2019-04-02 City Council Packet1
2
3
4
o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
snl. ,nyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
APRIL 2, 2019, 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of March 26, 2019
2. Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
3. November 2018 Monthly Financial Report
4. January 2019 Monthly Financial Report
5. Report on Bids for the 238th St. SW Island Improvements & Pedestrian Curb Ramp Barrier
Removals
5. PRESENTATIONS
1. Music4Life Month Proclamation (5 min)
2. Snohomish Health District Opioid Report (25 min)
6
7.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Public Hearing (20 min)
8. STUDY ITEMS
1. Civic Park Field Update (30 min)
9. ACTION ITEMS
1. 2018 Non -Represented Employee Compensation Study - updated (20 min)
2. Waterfront Center financial update (45 min)
3. Adoption of Updated Wireless Communication Facilities Regulations in Chapter 20.50 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code, Including Small Wireless Facilities (10 min)
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(1).
Edmonds City Council Agenda
April 2, 2019
Page 1
13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
April 2, 2019
Page 2
4.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/2/2019
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of March 26, 2019
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
03-26-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 3
4.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
March 26, 2019
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
David Machado, Police Officer
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeanie McConnell, Development Program Mgr.
Mike Clugston, Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Johnson.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 19, 2019
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 19, 2019
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
4. WINDWARD ENVIRONMENTAL -REQUEST TO HIRE A SURVEYOR
5. INTER -LOCAL AGREEMENT W/EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR SCHOOL
RESOURCE OFFICER (SCRIBER LAKE HS)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 1
Packet Pg. 4
4.1.a
5. PRESENTATIONS
1. HEARING EXAMINER ANNUAL REPORT
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts explained he works for over 20 municipalities, cities, counties and the
Seattle School District. He is often asked who has the best zoning and sign regulations and Edmonds is
usually at the top of the list. Edmonds' design regulations are evident in the quality of the built environment;
few cities have accomplished so much.
Dona's Lynnwood Mazda (3/4/19): Approved design review and a design review exception to
pedestrian/walkable design standards for an addition to Doug's Lynnwood Mazda located at 22130
Highway 99. The Applicant proposed an addition to the existing Mazda service building at 22133 Highway
99 together with an addition and remodel of the existing Mazda showroom to convert it into a Hyundai
sales and service building. The requested design review exception was to ECDC 16.60.030(C)(1) and (2),
which only authorizes a maximum of 60 foot separation from 50% of a building's fagade facing a street
and its accompanying street frontage. The Applicant proposed to use this space for auto sales, which
necessitated more than 60 foot separation from project buildings and street frontage.
In order to qualify for the design review exception, the Applicant had to incorporate numerous pedestrian
design features to compensate for the lack of building proximity to street frontage. These features included
placing the active portions of the building, comprised of a glass encased showroom with a prominent bronze
clad entry way, closest to the street frontage. These active portions were then connected to the street
frontage via a well-defined walkway that was augmented with landscaping and seating areas. Overall, the
City's efforts at encouraging pedestrian connectivity in its GC zone were highly successful for this project.
St. Alban's Episcopal Church Conditional Use (3/4/19): Approved conditional use permit for pre-school
use of the Sunday school wing of St. Alban's Episcopal Church, located at 21405 82nd Place West.
Testimony was limited to staff, applicant and property owner (church). No more than 18 students would be
present at church site at any one time. Surrounding uses are single-family residential, but church property
is 2.5 acres in size with a significant amount of trees buffering the classroom site from adjoining residences.
Westhaven Preliminary Plat (12/28/18): Approved preliminary plat division of 1.99 acre parcel into ten
single-family lots. This was the only project of the last year that attracted any project opposition. Concerns
included tree removal, habitat loss, drainage, traffic safety and noise. A couple conditions of approval were
crafted to protect both on -site trees and the root system of off -site trees. Given the legal ambiguity of
protecting off -site trees, the conditions of approval gave staff the option of either requiring protection of
the tree roots from off -site trees or requiring notice to property owners of potential damage, allowing
flexibility as necessary to address conditions during construction and associated legal rights and
responsibilities.
240 Street Unit Lot Subdivision (10/25/18): Approved 11 lot unit subdivision. This was the City's
second application of its unit lot subdivision ordinance to a preliminary plat. The project was already under
review as an 11 unit detached single family dwelling complex on one lot in a multifamily zone. Building
permits for the homes had already been filed as required by the unit lot subdivision ordinance and the
purpose of the proposed unit lot subdivision was to create single lot ownership for each separate dwelling
unit. No one other than staff testified at the hearing.
Edmonds Woodway High School Athletic Field Improvements (9/11/18): Recommended approval to
City Council of conditional use permit, two variances and design review for improvements to the athletic
fields of Edmonds-Woodway High School at 7600 212th St. SW. Improvements included a synthetic turf
multipurpose baseball field with football/soccer field and associated lighting and bleachers. Four tennis
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 2
Packet Pg. 5
4.1.a
courts and associated lighting were proposed east of the athletic fields. Three batting cages are proposed
south of the tennis courts. The conditional use application covered the proposed bleachers, playfield lighting
and structures 25 to 60 feet in height (eight 50-foot lights around the tennis courts and 40-foot ball control
fencing and netting around the baseball field). The height variance was for eight proposed 70-90 foot light
poles surrounding the basebalFfootball/soccer fields (six 70-foot poles and two 90-foot poles). The setback
variance was to reduce the street setback variance along 216th Street from 20 feet to 4 feet to accommodate
the proposed batting cages. All public testimony was in support of the application.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Westhaven preliminary plat and asked if there was much case
history about protection of off -site trees. Mr. Olbrechts said there is one court decision that states a property
owner has a right to self-help, if root trespass onto their property, they can remove them and does not
mention notifying the adjacent property owner. There may be another case regarding trees on a property
line; he did not think a property owner had the right to remove those tree roots if they trespassed on their
property. He summarized there was minimal case law. Councilmember Buckshnis said the City's code is
very limited with regard to removal of trees during development unless they are in a critical area.
Councilmember Mesaros asked if this had been a light year for Edmonds and how it compared to other
jurisdictions he serves. Mr. Olbrechts answered it was somewhat of an average year for Edmonds. He
represents a wide range of jurisdiction sizes; the number of cases depends on the amount of developable
land. For example, in the City of Federal Way which has a population of approximately 80,000, he typically
only has two cases/year•, as a result of a code change most of their projects are administrative staff review.
Before that change, he reviewed 3-4 projects/month. In Renton, which is a similar size to Federal Way, he
hears approximately 10 cases/month. He summarized the number of cases varies widely between
communities.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Lynn Chelius, Edmonds, thanked the City Council for being welcoming and attentive to citizen speakers.
A speaker at a recent Seattle City Council meeting was treated brutally by Councilmember Debora Juarez.
After respectfully requesting the full Council's attention as every Councilmember was looking at cell
phones or computer screens, he was rudely told by Councilmember Juarez that he had better start talking
as his allotted time was ticking away. She has spoken in front of Edmonds City Council several times and
has watched many others do so; Edmonds' Council always gives each speaker their full attention and treats
them with utmost respect, thanking each person for participating and making it a positive experience. In
Edmonds, great respect is shown each speaker, even when a speaker's position may be controversial or one
that none of the Council agrees with or when there is a long line of speakers. This is a tangible example of
true good government.
Adriane Martinez, RN, Edmonds, referred to an article in the Herald that the Council was surprised there
were 230 homeless Edmonds residents. She is a board member for the Interfaith Family Shelter in Everett
which served one family from the Edmonds area in the last six months. She referred to the report on
homelessness prepared for the Council, explaining many of the homeless shelters are based in Everett
because of the three mile radius of health programs. The shelter currently hosts 11 families, all in separate
rooms. She agreed the City needed to help the homeless population, recognizing there was a lot of publicity
recently due to the KOMO documentary on homelessness; issues related to homelessness include substance
abuse as well as rising costs. Because the family shelter is located in Everett, the Council may not be aware
that they are addressing these issues and have substance abuse counselors, children advocates, etc.
Cindy Sjoblom, Edmonds, commented there are many compassionate people. She used to work in the
mental health industry as a behavioral psychologist which is a difficult industry. She was floored and
devastated to witness the appalling streets of Seattle. She and her husband are in real estate; one of their
clients' businesses was violated by excrement and a mattress on his property as well as camper with a tent
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 3
Packet Pg. 6
4.1.a
overhanging the sidewalk. Citizens' constitutional rights are being violated by these public health and safety
issues. While she is a compassionate person, the law-abiding, taxpaying citizens' rights need to be defended.
She did not want what is happening in Seattle to happen in Edmonds. A bill in the legislature, HB 1591
would allow/make legal what is happening in Seattle. She wrote to the Governor, the Mayor of Seattle and
the Seattle City Council to make her voice heard. If that bill passes, the homeless and transients can be
wherever they want in parks and on sidewalks. It is tragic to see; the Seattle Police Department have said
the people living on the streets are drug addicted and criminals hiding in plain sight. She cited the
importance of retaining the integrity of parks and streets.
Tony Warren, Edmonds, referred to the resolution requesting the FCC conduct a safety study on 5G that
has been essentially mandated by the FCC. Although he liked the overall intent of the resolution, he objected
strenuously to requesting the FCC to do anything with regard to safety and health. The FCC and other
regulations related to impact on the human body talk about ionizing radiation, RF radiation, which causes
thermal heating. It is fairly well known that health effects occur at levels which are orders of magnitude
less than the ionizing radiation. He compared asking the FCC to do this kind of safety analysis to asking
the fox to guard the henhouse.
7. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES
Finance Committee
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the committee discussed:
• New Budget in Brief
• Waterfront Center Financial Update
o Committee requested assumptions for projections and signed contracts
• November, December and January Monthly/Quarterly Financial Reports
o Yearend 2019 financials will be presented to full Council
• Fund Balance / Reserve Policy Discussion
• Parks Impact Fee Annual Financial Report
Parks & Public Works Committee
Councilmember Teitzel reported the committee discussed:
• Arts Festival and Market Event Contracts
o Added language regarding ban of single use plastics
• Report on Bids for the Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project
o Rebuilds Dayton 3rd to 9' and replace sewer, water and stormwater
o Low bid was $6.14M and engineer's estimate was $6.77M
• ILA Verdant Health Commission
o Outdoor fitness zones
• Environmental Works/Barker Landscape Amendment #2
o Decoupled from Ebbtide walkway project
Public Safety, Personnel and Planning Committee
Councilmember Nelson reported the committee reviewed:
• Urban Forester Job Description Approval
8. ACTION ITEM
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE FCC STUDY HEALTH IMPACTS OF 5G
WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 4
Packet Pg. 7
4.1.a
City Attorney Jeff Mr. Taraday explained at last week's meeting, the Council expressed interest in
considering a resolution that expressed concern about the health impacts of small cell on the community.
Although the City clearly cannot regulate that, the Council wanted to express concern and urge elected
officials to take action. The packet includes two resolutions; the first is similar to Portland's resolution and
the second resolution adds a request to Congress to review the FCC's actions in other regards that go beyond
health such as taking away local control.
Councilmember Nelson referred to a congressional bill introduced by Congresswoman Eshoo, H.R. 530,
the Accelerating Wireless Broadband Development by Empowering Local Communities Act of 2019, that
would basically rescind the FCC's order. There are 126 mayors, city councils, town halls, county
executives, board of supervisors as well as 132 public utilities that have signed onto the legislation including
Snohomish County, Seattle, Tacoma, Kent, Everett, Renton, Federal Way, Kennewick, Auburn, Pasco,
Redmond, Bremerton, Oak Harbor, Poulsbo, Normandy Park and Yarrow Point. He suggested separating
the topics of health effects and the request to Congress into separate resolutions.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the 3' Whereas in the second resolution that states, WHEREAS the
Federal Communications Commission is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to
evaluate the effects of emissions from FCC -related transmitters on the quality of the human environment.
It was his understanding that the FCC had taken no position with regard to whether 5G wireless is harmful
to human health. Mr. Taraday said as 5G wireless does not exist yet, it was unlikely the FCC had
meaningfully studied the health impacts.
Councilmember Teitzel clarified the FCC has taken no position yet that small cell wireless transmissions
are harmful to human health. Mr. Taraday agreed the FCC has not said its harmful. Councilmember Teitzel
asked how that squared with the Whereas clause he cited and whether the FCC had taken any action to
determine if small cell wireless transmissions were harmful or not. Mr. Taraday said the intent of the
language in the resolution was while the FCC is preempting jurisdictions from regulating health, the FCC
has not meaningfully determined that small cell is safe and doesn't allow anyone else to make that
determination. The resolution is taking the position that the FCC has not adequately done that.
Councilmember Teitzel again referred to the 3' Whereas clause, concluding the FCC had not evaluated the
effects of emissions. Mr. Taraday said he and staff were focused on drafting the City's code and did not
independently verify the statements that Portland made when adopting its resolution regarding human
health. He knew that could not be regulated so he did not focus on what the FCC has or has not done with
regard to human health and focused on what the City can regulate. These statements were primarily taken
from Portland's regulation that the City Council requested staff provide.
Councilmember Teitzel said he was concerned about aesthetics but was more concerned about public
health. He referred to an article in last week's packet about Petaluma, California, who voted to restrict small
cell installations to 500 feet from homes and asked whether the wireless industry had taken action to block
that action. Mr. Taraday answered not to his knowledge. Councilmember Teitzel asked whether Edmonds
could pursue that same restriction. Mr. Taraday said Petaluma took a number of steps that in his opinion
were probably not defensible. With regard to imposing a 500 foot setback from any residence, he said 500
was a considerable distance and in Edmonds, where the vast majority of the city residential, it would make
a huge majority of the City off limits to deployment of small cell. He did not recommend the Council adopt
a similar regulation.
Councilmember Teitzel supported Councilmember Nelson's suggestion to sign onto the action other cities
have taken and of the two resolutions, he prefer the second one.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why two separate resolutions were needed when only Sections 3 and 4
would be removed to create a new resolution. Councilmember Nelson said the cities should be able to
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 5
Packet Pg. 8
4.1.a
regulate wireless not the federal government. One of the resolutions would be related to health effects and
the other related to the ability to regulate and having two resolutions would be cleaner. Councilmember
Buckshnis agreed they were two different ideas.
Councilmember Mesaros expressed support for the second resolution. One of issues is interstate commerce
and the City's role as one municipality is very limited which he acknowledged was difficult to accept. He
found merit in Councilmember Nelson's comments about joining with other cities in Washington related
to the legislation in Congress.
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO
AMEND SECTION 4 OF THE RESOLUTION TO REFERENCE H.R. 530.
At Councilmember Teitzel's request, Councilmember Nelson read the bill:
A bill to provide that certain actions by the Federal Communications Commission shall have no force
or effect. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the "Accelerating Broadband Development by
Empowering Local Communities Act of 2019".
SEC. 2. Preservation of rights of State and local governments.
Actions by the Federal Communications Commission in "Accelerating Wireless and Wireline
Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment" (83 Fed. Reg. 51867) and
the Federal Communications Commission's Declaratory Ruling in "Third Report and Order and
Declaratory Ruling" (FCC 18-111) shall have no force or effect.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ADOPT THE SECOND RESOLUTION AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC HEARING ON SMALL CELL UPDATE TO THE WIRELESS REGULATIONS
IN CHAPTER 20.50 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
Planner Mike Clugston reviewed:
• Why Small Cell
o Industry responding to increased demand — Internet of Things...
o Off-load macro service (capacity)
o Provide new coverage in some areas
0 4G now, 5G in future
• What are small cell deployments?
o Small cell deployments are complementary to towers, adding much needed coverage and
capacity to urban and residential areas, venues, and anywhere large crowds gather
■ Antennas connected to nodes receive and transit wireless signals to and from mobile devise
■ Optical fiber connects to other nodes and carries data to and from communication hubs
operated by wireless carriers
■ The cabinet holds equipment that process wireless signals for multiple wireless carriers
• Federal Communications Commission (FCC)Small Wireless Facility Rules
o FCC Ruling (the "Order") released on September 27, 2018
■ The Order adopted new rules limiting how state and local governments may treat
applications for the installation of small wireless facilities
Limited local permit review fees and review timelines
Can regulate aesthetics (location and appearance)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 6
Packet Pg. 9
4.1.a
■ January 14, 2019 — The Order went into effect
■ April 14, 2019 — Local jurisdictions to have aesthetic rules in place
What we know about small cell
o Antennas are smaller and lower power than existing macro
o Need more antennas to cover the same area
0 20'-40' ideal height (-50' allowed by FCC)
o Taller support structures provide opportunity for more collation (leading to fewer site overall
o Complete concealment is possible
o Many jurisdictions have sued FCC for Order overreach
What we don't know
o When and how lawsuit will be resolved
o How many small cell sites there will eventually be
o How build out will occur
o Any connection between 5G and health impacts
o How future technologies will look
Project timeline:
o February 12' — Council approved interim ordinance
o February 27' — Public hearing at Planning Board, forwarded recommendation to Council
o March 19' — Council discussion of Planning Board recommendation
o March 26' — Council public hearing on updated regulations
o April 2" d — Council approve updated ordinance
o April 14" — Local jurisdictions to have small cell aesthetic rules in place
Council direction on March 19
o Focus location in the right-of-way, zoned property as an option
o Prefer concealment vs. camouflage
o Encourage collation to minimize total number of sites
o Establish a 25-foot height limit for freestanding small cell poles that do not include street lights
o Requested resolution asking FCC to study 5G health impacts
Small Cell Facility Location Preferences (photographs)
1. Hollow Power Pole — full/partial concealment
2. Freestanding Small Cell — full concealment
3. Wood Power Pole — installation on top of pole
4. Wood Power Pole — installation in communication space
5. Strand Mount — attachment to wires
Revised small cell regulations
o Permitted locations
o Location preference hierarchy
■ Application requirements for infeasibility
o General design standards
o Specific design standards for facilities in the ROW
o Specific design standards for facilities outside the ROW
Permitted locations (20.50.130.A)
o In BD zones — building attachment and hollow utility pole only
o Where utilities are underground — building attachments, new or replaced street lights, and
freestanding facilities only
o May not locate on existing Sternberg lights, historic properties, or wood poles that contain a
street light
o Freestanding poles allowed in any zone (not BD), subject to dispersion
0 300' radial dispersion requirement
■ Not for building -mounted
■ Not for small wireless facilities located in hollow poles
Location Preference Hierarchy (20.50.130.B)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 7
Packet Pg. 10
4.1.a
#1 -Hollow utility pole
#2 - Freestanding small wireless facility of new street light
#3 - Existing wood utility pole (on top)
#4 - Existing wood utility pole (on side)
#5 - Strand -mounted (on wires)
Application requirement for infeasibility must be met before moving down the list (20.50.070.G)
• Design Standards (20.50.130.C-E)
o Concealment
o Camo
o Collocation - new pole, at least two providers
• Comments received
o AT&T
o Verizon
o T-Mobile
o PUD
• Further changes anticipated
o Based on comments received
■ Update location preference #1
- "The antenna shall either be fully concealed within the pole or placed on top of the
pole, based on technical feasibility"
■ Other changes as needed
• Future work
o Add graphics to ordinance
o Refine fees and permit administration
o Revisit possibility of a new lighting standard for downtown which would allow small cell
location
• Next steps
o Direct staff to prepare a final ordinance for approval and adoption on April 2
o Local jurisdictions to have aesthetic regulations in place by April 14, 2019
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to 20.50.020C, Master Permit Agreements, and the removal of
paragraphs 2d, e, f, g and h related to submitting maps of provider's current coverage area, existing macro
facilities, etc., all the things she felt the City needs to know to prevent duplication. Mr. Clugston explained
the FCC order eliminated the need to prove a coverage gap. A number of the paragraphs addressed the
coverage gap concept; the City cannot require the industry to prove a gap. Mr. Taraday explained companies
will do what is profitable and will not install small cell in areas where they do not need to. Their profit
motive will cause them install in areas where the service is needed. He summarized the information
requested in those paragraphs was not needed from a regulatory standpoint.
If the City will be charging for and issuing Master Permit, Councilmember Buckshnis questioned whether
the City would want to know the location and the number. Mr. Taraday said the City is only allowed to
charge for review costs. Councilmember Buckshnis said Seattle plans to charge $18.74 per pole. Mr.
Taraday said Seattle has an electric utility that owns the poles.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the City could just blindly allow a Master Permit without any
map to identify the location. She suggested Verizon could install a small cell pole and T-Mobile could
install one across the street. Mr. Taraday said the coverage maps in paragraphs d and e is information the
City does not need from a regulatory standpoint. Paragraph f, a map showing provider's proposed new
macro and small cell wireless facilities over the next two years, could be useful information in sequencing
other infrastructure. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to keep paragraphs d-h but at least paragraph f so
there was some sort of tracking.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 8
Packet Pg. 11
4.1.a
Councilmember Teitzel said he was uncomfortable with where this process is. He referred to the letter from
Snohomish County PUD submitted late today and their concerns with the proposed regulations. For
example, the number 1 location in the proposed hierarchy is hollow power poles. He read from Snohomish
PUD's letter, "Snohomish PUD understands the City of Edmonds prefers the pursuit of hollow steel utility
poles with all cell equipment concealed. Currently there are designs for collocated street light poles that
conceal most of the equipment for cell phone apparatus. However at this time there is no available design
for utility power poles with concealed small cell equipment." He was surprised the Planning Board
reviewed this without PUD input and that the Council was unaware of this until tonight.
Councilmember Teitzel said the third option in the location hierarchy is cantennas on top of existing wooden
poles which PUD states in their letter they will not allow as that equipment cannot be installed above the
lowest level of power lines on the pole. It would require PUD to come out with a bucket truck every time
work needed to be done on the cantenna. He summarized two of the options were not viable and therefore
did not support moving forward until all the players could be assembled to identify and work out all the
issues. Public Works Director Phil Williams said staff had those conversations with PUD on the phone
today; neither has all the answers, yet the City is required to adopt regulations. He agreed no one is currently
selling hollow utility poles. A company whose business is building concealment wireless facilities has said
they can build it. Conceptually there is nothing wrong with that option but it is not available at this time. A
provider would currently be unable to meet the requirements for #1 but because technology, equipment and
performance is changing so fast, that option should be retained due to the likelihood it will be viable at
some point. With the hierarchy, providers would need to prove the infeasibility of an option before moving
to the next option.
Mr. Taraday explained the reason for the ranked list of options was in recognition that there will be
circumstances in which one or more of the options will not be available. As PUD noted, if an application
were submitted today, there may not be a product to satisfy #1. The problem is the City is being told by the
FCC if the City does not have an ordinance adopted and in effect by April, the City loses the right to regulate
indefinitely. If the City ever wants to regulate the aesthetics of small cell facilities, the Council must act by
next week. As a result staff is forced to develop an ordinance that looks far forward into the future to
envision what technologies might exist or become available and are reasonably feasible. The FCC has not
said the City will be allowed to update the ordinance in five year; as far as anyone knows, what the Council
adopts next week will be in effect indefinitely. He would like to think there will be another opportunity to
refine the aesthetic regulations in the future, but that has not been clarified. The FCC has said what is not
adopted by next week is preempted. He agreed it was problematic but it is important to move forward. In
addition, although the PUD says they will not approve it now, that does not mean they will not approve it
in five years as their policies change, as Department of Labor and Industries' policies change, etc.; however,
the City may not have another opportunity to regulate.
Development Program Manager Jeanie McConnell said installation of a hollow pole is the #1 priority, the
application requirements state if the #2 priority is proposed, it is based on the grounds that no such
replacement pole is available on the market or due to other reasonable insoluble problems expressed in
writing by the pole owner. For installations on top of a wood power pole, the code also includes a provision
if the pole owner does not allow that installation, the provider can move down on the hierarchy list.
Councilmember Tibbott said it appears under the current conditions Options 1, 2 and 3 are not viable now.
Mr. Taraday said #2 would be viable and it is believed #1 could become viable this year. The City needs to
work with PUD and the concealment company to better understand each other's needs. Councilmember
Tibbott referred to option #4, commenting nearly every pole on his street has a transformer on it and there's
no space available. He asked if that would then leave option #5. Mr. Williams said the pole could be
replaced with a taller wood pole, an additional five feet would add communication space and the equipment
could be added in the comm space but not on top of the pole until technology and regulations allow that.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 9
Packet Pg. 12
Councilmember Tibbott said if a taller wood pole could be installed to accommodate #4, why not require a
hollow pole. Mr. Williams said it was hoped this ordinance would accomplish that; if the pole was replaced,
it would be replaced with a hollow pole with the conduit inside the pole. Councilmember Tibbott supported
having providers adhere to that regulation, recalling when he and Councilmember Teitzel looked at poles
in Seattle, there was a new pole to accommodate telecommunications equipment next to an existing pole
that housed the utility equipment. He did not want to see two poles in a space where there was previously
one pole in Edmonds. Mr. Williams said that will be addressed in the next agenda item.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said if PUD power poles are off limits at this point, that leaves options
#2 and #5 in most cases. She referred to the preference to have equipment be less intrusive in BD zones and
asked why that was not considered in other areas of Edmonds. Mr. Clugston answered in BD zones the
primary location will be on buildings which can happen where buildings are close to the right-of-way where
there are no or very small setbacks. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed there are currently wooden
power poles in the BD zone. If small cell facilities can be less intrusive in the BD zone, she suggested the
same in other areas. Mr. Williams said it is possible the current restrictions for locating cantennas on top of
PUD poles may be overcome in five years which is the reason that option is being included although it does
not currently appear to be plausible. The comm space is available in many circumstances on PUD poles to
mount equipment.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the requirements in PUD's letter regarding wood poles,
observing it does not appear location on a wood pole will be feasible in the near future. Mr. Williams said
it could be if the pole does not have a transformer but if the pole was 45-feet, there likely would not be
room to mount equipment on pole. Replacing it with a 50-foot pole would create additional space. A lot of
poles do not have not have transformers where the comm space could be used. Council President Fraley-
Monillas asked whether the wireless companies would pay for the increased height of the pole. Mr.
Williams said the cost to modify the system to accommodate the technology would be borne by the
company asking for it.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Greggory Bush, Wireless Policy Group, representing AT&T, expressed support for the City's efforts to
update its wireless code to conform with federal law and reflect the latest in wireless technology. AT&T
also supports the decision to remove private property from the hierarchy preference for small cell facilities.
However, the City's newly proposed hierarchy establishes a preference for hollow utility poles which raises
additional significant concerns. Many design standards are not technically feasible for AT&T's equipment.
The FCC recently adopted an Order addressing local jurisdictions' regulation of small cell wireless facility
deployments. The aesthetic regulations apply to the extent that they are reasonable, technically feasible,
objective, no more burdensome than applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and are published
in advance. These regulations must be feasible for all carriers. He summarized AT&T's primary concerns
outlined in a letter dated March 25':
1. To justify a lower ranked location on the hierarchy, the code does not consider whether the higher
ranked location is feasible for the wireless provider. Only the pole provider is considered in the
reason for a lower ranked location
2. Inconsistent with the FCC Order because while the carrier's facilities are required to be concealed,
Snohomish PUD's are not required to be concealed. Inconsistent with the no more burdensome
requirement
3. Hierarchy establishes unreasonable expectations about pole availability on the market for the
hollow utility pole. They do not currently exist and results in a preference for freestanding small
wireless facilities which will lead to more new poles in the right-of-way and more clutter.
4. Additional cost for hollow utility poles may materially inhibit deployment by imposing excessive
costs on pole design.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 10
Packet Pg. 13
The code contains provisions that are not consistent with AT&T's preferred deployment for canister
antennas.
Jason Zyskowski, Snohomish County PUD, said City staff worked with PUD in developing the
ordinance. With regard to antennas on the pole and the height, location preference #1 and #3 have the
antenna located in the electrical supply space above the power lines. This is not a feasible option for PUD.
A power pole is divided into two areas, the comm space (lower) and the electrical supply space (upper).
Any work done in the electrical supply space must be done by a qualified electrical worker for safety reasons
and it is an L&I requirement. It is anticipated that thousands of small cell antennas will be installed across
PUD's territory; PUD does not have the resources to support this infrastructure. PUD is a power company,
responsible for supplying power to its customers, not a telecom company and does not have the resources
to install and maintain a small cell network. Small cells need to be installed in the comm space so
communication companies can install and maintain the equipment. Additionally, any small cell installed in
the electrical supply space would further encumber the space PUD workers need to perform their work
safely. With regard to options #1, PUD supports concealment but would like the antenna to be located in
the comm space. Even if concealed, PUD workers would be required to do any modifications. PUD is
required to make frequent visits to the current 120 macro sites installed in PUD's service territory for
maintenance which takes time. With the scale of small cell, PUD does not have the ability to do that work.
There is equipment on the hollow poles that PUD would need to have ready access to such as a disconnect
switch for workers to shut off power to the antenna.
Kari Marino, representing Verizon Wireless, referred to a letter submitted this afternoon from Kim
Allen, Wireless Policy Group, representing Verizon Wireless, summarizing significant concerns about
the drafted code being FCC compliant and that they would appreciate taking additional time to get it right.
In the seven- step hierarchy, it is premature to mandate the hollow utility pole as it is not currently available.
At this point Verizon's 5G millimeter wave spectrum antennas cannot be concealed or covered. They are
working with technology to cover or paint, but they cannot be enclosed. She cited the need for shot clocks
and rates to be FCC compliant and to allow for flexibility of small cell as defined by the FCC. They are
committed to working with the City to develop an FCC compliant code that supports Edmonds' aesthetic
requirements.
Alan Bar, Network Engineering Group, representing Verizon, commented many peoples' livelihoods,
education, etc. are dependent on mobile data usage. 5G offers exciting new innovations but the need now
is 4G capacity. Verizon is struggling to meet the needs of the community. Mobile data usage has increased
seven times since 2015, new app based economies depend on 4G technology, people are using more and
more data, and machine data is also a large demand. Small cells in the public right-of-way on existing utility
are needed to meet the demand. He summarized the need for quick review timelines to allow deployment,
presumptively reasonable fees and reasonable design standards; concealment and collocation don't
necessarily allow them to locate on utility structures in the right-of-way.
Ken Lyons, representing AT&T, said the way people and businesses communicate has changed. Nearly
two-thirds of Washington residents do not have home phone and rely on wireless networks. Society was
effectively land lined for 100 years and have gone wireless in the last 15 years. The data demand on AT&T
network has grown by 4070% since 2007 and the advent of Smartphones. Over 70% of 911 calls are over
the wireless network. Although there are public policy implications, people depend on this technology and
need access to the infrastructure that provides this backbone that the world depends on. Quality wireless
services within the community have tremendous economic and public safety benefits. He acknowledged
there are concerns about the FCC's order; his primary concern as a representative of AT&T was a code that
works, that provides a reasonable way to deploy small cell facilities in a manner that integrates well with
the infrastructure but allows them to meet the needs of their customers. The biggest challenge with the
proposed standards is the way they will work. PUD has indicated hierarchy #1 and #3 are not feasible; he
did not believe #1 would ever be feasible, especially for location in comm space. Significant barriers are
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 11
Packet Pg. 14
4.1.a
being erected for deployments in way that is unrealistic and require them to effectively vary the
requirements every time they want to deploy a facility. The FCC order does not prevent the City from
updating its aesthetic regulations over time; they can be updated at any time as long as they are published
in advance. The City has interim regulations; if it took an extra 3-4 weeks to adopt aesthetic regulations,
that is allowed under the FCC order.
Adriane Martinez, Edmonds, noted one of the comments in the newspaper was how Edmonds isn't
providing funding for basic human services including public health. Public health could be a resource that
could consider systems that cause public harm. She used to be a public health nurse but was laid off in 2009
due to funding and now works as a home health nurse. Although the technology is progressing, most seniors
have land lines not cell phones. She commented on her cell phone usage report of 2:30 minutes/day and
people's disconnect with living. She preferred the City fund public health and other human services and
acquire more information regarding health effects.
Susan Paine, Edmonds, a former Seattle City Light and Seattle Department of Transportation working
exclusively in the right-of-way and permitting in the right-of-way, found the Council's discussion last week
very thought provoking. Her condominium HOA on 5th Avenue has a small cell facility that provides some
revenue for the HOA. She anticipated having numerous such facilities would create visual clutter and poles
that interfere with the right-of-way. Edmonds does not have space for double poles. A few years ago, Seattle
City Light tested hollow fiberglass poles; there are restricted spaces due to public safety issues. She
suggested the Council consider allowing privately property owners to install freestanding small cell in areas
that can be concealed by taller trees and that the fee be similar to poles in the right-of-way. Other options
include utility boxes.
Cindy Sjoblom, Edmonds, after listening to comments about structures, location and camouflage, she
recommended talking about the elephant in the room, cell towers emit radiation causing health effects. The
closer the cell tower is, the more dangerous they are. Mobile towers are especially dangerous as they emit
massive amounts of radiation. Cell phone tower microwaves have significant higher frequency than radio
waves, the more powerful the wave, the more powerful the effect on biological organisms within one square
kilometer. The data and research is there, the City cannot blindly move forward due to the FCC and a time
crunch. Even though there are numerous people here representing cell companies, someone needs to
advocate for citizens and their health and safety. There needs to be further research before putting residents
at risk. She did not want one of the facilities in front of her house but acknowledged they emit energy for
miles and can even alter birds' flight paths. She recommended the City be smart about its regulations before
blindly allowing big corporations to do what they want.
Brian Thompson, Edmonds, referred to 20.50.050.E regarding mandated safety signage, recalling
cigarettes were hazardous before the surgeon general mandated a warning label on the package. Just because
the FCC or FDA does not mandate safety signage does not mean what is in the package of a small cell site
is safe. In 2014 a report by the Washington Department of Health (DOH) presented its finding of an
evaluation of a comprehensive review of the literature on the health effects of radio frequency (RF)
radiation. DOH was able to justify allowing Wi-Fi to remain in schools while recognizing articles that state
the science is not settled and suggesting health risks of stronger RF radiation could exist. In 2016 the
National Toxicology program released results of a $25M study on cell phones and cancer. The study
focused on the risks of 2G and 3G cell phones and found evidence of a link to cancer. A peer reviewed
study published last summer found an increased instance of tumors in the brain and heart in RF radiated
exposed rats. Last month during a U.S. Senate hearing, while the FDA has publicly encouraged wireless
companies to support 5G safety studies, industry representatives stated no such studies have been supported.
Less than two weeks ago, a Newsweek article identified an elementary school in California where a cell
tower is located on the campus and 4 of the 400 students were diagnosed with cancer in the last three years.
He summarized there is no doubt that RF radiation poses health risk and no dispute that small cell sites emit
radiation and no debate that safety of 5G is unquantified. Therefore, while the overall aesthetics may be
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 12
Packet Pg. 15
4.1.a
consistent with current thinking, he requested safety signage in an approved, visible location to increase
public awareness and to hold wireless companies accountable.
Tony Warren, Edmonds, agreed with the last two speakers' comments about public health. He explained
existing cell towers have been using a 2-8 GHz frequency band and the health risks are well known. The
situation is entirely different in 20-60 GHz and the health impacts are not only unknown but are potentially
more dangerous because the higher frequencies interfere with electrical systems in the body. For example,
a study at 40GHz showed millimeter waves at that frequency could generate signals that were damaging to
the eyes. He recommended a mandatory prohibition on high frequency bands until sufficient safety studies
have been done to verify the safety and validate it with the newly emerging equipment.
Lee Vimmelman, Edmonds, relayed his understand the City need to develop regulations for the placement
of 5G and 4G antennas and whether the City wanted them or not, they were coming. As has been found
time and again, necessity is the mother of invention. The cell providers have indicated the proposed
solutions are not feasible or practical, however, if they are requirements, they will have to find a way to
make them work. He asked who determines that the options are not practical or possible and suggested
adding language in the ordinance regarding the due diligence required to prove the preferred option was
not possible. With regard to the request for the FCC to do a study, he did not agree the FCC was biased but
suggested requesting the FCC sponsor a third party independent study.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to comments that the City was not locked into the timing, that the Council
could adopt interim regulations and revise them in the future. Mr. Taraday read from the FCC Order, "Based
on our review and evaluation of commenters' concerns, we anticipate that such publication [publication of
aesthetic regulations] should take no longer than 180 days after publication of this decision in the federal
register. He clarified out of an abundance of caution, he was advising the Council to adopt an ordinance
next week because that would meet the FCC's timeframe and he would not have to worry that the
regulations would be preempted for being adopted too late. If the Council decides to wait and not adopt an
ordinance next week, he could not ensure that that ordinance would have any effect.
Councilmember Mesaros clarified he was in favor of adopting the ordinance. His question was whether the
Council could revise the regulations at a future date. Mr. Taraday said if the Council did that, the ordinance
would need to have a savings clause that ensured if the new ordinance was invalidated because it was too
late, the City could return to the timely ordinance. He could not ensure that an ordinance revising the
regulations at a future date would be an effective ordinance.
Councilmember Mesaros asked if any thought had been given to working with neighboring cities such as
Woodway, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Bier, Mukilteo, Snohomish County, etc. and adopting
regulations that all agreed upon. Mr. Clugston said there were no conversations with neighboring
jurisdictions; the short timeframe did not allow that discussion. There have been discussions with the
wireless industry, PUD and concealment providers. He assumed other jurisdictions were working in parallel
or may be taking a more hands off approach.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the suggestion to include signage regarding potential health and safety
issues and asked if that requirement could be included in the ordinance. Mr. Taraday did not believe that
would be a preemptive regulation. If it turned out to be preemptive, the signs could just not be installed.
Councilmember Mesaros asked him to research that and if the Council was agreeable, to include that in the
draft ordinance the Council will consider next week.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed it was Verizon's suggestion to remove the maps from the Master
Permit Agreement Needed section. As a former regulator, she did not think big business should be allowed
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 13
Packet Pg. 16
4.1.a
to put small cell anywhere without the City having mapping of where the cells will be. She objected to the
removal of paragraphs 2d, e, f from 20.50.020C, Master Permit Agreement Needed. She objected to code
amendments being suggested by big business. Mr. Taraday explained the wireless industry asked the City
to do a lot of things that staff has not done. With each of those items, staff was trying to identify how the
City would use the information to regulate carriers in way that is allowed. He was unable to immediately
identify a need for coverage maps as a prerequisite to approving a master permit. He agreed paragraph f, a
map showing a provider's proposed new macro and small cell wireless facilities over the next two years,
could be useful information but he did not see a need for coverage maps. Mr. Williams recalled to providers,
coverage is a proprietary issue. If there are gaps in their coverage, that is a likely place where they will
install this technology.
Councilmember Teitzel recalled testimony from AT&T that full concealment would not work for them
because it shields their RF transmissions and T-Mobile stated something similar in their letter with regard
to their side -mounted technology. In places in Edmonds where there are no poles such as Emerald Hills, he
noted options 1, 3, 4 and 5 would not be viable. Where underground utilities exist, a freestanding small cell
full concealment (#2) would also not be an option for carriers. At a minimum AT&T and T-Mobile would
be out of the game which he did not believe was what the FCC intended. He was concerned with the City
enacting an ordinance with unforeseen problems that Mr. Taraday has indicated cannot be changed. Mr.
Taraday was certain the industry would welcome loosening the requirements in the future. He referred to
the photograph on the "Further Changes Anticipated" slide of a pole in Las Vegas, that could be located in
a neighborhood where there are no utility poles. Staff is planning to modify #1 to allow that type of
installation in the comm space of a hollow utility pole.
Councilmember Nelson said the wireless providers are planning for the roll out of technology that does not
currently exist and the City also needs to plan. Mr. Taraday said this is all about meeting a federal deadline.
If the City cares about aesthetic regulations, regulations need to be adopted today. The City may be able to
adopt other types of regulations in the future but this deadline is related to aesthetic regulations.
Councilmember Nelson referred to pending lawsuits regarding the FCC order that were originally in the
10t'' Circuit Court and now are in the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, commenting there was a
possibility the order could be overturned. If the FCC standards were incorporated in local ordinances, he
asked if the City would be bound by them if the FCC order was vacated. Mr. Taraday assumed if the FCC
order was vacated, the Council could adopt another ordinance at that time. Councilmember Nelson said the
Council could include language that the permit would be null and void if the FCC order was overturned.
Mr. Taraday pointed out if the FCC order was overturned, subsequent applications would need to be
processed according to some regulation. He wanted to ensure there were regulations in place so there was
not a regulatory vacuum.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was disturbed by, 1) the industry does not seem to be bothered by the fact
that utility poles in the City are full and they want to add more equipment and conduit to those poles, and
2) the industry has not proposed any alternative to a cantenna on top of the pole in view of PUD's comments
He agreed with the hierarchy and including a warning statement on poles. The photograph of the pole in
Las Vegas appears to be an alternative. He suggested the ordinance state a preference for antennas to be
concealed in a decorative way.
Regarding Councilmember Nelson's comments about the pending lawsuits regarding the FCC order,
Councilmember Mesaros asked if the remedy being sought was to stay the date the regulations must be
adopted. Mr. Taraday explained the lawsuit sought a stay to the effective date which the 10' Circuit Court
denied and transferred the case to the 9t' Circuit so there will not be a stay of the effective date. The FCC
order is in effect which gives the City until next week to adopt regulations. Councilmember Mesaros asked
what prohibited the 9t' Circuit Court from issuing a stay. Mr. Taraday said that has already been adjudicated.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 14
Packet Pg. 17
4.1.a
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Petaluma, California, ordinance also included a safe distance from
schools and asked if that could be included. Mr. Taraday said from the standpoint of an effective prohibition,
there aren't that many schools in Edmonds so he could envision there would be plenty of places left to place
an antenna. He could look into that if the Council was interested.
Councilmember Nelson asked if the order could be unconstitutional after it was implemented. Mr. Taraday
agreed the FCC order could be overturned. The cities that sued were trying to keep it from going into effect.
It was the consensus of the Council to include language regarding safety signage and distance from schools.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
10. STUDY ITEM
DISCUSSION ON UPDATES PROPOSED FOR EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.05 —UTILITY WIRES
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained Chapter 18.05 is an adjunct and logical extension of the
discussion regarding wireless facilities. Although it is more about wires, it involves the same poles and the
same aesthetics issues and cleaning up clutter in the right-of-way. He reviewed:
• ECDC 18.05 — Utility Wires
o Previous Code Updates
■ July 2011 -
- Revisions/references related to new code section: ECDC Chapter 20.50 — Wireless
Communication Facilities (WCF)
■ November 2008 -
- Revisions related to WCF's (removed and / or amended by July 2011 updates)
■ January 2006 -
- Revisions related to WCF's (removed and / or amended by July 2011 updates)
• Code Update Goals
o Incorporate aesthetic standards to minimize clutter in the right-of-way
o Address removal of old poles and restoration
o Clarify utility wire undergrounding requirements
o Clarify and / or add definitions
• ECDC 18.05 — Clutter in the Right -of -Way
o Photographs
• ECDC 18.05 — Conduit
o Limit number of conduits
o Require camouflaging — paint to match
• ECDC 18.05 — Split Boxes, Over -lashing
o Replace utility poles with hollow poles for full concealment
o Restrict over -lashing of existing utility wires
• ECDC 18.05 — Looped Wires and Fiber Storage
o Replace utility poles with hollow poles for full concealment (wire storage)
o Restrict size of loops or require wire storage
o Establish requirements for excess wires — neat and clean
• ECDC 18.05 — Pole Replacement
o Replace utility poles with hollow poles for full concealment
o Add penalties for failure to remove old poles
o Move wires to PUD poles on one side of the street
o ADA and Clear Zone Requirements
o ROW Restoration
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 15
Packet Pg. 18
4.1.a
o Photographs
■ Pole Replacement Back of Ramp
■ Restoration not complete
■ Old pole in sidewalks
Mr. Williams said the small cell regulations need to be incorporated into this section of the code; the above
are other issues that need to be addressed.
Development Program Manager Jeanie McConnell referred to the photographs illustrating clutter in the
right-of-way, staff is seeking direction from Council whether this is an important issue for the community
and that staff should pursue code updates to address clutter in the right-of-way with regard to wired
infrastructure and consistency with the aesthetic regulations related to small cell.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday referred to suggestions made by the industry representatives during the public
hearing on small cell wireless that the City would be discriminating against them by requiring things that
other users of the right-of-way are not required to do. He did not comment on whether that was a valid
opinion under the law, but it appeared to be a position the industry was taking so anything to close that gap
would make the small cell regulations easier to defend if they were challenged.
Councilmember Tibbott said one design flaw he did not see illustrated was wires from a pole to a house
that are no longer in use and a technology that was no longer available. Mr. Williams said the hope is to
include language to address that, recalling the comment that 63% of homes no longer have wired phone
service and it would be nice if the old wires were removed when new technology becomes available.
Councilmember Tibbott said because Edmonds has so many wood poles, it is convenient for utilities to add
wires and conduit. That has basically reached the point of overload and a way needs to be found to deal
with the overabundance of conduit and the poor craftsmanship of wires. He supported moving forward with
developing language to clean that up. Mr. Williams recalled in the past the PUD pole had distribution wires
and a small wire for phone service. The rapid rate of change in the past 15 years has result in a great deal
of equipment on the poles. Councilmember Tibbott suggested another issue is sagging cable wires that
obscure traffic signals.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to poles on opposite sides of the street, one carrying electric and the other
carrying communication, and wires crossing the street. He suggested regulations that require poles on one
side of the right-of-way to control the amount of wire pollution. Mr. Williams commented that is a
complicated issue.
Council President Fraley-Monillas agree with proposal, especially tidying up wires, get rid of old poles,
color matching, etc. to reduce visual pollution. Mr. Williams clarified he was not attacking the industry,
acknowledging their primary was reliable service at a fair price.
Councilmember Teitzel expressed support for the proposal. He asked the cost differential between a wood
pole and a hollow pole. Mr. Williams said a hollow metal pole does not exists. Staff has been told they can
be manufactured and there may be places where hollow metal poles are used for other purposes.
Councilmember Teitzel observed any increased cost would be passed to the rate payer. He asked if
replacement of utility poles with hollow poles with full concealment would be a widespread program or
only as poles needed to be replaced. Mr. Williams said if there is limited space in the comm section, the
pole may need to be replaced. That would be an opportunity to replace it with metal pole instead of wood.
Councilmember Nelson thanked staff for bringing this to the Council's attention and expressed his support
for reducing the clutter.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 16
Packet Pg. 19
4.1.a
11. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Councilmember Teitzel reported
• Port of Edmonds
o Puget Sound Express
■ 20,000 passengers in 2018 who also visited restaurants and shops
- At least that many expected in 2019
■ New boat - Saratoga
■ Working with Port to relocate office space to a new building in the gravel parking lot
o Financial highlights
■ Harbor Square business park revenue 6% higher than budget and 98% occupancy
■ Marina revenue 12% higher than budget
■ Net income 154% higher than budget
■ In -water moorage occupancy at 98%
o Executive Director Bob McChesney working with Sound Transit Interagency Group on
potential parking solutions.
■ Sound Transit allocated $40M split between Mukilteo and Edmonds to address parking in
both cities
■ Potential for parking in gravel lot across from Arnie's
- Currently 180 spaces
- If structured parking built, Sound Transit will potentially lease half resulting in a loss
of parking for Port
o Freedom Boat Club - boat sharing
■ Four 24-foot new boats
■ Accepting memberships
■ Target is 10 members/boat
■ Costs range from $200-$400/month depending on amount of access
o Beautification SR-104/Dayton
■ New landscaping, sign, seating and path with pavers
o Marina boardwalk beautification project
■ New railings, planters, plantings, dock gates
Puget Sound Regional Council Transit Oriented Development
o Updating 2040 Plan (Vision 2050)
■ Forecast for 1.5M new residents in Puget Sound area by 2050
■ Need 830,000 new housing units to accommodate that growth,
■ Assume 75% of the new housing (600,000) will be located near transit corridors
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
o Currently 19 homes on Edmonds Historic Register
o Goal is to add an additional 7 homes in 2019, 2 owners have expressed interest
o Meeting attendance has been an issue; some meetings have not had a quorum
o Lindsey Echelbarger approached HPC about interpretive signage near the old Edmonds High
School portico in the corner of Salish Crossing to describe its importance
0 2020 HPC calendar theme is 1960s.
Councilmember Nelson reported:
• Edmonds Youth Commission
o Discussing multiple issues
o Had a skype call with Kirkland Youth Council about their youth summit
o Interested in a youth event
o Focus is protecting salmon and preventing gun violence
o Interested in involving the School District in a way to talk about gun violence
o Enthusiasm, commitment and attendance is exciting
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 17
Packet Pg. 20
4.1.a
Council President Fraley-Monillas reported:
• Diversity Commission
o Recent meeting was attended by 15 citizens, many of who spoke to the commission
o Last free movie in the diversity series is Saturday April 20 at 12 p.m. at the Edmonds Theater
• Snohomish County Transportation Coalition
o Struggling to coordinate service with ST3 and Community Transit
o New Community Transit bus line from Everett
o Trying to provide transportation for areas east and north areas of Snohomish County to Sound
Transit 3 projects
Councilmember Buckshnis reported
• Mayors Climate Protection Committee did not meet, continue to work on zero waste initiative
• Tree Board
o Planted 150 native plants along Shell Creek near Holy Rosary
• WRIA 8
o Discussed legislative outreach and promoting salmon recovery
o Presentation from Orca Task Force
■ Have lost 24 animals in 24 year, down to 75 whales
■ Not enough food, too much noise and disturbance from vessels and too much pollution and
contaminants
■ Four bills in the House regarding orca
■ Attempting to increase buffer for whale watching from 200 feet to 400 feet
■ City of Sammamish fish creek passage stream restoration similar to daylighting Willow
Creek, total cost $2.4M, received $1.2M in grants.
■ 17 days of Tahlequah program
- Decline in food is affecting orca - 60% reduction in chinook salmon since 1984
- Orca lose 5.5 hours of foraging time due to boat noise
Councilmember Mesaros reported:
• SeaShore Transportation Forum
o Presentation on GMA by PSRC.
o Presentation by Port of Seattle on environmental program especially at airport
■ Airport known for being a leader in major airports about environmental concerns
■ Have more improvement they would like to like to do
• Sno9l l Board
o Working on implementation of new emergency radio system approved by voters
o Motorola selected as vendor
o Merger of Sno911 with SERS going very well
o Interim Executive Director Kurt Mills selected as the director
o In February, Sno9l l staff met the standard of answering calls within 10 seconds during the
busiest hour of the month for the first time since merger of SNOPAC and SNOCOM
Edmonds Public Facilities District
o Received five applications for two vacancies on the board
■ Council will formally approve the candidates the PFD Board recommends
o Held a joint meeting with the ECA Board on March 12 regarding unconscious bias and
inclusion and accessibility
o Center Stage is May 1
■ Programming introduced and opportunity to sponsor shows
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 18
Packet Pg. 21
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Tibbott reported the Economic Development Commission is working on a website with a
URL available to people in the ferry line regarding things do in Edmonds. The EDC also discussed their
work plan and plan to present it to the Council soon. The Affordable Housing Alliance did not meet.
Mayor Earling reported Community Transit opened a transit line from the Boeing manufacturing center to
Bothell where there are medical research companies and UW Bothell that is expected run every 10 minutes
and be a high volume line. Community Transit's efforts over the next several years will focus on east to
west to feed light rail stations. The next transit line will from Edmonds Community College to the
Lynnwood Transit Center and beyond. Edmonds population will be served with increased frequency from
downtown Edmonds to the Mountlake Terrace Park & Ride.
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported the Snohomish County Cities meeting included discussion with Snohomish County
government, Economic Alliance, and businesses in Snohomish County about planning for growth.
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Fraley-Monillas reported the South County Cities meeting made it clear that each city
will be responsible for addressing growth. She relayed Lynnwood's purchase of the Rodeo Inn has fallen
though due to remodeling costs.
Council President Fraley-Monillas invited Councilmembers to submit dates to Council Assistant Maureen
Judge for a Council retreat in April and a budget retreat in May.
14. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i
This item was not needed.
15. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
16. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 26, 2019
Page 19
Packet Pg. 22
4.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/2/2019
Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #236050 through #236161 dated March 28, 2019 for $1,004,000.93 and wire
payments of $12,058.37 and $417.67. Approval of replacement claim checks #236162 through #236164
for $437.29.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
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:
claims 03-28-19
wire 03-22-19
wire 03-28-19
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 03-28-19
replacement cks 03-28-19
Packet Pg. 23
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
236050 3/28/2019 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
236051 3/28/2019 000033 AAA FIRE AND SAFETY INC
236052 3/28/2019 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
236053 3/28/2019 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX
236054 3/28/2019 075197 AGREEMENT DYNAMICS INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
15-67402
RUSSIAN INTERPRETER PUBLIC D
RUSSIAN INTERPRETER PUBLIC D
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
15-67403
SPANISH INTERPRETER PUBLIC DI
SPANISH INTERPRETER PUBLIC DI
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
15-67637
AMHARIC INTERPRETER COURT 0;
AMHARIC INTERPRETER COURT 0;
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
Total
4592943
WADE JAMES - SPRINKLER HEAD
Wade James - Sprinkler head Replac
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Total
19301
MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI
MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
Tota I :
319244
P&R LEAGUE SHIRTS
P&R LEAGUE SHIRTS: 3ON3 BASK[
001.000.64.571.25.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.25.31.00
Tota I :
5363
COACHING SERVICES
COURT COACHING
001.000.23.512.50.49.00
BUILDING COACHING
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
4.2.a
Page: 1
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 24
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 2
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236054
3/28/2019
075197 AGREEMENT DYNAMICS INC
(Continued)
CITY CLERK COACHING
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
1,000.0(
ENGINEERING COACHING
001.000.67.518.21.41.00
500.0(
Total:
2,000.0(
236055
3/28/2019
065568 ALLWATER INC
032219005
FINANCE DEPT WATER
Finance dept water
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
59.5(
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
6.1
032219006
WWTP: 3/22/19 DRINK WATER SER
3/22/19 DRINK WATER SERVICE
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
20.9(
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
2.1 E
Total :
88.61
236056
3/28/2019
074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC
5732151
RETIREE PREMIUMS - APRIL
LEOFF PREMIUMS
009.000.39.517.20.23.10
8,428.6E
FIRE PREMIUMS
617.000.51.517.20.23.10
1,193.1(
Total:
9,621.7E
236057
3/28/2019
073573 ANIXTER
231<216529
PS - LOCK PARTS
PS - Lock Parts
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
169.0(
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
17.4-
Tota I :
186.4 ,
236058
3/28/2019
069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
1991163279
WWTP: 3/20/19 UNIFORMS,TOWEL
Mats/Towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
47.8E
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 25
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 3
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236058
3/28/2019
069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
(Continued)
Uniforms
m
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
3.5( E
10.3% Sales Tax
a
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
4.9:
10.3% Sales Tax
3
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
0.3E
1991163280
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
�a
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
Y
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
51.5E u
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
5.3' E
Total
236059
3/28/2019
071439 AUTOMATIC ENTRIES INC
38347
FAC - PARTS
p
FAC - Parts
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
325.0( p
10.4% Sales Tax
a
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
33.8' Q
Total :
358.81 "
rn
236060
3/28/2019
070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
106812
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
ao
UB Outsourcing area Printing #400
N
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
156.9E N
UB Outsourcing area Printing #400
E
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
156.9E n
UB Outsourcing area Printing #400
U
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
161.7' c
UB Outsourcing area Postage #400
E
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
467.2E
UB Outsourcing area Postage #400
fd
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
467.2z Q
10.1 % Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
15.8E
10.1 % Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
15.8E
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 26
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 4
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236060 3/28/2019 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued)
10.1 % Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
16.3, E
106867
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
a
UB Outsourcing area Printing #200
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
112.1('3
UB Outsourcing area Printing #200
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
112.1(
UB Outsourcing area Printing #200
Y
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
115.4�
UB Outsourcing area Postage #200
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
332.31 E
10.1 % Sales Tax
.@
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
11.3,
10.1 % Sales Tax
o
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
11.3,
10.1 % Sales Tax
o
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
11.6, a
UB Outsourcing area Postage #200
Q
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
332.3E m
106921
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
V-
UB Outsourcing area Printing #700
N
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
28.7( c
UB Outsourcing area Printing #700
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
28.7( .�
UB Outsourcing area Printing #700
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
29.5
UB Outsourcing area Postage #700
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
111.5( E
UB Outsourcing area Postage #700
�a
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
111.5( Q
10.1 % Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
2.9(
10.1 % Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
2.9(
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 27
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 5
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
236060
3/28/2019
070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
(Continued)
10.1 % Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
2.9E E
107211
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
a
UB Outsourcing area Printing #500
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
46.0E .3
UB Outsourcing area Printing #500
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
46.0E
UB Outsourcing area Printing #500
Y
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
47.4E
UB Outsourcing area Postage #500
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
137.6( E
UB Outsourcing area Postage #500
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
137.5�
10.1 % Sales Tax
o
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
4.6E
10.1 % Sales Tax
o
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
4.6E a
10.1 % Sales Tax
Q
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
4.8(
Total :
3,244.5!
Ob
236061
3/28/2019
076923 BALING, GIEANI
3/7-3/14 GYM MONITOR
3/7-3/14/19 VOLLEYBALL GYM MON
c
3/7-3/14/19 VOLLEYBALL GYM MON
N
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
72.0( E
Total:
72.0( 2
236062
3/28/2019
063408 BARTELS & STOUT INC
SRC1912
WWTP: PM SERVICE - LEICA DMLS
c
PM SERVICE - LEICA DMLS
E
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
176.0E U
10.3% Sales Tax
+°
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
18.1 , Q
Total:
194.1,
236063
3/28/2019
075217 BASLER, ANTHONY
36992
SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 0"
SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 01�
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 28
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 6
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236063
3/28/2019
075217 BASLER, ANTHONY
(Continued)
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
106.4�
Total:
106.45 E
236064
3/28/2019
075941 BELL, LAURIE
7141 CLASS
7141 ZENTANGLE KINDNESS ROCK
�a
Q-
7141 ZENTANGLE KINDNESS ROC[
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
107.2E
Total:
107.2E c
�a
236065
3/28/2019
069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC
10760
ESJB.SERVICES THRU 2/22/19
Y
ESJB.Services thru 2/22/19
421.000.74.594.34.65.41
t
2,774.0, u
ESJB.Services thru 2/22/19
E
423.000.75.594.35.65.41
2,774.0� 2
ESJB.Services thru 2/22/19
422.000.72.594.31.65.41
0
2,774.0 '@
10803
CONSULTING SVCS - DEVELOPME
o
Consulting services - development cc
a
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
2,464.3' Q
Total:
10,786.5' _.
rn
236066
3/28/2019
066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC
590551
ESJB.PLANS & SPECS REPRODUC
o
ESJB.PIans & Specs Reproduction
N
421.000.74.594.34.65.41
432.4' o
ESJB.PIans & Specs Reproduction
423.000.75.594.35.65.41
599.7E
ESJB.PIans & Specs Reproduction
422.000.72.594.31.65.41
431.4(
ESJB.PIans & Specs Reproduction
126.000.68.595.33.65.41
6.7E t
590559
ESJB.PLAN REPRODUCTION
ESJB.PIan Reproduction
Q
421.000.74.594.34.65.41
108.6'
ESJB.PIan Reproduction
423.000.75.594.35.65.41
150.6E
ESJB.PIan Reproduction
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 29
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 7
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236066
3/28/2019
066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC
(Continued)
422.000.72.594.31.65.41
108.3
ESJB.PIan Reproduction
126.000.68.595.33.65.41
1.7(
Tota I :
1,839.7(
236067
3/28/2019
074307 BLUE STAR GAS
10189
FLEET AUTO PROPANE 775.1 GAL
Fleet Auto Propane 775.1 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
1,028.2-
10231
FLEET AUTO PROPANE 797 GALS
Fleet Auto Propane 797 Gals
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
1,033.0E
Total:
2,061.2E
236068
3/28/2019
076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC
1662934
STREET - SUPPLIES
Street - Supplies
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
276.9(
7.7% sales tax
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
21.3,
5586879
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
340.6<
10.0% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
34.0E
5589357
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
169.5,
10.0% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
16.9E
Total:
859.3f
236069
3/28/2019
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
19878589
FLEET COPIER
Fleet Copier
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
55.3 ,
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
5.7(
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 30
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
236069 3/28/2019 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 8
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
vi
19878590
RECEPTION DESK CITY CLERKS C
(D
RECEPTION DESK CITY CLERKS C
E,
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
54.6" a
19878591
COUNCIL CANON COPIER LEASE E
Monthly copier lease for March
3
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
26.4z
B/W Meter Usage
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
1.5' N
Color Meter Usage
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
71.2(
10.3% Sales Tax
E
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
19878593
WATER SEWER COPIER
Water Sewer Copier
o
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
86.2, �a
Water Sewer Copier
o
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
86.2- 0-
10.3% Sales Tax
Q
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
8.8£
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
8.8 1 N
19878594 PW ADMIN COPIER
c
PW Office Copier for
N
001.000.65.518.20.45.00
81.0E .
PW Office Copier for
�a
U
111.000.68.542.90.45.00
45.91 };
PW Office Copier for
422.000.72.531.90.45.00
45.9, E
PW Office Copier for
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
32.4' Q
PW Office Copier for
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
32.4'
PW Office Copier for
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
32.4'
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 31
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 9
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
236069
3/28/2019
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
(Continued)
10.3% Sales Tax
(D
001.000.65.518.20.45.00
8.3f E
10.3% Sales Tax
a
111.000.68.542.90.45.00
4.7;
10.3% Sales Tax
3
422.000.72.531.90.45.00
4.7;
10.3% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
3.3z Y
10.3% Sales Tax
U
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
3.3z u
10.3% Sales Tax
E
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
19882578
ENG COPIER.MARCH 2O19
Eng. Copier March 2019
0
001.000.67.518.21.45.00
578.8-
Total:
1,292.0f o
a
236070
3/28/2019
071816 CARLSON, JESSICA
7148 DRAWING
7148 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING IP
Q'
Q
7148 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING IP
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
rn
376.2(
Total :
376.2( N
236071
3/28/2019
075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATION
88
COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT/
M
c
Consulting: Communications and
E
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
2,500.0( n
Total:
2,500.0( u
c
236072
3/28/2019
062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC
39301
UNIT 438 - DEDUCTABLES FOR 20
Unit 438 - Deductables for 2018 Rep
t
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
1,000.0(
Total:
1,000.0( Q
236073
3/28/2019
068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT
38635
SEWER - PUMP REPAIR
Sewer - Pump Repair
423.000.75.535.80.48.00
180.6E
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 32
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 10
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
236073
3/28/2019
068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT
(Continued)
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.48.00
18.6-
Tota I :
199.2 ,
236074
3/28/2019
075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON
710183290
WWTP: 3-2019 JANITORIAL SERVIC
3-2019 JANITORIAL SERVICE
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
514.0(
Total :
514.0(
236075
3/28/2019
075648 COVICH-WILLIAMS CO INC
0315553-IN
UNIT 138 - SUPPLIES
Unit 138 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
136.9<
10.1 % Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
13.&
Total :
150.7E
236076
3/28/2019
005965 CUES INC
529178
STORM - TV TRUCK CABLE
Storm - TV Truck Cable
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
178.6E
Freight
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
33.9E
10.3% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
21.9(
Total :
234.5'
236077
3/28/2019
006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
3345680
EBDC.INVITATION TO BID AD
EBDC.Invitation to Bid Ad
112.000.68.542.30.41.00
366.2E
EBDC.Invitation to Bid Ad
125.000.68.542.30.41.00
351.9,
Total :
718.2(
236078
3/28/2019
047610 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
RE41 JA9525L001
STREET - SNOW & ICE PRODUCTS
Street - Snow & Ice Products
111.000.68.542.66.31.00
1.240.6E
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 33
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 11
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236078
3/28/2019
047610
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
(Continued)
10.0% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.66.31.00
124.0 1
Tota I :
1,364.7E
236079
3/28/2019
076262
DERRICK, CARLY
3059
TUITION REIMBURSEMENT
Tuition Reimbursement - Winter 2019
001.000.22.518.10.49.00
1,055.3(
Total :
1,055.3(
236080
3/28/2019
071641
DILL, DEBRA
2542
TUITION REIMBURSEMENT
Tuition Reimbursement - Winter Quar
001.000.22.518.10.49.00
537.9E
Total:
537.9°
236081
3/28/2019
064531
DINES, JEANNIE
19-3919
03/12/2019 COUNCIL & COMMITTEE
3/12/19 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
626.5(
Total:
626.5(
236082
3/28/2019
007253
DUNN LUMBER
6195195
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
Fac Maint - Shop Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
70.0�
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
7.0,
Tota I :
77.11
236083
3/28/2019
076610
EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
1261
PM SUPPLIES: SAW BLADE
PM SUPPLIES: SAW BLADE
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
44.9�
10.3% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.6'
1264
PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE
PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
72.7E
10.3% Sales Tax
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 34
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 12
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236083 3/28/2019 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
(Continued)
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
7.4�
1267
PM SUPPLIES: PAINT
E
10.3% Sales Tax
ca
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
a
1.4(
PM SUPPLIES: PAINT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
13.5E
1270
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM!
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM!
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
46.9E
10.3% Sales Tax
t
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.8z
1271
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM i
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM i
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
20.5E o
10.3% Sales Tax
�a
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
2.1 , o
C99416
PM SUPPLIES: HOSE
L
a
PM SUPPLIES: HOSE
Q
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
16.9E
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1.7E N
Total:
238.0E c
236085 3/28/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
3-01808
LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S
N
E
LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S'
2
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
55.6' U
3-03575
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
E
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
392.6,
3-07490
HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F
fd
HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F
Q
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
104.2E
3-07525
LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE
LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
51.2,
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 35
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
236085 3/28/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 13
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
vi
3-07709
LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S
LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
51.2, a
3-09350
LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i
LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
104.2E
3-09800
LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R
LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
51.2,
3-29875
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR /
t
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
51.2,
3-38565
SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c
U
SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c
p
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
51.2, �a
6-00025
MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLER
o
MARINA BEACH PARK
0-
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
192.8, Q
6-00200
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
402.9, N
6-00410
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF
ch
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF
c
N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
393.3E E
6-00475
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS
@
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS
U
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,031.5E
6-01127
WWTP: 1/16-3/17/19 METER 2088:
E
1/16-3/17/19 200 2ND AVE S / METI
t
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
192.8,
6-01130
WWTP: 1/16-3/17./19 METER 9439:
Q
1/16-3/17./19 200 2ND AVE S / MET
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
24.6,
6-01140
WWTP: 1/16-3/17/19 METER 50104E
1/16-3/17/19 200 2ND AVE S / METI
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 36
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 14
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236085 3/28/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
2,245.3E
6-01250
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER
E
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER
ca
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
a
192.8,
6-01275
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
3
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
448.6E
6-01280
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
299.4z t
6-02125
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
331.7, Z
6-02727
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER
p
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
293.9E o
6-02730
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I
a
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I
Q'
Q
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
293.9E .r
6-02735
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF
06
N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2,341.8E c
6-02736
FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH A�
N
FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH Ab
E
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
14.0 1 2
6-02737
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
U
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
850.4- E
6-02738
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA
f°
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
293.9E Q
6-02745
VETERANS PLAZA
VETERANS PLAZA
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
152.7z
6-02825
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST /
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 37
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 15
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236085 3/28/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2,102.8,
E
6-02875
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
a
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
24.6,
.3
6-02885
DOWNTOWN RESTROOM
DOWNTOWN RESTROOM
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
352.1 £
Y
6-02900
FAC SPRINKLER
FAC SPRINKLER
t
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
293.9f
6-02925
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2,234.1 £
o
6-03000
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
�a
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
o
L
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
546.0'
a
6-03275
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI
Q
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI
.r
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
192.8,
rn
r'
6-03575
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER
06
N
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER
A
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
342.0,
0
N
6-04127
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST :
E
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
2
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
946.6'
U
};
6-04128
FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF
FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF
E
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
14.0 1
6-04400
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
fd
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
Q
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
293.9E
6-04425
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
572.0'
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 38
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
236085 3/28/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 16
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
vi
6-04450
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER
(D
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
419.8" a
6-05155
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
189.5£
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
720.4z N
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
720.4z
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
720.4z o
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
�a
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
720.4E o
6-05156
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
a
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
a
Q
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
1.7E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
6.6f N
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
c
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
6.6£
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
E
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
6.6E 2
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
};
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
6.6£
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
E
t
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
6.6E
6-07775
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER
Q
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
371.4z
6-08500
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 39
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
236085 3/28/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
6-08525
236086 3/28/2019 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR130182
236087
236088
236089
3/28/2019 076992 ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS 00001
3/28/2019 076483 EUROFINS FRONTIER GLOBAL SCI 9030573
�Z�I<Z�ZYiZ:1
3/28/2019 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH847617
EDH848732
EDH848735
4.2.a
Page: 17
PO # Description/Account Amoun
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,341.7E
YOST POOL
E,
YOST POOL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
a
299.41
Total :
25,084.91 3
ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02
c
Maintenance for printers 03/21/19 -
N
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
307.2(
10.3% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
31.6,
Total :
338.8E
�a
WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT I
.�
WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT 1
0
125.000.64.594.76.65.41
�a
67,133.1.E o
Total :
67,133.1 ° a
a
W WTP: METHOD 30B TRAPS ANAL
Q
8 METHOD 30B TRAPS ANALYSIS
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
960.0( ao
WWTP: EPA 30B LARGE BED UNSII
N
EPA 30B LARGE BED UNSIPKED+S
o
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
570.0( E
Total :
15530.0( •�
EBDC.INVITATION TO BID ADVERTI;
};
EBDC.Invitation to Bid Advertisement
112.000.68.542.30.41.00
157.9( E
EBDC.Invitation to Bid Advertisement
125.000.68.542.30.41.00
151.7( Q
CITY NOTICES - SMP PERIODIC RE
CITY NOTICES - SMP PERIODIC RE
001.000.25.514.30.41.40 84.2E
CITY NOTICES- WIRELESS REGUL,
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 40
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
236089 3/28/2019 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
E D H 849103
E D H 849223
236090 3/28/2019 075829 EVERGREEN STATE SHEET METAL BLD20190087
236091 3/28/2019 076751 FALK, NICHOLAS
236092 3/28/2019 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
PO # Description/Account
CITY NOTICES- WIRELESS REGUL,
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
LEGAL AD: PLN20180069
Legal Ad: Haynes Lund, HWLARchit
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
LEGALAD: PLN20190006
Legal Ad: Nary Nicholl (Sound Transit
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
Total
REFUND: DUPLICATE PERMIT (BLE
Refund: duplicate permit applied for
001.000.257.620
Total
NFalk EXPENSE REIMB-MILEAGE
Reimb for mileage to Snohomish Cou
001.000.62.524.10.43.00
Total
WAMOU50714
WAMOU53064
WAMOU53092
SHOP SUPPLIES
Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
PS - SUPPLIES
PS - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4.2.a
Page: 18
Amoun
m
37.8, E
�a
a
a�
72.21 3
c
�a
79.1 , Y
583.01 U
t
E
2
64.0( U
64.0( o
�a
0
a
45.8( Q
45.8( �-
rn
ao
N
16.9E o
N
1.7E
19.2z
1.9£
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 41
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
236092 3/28/2019 066378 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
236093 3/28/2019 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
236094 3/28/2019 071998 FOSTER, KELSEY
236095 3/28/2019 011900 FRONTIER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 19
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
Total :
50.2�
0743772
WATER - SUPPLIES
m
E
Water - Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
205.2(
#0438 W-SLEEVEMJ-08-010
=
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
307.3E
W-VALVCI-08-010
c
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
�a
927.5' N
10.3% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
21.1
10.3% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
127.2( •�
Total:
1,588.4: U
O
BID-8374
BID/ED! COPYWRITING FOR MARC
BID/Ed! Copywriting for March 2019
�a
0
140.000.61.558.70.41.00
600.0( a
Total :
600.0( Q
253-007-4989
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR)
rn
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR)
o
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
31.0� N
253-012-9166
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
o
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
N
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
162.5E '9
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 5
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
301.8E
253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
19.8E
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
Q
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
36.8,
253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
47.0(
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 42
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
236095 3/28/2019 011900 FRONTIER
236096
236097
236098
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
425-712-8347
425-776-3896
3/28/2019 076932 GIRARD RESOURCES & RECYCLING 58365
3/28/2019 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 151131
3/28/2019 012199 GRAINGER
PO # Description/Account
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AL,
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
Total
STORM DUMP FEES WITH 8.9% TA
Storm Dump Fees with 8.9% tax
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
Total
FLEET TIRE INVENTORY (14)
Fleet Tire Inventory (14)
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
State Tire Fee
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
9105831086 PS - SUPPLIES
PS - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9114652051 PS - SUPPLIES
PS - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total :
4.2.a
Page: 20
Amoun
m
87.2, E
�a
a
a�
73.3< .3
c
�a
139.0E Y
898.9E U
t
E
2
579.6� U
579.65 0
Ta
0
a
1,880.2z Q
14.0(
Ob
195.5E c%)
2,089.75 y
E
154.9E
a�
15.9E t
�a
a
30.7E
M
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 43
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 21
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
236098
3/28/2019
012199 012199 GRAINGER
(Continued)
Total :
204.8:
236099
3/28/2019
074804 HARLES, JANINE
527273
PHOTOGRAPHY - MARCH 2O19
E
E
Photography for March 2019
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
200.0(
Total :
200.0( .-
3
236100
3/28/2019
074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC
2018-142
TOURISM PROMOTION AND MARKI
c
Tourism promotion and marketing for
fd
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
1,666.0(
Tourism website maintenance for Mar
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
t
200.0( u
2018-143 LTAC
VIDEO SERVICES FOR CREATIVE [
E
Video services for three Creative
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
3,000.0( o
Video services for Waterfront Video
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
M
1,000.0( >
Total:
5,866.0( a
a
236101
3/28/2019
074746 HIGUCHI, ROD
7060 UKULELE CLASS
7060 UKULELE CLASS INSTRUCTI(
Q
7060 UKULELE ACQUIRING THE BP
rn
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
273.9( ao
Total :
273.9( N
M
O
236102
3/28/2019
067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
1081324
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM!
N
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM i
E
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
256.& 2
10.0% Sales Tax
};
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
25.6E
12187
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM!
E
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM!
t
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
35.9- Q
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
3.5�
2081219
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM i
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM i
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 44
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 22
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236102 3/28/2019 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued)
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
160.9 1
10.0% Sales Tax
E
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
16.1( a
2081238
PM SUPPLIES: SCREWDRIVER SE -
PM SUPPLIES: SCREWDRIVER SE-
3
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
17.9z
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1.7� N
5051934
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM!
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM!
t
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
107.1
10.0% Sales Tax
M
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.7,
6083450
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM ;
o
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM i
�a
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
49.2< o
10.0% Sales Tax
L
a
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.9, Q
7013740
PM SUPPLIES: PIPES, CEMENT
PM SUPPLIES: PIPES, CEMENT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
125.3' N
10.0% Sales Tax
c
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
12.5< N
7072377
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM i
E
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM i
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
310.1 };
10.0% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
31.0. E
7094569
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM!
U
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM!
Q
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
141.5E
10.0% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
14.1(
7095657
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM i
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 45
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 23
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236102
3/28/2019 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
(Continued)
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM !
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
294.9, E
10.0% Sales Tax
a
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
29.4�
8013633
PM SUPPLIES: FAUCET
3
PM SUPPLIES: FAUCET
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
54.3<
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Y
5.4E
8073133
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM !
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM !
E
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.0% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
7.4E o
9200876
PM SUPPLIES: SOD, FERTILIZER
PM SUPPLIES: SOD, FERTILIZER
o
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
91.9z 0-
10.0% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.1
95313
PM SUPPLIES: WHEELBARROW H)
r'
PM SUPPLIES: WHEELBARROW H)
N
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
29.9E c
10.0% Sales Tax
N
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
3.0( .
Total:
1,926.1z u
236103
3/28/2019 061013 HONEY BUCKET
0550994116
OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOMS HO
OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOMS CRI
a�
E
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
-54.31
0551000139
OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOMS HO
OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOMS HO
Q
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
669.7E
Total:
615.3f
236104
3/28/2019 075966 HULBERT, CARRIE
BID-0027
BID/ED! PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 46
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
236104 3/28/2019 075966 HULBERT, CARRIE
236105 3/28/2019 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG
236106 3/28/2019 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
236107 3/28/2019 075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 24
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
vi
BID/Ed! program management for Me
140.000.61.558.70.41.00
2,866.5( E
Total:
2,866.5( a
BID-03312019
BID/ED! PHOTOGRAPHY FOR MART
BID/Ed! photography for March 2019
3
140.000.61.558.70.41.00
600.0(
Total:
600.0( N
Y
V
300-10053722
UNIT 22 - HEADLAMPS
Unit 22 - Headlamps
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
189.7( .
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
19.5z o
300-10054168
FLEET - RETURNS
'@
Fleet - Returns
o
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
-30.0( a
10.3% Sales Tax
Q
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
-3.0�
300-10054232
UNIT 22 - HEADLAMPS
Unit 22 - Headlamps
ao
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
21.9( M
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
2.2( E
300-10054282
FLEET SHOP TOOL
Fleet Shop Tool
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
50.9� c
10.3% Sales Tax
E
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
5.2.'
Total:
256.5°
a
045
STATE LOBBYIST FOR MARCH 201 S
State lobbyist for March 2019
001.000.61.511.70.41.00
3,358.0(
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 47
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
236107 3/28/2019 075356 075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC (Continued)
236108 3/28/2019 064934 JOHN BARKER LANDSCAPE 14
236109 3/28/2019 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER
Description/Account
Total ;
WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT I
WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT 1
125.000.64.594.76.65.41
Total
37400319243 UNIT 22 - WHEEL SERVICE
Unit 22 - Wheel Service
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
236110 3/28/2019 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER April 2019
236111
3/28/2019
076001 LUCIE R BERNHEIM, ATTYAT LAW
27173
236112
3/28/2019
075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC
E0105099
E0105214
236113 3/28/2019 068670 MARSHBANK CONSTRUCTION INC E1 CA/ESDA.Pmt 18
Total :
APRIL 2019 CIGNA INSURANCE PR
April 2019 life insurance premium
811.000.231.550
Total
CONFLICT COUNSEL 8ZO867638
CONFLICT COUNSEL 8ZO867638
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
Total
PS - PAINT SUPPLIES
PS - Paint Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
BEACH RANGERS STATION - SUPP
Beach Rangers Station - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
Ell CA/ESDA.PMT 18 THRU 12/31/18
4.2.a
Page: 25
Amoun
3,358.0(
r-
m
E
�a
32,502.0(
32,502.0( .3
c
�a
N
116.0(
a�
t
12.0E
128.0E ,E
�a
U
4-
0
12,685.9, >
12,685.91, a
a
Q
rn
300.0(
300.0( N
M
0
N
E
127.9E 2
12.8(
E
t
255.7z
a
25.5,
422.05
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 48
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
236113 3/28/2019 068670 MARSHBANK CONSTRUCTION INC (Continued)
236114 3/28/2019 075746 MCMURRAY, LAURA
236115 3/28/2019 072223 MILLER, DOUG
7323 FELDENKRAIS
3/6-3/21 GYM MONITOR
236116 3/28/2019 076498 MOGLIA & LARRIPA LAW FIRM PLLC 20180560
236117 3/28/2019 076264 MONO ROOFTOP SOLUTIONS
236118 3/28/2019 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC
20180561
24758
ME 145490
4.2.a
Page: 26
PO # Description/Account Amoun
ElCA.Pmt 18 thru 12/31/18
m
112.000.68.595.33.65.00
51,747.3E E,
ElCA.Pmt 18 thru 12/31/18
a
423.000.75.594.35.65.30
2,200.1
ESDA.Pmt 18 thru 12/31/18
3
112.000.68.595.33.65.00
3,358.9E M
Total :
57,306.5:
7323 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION
N
7323 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
104.0(
Total:
104.0(
3/6-3/21/19 BASKETBALL GYM MON
3/6-3/21/19 BASKETBALL GYM MOh
o
'@
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
102.0( o
Total:
102.0( a
a
CONFLICT COUNSEL 8Z0881494/9E
Q
CONFLICT COUNSEL 8Z0881494/9E
rn
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
367.0( ao
CONFLICT COUNSEL 8Z1132346
N
CONFLICT COUNSEL 8Z1132346
0
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
300.0( E
Total :
667.0(
OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOMS RO
OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOMS RO,
125.000.64.576.80.41.00
605.0( E
10.3% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.41.00
62.3, Q
Total :
667.3:
UNIT 14 - ELEMENT
Unit 14 - Element
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 49
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 27
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236118
3/28/2019
021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
58.8�
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
6.0,
Tota I :
64.9E
236119
3/28/2019
067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS
5309436
PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS
PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
492.4f
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
50.7'
Tota I :
543.21
236120
3/28/2019
064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC
0535453-IN
STORM - RAIN WEAR FOR CREWS
Storm - Rain Wear for Crews
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
356.4(
10.3% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
36.7-
0536058-IN
STORM - RAIN WEAR
Storm - Rain Wear
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
93.9(
10.3% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
9.6,
Tota I :
496.6f
236121
3/28/2019
024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
0688726-IN
FLEET FILTER INVENTORY
Fleet Filter Inventory
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
61.5<
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
6.31
Tota I :
67.8 ,
236122
3/28/2019
062837 NORSTAR INDUSTRIES
56602
UNIT 11 -PLOW SUPPLIES
Unit 11 - Plow Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
142.0(
Freight
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 50
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
236122
3/28/2019
062837 NORSTAR INDUSTRIES
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
56625
UNIT 90 - SUPPLIES
Unit 90 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
56645
UNITS 11,14,22,90 PLOWS AND SUI
Units 11,14,22,90 Plows and Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total :
236123
3/28/2019
027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
18-T1066857
STORM DUMP FEES
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
Tota I :
236124
3/28/2019
075065 PASSEY, SCOTT
MARCH 2O19
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT WMC,
WASHINGTON MUNICIPAL CLERKS
001.000.25.514.30.43.00
Total :
236125
3/28/2019
028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY
U546292
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
City Hall - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
U578706
WWTP: GEE 28412, 3M CT15131<50-�
4.2.a
Page: 28
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 51
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 29
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236125
3/28/2019
028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY
(Continued)
GEE 28412, 3M CT15BK50-C 11" &
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
11215.3( E
10.3% Sales Tax
a
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
125.1 E
Total:
L
1,494.8f .3
236126
3/28/2019
064167 POLLARD WATER
WP002956
WATER - SUPPLIES
c
Water - Supplies
y
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
691.0( U
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
150.9z
10.3% Sales Tax
E
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
86.7<
Total:
928.61, o
236127
3/28/2019
064088 PROTECTION ONE
1988948
ALARM MONITORING ANDERSON (
�a
o
ALARM MONITORING FRANCES AN
a
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
502.3E Q
291104
ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAII
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
22.2" ao
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I
N
ch
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
22.2- N
ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST
E
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
21.4z n
Fire Station #20
U
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
83.1( c
Old Public Works
E
E
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
16.5,
Yost Pool
fd
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
18.1( Q
Tota I :
685.9:
236128
3/28/2019
070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE
19-0474
COURT SECURITY 03/11/2019-03/1 E
COURT SECURITY 03/11/2019-03/1E
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 52
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 30
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236128
3/28/2019
070809
PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE
(Continued)
001.000.23.512.50.41.00
1,072.5(
Total:
1,072.5(
236129
3/28/2019
066786
RELIABLE SECURITY SOUND & DATA
22863
REPLACEMENT PENDANT INDIGO
Replacement Indigo BX500 HD Exter
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
1,104.6'
10.3% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
113.7E
Total :
1,218.41
236130
3/28/2019
066977
RHOMAR INDUSTRIES INC
93676
ROADWAY - ASPHALT SUPPLIES
Roadway - Asphalt Supplies
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
2,685.6E
Freight
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
207.3 ,
Total :
2,893.0:
236131
3/28/2019
064769
ROMAINE ELECTRIC
5-021963
UNIT 131 - BATTERY
Unit 131 - Battery
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
73.7z
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
7.6(
5-021968
UNIT 69 - BATTERY
Unit 69 - Battery
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
97.3,
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.01
Tota I :
188.6f
236132
3/28/2019
066964
SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
S3-4160766
FLEET BRAKE INVENTORY
Fleet Brake Inventory
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
490.5z
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
50.5'
Total:
541.0,
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 53
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
236133 3/28/2019 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 202669-1
236134 3/28/2019 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC
236135 3/28/2019 036041 SETINA MFG CO
236136 3/28/2019 068489 SIRENNET.COM
PO # Description/Account
UNIT 47 - THERMO VALVE
Unit 47 - Thermo Valve
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Drop Ship Fees
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total :
46569 REMOTE COMPUTER SUPPORT
Remote computer support 11/9/18,
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
47197 REMOTE & ONSITE COMPUTER SL
Remote computer support - 12/11/18
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
Onsite computer support - 12/13/18 8
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
Total
179687 UNIT 286 - FENDER WRAP
Unit 286 - Fender Wrap
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
0237235-IN UNIT E163EQ - SUPPLIES
Unit E163EQ - Supplies
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
10.3% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Total
4.2.a
Page: 31
Amoun
m
54.0( E
�a
a
10.0(
L
3
13.4z
c
�a
6.5� Y
84.W U
t
E
M
323.7E
0
�a
370.0( o
L
a
577.5( Q
1,271.2E
N
M
171.3E N
E
9.9E n
U
2,818.8,
290.3E
Page: 31
Packet Pg. 54
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 32
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
236136
3/28/2019
068489 068489 SIRENNET.COM
(Continued)
Total :
3,109.2:
236137
3/28/2019
036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC
14-380735
UNIT 69 - JACK
m
E
Unit 69 - Jack
�a
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
85.1 <
10.3% Sales Tax
L
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
8.71
1-934008-1
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES
c
Fleet Shop Supplies
N
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
9.6'
10.3% Sales Tax
t
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
0.9(
Total:
104.51
�a
236138
3/28/2019
037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT
I000496198
04-18 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS &
.�
Quarterly Liquor Board Profits
001.000.39.566.10.41.50
Ta
1,709.1 z o
Quarterly Liquor Excise Taxes
a
001.000.39.566.10.41.50
11034.0( Q
Total:
2,743.1� .r
rn
236139
3/28/2019
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
200202547
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95
6
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95-
N
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
17.7z o
200260271
YOST POOL
E
YOST POOL
M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
487.0E
200398956
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
1,438.0,
200468593
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD /
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD /
Q
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
262.8-
200493146
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
16.0<
Page: 32
Packet Pg. 55
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
236139 3/28/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 33
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
vi
200611317
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
(D
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
152.2E a
200638609
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
457.5,
200714038
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
22.7�
200723021
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI
t
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
31.3z
200739845
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
p
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
19.4< �a
201197084
SEAVIEW PARK
o
SEAVIEW PARK
a
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
52.0- Q
201431244
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
18.3, N
201551744
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / IN
M
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / IN
c
N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
3,476.6< E
201572898
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME
2
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME
U
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
48.8E
201751476
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW
E
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
46.1,
201942489
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
Q
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
110.2,
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
419.0,
Page: 33
Packet Pg. 56
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 34
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236139 3/28/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
(D
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
419.0, E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
a
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
419.0,
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
3
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
419.0,
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
419.0z Y
202250627
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
16.6( E
202291662
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1,
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1 ,
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
6,078.8E o
202439246
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
�a
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
o
L
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
4,427.0E a
202540647
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191
Q
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
18.8�
202807632
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW
c00.i
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW
c
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
19.1E N
203652151
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
E
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
2
U
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
544.5z };
220216386
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 M/
E
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
85.1
Total :
19,942.61
a
236140 3/28/2019 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1
1900054581
ACCT# 30000075
Advanced Contact fee on jointly owne
512.000.31.518.87.41.00
186.3E
Page: 34
Packet Pg. 57
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 35
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
236140
3/28/2019
037376 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
Total :
186.3E 4i
C
236141
3/28/2019
037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE
EDMS 2019-4
APR-2019 FIRE SERVICES CONTRi
E
E
Apr-2019 Fire Services Contract Payr
001.000.39.522.20.41.50
614,893.1,
Total :
614,893.1 , .3
236142
3/28/2019
038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
104757
WWTP: 2-2019 ROLLOFF ASH DISI
c
2-2019 Ash disposal & taxes
fd
423.000.76.535.80.47.65
N
2,515.1
Total:
2,515.11 t
236143
3/28/2019
068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE
51574
FS 17 - EMERGENCY DOOR REPAII
E
FS 17 - Emergency Door Repair
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
523.3E
10.3% Sales Tax
0
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
53.9" >
Total:
577.25
a
236144
3/28/2019
040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
S102671843.001
PS - SUPPLIES
a
Q
PS - Supplies
Q,
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
42.91 06
10.4% Sales Tax
N
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4.41 c
S102679905.001
PS - SUPPLIES
N
PS - Supplies
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
203.5< 2
10.4% Sales Tax
};
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
21.1,
S102689499.001
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
E
Fac Maint - Supplies
t
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
66.5; Q
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
6.8E
S102691056.001
BEACH RANGER STATION - SUPPL
Beach Ranger Station - Supplies
Page: 35
Packet Pg. 58
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 36
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236144
3/28/2019
040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
(Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
214.3z
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
22.2�
Total:
582.2(
236145
3/28/2019
074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC
5783
SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR MAI
Social media services for March 201 E
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
300.0(
Total :
300.0(
236146
3/28/2019
040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC
18232887
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
28.7,
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
2.9E
Total :
31.6f
236147
3/28/2019
027269 THE PART WORKS INC
INV39154
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM I
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOM 1
125.000.64.576.80.48.00
255.0,
10.3% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.48.00
26.2
Total :
281.25
236148
3/28/2019
041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC
57902
PM: MARINA BEACH OFF LEASH P/
PM: MARINA BEACH OFF LEASH P/
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
5,524.2(
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
568.9�
Total :
6,093.1 <,
236149
3/28/2019
076299 TRI-COUNTY CABULANCE INC
45295
TRANSPORTATION
DB - TRANSPORTATION COSTS
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
409.5(
Total:
409.5(
Page: 36
Packet Pg. 59
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
236150 3/28/2019 076419 TRUE NORTH ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIP P01893
236151
236152
236153
P01928
3/28/2019 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 9020149
3/28/2019 073879 UTILITY SERVICES ASSOCIATES
3/28/2019 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
125977
PO # Description/Account
STORM TRUCK SUPPLIES
Storm Truck Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
STORM - PARTS
Storm - Parts
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
Freight
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
Total :
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
Total
WATER - WATER LINE SURVEY & P
Water - Water Line Survey & Pinpoinl
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
Total
9826076659 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Eng
001.000.67.518.21.42.00
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
Cell Service-PD
4.2.a
Page: 37
Amoun
m
460.6( E
�a
a
9.0(
L
3
48.3
c
�a
Y
832.1 ,
t
23.1 f E
88.0�
1,461.1 O
�a
0
L
a
83.0- Q
rn
83.0-
0
N
85.5' M
0
251.5° N
E
245.0( c
245.0( E
t
�a
a
18.7-
94.1 �
Page: 37
Packet Pg. 60
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 38
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236153
3/28/2019
067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.22.42.00
304.5' y
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
E
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
18.6E a
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
18.6� .3
Cell Service-PW Water
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
18.6E
Cell Service-PW Sewer
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
Y
56.0
Cell Service-WWTP
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
18.6� E
Total
236154
3/28/2019
064183 WA STATE LEOFF EDUCATION ASSOC
032518
WSLEA 2019 CONFERENCE
o
KEN JONES REGISTRATION FEE
009.000.39.517.20.49.00
425.0( p
Total:
425.0( a
a
Q
236155
3/28/2019
075155 WALKER MACY LLC
P3282.04-9
CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURI
125.000.64.594.76.65.41
22,239.6E ao
Total:
22,239.6E M
0
236156
3/28/2019
075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
11115613
FAC MAINT - CLEANING SUPPLIES
N
E
Fac Maint - Cleaning Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2,253.6E
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
232.1 <
Total:
2,485.81 t
�a
236157
3/28/2019
064800 WEHOP
640245
FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS
Q
FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
879.6(
10.3% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
90.6(
Page: 38
Packet Pg. 61
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
236157 3/28/2019 064800 064800 WEHOP
236158 3/28/2019 075926 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR
236159 3/28/2019 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued) Total
1996035 PS - BI-MONTHLY SVC
PS - Bi-Monthly Svc
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
Total ;
0000038226 TRAFFIC - TIMERS FOR 7TH & PINE
Traffic - Timers For 7th & Pine
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
Freight
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
Total
236160 3/28/2019 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 19-EDM0003
236161 3/28/2019 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC
MAR-19 RETAINER
Monthly Retainer
001.000.36.515.33.41.00
Total ;
26970 TRAFFIC - SIGN MOUNT HARDWAF
Traffic - Sign Mount Hardware and BIB
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
Freight
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
27067 TRAFFIC - BLANKS, SUPPLIES
Traffic - Blanks, Supplies
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
Freight
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
4.2.a
Page: 39
Amoun
970.2(
C
m
E
�a
99.0(
L
10.2(
109.2(
�a
N
U
a�
t
1,171.4, U
E
13.7�
0
122.0£ '@
1,307.Z 0
L
Q
a
c
23,870.1( am
23,870.11 ao
N
M
0
N
795.0( •�
U
41.5(
a�
86.1 £ E
�a
632.2( Q
21.0"
Page: 39
Packet Pg. 62
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:31:32AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.a
Page: 40
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO # Description/Account
Amoun
236161 3/28/2019 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC
(Continued)
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
67.2� y
27074 TRAFFIC - BLANKS
E
Traffic - Blanks
ca
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
a
625.0(
Freight
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
19.7(
10.3% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
66.4- N
Total:
2,354.25 u
t
111 Vouchers for bank code: usbank
Bank total :
1,004,000.9:
111 Vouchers in this report
Total vouchers :
1,004,000.9:
0
0
L
Q
a
v
rn
r
0&
N
M
O
N
E
2
V
C
E
t
V
a
Page: 40
Packet Pg. 63
4.2.b
vchlist
03/22/2019 3:21:38PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
3222019 3/22/2019 062693 US BANK 1937
Page
PO # Description/Account
Amoun . .
ui
FISHERIES - UNIT 90 - CMA PUMP
c
Fisheries - Unit 90 - CMA Pump
E
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
197.4,
Mill Supply - Unit 5 - Switch
a
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
30.2, .�
Amazon - Unit 679 - Headlamps
3
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
52.5" c
Amazon - Unit 90 - Coil
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
67.5
Home Depot - Unit 90 - Riser
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
1.9" U
Heavy Duty Depot - unit 47 - Supplies
E
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
75.21
Canopy World - Unit 50 - Canopy
c
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
1,893.8E -@
WA DOL - Unit E168WQ Lic Fees
0
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
49.7E a
Amazon - Unit 50 - Parts
Q'
Q
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
87.44 "
Fisheries - Unit 69 - Pump
r'
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
913.1, N
Amazon - Unit 18 - Tool Tray
c�
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
204.7E m
Amazon - Unit E168WQ - Charger
3
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
528.3z .
r
Amazon - Unit 131 - Repair Kit
m
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
19.1E E
Amazon - Unit 50 - Tail Light Assembl
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
83.7E
Great Western Pump - Switch
Q
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
38.7,
Wesleygoodi - Fleet - Tire Chain
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
82.8(
Amazon - Unit 90 - Pump
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 64
vchlist
03/22/2019 3:21:38PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
3222019 3/22/2019 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 2
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
ui
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
126.8(
Truck Shop - Unit 98 - Sensor
m
E
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
50.3E
3355
EDMONDS HARBOR INN - STREET
a
Edmonds Harbor Inn - Street - Snow
111.000.68.542.90.49.00
252.1( 3
Edmonds Harbor Inn - Storm - Snow
c
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
252.1( `6
3439
HARBOR FREIGHT - LS 12 - HOIST
Y
Harbor Freight - LS 12 - Hoist Supplie
t
423.000.75.535.80.35.00
132.3z u
Hoists Direct - Hoist for LS 4
E
423.000.75.535.80.35.00
1,326.9- 2
3535
MONOPRICE - PW SUPPLIES
4-
MonoPrice - PW Supplies
e
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
287.2E >
Amazon - PW - Supplies
a
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
24.8'
Troxell - Water Sewer - Knee Pads
Q
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
157.2, Im
Troxell - Water Sewer - Knee Pads
C:
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
157.2' M
Office Max - PW - Wall Files
e
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
32.2' .L
Amazon -Fleet -Unit 11 Pumps
3
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
60.5E c
Walrath Trucking - Snow Sand Suppli
E
111.000.68.542.66.31.00
3,493.2E
Amazon - PW - Supplies
+g
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
23.7E Q
4519
CAREPRODX - CITY HALL - HANDIC
Careprodx - City Hall - Handicap Pusl
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
243.0(
Home Depot - Water - Paint Supplies
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 65
vchlist
03/22/2019 3:21:38PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
3222019 3/22/2019 062693 US BANK
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.2.b
Page: 3
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
-71
ui
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
275.0<
Amazon - Fac Maint - Caution Tape
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
22.8E
Amazon - PS - Flooring
a
001.000.41.521.22.35.00
308.8,
Supply House - FS 17 - Pump
3
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
504.0,
8305 APL*ITUNES - ICLOUD FOR CITY G
`6
APL*ITUNES - icloud for City cell pho
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
0.9E
Total:
12,058.31,
u
E
Bank total :
12,058.31
n
U
Total vouchers :
12,058.31
15
G
'R
0
L
Q
a
r
N
N
M
O
d
L
3
r
c
m
E
M
U
�a
a
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 66
4.2.c
vchlist
03/28/2019 8:37:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
3282019 3/28/2019 076380 BETTER PROPERTIES METRO
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page
Invoice PO # Description/Account
Amoun . .
ui
Apr 2019 ACCT #00397358 4TH AVE PARKIN(
c
4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent - April 21
E
E
001.000.39.542.64.45.00
417.E
Total :
417.61
a
a�
L
Bank total :
417.61
3
Total vouchers :
417.6
M
U
a�
t
U
E
2
U
4-
0
�a
0
L
Q
a
r
Ob
N
M
O
d
L
3
r
c
m
E
U
�a
a
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 67
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
STM
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
c484
E5FE
STIR
15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
c424
E3DC
STM
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
E8FB
STM
183rd PI SW Storm Repairs
c491
E6FE
SWR
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
c390
E2GB
c
SWR
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
c398
E3GA
E
STIR
2014 Chip Seals
c451
E4CB
STM
2014 Drainage Improvements
c433
E4FA
L
STIR
2014 Overlay Program
c438
E4CA
3
WTR
2014 Waterline Overlays
c452
E4CC
STM
2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
c466
E5FA
rn
Y
STIR
2015 Overlay Program
c463
E5CA
c�
SWR
2015 Sewerline Overlays
i007
E5CC
U
E
SWR
2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
c441
E4GA
ca
v
STIR
2015 Traffic Calming
c471
E5AB
—
WTR
2015 Waterline Overlays
c475
E5CB
WTR
2015 Waterline Replacement Program
c440
E4JB
0
STIR
2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
i016
E6DC
Q
STIR
2016 Overlay Program
i008
E6CA
SWR
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
c469
E5GA
N
SWR
2016 Sewerline Overlays
i010
E6CC
M
0
WTR
2016 Water Comp Plan Update
c460
E4JC
i
WTR
2016 Waterline Overlays
i009
E6CB
E
WTR
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
c468
E5JA
Z
STIR
2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
i022
E7DA
o
STIR2017
Minor Sidewalk Program
i023
E7DB
'D
CD
STIR
2017 Overlay Program
i018
E7CA
rn
SWR
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
i013
E6GA
r
c
SWR
2017 Sewerline Overlays
i020
E7CC
a
STIR
2017 Traffic Calming
i021
E7AA
u_
WTR
2017 Waterline Overlays
i019
E7CB
;
c
WTR
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
i014
E6JB
CD
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
E8FA
STIR
2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
i032
E8DA
v
Q
STIR
2018 Overlay Program
i030
E8CB
SWR
2018 Sewerline Overlays
i035
E8CE
SWR
2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
c492
E6GC
STIR
2018 Traffic Calming
i027
E8AA
WTR
2018 Waterline Overlays
i034
E8CD
WTR
2018 Waterline Replacement Project
c493
E6JC
STIR
2019 Overlay Program
i036
E9CA
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
E8GA
Revised 3/28/2019
Packet Pg. 68
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
E8FC
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
E8JA
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s020
E8JB
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement
c498
E7JA
STR
220th Adaptive
i028
E8AB
c
STR
220th Street Overlay Project
c462
E4CD
STM
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
c486
E6FB
>'
tv
WTR
224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
c418
E3JB
m
L_
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
3
STR
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
c425
E3DD
r_
STR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
E8DC
Y
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
aa)
t
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
U
E
STM
3rd Ave Rain Gardens
i012
E6FC
ca
STR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
E8CA
v
—
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1CA
STR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
E8CC
0
STR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
Q
STR
9th Avenue Improvement Project
c392
E2AB
FAC
AN Upgrades - Council Chambers
c476
E5LA
00
STR
ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
c426
E3DE
NM
0
STR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
E8DB
i
STR
ADA Transition Plan
s016
E6DB
STR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
Z
STR
Bikelink Project
c474
E5DA
p
L
PRK
City Spray Park
c417
E4MA
'D
CD
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
c456
E4GB
uJ
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
r
c
STR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
i026
E7DC
STR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
m
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
E5J13
u_
STM
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
c374
ElFM
CD
PM
Dayton Street Plaza
c276
E7MA
STM
Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
c472
E5FC
r
Q
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
STM
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
c380
E2FC
General
Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
c478
E5DB
FAC
ESCO III Project
c419
E3LB
PRK
FAC Band Shell Replacement
c477
E6MB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
E5KA
STR
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
c342
E1AA
Revised 3/28/2019
Packet Pg. 69
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
E8MA
STIR
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
c405
E2AD
STIR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
sol l
E5GB
STM
LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
c434
E4FB
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
STIR
Minor Sidewalk Program
i017
E6DD
STM
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
c378
E2FA
STM
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
iol l
E6FA
STM
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
c410
E3FE
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E7FA
STM
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
c376
E1 FN
STM
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
c408
E3FC
FAC
Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
c444
E4LA
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
E5FD
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
STIR
SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
c427
E3AB
STIR
SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing
c454
E4DB
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
E5NA
STM
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
E7FB
STM
Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
c429
E3FG
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
STIR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STM
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
c379
E2FB
STM
SW Edmonds-1 05th/l 06th Ave W Storm Improvements
c430
E3FH
STIR
Trackside Warning System
c470
E5AA
STIR
Train Trench - Concept
c453
E4DA
STIR
Transportation Plan Update
c391
E2AA
STM
Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
c467
E5FB
UTILITIES
Utility Rate Update
s013
E6JA
PRK
Veteran's Plaza
c480
E6MA
STM
Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
c459
E4FF
PRK
Waterfront Restoration
m103
E7MA
STM
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E4FC
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
E5HA
PRK
Yost Park Spa
c494
E6MC
ZA
Revised 3/28/2019 Packet Pg. 70
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
c342
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STIR
E1CA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STIR
Sunset Walkway Improvements M"
STM
E1 FM
c374
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
c376
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STIR
E2AA
c391
Transportation Plan Update
STIR
J&h Avenue Improvement Project
STIR
E2AD
c405
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
c378
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM
E2FB
c379
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
c380
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
SWR
E2GB
c390
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STIR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STIR
E3DD
c425
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STM
E3FC
c408
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
STM
E3FG
c429
Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
c430
SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
SWR
E3GA
c398
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC
E3LB
c419
ESCO III Project
E4CA
c438
2014 Overlay Program '
STIR
E4CB
c451
2014 Chip Seals
WTR
E4CC
c452
2014 Waterline Overlays
STIR
E4CD
c462
220th Street Overlay Project
STIR
E4DA
c453
Train Trench - Concept
STIR
E4DB
c454
SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing
STM
E4FA
c433
2014 Drainage Improvements
STM
E4FB
c434
LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
E4FC c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM
E4FD
c436
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
STM
E4FF
c459
Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
c441
2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR
E4GB
c456
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
E4GC
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
2015 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR
E4JC
c460
2016 Water Comp Plan Update
Revised 3/28/2019 Packet Pg. 71
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
ProiectTitle
blic Safety Controls System Upgrades
PRK
E4MA
c417
City Spray Park
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
STIR
E5AA
c470
Trackside Warning System
STIR
2015 Traffic Calming
STIR
E5CA
c463
2015 Overlay Program
2015 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E5CC
i007
2015 Sewerline Overlays
STIR
Bikelink Proje
General
E5DB
c478
Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
c466
2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM
E5FB
c467
Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM
E5FD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
SWR
E5GA
c469
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
sol 1
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study Va
WWTP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c468
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR
E5JB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
FAC
E5LA
c476
AN Upgrades - Council Chambers
solo
Standard Details Updates low IF
STIR
E6AA
s014
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STIR
E6CA
i008
2016 Overlay Program
i009
2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E6CC
i010
2016 Sewerline Overlays
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STIR
E6DB
s016
ADA Transition Plan
E6DC
i016
2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STIR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
STM
E6FA
i011
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM
E6FB
c486
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
E6FC
i012
3rd Ave Rain Gardens
STM
E6FD
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
c491
183rd PI SW Storm Repair
SWR
E6GA
i013
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phas
SWR
E6GC
c492
2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
s013
WTR
E6JB
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
Revised 3/28/2019 Packet Pg. 72
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
4.2.d
Engineering
Protect
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
ProiectTitle
E6JC
2018 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK
E6MA
c480
Veteran's Plaza
E6MB
FAC Band Shell Replacement
PRK
E6MC
c494
Yost Park Spa
STIR
2017 Traffic Calming
STIR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
STIRlow-
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STIR
E7CA
i018
2017 Overlay Program
i019
2017 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E7CC
i020
2017 Sewerline Overlays
STIR
i025
89th PI W Retaining Wall
STIR
E7DA
i022
2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
i023
2017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STIR
E7DC
i026
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
STM
E7FB
c495
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
WTR
E7JA
c498
2019 Waterline Replacement
c276
Dayton Street Plaza
PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Restoration
2018 Traffic Calming
STIR
E8AB
i028
STIR
E8CB
i030
E8CC
i031
WTR
E8CD
i034
_
E8CE
i035
STIR
E8DA
i032
STIR
E8DB
i033
STIR
E8DC
i037
STM
E8FA
s018
STM
E8FB
c521
STM
E8FC
c525
220th Adaptive
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
2018 Overlay Program
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
2018 Waterline Overlays
2018 Sewerline Overlays
2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
ADA Curb Ramps
238th St. Island & Misc Ramps
2018 Lorian Woods Study
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
SWR E8GA c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR c523
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
UTILITIES E8JB s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STIR E9CA
i036 2019 Overlay Program
Revised 3/28/2019 Packet Pg. 73
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Protect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
PM
E7MA
c276
Dayton Street Plaza
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STR
E1AA
c342
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR
E1 DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STR
ElCA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STM
E1 FM
c374
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM
E1 FN
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
SWR
E2GB
c390
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR
E2AA
c391
Transportation Plan Update
STR
E2AB
c392
9th Avenue Improvement Project
SWR
E3GA
c398
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
STR
E2AD
c405
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
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
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
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
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM
E4FD
c436
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
ZA
Revised 3/28/2019 Packet Pg. 74
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Protect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
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
STIR
E4CD
c462
220th Street Overlay Project
c
STIR
E5CA
c463
2015 Overlay Program
E
STM
E5FA
c466
2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM
E5FB
c467
Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
m
L_
WTR
E5JA
c468
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
3
SWR
E5GA
c469
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
STIR
E5AA
c470
Trackside Warning System
rn
Y
STIR
E5AB
c471
2015 Traffic Calming
c�
STM
E5FC
c472
Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
U
E
WTR
E5KA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
ca
v
STIR
E5DA
c474
Bikelink Project
—
WTR
E5CB
c475
2015 Waterline Overlays
FAC
E5LA
c476
AN Upgrades - Council Chambers
0
PRK
E6MB
c477
FAC Band Shell Replacement
Q
General
E5DB
c478
Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM
E5FD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
N
PRK
E6MA
c480
Veteran's Plaza
M
0
WWTP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
i
WTR
E5JB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STM
E5FE
c484
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
Z
STIR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
o
STM
E6FB
c486
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
CD
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
rn
STM
E6FE
c491
183rd PI SW Storm Repairs
r
c
SWR
E6GC
c492
2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
a
WTR
E6JC
c493
2018 Waterline Replacement Project
u_
PRK
E6MC
c494
Yost Park Spa
STM
E7FB
c495
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c
CD
WTR
E7JA
c498
2019 Waterline Replacement
v
SWR
E8GA
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
Q
STM
E8FB
c521
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
WTR
E8JA
c523
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
STM
E8FC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
STIR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
SWR
E5CC
i007
2015 Sewerline Overlays
STIR
E6CA
i008
2016 Overlay Program
WTR
E6CB
i009
2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E6CC
i010
2016 Sewerline Overlays
Revised 3/28/2019 Packet Pg. 75
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Protect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
STM
E6FA
i011
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM
E6FC
i012
3rd Ave Rain Gardens
SWR
E6GA
i013
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
E6JB
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
STIR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
c
STIR
E6DC
i016
2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
E
STIR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
STIR
E7CA
i018
2017 Overlay Program
L
WTR
E7CB
i019
2017 Waterline Overlays
3
SWR
E7CC
i020
2017 Sewerline Overlays
tv
STIR
E7AA
i021
2017 Traffic Calming
Y
c�
STIR
E7DA
i022
2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
t
STIR
E7DB
i023
2017 Minor Sidewalk Program
U
E
STIR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
v
STIR
E7CD
i025
89th PI W Retaining Wall
—
STIR
E7DC
i026
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STIR
E8AA
i027
2018 Traffic Calming
Q
STIR
E8AB
i028
220th Adaptive
Q
STIR
E8CA
i029
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STIR
E8CB
i030
2018 Overlay Program
N
STIR
E8CC
i031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
M
0
STIR
E8DA
i032
2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
i
m
STIR
E8DB
i033
ADA Curb Ramps
WTR
E8CD
i034
2018 Waterline Overlays
Z
SWR
E8CE
i035
2018 Sewerline Overlays
o
STIRE9CA
i036
2019 Overlay Program
'D
CD
STIR
E8DC
i037
238th St.lsland & Misc. Ramps
rn
STM
E71FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Restoration
a
STM
E7FA
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
u_
UTILITIES
E5NA
solo
Standard Details Updates
c
SWR
E5GB
s011
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
m
E
UTILITIES
E6JA
s013
Utility Rate Update
v
STIR
E6AA
s014
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
Q
STIR
E6DB
s016
ADA Transition Plan
STM
E6FD
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM
E8FA
s018
2018 Lorian Woods Study
UTILITIES
E8J13
s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
Revised 3/28/2019 Packet Pg. 76
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
4.2.d
Funding Project Title
A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers i
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
rw ESCO III Projec
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
PM Dayton Street Plaza
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PRK
City Spray Park
FAC Band Shell Replacement
PRK
Veteran's Plaza
Waterfront Restoration
PRK
Yost Park Spa
WTM
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
STM
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
WTM
183rd PI SW Storm Repairs
STM
2014 Drainage Improvements
�2015
Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
V
ST
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Number
Number
c443
E4MB
c444
E4LA
c276
E7MA
c417
E4MA
6MB
c480
E6MA
m103 E7MA
c494
E6MC
c484
c521
E8FB
c491
EW
c433
E4FA
c466
E5FA
s018
E8FA
c525
E8FC
c486
E6FB
i012 - E6FC
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
E41FE
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
c380
E2FC
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
c434
E4FB
STM
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
c378
E2FA
STM
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
1�E61=A
STM
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
c410
E3FE
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
E7FG
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E7FA
STM
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
E1 FN
STM
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
c408
E3FC
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Fact
c479
E5FD
STM
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
E7FB
Iff
STM
Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
c429
E3FG
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
STM
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
c379
E2FB
STM
SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements
c430
E3FH
STM
Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
c467
E5FB
Revised 3/28/2019
Packet Pg. 77
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Protect
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
STM
Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
c459
E4FF
STM
low Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoratiolhoon
c435
E4FC
STR
15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
c424
E3DC
2014 Chip Seal
c451
E4CB
STR
2014 Overlay Program
c438
E4CA
c
STR
2015 Overlay Program
c463
E5CA
E
STR
2015 Traffic Calming
c471
E5AB
CL
2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
i016
E6DC
L
STR
2016 Overlay Program
i008
E6CA
3
STR
2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
i022
E7DA
to
STR
2017 Minor Sidewalk Program
i023
E7DB
Y
�2017
Overlay Program
i018
E7CA
STR
2017 Traffic Calming
i021
E7AA
v
STR
2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
i032
_ E8DA.
v
STR
2018 Overlay Program
i030
E8CB
C
STR
2018 Traffic Calming
i027
■ E8AA.
STR
2019 Overlay Program
i036
E9CA
Q.
STR
220th Street Overlay Project
c462
sa.
Q
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
T
STR
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
c42
0&
N
STR
238th St. Island & Misc Ramps
i037
E8DC
c
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th AveAh
c423
;n
0�
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
STR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
02CM
E
M
Z
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1CA
.F
o
d
STR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
STR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
j
STR
9th Avenue Improvement Project
STR
ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
c426
E3DE
3
ADA Curb Ramps
m
u_
STR
ADA Transition Plan
s016
E6DB
c
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
m
- -
E
STR
Bikelink Project
c474
E5DA
v
STR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancemen
_
i026
ns
r
Q
STR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
aw
STR
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue
W) c342
STR
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
c405
E2AD
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
STR
Minor Sidewalk Program
i017
E6DD
STR
SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
c427
E3AB
STR
SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing
c454
E4DB
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1DA
Revised 3/28/2019 Packet Pg. 78
4.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Protect
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
STIR
Trackside Warning System
c470
ESAA
STR
Train T=h - Concept
c453
E4DA
STIR
Transportation Plan Update
c391
E2AA
Oth Adap
i028
EBAB
SWR
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
c390
E2GB
SWR
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
c398
E3GA
SWR
2015 Sewerline Overlays
i007
ESCC
SWR
2015 Sewerline Replacement Projec
c441
E4GA
SWR
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
c469
ESGA
SWRX
2016 Sewerline Overlays
i010
E6CC.
SWR
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
i013
E6GA
2017
SWR
Sewerline Overlays
i02O
E7CC.
SWR
2018 Sewerline Overlays
i035
EBCE
2018 Replacement
I _E6GC.
SWR
Sewerline Project
c492
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
EBGA
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
c456
E4GB
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
sol l
ESGB
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s02O
E8,113
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
ESNA
UTILITIES
Utility Rate Update
WTR
2014 Waterline Overlays
c452
E4CC
WTR
2015 Waterline Overlay
WTR
2015 Waterline Replacement Program
c440
E4,113
2016 Water Comp Plan Update
c460
E4JC
WTR
2016 Waterline Overlays
i009
E6CB
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
c468
ESJA
WTR
2017 Waterline Overlays
iol9
E7CB
WTR
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
i014
E6JB
WTR
2018 Waterline Overlays
i034
EBCD
2018 Waterline Replacement Project
c493
E6JC
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
2019 Waterline Replaceme
c498
E7JA
WTR
224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
c418
E3J13
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
ESJB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
ESKA
LWWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
ESHA
ZA
Revised 3/28/2019 Packet Pg. 79
vchlist
03/28/2019 11:59:44AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
236162
3/28/2019 075260 LAU, PING
28165
MANDARIN INTERPRETER COURT
MANDARIN INTERPRETER COURT
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
Total
236163
3/28/2019 075260 LAU, PING
14883
INTERPRETER 6Z0974488
INTERPRETER
001.000.23.512.50.41.00
Total
236164
3/28/2019 075260 LAU, PING
19130
MANDARIN INTERPRETER COURT
MANDARIN INTERPRETER COURT
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
19383
CANTONESE INTERPRETER COUR
CANTONESE INTERPRETER COUR
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
Total
3
Vouchers for bank code : usbank
Bank total
3
Vouchers in this report
Total vouchers
4.2.e
Page: 1
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 80
4.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/2/2019
November 2018 Monthly Financial Report
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Sarah Mager
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
No action needed; informational only.
Narrative
November 2018 Monthly Financial Report
Attachments:
November 2018 Monthly Financial Report
Packet Pg. 81
I 4.3.a I
O�
EDP
� d
I,0 C • l g 9"
CITY OF EDMONDS
MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT
NOVEMBER 2018
Packet Pg. 82 1
I 4.3.a I
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Fund
2018 Amended
11/30/2017
11/30/2018
Amount
No.
Title
Budget
Revenues
Revenues
Remaining
%Receives
001
GENERAL FUND $
39,501,682
$ 37,320,136
$ 39,281,270
$ 220,412
99
009
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
285,650
283,358
145,030
140,620
51
Oil
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
19,180
16,472
21,376
(2,196)
ill
012
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
64,750
75,090
125,680
(60,930)
194
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
5,170
5,141
2,705
2,465
52
016
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
-
389,329
-
-
0
O
s?.
