2015.10.20 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
BUSINESS MEETING
OCTOBER 20, 2015
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
1.(5 Minutes)Roll Call
2.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda
3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.AM-8035 Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of October 13, 2015.
B.AM-8045 Approval of claim checks #216676 through #216779 dated October 15, 2015 for
$188,996.92.
C.AM-8033 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Nathan Graff ($763.14) and Patricia
Ramirez Hall (amount to be determined).
D.AM-8041 Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Management Services
E.AM-8042 Renewal of Contract for Services with S. Morris Co.
F.AM-8043 Interlocal Agreement for In-Service Police Skills Training
G.AM-8046 SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis
4.(5 Minutes)
AM-8016
Proclamation for Domestic Violence Awareness Month ~ YWCA Week without
Violence.
5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings
Packet Page 1 of 491
6.ACTION ITEMS
A.(30 Minutes)
AM-8039
Closed record review and action on the Planning Board's recommendation to approve
an application by RDJ Group LLC to rezone the eastern portion of three existing
single-family lots of record addressed 16404 and 16414 75th Pl. W and 16420 76th
Ave. W from Single-Family Residential, RS-20, to Single-Family Residential, RS-12.
(File No. PLN20150034).
B.(20 Minutes)
AM-8044
Authorization for Mayor to sign Local Agency Professional Services Consultant
Agreement with Tetra Tech for the Edmonds Waterfront Analysis project.
7.STUDY ITEMS
A.(20 Minutes)
AM-8040
Presentation of Edmonds Downtown Alliance 2016 Work Plan and Budget
B.(60 Minutes)
AM-8047
Discussion regarding the 2016 Proposed City Budget.
8.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
9.(15 Minutes)Council Comments
10.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
11.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 491
AM-8035 3. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/20/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Scott Passey
Department:City Clerk's Office
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of October 13, 2015.
Recommendation
Review and approve meeting minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attachment 1 - Draft Council Meeting Minutes.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - 10-13-15 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Form Review
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 10/14/2015 07:54 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/14/2015
Packet Page 3 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
October 13, 2015
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Kristiana Johnson, Council President Pro Tem *
* (arrived 7:03 p.m.)
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
ALSO PRESENT
Ari Girouard, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
J. Shier, Police Officer
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Council
President Fraley-Monillas and Council President Pro Tem Johnson.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Council President Pro Tem Johnson was not present for the vote.)
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Earling relayed that Council President Pro Tem Johnson wanted to abstain from Item A due to her
absence from that meeting. Councilmember Nelson requested Item D be removed from the Consent
Agenda.
ITEM A: APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2015
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE ITEM A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Pro Tem
Johnson was not present for the vote.)
ITEM D: 2015 - 2017 SEIU COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CONTRACT)
Packet Page 4 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 2
Councilmember Nelson advised he would abstain from the vote.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE ITEM D. MOTION CARRIED (4-0-1) NELSON ABSTAINING. (Council President Pro
Tem Johnson was not present for the vote.)
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Pro Tem Johnson was not present for the vote.)The agenda
items approved are as follows:
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #216503 THROUGH #216675 DATED OCTOBER 8,
2015 FOR $845,323.21. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL REPLACEMENT CHECK #61824
FOR $791.35 AND DIRECT DEPOSIT OF $500.00 FOR THE PAY PERIOD SEPTEMBER
16, 2015 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2015.
C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM SANDRA BOSS
($658.65)
E. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENTS WITH FRONTIER AND
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD FOR THE UNDERGROUND CONVERSION OF
OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES WITHIN THE 76TH AND 212TH INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT LIMITS
4. PRESENTATIONS
A. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF FRIENDS OF THE EDMONDS LIBRARY WEEK ~
OCTOBER 18 - 24, 2015
Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring October 18 – 24, 2015 as Library Week in Edmonds.
A member of the Friends of the Edmonds Library invited the public to the annual book sale on Saturday,
October 24, and to become members. She recognized Chy Ross, Managing Librarian, and expressed the
Friends’ appreciation for his support and leadership.
B. PRESENTATION BY STUDENTS SAVING SALMON REGARDING WATER QUALITY
MONITORING
Rondi Nordal, Club Officer, Students Saving Salmon, thanked the Council for their close review of the
Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) that focuses on the protection of fish and wildlife habitat in wetlands as
well as work done by Councilmember Buckshnis with WRIA8 in conserving salmon habitat with regard
to the Marsh as well as Michael Cawrse, Public Works, for his help with grants. She introduced members
of Students Saving Salmon, Edmonds-Woodway High School seniors, Afua Tiwaa, Vice President, Pavi
Chance, Treasurer, and Lindsey Barnes, Secretary. She also recognized the following: David Millette,
Club Advisor and EWHS biology teacher; Geoff Bennett, Assistant Principal; Valerie Stewart, former
EWHS teacher and Edmonds Beach Ranger; and Joe Scordino, retired NOAA fisheries biologist.
Ms. Nordal described Students Saving Salmon:
• Student club at EWHS t
• Focus on activities and projects that emphasize education outreach through interviews, articles
and presentations
• Relate to science classes
• Place high importance on salmon and the environment
Packet Page 5 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 3
• Goal of reestablishing historic salmon runs in Edmonds
Ms. Tiwaa described the importance of salmon:
• Key component of ecosystem
• Salmon migration transports nutrients
• Environmental health indicator
• Cultural icon
Ms. Chance congratulated the City for choosing to daylight Willow Creek which will provide salmon
access to the saltwater marsh, crucial for spawning as well as other environmental benefits. She described
the importance of habitat:
• Healthy salmon habitats: dissolved oxygen in water and prevalence of vegetation
• 2013 by Adopt a Stream study of Shellabarger Creek found poor water quality in need of
improvement
• Data collected by Students Saving Salmon will be compared to State water quality standards and
the Clean Water Act
Ms. Barnes explained one of the major issues adversely affecting salmon is toxic stormwater runoff. She
identified stormwater issues:
• Increased pre-spawn morality rate
• Coho morality in some streams
• Seattle Times reported on a study that found road runoff kills salmon within hours of exposure
• Solution = infiltration
• Stormwater samples will be sent to water analysis lab
Ms. Barnes thanked the Council for implementing the rain garden program that began October 10.
Ms. Tiwaa described the Edmonds Stream Team:
• Citizens’ science program monitors conditions of Edmonds streams and Edmonds Marsh
• Take monthly water quality measurements from Shellabarger Creek, Willow Creek, Shell Creek
and Edmonds Marsh
• Grant funding
• Volunteers
• Data analysis
• Data publicly accessible
Ms. Barnes displayed a map of watersheds in Edmonds they will be sampling, and explained two samples
will be taken from each waterway, one from the lower end and one from the upper end.
Ms. Nordal thanked the City of Edmonds, Google Tides Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, Earthcorps, Sound Salmon Solutions and Edmonds School District. She also thanked Keely
O’Connell; Michael Cawrse, Public Works; Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation; and Geoff Bennett.
Councilmember Mesaros asked how long they will be taking samples. Mr. Scordino explained the
students began collecting samples this month; samples have been collected over the past four months.
They had been awaiting the purchase of a high quality data meter at the end of July that is used to collect
the water samples. Councilmember Mesaros remarked it would be interesting to monitor the water quality
over the next 5-25 years. Mr. Scordino said the intent is to make this a long-term citizen science program
involving the school district and students.
Packet Page 6 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 4
Councilmember Buckshnis commended the program and invited the students to make a presentation to
WRIA8. She was hopeful the City could include funding for the program in next year’s budget due to the
importance of the students educating the public, understanding statistics, etc. She looked forward to the
program continuing.
Councilmember Petso thanked the group for their work, envisioning it would be a great project for the
City. She requested the City Clerk provide the Council the students’ presentation.
Councilmember Nelson was excitedly looking forward to their data. He referred to the Seattle Times
article regarding how quickly the toxicity of stormwater affects salmon and asked if the students planned
to take water samples immediately following storms. Mr. Scordino answered monthly measurements will
be taken to monitor dissolved oxygen, temperature, and pH and every season samples will be collected
and taken to a lab where the samples will be analyzed for various pollutants including metals, petroleum
products, etc. Depending on the availability of grant funds, they also plan to collect samples during storm
events 2-3 times a year. The challenge is the cost; lab analysis from one site costs $600. Grants from
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and Google Tides Foundation provided $12,000. They are using
those funds to collect baseline data as well as storm data.
Council President Pro Tem Johnson echoed the Council’s thanks. She viewed this as a lovely example of
how the community can work together with Students Saving Salmon, City Council, and the School
District. She thanked Geoff Bennett, Val Stewart and Joe Scordino for working with the students. She
asked how many students are in the club and what they hope to accomplish this year. Ms. Nordal
responded there are 12-13 students in the club who range from sophomores to seniors. They hope to have
various activities, programs and presentations as well as articles and water quality testing. Ms. Stewart
explained not only will students be collecting data and looking at the science, they will be relating it to
policy documents and regulations that the Council and Planning Board review. They may comment on
City policy documents as they arise.
Council President Pro Tem Johnson noticed the presentation included reference to the fishing pier. Ms.
Nordal said that was related to a presentation she and another student gave to Ms. Hite. One of the
group’s previous projects was interviewing fishermen about what they knew about salmon and what they
would like to see at the fishing pier as well as educational signage. Ms. Stewart explained last year’s
Students Saving Salmon sponsored tours of the Edmonds Marsh and shoreline parks. She was hopeful the
group will be able to create a video that would be available online with links to the data. Council
President Pro Tem Johnson said she attended both tours and they were wonderful.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the students planned to provide their annual report to the Council
in May. Ms. Nordal said yes, provided they are invited back.
Councilmember Mesaros asked if there are other student groups in the Puget Sound region and other
states doing similar work and how they are connecting with those groups. Ms. Stewart said there are
many other groups doing similar work. They hope to grow Students Saving Salmon to include community
college level students, specifically Edmonds Community College. They collaborate with Sno-King
Watershed Council where they and many other student groups contribute to King and Snohomish
Counties’ databases. Councilmember Mesaros commented North Seattle College does a lot of work on
Thornton Creek.
Mayor Earling thanked the students for their presentation and assured they were invited back next year.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Packet Page 7 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 5
Wendy Kendall, Edmonds, a member of the Friends of the Edmonds Library and the Library Board,
announced an exciting event showcasing the library building and services, a Library Tech Fair on
November 14. This month the Friends are sponsoring a Kindle contest; entries are 500 words or less on
why today’s modern library is my friend. Through a generous donation from Semetra Financial
Investment Services Company three Kindles will be awarded as prizes for entries in the 9-12, 13-19 and
50+ age groups. The prizes will be awarded at the Tech Fair and librarians will be on hand to show how
to use Kindles with the library’s technology services. Entry forms are available at the Edmonds Library.
6. STUDY ITEMS
A. PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2016 CITY BUDGET
Mayor Earling presented the 2016 budget message:
“Members of the City Council, staff and citizens of Edmonds:
I am pleased to present to you the 2016 Edmonds City Budget. Every year when we craft the budget we
reassess the status of the economy. My first budget as Mayor in 2013 was "conservative", and with
improvements, by the 2015 budget I had moved all the way to "cautious". For 2016, with the steady
improvement of the national, state and local economy this past year, I am now ready to make the leap to
"pretty darn hopeful."
Over the past 12-18 months we have seen dramatic improvements in our local economy. The positive
growth in the national and regional economy, along with the hard work of the city staff, Council and the
business community, has furthered that economic success.
Our projected 2015 operating revenues are 3.4% higher than our 2014 actual revenues. And 2016
revenues are projected to be 5.4% higher than the anticipated 2015 revenues. For example, as of the end
of September, our sales tax revenues are $670,000 higher than the same year-to-date last year; with
automobile sales and construction activity leading the way.
Our real estate values continue to recover from the 2008 recession. We have restored a significant
portion of home values lost. Because Edmonds is such a desirable community to live in we have had a
very successful year in real estate sales, resulting in strong city income from the real estate excise tax.
Additionally, new home and commercial construction has added $43.5 million to our 2016 assessed
property values. All signs of economic progress.
With all of this good news however, we must acknowledge the lean years that forced us to make decisions
in deferring projects, hiring needed staff and other funding decisions, we now need to begin to address. In
addition we have completed a building maintenance assessment which shows serious deficiencies in
several of our city's buildings.
Two years ago we pulled together enough dollars to begin a street resurfacing program, one which had
been left unattended for five years. Each of the past two years, we have funded over a million dollars in
repaving projects. The budget I present tonight continues this program.
But we need to understand, ladies and gentlemen, that with the previously tight economy, we have fallen
behind in other areas of need as well. My commitment to the road resurfacing program serves as an
example of the catch up work that we need to do throughout the city.
Whether we talk of deferred infrastructure or a staff stretched too thin for too long, we need to catch up
so that our city government meets the standards expected by the community.
Packet Page 8 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 6
We have addressed several areas of needed catch up in this budget. Briefly, I shall highlight a few of the
proposals we’ve included.
Funding is being provided for the following items:
• Continued street resurfacing program
• Completion of the Wayside Horn System at our at-grade-crossings
• Curb ramps to meet ADA requirements
• Sidewalk work and traffic calming
• Completion of the 228th and Highway 99 project
• Traffic improvements in and around 76th W and 212th streets
• Needed IT equipment replacement
• Continued citywide water, sewer and storm water efforts
One major improvement on the infrastructure side included in this budget that I want to highlight is
funding for a downtown public restroom. A long desired facility of local citizens, business owners and
visitors.
Few people will remember that in 2008 we had 234 employees. As a result of the recession, we have been
operating with about 208 employees for the past three years. With the dramatic shift in the economy,
there is great need to add staff in a few understaffed areas.
When the workload in the Planning/Building Inspection/Engineering Departments necessitates closing
for a day a week to keep pace with that workload, when we cannot respond adequately to meet everyday
crime, when the Finance Department is understaffed and overworked, it is time in this good economy to
respond. As I said earlier, we have too few staff stretched too thin for too long.
So, in the 2016 budget, I have included funding for seven new full time positions. I am happy to announce
we will be re-establishing the street crimes unit with two additional police officers to deal with important
public safety work. In addition, we will add one position in Development Services, Finance, Engineering,
and Public Works. We will also bump a ¾ time position in the Clerk’s office to full time. I received
additional requests in the budget process for staffing, but I have focused on immediate needs.
I should note the Engineering position will be mostly funded from the utility funds. I should also note I
have included the Council's request for a half-time legislative analyst.
The city of Edmonds has come through tough financial times in good shape. Being "conservative" and
"cautious", making very hard decisions in the 2013 budget, a revived economy and a desirable
community in which to live and work has brought us to a positive point.
I must caution though, we need to be ever vigilant to our long term needs. We must continue to identify
constant and improving revenue, as we know expenses will always increase. We have a very high quality
of life in Edmonds and our community wants that quality maintained.
In conclusion, I look forward to working with Council and the community in the coming weeks to move
the budget to conclusion. I must note and thank my Directors and the entire Finance Department for their
efforts, attitude of compromise and success in crafting the 2016 budget.”
Budget books were distributed to Councilmembers.
B. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Packet Page 9 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 7
Police Chief Al Compaan explained the Emergency Services Coordinating Agency (ESCA) is dissolving
effective December 13, 2015. Previous Council action on May 19, 2015 included passage of Resolution
1334 that endorsed the dissolution action and directed replacement of ESCA services with those provided
by Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management (DEM). He requested approval of the
Interlocal Agreement on next week’s Consent Agenda. The fiscal impact is included in the proposed 2016
budget; the amount allocated in 2016 is $46,633, ESCA was paid approximately $94,000 in 2015.
Councilmember Nelson observed there will be a significant savings and asked whether Chief Compaan is
comfortable the same level of service will be provided. Chief Compaan answered yes, there have been
discussions with DEM about a more enhanced level of service but that is staff dependent as southwest
Snohomish County cities join DEM. The basic services the City will receive under this Interlocal
Agreement will meet and likely exceed in some areas what the City received from ESCA because it is a
larger, more robust organization.
Council President Pro Tem Johnson recalled Snohomish County DEM made several presentations to
Snohomish County Tomorrow last year; they experienced a tremendous learning curve with the Oso slide
and she was confident they were prepared to serve the City of Edmonds. Chief Compaan agreed Oso was
a tremendous learning opportunity for DEM; many people learned a lot of things they were unaware they
did not know. It was used as a growth opportunity and he firmly believed DEM was a stronger
organization than before the Oso slide occurred.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on next week’s Consent Agenda.
C. RENEWAL OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH S. MORRIS COMPANY
Police Chief Al Compaan reported animal control has a need for disposal of deceased animals. S. Morris
Company has provided these services to Edmonds since 2007 at a very reasonable rate. The proposed
contract is for three years, basically an extension of the existing contract with a slight adjustment in the
per animal disposal fee which is proposed to be $11.90 for 2016. He recommended approval on the
Consent Agenda.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on next week’s Consent Agenda.
D. RENEWAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING IN-SERVICE POLICE
SKILLS TRAINING
Police Chief Al Compaan explained this Interlocal Agreement is for cooperative in-service police
training. The Edmonds Police Department has participated with this same group of cities since 2001;
Everett provides the umbrella organization for the Interlocal Agreement. Training includes legal updates,
emergency vehicle operation, first aid, blood borne pathogens and other specialized skills training. The
cost for the City to be participants in the Interlocal Agreement is $1200/year. He recommended approval
on the Consent Agenda.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on next week’s Consent Agenda.
Mayor Earling suggested moving Agenda Items F and G up as a consultant is present for Item G.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
JOHNSON, TO MOVE ITEMS F AND G FOLLOWING ITEM D. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
G. DISCUSSION ON THE UPDATED 2015 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
Packet Page 10 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 8
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained whenever a development is proposed that differs from the
existing land use, an analysis is done to determine if the new development will increase traffic on City
streets. If the development increases traffic, a traffic impact fee is charged based on the amount of impact.
That fee, currently $1,050 per peak hour trip, is periodically analyzed to determine its appropriateness.
Randy Young, Henderson, Young & Company, provided a definition of impact fee: a one-time
payment by new development for capital costs of facilities needed by new development. He reviewed
reasons to charge an impact fee:
• Revenue: for needed public facilities
• Policy: growth pays a portion of costs so taxpayers don’t pay the whole cost
• Quality of life: public facilities keep up with growth
He provided rules for impact fees:
1. Fair Share
• Growth only, not deficiencies
2. Nexus of benefit
• Fee proportional to impacts
3. Credits
• No double charging
4. “Cannot rely solely on impact fees”
• Cannot charge 100% of growth’s costs
He described what can impact fees pay for:
• Can pay for “system improvements” in adopted CIP
• Cannot pay for “project improvements” (i.e. local streets for the development
• Cannot pay for repair, replacement, renovation
Mr. Young reviewed the calculation of impact fees
• Step 1: Eligible costs divided by growth trips = cost per trip
Example: $21,733,736 eligible costs divided by 3,930 growth trips = $5,530 cost per trip
• Step 2: Impact fee per unit of development (cost per trip x trip rate = impact fee rate)
Apartment Example: $5,530 cost per trip x 0.62/ trip rate = $3,429/ impact fee rate
Office Example: $5,530 cost per trip x 0.00134/square foot trip rate = $7.41/square foot impact
fee rate
He reviewed changes 2009 to 2015
• Added 6 projects
• Increased cost of 7 carry-over projects
• Reduced deficiency exclusion
• Excluded external costs & trips
• Eliminated long-term cost exclusion
He presented the project list from the adopted Transportation Plan, explaining this is not the entire list of
projects; to be included on this list, the project must increase capacity of the street system:
# Project Total Cost Existing
Deficiency
Edmonds
Growth
Eligible Cost
1 Olympic View & 174th St. SW $ 610,000 0% 47% $ 286,700
2 Olympic View Drive & 76th Ave. W 1,183,000 0% 47% 556,010
4 196th St. SW (SR 524) & 88th Ave 903,000 0% 63% 568,890
Packet Page 11 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 9
8 212th St. & SR 99 2,806,000 0% 63% 1,767,780
14 220th St. & SR 99 3,215,000 0% 33% 1,060,950
30 SR 99 & 216th St SW 2,335,000 0% 33% 770,550
11 Main St. & 9th Ave. 911,000 0% 63% 573,930
15 220th St. & 76th Ave 4,314,000 0% 33% 1,423,620
20 SR 104 & 238th St. 1,339,000 40% 49% 393,666
21 SR 104 & 76th Ave W 1,508,500 0% 49% 739,165
A 84th Ave. W, between 212th St. S &
238th St. SW
7,720,500 0% 65% 5,018,325
B 238th St. SW, between Edmonds Way
& 84th
3,045,000 0% 65% 1,979,250
C Add 228th St. SW from SR 99 to 95th
Pl.
10,146,000 0% 65% 6,594,900
Total $40,036,000 1% 53% $21,733,736
He summarized the cost per trip is key: Eligible costs $21,733,735 divided by growth trips 3,930 = cost
per trip $5,530.
Mr. Young provided a comparison of cost per trip:
Jurisdiction Cost per trip
Kenmore $8,350
Lynnwood 7,944
Shoreline 6,124
Edmonds (update) 5,530
Bothell 5,426
Average of 8 others 4,486
Mill Creek 3,000
Snohomish County 2,453
Mukilteo 1,050
Edmonds (current) 1,050
Mountlake Terrace 714
He provided the following with regard to the comparison:
• Don’t over-estimate their impact
• Fees are a very small % of cost, no effect on most development decisions
• Virtually all “comparable” cities have fees, so differences are even smaller % of costs
• Other factors far outweigh small fee differences:
o Location, location, location
o Land: availability and price
o Accessibility
o Differences in project costs, other revenue, policies
Alternatives to updating impact fees include:
1. Raise taxes
o Growth pays less, taxpayers pay more
2. Eliminate some projects
o Less cost, more congestion
3. Discount the cost per trip or phased increase
o Growth pays somewhat less, more congestion
Packet Page 12 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 10
He described a phased increase of cost per trip:
Cost per Trip
Edmonds (update) $5,530
Edmonds (current) 1,050
Increase 4,480
Annual Increase: 3 years 1,493
He provided examples of the impact fee with the increase phased over three years:
2015 2016 2017 2018
Previous Year 1,050 1,050 2,542 4,035
+ Annual Increase 1,493 1,493 1,494
Phased Amount 1,050 2,543 4,036 5,530
Mr. Young said no action is recommended today. This is an opportunity for background and Council
questions and comment.
Councilmember Buckshnis how existing deficiencies are determined to develop percentages. Mr. Young
explained 4-5 different numbers are necessary to make that calculation including how much traffic is on
the street now, how much traffic that street can hold at LOS, and the increased capacity when the
improvement is constructed; the deficient amount is then divided by the difference between the existing
capacity and the increased capacity to determine the growth percentage.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented sooner or later there will be no places to build and she would
rather collect money sooner than later. She asked how projects in the pipeline are addressed. Mr. Young
answered many cities recognize that the pipeline is fairly short. Most cities do not phase in the impact fee;
they adopt it in November/December but do not make it effective until January 1, 15 or 31. That gives
everyone with a project in the pipeline a limited amount of time to finalize their deal or add that number.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled that was done with the park impact fee.
Councilmember Bloom commented in the comparison of 11 jurisdictions, Edmonds is next to last in the
cost per trip. She asked when the fee was last updated. Mr. Young answered 2009. Councilmember
Bloom asked whether it was typical to wait that long. Mr. Young answered it is not typical to wait that
long but the great recession was also not typical. This is a longer than typical period but there is no legal
requirement for the amount of time between increases.
Councilmember Bloom asked when the City would update the fee next. Mr. Young answered it is typical
to update it when the Transportation Plan is updated. Because of the amount of work involved, a three
year cycle is not unusual. Public Works Director Phil Williams answered Edmonds typically updates the
fee every six years when the Transportation Plan is updated. Cities that are growing rapidly do it more
often. During that six year period, other cities are also recalculating their fees and they almost never
decrease. Mr. Young pointed out Shoreline adopted an impact fee for the first time last year. Although
significant developed, Shoreline is experiencing redevelopment and felt they needed a traffic impact fee.
Shoreline is third in the comparison of cities and they did not discount the rate or phase it in.
Councilmember Mesaros asked how the growth trip number, 3,930, was calculated. Mr. Young explained
a traffic model was used, a computer simulation of all traffic entering, leaving and within the City to
identify the existing number of trips, growth for the future is added and the model predicts the number of
new trips. The 3,930 is the difference between the existing and new trips.
Councilmember Mesaros observed if more growth than anticipated occurs, there will be more trips; he
asked how that impacts the $21 million in projects. He asked whether there would be over-capacity if all
Packet Page 13 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 11
$21 million in projects were implemented. Mr. Young said there will be some over-capacity in some
streets and others will be on the brink by 2035. That is why Transportation Plans are updated every 3-5
years. With regard to what happens if there is more or less growth, he explained impact fees are self-
balancing. A list of projects has been identified that will accommodate 3,900 trips; if the City only
experiences half the growth, they will collect only half the total amount. With half the people, likely only
half the projects will be needed. If the City experiences more growth, more money will be collected that
can be used to identify additional projects.
Councilmember Mesaros commented an increase from $1,050 to $5,530 is about a 500% increase. If the
increase were phased in, the first year would only be a 140% increase. He observed it does not sit well for
a governmental entity to increase fees by 140% with the anticipation of two subsequent increases. Mr.
Young agreed the average consumer would object to that type of increase in groceries or clothing and
likely would take their business elsewhere. Conversely, real estate is dirt that cannot be moved, and
several changes have occurred between 2009 to 2015 (6 new projects, increased cost of 7 carry-over
projects, reduced deficiency exclusions, excluded external costs and trips, eliminated long-term cost
exclusion). He agreed it felt like a huge increase.
Councilmember Mesaros said he was quoted in My Edmonds News as saying government never has
enough money and he felt this was an example of that. An average citizen deciding to build new house
may have researched the impact fee a few years ago and found it was only $1,050 but now may be faced
with an impact fee of $5,000. Mr. Young said the question is why $1,050 was right in 2009 but is not
right now.
Councilmember Mesaros provided the example of a developer building a 10-unit apartment building; with
an impact fee of $1,050, the total fee is $10,500 compared to $55,000 with a $5,000 impact fee. He said
$45,000 on a multimillion dollar project may not seem like a lot but the Council needs to be conscious of
that in their decision-making. Mr. Young agreed every City Council wrestles with that whenever an
impact fee is proposed or an increase adopted. In the end, 78 cities in Washington with the highest growth
in the state, all decided impact fees were the right thing to do; it does not kill development. He
acknowledged the $45,000 increase but as a percentage of the total millions of dollars in cost, it did not
make the developer go broke or stop them from doing the development. If that were true, the other 77
cities would have repealed their impact fees. Councilmember Mesaros said it was not a matter of
repealing the fee but the Council needs to be conscious of the decision it is making and not be cavalier
that it is a significant increase by percentage.
Councilmember Petso asked what impact fee was assumed in developing the 2016 budget. Mr. Williams
answered no increase in the fee was included in revenue projections because a decision has not been
made. Staff tries to estimate revenue from impact fees from large projects in the next year. Year-to-date
the City has collected $50,000 in traffic impact fees; the total at year end may be about $75,000 Last year
the City collected $200,000+ due to a number of large projects last year. Staff expects development to
continue next year.
Councilmember Petso clarified the traffic impact fee used in the budget was $1,050. Mr. Williams
answered yes; if the fee is increased, additional revenues would be factored in. He agreed these are
significant increases in the traffic impact fees. He recalled the same analysis and logic was used when the
water hookup fee was increased from $930 to $5,050 and when the sewer hookup fee was increased from
$430 to $4,482. He acknowledged it created the potential for shock particularly for projects somewhere in
the pipeline. He recalled the Council’s decision to phase in those increases over three years.
Council President Pro Tem Johnson commented in Edmonds land is often more valuable than the
structure. On occasion, someone will purchase a single family house, demolish it and build a significant
Packet Page 14 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 12
larger single family house. She asked whether an impact fee would be charged for the new house as there
is no net change in the number of trips. Mr. Young answered no, the City’s code specifies the replacement
of a dwelling units with another dwelling units even if it is bigger or more expensive. The trip generation
data uses an average of the number trips from all single family houses; it may understate the trips from a
larger house with a large family or overstate a small house with fewer occupants.
Council President Pro Tem Johnson referred to the situation where one house is replaced with two and
asked if there was a credit for original house. Mr. Young answered in most cities there is a credit for the
preexisting and an impact fee would only be paid on the increase. For example if an existing house was
demolished and replaced with a 5-unit apartment building, the developer would pay for all 5 but because
they are less than a house, they would receive a credit for the value of one.
Mayor Earling advised this was for information only. Staff will return at a future meeting for further
discussion. He declared a brief recess.
F. PRESENTATION ON THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT
City Engineer Rob English reported on traffic impact fees:
• Originally adopted in 2004
o Rate Study = $764/trip
o $841 singe family unit
• Revised in 2010
o Rate study = $1,049/trip
o $1,196 per single family unit
He reported on 2014 traffic impact fees:
Beginning balance $359,581.35
Impact fees 202,295.31
Interest $154.91
Expenditure 41,300.90
Ending Balance $520,730.67
He provided examples of impacts fees collected from development in 2014:
• Swedish Hospital’s 2-story addition: $98,000
• Post office/apartments on 2nd Avenue $33,000
• 5th Avenue Veterinary Hospital $19,000
Expenditures in 2014 from the funds included $41,300 for annual debt service for the 220th Street project.
Two loans were put in place for that project; one expires in 2022 and the other in 2024. Expected
expenditures in 2015 include:
• Five Corners roundabout $286,000 (local match for federal grant)
• 76th Avenue/212th $100,000
He provided a comparison of impact fees collected 2004-2014:
Year Impact Fees
2004 5,641
2005 165,024
2006 106,842
2007 160,429
2008 62,686
2009 54,150
Packet Page 15 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 13
2010 34,873
2011 307,678
2012 29,966
2013 156,652
2014 202,295
Total $1,286,236
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the annual debt service and asked whether that was approved by
Council and what the Council’s role is in identifying expenditures from impact fees. Mr. English
explained in the case of 200th Street loans were taken for the design phase and for the construction phase
through the Public Works Trust Fund Loan program. He was not here when the loan was secured but
since he has been here impact fees have been used for the annual debt service for both loans. The 220th
project was identified in the initial impact fee calculation.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked to whom the $286,000 for Five Corners roundabout would be paid. Mr.
English explained impact fees will be used to pay the local match. That is also the case for the 212th
project. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there was any policy regarding the use of the funds. Mr.
English explained the budget identifies the funding source and the estimated amount. For example, the
Council could indicate they wanted impact fees used for a particular project. Mr. Williams commented
impact fees are a great source of funds for the local match for transportation projects. Other options for
the local match for Five Corners roundabout include gas tax which is dedicated to operations.
Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated impact fees could be used for future improvements on Highway
99. Mr. Williams agreed.
Councilmember Mesaros pointed out the traffic impact fee for the Veterinary Hospital was $18,766; if the
fee were increased in accordance with the earlier presentation, the impact fee would have been $75,000.
He encouraged the Council to consider the amount of increase for a project like that.
Councilmember Bloom recalled the City had to pay back a Pt. Edwards traffic impact fee because it was
allocated for a certain project and not used within the time period. She asked under what circumstances
traffic impact fees are allocated to a specific project. Mr. English answered Pt. Edwards was a $22,000
SEPA mitigation payment, the development’s contribution to install a signal at Pine Street & SR104 with
Edmonds Crossing. Those fees were not used within the required 5-6 year period and the developer
requested the City return the fee. Councilmember Bloom asked whether traffic impact fees are ever tied to
a particular project. Mr. English referred to the list of projects related to growth that Mr. Young displayed
that totaling $21 million; the fee calculation is based on that set list of projects and the fees can only be
expended on those projects.
Councilmember Bloom asked for clarification that funds from development were never allocated to a
specific project in that area. Mr. Williams explained a city can either have a program that relies on SEPA
to identify needs a development will contribute to and design projects around that specific impact or use
traffic impact fees. He assumed Pt. Edwards was approved prior to the City’s implementation of traffic
impact fees in 2004. Under the SEPA approach, an improvement at Pine Street & SR-104 was identified
that that project should contribute to. The development paid the mitigation fee for that specific project and
because it was not built within the specified time period, the developer requested the City return the fee.
Traffic impact fees can be used for any of the projects identified in the list of projects.
Mayor Earling advised this is for information only, no action is required.
E. DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE STATUS REPORT
Packet Page 16 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 14
Development Services Director Shane Hope described reasons for updating the code:
• Conflicts
• Lack of clarity
• Not fully consistent with current laws/court cases
• Missing information
• Problematic standards
• Priority for City Council
She relayed the Planning Board’s recommendation:
• What the code update should aim for:
o Principles
o Consistency with current state laws
o Consistency with Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
o Predictability
o Some flexibility
o Recognition of property rights
o Clear, user friendly language and form
o Enforceability
• Objectives
o Ensuring reasonable and clear processes for actions
o Providing expanded and up-to-date definitions
o Encouragement of appropriate development
o Protection of critical areas and shorelines
o Recognition of diverse neighborhoods
o Encouragement of:
Pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-friendly access
Low impact stormwater management (consistent with Ecology rules)
Ms. Hope provided highlights of the early process
• Legal consultant
• Planning consultant
• Stakeholder interviews
• Staff input
• “Gap” analysis
• Open house events
• City webpage
She reviewed key “gap” findings:
• Overlaps, conflicts, confusing organization
• Unclear language
• Lack of completeness for some topics
• Imprecision on design standards and review process
• Inconsistent, uncertain or incomplete definitions, roles and procedures
• Need for integrating stormwater management objectives and techniques
Challenges in updating existing code include:
• Not comprehensively updated for many years
o Piecemeal amendments
• Organization problematic
• Numerous overlapping issues
Packet Page 17 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 15
• Evolving court cases and state guidance
• Need to balance update with existing workload
She provided highlights of the recent process
• Research and comparisons
• Simultaneous code updates
o Misc. minor amendments
o Critical areas
• Technical issues
• State guidance
• Preliminary drafting
Current code update topics include:
• Critical areas
• Subdivisions
• PRDs
• Permit process
• Administrative procedures
• Definitions
• Design review
• Signs
Ms. Hope explained Ecology has updated their guidance for stormwater management and the City is
obligated to update its code to reflect that guidance. Challenges associated with updating stormwater
regulations include:
• Many facets
• Not just matter of adopting Ecology manual
• Consultants working with staff on new stormwater chapter, plus other related chapters
Next steps will include:
• Refinement of first set of draft regulations
• Consultation with City Attorney
• Beginning of public review of first set of draft regulations
• Detail and drafting of second set of draft regulations
• Public review of second set of draft regulations
The next set of code update topics include:
• Trees
• Right-of-way
o Street standards
o Sidewalk standards
o ROW uses, etc.
• Bicycle facilities
• Onsite parking
• Accessory dwellings
• Multi-family design standards
She relayed an estimated timeframe:
• November: Adoption of critical area regulations and preliminary drafts of subdivisions, PRDs,
signs
Packet Page 18 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 16
• December: Preliminary drafts for permit processes administrative procedures
• Early 2016: Preliminary update for stormwater regulations and preliminary drafts for other topics
Councilmember Mesaros commented once the City gets the code updated, how can that be sustained so a
future Council does not discover the code needs to be updated again. He suggested developing a
methodology to keep the code up-to-date. Ms. Hope agreed that was something to be considered. Most
jurisdictions do regular codes updates and over time there is a need for a more comprehensive update.
Councilmember Petso inquired about the addition of binding site plans to the code, why that was being
done and where it was expected to be helpful or applicable given the limited amount of commercial
property left in Edmonds. Ms. Hope agreed there was not a lot of new commercial property but there are
divisions of land, etc. A bind site plan provides an opportunity to work with those commercial property
owners. Most cities have binding site plan requirements; Edmonds is one of the few that does not.
Councilmember Petso commented although Westgate and Hwy 99 are technically commercial areas,
recent code changes made Highway 99 eligible for 100% residential. She asked if those areas were no
longer eligible for a binding site plan. Ms. Hope answered a binding site plan would apply to most kinds
of multi-family as well as commercial and industrial development.
Councilmember Nelson referred to property performance standards in Draft 4. Ms. Hope answered those
standards are related to nuisance, a fence or hedge that is in the wrong location or extends into the right-
of-way, etc.
H. PRESENTATION OF A LOCAL AGENCY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSULTANT
AGREEMENT WITH TETRA TECH FOR THE EDMONDS WATERFRONT ANALYSIS
PROJECT
City Engineer Rob English explained the Request for Qualifications was issued in August and five firms
responded. A selection committee consisting of representatives of Sound Transit and WSDOT, and three
City Employees (Public Works Director, City Engineer, and Transportation Engineer) evaluated and held
interviews with the top two candidates. Following that selection process, Tetra Tech was selected as the
firm most qualified to perform the work. The Advisory Task Force has approved their selection and has
reviewed the scope of work.
An initial contract (Exhibit B) $10,000 was executed between the City and Consultant to develop an
initial public involvement plan, strategic communication plan and attending the Advisory Task Force
meetings in October, Task 1 in the overall contract.
The Local Agency Agreement (Exhibit A) consists of the following remaining tasks:
Task 1 Project Initiation
Task 2 Public Outreach
Task 3 Advisory Task Force and City Council briefings
Task 4 Analysis of Existing Conditions
Task 5 Level 1 Alternatives Development and Screening
Task 6 Level 2 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Task 7 Project Management, Coordination and Reporting
The total proposed fee for the contract is approximately $575,000; a management reserve of $30,253 is
proposed for a total contract amount of approximately $605,000. He recommended approval of the
contract on next week’s agenda.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the description of work on the first page, “Prepare an analysis of near-
term and longer-term approaches to improve access and safety conditions (for all modes of transportation)
Packet Page 19 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 17
at the Main Street and Dayton Street railroad crossings. Develop and document the selection of a
preferred alternative.” She asked if Tetra Tech via this process that runs through April 2017 will develop
one alternative through a public process. Mr. English answered the current schedule anticipates the report
will be complete in September 2016; the April 2017 date was included to provide flexibility for extending
the timeline. Page 1 of Exhibit A, Scope of Work, refers to the wording the Council previously agreed to
related to near-term and long-term priorities. That is the focus of Tetra Tech’s work. Staff has discussed
revising the description of work that Councilmember Bloom referred to on page 1 using the wording in
Exhibit A.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the goal of the study was to develop and document a preferred
alternative, not multiple alternatives for the Council in conjunction with the public to decide upon. Mr.
English explained the scope of work includes a public process as well as an evaluation of existing
conditions and reports prepared over the past 20 years. That information will be compiled and public
input gathered followed by a screening process of the alternatives and options shared with Council. Mr.
Williams referred to Councilmember Bloom’s question whether Tetra Tech would select a preferred
alternative, explaining at the end of the process the City will collectively identify a preferred alternative
which could have multiple parts. There are a number of touchpoints for the Council throughout the study,
four scheduled Council updates where the Council could provide feedback on progress to date and the
direction being taken, at the Level 2 stage Council would be apprised of the initial list of potential
projects to be screened and a report to Council on the study at the end. The public will be invited to
meetings and the Task Force’s meetings are public. He envisioned an iterative process where everyone is
aware of what’s going on and the recommended alternative at the end will not a surprise. Staff would then
discuss with Council including those project(s) in City plans, authorization to seek funds, etc.
Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding that a contract has already been signed with Tetra Tech
even though Council has not yet selected Tetra Tech. Mr. English answered there is a $10,000 contract in
place. Councilmember Petso asked what happened to that contract if she asked for the RFP evaluation
matrix and obtained a Council majority to hire the #2 firm. Mr. English answered the contract could be
cancelled; whatever expenses had been incurred would need to be paid. Councilmember Petso requested
the evaluation matrix, interview notes, etc. be included in next week’s packet. She also requested
notes/minutes from the Advisory Task Force be included in next week’s packet.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Task Force’s meeting minutes will be posted on the City’s
website. Mr. Williams answered they are on the website. Councilmember Buckshnis said several people
want to attend meetings and want to read the minutes to see going on.
Councilmember Mesaros asked Councilmember Nelson’s perspective since he co-chairs the Task Force.
Councilmember Nelson explained the Task Force reviewed the contact at their last meeting. Efforts have
been made to make this as public a process as possible. Meetings are noticed on the website, published in
My Edmonds News and other media sources. Staff is doing its best to inform the public about the process.
Council President Pro Tem Johnson wanted to see a more robust public information component to the
contract, observing the proposed approach was fairly standard and passive, requiring citizens to go to the
website, attend meetings, etc. If 40-80 people attend a meeting, that is considered wildly successful but
that does not always represent the 40,000 population. She suggested direct mailing to citizens similar to
what was done during the Harbor Square update. In addition to Edmonds, this effort includes a regional
component, the people who use the ferry. She recommended determining strategies to engage the larger
region. She expected the partners in this study would also be interested in that. She asked the percentage
of the contract spent on the public information program and challenged the consultant to look at more
than the routine way of outreach due to Edmonds citizens’ interest in this issue.
Packet Page 20 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 18
Councilmember Nelson assured all the partners in the project are interested in a regional perspective and
input into the process. The public outreach includes methods of going out to the public. Mayor Earling
said the first press release was sent to the region not just the local news media; he recalled a TV news
segment as well as an article in the Herald. He assured the initial outreach will be well beyond the City
and south Snohomish County. Mr. Williams said about 20% of the budget is dedicated to public
outreach/education portion of the project which is a lot compared to most transportation project. The
subconsultant helping to design and implement the public outreach/education is EnviroIssues who was
heavily involved in the public education/outreach for the Marina Beach Master Plan. That was a good
local model for effective public outreach. EnviroIssues has several innovative approaches such as popup
meetings where the information team provides information at locations/events where people are such as
holiday market, booth on ferry, etc. He was committed to doing everything reasonable to ensure people in
Edmonds are aware of the project and welcomed any specific ideas. He commented direct mailings are
very expensive. Rick Schaefer, Tetra Tech, said they plan to mail postcards to announce meetings and
the website. Mr. Williams acknowledged Edmonds has a slightly different mix of digital awareness and
staff and the consultant are cognizant that not everyone uses or has regular access to a computer.
Council President Pro Tem Johnson pointed out there is a difference between public outreach/meetings
and public information; she wanted to emphasize information. If money is being spent to send out three
postcards, three information pieces that include notice of the meetings could be sent out just as easily. She
wanted to use resources wisely and as an opportunity to inform the public.
Councilmember Bloom expressed concern that the contract did not truly emphasize and prioritize near-
term solutions to provide constant emergency access and asked whether the contract language could be
changed. Mr. Williams answered the intent is to do exactly what she said and they realize that is the
responsibility in the study. The Task Force is aware that a discussion needs to occur early in process
about what could be done sooner rather than later in perhaps a smaller or less expensive project to
improve the ability to respond to emergencies on the west side of the track.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether that could be included in the contract. She referred to page 20,
Task 5 – Level 1 Alternative Development and Screening, states, “The concepts will be developed into a
framework of alternatives that will offer (1) near-term solutions and/or (2) longer-term alternatives that
would require coordination with the ultimate location of the ferry terminal.” She suggested changing
“and/or” to “and.” She asked whether there was a way to prioritize and have parallel tracks for addressing
emergency vehicle access in the contract to avoid waiting until the end of the process to look at near-term
solutions. She also asked whether the trench was identified in the contract as an option, commenting a lot
of public input has been gathered regarding the trench and Tetra Tech already did a presentation.
Mr. Williams answered the contract purposely does not include any of the options. The public will have
an opportunity to identify options to be studied in the Level 1 screening process. All the options discussed
in the past will be on the list including the trench as well as ideas that are proposed by the public. Level 1
screening criteria will be developed and applied to all the alternatives to determine Level 2 projects
followed by further development of those alternatives and a Level 2 screening. It would not be
appropriate to list the train trench in the contract without listing other options. Further, not all potential
projects have been identified; there may be new ideas as well as variations on grade separation themes.
Councilmember Bloom asked if there could be a separate track for addressing emergency vehicle access
or a way of identifying near-term prioritized projects. Mr. Williams answered yes, implementing the
study and working with the Task Force includes early discussion about low hanging fruit that could be
implemented fairly quickly to improve emergency access while a larger project is funded and constructed.
Councilmember Bloom suggested reworking the language, expressing concern with the end of the
sentence she referred to that referenced the location of the ferry terminal. She pointed out a trench would
Packet Page 21 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 19
not require moving the ferry terminal. Mr. Williams agreed the trench would not necessarily require
moving the ferry terminal but the ferry terminal may be relocated anyway in which case the train station
and multimodal aspects of a final solution would need to be evaluated with respect to the ultimate
location of the ferry terminal. Councilmember Bloom reiterated her request to change “and/or” to “and.”
Mr. Williams asked for Council consensus regarding that change and assured both would be considered.
Councilmember Petso observed one of deliverables in the contract is a report to the legislature and a
report to compile and summarize public comments. It was her understanding this was a study by City; she
asked whether it was actually a State project that the City was cooperating on. Mr. Williams answered the
State is the majority funder via the legislature; the only qualification attached to the funding was to
provide the legislature an update by December 1 on progress in developing and completing the study.
Councilmember Petso asked for assurance it is still a City project. Mr. Williams answered absolutely.
