with a subject
parcel and full compliance with the specific provisions and goals, purposes, objectives, and requirements
of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.080 Notice of initial determination.
A. If the director determines that no critical areas report is necessary, the director shall state this in the
notice of application issued for the proposal.
B. If the director determines that there are critical areas on the site that the proposed project is unlikely
to impact and the project meets the requirements for and has been granted a waiver from the requirement
to complete a critical areas report, this shall be stated in the notice of application for the proposal. A
waiver may be granted if the director determines that all of the following requirements will be met:
1. There will be no alteration of the critical area or buffer;
2. The development proposal will not affect the critical area in a manner contrary to the purpose, intent,
and requirements of this Title.
Packet Page 379 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 7 of 90
C. If the director determines that critical areas may be affected by the proposal and a critical areas report
is required, public notice of the application shall include a description of the critical area that might be
affected and state that a critical areas report(s) is required.
D. Critical areas determinations shall be considered valid for five years from the date in which the
determination was made; after such date the city shall require a new determination, or at minimum
documentation of a new assessment verifying the accuracy of the previous determination [Ord. 3527
§ 2, 2004].
23.40.090 Critical areas report – Requirements.
A. Preparation by Qualified Professional. The applicant shall submit a critical areas report prepared by a
qualified professional as defined herein. For wetlands, frequently flooded areas and fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas, an applicant may choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the
city’s approved list to prepare critical areas reports per the requirements of this title or may apply to
utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and reports developed by an alternative consultant
shall be subject to independent review pursuant to subsection B of this section. Applicants utilizing the
services of a qualified technical consultant from the city’s approved list shall enter into a three- party
contract between the applicant, the consultant and the city. All costs associated with the critical areas
study shall be borne by the applicant.
B. Independent Review of Critical Areas Reports. Critical areas studies and reports on geologically
hazardous areas and those developed by an applicant representative or consultant not as part of a three-
party contract may, at the discretion of the director, be subject to independent review. This independent
review shall be performed by a qualified technical consultant selected by the city with all costs borne by
the applicant. The purpose of such independent review is to provide the city with objective technical
assistance in evaluating the accuracy of submitted reports and/or the effects on critical areas which may
be caused by a development proposal and to facilitate the decision-making process. The director may
also have technical assistance provided by appropriate resource agency staff if such assistance is
available in a timely manner.
C. Best Available Science. The critical areas report shall use scientifically valid methods and studies in
the analysis of critical areas data and field reconnaissance and reference the source of science used. The
critical areas report shall evaluate the proposal and all probable impacts to critical areas in accordance
with the provisions of this title.
D. Minimum Report Contents. At a minimum, the report shall contain the following:
1. The name and contact information of the applicant, a description of the proposal, and identification of
the permit requested;
2. A copy of the site plan for the development proposal including:
a. A map to scale depicting critical areas, buffers, the development proposal, and any areas to be cleared;
and
Packet Page 380 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 8 of 90
b. A description of the proposed storm water management plan for the development and consideration of
impacts to drainage alterations;
3. The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of any
fieldwork performed on the site;
4. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water bodies, shorelines, and buffers
adjacent to the proposed project area;
5. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to ECDC
23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing, to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas; and
6. Report requirements specific to each critical area type as indicated in the corresponding chapters of
this title.
7. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions made and relied upon;
8. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the critical areas study, including references; and
9. Plans for adequate mitigation, as needed to offset any critical areas impacts, in accordance with the
Mitigation Plan Requirements in Section 23.40.130.
E. Unless otherwise provided, a critical areas report may incorporate, be supplemented by or composed,
in whole or in part, of any reports or studies required by other laws and regulations or previously
prepared for and applicable to the development proposal site, as approved by the director. At the
discretion of the director, reports previously compiled or submitted as part of a proposal for
development may be used as a critical areas report to the extent that the requirements of this section and
the report requirements for each specific critical area type are met.
F. Critical areas reports shall be considered valid for five years; after such date the city shall determine
whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary.[Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.100 Critical areas report – Modifications to requirements.
A. Limitations to Study Area. The director may limit the required geographic area of the critical areas
report as appropriate if:
1. The applicant, with assistance from the city of Edmonds, cannot obtain permission to access
properties adjacent to the project area; or
2. The proposed activity will affect only a limited part of the subject site.
B. Modifications to Required Contents. The applicant may consult with the director prior to or during
preparation of the critical areas report to obtain approval of modifications to the required contents of the
report where, in the judgment of a qualified professional, more or less information is required to
adequately address the potential critical area impacts and required mitigation.
Packet Page 381 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 9 of 90
C. Additional Information Requirements. The director may require additional information to be included
in the critical areas report when determined to be necessary to the review of the proposed activity in
accordance with this title. Additional information that may be required includes, but is not limited to:
1. Historical data, including original and subsequent mapping, aerial photographs, data compilations and
summaries, and available reports and records relating to the site or past operations at the site;
2. Grading and drainage plans; and
3. Information specific to the type, location, and nature of the critical area. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.110 Mitigation requirements.
A. The applicant shall avoid all impacts that degrade the functions and values of critical areas. Unless
otherwise provided in this title, if alteration to the critical area is unavoidable, all adverse impacts to or
from critical areas and buffers resulting from a development proposal or alteration shall be mitigated
using the best available science in accordance with an approved critical areas report and SEPA
documents, so as to result in no net loss of critical area functions and values.
B. Mitigation shall be in-kind and on-site, when possible, and sufficient to maintain or compensate for
the functions and values of the impacted critical area and to prevent risk from a hazard posed by a
critical area.
C. Mitigation shall not be implemented until after the director has provided approval of a critical areas
report that includes a mitigation plan. Mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions
of the approved critical areas report. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.120 Mitigation sequencing.
A. Applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid
and minimize impacts to critical areas.
B. When an alteration to a critical area is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized, or
compensated for in the following sequential order of preference:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by
using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or
timing, to avoid or reduce impacts;
3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the
conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project;
Packet Page 382 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 10 of 90
4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineering
or other methods;
5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations
during the life of the action;
6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or
7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary.
C. Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures. [Ord. 3527 § 2,
2004].
23.40.130 Mitigation plan requirements.
When mitigation is required, the applicant shall submit for approval by the director a mitigation plan as
part of the critical areas report. The mitigation plan shall include:
A. Environmental Goals and Objectives. The mitigation plan shall include a written report identifying
environmental goals and objectives of the compensation proposed and including:
1. A description of the anticipated impacts to the critical areas and the mitigating actions proposed and
the purposes of the compensation measures, including the site selection criteria; identification of
compensation goals; identification of resource functions; and dates for beginning and completion of site
compensation construction activities. The goals and objectives shall be related to the functions and
values of the impacted critical area;
2. A review of the best available science supporting the proposed mitigation;
3. An analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project; and
4. Specific mitigation plan and report requirements for each critical area type as indicated in this title.
B. Performance Standards. The mitigation plan shall include measurable specific criteria for evaluating
whether or not the goals and objectives of the mitigation project have been successfully attained and
whether or not the requirements of this title have been met.
C. Detailed Construction Plans. The mitigation plan shall include written specifications and descriptions
of the mitigation proposed, such as:
1. The proposed construction sequence, timing, and duration;
2. Areas of proposed impacts on critical areas or buffers;
3. Grading and excavation details;
Packet Page 383 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 11 of 90
34. Erosion and sediment control features;
45. A planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; and
56. Measures to protect and maintain plants until established.
These written specifications shall be accompanied by detailed site diagrams, scaled cross-sectional
drawings, topographic maps showing slope percentage and final grade elevations, and any other
drawings appropriate to show construction techniques or anticipated final outcome.
D. Monitoring Program. The mitigation plan shall include a program for monitoring construction and for
assessing a completed project. A protocol shall be included outlining the schedule for site monitoring
(for example, monitoring shall occur in years one, three, and five after site construction), and how the
monitoring data will be evaluated to determine if the performance standards are being met. A monitoring
report shall be submitted as needed to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency
actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary
to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than three five (5) years
without approval from the director.
E. Contingency Plan. The mitigation plan shall include identification of potential courses of action and
any corrective measures to be taken if monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards
are not being met.
F. Financial Guarantees. The mitigation plan shall include financial guarantees, as necessary, to ensure
that the mitigation plan is fully implemented. Financial guarantees ensuring fulfillment of the
compensation project, monitoring program, and any contingency measures shall be posted in accordance
with ECDC 23.40.290, Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.140 Innovative mitigation.
A. The city of Edmonds may encourage, facilitate, and approve innovative mitigation projects that are
based on the best available science. Advance mitigation, in lieu fee programs, or mitigation banking are
examples of alternative mitigation projects approaches allowed under the provisions of this section
wherein one or more applicants, or an organization with demonstrated capability, may undertake a
mitigation project together if it is demonstrated that all of the following circumstances exist:
1. There are no reasonable opportunities on- site or within the same sub-drainage basin, or opportunities
on-site or within the sub-drainage basin do not have a high likelihood of success based on a
determination of the capacity of the site to compensate for the impacts. Considerations should include:
anticipated replacement ratios for wetland mitigation, buffer conditions and proposed widths, available
water to maintain anticipated hydrogeomorphic classes of wetlands when restored, proposed flood
storage capacity, and potential to mitigate fish and wildlife impacts (such as connectivity);
1. Creation or enhancement of a larger system of critical areas and open space is preferable to the
preservation of many individual habitat areas;
Packet Page 384 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 12 of 90
2. The group demonstrates the organizational and fiscal capability to act cooperatively;
3. The group demonstrates that long-term management of the habitat area will be provided; and
4. 2. The off-site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved critical areas
functions than the altered critical area, and there is a clear potential for success of the proposed
mitigation at the identified mitigation site.
3. Off-site locations shall be in the same basin and within the City unless:
a. Established watershed goals for water quality, flood storage or conveyance, habitat, or other wetland
functions have been established by the City and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site; or
b. Credits from an approved (State-certified) wetland mitigation bank are used as compensation, and the
use of credits is consistent with the terms of the approved bank instrument;
c. Fees are paid to an approved in-lieu fee program to compensate for the impacts.
B. Development proposals impacting critical areas and/or associated buffers may contribute payment
towards an identified City of Edmonds mitigation project with approval from the director, provided that
the mitigation approach meets all state and federal permit requirements, where required. Such mitigation
actions shall be consistent with ECDC 23.40.140.A.1. and ECDC 23.40.140.A.2., and with all other
applicable provisions of ECDC Chapters 23.50 and 23.90.
BC. Conducting mitigation as part of a cooperative process provides for retention or an increase in the
beneficial functions and values of critical areas within the Edmonds jurisdiction. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.150 Critical areas decision.
The city of Edmonds development services director shall make a decision as to whether the proposed
activity and mitigation, if any, is consistent with the provisions of this title. The decision shall be based
on the criteria of ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria, and shall affect and be incorporated within the
larger project decision. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.160 Review criteria.
A. Any alteration to a critical area, unless otherwise provided for in this title, shall be reviewed and
approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on the proposal’s ability to comply with all of the
following criteria:
1. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation
sequencing;
2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the
development proposal site;
Packet Page 385 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 13 of 90
3. The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest;
4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.110,
Mitigation requirements;
5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science
and results in no net loss of critical area functions and values; and
6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
B. The director may condition the proposed activity as necessary to mitigate impacts to critical areas and
to conform to the standards required by this title. Except as provided for by this title, any project that
cannot adequately mitigate its impacts to critical areas in the sequencing order of preferences in ECDC
23.40.120 shall be denied. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.170 Favorable critical areas decision.
If the director determines that the proposed activity meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC
23.40.160, Review criteria, and complies with the applicable provisions of this title, the development
services director shall prepare a written notice of decision for the applicant and identify any required
conditions of approval as part of the larger project decision. The notice of decision and conditions of
approval shall be included in the project file and be considered in the next phase of the city’s review of
the proposed activity in accordance with any other applicable codes or regulations.
Any conditions of approval included in a notice of decision shall be attached to the underlying permit or
approval. Any subsequent changes to the conditions of approval shall void the previous decision
pending re-review of the proposal and conditions of approval previously set by the director.
A favorable decision should not be construed as endorsement or approval of any underlying permit or
approval. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.180 Unfavorable critical areas decision.
If the director determines that a proposed activity is not exempt or does not adequately mitigate its
impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review criteria,
and the provisions of this title, the director shall prepare a written decision for the applicant that includes
findings of noncompliance.
No proposed activity or permit shall be approved or issued if it is determined that the proposed activity
does not adequately mitigate its impacts on the critical areas and/or does not comply with the provisions
of this title.
Following notice of decision that the proposed activity does not meet the review criteria and/or does not
comply with the applicable provisions of this title, the applicant may request consideration of a revised
critical area report. If the revision is found to be substantial and relevant to the critical area review, the
Packet Page 386 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 14 of 90
director may reopen the critical area review and make a new decision based on the revised report. [Ord.
3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.190 Completion of the critical areas review.
The director’s decision regarding critical areas pursuant to this title shall be final concurrent with the
final project decision to approve, condition, or deny the development proposal or other activity involved.
[Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.200 Appeals.
Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the
requirements of this title may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for
the permit or approval involved. [Ord. 3736 § 71, 2009; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.210 Variances.
A. Variances from the standards of this title may be authorized through the process of hearing examiner
review in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC only if an applicant
demonstrates that one or more of the following two conditions exist:
1. The application of this title would prohibit a development proposal by a public agency or public
utility. A public agency and utility exception may be granted as a variance if:
a. There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on the critical
areas;
b. The application of this title would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide utility services to the
public;
c. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the
development proposal site;
d. The proposal attempts to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area functions and values
consistent with the best available science; and
e. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
2. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use (see the definition of “reasonable
economic use(s)” in ECDC 23.40.320) of the subject property. A reasonable use exception may be
authorized as a variance only if an applicant demonstrates that:
a. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel;
b. No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city
comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area;
Packet Page 387 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 15 of 90
c. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic
use of the property;
d. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of
actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor;
e. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the
development proposal site;
f. The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available
science; and
g. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
B. Specific Variance Criteria. A variance may be granted if the applicant demonstrates that the requested
action conforms to all of the following specific criteria:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent
in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district;
2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant;
3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable
economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject
property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide
the applicant with such rights;
4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by
this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances;
5. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not
further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the
subject property; and
6. The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special
consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish
habitat.
C. Hearing Examiner Review. The city hearing examiner shall, as a Type III-A decision (see Chapter
20.01 ECDC), review variance applications and conduct a public hearing. The hearing examiner shall
approve, approve with conditions, or deny variance applications based on a proposal’s ability to comply
with general and specific variance criteria provided in subsections (A) and (B) of this section.
Packet Page 388 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 16 of 90
D. Conditions May Be Required. The director retains the right to prescribe such conditions and
safeguards as are necessary to secure adequate protection of critical areas from adverse impacts, and to
ensure conformity with this title for variances granted through hearing examiner review.
E. Time Limit. The director shall prescribe a time limit within which the action for which the variance is
required shall be begun, completed, or both. Failure to begin or complete such action within the
established time limit shall void the variance, unless the applicant files an application for an extension of
time before the expiration. An application for an extension of time shall be reviewed by the director as a
Type II decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC).
F. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support of a
variance application and upon which any decision has to be made on the application. [Ord. 3783 § 15,
2010; Ord. 3775 § 15, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 72, 73, 2009; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.215 Critical Area Restoration Projects
A. When a critical area restoration project is proposed that is not required as mitigation for a
development proposal, the City of Edmonds may grant relief from standard critical area buffer
requirements if the restoration project involves:
1. The daylighting of a stream, or
2. Creation or expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of the wetland and/or
wetland buffer
B. At the time a restoration project is proposed, a buffer shall be established that will apply to the
restoration project boundary. Restoration project buffers shall be established according to the following
requirements:
1. For the purposes of this section, an expanded buffer is that portion of the stream or wetland buffer
that extended landward as a result of the restoration project.
2. A buffer may be applied to the restored portion of the stream or wetland that is not less than 75% of
the expanded buffer associated with the class of stream or category of wetland; or,
3. The project proponent may request a reduced buffer of between 50% and 75% of the expanded buffer
associated with the class of stream or category of wetland. The following criteria will be used by the
City in reviewing the request for a reduced buffer:
a. The Director determines that applying a 75% expanded buffer would significantly limit the use of the
property for existing or permitted uses, thus making the restoration project infeasible;
b. The proposed expanded buffer relief is the minimum necessary to achieve the restoration project;
c. There will be a net environmental benefit from the restoration project with the reduced expanded
buffer;
Packet Page 389 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 17 of 90
d. Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of the critical area restoration project
and consistent with purposes of the City’s critical area regulations.
Part III. Allowed Activities, Exemptions and Noncompliance Penalties
23.40.220 Allowed activities.
A. Critical Area Report. Activities allowed under this title shall have been reviewed and permitted or
approved by the city of Edmonds or other agency with jurisdiction, but do not require submittal of a
critical area report, unless such submittal was required previously for the underlying permit. The director
may apply conditions to the underlying permit or approval to ensure that the allowed activity is
consistent with the provisions of this title to protect critical areas.
B. Required Use of Best Management Practices. All allowed activities shall be conducted using the best
management practices that result in the least amount of impact to the critical areas. Best management
practices shall be used for tree and vegetation protection, construction management, erosion and
sedimentation control, water quality protection, and regulation of chemical applications. The city may
observe or require independent inspection of the use of best management practices to ensure that the
activity does not result in degradation to the critical area. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a
critical area shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party’s expense.
C. Allowed Activities. The following activities are allowed:
1. Permit Requests Subsequent to Previous Critical Areas Review. Development permits and approvals
that involve both discretionary land use approvals (such as subdivisions, rezones, or conditional use
permits) and construction approvals (such as building permits) if all of the following conditions have
been met:
a. The provisions of this title have been previously addressed as part of another approval;
b. There have been no material changes in the potential impact to the critical area or buffer since the
prior review;
c. The permit or approval has not expired or, if no expiration date, no more than five years have elapsed
since the issuance of that permit or approval;
d. There is no new information available that is applicable to any critical area review of the site or
particular critical area; and
de. Compliance with any standards or conditions placed upon the prior permit or approval has been
achieved or secured.;
2. Modification to Structures Existing Outside of Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Structural modification
of, addition to, or replacement of a legally constructed structure existing outside of a critical area or its
buffer that does not further alter or increase the impact to the critical area or buffer and there is no
increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification or replacement;
Packet Page 390 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 18 of 90
3. Permitted AlterationModifications to Existing Structures Existing Withinwithin Critical Areas and/or
Buffers. Permitted alterationModification to a legally constructed structure existing within a critical area
or buffer shall be allowed when the alterationatmodification: does not
a. Does not increase the footprint of the structuredevelopment; and
b. or Does not increase the impact to the critical area or buffer; and
c. Does not increasethere is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification
or replacement. (
Aadditions to legally constructed structures existing within a critical area or buffer that do increase the
existing footprint of development shall be subject to and permitted in accordance with the development
standards of the associated critical area type (see ECDC 23.50.040 and 23.90.040)). This provision shall
be interpreted to supplement the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to
nonconforming structures in order to permit the full reconstruction of a legal nonconforming building
within its footprint;
4. Development Proposals within Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Stream or Wetland
Buffers. Areas that are physically separated and functionally isolated from a stream or wetland due to
existing, legally established roadways, paved trails twelve (12) feet or more in width, or other legally
established structures or paved areas twelve (12) feet or more in width that occur between the area in
question and the stream or wetland may be considered physically separated and functionally isolated
from the stream or wetland. Once determined by the director to be a physically separated and
functionally isolated stream or wetland buffer, development proposals shall be allowed in these areas.
The director may require a site assessment by a qualified professional to determine whether the buffer is
functionally isolated.
45. Activities Withinwithin the Improved Right-of-Way. Replacement, modification, installation, or
construction of utility facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment, or appurtenances, when such facilities
are located within the improved portion of the public right-of-way or a city-authorized private roadway,
except those activities that alter a wetland or watercourse, such as culverts or bridges, or result in the
transport of sediment or increased stormwater.