017
MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND
300,000
-
306,865
(6,865)
102
018
EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND
250,000
250,000
-
100
019
EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND
250,000
-
250,000
-
100
O
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
130,560
45,205
78,487
52,073
60
LL
111
STREET FUND
1,784,270
1,928,316
1,416,208
368,062
79
�+
t
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE
3,731,003
3,396,568
4,209,684
(478,681)
113
_
O
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
149,385
96,013
91,671
57,714
61
2
118
MEMORIAL STREET TREE
400
330
431
(31)
108
00
r
O
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
87,960
83,615
85,162
2,798
97
N
L
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
25,640
14,159
14,628
11,012
57
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
850
1,561
1,374
(524)
162
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
30,520
28,823
34,685
(4,165)
114
Z
125
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1
1,446,880
1,434,342
1,735,717
(288,837)
120
v
126
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 1
1,448,300
1,437,718
1,745,868
(297,568)
121
0
CL
127
GIFTSCATALOGFUND
53,810
30,348
69,517
(15,707)
129
129
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND
-
707
-
-
0
iC
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
180,170
195,372
196,313
(16,143)
109
a
136
PARKSTRUST FUND
3,150
2,803
3,692
(542)
117
E
137
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD
33,360
33,722
41,308
(7,948)
124
>%
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
10,170
7,236
10,496
(326)
103
s
140
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
-
82,991
88,342
(88,342)
0
2
211
L.I.D. FUND CONTROL
14,400
-
-
14,400
0
00
r
231
2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND
708,700
410,085
426,380
282,320
60
O
N
332
PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 2
1,621,977
413,856
899,609
722,368
55
411
COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION
147,987
137,603
(137,603)
0
N
421
WATER UTILITY FUND 3
9,660,690
8,308,401
8,943,458
717,232
93
O
422
STORM UTILITY FUND 3
5,317,996
3,881,637
4,338,159
979,837
82
Z
y ;
423
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
11,917,843
12,298,948
10,434,964
1,482,879
88
a)
424
BOND RESERVE FUND
1,991,530
654,348
640,749
1,350,781
32
V
511
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
1,624,640
1,701,386
1,560,471
64,169
96
Q
512
TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND
1,268,390
874,982
1,168,902
99,488
92
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 69,690 69,158 50,874 18,816 73
$ 83,988,716 $ 75,670,140 $ 78,807,679 $ 5,181,037 94'
1 Differences primarily due to a $418,216 deposit in total for Real Estate Excise Tax in March 2018 from the State.
2 Differences primarily due to $500,175 in Parks Donations, and $166,664 from a Edmonds Waterfront Development Grant in 201E
3 Differences primarily due to a 9%increase in water, and 10%increase in storm base rates in 2018.
4 Differences primarily due to differences in contributed capital billings to WWTP partners in 2018.
1
Packet Pg. 83
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Fund 2018 Amended
11/30/2017
11/30/2018
Amount
No. Title Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining %Spent
001 GENERAL FUND $ 44,602,053
$ 36,205,377
$ 36,775,353
$ 7,826,700 82%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 363,438
383,314
341,374
22,064 94%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND - 81,277 - - 0%
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 5 49,584 - 528,943 (479,359) 1067%
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
5,400
-
5,400
0%
016
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
-
303,294
-
-
0%
0
018
EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND
-
-
24,557
(24,557)
0%
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
103,252
49,268
92,089
11,163
89%
Fa
III
STREET FUND
1,856,507
1,538,042
1,509,187
347,320
81%
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE
3,844,638
4,777,295
3,051,819
792,819
79%
LL
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
183,892
58,179
65,369
118,523
36%
%
z
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
90,550
75,016
45,914
44,636
51%
O
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
26,880
1,638
573
26,307
2%
2
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
1,000
1,235
1,905
(905)
191%
C
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
29,700
26,407
12,259
17,441
41%
N
125
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2
2,733,000
801,528
1,172,242
1,560,758
43%
N
.0
E
126
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKSACQ FUND
2,651,867
207,152
1,060,267
1,591,600
40%
;
127
GIFTSCATALOGFUND
70,900
27,938
28,195
42,705
40%
Z
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
213,509
143,990
181,714
31,795
85%
r-
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
10,500
6,023
9,670
830
92%
0
CL
140
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 6
-
64,196
86,224
(86,224)
0%
w
211
L.I.D. FUND CONTROL
16,450
16,450
-
16,450
0%
.�
c�
231
2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND
708,700
64,938
59,284
649,416
8%
C
332
PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND
2,346,881
541,017
266,888
2,079,993
11%
jL
421
WATER UTILITYFUND
13,465,028
8,096,934
9,816,269
3,648,759
73%
s
422
STORM UTILITY FUND
6,986,013
3,176,220
3,835,891
3,150,122
55%
C
423
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
14,654,540
12,613,206
9,749,261
4,905,279
67%
E
00
424
BOND RESERVE FUND
1,991,520
654,342
640,742
1,350,778
32%
511
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
1,670,082
1,709,084
1,021,270
648,812
61%
N
L
d
512
TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND
1,335,413
650,430
925,630
409,784
69%
617
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
75.218
61.802
68.937
6.281
92%
N
$ 100,086,515 $ 72,335,593 $ 71,371,825 $ 28,714,690 71 %
5 2018 Expenditures includes interfund loans to 104 for $36,493 and to 112 for $442,866.
6 Business Improvement District is not included in the City Budget; activity is here for reporting purposes only.
2
Packet Pg. 84
I 4.3.a I
CITY OF EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2018 Amended 11/30/2017 11/30/2018 Amount
Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining % Received
TAXES:
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 7
EMS PROPERTY TAX
VOTED PROPERTY TAX
LOCAL RETAIL SALESIUSE TAX 8
NATURAL GAS USE TAX
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX
GAS UT ILIT Y T AX
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX
WAT ER UT ILITY T AX
SEWER UTILITY TAX
STORMWATER UTILITY TAX
T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX
PULLTABSTAX
AMUSEMENT GAMES
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX
LICENSES AND PERNIIIS:
FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE
POLICE - FINGERPRINTING
PROF AND OCC LICENSE -TAXI
AMUSEMENTS
VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST
FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -BLACKROCK
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE
GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE
DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE
NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE
RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE
BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS
ANIMAL LICENSES
STREET AND CURB PERMIT
OT R NON -BUS LIC/PERMIT S
INTERGOVERNMENTAL:
DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST
TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT
HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT
DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE
DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT
STATE GRANTS- BUDGET ONLY
WATERFRONT ANALYSIS GRANT
PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX
MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION
TRIAL COURT IMPROVEMENT
AOC PRO-TEM JUDGE REIMBURSEMENT
CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS
MARIJUANA EXCISE TAX DISTRIBUTION
DUI - CITIES
LIQUOR EXCISE TAX
LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS
MISCELLANEOUS INT ERLOCAL REVENUE
INT ERLOCAL GRANTS
VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS
FIRST RESPONDERS FLEX FUND
POLICE TRAINING CLASSES
DISCOVERY PROGRAMS TECHNOLOGY ACQ.
$ 10,367,860
$ 10,145,748
$ 10,310,882
$ 56,978
99%
4,027,540
3,930,589
2,247,328
1,780,212
56%
2,500
14,806
1,707,867
(1,705,367)
68315%
7,275,000
6,800,816
7,687,589
(412,589)
106%
7,140
8,829
4,679
2,461
66%
730,000
649,649
697,124
32,876
95%
1,611,600
1,553,264
1,556,740
54,860
97%
620,200
617,837
551,257
68,943
89%
321,600
304,645
321,426
174
100%
1,201,100
1,154,041
1,144,644
56,456
95%
769,800
643,429
713,256
56,544
93%
406,200
341,795
374,172
32,028
92%
867,200
803,028
744,353
122,847
86%
1,093,200
993,334
899,818
193,382
82%
56,600
53,103
52,939
3,661
94%
40
777
-
40
0%
263,600
162,391
204,824
58,776
78%
29,621,180
28,178,079
29,218,898
402,282
990/0
250
270
345
(95)
138%
300
680
850
(550)
283%
330
-
-
330
0%
6,330
6,325
5,950
380
94%
50,000
52,624
50,769
(769)
102%
721,000
730,530
681,819
39,181
95%
42,600
38,672
38,171
4,429
90%
105,500
105,604
105,747
(247)
100%
18,600
13,904
7,220
11,380
39%
263,800
215,607
364,174
(100,374)
138%
121,600
71,730
81,439
40,162
67%
64,940
71,767
73,045
(8,105)
112%
69,000
54,250
49,900
19,100
72%
12,000
22,955
62,163
(50,163)
518%
715,600
807,621
649,028
66,572
91%
24,500
17,346
17,092
7,408
70%
40,000
40,791
56,785
(16,785)
142%
14,500
17,432
21,098
(6,598)
146%
2,270,850
2,268,107
2,265,596
5,254
100%
7,930
5,949
4,535
3,395
57%
4,000
1,030
3,540
460
89%
7,100
8,226
8,602
(1,502)
121%
1,455
3,092
3,729
(2,274)
256%
-
-
17,347
(17,347)
0%
3,623
-
3,623
(0)
100%
18,000
-
-
18,000
0%
-
10,000
-
-
0%
198,000
198,479
212,002
(14,002)
107%
12,790
11,564
11,964
826
94%
16,716
16,711
16,531
185
99%
-
-
824
(824)
0%
43,700
41,971
43,243
457
99%
23,700
5,574
59,452
(35,752)
251%
3,000
6,198
6,099
(3,099)
203%
203,000
197,143
208,580
(5,580)
103%
350,600
259,062
256,420
94,180
73%
2,500
-
-
2,500
0%
-
35,000
25,000
(25,000)
0%
2,000
2,000
5,810
(3,810)
291%
7,114
-
2,294
4,820
32%
-
300
-
-
0%
-
-
2,190
(2,190)
0%
905,228
802,298
891,786
13,442
99%
7 2018 Real Personal/Property TaxRevenuesare $165,134 higher than 2017 revenues.
2018 Local Retail Sa/eslUse Tax revenues are $886,772 higher than 2017 revenues. Please also seepages pages 18 & 19.
3
Packet Pg. 85 1
I 4.3.a I
CITY OFEDMONDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2018 Amended 11/30/2017 11/30/2018 Amount
Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining '%, Received
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMENTS
ATM SURCHARGE FEES
CREDIT CARD FEES
MUNICIPAL COURT CIVIL FILINGS
COURT RECORD SERVICES
D/M COURT REC SER
CIVIL FEE - APPEAL
WARRANT PREPARATION FEE
IT TIME PAY FEE
MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN
SALE MAPS & BOOKS
CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS
BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT
PHOTOCOPIES
POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS
ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES
ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES
SNO-ISLE
PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES
POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS
CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.
WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION
MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES
DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES
FIRE PROTECTION & EMS FOR DUI
FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS
LEGAL SERVICES
ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE
ELECTRIC MONITORING
BOOKING FEES
FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES
EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES
EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE
FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER
ZONING/SUBDIVIS'ION FEE
PLAN CHECKING FEES
FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES
PLANNING 1 % INSPECTION FEE
S.E.P.A. REVIEW
CRITICAL AREA STUDY
DV COORDINATOR SERVICES
GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES
LOCKER FEES
PROGRAM FEES
TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES
WINTER MARKET REGISTRATION FEES
BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES
INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS
2,500
4,019
4,990
(2,490)
200%
400
537
598
(198)
149%
10,000
9,828
11,677
(1,677)
117%
-
-
43
(43)
0%
-
579
87
(87)
0%
400
232
154
246
38%
-
53
-
-
0%
-
333
5,724
(5,724)
0%
-
213
1,123
(1,123)
0%
300
228
112
188
37%
100
36
70
30
70%
25,100
-
-
25,100
0%
600
-
-
600
0%
1,000
740
1,332
(332)
133%
4,000
2,428
69
3,931
2%
200,000
377,773
219,350
(19,350)
110%
-
-
1,486
(1,486)
0%
78,000
81,102
92,139
(14,139)
118%
23,000
20,450
19,750
3,250
86%
33,235
32,603
33,235
0
100%
66,280
14,721
37,832
28,448
57%
60,000
60,856
56,988
3,012
95%
1,500
-
-
1,500
0%
100
-
100
0%
-
77
-
-
0%
50,000
52,894
53,380
(3,380)
107%
-
-
2,017
(2,017)
0%
48,600
43,835
51,613
(3,013)
106%
100
(100)
0%
3,000
2,444
1,760
1,240
59%
15,560
20,029
16,620
(1,060)
107%
4,500
3,577
3,746
754
83%
826,000
828,041
1,050,839
(224,839)
127%
2,500
2,273
2,798
(298)
112%
250
55
45
205
18%
80,250
110,713
128,341
(48,091)
160%
443,000
421,054
323,144
119,856
73%
8,000
10,980
8,805
(805)
110%
1,600
1,062
1,017
583
64%
5,000
8,710
7,620
(2,620)
152%
14,000
15,890
16,800
(2,800)
120%
11,460
10,504
11,753
(293)
103%
12,000
12,266
12,058
(58)
100%
-
30
-
-
0%
910,100
762,008
784,850
125,250
86%
1,300
1,364
801
499
62%
6,000
4,850
5,885
115
98%
1,250
1,030
845
405
68%
2,043,950
2,167,477
2,284,567
(240,617)
112%
4,994,835
5,087,892
5,256,161
(261,326)
105%
O
Q.
d
C
to
C
IL
z
C
O
2
00
O
N
L
N
E
O
O
Z
4
Packet Pg. 86
CITY OF E DMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
11/30/2017
Revenues
11/30/2018
Revenues
Amount
Remaining
%Received
FINES AND PENALTIES:
PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY
5,000
4,578
5,671
(671)
113%
TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES
215,000
200,776
250,937
(35,937)
117%
NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION
34,000
31,506
26,961
7,039
79%
CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)
20,700
21,063
28,666
(7,966)
138%
NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES
400
1,000
4,000
(3,600)
1000%
OTHER INFRACTIONS'04
3,400
2,518
912
2,488
27%
PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES
48,000
59,837
149,125
(101,125)
311%
PARK/INDDISZONE
2,600
1,954
1,577
1,023
61%
DWI PENALTIES
6,000
8,155
6,537
(537)
109%
DUI - DP ACCT
2,000
1,592
704
1,296
35%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI
200
152
137
63
68%
DUI - DP FEE
-
152
1,972
(1,972)
0%
OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN
135
239
96
39
71%
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03
36,000
31,340
29,570
6,430
82%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT
2,600
2,331
3,361
(761)
129%
CRIM CONV FEE CT
1,600
1,469
881
719
55%
OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN
100
32
38
62
38%
OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03
9,300
8,147
15,104
(5,804)
162%
COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT
600
444
868
(268)
145%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN
1,100
1,166
1,332
(232)
121%
CRIM CONV FEE CN
500
393
516
(16)
103%
CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS
-
7,581
-
-
0%
PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT
18,500
15,314
17,291
1,209
93%
BANK CHARGE FOR CONV. DEFENDANT
6,000
8,147
11,669
(5,669)
194%
COURT COST RECOUPMENT
5,000
-
5,416
(416)
108%
COURT INTERPRETER COSTS
-
246
-
-
0%
BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY
11,000
9,630
12,010
(1,010)
109%
MISC FINES AND PENALTIES
2,000
2,040
1,725
275
86%
431,735
421,799
577,075
(145,340)
134%
MIS C ETLLANEiO US :
INVESTMENT INTEREST
156,840
113,282
146,168
10,672
93%
INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES
7,130
10,021
19,464
(12,334)
273%
INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS
6,500
5,799
7,996
(1,496)
123%
LOAN INTEREST
-
-
1,282
(1,282)
0%
PARKING
15,600
15,346
4,062
11,538
26%
SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS
147,000
124,871
139,857
7,143
95%
BRACKET ROOM RENTAL
5,000
4,760
2,100
2,900
42%
LEASESLONGTERM
185,000
167,624
174,860
10,140
95%
OTHER RENTS &USE CHARGES
2,400
1,800
-
2,400
0%
DONATION/CONTRIBUTION
1,200
1,133
1,401
(201)
117%
PARKSDONATIONS
4,350
3,650
3,380
970
78%
BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS
1,500
2,044
2,276
(776)
152%
FIRST RESPONDERS- PRIVATE SOURCE
-
-
28,000
(28,000)
0%
VOLUNT EER P ICNIC CONT RIBUT IONS
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES
1,000
54,943
-
1,000
0%
SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE
300
4,945
408
(108)
136%
SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY
3,000
1,950
2,567
433
86%
CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY
2,000
-
-
2,000
0%
OT HER JUDGEMENT /SET T LEMENT
2,000
7
-
2,000
0%
POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION
200
91
100
100
50%
CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES
-
276
(84)
84
0%
OTHER MISC REVENUES 9
652,000
8,897
445,110
206,890
68%
SMALL OVERPAYMENT
30
42
80
(50)
266%
NSF FEES - PARKS & REC
120
-
-
120
0%
NSF FEES- MUNICIPAL COURT
300
346
381
(81)
127%
NSF FEES - POLICE
-
60
30
(30)
0%
NSF FEES - DEVEL SERV DEPT
-
-
30
(30)
0%
US BANK REBATE
7,500
6,629
8,708
(1,208)
116%
19201,970
528,517
988,177
213,793
82%
TRANSFERS -IN:
SALE OF FIXED ASSETS
-
-
5,273
(5,273)
0%
INSURANCE RECOVERIES
-
7,143
15,570
(15,570)
0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM FUND 012
49,584
-
49,584
-
100%
TRANSFER FROM FUND127
26,300
26,300
13,150
13,150
50%
75,884
33,443
83,577
(7,693)
110%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE
$ 39,501,682
$ 37,320,136
$ 39,281,270
$ 220,412
99%
9 Short-term loan to the ECA for a roof/equipment project.
5
Packet may. 87
O
Q.
d
C
to
C
IL
z
C
O
2
eo
O
N
L
N
E
O
O
Z
I 4.3.a I
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
11/30/2017
Expenditures
11/30/2018
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining
%Spent
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 15,519,046
$ 13,041,975
$ 13,408,632
$ 2,110,414
86%
OVERTIME
507,613
520,475
632,879
(125,266)
125%
HOLIDAY BUY BACK
243,389
201,386
200,268
43,121
82%
BENEFITS
6,173,460
5,143,295
5,251,929
921,531
85%
UNIFORMS
88,785
68,512
72,783
16,002
82%
SUPPLIES
378,580
300,634
335,828
42,752
89%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
56,160
58,280
87,433
(31,273)
156%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,999,065
2,498,814
2,563,260
1,435,805
64%
COMMUNICATIONS
166,585
122,563
126,740
39,845
76%
TRAVEL
55,330
40,836
46,384
8,946
84%
EXCISE TAXES
6,500
4,612
5,482
1,018
84%
RENTAL/LEASE
1,988,447
1,555,169
1,810,029
178,418
91%
INSURANCE
624,530
616,495
437,253
187,277
70%
UTILITIES
457,800
474,024
485,680
(27,880)
106%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
726,713
227,714
269,439
457,274
37%
MISCELLANEOUS
517,497
278,378
305,016
212,481
59%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
9,901,462
9,772,089
9,287,600
613,862
94%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 10
695,000
70,000
441,873
253,127
64%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
1,863,370
920,630
779,625
1,083,745
42%
LAND
BUILDINGS
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL
OT HER INT EREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009)
BENEFITS
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
MISCELLANEOUS
RISK MANAGEMENT RES ERVE FUND (011)
MISCELLANEOUS
CONTINGENCY RESERVEFUND (012)
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
INTERFUND LOAN 11
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFTFUND (014)
SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
MISCELLANEOUS
BUILDING MAINTENANCESUBFUND (016)
SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSEFUND (018
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
DRUG INFO RC EMENT FUND (104)
FUEL CONSUMED
SMALL EQUIPMENT
COMMUNICATIONS
REPAIR/MAINT
MISCELLANEOUS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
200,000
-
4,884
195,116
2%
83,000
-
-
83,000
0%
151,721
91,135
80,159
71,562
53%
176,340
170,160
124,972
51,368
71%
500
222
218
282
44%
21,160
27,979
16,988
4,172
80%
44,602,053
36,205,377
36,775,353
7,826,700
82%
$ 184,000 $
139,491 $
142,819 $
41,181
78%
172,158
234,596
195,193
(23,035)
113%
7,000
8,828
2,962
4,038
42%
280
400
400
(120)
143%
363,438
383,314
341,374
22,064
94%
$ - $ 81,277 $ - $ - 0%
- 81,277 - - 0%
49,584 $ - $ 49,584 $ - 100%
- - 479,359 (479,359) 0%
49,584 - 528,943 (479,359) 1067%
$ 100 $ - $ - $ 100 0%
200 - - 200 0%
5,100 - - 5,100 0%
5,400 - - 5,400 0%
$ - $ 7,357 $ - $ 0
- 67,151 - - 0%
- 102,346 - - 0%
126,440 - - 0%
- 303,294 - - 0%
$ - $ - $ 24,557 $ (24,557) 0%
- - 24,557 (24,557) 0%
$ 3,000 $
1,810 $
- $ 3,000
0%
5,000
-
- 5,000
0%
2,230
815
- 2,230
0%
800
-
- 800
0%
20,000
5,000
- 20,000
0%
72,222
41,642
92,089 (19,867)
128%
103,252S
49,268
92,089 11,163
89%
10 Short-term loan to the ECA for a roof/equipment project.
11 2018 Expenditures includes interfund loans to 104 for $36,493 and to 112 for $442,866.
6
O
s?.
d
C
to
C
E
21
z
C
O
2
eo
O
N
L
N
E
O
O
Z
Packet Pg. 88 1
I 4.3.a I
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2018 Amended
11/30/2017
11/30/2018
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
STREEI'FUND (111)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 551,495
$ 481,104
$ 459,080
$ 92,415
83%
OVERTIME
24,400
27,405
25,609
(1,209)
105%
BENEFITS
286,892
248,902
233,433
53,459
81%
UNIFORMS
6,000
3,711
3,136
2,864
52%
SUPPLIES
310,000
208,137
172,318
137,682
56%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
20,000
9,841
5,580
14,420
28%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
16,050
12,892
11,737
4,313
73%
COMMUNICATIONS
4,500
6,238
6,199
(1,699)
138%
TRAVEL
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
187,150
166,990
172,622
14,528
92%
INSURANCE
113,230
110,508
156,645
(43,415)
138%
UTILITIES
273,170
227,371
234,910
38,260
86%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
45,000
14,329
25,456
19,544
57%
MISCELLANEOUS
8,000
2,595
1,229
6,771
15%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
5,000
5,324
911
4,089
18%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
-
8,088
-
-
0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL
3,970
3,900
-
3,970
0%
INTEREST
650
709
322
328
50%
COMBINED STREErCONST/IMPROVE(112)
SALARIES AND WAGES
OVERTIME
BENEFITS
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
LAND
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
INTEREST
MUNIC IPAL ARTS AC Q UIS. FUND (117)
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TRAVEL
RENT AL/LEASE
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
MISCELLANEOUS
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121)
SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122)
MISCELLANEOUS
TO URIS M PRO MO TIO NAL FUND/ARTS (123 )
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
MISCELLANEOUS
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX (125)
SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
UTILITIES
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
BUILDINGS
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
$ 1,856,507 $ 1,538,042 $ 1,509,187 $ 347,320 81%
- $
15,383
$ 18,138 $
(18,138)
0%
-
672
-
-
0%
-
6,409
11,626
(11,626)
0%
-
2,056
-
-
0%
365,918
973,608
320,677
45,241
88%
300,000
603,198
178,659
121,341
60%
102,910
40,711
40,515
62,395
39%
25,000
-
10,500
14,500
42%
-
8,166
-
-
0%
2,975,900
3,051,855
2,396,828
579,072
81%
72,220
72,201
72,201
19
100%
2.690
3.035
2.674
16
99%
$ 3,844,638 $ 4,777,295 $ 3,051,819 $ 792,819 79%
$ 4,900 $
3,865 $
4,009 $
891
82%
1,700
902
467
1,233
27%
168,312
49,567
56,301
112,011
33%
80
35
9
71
11%
2,000
-
-
2,000
0%
300
-
-
300
0%
6,600
3,810
4,583
2,017
69%
$ 183,892 $
58,179 $
65,369 $
118,523
36%
$ 86,300 $
70,816 $
43,914 $ 42,386
51%
250
200
- 250
0%
4,000
4,000
2,000 2,000
50%
$ 90,550 $
75,016 $
45,914 $ 44,636
51%
$ 1,790 $ 1,638 $ 573 $ 1,217 32%
25,090 - - 25,090 0%
$ 26,880 $ 1,638 $ 573 $ 26,307 2%
$ 1,000 $ 1,235 $ 1,905 $ (905) 191%
$ 1,000 $ 1,235 $ 1,905 $ (905) 191%
$ 28,200 $ 23,806 $ 10,795 $ 17,405 38%
1,500 2,600 1,464 36 98%
$ 29,700 $ 26,407 $ 12,259 $ 17,441 41%
$ 21,000 $
54,963
$ 29,407
$ (8,407)
140%
65,040
303,083
87,862
(22,822)
135%
-
1,649
-
-
0%
600,000
-
351,015
248,985
59%
150,000
-
-
150,000
0%
1,896,960
441,834
703,957
1,193,003
37%
$ 2,733,000 $
801,528
$ 1,172,242
$ 1,560,758
43%
7
Packet Pg. 89
I 4.3.a I
Page 3 of 6
C ITY O F IDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2018 Amended
11/30/2017
11/30/2018
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
REAL ES TATE EXC ISE TAX 1, PARKS AC Q (126)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$ 160,555
$ 14,527
$ 128,391
$ 32,164
80%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
1,031,762
-
651,657
380,105
63%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
135,130
16,163
15,063
120,068
11%
LAND
-
43,201
-
-
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
216,720
-
216,720
-
100%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
1,080,850
106,364
46,487
1,034,363
4%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
23,100
22,701
-
23,100
0%
INTEREST
3,750
4,125
1,873
1,877
50%
OTHERINTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS
-
72
77
(77)
0%
GIM CATALOG FUND (127)
SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
MISCELLANEOUS
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
CEMETERY MAINTENANC UIMPRO VEMENT (130)
SALARIES AND WAGES
OVERTIME
BENEFITS
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
RENT AL/LEASE
UTILITIES
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138)
SUPPLIES
TRAVEL
MISCELLANEOUS
BUSINESS P"ROVEMENTDISTRICTFUND (140)
SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
MISCELLANEOUS
LID FUND CONTROL (211)
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231)
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
INT ERESr
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (332)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
$ 2,651,867 $ 207,152 $ 1,060,267 $ 1,591,600 40%
$ 37,500 $
1,638 $ 14,891 S
22,609
40%
6,500
- -
6,500
0%
600
- 154
446
26%
26,300
26,300 13,150
13,150
50%
$ 70,900 $
27,938 $ 28,195 $
42,705
40%
$ 91,711 $
68,220 $
78,244 $
13,467
85%
3,500
3,365
2,998
502
86%
38,253
32,217
35,571
2,682
93%
1,000
-
675
325
67%
22,995
4,731
17,480
5,515
76%
20,000
8,803
24,192
(4,192)
121%
4,200
5,815
1,758
2,442
42%
1,410
1,257
1,432
(22)
102%
500
-
-
500
0%
11,640
9,891
10,670
970
92%
3,800
4,474
4,782
(982)
126%
500
-
-
500
0%
14,000
5,215
3,910
10,090
28%
$ 213,509 $
143,990 S
181,714 $
31,795
85%
$ 1,500 $
390 $
443 $
1,057
30%
4,500
2,839
805
3,695
18%
4,500
2,794
8,421
(3,921)
187%
$ 10,500 $
6,023 $
9,670 $
830
92%
$ - $ 842 $ 6,892 $ (6,892) 0%
61,387 74,331 (74,331) 0%
- 1,967 5,001 (5,001) 0%
- 64,196 86,224 (86,224) 0%
$ 16,450 $ 16,450 $ - $ 16,450 0%
$ 16,450 $ 16,450 $ - $ 16,450 0%
$ 589,630 $ - $ - $ 589,630 0%
118,580 64,938 59,284 59,296 50%
490 - - 490 0%
$ 708,700 $ 64,938 $ 59,284 $ 649,416 8%
$ 7,160 $ 89,146 $ 9,048 $ (1,888) 126%
200,000 - 200,000 - 100%
2,139,721 451,871 57,840 2,081,881 3%
$ 2,346,881 $ 541,017 $ 266,888 $ 2,079,993 11%
O
s?.
d
C
to
C
I.L
z
C
O
2
eo
0
N
L
N
E
O
O
Z
8
Packet Pg. 90
I 4.3.a I
Page 4 of 6
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2018 Amended
11/30/2017
11/30/2018
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
WATER FUND (421)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 828,440
$ 678,531
$ 662,186
$ 166,254
80%
OVERTIME
24,000
18,739
21,849
2,151
91%
BENEFITS
392,984
319,568
326,464
66,520
83%
UNIFORMS
4,000
4,727
2,747
1,253
69%
SUPPLIES
220,000
134,506
141,755
78,245
64%
FUEL CONSUMED
-
-
70
(70)
0%
WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE
1,800,000
1,576,562
1,691,973
108,027
94%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
170,000
201,048
93,373
76,627
55%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
11,000
5,579
2,236
8,764
20%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
866,647
1,337,208
630,128
236,519
73%
COMMUNICATIONS
30,000
27,308
25,004
4,996
83%
TRAVEL
200
45
-
200
0%
EXCISE TAXES
400,000
386,648
420,267
(20,267)
105%
RENTAL/LEASE
144,907
132,619
130,325
14,582
90%
INSURANCE
56,050
58,214
56,738
(688)
101%
UTILITIES
35,000
22,023
22,648
12,352
65%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
239,500
380,274
144,357
95,143
60%
MISCELLANEOUS
84,785
86,599
89,490
(4,705)
106%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
30,000
38,184
35,338
(5,338)
118%
INTERFUND TAXES
1,209,700
1,154,041
1,144,644
65,056
95%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
644,620
215,315
211,087
433,533
33%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
15,000
-
-
15,000
0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
5,648,935
1,166,444
3,818,879
1,830,056
68%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
2,670
2,619
-
2,670
0%
REVENUE BONDS
344,650
-
-
344,650
0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
25,840
25,839
25,839
1
100%
INTEREST
236,100
123,916
118,495
117,605
50%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS
-
375
375
(375)
0%
STORMFUND (422)
SALARIES AND WAGES
OVERTIME
BENEFITS
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
EXCISE TAXES
RENT AL/LEASE
INSURANCE
UTILITES
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
REVENUE BONDS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
INTEREST
OT HER INT EREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS
$ 13,465,028 $ 8,096,934 $ 9,816,269 $ 3,648,759 73%
$ 677,138 $
541,407
$ 593,633
$ 83,505
88%
6,000
11,102
9,670
(3,670)
161%
356,297
284,881
321,810
34,487
90%
6,500
4,849
5,353
1,147
82%
46,000
33,256
36,148
9,852
79%
4,000
5,880
317
3,683
8%
719,276
961,538
656,966
62,310
91%
3,200
4,486
3,910
(710)
122%
4,300
-
1,682
2,618
39%
55,000
55,125
60,654
(5,654)
110%
250,767
238,812
225,675
25,092
90%
71,540
72,028
178,798
(107,258)
250%
10,500
9,093
9,426
1,074
90%
15,000
52,173
14,791
209
99%
88,500
70,067
104,132
(15,632)
118%
150,000
115,306
123,043
26,957
82%
406,100
341,795
374,172
31,928
92%
298,500
84,737
83,159
215,341
28%
315,000
-
320,546
(5,546)
102%
3,074,815
84,252
614,315
2,460,501
20%
97,320
95,635
-
97,320
0%
168,360
-
-
168,360
0%
32,070
32,063
32,063
8
100%
129,830
77,570
65,463
64,367
50%
-
165
165
(165)
0%
$ 6,986,013 $
3,176,220
$ 3,835,891
$ 3,150,122
55%
9
Packet Pg. 91
I 4.3.a I
C ITY O F IDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2018 Amended
11/30/2017
11/30/2018
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
SEWER FUND (423)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 1,793,854
$ 1,543,095
$ 1,539,633
$ 254,221
86%
OVERTIME
95,000
90,270
80,881
14,119
85%
BENEFITS
821,233
707,268
746,304
74,929
91%
UNIFORMS
9,500
7,438
6,666
2,834
70%
SUPPLIES
432,200
199,735
304,288
127,912
70%
FUEL CONSUMED
80,000
66,746
43,057
36,943
54%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE
4,000
2,989
3,853
147
96%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
50,000
31,554
33,813
16,187
68%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,367,627
1,917,306
999,858
367,769
73%
COMMUNICATIONS
43,000
36,052
55,993
(12,993)
130%
TRAVEL
5,000
-
4,002
998
80%
EXCISE TAXES
200,000
198,542
194,990
5,010
97%
RENTAL/LEASE
310,809
277,556
286,299
24,510
92%
INSURANCE
109,270
116,720
119,178
(9,908)
109%
UTILITIES
1,217,860
1,062,515
902,694
315,166
74%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
695,000
331,776
521,025
173,975
75%
MISCELLANEOUS
105,450
92,024
71,406
34,044
68%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
168,000
109,106
132,112
35,888
79%
INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT
763,000
643,429
713,256
49,744
93%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
1,681,512
1,660,518
413,431
1,268,081
25%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
85,000
173,745
96,271
(11,271)
113%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
4,138,435
2,993,896
2,258,667
1,879,768
55%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
148,140
115,717
-
148,140
0%
REVENUE BONDS
77,010
-
-
77,010
0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
171,890
171,230
171,872
18
100%
INTEREST
81,750
58,041
44,050
37,700
54%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS
-
5,939
5,662
(5,662)
0%
$ 14,654,540 $ 12,613,206 $ 9,749,261 $ 4,905,279 67%
BOND RESERVE FUND (424)
REVENUE BONDS $ 710,020 $ - $ - $ 710,020 0%
INTEREST 1,281,500 654,342 640,742 640,758 50%
$ 1,991,520 $ 654,342 $ 640,742 $ 1,350,778 32%
O
s?.
d
C
to
C
IL
z
C
O
2
e0
O
N
L
E
O
O
Z
10
Packet Pg. 92
I 4.3.a I
C ITY O F IDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DEIAAIL
2018 Amended
11/30/2017
11/30/2018
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
EQ UIPNIINT RENTAL FUND (511)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 250,519
$ 214,426
$ 231,625
$ 18,894
92%
OVERTIME
2,000
48
-
2,000
0%
BENEFITS
114,956
95,392
104,067
10,889
91%
UNIFORMS
1,000
676
915
85
91%
SUPPLIES
110,000
64,316
75,632
34,368
69%
FUEL CONSUMED
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
268,000
191,933
165,455
102,545
62%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
58,000
53,420
5,919
52,081
10%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
44,000
2,199
2,977
41,023
7%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,000
2,055
2,027
973
68%
TRAVEL
1,000
-
339
661
34%
RENTAL/LEASE
9,780
13,763
8,568
1,212
88%
INSURANCE
29,010
26,351
29,464
(454)
102%
UTILITIES
14,000
11,712
12,011
1,989
86%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
60,000
52,540
33,069
26,931
55%
MISCELLANEOUS
12,000
8,138
7,544
4,456
63%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
2,500
1,765
1,589
911
64%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
689,317
970,351
340,069
349,248
49%
$ 1,670,082
$ 1,709,084
$ 1,021,270
$ 648,812
61%
TEC HNO LO GY RENTAL FUND (512)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$
283,742
$
253,585
$ 256,181
$
27,561
90%
OVERTIME
2,000
30
1,632
368
82%
BENEFITS
98,101
85,487
85,478
12,623
87%
SUPPLIES
5,000
12,636
4,319
681
86%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
23,000
45,900
89,953
(66,953)
391%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
203,300
20,818
164,846
38,454
81%
COMMUNICATIONS
58,770
38,623
38,289
20,481
65%
TRAVEL
1,500
(17)
412
1,088
27%
RENTAL/LEASE
6,810
7,464
6,512
298
96%
REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE
315,190
176,142
165,044
150,146
52%
MISCELLANEOUS
5,000
9,763
9,677
(4,677)
194%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
333,000
-
103,287
229,713
31%
$
1,335,413
$
650,430
$ 925,630
$
409,784
69%
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617)
BENEFITS
$
23,000
$
16,645
$ 19,731
$
3,269
86%
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS
51,018
43,934
48,668
2,350
95%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,200
1,222
538
662
45%
$
75,218
$
61,802
$ 68,937
$
6,281
92%
TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS
$
100,086,515
$
72,335,593
$ 71,371,825
$ 28,714,690
71%
O
s?.
d
C
to
C
IL
t
C
O
2
e0
T-
0
N
L
N
E
O
O
Z
11
Packet Pg. 93
I 4.3.a I
C ITY O F IDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
2018 Amended
11/30/2017
11/30/2018
Amount
Title Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining %Spent
CITY COUNCIL $ 580,919
$ 252,877
$ 392,196 $
188,723 68%
OFFICE OF MAYOR 297,088
249,397
265,133
31,955 89%
HUMAN RESOURCES 477,314 342,379 389,489 87,825 82%
MUNICIPAL COURT 1,105,852 878,792 894,651 211,201 81%
r_
CITY CLERK
697,748
579,731
607,881
89,867
87%
0
FINANCE
1,237,786
966,915
976,852
260,934
79%
CITY ATTORNEY
847,480
734,024
735,351
112,129
87%
t�
NON -DEPARTMENTAL
14,267,661
12,074,146
11,532,310
2,735,351
81%
C
POLICE SERVICES
11,302,664
9,587,220
10,203,697
1,098,967
90%
LL
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEV.
597,661
481,259
512,576
85,085
86%
c
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
3,357,716
2,565,669
2,489,026
868,690
74%
0
PARKS& RECREATION
4,411,972
3,545,042
3,604,467
807,505
82%
00
PUBLIC WORKS
3,114,829
2,420,621
2,561,710
553,119
82%
T_
0
tV
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
2,305,363
1,527,302
1,610,014
695,349
70%
L
ma
$
44,602,053 $
36,205,377 $
36,775,353 $
7,826,700
82%
w
O
Z
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
11/30/2017
Expenditures
11/30/2018
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining
°/ Spent
WATER UTILITY FUND
$ 13,465,028
$ 8,096,934
$ 9,816,269
$ 3,648,759
73%
STORM UTILITY FUND
6,986,013
3,176,220
3,835,891
3,150,122
55%
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
14,654,540
12,613,206
9,749,261
4,905,279
67%
BOND RESERVE FUND
1,991,520
654,342
640,742
1,350,778
32%
$ 37,097,101
$ 24,540,702
$ 24,042,163
$ 13,054,938
65%
12
Packet Pg. 94
C ITY O F IDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
11/30/2017
Expenditures
11/30/2018
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining
%Spent
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES
$
169,808
$
141,049
$
150,323
$
19,486
89%
OVERTIME
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
BENEFITS
119,687
87,934
85,427
34,260
71%
SUPPLIES
2,000
1,079
1,093
907
55%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
-
285
15,089
(15,089)
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
237,160
1,672
109,239
127,921
46%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,000
3,001
3,131
(131)
104%
TRAVEL
6,700
1,261
2,296
4,404
34%
RENTAL/LEASE
16,064
8,061
14,941
1,123
93%
REPAIRSIMAINTENANCE
500
-
-
500
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
25,000
8,535
10,657
14,343
43%
$
580,919
$
252,877
$
392,196
$
188,723
68%
OFFICEOFMAYOR
SALARIES
$
208,326
$
185,444
$
191,626
$
16,701
92%
BENEFITS
53,611
45,582
45,764
7,847
85%
SUPPLIES
1,500
553
605
895
40%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,000
1,582
1,943
57
97%
COMMUNICATION
1,400
1,131
1,459
(59)
104%
TRAVEL
4,000
1,053
829
3,171
21%
RENTAL/LEASE
21,801
10,144
19,090
2,711
88%
MISCELLANEOUS
4,450
3,907
3,818
632
86%
$
297,088
$
249,397
$
265,133
$
31,955
89%
HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES
$
249,577
$
197,219
$
210,441
$
39,136
84%
OVERTIME
-
369
-
-
0%
BENEFITS
84,882
70,887
79,692
5,190
94%
SUPPLIES
12,300
1,970
4,029
8,271
33%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
300
1,181
-
300
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
68,000
38,494
56,915
11,085
84%
COMMUNICATIONS
700
1,019
1,023
(323)
146%
TRAVEL
1,000
428
2,053
(1,053)
205%
RENTAL/LEASE
25,525
20,208
24,976
549
98%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
7,850
7,056
7,326
524
93%
MISCELLANEOUS
27,180
3,547
3,035
24,145
11%
$
477,314
$
342,379
$
389,489
$
87,825
82%
MUNIC IPAL C O URT
SALARIES
$
587,898
$
529,560
$
512,195
$
75,703
87%
OVERTIME
800
441
118
682
15%
BENEFITS
245,141
209,503
199,128
46,013
81%
SUPPLIES
9,600
6,250
7,251
2,349
76%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
1,000
474
283
717
28%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
91,925
75,144
78,765
13,160
86%
COMMUNICATIONS
2,700
2,395
2,240
460
83%
TRAVEL
6,500
1,852
3,979
2,521
61%
RENTAL/LEASE
71,204
36,540
66,157
5,047
93%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
4,263
639
-
4,263
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
14,000
15,994
24,535
(10,535)
175%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
70,821
70,821
0%
$
1,105,852
S
878,792
S
894,651
$
211,201
81%
13
Packet Pg. 95
I 4.3.a I
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
2018 Amended
11/30/2017
11/30/2018
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
CITY C LERK
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 345,266
$ 299,890
$ 326,674
$ 18,592
95%
OVERTIME
-
180
578
(578)
0%
BENEFITS
163,547
136,652
138,944
24,603
85%
SUPPLIES
10,240
4,011
3,089
7,151
30%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
28,310
27,256
20,602
7,708
73%
COMMUNICATIONS
50,000
25,994
25,585
24,415
51%
TRAVEL
1,000
368
496
504
50%
RENTAL/LEASE
64,305
47,740
56,326
7,979
88%
REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE
31,080
30,422
27,968
3,112
90%
MISCELLANEOUS
4,000
7,217
7,618
(3,618)
190%
$ 697,748
$ 579,731
$ 607,881
$ 89,867
87%
FINANCE
SALARIES
$
821,066
$
629,061
$
659,650
$
161,417
80%
OVERTIME
4,500
-
146
4,354
3%
BENEFITS
284,724
219,350
210,821
73,903
74%
SUPPLIES
7,350
4,721
4,408
2,942
60%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
5,400
1,612
3,831
1,569
71%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
9,300
34,247
1,452
7,848
16%
COMMUNICATIONS
2,000
1,554
1,123
877
56%
TRAVEL
3,100
2,548
4,353
(1,253)
140%
RENTAL/LEASE
48,146
28,915
44,760
3,386
93%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
38,500
40,372
41,121
(2,621)
107%
MISCELLANEOUS
13,700
4,535
5,186
8,514
38%
$
1,237,786
$
966,915
$
976,852
$
260,934
79%
C ITY ATTO RNEY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$
847,480
$
734,024
$
735,351
$
112,129
87%
$
847,480
$
734,024
$
735,351
$
112,129
87%
NON -DEPARTMENTAL
BENEFITS -UNEMPLOYMENT
$
-
$
2,975
$
10,510
$
(10,510)
0%
SUPPLIES
5,000
4,972
6,941
(1,941)
139%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
724,544
443,533
422,966
301,578
58%
EXCISE TAXES
6,500
4,612
5,482
1,018
84%
RENTAL/LEASE
10,307
9,907
10,509
(202)
102%
INSURANCE
624,530
616,495
437,253
187,277
70%
MISCELLANEOUS
164,070
66,527
67,385
96,685
41%
INTERGOVT SERVICES
9,776,340
9,736,136
9,202,705
573,635
94%
ECA LOAN PAYMENT
695,000
70,000
441,873
253,127
64%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
1,863,370
920,630
779,625
1,083,745
42%
LAND
200,000
-
4,884
195,116
2%
GENERAL OBLIGAT ION BOND
176,340
170,160
124,972
51,368
71%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT
21,160
27,979
16,988
4,172
80%
FISCAL AGENT FEES
500
222
218
282
44%
$
14,267,661
$
12,074,146
$
11,532,310
$
2,735,351
81%
O
a
d
0'
C
O
C
IL
z
C
O
2
e0
T-
0
N
N
E
O
O
Z
14
Packet Pg. 96
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURFS - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DEIAAIL
2018 Amended
11/30/2017
11/30/2018
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
POLICE SERVICES
SALARIES
$ 6,560,766
$ 5,532,369
$ 5,776,090
$ 784,676
88%
OVERTIME
470,513
472,649
587,032
(116,519)
125%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK
243,389
201,386
200,268
43,121
82%
BENEFITS
2,544,708
2,202,022
2,279,630
265,078
90%
UNIFORMS
78,650
60,520
64,348
14,302
82%
SUPPLIES
86,500
54,407
75,965
10,535
88%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
28,610
27,257
49,104
(20,494)
172%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
123,420
76,030
95,677
27,743
78%
COMMUNICATIONS
32,000
32,984
33,999
(1,999)
106%
TRAVEL
19,310
19,156
23,969
(4,659)
124%
RENTAL/LEASE
984,878
768,116
898,276
86,602
91%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
15,120
7,216
7,871
7,249
52%
MISCELLANEOUS
46,350
33,896
46,800
(450)
101%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES
10,550
8,078
5,385
5,165
51%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
57,900
91,135
59,284
(1,384)
102%
$ 11,302,664
$ 9,587,220
$ 10,203,697
$ 1,098,967
90%
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECON DEV.
SALARIES
$
238,449
$
211,985
$
216,108
$
22,341
91%
BENEFITS
76,571
65,411
66,913
9,658
87%
SUPPLIES
7,000
6,100
6,558
442
94%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
800
-
44
756
5%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
247,600
183,421
205,070
42,530
83%
COMMUNICATIONS
1,490
1,015
1,105
385
74%
TRAVEL
2,000
1,048
746
1,254
37%
RENTAL/LEASE
13,751
8,830
11,513
2,238
84%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
500
-
-
500
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
9,500
3,449
4,519
4,981
48%
$
597,661
$
481,259
$
512,576
$
85,085
86%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING
SALARIES
$
1,623,298
$
1,370,518
$
1,361,041
$
262,257
84%
OVERTIME
1,300
15,677
20,497
(19,197)
1577%
BENEFITS
625,023
502,174
511,917
113,106
82%
UNIFORMS
500
-
633
(133)
127%
SUPPLIES
16,100
11,596
11,029
5,071
69%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
6,100
6,131
6,007
93
98%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
829,526
454,657
393,288
436,238
47%
COMMUNICATIONS
9,000
6,896
7,248
1,752
81%
TRAVEL
4,750
7,101
4,905
(155)
103%
RENTAL/LEASE
156,959
136,491
142,873
14,086
91%
REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE
31,100
2,489
2,773
28,328
9%
MISCELLANEOUS
54,060
51,939
26,816
27,244
50%
$
3,357,716
$
2,565,669
$
2,489,026
$
868,690
74%
ENGINEERING
SALARIES
$
1,661,359
$
1,302,183
$
1,356,161
$
305,198
82%
OVERTIME
5,000
104
4,968
32
99%
BENEFITS
710,496
548,957
554,309
156,187
78%
UNIFORMS
360
-
-
360
0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
2,200
3,383
3,645
(1,445)
166%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
28,240
36,261
14,613
13,627
52%
COMMUNICATIONS
16,625
10,940
12,342
4,283
74%
TRAVEL
600
39
341
259
57%
RENTAL/LEASE
120,624
82,987
108,601
12,023
90%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
2,600
587
-
2,600
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
52,677
12,359
45,577
7,100
87%
$
2,600,781
$
1,997,799
$
2,100,556
$
500,225
81%
O
d
C
to
C
E
21
t
C
O
2
eo
T
CD
N
E
O
O
Z
15
Packet Pg. 97
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DEIAAIL
2018 Amended
11/30/2017
11/30/2018
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
PARKS & REC REATIO N
SALARIES
$ 2,048,165
$ 1,718,080
$ 1,739,255
$ 308,910
85%
OVERTIME
10,000
22,840
13,310
(3,310)
133%
BENEFITS
847,782
686,581
682,717
165,065
81%
UNIFORMS
6,275
3,795
3,325
2,950
53%
SUPPLIES
125,390
113,442
125,684
(294)
100%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
7,750
12,330
6,824
926
88%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
595,160
377,801
382,610
212,550
64%
COMMUNICATIONS
30,320
19,627
21,657
8,663
71%
TRAVEL
4,870
5,819
2,417
2,453
50%
RENTAL/LEASE
264,378
257,091
240,778
23,600
91%
PUBLIC UTILITY
175,000
204,251
214,111
(39,111)
122%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
29,700
34,067
13,167
16,533
44%
MISCELLANEOUS
92,610
61,442
58,227
34,383
63%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES
114,572
27,876
79,510
35,062
69%
BUILDINGS
60,000
-
-
60,000
0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
-
-
20,875
(20,875)
0%
$ 4,411,972
$ 3,545,042
$ 3,604,467
$ 807,505
82%
PUBLIC WORKS
SALARIES
$
279,248
$
250,835
$
253,011
$
26,237
91%
OVERTIME
200
-
-
200
0%
BENEFITS
92,055
79,541
89,908
2,147
98%
SUPPLIES
8,600
3,792
3,626
4,974
42%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
200
91
86
114
43%
COMMUNICATIONS
1,350
606
591
759
44%
TRAVEL
500
-
-
500
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
122,195
85,044
110,921
11,274
91%
PUBLIC UTILITY
2,800
2,352
2,481
319
89%
REPAIRIMAINT ENANCE
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
4,900
562
530
4,371
11%
$
514,048
$
422,823
$
461,154
$
52,894
90%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES
729,620
673,781
656,058
73,562
90%
OVERTIME
10,500
8,216
6,229
4,271
59%
BENEFITS
325,233
285,726
296,248
28,985
91%
UNIFORMS
3,000
4,197
4,477
(1,477)
149%
SUPPLIES
87,000
87,741
85,551
1,449
98%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
3,000
5,627
2,607
393
87%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
166,200
14,603
44,682
121,518
27%
COMMUNICATIONS
16,000
15,399
15,238
762
95%
TRAVEL
1,000
162
-
1,000
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
68,310
55,095
60,307
8,003
88%
PUBLIC UTILITY
280,000
267,421
269,089
10,911
96%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
564,500
104,866
169,213
395,287
30%
MISCELLANEOUS
5,000
4,470
314
4,686
6%
BUILDINGS
23,000
-
-
23,000
0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
23,000
23,000
0%
$
2,305,363
$
1,527,302
$
1,610,014
$
695,349
70%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
$
44,602,053
$
36,205,377
$
36,775,353
$
7,826,700
82%
O
s?.
d
C
O
C
E
21
t
C
O
2
e0
T
CD
N
E
O
O
Z
16
Packet Pg. 98
I 4.3.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund
2018
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January
$ 1,988,623 $
1,988,623
$ 2,195,035
10.38%
February
4,782,198
2,793,575
4,464,993
-6.63%
March
7,143,525
2,361,328
7,004,229
-1.95%
April
10,854,411
3,710,885
9,270,240
-14.59%
May
18,367,542
7,513,131
18,167,955
-1.09%
June
20,439,562
2,072,020
21,117,777
3.32%
July
22,481,733
2,042,170
23,448,404
4.30%
August
24,815,448
2,333,715
26,213,586
5.63%
September
26,857,557
2,042,109
28,584,102
6.43%
October
29,659,989
2,802,432
30,903,967
4.19%
November
37,315,325
7,655,336
39,281,270
5.27%
December
39,501,682
2,186,357
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax
2018
Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 219,352 $
219,352
$ 251,030
14.44%
February
381,613
162,261
407,050
6.67%
March
588,896
207,283
1,009,202
71.37%
April
780,860
191,964
1,240,201
58.83%
May
1,005,087
224,227
1,528,062
52.03%
June
1,248,349
243,262
1,830,143
46.61%
July
1,653,074
404,724
2,138,601
29.37%
August
1,929,331
276,257
2,514,349
30.32%
September
2,197,100
267,769
2,905,697
32.25%
October
2,416,963
219,864
3,113,763
28.83%
November
2,630,341
213,377
3,372,276
28.21%
December
2,800,000
169,659
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
Q.
d
C
C
U.
t
C
O
2
00
T
Q
N
L
d
�C
G
CD
O
Z
17
Packet Pg. 99 1
4.3.a
SALES TAX SUMMARY
Sales Tax Analysis By Category
Current Period: November 2018
Year -to -Date
Total $7,687,589
Construction Trade,
$1,657,902
Accommodation,
$44,453
Clothing and
Accessories, $224,060
Communications,
$220,900
Wholesale Trade,
$248,319
Misc Retail, $1,069,180
Automotive Repair,
909
Health & Personal Care, $176,Amusement &
$215,545 Recreation, $80,528
Business Services,
- $706,085
Gasoline, $32,942
Retail Food Stores,
$272,772
' L Retail Automotive,
$1,629,543
Others, $70,960 I Manufacturing, $97,664
Eating & Drinking,
$939,827
Annual Sales Tax Revenue
10,000, 000
8,000,000 $7,395,114 $7,687,589
$6,741,838 $6,905,122
6,000,000 $5 325 287 $5,840,764
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
2013 2015 2017 YTD 2018
0
CL
c
ii
c
0
2
ao
0
N
a�
E
a)
0
z
18
Packet Pg. 100
I 4.3.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax
2018
Sales and Use Tax
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 552,482 $
552,482
$ 585,948
6.06%
February
1,249,207
696,725
1,321,958
5.82%
March
1,777,304
528,097
1,886,310
6.13%
April
2,272,493
495,189
2,452,585
7.92%
May
2,906,618
634,125
3,194,085
9.89%
June
3,468,607
561,989
3,866,411
11.47%
July
4,058,559
589,952
4,614,605
13.70%
August
4,707,320
648,761
5,410,151
14.93%
September
5,334,689
627,369
6,141,885
15.13%
October
5,989,537
654,848
6,882,682
14.91%
November
6,670,224
680,687
7,687,589
15.25%
December
7,275,000
604,776
Gas Utility Tax
Sales and Use Tax
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
-*--Current Year Budget � Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax
2018
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 88,482 $
88,482
$ 97,973
10.73%
February
187,698
99,217
187,404
-0.16%
March
267,256
79,558
268,029
0.29%
April
335,144
67,888
323,194
-3.57%
May
387,986
52,843
383,162
-1.24%
June
424,966
36,979
415,620
-2.20%
July
453,766
28,800
442,776
-2.42%
August
477,013
23,247
466,145
-2.28%
September
498,430
21,418
487,993
-2.09%
October
523,180
24,749
512,053
-2.13%
November
561,415
38,235
551,257
-1.81%
December
620,200
58,785
Gas Utility Tax
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY RUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Yeaz Budget �Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
Q.
d
C
O
C
LL
21
t
a
O
2
00
T
Q
N
L
d
�C
G
4)
O
Z
19
Packet Pg. 101
I 4.3.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax
2018
Telephone Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 101,864 $
101,864
$ 94,392
-7.34%
February
202,129
100,265
183,702
-9.12%
March
294,029
91,900
265,638
-9.66%
April
390,095
96,066
350,982
-10.03%
May
478,713
88,617
430,977
-9.97%
June
568,042
89,329
512,099
-9.85%
July
652,808
84,766
592,511
-9.24%
August
740,812
88,004
670,052
-9.55%
September
832,244
91,432
748,849
-10.02%
October
920,171
87,927
824,223
-10.43%
November
1,003,763
83,592
899,818
-10.36%
December
1,093,200
89,437
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax
2018
Electric Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 171,906 $
171,906
$ 169,967
-1.13%
February
353,028
181,122
380,238
7.71%
March
518,242
165,214
535,565
3.34%
April
683,645
165,403
714,751
4.55%
May
824,846
141,201
864,247
4.78%
June
940,385
115,539
989,943
5.27%
July
1,050,933
110,549
1,098,482
4.52%
August
1,157,071
106,138
1,213,435
4.87%
September
1,262,180
105,109
1,328,348
5.24%
October
1,372,403
110,223
1,432,027
4.34%
November
1,490,337
117,934
1,556,740
4.46%
December
1,611,600
121,263
Electric Utility Tax
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
-*--Current Year Budget -d-- Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
d
C
C
U.
t
C
O
2
00
T
Q
N
L
d
E
CD
O
Z
ZD
Packet Pg. 102
I 4.3.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Meter Water Sales
2018
Meter Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 671,144 $
671,144
$ 686,803
2.33%
February
1,136,017
464,873
1,148,411
1.09%
March
1,808,515
672,498
1,786,469
-1.22%
April
2,250,797
442,282
2,228,766
-0.98%
May
2,907,543
656,746
2,899,778
-0.27%
June
3,420,955
513,413
3,395,518
-0.74%
July
4,227,120
806,165
4,220,193
-0.16%
August
4,933,718
706,598
4,933,652
0.00%
September
5,902,426
968,708
5,914,461
0.20%
October
6,565,192
662,766
6,615,148
0.76%
November
7,332,394
767,202
7,385,770
0.73%
December
7,804,500
472,106
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Storm Water Sales
2018
Storm Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 293,128 $
293,128
$ 287,956
-1.13%
February
924,642
631,514
913,794
7.71%
March
1,217,367
292,725
1,201,441
3.34%
April
1,476,942
259,575
1,457,402
4.55%
May
1,769,842
292,900
1,745,509
4.78%
June
2,030,237
260,395
2,001,084
5.27%
July
2,324,515
294,278
2,286,682
-1.63%
August
2,956,345
631,830
2,911,729
-1.51%
September
3,248,569
292,224
3,199,712
-1.50%
October
3,508,364
259,794
3,454,610
-1.53%
November
3,801,321
292,958
3,743,106
-1.53%
December
4,061,395
260,074
Storm Water Sales
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
—0-- Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
Q.
d
C
C
E
t
C
O
2
00
T
Q
N
L
d
�C
G
CD
O
Z
ZZ
Packet Pg. 103
I 4.3.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales
2018
Unmeter Sewer Sales
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
ActuaIs
Variance
January
$ 691,863 $
691,863
$ 707,735
2.29%
February
1,253,067
561,204
1,269,207
1.29%
March
1,943,785
690,719
1,962,615
0.97%
April
2,507,611
563,825
2,530,122
0.90%
May
3,199,180
691,569
3,257,122
1.81%
June
3,770,233
571,053
3,824,244
1.43%
July
4,484,245
714,012
4,538,764
1.22%
August
5,054,160
569,916
5,108,881
1.08%
September
5,782,066
727,906
5,847,372
1.13%
October
6,358,537
576,471
6,427,306
1.08%
November
7,064,218
705,680
7,137,305
1.03%
December
7,629,500
565,282
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
d
C
C
E
21
t
a
O
2
00
T
Q
N
L
d
.0
G
CD
O
Z
22
Packet Pg. 104 1
I 4.3.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund
2018
General Fund
Cumulative
Budget Forecast
Monthly
Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 5,469,085
$ 5,469,085
$4,000,420
-26.85%
February
8,015,743
2,546,658
7,074,254
-11.75%
March
11,825,133
3,809,390
9,997,735
-15.45%
April
15,808,122
3,982,988
13,366,102
-15.45%
May
18,194,702
2,386,581
16,471,112
-9.47%
June
22,115,109
3,920,407
20,515,429
-7.23%
July
25,846,219
3,731,110
23,760,976
-8.07%
August
29,887,263
4,041,045
26,305,714
-11.98%
September
33,369,298
3,482,034
30,144,324
-9.66%
October
36,249,856
2,880,558
33,456,258
-7.71%
November
40,409,631
4,159,775
36,775,353
-8.99%
December
44,602,053
4,192,422
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental
2018
Non -Departmental
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January $
2,937,966 $
2,937,966
$ 1,916,589
-34.76%
February
3,200,794
262,827
2,811,392
-12.17%
March
4,639,496
1,438,703
3,588,829
-22.65%
April
6,112,868
1,473,372
4,704,813
-23.03%
May
6,257,168
144,300
5,479,175
-12.43%
June
7,760,032
1,502,864
7,214,671
-7.03%
July
8,914,150
1,154,117
8,153,117
-8.54%
August
10,244,546
1,330,396
8,273,085
-19.24%
September
11,228,088
983,542
9,756,639
-13.11%
October
11,666,508
438,420
10,626,583
-8.91%
November
13,009,305
1,342,798
11,532,310
-11.35%
December
14,267,661
1,258,356
Non -Departmental
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
,0001-000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
"� Current Year Budget —wb— Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
Q.
d
C
C
E
t
C
O
2
00
T
Q
N
L
d
�C
G
CD
O
Z
23
Packet Pg. 105
I 4.3.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council
2018
City Council
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January $
39,156 $
39,156 $
20,137
-48.57%
February
81,707
42,551
43,001
-47.37%
March
131,158
49,452
67,048
-48.88%
April
177,465
46,306
93,044
-47.57%
May
223,060
45,595
148,289
-33.52%
June
282,118
59,058
211,018
-25.20%
July
332,530
50,412
235,182
-29.27%
August
383,904
51,375
309,376
-19.41%
September
442,045
58,140
332,628
-24.75%
October
480,175
38,130
346,118
-27.92%
November
530,273
50,099
392,196
-26.04%
December
580,919
50,646
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Office of Mayor
2018
Office of Mayor
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 24,264 $
24,264
$ 23,355
-3.75%
February
49,615
25,351
47,920
-3.42%
March
74,439
24,823
71,633
-3.77%
April
98,806
24,367
97,145
-1.68%
May
123,154
24,348
120,989
-1.76%
June
147,440
24,286
144,437
-2.04%
July
172,527
25,087
168,565
-2.30%
August
197,868
25,341
192,272
-2.83%
September
222,303
24,435
218,015
-1.93%
October
247,077
24,774
241,596
-2.22%
November
271,327
24,250
265,133
-2.28%
December
297,088
25,761
Office of Mayor
300,000.00
250,000.00
200,000.00
150,000.00
100,000.00
50,000.00
0.00
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Year Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
Q.
d
C
C
U.
t
C
O
2
00
T
Q
N
L
d
�C
G
CD
O
Z
24
Packet Pg. 106
I 4.3.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources
2018
Human Resources
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 36,684 $
36,684
$ 36,984
0.82%
February
77,607
40,923
73,258
-5.60%
March
118,303
40,696
107,255
-9.34%
April
153,693
35,390
140,435
-8.63%
May
191,411
37,718
175,117
-8.51%
June
229,956
38,546
205,285
-10.73%
July
270,034
40,078
242,785
-10.09%
August
308,510
38,475
279,002
-9.56%
September
345,878
37,368
314,056
-9.20%
October
385,381
39,503
346,629
-10.06%
November
421,760
36,379
389,489
-7.65%
December
477,314
55,554
Municipal Court
Human Resources
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000 jr
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
-0--CurrentYear Budget-PriorYear
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court
2018
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 82,608 $
82,608
$ 80,036
-3.11%
February
175,964
93,357
159,028
-9.62%
March
269,619
93,655
241,304
-10.50%
April
356,946
87,327
326,606
-8.50%
May
446,138
89,192
413,053
-7.42%
June
534,494
88,356
492,913
-7.78%
July
623,552
89,059
570,967
-8.43%
August
718,039
94,486
663,923
-7.54%
September
811,352
93,313
737,873
-9.06%
October
908,794
97,442
821,270
-9.63%
November
1,003,801
95,007
894,651
-10.87%
December
1,105,852
102,051
Municipal Court
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000 /
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
--ft�CurrentYeaz Budget -Rb-PriorYear
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
Q.
d
O
C
O
C
LL
21
t
C
O
2
00
T
Q
N
L
d
�C
G
4)
O
Z
25
Packet Pg. 107
I 4.3.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Community Services/Economic Development
2018
Community Services/Economic Development
Cumulative
Monthly
YTD
Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
Actuals
%
January
$ 35,941 $
35,941
$ 43,517
21.08%
February
79,533
43,592
85,170
7.09%
March
124,306
44,773
137,596
10.69%
April
185,294
60,989
179,612
-3.07%
May
224,624
39,330
227,250
1.17%
June
267,815
43,192
269,991
0.81%
July
314,459
46,644
315,110
0.21%
August
365,689
51,229
372,264
1.80%
September
415,579
49,890
410,560
-1.21%
October
467,909
52,330
463,583
-0.92%
November
525,228
57,319
512,576
-2.41%
December
597,661
72,433
City Clerk
Community Se nices/Economic Development
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Year Budget --d- Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -City Clerk
2018
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 61,917 $
61,917
$ 61,232
-1.11%
February
118,102
56,185
116,550
-1.31%
March
174,765
56,663
172,403
-1.35%
April
233,347
58,582
222,183
-4.78%
May
287,099
53,752
277,663
-3.29%
June
339,462
52,363
329,209
-3.02%
July
395,577
56,115
380,418
-3.83%
August
454,007
58,430
464,996
2.42%
September
510,652
56,645
503,247
-1.45%
October
579,368
68,715
551,894
-4.74%
November
638,746
59,378
607,881
-4.83%
December
697,748
59,002
City Clerk
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN
FEB MAR APR MAY
Current Year
JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
Q.
d
C
C
LL
t
C
O
2
00
T
Q
tV
L
d
E
4)
O
Z
26
Packet Pg. 108
I 4.3.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Technology Rental Fund
2018
Technology Rental Fund
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 143,632 $
143,632
$ 144,135
0.35%
February
300,838
157,206
204,078
-32.16%
March
388,705
87,867
293,273
-24.55%
April
473,229
84,524
351,042
-25.82%
May
541,119
67,890
487,412
-9.93%
June
613,434
72,315
615,817
0.39%
July
720,259
106,826
663,312
-7.91%
August
840,735
120,476
725,215
-13.74%
September
955,896
115,161
814,841
-14.76%
October
1,040,611
84,714
888,190
-14.65%
November
1,136,112
95,501
925,630
-18.53%
December
1,335,413
199,301
Finance
Technology Rental Fund
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
-*--Current Year Budget Prior Year
Prior Year amounts are from the Information Services Budget
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Finance
2018
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 124,798 $
124,798
$ 125,728
0.75%
February
223,504
98,706
210,861
-5.66%
March
319,397
95,892
296,541
-7.16%
April
425,251
105,855
383,670
-9.78%
May
523,182
97,931
467,718
-10.60%
June
620,315
97,133
552,805
-10.88%
July
716,459
96,144
637,823
-10.98%
August
814,575
98,117
722,494
-11.30%
September
925,150
110,574
808,422
-12.62%
October
1,031,905
106,755
894,693
-13.30%
November
1,131,680
99,774
976,852
-13.68%
December
1,237,786
106,106
finance
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
-0-- Current Yeaz Budget -dw- Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
Q.
d
O
C
C
E
21
t
a
O
2
00
T
Q
N
L
d
E
4)
O
Z
27
Packet Pg. 109
I 4.3.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney
2018
City Attorney
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 70,623 $
70,623
$ 46,119
-34.70%
February
141,247
70,623
136,648
-3.26%
March
211,870
70,623
182,768
-13.74%
April
282,493
70,623
252,179
-10.73%
May
353,117
70,623
342,708
-2.95%
June
423,740
70,623
411,032
-3.00%
July
494,363
70,623
483,871
-2.12%
August
564,986
70,623
552,195
-2.26%
September
635,610
70,623
598,314
-5.87%
October
706,233
70,623
689,232
-2.41%
November
776,856
70,623
735,351
-5.34%
December
847,480
70,623
Police
City Attorney
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
+Current Yeaz Budget -d-- Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Police
2018
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 889,723 $
889,723
$ 871,900
-2.00%
February
1,785,559
895,836
1,788,816
0.18%
March
2,674,909
889,349
2,677,649
0.10%
April
3,567,881
892,973
3,581,604
0.38%
May
4,454,567
886,686
4,507,241
1.18%
June
5,373,977
919,410
5,475,264
1.88%
July
6,288,572
914,595
6,356,315
1.08%
August
7,188,618
900,047
7,232,795
0.61%
September
8,100,572
911,954
8,146,348
0.57%
October
9,111,520
1,010,947
9,112,432
0.01%
November
10,348,546
1,237,027
10,203,697
-1.40%
December
11,302,664
954,118
12,000,000
11,000,000
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
Police
AN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
--ft- Current Yeaz Budget Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
Q.
d
C
O
C
E
t
C
O
2
00
T
Q
tV
L
d
�C
G
4)
O
Z
Z$
Packet Pg. 110
I 4.3.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services
2018
Development Services
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 245,372 $
245,372
$ 175,855
-28.33%
February
509,144
263,772
378,818
-25.60%
March
792,048
282,904
591,734
-25.29%
April
1,048,289
256,241
817,737
-21.99%
May
1,329,279
280,990
1,046,070
-21.31%
June
1,594,468
265,189
1,273,975
-20.10%
July
1,867,530
273,062
1,515,745
-18.84%
August
2,165,422
297,892
1,740,882
-19.61%
September
2,438,013
272,591
2,027,906
-16.82%
October
2,734,269
296,256
2,253,434
-17.59%
November
3,041,759
307,489
2,489,026
-18.17%
December
3,357,716
315,957
Parks & Recreation
Development Services
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
j:
1,000,000
500,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
+Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation
2018
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 293,333 $
293,333
$ 258,749
-11.79%
February
599,800
306,468
530,383
-11.57%
March
926,080
326,279
815,736
-11.92%
April
1,249,317
323,237
1,159,777
-7.17%
May
1,601,878
352,560
1,462,933
-8.67%
June
1,953,226
351,348
1,773,743
-9.19%
July
2,434,795
481,570
2,146,804
-11.83%
August
2,983,135
548,340
2,536,505
-14.97%
September
3,365,079
381,944
2,938,075
-12.69%
October
3,703,882
338,803
3,318,630
-10.40%
November
4,009,836
305,954
3,604,467
-10.11%
December
4,411,972
402,136
Parks & Recreation
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000 /
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
--0-Current Year Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
Q.
d
C
O
C
LL
t
C
O
2
00
T
Q
N
L
d
E
4)
O
Z
29
Packet Pg. 111
I 4.3.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works
2018
Public Works
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 42,035 $
42,035
$ 42,488
1.08%
February
85,654
43,620
84,736
-1.07%
March
128,689
43,035
126,826
-1.45%
April
171,578
42,889
168,659
-1.70%
May
214,645
43,067
210,364
-1.99%
June
257,701
43,056
251,929
-2.24%
July
301,222
43,521
294,549
-2.22%
August
343,666
42,444
336,142
-2.19%
September
384,825
41,159
378,429
-1.66%
October
426,961
42,136
419,971
-1.64%
November
469,006
42,045
461,154
-1.67%
December
514,048
45,042
Facilities Maintenance
Public Works
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0 ;!00�
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
� Current Yeaz Budget Prior Yeaz
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance
2018
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 180,780 $
180,780
$ 133,250
-26.29%
February
364,900
184,119
273,490
-25.05%
March
SS9,670
194,771
416,025
-2S.67%
April
745,373
185,702
SS8,614
-2S.06%
May
934,661
189,288
704,933
-24.58%
June
1,100,591
165,930
829,817
-24.60%
July
1,317,369
216,779
979,062
-25.68%
August
1,492,677
175,308
1,136,010
-23.89%
September
1,693,451
200,774
1,276,602
-24.62%
October
1,878,654
185,203
1,468,277
-21.84%
November
2,084,326
205,672
1,610,014
-22.76%
December
2,305,363
221,037
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
Q.
d
C
O
C
E
21
t
a
O
2
00
T
Q
N
L
d
�C
G
4)
O
Z
30
Packet Pg. 112
I 4.3.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering
2018
Engineering
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January $
200,507 $
200,507
$ 164,481
-17.97%
February
398,504
197,996
334,182
-16.14%
March
613,516
215,012
504,388
-17.79%
April
833,268
219,752
680,024
-18.39%
May
1,042,728
209,460
887,608
-14.88%
June
1,264,837
222,109
1,079,339
-14.67%
July
1,477,294
212,457
1,280,665
-13.31%
August
1,702,007
224,713
1,493,771
-12.23%
September
1,918,545
216,538
1,697,211
-11.54%
October
2,140,781
222,236
1,901,918
-11.16%
November
2,357,334
216,553
2,100,556
-10.89%
December
2,600,781
243,447
Engine a ring
2,700,000
2,100,000
900,000
600,000
300,000 /•
i
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
� Current Year Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
d
C
O
C
E
t
C
O
2
00
T
Q
N
L
d
�C
G
4)
O
Z
31
Packet Pg. 113
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
1 4.3.a I
City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Detail
As of November 30, 2018
Years
Agency/ Investment Purchase to Par Market Maturity Coupon
Issuer Tvpe Rice Maturitv Value Value Date Rate
FFCB
Bonds
2,010,790
0.08
2,000,000
1,998,596
12/28/18
1.42%
First Financial
CD
3,000,000
0.15
3,000,000
3,000,000
01/24/19
2.34%
FFCB
Bonds
2,000,000
0.15
2,000,000
1,996,556
01/25/19
1.23%
FICO
Bonds
1,009,725
0.40
1,035,000
1,025,473
04/25/19
1.42%
SCIP
CD
2,500,000
0.51
2,500,000
2,500,000
06/04/19
2.65%
FNMA
Bonds
999,750
0.53
1,000,000
993,574
06/13/19
1.40%
FHLB
Bonds
1,000,400
0.55
1,000,000
993,528
06/20/19
1.40%
FNMA
Bonds
988,720
0.82
1,000,000
990,299
09/27/19
1.50%
FHLMC
Bonds
995,970
0.84
1,000,000
987,831
10/02/19
1.25%
FNMA
Bonds
1,994,310
0.91
2,000,000
1,975,868
10/28/19
1.35%
FNMA
Bonds
997,300
1.33
1,000,000
981,378
03/30/20
1.38%
FHLB
Bonds
2,003,780
1.33
2,000,000
1,963,412
03/30/20
1.45%
FNMA
Bonds
2,000,000
1.33
2,000,000
1,969,900
03/30/20
1.65%
FHLMC
Bonds
2,003,868
1.41
2,000,000
1,960,194
04/28/20
1.35%
FNMA
Bonds
1,000,000
1.58
1,000,000
977,742
06/30/20
1.38%
FNMA
Bonds
1,000,000
1.58
1,000,000
977,742
06/30/20
1.38%
FHLB
Bonds
3,000,000
1.62
3,000,000
2,923,560
07/13/20
1.20%
RFCS
Bonds
1,999,698
1.62
2,120,000
2,023,341
07/15/20
1.60%
FHLB
Bonds
2,000,000
1.67
2,000,000
1,965,258
07/30/20
1.75%
FNMA
Bonds
1,000,000
1.75
1,000,000
974,202
08/28/20
1.40%
FNMA
Bonds
1,000,000
1.75
1,000,000
974,202
08/28/20
1.40%
FHLMC
Bonds
999,500
2.08
1,000,000
976,829
12/30/20
1.75%
FNMA
Bonds
2,005,474
2.14
2,000,000
1,944,286
01/19/21
1.50%
FM
Bonds
2,000,000
2.34
2,000,000
1,956,216
04/01/21
1.87%
FHLB
Bonds
2,000,000
2.56
2,000,000
1,962,566
06/22/21
2.18%
FFCB
Bonds
968,940
2.79
1,000,000
967,741
09/13/21
1.73%
FHLMC
Bonds
2,000,000
2.99
2,000,000
1,949,622
11/26/21
2.13%
FHLMC
Bonds
999,400
3.08
1,000,000
973,436
12/30/21
2.00%
FHLMC
Bonds
1,000,000
3.24
1,000,000
974,733
02/25/22
2.15%
TOTAL SECURITIES
46,477,626
1.5
46,655,000
45,858,085
Washington State Local Gov't Investment Pool
9,445,858
9,445,858
Demand
2.28%
Snohomish County
Local Gov't Investment Pool
2,483,459
2,483,459
Demand
2.03%
TOTAL PORTFOLIO
$ 58,584,316
$ 57,787,401
SCIP- CD, Issuer Diversification First
5% -Financial-
CD, 6%
FNMA, 28% RFCS, 5%
FHL
17°
FM, 4%
FHLB, 21% FFCB,
11%
FICO, 2%
Cash and Investment Balances
(in $ Millions) Checking,
- $4.9 , 8%
State LGIP,
$9.4 , 15%
Bonds, \ County LGIP,
$41.2, 65% $2.5 , 4%
CD's, $5.5,
8%
32
Packet Pg. 114 1
I 4.3.a I
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Annual Interest Income
$1,000,000
$823,673
$800,000
$653,690
$600,000
$400,000 6 $423 816
$200,000 $163,214
$74,830
2014 2015 2016 2017 YTD 2018
Edmonds Rate of Return Compared to Benchmark (Rolling 12 months)
6 Month Treasury Rate (Benchmark) City Blended Rate
2.8
2.5
2.3
2.0% —————-
1.8
1.5
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.0
December February April June August October
$14, 000,000
$12, 000,000
$10, 000,000
$8,000,000
$ 6,000, 000
$4,000,000
$ 2,000, 000
Maturity Distribution and Rate of Return
2.50%
2.00%
1.50%
1.00%
0.50%
0.00%
0-6 Mo 6-12 M o 12-18 M o 18-24 M o 24-30 M o 30-36 M o 36-42 M o
0
d
c
0
c
ii
t
c
0
2
00
T
Q
N
L
d
E
CD
z
33
Packet Pg. 115
GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW
I 4.3.a I
GENERAL FUND
& SUBFUNDS
001-General Fund'
009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve
011-Risk Management Fund
012-Contingency Reserve Fund
014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund
016-Building Maintenance
017 - Marsh Restoration & Preservation
018 -Edmonds Homelessness Response
019 - Edmonds Opioid Response
Total General Fund & Subfunds
CHAN('F IN FUND RAI ANCFS
---- ACTUAL ----
Q3 YTD
0
(2,162,570) $ 2,505,91- m
fY
(89,064) (196,34,
5,754 21,37E
(425,482) (403,26,
63 2,70! ILL
21
10 306,86! �o
- 225,44, 0
- 250,00( N
(2,671,289) $ 2,712,691 y
E
a�
*$2,000,000 of the General Fund Balance has been assigned by management for the development of Civic Field. z°
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2017
9/30/2018
11 /30/2018
$ 10,273,342
$ 8,713,120
$ 12,779,259
$
417,154
270,551
220,810
902,700
919,656
924,076
5,447,144
5,039,559
5,043,881
7,356
10,013
10,061
210,221
210,221
210,221
-
306,860
306,865
-
250,000
225,443
-
250,000
250,000
$ 17,257,917
$ 15,969,981
$ 19,970,616
$
**Fund 012 made interfund loans to fund 104 for $36,493 and to fund 112 for $442,866 in 2018.
21
18
15
12
° $15.26
9
6
3
$2.00
Dec 2017
General Fund & Subfunds
$13.97
i
June 2018
$17.97
Nov 2018
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
General Fund
& Subfunds
o Civic Field
34
Packet Pg. 116
I 4.3.a I
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW
CHANGE IN FUND
FUND BALANCES
BALANCES
GOVERNMENTAL
---- ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL ----
FUNDS
12/31 /2017
9/30/2018
11 /30/2018
Q3
YTD
General Fund & Subfunds
$ 17,257,917
$ 15,969,981 $
19,970,616
$
(2,671,289) $
2,712,699
Special Revenue
8,273,865
10,512,975
10,780,022
684,460
2,506,157
Debt Service
3,812
3,812
370,908
-
367,096
Capital Projects
1,544,084
2,145,975
2,176,805
235,820
632,721
Total Governmental Funds
$ 27,079,678
$ 28,632,743 $
33,298,351
$
(1,751,010) $
6,218,673
21
18
Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group
V".26
$19.97
General
Fund &
Subfunds
t Special
Revenue
).78
Debt
Service
—i#—Capital
Projects
4 $2.18
$0.00 $G-� $0.37
Dec 2017 June 2018 Nov 2018
35
30
c
0 20
15
10
5
Governmental Fund Balances -
Combined
Dec 2017 June 2018 Nov 2018
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
35
Packet Pg. 117 1
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW
I 4.3.a I
FUND
BALANCES
GOVERNMENTAL
ACTUAL
SPECIAL REVENUE
---- ----
12/31 /2017
9/30/2018
11 /30/2018
104 - Drug Enforcement Fund *
$ 692
$ (12,987) $
(12,910)
111 - Street Fund
1,102,078
1,021,168
1,009,098
112 - Combined Street Const/Im prove
728,782
1,386,405
1,886,647
117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
533,208
576,297
559,510
118 - Memorial Street Tree
18,349
18,690
18,780
120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
82,355
114,900
121,603
121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund
69,294
82,501
83,349
122 - Youth Scholarship Fund
15,348
14,138
14,817
123 -Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
59,886
78,471
82,312
125 - Real Estate Tax 2
1,901,003
2,529,007
2,464,478
126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1
2,165,209
2,991,672
2,850,809
127 - Gifts Catalog Fund
265,666
314,165
306,988
130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
188,885
209,330
203,484
136 - Parks Trust Fund
155,907
158,836
159,599
137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
938,109
971,862
979,417
138 - Sister City Commission
7,598
12,390
8,424
140 - Business Improvement Disrict
41,496
46,130
43,614
Total Special Revenue
$ 8,273,865
$ 10,512,975 $
10,780,022
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE;
---- ACTUAL ----
Q3 YTD
(3,121)
34,348
224,403
33,185
116
22,287
1,865
(519)
7,716
153,029
173,896
12,241
17,024
994
13,182
77
(6,263)
$ 684,460 $
* Fund 012 made interfund loans to fund 104 for $36,493 and to fund 112 for $442,866 in 2018.
Special Revenue Funds
15
(13,60.
(92,98(
1,157,86,'
26,30. o
43' m
39,24! W
14,05! .�
(53'
22,42E .E
LL
563,47!
685,60(
41,32: o
14,595 2
3,69. c
41,30t N
L
82( �
2,117 E
2,506,15', o
Z
12
$10.51 510.78
9 $8.27
_o ■ Special
6 Revenue
3
Dec 2017 June 2018 Nov 2018
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
36
Packet Pg. 118
4.3.a
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
OVERVIEW
FUND BALANCES
CHANGE IN FUND
ENTERPRISE
---- ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL ----
FUNDS
12/31/2017 9/30/2018 11/30/2018
Q3 YTD
421 -Water Utility Fund
$ 19,153,889 $ 18,631,938 $ 18,281,079
$ 70,608 $ (872,81(
422 -Storm Utility Fund
10,990,767 12,086,425 11,493,035
490,217 502,262
p
423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund
44,666,806 45,766,959 45,352,509
(173,747) 685,M
424 - Bond Reserve Fund
843,960 843,966 843,967
2 ;
E
411 -Combined Utility Operation
- 113,814 137,603
41,396 137,M
c
Total Enterprise Funds
$ 75,655,422 $ 77,443,101 $ 76,108,193
$ 428,475 $ 452,77
21
t
c
O
2
00
T
Q
N
L
d
�C
E
>
Enterprise and Agency Fund Balances as of November 30, 2018
z
55,000,000
0
O
50,000,000
M
45,000,000
45 352 509
cC
40,000,000
v
35,000,000
C
30,000,000
IL
25,000,000
>'
$18,281,079
20,000,000
c
O
15,000,000
$11 493 035
2
10,000,000
00
r
5,000,000 $137,603
$843,967 $208,417
N
0
Combined Utility
Water Storm Sewer/WWTP Bond Reserve Firemen's Pension
E
Fund
O
Z
C
O
E
t
c�
Q
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report
is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
37
Packet Pg. 119
SUMMARY OVERVIEW
I 4.3.a I
CITY-WIDE
FUND BALANCES
ACTUAL
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
Governmental Funds
$ 27,079,678
$ 28,632,743
$ 33,298,351
$
(1,751,010) $
Enterprise Funds
75,655,422
77,443,101
76,108,193
428,475
Internal Services Fund
9,250,186
9,802,534
10,032,660
318,033
Agency Funds
226,480
219,144
208,417
(16,902)
Total City-wide Total
$112,211,766
$116,097,522
$119,647,620
$
(1,021,403) $
F— Governmental Fund Balances (Excluding
General Fund) as of November 30, 2018
Drug Enforcement Fund $ (12,910)
Street Fund
Combined Street Const/Improve Fund
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
Memorial Street Fund
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
Employee Parking Permit Fund
Youth Scholarship Fund
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
Real Estate Excise Tax 2
Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq
Gifts Catalog Fund
Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
Parks Trust Fund
Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
Sister City Commission
Business Improvement District
L.I.D. Fund Control
Parks Capital Construction Fund
6,218,67.
452,77'
782,47, a
CL
(18,06,
7,435,85,
v
c
c
ii
21
t
c
0
2
00
0
N
L
N
E
a�
O
Z
$- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
38
Packet Pg. 120
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW
I 4.3.a I
INTERNAL SERVICE
FUNDS
511 - Equipment Rental Fund
512 -Technology Rental Fund
Total Internal Service Funds
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000, 000
6,000, 000
4,000, 000
2,000, 000
FUND BALANCES
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL ----
0
0
a
12/31 /2017 9/30/2018
11 /30/2018
Q3
YTD
$ 8,996,077 $ 9,408,259 $
9,535,279
$
198,436 $
539,20:
'T
c
254,109 394,275
497,382
119,597
243,27,
c
ii
$ 9,250,186 $ 9,802,534 $
10,032,660
$
318,033 $
782,47,
>+
c
0
2
Go
0
N
L
Internal Service Fund Balances
aEi
0
z
$9,535,279
Dec 2017 June 2018 Nov 2018
■ 511- Equipment Rental Fund
■ 512-Technology Rental Fund
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
39
Packet Pg. 121
4.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/2/2019
January 2019 Monthly Financial Report
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Sarah Mager
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
No action needed; informational only.
Narrative
January 2019 Monthly Financial Report
Attachments:
January 2019 Monthly Financial Report
Packet Pg. 122
I 4.4.a I
OF
EDP
� d
1)7 C. 1 $9v
CITY OF EDMONDS
MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT
JAN UARY 2019
Packet Pg. 123 1
I 4.4.a I
Page 1 of 1
C ITY O F IDMO NDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Fund
2019 Adopted
1/31/2018
1/31/2019
Amount
No.
Title
Budget
Revenues
Revenues
Remaining
%Receives
001
GENERAL FUND
$ 40,774,939
$ 2,195,035
$ 2,397,678
$ 38,377,261
6
009
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
437,980
1,563
1,397
436,583
0
011
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
28,210
3,473
3,981
24,229
14
012
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
182,400
20,931
23,492
158,908
13
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
5,230
28
43
5,187
1
017
MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND
556,800
1,295
555,505
0
1=
O
018
EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND
-
-
-
0
Q
4)
W
019
EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND
-
-
-
0
ra
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
165,430
52
49
165,381
0
v
C
111
STREET FUND
1,859,270
122,650
124,170
1,735,100
7LL
C
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE
6,646,917
48,307
12,510
6,634,407
0
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
150,910
2,639
3,020
147,890
2
C
118
MEMORIAL STREET TREE
580
71
81
499
14
O
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
94,730
5,725
6,104
88,626
6
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
26,170
7,789
7,805
18,365
30
N
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
1,680
127
63
1,617
4
M
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
31,250
7,541
2,206
29,044
7
O
C
125
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2
1,597,600
132,507
112,743
1,484,857
7
126
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND
1,604,020
134,559
114,164
1,489,856
7
O
127
GIFTSCATALOGFUND
82,100
16,785
71,711
10,389
87
C
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
182,560
10,767
9,624
172,936
5
136
PARKSTRUST FUND
4,870
600
688
4,182
14
c�
137
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD
44,500
4,726
5,190
39,310
12
C
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
10,240
29
35
10,205
0
IL
140
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
-
31,192
29,201
(29,201)
0
z
211
L.I.D. FUND CONTROL
12,400
-
-
12,400
0
O
231
2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND
716,420
-
-
716,420
0
332
PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND
2,796,849
26,485
9,556
2,787,293
0
0
411
COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION
-
12,401
11,847
(11,847)
0
N
421
WATER UTILITYFUND 1
10,473,626
883,240
842,680
9,630,946
8
422
STORM UTILITY FUND 1
5,461,148
326,392
352,633
5,108,515
6
M
2
423
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
14,386,296
977,409
1,306,212
13,080,084
9
4.;
C
424
BOND RESERVE FUND
1,995,280
1
1
1,995,279
0
O
E
511
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
1,763,760
146,774
159,716
1,604,044
9
c�
512
TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND
1,101,798
106,347
92,673
1,009,125
8
Q
617
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
72,040
861
928
71,112
1
$ 93,268,003 $ 5,227,006 $ 5,703,497 $ 87,564,506 6'
Differences primarily due to a 9%increase in water, a 10%increase in storm, and a 1.45%decrease in water tax.
2 Differences due to contributed capital billings to WWTP partners in 2019, as well as 9.5%increase in sewer.
1
.Pack__ .,_ 12
rac,ecei Pg. ie4
I 4.4.a I
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Fund
2019 Adopted
1/31/2018
1/31/2019
Amount
No.
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining %Spent
001
GENERAL FUND
$ 44,364,843
$ 4,000,420
$ 4,238,963
$ 40,125,880 100/
009
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
444,270
44,227
37,032
407,238 80/
011
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
-
-
-
- 00/
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND - - - 00/
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,400 5,533 (133) 1020/
018
EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND
-
-
-
00/ G
0.
019
EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND
200,000
-
200,000
00/ 4)
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
45,800
-
-
45,800
01i
111
STREET FUND
2,234,528
265,171
236,493
1,998,035
110/
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE
6,399,379
16,599
385
6,398,994
ev
00/ C
li
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
181,880
3,979
5,668
176,212
3°/
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
100,400
3,111
2,449
97,951
20/
C
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
26,880
-
-
26,880
0°/ 0
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
3,000
75
645
2,355
210i O>
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
32,000
-
-
32,000
00/ N
125
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2
2,853,560
1,603
3,696
2,849,864
00/
126
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND
3,102,850
-
-
3,102,850
00/ _
ca
127
GIFTS CATALOG FUND
77,795
-
-
77,795
00/
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
184,707
11,014
13,549
171,158
70i C
136
PARKS TRUST FUND
5,000
-
-
5,000
00/ d
w
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
10,500
-
-
10,500
00
140
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 3
-
275
5,063
(5,063)
12
00/
211
L.I.D. FUND CONTROL
12,400
-
-
12,400
00/ _
231
2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND
716,410
-
-
716,410
00/ L+
332
PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND
3,763,628
11,634
11,686
3,751,942
0°/ r
C
421
WATER UTILITY FUND
12,229,053
462,081
493,192
11,735,861
40i
0
422
STORM UTILITY FUND
9,690,422
352,154
319,923
9,370,499
30i
423
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
17,259,438
585,982
681,307
16,578,131
40/ N
424
BOND RESERVE FUND
1,991,210
-
-
1,991,210
00i
511
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
2,408,431
73,715
109,570
2,298,861
501
512
TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND
1,048,911
144,135
157,010
891,901
M
1501
617
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
78,627
9,017
8,757
69,870
110i C
$ 109,471,322
$ 5,985,191
$ 6,330,919
$103,140,403
6°/ E
3 Business improvement District is not included in the City Budget; activity is here for reporting purposes only.
2
PacKet Pg. 125
I 4.4.a I
Page 1 of 3
C TTY OF EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2019 Adopted 1/31/2018 1/31/2019 Amount
Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received
TAXES:
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX
EMSPROPERTY TAX
VOTED PROPERTY TAX
LOCAL RETAIL SALESIUSE TAX 4
NATURAL GAS USE TAX
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX
GAS UT ILIT Y T AX
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX
WAT ER UT ILITY TAX
SEWER UTILITY TAX
ST ORMWAT ER UT ILIT Y T AX
T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX
PULLTABSTAX
AMUSEMENT GAMES
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX
LICENSES AND PERMITS:
FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE
POLICE - FINGERPRINTING
AMUSEMENTS
VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST
FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -BLACKROCK
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE
GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE
DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE
NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE
RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE
BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS
ANIMAL LICENSES
STREET AND CURB PERMIT
OTR NON -BUS LIC/PERMIT S
INTERGOVERNMENTAL:
DOI 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST
TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT
HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT
STATE GRANTS- BUDGET ONLY
PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX
MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION
TRIAL COURT IMPROVEMENT
CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS
MARIJUANA EXCISE TAX DISTRIBUTION
DUI - CITIES
LIQUOR EXCISE TAX
LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS
VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS
FIRST RESPONDERS FLEX FUND
$ 10,548,203 $
46,185 $
38,200
$ 10,510,003
0%
4,044,220
17,283
14,543
4,029,677
0%
500
1,290
4
496
1%
7,825,000
585,948
665,493
7,159,507
9%
8,100
-
1,046
7,054
13%
779,500
59,972
65,276
714,224
8%
1,691,300
169,967
171,454
1,519, 846
10%
626,600
97,973
67,644
558,956
11%
350,900
27,939
27,784
323,116
8%
1,211,800
106,433
101,932
1,109,868
8%
840,900
70,703
76,533
764,367
9%
446,300
28,785
31,790
414,510
7%
862,100
72,891
66,756
795,344
8%
967,200
94,392
83,102
884,098
9%
53,500
13,021
17,509
35,991
33%
40
-
-
40
0%
251,900
-
-
251,900
0%
30,508,063
1,392,784
1,429,065
29,078,998
5%
250
60
-
250
0%
450
75
65
385
14%
6,330
-
-
6,330
0%
50,000
416
413
49,587
1%
713,500
177,926
170,196
543,304
24%
41,200
3,465
3,481
37,719
8%
106,900
-
-
106,900
0%
14,000
3,734
14,000
0%
325,100
-
-
325,100
0%
122,200
50,883
44,075
78,125
36%
63,400
6,095
4,375
59,025
7%
75,900
25,300
23,650
52,250
31%
15,000
50,292
13,097
1,903
87%
703,600
72,035
32,789
670,812
5%
27,500
4,107
3,857
23,643
14%
50,000
2,900
1,000
49,000
2%
18,500
1,916
1,508
16,992
8%
2,333,830
399,205
298,507
2,035,323
13%
6,006
-
-
6,006
0%
4,000
-
4,000
0%
7,100
556
7,100
0%
18,000
-
18,000
0%
199,500
-
-
199,500
0%
13,800
2,924
3,050
10,750
22%
16,716
-
-
16,716
0%
45,600
10,592
11,003
34,597
24%
45,000
-
-
45,000
0%
6,000
1,525
1,521
4,479
25%
215,000
48,005
51,700
163,300
24%
342,000
-
-
342,000
0%
-
5,810
-
-
0%
-
-
204
(204)
0%
918,722
69,412
67,479
851,243
7%
4 2019 Local Retail Sa/esiUse Tax revenues are $79,545 higher than 2018 revenues. Please also seepages pages 18 & 19.
3
Packet Pg. 126 1
I 4.4.a I
Page 2 of 3
Title
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMENTS
ATM SURCHARGE FEES
CREDIT CARD FEES
COURT RECORD SERVICES
D/M COURT REC SER
WARRANT PREPARATION FEE
IT TIME PAY FEE
MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN
SALE MAPS & BOOKS
CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKINGPERMITS
BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT
PHOTOCOPIES
POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS
ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES
ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES
SNO-ISLE
PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES
POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS
CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.
WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION
MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES
FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS
LEGAL SERVICES
ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE
BOOKING FEES
FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES
EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES
EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE
FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER
ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE
PLAN CHECKING FEES
FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES
PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE
S.E.P.A. REVIEW
CRITICAL AREA STUDY
DV COORDINATOR SERVICES
GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES
PROGRAM FEES
TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES
WINTER MARKET REGISTRATION FEES
BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES
INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS
CITY OF EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2019 Adopted 1/31/2018 1/31/2019 Amount
Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received
3,000
-
199
2,801
7%
400
-
41
359
10%
10,000
609
1,194
8,806
12%
-
-
34
(34)
0%
300
7
10
290
3%
5,500
344
812
4,688
15%
1,000
95
102
898
10%
100
-
-
100
0%
100
14
-
100
0%
25,100
-
-
25,100
0%
600
-
-
600
0%
1,000
14
49
951
5%
500
-
-
500
0%
200,000
18,060
16,329
183,671
8%
-
1,486
-
-
0%
78,000
600
18,927
59,073
24%
21,000
1,675
2,380
18,620
11%
30,000
-
-
30,000
0%
125,550
-
35,987
89,563
29%
193,067
12,095
67,067
126,000
35%
1,500
-
1
1,499
0%
50,000
-
13,632
36,368
27%
-
53
161
(161)
0%
54,000
3,694
3,343
50,657
6%
400
141
181
219
45%
12,560
1,560
1,310
11,250
10%
3,000
109
310
2,690
10%
852,100
-
-
852,100
0%
2,500
572
413
2,087
17%
50
-
-
50
0%
102,300
9,800
8,240
94,060
8%
350,900
12,747
175,500
175,400
50%
6,500
1,015
260
6,240
4%
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
5,000
2,010
1,340
3,660
27%
14,000
1,050
1,300
12,700
9%
11,460
-
1,177
10,283
10%
13,000
1,678
1,488
11,512
11%
910,740
86,635
63,043
847,697
7%
1,300
141
209
1,092
16%
5,000
-
-
5,000
0%
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
2,624,792
80,580
88,157
2,536,635
3%
5,718,319
236,782
503,194
5,215,125
9%
4
Packet Pg. 127 1
4.4.a
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2019 Adopted 1/31/2018 1/31/2019 Amount
Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received
FINES AND PENALTIES:
PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY
TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES
NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION
CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)
NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES
OTHER INFRACTIONS'04
PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES
PARK/INDDISZONE
DWI PENALTIES
DUI - DP ACCT
CRIM CNV FEE DUI
DUI - DP FEE
OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT
CRIM CONV FEE CT
OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN
OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03
COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN
CRIM CONV FEE CN
PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT
BANK CHARGE FOR CONV. DEFENDANT
COURT COST RECOUPMENT
BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY
MISC FINES AND PENALTIES
MISCELLANEOUS:
INVESTMENT INTEREST
INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES
INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS
PARKING
SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS
BRACKET ROOM RENTAL
LEASES LONGTERM
DONAT ION/CONT RIBUT ION
PARKSDONATIONS
BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS
POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES
SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE
SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY
CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY
OT HER JUDGEMENT /SET T LEMENT
POLICE JUDGMENTSIRESTITUTION
CASHIERS OVERAGES/SHORTAGES
OTHER MISC REVENUES
SMALL OVERPAYMENT
NSF FEES - PARKS & REC
NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT
US BANK REBATE
TRANSFERS -IN:
TRANSFER FROM FUND 127
TO TAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE
7,500
960
389
7,111
5%
290,000
22,502
19,787
270,213
7%
31,000
2,442
1,092
29,908
4%
38,000
2,836
1,451
36,549
4%
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
800
63
122
678
15%
159,000
12,830
16,078
142,922
10%
800
28
107
693
13%
6,000
291
841
5,159
14%
1,000
63
61
939
6%
200
2
4
196
2%
1,500
55
141
1,359
9%
135
21
-
135
0%
30,000
1,284
4,360
25,640
15%
3,600
177
198
3,402
5%
1,000
99
26
974
3%
100
-
-
100
0%
13,000
1,718
4,159
8,841
32%
600
60
19
581
3%
1,600
182
100
1,500
6%
500
48
7
493
1%
18,500
1,370
885
17,615
5%
12,000
959
1,261
10,739
11%
7,000
803
621
6,379
9%
10,000
200
50
9,950
1%
300
-
595
(295)
198%
635,135
48,993
52,352
582,783
8%
248,160
24,620
20,117
228,043
8%
9,210
648
1,442
7,768
16%
3,000
273
575
2,425
19%
1,016
-
-
0%
153,000
3,494
3,324
149,676
2%
5,000
500
340
4,660
7%
185,000
16,066
17,238
167,762
9%
7,000
121
2,758
4,242
39%
4,350
530
100
4,250
2%
1,500
-
-
1,500
0%
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
300
64
75
225
25%
3,000
-
1,079
1,921
36%
2,000
-
-
2,000
0%
2,000
-
-
2,000
0%
200
-
30
170
15%
-
(0)
(150)
150
0%
2,000
495
144
1,856
7%
30
2
10
20
35%
20
-
-
20
0%
300
31
-
300
0%
7,500
-
-
7,500
0%
634,570
47,858
47,082
587,488
7%
26,300 26,300 0%
26,300 - - 26,300 0%
$ 40,774,939 $ 2,195,035 $ 2,397,678 $ 38,377,261 6%
O
Q
d
C
cC
C
LL
21
t
C
O
2
0
T
0
N
O
7
C
to
5
Packet Pg. 128
4.4.a
Page 1 of 6
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2019 Adopted
1/31/2018
1/31/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 16,409,998
$ 1,146,801
$ 1,245,938
$ 15,164,060
8%
OVERTIME
485,080
65,112
56,829
428,251
12%
HOLIDAY BUY BACK
250,491
-
412
250,079
0%
BENEFITS
6,105,521
455,518
511,977
5,593,544
8%
UNIFORMS
90,475
9,534
16,771
73,704
19%
SUPPLIES
376,780
18,271
34,162
342,618
9%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
190,960
2,115
13,903
177,057
7%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
14,540,765
88,260
1,467,848
13,072,917
10%
COMMUNICATIONS
157,435
1,616
2,365
155,070
2%
TRAVEL
66,280
1,888
459
65,821
1%
EXCISE TAXES
6,500
148
146
6,354
2%
RENTAL/LEASE
1,838,704
162,567
151,444
1,687,260
8%
INSURANCE
431,095
437,253
436,448
(5,353)
101%
UTILITIES
460,625
44,617
46,748
413,877
10%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
203,030
69,556
105,802
97,229
52%
MISCELLANEOUS
557,054
66,267
72,712
484,342
13%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
-
1,430,897
-
-
0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS
75,000
-
75,000
-
100%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
1,920,790
-
-
1,920,790
0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL
183,710
-
-
183,710
0%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS
500
-
-
500
0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT
14,050
-
-
14,050
0%
44,364,843
4,000,420
4,238,963
40,125,880
10%
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE(009)
BENEFITS
$
184,000
$ 27,065
$ 21,132
$
162,868
11%
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS
252,990
17,162
15,900
237,090
6%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
7,000
-
-
7,000
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
280
-
-
280
0%
444,270
44,227
37,032
407,238
8%
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014)
SUPPLIES
$
100
$ -
$ -
$
100
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
200
-
-
200
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
5,100
-
5,533
(433)
108%
5,400
-
5,533
(133)
102%
EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSEFUND (019)
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
$
200,000
$ -
$ -
$
200,000
0%
200,000
-
-
200,000
0%
DRUG INFO RCEMENTFUND (104)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$
45,000
$
$ -
$
45,000
0%
REPAIR/MAINT
800
-
800
0%
45,800
45,800
0%
6
Packet Pg. 129
I 4.4.a I
Page 2 of 6
Cil we u 1 u OL IM
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2019 Adopted
1/31/2018
1/31/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
STREET FUND (111)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 795,977
$ 43,504
$ 37,696
$ 758,281
5%
OVERTIME
18,400
2,969
756
17,644
4%
BENEFITS
264,125
22,332
16,491
247,634
6%
UNIFORMS
6,000
-
-
6,000
0%
SUPPLIES
335,000
20,848
-
335,000
0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
20,000
-
14
19,986
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
26,140
1,091
456
25,684
2%
COMMUNICATIONS
4,500
126
145
4,355
3%
TRAVEL
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
268,280
15,468
22,224
246,056
8%
INSURANCE
153,881
156,645
156,514
(2,633)
102%
UTILITIES
276,605
2,149
2,198
274,407
1%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
52,000
-
-
52,000
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
8,000
40
-
8,000
0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL
4,040
-
-
4,040
0%
INTEREST
580
-
-
580
0%
$ 2,234,528
$ 265,171
$ 236,493
$ 1,998,035
11%
COMBINED STREE17CONST/IMPROVE(112)
BENEFITS
$
961
$
-
$
-
$
961
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,602,515
-
-
3,602,515
0%
REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE
1,105,920
-
-
1,105,920
0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
47,710
-
-
47,710
0%
LAND
38,500
-
-
38,500
0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
1,529,223
16,599
385
1,528,838
0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
72,220
-
-
72,220
0%
INTEREST
2,330
-
-
2,330
0%
$
6,399,379
$
16,599
$
385
$
6,398,994
0%
MUNIC IPAL ARTS AC Q UIS. FUND (117)
SUPPLIES
$
4,700
$
-
$
-
$
4,700
0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
1,700
-
-
1,700
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
166,500
3,088
4,793
161,707
3%
TRAVEL
80
-
-
80
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
2,000
-
-
2,000
0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
300
-
-
300
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
6,600
890
875
5,725
13%
$
181,880
$
3,979
$
5,668
$
176,212
3%
HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$
95,400
$
3,111
$
1,866
$
93,534
2%
MISCELLANEOUS
1,000
-
583
417
58%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
4,000
-
-
4,000
0%
$
100,400
$
3,111
$
2,449
S
97,951
2%
EMPLO YEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121)
SUPPLIES
$
1,790
$
-
$
-
$
1,790
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
25,090
-
-
25,090
0%
$
26,880
$
-
$
-
$
26,880
0%
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122)
MISCELLANEOUS
$
3,000
$
75
$
645
$
2,355
21%
$
3,000
$
75
$
645
$
2,355
21%
TO URIS M PRO MO TIO NAL FUND/ARTS (123)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$
28,500
$
$
$
28,500
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
3,500
-
3,500
0%
$
32,000
$
-
$
$
32,000
0%
7
Packet Pg. 130
I 4.4.a I
Page 3 of 6
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2019 Adopted
1/31/2018
1/31/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX (125)
SUPPLIES
$ 21,000
$ -
$ 1,618
$ 19,382
8%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
566,510
469
1,938
564,573
0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
520,000
-
-
520,000
0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
1,746,050
1,134
141
1,745,909
0%
$ 2,853,560
$ 1,603
$ 3,696
$ 2,849,864
0%
REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 1, PARKS AC Q (126)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
INTEREST
GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127)
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
C EVIEIERY MAINTENANC F/IMPRO VEMENT (130)
SALARIES AND WAGES
OVERTIME
BENEFIT S
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
RENT AL/LEASE
UTILITIES
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
PARKS TRUSTFUND (136)
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138)
SUPPLIES
TRAVEL
MISCELLANEOUS
BUSINESS IMPRO VEMENT DISTRICT FUND (140)
SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
MISCELLANEOUS
LID FUND CONTROL (211)
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231)
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
INTEREST
$ 156,784 $
$ 156,784
0%
526,480
526,480
0%
133,030
133,030
0%
2,259,716
2,259,716
0%
23,480
23,480
0%
3,360
3,360
0%
$ 3,102,850 $
$ $ 3,102,850
0%
$ 17,820 $
- $ - $ 17,820
0%
15,325
- - 15,325
0%
6,500
- - 6,500
0%
11,250
- - 11,250
0%
600
- - 600
0%
26,300
- - 26,300
0%
$ 77,795 $
- $ - $ 77,795
0%
$ 93,593 $
6,348 $
6,585 $
87,008
7%
3,500
-
456
3,044
13%
38,909
2,830
3,131
35,778
8%
1,000
-
225
775
23%
7,000
13
-
7,000
0%
20,000
493
916
19,084
5%
-
-
1,246
(1,246)
0%
4,200
-
-
4,200
0%
1,410
139
131
1,279
9%
500
-
-
500
0%
6,260
970
522
5,738
8%
3,835
-
-
3,835
0%
500
-
-
500
0%
4,000
222
338
3,662
8%
$ 184,707 $
11,014 $
13,549 $
171,158
7%
$ 5,000 $ - $ - $ 5,000 0%
$ 5,000 $ - $ - $ 5,000 0%
$ 1,500 $ - $ - $ 1,500 0%
4,500 - - 4,500 0%
4,500 - - 4,500 0%
$ 10,500 $ - $ - $ 10,500 0%
$ - $ - $ 4,187 $ (4,187) 0%
600 (600) 0%
275 276 (276) 0%
275 5,063 S (5,063) 0%
$ 12,400 $ - $ $ 12,400 0%
$ 12,400 $ - $ $ 12,400 0%
$ 609,630 $ - $ $ 609,630 0%
106,780 - 106,780 0%
$ 716,410 $ - $ - $ 716,410 0%
8
Packet Pg. 131
Page 4 of 6
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2019 Adopted
1/31/2018
1/31/2019
Amount
Title Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining %Spent
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (332)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 4,760
$ -
$ -
$ 4,760 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 3,758,868
11,634
11,686
3,747,182 0%
$ 3,763,628
$ 11,634
$ 11,686
$ 3,751,942 0%
WATER FUND (421)
SALARIES AND WAGES
OVERTIME
BENEFIT S
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
EXCISE TAXES
RENT AL/LEASE
INSURANCE
UTILITIES
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
INTERFUND TAXES
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
REVENUE BONDS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
INTEREST
STORM FUND (422)
SALARIES AND WAGES
OVERTIME
BENEFIT S
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
EXCISE TAXES
RENT AL/LEASE
INSURANCE
UTILITES
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
INTERFUND T AXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
REVENUE BONDS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
INTEREST
$ 845,003 $ 59,347 $ 66,194 $ 778,809 8%
24,000
1,962
2,084
21,916
9%
371,025
25,943
36,381
334,644
10%
4,000
-
-
4,000
0%
150,000
2,694
1,828
148,172
1%
t^+
1,950,000
117,749
117,872
1,832,128
6%
O
170,000
5,884
13,278
156,722
8%
y=
11,000
-
14
10,986
0%
785,720
24,469
33,966
751,754
4%
30,000
1,002
966
29,034
3%
.�
200
-
-
200
0%
1,649,700
27,145
130,154
1,519,546
8%
155,532
11,788
12,673
142,859
8%
LL
54,423
56,738
55,096
(673)
101%
35,310
2,313
2,348
32,962
7%
1,603,100
9,580
9,757
1,593,343
1%
p
121,400
5,770
8,683
112,717
7%
2
-
2,192
-
-
0%
0)
-
106,433
-
-
0%
o
646,370
-
-
646,370
0%
04
3,012,400
1,071
1,898
3,010,502
0%
2,710
-
-
2,710
0%
7
355,740
355,740
0%
25,840
25,840
0%
v
225,580
-
-
225,580
0%
$ 12,229,053 $
462,081 $
493,192 $
11,735,861
4%
p
$ 702,584 $
56,050 $
60,000
$ 642,584
9%
6,000
424
2,821
3,179
47%
360,829
27,982
30,116
330,713
8%
6,500
-
-
6,500
0%
46,000
207
-
46,000
0%
4,000
-
14
3,986
0%
1,560,353
17,996
24,243
1,536,110
2%
3,200
43
57
3,143
2%
4,300
-
-
4,300
0%
470,100
3,872
36,084
434,016
8%
246,404
20,419
20,093
226,311
8%
125,390
178,798
127,548
(2,158)
102%
10,710
1,094
1,264
9,446
12%
439,568
9,276
9,605
429,963
2%
113,100
3,485
7,954
105,146
7%
-
3,048
-
-
0%
-
28,785
-
-
0%
297,750
-
-
297,750
0%
4,834,000
673
125
4,833,875
0%
98,900
-
-
98,900
0%
173,940
-
-
173,940
0%
55,639
-
-
55,639
0%
131,155
-
-
131,155
0%
$ 9,690,422 $
352J 54 $
319,923
$ 9,370,499
3%
9
Packet Pg. 132
I 4.4.a I
Page 5 of 6
C ITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDTIURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2019 Adopted
1/31/2018
1/31/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
SEWER FUND (423)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 1,850,763
$ 137,991
$ 173,594
$ 1,677,169
9%
OVERTIME
95,000
9,151
8,818
86,182
9%
BENEFITS
815,177
62,205
67,963
747,214
8%
UNIFORMS
9,500
22
1,787
7,713
19%
SUPPLIES
417,200
15,856
9,482
407,718
2%
FUEL CONSUMED
80,000
1,864
647
79,353
1%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE
4,000
-
-
4,000
0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
50,000
441
14
49,986
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,505,140
42,651
42,862
1,462,278
3%
COMMUNICATIONS
43,000
1,521
1,311
41,689
3%
TRAVEL
5,000
-
-
5,000
0%
EXCISE TAXES
973,000
20,326
92,184
880,816
9%
RENTAL/LEASE
313,469
25,437
30,037
283,432
10%
INSURANCE
184,261
117,717
184,604
(343)
100%
UTILITIES
1,231,310
58,562
30,556
1,200,754
2%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
695,000
13,667
30,230
664,770
4%
MISCELLANEOUS
125,650
5,676
4,018
121,632
3%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
-
2,192
-
-
0%
INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT
-
70,703
-
-
0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
2,420,671
-
-
2,420,671
0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
30,000
-
-
30,000
0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
5,932,877
-
3,200
5,929,677
0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
150,050
-
-
150,050
0%
REVENUE BONDS
80,340
-
-
80,340
0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
172,540
-
-
172,540
0%
INTEREST
75,490
-
-
75,490
0%
$ 17,259,438 $ 585,982 $ 681,307 $ 16,578,131 4%
BOND RESERVEFUND (424)
REVENUE BONDS $ 740,010 $ - $ - $ 740,010 0%
INTEREST 1,251,200 - - 1,251,200 0%
$ 1,991,210 $ - $ - $ 1,991,210 0%
10
Packet Pg. 133
Page 6 of 6
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2019 Adopted
1/31/2018
1/31/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
EQUIPMIlNTRENTAL FUND (511)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 259,309
$ 20,780
$ 22,070
$ 237,239
9%
OVERTIME
2,000
-
-
2,000
0%
BENEFITS
113,207
8,894
9,145
104,062
8%
UNIFORMS
1,000
63
25
975
3%
SUPPLIES
110,000
3,326
3,476
106,524
3%
FUEL CONSUMED
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
273,000
5,711
4,786
268,214
2%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
58,000
-
189
57,812
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
46,580
272
165
46,415
0%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,000
117
126
2,874
4%
TRAVEL
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
14,120
778
1,138
12,982
8%
INSURANCE
32,015
29,464
30,167
1,848
94%
UTILITIES
14,200
1,631
1,641
12,559
12%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
60,000
2,678
1,128
58,872
2%
MISCELLANEOUS
12,000
-
-
12,000
0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
1,408,000
-
35,516
1,372,485
3%
$ 2,408,431
$ 73,715
$ 109,570
$ 2,298,861
5%
TEC HNO LO GY RENTAL FUND (512)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$
292,502
$
23,281
$
23,611
$
268,891
8%
OVERTIME
2,000
-
-
2,000
0%
BENEFITS
97,499
7,735
7,997
89,502
8%
SUPPLIES
5,000
-
56
4,944
1%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
38,000
2,865
6,188
31,813
16%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
186,000
81
-
186,000
0%
COMMUNICATIONS
58,770
2,729
3,607
55,163
6%
TRAVEL
1,500
-
-
1,500
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
7,200
318
669
6,531
9%
REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE
280,690
103,892
114,883
165,807
41%
MISCELLANEOUS
5,000
3,236
-
5,000
0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
74,750
-
-
74,750
0%
$
1,048,911
$
144,135
$
157,010
$
891,901
15%
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617)
BENEFITS
$
23,000
$
4,890
$
4,221
$
18,779
18%
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS
54,427
4,128
4,536
49,891
8%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,200
-
-
1,200
0%
$
78,627
$
9,017
$
8,757
$
69,870
11%
TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS
$
109,471,322
$
5,985,191
$
6,330,919
$ 103,140,403
6%
11
Packet Pg. 134
4.4.a
Page 1 of 1
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
2019 Adopted 1/31/2018 1/31/2019 Amount
Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining
CITY COUNCIL
OFFICE OF MAYOR
HUMAN RESOURCES
MUNICIPAL COURT
CITY CLERK
FINANCE
CITY ATTORNEY
NON -DEPARTMENTAL
POLICE SERVICES
COMMUNITY SERVICESIECONOMIC DEV
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PARKS& RECREATION
PUBLIC WORKS
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
% Spent
$ 602,387 $
20,137 $
22,406 $
579,981
4%
296,155
23,355
24,303
271,852
8%
590,331
36,984
48,901
541,430
8%
1,108,638
80,036
70,858
1,037,780
6%
685,420
61,232
70,355
615,065
10%
0.
1,236,705
125,728
128,270
1,108,435
10%
�
889,560
46,119
47,964
841,596
5%
13,524,661
1,916,589
1,939,971
11,584,690
14%
11,703,250
871,900
927,983
10,775,267
8%
C
LL
618,232
43,517
39,270
578,962
6%
t
3,197,656
175,855
212,448
2,985,208
7%
r�
0)
4,272,509
258,749
280,923
3,991,586
7%
T_
3,288,550
206,969
250,824
3,037,726
8%
T
N
2,350,789
133,250
174,485
2,176,304
7%
cv
$ 44,364,843 $
4,000,420 $
4,238,963 $
40,125,880
10%
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY
Title
2019 Adopted
Budget
1/31/2018
Expenditures
1/31/2019
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining
%Spent
WATER UTILITY FUND $
12,229,053
$ 462,081
$ 493,192
$ 11,735,861
4%
STORM UTILITY FUND
9,690,422
352,154
319,923
9,370,499
3%
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
17,259,438
585,982
681,307
16,578,131
4%
BOND RESERVE FUND
1,991,210
-
-
1,991,210
0%
$
41,170,123
$ 1,400,217
$ 1,494,422
$ 39,675,701
4%
12
Packet Pg. 135
I 4.4.a I
Page 1 of 4
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Title
2019 Adopted
Budget
1/31/2018
Expenditures
1/31/2019
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining
%Spent
C ITY C O UNC IL
SALARIES
$
171,950
$
11,350
$
13,601
$
158,349
8%
OVERTIME
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
BENEFITS
92,751
7,109
7,701
85,050
8%
SUPPLIES
2,000
-
-
2,000
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
194,160
-
194,160
0%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,000
-
-
3,000
0%
TRAVEL
6,700
140
90
6,610
1%
RENTAL/LEASE
11,586
1,338
1,014
10,572
9%
REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE
500
-
-
500
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
118,740
200
118,740
0%
$
602,387
$
20,137
$
22,406
$
579,981
4%
OFFICEOFMAYOR
SALARIES
$
215,076
$
17,361
$
17,912
$
197,164
8%
BENEFITS
53,257
4,156
4,366
48,891
8%
SUPPLIES
1,500
-
-
1,500
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,000
-
3,000
0%
COMMUNICATION
1,400
-
1,400
0%
TRAVEL
3,000
87
-
3,000
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
13,472
1,737
1,026
12,446
8%
MISCELLANEOUS
5,450
13
1,000
4,450
18%
$
296,155
$
23,355
$
24,303
$
271,852
8%
HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES
$
327,939
$
19,307
$
20,780
$
307,159
6%
BENEFITS
118,229
7,305
7,775
110,454
7%
SUPPLIES
12,300
-
141
12,159
1%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
300
-
-
300
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
81,886
710
1,180
80,707
1%
COMMUNICATIONS
700
-
-
700
0%
TRAVEL
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
22,947
2,233
2,120
20,827
9%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
7,850
7,326
7,571
279
96%
MISCELLANEOUS
17,180
104
9,334
7,846
54%
$
590,331
$
36,984
$
48,901
$
541,430
8%
MUNICIPAL C O URT
SALARIES
$
622,711
$
47,160
$
43,948
$
578,763
7%
OVERTIME
800
-
68
732
9%
BENEFITS
243,321
18,925
15,746
227,575
6%
SUPPLIES
10,600
314
-
10,600
0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
124,925
4,672
3,147
121,778
3%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,550
60
67
3,483
2%
TRAVEL
6,500
31
-
6,500
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
65,251
5,908
5,344
59,907
8%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
4,880
-
-
4,880
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
25,100
2,966
2,538
22,562
10%
$
1,108,638
$
80,036
$
70,858
$
1,037,780
6%
13
Packet Pg. 136 1
Page 2 of 4
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Title
2019 Adopted
Budget
1/31/2018
Expenditures
1/31/2019
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining
'Yo Spent
CITY C LERK
SALARIES AND WAGES
$
358,349
$
29,301
$
28,757
$
329,592
8%
BENEFITS
151,468
12,744
13,067
138,401
9%
SUPPLIES
10,240
167
156
10,084
2%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
32,310
906
1,724
30,586
5%
COMMUNICATIONS
40,000
-
-
40,000
0%
TRAVEL
2,000
-
-
2,000
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
50,973
4,363
3,596
47,377
7%
REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE
32,080
13,186
22,260
9,820
69%
MISCELLANEOUS
8,000
566
796
7,204
10%
$
685,420
$
61,232
$
70,355
$
615,065
10%
FINANCE
SALARIES
$
844,384
$
60,113
$
61,354
$
783,030
7%
OVERTIME
4,500
-
-
4,500
0%
BENEFITS
268,345
19,283
20,197
248,148
8%
SUPPLIES
7,350
306
102
7,248
11/0
SMALL EQUIPMENT
2,650
392
-
2,650
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
9,300
-
9,300
0%
COMMUNICATIONS
2,000
-
2,000
0%
TRAVEL
3,100
-
-
3,100
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
48,226
4,043
4,118
44,108
9%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
38,500
41,121
42,499
(3,999)
110%
MISCELLANEOUS
8,350
470
8,350
0%
$
1,236,705
$
125,728
$
128,270
$
1,108,435
10%
CITY ATTO RNEY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$
889,560
$
46,119
$
47,964
$
841,596
5%
$
889,560
$
46,119
$
47,964
$
841,596
5%
NON -DEPARTMENTAL
SALARIES
$
101,750
$
-
$
-
$
101,750
0%
BENEFITS -UNEMPLOYMENT
40,000
-
13,664
26,336
34%
SUPPLIES
5,000
41
34
4,966
1%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10,666,114
7,250
1,373,301
9,292,813
13%
EXCISE TAXES
6,500
148
146
6,354
2%
RENTAL/LEASE
10,538
860
996
9,542
9%
INSURANCE
431,095
437,253
436,448
(5,353)
101%
MISCELLANEOUS
69,614
40,140
40,382
29,232
58%
INTERGOVT SERVICES
-
1,430,897
-
-
0%
ECA LOAN PAYMENT
75,000
-
75,000
-
100%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
1,920,790
-
-
1,920,790
0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
183,710
-
183,710
0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT
14,050
-
14,050
0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES
500
-
-
500
0%
$
13,524,661
$
1,916,589
$
1,939,971
$
11,584,690
14%
14
Packet Pg. 137 1
Page 3 of 4
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
2019 Adopted
1/31/2018
1/31/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
POLICESERVICES
SALARIES
$ 6,916,238
$ 493,829
$ 531,645
$ 6,384,593
8%
OVERTIME
454,780
62,032
51,171
403,609
11%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK
250,491
-
412
250,079
0%
BENEFITS
2,549,180
200,000
215,754
2,333,426
8%
UNIFORMS
80,250
9,192
13,948
66,302
17%
SUPPLIES
86,500
2,382
13,312
73,188
15%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
165,410
474
12,204
153,207
7%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
141,770
10,221
9,752
132,018
7%
COMMUNICATIONS
32,000
253
288
31,712
1%
TRAVEL
29,310
1,250
(11)
29,321
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
920,851
81,777
76,232
844,619
8%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
15,120
970
970
14,150
6%
MISCELLANEOUS
61,350
9,519
2,307
59,043
4%
$ 11,703,250
$ 871,900
$ 927,983
$ 10,775,267
8%
COMMUNITY S ERVIC ES /EC 0 N DEV.