Councilmember Petso asked whether it would be okay if a Council majority wanted to go through Level 2
screening and not select an alternative. She was concerned with the State receiving the report and
identifying something like an elevated, view-blocking train bridge as their preferred alternative, an
alternative the City was unlikely to approve. She wanted assurance this is the City’s study and not the
legislature’s study. Mr. Williams assured it is the City’s study but there is a presumption the study will
yield concrete recommendations on a path forward that addresses the conditions and deficiency outlined
in the purpose and need for the study. By taking the funding, the City is obliged to produce a study that
reaches some conclusion. It is possible the study may find all the alternatives fail; but he believes there
are actions that can be taken to measurably improve the situation long term and in the short term to
improve emergency services access.
Mayor Earling said the legislature wants some kind of report by December 1; it is not a report to see
whether they like what the City is doing but to report on progress such as Task Force and public
meetings.
Mr. Williams relayed staff’s goal is to have the contract approved on next week’s agenda. Staff will
include the information Councilmember Petso requested in next week’s agenda packet. Councilmember
Buckshnis said she sent staff questions via email and encouraged other Councilmembers to do the same.
Council President Pro Tem Johnson suggested Councilmembers submitting questions to staff also copy
Council President Fraley-Monillas and that this be scheduled as an agenda item and not on the Consent
Agenda.
I. WRIA8 (WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA 8) SALMON RECOVERY
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Councilmember Buckshnis explained this is basically a renewal of the previous WRIA 8 Interlocal
Agreement. WRIA8 is a very powerful salmon recovery council with representation from 27 cities, 2
counties, and many concerned citizens and scientists. The City has received over $500,000 in the past five
years in state and federal funding for the design and restoration of Willow Creek and the Edmonds Marsh,
based on recommendations of WRIA8. She recommended approval on next week’s Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Mesaros asked whether WRIA8 was as effective as Students Saving Salmon.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to a group of students who developed a DVD regarding the Cedar
River. She was certain WRIA8 would take note of the Students Saving Salmon’s efforts.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on next week’s Consent Agenda.
7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Packet Page 22 of 491
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
October 13, 2015
Page 20
Mayor Earling invited Councilmembers to attend the Snohomish County Cities’ monthly meeting at the
Nile Country Club on Thursday, October 15. The meeting will include AWC’s new CEO and a lead staff
member to discuss legislative agendas as well as presentation of awards to Senators Liias and Hobbs for
their great work on transportation issues during the past legislative session.
Mayor Earling reported on a luncheon he attended today where domestic violence was on the agenda. The
luncheon was attended by 500-600 people and Senator Patty Murray was the speaker. He invited all the
City’s lead staff members to attend due to the importance of identifying domestic violence when it
happens.
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Pro Tem Johnson recommended Councilmembers contact the Council Executive
Assistant if they wanted to attend the Snohomish County Cities dinner.
Council President Pro Tem Johnson thanked Mayor Earling for his presentation of the budget. The
Council will hold one hour budget workshops during the next four meetings. She looked forward to a
robust discussion. The Council is required to adopt the budget by the end of year; public hearings have
been scheduled.
Councilmember Bloom observed there has been a police officer in Council Chambers every week; at one
point there were two police officers tonight. She personally believed it was time to relieve them of that
responsibility and requested Mayor Earling do so as the Council does not need their protection and their
time could be better spent elsewhere. Mayor Earling thanked her for the recommendation.
Councilmember Buckshnis announced ACE, Edmonds Senior Center is presenting a candidates forum on
October 19. She also complimented My Edmonds News on the domestic violence information on their
website.
Councilmember Nelson wished his wife a happy birthday tomorrow.
16. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
17. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
18. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:41 p.m.
Packet Page 23 of 491
AM-8045 3. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/20/2015
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 #216676 through #216779 dated October 15, 2015 for $188,996.92.
Recommendation
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Attachments
Claim cks 10-15-15
Project Numbers 10-15-15
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 10/15/2015 01:36 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/15/2015 01:36 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/16/2015 04:51 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/16/2015 07:15 AM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 10/15/2015 11:26 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/16/2015
Packet Page 24 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216676 10/15/2015 072189 ACCESS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 1032334 STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 07/01/15 - 07/31/15
STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 07/01/15 - 07/31/15
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 85.00
STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 10/01/15 - 10/31/151152070
STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 10/01/15 - 10/31/15
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 85.00
Total :170.00
216677 10/15/2015 075440 AMY J STEPHSON ATTY AT LAW 10/8/15 Employee Complaint Investigation
Employee Complaint Investigation
001.000.22.518.10.41.00 7,420.00
Total :7,420.00
216678 10/15/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988254202 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS
uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80
mats & towels (replacements)
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 85.49
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 8.12
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1988254203
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 37.02
Total :134.79
216679 10/15/2015 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0805251-IN Fleet - Reg 6,300 Gal
Fleet - Reg 6,300 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.11 9,352.35
WA State Svc Fees
511.000.77.548.68.34.11 50.00
WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.77.548.68.34.11 2,914.13
BioDiesel - 185 Gal
1Page:
Packet Page 25 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216679 10/15/2015 (Continued)071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
511.000.77.548.68.34.13 731.51
WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.77.548.68.34.13 90.16
Diesel - 3500 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.10 5,677.00
WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.77.548.68.34.10 1,624.42
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.11 4.75
Total :20,444.32
216680 10/15/2015 075452 BEAVER, ALVIN CR33203 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 13.35
Total :13.35
216681 10/15/2015 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 7149 E5FA.SERVICES THRU 09/25/15
E5FA.Services thru 09/25/15
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 3,081.56
Total :3,081.56
216682 10/15/2015 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 4886 Fleet Propane 631.9 Gal
Fleet Propane 631.9 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 692.85
Fleet Auto Propane 564.2 Gal4933
Fleet Auto Propane 564.2 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 590.19
Total :1,283.04
216683 10/15/2015 075455 BROOKE, ROBERTA CR33203 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 12.75
Total :12.75
216684 10/15/2015 074714 BUELL RECREATION LLC WAEDM 091515 CITY PARK SWING RESTRAINTS
2Page:
Packet Page 26 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216684 10/15/2015 (Continued)074714 BUELL RECREATION LLC
CITY PARK SWING RESTRAINTS
132.000.64.594.76.65.00 406.50
Total :406.50
216685 10/15/2015 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 20461 ADVENTURES IN 20461 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING ADULTS INSTR
20461 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING ADULTS
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 115.50
Total :115.50
216686 10/15/2015 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 225327 PM: REGULATOR, GROUND CLAMP
PM: REGULATOR, GROUND CLAMP
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 111.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.63
Fleet- Compressed AirLY 225390
Fleet- Compressed Air
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 30.70
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 2.92
Total :156.20
216687 10/15/2015 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
216688 10/15/2015 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
216689 10/15/2015 004095 COASTWIDE LABS GW2816286 PM: RL TWL NATURAL
PM: RL TWL NATURAL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 117.61
9.5% Sales Tax
3Page:
Packet Page 27 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216689 10/15/2015 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.17
PM: JUMBO ACCLAIM, LIQUID HAND SOAP, SPRNW2816286
PM: JUMBO ACCLAIM, LIQUID HAND SOAP,
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 529.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 50.29
Total :708.40
216690 10/15/2015 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 51072 EDMONDS CITY CODE ELECTRONIC UPDATE 9/30
EDMONDS CITY CODE ELECTRONIC UPDATE
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 564.99
Total :564.99
216691 10/15/2015 072848 COPIERS NW INV1273373 INV#1273373 ACCT#HMH636 - EDMONDS PD
IRC5045 LEASE 09/05-10/04/15
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 226.77
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 21.54
INV#1273374 ACCT#HMH636 - EDMONDS PDINV1273374
BW METER CHARGE IRC5045
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 35.80
COLOR METER CHARGE IRC5045
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 69.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 10.02
Total :363.78
216692 10/15/2015 075456 CRISPENO, KIMBERLY CR33203 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 12.50
Total :12.50
216693 10/15/2015 075457 CROFT, ERIC CR33203 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 13.29
4Page:
Packet Page 28 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :13.2921669310/15/2015 075457 075457 CROFT, ERIC
216694 10/15/2015 063519 CUZ CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC 231853 PM: CONCRETE HYD GUARD POST
PM: CONCRETE HYD GUARD POST
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 103.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.83
Total :113.33
216695 10/15/2015 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2015090056 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for September 2015
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 1,231.40
Total :1,231.40
216696 10/15/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3595 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 10/06/15
10/06/15 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES &
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 224.40
Total :224.40
216697 10/15/2015 075443 DONOVAN, DAVID CR33206 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 25.12
Total :25.12
216698 10/15/2015 075463 EARTH RUNS 104 CTH TIMER
CTH TIMER
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 809.00
Total :809.00
216699 10/15/2015 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS 275092 TOURISM PROMOTION AWARD FOR 2015
Tourism promotion award for 2015 to ECA
120.000.31.575.42.41.40 12,500.00
Total :12,500.00
216700 10/15/2015 073461 EDMONDS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 10/9 REFUND 10/9/15 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT
10/9/15 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.239.200 200.00
5Page:
Packet Page 29 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :200.0021670010/15/2015 073461 073461 EDMONDS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
216701 10/15/2015 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 001094 PM NYL ROPE
PM NYL ROPE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 20.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.99
Total :22.98
216702 10/15/2015 069055 EHS INTERNATIONAL INC.31364 City Hall IAQ Testing Svc Through Sept
City Hall IAQ Testing Svc Through Sept
001.000.66.518.30.41.00 2,116.00
Total :2,116.00
216703 10/15/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR16925 Additional Images Planning
Additional Images Planning
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 11.09
Additional images Building DivAR16927
Additional images Building Div
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 35.14
COPY CHARGES FOR C1030AR17694
Copier charges for C1030
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.78
Copier charges for C1030
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.78
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.08
Copier charges for C1030
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.77
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.07
PM PRINTER C1030 #A7078AR17871
PM PRINTER C1030 #A7078
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 3.44
6Page:
Packet Page 30 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :52.2221670310/15/2015 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
216704 10/15/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH661259 CITY NOTICES CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OCTOBE
CITY NOTICES CLOSED RECORD REVIEW
001.000.25.514.30.41.40 58.48
Legal Description: City ApplicationsEDH66147
Legal Description: City Applications
001.000.62.558.60.41.40 63.64
Total :122.12
216705 10/15/2015 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU37378 Fleet Shop Supplies
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 35.38
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 3.36
PM: SDS 410 SS, PPHSMS S/SWAMOU37387
PM: SDS 410 SS, PPHSMS S/S
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 30.54
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.90
Total :72.18
216706 10/15/2015 075460 FOSTER, DAVID CR33203 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 10.58
Total :10.58
216707 10/15/2015 073265 FREESE LAW OFFICES INC PS CR32465 / 5Z76735 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 600.00
Total :600.00
216708 10/15/2015 011900 FRONTIER 425-771-4741 425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET
425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET
130.000.64.536.20.42.00 82.59
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION425-775-1344
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
7Page:
Packet Page 31 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216708 10/15/2015 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
001.000.64.571.23.42.00 62.95
LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE425-776-2742
LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACCESS LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.21
425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LINE425-776-5316
425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LINE
001.000.64.576.80.42.00 96.33
Total :268.08
216709 10/15/2015 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR 10137 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01 105.66
INTERPRETER FEE9485
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01 105.66
INTERPRETER FEE9887
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.66
Total :316.98
216710 10/15/2015 012199 GRAINGER 852627744 PM: FIRE EXTINGUISHER, SIGN, TAGS, WATER
PM: FIRE EXTINGUISHER, SIGN, TAGS,
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 253.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 24.11
Total :278.08
216711 10/15/2015 012560 HACH COMPANY 9557194 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRIC
replacemnt probe
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 1,882.28
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.22 66.39
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 185.14
WWTP - SUPPLIES, LAB9605906
8Page:
Packet Page 32 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216711 10/15/2015 (Continued)012560 HACH COMPANY
Assy, probe, ldo model 2
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 1,757.50
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 66.39
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 173.28
Total :4,130.98
216712 10/15/2015 075444 HAMM, SHIRELY CR33203 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 12.08
Total :12.08
216713 10/15/2015 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I4032083 Water Parts - Non Inv #0395 - Saddle
Water Parts - Non Inv #0395 - Saddle
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 512.40
Fire Hydrant Repair Kit for M&H 929
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 240.00
Water Inventory - #0580 W-CLMPCI-14-010
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 742.43
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 71.48
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 70.52
Total :1,636.83
216714 10/15/2015 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1065477 Fac Maint Shop Supplies
Fac Maint Shop Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.30
FAC - Roof Supplies15535
FAC - Roof Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 44.36
9.5% Sales Tax
9Page:
Packet Page 33 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216714 10/15/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.21
Traffic Supplies15543
Traffic Supplies
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 28.38
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 2.70
Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Hand Truck Tire2022101
Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Hand Truck Tire
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.80
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies2022121
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.33
City Hall - Supplies2562220
City Hall - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.76
Traffic - Bolts for 238th Barracade3015145
Traffic - Bolts for 238th Barracade
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 28.70
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 2.73
Fac Maint - Shop Vac3016360
Fac Maint - Shop Vac
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 189.05
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 17.96
MCH - Supplies3023438
MCH - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.57
10Page:
Packet Page 34 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216714 10/15/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.72
City Hall Finance - Remodel Supplies4020229
City Hall Finance - Remodel Supplies
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 118.63
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 11.27
Roadway - Lawn Rakes, Supplies560907
Roadway - Lawn Rakes, Supplies
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 83.73
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 7.95
Fac Maint Shop Supplies6017259
Fac Maint Shop Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 50.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.80
City Hall Finance Remodel Supplies7022805
City Hall Finance Remodel Supplies
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 66.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.20.48.00 6.31
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies7022808
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.80
Fac Maint Shop - Shop Supplies7033790
Fac Maint Shop - Shop Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 276.44
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 26.26
Traffic - Supplies7050808
Traffic - Supplies
11Page:
Packet Page 35 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216714 10/15/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 91.86
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 8.73
Fac Maint - Supplies7573069
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.28
Fleet Shop Supplies7573077
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 66.13
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 6.27
PS - Supplies7580892
PS - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 25.93
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.46
FAC - Supplies8014725
FAC - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.61
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.20
Wade James - Roof Repair Supplies9024074
Wade James - Roof Repair Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 139.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.25
Wade James - Roof Repair Supplies9271456
Wade James - Roof Repair Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -113.74
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -10.80
Total :1,317.40
12Page:
Packet Page 36 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216715 10/15/2015 075451 HYATT, CHARLES CR33203 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 25.88
Total :25.88
216716 10/15/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2695059 DATE STAMP REPLACEMENT PADS
2 color dater stamp pad & red stamp pad
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 15.73
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 1.50
WWTP - SUPPLIES, OFFICE2695099
copy paper, pens, purell
423.000.76.535.80.31.41 133.06
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.41 12.65
BINDERS FOR 2016 BUDGET2696070
1.5" Business Source Standard
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 62.85
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 5.97
Office supplies2696728
Office supplies
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 86.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.31.00 8.21
Total :326.35
216717 10/15/2015 061546 INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS SUPPLY 963344 Fleet Shop Supplies
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 35.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 3.36
Total :38.76
216718 10/15/2015 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 000050374 PW Office - Emergency Work Lamp
PW Office - Emergency Work Lamp
13Page:
Packet Page 37 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216718 10/15/2015 (Continued)069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 94.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 9.02
Unit 448 - NICD Batteries000050376
Unit 448 - NICD Batteries
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 95.80
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 113.17
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.10
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 10.75
PW Office Emergency Lights000051503
PW Office Emergency Lights
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 379.80
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 109.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 36.08
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 10.44
Total :869.01
216719 10/15/2015 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 1905701027627 Sewer - L S Batteries for the Telemetry
Sewer - L S Batteries for the Telemetry
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 212.10
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 20.15
Fleet Shop - Supplies762758
Fleet Shop - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 84.78
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 8.05
Fleet Shop Supplies762909
9.5% Sales Tax
14Page:
Packet Page 38 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216719 10/15/2015 (Continued)014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 4.08
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 42.98
Total :372.14
216720 10/15/2015 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD 20451 DIGITAL PHOTO 20451 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTION
20451 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 220.00
Total :220.00
216721 10/15/2015 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 10062015-01 INV#10062015-01 - EDMONDS PD
16 CAR WASHES @ $5.03 (INC TX)
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 80.48
1 CAR WASH @ $5.03 (INC TX) 9/9/15
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 5.03
Total :85.51
216722 10/15/2015 066522 LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES INC 3258011MB Water - EZ Street Asphalt
Water - EZ Street Asphalt
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,236.24
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 117.45
Total :1,353.69
216723 10/15/2015 075446 LINTON, ALICE CR33203 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 22.32
Total :22.32
216724 10/15/2015 075448 MACBETH, RANDALL CR33203 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 25.40
Total :25.40
216725 10/15/2015 075464 MAUREEN GRAHAM Ref000281873 LI Refund Cst #00329495
LI Refund Cst #00329495
15Page:
Packet Page 39 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216725 10/15/2015 (Continued)075464 MAUREEN GRAHAM
001.000.257.310 100.00
Total :100.00
216726 10/15/2015 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 40427780 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL
Bearin, Gauge & Regulator
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 77.10
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 6.56
Total :83.66
216727 10/15/2015 075461 MELVIN, DIANE WOTS CONTEST MELVIN WOTS CONTEST MELVIN
WOTS CONTEST MELVIN
117.100.64.573.20.41.00 75.00
Total :75.00
216728 10/15/2015 063773 MICROFLEX 00021988 09-15 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
001.000.31.514.23.41.00 30.00
Total :30.00
216729 10/15/2015 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 221098 PW/Fleet/Fac Maint - 2 person Lift for
PW/Fleet/Fac Maint - 2 person Lift for
001.000.66.518.30.45.00 316.90
PW/Fleet/Fac Maint - 2 person Lift for
511.000.77.548.68.45.00 316.90
PW/Fleet/Fac Maint - 2 person Lift for
422.000.72.531.90.45.00 158.45
PW/Fleet/Fac Maint - 2 person Lift for
111.000.68.542.90.45.00 158.45
PW/Fleet/Fac Maint - 2 person Lift for
421.000.74.534.80.45.00 158.45
PW/Fleet/Fac Maint - 2 person Lift for
423.000.75.535.80.45.00 158.44
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.45.00 30.11
16Page:
Packet Page 40 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216729 10/15/2015 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.45.00 30.11
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.45.00 15.05
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.45.00 15.05
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.45.00 15.05
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.45.00 15.05
Total :1,388.01
216730 10/15/2015 075445 MUNLY, ANN CR33203 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 19.78
Total :19.78
216731 10/15/2015 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 4262157 CITY PARK SPRAY PARK TEMPORARY PANELS
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK TEMPORARY PANELS
132.000.64.594.76.65.00 315.36
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.64.594.76.65.00 29.96
Total :345.32
216732 10/15/2015 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 66214 WWTP - SODIUM BISULFITE
Sodium Bisulfite
423.000.76.535.80.31.54 536.25
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.54 50.94
Total :587.19
216733 10/15/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1376290 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 587.62
YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1376299
17Page:
Packet Page 41 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216733 10/15/2015 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 309.21
Total :896.83
216734 10/15/2015 075447 O BRIEN, BONNIE CR33203 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 12.93
Total :12.93
216735 10/15/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 005133 P&R: TAPE, POST ITS, PEN, CHALK, DRY ERA
P&R: TAPE, POST ITS, PEN, CHALK, DRY
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 40.79
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 3.88
PRESCHOOL: LAMINATING POUCHES780925
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
Water Quality - Wireless Keyboard &940702
Water Quality - Wireless Keyboard &
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 81.80
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 7.78
Water Quality - 3 hole punch for desk943265
Water Quality - 3 hole punch for desk
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 55.00
9.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5.24
Total :204.60
216736 10/15/2015 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER September, 2015 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL
Emergency Medical Services & Trauma
001.000.237.120 1,174.32
PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account
18Page:
Packet Page 42 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216736 10/15/2015 (Continued)070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
001.000.237.130 26,102.57
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.237.150 153.00
State Patrol Death Investigation
001.000.237.330 96.05
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.237.180 5,048.65
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.237.200 138.37
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.237.250 2,298.40
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.237.260 441.30
Accessible Communities Acct
001.000.237.290 27.77
Multi-Model Transportation
001.000.237.300 27.78
Hwy Safety Acct
001.000.237.320 152.46
Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis
001.000.237.170 51.91
WSP Hwy Acct
001.000.237.340 545.07
Total :36,257.65
216737 10/15/2015 074545 OLDS-OLYMPIC INC 000511-1527301 Water - Diesel
Water - Diesel
511.000.77.548.68.34.10 221.63
Total :221.63
216738 10/15/2015 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 113443 PM TOPSOIL
PM TOPSOIL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 330.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 31.35
19Page:
Packet Page 43 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216738 10/15/2015 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
Storm Dump Fees204308
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Storm Dump Fees204323
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Storm Dump Fees204331
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Storm Dump Fees204345
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Storm Dump Fees204359
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
Storm Dump Fees204784
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00
E5FA.DUMPING CHARGES FOR RAIN GARDENS204805
E5FA.Dumping Charges for Rain Gardens
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 325.00
E5FA.DUMPING CHARGES FOR RAIN GARDENS204820
E5FA.Dumping Charges for Rain Gardens
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 185.00
E5FA.DUMPING CHARGES FOR RAIN GARDENS204839
E5FA.Dumping Charges for Rain Gardens
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 185.00
Total :1,776.35
216739 10/15/2015 069873 PAPE MACHINERY INC 9672494 Unit 138 - Idler
Unit 138 - Idler
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 36.10
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.50
9.5% Sales Tax
20Page:
Packet Page 44 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216739 10/15/2015 (Continued)069873 PAPE MACHINERY INC
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.62
Total :53.22
216740 10/15/2015 075441 PATTON, MELISSA WOTS CONTEST SLAGER WOTS CONTEST SLAGER PATTON
WOTS CONTEST SLAGER PATTON
117.100.64.573.20.41.00 100.00
Total :100.00
216741 10/15/2015 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 108292 INV#108292 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 1993 HONDA ACCORD NO #
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
216742 10/15/2015 073070 PERRINE, JULIE 20264 CLAY EXPLORATI 20264 CLAY EXPLORATION INSTRUCTION
20264 CLAY EXPLORATION INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 128.00
Total :128.00
216743 10/15/2015 074793 PETDATA INC 4588 INV#4588 - EDMONDS PD - SEPT 2015
33 - 1 YR PET LICENSES @ $3.90
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 128.70
2 REPLACEMENT TAGS @ $3.90
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 7.80
6 LATE FEES COLLECTED @ $2.50
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 15.00
Total :151.50
216744 10/15/2015 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC H603892 Traffic - Signal Part
Traffic - Signal Part
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 132.91
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 12.63
Traffic - Signal PartH605406
21Page:
Packet Page 45 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216744 10/15/2015 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
Traffic - Signal Part
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 19.62
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1.86
Total :167.02
216745 10/15/2015 073988 PRECISION CONCRETE CUTTING W15154 Street - Concrete Grinding/ Trip Hazard
Street - Concrete Grinding/ Trip Hazard
111.000.68.542.61.48.00 10,718.38
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.61.48.00 1,018.25
Total :11,736.63
216746 10/15/2015 075439 PRICOR TECHNICIANS ENG20150401 Refund site located in Olympic View
Refund site located in Olympic View
001.000.257.620 205.00
Total :205.00
216747 10/15/2015 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET 20381 FELDENKRAIS 20381 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION
20381 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00 269.00
20384 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION20384 FELDENKRAIS
20384 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00 264.00
20386 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION20386 FELDENKRAIS
20386 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00 210.00
Total :743.00
216748 10/15/2015 030410 PUGET SOUND BUSINESS JOURNAL 18210 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS RECRUITMEN
Business recruitment advertisement in
001.000.61.558.70.41.40 3,500.00
Total :3,500.00
216749 10/15/2015 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 15-1915 COURT SECURITY
22Page:
Packet Page 46 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216749 10/15/2015 (Continued)070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE
COURT SECURITY
001.000.23.512.50.41.00 4,633.75
Total :4,633.75
216750 10/15/2015 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 103742 INV#103742 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 2001 CHEV #466-WZK
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
216751 10/15/2015 075453 RAETZLOFF, CHRISTINA CR33203 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 22.58
Total :22.58
216752 10/15/2015 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 0197-001877502 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 147.73
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW0197-001877573
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 29.73
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 112.99
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 112.99
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 112.99
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 112.99
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 112.99
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW0197-001877632
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 158.12
23Page:
Packet Page 47 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216752 10/15/2015 (Continued)061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD0197-001878540
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 69.50
Total :970.03
216753 10/15/2015 075459 ROHWER, WILLA CR33203 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 13.42
Total :13.42
216754 10/15/2015 075442 SAHLSTROM, BROOKE BID-09302015 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE FOR BID
Administrative assistance for BID web
140.000.61.558.70.41.00 392.00
Total :392.00
216755 10/15/2015 074507 SARAH CHO 5Z0072981 PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.39.512.52.41.00 200.00
Total :200.00
216756 10/15/2015 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 93067 E4FC.SERVICES THRU 9/26/15
E4FC.Services thru 9/26/15
422.000.72.594.31.41.20 850.00
Total :850.00
216757 10/15/2015 075450 SHELTON, MARCUS CR33203 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 20.58
Total :20.58
216758 10/15/2015 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0191708-IN Unit E105PO - Trunk Organizers, Sliding
Unit E105PO - Trunk Organizers, Sliding
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 2,010.75
Unit E105PO - Console Box, Equip Tray,0191947-IN
Unit E105PO - Console Box, Equip Tray,
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1,264.21
24Page:
Packet Page 48 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :3,274.9621675810/15/2015 068489 068489 SIRENNET.COM
216759 10/15/2015 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0464965 FLOWER PROGRAM: ROSE, RHOD, BARBERRY, FE
FLOWER PROGRAM: ROSE, RHOD, BARBERRY,
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 139.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.81.31.00 13.29
Total :153.19
216760 10/15/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0255-4 WWTP FLOW METER 2400 HIGHWAY 99 / METER
WWTP FLOW METER 2400 HIGHWAY 99 / METER
423.000.76.535.80.47.62 17.41
HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMONDS ST / METER2003-2646-0
HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMONDS ST /
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 33.52
CITY PARK RESTROOMS2006-5085-1
CITY PARK RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 19.15
PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP2006-5164-4
PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 337.10
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS2008-6924-6
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 42.48
HICKMAN PARK2011-8453-8
HICKMAN PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 105.58
CITY PARK GAZEBO2013-8327-0
CITY PARK GAZEBO
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.41
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS2014-5305-7
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 380.36
WWTP FLOW METER 8421 244TH ST SW / METER2019-2988-2
WWTP FLOW METER 8421 244TH ST SW /
423.000.76.535.80.47.62 17.41
25Page:
Packet Page 49 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216760 10/15/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHELTER2021-1448-4
CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHELTER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 40.91
CEMETERY WELL PUMP2021-6153-5
CEMETERY WELL PUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 472.45
9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / METER 10004452022-5063-5
9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 33.52
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 30.34
Total :1,547.64
216761 10/15/2015 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 67131 PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES
PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 727.00
ILLEGAL DUMP
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 5.00
Total :732.00
216762 10/15/2015 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 3668/4 PM: JKT, PANTS
PM: JKT, PANTS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 235.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 22.35
Total :257.60
216763 10/15/2015 046200 STATE OF WASHINGTON Q3-15 Leasehold Tax Q3-15 LEASEHOLD TAX LIABILITY
Q3-15 LEASEHOLD TAX LIABILITY
001.000.237.220 5,695.80
Total :5,695.80
216764 10/15/2015 063308 STATE OF WASHINGTON 1-23725 #40133323-803-SL2 UTILTIY REFUND
#40133323-803-SL2 Utiltiy refund due to
26Page:
Packet Page 50 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216764 10/15/2015 (Continued)063308 STATE OF WASHINGTON
411.000.233.000 156.53
#4222-2165689 UTILITY REFUND1-27275
#4222-2165689 Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000 36.30
#42222-2210791 UTILITY REFUND3-59675
#42222-2210791 Utility refund -
411.000.233.000 246.72
#4222-2087891 UTILITY REFUND4-09425
#4222-2087891 Utility Refund - received
411.000.233.000 118.63
Total :558.18
216765 10/15/2015 063308 STATE OF WASHINGTON HOPPMAN REFUND REFUND FROM CC
REFUND FROM CC
001.000.239.200 5.00
Total :5.00
216766 10/15/2015 061912 SUN SUPPLY 0274436-IN Traffic - Orange Corex
Traffic - Orange Corex
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 156.80
Total :156.80
216767 10/15/2015 070192 SUPPLYWORKS 344337886 FAC - Faucet
FAC - Faucet
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 177.44
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.86
Total :194.30
216768 10/15/2015 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18093135 PM CROWN 7007 COLD GALV COATING
PM CROWN 7007 COLD GALV COATING
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 111.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.56
WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL18093435
27Page:
Packet Page 51 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216768 10/15/2015 (Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC
ss hex full nut 18-8 3/4" - 16 fine
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 3.43
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.21 0.33
Total :125.49
216769 10/15/2015 073970 TALLMAN, TYLER 10/5-10/12 GYM MONIT 10/5-10/12/15 PICKLEBALL GYM MONITOR
10/5-10/12/15 PICKLEBALL GYM MONITOR
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 20.00
Total :20.00
216770 10/15/2015 075462 TOP DOG VENDING 10/7 REFUND 10/7/15 REFUND CLEANING DEPOSIT
10/7/15 REFUND CLEANING DEPOSIT
001.000.239.200 400.00
Total :400.00
216771 10/15/2015 073418 TREE SOLUTIONS INC 28224 Tree Evaluation
Tree Evaluation
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 807.50
Total :807.50
216772 10/15/2015 075454 UDJUS, LEIF CR33203 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 26.44
Total :26.44
216773 10/15/2015 062693 US BANK 0108 INV#0108 10/06/15 - THOMPSON - EDMONDS P
5 MESH COPY HOLDERS
001.000.41.521.11.31.00 49.71
CAPACITY TRACK WITH ITEMS
001.000.41.521.80.35.00 926.16
FUEL/ADV MTR CYCLE (4 OFFICERS)
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 43.87
MEAL/ADV MTR CYCLE (4 OFFICERS)
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 37.86
28Page:
Packet Page 52 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216773 10/15/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK
FUEL/ADV MTR CYCLE (2 OFFICERS)
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 25.43
MEAL/ADV MTR CYCLE (HARBINSON & STRUM)
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 25.00
MEAL/ADV MTR CYCLE (HARBINSON)
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 14.00
MEAL/ADV MTR CYCLE (4 OFFICERS)
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 72.24
MEAL/ADV MTR CYCLE (HARBINSON & STRUM)
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 17.00
MEAL/ADV MTR CYCLE (4 OFFICERS)
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 36.00
MEAL/ ADV MTR CYCLE (4 OFFICERS)
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 152.58
MEAL/ADV MTR CYCLE (4 OFFICERS)
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 45.65
LODGING/ADV MTR CYCLE - STRUM
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 243.10
LODGING/AVD MTR CYCLE-HARBINS
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 167.20
LODGING/ADV MTR CYCLE - FALK
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 119.90
LODGING/ADV MTR CYCLE - ROTH
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 119.90
MEAL/ADV MTR CYCLE (4 OFFICERS)
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 35.62
NIX TEST KITS "G"
001.000.41.521.80.31.00 88.64
PHOTOS FOR EMP OF YR PLAQUE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 11.35
MAIL CHG TO ATTORNEY
001.000.41.521.10.42.00 6.56
INV#2519 10/06/15 - POLICE #1 - EDMONDS2519
FLORIDA TOLL CHG FOR BKGD CHECK
29Page:
Packet Page 53 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216773 10/15/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 6.32
MEAL/SWAT BASIC - BICKAR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 12.54
INV#3215 10/06/15 - COMPAAN - EDMONDS PD3215
SCSPCA BREAKFAST -COMPAAN/ANDERSON
001.000.41.521.10.43.00 28.00
POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS3249
POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS
001.000.23.512.50.42.00 30.30
LUNCH FOR STAFF MEETING
001.000.23.512.50.49.00 98.06
POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS
001.000.23.512.50.42.00 50.50
LUNCH FOR JURORS
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 54.59
INV#3314 10/06/15 - LAWLESS - EDMONDS PD3314
SHADOW BOX FOR RET. UNIFORM
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 301.83
INV#3520 10/06/15 - POLICE #2 - EDMONDS3520
REG/CRASH DATA/MACK
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 675.00
FEDEX CHG #15-2847,3294,3325,3354
001.000.41.521.10.42.00 16.16
MEAL/ADV SWAT - LIM
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 36.13
FEDEX CHG #15-3522,3576,3600
001.000.41.521.10.42.00 15.51
FEDEX CHG #14-3360
001.000.41.521.10.42.00 14.74
4675 PARKS CR CARD4675
QFC: BIRD FEST SUPPLIES: NAPKINS, CUPS
001.000.61.558.70.31.00 17.67
FRED MEYER: BIRD FEST SUPPLIES: FOAM
001.000.61.558.70.31.00 8.74
30Page:
Packet Page 54 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216773 10/15/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK
THE PARTY STORE: BIRD FEST SUPPLIES:
001.000.61.558.70.31.00 9.83
VISTAPRINT: CONQUER THE HILL BANNER
001.000.64.571.22.31.00 160.86
AMAZON: GYMNASTICS: BLUE & WHITE DUCT
001.000.64.571.28.31.00 22.72
PC/NAMETAG: WOTS SUPPLIES: PRESENTER
117.100.64.573.20.31.00 23.99
FORTUNE COOKIE FACTORY: WOTS SUPPLIES:
117.100.64.573.20.31.00 141.72
DOLLAR TREE: HABITAT PROGRAM SUPPLIES:
001.000.64.571.23.31.00 18.62
OFFICE DEPOT: MOUSE FOR COMPUTER FOR
001.000.64.571.23.31.00 21.89
LAKESHORE: MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
001.000.64.571.29.31.00 74.21
AMAZON: DISCOVERY: SUPPLIES WATER
001.000.64.571.23.31.00 32.34
DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLIES: MEADOWDALE
001.000.64.571.29.31.00 189.26
AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: WAX PAPER,
001.000.64.571.29.31.00 31.38
AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: SCOUR PADS
001.000.64.571.29.31.00 8.64
LB FOSTER CO: CITY PARK SPRAY PARK
132.000.64.594.76.65.00 384.82
AMAZON: PLAZA ROOM MICROPHONE BATTERIES
001.000.64.571.22.31.00 17.98
PARKS CREDIT CARD 4675 - OFFICE DEPOT RE4675
OFFICE DEPOT: MOUSE FOR COMPUTER FOR
001.000.64.571.23.31.00 -21.89
Newegg.com - Logitech MK520 Wireless5179
Newegg.com - Logitech MK520 Wireless
001.000.62.524.20.35.00 42.99
31Page:
Packet Page 55 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216773 10/15/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK
Newegg.com - DYMO 16955 D1 Permanent
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 39.57
Amazon.com - Intel E1G44HT I340-T4 4
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 263.53
Amazon.com - StarTech.com Cisco
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 246.48
Amazon.com - Diablo Cable 1m LC/LC
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 58.40
Amazon.com - Philips BDM4065UC 40" 4K
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 875.99
Amazon.com - MX Desk Mount LCD Arm
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 147.81
Amazon.com - Cable Matters 10 ft cable
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 11.99
Amazon.com - Plantronic phone cable
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 6.10
Newegg.com - TRIPP LITE 24port 1U
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 38.99
Amazon.com - Fastening Velcro Tape
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 7.94
Amazon.com - Keyspan 19HS High speed
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 52.58
Bulkregister.com - Domain Name
001.000.31.518.88.49.00 28.70
ExpertsExchange.com - IT Solutions
001.000.31.518.88.49.00 19.95
Newegg.com - Insten 1846906 1.5ft Black
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 71.42
Newegg.com - Intel NUC NUC5i5RYK (Qty
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 1,602.98
Ergodepot.com - ESI Edge Monitor Dual
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 372.00
Adobe - Adobe LiveCycle Designer ES4
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 327.41
32Page:
Packet Page 56 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216773 10/15/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK
Newegg.com - Logitech MK520 Wireless
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 171.96
RECORDING FEES5593
Snohomish County Recording of Utility
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 115.50
Snohomish County Recording of Utility
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 115.50
UPS RETURN FREIGHT CHARGES5639
UPS Freight Charges - returning items
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 40.01
OFFICESPACE, HERALD SUBSCRIPTION, TWO PR5923
Officespace website subscription Sept &
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00
Two propane heaters for Holiday Market
001.000.61.558.70.35.00 326.31
Everett Herald subscription October
001.000.61.557.20.49.00 99.95
6254 PARKS CR CARD6254
EXTRA CAR: TRANSPORTATION FOR CARRIE
001.000.64.571.21.43.00 45.38
PANERA BREAD: WOTS LUNCHES
117.100.64.573.20.31.00 1,523.69
INV#7476 10/06/15 - BARD - EDMONDS PD7476
REG. CRIMINAL INVEST - TRYKAR
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 125.00
REG. DETECTIVE WKSP - FROLAND
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 189.00
USB WALL CHARGERS
001.000.41.521.21.31.00 9.49
USB CABLE WITH CONNECTOR
001.000.41.521.21.31.00 12.99
ARMOUR CASE
001.000.41.521.21.31.00 20.79
SAFARILAND BELT HOLSTERS
33Page:
Packet Page 57 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216773 10/15/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 74.36
LODGING DEP/ADV MTR CYCLE-ROTH
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 75.90
LODGING/ADV MTR CYCLE-FALK
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 75.90
LODGING/ADV MTR CYCLE-STRUM
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 91.30
TACTICAL RADIO POUCH
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 7.95
ON LINE TRAINING NEW WORLD
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 23.00
TLO SEARCHES 09/2015
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 19.75
INV#7476 10/06/15 CREDITS ON CHARGE CARD7476
CR LODGING/ADV MTR CYCLE- 3 OFFICERS
001.000.41.521.40.43.00 -243.10
REFUND TACTICAL RADIO POUCH
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 -7.95
ENG. CREDIT CARD SEPTEMBER 20158017
Hauss - New Vest
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 138.97
Certified Easement Copy
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 12.50
Hauss - ITE Membership Dues
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 299.28
EVENTBRITE CANCELLED - 2015 TRAFFIC SAFE8017
Eventbrite Cancelled - 2015 Traffic
001.000.67.532.20.49.00 -117.04
WFOA CONFERENCE LODGING FOR S JAMES8296
Lodging at WFOA Conference, Tacoma, WA
001.000.31.514.20.43.00 615.99
Hotel for WAPELRA Conference8304
Hotel for WAPELRA Conference
001.000.22.518.10.43.00 275.40
34Page:
Packet Page 58 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216773 10/15/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK
NPELRA/WAPELRA Conference
001.000.22.518.10.49.00 299.00
Advertising- HR Assistant Part Time
001.000.22.518.10.41.40 50.00
Advertising- Office Coordinator WWTP
001.000.22.518.10.41.40 50.00
Advertising- Daycamp Assistant- Disc.
001.000.22.518.10.41.40 90.00
CAFR REPORT, LODGING & WEBINAR FOR D SHA8842
GFOA - CAFR reporting
001.000.31.514.23.49.00 505.00
Hotel Murano - Lodging for D Sharp at
001.000.31.514.23.43.00 563.43
GFOA - Annual Governmental GAAP Update
001.000.31.514.23.49.00 135.00
Total :14,965.27
216774 10/15/2015 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 5090122 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 95.36
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 95.36
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 98.24
Total :288.96
216775 10/15/2015 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 8042734813 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LAB
gloves and thermometers
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 440.18
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.31 41.82
Total :482.00
216776 10/15/2015 074311 WASHINGTON TOURISM ALLIANCE 1698 WTA MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL NOV 2015-OCT 2016
Basic membership Washington Tourism
35Page:
Packet Page 59 of 491
10/15/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
11:04:58AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
216776 10/15/2015 (Continued)074311 WASHINGTON TOURISM ALLIANCE
120.000.31.575.42.49.00 500.00
Total :500.00
216777 10/15/2015 075449 WILCOX, MARGARET CR33203 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 11.15
Total :11.15
216778 10/15/2015 075458 WILLIAMS, AARON CR33203 JUROR COST
JUROR COST
001.000.23.512.50.49.20 23.39
Total :23.39
216779 10/15/2015 073018 WINFIELD SOLUTIONS LLC 000060476376 PM: GT PRG CLUBHOUSE BLD 3 WAY
PM: GT PRG CLUBHOUSE BLD 3 WAY
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 325.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 30.88
PM: ROUNDUP PROMAX000060481921
PM: ROUNDUP PROMAX
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 106.68
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.14
Total :472.70
Bank total :188,996.92104 Vouchers for bank code :usbank
188,996.92Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report104
36Page:
Packet Page 60 of 491
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 10/15/2015 Packet Page 61 of 491
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 10/15/2015 Packet Page 62 of 491
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 10/15/2015 Packet Page 63 of 491
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 10/15/2015 Packet Page 64 of 491
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 10/15/2015 Packet Page 65 of 491
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 10/15/2015 Packet Page 66 of 491
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 10/15/2015 Packet Page 67 of 491
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 10/15/2015 Packet Page 68 of 491
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 10/15/2015 Packet Page 69 of 491
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 10/15/2015 Packet Page 70 of 491
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 10/15/2015 Packet Page 71 of 491
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 10/15/2015 Packet Page 72 of 491
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 10/15/2015 Packet Page 73 of 491
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 10/15/2015 Packet Page 74 of 491
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA
Revised 10/15/2015 Packet Page 75 of 491
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 10/15/2015 Packet Page 76 of 491
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 10/15/2015 Packet Page 77 of 491
AM-8033 3. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/20/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Department:City Clerk's Office
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Nathan Graff ($763.14) and Patricia Ramirez Hall
(amount to be determined).
Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Nathan Graff
2124 Rose Valley Rd.
Kelso, WA 98626
$763.14
Patricia Ramirez Hall
8130 - 212th St. SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Amount to be Determined
Attachments
Graff Claim for Damages
Ramirez Hall Claim for Damages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 10/15/2015 08:20 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/15/2015 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 10/09/2015 02:01 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/15/2015
Packet Page 78 of 491
Packet Page 79 of 491
Packet Page 80 of 491
Packet Page 81 of 491
Packet Page 82 of 491
Packet Page 83 of 491
Packet Page 84 of 491
Packet Page 85 of 491
Packet Page 86 of 491
Packet Page 87 of 491
Packet Page 88 of 491
AM-8041 3. D.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/20/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Al Compaan
Department:Police Department
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Management Services
Recommendation
Approve interlocal, and authorize Mayor to sign.
Previous Council Action
Reviewed at Work Session on October 13, 2015. Moved to Consent Agenda.
Narrative
This ILA is with Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management, effective January 1, 2016,
for a duration of three years. As previously discussed with City Council, DEM provides services
commensurate with that mandated by Revised Code of Washington Chapter 38.52 on the provision of
relevant comprehensive emergency plans and programs.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2016
Revenue:General Fund
Expenditure:$46,633.00
Fiscal Impact:
Built into Mayor draft budget for 2016, Non-Departmental.
Attachments
ILA Sno Co DEM
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/15/2015 07:45 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/15/2015 08:21 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/15/2015 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 10/14/2015 03:11 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/15/2015
Packet Page 89 of 491
Packet Page 90 of 491
Packet Page 91 of 491
Packet Page 92 of 491
Packet Page 93 of 491
Packet Page 94 of 491
Packet Page 95 of 491
Packet Page 96 of 491
Packet Page 97 of 491
Packet Page 98 of 491
Packet Page 99 of 491
Packet Page 100 of 491
Packet Page 101 of 491
Packet Page 102 of 491
Packet Page 103 of 491
Packet Page 104 of 491
Packet Page 105 of 491
Packet Page 106 of 491
Packet Page 107 of 491
Packet Page 108 of 491
Packet Page 109 of 491
AM-8042 3. E.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/20/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Al Compaan
Department:Police Department
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Renewal of Contract for Services with S. Morris Co.
Recommendation
Approve contract and authorize Mayor to sign.
Previous Council Action
Reviewed at Work Session on October 13, 2015, and moved to Consent Agenda.
Narrative
This is a three year vendor contract, beginning January 1, 2016, to provide for deceased animal disposal
services. We have contracted with this same vendor since 2007 and remain very satisfied with service
delivered.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2016
Revenue:General Fund
Expenditure:Variable
Fiscal Impact:
Cost is $11.90 per animal for disposal services. Built into 2016 draft budget for Police Services,
Ordinance Enforcement, Professional Services.
Attachments
S. Morris Contract 2016-2018
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/15/2015 07:45 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/15/2015 08:20 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/15/2015 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 10/14/2015 03:31 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/15/2015
Packet Page 110 of 491
1
AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL DISPOSAL SERVICES
This Agreement is made between the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereafter
referred to as “the City”, and The S. Morris Company, hereafter referred to as “Morris”.
