2015.10.06 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
SPECIAL MEETING
OCTOBER 6, 2015
6:30 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
1.(30 Minutes)Convene in executive session to discuss collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(4)(a)
BUSINESS MEETING
OCTOBER 6, 2015
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
2.(5 Minutes)Roll Call
3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda
4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.AM-8014 Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2015.
B.AM-8011 Approval of claim checks #216279 through #216383 dated September 24, 2015 for
$1,177,636.44 and claim checks #216384 through #216502 dated October 1, 2015 for
$840,178.61.
Approval of payroll check #61803 for $232.97 for the pay period September 1, 2015
through September 15, 2015.
C.AM-8012 Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61804 through #61815 for $527,006.93,
benefit checks #61816 through #61823 and wire payments of $478,300.18 for the pay
period September 16, 2015 through September 30, 2015.
D.AM-7997 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Michael Scott ($916.79) and from
Curt Cunningham ($400.00).
Packet Page 1 of 363
E.AM-7999 Police Department Surplus Property
F.AM-8000 ESCO IV Funding Use.
G.AM-8006 Adoption of an Ordinance for a site specific rezone request 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, as approved by the City Council on September 15, 2015. 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).
H.AM-8003 Amending ECC 8.48 adding Columbus Day as a Holiday for Parking Enforcement
5.PRESENTATIONS
A.(10 Minutes)
AM-8005
Proclamation in honor of Arts & Humanities month.
6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings
7.PUBLIC HEARING
A.(60 Minutes)
AM-8013
Public hearing on proposed amendments to the City of Edmonds Critical Area
Regulations contained in Chapters 23.40 - 23.90 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) and associated code amendments related to frequently
flooded areas in Chapter 19.00 ECDC and Chapter 21 ECDC.
8.REPORTS
A.(5 Minutes)
AM-8002
August 2015 Monthly Financial Report
9.STUDY ITEMS
A.(30 Minutes)
AM-8015
Update on Highway 99 Subarea Planning Process
10.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
11.(15 Minutes)Council Comments
12.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
13.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 363
AM-8014 4. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/06/2015
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 22, 2015.
Recommendation
Review and approve meeting minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attachment 1 - Draft Council Meeting Minutes.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - 09-22-15 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Form Review
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 10/02/2015 07:53 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/02/2015
Packet Page 3 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
September 22, 2015
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Ari Girouard, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Patrick Clark, Police Officer
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager
Kernen Lien, Senior 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 REAL ESTATE PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(c)
AND POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss
real estate per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) and potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the
executive session was scheduled to last approximately one hour 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. Others present were
City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, and City Clerk Scott Passey. At
7:01 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in Council Chambers that the executive session
would be extended for 10 minutes. The executive session concluded at 7:10 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:11 p.m. and led the flag salute.
WORK MEETING
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Mesaros.
Packet Page 4 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 2
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15,
2015
B. 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. EDMONDS HISTORICAL MUSEUM PRESENTATION REGARDING EDMONDS
SCARECROW FESTIVAL
Bill Nyberg, President, Edmonds Historical Museum, commented the City celebrated its 125th
anniversary this year; numerous community groups made that an exciting day and summer. The Historic
Society created a new gathering place, the Museum Plaza, which was dedicated on the City’s 125th
anniversary. The plaza is not yet done, bricks and tiles are still being laid and historical plaques are being
developed including one that will feature a walking tour/timeline of the City. A time capsule was placed
and benches will be installed. Over 400 bricks have been purchased by citizens in the community and are
still for sale. Bricks purchased to date will be installed in 2015, further purchases will be installed next
year due to weather. Over 120 people attended the Museum sponsored Old Settlers Picnic in the Park. On
October 26 the Cascade Symphony will honor the Museum with a special performance commemorating
the 125th anniversary. On November 13, the Museum will hold its third annual Heritage Day fundraiser at
Holy Rosary community center. This year they will recognize Floretum Garden Club, the Citizen of Year;
Edmonds in Bloom which celebrates 20 years of service to the community; and SnoKing Chorale which
celebrates 15 years and winners of the Scarecrow Contest will be announced. This year is the third annual
Scarecrow Contest; there were 50 scarecrows the first year, 100 last year and the hope this year is 125.
Councilmember Petso entered No Noggin’ Scarecrow into the contest. Damian announced the
scarecrow’s name is No Noggin’. Gus said they made a mistake last year; No Noggin actually gets his
head after Halloween. Some scarecrows don’t like birds but not always and No Noggin is the best,
scariest scarecrow of all.
Mr. Nyberg expressed appreciated for the Council’s support of the Museum
B. PLANNING BOARD REPORT
Planning Board Chair Neil Tibbott summarized the Planning Board activities, commenting much of what
has been done since the Board’s last report has been presented to the Council:
• Comprehensive Plan
Packet Page 5 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 3
o Extensive review of Transportation Element
o Reviewed seven other Elements and four other components
o Sent to City Council end of June and approved by City Council in July
• Planning Board retreat on June 25
o Held on June 24 at the Swedish Hospital boardroom at the suggestion of Council President
Fraley-Monillas
o Carl Zapora described hospital activities how Verdant relates to the City
o Reviewed the year’s activities and how to better prepare for meetings
• Two new Planning Board Members: Matthew Chung and Nathan Monroe
o Planning Board has diverse members with many unique talents who represent the City well
and use their skills to bring quality recommendations to the City Council.
• Held six public hearings
o Proposed Tree Code
o Comprehensive Plan
o Irreconcilable Applications code
o Marina Beach Park Master Plan
o Rezone of parcel at 220th & Hwy 99
o Critical Area Ordinance
Chair Tibbott explained the Planning Board provided its recommendation to the Council on the Marina
Beach Park Master Plan without quite enough time for the City Council to have the benefit of the written
record. The Planning Board had a robust discussion and he recommended in the future hearings be
scheduled to allow enough time between meetings to provide the Council the Planning Board’s written
record. He reported on current projects which include the code rewrite project and said the Planning
Board will soon begin the Hwy 99 subarea planning process.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Chair Tibbott and other Planning Board Members for their good
work. She acknowledged the Planning Board minutes are very detailed but she also enjoys watching the
meeting video. Although the Council was not provided the Planning Board’s minutes regarding the
Marina Beach Park Master Plan, several Councilmembers watched the meeting.
Councilmember Nelson thanked the Planning Board for the work they do. He concurred with Chair
Tibbott’s recommendation to allow time between meetings to provide the Council the Planning Board’s
written record, noting it was helpful to read about items the Planning Board deliberated on.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Tom Graff, Edmonds, resident of Pt. Edwards, referred to the critical area regulations update, explaining
he volunteers at the demonstration garden at the Hatchery and for the City of Seattle Parks Department,
primarily removing invasive species. He pointed out the City’s critical area regulations allow removal of
invasive species (page 19) and list species that can be removed without a permit. He noted the list
includes “Scott’s broom” which is actually “Scotch broom.” The list does not include alders, one of the
most hated plants/trees in the region. He suggested alders of less than 4-inch caliber be allowed to be
removed as they kill nearly everything it its way. If a native garden is desired, alder is not a tree to
include. He acknowledged a larger tree required a different effort; the State allows removal of alder under
4-inch caliber.
Fred Gouge, Edmonds, Port of Edmonds Commissioner, reported on activities at the Port in the last
three months:
• Jacobsen Marine has had a very big year
o Generated business for the fuel dock
Packet Page 6 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 4
o Provide full service facilities for existing and new customers
o Customers frequent restaurants, Harbor Inn and local merchants
o Long term customer base followed them to Edmonds
o Since arriving in Edmonds, added two full-time employees, both Snohomish County residents
• Puget Sound Express, half-day whale watching trips to San Juan Islands
o 155 trips and 4,500 passengers this summer
o Tour companies bringing people to Edmonds who may not otherwise visit
o Tours continue until mid -October and then cease until spring 2016
• Sea Jazz: Edmonds-Woodway High School students
o 35 performances on Wednesdays and Sundays.
o Anthony’s and Arnie’s provide food to performers
• Local Artists in Action
o Port partnered with Edmonds Arts Festival on weekends
• Waterfront Festival sponsored by Rotary
o 30,000 – 40,000 in attendance
• Coho Derby
o 970 tickets sold (the most ever)
o 287 fish weighed in
• Destination Port of Edmonds program partnering with merchants
• Daily Operations
o Guest moorage up 31%
o Boat launches up 16%
o 100% full in dry stack and water moorage
o Hired 9 seasonal employees
Council President Fraley-Monillas invited the Port to contact her to schedule a quarterly report.
Laura Johnson, Edmonds, observed the Meadowdale Playfields, Woodway Fields Phase 2 and 3 and
Civic Field on are on the Capital Facilities Plan She explained over the past month many citizens have
shared their extreme concern with crumb rubber athletic fields, bringing in experts and providing enough
studies to seriously question their safety. She hoped since the Council now has this information prior to
any decisions or partnerships, that they show extreme caution and put the health of children, citizens, and
the environment first as well as the City’s financial health and reputation. The State, the CPSC and many
other groups are looking into the safety of crumb rubber infill and the synthetic carpet. Crumb rubber is
full of toxins and carcinogens and has great potential for harm to humans and environment and there are
alternatives. More research needs to be done with regard to synthetic turf; it appears it may contain
phthalates which violate the new ruling from the CPSC as well as the Washington State’s Children’s Safe
Products Act. She urged the Council to take this into consideration and decide what side of the issue they
want to be on. She hoped the Council would choose the side of caution and put human and environmental
health first.
7. STUDY ITEMS
A. POLICE DEPARTMENT SURPLUS PROPERTY
Chief Compaan explained the Edmonds City Code requires Council authorization to sell or dispose of
surplus property. He referred to an inventory sheet in the agenda memo, seeking authorization to send the
surplus property items to auction or disposal.
Council President Fraley-Monillas observed there appeared to be a lot of electronics including a lot of
cameras, most of which are recommended for destruction. Chief Compaan answered the small, pocket
Packet Page 7 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 5
sized digital cameras used in the field; when they stop working they are not repairable and not worth
anything; therefore they are recommended for disposal.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this for approval on the next Consent Agenda.
B. 2015 NONREPRESENTED COMPENSATION STUDY
Human Resources Manager Mary Ann Hardie explained the packet contains three options for comparator
cities:
1. Snohomish, Pierce and King county comparator cities
• Staff’s recommendation as the most relevant to the current market
2. Historic comparator cities plus policy comparator
3. Current policy comparator cities adopted in the Non-Represented Compensation Policy in 2012
including cities in King, Snohomish, Pierce, Thurston and Kitsap counties.
Ms. Hardie explained there are not huge and significant differences between the three groups in terms of
salary ranges. However, should Council choose to adopt total cost of compensation ranges, some changes
would be required. With regard to the comparator cities in Snohomish, King, and Pierce counties, Ms.
Hardy explained the City loses and attracts employees primarily from those counties and the salary ranges
closely match the current nonrepresented salary ranges.
She relayed recommendations for two positions that are significantly lower than the marketplace that staff
recommends adjusting:
• Assistant Police Chief – based on external comparators, the position is about 2.5% below in
deferred compensation for this position. She clarified that includes salary and other cash benefits
as part of total compensation. It is common for the Assistant Chief and the Police Chief positions
in other cities to receive additional pay such as incentive, longevity, etc. which provides an
incentive for promotion opportunity when they leave a union position as well as avoids
compression with commissioned positions.
• HR Assistant – position is approximately 4% lower than current median pay. There has been a
slight adjustment in the marketplace since the part-time position was established three years ago.
She relayed a recommendation to adjust the minimum salary range, explaining the minimums and
medians are about 4% below across the board with all comparator cities. From a recruitment perspective,
although the Mayor has the option of starting a position at Step 2 or 3 as needed, it makes recruitment
more difficult. This is especially important because the nonrepresented group is paraprofessional and
some of the most educated in terms of tenure and experience. She requested Council input regarding the
policy cities and the recommendation on the two other issues.
Councilmember Petso thanked Ms. Hardie for meeting with her this afternoon to address several
questions. Between now and the next time the Council looks at this, she requested the recommendation
for the HR Analyst position be reevaluated. She understood the recommendation for the Assistant Chief;
while the salary was similar, there was a significant difference in total compensation due to extra benefits.
However, the HR Analyst position does not illustrate the same significant difference to justify the
recommendation.
Councilmember Petso clarified if the policy were changed to compare only to Snohomish, King and
Pierce counties, Lacey and Bremerton would no longer be used as comparable. Ms. Hardie agreed.
Councilmember Petso observed there is often not a comparable position in another city and asked if that
would be even more difficult if Lacey and Bremerton were not included. Ms. Hardie answered there are
other cities in Snohomish, King and Pierce counties that could be used as comparators that were not
Packet Page 8 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 6
included in the study. She clarified the recommendation for the salary adjustment was for the HR
Assistant, not the Analyst. The HR Assistant is a part-time, hourly position that works 20 hours a week.
When comparing to Admin Assistant type positions, it was very low, making it a fairness and equity
issue. Councilmember Petso said she would reconsider her suggestion.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled an extensive study was done three years ago and a great deal of time
was spent in executive session. She observed the market had not changed that much since then, for
example there has been a stagnant interest rate and cost of living has not increased much. With regard to
the recommended position adjustments, she did not see much change for the HR Assistant and Assistant
Police Chief. Ms. Hardie agreed looking at comparison of salary range across the board there were not
significant differences. The averages Snohomish, King and Pierce County reflect 2-3% to the City’s
current positions.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why Bremerton and Lacey were removed as comparator cities. Ms.
Hardie said the Snohomish, King and Pierce County comparators do not include Kitsap County
(Bremerton) or Thurston County (Lacey). The City’s current policy includes Snohomish, King, Pierce,
Kitsap and Thurston counties. She recalled staff pointed out at a previous meeting the City’s labor market
is where employees are lost to and attracted from. In response to a question by Councilmember Johnson at
a previous meeting regarding specific employees that have left Edmonds, her research found 5-6
individuals that were lost to Snohomish, King and Pierce counties. Aside from one employee the City
attracted from Bremerton, Phil Williams, the City had not hired anyone else from Bremerton in the last 10
years. In leveling the labor market, geographical cost of living differentials are very complicated.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the consultant included Kitsap and Thurston counties due to interest
in their population, not the county. Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite explained the
consultant, Matt Weatherly, recommended using King, Snohomish County and Pierce counties. The
Council had a lengthy discussion with the consultant and discussion at least four Council meetings to
define the parameter cities and ended up defining it as the greater Puget Sound region; Kitsap and
Thurston counties were added at the Council’s request. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested staff
provide the Council the minutes of those discussions. She expressed concern with paying a consultant for
that information and suddenly changing it three years later.
For Council President Fraley-Monillas, Ms. Hardie said the population of Bremerton is 38,000-39,000
and Lacey is approximately 46,000. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented Lacey is full of State
employees so that is where their salaries come from.
Councilmember Johnson expressed concern with changing the number of steps because when the Council
reviewed this three years ago, a specific effort was made to put all employees on a seven-step schedule.
Reducing the steps to six eroded that previous work. She suggested another approach to address that
problem.
Councilmember Petso commented the problem is not as large as it appears; staff has the ability to hire
employees above the first step. For example, if the first step is not competitive, staff can hire someone at
step two without Council making any changes to the steps. It was her understanding staff could also hire
someone at step three or above with approval of Mayor. Ms. Hardie agreed. Councilmember Petso
concluded if the salary ranges were not changed, staff could vary the step someone was hired on if a
particularly applicant/circumstances warrants. Ms. Hardie answered yes, if Mayor agrees.
Mayor Earling commented the City currently has 44 nonrepresented employees; about half are
supervisors, managers or directors. He was hopeful the Council would consider the total cost of
compensation, observing the Council appeared to be favorable to doing that for the Assistant Police Chief
Packet Page 9 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 7
position. There are others positions in the management group that need a similar adjustment. With regard
to hiring employees above first step, he recalled in at least two cases the top candidate was ready to accept
a position but hiring them requiring doing so above the first step in order to be competitive, illustrating
there is not always consistency in the transferability of higher positions. He also urged the Council to
consider using King, Snohomish, and Pierce County as comparators because they provide better
comparatives. For example, although Bremerton has a similar population, the cost of living is lower.
Comparator Cities
Councilmember Petso recommended leaving the comparator cities as it was in the existing policy with
five cities. She acknowledged it was possible Bremerton and Lacey do not accurately reflect the cost of
living difference but they may make it up in the ability of the cities to pay which is also a factor for her.
She found it valuable to have more cities with relevant data.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said the cost of living is actually higher in Seattle and Pierce County
than in Snohomish County. If cost of living is compared in individual areas, comparators in King and
Pierce that were higher than Snohomish County would give a false reading. She was supportive of not
including Kitsap County but felt Thurston County was a very thriving county in same corridor and its cost
of living was more similar to Snohomish County, maybe not to Edmonds, than Seattle or Pierce County.
She considered the cities more than the counties.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with including Thurston County. Her review of the data found Lacey
lines up with a lot of Edmonds’s minimum, maximum and mid-point. She agreed there were a lot of State
employees in Lacey and it was a “treasure-trove” of good information.
Mayor Earling commented while Snohomish County may be lower overall, he encouraged the Council to
think of Edmonds in competition with south Snohomish County which includes Shoreline and Seattle.
Ms. Hardie clarified cities in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties that would be used are Burien,
Sammamish and Issaquah; Burier and Issaquah are already comparator cities. Further, the survey does not
use the State as a comparator; the State has a different compensation system based on points. She noted
the City of Seattle uses Edmonds as one of its comps.
Councilmember Nelson found eliminating Kitsap County acceptable.
Councilmember Bloom asked what cities in Kitsap County were used as comparators. Ms. Hardie
answered Bremerton whose population is 38,000-39,000. Councilmember Bloom preferred to retain an
additional city in the pool for better averaging.
Councilmember Johnson said her concern with the three options was in Option 1, staff’s recommendation
to include Snohomish, King and Pierce counties, Lynnwood is only other city in Snohomish County. In
Option 2 there is Lynnwood, Marysville and Shoreline and Kirkland. She asked why staff recommended
abandoning the current policy compactor cities for a smaller group of cities. Ms. Hardie answered Option
2 includes current policy comparator cities and historic city comparators. Option 1, comparator cities in
Snohomish County, King and Pierce counties includes Lynnwood; Marysville is no longer comparable as
its population is 63,000. She summarized adopting a three county policy would still include Lynnwood.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why Lakewood was no longer included, recalling it tracked well with
Edmonds. Ms. Hardie said Lakewood’s population estimate is 58,000. She noted there may be other
factors the Council may want to consider in the future such as assessed valuation, etc.
Packet Page 10 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 8
Ms. Hardie summarized Council direction: current policy compactors and removing Kitsap. Council
agreed.
Adjustment to Minimum Salary Ranges
Councilmember Petso expressed support for both recommendations.
Mayor Earling summarized as there was no further Council comment, he assumed other Councilmembers
were in agreement.
C. ESCO IV FUNDING USE
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this is the fourth Energy Services Company (ESCO) that
the City has engaged in. The Council originally approved a small contract between Edmonds and
Ameresco to develop this ESCO IV project. There was an assumption that the City would quality for a
Department of Commerce grant as has occurred in the past; two-thirds of the applications submitted
during the application period were not funded including Edmonds’. The budget included $210,000 in
local funds, anticipating $65,000 in grant funds. The bulk of the scope of work was replacing the HVAC
units on top of the Library Plaza Room, an energy savings project but they are worn out and need to be
replaced. The scope also included monitoring and designing improvements to the steam trap in the
Frances Anderson Center boiler system and upgrading to LED six decorative Sternberg lights in the
waterfront area, lighting on the Fishing Pier and streetlights the City owns.
Mr. Williams explained all three projects could have been funded with $275,000; without the grant, he
requested authorization to proceed with the funds budgeted and reduce the scope by removing the Fishing
Pier lights which will be part of the Fishing Pier rehab and the streetlights which staff will determine a
method of replacing in the future and upgrade the six Sternberg lights as they fail. He noted the energy
savings from lighting upgrades versus the capital cost of the LED lights are not sufficient unless there are
grant funds to offset the cost. Replacing the six Sternberg lights as they fail will reduce the cost by
$12,400.
Councilmember Petso inquired about the funding source for the match. Mr. Williams answered it was the
General Fund. He pointed out the energy savings of upgrading lighting is the Department of Commerce’s
only consideration when granting funds. From the City’s perspective, the savings would be larger because
over a 15-year period, high pressure sodium bulbs would need to be replaced 6-7 times which requires a
truck, bulbs and employees, versus LED bulbs which would only need to be replaced once in a 15 year
period. He summarized the savings of lighting upgrades are much greater as they relate to maintenance
than in energy usage.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on a future Consent Agenda.
D. PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2016-2021 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
(CFP)/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
Mr. English provided a diagram showing components found only in the CIP and only in the CFP and
components found in both the CIP and CFP. The CIP contains 6-year maintenance projects with funding
sources, the CFP contains long range (20-year) capital project needs, and both contain 6-year capital
projects with funding sources. The 2016-2021 CFP contains three project sections:
• General
o Parks, buildings and regional projects
• Transportation
o Safety/capacity and pedestrian/bicycle
• Stormwater
Packet Page 11 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 9
Mr. English provided a summary of CIP fund numbers and the department managing each fund:
Fund Description Department
112 Transportation Public Works
113 Multimodal Transportation Community Services
116 Buildings Maintenance Public Works
125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/Public Works
126 Special Capital/Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/Public Works
129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation
132 Parks- Construction (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation
421 Water Projects Public Works
422 Storm Projects Public Works
423 Sewer Projects Public Works
423 Wastewater Treatment Plant Public Works
He displayed a photograph of the 228th corridor project that will connect Highway 99 and 76th and install
signals at Highway 99 & 228th as well as 76th & 228th. Grinding and paving will be done in October;
project will continue into 2016. He displayed a photograph of the stormwater detention vault for the 228th
project, a vault that will collect and detain stormwater which helps minimize peak discharge, especially
important in the Lake Ballinger Watershed.
Mr. English displayed a photograph of a pavement grinder on 220th, grinding pavement in advance of
paving that will follow later this week assuming good weather. He highlighted projects in the 112 Street
Fund:
• Pavement Preservation Program
o 9.6 Paved Lane Miles (Construction)
o $1.03M Proposed Budget for 2016
• 228th Corridor Improvements (Construction)
• SR99 Lighting Phase 3 (Construction)
• 238th St. Walkway (Construction)
• 2015 Transportation Comp Plan (Completed)
• SR104 Corridor Study (Final Draft)
He highlighted 2016 projects in the 112 Street Fund:
• 76th/212th Intersection Improvements (2016)
• Citywide Bicycle Improvements (2016)
• 236th St. Walkway (2016)
Transportation projects funded with 126/125 REET funds include:
• 2016 Pavement Preservation Program (126/125)
• Trackside Warning System Main/Dayton (126)
• Signal Cabinet Upgrades (126)
• Curb Ramp Upgrades Program (126)
• ADA Transition Plan Update(126)
• 2016 Traffic Calming Program (126)
• SR99 Access Management Study (126)
• Minor Sidewalk Program (126)
Packet Page 12 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 10
He displayed a photograph of components of a watermain replacement and identified other projects
funded by the Water Utility Fund (421):
• 8,200 ft Watermain Replacement (Construction)
• Replacement of 2 PRV’s (Construction)
• Overlay 1,700 feet of street affected by waterline replacements (Construction)
• 8,000 ft of Watermain Replacement (2016)
• Replacement of 1 PRV’s (2016)
Mr. English displayed a photograph of a stormwater project and identified other projects funded by the
Stormwater Utility Fund (422):
• 238th St. Drainage Improvements(Construction)
• Willow Creek Daylight Feasibility Study (2015)
• SW Edmonds 105th/106th Improvements (2016)
• Dayton St Pump Station; Design(2016)
• Seaview Infiltration Project; Design (2016)
• Willow Cr/Edmonds Marsh; Design (2016)
• Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Update (2016-17)
Mr. English displayed a photograph of a sewer main replacement project and identified other projects
funded by the Sewer Utility Fund (423):
• 2,700 ft sewermain replacement (Construction)
• Pavement overlay on 500 ft of street affected by sewermain replacements (Construction)
• 3,000 ft sewermain replacement (2016)
• 5,800 ft CIPP sewermain rehabilitation (2016)
• WWTP Improvements
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite displayed photographs and described highlights of the Park CIP
2015:
• City Park spray area
• Dayton Street Plaza
• 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
• Historical plaques and lighting project
• Marina Beach Master Plan
• Repairs needed at Yost: $120,000 for spa rebuild (REET 125)
• Anderson Center stage replacement (REET 125)
• Veteran’s Plaza (REET 125)
• Fishing Pier Rehab (Fund 132)
o $1.3 million grants for a $1.5 million project
o Planning Board Member Val Stewart is coordinating work with students
o Council President Fraley-Monillas connected staff with fishermen/women to do upgrades to
amenities
o Construction March/April
• Edmonds Marsh, daylighting of Willow Creek (125/132)
She highlighted Parks CFP 2015 projects:
• Civic Center acquisition
• Woodway HS Athletic Complex
o 655,000 set aside
o $2.5 million Verdant
o $500,000 Edmonds School District
Packet Page 13 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 11
o $750,000 State appropriation
Ms. Hite was hopeful there could be a ribbon cutting of the Spray Park in late September but it may be
completed and then winterized and a ribbon cutting held in May. With regard to the Woodway HS
Athletic Complex, she recalled the Council gave the City Attorney direction to work with Edmonds
School District (ESD) on an ILA; staff has not yet heard from the District. She advised the fields are
nearly completed and will be open for school use next Monday and open for community use in two
weeks. She identified projects in the Parks CIP 2016:
• Parklet development
• Outdoor Fitness Zones
• City Gateway Replacement
Projects in the Parks CFP 2016 include:
• Meadowdale Playfields
o Partnership between Edmonds, ESD, Lynnwood and Snohomish County
Interlocal Agreement effective until 2025.
Interlocal Agreement gives each party a role in decision-making
Lynnwood taking lead with regarding to financing which includes a financial
contribution from Edmonds
• Locate, construct and maintain a downtown restroom
• Senior/Community Center Walkway Design
• Civic Center Master Plan
She recommended consideration of the following changes to the Park CFP 2016:
• Delete Edmonds SnoIsle Library
• Delete Boys and Girls Club Building
• Change Arts Center/Art Museum to Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study
Mr. English reviewed the CFP/CIP schedule:
• July
o City Staff begins development of capital budgets
• August/September
o Submit proposed capital budget to Finance
o Prepare Draft CFP and CIP
o City Council presentation
• October
o Planning Board public hearing (October 16th)
o City Council public hearing (October 20th)
• November/December
o City Council approval
o Adopt CFP w/ budget into the Comprehensive Plan
o Exhibit C comparison matrix that shows changes.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled discussion about existing venues during the Council’s consideration
of the Edmonds Conference Center acquisition and the Community Cultural Plan. She preferred not to
include either an Arts Center/Art Museum or a Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study in the CFP. Ms. Hite
explained the recommendation was to change Arts Center/Art Museum to Cultural Arts Facility Needs
Study to determine if private and/or non-profit partners are meeting the need in the community and if not,
to reconsider an Arts Center/Art Museum and if so, possibly partnering/collaborating, not necessarily
creating another facility. The Community Cultural Plan did not include a needs study; the community was
Packet Page 14 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 12
very interested in determining whether a new museum was needed. Ms. Hite estimated the cost of a study
to be $50,000.
With regard to citywide signage, Councilmember Buckshnis recalled discussion a few years ago about
modernizing the logo, etc. She recognized such an effort would be extremely expensive. She asked
whether the plan was to continue using the same wooden structures and Welcome to Edmonds. Ms. Hite
responded that is the plan; she was open to Council discussion such as spending a year planning,
considering the logo, branding, etc. although that would cost money and time. Staff could consider
different sign designs using the same logo which would not cost as much or take as long. Councilmember
Buckshnis understood the old signs because Edmonds was formerly a mill town but many may not
identify with that anymore. Ms. Hite explained a master sign plan was adopted; as park signs are replaced,
the new font, color, design and look are used. That plan did not identify the large gateway signs but that
plan can be used to guide in the replacement of the gateway signs. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed
consistent signage will be importance, particularly when the Westgate gateway is designed.
Councilmember Johnson questioned whether the October 16 Planning Board public hearing and the
October 20 City Council public hearing provided enough time for the Council to review the results of the
Planning Board public hearing before making a decision. Mr. English recalled the Council typically holds
a public hearing on both documents and then deliberates and makes a decision at a later meeting. Effort
will be made to include the October 16 Planning Board minutes in the Council packet.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested moving the Council public hearing to October 27. Mr.
English said October 27 is a study session and typically public hearings are held at a business meeting.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said a public hearing could be held at a study session. Mr. English
agreed.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Council had given final design approval for the
Veteran’s Plaza. Ms. Hite responded Council approved a concept from Site Workshop with walls, service
emblems and a meditative garden area. A few changes have been made as a result of concern in the
community with the significant size of the walls and having each service branded on the walls. The new
design sites all the branches on one wall, bringing honor to anyone who served in any capacity, not
honoring just the branches. The concept is very similar. She offered to invite the community group to
present the slightly revised concept to the Council.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she has been contacted by two individuals who, observing this is a
community space in perpetuity, felt there had not been enough public input from members of the
community who were not in the military. She suggested creating an opportunity for more public input into
the project prior to completing the design. Ms. Hite reminded the Council that the community group
charged with creating a Veteran’s Plaza had been at Council a few times, a public hearing was held and
Council officially gave them the go-ahead. The community group has been fundraising this plan
($475,000) and the design is almost at 60% design and out for survey. The project is quite far down road
to introduce more public input for changes. The changes are in the design concept now and it would be an
appropriate time for the community group to present them to Council.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said at least a couple citizens would like to provide input to the
Council. Ms. Hite said two citizens provided input to the community group which resulted in some of the
proposed changes. She suggested Council President Fraley-Monillas refer those two individuals to the
committee or that they provide comment to Council. She did not support another public hearing on the
concept the Council has already approved because the community group is diligently raising funds for
that concept. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the two individuals met with community group and
Packet Page 15 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 13
did not feel their voices were heard. She will speak to the two individuals and suggest they provide
comment to Council.
Councilmember Buckshnis cited one change; the Off Leash Area Edmonds (OLAE) is raising funds to
include a K-9 veteran in the plaza. She felt the concept looked great. Ms. Hite said the community group
is very open to suggestions and are working with the landscape architect to finalize the design
development. At least one individual provided input recently and changes were made based on that input.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said he contacted her after his meeting with the community group and
felt he was not being heard.
It was the consensus of the City Council for Ms. Hite to ask the community group make a presentation to
the Council. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she would invite the citizens to make comment.
Councilmember Petso referred to audience comment tonight regarding the Meadowdale Fields project and
asked if now was the time to be more specific with regard to the designation in the Comprehensive Plan if
a majority of Council was interested in doing that. Ms. Hite answered it could be done now; that project
has three other partners so it is not just the City’s decision. Councilmember Petso asked whether it would
be preferable to remove that project from the plan to see what the legislature or Attorney General’s office
does with issues that have been presented to the State. Ms. Hite responded taking it out of the plan would
mean the City would not go as a forward a partner. Edmonds needs to include funds in the plan and have
a vested interest in order to continue utilizing the fields. The existing ILA includes termination clauses
and ESD could terminate the ILA if Edmonds shows it does not want to be a partner and will not be at the
table to discuss the plan. Removing the project from the CFP could jeopardize the partnership.
Councilmember Petso asked what happened if the Attorney General rules it is against the Children’s Safe
Products Act. Ms. Hite responded if the Attorney General made a statewide ruling, ESD, City of
Lynnwood, Snohomish County as well as Edmonds would be impacted. There are four partners on the
project; Edmonds either needs to be in and be part of the process and decision-making or completely out
and not even be at the table.
Councilmember Petso asked the same question with regard to subsequent phases of Woodway Fields. For
example how to address the CFP saying there will be lights, but the Hearing Examiner says there will not
be. Ms. Hite said the description reflects what the plan has been all along. The plan has been to have
lights at the fields. The Hearing Examiner ruled on the variance with regard to permits for lights; ESD is
still interested in having lights and will have to go through the permit process to do that. An ILA with
ESD is currently being negotiated to provide the City more decision-making in the partnership; to the
extent that occurs, the remaining phases would occur in partnership with ESD.
Councilmember Petso asked about the field surface on subsequent phases. Ms. Hite clarified the project is
currently in the CFP; if the City decides not to sign the ILA, the City is no longer a partner and not
contributing to the project, scheduling or maintaining. If language can be negotiated in the ILA that is
amenable to Council and the Council signs the ILA, it makes sense to keep Phases 2 and 3 in the CFP
with that same language for future development. Councilmember Petso asked if Ms. Hite was suggesting
the Council not take final action on the CFP until the ILA is resolved. Ms. Hite recommended keeping the
project in the CFP to preserve options and allow Council discussion and decisions. If Council at some
point decides they do not want to be a partner and not contribute funds, it can be removed from the CFP.
She preferred to keep it in the CFP to retain options.
Councilmember Petso recalled the Council approved the TIP three weeks ago. Since that time a number
of projects identified in the TIP as funded from the General Fund are now identified as funded from the
126 Fund. She asked why that change was made. Mr. English responded the largest reason for changes
Packet Page 16 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 14
was the budget process; the TIP was developed in June. Councilmember Petso observed an additional $2
million is now being spent from the 126 Fund which is the only capital fund that can be used for property
acquisition. If $2 million in expenditures is transferred into the 125 Fund, those funds cannot be used for
property acquisition. Mr. English agreed, pointing out funds were not being spent from the 126 Fund,
they are being transferred to different funds for projects.
Councilmember Petso said sometimes the CIP is not consistent with the TIP and that is attributed to
differences in timing. This year the Council approved the TIP three weeks ago; she asked whether they
should be consistent under those circumstances. Mr. English answered staff tries to make them consistent
but project expenses are typically good for that date and there has been a lot of back and forth on the
budget in recent weeks and numbers change. As an example, Councilmember Petso asked whether the
Council should amend the TIP if the Council chose to pay for the trackside warning system from the
General Fund as it states in the TIP versus from the 126 Fund. Mr. English answered the TIP could be
amended but it could also be corrected next year.
With regard to the Meadowdale Fields, Councilmember Nelson observed the existing ILA language
includes allows negotiation of changes in the infill when it expires or needs to be replaced. Ms. Hite
agreed. Councilmember Nelson noted that language does not currently exist for the Woodway HS Fields.
Ms. Hite agreed, noting the language in the Meadowdale Playfield ILA allows Council to make decisions
at the design and design development level. She was also at table in that process and Edmonds’ feelings
about crumb rubber would not be a surprise to Lynnwood or ESD.
Councilmember Nelson asked where parklets and fitness zones would be located. Ms. Hite answered
there is a parklet location selected on the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor in the triangle area near Edmonds
Center for the Arts. There is also a business downtown that is interested in developing parklet outside
their business. That prompted the development of a policy to ensure a fair/equitable process for
developing a parklet in a parking space outside a business. Usually parklets are temporary and do not
have a high cost but add flavor and culture to the City. Mathay Ballinger is being considered for a fitness
zone as it is in a higher use area and public health statistic indicate the demographics do not have access
to fitness. Another potential location for a fitness zone is City Park to allow adults to work out while
children play in the spray pad and play area
Councilmember Nelson said he looked forward to being at the spray park ribbon cutting rain or shine.
Councilmember Bloom expressed appreciation for Councilmembers Petso and Nelson’s questions about
the Meadowdale Field and appreciated that the City of Edmonds would be at the table. She asked who at
Snohomish County would be a partner. Ms. Hite answered Snohomish County Parks and the County
Council adopted the ILA between Edmonds, Lynnwood, ESD and Snohomish County. The City of
Lynnwood has since renegotiated an ILA looking at exclusive use of Meadowdale Playfields if Edmonds
were ever to terminate its interest. She has represented that Edmonds is not planning to terminate its
interest; there are no other full size fields in the City’s park system, therefore the Meadowdale Playfields
are utilized quite significantly.
Councilmember Bloom asked when the ILA regarding the Woodway Fields would be presented to the
Council. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered it has been in ESD’s court quite a while; the City could
hear back from ESD any day.
Councilmember Bloom observed the funding estimate and timeframe for the year-round market had been
eliminated; she recalled the previous funding estimate was $5 million. Ms. Hite said a lot of projects are
unfunded and unplanned due to other priorities or not enough money to fund it. There is currently no
Packet Page 17 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 15
funding source for that project. If Council is interested in moving that project forward, a funding source
could be identified.
Councilmember Bloom observed outdoor fitness zone was scheduled in 2017 and $50,000 is allocated.
Ms. Hite said the timeframe is 2016. The intent is $50,000 from REET and to apply for $75,000 in grant
funding.
Councilmember Bloom observed the costs for the alternatives study extend from 2016 into 2017. If the
study is prioritizing near term solutions for emergency access; she asked whether the analysis should be
completed before 2017. Mr. English answered the alternatives analysis study has not started yet. A task
force has been formed, an RFQ process completed and two consultants will be interviewed tomorrow.
The projected timeline is 14-18 months due to the scope/magnitude of the project which takes it into early
2017.
Councilmember Bloom recalled the Sunset Avenue Walkway was discussed as part of the Comprehensive
Plan discussion and recalled a Councilmember made a motion to eliminate the multi-use aspect [motion
was not approved]. She also recalled Councilmember Petso referenced data that 8 feet was not sufficient
for a multi-use path. Mr. Williams answered staff is still researching the standards/guidelines that
Councilmember Petso cited. He explained the initial preference was a 10-foot path with a 2-foot shy zone
but there is simply not enough space for that. Therefore an 8-foot path was used in the pilot project. The
question becomes whether that is too narrow for bicycles, pedestrians and other non-motorized traffic to
coexist comfortably and safely which was one of the reasons for the pilot project. The pilot project has
reached the end of a year and two reports have been made to the Council about what has been learned and
the data collected. That effort has not been completed; an online survey will be available shortly. When
all the information is gathered, another report will be made to the Council.
Mr. Williams explained the type of traffic to include on the walkway will be one of the considerations of
a permanent project, whether to include bicycles, whether the width is sufficient to accommodate bicycle
traffic that has been observed. Bicycle traffic has been fairly low volume and low speed. Efforts were
made to address bicycle traffic via signs for a 10 speed limit and for the most part cyclists have complied.
There have not been any accidents between bicycles and pedestrians in the past year and it is not felt to be
a significant hazard at this point. NACTO recommends a 10-foot minimum width for a path with all types
of traffic; the path can be narrower in a location where the use is limited. He did not find that to be the
situation on Sunset Avenue; it is very well used. He summarized width will be an issue when and if a
project is designed.
Councilmember Bloom asked when the design will come back to the Council and when will the public
have an opportunity to be actively involved; people have been asking for a Town Hall meeting or other
opportunity to ask questions and provide input. Her understanding was the test period concluded in
August. Mr. Williams said the end of the yearlong pilot project was September 14, 2015. Once the survey
results are available, all the information will be present to Council and a public meeting can be scheduled,
whether it is a Town Hall, public hearing before the Council, public meeting, etc. He agreed some type of
public meeting would be a useful part of the process.
Councilmember Bloom asked what information will be evaluated. Mr. Williams advised data collection
has included observation, monitoring, accident and speed data, past survey data as well as an online
survey at the end of the yearlong pilot project. Councilmember Bloom asked if the Council would have an
opportunity to review the survey questions. Mr. Williams offered to send her the questions, noting staff is
still working on the questions.