SALARIES
$
245,505
$
19,647
$
20,037
$
225,468
8%
BENEFITS
76,033
6,180
6,414
69,619
8%
SUPPLIES
7,000
5,500
5,500
1,500
79%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
800
-
-
800
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
262,400
10,058
4,750
257,650
2%
COMMUNICATIONS
1,490
17
21
1,469
1%
TRAVEL
2,000
-
-
2,000
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
13,004
1,015
939
12,065
7%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
500
-
-
500
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
9,500
1,100
1,610
7,890
17%
$
618,232
$
43,517
$
39,270
$
578,962
6%
DEVELO PMENT SERVIC ES/PLANNING
SALARIES
$
1,665,849
$
113,129
$
129,582
$
1,536,267
8%
OVERTIME
1,300
2,222
1,556
(256)
120%
BENEFITS
609,831
42,368
51,981
557,850
9%
UNIFORMS
500
-
-
500
0%
SUPPLIES
17,100
377
150
16,950
1%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
6,100
-
-
6,100
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
678,380
3,097
16,398
661,982
2%
COMMUNICATIONS
9,000
-
-
9,000
0%
TRAVEL
5,500
380
-
5,500
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
143,236
12,846
11,822
131,414
8%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
6,800
-
-
6,800
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
54,060
1,436
958
53,102
2%
$
3,197,656
$
175,855
$
212,448
$
2,985,208
7%
ENGINEERING
SALARIES
$
1,720,176
$
107,879
$
137,870
$
1,582,306
8%
OVERTIME
5,000
-
1,397
3,603
28%
BENEFITS
678,356
44,804
56,864
621,492
8%
UNIFORMS
450
-
-
450
0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
2,200
-
-
2,200
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
53,840
500
-
53,840
0%
COMMUNICATIONS
16,625
78
19
16,606
0%
TRAVEL
600
-
380
220
63%
RENTAL/LEASE
123,023
10,023
10,078
112,945
8%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
2,600
-
-
2,600
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
75,200
1,197
4,401
70,799
6%
$
2,678,070
$
164,481
$
211,009
$
2,467,061
8%
15
Packet Pg. 138
Page 4 of 4
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
2019 Adopted
1/31/2018
1/31/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
PARKS & REC REATIO N
SALARIES
$ 2,096,118
$ 146,029
$ 151,994
$ 1,944,124
7%
OVERTIME
10,000
369
213
9,787
2%
BENEFITS
785,394
58,857
59,864
725,530
8%
UNIFORMS
6,275
234
2,702
3,573
43%
SUPPLIES
121,590
4,941
9,195
112,395
8%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
8,500
-
-
8,500
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
644,920
4,720
3,016
641,904
0%
COMMUNICATIONS
30,320
265
257
30,063
1%
TRAVEL
5,070
-
-
5,070
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
264,674
21,051
22,094
242,580
8%
PUBLIC UTILITY
175,338
13,747
16,624
158,714
9%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
29,700
-
7,473
22,227
25%
MISCELLANEOUS
94,610
8,536
7,492
87,118
8%
$ 4,272,509
$ 258,749
$ 280,923
$ 3,991,586
7%
PUBLIC WORKS
SALARIES
$
369,334
$
22,988
$
23,413
$
345,921
6%
OVERTIME
200
-
-
200
0%
BENEFITS
129,196
8,582
8,499
120,697
7%
SUPPLIES
8,600
503
28
8,572
0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
200
8
7
193
4%
COMMUNICATIONS
1,350
23
31
1,319
2%
TRAVEL
500
-
-
500
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
91,193
10,096
7,504
83,689
8%
PUBLIC UTILITY
3,007
288
333
2,674
11%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
4,900
4,900
0%
$
610,480
$
42,488
$
39,815
$
570,665
7%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES
754,619
58,709
65,044
689,575
9%
OVERTIME
7,500
488
2,424
5,076
32%
BENEFITS
310,160
25,204
30,085
280,075
10%
UNIFORMS
3,000
108
120
2,880
4%
SUPPLIES
87,000
3,741
5,544
81,456
6%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
3,000
1,249
1,700
1,300
57%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
758,000
-
6,609
751,391
1%
COMMUNICATIONS
16,000
920
1,682
14,318
11%
TRAVEL
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
59,730
5,276
4,561
55,169
8%
PUBLIC UTILITY
282,280
30,582
29,792
252,488
11%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
63,500
6,953
25,029
38,471
39%
MISCELLANEOUS
5,000
20
1,895
3,105
38%
$
2,350,789
$
133,250
$
174,485
$
2,176,304
7%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
S
44,364,843
$
4,000,420
$
4,238,963
$
40,125,880
10%
16
Packet Pg. 139
I 4.4.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund
2019
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January
$ 2,050,090 $
2,050,090 $ 2,397,678 16.95%
February
4,931,820
2,881,729
March
7,394,846
2,463,026
April
10,795,616
3,400,770
May
18,591,386
7,795,770
June
20,890,089
2,298,703
July
23,020,990
2,130,901
August
25,533,576
2,512,587
September
27,675,385
2,141,808
October
30,536,706
2,861,321
November
38,490,106
7,953,400
December
40,774,939
2,284,833
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax
2019
Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January $
239,174 $
239,174 $ 206,702-13.58%
February
426,584
187,410
March
648,598
222,013
April
866,924
218,326
May
1,118,366
251,442
June
1,392,391
274,025
July
1,790,060
397,669
August
2,111,970
321,910
September
2,410,481
298,511
October
2,651,152
240,672
November
2,897,726
246,573
December
3,080,000
182,274
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
17
Packet Pg. 140
SALES TAX SUMMARY
I 4.4.a I
Sales Tax Analysis By Category
Current Period: January 2019
Year -to -Date
Total $665,493
Automotive Repair,
$14,033
Health & Personal Care, Amusement &
Construction Trade, Recreation, $6,809
$138,074 $22,576
Business Services,
Accommodation, $2,828 $60,264
Clothing and Gasoline, $2,812
Accessories,$26,300 Retail Food Stores,
Communications, ;;�$22,569
$20,045
Wholesale Trade, -
$12,757
Misc Retail, $110,607
Others, $9,532
L Retail Automotive,
$155,779
Manufacturing, $7,520
Eating & Drinking,
$78,503
Annual Sales Tax Revenue
10,000,000- Em
$8,406,296
8,000,000 7 395 114
$6,741,838 $6,905,122
$5,840,764
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000, 000
$665,493
C
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 YTD 2019
18
Packet Pg. 141
I 4.4.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax
2019
Sales and Use Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January
$ 583,740 $
583,740 $ 665,493 14.01%
February
1,326,812
743,072
March
1,890,823
564,012
April
2,418,442
527,618
May
3,087,512
669,070
June
3,695,140
607,628
July
4,344,323
649,183
August
5,056,215
711,892
September
5,734,922
678,707
October
6,438,793
703,871
November
7,175,252
736,459
December
7,825,000
649,748
City of'Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax
2019
Gas Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January
$ 92,468 $
92,468 $ 67,644-26.85%
February
188,382
95,914
March
270,480
82,098
April
338,414
67,935
May
391,853
53,439
June
429,417
37,564
July
458,287
28,870
August
482,130
23,843
September
504,337
22,207
October
530,073
25,736
November
567,790
37,717
December
626,600
58,810
Gas Utility Tax
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Yeaz Budget Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
19
Packet Pg. 142
I 4.4.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax
2019
Telephone Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January
$ 90,093 $
90,093 $ 83,102 -7.76%
February
180,099
90,007
March
261,769
81,670
April
347,309
85,539
May
425,673
78,364
June
504,828
79,155
July
580,361
75,533
August
657,995
77,634
September
738,345
80,350
October
815,639
77,294
November
889,278
73,638
December
967,200
77,922
Electric Utility Tax
Telephone Utility Tax
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Year Budget � Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax
2019
Cumulative
Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January
$ 180,392 $
180,392 $ 171,454 -4.96%
February
374,176
193,784
March
542,795
168,619
April
717,960
175,165
May
863,822
145,862
June
985,603
121,781
July
1,101,208
115,604
August
1,212,283
111,075
September
1,323,362
111,080
October
1,439,932
116,570
November
1,562,550
122,618
December
1,691,300
128,750
Electric Utility Tax
1,800,000
1,600,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
-0- Current Year Budget - Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
20
Packet Pg. 143
■ 4.4.a
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Meter Water Sales
2019
Meter Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
742,059 $
742,059 $ 725,472 -2.24%
February
1,256,325
514,266
March
1,990,166
733,842
April
2,476,952
486,786
May
3,203,262
726,310
June
3,766,233
562,971
July
4,657,894
891,661
August
5,440,698
782,804
September
6,513,015
1,072,317
October
7,251,320
738,305
November
8,101,309
849,989
December
8,624,564
523,255
Storm Water Sales
Meter Water Sales
6,000,000
5,000,000
Oa
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
+Current Year Budget — Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Storm Water Sales
2019
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
322,033 $
322,033 $ 317,727 -4.96%
February
1,017,422
695,389
March
1,338,925
321,503
April
1,623,949
285,024
May
1,945,558
321,609
June
2,231,420
285,862
July
2,553,731
322,311
August
3,249,585
695,854
September
3,570,469
320,884
October
3,855,506
285,037
November
4,177,408
321,902
December
4,462,767
285,359
Storm Water Sales
14,500,000
13,500,000
12,500,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
—*-- Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
ZZ
Packet Pg. 144
I 4.4.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales
2019
Unmeter Sewer Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January
$ 764,057 $
764,057 $ 766,027 0.26%
February
1,382,019
617,962
March
2,141,223
759,204
April
2,762,974
621,752
May
3,530,212
767,237
June
4,158,923
628,711
July
4,943,476
784,553
August
5,570,113
626,637
September
6,371,750
801,637
October
7,005,968
634,218
November
7,783,039
777,071
December
8,408,534
625,495
Unmeter Sewer Sales
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
ir
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
� Current Year Budget Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
22
Packet Pg. 145
I 4.4.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund
2019
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January
$ 5,184,604 $
5,184,604 $ 4,238,963-18.24%
February
7,916,482
2,731,879
March
11,318,740
3,402,258
April
15,533,660
4,214,920
May
18,108,328
2,574,668
June
22,200,516
4,092,188
July
25,664,312
3,463,796
August
29,731,982
4,067,670
September
33,060,098
3,328,116
October
36,139,063
3,078,965
November
40,364,682
4,225,619
December
44,364,843
4,000,161
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental
2019
Non -Departmental
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
2,580,303 $
2,580,303 $ 1,939,971-24.82%
February
3,006,348
426,046
March
4,031,370
1,025,022
April
5,648,231
1,616,861
May
5,922,689
274,458
June
7,511,912
1,589,223
July
8,410,421
898,509
August
9,687,455
1,277,034
September
10,486,228
798,772
October
11,074,545
588,317
November
12,445,935
1,371,391
December
13,524,661
1,078,726
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
23
Packet Pg. 146
I 4.4.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council
2019
City Council
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
39,368 $
39,368 $ 22,406-43.09%
February
80,151
40,783
March
128,249
48,098
April
174,054
45,804
May
228,252
54,198
June
295,688
67,436
July
344,770
49,081
August
407,512
62,743
September
462,156
54,644
October
497,566
35,410
November
550,379
52,813
December
602,387
52,008
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Office of Mayor
2019
Office of Mayor
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
24,108 $
24,108 $ 24,303 0.81%
February
49,562
25,454
March
73,857
24,295
April
98,624
24,767
May
122,830
24,206
June
146,929
24,099
July
171,908
24,979
August
197,139
25,231
September
221,850
24,711
October
246,137
24,287
November
270,260
24,123
December
296,155
25,895
Office of Mayor
300,000.00
250,000.00
200,000.00
150,000.00
100,000.00
50,000.00
0.00
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Year Budget - -PriorYear
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
24
Packet Pg. 147
I 4.4.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources
2019
Human Resources
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January
$ 46,632 $
46,632 $ 48,901 4.87%
February
97,790
51,158
March
148,537
50,747
April
189,740
41,203
May
236,212
46,472
June
282,909
46,697
July
332,296
49,387
August
380,431
48,135
September
426,855
46,424
October
471,872
45,017
November
519,709
47,838
December
590,331
70,622
Municipal Court
Human Resources
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Yeaz Budget Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court
2019
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January
$ 84,932 $
84,932 $ 70,858-16.57%
February
176,843
91,911
March
271,710
94,868
April
359,956
88,245
May
451,581
91,625
June
539,607
88,026
July
628,365
88,758
August
723,569
95,204
September
814,130
90,562
October
911,503
97,372
November
1,003,987
92,484
December
1,108,638
104,651
Municipal Court
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
-0--CurrentYeaz Budget �PriorYear
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
25
Packet Pg. 148
I 4.4.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Community Services/Economic Development
2019
Community Services/Economic Development
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
38,544 $
38,544 $ 39,270 1.88%
February
82,051
43,507
March
130,166
48,114
April
191,996
61,831
May
233,127
41,130
June
277,966
44,839
July
323,762
45,796
August
379,014
55,252
September
428,169
49,155
October
483,157
54,989
November
542,833
59,676
December
618,232
75,399
City Clerk
Community Services/Economic Development
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Year Budget -d-- Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -City Clerk
2019
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January
$ 64,593 $
64,593 $ 70,355 8.92%
February
120,556
55,963
March
176,231
55,674
April
234,202
57,971
May
289,750
55,548
June
341,414
51,664
July
396,840
55,427
August
457,532
60,692
September
509,418
51,886
October
566,970
57,551
November
625,898
58,928
December
685,420
59,522
City Clerk
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Year Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
26
Packet Pg. 149
I 4.4.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Technology Rental Fund
2019
Technology Rental Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January
$ 105,811 $
105,811 $ 157,010 48.39%
February
223,450
117,639
March
288,686
65,236
April
348,497
59,811
May
415,163
66,666
June
484,344
69,181
July
565,500
81,157
August
659,328
93,828
September
750,896
91,567
October
818,398
67,503
November
887,646
69,248
December
1,048,911
161,265
Finance
Technology Rental Fund
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Year Budget � Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Finance
2019
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January
$ 136,163 $
136,163 $ 128,270 -5.80%
February
231,248
95,085
March
327,667
96,419
April
424,772
97,105
May
522,853
98,081
June
618,458
95,605
July
715,576
97,118
August
814,308
98,732
September
925,824
111,516
October
1,033,709
107,886
November
1,133,987
100,278
December
1,236,705
102,718
Finance
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000 -
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
+Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
27
Packet Pg. 150
I 4.4.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney
2019
City Attorney
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January
$ 74,130 $
74,130 $ 47,964-35.30%
February
148,260
74,130
March
222,390
74,130
April
296,520
74,130
May
370,650
74,130
June
444,780
74,130
July
518,910
74,130
August
593,040
74,130
September
667,170
74,130
October
741,300
74,130
November
815,430
74,130
December
889,560
74,130
Police
City Attorney
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
-
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
-"- Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
City of'Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Police
2019
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January
$ 918,263 $
918,263 $ 927,983 1.06%
February
1,856,735
938,473
March
2,781,669
924,934
April
3,716,173
934,504
May
4,648,160
931,987
June
5,608,921
960,761
July
6,545,932
937,010
August
7,473,401
927,470
September
8,414,446
941,045
October
9,459,662
1,045,216
November
10,718,700
1,259,038
December
11,703,250
984,550
Police
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000 /
2,000,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Yeaz Budget Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
Z$
Packet Pg. 151
I 4.4.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services
2019
Development Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
218,088 $
218,088 $ 212,448 -2.59%
February
462,656
244,568
March
713,536
250,880
April
963,575
250,039
May
1,234,900
271,325
June
1,488,390
253,490
July
1,749,974
261,584
August
2,035,538
285,564
September
2,306,175
270,636
October
2,584,386
278,212
November
2,877,648
293,261
December
3,197,656
320,008
Parks & Recreation
Development Services
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
--*-- Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
City of'Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation
2019
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
288,480 $
288,480 $ 280,923 -2.62%
February
585,197
296,717
March
901,581
316,385
April
1,225,767
324,186
May
1,567,765
341,998
June
1,907,233
339,468
July
2,348,284
441,051
August
2,870,896
522,612
September
3,260,988
390,092
October
3,601,521
340,533
November
3,897,643
296,122
December
4,272,509
374,866
Parks & Recreation
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
+Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
29
Packet Pg. 152
I 4.4.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works
2019
Public Works
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January
$ 50,384 $
50,384 $ 39,815-20.98%
February
102,273
S1,889
March
153,446
51,173
April
204,598
51,153
May
255,170
50,572
June
306,227
51,057
July
357,744
51,517
August
407,869
50,125
September
456,744
48,874
October
506,690
49,946
November
556,681
49,991
December
610,480
53,799
Facilities Maintenance
Public Works
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
000,
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
� Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance
2019
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January
$ 184,130 $
184,130 $ 174,485 -5.24%
February
369,117
184,987
March
565,346
196,229
April
751,445
186,099
May
940,324
188,880
June
1,111,607
171,283
July
1,327,774
216,167
August
1,510,526
182,752
September
1,712,947
202,421
October
1,915,450
202,503
November
2,120,220
204,771
December
2,350,789
230,569
Facilities Maintenance
2,400,000
2,100,000
1,800,000
1,500,000
1,200,000
900,000
600,000
300,000
0
11
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
-*-- Current Year Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
30
Packet Pg. 153
I 4.4.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering
2019
Engineering
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January
$ 198,452 $
198,452 $ 211,009 6.33%
February
396,185
197,733
March
611,391
215,206
April
833,040
221,649
May
1,050,545
217,504
June
1,281,202
230,657
July
1,504,043
222,841
August
1,742,412
238,369
September
1,968,767
226,355
October
2,200,555
231,788
November
2,424,722
224,166
December
2,678,070
253,348
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
31
Packet Pg. 154
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
I 4.4.a I
City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Detail
As of January 31, 2019
Years
Agency/ Investment Purchase to Par Market Maturity Coupon
Issuer Type Price Maturity Value Value Date Rate
FICO
SCIP
FNMA
FHLB
FNMA
FHLMC
FNMA
FNMA
FHLB
FNMA
FHLMC
FNMA
FNMA
FHLB
RFCS
FHLB
FNMA
FNMA
FHLMC
FNMA
FM
FHLB
FFCB
FHLMC
FHLMC
FHLMC
First Financial
Bonds
CD
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
CD
TOTAL SECURITIES
Washington State Local Gov't Investment Pool
Snohomish County Local Gov't Investment Pool
TOTAL PORTFOLIO
1,009,725
0.23
1,035,000
1,030,226
2,500,000
0.34
2,500,000
2,500,000
999,750
0.36
1,000,000
996,012
1,000,400
0.38
1,000,000
995,862
988,720
0.65
1,000,000
993,128
995,970
0.67
1,000,000
991,416
1,994,310
0.74
2,000,000
1,982,108
997,300
1.16
1,000,000
986,621
2,003,780
1.16
2,000,000
1,972,980
2,000,000
1.16
2,000,000
1,978,270
2,003,868
1.24
2,000,000
1,968,608
1,000,000
1.41
1,000,000
983,558
1,000,000
1.41
1,000,000
983,558
3,000,000
1.45
3,000,000
2,941,500
1,999,698
1.45
2,120,000
2,040,534
2,000,000
1.50
2,000,000
1,975,396
1,000,000
1.58
1,000,000
980,418
1,000,000
1.58
1,000,000
980,418
999,500
1.92
1,000,000
983,727
2,005,474
1.97
2,000,000
1,959,750
2,000,000
2.17
2,000,000
1,968,736
2,000,000
2.39
2,000,000
1,982,610
968,940
2.62
1,000,000
977,292
2,000,000
2.82
2,000,000
1,972,946
999,400
2.92
1,000,000
980,093
1,000,000
3.07
1,000,000
986,467
2,803,516
4.79
2,803,516
2,803,516
42,270,352
1.6
42,458,516
41,895,750
SCI P - CD,_ Issuer Diversification First
6% Financial -
CD, 7%
RFCS, 5%
FNMA, 31%
FHLMC,
19%
FM, 5%J.
FHLB, 24%
FI CO, 2%
14,180,642 14,180,642
2,495,141 2,495,141
$ 59,134,299 $ 58,571,532
04/25/ 19
06/04/ 19
06/13/ 19
06/20/ 19
09/27/ 19
10/02/ 19
10/28/ 19
03/30/20
03/30/20
03/30/20
04/28/20
06/30/20
06/30/20
07/13/20
07/15/20
07/30/20
08/28/20
08/28/20
12/30/20
01 /19/21
04/01 /21
06/22/21
09/13/21
11 /26/21
12/30/21
02/25/22
11 /15/23
Demand
Demand
1.42%
2.65°%
1.40%
1.40%
1.50%
1.25%
1.35%
1.38%
1.45%
1.65%
1.35%
1.38%
1.38%
1.20%
1.60%
1.75%
1.40%
1.40°%
1.75%
1.50%
1.87%
2.18%
1.73%
2.13%
2.00°%
2.15%
2.10%
2.49%
1.98%
Cash and Investment Balances
(in $Millions) _Checking,
$1.4 , 2%
State LGIP,
$14.2 , 24%
Bonds,
$37.2, 61%
L County LGIP,
$2.5 , 4%
CD's,
$5.3 , 9%
32
Packet Pg. 155
I 4.4.a I
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Annual Interest Income
$1,000,000 917,754
$800,000
$653,690
$600,000
$400,000
S335,926 $423,816
$200,000 163 214 $133,672
016 2017 2018 YTD 2019
Edmonds Rate of Return Compared to Benchmark (Rolling 12 months)
— - - 6 Month Treasury Rate (Benchmark) City Blended Rate
2.8 % —
2.5% ——--
2.3
2.0% -""" ----—-
1.8
1.5
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.0
February April June August October December
$20,000,000
$15, 000,000
$10, 000,000
$ 5,000, 000
Maturity Distribution and Rate of Return
I 1 0 0 �
0-6 Mo 6-12 M o 12-18 M o 18-24 M o 24-30 M o 30-36 M o 36-42 M o 42-48 M o 48-54 M o 54-60 M o
2.50%
2.00%
1.50%
1.00%
0.50%
0.00%
33
Packet Pg. 156
4.4.a
GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW
FUND BALANCES
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
GENERAL FUND
& SUBFUNDS
---- ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2018 1 /31 /2019 2/28/2019
O1
YTD
001-General Fund
$ 8,400,404 $ 6,559,120
$ (1,841,28,
00
009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve
333,447 297,813
(35,63,
011-Risk Management Fund
931,522 935,503
3,98-
012-ContingencyReserve Fund
5,496,597 5,520,089
23,49:
014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund
12,629 7,139
(5,49(
ii
016-Building Maintenance
210,221 210,221
-
017 - Marsh Restoration & Preservation
309,178 310,473
1,29!
o
018 -Edmonds Homelessness Response
225,443 225,443
-
a�
019 - Edmonds Opioid Response
250,000 250,000
-
c
Total General Fund & Subfunds
$ 16,169,441 $ 14,315,801 $ -
Is -
$ (1,853,64(
14
c
R
*$2,000,000 of the General Fund Balance has been assigned by management for the development of Civic Field.
**Balance of Interfund Loans from Fund 012 is $51,710 to Fund 104 and $23,958 to Fund 112.
m
U
c
General Fund & Subfunds
ii
18
2'
t
15
c
0
Z
12
■ General Fund
M
& Subfunds
N
EA
c 9 $14.17 $12 32
■ Civic Field
6
0
ca
3
$2.00 $2.00
c
m
E
-
t
v
Dec 2018 Jan 2019
Q
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2019 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the 2018 Financial Statements.
34
Packet Pg. 557
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW
4.4a
GOVERNMENTAL
FUNDS
General Fund & Subfunds
Special Revenue
Debt Service
Capital Projects
Total Governmental Funds
18
15
12
c
0
9
6
3
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2018 1 /31 /2019 2/28/2019
$ 16,169,442 $ 14,315,801
8,346,660 8,578,075
(1,688) (1,688)
2,204,665 2,202,536
$ 26,719,078 $ 25,094,724 $ - $
Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group
$16.17
4.32 ♦General
Fund &
Subfunds
—0—Special
Revenue
.58
Debt
Service
Capital
Projects
$2'2� $2.20
Dec 2018
Jan 2019
28
24
Qvi
c
0 16
12
8
4
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
ACTUAL
---- ----
Q1 YTD
$ (1,853,64'
231,41 E
-
d
(2,12f
- $ (1,624,35z
c
ii
t
.r
c
0
2
as
0
N
Governmental Fund Balances - �+
Combined
c
cv
526.72
Dec 2018 Jan 2019
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2019 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the 2018 Financial Statements.
35
Packet Pg. 158 1
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW
1 4.4.a I
GOVERNMENTAL
SPECIAL REVENUE
104 - Drug Enforcement Fund
111 - Street Fund
112 - Combined Street Const/Improve
117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
118 - Memorial Street Tree
120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund
122 - Youth Scholarship Fund
123 -Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
125 - Real Estate Tax 2 **
126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1
127 - Gifts Catalog Fund
130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
136 - Parks Trust Fund
137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
138 - Sister City Commission
140 -Business Improvement Disrict
Total Special Revenue
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
$ -
$ 49
1,234,388
1,122,065
-
12,125
571,629
568,980
18,931
19,012
78,220
81,875
77,180
84,985
15,057
14,475
66,738
68,944
2,131,480
2,240,527
2,463,687
2,577,851
295,738
367,449
213,145
209,220
160,885
161,573
987,367
992,557
8,116
8,151
24,099
48,237
$ 8,346,660
$ 8,578,075 $
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE;
ACTUAL
*Balance of Interfund Loans from Fund 012 is $51,710 to Fund 104 and $23,958 to Fund 112
**$200,000 of the fund balance in Fund 125 has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding
15
12
�+ 9
c
0
6
3
$8.35
Dec 2018
Special Revenue Funds
$8.58
Jan 2019
■ Special
Revenue
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2019 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the 2018 Financial Statements.
4!
(112,3Z
12,12!
(2,64!
8' Q.
3,65! W
7,80: E
(58,
2,20E
109,04" u_
114,16,
71,71 ' c
(3,92t
682 0�
5,19( N
3! �+
24,13!
231,41(
36
Packet Pg. 159
ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW
1 4.4.a I
ENTERPRISE
FUNDS
421 -Water Utility Fund
422 - Storm Utility Fund
423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund
424 - Bond Reserve Fund
411 -Combined Utility Operation
Total Enterprise Funds
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
$ 16,436,954
$ 16,786,443
10,218,569
10,251,278
43,368,141
43,993,045
843,976
843,977
148,008
159,855
$ 71,015,647
$ 72,034,598 $
CHANGE IN FUND
---- ACTUAL ----
Q1 YT[
*$250,000 of the Storm Utility Fund Balance has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding
50,000,000
45,000,000
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
Enterprise and Agency Fund Balances as of January 31, 2019
<az QQq nas
Combined Utility Water Storm Sewer/WWFP
349,48!
32,71(
624,90,1
0
a
11,84'
1,018,95- .�
v
c
c
ii
c
0
as
0
N
R
7
C
R
7
$209,869
Bond Reserve Firemen's Pension
Fund
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2019 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the 2018 Financial Statements.
37
Packet Pg. 160
4.4.a
SUMMARY OVERVIEW
FUND BALANCES
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
CITY-WIDE
---- ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2018 1 /31 /2019 2/28/2019
Q1 YTD
Governmental Funds
$ 26,719,078 $ 25,094,724
$ (1,624,35z
Enterprise Funds
71,015,647 72,034,598
1,018,95-
Internal Services Fund
9,962,155 9,947,965
(14,19(
o
Agency Funds
217,698 209,869
(7,82f
w
Total City-wide Total
$107,914,579 $107,287,156 $ -
$ - $ (627,42,
.v
c
c
ii
t
Governmental Fund Balances (Excluding General Fund) as of January 31, 2019
0
as
Drug Enforcement Fund $49
0
Street Fund $1,122,)65
N
Combined Street Const/Improve Fund $12,125
7
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund $568,98
Memorial Street Fund $19,012
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund $81,875
C
CL
Employee Parking Permit Fund $84,985
Youth Scholarship Fund $14,475
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts $68,944
Real Estate Excise Tax 2 $210,527
C
ILL
Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq 0 $2,577, 51
t
Gifts Catalog Fund $ 67,449
0
Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement $209 220
Parks Trust Fund $161, 73
0
Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund $992,557
N
Sister City Commission $8,151
Business Improvement District $48,237
M
L.I.D. Fund Control $ (1,688)
+:
Parks Capital Construction Fund $2,2 2,536
C
E
$- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000
t
.r
Q
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2019 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the 2018 Financial Statements.
38
Packet Pg. 161
4.4.a
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW
FUND BALANCES
CHANGE IN FUND
INTERNAL SERVICE
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
- ACTUAL ----
r
E
FUNDS
o
12/31 /2018 1 /31 /2019 2/28/2019
Q1 YTD
a
aD
W
511 -Equipment Rental Fund
$ 9,622,218 $ 9,672,365
$ 50,141
.2
c
512 -Technology Rental Fund
339,937 275,600
(64,33-
c
Total Internal Service Funds
$ 9,962,155 $ 9,947,965 $ -
$ - $ (14,191
�,
t
w
c
0
o�
0
N
Internal Service Fund Balances
3
c
12,000,000
0
0
Q
$9,622,218 $9,672,365
W
10,000,000
c
8,000,000
c
■ 511- Equipment Rental Fund
u_
,
6,000,000 — ■ 512-Technology Rental Fund
0
4,000,000
0
N
2,000,000
R
$3� $275,600
3
c
R
Dec 2018 Jan 2019
w
d
E
t
v
R
a
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2018 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the 2018 Financial Statements.
39
Packet Pg. 162
4.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/2/2019
Report on Bids for the 238th St. SW Island Improvements & Pedestrian Curb Ramp Barrier Removals
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Rob English
Background/History
On March 12, 2019, staff presented this item to the Parks & Public Works committee prior to the bid
opening.
Staff Recommendation
Reject the construction bid received for the project on March 21, 2019.
Narrative
On March 21, 2019, the City received one construction bid from Apcon Tech, Inc. to build the project.
The contract was advertised with a base bid and an alternate bid schedule that included the
replacement of additional pedestrian curb ramps. The engineer's estimate for the base schedule was
$199,214 and $98,733 for the alternate schedule. The contractor's bid for the base schedule was
$285,171 and the alternate schedule was $129,578. The base bid is 43% over the engineer's estimate
and is not within the available funding for the project. Staff recommends rejecting the construction bid
from Apcon Tech, Inc. due to the high bid amount and shortfall in funding.
Staff will revise the contract documents and advertise the project again for construction bids. The
revised contract will reduce the work in the base schedule to only include the 238th Island at Edmonds
Way. There will be two alternate bid schedules, one for new curb ramps at 7th Ave and Alder St. and the
second for new curb ramps at 7th Ave and Walnut St. and 6th Ave and Walnut St.
Background:
This Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funded project will rehabilitate the traffic
island on the west side of the intersection of 238th St SW and Edmonds Way. Additionally,
several curbs ramps may be installed at the intersections of 71h & Alder, 71h & Walnut, and 61h &
Walnut as funding allows.
The project costs are being funded by CDBG and REET Funds. The 2019 Budget includes
$201,850 in CDBG funds and $50,000 from the REET 125 Fund.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - 238th Island Bid Summary
Exhibit B - 238th Island Project Map
Packet Pg. 163
4.5.a
City of Edmonds
E8DC/1037 - 238th St SW Island Improvements and Pedestrian Curb Ramp Barrier
Removals
Schedule
Engineer Estimate
Apcon Tech
A
$199,214
$285,171
B
$98,733
$129,578
Totals
$297,947
$414,749
Packet Pg. 164
238th St SW Island Improvements & Pedestrian Curb Ramp Barrier Removal 'S.b
Packet Pg. 165
5.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/2/2019
Music4Life Month Proclamation
Staff Lead: Mayor Earling
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
The creative concept for Music4LifeTM was born in the fall of 2007 and is an ongoing program. The goal is
clear: put musical instruments in good playing condition into the hands of children and youth. Procure
the instruction, supplies, and support (like instrument maintenance) to strengthen the elementary
instrumental music program and ensure strong music programs.
Staff Recommendation
Narrative
Musical instruments, supplies, and other resources are acquired from citizens who understand the value
of music in a child's life. Music4Life'"^ works with instrument manufacturers, rental agencies,
wholesalers, retailers, and others around the world who have access to serviceable musical instruments.
Anyone who loves music and believes in music education for all children can join the effort!
Attachments:
Music4Life 2019
Packet Pg. 166
O
1jr101r1UMUfTCH
City of Edmonds 9 Office of the Mayor
May Is Music4Lifelm Month
WHEREAS, the benefits of participation in instrumental music at any age can last a lifetime; and
WHEREAS; research now shows that students who participate in instrumental music programs do better in math,
science, history, literature, international languages, reading and writing, even in computer science and
other academic disciplines; and
WHEREAS; music education is an integral part of a well-rounded education that prepares students for success in life
by teaching teamwork and discipline; and
WHEREAS; the cost of owning or renting an instrument is a barrier preventing students from low income families
from participating in instrumental music; and
WHEREAS; many adults have lovingly -used musical instruments stored in their garages or attics and that they no
longer use; and
WHEREAS, Music4Lifelll (www.Music Life.or ) is a non-profit organization that has been repairing and providing
ready -to -play musical instruments to participating public school districts for use by students in need since
2007; and
WHEREAS; Music4ife guarantees that all instruments will be used exclusively for the benefit of students in the school
district for which they are donated; and
WHEREAS, Music4Life has provided approximately 2,500 musical instruments to children in the greater Seattle area,
including those attending Auburn, Bremerton, Edmonds, Everett, Highline, Kent, Northshore, Seattle and
Shoreline Public Schools, in addition to nearly 9,000 recorders to very young students;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, David O. Earling, Mayor of the City of Edmonds do hereby proclaim May to be
Music4i eTM Month
in Edmonds and encourage all our citizens to donate any lovingly used musical instruments they may have to
www.Music4Life.org and show what financial support they can to this fine home-grown organization.
Musical instrument Donor Forms must accompany the donated instrument and are available for downloading at
www.Music4Lje.or_q.
David 6. Earling, Mayor — April 2, 2019
Packet Pg. 167 1
5.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/2/2019
Snohomish Health District Opioid Report
Staff Lead: City Council
Department: City Council
Preparer: Maureen Judge
Background/History
Dr. Beatty, Health Officer of Snohomish County, embarked on a study of the extent of Snohomish
County opioid use in 2018.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Dr. Beatty, Health Officer of Snohomish County, will present to Council their report released in January
on the opioid crisis. The Snohomish Health District estimates that between 5,000 and 10,000 people in
Snohomish County are suffering from opioid use disorder.
Attachments:
Capture-Recapture_PPT Presentation —Edmonds 040219
Packet Pg. 168
SNOHOMISH
HEALTH DISTRICT
WWW.SNOHD.ORG
5.2.a
a�
x
E
O
Capture Recapture.0,
Mark Beatty, MD, MPH
Health Officer
Snohomish County
a
5.2.a
Definitions:
Substance Use Disorders o
0
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5t"ed. (DSM-5):
e
0
4
The terms "substance abuse/substance 0
dependence" have been abandoned - d
a`
replaced by substance use disorder (SUD) a.
3
• Categorized as mild, moderate, or severe d
• Determined by the number of diagnosticCU
criteria met
a
Packet Pg. 170
Snohomish Health District
5.2.a
Definitions
Opioid Misuse:
Intermittent use of any of the following
and not meeting the dx of OUID
• An illicit opioid
• Someone else's prescription opioid
• One's own prescription opioid other than as
prescribed (e.g., higher dose, for different reason)
E
0
0
C
r
N
O
CD
W
0
a`
a
a
L
CL
L
Q
CU
U
r
c
d
E
t
V
R
a
Packet Pg. 171
Snohomish Health District
Opioid Overdose Deaths, Snohomish 5 ,
Co. 2000-2018 N
E
O
160 Opioid overdose deaths have leveled off
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
O N M LO %O N W OO
O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N
Year
N
O
O
N
C
O
E
W
C
O
N N N N N N N N a
E
a
Source: Medical Examiner data reported to DOH
Snohomish Health District
17 Packet Pg. 172
Opioid-related Overdose Deaths
160
140
10
100
so
60
40
20
0
Opioid-Related Deaths by Type
Snohomish o u rat , O- 01
(* 018 da to is prolimin ary as o f 4119)
145
111
100 103 94 99 46 90 146
79 $2 8 —
117
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
� H eroin ==w Fix 00 oids � Synt h et i c 00 ocds — Al 100olds
E
0
M
0
r-
N
O
0
0
;_
W
0
R
c
as
N
N
L
a
n
a
a
i
CD
L
Q
d
Q
V
a
Snohomish Health District
Packet Pg. 173
5.2.a
Age -Adjusted Opioid-Related Overdose Death Rates
by County, 2012-2016
Rates per
100,000
populatic
a
Open treetMap contributors Source: http://opioid.amfar.org/WA Packet Pg. 174
5.2.a
CDC Model
CDC
published a
diagram of
the
relationship
between
different
opioid crisis
outcomes
ICP114F.-b-CHIPTION
Y -
PAI,.N LLER
o �osE
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention
E
0
0
r-
r
N
O
0
0
W
I
O
(D
a
t—
I
L
CL
L
Q
ra
U
c
d
E
t
V
R
a
Source: CDC. Policy Impact: Prescription Pain Killer Overdoses. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/policvimpact-prescriptionr)ainkillerod-a.pdf
� Packet Pg. 175
Snohomish Health District
■
5.2.a
Known Relation Between Health
Outcomes for Persons who Overdose
1 Death
10 Recovery
Admissions'
32 Emergency Dept.
Visits2
132 Dependent on
Opioids3
. 825 Non -Medical Opioid Misusers3
Source: CDC. Policy Impact: Prescription Pain Killer Overdoses. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/policyimpact-prescription pain killerod-a.pdf
References:
1 Addressing Prescription Drug Abuse in the US, Behavioral Health Coordinating Committee, DHHS. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/hhs prescriptior
drug_abuse_report_09.2013.pdf;
2 Seth P, Rudd RA, Noonan RK, Haegerich TM. Quantifying the Epidemic of Prescription Opioid Overdose Deaths. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(4):500-502.
doi: 10.2105/AJ P H.2017.304265.
3 Research Report Series: Prescription Drug Abuse. National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH. Available at https://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/rxr
N
E
O
t
O
C
N
O
N
Co
IV
O
N
O
E
W
r_
I
0
L
a
a
a
OI
L
y.i
0.
M
U
c
d
E
t
v
Q
Snohomish Health District
Packet Pg. 176
' ■ 5.2.a
CDC -funded OploidmOverdose y
Outreach Program
0
r_
• Began June 2017 at PRMCE
a
o Added Swedish Edmonds and Mill Creel o
4
W
• ED staff nurse contacts patients to discuss
L
o Treatment options a
r
a
o Follow-up
• Follow-up with prescribers whose patients d
overdosed
• Warning system for tainted street drugs Q
Packet Pg. 177
Snohomish Health District
Opioid-Overdose Emergency Visits
PRMCE by Month, 2017-2018 (n=437)
45
40
35
1330
25
020
A� 15
W
10
CL 5
X
J�A
> > P 5
2017
* = 1 Death
oG� A 0 ateep & O aA e �A 4 e,(�
�oo�,p� Pvv 'a> PJ
5
2018
E
0
0
Cn
O
0
C
0
W
0
C
N
N
L
a
n
a
a
i
L
0
0
L
Q
0
E
a
Packet Pg. 178
Snohomish Health District
Oploid-Overdose Records Identified by ,
Text Search, FirstWatch, by Month,
2017-2018 (n=1390) U)
ff -O
160
H
a 140
V 120
100
H
0 80
�- 60
�
0 40
20
A
Nov Dec
2017
Snohomish Health District
N
O
O
C
0
E
W
0
N
L
a
n
a
a
i
L
CU
�s
.W
C
0
E
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July
2018
� Packet Pg. 179
Aug
Sept
a
EMMM5.2.a
Capture - Recapture
Total Population - n First Capture - ni
Where:
n = Size of population
n., = Number tagged
n2 = Number sampled
n3 = Number tagged in the sample
Second Capture - n2
Recapture - n3
E
0
M
O
r-
N
O
O
N
C
O
W
C
I
O
R
C
a�
N
N
L
a
H
d
a.
I
N
7
CU
as
as
L
sa.
U
a�
E
M
a
Snohomish Health District
Packet Pg. o
5.2.a
F irstWatch MD Verified OD Records bl.
Destination Percent, July 2018, n=73
Released to Law Enforcement, 1 %s,
Swedish -Mill Creek, 5%
Swedish -Edmonds, 15%
Dead on Arrival, 4%
Cascade Valley, 8%
Evergreen Monroe, 5%
Declined Transport, i o-ro
Providence Regior
Medical Center,
Everett 46% E
W
a�
L
CL
L
Q
CU
E
a
Snohomish Health District
Packet Pg. 181
� O
Capture -Recapture Results, July
2018 0
• n 1, Number cases in FirstWatch = 73
• n2, Number cases in PRMCE ED = 29
• n3, Number of matches = 18
n I x n2
n3
• N =1 18/month or 1416/year opioid
overdoses requiring medical
intervention
Packet Pg. 182
Snohomish Health District
5.2.a
2016 National Survey on Drug Use
and Health
• 70,000 completed the survey intervie\�
• Ages 12 and above
• Measurement included:
N
0
0
Prescription opioid use
Misuse
Use disorders
.N
0
0
C
r
N
CD
0
E
W
0
L
a
a
a
i
L
Q
:i
Nd
Lf�
w
Cu
U
d
E
V
a
Packet Pg. 183
Snohomish Health District
5.2.a
Snohomish County Burden Using
2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health
"Opioids" include 41 Deaths
only heroin and 400 Recovery
prescription Admission
pain medications
1,300 Emergency
Dept. Visits
5,400 Opioid Use Disorders'
Children under age
12 excluded from
the survey
34,000 Non -Medical Opioid Misusers2
*Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Results from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health:
Detailed Tables. Available at: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTabs-2016/NSDUH-DetTabs-2016.pdf
1 Table 5.213 Substance Use Disorder for Specific Substances in the Past Year among Persons age 12 or Only, by Age Group: Percentage, 2015
and 2016; 2 Table l .6513 Table 1.65E Misuse of Opioids in Past Year among Persons Aged 12 or Older, by Age Group and Demographic
Characteristics: Percentages, 2015 and 2016.
Snohomish County population estimate: 2018 Population of County https://www.ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/population-
demographics/population-estimates/april-l-official-population-estimates
Age structure of County: https://statisticalatlas.com/county/Washington/Snohomish-County/Age-and-Sex
E
0
0
r_
U)
Cn
O
0
U)
0
W
0
N
N
L
a.
n
a.
L
Q
0
L
Q
V
:.o
c
m
E
U
ca
Q
Packet Pg. 184
Snohomish Health District
5.2.a
Comparability of Results
Recovery Emergency
Dataset Deaths Admissions Dept. Visits
Opioid Use
Disorder
Opioid o
Misusers t
Burden of
44
400
11400
57600
r
37,000 Q
Disease with
0
Capture-
E
Recapture
�
Method
2016 National
41
400
1,300
57400
34,000
L
Survey on Drug
a
Use and Health
a
2,300
9,400
L
59,000
2017 Washington
70
700
Syringe Exchange
Health Survey
w
2017 Snohomish
100
1,000
3,000
13,000
CU
83,000
County Opioid-
E
related Death Data
3,000
12,000
a
80,000
2018 Point -in -Time
90
900
Study
I Packet Pg. 185
5.2.a
Summary
• Capture -recapture method estimate
1.,400 ED visits for opioid overdose
• CDC model estimates 5,600 residents
have Opioid Use Disorders
• This model agrees with the NDUH
population -based survey (5,400)
E
O
s_
0
r
N
O
O
N
C
O
E
W
0
L
a
a
a
L
Q
L
Q
CU
U
r
c
d
E
t
R
a
Packet Pg. 186
Snohomish Health District
5.2.a
Summary
• Both methods underestimate deaths;
40-44 expected deaths vs 100 actual
• Range of residents with OUD in Snoh.
Co. is likely between 5,000-10,000
E
0
0
r-
r
N
0
0
W
0
L
a
L
CL
L
Q
CU
U
r
c
d
E
t
V
R
a
Packet Pg. 187
Snohomish Health District
5.2.a
Next Steps
L
S
O
• Assess the landscape of treatment
and support services (housing,
vocational rehab, etc.)
O
W
0
• Determine if a gap exists by
L
a
comparing estimate to availability a,
3
• Work with service providers to d
develop a network so all service are
0
easily accessible
Snohomish Health District
a
Packet Pg. 188
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/2/2019
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Public Hearing
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
Under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must
prepare and adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that is based on state laws and rules but tailored
to the specific geographic, economic and environmental needs of the community. The SMP is essentially
a combined comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system for shoreline
specific uses.
The SMA requires each city and county to review, and if necessary, revise their SMP at least once every
eight years. The legislature set a staggered schedule that alternates with similar reviews under the
Growth Management Act. The City of Edmonds is required to complete its SMP periodic review by June
30, 2019.
The Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution No. 1411 (Exhibit 1) initiating the periodic review and
adopting the Work Program (Exhibit 2) and Public Participation Plan (Exhibit 3) on May 22, 2018.
The Planning Board reviewed the SMP Periodic Review over the course of three meetings including a
December 12, 2018 public hearing and has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to adopt
the proposed code amendments in Exhibit 5 and the Marsh Memorandum in Exhibit 6 as an addendum
to the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (Exhibit 9).
Staff Recommendation
Move the proposed amendments associated with the SMP periodic review to consent agenda for
approval.
Narrative
The periodic review ensures the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules, remains consistent
with other City of Edmonds plans and regulations, and is responsive to changed circumstances, new
information and improved data.
The City of Edmonds just completed a comprehensive update of its SMP in June 2017. This
comprehensive update took many years to complete and some recent amendments to the SMA and
shoreline guidelines did not get incorporated in the City's SMP. Exhibit 4 contains the periodic review
checklist which identifies recent statutory and regulatory amendments that relate to shorelines. Most
of the updates identified in the SMP Periodic Review Checklist are minor in nature and will not
Packet Pg. 189
7.1
substantially modify the SMP adopted in 2017.
Staff added the Other Review Elements section to the end of Ecology's checklist to identify a couple of
other items that may be amended with this periodic update. Updates to the SMP may result from the
site specific study of the Edmonds Marsh being undertaken by the City, such as updating the Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization and potential modifications to the development regulations associated
with the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline jurisdiction. Exhibit 6 is a memorandum from Windward
Environmental LLC which will serve as the addendum to the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
providing more information on the existing conditions of the Edmonds Marsh than currently exists in the
Shoreline Inventory and Characterization.
Additionally, staff identified section ECDC 24.80.100 for process clarifications how a shoreline permit
review moves from a staff decision process (Type II) to a public hearing process (Type III). Revisions to
this section were modeled on a similar process in the City's critical area regulations.
Staff also recommended that the City of Edmonds revise its critical area ordinance (CAO) wetland
regulations for consistency with Department of Ecology's most recent Wetland Guidance for CAO
Updates. The recent CAO update was completed prior to Ecology's issuance of their updated wetland
guidance. This updated guidance was incorporated into the SMP, but the CAO has yet to be revised to
include the most recent guidance on wetlands. As a result, the City currently has two sets of wetland
regulations, one that applies in shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies outside of shoreline
jurisdiction. Updating the CAO and incorporating the CAO by reference will provide consistency for
wetland regulation within the City. The revised wetland regulations were adopted by the City Council on
October 16, 2018 under Ordinance No. 4127.
Exhibit 5 contains the proposed code amendments in Title 24 ECDC for the issues that are noted in the
SMP Periodic Review Checklist. Staff will review these amendments at the City Council meeting.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Resolution No. 1411
Exhibit 2: SMP Periodic Review Work Program
Exhibit 3: Public Participation Plan
Exhibit 4: SMP Periodic Review Checklist
Exhibit 5: Proposed SMP Periodic Review Code Revisions
Exhibit 6: Edmonds Marsh Memorandum
Exhibit 7: June 27, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 8: August 8, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 9: December 12, 2018 Planning Board Minute Excerpt
Exhibit 10: February 12, 2019 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Packet Pg. 190
FIVE 114 *061 gill I MONKS • i t yKelm 1 Immu IN Im ago
PAlkTICPATIOT1 PLATT-MID 'IT0111- A ITI FOR C0111DICT1116TAE
LEGISLATURE'S MANDATED 2019 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
PERIODIC REVIEW UPDATE
WHEREAS, RCW 90.58.080(4) of the State Shoreline Management Act (SMA)
requires that (jurisdiction name) take legislative action to review its Shoreline Master Program
by June 30, 2019, and
WHEREAS, to assist SMA planning jurisdictions the State Department of Ecology,'
which administers the SMA, provides compliance checklists for agencies to review against
their local Shoreline Master Programs, and
WHEREAS, Edmonds' planning staff used the Ecology checklists to review the
Edmonds' SMP for compliance with applicable provisions of the SMA, and
WHEREAS, Edmonds' planning staff have also conducted an initial review of the
SMP for consistency with the current Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations,
and prepared initial considerations of changed circumstances, new information, and improved
data relevant to the Edmonds' SMP, and
WHEREAS, local governments are required to establish a program that identifies
procedures and schedules for the public to participate in the periodic Shoreline Master Program
update process, and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Draft 2019 Shoreline Master Program -
Work Plan, Public Participation Plan, & Tentative Schedule at its work session on May 15
and May 22,2018; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGOTN, HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Sectibri I. Work Plan, Puh1k Participation Plan, & Tentative Schedule Adonflbn. T4,e*
Edmonds City Council hereby adopts the Draft 2019 Shoreline Master Program - Work Plan,
Public Participation Plan, & Tentative Schedule as attached for the 2019 Shoreline Master
Program Periodic review.
RESOLVED THIS 22 ND DAY OF MAY, 2018.
M IVOR, DMIE , 0 . EA N A
WI
Packet Pg. 191
ATTEST:
SCQI:LVASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: May 18, 2018
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: May 22, 2018
• NO. 1411
19
Packet Pg. 192
7.1.b
May 2018
City of Edmonds' SMP Periodic Review Work Program
This work program is a schedule of tasks associated with a review of SMPs under RCW 90.58.080(4). The schedule highlights
options at various steps in the review and amendment process.
Timeline
Tasks
Notes
Initial Staff Review
April - May
Consult with Ecology
Staff has filled out the Ecology checklist of statutory and regulatory
2018
[WAC 173-26-100 or WAC 173-26-104(1) and
amendments; reviewed amendments to the City of Edmonds
WAC 173-26-090]
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations; and prepared an
initial set of topics on proposed updates to the SMP for City Council
Fill out Ecology checklist of statutory and
review.
regulatory amendments; review amendments to
comprehensive plan and development regulations;
Ecology has reviewed the checklist and concurred with the proposed
and prepare initial recommendations on other
scope of the City of Edmonds' SMP periodic update.
changes needed to address changed local
circumstances, new info, or improved data. [WAC
173-26-090(3)(b)]
Get professional help (if needed)
April 2018 -
Hire consultant using local hiring procedures
The City of Edmonds' City Council has secured the services of
November
Windward Environmental LLC to conduct a scientific baseline study of
2018
the Edmonds Marsh. Portions of this study will be used to inform this
SMP periodic update. In particular, the marsh study will be used to
update the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization and evaluate
buffers in the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment.
Public Participation Program
April - May
Develop public participation program
A Public Participation Program has been drafted for City Council review.
2018
[WAC 173-26-090(3)(a)]
City of Edmonds' SMP Periodic Review Work Program
a
Packet Pg. 193
7.1.b
May 2018
Timeline
Tasks
Notes
City Council take action on Participation Plan and Review Work Program
May 8, 2018
Study session on public participation program
Introduce SMP update at City Council Committee.
Review Work Program.
May 22, 2018
Adoption of Work Program by resolution
Full City Council reviews SMP Periodic Update Checklist, Public
Participation Plan and Work Plan. Council adopts resolution for SMP
Periodic Update.
Critical Area Ordinance Wetland Regulations Update
June -August
Revise critical area ordinance wetland
Concurrently with (or slightly ahead) of the SMP periodic update,
2018
regulations for consistency with Department of
amend ECDC 23.50.040 Development Standards - Wetlands to be
Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO
consistent with Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001).
(Publication No. 16-06-001). With this amendment, the SMP and
adopt the City of Edmond CAO by reference and the same wetland
regulations will apply within and outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
Planning Board with conduct public work session, hold a public
hearing, and forward a recommendation to City Council.
City Council hold work session, public hearing and adopt critical area
amendments via an ordinance. SMP will adopt amended CAO by
reference.
Planning Board Review and Hearings on SMP Revisions
June - July
Staff prepares draft revisions for Planning
Following the SMP Periodic Checklist, staff drafts proposed
2018
Board review and discussion. [WAC 173-26-
amendments to the SMP.
090(3)(c)(ii)]
City of Edmonds' SMP Periodic Review Work Program
3
a�
a�
o:
a
.2
a�
a
E
a�
0
L
a
L
m
c
0
a,
0
L
L
0
3
aD
0
a
a
M
Cn
N
r
t
X
W
r
C
d
E
t
v
R
a
Packet Pg. 194
May 2018
Timeline
Tasks
Notes
May 2018
Windward Environmental begins an evaluation of
If completed in time, Windward's evaluation may result in
wetland buffers as described in the Scope of Work
recommendations for buffer's and setbacks within the UMU IV
for the Edmonds Marsh Study.
shoreline environment.
July — Sept
Planning Board reviews draft amendments to the
Planning Board holds work sessions on proposed SMP amendments.
2018
SMP.
Sept 2018
Conduct SEPA review
Some local governments find it useful to start SEPA review at the
[WAC 173-26-100(6) or WAC 173-26-104(2)(a)]
early phases of developing amendments.
For minor amendments, SEPA is exempt under WAC 197-11-800(19)
which covers resolutions or ordinances "relating solely to
governmental procedures, and containing no substantive standards
respecting use or modification of the environment," or "text
amendments resulting in no substantive changes respecting use or
modification of the environment."
Sept 2018
Send draft Planning Board documents to
Ecology recommends sending preliminary draft revisions at least 30
Ecology for informal review before hearings
days prior to your public hearing if possible.
Sept 2018
Submit 60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt
Consider sending draft documents to Commerce early in the review
[WAC 173-26-100(5) or WAC 173-26-104(2)(b)]
process so other state agency comments can be considered by
Planning Commissioners.
Oct - Nov
Windward Environmental LLC provides
Have the updated Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
2018
information for amendments to the Shoreline
available prior to the public hearing before the Planning Board.
Inventory and Characterization with more specific
information on the Edmonds Marsh.
City of Edmonds' SMP Periodic Review Work Program
3
a�
a�
o:
a
0
�L
(c
E
L
0
L
a
L
d
a�
c
L
0
a�
0
a
L
0
3
m
aD
W
a
0
•L
m
a
a
N
r
x
w
r
c
a�
E
R
a
Packet Pg. 195
May 2018
Timeline
Tasks
Notes
Oct — Nov
2018
Conduct 30-day comment period and hearing
Nov 2018
Option: Planning Board discussion of hearing
testimony and possible modifications
If initial hearing reveals extensive comments, extend discussion to
consider response options.
Prepare SMP for final action
Nov — Dec
2018
Prepare final SMP amendments
If the City of Edmonds choses to use the standard adoption process,
Ecology will hold its own comment period.
City of Edmonds' SMP Periodic Review Work Program
3
a�
a�
a
0
�L
(c
E
0
L
a
L
d
C�
G
a�
c
0
E
0
L
0
L
Q_
L
0
3
m
aD
W
.a
0
•L
0
a
a
N
r
t
X
W
r
C
d
E
t
v
R
a
Packet Pg. 196
7.1.b
May 2018
Timeline
Tasks
Notes
Elected officials review and action
Jan - Feb 2019
City Council holds study sessions on draft
amendments developed by Planning Board
March 2019
City Council holds public hearing on draft
amendments.
April 2019
City Council discussion of hearing testimony
and possible modifications
April - May
City Council adoption of draft amendments
City Council adopts resolution or ordinance. Recitals should outline the
2019
[WAC 173-26-090(3)(c)(i)-(iii)]
major steps in the review process and include a definitive statement that
this action concludes the required review.
May - June
Submit SMP to Ecology
Submittals for periodic reviews include a copy of the completed SMP
2019
[WAC 173-26-090(3)(d)(i); WAC 173-26-110(l)-
periodic update checklist.
(8) and (9)(b)]
May - June
State Review
Ecology will hold a state- level comment period.
2019
[WAC 173-26-090(3)(e); WAC 173-26-120]
June 2019
SMP is effective 14-days after approval by Ecology's Director. Ecology's
publication of final adoption triggers 60-day appeal period.
City of Edmonds' SMP Periodic Review Work Program
3
2
o:
a
0
�L
E
L
0
L
L
d
a�
c
L
0
E
0
L
L
0
3
m
.'
m
W
.a
0
•L
m
a
a
N
r
t
X
W
r
C
d
E
t
v
R
a
Packet Pg. 197
7.1.c
City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program:
Periodic Review Public Participation Plan
Introduction
The Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (SMA) was enacted for the purpose of
comprehensively managing and protecting the state's shorelines. The SMA (RCW 90.S8 and WAC 173-
26) emphasizes accommodation of appropriate uses that require a shoreline location, protection of
shoreline environmental resources and protection of the public's right to access and use the shorelines.
Under the SMA, each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must prepare and adopt a Shoreline
Master Program (SMP) that is based on state laws and rules but tailored to the specific geographic,
economic and environmental needs of the community. The SMP is essentially a combined
comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system for shoreline specific uses.
The shoreline areas within the City of Edmonds jurisdiction include Puget Sound, Lake Ballinger, and the
tidally influenced portions of the Edmonds Marsh. Shoreline Jurisdiction also applies to upland areas
within 200 feet of the shoreline edge (ordinary high water mark) and associated wetlands.
The SMA requires each SMP be reviewed and revised, if needed, on an eight -year schedule established
by the Legislature. Ecology is the regulatory body in charge of overseeing the City's SMP update and will
also provide technical support and partial funding to prepare SMP periodic reviews. The City of
Edmonds periodic review is to be completed by June 30, 2019. The review ensures the SMP stays
current with changes in laws and rules, remains consistent with other City of Edmonds plans and
regulations, and is responsive to changed circumstances, new information and improved data.
The City of Edmonds just completed a comprehensive update of its SMP in June 2017. This =
comprehensive update took many years to complete and some recent amendments to the SMA and a
shoreline guidelines did not get incorporated in the City's SMP. Most of the updates identified in the o
SMP Periodic Review Checklist are minor in nature and will not substantially modify the SMP adopted in a
2017. Potentially more substantive updates to the SMP may result from a site specific study of the
r_
Edmonds Marsh which could suggest modifications to the development regulations associated with the f°
IL
Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline jurisdiction. 2
This Public Participation Plan describes the steps that Edmonds will take to provide opportunities for a -
public engagement and public comment, as well as City contact information and web addresses. This
ai
plan is in addition to any other minimum requirements for public participation required by Chapter
20.06 Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). This plan is a working document and will be
w
adjusted as needed to provide for the greatest and broadest public participation.
c
m
Public Participation Goals
The overall goal of the City of Edmonds' Public Participation Plan is to make the planning process Q
accessible, inclusive, and engaging to stakeholders and all members of the public. Specific goals are to:
Page 1 of 4
Packet Pg. 198
7.1.c
• Make reasonable effort to invite, inform, and involve all interested persons, private entities,
tribal nations, and agencies of the federal government having interests and responsibilities
relating to shorelines of the state and Edmonds' SMP.
• Provide interested parties with timely information, an understanding of the process, and
multiple opportunities to review and comment on proposed amendments to the SMP.
• Encourage interested parties to informally review and comment on proposed changes to the
SMP throughout the process and provide those comments to decision makers.
Roles and Responsibilities
The Shoreline Management Act establishes a balance of authority and partnership between local and
state government. While the City of Edmonds is the primary regulator for its shorelines, Washington
State Department of Ecology provides support, technical assistance and conducts final review for
approval and adoption into the state program to meet federal requirements for a Coastal Zone
Management Program. The City of Edmonds is responsible for updating its shoreline master program in
compliance with Washington State rules and guidelines. This responsibility includes inviting public
comment and coordinating with adjacent jurisdictions, affected tribes and state agencies. The primary
contact for the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program periodic update is:
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager
City of Edmonds Planning Division
121— 5ch Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov
425-771-0220
c
The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) is responsible for providing technical assistance to
a
the City and must approve the City's updated Shoreline Master Program. The primary contact person at
DOE for Edmonds' periodic update is:
a
David Pater, Shoreline Planner 2
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
IL
Washington State Department of Ecology 2
913 Squalicum Way Unit 101
Bellingham, WA 98225 a-
david.pater@ecy.wa.gov
360-255-4375
x
w
r
c
List of stakeholders E
Many different users and interest groups have a stake in the City of Edmonds shorelines. The following
are key stakeholders in the City of Edmonds periodic Shoreline Master Program update: Q
Residents and Public
Shoreline Property Owners
Interested Citizens
Page 2 of 4
Packet Pg. 199
7.1.c
Environmental Organizations
Business
Waterfront Business Owners
BNSF Railroad
Master Builders
Local Government
Port of Edmonds
Snohomish County
City of Lynwood
Town of Woodway
City of Edmonds
State
Tribal
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department
Public Works Department
Development Services Department
Department of Ecology
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Puget Sound Partnership
Tulalip Tribes
Public Participation Opportunities
The City of Edmonds is committed to providing multiple opportunities for public participation
throughout the process. The City of Edmonds will use a variety of communication tools to inform the
public and encourage their participation, including the following:
Website
The City of Edmonds website will include a Periodic Review webpage where interested parties can
access status updates, draft documents, and other project information. The webpage will be the
primary repository of all information related to the Periodic Review process. The page will include
who to contact for more information and an email link for questions and comments.
Open House
Given the Edmonds' comprehensive Shoreline Master Program was recently completed in June
2017, no open house is scheduled for this periodic update. However, the City of Edmonds may hold
an open house on findings of the Edmonds Marsh study as it relates to the SMP periodic update as
findings become available.
Page 3 of 4
a
Packet Pg. 200
7.1.c
Notice mailing list
An email list of interested parties will be created and maintained by the City of Edmonds. The list
will be used to notify interested parties regarding Periodic Review progress and participation
opportunities. Interested parties will be added to the list by contacting the Planning Department.
Comment
Interested parties will be encouraged to provide comments to Edmonds by letter, email or at public
meetings and hearings. All comments will be provided to the Planning Board and City Council. The
Periodic Review webpage will be the central repository for information under consideration.
Documents will be available for review at City of Edmonds Planning Division, and copies will be
provided at the established copying cost.
Planning Board Public Work Sessions and Hearings
The Planning Board will conduct public work sessions to gather public comment on the draft
Shoreline Master Program before scheduling a public hearing to develop recommendations that will
be forwarded to the City Council. Notice of the public hearing will be published in the Everett
Herald and on the City's website at least 14 days prior to the hearing. In addition to the required
noticing procedures, notice may also be provided through such means as a press release, posting on
the City's website and email to the interested party list.
City Council Public Work Sessions and Hearings
The City Council will conduct public work sessions that may include input on the draft Shoreline
m
Master Program before scheduling a public hearing. Notice of the public hearing will be published in
the Everett Herald and on the City's website at least 14 days prior to the hearing. In addition to the 0
required noticing procedures, notice may also be provided through such means as a press release, u
posting on the City's website and email to the interested party list.
c
News media
a
The local news media will be kept up-to-date on the Periodic Review process and receive copies of
0
all official notices.
Q"
.2
0
Schedule
IL
The following is a general timeline including anticipated public participation opportunities. The City of
Edmonds will coordinate with the Department of Ecology throughout the process. A detailed timeline
a
will be posted on the Periodic Review webpage.
May 8 &15, 2018 Introduce the Periodic Shoreline Master Program update to the City Council
x
w
July — November 2018 Planning Board holds work sessions and a public hearing
m
January 2018 — June 2019 City Council holds work sessions and a public hearing
0
April —June 2019 Department of Ecology public comment process (if City chooses to not use the
Q
joint review process)
Page 4 of 4
Packet Pg. 201
7.1.d
DEPARTMENT OF
�IIIIECOLOGY
qVIIIIiiiiim State of Washington
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW
Periodic Review Checklist
Introduction
This document is intended for use by counties, cities and towns conducting the "periodic review' of
their Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs). This review is intended to keep SMPs current with
amendments to state laws or rules, changes to local plans and regulations, and changes to address local
circumstances, new information or improved data. The review is required under the Shoreline
Management Act (SMA) at RCW 90.58.080(4). Ecology's rule outlining procedures for conducting these
reviews is at WAC 173-26-090.
This checklist summarizes amendments to state law, rules and applicable updated guidance adopted
between 2007 and 2017 that may trigger the need for local SMP amendments during periodic reviews.
How to use this checklist
See Section 2 of Ecology's Periodic Review Checklist Guidance document for a description of each item,
relevant links, review considerations, and example language.
At the beginning: Use the review column to document review considerations and determine if local
amendments are needed to maintain compliance. See WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(i).
At the end: Use the checklist as a final summary identifying your final action, indicating where the SMP
addresses applicable amended laws, or indicate where no action is needed. See WAC 173-26-
090(3)(d)(ii)(D), and WAC 173-26-110(9)(b).
Local governments should coordinate with their assigned Ecology regional planner for more information
on how to use this checklist and conduct the periodic review.
Row Summary of change
2017
a. OFM adjusted the cost threshold
for substantial development to
$7,047.
b. Ecology amended rules to clarify
that the definition of
"development" does not include
dismantling or removing
structures.
C. Ecology adopted rules that clarify
exceptions to local review under
the SMA.
Review
ECDC 24.80.010.13.1 lists a
threshold value of $5,718.
ECDC 24.90.020.1 does not
include the clarifying sentence
at the end of the definition
noting that "development"
does not include dismantling
or removing structures.
ECDC 24.80 does not include
the clarifications for
exceptions to local review.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
Action
Section should be updated to
reflect the updated dollar
threshold.
Definition of development
should be updated.
Should add new section to
ECDC 24.80 consistent with
WAC 173-27-044 and 173-27-
045.
1
r
a
Packet Pg. 202
Row i Summary of change
d. Ecology amended rules that
clarify permit filing procedures
consistent with a 2011 statute.
e. Ecology amended forestry use
regulations to clarify that forest
practices that only involves
timber cutting are not SMA
"developments" and do not
require SDPs.
f. Ecology clarified the SMA does
not apply to lands under
exclusive federal jurisdiction
g. Ecology clarified "default"
provisions for nonconforming
uses and development.
III
Ecology adopted rule
amendments to clarify the scope
and process for conducting
periodic reviews.
Ecology adopted a new rule
creating an optional SMP
amendment process that allows
for a shared local/state public
comment period.
Submittal to Ecology of proposed
SMP amendments.
Review
Administrative procedures in
24.80 are consistent with the
permit filing procedures
adopted un SSB 5192.
The City of Edmonds' SMP
relies on the Forest Practices
Act (RCW 76.09) for forestry
activities within shoreline
jurisdiction as recommended
by WAC 173-26-241(3)(e).
No shoreline areas within
Edmonds jurisdiction are
under exclusive federal
jurisdiction.
The City of Edmonds' SMP
contains a nonconforming
development chapter
(Chapter 24.70 ECDC).
The only mention of periodic
reviews (updates) in the SMP
is under the Administrative
Authority and Responsibility
section in ECDC 24.80.150.
ECDC 24.80.150.A notes a
cumulative effecters review
every seven years with the
SMP update.
Joint public hearings with
other local, state, regional,
federal or other public agency
allowed by ECDC 20.06.001.
City of Edmonds may consider
the optional SMP amendment
process during the periodic
update.
The City of Edmonds' SMP
does not contain a description
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
7.1.d
DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY
_I�� State of Washington
Action
No amendment necessary.
No amendment necessary
No amendment necessary.
Should considered amending
provision requiring a
nonconforming structure
which is moved any distance
to be brought into full
conformance. Current
language may act a
disincentive to making
something less
nonconforming (e.g. move
further away from shoreline).
Consider adding line regarding
periodic reviews under City
Council's Administrative
Authority and Responsibility
(ECDC 24.80.150.C) and
correct the update frequency
in ECDC 24.80.150.A.
No amendment necessary.
x
w
c
m
E
r
Q
No amendment necessary.
2
Packet Pg. 203
Row
2016
a.
b.
2015
a.
2014
a.
b.
2012
i Summary of change
The Legislature created a new
shoreline permit exemption for
retrofitting existing structures to
comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ecology updated wetlands
critical areas guidance including
implementation guidance for the
2014 wetlands rating system.
The Legislature adopted a 90-day
target for local review of
Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT)
projects.
The Legislature raised the cost
threshold for requiring a
Substantial Development Permit
(SDP) for replacement docks on
lakes and rivers to $20,000 (from
$10,000).
The Legislature created a new
definition and policy for floating
on -water residences legally
established before 7/1/2014.
a. The Legislature amended the
SMA to clarify SMP appeal
procedures.
Review
of the SMP submittal process
for Ecology's review.
The list of exemptions in ECDC
24.80.010.13 does not contain
and exemption regarding ADA
retrofitting.
The City of Edmonds included
the most recent wetland
guidance (June 2016) within
its SMP.
The City of Edmonds SMP
currently does not contain the
special procedure for WSDOT
projects.
ECDC 24.80.010.B.7.b lists a
threshold value of $10,000.
The City of Edmonds does not
have any floating on -water
residences and new on -water
residences are prohibited.
These provisions are not
about appeals of individual
permits. They describe the
appeal pathway after
Ecology's approval of an SMP.
The City of Edmonds SMP
does not describe the appeal
process of an SMP.
2011
a. Ecology adopted a rule requiring ECDC 23.50.010.A (which is
that wetlands be delineated in 1 adopted by the SMP)
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
7.1.d
DEPARTMENT OF
�IIIIECOLOGY
_I� State of Washington
Action
The list of exemptions should
be updated to add the new
exemption for ADA
retrofitting.
The City of Edmonds should
considered updating the CAO
with the June 2016 guidance
prior to updating the SMP so
the same wetland regulations
will apply both within and
outside shoreline iurisdiction.
A new section could be added
to ECDC 24.80 to address the
90-day review target for
WSDOT projects.
Section should be updated to
reflect the updated dollar
threshold. .
No amendment necessary
No amendment necessary.
r
Q
No amendment necessary.
3
Packet Pg. 204
Row i Summary of change
accordance with the approved
federal wetland delineation
manual.
b. Ecology adopted rules for new
commercial geoduck
aquaculture.
c. The Legislature created a new
definition and policy for floating
homes permitted or legally
established prior to January 1,
_2011.
d. The Legislature authorized a new
option to classify existing
structures as conforming.
2010
The Legislature adopted Growth
Management Act — Shoreline
Management Act clarifications.
2009
a. The Legislature created new
"relief" procedures for instances
in which a shoreline restoration
project within a UGA creates a
shift in Ordinary High Water
Mark.
b. Ecology adopted a rule for
certifying wetland mitigation
banks.
Review
references the approved
federal wetland delineation
manual for designating
wetlands.
Geoducks are not specifically
addressed in the aquaculture
section (ECDC 24.60.010);
however, given the urbanized
shoreline, geoduck
aquaculture in Edmonds is
highly unlikely.
No existing floating homes
within Edmonds and new on -
water residences are
prohibited.
Nonconforming structures
addressed in ECDC 24.70.020.
SMP was developed with
GMA/SMA integration taken
under consideration.
This "relief" procedure is not
explicitly referenced in the
SMP; however, the process
may be used even if the
provision is not in the SMP.
Critical area regulations
incorporated in the SMP
authorizes the use of wetland
mitigation banks.
c. The Legislature added moratoria Moratoria not explicitly
authority and procedures to the addressed in the SMP.
SMA.
2007
7.1.d
DEPARTMENT OF
�IIIECOLOGY
MOWS� State of Washington
Action
No amendment necessary
No amendment necessary
No amendment necessary
No amendment necessary.
Consider adopting "relief" rule
by reference, or granting relief
incorporate the rule into the
SMP to make it clear that this
process is available.
No amendment necessary
No amendment necessary
a. The Legislature clarified options Floodway not defined in SMP A definition of floodway
for defining "floodway" as either or CAO. should be added to the CAO
the area that has been noting that floodways are the
established in FEMA maps, or the area established in the FEMA
floodway criteria set in the SMA. I maps.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017 4
r
Q
Packet Pg. 205
Row Summary of change
b. Ecology amended rules to clarify
that comprehensively updated
SMPs shall include a list and map
of streams and lakes that are in
shoreline jurisdiction.
C. Ecology's rule listing statutory
exemptions from the
requirement for an SDP was
amended to include fish habitat
enhancement projects that
conform to the provisions of
RCW 77.55.181.
Other Review Elements
Review
Shoreline jurisdiction in the
City of Edmonds is defined
within the text of the SMP and
on maps.
The City of Edmonds' SMP
provides an exemption for fish
habitat enhancement
projects, but does not contain
all of the language included in
WAC 173-27-040(2)(p).
7.1.d
DEPARTMENT OF
momod ECOLOGY
State of Washington
Action
Review and revise shoreline
jurisdiction as necessary.
Consider amending the
exemption provision to match
WAC 173-27-040(2)(p) or
simplify the language to
reference the exemption.
In addition to ensuring consistency with changes to the state laws and rules identified above,
the City of Edmonds is considering reviewing and modifying (as necessary) the following
elements of the City's Shoreline Master Program.
SMP Section
Edmonds
Marsh, UMU IV
shoreline
designation,
Shoreline
Inventory and
Characterization
24.80.100
Summary
Review
Action
The Edmonds Marsh was
The City of Edmonds has
Results from the
identified as a shoreline of the
contracted with a
Edmonds Marsh study
state relatively late in the
consultant to assess the
will be used to update
previous SMP update and
ecological functions of the
the Shoreline Inventory
appropriate shoreline
marsh and evaluate buffer
and Characterization and
regulations surrounding the
widths that will ensure
could result in
marsh was the subject of
effective site -specific buffer
modifications to UMU IV
significant public comment and
functions.
shoreline regulations.
discussion before the City
Council.
This section identifies when a
Clarification should be
Consider establishing a
public hearing is required for a
added to how a review
process similar to the
shoreline substantial
moves from a staff decision
contingent review
development permit. In some
process (Type II) to a public
process in critical areas
instances, a shoreline permit
hearing process (Type III).
section ECDC 23.40.195.
may begin the process as a
staff decision but require a
public hearing if one or more
interested persons request a
public hearing.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
r
a
5
Packet Pg. 206
7.1.e
Edmonds Page 1115
Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS
24.40.020 Critical areas.
A. Applicability. Critical areas include the following areas and ecosystems: wetlands, areas with a critical
recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded
areas, and geologically hazardous areas.
B. The city of Edmonds critical area ordinance, as codified in Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (dated May 3,
2016, Ord. 4026 and as amended by Ord. 4106 and Ord. 4127), is herein adopted as a part of this program, except
for the specific subsections list below in subsection (C) of this section. All references to the city of Edmonds critical
area ordinance in this program are for this specific version. As a result of this incorporation of the Edmonds critical
area ordinance, the provisions of Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC, less the exceptions listed in subsection (C) of
this section, shall apply to any use, alteration or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline
permit or written statement of exemption is required. In addition to the critical area regulations in Chapters 23.40
through 23.90 ECDC (Appendix B of this master program), the regulations identified in this section also apply to
critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction. Where there are conflicts between the city of Edmonds critical area
ordinance and this shoreline master program, provisions of the shoreline master program shall prevail.
C. Exceptions. The specific provisions of the critical area ordinance listed below shall not apply to development
within shoreline jurisdiction.
1. General Provisions.
a. ECDC 23.40.130(D), Monitoring Program.
b. ECDC 23.40.210, Variances.
2.. ail
a. ECDC z3.50.nt 0(B), Wetland Ratings.
b. ECDC 23.50.040(F)(1),Standard fermis.
e-ECDC�23. 58�F)(2), RequiredMeasures to Minimize impacts -t0Wetlands.
d. ECDC 23.50.040(Kr Small,u•°arolegieally iselated Wetlands.
-32. Geologically Hazardous Areas.
a. ECDC 23.80.040(B)(1) and (2), allowed activities in geologically hazardous areas.
D. Development Limitations.
1. All uses, modifications and activities on sites containing marine shorelines, environmentally sensitive areas
and/or critical areas must comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws pertaining to development in
these areas unless in conflict with the provisions of this master program.
2. The site must be specifically designed so that hazards from or impact on the environmentally sensitive area
and/or critical areas will be mitigated.
3. Mitigation Sequencing. In order to comply with subsection (D)(2) of this section, a shoreline permit
applicant or project proponent shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient 'n
mitigation such that the activity does not have significant adverse impacts. Mitigation shall occur in the
following prioritized order:
w
a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
d
b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using t
appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing to U
avoid or reduce impacts. Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 207
7.1.e
Edmonds
Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS
Page 2/15
c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical
conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project.
d. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations
during the life of the action.
e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments.
4. Monitoring Program. Mitigation plans shall include a program for monitoring construction and for assessing
a completed project. A protocol shall be included outlining the schedule for site monitoring (for example,
monitoring shall occur in years one, two, three, five, seven, and 10 after site construction), and how the
monitoring data will be evaluated to determine if the performance standards are being met. A monitoring report
shall be submitted as needed to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the
compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that
performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than 10 years.
5. Long -Term Protection of Mitigation Sites. The city shall require documentation that a mitigation site has
been permanently preserved from future development or alteration that would be inconsistent with the
functions of the mitigation. The documentation may include, but is not limited to, a conservation easement,
deed restriction or other agreement between the applicant and the owner of a mitigation site. Such
documentation shall be recorded with the Snohomish County auditor.
�s�es!r.�rsciesses!�:rsrr_�e�:�a�sr_tir.�:r_*sr::!�:sr_�:ee!�e�ee!rrarne�.
� "'Messf
look,
VI
119
WWWWrMTHINI
�,.�=• -
�.es�ess,�r- �s:�r�n�e:rs�rsj�sf�se:Ls�rsss. .ers�!�
Is. Category ill. Category ill wetlands are: (i) wetlands with a moderate level of funetions (seoring
between 16 and 19 points); (ii) can often be adequately replaeed with a well planned mitigation proj ;
and (iii) interdunal wetlands between one tenth and one aere. Wetlands seoring between 16 and 19 poi
generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natLffal
resourees in the landseape than Category 11 wetlands.
c
M
O
x
2
a
3
m
0
.2
a
E
L
O
L
a
L
m
M
d
c
L
O
t
co
O
A
N
d
O
U
3
A)
as
•L0
a�
a
a
2
co
m
O
Q.
O
L
IL
x
w
c
a�
E
z
M
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 208
7.1.e
Edmonds
Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS
...
,I_..
Page 3/15
_Owl
u..rr,
r Width
(in Feet)
Based
on u..T.atAt eeter,.
[Weiland Category
9
64 -P
CategoryT
7-5
4AD5
Category T.
T
Begs high 3vil
11 ``,�lY0n
t
22-5
and wetlands of eenset=vatil
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 209
7.1.e
Edmonds
Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS
Page 4/15
c,.ore
Pr Buffer Width /:« Feet) Based on
[R et and Category�..4
}
5
LLu�'.fbitat
OT
cn
22-5
Forested
"5
�_
Esttwine
4-50
/bu ff ..ykdth not based on habitat s Fe\
�22e
7-5
)95
4§55
Category r
T«..,7tmal. etl,.«,1..
te
0
ii5
Category
IT -,.«:«e
4-W
/ 1... FF «.. :.7t1. not 1.....e.7 on l...l.it..t - «e\
on
Category
60
) 95
5
5
Categery A' 1"I
40
t
x
W
d
E
t
M
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 210
7.1.e
Edmonds Page 5115
Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS
Dtist I Use be��ge en4 praefieesto� �l
lost
qW
BUffleF
Width
(in Feet)
Based
on Habitat SC;OF
am7efland Catego
-7
'
EE. Geologically Hazardous Areas. Development in designated geologically hazardous areas shall be regulated in
accordance with the following:
1. New development or the creation of lots should not be allowed that would cause foreseeable risk from
geological conditions to people or improvements during the life of the development.
2. New development should not be allowed that would require structural shoreline stabilization over the 'n
normal, useful life of the development. Exception may be made for instances where stabilization is necessary to
protect allowed uses where no alternative locations are available and no net loss of ecological functions will
x
result. The stabilization measures shall conform to ECDC 24.50.020, Shoreline stabilization. w
.r
c
3. Where no alternatives, including relocation or reconstruction of existing structures, are found to be feasible, d
and less expensive than the proposed stabilization measure, stabilization structures or measures to protect t
existing primary residential structures may be all in conformance with ECDC 24.50.020 requirements and then M
only if no net loss of ecological functions will result. Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 211
Edmonds
Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS
GF. Critical Saltwater Habitats.
Page 6/15
1. Development shall not intrude into or over critical saltwater habitats except when all of the conditions below
are met:
a. The public's need for such an action or structure is clearly demonstrated and the proposal is consistent
with protection of the public trust, as embodied in RCW 90.58.020.
b. Avoidance of impacts to critical saltwater habitats by an alternative alignment or location is not feasible
or would result in unreasonable and disproportionate cost to accomplish the same general purpose.
c. The project, including any required mitigation, will result in no net loss of ecological functions
associated with critical saltwater habitat.
d. The project is consistent with the state's interest in resource protection and species recovery.
2. Private, noncommercial docks for individual residential or community use may be allowed; provided, that:
a. Avoidance of impacts to critical saltwater habitats by an alternative alignment or location is not feasible;
b. The project, including any required mitigation, will result in no net loss of ecological functions
associated with critical saltwater habitat.
3. Where inventory of critical saltwater habitat has not been completed, all overwater and nearshore
developments in marine and estuarine waters shall be required to conduct a habitat assessment of the site and
adjacent beach sections to assess the presence of critical saltwater habitats and functions.
14G. Critical Freshwater Habitats. Existing hydrological connections into and between water bodies, such as streams
and wetlands, shall be maintained. Obstructed channels shall be reestablished as a condition of non -water -dependent
uses, where feasible.
1=H. Additional Authority. In addition to any other authority the city may have, the city is hereby authorized to
condition or deny a proposed use, modification or activity or to require site redesign because of hazards associated
with the use, modification or activity on or near an environmentally sensitive and/or critical area, and/or the effect of
the proposal on the environmentally sensitive area and/or critical area. [Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017].
x
w
c
a�
E
z
M
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 212
7.1.e
Edmonds
Chapter 24.70 NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 24.70
NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT
Sections:
24.70.000
Purpose.
24.70.010
Nonconforming uses.
24.70.020
Nonconforming development, building and/or structure.
24.70.030
Nonconforming lots.
24.70.040
Nonconforming signs.
24.70.050
Nonconforming local public facilities.
Page 7/15
24.70.010 Nonconforming uses.
A. Nonconforming uses are shoreline uses which were lawfully established prior to the effective date of the
Shoreline Management Act or this master program, or amendments thereto, but which do not conform to present
regulations or standards of this master program or policies of the Act.
B. A use which is listed as a conditional use but which existed prior to adoption of this master program or any
relevant amendment and for which a conditional use permit has not been obtained shall be considered a
nonconforming use. A use which is listed as a conditional use but which existed prior to the applicability of this
master program to the site and for which a conditional use permit has not been obtained shall be considered a
nonconforming use.
C. A nonconforming use may continue, unless required to be abated by subsection (D) of this section, but it may not
be expanded in any way, including additional lot areas, floor area, height, number of employees, equipment, or
hours of operation, except as otherwise provided in ECDC 24.70.050.
D. Lapse of Time.
1. If a nonconforming use is discontinued for six consecutive months or for 12 months during any two-year
period, any subsequent use shall be conforming. It shall not be necessary to show that the owner of the property
intends to abandon such nonconforming use in order for the nonconforming rights to expire. Uses such as
agricultural or aquiculture, which vary seasonally, shall be deemed abandoned if the seasonal use is not utilized
during one full season consistent with the traditional use.
2. If a nonconforming use ceases because its building is damaged in excess of 75 percent of its replacement
cost, the use may be reestablished if, but only if, an application for a building permit which vests as provided in
ECDC 19.00.015, et seq., is filed within six -eighteen months of the date such damage occurred. After the
application has been filed, only one 180-day extension may be granted.
3. The right of reestablishment of use described in subsection (D)(2) of this section shall not apply if:
a. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner's
agent; or
b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or
the owner's agent.
c. In the event that subsection (D)(3)(a) or (b) of this section applies, the nonconforming use shall be
abated if damage exceeds 25 percent of replacement cost. "Replacement cost" shall be determined as
proved in ECDC 24.70.020.
E. A nonconforming use shall not be changed to another nonconforming use, regardless of the conforming or
nonconforming status of the building or structure in which it is housed. [Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017].
x
w
c
d
E
z
M
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 213
Edmonds Page 8/15
Chapter 24.70 NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT
24.70.020 Nonconforming development, building and/or structure.
A. Nonconforming development means a shoreline development which was lawfully constructed or established prior
to the effective date of the Shoreline Management Act or this master program, or amendments thereto, but which
does not conform to present regulations or standards of the program.
B. A nonconforming building is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the site development standards
applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to such standards due to the enactment or amendment
of the zoning ordinance of the city of Edmonds or the application of such ordinance in the case of a structure
annexed to the city. Subject to the other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory
dwelling unit shall be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence conclusively
demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the case of a property that was
annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that of the effective date of the annexation of the city of
Edmonds. Such presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence.
C. A structure for which a variance has been issued shall be considered a legal nonconforming structure and the
requirements of this section shall apply as they apply to preexisting nonconformities.
D. A nonconforming development, building and/or structure which is moved any distance must be brought as
closely as practicable into conformance with this master program.
E. Nonconforming development, building and/or structure may be maintained and continued, unless required to be
abated elsewhere in this chapter or section; provided, that it is not enlarged, intensified, increased, or altered in any
way which increases its nonconformity except as expressly provided in subsections (F) though (L) of this section.
F. Historic Buildings and Structures. Nothing in this section shall prevent the full restoration by reconstruction of a
building or structure which is either listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Washington State Register
of Historic Places, the Washington State Cultural Resource Inventory, or the Edmonds register of historic places, or
is listed in a council approved historical survey meeting the standards of the State Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation. "Restoration" means reconstruction of the historic building or structure with as nearly the
same visual design appearance and materials as is consistent with full compliance with the State Building Code and
consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.45 ECDC, Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The reconstruction
of all such historic buildings and structures shall comply with the life safety provisions of the State Building Code.
G. If a nonconforming development, building and/or structure is destroyed or damaged to an extent not exceeding 75
percent replacement cost at the time of destruction, it may be restored to its former size, shape and lot location as
existing immediately prior to the time the structure was damaged, so long as restoration is either:
1. Completed within one year of the date of damage; or
2. Completed within one year of the date of issuance of all required permits, so long as applications for such
permits are vested within si*-eiehteen months of the date of damage and are pursued in a timely manner.
H. Determination of replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be made by the building official and shall
be appealable as Type II staff decision under the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
I. The right of restoration described in subsection (E) of this section shall not apply if:
1. The development, building and/or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner a
or the owner's agent; or 6
2. The development, building and/or structure is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross
negligence of the owner or the owner's agents. x
w
J. Residential Buildings in Commercial Zones. Existing nonconforming buildings in commercial zones in use solely
d
for residential purposes, or structures attendant to such residential use, may be remodeled or reconstructed without E
regard to the limitations of subsections (D), (E) and (G) of this section, if, but only if, the following conditions are
`�°
met:
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 214
7.1.e
Edmonds Page 9/15
Chapter 24.70 NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT
1. The remodel or reconstruction takes place within the footprint of the original building or structure.
"Footprint" shall mean an area equal to the smallest rectangular area in a plane parallel to the ground in which
the existing building could be placed, exclusive of uncovered decks, steps, porches, and similar features; and
provided, that the new footprint of the building or structure shall not be expanded by more than 10 percent and
is found by the city staff to be substantially similar to the original style and construction after complying with
current codes.
2. All provisions of the State Building and Electrical Codes can be complied with entirely on the site. No
nonconforming residential building may be remodeled or reconstructed if, by so doing, the full use under state
law or city ordinance of a conforming neighboring lot or building would be limited by such remodel or
reconstruction.
3. These provisions shall apply only to the primary residential use on site and shall not apply to nonconforming
accessory buildings or structures.
4. A nonconforming residential single-family building may be rebuilt within the defined building envelope if it
is rebuilt with materials and design which are substantially similar to the original style and structure after
complying with current codes. "Substantial compliance" shall be determined by the city as a Type II staff
decision, except that any appeal of the staff decision shall be to the ADB rather than the hearing examiner. The
decision of the ADB shall be final and appealable only as provided in ECDC 20.07.006.
K. Subject to the other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory dwelling unit shall
be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence conclusively demonstrates that the
accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the case of a property that was annexed after January 1,
1981, then the date shall be that of the effective date of the annexation to the city of Edmonds. Such presumption
may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence.
L. B135 Zone. The B135 zone was created in part to encourage the adoption and reuse of existing residential
structures for live/work and commercial use as set forth in ECDC 16.43.030(B)(5). In the BD5 zone, conforming
and nonconforming buildings may be converted to commercial or other uses permitted by ECDC 16.43.020 and this
master program without being required to come into compliance with the ground floor elevation requirements of
ECDC 16.43.030(B). [Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017].
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 215
Edmonds
Chapter 24.100 APPENDICES*
Chapter 24.80
ADMINISTRATION — SHORELINE PERMITS
Page 10115
Sections:
24.80.000 Purpose.
24.80.010 Exemptions from shoreline substantial development permit process.
24.80.020 Letter of exemption.
24.80.025 Developments not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews.
24.80.030 Review criteria for all development.
24.80.040 Substantial development permit criteria.
24.80.050 Conditional use permit criteria.
24.80.060 Variance permit criteria.
24.80.070 Minimum application requirements.
24.80.080 Notice of application.
24.80.090 Special procedures for limited utility extensions and bulkheads.
24.80.095 Shoreline restoration projects — Relief from shoreline master program development standards and use
reeulations
24.80.100 Public hearings.
24.80.105 Special procedures for WSDOT projects.
24.80.110 Notice of decision, reconsideration, and appeals.
24.80.120 Initiation of development.
24.80.130 Revisions.
24.80.140 Time requirements of shoreline permits.
24.80.150 Administrative authority and responsibility.
24.80.160 Compliance.
24.80.170 Enforcement.
24.80.010 Exemptions from shoreline substantial development permit process.
A. Application and Interpretation.
1. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or �j
more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemption from the substantial development permit process. 3
2
2. An exemption from the substantial development permit process is not an exemption from compliance with
the Shoreline Management Act or the city of Edmonds shoreline master program, or from any other regulatory U
requirements. To be authorized, all uses and developments must be consistent with the policies and provisions c
of this master program and the Shoreline Management Act. L
a�
a
3. When a development or use is proposed that does not comply with the bulk, dimensional and performance a
standards of the master program, such development or use can only be authorized by approval of a variance. 2
co
4. A development or use that is listed as a conditional use pursuant to this master program, or is an unlisted use,
must obtain a conditional use permit even though the development or use does not require a substantial G
a
development permit. o
a
5. The burden of proof that a development or use is exempt from the permit process is on the applicant.
6. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, then a substantial development permit is
required for the entire proposed development project. w
7. The city of Edmonds may attach conditions to the approval of exempted developments and/or uses as
necessary to assure consistency of the project with the Shoreline Management Act and this master program. E
z
U
B. Exemptions Listed. The following developments shall not require substantial development permits: M
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 216
7.1.e
Edmonds
Chapter 24.100 APPENDICES*
Page 11115
1. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is higher, does not exceed
$5-,7U7,047, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or
shorelines of the state. The dollar threshold established in this subsection must be adjusted for inflation every
five years consistent with WAC 173-27-040(2)(a). For purposes of determining whether or not a permit is
required, the total cost or fair market value shall be based on the value of development that is occurring on
shorelines of the state as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(c). The total cost or fair market value of the
development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or
materials.
2. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or
elements. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a
lawfully established condition. "Normal repair" means to restore a development to a state comparable to its
original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance,
within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse
effects to shoreline resource or environment. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as
repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the
replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development including but not
limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance and the replacement does not cause
substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment.
3. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-family residences. A "normal protective"
bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the
ordinary high water mark for the sole purpose of protecting an existing single-family residence and appurtenant
structures from loss or damage by erosion. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if constructed for the
purpose of creating dry land. When a vertical or near vertical wall is being constructed or reconstructed, not
more than one cubic yard of fill per one foot of wall may be used as backfill. When an existing bulkhead is
being repaired by construction of a vertical wall fronting the existing wall, it shall be constructed no further
waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings. When a bulkhead has
deteriorated such that an ordinary high water mark has been established by the presence and action of water
landward of the bulkhead then the replacement bulkhead must be located at or near the actual ordinary high
water mark. Beach nourishment and bioengineered erosion control projects may be considered a normal
protective bulkhead when any structural elements are consistent with the above requirements and when the
project has been approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
4. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An "emergency" is an
unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment which requires immediate action
within a time too short to allow full compliance with this chapter. Emergency construction does not include
development of new permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective
structures are deemed by the administrator to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation,
upon abatement of the emergency situation the new structure shall be removed or any permit which would have
been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, these regulations, or the local master
program, obtained. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of Chapter 90.58 RCW and
the local master program. As a general matter, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and
may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency.
5. Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys.
6. Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single-family residence for their
own use or for the use of their family, which residence does not exceed a height of 25 feet above average grade
level and which meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof,
other than requirements imposed pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW. "Single-family residence" means a detached w
dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a L;
contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance as defined in ECDC 24.90.010(F). Construction
authorized under this exemption shall be located landward of the ordinary high water mark. E
z
7. Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private M
noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single-family and multiple -family residences. Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 217
Edmonds
Chapter 24.100 APPENDICES*
Page 12/15
A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage
facilities or other appurtenances. This exception applies if either:
a. In salt waters (Puget Sound), the fair market value of the dock does not exceed $2,500; or
b. In fresh waters (Lake Ballinger) the fair market value of the dock does not exceed: (A) twent.
thousand five hundred dollars for docks that are constructed to replace existing docks, are of equal or
lesser square footage than the existing dock being replaced; or (B) $10,000eleven thousand two hundred
dollars for all other docks constructed in fresh waters., but -However, if subsequent construction
fir .f.., -Lotyalt e exceeding $2 500 occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, and
the combined fair market value of the subsequent and prior construction exceeds the amount specified
above, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development for the purpose of this
chapter.
8. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now
exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making
use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored ground water from the irrigation of lands.
9. The marking of property lines or corners on state-owned lands, when such marking does not significantly
interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water.
10. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other similar drainage or utility
facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed or utilized primarily as a part of an
agricultural drainage or diking system.
11. Any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to Chapter 80.50 RCW.
12. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for
development authorization under this chapter, if.
a. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters;
b. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including but not limited to
fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values;
c. The activity does not involve the installation of any structure, and upon completion of the activity the
vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity;
d. A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first posts a performance bond or
provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the local jurisdiction to ensure that the site is restored
to preexisting conditions; and
e. The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550.
13. The process of removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the
use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final
environmental impact statement published by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Ecology
jointly with other state agencies under Chapter 43.21C RCW.
14. Watershed restoration projects as defined in WAC 173-27-040(2)(o). The administrator shall review the
projects for consistency with the shoreline master program in an expeditious manner and shall issue its decision
along with any conditions within 45 days of receiving all materials necessary to review the request for w
exemption from the applicant. No fee may be charged for accepting and processing requests for exemption for
watershed restoration projects as used in this section.
E
15. Consistent with WAC 173-27-040, a public or private project designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or
fish passage, that conforms to the provisions of RCW 77.55.181. ^ —L E . � to „ eet that is deSi fie *� Mfish of �A41dlife habitat of f4sh passage, when all of the following applyi
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 218
Edmonds Page 13/15
Chapter 24.100 APPENDICES*
a. The project has been approved i ,,.iting by the Department of Fish .,.,..7 Wildlife;
C
'M
Ghapter 77.55 n GIAI; and
4)
2
The has determined that the is the loeal
e. eity project substantially eonsistent with shoreline master program.
2
The determination in timely it by letter to the
eity shall make sueh a manner and provide projeet propon
[Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017].
a
3
16. The external or internal retrofitting of an existing structure with the exclusive purpose of compliance with
m
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.) or to otherwise provide physical access
to the structure by individuals with disabilities.
0
'L
24.80.025 Developments not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews
E
Requirements to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or
other review to implement the Shoreline Management Act do not apply to the following;
c
L
9L
A. Remedial actions. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a remedial action at a facility pursuant
to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to Chapter 70.1051) RCW, or to the Department of
Ecology when it conducts a remedial action under Chapter 70.105D RCW.
d
B. Boatyard improvements to meet NPDES permit requirements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person
installingsite 'te improvements for storm water treatment in an existing boatyard facility to meet requirements of a
i
national pollutant discharge elimination system storm water general permit.
0
C. WSDOT facility maintenance and safety improvements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.356, Washington State
Department of Transportation projects and activities meeting the conditions of RCW 90.58.356 are not required to
0
obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other local review.
A
a�
D. Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement pursuant to RCW 90.58.045.
0
E. Projects authorized through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council process, pursuant to Chapter 80.50
V
RCW.
3:
a�
2
24.80.095 Shoreline restoration projects —Relief from shoreline master program development standards
0
0
and use regulations.
The city may grant relief from shoreline master program development standards and use regulations resulting from
a
shoreline restoration projects within urban growth areas consistent with criteria and procedures in WAC 173-27-215.
co
24.80.100 Public hearings.
A. The administrator shall determine whether an application requires a public hearing pursuant to the criteria below
0
no later than 15 days after the minimum public comment period provided by ECDC 24.80.080(B). An open record
c
public hearing shall be required for all of the following:
a
1. One interested has to the 15 days the final
6
or more per -sons submitted administrator, within of publication
the for hearing together the for the
notice of applioation, a vffitten request sueh a with a statement of reasons
der
x
w
21. The proposal is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and an environmental
impact statement is required in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act; or
E
t
-32. The proposal requires a variance and/or conditional use approval pursuant to this master program; or
M
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 219
Edmonds
Chapter 24.100 APPENDICES*
Page 14/15
34. The use or development requires an open record public hearing for other city of Edmonds approvals or
permits, or . [Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017].
4. The city receives a request from any interested person within 14 days of the date of the notice of application
and the public hearing request is accompanied by a hearing fee, to be paid by the persons requesting the
hearing, in the amount of 50 percent the difference between the Type II and Type III application fee.
B. When a public hearingis s triggered pursuant to subsection A.4 of this section, the project applicant shall pay the
other 50 percent of the difference between the Type II and Type III application fee, on top of the previously paid
Type II application fee. The applicant shall pay this fee within 30 days of notice from the city that the fee is due. If
the applicant fails to pay the additional fee within the required 30-dayperiod, the application for the project shall be
deemed withdrawn. The city shall not schedule the public hearing until the additional fee has been paid. For these
public hearings, the cost of the hearing examiner shall be borne by the city,
24.80.105 Special procedures for WSDOT proiects.
A. Permit review time for projects on a state highway. Pursuant to RCW 47.01.485, the Legislature established a
target of 90 days review time for local governments.
B. Optional process allowing construction to commence twenty-one days after date of filing. Pursuant to RCW
90.58.140, Washington State Department of Transportation projects that address significant public safety risks may
begin twenty-one days after the date of filing if all components of the project will achieve no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions.
24.80.150 Administrative authority and responsibility.
A. Shoreline Administrator. The shoreline administrator shall be the planning manager or his/her designee and is
vested with the following authority and responsibility to:
1. Have overall administrative responsibility for this master program;
2. Determine if a public hearing should be held on a shoreline permit application by the hearing examiner
pursuant to ECDC 24.80.100;
am
3. Grant or deny written permit exemptions from shoreline substantial development permit requirements of this c
master program; V
3
2
4. Authorize, approve or deny shoreline substantial development permits, except for those for which a public >
hearing is required pursuant to ECDC 24.80.100;
5. Make written recommendation to the hearing examiner or city council as appropriate and insofar as possible,
in order to assure that all relevant information, testimony, and questions regarding a specific matter are made
available during their respective reviews of such matter; a
a
6. Review and evaluate the records of project review actions (permits and exemptions) in shoreline areas and
co
report on the cumulative effects of authorized development of shoreline conditions at a minimum every sir
eight years when this master program is updated. The administrator shall coordinate such review with the c
Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other a
interested parties; a
7. Advise interested citizens and project proponents of the goals, policies, regulations and procedures of this
master program; and
8. Make administrative decisions and interpretations of the policies and regulations of this master program and i j
the Shoreline Management Act.
c
d
B. Hearing Examiner. The hearing examiner is vested with the following authority: z
U
1. To grant or deny shoreline substantial development permits requiring public hearings pursuant to ECDC �°
24.80.100; Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 220
7.1.e
Edmonds
Chapter 24.100 APPENDICES*
2. To grant or deny shoreline conditional use permits under this master program;
3. To grant or deny variances from this master program; and
Page 15115
4. To decide on appeals of administrative decisions issued by the administrator of this master program in
accord with procedures set forth in ECDC Title 20.
C. City Council.
1. The Edmonds city council is vested with the authority to approve any revisions or amendments to this master
program in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Shoreline Management Act and the Washington
Administrative Code.
2. To become effective any amendment to this master program must be reviewed and adopted by the
Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.190 and Chapter 173-26 WAC. [Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017]
3. The City Council will conduct the periodic review process consistent with the requirements of RCW
90.58.080 and WAC 173-26-090.
24.90.020 Definitions — C to F.
I. "Development" means a use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling;
dumping; grading; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulk heading; driving of piling; placing of
obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the
surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the act at any stage of water level. "Development" does not include
dismantling or removing structures if there is no other associated development or re -development.
GG. "Floodway" means the area that has been established in effective Federal Emergency Management Agency
flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps. The floodway does not include lands that can reasonably be expected
to be protected from flood waters by flood control devices maintained by or maintained under license from the
federal government, the state, or a political division of the state.
x
w
c
a�
E
z
M
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 221
7.1.f
Tin ward
environmental LLC
200 West Mercer St. • Suite 401 • Seattle, WA 98119
Phone: 206.378.1364 • Fax: 206.973.3048 • www.windwardenv.com
MEMORANDUM
To: Michael Nelson, Diane Buckshnis, Kristiana Johnson, Shane Hope, Kernen
Lien, and Maureen Judge, City of Edmonds
From: Jennifer Love and Ron Gouguet
Subject: Description of Edmonds Marsh for inclusion in the 2019 Shoreline Master
Program periodic review DRAFT
Date: November 2, 2018
INTRODUCTION
The Edmonds Marsh (Marsh) is a tidally influenced' wetland occupying approximately
27 acres in the heart of Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1); it is the remnant of a much
larger estuarine wetland that was once located along the shores of Puget Sound (Sea -
Run Consulting et al. 2007). Historically, the Marsh was a pocket estuary more than
100 acres in size and protected by a barrier sand spit (Shannon & Wilson 2015). It
extended from Point Edmonds (located at the southern end of Marina Beach Park) north
to Brackett's Landing near the Washington State Department of Transportation ferry
terminal.
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide updated information regarding the "'
Marsh, its tributary creeks, and Shellabarger Marsh to be included with the 2019co
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) periodic review. A great deal of data and other
information has been collected regarding the Marsh and its tributary creeks since 2007, w
when the last shoreline inventory and characterization document was published (Sea- a
Run Consulting et al.). E
a
1 The Marsh is tidally influenced when the tide gate downstream of the Marsh is open, typically in the
spring and summer months (April through September) (Sea -Run Consulting et al. 2007).
Packet Pg. 222
7.1.f
Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update
November 2, 2018 DRAFT
Page 2
The western portion of the Marsh contains mudflat habitat and tidal channels and
supports saltmarsh plants (Figure 2). This area is understood to be brackish in the
winter months, when the tide gate downstream of the Marsh typically is closed, and
saline in the spring and summer months, when the tide gate typically is open (Sea -Run
Consulting et al. 2007). The eastern portion of the Marsh is a predominantly freshwater
system fed by two tributary creeks —Willow Creek and Shellabarger Creek (Figure 1).
Shellabarger Marsh is an approximately 5-acre freshwater wetland located on the east
side of State Route (SR)104 (Figure 1). It was once part of the Marsh, but the two areas
were separated when SR 104 was constructed. The two marshes are still hydraulically
connected via a pair of culverts that run under SR-104 (Sea -Run Consulting et al. 2007)
Both marshes provide valuable habitat to birds and other wildlife, in addition to
conveying large quantities of stormwater and surface water.
The Marsh is connected to Puget Sound via Willow Creek, which currently flows out of
the Marsh into an approximately 2,200-ft-long system of ditches, pipes, culverts, and
flood gate infrastructure prior to discharging into Puget Sound via a submerged outfall.
The City of Edmonds (City) plans to daylight (i.e., bring aboveground) Willow Creek, a
project that will improve hydraulic and habitat connectivity between the Marsh and
Puget Sound (Shannon & Wilson 2015). As the Marsh is the only remaining salt marsh
within the nearshore habitat zone of Watershed Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 8
(the Lake Washington/ Cedar/ Sammamish Watershed), daylighting Willow Creek is
ranked as a high priority restoration project (SRFB 2014, 2018).
SITE SETTING AND DRAINAGE BASIN
The Marsh is surrounded by commercial development, as well as transportation rights -
of -way (ROWs) and a former (now vacant) industrial site. The Burlington Northern c
Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad ROW runs northeast to southwest along the western boundary E
of the Marsh, and SR 104 runs north to south along the eastern boundary of the Marsh,
as shown on Figure 1. The Port of Edmonds's Harbor Square property, which contains
buildings, paved areas, and recreational facilities (e.g., tennis courts and a paved trail),
is adjacent the Marsh to the north. Two properties are adjacent to the Marsh to the
south: the Willow Creek Fish Hatchery (Hatchery) property, which is owned by the E
City, and a former bulk fuel terminal known as the Unocal property, which is owned by w
the Chevron Corporation (Chevron). Shellabarger Marsh is surrounded primarily by
residential developments, both single-family homes and apartment and condominium
buildings (Figure 1). x
w
The drainage basin of Willow Creek is approximately 393 acres in size and encompasses
CD
residential land to the south and east of the Marsh (Shannon & Wilson 2015; SAIC and E
Herrera 2013). Willow Creek enters the Marsh as two separate branches, flowing into
the southeastern side of the Marsh via the Hatchery property (Figure 1). The drainage a
basin of Shellabarger Creek is approximately 378 acres in size and encompasses dense
residential developments to the north, east, and south of the Marsh (SAIC and Herrera
2013). Shellabarger Creek flows through Shellabarger Marsh and other privately owned
�� ward
en�iranmenfal i'1C
Packet Pg. 223
7.1.f
Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update
November 2, 2018 DRAFT Page 3
residential properties to the south of Shellabarger Marsh before passing through the
SR 104 culverts into the Marsh. Upon exiting the culverts, Shellabarger Creek flows in
an unconfined path (i.e., it is not contained within a distinct channel) through the dense
Marsh vegetation (predominantly cattails [Typha latifolia]). Including the two creeks and
other areas that discharge surface water to the Marsh, the drainage basin of the Marsh is c
approximately 900 acres in size.
x
Other smaller areas also contribute surface water flows to the Marsh. Stormwater enters 2
the Marsh from the Harbor Square property and Dayton Street via two stormwater
outfalls on the northern edge of the Marsh (Figure 1). After exiting the outfalls, the 3
stormwater flows into patches of cattail and other emergent vegetation at the Marsh
perimeter. Stormwater from a portion of SR 104 also discharges directly to the eastern
portion of the Marsh.13
0
Water flowing out of the Marsh enters the lower, channelized portion of Willow Creek. a
Just downstream of the primary tidal channel of the Marsh, Willow Creek makes a E
sharp turn to the south and runs through a 600-ft-long open ditch parallel to and a
alongside the BNSF railroad tracks (Shannon & Wilson 2015) (Figure 1). The creek then a
flows into double culverts that run underneath the railroad tracks before entering a
1,600-ft-long series of underground pipes and other drainage infrastructure, including a
tide gate (Shannon & Wilson 2015). The tide gate is made of steel and has a top -hinged
flap gate within a large storm drain vault. It is chained open in spring and summer
(from March until October), allowing tidal flow into the Marsh. It is closed in fall and 0
winter (from October until March), although it is not totally watertight when closed. v
After passing through the underground drainage system, Willow Creek discharges to E
the Puget Sound via a submerged outfall located approximately 200 ft offshore from
Marina Beach Park (Shannon & Wilson 2015).
0
The current drainage system through which Willow Creek passes prior to discharging
to the Puget Sound limits both tidal flow and fish passage into and out of the Marsh
and its tributary creeks (Shannon & Wilson 2015). Even with the existing tide gate open,
tidal flow into the portion of Willow Creek adjacent to the Unocal property detention
basin is muted (i.e., reduced) by 1 to 2 ft of elevation owing to the seaward pipes and
other drainage infrastructure that Willow Creek passes through before connecting to E
Puget Sound. w
The City is planning a project to daylight and otherwise restore the portion of Willow
Creek downstream of the Marsh. The project would restore a more natural,
aboveground creek channel in this portion of Willow Creek, removing the creek from w
the subsurface pipes, culverts, and other drainage infrastructure through which it
currently flows. A few alternatives for the creek alignment are being considered, but E
ultimately the creek would flow to the Puget Sound by way of Marina Beach Park
(Shannon & Wilson 2015, 2017). The daylighting project would also include the a
excavation of channels through the Marsh in order to improve the flow of Shellabarger
Creek downstream of the SR 104 culverts and through the eastern portion of the Marsh,
�� ward
en�iranmenfal i'1C
Packet Pg. 224
7.1.f
Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update
November 2, 2018 DRAFT
Page 4
re-establish connections between Willow and Shellabarger Creeks, and increase the
extent of saltwater influence within the Marsh. Extending saltwater influence would
allow native salt marsh vegetation to re -occupy some of the areas that are currently
dominated by cattail, and opening up the creek channels would allow fish to access the
stream habitat (Shannon & Wilson 2015).
MARSH HABITAT AND WILDLIFE
The US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) Internet soil survey lists Mukilteo muck as the dominant soil type within the
Marsh (USDA 2011). Mukilteo muck is typically found in depressions, and its parent
material is herbaceous organic material. It is very poorly drained soil with a moderately
high to high capacity to transmit water. The NRCS rates Mukilteo muck as hydric.
Minor soil types are also present on the margins of the Marsh, including Alderwood-
Everett gravelly sandy loams and Everett very gravelly sandy loam. Urban land,
consisting of level areas where structures and altered soils are present, is also present on
the Marsh's margins. Alderwood-Everett and Everett soil types are found on terraces
and outwash plains formed by glacial outwash. These soil types drain moderately well,
and their surface layer is gravelly sandy loam.
As part of a baseline study being conducted within the Marsh in 2018 and 2019, water
depth and salinity data are being collected from five monitoring stations within the
Marsh using conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD) recorders. An additional CTD
0
recorder is being used in the fenced basin west of the BNSF tracks, which receives
outflow from the Marsh and Willow Creek. CTD data from July 17 through October 11, E
2018, are currently available; the network of CTD recorders will be maintained for a
total of one year as part of the baseline study. To date, salinity within the Marsh has v
ranged from 0 to 25 (+) parts per thousand (ppt).2 Maximum salinityrecorded was 25 E
ppt, but the absolute peak has not been determined due to "high pegging' of the
conductivity sensor; a higher conductivity range was selected on October 22, 2018, in N
L
order to better evaluate the higher salinity range. Absolute tide (referenced to the geoid)
will be calculated after a real-time kinematic (RTK) GPS survey is completed toward the
end of the baseline monitoring period. The earliest CTD records (July and August 2018) o
indicate a constriction in tidal exchange, but records from September and early
October 2018 suggest a reduction in that restriction, as salinity and water depth over the w
sensor values have increased substantially.
x
w
c
m
2 In 1978, the Practical Salinity Scale, which uses a ratio of measured conductivity to the conductivity of a E
standard potassium chlorine solution to determine salinity, was adopted by oceanographers (Thermo
Scientific 2011). This scale is referred to as PSS-78 and has no units, as it measures ratios, but it does Q
report salinity in "practical salinity units' (psu). One psu is virtually equivalent to 1 ppt, and salinity is
often still reported in ppt. The salinity measurements being taken in the Marsh are calculated from
conductivity and temperature in psu, but are reported here as ppt for comparison with regulatory
standards.
�� ward
en�iranmenfal i'1C
Packet Pg. 225
7.1.f
Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update
November 2, 2018 DRAFT Page 5
Vegetation in the eastern portion of the Marsh is dominated by cattail, with some
patches of alder and willow intermixed (Figure 2). The western portion of the Marsh
contains tidal channels, mudflat habitat, and a greater diversity of Marsh plants, several
of which are salt -tolerant, such as pickleweed (Salicornia depressa), saltgrass (Distichlis
spicata), American three -square (Schoenoplectus pungens), and seaside arrowgrass
(Triglochin maritima). Figure 2 shows the existing boundary between the cattail -
dominated eastern portion of the Marsh and the western portion, which is tidally
influenced.
A diverse mix of both native and non-native vegetation is also present within the
Marsh's buffer areas. Native species observed along the northern portion of the Marsh
within the Harbor Square property include Pacific willow (Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra),
Scouler's willow (Salix scouleriana), red alder (Alnus rubra), paper birch (Betula
papyrifera), western red cedar (Thuja plicata) seedlings, common snowberry
(Symphoricarpos albus), red -flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum), and red -osier dogwood
(Cornus sericea), among other species. The diversity of native plants in this area has been
enhanced by recent restoration efforts. Invasive species, including reed canarygrass
(Phalaris arundinacea) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), are also present, as
are ornamental plantings along the northern side of the paved pedestrian path.
The Hatchery property contains relatively high -quality, forested upland and wetland
habitat with a diversity of native species, including red alder, bigleaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga douglasii), western red cedar, and western
0
hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). The understory contains a variety of native shrub and v
ground cover species, including salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), osoberry (Oemleria E
cerasiformis), red -osier dogwood, red -flowering currant, vine maple (Acer circinatum),
western red cedar seedlings and saplings, red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), stink
currant (Ribes bracteosum), lady fern (Athyrium filix femina), fringecup (Tellima E
grandiflora), youth -on -age (Tolmiea menziesii), lily -of -the -valley (Convallaria majalis),
western bleeding heart (Dicentra formosa), and a good number of skunk cabbages N
(Lysichitum americanum) beneath the tree canopy along Willow Creek. Invasive species,
including Himalayan blackberry, English ivy (Hendra helix) and a few scattered
seedlings of English holly (Ilex aquifolium), have also been observed within the Hatchery E
property, but for the most part these exist in sparse and non -dominant patches. A very w
dense patch of bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara) is present near the transition
from the forested wetland habitat of the Hatchery to the emergent area of the Marsh
interior.
x
w
Forest vegetation along the southwestern portion of the Marsh, located on the Unocal
property, appears to be similar to that of the Hatchery property. Vegetation growing E
between SR 104 and the Marsh consists of a narrow but dense strip of red alder,
Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), and Pacific willow. Near the a
location where Shellabarger Creek passes through the double culverts to enter the
Marsh, cattails extend from the Marsh all the way to the sidewalk along the highway.