WHEREAS, the City has determined by ordinances to regulate animals within the
city limits, and
WHEREAS, the City periodically comes into possession of deceased, diseased,
injured or otherwise un-adoptable animals that must be euthanized as part of its animal
control operations, and
WHEREAS, the City has no dead animal disposal services of its own, and
WHEREAS, Morris is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of
Washington, and
WHEREAS, the City and Morris desire to enter into a contract defining the rights
and responsibilities of Morris and the City with respect to dead animal disposal, NOW,
THEREFORE,
In consideration of mutual covenants herein contained, Morris and the City have
mutually agreed and do hereby agree as follows:
1. Undertakings of Morris.
1.1 Morris will furnish dead animal disposal services to the City. This includes
cremation of animals at the facility operated by Morris and legal disposal of any
crematory remains.
1.2 Morris shall make a minimum of one scheduled pick-up per week of dead
animals from the City’s designated location.
1.3 Upon request by the City, Morris will furnish a chest freezer for storage of
dead animals.
2. Undertakings of the City.
2.1 In consideration of the services performed, the City shall pay to Morris the
sum of $11.90 per animal for disposal services, increased in 2017 and 2018 by an amount
equivalent to the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton June CPI-U for the preceding year;
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the renewal of the Agreement is subject to an
appropriation by the Edmonds City Council for future annual terms. If the City Council
fails to appropriate funds for animal disposal services, this Agreement shall expire at the
end of the last term for which an appropriation has been made.
Packet Page 111 of 491
2
2.2 Invoices shall be submitted by Morris to the City for payment pursuant to
the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each invoice
to Morris. Morris may submit invoices to the City for services performed and accepted
by the City. Billing shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City’s warrant process. No
invoice / billing shall be considered for payment that is not sufficiently detailed to verify
validity thereof, and that has not been submitted to the City three days prior to the
scheduled cut-off date. Such late invoice will be checked by the City and payment will
be made in the next regular payment cycle.
2.3 The service and invoice records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement
are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three
(3) years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request.
3. Indemnity. Morris agrees to indemnify, reimburse, save and hold harmless the
City for any claim, loss damage, expense or liability to the City which the City may incur
by reason of any act of Morris in performing this contract. Morris further agrees to
procure and maintain an insurance policy or policies protecting Morris and their officers
and employees against any loss, liability or expense whatsoever from personal injury,
death, property damage or otherwise arising or occurring in connection with the
performance of this contract. Said policy or policies shall be written by a responsible
insurance company or companies satisfactory to the City and shall include general
liability for personal injury and/or property damage in an amount not less than $500,000
for each person or occurrence. The insurance policy or policies shall further provide that
the same shall not be reduced or cancelled without at least twenty days prior notice to the
City, shall name the City as additionally insured and shall be primary to any other such
insurance maintained by the City. A copy of all such insurance policies shall be
submitted to the City wi thin five days of the execution of this Agreement, and current
proof of insurance shall be submitted to the City as the policy periodically renews. To the
extent necessary to enforce this indemnification agreement, Morris waives its immunity
under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington.
4. Independent Contractor. Morris is and shall be considered an independent
contractor. All persons performing services under this Agreement shall be employees of
Morris and are not employees of the City. Morris agrees to indemnify and hold harmless
the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents, and employees from any cost, claim, or liability
arising out of the employment of individuals by Morris. Morris shall have entire control
and direction of its business operations and kenneling services, subject only to the
conditions and obligations established by this Agreement. The indemnities provided in
paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Agreement shall survive its termination. Notwithstanding
Morris’ status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to
this Agreement must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this Agreement,
Morris shall not perform work for any party with enforcement action subject to the
administrative or quasi-judicial review by the City without written notification to the City
and the City’s prior written consent.
Packet Page 112 of 491
3
5. Discrimination prohibited. Morris shall not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex,
sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, liability for service in the armed forces
of the United States, disability, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical
handicap, or any other protected class status, unless based upon a bona fide occupational
qualification.
6. Changes/Additional work. The City may engage Morris to perform services in
addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Morris will be entitled to additional
compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable
for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and
compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both Parties to this
Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of
Works, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Work and fees may be
required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to
obligate Morris to render or the City to pay for services rendered in excess of the
payments discussed in Section 2.1, unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is
approved in writing by both Parties.
7. Standard of care. Morris represents that Morris has the necessary knowledge,
skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Morris and any
persons employed by Morris shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a
professional manner consistent with sound practices, in accordance with the usual and
customary professional care required for services agreed to herein.
8. Supervision of employees. Morris is responsible for the direct supervision of its
employees, and a supervisor shall be available at reasonable times to confer with the City
in regards to services. Morris commits that its services will be performed by careful and
efficient employees trained in the best practices and highest standards imposed by
Morris. Morris agrees to remove any of its employees who in the reasonable opinion of
the City, are guilty of improper conduct or incapable of performing the work assigned to
them.
9. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time
limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other
provision.
10. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by Morris shall not be assigned or
subcontracted without the express written consent of the City.
11. Covenant against contingent fees. Morris warrants that it has not employed or
retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for
Morris, to solicit or secure this contract, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any
company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Morris, any fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent upon
or resulting from the award of making this contract. For breach or violation of this
Packet Page 113 of 491
4
warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its
discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the
full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
12. Compliance with laws. Morris in the performance of this Agreement shall
comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including but not
limited to provisions of Title 51 RCW, Title 16 RCW and other laws, tax regulations,
regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and
accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as
described in the Agreement and or necessary to assure quality of services delivered.
13. B&O Taxes. Morris specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and
occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement.
14. Expiration, Notice. In the event that the period covered by this Agreement shall
expire without the benefit of a new agreement, the rate scheduled then in effect as of the
date of Agreement expiry shall continue until such time as Morris and the City agree to
an amended rate schedule, provided that either party may, upon one hundred eighty days
advance written notice, issue notice of termination, which shall not require cause, and
after expiry of notice, the Agreement shall be of no further force or effect. Either party
may terminate this Agreement immediately for cause upon the deposit of written
notification in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the regular mailing address of
each party. The regular mailing address of the Parties shall be:
City of Edmonds The S. Morris Company
c/o Scott Passey, City Clerk c/o Steve Morris
121 Fifth Avenue North P.O. Box 99768
Edmonds, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 98139
425.775.2525 206.784.4055
15. Severability. This Agreement shall be read and interpreted as a whole, except that
the capitalized and underlined headings for each numbered paragraph are for descriptive
purposes and shall not prevail over the provision which they head. In the event that any
provision herein shall be struck down, particularly those contained in provision number 4
(Independent Contractor), this Agreement shall be at an immediate end.
16. Integration. The Agreement between the Parties shall consist of this document
and any Exhibits attached hereto. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the
parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties as provided
in provision 6 (Changes/Additional Work). In the event of any conflict between this
written Agreement and any provisions of any Exhibits attached hereto, this Agreement
shall control.
Packet Page 114 of 491
5
17. Venue and jurisdiction. Any action to interpret or enforce this Agreement shall be
brought before the Superior Court of Snohomish County, Washington, and the Parties
agree that, as between them, all matters shall be resolved in that venue.
18. Force Majeure. Parties shall not be liable for failure to perform or delay in
performance due to fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, act of any
governmental authority, riot, embargo, fuel or energy shortage, car shortage, wrecks or
delays in transportation, or due to any other cause beyond parties reasonable control. In
the event of delay in performance due to any such cause, the date of delivery or time for
completion will be extended by a period of time reasonably necessary to overcome the
effect of such delay.
19. Entire Agreement; Amendment; Attorneys’ Fees. This Agreement contains all
the understandings between the Parties and is intended to operate as such. In the event of
a dispute over any part or portion of this Agreement, the party prevailing upon its claim
or claims shall also be awarded reasonable costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
20. Term. This Agreement shall have a three year term commencing on January 1,
2016.
EXECUTED this ______ day of _________________, 2015.
CITY OF EDMONDS THE S. MORRIS COMPANY
By: __________________________ By:
Mayor David O. Earling Its:
ATTESTED/AUTHENTICATED
By: ___________________________
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
By: ___________________________
Office of the City Attorney
Packet Page 115 of 491
AM-8043 3. F.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/20/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Al Compaan
Department:Police Department
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Interlocal Agreement for In-Service Police Skills Training
Recommendation
Approve ILA and authorize Mayor to sign.
Previous Council Action
Reviewed at Work Session on October 13, 2015, moved to Consent Agenda.
Narrative
This is renewal of an existing ILA, term of six years, with an effective date of January 1, 2016. Provides a
cooperative agreement for in-service police skills training with 11 cities and Tulalip Tribal Police
partnering together under the auspices of the Everett Police Department.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2016
Revenue:General Fund
Expenditure:$1200.00
Fiscal Impact:
Built into draft 2016 budget under Police Services - Training.
Attachments
ILA Police Skills Training
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/15/2015 07:45 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/15/2015 08:20 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/15/2015 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 10/14/2015 03:58 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/15/2015
Packet Page 116 of 491
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR IN-SERVICE TRAINING SESSIONS
2015 Interlocal Agreement revised 9-17-15
1
INTERLOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING IN-SERVICE TRAINING
SESSIONS
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ____ day of _______________, 2015, by the
following governmental entities (“Participating Entities”) (“Parties”):
City of Arlington City of Lynnwood
City of Bothell City of Mill Creek
City of Brier City of Monroe
City of Edmonds City of Mountlake Terrace
City of Everett City of Mukilteo
City of Lake Stevens Tulalip Tribal Police
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, This Agreement is made pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34
RCW. RCW 39.34 permits one or more public agencies to contract with any one or more other
public agencies to perform any governmental service, activity, or undertaking which each
agency is authorized by law to perform; and
WHEREAS, the Participating Entities comprise the Snohomish County Regional Training Group
and are empowered by law to train their law enforcement personnel; and
WHEREAS, the Participating Entities conduct regular in-service training sessions on various law
enforcement topics; and
WHEREAS, the City of Everett Police Department is typically the host of the regular in-service
training sessions, and has incurred and will incur costs associated with these regular in-service
training sessions, including but not limited to, miscellaneous expendable goods, wear and tear
on equipment, and use of facilities; and
WHEREAS, other Participating Entities may host the regular in-service training sessions at
future times; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that all of the Participating Entities share in the costs associated
with hosting, conducting, and participating in the regular in-service training sessions:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of covenants, conditions, performances and promises
hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows:
Packet Page 117 of 491
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR IN-SERVICE TRAINING SESSIONS
2015 Interlocal Agreement revised 9-17-15
2
1.0 Payment
The undersigned Participating Entities shall contribute fees at the rates indicated below*
per year toward paying for the costs of instructors, classes and certifications, equipment wear
and tear, and expendable items used in the regular in-service training sessions: Payment for
the year 2016 shall be paid to the City of Everett as custodian of the funds on or before January
31, 2016. Subsequent payments shall be made on or before January 31 of each year
thereafter, and shall be payable to the City of Everett as custodian of the funds until notice of a
change of custodian is given in accordance with Section 4 below.
*Participating Entities shall contribute fees at a rate commensurate to the number of sworn
officers in the agency.
Less than 50 officers $800.00 per year
50 – 100 officers $1200.00 per year
Over 100 officers $1600.00 per year
The annual contribution entitles each Participating Entity to have officers attend the regular
training sessions.
2.0 Scope of Services
2.1 Until notice of a change is given, in accordance with Section 4 below, the Everett
Police Department shall coordinate the facilities necessary to conduct regular in-
service training sessions. The Everett Police Department shall schedule regular
in-service training sessions on various law enforcement-related topics, and shall
give reasonable prior notice to each Participating Entity of the date, time and
place where each training session will be held, and the nature of the topic for
each regular training session.
2.2 Training for Participating Entities’ personnel shall be jointly provided by the law
enforcement personnel of the Participating Entities.
3.0 Effective Date and Term
The initial term of this Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2016, and it shall continue in
effect through December 31, 2021, unless sooner terminated as provided under this agreement.
Thereafter, this Agreement shall automatically renew and continue on a year-to-year basis, until
terminated as provided under this Agreement.
Packet Page 118 of 491
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR IN-SERVICE TRAINING SESSIONS
2015 Interlocal Agreement revised 9-17-15
3
4.0 Changes
4.1 This Agreement may be modified by mutual agreement of the Participating
Entities. No such amendment shall be effective until it is reduced to writing and
signed by all Participating Entities with the same formality as this Agreement.
4.2 The fund custodian and regular in-service training site may be changed by
majority agreement of the Participating Entities without modifying this Agreement,
but with reasonable notice to all Participating Entities.
5.0 Waiver
No waiver by any party of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed or construed
as a waiver of any other term or condition, nor shall a waiver of any breach be deemed to
constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach, whether of the same or of a different provision of
this Agreement.
6.0 Allocation of Liability/Insurance
6.1 Each Participating Entity shall be responsible for the conduct and liability of its
own personnel in the performance of this Agreement. Each Participating Entity
agrees to save, indemnify, defend and hold the other Participating Entities
harmless from any allegations, complaints, or claims of wrongful or negligent acts
or omissions, by said Participating Entity and/or its elected officers, agents, or
employees. In the case of allegations, complaints, or claims against more than
one Participating Entity, any damages allowed shall be levied in proportion to the
percentage of fault attributable to each Participating Entity, and each
Participating Entity shall have the right to seek contribution from the other
Participating Entities in proportion to the percentage of fault attributable to each
other Participating Entity. A Participating Entity that has withdrawn from the
agreement assumes no responsibility for the actions of the remaining members
arising after the date of withdrawal, but shall remain liable for claims of loss or
liability arising prior to the effective date of withdrawal.
6.2 Each Participating Entity shall maintain appropriate insurance coverage for the
activities occurring under this Agreement, including but not limited to personal
injury, death and property damage limits of not less than $1,000,000 (one million
dollars) per occurrence, or provide proof of self-insurance or of participating in an
insurance pool acceptable to the city.
6.3 This Section 6 shall survive termination of this Agreement.
Packet Page 119 of 491
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR IN-SERVICE TRAINING SESSIONS
2015 Interlocal Agreement revised 9-17-15
4
7.0 Legal Requirements
The Participating Entities shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws in
performing this Agreement.
8.0 Termination and Notice
8.1 Any Participating Entity may terminate or suspend its participation in this
Agreement, with or without reason, by providing written notice to the other
Participating Entities at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of any
such termination or suspension.
Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three (3) days after deposit of
written notice in the U.S. mail with proper postage and address.
8.2 Termination shall not relieve a Participating Entity of its obligations as set forth in
Section 6 and shall not entitle it to any refund of the payments made pursuant to
Section 1, prior to the effective date of termination.
9.0 Governing Law - Entire Agreement - Severability
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, as to interpretation
and performance. Any action hereunder may be brought only in the Superior Court of
Washington for Snohomish County. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the
parties. Should any part, term or provision of the Agreement be determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected, and
the same shall continue in full force and effect.
10.0 Agreement – Amendment
This Agreement contains the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Participating Entities.
The Participating Entities agree that there are no other understandings, oral or otherwise,
regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement may only be amended by
written instrument executed by the Participating Entities.
11.0 Execution of Multiple Counterparts
This Agreement and any Amendment thereto, may be reproduced in any number of original
counterparts. Each participating agency need sign only one counterpart and when the signature
pages are all assembled with one original counterpart, that compilation constitutes a fully
executed and effective agreement among all the participating agencies.
Packet Page 120 of 491
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR IN-SERVICE TRAINING SESSIONS
2015 Interlocal Agreement revised 9-17-15
5
12.0 Recording
As required by RCW 39.34.040, this Agreement shall be filed with the County Auditor, or,
alternatively, posted on the website of each party.
13.0 No joint venture.
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as creating any type or manner of
partnership, joint venture or other joint enterprise between the parties (Participating Entities).
Participating Entity employees who provide services under this Agreement shall at all times be
considered employees of their respective Participating Entity and acting in their official
capacities as employees of their respective Participating Entity. All rights, duties, and obligations
of the employer and the employee shall remain with the individual jurisdiction/Participating
Entity. Each Participating Entity shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable
laws, collective bargaining agreements, and/or civil service rules and regulations, with regard to
its employees.
.
The parties agree that no separate legal administrative entities are necessary in order to carry
out this Agreement. If determined by a court to be necessary for the purpose of the Interlocal
Cooperation ACT, Ch. 39.34 RCW, an administrator or joint board responsible for administering
the Agreement will be established by mutual agreement. Any real or personal property used by
the parties in connection with this Agreement will be acquired, held and disposed of by that
party in its discretion, and other parties will have no joint or other interest herein.
14.0 Liability/ No Third Party Beneficiaries
This Agreement is for the sole benefit of the Participating Entities and shall not confer third-party
beneficiary status on any non-party to this Agreement. No liability shall attach to any of the
parties by reason of entering into this Agreement except as expressly provided herein. None of
the parties to this Agreement assume any duty to any third party.
Packet Page 121 of 491
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR IN-SERVICE TRAINING SESSIONS
2015 Interlocal Agreement revised 9-17-15
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day and year
first above written.
CITY OF EVERETT
_____________________________ _____________________________
Ray Stephanson, Mayor Participating Entity
By: _________________________ By: _________________________
Its: _________________________ Its: _________________________
ATTEST: ATTEST:
____________________________ _____________________________
Clerk Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ _____________________________
By: By:
Exhibit A
List each Participating Entity’s contact person and address for notice purposes. (see attached)
Packet Page 122 of 491
AM-8046 3. G.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/20/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis
Recommendation
Approve the SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis.
Previous Council Action
On August 25, 2015, this item was discussed with City Council.
On July 14 , 2015, a presentation was made in front of City Council.
Narrative
The SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis focuses on a 5-mile stretch of principal arterial, from
76th Ave to the Edmonds Ferry Terminal. Due to the various modes of transportation interfacing along
this regional corridor (high vehicle ADT, multiple bus stops, high pedestrian activity along sections, and
bicycle connections), many deficiencies exist. The purpose of this analysis is to develop a corridor master
plan, identifying safety, access management and streetscape improvements coordinated with Complete
Streets principles and integrated with the proposed form-based code for Westgate Village (SR-104 &
100th Ave) and other zoning on SR-104.
The City worked with the engineering firm Fehr and Peers on this Analysis. The traffic modeling,
accident history, access management, and safety of all modes of transportation were analyzed along the
entire corridor. Recommended improvements are identified to resolve those various deficiencies and then
prioritized based on a set of different criteria (safety, accessibility, identity, financial, and grant
eligibility). The document also doesn’t recommend the addition of bike facilities along SR-104 and
therefore identifies alternate routes (for north - south / east – west connections). The interactions between
transportation and land use in the Westgate Area were also examined and future recommendations on this
matter are included in Appendix C. The setback in Appendix C is included in the Study as part of the
consultant’s recommendation. The City adopted the use of a different setback on April 7, 2015 as part of
Westgate Code Adoption (Westgate Mixed Use Zone District Ordinance/ Ordinance No. 3993). This note
was added (see top of page 48 in the study) following Council comments on August 25, 2015, regarding
setback inconsistencies between the study and the Westgate Plan.
Comments regarding this analysis were received from the public at two Open Houses (on February 25,
2014 & June 10, 2015), Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) at a meeting on
February 27, 2015, and the SR-104 Committee (which held monthly meetings for the entire duration of
Packet Page 123 of 491
the project). A presentation was also made in front of the Planning Board on July 22, 2015 and in front of
City Council on July 14, 2015.
Attachments
SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis
Ordinance No. 3993 - Westgate Mixed Use Zone District
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Robert English 10/15/2015 02:58 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/15/2015 04:45 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/16/2015 04:53 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/16/2015 07:15 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 10/15/2015 12:02 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/16/2015
Packet Page 124 of 491
SR 104 Complete Street
Corridor Analysis
September 2015
1001 4th Ave
Suite 4120
Seattle, WA 98154
Prepared by
Packet Page 125 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015
Table of Contents
STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................... 1
Project Overview .................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Guiding Principles ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Community Outreach ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
CORRIDOR PROFILE ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Character ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Land Use .................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Physical Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................. 9
Roadway Cross-Section .................................................................................................................................... 9
traffic control ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
Sight Distance .................................................................................................................................................... 12
Access Management ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Transportation Operations ............................................................................................................................................ 14
Intersection traffic level of service ............................................................................................................. 17
Transit .................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Existing ................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Future .................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Washington State Ferries ............................................................................................................................................... 34
Parking .................................................................................................................................................................................. 34
RECOMMENDED PLAN ....................................................................................................................................35
Corridor Project Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 36
Project Prioritization ........................................................................................................................................................ 44
Quick Win Projects ........................................................................................................................................................... 46
Westgate Plan Concept .................................................................................................................................................. 48
Roadway Cross-Section .................................................................................................................................................. 52
Packet Page 126 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015
Appendices
Appendix A Project Diagrams
Appendix B Prioritization Results
Appendix C Westgate Memoranda
Appendix D Level of Service Calculations
List of Figures
Figure 1. Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2. Planning Context FOr the SR 104 Complete Street Corridor ........................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Land Uses .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 4. Roadway Cross-Sections And Traffic Control ...................................................................................................... 10
Figure 5. Sight Distance Issues ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 6. Traffic Volume .................................................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 7. Intersection Level of Service-PM Peak Hour ........................................................................................................ 20
Figure 8. Crashes Along SR 104 ................................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 9. Average Weekday Vehicle Speeds Along SR 104 .............................................................................................. 24
Figure 10. Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 11. Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 12. Existing Transit Service ............................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 13. Future Priority Transit Corridors ............................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 14a. Recommended Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 14B. Recommended Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 14C. Recommended Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 39
Packet Page 127 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015
Figure 14D. Recommended Projects ......................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 14E. Recommended Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 14F. Recommended Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 15. Westgate Access Management Conceptual Plan ............................................................................................ 51
Figure 16. SR 104 Preferred Cross Sections ............................................................................................................................ 53
List of Tables
Table 1. Existing and Future Land Use ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Table 2. Typical Roadway Level of Service Characteristics............................................................................................... 18
Table 3. Level of Service Criteria for Intersections ............................................................................................................... 19
Table 4. Total Collisions And Collision Rates .......................................................................................................................... 21
Table 5. Observed Corridor Speeds ........................................................................................................................................... 22
Table 6. Recommended Projects ................................................................................................................................................. 43
Table 7. Prioritization Criteria And Weighting ....................................................................................................................... 45
Table 8. Recommended Projects ................................................................................................................................................. 46
Table 9. Quick Win Projects ........................................................................................................................................................... 47
Packet Page 128 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 1
STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The SR 104 Corridor Complete Streets Corridor Analysis evaluates existing transportation conditions, relies
on input from stakeholders and users, and analyzes potential safety and mobility improvements for drivers,
bicyclists and pedestrians, and transit. The study identifies key improvements that may be included for
future consideration in the city’s Capital Improvement Program.
SR 104, shown in Figure 1, extends for four miles between Downtown Edmonds and 76th Ave W, just west
of I-5. It serves as one of two primary east-west arterial connections in Edmonds.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
After consulting with stakeholders, a corridor vision was developed that is based on the following guiding
principles:
• Support both local and regional mobility
• Improve circulation and safety for biking, walking, and transit access
• Reinforce land use vision, including at Westgate
• Create a sense of arrival in Edmonds and tie to the waterfront
• Coordinate with the state and other entities
• Take a phased approach that provides benefits over time
• Promote environmental sustainability and economic vitality
Working with a Technical Advisory Committee and conducting extensive public outreach, the City used
these principles to identify and prioritize the corridor recommendations outlined in this report.
Packet Page 129 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 2
FIGURE 1. STUDY AREA
Packet Page 130 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 3
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Community involvement was important in developing and
implementing a successful corridor plan for SR 104. To
prepare a common vision for future improvements to the
corridor, the City gathered input from the community at two
public open houses and use of the city’s website. A
technical advisory committee was also formed to serve as a
forum for information sharing among city staff, City Council,
WSDOT, Community Transit, and the Planning Board. The
project team conducted stakeholder interviews, created
informational materials and website content, and facilitated
the committee meetings.
The City identified key target audiences to
engage:
•Businesses and residents along the
project corridor and within the City of
Edmonds
•Users of the project corridor; local and
regional
•Local agencies, such as Edmonds School
District and Community Transit
•Washington State Department of
Transportation
•City of Edmonds staff
•Elected officials
Packet Page 131 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 4
CORRIDOR PROFILE
This section characterizes existing and future
conditions on SR 104 in the City of Edmonds.
The following sections describe the corridor in
terms of character, land, use, physical
conditions, and transportation operations.
CHARACTER
The four-mile section of SR 104 changes
character several times, from a downtown
environment near Puget Sound, to
neighborhood zones with frequent property
access, to commercial areas that serve
multiple businesses. The changing character
means that a single design concept may not
be appropriate along the entire corridor.
SR 104 can be thought of as having four
primary ‘zones’, as shown in Figure 2. The
project recommendations were tailored to
best meet the needs of the surrounding land
uses and roadway function as shown in these
zones.
WSDOT Main Street Design
WSDOT has developed Chapter 1150 of its Design
Manual (July 2014) that defines Context and Modally
Integrated Design- Main Streets. WSDOT realizes
that many state highway segments function as the
main streets of communities. The main streets not
only move people and goods, but provide a sense of
place. In these locations, there is a need for design
flexibility to address tradeoff aspects in design. These
tradeoffs can be articulated once a community vision
is created for a street.
Along SR 104, WSDOT and the City of Edmonds
collaborated to create a vision for the roadway, which
changes character throughout its length. While SR
104 is an important highway connector within the
region, and a Highway of Statewide Significance, it
also serves as one of the main streets for the
Edmonds community. This is particularly apparent in
the Westgate area, which the City is planning to
redevelop over time into a mixed use, pedestrian-
oriented neighborhood.
In this context, WSDOT is supportive of street design
on SR 104 that facilitates safe and efficient mobility
for all travel modes. This means that there are
tradeoffs between such factors as vehicle speed and
delay, roadway width, and pedestrian treatments.
WSDOT has indicated that it has no plans to widen SR
104 or to add turning lanes throughout its length.
The existing roadway configuration will allow for
efficient movement of vehicles through the corridor,
while still providing an opportunity to calm the traffic
speeds and facilitate safe and efficient pedestrian
movements.
Packet Page 132 of 491
199th St SW
240th St SW
9t
h
A
v
e
N
Elm St
74
t
h
A
v
e
W
NE 205th St
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
25t
h
A
v
e
N
W
202nd St SW
203rd St SW
2 26th St SW
70
t
h
A
v
e
W
2
7
t
h
A
v
e
N
W
228th St SW
NW 2 01st St
238th St SW
82
n
d
A
v
e
W
4t
h
A
v
e
S
NW 195th St
NW 199th St
208th St SW
1 2 t h A v e
N
216th St SW
72
n
d
A
v
e
W
234th St SW 7 5 t h
A v e
W
N 205th St
Bell St
8t
h
A
v
e
N
W
232nd St SW
12
t
h
A
v
e
N
W
15
t
h
A
v
e
N
W
NW 205th St
5t
h
A
v
e
S
200th St SW
212th St SW
218th St SW
Pine St
236th St SW
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
220th St SW
Main St
83
r
d
A
v
e
W
8 1 s t
A v e
W
3r
d
A
v
e
S
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
11
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
224th St SW
Planning Context for the SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor
Neighborhood Connections
Pedestrian-Oriented Ferry Terminal Area
Boulevard
Commercial
Figure 2
\\
F
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
E
1
4
-
0
3
6
0
_
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
_
S
R
1
0
4
_
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
F
i
g
2
_
C
o
n
t
e
x
t
.
m
x
d
LakeBallinger
Edmonds
104
Snohomish CountyKing County
99
Packet Page 133 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 6
Pedestrian-Oriented Ferry Waiting Area
The section of SR 104 in downtown Edmonds provides access to downtown land uses and also serves as a
waiting area for auto traffic entering and leaving the ferry terminal. The roadway accommodates a mix of
pedestrians, stopped cars, and other multimodal activities.
Boulevard
Portions of the corridor at the east and west ends function like a boulevard, providing users with smooth
flowing entry and exit points to/from the city. Property access is limited in these segments.
Commercial
The Commercial zone around the Westgate area serves all modes and trip types. The roadway in this area
accommodates business access and transit stops, emphasizing multimodal interaction and gateway
elements. Frequent pedestrian movements require safe crossings of SR 104 and side streets.
Neighborhood Connections
The segment from around 95th Ave W and 240th St SW emphasizes connections to neighborhoods on
both sides of SR 104. The corridor in this area serves all trip types but focuses on balancing access needs
from side streets and driveways with safety for bicycle, pedestrian and auto trips.
Packet Page 134 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 7
LAND USE
Land use in the vicinity of SR 104 consists largely of single and multi-family homes combined with
commercial development focused in downtown Edmonds, Westgate, and SR 99. To the west of SR 104 are
two elementary schools and one K-8 school, as shown in Figure 3. At the west end of the corridor, SR 104
is adjacent to Edmonds City Park and Edmonds Marsh. Along the waterfront, SR 104 provides convenient
access to Brackett’s Landing and Marina Beach Park.
Table 1 summarizes existing land use and the amount of growth expected to occur by 2035 both citywide
and within approximately a one-half mile vicinity of SR 104. By 2035, almost 40 percent of the city’s
households and 50 percent of the employment will be located within the general SR 104 corridor.
TABLE 1. EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE
Area
Existing 2035 Total Growth Percentage Growth
HH EMP HH EMP HH EMP HH EMP
Corridor Vicinity 6,700 4,600 8,350 5,750 1,650 1,150 25% 25%
Edmonds Citywide 19,300 10,000 22,650 12,450 3,350 2,450 17% 24%
Notes: HH = Households; EMP = Employment
Sources: City of Edmonds
Packet Page 135 of 491
SherwoodElementarySchool
WestgateElementarySchool
MadronaSchool
2 0 8 t h St SW
6
t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
mondsWay
Robin
H
o
o
d
D
r
Caspers St
212th St SW
S u n s e t A v e
N
Ad m i r a l W a y
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
10
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
7 t h
A v e
N
22 6 th St SW
3rd A
v
e
N
11
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
Ti
m
b
e
r
L
n
Maple St
224th St SW
216th St SW
9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Wa
y
3r
d
A
v
e
S
200th St SW
Walnut St
Dayton St
218th St SW
98
t
h
A
v
e
W
5
t
h
A v e
S
244th St SW
W o o d w a y P a r k R d
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
92
n
d
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Pine St
228th St SW
220th St SW
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
8 0 t h
A v e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
Main S
t
Kingston-EdmondsFerry
Land Uses
PugetSound
Figure 3
\\
f
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
E
1
4
-
0
3
6
0
_
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
_
S
R
1
0
4
_
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
F
i
g
3
_
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
s
.
m
x
d
Snohomish CountyKing County
Other
Commercial
Recreation
School
Medical
Government
Residential
Vacant/Open Space
City ofEdmonds
104
99
Packet Page 136 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 9
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
The guiding principles emphasize addressing
safety needs for all travel modes, while
maintaining the corridor’s identity. This
section describes the physical conditions that
frame many of the corridor’s needs. Many of
the safety concerns along SR 104 relate to the
physical conditions along the corridor. The
following section describes:
• Roadway cross-section
• Traffic Control
• Topography
• Sight Distance
• Drainage
• Illumination
ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION
SR 104 is characterized as a four to five-lane roadway along its length. Figure 4 shows typical sections for
the existing roadway. The five-lane sections typify SR 104 where left turns are required. A four-lane section
is provided where SR 104 passes through the SR 99 interchange and approaching downtown Edmonds. The
roadway also provides ferry vehicle queuing north of Pine Street to the Edmonds Ferry Terminal.
Most of the corridor has a right-of-way width of 80 feet. However, the right-of-way is not readily usable in
some sections due to slopes, vegetation, and other impediments. Bus pull-outs are provided at several bus
stops along SR 104.
WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE
COMMUNITY
•Improving safety in the corridor is very
important; especially for bicycles and
pedestrians
•Any improvements should be context
sensitive of the blend between
neighborhoods and commercial areas
•Traveling the corridor can be difficult
during rush hours and during ferry
loading/unloading, but there is minimal
interest in widening the corridor for
more automobile lanes.
•Providing good access to and from
Westgate is important
Packet Page 137 of 491
èéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëííí
èéëìí
èéëìí
PugetSound
Snohomish County
King County
City ofEdmonds
104
99
208th St S
W
Admi
r
a
l
W
a
y
6t
h
A
v
e
S
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
R
o
b
i
n
H
o
o
d
D
r
Caspers St
Suns
e
t
A
v
e
N
Fird
a
l
e
A
v
e
10
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
7 t h
A v e
N
226th St SW
3rd A
v
e
N
11
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
212th St SW
Ti
m
b
e
r
L
n
Maple St
224th St SW
216th St SW
9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Wa
y
3r
d
A
v
e
S
Walnut St
Dayton St
200th St SW
98
t
h
A
v
e
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
244th St SW
W o o d w a y P a r k R d
218th St SW
9 6 t h
A v e
W
92
n
d
A
v
e
W
8 8 t h
A v e
W
Pine St
228th St SW
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
220th St SW
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
Main St
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Kings
t
o
n
-
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
F
e
r
r
y
Roadway Cross Sections and Traffic Control
Figure 4
èéëìí Traffic Signal
èéëííí Emergency Signal
4 Lanes
5 Lanes
FerryLoadingFerryLoading
Packet Page 138 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 11
TRAFFIC CONTROL
Along the four-mile SR 104 corridor, eight traffic signals are in operation, as well as an emergency signal.
The signals locations are as follows (see Figure 4):
Traffic Signals:
• Main St
• Dayton St
• 226th St SW
• 100th Ave W
• 95th Pl W
• 236th St SW
• 244th St SW (2 SB)
• 76th Ave W
Emergency Signal:
• 232nd St SW
The emergency signal has a yellow light
for traffic along SR 104. In the event of an emergency response, vehicles along SR 104 will then be given a
red light. At 244th St SW, there are two coordinated signals for southbound traffic; northbound vehicles only
experience a signal if turning onto 244th St SW from SR 104.
Northbound traffic boarding the ferry has a designated holding area. This begins at the SR 104 and 5th
Avenue W split, and continues along the duration of the corridor. Signs along the corridor notify drivers of
the ferry loading and warn drivers of other vehicles making a right turn off of SR 104 and across the ferry
loading lanes. During ferry loading/unloading, traffic is controlled manually to enable continuous
movements to/from the boat.
Packet Page 139 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 12
SIGHT DISTANCE
The SR 104 Corridor is characterized by curving road
segments with limited sight distance in some sections.
Motorists need adequate sigh distance or visibility for
turning onto and from SR 104. The combination of
frequent driveway and side street approaches to SR 104,
along with some tight roadway curves, creates several
areas with challenging or severely limited sight distance.
Figure 5 shows those areas with sight distance issues for
side streets/driveways (i.e. drivers wanting to turn onto SR
104) and for SR 104 itself (i.e. drivers wanting to turn left
from SR 104 into a side street or driveway). These
locations of limited sight distance are correlated with the
locations of collisions, as described in a later section.
An example of sight distance issues along SR 104 can be
seen going northbound when approaching Pine St. At
higher speeds, vehicles may be unable to react in time to
a right-turning vehicle out of Pine Street. The recent
speed limit reduction has helped improve access at this
location.
Rockeries and overgrown brush encroach on the right of
way and restrict sight distance for cars attempting to turn
onto SR 104, as shown in the image on 232nd Street SW.
SR 104 Corridor Functional
Classification
SR 104 is one of two main east-west corridor s
connecting downtown Edmonds with SR 99 and
I-5. It also provides a direct route to the Ferry
terminal. The City of Edmonds and WSDOT
classify SR 104 as a principal arterial.
SR 104 connects to one other principal arterial –
the north/south running SR 99. Minor arterials
intersect SR 104 at 5th Ave S, 100th Ave W, 228th
St SW, 238th St SW, and 76th Ave W. These
arterials feed Edmonds traffic from local and
collector streets onto the principal arterial
routes.
Packet Page 140 of 491
208th
S
t
SW
6 th
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
R
o
b
i
n
H
o
o
d
D
r
Caspers St
212th St SW
Su nse
t
A
v
e
N
Adm
i
r
a
l
W
a
y
Fi
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
10
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
7 t h
A v e
N
226th St SW
3rd
A
v
e
N
11
4
th
A
v
e
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
Ol
ym
p
i
c
A
v
e
Ti
m
b
e
r
Ln
Maple St
224th St SW
216th St SW
9t
h
Av
e
S
Bowd
oin W
a
y3r
d
A
v
e
S
200th St SW
Walnut St
Dayton St
218th St SW
98
t
h
A
v
e
W
5t
h
A
v e
S
244th St SW
W o o d w a y P a r k R d
9 6 t h
A v e
W
92
n
d
A
v
e
W
8 8 t h
A v e
W
Pine St
228th St SW
220th St SW
10
0t
h
A
v
e
W
8 0t
h
A
ve
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
Main St
Kingston-Ed
m
ondsFerry
Sight Distance Issues
Figure 5
\\
f
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
E
1
4
-
0
3
6
0
_
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
_
S
R
1
0
4
_
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
F
i
g
5
_
S
i
g
h
t
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
.
mx
d
Sight Distance Issues
Along SR 104
From Side Street / Driveway
Puget
Sound
Snohomish County
King County
City of
Edmonds
104
99
Packet Page 141 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 14
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
Numerous commercial and private driveways
along the corridor complicate the sight distance
and traffic safety issues. WSDOT requires strict
access management for new development, but
the existing access patterns result in driveways
that are hidden due to vegetation, topography or
geometric conditions.
Although there is limited access management,
some locations have features in place. In the
eastbound direction at 100th Ave W, a C-curb prevents vehicles from attempting an early left turn into the
QFC shopping center. The C-curb also prevents the cross traffic from coming out of the Bartell’s and going
straight across to QFC.
LIGHTING
Lighting is a direct contributor to safety. Existing light levels were determined using lighting analysis that
examined average light levels (i.e. average light visible per square foot on the roadway) and what is called
the uniformity ratio, the average light level to the darkest areas on the roadway. The analysis indicates that
below-standard light levels on SR 104 exist at both westbound and eastbound approaches to 97th Ave. W
and 236th St. SW, as well as mid corridor between 232nd Pl. SW and 236th St. SW. The remainder of the
corridor appears to meet the standards in the current configuration, but may warrant upgrades with
proposed improvements, such as intersection improvements to 100th Ave. W (Westgate area). Refer to
Appendix A for a lighting diagram of the corridor.
TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS
The guiding principles emphasize safety for all modes. Understanding the transportation operations is
important to the safety issues. This section describes existing transportation operations along SR 104 for
each supported transportation mode: automobile, bicycle, pedestrians, and transit. Traffic flow, corridor
safety, speed, and parking are discussed as they relate to these four modes of travel.
Packet Page 142 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 15
TRAFFIC FLOW
Peak hour and average weekday daily traffic (AWDT) counts were collected at three locations along SR 104
in October 2014 (Figure 6). Counts were performed for a 24-hour period on Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Thursday, days which represent the most typical weekday traffic conditions. Daily traffic totals for the three
days were averaged to obtain the final AWDT values.
The corridor carries from 11,000 daily vehicles (mostly
stopped or moving slowly) at the Pine Street
intersection to more than 20,000 daily vehicles travelling
at 40 mph at the east end of the corridor.
AM peak hour counts range from 700 vehicles at the
Pine Street intersection up to 1,300 vehicles at the
Westgate area near 100th Ave W. PM peak hour counts
range from 900 vehicles at the west end of the corridor
to 1,600 vehicles between Westgate and the east end of
the corridor.
Afternoon commute traffic on SR 104 is heaviest in the northbound direction, while morning commute
patterns show similar volumes in both directions. As with the daily counts, AM and PM peak hour demand
is heaviest near Westgate and the east end of the corridor.
To better understand how peak hour travel patterns impact corridor traffic conditions, additional traffic
counts were collected at eight intersections along SR 104:
• 100th Avenue W
• 238th Street
• Meridian Avenue
• Sunset Avenue
• Dayton Street
• 226th Street
• 95th Place W
• 236th Street SW
FERRY TRAFFIC EFFECTS
Ferry loading and unloading can cause spikes
in vehicle volumes during a short timeframe.
Ferries leave Edmonds approximately every 45
minutes during peak periods, and with each
ferry holding up to 188 vehicles, this surge of
volume can affect the corridor.
Packet Page 143 of 491
èéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëííí
èéëìí
èéëìí
Puget
Sound
Snohomish County
King County
City of
Edmonds
104
99
ADT: 5,000
AM: 270
PM: 420ADT: 6,000
AM: 450
PM: 470
ADT: 10,300
AM: 660
PM: 900
ADT: 10,500
AM: 660
PM: 770
H
H
H
H
ADT: 11,000
AM: 680
PM: 1,010
ADT: 10,500
AM: 600
PM: 630
H
H
208th
S
t
SW
Adm
i
r
a
l
W
a
y
6t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
R
o
b
i
n
H
o
o
d
D
r
Caspers St
Sun
s
e
t
A
v
e
N
Fi
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
10
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
7 t h
A v e
N
226th St SW
3rd
A
v
e N
11
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
9 5t
h
Pl
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
O ly
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
212th St SW
Ti
m
b
e
r
L
n
Maple St
224th St SW
216th St SW
9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowd
o
i
n
W
a
y
3r
d
Av
e
S
Walnut St
Dayton St
200th St SW
98
t
h
Av
e
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
244th St SW
W o o d w a y P a r k R d
218th St SW
9 6 t h
A v e
W
92
n
d A
v
e
W
8 8 t h
A v e
W
Pine St
228th St SW
10
0
th
A
v
e
W
220th St SW
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
Av
e
W
Main St
7 6t
h
A
v
e
W
Ki
n
g
s
t
o
n
-
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
F
e
r
ry
Traffic Volumes
Figure 6
\\
f
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
E
1
4
-
0
3
6
0
_
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
_
S
R
1
0
4
_
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
F
i
g
6
_
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
.m
x
d
èéëìí Traffic Signal
èéëííí Emergency Signal
ADT: ###
AM: ###
PM: ###
Afternoon peak hour
vehicle traffic volume
Morning peak hour
vehicle traffic volume
Average daily
traffic volume
Packet Page 144 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 17
INTERSECTION TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of Service (LOS) is the primary measurement used to determine the operating quality of a roadway
segment or intersection. The quality of traffic conditions is graded into one of six LOS designations: A, B, C,
D, E, or F. Table 2 presents typical characteristics of the different LOS designations. LOS A and B represent
the fewest traffic slow-downs, and LOS C and D represent intermediate traffic congestion. LOS E indicates
that traffic conditions are at or approaching urban congestion; and LOS F indicates that traffic volumes are
at a high level of congestion and unstable traffic flow.
Level of Service Criteria
Methods described in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2010) were used to
calculate the LOS for signalized and stop-controlled intersections. Table 3 summarizes the LOS criteria for
signalized and stop-controlled intersections. LOS for intersections is determined by the average amount of
delay experienced by vehicles at the intersection. For stop-controlled intersections, LOS depends on the
average delay experienced by drivers on the stop-controlled approaches. Thus, for two-way or T-
intersections, LOS is based on the average delay experienced by vehicles entering the intersection on the
minor (stop-controlled) approaches. For all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is determined by the
average delay for all movements through the intersection. The LOS criteria for stop-controlled intersections
have different threshold values than those for signalized intersections, primarily because drivers expect
different levels of performance from distinct types of transportation facilities. In general, stop-controlled
intersections are expected to carry lower volumes of traffic than signalized intersections. Thus, for the same
LOS, a lower level of delay is acceptable at stop-controlled intersections than it is for signalized intersections.
Packet Page 145 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 18
TABLE 2. TYPICAL ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS
Level of Service Characteristic Traffic Flow
A
Free flow – Describes a condition of free flow with low volumes and high
speeds. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic
stream is extremely high. Stopped delay at intersections is minimal.
B
Stable flow – Represents reasonable unimpeded traffic flow operations at
average travel speeds. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only
slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are not
generally subjected to appreciable tensions.
C
Stable flow – In the range of stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are
more closely controlled by the higher volumes. The selection of speed is now
significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream, and
maneuvering within the traffic stream required substantial vigilance on the
part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines
noticeably at this level.
D
Stable flow – Represents high-density, but stable flow. Speed and freedom to
maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a
generally poor level of comfort and convenience- Small increases in traffic
flow will generally cause operational problems at this level.
E
Unstable flow – Represents operating conditions at or near the maximum
capacity level. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely
difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to
"give way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience
levels are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally
high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases
in flow or minor disturbances within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns
F
Forced flow – Describes forced or breakdown flow, where volumes are above
theoretical capacity. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic
approaching a point exceeds the amount that can traverse the point. Queues
form behind such locations, and operations within the queue are
characterized by stop-and-go waves that are extremely unstable. Vehicles
may progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, and
then be required to stop in a cyclical fashion.
Source: Transportation Research Board 2010
Packet Page 146 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 19
TABLE 3. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS
Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle)
LOS Designation Signalized Intersections Stop-Controlled Intersections
A ≤ 10 ≤ 10
B > 10 – 20 > 10 – 15
C > 20 – 35 > 15 – 25
D > 35 – 55 > 25 – 35
E > 55 – 80 > 35 – 50
F > 80 > 50
Source: Transportation Research Board 2010
Figure 7 shows the existing and 2035 forecasted LOS values along SR 104. All intersections along the
corridor will experience vehicular growth between 2015 and 2035. The average intersection volumes are
expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.5%.