56. Minor Utility Projects. Utility projects that have minor or short-duration impacts to critical areas, as
determined by the director in accordance with the criteria below, and which do not significantly impact
the function or values of a critical area(s); provided, that such projects are constructed with best
management practices and additional restoration measures are provided. Minor activities shall not result
in the transport of sediment or increased storm water. Such allowed minor utility projects shall meet the
following criteria:
a. There is no practical alternative to the proposed activity with less impact on critical areas;
b. The activity involves the placement of utility pole(s), street sign(s), anchor(s), or vault(s) or other
small component(s) of a utility facility; and
Packet Page 391 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 19 of 90
c. The activity involves disturbance of an area less than 75 square feet;
6. Public and Private Pedestrian Trails. New public and private pedestrian trails subject to the following:
a. The trail surface shall be limited to pervious surfaces and meet all other requirements, including water
quality standards set forth in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International
Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19;
b. Critical area and/or buffer widths shall be increased, where possible, equal to the width of the trail
corridor, including disturbed areas; and
c. Trails proposed to be located in landslide or erosion hazard areas shall be constructed in a manner that
does not increase the risk of landslide or erosion and in accordance with an approved geotechnical
report; and
d. Trails located only in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of critical areas buffers, and located to
avoid removal of significant trees. Where existing legally established development has reduced the
width of the critical areas buffer, trails may be placed in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the
remaining critical area buffer. The trail shall be no more than five (5) feet in width and for pedestrian
use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable.
Allowances for trails within the inner seventy-five percent (75%) of critical areas buffers are provided
within applicable sections of ECDC Chapters 23.50 – 23.90.
7. Select Vegetation Removal Activities. The following vegetation removal activities:
a. The removal of the following vegetation with hand labor and light hand-held equipment when the area
of work is under one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet in area as calculated cumulatively over
three (3) years:
i. Invasive and noxious weeds;
ii. English ivy (Hedera helix);
iii. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, R. procerus);
iv. Evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus);
v. Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparius); and
vi. Hedge and field bindweed (Convolvulus sepium and C. arvensis);
Removal of these invasive and noxious plant species shall be restricted to hand removal unless permits
or approval from the appropriate regulatory agencies have been obtained for approved biological or
chemical treatments or other removal techniques. All removed plant material shall be taken away from
the site and appropriately disposed of. Plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed
Packet Page 392 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 20 of 90
Control Board list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed
control plan appropriate to that species.
b. The removal of trees from critical areas and buffers that are hazardous, posing a threat to public
safety, or posing an imminent risk of damage to private property; provided, that:
i. The applicant submits a report from an ISA- or ASCA-certified arborist or registered landscape
architect that documents the hazard and provides a replanting schedule for the replacement trees;
ii. Tree cutting shall be limited to pruning and crown thinning, unless otherwise justified by a qualified
professional. Where pruning or crown thinning is not sufficient to address the hazard, trees should be
removed or converted to wildlife snags;
iii. All vegetation cut (tree stems, branches, etc.) shall be left within the critical area or buffer unless
removal is warranted due to the potential for disease or pest transmittal to other healthy vegetation or
unless removal is warranted to improve slope stability;
iv. The land owner shall replace any trees that are removed with new trees at a ratio of two replacement
trees for each tree removed (two to one2:1) within one year in accordance with an approved restoration
plan. Replacement trees may be planted at a different, nearby location if it can be determined that
planting in the same location would create a new hazard or potentially damage the critical area.
Replacement trees shall be species that are native and indigenous to the site and a minimum of one inch
in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen
trees as measured from the top of the root ball;
v. If a tree to be removed provides critical habitat, such as an eagle perch, a qualified wildlife biologist
shall be consulted to determine timing and methods of removal that will minimize impacts; and
vi. Hazard trees determined to pose an imminent threat or danger to public health or safety, to public or
private property, or of serious environmental degradation may be removed or pruned by the land owner
prior to receiving written approval from the city; provided, that within 14 days following such action,
the land owner shall submit a restoration plan that demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this
title;
c. Measures to control a fire or halt the spread of disease or damaging insects consistent with the State
Forest Practices Act, Chapter 76.09 RCW; provided, that the removed vegetation shall be replaced in
kind or with similar native species within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan;
d. Chemical Applications. The application of herbicides, pesticides, organic or mineral-derived
fertilizers, or other hazardous substances, if necessary, as approved by the City, provided that their use
shall be restricted in accordance with state Department of Fish and Wildlife Management
Recommendations and the regulations of the state Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and Department of Ecology; and
Packet Page 393 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 21 of 90
de. Unless otherwise provided, or as a necessary part of an approved alteration, removal of any
vegetation or woody debris from a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or wetland shall be
prohibited;
8. Minor Site Investigative Work. Work necessary for land use submittals, such as surveys, soil logs,
percolation tests, and other related activities, where such activities do not require construction of new
roads or significant amounts of excavation. In every case, impacts to the critical area shall be minimized
and disturbed areas shall be immediately restored; and
9. Navigational Aids and Boundary Markers. Construction or modification of navigational aids and
boundary markers. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.230 Exemptions.
A. Exemption Request and Review Process. The proponent of the activity may submit a written request
for exemption to the director that describes the activity and states the exemption listed in this section
that applies.
The director shall review the exemption request to verify that it complies with this title and approve or
deny the exemption. If the exemption is approved, it shall be placed on file with the city of Edmonds. If
the exemption is denied, the proponent may continue in the review process and shall be subject to the
requirements of this title.
B. Exempt Activities and Impacts to Critical Areas. All exempted activities shall use reasonable
methods to avoid potential impacts to critical areas. To be exempt from this title does not give
permission to degrade a critical area or ignore risk from natural hazards. Any incidental damage to, or
alteration of, a critical area that is not a necessary outcome of the exempted activity shall be restored,
rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party’s expense.
C. Exempt Activities. The following developments, activities, and associated uses shall be exempt from
the provisions of this title; provided, that they are otherwise consistent with the provisions of other local,
state, and federal laws and requirements:
1. Emergencies. Those activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to public health, safety, or
welfare, or that pose an immediate risk of damage to private property and that require remedial or
preventative action in a time frame too short to allow for compliance with the requirements of this title.
Emergency actions that create an impact to a critical area or its buffer shall use reasonable methods to
address the emergency; in addition, they must have the least possible impact to the critical area or its
buffer. The person or agency undertaking such action shall notify the director within one working day
following commencement of the emergency activity. Within 30 days, the director shall determine if the
action taken was within the scope of the emergency actions allowed in this subsection. If the director
determines that the action taken, or any part of the action taken, was beyond the scope of an allowed
emergency action, then enforcement provisions of ECDC 23.40.240, Unauthorized critical area
alterations and enforcement, shall apply.
Packet Page 394 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 22 of 90
After the emergency, the person or agency undertaking the action shall fully fund and conduct necessary
restoration and/or mitigation for any impacts to the critical area and buffers resulting from the
emergency action in accordance with an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan. The person
or agency undertaking the action shall apply for review, and the alteration, critical area report, and
mitigation plan shall be reviewed by the director in accordance with the review procedures contained
herein. Restoration and/or mitigation activities must be initiated within one year of the date of the
emergency and completed in a timely manner;
2. Operation, Maintenance, or Repair. Operation, maintenance, or repair of existing structures,
infrastructure improvements, utilities, public or private roads, dikes, levees, or drainage systems that do
not require construction permits, if the activity does not further alter or increase the impact to, or
encroach further within, the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a
result of the proposed operation, maintenance, or repair. Operation and maintenance also includes
normal maintenance of vegetation performed in accordance with best management practices, provided
that such management actions are part of regular and ongoing maintenance, do not expand further into
the critical area, are not the result of an expansion of the structure or utility, and do not directly impact
an endangered or threatened species; and
3. Passive Outdoor Activities. Recreation, education, and scientific research activities that do not
degrade the critical area, including fishing, hiking, and bird watching. Trails must be constructed
pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220(C)(6), Public and Private Pedestrian Trails. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.240 Unauthorized critical area alterations and enforcement.
A. When a critical area or its buffer has been altered in violation of this title or the provisions of Chapter
7.200 ECC, all ongoing development work shall stop and the critical area shall be restored. The director
shall have the authority to issue a stop work order to cease all ongoing development work, and order
restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement measures at the owner’s or other responsible party’s expense
to compensate for violation of the provisions of this title. The director may also require an applicant or
property owner to take immediate action to ensure site stabilization and/or erosion control as needed.
B. Requirement for Restoration Plan. All development work shall remain stopped until a restoration plan
is prepared and approved by the director. Such a plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional using
the best available science and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements
described in subsection C of this section. The director shall, at the violator’s expense, seek expert advice
in determining the adequacy of the plan. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the applicant or violator
for revision and resubmittal.
C. Minimum Performance Standards for Restoration.
1. For alterations to frequently flooded areas, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas,
the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a critical area;
provided, that if the violator can demonstrate that greater functional and habitat values can be obtained,
these standards may be modified:
Packet Page 395 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 23 of 90
a. The historic structural and functional values shall be restored, including water quality and habitat
functions;
b. The historic soil types and configuration shall be replicated;
c. The critical area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation
historically found on the site in species types, sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values
should be replicated at the location of the alteration; and
d. Information demonstrating compliance with the requirements in ECDC 23.40.130, Mitigation plan
requirements, shall be submitted to the city planning division.
2. For alterations to flood and geological hazards, the following minimum performance standards shall
be met for the restoration of a critical area; provided, that if the violator can demonstrate that greater
safety can be obtained, these standards may be modified:
a. The hazard shall be reduced to a level equal to, or less than, the predevelopment hazard;
b. Any risk of personal injury resulting from the alteration shall be eliminated or minimized; and
c. The hazard area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation sufficient to minimize the
hazard.
D. Site Investigations. The director is authorized to make site inspections and take such actions as are
necessary to enforce this title. The director shall present proper credentials and make a reasonable effort
to contact any property owner before entering onto private property.
E. Penalties. Any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity convicted of violating any of the
provisions of this title shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to penalties equal to the cost of the
permit, plus any applicable penalties, plus a square footage cost of three dollars ($3.00) per square foot
of impacted critical area and critical area buffer. plus a per tree penalty consistent with ECDC
18.45.070B. and C. set forth in ECDC 18.45.070 and 18.45.075. Each day or portion of a day during
which a violation of this title is committed or continued shall constitute a separate offense. Any
development carried out contrary to the provisions of this title shall constitute a public nuisance and may
be enjoined as provided by the statutes of the state of Washington. The city of Edmonds may levy civil
penalties against any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity for violation of any of the
provisions of this title. The civil penalty shall be assessed as proscribed in ECDC 18.45.070 and
18.45.075.[Ord. 3828 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part IV. General Critical Areas Protective Measures
23.40.250 Critical areas markers and signs.
A. The boundary at the outer edge of a critical area, critical area buffer or critical area tract may, at the
discretion of the director, be required to be delineated with wood fencing.
Packet Page 396 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 24 of 90
B. The boundary at the outer edge of the critical area or buffer may be identified with temporary signs
prior to any site alteration. Such temporary signs may be replaced with permanent signs prior to
occupancy or use of the site.
C. These provisions may be modified by the director as necessary to ensure protection of sensitive
features or wildlife needs. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.270 Critical areas tracts and easements.
A. At the discretion of the director, critical areas tracts and/or easements may be required in
development proposals for subdivisions, short subdivisions, and planned unit
developments.developments that include critical areas. These critical areas tracts and/or easements shall
delineate and protect those contiguous critical areas and buffers greater than 5,000 square feet including:
1. Landslide hazard areas and buffers;
2. Wetlands and buffers;
3. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; and
4. Other lands to be protected from alterations as conditioned by project approval.
B. Notice on Title. The owner of any property with field-verified presence of critical areas and/or critical
areas buffers, except critical aquifer recharge areas, for which a permit application is submitted shall, as
a condition of permit issuance, record a notice of the existence of such critical area and/or critical area
buffer against the property with the Snohomish County Auditor’s office. The notice shall be approved
by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this provision. The titleholder will have the
right to challenge this notice and to have it released if the critical area designation no longer applies;
however, the titleholder shall be responsible for completing a critical areas report, subject to approval by
the director, before the notice on title can be released.Critical areas tracts shall be recorded on all
documents of title of record for all affected lots.
C. Critical areas tracts or easements shall be designated on the face of the plat or recorded drawing in a
format approved by the director. The designation shall include the following restrictions:
1. An assurance that native vegetation will be preserved for the purpose of preventing harm to property
and the environment, including, but not limited to, controlling surface water runoff and erosion,
maintaining slope stability, buffering, and protecting plants, fish, and animal habitat; and
2. The right of the director to enforce the terms of the restriction.
D. The director may require that critical areas tracts be dedicated to the city, to be held in an undivided
interest by each owner of a building lot within the development with the ownership interest passing with
the ownership of the lot, or held by an incorporated homeowner’s association or other legal entity (such
as a land trust), which ensures the ownership, maintenance, and protection of the tract and contains a
process to assess costs associated therewith.
Packet Page 397 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 25 of 90
E. The use of herbicides within critical areas tracts or easements is prohibited except use of aquatic
approved herbicides where recommended by the Noxious Weed Control Board and where otherwise
consistent with the provisions of ECDC Title 23. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.280 Building setbacks.
Unless otherwise providedExcept for geologically hazardous areas where setbacks are determined by a
geotechnical report, buildings and other structures shall be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edges
of all critical area buffers or from the edges of all critical areas, if no buffers are required. The In
addition to other allowances provided by this Title, the following may be allowed in the building setback
area:
A. Landscaping;
B. Uncovered decks;
C. Building overhangs, if such overhangs do not extend more than 30 inches into the setback area; and
D. Impervious ground surfaces, such as driveways and patios; provided, that such improvements may be
subject to water quality regulations as adopted in the current editions of the International Residential
Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.290 Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring.
A. When mitigation required pursuant to a development proposal is not completed prior to final permit
approval, such as final plat approval or final building inspection, the applicant shall be required to post a
performance bond or other security in a form and amount deemed acceptable by the director. If the
development proposal is subject to mitigation, the applicant shall post a mitigation bond or other
security in a form and amount deemed acceptable by the city to ensure mitigation is fully functional.
B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of the uncompleted actions or
the estimated cost of restoring the functions and values of the critical area that are at risk, whichever is
greater. The amount of the performance bond shall include a reasonable allocation for inflation based on
the length of anticipated delay and the provisions of subsection D of this section.
C. The bond shall be in the form of a surety bond, performance bond, and/or maintenance bond from an
acceptable financial institution, with terms and conditions acceptable to the city of Edmonds’ attorney.
D. Bonds or other security authorized by this section shall remain in effect until the director determines,
in writing, that the standards bonded for have been met. Bonds or other security shall be held by the city
for a minimum of three five (5) years to ensure that the required mitigation has been fully implemented
and demonstrated to function, and may be held for longer periods when necessary to achieve these goals.
E. Depletion, failure, or collection of bond funds shall not discharge the obligation of an applicant or
violator to complete required mitigation, maintenance, monitoring, or restoration.
Packet Page 398 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 26 of 90
F. Public development proposals shall be relieved from having to comply with the bonding requirements
of this section if public funds have previously been committed for mitigation, maintenance, monitoring,
or restoration.
G. Any failure to satisfy critical area requirements established by law or condition including, but not
limited to, the failure to provide a monitoring report within thirty (30) days after it is due or comply with
other provisions of an approved mitigation plan shall constitute a default, and the city may demand
payment of any financial guarantees or require other action authorized under this title or any other law.
H. Any funds recovered pursuant to this section shall be used to complete the required mitigation. [Ord.
3527 § 2, 2004].
23.40.300 Critical area inspections.
Reasonable access to the site shall be provided to the city, state, and/or federal agency review staff for
the purpose of inspections during any proposal review, restoration, emergency action, or monitoring
period. Failure to provide access shall constitute grounds for issuance of a stop work order. [Ord. 3527
§ 2, 2004].
Part V. Incorporation of Best Available Science
23.40.310 Best available science.
A. Protect Functions and Values of Critical Areas with Special Consideration to Anadromous Fish.
Critical areas reports and decisions to alter critical areas shall rely on the best available science to
protect the functions and values of critical areas and must give special consideration to conservation or
protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish, such as salmon and bull trout,
and their habitat, where applicable.
B. Best Available Science to Be Consistent with Criteria. The best available science is that scientific
information applicable to the critical area prepared by local, state, or federal natural resource agencies, a
qualified scientific professional, or a team of qualified scientific professionals that is consistent with
criteria established in WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and RCW 36.70A.172.
C. Characteristics of a Valid Scientific Process. In the context of critical areas protection, a valid
scientific process is one that produces reliable information useful in understanding the consequences of a
local government’s regulatory decisions, and in developing critical areas policies and development
regulations that will be effective in protecting the functions and values of critical areas. To determine
whether information received during the permit review process is reliable scientific information, the
director shall determine whether the source of the information displays the characteristics of a valid
scientific process. Such characteristics are as follows:
1. Peer Review. The information has been critically reviewed by other persons who are qualified
scientific experts in that scientific discipline. The proponents of the information have addressed the
criticism of the peer reviewers. Publication in a refereed scientific journal usually indicates that the
information has been appropriately peer-reviewed;
Packet Page 399 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 27 of 90
2. Methods. The methods used to obtain the information are clearly stated and reproducible. The
methods are standardized in the pertinent scientific discipline or, if not, the methods have been
appropriately peer-reviewed to ensure their reliability and validity;
3. Logical Conclusions and Reasonable Inferences. The conclusions presented are based on reasonable
assumptions supported by other studies and consistent with the general theory underlying the
assumptions. The conclusions are logically and reasonably derived from the assumptions and supported
by the data presented. Any gaps in information and inconsistencies with other pertinent scientific
information are adequately explained;
4. Quantitative Analysis. The data have been analyzed using appropriate statistical or quantitative
methods;
5. Context. The information is placed in proper context. The assumptions, analytical techniques, data,
and conclusions are appropriately framed with respect to the prevailing body of pertinent scientific
knowledge; and
6. References. The assumptions, analytical techniques, and conclusions are well referenced with
citations to relevant, credible literature and other pertinent existing information.
D. Nonscientific Information. Nonscientific information, such as anecdotal observations, non-expert
opinion, and hearsay, may supplement scientific information, but it is not an adequate substitute for
valid and available scientific information.
E. Absence of Valid Scientific Information. Where there is an absence of valid scientific information or
incomplete scientific information relating to a critical area leading to uncertainty about the risk to
critical area function of permitting an alteration of or impact to the critical area, the director shall:
1. Take a “precautionary or a no-risk approach” that strictly limits development and land use activities
until the uncertainty is sufficiently resolved; and
2. Require application of an effective adaptive management program that relies on scientific methods to
evaluate how well regulatory and nonregulatory actions protect the critical area. An adaptive
management program is a formal and deliberate scientific approach to taking action and obtaining
information in the face of uncertainty. An adaptive management program shall:
a. Address funding for the research component of the adaptive management program;
b. Change course based on the results and interpretation of new information that resolves uncertainties;
and
c. Commit to the appropriate time frame and scale necessary to reliably evaluate regulatory and
nonregulatory actions affecting protection of critical areas and anadromous fisheries. [Ord. 3527 § 2,
2004].
Part VI. Definitions
Packet Page 400 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 28 of 90
23.40.320 Definitions pertaining to critical areas.
For the purposes of this chapter and the chapters on the five specific critical area types (Chapters 23.50,
23.60, 23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC) the following definitions shall apply:
“Adjacent” means those areas activities located on- site immediately adjoining a critical area; or a
distance equal to or less than two hundred and twenty five (225)200 feet of a development proposal or
subject parcel and those areas located within 800 feet of a documented bald eagle nest.
“Alteration” means any human-induced action which changes the existing condition of a critical area or
its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining; channelizing;
cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or
pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application
of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes
the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas.
“Best management practices” means a system of practices and management measures that:
1. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, and toxics;
2. Control the movement of sediment and erosion caused by land alteration activities;
3. Minimize adverse impacts to surface and ground water quality, flow, and circulation patterns; and
4. Minimize adverse impacts to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of critical areas.
“Buffer” means the designated area immediately next to and a part of a steep slope or landslide hazard
area and which protects slope stability, attenuation of surface water flows and landslide hazards
reasonably necessary to minimize risks to persons or property; or a designated area immediately next to
and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem.