The invasive species bittersweet nightshade, Himalayan blackberry, and reed
�� ward
en�iranmenfal i'1C
Packet Pg. 226
7.1.f
Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update
November 2, 2018 DRAFT
Page 6
canarygrass are also present in this area. The strip of trees and shrubs between the
highway and the Marsh widens as it extends south from the Shellabarger Creek
culverts. The forest here is a mix of native trees, including red alder, water birch (Betula
occidentalis), Douglas fir, bigleaf maple, and western hemlock.
Edmonds Marsh and its adjacent buffer areas are home to 190 bird species, including
waterfowl, shorebirds, herons, raptors, and passerines (Riddell and Peterson 2016).
Eastern cottontail rabbits, coyotes, and deer are some of the mammal species that have
been observed in the Marsh and its buffer areas.
While fish are not currently known to use the Marsh's tidal channels, coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch), chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), resident and sea -run cutthroat
trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii), sculpins, and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
were observed in Willow Creek historically (Sea -Run Consulting et al. 2007; Shannon &
Wilson 2015).3 Prior to the early 2000s (when the Willow Creek outfall pipe was
lengthened and submerged deeper into the Puget Sound), small numbers of adult coho
salmon were known to return to Willow Creek and migrate into Upper Willow Creek
(Shannon & Wilson 2015). After the early 2000s, very small numbers of adult salmon or
sea -run cutthroat trout were reportedly able to find the submerged pipe and migrate up
into Willow Creek, but none have been observed for the past several years (Shannon &
Wilson 2015). In 2008, more than 5,500 threespine stickleback, a pair of prickly sculpin
(Cottus asper), and a single starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) were captured in the
lower portion of Willow Creek adjacent to the Unocal property and the BNSF railway
line (Arcadis 2010).4 No salmonids were observed in this portion of the creek in 2008.
One of the goals of the Willow Creek daylighting project is to promote the use of the
Marsh and its tributary creeks by juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
Additional data and information regarding the habitat value and other ecological
functions provided by the Marsh and its adjacent buffer areas are being collected as part
of the Edmonds Marsh Baseline Study. This study started in the summer of 2018 and
will continue for one year. Additional information generated by the study will be
available in the future to help inform the SMP periodic review process.
REFERENCES
Arcadis. 2010. Final - Phase II remedial implementation as -built report. Appendix E.
Fish relocation, Willow Creek, former Unocal/ Chevron Edmonds terminal site.
ARCADIS, Seattle, WA.
Riddell C, Peterson T. 2016.190 bird species of Edmonds Marsh. Edmonds, WA.
3 Fish were observed within Willow Creek; it is not clear whether they were also observed in the Marsh's
tidal channels or in Shellabarger Creek.
x
w
c
W
E
Q
4 The fish were captured and removed from this portion of Willow Creek because it was undergoing
remediation by Chevron.
wi ward
en�iranmenfal 11C
Packet Pg. 227
7.1.f
Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update
November 2, 2018 DRAFT
Page 7
SAIC, Herrera. 2013. Dayton Street and SR 104 storm drainage alternatives study, City
of Edmonds. SAIC and Herrera Environmental Consultants.
Sea -Run Consulting, Tetra Tech Inc., Reid Middleton Inc., Pentec. 2007. Shoreline
master program update. Shoreline inventory & characterization. Prepared for
City of Edmonds, Washington.
Shannon & Wilson. 2015. Final feasibility study, Willow Creek daylighting, Edmonds,
Washington. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, WA.
Shannon & Wilson. 2017. Willow Creek daylight project, expanded marsh concept
design and hydraulic modeling report. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, WA.
SRFB. 2014. Lake Washington/ Cedar/ Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) project
subcommittee report. 2014 grant round - salmon recovery funding board (SRFB)
& Puget Sound acquisition and restoration (PSAR). WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery
Council, Salmon Recovery Funding Board.
SRFB. 2018. Approved 2018 WRIA 8 four-year work plan - capital project and program
priorities. Salmon Recovery Funding Board.
Thermo Scientific. 2011. Applications tip of the week. Conductivity and salinity.
Thermo Scientific.
USDA. 2011. Natural Resources Conservation Service soils data interactive map: areas
of interest [online]. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. [Cited
4/8/11.] Available from:
http: / /websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
x
w
c
m
E
a
Win)environmentalward
LLC
Packet Pg. 228
7.1.f
N n wardenvironmental LLB
0 0.1 0.2
Miles
500 1,000
Feet
o Major vegetation transition line �_ Parcel
• Storm culvert _� City of Edmonds boundary
Storm line
Storm ditch/creek
Note: Shellabarger and Willow Creeks no longer flow through defined channels in the eastern
portion of the marsh; however, their previous flow paths are shown.
Figure 1. Site setting and stormwater
structures
DRAFT
io
s
x
w
m
E
t
a
Packet Pg. 229
7.1.f
Patch ID No. Species Present Within Patch �`''j
1 seaside arrowgrass and American three-s uare
x
} ! i } #
. �. s_ n
{'.
Yam*'
' f "
}
2 brass buttons rowinIF
along mudflat perimeter
3 L n b e'ssed a
cattail and hardstem bulrush; American three -square
u_ r, •{
T f `
M
•'
4 growing along mudflat perimeter
5 hardstem bulrush
��
_r
11J
#
6 hardstem bulrush
7 common reed
8 salt rass, tentilla
r
9 salt rass
_ N +
10 American threes uare
11 American threes uare, seaside arrowgrass
12 baltic rush, salt rass, tentilla, meadow barley
_5
13 tent
-
narrow band of reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry-
14 along wooden boardwalkk
„
,
15 cattail and bittersweet nightshade
nati%e shrub buffer (e.g., snowberry, roses, red -flowering
-
a
16 currant) - planted i�
Japanese knotweed, hops, reed canarygrass, small -fruited -
17 bulrush growing adjacent to boardwalk
18 American three -square, potentilla, rass
4 r
F
,
} salt
19 salt rass
.7
cattail and common reed (common reed in western portion
20patch)'_r
saltgrass, potentilla, baltic rush, Lyngbye's sedge, small
patch American three -square, brass buttons, spear saltbush
21 and pickleweed along mudflat perimeter
22 sear saltbush, salt rass
O
-
R
-
23 sear saltbush, salt rass, meadow barley
-'ew
-
j
24 sear saltbush, salt rass, meadow barleyva
25 hardstem bulrush, creeping bentgrass
26
ILLI:I:LlG15
t ..
1
L
[T '
<
16
•
''
dM
�p r
Imagery taken May 2018
provided by Google Earth
N o
WillV V a
0.01 0.02
Miies
�❑ Unique vegetation patches
Major vegetation transition line
Figure 2. Marsh interior vegetation
environmentaILLC 0
50 100eet
DRAFT
Q
Packet Pg. 2 0771
7.1.g
accountability of tax money: Where is the funding coming from and how will the City assess success or impact? There is also
concern to actively police the burgeoning presence of homeless camps and transient vehicle living.
a
c
Rather than cast aspersion on the "downtrodden," Board Member Rubenkonig referred to one of the most poignant points she
saw on social media, which proposed an action for our neighbors. "The money (reference to the $250,000 the City Council =
allocated for homelessness) could be used to help the elderly before they get behind in property taxes, or mortgage payments 2
in Edmonds, and other individuals who have lost their jobs and may lose their homes in Edmonds. Maybe a qualification 0
would be that the person needs to have lived in Edmonds for five years. " a
3
Board Member Rubenkonig also quoted another social media post, `Affordable housing would go a very long way toward 2
helping get people off the streets. Ever heard of working homeless? " She commented that many homeless people hold down a)
jobs, and many have children who are enrolled in the Edmonds School District. She cautioned that the words spoken by the 0
Board at this meeting will not alter the problems their neighbors face tomorrow. She said she believes Edmonds cares but 3
prefers to see a structured approach focusing on chosen priorities as identified by the City Council. Again, she expressed her
belief that the report provides facts about Edmonds situation and possibly provides a direction to take. a
E
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if staff would propose a recommendation for the Board to consider at its next meeting. a
Director Hope said staff would identify the changes. Board Member Rubenkonig asked that staff provide the Board with some o
options as to how to craft the discussion and come up with a recommendation to the City Council. Director Hope explained a
L
that, typically, Planning Board recommendations are not expected to be big statements. The Board can recommend that the +;
Council approve the document as is or with some changes. They do not need to summarize all of the various opinions.
SHORELINE MASTER PLAN (SMP) PERIODIC REVIEW INTRODUCTION
m
Mr. Lien reviewed that the City just completed a comprehensive update of the SMP in June of 2017. This update was a 0
complete rewrite of the SMP to be consistent with new regulations and guidelines that were adopted by the Department of v)
Ecology (DOE) in 2003 (WAC 173-26). The Board completed its work on the comprehensive update in 2015, but it took a
few years to get through the Council due to a few issues.
Mr. Lien advised that the SMA requires each city and county in the State to review, and if necessary, revise their SMP at least w
once every eight years. The City's periodic review is due June 30, 2019. Given that they just completed the comprehensive
review in 2017, only minor tweaks are needed at this time. He referred the Board to the Periodic Review Checklist (Attachment
4), which summarizes the amendments to state law, rules and applicable guidance between 2007 and 2017 that may trigger the E
need for SMP amendments during the periodic review. Most of the amendments are minor and no substantive changes are
proposed.
0
m
Mr. Lien said in addition to the potential amendments identified on the checklist, updates to the SMP may result from the site- a
specific study of the Edmonds Marsh being undertaken by the City, including updating the Shoreline Inventory and
Characterization and potential modifications to the development regulations associated with the Urban Mixed -Use IV shoreline
CU
jurisdictions. He explained that the Edmonds Marsh was identified in the updated SMP as a Shoreline of the State, which a
means the shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the edge of the marsh. In the previous SMP it was not considered a 00
Shoreline of the State so the shoreline jurisdiction ended at the marsh. This new shoreline jurisdiction that applied to Harbor N
Square was a controversial topic during the SMP update, and the City Council initiated the study to get more information about CN
the marsh and appropriate buffers. At this time, he is not sure that the study will be completed in time to be incorporated into N
the periodic review. c
0
Mr. Lien said that another potential amendment is related to public hearings (ECDC 24.80.100). In the previous SMP, all
Shoreline Substantial Development Permits went to the Hearing Examiner as a Type III decision. With the updated SMP, only
certain Shoreline Substantial Development Permits can go to the Hearing Examiner. If a Conditional Use Permit or design
review is required, applications automatically go to the Hearing Examiner. However, minor projects that do not otherwise w
require a hearing are staff decisions. As per the current SMP, Shoreline Substantial Development Permits begin as a Type II
staff decision and change to a Type III decision before the Hearing Examiner upon written request during the comment period.
Staff will propose amendments to clarify this process in the SMC, likely using something similar to the Critical Area Contingent E
Review Process that is detailed in ECDC 23.40.195.
a
Planning Board Minutes
June 27, 2018 Page 6
Packet Pg. 231
7.1.g
Mr. Lien said that, in conjunction with the periodic review, staff is recommending that the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO)
wetland regulations be revised for consistency with the DOE's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates. He explained that the
recent CAO update was completed prior to the DOE's issuance of the updated wetland guidance. The updated guidance was
incorporated into the SMP, but the CAO has yet to be revised to include the most recent guidance on wetlands. That means
the City currently has two sets of wetland regulations, one that applies to shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies outside
of shoreline jurisdictions. Updating the CAO and incorporating it by reference into the SMP will provide consistency for all
wetland regulation within the City. The CAO amendments are scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Board on
July 11 th
Mr. Lien said there was a recent code amendment that had to do with the amount of clearing that could occur without a Critical
Area Report. However, this recent amendment does not currently apply within the shoreline jurisdiction. By re -adopting the
CAO, the amendment will also be incorporated into the SMP, as well.
Mr. Lien reviewed the work program approved by the City Council, including a public participation plan. He said the periodic
review is due by June 30, 2019, and the intent is to have the work completed by that date. The Planning Board is scheduled to
conduct a public hearing in September or October. Following the 30-day comment period, staff will compile and respond to
the public comments. It is anticipated the Planning Board will make a recommendation to the City Council by the end of 2018.
He said he would bring back the specific code amendments that were identified in the checklist on July 25r' for Planning Board
discussion.
Chair Monroe asked how often the SMP will come before the Board for a periodic update, and Mr. Lien said the periodic
update occurs once every eight years. The deadline for the next update is June 30, 2019. Chair Monroe asked if the City would
have to wait another eight years to incorporate information from the Edmonds Marsh Study into the SMP if the study is not
completed in time for the 2019 update. Mr. Lien answered that if the Edmonds Marsh Study recommends different buffers,
the City could update the SMP before the next periodic update is required.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Monroe reviewed that the July 11 ' meeting agenda will include a public hearing on the Critical Areas Ordinance update
and a continued discussion on the Draft Housing Strategy. The July 25' meeting agenda will include a presentation on the
Shoreline Master Program periodic update, a public hearing on a rezone from RS-8 to RM-1.5 and a public hearing on a code
update related to permit decision making.
At the request of Board Member Rubenkonig, the Board agreed to review their schedules and discuss possible dates for a
Planning Board Retreat at their next meeting.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Monroe announced that Ms. Livingston, the Board's student representation, has resigned due to scheduling conflicts. He
thanked her for her service and suggested the Board start the recruitment process to select a new representative.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Rubenkonig reported that she filled in for Board Member Lovell at the Economic Development Commission c
meeting on June 191. At the meeting, it was decided that the liaisons to the Commission would be given an opportunity to
report on what their groups are doing. The intent is to invite one liaison to report at each meeting. She advised that the
Commission is still interested in having a joint meeting with the Board.
ADJOURNMENT x
w
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
m
E
z
a
Planning Board Minutes
June 27, 2018 Page 7
Packet Pg. 232
7.1.h
a brief presentation, it is anticipated the public will be invited to share ideas. Board Member Rosen advised that he posted the
open house notice on the Nextdoor website in an effort to engage more people in the conversation.
Board Member Lovell reported that the Economic Development Commission cancelled its August meeting, so their next
meeting will be September 19'.
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW
Mr. Lien explained that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requires each city and county with "shorelines of the state" to
adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that is based on state laws and rules but tailored to the specific needs of the local
community. The SMA also requires that SMPs be updated at least once every eight years, and the City is required to complete
its periodic review by June 30, 2019. Mr. Lien explained that a periodic review is different than a comprehensive review. The
City just completed its comprehensive review in June of 2017, completely overhauling the SMP to be consistent with state
guidelines found in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26. The periodic review is a statutory requirement of all
cities and counties in the state. The periodic review is intended to ensure the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules,
remains consistent with the City's other plans, and is responsive to changed circumstances, new information and improved
data.
Mr. Lien referred the Board to the Periodic Review Checklist (Attachment 1), which summarizes the amendments to state law,
rules and applicable guidance between 2007 and 2017 and identifies the amendments that are needed to make the City `s SMP
consistent. He explained that the SMA comprehensive review took a number of years to complete and some of the recent
amendments and shoreline guidelines did not get incorporated. He noted that none of the proposed amendments would result
in substantive changes to the SMP.
Mr. Lien advised that, in addition to the amendments identified on the checklist, staff is also recommending a few additional
amendments as part of the update. He explained that updates to the SMP may result from the site -specific study of the Edmonds
Marsh that is currently in progress. These amendments may include updating the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
and modifying the development regulations associated with the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) IV shoreline jurisdiction. Staff is
also recommending language to clarify the process for moving shoreline permit review from a staff decision (Type II) to a
public hearing process (Type III). In addition, staff is recommending that the City revise its Critical Area Ordinance (CAO)
wetland regulations for consistency with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) most recent Wetland Guidance. He reminded
the Board that the recent CAO update was completed prior to the DOE's issuance of their updated Wetland Guidance. The
updated guidance was incorporated into the SMP, but the CAO has yet to be revised to include the most recent guidance. As
a result, the City currently has two sets of wetland regulations, one that applies to shoreline jurisdiction and a second that
applies outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. Updating the CAO and incorporating it by reference into the SMP will provide
consistency for wetland regulations throughout the City.
Mr. Lien reviewed each of the proposed amendments with the Board as follows:
• ECDC 24.80.010.B.1— Cost Threshold for Substantial Development Permit (2017.a). The Office of Financial
Management (OFM) revised the cost threshold above which a development will require a Substantial Development Permit
(SDP) to $7,047. The 2012-2017 amount of $6,416 was simply adjusted for inflation. The new threshold was effective
September 2, 2017. Staff is proposing that the dollar amount in the City's SMP be updated accordingly.
• ECDC 24.90.020.D — Definition of Development (2017.b). The DOE amended its permit rules to clarify that the a
definition of "development" does not include projects that involve only dismantling or removing structures without any Q
associated development or redevelopment. Staff is proposing a new sentence be added to the definition of "development."
00
Board Member Lovell asked if this new definition would apply to the demolition of Haynes Wharf. Mr. Lien answered r
that it would apply to removal of the bulkhead and other development landward, but he is not sure it would apply to the
wharf, itself, since it is located in the water. w
• ECDC 24.80.025 — Exceptions to Local Review Under SMA (2017.c). The DOE adopted WAC 173-27-004 to
consolidate three separate laws that create special exceptions to applicability of local SMPs. As proposed, a new section E
would be added to ECDC 24.80.025 to identify the types of development actions that are exempt from review under the
M
.r
Q
Planning Board Minutes
August 8, 2018 Page 2
Packet Pg. 233
7.1.h
City's SMP. These include: remedial hazardous substance cleanup actions, boatyard improvements to meet the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, and certain Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) maintenance and safety projects and activities. The change is consistent with what the City has
been doing in practice.
ECDC 24.70.020.1) and G — Nonconforming Use and Development (2017.g). The introductory paragraph clarifies that
the rule is a default rule that only applies if a local government has no provisions in their local SMP to address
nonconforming uses. The City's SMP contains a nonconforming development chapter (ECDC 24.70), so this provision
would not be applicable. However, staff is recommending a revision to ECDC 24.70.020.13, which currently requires a
nonconforming structure that is moved any distance to be brought into full conformance. This provision is potentially a
disincentive to moving structures away from the shoreline so they are less nonconforming. As proposed, the change would
require a nonconforming structure to be moved "as far as practical" from the shoreline. This change allows more flexibility
to get something better that is less nonconforming. The DOE is recommending that the time period for obtaining permits
to replace damaged development be extended from 6 months to 2 years. Even in normal circumstances, it can take longer
than 6 months to prepare an application, and staff believes a longer timeframe is warranted when a development has been
damaged. However, staff is recommending an 18-month time period to be consistent with the timeframe in the
nonconformance chapter of the code.
• Expansion of Nonconforming Use via a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The DOE suggested allowing the expansion
of nonconforming uses through a CUP. However, the City does not have a similar provision in its nonconforming code
or zoning code. Staff does not believe this is something the City should allow, so no amendment has been proposed.
• ECDC 24.80.150.A.6 and C.3 — Periodic Reviews (2017.h). The DOE adopted new rules in 2017 that spell out the scope
and process for conducting periodic reviews of SMPs as required by Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.080(4).
Staff is proposing that ECDC 24.80.150.A.6 be amended to update the frequency of the periodic review from 7 to 8 years.
In addition, a new sentence would be added under the Administrative Authority and Responsibility section. (ECDC
24.80.150.C.3).
• Process for Submitting the SMP to the DOE (2017.j). Board Member Lovell asked if the City's SMP contains a
description of the SMP submittal process for the DOE's review. Mr. Lien answered that it does not; and therefore, no
amendment is needed.
• ECDC 24.80.010.B.16 — Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Permit Exemption (2016.a). The legislature created
a new SDP exemption for retrofitting existing structures for ADA compliance. The City's current list of exemptions does
not include ADA retrofitting, and staff is proposing that the list be updated accordingly.
• ECDC 24.80.105.A and B — 90 Day Target for Local Review for WSDOT Projects (2015.a). The legislature adopted
a 90-day target for local review of WSDOT projects. The law allows WSDOT projects that address safety risks to begin
21 days after the date of filing if the project will achieve no net loss of ecological function. Staff is recommending a new
section (ECDC 24.80.105) to add this special procedure.
• ECDC 24.80.010.B.7.b — Replacement Docks on Lakes and Rivers (2014.a). The legislature raised the cost threshold N
for requiring an SDP for replacement docks on lakes and rivers from $10,000 to $20,000. Staff is proposing that ECDC
24.80.010.B.7.b be amended to reflect this updated dollar threshold. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how "fair market 3
value" is determined, and Mr. Lien answered that it would be based on the value of the project. Docks have a certain value 3
assigned to them in the table the City uses to apply the building code, and this same table would be used when implementing Q
this SMP provision. The intent is to prevent someone from replacing a dock and then doing small additions later to avoid
the permit requirement.
z
• ECDC 24.80.095 — Shoreline Restoration Projects within an Urban Growth Area (UGA) (2009.a). The legislature j
created new "relief' procedures for instances in which a shoreline restoration project within a UGA creates a shift in the
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) resulting in a hardship for properties subject to new and extra regulations. The new m
procedures were a response to concerns that the SMP regulations could stop or significantly alter restoration projects. This z
M
.r
Q
Planning Board Minutes
August 8, 2018 Page 3
Packet Pg. 234
7.1.h
"relief' procedure is not explicitly referenced in the current SMP, and staff is proposing that ECDC 24.80.095 be amended
to adopt the "relief' rule by reference. Another option would be to incorporate the rule into the SMP to make it clear that
the process is available. The rule allows people to do restoration projects that expand the OHWM further landward without
expanding the shoreline jurisdiction, as well. This new rule could be applied at the Edmonds Marsh as part of the City's
project to daylight Willow Creek.
• ECDC 24.90.020.GG — Options for Defining Floodway (2007.a). The legislature clarified options for defining
"floodway" as either the area that has been established in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps or the
floodway criteria set forth in the SMA. Currently, neither the CAO or the SMP define the term "floodway." Staff is
recommending that a definition be added to ECDC 24.90.020.G. that uses the FEMA maps. The "SMA floodway"
described in the SMA is essentially a biological definition, unlike the FEMA Floodway Map, which is derived from a
model. Currently, no floodways have been identified in Edmonds.
• List and Map of Streams and Lakes (2007.b). The DOE amended the rules to clarify that comprehensively updated
SMPs must include a list and map of streams and lakes that are in shoreline jurisdiction. The City's shoreline jurisdictions
are defined within the text of the SMP and on maps. Staff is recommending that the shoreline jurisdictions be reviewed
and revised as necessary.
• ECDC 24.80.010.B.15 — Fish Habitat Enhancement Projects (2007.c). The DOE's rule listing statutory exemptions
from the requirement for an SDP was amended to include fish habitat enhancement projects. The City's SMP provides an
exemption for fish habitat enhancement projects, but it does not include all of the language in WAC 173.27.040(2)(p).
Rather than adopting language to match the WAC rule, staff is suggesting that ECDC 24.80.010.13.15 be amended to
include a reference to the WAC rule. That way, the City won't have to amend the section again if the WAC rule changes
at some point in the future.
Mr. Lien advised that, in addition to the amendments outlined above, which are intended to ensure consistency with changes
to state laws and rules, staff is considering modifications to the following elements of the SMP:
• Edmonds Marsh. The Edmonds Marsh was identified as a shoreline of the state relatively late in the previous SMP update
and appropriate shoreline regulations surrounding the marsh was the subject of significant public comment and discussion
before the City Council. The City is working with a consultant to assess the ecological functions of the marsh and evaluate
buffer widths that will ensure effective site -specific buffer functions. Results from this study will be used to update the
Shoreline Inventory and Characterization and could result in modifications to the UMU-IV shoreline regulations.
ECDC 20.80.100 —Public Hearings. ECDC 24.80.100 identifies when a public hearing is required for an SDP. In some
cases, the SDP may begin the process as a Type II staff decision but change to a Type III decision before the Hearing
Examiner if requested during the comment period. Staff is recommending that ECDC 24.80.100 be amended to clarify
this process, which would be similar to the contingent review process in the CAO (ECDC 23.40.195). As per the proposed
process, an SDP that does not trigger an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or require an open record hearing would
be a Type 11 staff decision. Staff would issue a notice of application, followed by a 14-day public comment period. If
someone requests a public hearing during the public comment period, the application would be bumped up to a Type III
decision by the Hearing Examiner. The application fee would increase from $880 (Type 11) to $1,820 (Type III), and the
person requesting the hearing would be required to pay 50% of this additional cost. The applicant would be responsible
for the other half of the fee, and the City would pay the Hearing Examiner costs. Board Member Lovell suggested that the
language in ECDC 24.80.100(A)(4) needs to be changed to provide more clarity relative to who would pay the fees when
an application changes from a Type II to Type III decision. Mr. Lien agreed to review the language for clarification.
eo
• ECDC 24.40.020 — Critical Areas. As discussed earlier, this section of the code would be amended to adopt the updated
CAO provisions for wetlands into the SMP by reference. The City is currently working to update the CAO to be consistent
with the DOE's newest 2018 Wetland Guidance. Once the CAO has been updated and adopted by reference in to the SMP, w
the wetland section of the SMP can be deleted. The result will be one set of wetland regulations that apply citywide.;
c
m
Mr. Lien summarized that the work program going forward identifies additional Planning Board study sessions before the t
public hearing. However, the proposed periodic changes are minor, and the Board may be ready to move on to the public 0
M
.r
Q
Planning Board Minutes
August 8, 2018 Page 4
Packet Pg. 235
7.1.h
hearing without any additional study sessions. After the public hearing and public comment period, staff will respond to the
comments received and then the Board can formalize its recommendation to the City Council. The Edmonds Marsh Study is
ongoing and the timeline for updating the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization has not been finalized. Staff will conduct
a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review at about the same time as the public hearing. A page was created on the
City's website to provide information about the SMP Periodic Review, including the checklist, work program, public
participation plan and links to Planning Board agendas and minutes. The Board agreed that no additional study session is
necessary before the public hearing.
Board Member Rubenkonig said her understanding is that the Edmonds Marsh Study will not be completed before the Board
acts on the SMP Periodic Review. Mr. Lien agreed that the study would not be completed, but the part that needs to be acted
upon, the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization, should be available this fall. The study will not impact any of the proposed
code changes identified on the checklist. However, after it has been completed, along with a buffer study, the City Council
may want to change the buffers and setbacks for the UMU-IV shoreline jurisdiction. These changes would come later and will
not be part of this periodic update.
PLANNING BOARD RETREAT
The Board discussed the following list of potential agenda topics for their retreat:
1. Identify, invite and host a non-profit housing developer or affordable housing "oriented" developer to meet and talk about
strategies for putting together such a project in Edmonds.
2. Have a staff member present and lead a discussion regarding available building land within Edmonds.
3. Pick a given area or property in Edmonds and discuss the applicable regulatory steps and/or modification necessary for
said property to accommodate affordable housing.
4. Increasing the Board's effectiveness in service to the Council.
5. Increasing the Board's effectiveness and efficiency in working with staff.
6. Increasing public engagement.
7. Defining a vision of success as a Board.
8. Hold an open forum for local business owners to offer ideas and suggestions on how to improve the business district.
9. Bring in a consultant that specializes in increasing to tourism to cities.
Given the amount of public interest, Board Member Rosen suggested that Topic 1 might be more appropriately discussed in a
regular meeting that allows the public to engage in the conservation. Board Member Lovell agreed that the draft Housing
Strategy has ignited a lot of feedback from the public, and the City Council has expressed to staff that they want more public
input before carrying their discussions further. They scheduled a public open house for August 27.
Board Member Lovell said he suggested Topics 1 through 3 because he thought the issue of housing would be a big concern
coming up in the City and it would be good for the Board Members to become better educated on the topic. He said he supports
the idea of bringing in a developer to talk about what could be developed and how the City could help, whether the discussion
takes place at a retreat or a regular meeting.
Board Member Crank recalled that she previously suggested the Board invite a representative from Blockable to do a N
presentation at the Board's retreat or as part of a regular meeting. In addition, she suggested it would be helpful to have a 06
presentation/discussion about housing development in general, and not just focused on affordable housing. Focusing too much N
on affordable housing created a lot of stress, misinformation and negative connotations amongst the public, when the Housing a
Strategy is really about diversifying the housing strategy. It would be helpful to have a general presentation around the potential 3
a
housing inventory for all types of housing. Chair Monroe commented that this general discussion about housing would be
more appropriate for a regular meeting rather than the retreat. O0
Board Member Crank observed that the Planning Board is also the Parks Board, yet it has been quite some time since the Board x
has had any park -related discussions. She suggested the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director be invited to provide w
an update on parks, especially as it pertains to accommodating the population growth related to development. Board Member
Rubenkonig said she would like the presentation to go beyond the regular quarterly report, perhaps an overall presentation m
E
about what is going on at all the parks. Board Member Rosen commented that if the Board's concern is that staff is not
M
.r
Q
Planning Board Minutes
August 8, 2018 Page 5
Packet Pg. 236
7.1.i
OTHER NOMINATIONS, AND BOARD MEMBER ROBLES WAS UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRMED AS VICE
CHAIR.
PUBLIC HEARING ON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) PERIODIC REVIEW
Mr. Lien reviewed that the Planning Board heard an introduction to the SMP Period Review on June 27t1i and reviewed draft
SMP code amendments on August 8'. The public hearing was postponed waiting for additional information from the City
Council commissioned Edmonds Marsh Study so that a description of the existing conditions of the marsh could be added as
an addendum to the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization.
Mr. Lien explained that, following many years of work, the City completed a comprehensive update of its SMP in June 2017
to be consistent with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the 2003 state -adopted comprehensive Guidelines for
Shoreline Master Programs. The SMA requires each jurisdiction with "shorelines of the state" to review and, if necessary,
revise their SMPs at least once every 8 years, and the City's next periodic review is due June 30, 2019. Subsequent to
adoption of the City's SMP in 2017, the state adopted a number of changes to the state guidelines, and the periodic review is
intended ensure that the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules, remains consistent with other city plans and
regulations and is responsive to changed circumstances, new information and improved data.
Mr. Lien referred to the SMP Periodic Review Checklist (Attachment 1), which summarizes the amendments to state law,
rules and applicable guidance between 2007 and 2017 that may trigger the need for SMP amendments during the periodic
review. The completed checklist identifies items that should be updated in the City's SMP for consistency with state laws
and rules. Amendments associated with each of these items were presented to the Board in August and are outlined in
Attachment 2. In addition to the items on the checklist, staff is also recommending a few other amendments as part of the
update:
The Edmonds Marsh was identified as a "shoreline of the state" quite late in the 2017 SMP update and appropriate
shoreline regulations surrounding the marsh were the subject of significant public comment and discussion by the
City Council. The City Council commissioned a site -specific study of the Edmonds Marsh to assess its ecological
functions and evaluate buffer widths that will ensure effective site -specific buffer functions. As proposed, the
Shoreline Inventory and Characterization would be updated to add the description of the Edmonds Marsh and its
existing characteristics that was provided by the consultant (Attachment 3) as an addendum. This amendment would
establish a new baseline for the Edmonds Marsh. He referred to Image 2 in Attachment 3, which shows the major
vegetation transition line between the western portion of the marsh that contains salt -tolerant plants and the eastern
portion of the marsh that has predominantly freshwater plants. This line also represents the boundary between the
portion of the marsh that is designated as a shoreline of the state and the portion that is designated as an associated
wetland. However, the exact boundaries would have to be determined for any project on either side of the marsh.
At this time, the study has not provided any recommendations regarding buffers and setbacks for the Urban Mixed
Use (UMU) IV shoreline environment.
• ECDC 24.80.100 would be updated to clarify how a review moves from a staff decision process (Type II) to a public
hearing process (Type III). A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit would begin the process as a staff decision N
(Type II) with a 30-day comment period, but could change to a public process (Type III) before the Hearing r
Examiner if requested by one or more interested persons during the comment period. Staff is recommending a
process similar to the critical area contingent review process that is detailed in ECDC 23.40.195. At their last M
meeting, the Board recommended revisions to this section to make it more explicit that the parties requesting the E
public hearing are responsible to pay half of the cost difference between the Type II and Type III permit d
applications. Currently, the application fee for a Type II decision is $800 and $1,600 for a Type III decision. As
proposed, the person requesting the public hearing would be required to pay half of the difference or $400. of
• The recent Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) update was completed just prior to the Department of Ecology's (DOE) z
issuance of updated Wetland Guidance. The updated guidance was incorporated into the SMP but the CAO was not i j
revised to include the most recent guidance until October 16, 2018. As a result, the City currently has two sets of
wetland regulations, one that applies to shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies outside of shoreline E
z
M
.r
Q
Planning Board Minutes
December 12, 2018 Page 2
Packet Pg. 237
7.1.i
jurisdiction. The CAO has now been updated with the revised wetland regulations, which will be incorporated into
the SMP by reference to provide consistency for all wetland regulations within the City.
Mr. Lien summarized that the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination has been issued and the public
comment period ends tonight. The 60-day Notice to Commerce was done, as well. The City received no public comments
on the periodic review, but the Department of Natural Resources requested information about the proposed changes. He
recommended the Board forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the amendments to the SMP regulations
as provided in Attachment 2 and to include the memorandum in Attachment 3 providing a description of the existing
conditions of the Edmond Marsh as an addendum to the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization.
Board Member Lovell asked if the red line on Image 2 is intended to represent the new Ordinary Highwater Mark (OHM).
Mr. Lien explained that the line illustrates the division between the salt tolerant vegetation (shoreline of the state) and the
freshwater vegetation (wetland). Board Member Lovell asked how the $1.3 million that the City Council allocated to the
marsh in 2019 would impact this line. Mr. Lien answered that the $1.3 million is earmarked for the project that will daylight
Willow Creek, and an update on the project will be provided to the City Council in January. While the project is a separate
issue from the SMP periodic review, it would have to be permitted consistent with the adopted SMP.
Board Member Crank asked if the City Council's recent funding decision would impact the Edmonds Marsh study in the near
future. Mr. Lien explained that there are currently two different studies in progress associated with the marsh. The $1.3
million would be dedicated to the Willow Creek daylighting evaluation that has been going on for a number of years.
However, a property transfer from Unocal to the Washington State Department of Transportation is needed before the project
can move forward to the next phase of design. The Edmonds Marsh Study is a separate study that was commissioned by the
City Council to establish baseline conditions for the marsh. When the SMP was previously before the City Council for
review there was significant focus on the UMU-IV designation for the shoreline environment and what the appropriate
buffers and setbacks should be. However, much of the discussion was based on incomplete information about the existing
conditions. The study provided a description of the existing conditions, and eventually there might be some
recommendations for what the appropriate buffers should be. The Edmonds Marsh Study is on a different timeline than the
periodic review of the SMP, which must be completed by June of 2019. If the recommendations that come from the
Edmonds Marsh Study are different than what is in the SMP, additional amendments can be considered down the road.
However, they do not have the time to wait for the recommendations before completing the periodic review.
Board Member Rubenkonig also referred to Image 2 and said some residents thought that the marsh boundaries extended all
the way to the fish hatchery. Mr. Lien clarified that while the boundary expands all the way to the hatchery, only the area
west of the line is designated as a shoreline of the state, which means that the shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet beyond
the boundaries of the marsh. The area east of the line is designated as an associated wetland, and the shoreline jurisdiction
does not extend beyond the boundaries of the marsh.
Board Member Rubenkonig requested clarification of Item i on Page 2 of the SMP Periodic Review Checklist (Attachment
1). Mr. Lien explained that the DOE adopted a new rule creating an optional SMP amendment process that allows for a
shared local/state public comment period. That means there would be joint public hearings, too. The City Council decided
not to utilize this new option. Instead, the SMP update will have to be approved by the DOE as a separate process following
adoption by the City Council.
Chair Monroe opened the public hearing. No one indicated a desire to comment, and the public portion of the hearing was
closed.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY o
COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AS PROVIDED
IN ATTACHMENT 2 OF THE STAFF REPORT AND TO INCLUDE THE MEMORANDUM IN ATTACHMENT 3
PROVIDING A DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE EDMONDS MARSH AS AN z
ADDENDUM OF THE SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION. BOARD MEMBER CRANK w
SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.;
c
m
E
t
M
.r
Q
Planning Board Minutes
December 12, 2018 Page 3
Packet Pg. 238
7.1.j
5. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR AN UNDETERMINED AMOUNT
6. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - SUMMIT LAW
7. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DEFENSE OF COURT ADMINISTRATOR SHARON
WHITTAKER PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.06 ECC
8. SURPLUS CITY COMPUTERS
5. PRESENTATION
2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien explained
• Purpose of this agenda item:
o Reintroduction to SMP periodic review
o Scope of periodic review
o Proposed code amendments
• Comprehensive Update vs. Periodic Review
o Completed Comprehensive Update June 2017
■ State adopted comprehensive guidelines for Shoreline Master Programs in 2003 under
WAC 173- 26
■ Jurisdictions across the state were required to update their SMP's
■ Edmonds' SMP adopted in June 2017 was a complete rewrite of the SMP to be consistent
with WAC 173-26
o Periodic Review
■ SMA requires each city and county to review, and, if necessary, revise their SMP at least
once every eight years. The City's periodic review is due June 30, 2019
■ State filed WAC 173-26-090 in August 2017, which became effective September 2017
■ Provides guidance on the periodic update
■ Periodic review ensures SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules, remains
consistent with other City of Edmonds Plans and regulations, and is responsive to changed
circumstances, new information and improved data.
• Periodic Review Checklist
o Summarizes amendments to state law, rules and applicable guidance between 2007 and 2017
that may trigger the need for SMP amendments during periodic reviews
o City's SMP comprehensive updated lasted from 2009 — 2017
o Completed checklist identifies items that should be updated in the City's SMP for consistency
with state laws and rules
o Identified amendments would not result in substantive changes to the SMP
Other review elements
o Edmonds Marsh Study
■ Update Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
o ECDC 24.80.100 — Public Hearings
■ Shoreline substantial development permit may begin as a Type II staff decision, and change
to a Type III decision before the hearing examiner by a written request during comment
period
■ Clarification on this process should be added
■ Staff is recommending something similar to the Critical Area Contingent review process
detailed in ECDC 23.40.195
■ Critical Area Wetland Regulations
SMP Periodic Review
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 12, 2019
Page 2
Packet Pg. 239
7.1.j
o May 2018 Council adopted Resolution No. 1411
■ Initiating Periodic Review
■ SMP Periodic Review Work Program
■ Public Participation Plan
o Planning Board Review and Recommendation
o Must be completed by June 30, 2019
Code changes in response to SMP Periodic Review Checklist
0 2017a. Cost Threshold for substantial development ($7,047)
■ Amended language in ECDC 24.80.010.B.1
0 2016a. Americans with Disabilities Act Permit Exemption
■ Added ECDC 24.80.010.13.16 —Exemptions
0 2017g. Nonconforming uses and development
■ Amended language in ECDC 24.70.020.D
■ Amended language in ECDC 24.70.010.D.2 —Nonconforming Uses
■ Amended language in ECDC 24.70.020.G.2 — Nonconforming Structure
o Other Amendments
■ ECDC 24.80.100 —public hearings
■ ECDC 24.40.020 — Critical Areas
Edmonds Marsh Study
o Baseline of existing conditions of the Edmonds Marsh
o An addendum to the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
o No recommendations regarding buffers/setbacks for the UMU IV shoreline environment
Next steps
o Public hearing at City Council
■ City has not received any comments
o Once amendments approved by City Council, submit to Ecology for review
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with removing the entire wetland section, acknowledging
that the code will refer to Ordinances 4106 and 4127. She asked if there was any disadvantage to leaving
the wetland section in the code so people did not have to refer to other documents. Mr. Lien said the wetland
section is not the most up-to-date guidance from the Department Ecology which is contained in Ordinance
4127. All the other critical area sections also refer to the CAO. From an administration standpoint, it is
more confusing to have two sets of regulations and it is clearer to rely on the CAO for wetlands.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested including the CAO in the packet next time.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with approving something that has draft written on it such
as Windward's description of the Edmonds Marsh. If the Council approves this tonight, she asked whether
that draft would be included. Mr. Lien said he is not seeking Council approval tonight; a public hearing
needs to be held first. It will say draft until the Council approves it. Once the Council holds a public hearing
and is agreeable to the update, when he presents a resolution of intent to adopt or an ordinance, the
indication of "draft" will be removed. Windward may update the marsh vegetation before City Council
adoption later this year. He summarized it is a draft until the Council adopts it.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the change to 18 months in ECDC 24.40.010.D.2 — Nonconforming
Uses and 24.0.020.G.2 — Nonconforming Structure, and asked why 18 months was selected instead of 2
years. Mr. Lien said the intent was for the code to be consistent with the SMP.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the new section, Special Procedures for WSDOT Projects 24.80.105.
Mr. Lien referred to 2015a. 90 day target for local review for WSDOT projects in the SMP Periodic Review
Checklist, explaining the legislature adopted a 90-day target for local review of WSDOT projects. The
proposed code language in 24.80.105 is the model language Ecology proposed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 12, 2019
Page 3
Packet Pg. 240
7.1.j
Councilmember Teitzel posed a hypothetical; assuming after the Unocal property transitions to WSDOT
and at some point becomes owned by the City of Edmonds via a donation or sale, and asked what changes
to the SMP would be needed to reflect that. Mr. Lien answered none.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mindy Woods, Edmonds, explained when leaving a Diversity Commission meeting at the senior center
last Wednesday about 8:20 p.m., two people who are experiencing homelessness approached the senior
center hoping to find the cold weather shelter. There was no sign on the door and both walked away. The
news announced this morning that four people passed away in King County over the pasts week during the
cold weather. It was 28 degrees last Wednesday night and she was not aware of the cold weather shelter in
Lynnwood. If she, a person with access to the internet and a working cell phone didn't know that, how was
an unhoused person supposed to know. It would also be challenging for a person on foot in the Edmonds
bowl to reach a shelter in Lynnwood.
Ahmed Amr, Edmonds, recalled about a year ago he expressed concern with the excessive expenditure of
a $30,000/month legal retainer for Mr. Taraday, and he has not responded to hundreds of emails he has sent
him. He referred to his case that went to court, his arrest for trespass that resulted in a trial by jury that was
shut down without a 90 day trial. He alleged the police have come to his home and insulted him, calling
him mentally ill in front of his dying wife. The City has spent a lot of money putting him down, hurting
him and his wife. He referred to shredding of documents and a suit he filed in the U.S. District Court of
Western Washington and the City hiring a lawyer for the person. He explained when a clerk of the court
tampers with records, they should be arrested and reported to the FBI. He objected to the legal advice Mr.
Taraday has given officers and felt Judge Coburn was a judicial atrocity and that Mayor Earling was a
monster. He alleged harassment, abuse of police power, brutality, and the waste of resources financing the
defense of a court clerk shredding documents.
Laura Johnson, Edmonds, commented it had been a long week with three restless teens at home, but they
were lucky to have a warm home and a 4-wheel drive vehicle. Many are not so lucky; there are a number
of homeless residents in Snohomish County including some who live in Edmonds. Those individuals are
served by a team of incredible volunteers who dedicate their time to open an emergency cold weather shelter
when the temperatures drop. Edmonds used to be a location for a shelter at the senior center but she learned
that has closed. She was concerned some homeless individuals who relied on that service were left out in
the recent extreme cold. Some of them showed up last Wednesday only to find out that service was no
longer available. She questioned why at least a warming station was not opened, transportation provided
from the senior center to Lynnwood or at least a notice posted on the door that the senior center was no
longer an emergency shelter and how they could reach someone for transportation to the shelter in
Lynnwood. She summarized we can and should do better in Edmonds.
Mr. Amr continued his comments and Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WILL SET
A MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARD FOR SMALL -FOOTPRINT BUILDINGS
(4,800 SO. FT. OR LESS) LOCATED IN BD -ZONED PROPERTIES IN DOWNTOWN EDMONDS.
THESE SMALL -FOOTPRINT BUILDINGS HAVE PREVIOUSLY NOT HAD ANY PARKING
REQUIRED
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 12, 2019
Page 4
Packet Pg. 241
7.1.j
Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled staff discovered a building permit was submitted and
approved that allowed for 9 units/3 stories to be built in a downtown zone with no onsite parking. The
building is adjacent to a bus stop and some bicycle parking was provided. The City code allowed for this
as long as the building footprint did not exceed 4800 square feet, a code that had been in place at least 10
years. That issue had not been raised before and no one else had submitted a permit utilizing that provision.
That building permit raised the issue and staff proposed a moratorium that was adopted by the City Council
to halt the development of any further residential units in that area without onsite parking while the issue
was studied. The Planning Board held two public meetings, the first in October and a public hearing in
December on a proposed code change to remedy the situation. The proposed code change eliminates the
4800 square foot footprint exemption, the existing commercial code applies to commercial buildings and
requires residential buildings to provide at least one onsite space per unit. The Planning Board discussed
alternatives and concluded this was the most reasonable approach. Other regulations apply in other areas.
Councilmember Buckshnis questioned why a staff person did not say wait when this application was
submitted, why the code did not differentiate between residential and commercial, and why this building
was approved. Ms. Hope said if a person applies for a building permit and the application meets code, it
cannot be denied based on what someone would rather the code said. She does not always hear about all
the permits that are submitted and staff did not approach her about this one. Even if she had learned about
it immediately, once an application is submitted, it is vested. Councilmember Buckshnis said the BD zone
is a business district and one would not expect a small residential building in a business district. Ms. Hope
assured this change would address the issue.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There was no one present who
wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked where the tenants of this building were parking. Ms. Hope
answered she did not know. Some tenants may not have a car; those with a car will either have to find street
parking or someplace else to park. Council President Fraley-Monillas said with this provision, a developer
was not obligated to inform the City where tenants would park. Ms. Hope agreed, the proposed ordinance
would require one onsite parking space per unit.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if there were alternatives to this proposal. Ms. Hope said there
could have been alternatives such as a parking pass program, one space for every two units, exceptions due
to proximity to a bus stop, etc. The Planning Board preferred this proposal and possibly consider something
different in the future. This is a straightforward requirement and fits with the general market. Council
President Fraley-Monillas expressed concern with having additional cars parked downtown when there are
already issues with parking. Ms. Hope agreed downtown parking is at a premium.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4140, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE BD ZONES,
PERMANENTLY ELIMINATING AN EXEMPTION FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR
BUILDINGS WITH A FOOTPRINT OF LESS THAN 4800 SF. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE INTEGRATION OF SMALL CELL STANDARDS INTO
THE CITY'S WIRELESS CODE (ECDC 20.50) AND ADOPTION OF INTERIM
ORD NANCE,
Mike Clugston explained staff has been working with City Attorney Jeff Taraday to develop regulations
for a new type of wireless facility, small cell wireless. The packet contains the draft interim ordinance.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 12, 2019
Page 5
Packet Pg. 242
7.1.j
Mr. Taraday explained:
• Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives the FCC the authority to interpret the Act
• FCC Ruling (the "Order") released on September 27, 2018, titled Accelerating Wireless Broadband
Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment
o The Order adopted new rules limiting how state and local governments may treat applications
for the installation of small wireless facilities
o January 14, 2019 — The Order goes into effect
o April 14, 2019 — Local jurisdiction to have aesthetic rules in place
o Packet contains interim ordinance. Reason for interim ordinance
1. Allow applications to be processed
2. Clarifies that City requires franchises prior to allowing applications to be processed
3. While expect permanent ordinance for consideration/action by April 14, unexpected things
happen.
Mr. Clugston reviewed:
• What are small cell deployments?
o Complementary to towers, adding much needed coverage and capacity to urban and residential
areas, venues, and anywhere large crowds gather
o Streetlights, utility poles and slimline poles
■ Antennas connected to nodes receive and transmit wireless signals to and from mobile
devices
■ Optical fiber connects to other nodes and carries data to and from communication hubs
operated by wireless carriers
■ The cabinet holds equipment that process wireless signal for multiple wireless carries
Facility Types
o Macro Cell
o Small Cell
■ FCC defines small wireless facilities as meeting each of the following conditions:
1. Height — 50 feet +/-
2. Each antenna — 3 cubic feet
3. Equipment — 28 cubic feet
Map of wireless facilities in Edmonds
o Current Macro sites: 24
o Future Macro sites: dozens more?
o Future small cell sites: 1000s?
Ms. McConnell reviewed a hierarchy of location preferences for small cell antennas, noting locations
outside of the right-of-way are preferred over locations within the right-of-way:
Locate Outside the Right-of-WaX
1. Existing building
2. Freestanding small cell pole located
Locate Within the Right-of-WaX
3. Existing street light pole or utility pole (hollow poles)
4. New freestanding small cell pole or street light
5. Existing PUD single-phase pole (installation on top of pole)
6. Existing PUD transmission pole (installation in communication space)
7. Strand -mounted (installation in communication space)
She displayed photographic examples of the proposed location preferences:
Installations Outside of the Right -of -Way
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 12, 2019
Page 6
Packet Pg. 243
7.1.j
1. Locate on existing structures (example at 4' & Main)
2. Zoned property
• Freestanding small cell pole within 5 feet of street and side property lines;
o Locate on same side of street as power lines;
o Height limit 30 feet
Right -of -Way Installations
3. Existing hollow streetlight pole or traffic signal light
4. New freestanding cell pole or new street light
• Custom designs — Sternberg model streetlights currently used in downtown Edmonds do not
have sufficient space
• Sternberg makes a model specific for wireless facilities
5. Installation on single phase power pole
• Cantenna in line with pole
• External conduit — color matched to pole
• External equipment — color matched to pole
6. Installation on transmission pole
• Antenna in communications space
• External conduit
• External equipment
7. Strand -mounted facilities
• Installation on an existing pole
• Antenna in the communication space
• External equipment
Considerations in Developing code:
o Equipment and Wires: Internal vs. External
o Clutter on existing wood poles
Mr. Clugston reviewed
• Changes to ECDC 20.50
o Small cell location preferences and design standards — NEW
o Eligible facility requests — Codify existing reference
o Permit and review timelines (`Shot Clocks') — Update
o New macro monopoles — Update
o Clean up
• Project timeline:
o January 8: Introduction to Council PPW Committee
o January 9: Introduction to Planning Board
o January 14: FCC Order goes into effect
o January 15: Introduction to full Council
o February 12: Public hearing and adoption of interim ordinance
o February -March: Discussions at Planning Board, review interim ordinance and discuss
refinements for small cell aesthetic regulations and bring back to Council
o April 2 or sooner: Hearing before City Council
o April 14: Local jurisdictions to have aesthetic rules in place
Mr. Taraday relayed staff is hoping to meet with industry representatives later this week. He anticipated
they would provide testimony during the public hearing as well as at that meeting regarding changes they
would like. Staff will be open minded to their input but will also be looking out for the City's best interests.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the photograph in Preference 6 and asked whether that would be a
typical installation. Mr. Clugston answered it was difficult to say which was the reason for a range of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 12, 2019
Page 7
Packet Pg. 244
7.1.j
preferences. From an industry standpoint, he anticipated Preference 6 would be the easiest to attach and to
get permitted. Through the preferences, the goal is to have antennas moved out of right-of-way onto zoned
property on buildings or freestanding poles near the right-of-way that do not impact other utilities. Staff
does not have a perfect understanding so are providing a range of options to work with the City's
preferences for aesthetic appearance and technology feasibility for the industry.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was interested in hearing from the public, but personally would rather see
installations on existing poles rather than new poles. The top two preferences are outside the right-of-way,
which in some cases will be on new poles. If there were a perfectly good wood pole 10 feet away, he asked
whether that location would be encouraged. Mr. Taraday said Preference 6 does not illustrate the conduit
which is of considerable concern to staff. One of the problems with wood utility poles is that everything is
mounted on the outside of the pole. He referred to another photograph illustrating several conduits on the
exterior of the pole and several antennas which he noted begins to look unsightly. He acknowledged staff
is somewhat guessing what the industry will install; the industry has a better sense of what they will be
installing. Councilmember Tibbott referred to a photograph with exterior conduit mounted close to the pole
and that matched the pole color, noting he preferred that to additional poles.
With regard to Sternberg poles, Councilmember Tibbott preferred to have an exact replica versus an
approximate match. He was uncertain how that could be required via the code, noting he found it
unacceptable to have a row of Sternberg poles and one that was a different style. Ms. McConnell said she
will be checking with the Sternberg representative to see what options are available. Her understanding was
it would not be an exact replica of what currently exists because those are not designed for small cell
installations. She assumed the new Sternberg pole would have a similar look.
Councilmember Tibbott inquired about staff time to process permits, relaying his understanding there may
be an opportunity to batch installations. Mr. Clugston offered to research. Councilmember Tibbott assumed
permit fees would be collected and asked if the fees would cover the cost of the review process. Mr.
Clugston advised it would cover the review time.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the desire to remove clutter from poles and assumed some equipment
would be obsolete by the time new equipment is installed. He asked if obsolete equipment, conduit, wires,
etc. could be required to be removed before installation of new equipment. Mr. Taraday said staff is also
working on a companion piece of legislation that includes revisions to another chapter of the code related
to other overhead utilities, but that applies more broadly than just to small cell installations.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was referring to 3G versus 5G equipment and whether the older equipment
on a building could be removed. Ms. McConnell said the code requires obsolete equipment be removed.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if that has been discussed with industry representatives. Ms. McConnell said
a meeting is scheduled later this week to discuss the interim ordinance with industry representatives and
assumed that would be discussed if it was a concern to the industry.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if macro towers were becoming obsolete and would go away and be replaced
with 5G equipment or would the macro towers remain and more installed. Mr. Clugston said it was his
understanding that macro towers will still be used but he was unsure if more macro sites would be required.
Councilmember Tibbott recognized this technology would citizens to enjoy better cell service. However, it
was also an opportunity to clean up clutter from previous installation and improve aesthetics. Ms.
McConnell referred to Section 20.50.140 that addresses abandonment and discontinuation of use.
Councilmember Nelson commented there is nothing small about 1000 cell towers in the city. It was his
understanding there was a distance of 150 feet between towers. Ms. McConnell answered the code proposes
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 12, 2019
Page 8
Packet Pg. 245
7.1.j
300 feet between freestanding small cell facilities but if a specific location on private property does not
work, the carrier is asked to talk to adjacent property owners within 150 feet about locating. Councilmember
Nelson asked if there was a maximum distance between towers to limit the number. Mr. Taraday said one
of the reasons they are referred to as small cell is because the range is small. They are not very powerful
antennas and do not cover a large area which is why there need to be so many. Trying to balance the
dispersion requirement prompted a great deal of discussion between staff and he anticipated that discussion
would continue both with the Council and the industry. The goal is to strike the right balance where there
is not too much impact in one place and yet recognize the need to provide working technology and the
industry's need to deploy in a functional manner. He was uncertain that 300 feet, the minimum spacing in
the interim ordinance, was the right number and whether that would be in the final draft.
Councilmember Nelson commented this is an FCC regulation written by the wireless communication
industry, federal law that severely limits what the City can do. He asked about the existing fee charged to
a wireless company for a macro tower. Mr. Clugston offered to research, noting no new macro towers have
recently been permitted on zoned property or in the right-of-way. Councilmember Nelson said the proposed
fee is standard fee throughout the country. Mr. Clugston said the fees in the Order are acceptable fees from
the FCC's viewpoint; jurisdictions can charge different fees if they can be justified. Councilmember Nelson
said a lot of cities are frustrated by the lack of flexibility in fees due to the FCC's nationwide
standardization.
Councilmember Nelson said public rights -of -way are one of the most valuable public assets and these low
fee rules deprive jurisdictions from potential revenue -generating opportunities on City -owned infrastructure
that would benefit and improve citizens' lives. He was frustrated with the limitations the FCC imposed,
independent of the fact that health implications are not on the table. He was also frustrated with holding a
public hearing following the worst snow storm in 70 years. He was concern with the FCC's shot clock to
fast track the process when it has profound implications for the City. He was interested in slowing down
the process not speeding it up.
Councilmember Teitzel recalled one of main comment from the wireless industry is the requirements in the
proposed ordinance are more onerous than they would like and they increase the cost and time to obtain
permits. He asked how Edmonds' requirements compared with other cities. Mr. Clugston said other
jurisdictions who have recently adopted regulations have concealment/camouflage requirements but do not
have the requirement to look on private property first. The industry is asked to do that research as part of
their siting process before submitting an application and to describe on the application how the location
was determined. He was uncertain if other jurisdictions have required that, but staff felt it was a reasonable
request in siting deliberations. t
Councilmember Buckshnis feared there would be more than 1000 small cell facilities. She agreed with
Councilmember Nelson's comment that the right-of-way is very important. She asked the cost of a master
permit agreement, commenting if 1000 small cell facilities are allowed, the City should get some money.
Mr. Taraday said the state legislature does not allow jurisdictions to charge for use of right-of-way if the
user is a telecommunications company. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there was a fee for the master
permit agreement if it was located in the public right-of-way. Mr. Taraday answered the City can charge
direct reasonable costs for processing an application such as staff time to review the application, but use of
the public right-of-way is free.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Taraday explained the state legislature made a distinction between pole
owners and right-of-way owners. Pole owner can charge a small amount for pole rental space but the City
as the owner of the right-of-way is not allowed to charge for right-of-way rental.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 12, 2019
Page 9
Packet Pg. 246
7.1.j
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the City had to allow poles in the right-of-way. Mr. Taraday
said the City has to allow them to deploy. The FCC has stated thou shalt allow small cell deployment in
your jurisdiction. Ultimately the City needs to allow the industry to create a feasible pathway for small cell
deployment. The FCC's guidance is not so specific as to state exactly what the City can and cannot do
which is the reason there is some disagreement, and he expected industry representatives to state during the
public hearing that some of the things in the ordinance are illegal. Staff is looking out for the City's best
interest given the guidance policy makers have provided but it is not clear exactly what the City can and
cannot do so there will be differences of opinion.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the Council could make a decision that there could be no more
than X number of small cell towers total in the right-of-way. Mr. Taraday did not think so, anticipating that
would be considered an impermissible prohibition of their right to deploy. Council President Fraley-
Monillas said it would not hold up their right to deploy as they could deploy on private property and
negotiate the cost. Mr. Taraday did not disagree from a policy standpoint, but he was predicting the outcome
if it were challenged. He acknowledged he could be wrong and the courts could be more generous than he
expected but he was not optimistic.
Council President Fraley-Monillas understood better cell reception was important to a lot of people, but she
was not happy that they can install in the right-of-way and do not have provide compensation for using City
property. She suggested the City could assist the industry with contracting with private property owners to
use their property. She envisioned these facilities would be located on new buildings in the future which
would require compensating the private property owner.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if there was an existing requirement to remove old equipment.
Mr. Taraday said that is in the existing code. Mr. Clugston agreed. Mr. Taraday did not think there had been
a major problem with the wireless industry leaving old equipment. The clutter concern is bigger than the
wireless industry which is why it is being addressed more broadly. The code is designed to allow the
wireless industry to easily take down an old antenna and replace it with a new antenna in exactly the same
place.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked about the shot clock. Mr. Clugston said the FCC allows a specific
amount of time to review these permits, for example an eligible facilities request, if it is not reviewed within
60 days, it is automatically deemed approved and the industry could challenge that in court. For small cell,
the shot clock is also 60 days and if the City misses that deadline, it is not automatically deemed approved
yet, but the industry could challenge to have the review done. A shot clock is the amount of time given by
the FCC to review permits.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented additional staff may be required if there were 1000+
requests, recalling it was difficult in a good economy to get permitting done quickly. She was concerned
there may not be adequate staff to handle the permits and that the fees would not be adequate for staff time,
benefits, etc. without hiring additional staff.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Gregory Bush, Wireless Policy Group, consultant representing AT&T, expressed AT&T's support for
the City's efforts to update its code and reiterated AT&T commitment to working with staff to develop
workable policies for all carriers to provide high quality service as technology continues to evolve. AT&T
has significant concerns with the current draft of the wireless code update. The seven step hierarchy requires
carriers to locate small cells on private property unless the applicant can demonstrate justification for
locating in the right-of-way. The main issue with this is it is complex, not in line with what other
jurisdictions in Washington are doing, it will lead to more poles and clutter in the right-of-way due to the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 12, 2019
Page 10
Packet Pg. 247
7.1.j
requirement to put a new pole within 5 feet of an existing pole, and it makes it more difficult to comply
with shot clocks because of the two week period to check with other private landowners. They prefer to
locate on utility poles because they have only one pole owner to talk to and it prevents long, extended
negotiation for each pole. He was concerned the draft code may conflict with the recent FCC order, both
the shot clock deadlines and imposing burdens not applied to other types of infrastructure deployments.
The FCC requires jurisdictions' aesthetic regulations be reasonable, technically feasible, objective, no more
burdensome than other applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and to be published in advance.
If the City requires carriers talk to private property owners, a step not required for power, utilities, Comcast,
internet, etc., it does not comply with the FCC order. AT&T strongly urges the City to work with the
wireless industry to develop reasonable standards and work with other stakeholders such as Snohomish
County PUD to reach a workable policy.
Kari Marino, Bellevue, representing Verizon Wireless, referred to the letter submitted last week by Kim
Allen, Wireless Policy Group representing Verizon, that states the urgency and the reason to deploy,
outlining the FCC requirements and asking the City to delay adopting this emergency ordinance until there
is an opportunity to ensure it is feasible. There needs to be a path forward for wireless providers that protects
the City's best interests especially aesthetic standards. She highlighted the four main issues in the letter:
1. Seven -step preference hierarchy. Small cell technology is designed to radiate RF out; a location on
a building does not serve the building well. A property owner has to pull a separate power feed and
fiber optic connection which makes it unworkable for the property owner. Another concern is
proving they have checked with all property owners within 150 feet.
2. Requesting proprietary coverage maps. She assured they would not provide their strategy plan. The
City will know what they want when they submit a permit.
3. Concern the shot clock timeframe will not be met
4. Size restrictions are too limiting.
A meeting is scheduled on Thursday with staff, AT&T and Verizon and possibly other carriers. She looked
forward to continuing to work with the City to ensure the end product serves everyone.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Teitzel commented if a small cell wireless facility is mounted to the side of an apartment
building, it could be close to a bedroom. He asked if there were any health issues with radiation, cell
transmissions, etc. that have been studied at a national level and if so, what were the findings. Mr. Clugston
said the FCC provides guidance for RF emissions exposure. It was his understanding that if the industry
states they meet those standards, there is assumed there will no health impacts. Small cell are smaller
antennas and less powerful; what may have been a larger concern with macro antennas may be less with
these smaller antennas. If the industry can meet the RF criteria provided by the FCC, the City cannot not
further regulate health impacts.
Councilmember Teitzel observed two of the major carriers were represented at the public hearing. He asked
how many carriers could potentially put up small cell facilities in Edmonds. Mr. Clugston anticipated
Verizon AT&T and T-Mobile and Sprint.
If a carrier puts up a standalone wireless only pole, Councilmember Teitzel asked if the carrier was obligated
to share the pole with other carriers to co -locate equipment. Mr. Clugston answered co -location is
encouraged but it is not required.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the AT&T's representatives statement that the City's
regulations would require more work and asked if any study had been done regarding the amount of time it
would take a wireless company to talk to private property owners and the cost. Mr. Clugston answered not
that he was aware of. Carriers have sited macro towers on the sides of buildings so there may be a precedent
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 12, 2019
Page 11
Packet Pg. 248
7.1.j
for small cell. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was concerned about the cost to citizens versus
the cost to a private company as her obligation was to the City's 42,000 citizens, not the wireless companies.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the master permit agreement refers to maps, yet the Verizon representative
stated their maps are proprietary. She asked how the City could determine how many small cell facilities
there would be without those maps. Mr. Taraday said propriety maps will be discussed with the industry.
He was not yet convinced that the City could not require that as part of its franchising authority.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed if 4-5 carriers are going to put up freestanding poles, as many as
possible should be located on each pole. Mr. Taraday said one of the reasons the City is asking for that
information is to see areas in the City where there are gaps and direct deployment into areas that are
underserved, get more than one provider to coordinate if there is a need in an area, etc. There is a good
public interest basis for seeking those propriety maps.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4141, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 20.50
OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, ENTITLED "WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES." UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (3-2),
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; COUNCIL
PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBER NELSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday said the emergency clause in the ordinance will not be effective due to the 3-2 vote; a majority
plus one was required for the emergency clause to be effective. Therefore, the ordinance will not be
effective until five days after publication.
8. ACTION ITEMS
1. CRUMB RUBBER MORATORIUM EXTENSION
Council President Fraley-Monillas explained the moratorium will expire soon and she requested the
moratorium be continued through August 31, 2019 pending a response from the EPA and other entities
regarding crumb rubber.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4142, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING THE PROHIBITION OF THE INSTALLATION OF
STYRENE-BUTADIENE RUBBER (ALSO KNOWN AS SBR OR "CRUMB RUBBER" ON
PUBLICLY -OWNED ATHLETIC FIELDS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR AN
ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS.
Councilmember Teitzel commented the moratorium has been extended a number of times and asked
whether there was any legal limit on the number of extensions. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered no, 1)
this is not within the framework of GMA, and 2) there are good reasons for continuing the moratorium as
ongoing human health impact studies are still occurring at the federal level and in California. Both studies
are making progress and there will eventually be a conclusion reached at which time there may be a more
permanent ordinance. He summarized he was not aware of any limitation to continuing the moratorium
until the studies were completed.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF EXCELSIOR PLACE STREET
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 12, 2019
Page 12
Packet Pg. 249
7.1.j
Environmental Programs Manager Kernen Lien advised the City Council held a public hearing on October
2, 2018 and adopted a resolution of intent to vacate a portion of Excelsior Place north of the property
addressed 19511 94t' Place West. The resolution of intent contained four conditions:
1. The retention of a public utilities easement
2. Construction of a utility access and emergency vehicle turnaround
3. A private access easement for all properties with frontage on the vacated portion of Excelsior Place
and;
4. A utility and emergency vehicle access easement and covenant requiring construction of additional
access road width to meet South County Fire lane standards with future single family development
The applicant had 90 days to meet those conditions and staff feels have the applicant has met the conditions.
With regard to construction of the turnaround, given that the winter months are not construction season, the
applicant has submitted a bond that would ensure construct of the turnaround by June.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT TO
APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4143, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, VACATING A PORTION OF EXCELSIOR PLACE ABUT AND LIES NORTH
OF THE PROPERTY ADDRESSED AT 19511 94T11 PLACE WEST AS SET FORTH IN THE
RESOLUTION OF INTENT NO.141, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. RENEWAL OF CITY COUNCIL EMPLOYEE CONTRACTS
Councilmember Nelson said this item is employment agreements for Jerrie Bevington and Maureen Judge,
both of which have expired. Ms. Judge's previous employment agreement was for one year, $31/hour for
the first 6 months and $32 hours for the second 6 months. She also receives City benefits. Ms. Bevington's
employment agreement was for 2 years at $33/hour and is not eligible for employee benefits. Ms. Judge's
agreement includes a 3% COLA increase or $34/hour and a request for an increase in vacation from 7.33
hours/month to 10 hours/month. HR Director Mary Ann Hardie indicated the City's current policy is 11
days of vacation/year for employees with 2-5 years of service. Ms. Judge received six days for the first six
months and five days for the second six months. Ms. Judge's request also includes some comparables.
Councilmember Teitzel did not recall completing a performance evaluation for Ms. Judge and asked why
that was not done or discussed in executive session versus discussion in an open meeting. Mr. Taraday
answered the Council is entitled to review performance of an employee in executive session and could do
that now if the Council wished. The Council cannot take action regarding the employee's contract in
executive session.
Councilmember Teitzel suggested recessing to executive session to have a brief discussion about
performance before making a decision. Although he personally had no concern about her performance, he
was unaware if other Councilmembers did. He was concerned with increasing the vacation accrual from
7.33 hours/month to 10 hours/month, a 36% increase that he found excessive. He supported having a frank
discussion about performance before making a final decision. Councilmember Nelson said a survey was
distributed to all Councilmembers regarding Ms. Judge's performance.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said in most years, the Council President has evaluated the
administrative staff with input from the City Council; it had never been a joint process where the Council
met in executive session unless there were performance issues.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she completed the survey and Ms. Judge requested an evaluation. She
agreed with recessing to executive session because she had no idea what others have said. The Council had
the same administrative assistance for many years and the update was status quo. Ms. Judge is asking for a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 12, 2019
Page 13
Packet Pg. 250
7.1.j
36% increase in vacation and she would like to talk about that in executive session. Mr. Taraday said the
Council can discuss performance of an employee in executive session, but not the terms of compensation.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
MOVE INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR NO MORE THAN 10 MINUTES FOR A BRIEF
DISCUSSION ABOUT MAUREEN JUDGE'S PERFORMANCE AND RECONVENE TO DISCUSS
THE SPECIFICS OF THE COMPENSATION PACKAGE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Convene in Executive Session RegardinE Performance of a Public Emplovee Per RCW 42.30.110(2).
At 8:54 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss
performance of a public employee per RCW 42.30.110(g). He stated the executive session was scheduled
to last approximately 10 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials
present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis,
Teitzel, Tibbott and Nelson. City Attorney Jeff Taraday was also present. The executive session concluded
at 8:59 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 9:04 p.m.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE JERRIE BEVINGTON'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH
THE ADJUSTED SALARY AND CONTRACT DATE.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about Ms. Bevington's rate. Councilmember Nelson advised it was
$33/hour.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Teitzel observed Ms. Judge's current contract expired January 22, 2019. Mr. Taraday
suggested the contract be retroactive to the day after it expired.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
APPROVE MAUREEN JUDGE'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THAT REFLECTS AN
EFFECTIVE DATE OF JANUARY 23, 2019 AND EXPIRES JANUARY 22, 2020 AND INCREASE
THE SALARY TO REFLECT 3% COLA OR $33/11OUR AND INCREASE THE VACATION
ACCRUAL RATE FROM 7.33/MONTH TO 8.33/MONTH, A 13% INCREASE IN THE ACCRUAL
RATE.
Mr. Taraday said the 7.33 hours/month was intended to match the table in City code, 11 days/year of
vacation. He asked if the intent was to provide more than 11 day/year of vacation. Councilmember Teitzel
said based on the Council's assessment of her performance, this is an appropriate level, appropriately 100
hours/year. Mr. Taraday said the existing language in the contract is consistent with City code.
Councilmember Teitzel said this is a contract employee.
Council President Fraley-Monillas encouraged Council not to support 8.33 hours/month for Ms. Judge
which equals 94 hours/year and she requested 10 hours/month. Her duties as a contract employee are at a
higher level than most other similar jobs and although she is paid by the City, she is the Council's contract
employee. Directors all receive a higher level of vacation and she supported a higher level for Ms. Judge
who has many years of experience. She noted the majority of Ms. Judge's work is legislative research and
only 25% administrative. Her request for 10 hour/month is only 3 weeks/year which she felt was not too
much to provide for an employee of her ability.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 12, 2019
Page 14
Packet Pg. 251
7.1.j
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE 8.33 10 HOURS/MONTH TO 10
HOURS/MONTH.
Councilmember Tibbott agreed with Council President Fraley-Monillas. Ms. Judge has a higher level of
responsibility than an entry level employee and certainly demonstrates efficiency in her role. He supported
the amendment to 10 hours/month of vacation accrual.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said 8.33 hours/month equates to100 hours/year, slightly over 2 weeks;
10 hours month is 3 weeks/year, a difference of only 20 hours.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed Ms. Judge is doing a very good job. She preferred an increase from 7.33
to 8.33 or 9 rather than 10.
AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-1), COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL VOTING NO.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. 2019 CARRYFORWARD BUDGET AMENDMENT
Finance Director Scott James reviewed:
• The 2019 Carryforward Budget Amendment begins on Page 642 in the Council Packet
• 2019 Carryforward Budget Amendment is for Items Not Completed in 2018
• There are 57 Carryforward Requests
• All Items were Previously Approved by Council
• The Carryforward Budget Amendment Will Roll the Unexpended 2018 Budget into the 2019
Budget
• Exhibit D (Change n Fund Balance)
o Summary:
■ Proposed Amendment Change in Beginning Fund Balance: $3,963,174
■ Proposed Amendment Change in Revenue: $384,166
■ Proposed Amendment Change in Expense: $4,347,340
■ Proposed Amendment Change in Ending Fund Balance: $0
• Exhibit A (packet page 649)
o Illustrates each fund's Beginning Fund Balances, Anticipated Revenues, Budgeted
Expenditures and Ending Fund Balance
• Summary of the 2019 Carryforward Budget Amendment
o Beginning Fund Balance is Increased by $3,963,174
o Expenditures are Increased by $4,347,340
o Revenues are Increased by $384,166
o Ending Fund Will Remain Unchanged
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the completion of the UFMP with Davies Tree Resource Group,
relaying her understanding the City no longer planned to utilize this consultant due to the poor document
produced, yet the carryforward includes $5,644. Ms. Hope answered the intent is for them to fold in the
new information and other corrections; they will not do any new work. Councilmember Buckshnis hoped
to give them a poor report card, noting some people will be very upset to know the City paid $130,000 for
that document.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the $200,000 carryforward for the community garden, recalling the
carryforward was $100,000 and there was $100,000 in this year's budget. Mr. James said $200,000 is for
land acquisition. The 2019 budget includes $155,000 for the community garden.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 12, 2019
Page 15
Packet Pg. 252
7.1.j
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
APPROVE THE 2019 CARRYFORWARD BUDGET AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED AT THE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON FEBRUARY 12, 2019 ORDINANCE NO. 4144. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. PRESENTATION OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN THE PROPERTY
FRONTAGE OF EDMONDS RECOVERY CENTER AT 7416 212TH ST SW
City Engineer Rob English relayed the building is currently undergoing tenant improvements and a change
of occupancy. One of the permitting requirements is a fire sprinkler system in the remodeled building which
required a water connection and new meter. The proposal is authorization to approve a 10' by 10' water
utility easement on the property for that connection. Staff recommends approval.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO APPROVE RECORDING OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
WITHIN THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE OF THE EDMONDS RECOVERY CENTER AT 7416
212TH ST SW.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if there was any expense associated with the easement. Mr. English answered
they are dedicating the easement to the City.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling commended Public Works, Parks and Police Department staff for their extraordinary work
during the recent snow storm. They have been working 12 hour shifts which continue tonight and likely for
days. He offered special thanks for the quality work they have done.
Mayor Earling said City Hall and other facilities have been open Monday and Tuesday, opening at 10 a.m.
and closing yesterday at 3:00 p.m. and at 5:00 p.m. today. The City has been staffed with enough people to
operate both days. City Hall will open at 9 a.m. tomorrow and likely be back to 8 a.m. by Friday.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Teitzel echoed the comments about the great work Public Works has done keeping streets
safe. He recognized not all streets could be plowed but all the major thoroughfares have been passable and
sanded. He reported on the Port of Edmonds Commission meeting, recalling the boat shed collapse in 1996
under the weight of heavy snow. The Commission reported the boat sheds weathered the snow well and
there were no collapses.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the Public Works crew who finally sanded her street. She urged
everyone to be careful and stay in if possible, commenting a woman fell on her street and broke her femur.
Council President Fraley-Monillas thanked everyone for the flexibility to cancel last week's City Council
meeting and reschedule items, noting the priority should always be staff and citizens' safety and she
believed it was not safe last Tuesday night.
Council President Fraley-Monillas gave a shout out to WSDOT who have been working 12-16 hour days
to keep the freeways fairly clear which allows staff to reach the City. She still has 2 feet of snow in yard
and driveway and will be glad when the snow goes away.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 12, 2019
Page 16
Packet Pg. 253
7.1.j
Councilmember Tibbott gave a shout out to the Police Department, especially Officer Wang, who helped
his son who skidded out on 196' on Friday and totaled his car. He echoed Councilmember Buckshnis'
suggestion for people to drive carefully and to stay off the roads if possible. Mayor Earling added although
Councilmember Tibbott's son was in a car accident, he was okay.
11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 12, 2019
Page 17
Packet Pg. 254
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/2/2019
Civic Park Field Update
Staff Lead: Carrie Hite
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Preparer: Carrie Hite
Background/History
Civic Center Field was acquired by the City from the Edmonds School District on February 9, 2016.
The PROS plan and Parks CIP have both identified the City's goals of master planning and developing this
property once acquired.
The City published an RFQ/SOQ on February 12th, 2016 for firms to submit their qualifications for all
three phases of Civic Park Master Plan and Development.
Council awarded the contract to Walker Macy in May of 2016.
After a robust public process, Council adopted the Civic Master Plan in March 2017.
In 2017, the City contracted with Walker Macy to complete the geo technical work and survey work, for
both the sewer line replacement and for park planning purposes.
In 2017, the City contracted with Walker Macy to complete the demolition plans for the stadium.
In April 2018, Council approved the closeout for the removal of Civic stadium.
In April 2018, Council authorized the full design contract for Civic to Walker Macy.
In May 2018, Council adopted resolutions to authorize grant submittals to the State Recreation and
Conservation office for funding for Civic.
In November 2018, Council adopted both the CIP and CFP that identified Civic as a project, with a goal to
begin construction in 2020.
Staff Recommendation
Receive update and give input on design development process.
Narrative
After a very robust public process, the Civic Park Master Plan was approved in March 2017, and officially
adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan in late 2017.
The City authorized a contract for design services with Walker Macy to complete the design
development, permitting, bidding, and construction support.
Since this award of bid, Walker Macy has been engaged in our community with various stakeholders to
complete the schematic design and begin the design development process. Stakeholders included the
original Project Advisory Committee, a skate park focus group, the Petanque club, the Chamber of
Commerce, the Arts Festival Foundation, the Arts Commission, the Boys and Girls club, Sno-King Youth
organization, among others. Walker Macy has used this input to inform the beginning of their design.
Packet Pg. 255
8.1
Most recently, the issue of parking at Civic has become a community dialogue. I would like to remind
Council that parking was part of the discussion in the master planning process, at stakeholder meetings,
at open houses, during the public hearings both at the Planning Board and City Council. The consensus
of the community at the time was that the park property should be retained as public open space and
not allocated to parking, or solving the downtown parking issue. The design team recommended that
the parallel street parking along 6th and 7th avenues be further studied to determine if this could
expand parking in and around Civic.
Currently, Public Works is leading the effort on the parking study. In addition, Parks and Public Works
have discussed expanded angle parking on 7th, possibly on 6th, and maybe on a few streets adjacent to
the park.
This update is to share the schematic design and the beginning of the design development with the full
Council and seek any feedback on the development process.
Some of the highlights of this presentation will include:
1.Specific design areas, including the skate park, petanque courts, Boys and Girls club footprint, other
features.
2. Site conditions, including water table, soil, and stormwater treatment
3. Schematic costing and value engineering
4. Financial update: most recent proposed budget is attached.
Attachments include:
1. Final adopted master plan
2. Walker Macy PSA
3. Schematic design
4. Proposed budget
5. Walker Macy presentation
Attachments:
170227_ECCP_Master_Plan_Final_optimized
Walker Macy PSA
180913_SD_Illustrative Plan cropped
Civc park budget and assumptions 3-30-19
190402_City Council
Packet Pg. 256
LN -. � �.•
s
lilt,
r ` [
8.1.a
a
U
U
W
ti
I
N
N
O
ti
C
d
E
t
V
R
a+
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 258
8.1.a
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
City of Edmonds
Mayor Dave Earling
Edmonds City Council
Edmonds Planning Board
City Staff
Carrie Hite, Director, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services (PRCS)
Renee McRae, Deputy Director, (PRCS)
Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Manager, (PRCS)
Rich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager, (PRCS)
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Todd Cort, Recreation Coordinator
Phil Williams, Public Works & Utilities Director
Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer
Shane Hope, Director, Development Services
Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Jennifer Lambert, Engineering Technician
Consultant Team
Project Advisory Committee
Kyla Blair
Barbara Chase
Mike Echelbarger
Kristiana Johnson
Lesly Kaplan
John McGibbon
Joe Mclalwain
Bob Rinehart
Emily Scott
Doug Sheldon
Steve Shelton
Valerie Stewart
Dave Teitzel
Dick Van Hokebeke
Diana White
Alex Witenberg
Pat Wooden
WALKER MACY Walker I Macy - Landscape Architecture, Project Lead
Chris Jones, Principal
Lara Rose, Design Principal
Ann Marie Schneider, Project Manager, Landscape Designer
Alyssa Machle John, Landscape Designer
enviroissues Enviroissues - Public Outreach / WBE
Ara Swanson, Associate
Harrison Price, Project Coordinator
ORA- Architecture
Owen Richards, AIA, LEED AP
Steven Lazen, AIA
Emily Perchlik, Assoc. AIA
JMB Consulting Group, LLC - Cost Estimating
Jon Bayles, Principal
Herrera Environmental Consultants - Permitting
HERRERA Shelby Petro, Wetland Scientist, Env. Permit Coordinator
U
Packet Pg. 259
8.1.a
a
U
U
W
ti
I
N
N
O
ti
C
d
E
t
V
R
a+
a+
Q
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 260
Table of Contents
Introduction.......................................................................................................................6
SITE BACKGROUND &ANALYSIS..................................................9
History..............................................................................................................................10
ExistingConditions........................................................................................................10
Related Studies & Plans................................................................................................11
Context............................................................................................................................. 12
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT+ COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ............ 19
Process& Schedule....................................................................................................... 20
DeedRestrictions...........................................................................................................21
Park Activities & Amenities........................................................................................... 22
ExistingUses.............................................................................................................. 22
PotentialNew Uses................................................................................................... 24
DESIGN ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................................30
Option1- Meadow Loop........................................................................................ 30
Option 2 - Activity Central....................................................................................... 32
Events............................................................................................................................... 34
CurrentEvents...........................................................................................................34
Design Alternative Event Overlays......................................................................... 35
OpenHouse 2, August 2016........................................................................................ 36
Format & Objective.. : .................... 36
Small Group Discussions.........................................................................................36
Participation and Attendance................................................................................ 38
Feedback.................................................................................................................... 39
MASTER PLAN.............................................................................41
Hybriddesign..................................................................................................................42
AerialView..................................................................................................................43
Examples of Signature Features............................................................................43
MasterPlan Views..........................................................................................................46
Master Plan Event Overlays.......................................................................................... 48
Small to Medium Size Events Within the Park....................................................48
Large Events and the 6th Avenue Market Promenade......................................49
Architectural Elements..................................................................................................50
Boys and Girls Club Expansion...............................................................................50
Examples of Signature Features............................................................................ 51
ShadePavilion...........................................................................................................51
OpenHouse 3, October, 2016...................................................................................... 52
Format.........................................................................................................................52
Participation and Attendance................................................................................53
Phasing.............................................................................................................................54
Supplemental Information..........................................................................................55
AlleyBuffers................................................................................................................55
Utilities and City Planning.......................................................................................55
Parking Considerations..........................................................................................55
Tennis / Sports Fencing...........................................................................................55
Street Improvements....................................................................................................56
6th Avenue Market Promenade.............................................................................56
7th Avenue Street Improvements..........................................................................57
U
Packet Pg. 261
INTRODUCTION
Civic Center Playfield is an eight acre park in the heart of
downtown Edmonds that straddles the boundary between
residences, civic amenities and the downtown commercial
district. Well -loved and used by residents of all ages, it is home
to the Boys and Girls Club, the Petanque Club, athletic fields, a
playground, a skatepark, tennis courts and several of Edmonds
largest annual festivals such as the Taste of Edmonds and the
4th of July Fireworks.
Originally the Edmonds High School sports facility in the
1930's, the site has served as a recreational and event space
for decades while the population of Edmonds has continued
to grow and develop around it. The City has been operating
and maintaining the property for public use since 1975, with
no investment of capital funds and little change to the layout
since its former use by Edmonds High School. In the 2014
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS Plan), Civic
Center Playfield was identified as a key asset and securing the
park, that had been leased from the Edmonds School District
for40 years, was deemed a priority. In direct response, the City
of Edmonds acquired the property in the fall of 2015 with grant
assistance from the Washington State Recreation Conservation
Office and the Snohomish Conservation Futures Program,
thereby ensuring that the site will remain accessible to the
community, providing both passive and active recreation.
In April 2016, through a Request For Qualifications and
interview process, Walker Macy, a Landscape Architecture and
Urban Design firm, was hired bythe Edmonds Parks. Recreation
and Cultural Services (EPRCS) department to lead the Civic
Center Playfield Master Planning effort. The project goal was to
work with the City of Edmonds and the Edmonds community to
design a Master Plan that envisions Civic Center Playfield as a
signature park in the heart of downtown Edmonds.
The project undertook a rigorous public engagement process,
including three public open houses, three online open houses,
stakeholder interviews and a series of meetings with the
Project Advisory Committee, the Parks and Recreation Staff,
the City Council and the Planning Board in order to create
a plan inspired by the community's desires and reflecting
public sentiment and feedback. Several iterations of design
and feedback were presented, tested and reviewed, resulting
in a schematic design that integrates active program, civic
engagement and beautiful landscape spaces.
The Civic Center Playfield Master Plan embraces the potential
of this downtown park to contribute to a sense of community
identity and civic pride while promoting active, healthy
lifestyles, energizing the local economy and bolstering the
city's growing reputation as a destination on Puget Sound. The
legacy of the park as an iconic place for gathering, celebration
and enhanced daily life is intended to serve Edmonds for
generations to come.
U
6 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 262
IDaley _
�_ ..
F,
V.
1 `I
Sprague St ------ 4� MEADOWS Sprague St
r
THE GREAT LAWN '.
w - .
r Edmonds St
4
- w r r r
_ � a
- Bell St -
.�:'-�` _"gam
71Air
r
8.1.a
a
U
U
W
ti
I
N
N
O
ti
C
d
E
t
V
R
a+
a+
Q
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 264
8.1.a
Q-
e°
Main
Street
Shops
4
a' -.
1 '
o�
I T E. AC KG RO U N D &
v
w
a
Farmer's �c
Market &
Q•
Future
Edmonds
Veterans
,C-0) City Hall P� Plaza
P BELL ST
Edmonds
Historical
®� Museum
MAIN ST
■ 1� i� rr .r rM M M Or
Boys &
Girls Club
ANALYSIS
LEGEND
HISTORIC SITES N
DESTINATIONS
Site Background & An;
Packet Pg. 265
HISTORY
Civic Center Playfield was the athletic grounds for Edmonds
High School, originally built a block from the site at 410 Fourth
Avenue North, now the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Prior to
recreational development it's believed to have been a marshy
field. In 1957 the high school relocated to the Holmes Corner
neighborhood at 76th and 212th. The City has operated the
property as a park since 1975 with minimal change to its
amenities or use.
1930's - courtesy of the Sno-Isle Musem
1950's
2015 - Google Earth
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Today, the eight acre site includes a playground, basketball
and tennis courts, football field, soccer fields, track, skate park,
petanque courts, portable restrooms, and two structures - the
grandstand and the Boys and Girls Club (former high school
field house).
Civic Center Playfield is currently used for neighborhood
recreation, community sports team practices and games by
local organizations such as Sno-King Youth Club and EPRCS
recreation programs. It also hosts events such as the 4th of
July, Taste of Edmonds, Edmonds Arts Festival parking and the
Wenatchee Youth Circus.
There are two structures on site, the field house, most likely
built after 1935 when the district acquired the property, was
remodeled in 1999 and is currently leased to the Edmonds Boys
and Girls Club. The grandstand, also over 50 years old, is still
used on occasion for events and also serves as storage for a
number of local organizations.
The Edmonds Boys & Girls Club has occupied the field house
since 1968. It's currently operating at full capacity, serving
approximately 150children. Activities offered atthe Boys&Girls
Club include arts and crafts, computer use, homework help,
volleyball and basketball, arts and music, snacks and meals.
The building presently contains spaces typical in most Club
facilities - ground floor offices, a small game/recreation room,
computer lab area, restrooms, storage and service spaces. The
upper floor, includes a gym and additional storage. The Boys&
Girls Club is in conversation with EPRCS and the City to discuss
the needs and plans of the organization in conjunction with the
park redesign. The field house would likely require expansion if
it is to continue to serve the growing needs of the Club.
In a City of Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission Special
Meeting on June 29, 2016, a majority of the Commissioners
"voiced support for retaining the field house structure due to
its significance to the community and because it echoes what
Edmonds used to look like in the 1920's and 1930's." The
Commission also discussed the historic value of the entire site
and the importance to the community of "retaining some of it's
historic [] flavor" as the park design continues (see Appendix
for full HPC Meeting Minutes).
The State of Washington Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation recently ruled that the grandstand is not
of historic significance and the State of Washington Recreation
Conservation Office has approved the removal of the structure.
A structural review was also completed during the Master Plan
effort with the conclusion that significant upgrades are needed
to meet both structural and accessibility compliance (see full
grandstand structural evaluation in Appendix).
U
10 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 266
8.1.a
Panorama taken from the playground at the south east corner of the site. The grandstand is to the left and back of the field house is left of center.
_ a
Field house (Boys & Girls Club) entrance
Grandstand
Field house 2nd floor gymnasium
RELATED STUDIES & PLANS
Field house 1st floor entry area
Prior studies were consulted by the project team during the master planning process. These include:
• 4th Ave implementation Plan
• 4th Ave Arts Corridor Plan
• Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS Plan), February 2014
• City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
• Edmonds Cultural Plan, February2014
• Edmonds Transportation Plan
• Edmonds Strategic Plan
• The Edmonds Waterfront Access Alternatives Study
U
Site Background & An
Packet Pg. 267
8.1.a
CONTEXT
CU
A)
U-
Y
L
R
ci
URBAN ECOLOGIES
A sizeable public open space in downtown Edmonds, Civic Center Hayfield serves a unique role that differs from other parks in the
vicinity. It's urban context, flatness and lack of tree cover set it apart from Yost Park and the Shell Creek corridor, Edmonds Marsh, and
Brackett's Landing, all of which are larger in scale and provide important eco-destinations and habitat. City Park offers undulating
topography and significant tree canopy resulting in a more passive park experience with some active play area, while the nearby
Frances Anderson Center hosts a green space with more intimate neighborhood -scale activity, recreation and gathering.
12 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 268
8.1.a
F
� .•r .. rrs •� r�. vrt :
BiVIEWS
r A E FROM
EAST EDGE
97
'r PANORAMIC VIEWS
+' A.• OVER PARK
IT
_ ...
41gg
I
SITEVIEWS
Spectacular views of the Puget Sound and the Olympic mountain range area signature feature of the City of Edmonds. The east edge
of Civic Center Playfield offers glimpses of the Olympic peaks due to it's slightly higher elevation and the parks grand, open scale. Also
noteworthy are the panoramic views from the streets and residences on the high slopes directly east of the park where the park grounds
become foreground.
U
Site Background & An
Packet Pg. 269
8.1.a
a
2
LL
Y
R
a
U
'.� =tom^ 7T •— —nc_Li
O w
PARK EDGES AND CURRENT ZONING
Civic Center Playfield is nestled between residential and civic zones and will be most successfu [if designed to respond to its adjacencies.
The east side of the park is single-family residential while the north and south edges of the park consist of more dense multi -unit
housing. The west edge is made up of predominantly civic institutions such as the police and fire stations, City Hall and the Edmonds
Center for the Arts while also being at the edge of the downtown commercial district.
14 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 270
8.1.a
ro
QP�
Amtrak/
LINK
Station
Brackett's Landing
Shoreline
Sanctuary
`�' /
ryR*
Main
Street
Shops O
EdmondsIr
/ > Center For _.
The Arts
li 1 /4 mile l
I 5-minute walk i
1 Qi i, �> 1-•
M
i
MAIN ST l ! -
� l
Frances f
Library — I Anderson _
DAYTON ST Center
LEGEND
1
BUS STOP
...
e
a
a l
EXISTING BIKE ROUTE N
t
o
m
x
x �
� W w w PROPOSED BIKE ROUTE
FERRY ROUTE O
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII AMTRAK/LINK ROUTE
TRANSIT CONNECTIONS
Civic Center Hayfield is within walking distance of most downtown amenties and a short bike ride for many residents. It is also in close
proximity to regional transit, including the Ferry Terminal to Kingston and the Amtrak/Sound Transit commuter station to Seattle and
Eve rett.
U
Site Background & An
8.1.a
Edmonds
-' Center For
The Arts
w
Q Q\\ Future
�o \\\ Edmonds Veterans
,� \\ City Hall .P i Plaza l
Q \ LEGEND
BELL ST '�- _ HISTORIC SITES
'�•`p \ l \\ U,
Main \ ` Edmonds
Street \ \ Historical ■ DESTINATIONS O
Shops \ Museum
\ MAIN SST
r a Frances
Library -
Anderson
Center
r >
U
DOWNTOWN CONNECTIONS & DESTINATIONS
Civic Center Playfield is a key component in a community circuit connecting local residences and civic destinations such as the
Edmonds Farmers Market, the Sno-Isle Library, the Frances Anderson Center and downtown shops and restaurants. The park also
has the potential to serve as part of an arts and culture plan with the evolving 4th Avenue Arts Corridor connecting Main Street to the
Edmonds Center for the Arts.
16 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 272
8.1.a
CIVIC FIELD
EDMONDS, WA
8 ACRES
EDMONDS CITY PARK
EDMONDS, WA
14 ACRES
CAL ANDERSON PARK
SEATTLE, WA
7.5 ACRES
SCALE COMPARISON
BELLEVUE DOWNTOIA
BELLEVUE, WA
21 ACRES
PETER KIRK PARK
KIRKLAND, WA
12.5 ACRES
Parks similar to Civic Center Hayfield, or known to local residents, were studied by the design team and shared with the public to
facilitate understanding and discussion of the parks' program.
U
Site Background & An
Packet Pg. 273
8.1.a
a
U
U
W
ti
I
N
N
O
ti
C
d
E
t
V
R
a+
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 274
8.1.a
U
VIENT +
EMENT
Packet Pg. 275
8.1.a
PROCESS & SCHEDULE
The Civic Center Playfield Master Plan project team undertook
a rigorous public engagement process that included three
public open houses (offered both in -person and online); on -
site postings, stakeholder interviews and outreach meetings.
As a result, the design process was highly integrated with
public engagement opportunities and public feedback
shaped both the methods of design as well as the final plan.
Stakeholders included the Boys and Girls Club, who currently
lease the Field House on -site; recreational groups that use
the fields such as Sno-King Youth Club and the Edmonds
Petanque Club; groups that host events currently held at the
park or nearby such as the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce
(Taste of Edmonds), the Edmonds Art Festival and Festival
Foundation; and other civic organizations directly effected
by the park's potential transformation such as the Edmonds
Arts Commission, the Museum/Market Board; City Council
and Planning Board members; Edmonds Center for the Arts;
Economic Development Commission; Floretum Garden Club;
Historic Preservation Commission; and City staff.
Community feedback and design team progress was
discussed in regular briefings to City Council, the Planning
Board, Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services,
and the Project Advisory Committee. The Project Advisory
Committee was comprised of a broad selection of community
representatives and leaders with varying interests selected to
provide guidance to the project team.
Mayor Dave Earling speaking at the first Open House on June 23rd, 2016. Mayor
Earling provided introductions to all three Open Houses.
Public 1 Briefings
Stakeholder Public Open Planning City
Interviews Houses Board Council
Project Advisory
Committee
Each public open house addressed a different project milestone
and incorporated, as well as solicited, feedback from the
community. Online open houses were launched immediately
following each in -person open house and were accessible for a
minimum of two weeks. Project description, progress, schedule,
open house results, and meeting minutes were posted publicly,
and regularly, on the city's splash page at:
http://www. edmondswo.gov/parks-recreation-departments/civic-
center-master-plon.html
The project was organized into three phases that corresponded
with each Open House. All events took place in 2016 unless
otherwise noted.
Park Activities (Program)
• PAC kickoff meeting: May 12
• Stakeholder Meetings: May 17 & 23
• Open House#1: June23
• PAC meeting: July 7
• Planning Board Meeting: July 27
• City Council Meeting: August
Master Plan Alternatives
• Open House #2: August 24
• PAC Meeting: September 1
• Planning Board Meeting: September 14
• City Council Meeting: September27
Hybrid Master Plan
• Open House #3: October 19
• PAC Meeting: October25
• Planning Board Meeting, Wednesday, November
• City Council Meeting: January 17,2017
• City Council Adoption: March 7, 2017
U
20 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 276
PROJECT SITE
(8 ACRES)
2 ACRES EXEMPT
" FROM DEED
RESTRICTIONS
DEED RESTRICTIONS (6 ACRES)
• Not more than 10% impervious surface (excluding
pathways)
• Must be preserved as open space
• No synthetic turf
• No buildings (restrooms allowed but apply to
impervious calculations)
• Shade structures are permitted
• Multi -use open grass areas are allowed
• Temporary festival use can be accommodated
• No temporary or permanent parking is allowed
8.1.a
PARK ACTIVITIES & AMENITIES
Existing Uses
Existing Civic Center Hayfield amenities include a large multi-
use lawn with sports fields, a 400-metertrack, a playground and
various courts that accommodate a number of activities. Uses
for the park were categorized into active, passive, civic and
event spaces and the community was engaged to determine
what existing program should remain and what new program
was desired.
Parking is not currently provided in the park while storage
space exists belowthe Grand Stand, within the Field House and
the shed. These uses were also put forth for discussion.
• Soccer/Lacrosse Fields (2 -1 Adult and 1 Youth)
• Tennis Courts (2)
• Petanque Courts (4)
• Basketball Courts (2)
• Baseball/Softball Field (1)
• Skate Park
• Taste of Edmonds
• 4th of July Fireworks
• Wenatchee Youth Circus
• Sports tournaments
• Arts Festival (parking)
• Boys & Girls Club (Field House)
• Grand Stand
• Storage
1141111
0-1 VAh
I F's11 ■
22 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 278
8.1.a
Parks in the greater Edmonds area were reviewed to understand nearby amenities available to residents, to help identify priorities and
to facilitate discussion about the potential future uses of the park.
HAINES WHARF PARK
1
VIEW POINT I PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I WILDLIFE I TRAILS I RESTROOMS
STAMM OVERLOOK PARK
2
VIEW POINT I WILDLIFE
HUTT PARK
3
TRAILS I WILDLIFE
SEAVIEW PARK
4
PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I TRAILS I BASKETBALL I TENNIS I SOCCER I GAS
RESTROOMS
SIERRA PARK
5
PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I TRAILS I BASKETBALL I SOCCER I BASEBALL/S(
MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK
6
PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I TRAILS I WILDLIFE
OLYMPIC BEACH PARK
7
PICNIC AREA I WALKWAY I ART I MARINE SANCTUARY I FISHING I RESTROOMS
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH & SOUTH / UNDERI
8 PICNIC AREA I TRAILS I VIEW POINT I ART I RESTROOMS I MARINE SANCTUARI
OCIVIC FIELD
9 PLAYGROUND RUNNING TRACK BASKETBALL TENNIS FOOTBALL SOCCE
BASEBALL/SOFTBALLISKATEPARK I PETANQUE
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER
10 PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I BASEBALL I SOCCER I ARTS RESTROOMS
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK
11 PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I BASKETBALL
12 PINE RIDGE PARK
TRAILS I WILDLIFE
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA
13 OUTDOOR PERFORMANCE SPACE I ART I DOWNTOWN GATHERING AREA
YOST PARK
14 PICNIC AREA PLAYGROUND I TRAILS I BASKETBALL I TENNIS I OUTDOOR POO
RESTROOMS
MARINA BEACH PARK
15 PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I VOLLEYBALL I KITE HEYING I BOAT LAUNCH I BAF
STANDS I VIEW CORRIDOR I RESTROOMS
16 EDMONDS MARSH
TRAILS WILDLIFE VIEW CORRIDOR
EDMONDS CITY PARK
17 PICNIC SHELTERS I PLAYGROUND (2) I TRAILS I SOCCER I WATER PLAY I OUTDO
PERFORMANCE SPACE I HORSESHOES I RESTROOMS
PINE STREET PARK
18 PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I BASEBALL/SOFTBALL I RESTROOMS
7TN & ELM PARK
19 OPENSPACE
20 EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY & COLUMBARIU
HICKMAN PARK
21 PICNIC SHELTERS I PLAYGROUND (TRAILS I SOCCER I BASEBALL/ SOFTBALL I I
RESTROOMS
MATHAY-BALLINGER PARK
22 PICNIC AREA I PLAYGROUND I BASKETBALL
TOTAL FACILITIES FOR LOCAL PARKS AND
SCHOOLS COMBINED (INCLUDING CCP)
Soccer Fields (Adult + Youth): .... 10
Tennis Courts: ................................
7
Petanque:......................................
4
Basketball Courts :.......................
10
Baseball/Softball Fields
(Adult + Youth) :............
11
Skate Park: ....................................
2
Pickleball:......................................
10
CL
LL
Y
R
IL
L7
U
NUMBER AT CIVIC
CENTER PLAYFIELD
2
2
4
2
1
1
2
Design Development + Community Engag
Packet Pg. 279
8.1.a
Potential New Uses
In addition to existing uses, new ideas for park activities were
putforth for communityfeedback in Open House 1. Ideas came
from interests expressed by the community, stakeholders and
the design team.
plaza
• cafe
Proposed uses included:
water feature
• performance space
®
permanent art
• temporary art
• exercise path (informal track)
promenade
• creative play (informal playground, nature play, etc.)
covered market space
• seasonal games (shuffle board, ping pong, etc.)
museum display
• classes (yoga, tai chi, etc.)
restrooms
• activities clubhouse
• concessions
Events
• theater performances
®
markets
• music
• multi -use lawn
culinary events
• horticultural gardens
art installations
• stormwater gardens
fun -runs
• berms
• shade trees
• picnic areas
• strolling paths
• shade pavilion
AM
{
4
24 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 280
OPEN HOUSE 1, JUNE 2016
(see detailed summary in Appendix)
Format & Objective
The first in -person Open House on June 23, 2016, consisted of a
presentation, Q&A, and a series of informational and interactive
boards for participant engagement. The online version provided
the same content in an electronic format. The objective of the
session waste gauge community interest in specific park amenities
and activities and to begin to develop a sense of identity (theme)
for the park.
Informational Boards
BACKGROUND
Project Description History
Scope, Schedule and Process
q,.,a,...,� ,.,.� �.. ,., a �•�- �O-�
Eamonas CMc Curter Piayfielo Master Plans
THE SITE
WA I
- Spacial Cdn,l rirn-aio ns
I
Civic Field Today Existing StrucWnes
®®
MEN mom
Center Playl'iexl Maslar Plen
"ALKL';
Content
• Informational boards about the site background, existing
conditions, restrictions, context and scale.
• Interactive boards allowing participants to "vote" for
favored activities and themes as well as comment directly
on an aerial of the site.
• Interactive models (3) that allowed participants to better
understand the scale of different existing and proposed
programs and how much the park could accommodate.
• Comment forms for additional written feedback.
V
CONTEXT
-. ., tJurvnloa,s Cunnv.cGons Transit Conn,:.';-:
Ecoloyic3l Context v'Ievrs Activities at Edmonds Parks
Edmonds Civic Ccml r Playwid Master Plan WALKERI '"
SCALES OF SIMILAR PARKS
1 I
if � I #W,_
Eamwds Civic Certter Playtiela Master Plan VVALKER'I
Design Development + Community Engag
Packet Pg. 281
0
Interactive Boards
Five boards were placed at the back of the room and offered
opportunity for a range of input from participants. Design staff
were also available for discussion and questions.
Which activities should confine-e? (Place pins inside the colored areas)
POSSIBILITIES
M-W6]W&ffMr-
What might you like to see? (Place pins inside the colored areas)
Passive
r�
! Events
PIN A COMMENT ON CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD
Tack a comment on the site or margin.
Ipp"',
Special Con sideralians
U
POSSIBILITIES
What might you like to see? (Place pins inside the colored areas)
® Other ideas?...
I(list them here)
PARK THEMES
What types of activities should be prioritized in the renovated park?
(check all that apply)
CIVIC PASSIVE ACTIVE
26 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 282
8.1.a
Program Models / Games
Participants were able to test out ideas and gain a better
understanding of the size and compatibility of different park
activities by placing scaled model pieces on top of corresponding
site aerials. This was also a way to explore the flexibility of
different programs to serve a variety of uses, for example plaza
space that also serves as performance space or multi -use lawn
that can also host events.
Additional Outreach
Youth from the Student Conservation Association were engaged
in an additional outreach event hosted by Edmonds Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Services. Park opportunities were
discussed and students were encouraged to engage with the
model to test their ideas. The twelve students in attendance
encouraged prioritizing year-round active uses including games,
concessions and a zip line.
Youth from the Student Conservation Association were engaged and took turns
testing out ideas on the models.
Participants at Public Open House #1 working with site program models to
understand the scale of different park programs.
U
Design Development + Community Engag
Packet Pg. 283
Participation and Attendance
(See detailed summary in Appendix)
Attendance and participation in Open House 1 was impressive and demonstrated the communities passion forthe future of Civic Center
Playfield.
In -Person Open House, June 23, 2016
Attendance:
• 131 signed in
• 141 attended
Online Open House (6/24/2016-7/7/2016)
Statistics:
• 1,350 total page views
• 180 responses received
On4nueP (Place pins risine H�
iauld �
Feedback
Themes (Priorities)
Three ideas were put forth as over -arching themes for the park. The feedback received expressed the desire for the new park to be
characterized primarily as active, with passive as a close second and civic garnering the least interest.
Theme
Active
In -Person Votes
53
Online Votes
21
Total
74
Passive
50
12
62
Civic
20
3
23
U
28
Packet Pg. 284
Activities
Over 40 activities were solicited for feedback and then tracked and summarized to help the design team prioritize elements for the new
park design. The activities with the greatest number of votes are shown below (see full results are in the Appendix). Note, there was no
way of prohibiting multiple votes so counts are taken as reasonable, rather than absolute, gauges of public interest.
Activity Type
(Current v. Possible)
Category Activity In Preson Votes
active restrooms 41
active petanque 43
Online Votes Total Votes
36 77
33 76
Possibilities
Current Activities
Possibilities
active
jogging/walking path
43
28
71
Current Activities
active
soccer
35
32
67
Possibilities
passive
shade trees
29
27
56
Current Activities
active
skate park
25
25
50
Current Activities
active
playground
21
29
50
Current Activities
active
tennis
24
25
49
Current Activities
buildings
B&G Club
16
32
48
Possibilities
passive
strolling paths
28
19
47
Possibilities
passive
multi -use lawn
17
25
42
Current Activities
active
formal track
15
25
40
Possibilities
events
performances (sm. music+theater)
10
29
39
Possibilities
passive
horticultural gardens
18
17
35
Current Activities
active
baseball
14
20
34
Possibilities
civic
market
5
29
34
Current Activities
active
basketball
13
18
31
Current Activities
buildings
Grand Stands
16
14
30
Possibilities
civic
performance space
12
17
29
Possibilities
active
creative play
15
13
28
Possibilities
passive
picnic areas
12
15
27
Possibilities
active
seasonal games
16
10
26
Possibilities
passive
stormwater gardens
13
13
26
Possibilities
civic
permanent art
10
16
26
Possibilities
civic
water feature
10
15
25
U
Packet Pg. 285
DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Based on community input, the design team developed two master plan alternatives, each intended to emphasize one of the two main
themes that emerged from community input, active versus passive, and to encourage further discussion on these two topics. The final
plan would eventually emerge as a hybrid between these two alternatives, as informed by the community process.
Option 1- Meadow Loop
The design concept for the Meadow Loop provides a generous landscape buffer on the
residential edges of the park and a more civic edge along 6th Avenue, while more intense
uses are concentrated in the central multi -use lawn. This option introduces more passive
landscape features into the park perimeter, including meadows, berms and stormwater
gardens that frame the central active space. This option features jogging and walking
paths with exercise stations around a central lawn area large enough to accommodate
the same level of soccer usage that occurs now. A wide, promenade -style sidewalk along
6th Avenue allows for strolling or markets and includes a plaza and shade pavilion that
could accommodate food concessions, movable tables and chairs, and a small water
feature. This scheme also includes a small amount of other recreational program - multi-
use courts and petanque- thatflankthecommunityhubsateitherend of the civic edge.
Meadow Loop Precedents
The following images, from existing parks, are intended to give a sense of the general
character of the proposed features.
Meadows and gardens
Promenade / flexible -use market space
Creative, integrated playa reas
Shade pavilion and plaza
Multi -use lawn
Passive landscape gardens
U
30 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 286
91F__'
walking/jogging paths
berms
existing
= trees
multi -use lawn /
- _ playfields
obstacle
course -'
or exercise
stations4
t ` meadows y.
+. &
M h } gardens "!
r � f3
8.1.a
Option 2 - Activity Central
The design concept for Activity Central creates a generous neighborhood connection
along the old Sprague Street right-of-way and allocates the southern portion to active
recreation space while creating a quieter landscape buffer to the north. This option
maximizes recreational activities and facilitates spectatorship. It includes a 200-meter
track, multi -use lawn for soccer and other sports, and viewing terraces that offer views
of both mountains and playfields. Option 2 also includes petanque groves, a skate park,
and four multi -use courts around an expanded Field House that could potentially house
the Boys and Girls Club or a cafe and restrooms. The north portion of the park is still fairly
active but more landscaped in character, and includes a picnic or performance pavilion
and multi -generational play and exercise areas. The main path across the park offers a
clear connection from the residential neighborhood to the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor and
other civic destinations. This path also offers the potential for bringing markets and other
events into the park.
Activity Central Precedents
The following images, from existing parks, are intended to give a sense of the general
character of the proposed features.
Shade pavilion and picnic area
All -ages recreation
Lawn terraces for spectating and views
Small plaza with interactive waterfeature
PE BUFF
i
ONNECTION
ECREATION
Landscape integrated play
Game courts within shade trees and planting beds.
U
32 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 288
COMMUNITY HUBS
ACTIVITY CENTRAL SITE PLAN
CONNECTIONS
JWMV�jo�ig paths
ACTIVITY ZONES
u
Design Development + Community Engag
Packet Pg. 289
EVENTS
Current Events
There are currently a number of events that take place at Civic Center Playfield. These include:
The Taste of Edmonds - an annual festival held in August that utilizes most of the park and hosts a number of vendors,
activities and performances. This event generates significant revenue for the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce who would
like to see it continue. Conversation with the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce is ongoing and the organization is open to
discussion about how the event could evolve with the park, including reviewing inefficiencies with the festival layout and the
potential to move vendor parking off -site. °'
M
• 4th of July Fireworks - during the day, a parade begins at 6th Avenue adjacent to the park. At night, spectators fill the park to a
watch the fireworks. D
22
• Sports tournaments - the Sno-King Youth Club and other organizations sometimes host sports tournaments on the grounds. am
M
• Arts Festival (parking) -The annual Arts Festival in late June is held at the nearby Frances Anderson Center and the Civic Y
Center Playfield is used by participants for vendor parking and camping. a
• Wenatchee Youth Circus 2
Z
U
PARK BOUNDARY
t Stoop 71h Avenue
34 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 290
Design Alternative Event Overlays
Throughout the design process, careful consideration was given to providing flexible use spaces that could accommodate a variety
of types and scales of events. Ongoing conversation with the community and stakeholders about current and future event uses will
continue as the park design develops. To facilitate conversation about event use, the following diagrams were presented in Open
House 2 to illustrate the amount of park space available.
MEADOW LOOP EVENT OVERLAY
ACTIVITY CENTRAL EVENT OVERLAY
U
Design Development + Community Engag
Packet Pg. 291
8.1.a
OPEN HOUSE 2, AUGUST 2016
(see detailed summary in Appendix)
Format & Objective
The second in -person Open House on August 24, 2016, included
the presentation of two alternative park designs, Q&A, and small
group discussions with a final report back to the larger group.
The online version provided the same content in an electronic
format. The objective of the session was to encourage dialogue
about differing themes and park program elements and to garner
community feedback on the direction of design development so
that a final hybrid plan could be developed.
The following questions were asked as a starting point for in -
person feedback and discussion as well as online comments:
• Which alternative park plan do you prefer?
• Please share your thoughts about Option 1. What do
you like or dislike about this option?
• Please share your thoughts about Option 2. What do
you like or dislike about this option?
• Are there park elements not shown in either option
that you would like to see?
• Additional comments were encouraged.
Resident and local business owner Rick Steve's sharing the outcome of their small
group discussion.
U
In -person attendees watching presentation at Open House 2.
Small Group Discussions
Large side -by -side plan drawings were provided for each of 16
tablesatthe In -Person Open Houseand attendees split themselves
into groups of 8-12 to discuss the similarities and differences
between the design alternatives and share their interests and
visions for the park. The group overwhelmingly agreed to extend
the time of the in -person Open House to allow each table to report
back on the outcome of their discussions with the larger group.
36 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 292
MEADOW LOOP FEATURES
multi -use lawn/play fields
(2 small or 1 large soccer field)
walking/jogging paths
11/2 multi -use courts
4 petanque courts
• berms
• obstacle course with exerciseCL
-a
stations
• meadows and gardens
22
• playgrounds
Y
L
• existing fieldhouse/Boys &Girls
a
Club
• shade pavilion & restrooms
Z
C)
• plaza with water feature or art
installation
N
ACTIVITY CENTRAL FEATURES
• multi -use lawn/playfields
(1 large + 1 small soccer field)
• walking/jogging circuit
• 2 multi -use courts
• 2 tennis courts
• 8 petanque courts
• 200-metertrack
• skatepark
• playground
• sand volleyball
• parking
• exercise stations
• expanded Field House for B&G
Club / Cafe / restrooms
• picnic terrace with shade pavilion
• plaza with small, interactive water
feature
Design Development + Community Engag
Packet Pg. 293
8.1.a
Participation and Attendance
(see detailed summary in Appendix)
In -Person Open House, August 24, 2016
Approximately 160 attendees
16 Discussion Tables
Preferred Plan (by majority at table):
• Option 1: 8 (50%)
• Option 2: 4 (25%)
• Split: 2 (12.5%)
• Unclear: 2 (12.5%)
Individual Comment Cards:
• Option 1 preferred: 5
• Option 2 preferred: 3
• Undecided / Unclear: 3
Approximation of Combined Results
Option 1: 178 (35%)
• In -person - 90 (64%)
• Online - 88 (24%)
Option 2: 330 (65%)
• In -person - 50 (36%)
• Online -280 (77%)
Participants in the In -Person Open House small group discussion.
Online Open House (8/24/2016-9/7/2016)
• 1,057 visitors
• 379 responses
• 88 Prefer Option 1 (23.9%)
• 280 Prefer Option 2 (76.1%)
Age
• Over 70: 38 (17.7%)
• 45-69: 81 (37.7%)
• 30-44: 80 (37.2%)
• 18-29: 7 (3.3%)
• Under 18: 5 (2.3%)
U
38 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 294
8.1.a
Feedback
(see detailed summary in Appendix)
Most consistent comments across both
Open Houses
• Like the lawn terraces
• Skatepark should remain in the park
• Option 1 curves are nice but want more active
program like in Option 2
Common reasons respondents preferred Option 1
• Free -flowing structure, layout
• Walking paths
• Water feature and plaza
• Open green spaces and lawn
• Reduced number of petanque courts
• No track
Common elements not shown that respondents
would like to see
• Additional restrooms
• Benches and/or seating areas
• Lighting
• Additional covered athletic facility and
market space
• Stage
• ADA accessibility
• 400-meter track
Common reasons respondents preferred Option 2
• View terraces
• Long walking and running paths
• Focus on fields and athletic facilities
• Expanded Boys and Girls Club
• Skate park
• Potential for large events
• More spaces for families and children
• Track
U
Design Development + Community Engag
Packet Pg. 295
8.1.a
a
U
U
W
ti
I
N
N
O
ti
C
d
E
t
V
R
a+
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 296
R
8.1.a
HYBRID DESIGN
The refined park plan features recreation and activities for
all ages in a beautiful park setting. The plan includes three
different zones that each provide a unique experience: "The
Meadows", "The Great Lawn" and "The Market Promenade".
The Meadows provide both passive and active enjoyment and
encourage exploration. This area of the park includes gently
rolling hills, meandering paths, and landscaped buffers at all
residential edges of the park. Special features include a'/3 mile
measured walking/jogging path, playground, skatepark, picnic
lawn, youth climbing wall and exercise areas set within planted
areas and low berms.
The Great Lawn is designed to support soccer in multiple
configurations as well as other field sports and casual
recreation. Lawn terraces offer mountain views and provide
spectator seating forfield events, concerts and festivals alike.
Street improvements to 6th Avenue are seamlessly integrated
with the park'swestern edgeto provide a generous promenade -
style sidewalk for markets, parades and festivals. A multi -use
plaza and shade pavilion, with restrooms and storage, provide
space for outdoor seating, water play, interactive art, and the
potential to host small performances, and civic events. The
existing Field House continues to serve the Boys and Girls Club
as conversations continue about the potential for expansion
or new construction. A 12,000 SF addition to the existing Field
House is delineated on the Master Plan as a potential option
congruous with the park design. The 6th Street area also
includes a range of multi -use recreation spaces: petanque and
multi -use courts for tennis, basketball and pickleball.
The park is designed to be flexible and accommodates a
substantial amount of activity, but will also be beautiful at
quieter times. All paths are accessible, and park and sport
lighting will be provided throughout. The park is also designed
to be economically and environmentally sustainable - multiple
locations are identified for stormwater treatment and careful
consideration will be given to site conditions and amenities
needed to support recreation and event use.
The Petanque Grove features six full-size petanque courts to
support both the Edmonds Petanque Club and the greater
community. Located at the southwest corner of the park
and the 6th Avenue promenade, the Grove will serve as a
community cornerstone and welcoming gateway defined by
aggregate courts set within seasonal planting beds, shade
trees and integrated seating.
How we responded to what we heard:
Top 10 activities (from
Open House #1)
restrooms
petanque
jogging/walking paths
soccer
shade trees
skate park
playground
tennis
Boys &Girls Club
multi -use lawn
formal track
small performance space
gardens
Votes
77
76
71
67
56
50
50
49
48
42
40
39
35
Included in
Hybrid Plan
From total list of 40 activities, 36 are accommodated in the hybrid plan
Themes / Priorities as voted on by the community and
carefully considered in the hybrid plan:
1st: Active
2nd: Passive
3rd: Civic
U
42 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 298
8.1.a
Aerial View
m
a
m
ii
Y
L
a
U
Examples of Signature Features may=
The following images, from existing parks, are intended to give a sense of the general character of the proposed features.