Table 4 summarizes the existing and future traffic operations at eight intersections along SR 104, listed
from downtown Edmonds at Main Street to the intersection of SR 104 and 76th Ave W.
The traffic operations at the Main St and Dayton St signalized intersections are strongly affected by ferry
operations. While these intersections operate at LOS A during typical PM peak hour conditions, delays build
temporarily during ferry loading and unloading.
The signalized intersection at 100th Avenue W operates at LOS C, increasing to LOS D in 2035. Queues
occasionally exceed the established left turn pockets on both northbound and southbound approaches.
The intersection at 238th St. SW is a side-street stop controlled intersection. This intersection sees
substantial delay on the eastbound approach (LOS E), despite having a very low traffic volume. This delay
will increase substantially by 2035 due to growing volumes on SR 104 and fewer gaps available for traffic
entering from 238th St.
SR 104 and 76th Ave W is technically a Shoreline intersection, but it affects the overall traffic operations
along SR 104. Currently it operates at LOS C, but it is expected to degrade to LOS E by 2035. Heavy
westbound left turn volumes exceed the turn lane storage and affect through traffic conditions on SR 104.
A table summarizing the specific intersection results is provided in Appendix D.
Packet Page 147 of 491
!=
!=
!=
!=
!=
!=
!=
!=
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!=
!=
!=
!=
!=
!=
!=
!=
!=
!=
Puget
Sound
City of
Edmonds
104
99
Snohomish County
King County
208th
S
t
SW
Adm
i
r
a
l
W
a
y
6 th
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
R
o
b
i
n
H
o
o
d
D
r
Caspers St
Sun
s
e
t
A
v
e
N
Fi
r
d
a
le
A
v
e
10
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
7 t h
A v e
N
226th St SW
3rd
A
v
e
N
11
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
9t
h
A
v
e
N
Ol
y
mp
ic
Av
e
T im
b
e
r
L
n
Maple St
224th St SW
216th St SW
9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin W
ay3r
d
A
v
e
S
Walnut St
Dayton St
200th St SW
98
t
h
A
v
e
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
244th St SW
W o o d w a y P a r k R d
218th St SW
9 6 t h
A v e
W
92
n
d
A
ve
W
8 8 t h
A v e
W
Pine St
228th St SW
220th St SW
10
0
th
A
v
e
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
Main St
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
C D
C E
A A
A B
B B
A B
A B
A A
A B
E F
Kin
g
s
t
o
n
-
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
F
err
y
Intersection Level of Service - PM Peak Hour
!(Unsignalized Intersection
!(Signalized Intersection
Figure 7
\\
f
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
E
1
4
-
0
3
6
0
_
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
_
S
R
1
0
4
_
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
F
i
g
7
_
L
O
S
.
m
x
d
PM Peak Hour
Level of Service (LOS) Designation
!=A B
20352014
Packet Page 148 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 21
SAFETY
Along SR 104, the existing roadway geometry, multiple
driveway access points, relatively high vehicular volumes
and limited sight distance present potential safety
concerns. Collision data for vehicles were collected to
determine where design or operational concerns
translate into safety deficiencies.
Collision data were obtained from the City of Edmonds
over a period of five years (January 2009 – September
2014). There were a total of 324 collisions, for an average
of 68 collisions per year. Reports provided details about
individual collisions, including type, probable cause,
severity, and time-of-day (summarized in the text box).
Vehicle collision rates at study intersections can be seen
in Table 4. While the total number of collisions is larger
than those on most other Edmonds roadways, this can be
attributed to the larger volumes of vehicles on the
corridor. The collision rates are typical of urban arterials
and do not indicate a substantial safety problem. There are no recorded crashes that led to a fatality,
although 33% of the collisions resulted in injuries. Despite there not being many reported pedestrian or
bicycle collisions, exposure is high due to speeds and lack of separation from motor vehicles.
TABLE 4. TOTAL COLLISIONS AND COLLISION RATES
Location Collisions Collisions/year
Collision Rate
(PMEV)
Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue W 90 13.24 1.18
238th Street SW and Edmonds Way (SR 104) 7 1.03 0.14
244th Street SW (SR 104) and 76th Avenue W 18 2.65 0.18
SR 104 and Main Street 19 2.79 1.03
SR 104 and Dayton Street 21 3.09 0.62
SR 104 and 226th Street SW 9 1.32 0.18
SR 104 and 95th Place W 33 4.85 0.66
SR 104 and 236th Street SW 16 2.35 0.31
COLLISION STATISTICS
(JANUARY 2009 – SEPTEMBER
2014)
•Magnitude
o SR 104 and 100th Ave W had the
largest collision rate.
o The segment with the most
collisions is between 5th Ave S
& east of 100th Ave W
o No segment or intersection had
high collision rates
•Severity
o There were no reported
casualties during the timeframe
o 33% of the 324 total crashes led
to an injury
•The most cited collision type was
rear end.
Packet Page 149 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 22
For analysis purposes, SR 104 was split into 5 segments, with each segment showing various collision
statistics. (See Figure 8.) In general, most collisions that occurred on SR 104 were from rear end collisions,
caused by abrupt stops or trailing vehicle unawareness. Sight distance issues were referenced multiple
times. The emergency signal on 232nd St SW, which is constantly flashing yellow, led to confusion among
some drivers. Drivers unaccustomed to the signal would decelerate, leading to trailing vehicles being
surprised and an increase in rear end collisions.
SPEED
Speed is an important factor in the safety and perception of comfort along SR 104. Speed studies were
conducted at three locations along SR 104 in both the northbound and southbound directions. Figure 9
and Table 5 summarize the posted speed limit and observed speed levels at these locations. Two values
are shown:
• 85th Percentile Speed – 85 percent of motorists travel below this speed, and 15 percent of
motorists exceed this speed. Typically, the 85th percentile speed is used to establish posted speed
limits.
• Percent of drivers exceeding the speed limit
• Times of day in which over 10% of people exceeded the speed limit by at least 10 mph.
TABLE 5. OBSERVED CORRIDOR SPEEDS
Location on
SR 104
(Refer to
Figure 8)
Posted Speed
Limit (mph)
85th Percentile
Speed (mph)
Southbound Northbound
North 40 47 48
Central 35 37 40
South 40 46 47
Packet Page 150 of 491
- 23 crashes
(7% of total along SR 104)
- 4 involving injury
- 158 crashes
(49% of total along SR 104)
- 53 involving injury
- 76 crashes
(23% of total along SR 104)
- 28 involving injury
- 4 crashes
(1% of total along SR 104)
- 2 involving injury
- 63 crashes
(20% of total along SR 104)
- 21 involving injury
208th
S
t
SW
6 th
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
R
o
b
i
n
H
o
o
d
D
r
Caspers St
212th St SW
Su nse
t
A
v
e
N
Adm
i
r
a
l
W
a
y
Fi
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
10
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
7 t h
A v e
N
226th St SW
3rd
A
v
e
N
11
4
th
A
v
e
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
Ol
ym
p
i
c
A
v
e
Ti
m
b
e
r
Ln
Maple St
224th St SW
216th St SW
9t
h
Av
e
S
Bowd
oin W
a
y3r
d
A
v
e
S
200th St SW
Walnut St
Dayton St
218th St SW
98
t
h
A
v
e
W
5t
h
A
ve
S
244th St SW
W o o d w a y P a r k R d
9 6 t h
A v e
W
92
n
d
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Pine St
228th St SW
220th St SW
10
0t
h
A
v
e
W
8 0t
h
A
ve
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
Main St
\\
f
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
E
1
4
-
0
3
6
0
_
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
_
S
R
1
0
4
_
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
F
i
g
8
_
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
m
x
d
Crashes Along SR 104 (January 2009 - September 2014)
Figure 8
- 324 total crashes between
January 2009 - September 2014
- 68 crashes/year
- 0 fatalities
- 108 crashes leading to injury
Puget
Sound
Snohomish County
King County
City of
Edmonds
104
99
Packet Page 151 of 491
Yost
Park
||¡
|
|
¡
||¡
|
|
¡
||¡
|
|
¡
99
104
104
3rd
A
v
208th
S
t
S
W
7 th
Av
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
N
Ol
y
m
pi
c
A ve
6t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
R
o
b
i
n
H
o
o
d
D
r
212th St SW
Adm
i
r
a
l
W
a
y
Fi
r
d
a
le
A
v
e
10
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
226th St SW
11
4
t
h
Av
e
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
Ti
m
b
e
r
L
n
Maple St
224th St SW
216th St SW
9t
h
Av
e
S
Bowd
o
i
n
W
a
y
3r
d
Av
e
S
Walnut St
218th St SW
Dayton St
98
t
h
A
v
e
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
244th St SW
W o o d w a y P a r k R d
9 6 t h
A v e
W
92
n
d
A
ve
W
8 8 t h
A v e
W
Pine St
228th St SW
220th St SW
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
Main St
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
Average Weekday Vehicle Speeds Along SR 104
Speed Limit on State Route 104
35 mph
40 mph
\\
f
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
E
1
4
-
0
3
6
0
_
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
_
S
R
1
0
4
_
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
F
i
g
9
_
S
p
e
e
d
s
.
m
x
d
Figure 9
City of
Edmonds
30
35
40
45
50
55
12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
Time of Day
30
35
40
45
50
55
12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
Time of Day
30
35
40
45
50
55
12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
Time of Day
30
35
40
45
50
55
12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
Time of Day
30
35
40
45
50
55
12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
Time of Day
30
35
40
45
50
55
12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
Time of Day
30
35
40
45
50
55
12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
Time of Day
Average daily 85th % speed: 47.9 mph
Percent of drivers:
Exceeding speed limit: 82%
More than 10 mph over speed limit: 7%
Average daily 85th % speed: 47.2 mph
Percent of drivers:
Exceeding speed limit: 80%
More than 10 mph over speed limit: 6%
Average daily 85th % speed: 36.9 mph
Percent of drivers:
Exceeding speed limit: 28%
More than 10 mph over speed limit: <1%
Average daily 85th % speed: 39.6 mph
Percent of drivers:
Exceeding speed limit: 51%
More than 10 mph over speed limit: 2%
Average daily 85th % speed: 46.1 mph
Percent of drivers:
Exceeding speed limit: 67%
More than 10 mph over speed limit: 3%
Average daily 85th % speed: 46.5 mph
Percent of drivers:
Exceeding speed limit: 73%
More than 10 mph over speed limit: 4%
85% of people drive slower than this speed; 15%
exceed this speed
Posted speed limit
At this time of day, over 10% of people exceed
the speed limit by at least 10 mph
Speed limit changed to
35mph in early 2015
Packet Page 152 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 25
The north section of the corridor (i.e., 5th Ave S to Dayton Ave) experienced a speed limit drop from 40 mph
to 35 mph in early 2015. The speed data in Table 5 were collected before the speed limit change, and all
values and comparisons reflect the 40 mph speed limit in place during the data collection.
Results show that the majority of drivers exceed the posted speed limit throughout the study area.
Speeding is more prevalent in the north and south sections, while speeds are closer to the speed limit in
the commercial center section. For example, in the northern section, over 80 percent of drivers exceed the
posted speed. While speeding occurs throughout the corridor, the amount of extreme speeding is relatively
low. Time of day data associated with the observations indicate that most extreme speeding occurs at night,
especially in the early hours before the AM peak occurs.
Packet Page 153 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 26
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS
This section describes the pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the SR 104 study area.
Pedestrians
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks and crosswalks. Along SR 104, sidewalks are provided on at least one
side of the road for most of the study area. The lone exception occurs to the south of 5th Ave W, where a
pedestrian path is used off of the roadway instead. Figure 10 illustrates the existing sidewalks and walkways
within this portion of the city. The figure shows that the sidewalk system is most complete inside the core
area of downtown and the ferry terminal. Outside of this area, sidewalks are primarily located along roads
classified as collectors or arterials. Raised and striped walkways are generally associated with schools, and
provide safe walking routes.
Marked crosswalks are provided at the following locations:
Traffic Signals
• Main St,
• Dayton St.
• 226th St SW
• 100th Ave W
• 95th Pl W
• 236th St SW
• 76th Ave W
Midblock Crossings
• North of Pine Street (new HAWK signal)
• 5th Ave S (SB only)
Pedestrian push buttons are located at all signalized intersections.
The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1990 and amended in 2008. ADA requires
jurisdictions to provide accessible sidewalks primarily through the installation of ADA-compliant sidewalk
ramps. The design requirements address various areas of concern such as curb alignment with crosswalks,
narrower sidewalk width, obstacles such as utility poles, placement of the sidewalk adjacent to the curb, or
the slope of the ramps. Most of the SR 104 sidewalk ramps were constructed before ADA requirements.
As pedestrian improvements have been made along the corridor, the City has upgraded sidewalk ramps or
installed new ones in accordance with current standards.
Packet Page 154 of 491
$+ú
208th
S
t
SW
6 th
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
R
o
b
i
n
H
o
o
d
D
r
Caspers St
212th St SW
S u n s e t A v e N
Adm
i
r
a
l
W
a
y
Fi
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
10
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
7 t h
A v e
N
226th St SW
3rd
A
v
e
N
11
4
th
A
v
e
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
Ol
y
mp
i
c
A
v
e
Ti
m
b
e
r
Ln
Maple St
224th St SW
216th St SW
9t
h
Av
e
S
Bowd
oin W
a
y3r
d
A
v
e
S
200th St SW
Walnut St
Dayton St
218th St SW
98
t
h
A
v
e
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
244th St SW
W o o d w a y P a r k R d
9 6 t h
A v e
W
92
n
d
A
v
e
W
8 8 t h
A v e
W
Pine St
228th St SW
220th St SW
10
0t
h
A
v
e
W
8 0 t h
A v e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
Main St
Kingston-Ed
m
ondsFerry
Pedestrian Facilities
Existing Paved Walkway
Proposed Walkway Project
$+ú Pedestrian Crossing Treatment
Figure 10
\\
f
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
E
1
4
-
0
3
6
0
_
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
_
S
R
1
0
4
_
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
F
i
g
1
0
_
P
e
d
.
m
x
d
Puget
Sound
Snohomish County
King County
104
City of
Edmonds
99
Packet Page 155 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 28
Bicycles
SR 104 is not a designated bicycle route and has no bicycle lanes existing along the travelled way. However,
Edmonds is a well-connected city, and various bicycle facilities are available parallel to, and connecting with
the corridor.
Figure 11 shows existing and proposed
bicycle facilities within this portion of the
city. These facilities include bicycle routes,
bicycle lanes, trails, sharrows and bicycle
parking facilities. The bicycle projects
include bicycle lanes or bicycle routes that
can be added as part of future roadway
improvement projects. The projects are
concentrated around two major efforts:
creating east-west bicycle connections
between downtown Edmonds and the
Interurban Trail, and creating north-south
bicycle connections between the northern
and southern portions of Edmonds.
While SR 104 itself is not a designated bicycle route, the following roadways provide existing or proposed
convenient and safe bicycle travel within the study area;
East-West Travel
• Main St/Dayton St
• 220th St SW
• 226th St SW
• 228th St SW
• 244th St SW
• 238th/236th St SW
North-South Travel
• 3rd Ave S/Woodway Park RD
• 5th Ave S
• 9th Ave S/100th Ave W
• 84th Ave W
Bicycle parking is available throughout the city. The areas with the most parking options are along the
beaches, in downtown, and in the Westgate area.
There are also easy connections for cyclists to ferries, Sound Transit’s Sounder service, and Community
Transit. Bicycles are allowed on all of these systems. WSF provides a reduced fare for bicycles, Sound Transit
provides bicycle racks, and all Community Transit vehicles have bicycle racks.
Packet Page 156 of 491
¬l ¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l ¬l
¬l¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l¬l¬l
¬l
¬l¬l¬l¬l
¬l¬l
¬l¬l
¬l¬l¬l¬l¬l
¬l¬l¬l¬l¬l¬l
¬l¬l¬l¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l¬l¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
¬l
An
d
o
v
e
r
S
t
6t
h
A
v
e
S
EdmondsWay
Robin
H
o
o
d
D
r
Caspers St
Suns
e
t
A
v
e
N
A d m i r a l W a y
F
ir
d
ale
Ave10
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
7t
h
A
v
e
N
72
n
d
A
v
e
W
226th St SW
3rd A
v
e
N
186th St SW
11
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
Ti
m
b
e
r
L
n
Maple St
184th St SW
Puget Dr
9t
h
A
v
e
S
224th St SW
216th St SW
188th St SW
O l y m p i c
V i e w
D r
Bowdoin Wa
y
3r
d
A
v
e
S
Walnut St
Dayton St
200th St SW
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
98
t
h
A
v
e
W
208th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
S
244th St SW
W o o d w a y P a r k
R
d
218th St SW
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
92
n
d
A
v
e
W
Pine St
9t
h
A
v
e
N
228th St SW
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
212th St SW
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
Main St
220th St SW
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Kingston-EdmondsFerry
Bicycle Facilities
\\
f
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
E
1
4
-
0
3
6
0
_
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
_
S
R
1
0
4
_
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
F
i
g
1
1
_
B
i
k
e
.
m
x
d
¬l Proposed Bike Parking
¬l Existing Bike Parking/Locker
Bike Lane
Bike Route
Trail/Path
Bike Sharrow
Existing
Proposed
Major Bicycle Corridor
Figure 11
PugetSound
Snohomish CountyKing County
City ofEdmonds
104
99
!"#5
LakeBallinger
Packet Page 157 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 30
TRANSIT
EXISTING
Community Transit provides public transit service along portions of SR 104. Figure 12 shows the two bus
routes (130 and 416) that serve the corridor. Details of bus routes are described below:
Route 130 – Route 130 connects Edmonds Station to Aurora Village Transit Center in Shoreline, Mountlake
Terrace Transit Center and Lynnwood Transit Center. The route serves downtown Edmonds via W. Dayton
St, then travels on 5th Avenue S to reach SR 104. There are only two stops each direction on SR 104 before
the bus turns south onto 100th Avenue through the Firdale area. Route 130 operates weekdays at 30 minute
headways until 6pm and evenings, Saturdays/Sundays/Holidays with 60-minute headways. Route 130 is
the only local route that continues to serve the west side of the railroad tracks with stops at Brackett’s
Landing Park and the South County Center.
Route 416 – Route 416 is an express route between Edmonds and downtown Seattle. It serves SR 104
between 5th Avenue S and 238th St SW, where it turns off of SR 104 to approach the SWIFT Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) station on SR 99. Route 416 operates five runs on weekdays southbound between 5:45 am – 8:00 AM
and northbound between 3:30 pm – 6:00 PM.
Accessibility to fixed route transit is considered to be ideal when transit stops are located within 0.25 mile
of residents. Figure 12 shows that residents living along the SR 104 corridor have reasonably good walking
proximity to bus stops. As discussed previously, however, there are limited safe opportunities to cross SR
104 for access to/from bus stops.
Sound Transit provides four (4) round trips from Edmonds Station on the Sounder North commuter rail line.
These trips travel south from Everett in the AM peak period and return north in the PM peak period. King
Street Station (Downtown Seattle) is the only destination available from Edmonds. In Seattle, commuters
can connect with Link Light Rail and other transit routes. Edmonds Station is also served by Amtrak
Cascades and Empire Builder trains traveling to Vancouver, BC and Chicago, IL respectively.
King County Metro operates peak hour express and local routes in the study area south of the Snohomish-
King County line. The Rapid Ride E line BRT provides frequent direct service from Aurora Village Transit
Center where it connects with Swift BRT throughout the Hwy 99 corridor to downtown Seattle.
Packet Page 158 of 491
Æb
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1 I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1I1I1 I1I1I1
I1 I1 I1
I1I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1I1
I1 I1I1 I1
I1I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1 I1
èéëìí
èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëííí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
524
99
PugetSound
Snohomish CountyKing County
City ofEdmonds
104
99
LakeBallinger
Puge t D r
6
t
h
A v e
S
Ed
m
onds
W
ay
Robin
H
o
o
d
D
r
Admi
r
a
l
W
a
y
Caspers St
Suns
e
t
A
v
e
N
FirdaleAve
208th St SW
10
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
7t
h
A
v
e
N
72
n
d
A
v
e
W
226th St SW
3rd A
v
e
N
11
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
Ti
m
b
e
r
L
n
Maple St
9 t h
A v e
N
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
216th St SW9t
h
A
v
e
S
224th St SW
Bowdoin Wa
y
3r
d
A
v
e
S
Walnut St
Dayton St
200th St SW
98
t
h
A
v
e
W
5
t
h
A v e
S
244th St SW
W o o d w a y P a r k R d
212th St SW
218th St SW
9 6 t h
A v e
W
92
n
d
A
v
e
W
8 8 t h
A v e
W
Pine St
228th St SW10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
Main St
220th St SW
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Kingston-EdmondsFerry
Existing Transit ServiceFigure 12
\\
f
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
E
1
4
-
0
3
6
0
_
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
_
S
R
1
0
4
_
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
F
i
g
1
2
_
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
.
m
x
d
Community Transit Commuter Route (416)
Community Transit Local Route (130)
I1 Bus Stop
èéëìí Traffic Signal
èéëííí Emergency Signal
Æb Sounder Station / Park and Ride Lot
1/4-Mile Bus Stop Zone
Packet Page 159 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 32
FUTURE
Figure 13 depicts a future transit system with potential priority transit corridors shown in green. These
priority corridors would emphasize good daily transit service and bus stop amenities to make transit
attractive. With the expected opening of Link Light Rail to Lynnwood during the planning horizon, it is likely
that several Community Transit bus routes will be redesigned within Edmonds and surrounding areas to
integrate with light rail. SR 104 would provide a major transit corridor to tie into Link and SWIFT BRT. As
vehicle capacity on the Ferry is constrained, the walk-on transit passengers will need to increase to meet
this rising demand for travel alternatives.
The future transit plan also recommends new transit service along 100th Ave W/9th Ave S between Main
Street and SR 104. This local bus service would provide enhanced accessibility to Westgate and provide
connections to the priority transit corridor bus services. Any service changes would need to be closely
coordinated with Community Transit.
In addition, the city should coordinate with Sound Transit on improvements that will attract more riders to
Sounder north train service and access to the SR 104 corridor. Edmonds should seek reverse peak-direction
trips that could bring travelers to town in the AM peak period and return them to Seattle and points south
in the PM peak period.
Bus Stops along SR 104
Community Transit currently uses the bus pull-outs provided at several locations along SR 104. However,
the agency prefers having buses stop in the travel lane to avoid delays reentering the traffic stream.
Currently, the traffic volumes along SR 104 do not create many delays for buses, and the volume of buses
on the corridor is fairly low. This could change in the future depending on the service provided along the
priority transit corridors and access to Sound Transit Link light rail. At that time, the city could consider
removing the bus pull-outs tied to other SR 104 enhancements.
Packet Page 160 of 491
""X
""X
IA
IA
Æb
524
99
PugetSound
Snohomish CountyKing County
City ofEdmonds
104
99
Admir
a
l
W
a
y
6t
h
A
v
e
S
Edmonds
W
ay
Ro
bin
H
o
o
d
D
r
Caspers St
O l y m p i c V i e w
D
r
Suns
e
t
A
v
e
N
F
ir
d
ale
Ave10
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
7t
h
A
v
e
N
72
n
d
A
v
e
W
226th St SW
3rd A
v
e
N
11
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
Ti
m
b
e
r
L
n
Maple St
Puget Dr
9t
h
A
v
e
S
224th St SW
216th St SW
Bowdoin Wa
y
3r
d
A
v
e
S
Walnut St
Dayton St
200th St SW
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
98
t
h
A
v
e
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
244th St SW
W o o d w a y P a r k R d
218th St SW
9 6 t h
A v e
W
92
n
d
A
v
e
W
208th St SW
8 8 t h
A v e
W
Pine St
9t
h
A
v
e
N
228th St SW
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
212th St SW
196th St SW
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
Main St
220th St SW
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Future Priority Transit CorridorsFigure 13
\\
f
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
E
1
4
-
0
3
6
0
_
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
_
S
R
1
0
4
_
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
F
i
g
1
3
_
F
u
t
u
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
.
m
x
d
Existing Bus Route
New Transit Service Options
Priority Transit Corridor
Proposed Link Light Rail
Swift BRT
Swift BRT Stop
IA Park and Ride Lot
Æb Sounder Train Station
""X Link Light Rail Station
Note: When Light Rail is open, several existinglocal and regional bus routes will be redesignedwithin Edmonds and surrounding areas.
Proposed
Proposed §¨¦5
Packet Page 161 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 34
WASHINGTON STATE FERRIES
The Edmonds-Kingston ferry route connects the northern portion of the Kitsap Peninsula and the Olympic
Peninsula with northern King and southern Snohomish Counties. The route is 4.5 nautical miles long, and
takes approximately 30 minutes to traverse. The Edmonds-Kingston route operates seven days per week
year round, with average headways ranging between 35 and 70 minutes.
In 2013, the Edmonds-Kingston route carried 3.9 million people, at an average of 12,200 passengers per
day. This is slightly less than the 4.3 million people the route carried in 2006. The annual Washington State
Ferries Traffic Statistics Report indicates that in-vehicle boardings were the most prevalent, with about 86
percent of passengers boarding in this manner on the average weekday. Walk-on passengers constituted
14 percent of all passengers on an average weekday.
PARKING
Parking along the SR 104 corridor is limited to private off-street lots. There is no on-street parking allowed
on SR 104 itself. The largest concentration of parking is within the Westgate commercial area, with over
600 off-street spaces serving a variety of retail uses. While certain parking areas immediately adjacent to
the QFC and PCC supermarkets can be busy for short periods of the day, there is ample parking capacity
to meet the daily parking demands within the Westgate area. Parking supply and demand will be closely
monitored by the city as Westgate redevelops over time.
Packet Page 162 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 35
RECOMMENDED PLAN
The SR 104 Corridor Plan contains recommended projects that meet the study’s guiding principles
and can be phased over the next several years. The evaluated projects were developed in
coordination with the Technical Advisory Committee, public outreach, and city staff. The following
sections describe the corridor plan recommendations in further detail. The plan recognizes that
SR 104 passes through a wide variety of land use zones (see Figure 2) and is a major route
bisecting a predominantly conventional grid street system. This land use variety and road
alignment dictates the treatments that are appropriate to address safety, access, and mobility
needs.
The plan contains features important to the upgrade of corridor facilities for all modes-
pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. The plan features include:
• Basic roadway cross-section that contains two travel lanes in each direction and a
sidewalk along most sections. In some sections, the conversion of the two-way left-turn
lane to a median or dedicated turn lane (also referred to as access management
treatments) is an option.
• Pedestrian crosswalks with flashing beacons.
• Intersection treatments, such as traffic or pedestrian signal, turn pockets, turn radius
reductions (to shorten pedestrian crossing distances), better sight distance, and signage.
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility improvements.
The corridor plan does not recommend the addition of vehicle travel lanes, because the
Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and traffic analyses completed as part of the
City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan did not show the need for additional vehicle capacity.
Completing all of the proposed corridor projects is an expensive undertaking and will take several
years to fund and implement. The plan sets priorities and identifies some ‘quick win’ projects that
could be funded in the near future as funding becomes available. These ‘quick win’ projects are
projects that best meet the criteria developed to support the guiding principles.
Packet Page 163 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 36
CORRIDOR PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
The corridor plan consists of 20 projects grouped into six geographical regions from north
(Edmonds Ferry Terminal) to south, shown in Figures 14A to 14F and summarized in Table 6. The
total cost of the plan is approximately $8 million. The costs are considered to be conservative with
contingencies applied.
Packet Page 164 of 491
Fir Pl
Alder St
A d m i r a l W a y
Walnut St
Howell Way
Dayton St
3r
d
A
v
e
S
4t
h
A
v
e
S
Pine St
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
2n
d
A
v
e
S
No
o
t
k
a
R
d
Makah Rd
\\
F
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
E
1
4
-
0
3
6
0
_
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
_
S
R
1
0
4
_
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
m
x
d
Recommended Projects
Right of Way
Figure 14-A
!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
104
99
City ofEdmonds
Evaluate additional ferry storage
A1A1
GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps
and signals at appropriate locations
A2A2
Packet Page 165 of 491
!U
!U
!U
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
L
n
Fir Pl
WhitcombPl
M
a
k
a
h
R
d
Birch St
13th Way SW
2n
d
A
v
e
S
6 t h
P l
S
Fir St
E
l
m
W
a
y
Elm St
Kulshan R d
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
A
A
v
e
S
W o o d w a y P a r k R d
6t
h
A
v
e
S
5t
h
A
v
e
S
Elm
P
l
4t
h
A
v
e
S
3r
d
A
v
e
S
\\
F
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
E
1
4
-
0
3
6
0
_
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
_
S
R
1
0
4
_
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
m
x
d
Recommended Projects
Right of Way
Figure 14-B
!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
104
99
City ofEdmonds
B1B1
Provide ADA ramps to cross SR 104
Implement flashing beacon
Speed limit feedback sign (25mpg) on exit to
5th Ave N for westbound traveling vehicles
5th Avenue
GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps
and signals at appropriate locations
Packet Page 166 of 491
+
+
+
+
97
t
h
P
l
W
226th Pl SW
232nd Pl SW
8t
h
P
l
S
227th Pl SW
9 9 t h
A v e
W
2
2
5
t
h
Pl SW
7t
h
P
l
S
226th St SW
8t
h
A
v
e
S
1
4
t
h Way SW
2 2 8 t h
S t S W
232nd St SW
15th St SW
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
10
5
t
h
A
v
e
W
9 8t
h
A
v
e
W
1
0
2
n
d
P
l
W
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
\\
f
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
E
1
4
-
0
3
6
0
_
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
_
S
R
1
0
4
_
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
m
x
d
Recommended Projects
Right of Way
Figure 14-C
!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
104
99
City ofEdmondsC1C1
C2C2
C3C3
Install Westgate “Gateway” sign
in eastbound direction
Access management 100th Ave W
to 102nd Pl W
226th St SW / 15th Street SW
Provide signage directing pedestrians to
cross south approach (across SR 104)
Add “Right Turns Yield to Pedestrians”
signage on eastbound 226th St
Add bike detection for traffic signal
Add exclusive pedestrian phase
Extend SR 104 westbound left turn lane
to 226th St SW
GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps
and signals at appropriate locations
Midblock pedestrian connection
(location to be determinded)
Implement Westgate Circulation
Access Plan (see Figure 5)
Midblock pedestrian connection
between QFC and PCC
100th Ave W
C4C4
C5C5
To Main Street
C7C7
Option: Rechannelize for bicycles
(along 100th Ave)
C6C6
Packet Page 167 of 491
+
+
+
226th Pl SW
93
r
d
A
v
e
W
9 6 t h P l W
231st St SW
227th St S W
232nd Pl SW
94
t
h
A
v
e
W
94
th
P
l
W
231st P l S W
93
r
d
P
l
W
97
t
h
A
v
e
W
234th St SW
95
t
h
P
l
W
92
n
d
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
232nd St SW
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
9
1
s
t
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
90
t
h
A
v
e
W
\\
F
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
E
1
4
-
0
3
6
0
_
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
_
S
R
1
0
4
_
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
m
x
d
Recommended Projects
Right of Way
Figure 14-D
!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
104
99
City ofEdmonds
D3D3
D1D1
D2D2
Change traffic signal to protected left-turn signal phasing
Update ADA Ramps
Add C-curbs for access management
Relocate westbound speed limit to
east of intersection
Install Westgate Gateway sign in
westbound direction
Install HAWK signal with emergency vehicle activation
Maintain early emergency vehicle detections
D4D4
GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps
and signals at appropriate locations
Packet Page 168 of 491
+
+
+
85
t
h
A
v
e
W
91
s
t
P
l
W
234th St SW
91
s
t
A
v
e
W
86
t
h
A
v
e
W
89
t
h
P
l
W
87
t
h
A
v
e
W
8 8 t hA
v e
W
234th Pl SW
242nd St SW
236th St SW
238th St SW
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
240th St SW
88
t
h
P
l
W
\\
F
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
E
1
4
-
0
3
6
0
_
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
_
S
R
1
0
4
_
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
m
x
d
Recommended Projects
Right of Way
Figure 14-E
!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
104
99
City ofEdmonds
238th Street SW
Install traffic signal
Coordinate signal with 236th St SW
Revise geometry on 238th St SW for safer turns
Add bus pullout on SR 104 on NE corner
Install “Welcome to Edmonds” gateway
sign westbound on SR 104
240th Street SW
236th Street SW
E1E1
E2E2
E3E3
E4E4
GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps
and signals at appropriate locations
Provide updated curb ramps, signals,
and pedestrian facilities to meet
current ADA standards
Coordinate traffic signal with 238th St SW
Packet Page 169 of 491
+
239t
h
P
l
S
W
N
204th Pl
242nd Pl SW
Bu
r
k
e
A
v
e
N
A s h w o r t h
P l
N
N 201st St
N 205th St
7 4t
h
A v eW240thStSW
77
t
h
P
l
W
241st St SW
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
ay
78
t
h
P
l
W
N 203rd St
N 200th St
242nd St SW
Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
A
v
e
N
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
7 9 t h P l W
N 203rd
P
l
Wa
l
l
i
n
g
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
N
\\
F
p
s
e
0
3
\
f
p
s
e
2
\
D
a
t
a
2
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
E
1
4
-
0
3
6
0
_
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
_
S
R
1
0
4
_
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
\
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
m
x
d
Recommended Projects
Right of Way
Figure 14-F
!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
104
99
City ofEdmonds
F1F1
Add Westbound Left turn lane
GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps
and signals at appropriate locations
Packet Page 170 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 43
TABLE 6. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS
#1 Project
Location Project Description Estimated Cost
($1,000) Rating
A1
Ferry Terminal /
Main Street to Pine
Street
Additional Ferry Storage. $ 490 30
A2 Pine Street & SR
104
Improve west approach to meet current ADA
standards. Sign restricting pedestrian crossing of SR
104.
$ 66 30
B1 5th Avenue and SR
104
Add crosswalk and pedestrian actuated flashing
beacons to connect pedestrian path to and from the
bus stop. Speed limit feedback sign for WB traffic
exiting onto 5th Ave. Provide ADA ramps to cross SR
104, accompanied by flashing beacons.
$ 440 34
C1 226th Street SW/
15th Street SW
Provide signage directing pedestrians to cross south
approach. Add "Right Turns Yield to Pedestrians" on
eastbound 226th. Add bicycle loop for signal on
226th St. Extend SR 104 westbound left turn lane.
$ 194 43
C2 Near 15th Way SW Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound. $ 55 22
C3 100th Avenue W to
102nd Place W Access Management $ 314 26
C4 Westgate Area Implement Westgate Circulation Access plan. $ 165 39
C5 100th Avenue W
(North of SR 104)
Midblock pedestrian connection between QFC and
PCC. $ 132 43
C6 100th Avenue W
(South of SR 104) Midblock pedestrian connection (Location TBD). $ 132 43
C7 100th Avenue W Rechannelize for bicycle lanes and mid-block
pedestrian crossings. (See projects C5 and C6) $ 588 38
D1 West of 95th Place
on SR 104
Relocate westbound speed limit to east of
intersection. $ 11 26
D2 West of 95th
Place W Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound. $ 55 22
Packet Page 171 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 44
#1 Project
Location Project Description Estimated Cost
($1,000) Rating
D3 95th Place W
Intersection
Change signal to protected left-turn signal phasing.
Update ADA ramps. Add C curbs for access
management.
$ 495 30
D4 232nd Street SW Install HAWK signal with emergency vehicle
activation. Maintain early emergency detections. $ 1,535 32
E1 236th Street SW
Provide updated curb ramps, signals, and pedestrian
facilities to meet current ADA standards. Coordinate
signal with 238th St SW.
$ 531 34
E2 238th Street SW Install Traffic Signal. Coordinate signal with 236th St
SW. Revise geometry for safer turns. $ 1,338 36
E3 240th Street SW Include current ADA standards for side streets. Add
sign to prevent pedestrian crossing of SR 104. $ 110 26
E4 West of SR 99 on SR
104 "Welcome to Edmonds" sign $ 55 22
F1 SR 104 & 76th
Avenue W
Add a second westbound left turn lane; bicycle lane
striping through intersection on 76th Avenue $ 3,017 21
G Along the SR 104
Corridor
Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at
appropriate locations $ 534 38
Total $10,257
1 Corresponds to identification numbers on Figures 14A through 14F
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
The projects in Table 6 were rated using criteria that were developed based on the projects
guiding principles. The prioritization criteria were as follows:
• Safety elements of the proposed projects were evaluated based on whether they
enhanced safety. Some traffic collision data along the corridor was available to review
mostly intersection related issues. Public input on locations with safety concerns were
also incorporated into the evaluation. Improvements that received a higher rating
improved a known high collision area or addressed a safety concern. Because there were
Packet Page 172 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 45
no areas of recorded high collision rates all projects received either a lower or medium
rating.
• Accessibility components of the proposed projects were evaluated whether they
provide access to various transportation modes along the corridor and/or connect land
uses. Projects that rated high improved access for multiple modes or removed an
existing access barrier (completed a movement that could not be made today).
• Identity improvements were evaluated based on a proposed projects consistency with
the SR 104 corridors identity and surrounding land uses. Projects that enhanced the
identity of the area received a higher rating. Examples include additional ferry storage to
reduce the queue length and place marker signs such as the Westgate signs. Because all
projects were developed with the guiding principles in mind, no project was considered
to diminish (receive a lower rating) the identity of the corridor or surrounding land uses.
• Financial investment for the proposed projects was evaluated based the range of
estimated improvement costs. Projects with an estimated construction cost of less than
$100,000 received a higher rating while improvements over $1 million received a lower
rating. These cost ranges represent a general level of complexity and difficulty for a
projects implementation. Half of the proposed projects are estimated to cost less than
$100,000.
• Grant Eligibility was evaluated qualitatively based on the project teams (which included
city staff) understanding of the current grant environment. Generally, improvements that
benefited walking and bicycling, improved connections to schools, and/or addressed
safety received a higher rating.
Table 7 summarizes the weighting and rating for each prioritization criteria. Guidance on how
the ratings were evaluated is also provided.
TABLE 7. PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTING
Criterion Weight Rating
Lower Medium Higher
Safety 5 Limited or no effect Direct safety benefit Improves high collision
location
Accessibility 4 Limited or no effect
Improves single mode,
enhances an existing
crossing
Improves multiple modes,
completes a crossing that
can’t be made today
Identity 1 Diminishes identity Neutral effect Enhances identity
Financial 2 High project cost
(>$1,000,000)
Medium project cost
($100,000-$1,000,000)
Low project cost
(<$100,000)
Grant
Eligibility 4 Low likelihood of grant
funding
Likely to compete for
grant funds
Good potential for grant/
other funding
Packet Page 173 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 46
Table 6 includes the ratings (higher, medium, or lower) for each project using these criteria.
Appendix B includes the detailed prioritization results and more complete project descriptions.
A summary of project costs and the percent of costs for higher, medium, and lower ratings is
summarized in Table 9.
TABLE 8. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS
Rating Cost Percent of Cost
Higher $1,745 30%
Medium $4,895 35%
Lower $3,617 35%
Total $10,257 100%
Over 60 percent of the corridor plan costs are represented by proposed projects that rate as higher
or medium priority. The prioritization process will be helpful to the city seeking grant funds or
packaging project elements along the corridor.
QUICK WIN PROJECTS
Realizing the high implementation cost of the entire plan, the team identified several actions that
could produce immediate benefits – “quick wins”. Table 10 lists these quick win projects in order
of priority rating. The total quick win project costs total $1,305,000. Sixty (60) percent of the quick
win project costs are tied to higher or medium priority projects. Several are also tied to the
implementation of the Westgate Plan.
Packet Page 174 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 47
TABLE 9. QUICK WIN PROJECTS
# Rating1 Project
Location Project Description
Estimated
Cost
($1,000)
C1 H
226th Street
SW/ 15th Street
SW
Provide signage directing pedestrians to cross south approach. Add "Right Turns
Yield to Pedestrians" on eastbound 226th. Add bicycle loop for signal on 226th St.
Extend SR 104 westbound left turn lane.
$194
C4 H Westgate Area Implement Westgate Circulation Access plan. $165
C5 H
100th Avenue
W (North of SR
104)
Midblock pedestrian connection between QFC and PCC. $132
C6 H
100th Avenue
W (South of SR
104)
Midblock pedestrian connection (Location TBD). $132
B1 M 5th Avenue and
SR 104
Add crosswalk and pedestrian actuated flashing beacons to connect pedestrian
path to and from the bus stop. Speed limit feedback sign for WB traffic exiting
onto 5th Ave. Provide ADA ramps to cross SR 104, accompanied by flashing
beacons.
$440
A2 M Pine Street &
SR 104
Improve west approach to meet current ADA standards. Sign restricting pedestrian
crossing of SR 104. $66
C2 L Near 15th Way
SW Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound. $55
D1 L
West of 95th
Place on SR
104
Relocate westbound speed limit to east of intersection. $11
D2 L West of 95th
Place W Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound. $55
E4 L West of SR 99
on SR 104 "Welcome to Edmonds" sign $55
1Rating: L=Lower; M=Medium; H=High
TOTAL: $1,305
Packet Page 175 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 48
WESTGATE PLAN CONCEPT
A key part of the SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis was to examine transportation and land use
interactions within the Westgate area. Appendix C contains the results of this investigation, consisting of
a memorandum by Joseph Tovar (1/28/15) that summarizes the team’s review of a variety of
transportation, land use and urban design issues, and a memorandum by Fehr & Peers (1/26/15) that
focusses on the transportation issues. The setback in Appendix C is included in the Study as part of the
consultant’s recommendation. The City adopted the use of a different setback on April 7, 2015 as part of
Westgate Code Adoption (Westgate Mixed Use Zone District Ordinance/ Ordinance No. 3993).
This section provides additional transportation perspectives on the following questions:
1. What are the long-term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue W
through Westgate?
2. How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated?
3. How should property access and internal circulation be considered?
Packet Page 176 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 49
What are the long-term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue W through
Westgate?
The team evaluated the current and forecasted (2035) traffic volumes, speeds and movements on SR 104
and 100th Avenue W. Both SR 104 and 100th Avenue W have sufficient capacity to serve forecasted
increases in traffic volumes. The City may choose to re-stripe either or both roads and re-phase the signal
at the intersection to meet mobility and safety objectives; however, neither action depends on the
acquisition of additional right-of-way.
How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated?
Bicycles
Bicycle facilities are not envisioned along SR
104, but other parallel and connecting
bicycle routes are included within the
comprehensive transportation plan.
Bicycle lanes on 100th Avenue W are
included in the city’s Comprehensive
Transportation Plan. 100th Avenue W is an
important non-motorized north/south link
between the cities of Shoreline and
Edmonds. As discussed in the text box, the
team examined a potential re-
channelization on 100th Avenue W to
accommodate bicycle lanes.
Within Westgate, bicycles could be
accommodated on private property
pursuant to proposed amendments to the
draft Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zoning
district. These enhancements would tie in
well with the bicycle treatments along 100th
Avenue W.
What About Creating Bicycle Lanes on 100th Avenue?
The team analyzed an option to rechannelize 100th
Avenue W (from the south city boundary to Main
Street) to allow for dedicated bicycle lanes and safer
pedestrian crossings. This rechannelization would have
a 3-lane cross section plus bicycle lanes, planter strips
and sidewalks. The traffic analysis indicated that a 3-
lane section would operate acceptably under existing
traffic conditions. In the future, this design would also
be expected to work well to the south and north of SR
104. At the SR 104/100th Avenue intersection, vehicle
delays would increase on the north and south
approaches of 100th Avenue and may exceed the city’s
desirable Level of Service at that location. Retaining a
northbound right turn lane on 100th Avenue
approaching SR 104 would reduce vehicle delays;
however, some roadway widening might be needed to
retain the bicycle lane in that location.
The re-channelization concept represents a tradeoff
between auto queueing and delay versus and creating a
continuous bike lane and a ‘calmer’ traffic environment.
A more in-depth corridor analysis and design is desirable
to examine these tradeoffs.
Packet Page 177 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 50
Pedestrians
Pedestrians need to have a safe and pleasant environment along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W, crossing
those streets, and internally within private properties. Pedestrians would benefit by having wider
sidewalks along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W along with the installation of highly visible crosswalk panels
and/or pavement at the intersection of SR 104/100th Avenue W 1.
Two midblock pedestrian crossings of 100th Avenue W are recommended, one connecting the entrances
of the QFC and PCC to the north, and another one located to the south of SR 104. These pedestrian
crossings could also serve as traffic calming and safety devices along 100th Avenue W.
How should property access and internal circulation be considered?
The Westgate area is bisected into four quadrants by SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. Vehicular access is
provided at each quadrant by a variety of driveways, serving a mix of individual and grouped properties.
The northeast quadrant has been recently redeveloped, with upgraded access points along SR 104 and
100th Avenue W. The other quadrants provide a mix of access points, some of which pose safety and
circulation problems.
As shown in Figure 15, the Westgate plan envisions consolidation of driveways within each quadrant and
encouragement of internal circulation between properties. This will reduce in- and -out driving on the
arterials and encourage one-stop parking. The plan also recommends access management treatments
using curbing along SR 104 to the west of 100th Avenue (see Project C-3 in Table 6). This treatment will
improve safety for turning vehicles into and out of the Westgate area and facilitate driveway
consolidation.