Packet Page 18 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 16
Councilmember Bloom observed the cost of the Sunset Avenue Walkway had increased from $1.9
million to $2.35. Mr. Williams answered until the scope of the project is known, the cost is unknown. A
number was developed quite a long time ago associated with a full size Sunset Avenue Walkway that
included a raised, decorative pathway all along the west side of the street. The project will likely look
different than original scope, be less expensive and robust with fewer improvements and concentrated on
the two ends. He did not see the cost estimate being particularly relevant but it could be reduced if the
Council wished. Councilmember Bloom asked if the goal was to have that decision made before the
Council votes on the CIP/CFP. Mr. Williams answered the cost estimate would not be changed unless the
Council requested. The exact scope of the project will not be completed by the time the CIP/CFP is
adopted.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
E. CONTINUED REVIEW OF CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS UPDATE
Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained this is the second in-depth review with the Council of the Critical
Area Ordinance (CAO) update. As he did not receive any questions from Councilmembers as a result of
the first review, he will highlight a few items in the update. He described critical area restoration projects:
• New Section ECDC 23.40.215
• Provide relief from standard critical area buffer for restoration projects that is not required as
mitigation for a development proposal
• Restoration Project involves:
o The day-lighting of a stream, or
o Creation or expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of the wetland
and/or wetland buffer
In response to a Council comment at the previous meeting, whether the restoration provisions were tight
enough and whether a 1-inch expansion of a wetland would allow a substantially reduced buffer, the
restoration project relief was amended slightly:
• Expanded buffer: that portion of the stream or wetland buffer that extended landward as a result
of the restoration project (not associated with a development proposal)
• May apply a buffer that is not less than 75% of the expanded buffer
• Request a buffer between 50% and 75% of expanded 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 provided a drawing of an example of an existing wetland with a 50 buffer, expanded buffer and
a 75% relief buffer. He reviewed changes made in response to a comment at the September 8 presentation
that the estuarine wetland buffer was missing from the wetland buffer categories:
• Added Category I – Estuarine Wetland Buffers to ECDC 23.50.040.F
• Modified Category III wetland buffers to be consistent with the Guidance for Small Jurisdictions
He reviewed changes made in response to a comment at the September 8 presentation regarding Bald
Eagle habitat:
• Existing provisions under Endangered, Threaten, and Sensitive Species
o References WAC 232-12-292
o Only applies when threatened or endangered in Washington State
• Added new section ECDC 23.90.040.E referencing Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act
Packet Page 19 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 17
Mr. Lien highlighted changes related to critical area report and determinations:
• Critical area reports and determinations valid for 5 years
• Critical area determination after 5-years
o New determination, or
o New assessment verifying previous determination
• Critical area report after 5-years
o Determine if revision or additional assessment necessary
He highlighted changes to allowed activities and exemptions:
• ECDC 23.40.220.C.7 – Select Vegetation Removal
• ECDC 23.40.230.C.2 – Operation and Maintenance includes normal maintenance of vegetation
performed in accordance with best management practices
o Would allow removal of alder seedlings
• “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.
He highlighted new provisions related to penalties for critical area violations – ECDC 23.40.240.E:
• Currently references tree cutting penalties in ECDC 18.45
• Maintain reference to tree cutting penalties, and
• $3 per square foot penalty of impacted critical area and critical area buffer
He reviewed next steps:
• Comments from state and tribal agencies (Commerce, Ecology, WDFW)
• October 6: City Council Public Hearing
• Consideration for Adoption
Councilmember Petso asked if the City has to follow Best Available Science (BAS) in developing the
CAO or does BAS only have to have been considered. Mr. Lien answered generally BAS has to be
followed; jurisdictions can deviate from BAS if there is a documented reason to do so. For example, the
City deviated with regard to the restoration project, allowing a buffer reduction to 50%; that is not really
supported by BAS but it provides a net benefit to critical areas. Other things that may be a slight deviation
from BAS include physically separated and functionally isolated; that has not been studied and there is no
peer review report but because Edmonds was developed prior to adoption of critical area and
environmental regulations, the intent is to provide a net benefit to critical areas. Mr. Taraday said in
looking at this in the context of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and Shoreline Management
Program (SMP), BAS is a factor but not the only factor jurisdictions are allowed to consider. He offered
to provide a more detailed explanation in the future.
Councilmember Petso referred to development within the previously developed footprint, noting that also
may not be entirely consistent with BAS. She suggested gravel be deleted from the definition of
previously developed footprint. She questioned why gravel and a structure would be treated the same; she
acknowledged a 5-story structure represented previously developed but gravel will revegetate. Mr. Lien
answered the interim ordinance regarding previously developed footprint defined developed footprint as
all impervious surface areas which included gravel. He displayed an aerial of stream between two house
and photograph of the stream adjacent to a gravel parking area. By the definition, that is a previously
developed area. If a garage was added to that area, it would not be adding new impervious surface and by
allowing some development in exchange of the buffer achieves a net benefit to critical areas instead of no
change to the buffer if no development is allowed. Gravel is listed because it is an impervious area and
the addition of a building would not increase the impervious surface area.
Packet Page 20 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 18
Councilmember Petso commented she has never had impervious gravel; the gravel she has experienced is
pervious to water, vegetation, etc. Mr. Lien said gravel is defined as an impervious surface in the State
stormwater regulations. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Council could change the definition of
previously developed area to be only structures. Mr. Lien answered the definition of previously developed
area could be changed; the existing definition includes gravel, blacktop, structures, and several other
things.
Councilmember Petso recalled discussion at the September 8th meeting about buffer reduction and buffer
averaging; it was her understanding averaging was a better way to protect critical area buffers. Mr. Lien
responded both buffer averaging and buffer reduction are allowed but buffer averaging is preferred. A
change was made in the draft code related to the amount of buffer averaging and buffer reduction that
could occur. In the existing code the buffer can be reduced or averaged up to 50% and a buffer width
reduction and buffer averaging could be combined on the same project. The draft code does not allow the
buffer to be reduced or averaged not more than 75% and averaging and reduction cannot be combined.
Councilmember Petso agreed that was a change for better but asked why buffer reduction would be
allowed at all when buffer averaging was a better tool. Mr. Lien responded it is another tool in the
toolbox. Jim Keeney, ESA, explained depending on land used on adjacent properties, buffer averaging
may not be an option; therefore, a secondary choice would be buffer reduction. Buffer reduction provides
some flexibility without overly restricting potential land uses on a property being redeveloped.
Councilmember Bloom commented the imperviousness of gravel depends on how deep it is. She agreed
with Councilmember Petso’s suggestion to eliminate gravel as an impervious surface. She commented the
stormwater regulations may consider a different depth. Mr. Lien provided the definition of footprint of
development, 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. He offered to confer with Stormwater Engineer Jerry Shuster to determine how that
definition could be tweaked. He pointed out a gravel paved road as well as a graveled parking area that
was driven on a great deal and was packed down were impervious. A walkway with two inches of pea
gravel may not be impervious.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the reasonable use definition that states “while also allowing for
reasonable use of private property.” She asked whether that meant private property and did not include
public property such as the Port, Woodway Fields, School District, City owned property, etc. Mr. Lien
provided the definition of reasonable economic uses, “the minimum use to which a property owner is
entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid taking and/or
violations of substantive due process.” The definition was amended a few years ago to omit reference to a
single family residence. Mr. Taraday said that raises the question whether a governmental entity could sue
the City for a taking. He suspected governments that hold property in a propriety capacity likely have
property rights and if violated could lead to a constitutional violation. For example if General Motors is a
person for constitutional purposes, a municipal corporation could also be a person and therefore entitled
to constitutional rights. If that was an important issue to the Council, further research could be done. Mr.
Lien referenced the critical area section, advising A.1 addresses critical area variances for public agencies
and A.2 addresses variances for private properties.
Councilmember Bloom reiterated the definition refers to private property. Mr. Lien again referenced the
definition of reasonable economic use on page 32 of definitions. Councilmember Bloom said she read a
statement somewhere, possibly in the introductory statement that included “while also allowing for
reasonable use of private property.” Mr. Taraday said in the vast majority of instances the City would be
dealing with private property.
Packet Page 21 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 19
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the proposed $3 per square foot penalty for activities like
filling a wetland. She asked if there was also a requirement to rehab what was done. Mr. Lien answered
the violation would have to be rectified in addition to paying a penalty. Council President Fraley-Monillas
calculated filling a 2,000 square foot wetland would only result in a $6,000 penalty. Mr. Lien said fill was
used as an example but mowing down vegetation in a wetland would be another example. Council
President Fraley-Monillas asked how $3/foot was determined. Mr. Lien said that is the cost of a simple
planting plan for wetland mitigation. Council President Fraley-Monillas did not view that as enough for
destroying a critical area. Mr. Lien said he compared it to the current tree cutting violation where a
violator can be fined up to $9,000 for removing one tree in a critical area. Council President Fraley-
Monillas asked if anyone had been ever been fined $9,000 for the removal of one tree. Mr. Lien answered
yes, the last tree cutting violation was appealed to the Hearing Examiner and the $23,000 fine was upheld.
Another appeal of a $45,000 fine for the removal of multiple trees is coming up. He explained he was
comparing the fine to the current tree cutting violations since that was what this section referenced. There
could be a critical area violation without removal of a tree but since the section refers to the tree cutting
fines, this fine would be comparable. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested separating a tree
cutting fine from a wetland violation.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the CAO reads very well. She referred to standard buffers,
wetland categories and scoring of habitat and asked how the habitat score was determined. Mr. Lien
explained the scores come from a wetland delineation which is a change in the science in the last ten
years. When a wetland scientist delineates a wetland, a number of scores are calculated to categorize the
wetland. One of those scores, largely on which buffer widths are based, is related to habitat; higher habitat
scores require wider buffers. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Category 1 Estuary such as the
Edmonds Marsh which requires 150 feet. She asked if that was 150 feet from the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) like the SMP. Mr. Lien answered it is from the edge of the wetland which is same as the
OHWM in the SMP.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the differentiation between setbacks and buffers in 23.80.070 and
the addition of a buffer requirement. She recalled in the SMP some citizens took issue with including the
buffer in the setback. Mr. Lien answered it a little different in the critical area regulations. He referenced
building setbacks in 23.40.280. In the existing code the buffer is the area adjacent to the wetland, stream,
or slope and there is an additional 15-foot building setback. The change in the draft COA is related to
geologically hazardous area; the buffer or setback for geologically hazardous area is determined by a
geotechnical report.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the section regarding mitigation ratios and the table of wetland
categories and ratios for rehabilitation only and enhancement only (packet page 53 of 90). Mr. Lien
explained this came from Department of Ecology’s Guidance for Small Jurisdictions. Mr. Keeney
explained the general concept is it is harder to create a new wetland than to rehabilitate an existing
wetland. The intent is to encourage the use of natural systems rather than to make new ones. Ecology
reviewed the scientific literature to develop these ratios; the primary driver of that science was Dr. Tom
Ruby, Department of Ecology, who has experience in wetland modeling. Mr. Kenney summarized the
table is basically Ecology’s assimilation of all the science and making it applicable to land planning
processes. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding of his explanation was Ecology would
rather have a wetland enhanced than recreated. Mr. Keeney explained a lot more must be done to get the
same credit for creation or reestablishment.
Councilmember Nelson expressed appreciation for the updated information regarding Bald Eagles. He
referred to definitions and the experience/qualifications for geologist, geotechnical engineer and qualified
critical area consultant, observing a geologist is no longer required to have a license and the experience
Packet Page 22 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 20
requirement was removed. Mr. Lien said that information was relocated in the code. He offered to email it
to Councilmember Nelson.
Councilmember Johnson recommended when a penalty is assessed, restoration or rehabilitation also be
required. Mr. Lien referred to 23.40.240 Unauthorized critical areas alterations and enforcement;
paragraph B addresses requirement for a restoration plan.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS SECONDED, TO EXTEND TO 10:10 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Bloom recalled the presentation identified tree topping as maintenance and if approval
had been given in the past, approval would be given to top trees. She asked if there were any criteria for
restricting or prohibiting tree topping. Mr. Lien explained tree topping is considered tree cutting; topping
is generally frowned upon by arborists. A tree cutting permit is required to top a tree. A lot of trees in the
City have been topped in the past. Once a tree is topped and grows out, the branches are not as strong and
do not grow as well and it needs to be maintained which is why that provision is included. He clarified it
did not refer to new topping but maintaining trees that had already been topped in a safe manner.
Councilmember Bloom asked if there was clarity in the code that tree topping was not allowed unless it
was approved in the past. Mr. Lien read the definition of alteration, “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.” Councilmember Bloom relayed her
understanding that the way the City finds out that any of that has occurred is via code enforcement. Mr.
Lien answered generally yes.
Councilmember Bloom referred to small hydrologically isolated wetland (packet page 50 of 90) where the
size was changed from 500 to 1,000. She asked whether the size of the smallest critical area had been
increased to 1,000 from 500 square feet. Mr. Lien said most of the language is from the Guidance for
Small Jurisdictions but was tweaked slightly so that a small hydrologically isolated wetland was no longer
an exempt wetland but a specific category of wetland. Hydrologically isolated means it is not connected
to a stream or other wetland complex. This section only applied to Category III and IV wetlands that have
a low habitat score. He summarized these wetlands are not exempt but are exempt from a few of the
provisions such as they do not necessarily have to have buffers, mitigation sequencing must occur before
a wetland can be impacted but a mitigation plan must be developed to replace lost wetland functions and
values. For example if a small wetland was filled, an onsite rain garden could be established to replace it.
He clarified 500 square feet was in the existing code and 1,000 is from Ecology’s Guidance for Small
Jurisdictions.
Councilmember Bloom asked for an explanation of the in lieu fee program. Mr. Lien responded that was
related to mitigation, a small site that impacted a wetland but there was no opportunity to mitigate on site.
The in lieu fee program allows a property owner to put money toward wetland mitigation in another
location. Councilmember Bloom asked if that wetland would be within the City. Mr. Lien answered
typically it is desirable to have mitigation occur within the same drainage basin. The one instance where it
may occur outside the City is via a certified wetland bank which has defined service areas. He did not
envision Edmonds being within the service area of a certified wetland mitigation bank due to short
drainages that go directly to Puget Sound.
Packet Page 23 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 21
Councilmember Bloom referred to discretion of the director as well as the term shall which appear a lot in
the CAO. She was puzzled by the numerous opportunities for the discretion of the director when there
were so many statements of shall. She asked how that was resolved. Mr. Lien said often someone in City
must make a call; the director is the highest ranking person. There are definitions in the code where shall
means imperative. Not everything in the critical area is imperative; when there is a judgment call, the
director makes that decision.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the definition of director which means the City of Edmonds
Development Services Director or his/her designee. She suggested tweaking the language to ensure it was
the director’s responsibility rather than someone the director designates. Mr. Lien explained ultimate
authority falls to the director. How it works, there are four planners in the City, they do not go to the
director to interpret every sentence in the code. Questions about the code or how the code is applied are
brought to the director. Councilmember Bloom suggested the definition of director be the Development
Services Director and delete designee. Development Services Shane Hope said the term “or designee” is
used because it means the director makes the decision unless he/she designates someone else in his/her
absence. The term director means the highest person responsible. Councilmember Bloom commented
these decisions do not have to be made immediately so she felt any important decisions up to the
discretion of director should be reviewed by director. She requested eliminating “his/her designee.”
Mayor Earling suggested Councilmembers forward any additional questions to Mr. Lien.
Mr. Lien advised he will provide highlights and respond to any additional Council questions at the
October 6 public hearing
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported on the AWC legislative meeting he attended yesterday. The focus of the
legislative session will be education, education, education. Elections are upcoming in 2016 for some of
the Senate and all of the House so the legislative session will only be 60 days.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Nelson announced the Diversity Commission is seeking applicants; the deadline for
applications is September 30.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reminded the public to get a flu shot. The vaccine is a better strain this
year and it is important to get vaccinated early.
10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:11 p.m.
Packet Page 24 of 363
AM-8011 4. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/06/2015
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 #216279 through #216383 dated September 24, 2015 for $1,177,636.44 and
claim checks #216384 through #216502 dated October 1, 2015 for $840,178.61.
Approval of payroll check #61803 for $232.97 for the pay period September 1, 2015 through September
15, 2015.
Recommendation
Approval of claim and payroll checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2015
Revenue:
Expenditure:2,018,048.02
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $2,017,815.05
Payroll Employee check $232.97
Attachments
Claim cks 09-24-15
Claim cks 10-01-15
Project Numbers 10-01-15
Payroll Summary
Packet Page 25 of 363
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 10/01/2015 02:16 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/01/2015 02:24 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/01/2015 03:34 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/01/2015 03:53 PM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 10/01/2015 11:56 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/01/2015
Packet Page 26 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216279 9/24/2015 072189 ACCESS 1111020 STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 09/01/15 - 09/30/15
STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 09/01/15 - 09/30/15
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 85.00
Total :85.00
216280 9/24/2015 063863 ADVANCED TRAFFIC PRODUCTS 0000013274 Traffic - Bulldog III Black "H" Mount
Traffic - Bulldog III Black "H" Mount
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 326.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 30.97
Total :356.97
216281 9/24/2015 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 9761 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES
MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES
421.000.74.534.80.33.00 197,941.47
Total :197,941.47
216282 9/24/2015 075199 ALESSANDRINI, IOLE 2 4TH AVE ALESSANDRINI LUMINOUS FOREST
4TH AVE ALESSANDRINI LUMINOUS FOREST
117.200.64.575.50.41.00 18,000.00
Total :18,000.00
216283 9/24/2015 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 20430 PLAQUE FOR CITY PARK BENCH
PLAQUE FOR CITY PARK BENCH
127.000.64.575.50.31.00 139.03
9.5% Sales Tax
127.000.64.575.50.31.00 13.21
Total :152.24
216284 9/24/2015 074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 3866619 LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums
LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums
617.000.51.517.20.23.10 1,310.62
LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums
009.000.39.517.20.23.10 9,032.24
Total :10,342.86
1Page:
Packet Page 27 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216285 9/24/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988220388 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 37.02
Total :37.02
216286 9/24/2015 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 85713 SENIOR SOFTBALL AWARD 2 OF 2
SENIOR SOFTBALL AWARD 2 OF 2
001.000.64.571.25.31.00 15.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.25.31.00 1.43
FALL SOFTBALL AWARDS85800
FALL SOFTBALL AWARDS
001.000.64.571.25.31.00 108.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.25.31.00 10.26
Total :134.69
216287 9/24/2015 075418 BALL, CHRISTINA 9/11 REFUND 9/11 REFUND - CLASS CANCELLED
9/11 REFUND - CLASS CANCELLED
001.000.239.200 78.00
Total :78.00
216288 9/24/2015 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 0007102 E5GA.SERVICES THRU 8/21/15
E5GA.Services thru 8/21/15
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 9,073.02
Total :9,073.02
216289 9/24/2015 066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC 516155 E4CD.SPEC BOOK COPIES
E4CD.Spec Book Copies
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 301.13
Total :301.13
216290 9/24/2015 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0302226-IN Unit E102FM - Autogas Conversion Kit
Unit E102FM - Autogas Conversion Kit
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 5,600.00
9.5% Sales Tax
2Page:
Packet Page 28 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216290 9/24/2015 (Continued)074307 BLUE STAR GAS
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 532.00
Fleet Auto Propane 444.9 Gal21446
Fleet Auto Propane 444.9 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 632.69
Fleet Auto Propane 443.3 Gal21460
Fleet Auto Propane 443.3 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 598.98
Fleet Auto Propane 579.8 Gal4722
Fleet Auto Propane 579.8 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 870.08
Fleet Auto Propane 595.5 Gal4807
Fleet Auto Propane 595.5 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 747.52
Total :8,981.27
216291 9/24/2015 002800 BRAKE & CLUTCH SUPPLY 551369 Unit 5 - Supplies
Unit 5 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 255.52
9.6% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 24.53
Total :280.05
216292 9/24/2015 067391 BRAT WEAR 16559 INV#16559 - EDMONDS PD - MCINTYRE
JUMPSUIT WITH ALL ITEMS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 515.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 48.93
Total :563.93
216293 9/24/2015 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1047245 E4CD/E3DB.PUBLISH BID DOCS
E4CD.Publish bid docs
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 76.50
E3DB.Publish bid docs
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 108.95
3Page:
Packet Page 29 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :185.452162939/24/2015 072571 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE
216294 9/24/2015 069841 BUNO CONSTRUCTION LLC E4GA.Pmt 3 E4GA.PMT 3 THRU 08/31/15
E4GA.Pmt 3 thru 08/31/15
423.000.75.594.35.65.30 144,596.28
Total :144,596.28
216295 9/24/2015 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 15293798 Lease Council Office Copier/printer
Lease Council Office Copier/printer
001.000.11.511.60.45.00 30.65
CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE15293802
CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 466.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 44.36
PARKS & REC COPIER IRC5051 CONTRACT 001-15293803
PARKS & REC COPIER IRC5051 CONTRACT
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 273.74
RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEASE CITY CLER15293804
RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEASE CITY
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 20.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.91
CANON- BUILDING15293806
Canon copy machine- building
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.16
P & REC PRINTER IRC1030IF CONTRACT 001-015293807
P & REC PRINTER IRC1030IF CONTRACT
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 30.65
INV#15302643 - EDMONDS PD15302643
CONT CHG #IR6255 FOR 9/2015
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 151.87
CONT CHG #IRC5240A FOR 9/2015
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 160.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 35.39
4Page:
Packet Page 30 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216295 9/24/2015 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
CONT CHG #IR33251I FOR 9/2015
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 60.70
C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 001-0572105-00415302644
Finance dept copier contract charge
001.000.31.514.23.45.00 249.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.45.00 23.75
FLEET COPIER15302645
Fleet Copier
511.000.77.548.68.45.00 33.02
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.45.00 3.14
PW ADMIN COPIER15302646
PW Office Copier for
001.000.65.518.20.45.00 68.55
PW Office Copier for
111.000.68.542.90.45.00 38.85
PW Office Copier for
422.000.72.531.90.45.00 38.85
PW Office Copier for
421.000.74.534.80.45.00 27.42
PW Office Copier for
423.000.75.535.80.45.00 27.42
PW Office Copier for
511.000.77.548.68.45.00 27.41
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.45.00 6.51
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.45.00 3.69
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.45.00 3.69
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.45.00 2.61
9.5% Sales Tax
5Page:
Packet Page 31 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216295 9/24/2015 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
423.000.75.535.80.45.00 2.61
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.45.00 2.59
WATER SEWER COPIER15302647
Water Sewer Copier
421.000.74.534.80.45.00 70.68
Water Sewer Copier
423.000.75.535.80.45.00 70.68
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.45.00 6.72
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.45.00 6.71
PARKS MAINT PRINTER IRC1030IF SCHEDULE15302648
PARKS MAINT PRINTER IRC1030IF SCHEDULE
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 36.16
CANON- ENGINEERING15305543
CANON- ENGINEERING
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 306.29
CANON- ENGINEERING15305544
Canon- Engineering
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 343.06
Total :2,712.91
216296 9/24/2015 075092 CASCADE BICYCLE CLUB ED FNDN 21010 E3DB.SERVICES THRU 6/12/15
E3DB.Services thru 6/12/15
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 19,369.80
Total :19,369.80
216297 9/24/2015 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC XW06194 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR YAKIMA SERVER
Maintenance Agreement for Yakima Servers
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 205.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 19.52
Total :225.01
6Page:
Packet Page 32 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216298 9/24/2015 064291 CENTURY LINK 206-Z02-0478 WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 147.54
Total :147.54
216299 9/24/2015 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 451503-1508 E4GB.SERVICES THRU AUGUST 2015
E4GB.Services thru August 2015
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 8,920.65
Total :8,920.65
216300 9/24/2015 075162 CITIES DIGITAL INC 36554 LASERFISCHE ANNUAL SUPPORT
LASERFISCHE ANNUAL SUPPORT
001.000.62.524.10.41.00 10,816.14
Total :10,816.14
216301 9/24/2015 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD M&O MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
423.000.75.535.80.47.20 27,602.00
Total :27,602.00
216302 9/24/2015 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 1-218359-279832 WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205TH ST / METER
WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205TH ST / METER
423.000.76.535.80.47.62 15.60
Total :15.60
216303 9/24/2015 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 395459 INV#395459 - EDMONDS PD
CALIBRATE #SHD-02475
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00
CALIBRATE #XE01579
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 12.88
Total :152.88
216304 9/24/2015 047610 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE 41 JA9060 L001 PW - Storm - Detention Pond Cleanout
PW - Storm - Detention Pond Cleanout
422.000.72.531.40.48.00 2,024.22
7Page:
Packet Page 33 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :2,024.222163049/24/2015 047610 047610 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
216305 9/24/2015 074389 DRAKE, BARB 9/18 REIMB MILEAGE 9/18/15 REIMB MILEAGE CLASSROOM VISITS
9/18/15 REIMB MILEAGE CLASSROOM VISITS
001.000.64.571.23.43.00 18.40
Total :18.40
216306 9/24/2015 007253 DUNN LUMBER 3466243 PM CEMENT
PM CEMENT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 82.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.81
Total :90.01
216307 9/24/2015 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 001045 PM LANDS FABRIC
PM LANDS FABRIC
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.23
Total :14.22
216308 9/24/2015 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025 MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLER
MARINA BEACH PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,322.78
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS6-00200
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,617.67
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPRINKLER6-00410
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,195.63
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS6-00475
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,788.98
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 20886-01127
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 2088
423.000.76.535.80.47.64 262.51
8Page:
Packet Page 34 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216308 9/24/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 94396-01130
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 9439
423.000.76.535.80.47.64 25.63
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 50104846-01140
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 5010484
423.000.76.535.80.47.64 1,615.41
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER6-01250
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,947.24
CITY PARK PARKING LOT6-01275
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,505.83
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK6-01280
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 220.01
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKLER6-02125
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,313.96
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER6-02727
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 346.85
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE PARK SPRINK6-02730
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 311.08
FAC SPRINKLER6-02900
FAC SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,935.75
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER6-03000
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 459.78
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKLER6-03275
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 522.70
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER6-03575
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER
9Page:
Packet Page 35 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216308 9/24/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 249.50
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-04400
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,516.19
SEAVIEW PARK6-04425
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 433.47
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER6-04450
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,787.07
5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGATION6-06040
5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGATION
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 483.35
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER6-07775
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 968.47
YOST PARK SPRINKLER6-08500
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,098.75
YOST POOL6-08525
YOST POOL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,875.58
Total :28,804.19
216309 9/24/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR14533 CITY CLERKS COPIER OVERAGE 7/21/15-8/20/
CITY CLERKS COPIER~
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.91
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 0.18
Total :2.09
216310 9/24/2015 070515 EMERALD CITY HARLEY-DAVIDSON 149928 Unit 582 - Gaskets, Spark Plugs,
Unit 582 - Gaskets, Spark Plugs,
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 168.77
9.5% Sales Tax
10Page:
Packet Page 36 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216310 9/24/2015 (Continued)070515 EMERALD CITY HARLEY-DAVIDSON
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.03
Unit 203 - Brake pads, Supplies149988
Unit 203 - Brake pads, Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 347.85
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 33.04
Unit 582 - Latch150376
Unit 582 - Latch
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 21.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.09
Unit 405 - Brake Supplies151474
Unit 405 - Brake Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 275.88
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 26.20
Total :891.84
216311 9/24/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH656703 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLN20150042
LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLN20150042
001.000.62.558.60.41.40 79.12
Total :79.12
216312 9/24/2015 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU36931 Unit 110 Police Swat - Supplies
Unit 110 Police Swat - Supplies
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 29.73
9.5% Sales Tax
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 2.82
Water - SuppliesWAMOU36964
Water - Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 60.21
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5.72
Total :98.48
11Page:
Packet Page 37 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216313 9/24/2015 011900 FRONTIER 253-011-1177 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
001.000.65.518.20.42.00 6.38
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 24.23
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 24.23
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 24.23
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
511.000.77.548.68.42.00 24.23
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 24.20
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE425-712-0417
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 32.56
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 32.56
WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LINE425-712-0423
WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LINE
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 69.12
PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, SPARE LINES425-712-8251
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
001.000.65.518.20.42.00 16.14
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 80.69
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 67.78
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
511.000.77.548.68.42.00 90.38
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 67.78
CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 MEADOWDALE RD425-745-4313
CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 129.50
12Page:
Packet Page 38 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216313 9/24/2015 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE425-775-7865
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FIVE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 64.95
Total :778.96
216314 9/24/2015 002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 003946586 INV#003946586 - EDMONDS PD
3 HOBBLE STRAPS
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 44.85
Freight
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 6.69
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 4.90
INV#003985073 - EDMONDS PD003985073
1 HOBBLE STRAP
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 14.95
Freight
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 2.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 1.63
CR FROM GALLS FOR 2 INVOICES4665665
HOBBLE STRAPS
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 -59.80
FreightF
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 -8.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 -6.53
INV#4665665 - EDMONDS PD4665665
HOBBLE STRAP
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 14.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 1.42
Total :16.37
216315 9/24/2015 012199 GRAINGER 983906358 Fac Maint - Battery Supply
Fac Maint - Battery Supply
13Page:
Packet Page 39 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216315 9/24/2015 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 55.44
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.28
Total :60.72
216316 9/24/2015 074428 HAMILTON PRINTING SYSTEMS 968 CONQUER SHIRTS
CONQUER SHIRTS
001.000.64.571.22.31.00 97.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.22.31.00 9.26
Total :106.76
216317 9/24/2015 064528 HI-LINE ELECTRICAL 10404277 Fleet - Small Tool - Jab Saw
Fleet - Small Tool - Jab Saw
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 32.84
Unit e105po - Ciruit breaker
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 90.66
Freight
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 5.12
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 3.30
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 9.08
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 1.85
Total :142.85
216318 9/24/2015 073880 HITE, CARRIE 9/9 TRAVEL REIMB 9/9 TRAVEL REIMB NRPA
LODGING FOR NRPA CONFERENCE IN LAS VEGAS
001.000.64.571.21.43.00 255.00
PER DIEM FOR TRAVEL TO NRPA CONFERENCE
001.000.64.571.21.43.00 197.00
Total :452.00
216319 9/24/2015 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1022620 Sr Center - Supplies
14Page:
Packet Page 40 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216319 9/24/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Sr Center - Supplies
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 92.17
9.5% Sales Tax
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.76
PS - Fans1564302
PS - Fans
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 256.31
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 24.35
Sewer - Supplies1573747
Sewer - Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 12.97
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.23
Finance Remodel Supplies2021328
Finance Remodel Supplies
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 14.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 1.34
Boys & Girls Club - Moss Out2023957
Boys & Girls Club - Moss Out
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.38
Fac Maint Shop - Tool
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 112.08
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 10.65
FS 16 - Supplies2023992
FS 16 - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 70.39
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.69
Sewer Supplies2080979
15Page:
Packet Page 41 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216319 9/24/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Sewer Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.97
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.57
MCH - Supplies22812
MCH - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.70
Traffic - Supplies2562897
Traffic - Supplies
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 13.55
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1.29
Finance Remodel Supplies3010287
Finance Remodel Supplies
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 86.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 8.26
Fac Maint - Supplies3012852
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.14
Library - Sink Spray Head3023843
Library - Sink Spray Head
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.76
MCH - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 36.43
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.10
Fac Maint - Truck #5 - Supplies3040337
Fac Maint - Truck #5 - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 54.01
16Page:
Packet Page 42 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216319 9/24/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Fac Maint - Wet/Dry vac
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 99.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 9.41
FAC - Supplies4012688
FAC - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.25
Finance Remodel Supplies5011359
Finance Remodel Supplies
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 39.59
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 3.76
Sr Center - Hot Water Tank Supplies5012523
Sr Center - Hot Water Tank Supplies
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 52.34
9.5% Sales Tax
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.97
PS - Supplies5033526
PS - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.23
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.45
City Hall - Timer572505
City Hall - Timer
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.95
Street - Supplies6011198
Street - Supplies
111.000.68.542.61.31.00 49.71
17Page:
Packet Page 43 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216319 9/24/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.61.31.00 4.72
Fac Maint Shop Supplies7021970
Fac Maint Shop Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.98
PW - Fire System Batteries8013451
PW - Fire System Batteries
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 33.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.15
Sr Center - Supplies8023094
Sr Center - Supplies
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 51.48
Fac Maint Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 72.48
9.5% Sales Tax
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.89
Finance Remodel Supplies8081697
Finance Remodel Supplies
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 4.69
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 0.45
Fac Maint Unit 26 Supplies9010717
Fac Maint Unit 26 Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.53
Sr Center - Supplies9012138
Sr Center - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 113.71
18Page:
Packet Page 44 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216319 9/24/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.80
Fac Maint - Screw Gun9021659
Fac Maint - Screw Gun
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 93.74
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 8.91
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 2.35
Finance Remodel Supplies
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 24.79
Fac Maint Shop Supplies9022990
Fac Maint Shop Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 25.71
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.44
Sewer LS 7 - Supplies9090659
Sewer LS 7 - Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 24.09
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.29
Total :1,708.43
216320 9/24/2015 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1200861 PM SOD
PM SOD
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 163.70
PM GLOVES, HAND CLEANER, TENSION WIRE2023978
PM GLOVES, HAND CLEANER, TENSION WIRE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 100.46
PM CASCADE GEL9020949
PM CASCADE GEL
130.000.64.536.50.31.00 54.96
Total :319.12
216321 9/24/2015 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 25971 E4JB.SERVICES THRU 7/18/15
19Page:
Packet Page 45 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216321 9/24/2015 (Continued)060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
E4JB.Services thru 7/18/15
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 1,717.53
E4JB.SERVICES THRU 8/22/1526083
E4JB.Services thru 8/22/15
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 4,925.80
Total :6,643.33
216322 9/24/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2676963 CITY CLERKS OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES POST-IT NOTES
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 58.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 5.53
OFFICE SUPPLIES2684208
office supplies
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 118.58
COPY PAPER2684215
Copy Paper
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 221.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 21.09
OFFICE SUPPLIES2685561
office supplies
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 22.91
PAPERMATE .7MM LEAD REFILLS2685563
Papermate 0.7mm Lead Refills
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 5.41
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 0.51
Office supplies2686287
Office supplies
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 67.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 6.41
Office Supplies- Date Stamp2686751
Office Supplies- Date Stamp
20Page:
Packet Page 46 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216322 9/24/2015 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 62.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 5.97
Total :596.93
216323 9/24/2015 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 768328 C/A 768328
PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 904.28
Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929;
001.000.61.558.70.42.00 8.33
Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines
001.000.61.558.70.42.00 8.33
Total :920.94
216324 9/24/2015 069349 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL INC 3063699 MEMBERSHIP- INTL CODE COUNCIL_ DEV SERV
MEMBERSHIP- INTL CODE COUNCIL_ DEV SERV
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 135.00
Total :135.00
216325 9/24/2015 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 000050190 Fleet Shop Supplies
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 89.70
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 8.52
Total :98.22
216326 9/24/2015 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 1905701027301 INV#1905701027301 - EDMONDS PD
AA BATTERIES
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 76.00
AAA BATTERIES
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 57.00
CR2032 BATTERIES
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 24.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 14.92
21Page:
Packet Page 47 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :171.922163269/24/2015 014940 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
216327 9/24/2015 074005 KING CO GIS CENTER 15-144A PICTOMETRY ONLINE LICENSES
Pictometry Online LIcense Software &
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 179.40
Pictometry Online LIcense Software &
422.000.72.531.40.49.00 179.40
Pictometry Online LIcense Software &
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 179.40
Pictometry Online LIcense Software &
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 250.00
Pictometry Online LIcense Software &
001.000.62.558.60.49.00 250.00
Total :1,038.20
216328 9/24/2015 068401 KING CO OFFICE OF FINANCE 61412 WLRD 2015 2nd Trimester Cost Share
WLRD 2015 2nd Trimester Cost Share
422.000.72.531.90.51.00 4,569.34
Total :4,569.34
216329 9/24/2015 067568 KPG INC 83115 E5DA.SERVICES THRU 8/25/15
E5DA.Services thru 8/25/15
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 31,245.64
Total :31,245.64
216330 9/24/2015 069343 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES INC I606430-1283 E4CD.SERVICES THRU AUGUST 2015
E4CD.Services thru August 2015
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 444.25
Total :444.25
216331 9/24/2015 062814 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC 518000 Unit 310 - Radio Supplies
Unit 310 - Radio Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 617.00
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.00
9.5% Sales Tax
22Page:
Packet Page 48 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216331 9/24/2015 (Continued)062814 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 58.62
Total :689.62
216332 9/24/2015 074662 LATITUDE GEOGRAPHICS GROUP INV0001351 GIS WEB SOFTWARE TECHNICAL SUPPORT CALL
GIS Web Software Technical Support Call
001.000.31.518.88.41.00 86.25
Total :86.25
216333 9/24/2015 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4449972 SHREDDING SERVICES
INVOICE #4449972 09/01/2015~
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 489.00
Total :489.00
216334 9/24/2015 074612 LOWENTHAL, DENNIS 9/18 REFUND DAMAGE 9/18 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT
9/18 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.239.200 200.00
Total :200.00
216335 9/24/2015 063773 MICROFLEX 00021972 08-15 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
001.000.31.514.23.41.00 10.00
Total :10.00
216336 9/24/2015 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC ME83949 Fleet - Supplies
Fleet - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.12
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.77
Total :8.89
216337 9/24/2015 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 14-1590-11 E4GA.SERVICES THRU 8/31/15
E4GA.Services thru 8/31/15
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 573.00
E4JC.SERVICES THRU 8/31/1515-1662-5
E4JC.Services thru 8/31/15
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 1,416.50
23Page:
Packet Page 49 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216337 9/24/2015 (Continued)072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES
E5KA.SERVICES THRU 8/31/1515-1715-1
E5KA.Services thru 8/31/15
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 909.50
Total :2,899.00
216338 9/24/2015 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0562249-IN Fleet - Filter inventory
Fleet - Filter inventory
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 84.02
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.40 7.98
Total :92.00
216339 9/24/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1346723 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY BUCKET
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 203.65
EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET2-1348735
EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 111.65
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HONEY BUCKET2-1349293
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85
Total :429.15
216340 9/24/2015 064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 2628585-00 Fleet Shop Compressor Maint
Fleet Shop Compressor Maint
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 380.53
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 36.15
Fleet Shop Supplies2630416-00
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 123.69
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 17.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 13.46
24Page:
Packet Page 50 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216340 9/24/2015 (Continued)064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO
Fleet Shop Supplies2632635-00
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 210.53
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 20.70
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 21.97
Fleet Shop Diesel Pump2634918-00
Fleet Shop Diesel Pump
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 43.14
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 13.71
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 5.41
Total :887.27
216341 9/24/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 776146 P&R SHIPPING TAPE
P&R SHIPPING TAPE
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 11.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 1.08
Total :12.48
216342 9/24/2015 074545 OLDS-OLYMPIC INC 000511-1524301 Fleet - Vehicle Diesel 288.52 Gal
Fleet - Vehicle Diesel 288.52 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.10 630.71
Total :630.71
216343 9/24/2015 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 17791 YOST SUPPLIES: ALGAECIDE, STAIN ERASER
YOST SUPPLIES: ALGAECIDE, STAIN ERASER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 60.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.76
Total :66.36
25Page:
Packet Page 51 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216344 9/24/2015 072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 9636 Unit 27 - Trans Fluid
Unit 27 - Trans Fluid
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 31.49
Unit 40 - Wiper Blades
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 27.28
Unit 3 - Air Filters
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 43.85
Unit P1 - Wiper Blades
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 26.61
Unit 454 - Wiper Blades
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 30.79
Unit 109 - Belts
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 38.02
Unit 109 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 27.36
Fleet Overpayment Refund9636
Fleet Overpayment Refund
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -21.63
Total :203.77
216345 9/24/2015 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 21-23173 WWTP - PLC & SCADA SYSTEM UPGRADE
Phase 03, PLC-501 Replacement Effluent,
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 371.72
Phase 04, PLC-301 Replacement
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 20,255.45
Phase 05, PLC-701 Rack Replacement
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 6,880.00
Phase 06, PLC-601 Replace
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 18,850.43
Phase 08, Electrician. Task 01:
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 14,572.57
Total :60,930.17
216346 9/24/2015 074422 PARTSMASTER, DIV OF NCH CORP 20921157 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL
thunderburr & cryo-v burr
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 157.92
26Page:
Packet Page 52 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216346 9/24/2015 (Continued)074422 PARTSMASTER, DIV OF NCH CORP
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 16.22
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 16.54
Fleet Shop Supplies20930179
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 69.47
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 10.42
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 7.59
Total :278.16
216347 9/24/2015 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 108060 Unit 947 - Towing Fees
Unit 947 - Towing Fees
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 166.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 15.77
Total :181.77
216348 9/24/2015 075405 PINSON, MARGARET REC064236 REFUND PLN20150044 WITHDRAWN APPLIC
REFUND PLN20150044 WITHDRAWN APPLIC
001.000.257.620 250.00
Total :250.00
216349 9/24/2015 064552 PITNEY BOWES 9607730-SP15 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE
POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE~
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 718.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 68.27
Total :786.87
216350 9/24/2015 028400 PITNEY BOWES INC 620356 C/A 1537-2982-88.2
Maintenance contract letter opener
001.000.31.514.23.48.00 389.00
27Page:
Packet Page 53 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216350 9/24/2015 (Continued)028400 PITNEY BOWES INC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.48.00 36.96
Total :425.96
216351 9/24/2015 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC H690112 Sr Center - Supplies
Sr Center - Supplies
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 206.41
9.5% Sales Tax
016.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.61
Total :226.02
216352 9/24/2015 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 216316 Fleet Return Postage to Setcom
Fleet Return Postage to Setcom
511.000.77.548.68.42.00 25.51
Total :25.51
216353 9/24/2015 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY
PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY
422.000.72.531.90.51.00 2,651.63
Total :2,651.63
216354 9/24/2015 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 102397 INV#102397 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 1997 HONDA CIVIC #AQJ9151
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.77
Unit 203 - Towing Fees103219
Unit 203 - Towing Fees
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 290.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 27.60
Total :499.87
216355 9/24/2015 074832 RASK, GERALDINE 9/18 REFUND 9/18 REFUND CLASS - WRONG LEVEL
9/18 REFUND CLASS - WRONG LEVEL
28Page:
Packet Page 54 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216355 9/24/2015 (Continued)074832 RASK, GERALDINE
001.000.239.200 164.00
Total :164.00
216356 9/24/2015 006841 RICOH USA INC 1056767717 COPIER MOVING EXPENSES NOT COVERED BY CO
COPIER MOVING EXPENSES NOT COVERED BY
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 202.58
Total :202.58
216357 9/24/2015 075422 RIEDESEL, MELISSA 9/23 REFUND 9/23 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT AND CREDIT ON
9/23 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.239.200 500.00
9/23 REFUND CREDIT ON RENTAL
001.000.239.200 500.00
Total :1,000.00
216358 9/24/2015 075288 RODARTE CONSTRUCTION INC E7AC/E2AD.Pmt 4 E7AC/E2AD.PMT 4 THRU 8/31/15
E7AC.Pmt 4 thru 8/31/15
112.200.68.595.33.65.00 401,364.54
E2AD.Pmt 4 thru 8/31/15
112.200.68.595.33.65.00 66,733.92
Total :468,098.46
216359 9/24/2015 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 5-005338 Unit 31 - Battery
Unit 31 - Battery
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 129.75
Unit 127 - Battery5-006180
Unit 127 - Battery
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 76.94
Total :206.69
216360 9/24/2015 074256 RYDIN DECAL 310914 2015 & 2016 EMPLOYEE PARKING (ADDITIONAL
50 - ADDITIONAL 2015 EMPLOYEE PARKING
121.000.25.542.65.31.00 350.00
Freight
121.000.25.542.65.31.00 18.64
29Page:
Packet Page 55 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :368.642163609/24/2015 074256 074256 RYDIN DECAL
216361 9/24/2015 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC S3-695776 Unit 681 - Parking Brake Shoe
Unit 681 - Parking Brake Shoe
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 22.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.18
Unit 447 - Oil SealS3-703201
Unit 447 - Oil Seal
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.10
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.48
Unit 49 - Brake LiningsS3-719120
Unit 49 - Brake Linings
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 87.71
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.34
Unit 447 - Cylindrical Bearings, OilS5-701455
Unit 447 - Cylindrical Bearings, Oil
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 35.08
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.33
Total :165.17
216362 9/24/2015 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 15-3448 Unit 31 - Vactor Equipment
Unit 31 - Vactor Equipment
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 348.75
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 33.13
Total :381.88
216363 9/24/2015 075419 SELLERS, DONALD 9/17 REFUND 9/17 REFUND CANCELLED WOTS REGISTR LESS
9/17 REFUND CANCELLED WOTS REGISTR LESS
001.000.239.200 135.00
Total :135.00
30Page:
Packet Page 56 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216364 9/24/2015 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0190631-IN Unit E105PO - Brackets, Parts
Unit E105PO - Brackets, Parts
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 649.00
Unit E105PO - Magnetic Mic0191047-N
Unit E105PO - Magnetic Mic
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 69.90
Unit E105PO - CenCom Sapphire with 30191143-IN
Unit E105PO - CenCom Sapphire with 3
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 744.00
Total :1,462.90
216365 9/24/2015 067686 SITELINES PARK & PLAYGROUND PD 16190 PARKS: BUCKET SEAT
PARKS: BUCKET SEAT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 350.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 33.25
Total :383.25
216366 9/24/2015 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-311266 Unit 110 - Spare Tire Carrier
Unit 110 - Spare Tire Carrier
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 30.92
9.5% Sales Tax
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 2.94
Total :33.86
216367 9/24/2015 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY 19980 SKYHAWKS 19980 SKYHAWKS SPORTS CAMPS
19980 SKYHAWKS SPORTS CAMPS
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 1,588.75
19984 SKYHAWKS SPORTS CAMP19984 SKYHAWKS
19984 SKYHAWKS SPORTS CAMP
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 1,317.50
Total :2,906.25
216368 9/24/2015 066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS I000391870 E4CA.SERVICES THRU JULY 2015
E4CA.Services thru July 2015
112.200.68.595.33.65.00 5,902.31
31Page:
Packet Page 57 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :5,902.312163689/24/2015 066754 066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS
216369 9/24/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0254-7 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.30
WWTP FLOW METER 2400 HIGHWAY 99 / METER2002-0255-4
WWTP FLOW METER 2400 HIGHWAY 99 / METER
423.000.76.535.80.47.62 15.68
YOST POOL2002-6027-1
YOST POOL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,183.34
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE2003-9895-6
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 742.75
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER2004-9314-6
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.22
LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD / METER2004-9683-4
LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 120.67
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W / METER2006-1131-7
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 104.88
PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP2006-5164-4
PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 465.52
SEAVIEW PARK2007-1403-8
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.08
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER 100002007-2302-1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 20.49
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W / MET2007-3984-5
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W /
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 31.35
SEAVIEW PARK2011-9708-4
32Page:
Packet Page 58 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216369 9/24/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 149.28
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW D2014-3123-6
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.98
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR / MET2014-3124-4
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR /
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 16.22
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER 100042014-4175-5
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 47.76
ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW / MET2017-9000-3
ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW /
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 16.58
WWTP FLOW METER 8421 244TH ST SW / METER2019-2988-2
WWTP FLOW METER 8421 244TH ST SW /
423.000.76.535.80.47.62 15.68
9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED2022-5062-7
9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.90
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8945-0
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 70.60
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY2036-5215-1
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 120.63
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 102044-2584-7
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 75.90
LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / METER 102051-8438-5
LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 49.68
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MAIN ST /2202-1638-6
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MAIN ST /
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 50.78
33Page:
Packet Page 59 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216369 9/24/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH ST SW / METE2205-4757-4
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH ST SW /
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 75.42
Total :3,555.69
216370 9/24/2015 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2015-2831 INV#2015-2831 - EDMONDS PD
411.67 HOUSING @ $84 -8/2015
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 34,580.28
63.83 BOOKINGS @ $115 -8/2015
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 7,340.45
64.33 MED/PREM @ $48.50 -8/2015
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 3,120.01
54.33 MENTAL HEALTH @ $117-8/2015
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 6,356.61
14.5 VIDEO COURT @ $115.50 -8/2015
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,674.75
2 WORK RELEASE @ $50 -8/2015
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 100.00
CREDIT ON #2015-2831 - SNO CO JAIL2015-2831
CR 2 WORK RELEASE $50 - 8/2015
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -100.00
Total :53,072.10
216371 9/24/2015 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 104757 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPOSAL
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPOSAL
423.000.76.535.80.47.65 3,831.63
Total :3,831.63
216372 9/24/2015 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L110155 08-15 AUDIT FEES
08-15 Audit Fees
001.000.39.514.20.51.00 1,007.46
08-15 Audit Fees
111.000.68.543.30.51.00 33.95
08-15 Audit Fees
421.000.74.534.80.51.00 341.14
34Page:
Packet Page 60 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216372 9/24/2015 (Continued)039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE
08-15 Audit Fees
422.000.72.531.90.51.00 178.86
08-15 Audit Fees
423.000.75.535.80.51.00 449.05
08-15 Audit Fees
423.000.76.535.80.51.00 292.79
08-15 Audit Fees
511.000.77.548.68.51.00 44.65
Total :2,347.90
216373 9/24/2015 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18091008 PM BLACK ENAMEL PROTECTIVE COATING
PM BLACK ENAMEL PROTECTIVE COATING
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 55.52
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.27
Total :60.79
216374 9/24/2015 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50959326 E4GC.SERVICES THRU 8/21/15
E4GC.Services thru 8/21/15
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 1,586.64
Total :1,586.64
216375 9/24/2015 069357 THIES, MIKE AUG-15 MIKE THIES CONFERENCE- WACE
CONFERNCE- WACE, LEAVENWORTH
001.000.62.524.10.43.00 660.68
DUES- WACE
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 40.00
Total :700.68
216376 9/24/2015 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 3002034569 Sr Center - Elevator Platinum Full Maint
Sr Center - Elevator Platinum Full Maint
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 265.61
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 25.23
35Page:
Packet Page 61 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :290.842163769/24/2015 038315 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
216377 9/24/2015 043935 UPS 00002T4T13375 INV#00002T4T13375 - EDMONDS PD
UPS CHG - CASE #13-3321
001.000.41.521.10.42.00 26.76
Total :26.76
216378 9/24/2015 062693 US BANK 2674 Wesco - Unit E100PO - Cleaner, Paint
Wesco - Unit E100PO - Cleaner, Paint
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 27.55
QFC - Fleet Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 2.97
Trailer Boss - Swat - Trailer after
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 275.12
Tap Plastics - Swat Trailer - Supplies
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 87.05
WA DOL - Swat Trailer Lic Fees
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 36.75
Walmart - Unit 450 - Magnetic Dash Mount
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 195.52
WA DOR Business Lic - Fleet
511.000.77.548.68.49.00 503.28
Home Depot - Unit 110 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.58
Car Toys - Fleet - SPIG
511.000.77.548.68.49.00 29.57
Car Toys - Fleet - Magnetic Dash
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 39.42
HELM INC - Fleet - IDS Diagnostic
511.000.77.548.68.49.00 699.00
Lowes- Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 163.82
SetCom - Unit 203 - Repairs
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 203.75
SetCom - Unit 582 - Repairs
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 311.05
36Page:
Packet Page 62 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216378 9/24/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK
SetCom - Unit 405 - Helmet Kits
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 590.51
Home Depot - Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 28.31
Fisheries - Unit G06 Sewer - Water
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 449.08
Marine Parts - Unit M 16 Fire
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 98.14
Fisheries- Unit M16 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 78.88
WWTP - AUGUST 2015 CC2985
Business Licensing
423.000.76.535.80.49.00 171.00
Licensing Convenience Fee
423.000.76.535.80.49.00 4.28
PNW Pretreatment
423.000.76.535.80.49.71 320.00
Rod Sebers - Professional Growth Wrapup
423.000.76.535.80.49.71 100.00
Eric Duenas - Professional Growth Wrapup
423.000.76.535.80.49.71 100.00
Michigan Co - Fac Maint - Blower Wheel3405
Michigan Co - Fac Maint - Blower Wheel
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 58.93
Guardian Sec - Old PW
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00
Home Depot - Recycle Supplies3456
Home Depot - Recycle Supplies
421.000.74.537.90.35.00 147.43
4 Imprint - Recycle - Supplies
421.000.74.537.90.35.00 241.35
Pacific Plumbing - Sr Center - Hot
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 73.66
Radio Shack - Sewer - Lithium Batteries
37Page:
Packet Page 63 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216378 9/24/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 78.71
Verizon - PW Ipad Chargers
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 147.76
Verizon - PW Chargers
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 24.62
IAPMO - Water Dept Subscription
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 45.00
MISC PURCHASES-VISA6045
mISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 318.19
cONFERENCES
001.000.62.524.10.49.00 960.00
PARKING FEES7000
Parking fee's- Shane Hope meetings
001.000.62.524.10.43.00 15.00
Total :6,696.28
216379 9/24/2015 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9752219110 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Bldg
001.000.62.524.20.42.00 18.39
Cell Service-Eng
001.000.67.532.20.42.00 95.68
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 82.99
Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program
001.000.64.571.23.42.00 18.39
Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.64.576.80.42.00 48.78
Cell Service-PD
001.000.41.521.22.42.00 293.13
Cell Service-PD 104 Fund
104.100.41.521.21.42.00 145.84
Cell Service-PW Street
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 18.57
38Page:
Packet Page 64 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216379 9/24/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 17.92
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 17.91
Cell Service-PW Water
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 72.20
Cell Service-PW Sewer
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 74.52
Cell Service-WWTP
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 17.93
Total :922.25
216380 9/24/2015 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 53553 Unit 450 POL - Towing Fees
Unit 450 POL - Towing Fees
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 166.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 15.77
Total :181.77
216381 9/24/2015 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS I15-493 PINE RIDGE PARK DEAD TREE REMOVAL
PINE RIDGE PARK DEAD TREE REMOVAL
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 740.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 70.30
HICKMAN PARK DEAD TREE REMOVALI15-494
HICKMAN PARK DEAD TREE REMOVAL
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 740.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 70.30
4TH & BELL RAISE CANOPIESI15-495
4TH & BELL RAISE CANOPIES
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 680.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 64.60
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK TREE SERVICEI15-496
39Page:
Packet Page 65 of 363
09/24/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
9:19:16AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216381 9/24/2015 (Continued)067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK TREE SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 4,400.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 418.00
Total :7,183.20
216382 9/24/2015 075421 WSU PUYALLUP PLANT CLINIC WSUPC49415 PINE RIDGE PARK TREE ROOT DIAGNOSIS
PINE RIDGE PARK TREE ROOT DIAGNOSIS
001.000.64.576.80.41.00 25.00
Total :25.00
216383 9/24/2015 070717 WSU URBAN & PESTICIDE SAFETY RECERT CURRAN 1/27-1/28/16 RECERT CURRAN
1/27-1/28/16 RECERT CURRAN
001.000.64.576.80.49.00 120.00
2/17-2/18/16 RECERT HARRISRECERT HARRIS
2/17-2/18/16 RECERT HARRIS
001.000.64.576.80.49.00 120.00
Total :240.00
Bank total : 1,177,636.44105 Vouchers for bank code :usbank
1,177,636.44Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report105
40Page:
Packet Page 66 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216384 10/1/2015 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 15-29787 INTERPRETER
Interpreter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 172.55
INTERPRETER15-30895
Interpreter
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 163.35
INTERPRETER15-30985
Interperter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 221.18
INTERPRETER15-31013
Interpreter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 169.10
INTERPRETER15-31153
interpreter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 167.95
INTERPRETER15-31291
Interpreter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 130.00
INTERPRETER15-31516
Interpreter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 158.63
INTERPRETER15-32004
Interpreter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 144.38
INTERPRETER15-32005
Interpreter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 159.20
INTERPRETER15-32139
Interpreter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 148.98
INTERPRETER15-32142
Interpreter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 177.73
INTERPRETER15-32564
1Page:
Packet Page 67 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216384 10/1/2015 (Continued)070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
Interpreter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 158.75
INTERPRETER15-32838
Interpreter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 7.48
Total :1,979.28
216385 10/1/2015 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 356177 WWTP - PEST CONTROL
September Service
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 73.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 6.94
Total :79.94
216386 10/1/2015 070976 AMERESCO QUANTUM 2013-030 H (2-1) -02 WWTP - C457 PHASE 4 ENERGY PROJECT
Phase 4 Energy Project
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 295,425.22
Less Retainage
423.100.223.400 -14,771.26
9.5% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 28,065.40
WWTP - C457 PHASE 4 ENERGY PROJECT2013-030B(2) -02
C457 Phase 4 Energy Project
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 80,479.44
9.5% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 7,645.55
Total :396,844.35
216387 10/1/2015 001634 AQUA QUIP 943855-1 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATING
6 @ 25# - 3" silk tabs
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 764.95
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 72.68
Total :837.63
2Page:
Packet Page 68 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216388 10/1/2015 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 9053 YOST SUPPLIES: SODIUM BICARB, METAL KLEA
YOST SUPPLIES: SODIUM BICARB, METAL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 364.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 34.58
Total :398.58
216389 10/1/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988220387 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS
uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80
mats & towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 77.74
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.39
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1988220389
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 17.58
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.67
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1988224713
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
3Page:
Packet Page 69 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216389 10/1/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
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
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.48
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1988224714
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 15.62
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 11.96
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.48
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.14
WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS1988231724
uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80
mats & towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 76.74
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.29
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1988231725
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 62.69
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1988231726
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
4Page:
Packet Page 70 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216389 10/1/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 17.58
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.67
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1988236014
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
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.48
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
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1988236015
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
5Page:
Packet Page 71 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216389 10/1/2015 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.14
Total :386.05
216390 10/1/2015 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0800349-IN WWTP - DIESEL FUEL
ULSD #2 dyed bulk fuel - 3194 gallons
423.000.76.535.80.32.00 5,036.38
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.32.00 478.46
Total :5,514.84
216391 10/1/2015 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 83622 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 37.23
UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 37.23
UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 38.35
UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 139.61
UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 139.60
9.6% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 3.57
9.6% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 3.57
9.6% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3.69
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS83791
UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 33.42
UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 33.42
UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing
6Page:
Packet Page 72 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216391 10/1/2015 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 34.44
UB Outsourcing area #
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 129.12
UB Outsourcing area #
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 129.12
9.6% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00 3.21
9.6% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 3.21
9.6% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3.30
Total :772.09
216392 10/1/2015 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 40227 ROUGH BOX
ROUGH BOX
130.000.64.536.20.34.00 430.00
Total :430.00
216393 10/1/2015 002100 BARNARD, EARL 63 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement
617.000.51.517.20.23.00 101.16
Total :101.16
216394 10/1/2015 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 15197380 CANON LEASE CHARGES C1030
Canon lease pmt for C1030- Aug
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 9.33
Canon lease pmt for C1030- Aug
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.33
Canon lease pmt for C1030- Aug
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
7Page:
Packet Page 73 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216394 10/1/2015 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.88
CANON LEASE CHARGES C103015293799
Canon lease pmt for C1030 Sept
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 9.33
Canon lease pmt for C1030 Sept
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.33
Canon lease pmt for C1030 Sept
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.88
CANON- PLANNING PRINTER15293805
CANON- PLANNING PRINTER
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.16
WWTP - COPIER RENTAL15318102
Copier Rental - September 2015
423.000.76.535.80.45.41 85.80
CANON LEASE CHARGES C505115319368
Canon lease pmt for C5051
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 83.35
Canon lease pmt for C5051
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 83.35
Canon lease pmt for C5051
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 83.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 7.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 7.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 7.91
Total :457.00
8Page:
Packet Page 74 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216395 10/1/2015 075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATIONS 46 COMMUNICATIONS & COMMUNITY OUTREACH SEPT
Communications/Community Outreach for
001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,500.00
Total :2,500.00
216396 10/1/2015 071443 CED - KENT 2340-639324 Library - Electric Supplies
Library - Electric Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 75.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.16
Total :82.52
216397 10/1/2015 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 224964 PM BROWGUARD W/VISOR, BATTERIES
PM BROWGUARD W/VISOR, BATTERIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.07
Total :23.94
216398 10/1/2015 065403 CHAPIN, FRANCES 9/25 WOTS EXP REIMB 9/25/15 WOTS EXP REIMBURSEMENT
9/25/15 WOTS EXP REIMBURSEMENT
117.100.64.573.20.31.00 89.00
Total :89.00
216399 10/1/2015 075020 CHARGEPOINT INC 25256 City Charging Stations Annual Network
City Charging Stations Annual Network
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,680.00
Total :1,680.00
216400 10/1/2015 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 45433417 INV#45433417 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD
BASIC MOTORCYCLE- STRUM
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 131.68
ADVANCED MOTORCYCLE- FALK,~
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 48.67
FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE-POFF
104.000.41.521.21.32.00 65.21
9Page:
Packet Page 75 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216400 10/1/2015 (Continued)003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS
CAR WASH FOR NARCS VEHICLE
104.000.41.521.21.32.00 6.00
TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 1.80
TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE
104.000.41.521.21.32.00 0.72
Total :254.08
216401 10/1/2015 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I15002225 Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis
Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,798.20
Total :1,798.20
216402 10/1/2015 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 11771 INV#11771 CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD
PRISONER R&B MAY 2015
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 2,500.83
INV#11772 CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD11772
PRISONER R&B JUNE 2015
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,073.33
INV#11773 CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD11773
PRISONER R&B JULY 2015
001.000.39.523.60.51.00 997.50
Total :4,571.66
216403 10/1/2015 004095 COASTWIDE LABS NW2810756 PM ENZYME PLUS, WASTEBASKET
PM ENZYME PLUS, WASTEBASKET
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 69.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.63
Total :76.45
216404 10/1/2015 075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON 7100160420 WWTP - SEPTEMBER JANITORIAL
September 1-30
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 514.00
Total :514.00
10Page:
Packet Page 76 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216405 10/1/2015 075357 CXT INC 309403 E4MA.UTILITY BUILDING
E4MA.Utility Building
132.000.64.594.76.41.00 46,464.21
Total :46,464.21
216406 10/1/2015 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC E4JB.Pmt 3 E4JB.PMT 3 THRU 9/4/15
E4JB.Pmt 3 thru 9/4/15
421.000.74.594.34.65.10 188,739.34
E4JB.Ret 3
421.000.223.400 -8,618.23
Total :180,121.11
216407 10/1/2015 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3305136 E5GB.RFQ AD
E5GB.RFQ Ad
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 397.80
Total :397.80
216408 10/1/2015 067794 DALCO INC 85824 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, MECHANICAL
Service Call - Pump troubleshoot and
423.000.76.535.80.41.21 135.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.21 12.83
Total :147.83
216409 10/1/2015 068734 DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES AY51571 Refund for overpayment of Ross Sutton
Refund for overpayment of Ross Sutton
001.000.41.521.22.11.00 1,386.56
Total :1,386.56
216410 10/1/2015 069030 DETECTION INSTRUMENTS CORP 4962-31486 WWTP - L2 CALIBRATION
L2 Calibration
423.000.76.535.80.41.22 95.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.41.22 10.30
Total :105.30
216411 10/1/2015 070864 DEX MEDIA 440012149480 C/A 440001304654
11Page:
Packet Page 77 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216411 10/1/2015 (Continued)070864 DEX MEDIA
Basic e-commerce hosting 09/02/15 -
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95
C/A 440001307733440012149490
09/2015 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95
Total :69.90
216412 10/1/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3593 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 09/15/15 & 09/22/15
09/15/15 & 09/22/15 CITY COUNCIL
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 465.30
Total :465.30
216413 10/1/2015 007253 DUNN LUMBER 3494918 GREEN RESOURCE CENTER - MATERIALS
Primed MDF Interior Trim Board
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5.85
Primed MDF Interior Trim Board
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 5.85
Primed MDF Interior Trim Board
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.86
Pocket Door Frame Kit
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 23.09
Pocket Door Frame Kit
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 23.09
Pocket Door Frame Kit
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 23.09
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.75
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 2.75
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.74
GREEN RESOURCE CENTER - MATERIALS3496529
2x4-8' Studs
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.50
2x4-8' Studs
12Page:
Packet Page 78 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216413 10/1/2015 (Continued)007253 DUNN LUMBER
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 10.50
2x4-8' Studs
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.50
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.00
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 1.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.00
Total :129.57
216414 10/1/2015 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 53328 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL
Non-Clor Brk Pts
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 47.88
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 4.55
Total :52.43
216415 10/1/2015 073910 EDMONDS COMMUNITY SOLAR COOP 3rd Qtr 2015 FAC Solar Elect System Production
FAC Solar Elect System Production
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 493.68
Total :493.68
216416 10/1/2015 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL SW / METE
LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 41.02
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD / METER 73-03575
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 279.24
HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN3-07490
HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 80.13
LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE W / METE3-07525
LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE W /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.77
13Page:
Packet Page 79 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216416 10/1/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST SW / METE3-07709
LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.77
LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD / METER 23-09350
LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 76.88
LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT RD / METER3-09800
LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT RD /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 41.02
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / METER 63-29875
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.77
SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 92ND AVE W3-38565
SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 92ND AVE W
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N / ME6-02735
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,690.01
FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N / ME6-02736
FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.65
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 76-02737
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,145.86
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 250 5TH6-02738
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 250
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 704.62
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 7096-02825
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 5,164.31
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN ST6-02875
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 25.63
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME6-02925
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST /
14Page:
Packet Page 80 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216416 10/1/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,607.28
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE6-04127
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 930.18
FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW /6-04128
FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.65
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE6-05155
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 121.60
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 462.09
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 462.09
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 462.09
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 462.09
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 462.08
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW /6-05156
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 1.83
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 6.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 6.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 6.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 6.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 6.94
Total :14,435.17
15Page:
Packet Page 81 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216417 10/1/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR16635 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 COPIER
Meter charges 08/30/15 - 09/29/15 B&W,
001.000.31.514.23.48.00 111.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.48.00 10.61
INV#AR16750 ACCT#MK5031 - EDMONDS PDAR16750
B/W CHG #C3325 08/16-09/15/15
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 17.86
COLOR CHG #C3325 08/16-09/15/15
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 151.63
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 16.10
COPIER MACHINE FEE'SAR16769
Copier Machine fees
001.000.23.512.50.45.00 33.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.23.512.50.45.00 3.14
COPY CHARGES FOR C5051AR16892
Copier charges for C5051
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 18.05
Copier charges for C5051
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 18.05
Copier charges for C5051
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 18.05
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 1.71
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 1.71
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 1.72
COPIER CHARGES FOR C1030AR16911
Copier charges for C1030
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 10.77
Copier charges for C1030
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 10.77
16Page:
Packet Page 82 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216417 10/1/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
Copier charges for C1030
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 10.75
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 1.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 1.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 1.03
Total :438.65
216418 10/1/2015 075136 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC 116453 CRITICAL AREAS UPDATE
CRITICAL AREAS UPDATE
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 1,340.58
Total :1,340.58
216419 10/1/2015 075426 ESTEP, MELANIE KAYE 15-3507 RETURN OF VICTIM FUNDS CASE EPD 15-3507
RETURN OF VICTIM'S FUNDS - CASE EPD
001.000.237.000 22,000.00
Total :22,000.00
216420 10/1/2015 075290 EVENFLO HEATING & AIR COND 063446 REFUND BLD20150676
REFUND BLD20150676
001.000.257.620 20.00
Total :20.00
216421 10/1/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH657353 Advertising- Civil Service Commission
Advertising- Civil Service Commission
001.000.22.518.10.41.40 123.84
E5GB.RFQ ADEDH657765
E5GB.RFQ Ad
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 175.44
LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLN20150032edh658523
PLN20150032
001.000.62.558.60.41.40 77.40
CITY NOTICES OCTOBER 6 HEARINGEDH659260
17Page:
Packet Page 83 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216421 10/1/2015 (Continued)009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
CITY NOTICES - OCTOBER 6 HEARING
001.000.25.514.30.41.40 46.44
Total :423.12
216422 10/1/2015 069042 EVERETT HYDRAULICS INC 00000199998 Unit 22 - Repairs
Unit 22 - Repairs
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 106.25
9.2% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 9.77
Total :116.02
216423 10/1/2015 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU37271 Fac Maint - Supplies
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.92
Total :22.17
216424 10/1/2015 075406 FELDMAN, CORRINE 063775 REFUND BLD20150871
REFUND BLD20150871
001.000.257.620 20.00
Total :20.00
216425 10/1/2015 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 30.87
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES253-012-9166
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 161.33
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 299.62
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-014-8062
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 19.71
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
18Page:
Packet Page 84 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216425 10/1/2015 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 36.59
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-017-4360
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 46.64
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 86.62
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-712-8347
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 250
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 66.72
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES425-771-0158
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 129.50
CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5TH AVE N425-775-2455
CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 61.03
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 129.50
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE509-022-0049
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.21
Total :1,094.34
216426 10/1/2015 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR 9694 INTERPRETER
Interpreter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.66
Total :105.66
216427 10/1/2015 012199 GRAINGER 9845304519 Library - Batteries
Library - Batteries
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 105.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.01
Total :115.47
19Page:
Packet Page 85 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216428 10/1/2015 012370 GREENSHIELDS INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 27543 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL
Hose, Crimp Fitting & Assembly
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 72.41
9.2% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 6.66
Total :79.07
216429 10/1/2015 075420 GREENWOOD RADIATOR 371703 Unit 22 - Radiator
Unit 22 - Radiator
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 826.00
9.6% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 79.29
Total :905.29
216430 10/1/2015 075424 HANSON, STEVE 064302 REFUND CRA20150096
REFUND CRA20150096
001.000.257.620 155.00
Total :155.00
216431 10/1/2015 074814 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC 29395 E3DB.SERVICES THRU 8/31/15
E3DB.Services thru 8/31/15
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 2,744.99
Total :2,744.99
216432 10/1/2015 075255 HILL, FOSTER 9/1-9/22 FIELD ATTEN 9/1-9/22/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT
9/1-9/22/15 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 150.00
Total :150.00
216433 10/1/2015 075119 HOPE, SHANE hope TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENTS- SHANE HOPE
Mileage: 2 AHA meetings, 2 SCT/PAC
001.000.62.524.10.43.00 365.24
Total :365.24
216434 10/1/2015 062899 HUFF, ARIELE 20043 WRITE ABOUT 20043 WRITE ABOUT YOUR LIFE ONLINE CLASS
20043 WRITE ABOUT YOUR LIFE ONLINE CLASS
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 112.20
20Page:
Packet Page 86 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :112.2021643410/1/2015 062899 062899 HUFF, ARIELE
216435 10/1/2015 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 26120 E4JB.SERVICES THRU 9/23/15
E4JB.Services thru 9/23/15
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 761.50
Total :761.50
216436 10/1/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2687786 OFFICE SUPPLIES
office supplies
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 16.95
OFFICE SUPPLIES2688384
office supplies
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 130.16
POST IT POP UP NOTE PADS 3X32689588
Post it Super Sticky Pop up Note pads
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 13.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 1.32
COPY PAPER2689815
COPY PAPER FOR CITY CLERKS OFFICE
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 137.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 13.05
POST IT POP UP NOTE PADS 4X42690440
Post it Super Sticky Pop up Note pads
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 32.32
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 3.07
LEGAL SIZE COPY PAPER2691263
LEGAL SIZE PAPER FOR CITY CLERKS OFFICE
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 69.44
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 6.60
Total :424.16
216437 10/1/2015 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 667891 WWTP - SUPPLIES, HYPOCHLORITE
21Page:
Packet Page 87 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216437 10/1/2015 (Continued)015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC
hypochlorite, 4642 gallons
423.000.76.535.80.31.53 3,836.61
Total :3,836.61
216438 10/1/2015 075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC 003 STATE LOBBYIST SEPTEMBER 2015
State lobbyist September 2015
001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,416.67
Total :2,416.67
216439 10/1/2015 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 19932 KIDZ LOVE SOCC 19932 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION
19932 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 446.40
19934 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION19934 KIDZ LOVE SOCC
19934 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 446.40
19935 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION19935 KIDZ LOVE SOCC
19935 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 186.00
19936 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION19936 KIDZ LOVE SOCC
19936 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 148.80
19937 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION19937 KIDZ LOVE SOCC
19937 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 186.00
19938 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION19938 KIDZ LOVE SOCC
19938 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 409.20
19939 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION19939 KIDZ LOVE SOCC
19939 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 803.52
19940 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION19940 KIDZ LOVE SOCC
19940 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 223.20
19941 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION19941 KIDZ LOVE SOCC
19941 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION
22Page:
Packet Page 88 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216439 10/1/2015 (Continued)071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 186.00
19942 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION19942 KIDZ LOVE SOCC
19942 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 111.60
Total :3,147.12
216440 10/1/2015 067568 KPG INC 810615 E3DB.SERVICES THRU 8/25/15
E3DB.Services thru 8/25/15
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 2,854.93
Total :2,854.93
216441 10/1/2015 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 09082015-03 City Car Washes
City Car Washes
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 5.03
Total :5.03
216442 10/1/2015 075428 LAWRENCE & KELLY GROESBECK 8-37875 #647640 UTILITY REFUND
#647640 Utility refund due to estimated
411.000.233.000 98.24
Total :98.24
216443 10/1/2015 075014 LOCALIST CORPORATION 1553 EVENT CALENDAR "LOCALIST" SUBSCRIPTION O
Community event calendar subscription
001.000.61.558.70.31.00 1,375.00
Total :1,375.00
216444 10/1/2015 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 927622 PM WHEEL
PM WHEEL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 72.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.86
Total :79.12
216445 10/1/2015 061900 MARC 0561495-IN WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATING
disinfectant, sewer solvent, delimer
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 995.00
23Page:
Packet Page 89 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216445 10/1/2015 (Continued)061900 MARC
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 173.96
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 111.06
Total :1,280.02
216446 10/1/2015 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1519 INTERPRETER
Interpreter
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 86.90
Total :86.90
216447 10/1/2015 075429 MARTHA FRANZ 5-14825 #500030577-KD Utility refund
#500030577-KD Utility refund
411.000.233.000 3.56
Total :3.56
216448 10/1/2015 075425 MCARTHUR, AMELIA 9/17-9/24 GYM ATTEND 9/17-9/24/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT
9/17-9/24/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 70.00
Total :70.00
216449 10/1/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 38429450 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL
carbide tipped lathe tool
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 49.12
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 6.20
WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL38474803
u-bolts, worm drive hose & tube clamp
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 131.11
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 8.49
WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL38749474
electrodes
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 35.29
Freight
24Page:
Packet Page 90 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216449 10/1/2015 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 7.38
WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL39738274
Cogged V-Belt, flare tube fitting
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 267.58
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 8.37
Total :513.54
216450 10/1/2015 075143 MEDVEDEV, ANDREI 9483 INTERPRETER
Interpreter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.45
Total :105.45
216451 10/1/2015 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 220893 PM GENIE LIFT
YOST SUPPLIES: SODIUM BICARB, METAL
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 402.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 38.21
PM GLOVES, OIL221489
PM GLOVES, OIL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 514.62
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 48.89
Total :1,003.89
216452 10/1/2015 066006 MORGAN SOUND MSI83821 SOUND SYSTEM REPAIR
SOUND SYSTEM REPAIR
117.100.64.573.20.48.00 127.50
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.64.573.20.48.00 12.11
Total :139.61