Gardens with Integrated Play
Creative Play Grounds & Water Feature
Market Promenade & Plaza
Berms
Landscape Integrated Skatepark
� f
Jogging/walking paths with a
Youth Climbing Wall
exercise stations
Maste
Packet Pg. 299
8.1.a
:�11 MITSUI
COMMUNITY HUBS
CONNECTIONS
\ ,A
Boys & Girls Club
The continued presence of the Boys and Girls Club at Civic
Center Playfield is desired by all parties. Conversation with the
Club is ongoing to determine a short and long term solution
that will allow the Boys and Girls Club to remain at Civic
Center Playfield and to grow and integrate facilities as the park
develops.
Two options for potential Club expansion were proposed by
the design team and presented at Open House 3 (see page
50, Architectural Elements, for details). Option one, a 12,000
SF extension with possible renovation of the existing field
house, is delineated on the preferred site plan. The potential
expansion, it's location, scale and relationship to the park and
the field house, will be further reviewed and developed in the
next phase of design.
W
CL
2
LL
Y
L
IL
U
44 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 300
8.1.a
PREFERRED SITE PLAN
u
N
U 10 20 0 80
SWE: 1' - bp'-0'
Oart & stormwater opportunity
io
stormwater gardens
Otennis/multi-use court (optional outlined)
ii
field lighting
O'Amilejogging&walking path
iz
petanque grove
aO exercise station
is
shade pavilion, restrooms & storage
s0 youth climbing wall
is
multi -use plaza with water feature or interactive art
0 picnic meadow
is
Boys and Girls Club or cafe & concessions
Oberms
ie
multi -use court (potential 12,000 SF Boys & Girls Club expansion)
0 playground
i7
skatepark
Oview terraces
ie
multi -use playfields
Maste
Packet Pg. 301
8.1.a
MASTER PLAN VIEWS
Stormwater
Gardens Field Lighting** Multi -use Lawn
Sprague Street
Playground Connector
Youth
Meadow Climbing
Planting Wall
U
Viewing Terraces 1 /3 mile Berms Picnic Exercise
Jogging -Walking Meadow Stations
Path
** Number of posts and placement to be determined
46 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 302
8.1.a
Multi -use Court
Shade Pavilion Plaza, Field House (Potential Boys
6th Ave Market with Restrooms Interactive Art or (Boys & & Girls Club Art
Promenade & Storage Water Feature Girls Club) Expansion) Opportunity
Petanque Groves Skatepark Stormwater Multi -use Court
Gardens
m
CL
LL
Y
L
11
U
r
a
Maste
Packet Pg. 303
MASTER PLAN EVENT OVERLAYS
Small to Medium Size Events Within the Park
Significant community and stakeholder interest was expressed in hosting more small to medium size events and performances at the
park. The 6th Avenue plaza and promenade areas, Petanque grove, picnic meadow, lawn terraces and corresponding playfield were all
designed as flexible use spaces that could be ideal for a variety of smaller -scale gatherings, concerts, performances, markets or events.
The final park design will also provide distributed utility services for facilitating all scales of event use.
U
48 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 304
Large Events and the 6th Avenue Market Promenade
The park has a long-standing tradition of hosting some of the city's most iconic large events. The new park plan offers a large amount of
flexible use space that can accommodate festivals, markets, parades and more. The maximum amount of area for a single large event
is outlined below and demonstrates the ability of the park to accommodate key existing program elements for the Taste of Edmonds.
Conversations are ongoing with the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce and other stakeholders on the potential reconfiguration of the
Taste of Edmonds, the Edmonds Arts Festival and the 4th of July parade and fireworks to best utilize the new park design.
U
Maste
Packet Pg. 305
ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS
Boys and Girls Club Expansion
The Boys and Girls Club has been occupying the field house since
1968 and have expressed a preference to remain in the park.
However, with the current enrollment of 150 children, they have
reached full capacity in the 9,500 SF facility. Typical Boys and
Girls Club facilities range from 18-25,000 SF and the Club will need
more space if it is to continue to grow.
Atthetime ofthe master plan, therewas no formal long-range plan
for the Club expansion or relocation but the design team explored
Club facility expansion options that could be integrated and/or
phased -in with the new design. Owen Richards Architecture (ORA)
created conceptual massing studies for two options - a 12,000 SF
expansion that creates an entry courtyard adjacent to the existing
Field House, and a 20,0000 SF alternative building. Creating
integrated indoor/outdoor spaces, a bright new gym and open
and inviting volumes that could both complement and offset the
Field House were a priority.
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OPTION 1- PREFERRED
MASSING STUDY FOR 12,000 SF EXPANSION
The proposed building locations and footprints were presented
for discussion and feedback at Open House 3 and the consensus
was that the larger footprint in option 2 consumed too much of
the park. The smaller footprint is shown in the Preferred Master
Plan for future discussion as the park design advances.
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OPTION 2
MASSING STUDY FOR 20,000 SF EXPANSION
4
50 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 306
ENLARGED SITE PLAN
Shade Pavilion
A new shade pavilion and restrooms were strongly supported
by the community. The design team was primarily focused on
the scale and siting of the structure but also began to explore its
potential character and ability to serve as gateway to the park
and iconic gathering space. Potential uses include seating area,
market cover and other small performance or event use.
MASSING STUDY FOR SHADE PAVILION WITH RESTROOMS
Examples of Signature Features
The following images, from existing pavilions, are intended to give a sense of the general character of the proposed structure
Maste
Packet Pg. 307
8.1.a
OPEN HOUSE 3, OCTOBER, 2016
(see detailed summary in Appendix)
Format
The meeting consisted of opening remarks by Mayor Dave Earling,
a presentation by the design team, a brief Q&A session and an
open house during which attendees were able to:
• Discuss the hybrid design and design elements with other
members of the community
• Provide feedback on the hybrid design to the project staff
• Ask questions and talk with project staff and PAC members
• Submit written comments about the hybrid design
The following questions were asked as a starting point for in -
person feedback and discussion as well as online comments:
• Please share your thoughts, what do you like or dislike
about the plan?
• Which elements of the new park design would bring
you to the park most often?
• Are there park elements not shown that you would like
to see?
• Additional Comments were encouraged.
First draft of the hybrid master plan that was presented and discussed at Open
House #3.
Principals Lara Rose and Chris Jones of Walker Macy and participants at Open House 3 discussing the Hybrid Plan during the Q&A session.
U
52 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 308
8.1.a
Participation and Attendance
(see detailed summary in Appendix)
In -Person Open House October 19, 2016
• Approximately 101 attended
Online Open House October 19 - November4, 2016
• 347 visitors
(majority were nearby residents who had not attended
any of the in -person Open Houses
• 156 responses
Age Range:
• Over 70: 6 (7.4%)
• 45-69: 39 (48.1%)
• 30-44: 33 (40.7%)
• 18-29: 0 (0%)
• Under 18: 2 (2.5%)
I don't like...
A broad range of comments were received, similar to prior
feedback.
• Like the integrated activities
• Like the curves, paths, and passive areas
• Northern skatepark location is an issue for residents
• We should leave the parkas is
• Good compromise; thoughtful incorporation of
com m u n ity feed back
• Not enough sports/playfields and too much passive area
• Not enough passive area and too much sports/playfields
• Petanque grove is nice but would like larger tournament
area
• Formal track should be included
• Like the 1/3 mile walking/jogging path
• 6th Avenue market promenade and plaza will be a great
asset
• Concerns about buffers, noise, dogs, lighting and other
design details
Overall sentiment was that the hybrid plan is successful at
incorporating community feedback and will be a great asset to
the city.
HYBRID F
Wr
� w
rit
n r�
iaytield Master Plan
i
4
Maste
Packet Pg. 309
PHASING
Potential implementation could be considered in three phases with the flexibility to prioritize these phases in any order depending on
alignment with city initiatives and budget. The boundaries of the phasing would shift slightly depending on the order of construction
as described below:
• Phase A includes the more civic uses of the park up to the back -of -curb along 6th Avenue. This area includes a majority of park's
hardscape as well as the architectural features and the Petanque Grove. (Note: if this phase follows Phase C, itis recommended
that the park -side portion of the promenade be completed along with 6th Avenue).
• Phase B is the heart of the park and involves more site grading and softer landscape features as well as the Sprague Street
connection and the sidewalk along 7th Avenue. (Note, if this phase precedes PhoseA it is recommended that the Sprague Street
connection be completed oll the way to 6th Avenue).
• Phase C represents the 6th Avenue "Market Promenade" from back -of -curb on the park side and includes the pedestrian crossings
at Sprague Street and the full right -of way for all edges not along the park. (Note: if Phase C precedes PhoseA it is recommended
that the park -side portion of the promenade be completed along with the 6th Avenue improvements).
54 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 310
8.1.a
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Alley Buffers
The design team has proposed that the existing 8' chain link fence that surrounds the park be
removed. The fence was erected while the property served as school grounds and is in poor
condition. Community concerns were raised about buffering between the park interior and
the residential alleys to the north and south of the site for safety and security purposes. The
design team has advised that dense planting offers a more inviting and attractive condition
while still providing effective buffers. The suggested condition below demonstrates a 14'
minimum width. City Council voted in favor of replacing the fence with a vegetated buffer.'
PROPOSED TYPICAL BUFFER SECTION` ��
Planted Berms
Utilities and City Planning
U
8' Jogging 14' Min. 17'
Walking Path Planted Buffer Alley
New stormwater code is scheduled to be published in January,
2017. Alignment with this plan will happen in the Design
Development phase of the Civic Center Playfield.
The city is planningto install a new sewer line between 6th and 7th
Avenues that would cross Civic Center Playfield from east to west
within the old Edmonds Street right-of-way. There is flexibility
on the exact location within that zone and the park design
will collaborate with the Edmonds Public Works and Utilities
department to determine the final locations of any structures and
assess other impacts to the park design.
Parking Considerations
Parking concerns were raised as a discussion point in several of
the Civic Center Playfield Master Plan meetings and Open Houses.
The consensus of the community was that park property should
be retained as public open space and not allocated to parking.
The design team has recommended that parallel street parking
along 6th and 7th Avenues remain with further study to determine
amount and locations for designated ADA and loading access
areas.
The suggestion of back -in angle parking was made but the design
team feels strongly that this causes pedestrian and vehicularsafety
concerns as well as negatively impacts the park edge condition. It
is highly recommended that the City of Edmonds undertake a city-
wide parking study to identify needs and determine options. The
design team also recommends that bus transit routes be reviewed
to consider a future bus stop at Civic Center Playfield.
Tennis / Sports Fencing
The adjacent residential community expressed concerns about
the high fencing around the tennis courts and the potential to
obstruct views. The design team responded with examples of
fencing with low visual impacts that was well received.
Maste
Packet Pg. 3171
8.1.a
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
6th Avenue Market Promenade
The 6th Avenue/Market Promenade is envisioned as a `Festival
Street' that could host special events through temporary
closure to vehicular traffic. The proposed right-of-way features
a raised roadway that is level with the surrounding sidewalk
between Daley and Bell Streets to create a more pedestrian -
friendly park edge and entrance. The street would incorporate
special paving, flush curbs, street trees, planting and space for
market tents and other activities. Additional benefits include:
• Providing clear connections between the park, downtown
Edmonds and Edmonds Center for the Arts.
• Balancing the uses of the street for walking, driving, transit,
cycling, emergency services, parking, drop-offs, etc.
• Creating an attractive and engaging gateway to the park.
• Traffic calming to promote safety of pedestrians and
vehicles.
SECTION A: 6TH AVENUE MARKET PROMENADE
SECTION KEY MAP
or
P ♦ ♦ P
8' 10, 10' 8' 6' 10) 10,
i
36'
Note: Existing conditions and dimensions ore approximate.
4
56 Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Master Plan
Packet Pg. 312
7th Avenue Street Improvements
The existing sidewalk and street trees along 7th Avenue place the
pedestrians on a narrow sidewalk at the edge of the curb. The
master plan recommends that the lane widths be reconsidered
to allow the street trees and planting to create a buffer between
the curb and the sidewalk. Curb bump -outs and a designated
pedestrian street crossing at the Sprague Street Connector
entrance would also provide safer and more direct park access for
residents.
7th Avenue looking north at Edmonds Street
SECTION B: 7TH AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
�I
�I
0
a.
u
y° wt
O
a7
r� 7
I
1
�
I
--------j---- 7 L_ I P + '� P
Existing Grade 4'
8' 16' 8' 12' 12' 8'
1
I I 44'
Note: Existing conditions and dimensions ore approximate.
Maste-
Packet Pg. 313
8.1.b
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, a
Washington municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Walker Macy,
hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant".
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a
consulting firm to provide landscape architectural services with respect to the Civic Center
Playfield project ("Project");
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and
between the parties hereto as follows:
1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material
R
necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with the Scope of CL
3
Services that is marked as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
a�
2. Pay The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for i_
services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full
L
compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, a
equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. >
G
A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be Q
on a time and expense basis as set forth on the Fee Schedule set forth in Exhibit B, attached a
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; provided, in no event shall the payment for U
to
work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of One Million Two Hundred Eight 2
Thousand One Hundred Eighty Five Dollars ($1,233,185.00).
B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each
voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City biweekly during the
progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed
in conjunction with the City's warrant process. No billing shall be considered for payment that
has not been submitted to the City three days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such late
vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment
cycle.
C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept
available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three years after final
payment. Copies shall be made available upon request.
3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data
and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the
services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the
Consultant, roses, however, that:
Packet Pg. 314
8.1.b
A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant
shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and
shall at that date become the property of the City.
B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review
and copy any work product during normal office hours. Documents prepared under this
agreement and in the possession of the Consultant may be subject to public records request and
release under Chapter 42.56 RCW.
C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the
event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work
product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination,
shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a
prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at
no additional cost.
4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this
Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required governmental approvals. The
parties agree that the categories of services set forth in the Scope of Services shall be undertaken
on the following schedule (including payments anticipated in each calendar year):
2018:
1. Project Startup: $31,823
2. Schematic Design: $159,872
3.30% Design Development: $190,572
4. 10% Contingency Fund: $38,227
Total: $420,494 (plus expenses)
2019:
1. 50/90/100% Design Construction Documentation: $475,588
2. Permitting: $34,056
3. Bidding: $20,178
4. 10% Contingency Fund: $52,982
Total: $582,804 (plus expenses)
2020:
1. Services During Construction: $174,194
2. Project Closeout: $12,067
3. 10% Contingency Fund: $18,626
Total: $204,887 (plus expenses)
Total for expenses: $25,000
5. Indemnification 1 Hold harmless agreement. The Consultant shall defend,
indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any
and all claims, injuries, damages, losses, demands, or suits at law or equity arising from the acts,
errors or omissions of the Consultant in the performance of this Agreement, except for injuries
Packet Pg. 315
8.1.b
and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction
determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for
damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting
from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees,
and volunteers, the Consultant's liability, including the duty and cost to defend, hereunder shall
be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence.
The Consultant shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including
RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers.
The Consultant specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the Consultant's
own employees against the City 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. The provisions of this section
shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
6. General and professional liability -insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and
keep in force during the term of the 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 and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not
less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property
damage. The per occurrence amount shall be written with limits no less than one million
dollars ($1,000,000).
C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one
million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit.
D. Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000).
Excepting the Worker's Compensation Insurance and Professional Liability Insurance secured by
the Consultant, the City will be named on all policies as an additional insured. The Consultant
shall furnish the City with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the
Agreement. The City 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 days of the execution of this Agreement to the City.
No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty days prior notice to the
City.
The Consultant's professional liability to the City shall be limited to the amount payable under
this Agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000), whichever is the greater, unless modified
elsewhere in this Agreement. In no case shall the Consultant's professional liability to third
parties be limited in any way.
7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex,
Packet Pg. 316
8.1.b
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.
8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an
independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or
representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of
the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents,
employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement.
9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's
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, the Consultant shall not
perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or
for any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City without written
notification to the City and the City's prior written consent.
10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party
may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such
termination no fewer than ten (10) days in advance of the effective date of said termination.
11. Inteeration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document,
the Scope of Work attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit
B. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except
by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written
Agreement and any provision of Exhibits A or B, this Agreement shall control.
12. Chances/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform
services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant 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 Work, 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 the Consultant to render or the City to pay for services
rendered in excess of the Scope of Work in Exhibit A unless or until an amendment to this
Agreement is approved in writing by both parties.
13. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary
knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and
any persons employed by Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a
professional manner consistent with sound practices, in accordance with the schedules herein and
in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type
described in the Scope of Work.
14. 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.
c)
Packet Pg. 317
8.1.b
15. Non -assignable. The services to be provided by the Consultant shall not be
assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City.
16. Covenant against contingent tees. The Consultant warrants that s/he has not
employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for
the Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that s/he 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, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or
resulting from the award of making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty,
the City shall have the right to annul this Agreement 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.
17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement
shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including a
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 to
assure quality of services. U-
The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & 0) taxes a
which may be due on account of this Agreement. U
18. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: v
City of Edmonds
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address:
Walker Macy
105 S. Main Street, Suite 205
Seattle, WA 98104
Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice in the
U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed.
DATED THIS 21 DAY OF 2018.
CITY OF EDMONDS WALKER MACY
Packet Pg. 318
By
ATTEST/AUTHE CATED: APP VED AS TO FORM:
S assey, City Cle Office of the City Attorney
OREGO tJ OFFICIAL STAMP
STATE OF ) LEONA MAY MILLER
NOTARY PUSUC•OREGON
)Ss COMMISSION NO.951911
COUNTY OF .UUL-rW c-; AH ) OWCOMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 11, 2020
I
On this � day of - 2018ij before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for the State of ., duly commissioned and sworn,
personally appeared U o'l-"V t. to me known to be the pri Ae.i paj
of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said
instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said
instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above
Written.
NOTARY PUBL C
My commission expires:
Q"i I I 1 1,2020
Packet Pg. 319
8.1.b
EXHIBIT A
WALKERIMACYLANDSCAPE ARCHITCCIURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING
March 20, 2018
Carrie Hite
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
City of Edmonds
700 Main Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Improvements — P3282.01
Dear Carrie,
We appreciate the opportunity to submit the following proposal for providing landscape architectural
services for the redevelopment of Civic Center Playfield.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND TEAM ROLES:
1. The project transforms the existing Civic Center Playfield into a new 8 acre park with site
improvements that include a multi -use plaza, a permanent skatepark and pumptrack with integrated
viewing areas, a water feature, multi -use lawn and playfields, one playground, six petanque courts,
one multi -use court, one shade pavilion structure (including restrooms and storage), walking/jogging
paths, exercise stations, picnic area, youth bouldering wall, lawn terraces, berms, planting, lighting,
stormwater gardens and all related utilities that are commensurate with the Master Plan, dated
February 2017. Limits of park improvements are illustrated in Exhibit A, attached.
2. Walker Macy proposes the following sub -consultant team to assist us on the project:
• Architect: ORAArchitects
• Civil and Structural Engineers: KPFF Consulting Engineers
• Mechanical and Plumbing Engineer: Notkin-Wood Harbinger
• Electrical Engineer: Reyes Engineering
• Lighting Designer: FMS
• Cost Consulting: JMB Consulting
■ Fountain Designer: STO Design
• Irrigation Consultant: Design Two Four Two Six
• Skatepark Consultant: Grindline
• Geotechnical Consultant: Landau
3. Walker Macy's role will be to provide the following:
• We will work directly with The City of Edmonds and the design team during the effort to
ensure a comprehensive approach to the work, and will provide leadership at meetings with
client, City, and community groups.
1218 3RD AVE, SUITE 1310 f SEATTLE. WA 98101 I PHONE: 206.582 3874 I WEL'- WALKERMACY.COM
Packet Pg. 320
8.1.b
Civic Center Playfield
March 16, 2018
Page 2 of 11
• Detailed planning and site design for all park improvements, access and circulation for Civic
Center Playfield
• Walker Macy, in collaboration with the design team, will document surface improvements
including vehicular and pedestrian paving, planting, grading, irrigation, water feature, sports
courts and fields, playground, youth climbing wall, skatepark integration and site furnishings
for areas within our scope.
■ Walker Macy will document all site demolition with Civil engineer review.
• Walker Macy, in collaboration with KPFF, will advance the design of 6th Avenue (The
Market Promenade), to a Schematic Design level and 7ch Avenue through Construction
Administration as an optional additional service. Note, this assumes that ROW work is
integrated with park design efforts to reduce cost. If ROW work became a separate effort,
fee estimates would require revision.
4. The team's skatepark consultant will provide consultation, design guidance and architectural
drawings for the skatepark and/or pumptrack.
5. The City of Edmonds will lead and apply for all applicable grants. Walker Macy will support this
a�
ii
effort with required graphics, narratives, and cost estimates.
a
6. The team's architect will provide:
2
a. Architectural drawings and CAD files for the design for a new shade pavilion with
L?
integrated restrooms.
<
b. Documentation for the demolition of the existing shed
a-
c. Not included in this estimate are renovation of the existing Field House, work on a
f°
Boys and Girls Club facility or footprint that differs from the Master Plan, or
integration of the shade pavilion and restroom structure with a future Boys and Girls
Club facility.
7. The team's civil engineer will document and provide CAD files for all right-of-way requirements,
w
erosion and sedimentation control, stormwater features and all utilities.
E
a. We will collaborate with the civil engineer for stormwater quality features per City of
Q
Edmonds code requirements.
b. The City of Edmonds requires a civil engineer's stamp on all final grading plans.
Therefore we propose to transfer our detailed grading documents after 50% CD to
the civil engineer for final construction documentation, in coordination with Walker
Macy.
c. ROW Improvements along 61h and 71h Avenue. See attached limit of work and
additional services enumerated below.
8. The team's fountain designer will provide water feature design services and mechanical, electrical
and plumbing design guidance, in coordination with related sub consultants, and documentation for
the water feature.
9. The team's mechanical engineer will provide mechanical and plumbing design guidance,
specification and technical review in coordination with related sub -consultants.
Packet Pg. 321
8.1.b
Civic Center Playfield
March 16, 2018
Page 3 of 11
10.
The team's lighting designer will provide lighting design services for pedestrian, architectural,
sports, and feature lighting, including fixture proposals, photometric assessments, technical
drawings, and specifications in coordination with Walker Macy and related sub consultants.
11.
The team's irrigation consultant will provide irrigation design, layout and technical documentation.
The irrigation consultant will also provide CAD files of the irrigation locations for coordination with
Walker Macy.
12.
The team's electrical engineer will document all routing and controls for electrical services, layouts
and vaults for site lighting features, including sports field and court lighting. The electrical engineer
will also provide CAD files of the electrical fixture locations for coordination with Walker Macy.
13.
The team's geotechnical engineer will document recommendations for surface, subsurface and
groundwater conditions for proposed work and features, including demolition. The geotechnical
engineer will provide or review drawings as required, including earthwork loading, drainage and
a
foundations.
14.
The team's cost estimating consultant will provide statements of probable costs at Schematic
a�
LL
Design and 90% construction documents.
15.
Walker Macy will submit a packet to the City for review following Schematic Design, 30%(Design
a
Development) and 90%(Construction Documentation) milestones. The City will provide a single
U
collated set of comments to Walker Macy within 40 days of each submittal. Other milestones will
conclude with design team review only.
a
16.
All activities and fees necessary to obtain permits will be by The City of Edmonds and the Owner.
Walker Macy and the design team will provide drawings for inclusion in the permit applications. We
assume permit drawings will be derivatives of our working plans.
SCOPE OF WORK:
Based on our understanding of the project, and the information provided, we propose the following scope
of work:
1. Project Start-up (April -May 2018)
1.1 Attend one conference call with client to discuss scope, budget and schedule.
1.2 Review survey and geotechnical reports, budget information, code requirements, permit
requirements and other project background material made available to Walker Macy.
1.3 Coordinate scope of work and attend meetings as needed with sub -consultants.
1.4 Coordinate and lead team kick-off meeting with sub -consultants
1.5 Attend and document one (1) project kick-off meeting with client, in Edmonds, to review
design efforts and to coordinate our work.
1.6 Confirm reclaimed timber and seat board inventory for potential use in the park.
Meetings Summmary:
• One (1) conference call meeting with client to discuss scope, budget and schedule
Packet Pg. 322
8.1.b
Civic Center Playfield
March 16, 2018
Page 4 of 11
• One (1) kick-off meeting with client in Edmonds
• One (1) consultant team kickoff meeting ( additional subconsultant meetings as needed)
2. Schematic Design (June -August 2018)
2.1 Refine and/or revise site design to accommodate findings from survey and geotech reports
and changes to program since Master Plan was published Create CAD base files.
2.2 Park feature design development, including water feature, skatepark, playground, exercise
stations and scramble wall.
2.3 Design team meetings and coordination of site work across all disciplines.
2.4 Attend and document one (1) meeting with the client in Edmonds, followed by weekly
conference calls.
2.5 Attend and document one (1) Project Advisory Meeting, in Edmonds.
2.6 Attend and document one (1) meeting with the Edmonds Petanque Club.
2.7 Attend and document one (1) meeting with Edmonds Skatepark Committee.
2.8 Attend and document one (1) meeting with Edmonds Chamber of Commerce regarding
event planning.
2.9 Attend one (1) meetings with Public Works and Engineering to coordinate Schematic
Design of The Market Promenade — 6th Street Improvements (per optional services).
2.10 Review Edmonds standard documentation and drawing format requirements and revise
drawing formats as needed.
2.11 Prepare documentation for and attend one (1) Edmonds Internal Parks and Planning
review in Edmonds after SD submittal.
2.12 Attend one (1) City Council Meeting in Edmonds.
2.13 Attend and document one (1) meeting with the Boys and Girls Club in Edmonds.
2.14 Prepare/attend/document one (1) art meeting with Edmonds Cultural Services Manager.
2.15 Provide 100% Schematic Design Submittal with the following deliverables:
• CAD Base drawings for team coordination
• Updated Illustrative Site Plan
• Area take -offs diagram
■ Materials Plan / Site Plan
• Up to three (3) CAD Sections / Elevations, as needed to convey design intent
• Grading Concept Plan for Civic Center Playfield
• Schematic Design Grading Concept for 6th Avenue (per additional services)
■ Narrative / basis of design memo
• Image boards describing proposed materials and plant typologies
• (1) Updated birdseye perspective rendering
m
r
R
a
a�
ii
L
U
a
U)
a
U
ca
L
c
a�
E
c�
Q
Packet Pg. 323
8.1.b
Civic Center Playfield
March 16, 2018
Page 5 of 11
• Stormwater concept plan
• Plan, roof plan and sections of pavilion
• Skatepark plan
• Lighting concept plan
• Water feature concept plan
• 100% SD Cost Estimate, including delineated budget"
Meetings Summary:
• One (1) meeting with client in Edmonds
• Weekly conference calls with client
• One (1) Project Advisory Committee Meeting in Edmonds
• One (1) City Council Meeting in Edmonds a
• One (1) meeting with Edmonds Petanque Club in Edmonds. D
One (1) meeting with Edmonds Skatepark Committee in Edmonds—,
• One (1) Chamber of Commerce Meeting in Edmonds a_
• One (1) meeting for City of Edmonds internal (Parks and Planning) review in Edmonds
One (1) meeting with City of Edmonds Public Works to coordinate 6th Avenue a
s �
Improvements (per additional services).
• One (1) meeting with the Boys and Girls Club v
3. 30% (Design Development, September —November 2018) No City review following 30%
milestone, submittal is for internal review purposes only)
3.1 Incorporate and/or respond to Schematic Design submittal City review comments. City to
provide one collated set of comments for response.
3.2 Attend one (1) meeting with client to review the schematic design phase and discuss
construction budget for the site and landscape improvements, design development goals and
schedule.
3.3 Review Schematic Design cost estimate and contribute to Value Engineering efforts by amending
landscape scope as required to bring project into budget goals.
3.4 Lead team design development and coordination. Coordinate technical documentation for
grading plan, demolition, layout, architectural, civil/stormwater, planting, irrigation and lighting
plans in coordination with consultant team.
3.5 Attend one (1) meeting with the Edmonds Petanque Club to review and refine court design.
3.6 Attend one (1) meeting with Edmonds Skatepark Committee to review and refine
skatepark/pumptrack design.
3.7 Consult on arts integration plan with Edmonds Cultural Services Manager.
3.8 Attend meeting and follow up with artist(s) to discuss concepts and park design integration.
3.9 Review and incorporate Edmonds standard details and related requirements.
3.10 Attend one (1) meeting with City in Edmonds to review 30% plans and outstanding issues
Packet Pg. 324
8.1.b
Civic Center Playfield
March 16, 2018
Page 6 of 11
3.11 Submit internal 30% Design. Deliverables include:
• Demolition Plans
• Civil Utility and Stormwater Plans
• Grading Plans
• Materials Plans, including Lighting and Furnishings
• Planting Area Plans noting plant types (e.g., tree, shrub, groundcover); not specific
plant species.
• Irrigation Conceptual Zone Plans (includes point of connection, mainline routing, and
irrigation value locations).
• Architectural Plans
• Lighting Plans
• Electrical Plans
• Mechanical Cut Sheets and Plans
• Water Feature Plans
• Skatepark Plans
• Draft basis of design memo summarizing assumptions, design intent, code
requirements and draft specifications.
• Draft specifications, including Division One.
Meetings Summary:
• Two (1) client review meetings in Edmonds.
• Weekly conference calls with client
• One (1) meeting with Edmonds Petanque Club
• One (1) meeting with Edmonds Skatepark Committee
• One (1) meeting with Edmonds internal review committee (Parks and Planning) in
Edmonds to review 30% DD submittal.
4. 50%, 90% and 100% Design Construction Documentation (December 2018 -August 2019) City
Review after 90% only.
4.1 Attend two (2) coordination meetings with The City of Edmonds.
4.2 After 30% and 90% submittals, review the construction budget, schedule and milestones. Attain
approval from City to proceed with 100% Construction Documentation.
4.3 Lead design development and coordination of technical documents in coordination with
consultant team.
4.4 Coordinate artist integration for each phase.
4.5 Produce 50%, 90% and 100% Construction Documents. Deliverables include:
■ Site Demolition Plans
• Site Civil Plans and Details
■ Site Grading Plans
• Site Materials and Furnishings Plans
a
Packet Pg. 325
Civic Center Playfield
March 16, 2018
Page 7 of 11
• Site Layout Plans
■ Soil Plans and Details
• Planting Plans and Details
■ Irrigation plans and Details
■ Site Construction Details
• Site Structural Plans and Details
• Architectural Plans and Details
• Lighting Plans and Details
• Electrical Plans and Details
• Water Feature Plans and Details
• Skatepark Plans and Details
■ Specifications, including Division1 Specifications.
4.6 Submit 90% documents to City for review. The 50% and 100% milestones will be used for
internal team review and QA/QC only.
22
a2
4.7 Develop cost estimate at 90% submittal.
Y
L
4.8 Complete geotech review at 50% internal review.
a
4.9 One (1) meeting with Edmonds Skatepark Committee after 50% review.
.>
U
4.10 Prior to 100% submittal, contribute to Value Engineering efforts by amending landscape scope
and drawings as required to bring project into budget goals. Value engineering drawing revisions
vai
after 90% Construction Documentation are not included in this scope of work.
>%
U
Meeting summary:
L
• Two (2) client review meetings, in Edmonds.
• One (1) meetings with Edmonds Skatepark Committee
a�
E
6. Permitting (April — November 2019)
c�
5.1 Submit preliminary and final stamped and signed documents to the client as required for
a
permitting. The permits currently anticipated for this project are all under one umbrella permit
package and include:
a. ROW development (per optional services)
b. Grading and park features
c. Building plans
d. Utility plans
5.2 Respond to permit comments during permitting.
5.3 Revise drawings and resubmit to the permit center if required.
6. Bidding (September - November 2019)
Packet Pg. 326
8.1.b
Civic Center Playfield
March 16, 2018
Page 8 of 11
6.1 Produce Bid Set documents, based on 100% construction documents, including Division 1
Specifications.
6.2 Attend pre -bid conference.
6.3 Prepare addenda during bid period as necessary.
6.4 Assist in review of bids.
Deliverables:
• Permit drawings based on Construction Documents.
Meetings:
• One (1) pre -bid conference in Edmonds.
7. Services During Construction (December 2019 — December 2020)
7.1 Develop "For Construction" set of Construction Documents.
7.2 Attend (1) pre -construction meeting.
7.3 Review product submittals and shop drawings; respond to requests for information, produce
change orders and clarification drawings as needed.
7.4 Attend twenty two (22) project meetings and Construction Observation site visits (one every
other week), particularly at the following milestones:
• Review of rough grading.
• Review of hardscape layout.
• Perform one nursery visits at milestones to review and tag plant material.
• Review irrigation mainline layout and open mainline trenching.
• Review of finish grading.
• Review tree and/or plant material layout.
• Review irrigation coverage.
• Stormwater system review (civil)
• Artwork integration review/observation
• Additional milestones as defined by sub -consultants
7.5 Attend (1) substantial completion walk-through and develop a punch list.
7.6 Attend (1) final acceptance walk-through to review completion of the punch list.
7.7 Attend (1) warranty walk-through and develop a warranty list.
8. Project Closeout
8.1 Prepare record documents for all work within our scope based on contractor provided record
drawings in CAD format.
FEES:
a
Packet Pg. 327
Civic Center Playfield
March 16, 2018
Page 9 of 11
We propose the following fees:
1. Project Start Up
2. Schematic Design
3. Design Development (30%)
4. Construction Documents (50/90/100%)
5. Permitting
6. Bidding
7. Service During Construction
8. Project Close -Out
Subtotal
9. 10% Design Contingency
Total
$31, 823.00
$159,872.00
$190,572.00
$475,588.00
$34,056.00
$20,178.00
$174,194.00
12 067.00
$1,098,350.00
$109,835.00
$1,208,185.00 plus expenses
We propose to bill monthly on a percentage of completion per phase. Expenses are additional, and will
be billed at 1.1 times our cost.
OPTIONAL SERVICES:
Based on our understanding of the project, and the information provided, we propose the following
Optional Services. We propose to bill monthly on a percentage of completion per phase. Expenses are
additional, and will be billed at cost. Project Understanding, Team Roles, and Assumptions enumerated in
this Scope of Work shall also apply to these optional services.
Parking Impact Study
Conduct parking impact study related to Civic Center Playfield improvements. Walker Macy
proposes Fehr & Peers to assist with the study. See attached proposal.
Estimated Fee: $25,600
ROW Improvements
Study grading on 6`h Avenue to determine feasibility of The Market Promenade and flush curb
condition to a Schematic Design Level. Develop and document ROW improvements, per the
approved Master Plan along 7ffi Avenue and 6th Avenue (from back -of -curb on the park -side)
through Construction Administration.
Estimated Fee: $51,775.00
10% Design Contingency $5,178.00
Total: $56,953.00
ASSUMPTIONS:
1. Our proposal is based on the above scope of work, attached limit of work, and a project
construction budget not to exceed $10M.
2. Recent geotechnical investigation revealed conditions that may increase construction cost
significantly above prior estimate. Reductions in park program or phasing may be required.
Areas of park that require redesign may require additional services.
Packet Pg. 328
8.1.b
Civic Center Playfield
March 16, 2018
Page 10 of 11
3. The siting, if any, and scale of the future Boys and Girls Club will be determined prior to
Schematic Design phase initiation. Redesigns for Club siting may require additional services.
4. All work in the right-of-way along 6th and 7th Avenues, as well as pedestrian crossings on 6th and
7th Avenues, are listed as optional services and are not included in the base scope and fee.
5. Changes to overhead power and other utilities along rights -of -way are not included in this scope
of work.
6. Construction drawings will be provided or based upon Walker Macy standards.
8. Revisions to the construction documents due to value engineering which occur after 90%
submittal will require Walker Macy to evaluate potential impact to fees.
9. Site visits in addition to those identified will require Walker Macy to evaluate potential impact to
fees.
10. Walker Macy will provide complete Division One specifications (based on templates provided by
°'
M
the City of Edmonds) and will manage the submittal and RFI process. Walker Macy will attend all
a
meetings outlined in the scope of work. Meetings beyond those noted will be additional services
and will be billed as time and materials.
2
11. This proposal assumes the project will be constructed in one phase. If the project is broken into
LL
multiple design or construction phases, scope and fees will be re-evaluated.
12. Project is scheduled to be completed by December 2020. If project extends substantially beyond
a -
the scheduled date additional scope and fees will be re-evaluated.
13. The project team cost estimator will develop landscape and site improvements, quantity take -offs,
v
and unit pricing. This information will be provided to Walker Macy for review as noted in the scope
Q
U)
above. Walker Macy and the design team will evaluate quantities and unit cost and provide
a -
comments to client.
15. Design review services are not currently part of the proposed scope of services.
16. LEED documentation is not currently a part of the proposed scope of services.
17. Walker Macy is not responsible for verifying the accuracy of Contractors' record documents.
19. Walker Macy will provide typed CSI-formatted specifications.
20. City arborist will provide assessment of existing trees within proposed limits of work.
21. KPFF provided the City of Edmonds a schematic side sewer stub location on 11.30.17 for the
future restroom and water feature. We assume the new 8 inch SS Main and stub outs will be in
place prior to construction of Civic Field and be completed by the COE. Future coordination for
this 8 inch SS Main will include coordination at the view terraces."
22. City review and feedback duration is assumed at 40 days. If this review period extends
substantially beyond the expected duration, impacts to team fees and project schedule will be re-
evaluated.
Please contact me if you have any questions, require clarification, or if we can be of further assistance.
We look forward to working with you on the Civic Center Playfield Improvement Project.
Sincerely,
WALKER MACY
Packet Pg. 329
Civic Center Playfield
March 16, 2018
Page 11 of 11
Chris Jones
Principal
cjones@walkermacy.com
Approved:
Name and title
Date
Packet Pg. 330
8.1. b
ml
�
G
8
4
K
8
$ $ 8 $Qg 6 8
aA
e
n
_
u
N
�
w
a u
3
3
"
s
I
0
0
rl
v
E
3o
C
N
9
N
v
A
n
G�
c
43
E
E
m
u
o
8
q�
E
y
9
o
S
{L
U
�a
v o
«
a
o
c
5
5
a
^
E 0.
a
s
ygy3
8
g
3°
E E
@
p E''
>>>
E
p a
9«
a
ag
Y
oIir
S
v\
2
9
8
v
8
Yx
a
I
I
t[
Q
Packet Pg. 331
8.1. b
d
"
S
m
�
g
8
R
8 $
$
ZIA
S $
c
s
-
$
S
d
S
S$ o. .1S
K
8n m
$ 8
S S 8
S 8
$ mQ
n�$p�4
m
Q$
S m
1
d m.,�m,���aaaaa .. 11
z
a
m
����•�saan�ma� �..q
0
0
0
gg
a
Packet Pg. 332
8.1. b
s
$
$
m
$
`•qL(
lo
g
2
c
g
s s
E
sA7
S
a
88
88
S
8 8 88 88
N
1°
v
m
�
s
ri
N
N
E
:
5
.5
n
_
J
c
a
�
YY
yrr
"
yy
qp
6
�
W
LL
S
• �
�
P
MM
� 9
�
�
g y�7
W
_
_�
+$p
FT
1121,1!11H�H
a�
ma
2
*4
a
Packet Pg. 333
8.1.b
,
®
k
$|
!
a�
2
.
�
|
.
�
�
M
u
■•
m
«
- m
�
�
�
■B
2
`
§
§
�
\ -
�
K
-
!22
__
;
r
�
\
/
\
�
k
$
§
k
�
&
!
!
Packet Pg. 334
\
}
}
( t
_
a
LL
>
U)
.
�
k
�
! ■
, , , , e�
-
- _§
-- 7
k°
/ ]
IN °
E
®
_
,!
|«!!2
!■«!!-
■!:#
!
-
.;!
�
-
i
2
-
}\/
-
�
�
\
�
\}_\�\}\
\
�
�
�■
�
�
�k
&
-
-
�\�}�!
:
G
J
.
Packet Pg. 335
/ 8.1.b
a
;
�
e
$
a
ƒ
a
■
�
-
°
-
\
a ea!
L)
N «
a
a
@ a 7■)
`
§
°
Xo
|
CL
�
k
�
ul £
E
'
t
-
�a
a
I
`
�
2
�
§}!2!
!,!
£
■!!7!
|
!
§
-
!I!
._�
�
�■!!!
■
�
��!
�
t=
�
!
;
!
9
$
_
)
I Packet Pg. 336 1
f
Daley St
I _ .�
aims
` + I ° • * f _ � `� A � � Imo' , lr�.
Ja
i �. •• ` L-
... • f 7 . • / � - �. 1 - -p) •.r . � - � 1 _ -fit � _ - +
_ 4 + •1
4
- C
stormwater= .,
garden exercise statio s - _ ►
,., ten i l i
♦_ s cou k�f
a • $ - _ • ..
i r ' e -
�;, r .fir � ....._ ` ,,r - �'�� ; - _ . r •,�
F I •
�W - r
�S
- � r
picnic eadow
r t r t
r
Sprague ueS Sprague ueS
p g p g -
R=
IF 4F
Jo-
r d.
k.r . • I I I multi -use lawn
Clubki�� aJi
. "- ° r • . '�' I-J skatepar
� y
MI - � "i • • _
t
s
AncAmr MAIM
„• a, ;� r r r ..
,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// , , • . r
multi -use plaza
1 � //Jf i + � , Y � - / I I I i 1 I ' .. �'s��4 r • w / I
;�. -� • r A IlllllllllllC��illily a pav lion ' I I r _ _,•
illlliiillllliilllllll, .
III IIIIIIh. =- re o stbroge ;--- ' �, - .
'`}` •� � .� a _ � � � � I 1 � 1 � � I I view .>G
terraces: u
•,�. ,_ - 1 1 I Edmonds St
' ti I I I I r I I I
Ilk
l •�� -� � Y � ` I , I I I I I I r
II 1 I '• -� ~�� ; ` L• �I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • i
L---------------------- ----------------------------------- 4
petanque grove
.�
AW
_* M-F
woo
AN
y
Y � s �'� � .•mot • -
tea_ ' • � ,. �� i. - •# _ -_ �i- - � �!ir n - • � "'4"ry • - .
W Jff NO Got
Ar
a • • Ir� 1 r r 1"i
wpm
fJw:` � � ' I / � .- : - � ' �i� � ~ � - .mot. I ! •~' �� - � ..
Aim ■!4mTV!DAI MVA
8.1.d
CIVIC PARK BUDGET AND ASSUMPTIONS
30-Mar-19
REVENUE
2019
2020
Total
Fund 125
$70,000.00
$500,000.00
$570,000.00
Fund 126
$750,000.00
$500,000.00
$1,250,000.00
City GF
$2,000,000.00
$500,000.00
$2,500,000.00
Park Impact Fees
$500,000.00
$500,000.00
$1,000,000.00
RCO/Local Parks/YAF
$1,350,000.00
$1,350,000.00
LWCF/State
$500,000.00
$500,000.00
Snohomish County
$450,000.00
$450,000.00
Hazel Miller Foundation
$1,500,000.00
$1,500,000.00
ADA
Upgrades/Playground
$110,000.00
$110,000.00
Verdant/Fitness Zone
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
TOTAL
$3,430,000.00
$5,900,000.00
$9,330,000.00
EXPENSES
2019
2020
Total
A&E
$750,000.00
$210,000.00
$960,000.00
Permitting
$80,000.00
$80,000.00
Construction
$10,515,000.00
$10,515,000.00
Engineering Staff
$30,000.00
$60,000.00
$90,000.00
Const.
support/testing/misc
$30,000.00
$30,000.00
TOTAL
$780,000.00
$10,895,000.00
$11,675,000.00
Gap in funding $2,345,000.00
Assumptions:
2020 CIP budget includes additional REET and PIF
2020 GF 500,000
LWCF Funded at $500,000
U
Packet Pg. 338
Dnley Sr
�," -- _ - •l�'i JML adlllll�'-"-''i Mrs _
'- _ ,. � . .I ,' � - ,fir �`_ fir_ t�� � / �✓ � �� - Illlll x �.
e
•��'.. 4 � Io99 nB/walking Pafh (1 /3mi.)
i
e sfa, ons youth clim
eq"e berm
o op4sonal 1
� � �,; � ��'nedl \ ::
it H ci
AI. arr opporm.'ry-_ ___ L�; -
s,ormwmer g rdens , 3(F
THE GREAT LAWN r �-
mel,' ese lawn / aces
! playfelds
Edmonds S,
%-�{ field lighting stormwater gardens _
Schedule
8.1.e
Master Plan Adoption - Spring 2017
Schematic Design - Fall 2018
=�+ Design Development - Spring 2019
Construction Documents - Winter 2019
Bid - Winter/ Spring 2020
CL
U-
L
cc
IL
U
04/02/2019 Edmonds Civic Center Park WAL.' IPacket Pg. 340
Ongoing City Review & Community Outreach
City of Edmonds Review and Coordination
• Project Advisory Committee (Schematic Design)
• Arts Commission
• Safety Review
• City of Edmonds Engineers CL
Ongoing Community Outreach U-
• Boys and Girls Club
• Chamber of Commerce
• Petanque Club
• Skatepark Group -
04/02/2019 Edmonds Civic Center Park WAL I Packet Pg. 341
aujuill
Ir
_ -641
stormwater
gardens exercise
scramble
wall
j' ¢_ ' ca�r5 a MEADOWS
Pic -
SPRAGUE ST - - - - .,g. - PA _
EIIII]IIY". -- -__._ Sprague promenade - ,'.illlllllllll:
--------------
'future B&G 1 skatepark
` footprint
V�`I �. diaygroun s
\ multi -use lawn
JMI
'------------
water
i, feature G REA -LAW
R
T At: �.
3� shade pavilion
Z ICI
D � restroom &storage 1
r LAZA view
terr c s
i
4'
petanque grove _ ........" ............... ...
` s
-113�wd`lMng patlini f
T--.
Ji
.,
Construction Cost
Construction Budget
Schematic Design Cost Estimate
$10.OM
$11.3M
Value Engineering Solutions Being Explored:
• Simplified Restoom and Shade Structure
• Reduction in Lighting
• Concrete Paving instead of Unit Pavers on 6th Ave
• Removal of unique surfacing at multi -use court
• No fencing or lighting at multi -use court
• Reduction in Cut/ Fill and Stormwater System evaluation
8.1.e
Q
04/02/2019 Edmonds Civic Center Park
WAL Packet Pg. 343
Play Area
8.1.e
Summary
• Play area has good
connections and visibility
to playing fields, per
community request
• The play area will include
accessible and nature -
inspired features
• The play area encourages
exploration and
accomodates a range
of ages and places for
parents to sit
04/02/2019 Edmonds Civic Center Park A.1A I IPacket Pg. 344
Boys & Girls Club
.
41
8.1.e
Summary
• Current park design
assumes that existing
building and its
surrounding conditions
remain as is
• Dashed line shows
potential future footprint
of new building
' B&G Club is also
considering another site
l-
04/02/2019 Edmonds Civic Center Park WAL Packet Pg. 345
Skatepark
8.1.e
Summary
The design has been
advanced and the focus is
on above ground features,
due to ground water
constraints. The skatepark
includes features requested
by local skating community, a
and is well -integrated into
the park.
04/02/2019 Edmonds Civic Center Park
WAL I Packet Pg. 346
berm and planting
park connection
r.wR— - /J
+ .�
d
�M,
W-
i6Z,
park connection range of skate features
viewing terraces
Q
04/02/2019 Edmonds Civic Center Park WA1 I Packet Pg. 347
Petanque Grove
8.1.e
Summary
• Petanque grove has
been designed to be
more flexible in order
to accommodate
tournaments and other
events
U_
• Goal is to provide a
a
beautiful park entrance
2
and a flexible, multi -use
area
04/02/2019 Edmonds Civic Center Park WA I Packet Pg. 348
Petanque Grove Evolution
Masterplan
Schematic Design
Design Exhibit
Q
04/02/2019 Edmonds Civic Center Park WALI Packet Pg. 349
Revised Petanque Grove
0
-0o
0
SHADE STRUCTURE RESTROOMS
STORAGE
c u >
I -
I
PLANTING AREA
J
Z
o
Uj
I
I
I
I I
o I
I I
NINE of-- -�- -
PLANTING AREA
0 I
.
00
o I
o I �
PLANTING AREA
1 I
o — 9—
I
I
Summary
• 6 permanent courts for
everyday play
• accomodates 16
temporary courts for
tournament play
• total area is 24% larger
than master plan
• planting areas are 2.5x
larger than master plan
planting areas
• Petanque Group has
provided input on court
size and layout
8.1.e
d
CL
U.
a
0
04/02/2019 Edmonds Civic Center Park WA I Packet Pg. 350
Soils, Groundwater, and Stormwater Mangement
8.1.e
Summary
site has high groundwater
table and areas of peet
costs of over -excavation and R
stormwater management CL
have already been
accounted for in estimates U.
L
team is working with City
Engineers
Winter 2019 0
• additional test pits &
groundwater readings U.
N
O
• Direct Discharge
Feasibility Study
s
• various options are being r-
.M
explored a
04/02/2019 Edmonds Civic Center Park WA I Packet Pg. 351
9.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/2/2019
2018 Non -Represented Employee Compensation Study - updated
Staff Lead: Mary Ann Hardie
Department: Human Resources
Preparer: MaryAnn Hardie
Background/History
By City policy (5.5, Non -Represented Employees), every three years, the HR department performs a
market study of the compensation for the Non -Represented employee group. The City's non -
represented compensation policy strives to maintain equity, by offering competitive salaries and
benefits in order to attract and retain high quality staff and an effective work force.
It is the policy of the City for the classification and compensation plan to provide salaries that compare
favorably with other similar cities in the region for comparable jobs, and within budget limitations. It is
also the policy of the City to strive to maintain salaries that are internally equitable, in proper
relationship to all other jobs within the City, within reasonable budget parameters.
Based on the study results, the Mayor makes a recommendation to Council of any wage adjustments
that will take effect starting in 2019. This item was first presented at the 12/11/18 Council meeting. This
was also presented in December 2019 at the Finance Committee meeting. It has been updated based on
further direction from the Mayor.
Staff Recommendation
Forward to Council for action (approval) of the Mayor's recommendations based on this year's study.
The recommendations are as follows:
1. Adjust the salary/wages of the identified positions that are out of alignment with the market
median salary/wages per attachment "2018 Non -Represented Employees- Classification listing
(with recommended adjustments)" effective 1/1/19.
2. Provide a one-time, $500 per employee contribution to an health retirement account (HRA-
VEBA) for each position to help defray the increased costs of the health insurance plan change
that occurred on 1/1/18 and to provide organizational internal equity effective following the
approval of this recommendation.
The total cost for the above recommendations is: $42,068
Solely for planning purposes, pending Council approval of the Mayor's recommendations, the costs
have been (as in the past) earmarked for the 2019 non -departmental budget.
Packet Pg. 352
9.1
Narrative
The results of the 2018 Non -Represented compensation study reflect that many positions are aligned
with the market median pay policy. Changes and fluctuations in the job market over the past 3 years
have influenced pay practices. The identified labor market (comparator cities) and the exceptionally low
unemployment rate have also contributed to the changes in the salaries and wages.
Position Adjustments
For those positions out of alignment (below) the market median, by policy, the Mayor is recommending
adjustments for 3 positions to higher level pay ranges in order to maintain the market median and to
help maintain an appropriately competitive and equitable level of pay. In consideration of compression
and internal equity factors, not every position below the market median is recommended for an
adjustment to the next higher salary/wage range. Additionally, the Mayor is not recommending any
wage freezes to the four positions are that are currently above the market median.
The following positions would be placed into one higher level pay (salary) range only. The net result
would create, at a maximum, the ability for each position to receive an additional (approximately 5%)
pay only in total before reaching the maximum of their new, adjusted salary range.
The 3 positions to be adjusted are as follows:
Current Adjustment
Court Administrator 13 $82,298 - $110,289 14 $86,414 - $115,803
Public Disc. & Records Mgmt. Spec. 1 $45,828 - $61,413 3 $50,523 - $67,707
Human Resources Asst. (part-time) 23 $19.56 - $26.21 3 $24.29 - $32.55
The 2019 total cost for all of these position adjustments is approximately $20,068 (annually, not
including benefits).
Other elements of compensation
As part of the compensation study, other elements of compensation (such as health insurance benefits,
leave, deferred compensation, etc.) are also evaluated as they comprise part of total compensation (the
cost and value of total compensation). Overall, there are several cities that provide some additional
benefits (such as deferred compensation, additional discretionary leave, one additional holiday and/or
additional vacation for longer tenured employees) for their exempt employee groups. Providing a (one-
time only) HRA-VEBA contribution for this group will help provide external and internal equity. These
benefits, as a part of the total (other elements) of the compensation package, is an area that will need
to continue be considered to maintain a competitive overall compensation package (at the median level
of the comparator cities) for future studies.
Specifically, for the Assistant Chief and Police Chief positions, as was determined with the 2012 and
2015 study (and as referenced in 5.5 Non -Represented Employees policy), the results reflect that the
comparator cities for these positions receive additional "cash" compensation similar to the
commissioned (union) police officers. The additional compensation items that these positions receive
include educational and longevity incentives as well as deferred compensation contributions, etc. (see
attached Appendix of Other Elements of Compensation). In order to attract, retain and maintain talent
within these positions, it is recommended that the value of these other elements of compensation be
considered to maintain a competitive overall compensation package (at the median level of the
comparator cities) for future studies.
Packet Pg. 353
9.1
HRA-VEBA (Health Reimbursement Account/Voluntary Employee Benefits Association) program
On 1/1/18, the City's health insurance consortium terminated the health insurance plan that the City
employees were covered on. As part of this process, the City transitioned to the next best health
insurance plan available through AWC, which resulted in increased costs for employees. In light of the
health insurance change, it is recommended that a one-time, HRA-VEBA contribution in 2019 of $500
per employee be authorized. Furthermore, establishing such a benefit will allow this group the option to
make a vote to allow a uniform amount of additional, employee only contributions to enhance the
overall compensation package as well for the Non -Represented employees.
The total cost is $22,000.
COLA
A 3% COLA for the Non -Represented employees was approved with the 2019 budget.
ATTACH M E NTS/DATA
Attached is the following data from the study:
1. 2018 Non -Represented Compensation Study - All positions
2. 2018 Non -Represented positions - Classification listing
3. 2018 - Non -Represented positions - By Title- benchmark positions
4. 2018 Non -Represented Employees- Classification listing (with recommended adjustments)
5. Appendix 2 - Other Elements of Compensation
6. COLA history (2005-2019)
Attachments:
2018 NR Compensation Study - All Positions
2018 Non -Represented positions- Classification listing
2018 NR Positions by Title- Benchmark positions
2018 NR Positions by Title - with recommended adjustments 3.19
Appendix II - Other Elements of Compensation - 3.19
COLA History - NR (2005-2019)
Packet Pg. 354
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
MID
MAX
TRetireCities)
*MIN
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
Median: $84,822 $95,496 $106,170 Median: $125,586 $136,260 $146,934
Current Edmonds Base Range: $78,381 $91,709 $105,037 Current Edmonds Base Range: $117,895 $131,223 $144,551
Proposed Base Range: $78,381 $91,709 $105,037
Range 12
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 355
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR
$95,270
$111,471
$127,672
$121,594
$16,214
$24,962
$136,447
$152,648
$168,849
$1,473
$137,920
$154,121
$170,322
Deputy Finance Director
Bothell, City of
$98,988
$112,422
$125,856
$15,984 $25,826
$140,797 $154,231
$167,665
$11,617
$152,415 $165,849 $179,283
NO MATCH
Burien, City of
NO MATCH
Issaquah, City of
NO MATCH
Lacey, City of
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
Asst. Finance Director
Lynnwood, City of
$113,232
$129,504
$145,776
$18,514 $23,667
$155,413 $171,685
$187,957
$6,167
$161,580 $177,852 $194,124
NO MATCH
Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $106,110 $120,963 $135,816
Current Edmonds Base Range: $95,270 $111,471 $127,672
Proposed Base Range: $95,270 $111,471 $127,672
Range 16
Median: $156,997 $171,850 $186,703
Current Edmonds Base Range: $137,920 $154,121 $170,322
Packet Pg. 356
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF
$110,289
$129,043
$147,797
$147,797
$8,025
$24,962
$143,277
$162,031
$180,785
$6,300
$149,577
$168,331
$187,085
Deputy Police Chief
Bothell, City of
$126,708
$143,904
$161,100
$8,748 $25,826
$161,281
$178,477
$195,673
$14,871
$176,152 $193,348 $210,544
NO MATCH
Burien, City of
NO MATCH
Issaquah, City of
NO MATCH
Lacey, City of
Assistant Police Chief
Lake Stevens, City of
$92,760
$105,066
$117,372
$6,373 $26,111
$125,244
$137,550
$149,856
$3,322
$128,566 $140,872 $153,178
Deputy Chief
Lynnwood, City of
$125,880
$143,970
$162,060
$8,800 $23,667
$158,347
$176,437
$194,527
$23,433
$181,780 $199,870 $217,960
Deputy Chief
Puyallup, Cityof
$117,312
$133,746
$152,180
$8,155 $29,856
$155,323
$171,757
$188,191
$6,007
$161,330 $177,764 $194,198
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $121,596 $138,825 $155,640
Current Edmonds Base Range: $110,289 $129,043 $147,797
Proposed Base Range: $115,803 $135,495 $155,187
Range 20
Median: $168,741 $185,556 $202,371
Current Edmonds Base Range: $149,577 $168,331 $187,085
a+
a
Packet Pg. 357
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
ASSOCIATE ENGINEER
$67,707
$79,221
$90,734
$71,092
$11,523
$24,962
$104,192
$115,706
$127,219
$0
$104,192
$115,706
$127,219
NO MATCH
Bothell, City of
NO MATCH
Burien, City of
Associate Engineer
Issaquah, City of
$82,104
$97,128
$112,152
$14,243 $18,780
$115,127
$130,151
$145,175
$4,524
$119,651 $134,675 $149,699
NO MATCH
Lacey, City of
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
Civil Engineer 1
Lynnwood, City of
$57,708
$65,352
$72,996
$9,270 $23,667
$90,646
$98,290
$105,934
$1,223
$91,868 $99,512 $107,156
Associate Engineer SW
Puyallup, City of
$68,148
$77,688
$87,228
$11,078 $24,962
$104,188
$113,728
$123,268
$1,006
$105,195 $114,735 $124,275
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $68,148 $77,688 $87,228
Current Edmonds Base Range: $67,707 $79,221 $90,734
Proposed Base Range: $67,707 $79,221 $90,734
Range 9
Median: $105,195 $114,735 $124,275
Current Edmonds Base Range: $104,192 $115,706 $127,219
Packet Pg. 358
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
$67,707
$79,221
$90,734
$90,734
$11,523
$24,962
$104,192
$115,706
$127,219
$0
$104,192
$115,706
$127,219
NO MATCH Bothell, City of
NO MATCH Burien, City of
Associate Planner Issaquah, City of $74,520 $88,116 $101,712
$12,917 $24,962
$112,400 $125,996 $139,592
$4,275
$116,675 $130,271 $143,867
NO MATCH Lacey, City of
NO MATCH Lake Stevens, City of
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH University Place, City of
Median: $74,520 $88,116 $101,712
Current Edmonds Base Range: $67,707 $79,221 $90,734
Proposed Base Range: $67,707 $79,221 $90,734
Range 9
Median: $116,675 $130,271 $143,867
Current Edmonds Base Range: $104,192 $115,706 $127,219
Packet Pg. 359
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
BUILDING OFFICIAL
$90,734
$106,164
$121,594
$121,594
$15,442
$24,962
$131,139
$146,569
$161,999
$1,403
$132,542
$147,972
$163,402
Building Official
Bothell, City of
$106,596
$121,062
$135,528
$17,212 $25,826
$149,634
$164,100
$178,566
$12,510
$162,144 $176,610 $191,076
NO MATCH
Burien, City of
Building Official
Issaquah, City of
$104,856
$124,020
$143,184
$18,184 $18,780
$141,820
$160,984
$180,148
$5,264
$147,084 $166,248 $185,412
NO MATCH
Lacey, City of
Building Official
Lake Stevens, City of
$81,984
$92,856
$103,728
$13,173 $26,111
$121,268
$132,140
$143,012
$1,596
$122,864 $133,736 $144,608
Building Official
Lynnwood, City of
$102,936
$117,726
$132,516
$16,830 $23,667
$143,433
$158,223
$173,013
$1,452
$144,884 $159,674 $174,464
NO MATCH
Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $103,896 $119,394 $134,022
Current Edmonds Base Range: $90,734 $106,164 $121,594
Proposed Base Range: $90,734 $106,164 $121,594
Range 15
Median: $145,984 $162,961 $179,938
Current Edmonds Base Range: $132,542 $147,972 $163,402
Packet Pg. 360
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
a
* nce Insura
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER
$74,648
$87,342
$100,035
$100,035
$12,704
$24,962
$112,315
$125,008
$137,702
$0
$112,315
$125,008
$137,702
Capital Projects Engineer
Bothell, City of
$74,352
$84,438
$94,524
$12,005 $25,826
$112,182
$122,268
$132,354
$5,090
$117,272 $127,358 $137,444
Civil Engineer 2
Burien, City of
$84,576
$93,690
$102,804
$13,056 $25,864
$123,497
$132,611
$141,725
$395
$123,892 $133,006 $142,120
NO MATCH
Issaquah, City of
Project Administrator
Lacey, Citof
$77,568
$84,882
$92,196
$11,709 $26,146
$115,423
$122,737
$130,051
$355
$115,777 $123,091 $130,405
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
Project Manager
Lynnwood, City of
$78,504
$88,926
$99,348
$12,617 $23,667
$114,788
$125,210
$135,632
$1,324
$116,112 $126,534 $136,956
Civil Engineer
Puyallup, Cityof
$11,310
$50,826
$90,342
$1" 73 $29,856
$52,639
$92,155
$131,671
$1,042
$53,682 $93,198 $132,714
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $78,504 $88,926 $99,348
Current Edmonds Base Range: $74,648 $87,342 $100,035
Proposed Base Range: $74,648 $87,342 $100,035
Median: $116,112 $126,534 $136,956
Current Edmonds Base Range: $112,315 $125,008 $137,702
a+
a
Packet Pg. 361
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and
cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator
cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
a
* nce Insura
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
CITY CLERK
$86,414
$101,109
$115,803
$115,803
$14,707
$24,962
$126,083
$140,778
$155,472
$1,336
$127,419
$142,114
$156,808
City Clerk
Bothell, City of
$83,268
$94,572
$105,876
$13,446 $25,826
$122,540
$133,844
$145,148
$9,773
$132,313
$143,617
$154,921
City Clerk
Burien, City of
$76,620
$84,876
$93,132
$11,828 $25,864
$114,312
$122,568
$130,824
$358
$114,670
$122,926
$131,182
City Clerk
Issaquah, City of
$86,232
$102,012
$117,792
$14,960 $18,780
$119,971
$135,751
$151,531
$9,682
$129,653
$145,433
$161,213
City Clerk
Lacey, City of
$72,723
$82,907
$93,092
$11,823 $26,146
$110,692
$120,876
$131,060
$358
1 $111,050
$121,234
$131,418
City Clerk
Lake Stevens, City of
$74,256
$84,108
$93,960
$11,933 $26,111
$112,300
$122,152
$132,004
$1,446
$113,745
$123,597
$133,449
NO MATCH
Lynnwood, Cityof
CityClerk
Puyallup, Cityof
$79,032
$90,096
$101,160
$12,847 $29,856
$121,735
$132,799
$143,863
$389
$122,124
$133,188
$144,252
City Clerk
University Place, City of
$77,052
$87,564
$98,076
$12,456 $24,962
$114,470
$124,982
$135,494
$0
$114,470
$124,982
$135,494
Median: $77,052 $87,564 $98,076
Current Edmonds Base Range: $86,414 $101,109 $115,803
Proposed Base Range: $86,414 $101,109 $115,803
Range 14
Median: $114,670 $124,982 $135,494
Current Edmonds Base Range: $127,419 $142,114 $156,808
Packet Pg. 362
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
CITY ENGINEER
$11Q289
$129,043
$147,797
$147,797
$18,770
$24,962
$154,021
$172,775
$191,529
$1,705
$155,727
$174,481
$193,235
NO MATCH
Bothell, City of
NO MATCH
Burien, City of
NO MATCH
Issaquah, City of
City Engineer
Lacey, City of
$107,112
$122,112
$137,112
$17,413 $26,146
$122,441
$137,441
$152,441
$527
$122,968 $137,968 $152,968
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
NO MATCH
Lynnwood, City of
City Engineer
Puyallup, City of
$111,672
$127,302
$142,932
$18,152 $29,856
$127,652
$143,282
$15$912
$1,649
$129,301 $144,931 $160,561
Dir of Eng & Cap Pro'
University Place, City of
$109,080
$126,306
$143,532
$18,229 $24,962
$125,174
$142,610
$160,,046
1 $2,760
$127,934 $145,370 $162,806
Median: $109,080 $126,306 $142,932
Current Edmonds Base Range: $110,289 $129,043 $147,797
Proposed Base Range: $110,289 $129,043 $147,797
Range 19
Median: $127,934 $144,931 $160,561
Current Edmonds Base Range: $155,727 $174,481 $193,235
Packet Pg. 363
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
$115,083
$135,135
$155,187
1 $155,188
$19,709
$24,962
$159,754
$179,806
$199,858
$1,791
$161,545
$181,597
$201,649
Comm & Econ Dev. Director Bothell, City of
$129,876
$147,504
$165,132
$20,972 $25,826
$176,673
$194,301
$211,929
$15,243
$191,916 $209,544 $227,172
20 % (+ Economic Dev. Mgr
Burien, City of
$129,888
$143,885
$157,882
$20,051 $25,864
$175,803
$189,800
$203,797
$607
$176,411 $190,407 $204,404
Economic Dev. Director
Issaquah, City of
$127,440
$150,720
$174,000
$22,098 $18,780
$168,318
$191,598
$214,878
$12,989
$181,307 $204,587 $227,867
NO MATCH
Lacey, City of
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
Economic Dev. Director
Lynnwood, City of
$125,688
$143,748
$161,808
$20,550 $23,667
$169,905
$187,965
$206,025
$7,788
$177,692 $195,752 $213,812
NO MATCH
Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $128,658 $145,694 $163,470
Current Edmonds Base Range: $115,083 $135,135 $155,187
Proposed Base Range: $121,594 $142,270 $162,946
Range 21
Median: $179,500 $200,170 $220,492
Current Edmonds Base Range: $161,545 $181,597 $201,649
Packet Pg. 364
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
COURT ADMINISTRATOR
$82,298
$96,294
$110,289
$86,414
$14,007
$24,962
$121,267
$135,262
$149,258
$1,273
$122,539
$136,535
$150,530
Court Administrator
Bothell, City of
$91,920
$104,394
$116,868
$14,842 $25,826
$132,588
$145,062
$157,536
$10,788
$143,376 $155,850 $168,324
NO MATCH
Burien, City of
Court Administrator
Issaquah, Citof
$104,856
$124,020
$143,184
$18,184 $18,780
$141,820
$160,984
$180,148
$5,264
$147,084 $166,248 $185,412
NO MATCH
Lacey, City of
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
Court Administrator
Lynnwood, City of
$113,220
$129,498
$145,776
$18,514 $23,667
$155,401
$171,679
$187,957
$7,109
$162,510 $178,788 $195,066
Court Administrator
Puyallup, Citof
$79,032
$90,096
$101,160
$12,847 $29,856
$121,735
$132,799
$143,863
$389
$122,124 $133,188 $144,252
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $98,388 $114,207 $130,026
Current Edmonds Base Range: $82,298 $96,294 $110,289
Proposed Base Range: $86,414 $101,109 $115,803
Range $14
Median: $145,230 $161,049 $176,868
Current Edmonds Base Range: $122,539 $136,535 $150,530
Packet Pg. 365
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
DEPUTY PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SVCS. DIRECTOR
$10Q035
$117,046
$134,057
$105,037
$17,025
$24,962
$142,022
$159,033
$176,044
$1,547
$143,569
$160,580
$177,591
NO MATCH
Bothell, City of
NO MATCH
Burien, City of
De ty Director- P& R
Issaquah, City of
$104,856
$124,020
$143,184
$18,184 $18,780
$141,820 $160,984
$180,148
$5,264
$147,084 $166,248 $185,412
NO MATCH
Lacey, City of
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
Deputy P&R & CA Director Lynnwood, City of
$102,936
$117,726
$132,516
$16,830 $23,667
$143,433 $158,223
$173,013
$6,548
$149,981 $164,771 $179,561
NO MATCH
Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $103,896 $120,873 $137,850
Current Edmonds Base Range: $100,035 $117,046 $134,057
Proposed Base Range: $100,035 $117,046 $134,057
Range 17
Median: $148,533 $165,510 $182,487
Current Edmonds Base Range: $143,569 $160,580 $177,591
Packet Pg. 366
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
Cash
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
Compensation
medical and cash compensation
from
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
comparator cities)
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(127�,
Health
Cities)
ID
MAX
PERS)or
Insurance'
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
:M51I
(5.43 %
(family of
LEOFF)
four)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
5,135
$155,187
$155,188
$19,709
$24,962
$159,754
$179,806
$199,858
$1,791
$161,545
$181,597
$201,649
NO MATCH
Bothell, City of
Comm Dev. Director
Burien, City of
$131,892
$146,106
$160,320
$20,361 $25,864
$178,117
$192,331
$206,545
$617
$178,734 $192,948
$207,162
Development Svcs. Director Issaquah, City of
$140,472
$166,140
$191,808
$24,360 $18,780
$183,611
$209,279
$234,947
$14,037
$197,648 $223,316
$248,984
Community Dev. Director
Lacey, City of
$116,121
$132,383
$148,645
$18,878 $26,146
$161,145
$177,407
$193,669
$572
$161,717 $177,979
$194,241
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
Comm. Dev. Director
Lynnwood, City of
$125,700
$143,754
$161,808
$20,550 $23,667
$169,917
$187,971
$206,025
$7,788
$177,704 $195,758
$213,812
Development Svcs. Director Puyallup, City of
$111,672
$127,302
$142,932
$1it52 $29,856
$152,680
$175,310
$190,940
$1,649
$161,330 $176,960
$192,590
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $125,700 $143,754 $160,320
Current Edmonds Base Range: $115,083 $135,135 $155,187
Proposed Base Range: $121,594 $142,270 $162,946
Range 21
Median: $177,704 $192,948 $207,162
Current Edmonds Base Range: $161,545 $181,597 $201,649
Packet Pg. 367
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 2
$78,381
$91,709
$105,037
$105,037
$13,340
$24,962
$116,683
$130,011
$143,339
$1,212
$117,895
$131,223
$144,551
NO MATCH Bothell, City of
NO MATCH Burien, City of
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of
Design & Const. Mgr. Lacey, City of $82,788 $94,350 $105,912
$13,451 $26,146
$122,385 $133,947 $145,509
$407
1 $122,792 $134,354 $145,916
NO MATCH Lake Stevens, City of
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH University Place, City of
Median: $82,788 $94,350 $105,912
Current Edmonds Base Range: $78,381 $91,709 $105,037
Proposed Base Range: $78,381 $91,709 $105,037
Range 12
Median: $122,792 $134,354 $145,916
Current Edmonds Base Range: $117,895 $131,223 $144,551
Packet Pg. 368
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM MANAGER
$86,414
$101,109
$115,803
$105,037
$14,707
$24,962
$126,083
$140,778
$155,472
$1,336
$127,419
$142,114
$156,808
NO MATCH Bothell, City of
NO MATCH Burien, City of
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of
NO MATCH Lacey, City of
NO MATCH Lake Stevens, City of
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH University Place, City of
Median:
Current Edmonds Base Range: $86,414 $101,109 $115,803
Proposed Base Range: $86,414 $101,109 $115,803
Range 14
Median:
Current Edmonds Base Range: $127,419 $142,114 $156,808
Packet Pg. 369
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT -CONFIDENTIAL (PD)
$61,413
$71,856
$82,298
$82,299
$10,452
$24,962
$96,827
$107,270
$117,712
$0
$96,827
$107,270
$117,712
Executive Assistant
Bothell, City of
$68,352
$77,622
$86,892
$11,035 $25,826
$105,213
$114,483
$123,753
$6,433
$111,646
$120,916
$130,186
Executive Assistant
Burien, City of
$64,452
$71,406
$78,360
$9,952 $25,864
$100,268
$107,222
$114,176
$617
$100,885
$107,839
$114,793
Executive Assistant, Police Issaquah, City of
$74,520
$88,116
$101,712
$12,917 $18,780
$106,217
$119,813
$133,409
$4,275
$110,493
$124,089
$137,685
Executive Assistant
Lacey, Citof
$60,762
$69,271
$77,780
$9,878 $26,146
$96,786
$105,295
$113,804
$299
$97,085
$105,594
$114,103
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
Executive Assistant
Lynnwood, City of
$63,936
$73,122
$82,308
$10,453 $23,667
$98,056
$107,242
$116,428
$317
$98,373
$107,559
$116,745
Executive Assistant
Puyallup, Citof
$61,740
$70,386
$79,032
$10,037 $29,856
$101,633
$110,279
$118,925
$304
$101,937
$110,583
$119,229
Executive Assistant
University Place, City of
$74,544
$86,310
$98,076
1 $12,456 $24,962
$111,962
$123,728
$135,494
$0
$111,962
$123,728
$135,494
Median: $64,452 $73,122 $82,308
Current Edmonds Base Range: $61,413 $71,856 $82,298
Proposed Base Range: $61,413 $71,855.50 $82,298
Range 7
Median: $101,937 $110,583 $119,229
Current Edmonds Base Range: $96,827 $107,270 $117,712
Packet Pg. 370
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR
$64,484
$75,449
$86,414
$82,299
$10,975
$24,962
$100,421
$111,386
$122,351
$0
$100,421
$111,386
$122,351
Executive Assistant
Bothell, City of
$68,352
$77,622
$86,892
$11,035 $25,826
$105,213
$114,483
$123,753
$6,433
$111,646
$120,916
$130,186
Executive Assistant
Burien, City of
$64,452
$71,406
$78,360
$9,952 $25,864
$100,268
$107,222
$114,176
$617
$100,885
$107,839
$114,793
Executive Assistant
Issaquah, Citof
$74,520
$88,116
$101,712
$12,917 $18,780
$106,217
$119,813
$133,409
$0
$106,217
$119,813
$133,409
Executive Assistant
Lacey, Citof
$60,762
$69,271
$77,780
$9,878 $26,146
$96,786
$105,295
$113,804
$299
$97,085
$105,594
$114,103
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
Executive Assistant
Lynnwood, City of
$63,936
$73,122
$82,308
$10,453 $23,667
$98,056
$107,242
$116,428
$317
$98,373
$107,559
$116,745
Executive Assistant
Puyallup, Citof
$61,740
$70,386
$79,032
$10,037 $29,856
$101,633
$110,279
$118,925
$304
$101,937
$110,583
$119,229
Executive Assistant
University Place, City of
$74,544
$86,310
$98,076
1 $12,456 $24,962
$111,962
$123,728
$135,494
$2,642
$114,604
$126,370
$138,136
Median: $64,452 $73,122 $82,308
Current Edmonds Base Range: $64,484 $75,449 $86,414
Proposed Base Range: $61,413 $71,856 $82,298
Range 7
Median: $101,937 $110,583 $119,229
Current Edmonds Base Range: $100,421 $111,386 $122,351
Packet Pg. 371
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
FACILTIES MANAGER
$86,414
$101,109
$115,803
$110,289
$14,707
$24,962
$126,083
$140,778
$155,472
$1,336
$127,419
$142,114
$156,808
NO MATCH Bothell, City of
NO MATCH Burien, City of
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of
NO MATCH Lacey, City of
NO MATCH Lake Stevens, City of
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH University Place, City of
Median:
Current Edmonds Base Range: $86,414 $101,109 $115,803
Proposed Base Range: $86,414 $101,109 $115,803
Range 14
Median:
Current Edmonds Base Range: $127,419 $142,114 $156,808
Packet Pg. 372
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation
from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(127�,
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS)or
Insurance'
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family of
LEOFF)
four)
FINANCE DIRECTOR
$115,083
$135,135
$155,187
$155,188
$19,709
$24,962
$159,754
$179,806
$199,858
$1,791
$161,545
$181,597
$201,649
Finance Director
Bothell, City of
$129,876
$147,504
$165,132
$20,972 $25,826
$176,673
$194,301
$211,929
$15,243
$191,916
$209,544
$227,172
Finance Director
Burien, City of
$131,892
$146,106
$160,320
$20,361 $25,864
$178,117
$192,331
$206,545
$617
$178,734
$192,948
$207,162
Finance Director
Issaquah, City of
$140,472
$166,140
$191,808
$24,360 $18,780
$183,611
$209,279
$234,947
$14,037
$197,648
$223,316
$248,984
Finance Director
Lacey, City of
$117,559
$134,022
$150,485
$19,112 $26,146
$162,816
$179,279
$195,743
$579
$163,395
$179,858
$196,321
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
Finance Director
Lynnwood, City of
$139,500
$159,546
$179,592
$22,808 $23,667
$185,975
$206,021
$226,067
$8,540
$194,515
$214,561
$234,607
Finance Director
Puyallup, Cityof
$117,312
$133,746
$150,180
$19,073 $29,856
$166,241
$182,675
$199,109
$1,733
$167,974
$184,408
$200,842
Finance Director
University Place, City of
$109,080
$126,306
$143,532
$18,229 $24,962
$152,271
$169,497
$186,723
$2,760
$155,031
$172,257
$189,483
Median: $129,876 $146,106 $160,320
Current Edmonds Base Range: $115,083 $135,135 $155,187
Proposed Base Range: $121,594 $142,270 $162,946
Range 21
Median: $178,734 $192,948 $207,162
Current Edmonds Base Range: $161,545 $181,597 $201,649
Packet Pg. 373
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
FLEET MANAGER
$78,381
$91,709
$105,037
$105,037
$13,340
$24,962
$116,683
$130,011
$143,339
$1,212
$117,895
$131,223
$144,551
NO MATCH
Bothell, City of
NO MATCH
Burien, City of
Fleet Manager
Issaquah, City of
$89,472
$106,572
$123,672
$15,706 $18,780
$123,958 $141,058
$158,158
$4,799
$128,757 $145,857 $162,957
Lacey, City of
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
10%
Fleet Supervisor
Lynnwood, City of
$85,061
$97,284
$109,507
$13,907 $23,667
$122,635 $134,859
$147,082
$5,575
$128,210 $140,434 $152,657
NO MATCH
Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $87,266 $101,928 $116,590
Current Edmonds Base Range: $78,381 $91,709 $105,037
Proposed Base Range: $78,381 $91,709 $105,037
Range 12
Median: $128,484 $143,145 $157,807
Current Edmonds Base Range: $117,895 $131,223 $144,551
Packet Pg. 374
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
Cash
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
Compensation
medical and cash compensation from
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
comparator cities)
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST (.875 FTE)
$56,424
$66,018
$75,612
$59,244
$9,603
$19,658
$85,684
$95,278
$104,873
$0
$85,684
$95,278
$104,873
Human Resources Analyst Bothell, City of
$61,299
$69,615
$77,931
$9,897 $25,826
$97,022
$105,338
$113,654
$4,196
$101,218
$109,534
$117,850
NO MATCH Burien, City of
Human Resources Analyst Issaquah, City of
$65,205
$77,102
$88,998
$11,303 $18,780
$95,287
$107,184
$119,080
$3,972
$99,260
$111,156
$123,053
Human Resources Analyst Lacey, City of
$61,134
$69,696
$78,257
$9,939 $26,146
$97,219
$105,780
$114,342
$301
$97,520
$106,081
$114,643
NO MATCH Lake Stevens, City of
Human Resources Analyst Lynnwood, City of
$55,944
$63,982
$72,020
$9,146 $23,667
$88,758
$96,795
$104,833
$1,219
$89,977
$98,014
$106,052
Human Resources Generalise Puyallup, Cityof
$54,023
$61,588
$69,153
$8,782 $29,856
$92,661
$100,226
$107,791
$0
$92,661
$100,226
$107,791
NO MATCH University Place, City of
Median: $61,134 $69,615 $77,931
Current Edmonds Base Range: $56,424 $66,018 $75,612
Proposed Base Range: $56,424 $66,018 $75,612
Range 8
Median: $97,520 $106,081 $114,643
Current Edmonds Base Range: $85,684 $95,278 $104,873
Packet Pg. 375
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT (.625) Hourly
$19.56
$22.89
$26.21
$22.64
$3.33
$22.89
$26.21
$29.54
$0
$23
$26
$30
Admin Assistant HR Dept)
Bothell, City of
$26.31
$29.88
$33.45
$4.25
$30.56
$34.13
$37.70
$30.56
$34.13
$37.70
Department Assistant
Burien, City of
$25.43
$28.17
$30.92
$3.93
$29.36
$32.10
$34.84
$29.36
$32.10
$34.84
NO MATCH
Issaquah, City of
NO MATCH
Lacey, City of
$25.49
$29.06
$32.63
$4.14
$29.63
$33.20
$36.77
$29.63
$33.20
$36.77
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
HR Administrative Assistant Lynnwood, City of
$25.39
$29.04
$32.69
$4.15
$29.54
$33.19
$36.84
Administrative Assistant
Puyallup, City of
$25.60
$29.18
$32.76
$4.16
$29.76
$33.34
$36.92
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $25.49 $29.06 $32.69
Current Edmonds Base Range: $19.56 $22.89 $26.21
Proposed Base Range: $24.29 $28.42 $32.55
Range 3
Median: $29.63 $33.20 $36.77
Current Edmonds Base Range: $22.89 $26.21 $29.54
Packet Pg. 376
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
Cash
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
Compensation
medical and cash compensation from
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
comparator cities)
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
a
* nce Insura
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR
$115,083
$135,135
$155,187
$140,759
$19,709
$24,962
$159,754
$179,806
$199,858
$1,791
$161,545
$181,597
$201,649
Human Resources Director Bothell, City of
$129,876
$147,504
$165,132
$20,972 $25,826
$176,673
$194,301
$211,929
$15,243
$191,916 $209,544
$227,172
NO MATCH Burien, City of
Director- Human Resources Issaquah, City of
$127,440
$150,720
$174,000
$22,098 $18,780
$168,318
$191,598
$214,878
$12,989
$181,307 $204,587
$227,867
NO MATCH Lacey, City of
Human Resources Director Lake Stevens, City of
$102,384
$115,962
$129,540
$16,452 $26,111
$144,946
$158,524
$172,102
$5,481
$150,427 $164,005
$177,583
Human Resources Director Lynnwood, City of
$125,688
$143,748
$161,808
$20,550 $23,667
$169,905
$187,965
$206,025
$7,788
$177,692 $195,752
$213,812
Director of Personnel Puyallup, Cityof
$106,284
$121,170
$1361056
$17,279 $29,856
$153,419
$168,305
$183,191
$1,570
$154,989 $169,875
$184,761
NO MATCH University Place, City of
Median: $125,688 $143,748 $161,808
Current Edmonds Base Range: $115,083 $135,135 $155,187
Proposed Base Range: $121,594 $142,270 $162,946
Range 21
Median: $177,692 $195,752 $213,812
Current Edmonds Base Range: $161,545 $181,597 $201,649
Packet Pg. 377
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
Cash
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
Compensation
medical and cash compensation from
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
comparator cities)
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
IS MANAGER
$90,734
$106,164
$121,594
$121,594
$15,442
$24,962
$131,139
$146,569
$161,999
$1,403
$132,542
$147,972
$163,402
NO MATCH
Bothell, City of
IS Manager
Burien, City of
$98,064
$108,630
$119,196
$15,138 $25,864
$139,066
$149,632
$160,198
$458
$139,525
$150,091
$160,657
IT Manager
Issaquah, City of
$99,840
$118,092
$136,344
$17,316 $25,864
$143,020
$161,272
$179,524
$5,101
$148,121
$166,373
$184,625
NO MATCH
Lacey, City of
IS Manager
Lake Stevens, City of
$84,036
$95,184
$106,332
$13,504 $26,146
$123,686
$134,834
$145,982
$2,454
$126,140
$137,288
$148,436
IS Manager
Lynnwood, City of
$102,936
$117,726
$132,516
$16,830 $23,667
$143,433
$158,223
$173,013
$1,452
$144,884
$159,674
$174,464
IT Manager
Puyallup, Cityof
$89,424
$101,940
$114,456
$14,536 $23,667
$127,627
$140,143
$152,659
$1,321
$128,948
$141,464
$153,980
Communications/IT Manager University Place, City of
$86,520
$100,188
$113,856
$14,460 $24,962
$125,942
$139,610
$153,278
$2,190
$128,131
$141,799
$155,467
Median: $93,744 $105,285 $116,826
Current Edmonds Base Range: $90,734 $106,164 $121,594
Proposed Base Range: $90,734 $106,164 $121,594
Range 15
Median: $134,236 $145,945 $158,062
Current Edmonds Base Range: $132,542 $147,972 $163,402
Packet Pg. 378
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
Cash
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
Compensation
medical and cash compensation from
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
comparator cities)
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
PARKS MAINTENANCE MANAGER
$78,381
$91,709
$105,037
$105,037
$13,340
$24,962
$116,683
$130,011
$143,339
$1,212
$117,895
$131,223
$144,551
Parks Operations Manager Bothell, City of
$83,268
$94,572
$105,876
$13,446 $25,826
$122,540
$133,844
$145,148
$9,773
$132,313
$143,617
$154,921
Recreation Manager
Burien, City of
$84,576
$93,690
$102,804
$13,056 $25,864
$123,497
$132,611
$141,725
$395
$123,892
$133,006
$142,120
Parks Division Manager
Issaquah, City of
$95,064
$112,452
$129,840
$16,490 $18,780
$130,333
$147,721
$165,109
$4,946
$135,280
$152,668
1 $170,056
NO MATCH
Lacey, City of
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
Recreation Supt. - Parks & O& Lynnwood, City of
$85,068
$97,302
$109,536
$11,743 $23,667
$120,478
$132,712
$144,946
$1,316
$121,794 $134,028 1 $146,262
NO MATCH
Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $84,822 $95,937 $107,706
Current Edmonds Base Range: $78,381 $91,709 $105,037
Proposed Base Range: $78,381 $91,709 $105,037
Range 12
Median: $128,102 $138,823 $150,592
Current Edmonds Base Range: $117,895 $131,223 $144,551
Packet Pg. 379
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
Cash
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
Compensation
medical and cash compensation from
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
comparator cities)
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
a
* nce Insura
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
PLANNER
$61,413
$71,856
$82,298
$74,648
$10,452
$24,962
$96,827
$107,270
$117,712
$0
$96,827
$107,270
$117,712
Planner
Bothell, City of
$67,356
$76,500
$85,644
$10,877 $25,826
$104,058
$113,202
$122,346
$3,623
$107,682 $116,826 $125,970
Planner
Burien, City of
$67,716
$75,018
$82,320
$10,455 $25,864
$104,035
$111,337
$118,639
$317
$104,352 $111,654 $118,956
Assistant Planner
Issaquah, City of
$67,608
$79,944
$92,280
$11,720 $24,962
$104,290
$116,626
$128,962
$4,051
$108,340 $120,676 $133,012
NO MATCH
Lacey, City of
Planner
Lake Stevens, City of
$64,536
$73,104
$81,672
$10,372 $26,111
$101,019
$109,587
$118,155
$314
$101,333 $109,901 $118,469
Planner
Lynnwood, City of
$62,316
$70,566
$78,816
$10,010 $23,667
$95,993
$104,243
$112,493
$1,213
$97,206 $105,456 $113,706
NO MATCH
Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $67,356 $75,018 $82,320
Current Edmonds Base Range: $61,413 $71,856 $82,298
Proposed Base Range: $61,413 $71,856 $82,298
Range 7
Median: $104,352 $111,654 $118,956
Current Edmonds Base Range: $96,827 $107,270 $117,712
Packet Pg. 380
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
Cash
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
Compensation
medical and
cash compensation from
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
comparator
cities)
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES DIRECTOR
$115,803
$135,495
$155,187
$155,187
$19,709
$24,962
$160,474
$180,166
$199,858
$1,791
$162,265
$181,957
$201,649
Parks & Recreation Director Bothell, City of
$129,876
$147,504
$165,132
$20,972 $25,826
$176,673
$194,301
$211,929
$15,243
$191,916
$209,544
$227,172
Parks, Rec & Cultural Svcs Dire Burien, City of
$131,892
$146,106
$160,320
$20,361 $25,864
$178,117
$192,331
$206,545
$617
$178,734
$192,948
$207,162
Director Parks & Recreation Issaquah, City of
$133,800
$158,256
$182,712
$23,204 $18,780
$175,784
$200,240
$224,696
$13,502
$189,286
$213,742
$238,198
Parks & Recreation Director Lacey, City of
$111,072
$126,630
$142,188
$18,058 $26,146
$155,276
$170,834
$186,392
$547
1 $155,823
$171,381
$186,939
NO MATCH Lake Stevens, City of
Parks & Recreation Director Lynnwood, City of
$139,500
$159,546
$179,592
$22808 $23,667
$185,975
$206,021
$226,067
$8,540
$194,515
$214,561
$234,607
Parks, Rec & Cultural Svcs Dire Puyallup, City of
$106,284
$121,170
$136,056
$17:279 $23,667
$147,230
$162,116
$177,002
$1,570
$148,800
$163,686
$178,572
NO MATCH University Place, City of
Median: $130,884 $146,805 $162,726
Current Edmonds Base Range: $115,803 $135,495 $155,187
Proposed Base Range: $121,594 $142,270 $162,946
Range 21
Median: $184,010 $201,246 $217,167
Current Edmonds Base Range: $162,265 $181,957 $201,649
Packet Pg. 381
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
PLANNING MANAGER
$95,270
$111,471
$127,672
$127,672
$16,214
$24,962
$136,447
$152,648
$168,849
$1,473
$137,920
$154,121
$170,322
NO MATCH
Bothell, City of
NO MATCH
Burien, City of
Planning Manager
Issaquah, City of
$99,840
$118,092
$136,344
$17,316 $18,780
$135,935
$154,187
$172,439
$5,101
$141,037 $159,289 $177,541
Planning Manager
Lacey, City of
$86,556
$98,677
$110,799
$14,071 $26,146
$126,773
$138,895
$151,016
$426
1 $127,199 $139,321 $151,442
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
Planning Manager
Lynnwood, City of
$102,936
$117,726
$132,516
$16,830 $23,667
$143,433
$158,223
$173,013
$6,548
$149,981 $164,771 $179,561
NO MATCH
Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $99,840 $117,726 $132,516
Current Edmonds Base Range: $95,270 $111,471 $127,672
Proposed Base Range: $95,270 $111,471 $127,672
Range 16
Median: $141,037 $159,289 $177,541
Current Edmonds Base Range: $137,920 $154,121 $170,322
Packet Pg. 382
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
Cash
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
Compensation
medical and cash compensation from
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
comparator cities)
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
POLICE CHIEF
$127,672
$149,383
$171,094
$171,094
$9,290
$24,962
$161,925
$183,636
$205,347
$1,974
$163,899
$185,610
$207,321
Police Chief
Bothell, City of
$139,860
$158,844
$177,828
$9,656 $25,826
$175,342
$194,326
$213,310
$25,306
$200,648 $219,632
$238,616
NO MATCH
Burien, City of
Police Chief
Issaquah, City of
$140,472
$166,140
$191,808
$10,415 $18,780
$169,667
$195,335
$221,003
$14,037
$183,704 $209,372
$235,040
Police Chief
Lacey, City of
$123,468
$140,760
$158,052
$8,582 $26,146
$158,196
$175,488
$192,780
$608
$158,804 $176,096
$193,388
Police Chief
Lake Stevens, City of
$121,692
$137,844
$153,996
$8,362 $26,146
$156,200
$172,352
$188,504
$7,265
$163,465 $179,617
$195,769
Police Chief
Lynnwood, City of
$141,480
$161,796
$182,112
$9,889 $23,667
$175,036
$195,352
$215,668
$27,894
$202,930 $223,246
$243,562
Police Chief
Puyallup, Cityof
$129,504
$147,636
$165,768
$9,001 $23,667
$162,172
$180,304
$198,436
$8,543
$170,716 $188,848
$206,980
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $134,682 $153,240 $171,798
Current Edmonds Base Range: $127,672 $149,383 $171,094
Proposed Base Range: $127,672 $149,383 $171,094
Range 22
Median: $177,210 $199,110 $221,010
Current Edmonds Base Range: $163,899 $185,610 $207,321
Packet Pg. 383
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE & RECORDS MGMT. SPECIALIST
$45,828
$53,621
$61,413
$55,703
$7,799
$24,962
$78,590
$86,382
$94,175
$0
$78,590
$86,382
$94,175
Public Records Specialist
Bothell, City of
$51,336
$58,302
$65,268
$8,289 $25,864
$85,489
$92,455
$99,421
$251
$85,741 $92,707 $99,673
10%
H Pub Rec. Officer
Burien, City of
$52,574
$58,228
$63,882
$8,113 $25,864
$86,552
$92,206
$97,859
$246
$86,798 $92,451 $98,105
10 %
H Pub Rec. Analyst
Issaquah, City of
$53,222
$64,778
$76,334
$9,694 $18,780
$81,697
$93,253
$104,809
$3,670
$85,367 $96,923 $108,479
NO MATCH
Lacey, City of
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
NO MATCH
Lynnwood, City of
NO MATCH
Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $52,574 $58,302 $65,268
Current Edmonds Base Range: $45,828 $53,621 $61,413
Proposed Base Range: $50,523 $59,115 $67,707
Range 3
Median: $85,741 $92,707 $99,673
Current Edmonds Base Range: $78,590 $86,382 $94,175
Packet Pg. 384
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
Cash
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
Compensation
medical and cash compensation from
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
comparator cities)
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
(family a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
four)
LEOFF)
PUBLIC WORKS $ UTILITIES DIRECTOR
$121,594
$142,270
$162,946
$162,946
$20,694
$24,962
$167,250
$187,926
$208,602
$1,880
$169,130
$189,806
$210,482
PW Director
Bothell, City of
$139,860
$158,844
$177,828
$22,584 $25,826
$188,270
$207,254
$226,238
$16,415
$204,685 $223,669
$242,653
NO MATCH
Burien, City of
Director of PW Operations Issaquah, City of
$140,472
$166,140
$191,808
$24,360 $18,780
$183,611
$209,279
$234,947
$14,037
$197,648 $223,316
$248,984
PW Director
Lacey, City of
$119,412
$136,134
$152,856
$19,413 $26,146
$164,971
$181,693
$198,415
$588
1 $165,559 $182,281
$199,003
PW Director
Lake Stevens, City of
$110,256
$124,884
$139,512
$17,718 $26,146
$154,120
$168,748
$183,376
$5,902
$160,022 $174,650
$189,278
NO MATCH
Lynnwood, City of
$139,506
$157,918
$179,587
$22,808 $23,667
$185,980
$204,393
$226,062
$8,540
$194,520 $212,933
$234,602
NO MATCH
Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $139,506 $157,918 $177,828
Current Edmonds Base Range: $121,594 $142,270 $162,946
Proposed Base Range: $121,594 $142,270 $162,946
Range 21
Median: $194,520 $212,933 $234,602
Current Edmonds Base Range: $169,130 $189,806 $210,482
Packet Pg. 385
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
RECREATION SUPERVISOR
$71,092
$83,181
$95,270
$95,270
$12,099
$24,962
$108,153
$120,242
$132,331
$0
$108,153
$120,242
$132,331
NO MATCH
Bothell, City of
Recreation Supervisor
Burien, City of
$64,452
$71,406
$78,360
$9,952 $25,864
$100,268
$107,222
$114,176
$301
$100,570 $107,524 $114,478
Recreation Supervisor
Issaquah, City of
$86,232
$102,012
$117,792
$14,960 $18,780
$119,971
$135,751
$151,531
$2,809
$122,780 $138,560 $154,340
NO MATCH
Lacey, City of
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
Recreation Supervisor
Lynnwood, City of
$70,308
$80,424
$90,540
$11,499 $23,667
$105,474
$115,590
$125,706
$1,290
$106,764 $116,880 $126,996
NO MATCH
Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $70,308 $80,424 $90,540
Current Edmonds Base Range: $71,092 $83,181 $95,270
Proposed Base Range: $71,092 $83,181 $95,270
Range 11
Median: $106,764 $116,880 $126,996
Current Edmonds Base Range: $108,153 $120,242 $132,331
Packet Pg. 386
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
* nce Insura
a
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
(family
LEOFF)
four)
RECYCLING COORDINATOR
$61,413
$71,856
$82,298
$82,298
$10,452
$24,962
$96,827
$107,270
$117,712
$0
$96,827
$107,270
$117,712
Sustainabilit & Pro'. Coord. Bothell, City of $67,356 $76,500 $85,644
$10,877 $25,826
$78,233 $87,377 $96,521
$1,976
$80,209 $89,353 $98,497
NO MATCH Burien, City of
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of
NO MATCH Lacey, City of
NO MATCH Lake Stevens, City of
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH University Place, City of
Median: $67,356 $76,500 $85,644
Current Edmonds Base Range: $61,413 $71,856 $82,298
Proposed Base Range: $61,413 $71,856 $82,298
Range $7
Median: $80,209 $89,353 $98,497
Current Edmonds Base Range: $71,865 $82,307 $92,750
a+
a
Packet Pg. 387
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
SAFETY & RISK COORDINATOR (.5 FTE)
$22,914
$26,810
$30,707
unfilled
$3,900
$24,962
$51,776
$55,672
$59,568
$0
$51,776
$55,672
$59,568
Safety Manager
Bothell, City of
$47,106
$53,499
$59,892
$7,606 $25,826
$80,538 $86,931
$93,324
$1,976
$82,514 $88,907 $95,300
NO MATCH
Burien, City of
NO MATCH
Issaquah, City of
$33,804
$39,972
$46,140
NO MATCH
Lacey, City of
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
NO MATCH
Lynnwood, City of
Safety & Risk Coordinator Puyallup, City of
$29,382
$33,498
$37,614
t $4,777 $23,667
$57,826 $61,942
$66,058
$1,087
$58,913 $63,029 $67,145
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $33,804 $39,972 $46,140
Current Edmonds Base Range: $22,914 $26,810 $30,707
Proposed Base Range: $32,242 $37,725 $43,207
Range 8
Median: $70,713 $75,968 $81,222
Current Edmonds Base Range: $51,776 $55,672 $59,568
Packet Pg. 388
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST
$71,092
$83,183
$95,273
unfunded
$12,100
$24,962
$108,154 $120,244
$132,335
$0
$108,154
$120,244
€ $132,335
Senior HR Analyst
Bothell, City of
$81,240
$92,268
$103,296
$13,119 $25,826
$120,184 $131,212
$142,240
$1,976
$122,160 $133,188 $144,216
NO MATCH
Burien, City of
NO MATCH
Issaquah, City of
NO MATCH
Lacey, City of
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
Senior HR Analyst
Lynnwood, City of
$70,572
$80,568
$90,564
$11,502 $23,667
$105,741 $115,737
$125,733
$1,452
$107,192 $117,188 $127,184
NO MATCH
Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $75,906 $86,418 $96,930
Current Edmonds Base Range: $71,092 $83,183 $95,273
Proposed Base Range: $71,092 $83,183 $95,273
Range 10
Median: $114,676 $125,188 $135,700
Current Edmonds Base Range: $108,154 $120,244 $132,335
Packet Pg. 389
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and
cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator
cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
SENIOR PLANNER
$76,648
$88,342
$100,035
$95,270
$12,704
$24,962
$114,315
$126,008
$137,702
$0
$114,315 [
$126,008
$137,702
Senior Planner
Bothell, City of
$74,352
$84,438
$94,524
$12,005 $25,826
$112,182
$122,268
$132,354
$3,999
$116,181
$126,267
$136,353
Senior Planner
Burien, City of
$76,620
$84,876
$93,132
$11,828 $25,864
$114,312
$122,568
$130,824
$358
$114,670
$122,926
$131,182
Senior Planner
Issaquah, City of
$82,104
$97,128
$112,152
$14,243 $18,780
$115,127
$130,151
$145,175
$2,674
$117,801
$132,825
$147,849
Senior Planner
Lacey, City of
$77,568
$84,882
$92,196
$11,709 $26,146
$115,423
$122,737
$130,051
$355
$115,777
$123,091
$130,405
Senior Planner
Lake Stevens, City of
$74,256
$84,108
$93,960
$11,933 $26,146
$112,335
$122,187
$132,039
$361
$112,696
$122,548
$132,400
Senior Planner
Lynnwood, City of
$72,684
$82,332
$91,980
111,681 $23,667
$108,033
$117,681
$127,329
$1,296
$109328
$118,976
$128,624
Senior Planner
Puyallup, Cityof
$71,604
$81,630
$91,656
$11,640 $23,667
$106,911
$116,937
$126,963
$353
1 $107:264
$117,290
$127,316
Principal Planner
University Place, City of
$77,868
$90,174
$102,480
$13,015 $24,962
$115,845
$128,151
$140,457
$0
1 $115,845
$128,151
$140,,457
Median: $75,486 $84,657 $93,546
Current Edmonds Base Range: $76,648 $88,342 $100,035
Proposed Base Range: $71,092 $83,151 $95,210
Range 10
Median: $115,224 $123,009 $131,791
Current Edmonds Base Range: $114,315 $126,008 $137,702
Packet Pg. 390
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
SENIOR UTILITIES ENGINEER
$95,270
$93,076
$127,672
$127,673
$16,214
$24,962
$136,447
$134,253
$168,849
$1,473
$137,920 [
$135,726
[ $170,322
Supervising Cap Pro' Eng
Bothell, City of
$103,992
$118,110
$132,228
$16,793 $25,826
$146,611
$160,729
$174,847
$5,594
$152,205 $166,323 $180,441
NO MATCH
Burien, City of
Engineering Manager
Issaquah, City of
$104,856
$124,020
$143,184
$18,184 $18,780
$141,820
$160,984
$180,148
$11,176
$152,996 $172,160 $191,324
NO MATCH
Lacey, City of
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
Public Works Manager
Lynnwood, City of
$102,939
$117,728
$132,517
$16,830 $23,667
$143,436
$158,225
$173,014
$1,452
$144,888 $159,676 $174,465
Assistant CityEngineer
Puyallup, Cityof
$101,160
$115,332
$129,504
$16,447 $23,667
$141,274
$155,446
$169,618
$444
$141,718 $155,890 $170,062
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $103,466 $117,919 $132,372
Current Edmonds Base Range: $95,270 $93,076 $127,672
Proposed Base Range: $95,270 $93,076 $127,672
Range 16
Median: $148,546 $163,000 $177,453
Current Edmonds Base Range: $137,920 $135,726 $170,322
Packet Pg. 391
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
STORM WATER ENGINEER
$82,298
$93,076
$110,289
$100,035
$14,007
$24,962
$121,267
$132,045
$149,258
$0
$121,267 €
$132,045
$149,258
Senior Surface Water Eng
Bothell, City of
$86,220
$97,920
$109,620
$13,922 $25,826
$125,967
$137,667
$149,367
$2,530
$128,497 $140,197 $151,897
NO MATCH
Burien, City of
Senior Engineer
Issaquah, City of
$99,840
$113,640
$127,440
$16,185 $18,780
$134,805
$148,605
$162,405
$4,589
$139,393 $153,193 $166,993
Water Resources Manager Lacey, City of
$92,102
$105,000
$117,899
$14,973 $26,146
$133,221
$146,120
$159,018
$453
$133,675 $146,573 $159,471
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
NO MATCH
Lynnwood, City of
Senior Civil Engineer
Puyallup, City of
$89,424
$101,940
$114,456
$14,536 $23,667
$127,627
$140,143
$152,659
$440
1 $128,067 $140,583 $153,099
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $90,763 $103,470 $116,177
Current Edmonds Base Range: $82,298 $93,076 $110,289
Proposed Base Range: $82,298 $93,076 $110,289
Range 13
Median: $131,086 $143,578 $156,285
Current Edmonds Base Range: $121,267 $132,045 $149,258
Packet Pg. 392
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
STREET/STORMWATER MANAGER
$90,734
$93,076
$121,594
$121,594
$15,442
$24,962
$131,139 $133,481 $161,999
$1,403
$132,542
$134,884
$163,402
NO MATCH Bothell, City of
Street/SW Maint. Mgr. Burien, City of $82,512 $92,478 $102,444
$13,010 $25,826
$121,348 $131,314 $141,280
$394
$121,742 $131,708 $141,674
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of
NO MATCH Lacey, City of
NO MATCH Lake Stevens, City of
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH University Place, City of
Median: $82,512 $92,478 $102,444
Current Edmonds Base Range: $90,734 $93,076 $121,594
Proposed Base Range: $90,734 $93,076 $121,594
Range 15
Median: $121,742 $131,708 $141,674
Current Edmonds Base Range: $132,542 $134,884 $163,402
Packet Pg. 393
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER
$86,414
$93,076
$115,803
$115,803
$14,707
$24,962
$126,083
$132,745
$155,472
$0
$126,083
[ $132,745
$155,472
Trans. O s. Engineer
Bothell, City of
$86,220
$97,920
$109,620
$13,922 $25,826
$125,967
$137,667
$149,367
$1,976
$127,943
$139,643
$151,343
NO MATCH
Burien, City of
Traffic Signal O s Eng
Issaquah, City of
$99,840
$118,092
$136,344
$17,316 $18,780
$135,935
$154,187
$172,439
$3,251
$139,187
$157,439
$175,691
Trans. Design Mgr
Lacey, City of
$86,184
$98,250
$110,316
$14,010 $26,146
$126,340
$138,406
$150,472
NO MATCH
Lake Stevens, City of
Traffic Engineer
Lynnwood, City of
$93,576
$107,016
$120,456
$15,298 $23,667
$132,541
$145,981
$159,421
$1,405
$133,946
$147,386
$160,826
Trafffic Engineer
Pu allu , City of
$87,228
$99,450
$111,672
$14,182 $23,667
$125,077
$137,299
$149,521
$430
$125,507 $137,729 $149,951
NO MATCH
University Place, City of
Median: $87,228 $99,450 $111,672
Current Edmonds Base Range: $86,414 $93,076 $115,803
Proposed Base Range: $86,414 $93,076 $115,803
Range 14
Median: $130,945 $143,515 $156,085
Current Edmonds Base Range: $126,083 $132,745 $155,472
Packet Pg. 394
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
WATER/SEWER MANAGER
$90,734
$93,076
$121,594
$121,594
$15,442
$24,962
$131,139 $133,481 $161,999
$1,403
$132,542
$134,884
$163,402
NO MATCH Bothell, City of
NO MATCH Burien, City of
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of
NO MATCH Lacey, City of
NO MATCH Lake Stevens, City of
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH University Place, City of
Median:
Current Edmonds Base Range: $90,734 $93,076 $121,594
Proposed Base Range: $90,734 $93,076 $121,594
Range 15
Median:
Current Edmonds Base Range: $132,542 $134,884 $163,402
Packet Pg. 395
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
WWTP MANAGER
$10Q035
$93,076
$134,057
$134,057
$17,025
$24,962
$142,022 $135,063 $176,044
$1,547
$143,569
$136,610
$177,591
NO MATCH Bothell, City of
NO MATCH Burien, City of
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of
NO MATCH Lacey, City of
NO MATCH Lake Stevens, City of
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH University Place, City of
Median:
Current Edmonds Base Range: $10,035 $93,076 $134,057
Proposed Base Range: $10,035 $93,076 $134,057
Range 17
Median:
Current Edmonds Base Range: $143,569 $136,610 $177,591
Packet Pg. 396
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2018 Non -Represented Employees
Compensation Survey
9.1.a
TOTAL
Employer Paid
Additional
TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes
ANNUAL
Benefits & Total
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
Cash
medical and cash compensation from
Cash
Compensation
comparator cities)
Edmonds'
Compensation
& Retiree
Edmonds
Survey Job Class
Participant
Current
Benefits
Retiree
Job Class
Organization
Actual Pay
(Comparator
(12.7%
Health
Cities)
MIN
MID
MAX
PERS) or
Insurance*
MID
MAX
MIN
MID
MAX
(5.43 %
famil of
(foil
LEOFF)
WWTP SUPERVISOR
$82,298
$96,294
$110,289
unfilled
$14,007
$24,962
$121,267 $135,262 $149,258
$0
$121,267
$135,262
$149,258
NO MATCH Bothell, City of
NO MATCH Burien, City of
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of
NO MATCH Lacey, City of
NO MATCH Lake Stevens, City of
WWTP Supervisor Lynnwood, City of $85,068 $97,302 $102,536
$13,911 $23,667
$122,646 $134,880 $147,114
$0
$122,646 $134,880 $147,114
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of
NO MATCH University Place, City of
Median: $85,068 $97,302 $109,536
Current Edmonds Base Range: $82,298 $96,294 $110,289
Proposed Base Range: $82,298 $96,294 $110,289
Range
Median: $122,646 $134,880 $147,114
Current Edmonds Base Range: $121,267 $135,262 $149,258
a+
a
Packet Pg. 397
2018 Non -Represented Positions
Job Titles I Salary I Minimum I Midpoint I Maximum
Range
Police Chief 22 $127,672 $149,383 $171,094
PW & Utilities Director 21 $121,594 $142,270 $162,946
Community & Economic Development Director
20 $115,803
$135,495
$155,187
Development Services Director
20 $115,803
$135,495
$155,187
Finance Director
20 $115,803
$135,495
$155,187
Parks & Recreation Director
20 $115,803
$135,495
$155,187
Assistant Police Chief 19 $110,289 $129,043 $147,797
City Engineer 19 $110,289 $129,043 $147,797
Deputy Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director 17 $100,035 $117,046 $134,057
WWTP Manager 17 $100,035 $117,046 $134,057
Assistant Finance Director
Planning Manager
Senior Utilities Enoineer
16
16
111,471 $127,672
111,471 $127,672
bulling Vttic1a1
lb �)yU,IJ4
$)Wb,lb4
Z "121,bU4
IS Manager
15 $90,734
$106,164
$121,594
Street/Storm Water Manager
15 $90,734
$106,164
$121,594
Water/Sewer Manager
15 $90,734
$106,164
$121,594
City Clerk
14
$86,414
$101,109
$115,803
Environmental Programs Manager
14
$86,414
$101,109
$115,803
Engineering Program Manager lll*
14
$86,414
$101,109
$115,803
Facilities Manager
14
$86,414
$101,109
$115,803
Transportation Engineer
14
$86,414
$101,109
$115,803
Court Administrator 13 $82,298 $96,294 $110,289
Storm Water Engineer 13 $82,298 $96,294 $110,289
WWTP Supervisor 13 $82,298 $96,294 $110,289
Arts & Cultural Services Manager
12 $78,381
$91,709
$105,037
Engineering Program Manager II
12 $78,381
$91,709
$105,037
Fleet Manager
12 $78,381
$91,709
$105,037
Parks Maintenance Manager
12 $78,381
$91,709
$105,037
Capital Projects Manager
Senior Planner
11
11
$74,648
$74,648
$87,342
$87,342
$100,035
$100,035
Engineering Program Manager 1*
Recreation Supervisor
Senior Human Resources Analyst*
10
10
10
$71,092
$71,092
$71,092
$83,181
$83,181
$83,181
$95,270
$95,270
$95,270
Associate Planner
Associate Engineer
9
9
$67,707
$67,707
$79,221
$79,221
$90,734
$90,734
Executive Assistant to the Mayor
Human Resources Analyst
8
8
$64,484
$64,484
$75,449
$75,449
$86,414
$86,414
Planner
Recycling Coordinator
Executive Assistant - Confidential
7
7
7
$61,413
$61,413
$61,413
$67,470
$67,470
$67,470
$82,298
$82,298
$82,298
Public Disclosure and Records Management Specialist 1 $45,828 $53,621 $61,413
Safety & Risk Coordinator (part-time) 1 $22,914 $26,810 $30,707
* Unfunded, unfilled
a�
ca
O
A
c
O
ns
rn
c
m
E
O
U
a)
a)
O
E
W
O
r
c
m
rn
a�
L
Q
m
c
O
Z
CO
0
N
Im
c
rn
c
O
M
v
.y
U
rn
c
O
r
N
O
a�
r
c
m
rn
a)
L
Q
c
O
Z
CO
0
N
C
a)
E
t
v
c2
Q
Packet Pg. 398
2018 Non -Represented - Compensation Study
"Benchmark" positions
Job Titles Salary Range
'olice Chief 22
PW & Utilities Director 1 21
Development Services Director
20
=inance Director
20
luman Resources Director
20
'arks & Recreation Director
20
Assistant Police Chief 19
Senior Utilities Engineer 16
3uilding Official 15
S Manager 1 15
:;ity Clerk 14
rransportation Engineer 14
I Court Administrator 1 13 1
IParks Maintenance Manaqer 1 12 1
capital Projects Manager 11
Senior Planner 11
xecutive Assistant to the Mayor 8
luman Resources Analyst 1 8
xecutive Assistant - Confidential 7
'fanner 1 7
Human Resources Assistant (PT Hourly) 1 23
Packet Pg. 399
2018- Non -Represented Positions
9.1.d
Job Titles
I Salary
Range
I Minimum I
Midpoint
I Maximum
Police Chief
22
$127,672
$149,383
$171,094
O
PW & Utilities Director
21
$121,594
$142,270
$162,946
to
c
O
Community & Economic Development Director
20
$115,803
$135,495
$155,187
Development Services Director
20
$115,803
$135,495
$155,187
N
Finance Director
20
$115,803
$135,495
$155,187
a)
m
Parks & Recreation Director
20
$115,803
$135,495
$155,187
Q-
E
O
Assistant Police Chief
19
$110,289
$129,043
$147,797
U
City Engineer
19
$110,289
$129,043
$147,797
O
Deputy Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director
17
$100,035
$117,046
$134,057
WWTP Manager
17
$100,035
$117,046
$134,057
E
W
Assistant Finance Director
16
$95,270
$111,471
$127,672
r
Planning Manager
16
$95,270
$111,471
$127,672
y
Senior Utilities Engineer
16
$95,270
$111,471
$127,672
L
Building Official
15
$90,734
$106,164
$121,594
Q
IS Manager
15
$90,734
$106,164
$121,594
Street/Storm Water Manager
15
$90,734
$106,164
$121,594
O
Z
Water/Sewer Manager
15
$90,734
$106,164
$121,594
ap
City Clerk
14
$86,414
$101,109
$115,803
T_
0
Environmental Programs Manager
14
$86,414
$101,109
$115,803
rn
Engineering Program Manager lll*
14
$86,414
$101,109
$115,803
M
Facilities Manager
14
$86,414
$101,109
$115,803
to
Transportation Engineer
14
$86,414
$101,109
$115,803
Court Administrator
14
$86,414
$101,109
$115,803
E
Storm Water Engineer
13
$82,298
$96,294
$110,289
r
N
WWTP Supervisor
13
$82,298
$96,294
$110,289
c�a
m
Arts & Cultural Services Manager
12
$78,381
$91,709
$105,037
Engineering Program Manager II
12
$78,381
$91,709
$105,037
Fleet Manager
12
$78,381
$91,709
$105,037
E
Parks Maintenance Manager
12
$78,381
$91,709
$105,037
O
v
a�
Capital Projects Manager
11
$74,648
$87,342
$100,035
Senior Planner
11
$74,648
$87,342
$100,035
3
Engineering Program Manager 1*
10
$71,092
$83,181
$95,270
m
Recreation Supervisor
10
$71,092
$83,181
$95,270
Senior Human Resources Analyst*
10
$71,092
$83,181
$95,270
Associate Planner
9
$67,707
$79,221
$90,734
c
Associate Engineer
9
$67,707
$79,221
$90,734
Executive Assistant to the Mayor
8
$64,484
$75,449
$86,414
.y
d
Human Resources Analyst
8
$64,484
$75,449
$86,414
w
Safety & Risk Coordinator (part-tirno
8
$32,�
$37-,725
�43 20
Z
00
Planner
7
$61,413
$67,470
$82,298
r
N
Recycling Coordinator
7
$61,413
$67,470
$82,298
+�
Executive Assistant - Confidential
7
$61,413
$67,470
$82,298
m
E
Public Disclosure and Records Management Specialist
3
$50,523
$59,115
$67,707
U
HR Assistant (part-time)
3
$25.49
$29.06
$32.69
r
Q
* Unfunded, unfilled
Packet Pg. 400
9.1.e
PSPC
City of Edmonds
Prevailing Benefits Practices Comparison
Other Elements of Compensation
OfferingAverage
Less than
Average
Better than
Average
Medical Premium % Paid by City
Employee Only
x
Employee plus Family
x
Dental Premium % Paid by City
Employee Only
x
Employee plus Family
x
Vision Premium % Paid by City
Employee Only
x
Employee plus Family
x
Pension/Retirement
General
x
Police
x
Paid Time Off (PTO)
Vacation
x
Sick
x
Admin or Management Leave
x
Comp Time
x
Holiday
x
Other compensation (PD)
Vehicle Allowance
x
Take Home Vehicle
x
Clothing allowance
x
Deferred Comp
x
CITY OF EDMONDS
Page 1 of 15
3/27/2019
Packet Pg. 401
9.1.e
City of Edmonds
2018 Other Elements of Compensation Survey Summary
MEDICAL INSURANCE - by Employer
Page 2 of 15
Plan Option 1
Monthly
Amt. Employer
Employer
Insurance Group
Plan Type/Name
Cost of
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
Covera e
Bothell
1 Emplovee Only
AWC -HDHP
$719.48
$719.48
100%
S0.00
0%
2. EmDlovee +Spouse
AWC-HDHP
$1,444.99
$1.378.47
90%
S72.55
10%
3.EmDlovee +Spouse+Dependent1
AWC-HDHP
$1,802.40
$1.694.11
90%
$108.29
10%
4. EmDlovee, Spouse+2 Dependents
AWC-HDHP
$2,097.87
$1,960.03
90%
$137.84
10%
Burien
1 Emplovee Only
AWC -Reeence Healthfirst 250
$719.48
$719.48
100%
S0.00
0%
2. EmDlovee + Spouse
AWC -ReeenceHealthfirst 250
$1,444.99
$1.378.47
90%
S72.55
10%
3. EmDlovee + Spouse + Dependent 1
AWC -Reeence Healthfirst 250
$1,802.40
51.694.11
90%
5108.29
10%
4. Emplovee. Spouse + 2 Dependents
AWC -Reeence Healthfirst 250
$2,097.87
51,960.03
90%
5137.84
10%
EDMONDS
1 Emplovee Only
AWC -Reeence Healthfirst 250
$719.48
5647.53
90%
571.95
10%
2. EmDlovee + Spouse
AWC -ReeenceHealthfirst 250
$1,444.99
51.300.49
90%
5144.50
10%
3. EmDlovee + Spouse + Dependent 1
AWC -Reeence Healthfirst 250
$1,802.40
51.622.16
90%
5180.24
10%
4. Emplovee. Spouse + 2 Dependents
AWC -Reeence Healthfirst 250
$2,097.87
51,888.08
90%
5209.79
10%
Issaauah
1 Emplovee Only
Premera Plan 3 HDHP
$469.72
5469.72
100%
50.00
0%
2. EmDlovee +Spouse
Premera Plan 3 HDHP
$945.22
5945.22
100%
50.00
0%
3. EmDlovee +Spouse+Dependent 1
Premera Plan 3 HDHP
$1,183.65
51.183.65
100%
50.00
0%
4. Emplovee, Spouse +2 Dependents
Premera Plan 3 HDHP
51,378.88
51,378.88
100%
50.00
0%
Lacev
1 EmDlovee Only
AWC -Reeence Healthfirst 250
5719.48
5719.48
100%
50.00
0%
2.Emolovee+Spouse
AWC -ReeenceHealthfirst 250
51,444.99
51.378.47
90%
572.55
10%
3. Emplovee + Spouse + Dependent 1
AWC -Reeence Healthfirst 250
51,802.40
51.694.11
90%
5108.29
10%
4. Emplovee. Spouse + 2 Dependents
AWC -Reeence Healthfirst 250
52,097.87
51,960.03
90%
5137.84
10%
Lake Stevens
1 Emplovee Only
AWC -Reeence Healthfirst 250
5719.48
5719.48
100%
50.00
0%
2.Emolovee+Spouse
AWC -ReeenceHealthfirst 250
$1,444.99
51.378.47
90%
572.55
10%
3. Emplovee + Spouse + Dependent 1
AWC -Reeence Healthfirst 250
51,802.40
51.694.11
90%
5108.29
10%
4. Emplovee. Spouse + 2 Dependents
AWC -Reeence Healthfirst 250
52,097.87
51,960.03
90%
5137.84
10%
Lvnnwood
1 EmDlovee Only
Premera Heritaee PPO
5710.84
S710.84
100%
571.68
0%
2. EmDlovee + Spouse
Premera Heritaee PPO
51,427.77
$1.355.97
90%
571.68
10%
3. EmDlovee + Spouse +Dependent 1
Premera Heritaee PPO
51,780.77
51.673.78
90%
5106.99
10%
4. Emplovee. Spouse + 2 Dependents
Premera Heritage PPO
52,072.71
S1.936.52
90%
S136.19
10%
PuvalluD
1 EmDlovee Only
HMA - Self Insurance
5822.00
5822.00
100%
50.00
0%
2. EmDlovee + Spouse
HMA - Self Insurance
52,217.00
52.217.00
100%
50.00
0%
3. EmDlovee + Spouse + Dependent 1
HMA - Self Insurance
52,217.00
52.217.00
100%
50.00
0%
4. Emplovee. Spouse + 2 Dependents
HMA - Self Insurance
52,217.00
S2.217.00
100%
50.00
0%
Universitv Place
1 EmDlovee Only
AWC -Reeence Healthfirst 250
5719.48
5719.48
100%
50.00
0%
2. EmDlovee + Spouse
AWC -ReeenceHealthfirst 250
S1,444.99
S1.378.47
90%
572.55
10%
3. EmDlovee + Spouse + Dependent 1
AWC -Reeence Healthfirst 250
S1,802.40
S1.694.11
90%
S108.29
10%
4. Emplovee. Spouse + 2 Dependents
AWC -Reeence Healthfirst 250
S2.097.87
S1.960.03
90%
S137.84
10%
nr* indicates no response provided.