The signal at the SR 104/100th Avenue W intersection provides full pedestrian crosswalks and
signalization, although crossing these roadways is not always a pleasant experience. Implementing
wider sidewalks and urban design features at this intersection will encourage more pedestrian
connections among the four Westgate quadrants.
1 The Tovar memorandum provides details regarding the use of urban design treatments to improve the pedestrian
experience in Westgate.
Packet Page 178 of 491
Westgate Access Management Conceptual Plan
Figure 15
Existing driveway
Existing driveway link to internal circulation drive
Conceptual internal circulation drive
Consolidate driveways
SR 104
10
0
th
A
v
e
W
Packet Page 179 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 52
ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION
SR 104 is largely built-out within its 80+- foot right-of-way. However, there are opportunities to make
more efficient use of the available width or to add mobility improvements by acquiring some additional
right-of-way.
Currently, the predominant five-lane cross section consists of four 12 foot travel lanes, a 13 foot left turn
lane and sidewalks that vary in width from 5.5 to 7.5 feet. Some sections have planter strips where new infill
development has occurred.
Two potential cross-sections are depicted in Figure 16. The top diagram shows a ‘full-build’ section that
would be preferred if the roadway were rebuilt. Slightly narrower travel lanes would provide opportunities
for a wider sidewalk and planter strips. As shown, an additional 2 feet of right-of-way may be required on
both sides of the corridor.
The bottom diagram shows what could be accomplished with a roadway overlay project. The curb locations
would not change. The travel lanes would be reduced in width, providing a 1-3 foot buffer between the
outside travel lane and the sidewalk. This buffer would provide some visual separation between vehicles
and pedestrians and offer a slight increase in sight distance.
As new development occurs within the corridor, hybrid cross sections are possible, in which the existing
curbs remain but width is added for planter strips and wider sidewalks. In some cases, this requires
dedication of some right-of-way by the developer.
Packet Page 180 of 491
SR 104 Preferred Cross Sections
Figure 16
Packet Page 181 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 A-1
APPENDIX A
Project Diagrams
Packet Page 182 of 491
Packet Page 183 of 491
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
4
o
f
4
9
1
May 19, 2015 - 5:28pm rpfiefle C:\Users\RPfiefle\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_16864\20140195 PB with McD's options.dwg Layout Name: McD-Taco Bell Preferred
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
5
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
6
o
f
4
9
1
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 C-1
APPENDIX B
Prioritization Results
Packet Page 187 of 491
Appendix B
Project ID Rating Location
Sa
f
e
t
y
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Id
e
n
t
i
t
y
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
Gr
a
n
t
E
l
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Total Priority Rating Description
Estimated
Cost
A1 M
Ferry Terminal / Main Street to
Pine Street 13331 30 Additional Ferry Storage. 489,500$
A2 M Pine Street & SR 104 22231 30
Improve west approach to meet current ADA
standards. Sign restricting pedestrian crossing
of SR-104.
66,000$
B1 M 5th Avenue and SR 104 22232 34
Add crosswalk and pedestrian actuated flashing
beacons to connect pedestrian path to and
from the bus stop. Speed limit feedback sign
for WB traffic exiting onto 5th Ave. Provide
ADA ramps to cross SR-104, accompanied by
flashing beacons.
440,000$
C1 H
226th Street SW/ 15th Street
SW 23333 43
Provide signage directing pedestrians to cross
south approach. Add "Right Turns Yield to
Pedestrians" on eastbound 226th. Add bike
loop for signal on 226th St. Extend SR 104
westbound left turn lane. Modify signal to
provide pedestrian only phase.
193,600$
C2 L Near 15th Way SW 11331 22
Install Westgate Gateway sign facing
eastbound.55,000$
C3 L
100th Avenue W to 102nd
Place W 21231 26 Access Management 314,000$
C4 H Westgate Area 23332 39 Implement Westgate Circulation Access plan.165,000$
C5 H
100th Avenue W (North of SR
104)23333 43
Midblock pedestrian connection between QFC
and PCC.132,000$
Criteria Weight
Packet Page 188 of 491
Appendix B
Project ID Rating Location
Sa
f
e
t
y
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Id
e
n
t
i
t
y
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
Gr
a
n
t
E
l
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Total Priority Rating Description
Estimated
Cost
Criteria Weight
C6 H
100th Avenue W (South of SR
104)23333 43
Midblock pedestrian connection (Location
TBD).132,000$
C7 H 100th Avenue W 22233 38
Rechannelize for bicycle lanes and mid-block
pedestrian crossings 588,468$
D1 L West of 95th Place on SR 10421231 26
Relocate westbound speed limit to east of
intersection.11,000$
D2 L West of 95th Place W 11331 22
Install Westgate Gateway sign facing
eastbound.55,000$
D3 M 95th Place W Intersection 22231 30
Change signal to protected left-turn signal
phasing. Update ADA ramps. Add C curbs for
access management.
495,000$
D4 M 232nd Street SW 22222 32
Install HAWK signal with emergency vehicle
activation. Maintain early emergency
detections.
1,534,716$
E1 M 236th Street SW 22232 34
Provide updated curb ramps, signals, and
pedestrian facilities to meet current ADA
standards. Coordinate signal with 238th St SW.
531,330$
E2 M 238th Street SW 23222 36
Install Traffic Signal. Coordinate signal with
236th St SW. Revise geometry for safer turns.1,337,960$
E3 L 240th Street SW 21231 26
Include current ADA standards for side streets.
Add sign to prevent pedestrian crossing of SR
104.
110,000$
E4 L West of SR 99 on SR 104 11331 22 "Welcome to Edmonds" sign 55,000$
F1 L SR 104 & 76th Avenue W 11212 21
Add a second westbound left turn lane, bicycle
striping 3,017,000$
G H Along the SR 104 Corridor 23232 38
Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals
at appropriate locations 534,000$
54124 TOTAL:10,257,000$
Packet Page 189 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 C-2
Appendix C
Westgate Memoranda
Packet Page 190 of 491
1001 4th Avenue | Suite 4120 | Seattle, WA 98154 | (206) 576-4220 | Fax (206) 576-4225
www.fehrandpeers.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 26, 2015
To: Bertrand Hauss, City of Edmonds
From: Donald Samdahl, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Westgate Area Transportation Analysis
SE14-0360
As part of the SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis, the consulting team was asked to
focus initial analysis on the Westgate area. A memorandum by Joseph Tovar (1/28/15)
summarizes the team’s review of a variety of transportation, land use and urban design issues.
This memorandum provides additional transportation perspectives on the following questions:
1. What are the long‐term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and
100th Avenue W through Westgate?
2. How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated?
3. How should property access and internal circulation be considered?
This memorandum provides insights into each of these issues to help the city in finalizing its
form‐based code requirements.
What are the long-term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue W
through Westgate?
The team evaluated the current and forecasted traffic volumes, speeds and movements on
SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. This analysis took into account traffic forecasts to 2035, including
the effects of WSDOT ferry traffic and the impacts from build‐out of the Point Wells
development.
Packet Page 191 of 491
Bertrand Hauss
1/26/2015
Page 2 of 7
SR 104
WSDOT considers SR 104 as a ‘Main Street Roadway’ that has a multimodal focus and has no
plans to widen SR 104 through Edmonds. Our traffic forecasts and analysis confirm that no
additional widening/capacity is needed through Westgate.
100th Avenue W
Traffic volumes are anticipated to increase along 100th Avenue W; however, the projected traffic
increase could be accommodated with the existing lane configuration. No additional right‐of‐
way along 100th Avenue W is needed to provide for traffic flow and the wider sidewalk/planter
strip requirements.
Intersection Analysis
The team analyzed future (2035) traffic volumes and traffic operations at the SR 104/100th
Avenue W intersection. If no changes are made to the channelization, the intersection would
operate at Level of Service (LOS) D during the PM peak hour. The team also analyzed a road diet
on 100th Avenue W to allow for bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks through Westgate. The road
diet proposes a 3‐lane cross section plus bicycle lanes, planter strips and sidewalks (see
Figures 1 and 2). On the northbound 100th Avenue W approach to SR 104, the team
recommends the inclusion of a right turn lane to accommodate heavy right turning volumes (see
Figure 3). Adding a northbound right‐turn lane would eliminate the planter strip for the length
of the right turn lane. The resulting LOS would remain at D, although the overall intersection
delay would be slightly worse with the road diet compared to existing conditions. A LOS of D
meets the city’s performance threshold for acceptable intersection operations1. Under both
scenarios, delays could be reduced by allowing permissive + protected left turns on the
100th Avenue W approaches to the intersection.
In summary, both SR 104 and 100th Avenue W would have sufficient capacity to serve forecasted
increases in traffic volumes. The City may choose to re‐stripe either or both roads and re‐phase
the signal at the intersection to meet mobility and safety objectives; however, neither action
depends on the acquisition of additional right‐of‐way.
1 SR 104 is a Highway of Statewide Significance and has a LOS E standard per WSDOT guidelines.
Packet Page 192 of 491
Bertrand Hauss
1/26/2015
Page 3 of 7
Figure 1. Proposed SR 104/100th Avenue W Channelization
Packet Page 193 of 491
Bertrand Hauss
1/26/2015
Page 4 of 7
Figure 2. 100th Avenue W with 3-Lane Cross Section
Figure 3. 100th Avenue W with 3-Lane plus northbound Right-Turn Lane Cross Section
Packet Page 194 of 491
Bertrand Hauss
1/26/2015
Page 5 of 7
How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated?
Bicycles
Bicycle facilities are not envisioned along SR 104, but other parallel and connecting bike routes
are included within the comprehensive transportation plan.
Bicycle lanes on 100th Avenue W are likely to become part of the city’s long‐range plan.
100th Avenue W is an important non‐motorized north/south link between the cities of Shoreline
and Edmonds. As discussed above, the team examined a potential road diet on 100th Avenue W.
This would convert the existing 4‐lanes into a 3‐lane configuration plus bike lanes. This layout is
projected to function acceptably for traffic and provide for a continuous bicycle lane through
the Westgate area.
As indicated in the Tovar memorandum, bicycles could be accommodated on private property
pursuant to proposed amendments to the draft Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zoning district.
These enhancements would tie in well with the bicycle treatments along 100th Avenue W.
Pedestrians
Pedestrians need to have a safe and pleasant environment along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W,
crossing those streets, and internally within private properties. As summarized by Tovar,
pedestrians would benefit by having wider sidewalks along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W along
with the installation of highly visible crosswalk panels and/or pavement at the intersection of
SR 104/100th Avenue W2. This intersection will provide the primary pedestrian connections
among the Westgate quadrants.
2 The Tovar memorandum provides details regarding the use of urban design treatments to improve the
pedestrian experience in Westgate.
Packet Page 195 of 491
Bertrand Hauss
1/26/2015
Page 6 of 7
A possible midblock pedestrian crossing of 100th Avenue W connecting the entrances of the QFC
and PCC was also considered. The midblock crossing appears to be physically and operationally
feasible, but requires additional analysis and coordination with property owners. This crossing
could also serve as a traffic calming and safety device along 100th Avenue W because the nearby
driveways could be reconfigured to provide right‐in/right‐out movements.
How should property access and internal circulation be considered?
The Westgate area is bisected into four quadrants by SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. Vehicular
access is provided at each quadrant by a variety of driveways, serving a mix of individual and
grouped properties. The northeast quadrant has been recently redeveloped, with upgraded
access points along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. The other quadrants provide a mix of access
points, some of which pose safety and circulation problems.
Tovar’s memorandum encourages consolidation of driveways within each quadrant and provide
maximum internal circulation between properties. This will reduce in and out driving on the
arterials and encourage one‐stop parking. Tovar describes specific access treatments within
each quadrant3. One access treatment to improve safety is the designation of right‐in/right‐out
movements at selected driveways. Tovar’s memorandum identifies some specific locations
where these restrictions may be considered. To address staff and resident concerns about
vehicles ‘darting’ across SR 104 and 100th Avenue W at driveways, a detailed access
management plan for this area could be developed. This plan could serve to enhance aesthetics
through landscaped medians, safety through directing vehicles to turn at predictable and
controlled locations, and accessibility through new and enhanced pedestrian crossing. Vehicular
3 Tovar Memorandum: Property vehicular access within Westgate should be controlled with
additional WMU zoning district access management standards. These standards would essentially:
(a) “freeze” the driveway locations on SR 104 east of 100th Ave. W. ;(b) eliminate or consolidate the
existing driveways on 100th Ave W. (particularly the QFC and Bartell quadrants) and: (c) eliminate or
consolidated the driveways on SR 104 west of 100th Ave W. Flexibility in the specific location and
dimensions of driveways should be administered through the Code’s review process of future site
plan/building permit applications.
Packet Page 196 of 491
Bertrand Hauss
1/26/2015
Page 7 of 7
connections between quadrants take place through the SR 104/100th Avenue W intersection.
Some midblock vehicle crossings of 100th Avenue W take place, notably between PCC and QFC.
These movements are problematic, especially during peak periods. There are no reasonable
options to provide additional signalized vehicular crossings between quadrants, but there may
be opportunities for midblock pedestrian crossings. As described above, safe and efficient
pedestrian connections between QFC and PCC would reduce the need for people to drive
between the two sites.
The signal at the SR 104/100th Avenue W intersection provides full pedestrian crosswalks and
signalization, although crossing these roadways is not always a pleasant experience.
Implementing wider sidewalks and urban design features at this intersection will encourage
more pedestrian connections among the four Westgate quadrants.
Packet Page 197 of 491
1
TO: City of Edmonds
FROM: Joseph W. Tovar, FAICP
DATE: January 28, 2015
SUBJ: Westgate Form Based Code in the SR 104 Corridor
I. Executive Summary
In the fall of 2014, the City Council began its review of the Planning Board recommendation to
adopt a new Chapter 16.110 entitled – Westgate Mixed Use District (WMU). At a series of
study meetings, the Council considered amendments to the WMU, but decided to postpone a
final decision on the proposed code until several questions about the Westgate area could be
answered by the pending SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis. To assist the Council’s
deliberations, the consulting team was asked to provide analysis on several key questions.
A. Key Questions
1. What are the long-term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue West
through Westgate?
2. What should the WMU code say about building setback requirements along these two
roadways?
3. How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated?
4. What other amendments to the WMU could be adopted to highlight Westgate as a walkable,
sustainable, mixed use District?
5. How should property access and internal circulation be considered?
6. What is the appropriate parking standard for commercial uses in the Westgate district?
B. Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Both SR 104 and 100th Avenue West have sufficient capacity to serve forecasted increases in
traffic volumes up to 2035. More detailed technical information is in the Fehr and Peers
Tech Memo (Fehr and Peers Memo).
2. Bicycle facilities (e.g., bike racks or lockers) could be accommodated in redevelopment
plans on private property pursuant to proposed amendments to the draft WMU zoning
district. The addition of bike lanes in 100th Ave W. would do the most to enhance Westgate
as a multi-modal transportation district. These could be accommodated within existing
right-of-way by extending the three-lane section with bicycle lanes that now exists on Firdale
Avenue north to Westgate. The reconfiguration of 100th Avenue to accommodate bicycles
can be accomplished with a “road diet” which maintains acceptable levels of traffic flow
Memorandum
Packet Page 198 of 491
2
through the intersections of SR 104/100th Ave W. and 100th Ave W./SW 238th St.. See Fehr
and Peers Memo.
3. Pedestrians will be accommodated by the 8’ wide sidewalks and adjacent 5’ wide amenity
space in SR 104 and 100th Ave. W. The sidewalk area should be widened at the corners of
the intersection by modifications to the WMU standards to increase building setbacks from
the 12’ default to 15’.
4. Additional pedestrian accommodation in Westgate could be achieved by two capital
improvement projects that should be coordinated with adjacent site plan improvements: (1)
installation of highly visible crosswalk panels or pavement at the intersection of SR 104/100th
Ave. W., similar to the improvements made on SR 99 in Shoreline; and (2) creation of a mid-
block pedestrian crossing in 100th Ave. W. to provide a direct connection between the
entrances of the QFC and PCC.
5. Internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation should meet the materials and dimensional
standards for “Internal Circulation Drives” set forth in the WMU at 22.110.050. It is
recommended that this section be supplemented with a map that indicates where on each
block face the end points of each segment of the Internal Circulation Drive must meet the
public right of way. See Fig. 18.
6. Property vehicular access within Westgate should be controlled with additional WMU zoning
district access management standards. These standards would essentially: (a) “freeze” the
driveway locations on SR 104 east of 100th Ave. W.; (b) eliminate or consolidate the existing
driveways on 100th Ave W. (particularly the QFC and Bartell quadrants) and: (c) eliminate or
consolidate the driveways on SR 104 west of 100th Ave W. Flexibility in the specific
location and dimensions of driveways should be administered through the Code’s review
process of future site plan/building permit applications.
7. The required building setbacks along both SR 104 and 100th Ave. W should be 12’, provided
that within 40’ of the intersection corners the setback should increase to 15’. This additional
setback would help accommodate the greater amount of pedestrian, transit and bicycle traffic
that will concentrate approaching the crosswalks of the intersections. See Fig. 5.
8. The visual images and impressions of the “view from the road” convey a powerful message
about a district’s identity and sense of place. The two major places to shape these
impressions for Westgate are: (a) at the gateways into the district; and (b) at the epicenter of
the district, which in this case is the intersection of SR 104 and 100th Ave W.
(a) The “Edmonds Welcomes you to Westgate” sign that was erected during the City’s
centennial in 1990 was recently removed. It was located not at the entry to the district,
but rather well within it, adjacent to the new Walgreens. A better location for a new
district gateway sign would be further east on SR 104, closer to 95th Ave W. It would
also help to move the 35 mph speed limit sign even further east, in order to help slow
down westbound motorists before they enter the Westgate mixed use district.
(b) The WMU zoning district should amend the corner requirements for the four properties
at the intersection. Strong, structural vertical elements will read best from the
perspective of the motorists and take up relatively little horizontal space between the
Packet Page 199 of 491
3
building and the curb. Trellis, pergola or arbor treatments could incorporate signage,
sculptural motifs, and banners. Such prominent visual landmarks would be a relatively
small cost to projects on these corners, but collectively create a strong visual image for
Westgate. See Figures 11 through 17.
9. Although further work on other parts of the SR 104 corridor will continue into the spring,
the information in this memo and the Fehr and Peers Memo answers the transportation,
parking and land use questions regarding Westgate. No further work on the SR 104
Corridor Study is necessary to support the Westgate conclusions in these two Memos.
II. Background
Edmonds is a city of commercial districts and residential neighborhoods. Some districts are
relatively large, such as Downtown Edmonds and the SR 99 commercial corridor. Others are
smaller, such as Firdale, Five Corners and Westgate. While commercial districts share some
objectives, circumstances and characteristics (e.g., location on arterials and typically a mix of
commercial uses), each is also somewhat unique. Some, such as the Downtown, already have
multifamily residential incorporated into the land use pattern while others, such as the SR 99
corridor and Westgate, may add residential as part of the use mix.
Providing housing choices in commercial districts, in the form of mixed-use buildings and/or
mixed-use projects, responds to an emerging market - Baby Boomers and Millennials. These
two cohorts combined are the majority of today’s U.S. population – and many have strong
interest in housing choices other than the traditional detached single-family home. They would
be attracted to housing opportunities in mixed-use districts with good access to transit, bicycle
and walkway facilities, grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants, banks, and other goods and
services nearby. The Westgate District presently has many of these amenities.
As a state highway, SR 104 will continue to play an important role linking the regional transit
system and road network to Downtown Edmonds, the WSF Terminal, and the Amtrak/Sounder
station. The Washington State Department of Transportation recognizes that many segments of
the state highway system serve multiple functions – not just as parts of the regional mobility
system – but also as “Main Streets” for many communities in the urban area.
To evaluate potential code amendments and/or physical projects that would advance the City’s
objectives, it helps to begin with an understanding of Westgate’s fundamental urban design
structure and character. The following urban design terms have been used to describe the
constituent parts of urban structure:
• Districts are geographic sections of the city with some shared and identifying character.
Always identifiable from the inside, districts frequently have distinct boundaries or edges
and are traversed by paths.
• Edges are the linear elements that separate districts, such as a shoreline, railroad tracks,
freeways, or steep slopes.
• Paths are the channels along which an observer moves. They may be streets, walkways, bike
lanes, or transit lines. People observe the city while moving through it, and along these
paths the other environmental elements are perceived, arranged and related.
• Nodes are concentrations of uses or activities, often at the convergence of several paths, and
frequently serving as destinations within a district.
Packet Page 200 of 491
4
• Gateways are the points or places along paths that serve as the entrance to a district.
• Landmarks are another type of point-reference, but an observer does not enter them – they
are external. They are physical objects: a distinctive building, sign, or prominent natural
feature, e.g., a very large tree or hill. While some landmarks have deliberate symbolic
meaning, e.g., a large statue, many landmarks are simply clear and vivid objects in the
environment that provide the viewer with a sense of place and orientation.
Applying this methodology to Westgate (see Figure 1) it is a District, similar to other Edmonds
districts in some ways, but distinct in other ways. Westgate is accessed and traversed by two
major Paths (SR 104/100th Ave. W), and bordered on the north and south by strong topographic
and forested Edges. The Gateways into Westgate are not now marked with public signage, but
generally occur along Paths where there is a distinct shift in land use. This is most clear on
100th Ave W, less so on SR 104. Finally, there are a series of land use/activity Nodes within the
district, usually sharing localized circulation and parking areas. The largest and most prominent
Node in Westgate consists of the four quadrants of the intersection of SR 104 and 100th Ave. W.
Unlike many urban districts and nodes, Westgate lacks prominent and vivid landmarks. The old
“Robin Hood Lanes” sign was a prominent local landmark due to its size, shape and character.
While a lot of commercial signage remains in Westgate, it serves localized functions identifying
individual businesses, rather than an entire district or node. The four star symbols in Fig. 1
indicate a potential rather than an existing set of landmarks. This location, at the convergence of
two major Paths, linking the four quadrants of the area’s major activity Node, is a major urban
design opportunity to provide orientation, identity, and a strong sense of Westgate as a place.
Fig. 1 The Edmonds Westgate District – Urban Design Elements
NODE%
NODE%
NODE%
N
O
D
E
%
Northern(
Gateway(
Southern(
Gateway(
Eastern(
Gateway(
Western(
Gateway(
DISTRICT(EDGE(
DISTRICT(EDGE(
DISTRICT(E
D
G
E
(
DISTRICT(E
D
G
E
(
DISTRICT(EDGE(
DISTRICT(EDGE(
DI
S
T
R
I
C
T
(
E
D
G
E
(
MAJOR%
ACTIVITY%
NODE%
(
N
O
D
E
%
Packet Page 201 of 491
5
III. Questions and Analysis
1. What are the long-term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100th
Avenue West through Westgate?
The Fehr and Peers Memo evaluates current and forecasted traffic volumes, speeds and
movements on SR 104 and 100th Ave W. It concludes in relevant part:
“WSDOT sees SR 104 as a ‘Main Street Roadway’ that has a multimodal focus. Traffic
forecasts and analysis show no additional through lanes or turning lanes are needed. Traffic
volumes will increase along 100th Avenue W., but the traffic can be accommodated with the
existing lane configuration. No additional right-of-way along 100th Avenue W. is needed to
provide for traffic flow and the wider sidewalk/planter requirements.”
2. How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated?
The WMU should be amended to adopt a standard for bicycle racks to be provided in both
residential and commercial new developments at Westgate. The wide sidewalks required as a
standard for both SR 104 and 100th Ave W. will be sufficient to provide for safe and attractive
pedestrian movement along the block faces. An increased setback of 15’ from the property line
near the corners of the intersection will provide additional room for both pedestrian movement
and amenities such as lighting standards, bollards, and street trees.
The consulting team has evaluated the opportunities for adding bicycle lanes to 100th Ave W. It
would be possible to add lanes within the existing rights-of-way by restriping and making minor
improvements (e.g., islands and tapers). See Figs. 2, 3 and 4.
Fig. 2 Road Diet section option for 100th Ave. W.
8’ sidewalk 5’ planter 5’ bike lane 11’ travel lane 11’ travel lane 11’ travel lane 5’ bike lane 5’ planter 8’ sidewalk
Fig. 3 Firdale Ave illustrates a section with 3 travel lanes and 2 bicycle lanes
Packet Page 202 of 491
6
Fig. 4 Schematic of road diet, adding bicycle lanes to 100th Ave W.
3. What should the WMU code say about building setback requirements along these two
roadways?
The draft Code for the Westgate District departs from the conventions of traditional zoning, such
as the default 20’ front yard setback. By reducing the setback to 12 feet adjacent to SR 104 and
100th Ave W., the proposed Code brings the building facade closer to the street. This conveys
that the space between the building frontage and the curb is a place for people on foot or bicycle,
as opposed to automobiles.
The 12-foot setback (in combination with the 8 foot sidewalk in the right of way) provides
sufficient width to accommodate safe and comfortable pedestrian movement along the block
face, as well as room for benches, landscaping, tables, etc. This is illustrated in the two cross
sections in Figure 5.
Packet Page 203 of 491
7
Fig. 5 Illustrative Cross Sections at SR 104/100th Ave W.
Pushing the building face further back, as the 20’ setback would do, doesn’t add much to the
qualitative value of this frontage. Rather, it forces more of the “amenity” and “open space”
away from the site interior, reducing the chance to maximize amenities throughout the site.
Another negative consequence of the 20-foot setback is to lessen redevelopment potential by
reducing the gross floor area achievable. The scale of this impact is difficult to quantify – what
can be said is that it does less to encourage redevelopment than the 12 foot setback.
Packet Page 204 of 491
8
The portions of sites within 40’ of the intersection have an additional and somewhat different
role than the rest of the frontage. To accommodate the greater amount of pedestrian foot and
bicycle traffic (at the confluence of two crosswalks) as well as the likely entryways into the
buildings, a larger setback, such as 15 feet, would be appropriate.
These observations are summarized for the SW Quadrant in the matrix below.
4. What amendments to the WMU could be adopted to highlight Westgate as a walkable,
sustainable, mixed use District?
Existing conditions at the intersection of SR 104/100th Ave W. are illustrated in Figures 6
through 10. Figure 6 is an aerial perspective, while Figures 7 through 10 are ground level
perspective images of the four quadrants at this intersection.
Packet Page 205 of 491
9
Fig. 6 Aerial perspective of intersection at SR 104/100th Ave W.
Fig. 7 NW Corner – QFC and other retail uses and restaurants
Packet Page 206 of 491
10
Fig. 8 NE Corner - PCC and Walgreen’s Pharmacy
Fig. 9 SE Corner – Key Bank, etc.
Fig. 10 SW Corner - Starbucks, Bartells, etc.
Packet Page 207 of 491
11
In September of 2014, City staff drafted for Council’s consideration an additional amendment to
Section 22.110.070 – Amenity Space, Open Space, and Green Factor Standards. The new
paragraph D, titled SR-104/100th Avenue Intersection, focused on the private properties that
immediately abut this intersection and proposed language to address the types of improvements
that would be appropriate.
Using that September draft language as a basis, I recommend the following revisions, shown
with underlining and strikethroughs as follows:
D. SR-104 / 100th Avenue Intersection.
1. The design objectives for configuration of development, amenity space, open space,
and landscaping landscape construction features at this key intersection is intended are to
provide a sense of place and convey the walkable and sustainable character of serve as a
signal of arrival at the Westgate District area.
2. Building step-backs, pedestrian oriented facades and amenities are required for the
portions of buildings within forty feet of the corner at each quadrant of this intersection.
3. The design objectives required setback areas at this intersection shall be designed to
use addressed with a combination of landscaping, building façade treatments, public
signage and amenity features (e.g. water features, art work, bollards, benches, pedestrian
scale lighting, arbors, greenwalls, arcades). to signify the intersection’s importance as a
focal point of the Westgate area.
Paragraph 1 sets forth the City’s design objectives for the Westgate District : (1) to provide a
sense of place and identity for Westgate and (2) to convey the desired walkable and sustainable
character of the District. As the epicenter of Westgate, these four quadrants and the intersection
itself play important functional and symbolic roles. The creation of distinct and memorable
visual landmarks at these four corners can be achieved with landscape construction amenities, as
discussed below. These are improvements that could be placed on the façade of new structures
at the corners of the intersection, or freestanding in the open spaces between the building façade
and the curb.
Paragraph 2 specifies building placement, the details of building facades, and the furnishings to
be placed in the public spaces between the buildings and the curb.
Paragraph 3 identifies a menu of physical improvements and amenities that developers would be
required to design and install. Below are examples of possible building facade treatments and
landscape construction amenities. The specific details of a proposed design would be reviewed
and approved through the City’s Design Review Process. Once a “unifying theme,” for
example, a public sign or solar-powered light standard, is determined with the first development
subject to this standard, it would inform appropriate facade treatments and landscape
construction amenities as redevelopment occurs on the other three corners.
Figures 11 through 16 are examples of potential “landscape construction amenities” that could be
incorporated into the corner designs at this key intersection. It is recommended that these
figures be included in the Westgate Code to give potential developers and their designers a clear
idea of the type of furnishings that the City may require for these key public spaces.
Packet Page 208 of 491
12
Fig.
11
Pergola
Fig.
12
Arbor
Fig.
13
Bollards
Fig. 14 Green Wall Fig. 15 Public signage Fig. 16 Solar lighting
An element like a pergola or arbor can also provide a location to display civic banners, public
signage or lighting standards. If a major district gateway improvement is made, for example, at
the easternmost entry into the Westgate District, it would be logical to coordinate design
materials, fonts or other details with any such landmark improvements made at the intersection
corners. One example might look like this:
Fig. 17 Potential vertical gateway/landmark feature
Many districts, nodes, and centers have utilized landscape construction amenities of this sort to
provide orientation, convey character and provide local identity. See Attachment A for an
example of how a similar treatment was done at the Crossroads District in Bellevue. The
Bellevue example utilized low masonry walls with inset tile work on all four corners, with a
more elaborate arbor and landscaping on the Northeast corner (by the Bank of America).
5. How should property access and internal circulation be handled?
Access management to properties in Westgate will be important for safe and efficient travel
within and between the four quadrants. The number, location and permitted turning movements
into and out of driveways on 100th Ave W. and SR 104 should be controlled by the Westgate
Packet Page 209 of 491
13
Access Management Master Plan (AMMP) See Figure 18. As permits are processed for
properties in the WMU, existing driveways may be required to be relocated, reconfigured or
eliminated to achieve the City’s access management objectives.
Internal circulation within the four quadrants will also be controlled by the AMMP. Internal
circulation drives will be subject to the dimensions and features specified at 22.110.050, and
shall connect with the driveways as identified or modified in the AMMP. The specific
placement of the internal circulation drives will be evaluated and approved as part of the design
review process for permit applications within the WMU zone.
Fig. 18 Westgate Access Management Master Plan
6. What is the appropriate parking standard for commercial uses in the Westgate
district?
As previously noted, Westgate shares some attributes with Downtown Edmonds and the SR 99
corridor, such as access by a state highway, transit availability and a mix of commercial activities. It
is noteworthy that, compared to most other districts in Edmonds, Westgate is a very walkable district.
The national Walk Score methodology measures how many daily errands can be accomplished on
foot, based on the availability and proximity of typical destinations to residences. See Fig. 19.
10
0
th
%A
v
e
%
W
.
%
SR%104%
%Access%Management%Master%Plan%
Conceptual%internal%circula=on%drive%(approximate%loca=on)%%
Exis=ng%driveway%link%to%internal%circula=on%drive%%
Exis=ng%driveway%to%become%right%turns%only%%
Exis=ng%driveway%to%remove%
Exis=ng%driveway%to%remain%
Special%Note:%consolida=on%of%these%five%driveways%is%encouraged%%
14
A major premise of the proposed innovative approach to mixed-use zoning is to tailor regulations to
recognize a district’s unique circumstances, attributes and objectives. In recognition of Westgate’s
high walkability, access to transit, and potential for bicycle access, the Planning Board recommended
that the WMU zone have a blended parking ratio of 1 stall for each 500 sq. ft. of commercial floor
area. In view of Westgate’s existing and emerging multi-modal character, this appears to be a
reasonable parking standard.
It has been suggested that perhaps a ratio of 1 stall per 400 sq. ft. would be appropriate, since that
ratio was considered for Edmonds’ SR 99 corridor. However, as noted in Figure 18, the Westgate
District is a more walkable area than the SR 99 corridor. The land use pattern of the SR 99 corridor
includes very large parcels with great parcel depth back from the state highway. While the SR 99
corridor does have some uses that would be assets for a mixed-use neighborhood, such as grocery
stores and restaurants, they are interspersed with institutional and auto-oriented uses (health care
offices, auto sales and service). The overall large lot pattern means that walking distances are
greater. In contrast, the parcels at Westgate are much smaller and most of the mix of uses (e.g.,
grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants) are within a much more walkable distance.
Fig. 19 Walk Score Ranges in Edmonds
Walk Score
Edmonds Districts
90 to 100 Walker’s
Paradise
Daily errands do not require a car
70 to 89 Very Walkable
Most errands can be
accomplished on foot
Downtown Edmonds (81)
Westgate (70)
50 to 69 Somewhat
Walkable
Some errands can be
accomplished on foot
SR 99 – Starbucks (64)
SR 99 - Ranch Market (59)
Firdale (56)
25 to 49 Car dependent
Most errands require a car SR 99 – Whirlyball site (49)
Five Corners – (42)
0 to 24 Car dependent
Almost all errands require a car
Given that development and redevelopment at Westgate will occur over a number of years, there is
little risk in adopting the 1 stall per 500 square feet of commercial floor area. If experience
warrants, it would be a relatively simple matter for the City to amend the WMU parking ratio.
Page 211 of 491
15
Attachment A Intersection improvements at NE 8th Street and 156th Ave NE in Bellevue
Fig. 20 Intersection detail
Fig. 21 Crosswalks include patterned pavement
NORTH
This
intersection
carries
comparable
traffic
volumes
but
has
been
improved
with
patterned
pavement
crosswalks
to
enhance
pedestrian
visibility
and
safety.
At
each
of
the
four
corners,
the
developers
were
required
to
incorporate
into
their
site
plans
landscape
construction
improvements
including
an
arbor
and
benches
on
the
NE
corner,
and
vegetation
and
low
masonry
walls
with
inset
tile
work
on
all
four
corners.
Page 212 of 491
16
Fig. 22 NW corner – Crossroads in Bellevue
Fig.
23
NE
corner
–
Crossroads
in
Bellevue
Fig
24
SW
corner
-‐
Crossroads
in
Bellevue
Page 213 of 491
Fehr & Peers
September 2015 C-3
Appendix D
Level of Service Calculations
Page 214 of 491
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
A 13 B 13 B
12 B 12 BA
29 SR 104 & 236th St
SW Signal D 5
28 SR 104 & 95th Pl W Signal D 7
B 16 B 16 B
10 B 10 BA
27 SR 104 & 226th St Signal D 11
26 SR 104 & Dayton Signal D 8
A 8 A 8 A25Main St. and
Sunset Ave.Signal D 7
C 77 E Add 325' WB to NB right turn lane. Provide
NB to EB right turn overlap with WB left.47 D
>150 F Install Signal. Provided protected NB/SB
left turns 11.9 BE
21 SR 104 & 76th Ave Signal D 23
20 SR 104 & 238th St
Side
Street
Stop
D 50
41 D 41 DC18SR 104 & 100th
Ave.Signal D 26
Improvement Notes
2035 Improvements
PM PM PM
2035
#Intersection Control LOS
Standard
2015
Page 215 of 491
Page 216 of 491
Page 217 of 491
Page 218 of 491
Page 219 of 491
Page 220 of 491
Page 221 of 491
Page 222 of 491
Page 223 of 491
Page 224 of 491
Page 225 of 491
Page 226 of 491
Page 227 of 491
Page 228 of 491
Page 229 of 491
Page 230 of 491
Page 231 of 491
Page 232 of 491
Page 233 of 491
Page 234 of 491
Page 235 of 491
Page 236 of 491
Page 237 of 491
Page 238 of 491
Page 239 of 491
Page 240 of 491
Page 241 of 491
Page 242 of 491
Page 243 of 491
Page 244 of 491
Page 245 of 491
Page 246 of 491
Page 247 of 491
Page 248 of 491
Page 249 of 491
Page 250 of 491
Page 251 of 491
Page 252 of 491
Page 253 of 491
Page 254 of 491
Page 255 of 491
Page 256 of 491
Page 257 of 491
Page 258 of 491
Page 259 of 491
Page 260 of 491
Page 261 of 491
Page 262 of 491
Page 263 of 491
Page 264 of 491
Page 265 of 491
Page 266 of 491
Page 267 of 491
Page 268 of 491
Page 269 of 491
Page 270 of 491
Page 271 of 491
Page 272 of 491
Page 273 of 491
Page 274 of 491
Page 275 of 491
Page 276 of 491
Page 277 of 491
Page 278 of 491
Page 279 of 491
Page 280 of 491
Page 281 of 491
Page 282 of 491
Page 283 of 491
Page 284 of 491
AM-8016 4.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/20/2015
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation for Domestic Violence Awareness Month ~ YWCA Week without Violence.
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) nearly 21 years ago, our Nation's
response to domestic violence has greatly improved. What was too often seen as a private matter best
hidden behind closed doors is now an established issue of national concern. We have changed our laws,
transformed our culture and improved support services for survivors. We have seen a significant drop in
domestic violence homicides and improved training for police, prosecutors and advocates. Yet we must do
more to provide protection and justice for survivors and to prevent violence from occurring. During
National Domestic Violence Awareness Month we stand with domestic abuse survivors, celebrate our
Nation's progress in combating these despicable crimes and resolve to carry on until domestic violence is
no more. The YWCA Week without Violence is a signature initiative created by YWCA USA nearly 21
years ago to mobilize people in communities across the United States to take action against all forms of
violence, wherever it occurs. This year YWCA Week without Violence is October 19-23. Mary Anne
Dillon, YWCA Senior Regional Director, Snohomish County, will be accepting the proclamation on
behalf of the YWCA.
Attachments
WWV_2015
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/02/2015 09:28 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/02/2015 09:45 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/02/2015 09:47 AM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 10/02/2015 09:12 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/02/2015
Page 285 of 491
Page 286 of 491
AM-8039 6. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/20/2015
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:Jen Machuga Submitted By:Jen Machuga
Department:Planning
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Closed record review and action on the Planning Board's recommendation to approve an application by
RDJ Group LLC to rezone the eastern portion of three existing single-family lots of record addressed
16404 and 16414 75th Pl. W and 16420 76th Ave. W from Single-Family Residential, RS-20, to
Single-Family Residential, RS-12. (File No. PLN20150034).
Recommendation
Approve the proposal and direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance approving the requested rezone.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Ronald Johnson submitted a land use application on behalf of RDJ Group LLC for a rezone of three
existing single-family lots of record addressed 16404 and 16414 75th Pl. W and 16420 76th Ave. W. The
western side of these lots is currently zoned Single-Family Residential, RS-12, and the eastern side of
these lots is currently zoned Single-Family Residential, RS-20. The proposal is to rezone the RS-20
portions of these lots to RS-12 so that the entirety of all three lots would be within the RS-12 zone. A
site-specific rezone is a "Type IV-B" application. Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Board
who conducts a public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. The Council holds a
closed-record review of the project and makes the final decision. The full record of the Planning Board's
review is contained in the attached exhibits. The recommendation of the Planning Board for approval is
contained in the board's minutes (Exhibit 4).
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Staff Report with Attachments 1 thru 8
Exhibit 2: Environmental Checklist
Exhibit 3: Staff Presentation
Exhibit 4: Planning Board Minutes 9/23/15
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/15/2015 07:45 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/15/2015 08:22 AM
Page 287 of 491
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/15/2015 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Jen Machuga Started On: 10/14/2015 11:46 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/15/2015
Page 288 of 491
EXHIBIT 1
Page 289 of 491
RDJ Group LLC Rezone
PLN20150034
Page 2 of 7
II. GENERAL INFORMATION:
Location: 16404 75th Pl. W (Tax Parcel #00513109700100 & 00513100009002)
16414 75th Pl. W (Tax Parcel #00513109700201 & 00513100009007)
16420 76th Ave. W (Tax Parcel #00513109700300 & 00513100009003)
Property Owners: Derek Abbott, RDJ Group LLC – owner of 16404 75th Pl. W
Armando and Maria Teresa Chilelli – owner of 16414 75th Pl. W
Elizabeth Dodge – owner of 16420 76th Ave. W
Applicant’s Agent: Ronald Johnson on behalf of RDJ Group LLC
Request: To change the zoning designation of the eastern portion of the subject site from Single-
Family Residential (RS-20) to Single-Family Residential (RS-12).
Review Process: A site-specific rezone is a “Type IV-B” application. Staff makes a
recommendation to the Planning Board who conducts a public hearing and forwards a
recommendation to the City Council. The Council holds a closed-record review of the project
and makes the final decision.
Applicable Codes: ECDC Chapter 16.20 (Single-Family Residential)
ECDC Chapter 20.01 (Types of Development Project Permits)
ECDC Chapter 20.02 (Development Project Permit Applications)
ECDC Chapter 20.03 (Public Notice Requirements)
ECDC Chapter 20.06 (Open Record Public Hearings)
ECDC Chapter 20.07 (Closed Record Appeals)
ECDC Chapter 20.15A (Environmental Review - SEPA)
ECDC Chapter 20.40 (Rezones)
III. SITE CONTEXT:
The subject site contains six tax parcels, which comprise three lots of record. Each of the three
lots of record within the subject site is developed with an existing single-family residence and
associated improvements. According to Snohomish County Assessor’s records, the existing
residence addressed 16404 75th Pl. W was constructed in 1952, the existing residence addressed
16414 75th Pl. W was constructed in 2001, and the existing residence addressed 16420 76th Ave.
W was constructed in 1909 (an addition was permitted to this residence in 2000).
The current zoning of the subject site is
split between the Single-Family
Residential (RS-12) zone on the western
portion of the site and the Single-Family
Residential (RS-20) zone on the eastern
portion of the site. As can be seen in the
Zoning and Vicinity Map (Attachment 2),
the site is bordered by properties within
the RS-12 zone to the south and properties
within the RS-20 zone to the north and
east. Surrounding properties are also
developed with single-family residences
and associated improvements. The BNSF
Railroad tracks and Puget Sound are
located directly west of the subject site.
Page 290 of 491
RDJ Group LLC Rezone
PLN20150034
Page 3 of 7
The Plat of Meadowdale Beach initially subdivided much of the northern end of Edmonds in
1904. Refer to Attachment 5 for the entire Plat of Meadowdale Beach with the general site area
circled in red for reference, an excerpt of which is inset above. This plat reserved a street right-
of-way running north-south along the section line separating Sections 7 and 8. As indicated on
the 1964 and 1981 zoning maps, excerpts of which were included with the applicant’s initial
submittal materials (Attachment 1), the transition between the RS-12 and RS-20 zones was
established along this same section line to reflect the location of the intended street right-of-way.
Following sunsequent divisions of property in the area of the subject site and the development of
76th Ave. W / 75th Pl. W, the northern portion of the street right-of-way established as part of the
Plat of Meadowdale Beach was shifted to the east so that it no longer runs along the section line
between Sections 7 and 8. That portion of the street right-of-way that was shifted east was later
developed as 75th Pl. W and the initially reserved section of 76th Ave. W was vacated. The
eastern portion of the subject site subsequently extended to the east across the section lines
placing the site within two zones, RS-12 and RS-20.
IV. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA):
A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued on September 8, 2015 (Attachment 6).
No appeals have been received to date. The appeal period for the SEPA DNS ends on September
22, 2015.
V. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE:
This application was reviewed by the City of Edmonds Engineering Division and Fire District #1.
No comments or conditions were noted by these groups (Attachment 7).
VI. DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS
According to ECDC Chapter 20.40 (Rezones), the Planning Board shall review the proposed
rezone and consider the following factors at a minimum:
A. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
The Comprehensive Plan designation
for the entire subject site is “Single
Family – Resource” (see inset
Comprehensive Plan map). The
compatible zoning classifications for the
“Single Family – Resource” designation
include the Single-Family Residential
RSW-12, RS-12, and RS-20 zones.
Thus, the subject proposal to rezone the
eastern portion of the subject site from
RS-20 to RS-12 would be consistent
with the current Comprehensive Plan
designation of the subject site.
B. Zoning Ordinance. Whether the
proposal is consistent with the purposes
of the zoning ordinance, and whether the
proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district;
According to ECDC 16.00.010, the zoning ordinance has the following purposes:
Page 291 of 491
RDJ Group LLC Rezone
PLN20150034
Page 4 of 7
A. To assist in the implementation of the adopted comprehensive plan for the
physical development of the city by regulating and providing for existing uses
and planning for the future as specified in the comprehensive plan; and
B. To protect the character and the social and economic stability of residential,
commercial, industrial and other uses within the city, and to ensure the
orderly and beneficial development of those uses by:
1. Preserving and retaining appropriate areas for each type of use;
2. Preventing encroachment into these areas by incompatible uses; and
3. By regulating the use of individual parcels of land to prevent
unreasonable detrimental effects of nearby uses.