“Chapter” means those sections of this title sharing the same third and fourth digits.
“City” means the city of Edmonds.
“Class” or “wetland class” means descriptive categories of wetland vegetation communities within the
wetlands taxonomic classification system of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin, et al., 1979).
“Clearing” means the act of cutting and/or removing vegetation. This definition shall include grubbing
vegetation and the use or application of herbicide.
“Compensation project” means an action(s) specifically designed to replace project-induced critical area
or buffer losses. Compensation project design elements may include, but are not limited to: land
acquisition procedures and detailed plans including functional value assessments, detailed landscaping
designs, construction drawings, and monitoring and contingency plans.
Packet Page 401 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 29 of 90
“Compensatory mitigation” means replacing project-induced losses or impacts to a critical area, and
includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1. “Restoration” means actions performed to reestablish wetland functional characteristics and processes
that have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area that no longer meets
the definition of a wetland.
21. “Creation” means actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland at a site where it did not
formerly exist.
2. “Re-establishment” means actions performed to restore processes and functions to an area that was
formerly a wetland, where the former wetland area was lost by past alterations and activities.
3. “Rehabilitation” means improving or repairing processes and functions to an area that is an existing
wetland that is highly degraded because one or more environmental processes supporting the wetland
area have been disrupted.
34. “Enhancement” means actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded wetlands so
that the functions they provide are of a higher quality; enhancement activities usually attempt to change
plant communities within existing wetlands from non-native communities to native scrub-shrub or
forested communities.
45. “Preservation” means actions taken to ensure the permanent protection of existing high-quality
wetlands.
“Creation” means a compensation project performed to intentionally establish a wetland or stream at a
site where one did not formerly exist.
“Critical areas” for the city of Edmonds means wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently
flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as defined
in Chapters 23.50, 23.60, 23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC, respectively.
“Development proposal” means any activity relating to the use and/or development of land requiring a
permit or approval from the city, including, but not limited to: commercial or residential building
permit; binding site plan; conditional use permit; franchise; right-of-way permit; grading and clearing
permit; mixed use approval; planned residential development; shoreline conditional use permit;
shoreline substantial development permit; shoreline variance; short subdivision; special use permit;
subdivision; flood hazard permit; unclassified use permit; utility and other use permit; variance; rezone;
or any required permit or approval not expressly exempted by this title.
“Director” means the city of Edmonds development services director or his/her designee.
“Division” means the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department.
Packet Page 402 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 30 of 90
“Enhancement” means an action taken to improve the condition and function of a critical area. In the
case of wetland or stream, the term includes a compensation project performed to improve the
conditions of an existing degraded wetland or stream to increase its functional value.
“Erosion” means the process in which soil particles are mobilized and transported by natural agents such
as wind, rain, frost action, or stream flow.
“Erosion Hazard Areas.” See ECDC 23.80.020(A).
“Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.” See Chapter 23.90 ECDC.
“Floodplain” means the total area subject to inundation by a “100-year flood.” “100-year flood” means a
flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.
“Footprint of Existing Development” or “Footprint of Development” means the area of a site that
contains legally established: buildings; concrete, asphalt or gravel paved roads, parking lots, storage
areas or other paved areas; driveways; walkways ; outdoor swimming pools; and patios.
“Frequently Flooded Areas.” See Chapter 23.70 ECDC.
“Functions” means the roles served by critical areas including, but not limited to: water quality
protection and enhancement; fish and wildlife habitat; food chain support; flood storage, conveyance
and attenuation; ground water recharge and discharge; erosion control; wave attenuation; aesthetic value
protection; and recreation. These roles are not listed in order of priority.
“Geologically Hazardous Areas.” See Chapter 23.80 ECDC.
“Geologist” means a person licensed as a geologist, engineering geologist, or hydrologist in the state of
Washington who has earned a degree in geology from an accredited college or university and has at least
five years of experience as a practicing geologist or four years of experience and at least two years of
postgraduate study, research or teaching. The practical experience shall include at least three years of
work in applied geology and landslide evaluation in close association with qualified, practicing
geologists and geotechnical/civil engineers. For geologically hazardous areas, an applicant may choose a
geologist or engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington to assess the potential hazard.
“Geotechnical engineer” means a practicing geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional civil
engineer in the state of Washington who has at least four years of professional employment as a
geotechnical engineer in responsible charge including experience with landslide evaluation.
“Grading” means any one or a combination of excavating, filling, or disturbance of that portion of the
soil profile which contains decaying organic matter.
“Habitats of local importance” means areas that include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a
given species has a primary association, and which, if altered may reduce the likelihood that the species
will maintain and reproduce over the long-term. These might include areas of high relative density or
Packet Page 403 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 31 of 90
species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. These might also include
habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alterations such as cliffs, talus, and
wetlands. In urban areas like the city of Edmonds, habitats of local importance include biodiversity areas
and corridors, which are characterized by a framework of ecological components which provides the
physical conditions necessary for ecosystems and species populations to survive in a human-dominated
landscape. include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary
association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce
over the long term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding
habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited
availability or high vulnerability to alteration, such as cliffs, shorelines, coastal beaches, mudflats,
eelgrass beds, and wetlands. (See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(4).)
“In lieu fee program” means a program which sells compensatory mitigation credits to permittees whose
obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the in lieu program sponsor, a
governmental or non-profit natural resource management entity.
“Landslide Hazard Areas.” (See ECDC 23.80.020(B).)
“Mitigation” means the use of any or all of the following actions, which are listed in descending order of
preference:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by
using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps such as project redesign, relocation, or
timing to avoid or reduce impacts;
3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat
conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical
conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project;
4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or
other methods;
5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations
during the life of the action;
6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and
habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments;
and
7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary.
Packet Page 404 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 32 of 90
“Native vegetation” means vegetation comprised of plant species which are indigenous to the Puget
Sound region and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. “Native
vegetation” does not include noxious weeds as defined by the state of Washington or federal agencies.
“Normal maintenance of vegetation” means removal of shrubs/non-woody vegetation and trees (less
than 3-inch diameter at breast height) that occurs at least every other year. Maintenance also may
include tree topping that has been previously approved by the City in the past 5 years.
“Noxious weeds” means any plant which, when established,that is highly destructive, competitive or
difficult to control by cultural or chemical practices, limited to those plants on the state noxious weed
list contained in Chapter , as further listed in Chapter 16-750 WAC.
“Planning staff” means those employed in the planning division of the city of Edmonds development
services department.
“Qualified critical areas consultant” or “qualified professional” means a person who has the
qualifications specified below to conduct critical areas studies pursuant to this title, and to make
recommendations for critical areas mitigation. For geologically hazardous areasFor areas of potential
geologic instability, the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a geologist or geotechnical engineer.
engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington to assess the potential hazard. If development
is to take place within a geologically hazardous area, the qualified critical areas consultant developing
mitigation plans and design shall be a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Washington and
familiar with landslide and slope stability mitigation. For wetlands and streams, the qualified critical
areas consultant shall be a specialist in botany, fisheries, wetland biology, and/or hydrology with a
minimum of two five years’ field experience with wetlands and/or streams in the Pacific Northwest.
Requirements defining a qualified critical areas consultant or qualified professional are contained within
the chapter on each critical area type.
“Reasonable economic use(s)” means the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under
applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of
substantive due process.
“Redeveloped land(s)” means those lands on which existing structures are demolished in their entirety to
allow for new development. The director shall maintain discretion to determine if the demolition of a
majority of existing structures or portions thereof constitute the re-development of a property or subject
parcel.
“Restoration” means the actions necessary to return a stream, wetland or other critical area to a state in
which its stability, functions and values approach its unaltered state as closely as possible. For wetlands,
restoration as compensatory mitigation may include re-establishment or rehabilitation.
“Seismic Hazard Areas.” (See ECDC 23.80.020(C).)
“Species of local importance” means those species that are of local concern due to their population
status, their sensitivity to habitat manipulation, or that are game (hunted) species. (See ECDC
23.90.010(A)(4).)
Packet Page 405 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 33 of 90
“Storm Water Management Manual” means the Storm Water Management Manual for the Puget Sound
Basin by the Washington State Department of Ecology (as included in stormwater manual specified in
Chapter 18.30 ECDC).
“Streams” means any area where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates
clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage of water. The channel or bed need not
contain water year-round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or
surface water runoff devices (drainage ditches) or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are
used by salmonids or used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to construction of such
watercourse. Streams are further classified into Categories S, F, Np and Ns and fishbearing or
nonfishbearing 1, 2 and 3. (See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(1).)
“Title” means all chapters of the city of Edmonds Development Code beginning with the digits 23.
“Undeveloped land(s)” means land(s) on which manmade structures or land modifications (clearing,
grading, etc.) do not exist. The director retains discretion to identify undeveloped land(s) in those
instances where historical modifications and structures may have existed on a property or subject parcel
in the past.
“Wetland functions” means those natural processes performed by wetlands, such as facilitating food
chain production; providing habitat for nesting, rearing and resting sites for aquatic, terrestrial or avian
species; maintaining the availability and quality of water; acting as recharge and/or discharge areas for
ground water aquifers; and moderating surface water and storm water flows.
“Wetland mitigation bank” means a site where wetlands are restored, created, enhanced, or in
exceptional circumstances, preserved expressly for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation in
advance of authorized impacts to similar resources.
“Wetlands” means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial
wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and
drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm
ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally
created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. However, wetlands may include those
artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of
wetlands if permitted by the city (WAC 365-190-030(22)). Wetlands are further classified into
Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. (See ECDC 23.50.010(B).) [Ord. 3952 § 1, 2013; Ord. 3931 § 2, 2013; Ord.
3527 § 2, 2004].
Packet Page 406 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 34 of 90
Chapter 23.50
WETLANDS
Sections:
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.50.000 Wetlands compliance requirements flowchart.
23.50.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Wetlands.
Part II. Allowed Activities – Wetlands
23.50.020 Allowed activities – Wetlands.
Part III. Additional Report Requirements – Wetlands
23.50.030 Special study and report requirements – Wetlands.
Part IV. Development Standards – Wetlands
23.50.040 Development standards – Wetlands.
23.50.050 Mitigation requirements – Wetlands.
23.50.060 Performance standards – Subdivisions.
Part V. City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form
23.50.070 Wetland field data form.
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.50.000 Wetlands compliance requirements flowchart.
See Figure 23.50.000 at the end of this chapter. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.50.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Wetlands.
A. Designating Wetlands. Wetlands are those areas, designated in accordance with the approved federal
wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements as set forth in WAC 173-22-035
Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (1997), that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. All
areas within the city of Edmonds meeting the wetland designation criteria in the Identification and
Packet Page 407 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 35 of 90
Delineation Manual, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are
subject to the provisions of this title.
B. Wetland Ratings. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington State Department of Ecology
wetland rating system found in the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington documents (Western Washington, Ecology Publications Nos. 14-06-02993-74 and 04-06-
025). Thiese documents contains the definitions and methods for determining the criteria and parameters
defining the following wetland rating categories: Consistent with the wetland rating system criteria and
parameters within this document, wetlands that are rated for ecological functions with highest point
totals (23 points or higher) perform ecological functions associated with water flow, water quality and
habitat at highest levels, whereas wetlands that are rated with lowest point totals (15 points or lower)
perform ecological functions at lowest levels. Wetlands that are rated with points between 16 and 22
points perform ecological functions at moderate to high levels.
1. The City of Edmonds Wetland Rating Categories:
a. Category 1 I Wetlands. Category 1 I wetlands are those that represent a unique or rare wetland type;
are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological
attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or provide a high level of function. The
following types of wetlands are Category I:meet one or more of the following criteria:
i. Relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one(1) acre;
ii. Wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural
Heritage Program/DNR;Wetlands that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage
Program/DNR as high-quality wetlands;
iii. Bogs larger than one-half acre;
iv. Wetlands with mature and old growth forests Mature and old-growth forested wetlands larger than
one (1) acre;
v. Wetlands in coastal lagoons;
vi. Wetlands that perform functions at high levels Wetlands that perform many functions well as
indicated by a score of 70 twenty-three (23) points or more based on functions on the city of Edmonds
wetland field data form.
b. Category 2 II Wetlands. Category II wetlands are those that are difficult, though not impossible, to
replace, and provide high levels of some functions. The following types of wetlands are Category 2II
wetlands are:
i. Estuarine wetlands smaller than one acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one acre;
ii. A wetland identified by the state Department of Natural Resources as containing “sensitive” plant
species;
Packet Page 408 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 36 of 90
iii. A bog between one-quarter and one-half acre in size; or
iv. Wetlands with a moderately high level of functions as indicated by a score of 51 to 6920 to 22 points
based on functions on the city of Edmonds wetland field data form.
c. Category 3 III Wetlands. Category 3 III wetlands are wetlands with a moderate level of functions as
indicated by a score of 30 16 to 50 19 points on the city of Edmonds wetland field data formbased on
functions.
d. Category 4 IV Wetlands. Category 4 IV wetlands are those with the lowest levels of functions as
indicated by scores below 30 16 points based on functionson the city of Edmonds wetland field data
form.
All wetlands should be rated consistent with the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for
Western Washington using the 2014 Western Washington Rating Form. The city of Edmonds wetland
field data form is provided in ECDC 23.50.070.
C. Date of Wetland Rating. Wetland rating categories shall be applied as the wetland exists on the date
of adoption of the rating system by the local government, as the wetland naturally changes thereafter, or
as the wetland changes in accordance with permitted activities. Wetland rating categories shall not
change due to illegal modifications.
D. Mapping. The approximate location and extent of wetlands are shown on the city of Edmonds critical
areas inventory. In addition, the National Wetlands Inventory and Soil Maps produced by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service may be useful in helping to
identify potential wetland areas. The inventory and cited resources are to be used as a guide for the city
of Edmonds, project applicants, and/or property owners, and may be continuously updated as new
critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final critical area designation.
E. Delineation. The exact location of a wetland’s boundary shall be determined through the performance
of a field investigation by a qualified professional wetland scientist applying the approved federal
wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplementsWashington State Wetlands
Identification and Delineation Manual as required by RCW 36.70A.175 (Ecology Publication No. 96-94,
1997). Wetland delineations are valid for five years; after such date the city shall determine whether a
revision or additional assessment is necessary.
F. Lake Ballinger. Lake Ballinger is designated on the U.S. National Wetlands Inventory as a lacustrine
(lake) environment and should not be delineated as a wetland in its entirety. Lake fringe wetlands
existing along the periphery of Lake Ballinger shall be identified according to specific criteria provided
in 23.50.010. the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology
Publication No. 96-94, 1997) and updated guidance provided in Washington State Wetlands Rating
System for Western Washington – Revised (Ecology Publication No. 04-06-025, 2004). Consistent with
guidance for delineating lake fringe wetlands provided in these resources, the existence of jurisdictional
wetlands along Lake Ballinger shorelines shall be largely based upon the presence of persistent
emergent vegetation in shoreline areas less than 6.6 feet in depth. Provisions for protection of Lake
Packet Page 409 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 37 of 90
Ballinger shorelines not meeting criteria for jurisdictional wetlands are provided in the city of Edmonds
shoreline master program. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part II. Allowed Activities – Wetlands
23.50.020 Allowed activities – Wetlands.
The activities listed below are allowed in wetlands in addition to those activities listed in, and consistent
with, the provisions established in ECDC 23.40.220, and do not require submission of a critical areas
report, except where such activities result in a loss to the functions and values of a wetland or wetland
buffer. These activities include:
A. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and other wildlife that does not
entail changing the structure or functions of the existing wetland.
B. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops
and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or
alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources.
C. Drilling for utilities under a wetland; provided, that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water
connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies
by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or
percolation of surface water down through the soil column could be disturbed.
D. Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of nonnative invasive species. Weeding shall be
restricted to hand removal and weed material shall be removed from the site. Bare areas that remain after
weed removal shall be revegetated with native shrubs and trees at natural densities. Some hand seeding
may also be done over the bare areas with native herbs. Noxious weeds listed on the Washington State
Noxious Weed Control Board list must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control
plan appropriate to that species.
E. Permitted alteration to a legally constructed structure existing within a wetland or wetland buffer that
does not increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing or increase the impact to a
wetland or wetland buffer. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part III. Additional Report Requirements – Wetlands
23.50.030 Special study and report requirements – Wetlands.
A. Additional Requirements for Wetlands. In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of
ECDC 23.40.090, critical areas reports for wetlands must meet the requirements of this section. Critical
areas reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant
type of critical area.
Packet Page 410 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 38 of 90
B. Critical areas report requirements for wetlands may be met in “stages” or through multiple reports.
The typical sequence of potentially required reports that may in part or in combination fulfill the
requirements of this section include:
1. Wetland reconnaissance report documenting the existence and general location of wetlands in the
vicinity of a project area;
2. Wetland delineation report documenting the extent and boundary of a jurisdictional wetland per RCW
36.70A.175; and
3. Wetland mitigation report documenting potential wetland impacts and mitigation measures designed
to retain or increase the functions and values of a wetland in accordance with ECDC 23.50.050 and the
general provisions of this title.
C. A wetland critical areas report may include one or more of the above three report types, depending on
the information required by the director and the extent of potential wetland impacts. The Edmonds
development services director maintains the authority and discretion to determine which report(s) alone
or combined are sufficient to meet the requirements outlined below and to waive report requirements
based upon site conditions and the potential for project impacts.
D. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical area report for wetlands shall be prepared by a
qualified professional who is a certified professional wetland scientist or a noncertified professional
wetland scientist with a minimum of five years of experience in the field of wetland science and with
experience preparing wetland reports. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(A), applicants may choose one of
the qualified technical consultants on the city’s approved list in preparing critical areas reports for
wetlands, or may utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and reports developed by an
alternative consultant shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B).
E. Area Addressed in Critical Area Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical area
report for wetlands:
1. The project area of the proposed activity;
2. All wetlands and recommended buffers within 200 feet of the project area; and
3. All shoreline areas, water features, floodplains, and other critical areas, and related buffers within 200
feet of the project area. The location and extent of wetlands and other critical areas existing outside of
the project area or subject parcel boundary may be shown in approximation as practical and necessary to
provide an assessment of potential project effects.
F. Wetland Analysis. In addition to the minimum required contents of ECDC 23.40.090, Critical areas
reports – Requirements, a critical areas report for wetlands shall contain an analysis of the wetlands,
including the following site- and proposal-related information at a minimum:
1. A written assessment and accompanying maps of the wetlands and buffers within 200 feet of the
project area, including the following information at a minimum:
Packet Page 411 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 39 of 90
a. Wetland delineation and required buffers;
b. Existing wetland acreage;
c. Wetland category;
d. Vegetative, faunal, and hydrologic characteristics;
e. Soil and substrate conditions;
f. Topographic elevations, at two-foot contours; and
g. A discussion of the water sources supplying the wetland and documentation of hydrologic regime
(locations of inlet and outlet features, water depths throughout the wetland, and evidence of recharge or
discharge, evidence of water depths throughout the year: drift lines, algal layers, moss lines, and
sediment deposits).
The location, extent and analyses of wetlands not contiguous with the subject parcel existing outside of
the immediate project area may be described in approximation as practical and necessary to provide an
assessment of potential project effects and hydrologic/ecological connectivity to on-site wetlands and
other critical areas.
2. A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and mitigation, proposed to preserve
existing wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded prior to the current proposed land use
activity.
3. A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses methods to protect and enhance
on-site habitat and wetland functions.
4. Functional evaluation for the wetland and adjacent buffer using a local or state agency staff-
recognized method and including the reference of the method and all data sheets.
5. Proposed mitigation, if needed, including a written assessment and accompanying maps of the
mitigation area, including the following information at a minimum:
a. Existing and proposed wetland acreage;
b. Vegetative and faunal conditions;
c. Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions including an analysis of existing and future hydrologic
regime and proposed hydrologic regime for enhanced, created, or restored mitigation areas;
d. Relationship to the watershed and existing waterbodies;
e. Soil and substrate conditions, topographic elevations;
Packet Page 412 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 40 of 90
f. Existing and proposed adjacent site conditions;
g. Required wetland buffers; and
h. Property ownership.