PSPC
CITY OF EDMONDS
K
Q
3/27/2019
Packet Pg. 402
9.1.e
City of Edmonds
2018 Other Elements of Compensation Survey Summary
MEDICAL INSURANCE - by Employer
Page 3 of 15
Plan Option 1
Monthly
Amt. Employer
Employer
Insurance Group
Plan Type/Name
Cost of
Pays/Mo.
Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.
Coverage
Des Moines
1 Emplovee Only
AWC -Reaence Healthfirst 250
5719.48
S647.53
90% $71.95
10%
2. Emolovee + Spouse
A WC -Reaence Healthfirst 250
51,444.99
S1,227.94
80% S217.05
20%
3. Emplovee + Spouse + Dependent 1
AWC -Reaence Healthfirst 250
51,802.40
S1,513.87
80% S288.53
20%
4. Emplovee, Spouse+2 Dependents
AWC-Reaence Healthfirst 250
52,097.87
S1,749.87
80% S348.00
20%
Olympia
1 Emplovee Only
AWC-Reaence Healthfirst 250
5719.48
5683.51
95% S35.97
5%
2. Emolovee + Spouse
A WC -Reaence Healthfirst 250
51,444.99
S1,300.19
85% S144.80
15%
3. Emplovee + Spouse + Dependent 1
AWC -Reaence Healthfirst 250
51,802.40
S1,603.99
85% S198.41
15%
4. Emplovee, Spouse+2 Dependents
AWC-Reaence Healthfirst 250
52,097.87
51,855.14
85% S242.73
15%
Shoreline
1 Emplovee Only
AWC -Reaence Healthfirst 250
Cafeteria style plan
- $1000-$1876 per month
2. Emplovee + Spouse
AWC -Reaence Healthfirst 250
Cafeteria style plan
- $1000-$1876 per month
3. Emplovee + Spouse + Dependent 1
AWC -Reaence Healthfirst 250
Cafeteria style plan
- $1000-$1876 per month
4. Emplovee, Spouse + 2 Dependents
AWC -Reaence Healthfirst 250
Cafeteria style plan - $1000-$1876 per month
Lakewood
1 Emplovee Only
AWC -Reaence Healthfirst 250
$719.48
5719.48
100% 50.00
0%
2. Emplovee + Spouse
AWC -Reaence Healthfirst 250
$1,444.99
51,340.12
- S104.87
-
3. Emplovee + Spouse + Dependent 1
AWC -Reaence Healthfirst 250
$1,802.40
51,677.42
S124.98
4. Emplovee, Spouse + 2 Dependents
AWC -Reaence Healthfirst 250
$2,097.87
51,968.69
S129.18
Other: Employee and Family:
nr* indicates no response provided.
PSPC
Average Paid by Employer: 1 Employee Only
$691.50 97.92%
$20.96 2.08%
2 Employee & Spouse
$1,381.61 90.45%
$87.14 9.55%
3 Employee & Children
$1,663.54 90.45%
$120.05 9.55%
4 Other: Employee plus Family
$1,899.53 90.45%
$146.26 9.55%
CITY OF EDMONDS
3/27/2019
Packet Pg. 403
City of Edmonds
2018 Other Elements of Compensation Survey Summary
DENTAL INSURANCE - by Employer
Plan Option 1
Monthly
Amt. Employer
Amt. Employee
Employer
Insurance Group
Plan Type/Name
Cost of
Pays/Mo.
Pays/Mo.
Covera e
Bothell
1 Employee Only
WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia
$56.02
$50.42
90%
$5.60
10%
2 Employee & Spouse
WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia
$106.68
$96.01
90%
$10.67
10%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia
$183.99
$165.59
90%
$18.40
10%
Employee, Spouse & Dependents 1 & 2
WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia
$183.99
$165.59
90%
$18.40
10%
Burien
1 Employee Only
WDS Plan E-Plus Orthodontia
$54.79
$54.79
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
WDS Plan E-Plus Orthodontia
$103.63
$103.63
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
WDS Plan E-Plus Orthodontia
$162.61
$162.61
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee + Family
WDS Plan E-Plus Orthodontia
$162.61
$162.61
100%
$0.00
0%
EDMONDS
1 Employee Only
WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia
$56.02
$50.40
90%
$5.62
10%
2 Employee & Spouse
WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia
$106.68
$96.01
90%
$10.67
10%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia
$183.99
$165.59
90%
$18.40
10%
Employee + Family
WDS Plan - F Plus Orthodontia
$183.99
$165.59
90%
$18.40
10%
Issaquah
1 Employee Only
Delta Dental Plan F
$54.79
$54.79
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
Delta Dental Plan F
$103.63
$103.63
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
Delta Dental Plan F
$162.21
$162.21
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee + Family
Delta Dental Plan F
$162.21
$162.21
100%
$0.00
0%
Lacey
1 Employee Only
Delta Dental Plan F Plus Ortho
$57.23
$57.23
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
Delta Dental Plan F Plus Ortho
$109.32
$98.96
90%
$10.36
10%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
Delta Dental Plan F Plus Ortho
$201.24
$185.02
90%
$16.22
10%
Employee + Family
Delta Dental Plan F Plus Ortho
$201.24
$185.02
90%
$16.22
10%
Lake Stevens
1 Employee Only
WDS Plan J + Ortho V
$59.09
$59.09
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
WDS Plan J + Ortho V
$112.84
$107.47
90%
$5.38
10%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
WDS Plan J + Ortho V
$167.73
$156.87
90%
$10.86
10%
Employee + Family
WDS Plan J + Ortho V
$167.73
$156.87
90%
$10.86
10%
Lynnwood
1 Employee Only
Delta Dental
$56.36
$56.36
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
Delta Dental
$135.56
$129.12
90%
$6.44
10%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
Delta Dental
$233.80
$217.53
90%
$16.27
10%
Employee + Family
Delta Dental
$233.80
$217.53
90%
$16.27
10%
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 404
City of Edmonds
2018 Other Elements of Compensation Survey Summary
DENTAL INSURANCE - by Employer
Puyallup 1 Employee Only
WDS
$72.00
$72.00
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
WDS
$143.00
$143.00
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
WDS
$206.00
$206.00
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee + Family
WDS
$206.00
$206.00
100%
$0.00
0%
University Place 1 Employee Only
Delta Dental Plan F
$54.79
$54.79
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
Delta Dental Plan F
$103.63
$103.63
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
Delta Dental Plan F
$162.21
$162.21
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee + Family
Delta Dental Plan F
$162.21
$162.21
100%
$0.00
0%
Des Moines
1 Employee Only
WDS
$72.00
$72.00
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
WDS
$143.00
$143.00
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
WDS
$206.00
$206.00
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee + Family
WDS
$206.00
$206.00
100%
$0.00
0%
Olympia
1 Employee Only
WDS- Plan E Plus Ortho
$54.79
$54.79
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
WDS- Plan E Plus Ortho
$103.63
$103.63
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
WDS- Plan E Plus Ortho
$162.21
$162.21
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee + Family
WDS- Plan E Plus Ortho
$162.21
$162.21
100%
$0.00
0%
Shoreline
1 Employee Only
Delta Dental Plan F
$54.79
$54.79
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
Delta Dental Plan F
$103.63
$103.63
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
Delta Dental Plan F
$162.21
$162.21
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee + Family
Delta Dental Plan F
$162.21
$162.21
100%
$0.00
0%
Lakewood
1 Employee Only
WDS- Plan E Plus Ortho
$48.69
$48.69
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
WDS- Plan E Plus Ortho
$90.53
$90.53
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
WDS- Plan E Plus Ortho
$148.57
$148.57
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee + Family
WDS- Plan E Plus Ortho
$148.57
$148.57
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee Only:
Average Paid by Employer:
Other: Employee and Family:
Average Paid by Employer:
$57.80 $56.93
$180.21 $174.05
98.46% $0.86 1.54%
96.15% $6.17 3.85%
Packet Pg. 405
City of Edmonds
2018 Other Elements of Compensation Survey Summary
VISION INSURANCE - by Employer
Plan Option 1
Monthly
Amt. Employer
Amt. Employee
Employer
Insurance Group
Plan Type/Name
Cost of
Pays/Mo.
Pays/Mo.
Bothell
1 Employee Only
Vision Service Plan
$9.82
$8.84
90%
$0.98
10%
2 Employee & Spouse
Vision Service Plan
$19.64
$17.68
90%
$1.96
10%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
Vision Service Plan
$29.46
$26.51
90%
$2.95
10%
Employee, Spouse & Dependents 1 & 2
Vision Service Plan
$29.46
$26.51
90%
$2.95
10%
Burien
1 Employee Only
VSP $10 Co -pay + 2nd pair rider
$10.91
$10.91
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
VSP $10 Co -pay + 2nd pair rider
$21.82
$21.82
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
VSP $10 Co -pay + 2nd pair rider
$32.73
$32.73
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee + Family
VSP $10 Co -pay + 2nd pair rider
$32.73
$32.73
100%
$0.00
0%
EDMONDS
1 Employee Only
Vision Service Plan
$9.82
$8.84
90%
$0.98
10%
2 Employee & Spouse
Vision Service Plan
$19.64
$17.68
90%
$1.96
10%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
Vision Service Plan
$29.46
$26.51
90%
$2.95
10%
Employee + Family
Vision Service Plan
$29.46
$26.51
90%
$2.95
10%
Issaquah
1 Employee Only
Vision Service Plan
$7.96
$7.96
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
Vision Service Plan
$15.92
$15.92
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
Vision Service Plan
$23.88
$23.88
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee + Family
Vision Service Plan
$23.88
$23.88
100%
$0.00
0%
Lacey
1 Employee Only
VSP $0 Copay plus 2nd Pair Rider
$12.39
$12.39
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
VSP $0 Copay plus 2nd Pair Rider
$24.78
$20.43
90%
$4.35
10%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
VSP $0 Copay plus 2nd Pair Rider
$37.17
$33.78
90%
$3.39
10%
Employee + Family
VSP $0 Copay plus 2nd Pair Rider
$37.17
$33.78
90%
$3.39
10%
Lake Stevens
1 Employee Only
Vision Service Plan-
$7.96
$7.96
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
Vision Service Plan
$15.92
$15.92
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
Vision Service Plan
$23.88
$23.88
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee + Family
Vision Service Plan
$23.88
$23.88
100%
$0.00
0%
Lynnwood
1 Employee Only
Vision Service Plan
$71.13
$71.13
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
Vision Service Plan
$135.56
$129.12
95%
$6.44
5%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
Vision Service Plan
$233.80
$217.53
95%
$16.27
5%
Employee + Family
Vision Service Plan
$233.80
$217.53
95%
$16.27
5%
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 406
City of Edmonds
2018 Other Elements of Compensation Survey Summary
VISION INSURANCE - by Employer
Puyallup
1 Employee Only
Vision Service Plan
$23.00
$23.00
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
Vision Service Plan
$45.00
$45.00
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
Vision Service Plan
$65.00
$65.00
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee + Family
Vision Service Plan
$65.00
$65.00
100%
$0.00
0%
University Place
1 Employee Only
Vision Service Plan
$7.96
$7.96
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
Vision Service Plan
$15.92
$15.92
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
Vision Service Plan
$23.88
$23.88
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee + Family
Vision Service Plan
$23.88
$23.88
100%
$0.00
0%
Des Moines
1 Employee Only
Vision Service Plan
$23.00
$23.00
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
Vision Service Plan
$45.00
$45.00
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
Vision Service Plan
$65.00
$65.00
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee + Family
Vision Service Plan
$65.00
$65.00
100%
$0.00
0%
Olympia
1 Employee Only
Vision Service Plan
$7.96
$7.96
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
Vision Service Plan
$15.92
$15.92
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
Vision Service Plan
$23.88
$23.88
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee + Family
Vision Service Plan
$23.88
$23.88
100%
$0.00
0%
Shoreline
1 Employee Only
Vision Service Plan
$7.96
$7.96
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
Vision Service Plan
$15.92
$15.92
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
Vision Service Plan
$23.88
$23.88
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee + Family
Vision Service Plan
$23.88
$23.88
100%
$0.00
0%
Lakewood
1 Employee Only
Vision Service Plan
$7.96
$7.96
100%
$0.00
0%
2 Employee & Spouse
Vision Service Plan
$15.92
$15.92
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee, Spouse & Dependent 1
Vision Service Plan
$23.88
$23.88
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee + Family
Vision Service Plan
$23.88
$23.88
100%
$0.00
0%
Employee Only:
Average Paid by Employer:
$15.99
$15.84
98.46%
$0.15
1.54%
Other: Employee
and Family:
Average Paid by Employer:
$48.92
$46.95
97.31%
$1.97
2.69%
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 407
City of Edmonds
2018 Other Elements of Compensation Survey Summary
Paid Time Off - by Employer
VACATION LEAVE OTHER LEAVE
Employer Employee Group PTO @5 @10 @15 @20 25+ Sick Holidays Mgmt./Admin. Formal Merit Other Comments
Bank @1Year Years Years Years Years Years Comments Leave Comp
Hours r Hours r Hours r Hours r Hours r Hours r Hours r Hours r Hours Hours r Hours r Hours r
Bothell
General (non -managers)
96
120
144
160
176
176
96
96
*
150 42
-
must"exceeds standards"for work peformance
Managers
176
200
224
240
256
256 management leave
96
96
*
100 42
-
*mgmt leave included in vacation leave
Directors
176
200
224
240
256
256 management leave
96
96
100 42
-
Burien
General
96
120
144
168
168
168
96
96
-
- -
-
Managers
96
120
144
168
168
168
96
96
-
- -
-
Directors
160
160
184
208
208
208
96
96
-
- -
-
EDMONDS
General (non -managers)
88
88
128
168
176
176
96
88
24
- -
-
Managers/Supervisors
128
128
168
176
200
216
96
88
24
* -
-
*supv. only may accrue 48 hours per year- comp
Directors
176
176
176
176
200
216
96
88
24
- -
-
Issaquah
General (non -managers)
128
160
192
208
224
224
96
96
-
- -
16
wellness & education incentive leave - 16 hours
Managers
128
160
192
208
224
224
96
96
-
- -
16
Directors
128
160
192
208
224
224
96
96
-
- -
16
Lacey
General (non -managers)
120
128
152
168
192
216
96
96
-
- -
-
Managers
120
128
152
168
192
216
96
96
-
- -
-
Directors
144
144
160
176
192
192
96
96
-
- -
-
Lake Stevens
General (non -managers)
80
128
152
184
200
200
96
96
-
- 24
-
supervisors receive 24 hours of merit leave
Managers
80
128
152
184
200
200
96
96
-
- 40
-
Directors
80
128
152
184
200
200
96
96
-
- 80
-
Lynnwood
General (non -managers)
80
96
136
152
200
200
96*
96
80
- -
**
* up to 20 extra days of sick leave per year
Managers
80
96
136
152
200
200
96*
96
80
- -
**
** up to 10 extra days of admin (mgmt) leave
Directors
80
96
136
152
200
200
96*
96
80
-
Puyallup
General (non -managers)
112
144
176
208
208
208
96
96
16
- -
-
up to 2 days of administrative leave per year
Managers
112
144
176
208
208
208
96
96
16
- -
-
Directors
112
144
176
208
208
208
96
96
16
- -
-
University Place
General (non -managers)
96
120
144
168
184
184
96
88
-
- 40
eligible forup to 5 days of merit leave per year
Managers
96
120
144
168
184
184
96
88
-
- 40
Directors
96
120
144
168
184
184
96
88
40
Des Moines
General (non -managers)
96
120
144
168
192
192
96
96
-
- -
32
exempt employees are accrue 8 extra hours of leave
Managers
96
120
144
168
192
192
96
96
-
- -
32
per quarter
Directors
96
120
144
168
192
192
96
96
-
- -
32
Olympia
General (non -managers)
96
120
144
168
192
216
88
88
-
- -
-
Managers
96
120
144
168
192
216
88
88
-
- -
-
Directors
96
120
144
168
192
216
88
88
-
- -
-
Shoreline
General (non -managers)
104
136
151
184
184
184
96
96*
24
- -
-
*includes 2 personal days per year
Managers
104
136
151
184
184
184
96
96*
24
- -
-
Directors
104
136
151
184
184
184
96
96*
24
- -
-
Lakewood General(non-managers)x
120
152
184
216
232
232
Managers
x 120
152
184
216
232
232
Directors
x 120
152
184
216
232
232
VACATION LEAVE
@5
@10
@15
@20
25+
I
@ 1 Year
Years
Years
Years
Years
Years
Averages
Hours/yr
Hours/yr
Hours/yr
Hours/yr
Hours/yr
Hours/yr
Other Professional Exempt
102
129
154
178
195
199
Managers
108
135
161
185
201
205
Directors
114
139
164
188
204
206
96 96 48
96 96 48
96 96 48
OTHER LEAVE
Sick
Holidays
I Mgmt./Admin.
Leave
Formal
Comptime
Merit
Other
Hours/Yr
Hours/yr
I Hours/yr
Hours/yr
Hours/yr
I Hours/yr
95 94 28 - 35 24
95 94 28 - 41 24
95 94 28 - 54 24
up to 6 days of monageement leave per year
Page
C
O
Z
00
O
N
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Pg. 408
9.1.e
City of Edmonds
2018 Other Elements of Compensation Survey Summary
Paid Time Off Notes
Employer Comments
Bothell
City Manager may also approve up to 80 hours of annual vacation leave buyback
for each exempt employee.
Burien
24 hours of sick leave advanced to new employees.
Edmonds
Annual conversion option of sick leave over 800 hours on a 3:1 basis for pay up
to $1000 per year.
Issaquah
Non -director level employees allowed to accrue 100 hours of comp time per
year. Directors allowed to accrue 150 hours of comp time per year.
Annual conversion option of sick leave that includes sick leave earned in excess
of 1,280 hours to be converted to vacation leave @ 50% or if sick leave balance
is 240 or more hours, may convert 1/3 of sick leave to vacation or pay (as long as
leave balance after conversion is 240 hours) or if sick leave balance is 480 or
more hours, may convert 1/2 of sick leave to vacation or pay.
Lacey
Lake Stevens
Exempt employees also eligible for additional administrative leave (for work
meetings outisde of regular work hours) at the discretion of the City
Administrator.
Lynnwood
May convert hours in excess of 18 months of accrued vacation balance into a
Puyallup
RHSA (retirement health savings account).
University Place
N/A
Des Moines
CITY OF EDMONDS
Page 9 of 15
3/27/2019
Packet Pg. 409
9.1.e
City of Edmonds Page 10 of 15
2018 Other Elements of Compensation Survey Summary
Paid Time Off Notes
Employer Comments
Olympia
N/A
Shoreline
May place any unused cafeteria benefit dollars (amount allotted, but not used
for health insurance) into a deferred compensation plan.
Lakewood
N/A
CITY OF EDMONDS 3/27/2019
Packet Pg. 410
City of Edmonds
2018 Other Elements of Compensation Survey Summary
By Employer
9.1.e
Page 11 d 15
Employer
Employee Group
Education:
AA
Education: BA
Education: MA
DCP
401(aJ
Longevity
Monagement/Admin
Leave
Merit Pay or Leave
Comp Leave
Extra Holiday leave or Floater
VEBA/RHS/R
HA
Vehicle/Car/Housi
n Allowance
OTHER
Comments
Bothell
General (non -managers)
2-5%
42 hours per year
8 holiday
Managers
2-5%
80 hours per year
42 hours per year
8 holiday
Directors
2-5%
80 hours per year
42 hours per year
8 holiday
Police
Burien
General (non -managers)
8 holiday
Managers
8 holiday
Directors
8 holiday
Police
EDMONDS
General (non -managers)
Managers
24 hours per year
Directors
24 hours per year
Police
2.5%
24 hours per year
Issaquah
General (non -managers)
2%education merit
$300
100 hours per year
8 holiday, 8 wellness, 8 education
$1,550
requires 1:1 match up to $300
Managers
2%education merit
$300
100 hours per year
8 holiday, 8 wellness, 8 education
$1,550
Directors
2%education merit
$1,200
3.5%
150 hours per year
8 holiday, 8 wellness, 8 education
$1,550
requires 5%employee contribution
Police
2%education merit
$1,200
3.5%
8 holiday, 8 wellness, 8 education
$1,550
Lacey
General (non -managers)
8 holiday
Managers
8 holiday
Directors
8 holiday
Police
8 holiday
Lake Stevens
General (non -managers)
24 hours per year
8 holiday
Managers
40 hours per year
8 holiday
Directors
80 hours per year
8 holiday
Police
Lynnwood
General (non -managers)
5 years =$221.52/ ear
80 hours per year
80 hours extra sick leave
extra leave at discretion of City Manager
Managers
8 years= $443.041year
80 hours per year
160 hours extra sick leave
Directors
11 years = 664.56
80 hours per year
160 hours extra sick leave
15 years = $941.52
80 hours per year
Police
See benefits matrix for Police
Chief/Assistant Police Chief
80 hours per year
Puyallup
General (non -managers)
16 hours per year
8 holiday
16 hours of administrative leave per yer
Managers
16 hours per year
8 holiday
16 hours of administrative leave per yer
Directors
16 hours per year
8 holiday
16 hours of administrative leave per yer
Police
16 hours per year
16 hours of administrative leave per yer
University Place
General (non -managers)
40 hours per year
Managers
40 hours per year
Directors
40 hours per year
Police
40 hours per year
Des Moines
General (non -managers)
8 holiday
Managers
8 holiday
Directors
8 holiday
Police
Olympia
General (non -managers)
Managers
Directors
Police
Shoreline
General(non-managers)
24 hours per year
8holiday
Managers
24 hours per year
8 holiday
Directors
24 hours per year
8 holiday
Police
24 hours per year
Lakewood
General(non-managers)48
hours per year
8holiday
Managers
48 hours per year
8 holiday
Directors
48 hours per year
8holiday
Police
48 hours per year
N
N
0
0.
E
W
r
i
d
N
L
Q
d
C
O
Z
00
N
CD
r
M
K
a
CITY OF EDMONDS
3/2]/2019
Packet Pg. 411
9.1.e
City of Edmonds Page 12 of 15
2018 Other Elements of Compensation Survey Summary
Notes
Employer Comments
Bothell
2-5% deferred compensation (DCP) employer contribution
up to 42 hours of merit leave per year
Tuition reimbursement - 80% cost of tuition paid for AA/AAS or BA/BS or 40% cost of tuition for Master's
degree
Telecommmuting program for certain positions.
Burien
Employer paid ORCA Card for METRO, Community Transit, Everett Transit, Pierce Transit, and Sound Transit.
401 (a) Social Security Replacement Plan through ICMA; 1 year vesting schedule.
Tuition reimbursement -$1550 per full time employee per year. Pro -rated for part time employees. Cost of
tuition or course books and lab fees.
EDMONDS
Employer paid ORCA Card for METRO, Community Transit
MEBT (Social Security Replacement Plan) - 7 year vesting schedule.
100% tuition reimbursement (up to an Associate's degree); 50% reimbursement for Bachelors/Masters
degrees up to $2000 maximum per year.
Issaquah
Employer VEBA contribution of $1550 per employee.
Up to 100% tuition reimbursement as approved by Council in budget
Free annual community center family pass.
Lacey
Lake Stevens
Eligible for 100% tuition/continuing eductation (professional training/certifications, etc.) as allowed in
budget as administered by HR.
Lynnwood
Longevity Pay
5 years = $221.52/year
8 years= $443.04/year
11 years = 664.56
15 years = $941.52
Puyallup
Tuition reimbursement of $2,000 per employee per year. Exceptions may be made on a case -by -case basis
by the City Manager.
CITY OF EDMONDS 3/27/2019
Packet Pg. 412
9.1.e
City of Edmonds Page 13 of 15
2018 Other Elements of Compensation Survey Summary
Notes
Employer Comments
University Place
Telecommuting, flexible work schedules.
Tuition reimbursement only for up to $5500 per calendar year (per approved program). Other courses - up to
100% or 50% depending upon relation to career path/development.
Retirement health savings plan
Social Security replacement program (401 a), 100% vesting after two years
Des Moines
Training course(s) reimbursement, up to 100% at City's discretion
401 a Social Security Replacement plan
Olympia
Tuition reimbursement possible as budgeted by department
Shoreline
Telecommuting, flexible work schedules
401 a Social Security Replacement plan
Tuition reimbursement - 100% tuition and registration - up to 6 credits per semester or 9 credits per quarter
for approved courses.
Employees may use the pool and recreation center.
Lakewood
Up to 3% employer match in dcp.
Up to 1% base salary dcp contribution for meritorious employees at the top of their pay scale.
100% Tuition reimbursement up to 15 credit hours per school quarter, per semester per employee (tuition
and registration). Exceptions on a case -by -Case basis.
CITY OF EDMONDS 3/27/2019
Packet Pg. 413
9.1.e
Police Chief - Other Elements of Compensation
Clothing
Education
Longevity
Deferred
Admin
Management
Car Cell Phone Holiday BL
City
HRA
Comp Time Overtime Merit Leave
Merit Pay Allowance as
Incentive
Incentive
Comp
Leave
Leave
Allowance Allowance Back
salary
2-5% base
Bothell
salary
80 hrs/yr
96 hrs/yr
42 hrs/yr
$465/yr
Burien
Contracted Services
EDMONDS
24 hrs/yr
$900/yr
$100/m o
Issaquah
2%
$1,550
plus 3.5%
150 hrs/yr
7%
Lacey
2%
$650/yr
Lake Stevens
80 hrs/yr
750/yr
75 hrs/yr @
Lynnwood
5.40%
2% - 5 yrs
1.5x
1250/yr
3%-10yrs
5%-15yrs
7% - 20 yrs
Puyallup
4%
$360/yr
University Place
Contracted Services
Des Moines
1% of base pay
Marysville
4%
80 hrs/yr
$500/mo
Lakewood
4%
80 hrs/year
Olympia
4%
Shoreline
Contracted Services
* includes employer retiree (LEOFF) contributions of 5.23% and health insurance premiums paid by the City
a�
a�
0
Q.
w
a�
c
m
m
L
Q
NN0
c
0
z
00
0
N
rn
r
M
c
0
c
m
Q.
E
0
U
4-
0
N
c
m
E
m
w
a�
O
x
c
m
Q.
a
a
r-
0
E
U
0
r
a
Packet Pg. 414
9.1.e
Assistant Police Chief - Other Elements of Compensation
City
Education Longevity
Incentive Incentive
Deferred
Comp
Admin Managem
Leave nt Leave
Comp Time Overtime Merit Leave
Clothinge Cell Phone Holiday Buy- Command
Merit Pay Allowance
Allowance Back Duty Pay
as salary
Bothell
2-5% base
salary
80 hrs/yr
96 hrs/yr 42 hrs/yr
$464/yr
EDMONDS
2.5%
24 hrs/year
$900/yr
Issaquah
$300/mo
100 hrs/year
7%
Lacey
1 %
$650/yr
Lake Stevens
40 hrs/yr
$600/yr
Lynnwood
5.40% 2% - 5 yrs
3%-10yrs
5%-15yrs
7% - 20 yrs
75 hrs/yr @
1.5x
$1250/yr
Puyallup
4%
16 hrs/yr
$360/year
University Place
Contracted Services
Des Moines
1 % of base pay
Marsyville
4%
80 hrs/yr
$600/mo
Lakewood
4%
48 hrs/yr
Olympia
1%
Shoreline
Contracted Services
* includes employer retiree (LEOFF) contributions and health insurance premiums paid by the City
Packet Pg. 415
9.1.f
CITY OF EDMONDS
History of Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) & Merit Increases for Non -Represented Employees (2005-2019)
COLAS
NON -REPRESENTED
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Non -Represented
2.0%
2.7%
3.0%
3.5%
5.8%**
0
0
Lump sum
2.0%
1.4%
2.0%
2.0%
2.3%
3.0%
3.0%
(0.00459)
MERIT INCREASES
Non -Represented
0-5%
0-5%
0-3%
0-3%
0
0-3%
1.5%
0 ***
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
STEPINCREASES
Non Represented
steps (by
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Council
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
(not at top step)
approval
ntoci11)\
Total Increase
2-7%
2.7-7.7%
3-6%
3.5-6.5%
5.80%
0-3%
0-1.5%
0.5%-4%
2-7%
1.4-6.4%
2-7%
2-7%
2.3-7%
3-8%
3-8%
* COLA's in 2009 were offset by 9 mandated furlough days, which is equivalent to a 3.5% salary reduction
**COLA's in 2009 were offset by 9 mandated furlough days, which is equivalent to a 3.5% salary reduction for one year
—Non-represented employees did not receive a COLA or merit increase in 2012. Council authorized an amount, of a different % for each person, to
put them on a Step on a new salary schedule.
Q
\\edmsvr-deptfs\HR\COMPENSATION & BENEFITS\2018 Non -Represented Salary Survey\Agenda items\COLA History - NR (2005-2019) 1 Packet Pg. 416
9.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/2/2019
Waterfront Center financial update
Staff Lead: Carrie Hite
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Preparer: Carrie Hite
Background/History
The City entered into a facility lease with the Sr. Ctr in 2008, with options to extend through 2030.
The City entered into an option to lease the grounds of the current Sr. Ctr to allow for a capital campaign
and eventual rebuild of the center on the site. This was signed in January 2015. See attached.
This City amended this lease to identify the City's responsibility for the design and construction of the
parking lot and frontage improvements.
On March 12, the finance committee received a financial update from the Senior Center and forwarded
this to full Council for discussion.
Staff Recommendation
Approve design development/construction documents.
Authorize final approval for Sr. Ctr to demolish the old building and construct new building.
Narrative
The City has entered into an Option to Lease with a proposed 40 year ground lease with the Edmonds
Senior Center. This has been in effect since January 2015. The long term land lease gives the Sr. Ctr the
option to demolish the current building and build a new one on the property.
The Senior Center is seeking to move forward on the demolition and construction of the building.
There are a few thresholds in the lease that require the City Council to make decisions about this
project. In section 4.1.1 there are approval steps the Sr. Ctr needs to complete. The Sr. Ctr has
presented to council and received approval for the the schematic design. The other decision points are
for the design development/construction documents, and a final approval to actually proceed.
For the final approval, the lease states, " Senior Center shall undertake no demolition, construction,
alteration, or changes ("Work") on or to the Property without the prior written consent of the City,
which shall be within the discretion of the City to withhold or deny. In applying its discretion, the City
shall consider, among other factors deemed relevant by the City Council, the extent to which the Senior
Center has secured sufficient capital and/or financing to complete the construction of the Building, the
Packet Pg. 417
9.2
construction of the other improvements of the property, and related financial obligations ( including
having an adequate contingency fund for the contemplated work), the intended uses of the Property as
described in Section 1.2 as well as the Property's functionality as a park."
For this meeting, the Senior Center is bringing forward a financial update, the design development
presentation for approval, and seeking the final approval as well.
The Senior Center has provided the following in preparation for this meeting:
1. Financial Update:
a. Campaign Update
b. ESC Financial Report for the period ending 1/31/19
c. Cash Flow projections, and notes of assumptions
d. Pro Forma - 5-year operating budget
e. Semble Proposal
f. JGL Food Service Consultants proposal
g. AIA Eworks contract
2. Design Development/Construction approval:
a. Power point presentation
3. Final Approval: Discussion
Here is a link to the minutes from the finance committee meeting on March 12, 2019:
http://edmondswa.igm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2276&lnline=True
The previous discussion with the Senior Center and Finance Committee was held on September 20,
2018, and the materials can be found here:
http://edmondswa.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=2642
The previous discussion with full Council about the lease amendment with the Senior Center was held
on November 27, 2018, and the materials can be found here:
http://edmondswa.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetinglD=2663&MediaPosition=
197.290&ID=3374&CssClass=
Attachments:
Campaign Update 3-27-19
Finance Committee 03 12 2019 Jan ESC Finance Report
ESC Cashflow 3-27-19
ESC Cashflow notes 3-27-19
ESC Proforma 3-27-19
Finance Committee 03 12 2019 Semble Proposal
Finance Committee 03 12 2019 JGL Feasibility
Edmonds City Council Presentation 4-2-19 opt
AIA Contract with EW3-27-19
Packet Pg. 418
Edmonds Senior Center
Connecting & Enriching Our Community
PO Box 717 •220 Railroad Ave • Edmonds, Wa 98020 • Phone: 425.774.5555 • www.edmondssc.org
March 27, 2019
TO: Mayor Earling and City Council Members
FROM: Gary Haakenson, Campaign Co -Chair
RE: Campaign Update
I am sorry I will be unable to attend the April 2nd City Council Meeting. Attached is our
Campaign Update. You will see that we have made significant progress since we presented to
you one year ago on April 17, 2018. At that time, we had raised $9,762,544. Today that number
is $12,558,000 — an increase of $2.8M.
Gifts in the last 8 months have included: an additional $1M from Rick Steves; $1M from John
Osberg; $200K from the Hazel Miller Foundation (making their total gift $500K); $130K from
local Rotary Clubs; $100K from a local family foundation; and just last week $75K from a
prominent Edmonds family. We have more than $4M in pending requests. We have
demonstrated we know how to raise the funds necessary to build the new Waterfront Center
In order to manage any required gap financing we have retained Semble, a company based in
Bellevue that facilitates nonprofit financing. It is a model based on private lending or impact
investing as well as bank financing when required. The cashflow in your packet will show that
should we need financing it would only be required in the second quarter of 2020. This will give
us another ten months of active fundraising to further reduce the need for financing.
We now stand at a crossroads. In order to complete our contract with the State, allowing us to
access $4M in funding, we need to provide a signed ground lease with the City. An executed
ground lease requires the final authorization from the City Council to allow the Senior Center to
move forward with construction. Adding to the urgency, is the 2015 appropriation from the
State in the amount of $1.25M, must be spent down by the end of June. Further risks associated
with a delay include cost escalation and loss of fundraising momentum.
We value our partnership with the City and hope we can continue to work together to advance
the full development of the Waterfront Center, parking and beach restoration without delay.
If you have any questions regarding the campaign, Campaign Director Daniel Johnson and
Campaign Cabinet member Terry Vehrs will be available at the meeting.
Gary Haakenson
Campaign Co -Chair
Packet Pg. 419
9.2.a
Edmonds Waterfront Center Campaign Update — 3/21/19
Raised to date: $12,558,000 toward goal of $16M
Campaign highlights
• Met $1M Rick Steves community challenge (total pledge from Rick is $4M)
• $2,687,000 in recent gifts ($1M Rick Steves; $1M John Osberg, $200K Hazel Miller Fd;
$130K local Rotary Clubs; $100K Zevenbergen Foundation); $75K local family.
• Working with veterans group to increase presence and health services in new Center
• Submitted conditional use and shoreline development permits
• Submitted for building permit in December 2018
• Securing community space to house programs during transition year
• Moved Thrift Store out of exiting building to Westgate
• Plan to break ground in Spring 2019 (subject to fundraising & permitting)
Bettor Raised
leadership (individuJW $ 6,100,000 $ 5,782,500 $ 317,500
Board
Government
Foundations
400,000
6,500,000
2,500,000
Community Campaign $ 500,000
Total $16,000,000
Potential Sources of Additional Funds
Leadership Gifts — Goal $1M
• $1M in asks pending
Board — Goal $ 50,000
• Asking new Board members
Government — Goal $2M
$ 370,121
$ 4,000,000
$ 1,824,000
$ 581,379
$12,558,000
$ 29,879
$ 2,500,000
$ 676,000
$ (81,379)
$ 3,442,000
• State 2M appropriation 2019 pending; County $500K 2020; Verdant $200 pending
Foundations — Goal - $500,000
• CFSC, McEachern, Satterberg Foundation, local Tribes
Community Campaign — Goal - $250K
• Business campaign — in partnership with the Chamber — "We're In!"
• Service Clubs
Packet Pg. 420
9.2.b
Edmonds Senior Center
Date: February 18, 2019
To: The Finance Committee
From: Christopher. Wolfe, Accounting Manager
Re: Preliminary Operating Results for the period ending January 31,
2019
Statement of Financial Position
Current assets —. The Center finished the month with $191,860 in unrestricted cash on hand (page 1,
line 1, column 1); this is $10,632 over the best practices recommendation of three months operating
cash on hand for non-profit organizations. During 2015 and 2016 the board of directors authorized
$125,000 in unrestricted cash reserves be loaned to the Capital Campaign; at its November board
meeting the board of directors authorized repayment of this loan subject to certain conditions being
met. As of January 31, 2019 $50,000 has met those conditions and has been repaid.
Capital campaign assets — The center finished the month with $1,423,246 cash on hand (page 1, line
6, column 3) and $426,285 in pledges receivable (page 1, line 7, column 3).
Net Assets —page 1, lines 20-23. The Center has $1,024,932 in unrestricted net assets, up $64,075
from the start of the year. The Center has $1,865,622 in temporarily restricted net assets, down
$68,694 from the start of the year.
Statement ofActivity for Budgeted Operations
Contributions, Gifts & Grants —page 5, lines 1-5. This account group has a positive to budget
variance of $2,483 for the year. Membership Dues are up $3,525 and Other Contributions, Gifts &
Grants are down $1,042.
Program Service Revenue —page 5, lines 6-8. This account group has a positive actual to budget
variance of $3,578 for the year. Recreation is down $41 and Health & Wellness is up $330.
Rental Income, Fundraising Events, Thrift Store and Other Revenue —page 5 lines 9-14. This
account group has a positive actual to budget variance of $1,413 for the year. Thrift Store sales are
up $1,786, Rentals are down $220, Fundraising Events are net zero and Miscellaneous Revenue and
Interest is down $153.
Wages & Benefits —page 5, lines 16-19. This account group has a positive actual to budget variance
of $1,590 for the year.
Supplies & Equipment —page 5, lines 20-22. This account group has a positive actual to budget
variance of $549 for the year.
Services & Other Costs —page 5, lines 23-36. This account group has a positive actual to budget
variance of $2,776 for the year.
Packet Pg. 421
9.2.b
Overall —page 5, line 38. Edmonds Senior Center has a positive actual to budget variance of $9,100
for the year.
Notes covering the Financial Summary Report for the Board of Directors
Change in Net Assets Unibudgeted Operations page 1, line 23. This covers unbudgeted operational
activity such as depreciation and capital grants. Since these activities do not directly affect day to
day operations they are excluded from the Center's Operational Budget. There is a net loss of $1,672
on these activities for the year.
Non Operational Gains/(Losses) Net —page 1, line 25. This covers non -operational activity such as
the capital campaign and CAFE event. Since these activities are not part of our regular day to day
operations they are excluded from the Center's Operational Budget. There is a loss gain of $10,798
on these activities for the year.
Edmonds Waterfront Center Capital Campaign & Development Budget — Cash Basis —page 2,
lines 1-20. The Center raised $10,530 this past year and $2,501,331 project to date. The Center has
spent $70,861 this past year and $1,078,085 project to date which left a cash balance of $1,423,246 as
of January 31, 2019.
Packet Pg. 422
9.2.b
Edmonds Senior Center
Statement of Financial Position
January 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018
#setts
Current asks
Caste Plote, 1)
1
191,860.36
16,091.91
207,952.27
205,005.74
2,946.!
Ac wins receivable (Nate 2)
2
6,918.32
0.00
6,918.32
19,411.36
(12,493.0
k
3
26,550.00
0.00
26,560.00
26,560.00
OX
Other assele Woe' 3)
4
29,683.17
0.00
29,683.17
35,361.86
(5678.E
Total current assets
5
256,021.85
16,091.91
271,113.76
286,338.96
(15:226.2
Capital campaign assets
Gash (Note 1)
6
0.00
1,423,245.66
1,423,245.66
1,483,576.54
(60,330.8
Pledges amble
7
0.00
426,284.57
426,284.57
434,617.57
(8,333.0
Total capflal eampiign asses
8
0.00
1,849,630.23
1,849,630.23
1,918,194.11
(68,663.8
Property ate equlpnent
Equqmmt&buildingunpraarerrie is
9
343,761.85
0.00
343,761.85
341,365.01
2,396.8.
construclion, in progress (pre a bpmentt)
10
631,055.34
0,00
631,055.34
631,055.34
0.01
Mourn lattd deprwmbon
11
(184,500.30)
0.00
(184,500.30)
(182,828,48)
(1,671.8;
Total ra pnd equlmerit
12
790,316.89
0.00
790,316.89
789,591.87
725.0;
11041 AHOW
18
1045 M
1 ,14
2 .s38
8f141 94
3331°84.I
Mlles and OW Assets
Current llabHww
Accounts payable & accrued eapenim (Note 4)
14
8,232.65
0.00
8,232.65
69,772.27
(61,539.6,
Short tern
15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0(
Prepaid meirtberships
16
0.00
0.00
0.00
17,005.00
(17,005.0(
Accrued Vaeations
17
12,174.83
0.00
12,174.83
12,174.83
0.0C
TOW eurraK Nablittles
18
20,407.48
0.00
20,407.48
98,962.10
(78,544.6:
Long -tern RabIlMes
Marta
19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0C
Not assets (late 5)
Beginning balance
20
960,856.82
1,934,316.02
2,895,172.84
1,566,570.09
1,328,602.75
W gels ice) frorn operations
21
6,178.12
0.00
6,178.12
1,986.01
4,192.11
Net gain (Im$r non-operaactivdies)
22
57,896.32
(68,693.88)
(10,797.56)
1,326,616,74
(1,337,414.30
Total not a"
2
1,024,931.26
1,865,622.14
2,890,553.40
2,895,172.84
4,619.44
Total WWROM & apt Assets
24 1
ltO-46338,1'4
1< I N U , 22.14 12
S)10, y.88
2,994124,94
,164.06
Page 1 of 6 Packet Pg. 423
9.2.b
Edmonds Senior Center
Notes to the Financial Statements
January 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018
INote 1
Casa
Checking/savings
1
77,972.71
16,091.91
94,064.62
75,505.75
18,558.
RBC Wealth Management
2
1127015.89
1,423.245.66
1,535,261.55
1,610,141.53
(74,879..
Undeposited funds
3
1,241.76
0.00
1,241.76
2,520.00
(1,278.
Petty cash/advances,
4
585.00
0.00
585.00
370.00
215.
PayPal
5
45.00
0.00
45.00
45.00
0.
Certificates Of de osit
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.
Total
7
p�nt04.00
191,800.36
1 1 439,337.67
1 1 631 197.93
1688 502.28
6T 384,E
16,091.91 Cafe
1,423,245.66 Capital Campaign
Note 2
Accounts receivable
City of Edmonds
8
0.00
0.00
0.00
6,250.00
(6,250.1
Snohomish County
9
6,250.00
0.00
6,250.00
12,500.00
(6,250.1
Other receivables
10
668.32
0.00
668.32
661.36
6.i
Tout
11
8 018.32
0.00
6 918,32
19 411.06
12,493.I
Note 3
Other assets
Prepaid' insurance
12
8,391.40
0.00
8,391.40
10,489.25
(2,097.1
Prepaid postage
13
283.07
0.00
283.07
62.70
220.;
Other =re id !Menses
14
21,008.70
0.00
21,008.70
24,809.91
3,801.;
TOW
1 15
1 ;","3.17
1 0100
no, .17177i&
01 88
MOM
Nstte 4
Other liabilities
Payroll taxes
16
5,916.36
0.00
5,916.36
6,229,27
(312.1
Psyables
17
0.00
0.00
0.00
57,896.32
(57,896.:
Prepaid rental deposits
18
1,400.00
0.00
1,400.00
2,230.00
(830.(
Rental damage deposits
19
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,450.00
(2,450.(
Sales tax payable
20
916.29
0.00
916.29
966.68
(50.:
Other federal taxes
21
0.00
1 0.00
0,00
0.00
0.(
Total
1 22
1 8 232.66 1
0.001
0,232.05
1 89 772 .7
(41,09
'Note 5
Balance
Berard
Net Change
Not Assets
Balance
ffescri lion
12/3112018
Transfem
Released
113112019
Temporarily restricted net assets
Reserves
23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.(
Subtotal - egeam"O
24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
011
Capital campaign
Cash
25
1,483,576.54
0.00
10,530.45
(70,861.33)
1,423,245.E
Pledges
26
434,617.57
0.00
(8,333.00)
0.00
426,284.E
Cars even
27
16,121.91
0.00
0.00
(30.00)
16,091.$
Subtotal - Notmratlrtg
28
1.934,310.02
0.00
2197.46
70,891.33 ,
1 865,E 22.'
Subtotal - TeniLmratibf restrictee net assets
29
1,934,316.02
0.00
2,107.45
70 891.33
1,866,622.'
Unrestricted net assets
Unrestricted
30
960,856.82
0.00
(6,816.89)
70,891.33
1,024,931.,
Subtotal - Unrestricted net assets
31
960 8ti0.02
0,00
0,810. S
70 891.33
1 t124,931.:
Total
32
2,805,172.84 1
0.00
(4,610.")l
0.001
2,890,643.e
7;
Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 424
9.2.b
Edmonds Senior Center
Statement of Activities
For the Period Ending January 31, 2019
,Public Support and Revenue from 4petrations
cormb dons, aft & Gralft
Membership dues
1
23,325.00
0.00
23,= 00
Goverrraentgrents
2
12,500.00
0.00
12,5M,00.
Other canst gft & gwft
3
11,424.75
0.00
11,424,76
a-MME24-
4
1 0.00
0.00
0.00
lrofad ConmtgEns, Gift & GMrA
0.00
47 7s
Program Service Revenue
Recreational
6
4,634.38
0.00
4,634-38
Health &_ �s
7
2,080.37
0.00
2,OSO,37
Tara# EMM service Revenue
0
6,714 38
0.00
0.714.75
Other i!
1"Vest!"ent moo"
0
115.94
0.00
1 % 94
Rentsi morne,
ID
2,780.00
0.00
2,780.00
Fundraising events
11
0.00
0.00
1 0.00
Sale of inventory
12
7,785.74
0.00
7,785,74
u-Am�pUS M rn 3 1
18 1
106.42 1
0.00
1 _42
Lb!w Ctlher centre 1
141
10,780.19 1
0.00
1 '
TOW PONIC StIP990 and Rpas
15
64 742.
, .
-0,10
expenses
Wages +& seneft
Wages & satarm
46
31,599.44
0.00
31,5 9.44
Payrott woos
17
2,667.58
0.00
2,667.58
uxrwlkraneft
18
1,822,93
0.00
1=_93
Total 4tVa ..ftpqf#s
1
4 9.=0.00
Sles & rat
Offic B & Opening a�e8
20
2,751.36&mall
toms.& rrrsinor . u t ent
21
0.00.Tatar
s. ui nt
T134i
Services & Other Costs
ProlessxxW services
23
350.88
0.00
350.88
communilea0ons
24
1,510.57
0.00
1,540.57
Travel
25
82.34
0.00
82_34
AdvertimV
26
513.83
0.00
533.53
Operating Mmats & loam
27
1,990.73
0.00
1,9' O-73
Insurance
28
2,097.85
0.00
2.M.85
Utility service
29
3,898.71
0.00
3,808.71
Reparts & maintenance
30
1,577.78
0.00
1,577.7€3
Msoeltarrsots
31
6,038.66
0.00
O C .66
tOW her v : 4 r Cos
18 01.36
O.QD
09st of Sol"fl
0
040
Q.dO
167102
0.00
4 .e
TOW nsatf
35
581674.48
0.00
4.48
in net6 s 178.1 O Q0 1
€gin-Clperatio sl Gal" (Losses);
C her nq gains (lo
37
0.00
(30.00)
(30.00)°
Coriftubons restricted for a0W campaign
w
0.00
2,197.45
2,197.45
W assets released from restrictions
39
70,861.33
(70,861.33)
0.00
qvits' e , sea
40
12,965.01
0.00
12,96&01
10hanve In natassaft from nowopyrOm activit es
41 1
47 8".32
Total change 4n net assets
ets of
42 1
43
64,074.44
960,856.82
1 (68,693.88)
1.934.316.02
(4,61&")
172.8+4
i s en o
44
1 1.2t
1 .14
1 2 .4Q
Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 425
9.2.b
d
O
CO
U)
0
CL
AV
NW
1.6
1
L
�a)
V
0
Cu
U)
0
m
W
0
a
0
0
o
o
O
a
69
(A
6R
64
6+9
619-
69 W,
O
O
N
O
O
r
o0 O
O
0)
N
O
O
N
—0
W
N
O
O
O
O-
2
T
M
N
0
0
F+
O
Co
OD
O
M
O
T
N
0;
E<}
m
m
(a
(a
601
69 (a
01
0
CD
°T°04�
00°r°00
0)
N
0)
O
O
!
LO 0
AD
CD
(n0
r-
O
O
It O
t
M
M
O_
0
-
M
LO
t3i
LO
[fi
69
6R
d i
Vi
OVI
w, m
4
O
O
C)
O
C
O
O
C)
bpi
Ci
Q
O
O
C)
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
r
IT
r
m
FRF-
Ef}
m
69
m
6Fi
40
6H mml
o
o
U)
co
O
O
L
:
N
CO
T
V
m
69
64
69
64
Qt -,
69x m
4*
CO
O
O
N
O
N
O
�t
M
C
O
O
s
It O
M
(M
LO
r-
Lf
t
q
N
N
�t
N9
69
691
6)
69
40
6) 61)
0
0
0
0
0_
a
CD
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
q
(!j
O
Ln
U7
[-
O
O
O
0
LO
t -
pp
Q
Q
C!
N
IT
b
0
oO
0
Q
r-
O
c-
40
(II'
6F?
69
69'
69
63
44W
69 cfr
!A•
CO
�
to
E
U
(i%
w+ �
ELE
ISO
�Cy
—3
An
i
S
W
Cn
vi m
X
a�
a.
c
U —
j a
m c
b L0
rn
Z N
c
rn C,6
O
U
O
N Nc
mC
a
- L 01
06
O
O
C N
a N r
Y
O
C E
O
3
U
--p
N LT C5
U
to
o cN a
0
y
o E
E
O
O
E
a
Y N N
o v
U
a
in o
0 Q
a3
_
C
(6
C
y
.he
c
U E LU
cc
U
D
in L J
p
E
u,
U c a
W N .v .0
Cr
Q
c
3
Ip
3
\ L O Lp (
S 3 0) od
E
`�
O
E
O
O
O
W
O(0
(p
LNr), .�-
((00,
O
O
N
1.
COU)
,
v�!}�
CO
C)
(gy
It
O
LO
N
E+
,
IIi
a7
O
O!
1!1
LO
CO
q
M
�
6F}
69
69
E9 U9.
4r4
VD.69
file
il►
0
�
I
i
oo6
to
O
ki
r+
N
cV cc
C7
q
tCS
O
LO
ca
It
69
691-
6%
Ii
69. to
410,
64
69
4*
O
O
O
O 00
O
O
,y
O
O
Ui
_C.O
9;
O LO
L"a•
C1-
O
o
O
IQ
N
h
O N
0
0
00
pQp
8
OCO
E
M
P(D
^
ti
N
N
(R
69
E3
6fY
E3 (><}
bfi
63
ER
�
ii►
{'
#
Q
cL
E
is
0
'
r
V
pC�
G
Page 4 of 6
Packet Pg. 426
9.2.b
Edmonds Senior Center
Statement of Activity for Budgeted Operations
For the Period Ending January 31, 2019
Public Support wW Revenue from Operations
Contribute, Gifts & Grants
Membsrstup dues
1
23,325.00
23,325.00
36.02%
19,800.00
3,525.00
Goverritnent grants
2
12,500.00
12,500.00
19.30%
12,500.00
0.00
Other gifts & grmft
3
11,424.75
11,424.75
17.64%
12,467.00
(1,042.25)
hi. � from
4
0.00
0.00
0.00%1
0.00
0.00
Total Ga ns, Gifts &. Grant
b
+37,24$.7b
+47 249.71i
7247%
4,4,76IAa
2,482 76
Program Service Revenue
Recreational
6
4,634.38
4,634.38
7.16%
4,675.00
(40.62)
Fk�afth & wellness
7
2,080.37
2,060,37
3.21%
1,750.00
330.37
Total Program ftrvice Revepoe
8
1 6,114,70
6,714.76
'It3,
6,4200
200-75
Other
Investmem Income
9
115.94
115.94
0.18%
50.00
65.94
Rental lucre
to
2,780,00
2,780.00
4.29%
3,000.00
(220,00)
Fug events
11
0.00
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
Thrift store
12
7,785.74
7,785.74
12.02%
6,000.00
1,785.74
Miscellaneous revenue 1
1.3 1
106.42 1
106.421
0.16%1
325.00
218.58)
Toth Other Revenue
14
1tt Sg.1t)
1�,766.1fl
-
-M
11-#6
9 376.00
.
1 13't0
Total P ve • t1r m tt tttrl6
753r 4
7 .
1
6Q .0!
4,146.00
tzpeneelll
Wages & seneft
Wages & satarres
16
31,599.44
31,599.44
48.80%
32,978.00
1,378.56
Payroll tam
17
2,667.58
2,667.58
4.12%
2,743.00
75.42
Meftal tnM
1.
1,822.93
1,822.93
2.82%
1,959.00
136.07
Total Ws ne.
4
"An."
557
37 .O3
1 . .05
Suppimeni
office &op na stple
2D
2,751.36
:2,751:.36
4.25%
3,175.00
423.64
§nul tools &minor ui nt
21
0.00
0.00%
125.00
125.0022
ant
2151,36
4.
$,3Q0, )0
548,64
servitas & offlor Costs
Profeaskmai services
23
350.88
350.88
0.54%
2,500.00
2,149.12
communmatiorts
24
1,510.57
1,510.57
2.33%
1,250.00
(260.57)
Travel
25
82.34
82.34
0.13%
125.00
42.66
AdverliiaV
26
513.83
513.83
0.79%
25.00
(488.83)
Operaffng refdals & teases
27
1,990.73
1,990.73
3.07%
1,772.00
(218.73)
tnsuranre
28
2,097.85
2,097.85
3.24%
2,075.00
(22.85)
Utility services
29
3,898.71
3,89831
6.02%
4,500.00
601.29
Repairs& mmtenance,
Miscaltaneous
30
1,577.78
1,577.78
2.44%
1,300.00
(277.78)
Program activity - WM recognibon, ato
31
653.81
653.81
1.01 %
800.00
146.19
Pnritiinformation
32
770.00
770.00
1.19%
250.00
(520.00)
Bank & rmwdwwd fees
33
858.71
858.71
1.33%
875.00
16.29
Taxes & li see
34
109.96
109.96
0.17%
375.00
265.04
Other 1
35 1
3,646.181
3,646.18 1
5.63%1
4.990.00 1
1,343.82
1"otal Services 4 Other Gusts
36 1
13 0".38 1
1 g61.35
27.
�#t,837.t10
� f6 66
Total - "
37 1
56,902.66 2.66
50,P2.66 I
87M%
61,$17. !) I
4,A14.34
[lah4w In R 13401 Biel . pow
s 8� i 84!#•84 7,040.04 12.1 1
A
0
a
0.
0
L
d
c
m
U
c
0
m
0
1=
0
0.
(D
d
V
C
0
c
ii
U
U
W
C
a)
T
0
N
N
TMM
M
0
m
m
E
E
0
U
m
v
c
c�
c
M
a
m
t
v
.r
Q
Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 427
9.2.b
z
w
yU
Z w
fA
a
Lu
In
v
Q
p z
w
�fln
COapi
ad
W
Cd
W
V
1%
F
W
0
W
LLI
a
?
44
p
V
L
Y1
ail
44
3
a
$
o
4-0
41
o
VIP
m
s
o
N
t
"
m
C
®
,
ols
a
c
u
LO
o
in
cn
M
8
O
0
E
0
W
O
O
G
S
Lr
ei
i!P
T
Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg. 428
9.2.b
Edmonds Senior Center
Operating Results for the Period Ending January 31, 2019
Financial Summary - Page 1 of 2
Statement of Financial Position
Description
line
#
Unrestricted
Tempos
R"trkfto
Total
/13112019
Totat
4213112018
Change
Assets
Current a - cash
1
$
191,860
$ 16,092
$
207,952
$ 205,006
$
2,946
Cttn nt assets - r9mvsbkw e.#
2
$
63,161
$
$
63,161
$ 81,333
$
(18,172)
CAI assets -Mh
3
$
$ 1,423,246
$
1,423,246
$ 1,483,576
$
(60,330)
Capftl campaW assets - pledges
4
$
-
$ 426,285
$
426,285
$ 434,618
$
(8,333)
Property and VWpment
5
1 $
790,317
$ -
$
790,317
$ 789,592
$
725
Tctl Assets
6
1, _ $
$ 1
$,91#,$B1
;,994,128
$
3,11i4
Liabilities and Nlet Assets
Currrt labildw
7
$ 20,407
$ -
$ 20,407
$ 98,952
$ (78,545)
Long-term liabilities
a
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
Net assets
9
$ 1,024,932
$ 1,865,622
$ 2,890,554
$ 2,895,173
$ (4,619
TOW Liabilities & ' Assets
10 Is
ii, wm
$ 1
$ 2,01-Q,Wl
941
$
a) The unrestricted cash balance is $191,860 jpgl;lnl;coll]; this figure is $10,632 over the three month unrestricted cash goal
(as set forth in our financial policies) of $181,228 which is one -quarter of our 2019 operating budget.
b) The capital campaign budget for the new center has a temporarily restricted cash balance of $1,423,246. [pg9;/n3,col2]
c) The capital campaign pledge balance stands at $426,285 [pgl;ln4;col2].
d) The agency has a deficit of $4,619 for the year. [pg1;ln9,co15]
Statement of Activities
Cescripfton
mine
cat
Year to
Year to Date
Vwiance
Annual
Ott ' eli
I$
tenue
Contributions, G#ft & Grants
11
$
47,250
$
47,250
$
44,767
$
2,483
$
335,000
Program Sere Revenue
1.2
$
6,715
$
6,715
$
6,425
$
290
$
105,000
Rental Income
13
$
2,780
$
2,780
$
3,000
$
(220)
$
72,000
Fundraising Events
14
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
62,400
Thnft More
18
$
7,786
$
7,786
$
6,000
$
1,786
$
150,000
Qftr Revenue
16
$
222
$
222
$
375
$
153
$
6,300
Total Rewnoe
17
$
763
T"
00,047
S
41ju
$
73iI,M
wages & Berref
1$
$
36,090
$
36,090
$
37,680
$
1,590
$
469,012
Supplies & M
19
$
2,751
$
2,751
$
3,300
$
549
$
46,200
Servu9s & Gosts
20
$
18,061
$
18,061
$
20,837
$
2,776
$
212.610
TR 81 n
21
$
91 1317
4 910
$
nets b. o g .
$
1
7
$
2
101 1
$
Change net assefs anbudgeted operaffeas
23
$
1,672
$
61171
Change In net assets from operations
24
Line
21+Line
22
$
(10,798
IN-0-n operatllo loses n
2a
Line 23+Line 24; this equals Change/Line 8
[Chanp In Nett
26
$ 49. _
f) The operational budget has a surplus of $7,851 for the year which is over our year-to-date goal by $9,101;
none of the variance figures are significant; they range from a surplus of $2,776 to a deficit of $220. Six of the
nine catagories have a surplus for the year. [see col4 above]
g) The organization has a loss of $1,672 on other operational activity which includes capital grants and depreciation. [pgl;/n23]
h) The organization has a loss of $10,798 on non -operational activity which includes the capital campaign and the CAFE
event. (pgl;ln25]
Page 1 of 4 Packet Pg. 429
9.2.b
Edmonds Senior Center
Operating Results for the Period Ending January 31, 2019
Financial Summary - Page 2 of 2
Edmonds Waterfront Center Budget - Cash Basis
Description
Line
Current
Year to
project to
project
9atance
#
Mocith
Date
Dsft
Budget
Revenue
Community
Leadership
1
$
21083
$
2,083
$
1,436,313
$
7,250,000
$
5,813,687
Board
2
$
700
$
700
$
255,972
$
475,000
$
219,028
Comminity Campaign
3
$
7,737
$
7,737
$
276,631
$
400,000
$
123,369
Government
4
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
6,000,000
$
6,000,000
Foundations
5
$
-
$
-
$
457,000
$
1,875,000
$
1,418,000
pthor Resources
6
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Total Revenue
7
$
1062Q
$
10,620
$
2,425,916
$ 16,0Q0,900
$ 13,414,084
Investment Income
6
$
10
$
10
$
415
$
-
$
(415)
Reserves on Loan
8
$
-
$
-
$
75,000
$
-
n1a
Total Revenue & Re§qroue on Loan
9
$
10,530
$
10,630
$
2,601331
1
16,000,000
$ 1 ,573 669
Expenses
Capital Expenses
Construction Contract
10
$
-
$
$
$
11,350,645
$
11,350,645
Washington State Sales Tax
11
$
$
$
$
1,169,116
$
1,169,116
Architectural Contract
12
$
55,396
$
55,396
$
532,236
$
860,000
$
327,764
Construction Contingency
13
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
625,989
$
625,989
Parking Lot & Street Frontage
14
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
500,000
$
500,000
Other Development Costs
18
$
2,500
$
2,500
$
98,819
$
869,250
$
770,431
Operating Expenses
Wages & Benefits
18
$
12,965
$
12,965
$
415,982
$
550:000
$
134,018
Services & Other Costs
17
$
-
$
-
$
31,048
$
25,000
$
(6,048)
Transition Costs
18
$
-
$
-
$
$
50,000
$
50,000
Tt�ta[Exponsos
19
$
70.861
$
70 61
$
1,078,086
f
16,000 090
$ 14 921,915
lVet Gash Batanc�r
20
$
(BQ 38'1
$
80 331
$
1423 246
a) The campaign budget has taken in $10,530 this year and spent $70,861 for a net loss of $60,331. With last years
$1,483,577 carryforward we now have a cash balance of $1,423,246. [see co13 above]
b) The Center has raised enough money to meet this years capital campaign and pre -development cost spending plans.
Page 2 of 4 Packet Pg. 430
9.2.b
m
ch
I—r
N
�
N
�
r
N
cfl
V.
N
ti
r
N
ao
r
N
o�
r
N
�
m
1
1
1
r
, w
v
a
1
�,
dam♦
!
j �/
a
1
to
1
r
t
1
t
%'
os I
31
"
,
1°
Or
Ike
a
U.
CD
CD
CO
O
O
COO
CD
O
CD'
CO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
CD
q*
CO
w
N
N
v
Page 3 of 4
Packet Pg. 431
9.2.b
N
m
io
N
N
t
E-
c
0
c
m
U
L.
0
.0
m
U)
c
0
E
M
W
cII
cC
N
c6
c4
N
tQ
(!1
fn
(n
fA
fA
to
r
r
r
r
r
r
T
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
9
C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W (O N O OD to It N
T T T r T EH (fl
V�l
U
CD
N
R
O
O
Z
Q-
L
r
W
c.>
V
O
r
a
O
m
a
O
a
rn
a�
a
L
m
W
LL
c
ro
Page 4 of 4
Packet Pg. 432
9.2.c
Edmonds Senior Center
Edmonds Waterfront Center - Cash Flow Projection
Cash Balances
3/27/2019
Description
Ln
Activity thru
1213112017
1st qtr 2018
2nd qtr 2018
3rd qtr 2018
4th qtr 2018
1st qtr 2019
2nd qtr 2019
3rd qtr 2019
4th qtr 2019
1st qtr 2020
2nd qtr 2020
3rd qtr 2020
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
Beginning Cash Balance
a
$ 709,150.48
$ 666 523.56
$ 584 805.33
$ 530,890.37
$1,483,576.54
$1 313,563.98
$4,932 935.19
$4 986,312.19
$ 2,659,986.19
$ 368,160.19
$
Cash Received
b
from Line 51
$1 150,921.75
$ 54,719.70
$ 76 095.43
$ 50,084.84
$1,158 979.23
$ 56 996.96
$4 366 618.57
$2 873,000.00
$ 868 000.00
$ 909,500.00
$ 2,687,712.81
$ 1,747,370.71
Expended
C
from Line 31
$ 441 771.27
$ 97 346.62
1 $ 157,813.66
$ 103,999.80
$ 206 293.06
$ 227 009.52
$ 747,247.36
$2,819 623.00
$3 194,326.00 1
$ 3,211,326.00 1
$ 3,045,873.00
1 $ 1,747,370.71
[ECash
nding Cash Balance
d
$ 709150.48
$ 666 523.56 1
$ 584,805.33
$ 530 890.37
$1 483 576.54
$1 313,563.98
$4,932 935.19
$4 986 312.19
$2 659 986.19 1
$ 358160.19 1
$
$ -
Expenditures
Description
Ln
vendor
Board Approved
Budget
Ad]ustments
Revised Budget
Spent thru
1st qtr 2018
2nd qtr 2016
3rd qtr 2018
4th qtr 2018
1st qtr 2019
2nd qtr 2019
3rd qtr 2019
4th qtr 2019
1st qtr 2020
2nd qtr 2020
3rd qtr 2020
Construction Cost - Building
Construction Contract
1
W.G. Clark
$11,500,000.00
$
$11,500,000.00
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ 345,000.00
$2,300,000.00
$2,587,500.00
$ 2,587,500.00
$ 2,300,000.00
$ 1,380,000.00
WSST
2
nla
$ 1,184,500.00
$ -
$ 1,184,500.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 35,535.00
$ 236,900.00
$ 266,513.00
$ 266,513.00
$ 236,900.00
$ 142,139.00
Construction Contingency
3
nia
$ 634,225.00
$ -
$ 634,225.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$
$ -
$ 19,027.00
$ 126,845.00
$ 142,701.00
$ 142,701.00
$ 126,845.00
$ 76,106.00
Subtotal - Construction Cost - Building
4
$13 318,725.00
$ -
$13,318 725.00
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$ 399 562.00
$2,663,745.00
$2,996,714.00
$ 2,996 714.00
$ 2,663,745.00
$ 1,598,245.00
Other Development Costs
Architectural Contract
5
Environmental Works
$ 860,000.00
$
$ 860,000.00
$ 105,875.30
$ 55,639.78
$ 116,732.78
$ 68,675.90
$ 129,916.40
$ 168,324.91
$ 69,334.93
$ 30,000.00
$ 33,750.00
$ 33,750.00
$ 30,000.00
$ 18,000.00
Architectural Other
6
-multiple vendors-
$ 23,500.00
$ -
$ 23,500.00
$ 7,999.57
$ 5,500.00
$ 3,500.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 6,500.43
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
Boundary & Topographic Survey
7
Reid Middleton
$ 7,281.00
$ 2,500.00
$ 9,781.00
$ 7,281.00
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ 2,500.00
$ -
$
$ -
$
$
$ _
Geotechnical Study
8
Landau Associates
$ 27,000.00
$ 951.29
$ 27,951.29
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ 27,951.29
$ -
$ -
$
$
$
$ _
$ _
Legal
9
Anderson Hunter taw Firm
$ 15,000.00
$ -
$ 15,000.00
$ 5,570.00
$
$ 1,325.00
$ 2,625.00
$ 1,462.50
$ -
$ 4,017.50
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$
Project Management
10
$ 120,000.00
$
$ 120,000.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ 3,600.00
$ 24,000.00
$ 27,000.00
$ 27,000.00
$ 24,000.00
$ 14,400.00
Other: Cost Study(s)
11
-multiple vendors*
$ 3,350.00
$ -
$ 3,350.00
$ 3,350.00
$
$
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$
$ -
Other: Hazmat Survey
12
Eco Compliance Corporation
$ 5,355.00
$
$ 5,355.00
$ -
$ 5,355.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$
$
$ _
$
$
$
Other: Traffic Study
13
Gibson Traffic Consultants
$ 2,950.00
$
$ 2,950.00
$ 2,950.00
$ -
$
$
$
$
$ -
$ _
$
$
$
$
Insurance
14
$ 35,000.00
$ -
$ 35,000.00
$ -
$
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ 35,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
Permits, Mitigation & Hookups Fees
15
City of Edmonds, etc
$ 125,000.00
$ -
$ 125,000.00
$
$
$ 5,452.50
$
$ 13,497.00
$
$ 106,050.50
$
$
$
$
$
Other: 30-Year Sustainability Plan
16
$ 15,000.00
$
$ 15,000.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ 15,000.00
$ -
$ -
$
$
$
Other: AV/IT Study
17
$ 14,000.00
$
$ 14,000.00
$
$ -
$
$
$ -
$ -
$ 14,000.00
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
Other: Financing Expenses
18
$ 225,000.00
$
$ 225,000.00
$
$
$
$
$ 2,500.00
$ 12,250.00
$ 37,500.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 22,500.00
$ 22,500.00
$ 37,750.00
$ 75,000.00
Other: Furniture & Equipment
19
$ 350,000.00
$
$ 350,000.00
$ -
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ 100,000.00
$ 250,000.00
$ -
Other: LEED Certification
20
$ 25,000.00
$
$ 25,000.00
$ -
$ -
$
$
$ -
$ -
$ _
$
$
$ _
$ -
$ 25,000.00
Other: Market Study
21
$ 25,000.00
$
$ 25,000.00
$
$ -
$
$
$ -
$ 5,000.00
$ 6,000.00
$
$ 14,000.00
$ -
$
$ -
Other: Special Inspections & Testing
22
$ 50,000.00
$
$ 50,000.00
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ 25,000.00
$ 25,000.00
$
$
$
Other: Tax Study UBIT & Property Tax
23
$ 10,000.00
$ -
$ 10,000.00
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ 10,000.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
Contingency
24
rda
$ 142,839.00
$ (3,451.29)
$ 139,387.71
$
$ -
$ -
$
$
$
$ 4,182.00
$ 27,878.00
$ 31,362.00
$ 31,362.00
$ 27,878.00
$ 16,725.71
Subtotal - Other Development Costs
25
$ 2,081 275.00
$
$ 2,081,275.00
$ 133 025.87
$ 66,494.78
$ 127,010.28
$ 71,300.90
$ 175327.19
$ 188 074.91
$ 301,185.36
$ 121,878.00
$ 163,612.00
$ 214 612.00
$ 369 628.00
$ 149,125.71
Total - Capital Costs
26
$15 400,000.00
$
$15,400 000.00
$ 133 025.87
$ 66,494.78
$ 127,010.28
$ 71 300.90
$ 1757
$ 188,074.91
$ 700 747.36
$2,785,623.00
$3 160,326.00
$ 3,211,326.00
$ 3,033,373.00
$ 1,747 370.71
Operating Costs
Capital Campaign
27
rda
$ 575,000.00
$
$ 575,000.00
$ 308,745.40
$ 30,851.84
$ 30,803.38
$ 32,698.90
$ 30,965.87
$ 38,934.61
$ 34,000.00
$ 34,000.00
$ 34,000.00
$
$ -
$
Transition Costs
28
nia
$ 25,000.00
$
$ 25.000.00 IS
-
$
$
$ -
$
$
$ 12,500.00
$ -
$
$ -
$ 12.500.00
$
Total Operating Costs
29
$ 600 000.00
$
$ 600 000.00
$ 308,745.40
$ 30,851.84
$ 30 803.38 1
$ 32,698.90
$ 30,965.87
$ 38 934.61
$ 46,500.00
$ 34,000.00
$ 34,000.00
$ -
$ 12,500.00
$ -
Total Project Costs
30
$16,000 000.00
$
$16,000 000.00
$ 441 771.27
$ 97,346.62 1
$ 157 813.66 Is
103,999.80 1
$ 206,293.06
$ 227 009.52
$ 747 247.36
$2,819,623.00
$3,194 326.00
$ 3,211,326.00
$ 3,045 873.00 1
$ 1,747,370.71
[Accumulative Spending 1 31 i 1 $ 441,771.27 1 $ 539,117.89 $ 696,931.55 I $ 800,931.35 I $1,007,224.41 I $1,234,233.93 I $1,981,481.29 1 UA01,104.29 1 $7.995.430.29 I S11.206.756.29 I $14.252.629.29 I S16.000.000.00
W.G. Clark 3.0% 20-0% 22.5% 22.5% 20.0%
Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 433
Z;o Z a6ed
9.2.c
deb 6ulpun} uo spuedep
00'000'09 $
00'000,09 $
00'000'00l $
00,000,00E $
00'000'09Z $
00'000'9Ze $
00,000,009 $
00'000'000'Z $
Bulmoijog
;snjl 9lge31jeNO uwa4oe3oW
sio;oai10 jo piBog OS3
u6ledweO llslunwwoO
sequl
AlunoO 4slwo4ouS
sJouod io(ew
sueJa;aq
u046ul4seM10 a;e;S
(soomosei lel;uelod;o;sll) 8V oul-I - saoinosaa J8440
lL"OLE LVL 4 $
W"ZU'L89'Z $
00'009606 $
00'000 898 $
00'000 EL8 Z$
LS'869'99E V$
96'966`99 $
£Z'6L6'9GV$
VB'V80 OS $
£4'S60'9L $
OVUL VS $
SL3Z6'0SL 6$
00'000'000 M
ZS'885 95V'E $
00'000'VSV 6 $
8V'9LV 680`E $
l5
s3 laoaa 4seO le;ol
$
$
$
- $
$
- $
00'000'97$
00'000OS $
- $
$
$
00'000'SZl $
- $
- $
- $
- $
OS
sanaa5021 wog; ueo-1 PufY-Mul
U'OL£'6V9'l $
O9'969'9£L'4 $
- $
- $
- $
- $
$
- $
- $
$
- $
$
- $
2190'98£'£ $
- $
$
6V
soomosaaaa4;O
$
l£'9l0'£ $
00'004'L $
00'000'OZ $
00'000'9Z $
00'090'9l $
96'8LO'17 $
EL'17017 $
- $
$
- $
$
00'000'9L $
lE M'OL $
- $
69'£81717 $
8V
s;uaw;sanul 12;saIa;ul
$
$
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
00"000'69 $
$
$
- $
LV
J0440
$
$
- $
$
$
$
- $
00'000'Ll $
- $
$
$
00'000'O17 $
00'000'LS $
- $
$
00'000'LS $
9V
uonepunoj6unoA
$
$
$
$
00'000`OSL $
$
$
- $
- $
- $
$
- $
00'000'OSL $
$
00'000'09L $
$
5V
uol;epunoj ajllloaoN
- $
$
$
- $
00'000'OO9 $
$
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
$
00'000'OO9 $
$
00'000'OO9 $
- $
Vt
uollepunoj aaplw lazeH
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
00'000'09 $
$
$
00'000'09 $
- $
- $
00'000'05 $
EV
lenpsaj s}Py spuowP3
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
$
$
$
- $
- $
00,000,09E $
00,000,05E $
$
- $
00.000'OS£ $
ZV
isn.,l alg8;lJe43 pla;ua)IJ18 WON 0
- $
- $
- $
$
- $
- $
00'000'0M $
- $
$
- $
- $
- $
00'000'0Ol $
$
- $
00'000'OOl $
4V
uol;epunoj ulnpuy
suol;epuno j
$
$
$
- $
- $
- $
$
$
- $
- $
- $
00'000'000'Z $
$
$
- $
OV
aa4tO
- $
00'000,0N $
00'000'V9 $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
$
- $
$
- $
00'000119l $
$
00'000'V9l $
- $
68
;uepJan
- $
- $
- $
$
00'000'OO9 $
- $
$
$
- $
- $
$
$
00'OOO,OO9 $
- $
00'000'OO9 $
- $
8E
uogelidoiddd a;e;S
- $
00'000'OSL $
00'000'OSL $
00'000'05L $
- $
- $
- $
- $
$
- $
$
$
00'000`09Z,Z $
- $
00'000'05Z'Z $
- $
LE
;uejO sal;lunwwoO 6ulpling aje;S
- $
- $
- $
- $
$
00'000'09Z'l$
- $
$
- $
$
- $
- $
00'000'09Z'l $
- $
00'000'09Z'l $
- $
9£
uol;elidoiddV a;e;S
;uawuJaeoO
00.000'S $
00'000'S $
00'000'9 $
00'000'9 $
00'000'9 $
LS'8L5'9 $
00"69L'OZ $
00'SLl'ZL $
00'099 $
E17'9Vl'Ol $
00'461?'Vl $
8L'LZZ'lLl $
00'000'0017 $
$
$
9L'H7Z'2£ $
S£
uBledweOR;lunwwoO
00'000'ZZ $
00'000'ZZ $
00'000'ZZ $
00'000'ZZ $
00'000'ZZ $
00'OOL'ZZ $
00'006 $
V£199'9Z $
00'OOS'L $
00.00L'V $
OL'SL6'V $
L6'8Z9'llZ $
00'000'SLV $
$
$
MUS'88£ $
VC
pie0g
00'000'lL $
00'000'U $
00'000'lL $
00'000'LL $
00'000'lL $
00'01?£'ZL $
00'61?Z'9 $
9l'Z£8'Z60'l$
V9'V£L'lV $
00'6tZ'll $
00'61?Z'SE $
00'99l'£5Z $
00'000'000'£ $
- $
00'000'O9 $
00'M'LW8 $
EE
Ja43O
$
- $
- $
$
00'000,0001$
00'000'000'£$
$
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
00.000'000 $
$
00'000'000'V $
- $
ZE
sana;S Holll
di4ampeo-I
L;lunwwo:)
OZOZ .qb p..E
OZOZ jib puZ
OZOZ j;b 3sl
6�OZ ;b 4�V
SIOZ p�£
6lOZ ;b PuZ
6lOZ 3s4
SlOZ �tb 43V
BIOZ �;b pie
8LOZ ub puZ
860Z ith is6
se Panlaoaa
Bulsle�pun j
aoueleg
Ieuol;IpuoO
saBPaldl4scD
�ul
uol;dl�osaO
UOULVE
S;uiaDOtj LiSE3
uo(;*afoJd MOW 4SOO - Ja;uaO;uaJJa;eM SPuowp3
Jolueo aoiues SPuowp3
Packet Pg. 4 47
9.2.d
Edmonds Senior Center
Notes to the Edmonds Waterfront Center Cash Flow Projection
Updated March 27, 2019
A $16 million project budget was adopted by the board of directors on 2/21/2018, this budget was
updated 12/19/2018.
• Construction Contract (line 1) — The general contractor, W.G. Clark, is currently soliciting bids
from their potential list of subcontractors. They will be presenting a final budget figure to ESC
at the end of April.
• WSST (line 2) — WSST on the construction contract is directly linked to the W.G. Clark figure on
line 1.
• Construction Contingency (line 3) — Given the detailed set of the construction documents the
architects have prepared for this project with the assistance of the general contractor and their
mechanical, electrical and plumbing subs who provided design build drawings for their work
ESC believes a 5% construction contingency figure will cover unforeseen problems that come
up during the course of construction.
• Architectural Contract (line 5) —The architectural contract with Environmental Works is
budgeted at $860,000. ESC and Environmental Works have agreed to the budget figure; a
contract is forthcoming.
• Financing Expenses (line 18) — This figure is highly subjective. The funding gap is currently
estimated to be $3.38 million. The project will not exhaust its current funding commitments
until the 2"d quarter of 2020. Borrowing, and the cost of borrowing, is subject to ESC's on -going
fund raising efforts. ESC will continue to aggressively pursue fund raising opportunities with a
goal of reducing borrowing to a minimum.
• Contingency (for soft costs) (line 24) — Contingency for cost overruns on "Other Development"
costs, sometimes referred to as soft costs, in particular Financing Expenses (line 18) and
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (line 19).
• Total Project Cost (line 30) —The budget stands at $16.0 million; the next major update to the
budget will come at the end of April when the general contractor submits their pricing.
• Other Resources (line 49) —The current funding gap, as of this date, is $3,386,067. A number of
potential resources for reducing the gap are listed at the bottom of page 2 of 2. Based on
current commitments ESC would not have to borrow any money prior to the 2"d quarter of
2020. The amount of borrowing is contingent on the success of ESC's fund raising efforts
between now and then.
Packet Pg. 435
9.2.e
Edmonds Senior Center
Pro Forma for new Edmonds Waterfront Center
Updated March 27, 2019
2024
fear 4
Membership Cues & ftm Service Fees
1
$ 147,267
$ 158,927
$ 151,008
$ 142,119
$ 133,500
$ 160,500
$ 180,000
$ 185,400
$ 190,963
$ 196,692
$ 202,593
Rental Income
2
73,731
76,480
74,993
62,241
9,000
113,085
226,170
232,955
239,944
247,142
254,556
Food Services Incorne
3
-
-
-
-
82,790
165,581
170,548
175,664
180,934
186,362
Building Usage Fee (City of Eftonds)
4
-
-
-
-
-
30,000
60,000
61,800
63,654
65,564
67,531
Thrift Store
5
156,044
157,679
149,314
159,358
195,000
210,000
225,000
231,750
238,703
245,864
253,240
Public Support
Government Fees & Grants
6
130,500
130,500
150,000
150,000
150,000
155,000
160,000
164,800
169,744
174,836
180,081
Contributions, Gifts & Grants
7
164,147
156,822
145,653
151,229
144,500
150,000
180,000
185,400
190,962
196,691
202,592
Fundratsing
8
31,938 1
33,219 1
52,624 1
65,376
80,5001
120,000
180,000
185,400
110,162
196,691
202,592
alRevenue
EYenue
9
$ 7tl3 627
$ 113,627_
$ 723,592
$ 730,323
$ 71Z,S00
11.021.279
11.279 144
14 AI A Ar-1
C � ears aria
c � enA AAA
! A G.A c • s
Expenses
Wages & Benefits
Wages & Salaries
Payroil Taxes
ea188nefits
Total Wages & Benefits
Supplies & Equipment
10
11
12
13
$
$
346,838
35,326
33,883
416 047
$
$
368,415
31,927
31,045
431387
$
$
389,492
33,199
22,519
446.211
$
403,827
34,240
22.388
440 455
$
$
358,574
29,737
22,868
411,179
$
$
446,950
37,926
53,130
638 008
$
$
548,096
50,708
73,980
672,784
$
$
564,539
52,229
76,199
692,967
$
'
581,475
53,796
78,485
713,756
$
$
598,919
55,410
80,840
736,169
$
616,887
57,072
83,265
$
757,324
Office & Operating Supplies
14
$
35,981
$
40,326
$
41,254
$
40,289
$
36,000
$
45,000
$
54,000
$
55,620
$
57,289
$
59,008
$
60,778
Small Tools & M+ or gquipment
15
3,571
2,408
5,616
1,657
1,500
3,000
6,000
6,180
6,365
6,556
6,753
Total Su . lles &equipment
16
$
39,582
$
42,734
$
44,870
$
41,946
$
37,6P10
$
48,
60,009_
$
61,800,
$_
63,634
$
65,564
$
67,531
services & Other casts
Professional Services
17
$
27,691
$
31,614
$
44,814
$
36,896
$
42,000
$
45,000
$
45,000
$
46,350
$
47,741
$
49,173
$
50,648
Communications
18'
11,745
11,832
14,634
15,267
15,000
15,000
18,000
18,540
19,096
19,669
20,259
Travel
19'
1,657
764
1,000
1,467
1,500
1,800
3,000
3,090
3,183
3,278
3,376
Advertising
Operating
20
21'
6,671
6,793
2,862
373
1,449
300
6,000
12,000
12,360
12,731
13,113
13,506
.Rentals&Leases
4,648
3,995
4,153
103,881
105,178
89,176
6,000
6,180
6,365
6,556
Insurance
22
22,973
23,737
23,487
24,528
24,900
48,000
75,000
77,250
79,568
81,955
84,414
Utd#yServ►ces
23
34,883
35,126
38,125
36,598
12,300
36,000
54,000
55,620
57,289
59,008
60,778
Repairs & Maintenance
24
21,801
23,509
22,726
24,313
13,800
30,000
45,000
46,350
47,741
49,173
50,548
Miscellaneous
Program Actrvity-trips, recognition
25
18,890
26,067
20,413
14,898
15,600
27,000
30,000
30,900
31,827
32,782
33,765
Printng/PubbeInformatron
26
17,763
19,717
20,701
16,823
18,000
27,000
30,000
30,900
31,827
32,782
33,765
Taxes & Other Misc Expenses
27
15,607
21,239
31,758
32,844
28,950
46,000
60,000
61.800 1
63,654
65,564
67,531
Total Services lit Other Costs 1281
$
1$$ 474
$
204,115
$
222,026
$
209 23$
$
27B 231
'$
306,9718 1$
461,176
400 837
$
412 $62
$
425 246
Total F�x rises
29
$
64 O73
$
�i7$ 236
$
714,106
$
711$37
724 110
971 9$4
$1 193 960
$1 14'3 927
$1 178 247
$1 213 596
$1,250 001
, 38,391 $ 9,486 $ 18,688 1 $ 12 410 49,391 $ 182J91 1 $ 274.126 1 282,349 1 $ 290,819 1 $ 299 546
Dobtservice 311 - - - - (30,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) 161,1101
itaf i2eserYas 32 _ _ _
_ _ _ ran nnm icn nnm T _,.,....,....
0
a
a
M
c
ar
U
c
0
d
R
r`
N
c%)
M
E
4-
0
d
U
rn
W
c
d
t
R
r
Q
Packet Pg. 436
9.2.e
QJ
r
Y
4-
4-
0
.o
c
O
N
a
u
�
+,
C
4-1
c
O
E
O
U
C
Qj
C
aJ
L
=
m
3
0
U
4'
w
/��
V
aJ
o
E
L
Y
p
O
O
U
`
N
LL
O
a
>
O
L
�
.�
3
a
�uu
O
w
w
4W
-0
uj
v
p
C
C
N
�
V
0M
a
aJ
c
i
E
°
c
O
w
c
aL
0
L
O
C
M
4--
m
w
c
v1
O
L
�
3
o
a.+
U
C
c
�
o
t
w
M
C
o
rroo
m
L
C
W
m
+ate
o
E
c..
m
Vi
.�
o
w-
O
4-'
m
Q
o
O
Z
CL
t
w
m
>
v -o L -0 -o aJ >, IOR aJ
C m= O U m E m +1 C
m Cn O m Y -� H CL ++ -a L C m aJ m O 'p N m m
0 s QJ U Ln 1A Y O— >. C N w aJ —_ 4- 0
L ° ai ,,, 'O L C C
o aJ m u *' @ °' L 3 3
p u O v '>, m m C Y aJ _ a i f0+ C C
p L al `^ > C E i C°o v 3 O
C o m
Ln 00 u- NCoO O u m M C OCm v 0) Q Cn a)o v>° m
> C
Nc m E a c o ami s tw a ri �' Q
y 3 u, -a p C O a v— > Y E m m aci o M oo Q a u C
c 4- u_ O a aJ 3 3 c c o '- > '° aci m o t c°
N m `+--
Y— +- O L t �- O O C V7
Cn 0 V1 — C 'O L O O a) `~ O C ON Ln COOp of + 3 ,> C O aJ
'L a O L QJ m •U >• \ m Vf V7 r Lli = m aJ U l0 m
aJ 4+ a `� o -0 C of a E' Y -0 W'a -O U i 4s 4E a-' m_ N_ w O N rN-I ate-+ rn O O U
m a CL Y t C C U A m ,� N ih 0 L M o 3 Ln h
t "O X w w� 3 O `� m t +' L W ," m p C lip t w C
v v c .a ,� aa) m ro a� � m o v C Cn >• � ° + aLJ Cp o
i '� .� Q _° C ut E Y o aJ °cn •E > c C c L °' > O c C E
O a! aJ p •L O Y a Cn ti t "= m "O - C Q1 t aJ >_
L op a E N m a) o 'CL � ~ 0 3 0 o v _� o �, a° LJ '°° "'
0 Ln
� — N w CO 3 L 3 Ln QJ CCD O L O - p tD N L a1
N C V1 7 _ C F- C
E to �+ I- aJ Ln o tr1 ° r t O c
> -� Y a) m �-•� aJ +-, LJ O- Ln = tI? m ..0 U i-•i C ON Y L [o VI
L ~ aJ E L � L U w u Y _ r/? -C h +n � a L O a Y
�+ o� c �° aw>, o m u " 3 -aa w> E o + m o Q o c>
i M L C C m C �J 'U E L 7 N Y C Y 'a) 7 O >, `� ++ u•1 N O U m w
00 L C
vOi m = 7 a) � C .0 4-1
X N 0 'n m O a p •c OC w Vi w
w f° v U �° v= > E �' o a�J E aci Q t c Lo U L rLo
C m o t 3 U '� 1° N a v o > v E u c Ln `° a •° °
3 _ a a)
n u c t a -a 3 o m E o O O L O Ln w Cn in• =° `° 3
v v •�' �° °° > E c m E aJ ° u° M N u a :c t L CL° 3 E
w ho s o aJ +1 m a cr o � o P +' W N aJ CO +� v m E° °�° c m
u O Y aJ .°' a0-� s •� o n C t'_ p o m w f w> >- CL .� m .m uCn
_U a
'E c c m c s o v c° +° 'n o 0 1 Ln ? c ai E `L° o E v
L N a) C L L O "O Vf aJ L N lD a) l'.•I C 'a L 41 '� In m O
Ln m °>" m o° H a o ^ E m aJ c� v c = m y a v c L u=
E > u o u -0 a 1 0 *' s ° v aJ .� ° _- �, 'a a; +. °c �o >
3 = U C w m aJ � 4- O a) L m 4-1 Vf -a N C E Ln.O � 'E m aJ w Ln � Y O G aJ
tko O C I- ?� t '' ++ +, LL J m tin a `*- C
O 4- t C 'u C C ° m `_^ rn m c .� $ L L° aJ c a m m
s 41 -a I oo a .N m m o .- Ln a I- c`° v(D> 4- aJ u 4, E Q c v 6
o�S C m N N O cu :� +' `-n N O E 1 u i Y°- 4 a1 06 m E E I Y O m f° C O
tn L Q v C V m O V1 •E L aJ U aJ Ln m U +-' m O a) N U 'a aJ C
o Uj�° c co E �o �i u E v 0 v=� > M a�i c O x>
p "O C 'U C O C •vf LL Y a C al U do +' C a)
a •� E 3 U a4 v a) Y m a a" `- 0 'E Y E " c' `L° m v M a .m C -
..0 W aJ O Cn C aJ O U U C C ti a a� aJ tv N C O u o to -O t]�p a m +' O
U u m t a -> '> aJ 4- Y U L m ,N aJ L C L C aJ E L
L C C aJ I— L L U C O L G "- •L - t m m •,n V' L m 4' •a O CA
aJ y a m aJ t aJ aJ L tin ' aJ Y aJ E
-0 m 7 "O > Y al (n N Q. _C m N r>0 W L Op M -= �- ? L 'm C '�-{ U Ln
E O- ` +� L aJ 7 L -p 'O c -p E W O >• ��V, Y L ° N m m C C
SaJ L 4m Y m O C aJ C O 0 CD aJ 3 c L � c O n W O QJ O O "a M m X > .�
L Y 'n m oC >. O> m ►.L LL .l E m m 3 H >. m 0 tn• a u >. Y 3 w w tn• u E x, Vmi 0
• • • f • • • •
Packet Pg. 437
9.2.e
4-
0
4�
M
p
L
L
In
a
`�
o
°�°
4•
V1
c
p
N
L
a
c
.0
VI
4-
a
a
(n
a
h0
C
G
O
a
a
•L
t
a=
a
�••�
u
v-
a
m
-a
t
N
c
co
L
R
3
0
+.
Q
L
L°
�
a
+�
t
3
c
°
0
3
+-
L
tvo
a
i
U D
°
L
N
a
+�+
Q
3
aJ
ate+
30
N
c
�
to
-�
LO
O
p
+r
a
N
G
_
O
3
v�
'3
t
on
W
c
ac+
M
0
+�
c
E
c
o
s
E
c
c
in
a
t
•3
0->—
Co
�
a
+
C
�
V.
a`)
+�
o
�_
n
O
V)
m''
u
�,
�
a
v
o
a�
L
4-
c
L
a
LO
N
a
E
U
w
c
m
00
I
f0
N
vO
L
t
aa�
Q
oA
�
0
0
l)
m
C
cp
G
a
o
C
m
N
'�
c
a
a.
w°-Ctw
LA
C:
uJ
a
`
c
u
c
C
a
C
a
C
`°
o
>,
>
a=+
Q—
a
s
c
pp
L
(9
G
0
_,
O_
G
L
hA
a°
t=
0
m
•c
,�
O
o
a
•L
O
N
ate+
O
0
C)
"-
C
t
Q
+-+
0
C
::i
-0
�
�
a
E
tw
G
a
Q
4p
c
'>
Q
}'
L—
fB
N
p
aj
O
a
p
.I
>
O
Lu
}
O
O
C
E
++
3
w
y
�.
C
N
Q-
A
}'
v
a
C
L
a
s
Q
a
CUa
4�
?'-Fa
4--�
m
to
aj
N
L
w
C>
co
o
N
L
O
++
u
m
L
a
a
a
O_
a
C"
c
G
C
0
j
i
Q
Ov
VN
L
a
o
ai
—
_
3
a
ca
+,
s
w
v
3
a
a
x
o
O
c
+,
4-
Q
a
a
+
w
3`
to
-p
f0
O
O
O
'(C
U
4-
N
co
p
L
a
�Lp
O
3
>
c
L
to
u
a
O
>
L°
u
`�
L
L
c
�
a
`
f°
+�
En
L
a
c
n
+.
_
3
v
`^
:
CL
+�
a+
C
~'
a
4--
o
'L
W
m
+,
o
0
G
u
O
:a
O
a
L
ro
U-C
N
.�
.�
aui
Q
a
G
O
a
co
s
a
a
a
f6
L
+�
R
c
E_
?
a
V)
++
a
L
m
a
x
O
a
M
>
m
a
c`�
a
p
L
3
L
a
3
a
U
N
a
L
w
v
v�
s
a
�n
a
a
cD
a
M
a
E
a
C
L
LA
a
o
�,
p
w
`~
c>
a
of
�
a
a
a
Q
a
i
c
rn
a
E
—
++
`L-°
+'
a
t
o
as
C
CO
ro
G
`�
to
X
E
L
O
a
o
3
v
m
C
f0
E
u°
a
C
a
G
n
E
m
p
—_
L
o
C-i
u
Ln
U
,n
0
�
L
°
0
o
m
U`
c
c
v
�
3
'�
a
o
v
L
"
o
aLn
.c
FI
s
o
'm
a
r°
a
s
E
`L°
>
a
'N
C
Q
n
3
v
o`
�
rao
c-I
LC1
In
U
a
L
axi
E
of
to
G
L
M
in
>-a
ca
Q
a
E
_
;-+
No
r'
n
a
G
a
a
-C
a..,
rw
n
a
E
C
>
a
a
v`
L1j
-6
Q
,
a
C
�y
O
a
E
I
C
by
C
3
C
p
i
a
O
a
O
11
3
t
I
I
3
"a
f0
E
a
G
ci
L
°
N
o
G
:a
•L
3
'a
Q
x
Q.
!A
s
U
-
n
L
++
X
a
4-
O
L
a
m
ci
Q
+,
v
•Ln
�n
N
W
C
�
W
a
I
to
O
L
a
O
L
a
+-
a
Y
c
I
•�
Ln
-Cl-I
+�
~
O
m
3
a
in
a�
c
a
a
3
a
�n
a
-0
3
L
a
�
a
Q
C
=
p
v
Q
++
G
n
a
a
L
a
I
C
i
a
C
O
a
3
O
Q
v
E
a
l
v
a
o
~
'�
N
c
c�>
O
m
+'
C
a
n
3
I
J
u
a
=
-ac
F--
N
a
V
C
c
ca
N
C
u
m
3
a
'C
-
N
G
Z
u
Ln
Co
[Go
a
I
a
3
c
aj
Gii
_u
Q
0
N
0
m
a
C
ccv
aaj
N
m
E
a
0-
rn
^
ro
w
++
a
p
3
p_
�n
I
N
O
m
w
Y+,
a
.c
a
a
s
�-
v
41
`~
a
V=
a
++
a
•=
N
G
C
�,
a
N
a
G
c
a
C
c
.in
I
CU
a
+,
oA
N
N
a
s
C
O
C
Q
N
v
_
'Q
r-I
a
C
a
_
'm
•c
3
=
_
>
i
i
•L
C
a
a
w
ro
M
OA
a
=
X—
•Q
+'
-
•a
U
E
a
U
to
3
O
3
m
:-
a
r
v
4-
O
Co
y
E
p2f
G
u
C
4a
�a,
q0
a
G
c
a
s
j
a
a
i
,
>
cn
>
0
4CA
a 44
C,
` .
Q
In
u
C
to
�
N
c
r6
Y
aj
4�
C
"O
cn
L
+�
++
L
2a
E
0Q
v
v
s
Nm
os
C3o0p
v
o
a
Na
w
m
a
u
O
U-0
4-
z
1)
L
E
a
�
(U
a
x
ui
p
Packet Pg. 438
9.2.e
O
O
N
N
t
L
cc
2
cc
V
C.
VJ m
Na
o
-a �
w cn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
w
O 00 0 0 0 M V (p Cl Cl 0
ec:
}�
r O r r r 0 0 0 r r r
iQi
!1 L
O It CD C)O 11' N w 0 0 0
O O O w w O M lqt OO ao a0
0
W
O (D O O O 01O N O O C)
tiJ
N r N N N N N
W
tdl
c0 0 0 0 0 Cl OO O O O O
tD
("# [
c0 O O to O c0 cn CO Ln in U?
i !
C3
^-
iL
CD O r O r 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
M
N
O N 0 0 0� 0 co o 0 0
N f/ c0 Iq c0 O c0 11 '1 11l
V
O
O Oct O O O (D I'- N O O O
I
O
r r cq r N
v7
in 0 0 O O co 0 m 0 0
.-
Il- O O O 00 M (O N N O
E!>
CD r r r 0 0 C) CD C) CD
C4i in
QD m wOw OO (D d' O CD co 0 ON O
Ln O O O CD r— N (O �t r
Pw
Q
r N N N r r
cV
Ylb
O O O O O CO O O r
O O O O M M O f-- co
0 0 r 0 0
O
C
{9
CD 0 0 O 'IT Co O (0 c0
co 00 O c0 0 co 00 O ti
W
1f+
O d' N
#4
O
N N N N r N r r
r N m d' Lo 0 h 0 0
m �
co
10
o
9L
w¢a 0wzr- o0ot-
Q
Packet Pg. 439
9.2.f
�') semble
7fe uqat to As" you �m all" ua to e*,&w pm 4" wa&,
Susie 20107 Sege' a .,fww4 !aa 40a "ow#& Q aim dw- a m&d4;pi4rwma 4 * to
60,5'. pia a w"& 4 a& co rcAw&a m Ww4d to aec" 1"" �n rra#**r, aaMoua ad
doa,aaa 4m 4" #md u# am reatex eomm"&# &04at mile at tice more take Q#mf eat dreg a
ucr oie ad d atioagm o(&wV &car i sft aelatia l So, ukt oz fm weed to w#aauce a
cuerst laas an ane eztr&nurg a wu< foasci acguwpouewwata an w0r!¢i y az&taf,
Seale 'a a #wd W& d, wp w&& sic ae lower m&04 4" #apxea a4m eomAa wd to
qc"4, we &M deu a "'" a � u a&f to ""W 64" 4 a&
area, 74 &&we 4 ao o"U' ew add reaaea wxot r dam& ""Md r" *egec 4" need and
au edtea�ca �ft we eel".
?" you D m a& tfau ale daaa y sit "=
eomcua #"d�ftd"&fuatoeee4
?add R. ?aieW
%esd
"NO MA TTER WHA r PEOPL F TEL L YOU
WORpSAND IDEAS CAN CHANGE THE
Packet Pg. 440
9.2.f
BENEFITS
As a nonprofit needing to secure a loan to purchase a new building, finance improvements or new
construction, refinance an existing loan, or additional working capital to run day-to-day operations, Semble
offers the most comprehensive approach to addressing your loan needs that is available to nonprofits. The
following are just some of the benefits you can expect to receive by engaging our services:
1. Best Available Option for funding Nonprofit Loans. Often times, nonprofits find it difficult to get a
bank to finance a loan to them. We provide your organization with a comprehensive solution to
financing its loan needs. Meaning, if there is a funding shortfall using the Semble platform (i.e., where
much of your loan is funded by investments that are made by your donors and constituents), we have
banks that will come alongside the loan initiative and provide gap financing to qualifying borrowers.
So, by using Semble's online lending platform, our
clients are able to secure a loan with monthly
payments that are as much as 60% less when compared
to a bank loan.
2. More Funds Available for Greater Community Impact.
By lowering their monthly loan payments, our clients
have more resources at their disposal for missional
impact. As an example, we helped one organization
lower its monthly loan payments by over $40,000,
which allowed the organization to reverse its budget
issues and make necessary investment in capacity
building.
3. Nurture and Strengthen Donor Relations. Semble's approach to funding a loan provides nonprofits a
new and dynamic approach that (i) reengages lapsed donors, (ii) develops new donor relationships,
and (iii) nurtures and expands on the ones you already have. In 11 years of facilitating loans in this
manner, we have not observed "cannibalization" (i.e., donors that invest stop giving). In fact, our
clients typically experience incremental increases in giving by those that elect to invest.
Packet Pg. 441
9.2.f
DETAILS & RESOURCES
Based on the conversations we have had so far with your
organization, below are the main details as we understand
them. The table and graph illustration to the right estimates the
monthly payments that could be realized by utilizing our
Platform based on the percentage of your loan financed
through our Platform versus any bank financing placed.
NOTE: Using the details below, the potential monthly payments
assume potential funding through our Platform at either a 3% or 4%
interest rate. Our Platform loan has no prepayment penalties and
uses a simple interest payment calculation.
• Loan need: $2,000,000
• Use: Serve as a baseline for discussion purposes.
• Graph compares payments assuming the loan need is
financed through our Platform, with any necessary gap
financing coming from a bank at 5.25% over 20 years.
• Potential yearly savings shown assume fully -funding
through our Platform compared to the bank loan terms
above.
�1AWA00 1.Sf11 4�. �'-
f1rllG.OfO f.TYf ...� .. ..... ... .............
� semble
3% Platform Loan 4% Platform Loan
Potential Minimum
Monthly Payment:
$5,000
Potential Minimum
Monthly Payment:
$6,667
Potential Yearly Savings Potential Yearly Savings
$101,000 $81,000
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
OA0 o°,0
See a sample listing to get an idea of the investor
experience: Sample: Full Online Listing
Hear directly from Semble's CEO Todd Tarbert in his Board
Address: www.semble.com/home/board
Hear from our past and current clients in these
testimonial videos: www.semble.com/home/nonprofit-
T
Packet Pg. 442
9.2.f
RECENT PROJECTS: A SUMMARY
sembie
Project 1: $6.7MM Acquisition Loan for School with a Bank Providing
the Gap.
InvestmenLTerm Funding Progress
$6,700,000
Minimum Loan Goal
4.00%
Interest Rate
5 years ,
53%
$6,700,000
3•51%
Amount Committed to Date Total Investors Inv'eatols Accepting Reduced Retums
Total Loan Requested
Effective Rate
$3,521,985.00 70 27
Project 2. $600K Acquisition Loan for Youth Organization; No Bank
Loan
ItivestmentTeri lundingProgress
$600,000 4.00% 5 years A
Minimum loan Goal lntereR st at%� e 100
$600,000 2.58% AniountCommittedLoDaLe TOW Investor 5 Investor-,AcceptingRed,aoedReturns
Total Lnan Requested Effective Rate $ 00 00i} f10 21 10
Project 3. $5.6MM Total Loan with $3.6 From the Constituent Loan and
a Bank Providing the Gap
Investment Term Funding Progress
$3,650,000
4.00%
5 years
Minimum Loan Goal
Interest Rate
96%
(�
$3,800,000
3.60%
Amount Committed to Date Total Investors Investors Accepting Reduced Returns
Total Loan Requested
Effective Rate
$3,650,237.97 43 13
In each of these instance, the borrowers were not able to secure a bank
loan for the entire amount of their loan needs. Not only did the Semble
model result in a significant monthly savings (e.g., in Projects 1 and 3
above, the organizations are paying over $10,000 per month less than if
they could have secured a loan for the entire loan need), the Semble
model opened up the doors for banks to provide the necessary
additional loan required to fill the gap required and on very favorable
terms.
T
Packet Pg. 443
9.2.f
PRICING
Setup Fee: $5,000
C.,,, semble
If your organization elects to utilize our Platform to fund your need, this cost addresses the creation of the online listing
on the Platform, the aggregation of necessary information to properly communicate the opportunity, and the facilitation
of required documentation.
Platform Fee: $350 /month
This is paid from the beginning of month 2 until the loan closes (the funding process timeline below) or the loan
initiative is terminated. This period is usually 2 — 3 months which equates to 2 — 3 monthly payments on average. This
covers the use of Semble's proprietary technology platform to facilitate the loan as well as Semble investor support to
field all questions.
Closing Fee: $18,500 (due at closing and only if there is a successful loan closing)
This amount is based on the loan amount indicated and related fees are paid at closing of the loan. It can be rolled into
the total loan amount at closing to reduce the cash flow impact on the organization. It covers use of the Platform to
market and fund your loan, management of the loan closing process, and administration of the loan paperwork.
Retainer Fee: $2150 /month
This monthly cost starts the month following payment of the setup fee and lasts during the funding process, which is
usually a period of 2-3 months on average. This elected option can be turned on or off at any time after the 111 month.
This covers consulting and marketing services to assist in communicating the opportunity to your community, as well as
maintenance of the Platform and nonprofit support during the funding period.
Other Closing Related Fees:
There will be third -party fees (e.g., formation fees for the limited liability company, Reg, D. Doc preparation, filing fees,
and title and escrow fees), that will be due and payable when incurred. Semble also charges a minimum per closing fee
of $250 for each loan closing facilitated after the initial loan closing.
Bank Loan Representation Fees: 1.0%
While utilization of the Platform has demonstrated the ability to dramatically lower loan payments and interest costs,
your organization is under no obligation to use the Platform for your need. In the event you elect to fund a portion of
the loan through capital sourced by a 3rd party bank, a fee of the greater of $1,000 or 1.00% of that loan amount will be
paid to Semble at closing.
Loan Servicing:
Post -closing, there are costs for servicing and administration of the loan and corresponding issuer notes. The quarterly
loan servicing fee for a loan of any size will be the greater of $250/Qtr. or .10% (i.e., 10 Basis Points). This covers
monthly loan invoicing and servicing of the loan, quarterly statements, quarterly distributions, and investor support
throughout the term of the loan (costs not covered are tax documents to investors and ongoing LLC maintenance).
Packet Pg. 444
9.2.f
PROCESS TIMELINE sembW
Loan initiatives through the Platform are funded by investors who use your personalized online listing to learn
about the opportunity, review relevant details, and pledge commitments. The timeline for funding is
dependent on several factors, most notably the size of your loan need.
Semble is involved in every phase of the process to position the opportunity for greatest success. The
following general timeline will commence upon signing Semble's standard engagement agreement and
depositing the set-up fee:
-
Preparation
Weeks 1- 4
■ Launch meeting — Set expectations & next steps
■ Compile documents, narratives and other details
■ Create the online listing
■ Invite Key People to Semble hosted Webinar
1
■ Identify and qualify community supporters/investors
■ Meet with core constituents/investors
■ Procure initial commitments through the online platform /000
■ Email campaigns, webinars and events
■ Solidify bank participation if necessary and viable Marketing
—..---------------------------- Weeks 2 - 10
1
1 Assist and secure investor funds
1 ■
1 (IRA, cash accounts)
■ Prepare final documents for the loan closing
■ Work with escrow to close the loan
■ Work with 3`d party financing, if applicable
Funding
Weeks 4 - close ' ---► Loan Closed
Packet Pg. 445
9.2.g
Edmonds Waterfront Center Feasibility Study
March 07t", 2019
ig, FOODSERVICE CONSULTANTS
Packet Pg. 446
9.2.g
JGL Food Service Consultants
EWC Feasibility Study
JGL Food Service Consultants has been retained by the Edmonds Senior Center (hereinafter
ESC) to prepare a feasibility study of potential food service operations in anticipation of the
upcoming construction of the Edmonds Waterfront Center (hereinafter EWC) and an upcoming
RFP process. This report contains our preliminary review and recommendations.
Mission
The mission of the ESC is "To enrich the social, physical and intellectual well-being of seniors
Our vision is to develop the full potential of every senior."
Background
Since 1967, the Edmonds Senior Center has provided services and activities in the areas of
recreation, education, health and social concerns of the senior population of South Snohomish
County. The Center currently provides over 75 different activities and services per month
serving 4,000 seniors annually. Services include:
• Health and wellness programs — Enhance Wellness and PEARLS programs (funded by
Verdant), health screenings, dental care, foot care, annual healthy living fair, Bastyr
natural medicine clinic and nutritional daily lunches
• Education - Edmonds Community College classes, computer education and defensive
driving
• Fitness - dance, walking, Tai Chi, Yoga, and aerobics
• Social - games, events and fields trips
In 2015, the ESC board completed a 9-month strategic planning process in which three priorities
were identified. These priorities include replacing the aging building with a new, multi -purpose
facility that will focus on inter -generational programming, expanding program offerings and
building a sustainable business model. In pursuit of these goals and due to significant structural
issues facing the 55-year old Edmonds Senior Center building, including a 2007 geotechnical
report which found that the building "would not perform at a Life Safety level during a code
level seismic event", ESC embarked on a $16M capital campaign to replace the building. To
date, over $12m has been raised for the effort.
Rather than just building a new senior center, ESC decided to use the opportunity to build a
modern 26,000 square foot community center offering programs for residents of all ages. Using
an open design concept where possible, the building is designed to offer maximum flexibility for
current and future programs. Most spaces have been designed for multiple uses to
accommodate different user groups and ongoing program innovation. The current design
features a combined ballroom/cafe space, full commercial kitchen, several multi -purpose
rooms, a coffee kiosk and a small teaching kitchen on the second floor.
Packet Pg. 447
9.2.g
JGL Food Service Consultants EWC Feasibility Study
Process
JGL toured the ESC and met with senior staff. We reviewed the program plans and
benchmarked the account against our files. We met with local catering and food service
providers who might have an interest in operating food services at the facility. We met with
event venues within the greater Edmonds area that might stand as a corollary to the EWC.
Interviews
Farrell Fleming, Executive Director, ESC
Daniel Johnson, Capital Campaign Director, ESC
Christopher Wolfe, Accounting Manager, ESC
Jennifer English, Office/Volunteer/Rental Coordinator, ESC
Michelle Burke, Program Manager, ESC
Martha Peppones, Director of Nutrition and Advocacy, Homage Senior Services
Shubert Ho, Chef Owner, Shooby Doo Catering
Lauren Pedersen, Catering Director, Shooby Doo Catering
Diane Toney, Rental Agent, Edmonds Yacht Club
Kim Eli, Catering Coordinator, Celebrations Catering
Tom Budinick, Owner, 190 Sunset
Dane Lee, Chef Owner, Chef Dane Catering
Carol Anne Lee, GM, Chef Dane Catering
Shawna David, Rental Coordinator, Rosehill Community Center
Sarah Mixson, Rental and Stage Manager, Edmonds Center for the Arts
Internal Staff
• Both the land and building will be city owned.
• The EWC will receive a long-term lease in exchange for building construction.
• Baby boomers are not interested in a traditional senior center environment.
• EWC will be focused on Intergenerational programming.
• The EWC project enjoys broad support from the Edmonds community.
• There is currently a partnership between ESC and the local high school aimed at bringing
together seniors and high school students.
• The EWC's budget will grow from approximately $700k to almost $1.2m.
• Ideally, foodservice commissions and rental fees will cover approximately 20% of the
operating budget.
• Program objectives must balance with financial stability.
• Weekdays will be mission centered and weeknights (6p-10p) will be programmed by the
city.
• Rental spaces may be sold on weekdays and evenings when the spaces are not being
utilized by the EWC or the city, but lead time is unclear.
• Event rentals may only occur on Friday nights, Saturday and Sunday.
3
Packet Pg. 448
9.2.g
JGL Food Service Consultants EWC Feasibility Study
• All caterers are currently allowed to operate in ESC and no commissions are collected.
• Most rental business currently consists of memorials, then weddings, then birthdays.
• Approximately 23% of Edmonds population is over 65 years of age.
Ractaiirataiirc
• Perception of the waterfront is that it is where the "old style" restaurants are.
• There has been tremendous growth in Edmond's restaurant industry in the last five
years.
2
CU
• Most restaurants are losing money on lunch service but make it back with dinner and
°
a
special events.
CU
• Sunday brunch is extremely popular and profitable in the area, grossing an average of
$5k-$7k per day.
a
• Most operators would prefer to leave Saturday and Sunday open for events and perhaps
do some pop-up brunches.
• There is a lot of support in the culinary community for conducting culinary skills classes.
,0
• The local restaurant industry is expecting a bump from incoming light rail and flights
beginning.
Comparable Event Venues and Caterers
• Weddings are the largest special event category in the area.
• Average wedding size is 150-200 guests.
• Event business is very concentrated on the weekends.
• Perception is that event venues are a higher priority than use of a specific caterer.
• Progressive indoor/outdoor parties are very popular.
• A food truck parking space would be ideal for supporting park events.
• May -Sept, most venues fully book Fri -Sun, sometimes two per day.
• The remainder of the year is approximately a 50% booking average.
• Some venues offer seasonal rates, others do not.
• Commission paid by caterers to venues are uncommon, but not unheard of.
• Spaces with a capacity of 200-300 are needed.
• Some venues execute their own liquor program.
• Parking is extremely important for venues.
• Popular AV set-ups are a PA system, wireless mics, speakers, projectors with video
capability, screens.
• Retractable shades should be on all glass walls for maximum use.
Retail Foodservice in a Mission -Based Institution
Retail foodservice in a mission -based institution (hereinafter MBI) can be very challenging. MBI
events are geared towards a wide range of people, all of whom have differing foodservice
needs to be met. While some groups are looking for a long, leisurely meal before an art
4
Packet Pg. 449
9.2.g
JGL Food Service Consultants
EWC Feasibility Study
showing, others simply want to grab something quick before a dance rehearsal. Even if food
options are high quality, well priced, and well marketed, MBI visitation can be inconsistent in
both number and demographic of visitor.
In a MBI servicing vulnerable populations, these difficulties can be amplified. Such groups often
carry disproportionate specialty dietary needs which can make menu engineering difficult.
Disposable income is frequently limited producing a very price sensitive customer. Venues that
offer federally subsidized meals must meet stringent federal nutritional guidelines at extremely
low -price points.
Attracting outside guests to a MBI's foodservice venues can be difficult without easy street
access and placement in an area with substantial foot traffic. Despite the financial challenges, a
MBI cafe or restaurant is not only considered a guest amenity but can be a vital part of their
mission to bring a local community together.
Current Offerings
Under the ESC's current program, federally subsidized meals are sold to seniors with a
recommended donation of $3-$4. These meals are subsidized by a federal congregate low-cost
meal reimbursement program executed by Homage Senior Services. The rate of reimbursement
is negotiated individually between their clients and Homage. Meal tracking requirements must
be followed for reimbursement. In many cases, seniors cannot afford the $3-$4 cost, so they
pay what they can. Other guests sometimes pay more to support the program.