216453 10/1/2015 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 15-1695-1 E5JA.SERVICES THRU 7/31/15
E5JA.Services thru 7/31/15
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 22,060.54
25Page:
Packet Page 91 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216453 10/1/2015 (Continued)072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES
E5JA.SERVICES THRU 8/31/1515-1695-2
E5JA.Services thru 8/31/15
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 22,080.55
Total :44,141.09
216454 10/1/2015 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0414769-IN Sewer - Supplies
Sewer - Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 176.70
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 16.79
Swer - Harness0415882-IN
Swer - Harness
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 194.40
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 18.47
Total :406.36
216455 10/1/2015 074356 NAVAS-RIVAS, HERNAN 9805 INTERPRETER
Interpreter
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 103.23
Total :103.23
216456 10/1/2015 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S6709860.001 2.5 mm double level and IEC End barrier
2.5 mm double level and IEC End barrier
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 386.40
9.5% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 36.71
Total :423.11
216457 10/1/2015 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 65522 WWTP - SODIUM BISULFITE
sodiium bisulfite
423.000.76.535.80.31.54 1,244.10
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.54 118.19
Total :1,362.29
26Page:
Packet Page 92 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216458 10/1/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1360684 CIVIC CENTER 6TH AND EDMONDS HONEY BUCKE
CIVIC CENTER 6TH AND EDMONDS HONEY
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1361481
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85
Total :227.70
216459 10/1/2015 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 590 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION MINUTES
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 170.00
HISTORIC PREVERVATION MINUTES000 00 593
HISTORIC PREVERVATION MINUTES
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 119.00
Total :289.00
216460 10/1/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 661913 Sewer - Grinder Pump Battery Supply
Sewer - Grinder Pump Battery Supply
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 36.30
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.45
Sewer - Ink for Printer669701
Sewer - Ink for Printer
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 114.94
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.91
PW - Office Supplies693702
PW - Office Supplies
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 64.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 6.15
PW Office supplies718653
PW Office supplies
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 55.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 5.24
27Page:
Packet Page 93 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216460 10/1/2015 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
PW Office Supplies799356
PW Office Supplies
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 50.06
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 4.75
PRESCHOOL LAMINATING POUCHES813328
PRESCHOOL LAMINATING POUCHES
001.000.64.571.29.31.00 15.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.29.31.00 1.52
PRESCHOOL LAMINATING POUCHES813349
PRESCHOOL LAMINATING POUCHES
001.000.64.571.29.31.00 9.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.29.31.00 0.87
P&R CALC INKROLL, STENO BOOKS, CARD STOC858747
P&R CALC INKROLL, STENO BOOKS, CARD
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 86.08
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 8.17
Total :473.47
216461 10/1/2015 064764 OKANO, IYOKO 09292015 ESCC STUDENT DELEGATION PARKING
Parking for 2015 student delegation
138.100.21.557.21.43.00 36.00
Total :36.00
216462 10/1/2015 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 202230 Storm Dump Fees
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Storm Dump Fees202234
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Storm Dump Fees202254
Storm Dump Fees
28Page:
Packet Page 94 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216462 10/1/2015 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 325.00
Storm Dump Fees202255
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 325.00
Storm Dump Fees202267
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 162.50
Storm Dump Fees202268
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 162.50
Storm Dump Fees202274
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 325.00
Storm Dump Fees202291
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 325.00
Storm Dump Fees202301
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 325.00
Storm Dump Fees202303
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 130.00
Storm Dump Fees202308
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 130.00
Storm Dump Fees202313
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 325.00
Storm Dump Fees202332
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 325.00
Storm Dump Fees203014
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Storm Dump Fees203024
29Page:
Packet Page 95 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216462 10/1/2015 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Storm Dump Fees203033
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Storm Dump Fees203046
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Storm Dump Fees203413
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 96.00
Storm Dump Fees203427
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 96.00
Storm Dump Fees203809
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Storm Dump Fees203822
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Storm Dump Fees203838
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Storm Dump Fees203854
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Storm Dump Fees203862
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Storm Dump Fees203911
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Total :4,492.00
216463 10/1/2015 075407 PAUL DAVIS RESTORATION 064017 REFUND BLD2015-0989
30Page:
Packet Page 96 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216463 10/1/2015 (Continued)075407 PAUL DAVIS RESTORATION
Refund BLD20150989
001.000.257.620 335.50
Total :335.50
216464 10/1/2015 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 108125 INV#108125 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 2001 MERCEDES #AWG8865
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
216465 10/1/2015 069690 PERFORMANCE RADIATOR 5445067 Unit 90 - Radiator
Unit 90 - Radiator
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 137.25
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.04
Total :150.29
216466 10/1/2015 008350 PETTY CASH 9/28PARKS PETTY CASH 9/28/15 PARKS PETTY CASH
DILL: USPS POSTAGE TO SEND TREE SAMPLE
001.000.64.576.80.42.00 5.95
STEELE-SMITH: ALBERTSONS GYMNASTICS
001.000.64.571.28.31.00 2.74
CHAPIN: COSTCO WOTS EQUIPMENT
117.100.64.573.20.35.00 47.07
PARKER: STAPLES PRESCHOOL WOODEN CLOCK
001.000.64.571.29.31.00 16.41
PARKER: OFFICE MAX PRESCHOOL LAMINATING
001.000.64.571.29.31.00 29.67
LEACH: OFFICE MAX: KEYBOARD/MOUSE COMBO
001.000.64.571.23.31.00 60.21
Total :162.05
216467 10/1/2015 028400 PITNEY BOWES INC 400302 Utility Billing - Cleaning Kit
Utility Billing - Cleaning Kit
31Page:
Packet Page 97 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216467 10/1/2015 (Continued)028400 PITNEY BOWES INC
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 12.33
Utility Billing - Cleaning Kit
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 12.33
Utility Billing - Cleaning Kit
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 12.33
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.83
Freight
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.83
Freight
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.54
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.54
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.31.00 1.52
Total :53.08
216468 10/1/2015 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC H615078 WWTP - SUPPLIES, ELECTRIC
conduit, connector and 1/2 & 3/4 body
423.000.76.535.80.31.22 519.08
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.22 49.31
PS/FS 17 - suppliesH695767
PS/FS 17 - supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 27.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.60
City Hall - SuppliesH749025
City Hall - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.50
City Hall Finance Remodel SuppliesH754003
32Page:
Packet Page 98 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216468 10/1/2015 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
City Hall Finance Remodel Supplies
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 362.19
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 34.41
Total :1,000.74
216469 10/1/2015 073231 POLYDYNE INC 994619 WWTP - SUPPLIES, POLYMER
polymer clarifloc
423.000.76.535.80.31.51 8,184.00
Total :8,184.00
216470 10/1/2015 075328 PRECISION PLUMBING & HEATING 063520 REFUND BLD20150713
refund bld20150713
001.000.257.620 135.00
Total :135.00
216471 10/1/2015 064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948 ALARM MONITORING ANDERSON CENTER
ALARM MONITORING FRANCES ANDERSON
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 263.07
ALARM MONITORING SNO-ISLE LIBRARY2422756
ALARM MONITORING SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 223.86
ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAINT./FS #16291104
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 42.66
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC730531
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 28.66
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 28.66
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 25.80
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 32.96
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110
33Page:
Packet Page 99 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216471 10/1/2015 (Continued)064088 PROTECTION ONE
511.000.77.548.68.42.00 14.33
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110
001.000.65.518.20.42.00 12.91
Total :672.91
216472 10/1/2015 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 665.28
YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER200002411383
YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,384.82
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 0200007876143
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 55.26
FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW / MET200009595790
FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 102.02
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE200011439656
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 55.28
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 00052200016558856
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 90.03
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 0200016815843
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 220.95
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W /200017676343
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 74.37
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE R200019375639
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 56.40
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001200019895354
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 131.99
34Page:
Packet Page 100 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216472 10/1/2015 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE200020415911
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 4.61
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 17.53
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 17.53
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 17.53
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 17.53
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 17.53
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395200021829581
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395
423.000.76.535.80.47.63 47.05
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / METER200024711901
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 49.71
Total :4,025.42
216473 10/1/2015 073644 QUALITY CONTROLS CORP P1504-4 WWTP - PRO SERVICE, TASK ORDER 1.14
Control System Emergency Support
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 322.50
Total :322.50
216474 10/1/2015 074602 RICH, KENNETH 8/31-9/24 WOTS CONT 8/31-9/24 WOTS CONTEST RICH
8/31-9/24 WOTS CONTEST RICH
117.100.64.573.20.41.00 125.00
Total :125.00
216475 10/1/2015 075423 ROTSLER, JONATHAN 9/18 REFUND 9/18 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR FEE
9/18 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR FEE
001.000.239.200 3.75
35Page:
Packet Page 101 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :3.7521647510/1/2015 075423 075423 ROTSLER, JONATHAN
216476 10/1/2015 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 0801-3 Fac Maint- Unit 5 - Ladder
Fac Maint- Unit 5 - Ladder
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 159.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 15.11
Total :174.11
216477 10/1/2015 073690 SMILEY-FAIRBANKS, MONA FENCE FAIRBANKS FENCE FAIRBANKS
FENCE FAIRBANKS
117.200.64.575.50.41.00 500.00
Total :500.00
216478 10/1/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2003-4823-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER 1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 40.16
CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD / METER 1002003-8645-6
CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 72.09
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER 12004-6859-3
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 409.46
TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / METER 10002005-9295-4
TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.90
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 12006-3860-9
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 284.92
TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S / METER 10002006-7801-9
TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.98
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW / METER 12007-4860-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.30
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN / ME2008-6520-2
36Page:
Packet Page 102 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216478 10/1/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 59.22
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS WAY / METER2009-4334-8
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS WAY / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 42.53
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W / METER 12011-9222-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 16.22
100 DAYTON ST2012-3682-5
100 DAYTON ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 481.54
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W / METE2012-6598-0
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 297.35
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W / M2013-7496-4
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.90
LIFT STATION 7403 BALLINGER WAY / METER2014-2731-7
LIFT STATION 7403 BALLINGER WAY / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 17.30
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 1002015-5174-4
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,471.93
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER 10002015-7289-8
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 73.95
TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W / METER 12015-8215-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 25.57
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW / METE2015-9448-8
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 38.24
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER 12016-1195-1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 27.95
37Page:
Packet Page 103 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216478 10/1/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN ST / METER2016-5690-7
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN ST / METER
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 231.18
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER 12017-5147-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 53.28
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER 10002017-8264-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.90
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER 12019-0786-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 28.40
WWTP FLOW METER 23219 74TH AVE W / METER2019-2991-6
WWTP FLOW METER 23219 74TH AVE W /
423.000.76.535.80.47.62 17.30
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE2019-4248-9
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 80.17
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 304.63
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 304.63
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 304.63
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 304.63
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 304.64
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 10002020-8787-0
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 106.22
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8912-0
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 60.11
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH2022-9166-2
38Page:
Packet Page 104 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216478 10/1/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 4,866.01
STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT METERE2023-8937-5
STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 15.95
LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTING 120 5TH2024-2158-2
LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTING 120 5TH
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 91.01
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 100012612024-3924-6
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,996.53
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION & SUMP2026-2041-5
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION & SUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.22
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FS #16)2028-0763-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FIRE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 16.85
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10001353812030-9778-7
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 1000135381
423.000.76.535.80.47.61 25,945.23
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE W /2205-4758-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE W /
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 47.85
Total :38,605.88
216479 10/1/2015 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2015-2849 INV 2015-2849 EDMONDS PD JAIL MEDICAL AU
INMATE MEDICAL SERVICE - APR 2015
001.000.39.523.60.41.00 41.83
INMATE PHARMACEUTICALS - AUG 2015
001.000.39.523.60.31.00 3,318.34
2015-2849 CREDIT FOR INMATE PHARMACEUTIC2015-2849 CREDIT
CREDIT FOR JULY 2015 INMATE
001.000.39.523.60.31.00 -4.27
Total :3,355.90
39Page:
Packet Page 105 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216480 10/1/2015 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 09/25/15 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES MEETING
August SCC meeting
001.000.21.513.10.49.00 35.00
SCC SEPTEMBER DINNER MEETING09/28/2015
SCC Sept. dinner for Mayor, Phil
001.000.21.513.10.49.00 175.00
8/20/2015 SCC Dinner Meeting - CouncilSCC 8-20-2015
8/20/2015 SCC Dinner Meeting - Council
001.000.11.511.60.43.00 35.00
Total :245.00
216481 10/1/2015 068618 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARKS DEPT 09152015 CITY PARK SPRAY AND PLAY CO RECOGNITION
CITY PARK SPRAY AND PLAY CO RECOGNITION
132.000.64.594.76.31.00 25.00
Total :25.00
216482 10/1/2015 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2865/4 WWTP - SAFETY EQUIPMENT
chore boot and spog rub/neo
423.000.76.535.80.31.12 229.46
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.12 21.80
Total :251.26
216483 10/1/2015 074570 STULLER, PAM BID-092415 REIMBURSEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF GOOGLE AD
Reimbursement of purchase of Google ad
140.000.61.558.70.41.40 250.00
Total :250.00
216484 10/1/2015 064493 SUTTON, ROSS E 9/21/15 L&I OT refund 8/20-8/25/15
L&I OT refund 8/20-8/25/15
001.000.41.521.22.11.00 57.78
Total :57.78
216485 10/1/2015 075216 SWAGELOK NORTHWEST 5106643 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL
Swagelok tee, tube & 1/4 mnpt
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 366.48
40Page:
Packet Page 106 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216485 10/1/2015 (Continued)075216 SWAGELOK NORTHWEST
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 13.99
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 36.14
Total :416.61
216486 10/1/2015 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 18296 Water - Troubleshoot problems at SPU
Water - Troubleshoot problems at SPU
421.000.74.534.80.48.00 1,328.00
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.48.00 126.16
Total :1,454.16
216487 10/1/2015 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 11463132 Unit 106 - Parts
Unit 106 - Parts
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 98.86
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.39
Fleet Shop Tool11468738
Fleet Shop Tool
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 72.05
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 6.84
Total :187.14
216488 10/1/2015 075289 THE ART OF PLUMBING 063400 REFUND BLD20150654
REFUND BLD20150654
001.000.257.620 375.00
Total :375.00
216489 10/1/2015 070744 TIGER OAK PUBLICATIONS INC 2015-145872 BUSINESS RECRUITMENT AD SEA BUSINESS MAG
Business recruitment in Seattle
001.000.61.558.70.41.40 2,200.00
Total :2,200.00
41Page:
Packet Page 107 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216490 10/1/2015 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 51427 INV#51427 - EDMONDS PD
INSTALL CHAIN LINK FENCE/GATE
001.000.41.521.80.41.00 4,360.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.80.41.00 414.20
Total :4,774.20
216491 10/1/2015 072800 TOYOTA LIFT NORTHWEST 25079784 Unit 004 - Seat Belt Assembly
Unit 004 - Seat Belt Assembly
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 169.09
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.27
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.70
Total :204.06
216492 10/1/2015 068322 TRANE US INC 35625902 PS - Repairs
PS - Repairs
016.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,293.40
9.5% Sales Tax
016.000.66.518.30.48.00 122.87
Total :1,416.27
216493 10/1/2015 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 752771 WWTP - SAFETY SUPPLIES
Rubber chest waders - 4 pair
423.000.76.535.80.31.12 407.80
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.12 64.96
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.12 44.91
Total :517.67
216494 10/1/2015 064214 USSSA WASHINGTON STATE 813 MENS FALL ADD'L TEAM REGISTRATION FEES
MENS FALL ADD'L TEAM REGISTRATION FEES
001.000.64.571.25.49.00 35.00
42Page:
Packet Page 108 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :35.0021649410/1/2015 064214 064214 USSSA WASHINGTON STATE
216495 10/1/2015 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 5080123 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 99.19
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 99.19
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 102.19
Total :300.57
216496 10/1/2015 067216 VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CO 49424 City Wide Sprinkler Inspections
City Wide Sprinkler Inspections
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 3,096.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00 294.12
Total :3,390.12
216497 10/1/2015 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO 502271 Fac Maint - Bleach, Air Fresh, Cleaner,
Fac Maint - Bleach, Air Fresh, Cleaner,
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 440.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 41.86
Fac Maint - Dust Mops502877
Fac Maint - Dust Mops
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 210.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.03
Fac Maint - Vac Bags502889
Fac Maint - Vac Bags
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.71
Fac Maint - Returns510903
Fac Maint - Returns
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -25.59
43Page:
Packet Page 109 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216497 10/1/2015 (Continued)075154 WALTER E NELSON CO
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -2.43
Total :716.55
216498 10/1/2015 045912 WASPC DUES 2015-00764 DUES 2015-00764 LAWLESS - EDMONDS PD
ASSOCIATES DUES - LAWLESS
001.000.41.521.10.49.00 75.00
Total :75.00
216499 10/1/2015 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6810 INV#6810 - EDMONDS PD
SET UP OF 4 NAMES
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 48.00
PRINTING OF 4 NEW CARDS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 103.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 14.35
Total :165.35
216500 10/1/2015 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR E81292 HARRIS BOOTS, RAIN GEAR, HARD HAT
HARRIS BOOTS, RAIN GEAR, HARD HAT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 284.74
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 26.20
Total :310.94
216501 10/1/2015 071104 WIPPEL, TERESA 20150924 VIDEO OF EDMONDS 125TH ANNIVERSARY CELEB
Video of 125th Anniversary Celebration
001.000.61.557.20.41.00 500.00
Total :500.00
216502 10/1/2015 070717 WSU URBAN & PESTICIDE SAFETY IPM BIRD IPM BIRD 1/20-1/21/16
IPM BIRD 1/20-1/21/16
001.000.64.576.80.49.00 150.00
IPM DILL 1/20-1/21/16IPM DILL
IPM DILL 1/20-1/21/16
44Page:
Packet Page 110 of 363
10/01/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
11:29:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216502 10/1/2015 (Continued)070717 WSU URBAN & PESTICIDE SAFETY
001.000.64.576.80.49.00 150.00
Total :300.00
Bank total :840,178.61119 Vouchers for bank code :usbank
840,178.61Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report119
45Page:
Packet Page 111 of 363
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 9/30/2015 Packet Page 112 of 363
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 9/30/2015 Packet Page 113 of 363
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
SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB
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
Revised 9/30/2015 Packet Page 114 of 363
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH
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 9/30/2015 Packet Page 115 of 363
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 9/30/2015 Packet Page 116 of 363
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 9/30/2015 Packet Page 117 of 363
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
SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
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
Revised 9/30/2015 Packet Page 118 of 363
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program
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 9/30/2015 Packet Page 119 of 363
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 9/30/2015 Packet Page 120 of 363
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 9/30/2015 Packet Page 121 of 363
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 9/30/2015 Packet Page 122 of 363
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
SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
Revised 9/30/2015 Packet Page 123 of 363
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 9/30/2015 Packet Page 124 of 363
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 9/30/2015 Packet Page 125 of 363
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA
Revised 9/30/2015 Packet Page 126 of 363
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 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB
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
Revised 9/30/2015 Packet Page 127 of 363
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC
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 9/30/2015 Packet Page 128 of 363
Pa
y
r
o
l
l
E
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Pa
y
P
e
r
i
o
d
:
8
0
2
(
0
9
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
5
t
o
0
9
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
5
)
Ho
u
r
s
Amount
Ho
u
r
T
y
p
e
H
o
u
r
C
l
a
s
s
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
RE
G
U
L
A
R
H
O
U
R
S
RE
G
U
L
A
R
H
O
U
R
S
19
0
0.
0
0
271.26
To
t
a
l
N
e
t
P
a
y
:
$232.97$271.26
0.
0
0
10
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
5
Page 1 of 1 Packet Page 129 of 363
AM-8012 4. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/06/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61804 through #61815 for $527,006.93, benefit checks
#61816 through #61823 and wire payments of $478,300.18 for the pay period September 16, 2015
through September 30, 2015.
Recommendation
Approval of 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:1,005,307.11
Fiscal Impact:
Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $527,006.93
Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $478,300.18
Total Payroll $1,005,307.11
Attachments
Payroll Summary 10-05-15
Payroll Benefit 10-05-15
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 10/01/2015 02:17 PM
Packet Page 130 of 363
Finance Scott James 10/01/2015 02:17 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/01/2015 02:24 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/01/2015 03:35 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/01/2015 03:53 PM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 10/01/2015 02:06 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/01/2015
Packet Page 131 of 363
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 757 (09/16/2015 to 09/30/2015)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
Educational Pay CorrectionREGULAR HOURS-ed2 0.00 -156.28
NO PAY LEAVEABSENT111 28.00 0.00
NO PAY NON HIREDABSENT112 24.00 0.00
SICK LEAVE - L & ISICK120 89.00 2,629.00
SICK LEAVESICK121 690.67 25,531.96
VACATIONVACATION122 1,459.28 55,159.10
HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 104.50 3,968.55
COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 180.75 6,205.59
Police Sick Leave L & ISICK129 11.00 417.69
Holiday Compensation UsedCOMP HOURS130 9.00 262.90
BEREAVEMENTBEREAVEMENT141 48.00 1,833.27
Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 72.00 2,694.00
COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 101.20 3,894.45
MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 9.00 428.20
COUNCIL BASE PAYREGULAR HOURS170 700.00 7,000.00
COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAYREGULAR HOURS174 0.00 200.00
COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICALREGULAR HOURS175 0.00 1,389.86
REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 16,223.42 558,730.37
FIRE PENSION PAYMENTSREGULAR HOURS191 4.00 2,150.85
LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS196 53.00 2,012.49
OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 108.25 3,325.13
WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 60.00 2,875.64
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 15.00 1,314.23
OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 229.00 14,502.15
OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 1.00 72.16
WORKING OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUS410 0.00 316.97
SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 743.36
RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY600 0.00 59,924.37
ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS602 82.00 0.00
Holiday Comp 1.0COMP HOURS603 1.00 0.00
ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS604 98.50 0.00
ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS606 3.50 0.00
BOOT ALLOWANCEMISCELLANEOUS902 0.00 179.00
ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 24.70
10/01/2015 Page 1 of 2
Packet Page 132 of 363
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 757 (09/16/2015 to 09/30/2015)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 169.99
BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 82.79
Collision ReconstructionistMISCELLANEOUScolre 0.00 138.69
TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 143.68
CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 609.54
DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUSdet 0.00 100.25
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
K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 100.25
LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITYlg1 0.00 1,241.73
LONGEVITY 5.5%LONGEVITYlg10 0.00 543.60
LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%LONGEVITYlg11 0.00 643.13
LONGEVITY PAY 4%LONGEVITY PAYlg2 0.00 829.20
LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAYlg3 0.00 5,282.79
Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 200.09
Longevity .5%LONGEVITYlg6 0.00 247.22
Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 958.37
Medical Leave SickSICKmels 72.00 1,761.54
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 173.86 0.00
TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 315.78
VACATION ADD BACKVACATIONvab 44.88 0.00
Total Net Pay:$527,006.93
$780,729.64 20,695.81
10/01/2015 Page 2 of 2
Packet Page 133 of 363
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 757 - 09/16/2015 to 09/30/2015
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
61816 10/05/2015 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,173.00 0.00
61817 10/05/2015 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 117.00 0.00
61818 10/05/2015 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 1,028.10 0.00
61819 10/05/2015 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 901.00 0.00
61820 10/05/2015 cope SEIU COPE 52.00 0.00
61821 10/05/2015 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 3,573.37 0.00
61822 10/05/2015 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 724.00 0.00
61823 10/05/2015 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,337.51 0.00
9,905.98 0.00
Bank: wire - US BANK
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
2282 10/05/2015 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 234,507.03 0.00
2285 10/05/2015 aflac AFLAC 5,106.12 0.00
2289 10/05/2015 us US BANK 105,902.02 0.00
2290 10/05/2015 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 21,890.00 0.00
2291 10/05/2015 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 95,982.93 0.00
2293 10/05/2015 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 4,957.60 0.00
2294 10/05/2015 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 48.50 0.00
468,394.20 0.00
478,300.18 0.00Grand Totals:
Page 1 of 110/1/2015
Packet Page 134 of 363
AM-7997 4. D.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/06/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Department:City Clerk's Office
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Michael Scott ($916.79) and from Curt Cunningham
($400.00).
Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Michael Scott
142 NE 193rd St.
Shoreline, WA 98155
($916.79)
Curt Cunningham
8621 200th SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
($400.00)
Attachments
Scott Claim for Damages
Cunningham Claim for Damages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 09/23/2015 08:54 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/23/2015 08:55 AM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 09/22/2015 04:56 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/23/2015
Packet Page 135 of 363
Packet Page 136 of 363
Packet Page 137 of 363
Packet Page 138 of 363
Packet Page 139 of 363
Packet Page 140 of 363
Packet Page 141 of 363
Packet Page 142 of 363
Packet Page 143 of 363
Packet Page 144 of 363
Packet Page 145 of 363
Packet Page 146 of 363
Packet Page 147 of 363
Packet Page 148 of 363
Packet Page 149 of 363
Packet Page 150 of 363
Packet Page 151 of 363
AM-7999 4. E.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/06/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Chief Compaan Submitted By:Don Anderson
Department:Police Department
Type: Forward to Consent
Information
Subject Title
Police Department Surplus Property
Recommendation
Approval via Consent Agenda
Previous Council Action
This item was presented to Council by Chief Compaan on 09-22-15. It was approved for the consent
agenda at the 10-06-15 meeting.
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 09/24/2015 07:55 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/24/2015 10:56 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/29/2015 09:31 AM
Form Started By: Don Anderson Started On: 09/23/2015 11:43 AM
Packet Page 152 of 363
Final Approval Date: 09/29/2015
Packet Page 153 of 363
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 154 of 363
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 155 of 363
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 156 of 363
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 157 of 363
AM-8000 4. F.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/06/2015
Time:
Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Jim Stevens
Department:Public Works
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
ESCO IV Funding Use.
Recommendation
Staff recommends Council to approve this consent agenda item revising the scope of work and maximum
cost of the proposed ESCO IV Project, thereby granting the mayor authority to sign the associated project
contract documents.
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, At the Council
meeting held September 22, 2015, reduced project scope was discussed and it was agreed to put this
revised scope on the consent agenda for Council approval.
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 (including the Sternberg decorative lights in the waterfront area) leaves a total project proposal of
$165,546. This amount is the guaranteed maximum project value, and it includes an increased amount of
contingency above the original proposal (10% vs. 5%) to leave room for repairing more steam traps if the
Packet Page 158 of 363
need exists.
This project will provide for the needed replacement of critical building HVAC equipment, as well as
work on the FAC steam traps to save natural gas and heat the building more efficiently. Therefore, staff
recommends Council approve the use of this funding to allow the ESCO IV project to move forward and
contract for the work as outlined in the attachment provided and in this agenda item.
Attachments
Revised ESCO Scope Proposal
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Public Works Phil Williams 09/24/2015 12:36 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/29/2015 08:02 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/29/2015 08:32 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/29/2015 09:31 AM
Form Started By: Jim Stevens Started On: 09/23/2015 02:41 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/29/2015
Packet Page 159 of 363
Project: City of Edmonds Ph. 6 Facilities Upgrade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Measure: All Measures
Date: September 23, 2015 11 13 17 18 22 23 25 29 30 34 35 37 41 62 63 64 65
Baseline Proposed Savings Financials
Current Current Current Current Future Future Future Future Annual Annual Labor/Mat'l Estimated Final Simple
ECM #Conservation Measure Gas Electric Gas Total Gas Electric Gas Total Gas Resource Cost Utility Labor/Mat'l Payback
Consume Use Cost Cost Cost Consume Use Cost Cost Cost Consume Savings Savings Incentive Cost
(kWh)(Therms)($)($)($)(kWh)(Therms)($)($)($)(kWh)(Therms)($)($)($)
Library Library -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ $0 -$
Mechanical Conservation MeasuresMechanical Conservation Measures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ $0 -$
Lib-M1
Rooftop Units: This measure will replace the existing 7.5 and 5 ton gas pack rooftop units
with new models, and incorporate occupancy and CO2 demand ventilation controls.
- Connect new units and add space sensors to existing building Alerton control system
- Includes TAB and Commissioning of the new equipment
1,493 2,121 104$ 2,203$ 2,307$ 823 1,155 57$ 1,199$ 1,257$ 669 966 1,051$ 86,373$ -$ 86,373$ 82.22
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ $0 -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ $0 -$
Frances Anderson Center (FAC)Frances Anderson Center (FAC)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
Mechanical Conservation MeasuresMechanical Conservation Measures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
FAC-M1
Steam trap audit: This measure will initiate a steam trap audit to assess trap operation and
system losses.
- Includes $5,250 repair budget. Estimated to cover replacement cost of 10 fixtures
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ 7,865$ -$ 7,865$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
Streetlights Streetlights -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
Lighting Conservation MeasuresLighting Conservation Measures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
COE-L1
Retrofit six existing street pole lighting with exterior LED technology with photocell control
along the Beach
- Retrofit with Relume kit
4,494 235$ -$ 235$ 1,051 65$ -$ 65$ 3,443 - 170$ 8,650$ 516$ 8,134$ 46.62
COE-L2
Replace seven Hwy 99 existing street pole lighting with exterior LED technology with
photocell control.
- fixtures to match existing upgraded Holophane fixtures
9,045 425$ -$ 425$ 3,679 276$ -$ 276$ 5,366 - 149$ 16,188$ 805$ 15,383$ 57.73
COE-L3 Replace 39 existing street pole lighting with exterior LED technology with photocell control.
- Fixtures to be replaced with AEL ATBM and ATBS fixtures per lighting audit detail 4,494 2,191$ -$ 2,191$ 1,051 1,345$ -$ 1,345$ 3,443 - 846$ 24,198$ 6,206$ 17,992$ 13.03
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
Annual
Savings
Electric
Current
Annual Use -
Electrical
Future
Total
Annual Use -
1 of 5
Packet Page 160 of 363
Project: City of Edmonds Ph. 6 Facilities Upgrade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Measure: All Measures
Date: September 23, 2015 11 13 17 18 22 23 25 29 30 34 35 37 41 62 63 64 65
Baseline Proposed Savings Financials
Current Current Current Current Future Future Future Future Annual Annual Labor/Mat'l Estimated Final Simple
ECM #Conservation Measure Gas Electric Gas Total Gas Electric Gas Total Gas Resource Cost Utility Labor/Mat'l Payback
Consume Use Cost Cost Cost Consume Use Cost Cost Cost Consume Savings Savings Incentive Cost
(kWh)(Therms)($)($)($)(kWh)(Therms)($)($)($)(kWh)(Therms)($)($)($)
Annual
Savings
Electric
Current
Annual Use -
Electrical
Future
Total
Annual Use -
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
2 of 5
Packet Page 161 of 363
Project: City of Edmonds Ph. 6 Facilities Upgrade
Measure: Selected Options
Date:September 23, 2015
Baseline Proposed Savings
Current Current Current Current Future Future Future Future Annual Annual Labor/Mat'l Estimated Final Simple
ECM #Conservation Measure Gas Electric Gas Total Gas Electric Gas Total Gas Resource Cost Utility Labor/Mat'l Payback
Consume Use Cost Cost Cost Consume Use Cost Cost Cost Consume Savings Savings Incentive Cost
Selected?kWh (Therms)$$$kWh (Therms)$$$kWh (Therms)$$$
Library
Mechanical Conservation Measures
Yes Lib-M1
Rooftop Units: This measure will replace the existing 7.5 and 5 ton gas pack rooftop units
with new models, and incorporate occupancy and CO2 demand ventilation controls.
- Connect new units and add space sensors to existing building Alerton control system
- Includes TAB and Commissioning of the new equipment
1,493 2,121 104 2,203 $2,307 823 1,155 $57 $1,199 $1,257 669 966 $1,051 $86,373 $86,373 82.22
Frances Anderson Center (FAC)
Mechanical Conservation Measures
Yes FAC-M1
Steam trap audit: This measure will initiate a steam trap audit to assess trap operation and
system losses.
- Includes $5,250 repair budget. Estimated to cover replacement cost of 10 fixtures
$7,865 $7,865
Streetlights
Lighting Conservation Measures
No COE-L1
Retrofit six existing street pole lighting with exterior LED technology with photocell control
along the Beach
- Retrofit with Relume kit
No COE-L2
Replace seven Hwy 99 existing street pole lighting with exterior LED technology with
photocell control.
- fixtures to match existing upgraded Holophane fixtures
No COE-L3 Replace 39 existing street pole lighting with exterior LED technology with photocell control.
- Fixtures to be replaced with AEL ATBM and ATBS fixtures per lighting audit detail
Totals:1,493 2,121 104$ 2,203$ 2,307$ 823 1,155 57$ 1,199$ 1,257$ 669 966 1,051$ 94,238$ -$ 94,238$ 89.7
Total Mechanical 1,493 2,121 104$ 2,203$ 2,307$ 823 1,155 57$ 1,199$ 1,257$ 669 966 1,051$ 94,238$ -$ 94,238$ 89.7037
Total Water - - -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Lighting - - -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
Total General - - -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ - - -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Check totals match?
1,493 2,121 104$ 2,203$ 2,307$ 823 1,155 57$ 1,199$ 1,257$ 669 966 1,051$ 94,238$ -$ 94,238$ 89.7 In
s
e
r
t
r
o
w
s
ab
o
v
e
t
o
ma
t
c
h
A
l
l
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Annual
Savings
Current
Annual Use -
Future
Total
3 of 5
Packet Page 162 of 363
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$ -$ 94,238$
M,W,G Design @ 10.0% of Labor & Material 9,424$ 9,424$
Lighting Design @ 6.0% of Labor & Material -$ -$
Construction Mgt @ 6.0% of Labor & Material 5,654$ -$ 5,654$
Bonding @ 2.0% of Labor & Material 1,885$ -$ 1,885$
ESCO Overhead and Profit @ 18.0% of Labor & Material 16,963$ -$ 16,963$
1st Year of Ameresco M&V 993$
Subtotal: 128,164$ -$ 129,157$
Construction Contingency @ 10.0% of CC 9,424$ -$ 9,424$
Subtotal - Maximum Project Cost:137,588$ -$ 138,581$
Est. Sales Tax @ 9.5% of Maximum Project Cost 13,071$ -$ 13,165$
0 Additional Years of M&V - Ameresco (includes tax)-$
1 Years of M&V - DES -$
DES Project Management Fees 13,800$
TOTAL PROJECT PRICE: 150,659$ -$ 165,546$
Estimated Utility Incentive -$ -$ -$
Grant Request -$
Estimated Client Net Cost (excluding add'tl years M&V)165,546$
Client Initial Cash Payment 165,546$
-$
Amount to be Financed by Client:-$
Year 1 Estimated Cash Flow:1,051$
Year 1 Cash Flow Based on Guaranteed Energy Savings
(90%):945$
ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS Mechanical Water Lighting General Total Annual Svg
Electrical Savings (kWh)669 0 0 0 669 47$
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$ -$ -$ -$ 1,051$ 1,051$
Template Version 3.34
September 23, 2015
4 of 5
Packet Page 163 of 363
II. PROJECT CASH FLOW FOR SELECTED OPTIONS
PROJECT SAVINGS BASED ON ESTIMATED ENERGY SAVINGS (100%)
Year ending 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Reference year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Mechanical, General, and Water savings -$ 1,051$ 1,066$ 1,082$ 1,099$ 1,115$ 1,132$ 1,149$ 1,166$ 1,183$ 1,201$ 1,219$ 1,237$ 1,256$ 1,275$ 1,294$ 1,313$ 1,333$ 1,353$ 1,373$ 1,394$
Lighting Savings:-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Lighting Maintenance Savings -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Maintenance Savings -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Depreciation Tax Credit -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Savings:-$ 1,051$ 1,066$ 1,082$ 1,099$ 1,115$ 1,132$ 1,149$ 1,166$ 1,183$ 1,201$ 1,219$ 1,237$ 1,256$ 1,275$ 1,294$ 1,313$ 1,333$ 1,353$ 1,373$ 1,394$
Cumulative Savings:-$ 1,051$ 2,117$ 3,199$ 4,298$ 5,413$ 6,544$ 7,693$ 8,859$ 10,042$ 11,244$ 12,463$ 13,700$ 14,956$ 16,231$ 17,525$ 18,839$ 20,172$ 21,525$ 22,898$ 24,292$
PROJECT SAVINGS BASED ON GUARANTEED ENERGY SAVINGS (90)%
Year ending 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Mechanical, General, and Water savings -$ 945$ 959.67$ 974$ 989$ 1,004$ 1,019$ 1,034$ 1,049$ 1,065$ 1,081$ 1,097$ 1,114$ 1,130$ 1,147$ 1,165$ 1,182$ 1,200$ 1,218$ 1,236$ 1,255$
Lighting Savings:-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Lighting Maintenance Savings -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Maintenance Savings -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Depreciation Tax Credit -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Savings:-$ 945$ 960$ 974$ 989$ 1,004$ 1,019$ 1,034$ 1,049$ 1,065$ 1,081$ 1,097$ 1,114$ 1,130$ 1,147$ 1,165$ 1,182$ 1,200$ 1,218$ 1,236$ 1,255$
Cumulative Savings:-$ 945$ 1,905$ 2,879$ 3,868$ 4,871$ 5,890$ 6,924$ 7,973$ 9,038$ 10,119$ 11,217$ 12,330$ 13,461$ 14,608$ 15,773$ 16,955$ 18,155$ 19,372$ 20,609$ 21,863$
ANNUAL PROJECT COSTS
Amount Financed:-$
Cash Payment:165,546$
Year ending 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Annual Financing Costs -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Ameresco Measurement and Verification -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
DES Measurement and Verification -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Annual Costs to Client 165,546$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
NET ANNUAL CASH FLOW WHEN FINANCING PROJECT:
Year ending 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Cash Flow from Estimated
Energy Savings
(with inflation)
(165,546)$ 1,051$ 1,066$ 1,082$ 1,099$ 1,115$ 1,132$ 1,149$ 1,166$ 1,183$ 1,201$ 1,219$ 1,237$ 1,256$ 1,275$ 1,294$ 1,313$ 1,333$ 1,353$ 1,373$ 1,394$
Cumulative (165,546)$ (164,495)$ (163,429)$ (162,347)$ (161,248)$ (160,133)$ (159,002)$ (157,853)$ (156,687)$ (155,504)$ (154,302)$ (153,083)$(151,846)$(150,590)$ (149,315)$ (148,021)$ (146,707)$ (145,374)$ (144,021)$ (142,648)$ (141,254)$
Cash Flow from Guaranteed
Energy Savings
(with inflation)
(165,546)$ 945$ 960$ 974$ 989$ 1,004$ 1,019$ 1,034$ 1,049$ 1,065$ 1,081$ 1,097$ 1,114$ 1,130$ 1,147$ 1,165$ 1,182$ 1,200$ 1,218$ 1,236$ 1,255$
Cumulative (165,546)$ (164,601)$ (163,641)$ (162,667)$ (161,678)$ (160,675)$ (159,656)$ (158,622)$ (157,573)$ (156,508)$ (155,427)$ (154,329)$(153,216)$(152,085)$ (150,938)$ (149,773)$ (148,591)$ (147,391)$ (146,174)$ (144,937)$ (143,683)$
5 of 5
Packet Page 164 of 363
AM-8006 4. G.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/06/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Michael Clugston
Department:Planning
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Adoption of an Ordinance for a site specific rezone request 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, as approved by the
City Council on September 15, 2015. 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).
Recommendation
Adopt the ordinance approving the site specific zone change request (Exhibit 1).
Previous Council Action
At it's September 15th meeting the City Council approved the Planning Board's recommendation and
directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance approving the site specific zone change request.
Narrative
The property owners are requesting to remove the contract zoning and its restrictions on the western half
of the property to permit further development of the property. The contract zoning currently restricts any
type of change to the western portion of the property. If removed, the underlying zoning of General
Commercial (CG2) will remain in place.
The Planning Board held a public hearing on July 22, 2015 and recommended the City Council approve
the site specific zone change request to remove the contract zoning on the western half of the property.
The Council held a closer record review of the Planning Board's recommendation on September 15th,
2015, and voted to approve the rezone request and direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance
implementing the zoning change.
Attachments
Ordinance
Exhibit A
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Planning Department (Originator)PBHEX Admin 09/29/2015 07:54 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/29/2015 08:02 AM
Packet Page 165 of 363
Mayor Dave Earling 09/29/2015 08:31 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/29/2015 09:31 AM
Form Started By: Michael Clugston Started On: 09/28/2015 01:31 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/29/2015
Packet Page 166 of 363
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
AND APPROVING A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR THE
PARCEL LOCATED AT 21900 HIGHWAY 99 FROM
GENERAL COMMERICAL (CG2) WITH A CONCOMITANT
AGREEMENT LIMITING THE USES ON THE PROPERTY TO
GENERAL COMMERICAL (CG2) WITHOUT ANY SUCH
CONCOMITANT AGREEMENT; AUTHORIZING
AMENDMENT OF THE CITY’S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP;
RELEASING THE CONCOMITANT AGREEMENT AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2015, an application (File #PLN20150024) was submitted
by Merlone Geier Partners to rezone a portion of a 9.1 acre property located at 21900 Highway
99 (at the northwest corner of 220th Street SW and Highway 99); and
WHEREAS, the application was determined to be complete on June 30, 2015; and
WHEREAS, a combined Notice of Application, SEPA Determination, and Public
Hearing was issued on July 2, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the property is currently zoned General Commercial (CG2) with the
western half of the property encumbered by a concomitant agreement dated July 10, 1991 (File
#R-02-90); and
WHEREAS, Section 5 of that July 10, 1991 concomitant agreement states:
“Owner, its heirs, successors or assigns, or Edmonds may, upon application, apply to amend or
terminate the provisions of this Agreement or to change the zoning on said property. Said
application to change or terminate the provisions and covenants or to rezone said property shall
Packet Page 167 of 363
- 2 -
be heard in the normal manner at appropriate public hearings as any other application for a
rezone of property in the City of Edmonds. Such action by either party shall not release the
Owner, its heirs, successors or assigns from the obligations assumed under this Agreement,
unless and until such application shall be duly approved by Edmonds;” and
WHEREAS; if approved, the rezone would release the concomitant agreement
and its restrictions on the western half of the property and leave the property subject to the CG2
zoning regulations without any contractual limitations; and
WHEREAS, the concomitant agreement currently restricts any type of change to
the western portion of the property; and
WHEREAS, if removed, the underlying zoning of General Commercial (CG2)
will remain in place; and
WHEREAS, staff made a recommendation to the Planning Board which in turn
conducted an open-record public hearing and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council;
and
WHEREAS, the city council held a closed-record review of the project and
directed the city attorney to prepare an ordinance to formally rezone the property as
recommended by staff and the planning board; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. For its findings and conclusions in support of the rezone effected by
this ordinance, the City Council hereby adopts by this reference the findings and conclusions
contained in the Planning Division Advisory Report, Findings, Analysis and Recommendations
dated July 16, 2005 and contained in File No. PLN20150024.