6. A scale map of the development proposal site and adjacent area. A discussion of ongoing
management practices that will protect wetlands after the project site has been developed, including
proposed monitoring and maintenance programs.
7. A bond estimate for the installation (including site preparation, plant materials and installation,
fertilizers, mulch, and stakes) and the proposed monitoring and maintenance work for the required
number of years. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part IV. Development Standards – Wetlands
23.50.040 Development standards – Wetlands.
A. Activities may only be permitted in a wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed
activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical
areas.
B. Activities and uses shall be prohibited in wetlands and wetland buffers, except as provided for in this
title.
C. Category 1 I Wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from Category 1 I wetlands, except as
provided for in the public agency and utility exception, reasonable use exception, and variance sections
of this title.
D. Category 2 II Wetlands. With respect to activities proposed in Category 2 II wetlands, the following
standards shall apply:
1. Water-dependent activities may be allowed where there are no practicable alternatives that would
have a less adverse impact on the wetland, its buffers and other critical areas.
2. Where non-water-dependent activities are proposed, it shall be presumed that alternative locations are
available, and activities and uses shall be prohibited, unless the applicant demonstrates that:
a. The basic project purpose cannot be accomplished as proposed and successfully avoid, or result in less
adverse impact on, a wetland on another site or sites in the general region; and
b. All alternative designs of the project as proposed, such as a reduction in the size, scope, configuration,
or density of the project, would not avoid or result in less of an adverse impact on a wetland or its
buffer.
Packet Page 413 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 41 of 90
E. Category 3 III and 4 IV Wetlands. Activities and uses that result in unavoidable and necessary
impacts may be permitted in Category 3 III and 4 IV wetlands and associated buffers in accordance with
an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan.
F. Wetland Buffers.
1. Standard Buffer Widths. The standard buffer widths in ECDC 23.50.040.F.1.d below have been
establish in accordance with best available science. The buffers are based on the category of wetland and
the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the Washington State Wetland
Rating System for Western Washington.
a. The use of the standard buffer widths requires the implementation of the measures in ECDC
23.50.040.F.2, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses.
b. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in ECDC 23.50.040.F.2, than a thirty-
three (33%) increase in the width of all buffer is required.
c. The standard buffer widths presume the existence of a relatively intact native vegetation community
in the buffer zone adequate to protect the wetland functions and values at the time of the proposed
activity. If the buffer is composed of nonnative vegetation, lawn, or bare ground, vegetation is
inadequate, then, at the discretion of the director, the buffer width may be increased or an applicant may
be required to either develop and implement a wetland buffer enhancement plan to maintain the standard
width or widen the standard width to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided. (see
subsection (F)(3) of this section). Required standard wetland buffers, based on wetland category, are as
follows:
a. Category 1: 200 feet;
b. Category 2: 100 feet;
c. Category 3: 50 feet;
d. Category 4: 35 feet.
d. Standard Wetland Buffer Widths Table.
Wetland Category
Minimum
Buffer
Width
(Wetland
scores 3-4
habitat
points)
Buffer
Width
(Wetland
scores 5
habitat
points)
Buffer
Width
(Wetland
scores 6-7
habitat
points)
Buffer Width
(Wetland scores
8-9 habitat
points)
Packet Page 414 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 42 of 90
Category I:
Based on total score 75 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft
Category I:
Bogs and
Wetlands of High
Conservation Value
190 ft 190 ft 190 ft 225 ft
Category I:
Forested 75 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft
Category I:
Estuarine 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft 150 ft
Category II:
Based on score 75 ft 105 ft 165 ft 225 ft
Category III (all) 60 ft 105 ft 165 ft 165 ft
Category IV (all) 40 ft 40 ft 40 ft 40 ft
2. Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands. The standard wetland buffer widths in ECDC
23.50.040.F.1.e assumes implementation of the following measures, where applicable to a specific
proposal.
Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights • Direct lights away from wetland
Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland
• If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation
plantings adjacent to noise source
• immediately adjacent to the out wetland buffer
Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while
Packet Page 415 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 43 of 90
Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
ensuring wetland is not dewatered
• Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of
wetlands
• Apply integrated pest management
Stormwater runoff • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and
existing adjacent development
• Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the
buffer
• Use Low Impact Development techniques (per PSAT publication
on LID techniques)
Change in water
regime
• Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff
from impervious surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human
disturbance
• Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate
buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation
appropriate for the ecoregion
• Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a
conservation easement
Dust • Use best management practices to control dust
Disruption of
corridors or
• Maintain connections to offsite areas that are undisturbed
• Restore corridors or connections to offsite habitats by replanting
Packet Page 416 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 44 of 90
Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
connections
2. Increased Wetland Buffer Widths. The director shall require increased buffer widths in accordance
with the recommendations of an experienced, qualified professional wetland scientist and the best
available science on a case-by-case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions
and values based on site-specific characteristics. This determination shall be based on one or more of the
following criteria:
a. A larger buffer is needed to protect other critical areas;
b. The buffer or adjacent uplands has a slope greater than 15 percent or is susceptible to erosion and
standard erosion control measures will not prevent adverse impacts to the wetland; or
c. The buffer area has minimal vegetative cover. In lieu of increasing the buffer width where existing
buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the wetland functions and values, development and
implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan in accordance with subsection (F)(3) of this
section may substitute.
d. The wetland and/or buffer is occupied by a federally listed threatened or endangered species, a bald
eagle nest, a great blue heron rookery, or a species of local importance; and it is determined by the
director that an increased buffer width is necessary to protect the species.
53. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as
surveyed in the field. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for
approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created,
restored, or enhanced wetland.
64. Buffer Consistency. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of
this chapter.
75. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this title, wetland
buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. Removal of invasive nonnative weeds
is required for the duration of the mitigation bond.
G. Wetland Buffer Modifications and Uses
1. Where wetland or buffer alterations are permitted by the City of Edmonds, the applicant shall mitigate
impacts to achieve no not loss of wetland acreage and functions consistent with ECDC 23.50.050 and
other applicable provisions of this Title.
Packet Page 417 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 45 of 90
2. At the discretion of the Director, standard wetland buffers may be averaged or reduced when
consistent with all criteria in ECDC 23.50.040.G. Wetland buffer averaging with enhancement shall be
preferred over wetland buffer averaging with enhancement. Wetland buffer reduction shall only be
approved by the director when buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on-site.
43. Wetland Buffer Width Averaging with Buffer Enhancement. The director may allow modification of
a standard or reduced wetland buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the
best available science on a case-by-case basis by averaging buffer widths. Any allowance for averaging
buffer widths shall only be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland
buffer enhancement plan for areas of buffer degradation. Only those portions of a wetland buffer
existing within the project area or subject parcel shall be considered the total standard or reduced buffer
for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional
wetland scientist demonstrates that:
a. The buffer averaging and enhancement plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will
be:
i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation
is generally intact; or
ii. Increased through plan implantation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate
to protect the functions and values of the wetland;
a. It will not reduce the function and value of wetlands or associated buffers;
b. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character
of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in
places and would not be adversely impacted by a narrower buffer in other places;
c. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for
wetlands extending off-site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within a
standard or reduced buffer; and
d. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than 50 seventy-five percent (75%) of
the standard or reduced buffer width.
34. Buffer Width Reductions Throughthrough Buffer Enhancement. At the discretion of the Edmonds
development services director, and only when buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on site, wetland
buffer width reductions (or approval of standard buffer widths for wetlands where existing buffer
conditions require increased buffer widths) may be granted concomitant to the development and
implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for Category 3 III and 4 IV wetlands only.
Approval of a wetland buffer enhancement plan shall, at the discretion of the director, allow for wetland
buffer width reductions to no less than seventy-five 50 percent (75%) of the standard width; provided,
that:
a. The plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be:
Packet Page 418 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 46 of 90
i. Iincreased or retained through plan implementation to at least the level provided by a standard buffer
or through additional mitigationfor those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is generally intact;
or
ii. Increased through plan implantation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate
to protect the functions and values of the wetland;
b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant
densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees;
c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success in accordance with ECDC
23.40.130(D); and
d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards for assessing
increases in wetland buffer functioning as related to:
i. Water quality protection;
ii. Provision of wildlife habitat;
iii. Maintenance of wetland hydrology; and
iv. Restricting wetland intrusion and disturbance.
5. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as
surveyed in the field. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for
approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created,
restored, or enhanced wetland.
6. Buffer Consistency. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of
this chapter.
7. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this title, wetland
buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. Removal of invasive nonnative weeds
is required for the duration of the mitigation bond.
8. Buffer Uses. The following uses may be permitted within a wetland buffer in accordance with the
review procedures of this title; provided, they are not prohibited by any other applicable law and they
are conducted in a manner so as to minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland:
a. All activities allowed by ECDC 23.50.020 (Allowed activities – wetlands).
b. Conservation and Restoration Activities. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the
soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife.
Packet Page 419 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 47 of 90
bc. Passive Recreation. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved critical
area report, including:
i. Walkways and trails; provided, that those pathways are generally constructed with a surface that does
not interfere with substrate permeability. , are generally located only in the outer twenty-five percent
(25%) of wetland buffers, and are located to avoid removal of significant trees. Where existing legally
established development has reduced the width of the wetland buffer, trails may be placed in the outer
twenty-five percent (25%) of the remaining wetland buffer. The trail shall be no more than five (5) feet
in width and for pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable.
The director may allow trails within the inner twenty-five percent (25%) of wetland buffers when
required to provide access to wildlife viewing structures, fishing access areas, or connections to other
trail facilities;
ii. Wildlife viewing structures; and
iii. Fishing access areas down to the water’s edge that shall be no larger than six feet.
c. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes and
conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within the outer 25
percent of a standard or modified buffer for Category 3 or 4 wetlands only; provided, that:
i. No other location is feasible; and
ii. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland.
iii. Storm water management facilities are not allowed in buffers of Category 1 or 2 wetlands.
iv. Projects shall also comply with all applicable requirements in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, Stormwater
Management, including Minimum Requirement #8, Wetland Protection.
GH. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands.
1. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland or buffer and the limits of those areas to be
disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field in such a way as
to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur and is subject to inspection by the director prior to
the commencement of permitted activities. The director may require the use of fencing to protect
wetlands from disturbance and intrusion. Temporary marking shall be maintained throughout
construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place.
2. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the
director may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer.
a. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel-coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another
nontreated material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50
feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be
worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the director:
Packet Page 420 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 48 of 90
Protected Wetland Area
Do Not Disturb
Contact the City of Edmonds
Regarding Uses and Restrictions
b. The provisions of subsection (G)(2)(a) of this section may be modified as necessary to assure
protection of sensitive features or wildlife.
3. Permanent Fencing. Permanent fencing shall be required at the outer edge of the critical area buffer
under the following circumstances, provided that the director may waive this require:
a. As part of any development proposal for single-family plats, single-family short plats, multifamily,
mixed use, and commercial development where the director determines that such fencing is necessary to
protect the functions of the critical area, provided that breaks in permanent fencing may be allowed for
access to permitted buffer uses (ECDC 23.50.040.G.8);
b. As part of development proposals for parks where the adjacent proposed use is active recreation and
the director determines that such fencing is necessary to protect the functions of the critical area;
c. When buffer averaging is employed as part of a development proposal;
d. When buffer reductions are employed as part of a development proposal; or
e. At the director’s discretion to protect the values and functions of a critical area.
HI. Additions to Structures Existing Within Wetlands and/or Wetland Buffers.
1. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that increase
the footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development
standards of this section, provided that a wetland and/or buffer enhancement plan is provided to mitigate
for impacts consistent with this Title, and provided that all. impacts from temporary disturbances within
the critical area buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement
plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. Provisions for standard wetland
buffers, buffer reductions through enhancement, and wetland buffer averaging with enhancement, and
buffer reductions with enhancement require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the
following sequencing:
1a. Outside of the standard wetland buffer;
3b. Outside of a wetland buffer reduced through buffer averaged (with enhancement)ing per subsection
(FG)(43) of this section;
Packet Page 421 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 49 of 90
2c. Outside of a wetland buffer reduced (withthrough enhancement) per subsection (FG)(34) of this
section;
3. Outside of a wetland buffer reduced through buffer averaging per subsection (F)(4) of this section; or
4d. Outside of the inner twenty five25 percent (25%) of the standard wetland buffer width through the
use of both buffer reduction and buffer averagingwith no more than three hundred (300) square feet of
structure addition footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard wetland buffer width,
provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum three-to-one (3:1) ratio (enhancement-to-impact);
e. Outside of the inner twenty five percent (25%) of the standard wetland buffer width with no more
than five hundred (500) square feet of new footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard
wetland buffer width, provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum five-to-one (5:1) ratio
(enhancement-to-impact), and that stormwater low impact development (LID) techniques and other
measures are included as part of the wetland / buffer enhancement plan.
2. Where meeting wetland buffer enhancement requirements required by H.1. of this section would
result in enhancement that is separated from the critical area due to uncommon property ownership,
alternative enhancement approaches may be approved by the director. Alternative approaches could
include a vegetated rain garden that receives storm runoff, replacement of existing impervious surfaces
with pervious materials, or other approaches that provide ecological benefits to the adjacent critical area.
3. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that cannot be
accommodated in accordance with the above sequencing in H.1. of this section (i.e., additions proposed
within a wetland or the inner 25 percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director’s
discretion as a variance subject to review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC
23.40.210.
J. Development Proposals within the Footprint of Existing Development. New development shall be
allowed within the footprint of existing development occurring within a wetland buffer, provided that
the following conditions are met:
1. The footprint of existing development was legally established, and is consistent with the definition
provided in ECDC 23.40.320;
2. The proposed development within the footprint of existing development is sited as far away from the
wetland edge as is feasible;
3. As part of the development proposal, opportunities to reduce the footprint of existing development are
implemented where such reduction would increase the buffer width adjacent to the wetland and not
represent an undue burden given the scale of the proposed development.
4. The proposed development includes enhancement to the adjacent wetland and associated buffer in
order to improve functions degraded by previous development;
Packet Page 422 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 50 of 90
5. Enhancement is provided as wetland or buffer enhancement for an equivalent area of the footprint of
the newly proposed development within in the footprint of existing development occurring in wetland
buffer, or through an alternative approach approved by the director that restores degraded functions of
the wetland and remaining buffer; and
6. Impacts from temporary disturbances within the wetland buffer shall be addressed through use of best
management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed
alteration.
IK. Small, hydrologically isolated wetlandsExemptions. The director may allow small, hydrologically
isolated Category 3 III or IV4 wetlands under 500one thousand (1,000) square feet in area to be exempt
from the avoidance sequencing provisions of ECDC 23.40.120 and the wetland development standards
provisions of ECDC 23.50.040.F. At the discretion of the director such wetlands may be altered,
provided that provisions of this title. A wetland exemption shall only be granted if a submitted critical
areas report and mitigation plan, in the form of a critical areas reconnaissance or delineation, provides
evidence that all of the following conditions are met:
1. The wetland is underless than 500 one thousand (1,000) square feet in area;
2. The wetland is a low-quality Category 3 III or IV4 wetland scoring less than seventeen (17) points for
all functions;
3. The wetland does not provide significant habitat value for wildlife; and
4. The wetland is not adjacent to a riparian area;
5. The wetland has a score of less than three (3) points for habitat in the adopted Western Washington
rating system; and
6. A mitigation plan to replace lost wetland functions and values is developed, approved and
implemented consistent with ECDC 23.50.050.
4. Filling of the wetland can maintain equivalent or greater habitat functions and values over existing
site conditions. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.50.050 Mitigation requirements – Wetlands.
Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic
functions. Wetland mitigation plans shall be consistent with the state Department of Ecology
Gguidelines for in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans
(Ecology, 2006) and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Ecology,
2009)Developing Freshwater Wetlands Mitigation Plans and Proposals, 1994, as revised.
A. Mitigation shall be required in the following order of preference:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
Packet Page 423 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 51 of 90
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by
using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts.
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations.
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments.
BA. Mitigation for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation actions shall address functions
affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement and shall provide similar
wetland functions as those lost, except when:
1. The lost wetland provides minimal functions as determined by a site-specific function assessment, and
the proposed compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions or will provide
functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through a formal Washington State watershed
assessment plan or protocol; or
2. Out-of-kind replacement will best meet formally identified watershed goals, such as replacement of
historically diminished wetland types.
CB. Preference of Mitigation Actions. Mitigation actions that require compensation by replacing,
enhancing, or substitution shall occur in the following order of preference:
1. Implementing compensatory restoration through purchase of credits at an approved mitigation bank or
through payment into an approved in lieu fee program.
12. Restoring (re-establishing) wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands.
23. Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those with vegetative cover consisting primarily
of nonnative, introduced species. This should only be attempted when there is a consistent source of
hydrology and it can be shown that the surface and subsurface hydrologic regime is conducive for the
wetland community that is being designed.
4. Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands in combination with restoration or creation. Such
enhancement should be part of a mitigation package that includes replacing the impacted area meeting
appropriate ratio requirements.
DC. Type and Location of Mitigation. Unless it is demonstrated that a higher level of ecological
functioning would result from an alternate approach, compensatory mitigation for ecological functions
shall be in-kind and conducted on the site or in the vicinity of the alteration except when all of the
following apply:
1. On-site opportunities do not have a high likelihood of success, after a determination of the natural
capacity of the site to mitigate for the impacts. Consideration should include: anticipated wetland
Packet Page 424 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 52 of 90
mitigation replacement ratios, buffer conditions and proposed widths, hydrogeomorphic classes of on-
site wetlands when restored, proposed flood storage capacity, and potential to mitigate riparian fish and
wildlife impacts (such as connectivity);
2. Off-site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved wetland functions than the
impacted wetland; and
3. Off-site mitigation incorporates guidance from Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory
Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington (Ecology Publication #10-06-011, Hruby. 2012); and
34. Off-site locations for compensatory mitigation are consistent with city of Edmonds goals for
jurisdictionwatershed-wide ecological restoration. Off-site locations are selected with a preference for
sites within the same basin as the impact, followed by other sites within the city. Specific areas targeted
for restoration efforts include:
a. Lake-fringe wetlands and habitat areas associated with Lake Ballinger;
b. Edmonds marsh;
c. Yost Park wetlands;
d. Good Hope wetlands; and
e. Wetlands and habitat areas peripheral to anadromous fish-bearing streams.; and
f. Sites available through an approved mitigation bank or in- lieu fee program.
This list is not comprehensive and may change as the city of Edmonds identifies areas suitable for
restoration and capital improvement projects consistent with goals for jurisdiction-wide habitat retention
and enhancement provided in the city’s comprehensive plan.
ED. Mitigation Timing. Mitigation projects shall be completed with an approved monitoring plan prior
to activities that will disturb wetlands. In all other cases, mitigation shall be completed immediately
following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. Construction of
mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora.
FE. Mitigation Ratios.
1. Acreage Replacement Ratios. The following ratios in the table below shall apply to creation or
restorationcreation or re-establishment, rehabilitation, or enhancement that is in-kind, is on-site, is the
same category, is timed prior to or concurrent with alteration, and has a high probability of success.
These ratios do not apply to remedial actions resulting from unauthorized alterations; greater ratios shall
apply in those cases. The first number specifies the acreage of replacement wetlands and the second
specifies the acreage of wetlands altered. Ratios for rehabilitation and enhancement may be reduced
when combined with 1:1 replacement through creation or re-establishment pursuant to Table 1a,
Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance –Version 1, (Ecology
Packet Page 425 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 53 of 90
Publication #06-06-11a, or as revised). Creation, re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement
definitions are provided in ECDC 23.40.320 (see definition for “compensatory mitigation”, and shall be
additionally consistent with intent pursuant to Ecology Publication #06-06-11a.:
a. Category 1: six-to-one;
b. Category 2: three-to-one;
c. Category 3: two-to-one;
d. Category 4: one and one-half-to-one.
Category and
Type of Wetland
Creation or
Re-
establishment
Rehabilitation
only
Enhancement
only
Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1
Category III 2:1 4:1 8:1
Category II 3:1 6:1 12:1
Category I:
Based on functions 4:1 8:1 16:1
Category I:
Mature and old
growth forest
6:1 12:1 24:1
Category I:
High conservation
value / Bog
Not considered
possible
Not considered
possible
Not considered
possible
Mitigation requirements may also be determined using the credit/debit tool described in Calculating
Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report
(Ecology Publication #10-06-011, Olympia, WA, March 2012, or as revised) if approved by the director.