Current lunch service is one hour long. Service is cafeteria style, Monday through Friday; 30-40
meals are served per day on average. Subsidized meals must follow federal nutrition guidelines,
though there are multiple ways that this can be done. Homage will work in conjunction with the
incoming Operator to ensure that federal guidelines are followed.
Food is currently prepped off -site in a commissary and finished on -site. All Homage clients
serve the same meal every day. Because of varying kitchen equipment and cook skill levels at
different facilities, food must be extremely simple and easy to execute. Special dietary needs
like low sodium, gluten free, and diabetes friendly options are also available.
Potential Service Levels and Menu Offerings
There are three potential levels of service for the proposed cafe: self-service, hybrid and full
service. With each style comes a different expectation level of offerings. The "self-service
model" is a modest cafe experience with orders placed and delivered at the counter. This
model is similar in concept to a Starbucks level of service. Offerings would need to be almost
entirely ready to serve which would increase speed of service and minimize back of house
labor, but those gains would be counterbalanced somewhat by an increase of food waste
because many items would need to be disposed of at the end of the day. This model also calls
for increased usage of disposable packaging which is both an added cost and a negative
5
Packet Pg. 450
9.2.g
JGL Food Service Consultants EWC Feasibility Study
environmental impact which, particularly in the Washington market, could influence guest
experience and retention.
The hybrid service model is one where guests place an order at the counter, seat themselves,
and are delivered their food by a runner. This is similar to LACMA in Los Angeles, OMSI in
Portland and the Nordic Museum in Seattle. While this level of service is slightly more labor
intensive, it offers several advantages over the self-service model. Food is generally prepared to
order, thereby increasing its perceived value and by extension, check average. Food waste and
disposable packaging are minimized, reducing cost of goods and environmental impact.
Expectations of service times in this model are that they should still be very quick, generally five
to seven minutes. Menu options might include:
Breakfast
Daily selection of pastries- Croissants, muffins, doughnuts
Selection of bagels with herbed cream cheese, capers and lox
Roasted vegetable quiche with gruyere and thyme
Steel cut oatmeal with brown sugar and dried fruit
Greek yogurt parfait with mulberry jam and house -made maple granola
lunch
Fresh Made Sandwiches -
Mediterranean Veggie Wrap with red pepper hummus, roasted eggplant and tomato, feta and
cucumbers served with mixed greens
Classic Grilled Cheese with sharp Tillamook cheddar and roasted tomato soup
Roast Turkey Club with crispy bacon, avocado
Shaved Ribeye Panini with caramelized onions, grilled sweet peppers with fresh horseradish
and sour cream
Tossed to Order Salads -
Fresh Fig and Bleu Cheese Salad with candied walnuts, crispy romaine, shaved fennel and
purple cabbage tossed in a lemon oregano vinaigrette
Farmhouse Salad with red and green leaf lettuce, cucumber, avocado, sliced potatoes, diced
celery and grapefruit supremes, tossed in an herbed yogurt dressing
Fried Chicken Salad with crispy romaine, sweet 100 tomatoes, shaved red onion, shredded
carrot and celery, tossed in house -made buttermilk ranch
Hot Entrees
Baked Ziti with sweet Italian Sausage and mixed winter greens
Cioppino with fresh -made garlic bread
Meatloaf Burger with mushroom gravy and mashed potatoes
Beecher's Baked Mac and Cheese with pretzel crust and roasted broccoli
6
Packet Pg. 451
9.2.g
JGL Food Service Consultants EWC Feasibility Study
"Full Service" is table service with a full wait staff. This is similar to the Getty Center in Los
Angeles, In Situ at SF MOMA in San Francisco and the Petrie Court at the Metropolitan Museum
of Art. This is significantly more labor intensive than the other two models and as such, the
most expensive price point. This model focuses on increased check average as opposed to
volume sales. The menu for this model would be similar to the hybrid model, but food would
need to be more elevated to justify the higher price point, such as with the following examples:
Breakfast
Eggs Benedict with crispy prosciutto and Meyer lemon hollandaise on a sourdough English
muffin
Whole wheat griddle cakes with Greek yogurt, fresh berries and cinnamon maple syrup
Lunch
Braised Pot Roast with caramelized carrots and crispy new potatoes
Grass Fed Beef Burger with Reyes Point bleu cheese, balsamic reduction and crispy fried onions,
served with house -made Kennebec chips
The Cafe/Ballroom space is extremely large, with a capacity of 250 seats, though the room can
be subdivided. There is a service counter built into one wall, but it can be masked with a roll
down partition. The kitchen is large and well equipped. The physical structure of the cafe could
facilitate many different styles of service.
The EWC cafe will have a mission at its core to provide not only nutritious, cost effective meals
to seniors, but to provide an environment that will bring together patrons of all generations,
encourage socialization and help to combat isolation. JGL does not feel that a full -service
restaurant promotes such an environment. At the same time, a self-service model like the
current offering encourages waste and a lower overall caliber of food because it does not allow
cooking to order. JGL believes that a hybrid service cafe would create a more casual dining
environment which would encourage mingling and socialization while allowing a higher quality,
made to order food offering.
The current plans for the service counter in the ballroom call for a steam table and salad bar
directly adjoining the register. While that equipment may be retained, JGL recommends a
countertop that could be fitted over these items to be used for daily service if a hybrid service
model is to be pursued.
The EWC plans also include a coffee kiosk in the lobby. The coffee kiosk could operate either on
a self-service or hybrid model, depending on offerings. Because the kiosk will likely be open
when the cafe is not, especially on the weekend when the cafe is closed all day, it could execute
a hybrid service model in which patrons order from a relatively robust menu similar to the
selections in the hybrid model above, though likely pared down a bit. Food would then be
prepared in the kitchen as usual and delivered by a runner.
7
Packet Pg. 452
9.2.g
JGL Food Service Consultants EWC Feasibility Study
All of that being said, a few caveats. Both a cafe and coffee kiosk could prove to be more
foodservice capacity than is necessary on a regular basis for the EWC, depending on seasonality
and visitorship. This issue is complex because it isn't strictly a matter of closing down one unit
during slow periods, there are other factors involved. On peak cafe days, the seating capacity
and processing capacity of the ballroom service counter will be necessary, but on slower days,
operations could be consolidated to the coffee kiosk to save on labor. The kiosk could be open
on weeknights and weekends to provide food and beverage options for those utilizing EWC and
city programming, but event bookings will impact how much seating is available throughout the
day. Ballroom seating might be available for part of the day, depending on set-up needs for the
individual event, in which case that could be utilized. The lobby could be shut off from the
ballroom and used for seating on extensive set-up days or during events if event guests use the
alternate ballroom doors, but lobby seating is very limited. For some progressive events, the
kiosk might be used as support space for a cocktail party in the park or lobby, while on other
days it might make sense to close the kiosk entirely and, ideally, mask it with a moveable
partition or utilize a mobile coffee kiosk that could be pulled away when not in use, though a
storage location would need to be identified.
Because of the variety of activities that might be going on at any given moment in the EWC,
along with adherence to its core mission, management should work with the incoming
Operator to set policy that allows flexibility of usage to maximize efficiency and minimize
financial losses from retail operations. Because this flexibility will inherently cause some
confusion, strong messaging should be employed to help guide guests through daily changes in
operations.
Catering in a Mission -Based Institution
Catering in a MBI is generally provided by either an on -site provider or an off -premise caterer.
Self -operation is relatively rare among these centers because the skill set to operate a catering
operation is typically quite different from the skill set to run a MBI. Across JGL's practice and
the senior centers and cultural centers that we are aware of, we estimate that fewer than 5%
self -operate their foodservice facilities.
Catering is inherently more profitable than a cafe or restaurant operation. The primary reason
for the higher profitability is reduced labor costs as compared to other services; staff need only
be paid when there is an event. Food costs are lower than an a la carte restaurant, and there
are additional economies of scale.
MBls can potentially generate two revenue streams from catered events. Most institutions
charge a rental fee for the event space and collect a percentage commission on food and
beverage from a contracted caterer or retain the profits from the operations. We have
confirmed that the concept of a percentage commission has some precedent in the greater
Edmonds area, though it is a less common practice than in the greater Seattle area.
8
Packet Pg. 453
9.2.g
JGL Food Service Consultants EWC Feasibility Study
In many of the RFP processes that JGL conducts, risky retail foodservice operations such as a
restaurant or cafe, especially those with a documented history of poor financial performance or
with large subsidized meal populations, are paired with either exclusive or preferential access
to catering clients in order to mitigate some of the risk involved in the retail operations. This
approach to the RFP process may result in more bids with more attractive financial terms such
as higher commission rates. These relationships will be explored in more detail throughout this
report.
Catering Opportunities
The primary catering space at the EWC will be a 3,746 sq. ft. ballroom with glass walls
overlooking a stunningly unobstructed view of Puget Sound and the mountains beyond.
The ballroom will have a seated capacity of approximately 250 and a reception capacity of up to
379 guests. The ballroom will be supported by a 616 sq. ft. commercial kitchen with full cooking
capability, a dish machine, 116 sq. ft. of additional dry storage and 348 sq. ft. in total of
additional equipment storage. There will be 700 sq. ft. of outdoor waterfront space available
for smaller groups to utilize or to stage amenities for guests as they come and go from events,
such as a champagne station or photo booth. A "Wedding Circle" will be located in the
adjoining park for ceremonies that could then lead into the ballroom for a reception. 78 parking
spaces are currently planned, though plenty of nearby lot space could be utilized by guests or a
valet service.
In addition to the ballroom space, there are several smaller areas on the second floor that will
be available for rental. One of the spaces will be a 1,629 sq. ft. room which can be subdivided,
while the other two spaces will be 688 sq. ft. and 613 sq. ft. respectively. Off of the larger room
there will be a 112 sq. ft. teaching kitchen that could also act as a support space. The second -
floor spaces can all be accessed from a different entrance than the ballroom and each of these
areas are accessible by different stairwells, allowing multiple bookings at the same time as long
as soundproofing will be sufficient. The smaller second floor spaces will likely be sought after by
smaller local community groups for events such as children's birthday parties or meetings and
are unlikely to result in much catering revenue. The focus on booking these rooms should be
less on revenue generation and more on community engagement. The larger space on the
second floor will be ideal for smaller seated dinners of around 100 guests or may be used as a
cocktail party location for up to 180 guests.
The primary barrier to event bookings will be the EWC calendar. Weekdays will be focused on
internal programming and weeknights Monday -Thursday on city programming, leaving only
Friday night, Saturday and Sunday for rental availability. All of the caterers and venues that JGL
interviewed expressed the opinion that the vast majority of events in the area happen on the
weekend and there was not a perception that inability to book during the week would be a
significant negative impact on revenue. That being said, EWC and the incoming Operator should
develop policy that releases internal spaces that are not being utilized by either EWC or city
programming with enough time for the Operator to try and book them.
9
Packet Pg. 454
9.2.g
JGL Food Service Consultants
EWC Feasibility Study
The ballroom and the larger second floor space should both feature common AV packages such
as wireless mic capability, speakers, retractable shading, projectors with video capability,
adjustable lighting and a sound system.
Self-catering has been prevalent at the ESC and JGL believes that this policy should be revisited.
Bringing in a cake from an outside bakery is standard and should be allowed for a "cake cutting
fee" similar to corkage on a bottle of wine, but outside prepared foods such as a potluck lunch
should be highly discouraged due to liability and food safety concerns. JGL understands that
this has been common practice for memorials, which have been a large part of ESC's business in
the past and are a way in which EWC will have very intimate contact with the community.
Rather than allowing outside food and beverage, EWC should work with the Operator to
develop price -sensitive options for those who want to hold a memorial at the facility but might
not have the financial means for extensive catering. JGL recommends spotlighting this as an
area where flexibility will be required of the Operator in the RFP process.
Marketing and sales of the EWC rental spaces must also be a priority for bidders. A dedicated,
on site salesperson should be furnished by the Operator to act as the primary contact for
inquiries, conduct tours of the venues, build contracts and coordinate with rental vendors and
the operations team. Proper marketing of the venue, especially prior to opening, will be vital
for its financial success, so bidders should demonstrate a history of quality marketing initiatives
and outline their anticipated annual expenditures to be geared specifically towards this
purpose.
Comparable Venue Rental Rates
The following is a listing of comparable event venues available for rental in the greater
Edmonds area and their rental rates and structures.
10
Packet Pg. 455
9.2.g
JGL Food Service Consultants
EWC Feasibility Study
Edmonds Waterfront Center Comparable Venues and Rental Rates
Rosehill
Village Green
Edmonds Center
Edmonds
Edmonds Yacht
Community
Community
for the Arts
Plaza Room
Club
Center
Center
Square Feet
4,275
2,300
3,432
3,300
3,300
Peak Sat
Rental Rates for
$500/ 5 Hours
$2,850 Non-
Fri/Sun- $950
Sat- $2,950
Largest
$100 each
Peak Sat
$2,300
Sat- $1,200
Fri/Sun- $2,300
Capacity Space
additional
$2300
Sun- $2,300
Max Seated
285
120
216
220
220
Dinner
Max Reception
475
120
381
367
367
Hours Included
5
NA
10
NA
6
in Rental
Kitchen
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Extremely raw
Lottery
Special
gymnasium space.
system for
View of Puget
Floor to ceiling
Would require
Patio for $100
dates because
glass walls
Features
Sound
extensive rentals
space is so in
overlooking pares
for any event
demand
No substantive AC
Staff monitorCity
owned
$250 cleaning
Notes
required,
Carpeted
p
or heat
$15/hr
and operated
fee
At a seated capacity of 250 guests, EWC will have one of the largest capacities of all the venues
in the area. Aesthetically, EWC will offer a facility and view far superior to all of these
comparable locations with the possible exception of Rosehill Community Center, with whom
they will be on par. It should be noted that Rosehill is a significant drive from the ESC, especially
during peak ferry traffic, so while Rosehill is very comparable to EWC, it should not present
much competition for the new venue.
JGL believes that starting rental rates for the EWC should mimic the Edmonds Yacht Club, its
closest competition geographically, at the year-round rates of $2,950 for a Saturday and $2,300
T
11
Packet Pg. 456
9.2.g
JGL Food Service Consultants EWC Feasibility Study
for Friday and Sunday. These rates are already at a premium for the area and the Yacht Club has
proven that they can effectively book at those rates. JGL would caution raising rates much
higher early on, especially given ESC's relationship with the city, for fear of local political
blowback or developing a perception of price gouging.
There are few true comparable local venues for the spaces on the second floor of the EWC.
Rosehill does have some classroom spaces which might be used as a corollary to the smaller
rooms, while the larger space, which has a seated capacity of just over 100, could be compared
to the event space at Anthony's Homeport, though the EWC room has twice the capacity. JGL
recommends an hourly pricing model for these spaces to provide maximum budgetary
flexibility, especially for local community groups who will be the most likely targets for these
spaces. A rate of $50 an hour for the small spaces and $100 an hour for the larger space would
be a good starting point to engage the market, with the exception of Saturday nights when the
larger 2nd floor space adjoining the teaching kitchen should be marketed to smaller dining
parties and should be marketed at a flat rate of $1,000 for the evening.
Contract Operation Business Structure
There are two primary types of structures for a contract foodservice provider within a MBI. The
profit and loss contract is one where the operation is at the foodservice provider's financial risk
A fee, usually in the form of a percentage of sales known as commission is paid to the venue. In
some cases, when a particular operation or piece of the operation is not profitable, the
foodservice provider may request a management fee. This structure moves the financial risk to
the venue's side. In a management fee relationship, the foodservice provider is paid a fee to
manage the business; profits accrue to the owner or venue, as do losses.
Common foodservice provider relationships within a MBI include an exclusive model and a dual,
or preferred, structure. In an exclusive model, one service provider operates all food services
within the facility on an exclusive basis. There may be defined exclusions known as carve outs
that dictate how many times and under what circumstances an alternative caterer can be
brought in. An exclusive relationship generally results in higher commission percentages than
other models. An exclusive relationship may also include an investment component. When a
foodservice provider invests in the facility, they provide funds for kitchen equipment or to build
out the venue. Foodservice providers will only invest if they believe the future revenues will be
meaningful enough to support the investment and if they have the financial wherewithal to
provide such an investment. When a foodservice provider invests a significant amount (as in all
the equipment for a pantry), they may well seek to lengthen the term or reduce their
commission percentage as an offset to the investment. This investment is generally depreciated
over the life of the contract and is buy-back protected. In the case of early termination, the
foodservice provider is reimbursed the unamortized balance of the investment. Frequently, the
requirement for an investment may serve to limit the potential bidders; smaller local operators
may not have adequate resources to make a capital contribution.
12
Packet Pg. 457
9.2.g
JGL Food Service Consultants
EWC Feasibility Study
In a dual or preferred structure, there are multiple entities operating food services within the
facility. One entity would operate the cafe while a short, curated list of caterers would be
available for events. Percentage returns are frequently lower than the exclusive model and the
likelihood of investment in the facility is generally eliminated.
When selecting an operating model, it is important to address several issues:
1. Local Norms
The majority of rental facilities in the greater Edmonds market feature either preferred
catering lists or allow any caterer to operate. That being said, the lack of exclusivity will
make it more difficult to find a contractor willing to accept the risk of operating the cafe.
To counter this, there is some precedent in the area for assigning liquor sales to the cafe
operator in an effort to provide additional revenue -generating opportunities and
mitigate some of the risk of cafe operations. Incoming caterers would then provide all of
the food and service, excluding bartenders. Because of the large number of subsidized
meals likely to be served in the cafe and its high degree of risk, JGL believes that even
liquor revenue might not be enough to entice operators.
2. Facility Sales and Marketing
In an exclusive contract, the institution can count on some support in terms of event
location sales and marketing. In a short list environment, the institution has to shoulder
the bulk of the sales and marketing burden. The longer the list of approved vendors, the
more onerous this job becomes for the venue.
3. Internal Catering Pricing
Theoretically, a well negotiated exclusive contract should provide for substantial
discounts on internal catering. It can be a slippery slope, however, so the contract
requires very strong language and sample pricing to ensure client satisfaction with
internal pricing.
4. Facility Wear and Tear
The presence of multiple caterers in a building who have less incentive to respect the
rules and the facility will increase wear and tear as compared to an exclusive provider
who will be held solely responsible for anything that occurs.
6. Commission Structure
An exclusive relationship generally results in higher commission percentages than other
models. With a preferred model, percentage returns are frequently lower than the
exclusive model, and the likelihood of investment in the facility is generally diminished
or eliminated.
7. Investment
An exclusive relationship may also include an investment component. When a food
service provider invests in the facility, they provide funds for kitchen equipment or to
13
Packet Pg. 458
9.2.g
JGL Food Service Consultants
EWC Feasibility Study
build out the venue. Food service providers will only invest if they believe the future
revenues will be meaningful enough to support the investment. When a food service
provider invests a significant amount, they may well seek to lengthen the term of the
contract or reduce their commission percentage as an offset to the investment. This
investment is generally depreciated over the life of the contract and is buy-back
protected. In the case of early termination, the food service provider is reimbursed the
unamortized balance of the investment. Frequently, the requirement for an investment
may serve to limit the potential bidders; smaller local operators may not have adequate
resources to make a capital contribution. JGL believes that investment potential in this
instance is relatively low given the high risk involved in operation of this cafe due to the
large percentage of subsidized meals and likely lack of regular dinner service.
JGL has spoken with many local restaurateurs and caterers in the area who expressed interest
in the potential RFP, but only if retail operations are paired with the catering operation to
mitigate some of the risk of cafe operation.
Financial Analysis
We now lay out a series of pro forma that forecast anticipated overall revenue as well as
financial return to EWC.
Cafe Revenue/Per Cap
First, we calculate projected revenue for the cafe based on a daily building population during
lunch of 150 people, an overall daily EWC population of 250, 45 subsidized meal patrons and 25
destination cafe patrons.
14
Packet Pg. 459
9.2.g
JGL Food Service Consultants
EWC Feasibility Study
Edmonds Waterfront Center Cafe Revenue Projection
Annual
Check
Daily Covers
Total Sales
Covers
AVG
Destination Customers Lunch
25
6,500
$12.00
$
78,000
Subsidized Customers Lunch
45
11,700
$5.50
$
64,350
Building Lunch Captures
23
5,850
$12.00
$
70,200
Cooffee Kiosk
38
13,575
$5.00
$
67,875
Total
130
37,625
$
280,425
Per Cap
$
3.09
Assumptions
Lunchtime Building Populatior
150
Lunchtime Building Capture
15%
Per Meal Subsidy
$2.50
Daily Building Population
250
Estimated Annual Attendance
90,750
Coffee Kiosk Capture
15%
Cafe hours 11:00am - 2:00pm. Monday -Friday
Coffee Kiosk Hours 8a-5p Mon -Sun
According to local resterateurs, lunch covers in their freestanding restaurants generally range
between 50-100 covers per day. Even with a conservative estimate of destination restaurant
patrons, combined with expected capture from the building in both the cafe and kiosk, as well
as an expected increase of subsidized meal patrons due to the improved quality and facility lead
JGL to believe that the cafe has the potential for robust daily business. It should be noted,
though, that with one third of patrons receiving subsidized meals, the cafe will likely not be
profitable, so exclusive catering rights will be necessary to offset the potential loss.
Event Rentals
Based on interviews with local caterers and event venues, JGL has developed the following
rental projections for the EWC.
T
15
Packet Pg. 460
JGL Food Service Consultants
9.2.g
EWC Feasibility Study
Edmonds Waterfront Center Venue Sales Projection
Peak Sat Ballroom
Non -Peak Sat Ballroom
Peak Fri/Sun Ballroom
Non Peak Fri/Sun Ballroom
Peak Large Multipurpose
Room Sat
Non -Peak Large
Multipurpose Room Sat
Peak Large Multipurpose
Room Fri/Sun
Non -Peak Large
Multipurpose Room
Fri/Sun
Annual
Venue
Total Revenue
Rentals
Fee
18
$
2,950
$
53,100
16
$
2,950
$
47,200
36
$
2,300
$
82,800
32
$
2,300
$
73,600
18
$
1,000
$
18,000
16
$
1,000
$
16,000
36
$
400
$
14,400
32
$
400
$
12,800
Small Multipurpose Rooms 26 $ 200 $ 5,200
Total 230 $ 323,100
Peak Booking % 90%
Non -Peak Booking % 50%
SM MPR 50%
Hours Per Rental Avg 4
JGL calculates total revenue from event rentals at $323,100. We base this on the presumption
of 90% booking during the 20-week peak May -Sept period and 50% booking for the 32-week
non -peak period of Sept -May. All hourly venues assume an average four-hour booking.
Wedding rental business will likely be very soft in the first year. While other types of event
rental categories have shorter booking windows, weddings typically book close to a year in
advance. Even if the food -service provider is selected and taking inquiries a full year out, which
JGL emphatically recommends, couples will be understandably anxious about booking a
wedding venue which is not yet built. An incentive program might be developed to specifically
target wedding business in the first year.
T
16
Packet Pg. 461
JGL Food Service Consultants
9.2.g
EWC Feasibility Study
Catering Revenue
Next, we use our venue sales projections to calculate anticipated catering food and beverage
sales for the ballroom. This is gross revenue earned by the caterer from which ESC will be paid a
commission. For this calculation, we assume an average 75% capacity.
Edmonds Waterfront Center Ballroom Food and Beverage Sales Projection
Annual
Covers
Per Cap
Total Revenue
Rentals
Peak Sat Seated
9
188
$
85.00
$
143,438
Non -Peak Sat Seated
9
188
$
85.00
$
143,438
Peak Sat Reception
8
284
$
55.00
$
125,070
Non -Peak Sat Reception
8
284
$
55.00
$
125,070
Peak Fri/Sun Seated
18
188
$
85.00
$
286,875
Non Peak Fri/Sun Seated
18
188
$
85.00
$
286,875
Peak Fri/Sun Reception
16
284
$
55.00
$
250,140
Non -Peak Fri/Sun Reception
16
284
$
55.00
$
250,140
Total
' 1021
F
$
1,611,045
Capacity 75%
Seated Capacity 250
Reception Capacity 379
Now we perform the same calculation for the 211 floor rental spaces. Again, we assume 75%
capacity on average. We also assume a slightly lower per capita spend given the nature of the
likely events.
T
17
Packet Pg. 462
9.2.g
JGL Food Service Consultants
EWC Feasibility Study
Edmonds Waterfront Center 2nd Floor Food and Beverage Sales Projection
Annual
Total
Covers
Per Cap
Rentals
Revenue
Peak Large
Multipurpose Room Sat
9
75
$75.00
y
Seated
$
50,625
f°
Peak Large
0
a
Multipurpose Room Sat
9
135
$45.00
a
Reception
$
54,675
L
m
U
Non -Peak Large
r
0
Multipurpose Room Sat
8
75
$75.00
L
Seated
$
45,000
Non -Peak Large
..
Multipurpose Room Sat
8
135
$45.00
Reception
$
48,600
a�
U_
Peak Large
Multipurpose Room
18
75
$75.00CD
rn
Fri/Sun Seated
$
101,250
r
N
Peak Large
N
Multipurpose Room
18
135
$45.00
M
c
Fri/Sun Reception
$
109,350
w
E
E
Non -Peak Large
Lj
Multipurpose Room
16
75
$75.00
U
Fri/Sun Seated
$
90,000
Non -Peak Large
Multipurpose Room
16
135
$45.00
Fri/Sun Reception
$
97,200
ca
Total
102
840
$
596,700
a
Capacity
75%
Lg MPR Seated Capacity
100
Lg MPR Reception
Capacity
180
18
Packet Pg. 463
JGL Food Service Consultants
9.2.g
EWC Feasibility Study
JGL did not forecast food and beverage sales for the smaller 2nd floor venues because the types
of events that are likely to take place in such locations are not pre -disposed to food and
beverage service.
Finally, we look at low, medium and high potential financial return to EWC.
0
Edmonds Waterfront Center Return a
a
c�
L
Low Medium High
U
r
c
Catering @ 10% $ 187,658 $ 220,775 $ 253,891 '0�0
m
r
Venue Rental at 70% $ 192,245 $ 226,170 $ 260,096
Total $ 379,903 $ 446,945 $ 513,986
For this calculation, we assume a 10% commission paid on all catering food and beverage
revenue. JGL discussed this commission range with several potential bidders who deemed it
acceptable, but if we take a conservative approach and examine a scenario where a bidder is an
extremely good fit when it comes to mission alignment, but is only offering a 5% commission
rate because they are so uncommon in the Edmonds area, return would still fall well within
EWC's needs as laid out below.
Edmonds Waterfront Center Return
Low
Catering @ 5% $ 93,829
Venue Rental at 70% $ 192,245
Total
$ 286,074
Medium High
$ 110,387 $ 126,945
$ 226,170 $ 260,096
$ 336,557 $ 387,041
In both scenarios, we assume no commission on cafe revenue because of the Operator's need
to provide subsidized meals. Venue rental fees remain entirely with the institution, but
incremental expenses such as security and event rental staff have been deducted. We typically
find institutions net 70% of venue rental, depending on how they account for expenses.
19
Packet Pg. 464
9.2.g
JGL Food Service Consultants
EWC Feasibility Study
Conclusion
JGL believes the new facility will provide a healthy financial return to the EWC following its
completion, but more importantly, having met with many of the food and beverage leaders in
the greater Edmonds area, JGL is confident that EWC will be able to find a mission aligned
partner in this endeavor whose sole aim is not just profit, but improving and enriching people's
lives with the simple act of providing them with both a nourishing meal and environment. JGL
looks forward to discussing our findings with stakeholders in greater detail.
20
Packet Pg. 465
9.2.h
6
EDMONDS
Waterfront Center
Connecting & Enriching Our Community
I I ivl 10 1 L, I I
*Ilk0
BRA M ► DI.Y0I 1\'LEI!
r
c
0
c
0
A
d
Q
O
r
N
C
0
r
C
d
N
N
L
a
U
c
0
0
v
c
0
w
c
d
E
z
U
0
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 466
EDMONDS
Waterfront Center
Connecting & Enriching Our Community
Presenter
Sally Knodell —Sr. Architect
Environmental Works
Design
-"' 00`
li Opp", -:
��.
_ �11
Mill
Ii
■■■ �4� ��
EDMONI
Waterfront Ce
Connecting & Enriching Our
Design
EDMONI
Waterfront Ce
Connecting & Enriching Our
�iI1111i
!. IL
Nwr d 1
92.h
3uilding Features
O
i
26,000 square feet 3
Structural slab on auger cast d
piles; wood & steel frame, o
maximize western views, a
durable stone & composite .0
cladding
d
Flexible design to accommodate
ESC & City programs 0.
Community meeting rooms
0
Commercial kitchen w
Community lounge
a
Packet Pg. 470
9.2.h
EDMONDS DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Waterfront Center
O
Connecting & Enriching Our Community ,t
ry
r
y CC'r ONCS MAMNE WALKWAY
lip
5ssr EOMJHOS AIIHNE WALgMAY
_ Q�Q L1ET R00 Q�Q Q �i Cy
t 1,_ Axw 9TaGE 11 11 Ij f] Cnji �T�~�1
[ I jVppVVj I V LV� V�J 1 VpVJ VG4 VVCpVJ I CLL GERR771 I
ec► d
I stew
--uuar aom caa ��t tI rir�irirrr I; _��� 7' •C
8rx -- :larrac
-•-•-u - Y m - I I n l!p 4 Awxw
U
we, I I rF IR
r�
THPoFTSHOP
p ':• p--
I
i W
JIy LLLLLLc= �� �-' F�
a is
O
r
'� re 71 to 10 20 21 22 34 23 2s 2d 20 21 2B 31 32 3J 96
c=aZ,�� �Z�� Packet Pg. 471
i -
9.2.h
PHOiOVOLitit SYS][If&
�
au-n+cauw.rr�.:
xFs �
iwu
aril• ;..:v�ni � L
+
-
•115�
ifY'�
ik5• � •jyy'•
wmrexstspuawstt •„
�
-
�1
�
�fiE^
T]
6 5
� / 1N11>nl!LQfr
1@
Waterfront Cent, o
L
Connecting & Enriching Our Commu
N
r+
R
C
O
A
N
0 O
4 ? 2
N
4
C
fOgY1E)R PD�ElNli/�'\t 6GVR %VlEll O
m c IILRQLNfLwr. L
CILLEI Wl, IIP,� Bi/1L11C1EfJR! �
- - - - - - - - -- - - - TOP r
�.
4 _
�........ Jllil-.. ---- -r., r
Ov
J E6THp SIFL \ .. - R{1LMG HCYN[ MYi
r
W r
WEE �{W�x)— IFNCEH':Th G:R
Y
ci
r
Y
Q
Packet Pg. 472
9.2.h
M:I
1
2
3 4i 51 [.B�
rAru
axnxHr.-
- - -- --
- woorx� saxe ow�w riv�`, i>eicceel -_.
IIII��I�•11®�.® ` �
-�aratnn -
i71,401i
Waterfront
Cent,
o
Connecting
& Enriching 1
L
r
d
m
v
T
O
N
d
u
�
I
3�
Q.
O
N
IIr
�
I
rcilpgx� sHl
-- 9MNl PNili
O
rIIfNIG fACEIE�
. _
�
//LL
F. 7�..p
\:)
•
/
'� euunw rlua�ra�m
arn�swdrt�
` L
_ _ esEreun�
-a
!pn[p rw
srzacucve,lnen�l� �
Uj
j.;
N
E
t
C�
R
a+
a+
a
Packet Pg. 473
9.2.h
MMOVD�iUC S✓SSEY KT UfY TFm
aawewyn.%. ns. � �sEE IEGlWn1}
BIER CNL'P'.AEABR4[ RDCf.�_
CNiCECX 4C Cl VICCk3 DC ��
0
I � ■ 4IIIIIIIII
2 North Elevafion
' s��: tts= ro•
simurt.rrr • ---
w�rruFw�re„aEi—.�-
- � �aeeraw�rcur�
4EiIL nooF rm =
aux�eEw- { eu�crn-�c nrriu�e��.,'�
!E[gOR00FFlEV
AM911f811
Nd
a FogTFEppR Elfi
i \
6YIaFIC IE YRBASELHE EIEV
i'�.._ _ aaEFEu�.naooCuv
r
C
O
L
r
r
O
A
N
Q
O
r
N
4
C
O
R
C
d
rn
L
a
u
C
O
U
r
C
O
LU
C
N
t
u
R
r
Q
Packet Pg. 474
9
9 10
i2
ti
F4--------------
-1
---
--- ---------------
I ,.e
I—L L�- �--]
c -
•
i
41
i
L TMI I
�I
Fbw Ph,
, a
xv
sd.: sa' • rtr
Packet Pg. 476
A "-a ��
EDMONDS
Waterfront Center
Connecting & Enriching Our Community
ra
14191=1[0'
49TI 0 FOATITA on:
9.2.h
O
It
(D
r
R
0
.N
O
r
N
4
C
O
R
C
a)
(n
L
a
U
c
O
U
r
U
c
O
E
LU
c
m
E
t
v
O
r
Q
Packet Pg. 477
EDMOND
Waterfront Cen
Connecting R Enriching Our Co
TA
I R�
1
I - - � : � 11 m I lh
INS �m
1
•
-#AIA Document B101'" - 2017
Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and -Architect
AGREEMENT made as of the 27th day of March in the year 2019
(In words, indicate day, month and year,,,)
BETWEEN the Architect's client identi fled as the Owner:
(Name, legal stator% address and other information)
Edmonds Senior Center
220 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds, WA 98020
and the Architect:
(Name, legal status, address and other information)
Environmental Works
402 15th Avenue East, Seattle, WA 98112
Telephone Number: 206 329 8300
for the following Project:
(Name, location and detailed description)
Edmonds Waterfront Center
220 Railroad Avenue
Edmonds, WA 99020
A state of the art, sustainable senior and community center located on the Edmonds Wate
rfront. The two story building will be approximately 25,000 to 26,000 square feet. Site
design and site development is under separate contract with the City
of Edmonds Parks Department.
The Owner and Architect agree as follows.
ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS:
The author of this document has
added Information needed for Its
canplation. The author may also
have revised the text of the original
AIA standard form. An AddfMm and
Datelfons Report that notes added
Information as wellae revisions to the
standard form text is available rrom
the author and should be reviewed, A
vertical line In the left margin of this
clocurnent Indicates where the author
has added necessary inforrlatial
and where the author has added to or
deleted from the original AIA text,
Ibis document has Important legal
consequences, Consultation with an
attorney is encouraged with respect
to Its completion or modification.
Init AIAOocnmsnt810i--2017.Copyr MC)19741978,1987,1997,2007and2017byTheAmedeanMsWuteofArdd�ets.Alirightsreserved.WARNINQThis
ALA Document Is pwiftled by U.S. Copyright Law and Intemsilomi Trestles. Unsuthorlud mproduaWo ordistdbuaon ofthis AIAs OocumaM, or any
portion of It may result in severs civil and crhninal penalties, and wia be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law This document was
t produced by ALA software at 20 53 30 ET on 03/27/2019 under Order No 7305659624 wkch expires an 0310912020, and is not for resale
User Notes: (1667655531)
Packet Pg. 479
TABLE OF ARTICLES
1 INITIAL INFORMATION
2 ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBILITIES
3 SCOPE OF ARCHITECT'S BASIC SERVICES
4 SUPPLEMENTAL AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES
5 OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
6 COST OF THE WORK
7 COPYRIGHTS AND LICENSES
8 CLAIMS AND DISPUTES
9 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION
10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
11 COMPENSATION
12 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
13 SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT
ARTICLE 1 INITIAL INFORMATION
§ 1.1 This Agreement is based on the Initial Information set forth in this Section 1.1.
(For each item in this section, insert the information or a statement such as "not applicable" or "unknown at time of
execution.')
§ 1.1.1 The Owner's program for the Project:
(Insert the Owner's program, identify documentation that establishes the Owner's program, or state the manner in
which the program will be developed)
The Owner has provided a program for the building that includes:
A banquet hall with stage
A commercial kitchen adjacent to the banquet hall
An area for a coffee shop or similar retail space
A community lounge
Multi -purpose rooms, one of which may have a teaching kitchen
A thrift store (retail space with office and storage/laundry area)
Administrative office space with open offices, private offices, conference room, work room and staff break room
Clinic space
Associated support spaces including storage rooms, janitor space, toilet rooms (minimum per code)
§ 1.1.2 The Project's physical characteristics:
(ldentily, or describe pertinent information about the Project's physical characteristics, such as size, location;
dimensions; geotechnical reports,,,, site boundaries; topographic surveys; traffic and utility studies; availability of
public and private utilities and services; legal description of the site, etc.)
The site of the new building is owned by the City of Edmonds, ESC will occupy it under a long term ground lease a
AIA Document 8101 "'— 2017. CopyMill 1974, 1976,1967,1997, 2007 and 2017 by The American Institute of Archltecis. All rights reserved. WARNING, This
(nit, AIAs Document Is protected by U.B. Copyright Law and laternationat treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AW Documart. or any 2
portion of It may result In severs civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was
t produced by AIA sanware at 20 5310 ET on 03/2712019 under Order No 7305669624 which ex0as on 0310912020, and Is not for resale
User Notes: (16676555311
Packet Pg. 480
grcement with the city. The construction contract for the new building will be with ESC, however, the City's Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Services Department will be actively involved in the project and will be separately undertak
ing a waterrront/beachfront restoration project in conjunction with the new facility. They will also be directly respon
Bible for re -construction of the parking lot that serves the building and the beachfront.
The project goals include:
I. Construct a new sustainable, state of the art, model community facility that serves citizens of all ages both now an
d into the future.
2.
The new Edmonds Waterfront Center [EWCj offer a wide range of dynamic & engaging programs emphasizing Hea
Ith & Wellness, Recreation, Education and the Arts.
3. Protect, preserve and enhance rare waterfront property for community use.
The project consists of demolition of the existing center and construction of a new 25,000 to
26,000 square foot, two story wood frame building, o
0
Q
§ 1.1.3 The Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, as defined in Section 6.1:
(Provide total and, if known, a line item breakdown..)
r
c
Approximately $12 million dollars for the building and foundations. All site costs (except incidental grading around
the building and new utility connections) are outside of the cost of the work of this contract. V
c
0
§ 1.1.4 The Owner's anticipated design and construction milestone dates:
m
r
.1 Design phase milestone dates, if any:
GMP Set submittal March 2019
a)
r
.2 Construction commencement date:
r`
N
Spring of 2019 depending on funding and permitting schedule
M
w
.3 Substantial Completion date or dates:
Spring of 2020
r
L
A Other mi lestone dates:
r
c
0
Q
Q
§ 1.1.5 The Owner intends the following procurement and delivery method for the Project:
m
(Identify method such as competitive bid or negotiated contract, as it -ell as any requirements for accelerated or
E
fast -track design and construction multiple bid packages„ or phased construction)
Negotiated contract with a guaranteed maximum cost.
r
Q
§ 1.1.6 The Owner's anticipated Sustainable Objective for the Project:
(!dent 6 and describe the Owner's Sustainable Objective for the Project, if any)
The project is to achieve LEED Silver certification as a minimum, unless it is determined that the design features
necessary to achieve certification would exceed the construction budget for the project. The LEED coordinator's
scope is described in Exhibit A. LEED certification may require an Energy Model and,or a Commissioning Agent. If
required, these services will be by others and are not included in this contract.
InkAIA Ooaumant 13101-- 2017. Copyrighl C 1974,1978,1987,1997. 2007 and 2017 by The Amedcan Institute of Architects. AN rights reserved. WARNING: This
AIA• Documa st Is prohated by U.S. Copyright Law and lntematlonal Treatln. Unauthorind reproducOm ordlstrlbuaon of this AIA" Document, or any
Portion alit may result In sewn civil and criminal penaldes, and wan be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was
t produced by AIA snthwrs at 20.53:30 Er on 03127/2019 under Osier No.7305669624 which expires on 03/0912020, and is not lar resale
User Notas:
(1867655531)
Packet Pg. 481
(Paragraph deleted)
§ 1.1.7 The Owner identifies the following representative in accordance with Section 5.3:
(List name, address, and other contact information)
Farrell Fleming, Executive Director
Edmonds Senior Center
220 Railroad Avenue
Edmonds, WA 98020
§ 1.1.8 The persons or entities, in addition to the Owner's representative, who are required to review the Architect's
submittals to the Owner are as follows:
(List name, address, and other contact information)
Daniel Johnson, Campaign Director. Same address as 1.1.7.
Phil Lovell, Building Committee. Same address as I.I ,7
§ 1.1.9 The Owner shall retain the following consultants and contractors:
(List name, legal status, address, and other contact information)
.1 Geotechnical Engineer,
Landau Associates
130 Second Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
.2 Civil Engineer (under Architect's Contract);
CG Engineering, PLLC
250 Fourth Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
.3 Other, if any:
(List arty other consultants and contractors retained by the Owner.)
§ 1.1.10 The Architect identifies the following representative in accordance with Section 2.3:
(List name, address, and other contact information.)
Sally Knodell
Environmental Works
402 15th Avenue East
Seattle, WA 98112
AIA Document 8101 O- 2017. CopyrightO 1074, 1978, 1987,1997, 2007 and 2017 by The American Institute of Archilacts. All rights reserved. WARNING. This
InlL AIA- Document is protocted by U.B. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unaunwrized reproduction or distribution of this AIA* Document, or any 4
portion of it, rosy result In severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was
t produced by AIA soltware at 20,53:30 ET on 03127t2019 under Order No 7305869624 which expires on 03109t2020 and is not for resale
User Notes: (1667655531)
Packet Pg. 482
The Architect shall retain the consultants identified in Sections I.1.11.1 and 1.1.1 I.2:
(List name, legal status, address, and other contact information)
Consultants retained under Basic Services:
.1 Structural Engineer:
Reid Middleton
728 134th Street S W
Everett, WA 98204
Attn: Paul Crocker
.2 Mechanical Engineer (for review of design build systems by Contractor),
Glumac Engineers
1601 5th Avenue, Suite 2210
Seattle, WA 98101
Ann: Michael Aliaca
.3 Electrical Engineer (for review of design build systems by Contractor):
Same as Mechanical Engineer
11.1.11.2 Consultants retained under Supplemental Services:
Acoustical Engineer - Greenbusch Group Inc. 1900 West Nickerson Street, Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98119
LEED Consultant: O'Brien & Company, 710 Second Avenue, Suite 925 • Seattle, WA 98104
§ 1.1.12 Other Initial Information on which the Agreement is based:
§ 1.2 The Owner and Architect may rely on the Initial Information. Both parties, however, recognize that the Initial
Information may materially change and, in that event, the Owner and the Architect shall appropriately adjust the
Architect's services, schedule for the Architect's services, and the Architect's compensation. The Owner shall adjust
the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work and the Owner's anticipated design and construction milestones, as
necessary, to accommodate material changes in the Initial Information.
§ 1.3 The parties shall agree upon protocols governing the transmission and use of Instruments of Service or any other
information or documentation in digital form. The panics will use AIA Document E203TH-2013, Building
Information Modeling and Digital Data Exhibit, to establish the protocols forthe development, use, transmission, and
exchange of digital data.
§ 1.3.1 Any use of, or reliance on, all or a portion of it building information model without agreement to protocols
governing the use of, and reliance on, the information contained in the model and without having those protocols set
forth in AIA Document E203T"I-2013, Building Information Modeling and Digital Data Exhibit, and the requisite
AIA Document G202n'-2013, Project Building Information Modeling Protocol Form, shall be at the using or relying
AIA Document 6101 "$ —2017. CopyfthtO 1974,1978 1997,1997. 21307 and 2017 by The American Insthrta ofArchitects. All rights reserved. WARNING. This
tnlL AUN Document Is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and Intemstronat Treatise. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA+' Document, orany 5
portion of I. Fray result In suers elvll and crk final penalties, end sAll be prosecuted to the nmzlmum ardent possible under the taw. This documentwas
t produced by AIA aotlwara at 20:53.30 ET on 03W12019 under Order Nc.73056696Z4 which expires on 03109=0, end Is not for resale
User Nola: (166765SS31)
Packet Pg. 483
party's sole risk and without liability to the other party and its contractors or consultants, the authors of, or contributors
to, the building information model, and each of their agents and employees.
ARTICLE 2 ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBILITIES
§ 2.1 The Architect shall provide professional services as set forth in this Agreement. The Architect represents that it is
properly licensed in the jurisdiction where the Project is located to provide the services required by this Agreement, or
shall cause such services to be performed by appropriately licensed design professionals.
§ 21 The Architect shall perform its services consistent with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by
architects practicing in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances. The Architect shall
perform its services as expeditiously as is consistent with such professional skill and care and the orderly progress of
the Project.
§ 2.3 The Architect shalt identify a representative authorized to act on behalf of the Architect with respect to the
Project.
§ 2.4 Except with the Owner's knowledge and consent, the Architect shall not engage in any activity, or accept any
employment, interest or contribution that would reasonably appear to compromise the Architect's professional
judgment with respect to this Project.
§ 2.5 The Architect shall maintain the following insurance until termination of this Agreement. If any of the
requirements set forth below are in addition to the types and limits the Architect normally maintains, the Owner shall
pay the Architect as set forth in Section 11.9.
§ 2.5.1 Commercial General Liability with policy limits of not less than one million ($ 1,000,000 ) for each
occurrence and one million ($ 1,000,000 ) in the aggregate for bodily injury and property damage.
§ 2.5.2 Automobile Liability covering vehicles owned, and non -owned vehicles used, by the Architect with policy
limits of not less than one million (S 1,000,000 ) per accident for bodily injury, death of any person, and property
damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance and use of those motor vehicles, along with any other statutorily
required automobile coverage.
§ 2.5.3 The Architect may achieve the required limits and coverage for Commercial General Liability and Automobile
Liability through a combination of primary and excess or umbrella liability insurance, provided such primary and
excess or umbrella liability insurance policies result in the same or greater coverage as the coverages required under
Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2, and in no event shall any excess or umbrella liability insurance provide narrower coverage
than the primary policy. The excess policy shall not require the exhaustion of the underlying limits only through the
actual payment by the underlying insurers.
§ 2.5.4 Workers' Compensation at statutory limits.
§ 2.5.5 Employers' Liability with policy limits not less than one million ($ 1,000,000 ) each accident, one million
($ 1,000,000 ) each employee, and two million (S 2,000,000 ) policy limit,
§ 2.5.6 Professional Liability covering negligent acts, errors and omissions in the performance of professional services
with policy limits of not less than one million ($ 1,000,000 ) per claim and one million ($ 1,000,000 ) in the
aggregate.
§ 2.5.7 Additional Insured Obligations. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Architect shall cause the primary and
excess or umbrella polices for Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability to include the Owner as an
additional insured for claims caused in whole or in part by the Architect's negligent acts or omissions. The additional
insured coverage shall be primary and non-contributory to any of the Owner's insurance policies and shall apply to
both ongoing and completed operations.
§ 2.5.8 The Architect shall provide certificates of insurance to the Owner that evidence compliance with the
requirements in this Section 2.5.
AIA Document 8101 TM — 2017. CopyrightD 1974.1976.1987, 1997, 2007 and 2017 by The Amerean Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING° This
Init. MAIN Documant Is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Traatias. Unaitho teed reproduction or distribution of this AIA" Document, or any 6
portion of 1% may result In severe civil and crbrdnat penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was
produced by AJA software at 20 6T30 ET on 0327/2019 under Order No 7305669624 which expires on 03M12020 and Is not for resale
User Notes: (1667655531)
T
Q
Packet Pg. 484
ARTICLE 3 SCOPE OF ARCHITECT'S BASIC SERVICES
§ 3.1 The Architect's Basic Services consist of those described in this Article 3 and include usual and customary
structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering services. Services not set forth in this Article 3 are Supplemental or
Additional Services.
§ 3.1.1 The Architect shall manage the Architect's services, research applicable design criteria, attend Project
meetings, communicate with members of the Project team, and report progress to the Owner.
§ 3.1.2 The Architect shall coordinate its services with those services provided by the Owner and the Owner's
consultants. The Architect shall be entitled to rely on, and shall not be responsible for, the accuracy, completeness, and
timeliness of, services and information furnished by the Owner and the Owner's consultants. The Architect shall
provide prompt written notice to the Owner if the Architect becomes aware of any error, omission, or inconsistency in
such services or information.
§ 3.1.3 As soon as practicable after the date of this Agreement, the Architect shall submit for the Owner's approval a
schedule for the performance of the Architect's services. The schedule initially shall include anticipated dates for the
commencement of construction and for Substantial Completion of the Wort: as set forth in the Initial Information. The
schedule shall include allowances for periods of time required for the Owner's review, for the performance of the
Owner's consultants, and for approval of submissions by authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. Once
approved by the Owner, time limits established by the schedule shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by
the Architect or Owner. With the Owner's approval, the Architect shall adjust the schedule, if necessary, as the Project
proceeds until the commencement of construction.
§ 3.1.4 The Architect shall not be responsible for an Owner's directive or substitution, or for the Owner's acceptance of
non -conforming Work, made or given without the Architect's written approval.
§ 3.1.5 The Architect shall contact governmental authorities required to approve the Construction Documents and
entities providing utility services to the Project. The Architect shall respond to applicable design requirements
imposed by those authorities and entities.
§ MS The Architect shall assist the Owner in connection with the Owner's responsibility for filing documents
required for the approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project.
§ 3.2 Schematic Design Phase Services
§ 32.1 The Architect shall review the program and other information furnished by the Owner, and shall review laws,
codes, and regulations applicable to the Architect's services.
§ 3.2.2 The Architect shall prepare a preliminary evaluation of the Owner's program, schedule, budget for the Cost of
the Work, Project site, the proposed procurement and delivery method, and other Initial Information, each in terms of
the other, to ascertain the requirements of the Project. The Architect shall notify the Owner of any inconsistencies
discovered in the information, and (2) other information or consulting services that may be reasonably needed for the
Project.
§ 3.2.3 The Architect shall present its preliminary evaluation to the Owner and shall discuss with the Owner alternative
approaches to design and construction of the Project. The Architect shall reach an understanding with the Owner
regarding the requirements of the Project.
§ 3.2.4 Based on the Project requirements agreed upon with the Owner, the Architect shall prepare and present, for the
Owner's approval, a preliminary design illustrating the scale and relationship of the Project components.
§ 3.2.5 Based on the Owner's approval of the preliminary design, the Architect shall prepare Schematic Design
Documents for the Owner's approval. The Schematic Design Documents shall consist of drawings and other
documents including a site plan, if appropriate, and preliminary building plans, sections and elevations; and may
include some combination of study models, perspective sketches, or digital representations. Preliminary selections of
major building systems and construction materials shall be noted on the drawings or described in writing.
AIA Document B101 T" — 2017. Copyright* 197R. 1978 1987,1997. 2007 and 2017 by The American institute of Architects.All rights reserved. WARNING: This
Init. AIA" Document Is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution ofthle AIAe Doerene orany
portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. and wlti be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible anderUw law This document was
I produced by AIA software at 20 53 30 ET on 03/27/2019 under Order No_730566962e which expires on 03/09i = and is not for resale
User Notes: (1667656531)
a
Packet Pg. 485
§ 3.2.5.1 The Architect shall consider sustainable design alternatives, such as material choices and building orientation,
together with other considerations based on program and aesthetics, in developing a design that is consistent with the
Owner's program, schedule and budget for the Cost of the Work. The Owner may obtain more advanced sustainable
design services as a Supplemental Service under Section 4.1.1.
§ 3.2.5.2 The Architect shall consider the value of alternative materials, building systems and equipment, together with
other considerations based on program and aesthetics, in developing a design for the Project that is consistent with the
Owner's program, schedule, and budget for the Cost of the Work.
§ 3.2.6 The Architect shall submit to the Owner an estimate of the Cost of the Work prepared in accordance with
Section 6.3.
§ 3.2.7 The Architect shall submit the Schematic Design Documents to the Owner, and request the Owner's approval.
§ 3.3 Design Development Phase Services
§ 3.3.1 Based on the Owner's approval of the Schematic Design Documents, and on the Owner's authorization of any
adjustments in the Project requirements and the budget for the Cost of the Work, the Architect shall prepare Design
Development Documents for the Owner's approval. The Design Development Documents shall illustrate and describe
the development of the approved Schematic Design Documents and shall consist of drawings and other documents
including plans, sections, elevations, typical construction details, and diagrammatic layouts of building systems to fix
and describe the size and character of the Project as to architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical systems, and
other appropriate elements. The Design Development Documents shall also include outline specifications that identify
major materials and systems and establish, in general, their quality levels.
§ 3.3.2 The Architect shall update the estimate of the Cost of the Work prepared in accordance with Section 6.3.
§ 3.3.3 The Architect shall submit the Design Development Documents to the Owner, advise the Owner of any
adjustments to the estimate of the Cost of the Work, and request the Owner's approval.
§ 3.4 Construction Documents Phase Services
§ 3.4.1 Based on the Owner's approval of the Design Development Documents, and on the Owner's authorization of
any adjustments in the Project requirements and the budget for the Cost of the Work, the Architect shall prepare
Construction Documents for the Owner's approval. The Construction Documents shall illustrate and describe the
further development of the approved Design Development Documents and shall consist of Drawings and
Specifications setting forth in detail the quality levels and performance criteria of materials and systems and other
requirements for the construction of the Work, The Owner and Architect acknowledge that, in order to perform the
Work, the Contractor will provide additional information, including Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples and other
similar submittals, which the Architect shall review in accordance with Section 3.6.4.
§ 3.4.2 The Architect shall incorporate the design requirements of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over
the Project into the Construction Documents,
§ 3.4.3 During the development of the Construction Documents, the Architect shall assist the Owner in the
development and preparation of procurement information that describes the time, place, and conditions of bidding,
including bidding or proposal forms, (2) the form of agreement between the Owner and Contractor; and (3) the
Conditions of the Contract for Construction (General, Supplementary and other Conditions). The Architect shall also
compile a project manual that includes the Conditions of the Contract for Construction and Specifications, and may
include bidding requirements and sample forms.
§ 3A.4 The Architect shall update the estimate for the Cost of the Work prepared in accordance with Section 6.3.
§ 3.4.5 The Architect shall submit the Construction Documents to the Owner, advise the Owner of any adjustments to
the estimate of the Cost of the Work, take any action required under Section 6.5, and request the Owner's approval.
AIA Document 8101 TM —2017. CopyriphI01974,1978,1987.1927.2007 and 2017 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This
kilt, AIAO Document Is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and lntematierwt Treaties, Unauthorized reproduction ordistribution or this AM" DoeumaM, or any
portion of It, may result In severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible underthe law. This document was
f produced by A1A sohware at 20 53 30 ET on 0312712019 under Order No 7305569624 which expires an 03MI2020, and is not for resale
User Notes: (1667655531)
T
Q
Packet Pg. 486
§ 3.5 Procurement Phase 8ervlees
§ 3.6.1 General
The Architect shall assist the Owner in establishing a list of prospective contractors. Following the Owner's approval
of the Construction Documents, the Architect shall assist the Owner in (1) obtaining either competitive bids or
negotiated proposals; (2) confirming responsiveness of bids or proposals; (3) determining the successful bid or
proposal, if any; and, (4) awarding and preparing contracts for construction.
(Paragraphs deleted)
§ 3.5.3 Negotiated Proposals
§ 3.5.3.1 Proposal Documents shall consist of proposal requirements and proposed Contract Documents.
§ 3.6.3.2 The Architect shall assist the Owner in obtaining proposals by:
.1 facilitating the distribution of Proposal Documents for distribution to prospective contractors and
requesting their return upon completion of the negotiation process;
.2 organizing and participating in selection interviews with prospective contractors;
.3 preparing responses to questions from prospective contractors and providing clarifications and
interpretations of the Proposal Documents to the prospective contractors in the form of addenda; and,
A participating in negotiations with prospective contractors, and subsequently preparing a summary
report of the negotiation results, as directed by the Owner.
§ 3.5.3.3 If the Proposal Documents permit substitutions, upon the Owner's written authorization, the Architect shall,
as an Additional Service, consider requests for substitutions and prepare and distribute addenda identifying approved
substitutions to all prospective contractors.
§ 3.6 Construction Phase Services
§ 3.6.1 General
(Paragraphs deleted)
§ 3.6.2.1 The Architect shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction, or as otherwise required
in Section 4.3.3, to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, and
to determine, in general, if the Work observed is being performed in a manner indicating that the Work, when fully
completed, will be generally in accordance with the Contract Documents. However, the Architect shall not be required
to make exhaustive or continuous on -site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work. On the basis of the
site visits, the Architect shall keep the Owner reasonably informed about the quality of the portion of the Work
observed, and report to the Owner (1) known deviations from the Contract Documents, and (2) defects and
deficiencies observed in the Work.
§ 3.6.2.2 The Owner has the authority to reject Work that does not conform to the Contract Documents. Whenever the
Architect considers it necessary oradvisable, the Architect shall have the authority to recommend inspection or testing
of the Work in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Documents, whether or not such Work is fabricated,
installed or completed. However, neither this authority nor a decision made in good faith either to exercise or not to
exercise such authority shall give rise to a duty or responsibility of the Architect to the Contractor, Subcontractors,
material and equipment suppliers, their agents or employees or other persons or entities performing portions of the
Work.
AIA Doeumont B701 "' - 2017. Copydot01974, 1978, 1987,1997, 2007 and 2017 by The American Institute d ArchRects. AN fights named. WARNING., This
Intl A111e Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and InternationalTnaties. Unsuthorlwd reproduction or distribu iun or this AIA' Docuanent, or any
portion 1 produced by AlAymutt In sottware at 20.53 30 U un 07/27/201civil and crImInal 9 under Order o 7305d vAll be 669624 which expires on to the 03I0 =rn 20t and In �� the law, Ttus docwnfnt was
User Notes: (1667656631)
T
Q
Packet Pg. 487
Init.
§ 3.6.2.3 The Owner, with the Architect's assistance shall interpret and decide matters concerning performance under,
and requirements of, the Contract Documents on request of either the Architect or Contractor. The Owner's response
to such requests shall be made in writing within any time limits agreed upon or otherwise with reasonable promptness.
§ 3.6.2A Interpretations and decisions of the Owner, with Architect's assistance, shall be consistent with the intent of
and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents and shall be in writing or in the form of drawings (prepared by
the Architect). When making such interpretations and decisions, the Owner shall endeavor to secure faithful
performance by both Architect and Contractor and shall not show partiality to either. The Owner's decisions, with
assistance of the Architect, on matters relating to aesthetic effect shall be final ifconsistent with the intent expressed in
the Contract Documents.
§ 3.6.2.5 The Owner is designated to serve as an Initial Decision Maker.
§ 3.6,3 Certificates for Payment to Contractor
(Paragraphs deleted)
§ 3.6.3.1 The Owner, with advice from the Architect, shall review and certify the amounts due the Contractor and shall
issue certificates in such amounts. The Owner's certification for payment shall constitute a representation, based on
the evaluation of the Work as provided in Section 3.6.2 and on the data comprising the Contractor's Application for
Payment, that, to the best of the Owner's knowledge, information and belief, the Work has progressed to the point
indicated and that the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Documents. The foregoing
representations are subject (1) to an evaluation of the Work for conformance with the Contract Documents upon
Substantial Completion, (2) to results of subsequent tests and inspections, (3) to correction of minor deviations from
the Contract Documents prior to completion, and (4) to specific qualifications expressed by the Owner or Architect.
§ 3.6.3.2 The issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall not be a representation that the Architect has (1) made
exhaustive or continuous on -site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work, (2) reviewed construction
means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, (3) reviewed copies of requisitions received from
Subcontractors and material suppliers and other data requested by the Owner to substantiate the Contractor's right to
payment, or (4) ascertained how or for what purpose the Contractor has used money previously paid on account of the
Contract Sum.
§ 3.6.3.3 The Owner shall maintain a record of the Applications and Certificates for Payment.
§ 3.6A Submittals
(Paragraphs deleted)
§ 3.6.4.1 The Owner shall review the Contractor's submittal schedule and shall not unreasonably delay or withhold
approval, The review of submittals shall be taken in accordance with the approved submittal schedule or, in the
absence of an approved submittal schedule, with reasonable promptness while allowing sufficient time in the Owner's
judgment to permit adequate review.
§ 3.6.4.2 In accordance with the Owner -approved submittal schedule, the Architect, if requested by the Owner, shall
review and approve or take other appropriate action upon the Contractor's submittals such as Shop Drawings, Product
Data and Samples, but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the
design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. Review of such submittals is not for the purpose of determining
the accuracy and completeness of other information such as dimensions, quantities, and installation or performance of
equipment or systems, which are the Contractor's responsibility. The Architect's review shall not constitute approval
of safety precautions or, unless otherwise specifically stated by the Architect, of any construction means, methods,
techniques, sequences or procedures. The Architect's approval of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an
assembly of which the item is a component.
§ 3.6A.3 If the Contract Documents specifically require the Contractor to provide professional design services or
certifications by a design professional related to systems, materials or equipment, the Architect shall specify the
appropriate performance and design criteria that such services must satisfy. The Architect's consultant shall review
Shop Drawings and other submittals related to the Work designed or certified by the design professional retained by
the Contractor that bear such professional's seal and signature when submitted to the Architect. The Architect shall be
AIA Document e101 "— 2017. Copyright C 1974,1976,1987, 1997, 2007 and 2017 by The Amertcan Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This
AIAs Document Is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and Intsmationai Treaties. Unauthorised reproduction or distribution of this AIA* Document, or any
portion or it, may result In seven clue and erlmlnal panaldes, and wla be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible undarthe law. This document was
produced by A:A software at 20 53 30 ET on 0327/2019 under Order No 7305569624 which exp°aes on 0310912020. and Is not for resale
UserNotes: (1667665531)
10
T
Q
Packet Pg. 488
entitled to rely upon the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the services, certifications and approvals performed
or provided by such design professionals.
§ 3AA4 Subject to the provisions of Section 4.3, the Architect shall assist the Owner with review and responses to
requests for information about the Contract Documents. Requests for information shall include, at a minimum, a
detailed written statement that indicates the specific Drawings or Specifications in need of clarification and the nature
of the clarification requested. The Owner's response to such requests shall be made in writing within any time limits
agreed upon, or otherwise with reasonable promptness. If appropriate and requested by the Owner, the Architect shall
prepare and issue supplemental Drawings and Specifications in response to requests for information.
§ 3.6.4S The Contractor shall maintain a record of submittals and copies of submittals.
§ 3.6.5 Changes in the Work
(Paragraphs deleted)
§ 3.6.5.1 The Architect may recommend minor changes in the Work that are consistent with the intent of the Contract
Documents and do not involve an adjustment in the Contract Sum or an extension of the Contract Time. Subject to the
provisions of Section 4.3, the Contractor shall prepare Change Orders and Construction Change Directives for the
Owner's approval and execution in accordance with the Contract Documents.
§ 3.6.5.2 The Contractor shall maintain records relative to changes in the Work.
§ 3.6,6 Project Completion
(Paragraphs deleted)
§ 3.6.6.1 The Owner, with assistance from the Architect, shall conduct inspections to determine the date or dates of
Substantial Completion and the date of final completion; issue Certificates of Substantial Completion; receive from
the Contractor and forward to the Owner, for the Owner's review and records, written warranties and related
documents required by the Contract Documents and assembled by the Contractor; and issue a final Certificate for
Payment based upon a final inspection indicating the Work complies with the requirements of the Contract
Documents.
§ 3.6.62 The Architect's inspections shall be conducted with the Owner to check conformance of the Work with the
requirements of the Contract Documents and to verify the accuracy and completeness of the list submitted by the
Contractor of Work to be completed or corrected.
3.6.6.3 Paragraph omitted.
§ 3.6.6A The Contractor shall forward to the Owner the following information: (1) consent of surety or sureties, if any,
to reduction in or partial release of retainage or the making of final payment; (2) affidavits, receipts, releases and
waivers of liens or bonds indemnifying the Owner against liens; and (3) any other documentation required of the
Contractor under the Contract Documents.
§ 3.6.6.5 Upon request of the Owner, and prior to the expiration of one year from the date of Substantial Completion,
the Architect shall, conduct a meeting with the Owner to review the facility operations and performance.
ARTICLE 4 SUPPLEMENTAL AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES
§ 4.1 Supplemental Services
§ 4.1.1 The services listed below are not included in Basic Services but may be required for the Project. The Architect
shall provide the listed Supplemental Services only if specifically designated in the table below as the Architect's
responsibility, and the Owner shall compensate the Architect as provided in Section 11.2. Unless otherwise
specifically addressed in this Agreement, if neither the Owner nor the Architect is designated, the parties agree that the
listed Supplemental Service is not being provided for the Project.
(Designate the Architect's Supplemental Services and the Owner's Supplemental Services required for the Project by
indicating whether the Architect or Owner shall be responsible for providing the identified Supplemental Service.
Insert a description of the Supplemental Services in Section 4.1,2 below or attach the description ofservices as an
exhibit to this Agreement)
ALA t3ocamanitd101 TM-2017. Copyrighl01974. 1978, 1997, 1997, 2007 and 2017 by Tha American Institute of Arrhitacts. Ali rights reserved. wARNiNti= This
Init. Atqs Doeumentie protacted by U.S Copyright Low a W lntemstionalTreaties. Unauthorised reproduction or distribution of this AIA* Document, wary 11
portion of IL may result In severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law This document was
t produced by AIA softwwe at 20 53 30 ET on 03127/2019 under Omer No.7305669624 which empkes on 0310912020, and Is not for resale
User Notes: (166765ss31)
T
Q
Packet Pg. 489
Supplemental Services
Responsibility
(Architect, Owner, or notprovided)
4.1.1.1
Programming
Architect and Owner
4.1.1.2
Multiple ereliminaa designs
Architect
4.1.1.3
Measured drawings
Not provided
4.1.1.4
Existing facilities surveys
Not provided
4.1.1.5
Site evaluation and planning
Not provided
§ 4.1.1.6
Building Information Model management
responsibilities
Not provided
§ 4.1.1.7
Development of Building Information Models for
post construction use
Not provided
4.1.1.8
Civil engineering
Architect. See Exhibit A for scope
4.1.0
Landscape design
Not provided
4.1.1.10
Architectural interior design
Architect will provide color boards for typical
interior and exterior finishes from samples
provided by the general contractor
4.1.1.11
Value anal sis
Not provided
§ 4.1.1.12
Detailed cost estimating beyond that
required in Section 6.3
Not provided
4.1.1.13
On -site project representation
Not provided
4.1.1.14
Conformed documents for construction
Not provided
4.1.1.15
As -designed record drawings
Not provided
4.1.1.16
As -constructed record drawings
Contractor
fi 4.1.1.17
Post -occupancy evaluation
Not provided
4.1.1.18
Facility support services
Not provided
4.1.1.19
Tenant -related services
Not provided. Thrift store and coffee shop build
out are by others
§ 4.1.1.20
Architect's coordination of the Owner's
consultants
See 4.1.2.1
4.1.1.21
Telecommunicatiansldatadesign
Not provided
4.1.1.22
Security evaluation and planning
Not provided
4.1.1.23
Commissioning
Owner
4.1.1.24
Sustainable Project Services pursuant to Section
4.1.3
See 1.1.6
4.1.1.25
Fast -track design services
Not provided
4.1.1.26
Multiple bid packages
Not provided
4.1.1.27
Historic preservation
Not provided
4.1.1.28
Furniture, furnishings. and equipment design
Not provided
4.1.1.29
Other services provided bX special Consultants
Not provided
4.1.1.30
Other Supplemental Services
Not provided
§ 4.1.2 Description of Supplemental Services
§ 4.1.2.1 A description of each Supplemental Service identified in Section 4.1.1 as the Architect's responsibility is
provided below.
(Describe in detail the Architect's Supplemental Services identified in Section 4.1.1 or, if set forth in an exhibit,
identify the exhibit. The (Alit publishes a number afStandard Form of(Architect 's Services documents that can be
included as an exhibit to describe the Architect's Supplemental Services.)
AIA bocument 8101 TM'-2017. Copyrightd11974, 1978 1987,1997, 20a7 and 2017 by The Amedcan Institute of Architects. AN rights reserved. WARNING: This
Init AIAe Docunrmt is protected by U.B. Copyright Law and International Treaties Unauthorized reproduction ordistxlbution of this AIA'r boeumerd, orany 12
portions of 1% may result In severe chill and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the saw. This document was
t produced by AIA software at 20:53.30 ET on 032712019 under Order No.7305669624 which expires on 03109r2020 and is not for resale.
User Notts: (1667655531)
T
Q
Packet Pg. 490
The architect will coordinate their work with the City's site design team. The City's team will design and permit all
site related items. The following drawings are included in the permit submittal and will be provided by others -
landscape plan, storm drainage plan, off site utility plan. The architect will prepare a site plan locating the building
based on the base site layouts developed by the site design team. See Exhibit A for on -site civil scope
§ 4.1.22 A description of each Supplemental Service identified in Section 4.1.1 as the Owner's responsibility is
provided below.
(Describe In derail the Owner's Supplemental Services Identified in Section 4,1.1 or, il'set forth in an exhibit, identify
the exhibit.)
§ 4.1.31f the Owner identified a Sustainable Objective in Article 1, the Architect shall provide, as a Supplemental
Service, the Sustainability Services required in AIA Document E204*m-2017, Sustainable Projects Exhibit, attached
to this Agreement. The Owner shall compensate the Architect as provided in Section 11.2.
§ 42 Architect's Additional Services
The Architect may provide Additional Services after execution of this Agreement without invalidating the Agreement.
Except for services required due to the fault of the Architect, any Additional Services provided in accordance with this
Section 4.2 shall entitle the Architect to compensation pursuant to Section 11.3 and an appropriate adjustment in the
Architect's schedule,
§ 4.2.1 Upon recognizing the need to perform the following Additional Services, the Architect shall notify the Owner
with reasonable promptness and explain the facts and circumstances giving rise to the need. The Architect shall not
proceed to provide the following Additional Services until the Architect receives the Owner's written authorization:
.1 Services necessitated by a change in the Initial Information, previous instructions or approvals given by
the Owner, or a material change in the Project including size, quality, complexity, the Owner's
schedule or budget for Cost ofthe Work, or procurement or delivery method;
2 Services necessitated by the enactment or revision of codes, laws, or regulations, including changing or
editing previously prepared instruments of Service;
.3 Changing or editing previously prepared Instruments of Service necessitated by official interpretations
of applicable codes, laws or regulations that are either (a) contrary to specific interpretations by the
applicable authorities having jurisdiction made prior to the issuance of the building permit, or (b)
contrary to requirements of the Instruments of Service when those Instruments of Service were
prepared in accordance with the applicable standard of care;
A Services necessitated by decisions of the Owner not rendered in a timely manner or any other failure of
performance on the part of the Owner or the Owner's consultants or contractors;
.5 Preparing digital models or other design documentation for transmission to the Owner's consultants
and contractors, or to other Owner -authorized recipients;
.6 Preparation of design and documentation for alternate bid or proposal requests proposed by the Owner,
.l Preparation for, and attendance at, a public presentation, meeting or hearing;
.8 Preparation for, and attendance at, a dispute resolution proceeding or legal proceeding, except where
the Architect is party thereto;
.9 Evaluation of the qualifications of entities providing bids or proposals;
.10 Consultation concerning replacement of Work resulting from fire or other cause during construction;
or,
.11 Assistance to the Initial Decision Maker, if other than the Architect.
§ 42.2 To avoid delay in the Construction Phase, the Architect shall provide the following Additional Services, notify
the Owner with reasonable promptness, and explain the facts and circumstances giving rise to the need. If, upon
receipt ofthe Architect's notice, the Owner determines that all or parts ofthe services are not required, the Owner shall
give prompt written notice to the Architect of the Owner's determination. The Owner shall compensate the Architect
for the services provided prior to the Architect's receipt of the Owner's notice.
.1 Reviewing a Contractor's submittal out of sequence from the submittal schedule approved by the
Architect;
AIA Document B101 TM-2o17. Copydphter 1974 1976,1987,11397, 2007 and 2017 by The American Institule of Architects. AM rights reserved. WARNING: This
Ott' AIA* Document Is proteetod by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorbod reproduction or distribution of this AFA* Document, orany 13
t portion of it, may result in severe even and criminal penalties. and wet be prosecuted to the maximum extant possible under the taw This document was
produced by AIA software at 20 53 30 ET on 03127/2019 under Order No.7305669624 which expires an 03/09/2020 and Is not for resale
User Notes:
(1867655531)
T
Q
Packet Pg. 491
.2 Responding to the Contractor's requests for information that are not prepared in accordance with the
Contract Documents or where such information is available to the Contractor from a careful study and
comparison of the Contract Documents, field conditions, other Owner -provided information,
Contractor -prepared coordination drawings, or prior Project correspondence or documentation;
.3 Preparing Change Orders and Construction Change Directives that require evaluation of Contractor's
proposals and supporting data, or the preparation or revision of Instruments of Service;
.4 Evaluating an extensive number of Claims as the Initial Decision Maker; or,
.5 Evaluating substitutions proposed by the Owner or Contractor and making subsequent revisions to
Instruments of Service resulting therefrom.
§ 4.2.3 The Architect shall provide Construction Phase Services exceeding the limits set forth below as Additional
Services. When the limits below are reached, the Architect shall notify the Owner:
.1 One ( 1 ) reviews of each Shop Drawing, Product Data item, sample and similar submittals of the
Contractor
.2 Sixteen ( 16 ) visits to the site by the Architect during construction
,3 One ( l ) inspections for any portion of the Work to determine whether such portion of the Work is
substantially complete in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents
.4 One ( l ) inspections for any portion of the Work to determine final completion.
§ 4.2.4 Except for services required under Section 3.6.6.5 and those services that do not exceed the limits set forth in
Section 4.2.3, Construction Phase Services provided more than 60 days after (1) the date of Substantial Completion of
the Work or (2) the initial date of Substantial Completion identified in the agreement between the Owner and
Contractor, whichever is earlier, shall be compensated as Additional Services to the extent the Architect incurs
additional cost in providing those Construction Phase Services.
§ 4,2,51 f the services covered by this Agreement have not been completed within thirty six ( 36 ) months of the date
of this Agreement, through no fault of the Architect, extension of the Architect's services beyond that time shall be
compensated as Additional Services.
ARTICLE 5 OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
§ 5.1 Unless otherwise provided for under this Agreement, the Owner shall provide information in a timely manner
regarding requirements for and limitations on the Project, including a written program, which shall set forth the
Owner's objectives; schedule; constraints and criteria, including space requirements and relationships; flexibility;
expandability; special equipment; systems; and site requirements.
§ 5.2 The Owner shall establish the Owner's budget for the Project, including (1) the budget for the Cost of the Work
as defined in Section 6.1; (2) the Owner's other costs; and, (3) reasonable contingencies related to all of these costs.
The Owner shall update the Owner's budget for the Project as necessary throughout the duration of the Project until
final completion. If the Owner significantly increases or decreases the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, the
Owner shall notify the Architect. The Owner and the Architect shall thereafter agree to a corresponding change in the
Prcject's scope and quality,
§ 5.3 The Owner shall identify a representative authorized to act on the Owner's behalf with respect to the Project. The
Owner shall render decisions and approve the Architect's submittals in a timely manner in order to avoid unreasonable
delay in the orderly and sequential progress of the Architect's services.
§ 5.4 The Owner shall furnish surveys to describe physical characteristics, legal limitations and utility locations for the
site of the Project, and a written legal description of the site. The surveys and legal information shall include, as
applicable, grades and lines of streets, alleys, pavements and adjoining property and structures; designated wetlands;
adjacent drainage; rights -of -way, restrictions, casements, encroachments, zoning, deed restrictions, boundaries and
contours of the site; locations, dimensions, and other necessary data with respect to existing buildings, other
improvements and trees; and information concerning available utility services and lines, both public and private,
above and below grade, including inverts and depths. All the information on the survey shall be referenced to a Project
benchmark.
AIA Document n1D1 Thh — Zo17. Capyright+D lg74,1976,1987.1997, 2DO7 and 2017 by The American Institute of Architects. AN rights reserved. WARNINGi This
Init. AIAa Document is protected by U.8-Copyright Law and International Tmiles. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIAr` Document, or any 14
portion of it, may result in seven civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was
t produced by AIA software at 20 63 30 ET on 03/2712019 under Order No 73D5569624 which expires on 031090120 and Is rot for resale
UserNotea: (1667655531)
T
Q
Packet Pg. 492
§ 5.5 The Owner shall furnish services of geoteehnical engineers, which may include test borings, test pits,
determinations of soil bearing values, percolation tests, evaluations of hazardous materials, seismic evaluation, ground
corrosion tests and resistivity tests, including necessary operations for anticipating subsoil conditions, with written
reports and appropriate recommendations.
§ 5.6 The Owner shall provide the Supplemental Services designated as the Owner's responsibility in Section 4.1.1.
§ 6.71f the Owner identified a Sustainable Objective in Article 1, the Owner shall fulfill its responsibilities as required
in AIA Document E204*1,L-2017, Sustainable Projects Exhibit, attached to this Agreement.
§ 5.8 The Owner shall coordinate the services of its own consultants with those services provided by the Architect.
Upon the Architect's request, the Owner shall furnish copies of the scope of services in the contracts between the
Owner and the Owner's consultants. The Owner shall furnish the services ofconsultants other than those designated as
the responsibility of the Architect in this Agreement, or authorize the Architect to furnish them as an Additional
Service, when the Architect requests such services and demonstrates that they are reasonably required by the scope of
the Project. The Owner shall require that its consultants and contractors maintain insurance, including professional
liability insurance, as appropriate to the services or work provided.
§ 5.9 The Owner shall furnish tests, inspections and reports required by law or the Contract Documents, such as
structural, mechanical, and chemical tests, tests for air and water pollution, and tests for hazardous materials.
§ 5.10 The Owner shall furnish all legal, insurance and accounting services, including auditing services, that may be
reasonably necessary at any time for the Project to meet the Owner's needs and interests.
§ 5.11 The Owner shall provide prompt written notice to the Architect if the Owner becomes aware of any fault or
defect in the Project, including errors, omissions or inconsistencies in the Architect's instruments of Service.
§ 5.12 The Owner shall include the Architect in all communications with the Contractor that relate to or affect the
Architect's services or professional responsibilities. The Owner shall promptly notify the Architect ofthe substance of
any direct communications between the Owner and the Contractor otherwise relating to the Project. Communications
by and with the Architect's consultants she]I be through the Architect.
§ 5.13 Before executing the Contract for Construction, the Owner shall coordinate the Architect's duties and
responsibilities set forth in the Contract for Construction with the Architect's services set forth in this Agreement. The
Owner shall provide the Architect a copy of the executed agreement between the Owner and Contractor, including the
General Conditions of the Contract for Construction.
§ 5.14 The Owner shall provide the Architect access to the Project site prior to commencement of the Work and shall
obligate the Contractor to provide the Architect access to the Work wherever it is in preparation or progress.
§ 6.15 Within 15 days after receipt of a written request from the Architect, the Owner shall furnish the requested
information as necessary and relevant for the Architect to evaluate, give notice of, or enforce lien rights.
ARTICLE 6 COST OF THE WORK
§ 6.1 For purposes of this Agreement, the Cost of the Work shall be the total cost to the Owner to construct all elements
of the Project designed or specified by the Architect and shall include contractors' general conditions costs, overhead
and profit. The Cost of the Work also includes the reasonable value of labor, materials, and equipment, donated to, or
otherwise furnished by, the Owner. The Cost of the Work does not include the compensation of the Architect; the costs
of the land, rights -of -way, financing, or contingencies for changes in the Work; or other costs that are the
responsibility of the Owner.
§ 6.2 The Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work is provided in Initial Information, and shall be adjusted throughout
the Project as required under Sections 5.2, 6.4 and 6.5. Evaluations of the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work,
and the preliminary estimate of the Cost of the Work and updated estimates of the Cost of the Work, prepared by the
Architect, represent the Architect's judgment as a design professional. It is recognized, however, that neither the
Architect nor the Owner has control over the cost of labor, materials, or equipment; the Contractor's methods of
Ir,tt Awuacumem0'1uV--zal7.copy►1ymv1974,1978,1987,1997,2007and 2017byThe American lnstltuteofArchteets.Air right* reserved. WARNING; This
AIA' Document is protected by u.s, Copyright Law and Inlematiomal Treaties, Unauthorized reproduction ordistribution ofthls AIM Document, or any
15
portion of it, may result In seven civa and etiminat penalties, and will tie prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the taw. This document was
i produced by AIA software at 20 53 30 ET on 031702019 under Order No.7305569624 which expires on 0310912020. and is not for resale
User Notes:
(1687855631)
T
Q
Packet Pg. 493
determining bid prices; or competitive bidding, market, or negotiating conditions. Accordingly, the Architect cannot
and does not wan -ant or represent that bids or negotiated prices will not vary from the Owner's budget for the Cost of
the Work, or from any estimate of the Cost of the Work, or evaluation, prepared or agreed to by the Architect.
(Paragraph deleted)
§ 6.4 If, through no fault of the Architect, the Procurement Phase has not commenced within 90 days after the
Architect submits the Construction Documents to the Owner, the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work shall be
adjusted to reflect changes in the general level of prices in the applicable construction market.
(Paragraph deleted)
§ 6.61f the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work at the conclusion of the Construction Documents Phase Services
is exceeded by the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal, the Owner shall
.1 give written approval of an increase in the budget for the Cost of the Work;
.2 authorize rebidding or renegotiating of the Project within a reasonable time;
.3 terminate in accordance with Section 9.5;
.4 in consultation with the Architect, revise the Project program, scope, or quality as required to reduce
the Cost of the Work; or,
.5 implement any other mutually acceptable alternative.
§ 6.7 If the Owner chooses to proceed under Section 6.6.4, the Architect shall modi fy the Construction Documents as
necessary to comply with the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work at the conclusion of the Construction
Documents Phase Services, or the budget as adjusted under Section 6.6.1. if the Owner requires the Architect to
modify the Construction Documents because the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal exceeds the Owner's
budget for the Cost of the Work due to market conditions the Architect could not reasonably anticipate, the Owner
shall compensate the Architect for the modifications as an Additional Service pursuant to Section 11.3; otherwise the
Architect's services for modifying the Construction Documents shall be without additional compensation. In any
event, the Architect's modification of the Construction Documents shall be the limit of the Architect's responsibility
under this Article 6.
ARTICLE 7 COPYRIGHTS AND LICENSES
§ 7.1 The Architect and the Owner warrant that in transmitting instruments of Service, or any other information, the
transmitting party is the copyright owner of such information or has permission from the copyright owner to transmit
such information for its use on the Project.
§ 7.2 The Architect and the Architect's consultants shall be deemed the authors and owners of their respective
Instruments of Service, including the Drawings and Specifications, and shalt retain all common law, statutory and
other reserved rights, including copyrights. Submission or distribution of Instruments of Service to meet official
regulatory requirements or for similar purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as publication in
derogation of the reserved rights of the Architect and the Architect's consultants.
§ 7.3 The Architect grants to the Owner a nonexclusive license to use the Architect's Instruments of Service solely and
exclusively for purposes of constructing, using, maintaining, altering and adding to the Project, provided that the
Owner substantially performs its obligations under this Agreement, including prompt payment of all sums due
pursuant to Article 9 and Article 11, The Architect shall obtain similar nonexclusive licenses from the Architect's
consultants consistent with this Agreement. The license granted under this section permits the Owner to authorize the
Contractor, Subcontractors, Sub -subcontractors, and suppliers, as well as the Owner's consultants and separate
contractors, to reproduce applicable portions of the Instruments of Service, subject to any protocols established
pursuant to Section 1.3, solely and exclusively for use in performing services or construction for the Project. If the
Architect rightfully terminates this Agreement for cause as provided in Section 9.4, the license granted in this Section
7.3 shall terminate.
AIA DocumentB101 "'— 2017. CoWrightO 1974,1978,1987. 1997, 2007and 2017 by The American Institute of Arehhects, All rights reserved. WARNING This
Init Alps Document Is protected by UZ Copyright Law and International Treaties, Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA* Document, or any 16
1 produced by AIA softwareon of 14 may result ln B9Vat 20 5330Il and CAMI"29 Ponattles, T on 03127/2019 under Order will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the ` This document was
r No 7305899624 which expires on 03109/2020, and Is no for regale
user Notes:
(1687655531)
T
Q
Packet Pg. 494
§ 7.3.1 in the event the Owner uses the Instruments of Service without retaining the authors of the Instruments of
Service, the Owner releases the Architect and Architect's consultant(s) from all claims and causes of action arising
from such uses. The Owner, to the extent permitted by law, further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
Architect and its consultants from all costs and expenses, including the cost of defense, related to claims and causes of
action asserted by any third person or entity to the extent such costs and expenses arise from the Owner's use of the
Instruments of Service under this Section 7.3,1. The terms of this Section 7.3.1 shall not apply if the Owner rightfully
terminates this Agreement for cause under Section 9A.
§ 7.4 Except for the licenses granted in this Article 7, no other license or right shall be deemed granted or implied under
this Agreement. The Owner shall not assign, delegate, sublicense, pledge or otherwise transfer any license granted
herein to another parry without the prior written agreement of the Architect. Any unauthorized use of the Instruments
of Service shall be at the Owner's sole risk and without liability to the Architect and the Architect's consultants.
§ 7.3 Except as otherwise stated in Section 7.3, the provisions of this Article 7 shall survive the termination of this
Agreement.
ARTICLE 8 CLAIMS AND DISPUTES
§ &1 General
§ 8.1.1 The Owner and Architect shall commence all claims and causes of action against the other and arising out of or
related to this Agreement, whether in contract, tort, or otherwise, in accordance with the requirements of the binding
dispute resolution method selected in this Agreement and within the period specified by applicable law, but in any
case not more than 10 years after the date of Substantial Completion of the Work. The Owner and Architect waive all
claims and causes of action not commenced in accordance with this Section S.1.1.
§ 8.1.2 To the extent damages are covered by property insurance, the Owner and Architect waive all rights against each
other and against the contractors, consultants, agents, and employees of the other for damages, except such rights as
they may have to the proceeds of such insurance as set forth in AIA Document A201--2017, General Conditions of the
Contract for Construction. The Owner or the Architect, as appropriate, shall require of the contractors, consultants,
agents, and employees of any of them, similar waivers in favor of the other parties enumerated herein.
§ 8.1.3 The Architect and Owner waive consequential damages for claims, disputes, or other matters in question,
arising out of or relating to this Agreement. This mutual waiver is applicable, without limitation, to all consequential
damages due to either party's termination of this Agreement, except as specifically provided in Section 9.7.
§ 8.2 Mediation
§ 8.2.1 Any claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be subject to
mediation as a condition precedent to binding dispute resolution. If such matter relates to or is the subject of a lien
arising out of the Architect's services, the Architect may proceed in accordance with applicable law to comply with the
lien notice or filing deadlines prior to resolution of the matter by mediation or by binding dispute resolution.
§ 8.12 The Owner and Architect shall endeavor to resolve claims, disputes and other matters in question between them
by mediation, which, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, shall be administered by the American Arbitration
Association in accordance with its Construction Industry Mediation Procedures in effect on the date of this
Agreement. A request for mediation shall be made in writing, delivered to the other patty to this Agreement, and filed
with the person or entity administering the mediation. The request may be made concurrently with the filing of
complaint or other appropriate demand for binding dispute resolution but, in such event, mediation shall proceed in
advance of binding dispute resolution proceedings, which shall be stayed pending mediation for a period of 60 days
from the date of tiling, unless stayed for a longer period by agreement of the parties or court order. If an arbitration
proceeding is stayed pursuant to this section, the parties may nonetheless proceed to the selection of the arbitmtor(s)
and agree upon a schedule for later proceedings.
§ 8.2.3 The parties shall share the mediator's fee and any ruling fees equally. The mediation shall be held in the place
where the Project is located, unless another location is mutually agreed upon. Agreements reached in mediation shall
be enforceable as settlement agreements in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
AIA Doeumentat0l ^' — 2017. CopyriphtO 1974.1978, 1987 1927, 2007 and 2017 by The American Institute or Architects. All rights resented, WARNING: Thk
Init. AIAe Document Is protected by U.S. Copyright Low and International Trades. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA* Document, orany 17
portion of n, may result in sever civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. Th s document was
1 produced by AIA sotlwue at 20,53 30 ET on 03/27/2019 under order No.7305669624 which expires on 03/09/2020 and is not nor resale.
User Notes: (1667655531)
t,
Q
Packet Pg. 495
§ 8.2.4 If the parties do not resolve a dispute through mediation pursuant to this Section 8.2, the method of binding
dispute resolution shall be the following:
(Check the appropriate box)
[ X ] Arbitration pursuant to Section 8.3 of this Agreement
[ j Litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction
[ ] Other: (Spec)
If the Owner and Architect do not select a method of binding dispute resolution, or do not subsequently agree in
w
writing to a binding dispute resolution method other than litigation, the dispute will be resolved in a court of competent
jurisdiction.
c
L
§ 8.3 Arbitration
IZ
Q'
§ 8.3.1 If the parties have selected arbitration as the method For binding dispute resolution in this Agreement, any
claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to this Agreement subject to, but not resolved by,
mediation shall be subject to arbitration, which, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, shall be administered by
a)
the American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules in effect on the
+,
date of this Agreement. A demand for arbitration shall be made in writing, delivered to the other party to this
c
Agreement, and filed with the person or entity administering the arbitration.
m
§ 8.3.1.1 A demand for arbitration shall be made no earlier than concurrently with the filing of a request for mediation,
but in no event shall it be made after the date when the institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on the claim,
dispute or other matter in question would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. For statute of limitations
o�
purposes, receipt of a written demand for arbitration by the person or entity administering the arbitration shall
constitute the institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on the claim, dispute or other matter in question.
M
w
§ 8.3.2 The foregoing agreement to arbitrate, and other agreements to arbitrate with an additional person or entity duly
consented to by parties to this Agreement, shall be specifically enforceable in accordance with applicable law in any
court having jurisdiction thereof.
3
§ 8.3.3 The award rendered by the arbitmtor(s) shall be final, and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with
M
applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof,
o
§ 8.3.4 Consolidation or Joinder
V
Q
§ 8.3.4.1 Either party, at its sole discretion, may consolidate an arbitration conducted under this Agreement with any
Q
other arbitration to which it is a party provided that (1) the arbitration agreement governing the other arbitration
};
permits consolidation; (2) the arbitrations to be consolidated substantially involve common questions of law or fact;
and (3) the arbitrations employ materially similar procedural rules and methods for selecting arbitrator(s).
E
§ 8.3A.2 Either party, at its sole discretion, may include by joinder persons or entities substantially involved in a
common question of law or fact whose presence is required if complete relief is to be accorded in arbitration, provided
a
that the party sought to be joined consents in writing to such joinder. Consent to arbitration involving an additional
person or entity shall not constitute consent to arbitration of any claim, dispute or other matter in question not
described in the written consent.
§ 8.3.4.3 The Owner and Architect grant to any person or entity made a party to an arbitration conducted under this
Section 8.3, whether by joinder or consolidation, the same rights of joinder and consolidation as the Owner and
Architect under this Agreement.
§ 8.4 The provisions of this Article 8 shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
AIA Document B101 TM— 2017. CopyNhtd11274,1978,1987,1997. 2007 and 2017 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING. This
Inh' AIA' Document is protected by U.B. Copyright Law and International Trestles. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA• document, or any 18
portion of It, may result In savor@ civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent passible under the law. This document was
t produced by AIA software at 20 53 30 ET on 0312712019 under order No 7305SM24 which expires on 03109020, and is not for resets
User Notes. (16676555311
Packet Pg. 496
ARTICLE 9 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION
§ 9,1 If the Owner fails to make payments to the Architect in accordance with this Agreement, such failure shall be
considered substantial nonperformance and cause for termination or, at the Architect's option, cause for suspension of
performance of services under this Agreement. If the Architect elects to suspend services, the Architect shall give
seven days' written notice to the Owner before suspending services. In the event of a suspension of services, the
Architect shall have no liability to the Owner for delay or damage caused the Owner because of such suspension of
services. Before resuming services, the Owner shall pay the Architect all sums due prior to suspension and any
expenses incurred in the interruption and resumption of the Architect's services. The Architect's fees for the
remaining services and the time schedules shall be equitably adjusted.
§ 9.2 If the Owner suspends the Project, the Architect shall be compensated for services performed prior to notice of
such suspension. When the Project is resumed, the Architect shall be compensated for expenses incurred in the
interruption and resumption of the Architect's services. The Architect's fees for the remaining services and the time
schedules shall be equitably adjusted.
§ 9.3 If the Owner suspends the Project for more than 90 cumulative days for reasons other than the fault of the
Architect, the Architect may terminate this Agreement by giving not less than seven days' written notice.
§ 9A Either party may terminate this Agreement upon not less than seven days' written notice should the other party
fail substantially to perform in accordance with the terms ofthis Agreement through no fault of the party initiating the
termination.
§ 9.5 The Owner may terminate this Agreement upon not less than seven days' written notice to the Architect for the
Owner's convenience and without cause.
§ 9.6 If the Owner terminates this Agreement for its convenience pursuant to Section 9.5, or the Architect terminates
this Agreement pursuant to Section 9.3, the Owner shall compensate the Architect for services performed prior to
termination, Reimbursable Expenses incurred, and costs attributable to termination, including the costs attributable to
the Architect's termination of consultant agreements.
§ 9.7 In addition to any amounts paid under Section 9.6, if the Owner terminates this Agreement for its convenience
pursuant to Section 9.5, or the Architect terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 9.3, the Owner shall pay to the
Architect the following fees:
(Set forth below the amount of atW termination or licensing fee, or the method for determining any termination or
licensingfee)
Termination Fee:
Amount due for services completed at time of termination
Licensing Fee if the Owner intends to continue using the Architect's Instruments of Service:
Not applicable
§ 9.8 Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, this Agreement shall terminate one year from the date of
Substantial Completion.
§ 9.9 The Owner's rights to use the Architect's Instruments of Service in the event of a termination of this Agreement
are set forth in Article 7 and Section 9.7.
ARTICLE 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
§ 10.1 This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the place where the Project is located, excluding that
jurisdiction's choice of law rules. If the parties have selected arbitration as the method of binding dispute resolution, the
Federal Arbitration Act shall govern Section 8.3.
AM Document 6101--2017. CoPyrightO1974, 1976 1957,1997, 2007 and 2017 by The American Institute of Arehitects.All rights reserved. WARNING: Thls
tnit A� Document on of K � protected resutt In by.; and n� and tntemational Treaties Unstoodod reproduction ordktrlbunon ofthis AIA* Document, crony 19
t produced by ALA software at 20 53 30 ET on 03/27/2019 unders, and will be OrderNo 730566 624 which euted to � �%Imam extent posand Is no under the law. This document was
User Notes; spires on 0310912020, and is not im nasals
(1667655531)
T
Q
Packet Pg. 497
§ 10.2 Terms in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as those in AIA Document A201--2017, General
Conditions of the Contract for Construction.
§ 10.3 The Owner and Architect, respectively, bind themselves, their agents, successors, assigns, and legal
representatives to this Agreement. Neither the Owner nor the Architect shall assign this Agreement without the written
consent of the other, except that the {honer may assign this Agreement to a lender providing financing for the Project
if the lender agrees to assume the Owner's rights and obligations under this Agreement, including any payments due to
the Architect by the Owner prior to the assignment.
§ 10.41f the Owner requests the Architect to execute certificates, the proposed language of such certificates shall be
submitted to the Architect for review at least 14 days prior to the requested dates of execution, if the Owner requests
the Architect to execute consents reasonably required to facilitate assignment to a lender, the Architect shall execute
all such consents that are consistent with this Agreement, provided the proposed consent is submitted to the Architect
for review at least 14 days prior to execution. The Architect shall not be required to execute certificates or consents
that would require knowledge, services, or responsibilities beyond the scope of this Agreement.
§ 10.S Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with, or a cause of action in favor of,
a third party against either the Owner or Architect.
§ 10.6 Unless otherwise required in this Agreement, the Architect shall have no responsibility for the discovery,
presence, handling, removal or disposal of, or exposure of persons to, hazardous materials or toxic substances in any
form at the Project site.
§ 10.7 The Architect shall have the right to include photographic or artistic representations of the design of the Project
among the Architect's promotional and professional materials. The Architect shall be given reasonable access to the
completed Project to make such representations. However, the Architect's materials shall not include the Owner's
confidential or proprietary information if the Owner has previously advised the Architect in writing of the specific
information considered by the Owner to be confidential or proprietary. The Owner shall provide professional credit for
the Architect in the Owner's promotional materials for the Project. This Section 10.7 shall survive the termination of
this Agreement unless the Owner terminates this Agreement for cause pursuant to Section 9.4.
§ 10.8 If the Architect or owner receives information specifically designated as "confidential" or "business
proprietary," the receiving party shall keep such information strictly confidential and shall not disclose it to any other
person except as set forth in Section 10.9.1. This Section 10.8 shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
§ 10.8.1 The receiving party may disclose "confidential" or "business proprietary" information after 7 days' notice to
the other party, when required by law, arbitrator's order, or court order, including a subpoena or other form of
compulsory legal process issued by a court or governmental entity, or to the extent such information is reasonably
necessary for the receiving party to defend itself in any dispute. The receiving party may also disclose such
information to its employees, consultants, or contractors in order to perform services or work solely and exclusively
for the Project, provided those employees, consultants and contractors are subject to the restrictions on the disclosure
and use of such information as set forth in this Section 10.8.
§ 10.9 The invalidity of any provision of the Agreement shall not invalidate the Agreement or its remaining provisions.
If it is determined that any provision of the Agreement violates any law, or is otherwise invalid or unenforceable, then
that provision shall be revised to the extent necessary to make that provision legal and enforceable, In such case the
Agreement shall be construed, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to give effect to the parties' intentions and
purposes in executing the Agreement,
ARTICLE 11 COMPENSATION
§ 11.1 For the Architect's Basic Services described under Article 3, the Owner shall compensate the Architect as
follows;
Stipulated Sum
(Insert amot(m)
AIA Document B101 "' —2017. Copyright 01974, 1978,1987,1997, 2007 and 2017 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This
I MIL AIA' Document Is protected by U.B. Copyright Law and International Treaties, Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this A1M Document, or any 20
portion of It, may result In severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law, This document was
t produced by AIA software at 20 53 30 ET on 0327/2019 under Order No 7305669624 which expires on 0310912020. and Is not for resale
(1667655531)
User Notes:
Q
Packet Pg. 498
See attached Exhibit B
Percentage Basis
(Insert percentage value)
( ) % of the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work, as calculated in accordance with Section 11.6.
Other
(Describe the method of compensation)
§ I I I For the Architect's Supplemental Services designated in Section 4.1.1 and for any Sustainability Services in
required pursuant to Section 4.1.3, the Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows:
(Insert amoitnt of, or basis for, compensation. !f necessarl; list speck services to which particular methods of
i
compensation apply.)
a
Scope of project representation beyond basic services shall be determined in advance of performing services and a
°r
maximum fee established when possible. Wort: billed hourly at the rates set forth in Exhibit C
c
m
U
§ 11.3 For Additional Services that may arise during the course of the Project, including those under Section 4.2, the
Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows:
o
(Insert amount of, or basis for, compensation.)
't
m
Scope ofproject representation beyond basic services shall be determined in advance of performing services and a
maximum fee established when possible. Work billed hourly at the rates set forth in Exhibit C
rn
§ 11A Compensation for Supplemental and Additional Services of the Architect's consultants when not included in
Section 11.2 or 11.3, shall be the amount invoiced to the Architect plus ten percent ( 10 %), or as follows;
N
M
(Insert amount of, or basis for computing, Architect's consnthams' compensation for Supplemental or Additional
w
Services.)
z
3
§ 11.5 When compensation for Basic Services is based on a stipulated sum or a percentage basis, the proportion of
r
L
compensation for each phase of services shall be as follows: See Exhibit B
o
U
Schematic Design Phase percent ( %)
Q
Design Development Phase percent ( %)
Q
Construction Documents percent ( %)
Phase
Procurement Phase percent ( %)
E
Construction Phase percent ( %)
Total Basic Compensation one hundred percent ( 100 %)
Q
§ 11.5 When compensation identified in Section 11.1 is on a percentage basis, progress payments for each phase of
Basic Services shall be calculated by multiplying the percentages identified in this Article by the Owner's most recent
budget for the Cost of the Work. Compensation paid in previous progress payments shall not be adjusted based on
subsequent updates to the Owner's budget for the Cost of the Work.
§ 11.6.1 When compensation is on a percentage basis and any portions of the Project are deleted or otherwise not
constructed, compensation for those portions of the Project shall be payable to the extent services are performed on
those portions. The Architect shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with this Agreement for all services
performed whether or not the Construction Phase is commenced.
AIA Document 8101 TM-2017. Copyright0197A,1978 1967,1997, 2007 and 2017 by The American Institute of Archilects. AN rights reserved. WARNING. This
Init. AIA' Document Is protected by U.S. Copyright Laws" Intemationat Trestles Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA* Document. oramy 21
portion of n, may result In seven civil and criminal penalties, and wI0 he prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This documenlwas
t produced by AIA software at 20:53:30 ET on 0312712019 under Order No 7306669624 which expires on 0310912020. and Is not for resale
User Notes. (1667655531)
Packet Pg. 499
§ 11.7 The hourly billing rates for services of the Architect and the Architect's consultants are set forth below. The
rates shall be adjusted in accordance with the Architect's and Architect's consultants' normal review practices,
(/f applicable, attach an exhibit of hottriy billing rates or insert them bekiv.)
See Exhibit C
Employee or Category Rate ($0.00)
§ 11.8 Compensation for Reimbursable Expenses
§ 11.0.1 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic, Supplemental, and Additional Services and
include expenses incurred by the Architect and the Architect's consultants directly related to the Project, as follows:
.1 Transportation and authorized out-of-town travel and subsistence;
w
.2 Long distance services, dedicated data and communication services, teleconferences, Project web sites,
and extranets;
>
0
.3 Permitting and other fees required by authorities having jurisdiction over the Project;
a
A Printing, reproductions, plots, and standard form documents;
0-
.5 Postage, handling, and delivery;
.6 Expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates, if authorized in advance by the Owner;
.7 Renderings, physical models, mock-ups, professional photography, and presentation materials
a)
requested by the Owner or required for the Project;
+,
.8 if required by the Owner, and with the Owner's prior written approval, the Architect's consultants'
c
expenses of professional liability insurance dedicated exclusively to this Project, or the expense of
,L_
additional insurance coverage or limits in excess of that normally maintained by the Architect's
+;
consultants;
0
3:
.9 All taxes levied on professional services and on reimbursable expenses;
.10 Site office expenses;
0
.11 Registration fees and any other fees charged by the Certifying Authority or by other entities as
necessary to achieve the Sustainable Objective; and,
N
.12 Other similar Project -related expenditures.
§ 11.8.2 For Reimbursable Expenses the compensation shall be the expenses incurred by the Architect and the
w
Architect's consultants plus ten percent ( 10 %) of the expenses incurred.
3
§ 11.9 Architect's Insurance. If the types and limits of coverage required in Section 2.5 are in addition to the types and
M
limits the Architect normally maintains, the Owner shall pay the Architect for the additional costs incurred by the
Architect for the additional coverages as set forth below:
0
V
(Insert the additional coverages the Architect is required to obtain in order to satisfy the requirements set forth in
a
Section 2.5, and for which the avner shall reimburse the Architect,)
Q
Not applicable
E
§ 11.10 Payments to the Architect
§ 11.10.1 Initial Payments
0
§ 11.10.1.1 An initial payment of zero (S 0.00 ) shall be made upon execution of this Agreement and is the minimum
Q
payment under this Agreement. It shall be credited to the Owner's account in the final invoice.
§ 11.10.1.2 If a Sustainability Certification is part of the Sustainable Objective, an initial payment to the Architect of
zero (S 0.00 ) shall be made upon execution of this Agreement for registration fees and other fees payable to the
Certifying Authority and necessary to achieve the Sustainability Certification. The Architect's payments to the
Certifying Authority shall be credited to the Owner's account at the time the expense is incurred.
11.10.2 Progress Payments
§ 11.10.2.1 Unless otherwise agreed, payments for services shall be made monthly in proportion to services performed.
Payments are due and payable upon presentation of the Architect's invoice. Amounts unpaid forty five ( 45 ) days
AIA Document B101 "*-2017. Copyright01974,1978,1987,1997, 20D7 and 2017 by The American Institute of Architects. AN rights reserved. WARNING, This
trait. AIA• Document Is protected by U.S. Copyright l.aw and Intematiomi Treaties. Unauthorlmd reproduction ordintribution of this AIA* Documant, or any 22
portion of ! producedy AAAyresult Insoftware asevere0 63 30 ETand criminal on o=712019 under Orderdwill be No 7 05669624 which eto xpipiires on 0310912020, aimum extent nd ids not forrle ar the resale �w Th a document was
User Notes; (166765501)
Packet Pg. 500
after the invoice date shall bear interest at the rate entered below, or in the absence thereof at the legal rate prevailing
from time to time at the principal place of business of the Architect.
(Insert rate of monthly or annual interest agreed upon.)
1.5 % per month
§ 11.10.2.2 The Owner shall not withhold amounts from the Architect's compensation to impose a penalty or liquidated
damages on the Architect, or to offset sums requested by or paid to contractors for the cost of changes in the Work,
unless the Architect agrees or has been found liable for the amounts in a binding dispute resolution proceeding.
§ 11.10.2.3 Records of Reimbursable Expenses, expenses pertaining to Supplemental and Additional Services, and
services performed on the basis of hourly rates shall be available to the Owner at mutually convenient times.
ARTICLE 12 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Special terms and conditions that modify this Agreement are as follows:
(Include other terms and conditions applicable to this Agreement)
12.1 All site work design, permitting and construction is under separate contract with the City of Edmonds. The
architect will coordinate with the City's team during the design and permitting process.
12.2 All mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire sprinkler systems will be design build contracts by the general
contractor. The architect's team will include consulting engineers who will provide performance specifications for the
mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire sprinkler systems. The scope of their work is described in Exhibit A.
Commissioning of systems will be performed by an independent, owner contracted consultant.
12.3 Other bidder design services, that are outside of the architect's contract, include: commercial kitchen design,
curtainwall/window-wall construction, audio visual systems and elevator.
12.4 The architect's services include an acoustical engineer. Their scope is defined in Exhibit A
12.5 The scope assumes that one bid package will be prepared for all improvements. Additional bid packages, if
required, will be billed as an additional service at an agreed upon price with the Owner, prior to performance of the
services.
12.6 Additional services that have already been performed, prior to this agreement, included the following
consultants:
• Sea level rise consulting
• Landscape architecture
• Civil storm Drainage concept
• LEED Workshop and initial scoring
The fees for these services are included in the overall fee in Exhibit B.
12.7 The architect performed the following additional services prior to this agreement
• LEED project registration
• Building programming and reprogramming in order to reduce cost
The fees for these services are included in the overall fee in Exhibit B.
ARTICLE 13 SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT
§ 13.1 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Owner and the Architect and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be
amended only by written instrument signed by both the Owner and Architect.
13.2 This Agreement is comprised of the following documents identified below:
.1 AIA Document B 101 T"t-2017, Standard Form Agreement Between Owner and Architect
AIA Document B101 ^'— 2017. Copyriaht01974 1970, 1987,1997,2007 and 2017 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights roamed. WARNING: This
Init AIA# Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and irtsmaaonal Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution or this AIA• Documant, ore
! portion or it, may result in some civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extant possible under the law. This document was 23
produced by AIA sonware at 20 53 30 ET on 0=7f2019 under Order No 7305669624 which expims on 03109=20, and is not for resale.
User Notes: (1657656531)
T
Q
Packet Pg. 501
.3 Exhibits:
(Check the appropriate box for an}; eehibils incorporated into this Agreement)
[ ] Other Exhibits incorporated into this Agreement:
(Clearly identify any other exhibits incorporated into this Agreement, inchiding an), exhibits
andscopes ofservices identified as exhibits in Section 4.1,2.)
Exhibit A - Scope of Services
Exhibit B •-•Fee Proposal
Exhibit C - Hourly rates
.4 Other documents:
(List other documents, if anj, forming part of the elgreenient )
This Ag7maj,-en _ the day and year {first written
'�OWNI (Signahve) A
Farrell Fleming Executive Dilf8lor F
(Printed name and title) (i
Iratt.
Alit Document 8 lllTM —2017. CopyrightO 1274.1978,1287,1997, 2007 and 2017 by The American Institutacf Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This
AfAe Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Trestles. Unsuthorind roproduction or distribution of this MAP Document, or any 24
portion of it, may result In severe civil and criminal penalties, end will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the taw. This document was
produced by AIA software at 20 53:30 ET on 03t27/2019 under Order No-7305669624 which expires on 0310912020. and is not for resell
User Notes: (1667656531)
Packet Pg. 502
Exhibit A - Scope of Services
iteiri SQrvices
Scope of Work includes architectural design including Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction
Documents, Bidding/Negotiation/Permitting, and Contract Administration Services as defined in the AIA B101 -2007
Contract with further clarification below.
Design Meetings — Weekly design meetings via "go to meeting° video conferencing.ln addition to these meetings we
will have one LEED charrette in Edmonds including all of of engineering consultants and the contractor.
Coordination —It is acknowledged that the site design is not part of this contract. Coordination with the site design
team and permitting is required at all phases of the project and is included in the fee. The fee is based on the
assumption that the projects (building construction and site construction) will occur during the same period with
completion within 24 months of each other. The completion of the adjacent walkway in front of the Ebb Tide may
extend past this period of time or be completed at a later date and will be managed and designed by the site team
Construction Documents Meetings —Meetings every three weeks with half of the meetings in Seattle and half in
Edmonds, WA or via video conferencing methods.
Construction Assistance — We have budgeted for sixteen (16) on4te meetings during 12 months (including pay
application meetings). One preconstruction meeting, one punchlist meeting and one back check are included in
addition to these meetings.
Our fee is based on approximately eight (8) hours per week for assistance during construction administration. It is
acknowledged that the Owner will take the lead in the administration of the construction contract and the Architect will
play a supporting role. The Owner and Architect will work closely to manage the Architect's time and fee for the
construction administration phase.
�ivll
Civil engineering will be limited to:
• Utility connections from the property line to within 5 feet of the building
• Incidental paving, grading and drainage at areas around the building between the building and the parking
area.
• Site visit to review downstream conditions
• Two team meetings and two coordination meetings with the Site Team.
• Bidding and Construction Administration Services are not included.
Landscape Resign:
All landscape design is by others and not included in this contract.
Structural engineering:
The design will be based on the 2015 International Building Code and will include sketched structural plans in support
of a schematic design estimate by the contractor. The structural design includes the design of primary structural
systems for the building and will include the design of the foundation, floor, wall, and roof framing.
Packet Pg. 503
Requirements for piles, pile depths, types and capacity values of piles, LPILE analysis, and associated soils
improvements will be specified by the geotechnical engineer. Pile design information will be incorporated into the
structural drawings. Based on noise and vibration concerns, auger -cast concrete piles are assumed in this proposal.
During design, clearance to the adjacent building foundations will also be considered to avoid interference with, or
surcharge, of the adjacent building foundations.
The Edmonds Waterfront Center is expected to have significant glazing and tall window systems in some portions of
the building. Building columns and beams are expected to be designed to support the associated glazing system
loads; however, the glazing system itself, including mullions and connections, is expected to be designed by the
glazing system supplier. Framing for the support of two foldable partitions and a Nana Wall (folding -partition style
window system) will be included. Structural design will also include structural aspects of the stringers and treads for
the main stair. Reid Middleton will also assist the architect in specifying the tie system for the exterior masonry
cladding elements.
The site work will be provided as part of a different bid package and is outside the scope of this proposal.
Design Phase structural engineering services for new Edmonds Waterfront Center will be provided in accordance
with Sections 1 through 4 of the SCOPE BELOW. Additional Services not included in the fee are highlighted. This
is based on approximately two periodic coordination meetings per design phase at the environmental WORKS
Community Design Center offices or at the Edmonds Senior Center offices.
Construction Phase structural engineering services for the new Edmonds Waterfront Center will be provided in
accordance with Section 5 of the SCOPE BELOW. Additional Services not included in the fee are highlighted. This
is based on periodic coordination meetings at the environmental WORKS Community Design Center offices or at the
Edmonds Senior Center offices, one on -site construction kick-off meeting, and six periodic observation visits during
construction.
Scope of SER's Basic Services Additional Remarks
j Services
1.0 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE
1.1 Project Definition
i
a. Define Scope of Structural Engineering Services
b. Assist in Development of Schedule
X
c. Assist in Determining Channels of Communication
X
d. Assist in Determining Number of Meetings and Site Visits
X
e. Confirm Fees and Payment Schedule
Packet Pg. 504
9.2.i
f. Execute Contract
1.2 Attend Meetings
Maximum of (2)
1.3 a. Establish Structural Design Criteria
b. Prepare Studies of Alternate Structural Systems
X
c. Assist in Selection of Structural System
d. Provide Structural Criteria for Geotechnical Consultant
e. Assist in Determining Need for Special Studies
X
No Studies Anticipated.
f. Consult with Public Agencies
For Structural Criteria.
g. Prepare Schematic Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
X
h. Suggest Possible Changes to Effect Savings
X
2.0 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE
2.1 Attend Meetings
Maximum of (2)
2.2 a. Prepare Preliminary Structural Design Calculations
b. Prepare Design Development Drawings
1. Prepare Preliminary Foundation Drawings
2. Prepare Preliminary Framing Layout Drawings
3. Prepare Typical Detail Sheet(s)
c. Prepare Outline Specifications for Structural Items
Structural Sections Only
d. Revise Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
X
Cost Estimate by Others
2.3 a. Identify Pre -Engineered Structural Elements
b. Review Results of Special Studies
X
No Studies Anticipated
c. Coordinate Structural Design with Special Design Criteria
2.4 Submit Design Development Documentation for Approval
PDF Files to Architect
3.0 CONSTRUCTIONDOCUMENTS PHASE
3.1 Attend Meetings
Maximum of (2)
3.2 a. Designate Elements to be designed by Specialty Engineers
b. Specify Structural Criteria for Specialty Engineer's Design
of Pre -En ' eered Structural Elements
c. Review Effect of Secondary or Non -Structural Elements
Attached to Primary Structural System
3.3 a. Complete Structural Calculations
b. Complete Structural Drawings
.r
Q
Packet Pg. 505
c. Prepare Specifications for the Primary Structural System
Structural Sections Only
d. Revise Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
X
Cost Estimate by Others
3.4 Check and Coordinate Structural Documents
3.5 Assist in Establishing Testing and Inspection Requirements
3.6 a. Assist in Coordination with Building Code Officials
b. Assist in Filing Construction Documents for Approval by
Building Official
X
Filed by Architect
c. Revise Construction Documents as Required by Building
Official
4.0 BIDDING PHASE (OR NEGOTIATED CONTRACTOR SELECTION)
4.1 a. Assist in Evaluating Bidders Qualifications
Based on Experience
Only
b. Provide Structural Addenda and Clarifications
c. Attend Pre -Bid Conference
(1) Walkthrough or
Conference on Site
d. Assist in Bid Evaluation
5.0 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION PHASE
5.1 a. Attend Pre -Construction Meeting
(1) Meeting
b. Assist in Establishing Communication Procedures
c. Assist in Establishing Testing and Inspection Procedures
d. Assist in Confirming Submittal Procedures
e. Assist in Selection of Testing and Inspection Agency
f. Advise Client and Contractor which Structural Elements
Require Construction Observation by SER
5.2 a. Attend Progress Meetings
I
(1) Total Meetings
b. Make Site Visits at Interval Stages of Construction
j
l
(4) Provided in Addition
to Progress Meetings
noted in Part 5.2b
c. Prepare Site Visit Reports
d. Provide Continuous or Detailed Inspections of Construction
X
5.3 Assist in Determining Amounts Due the Contractor for the
Structural Work
ReviewPercent
Complete
5.4 Provide Interpretations of Structural Construction Documents
5.5 Assist in Determining Whether Non -Conforming Structural
Work Shall be Rejected
T--i
5.6 a. Review Specified Submittals for Pre -Engineered Structural
Elements
0
L
Q
Q
0
a�
r
c
m
U
r
c
0
L
m
0
rn
ti
N
M
w
z
3
r
R
L
c
0
U
Q
Q
r
c
m
t
0
0
a
Packet Pg. 506
b. Review Submittals for Items Design by SER
c. Review Additional Submittals when Occasioned by
Improper or Incomplete Submittals
X
d. Prepare Shop or Fabrication Details
X
e. Review Information Related to Contractor's Equipment
X
f. Review Testing and Inspection Reports
g. Initiate Appropriate Action to Testing and Inspection
Reports
5.7 Assist in Preparing Change Orders Relating to Structural Work
5.8 Provide Recommendations Regarding Claims, Disputes and
Other Matters Relating to Execution or Progress of the
Structural Work
5.9 Conduct Jobsite Observation Visit to Determine Substantial
Completion of the Structural Work
Included in Part 5.2a
5.10 Provide Services Resulting from the following:
a. Errors and Omissions by the Contractor
X
b. Change Orders over which the SER has no control
X
c. Construction Procedures over which the SER has no control
X
6.0 OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES
6.1 Provide Dynamic Seismic Analysis
X
6.2 Provide the following Special Studies or Surveys:
a. Analysis of Floor Response to Footfall or Vibratory
Equipment
X
b. Services Related to Special Wind Analysis
X
C. Services Related to Seismic Risk Analysis
X
d. Studies of Prospective Sites
X
e. Analysis of Owning and Operating Costs
X
f. Feasibility Study Regarding use of Base Isolation or Other
Passive Energy Dissipation Systems
X
g. Other Special Studies or Surveys
X
6.3 Provide Complete Analysis and Design of Base Isolation or
Other Passive EgerW Dissipation System
X
6.4 Review and Determine Structural Fire Resistance Requirements
X
6.5 Provide Services Related to the following Sitework Elements
and Their Attachments:
a. Retaining Walls
X
Except Where Part of the
Building Structure
b. Culverts or Bridges
X
c. Landscape Furnishings
X
r
Q
Packet Pg. 507
d. Flagpoles or Lighting Poles
X
e. Signs
X
f. Miscellaneous Site Structures
X
6.6 Provide the following Services Related to Non -Structural or
Secondary Structural Elements and Their Attachments:
a. Exterior Cladding System
X
I
Where Cladding is
Attached to Bearing
Walls, Bearing Walls
b. Interior Architectural System .