Packet Page 168 of 363
- 3 -
Section 2. A portion of the 9.1 acre property located at 21900 Highway 99,
Edmonds, Washington and shown on the map dated May 28, 2015, attached as Exhibit A hereto,
is hereby rezoned from contract General Commercial (CG2) to General Commercial (CG2)
without any contract. Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
Because the property has now been rezoned, the concomitant Agreement and Covenants dated
July 10, 1991 is released and shall have no further effect.
Section 3. The Development Services Director or her designee is hereby
authorized and directed to make appropriate amendments to the Edmonds Zoning Map in order
to properly designate the rezoned property as General Commercial (CG2) pursuant to Section 2
of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADAY
Packet Page 169 of 363
- 4 -
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 170 of 363
- 5 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2015, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSIONS AND APPROVING A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR THE PARCEL
LOCATED AT 21900 Highway 99 FROM GENERAL COMMERICAL (CG2) with a
CONCOMITANT AGREEMENT limiting the uses ON THE PROPERTY TO GENERAL
COMMERICAL (CG2) without any such CONCOMITANT AGREEMENT; AUTHORIZING
AMENDMENT OF THE CITY’S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; RELEASING THE
CONCOMITANT AGREEMENT AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2015.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Page 171 of 363
- 6 -
Exhibit A
See attached zoning map
Packet Page 172 of 363
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
3
o
f
3
6
3
AM-8003 4. H.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/06/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Al Compaan
Department:Police Department
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Amending ECC 8.48 adding Columbus Day as a Holiday for Parking Enforcement
Recommendation
Approve Ordinance.
Previous Council Action
Presented at Council Work Session on September 8, 2015. By consensus, approved for Consent Agenda.
Narrative
Edmonds City Code Section 8.48 specifies those public holidays during which there is a moratorium on
overtime parking enforcement on streets where signs are posted limiting parking during certain
hours/days as described in ECC 8.64 and 8.48.140. Confusion can arise on the part of the general public
on Columbus Day, which is an observed federal holiday but not an observed city holiday. Overtime
parking enforcement on Columbus Day pursuant to the aforementioned ECC chapters has resulted in
periodic complaints being raised by those receiving overtime parking notices of infraction. Adding
Columbus Day to the list of holidays observed for the specific purpose of enforcing overtime parking per
ECC 8.64 and 8.48.140 would resolve potential confusion on this issue.
Attachments
Ordinance Amending ECC 8.48
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/29/2015 08:02 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/29/2015 08:32 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/29/2015 09:31 AM
Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 09/25/2015 11:32 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/29/2015
Packet Page 174 of 363
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ECC 8.48 TO ADD COLUMBUS
DAY AS A “PUBLIC HOLIDAY” FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THAT SECTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, after review and discussion, the City Council has determined that it
is appropriate to amend Chapter 8.48 of the Edmonds City Code (“ECC”) to add Columbus Day
as a “public holiday” for the purposes of that section; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Subsection .140 of Section 8.48 of the ECC Parking is hereby
amended to read as follows:
8.48.140 Parking prohibited during certain hours on certain streets.
When signs are erected in each block giving notice thereof, no person shall park a
vehicle between the hours specified in ECC 8.64.040 on any day except Sundays
and public holidays within the district or upon any of the streets described in ECC
8.64.040. “Public holidays” within the meaning of Sections 8.48 and 8.64
embrace only days for the observance of the following:
January 1st (New Year’s Day); February 12th (Lincoln’s Birthday); third Monday
of February (Washington’s Birthday); last Monday of May (Memorial Day); July
4th (anniversary of Declaration of Independence); first Monday of September
(Labor Day); second Monday of October (Columbus Day); November 11th
(Veteran’s Day); fourth Thursday of November (Thanksgiving Day); and
December 25th (Christmas Day).
If any of these public holidays falls upon any Sunday, the day next following such
date shall be the holiday therefor. [Ord. 3564 § 1, 2005].
Packet Page 175 of 363
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being legislative in nature and an
exercise of a power delegated to the City as a corporate entity, is subject to initiative or
referendum, and shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage and publication of an approved
summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 176 of 363
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2015, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ECC 8.48 TO ADD COLUMBUS
DAY AS A “PUBLIC HOLIDAY” FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THAT SECTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2015.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Page 177 of 363
AM-8005 5. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/06/2015
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation in honor of Arts & Humanities month.
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The value and importance of culture in the lives of Americans has been celebrated for 30 years through
the proclamation at national, state, and local levels of Arts and Humanities Month in October. The
proclamation commemorates the efforts of millions of people in our country, including the many arts
organizations and individuals in Edmonds, who work to make the arts and humanities accessible to all
while contributing to our economic vitality and enhancing education for our youth.
Edmonds is known as a community that supports the arts. A broad array of cultural organizations call
Edmonds their home - including the Cascade Symphony, Driftwood Theater, Edmonds Arts Festival and
Arts Festival Foundation, Edmonds Center for the Arts, Edmonds Historical Museum, Gallery North,
Olympic Ballet Theatre, and the newest addition Cascadia Art Museum. In addition the city is home to a
rich variety of arts related businesses and working artists. A short presentation of a video originally
prepared for the July 2015 Mini Arts Summit highlights many of these impressive cultural assets in
Edmonds.
The City works to foster the literary, performing and visual arts through the Edmonds Arts Commission
programs such as the nationally recognized Write on the Sound writers’ conference in October, free
Summer Concerts in the park, a significant collection of Public Art, and ongoing exhibits by regional
artists. Partnerships, sponsorships, and volunteers are vital to the success of Edmonds Arts Commission
programs.
The proclamation is an opportunity to urge citizens to reflect on the benefits of the arts to Edmonds and
the many opportunities to experience a broad array of cultural events throughout October and all year
long.
Attachments
A&H_2015
Form Review
Packet Page 178 of 363
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Frances Chapin Frances Chapin 10/01/2015 03:19 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/01/2015 03:20 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/01/2015 07:47 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/02/2015 06:59 AM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 09/28/2015 11:54 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/02/2015
Packet Page 179 of 363
Packet Page 180 of 363
AM-8013 7. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/06/2015
Time:60 Minutes
Submitted By:Kernen Lien
Department:Planning
Type: Potential Action
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on proposed amendments to the City of Edmonds Critical Area Regulations contained in
Chapters 23.40 - 23.90 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and associated code
amendments related to frequently flooded areas in Chapter 19.00 ECDC and Chapter 21 ECDC.
Recommendation
Direct staff to prepare an ordinance adopting the proposed amendments to the critical area regulations
(ECDC 23.40 - ECDC 23.90) as contained in Exhibit 1 and associated frequently flooded areas
amendments to the Building Code (ECDC 19.00.025) and the definition of height contained in
ECDC 21.40.030 as contained in Exhibit 2.
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 4) and
continued review at the September 22, 2015 Council meeting (Exhibit 5).
Narrative
All cities and counties in Washington State are required to adopt critical areas regulations by the Growth
Management Act (GMA). As defined by the GMA,
"Critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) wetlands; (b) areas with a critical
recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d)
frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas." [RCW 36.70A.030(5)]
Counties and cities are required to include Best Available Science (BAS) in developing policies and
development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. All jurisdictions are required
to review, evaluate, and, if necessary, revise their critical areas ordinances according to an update
schedule. The update of City of Edmonds critical area regulations, commonly referred to as the City's
"critical areas ordinance" (CAO) is due in 2015. The City's CAO and BAS have not had a comprehensive
review and update in nearly 10 years since the current version of the City's critical area regulations
became effective in 2005.
The City of Edmonds selected environmental consultants ESA to assist the City in updating the 2004
City's Best Available Science Report and to evaluate the City's critical area regulations given the changes
in science. Please see the September 8, 2015 Council agenda for the 2004 Best Available Science Report
Packet Page 181 of 363
and the 2015 Best Available Science addendum prepared by ESA which reviews the current science
related to critical areas as it has changed over the past 10 years.
ESA has concluded that the City's existing critical area regulations are largely compliant with current
Best Available Science; however, there are a few areas where ESA has suggested changes to the CAO.
The Planning Board reviewed proposed changes to the critical area regulations over the course of five
Planning Board meetings between March 25 and July 22, 2015; the Board's review included a July 8,
2015 public hearing. Exhibit 1 contains the proposed amendments to the City's critical area regulations in
a red-line/strike-out format. This is largely the Planning Board's recommendations with a few minor
tweaks given Council comments at the September 8th and September 22nd Council meetings. In
conjunction with its recommendations on critical areas, the Planning Board also forwarded a
recommendation for some modifications to the building code in ECDC 19.10 and definitions in Title 21
ECDC in regards to frequently flooded areas. These recommended modifications are provided in Exhibit
2 and discussed further below. Exhibit 3 is a Best Available Science and Gap Analysis Matrix
summarizing the recommended changes.
Below is a summary of the more significant changes in the draft critical area regulations.
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Geologically hazardous areas include erosion hazards (slopes 15 - 40%), landslide hazard areas (slopes
greater than 40%) and liquefaction hazard areas (areas susceptible to liquefaction during earthquakes).
Proposed changes to the Geologically Hazardous Areas include revising how landslide hazard areas are
defined and updating the requirements for geotechnical reports. Additionally, rather than establishing
standard buffers and setbacks from landslide hazard areas, appropriate buffers and setbacks will be
determined by a geotechnical report on a case-by-case basis.
Wetlands
The City's wetland regulations contained within ECDC 23.50 are being updated to be consistent with the
Department of Ecology's Guidance for Small Cities (Ecology Publication #10-06-002). This change will
result in a change of wetland buffers, with buffer width being determined by a combination of the
category of wetland and habitat score. Required mitigation ratios will also change to be consistent with
Ecology's Guidance for Small Cities. Another change consistent with the Guidance for Small Cities
include modifications to ECDC 23.50.040.K - Exemptions. This section is being updated to address small
hydrologically isolated wetlands. Certain wetland provisions will not apply to small isolated wetlands, but
they are not exempt from all wetland development standards (as in the existing code). Other wetland code
amendments address technical changes in manuals and terminology.
ECDC 23.90.040.C Native Vegetation on RS-12 and RS-20 Zoned Lots
Staff is proposing changes to ECDC 23.90.040.C which 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 in the City of Edmonds. The existing provision has characteristics similar to a provision in King
County’s critical area ordinance that was struck down by the Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, in
Citizens Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims, 145 Wash. App. 649. The proposed changes focus
standards on site-specific characteristics and provide more definition to specific habitat features to be
retained by this provision. Additionally, a section is added that would allow the director to waive the
provisions of ECDC 23.90.040.C where this habitat is nonexistent on a particular property.
Initially, staff and the consultants considered an approach that would replace this section with new
Packet Page 182 of 363
requirements for Biodiversity Areas and Corridors. However, to fully develop standards for retention and
connection of Biodiversity Areas and Corridors, it is clear that more study is needed. Under current
budget and time constraints, it is not possible to fully flesh out new code provisions for Biodiversity
Areas and Corridors. If the City pursues the development of an Urban Forest Management Plan, this will
provide an opportunity to map Biodiversity Areas and Corridors and identify forested areas important for
wildlife connections throughout the City of Edmonds. This information could then be used to develop
new regulations to protect the Biodiversity Areas and Corridors.
The proposed revisions described above will provide continued protection for naturally vegetated areas
of the City important for wildlife habitat while also providing a more refined code in line with the
findings of Citizens Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims.
Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Buffers
Edmonds is a largely built out community. In many instances when overlaying the standard buffers to a
stream or wetland, one will find existing development which separates the functionality of sites from the
critical area. As an example, a property located on the opposite side of a road from a stream could be
within the proscribed buffer distance, but the road provides a barrier to any benefit the site could provide
to the stream. To address these situations, a new paragraph has been added to the activities section of
ECDC 23.40.220 that would allow development within physically separated and functionally isolated
portions of a stream or wetland buffer. The minimum separation for a physically separated and
functionally isolated buffer is 12 feet and a site analysis may be required to determine if a site is
physically separated and functionally isolated.
Development within Footprint of Existing Development
As noted above, Edmonds is a largely developed community. Given that Edmonds is celebrating its 125th
anniversary this year, much of Edmonds was developed prior to the establishment of critical area
regulations. As a result, many wetland and stream buffers extend into residential yards that have been
previously developed and provide limited function in terms of stream and/or wetland protection.
Additionally, some buffers are substantially developed and contain impervious surfaces and commercial
or residential buildings. Simply applying the standard buffers in situations like this fails to provide the
necessary characteristics to protect a stream and/or wetlands functions. In these cases, it can be better to
restore the buffer through enhancement activities.
To address these types of situations, a new definition for “Footprint of Existing Development” has been
added and new sections have been added to the wetland and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
that would allow development within the footprint of existing development and a requirement for
enhancement of the remaining buffer in order to improve functions of the buffer.
Frequently Flooded Areas
While frequently flooded areas are by definition a type of critical area, development within the flood
zones in Edmonds is guided by building code requirements: ECDC 19.00.025, the International
Residential Code (IRC) for residential development, and the International Building Code (IBC) for
commercial development.
The IRC requires the floors of residences to be constructed to at least the Base Flood Elevation (BFE),
but it does not require single-family residences to be elevated above base flood elevation. The IBC
requires structures to be constructed at or up to two feet above BFE depending on the category of the
structure.
Packet Page 183 of 363
Given pending FEMA FIRM map update for flood plains in the Edmonds waterfront area and projections
for sea level rise in Puget Sound, staff is recommending that the building code be amended to require the
elevation of the lowest floor to be constructed a minimum of 2 feet above the Base Flood Elevation for all
new structures within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones. Exhibit 3 contains
draft code language incorporating this recommendation into ECDC 19.00.025 – International Building
Code section amendments.
Requiring structures to be constructed above the BFE will have impacts on the overall allowable height
structures could be constructed to as allowed by the zoning code. The height of structures is measured
from an average level of the undisturbed soil as defined by ECDC 21.40.030. Where existing grade along
the waterfront is at or below the BFE, requiring structures to be built 2 feet above BFE would effectively
eliminate 2 feet of the allowable height for a structure. In order to maintain existing height allowances,
the Planning Board recommended modifying the definition of height contained in ECDC 21.40.030 to
allow for the height of structures within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones to be
measured from two feet above BFE.
Restoration Projects
The City does not wish to discourage restoration projects that would provide a net benefit to the City's
critical areas. As such, a new section has been proposed in Section ECDC 23.40.215 to grant relief for
restoration projects that are not required as mitigation for a development proposal. The proposed relief is
a reduction to the expanded buffer as a result of the restoration project. Two types of projects would be
eligible for relief under ECDC 23.40.215:
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
A restoration project may apply a buffer equal to 75% the expanded buffer, or the restoration project
proponent may request the expanded buffer be reduced to a minimum of 50% of the standard buffer if
certain criteria apply.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Draft Critical Area Regulations ECDC 23.40 - 23.90
Exhibit 2 - Draft Frequently Flooded Area Amendments
Exhibit 3 - Best Available Science Gap Analysis Matrix
Exhibit 4 - September 8, 2015 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 5 - September 22, 2015 draft City Council Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 6 - Ecology Comments on Edmonds CAO Update
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/02/2015 08:58 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/02/2015 09:45 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/02/2015 09:47 AM
Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 10/01/2015 03:19 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/02/2015
Packet Page 184 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 185 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 186 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 187 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 188 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 189 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 190 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 191 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 192 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 193 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 194 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 195 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 196 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 197 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 198 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 199 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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;
Formatted: Font: 13.5 pt, Bold
Packet Page 200 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 201 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 202 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 203 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 204 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 205 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 206 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 not to exceed a square
footage cost of three dollars ($3.00) per square foot of impacted critical area and critical area buffer
and/or 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 207 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 208 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 209 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 210 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 211 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 212 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 or steam 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 critical area, where the former critical area was lost by past alterations and activities.
3. “Rehabilitation” means improving or repairing processes and functions to an area that is an existing
critical area that is highly degraded because one or more environmental processes supporting the critical
area have been disrupted.
34. “Enhancement” means actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded wetlands
critical area 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 213 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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; roads, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, walkways or other
areas paved with concrete, asphalt or compacted gravel; 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 five 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 214 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 215 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 216 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 217 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 218 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 219 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 220 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 221 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 222 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 223 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 224 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 225 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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
Formatted: Numbering (a), Space Before: 6
pt, After: 6 pt, Line spacing: Multiple 1.15 li
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0.25"
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.63"
Formatted: Numbering (a), Space Before: 6
pt, After: 6 pt, Line spacing: Multiple 1.15 li
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Packet Page 226 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 227 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 228 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 229 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 including but not limited to:
i. Water quality protectionPercent vegetative cover;
ii. Provision of wildlife habitatPercent invasive species cover;
iii. Maintenance of wetland hydrologySpecies richness; and
iv. Restricting wetland intrusion and disturbanceAmount of large woody debris.
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 230 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 231 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 232 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 233 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 3or 4 wetland;
32. The wetland does not provide significant habitat value for wildlife; and
3. The wetland is not adjacent to a riparian area;
4. The wetland has a score of three (3) – four (4) points for habitat in the adopted Western Washington
rating system; and
5. 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 234 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 235 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 236 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 237 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 238 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 239 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 240 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 2015
Page 57 of 90
Packet Page 241 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 242 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 243 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 244 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 245 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 246 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 247 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 248 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 249 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 250 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 251 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 252 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 specificall y
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 253 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 254 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 255 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 256 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 257 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 2015
Page 74 of 90
Figure 23.80.000
Packet Page 258 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 259 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 260 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 261 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 262 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 263 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 264 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 265 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 266 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 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 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. 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;
Packet Page 267 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 2015
Page 84 of 90
c. The activity is designed so that it will not degrade the functions or values of the fish habitat or other
critical areas;
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.
Packet Page 268 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 2015
Page 85 of 90
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
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;
Packet Page 269 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 2015
Page 86 of 90
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
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.
Packet Page 270 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 2015
Page 87 of 90
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
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;
Packet Page 271 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 2015
Page 88 of 90
b. The proposed development within the footprint of existing development is sited as far away from the
stream edge as is feasible;
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
Packet Page 272 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 2015
Page 89 of 90
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;
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;
Packet Page 273 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 2015
Page 90 of 90
d. Relocation of stream channel portions to create contiguous riparian corridors or wildlife habitat;
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].
Figure 23.90.000
Packet Page 274 of 363
City of Edmonds – City Code and Community Development Code
Environmentally Critical Areas – Proposed Code Updates, October 1, 2015
Page 91 of 90
Packet Page 275 of 363
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 276 of 363
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 277 of 363
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
Best Available Science Review and Gap Analysis Matrix
August 2015
Final version – consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 1 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
23.40 Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions
23.40.000 Purpose Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.010 Authority Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.020 Relationship to
other regulations
Generally consistent, but
could be strengthened
CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.030 Severability Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.040 Jurisdiction –
Critical Areas
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
None; consistent with BAS
23.40.050 Protection of
critical areas
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.060 General
requirements
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.070 Critical areas
preapplication
consultation
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.080 Notice of initial
determination
Generally consistent, but
could be strengthened
Section B.2 could be
strengthened by including criteria
Add the following statement to Section B.2.:
“A waiver may be granted if there is
CTED, 2007 Revise to remove vague
decision criteria language (do
Packet Page 278 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 2 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
for granting a waiver. substantial evidence that all of the following
requirements will be met:
a. There will be no alteration of the
critical area or buffer;
b. The development proposal will not
affect the critical area in a manner
contrary to the purpose, intent, and
requirements of this Title; and
c. The proposal is consistent with
other applicable regulations and
standards.
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 .
D. Provides for consistency with
23.40.090.F, 23.40.220.C.1.c, and
23.50.010.E
not use the term “substantial
evidence”).
“A waiver may be granted if
the director determines that all
of the following requirements
will be met:…”
Subsection c. not included
because consistency with
“other applicable regulations
and standards” is not
determined with the critical
area review.
23.40.090 Critical areas
report – Requirements
Generally consistent, but
could be strengthened
Additional detail could be added
to strengthen reporting
requirements in Section D.
Revise Section D to include the following
requirements:
- A statement specifying the accuracy of the
report and all assumptions made and relied
upon;
-A description of the methodologies used to
conduct the critical areas study, including
references
-An assessment of the probable cumulative
effects to critical areas resulting from
development of the site and the proposed
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
These recommendations will
clarify for the City how and what
was done for a critical areas
report as well as bolster the
concept of mitigation sequencing
Revise Section D to include
only the first, second, and
fourth requirements in
suggested change.
Packet Page 279 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 3 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
development;
- Plans for adequate mitigation, as needed to
offset any effects, in accordance with the
Mitigation Plan Requirements in Section
23.40.130
and appropriate mitigation.
23.40.100 Critical areas
report – Modifications to
requirements
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.110 Mitigation
requirements
Could be brought closer
to consistency
Section B sets the standard for
the types of mitigation allowed
as: “in-kind and on-site, when
possible, and sufficient.” With
respect to wetlands and streams
especially, a watershed-based
focus may be more successful or
provide more ecological benefit.
Language in this section is not
fully consistent with mitigation
banking discussed in 23.50.050.H.
Revise Section B to include allowances for:
off-site and out-of-kind mitigation, in lieu fee
programs, mitigation banks, or other
mitigation strategies according to the criteria
set forth in Innovative Mitigation Section
23.40.140.
Improve internal code
consistency with 23.50.
Revise to include specific
reference to Ecology
Credit/Debit methodology,
and allowance for out-of-basin
mitigation with an approved
mitigation bank or ILF
program.
23.40.120 Mitigation
sequencing
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
None; consistent with BAS
23.40.130 Mitigation plan
requirements
Section C
Generally consistent but
could be strengthened
Does not specify that impact and
mitigation areas should be shown
on plans.
Revise Section C to include areas of proposed
effects to critical areas or buffers.
CTED, 2007 Make suggested change
Section D Requires monitoring for 3 years
instead of 5.
Revise Section D last sentence to read: “The
compensation project shall be monitored for
CTED, 2007 Make suggested change.
Packet Page 280 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 4 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
Inconsistent with BAS a period necessary to establish that
performance standards have been met, but
not for a period less than 5 years without
approval from the director.
23.40.140 Innovative
mitigation
Consistent with BAS Could provide additional clarification of types
of innovative mitigation allowed (e.g., in lieu
fee programs).
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Revise to include clearer, more
detailed definition of in-lieu
fee mitigation programs. Use
example language from
Bunten et al. (20012).
23.40.150 Critical areas
decision
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.160 Review criteria Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.170 Favorable critical
areas decision
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.180 Unfavorable
critical areas decision
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.190 Completion of
the critical areas review
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.200 Appeals Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.210 Variances Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.215 Critical Area
Restoration Projects
New section Insert new section that provides relief for
restoration projects that are not required as
mitigation for development proposal.
The City does not want to
discourage projects that would
provide a net benefit to the City’s
critical areas.
Insert new section 23.40.215
that would grant relief for
restoration projects associated
with a stream or wetland allow
buffer reduction of up to 50%
standard buffer if certain
criteria are met.
Packet Page 281 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 5 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
23.40.220 Allowed
activities
Generally consistent, but
could be strengthened
Can add additional clarity Revise Section C.1.c. to include “There is no
new information available that is applicable
to any critical area review of the site or
particular critical area;”
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Make suggested change
Section C4
Inconsistent with BAS
Any activities that directly affect
a wetland or stream should
receive further review
Revise Section C.4 to include
“Except those activities that alter a wetland
or watercourse, such as culverts or bridges,
or result in the transport of sediment or
increased stormwater; subject to the
following:
- Retention and replanting of native
vegetation shall occur wherever
possible along the right-of-way
improvement and resulting
disturbance.
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Make suggested change
23.40.220 Allowed
activities
(continued)
New subsection Physically separated and
functionally isolated buffers are
not directly addressed by the
existing CAO.
Provide code language to allow for
development within a physically separated
and functionally isolated buffer.
Improve clarity/user-friendliness Make suggested change.
Section C.6
Partially inconsistent
Updated model code for
wetlands and wetland buffers
suggests more strict
requirements for trails and
walkways. See discussion for
23.50.040.F.8 below.
Revise Section C.6. first sentence to read:
“Public and private trails, except in wetlands,
fish, and wildlife habitat conservation areas,
or their buffers,…”
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Make suggested change as
described below under
23.50.040, which will allow
trails in buffers under a set of
criteria.
Section C.7
Partially inconsistent
BAS suggests several strategies
including but not limited to: hand
removal, chemical treatment,
Revise Section C.7.a. to include an additional
information regarding invasive removal:
“Removal of invasive plant species shall be
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Make suggested change.
Ensure that all references to
chemical treatments in code
Packet Page 282 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 6 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
shading, or other techniques may
be appropriate depending on the
species and situation. See
discussion in 23.50.020.
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 Control Board list of noxious weeds
must be handled and disposed of according
to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to
that species.”
Add additional allowed activities in Section
C.7:
- 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 and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
are revised similarly.
Also add a square foot
threshold for limiting invasive
vegetation removal activities.
Language will be developed
during code revision stage, but
suggest something similar to
City of Seattle Environmentally
Critical Areas Code (SMC
25.09.320), which permits
restoring or improving
vegetation and trees through
invasive plant removal (by
hand) to “promote
maintenance or creation of a
naturally functioning condition
that prevents erosion, protects
water quality, or provides
diverse habitat… when the
area of work is under one
thousand five hundred (1,500)
square feet in area calculated
cumulatively over three (3)
years…”
Section C.7.b.
Inconsistent with BAS
and City code
Generally consistent with BAS
and model code language;
however, portions of 18.45—Land
Clearing and Tree Cutting are not
consistent with Section 23.40 and
would allow clearing and cutting
Revise 18.45 for internal consistency with
Section 23.40. Clearing and tree cutting
should not be allowed within critical areas or
buffers without review and compliance with
Section 23.40.
Inconsistent with BAS and
internal code
No changes to 23.40. City to
make revisions to 18.45 per
ESA suggestion, which is the
more appropriate ECDC
chapter.
Packet Page 283 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 7 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
within wetland and stream
buffers. There is no reference to
Section 23.40.
The terms “environmentally sensitive site”
and “environmentally sensitive areas” should
be revised to refer to environmentally critical
areas for consistency.
23.40.230 Exemptions Could be brought closer
to consistency
No definition in Section C.2 to
clarify what actions constitute
operations and maintenance
activities for vegetation removal.
Revise Section C.2 to include: “Operation and
maintenance also includes vegetation
management 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.”
CTED, 2007 Make suggested change. Will
address lack of clarity
regarding vegetation
maintenance under
definitions.
See row 23.40.320 below.
23.40.240 Unauthorized
critical areas alterations
and enforcement
Generally consistent with
BAS, but can be
strengthened
Section E. references tree code,
which sets a penalty for tree
cutting, but other types of
violations are not covered.
Revise Section E. to include a daily penalty
per day per violation (this is the
recommended language used in the model
code).
Penalties could be included for tree cutting in
addition to violation penalty.
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012).
Both Lynnwood and Mountlake
Terrace have a fine of $1,000
and/or 90 days in jail. Snohomish
County has a penalty scale, with
a $500 penalty for the first 20
days and the penalty increasing
with time thereafter to a max of
$10,000 (SCC 30.85.170).
Revise Section E to include a
penalty equal to the cost of the
permit and a square footage
cost ($3/SF of impact) and a
per tree penalty where
applicable.
23.40.250 Critical areas
markers and signs
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.270 Critical areas Partially Inconsistent Section E: Use of herbicides is
prohibited; however, BAS
Section E. Update text to include herbicide
treatment (aquatic approved herbicides
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Make suggested change
Packet Page 284 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 8 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
tracts suggests several strategies
including but not limited to: hand
removal, chemical treatment,
shading, or other techniques may
be appropriate depending on the
species and situation. See
discussion in 23.40.220 and
23.50.020. These Sections should
all be consistent.
when wetlands and streams are present)
where recommended by the Noxious Weed
Control Board.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
New subsection No discussion of notice on title or
Native Growth Protection Areas
Include discussion of notice on title or Native
Growth Protection Areas for all lots, not just
subdivisions. ESA can provide example
language during code revision process.
CTED, 2007.
This informs subsequent
purchases of property of critical
areas present on their properties.
Make suggested change
23.40.280 Building
setbacks
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 Keep section except for
geologically hazardous areas
where buffer and setback will
be determined by geotechnical
report.
23.40.290 Bonds to ensure
mitigation, maintenance,
and monitoring
Could be brought closer
to consistency
Section D requires that a bond be
held for 3 years. The standard is
typically 5 years.
Revise Section D to reflect a 5 year period for
holding the bond, to ensure consistency with
5 year monitoring period.
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Make suggested change.
23.40.300 Critical areas
inspections
Consistent with BAS CTED, 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.40.310 Best available
science
Could be brought closer
to consistency
Section D mentions “anecdotal
information” but leaves out other
forms of nonscientific
Revise Section D to include “Non-expert
opinion and hearsay” as forms on
nonscientific information
CTED, 2007 Make suggested change
Packet Page 285 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 9 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
information
23.40.320 Definitions
pertaining to critical areas
Generally consistent, but
could be brought closer
to consistency
Definitions out of date Update definitions of:
-Adjacent
-Compensatory mitigation (include re-
establishment and rehabilitation; update
definition of restoration)
-Geologist
-Habitats of local importance -Noxious
weeds
-Qualified critical area professional
-Storm Water Management Manual
Add definitions for:
-Footprint of Existing Development or
Footprint of Development
-In lieu fee program
-Normal maintenance of vegetation
-Wetland mitigation bank
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Make suggested changes.
23.50 Wetlands
23.50.000 Wetlands
compliance requirements
flowchart
Partially consistent The flow chart states that no
additional compliance is required
when a “reconnaissance
determines a wetland is not
jurisdictional.”
Revise this to state that the Corps
determines a wetland is not jurisdictional, or
revise text to clarify.
Wetland jurisdictional
determinations are made at a
federal level (Corps). Even if a
wetland is exempt under City
code, it may be regulated at a
federal and/or state level. An
applicant would need to request
a jurisdictional determination
from the Corps to get assurance
that a wetland is not
Make suggested change
Packet Page 286 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 10 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
jurisdictional.
23.50.010 Designation,
rating and mapping –
Wetlands
Not consistent Sections A, B, and E reference
outdated wetland delineation
and rating manuals.
Revise Sections A, B, and E to refer to the
approved federal wetland delineation manual
and applicable regional supplements and the
Washington State Wetland Rating System
for Western Washington, 2014 Update.
WAC 173-22-035, WAC 365-190-
090
The federal wetland delineation
manual and regional
supplements and updated 2014
wetland rating manual constitute
BAS for wetland identification,
delineation, and rating.
Make suggested change
Section B.1
Could be strengthened
to be more consistent
References wetland function
scores from the City of
Edmonds’s wetland field data
form, which is based on an older
version of the wetland rating
manual.
Revise Section B.1. to reflect the updated
wetland function scores for each wetland
Category based on the point system used in
the updated 2014 rating manual. Consider
revising the City’s wetland field data form or
referencing the appropriate state or federal
manual instead.
Washington State Wetland
Rating System for Western
Washington: 2014 Update.
Ecology Publication #14-06-029
(Hruby 2014)
Make suggested change.
Section E
Could be strengthened
to be more consistent
Does not specify how long a
wetland delineation is valid.
Section E could be improved for consistency
with BAS by specifying that wetland
delineations are valid for five years.
User-friendliness and clarity,
improved consistency with BAS
Corps of Engineers Regulatory
Guidance Letters RGL 05-02 and
08-02 set a five year standard on
wetland determinations.i
Make suggested change. Add
a provision regarding critical
area assessment reports and
statute of limitations earlier in
CAO chapter (23.40.090).
23.50.020 Allowed
activities – Wetlands
Section D
Could be revised to be
more consistent.
The Washington State Noxious
Weed Control Board has
recommendations and resources
for controlling state listed
noxious weeds and invasive
species.
Update Section D to include that those
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.
BAS suggests several strategies
including but not limited to: hand
removal, chemical treatment,
shading, or other techniques may
be appropriate depending on the
species and situation.ii
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Make suggested change
Packet Page 287 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 11 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
23.50.030 Special study
and report requirements –
Wetlands
Generally consistent with
BAS
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
None; consistent with BAS
23.50.040 Development
standards – Wetlands
(continued)
Section F.1.
Inconsistent with BAS
Buffer widths are inconsistent
with BAS and with Draft SMP
buffers. BAS supports increased
standard buffer widths or
modified buffer widths based on
intensity of impacts from
adjacent land use or based on
wetland functions.
Revise Section F.1. to reflect recent BAS
updates for buffers (Ecology, 2013)iii. The
draft SMP uses Ecology’s Table “XX.1” for
wetland buffers in shoreline areas. Table XX.1
was recently revised in December 2014 based
on habitat scores used in the updated 2014
wetland rating manual. Ecology’s updated
Table XX.1 for standard buffer widths
requires additional measures (Table “XX.2”)
to minimize wetland impacts. The draft SMP
incorporates these measures. The CAO
should be revised to reflect these BAS
updates and to be consistent with the SMP
section F.2.
Wetlands in Washington State,
Volume 2: Guidance for
Protecting and Managing
Wetlands, Ecology Publication
#05-06-008 (Granger et al.
2005).
Make suggested change
Section F.1.
Supplemental material
Can supplement section by
expanding inadequate vegetation
to include previously disturbed
areas and also requiring
revegetation pursuant to an
approved planting plan.
Supplement F.1 with additional discussion of
previously disturbed areas. These are
generally considered those areas which are
not composed of an intact native vegetation
community, but still consist of pervious
surfaces. Previously disturbed areas would
include non-native vegetation, lawn, and
User-friendliness
Revise Section F1 to: “If the
vegetation is inadequate
buffer is composed of
nonnative vegetation, lawn, or
bare ground, then, at the
discretion of the director...”
Packet Page 288 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 12 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
gravel. Include requirement for revegetation
according to an approved planting plan.
Section F.2. Partially
inconsistent
Increased buffer widths required
in general when needed “to
protect other critical areas.”
This section can be revised to be more
specific by referencing federal or state listed
endangered, threatened, candidate,
sensitive, monitored or documented species
or habitats, or essential habitat (e.g., nesting
sites or rookeries).iv
Improve clarity regarding when
an increased buffer is needed.
Revise Section F2 to:
Add new subsection “d.”: “If a
wetland is occupied by a
federally listed threatened or
endangered species, a bald
eagle nest, a great blue heron
rookery, or at the discretion of
the director to protect species
considered locally important”
23.50.040 Development
standards – Wetlands
(continued)
New subsection in F Create a new subsection for
“Buffer Modification” that
contains code for buffer
averaging and buffer reductions.
Create a new subsection that incorporates
criteria for allowing a buffer modification
(outlined in F.3.) and outlines the sequence
for preferred buffer modifications: buffer
averaging with enhancement, then buffer
reductions with enhancement.
User-friendliness and clarity. Will
improve internal consistency and
make criteria easy to follow.
Make suggested change
Section F.3
Inconsistent
A buffer reduction of up to 50
percent is allowed. Buffer
reduction with buffer
enhancement is not discussed in
BAS documents (Granger et al.,
2005; or Ecology, 2012).
However, the City’s code requires
that functions will be increased or
retained, which is consistent with
the state’s requirement of no net
loss.
Model codes typically allow up to a 25
percent modification through averaging,
which affords better protection to wetlands
than a 50 percent reduction. Recommend
revising code to only allow a reduction up to
25 percent of the standard buffer width with
buffer enhancement. The draft SMP includes
a 25 percent reduction; Revise code to be
consistent with draft SMP text. Since buffer
reductions are not discussed in BAS and
buffer reductions result in a net loss of area
(even if functions are improved or retained),
this step should follow after buffer averaging
in the sequence and be used only when
Inconsistent with BAS and City’s
SMP.
Wetlands in Washington State,
Volume 2: Guidance for
Protecting and Managing
Wetlands, Ecology Publication
#05-06-008 (Granger et al.
2005).
Make suggested change
Packet Page 289 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 13 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on-
site. This is also more consistent with the
wetlands review flow chart in 23.50.000
Section F.4.
Inconsistent
Code appears to allow reduction
and averaging. Buffer averaging
of up to 50 percent is allowed.
BAS does not support the use of
both tools in conjunction.
Revise Section F.4., first sentence, to exclude
mention of a “reduced” wetland buffer. Only
allow a reduction up to 25 percent of the
standard buffer width. Buffer averaging
should also include a requirement for buffer
enhancement, as many urban buffers are
degraded. The draft SMP includes a 25
percent reduction; revise code to be
consistent with draft SMP text. See
discussion above regarding prioritizing buffer
averaging before buffer reductions where
possible. ESA can provide example code
language during code revision stage.
Inconsistent with BAS and City’s
SMP.
Wetlands in Washington State,
Volume 2: Guidance for
Protecting and Managing
Wetlands, Ecology Publication
#05-06-008 (Granger et al.
2005).
Make suggested change
23.50.040 Development
standards – Wetlands
(continued)
Section F.8.
Generally consistent, but
could be clarified.
Some of the uses allowed in
wetlands are not listed as buffer
uses, but would presumably be
necessary. Could be revised to
address applicable uses and
parallel treatment.
Revise to include uses allowed in wetlands
that would also be allowed in wetland
buffers. For example (not an inclusive list):
-Education and scientific research
-Normal and routine maintenance and repair
of public or private facilities within an
existing right-of-way
Improved internal consistency
Make suggested change
Section F.8. Inconsistent
Walkways and trails are allowed
in buffers with minimal
provisions. Scientific research
(Ecology, 2013; Granger, 2005)
indicates that human disturbance
in wetland buffers can affect
wetland functions.
Revise text to limit walkways and trails to the
outer 25 percent of the wetland buffer
perimeter and avoid trees. Revise text to be
consistent with draft SMP.
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Wetlands in Washington State,
Make suggested change, but
add clarification regarding
application. Revise F8 to
include a priority for limiting
trails to the outer 25 percent of
the wetland buffer perimeter
and avoid trees, or in cases
Packet Page 290 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 14 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
Volume 2: Guidance for
Protecting and Managing
Wetlands, Ecology Publication
#05-06-008 (Granger et al.
2005).
where the buffer is below the
regulatory minimum, trails
could be outer 25 % of existing
buffer. Specific language to be
developed during code revision
stage.
23.50.040 Development
standards – Wetlands
(continued)
Section G.
Inconsistent
Permanent fencing is not
discussed as a form of wetland
protection.
Section G. Revise text to discuss perimeter
fencing. Perimeter fencing is mentioned as a
measure to avoid impacts in Ecology’s Table
“XX.2” and in the draft SMP. Clarify that
fencing, if required, should be designed so it
doesn’t interfere with wildlife migration and
should be constructed in a way that
minimizes impacts to the wetland, buffer,
and associated habitat.
Improve consistency with
internal code requirements and
consistency with BAS.
Make suggested change
Section H.
Inconsistent
Additions to structures existing
within buffers lists a sequence of
steps. Buffer reduction through
enhancement is prioritized
before buffer averaging. The
sequence also allows
development beyond the 25
percent reduction in the standard
buffer, which is not supported by
BAS. See discussion in Section
F.3.