2. Off-site Mitigation. These ratios provided in ECDC 23.50.050.F.1. do not apply to off-site mitigation,
including the use of credits from a state-certified wetland mitigation bank or payment to a certified in-
lieu fee program. When off-site mitigation is proposed, or when credits from a certified mitigation bank
Packet Page 426 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 54 of 90
or in lieu fee program isare used, replacement ratios mayshould incorporate guidance from Calculating
Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington (Ecology
Publication #10-06-011, Hruby. 2012), and for mitigation banks or in lieu fee program should be
consistent with the certification requirements of the bank’s certification. Use of mitigation banks shall
meet all requirements of ECDC 23.50.050.H.The first number specifies the acreage of replacement
wetlands and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands altered:
23. Increased Replacement Ratio. The director may require increased compensatory mitigation ratios
under the following circumstances:
a. Uncertainty exists as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation;
b. A significant period of time will elapse between impact and replication of wetland functions;
c. Proposed mitigation will result in a lower-category wetland or reduced functions relative to the
wetland being impacted; or
d. The impact was an unauthorized impact.
G. Wetlands Enhancement as Mitigation.
1. Impacts to wetland functions may be mitigated by enhancement of existing significantly degraded
wetlands, but may, at the discretion of the director, be used in conjunction with restoration and/or
creation. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands must produce a critical areas report that identifies
how enhancement will increase the functions of the degraded wetland and how this increase will
adequately mitigate for the loss of wetland area and function at the impact site. An enhancement
proposal must also show whether existing wetland functions will be reduced by the enhancement
actions.
2. At a minimum, enhancement acreage shall be double the acreage required for creation or restoration
under subsection F of this section. The ratios shall be greater than double the required acreage where the
enhancement proposal would result in minimal gain in the performance of wetland functions and/or
result in the reduction of other wetland functions currently being provided in the wetland.
3. Mitigation ratios for enhancement in combination with other forms of mitigation shall range from six-
to-one to three-to-one and be limited to Class 3 and 4 wetlands.
H. Wetland Mitigation Banks and In- Lieu Fee Programs.
1. Wetland Mitigation Banks. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved for use as
compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when:
a. The bank is certified under Chapter 173-700 WACstate rules;
b. The director determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides appropriate compensation for the
authorized impacts; and
Packet Page 427 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 55 of 90
c. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the bank’s certification
instrument.
d. 2. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall beare consistent with replacement ratios
specified in the bank’s certification.
e. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank are used to compensate for impacts located within
the service area specified in the certified bank instrument. In some cases, the service area of the bank
may include portions of more than one adjacent drainage basin for specific wetland functions.
32. In - Lieu Fee Programs. In lieu of wetland mitigation bank creditAs an alternative to on-site or other
off-site mitigation approaches, the director may provideapprove purchase of credit for compensatory
mitigation from an in lieu fee program. Any such program used to compensate for direct wetland
impacts shall be developed and approved through a public process and be consistent with federal rules,
state policy on in lieu fee mitigation and state water quality regulations, Determining credit purchase
necessary to compensate for wetland impacts shall incorporate guidance from Calculating Credits and
Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington (Ecology Publication #10-06-
011, Hruby. 2012). Development proposals impacting critical areas and/or associated buffers may
contribute payment towards an identified City of Edmonds mitigation project with approval from the
director, provided that the mitigation approach meets all state and federal permit requirements, where
required. through applicant provision of funds to identified capital improvement projects for wetland
restoration. The director retains discretion to establish a monetary value for applicant provision of funds
which shall be, at a minimum, equal to the cost of designing, developing, implementing and monitoring
in-kind compensatory mitigation on-site or in the project vicinity. Applicant provision of funds for
compensatory mitigation shall only be approved if:
a. The director determines that it would provide environmentally appropriate compensation for the
proposed wetland impacts;Such funding can be demonstrated to directly support wetland restoration
efforts;
b. The mitigation will occur on a site identified using the site selection and prioritization process in the
approved in -lieu fee program instrument or at a City-identified restoration site consistent with
ECDC23.40.140Funding can be demonstrated to provide compensatory wetland mitigation consistent
with the provisions and ratios of this title;
c. A restoration area and plan have been identified and shall be implemented within three years of
project development;
d. Restoration efforts are focused in those areas identified in subsection (D)(3) of this section and areas
identified as suitable for restoration by the director; and
e. Credits from an approved in- lieu fee program may be used to compensate for impacts located within
the service area specified in the approved in- lieu fee instrument.
A suitable capital improvement project and plan for implementation is in place prior to receipt of an
applicant proposal. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Packet Page 428 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 56 of 90
23.50.060 Performance standards – Subdivisions.
The subdivision and short subdivision of land in wetlands and associated buffers is subject to the
following:
A. Land that is located wholly within a wetland or its buffer may not be subdivided.
B. Land that is located partially within a wetland or its buffer may be subdivided; provided, that an
accessible and buildable contiguous portion of each new lot is located outside of the wetland and its
buffer.
C. Access roads and utilities serving the proposed subdivision may be permitted within the wetland and
associated buffers only at the discretion of the director. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part V. City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form
23.50.070 Wetland field data form.
The city of Edmonds wetland field data used for completion of wetland ratings shall be consistent with
the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology
Publication #14-06-029; Hruby 2014).form is available in the city of Edmonds development services
department and on the city of Edmonds website. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Figure 23.50.000
Packet Page 429 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 57 of 90
Packet Page 430 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 58 of 90
Chapter 23.60
CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS
Sections:
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.60.010 Critical aquifer recharge areas designation.
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.60.010 Critical aquifer recharge areas designation.
Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) are those areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used
for potable water as defined by WAC 365-190-030(2). CARAs have prevailing geologic conditions
associated with infiltration rates that create a high potential for contamination of ground water resources
or contribute significantly to the replenishment of ground water. CARAs are protected as critical areas
under the Washington State Growth Management Act. However, no areas meeting criteria for CARAs
exist in the vicinity of the city of Edmonds. Thus, additional specific provisions for protection of this
critical area type are not provided within this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Packet Page 431 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 59 of 90
Chapter 23.70
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Sections:
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Frequently flooded areas.
Part II. Additional Report Requirements – Frequently Flooded Areas
23.70.020 Special study and report requirements – Frequently flooded areas.
23.70.030 Warning and disclaimer of liability.
Part III. Development Standards – Frequently Flooded Areas
23.70.040 Development standards – Frequently flooded areas.
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Frequently flooded areas.
A. Frequently Flooded Areas. Frequently flooded areas shall include:
1. Those areas identified on FEMA flood insurance maps as areas of special flood hazard, which include
those lands in the floodplain subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. For
the purposes of this title, areas of special flood hazard for the city of Edmonds are hereby declared
generally to be those areas shown as Zone A (including Zones A, AE, A1–A30, AH, AO, AR and A99)
and Zone V (including Zones V and VE) on the following FEMA maps or panels: 53061C00;
53061C1292 E, Panel 1292; 53061C1285 E, Panel 1285; 53061C1315 E, Panel 1315; and 53061C1305
E, Panel 1305. The following maps and panels were revised and effective on January 30, 1998November
8, 1999, and such maps and panels are adopted by this reference as a part of this chapter as if fully set
forth herein.The city will use the most currently adopted FEMA maps in determining whether a property
is located within a frequently flooded area. Base flood elevations and flood hazard factors for those
areas shown as Zone A on the map have not been determined and the local flood management
administrator shall utilize such other data as may be reasonably available from federal, state or other
sources in administering this chapter as provided in the current editions of the International Residential
Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19.
2. Those areas identified as frequently flooded areas on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory.
Identified frequently flooded areas are consistent with and based upon designation of areas of special
flood hazard on FEMA flood insurance maps as indicated above.
Packet Page 432 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 60 of 90
B. City Discretion and Designation. Flood insurance maps and the city’s critical areas inventory are to
be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds development services department, project applicants and/or
property owners, and the public and should be considered a minimum designation of frequently flooded
areas. As flood insurance maps may be continuously updated as areas are reexamined or new areas are
identified, newer and more restrictive information for flood hazard area identification shall be the basis
for regulation. The city of Edmonds shall retain the right to designate and identify areas known to be
prone to flooding outside of the 100-year floodplain and subject them to the provisions and protections
of this title and the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building
Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part II. Additional Report Requirements – Frequently Flooded Areas
23.70.020 Special study and report requirements – Frequently flooded areas.
In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical areas reports for
frequently flooded areas must meet the requirements of this section and the current editions of the
International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. Critical
areas reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant
type of critical area.
A. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A frequently flooded areas report shall be prepared by a
qualified professional who is a hydrologist or engineer, licensed in the state of Washington, with
experience in preparing flood hazard assessments. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(A), applicants may
choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the city’s approved list in preparing critical areas
reports for frequently flooded areas, or may utilize an alternative consultant. Critical areas studies and
reports developed by an alternative consultant shall be subject to independent review pursuant to ECDC
23.40.090(B).
B. Areas to Be Addressed. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas report for frequently
flooded areas:
1. The site area of the proposed activity;
2. All areas of a special flood hazard area, as indicated on the flood insurance map(s), within 200 feet of
the project area; and
3. All other flood areas indicated on the flood insurance map(s) within 200 feet of the project area.
C. Flood Hazard Assessment. A critical area report for a proposed activity within a frequently flooded
area shall contain a flood hazard assessment including the following site- and proposal-related
information at a minimum:
1. Site and Construction Plans. A copy of the site and construction plans for the development proposal
showing:
Packet Page 433 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 61 of 90
a. Floodplain (100-year flood elevation), 10- and 50-year flood elevations, floodway, other critical areas,
buffers, and shoreline areas;
b. Proposed development, including the location of existing and proposed structures, fill, storage of
materials, and drainage facilities, with dimensions indicating distances to the floodplain;
c. Clearing limits; and
d. Elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures, and the level to which any
nonresidential structure has been floodproofed.
2. Watercourse Alteration. Alteration of natural watercourses shall be avoided, if feasible. If
unavoidable, a critical areas report shall include:
a. Extent of Watercourse Alteration. A description of and plan showing the extent to which a
watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of a proposal;
b. Maintenance Program Required for Watercourse Alterations. A maintenance program that provides
maintenance practices for the altered or relocated portion of the watercourse to ensure that the flood-
carrying capacity is not diminished.
D. Information Regarding Other Critical Areas. Potential impacts to wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat,
and other critical areas shall be addressed in accordance with the applicable sections of this title. [Ord.
3527 § 2, 2004].
23.70.030 Warning and disclaimer of liability.
The degree of flood protection required by this chapter and the current editions of the International
Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19, is considered
reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger
floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by manmade or natural
causes. This chapter does not imply that land outside frequently flooded areas or uses permitted within
such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This chapter shall not create liability on the part
of the city of Edmonds, any officer or employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance Administration for any
flood damages that result from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made
hereunder. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part III. Development Standards – Frequently Flooded Areas
23.70.040 Development standards – Frequently flooded areas.
Development standards and provisions for protection of frequently flooded areas are provided as
applicable to areas of special flood hazard in the current editions of the International Residential Code
and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. Conformance with the provisions for
flood hazard reduction of the current editions of the International Residential Code and International
Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19, shall constitute conformance with ECDC 23.40.050,
Packet Page 434 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 62 of 90
Protection of critical areas, per the mandates of the Washington Growth Management Act and the
purposes and objectives of this title. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Chapter 23.80
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Sections:
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.80.000 Geologically hazardous areas compliance requirements flowchart.
23.80.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Geologically hazardous areas.
23.80.020 Designation of specific hazard areas.
23.80.030 Mapping of geologically hazardous areas.
Part II. Allowed Activities – Geologically Hazardous Areas
23.80.040 Allowed activities – Geologically hazardous areas.
Part III. Additional Report Requirements – Geologically Hazardous Areas
23.80.050 Special study and report requirements – Geologically hazardous areas.
Part IV. Development Standards – Geologically Hazardous Areas
23.80.060 Development standards – General requirements.
23.80.070 Development standards – Specific hazards.
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.80.000 Geologically hazardous areas compliance requirements flowchart.
See Figure 23.80.000 at the end of this chapter. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.80.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Geologically hazardous areas.
Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, land sliding, earthquake, or other
geological events. They pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when incompatible
Packet Page 435 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 63 of 90
development is sited in areas of significant hazard. Such incompatible development may not only place
itself at risk, but also may increase the hazard to surrounding development and use. Areas susceptible to
one or more of the following types of hazards shall be designated as a geologically hazardous area:
A. Erosion hazard;
B. Landslide hazard; and
C. Seismic hazard. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.80.020 Designation of specific hazard areas.
A. Erosion Hazard Areas. Erosion hazard areas are at least those areas identified by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service as having a “moderate to severe,” “severe,” or
“very severe” rill and inter-rill erosion hazard. Erosion hazard areas are also those areas impacted by
shoreland and/or stream bank erosion. Within the city of Edmonds erosion hazard areas include:
1. Those areas of the city of Edmonds containing soils that may experience severe to very severe erosion
hazard. This group of soils includes, but is not limited to, the following when they occur on slopes of 15
percent or greater:
a. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes);
b. Alderwood/Everett series (25 to 70 percent slopes);
c. Everett series (15 to 25 percent slopes);
2. Coastal and stream erosion areas which are subject to the impacts from lateral erosion related to
moving water such as stream channel migration and shoreline retreat.
32. Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater and impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils
and springs or ground water seepage; and
43. Areas with significant visible evidence of ground water seepage, and which also include existing
landslide deposits regardless of slope.
B. Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas are areas potentially subject to landslides based on a
combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas susceptible because of
any combination of bedrock, soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors.
Within the city of Edmonds potential landslide hazard areas specifically include:
1. Areas of ancient or historic failures in Edmonds which include all areas within the earth subsidence
and landslide hazard area as identified in the 1979 report of Robert Lowe Associates and amended by
the 1985 report of GeoEngineers, Inc. and further discussed in the 2007 report by Landau Associates;
Packet Page 436 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 64 of 90
2. Coastal areas mapped as class u (unstable), uos (unstable old slides), and urs (unstable recent slides)
in the Department of Ecology Washington coastal atlas;
3. Areas designated as quaternary slumps, earthflows, mudflows, or landslides on maps published by the
United States Geological Survey or Washington State Department of Natural Resources;
Figure 1
24. Any slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper that exceeds a vertical height of ten (10) feet over a
twenty-five (25) foot horizontal run. Except for rockeries that have been engineered and approved by the
engineer as having been built according to the engineered design, all other modified slopes (including
slopes where there are breaks in slopes) meeting overall average steepness and height criteria should be
considered potential landslide hazard areas);
Packet Page 437 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 65 of 90
5. Any slope with all three of the following characteristics:
a. Slopes steeper than fifteen percent (15%);
b. Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively
impermeable sediment; and
c. Springs or groundwater seepage; Any area with a slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical
relief of 10 or more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock. A slope is delineated by
establishing its toe and top (as defined in Figure 1 in subsection (B)(1) of this section) and is measured
by averaging the inclination over at least 10 feet of vertical relief or 25 feet of horizontal distance.
Benches, steps and variations in gradient shall be incorporated into a larger slope if they do not meet
criteria defining toe and/or top depicted in Figure 1 in subsection (B)(1) of this section (see also Figure 2
at the end of this subsection). If the toe or top of a slope is located off of a subject property, then the
location of the toe or top shall be delineated 200 horizontal feet from the property boundary or at its
natural location, whichever is closer to the subject parcel (see Figure 2 at the end of this subsection);
Figure 2
36. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion; and
47. Any area located on an alluvial fan, presently subject to, or potentially subject to, inundation by
debris flow or deposition of stream-transported sediments; and
8. Any slopes that have been modified by past development activity that still meet the slope criter .
C. Seismic Hazard Areas. Seismic hazard areas are areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of
earthquake-induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, or
surface faulting. These areas are designated as having a “high” and “moderate to high” risk of
liquefaction as mapped on the Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Snohomish County by the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources or areas located within or near landslide hazard
areas.Settlement and soil liquefaction conditions occur in areas underlain by cohesionless, loose, or soft-
saturated soils of low density, typically in association with a shallow ground water table. [Ord. 3527 § 2,
2004].
23.80.030 Mapping of geologically hazardous areas.
A. The approximate location and extent of geologically hazardous areas are shown on the city of
Edmonds critical areas inventory. In addition, resources providing information on the location and
extent of geologically hazardous areas in Edmonds include:
1. Washington Department of Ecology coastal zone atlas (for marine bluffs);
2. U.S. Geological Survey geologic maps, landslide hazard maps, and seismic hazard maps;
3. Washington State Department of Natural Resources seismic hazard maps for Western Washington;
Packet Page 438 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 66 of 90
4. Washington State Department of Natural Resources slope stability maps;
5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tsunami hazard maps; and
6. Federal Emergency Management Administration flood insurance maps.
B. The critical areas inventory and the resources cited above are to be used as a guide for the city of
Edmonds development services department, project applicants and/or property owners and may be
continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final
critical area designation. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part II. Allowed Activities – Geologically Hazardous Areas
23.80.040 Allowed activities – Geologically hazardous areas.
The following activities are allowed in geologically hazardous areas as consistent with ECDC
23.40.220, Allowed activities, Chapter 19.10 ECDC, Building Permits – Earth Subsidence and
Landslide Hazard Areas, and Chapter 18.30 ECDC, Storm Water Management, and do not require
submission of a critical area report:
A. Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Except for installation of fences and as otherwise provided for
in this title, only those activities approved and permitted consistent with an approved critical areas report
in accordance with this title shall be allowed in erosion or landslide hazard areas.
B. Seismic Hazard Areas. The following activities are allowed within seismic hazard areas:
1. Construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of floor area or roof area, whichever is
greater, and which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or public assembly;
2. Additions to existing single-story residences that are 250 square feet or less; and
3. Installation of fences. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part III. Additional Report Requirements – Geologically Hazardous Areas
23.80.050 Special study and report requirements – Geologically hazardous areas.
Critical area report requirements for geologically hazardous areas are generally met through submission
to the director of one or more geotechnical engineering reports. In addition to the general critical areas
report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical areas reports for geologically hazardous areas must
meet the requirements of this section and Chapters 18.30 and 19.10 ECDC as applicable. Critical areas
reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant type
of critical area. Geotechnical report(s) submitted for the purpose of critical areas review are required as
necessary in addition to reports, data and other information mandated per ECDC Titles 18 and 19.
Geotechnical report(s) shall be required: whenever a potential erosion hazard area or potential landslide
Packet Page 439 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 67 of 90
hazard area, as mapped by Edmonds critical areas inventory or shown on other information consistent
with ECDC 23.80.030, is located within 50 feet of the proposed development site; whenever a
development site is located within a seismic hazard area; or when otherwise determined warranted by
the director (e.g. a distance equal to the height of the slope).
A. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical areas report for assessing a potential geologically
hazardous area shall be prepared by an engineer or geologist licensed in the state of Washington, with
experience analyzing geologic, hydrologic, and ground water flow systems, and who has experience
preparing reports for the relevant type of hazard. If mitigation measures are necessary, the report
detailing the mitigation measures and design of the mitigation shall be prepared by an engineer licensed
in the State of Washington, with experience stabilizing slopes with similar geotechnical properties.
Critical areas studies and reports on geologically hazardous areas shall be subject to independent review
pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B).
B. Area Addressed in Critical Areas Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas
report for geologically hazardous areas:
1. The project area of the proposed activity; and
2. All geologically hazardous areas within 200 feet of the project area or that have the potential to be
affected by the proposal.