At the same time, the purposes of the Residential Zones include (ECDC 16.10.000):
The general purposes of the residential, or R, zones are:
A. To provide for areas of residential uses at a range of densities consistent
with public health and safety and the adopted comprehensive plan;
B. Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its
neighbors the following values:
1. Light (including direct sunlight),
2. Privacy,
3. Views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features,
4. Freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution;
C. To provide for community facilities which complement residential areas and
benefit from a residential environment;
D. To minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by
relating the size and density of new buildings to the land around them, the
capacity of nearby streets, and the availability of utilities;
E. To protect residential uses from hazards and nuisances, such as fire,
explosion, noxious fumes and noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat,
glare, and heavy truck traffic, which may result from other, more intense,
land uses.
Finally, the Single-Family Residential (RS) zone district has its own purposes as
identified in ECDC 16.20.000:
The RS zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general
purposes for residential zones of ECDC 16.00.010 and 16.10.000:
A. To reserve and regulate areas primarily for family living in single-family
dwellings;
B. To provide for additional nonresidential uses which complement and are
compatible with single-family dwelling use.
A portion of the subject site was annexed in 1961, while the other portion was annexed in
1963. As indicated in the excerpt of the 1964 zoning map included with the applicant’s
submittal materials (Attachment 1), by 1964, the western portion of what is now the
subject site was zoned RS-12 and the eastern portion of the site was zoned RS-20. As
discussed above, this change in zoning designation followed the section line and it was
Page 292 of 491
RDJ Group LLC Rezone
PLN20150034
Page 5 of 7
due to further subdivisions and a shift in the location of the adjacent right-of-way that
caused the subject site to become split-zoned.
Rezoning the eastern portion of the subject site as proposed from RS-20 to RS-12 would
clean up the zoning map, causing the subject site to no longer be split-zoned. The
proposed rezone would also ease any future development of the lots of record within the
subject site by clarifying setback requirements so that different setback requirements
would no longer need to be applied to the eastern portion versus the western portion of
the site. The proposal would not change the zoning of the subject site away from Single-
Family Residential and appears to be consistent with the purposes of the Zoning
Ordinance.
C. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land
uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property;
Rezoning the eastern portion of the subject site from RS-20 to RS-12 would result in little
external change from existing conditions. The subject site contains three lots of record
and is developed with three existing single-family residences and associated
improvements. Surrounding development includes single-family residential
development. As indicated on the Zoning and Vicinity Map (Attachment 2), the
immediately adjacent properties to the south are within the RS-12 zone and the adjacent
properties to the north and east are within the RS-20 zone. The proposal would eliminate
the existing split-zoning of the subject site and would cause the entire site to be located
within the RS-12 zone, which would be consistent with the existing zoning of the western
portion of the site as well as with the adjacent properties to the south. The proposal
would only slightly shift the location of the existing transition between the RS-12 and
RS-20 zones.
The applicant has indicated a desire to demolish the existing residence addressed 16404
75th Ave. W and to construct a new single-family residence on this lot. The purpose of
the proposed rezone is to clean up the split-zoning on the subject site in order to facilitate
redevelopment of 16404 75th Ave. W. In particular, the proposal would cause the side
setbacks of the subject site to be a minimum of 10 feet each as required by the RS-12
zone, instead of the RS-20 zone’s requirement for a minimum of 10 feet per side with the
requirement for the two opposing sides to add up to a minimum of 35 feet. Thus, if the
subject site were entirely RS-12, the applicant would have greater flexibility in the
location of the future residence, which would also be true for any future redevelopment
of the other lots within the subject site. The street and rear setback requirements would
remain unchanged since the minimum required street and rear setbacks of the RS-12 and
RS-25 zones are both 25 feet each.
D. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or
surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone;
The character of the immediate and surrounding area has remained largely unchanged for
many years with the exception of the development of a few new single-family residences
within the general area and the development of a park approximately 700 feet north of the
subject site. The proposed rezone, however, would correct a split-zoning situation that
was caused years ago following the shifting in the location of the street right-of-way
adjacent to the site. The rezone would cause the boundary between the RS-12 and RS-20
zones to follow existing property lines and the existing right-of-way instead of following
the Section line which cuts through the middle of the subject site.
Page 293 of 491
RDJ Group LLC Rezone
PLN20150034
Page 6 of 7
The subject site is within a single-family neighborhood and the proposal would not
change the Single-Family Residential zoning designation of the site, but would only
change the eastern portion of the site from RS-20 to RS-12.
E. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses
allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be
the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding
area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning;
As discussed above, the subject site currently contains three lots of record, all of which
are developed with existing single-family residences and associated improvements. The
proposed rezone would facilitate the applicant’s desire to demolish the existing residence
addressed 16404 75th Pl. W and construct a new residence at this location; however, the
proposed rezone is not necessary in order to do so. The rezone, however, would allow
for greater flexibility to the side setback requirements for the redevelopment of this lot.
F. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the
potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners.
The applicant could realize increased value due to a greater flexibility in the side setback
requirements (as discussed above). It does not appear that there is much of an impact
otherwise to the public health, safety and welfare since the site is already developed with
three existing single-family residences and utilities and similar improvement already
serve the subject site. The applicant’s desire to redevelop the lot of record addressed
16404 75th Pl. W would not be prohibited without the rezone. The rezone would simply
clear up the existing split-zoning situation and would allow for greater flexibility in
setback requirements when redeveloping the lot.
VII. CONCLUSIONS:
A. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan since the RS-12 zoning classification
is one of the possible implementing zones for the “Single-Family Resource” designation.
B. The proposal to rezone the eastern portion of the subject site to RS-12 is consistent with the
purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zoning district. The rezone would eliminate an
existing split-zone situation.
C. The proposal is appropriate in relation to the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Little
external impact would result from the proposed change.
D. The shift in the location of the street right-of-way adjacent to the subject site and vacation of
the right-of-way originally established under the Plat of Meadowdale Beach is sufficient
change to justify the rezone in order to relocate the boundary between the RS-12 and RS-20
zoning districts to follow the development of the area instead of following the Section line.
E. The site is currently developed with three single-family residences and associated
improvements. The total number of single-family residences will remain unchanged,
although the applicant plans to demolish one of these residences in order to construct a new
single-family residence with associated improvements. For any future development on the
subject site, the project will have to meet all applicable codes in effect at that time for
setbacks, height, parking, landscaping and the like.
F. There appears to be only a small gain to the applicant and no major impact to the public
health/safety/welfare.
Page 294 of 491
RDJ Group LLC Rezone
PLN20150034
Page 7 of 7
VIII. PUBLIC NOTICE:
A “Notice of Application” was issued on August 27, 2015, and a “Notice of Public Hearing and
SEPA Determination” was issued on September 8, 2015. Both public notices were posted at the
subject site, Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and at the Library.
The notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site and published in the
Everett Herald. All public notice materials are included as Attachment 12. The City has
complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03.
No public comments have been received to date.
IX. RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the findings of facts, analysis, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff proposes
that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to APPROVE the requested
rezone from Single-Family Residential RS-20 to Single-Family Residential RS-12. The proposed
change will eliminate the existing split-zoning of the subject site while allowing slightly
increased flexibility with any future redevelopment on the subject site in accordance with the
requirements of the zoning ordinance.
X. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Land Use Application, Cover Letter and Supporting Materials
2. Zoning and Vicinity Map
3. Letter of Complete Application
4. Request for Additional Information
5. Meadowdale Beach Plat
6. Determination of Nonsignificance
7. Technical Review Committee Comments
8. Public Notice Documentation
XI. PARTIES OF RECORD:
City of Edmonds
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Elizabeth Dodge
18808 Wallingford Ave. N
Shoreline, WA 98133
Ronald Johnson
19601 – 23rd Ave. NW
Shoreline, WA 98177
Armando and Maria Teresa Chilelli
17819 – 44th Ave. W
Lynnwood, WA 98037
Derek Abbott
RDJ Group LLC
221 – 185th Pl. SW
Bothell, WA 98012
Page 295 of 491
ATTACHMENT 1Page 296 of 491
Page 297 of 491
Page 298 of 491
Page 299 of 491
Page 300 of 491
Page 301 of 491
Page 302 of 491
Page 303 of 491
Page 304 of 491
Page 305 of 491
Page 306 of 491
Page 307 of 491
Page 308 of 491
Page 309 of 491
Page 310 of 491
Page 311 of 491
Page 312 of 491
Page 313 of 491
Page 314 of 491
Page 315 of 491
7 6 T H A V E WD
7 5 T H P L W
7
4
T
H
P
L
W
±Zoning and Vicinity Map
File No. PLN20150034
Subject Site:
16404 & 16414 75th Pl. W
and 16420 76th Ave. W
0 120 24060
Feet
RS-12
PRD-1976-1
RS-20
RS-20
RS-20
OS
ATTACHMENT 2Page 316 of 491
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
Page 1 of 1
August 13, 2015
Mr. Ronald Johnson
ronarchps@outlook.com
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETENESS FOR REZONE APPLICATION
LOCATED AT 16404, 16414, & 16420 75TH PL. W
FILE NO. PLN20150034
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Your land use application for a rezone located at 16404, 16414, and 16420 75th Place West (File No.
PLN20150034) has been determined to meet the procedural submission requirements and, therefore, is
considered complete pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.02.002. Please
accept this letter as the City’s completeness notice in accordance with ECDC 20.02.003.
Although it has been determined that the application meets the procedural submission requirements and is
therefore complete, additional information may be needed as staff continues with review of the
application. Staff will contact you as our review continues if additional information is necessary.
I will be the main staff contact for your application. If you have questions at any point during the review
process, you may reach me at Jen.Machuga@edmondswa.gov or (425) 771-0220.
Sincerely,
Development Services Department - Planning Division
Jen Machuga
Associate Planner
Cc: File No. PLN20150034
Teresa Chilelli, tchilelli@aol.com
Derek Abbott, achnw@comcast.net
ATTACHMENT 3Page 317 of 491
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
Page 1 of 2
August 25, 2015
Mr. Ronald Johnson
ronarchps@outlook.com
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR REZONE APPLICATION
LOCATED AT 16404 & 16414 75TH PL. W AND 16420 76TH AVE. W
FILE NO. PLN20150034
Dear Mr. Johnson:
During staff’s continued review of your land use application for a rezone located at 16404 & 16414 75th
Place West and 16420 76th Ave. West (File No. PLN20150034), it was determined that additional
information/clarification is necessary. Please provide responses to the following items at your earliest
convenience so that staff’s review of the proposal can continue:
1. Your criteria statement references addresses 16404, 16414, and 16420 75th Pl. W; however, it
appears that he subject addresses are 16404 and 16414 75th Pl. W and 16420 76th Ave. W. Please
confirm.
2. Your adjacent property owner’s list does not appear to include all addresses within 300 feet of the
entire subject site. Please refer to the enclosed adjacent property owner’s list handout (Handout
#P2) and provide mailing labels for all properties within 300 feet of the subject site. The subject
site includes all three parcels that are subject to the proposed rezone.
3. The environmental checklist does not adequately address the proposal. SEPA review is being
triggered due to the proposal for a rezone, not necessarily due to the proposal for the future
construction of a house at 16404 75th Pl. W. As such, your responses within the environmental
checklist must be in the context of the proposed rezone and must encompass the proposal to
rezone all three subject properties. Additionally, not all of the questions within the environmental
checklist were answered and some of the responses refer to documents that were not provided
with the subject application (these documents are likely documents to be submitted later with the
building permit application for the future single-family residence at 16404 75th Pl. W).
Please complete a new environmental checklist addressing the subject proposal to rezone the
three subject parcels. Your responses must address the characteristics of and any impacts to all
three parcels that are part of the rezone proposal. If you have any questions on how to adequately
complete the environmental checklist, you may refer to the Washington State Department of
Ecology’s website for resources and references.
4. The land use application forms submitted with your application include several different applicant
names and contact people for the subject proposal. Please clarify who the applicant is and who
the contact person is in order to assist staff as we process the application.
Please submit the above information to the Planning Division as soon as possible so that staff may
continue processing your application. Please keep in mind that a complete response to this information
request must be received within 90 days or the application will lapse for lack of information (ECDC
ATTACHMENT 4Page 318 of 491
Page 2 of 2
20.02.003.D). Thus, your application will expire if the requested information is not received by
November 23, 2015.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via phone at (425) 771-0220 or via email
at Jen.Machuga@edmondswa.gov.
Sincerely,
Development Services Department - Planning Division
Jen Machuga
Associate Planner
Cc: File No. PLN20150034
Teresa Chilelli, tchilelli@aol.com
Derek Abbott, achnw@comcast.net
Page 319 of 491
ATTACHMENT 5Page 320 of 491
ATTACHMENT 6Page 321 of 491
Page 322 of 491
City of Edmonds
Date: August 18, 2015
To: Jen Machuga, Associate Planner
From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Subject:
PLN20150034, Rezone from RS-20 to RS-12
RDJ Group, LLC – 16404 76th Ave W
Engineering has reviewed the rezone application for the RDJ Group, which involves the
following properties: 16404, 16414 and 16420 76th Ave W. All properties currently fall
within both RS20 and RS12 zones. The rezone will clean-up the zoning and identify one zone
for each of the properties. Each property will remain single-family. The information
provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering
standards.
The Engineering Division does not have any comments.
Thank you.
MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT 7Page 323 of 491
Page 324 of 491
ATTACHMENT 8Page 325 of 491
Page 326 of 491
Page 327 of 491
Page 328 of 491
Page 329 of 491
Page 330 of 491
Page 331 of 491
Page 332 of 491
Page 333 of 491
Page 334 of 491
Page 335 of 491
Page 336 of 491
Page 337 of 491
Page 338 of 491
Page 339 of 491
Page 340 of 491
EXHIBIT 2
Page 341 of 491
Page 342 of 491
Page 343 of 491
Page 344 of 491
Page 345 of 491
Page 346 of 491
Page 347 of 491
Page 348 of 491
Page 349 of 491
Page 350 of 491
Page 351 of 491
Page 352 of 491
Page 353 of 491
Page 354 of 491
Page 355 of 491
Page 356 of 491
Page 357 of 491
Page 358 of 491
Page 359 of 491
Page 360 of 491
Page 361 of 491
Page 362 of 491
Page 363 of 491
Page 364 of 491
Page 365 of 491
Page 366 of 491
Page 367 of 491
10/14/2015
1
RDJ GROUP LLC – REZONE
FILE NO. PLN20150034
Planning Board
September 23, 2015
1
2
EXHIBIT 3Page 368 of 491
10/14/2015
2
3
4
Page 369 of 491
10/14/2015
3
1964 Zoning Map
5
1981 Zoning Map
6
Page 370 of 491
10/14/2015
4
Current Zoning Map
7
ECDC 20.40 - Rezone Factors
Comprehensive Plan
Zoning Ordinance
Surrounding Area
Changes
Suitability
Value
8
Page 371 of 491
10/14/2015
5
THANK YOU
Architectural Design Board | September 2, 2015
9
Page 372 of 491
DRAFT
Subject to October 14th Approval
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 23, 2015
Chair Tibbott called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Neil Tibbott, Chair
Todd Cloutier
Carreen Rubenkonig
Daniel Robles
Valerie Stewart
Nathan Monroe
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Philip Lovell, Vice Chair (excused)
Matthew Cheung (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Jen Machuga, Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2015 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY, WITH BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER ABSTAINING.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIERCTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
No report was available for the Board’s review and discussion.
PUBLIC HEARING ON FILE NUMBER PLN20150034 – A PROPOSAL BY RDJ GROUP LLC TO REZONE THE
EASTERN PORTION OF THREE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS OF RECORD ADDRESSED 16404 AND
16414 – 75TH PLACE WEST AND 16420 – 76TH AVENUE WEST FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-20)
TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-12)
Chair Tibbott explained that the purpose of the open record hearing is for the Planning Board to address the rezone
application (PLN20150034) to rezone portions of the property located at 16404 and 16414 – 75th Place West and 16420 – 76th
EXHIBIT 4
Page 373 of 491
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 23, 2015 Page 2
Avenue West from RS-20 to RS-12. He opened the public hearing and read a script that outlined the rules and procedures for
the hearing. He emphasized that members of the public who would like to speak at any future appeal on the matter would
need to testify during the hearing to preserve their ability to participate in the future. He reminded the Board of the
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and asked if any member of the Planning Board has engaged in communication with
opponents or proponents regarding the subject of the hearing outside of the hearing process. All of the Board Member
answered no. Next, Chair Tibbott asked if any of the Board Members had a conflict of interest or believes that he/she cannot
hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner, and all of the Board Members answered no. Lastly, he asked
if anyone in the audience had an objection to any of the Board Members participating as a decision maker in the hearing, and
no objections were made.
Chair Tibbott explained that because the Planning Board is making an evidentiary record that may be relied upon in the
future, it is important that they ask any and all questions of speakers during the hearing. One of the most important purposes
of the hearing is to ensure that all relevant facts are brought to light through the process. Upon Chair Tibbott’s direction,
everyone who planned to testify at the hearing affirmed that the testimony he/she would provide would be the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Ms. Machuga reviewed that the subject application was submitted by Ron Johnson on behalf of RDJ Group LLC, and the
request is to rezone the eastern portion of the three existing single-family lots of record (16404 and 16414 – 75th Place West
and 16420 – 76th Avenue West) from RS-20 to RS-12. She explained that, pursuant to Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) 20.01.003, site-specific rezone applications are Type IV-B decisions, which require a public hearing before the
Planning Board. The Planning Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council will make the
final decision on the proposal.
Ms. Machuga referred the Board to the Staff Report and its eight attachments, which were added to the record as Exhibit 1.
She also referred to the Environmental Checklist, which was added to the record as Exhibit 2. She noted that copies of the
Environmental Checklist were provided to each Board Member prior to the start of the meeting and were also emailed to
them earlier in the day.
Ms. Machuga provided an aerial photograph of the subject site, which contains six tax parcels that comprise three lots of
record. Each of the three lots of record is developed with an existing single-family home and associated improvements. She
also provided a zoning map showing that the western side of the property is currently zoned RS-12 and the eastern side is
currently zoned RS-20. She explained that the proposal is to rezone the eastern RS-20 portion of the site to RS-12 so that the
entirety of all three lots would be within the RS-12 zone. She provided a map of the original Meadowdale Beach Plat, which
initially subdivided much of the northern end of Edmonds in 1904 and reserved a street right-of-way running north/south
along the section line separating Sections 7 and 8. She also provided historic zoning maps from 1964 and 1981, which show
that the transition between the RS-12 and RS-20 zones was established along this same section line to reflect the location of
the intended street right-of-way. However, following subsequent divisions of property in the area of the subject site and the
development of 76th Avenue West/75th Place West, the northern portion of the street right-of-way established as part of the
Plat of Meadowdale Beach was shifted to the east so that it no longer runs along the section line between Sections 7 and 8.
The portion of the street right-of-way that was shifted east was later developed as 75th Place West and the initially reserved
section of 76th Avenue West was vacated. Because the eastern portion of the subject site extended to the east across the
section lines, the site was actually split between the RS-12 and RS-20 zones.
Ms. Machuga reminded the Board that rezone applications must be reviewed for compliance with the criteria specified in
ECDC 20.40. She referred to the Staff Report, which provides detailed information about how the proposed rezone meets the
criteria and provided the following summary:
1. Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject site is “Single-Family – Resource,”
which includes the RS-12 and RS-20 zones as compatible zoning designations. Therefore, the proposal to rezone
the eastern portion of the subject site from RS-20 to RS-12 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal would eliminate the split-zoning designation on the subject site, which would
clean up the zoning map and get the zoning lines consistent with the parcel and right-of-way lines. The proposal
Page 374 of 491
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 23, 2015 Page 3
would not change the zoning of the subject site away from single-family residential and appears to be consistent
with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Surrounding Areas. Rezoning the external portion of the site would result in very little external change from
existing conditions. The subject site contains three lots of record and is developed with three existing single-family
residences and associated improvements. It would continue to be developed as such.
4. Changes. The rezone would cause the boundary between the RS-12 and RS-20 zones to follow the existing right-
of-way and parcel lines instead of following the section line that cuts through the middle of the subject site.
5. Suitability. The site contains three lots of legal record that are developed as single-family residential homes. The
proposal would facilitate the applicant’s desire to redevelop the northernmost lot because the setback requirements
would be different. However, the rezone is not necessary to do so.
6. Value. It does not appear that there will be much of an impact to the public health, safety and welfare since the site
is already developed with three existing single-family residences. While the applicant would realize some increased
value due to greater flexibility in the side setback requirements, the desire to redevelop the lot (16404 – 75th Place
West) would not be prohibited without the rezone. The rezone would simply clear up the existing split-zoning
situation.
Ms. Machuga advised that at Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued on September 8th, and the appeal period
ended on September 22nd. No appeals were received. She also reported that a Notice of Application was issued for the
proposal on August 27th and a Notice of Public Hearing and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination was
issued on September 8th. No public comments have been received.
Ms. Machuga noted that the application materials include documents signed by the property owners agreeing to a limitation
on the height of future structures built on the property addressed 16404 – 75th Avenue West. She emphasized that the
proposed rezone is not a contract rezone and does not include any additional height restrictions that would be enforced by the
City. The standard height limit for both the RS-12 and RS-20 zones is 25 feet, and any private agreements made by the
property owners for further limitations on the height of future structures on the subject site would be privately enforced and
would not be enforced by the City.
Based on the findings of fact, analysis, conclusions and attachments to the Staff Report, Ms. Machuga recommended the
Board make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the rezone request as presented.
Ron Johnson, Shoreline, indicated he is an architect representing the applicant for the rezone proposal. He thanked Ms.
Machuga for her thorough Staff Report that supports the proposed rezone application and said he did not have any additional
information to add. He agreed to answer any remaining questions the Board Members might have.
Chair Tibbott invited members of the audience to come forward and participate in the public hearing, but no one expressed a
desire to do so and the public portion of the hearing was closed. He invited the Board Members to ask clarifying questions of
anyone who testified.
Board Member Stewart asked Ms. Machuga to refresh her memory of the setback requirements in the RS-12 and RS-20
zones. Ms. Machuga advised that the street (25 feet) and rear (20 feet) setbacks are the same for both zones. However, the
RS-12 zone requires a 10-foot side setback on both sides and the RS-20 zone establishes a minimum 10-foot side setback, but
the two sides have to add up to 35 feet.
Chair Tibbott asked the square footage requirement for lots in the RS-12 and RS-20 zones. Ms. Machuga answered that the
RS-12 zone requires that lots be a minimum of 12,000 square feet, and the RS-20 zone requires a minimum of 20,000 square
feet. Chair Tibbott asked if the rezone to RS-12 would offer the potential for subdividing any of the three lots. Ms. Machuga
responded that, individually, none of the lots would be large enough to subdivide. However, it would be possible to combine
the three lots for subdivision purposes to potentially achieve a higher density. Chair Tibbott summarized that, even if the lots
are combined, the net result would not be more than one or two additional lots and the traffic impacts would be minimal.
Page 375 of 491
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 23, 2015 Page 4
Board Member Cloutier reminded the Board that this is a separate issue that would be addressed if and when a subdivision
application is submitted.
Board Member Stewart referred to the aerial photograph that provides an overview of the lots and their location in their
respective zones. She reviewed that the applicant is proposing that the historic right-of-way line between Sections 7 and 8
should no longer be used as the demarcation between the RS-12 and RS-20 zones. Ms. Machuga explained that, ideally, the
changes in zoning happen along property lines or right-of-way boundaries instead of in the middle of a property, which is the
case for the subject site.
Board Member Stewart reviewed that, historically, the properties to the north were zoned RS-20. She recalled that when the
Board recently reviewed the Critical Areas Ordinance, it was pointed out that the RS-20 zoning was needed for some parts of
the City to protect the native habitat and steep slopes. She said she does not believe the proposed rezone is imperative, and it
would seem better to have enough room to maintain the existing native trees. She said she recently drove by the subject site
to take note of the existing trees and native habitat that currently exists. Although she recognized that the Board is not being
charged with considering a specific development proposal, it is important to ensure the protections that are afforded by the
RS-20 zone are not eliminated if the property is redeveloped under RS-12 zoning. Mr. Johnson indicated that the existing
habitat on site would not change whether the property is zoned RS-12 or RS-20. Board Member Stewart pointed out that,
when redevelopment occurs, any trees or native growth that is within close proximity to the footprint of the new structure
would be disturbed to the point of no longer being viable. Mr. Johnson advised that a sewer easement runs through the
middle of the property, which prohibits development towards the water beyond a certain point. He said the City’s
Engineering Department is not interested in moving the sewer line and the applicant is not interested in paying for its
relocation. Therefore, it will remain a major element that limits the use of the property.
Board Member Stewart summarized that if the entire property is rezoned to RS-12, the side setback requirements would be
more accommodating to provide additional area for the footprint to expand. Mr. Johnson explained that the applicant’s use
of the site is already limited by the sewer line, and RS-12 zoning would allow him to do more on the remaining property. He
also pointed out that the code requires that properties in the RS-20 zone have a minimum width of 100 feet, and the subject
property is only 80 feet wide. He summarized that the subject site has all of the characteristics of an RS-12 zone, but for
whatever reason, the zoning is split. The applicant believes that RS-12 zoning is a better match for the property. Ms.
Machuga clarified that lot width is not the same as frontage width. Lot width is measured with a circle. In the RS-20 zone, a
circle that is 100 feet in diameter would have to fit onto the lot; the lot does not have to have a frontage width of 100 feet.
Board Member Robles asked if the owners of the adjacent lot to the north (16340 – 75th Place West) were notified proactively
of the proposed rezone action. He noted that this is the only property that would be impacted by the proposed change. Mr.
Johnson answered that he did not proactively notify the property owner to the north, but he did meet with the property owner
directly to the east of the northern most portion of the subject site. Ms. Machuga explained that the City mailed a Notice of
Application and a Notice of SEPA Determination to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site, and a sign was
posted on the subject property. Notices were also published in THE EVERETT HERALD and at the Library, Development
Services Department and Public Safety Building. Board Member Robles asked if notices were mailed to property owners or
occupants. Ms. Machuga answered that the notices were mailed to property owners. The notice that was posted on the
property was intended to draw the attention of those living nearby.
Chair Tibbott summarized that, based on the notices that were sent out and posted, there have been no appeals or public
comments. Therefore, he assumes that people living in the vicinity of the subject parcels are okay with the proposed rezone.
Board Member Rubenkonig said it was her understanding that the three parcels had been developed under RS-12 zoning
because the majority of the land is already RS-12. Ms. Machuga said Snohomish County records show that the existing
residence on the northern lot (16404 – 75th Place West) was constructed in 1952 before the City’s first zoning ordinance was
adopted. Mr. Johnson advised that the southern corner of the house is within 12 feet of the property line and the northern
side is between 25 and 30 feet from the property line. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the current setbacks
would meet the requirements of the RS-20 zone. Ms. Machuga advised that the middle home (16414 – 75th Place West) was
constructed in 2001 consistent with the RS-20 setback requirements, and the southernmost home (16420 – 76th Avenue West)
was constructed in 1909 with an addition in 2000. No zoning restrictions were in place when the original home was built.
Page 376 of 491
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 23, 2015 Page 5
Based on the current zoning, staff would apply the RS-12 setbacks to the portion of the lot that is zoned RS-12 and RS-20
setbacks to the portion zoned RS-20.
As previously stated, Board Member Rubenkonig observed that no development would be allowed westward of the sewer
easement. Mr. Johnson clarified that development would be allowed westward of the sewer easement, but a structure cannot
be placed on top of the easement. Given the current setback requirements and the easement, the development footprint would
be very small. Ms. Machuga agreed that it would not be possible to build on top of a sewer easement, and it is not likely that
the sewer line would be relocated in the future. However, the sewer easement should not be an effective measure for
determining where the zoning line should be.
Board Member Rubenkonig said that some communities consider the side of a structure that faces the water to be the front
yard. She asked if the City could consider this option. Ms. Machuga clarified that rather than front yard setbacks, the City
calls them street setbacks, meaning that the setback is measured from the edge of the right-of-way or the easement serving
five or more properties regardless of which direction a house is oriented or where the front door is. The water is not a factor
in determining where the street setback is. The rear setback is the most opposite in distance from the street property line.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked is the majority of properties along 75th Place West and 76th Avenue west are zoned RS-12
or RS-20. She suggested that when determining the correct zoning for the subject site, it would be helpful to view it in
context of a larger area. Ms. Machuga displayed the City’s zoning map for the area, and pointed out that the properties
immediately to the south are zoned RS-12, with RS-20 zoning to the north and east. The railroad tracks and Puget Sound are
located to the west. She concluded that there is a mixture of RS-12 and RS-20 zoning along 76th Avenue West.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it would be possible for the applicant to do a contract rezone that is administratively
approved by staff. Ms. Machuga emphasized that all rezone applications, regardless of size, must come before the Board for
a public hearing and recommendation to the City Council. Building permits can be administratively approved if they meet all
of the zoning requirements, and no public hearing is necessary.
Board Member Rubenkonig said it is her understanding that the Board is to consider the rezone application, only. Any
proposed future use of the parcels should not be part of the Board’s consideration at this time. Ms. Machuga agreed that the
Board is not reviewing a development proposal at this time. However, they can consider the potential implications the rezone
could have on the subject site, as well as surrounding properties. The owners of the northern property want to redevelop and
will likely do so whether the rezone is approved or not, but there is no site-specific development proposal at this time.
At the request of Board Member Cloutier, Ms. Machuga stated the six criteria the Board must consider when reviewing the
merits of the proposed rezone as follows:
A. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and whether the
proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district.
C. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land use and zoning of
surrounding or nearby property.
D. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in the
city policy to justify the rezone.
E. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing
zone and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped
compared to the surrounding area and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning.
F. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in
value to the property owners.
As there were no further questions from the Board, Chair Tibbott closed the testimony portion of the hearing and invited the
Board to begin its deliberations.
Chair Tibbott summarized that it appears the proposal is completely consistent with the six criteria outlined above, and there
would be very little or no impact to the surrounding areas. The request for input and the opportunity to appeal the SEPA
Page 377 of 491
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 23, 2015 Page 6
Determination was offered to surrounding property owners and citizens, in general, and no one came forward with concerns.
The proposed rezone is an opportunity to clean up the split zoning that occurred when the right-of-way alignment was
reoriented towards 75th Place West. The proposed change would represent a benefit to the property owners and the City. He
suggested the Board move forward with a recommendation of approval.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS,
CONCLUSIONS AND ATTACHMENTS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND FORWARD A
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE REZONE REQUEST FROM RS-20
TO RS-12 (FILE NUMBER PLN20150034). BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION,
WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Ms. Machuga announced that a public hearing on the 2016 – 2021 Capital Improvement Plan and Capital Facilities Plan is
scheduled for October 14th. Also on October 14th, will be an update on the Development Code rewrite and a discussion about
parking issues.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Tibbott reported that he provided a summary to the City Council of the Planning Board’s activities for the past quarter
on September 22nd, and it was well received. During his report, he voiced concern that the City Council’s public hearing on
the Marina Beach Master Plan followed too closely behind the Planning Board’s hearing on the same item. The minutes
from the Board’s hearing were not available to the City Council, so they had to rely only on the video recording and not the
written record, which often provides substantially more clarity than the video. The City Council agreed to make sure future
hearings are scheduled far enough apart to address this concern.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Cloutier thanked City staff for their preparation for the public hearing, which made the process easier and
clearer.
Board Member Cloutier reported on his recent attendance at a public meeting at the Edmonds Library related to oil and coal
train traffic through Edmonds. Approximately 125 people were in attendance and topics of discussion included climate
solutions, the collapse of the entire coal market, and the public safety impacts of increased rail traffic. It was emphasized
that, regardless of political orientation, increased rail traffic has decreased access to the waterfront and there is no viable
solution for providing emergency access to the retail businesses, restaurants, large marina, dive park and community/senior
center at this time. Concern was also discussed that, because oil has such a low flash point, a derailment would likely result
in a fire that would require a mandatory evacuation. At this time, there is no viable plan in place to combat a fire other than
letting it burn out. He said the presentations were followed by a question and answer session where concerns were raised
about the lack of emergency access to the waterfront, the noise and vibration associated with coal trains, additional signals
that will be needed if train traffic increases, no viable plan for emergency response if a train derails, and the impact to global
climate change caused by burning more fossil fuels.
Board Member Cloutier acknowledged there is nothing the Board can do directly to impact the situation. However, as they
discuss future planning issues, they should consider the impacts so they are not making unrealistic assumptions on past data
related to rail traffic and land uses. He reminded the Board that the City is undertaking a study of alternatives for the
waterfront to help mitigate the access issues, but the study will not address the public safety issue related to fire.
Board Member Stewart suggested that Board Members help get the word out that a public hearing before the City Council on
the Critical Areas Ordinance Update is scheduled for October 6th. She said she was hoping that an informative article could
be published in THE EDMONDS BEACON or MY EDMONDS NEWS so the public is aware of the changes that are proposed
and how they might affect critical areas and their properties.
Page 378 of 491
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 23, 2015 Page 7
Board Member Robles reported that he met with a representative from the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD)
to discuss the PUD’s objective of cutting down trees around power lines (those identified with orange markings). This
meeting was in response to his observation that orange marked trees far exceed what the City is considering allowing per the
draft tree code.
Board Member Rubenkonig thanked Chair Tibbott and staff for the excellent approach to the quasi-judicial hearing. Reading
a script to outline the process was helpful, and she hopes it becomes the standard for future quasi-judicial hearings to ensure
they are done correctly and the process is clear to the Board and the public. The staff’s guidance allowed the Board to make
a well-founded recommendation.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Page 379 of 491
AM-8044 6. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/20/2015
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign Local Agency Professional Services Consultant Agreement with Tetra
Tech for the Edmonds Waterfront Analysis project.
Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign the agreement.
Previous Council Action
On October 13, 2015, staff presented this item to Council and they forwarded the item to the October 20,
2015 Council meeting.
Narrative
The Request for Qualifications was advertised on August 21 and August 28, 2015. Five
consultant statement of qualifications were received. The selection committee consisted of a Sound
Transit representative, a WSDOT representative, and three City Employees (PW Director, City Engineer,
and Transportation Engineer). Tetra Tech was selected as the consultant because of their experience on
similar analysis projects and public outreach experience. The Advisory Task Force has approved this
selection.
An initial contract was executed between the City and Consultant to develop an initial public involvement
plan and attend the Advisory Task Force meetings in October.
This Local Agency Agreement consists of the following remaining tasks: Public Outreach; Task Force /
City Council briefings; Analysis of Existing Conditions; Level 1 Alternatives Development and
Screening; and Level 2 Alternatives Development and Evaluation. This analysis is scheduled to be
completed by Fall 2016.
The analysis will focus on the following:
(1) waterfront access issues emphasizing and prioritizing near term solutions to provide constant
emergency access;
(2) at-grade conflicts where Main and Dayton Streets intersect BNSF rail lines;
(3) pedestrian and bicycle access; and
(4) options to the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal Project, identified as Modified Alternative 2
within the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Upon project completion, a preferred alternative and near-term solutions will be identified.
Page 380 of 491
The total funding for this project is currently $690,000, with participation from the State Legislature, the
City of Edmonds, the Port of Edmonds, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway, Sound Transit,
and Community Transit.
The following attachments are included:
Revised Tetra Tech Contract (redlined scope of work)
Task 1 Professional Services Agreement
WSDOT Funding Agreement
Advisory Task Force Minutes
Consultant selection matrix
Attachments
Revised Tetra Tech Contract
Tetra Tech Local Agreement
WSDOT Funding Agreement Documents
Advisory Task Force Minutes 09/02/15
Advisory Task Force Minutes 09/24/15
Advisory Task Force Minutes 10/08/15
Consultant Selection Matrix
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Megan Luttrell 10/16/2015 08:31 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/16/2015 08:41 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/16/2015 08:55 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/16/2015 09:01 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 10/15/2015 11:25 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/16/2015
Page 381 of 491
Local Agency Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Page 1 of 14
Revised 4/10/2015
Local Agency Professional Services
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement
Agreement Number: Does this Require DES filing? Yes No
Firm/Organization Legal Name (do not use dba’s):
Address Federal Aid Number
UBI Number Federal TIN or SSN Number
Execution Date Completion Date
1099 Form Required
Yes No
Federal Participation
Yes No
Project Title
Description of Work
Yes % No DBE Participation
Yes % No MBE Participation
Yes % No WBE Participation
Yes % No SBE Participation
Total Amount Authorized:
Management Reserve Fund:
Maximum Amount Payable:
Index of Exhibits
Exhibit A Scope of Work
Exhibit B DBE Participation
Exhibit C Preparation and Delivery of Electronic Engineering and Other Data
Exhibit D Prime Consultant Cost Computations
Exhibit E Sub-consultant Cost Computations
Exhibit F Title VI Assurances
Exhibit G Certification Documents
Exhibit H Liability Insurance Increase
Exhibit I Alleged Consultant Design Error Procedures
Exhibit J Consultant Claim Procedures Agreement Number:
Page 382 of 491
Local Agency Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Page 2 of 14
Revised 4/10/2015
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as shown in the “Execution Date” box on page one (1) of this
AGREEMENT, between the ,
hereinafter called the “AGENCY,” and the “Firm / Organization Name” referenced on page one (1) of this
AGREEMENT, hereinafter called the “CONSULTANT.”
WHEREAS, the AGENCY desires to accomplish the work referenced in “Description of Work” on page one (1)
of this AGREEMENT and hereafter called the “SERVICES;” and does not have sufficient staff to meet the required
commitment and therefore deems it advisable and desirable to engage the assistance of a CONSULTANT to provide
the necessary SERVICES; and
WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents that they comply with the Washington State Statutes relating
to professional registration, if applicable, and has signified a willingness to furnish consulting services to
the AGENCY.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants, and performance contained herein,
or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, the parties hereto agree as follows:
I. General Description of Work
The work under this AGREEMENT shall consist of the above-described SERVICES as herein defined, and
necessary to accomplish the completed work for this project. The CONSULTANT shall furnish all services, labor,
and related equipment and, if applicable, sub-consultants and subcontractors necessary to conduct and complete the
SERVICES as designated elsewhere in this AGREEMENT.
II. General Scope of Work
The Scope of Work and projected level of effort required for these SERVICES is described in Exhibit “A” attached
hereto and by this reference made a part of this AGREEMENT. The General Scope of Work was developed
utilizing performance based contracting methodologies.
III. General Requirements
All aspects of coordination of the work of this AGREEMENT with outside agencies, groups, or individuals shall
receive advance approval by the AGENCY. Necessary contacts and meetings with agencies, groups, and/or
individuals shall be coordinated through the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT shall attend coordination, progress,
and presentation meetings with the AGENCY and/or such State, Federal, Community, City, or County officials,
groups or individuals as may be requested by the AGENCY. The AGENCY will provide the CONSULTANT
sufficient notice prior to meetings requiring CONSULTANT participation. The minimum required hours or days’
notice shall be agreed to between the AGENCY and the CONSULTANT and shown in Exhibit “A.”
The CONSULTANT shall prepare a monthly progress report, in a form approved by the AGENCY, which will
outline in written and graphical form the various phases and the order of performance of the SERVICES in
sufficient detail so that the progress of the SERVICES can easily be evaluated.
The CONSULTANT, any sub-consultants, and the AGENCY shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws,
rules, codes, regulations, and all AGENCY policies and directives, applicable to the work to be performed under
this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the State
of Washington.
Agreement Number:
Page 383 of 491
Local Agency Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Page 3 of 14
Revised 4/10/2015
Participation for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) or Small Business Enterprises (SBE), if required,
per 49 CFR Part 26 shall be shown on the heading of this AGREEMENT. If DBE firms are utilized at the
commencement of this AGREEMENT, the amounts authorized to each firm and their certification number will
be shown on Exhibit “B” attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. If the Prime
CONSULTANT is a DBE certified firm they must comply with the Commercial Useful Function (CUF) regulation
outlined in the AGENCY’s “DBE Program Participation Plan” and perform a minimum of 30% of the total amount
of this AGREEMENT. It is recommended, but not required, that non-DBE Prime CONSULTANTS perform
a minimum of 30% of the total amount of this AGREEMENT.
The CONSULTANT, on a monthly basis, is required to submit DBE Participation of the amounts paid to all DBE
firms invoiced for this AGREEMENT.
All Reports, PS&E materials, and other data furnished to the CONSULTANT by the AGENCY shall be returned.
All electronic files, prepared by the CONSULTANT, must meet the requirements as outlined in Exhibit “C –
Preparation and Delivery of Electronic Engineering and other Data.”
All designs, drawings, specifications, documents, and other work products, including all electronic files, prepared
by the CONSULTANT prior to completion or termination of this AGREEMENT are instruments of service for
these SERVICES, and are the property of the AGENCY. Reuse by the AGENCY or by others, acting through or
on behalf of the AGENCY of any such instruments of service, not occurring as a part of this SERVICE, shall be
without liability or legal exposure to the CONSULTANT.
Any and all notices or requests required under this AGREEMENT shall be made in writing and sent to the other
party by (i) certified mail, return receipt requested, or (ii) by email or facsimile, to the address set forth below:
If to AGENCY:
Name:
Agency:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Email:
Phone:
Facsimile:
If to CONSULTANT:
Name:
Agency:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Email:
Phone:
Facsimile:
IV. Time for Beginning and Completion
The CONSULTANT shall not begin any work under the terms of this AGREEMENT until authorized in writing
by the AGENCY. This AGREEMENT may require filing with the Department of Enterprise Services (DES)
pursuant to RCW 39.26.140. If such approval is required by DES, this AGREEMENT shall not bind the
AGENCY until approved by DES. If the AGREEMENT must be approved by DES, work cannot begin, nor
payment made until ten (10) or more working days following the date of filing, and, until approved by DES.
Any subsequent SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT may also be subject to filing and/or approval from DES. All
work under this AGREEMENT shall be completed by the date shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT titled
“Completion Date.”
The established completion time shall not be extended because of any delays attributable to the CONSULTANT,
but may be extended by the AGENCY in the event of a delay attributable to the AGENCY, or because of
unavoidable delays caused by an act of GOD, governmental actions, or other conditions beyond the control of the
CONSULTANT. A prior supplemental AGREEMENT issued by the AGENCY is required to extend the established
completion time.
Agreement Number:
Page 384 of 491
Local Agency Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Page 4 of 14
Revised 4/10/2015
V. Payment Provisions
The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for completed SERVICES rendered under this AGREEMENT
as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for SERVICES performed or SERVICES
rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete SERVICES,
specified in Section II, “Scope of Work”. The CONSULTANT shall conform to all applicable portions of 48 CFR
Part 31 (www.ecfr.gov). The estimate in support of the Cost Plus Fixed Fee amount is attached hereto as Exhibits
“D” and “E” and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT.
A. Actual Costs: Payment for all consulting services for this PROJECT shall be on the basis of the
CONSULTANT’S actual cost plus a fixed fee. The actual cost shall include direct salary cost, indirect cost rate,
and direct non-salary costs.
1. Direct (RAW) Labor Costs: The Direct (RAW) Labor Cost is the direct salary paid to principals,
professional, technical, and clerical personnel for the time they are productively engaged in work necessary
to fulfill the terms of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall maintain support data to verify the
direct salary costs billed to the AGENCY.
2. Indirect Cost Rate (ICR) Costs: ICR Costs are those costs, other than direct costs, which are included as
such on the books of the CONSULTANT in the normal everyday keeping of its books. Progress payments
shall be made at the ICR rates shown in attached Exhibits “D” and “E” of this AGREEMENT. Total
ICR payment shall be based on Actual Costs. The AGENCY agrees to reimburse the CONSULTANT
the actual ICR costs verified by audit, up to the Maximum Total Amount Payable, authorized under this
AGREEMENT, when accumulated with all other Actual Costs.
A summary of the CONSULTANT’S cost estimate and the ICR percentage is shown in Exhibits “D” and
“E”, attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT (prime
and all sub-consultants) will submit to the AGENCY within six (6) months after the end of each firm’s fiscal
year, an ICR schedule in the format required by the AGENCY (cost category, dollar expenditures, etc.) for
the purpose of adjusting the ICR rate for billings received and paid during the fiscal year represented by the
ICR schedule. It shall also be used for the computation of progress payments during the following year and
for retroactively adjusting the previous year’s ICR cost to reflect the actual rate. The ICR schedule will be
sent to Email: ConsultantRates@wsdot.wa.gov.
Failure to supply this information by either the prime CONSULTANT or any of their sub-consultants shall
cause the AGENCY to withhold payment of the billed ICR costs until such time as the required information
is received and an overhead rate for billing purposes is approved.
The AGENCY’s Project Manager and/or the Federal Government may perform an audit of the
CONSULTANT’S books and records at any time during regular business hours to determine the actual ICR
rate, if they so desire.
3. Direct Non-Salary Costs: Direct Non-Salary Costs will be reimbursed at the Actual Cost to the
CONSULTANT. These charges may include, but are not limited to, the following items: travel, printing,
long distance telephone, supplies, computer charges and fees of sub-consultants. Air or train travel will be
reimbursed only to economy class levels unless otherwise approved by the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT
shall comply with the rules and regulations regarding travel costs (excluding air, train, and rental car costs)
in accordance with the WSDOT’ Accounting Manual M 13-82, Chapter 10 – Travel Rules and Procedures,
and revisions thereto. Air, train, and rental car costs shall be reimbursed in accordance with 48 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 31.205-46 “Travel Costs.” The billing for Direct Non-Salary Costs shall
include an itemized listing of the charges directly identifiable with the PROJECT. The CONSULTANT shall
maintain the original supporting documents in their office. Copies of the original supporting documents
shall be supplied to the AGENCY upon request. All above charges must be necessary for the services
provided under this AGREEMENT.