Section H. Revise text to prioritize buffer
averaging before buffer reductions. Consider
a threshold for limiting the size of the
addition when occurring outside of the inner
25 percent (e.g., 150 square feet or another
number based on planning staff experience
and feedback). Include a requirement for
buffer enhancement and fencing or other
mitigation measures (e.g. LID, etc.) to avoid
further encroachment.
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Reduction beyond the 25 percent
standard buffer would be
considered an impact and
therefore requires mitigation.
Make suggested change
Section I:
Inconsistent
Scientific literature does not
support exempting wetlands
based on size or category alone
without mitigation. Small
wetlands may perform important
functions. However, Ecology has
developed a strategy for
Revise Section I to allow exemptions for
isolated wetlands under 500 square feet and
include additional provisions for considering
wetland functions/connectivity/habitat and a
requirement for mitigation. ESA can provide
example suggestions during code revision
Mitigation is required to be
consistent with BAS.
Wetlands in Washington State,
Volume 2: Guidance for
Protecting and Managing
Wetlands, Ecology Publication
Make suggested change.
Also revise title of Section I to:
“Small, hydrologically isolated
wetlands”.
Revise I.2 to better define
“low-quality” by using scores
Packet Page 291 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 15 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
exempting small wetlands when
wetland functions are considered
and mitigation is required.
process.
#05-06-008 (Granger et al.
2005).
from Ecology Wetland Rating
System.
Revise I.3 to include a wildlife
habitat score (value or range)
that defines “no significant
habitat value”.
23.50.040 Development
standards – Wetlands
(continued)
New subsection New subsection to allow development within
the footprint of existing development (per
new definition) in exchange for enhancement
equivalent to the footprint of the new
development.
Development in the City of
Edmonds has occurred over
many years, much of this
development occurred prior to
the established of critical area
regulations. Allowing some
development within the footprint
of existing development in
exchange for enhancement of
the critical area and/or critical
area buffer will result in a net
benefit to the City’s critical areas.
Make suggested change.
23.50.050 Mitigation
requirements – Wetlands
Intro
Inconsistent with BAS
Introductory paragraph refers to
outdated mitigation guidance.
Revise introductory paragraph to include
latest mitigation guidance documents:
Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—Part
2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Ecology,
2006) and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites
Using a Watershed Approach (Ecology, 2009).
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Make suggested change
Section A
Inconsistent with BAS
Mitigation preference is not
consistent with federal and state
guidance. Federal and state
agencies are requiring the use of
mitigation banks and ILF
programs.
Consider specifying that mitigation using
banks or ILF programs is preferred over
permittee-responsible mitigation (regardless
of location).
Compensatory Mitigation for
Losses of Aquatic Resources.
Final Rule. (Federal Register
73(70): 19594-1970)
BAS indicates that mitigation
banks and ILF programs have a
Make suggested change, but
add prioritization for in-basin
mitigation followed by
mitigation within City limits.
Packet Page 292 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 16 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
significantly greater likelihood of
mitigation success, as opposed
to permittee-responsible
mitigation.
Section F. Mitigation
Ratios
Partially consistent
Mitigation ratios are appropriate
and generally consistent with
BAS. This section could be
clarified by adding a table with
mitigation ratios for each type of
mitigation action. As an
alternative to mitigation ratios,
the Credit/Debit method may be
used, and in some cases, may be
required by Ecology.
Include mitigation ratios in a table.
Include reference to the Credit/Debit
Method.
Clarity/user-friendliness
Improved consistency by
referencing
Calculating Credits and Debits
for Compensatory Mitigation in
Wetlands of Western
Washington: Final Report
(Hruby, 2012)
Make suggested change.
Section H.3. Wetland
Mitigation Banks
Generally consistent, but
could be strengthened
This section can be strengthened
with additional discussion of in
lieu fee programs. These
programs should also have a
system of calculating debits and
credits specified in the approved
instrument.
Incorporate text from model code (Ecology,
2012) to clarify the credit-debit process. ESA
can provide example code language during
code revision stage.
Improved consistency Make suggested change to
incorporate provisions from
model wetland code that allow
use of ILF programs only with
an approved instrument.
23.50.060 Performance
standards – Subdivisions
Consistent with BAS None; consistent with BAS
23.50.070 Wetland field
data form
Inconsistent with BAS The City of Edmonds’s wetland
field data form is based on an
older version of the wetland
rating manual.
Consider revising the City’s wetland field
data form or referencing the appropriate
state or federal manual instead.
The wetland rating manual was
updated in 2014 (Hruby, 2014)
Washington State Wetland
Rating System for Western
Washington: 2014 Update.
Ecology Publication #14-06-029
(Hruby 2014).
Make suggested change.
Packet Page 293 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 17 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
23.70 Frequently Flooded Areas
23.70.010 Designation,
rating and mapping
Generally consistent, but
could be strengthened
Sub-section A references
currently effective FIRM panels,
and sub-section B notes that
newer and/or more restrictive
updated information would be
used. However, sub-section A
references an incorrect effective
date (January 30, 1998), only
notes inclusion of Zone A
floodplain areas, whereas
November 2014 draft flood zone
maps include both Zone A and
Zone V floodplains.
Revise Section A to reference the correct
effective date for FIRMs - “Snohomish
County, Washington and Incorporated
Areas” study and maps, effective date
November 8, 1999.
Revise Section A to state that both Zone A
and Zone V areas on effective FIRMs should
be designated as frequently flooded areas.
CTED 2007 guidance notes that
both Zone A and Zone V flood
hazard areas should be included.
Zone V areas are coastal
floodplains subject to inundation
by the 1-percent-annual-chance
flood event with additional
hazards associated with storm-
induced waves.
Make suggested change
23.70.020 Special study
and report requirements
Sections A thru D –
Consistent with BAS and
Guidance
CTED 2007; PSP 2010 None; consistent with BAS
Packet Page 294 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 18 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
IBC Appendix G –
Floodplain Subdivision
standards
Site Improvement
Standards (G401) and
elevation standards -
Inconsistent with BAS
Standards for coastal floodplain
development (coastal A zones
and V zones) are limited to
prohibiting development
waterward of “mean high tide”
and use of structural fill.
Additional standards are
available to significantly reduce
property damage and human
health and safety risks, including
an additional 1 to 2 foot
freeboard above base flood
elevation standard. This
additional protection is intended
to further minimize risk or
anticipate increasing flood risks
(either from increased runoff or
climate change).
Update EMC 19.00.025 (International
Building Code section amendments) to
require a minimum of 1 to 2 feet of freeboard
above the base flood elevation for coastal A
zones and V zones.
PSP 2009; FEMA 2013 City to consider revisions to
Title 19.
23.80 Geologically Hazardous Areas (Review conducted by Stratum Group, subconsultant to ESA)
Packet Page 295 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 19 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
23.40.090 Critical areas
report – Requirements
Inconsistent with BAS Language does not reflect the
applicable role of geologists and
engineers
Add language to clarify the role of geologists
and engineers in report preparation
Clarify the distinctive roles of
geologists and engineers in
preparation of reports
Make suggested change
23.40.280 General critical
areas protection measures
- Building setbacks
Code consistency Setbacks for geologically
hazardous areas are established
elsewhere in code
For geologically hazardous areas, remove the
additional setback distance of 15 feet.
For geologically hazardous areas,
setback widths are determined
based on other sections of the
code. This code section discusses
what is permissible in the
setback.
Revise section to read:
“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…”
23.40.320 Definitions Delete redundant language regarding
geologists
It should be up to the
Department of Licensing to
ensure that geologists licensed in
Washington have the
appropriate education, skills and
experience.
Make suggested change
23.80.010 Designation,
rating and mapping
Consistent with BAS and
Guidance
CTED 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.80.020 Designation of
specific hazard areas
Subsection A.2 -
Inconsistent with BAS
and Guidance
Additional language necessary to
include erosion hazard areas
related to stream and coastal
erosion.
Provide new section as follows:
A.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.
Suggested change reflects the
other type of erosion hazard.
Make suggested change
Section B - Generally
consistent with BAS and
Guidance
Add the word “potential” before landslide
hazard areas in the last sentence
Not all of the areas that should
require a landslide hazard
assessment are in fact a landslide
area.
Make suggested change
Packet Page 296 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 20 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
Subsection B.1 - Add reference to more
recent report on Meadowdale Landslide
(Landau 2007)
The 2007 Landau report provides
further guidance on this specific
hazard area
23.80.020 Designation of
specific hazard areas,
continued
Subsection B.2 -
Inconsistent with BAS
and Guidance
Takes into account a broader
range of potential geology
hazards
Delete: current subsection 2, and replace
with new subsections 2 – 5 (keep existing
subsections 3 and 4):
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; or
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.
This captures a resource
recommended by guidance and
captures any new mapping that
may be completed in the future.
Make suggested change. For
#4 add detail that indicates the
provision excludes rockeries
that have been engineered and
approved by the engineer as
having been built according to
the engineered design.
Stratum notes that rockery
walls or engineered walls have
high potential for failure due to
poor construction, so provision
to approve as-built design is
critical here.
4. Any slope of 40 percent or steeper that
exceeds a vertical height of 10 feet over a 25-
foot horizontal runerosion
Simplifies and matches similar
approaches that do not include
determination of toe and top of
slope for determining the 40
percent slope
Excluding solid rock from #4 is
not applicable as there is no
bedrock in Edmonds
5. Areas with all three of the following
characteristics:
(i) Slopes steeper than fifteen percent;
(ii) Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts
with a relatively permeable sediment
overlying a relatively impermeable sediment;
and
(iii) Springs or groundwater seepage.
Wet low angle slopes with
perched water may be
potentially subject to landslides
The list in section B is a list of
potential landslide hazard
areas. It is not to be used by
staff as determining where this
criterion is met (e.g, springs or
groundwater seepage). The
actual mapping is covered in
B.3.
Packet Page 297 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 21 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
Subsection B.1, Figure 1 -
Inconsistent with BAS
and Guidance
See above Modify Figure 1 Match text changes Make suggested change
23.80.020 Designation of
specific hazard areas,
continued
Section C - Inconsistent
with BAS and Guidance
Revise section to read as follows:
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 landslide
hazard areas.
Make suggested change.. Also
add quotations around the
designations “high” and
“moderate to high”
Although no “moderate to
high risk” areas are mapped in
Edmonds, the definition
should be added as suggested
since both “high risk” and
“moderate to high risk” areas
as mapped make up the
definition. Designations will
be clarified by adding
quotations.
23.80.050 Special study
and report requirements
Inconsistent with BAS
and State Law
Geologic determinations must be
made by licensed geologists.
Engineered designed mitigation
should be designed by an
engineer in most cases.
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.
State licensing –required by
State law.
Make suggested change
Packet Page 298 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 22 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
Critical areas studies and reports on
geologically hazardous areas shall be subject
to independent review pursuant to ECDC
23.40.090
23.80.050 Special study
and report requirements
Section C - Inconsistent
with BAS
Guidance for preparing
engineering geology reports has
been prepared by the Geology
Licensing Board
Add new language consistent with Geology
Licensing Board; new language will have
added benefit of greatly simplifying this
section.
Geology Licensing Board
guidance
Make suggested change
Subsection F.2.e -
Inconsistent with BAS
Bluff retreat rate is likely not
applicable for most bluffs in
Edmonds
Add the phrase “or an estimate of the
percent risk of landslide area expansion”
Bluff retreat rate may be
appropriate for some slides, but
in some cases the percent risk of
expansion of the slide area may
be a better approach.
The bluffs in question all formed
by shoreline erosion processes
and are over steep due to past
landslides having been eroded by
waves. That process has been
discontinued with the
construction of the railroad, but
the railroad itself continues to
operate as a force of erosion at
the toe of these bluff slopes.
Each time there is a landslide,
the collapsed soil is removed
from the toe of the slope so the
higher bluffs are still a long way
from angle of repose and will
continue to retreat. Eventually
that will come to an end after
enough bluff failures. But the
railroad at the base of the slope
should not be viewed as a
Make suggested change,
which keeps the bluff retreat
rate phase in place, but adds a
second phrase to apply to
other bluffs.
Packet Page 299 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 23 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
protection of the toe as any
failures will be removed.
Subsection H. 1 -
Inconsistent with BAS
There are no known faults in
Edmonds
Delete H 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.”
No known faults and main
purpose is recognizing that
specific soil types are susceptible
to higher risk during seismic
events
Make suggested change
23.80.060 Development
standards – General
requirements
Generally consistent with
BAS and guidance; see
ECDC 23.80.070 for
details.
CTED 2007 None; consistent with BAS
23.80.070 Development
standards – Specific
hazards.
Subsection A.1 -
Inconsistent with BAS
Does not match BAS Setbacks should meet specific criteria to
ensure the structure is not at risk for the life
of the structure (120 years). Term setback is
used to avoid confusion with buffers such as
riparian, wetland or habitat buffers.
A specific policy value should be
set for homes and homes are
considered to have a life of 120
years. Other values or periods
can be used dependent upon
policy consistency.
Separating setback and buffer
terms may reduce potential
confusion regarding activities
within the buffer.
Make suggested change
Subsection A.2 -
Inconsistent with BAS
BAS for geohazards Buffers requirements should be established
within the geology hazard assessment
report.
Buffer requirements will vary and
in some case no restrictions may
be needed in the buffer.
Make suggested change, but
need replace with a clear
trigger for City staff during
initial application review.
Language to be determined
during code revision stage.
23.90 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
23.90.000 Fish and wildlife Inconsistent Flow chart will need to be Change allowed buffer reduction from 50 Inconsistent with BAS; Internal Make suggested change
Packet Page 300 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 24 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
habitat conservation areas
compliance requirements
flowchart
updated to include change in
allowed buffer reductions and
mitigation measures.
percent to 25 percent of buffer. Mention
buffer reduction with enhancement and
buffer averaging with enhancement.
consistency with 23.90.040
23.90.040 Development
standards – Specific
habitats
Section A.3
Inconsistent with BAS
References outdated rules for
bald eagles.
Remove Section A.3. for bald eagle habitat.
Habitat protections are still captured under
Section A.2.
Bald eagles were federally
delisted in 2007 and downlisted
to a state sensitive species. WAC
232-12-292 has been revised
(effective May 29, 2011)
Make suggested change
Section C
Inconsistent with BAS
Vegetation retention as currently
required is not tied to BAS
Update retention of vegetation standard to
be:
• Applicable only for properties with
other critical areas ;
• Applicable only to portion of site that
supports existing native vegetation; and
• Not applicable for sites with no existing
native vegetation.
Intent is to provide increased
protection of fish and wildlife
habitat throughout the Edmonds
in areas where it currently
remains
Make suggested changes, with
details (including definition of
“existing native vegetation”
established during code
development.
23.90.040 Development
standards – Specific
habitats
(continued)
Section D.1.
Inconsistent with BAS
City’s standard buffers range
from 25 feet (Type Ns) to 150 feet
(Type S). BAS supports wider
standard buffer widths. BAS
suggests widths from 75 feet to
well over 300 feet to protect a
suite of ecological functions.
Upper ranges are likely not
feasible given existing platting
and development patterns.
Consider increases to standard stream buffer
widths, but at a minimum, increase the
stream buffer for Type Ns streams to 40 or 50
feet. Mountlake Terrace has the same buffer
for Type 1 streams (150 feet). Woodways’s
code requires larger standard buffers (250
feet for a Type 1 stream, 50 feet for a Type 4),
but has smaller buffers allowed as minimum
buffer widths for low impact land uses.
Where it is not feasible to achieve BAS-
recommended buffers due to existing
Source: Brennan et al. 2009, May
2003, Knutson and Naef 1997 all
suggest BAS based buffers wider
than those currently required.
Recommended approach
improves consistency with
neighboring jurisdictions such as
Woodway. Alternative strategies
to BAS-based buffers can provide
some of the ecological functions
provided by riparian buffers, and
Revise stream buffer widths as
follows:
Type Ns: change from 25 to 40
feet
Packet Page 301 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 25 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
conditions, specific alternative strategies
should be required (e.g., required use of LID;
elevated mitigation requirements for habitat,
longer-term maintenance and monitoring).
should be considered (especially
where narrow or reduced buffers
are allowed).
Section D.1.
Supplemental
Information
Does not include language
regarding intact native
vegetation and previously
disturbed buffers areas. See
Section 23.50.040.F.1
Section D.1. Include language regarding
intact native vegetation and previously
disturbed buffers areas so the concept of
buffers will be consistent with the language
in Section 23.50.040.F.1
Supplemental information to
improve internal code
consistency.
Make suggested change, but
also need additional discussion
of previously developed area.
Language to be developed
during code revision stage.
Section D.2.
Inconsistent
Stream buffer width reductions
greater than 25 percent are not
supported by BAS.
Section D.2. Revise section to allow
reductions no greater than 25 percent of the
standard buffer width with mitigation.
Suggest prioritizing buffer averaging with
enhancement before buffer reductions with
enhancement. See wetland buffer discussion.
CTED, 2007 Make suggested change
23.90.040 Development
standards – Specific
habitats
(continued)
Section D.2.c.
Inconsistent
Requirement for 3 years of
monitoring. Five years is
considered the standard
monitoring period.
Revise Section D.2.c. to require 5 years of
monitoring.
CTED, 2007 Make suggested change
Section D.3
Inconsistent
Code appears to allow stream
buffer reduction and averaging.
Section D.3. also allows a 50
percent reduction of the standard
buffer with no buffer
enhancement.
Revise Section D.3. to exclude the term
“reduced” in the first sentence. Revise the
section to allow buffer averaging reductions
no greater than 25 percent of the standard
buffer. Include buffer enhancement and
performance standards similar to Section
D.2. as a requirement for buffer averaging.
Suggest prioritizing buffer averaging with
enhancement before buffer reductions with
enhancement. See wetland buffer discussion.
Inconsistent with BAS, User-
friendliness.
CTED, 2007
Make suggested change
Section D.4
Inconsistent
Allows additions to existing
legally constructed structures
outside of the inner 25 percent of
Section D.4. See suggested revisions for
wetland buffers in 23.50.040.H.
Inconsistent with BAS. Reduction
beyond the 25 percent standard
buffer would be considered an
Make suggested change
Packet Page 302 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 26 of 27
Existing CAO Provision
EDCD Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason for Consistency/ Lack
of Consistency Potential Action Rationale/ Basis for Change Recommended Action
the standard stream buffer. impact and therefore requires
mitigation.
Source: Bunten et al., 2012;
Ecology, 2013.
Section D.5.
Generally consistent but
can be strengthened
Can strengthen this section with
additional requirements that
protect fish and water quality.
Section D.5. Include provisions:
-An alternative alignment or location with
less impact is not feasible
-The crossing will be designed as near as
perpendicular with the water body as
possible.
CTED, 2007 Make suggested change
Section D.6.
Inconsistent
Trails should be located along the
outer edge of the buffer. See
discussion in 23.50.040.F.
Section D.6. See recommendation in
23.50.040.F.
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Make suggested change
23.90.040 Development
standards – Specific
habitats
(continued)
Section D.7.
Partially Inconsistent
Storm water management
facilities should only be allowed
in the outer 25 percent of the
buffer
Revise D. 7 to include provision to allow
stormwater management facilities in the
outer 25 percent of the buffer.
CTED, 2007 and
Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities.
Western Washington Version.
Revised October 2012 Ecology
Publication #10-06-002 (Bunten
et al. 2012)
Make suggested change
ESA reviewed new stormwater
permit requirements and the
Stormwater Management
Manual for Western
Washington Guide Sheet 2 in
App I-D and confirmed that
this recommendation is not
inconsistent with those
standards.
Footnotes
Packet Page 303 of 363
City of Edmonds CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix – August 2015 Final - consistent with Planning Board recommended CAO Updates
Page 27 of 27
i Regulatory Guidance Letters 05-02: http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/cwa_guide/app_f_rgl05-02.pdf and 08-02:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/pdf/RGL08-02.pdf
ii Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board: http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/
iii Ecology’s buffer recommendations (Table XX.1; Ecology, 2014) are based on a moderate-risk approach to protecting wetland functions. Buffer width recommendations in Table XX.1 are
based on the assumption that the buffer is well-vegetated with native species. A recent synthesis regarding buffer functions and required widths, titled Update on Wetland Buffers: State of the
Science (Hruby, 2013), recommends an approach to buffer widths based on buffer functions. Adequate performance of key buffer functions typically require the average buffer width ranges
(depending on the site and landscape setting): 100 feet to 1,000 feet for wildlife, 30 to 100 feet for sediment removal, 100-180 feet for nitrogen removal, and 30 to 100 feet for phosphorus
removal (Environmental Law Institute, 2008 in Hruby, 2013). Recent research indicates that fixed-width buffers may not adequately address issues of habitat fragmentation and population
dynamics; rather, buffer widths and fragmentation are only two of many variables that affect wildlife population dynamics (Hruby, 2013). Surrounding land use, plant community structure,
intensity of human disturbance are additional factors that affect wetland-dependent species (Hruby, 2013). Water quality and quantity factors may also be influenced by adjacent pollution
sources and stormwater inputs. Measures included in Table XX.2 are intended to further minimize the impact of these factors.
ivRecent buffer synthesis (Ecology, 2013) confirms that buffer width requirements for wildlife need to be targeted at the species of interest and their life requirements. Uplands surrounding a
wetland can serve as critical habitat for certain species, termed “core habitat” (Hruby, 2013). The concept of core habitat expands the idea of the wetland buffer from simply protecting the
wetland to protecting the species in the upland (Hruby, 2013).
Packet Page 304 of 363
Edmonds City Council Approved 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 305 of 363
Edmonds City Council Approved 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 306 of 363
Edmonds City Council Approved 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 307 of 363
Edmonds City Council Approved 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 308 of 363
Edmonds City Council Approved 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 309 of 363
Edmonds City Council Approved 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 310 of 363
Edmonds City Council Approved 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 311 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 16
Councilmember Bloom observed the cost of the Sunset Avenue Walkway had increased from $1.9
million to $2.35. Mr. Williams answered until the scope of the project is known, the cost is unknown. A
number was developed quite a long time ago associated with a full size Sunset Avenue Walkway that
included a raised, decorative pathway all along the west side of the street. The project will likely look
different than original scope, be less expensive and robust with fewer improvements and concentrated on
the two ends. He did not see the cost estimate being particularly relevant but it could be reduced if the
Council wished. Councilmember Bloom asked if the goal was to have that decision made before the
Council votes on the CIP/CFP. Mr. Williams answered the cost estimate would not be changed unless the
Council requested. The exact scope of the project will not be completed by the time the CIP/CFP is
adopted.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
E. CONTINUED REVIEW OF CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS UPDATE
Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained this is the second in-depth review with the Council of the Critical
Area Ordinance (CAO) update. As he did not receive any questions from Councilmembers as a result of
the first review, he will highlight a few items in the update. He described critical area restoration projects:
• New Section ECDC 23.40.215
• Provide relief from standard critical area buffer for restoration projects that is not required as
mitigation for a development proposal
• Restoration Project involves:
o The day-lighting of a stream, or
o Creation or expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of the wetland
and/or wetland buffer
In response to a Council comment at the previous meeting, whether the restoration provisions were tight
enough and whether a 1-inch expansion of a wetland would allow a substantially reduced buffer, the
restoration project relief was amended slightly:
• Expanded buffer: that portion of the stream or wetland buffer that extended landward as a result
of the restoration project (not associated with a development proposal)
• May apply a buffer that is not less than 75% of the expanded buffer
• Request a buffer between 50% and 75% of expanded 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 provided a drawing of an example of an existing wetland with a 50 buffer, expanded buffer and
a 75% relief buffer. He reviewed changes made in response to a comment at the September 8 presentation
that the estuarine wetland buffer was missing from the wetland buffer categories:
• Added Category I – Estuarine Wetland Buffers to ECDC 23.50.040.F
• Modified Category III wetland buffers to be consistent with the Guidance for Small Jurisdictions
He reviewed changes made in response to a comment at the September 8 presentation regarding Bald
Eagle habitat:
• Existing provisions under Endangered, Threaten, and Sensitive Species
o References WAC 232-12-292
o Only applies when threatened or endangered in Washington State
• Added new section ECDC 23.90.040.E referencing Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act
Packet Page 312 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 17
Mr. Lien highlighted changes related to critical area report and determinations:
• Critical area reports and determinations valid for 5 years
• Critical area determination after 5-years
o New determination, or
o New assessment verifying previous determination
• Critical area report after 5-years
o Determine if revision or additional assessment necessary
He highlighted changes to allowed activities and exemptions:
• ECDC 23.40.220.C.7 – Select Vegetation Removal
• ECDC 23.40.230.C.2 – Operation and Maintenance includes normal maintenance of vegetation
performed in accordance with best management practices
o Would allow removal of alder seedlings
• “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.
He highlighted new provisions related to penalties for critical area violations – ECDC 23.40.240.E:
• Currently references tree cutting penalties in ECDC 18.45
• Maintain reference to tree cutting penalties, and
• $3 per square foot penalty of impacted critical area and critical area buffer
He reviewed next steps:
• Comments from state and tribal agencies (Commerce, Ecology, WDFW)
• October 6: City Council Public Hearing
• Consideration for Adoption
Councilmember Petso asked if the City has to follow Best Available Science (BAS) in developing the
CAO or does BAS only have to have been considered. Mr. Lien answered generally BAS has to be
followed; jurisdictions can deviate from BAS if there is a documented reason to do so. For example, the
City deviated with regard to the restoration project, allowing a buffer reduction to 50%; that is not really
supported by BAS but it provides a net benefit to critical areas. Other things that may be a slight deviation
from BAS include physically separated and functionally isolated; that has not been studied and there is no
peer review report but because Edmonds was developed prior to adoption of critical area and
environmental regulations, the intent is to provide a net benefit to critical areas. Mr. Taraday said in
looking at this in the context of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and Shoreline Management
Program (SMP), BAS is a factor but not the only factor jurisdictions are allowed to consider. He offered
to provide a more detailed explanation in the future.
Councilmember Petso referred to development within the previously developed footprint, noting that also
may not be entirely consistent with BAS. She suggested gravel be deleted from the definition of
previously developed footprint. She questioned why gravel and a structure would be treated the same; she
acknowledged a 5-story structure represented previously developed but gravel will revegetate. Mr. Lien
answered the interim ordinance regarding previously developed footprint defined developed footprint as
all impervious surface areas which included gravel. He displayed an aerial of stream between two house
and photograph of the stream adjacent to a gravel parking area. By the definition, that is a previously
developed area. If a garage was added to that area, it would not be adding new impervious surface and by
allowing some development in exchange of the buffer achieves a net benefit to critical areas instead of no
change to the buffer if no development is allowed. Gravel is listed because it is an impervious area and
the addition of a building would not increase the impervious surface area.
Packet Page 313 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 18
Councilmember Petso commented she has never had impervious gravel; the gravel she has experienced is
pervious to water, vegetation, etc. Mr. Lien said gravel is defined as an impervious surface in the State
stormwater regulations. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Council could change the definition of
previously developed area to be only structures. Mr. Lien answered the definition of previously developed
area could be changed; the existing definition includes gravel, blacktop, structures, and several other
things.
Councilmember Petso recalled discussion at the September 8th meeting about buffer reduction and buffer
averaging; it was her understanding averaging was a better way to protect critical area buffers. Mr. Lien
responded both buffer averaging and buffer reduction are allowed but buffer averaging is preferred. A
change was made in the draft code related to the amount of buffer averaging and buffer reduction that
could occur. In the existing code the buffer can be reduced or averaged up to 50% and a buffer width
reduction and buffer averaging could be combined on the same project. The draft code does not allow the
buffer to be reduced or averaged not more than 75% and averaging and reduction cannot be combined.
Councilmember Petso agreed that was a change for better but asked why buffer reduction would be
allowed at all when buffer averaging was a better tool. Mr. Lien responded it is another tool in the
toolbox. Jim Keeney, ESA, explained depending on land used on adjacent properties, buffer averaging
may not be an option; therefore, a secondary choice would be buffer reduction. Buffer reduction provides
some flexibility without overly restricting potential land uses on a property being redeveloped.
Councilmember Bloom commented the imperviousness of gravel depends on how deep it is. She agreed
with Councilmember Petso’s suggestion to eliminate gravel as an impervious surface. She commented the
stormwater regulations may consider a different depth. Mr. Lien provided the definition of footprint of
development, 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. He offered to confer with Stormwater Engineer Jerry Shuster to determine how that
definition could be tweaked. He pointed out a gravel paved road as well as a graveled parking area that
was driven on a great deal and was packed down were impervious. A walkway with two inches of pea
gravel may not be impervious.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the reasonable use definition that states “while also allowing for
reasonable use of private property.” She asked whether that meant private property and did not include
public property such as the Port, Woodway Fields, School District, City owned property, etc. Mr. Lien
provided the definition of reasonable economic uses, “the minimum use to which a property owner is
entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid taking and/or
violations of substantive due process.” The definition was amended a few years ago to omit reference to a
single family residence. Mr. Taraday said that raises the question whether a governmental entity could sue
the City for a taking. He suspected governments that hold property in a propriety capacity likely have
property rights and if violated could lead to a constitutional violation. For example if General Motors is a
person for constitutional purposes, a municipal corporation could also be a person and therefore entitled
to constitutional rights. If that was an important issue to the Council, further research could be done. Mr.
Lien referenced the critical area section, advising A.1 addresses critical area variances for public agencies
and A.2 addresses variances for private properties.
Councilmember Bloom reiterated the definition refers to private property. Mr. Lien again referenced the
definition of reasonable economic use on page 32 of definitions. Councilmember Bloom said she read a
statement somewhere, possibly in the introductory statement that included “while also allowing for
reasonable use of private property.” Mr. Taraday said in the vast majority of instances the City would be
dealing with private property.
Packet Page 314 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 19
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the proposed $3 per square foot penalty for activities like
filling a wetland. She asked if there was also a requirement to rehab what was done. Mr. Lien answered
the violation would have to be rectified in addition to paying a penalty. Council President Fraley-Monillas
calculated filling a 2,000 square foot wetland would only result in a $6,000 penalty. Mr. Lien said fill was
used as an example but mowing down vegetation in a wetland would be another example. Council
President Fraley-Monillas asked how $3/foot was determined. Mr. Lien said that is the cost of a simple
planting plan for wetland mitigation. Council President Fraley-Monillas did not view that as enough for
destroying a critical area. Mr. Lien said he compared it to the current tree cutting violation where a
violator can be fined up to $9,000 for removing one tree in a critical area. Council President Fraley-
Monillas asked if anyone had been ever been fined $9,000 for the removal of one tree. Mr. Lien answered
yes, the last tree cutting violation was appealed to the Hearing Examiner and the $23,000 fine was upheld.
Another appeal of a $45,000 fine for the removal of multiple trees is coming up. He explained he was
comparing the fine to the current tree cutting violations since that was what this section referenced. There
could be a critical area violation without removal of a tree but since the section refers to the tree cutting
fines, this fine would be comparable. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested separating a tree
cutting fine from a wetland violation.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the CAO reads very well. She referred to standard buffers,
wetland categories and scoring of habitat and asked how the habitat score was determined. Mr. Lien
explained the scores come from a wetland delineation which is a change in the science in the last ten
years. When a wetland scientist delineates a wetland, a number of scores are calculated to categorize the
wetland. One of those scores, largely on which buffer widths are based, is related to habitat; higher habitat
scores require wider buffers. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Category 1 Estuary such as the
Edmonds Marsh which requires 150 feet. She asked if that was 150 feet from the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) like the SMP. Mr. Lien answered it is from the edge of the wetland which is same as the
OHWM in the SMP.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the differentiation between setbacks and buffers in 23.80.070 and
the addition of a buffer requirement. She recalled in the SMP some citizens took issue with including the
buffer in the setback. Mr. Lien answered it a little different in the critical area regulations. He referenced
building setbacks in 23.40.280. In the existing code the buffer is the area adjacent to the wetland, stream,
or slope and there is an additional 15-foot building setback. The change in the draft COA is related to
geologically hazardous area; the buffer or setback for geologically hazardous area is determined by a
geotechnical report.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the section regarding mitigation ratios and the table of wetland
categories and ratios for rehabilitation only and enhancement only (packet page 53 of 90). Mr. Lien
explained this came from Department of Ecology’s Guidance for Small Jurisdictions. Mr. Keeney
explained the general concept is it is harder to create a new wetland than to rehabilitate an existing
wetland. The intent is to encourage the use of natural systems rather than to make new ones. Ecology
reviewed the scientific literature to develop these ratios; the primary driver of that science was Dr. Tom
Ruby, Department of Ecology, who has experience in wetland modeling. Mr. Kenney summarized the
table is basically Ecology’s assimilation of all the science and making it applicable to land planning
processes. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding of his explanation was Ecology would
rather have a wetland enhanced than recreated. Mr. Keeney explained a lot more must be done to get the
same credit for creation or reestablishment.
Councilmember Nelson expressed appreciation for the updated information regarding Bald Eagles. He
referred to definitions and the experience/qualifications for geologist, geotechnical engineer and qualified
critical area consultant, observing a geologist is no longer required to have a license and the experience
Packet Page 315 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 20
requirement was removed. Mr. Lien said that information was relocated in the code. He offered to email it
to Councilmember Nelson.
Councilmember Johnson recommended when a penalty is assessed, restoration or rehabilitation also be
required. Mr. Lien referred to 23.40.240 Unauthorized critical areas alterations and enforcement;
paragraph B addresses requirement for a restoration plan.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS SECONDED, TO EXTEND TO 10:10 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Bloom recalled the presentation identified tree topping as maintenance and if approval
had been given in the past, approval would be given to top trees. She asked if there were any criteria for
restricting or prohibiting tree topping. Mr. Lien explained tree topping is considered tree cutting; topping
is generally frowned upon by arborists. A tree cutting permit is required to top a tree. A lot of trees in the
City have been topped in the past. Once a tree is topped and grows out, the branches are not as strong and
do not grow as well and it needs to be maintained which is why that provision is included. He clarified it
did not refer to new topping but maintaining trees that had already been topped in a safe manner.
Councilmember Bloom asked if there was clarity in the code that tree topping was not allowed unless it
was approved in the past. Mr. Lien read the definition of alteration, “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.” Councilmember Bloom relayed her
understanding that the way the City finds out that any of that has occurred is via code enforcement. Mr.
Lien answered generally yes.
Councilmember Bloom referred to small hydrologically isolated wetland (packet page 50 of 90) where the
size was changed from 500 to 1,000. She asked whether the size of the smallest critical area had been
increased to 1,000 from 500 square feet. Mr. Lien said most of the language is from the Guidance for
Small Jurisdictions but was tweaked slightly so that a small hydrologically isolated wetland was no longer
an exempt wetland but a specific category of wetland. Hydrologically isolated means it is not connected
to a stream or other wetland complex. This section only applied to Category III and IV wetlands that have
a low habitat score. He summarized these wetlands are not exempt but are exempt from a few of the
provisions such as they do not necessarily have to have buffers, mitigation sequencing must occur before
a wetland can be impacted but a mitigation plan must be developed to replace lost wetland functions and
values. For example if a small wetland was filled, an onsite rain garden could be established to replace it.
He clarified 500 square feet was in the existing code and 1,000 is from Ecology’s Guidance for Small
Jurisdictions.
Councilmember Bloom asked for an explanation of the in lieu fee program. Mr. Lien responded that was
related to mitigation, a small site that impacted a wetland but there was no opportunity to mitigate on site.
The in lieu fee program allows a property owner to put money toward wetland mitigation in another
location. Councilmember Bloom asked if that wetland would be within the City. Mr. Lien answered
typically it is desirable to have mitigation occur within the same drainage basin. The one instance where it
may occur outside the City is via a certified wetland bank which has defined service areas. He did not
envision Edmonds being within the service area of a certified wetland mitigation bank due to short
drainages that go directly to Puget Sound.
Packet Page 316 of 363
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 21
Councilmember Bloom referred to discretion of the director as well as the term shall which appear a lot in
the CAO. She was puzzled by the numerous opportunities for the discretion of the director when there
were so many statements of shall. She asked how that was resolved. Mr. Lien said often someone in City
must make a call; the director is the highest ranking person. There are definitions in the code where shall
means imperative. Not everything in the critical area is imperative; when there is a judgment call, the
director makes that decision.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the definition of director which means the City of Edmonds
Development Services Director or his/her designee. She suggested tweaking the language to ensure it was
the director’s responsibility rather than someone the director designates. Mr. Lien explained ultimate
authority falls to the director. How it works, there are four planners in the City, they do not go to the
director to interpret every sentence in the code. Questions about the code or how the code is applied are
brought to the director. Councilmember Bloom suggested the definition of director be the Development
Services Director and delete designee. Development Services Shane Hope said the term “or designee” is
used because it means the director makes the decision unless he/she designates someone else in his/her
absence. The term director means the highest person responsible. Councilmember Bloom commented
these decisions do not have to be made immediately so she felt any important decisions up to the
discretion of director should be reviewed by director. She requested eliminating “his/her designee.”
Mayor Earling suggested Councilmembers forward any additional questions to Mr. Lien.
Mr. Lien advised he will provide highlights and respond to any additional Council questions at the
October 6 public hearing
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported on the AWC legislative meeting he attended yesterday. The focus of the
legislative session will be education, education, education. Elections are upcoming in 2016 for some of
the Senate and all of the House so the legislative session will only be 60 days.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Nelson announced the Diversity Commission is seeking applicants; the deadline for
applications is September 30.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reminded the public to get a flu shot. The vaccine is a better strain this
year and it is important to get vaccinated early.
10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:11 p.m.
Packet Page 317 of 363
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 (425) 649-7000
August 19, 2015
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
City of Edmonds Development Services Department
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Proposed Update to Edmonds Municipal Code (Chapters 23.40 and 23.50)
Dear Mr. Lien:
Thank you for providing the Department of Ecology (Ecology) with an opportunity to comment
on the proposed update to the City of Edmonds Municipal Code Chapters 23.40
(Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions) and 23.50 (Wetlands). We respectfully ask
that you consider the following comments during your deliberations and that these comments be
entered into the record.
In general, these updates to City of Edmonds municipal code are consistent with best available
science (BAS) and current agency guidance, such as Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for
Small Cities prepared by Ecology. The City’s updates also address many of the
recommendations made in the City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance Update—Best
Available Science Addendum prepared by ESA. These include updating literature citations to
reflect recent publications and adding new sections that clarify current policy guidance.
Ecology believes that some aspects of the proposed updates may not adequately protect the
City’s wetland resources. We have summarized our comments in Table 1 below, which specifies
which section of the municipal code we are referring to.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss my comments, please give me a call at (425)
649-7199 or send an email to Doug.Gresham@ecy.wa.gov
Packet Page 318 of 363
Kernen Lien
Page 2 of 4
Sincerely,
Doug Gresham, PWS
Wetland Specialist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
DG: awp
Cc: Paul Anderson, Donna Bunten, Department of Ecology
William Simpson, Department of Commerce
Packet Page 319 of 363
Table 1. Summary of Ecology comments on City of Edmonds Municipal Code Chapters 23.40 and 23.50.
Page Code Citation General Topic Comment
16 of 90 23.40.215 Critical Area Restoration Projects Reducing buffers to between 50 and 75% of the standard buffer for
streams and wetlands is not consistent with BAS and our guidance
(Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies
and Guidance (Version 1) Washington State Department of
Ecology Publication #06-06-011a). Although we support voluntary
restoration of habitat, the buffers should be wide enough to protect
the wetland’s necessary functions.
18 of 90 23.40.220.C.4 Allowed Activities It is unclear how you will determine what are physically separated
and functionally isolated stream and wetland buffers. Is this based
on surface water connections, wildlife corridor use, or some other
definition?