C. Geological Hazards Assessment. A geology hazard assessment critical areas report for a geologically
hazardous area shall include a field investigation and contain an assessment of whether or not each type
of geologic hazard identified in ECDC 20.80.020 is present or not present and if development of the site
will increase the risk of landslides or erosion on or off the site. Geotechnical reports shall be prepared,
stamped and signed by a qualified professional. These reports must:
1. Be appropriate for the scale and scope of the project;
2. Include a discussion of all geologically hazardous areas on the site and any geologically hazardous
areas off site potentially impacted by the proposed project. If the affected area extends beyond the
subject property, the geology hazard assessment may utilize existing data sources pertaining to that area;
3. Clearly state that the proposed project will not decrease slope stability or pose an unreasonable threat
to persons or property either on or off site and provide a rationale as to those conclusions based on
geologic conditions and interpretations specific to the project;
4. Provide adequate information to determine compliance with the requirements of ECDC Chapter
23.80;
5. Generally follow the guidelines set forth in the Washington State Department of Licensing Guidelines
for Preparing Engineering Geology Reports in Washington (2006). In some cases, such as when it is
determined that no landslide or erosion risk is present, a full report may not be necessary to determine
compliance with the ECDC Chapter 23.80, and in those cases a letter or abbreviated report may be
provided.
Packet Page 440 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 68 of 90
6. If a landslide or erosion hazard is identified, provide minimum setback recommendations for avoiding
the landslide or erosion hazard, other recommendations for site development so that the frequency or
magnitude of landsliding or erosion on or off the site is not altered, and recommendations consistent
with ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070.
geological hazards including the following site- and proposal-related information at a minimum:
1. Site and Construction Plans. The report shall include a copy of the site plans for the proposal
showing:
a. The type and extent of geologic hazard areas, any other critical areas, and buffers on, adjacent to,
within 200 feet of, or that are likely to impact the proposal;
b. Proposed development, including the location of existing and proposed structures, fill, storage of
materials, and drainage facilities, with dimensions indicating distances to the floodplain, if available;
c. The topography, in two-foot contours, of the project area and all hazard areas addressed in the report;
and
d. Clearing limits;
2. Assessment of Geological Characteristics. The report shall include an assessment of the geologic
characteristics of the soils, sediments, and/or rock of the project area and potentially affected adjacent
properties, and a review of the site history regarding landslides, erosion, and prior grading. Soils
analysis shall be accomplished in accordance with accepted classification systems in use in the region.
The assessment shall include, but not be limited to:
a. A description of the surface and subsurface geology, hydrology, soils, and vegetation found in the
project area and in all hazard areas addressed in the report;
b. A detailed overview of the field investigations, published data, and references; data and conclusions
from past assessments of the site; and site-specific measurements, tests, investigations, or studies that
support the identification of geologically hazardous areas; and
c. A description of the vulnerability of the site to seismic and other geologic events;
3. Analysis of Proposal. The report shall contain a hazards analysis including a detailed description of
the project, its relationship to the geologic hazard(s), and its potential impact upon the hazard area, the
subject property, and affected adjacent properties; and
4. Minimum Buffer and Building Setback. The report shall make a recommendation for the minimum
no-disturbance buffer and minimum building setback from any geologic hazard based upon the
geotechnical analysis.
D. Incorporation of Previous Study. Where a valid critical areas report has been prepared within the last
five years for a specific site, and where the proposed land use activity and surrounding site conditions
Packet Page 441 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 69 of 90
are unchanged, said report may be incorporated into the required critical areas report. The applicant shall
submit a hazards assessment detailing any changed environmental conditions associated with the site.
E. Mitigation of Long-Term Impacts. When hazard mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall
specifically address how the activity maintains or reduces the preexisting level of risk to the site and all
other adjacent properties potentially impacted on a long-term basis (equal to or exceeding the projected
lifespan of the activity or occupation). Proposed mitigation techniques shall be considered to provide
long-term hazard reduction only if they do not require regular maintenance or other actions to maintain
their function. Mitigation may also be required to avoid any increase in risk above the preexisting
conditions following abandonment of the activity.
F. Additional Technical Information Requirements for Projects within Erosion and Landslide Hazard
Areas. In addition to the basic critical areas report requirements for geologically hazardous areas
provided in subsections A through E of this section, technical information for any development within
erosion and earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas shall meet the requirements of Chapter 19.10
ECDC and include the following information at a minimum:
1. Site Plan. The critical areas report shall include a copy of the site plan for the proposal showing:
a. The height of slope, slope gradient, and cross-section of the project area;
b. The location of springs, seeps, or other surface expressions of ground water on or within 200 feet of
the project area or that have the potential to be affected by the proposal; and
c. The location and description of surface water runoff features;
2. Hazards Analysis. The hazards analysis component of the critical areas report shall specifically
include:
a. A description of the extent and type of vegetative cover;
b. A description of subsurface conditions based on data from site-specific explorations;
c. Descriptions of surface and ground water conditions, public and private sewage disposal systems, fills
and excavations, and all structural improvements;
d. An estimate of slope stability and the effect construction and placement of structures will have on the
slope over the estimated life of the structure;
e. An estimate of the bluff retreat rate or an estimate of the percent risk of landslide area expansion that
recognizes and reflects potential catastrophic events such as seismic activity or a 100-year storm event;
f. Consideration of the run-out hazard of landslide debris and/or the impacts of landslide run-out on
down-slope properties;
g. A study of slope stability including an analysis of proposed cuts, fills, and other site grading;
Packet Page 442 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 70 of 90
h. Recommendations for building siting limitations; and
i. An analysis of proposed surface and subsurface drainage, and the vulnerability of the site to erosion;
3. Geotechnical Engineering Report. The technical information for a project within a landslide hazard
area shall include a geotechnical engineering report prepared by a licensed engineer that presents
engineering recommendations for the following:
a. Parameters for design of site improvements including appropriate foundations and retaining
structures. These should include allowable load and resistance capacities for bearing and lateral loads,
installation considerations, and estimates of settlement performance;
b. Recommendations for drainage and subdrainage improvements;
c. Earthwork recommendations including clearing and site preparation criteria, fill placement and
compaction criteria, temporary and permanent slope inclinations and protection, and temporary
excavation support, if necessary; and
d. Mitigation of adverse site conditions including slope stabilization measures and seismically unstable
soils, if appropriate;
4. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. For any development proposal on a site containing an erosion
hazard area, an erosion and sediment control plan shall be required. The erosion and sediment control
plan shall be prepared in compliance with requirements set forth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC.
G. Limited Report Requirements for Stable Erosion Hazard Areas. At the director’s discretion, detailed
critical areas report requirements may be waived for erosion hazard areas with suitable slope stability.
Report requirements for stable erosion hazard areas may be met through construction documents that
shall include at a minimum an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with
requirements set forth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC.
H. Seismic Hazard Areas. In addition to the basic critical areas report requirements for geologically
hazardous areas provided in subsections A through E of this section, a critical areas report for a seismic
hazard area shall also meet the following requirements:
1. The site map shall show all known and mapped active faults within 200 feet of the project area or that
have the potential to be affected by the proposal.
21. The hazards analysis shall include a complete discussion of the potential impacts of seismic activity
on the site (for example, forces generated and fault displacement).
32. A geotechnical engineering report shall evaluate the physical properties of the subsurface soils,
especially the thickness of unconsolidated deposits and their liquefaction potential. If it is determined
that the site is subject to liquefaction, mitigation measures appropriate to the scale of the development
shall be recommended and implemented. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Packet Page 443 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 71 of 90
Part IV. Development Standards – Geologically Hazardous Areas
23.80.060 Development standards – General requirements.
A. Alterations of geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers may only occur for activities that:
1. Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment
conditions;
2. Will not adversely impact other critical areas;
3. Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than
predevelopment conditions; and
4. Are certified as safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist,
licensed in the state of Washington.
B. Critical Facilities Prohibited. Critical facilities shall not be sited within geologically hazardous areas
unless there is no other practical alternative. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.80.070 Development standards – Specific hazards.
A. Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Activities on sites containing erosion or landslide hazards shall
meet the requirements of ECDC 23.80.060, Development Standards – General Requirements, and the
specific following requirements:
1. Minimum Building Setback. The minimum setback shall be the distance required to ensure the
proposed structure will not be at risk from landslides for the life of the structure, considered to be one
hundred and twenty (120) years and will not cause an increased risk of landslides taking place on or off
the site. Buffer Requirement. A setback buffer shall be established from all edges of landslide hazard
areas. The size of the setbackbuffer shall be determined by the director consistent with recommendations
provided in the geotechnical report to eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death, or
injury resulting from landslides caused in whole or part by the development, based upon review of and
concurrence with a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional.
2. Buffer Requirements. A buffer may be established with specific requirements and limitations,
including but not limited to, drainage, grading, irrigation, and vegetation. Buffer requirements shall be
determined by the director consistent with recommendations provided in the geotechnical report to
eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death, or injury resulting from landslides caused in
whole or part by activities within the buffer area, based upon review of and concurrence with a critical
areas report prepared by a qualified professional.
a. Minimum Buffer. The minimum buffer shall be equal to the height of the slope existing within the
project area or 50 feet, whichever is greater;
Packet Page 444 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 72 of 90
b. Buffer Reduction. The buffer may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet when a qualified professional
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the director that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed
development, adjacent developments and uses and the subject critical area;
c. Increased Buffer. The buffer may be increased where the director determines that a larger buffer is
necessary to prevent risk of damage to proposed and existing development;
23. Alterations. Alterations of an erosion or landslide hazard area, minimum building setback and/or
buffer may only occur for activities for which a hazards analysis is submitted and certifies that:
a. The alteration development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent
properties beyond predevelopment conditions;
b. The alterationdevelopment will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and
c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas;
3. Design Standards within erosion and landslide hazard areas. Development within an erosion or
landslide hazard area and/or buffer shall be designed to meet the following basic requirements unless it
can be demonstrated that an alternative design that deviates from one or more of these standards
provides greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other provisions of this title. The
requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that require regular and periodic
maintenance to maintain their level of function. The basic development design standards are:
a. The proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the
limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. If stability at the proposed
development site is below these limits, the proposed development shall provide practicable approaches
to reduce risk to human safety and improve the factor of safety for landsliding. In no case shall the
existing factor of safety be reduced for the subject property or adjacent properties;
b. Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas and other
critical areas;
c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope, and
foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography;
d. Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the site and its
natural landforms and vegetation;
e. The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on
neighboring properties;
f. The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is preferred over
graded artificial slopes; and
g. Development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage;
Packet Page 445 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 73 of 90
4. Vegetation Retention. Unless otherwise provided or as part of an approved alteration, removal of
vegetation from an erosion or landslide hazard area or related buffer shall be prohibited;
5. Seasonal Restriction. Clearing shall be allowed only from May 1st to October 1st of each year;
provided, that the director may extend or shorten the dry season on a case-by-case basis depending on
actual weather conditions, except that timber harvest, not including brush clearing or stump removal,
may be allowed pursuant to an approved forest practice permit issued by the city of Edmonds or the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources;
6. Point Discharges. Point discharges from surface water facilities and roof drains onto or upstream from
an erosion or landslide hazard area shall be prohibited except as follows:
a. Conveyed via continuous storm pipe downslope to a point where there are no erosion hazard areas
downstream from the discharge;
b. Discharged at flow durations matching predeveloped conditions, with adequate energy dissipation,
into existing channels that previously conveyed storm water runoff in the predeveloped state; or
c. Dispersed discharge upslope of the steep slope onto a low-gradient, undisturbed buffer demonstrated
to be adequate to infiltrate all surface and storm water runoff, and where it can be demonstrated that
such discharge will not increase the saturation of the slope; and
7. Prohibited Development. On-site sewage disposal systems, including drain fields, shall be prohibited
within erosion and landslide hazard areas and related buffers.
B. Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area. In addition to the requirements of this chapter,
development proposals for lands located within the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as
indicated on the critical areas inventory shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 19.10 ECDC.
C. Seismic Hazard Areas. Activities proposed to be located in seismic hazard areas shall meet the
standards of ECDC 23.80.060, Development Standards – General Requirements. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Packet Page 446 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 74 of 90
Figure 23.80.000
Packet Page 447 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 75 of 90
Chapter 23.90
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
Sections:
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.90.000 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas compliance requirements flowchart.
23.90.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
Part II. Additional Report Requirements – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
23.90.020 Special study and report requirements – Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
Part III. Development Standards – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
23.90.030 Development standards – General requirements.
23.90.040 Development standards – Specific habitats.
Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping
23.90.000 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas compliance requirements
flowchart.
See Figure 23.90.000 at the end of this chapter. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.90.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas.
A. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in the city of Edmonds include:
1. Streams. Within the city of Edmonds streams shall include those areas where surface waters produce a
defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the
passage of water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. Streams shall be classified in
accordance with the Washington Department of Natural Resources water typing system (WAC 222-16-
030) hereby adopted in its entirety by reference and summarized as follows:
a. Type S: streams inventoried as “shorelines of the state” under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules
promulgated pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW;
b. Type F: streams which contain fish habitat;
Packet Page 448 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 76 of 90
c. Type Np: perennial nonfish habitat streams; and
d. Type Ns: seasonal nonfish habitat streams.
All streams included on the inventory that are known to exist within the city of Edmonds do not meet
criteria for “shorelines of the state” but contain fish habitat and, thus, meet designation criteria for Type
F waters pursuant to WAC 222-16-030. However, not all Edmonds streams support anadromous fish
populations or have the potential for anadromous fish occurrence because of obstructions, blockages or
access restrictions resulting from existing conditions. Therefore, in order to provide special
consideration of and increased protection for anadromous fish in the application of development
standards, Edmonds streams shall be further classified as follows:
Anadromous fishbearing streams: streams existing in whole or in part within the city of Edmonds in
which anadromous fish are known to occur. As of 2004, Edmonds fishbearing streams are known to
include Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, Shell Creek, Hindley Creek, Perrinville Creek, and Lunds
Creek; and
Nonanadromous fishbearing streams: streams existing in whole or in part within the city of Edmonds
which do not support fish populations and do not have the potential for fish occurrence because of
barriers to fish passage or lack of suitable habitat.
Streams with anadromous fish occurrence were identified in the Edmonds Stream Inventory and
Assessment, a 2002 report of Pentec Environmental which is incorporated by this reference as if herein
set forth. The city of Edmonds advocates and encourages the removal of barriers to anadromous fish
passage consistent with the purposes and objectives of this title. The director may provide updated
information on the occurrence of anadromous fish in Edmonds streams consistent with changes in
existing environmental conditions.
2. Areas with Which which State or Federally Designated Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive
Species Have a Primary Association, or offer important fish and wildlife habitat within the urban
environment.
a. Federally designated endangered and threatened species are those fish and wildlife species identified
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NOAA Fisheries that are in danger of extinction or
threatened to become endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service should be consulted for current listing status.
b. State-designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are those fish and wildlife species
native to the state of Washington identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, that are
in danger of extinction, threatened to become endangered, vulnerable, or declining and are likely to
become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their range within the state without
cooperative management or removal of threats. State-designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive
species are periodically recorded in WAC 232-12-014 (state endangered species) and WAC 232-12-011
(state threatened and sensitive species). The state Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains the most
current listing and should be consulted for current listing status.
Packet Page 449 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 77 of 90
3. State Priority Habitats and Areas Associated with State Priority Species. Priority habitats and species
are considered to be priorities for conservation and management. Priority species require protective
measures for their perpetuation due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or
recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Priority habitats are those habitat types or elements with
unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species. A priority habitat may consist of a unique
vegetation type or dominant plant species, a described successional stage, or a specific structural
element. Priority habitats and species are identified by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.
4. Habitats and Species of Local Importance. Habitats and species of local importance are those
identified by the city of Edmonds, including but not limited to those habitats and species that, due to
their population status or sensitivity to habitat manipulation, warrant protection. Habitats may include a
seasonal range or habitat element with which a species has a primary association, and which, if altered,
may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term.
45. Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas. These areas include all public and private tidelands or
bedlands suitable for shellfish harvest, including shellfish protection districts established pursuant to
Chapter 90.72 RCW.
56. Kelp and eelgrass beds and herring and smelt spawning areas.
67. Naturally Occurring Ponds Under 20 Acres. Naturally occurring ponds are those ponds under 20
acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat, including those artificial
ponds intentionally created from dry areas in order to mitigate impacts to ponds. Naturally occurring
ponds do not include ponds deliberately designed and created from dry sites, such as canals, detention
facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, temporary construction ponds, and landscape
amenities, unless such artificial ponds were intentionally created for mitigation.
78. Waters of the State. Waters of the state include lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters,
underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of
the state of Washington, as classified in WAC 222-16-031 (or WAC 222-16-030, depending on
classification used).
9. Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity.
10. Urban open space and land useful or essential for preserving connections between habitat.
11. Areas of Rare Plant Species and High-Quality Ecosystems. Areas of rare plant species and high-
quality ecosystems are identified by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources through the
Natural Heritage Program.
B. All areas within the city of Edmonds meeting one or more of these criteria, regardless of any formal
identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title and shall
be managed consistent with the best available science, such as the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife’s Management Recommendations for Priority Habitat and Species.
Packet Page 450 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 78 of 90
C. Mapping. The approximate location and extent of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are
shown on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. Resources providing information on the location
and extent of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas incorporated into the inventory include:
1. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitat and species maps;
2. Washington State Department of Natural Resources official water type reference maps, as amended;
3. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Puget Sound intertidal habitat inventory maps;
4. Washington State Department of Natural Resources shorezone inventory;
5. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program mapping data;
6. Washington State Department of Health annual inventory of shellfish harvest areas;
7. Anadromous and resident salmonid distribution maps contained in the habitat limiting factors reports
published by the Washington Conservation Commission; and
8. Washington State Department of Natural Resources state natural area preserves and natural resource
conservation area maps.
The critical areas inventory and the resources cited above are to be used as a guide for the city of
Edmonds development services department, project applicants, and/or property owners and should be
continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final
critical areas designation. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part II. Additional Report Requirements – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
23.90.020 Special study and report requirements – Fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas.
In addition to the general critical areas report requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, critical area reports for
fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas must meet the requirements of this section. Critical areas
reports for two or more types of critical areas must meet the report requirements for each relevant type
of critical area.
A. Preparation by a Qualified Professional. A critical areas report for a fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area shall be prepared by a qualified professional who is a biologist with experience
preparing reports for the relevant type of habitat. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(A), applicants may
choose one of the qualified technical consultants on the city’s approved list in preparing critical areas
reports for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, or may utilize an alternative consultant. Critical
areas studies and reports developed by an alternative consultant shall be subject to independent review
pursuant to ECDC 23.40.090(B).
Packet Page 451 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 79 of 90
B. Areas Addressed in Critical Areas Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas
report for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas:
1. The project area of the proposed activity;
2. All fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and recommended buffers within 200 feet of the
project area; and
3. All shoreline areas, floodplains, other critical areas, and related buffers within 200 feet of the project
area; and.
4. A discussion of the efforts to avoid and minimize potential effects to these resources and the
implementation of mitigation/enhancement measures as required.
C. Habitat Assessment. A habitat assessment is an investigation of the project area to evaluate the
potential presence or absence of designated critical fish or wildlife species or habitat. A critical areas
report for a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area shall contain an assessment of habitats, including
the following site- and proposal-related information at a minimum:
1. Detailed description of vegetation on and adjacent to the project area and its associated buffer;
2. Identification of any species of local importance, priority species, or endangered, threatened,
sensitive, or candidate species that have a primary association with habitat on or adjacent to the project
area, and assessment of potential project impacts to the use of the site by the species;
3. A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management recommendations, including
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat management recommendations, that have been
developed for species or habitats located on or adjacent to the project area.