Agreement Number:
Page 385 of 491
Local Agency Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Page 5 of 14
Revised 4/10/2015
4. Fixed Fee: The Fixed Fee, which represents the CONSULTANT’S profit, is shown in attached Exhibits “D”
and “E” of this AGREEMENT. This fee is based on the Scope of Work defined in this AGREEMENT and
the estimated person-hours required to perform the stated Scope of Work. In the event the CONSULTANT
enters into a supplemental AGREEMENT for additional work, the supplemental AGREEMENT may
include provisions for the added costs and an appropriate additional fee. The Fixed Fee will be prorated
and paid monthly in proportion to the percentage of work completed by the CONSULTANT and reported
in the Monthly Progress Reports accompanying the billings. Any portion of the Fixed Fee earned but not
previously paid in the progress payments will be covered in the final payment, subject to the provisions of
Section IX entitled “Termination of Agreement.”
5. Management Reserve Fund (MRF): The AGENCY may desire to establish a MRF to provide the Agreement
Administrator with the flexibility to authorize additional funds to the AGREEMENT for allowable
unforeseen costs, or reimbursing the CONSULTANT for additional work beyond that already defined in
this AGREEMENT. Such authorization(s) shall be in writing and shall not exceed the lesser of $100,000 or
10% of the Total Amount Authorized as shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. The amount included
for the MRF is shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT. This fund may not be replenished. Any
changes requiring additional costs in excess of the MRF shall be made in accordance with Section XIII,
“Changes of Work.”
6. Maximum Total Amount Payable: The Maximum Total Amount Payable by the AGENCY to the
CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT shall not exceed the amount shown in the heading of this
AGREEMENT. The Maximum Total Amount Payable is comprised of the Total Amount Authorized, and
the MRF. The Maximum Total Amount Payable does not include payment for Extra Work as stipulated in
Section XIII, “Changes of Work.” No minimum amount payable is guaranteed under this AGREEMENT.
B. Monthly Progress Payments: The CONSULTANT may submit billings to the AGENCY for reimbursement of
Actual Costs plus the ICR and calculated fee on a monthly basis during the progress of the work. Such billings
shall be in a format approved by the AGENCY and accompanied by the monthly progress reports required under
Section III, “General Requirements” of this AGREEMENT. The billings will be supported by an itemized
listing for each item including Direct (RAW) Labor, Direct Non-Salary, and allowable ICR Costs to which will
be added the prorated Fixed Fee. To provide a means of verifying the billed Direct (RAW) Labor costs for
CONSULTANT employees, the AGENCY may conduct employee interviews. These interviews may consist of
recording the names, titles, Direct (RAW) Labor rates, and present duties of those employees performing work
on the PROJECT at the time of the interview.
C. Final Payment: Final Payment of any balance due the CONSULTANT of the gross amount earned will be made
promptly upon its verification by the AGENCY after the completion of the work under this AGREEMENT,
contingent, if applicable, upon receipt of all PS&E, plans, maps, notes, reports, electronic data and other related
documents which are required to be furnished under this AGREEMENT. Acceptance of such Final Payment by
the CONSULTANT shall constitute a release of all claims for payment, which the CONSULTANT may have
against the AGENCY unless such claims are specifically reserved in writing and transmitted to the AGENCY by
the CONSULTANT prior to its acceptance. Said Final Payment shall not, however, be a bar to any claims that
the AGENCY may have against the CONSULTANT or to any remedies the AGENCY may pursue with respect
to such claims.
The payment of any billing will not constitute agreement as to the appropriateness of any item and at the time
of final audit; all required adjustments will be made and reflected in a final payment. In the event that such
final audit reveals an overpayment to the CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT will refund such overpayment
to the AGENCY within thirty (30) calendar days of notice of the overpayment. Such refund shall not
constitute a waiver by the CONSULTANT for any claims relating to the validity of a finding by the AGENCY
of overpayment. The CONSULTANT has twenty (20) working days after receipt of the final POST AUDIT
to begin the appeal process to the AGENCY for audit findings.
Agreement Number:
Page 386 of 491
Local Agency Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Page 6 of 14
Revised 4/10/2015
D. Inspection of Cost Records: The CONSULTANT and their sub-consultants shall keep available for inspection
by representatives of the AGENCY and the United States, for a period of six (6) years after receipt of final
payment, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this AGREEMENT and all items related to or bearing upon
these records with the following exception: if any litigation, claim or audit arising out of, in connection with,
or related to this AGREEMENT is initiated before the expiration of the six (6) year period, the cost records and
accounts shall be retained until such litigation, claim, or audit involving the records is completed.
An interim or post audit may be performed on this AGREEMENT. The audit, if any, will be performed by the
State Auditor, WSDOT’s Internal Audit Office and /or at the request of the AGENCY’s Project Manager.
VI. Sub-Contracting
The AGENCY permits subcontracts for those items of SERVICES as shown in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and by
this reference made part of this AGREEMENT.
The CONSULTANT shall not subcontract for the performance of any SERVICE under this AGREEMENT without
prior written permission of the AGENCY. No permission for subcontracting shall create, between the AGENCY
and sub-consultant, any contract or any other relationship.
Compensation for this sub-consultant SERVICES shall be based on the cost factors shown on Exhibit “E” attached
hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT.
The SERVICES of the sub-consultant shall not exceed its maximum amount payable identified in each sub-
consultant cost estimate unless a prior written approval has been issued by the AGENCY.
All reimbursable direct labor, indirect cost rate, direct non-salary costs and fixed fee costs for the sub-consultant
shall be negotiated and substantiated in accordance with section V “Payment Provisions” herein and shall be
memorialized in a final written acknowledgement between the parties.
All subcontracts shall contain all applicable provisions of this AGREEMENT, and the CONSULTANT shall require
each sub-consultant or subcontractor, of any tier, to abide by the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. With
respect to sub-consultant payment, the CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable sections of the STATE’s
Prompt Payment laws as set forth in RCW 39.04.250 and RCW 39.76.011.
The CONSULTANT, sub-recipient, or sub-consultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national
origin, or sex in the performance of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall carry out applicable
requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. Failure by the
CONSULTANT to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this AGREEMENT, which may result in the
termination of this AGREEMENT or such other remedy as the recipient deems appropriate.
VII. Employment and Organizational Conflict of Interest
The CONSULTANT warrants that they have not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona
fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this contract, and that it has not paid or
agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, any
fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the
award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warrant, the AGENCY shall have the right to annul
this AGREEMENT without liability or, in its discretion, to deduct from this AGREEMENT price or consideration
or otherwise recover the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
Any and all employees of the CONSULTANT or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work
or services required of the CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT, shall be considered employees of the
CONSULTANT only and not of the AGENCY, and any and all claims that may arise under any Workmen’s
Agreement Number:
Page 387 of 491
Local Agency Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Page 7 of 14
Revised 4/10/2015
Compensation Act on behalf of said employees or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims made
by a third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the CONSULTANT’s employees or other
persons while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation
and responsibility of the CONSULTANT.
The CONSULTANT shall not engage, on a full- or part-time basis, or other basis, during the period of this
AGREEMENT, any professional or technical personnel who are, or have been, at any time during the period of this
AGREEMENT, in the employ of the United States Department of Transportation or the AGENCY, except regularly
retired employees, without written consent of the public employer of such person if he/she will be working on this
AGREEMENT for the CONSULTANT.
VIII. Nondiscrimination
During the performance of this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT, for itself, its assignees, sub-consultants,
subcontractors and successors in interest, agrees to comply with the following laws and regulations:
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(42 U.S.C. Chapter 21 Subchapter V § 2000d
through 2000d-4a)
• Federal-aid Highway Act of 1973
(23 U.S.C. Chapter 3 § 324)
• Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(29 U.S.C. Chapter 16 Subchapter V § 794)
• Age Discrimination Act of 1975
(42 U.S.C. Chapter 76 § 6101 et. seq.)
• Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987
(Public Law 100-259)
• American with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. Chapter 126 § 12101 et. seq.)
• 23 CFR Part 200
• 49 CFR Part 21
• 49 CFR Part 26
• RCW 49.60.180
In relation to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the CONSULTANT is bound by the provisions of Exhibit “F”
attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT, and shall include the attached Exhibit “F” in
every sub-contract, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations
or directives issued pursuant thereto.
IX. Termination of Agreement
The right is reserved by the AGENCY to terminate this AGREEMENT at any time with or without cause upon ten
(10) days written notice to the CONSULTANT.
In the event this AGREEMENT is terminated by the AGENCY, other than for default on the part of the
CONSULTANT, a final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT for actual hours charged and any appropriate
fixed fee percentage at the time of termination of this AGREEMENT, plus any direct non-salary costs incurred up to
the time of termination of this AGREEMENT.
No payment shall be made for any SERVICES completed after ten (10) days following receipt by the
CONSULTANT of the notice to terminate. If the accumulated payment made to the CONSULTANT prior to Notice
of Termination exceeds the total amount that would be due when computed as set forth in paragraph two (2) of this
section, then no final payment shall be due and the CONSULTANT shall immediately reimburse the AGENCY for
any excess paid.
If the services of the CONSULTANT are terminated by the AGENCY for default on the part of the CONSULTANT,
the above formula for payment shall not apply.
In the event of a termination for default, the amount to be paid to the CONSULTANT shall be determined by the
AGENCY with consideration given to the actual costs incurred by the CONSULTANT in performing SERVICES
to the date of termination, the amount of SERVICES originally required which was satisfactorily completed to
Agreement Number:
Page 388 of 491
Local Agency Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Page 8 of 14
Revised 4/10/2015
date of termination, whether that SERVICE is in a form or a type which is usable to the AGENCY at the time of
termination, the cost to the AGENCY of employing another firm to complete the SERVICES required and the
time which may be required to do so, and other factors which affect the value to the AGENCY of the SERVICES
performed at the time of termination. Under no circumstances shall payment made under this subsection exceed the
amount, which would have been made using the formula set forth in paragraph two (2) of this section.
If it is determined for any reason that the CONSULTANT was not in default or that the CONSULTANT’s failure to
perform is without the CONSULTANT’s or its employee’s fault or negligence, the termination shall be deemed to
be a termination for the convenience of the AGENCY. In such an event, the CONSULTANT would be reimbursed
for actual costs and appropriate fixed fee percentage in accordance with the termination for other than default
clauses listed previously.
The CONSULTANT shall, within 15 days, notify the AGENCY in writing, in the event of the death of any member,
partner, or officer of the CONSULTANT or the death or change of any of the CONSULTANT’s supervisory and/or
other key personnel assigned to the project or disaffiliation of any principally involved CONSULTANT employee.
The CONSULTANT shall also notify the AGENCY, in writing, in the event of the sale or transfer of 50% or
more of the beneficial ownership of the CONSULTANT within 15 days of such sale or transfer occurring. The
CONSULTANT shall continue to be obligated to complete the SERVICES under the terms of this AGREEMENT
unless the AGENCY chooses to terminate this AGREEMENT for convenience or chooses to renegotiate any term(s)
of this AGREEMENT. If termination for convenience occurs, final payment will be made to the CONSULTANT as
set forth in the second and third paragraphs of this section.
Payment for any part of the SERVICES by the AGENCY shall not constitute a waiver by the AGENCY of
any remedies of any type it may have against the CONSULTANT for any breach of this AGREEMENT by the
CONSULTANT, or for failure of the CONSULTANT to perform SERVICES required of it by the AGENCY.
Forbearance of any rights under the AGREEMENT will not constitute waiver of entitlement to exercise those rights
with respect to any future act or omission by the CONSULTANT.
X. Changes of Work
The CONSULTANT shall make such changes and revisions in the completed work of this AGREEMENT as
necessary to correct errors appearing therein, without additional compensation thereof. Should the AGENCY find
it desirable for its own purposes to have previously satisfactorily completed SERVICES or parts thereof changed or
revised, the CONSULTANT shall make such revisions as directed by the AGENCY This work shall be considered
as Extra Work and will be paid for as herein provided under section XIII “Extra Work.”
XI. Disputes
Any disputed issue not resolved pursuant to the terms of this AGREEMENT shall be submitted in writing within
10 days to the Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer, whose decision in the matter shall be final and
binding on the parties of this AGREEMENT; provided however, that if an action is brought challenging the
Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer’s decision, that decision shall be subject to judicial review. If the
parties to this AGREEMENT mutually agree, disputes concerning alleged design errors will be conducted under
the procedures found in Exhibit “J.” In the event that either party deem it necessary to institute legal action or
proceeding to enforce any right or obligation under this AGREEMENT, this action shall be initiated in the Superior
Court of the State of Washington, situated in the county in which the AGENCY is located. The parties hereto
agree that all questions shall be resolved by application of Washington law and that the parties have the right of
appeal from such decisions of the Superior Court in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The
CONSULTANT hereby consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of Washington,
situated in the county in which the AGENCY is located.
Agreement Number:
Page 389 of 491
Local Agency Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Page 9 of 14
Revised 4/10/2015
XII. Legal Relations
The CONSULTANT, any sub-consultants, and the AGENCY shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws,
rules, codes, regulations and all AGENCY policies and directives, applicable to the work to be performed under this
AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Washington.
The CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify, and hold the State of Washington (STATE) and the AGENCY and
their officers and employees harmless from all claims, demands, or suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part
from the negligence of, or the breach of any obligation under this AGREEMENT by, the CONSULTANT or the
CONSULTANT’s agents, employees, sub consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tier, or any other persons
for whom the CONSULTANT may be legally liable; provided that nothing herein shall require a CONSULTANT
to defend or indemnify the STATE and the AGENCY and their officers and employees against and hold harmless
the STATE and the AGENCY and their officers and employees from claims, demands or suits based solely upon
the negligence of, or breach of any obligation under this AGREEMENT by the STATE and the AGENCY, their
agents, officers, employees, sub-consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tier, or any other persons for whom
the STATE and/or the AGENCY may be legally liable; and provided further that if the claims or suits are caused
by or result from the concurrent negligence of (a) the CONSULTANT or the CONSULTANT’s agents, employees,
sub-consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tier, or any other persons for whom the CONSULTANT is legally
liable, and (b) the STATE and/or AGENCY, their agents, officers, employees, sub-consultants, subcontractors and or
vendors, of any tier, or any other persons for whom the STATE and/or AGENCY may be legally liable, the defense
and indemnity obligation shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the CONSULTANT’s negligence or
the negligence of the CONSULTANT’s agents, employees, sub-consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tier,
or any other persons for whom the CONSULTANT may be legally liable. This provision shall be included in any
AGREEMENT between CONSULTANT and any sub-consultant, subcontractor and vendor, of any tier.
The CONSULTANT shall also defend, indemnify, and hold the STATE and the AGENCY and their officers
and employees harmless from all claims, demands, or suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part from the
alleged patent or copyright infringement or other allegedly improper appropriation or use of trade secrets, patents,
proprietary information, know-how, copyright rights or inventions by the CONSULTANT or the CONSULTANT’s
agents, employees, sub-consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tier, or any other persons for whom the
CONSULTANT may be legally liable, in performance of the Work under this AGREEMENT or arising out of any
use in connection with the AGREEMENT of methods, processes, designs, information or other items furnished or
communicated to STATE and/or the AGENCY, their agents, officers and employees pursuant to the AGREEMENT;
provided that this indemnity shall not apply to any alleged patent or copyright infringement or other allegedly
improper appropriation or use of trade secrets, patents, proprietary information, know-how, copyright rights or
inventions resulting from STATE and/or the AGENCY’s, their agents’, officers’ and employees’ failure to comply
with specific written instructions regarding use provided to STATE and/or the AGENCY, their agents, officers and
employees by the CONSULTANT, their agents, employees, sub-consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tier,
or any other persons for whom the CONSULTANT may be legally liable.
The CONSULTANT’s relation to the AGENCY shall be at all times as an independent contractor.
Notwithstanding any determination by the Executive Ethics Board or other tribunal, the AGENCY may, in its sole
discretion, by written notice to the CONSULTANT terminate this AGREEMENT if it is found after due notice and
examination by the AGENCY that there is a violation of the Ethics in Public Service Act, Chapter 42.52 RCW; or
any similar statute involving the CONSULTANT in the procurement of, or performance under, this AGREEMENT.
The CONSULTANT specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the CONSULTANT’s own
employees or its agents against the STATE and/or the AGENCY and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification
and defense, the CONSULTANT specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51
RCW. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the Parties.
Agreement Number:
Page 390 of 491
Local Agency Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Page 10 of 14
Revised 4/10/2015
Unless otherwise specified in this AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall be responsible for administration of
construction contracts, if any, on the project. Subject to the processing of a new sole source, or an acceptable
supplemental AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT shall provide On-Call assistance to the AGENCY during contract
administration. By providing such assistance, the CONSULTANT shall assume no responsibility for: proper
construction techniques, job site safety, or any construction contractor’s failure to perform its work in accordance
with the contract documents.
The CONSULTANT shall obtain and keep in force during the terms of this AGREEMENT, or as otherwise
required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance
Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW.
Insurance Coverage
A. Worker’s compensation and employer’s liability insurance as required by the STATE.
B. Commercial general liability insurance written under ISO Form CG 00 01 12 04 or its equivalent with minimum
limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) in the
aggregate for each policy period.
C. Business auto liability insurance written under ISO Form CG 00 01 10 01 or equivalent providing coverage for
any “Auto” (Symbol 1) used in an amount not less than a one million dollar ($1,000,000.00) combined single
limit for each occurrence.
Excepting the Worker’s Compensation Insurance and any Professional Liability Insurance, the STATE and
AGENCY, their officers, employees, and agents will be named on all policies of CONSULTANT and any sub-
consultant and/or subcontractor as an additional insured (the “AIs”), with no restrictions or limitations concerning
products and completed operations coverage. This coverage shall be primary coverage and non-contributory and
any coverage maintained by the AIs shall be excess over, and shall not contribute with, the additional insured
coverage required hereunder. The CONSULTANT’s and the sub-consultant’s and/or subcontractor’s insurer shall
waive any and all rights of subrogation against the AIs. The CONSULTANT shall furnish the AGENCY with
verification of insurance and endorsements required by this AGREEMENT. The AGENCY reserves the right to
require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time.
All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington.
The CONSULTANT shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within fourteen (14) days of the
execution of this AGREEMENT to:
Name:
Agency:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Email:
Phone:
Facsimile:
No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty (30) days prior notice to the AGENCY.
The CONSULTANT’s professional liability to the AGENCY, including that which may arise in reference to
section IX “Termination of Agreement” of this AGREEMENT, shall be limited to the accumulative amount of the
authorized AGREEMENT amount or one million dollars ($1,000,000.00), whichever is greater, unless the limit of
liability is increased by the AGENCY pursuant to Exhibit H. In no case shall the CONSULTANT’s professional
liability to third parties be limited in any way.
Agreement Number:
Page 391 of 491
Local Agency Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Page 11 of 14
Revised 4/10/2015
The parties enter into this AGREEMENT for the sole benefit of the parties, and to the exclusion of any third party,
and no third party beneficiary is intended or created by the execution of this AGREEMENT.
The AGENCY will pay no progress payments under section V “Payment Provisions” until the CONSULTANT has
fully complied with this section. This remedy is not exclusive; and the AGENCY may take such other action as is
available to it under other provisions of this AGREEMENT, or otherwise in law.
XIII. Extra Work
A. The AGENCY may at any time, by written order, make changes within the general scope of this AGREEMENT
in the SERVICES to be performed.
B. If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the estimated cost of, or the time required for, performance
of any part of the SERVICES under this AGREEMENT, whether or not changed by the order, or otherwise
affects any other terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall make an equitable adjustment
in the: (1) maximum amount payable; (2) delivery or completion schedule, or both; and (3) other affected terms
and shall modify this AGREEMENT accordingly.
C. The CONSULTANT must submit any “request for equitable adjustment,” hereafter referred to as “CLAIM,”
under this clause within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the written order. However, if the AGENCY
decides that the facts justify it, the AGENCY may receive and act upon a CLAIM submitted before final
payment of this AGREEMENT.
D. Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute under the section XI “Disputes” clause. However, nothing
in this clause shall excuse the CONSULTANT from proceeding with the AGREEMENT as changed.
E. Notwithstanding the terms and conditions of paragraphs (A.) and (B.) above, the maximum amount payable for
this AGREEMENT, shall not be increased or considered to be increased except by specific written supplement
to this AGREEMENT.
XIV. Endorsement of Plans
If applicable, the CONSULTANT shall place their endorsement on all plans, estimates, or any other engineering
data furnished by them.
XV. Federal Review
The Federal Highway Administration shall have the right to participate in the review or examination of the
SERVICES in progress.
XVI. Certification of the Consultant and the AGENCY
Attached hereto as Exhibit “G-1(a and b)” are the Certifications of the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY, Exhibit
“G-2” Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters - Primary Covered
Transactions, Exhibit “G-3” Certification Regarding the Restrictions of the Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying
and Exhibit “G-4” Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. Exhibit “G-3” is required only in AGREEMENT’s
over one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) and Exhibit “G-4” is required only in AGREEMENT’s over
five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00.) These Exhibits must be executed by the CONSULTANT, and
submitted with the master AGREEMENT, and returned to the AGENCY at the address listed in section III “General
Requirements” prior to its performance of any SERVICES under this AGREEMENT.
Agreement Number:
Page 392 of 491
Local Agency Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Page 12 of 14
Revised 4/10/2015
XVII. Complete Agreement
This document and referenced attachments contain all covenants, stipulations, and provisions agreed upon by the
parties. No agent, or representative of either party has authority to make, and the parties shall not be bound by or
be liable for, any statement, representation, promise or agreement not set forth herein. No changes, amendments, or
modifications of the terms hereof shall be valid unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties as a supplement
to this AGREEMENT.
XVIII. Execution and Acceptance
This AGREEMENT may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed
to be an original having identical legal effect. The CONSULTANT does hereby ratify and adopt all statements,
representations, warranties, covenants, and AGREEMENT’s contained in the proposal, and the supporting material
submitted by the CONSULTANT, and does hereby accept this AGREEMENT and agrees to all of the terms and
conditions thereof.
XIX. Protection of Confidential Information
The CONSULTANT acknowledges that some of the material and information that may come into its possession
or knowledge in connection with this AGREEMENT or its performance may consist of information that is exempt
from disclosure to the public or other unauthorized persons under either chapter 42.56 RCW or other local, state
or federal statutes (“State’s Confidential Information”). The “State’s Confidential Information” includes, but is
not limited to, names, addresses, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, financial profiles,
credit card information, driver’s license numbers, medical data, law enforcement records (or any other information
identifiable to an individual), STATE and AGENCY source code or object code, STATE and AGENCY security
data, non-public Specifications, STATE and AGENCY non-publicly available data, proprietary software, STATE
and AGENCY security data, or information which may jeopardize any part of the project that relates to any of
these types of information. The CONSULTANT agrees to hold the State’s Confidential Information in strictest
confidence and not to make use of the State’s Confidential Information for any purpose other than the performance
of this AGREEMENT, to release it only to authorized employees, sub-consultants or subcontractors requiring such
information for the purposes of carrying out this AGREEMENT, and not to release, divulge, publish, transfer,
sell, disclose, or otherwise make it known to any other party without the AGENCY’s express written consent
or as provided by law. The CONSULTANT agrees to release such information or material only to employees,
sub-consultants or subcontractors who have signed a nondisclosure AGREEMENT, the terms of which have
been previously approved by the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT agrees to implement physical, electronic,
and managerial safeguards to prevent unauthorized access to the State’s Confidential Information.
Immediately upon expiration or termination of this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT shall, at the AGENCY’s
option: (i) certify to the AGENCY that the CONSULTANT has destroyed all of the State’s Confidential
Information; or (ii) returned all of the State’s Confidential Information to the AGENCY; or (iii) take whatever other
steps the AGENCY requires of the CONSULTANT to protect the State’s Confidential Information.
As required under Executive Order 00-03, the CONSULTANT shall maintain a log documenting the following:
the State’s Confidential Information received in the performance of this AGREEMENT; the purpose(s) for which
the State’s Confidential Information was received; who received, maintained and used the State’s Confidential
Information; and the final disposition of the State’s Confidential Information. The CONSULTANT’s records shall
be subject to inspection, review, or audit upon reasonable notice from the AGENCY.
The AGENCY reserves the right to monitor, audit, or investigate the use of the State’s Confidential Information
collected, used, or acquired by the CONSULTANT through this AGREEMENT. The monitoring, auditing, or
investigating may include, but is not limited to, salting databases.
Agreement Number:
Page 393 of 491
Local Agency Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Page 13 of 14
Revised 4/10/2015
Violation of this section by the CONSULTANT or its sub-consultants or subcontractors may result in termination of
this AGREEMENT and demand for return of all State’s Confidential Information, monetary damages, or penalties.
It is understood and acknowledged that the CONSULTANT may provide the AGENCY with information which
is proprietary and/or confidential during the term of this AGREEMENT. The parties agree to maintain the
confidentiality of such information during the term of this AGREEMENT and afterwards. All materials containing
such proprietary and/or confidential information shall be clearly identified and marked as “Confidential” and shall
be returned to the disclosing party at the conclusion of the SERVICES under this AGREEMENT.
The CONSULTANT shall provide the AGENCY with a list of all information and materials it considers confidential
and/or proprietary in nature: (a) at the commencement of the term of this AGREEMENT; or (b) as soon as such
confidential or proprietary material is developed. “Proprietary and/or confidential information” is not meant to
include any information which, at the time of its disclosure: (i) is already known to the other party; (ii) is rightfully
disclosed to one of the parties by a third party that is not acting as an agent or representative for the other party;
(iii) is independently developed by or for the other party; (iv) is publicly known; or (v) is generally utilized by
unaffiliated third parties engaged in the same business or businesses as the CONSULTANT.
The parties also acknowledge that the AGENCY is subject to Washington State and federal public disclosure
laws. As such, the AGENCY shall maintain the confidentiality of all such information marked proprietary and/
or confidential or otherwise exempt, unless such disclosure is required under applicable state or federal law. If a
public disclosure request is made to view materials identified as “Proprietary and/or confidential information” or
otherwise exempt information, the AGENCY will notify the CONSULTANT of the request and of the date that such
records will be released to the requester unless the CONSULTANT obtains a court order from a court of competent
jurisdiction enjoining that disclosure. If the CONSULTANT fails to obtain the court order enjoining disclosure, the
AGENCY will release the requested information on the date specified.
The CONSULTANT agrees to notify the sub-consultant of any AGENCY communication regarding disclosure that
may include a sub-consultant’s proprietary and/or confidential information. The CONSULTANT notification to the
sub-consultant will include the date that such records will be released by the AGENCY to the requester and state
that unless the sub-consultant obtains a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction enjoining that disclosure
the AGENCY will release the requested information. If the CONSULTANT and/or sub-consultant fail to obtain
a court order or other judicial relief enjoining the AGENCY by the release date, the CONSULTANT shall waive
and release and shall hold harmless and indemnify the AGENCY from all claims of actual or alleged damages,
liabilities, or costs associated with the AGENCY’s said disclosure of sub-consultants’ information.
XX. Records Maintenance
During the progress of the Work and SERVICES provided hereunder and for a period of not less than six (6) years
from the date of final payment to the CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT shall keep, retain and maintain all
“documents” pertaining to the SERVICES provided pursuant to this AGREEMENT. Copies of all “documents”
pertaining to the SERVICES provided hereunder shall be made available for review at the CONSULTANT’s place
of business during normal working hours. If any litigation, claim or audit is commenced, the CONSULTANT shall
cooperate with AGENCY and assist in the production of all such documents. “Documents” shall be retained until
all litigation, claims or audit findings have been resolved even though such litigation, claim or audit continues past
the six (6) year retention period.
For purposes of this AGREEMENT, “documents” means every writing or record of every type and description,
including electronically stored information (“ESI”), that is in the possession, control, or custody of the
CONSULTANT, including, without limitation, any and all correspondences, contracts, AGREEMENT ‘s,
appraisals, plans, designs, data, surveys, maps, spreadsheets, memoranda, stenographic or handwritten
notes, reports, records, telegrams, schedules, diaries, notebooks, logbooks, invoices, accounting records,
work sheets, charts, notes, drafts, scribblings, recordings, visual displays, photographs, minutes of meetings,
Agreement Number:
Page 394 of 491
Local Agency Professional Services Cost Plus Fixed Fee Consultant Agreement Page 14 of 14
Revised 4/10/2015
tabulations, computations, summaries, inventories, and writings regarding conferences, conversations or
telephone conversations, and any and all other taped, recorded, written, printed or typed matters of any kind or
description; every copy of the foregoing whether or not the original is in the possession, custody, or control of the
CONSULTANT, and every copy of any of the foregoing, whether or not such copy is a copy identical to an original,
or whether or not such copy contains any commentary or notation whatsoever that does not appear on the original.
For purposes of this AGREEMENT, “ESI” means any and all computer data or electronic recorded media of any
kind, including “Native Files”, that are stored in any medium from which it can be retrieved and examined, either
directly or after translation into a reasonably useable form. ESI may include information and/or documentation
stored in various software programs such as: Email, Outlook, Word, Excel, Access, Publisher, PowerPoint, Adobe
Acrobat, SQL databases, or any other software or electronic communication programs or databases that the
CONSULTANT may use in the performance of its operations. ESI may be located on network servers, backup
tapes, smart phones, thumb drives, CDs, DVDs, floppy disks, work computers, cell phones, laptops or any other
electronic device that CONSULTANT uses in the performance of its Work or SERVICES hereunder, including any
personal devices used by the CONSULTANT or any sub-consultant at home.
“Native files” are a subset of ESI and refer to the electronic format of the application in which such ESI is normally
created, viewed, and /or modified.
The CONSULTANT shall include this section XX “Records Maintenance” in every subcontract it enters into in
relation to this AGREEMENT and bind the sub-consultant to its terms, unless expressly agreed to otherwise in
writing by the AGENCY prior to the execution of such subcontract.
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year shown in the
“Execution Date” box on page one (1) of this AGREEMENT.
Signature Date
Signature Date
Any modification, change, or reformation of this AGREEMENT shall require approval as to form by the Office
of the Attorney General.
Agreement Number:
Page 395 of 491
WSDOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit A Page 1 of 1
Revised 10/30/2014
Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Project No.
Agreement Number:
Page 396 of 491
Edmonds Waterfront Analysis
City of Edmonds / Tetra Tech, Inc.
Exhibit A 1
Exhibit A – Scope of Work
Edmonds Waterfront Analysis
The City of Edmonds (“City”) desires to improve the access and safety of the Main Street and
Dayton Street crossings of the railroad along the Edmonds waterfront. The Main Street and Dayton
Street crossings currently have more than (60) daily train crossings from Sounder Commuter,
Amtrak, and Freight (BNSF) trains, with more than (100) trains projected by 2030. The Main Street
crossing is situated approximately 150 feet east of the Edmonds WSDOT Ferry Terminal. The
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) at each crossing is approximately 6,000 vehicles per day.
Based on this, the City has retained Tetra Tech, Inc. (“Consultant”) to conduct the Edmonds
Waterfront Analysis which will focus on the following: (1) waterfront access issues emphasizing
and prioritizing near term solutions to provide constant emergency access; (2) at-grade conflicts
where Main and Dayton Streets intersect BNSF rail lines; (3) pedestrian and bicycle access; and (4)
options to the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal Project, identified as Modified Alternative 2
within the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement. Upon project completion, a preferred
alternative and near-term solutions will be identified.
The City has established an Advisory Task Force, comprised of transportation facility
owners/operators and residents, to oversee the development of the analysis. It is in the interest of the
project’s success to immediately initiate select activities during the negotiation and approval of the
complete Edmonds Waterfront Analysis contract. A separate contract was previously executed
between the City and Consultant to initiate engagement with the public and the Advisory Task
Force (Task 1).
Consultant will complete the Edmonds Waterfront Analysis in accomplishing the following tasks:
Task 1 – Project Initiation
(Not in contract)
Task 2 – Public Outreach
Consultant will design and implement a program of public outreach activities and methods to
engage the community and stakeholders. In addition to engaging key stakeholders through the
Advisory Task Force (Task 3) Consultant will implement a robust public involvement process to
more broadly reach those who are affected by current conditions and would be affected by measures
to improve access and safety at the Main Street and Dayton Street railroad crossings.
The goal of the public outreach process is to inform the public of the project’s purpose and to
involve them at key points in the process. The public process is also a component of scoping for the
environmental review process. The public outreach will be designed to help people understand
when and how to provide input, provide multiple opportunities and venues for sharing questions and
comments, report back on what is heard from the public, and illustrate how input has influenced the
alternatives.
Consultant will design a program of public outreach comprised of the following elements:
Page 397 of 491
Edmonds Waterfront Analysis
City of Edmonds / Tetra Tech, Inc.
Exhibit A 2
Outreach events
• Public meetings and open houses: Consultant will plan and implement one (1) project-
specific public meeting and three (3) open houses in coordination with City staff. Consultant
responsibilities include identifying and reserving a venue that is: within the project area,
publicly accessible and open to all, appropriate in size for the event, ADA accessible and
accessible via transit. Additional responsibilities include creating and implementing a
meeting strategy and plan with appropriate meeting purpose and goals, notification materials
and schedule, meeting materials needs and production schedule. Create supporting materials
as needed, such as comment forms, sign-in sheets, and directional signs. Provide meeting
setup and cleanup, facilitate the meeting, staff the project information stations, and provide
meeting summary including summary of comments received from the public.
• Community outreach events: Consultant will plan and implement up to 5 events, such as a
project-specific booth, pop-up meeting or table at a relevant fair, festival, community event
or public space in or near the project area. Consultant responsibilities include coordinating
with event/venue organizers to confirm attendance, coordinating payment of any fees,
confirming logistics, arranging equipment and materials, setting up and staffing, providing
project information, responding to and recording participants’ questions and comments,
cleaning up and returning all materials, and provide brief summary of comments received
from the public and any outstanding action items.
Online Open Houses
Consultant will provide a multi-page/station online open house in coordination with and
complementary to the three (3) open house meetings to provide opportunities for input/comment by
those unable to attend open house meetings. The online open house will include Google Analytics
(one report per open house). Open house pages will be archived upon completion unless longer term
hosting is requested.
Communications
To enhance awareness of the public participation opportunities, Consultant will prepare materials
that communicate information about the project and encourage participation at the venues. Details
of the communication methods and content will be finalized in discussions with the City and
Advisory Task Force under Task 1; however, the scope of the communications is anticipated to
generally consist of the following:
• Project fact sheet (for both print and web-based messaging): up to 3
• Postcards (announcing events): up to 4
• Poster (providing information and announcing events): 1
• Display board (for use in meetings): up to 30 (assume 10 per open house)
• Website development, content and maintenance (with link to City website): 1 site with up to
5 pages, using a simple format with basic graphics; assumes only front page is updated
regularly and most of the site is static information
• Social media content (for distribution by City): up to 20 posts
• Email updates (announcing events and distributing project information): up to 12
Page 398 of 491
Edmonds Waterfront Analysis
City of Edmonds / Tetra Tech, Inc.
Exhibit A 3
Reports
Consultant will prepare aup to two (2) reports – one to report to the Legislature and one to compile
and summarize public comments. Activities include compiling and simplifying technical
information, preparing charts, graphics and other relevant exhibits, and formatting reports. Content
for Legislative report will be produced by technical team.
Constituent Correspondence
Consultant will support City in drafting appropriate responses to constituent correspondence by
preparing a bank of responses to frequently-asked questions. Information should be in clear, non-
technical language written for a public audience and reviewed in accordance with defined protocol.
Consultant will track and categorize all incoming and outgoing project correspondence for easy
searching by constituent, date, topic and whether or not a response has been completed.
Deliverables:
1. One (1) draft and one (1) final meeting plan for each public meeting and open house
2. One (1) draft and one (1) final meeting summary for each public meeting and open house
3. One (1) summary of each outreach event
4. One (1) comment and analytics report from each Online Open House
5. Communication materials
6. Website
7. Up to two (2) dDraft and final public comment reports
8. Frequently-asked questions
9. Monthly reports of incoming and outgoing constituent correspondence
Task 3 – Advisory Task Force and City Council Briefings
Consultant participate regularly in Advisory Task Force meetings scheduled twice monthly
throughout the project beginning in November (October Task Force meetings were scoped within
Task 1), up to 18 meetings. For each meeting, Consultant will brief on project status and prepare
materials to inform the discussions planned for the meeting. Copies of briefing materials will be
provided for inclusion in the meeting notes.
Consultant will prepare a draft report, for review by the City, to be finalized and issued to the State
by December 1, 2015.
Consultant will provide periodic briefings to the City Council at appropriate junctures in the project
or when requested by the City. Four (4) formal briefings are provided for in the project budget.
Consultant will also present the draft report at the conclusion of the analysis to receive comments
for incorporation to the final project report.
Deliverables:
1. Presentations to Task Force meetings (18)
2. Draft and final sStatus report for submittal to State
Page 399 of 491
Edmonds Waterfront Analysis
City of Edmonds / Tetra Tech, Inc.
Exhibit A 4
3. Periodic briefings to City Council (4)
4. Presentation to City Council of draft project report.
Task 4 – Existing Conditions
Transportation
Consultant will characterize and quantify existing conditions using existing available data on the
modes of transport through the Main Street/Dayton Street study area (pedestrian, bicycle, bus,
auto/truck, rail/passenger rail, ferry) and their connectivity within the study area. Conditions will be
documented for all times of day, for the various transport modes, and for intermodal connections.
Prior studies will be incorporated, such as the Edmonds Crossing EIS, transportation analyses
prepared by PSRC, rail traffic projections, and other sources. The City’s traffic model will be
reviewed and adapted for use in analyzing current and anticipated conditions.
Data collected on existing rail traffic, at-grade crossing closures, bus/rail/ferry schedules and delay
times, emergency response times, park visitors, ferry ridership, use of parking and similar data will
inform the conditions assessment, along with data obtained through public outreach efforts
described in Task 2.
Consultant will conduct interviews with the owners and operators of transportation facilities in the
study area to document a detailed understanding of operation, maintenance, and service
requirements and concerns with the current conditions and anticipated future service demands.
Interviewees will include: Burlington Northern Railroad, City of Edmonds, Port of Edmonds, Fire
District No. 1, Washington State Ferries, Sound Transit, Community Transit,
Base Map
Consultant will prepare a base map derived from the City of Edmonds’ GIS and other sources for
use in displaying existing conditions and geo-referencing key features. Base map will be utilized in
subsequent alternatives development and screening tasks.
Affected Environment
Consultant will work with the Task Force to develop a draft Purpose and Need statement for review.
The statement will be used to develop screening criteria for alternatives, as well as to guide the
environmental review process.
Consultant will document existing conditions in the project area, utilizing readily available
information as well as applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines, in the following areas:
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases Noise
Archaeological, Cultural and Historic Properties Parks and Recreation
Fish, Wildlife, Vegetation Social/Economic
Geology and Soils Transportation
Hazardous Materials Visual Resources
Page 400 of 491
Edmonds Waterfront Analysis
City of Edmonds / Tetra Tech, Inc.
Exhibit A 5
Land Use Water Quality
Public Services and Utilities
The existing conditions will be documented in a technical memorandum (Existing Conditions
Baseline Report) in a format usable for follow-up environmental review processes.
Deliverables:
1. Interview summaries
2. Base map
3. Purpose and Need statement
4. Existing Conditions Baseline Report
Task 5 – Level 1 Alternatives Development and Screening
Consultant will compile a broad list of conceptual projects and potential measures intended to
improve accessibility and safety at the two railroad crossings. Concepts will be draw upon the
collective ideas from the Consultant, City staff, the Advisory Task Force, interviews, and through
the public outreach process. The concepts will be developed into a framework of alternatives that
offer (1) near-term solutions and/or (2) longer-term alternatives that would require coordination
with the ultimate location of the ferry terminal.
Consultant will organize and conduct a charrette to engage members of the Tetra Tech team,
Advisory Task Force and City staff to build upon the initial framework of alternatives with
additional concepts, concept variants and hybrids.
The Tetra Tech team will complete an examination of the assembled alternatives, applying criteria
defined in consultation with the City and the Task Force when developing the Purpose and Need
statement under Task 4. This Level 1 evaluation will be a primary screening of concepts utilizing a
limited set of feasibility criteria to arrive at a core group of alternatives.
The screening process will be initiated with the Consultant’s preliminary evaluation, and it will then
be completed by workshopping with the Advisory Task Force. The range of alternatives, the Level
1 screening process, and the outcomes will be summarized in an Alternatives Evaluation Report.
Deliverables:
1. Alternatives development charrette
2. Alternatives evaluation workshop
3. Draft and Final Alternatives Summary Report
Page 401 of 491
Edmonds Waterfront Analysis
City of Edmonds / Tetra Tech, Inc.
Exhibit A 6
Task 6 – Level 2 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
The outcomes of the Level 1 Alternatives Screening (Task 5) will be presented to the public in an
Open House (refer to Task 2) and City Council (Task 3). Refinements and hybrid variations will be
considered, and the resulting alternatives will be developed in sufficient detail to allow for a more
quantified Level 2 evaluation. This Level 2 evaluation will apply a more detailed set of criteria to
arrive at a preferred set of near-term solutions and long-range alternative, andor possibly one
alternative for each of the potential ferry terminal locations. The expanded criteria will encompass
elements to inform the project’s eventual environmental scoping.
The analyses will address level of service, compatibility with other plans, constructability/
feasibility, environmental impacts/benefits, capital costs, operational and maintenance
considerations, among other criteria.
Consultant, with the City, will conduct a meeting to brief regulatory agencies on the range of
considered alternatives and to receive feedback on any concerns with implementing features of the
considered actions.
Similar to Task 5, the evaluation process will be initiated with the Consultant’s analyses, and it will
then be reviewed and updated through workshopping with the Advisory Task Force. The Level 2
evaluation process and preferred alternative will be summarized in a Project Report.
Deliverable:
1. Alternatives evaluation workshop
2. Draft and Final Project Report
Task 7 - Project Management, Coordination and Reporting
Consultant will provide day-to-day coordination and communications with City, direct the
Consultant team efforts, monitor project progress against budget and schedule, and report regularly
to the City on project status and current activities. Monthly progress reports will accompany
Consultant invoices, serving as formal status updates to complement the ongoing coordination and
updates during the month.