20 of 90 23.40.220.C.7.d Chemical Applications Add “Department of Ecology” to the list of agencies that regulate
chemical applications.
29 of 90 23.40.320 Definition of Compensatory Mitigation We recommend that the definition for types of compensatory
mitigation (creation, re-establishment, rehabilitation, enhancement,
and preservation) should apply to all critical areas not just
wetlands.
32 of 90
38 of 90
23.40.320
23.50.030.D
Definition of qualified critical areas consultant
Preparation by a qualified professional
The number of years of experience varies between two and five
years but we are not sure if this was intentional.
45 of 90 23.50.040.G.4 Buffer Width Reduction through Enhancement Reducing wetland buffers to 75% of their standard buffer width and
expecting enhancement to maintain the effectiveness of the buffer
is not supported by BAS. Buffer reductions should be limited to
buffer averaging or to decreasing the impact of the adjacent land
use to the wetland.
46 of 90 23.50.040.G.4.c Buffer Width Reduction through Enhancement We have concerns with the methodology and performance
standards that would be used for monitoring buffer functions.
There is little scientific support for quantifying these performance
standards in buffer functions. More appropriate performance
standards that could be quantified include percent vegetative cover,
percent invasive species cover, species richness, and amount of
large woody debris.
Packet Page 320 of 363
Kernen Lien
Page 4 of 4
50 of 90 23.50.040.K. Exemptions for Category III and IV Wetlands The conditions for allowing development in Category III and IV
wetlands are not consistent with the Wetlands and CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities. That language, which we recommend, is
as follows:
A. The following wetlands are exempt from the buffer
provisions contained in this Chapter and the normal mitigation
sequencing process in Chapter XX.XX. They may be filled if
impacts are fully mitigated based on provisions in Chapter
XX.070. If available, impacts should be mitigated through the
purchase of credits from an in-lieu fee program or mitigation bank,
consistent with the terms and conditions of the program or bank.
In order to verify the following conditions, a critical area report for
wetlands meeting the requirements in Chapter XX.060 must be
submitted.
1. All isolated Category III and IV wetlands less than
1,000 square feet that:
a. Are not associated with riparian areas or buffers
b. Are not part of a wetland mosaic
c. Do not contain habitat identified as essential for
local populations of priority species identified by
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
or species of local importance identified in
Chapter XX.XX.
If the City prefers to keep its version, we recommend deleting #2.
The exemption already refers to “Category III and IV wetlands”—
17 points does not correspond to the functional score for these two
categories, nor does our guidance mention it. Also, it is not
possible for a wetland to score less than 3 habitat points. The
correct criterion would be “3-4 habitat points,” as this would refer
to a wetland with low habitat function.
Packet Page 321 of 363
AM-8002 8. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/06/2015
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Sarah Mager
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
August 2015 Monthly Financial Report
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Attachments
August 2015 Monthly Report
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 09/24/2015 10:09 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/24/2015 11:34 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/24/2015 11:55 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/29/2015 09:31 AM
Form Started By: Sarah Mager Started On: 09/23/2015 03:31 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/29/2015
Packet Page 322 of 363
CITY OF EDMONDS
MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT
AUGUST 2015
Packet Page 323 of 363
1
Page 1 of 1
Fund
No.Title
2015 Amended
Budget
08/31/2014
Revenues
08/31/2015
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
001 GENERAL FUND 1 36,995,841$ 25,327,825$ 23,846,578$ 13,149,263$ 64%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 276,200 298,142 140,005 136,195 51%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 1,180 483 5,282 (4,102) 448%
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 19,800 13,125 27,718 (7,918) 140%
013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND - 70 291 (291) 0%
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 9,500 2 5,684 3,816 60%
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 2 708,000 187,648 252,757 455,243 36%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 43,000 19,834 11,309 31,691 26%
111 STREET FUND 1,729,030 1,222,765 1,157,600 571,430 67%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2 8,301,935 2,094,863 3,208,217 5,093,718 39%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 101,559 33,733 50,539 51,020 50%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 61 39 92 (31) 151%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 67,675 40,337 46,088 21,587 68%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 20,564 11,507 9,172 11,392 45%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 1,240 121 260 980 21%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 22,900 13,748 15,553 7,347 68%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 3 904,000 669,467 951,936 (47,936) 105%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 3 902,000 667,753 950,338 (48,338) 105%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 54,478 23,660 43,511 10,967 80%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND - 48,589 198 (198) 0%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 164,500 116,525 122,767 41,733 75%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 5,498,765 215,327 290,403 5,208,362 5%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 533 410 785 (252) 147%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 11,970 12,066 15,852 (3,882) 132%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,212 3,791 3,918 6,294 38%
139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 650,000 457,030 469,898 180,102 72%
140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 68,200 62,541 (62,541) 0%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,600 16,209 16,370 6,230 72%
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 28,627 47 - 28,627 0%
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 667,693 84,010 75,464 592,229 11%
232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 925,310 9,211 9,201 916,109 1%
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 180,629 39,973 (39,973) 0%
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 4 13,326,074 4,584,160 10,624,654 2,701,420 80%
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 4 7,572,032 2,672,673 6,640,592 931,440 88%
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 4 19,573,656 6,468,458 15,534,686 4,038,970 79%
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,345,759 340,408 337,210 1,008,549 25%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,519,185 1,005,356 1,070,177 449,008 70%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 65,350 50,153 56,945 8,405 87%
101,541,229$ 46,958,371$ 66,094,565$ 35,446,664$ 65%
4 Differences between 2014 and 2015 are due to 2015 Revenue Bond Proceeds.
3 Real Estate Excise Tax for both funds 125 and 126 is up a total of $565,054 from 2014.
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
1 Difference between 2014 and 2015 is due to the $2.7M from bond refund in February of 2014.
2 All differences between 2014 and 2015 are due to a difference in grant funds received.
Packet Page 324 of 363
2
Page 1 of 1
Fund
No.Title
2015 Amended
Budget
08/31/2014
Expenditures
08/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
001 GENERAL FUND 39,294,271$ 24,534,693$ 25,640,346$ 13,653,925$ 65%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 361,825 199,326 192,087 169,738 53%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - - 70,546 (70,546) 0%
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 800,000 - 2,391,018 (1,591,018) 299%
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 9,900 - 6,750 3,150 68%
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 5 793,800 74,288 132,711 661,089 17%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 76,033 31,212 29,929 46,104 39%
111 STREET FUND 1,703,419 1,037,401 1,091,534 611,885 64%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 8,421,704 2,675,175 3,245,105 5,176,599 39%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 152,775 36,008 45,002 107,773 29%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - - 0%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 70,000 21,035 33,292 36,708 48%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,871 - - 26,871 0%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,000 1,490 1,416 1,584 47%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 21,500 5,546 8,501 12,999 40%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2,515,000 88,341 141,517 2,373,483 6%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 943,400 39,393 28,845 914,555 3%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 51,795 3,429 20,590 31,205 40%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND - 17,469 - - 0%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 171,784 96,055 106,392 65,392 62%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 6,005,443 181,776 528,802 5,476,641 9%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND - - - - 0%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,400 4,816 4,266 6,134 41%
139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 650,000 457,030 497,833 152,167 77%
140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRCIT - 25,868 39,321 (39,321) 0%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 28,567 - - 28,567 0%
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - - - - 0%
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 667,693 84,614 75,464 592,229 11%
232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 925,310 9,211 9,201 916,109 1%
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 10,682,593 3,899,213 4,969,299 5,713,294 47%
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 7,137,109 1,975,718 2,017,246 5,119,863 28%
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 15,836,228 6,901,159 6,098,998 9,737,230 39%
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,344,102 340,408 337,261 1,006,841 25%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,717,825 624,162 735,793 982,032 43%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 77,629 38,360 34,550 43,079 45%
100,499,976$ 43,403,198$ 48,533,612$ 51,966,364$ 48%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
5 Difference between 2014 and 2015 is due to Professional Services charges related to the Fishing Pier Design.
Packet Page 325 of 363
3
Page 1 of 3
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
08/31/2014
Revenues
08/31/2015
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
TAXES:
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9,999,850$ 5,276,969$ 5,380,683$ 4,619,167$ 54%
EMS PROPERTY TAX 3,395,376 1,638,082 1,826,990 1,568,386 54%
VOTED PROPERTY TAX 925,309 508,417 498,842 426,467 54%
LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 6 5,627,000 3,769,832 4,328,398 1,298,602 77%
NATURAL GAS USE TAX 9,700 7,760 4,458 5,242 46%
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 586,500 396,331 414,705 171,795 71%
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,533,800 1,156,363 1,080,841 452,959 70%
GAS UTILITY TAX 743,700 528,960 465,494 278,206 63%
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 301,500 202,496 211,208 90,292 70%
WATER UTILITY TAX 1,115,209 653,808 724,968 390,241 65%
SEWER UTILITY TAX 524,200 345,812 378,990 145,210 72%
STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 323,210 217,839 229,003 94,207 71%
T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 819,100 551,020 565,357 253,743 69%
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,371,800 912,478 876,407 495,393 64%
PULLTABS TAX 45,200 33,843 36,295 8,905 80%
AMUSEMENT GAMES 150 37 - 150 0%
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 231,200 174,867 186,792 44,408 81%
27,552,804 16,374,915 17,209,431 10,343,373 62%
LICENSES AND PERMITS:
FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,210 190 255 4,955 5%
POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 300 490 - 300 0%
PROF AND OCC LICENSE-TAXI 630 630 330 300 52%
AMUSEMENTS 4,740 4,675 4,325 415 91%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST 683,400 517,702 532,250 151,150 78%
FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT 33,560 29,088 30,576 2,984 91%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER 91,500 69,611 49,706 41,794 54%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-BLACKROCK 18,100 13,232 12,932 5,168 71%
FRANCHISE AGREMENT-ZAYO 5,000 - - 5,000 0%
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 261,930 184,576 197,208 64,722 75%
GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 110,600 101,181 93,117 17,483 84%
DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 37,200 29,325 33,390 3,810 90%
NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 66,300 37,450 32,900 33,400 50%
RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 9,870 - 5,388 4,482 55%
BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 7 543,000 324,405 409,425 133,575 75%
ANIMAL LICENSES 38,800 8,458 16,741 22,059 43%
STREET AND CURB PERMIT 40,300 64,690 26,849 13,451 67%
OTR NON-BUS LIC/PERMITS 10,100 10,473 9,785 315 97%
1,960,540 1,396,176 1,455,176 505,364 74%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL:
FEDERAL GRANTS-BUDGET ONLY 20,000 - - 20,000 0%
DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 3,970 794 3,018 952 76%
ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE GRANT 6,000 - 3,750 2,250 63%
ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE II 6,000 - 5,250 750 88%
TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 7,500 3,615 7,780 (280) 104%
HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 3,000 3,560 - 3,000 0%
DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE - 1,834 492 (492) 0%
WA STATE ADMIN OFFICE COURTS GRANT - - 300 (300) 0%
2014 COMMUNITY FORESTRY GRANT - - 1,000 (1,000) 0%
WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT - - - - 0%
WATERFRONT ANALYSIS GRANT 150,000 - - 150,000 0%
NORTHWEST SOLAR COMMUNITIES GRANT - 7,000 - - 0%
SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - - - - 0%
PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 187,470 - - 187,470 0%
MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 9,980 7,646 7,946 2,034 80%
JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 12,630 9,332 8,189 4,441 65%
CRIMINAL JUSTICE-SPECIAL PROGRAMS 36,890 28,360 29,139 7,751 79%
DUI - CITIES 7,220 5,414 4,458 2,762 62%
LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 65,000 55,499 63,087 1,913 97%
LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 356,890 177,640 175,055 181,835 49%
INTERLOCAL GRANTS - - 30,000 (30,000) 0%
VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS 2,000 41,513 2,000 - 100%
874,550 342,207 341,463 533,087 39%
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
7 Building Structure Permits are up $85,020 from 2014.
6 2015 Local Retail Sales/Use Tax revenues are $558,566 higher than 2014 revenues. Please also see pages 18 & 19.
Packet Page 326 of 363
4
Page 2 of 3
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
08/31/2014
Revenues
08/31/2015
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS - 1,128 1,430 (1,430) 0%
CIVIL PROBATE FILINGS - - - - 0%
ATM SURCHARGE FEES - - 241 (241) 0%
COURT RECORD SERVICES 1,200 - - 1,200 0%
D/M COURT REC SER 200 13 7 193 3%
SHARED COURT COSTS 500 - - 500 0%
MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 200 443 318 (118) 159%
SALE MAPS & BOOKS 100 20 - 100 0%
CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS 25,086 - - 25,086 0%
BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 100 - - 100 0%
PHOTOCOPIES 2,000 1,423 1,399 601 70%
POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,000 2,609 2,791 1,209 70%
ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 272,000 230,428 131,582 140,418 48%
ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
SNO-ISLE 58,000 42,991 43,534 14,466 75%
GENERAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES - - - - 0%
PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 11,000 13,650 13,300 (2,300) 121%
POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 29,775 24,653 1,347 95%
OCDETF OVERTIME 5,500 9,060 - 5,500 0%
CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.12,300 3,011 3,782 8,518 31%
WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 39,500 30,750 31,510 7,990 80%
DRE REIMBURSEABLE - - - - 0%
MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 1,500 3,657 - 1,500 0%
DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 300 153 330 (30) 110%
FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 45,000 42,733 37,621 7,379 84%
ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 50,000 45,424 43,286 6,714 87%
ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI - - - - 0%
BOOKING FEES 6,000 4,521 4,472 1,528 75%
FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 8,000 12,321 15,681 (7,681) 196%
EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 18,000 10,693 7,919 10,081 44%
EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 800,000 654,361 631,009 168,991 79%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI - - - - 0%
CRIM CONV FEE CT - 2,176 - - 0%
CRIM CONV FEE CN - 791 - - 0%
FIBER SERVICES 14,880 6,840 6,120 8,760 41%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,200 4,800 4,800 2,400 67%
FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 1,000 849 1,409 (409) 141%
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,000 2,595 1,706 4,294 28%
ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 75,000 37,538 67,334 7,667 90%
PLAN CHECKING FEES 334,000 360,631 360,583 (26,583) 108%
FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 2,160 5,990 7,380 (5,220) 342%
PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 900 415 939 (39) 104%
S.E.P.A. REVIEW 5,000 2,315 7,545 (2,545) 151%
CRITICAL AREA STUDY 15,000 12,555 13,795 1,205 92%
DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,000 5,789 6,329 3,671 63%
SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES - 55,728 - - 0%
GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 4,800 3,433 5,341 (541) 111%
LOCKER FEES - 247 - - 0%
SWIM CLASS FEES - 29,249 - - 0%
PROGRAM FEES 825,000 649,614 631,942 193,058 77%
TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 110,000 91,022 92,626 17,374 84%
SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM - 34,266 - - 0%
BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 950 810 755 195 79%
INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT-CONTRACT SVCS 1,969,500 1,335,267 1,507,183 462,317 77%
4,768,876 3,782,086 3,710,652 1,058,224 78%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
Packet Page 327 of 363
5
Page 3 of 3
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
08/31/2014
Revenues
08/31/2015
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
FINES AND FORFEITURES:
PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 11,100 5,728 4,410 6,690 40%
TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 25,300 18,438 38,830 (13,530) 153%
NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 289,400 179,754 176,515 112,885 61%
CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)24,100 14,531 16,646 7,454 69%
NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 1,200 16,501 1,780 (580) 148%
OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 1,000 614 508 492 51%
PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 40,200 37,048 29,211 10,989 73%
PARK/INDDISZONE 500 499 1,373 (873) 275%
DWI PENALTIES 6,000 5,040 4,131 1,869 69%
DUI - DP ACCT 1,800 1,694 2,009 (209) 112%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI - 438 385 (385) 0%
OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 50 64 - 50 0%
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 38,200 23,160 21,067 17,133 55%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT 500 1,297 1,726 (1,226) 345%
CRIM CONV FEE CT 4,000 - 1,215 2,785 30%
OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 100 27 94 6 94%
OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 5,000 4,986 8,260 (3,260) 165%
COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 1,500 902 805 695 54%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN 400 701 1,161 (761) 290%
CRIM CONV FEE CN 1,200 - 509 691 42%
CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 115,600 57,732 38,630 76,970 33%
PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 30,200 21,098 20,368 9,832 67%
COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 100 156 260 (160) 260%
BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 8 4,000 4,760 12,810 (8,810) 320%
MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 1,000 250 1,450 (450) 145%
602,450 395,421 384,152 218,298 64%
MISCELLANEOUS:
INVESTMENT INTEREST 10,600 11,443 20,764 (10,164) 196%
INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 1,200 281 2,383 (1,183) 199%
INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 5,000 4,848 4,138 862 83%
PARKING 10,300 7,823 10,625 (325) 103%
SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 120,000 94,300 93,829 26,171 78%
BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 5,000 4,880 3,840 1,160 77%
LEASES LONG-TERM 166,772 113,332 117,952 48,820 71%
VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 49,000 7,921 37,734 11,266 77%
OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 3,600 8,543 3,300 300 92%
DONATION/CONTRIBUTION - - - - 0%
PARKS DONATIONS 15,777 11,066 11,282 4,495 72%
BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 950 950 1,950 (1,000) 205%
125TH ANNIVERSARY CONTRIBUTIONS - - 3,700 (3,700) 0%
VOLUNTEER PICNIC CONTRIBUTIONS - - 500 (500) 0%
POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES 1,000 - 1,200 (200) 120%
PARKS GRANTS - PRIVATE SOURCES - - - - 0%
SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 150 110 - 150 0%
SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 2,000 2,639 1,697 303 85%
CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 2,000 - - 2,000 0%
OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 2,000 - 58 1,942 3%
POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 200 984 10 190 5%
CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES - 162 (604) 604 0%
OTHER MISC REVENUES 13,707 2,331 15,214 (1,507) 111%
SMALL OVERPAYMENT 50 29 25 25 50%
NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 120 120 30 90 25%
NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 800 386 217 583 27%
NSF FEES - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT - - - - -
FLEX-PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES 1,010 - - 1,010 -
US BANK REBATE 3,210 1,557 4,774 (1,564) 149%
414,446 273,706 334,618 79,828 81%
TRANSFERS-IN:
PROCEEDS OF REFUNDING DEBT - 2,763,314 - - 0%
INSURANCE RECOVERIES - - - - 0%
TRANSFER FROM FUND 012 800,000 - 400,000 400,000 50%
INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM 104 - - - - 0%
TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 22,175 - 11,088 11,088 50%
822,175 2,763,314 411,088 411,088 50%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 36,995,841$ 25,327,825$ 23,846,578$ 13,149,263$ 64%
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
8 Difference due to change in penalty from 2014 to 2015. A late fee of $50 is now assessed after 1/31, and $100 after 2/28.
Packet Page 328 of 363
6
Page 1 of 6
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
08/31/2014
Expenditures
08/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001)
SALARIES AND WAGES 13,252,007$ 8,100,039$ 8,468,130$ 4,783,877$ 64%
OVERTIME 428,622 279,217 340,372 88,250 79%
HOLIDAY BUY BACK 209,198 858 1,543 207,655 1%
BENEFITS 5,008,978 3,031,344 3,167,514 1,841,464 63%
UNIFORMS 65,610 36,766 50,564 15,046 77%
SUPPLIES 372,120 283,508 231,253 140,867 62%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 184,275 211,334 94,278 89,997 51%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,942,159 1,231,699 1,485,234 1,456,925 50%
COMMUNICATIONS 209,127 98,383 101,954 107,173 49%
TRAVEL 36,845 13,195 21,134 15,711 57%
EXCISE TAXES 6,500 3,616 2,824 3,676 43%
ADVERTISING - 17,475 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 906,410 623,918 606,076 300,334 67%
INSURANCE 423,600 383,906 418,367 5,233 99%
UTILITIES 457,800 275,421 277,522 180,278 61%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 394,609 225,551 289,488 105,121 73%
MISCELLANEOUS 438,397 187,075 220,956 217,441 50%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 9 10,114,042 5,896,213 9,228,960 885,082 91%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 180,000 - - 180,000 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 3,219,785 650,145 526,556 2,693,229 16%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 53,800 128,401 14,777 39,023 27%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 160,821 2,720,000 - 160,821 0%
CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 65,298 64,654 65,297 1 100%
OTHER DEBT 110,000 479 87 109,913 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 54,268 55,016 27,460 26,808 51%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS - 16,481 - - 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL - - - - 0%
39,294,271$ 24,534,693$ 25,640,346$ 13,653,925$ 65%
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009)
BENEFITS 229,575$ 142,758$ 120,190$ 109,385$ 52%
IN HOME LTC CLAIMS 125,000 56,294 64,980 60,020 52%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,000 - 6,643 357 95%
MISCELLANEOUS 250 275 275 (25) 110%
361,825$ 199,326$ 192,087$ 169,738$ 53%
RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011)
INTERFUND LOAN -$ -$ -$ -$ 0%
MISCELLANEOUS - - 70,546 (70,546) 0%
-$ -$ 70,546$ (70,546)$ 0%
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND (012)
INTERFUND LOAN -$ -$ 1,991,018$ (1,991,018)$ 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 800,000 -$ 400,000 400,000 50%
800,000$ -$ 2,391,018$ (1,591,018)$ 299%
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014)
SUPPLIES 100$ -$ -$ 100$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,700 - 6,750 950 88%
ADVERTISING - - - - 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 - - 2,100 0%
9,900$ -$ 6,750$ 3,150$ 68%
BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016)
SUPPLIES -$ 914$ 1,934$ (1,934)$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 236,400 11,721 80,931 155,469 34%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE 362,400 61,653 49,540 312,860 14%
MISCELLANEOUS - - - - 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 195,000 - 307 194,693 0%
793,800$ 74,288$ 132,711$ 661,089$ 17%
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND (104)
FUEL CONSUMED 3,000$ 4,647$ 1,096$ 1,904$ 37%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 - - 5,000 0%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,233 1,933 1,361 872 61%
REPAIR/MAINT 800 - - 800 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 25%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 45,000 19,632 22,473 22,527 50%
76,033$ 31,212$ 29,929$ 46,104$ 39%
9 Difference between years is due to increase in the annual Fire District 1 contract, as well as Retro billings for past years.
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 329 of 363
7
Page 2 of 6
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
08/31/2014
Expenditures
08/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
STREET FUND (111)
SALARIES AND WAGES 526,484$ 359,289$ 374,655$ 151,829$ 71%
OVERTIME 18,400 16,583 12,375 6,025 67%
BENEFITS 250,539 171,422 192,654 57,885 77%
UNIFORMS 6,000 3,932 4,927 1,073 82%
SUPPLIES 240,000 108,088 75,832 164,168 32%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 6,504 9,243 16,757 36%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,050 5,601 5,789 8,261 41%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 3,027 2,638 862 75%
TRAVEL 1,000 110 300 700 30%
ADVERTISING - - - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 191,244 122,976 128,167 63,077 67%
INSURANCE 82,400 74,683 81,386 1,014 99%
UTILITIES 270,170 148,562 165,133 105,037 61%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 13,494 26,332 18,668 59%
MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 60 1,349 6,651 17%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 3,000 1,806 - 3,000 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - 282
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 12,500 - 9,828 2,672 79%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 3,283 - - 3,283 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 1,849 982 925 924 50%
1,703,419$ 1,037,401$ 1,091,534$ 611,885$ 64%
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE (112)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,248,947$ 406,235$ 1,111,492$ 1,137,455$ 49%
MISCELLANEOUS - - - - 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 114,006 41,301 313,084 (199,078) 275%
LAND 792,500 161,399 94,056 698,444 12%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 5,190,290 1,790,290 1,650,828 3,539,462 32%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,203 72,201 72,201 2 100%
INTEREST 3,758 4,118 3,444 314 92%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 199,629 - - 0%
8,421,704$ 2,675,175$ 3,245,105$ 5,176,599$ 39%
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117)
SUPPLIES 4,400$ 39$ 729$ 3,671$ 17%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,500 130 - 1,500 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 138,500 29,507 41,489 97,011 30%
TRAVEL 75 11 - 75 0%
ADVERTISING - 2,355 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 - - 2,000 0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 - - 300 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 3,967 2,784 3,216 46%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - - - - 0%
152,775$ 36,008$ 45,002$ 107,773$ 29%
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 65,500$ 7,912$ 31,211$ 34,289$ 48%
ADVERTISING - 11,124 - - 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 500 - 82 418 16%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - - - - 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 4,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 50%
70,000$ 21,035$ 33,292$ 36,708$ 48%
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121)
SUPPLIES 1,785$ -$ -$ 1,785$ 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT - - - - 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25,086 - - 25,086 0%
26,871$ -$ -$ 26,871$ 0%
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122)
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000$ 1,490$ 1,416$ 1,584$ 47%
3,000$ 1,490$ 1,416$ 1,584$ 47%
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 17,000$ -$ 7,228$ 9,772$ 43%
ADVERTISING - 1,975 - - 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,500 3,571 1,273 3,227 28%
21,500$ 5,546$ 8,501$ 12,999$ 40%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 330 of 363
8
Page 3 of 6
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
08/31/2014
Expenditures
08/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 (125)
SUPPLIES 21,000$ 48,003$ 33,129$ (12,129)$ 158%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 507,000 15,109 100,562 406,438 20%
ADVERTISING - - - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE - 11,492 - - 0%
UTILITIES - - - - 0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 120,000 13,737 7,825 112,175 7%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,867,000 - - 1,867,000 0%
2,515,000$ 88,341$ 141,517$ 2,373,483$ 6%
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ (126)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ 0%
MISCELLANEOUS - 2,500 1,200 (1,200) 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 141,525 22,204 18,263 123,263 13%
LAND 400,000 8,973 4,000 396,000 1%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 222,000 - - 222,000 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 119,110 - - 119,110 0%
INTEREST 10,765 5,717 5,382 5,383 50%
943,400$ 39,393$ 28,845$ 914,555$ 3%
GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127)
SUPPLIES 11,620$ 929$ 9,088$ 2,532$ 78%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18,000 - 415 17,585 2%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 22,175 2,500 11,088 11,088 50%
51,795$ 3,429$ 20,590$ 31,205$ 40%
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ -$ -$ -$ 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - 17,469 - - 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0%
-$ 17,469$ -$ -$ 0%
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMENT (130)
SALARIES AND WAGES 82,776$ 46,566$ 52,568$ 30,208$ 64%
OVERTIME 3,500 3,027 1,764 1,736 50%
BENEFITS 33,110 21,330 22,424 10,686 68%
UNIFORMS 1,000 - 197 803 20%
SUPPLIES 7,000 1,538 1,393 5,607 20%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 20,000 12,785 10,706 9,294 54%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,200 200 6,473 (2,273) 154%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,412 959 894 518 63%
TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0%
ADVERTISING - 1,107 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 9,986 6,144 6,656 3,330 67%
UTILITIES 3,800 417 581 3,219 15%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 1,983 2,735 1,265 68%
171,784$ 96,055$ 106,392$ 65,392$ 62%
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132)
SUPPLIES -$ 427$ -$ -$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 123,343 92,286 63,071 60,272 51%
LAND 3,400,000 - - 3,400,000 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,477,900 89,064 461,531 2,016,369 19%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 4,200 - 4,200 - 100%
6,005,443$ 181,776$ 528,802$ 5,476,641$ 9%
SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138)
SUPPLIES 1,500$ 99$ 49$ 1,451$ 3%
TRAVEL 4,200 3,256 3,123 1,077 74%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,700 1,461 1,094 3,606 23%
10,400$ 4,816$ 4,266$ 6,134$ 41%
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (139)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ -$ -$ -$ 0%
INSURANCE 5,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 50%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 645,000 454,530 495,333 149,667 77%
650,000$ 457,030$ 497,833$ 152,167$ 77%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 331 of 363
9
Page 4 of 6
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
08/31/2014
Expenditures
08/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND (140)
SUPPLIES -$ -$ 13,918$ (13,918)$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 24,638 25,369 (25,369) 0%
ADVERTISING - - - - 0%
MISCELLANEOUS - 1,229 35 (35) 0%
-$ 25,868$ 39,321$ (39,321)$ 0%
LID FUND CONTROL (211)
INTERFUND TRANSFER 28,567$ -$ -$ 28,567$ 0%
28,567$ -$ -$ 28,567$ 0%
2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231)
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 516,265$ -$ -$ 516,265$ 0%
INTEREST 150,928 84,010 75,464 75,464 50%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 500 604 - 500 0%
667,693$ 84,614$ 75,464$ 592,229$ 11%
2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND (232)
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 906,908$ -$ -$ 906,908$ 0%
INTEREST 18,402 9,211 9,201 9,201 50%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0%
925,310$ 9,211$ 9,201$ 916,109$ 1%
WATER FUND (421)
SALARIES AND WAGES 760,901$ 489,671$ 482,520$ 278,381$ 63%
OVERTIME 24,180 10,285 11,773 12,407 49%
BENEFITS 375,728 223,454 220,523 155,205 59%
UNIFORMS 4,000 2,886 2,032 1,968 51%
SUPPLIES 150,000 77,103 90,466 59,534 60%
FUEL CONSUMED - - - - 0%
WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,600,000 861,092 1,058,994 541,006 66%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 143,000 82,540 81,414 61,586 57%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 11,000 15,167 8,657 2,343 79%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,400,480 135,307 575,666 824,814 41%
COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 18,011 19,655 10,345 66%
TRAVEL 200 - - 200 0%
EXCISE TAXES 10 - - 224,202 (224,202) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 98,107 72,200 63,323 34,784 65%
INSURANCE 85,000 74,689 70,904 14,096 83%
UTILITIES 40,000 20,789 13,901 26,099 35%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,000 10,355 17,441 (441) 103%
MISCELLANEOUS 10 381,400 243,153 47,119 334,281 12%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 30,000 21,234 16,173 13,827 54%
INTERFUND TAXES 1,115,209 653,808 724,968 390,241 65%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 447,416 120,415 121,300 326,116 27%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 12,500 - 15,960 (3,460) 128%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 3,229,920 270,338 825,913 2,404,007 26%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 2,205 - - 2,205 0%
REVENUE BONDS 315,277 - - 315,277 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 45,839 45,839 45,839 0 100%
INTEREST 266,524 138,667 133,799 132,725 50%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 96,707 - 96,726 (19) 100%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 327 31 (31) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 311,883 - - 0%
INTERFUND REPAIR/MAINT - - - - 0%
10,682,593$ 3,899,213$ 4,969,299$ 5,713,294$ 47%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
10 Difference between years is due to Excise Taxes being broken out starting in 2015. Please also see page 10.
Packet Page 332 of 363
10
Page 5 of 6
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
08/31/2014
Expenditures
08/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
STORM FUND (422)
SALARIES AND WAGES 588,544$ 317,471$ 289,153$ 299,391$ 49%
OVERTIME 6,000 9,338 9,454 (3,454) 158%
BENEFITS 275,010 146,696 145,427 129,583 53%
UNIFORMS 6,500 4,438 4,850 1,650 75%
SUPPLIES 45,500 22,644 23,472 22,028 52%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,000 876 1,510 2,490 38%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,449,270 363,779 743,348 1,705,922 30%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 2,250 2,100 1,100 66%
TRAVEL 4,300 - - 4,300 0%
EXCISE TAXES 10 - - 42,279 (42,279) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 217,333 139,015 141,992 75,341 65%
INSURANCE 8,089 36,035 39,269 (31,180) 485%
UTILITES 10,500 5,660 5,431 5,069 52%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 13,000 7,301 8,576 4,424 66%
MISCELLANEOUS 10 120,500 64,273 38,554 81,946 32%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 85,000 98,576 71,733 13,267 84%
INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 323,210 217,839 229,003 94,207 71%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 153,292 20,354 25,585 127,707 17%
LAND 11,900 - - 11,900 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 12,500 - 9,828 2,672 79%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,294,832 - 2,000 2,292,832 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 80,507 - - 80,507 0%
REVENUE BONDS 154,054 - - 154,054 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,063 32,063 32,063 1 100%
INTEREST 174,142 91,970 87,739 86,403 50%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 63,863 - - 63,863 0%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 165 63,881 (63,881) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 394,976 - - 0%
7,137,109$ 1,975,718$ 2,017,246$ 5,119,863$ 28%
SEWER FUND (423)
SALARIES AND WAGES 1,690,580$ 1,084,470$ 1,096,788$ 593,792$ 65%
OVERTIME 81,000 53,012 64,918 16,082 80%
BENEFITS 763,707 497,811 483,584 280,123 63%
UNIFORMS 9,000 6,403 5,761 3,239 64%
SUPPLIES 350,000 144,085 151,030 198,970 43%
FUEL CONSUMED 140,000 70,638 43,536 96,464 31%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE 4,000 3,600 - 4,000 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 46,000 29,554 14,273 31,727 31%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,858,745 373,573 905,517 953,228 49%
COMMUNICATIONS 40,000 24,336 26,533 13,467 66%
TRAVEL 5,000 - - 5,000 0%
EXCISE TAXES 10 60,000 - 101,531 (41,531) 169%
RENTAL/LEASE 200,978 98,247 131,608 69,370 65%
INSURANCE 156,955 128,145 140,834 16,121 90%
UTILITIES 1,055,350 708,284 630,346 425,004 60%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 255,000 107,682 247,184 7,816 97%
MISCELLANEOUS 10 193,400 136,374 45,599 147,801 24%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 408,889 90,780 103,823 305,066 25%
INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 524,200 345,812 378,990 145,210 72%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,516,742 384,394 367,729 1,149,013 24%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 542,000 6,504 25,251 516,749 5%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 5,232,233 1,963,842 730,544 4,501,689 14%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 126,147 - - 126,147 0%
REVENUE BONDS 70,669 - - 70,669 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 203,621 143,620 169,990 33,631 83%
INTEREST 143,224 64,958 68,751 74,473 48%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 158,788 - 158,765 23 100%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 111 6,114 (6,114) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 434,922 - - 0%
15,836,228$ 6,901,159$ 6,098,998$ 9,737,230$ 39%
BOND RESERVE FUND (424)
REVENUE BONDS 170,000$ -$ -$ 170,000$ 0%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 205,000 - - 205,000 0%
INTEREST 674,416 340,408 337,208 337,209 50%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 294,686 - 54 294,632 0%
1,344,102$ 340,408$ 337,261$ 1,006,841$ 25%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 333 of 363
11
Page 6 of 6
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
08/31/2014
Expenditures
08/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511)
SALARIES AND WAGES 207,189$ 136,264$ 138,753$ 68,436$ 67%
OVERTIME 2,000 1,211 949 1,051 47%
BENEFITS 96,603 62,586 63,744 32,859 66%
UNIFORMS 1,000 825 975 25 98%
SUPPLIES 98,000 59,564 64,269 33,731 66%
FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 483 106 894 11%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 315,200 123,258 93,428 221,772 30%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 20,306 11,458 21,294 (988) 105%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,000 602 788 10,212 7%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,298 1,383 1,617 46%
TRAVEL 3,300 - 2,935 365 89%
RENTAL/LEASE 15,118 9,119 9,543 5,575 63%
INSURANCE 32,701 37,376 40,605 (7,904) 124%
UTILITIES 14,000 7,416 7,139 6,861 51%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 60,000 34,108 26,274 33,726 44%
MISCELLANEOUS 7,190 3,699 3,834 3,356 53%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 2,408 - 2,500 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 827,718 126,399 259,771 567,947 31%
INTERFUND RENTAL - 6,089 - - 0%
1,717,825$ 624,162$ 735,793$ 982,032$ 43%
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617)
BENEFITS 37,633$ 19,195$ 15,886$ 21,747$ 42%
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 38,796 19,165 17,557 21,239 45%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200 - 1,107 93 92%
77,629$ 38,360$ 34,550$ 43,079$ 45%
TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS 100,499,976$ 43,403,198$ 48,533,612$ 51,966,364$ 48%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 334 of 363
12
Page 1 of 1
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
08/31/2014
Expenditures
08/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY COUNCIL 256,160$ 145,411$ 143,789$ 112,371$ 56%
OFFICE OF MAYOR 257,113 163,387 166,555 90,558 65%
HUMAN RESOURCES 399,688 228,816 232,558 167,130 58%
MUNICIPAL COURT 883,826 516,393 552,079 331,747 62%
CITY CLERK 595,274 334,638 373,253 222,021 63%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,686,495 1,135,088 1,023,319 663,176 61%
CITY ATTORNEY 664,180 330,595 440,856 223,324 66%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL 15,106,961 10,027,805 10,573,039 4,533,922 70%
POLICE SERVICES 9,099,094 5,599,938 5,768,314 3,330,780 63%
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEV.453,296 262,287 263,436 189,860 58%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2,441,763 1,193,410 1,396,951 1,044,812 57%
PARKS & RECREATION 3,684,696 2,368,651 2,346,584 1,338,112 64%
PUBLIC WORKS 2,303,055 1,288,232 1,395,116 907,939 61%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,462,670 940,041 964,498 498,172 66%
39,294,271$ 24,534,693$ 25,640,346$ 13,653,925$ 65%
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
08/31/2014
Expenditures
08/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
WATER UTILITY FUND 10,682,593$ 3,899,213$ 4,969,299$ 5,713,294$ 47%
STORM UTILITY FUND 7,137,109 1,975,718 2,017,246 5,119,863 28%
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 15,836,228 6,901,159 6,098,998 9,737,230 39%
BOND RESERVE FUND 1,344,102 340,408 337,261 1,006,841 25%
35,000,032$ 13,116,499$ 13,422,804$ 21,577,228$ 38%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY
CITY OF EDMONDS
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 335 of 363
13
Page 1 of 4
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
08/31/2014
Expenditures
08/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES 132,908$ 83,419$ 83,287$ 49,621$ 63%
OVERTIME 2,000 124 - 2,000 0%
BENEFITS 74,512 49,823 49,759 24,753 67%
SUPPLIES 2,000 487 806 1,194 40%
SMALL EQUIPMENT - 1,005 832 (832) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000 521 5,481 4,519 55%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 2,060 2,101 899 70%
TRAVEL 2,500 1,256 723 1,777 29%
RENTAL/LEASE 490 346 387 103 79%
REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE 1,500 - - 1,500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 27,250 6,370 411 26,839 2%
256,160$ 145,411$ 143,789$ 112,371$ 56%
OFFICE OF MAYOR
SALARIES 196,512$ 127,754$ 131,788$ 64,724$ 67%
BENEFITS 46,801 29,906 30,197 16,604 65%
SUPPLIES 2,000 238 600 1,400 30%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000 1,088 908 1,092 45%
COMMUNICATION 1,400 485 280 1,120 20%
TRAVEL 2,500 438 188 2,312 8%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 1,651 1,394 1,006 58%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 1,825 1,200 1,800 40%
257,113$ 163,387$ 166,555$ 90,558$ 65%
HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES 198,913$ 128,212$ 138,555$ 60,358$ 70%
BENEFITS 75,651 43,674 45,727 29,924 60%
SUPPLIES 2,300 2,656 1,075 1,225 47%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 223 107 193 36%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 83,776 40,497 45,968 37,808 55%
COMMUNICATIONS 700 574 667 33 95%
TRAVEL 500 - 482 18 96%
ADVERTISING - 3,225 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,200 1,653 1,252 948 57%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 6,000 6,119 7,793 (1,793) 130%
MISCELLANEOUS 11 29,348 1,984 (9,068) 38,416 -31%
399,688$ 228,816$ 232,558$ 167,130$ 58%
MUNICIPAL COURT
SALARIES 538,864$ 343,812$ 349,666$ 189,198$ 65%
OVERTIME 600 2,053 2,301 (1,701) 383%
BENEFITS 202,532 111,042 122,629 79,903 61%
SUPPLIES 9,930 8,117 10,389 (459) 105%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,800 240 1,631 1,169 58%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 64,000 38,818 49,348 14,652 77%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,400 1,800 1,382 2,018 41%
TRAVEL 2,500 760 2,971 (471) 119%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,400 961 172 1,228 12%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,600 2,753 928 672 58%
MISCELLANEOUS 56,200 6,038 10,662 45,538 19%
883,826$ 516,393$ 552,079$ 331,747$ 62%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
11 A budget amendment will be completed to account for the credit.
Packet Page 336 of 363
14
Page 2 of 4
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
08/31/2014
Expenditures
08/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY CLERK
SALARIES AND WAGES 12 334,612$ 195,041$ 219,871$ 114,741$ 66%
OVERTIME - 775 893 (893) 0%
BENEFITS 129,143 69,722 79,384 49,759 61%
SUPPLIES 10,237 3,700 6,191 4,046 60%
SMALL EQUIPMENT - - 602 (602) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,307 14,472 17,862 10,445 63%
COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 25,088 24,421 25,579 49%
TRAVEL 1,000 - 423 577 42%
ADVERTISING - 974 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 20,000 11,894 13,951 6,049 70%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,975 10,344 7,096 10,879 39%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 2,629 2,558 1,442 64%
595,274$ 334,638$ 373,253$ 222,021$ 63%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SALARIES 801,002$ 486,588$ 519,780$ 281,222$ 65%
OVERTIME 6,667 4,928 1,192 5,475 18%
BENEFITS 303,881 169,546 175,575 128,306 58%
SUPPLIES 36,050 61,586 4,307 31,743 12%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 125,627 137,842 50,096 75,531 40%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 88,900 6,475 40,632 48,268 46%
COMMUNICATIONS 61,500 25,151 28,775 32,725 47%
TRAVEL 1,750 348 540 1,210 31%
RENTAL/LEASE 7,998 5,370 7,668 330 96%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 13 202,620 112,513 154,307 48,313 76%
MISCELLANEOUS 13 10,500 12,061 25,668 (15,168) 244%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 40,000 112,680 14,777 25,223 37%
1,686,495$ 1,135,088$ 1,023,319$ 663,176$ 61%
CITY ATTORNEY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 664,180$ 330,545$ 440,856$ 223,324$ 66%
MISCELLANEOUS - 50 - - 0%
664,180$ 330,595$ 440,856$ 223,324$ 66%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
SALARIES 110,279$ -$ -$ 110,279$ 0%
BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 25,000 11,858 4,099 20,901 16%
SUPPLIES 3,000 1,429 2,379 621 79%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 637,350 203,502 275,406 361,944 43%
EXCISE TAXES 6,500 3,616 2,824 3,676 43%
RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 3,600 - 100%
INSURANCE 423,600 383,906 418,367 5,233 99%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE - - - - 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 74,350 57,960 62,276 12,074 84%
INTERGOVT SERVICES 14 10,033,110 5,855,160 9,184,688 848,422 92%
ECA LOAN PAYMENT 180,000 - - 180,000 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 3,219,785 650,145 526,556 2,693,229 16%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 160,821 2,720,000 - 160,821 0%
INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 65,298 64,654 65,297 1 100%
OTHER DEBT 110,000 - - 110,000 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 54,268 55,016 27,460 26,808 51%
DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS - 16,481 - - 0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - 479 87 (87) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0%
15,106,961$ 10,027,805$ 10,573,039$ 4,533,922$ 70%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
12 Difference between 2014 and 2015 is due to a one-time retirement pay out
13 Differences between 2014 and 2015 are due primarily to software license "true up" and fiber redundancy expenses.
14 Difference between years is due to an increase in the annual Fire District 1 contract, as well as Retro billings for past years.