D. Additional Technical Information Requirements for Streams. Consistent with specific development
standards for Edmonds streams (ECDC 23.90.040(D)), critical areas report requirements for streams
may be met, at the discretion of the director, through submission of one or more specific report types. If
stream buffer enhancement is proposed to reduce a standard stream buffer width or as part of project
mitigation required by the director, a stream buffer enhancement plan may be submitted to fulfill the
requirements of this section. If no project impacts are anticipated and standard stream buffer widths are
retained, a stream survey report, general critical areas report or other reports alone or in combination
may be submitted as consistent with the specific requirements of this section. In addition to the basic
critical areas report requirements for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas provided in subsections
(A) through (C) of this section, technical information on streams shall include the following information
at a minimum:
1. A written assessment and accompanying maps of the stream and associated hydrologic features within
200 feet of the project area, including the following information at a minimum:
a. Stream survey showing the ordinary high water mark(s);
Packet Page 452 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 80 of 90
b. Standard stream buffer boundary;
c. Boundary for proposed reduced stream buffers;
d. Vegetative, faunal, and hydrologic characteristics;
e. Soil and substrate conditions; and
f. Topographic elevations, at two-foot contours;
2. A detailed description and functional assessment of the stream buffer under existing conditions
pertaining to the protection of stream functions, fish habitat and, in particular, potential anadromous
fisheries;
3. A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that addresses methods to protect and enhance
on-site habitat and stream functions;
4. Proposed buffer enhancement, if needed, including a written assessment and accompanying maps and
planting plans for buffer areas to be enhanced, including the following information at a minimum:
a. A description of existing buffer conditions;
b. A description of proposed buffer conditions and how proposed conditions will increase buffer
functioning in terms of stream and fish habitat protection;
c. Performance standards for measuring enhancement success through a monitoring period of at least
three years; and
d. Provisions for monitoring and submission of monitoring reports documenting buffer conditions as
compared to performance standards for enhancement success;
5. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect stream functions and habitat value
through maintenance of vegetation density within the stream buffer. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part III. Development Standards – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
23.90.030 Development standards – General requirements.
A. Alterations. A fish and wildlife habitat conservation area may be altered only if the proposed
alteration of the habitat or the mitigation proposed does not degrade the quantitative and qualitative
functions and values of the habitat. There are no specific development standards for upland habitats of
local importance unless these areas include another critical area (streams, heron rookeries, steep slopes,
etc.). City staff will review the critical areas report (ECDC 23.90.020) and work with the applicant to
minimize effects or improve conditions to upland habitat.
Packet Page 453 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 81 of 90
B. Approvals of Activities. The director shall condition approvals of activities allowed within or
adjacent to a habitat conservation area or its buffers as necessary to minimize or mitigate any potential
adverse impacts. Conditions shall be based on the best available science and may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
1. Establishment of buffer zones;
2. Preservation of critically important vegetation and/or habitat features such as snags and downed
wood;
3. Limitation of access to the habitat area, including fencing to deter unauthorized access;
4. Seasonal restriction of construction activities;
5. Establishment of a duration and timetable for periodic review of mitigation activities; and
6. Requirement of a performance bond, when necessary, to ensure completion and success of proposed
mitigation.
C. Mitigation and Equivalent or Greater Biological Functions. Mitigation of alterations to fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic and hydrologic functions
and shall include mitigation for adverse impacts upstream or downstream of the development proposal
site. Mitigation shall address each function affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency
or improvement on a per function basis. Mitigation shall be located on-site except when demonstrated
that a higher level of ecological functioning would result from an off-site location. Mitigation shall be
detailed in a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area mitigation plan, which may include the following
as necessary:
1. A native vegetation planting plan;
2. Plans for retention, enhancement or restoration of specific habitat features;
3. Plans for control of nonnative invasive plant or wildlife species; and
4. Stipulations for use of innovative, sustainable building practices.
D. Approvals and the Best Available Science. Any approval of alterations or impacts to a fish and
wildlife habitat conservation area shall be supported by the best available science.
E. Buffers.
1. Establishment of Buffers. The director shall require the establishment of temporary or permanent
buffer areas for permitted activities adjacent to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas which may
result in fish or wildlife disturbance (e.g., construction, grading, etc.) when needed to protect fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas. Establishment of buffers shall follow recommendations set forth by a
qualified biologist in the project critical areas report. Required buffer widths shall reflect the sensitivity
Packet Page 454 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 82 of 90
of the habitat and the type and intensity of human activity proposed to be conducted nearby and shall be
consistent with the management recommendations issued by the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
2. Seasonal and Daily Timing Restrictions. When a species is more susceptible to adverse impacts
during specific periods of the year or day, seasonal restrictions on permitted activities within or adjacent
to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas may be required at the discretion of the director pursuant
to recommendations set forth in a critical areas report.
F. Signs and Fencing of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.
1. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer
and the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be
marked in the field as required by the director in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion
will occur. This temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be
removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place.
2. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the
director may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a fish and wildlife
habitat conservation area or buffer.
a. Permanent signs shall be made of a metal face and attached to a metal post or another material of
equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50 feet, whichever is less,
and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with
alternative language approved by the director:
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Area
Do Not Disturb
Contact the City of Edmonds
Regarding Uses and Restriction
b. The provisions of subsection (F)(2)(a) of this section may be modified by the director as necessary to
assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife.
3. Fencing.
a. The director shall determine if fencing is necessary to protect the functions and values of the critical
area. If found to be necessary, the director shall condition any permit or authorization issued pursuant to
this chapter to require the applicant to install a permanent fence at the edge of the fish and wildlife
habitat conservation area or buffer, when fencing will prevent future impacts to the fish and wildlife
habitat conservation area.
Packet Page 455 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 83 of 90
b. The applicant shall be required to install a permanent fence around the fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area or buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced on-site.
c. Fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in this subsection shall be designed so as
to not interfere with species migration, including fish runs, and shall be constructed in a manner that
minimizes habitat impacts. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
23.90.040 Development standards – Specific habitats.
A. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species.
1. No development shall be allowed within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer with
which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, except
that which is provided for by a management plan established by the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife or applicable state or federal agency.
2. Whenever activities are proposed adjacent to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area with which
state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, such area shall
be protected through the application of protection measures in accordance with a critical areas report
prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the director. Approval for alteration of land
adjacent to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or its buffer shall not occur prior to
consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for animal species, the Washington
State Department of Natural Resources for plant species, and other appropriate federal or state agencies.
3. Bald eagle habitat shall be protected pursuant to the Washington State bald eagle protection rules
(WAC 232-12-292). Whenever activities are proposed within 800 feet of a verified nest territory or
communal roost, a habitat management plan shall be developed by a qualified professional. The director
shall verify the location of eagle management areas for each proposed activity. Approval of the activity
shall not occur prior to approval of the habitat management plan by the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife.
B. Anadromous Fish.
1. All activities, uses, and alterations proposed to be located in water bodies used by anadromous fish or
in areas that affect such water bodies shall give special consideration to the preservation and
enhancement of anadromous fish habitat, including, but not limited to, adhering to the following
standards:
a. Activities shall be timed to occur only during the allowable work window as designated by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for the applicable species;
b. An alternative alignment or location for the activity is not feasible;
c. The activity is designed so that it will not degrade the functions or values of the fish habitat or other
critical areas;
Packet Page 456 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 84 of 90
d. Shoreline erosion control measures shall be designed to use bioengineering methods or soft armoring
techniques, according to an approved critical areas report; and
e. Any impacts to the functions or values of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area are mitigated
in accordance with an approved critical areas report.
2. Structures that prevent the migration of salmonids shall not be allowed in the portion of water bodies
currently or historically used by anadromous fish. Fish bypass facilities shall be provided that allow the
upstream migration of adult fish and shall prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being
trapped or harmed.
3. Fills, when authorized, shall not adversely impact anadromous fish or their habitat or shall mitigate
any unavoidable impacts and shall only be allowed for a water-dependent use.
C. Retention of Vegetation on Subdividable, Undeveloped Parcels. As a provision of this title, the
director shall require retention of a minimum of 30 percent of native vegetation on undeveloped (or
redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned as RS-12 or RS-20 per Chapter 16.10 ECDC. This standard for
development shall apply to all undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned RS-12 or RS-20
regardless of the potential for designation as a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or other critical
areathat contain a landslide hazard area as defined by ECDC 23.80.020.B; a stream or stream buffer; or
a wetland or wetland buffer, except for as provided in ECDC 23.90.040.C.4. This provision for native
vegetation retention will provide increased protection of fish and wildlife habitat throughout the
Edmonds jurisdiction, and shall be applied consistent with the following criteria:
1. Achieving the minimum 30 percent retention requirement for native vegetation shall be determined by
assessing the existing site area that supports native vegetation. For purposes of this provision, areas that
support native vegetation shall include areas dominated by plant species which are indigenous to the
Puget Sound region, which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site, and
within which native trees over 10 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) make up more than 70
percent of the canopy cover.
2. The goal of 30 percent native vegetation can be met through maintaining existing native vegetation,
establishing native vegetation, or a combination of both.
3. A vegetation management plan, subject to the approval of the director, is required for approval of the
proposed development.
4. For undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned as RS-12 or RS-20 that currently do not
support any native vegetation areas meeting minimum requirements in ECDC 23.90.040.C.1, the
director may waive the requirements of this provision.
D. Streams. No alteration to a stream or stream buffer shall be permitted unless consistent with the
provisions of this title and the specific standards for development outlined below.
1. Standard Stream Buffer Widths. Buffers for streams shall be measured on each side of the stream,
from the ordinary high water mark. The following shall be the standard buffer widths for streams based
Packet Page 457 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 85 of 90
upon the Washington State Department of Natural Resources water typing system and further
classification based upon fish presence (fishbearing vs. nonfishbearing) for the Type F streams existing
in the city of Edmonds:
a. Type S: 150 feet;
b. Type F anadromous fishbearing stream adjacent to reaches with anadromous fish access: 100 feet;
c. Type F anadromous fishbearing stream adjacent to reaches without anadromous fish access: 75 feet;
d. Type F nonanadromous fishbearing stream: 75 feet;
e. Type Np: 50 feet;
f. Type Ns: 25 40 feet.
General areas and stream reaches with access for anadromous fish are indicated on the city of Edmonds
critical areas inventory. The potential for anadromous fish access shall be confirmed in the field by a
qualified biologist as part of critical areas review and determination of standard stream buffer widths.
2. Reduced Stream Buffer Widths. Standard stream buffer widths may be reduced by no more than 50
twenty five percent (25%) of the standard stream buffer width concomitant to development and
implementation of a stream buffer enhancement plan approved by the director. Reduced stream buffer
widths shall only be approved by the director if a stream buffer enhancement plan conclusively
demonstrates that enhancement of the reduced buffer area will not degrade the quantitative and
qualitative functions and values of the buffer area in terms of fish and stream protection and the
provision of wildlife habitat. Stream buffer enhancement plans must meet the specific requirements of
ECDC 23.40.110, 23.40.120 and 23.40.130 and:
a. Provide evidence that the reduced buffer, through enhancement, will provide equivalent to or greater
than a standard buffer without enhancementThe buffer enhancement plan proposed as part of buffer
reduction provides evidence that functions and values in terms of stream and wildlife protections will
beequivalent to or greater than a standard buffer without enhancement:
i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation
is generally intact; or
ii. Increased through plan implantation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate
to protect the functions and values of the stream;
b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant
densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees;
c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success for a minimum of three five (5) years
in accordance with ECDC 23.40.130(D) and (E); and
Packet Page 458 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 86 of 90
d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards for assessing
increases in stream buffer functioning as related to:
i. Water quality protection;
ii. Provision of wildlife habitat;
iii. Protection of anadromous fisheries;
iv. Enhancement of fish habitat; and
v. Restricting intrusion and disturbance.
3. Stream Buffer Width Averaging with Enhancement. The director may allow modification of a
standard or reduced stream buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best
available science on a case-by-case basis by averaging buffer widths. Any allowance for averaging
buffer widths shall only be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a buffer
enhancement plan for areas of buffer degradation. Only those portions of a stream buffer existing within
the project area or subject parcel shall be considered in the total buffer area for buffer averaging.
Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional demonstrates that:
a. The buffer enhancement plan proposed as part of buffer averaging provides evidence that functions
and values in terms of stream and wildlife protections will be:
i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation
is generally intact; or
ii. Increased through plan implantation for those streams where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate
to protect the functions and values of the stream;
b. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for a
stream extending off-site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the
standard buffer;
bc. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than 5075 percent of the reduced or
standard width; and
c. The functions and values of the stream and associated buffer will not be diminished through the use of
buffer averaging.
4. Additions to Structures Existing within Stream Buffers.
a. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within stream buffers that increase the footprint of
development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards of
this chapter (ECDC 23.90.030 and this section). , provided that a buffer enhancement plan is provided to
mitigate for impacts consistent with this Title, and provided that all impacts from temporary
Packet Page 459 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 87 of 90
disturbances within the critical area buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and
buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. Provisions for
standard stream buffers, buffer reductions through enhancement, and stream buffer averaging with
enhancement, and buffer reductions through enhancement require applicants to locate such additions in
accordance with the following sequencing:
ai. Outside of the standard stream buffer;
bii. Outside of a stream buffer reduced through enhancementaveraged (with enhancement) per
subsection (D)(23) of this section;
ciii. Outside of a stream buffer reduced (with enhancement) through buffer averaging per subsection
(D)(32) of this section; or
div. Outside of the inner twenty five percent (25%) percent of the standard stream buffer width through
the use of both buffer reduction and buffer averagingwith no more than three hundred (300) square feet
of structure addition footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard stream buffer width,
provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum three-to-one (3:1) ratio (enhancement-to-impact).
v. Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard stream buffer width with no more than five hundred
(500) square feet of new footprint within the inner fifty percent (50%) of the standard stream buffer
width, provided that enhancement is provided at a minimum five-to-one (5:1) ratio (enhancement-to-
impact), and that stormwater low impact development (LID) techniques or other measures that enhance
existing buffer condition are included as part of the stream buffer enhancement plan.
b. Where meeting stream buffer enhancement requirements required by H.1. of this section would result
in enhancement that is separated from the critical area due to uncommon property ownership, alternative
enhancement approaches may be approved by the director. Alternative approaches could include a
vegetated rain garden that receives storm runoff, replacement of existing impervious surfaces with
pervious materials, or other approaches that provide ecological benefits to the adjacent critical area.
c. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within stream buffers that cannot be
accommodated in accordance with the above sequencing (i.e., additions proposed within the inner 25
percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director’s discretion as a variance subject to
review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC 23.40.210.
5. Development Proposals within the Footprint of Existing Development. New development shall be
allowed within the footprint of existing development occurring within a stream buffer, provided that the
following conditions are met:
a. The footprint of existing development was legally established, and is consistent with the definition
provided in ECDC 23.40.320;
b. The proposed development within the footprint of existing development is sited as far away from the
stream edge as is feasible;
Packet Page 460 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 88 of 90
c. As part of the development proposal, opportunities to reduce the footprint of existing development are
implemented where such reduction would increase the buffer width adjacent to the stream and not
represent an undue burden given the scale of the proposed development.
d. The proposed development includes enhancement to the adjacent remaining stream buffer in order to
improve functions degraded by previous development;
e. Enhancement is provided as buffer enhancement for an equivalent area of the footprint of the newly
proposed development within in the footprint of existing development occurring in stream buffer, or
through an alternative approach approved by the director that restores degraded functions of the wetland
and remaining buffer; and
f. Impacts from temporary disturbances within the stream buffer shall be addressed through use of best
management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed
alteration.
56. Stream Crossings. Stream crossings may be allowed only if all reasonable construction techniques
and best management practices are used to avoid disturbance to the stream bed or bank. Upon
completion of construction, the area affected shall be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted with
native species and/or otherwise protected according to a stream mitigation and buffer enhancement plan
approved by the director, and maintained and monitored per the requirements of ECDC 23.40.110,
23.40.120 and 23.40.130 and providing for buffer enhancement in accordance with the requirements of
subsection (D)(2) of this section. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that best management
practices will be used during construction to provide the following:
a. Fisheries protection, including no interference with fish migration or spawning;
b. All crossings shall be constructed during summer low flow periods and shall be timed to avoid stream
disturbance during periods when stream use is critical to salmonids;
c. Crossings shall not occur over salmonid spawning areas unless no other possible crossing site exists;
d. Crossings and culverted portions of the stream shall be minimized to the extent feasible and serve
multiple purposes and multiple lots whenever possible;
e. Roads may cross streams only on previously approved rights-of-way, provided no practical alternative
exists and adequate provision is made to protect and/or enhance the stream through appropriate
mitigation. Roads shall be designed and located to conform to topography, and maintained to prevent
erosion and restriction of the natural movement of ground water as it affects the stream;
f. Roads and utilities shall be designed in conjunction to minimize the area of disturbance to the stream;
and
g. Roads shall be constructed so as to minimize adverse impacts on the hydrologic quality of the stream
or associated habitat to a degree acceptable to the city;
Packet Page 461 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 89 of 90
h. An alternative alignment or location with less impact is not feasible; and
i. The crossing will be designed as near as perpendicular with the water body as possible..
67. Trails. After reviewing the proposed development and technical reports, the director may determine
that a pedestrian-only trail may be allowed in a stream buffer; provided, nonimpervious surface
materials are used, all appropriate provision is made to protect water quality, and all applicable permit
requirements have been met. No motorized vehicles shall be allowed within a stream or its buffer except
as required for necessary maintenance or security. Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other
measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect streams by limiting vehicular access to
designated public use or interpretive areas.
78. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes
and conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within stream
buffers; provided, that:
a. No other location is feasible;
b. Pipes and conveyance facilities will be in the outer twenty five percent (25%) of the buffer;
c. Stormwater dispersion outfalls, bioswales, and bioretention facilities may be allowed anywhere within
stream buffers;
d. Such facilities are designed consistent with requirements of ECDC Chapter 18.30; and
be. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the stream or
stream buffer.
89. City Discretion in Protection, Enhancement and Preservation of Streams. The city of Edmonds is
unique within the state of Washington as a built-out community with streams that have been
incorporated within, and often located immediately adjacent to, residential development. This title
allows the director full discretion to condition proposals for development on parcels containing, adjacent
to, or potentially impacting streams to enhance conditions consistent with ECDC 23.40.050 and the
purposes and objectives of this title. Conditions on development shall be required to enhance streams
and stream buffers as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas to provide increased protection of
anadromous fisheries and potential fish habitat in accordance with best available science and the
recommendations of an approved critical areas report and may include:
a. Removal of stream bank armoring;
b. In -stream habitat modification;
c. Native planting;
d. Relocation of stream channel portions to create contiguous riparian corridors or wildlife habitat;
Packet Page 462 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 90 of 90
e. Planting of stream bank native vegetation to increase stream shading;
f. Removal and control of nonnative, invasive weed species;
g. Requiring additional building setbacks or modified buffers; and
h. Limiting or reducing the types or densities of particular uses.
The right of discretion in provisioning development in regard to streams is maintained in order to
provide for the creation of enhanced conditions over those currently existing around streams in the city
of Edmonds. In all instances where an applicant cannot demonstrate that standard stream buffer widths
as provided in subsection (D)(1) of this section can be accommodated by project development, the
applicant shall be required to submit a stream buffer enhancement plan or a stream mitigation and buffer
enhancement plan as part of a critical areas report indicating that post-project site conditions will
provide equivalent or greater protection of stream functions and fish habitat over a standard stream
buffer and existing site conditions. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
E. Bald eagle habitat is subject to the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Washington State
bald eagle protection rules (WAC 232-12-292) shall not be required as long as bald eagles are not listed
as a State Endangered or Threatened species.
Packet Page 463 of 473
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, September 17, 2015
Page 91 of 90
Figure 23.90.000
Packet Page 464 of 473
Proposed Frequently Flooded Areas Code Amendment
Building Code Amendment
Amendment to Building Code requiring structures to be constructed two feet above base flood
elevation:
19.00.025 International Building Code section amendments
Q. IBC section 1612.4.1, Lowest Flood Elevation, is added and reads:
For buildings in all structure categories located in the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, the
elevation of the lowest floor shall be a minimum of two feet above the base flood elevation, as determined from the
applicable FEMA flood hazard map.
Development Code Amendment to Address Height Issues – Definition of Height
21.40.030 Height.
A. Height means the average vertical distance from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by a
structure to the highest point of the structure. (See subsection (D) of this section for exceptions to this rule.)
B. “Average level” shall be determined by averaging elevations of the downward projections of the four corners of the
smallest rectangle which will enclose all of the building, excluding a maximum of 30 inches of eaves. If a corner falls
off the site, its elevation shall be the average elevation of the two points projected downward where the two sides of
the rectangle cross the property line. (See subsection (D) of this section for exceptions to this rule.)
C. Accessory buildings that are attached to the main building by a breezeway, hallway, or other similar connection so
that the accessory building is separated by 10 feet or less from the main building shall be considered to be part of the
main building for purposes of determining the average level. For the purposes of this section, in order for an accessory
building to be considered to be attached to and a part of the main building, the connecting structure must have a roof
and be constructed of similar materials to both the main building and the accessory building so that it appears to be a
unified and consistently designed building.