Deliverables:
1. Weekly status briefings
2. Monthly progress reports and invoices
Page 402 of 491
ID Task
Mode
Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Outreach Initiation Contract 5 days Mon 9/28/15 Fri 10/2/15
2 NTP 1 0 days Mon 10/5/15 Mon 10/5/15
3 Outreach Plan 5 days Mon 10/5/15 Fri 10/9/15
4 Advisory Task Force 201 days Thu 10/8/15 Thu 7/14/16
15 Advisory Task Force 221 days Thu 9/24/15 Thu 7/28/16
27 Draft Scope for Review 7 days Fri 9/25/15 Mon 10/5/15
28 Contract 5 days Tue 10/6/15 Mon 10/12/15
29 Council Approval 6 days Tue 10/13/15 Tue 10/20/15
30 NTP 2 2 days Wed 10/21/15Thu 10/22/15
31 Strategic Communications Plan 5 days Mon 10/12/15Fri 10/16/15
32 Public Meeting 0 days Wed 11/11/15Wed 11/11/15
33 Web Site Development 10 days Fri 10/23/15 Thu 11/5/15
34 Develop Purpose and Need/ Issues and
Objectives
15 days Fri 10/23/15 Thu 11/12/15
35 Develop Existing Conditions 15 days Fri 10/23/15 Thu 11/12/15
40 Review Existing Documentation (City, WSF,
ST, BNSF)
15 days Fri 10/23/15 Thu 11/12/15
41 Prepare and Submit Report to Legislature 10 days Wed
11/18/15
Tue 12/1/15
42 City Council Briefing 0 days Tue 12/8/15 Tue 12/8/15
43 Develop Evaluation methodology (and
Criteria for Level 1 and Level 2 screening)
15 days Fri 11/13/15 Thu 12/3/15
44 Develop Draft Range of Concepts 30 days Fri 11/13/15 Thu 12/24/15
45 Conduct Interviews of City/ WSF/ BNSF and
ST
5 days Fri 11/13/15 Thu 11/19/15
46 Workshop/ Charette with City and WSF
Others as defined
1 day Fri 11/27/15 Fri 11/27/15
47 Refine Range of Concepts 15 days Fri 12/25/15 Thu 1/14/16
48 Open House #1 0 days Thu 1/14/16 Thu 1/14/16
49 Refine/ Hybridize Concepts 20 days Fri 1/15/16 Thu 2/11/16
50 City Council Briefing 0 days Tue 2/9/16 Tue 2/9/16
10/5
11/11
12/8
1/14
2/9
8/30 9/13 9/27 10/11 10/25 11/8 11/22 12/6 12/20 1/3 1/17 1/31 2/14 2/28 3/13 3/27 4/10 4/24 5/8 5/22 6/5 6/19 7/3 7/17 7/31 8/14 8/28 9/11 9/25
September 1 October 1 November 1 December 1 January 1 February 1 March 1 April 1 May 1 June 1 July 1 August 1 September 1 October 1
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress
Page 1
Project: Edmonds Alterantive A
Date: Thu 10/15/15
Page 403 of 491
ID Task
Mode
Task Name Duration Start Finish
51 Analyze/ Evaluate/ Screen Concepts (Level
1)
15 days Fri 2/12/16 Thu 3/3/16
52 Open House #2 0 days Thu 3/3/16 Thu 3/3/16
53 Finalize Level 1 Screening 10 days Fri 3/4/16 Thu 3/17/16
54 Prepare Documentation for Level 1
Screening
10 days Fri 3/18/16 Thu 3/31/16
55 Refine/ Hybridize Remaining Concepts into
Alternatives
20 days Fri 3/18/16 Thu 4/14/16
56 City Council Briefing 0 days Tue 4/12/16 Tue 4/12/16
57 Analyze Alternatives and Document
Findings
30 days Fri 4/15/16 Thu 5/26/16
58 LOS Analysis 30 days Fri 4/15/16 Thu 5/26/16
59 Cost Estimates 30 days Fri 4/15/16 Thu 5/26/16
60 Constructability/ Feasibility Analysis 30 days Fri 4/15/16 Thu 5/26/16
61 Compatibility with Others Plans (City,
WSF, BNSF, ST)
30 days Fri 4/15/16 Thu 5/26/16
62 Environmental Impacts Identified 10 days Fri 4/15/16 Thu 4/28/16
63 cultural 10 days Fri 4/15/16 Thu 4/28/16
64 visual 10 days Fri 4/15/16 Thu 4/28/16
65 Identify Environmental Benefits 30 days Fri 4/15/16 Thu 5/26/16
66 Draft Evaluation of Alternatives 10 days Fri 5/27/16 Thu 6/9/16
67 Regulatory Agency Presentation Meeting 0 days Thu 6/2/16 Thu 6/2/16
68 Open House #3 0 days Thu 6/16/16 Thu 6/16/16
69 Refine Alternatives and Level 2 Screening 15 days Fri 6/17/16 Thu 7/7/16
70 Document Level 2 Screening 10 days Fri 7/8/16 Thu 7/21/16
71 City Council Briefing 0 days Tue 6/14/16 Tue 6/14/16
72 Document Alternatives Process 10 days Fri 7/22/16 Thu 8/4/16
73 Reviews 3 wks Fri 8/5/16 Thu 8/25/16
74 Finalize Report 2 wks Fri 8/26/16 Thu 9/8/16
75 Project Complete 0 days Thu 9/8/16 Thu 9/8/16
3/3
4/12
6/2
6/16
6/14
9/8
8/30 9/13 9/27 10/11 10/25 11/8 11/22 12/6 12/20 1/3 1/17 1/31 2/14 2/28 3/13 3/27 4/10 4/24 5/8 5/22 6/5 6/19 7/3 7/17 7/31 8/14 8/28 9/11 9/25
September 1 October 1 November 1 December 1 January 1 February 1 March 1 April 1 May 1 June 1 July 1 August 1 September 1 October 1
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress
Page 2
Project: Edmonds Alterantive A
Date: Thu 10/15/15
Page 404 of 491
WSDOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit B Page 1 of 1
Revised 10/30/2014
Exhibit B
DBE Participation
Agreement Number:
Page 405 of 491
WSDOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit C Page 1 of 4
Revised 10/30/2014
Exhibit C
Preparation and Delivery of Electronic Engineering and Other Data
In this Exhibit the agency, as applicable, is to provide a description of the format and standards the consultant is
to use in preparing electronic files for transmission to the agency. The format and standards to be provided may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
I. Surveying, Roadway Design & Plans Preparation Section
A. Survey Data
B. Roadway Design Files
C. Computer Aided Drafting Files
Agreement Number:
Page 406 of 491
WSDOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit C Page 2 of 4
Revised 10/30/2014
D. Specify the Agency’s Right to Review Product with the Consultant
E. Specify the Electronic Deliverables to Be Provided to the Agency
F. Specify What Agency Furnished Services and Information Is to Be Provided
Agreement Number:
Page 407 of 491
WSDOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit C Page 3 of 4
Revised 10/30/2014
II. Any Other Electronic Files to Be Provided
III. Methods to Electronically Exchange Data
Page 408 of 491
WSDOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit C Page 4 of 4
Revised 10/30/2014
A. Agency Software Suite
B. Electronic Messaging System
C. File Transfers Format
Page 409 of 491
WSDOT Form 140-089 EF Exhibit D Page 1 of 1
Revised 10/30/2014
Exhibit D
Prime Consultant Cost Computations
Agreement Number:
Page 410 of 491
Edmonds WaterfrontAnalysis ExhibitB - Budget
89.33 67.53 68.90 48.59 39.68 38.00 31.66 57.39 62.81 18.90 Labor
Proj Mgr Transp Habitat Engineer Survey & Visual GIS/Econ Water Qual Environmtl Proj Admin Hours EnviroIssues Parametrix Walker|Macy S&W Stell JLPatterson Subcons Cost Cost
Task Description Schaefer Purnell Martz TP/KA MobileScan Simulation AA/JC Plotnikoff Kirchner Lee Total Totals Travel Misc.
II. Waterfront Analysis
Task 2 - Public Outreach 36 119,750
Public Meetings & Open Houses 32 113,029 5,372 1,349 - - -
Online Open Houses
Communications 4
Constituent Correspondence
Task 3 - Advisory Task Force & City Council Briefings 195 13,784
Advisory Task Force Meetings 90 9 2,034 11,750 - - - -
Legislative Report 8
Council Briefings 48
Draft Report Presentation 16 8 8 8
Task 4 - Existing Conditions 364 40,578
Data research, compilation and review 16 8 - 21,587 3,148 5,376 10,467 -
Interviews
Base map 16
Purpose & Need Statement/Criteria Definition 2 2 4 16
Affected Environment 16 20 16 20 140
Existing Conditions Baseline Report 24 40 24
Task 5 - Level 1 Alternatives Development & Screening 190 57,347
Concepts compilation and development 8 8 16 16 - 46,130 4,119 2,296 - 4,802
Charrette 8 8 8 36
Alternatives evaluation (Level 1 criteria)20 12 24 8
Task Force Workshop 8 8 8 36
Alternatives Summary Report 4 8 2 16
Task 6 - Level 2 Alternatives Development & Evaluation 318 77,222
Refinements and hybrid variations 8 8 - 60,206 7,799 2,223 - 6,994
Alternatives detailing 40 78 24
Detailed analysis of alternatives 8 16 8 16 4 8 8
Alternatives evaluation (Level 2 criteria)4 8
Task Force Workshop 8 8 8 36
Project Report 8 16 16 40
Task 7 - Project Management, Coordination & Reporting 300 20,695
Weekly monitoring; monthly progress reporting 36 48 7,963 12,732 - - - -
Weekly communications with City 48 96
Weekly team coordination 48 24
SUBTOTAL, II. Waterfront Analysis 35,375 6,888 3,445 7,968 --5,129 2,525 15,325 4,555 81,211 123,026 157,776 16,415 9,896 10,467 11,796 329,376 108 24
Direct Labor Cost 81,210.53$Subconsultant Subtotal 329,376.03$Subtotal 132.23$
Overhead @ 163.94% 133,136.54 Fee on Subconsultants @ 2.0% 6,587.52$
Fee @ 30% 24,363.16
Total Tetra Tech Labor 238,710.22$Total Subconsultant Cost 335,963.55$Total 132.23$
Total Amount Authorized 574,806.00$
Management Reserve Fund 30,253.00$
Maximum Amount Payable 605,059.00$
Tetra Tech
Subconsultants Other Direct Costs
Page 1 of 1
Page 411 of 491
WSDOT Consultant Services Manual M 27-50.04 Page AC-1
June 2015
Appendix AC Consultant Fee Calculation Worksheet
Consultant Fee Calculation Worksheet
This technique will ensure consideration of the relative value of the appropriate factor in the
establishment of a fee objective in the conduct of negotiating and provide a basis of
documentation of the fee objective.
In negotiating a fee as an element of price, a reasonable fee shall be negotiated or determined
for each agreement by using the following procedure as a guide:
Weighted Guidelines
Factor Rate Weight Value
Degree of Risk 25
Relative Difficulty of Work 20
Size of Job 15
Period of Performance 15
Assistance by the State 15
Sub-consulting 10
Total
Based on the circumstances of each agreement and/or supplement, each of the above factors
shall be weighted from .17 to .35 as indicated below. The value shall be obtained by multiplying
the rate by the weight. The value column, when totaled, indicate the fair and reasonable fixed
fee and/or profit percentage of the direct (raw) labor costs for the agreement and/or
supplement.
Degree of Risk:Where the design involves no risk or the degree of risk is very small the
weighting should be .17; as the degree of risk increases, the weighting should be increased up to
a maximum of .35. Agreements with options will have, generally, a higher weighted value than
contracts without options for which quantities are provided. Other things to consider: nature
of design, responsibility for design reasonableness of negotiated costs, amount, and type of
labor included in costs, amount of executive management/principal time required.
Relative Difficulty of Design:If the design is most difficult and complex, the weighting
should be .35 and should be proportionately reduced to .17 on the simplest of jobs. This factor
is tied in, to some extent, with the degree of risk. Some things to consider: the nature of the
design, what is the time schedule; etc.; and rehabilitation of new work.
ðòíð éòëð
ðòíð
ðòíîêë
ðòîëïè
ðòíð
ðòíë
êòðð
ìòçð
íòéè
ìòëð
íòëð
íðòïé
Page 412 of 491
P
a
g
e
4
1
3
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
1
4
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
1
5
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
1
6
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
1
7
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
1
8
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
1
9
o
f
4
9
1
Edmonds Waterfront Analysis Exhibit B - Budget
Rate 39.00 28.00 46.00 59.00 22.00 1.00 Labor
Role Assoc II Assoc I Assoc III Sr Assoc Proj Coord Hours Cost Cost
Task Description Name DeLeuw Skaggs Total Travel Misc.*
II. Waterfront Analysis
Task 2 - Public Outreach 930
Public Meetings & Open Houses 90 140 0 80 100 4,000
Outreach events 35 35 25 200 1,000
Online Open Houses 15 15 15,000
Communications 120 130 10 25 5,000
Reports 20 40 5 10
Constituent Correspondence 10 10 80 5,000
PIP updates, stakeholder research, strategic communications 5 10 10 10
Task 3 - Advisory Task Force & City Council Briefings 18
Advisory Task Force Meetings 18
Legislative Report
Council Briefings
Draft Report Presentation
Task 4 - Existing Conditions 0
Data research, compilation and review
Interviews
Base map
Purpose & Need Statement/Criteria Definition
Affected Environment
Existing Conditions Baseline Report
Task 5 - Level 1 Alternatives Development & Screening 0
Concepts compilation and development
Charrette
Alternatives evaluation (Level 1 criteria)
Task Force Workshop
Alternatives Summary Report
Task 6 - Level 2 Alternatives Development & Evaluation 0
Refinements and hybrid variations
Alternatives detailing
Detailed analysis of alternatives
Alternatives evaluation (Level 2 criteria)
Task Force Workshop
Project Report
Task 7 - Project Management, Coordination & Reporting 84
Monthly monitoring, invoicing, progress reporting 36 48
Weekly communications with City
Weekly team coordination
SUBTOTAL, II. Waterfront Analysis 13,611 11,984 460 885 5,060 - 32,000 300 30000
Direct Labor Cost 32,000.00$Subtotal 30,300.00$
159.77% 51,126.40
30% 9,600.00
Total Labor 92,726.40$
Total Other Direct Costs 30,300.00
Total Subconsultant Contract Amount 123,026.40$
Other Direct Cost (Miscellaneous) details:
Public Meetings & Open Houses display boards, handout printing
Outreach events handout printing
Online Open Houses Includes URL, hosting, and building OOH site. Site will be revised with new content with each OOH.
Communications printing of mailings and posters. Postage for 4,000 mailings. Monthly fee for hosting project website
Constituent Correspondence monthly fee for public involvement software
EnviroIssues Other Direct Costs
Page 1 of 1
Page 420 of 491
P
a
g
e
4
2
1
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
2
2
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
2
3
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
2
4
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
2
5
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
2
6
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
2
7
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
2
8
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
2
9
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
3
0
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
3
1
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
3
2
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
3
3
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
3
4
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
3
5
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
3
6
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
3
7
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
3
8
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
3
9
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
4
0
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
4
1
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
4
2
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
4
3
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
4
4
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
4
5
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
4
6
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
4
7
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
4
8
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
4
9
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
5
0
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
5
1
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
5
2
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
5
3
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
5
4
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
5
5
o
f
4
9
1
P
a
g
e
4
5
6
o
f
4
9
1
Page 457 of 491
Page 458 of 491
Page 459 of 491
Page 460 of 491
Page 461 of 491
Page 462 of 491
Page 463 of 491
Page 464 of 491
Page 465 of 491
Page 466 of 491
Page 467 of 491
Page 468 of 491
Page 469 of 491
Page 470 of 491
Page 471 of 491
Mayor’s Advisory Task Force on
At-Grade Rail Crossing Alternatives Analysis
September 2, 2015
Page 1
MAYOR’S ADVISORY TASK FORCE ON
AT -GRADE RAIL CROSSINGS ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SEPTEMBER 2, 2015 9:00 – 10:30 AM
Edmonds City Hall Brackett Conference Room (Third Floor)
The meeting was called to order at 9:02 p.m. by Co-Chair Mike Nelson in the Edmonds City Hall
Brackett Conference Room, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
TASK FORCE MEMBERS PRESENT
Michael Nelson, City Council (Co-Chair)
Jim Orvis, Port of Edmonds (Co-Chair)
Kirk Greiner, Edmonds Resident
Cadence Clyborne, Edmonds Resident
Phil Lovell, Edmonds Resident
Joy Munkers, Community Transit
Rick Wagner, BNSF
Lynne Griffith, WSDOT – Ferries Division
Lorena Eng, WSDOT
Jodi Mitchell, Sound Transit
CITY STAFF PRESENT
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
OTHER GUESTS PRESENT
Patrice Hardy, Sound Transit
John Westfall, Fire District 1
Ian Sterling, WSDOT
I. Mayor’s Comments and Introduction of Co-Chairs
Co-Chairs Nelson and Orvis introduced themselves and welcomed task force members and their input
and expertise.
Mayor Earling welcomed task force members, and described the importance of this project to the City,
citizens, community and region. He described how task force members were selected and explained
the purpose is for the task force to provide its conclusions and recommendations to him. He will not
attend every meeting (and he left the meeting at this time).
II. Self-Introductions of Task Force members
i. Individual Backgrounds & Key Interests in the Alternatives Analysis
Task force members introduced themselves and described their backgrounds and interest in the
alternatives analysis.
Page 472 of 491
Mayor’s Advisory Task Force on
At-Grade Rail Crossing Alternatives Analysis
September 2, 2015
Page 2
III. Staff Presentation of Background Information and Q&A
Public Works Director Phil Williams briefly referenced the history of the issue including the Edmonds
Crossing project, at-grade issues not addressed by Edmonds Crossing, and BNSF ownership of the
railroad right-of-way. He provided a PowerPoint that described the project need due to the predicted
increase in train traffic, and delays that are already a problem but will get much worse over time
affecting timely delivery of emergency services, on-time loading/unloading of ferries, and increased
noise pollution from train whistles at the waterfront.
He reviewed the project description provided to the legislature and a potential scope/budget. He
referenced information in the notebook provided to task force members including a project need
summary, aerial photo, map of railroad right-of-way, press releases, the TetraTech report regarding a
train trench, and a potential schedule for the alternatives analysis. Mr. Doherty distributed a printout of
the Community Services website and a list of documents regarding the Edmonds Crossing project
that can be accessed from the website.
Ms. Griffith referred to the Federal Railroad Administration’s recent announcement regarding the
availability of $10 million for states to improve highway-rail crossings.
Mr. Williams reported the RFQ is out and responses are due September 11. He will send task force
members the PowerPoint and RFQ.
Mr. Doherty suggested establishing a webpage on the City’s website dedicated to the alternatives
analysis process.
Mr. Lovell provided staff a flash drive with an Excel spreadsheet listing the nine alternatives and pros
and cons of each. A member requested the task force be provided Mr. Lovell’s notes related to the
Golds’ train trench proposal.
IV. Organizational Details
i. Meetings Schedule and Location
It was agreed to schedule meetings at 10:00 a.m. the second and fourth Thursday in the Brackett
Room at City Hall. The task force will initially meet twice/month; once a consultant is hired, it will likely
be possible to decrease the frequency to monthly meetings. Members requested meeting notices be
sent in Outlook invites. The next meeting is September 24.
ii. Study Schedule
Co-Chair Orvis relayed the entire schedule is anticipated to be 14-18 months. Mr. Williams said the
consultant will assist with determining the schedule. He briefly reviewed the schedule which includes
selecting a consultant, City Council approval of the consultant contract, scope and fee as well as
public involvement.
Mr. Doherty relayed the funds provided by the legislature required a progress report to the Legislature
by December 1. The City’s original request to the Legislature was $1.25 million; the Legislature
provided $500,000 with an indication they would look more favorably on providing additional funds
based on progress.
Page 473 of 491
Mayor’s Advisory Task Force on
At-Grade Rail Crossing Alternatives Analysis
September 2, 2015
Page 3
Co-Chair Orvis suggested delaying the study schedule until a consultant is selected.
iii. How Should the Task Force Make Decisions/Recommendations?
It was agreed the goal would be consensus.
iv. Discussion of Task Force Charter, Mission and Purpose
Mr. Williams offered to prepare a mission statement for consideration at the next meeting.
v. Communications and OPMA Issues
Mr. Doherty explained, in the interest of being as transparent as possible, the City has opted to apply
the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act to the task force although they do not officially apply
because the task force is not a City board or commission. This requires that a quorum of the task
force not communicate outside of a public meeting which includes email. Task force members can
share information with each other by sending it to Mr. Doherty for distribution.
V. Request For Qualifications For Consultant Selection
i. Present RFQ Document
Mr. Williams will send the RFQ to task force members.
ii. Discuss Selection Process
Ms. Eng and Ms. Hardy volunteered to participate in consultant selection.
Mr. Williams said staff will cull the responses and send the final 2-3 RFQs to task force members
participating in selection process and a list of the final 2-3 respondents to all task force members.
Closing Comments
Co-Chair Orvis explained the intent is for meetings to be as collegial and informal as possible to
facilitate discussion. Members are encouraged to email Mr. Doherty if they think something has been
missed, are not happy with the process, need additional information, etc. He and Co-Chair Nelson
expressed their appreciation for the members’ participation and commitment to this project.
VI. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 10:27 a.m.
Page 474 of 491
Mayor’s Advisory Task Force on
At-Grade Rail Crossing Alternatives Analysis
September 24, 2015
Page 1
MAYOR’S ADVISORY TASK FORCE ON
AT -GRADE RAIL CROSSINGS ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
September 24, 2015
Edmonds City Hall Brackett Conference Room (Third Floor)
The meeting was called to order at 10:01 p.m. by Co-Chair Nelson in the Edmonds City Hall Brackett
Conference Room, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
TASK FORCE MEMBERS PRESENT
Michael Nelson, Co-Chair
Jim Orvis, Co-Chair
Cadence Clyborne, Edmonds Resident
Joy Munkers, Community Transit
Rick Wagner, BNSF
Jodi Mitchell, Sound Transit (participated by
phone)
TASK FORCE MEMBERS ABSENT
Lorena Eng, WSDOT
Kirk Greiner, Edmonds Resident
Lynne Griffith, WSDOT – Ferries Division
Phil Lovell, Edmonds Resident
CITY STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
OTHER GUESTS PRESENT
Patrice Hardy, Sound Transit
Ian Sterling, WSDOT
I. Review and Approval of September 2, 2015 Meeting Summary
Task Force Member Clyborne moved, seconded by Task Force Member Munkers, to approve the
September 2, 2015 meeting summary. Motion carried unanimously.
II. Consultant Selection Process – Summary of Interview Process, Review of Candidate
and Interview Committee Recommendation of Top Candidate
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the RFQ was sent out August 21; responses were due
September 8. Ms. Hardy (reflecting comments from Task Force Member Mitchell), Task Force
Member Eng, Mr. English, Mr. Hauss and he reviewed responses from KPFF, Tetra Tech, Berger
ABAM, Huitt Zollars, and DKS. Those were narrowed to two, KPFF and Tetra Tech, who were
interviewed yesterday; both provided exceptional presentations. The selection committee discussed
the merits of the two and reached consensus on the selection of Tetra Tech.
Mr. W illiams, Ms. Hardy and Ms. Mitchell responded to questions regarding Tetra Tech’s railroad
experience and which consultants will provide it, attributes that elevated Tetra Tech over KPFF, and
qualifications for design versus a feasibility study.
Page 475 of 491
Mayor’s Advisory Task Force on
At-Grade Rail Crossing Alternatives Analysis
September 24, 2015
Page 2
Rick Schaefer, Project Manager, Tetra Tech, introduced Sandy Glover, Parametrics, and identified
other team members including Mark Hinshaw, Walker Macy, urban design; Shannon Wilson,
geotechnical; JL Patterson, railroad issues/concerns; and EnviroIssues, public involvement.
Mr. Williams explained City staff will negotiate a contract with Tetra Tech with a detailed scope of
work, fee schedule, terms, and schedule. The Task Force asked to see the draft contract scope as
well as a Tetra Tech’s proposal. Mr. Schaefer distributed their presentation materials.
Discussion followed regarding Tetra Tech’s involvement in the Marina Beach Master Plan, process for
Council review and approval of Tetra Tech’s contract, EnviroIssues’ reputation regarding public
outreach, and Ms. Glover’s involvement in the Mukilteo multimodal project which followed a similar
process and included many of the same stakeholders and environmental issues.
There were no objections to the Task Force recommending to City Council the selection of Tetra
Tech.
Mr. Schaefer responded to questions regarding subconsultants, other projects the team has worked
on together, plans for a website, the public involvement process, how information will be
disseminated, and criteria to evaluate potential solutions.
III. Discussion of Next Steps in Pubic Engagement Process
Suggestions for outreach included:
• A-boards downtown
• BID getting the messages out to business owners
• E-mom Facebook
• Updates to City Council
• Informational video on City website
• Project website
• City’s Facebook and Twitter
Discussion followed regarding the intent/information to be gathered at the first public meeting,
evaluating a trench along with other potential solutions, presentations regarding specific solutions,
solutions for a terminal downtown or at Pt. Edwards, seeking agreement of the parties on a solution
that will lead to greater safety and more convenient access, coordinating with WSDOT Ferry
Division’s update of their long range plan and the unlikelihood funding will be available in the
immediate future to relocate the ferry terminal to Pt. Edwards.
IV. Next Meeting – October 8, 2015 – Suggested Agenda Topics
Draft scope of Tetra Tech contract
Steps in public engagement process
Council briefings/updates
EnviroIssues speak to Task Force and/or City Council about their plans for outreach
V. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 11:04 a.m.
Page 476 of 491
Mayor’s Advisory Task Force on
At-Grade Rail Crossing Alternatives Analysis
October 8, 2015
Page 1
MAYOR’S ADVISORY TASK FORCE ON
AT -GRADE RAIL CROSSINGS ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
October 8, 2015
Edmonds City Hall, Brackett Conference Room (Third Floor)
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 p.m. by Co-Chair Michael Nelson in the Edmonds City Hall
Brackett Conference Room, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
TASK FORCE MEMBERS PRESENT
Michael Nelson, City Council (Co-Chair)
Jim Orvis, Port Commission (Co-Chair)
Kirk Greiner, Edmonds Resident
Cadence Clyborne, Edmonds Resident
Joy Munkers, Community Transit
Rick Wagner, BNSF
Lynne Griffith, WSDOT – Ferries Division *
*(participated by phone)
Lorena Eng, WSDOT
Jodi Mitchell, Sound Transit
TASK FORCE MEMBERS ABSENT
Phil Lovell, Edmonds Resident
CITY STAFF PRESENT
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
CONSULTANTS PRESENT
Rick Schaefer, Tetra Tech
Katie DeLeuw, EnviroIssues
Sandy Glover, Parametrics
I. Review and Approval of the 9/24/15 Meeting Summary
The 9/24/15 meeting summary was approved by consensus.
II. Discussion of Initial Contract Scope for the Public Engagement Process
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained there are two scopes of work; 1) the broader contract
that will require City Council approval, and 2) the project initiation, not to exceed $10,000, which will
pay EnviroIssues for their work while the larger contract is being reviewed by the City Council. Rick
Schaefer, Tetra Tech, and Katie DeLeuw, EnviroIssues, reviewed tasks in the project initiation
contract that include researching and developing an initial public involvement plan, preparing a
strategic communications plan, planning for first public outreach event, and preparing a project
management plan. She described tools that will be used for public involvement:
• Project fact sheet
• Postcards to invite community to public meeting
• Email updates as a list serve is developed
Page 477 of 491
Mayor’s Advisory Task Force on
At-Grade Rail Crossing Alternatives Analysis
October 8, 2015
Page 2
• Develop and build a project website
• Social media updates
• Display boards at public meetings
• Surveys as part of public meetings and online website to gather information
• Public meetings beginning in November followed by three open houses that correspond with
project milestones
• Informal outreach events such as Holiday Market or Art Walk
• Online open houses (used on Marina Beach Master Plan)
• Bank of language, FAQ to respond to constituent inquiries
• Online database to track and categorize comments and report on common themes and a the
end of the process compile a report with summary of comments throughout the process
III. Detailed Discussion of the First Public Meeting (1st week in November)
Ms. DeLeuw explained information to be provided at the first meeting includes the project schedule
and need, when input can be provided, outreach milestones, and how to keep in touch between
outreach milestones. Discussion followed regarding whether there was enough traditional (non-online)
contact with the community, balancing online communication and other ways of providing information,
ways people get information, outreach to the media, ensuring in-person communication is a strong
component, and the consultant’s plan to mail postcards prior to each meeting to announce the
meeting and to provide the URL to the online meeting.
Additional suggestions for outreach included:
• Posters in business windows downtown and other business districts, Edmonds Center for the
Arts, boardwalk, holiday bazaars
• Message/announcement on utility bill
• Door-to-door within certain radius of project (Sound Transit does)
• Business Improvement District, Chamber of Commerce, and Port newsletters
• Messaging is very important to ensure people understand it may affect their lives
• Engaging/informing ferry constituency who may/may not be Edmonds residents
o Presentation/messaging on ferry
o Advertise meeting on ferry TV screens
• Seek input from constituencies outside Edmonds community who may be affected, such as
commercial traffic
• Engage people on west side of tracks who are concerned with emergency access
• Edmonds’ government TV channel
Discussion followed regarding the date of the first public meeting in early November, information to be
provided, format and duration. Mr. Williams will Doodle poll members regarding a date for the first
public meeting. Ms. DeLeuw will present a meeting plan at the Task Force’s next meeting.
IV. Review and Discussion of Overall Contract Scope and Schedule
Mr. Williams advised the City’s boilerplate information will be added to the contract. It is scheduled for
a City Council study session next week and approval the following week.
Mr. Schaefer reviewed tasks in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, Edmonds Waterfront Analysis.
Task 1: Project initiation
Page 478 of 491
Mayor’s Advisory Task Force on
At-Grade Rail Crossing Alternatives Analysis
October 8, 2015
Page 3
Task 2: Public outreach
Task 3: Advisory Task Force and City Council Briefings
Task 4: Existing Conditions
Task 5: Level 1 Alternatives Development and Screening
Task 6: Level 2 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
Task 7: Project Management, Coordination and Reporting
Mr. Schaefer advised a weekly status report (via email or phone) is provided to Transportation
Engineer Bertrand Hauss. It was agreed to add near-term solutions to Task 6. Task Force members
found the contract acceptable.
V. Next Meeting – 10/22/15, Suggested Agenda Items
Agenda to include discussion regarding the first public meeting:
• Project purpose and need
• Goals and objectives
• Format
• Messaging
VI. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 11:08 a.m.
Page 479 of 491
Consultant selection for Edmonds Waterfront Analysis Proposals (Short list completed on 9/17/15)
Name DKS KPFF Berger Tetra Tech Huitt Zollar
Rob English 5 2 3 1 4
Phil Williams 5 2 3 1 4
Patrice Hardy (Sound Transit)5 2 3 1 4
Lorena Eng (WSDOT)5 3 1 (tied)1 (tied)4
Bertrand Hauss 5 1 2 4 3
RANKING 5 2 3 1 4
SELECTED CONSULTANTS FOR INTERVIEWS
Consultant selection for Edmonds Waterfront Analysis Interviews on 09/23/15
Name KPFF Tetra Tech
Rob 2 1
Patrice (Sound Transit)2 1
Lorena (WSDOT)2 1
Phil 2 1
Bertrand 2 1
RANKING 2 1
SELECTED CONSULTANT:
Tetra Tech was selected due to slighly stronger experience working on similar analysis project. KPFF has more
experience working on the design phase of such projects. Both consultant teams were very strong.
The selection committee agreed that Tetra Tech and KPFF had stronger experience on similar at-grade railroad
crossing project (compared to other consultants), with strong experience working with BNSF, WSF, and WSDOT.
Page 480 of 491
AM-8040 7. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/20/2015
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted For:Patrick Doherty Submitted By:Patrick Doherty
Department:Community Services
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of Edmonds Downtown Alliance 2016 Work Plan and Budget
Recommendation
Forward to 10/27/15 City Council Consent Agenda for approval.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
On January 15, 2013, pursuant to Ordinance 3909, the City Council approved the Downtown Business
Improvement District (BID), now known as the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (the "Alliance"). As
required by the corresponding code provisions, the Alliance must submit by October 1st of each year its
proposed Work Plan and budget for the ensuing year. The work plan is intended to itemize the programs,
activities and corresponding expenditures the Alliance intends to undertake in the new year, along with a
break-down of the projected revenue and corresponding expenditures. All programs and activities are
required to comport with the scope of services contained in the original statute:
A. Marketing & Hospitality.
B. Safety & Cleanliness.
C. Appearance & Environment
D. Transportation
E. Business Recruitment & Retention
F. Organization.
Attached you will find the Edmonds Downtown Alliance proposed 2016 Work Plan and Budget. For the
most part you will see that the scope of services proposed is essentially a continuation and enhancement
of services rendered over the past year.
As for the Budget, the Alliance projects approximately $50,000 in the fund balance by the end of 2015
and $89,000 in revenue for 2016 Expenditures are intended to appropriate the entire $89,000 in projected
revenue, with the addition of one-time allocations from the fund balance totaling $24,000 to support
construction of the Downtown Public Restroom and to enhance marketing programs and activities.
Attachments
Page 481 of 491
Edmonds Downtown Alliance 2016 Workplan
Ed! 2013-2016 budget summary
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/15/2015 07:45 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/15/2015 08:21 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/15/2015 08:28 AM
Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 10/14/2015 02:01 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/15/2015
Page 482 of 491
Approved for submittal to City Council by Edmonds Downtown Alliance Board 9/24/2015
EDMONDS DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE
PROPOSED
2016 WORK PROGRAM & PLAN
Edmonds, Washington
Prepared pursuant to
Edmonds City Ordinance 3909, Section 3.75.120
Page 483 of 491
Approved for submittal to City Council by Edmonds Downtown Alliance Board 9/24/2015
The mission of the Edmonds Downtown Alliance is to encourage, promote and
participate in activities enhancing the general economic conditions of the district
for the mutual benefit of its businesses and the City of Edmonds. We are a
focused, funded organization that supports and improves business conditions in
Edmonds. Our goal is to ensure our downtown stays lively, attractive and
prosperous.
Per Ordinance 3909, the scope of work includes:
A. Marketing & Hospitality: may include maps/brochures/kiosks/directories, web site, social
media, marketing/advertising campaigns, holiday decorations, street performers/artists,
historic education/heritage advocacy, special public events
B. Safety & Cleanliness: may include maintenance, security, pedestrian environment
enhancements
C. Appearance & Environment: may include design enhancements, neighborhood advocacy &
communication, streetscapes/lighting/furniture
D. Transportation: may include transportation alternatives, directional signage, parking
management & mitigation
E. Business Recruitment & Retention: may include education/seminars, market research,
business recruitment
F. Organization: may include contract staff & professional services, administration costs
INTRODUCTION
Ed! Edmonds Downtown Alliance (the “Alliance”), was approved on January 15, 2013 under Ordinance
3909. The following is the fourth year work program and plan for the district, effective from approval by
Edmonds City Council through December 31, 2016. It includes a description of the Alliance, proposed
services, sources of funding, annual budget and allocations.
PROPOSED 2016 SERVICES
The services to be provided in this plan include items required for the promotion and
enhancement of the Alliance and to meet the needs identified by members of the Alliance.
The services are not intended to take the place of, but rather add to or supplement, those
services provided by the City and/or other Edmonds‐based organizations. The services will
be executed under the direction of the Alliance Members Advisory Board.
A. Administration (Per Ordinance 3909, Item F)
i. Non‐Profit Organization. The Members Advisory Board formed a non‐profit
organization incorporated under Washington law and received Section 501(c)(3)
Page 484 of 491
Approved for submittal to City Council by Edmonds Downtown Alliance Board 9/24/2015
status with the Internal Revenue Service as a public charity. The Alliance will
begin working with the City to discuss potential contracting arrangements
between the City and the Nonprofit Corporation for executing the
responsibilities, including independent financial review. In addition, the Alliance
may engage the services of a local attorney and/or tax specialist, pro bono
and/or partially compensated, to assist with legal matters, including filing of
taxes and reports for Section 501(c)(3) status with the Internal Revenue Service.
The Non‐Profit organization allows the Alliance to collect and leverage funding
through grants, fundraising and/or donations.
ii. Administrative Support. The Alliance Board may contract with an individual(s)
to provide general administration for the operation and maintenance of the
Alliance.
Operating expenses will include, but are not limited to, supplies and insurance,
post office box rental, mailings to members, and web domain and hosting fees.
Legal, accounting and professional services will be contracted on an as‐needed
basis. When appropriate, pro‐bono services will be used.
iii. Assessment and Evaluation. The Alliance recognizes the important
responsibility it has to its members to demonstrate effective and efficient use of
Alliance resources. As such, the Alliance will include reasonable and appropriate
program assessment and evaluation efforts within its work plans. This may
include internal and external initiatives such as member surveys, market
research, third party or independent impact analysis, etc.
iv. 2017 Work Plan and Budget. The Alliance Advisory Board will prepare a 2017
work program, plan and annual budget to present to Edmonds City Council in
October 2016.
B. Communication and Outreach (Per Ordinance 3909, Items A and E)
i. Member Engagement. The Alliance wishes to focus on productive member
engagement in 2016. Encouraging committee involvement and networking
gatherings to better galvanize local business relationships. To minimize cost,
communication will continue primarily via email and e‐newsletter, except when
an alternative form is requested. Annual meeting notifications and ballots will
continue to be mailed. The Alliance will develop a welcome/informational
packet. A strategy will be pursued, with collaboration with other local groups,
to bring new businesses to Downtown Edmonds and build a continually
improving business district
Page 485 of 491
Approved for submittal to City Council by Edmonds Downtown Alliance Board 9/24/2015
ii. Community Events. The Alliance will provide support for local community
events such as the Edmonds 4th of July Parade and Holiday Events. Participation
in already existing events will help improve Ed! visibility in the community and
provide exposure for all members.
iii. Friends of Ed! ‐ Business and Civic Collaboration. Partnering with existing
organizations in Edmonds will help to strengthen the mission of the Alliance and
the shared objectives of our partner organizations. The Alliance will continue to
maintain a comprehensive list of organizations, known as the Friends of Ed! and
will coordinate an annual meeting to discuss community priorities.
C. Marketing/Advertising (Per Ordinance 3909, Item A)
Building on current momentum, and based on research and proven success in 2015, the
Alliance will implement a 2016 Transit Ad Campaign, augmented with a digital ad
campaign. In addition, we will pursue several public relation campaigns and increased
social media presence, which may include contracting for professional services. Current
platforms include: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and local media outlets.
D. Professional Business Resources (Per Ordinance 3909, Items A and E)
The Alliance will benefit all members professionally by improving the
edmondsdowntown.org website to drive traffic to individual business listings. The
Alliance will work with all members to upload their webpages, cross‐post members’
website links, enhance Google search terms, website optimization, and consider
upgrades to our existing website.
E. Appearance & Environment (Per Ordinance 3909, Items A, B, C and D)
i. Parking. Members of the Alliance parking committee will continue working in
concert with City efforts related to parking. The Alliance will continue to pursue
improved signage for parking awareness. A test program looking at the viability
of diagonal parking on wider, non‐primary streets is being pursued with the City.
These would double parking spaces on these streets, as well as create a safer
environment for drivers getting out of their cars. This test program will be
evaluated and expanded if successful. Restriping and increasing public parking
lots to fit more cars will also be pursued.
ii. Streetscape Improvements & Amenities. Projects promoting environmental
improvements will be aggressively driven forward. The Alliance will continue
partnering with the City and others to support downtown public restroom
options. The Alliance will sustain current programs such as bike racks and the
Page 486 of 491
Approved for submittal to City Council by Edmonds Downtown Alliance Board 9/24/2015
seasonal umbrella program, evaluating both programs’ functionality moving
forward. An assessment of the downtown district’s sidewalk amenities will be
reviewed and discussed with the City to address implementing projects,
collaboratively, to address a variety of concerns such as, trash/recycling can
needs, pedestrian safety, benches, directional signage, restaurant patios,
consumer navigation assistance, and business signage.
F. Ed! Grants Program (Per Ordinance 3909, Items A, B, C, D, E and F)
The Alliance created a pilot Grants Program to help harness the power of our local
business community. The program utilizes grassroots approach to identifying projects
and allocating funds for approved grants as long as they fall within the Alliance's
mission and scope of work provided in Ordinance 3909. Each proposed grant will be
reviewed by City staff for compliance with RCW 35.87A.010 and Edmonds City Code
3.75.030 prior to award of a grant.
II. PROPOSED SOURCES OF FUNDING
A. Assessments
Assessments will be collected in accordance with Ordinance 3909.
B. Grants and Donations
The 501(c)(3) organization formed by the Alliance may pursue and accept grants and
donations from private institutions, the City, other public entities or individuals and
other non‐profit organizations, in accordance with State and Federal law.
III. ANNUAL BUDGET
A. Budgeted Revenue and Projected Fund Balance
The projected assessments collected for 2016 will be approximately $89,000 and
projected 2015 end of year balance is $50,000, resulting in an estimated $139,000 in
total revenue available for expenditures in 2016. A detailed budget summary is
attached.
B. Budgeted Expenditures
In accordance with the scope of work as approved in Ordinance 3909, it is anticipated
that the budgeted expenditures for the 2016 operating year of the Alliance will be as
follows:
Page 487 of 491
Approved for submittal to City Council by Edmonds Downtown Alliance Board 9/24/2015
Administration $ 17,000
Communication and Outreach $ 15,000
Marketing/Advertising $ 22,000
Professional Business Resources $ 5,000
Small Grants Program $ 10,000
Appearance & Environment $ 20,000
2016 One‐Time Expenditure for Public Restroom Funding $ 10,000
2016 Additional Expenditure for Marketing $ 14,000
TOTAL BUDGETED EXPENDITURES $ 113,000
C. Unallocated Funds
An unallocated fund balance is projected in 2016. The Alliance must submit a budget
amendment to City of Edmonds Council for approval to use any unallocated funds.
D. Subsequent Budgets
The Alliance shall establish for each fiscal year after the first year a proposed budget for
expenditures. Such proposed budgets shall: i) reasonably itemize the purpose for which
monies are proposed to be expended by the Alliance; and (ii) set forth the total amount
proposed to be expended. (iii) The Alliance Board shall submit a proposed work program
and budget to Edmonds City council no later than October 1 of the year before the
succeeding budget year. A proposed budget, whether for the first year or for
subsequent years, shall be referred to as the “Budget.”
E. General Provisions
i. The Alliance shall make no expenditures other than in accordance with and
pursuant to a Budget for which a total Annual Budget amount has been
approved by the City.
ii. In the event that in any given fiscal year the sources of funding and/or reserves
held over from the previous year do not equal the total annual budget amount,
the Alliance may choose to eliminate some expenditure in order to balance the
budget.
iii. The Alliance, at the conclusion of the fiscal year, will provide a detailed financial
report in accordance with Ordinance 3909, as amended.
Page 488 of 491
20
1
3
Bu
d
g
e
t
e
d
20
1
3
Ac
t
u
a
l
20
1
4
Bu
d
g
e
t
e
d
20
1
4
Ac
t
u
a
l
20
1
5
Bu
d
g
e
t
e
d
2015 YTD Actual
2
0
1
6
Budgeted
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
$0
.
0
0
$5
6
,
1
3
4
.
1
6
$5
6
,
1
3
4
.
1
6
$4
6
,
3
2
6
.
8
6
$
4
6
,
3
2
6
.
8
6
$
6
5
,
2
0
6
.
8
6
Bi
d
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Fe
e
$6
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
7
,
1
1
5
.
8
0
$8
9
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$8
2
,
3
0
1
.
0
0
$8
1
,
8
8
0
.
0
0
6
2
,
5
4
0
.
6
3
$
8
1
,
8
8
0
.
0
0
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
$6
.
8
0
$0
.
0
0
$0
.
0
0
$0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
BI
D
Do
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
$8
2
0
.
0
0
$0
.
0
0
$0
.
0
0
$0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
To
t
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
$6
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$5
7
,
9
4
2
.
6
0
$
1
4
5
,
1
3
4
.
1
6
$
1
3
8
,
4
3
5
.
1
6
$1
2
8
,
2
0
6
.
8
6
$
1
0
8
,
8
6
7
.
4
9
$
1
4
7
,
0
8
6
.
8
6
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
$5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$5
,
0
0
6
.
4
9
$1
7
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
4
4
1
2
.
0
7
1
7
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
In
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
& Li
c
e
n
s
i
n
g
$0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
$3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$5
0
.
0
0
$0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
‐
Br
a
n
d
i
n
g
& Id
e
n
t
i
t
y
(p
l
e
a
s
e
se
e
no
t
e
be
l
o
w
)
$2
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$7
4
,
6
4
9
.
9
8
$2
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
1
4
4
8
.
2
7
3
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
Me
m
b
e
r
En
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
& Ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
$
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
8
0
8
.
4
4
$5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
,
9
8
4
.
3
7
$5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
3
5
7
.
4
2
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
$4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
$1
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$0
.
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
Sm
a
l
l
Gr
a
n
t
s
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
$0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
$0
.
0
0
$0
.
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
Ap
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
& En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
$0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
0
,
4
1
7
.
4
6
$2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
3
1
0
3
.
3
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
Re
s
t
r
o
o
m
Co
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
10,000.00
To
t
a
l
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
$4
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
8
0
8
.
4
4
$
8
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
9
2
,
1
0
8
.
3
0
$8
4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
9
,
3
2
1
.
0
6
$
1
1
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
$2
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
6
,
1
3
4
.
1
6
$
6
0
,
1
3
4
.
1
6
$
4
6
,
3
2
6
.
8
6
$4
4
,
2
0
6
.
8
6
$
6
9
,
5
4
6
.
4
3
$
3
4
,
0
8
6
.
8
6
NO
T
E
S
:
20
1
5
Ye
a
r
‐To
‐Da
t
e
to
t
a
l
re
f
l
e
c
t
s
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
an
d
ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
8/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
$3
6
,
0
0
0
pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
in
20
1
6
fo
r
Ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
ut
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
ba
l
a
n
c
e
ca
r
r
y
o
v
e
r
fu
n
d
s
fr
o
m
20
1
5
Pu
b
l
i
c
Re
s
t
r
o
o
m
Co
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
is
a on
e
‐ti
m
e
ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
in
20
1
6
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Al
l
i
a
n
c
e
‐
20
1
3
‐20
1
6
Bu
d
g
e
t
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Page 489 of 491
AM-8047 7. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/20/2015
Time:60 Minutes
Submitted By:Scott James
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Discussion regarding the 2016 Proposed City Budget.
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Mayor Earling presented the Proposed 2016 Budget to City Council during their October 13th City
Council meeting.
During tonight's Council Meeting, staff will provide Council a brief overview of their 2016 budget
requests.
Tentative Department Budget Presentations are scheduled as follows:
October 20th:
1. Police Dept; 2. City Clerk; 3. Mayor's Office; 4. Council; 5. Finance & Information Services; and 6.
Nondepartmental.
October 27th
1. Economic Development; 2. Development Services; 3. Parks; 4. Human Resources; and 5. Municipal
Court.
November 2nd: 1. Public Works
November 10th: Revenues Sources and Public Comment.
November 17th Public Hearing and Potential adoption of the 2016 Budget and Public Comment.
November 24th: Public Hearing and Potential adoption of the 2016 Budget (if necessary)
December 12th: Public Hearing and Potential adoption of the 2016 Budget (if necessary)
Page 490 of 491
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 10/15/2015 04:16 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/15/2015 04:45 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/16/2015 04:54 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/16/2015 07:15 AM
Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 10/15/2015 01:37 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/16/2015
Page 491 of 491