Packet Page 337 of 363
15
Page 3 of 4
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
08/31/2014
Expenditures
08/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
POLICE SERVICES
SALARIES 5,457,913$ 3,403,480$ 3,471,455$ 1,986,458$ 64%
OVERTIME 400,355 252,764 323,997 76,358 81%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK 209,198 858 1,543 207,655 1%
BENEFITS 2,051,907 1,317,077 1,349,443 702,464 66%
UNIFORMS 56,910 30,354 43,018 13,892 76%
SUPPLIES 87,500 55,011 56,570 30,930 65%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 33,330 16,948 12,469 20,861 37%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 114,662 60,414 60,958 53,704 53%
COMMUNICATIONS 26,207 15,532 15,411 10,796 59%
TRAVEL 14,300 8,195 14,167 133 99%
ADVERTISING - 40 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 575,500 404,267 382,390 193,110 66%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 16,115 4,562 9,119 6,996 57%
MISCELLANEOUS 44,960 25,317 22,502 22,458 50%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES 10,237 5,119 5,272 4,965 51%
INTERFUND RENTAL - - - - 0%
9,099,094$ 5,599,938$ 5,768,314$ 3,330,780$ 63%
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECON DEV.
SALARIES 222,050$ 154,764$ 146,092$ 75,958$ 66%
BENEFITS 67,056 38,340 42,497 24,559 63%
SUPPLIES 2,281 622 1,021 1,260 45%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 - - 800 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 135,700 58,331 67,345 68,355 50%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,490 429 636 854 43%
TRAVEL 2,000 6 179 1,821 9%
ADVERTISING - 6,322 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,819 1,653 1,252 1,567 44%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 18,600 1,820 4,413 14,187 24%
453,296$ 262,287$ 263,436$ 189,860$ 58%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING
SALARIES 1,349,115$ 743,018$ 883,441$ 465,674$ 65%
OVERTIME 1,300 5,044 72 1,228 6%
BENEFITS 505,727 268,370 315,052 190,675 62%
UNIFORMS 500 120 - 500 0%
SUPPLIES 13,100 10,262 9,010 4,090 69%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,050 6,907 4,534 516 90%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 454,437 112,754 107,502 346,935 24%
COMMUNICATIONS 6,100 2,804 2,813 3,287 46%
TRAVEL 4,250 798 568 3,682 13%
ADVERTISING - 3,743 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 35,234 25,129 25,637 9,597 73%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 5,700 620 6,612 (912) 116%
MISCELLANEOUS 61,250 13,842 41,710 19,540 68%
2,441,763$ 1,193,410$ 1,396,951$ 1,044,812$ 57%
ENGINEERING
SALARIES 1,245,433$ 719,214$ 817,728$ 427,705$ 66%
OVERTIME 5,000 - 846 4,154 17%
BENEFITS 511,018 283,531 322,800 188,218 63%
UNIFORMS 360 109 - 360 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,200 2,052 644 1,556 29%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 145,000 28,966 - 145,000 0%
COMMUNICATIONS 10,500 4,170 5,200 5,300 50%
TRAVEL 600 86 21 579 4%
ADVERTISING - - - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 14,881 12,328 9,920 4,961 67%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,800 699 - 1,800 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 16,000 9,640 7,255 8,745 45%
1,952,792$ 1,060,795$ 1,164,415$ 788,377$ 60%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 338 of 363
16
Page 4 of 4
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
08/31/2014
Expenditures
08/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
PARKS & RECREATION
SALARIES 1,786,934$ 1,129,256$ 1,133,057$ 653,877$ 63%
OVERTIME 10,000 11,846 7,560 2,440 76%
BENEFITS 683,023 408,826 413,725 269,298 61%
UNIFORMS 5,340 3,860 5,318 22 100%
SUPPLIES 109,122 83,774 88,046 21,076 81%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,168 42,474 9,205 963 91%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 468,647 333,256 327,251 141,396 70%
COMMUNICATIONS 29,980 10,464 10,822 19,158 36%
TRAVEL 4,445 1,309 871 3,574 20%
ADVERTISING - 3,172 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 179,804 117,942 119,528 60,276 66%
PUBLIC UTILITY 175,000 90,492 114,860 60,140 66%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 50,799 36,022 29,454 21,345 58%
MISCELLANEOUS 86,939 44,304 47,888 39,051 55%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 13,800 15,721 - 13,800 0%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES 70,695 35,934 39,000 31,695 55%
3,684,696$ 2,368,651$ 2,346,584$ 1,338,112$ 64%
PUBLIC WORKS
SALARIES 247,982$ 166,372$ 169,471$ 78,511$ 68%
OVERTIME 200 - - 200 0%
BENEFITS 76,327 49,982 50,426 25,901 66%
SUPPLIES 7,600 3,273 2,501 5,099 33%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 583 1,479 (479) 148%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 36 41 159 21%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,350 511 389 961 29%
TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 7,404 4,085 3,861 3,543 52%
PUBLIC UTILITY 2,800 1,490 1,429 1,371 51%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,900 1,106 1,103 2,797 28%
350,263$ 227,438$ 230,701$ 119,562$ 66%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES 629,490 419,110 403,937 225,553 64%
OVERTIME 2,500 1,683 3,512 (1,012) 140%
BENEFITS 256,400 179,646 166,201 90,199 65%
UNIFORMS 2,500 2,321 2,228 272 89%
SUPPLIES 87,000 52,351 48,357 38,643 56%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,000 3,060 12,678 (9,678) 423%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45,000 2,026 45,675 (675) 101%
COMMUNICATIONS 13,500 9,316 9,056 4,444 67%
TRAVEL - - - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 52,680 33,040 35,064 17,616 67%
PUBLIC UTILITY 280,000 183,440 161,233 118,767 58%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 88,500 51,919 74,179 14,321 84%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 2,129 2,378 (278) 113%
1,462,670$ 940,041$ 964,498$ 498,172$ 66%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 39,294,271$ 24,534,693$ 25,640,346$ 13,653,925$ 65%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 339 of 363
17
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 1,832,688$ 1,832,688$ 1,782,532$ -2.74%
February 4,370,788 2,538,100 4,043,011 -7.50%
March 6,518,104 2,147,316 6,234,620 -4.35%
April 9,870,095 3,351,991 9,527,417 -3.47%
May 17,582,276 7,712,180 16,760,751 -4.67%
June 19,387,167 1,804,891 18,922,673 -2.40%
July 21,390,864 2,003,697 20,889,506 -2.34%
August 23,243,306 1,852,441 23,846,578 2.60%
September 25,104,749 1,861,444 25,756,335 2.60%
October 28,088,137 2,983,388 28,817,156 2.60%
November 35,228,930 7,140,793 36,143,286 2.60%
December 36,995,841 1,766,911 37,956,057 2.60%
Real Estate Excise Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 74,465$ 74,465$ 86,097$ 15.62%
February 120,437 45,972 141,803 17.74%
March 180,946 60,509 225,747 24.76%
April 256,073 75,127 312,043 21.86%
May 323,031 66,959 418,573 29.58%
June 397,396 74,365 524,539 31.99%
July 481,990 84,594 816,876 69.48%
August 576,574 94,584 942,906 63.54%
September 664,404 87,830 1,086,539 63.54%
October 766,091 101,688 1,252,835 63.54%
November 835,413 69,321 1,366,200 63.54%
December 900,000 64,587 1,471,824 63.54%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-General Fund
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Real Estate Excise Tax
0
8,000,000
16,000,000
24,000,000
32,000,000
40,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Real Estate Excise Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 340 of 363
18
Retail Eating & Drinking
514,782
Health & Personal Care
66,962
Contractors 868,984
Wholesale Trade 184,784 Communications 156,029
Misc Retail Trade 505,200
Accommodation 26,704
Business Services 269,111
Amusement & Recreation
42,221
Retail Food Stores 139,902
Others 208,530
Clothing and Accessories
141,976
Retail Automotive 1,049,441
Automotive Repair 131,116
Gasoline Stations 22,655
Sales Tax Analysis By Category
Current Period: August 2015
Year-to-Date
Total $4,328,398
($100,000)$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000
Retail Food Stores
Amusement & Recreation
Gasoline Stations
Accommodation
Health & Personal Care
Clothing and Accessories
Business Services
Others
Communications
Automotive Repair
Wholesale Trade
Retail Automotive
Retail Eating & Drinking
Misc Retail Trade
Contractors
Total
($38,818)
($6,323)
($323)
$3,488
$4,577
$4,707
$7,928
$10,848
$11,499
$27,487
$31,177
$42,376
$43,013
$48,345
$368,586
$558,567
Change in Sales Tax Revenue:
August 2015 compared to
August 2014
Packet Page 341 of 363
19
Sales and Use Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 435,694$ 435,694$ 499,246$ 14.59%
February 975,847 540,153 1,134,685 16.28%
March 1,391,087 415,240 1,605,365 15.40%
April 1,791,264 400,176 2,047,828 14.32%
May 2,291,242 499,978 2,604,373 13.67%
June 2,734,170 442,928 3,140,830 14.87%
July 3,180,829 446,659 3,704,663 16.47%
August 3,672,197 491,368 4,328,398 17.87%
September 4,144,571 472,374 4,885,182 17.87%
October 4,628,198 483,627 5,455,230 17.87%
November 5,157,791 529,593 6,079,458 17.87%
December 5,627,000 469,209 6,632,512 17.87%
Gas Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 106,130$ 106,130$ 84,288$ -20.58%
February 216,919 110,788 181,842 -16.17%
March 311,490 94,571 252,457 -18.95%
April 394,636 83,146 321,196 -18.61%
May 462,784 68,148 373,735 -19.24%
June 509,747 46,963 413,611 -18.86%
July 548,655 38,908 442,408 -19.36%
August 576,833 28,179 465,494 -19.30%
September 602,307 25,474 486,050 -19.30%
October 629,657 27,350 508,121 -19.30%
November 672,464 42,807 542,665 -19.30%
December 743,700 71,236 600,152 -19.30%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Sales and Use Tax
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Gas Utility Tax
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Sales and Use Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Gas Utility Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 342 of 363
20
Telephone Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 123,352$ 123,352$ 139,353$ 12.97%
February 224,347 100,994 240,490 7.20%
March 346,461 122,114 358,530 3.48%
April 464,141 117,681 465,785 0.35%
May 589,261 125,119 564,946 -4.13%
June 702,776 113,515 664,312 -5.47%
July 813,739 110,963 768,922 -5.51%
August 924,614 110,875 876,407 -5.21%
September 1,034,622 110,008 980,680 -5.21%
October 1,144,101 109,479 1,084,450 -5.21%
November 1,246,216 102,116 1,181,242 -5.21%
December 1,371,800 125,584 1,300,278 -5.21%
Electric Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 166,797$ 166,797$ 163,683$ -1.87%
February 333,580 166,783 327,208 -1.91%
March 496,789 163,209 466,770 -6.04%
April 655,116 158,327 625,378 -4.54%
May 800,868 145,752 763,075 -4.72%
June 913,622 112,754 871,282 -4.63%
July 1,021,749 108,127 980,692 -4.02%
August 1,120,601 98,852 1,080,841 -3.55%
September 1,223,250 102,649 1,179,849 -3.55%
October 1,313,426 90,176 1,266,825 -3.55%
November 1,424,495 111,069 1,373,953 -3.55%
December 1,533,800 109,305 1,479,380 -3.55%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Telephone Utility Tax
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Electric Utility Tax
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Telephone Utility Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Electric Utility Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 343 of 363
21
Meter Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 520,277$ 520,277$ 519,477$ -0.15%
February 883,891 363,614 874,540 -1.06%
March 1,398,367 514,476 1,371,848 -1.90%
April 1,750,133 351,766 1,711,250 -2.22%
May 2,266,493 516,360 2,221,102 -2.00%
June 2,648,184 381,692 2,636,962 -0.42%
July 3,236,847 588,662 3,294,801 1.79%
August 3,746,386 509,539 3,876,774 3.48%
September 4,463,965 717,579 4,619,327 3.48%
October 4,978,111 514,146 5,151,367 3.48%
November 5,584,869 606,758 5,779,243 3.48%
December 5,964,343 379,474 6,171,923 3.48%
Storm Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 223,883$ 223,883$ 226,620$ -1.87%
February 705,681 481,798 715,253 -1.91%
March 929,860 224,179 941,830 -6.04%
April 1,129,150 199,290 1,142,961 -4.54%
May 1,353,703 224,553 1,369,794 -4.72%
June 1,552,980 199,277 1,571,805 -4.63%
July 1,778,558 225,578 1,798,663 1.13%
August 2,268,142 489,584 2,289,982 0.96%
September 2,497,209 229,067 2,521,254 0.96%
October 2,699,606 202,397 2,725,600 0.96%
November 2,927,436 227,830 2,955,624 0.96%
December 3,130,447 203,011 3,160,590 0.96%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Meter Water Sales
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Storm Water Sales
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Meter Water Sales
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Storm Water Sales
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 344 of 363
22
Unmeter Sewer Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 517,721$ 517,721$ 520,708$ 0.58%
February 936,104 418,382 940,945 0.52%
March 1,453,283 517,179 1,448,413 -0.34%
April 1,871,624 418,341 1,875,395 0.20%
May 2,393,060 521,437 2,392,477 -0.02%
June 2,815,270 422,210 2,829,634 0.51%
July 3,344,959 529,688 3,360,598 0.47%
August 3,771,751 426,792 3,792,545 0.55%
September 4,309,599 537,849 4,333,359 0.55%
October 4,738,355 428,756 4,764,478 0.55%
November 5,266,018 527,663 5,295,051 0.55%
December 5,692,773 426,755 5,724,158 0.55%
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales
2015
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Unmeter Sewer Sales
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 345 of 363
23
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 4,290,818$ 4,290,818$ 4,797,714$ 11.81%
February 6,907,462 2,616,643 6,730,834 -2.56%
March 9,971,896 3,064,435 8,883,278 -10.92%
April 13,907,084 3,935,188 12,838,447 -7.68%
May 15,981,615 2,074,530 14,813,377 -7.31%
June 19,223,089 3,241,474 19,452,503 1.19%
July 22,715,444 3,492,355 21,504,246 -5.33%
August 25,719,078 3,003,634 25,640,346 -0.31%
September 29,563,367 3,844,289 29,472,867 -0.31%
October 32,023,109 2,459,741 31,925,078 -0.31%
November 35,254,547 3,231,438 35,146,624 -0.31%
December 39,294,271 4,039,724 39,173,982 -0.31%
Non-Departmental
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 2,583,549$ 2,583,549$ 2,944,421$ 13.97%
February 3,245,124 661,576 2,984,442 -8.03%
March 4,360,005 1,114,880 3,261,415 -25.20%
April 6,385,279 2,025,274 5,406,181 -15.33%
May 6,542,161 156,882 5,563,278 -14.96%
June 7,763,258 1,221,097 8,369,406 7.81%
July 9,209,089 1,445,831 8,463,703 -8.09%
August 10,055,577 846,488 10,573,039 5.15%
September 11,943,556 1,887,979 12,558,173 5.15%
October 12,398,351 454,795 13,036,372 5.15%
November 13,324,507 926,156 14,010,189 5.15%
December 15,106,961 1,782,454 15,884,368 5.15%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-General Fund
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Non-Departmental
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
3,000,000
6,000,000
9,000,000
12,000,000
15,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Non-Departmental
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 346 of 363
24
City Council
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 18,624$ 18,624$ 15,644$ -16.00%
February 39,658 21,034 32,177 -18.86%
March 59,398 19,740 54,262 -8.65%
April 79,090 19,692 73,069 -7.61%
May 98,664 19,574 90,440 -8.34%
June 121,960 23,296 107,828 -11.59%
July 145,588 23,628 125,175 -14.02%
August 166,249 20,661 143,789 -13.51%
September 186,786 20,536 161,551 -13.51%
October 207,853 21,068 179,772 -13.51%
November 230,147 22,294 199,054 -13.51%
December 256,160 26,013 221,552 -13.51%
Office of Mayor
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 21,864$ 21,864$ 20,447$ -6.48%
February 43,742 21,879 41,879 -4.26%
March 64,861 21,119 62,160 -4.16%
April 85,648 20,787 82,654 -3.50%
May 106,706 21,058 102,832 -3.63%
June 127,891 21,185 123,379 -3.53%
July 150,093 22,202 145,515 -3.05%
August 171,201 21,108 166,555 -2.71%
September 191,760 20,559 186,556 -2.71%
October 214,972 23,213 209,138 -2.71%
November 236,760 21,787 230,334 -2.71%
December 257,113 20,353 250,135 -2.71%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Council
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Office of Mayor
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Council
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0.00
50,000.00
100,000.00
150,000.00
200,000.00
250,000.00
300,000.00
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Office of Mayor
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 347 of 363
25
Community Services/Economic Development
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 26,114$ 26,114$ 25,947$ -0.64%
February 68,895 42,782 55,912 -18.85%
March 104,251 35,356 90,926 -12.78%
April 149,111 44,859 129,520 -13.14%
May 183,482 34,372 156,258 -14.84%
June 214,894 31,411 188,019 -12.51%
July 260,155 45,261 223,086 -14.25%
August 293,627 33,472 263,436 -10.28%
September 330,069 36,441 296,130 -10.28%
October 367,830 37,761 330,009 -10.28%
November 404,907 37,078 363,274 -10.28%
December 453,296 48,389 406,687 -10.28%
City Clerk
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 44,885$ 44,885$ 69,874$ 55.68%
February 92,515 47,631 113,771 22.97%
March 143,001 50,486 151,490 5.94%
April 189,686 46,685 202,117 6.55%
May 235,271 45,585 243,300 3.41%
June 286,525 51,254 285,114 -0.49%
July 335,371 48,846 332,476 -0.86%
August 386,689 51,318 373,253 -3.47%
September 439,532 52,843 424,260 -3.47%
October 494,623 55,091 477,437 -3.47%
November 545,767 51,144 526,804 -3.47%
December 595,274 49,507 574,591 -3.47%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Community Services/Economic Development
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Clerk
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Community Services/Economic Development
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Clerk
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 348 of 363
26
Human Resources
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 30,379$ 30,379$ 23,208$ -23.61%
February 61,342 30,962 58,245 -5.05%
March 96,964 35,622 97,488 0.54%
April 129,280 32,316 118,354 -8.45%
May 164,325 35,045 142,753 -13.13%
June 196,050 31,725 177,419 -9.50%
July 229,771 33,721 203,528 -11.42%
August 260,922 31,151 232,558 -10.87%
September 296,920 35,998 264,643 -10.87%
October 327,404 30,483 291,813 -10.87%
November 356,366 28,962 317,627 -10.87%
December 399,688 43,322 356,240 -10.87%
Municipal Court
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 65,765$ 65,765$ 64,786$ -1.49%
February 137,555 71,791 131,534 -4.38%
March 214,280 76,725 199,177 -7.05%
April 288,496 74,215 262,806 -8.90%
May 357,762 69,267 335,527 -6.22%
June 432,214 74,451 400,792 -7.27%
July 504,854 72,640 473,213 -6.27%
August 578,153 73,300 552,079 -4.51%
September 650,848 72,694 621,494 -4.51%
October 725,572 74,725 692,849 -4.51%
November 800,045 74,472 763,963 -4.51%
December 883,826 83,781 843,965 -4.51%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Human Resources
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Municipal Court
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Human Resources
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Municipal Court
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 349 of 363
27
Information Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 65,374$ 65,374$ 118,077$ 80.62%
February 143,513 78,139 220,041 53.32%
March 203,645 60,132 265,742 30.49%
April 257,305 53,660 315,850 22.75%
May 309,335 52,030 351,842 13.74%
June 357,815 48,480 401,221 12.13%
July 421,827 64,012 436,373 3.45%
August 487,733 65,906 478,267 -1.94%
September 534,262 46,529 523,893 -1.94%
October 584,987 50,725 573,633 -1.94%
November 660,726 75,739 647,902 -1.94%
December 822,765 162,039 806,796 -1.94%
Finance
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 91,283$ 91,283$ 61,363$ -32.78%
February 153,886 62,604 162,931 5.88%
March 223,819 69,933 230,381 2.93%
April 298,102 74,283 292,317 -1.94%
May 365,464 67,361 356,315 -2.50%
June 435,396 69,932 416,897 -4.25%
July 502,682 67,286 479,148 -4.68%
August 570,422 67,740 545,052 -4.45%
September 641,081 70,659 612,569 -4.45%
October 716,184 75,102 684,331 -4.45%
November 786,158 69,974 751,193 -4.45%
December 863,730 77,572 825,315 -4.45%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Information Services
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Finance
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Information Services
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Finance
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 350 of 363
28
City Attorney
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 55,348$ 55,348$ 41,000$ -25.92%
February 110,697 55,348 109,902 -0.72%
March 166,045 55,348 164,833 -0.73%
April 221,393 55,348 219,764 -0.74%
May 276,742 55,348 274,735 -0.73%
June 332,090 55,348 329,666 -0.73%
July 387,438 55,348 385,025 -0.62%
August 442,786 55,348 440,856 -0.44%
September 498,135 55,348 495,962 -0.44%
October 553,483 55,348 551,069 -0.44%
November 608,831 55,348 606,176 -0.44%
December 664,180 55,348 661,283 -0.44%
Police
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 701,191$ 701,191$ 722,157$ 2.99%
February 1,408,302 707,112 1,439,842 2.24%
March 2,143,908 735,605 2,171,600 1.29%
April 2,860,467 716,559 2,874,990 0.51%
May 3,564,614 704,147 3,599,927 0.99%
June 4,335,602 770,988 4,329,129 -0.15%
July 5,062,314 726,712 5,029,065 -0.66%
August 5,787,554 725,240 5,768,314 -0.33%
September 6,548,946 761,392 6,527,175 -0.33%
October 7,285,121 736,175 7,260,903 -0.33%
November 8,282,816 997,695 8,255,281 -0.33%
December 9,099,094 816,278 9,068,845 -0.33%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Attorney
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Police
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Attorney
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Police
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 351 of 363
29
Development Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 192,233$ 192,233$ 168,772$ -12.20%
February 384,614 192,381 336,679 -12.46%
March 588,012 203,398 538,490 -8.42%
April 780,942 192,930 709,939 -9.09%
May 978,026 197,084 888,971 -9.11%
June 1,167,168 189,142 1,059,255 -9.25%
July 1,371,007 203,839 1,222,591 -10.83%
August 1,580,178 209,171 1,396,951 -11.60%
September 1,785,290 205,113 1,578,281 -11.60%
October 2,006,497 221,207 1,773,838 -11.60%
November 2,215,904 209,407 1,958,963 -11.60%
December 2,441,763 225,859 2,158,633 -11.60%
Parks & Recreation
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 234,525$ 234,525$ 230,892$ -1.55%
February 491,322 256,797 470,482 -4.24%
March 760,561 269,239 729,804 -4.04%
April 1,029,448 268,887 986,966 -4.13%
May 1,321,037 291,589 1,260,011 -4.62%
June 1,641,439 320,402 1,528,030 -6.91%
July 2,061,948 420,509 1,899,573 -7.87%
August 2,497,012 435,064 2,346,584 -6.02%
September 2,817,096 320,084 2,647,385 -6.02%
October 3,096,024 278,928 2,909,509 -6.02%
November 3,352,462 256,438 3,150,499 -6.02%
December 3,684,696 332,234 3,462,718 -6.02%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Development Services
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Parks & Recreation
0
400,000
800,000
1,200,000
1,600,000
2,000,000
2,400,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Development Services
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Parks & Recreation
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 352 of 363
30
Public Works
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 28,448$ 28,448$ 28,516$ 0.24%
February 56,173 27,725 58,648 4.41%
March 84,122 27,949 87,405 3.90%
April 111,864 27,741 116,105 3.79%
May 140,136 28,273 144,875 3.38%
June 168,982 28,845 174,245 3.11%
July 207,749 38,768 203,782 -1.91%
August 235,654 27,905 230,701 -2.10%
September 263,562 27,908 258,022 -2.10%
October 292,666 29,104 286,515 -2.10%
November 318,921 26,255 312,218 -2.10%
December 350,263 31,342 342,901 -2.10%
Facilities Maintenance
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 113,211$ 113,211$ 117,139$ 3.47%
February 237,061 123,850 224,792 -5.18%
March 366,160 129,099 344,860 -5.82%
April 485,233 119,073 470,418 -3.05%
May 601,657 116,424 578,920 -3.78%
June 718,330 116,673 694,660 -3.30%
July 838,190 119,860 867,487 3.50%
August 950,657 112,468 964,498 1.46%
September 1,076,486 125,828 1,092,158 1.46%
October 1,188,234 111,748 1,205,533 1.46%
November 1,312,945 124,712 1,332,060 1.46%
December 1,462,670 149,725 1,483,965 1.46%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Public Works
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Facilities Maintenance
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Public Works
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Facilities Maintenance
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 353 of 363
31
Engineering
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 157,953$ 157,953$ 145,471$ -7.90%
February 318,573 160,620 289,558 -9.11%
March 477,882 159,309 433,246 -9.34%
April 635,671 157,789 577,397 -9.17%
May 797,603 161,931 723,392 -9.30%
June 957,206 159,603 867,442 -9.38%
July 1,114,848 157,643 1,014,506 -9.00%
August 1,274,057 159,208 1,164,415 -8.61%
September 1,438,040 163,983 1,314,286 -8.61%
October 1,610,943 172,903 1,472,310 -8.61%
November 1,777,884 166,940 1,624,884 -8.61%
December 1,952,792 174,908 1,784,740 -8.61%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Engineering
2015
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Engineering
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 354 of 363
32
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
(a)
Term Purchase Purchase Maturity Yield to Weighted
Agency / Issuer Investment Type (months) Date Price Date Maturity Average
Washington State Local
Government Investment Pool
Investment Pool Various 21,438,903$ Various 0.156% 0.053%
Snohomish County
Investment Pool
Investment Pool Various 35,327,521$ Various 0.77% 0.433%
FHLMC Bonds 60 12/28/2012 1,000,000 12/28/2017 0.90% 0.014%
FHLMC Bonds 54 12/27/2012 1,000,000 6/27/2017 0.75% 0.012%
FFCB Bonds 45 12/19/2012 1,000,000 9/19/2016 0.54% 0.009%
FNMA Bonds 60 9/19/2014 1,000,000 9/19/2019 1.87% 0.030%
FFCB Bonds 60 9/23/2014 1,000,000 9/23/2019 2.03% 0.032%
FICO Bonds 33 9/19/2014 1,027,000 6/6/2017 0.96% 0.016%
TOTAL 62,793,424$ 0.60%0.599%
Investment Mix % of Total
State Investment Pool 34.1% Current 6-month treasury rate 0.27%
Bonds 9.6% Current State Pool rate 0.156%
Snohomish County
Investment Pool 56.3% Blended Edmonds rate 0.60%
100.0%
(a) To maturity.
Investment interest through August of 2015 is $200,426, whereas interest through August of 2014 was $95,297; difference of $105,129.
Rate Comparison
City of Edmonds
Investment Portfolio Summary
As of August 31, 2015
Packet Page 355 of 363
33
GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW
12/31/2014 6/30/2015 8/31/2015 Q2 YTD
001-General Fund 6,446,380$ 5,916,550$ 4,652,613$ 595,242$ (1,793,767)$
009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 539,044 540,274 486,962 83,453 (52,082)
011-Risk Management Fund 1,024,822 1,029,107 959,558 2,114 (65,264)
012-Contingency Reserve Fund 5,445,337 5,067,931 3,082,037 (342,709) (2,363,300)
013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 56,023 56,257 56,314 115 291
014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 1,066 (2,681) 0 (3,749) (1,066)
016-Building Maintenance 141,146 282,691 261,192 (33,499) 120,046
Total General Fund 13,653,818$ 12,890,129$ 9,498,676$ 300,967$ (4,155,142)$
GENERAL
FUND
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$13.65 $12.89
$9.50
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Dec 2014 June 2015 Aug 2015
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
General Fund
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements.
Packet Page 356 of 363
34
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2014 6/30/2015 8/31/2015 Q2 YTD
General Fund 13,653,818$ 12,890,129$ 9,498,676$ 300,967$ (4,155,142)$
Special Revenue 6,515,938 7,406,631 8,104,572 (328,660) 1,588,634
Debt Service 86,412 96,076 102,782 1 16,370
Total Governmental Funds 20,256,168$ 20,392,837$ 17,706,030$ (27,692)$ (2,550,138)$
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCESGOVERNMENTAL
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$13.65
$12.89
$9.50
$6.52
$7.41
$8.10
$0.09 $0.10 $0.10 -
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Dec 2014 June 2015 Aug 2015
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
General
Fund
Special
Revenue
Debt
Service
Governmental Fund Balances-By Fund GroupGovernmentalFund Balances-By Fund Group
$20.26 $20.39
$17.71
-
6
12
18
24
Dec 2014 June 2015 Aug 2015
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Governmental Fund
Balances - Combined
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements.
Packet Page 357 of 363
35
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2014 6/30/2015 8/31/2015 Q2 YTD
104 - Drug Enforcement Fund 55,159$ 48,179$ 36,539$ (24,953)$ (18,620)$
111 - Street Fund 327,150 408,500 393,217 118,095 66,067
112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 209,915 115,551 173,027 (869,458) (36,888)
117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 440,605 451,318 446,142 14,038 5,537
118 - Memorial Street Tree 17,772 17,846 17,864 37 92
120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 133,991 139,440 146,787 (4,943) 12,796
121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 64,344 72,942 73,516 1,502 9,172
122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 14,452 13,300 13,296 (411) (1,156)
123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 77,645 82,546 84,697 1,886 7,052
125 - Real Estate Tax 2 1,531,385 1,949,385 2,341,805 232,919 810,420
126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 1,166,954 1,668,187 2,088,447 266,041 921,493
127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 247,886 269,793 270,807 (4,723) 22,921
129 - Special Projects Fund 38,078 38,237 38,276 (8,316) 198
130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 108,243 130,194 124,618 15,576 16,375
132 - Parks Construction Fund 995,136 903,084 756,737 (40,544) (238,399)
136 - Parks Trust Fund 150,999 151,630 151,784 311 785
137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 860,229 872,320 876,081 5,128 15,852
138 - Sister City Commission 1,703 5,304 1,355 3,872 (348)
139 - Transportation Benefit District 27,935 0 0 (25,434) (27,935)
140 - Business Improvement Disrict 46,357 68,876 69,577 (9,282) 23,220
Total Special Revenue 6,515,938$ 7,406,631$ 8,104,572$ (328,660)$ 1,588,634$
GOVERNMENTAL
Special Revenue
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$6.52
$7.41
$8.10
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Dec 2014 June 2015 Aug 2015
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Special
Revenue
Special Revenue Funds
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements.
Packet Page 358 of 363
36
ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2014 6/30/2015 8/31/2015 Q2 YTD
421 - Water Utility Fund 16,580,057$ 16,717,141$ 22,235,413$ 2,652,334$ 5,655,355$
422 - Storm Utility Fund 10,172,432 11,104,109 14,795,778 2,024,094 4,623,346
423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 44,394,721 45,069,719 53,830,410 2,657,918 9,435,689
424 - Bond Reserve Fund - (21,051) (51) (808,225) (51)
411 - Combined Utility Operation - 12,880 39,973 (70,745) 39,973
Total Enterprise Funds 71,147,210$ 72,882,798$ 90,901,522$ 6,455,376$ 19,754,311$
ENTERPRISE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$39,973
$22,235,413
$14,795,778
$53,830,410
$-
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
Combined Utility Water Storm Sewer/WWTP Bond Reserve$(51)
Enterprise Fund Balances as of August 31, 2015
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements.
Packet Page 359 of 363
37
SUMMARY OVERVIEW
12/31/2014 6/30/2015 8/31/2015 Q2 YTD
Governmental Funds 20,256,168$ 20,392,837$ 17,706,030$ (27,692)$ (2,550,138)$
Enterprise Funds 71,147,210 72,882,798 90,901,522 6,455,376 19,754,311
Internal Services Fund 7,245,160 7,488,402 7,579,544 (103,280) 334,384
Agency Funds 188,872 220,815 211,267 46,962 22,395
Total City-wide Total 98,837,410$ 100,984,852$ 116,398,363$ 6,371,366$ 17,560,952$
CITY-WIDE
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
$211,267
$7,579,544
$76,568
$26,214
$69,577
$1,355
$876,081
$151,784
$756,737
$124,618
$38,276
$270,807
$2,088,447
$2,341,805
$84,697
$13,296
$73,516
$146,787
$17,864
$446,142
$173,027
$393,217
$36,539
$9,498,676
$1 $20,000,000
Firemen's Pension Fund
Equipment Rental Fund
2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund $ (0)
L.I.D. Guaranty Fund
L.I.D. Fund Control
Business Improvement District
Transportation Benefit District $ (0)
Sister City Commission
Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
Parks Trust Fund
Parks Construction Fund
Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
Special Projects Fund
Gifts Catalog Fund
Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq
Real Estate Excise Tax 2
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
Youth Scholarship Fund
Employee Parking Permit Fund
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
Memorial Street Fund
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
Combined Street Const/Improve Fund
Street Fund
Drug Enforcement Fund
General Fund
Governmental Fund Balances as of August 31, 2015
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements.
Packet Page 360 of 363
38
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2014 6/30/2015 8/31/2015 Q2 YTD
511 - Equipment Rental Fund 7,245,160$ 7,488,402$ 7,579,544$ (103,280)$ 334,384$
Total Internal Service Funds 7,245,160$ 7,488,402$ 7,579,544$ (103,280)$ 334,384$
INTERNAL SERVICE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$7.25 $7.49 $7.58
-
2
4
6
8
10
Dec 2014 June 2015 Aug 2015
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
511 - Equipment Rental Fund
Internal Service Fund Balances
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2015 reflect amounts from the un-audited financial statements.
Packet Page 361 of 363
AM-8015 9. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/06/2015
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Shane Hope
Department:Development Services
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Update on Highway 99 Subarea Planning Process
Recommendation
Consider the information and ask any questions
Previous Council Action
City Council 2015 budget allocation
Narrative
The Edmonds planning project for the Highway 99 area is getting underway. Encouraging economically
sound opportunities for this area, along with affordable housing, public safety, and better pedestrian
connections, is clearly important to the City Council and greater community.
CITY COUNCIL SUPPORT
In the 2015 budget, the City Council allocated $100,000 in funding to start this project. The amount was
less than originally proposed because the Council recognized that, within the Comprehensive Plan major
update needing to be done first, the Highway 99 plan could not get started anyway until the last half of
the year. Additional funding was possible in 2016.
PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW
The fundamental goal of the current project is to have a subarea plan that provides a clear, long-term
vision for the Highway 99 corridor area of Edmonds and helps guide future public decisions—including
multimodal improvements to Highway 99—and private decisions for enhancing local properties and
businesses. (Note: Improvements to the City’s portion of Highway 99 are part of the state’s 10-year
transportation budget, but the timing and actual projects are uncertain. A strong subarea plan will make
the City more eligible to obtain additional grant funding for capital improvements.)
Very close to the above goal is having broad public participation in shaping the area’s future. Related to
both aspects (i.e., a good plan and good public participation) is having—or at least preparing key
components for—an analysis of options for multimodal transportation facilities and for development of
property. This would include information on environmental and economic aspects of development,
including traffic impacts.
The 2015 funding allocated by the City Council provides a solid start for developing a visionary plan. If
additional funding is allocated in 2016, the project can include more components and more public
Packet Page 362 of 363
participation.
NEXT STEPS
Next steps include selection of a consultant team and the beginning of a major public outreach. It will take
about a year for the project to be completed.
At the October 6 meeting, more information will be presented.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/02/2015 08:05 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/02/2015 08:07 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/02/2015 08:08 AM
Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 10/02/2015 07:55 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/02/2015
Packet Page 363 of 363