D. Height Exceptions.
1. (Reserved) For all properties located within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, height
is measured from the elevation that is two feet above base flood elevation as identified from the applicable FEMA
flood hazard map. ;
2. Church steeples;
3. Elevator penthouses, not to exceed 72 square feet in horizontal section, or three feet in height, for that portion
above the height limit;
4. Chimneys, not to exceed nine square feet in horizontal section or more than three feet in height, for that portion
above the height limit. In RM districts, chimneys shall be clustered. No multiple-flue chimney shall exceed 39
square feet in horizontal section. The first chimney shall not exceed nine square feet in horizontal section, and
other chimneys shall not exceed six square feet in horizontal section;
5. Vent pipes not to exceed 18 inches in height above the height limit;
6. Standpipes not to exceed 30 inches in height above the height limit;
Packet Page 465 of 473
7. Solar energy installations not to exceed 36 inches in height above the height limit. Such an installation may be
approved as a Type II staff decision if it is designed and located in such a way as to provide reasonable solar
access while limiting visual impacts on surrounding properties; and
8. Replacement of existing rooftop HVAC equipment which exceeds the existing height limit, so long as the
replacement equipment does not exceed the height of the existing equipment by more than 12 inches. The
replacement equipment must have earned the Energy Star label. [Ord. 3866 § 1, 2011; Ord. 3728 § 2, 2009; Ord.
3654 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3569 § 2, 2005].
Packet Page 466 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 8, 2015
Page 11
negotiated an agreement with the property owner in lieu of him filing a lawsuit in an attempt to settle any
claim with the City. The City worked with a consultant to design a remedy; most of it will exist on private
property but will connect to the City’s stormwater system in the street. The property owner will hire a
contractor to build it, the City will inspect it and as long as all the improvements are built in accordance
with expectations, the City will pay the property owner for the City’s portion of the project and he will
release the City from future liability and maintenance on the improvements that will be on his property.
Staff worked with the City Attorney’s office on the agreement; it is a good resolution, keeps costs down
to the City and the homeowner.
Councilmember Petso asked if this would ordinarily be discussed in executive session instead of in open
session. Mr. Taraday answered there is no ordinary as this is a fairly unusual agreement. Mr. Williams
said this is the first agreement of this type. Councilmember Petso said the design is for a 25-year storm
event; her understanding is a 25-year storm event occurs far more frequently than every 25 years and a
bigger storm event such as a 100-year storm even could occur. She asked whether the property owner was
okay with designing for a 25-year storm event. Mr. Williams answered yes, and that is the proper level of
design, the same that most of the City’s storm system is designed to. Designing to 100-year storm events
the pipes become enormous, the basins are huge and it is not cost effective. The latest data was used in
calculating the design for a 25-year storm event and a fair amount of conservatism is built in. In addition,
some of the upstream drainage has been rerouted in another direction which should lessen the load on this
channel by a noticeable amount. He was confident what was designed would be successful.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on next week’s Consent Agenda.
E. INTRODUCTION OF PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON CRITICAL AREA
REGULATIONS
Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained review of the critical area regulations began in late 2014. In June
he provided a precursor of some items being discussed by the Planning Board. Over the past year, the
Planning Board has reviewed the critical area regulations over five meetings and at their July 22
forwarded a recommendation to the City Council. Tonight is an introduction; because the critical area
regulations can be technical, another work session in scheduled in two weeks followed by a public
hearing.
Aaron Booy, ESA, advised Jim Keany, ESA was also present tonight to answer questions. They have
been supported by a geologist with the Stratton Group. He reviewed the background and purpose
• GMA (1990) requires identification, designation, and protection of critical areas
• Purpose of the CAO (CAO) is to protect:
o Natural environment
o Public health and safety
o Once lost, function and value of critical areas very difficult to restore.
• Existing CAO –established from comprehensive update in 2004 and 2005
He described what critical areas are:
• Frequently flooded areas
• Geologically hazardous areas
o Landslide, erosion, seismic hazards)
• Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs)
o Streams
o Habitat for listed and sensitive fish and wildlife species
o Lakes < 20 acres
• Wetlands
Packet Page 467 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 8, 2015
Page 12
He reviewed how the CAO protects critical areas:
• Prohibiting, limiting and/or allowing certain activities
• Requiring buffers or setbacks around critical areas
o Landslide and erosion hazards
o Wetlands
o FWHCAs (streams)
• Requiring avoidance and minimization of impacts
• Requiring mitigation sequencing for impacts
o Avoidance
o Minimization/reduction
o Rectification
o Compensation (for unavoidable impacts)
o Monitoring
He described the CAO update process:
• GMA requires cities to update CAOs on the same 8-year Comprehensive Plan update timeline
• Consideration of Best Available Science (BAS)
• Revise code
o Public participation and review
July 22: Planning Board recommended update
Today: City Council review process initiated
• Adopt revised Code
He described what BAS is:
• Research and guidance
o Conducted by qualified individuals
o Documented methodologies
o Verifiable results and conclusions
• Published bibliographies; state guidance; primary research publications
• 1995 Amendment to the GMA requires consideration of “best available science” for protecting
critical areas
Mr. Booy reviewed the BAS Review and Update:
• BAS addendum (March 2015)
o Companion to 2004 BAS Report (EDAW)
o Focused on new science and guidance in last decade
• Wetlands
o Delineation and rating
o Buffer approach
o Alternative mitigation strategies; mitigation guidance
• Floodplains
o Climate change
o Coastal flood zones
• Geological hazardous areas
o North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Area Summary Report (Landau 2007)
o Newly available LiDAR data
• FWHCAs
o Buffer approach
o Habitat connectivity
Packet Page 468 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 8, 2015
Page 13
Mr. Lien referred to Exhibit 2, 2015 BAS addendum and Exhibit 5, BAS and Gap Analysis Matrix. He
reviewed revisions to the CAO:
• Geologically hazardous areas
o Revising how landslide hazard areas are defined
o Updating geological report requirements
o Setbacks and buffers determined by geotechnical report
• Wetlands – ECDC 23.50
o Updating delineation manuals
o Revising Wetland Categories Consistent with latest criteria
o Buffer widths being revised consistent with Ecology’s guidance for small jurisdictions
(Ecology Publication #10-06-002)
o Mitigation Ratios per Ecology guidance (Ecology Publication #10-06-011)
o Stream and wetland buffer reduction
CAO allows buffer reduction via buffer reduction or buffer averaging
Current code allows buffer reduction to be combined with buffer averaging
New code does not allow them to be combined, only one allowed with buffering
averaging preferred
• Small Isolated Wetlands (changed from exempt wetlands)
o ECDC 23.50.040.J
o Based on language in the Guidance for Small Jurisdictions
o Category III and IV wetlands less than 1,000 square feet
o Exempt from buffer provisions
o Not subject to avoidance
o May be altered if lost functions are replaced
o Added habitat score
He identified changes proposed to ECDC 23.90.040.C
• Requires retention or establishment of a minimum of 30 percent native vegetation on
undeveloped or redeveloped property within the RS-12 and RS-20 zones due to the prevalence of
critical areas in those zones
• Similar to a King County provision that was struck down by the courts (Citizens Alliance for
Property Rights v. Sims)
• Provide more definition to specific habitat features to be retained
o Indigenous species
o Native trees of 10 inches dbh make up more than 70% canopy coverage
• Provisions may be waived for properties that do not support native vegetation
Mr. Lien explained Edmonds was developed in a large part before any critical area regulations or
environmental regulations were adopted. He provided an aerial image of a stream between two houses
and a photograph of the actual stream, noting this situation exists throughout the City. This particular
stream came to staff’s attention when a house two parcels away from the stream was prevented from
constructing an addition because it was within the stream buffer.
He recalled 1-2 years ago the Council considered an interim ordinance regarding physically separated and
functionally isolated buffers and development within the developed footprint. The ordinance stalled at the
Planning Board and was put on hold anticipating the critical areas update. He reviewed a new section
within Allowed Activities, ECDC 23.40.20.C.4 that would allow development outright on:
• Site separated from a critical area by legally established roads, trails and structures 12 feet or
more in width may be physically separated and functionally isolated
• The director may require a site assessment by a qualified professional to make the determination
Packet Page 469 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 8, 2015
Page 14
He described changes with regard to development within the previously developed footprint:
• Allow development within the legally established footprint of development
• “Footprint of Existing Development” definition 23.40.320
o “The area of a site that contains legally established buildings, concrete, asphalt, gravel, paved
roads, parking lots, storage areas or other paved areas, driveways, walkways, outdoor
swimming pools and patios.”
• Site new development as far away from critical area as possible
• Enhancement required at a ratio of 1:1
Using the photograph and aerial image he described a hypothetical addition of a 600 square foot garage
on the graved area adjacent to the stream, noting it would meet the definition of a previously developed
area. The addition would require a 600 square foot enhancement of the stream buffer. The intent of the
footprint of existing development was to have critical areas enhanced. In this instance if the 75 foot buffer
was strictly applied and no development was allowed, the stream buffer would not be enhanced. The
addition would not cause any more harm and allowing some development in the previously developed
footprint would improve streams and wetlands throughout the City in the long run.
He reviewed changes to the code regarding additions:
• Additions to existing structures within a buffer that increase the footprint of development
• Outside the inner 25% of buffer
o No more than 300 square feet addition within the inner 50%
Mitigate at a ratio of 3:1
o No more than 500 square feet additional within the inner 50%
Mitigate at a ratio of 5:1
He described changes regarding frequently flooded areas:
• Currently regulated by building code Title 19 ECDC
• Include new flood zones (Zones V and VE)
• Amend ECDC 19.00.025 requiring structures within the coastal flood hazard zones to be
constructed two feet above base flood elevation
o New FEMA flood zone map expands the flood zone along within the waterfront area
o Natural Resource Council 2012 study predicts an average sea level rise of 2 feet by 2100.
He commented on height implications of the requirement for structures to be constructed two feet above
the base flood elevation:
• Requiring structures to be constructed above the base flood elevation will impact overall
allowable height as allowed by zoning
• Maximum allowable height is measured from an average level of undisturbed soil
• Modified definition of height in ECDC 21.40.030 so structures within the coastal flood zones
measure height from two feet above base flood elevation
New section added to critical area regulations:
• ECDC 23.40.215 - Critical areas restoration projects
o Provide relief from standard critical area buffer for restoration projects that is not required as
mitigation for a development proposal
o Restoration project involve:
The daylighting of a stream, or
Creation or expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of the wetland
and/or wetland buffer
Packet Page 470 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 8, 2015
Page 15
He described restoration project relief:
• May apply a buffer that is not less than 75% of the standard buffer to the restoration project
boundary
• Request a buffer between 50% and 7% of standard buffer if:
o 75% buffer would significantly limit use of the property
o Minimum necessary to achieve restoration project
o There will be a net environmental benefit
o Granting relief is consistent with the purposes of the critical area regulations
Mr. Lien reviewed next steps:
• Comments from state and tribal agencies (Commerce, Ecology, WDFW)
• September 22 City Council work session
• October 6 City Council public hearing
• Consideration for adoption
Councilmember Buckshnis commended Mr. Lien on his presentation. She asked him to describe the
relationship between the Shoreline Management Program (SMP) and the Critical Areas Ordinance
(CAO). Mr. Lien explained the CAO is an outgrowth of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and the
SMP is an outgrowth of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA); the two do not mesh. Within shoreline
jurisdiction, 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark, the SMA rules; outside that area, the CAO rules.
He recalled during the SMP update, certain areas of the existing critical area regulations were excepted
out and provisions included in the SMP. One of the main provisions was regarding wetlands and Ecology
requested the Guidance for Small Jurisdictions be included. Ecology is in the process of reviewing the
City’s SMP and are about to send comments to the City. This CAO update addresses a lot of Ecology’s
concerns with the CAO. As changes are considered for the SMP, he suggested incorporating the updated
CAO.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if BAS addresses temperature change. She referred to a newspaper
article by King County Councilmember Larry Phillips regarding how the increase in stream temperature
affects fish, habitat, etc. Mr. Lien answered one of the functions of stream buffers is to provide shade. Mr.
Booy agree with Mr. Lien, ensuring buffers are adequate to provide a forested canopy that provides
adequate shade to the stream is the primary consideration. That was considered when the City’s buffers
were evaluated against buffer guidance within BAS. The fact that Edmonds is a built out urban area,
ensuring residents are able to use their property and not creating a lot of nonconforming structures must
be balanced with BAS and guidance for providing riparian habitat along streams. They concluded the
stream buffers in the City’s existing regulations are adequate for providing an adequate, relative large
buffer, 75 – 100 feet for streams with salmon.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the mitigation approach and things the director can require and
asked if that director is Shane Hope. Mr. Lien answered yes, it refers to the Development Services
Director. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the review is administrative and asked if ever reaches the
legislative level. Mr. Lien answered not usually, an appeal of a critical area variance application could
come to Council on a closed record review.
Councilmember Petso pointed out the BAS document does not seem to support the physically separated
and functionally isolated exception and in fact on page 6 it admits it does not support it. She asked staff
and the consultant to show where the science supported that type of exception. Her interpretation of the
science was that bigger buffers were better and when there were imperfect buffers, the buffer should be
even larger. Mr. Lien read from page 6, in highly developed communities such as Edmonds, standard
buffer widths may be difficult to achieve. As noted in the 2014 BAS report, many streams and wetland
buffers extend into residential yards that have been previously developed and provide limited function in
Packet Page 471 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 8, 2015
Page 16
terms of wetland protection. Furthermore, some buffers are substantially developed and contain
impervious surface in commercial and residential areas. While not explicitly stated in BAS and buffer
guidance documents, a scientific judgment of these areas would conclude that they do not provide the
same function and value as a vegetated or undeveloped buffer due to physical separation.
Mr. Lien pointed out one of issues with BAS is where it was conducted. In large part buffer studies are
conducted in areas where buffers actually exist such as rural areas. There is no specific peer reviewed
study that looked at a physically separated and functionally isolated buffer but a buffer is something that’s
adjacent to a critical area and provides value. When it is physically separated and functionally isolated, by
definition, it is not providing those values. He concluded the BAS report does address physically
separated and functionally isolate buffers. Critical area regulations need to be balanced with the reality on
the ground.
Councilmember Petso referred to the in-lieu-of fee for mitigation, finding the BAS report more or less
says that doesn’t work and provides a lot of examples where it has failed. She asked why that would be
started in Edmonds. Mr. Lien disagreed the BAS report said that; what fails with regarding to mitigation
is requiring mitigation on sites that are not appropriate for mitigation. The fee in lieu of would allow off
site mitigation. Washington State Department of Ecology established wetland banking for offsite
mitigation, basically a fee in lieu of program, State sponsored banks, where an enhanced wetland is
created and credits established and development at another location can buy credits for that bank.
Councilmember Petso asked if any the methods allowed mitigation to occur outside the City. Mr. Lien
said no, offsite mitigation should occur within same drainage basin. In the example of wetland banks, it
could occur outside the City but the likelihood of that happening was slim because wetland banks are
usually set up within a certain basin. Edmonds was not likely to be in the service area of one of the larger
banks.
Councilmember Petso referred to Table XXI regarding proposed new buffer widths where the buffer is
based on the category and width is added based on habitat values. She asked why some pages were not
included in the ordinance. Mr. Lien clarified she was referring to the Guidance for Small Jurisdictions
which was not included in the Council packet. Table XXI lists a number of wetland types; Category 1
wetlands include bogs, natural heritage wetland, forested wetland, none of which exist in Edmonds. The
only Category 1 wetland identified in the 2004 BAS is the Edmonds Marsh which is an estuarine wetland.
Councilmember Petso said it appeared it may apply to the marsh. Mr. Lien agreed that was the only
Category 1 that applied to Edmonds and it could be added. Councilmember Petso observed the buffer is
150 feet which is significant different if that section is not included.
Councilmember Petso referred to incentives for critical area restoration and asked whether other cities
have done that successfully. Mr. Lien answered not that he was aware of. He based that on the SMA
provisions and not wanting to discourage a restoration project. He clarified that is not for mitigation
projects required for development but rather something that is being because someone wants to do a
restoration project. Councilmember Petso expressed concern it may not be written as tightly as it should;
for example it appeared if she agreed to expand a wetland near her property by one inch, she
automatically got a 75% reduced buffer which did not seem to match the intent. Mr. Lien offered to
research.
Councilmember Nelson referred to page 5 of the Gap Analysis Matrix, 23.40.220 Allowed Activities and
removal of invasive species, where it is proposed to add, “the application of herbicides, pesticides…or
other hazardous substances, if necessary…” He asked the rationale for adding that. Mr. Booy answered
per WDFW, Ecology, and King County guidelines for controlling invasive species, some are noxious and
persistent enough that chemical treatment is the recommended and preferred strategy such as Japanese
Packet Page 472 of 473
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 8, 2015
Page 17
Knotweed, Canary Grass, and Himalayan Blackberry. There are very tight guidelines regarding how
herbicides are applied to complete maintenance activities such as ensuring the herbicides are safe within
an aquatic environment. Councilmember Nelson asked whether the invasive species is more harmful than
the herbicide. Mr. Booy answered there is a balance; looking at the long term health of the system, if the
invasive species can be replaced with a native, forested community a lot more habitat value is provided.
Focused on habitat functions of the system, there is a reasonable expectation that there would be long
term good as long as the invasive species removal activities are consistent with available guidance.
Councilmember Nelson referred to page 24 of the Gap Analysis Matrix where the bald eagle is removed
because it has been delisted from the Endangered Species Act. He noted one of the things that nearly
wiped out bald eagles was pesticides. There is no reference to state and federal regulations that require
conferring with WDFW if development is done within 660 feet of a nest. Mr. Lien explained in the
existing code the bald eagle section 23.90.040 was specifically related to endangered, threatened and
sensitive species; the bald eagle no longer falls into that category. The regulations no longer apply since
the bald eagle was delisted.
Councilmember Nelson referred to the WDFW website which stated although the bald eagle is no longer
listed as state threatened specifies, it is still remains classified by WDFW as a state sensitive species and
because they are still vulnerable and may continue to decline, cities and counties may continue to protect
eagles under local critical area rules pursuant to the GMA. Mr. Lien agreed the City had that option.
There used to be 3-4 nests in Edmonds; in the past when development was proposed within that area,
developers were referred to the State for regulation. Since the bald eagle was delisted, this section of the
code has not been applied. Mr. Booy offered to research, noting in projects outside of Edmonds they have
looked at eagle nests through the WDFW requirements for certain kinds of activities such as pile driving.
Mayor Earling suggested Councilmembers refer any substantive questions to Mr. Lien prior to the next
work session.
Councilmember Mesaros suggested Council be provided the Washington State Noxious Weed Control
Board’s list of noxious weeds. He asked if there were other lists of noxious weeds. Mr. Lien explained the
noxious weed list the City uses is the Snohomish County Noxious Weed Board’s list because the State
Noxious Weed Board delegates to the County.
With regard to the bald eagle, Councilmember Mesaros suggested the code refer to the State regulations.
Mr. Lien encouraged Councilmembers to contact him with any specific issues they want addressed at the
September 22 meeting. He will provide additional information regarding bald eagles and restoration
projects. Council President Fraley-Monillas encouraged Councilmembers to refer questions to Mr. Lien as
only 60 minutes is scheduled for this item on September 22.
F. PRESENTATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH QUIET ZONE TECHNOLOGIES FOR
THE WAYSIDE HORN PROJECT
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the City solicited Requests for Qualifications/Proposals
and received three responses. A selection committee reviewed the responses and recommends Quiet Zone
Technologies as the preferred vendor. This is a professional services agreement as well as a design/build.
QZT will do the design of a trackside warming system at Dayton and Main Streets, a highly directional
sound generator that mimic railroad horns but in a small footprint that does not spread to the community
and reduces the footprint of the noise. It will be a welcome addition to Edmonds for anyone who lives or
recreates near the railroad tracks. The agreement for approximately $208,000 includes a management
reserve which can only be used by the vendor if specific tasks are authorized by the City. QZT’s portion
of the contract is approximately $189,000 split between the design and construction phases. The 2015
Packet Page 473 of 473