X
c. Window Washing System and Tie Downs `
I
X
d. Antenna
X
e. Mechanical, Electrical, or Plumbing Equipment
X
f. Storage Tanks, Cooling Tower, or Underground Vaults
i X
i
g. Mechanisms, Guide Systems, or Associated Equipment for
Elevators, Escalators, or Other Conveying Systems
X
h. Stairs
X
I
Except structural
aspects of the
stringers and treads
for the main stair
j
i. Ladders, Handrails or Guardrails
X
j
j. Fall Protections Systems
X
k. Swimming Pools
X
6.7 Prepare Demolition Documents
! X
6.8 Prepare Excavation, Shoring, or Underpinning Documents
X
6.9 Prepare Record Drawings
X
a
Packet Pg. 508
6.10 Provide Services Relative to Future Facilities, Systems, and
X
Equipment
6.11 Provide Coordination of Construction Performed by Separate
X
Contractors or by Owner's Forces
6.12 Provide Coordination of Work in Conjunction with Owner
X
Supplied Equipment or Materials
6.13 Prepare Documents for Alternate Bids or Segregated Contracts
X
for Phased Construction
6.14 Provide Tenant- or Interior -Related Design Services
X
6.15 Provide Services for Special Foundations when Discovery of
X
Poor Soil Conditions is made after Execution of this Agreement
6.16 Provide Services Relative to Public Hearings, Arbitrations, or
X
Legal Proceedings
6.17 Provide Services Resulting from the following:
a. Change in Scope or Magnitude of the Project as Described and
X
Agreed to Under the Basic Services Agreement
b. Changes due to Construction Cost Ovemm
X
c. Revisions which are Inconsistent with Approvals or Instructions
X
Previously Given by Client
d. Revisions Due to Enactment or Revision of Codes, Laws, or
X
Regulations Subsequent to the Start of Preparation of Construction
Documents
e. Errors and Omissions by Consultants other than the SER
X
f. Extended Design or Construction Time Schedules
X
g. Overtime Work Required by Owner
X
6.18 Provide Services After Final Certificates for Payment or More
X
than 60 Days After Date of Substantial Completion
a
Packet Pg. 509
The following are excluded:
• Work associated with revising design as result of contractor requests for altemative methods of construction.
• Cost estimating and suggesting ideas for cost savings.
n of ianfoal grid E(lectrica� Enginear
w
Schematic Design
The consultant will:
Attend a total of eight (8) local design team meetings to review schedule, budgets and to assist in
coordinating MEP systems with other disciplines.
Provide a Schematic Design Package including:
o A Performance Narrative to be used by the general contractor for competitive procurement of
MEP design -build services.
o AutoCAD sketches for utility space requirements (electrical/plumbing equipment rooms, major
MEP equipment locations, MEP shaft requirements and preliminary louver locations).
o A preliminary electrical single -line diagram.
o Preliminary equipment cut sheets (major MEP equipment, plumbing fixtures),
• Review MEP Design -Build (D1B) proposals for project compliance and assist the Architect and General
Contractor in selection process.
Design Development and Construction Documents Phase:
The consultant will:
• Attend a total of six (6) local design team meetings.
• Provide two peer reviews for of the MEP D/B Contractor documents — one at the end of Design
Development, one at 90% CD to assure compliance with the performance criteria and the basis of
design.
Construction Administration Phase:
• Review submittal material for substantial conformity with the intent of the narrative.
Provide one site visit during the construction phase and prepare a written summary of the visit to
become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the contractors work and to determine if the
work is proceeding in general conformance with the contract documents. Such observation shall not be
construed as approval or guarantee of contractors performance or safety measures. We have included
a total of one (1) site visit at rough -in.
Review submittal 0&M Manual material for substantial conformity with the intent of the narrative
Preliminary Luminaire Selection and Layout;
The consultant will:
Attend a total of one (1) meeting to review design intent and coordinate luminaire selection for the project.
Provide a preliminary luminaire schedule and lighting layouts for Bidding by the Design- Build
Contractors (circuiting will be provided by the electrical contractor; lighting controls will be provided in
narrative form only).
Packet Pg. 510
The following are excluded and if required will be an additional service:
• Point by point interior photometrics are not included
• Point by point exterior photometrics are not included
The consultant will provide the following services in the following phases:
Design
• Attend one meeting with Architect and the Owner to discuss and coordinate the acoustical aspects of
the project. 'o
L
• Visit the site and document short-term noise and vibration levels from railway activity at the future building a
envelope. f°
a�
• Provide recommendations and detailing for construction necessary to acoustically separate the various
spaces. Recommendations would include floor, wall and ceiling construction. Performance specification
will be included for operable partitions. Detailing will be in the form of sketches. o
L
• Establish performance specifications for acceptable background noise levels throughout the facility due
to the operation of the mechanical system, for use by the design -build contractor.
■ Coordinate with architectural, structural and mechanical disciplines.
• Prepare the following deliverables: ti
• Report outlining the noise and vibration levels associated with the train. M
• Report outlining the approach to interior acoustical systems.
• Sketches of construction types.
• Input to outline or preliminary specifications
Construction Documents Phase
• Attend one meeting with Architect and the Owner to review the above.
• Coordinate with architectural, structural and mechanical disciplines.
• Refine recommendations as required to coordinate with other disciplines.
• Prepare the following CD deliverables for incorporation into the General Construction bid package:
• Performance Specifications for acoustical elements.
• Review of interim construction documents with memo outlining areas where acoustical
elements have not been incorporated.
Bidding/Negotiation Phase
Prepare addenda and interpret bid documents, as required. We will evaluate and respond to bidders'
requests for additional information. We will assist the Owner and Architect in evaluating responsive
bids.
Construction Administration Phase
• Respond to questions during construction, as required by the pace of the work. We will fumish
Packet Pg. 511
interpretation of the Contract Documents, as required. We will review submittals for conformance with
Contract Documents and design intents.
• Review shop drawings submitted by the design -build mechanical contractor for conformance with
performance specifications. An exhaustive analysis will not be performed, but rather spot-checked to
determine probably compliance. The design build contractor will be responsible for ensuring performance
specifications are satisfied.
:LEED Consulting Services:
The consultant will provide the following services in the following phases:
LEED Workshop
• Project and workshop planning meeting with key team members.
• 2-3 hour workshop to review preliminary LEED Scorecard and develop LEED Action Plan.
• Prepare a narrative of the LEED status, annotated LEED Scorecard, and an Action Plan of next steps in
general and by credit.
O Review draft report in person or provide electronic copy for review.
Incorporate feedback.
• Attend Action Plan review meeting.
Design Development Phase
• Attend two LEED Review meetings.
• Coordinate with design team on materials planning.
• Plan and coordinate post -occupancy and Innovation Credit planning meeting.
• Plan and coordinate specifications meeting and guidance.
• Conduct a sustainability/LEED Review of early DD drawings and provide a memo of comments on LEED
design issues.
• Provide technical assistance for research and analysis, including project registration and contact with GBCI, if
needed.
Construction Documents Phase
• Attend two LEED review meetings.
• Conduct a detailed review of drawings and specifications at 50 or 60%.
• Back check entire Project Manual for LEED items at 90/95% specs.
• When all final decisions on LEED points have been made, create LEED site plan. Issue LEED
Documentation Instructions Memo and PI forms to all design and construction team members.
Assign all team members to the appropriate credits on LEED online. Answer questions on the
documentation process as needed.
• Document Integrated Process Credit for an Innovation point, I applicable. Serve as a resource and
documentation support for additional Innovation credits.
• Provide technical assistance for limited research, LEED implementation and call with GBCI, if needed.
Packet Pg. 512
Construction Administration Phase
• Provide up to 20 hours of design documentation support to design team.
• Proven Provider review of all design phase LEED documentation prior to submittal to GBCI and facilitate
responses to clarifications during the review responses. Does not include time to facilitate any appeals,
if needed.
• Conduct an on -site LEED Construction kick-off meeting to review the LEED requirements
during construction, LEED submittals required from contractor and LEED best management
practices on the job site.
• Attend CA 3-4 meetings to discuss LEED issues and review status of LEED Construction
credits.
• Provide technical assistance for review of IAQ, CWM and ESC plans and troubleshoot implementation.
• Provide up to 12 hours of construction documentation support to construction team.
Close Out and Post Occupancy
Final Proven Provider review of all LEED documentation before the LEED certification
application is submitted. Facilitate responses to clarifications during the review process.
o Does not include time to facilitate any appeals, if needed.
• Facilitation of final award of LEED Certification and receipt of the LEED plaque.
• Provide an electronic copy of all LEED documentation
e�xclusfions
The following scope of work is not included in the contract and will be contracted separately by the Owner:
• Geotechnical Engineering — required prior to design completion and during construction
• Hazardous Materials Consulting - required prior to design completion and during construction
• Commissioning — required during design, construction and completion
• Energy Modelling — required for design, permitting and LEED certification
• Commercial kitchen design — for the main kitchen and the teaching kitchen
• Testing and inspections — required during construction — including building envelope review and testing,
geotechnical inspections, pile verifications, other inspections as required by local jurisdiction
• Fixtures and furnishings design and purchasing
• Public art design and installations
• Tenant improvement design for the Thrift Store and Coffee Shop
The following fees will be paid directly by the Owner and are not included in the contract (this list is based on past
project experience and is not necessarily a complete list of fees):
• Building Permit and Land Use Permit Fees
• LEED certification fees (paid directly to the USGBC)
• Meter fees
• Sewer capacity and connection fees
• Storm water management fees
• Electrical service connections
Packet Pg. 513
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT NAME EDMONDS WATERFRONT CENTER
PROJECT NUMBER 15015A
DATE 9/19/2018
CONSTRUCTION BUDGET (BUILDING
ONLY) $12,000,000 (Not including sales tax)
BUILDING TYPE Senior Center Building
SCOPE OF SERVICES Full services for new building and some site improvements
The majority of Site Work is under separate contract
Basic Services
Schematic Design
24.0%,
$206,400
Design Development
24.0%
$206,400
Construction Documents
35.0%
$301,000
Bidding/Negotiations
2.0%
$17,200
Construction Administration
14.0%
$120,400
Closeout
1.0%
$8,600
SUBTOTAL BASIC SERVICES
$860,000
100.0%
Reimbursable Expenses Allowance
$6,360
LEED Registration
$1,200
110%
$1,320
Delivery
$600
110%
$1,260
Printing
$600
110%
$1,260
Consultant Reimbursable
$1,200
110%
$2,520
TOTAL A!E FEE (with reimbursables)
$866,360
Percent of
construction
cost
7.2%
(State fee
schedule is
7.84%)
Packet Pg. 514
environmental WORKS
EXHIBIT C
Billing Rates
2018
Director
$135
Senior Architect
$125
Senior Project Manager
$125
Project Manager 3
$125
Project Manager 2
$115
Project Manager 1
$100
Project Architect 3
$125
Project Architect 2
$115
Project Architect 1
$100
EmergingErne[ging Professional
$80
Emerging Professional
$75
Emerging Professional 1
$65
GraphicsGraphicsi
$55
T
a
Packet Pg. 515
r
Q
Packet Pg. 516
9.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/2/2019
Adoption of Updated Wireless Communication Facilities Regulations in Chapter 20.50 of the Edmonds
Community Development Code, Including Small Wireless Facilities
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Michael Clugston
Background/History
January 15, 2019 - small cell wireless issue introduced to Council
February 12 - Council public hearing, interim wireless ordinance adopted (#4141) which included
aesthetic standards and location preferences for small cell projects
February 13 - Planning Board reviewed the interim ordinance
February 27 - Planning Board public hearing, recommended Council complete a final small cell ordinance
March 19 - Council discussed the Planning Board's recommendation and new information received by
staff and directed staff to prepare final regulations
March 26 - Council held public hearing on final regulations and directed staff to prepare a final
ordinance for approval in order to meet the FCC's April 14 deadline for adoption of small cell aesthetic
standards
Staff Recommendation
Approve the ordinance in Attachment 1. Approval of the ordinance will repeal the interim wireless
ordinance approved on February 12, 2019 (#4141) and replace it with final language for Wireless
Communication Facilities in Chapter 20.50 of the Edmonds Community Devleopment Code (ECDC).
Narrative
Attachment 1 is a clean version of the ordinance. Attachment 2 is a redline version of changes to the
draft code after discussions at the March 26 Council public hearing. [NOTE: Typically, both a clean
version and a redline version of an ordinance are not provided in the some packet. However, in this case,
because the full set of changes from the original Chapter 20.50 are fairly extensive --and the proposed
changes since the public hearing are limited, it seemed helpful to show both how the whole chapter
would read and what was specifically changed since the March 26 public hearing.]
Council -recommended changes
Several changes were requested for the final ordinance:
Packet Pg. 517
9.3
1) Establish buffers around schools for protecting child safety.
At the March 26 meeting, the City Attorney indicated he would look into this matter. He has since done
so and identified that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempts the City's ability to regulate based
on health impacts: "No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the
placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the
Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." (See 47 U.S.C.A. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).) Therefore,
the proposed change is not included.
2) Add safety signage to small cell installations. Language to that effect is included in ECDC
20.50.130.C.6.
3) Reinsert map request from applicant for master permit applications. This has been done. (See ECDC
20.50.020.C.2.d.)
Staff -proposed changes
Staff has also proposed several changes based on new information and to improve the clarity and
internal consistency of the proposed code language:
1) Add discretion for Council to allow innovative designs through the master permit process (ECDC
20.50.020.C.2.e).
2) Revise Location Preference #1 (hollow utility pole) to allow attachment to the exterior of a pole using
a unified enclosure if technical infeasibility is demonstrated by a wireless provider (ECDC 20.50.130.D.i).
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Final wireless ordinance ECDC 20.50 (Includes new redlines since March 26 hearing)
Attachment 2 - New redlines subsequent to March 26 Council hearing
Packet Pg. 518
9.3.a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 20.50 OF THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE,
ENTITLED "WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES."
WHEREAS, in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act), Congress enacted
sweeping new provisions intended to facilitate the deployment of telecommunications
infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, several provisions of the 1996 Act speak directly to Congress's
determination that certain state and local regulations are lawful while others are unlawful; and
WHEREAS, Section 253(a) provides that "[n]o State or local statute or regulation, or
other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of
any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service;" and
WHEREAS, Section 332(c)(7)(A) generally preserves state and local authority over the
"placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities" but with
certain limitations; and
WHEREAS, Congress specified in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i) that "[t]he regulation of the
placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or
local government or instrumentality thereof —(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among
providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services;" and
WHEREAS, Congress further specified in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) that "[n]o State or
local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of
radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's
regulations concerning such emissions;" and
as
a
0
c
0
Q.
0
Q
Packet Pg. 519
9.3.a
WHEREAS, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has authority to interpret
as
Sections 253 and 332 of the 1996 Act to further elucidate what types of state and local legal
a
requirements run afoul of the statutory parameters Congress has established; and 4-
0
c
0
:r
Q.
0
WHEREAS, America is preparing to transition to the next generation of wireless a
services, known as 5G; and
WHEREAS, in preparing for that transition, and to improve existing deficits in their 4G
networks, wireless providers have been increasingly looking to densify their networks with new
small cell deployments that have antennas often no larger than a small backpack; and
WHEREAS, the challenge for the city's policymakers is that the deployment of these
small cell networks will look different than the 3G and 4G deployments of the past, which often
involved the construction of large cell towers that could be spaced far apart; and
WHEREAS, to support advanced 4G or 5G offerings, wireless providers must build out
small cells at a faster pace and at a far greater density of deployment than before; and
WHEREAS, to meet rapidly increasing demand for wireless services and prepare our
national infrastructure for 5G, wireless providers must deploy infrastructure at significantly more
locations using these new, small cell facilities; and
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2018, in the context of the forthcoming small cell
deployment, the FCC found it necessary and appropriate to exercise its authority to interpret the
1996 Act and clarify the preemptive scope that Congress intended by issuing its Declaratory
Ruling and Third Report and Order ("FCC Order"); and
WHEREAS, the FCC asserts that its Order is part of a national strategy to promote the
timely buildout of this new infrastructure across the country by eliminating regulatory
impediments that unnecessarily add delays and costs to bringing advanced wireless services to
the public; and
WHEREAS, the FCC Order still recognizes that certain reasonable aesthetic
considerations do not run afoul of Sections 253 and 332; and
Packet Pg. 520
9.3.a
WHEREAS, the regulations contained herein are intended to, among other things, (1)
as
ensure that the design, appearance, and other features of wireless facilities are compatible with
nearby land uses; (2) mitigate, to the extent feasible and allowable under federal law, the visual
a
0
clutter associated with telecommunications infrastructure that has become a significant aesthetic
o
problem in recent years and threatens to get significantly worse with the deployment of small
-0
cell facilities; (3) manage the public right-of-way so as to ensure traffic safety and coordinate
a
various uses; and (4) protect the integrity of the city's historic, cultural, and scenic resources and
the quality of life of Edmonds' citizens; and
WHEREAS, the FCC Order states that "aesthetics requirements are not preempted if they
are (1) reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure
deployments, and (3) objective and published in advance;"
WHEREAS, the FCC Order states that "aesthetic requirements that are reasonable in that
they are technically feasible and reasonably directed to avoiding or remedying the intangible
public harm of unsightly or out -of -character deployments are also permissible;" and
WHEREAS, the FCC has given cities until April 14, 2019 to have adopted and published
its aesthetic regulations; and
WHEREAS, the city council has observed recent installations of small wireless facilities
on wood utility poles in Seattle and has found them to be undesirable in appearance due, in large
part, to the externally mounted equipment and the conduit that runs up the side of the pole; and
WHEREAS, the city council finds that these regulations promote the small cell
deployment in a manner that also balances the needs of the community while mitigating the
potential negative aesthetic impacts of that deployment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that the growing use of smart phones and
other personal devices has created a substantial need for wireless data transmission, including in
single-family neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is the steward of the public right-of-way which will
probably host most of the forthcoming small cell facilities; and
Packet Pg. 521
9.3.a
WHEREAS, as steward of the public right-of-way, the City Council must consider the
as
various competing uses of the public right-of-way, which is already crowded with various wet
a
and dry utilities both above and below ground, to say nothing of its transportation uses; and
0
c
WHEREAS, as steward of the public right-of-way, the City Council is becoming a
increasingly concerned about the rapidly increasing use of the public right-of-way by a
telecommunications infrastructure (both wired and wireless) and the careless and visually
c
displeasing manner in which much of that infrastructure has been installed recently; and M
WHEREAS, this ordinance regulates the aesthetics of wireless infrastructure, the City
Council intends to adopt, in a separate ordinance, revisions to its regulations of wired
telecommunications infrastructure, recognizing that wireline telecommunications providers are
also contributing in a significant way to the increasing visual cluttering of the public right-of-
way; and
and
WHEREAS, the wireless regulations must be adopted first because of the FCC deadline;
WHEREAS, the City Council has, on March 26, 2019, directed the administration to
prepare an ordinance that will also impose similar aesthetic requirements on wireline
telecommunications providers; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that not all utilities are similarly situated: some
(like water and sewer) can only function below ground; some (like wireless antennas) can only
function above ground; some (like wireline utilities) require the kind of continuity that can only
be provided if they are located in the public right-of-way; and some (like wireless facilities),
because they transit radio frequencies, are less reliant than wireline utilities on the continuity
provided by the public right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, in light of the different needs of the various utilities, and in light of the
limited available space in the right-of-way, the City Council intends to prioritize and preserve the
right-of-way for those utilities that most need it; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has heard the wireless industry's concerns about the
potential cost to the industry of compliance with the City's aesthetic regulations and the
Packet Pg. 522
9.3.a
industry's need to able to compete on a level playing field with the wireline telecommunications
industry; and
WHEREAS, the City Council would note that new wireline telecommunications
infrastructure is generally required to be located underground, which is similarly costly to the
wireline providers; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does not find these regulations to be any more burdensome
than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to incorporate the FCC
guidelines and provide for the streamlined review of applications and greater flexibility in siting
wireless communications facilities, including small cell facilities, within the City, and at the
same time to further the protection of the public environment through the adoption of small cell
design standards, concealment techniques and dispersion requirements; and
WHEREAS, over the next many years, the deployment of small cell facilities in the
numbers contemplated by the FCC is likely to have a cumulative negative visual impact upon the
City, which threatens to lower the quality of life of the Edmonds citizens; and
WHEREAS, the aesthetic regulations and dispersion requirements contained in this
ordinance are intended to mitigate some of that negative visual impact; and
WHEREAS, the dispersion requirement is intended to ensure that the negative visual
impact is spread evenly throughout the City, and, in so doing, make it less noticeable than it
would be if it was concentrated in certain small cell hot spots containing multiple wireless
facilities in close proximity; and
WHEREAS, a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for these regulations was
issued by the City on February 11, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on an interim set of wireless
regulations and adopted an interim ordinance, Ordinance 4141, on February 12, 2019; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the interim ordinance was sent to the
Department of Commerce for review on February 13, 2019. Expedited review was requested
as
a
0
c
0
0
Q
Packet Pg. 523
9.3.a
and Commerce responded on February 28 that the City had complied with the GMA noticing
as
requirement; and
a
WHEREAS, the Planning Board also held a public hearing and made a recommendation o
c
to the City Council on February 27, 2019; and
Q.
0
WHEREAS, the City has continued to refine its wireless regulations in response to public a
comment, new information, and direction from the City Council since the interim ordinance was c
adopted; and a
WHEREAS, the city council held another public hearing on March 26, 2019 regarding its
proposed regulations; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance 4141 of the City of Edmonds and the version of Edmonds
Community Development Code, entitled "Wireless Communication Facilities," that was adopted
thereby are hereby repealed.
Section 2. Chapter 20.50 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Wireless Communication Facilities," is hereby re -adopted to read as set forth in Attachment A
hereto, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid, preempted or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Packet Pg. 524
9.3.a
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
as
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
a
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. c
c
0
:r
Q.
APPROVED: -°a
Q
c
m
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
N
t
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: I-
as
c
.y
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY a
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Pg. 525
9.3.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2019, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 20.50 OF THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE,
ENTITLED "WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILITIES."
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of
4840-7251-8158, v. 1
N.
2019.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Q
Packet Pg. 526
9.3.a
ATTACHMENT A
c�
Chapter 20.50
Q.
4-
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
°
c
0
Sections:
a
-°a
Q
20.50.010
Purpose.
20.50.020
Applicability.
a�
L
20.50.030
Exemptions.
20.50.040
Prohibitions.
N
20.50.050
General macro facility siting criteria and design considerations.
20.50.060
Permits and shot clocks.
20.50.070
Application requirements.
a�
N
20.50.080
Eligible facilities requests.
a
20.50.090
New building -mounted macro wireless communication facility standards.
c
:a
20.50.100
New structure -mounted macro wireless communication facilities standards.
as
3
20.50.110
New monopole standards.
c
20.50.120
Temporary facilities.
U)
20.50.130
Small wireless facility standards (small cell).
°
20.50.140
Abandonment or discontinuation of use.
c
20.50.150
Maintenance.
N
20.50.160
Definitions.
v
0
U
20.50.010 Purpose.
w
th
A. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the placement, construction, modification and
appearance of wireless communication facilities, in order to protect the health, safety and
welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the deployment of competitive
wireless communication facilities throughout the city. The purpose of this chapter may be
achieved through adherence to the following objectives:
1. Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts that wireless
communication facilities might create, including but not limited to negative impacts on
aesthetics, environmentally sensitive areas, historically significant locations, flight
corridors, and health and safety of persons and property;
2. Establishment of clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless
communication facilities and services that are consistent with federal and state laws and
regulations;
3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate facilities, to the
extent fea s i b I e, in areas where the adverse impact on the public health, safety and
1
Packet Pg. 527
9.3.a
welfare is minimal;
4. For macro facilities, encourage the location of those facilities in nonresidential areas
and allow m a c r o facilities in residential areas only when necessary to meet functional
requirements of the communications industry as defined by the Federal Communications
Commission;
5. Minimize the total number of macro facilities in residential areas;
6. Encourage and, where legally permissible, require cooperation between competitors
and, as a primary option, joint use of new and existing towers, tower sites and suitable
structures to the greatest extent possible, where doing so would significantly reduce or
eliminate additional negative impact on the city;
7. Ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way that minimizes the
adverse visual impact of the facilities, as viewed from different vantage points, through
careful design, landscape screening, minimal impact siting options and camouflaging
techniques, dispersion of unscreened features to lessen the visual impact upon any
one location, and through assessment of innovative siting techniques;
8. Enable wireless communication companies to enter into lease agreements with the city
to use city property for the placement of wireless facilities, where consistent with other
public needs, as a means to generate revenue for the city;
9. Balance the City's intent to minimize the adverse impacts of wireless communication
facilities with the ability of the providers of communications services to deploy such
services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently;
10. Provide for the prompt removal of wireless communication facilities that are
abandoned or no longer inspected for safety concerns and building code compliance, and
provide a mechanism for the city to cause these abandoned wireless communication
facilities to be removed as necessary to protect the citizens from imminent harm and
danger;
11. Avoid potential damage to people and adjacent properties from tower failure and
falling equipment, through strict compliance with state building and electrical codes; and
12. Disperse the adverse impacts of small wireless facility facilities as evenly as possible
throughout the community, especially when joint use does not eliminate additional visual
impact.
B. In furtherance of these objectives, the city shall give due consideration to the zoning code,
existing land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas when approving sites for the location of
wireless communication facilities.
C. These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to
protect property values, and to minimize and disperse visual impact, while furthering the
development of enhanced communications services in the city. These objectives were
designed to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its implementing
as
Q.
4-
0
a
0
a
0
Q
2
Packet Pg. 528
9.3.a
regulations. The provisions of this chapter are not intended to and any ambiguities herein
shall not be interpreted in such a manner that would materially inhibit the deployment of
wireless communication facilities. This chapter shall not be applied in such a manner as to
unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent wireless facilities. —
c
D. To the extent that any provision of this chapter or conflicts with any other city ordinance,
this chapter shall control. Otherwise, this chapter shall be construed consistently with the o
other provisions and regulations of the city. Q
E. In reviewing any application to place, construct or modify wireless communication facilities,
the city shall act within federally required time periods. Any decision to deny an application
shall be in writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The city
shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application in accordance with this title,
this chapter, the adopted Edmonds comprehensive plan, and other applicable ordinances and
regulations.
[Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.020 Applicability.
A. Except as provided herein, all wireless communication facilities shall comply with the
provisions of this chapter. The standards and process requirements of this chapter supersede
all other review process, setback, height or landscaping requirements of the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC).
B. Environmental. All proposed installations are subject to a threshold determination under
the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) according to Chapter 20.15A ECDC unless
categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800. All proposals are subject to the critical
areas requirements in Title 23 ECDC and the shoreline master program in Title 24 ECDC
C. Master Permit Agreement Needed.
1. Consistent with chapter 35.99 RCW, any person, corporation or entity that proposes to
locate any portion of a wireless communication facility within the city right-of-way must
have a valid fully executed master permit with the city before submitting applications for
right-of-way construction permits.
2. Wireless providers interested in obtaining a master permit must apply as follows to have a
complete application:
a. make application in writing to the city attorney c/o the city clerk's office;
b. submit an electronic proposed master permit form in Word format, PROVIDED THAT,
this requirement shall no longer apply in the event that the city council has adopted a
standard master permit template;
c. submit three valid fully executed master permits that the provider has with other
cities in Washington state, PROVIDED THAT, this requirement shall be excused to the
extent that the provider does not have sufficient valid master permits in other
jurisdictions to meet that requirement;
Packet Pg. 529
9.3.a
d. submit a map showing provider's proposed new macro and small cell facilities within
the City of Edmonds over the first two years of the master permit; and
e. if the provider is seeking legislative approval for an alternative WCF design that does
not comply with this chapter, the provider may elect to use the following optional WCF
design approval process. To use this option process, the provider must submit with the
master permit application the following additional materials:
1) photographs, precise measurements, and technical specifications of the
proposed alternative WCF design;
2) a signed affidavit from a speaking agent for the provider that: a) explains, by
citing to specific city code provisions, the factual reasons why the WCFs used by the
provider cannot comply with the City's adopted aesthetic regulations; and b) attaches
photographs and technical specifications of all other WCF designs currently available to
the provider; and
3) a legal analysis as to: a) whether the City's approval of the proposed alternative
WCF would unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services; and b) whether the City's denial of the proposed alternative WCF would
prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
3. After receipt of a complete application, the city attorney and wireless provider shall
negotiate the terms of the master permit until they have agreed on terms that can be
recommended to the city council for final approval. If the city attorney and wireless provider
have not been able to reach agreement on the recommended terms of a master permit
within 60 days of the date the complete application was submitted, the wireless provider
may submit the provider's proposed master permit form to the council president directly
and request that the provider's proposed master permit be added to a forthcoming city
council agenda for consideration. The city council shall conduct a public hearing on the
proposed master permit, including any renewal.
4. The final decision on any proposed master permit shall be subject to legislative discretion
of the city council and the ordinance authorizing the master permit must be approved by a
majority of the full council. Any denial of a proposed master permit must be supported by
substantial evidence contained in a written record.
5. Any prior adoption by the city council of a master permit template, as contemplated in
subsection C.2.b, above, is merely intended to facilitate future master permit negotiations
and should in no way be seen as limiting the city council's legislative discretion to approve or
reject a similar master permit that has come before the city council for action.
6. Master permit terms shall not exceed five years. Master permits shall require the City to
be indemnified by the provider and that indemnification shall be support by insurance that
names the City as an additional insured.
D. Right -of -Way Construction Permit. A right-of-way construction permit is required prior to
performing any work within the city right-of-way pursuant to ECDC Title 18.
as
Q.
0
a
0
a
0
Q
4
Packet Pg. 530
9.3.a
[Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. -0
m
c�
Q.
M
20.50.030 Exemptions. —
c
The following are exemptions from the provisions of this chapter:
a
A. Radar systems for military and civilian communication and navigation. Q
B. Handheld, mobile, marine and portable radio transmitters and/or receivers.
c
C. Satellite antennas, including direct to home satellite services, and those regulated in ECDC
16.20.050(D).
N
D. Licensed amateur (ham) radio stations and citizen band stations as regulated in ECDC
16.20.050 (E).
E. Earth station antenna(s) one meter or less in diameter and located in any zone.
N
F. Earth station antenna(s) two meters or less in diameter and located in the business and a
commercial zones.
G. Routine maintenance or repair of wireless communication facilities.
H. Emergency communications equipment or a COW or other temporary WCF during a
declared public emergency.
I. A temporary wireless communication facility or COW for providing coverage during a special
event such as a festival, subject to approval by the City. Such a facility is exempt from the
provisions of this chapter for up to three days before the special event begins and three days
after the special event ends.
J. A temporary wireless communication facility or COW for providing service during repair or
replacement of an existing facility for a period of up to 14 days.
K. Subject to compliance with all other applicable standards of this chapter, a building permit
and/or right-of-way permit application need not be filed for emergency repair or maintenance
of a facility until five business days after the completion of such emergency activity. [Ord.
3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.040 Prohibitions.
A. The following wireless communication facilities are prohibited in Edmonds:
1. Guyed towers.
2. Lattice towers.
B. Monopoles are prohibited in the following locations:
1. All residential zones (single-family (SF) and multifamily (MF));
2. Downtown waterfront activity center;
5
Packet Pg. 531
9.3.a
3. Public (P) and open space (OS) zoned parcels; and -0
as
4. Within the city rights -of -way. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. -a
Q.
20.50.050 General macro facility siting criteria and design considerations. -
A. The city of Edmonds encourages wireless communication providers to use existing sites or o
more frequent, less noticeable sites instead of attempting to provide coverage through use of o
taller towers. To that end, applicants shall consider the following priority of preferred locations Q
for wireless communication facilities:
1. Collocation, without an increase in the height of the building, pole or structure
upon which the facility would be located;
2. Collocation, where additional height is necessary above existing building, pole, or
structure;
3. A replacement pole or structure for an existing one;
4. A new pole or structure altogether.
B. New monopole facilities must include mounts capable of accommodating at least one
other wireless provider.
C. Noise. Any facility that requires a generator or other device which will create noise audible
beyond the boundaries of the site must demonstrate compliance with Chapter 5.30 ECC, Noise
Abatement and Control. A noise report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted
with any application to construct and operate a wireless communication facility that will have a
generator or similar device. The city may require that the report be reviewed by a third -party
expert at the expense of the applicant.
D. Business License Requirement. Any person, corporation or entity that operates a wireless
communication facility within the city shall have a valid business license issued annually by the
city. Any person, corporation or other business entity which owns a monopole also is required
to obtain a business license on an annual basis.
E. Signage. Only safety signs or those mandated by a government entity with jurisdiction may
be located on wireless communication facilities. No other types of signs are permitted on
wireless communication facilities.
F. Any application must demonstrate that there is sufficient space for temporary parking for
regular maintenance of the proposed facility.
G. Finish. A monopole may be constructed of laminated wood, fiberglass, steel, or similar
material. The pole shall be a neutral color so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness, subject to any
applicable standards of the FAA or FCC.
H. Design. The design of all buildings and ancillary structures shall use materials, colors,
textures, screening and landscaping that will blend the facilities with the natural setting and
built environment.
0
Packet Pg. 532
9.3.a
I. Color. All antennas and ancillary facilities located on buildings or structures other than
monopoles shall be of a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with the color of
the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and ancillary facilities as visually
unobtrusive as possible.
J. Lighting. Monopoles shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC or other
government entity with jurisdiction. If lighting is required and alternative lighting options are
permitted, the city shall review the lighting alternatives and approve the design that would
cause the least disturbance to the surrounding area. No strobe lighting of any type is
permitted on any monopole. If FAA guidelines would require a strobe, the location shall be
denied unless no other site or combination of sites would provide adequate coverage in accord
with FCC requirements.
K. Advertising. No advertising is permitted at wireless communication facility sites or on any
ancillary structure or facilities equipment enclosure.
L. Equipment Enclosure. Each applicant shall use the smallest equipment enclosure practical
to contain the required equipment and a reserve for required collocation.
M. Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance. The applicant shall demonstrate that the project
will not result in levels of radio frequency emissions that exceed FCC standards, including FCC
Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines
for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended. Additionally, if
the director determines the wireless communication facility, as constructed, may emit radio
frequency emissions that are likely to exceed Federal Communications Commission
uncontrolled/general population standards in the FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET)
Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended, in areas accessible by the general population,
the director may require post -installation testing to determine whether to require further
mitigation of radio frequency emissions. The cost of any such testing and mitigation shall be
borne by the applicant.
N. Landscaping and Screening.
1. The visual impacts of wireless communication facilities should be mitigated and
softened through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of a monopole,
facility equipment compound, equipment enclosures and ancillary structures. If the antenna
is mounted flush on an existing building, or camouflaged as part of the building and other
equipment is housed inside an existing structure, no landscaping is required. The director
or his designee may reduce or waive the standards for those sides of the wireless
communication facility that are not in public view, when a combination of existing
vegetation, topography, walls, decorative fences or other
features achieve the same degree of screening as the required landscaping; in locations
where the visual impact of the facility would be minimal; and in those locations where
large wooded lots not capable of subdivision and natural growth around the property
perimeter provide a sufficient buffer.
Q
7
Packet Pg. 533
9.3.a
2. Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of fences in accordance with Chapter
20.13 ECDC. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and
may be used as a substitute for or as a supplement to landscaping or screening
requirements. The following requirements apply: —
c
a. Type I landscaping shall be placed around the perimeter of the equipment cabinet
enclosure, except that a maximum 10-foot portion of the fence may remain without o
landscaping in order to provide access to the enclosure. Q
b. Landscaping area shall be a minimum of five feet in width around the perimeter of
the enclosure.
c. Vegetation selected should be native and drought tolerant.
d. Landscaping shall be located so as not to create sight distance hazards or conflicts
with other surrounding utilities.
3. When landscaping is used, the applicant shall submit a landscaping bond pursuant to
ECDC 20.13.040.
4. The use of chain link, plastic, vinyl or wire fencing is prohibited. Ornamental metal or
wood fencing materials are preferred. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]
20.50.060 Permits and Shot Clocks.
A. No person may place, construct, reconstruct, modify or operate a wireless communication
facility subject to this chapter without first having in place a master permit agreement
pursuant to ECDC 20.50.020.0 and the permit(s) issued in accordance with this chapter.
Except as otherwise provided herein, the requirements of this chapter are in addition to the
applicable requirements of this title and ECDC Title 18. Any wires, cables, conduit or
equipment associated with a wireless communication facility shall be subject to the
requirements of chapter 18.05 ECDC, unless wireless facilities are expressly exempted from a
provision of chapter 18.05 ECDC or the context necessitates that a provision of chapter 18.05
ECDC not apply to wireless facilities
B. Applications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless communication facilities
requested to be permitted. Each wireless communication facility requires the appropriate type
of project permit review, as shown in Table A. In the event of uncertainty on the type of a
wireless facility, the director shall have the authority to determine what permits are required
for the proposed facility.
0
Packet Pg. 534
9.3.a
Table A
Building
Right -of-
FCC Shot
Permit
Way (ROW)
Clocks for
Request
Location
Required
Permit
Permit
Required
Review
Eligible facilities request
Existing tower or
Yes, if on
Yes, if in
60 days
base station
private
ROW
property
New macro facility
Collocation
Yes, if any
Yes, if any
90 days
elements on
elements in
private
the ROW
property
New macro facility
New structure or
Yes, if any
Yes, if any
150 days
monopole
elements on
elements in
private
the ROW
property
New small wireless facility
Collocation
Yes, if on
Yes, if any
60 days
private
elements in
property
the ROW
New small wireless facility
New structure or
Yes, if any
Yes, if any
90 days
freestanding
elements on
elements in
small wireless
private
the ROW
facility
property
Temporary facility
Varies
Yes, if any
Yes, if any
Standard
elements on
elements in
permit
private
the ROW
quotes
property
as
Q.
M
4-
0
c
0
a
0
Q
a�
c
m
to
N
t
V
L
C�
G
a�
c
N
U)
am
c
a�
L
r
c
m
E
r
a
E
M
2
Q
Packet Pg. 535
9.3.a
C. Timelines. -0
m
1. Macro facilities.
Q.
The application review period begins when all required application materials have been -
received and fees paid. If the City determines that the application is incomplete and c
0
provides notice to the applicant within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of application, a
the clock stops. The clock restarts when the City receives the applicant's supplemental -°a
submission in response to the City's notice of incompleteness. For subsequent Q
determinations of incompleteness, the clock tolls (pauses) if the City provides written notice
within ten (10) days that a supplemental submission did not provide the requested
information.
2. Small wireless facilities.
The application review period begins when all required application materials have been
received and fees paid. If the City determines that the application is incomplete and
provides notice to the applicant within ten (10) calendar days of the date of application, the
clock stops. The clock resets to zero (0) when the City receives the applicant's supplemental
submission in response to the City's notice of incompleteness. For subsequent
determinations of incompleteness, the clock tolls (pauses) if the City provides written notice
within ten (10) days that a supplemental submission did not provide the requested
information.
D. Batched small wireless facility applications.
If an applicant is applying for a small wireless network in a contiguous service area, multiple
small wireless facilities may be batched into one application, PROVIDED THAT the application
fee shall still be calculated as if the applications were submitted separately. The director or
his/her designee may approve, deny or conditionally approve all or any portion of the small
wireless facilities proposed in the application. The denial of one or more small wireless facility
locations within one submission shall not be the sole basis for a denial of other locations or the
entire batched application for small wireless facilities. Should an applicant file a single
application for a batch that includes both collocated and new structures for small wireless
facilities, the longer 90-day shot clock shall apply to ensure the City has adequate time to
review the new construction sites.
E. Any application submitted pursuant to this chapter for projects located on public or private
property shall be reviewed and evaluated by the director, or his designee. The director of
public works or his/her designee shall review all proposed wireless communication facilities
that are located partially or fully within the city rights -of -way. Regardless of whether the
director or the director of public works or their respective designees are reviewing the
application, all applications will be reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this
chapter.
F. All applications for wireless communication facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with
the applicable design standards by the director or his/her designee.
G. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate
10
Packet Pg. 536
9.3.a
governing body with jurisdiction (i.e., Washington State Department of Labor and Industries,
Federal Aviation Administration, etc.).
H. No provision of this chapter shall be interpreted to allow the installation of a wireless
communication facility which minimizes parking, landscaping or other site development
standards established by the Edmonds Community Development Code.
I. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this chapter shall not be eligible
for variances under Chapter 20.85 ECDC. Any request to deviate from this chapter shall be
based solely on the exceptions set forth in this chapter.
J. Third -Party Review. Applicants may use various methodologies and analyses, including
geographically based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the
services to be provided utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such as
expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and topographic constraints that
affect signal paths. In certain instances, a third -party expert may be needed to review the
engineering and technical data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The city may at its
discretion require third -party engineering and technical review as part of a permitting process.
The costs of the technical third -party review shall be borne by the applicant.
1. The selection of the third -party expert is at the discretion of the city. The third -party
expert review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and be a site -
specific review of engineering and technical aspects of the proposed wireless
communication facilities and/or a review of the applicants' methodology and equipment
used, and is not intended to be a subjective review of the site which was selected by an
applicant. Based on the results of the expert review, the city may require changes to the
proposal. The third -party review shall address the following:
a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions;
b. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies;
c. The validity of conclusions reached;
d. The viability of other site or sites in the city for the use intended by the
applicant; and
e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the city.
K. Any decision by the director or the director of public works shall be given substantial
deference in any appeal of a decision by the city to either approve, approve with conditions, or
deny any application for a wireless communication facility.
L. Notwithstanding other remedies that may be available under federal law, failure of the City
to issue permits within or otherwise comply with the FCC shot clock requirements does not
provide a "deemed" grant of approval for macro or small wireless facilities. No work may occur
until the permit issues.
[Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 20111.
as
Q.
0
a
0
a
0
Q
11
Packet Pg. 537
9.3.a
20.50.070 Application requirements.
The following information must be submitted as part of a complete application for a
wireless communication facility permit in the city of Edmonds:
A. Project description including a design narrative, technology description, and, for macro cell
facilities, a collocation analysis indicating the alternative locations considered;
B. Aerial photo or map showing entire proposed deployment (small wireless only);
C. Site information on scaled plans, including:
1. Site plan;
2. Elevation drawings;
3. Utility plan showing existing utilities, proposed facility location, and undergrounding;
4. Screening, camouflaging or landscaping plan and cost estimate (produced in
accordance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC), as appropriate;
D. Photos and photo simulations showing the existing appearance of each site and
appearance of the proposed installation from nearby public viewpoints;
E. Noise report (per ECDC 20.50.050(C)), if applicable;
F. Radio Frequency (RF) emissions standards. The applicant shall provide the certification of an
RF engineer with knowledge of the proposed development that the small wireless facility
network will comply with RF standards adopted by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). The City recognizes that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives the FCC sole
jurisdiction in the field of regulation of RF emissions and wireless facilities that meet FCC
standards shall not be conditioned or denied on the basis of RF impacts.
G. For small wireless facility deployments, the following additional documentation shall be
provided as initial justification for the proposed location pursuant to the location preference
criteria set forth in ECDC 20.50.130.13, as applicable:
1. For installations proposed for Location Preference #2 (Freestanding small wireless
facility or new street light), provide all of the following to the extent applicable within
150 lineal feet in either direction of each proposed small wireless facility location as
measured along the right-of-way line for the applicable street:
a. WHERE NO POLES EXIST IN THE AREA: Evidence that no utility poles, traffic signal
poles, or street light poles exist;
b. WHERE POLES EXIST THAT CANNOT FULLY CONCEAL A SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY:
Written documentation from all pole owners, denying the applicant's request to
replace any of the existing poles that are not capable of hosting a fully concealed
small wireless facility with a new pole that is capable of hosting a fully concealed
small wireless facility on the grounds that no such replacement pole is available on
the market or due to other reasonably insoluble problems expressed in writing by
the pole owner;
Q
12
Packet Pg. 538
9.3.a
c. WHERE POLES EXIST THAT CAN FULLY CONCEAL A SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY:
Written documentation from all owners of poles within 150 lineal feet in either
direction of each proposed small wireless facility location, as measured along the
right-of-way line for the applicable street, denying the applicant's request to install
the small wireless facility within any such existing poles.
2. For installations proposed for Location Preference #3 (On top of existing power pole)
provide all of the following to the extent applicable within 150 lineal feet in either
direction of each proposed small wireless facility location as measured along the right-
of-way line for the applicable street:
a. Documentation as required in G.1, above; and
b. Evidence that the design standards for a freestanding small wireless facility in the
right-of-way could not be met; and
c. Confirmation by the director of public works that a new street light pole capable of
hosting a fully concealed small wireless facility was not determined to be needed.
3. For installations proposed for Location Preference #4 (In communication space on
existing power pole) provide all of the following to the extent applicable within 150
lineal feet in either direction of each proposed small wireless facility location as
measured along the right-of-way line for the applicable street:
a. Documentation as required in G.1, and G.2, above; and
b. Evidence that no power poles exist that would allow for installation on top of the
pole; or
c. Written documentation from all owners of the power poles denying the request to
install the small wireless facility on any such power poles that would allow for
installation on top of the pole.
4. For installations proposed for Location Preference #5 (Strand -mounted) provide all of
the following to the extent applicable within 150 lineal feet in either direction of each
proposed small wireless facility location as measured along the right-of-way line for the
applicable street:
a. Documentation as required in G.1, G.2, and G.3, above; and
b. Evidence that no power poles exist that would allow for installation within the
communication space; or
c. Written documentation from all owners of the power poles denying the request to
install the small wireless facility on any such existing power poles that would allow
for installation within the communication space.
5. For each small wireless facility to be placed on or at the location of an existing pole,
whether that pole is to be replaced or whether it is to remain, written documentation of
the pole owner's consent to the applicant's proposed placement at that location.
6. Demonstration of compliance with the National Electric Safety Code.
H. A copy of the provider's approved master permit.
Q
13
Packet Pg. 539
9.3.a
Any other documentation deemed necessary by the director in order to issue a decision. -0
[Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
Q.
20.50.080 Eligible facilities requests.
4-
This section implements section 6409 of the Spectrum Act (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1455), which °
c
requires the City of Edmonds to approve any eligible facilities request for a modification of an a
existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of -°a
such tower or base station. Q
A. Definitions. The following definitions only apply to eligible facilities requests as described
in this section and do not apply throughout this chapter.
1. Base Station is a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC -licensed or
authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications
network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein nor any equipment
associated with a tower. Base station includes, without limitation:
a. Equipment associated with wireless communications services as well as unlicensed
wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul.
b. Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and back-up
power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration
(including distributed antenna systems ("DAS") and small wireless facility networks).
c. Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed
(with jurisdiction) under this section, supports or houses equipment described in
subsections (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this section that has been reviewed and approved under
the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review
process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing
that support.
The term does not include any structure that, at the time the relevant application is filed
with the City under this section, does not support or house equipment described in
subsections (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this section.
2. Collocation. The mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible
support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals
for communication purposes.
3. Eligible Facilities Request. Any request for modification of an existing tower or base
station that does not substantially increase the physical dimensions of such tower or base
station, involving:
a. Collocation of new transmission equipment;
b. Removal of transmission equipment; or
c. Replacement of transmission equipment.
14
Packet Pg. 540
9.3.a
4. Eligible Support Structure. Any tower or base station as defined in this section;
provided, that it is existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the City.
Q.
5. Existing. A constructed tower or base station is existing if it has been reviewed and
4-
approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local
r-
regulatory review process; provided, that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved
°
a
because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is o
existing for purposes of this definition. Q
6. Site. For towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, the current boundaries of
the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements
currently related to the site, and, for other eligible support structures, further restricted to
that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already
deployed on the ground.
7. Substantial Change. A modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of an
eligible support structure if it meets any of the following criteria:
a. For towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, it increases the height of
the tower by more than ten (10) percent or by the height of one (1) additional antenna
array with separation from the nearest existing antenna, not to exceed twenty (20) feet,
whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it increases the height of the
structure by more than ten (10) percent or more than ten (10) feet, whichever is
greater.
Changes in height should be measured from the original support structure in
cases where deployments are or will be separated horizontally, such as on
buildings' rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height should be
measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of
originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved
prior to the passage of the Spectrum Act;
b. For towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, it involves adding an
appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower
more than ten (10) feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of
the appurtenance, whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it involves
adding an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge
of the structure by more than six (6) feet;
c. For any eligible support structure, it involves installation of more than the standard
number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four
cabinets; or, for towers in the public streets and base stations, it involves installation of
any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no preexisting ground cabinets
associated with the structure, or else involves installation of ground cabinets that are
more than ten (10) percent larger in height or overall volume than any other ground
cabinets associated with the structure;
15
Packet Pg. 541
9.3.a
d. It entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site;
e. It would defeat the concealment elements of the eligible support structure; or
f. It does not comply with conditions associated with the siting approval of the
construction or modification of the eligible support structure or base station equipment;
provided, however, that this limitation does not apply to any modification that is
noncompliant only in a manner that would not exceed the thresholds identified above.
B. Qualification as an Eligible Facilities Request. Upon receipt of an application for an eligible
facilities request, the Director will review the application to determine whether it qualifies as an
eligible facilities request.
C. Time Frame for Review. Within sixty (60) days of the date on which a network provider
submits an eligible facilities request application, the Director must approve the application
unless it determines that the application is not covered by this section.
D. Tolling of the Time Frame for Review. The sixty (60) day review period begins to run when
the application is submitted, and may be tolled only by mutual agreement by the Director and
the applicant or in cases where the Director determines that the application is incomplete. The
time frame for review of an eligible facilities request is not tolled by a moratorium on the
review of applications.
1. To toll the time frame for incompleteness, the Director must provide written notice to
the applicant within thirty (30) days of receipt of the application, clearly and specifically
delineating all missing documents or information required in the application.
2. The time frame for review begins running again when the applicant makes a
supplemental submission in response to the Director's notice of incompleteness.
3. Following a supplemental submission, the Director will notify the applicant within ten
(10) days that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in
the original notice delineating missing information. The time frame is tolled in the case of
second or subsequent notices pursuant to the procedures identified in this subsection.
Second or subsequent notice of incompleteness may not specify missing documents or
information that was not delineated in the original notice of incompleteness.
E. Determination That Application Is Not an Eligible Facilities Request. If the Director
determines that the applicant's request does not qualify as an eligible facilities request, the
Director must deny the application.
F. Failure to Act. In the event the Director fails to approve or deny a request for an eligible
facilities request within the time frame for review (accounting for any tolling), the request is
deemed granted. The deemed grant does not become effective until the applicant notifies the
Director in writing after the review period has expired (accounting for any tolling) that the
application has been deemed granted.
as
Q.
4-
0
a
0
a
0
Q
16
Packet Pg. 542
9.3.a
G. To the extent feasible, additional antennas and equipment shall maintain the appearance
intended by the original facility, including, but not limited to, color, screening, landscaping,
camouflage, concealment techniques, mounting configuration, or architectural treatment.
[Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.090 New building -mounted macro wireless communication facility standards.
A. General. Wireless communication facilities located on the roof or on the side of the building
shall be grouped together, integrated to the maximum possible degree with the building
design, placed toward the center of the roof and/or thoroughly screened from residential
building views and from public views using radio frequency -transparent panels. Building -
mounted wireless communication facilities shall be painted with nonreflective colors to match
the existing surface where the antennas are mounted.
B. Height. The following requirements shall apply:
1. Downtown Waterfront/Activity Center (As Identified in the Edmonds Comprehensive
Plan). For buildings at, or which exceed, the height limit of the underlying zone, antennas
shall be flush -mounted and no portion of the antenna may extend above the building on
which it is mounted. For buildings below the height limit, antennas may be built to the
maximum height of the zone provided they are screened consistent with the existing
building in terms of color, architectural style and material. Flush -mounted antennas may
encroach into a required setback or into the city right-of-way if a right-of-way use
agreement is established with the city. Antennas shall not project into the right-of-way by
more than two feet and shall provide a minimum clearance height of 20 feet over any
pedestrian or vehicular right-of-way.
2. Outside the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. The maximum height of building -
mounted facilities and equipment shall not exceed nine feet above the top of the roof on
which the facility is located. This standard applies to all buildings regardless of whether
they are at or above the maximum height of the underlying zone. Such antennas must be
well integrated with the existing structure or designed to look like common rooftop
structures such as chimneys, vents and stovepipes.
C. Equipment Enclosure. Equipment enclosures for building -mounted wireless communication
facilities shall first be located within the building on which the facility is located. If an
equipment enclosure within the building is reasonably unavailable, then an equipment
enclosure may be incorporated into the roof design provided the enclosure meets the height
requirement for the zone. If the equipment can be screened by placing the equipment below
existing parapet walls, no additional screening is required. If screening is required, then the
screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, architectural style and
material. Finally, if there is no other choice but to locate the equipment enclosure on the
ground, the equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the
setbacks of the underlying zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050(N).
D. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and cables should be located below the parapet
of the rooftop, if present. If the feed lines and cables are visible from a public right-of-way or
as
Q.
4-
0
a
0
a
0
Q
17
Packet Pg. 543
9.3.a
adjacent property, they must be painted to match the color scheme of the building.
01
Acceptable Building -Mounted WCF
Unacceptable Building -Mounted WCF
[Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.100 New structure -mounted macro wireless communication facilities standards.
A. Generally. Wireless communication facilities located on structures other than buildings,
such as utility poles, light poles, flag poles, transformers, and/or tanks, shall be designed to
blend with these structures and be mounted on them in an inconspicuous manner.
1. Wireless communication facilities located on structures within unzoned city rights -of -
way adjacent to single-family residential (RS) zones shall satisfy the following requirement
a. No metal pole or tower shall be used within the right-of-way adjacent to a single-
family zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the provisions of
the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the
surrounding residential neighborhood shall be used unless prohibited by the State
Electrical Code.
2. Wireless communication facilities located on structures shall be painted with
nonreflective colors in a scheme that blends with the underlying structure.
as
a
0
a
0
:r
Q.
0
4
18
Packet Pg. 544
9.3.a
B. Height.
as
1. The maximum height of structure -mounted wireless communication facilities shall not
Q.
exceed the maximum height specified for each structure or zoning district (rights -of -way
are unzoned); provided the wireless communication facility may extend up to six feet
4-
°
above the top of the structure on which the wireless communication facility is installed.
c
Antennas and related equipment shall be mounted as close as practicable to the structure.
o
2. Only one extension is permitted per structure.
Q
3. If installed on an electrical transmission or distribution pole, a maximum 15-foot
a�
L
vertical separation is required from the height of the existing power lines at the site (prior
to any pole replacement) to the bottom of the antenna. This vertical separation is intended
N
to allow wireless carriers to comply with the electrical utility's requirements for separation
between their transmission lines and the carrier's antennas.
C. Equipment Enclosure. Equipment enclosures shall first be located underground. If the
enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure shall be underground. If there is no other
feasible option but to locate the equipment enclosure above ground on private property, the
equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the setbacks of the
underlying zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050(N).
D. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cable. Feed lines and cables must be painted to closely match the
color scheme of the structure which supports the antennas.
E. Only wireless communication providers with a valid master permit shall be eligible to apply
for a right-of-way construction permit, which shall be required prior to installation of facilities
within the city right-of-way and be in addition to other permits specified in this chapter.
19
Packet Pg. 545
9.3.a
Acceptable Structure -Mounted WCF
Unacceptable Structure -Mounted WCF
[Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
m
a
4-
0
c
0
a
0
Q
20
Packet Pg. 546
9.3.a
20.50.110 New monopole standards.
A. No part of a monopole, antennas or antenna equipment may exceed the maximum height
allowed in the zone where the facility is located.
B. Monopoles must be completed shrouded. All antennas, equipment and cables must be
concealed.
C. All monopole facilities must conform to the following site development standards:
1. To the greatest extent possible, monopole facilities shall be located where existing trees,
existing structures and other existing site features camouflage these facilities.
2. Existing mature vegetation should be retained to the greatest possible degree in order to
help conceal the facility.
3. Equipment Enclosure. The first preference is for the equipment enclosure to be located
underground. If the enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure must be
underground. If there is no other choice but to locate the equipment enclosure on the
ground, the equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the
setbacks of the underlying zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050(N).
Acceptable Monopole WCF
Q
21
Packet Pg. 547
9.3.a
Unacceptable Monopole WCF
[Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.120 Temporary facilities.
A. The installation of a "cell -on -wheels" or COWS and the installation site shall comply with all
applicable laws, statutes, requirements, rules, regulations, and codes, including, but not limited
to, the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and National Electric Code.
B. All COWs and related appurtenances shall be completely removed from the installation site
within 30 days of the date of the end of the emergency as determined by the mayor. [Ord.
3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.130 Small wireless standards and approval process.
Unlike macro facilities which are intended to provide wireless coverage over large areas, the
goal of a small wireless facility deployment is to provide additional capacity in localized areas,
including residential neighborhoods, using smaller antennas and equipment. The intent of this
section is to describe the City's location preferences for small wireless facility deployments and
provide appropriate design standards to ensure that the negative visual impacts of small
wireless facilities are minimized.
A. Permitted locations.
Installation of small wireless facilities on existing buildings could help minimize the negative
visual impact of additional wires, antennas and equipment that may otherwise be placed on
utility poles. However, it is understood that a multi -node deployment may not be able to be
located entirely on buildings as it may not be technically feasible to do so and in addition, some
property owners within the desired small wireless facility deployment area may not want to
participate. A mix of zoned property and right-of-way locations may be used.
m
c�
Q.
4-
0
a
0
a
0
Q
22
Packet Pg. 548
9.3.a
1. Small wireless facility attachments to buildings are permitted in any zone and are not
subject to the dispersion requirement below.
2. Fully concealed freestanding small wireless facilities are permitted in any zone (except
Downtown Business) but are still subject to the dispersion requirement below.
3. Dispersion Requirement: No two small wireless facilities shall be located within 300 feet
radially, PROVIDED THAT this dispersion requirement shall not apply to small wireless
facilities that are located pursuant to location preference #1, below, AND FURTHER
PROVIDED THAT this dispersion requirement shall not apply to collocation in a fully
concealed pole.
4. Downtown Business district (BD) zones shall be limited to building attachments or
hollow utility poles. Where a Sternberg street light exists, replacement or new
installation of a decorative street light shall match the style and character of the existing
Sternberg street lights, as determined by the Public Works Director, and shall be
designed to contain a small wireless facility in a fully concealed manner. Small wireless
facilities shall not be attached to Sternberg street lights that were not designed to host
fully concealed small wireless facilities.
5. In areas where utility systems are underground, small cell facility deployment will be
limited to existing buildings, new or replaced street lights and/or installation of
freestanding small cell facilities.
6. Small wireless facilities may not be located on sites identified on official local, state or
federal historic registries.
7. Small wireless facilities may not be located on wood poles that contain a street light.
B. Location preference hierarchy.
When locating small wireless facilities in the right-of-way, wireless providers shall site their
small wireless facilities pursuant to the following siting preferences. These siting preferences
are expressed in descending order, starting with the most preferred. Wireless providers may
not descend to a lower preference in the list below until they have determined that the higher
preferences are not feasible in accordance with ECDC 20.50.070.G. Failure to show lack of
feasibility of a higher preference shall be grounds for denial of an application.
Location Preference #1— Hollow utility pole
Location Preference #2 — Freestanding small wireless facility or new street light
Location Preference #3 — Existing power pole (installation on top of pole)
Location Preference #4 — Existing power pole (installation in communication space)
Location Preference #5 — Strand -mounted
Q
23
Packet Pg. 549
9.3.a
C. General Design Standards. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the following
general design standards apply to all small wireless facilities.
1. Collocation. All new poles must be capable of accepting at least two wireless facilities in
a fully concealed manner, unless accommodation of a second facility is not technically
feasible.
2. Ground mounted equipment in the rights -of -way is prohibited, unless the applicant can
demonstrate that pole mounted or undergrounded equipment is technically infeasible.
If ground mounted equipment is necessary, the equipment must be fully concealed.
Generators located in the rights -of -way are prohibited.
3. No equipment shall be operated so as to produce noise in violation of Chapter 5.30 ECC.
4. Replacement poles, new poles, and all equipment shall comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), city construction and sidewalk clearance standards, and state
and federal regulations in order to provide a clear and safe passage within the rights -of -
way.
5. Replacement poles shall be located as near as possible to the existing pole with the
requirement to remove the abandoned pole.
6. Except for the health warning signage referenced below, no signage, message, or
identification other than the manufacturer's identification or identification required by
governing law is allowed to be portrayed on any antenna, and any such signage on
equipment enclosures shall be of the minimum amount possible to achieve the intended
purpose; provided, that signs are permitted as concealment techniques where
appropriate. All small wireless facilities shall have affixed to them a health warning sign.
The health warning sign shall be sized and oriented in such a manner as to be legible
from the sidewalk. The health warning sign shall not exceed one square foot in area. The
health warning sign shall read as follows: "WARNING: This device transmits radiation.
The long term consequences of exposure to such radiation upon human health are
unknown." The warning language shall be accompanied by the following symbol:
((jM))
8. Antennas and related equipment may not be illuminated except for security reasons,
required by a federal or state authority, or unless approved as part of a concealment
element such as a streetlight.
m
Q.
M
4-
0
c
0
a
0
Q
24
Packet Pg. 550
9.3.a
9. The director is authorized to approve applications that deviate from the general design
standards, above, and the specific design standards, below, to the extent necessary to
approve an application that is consistent with the applicant's alternative WCF design,
but only where that applicant has already had the proposed alternative WCF design
—
approved by the city council pursuant to the optional process set forth in ECDC
o
20.50.020.C.2.e, above. City council approval of an alternative WCF design does not
a
necessarily make other design standards inapplicable to that provider. Applicants shall
Q
comply with the other design standards herein as much as their alternative WCF design
allows.
D. Specific Design Standards for Facilities in the Right -of -Way
Location Preference #1— Hollow utility pole. This option applies to any existing pole in
the right-of-way (power pole, street light pole, traffic light pole), that could feasibly be
replaced with a hollow pole designed to host small wireless facilities in a fully concealed
manner. In many, but not all instances, this location preference will involve the
replacement of a wood pole with a hollow pole that serves the same needs as its
predecessor while also hosting small wireless facilities in a fully concealed manner.
a. Combination small wireless facility and power pole must meet the pole owner's
requirements for power distribution. New combination small wireless facility and
power poles must be designed to host small wireless facilities from at least two
carriers in a fully enclosed manner. 5G antennas only may be exposed until such
time that the technology develops to make concealment of 5G antennas feasible.
b. Combination small wireless facility and streetlight pole should be located where an
existing streetlight pole can be utilized or removed and replaced with a pole that
allows for small wireless facility installation in the same location.
c. Pole design shall match or be compatible with the aesthetics of existing streetlights
installed adjacent to the pole.
25
Packet Pg. 551
9.3.a
d. Where a Sternberg street light exists in the
downtown business district (BD) zones,
replacement or new installation of a
decorative street light shall match the style
and character of the existing Sternberg street
lights, as determined by the Public Works
Director, and shall be designed to contain a
small wireless facility in a fully concealed
manner.
e. The pole shall have a streamlined appearance
similar to the pole in the embedded diagram,
to the right. For a combination pole to be
considered visually pleasing, the transition
between the equipment cabinet and upper
pole should be considered. A decorative
transition shall be installed over the
equipment cabinet upper bolts, or decorative
base cover shall be installed to match the
equipment cabinet size.
f. The diameter of the upper pole shall be
smaller than the equipment cabinet. All
FIBER
SPLICEIPULL
sox
FINAL
GRADE
ELECTRICAL
CONDUIT
as
CANTENNA
Q
4-
0
c
LUMINAIRE
O
LUMINAIRE MAST ARM
a.
0
UPPER POLE Q
EQUIPMENT CABINET
- STANDARD
FOUNDATION
hardware connections shall be hidden from view. No horizontal flat spaces greater
than 1.5 inches shall exist on the equipment cabinet to prevent cups, trash, and
other objects from being placed on the equipment cabinet.
g. Internal separation of electrical wiring and fiber to be provided, as required by the
pole owner.
h. Weatherproof grommets shall be integrated in the pole design to allow cable to exit
the pole, for external shrouds, without water seeping into the pole.
i. The antenna shall be fully concealed within the pole, if technically feasible. If it is not
technically feasible to fully conceal the antenna within the pole, a shrouded antenna
may be flush mounted to either the side or top of the pole. The basis for any claim of
technical infeasibility here must be supported by a signed statement from a licensed
RF engineer that provides enough detail to allow for meaningful third -party review
under ECDC 20.50.060.J. Antennas and equipment located within a unified enclosure
may also be flush mounted, as described above, if it is not technically feasible to
26
Packet Pg. 552
9.3.a
fully conceal the unified enclosure within the pole, and if the unified enclosure does
not exceed four (4) cubic feet in volume. The following is an example of a compliant
unified enclosure:
j. A cantenna or canister antenna on top of an existing pole may not extend more than
six (6) feet above the height of the existing pole and the diameter may not exceed
the diameter of the top of the pole by more than two (2) inches. The antennas shall
be integrated into the pole design so that it appears as a continuation of the original
pole, including colored or painted to match the pole. All cabling and mounting
hardware/brackets from the bottom of the antenna to the top of the pole shall be
concealed and integrated with the pole.
k. Utility poles shall be located as follows:
In a manner that does not impede, obstruct, or hinder pedestrian or
vehicular travel.
In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights.
iii. Equal distance between trees when possible, with a minimum of 15-foot
separation such that no proposed disturbance shall occur within the critical
root zone of any tree.
iv. With appropriate clearance from existing utilities.
V. In compliance with clear zone requirements.
vi. 10-feet away from the intersection of an alley with a street.
Q
27
Packet Pg. 553
9.3.a
Fa
All conduit, cables, wires and fiber must be routed internally in the utility pole. -0
as
Location Preference #2 - Freestanding small wireless facility or new street light. �.
4-
0
a. Freestanding small wireless facility. o
a
The specifications provided in this section are for installations within the right -of- Q
way only. The accompanying diagram shows a typical pole and its elements. _
Dimensional requirements:
a) A freestanding small wireless facility may not exceed 25 feet in height
measured from the top of the foundation to the top of the cantenna.
b) The equipment cabinet must be no greater than 20 inches in diameter
c) The diameter of the upper pole shall be smaller than the equipment
cabinet. The pole shall be tapered to transition from the equipment
cabinet to the upper pole, as shown in the graphic below. The pole
diameter must be scaled so that no flat, horizontal surface larger than 1.5
inches exists between the equipment cabinet and upper pole.
d) The cantenna may not exceed 6-ft in height.
28
Packet Pg. 554
9.3.a
Appearance requirements:
as
CANTENNA
a) The same pole aesthetic 0.
must be used along I I o
adjacent blocks to maintain o
a cohesive appearance. If 7o
'13
freestanding small wireless UPPER POLE a
facilities already exist within
the deployment area, then
the new facility shall be
to
designed to match the
cm
existing facilities as much as
M
practicable. I I a;
b) All small wireless facility
carrier equipment must be
housed internal to the
FIBER
equipment cabinet or
B4{ICEIPULL
EQUIPMENT CABINET
hidden within the cantenna.
FINAL
d
RS
The cantenna, upper pole
'
and equipment cabinet
ELECTRICAL
CONDUIT
STANDARD
must be of the same brown
_ _,
FOUNDATION
or green colors, unless otherwise approved by the Director.
c) All hardware connections shall be hidden from view.
d) No equipment may be attached to the outside of the pole.
e) The freestanding small wireless facility must be served by underground
power and fiber, if fiber is to be connected.
Location requirements:
a) Located such that they in no way impede, obstruct, or hinder the usual
pedestrian or vehicular travel, affect public safety, obstruct the legal
access to or use of the public ROW, violate applicable law, violate or fail
to substantially comply with public ROW design standards, specifications,
or design district requirements, violate the Federal Americans with
29
Packet Pg. 555
9.3.a
Disabilities Act of 1990, or in any way create a risk to public health, -0
as
safety, or welfare.
Q.
b) Outside the downtown business district (BD) zones. o
c
0
c) So as not to be located along the frontage of a Historic building, deemed -°a
historic on a federal, state, or local level. Q
d) So as not to significantly create a new obstruction to property sight lines.
e) In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights.
f) Equal distance between trees when possible, with a minimum of 15-foot
separation such that no proposed disturbance shall occur within the
critical root zone of any tree.
g) With appropriate clearance from existing utilities.
h) In compliance with clear zone requirements.
i) 10-feet away from the intersection of an alley with a street.
j) On the same side of the street as existing power lines, regardless of
whether power is underground or overhead;
b. New Street Light. The hollow utility pole requirements are also applicable to the
new street light alternative, except that a street light would be incorporated into
the design of the facility. In addition, the following applies:
A new street light shall not be installed unless it has been identified by the
director of public works that a street light is necessary at the location in
which the small wireless facility is proposed. A street light may be required
to be installed instead of a freestanding wireless facility.
c. Location Preference #3 - Existing power pole (installation on top of pole):
A cantenna may not extend more than six (6) feet above the height of the
existing pole and the diameter may not exceed the diameter of the pole by
30
Packet Pg. 556
9.3.a
more than two (2) inches, measured at the top of the pole, unless
the
applicant can demonstrate technological infeasibility.
The antennas
shall be
as
integrated into the pole design so that it appears as a continuation
of the
original pole, including colored or
4-
G
painted to match the pole. All cabling
c
°
CANTENNA
Q
and mounting hardware/brackets from
(TOP MOUNTED)
the bottom of the antenna to the top of
the pole shall be concealed.
c
LUMINAIRE & MAST
L
ARM
ii. Equipment enclosures and all ancillary
equipment and boxes shall be colored or
co
C14
EQUIPMENT SHROUD
painted to match the color of the surface
WITH ANTENNA (SIDE
MOUNTED)
of the wooden pole in which they are
attached. All related equipment shall not
UTILITY POLE
N
be mounted more than six (6) inches
from the surface of the pole, unless a
c
further distance is technically required,
3
and is confirmed in writing by the pole
c
Owner.
EQUIPMENT SHROUD
In
Iv
7
iii. All cables and wires shall be routed
through conduit along the outside of the
CD
XCEL ENERGY METER
pole. The outside conduit shall be
WITH DISCO NNE CT
CD
colored or painted to match the color of SMALL CELL
U
Q
FIRER
U
the surface of the wooden pole. The
Lu
number of conduit shall be minimized to ELECTRICAL CONDUIT CONDUIT
as
the number technically necessary to
L
accommodate a small wireless facility and shall not increase the
number of
°
conduit on an existing pole to more than 3 conduit.
N
iv. The visual effect of the small wireless facility on all other aspects of the
appearance of the wooden pole shall be minimized to the greatest extent
possible.
V. A wooden pole in a proposed location may be replaced with a taller pole for
the purpose of accommodating a small wireless facility; provided, that the
height of any replacement pole may not exceed fifty (50) feet to the top of
the cantenna.
31
Packet Pg. 557
9.3.a
vi. The use of the pole for the siting of a small wireless facility shall be
considered secondary to the primary function of the pole. If the primary
function of a pole serving as the host site for a small wireless facility becomes
unnecessary, the pole shall not be retained for the sole purpose of
accommodating the small wireless facility and the small wireless facility and
all associated equipment shall be removed.
d. Location Preference #4 - Existing power pole (installation in communication
space):
i. Antennas should be placed in an
effort to minimize visual clutter and — —�
obtrusiveness. Only one antenna _
array is permitted on each wooden UTILITY POLE
pole. The inside edge of a side EOUIPMENTSHROUD
mounted canister
antenna/equipment shroud shall
project no more than twelve (12)
inches from the surface of the
wooden pole.
ii. To the extent technically feasible,
antennas and equipment located
within a unified enclosure shall not
exceed four (4) cubic feet. The EQUIPMENT SHROUD
unified enclosure shall be placed so IN
as to appear as an integrated part
of the pole or behind banners or
signs. The unified enclosure may xCELENERGY METER
WITH DISCONNECT
not be placed more than six (6)
AL
inches from the surface of the pole, FIBEERLCELL
unless a further distance is
technically required and confirmed ELECTRICAL -
in writing by the pole owner.
iii. Equipment enclosures and all ancillary equipment and boxes shall be colored
or painted to match the color of the surface of the wooden pole in which
they are attached. All related equipment shall not be mounted more than six
(6) inches from the surface of the pole, unless a further distance is technically
required, and is confirmed in writing by the pole owner.
as
CL
4-
0
c
0
a
0
Q
32
Packet Pg. 558
9.3.a
iv. All cables and wires shall be routed through conduit along the outside of the -0
as
pole. The outside conduit shall be colored or painted to match the color of
the surface of the wooden pole. The number of conduit shall be minimized
4-
to the number technically necessary to accommodate a small wireless facility °
c
and shall not increase the number of conduit on an existing pole to more °
a
than 3 conduit. °
Q
V. The visual effect of the small wireless facility on all other aspects of the
appearance of the wooden pole shall be minimized to the greatest extent
possible.
vi. A wooden pole in a proposed location may be replaced with a taller pole for
the purpose of accommodating a small wireless facility; provided, that the
height of any replacement pole may not extend more than ten (10) feet
above the height of the existing pole, unless a further height increase is
required and confirmed in writing by the pole owner and that such height
increase is the minimum extension possible to provide sufficient separation
and/or clearance from electrical and wireline facilities.
vii. The use of the pole for the siting of a small wireless facility shall be
considered secondary to the primary function of the pole. If the primary
function of a pole serving as the host site for a small wireless facility becomes
unnecessary, the pole shall not be retained for the sole purpose of
accommodating the small wireless facility and the small wireless facility and
all associated equipment shall be removed.
33
Packet Pg. 559
9.3.a
m
c�
sa.
e. Location Preference #S - Strand -mounted. 4-
0
c
0
Small wireless facility facilities mounted on cables strung between existing utility a
poles shall conform to the following standards: -°a
Q
SMALL CELL
FIBER
ELE
UTILITY POLE
EQUIPMENT SHROUD
EQUIPMENT
SHROUD
This graphic is intended to
represent a strand mount antenna.
EQUIPMENT SHROUD
xCELENERGY METER
WITH DISCONNECT
To the extent technically feasible, antennas shall not exceed one (1) cubic
feet in volume.
ii. Only one strand mounted facility is permitted between any two existing
poles.
iii. The strand mounted devices shall be placed as close as possible to the
nearest utility pole and in no event more than five feet from the pole unless
a greater distance is technically necessary or required for safety clearance
and confirmed in writing by the pole owner.
34
Packet Pg. 560
9.3.a
iv. No strand mounted device shall be located in or above the portion of the
roadway open to vehicular traffic.
V. Ground mounted equipment to accommodate such strand mounted facilities
—
is not permitted, except when placed in pre-existing equipment cabinets,
o
underground or on zoned property.
a
0
Q
vi. Pole mounted equipment shall meet the requirements of subsections (iii),
(iv) and (v) of subsection (d) above. c
vii. Such strand mounted devices must be installed to cause the least visual
impact and with the minimum excess exterior cabling or wires (other than
the original strand) necessary to meet the technological needs of the facility.
E. Specific Design Standards for Facilities Located Outside the Right -of -Way
1. On a Building.
a. Roof -mounted.
Small wireless facilities may be built to the maximum height of the
underlying zone (or use the height exception in Sub (c) below) provided they
are screened consistent with the existing building in terms of color,
architectural style and materials.
ii. Such facilities must be completely concealed and well integrated with the
existing structure or designed and located to look like common rooftop
elements such as chimneys, elevator penthouses or screened HVAC
equipment.
iii. Height exception. The maximum height for a small wireless facility above the
underlying zone maximum is 3 feet with a maximum footprint of 12 sq. ft. in
horizontal section.
b. Fagade-mounted.
Small wireless facility antennas may be mounted to the side of a building if
they do not interrupt and are integrated with the building's architectural
theme.
New architectural features such as columns, pilasters, corbels, or similar
ornamentation that conceals the antennas should be used if it complements
the architecture of the existing building.
35
Packet Pg. 561
9.3.a
If concealment is not possible, the antennas must be camouflaged. The
smallest feasible mounting brackets must be used and the antennas must be
painted and textured to match the adjacent building surfaces. —
c
0
iv. Facade -mounted antennas may encroach into a required setback or into the a
city right-of-way. Antennas may not project into the right-of-way more than Q
twelve (12) inches and shall provide a minimum clearance height of 20 feet
over any pedestrian or vehicular right-of-way. c
V. All other equipment must be located within the building, screened by an
existing parapet, or completely concealed and well integrated with the
existing structure or designed and located to look like common rooftop
elements such as chimneys, elevator penthouses or screened HVAC
equipment. Exposed cabling/wiring is prohibited.
vi. Height exception. Antennas may be located on buildings that are
nonconforming for height provided that they are constructed to be no taller
than the adjacent fagade or an existing parapet. Equipment may be located
on a roof behind a parapet that is nonconforming for height. Vertical
expansion of the height nonconformity is prohibited.
2. Freestanding small wireless facility. The specifications provided in this section are for
installations on zoned property only. Refer to subsection 20.50.130.D.2.a for
dimensional and appearance standards.
a. Placement requirements. Freestanding small wireless facilities shall be located as
follows:
Located such that they in no way impede, obstruct, or hinder the usual
pedestrian or vehicular travel, affect public safety, or violate applicable law
Within 5 feet of the street property line (right-of-way) and within 5 feet of a
side property line.
iii. So as not to significantly create a new obstruction to property sight lines
iv. In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights.
V. With appropriate clearance from existing utilities.
36
Packet Pg. 562
9.3.a
vi. In compliance with clear zone requirements.
vii. On the same side of the street as existing power lines, regardless of whether
power is underground or overhead;
20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use.
A. At such time that a licensed carrier plans to abandon or discontinue operation of a wireless
communication facility, such carrier will notify the director by certified U.S. Mail of the
proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations. Such notice shall be given no
less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinuation of operations.
B. In the event that a licensed carrier fails to give such notice, the wireless communication
facility shall be considered abandoned upon the discovery of such discontinuation of
operations.
C. Within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation of use, the carrier shall
physically remove the wireless communication facility. "Physically remove" shall include, but
not be limited to:
1. Removal of antennas, mounts or racks, the equipment enclosure, screening, cabling
and the like from the subject property.
2. Transportation of the materials removed to a repository outside of the city.
3. Restoration of the wireless communication facility site to its pre -permit or better
condition, except that any landscaping provided by the wireless communication facility
operator may remain in place.
4. If a carrier fails to remove a wireless communication facility in accordance with this
section, the city shall have the authority to enter the subject property and physically
remove the facility. Costs for removal of the wireless communication facility shall be
charged to the wireless communication facility owner or operator in the event the city
removes the facility. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.150 Maintenance.
A. The applicant shall maintain the wireless communication facility to standards that may be
imposed by the city by ordinance or through permit condition. Such maintenance shall include,
but not be limited to, repair of damaged shrouds or enclosures, painting, structural integrity,
and landscaping.
B. In the event the applicant fails to maintain the facility, the city of Edmonds may undertake
enforcement action as allowed by existing codes and regulations. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord.
3845 § 2 (Att. A), 20111.
20.50.160 Definitions.
A. Antenna(s). Any apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radiofrequency (RF)
radiation, to be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Commission
Q
37
Packet Pg. 563
9.3.a
authorization, for the provision of personal wireless service and any commingled information -0
services.
B. "Cell -on -wheels (COW)" are used to provide temporary service, usually for special events,
4-
during repair of a permanent wireless site, or in emergencies. o
c
0
C. "Collocation" means the mounting or installation of an antenna on an existing tower, a
building or structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals Q
for communications purposes, whether or not there is an existing antenna on the structure.
D. Fully concealed facility. A WCF where: (A) the antennas, mounting apparatus, and any
associated equipment are fully concealed within a pole or other structure; and (B) all cable is
routed internally to the structure; and (C) the associated equipment is completely within the
building or structure, placed in an underground vault, or is within another element such as a
bench, mail box or kiosk.
E. "Distributed antenna system (DAS)" is a network of spatially separated antenna sites
connected to a common source that provides wireless service within a discrete geographic
area or structure.
F. Equipment. Any equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters or cabinets
associated with an antenna, located at the same fixed location as the antenna, and, when
collocated on a structure, is mounted or installed at the same time as such antenna.
G. "Freestanding small wireless facility" is a freestanding structure which consists of a single
vertical hollow pole, fixed into the ground and/or attached to a foundation built for the sole
purpose of supporting and concealing small wireless antennas and associated equipment.
H. "Guyed tower" means a monopole or lattice tower that is tied to the ground or other
surface by diagonal cables.
I. "Lattice tower" is a wireless communication support structure which consists of metal
crossed strips or bars to support antennas and related equipment.
J. "Licensed carrier" is a company authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to
build and operate a commercial mobile radio services system.
K. Macro cell facility (macro facility). A large wireless communication facility that provides
radio frequency coverage served by a high power cellular system. Generally, macro cell
antennas are mounted on ground -based towers, rooftops and other existing structures, at a
height that provides a clear view over the surrounding buildings and terrain. Macro cell facilities
typically contain antennas that are greater than three (3) cubic feet per antenna and typically
cover large geographic areas with relatively high capacity and are capable of hosting multiple
wireless service providers.
L. "Monopole" means a freestanding structure which consists of a single vertical pole, fixed
into the ground and/or attached to a foundation with no guy wires built for the sole or primary
purpose of supporting macro antennas and their associated equipment.
M. Poles. Utility poles, light poles or other types of poles, used primarily to support electrical
38
Packet Pg. 564
9.3.a
wires, telephone wires, television cable, lighting, or guide posts; or are constructed for the sole
purpose of supporting a WCF.
N. "Satellite earth station antenna" includes any antenna in any zoning district that: M
4-
1. Is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct -to -home r_
satellite services, and that is one meter or less in diameter; a
0
2. Is two meters or less in diameter in areas where commercial or industrial uses are
Q
generally permitted;
a�
c
3. Is designed to receive programming services by means of multi -point distribution
services, instructional television fixed services, and local multi -point distribution services,
to
that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement; and N
4. Is designed to receive television broadcast signals.
O. Small wireless facility (or small cell node). A wireless facility that meets each of the
following conditions: N
U)
1. The facilities: c
a. Are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas, or
b. Are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent
structures, or
Do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than
50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;
2. Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding antenna equipment, is not
more than three cubic feet in volume;
3. All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless
equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the
structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume;
4. The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under FCC rule;
5. The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of
the applicable safety standards specified by FCC rule.
P. "Unlicensed wireless services" means the offering of communications services using duly
authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of
direct- to -home satellite services.
Q. "Wireless communication facility (WCF)" means an unstaffed facility for the transmission
and reception of radio or microwave signals used for commercial communications. A WCF
provides services which include cellular phone, personal communication services, other mobile
radio services, and any other service provided by wireless common carriers licensed by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). WCFs are composed of two or more of the
following components:
39
Packet Pg. 565
9.3.a
1. Antenna; -0
m
2. Mount; -a
Q.
3. Equipment enclosure; c
c
4. Security barrier. 0
a
R. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), building -mounted" means a wireless Q
communication facility mounted to the roof, wall or chimney of a building. Also, those
antennas mounted on existing monopoles.
S. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), camouflaged" means a wireless communication
facility that is disguised, hidden, or integrated with an existing structure that is not a
monopole, guyed or lattice tower, or placed within an existing or proposed structure.
T. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), equipment enclosure" means a small structure,
shelter, cabinet, or vault used to house and protect the electronic equipment necessary for
processing wireless communication signals. Associated equipment may include air conditioning
and emergency generators.
U. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), monopole" means a wireless communication
facility not attached to a structure or building and not exempted from regulation under ECDC
20.50.030. Does not include collocation of a facility on an existing monopole, utility pole, light
pole, or flag pole.
V. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), related equipment" is all equipment ancillary to a
wireless communication facility such as coaxial cable, GPS receivers, conduit and connectors.
W. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), structure -mounted" means a wireless
communication facility located on structures other than buildings, such as light poles, utility
poles, flag poles, transformers, and/or tanks.
X. "Wireless communication services" means any personal wireless services as defined in the
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, including federally licensed wireless communications
services consisting of cellular services, personal communications services (PCS), specialized
mobile radio services (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio services (ESMR), paging, and
similar services that currently exist or that may be developed in the future. [Ord. 3961 § 1,
2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
40
Packet Pg. 566
9.3.b
Chapter 20.50
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Sections:
20.50.010 Purpose.
20.50.020 Applicability.
20.50.030 Exemptions.
20.50.040 Prohibitions.
20.50.050 General macro facility siting criteria and design considerations.
20.50.060 Permits and shot clocks.
20.50.070 Application requirements.
20.50.080 Eligible facilities requests.
20.50.090 New building -mounted macro wireless communication facility standards.
20.50.100 New structure -mounted macro wireless communication facilities standards.
20.50.110 New monopole standards.
20.50.120 Temporary facilities.
20.50.130 Small wireless facility standards (small cell).
20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use.
20.50.150 Maintenance.
20.50.160 Definitions.
20.50.010 Purpose.
A. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the placement, construction, modification and
appearance of wireless communication facilities, in order to protect the health, safety and
welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the deployment of competitive
wireless communication facilities throughout the city. The purpose of this chapter may be
achieved through adherence to the following objectives:
1. Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts that wireless
communication facilities might create, including but not limited to negative impacts on
aesthetics, environmentally sensitive areas, historically significant locations, flight
corridors, and health and safety of persons and property;
2. Establishment of clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless
communication facilities and services that are consistent with federal and state laws and
regulations;
3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate facilities, to the
extent fea s i b I e, in areas where the adverse impact on the public health, safety and
1
Packet Pg. 567
9.3.b
welfare is minimal;
4. For macro facilities, encourage the location of those facilities in nonresidential areas
and allow m a c r o facilities in residential areas only when necessary to meet functional
requirements of the communications industry as defined by the Federal Communications
Commission;
5. Minimize the total number of macro facilities in residential areas;
6. Encourage and, where legally permissible, require cooperation between competitors
and, as a primary option, joint use of new and existing towers, tower sites and suitable
structures to the greatest extent possible, where doing so would significantly reduce or
eliminate additional negative impact on the city;
7. Ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way that minimizes the
adverse visual impact of the facilities, as viewed from different vantage points, through
careful design, landscape screening, minimal impact siting options and camouflaging
techniques, dispersion of unscreened features to lessen the visual impact upon any
one location, and through assessment of innovative siting techniques;
8. Enable wireless communication companies to enter into lease agreements with the city
to use city property for the placement of wireless facilities, where consistent with other
public needs, as a means to generate revenue for the city;
9. Balance the City's intent to minimize the adverse impacts of wireless communication
facilities with the ability of the providers of communications services to deploy such
services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently;
10. Provide for the prompt removal of wireless communication facilities that are
abandoned or no longer inspected for safety concerns and building code compliance, and
provide a mechanism for the city to cause these abandoned wireless communication
facilities to be removed as necessary to protect the citizens from imminent harm and
danger;
11. Avoid potential damage to people and adjacent properties from tower failure and
falling equipment, through strict compliance with state building and electrical codes; and
12. Disperse the adverse impacts of small wireless facility facilities as evenly as possible
throughout the community, especially when joint use does not eliminate additional visual
impact.
B. In furtherance of these objectives, the city shall give due consideration to the zoning code,
existing land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas when approving sites for the location of
wireless communication facilities.
C. These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to
protect property values, and to minimize and disperse visual impact, while furthering the
development of enhanced communications services in the city. These objectives were
designed to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its implementing
2
Packet Pg. 568
9.3.b
regulations. The provisions of this chapter are not intended to and any ambiguities herein
shall not be interpreted in such a manner that would materially inhibit the deployment of
wireless communication facilities. This chapter shall not be applied in such a manner as to
unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent wireless facilities.
D. To the extent that any provision of this chapter or conflicts with any other city ordinance,
this chapter shall control. Otherwise, this chapter shall be construed consistently with the
other provisions and regulations of the city.
E. In reviewing any application to place, construct or modify wireless communication facilities,
the city shall act within federally required time periods. Any decision to deny an application
shall be in writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The city
shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application in accordance with this title,
this chapter, the adopted Edmonds comprehensive plan, and other applicable ordinances and
regulations.
F. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.020 Applicability.
A. Except as provided herein, all wireless communication facilities shall comply with the
provisions of this chapter. The standards and process requirements of this chapter supersede
all other review process, setback, height or landscaping requirements of the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC).
B. Environmental. All proposed installations are subject to a threshold determination under
the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) according to Chapter 20.15A ECDC unless
categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800. All proposals are subject to the critical
areas requirements in Title 23 ECDC and the shoreline master program in Title 24 ECDC
C. Master Permit Agreement Needed.
1. Consistent with chapter 35.99 RCW, any person, corporation or entity that proposes to
locate any portion of a wireless communication facility within the city right-of-way must
have a valid fully executed master permit with the city before submitting applications for
right-of-way construction permits.
2. Wireless providers interested in obtaining a master permit must apply as follows to have a
complete application:
a. make application in writing to the city attorney c/o the city clerk's office;
b. submit an electronic proposed master permit form in Word format, PROVIDED THAT,
this requirement shall no longer apply in the event that the city council has adopted a
standard master permit template;
c. submit three valid fully executed master permits that the provider has with other
cities in Washington state, PROVIDED THAT, this requirement shall be excused to the
extent that the provider does not have sufficient valid master permits in other
jurisdictions to meet that requirement;
Packet Pg. 569
9.3.b
d. submit a map showing provider's proposed new macro and small cell facilities within
the City of Edmonds over the first two years of the master permit; and
e. if the provider is seeking legislative approval for an alternative WCF design that does
not comply with this chapter, the provider may elect to use the following optional WCF
design approval process. To use this option process, the provider must submit with the
master permit application the following additional materials:
1) photographs, precise measurements, and technical specifications of the
proposed alternative WCF design;
2) a signed affidavit from a speaking agent for the provider that: a) explains, by
citing to specific city code provisions, the factual reasons why the WCFs used by the
provider cannot comply with the City's adopted aesthetic regulations; and b) attaches
photographs and technical specifications of all other WCF designs currently available to
the provider; and
3) a legal analysis as to: a) whether the City's approval of the proposed alternative
WCF would unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services; and b) whether the City's denial of the proposed alternative WCF would
prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
3. After receipt of a complete application, the city attorney and wireless provider shall
negotiate the terms of the master permit until they have agreed on terms that can be
recommended to the city council for final approval. If the city attorney and wireless provider
have not been able to reach agreement on the recommended terms of a master permit
within 42&60 days of the date the complete application was submitted, the wireless
provider may submit the provider's proposed master permit form to the council president
directly and request that the provider's proposed master permit be added to a forthcoming
city council agenda for consideration. The city council shall conduct a public hearing on the
proposed master permit, including any renewal.
4. The final decision on any proposed master permit shall be subject to legislative discretion
of the city council and the ordinance authorizing the master permit must be approved by a
majority of the full council. Any denial of a proposed master permit must be supported by
substantial evidence contained in a written record.
5. Any prior adoption by the city council of a master permit template, as contemplated in
subsection C.2.b, above, is merely intended to facilitate future master permit negotiations
and should in no way be seen as limiting the city council's legislative discretion to approve or
reject a similar master permit that has come before the city council for action.
6. Master permit terms shall not exceed five years. Master permits shall require the City to
be indemnified by the provider and that indemnification shall be support by insurance that
names the City as an additional insured.
D. Right -of -Way Construction Permit. A right-of-way construction permit is required prior to
performing any work within the city right-of-way pursuant to ECDC Title 18JOrd. 3961 § 1, 2014;
4
Packet Pg. 570
9.3.b
Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.030 Exemptions.
The following are exemptions from the provisions of this chapter:
A. Radar systems for military and civilian communication and navigation.
B. Handheld, mobile, marine and portable radio transmitters and/or receivers.
C. Satellite antennas, including direct to home satellite services, and those regulated in ECDC
16.20.050(D).
D. Licensed amateur (ham) radio stations and citizen band stations as regulated in ECDC
16.20.050 (E).
E. Earth station antenna(s) one meter or less in diameter and located in any zone.
F. Earth station antenna(s) two meters or less in diameter and located in the business and
commercial zones.
G. Routine maintenance or repair of wireless communication facilities.
H. Emergency communications equipment or a COW or other temporary WCF during a
declared public emergency.
I. A temporary wireless communication facility or COW for providing coverage during a special
event such as a festival, subject to approval by the City. Such a facility is exempt from the
provisions of this chapter for up to three days before the special event begins and three days
after the special event ends.
J. A temporary wireless communication facility or COW for providing service during repair or
replacement of an existing facility for a period of up to 14 days.
K. Subject to compliance with all other applicable standards of this chapter, a building permit
and/or right-of-way permit application need not be filed for emergency repair or maintenance
of a facility until five business days after the completion of such emergency activity. [Ord.
3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.040 Prohibitions.
A. The following wireless communication facilities are prohibited in Edmonds:
1. Guyed towers.
2. Lattice towers.
B. Monopoles are prohibited in the following locations:
1. All residential zones (single-family (SF) and multifamily (MF));
2. Downtown waterfront activity center;
5
Packet Pg. 571
9.3.b
3. Public (P) and open space (OS) zoned parcels; and
4. Within the city rights -of -way. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.050 General macro facility siting criteria and design considerations.
A. The city of Edmonds encourages wireless communication providers to use existing sites or
more frequent, less noticeable sites instead of attempting to provide coverage through use of
taller towers. To that end, applicants shall consider the following priority of preferred locations
for wireless communication facilities:
1. Collocation, without an increase in the height of the building, pole or structure
upon which the facility would be located;
2. Collocation, where additional height is necessary above existing building, pole, or
structure;
3. A replacement pole or structure for an existing one;
4. A new pole or structure altogether.
B. New monopole facilities must include mounts capable of accommodating at least one
other wireless provider.
C. Noise. Any facility that requires a generator or other device which will create noise audible
beyond the boundaries of the site must demonstrate compliance with Chapter 5.30 ECC, Noise
Abatement and Control. A noise report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted
with any application to construct and operate a wireless communication facility that will have a
generator or similar device. The city may require that the report be reviewed by a third -party
expert at the expense of the applicant.
D. Business License Requirement. Any person, corporation or entity that operates a wireless
communication facility within the city shall have a valid business license issued annually by the
city. Any person, corporation or other business entity which owns a monopole also is required
to obtain a business license on an annual basis.
E. Signage. Only safety signs or those mandated by a government entity with jurisdiction may
be located on wireless communication facilities. No other types of signs are permitted on
wireless communication facilities.
F. Any application must demonstrate that there is sufficient space for temporary parking for
regular maintenance of the proposed facility.
G. Finish. A monopole may be constructed of laminated wood, fiberglass, steel, or similar
material. The pole shall be a neutral color so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness, subject to any
applicable standards of the FAA or FCC.
H. Design. The design of all buildings and ancillary structures shall use materials, colors,
textures, screening and landscaping that will blend the facilities with the natural setting and
built environment.
0
Packet Pg. 572
9.3.b
I. Color. All antennas and ancillary facilities located on buildings or structures other than
monopoles shall be of a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with the color of
the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and ancillary facilities as visually
unobtrusive as possible.
J. Lighting. Monopoles shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC or other
government entity with jurisdiction. If lighting is required and alternative lighting options are
permitted, the city shall review the lighting alternatives and approve the design that would
cause the least disturbance to the surrounding area. No strobe lighting of any type is
permitted on any monopole. If FAA guidelines would require a strobe, the location shall be
denied unless no other site or combination of sites would provide adequate coverage in accord
with FCC requirements.
K. Advertising. No advertising is permitted at wireless communication facility sites or on any
ancillary structure or facilities equipment enclosure.
L. Equipment Enclosure. Each applicant shall use the smallest equipment enclosure practical
to contain the required equipment and a reserve for required collocation.
M. Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance. The applicant shall demonstrate that the project
will not result in levels of radio frequency emissions that exceed FCC standards, including FCC
Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines
for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended. Additionally, if
the director determines the wireless communication facility, as constructed, may emit radio
frequency emissions that are likely to exceed Federal Communications Commission
uncontrolled/general population standards in the FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET)
Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended, in areas accessible by the general population,
the director may require post -installation testing to determine whether to require further
mitigation of radio frequency emissions. The cost of any such testing and mitigation shall be
borne by the applicant.
N. Landscaping and Screening.
1. The visual impacts of wireless communication facilities should be mitigated and
softened through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of a monopole,
facility equipment compound, equipment enclosures and ancillary structures. If the antenna
is mounted flush on an existing building, or camouflaged as part of the building and other
equipment is housed inside an existing structure, no landscaping is required. The director
or his designee may reduce or waive the standards for those sides of the wireless
communication facility that are not in public view, when a combination of existing
vegetation, topography, walls, decorative fences or other
features achieve the same degree of screening as the required landscaping; in locations
where the visual impact of the facility would be minimal; and in those locations where
large wooded lots not capable of subdivision and natural growth around the property
perimeter provide a sufficient buffer.
7
Packet Pg. 573
9.3.b
2. Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of fences in accordance with Chapter
20.13 ECDC. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and
may be used as a substitute for or as a supplement to landscaping or screening
requirements. The following requirements apply:
a. Type I landscaping shall be placed around the perimeter of the equipment cabinet
enclosure, except that a maximum 10-foot portion of the fence may remain without
landscaping in order to provide access to the enclosure.
b. Landscaping area shall be a minimum of five feet in width around the perimeter of
the enclosure.
c. Vegetation selected should be native and drought tolerant.
d. Landscaping shall be located so as not to create sight distance hazards or conflicts
with other surrounding utilities.
3. When landscaping is used, the applicant shall submit a landscaping bond pursuant to
ECDC 20.13.040.
4. The use of chain link, plastic, vinyl or wire fencing is prohibited. Ornamental metal or
wood fencing materials are preferred. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]
20.50.060 Permits and Shot Clocks.
A. No person may place, construct, reconstruct, modify or operate a wireless communication
facility subject to this chapter without first having in place a master permit agreement
pursuant to ECDC 20.50.020.0 and a -the permits issued in accordance with this chapter.
Except as otherwise provided herein, the requirements of this chapter are in addition to the
applicable requirements of this title and ECDC Title 18. Any wires, cables, conduit or
equipment associated with a wireless communication facility shall be subject to the
requirements of chapter 18.05 ECDC, unless wireless facilities are expressly exempted from a
provision of chapter 18.05 ECDC or the context necessitates that a provision of chapter 18.05
ECDC not apply to wireless facilities
B. Applications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless communication facilities
requested to be permitted. Each wireless communication facility requires the appropriate type
of project permit review, as shown in Table A. In the event of uncertainty on the type of a
wireless facility, the director shall have the authority to determine what permits are required
for the proposed facility.
0
Packet Pg. 574
9.3.b
Table A
Building
Right -of-
FCC Shot
Permit
Way (ROW)
Clocks for
Request
Location
Required
Permit
Permit
Required
Review
Eligible facilities request
Existing tower or
Yes, if on
Yes, if in
60 days
base station
private
ROW
property
New macro facility
Collocation
Yes, if any
Yes, if any
90 days
elements on
elements in
private
the ROW
property
New macro facility
New structure or
Yes, if any
Yes, if any
150 days
monopole
elements on
elements in
private
the ROW
property
New small wireless facility
Collocation
Yes, if on
Yes, if any
60 days
private
elements in
property
the ROW
New small wireless facility
New structure or
Yes, if any
Yes, if any
90 days
freestanding
elements on
elements in
small wireless
private
the ROW
facility
property
Temporary facility
Varies
Yes, if any
Yes, if any
Standard
elements on
elements in
permit
private
the ROW
quotes
property
a�
U
E
U)
L
�0
a)
U
c
c�
c
O
m
m
L
m
r
a
D
4-
0
c
0
a
0
a
�L
a�
U
c
0
0
U
W
N
0
c
m
as
3
N
as
c
m
3
m
z
N
c
m
E
0
a
E
M
a
a
Packet Pg. 575
9.3.b
C. Timelines.
1. Macro facilities.
The application review period begins when all required application materials have been
received and fees paid. If the City determines that the application is incomplete and
provides notice to the applicant within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of application,
the clock stops. The clock restarts when the City receives the applicant's supplemental
submission in response to the City's notice of incompleteness. For subsequent
determinations of incompleteness, the clock tolls (pauses) if the City provides written notice
within ten (10) days that a supplemental submission did not provide the requested
information.
2. Small wireless facilities.
The application review period begins when all required application materials have been
received and fees paid. If the City determines that the application is incomplete and
provides notice to the applicant within ten (10) calendar days of the date of application, the
clock stops. The clock resets to zero (0) when the City receives the applicant's supplemental
submission in response to the City's notice of incompleteness. For subsequent
determinations of incompleteness, the clock tolls (pauses) if the City provides written notice
within ten (10) days that a supplemental submission did not provide the requested
information.
D. Batched small wireless facility applications.
If an applicant is applying for a small wireless network in a contiguous service area, multiple
small wireless facilities may be batched into one application, PROVIDED THAT the application
fee shall still be calculated as if the applications were submitted separately. The director or
his/her designee may approve, deny or conditionally approve all or any portion of the small
wireless facilities proposed in the application. The denial of one or more small wireless facility
locations within one submission shall not be the sole basis for a denial of other locations or the
entire batched application for small wireless facilities. Should an applicant file a single
application for a batch that includes both collocated and new structures for small wireless
facilities, the longer 90-day shot clock shall apply to ensure the City has adequate time to
review the new construction sites.
E. Any application submitted pursuant to this chapter for projects located on public or private
property shall be reviewed and evaluated by the director, or his designee. The director of
public works or his/her designee shall review all proposed wireless communication facilities
that are located partially or fully within the city rights -of -way. Regardless of whether the
director or the director of public works or their respective designees are reviewing the
application, all applications will be reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this
chapter.
F. All applications for wireless communication facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with
the applicable design standards by the director or his/her designee.
G. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate
10
Packet Pg. 576
9.3.b
governing body with jurisdiction (i.e., Washington State Department of Labor and Industries,
Federal Aviation Administration, etc.).
H. No provision of this chapter shall be interpreted to allow the installation of a wireless
communication facility which minimizes parking, landscaping or other site development
standards established by the Edmonds Community Development Code.
I. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this chapter shall not be eligible
for variances under Chapter 20.85 ECDC. Any request to deviate from this chapter shall be
based solely on the exceptions set forth in this chapter.
J. Third -Party Review. Applicants may use various methodologies and analyses, including
geographically based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the
services to be provided utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such as
expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and topographic constraints that
affect signal paths. In certain instances, a third -party expert may be needed to review the
engineering and technical data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The city may at its
discretion require third -party engineering and technical review as part of a permitting process.
The costs of the technical third -party review shall be borne by the applicant.
1. The selection of the third -party expert is at the discretion of the city. The third -party
expert review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and be a site -
specific review of engineering and technical aspects of the proposed wireless
communication facilities and/or a review of the applicants' methodology and equipment
used, and is not intended to be a subjective review of the site which was selected by an
applicant. Based on the results of the expert review, the city may require changes to the
proposal. The third -party review shall address the following:
a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions;
b. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies;
c. The validity of conclusions reached;
d. The viability of other site or sites in the city for the use intended by the
applicant; and
e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the city.
K. Any decision by the director or the director of public works shall be given substantial
deference in any appeal of a decision by the city to either approve, approve with conditions, or
deny any application for a wireless communication facility.
L. Notwithstanding other remedies that may be available under federal law, failure of the City
to issue permits within or otherwise comply with the FCC shot clock requirements does not
provide a "deemed" grant of approval for macro or small wireless facilities. No work may occur
until the permit issues.
[Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 20111.
11
Packet Pg. 577
9.3.b
20.50.070 Application requirements.
The following information must be submitted as part of a complete application for a
wireless communication facility permit in the city of Edmonds:
A. Project description including a design narrative, technology description, and, for macro cell
facilities, a collocation analysis indicating the alternative locations considered;
B. Aerial photo or map showing entire proposed deployment (small wireless only);
C. Site information on scaled plans, including:
1. Site plan;
2. Elevation drawings;
3. Utility plan showing existing utilities, proposed facility location, and undergrounding;
4. Screening, camouflaging or landscaping plan and cost estimate (produced in
accordance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC), as appropriate;
D. Photos and photo simulations showing the existing appearance of each site and
appearance of the proposed installation from nearby public viewpoints;
E. Noise report (per ECDC 20.50.050(C)), if applicable;
F. Radio Frequency (RF) emissions standards. The applicant shall provide the certification of an
RF engineer with knowledge of the proposed development that the small wireless facility
network will comply with RF standards adopted by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). The City recognizes that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives the FCC sole
jurisdiction in the field of regulation of RF emissions and wireless facilities that meet FCC
standards shall not be conditioned or denied on the basis of RF impacts.
G. For small wireless facility deployments, the following additional documentation shall be
provided as initial justification for the proposed location pursuant to the location preference
criteria set forth in ECDC 20.50.130.13, as applicable:
1. For installations proposed for Location Preference #2 (Freestanding small wireless
facility or new street light), provide all of the following to the extent applicable within
150 lineal feet in either direction of each proposed small wireless facility location as
measured along the right-of-way line for the applicable street:
a. WHERE NO POLES EXIST IN THE AREA: Evidence that no utility poles, traffic signal
poles, or street light poles exist �.yithin 1 SO lineal feet ; either three,.," „f eaeh
the -applicable street
b. WHERE POLES EXIST THAT CANNOT FULLY CONCEAL A SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY:
Written documentation from all pole owners within 150 lineal feet in either
right of , line fee the applicable street, denying the applicant's request to replace
any of the existing poles that are not capable of hosting a fully concealed small
12
Packet Pg. 578
9.3.b
wireless facility with a new pole that is capable of hosting a fully concealed small
wireless facility on the grounds that no such replacement pole is available on the
market or due to other reasonably insoluble problems expressed in writing by the
pole owner;
c. WHERE POLES EXIST THAT CAN FULLY CONCEAL A SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY:
Written documentation from all owners of poles within 150 lineal feet in either
direction of each proposed small wireless facility location, as measured along the
right-of-way line for the applicable street, denying the applicant's request to install
the small wireless facility within any such existing poles.
2. For installations proposed for Location Preference #3 (On top of existing power pole)_
provide all of the following to the extent applicable within 150 lineal feet in either
direction of each proposed small wireless facility location as measured along the right-
of-wav line for the aDplicable street:
a. Documentation as required in G.1, above; and
b. Evidence that the design standards for a freestanding small wireless facility in the
right-of-way could not be met; and
c. Confirmation by the director of public works that a new street light pole capable of
hosting a fully concealed small wireless facility was not determined to be needed
co ild not be lecate d within 150 lineal feet On either three.,`n of the p ed small
fit.
3. For installations proposed for Location Preference #4 (In communication space on
existing power pole) provide all of the following to the extent applicable within 150
lineal feet in either direction of each proposed small wireless facility location as
measured along the right-of-way line for the applicable street:
a. Documentation as required in G.1, and G.2, above; and
b. Evidence that no power poles exist; that would allow for installation on top of the
pole, exist within 150 lineal feet it „ffither diFeetie , of aeh r ed small , eless
; or
c. Written documentation from all owners of the power poles; , A " gothip , 54n lipp;;l fppt ;n
the right of way line feetheapplicable denying the request to install the
small wireless facility on any such power poles that would allow for installation on
top of the pole.
4. For installations proposed for Location Preference #5 (Strand -mounted) provide all of
the following to the extent applicable within 150 lineal feet in either direction of each
Dr000sed small wireless facilitv location as measured alone the right-of-wav line for the
applicable street:
a. Documentation as required in G.1, G.2, and G.3, above; and
13
Packet Pg. 579
9.3.b
b. Evidence that no power poles exist; that would allow for installation within the
communication space, exist withi., 150 iiReal feet in either ,fir.,,-+i R of ^ .-h
pr.,.,. sed all wiFeless facility IeeatieR measured aIeRg the right of „; or
c. Written documentation from all owners of the power poles within 150 lineal feet
therightoof way line -fe theapplicablestFeet, denying the request to install the
small wireless facility on any such existing power poles that would allow for
installation within the communication space.
5. For each small wireless facility to be placed on or at the location of an existing pole,
whether that pole is to be replaced or whether it is to remain. written documentation of
the pole owner's consent to the aaDlicant's Droaosed Dlacement at that location.
-5-.6. Demonstration of compliance with the National Electric Safety Code.
H. A copy of the provider's approved master permit.
14-.I. Any other documentation deemed necessary by the director in order to issue a decision
[Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.080 Eligible facilities requests.
This section implements section 6409 of the Spectrum Act (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1455), which
requires the City of Edmonds to approve any eligible facilities request for a modification of an
existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of
such tower or base station.
A. Definitions. The following definitions only apply to eligible facilities requests as described
in this section and do not apply throughout this chapter.
1. Base Station is a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC -licensed or
authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications
network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein nor any equipment
associated with a tower. Base station includes, without limitation:
a. Equipment associated with wireless communications services as well as unlicensed
wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul.
b. Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and back-up
power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration
(including distributed antenna systems ("DAS") and small wireless facility networks).
c. Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed
(with jurisdiction) under this section, supports or houses equipment described in
subsections (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this section that has been reviewed and approved under
the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review
process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing
that support.
14
Packet Pg. 580
9.3.b
The term does not include any structure that, at the time the relevant application is filed
with the City under this section, does not support or house equipment described in
subsections (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this section.
2. Collocation. The mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible
support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals
for communication purposes.
3. Eligible Facilities Request. Any request for modification of an existing tower or base
station that does not substantially increase the physical dimensions of such tower or base
station, involving:
a. Collocation of new transmission equipment;
b. Removal of transmission equipment; or
c. Replacement of transmission equipment.
4. Eligible Support Structure. Any tower or base station as defined in this section;
provided, that it is existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the City.
5. Existing. A constructed tower or base station is existing if it has been reviewed and
approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local
regulatory review process; provided, that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved
because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is
existing for purposes of this definition.
6. Site. For towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, the current boundaries of
the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements
currently related to the site, and, for other eligible support structures, further restricted to
that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already
deployed on the ground.
7. Substantial Change. A modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of an
eligible support structure if it meets any of the following criteria:
a. For towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, it increases the height of
the tower by more than ten (10) percent or by the height of one (1) additional antenna
array with separation from the nearest existing antenna, not to exceed twenty (20) feet,
whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it increases the height of the
structure by more than ten (10) percent or more than ten (10) feet, whichever is
greater.
Changes in height should be measured from the original support structure in
cases where deployments are or will be separated horizontally, such as on
buildings' rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height should be
measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of
15
Packet Pg. 581
9.3.b
originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved
prior to the passage of the Spectrum Act;
b. For towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, it involves adding an
appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower
more than ten (10) feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of
the appurtenance, whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it involves
adding an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge
of the structure by more than six (6) feet;
c. For any eligible support structure, it involves installation of more than the standard
number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four
cabinets; or, for towers in the public streets and base stations, it involves installation of
any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no preexisting ground cabinets
associated with the structure, or else involves installation of ground cabinets that are
more than ten (10) percent larger in height or overall volume than any other ground
cabinets associated with the structure;
d. It entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site;
e. It would defeat the concealment elements of the eligible support structure; or
f. It does not comply with conditions associated with the siting approval of the
construction or modification of the eligible support structure or base station equipment;
provided, however, that this limitation does not apply to any modification that is
noncompliant only in a manner that would not exceed the thresholds identified above.
B. Qualification as an Eligible Facilities Request. Upon receipt of an application for an eligible
facilities request, the Director will review the application to determine whether it qualifies as an
eligible facilities request.
C. Time Frame for Review. Within sixty (60) days of the date on which a network provider
submits an eligible facilities request application, the Director must approve the application
unless it determines that the application is not covered by this section.
D. Tolling of the Time Frame for Review. The sixty (60) day review period begins to run when
the application is submitted, and may be tolled only by mutual agreement by the Director and
the applicant or in cases where the Director determines that the application is incomplete. The
time frame for review of an eligible facilities request is not tolled by a moratorium on the
review of applications.
1. To toll the time frame for incompleteness, the Director must provide written notice to
the applicant within thirty (30) days of receipt of the application, clearly and specifically
delineating all missing documents or information required in the application.
2. The time frame for review begins running again when the applicant makes a
supplemental submission in response to the Director's notice of incompleteness.
16
Packet Pg. 582
9.3.b
3. Following a supplemental submission, the Director will notify the applicant within ten
(10) days that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in
the original notice delineating missing information. The time frame is tolled in the case of
second or subsequent notices pursuant to the procedures identified in this subsection.
Second or subsequent notice of incompleteness may not specify missing documents or
information that was not delineated in the original notice of incompleteness.
E. Determination That Application Is Not an Eligible Facilities Request. If the Director
determines that the applicant's request does not qualify as an eligible facilities request, the
Director must deny the application.
F. Failure to Act. In the event the Director fails to approve or deny a request for an eligible
facilities request within the time frame for review (accounting for any tolling), the request is
deemed granted. The deemed grant does not become effective until the applicant notifies the
Director in writing after the review period has expired (accounting for any tolling) that the
application has been deemed granted.
G. To the extent feasible, additional antennas and equipment shall maintain the appearance
intended by the original facility, including, but not limited to, color, screening, landscaping,
camouflage, concealment techniques, mounting configuration, or architectural treatment.
[Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.090 New building -mounted macro wireless communication facility standards.
A. General. Wireless communication facilities located on the roof or on the side of the building
shall be grouped together, integrated to the maximum possible degree with the building
design, placed toward the center of the roof and/or thoroughly screened from residential
building views and from public views using radio frequency -transparent panels. Building -
mounted wireless communication facilities shall be painted with nonreflective colors to match
the existing surface where the antennas are mounted.
B. Height. The following requirements shall apply:
1. Downtown Waterfront/Activity Center (As Identified in the Edmonds Comprehensive
Plan). For buildings at, or which exceed, the height limit of the underlying zone, antennas
shall be flush -mounted and no portion of the antenna may extend above the building on
which it is mounted. For buildings below the height limit, antennas may be built to the
maximum height of the zone provided they are screened consistent with the existing
building in terms of color, architectural style and material. Flush -mounted antennas may
encroach into a required setback or into the city right-of-way if a right-of-way use
agreement is established with the city. Antennas shall not project into the right-of-way by
more than two feet and shall provide a minimum clearance height of 20 feet over any
pedestrian or vehicular right-of-way.
2. Outside the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. The maximum height of building -
mounted facilities and equipment shall not exceed nine feet above the top of the roof on
which the facility is located. This standard applies to all buildings regardless of whether
17
Packet Pg. 583
9.3.b
they are at or above the maximum height of the underlying zone. Such antennas must be
well integrated with the existing structure or designed to look like common rooftop
structures such as chimneys, vents and stovepipes.
C. Equipment Enclosure. Equipment enclosures for building -mounted wireless communication
facilities shall first be located within the building on which the facility is located. If an
equipment enclosure within the building is reasonably unavailable, then an equipment
enclosure may be incorporated into the roof design provided the enclosure meets the height
requirement for the zone. If the equipment can be screened by placing the equipment below
existing parapet walls, no additional screening is required. If screening is required, then the
screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, architectural style and
material. Finally, if there is no other choice but to locate the equipment enclosure on the
ground, the equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the
setbacks of the underlying zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050(N).
D. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and cables should be located below the parapet
of the rooftop, if present. If the feed lines and cables are visible from a public right-of-way or
adjacent property, they must be painted to match the color scheme of the building.
Acceptable Building -Mounted WCF
. INNER
,,��,r.
Unacceptable Building -Mounted WCF
[Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
18
Packet Pg. 584
9.3.b
20.50.100 New structure -mounted macro wireless communication facilities standards.
A. Generally. Wireless communication facilities located on structures other than buildings,
such as utility poles, light poles, flag poles, transformers, and/or tanks, shall be designed to
blend with these structures and be mounted on them in an inconspicuous manner.
1. Wireless communication facilities located on structures within unzoned city rights -of -
way adjacent to single-family residential (IRS) zones shall satisfy the following requirement:
a. No metal pole or tower shall be used within the right-of-way adjacent to a single-
family zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the provisions of
the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the
surrounding residential neighborhood shall be used unless prohibited by the State
Electrical Code.
2. Wireless communication facilities located on structures shall be painted with
nonreflective colors in a scheme that blends with the underlying structure.
B. Height.
1. The maximum height of structure -mounted wireless communication facilities shall not
exceed the maximum height specified for each structure or zoning district (rights -of -way
are unzoned); provided the wireless communication facility may extend up to six feet
above the top of the structure on which the wireless communication facility is installed.
Antennas and related equipment shall be mounted as close as practicable to the structure
2. Only one extension is permitted per structure.
3. If installed on an electrical transmission or distribution pole, a maximum 15-foot
vertical separation is required from the height of the existing power lines at the site (prior
to any pole replacement) to the bottom of the antenna. This vertical separation is intended
to allow wireless carriers to comply with the electrical utility's requirements for separation
between their transmission lines and the carrier's antennas.
C. Equipment Enclosure. Equipment enclosures shall first be located underground. If the
enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure shall be underground. If there is no other
feasible option but to locate the equipment enclosure above ground on private property, the
equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the setbacks of the
underlying zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050(N).
D. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cable. Feed lines and cables must be painted to closely match the
color scheme of the structure which supports the antennas.
E. Only wireless communication providers with a valid master permit shall be eligible to apply
for a right-of-way construction permit, which shall be required prior to installation of facilities
within the city right-of-way and be in addition to other permits specified in this chapter.
19
Packet Pg. 585
9.3.b
Acceptable Structure -Mounted WCF
20
Packet Pg. 586
9.3.b
Unacceptable Structure -Mounted WCF
[Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.110 New monopole standards.
A. No part of a monopole, antennas or antenna equipment may exceed the maximum height
allowed in the zone where the facility is located.
B. Monopoles must be completed shrouded. All antennas, equipment and cables must be
concealed.
C. All monopole facilities must conform to the following site development standards:
1. To the greatest extent possible, monopole facilities shall be located where existing trees,
existing structures and other existing site features camouflage these facilities.
2. Existing mature vegetation should be retained to the greatest possible degree in order to
help conceal the facility.
3. Equipment Enclosure. The first preference is for the equipment enclosure to be located
underground. If the enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure must be
underground. If there is no other choice but to locate the equipment enclosure on the
ground, the equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the
setbacks of the underlying zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050(N).
21
Packet Pg. 587
9.3.b
Acceptable Monopole WCF
Unacceptable Monopole WCF
[Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.120 Temporary facilities.
A. The installation of a "cell -on -wheels" or COWS and the installation site shall comply with all
applicable laws, statutes, requirements, rules, regulations, and codes, including, but not limited
to, the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and National Electric Code.
B. All COWs and related appurtenances shall be completely removed from the installation site
within 30 days of the date of the end of the emergency as determined by the mayor. [Ord.
3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
22
Packet Pg. 588
9.3.b
20.50.130 Small wireless standards and approval process.
Unlike macro facilities which are intended to provide wireless coverage over large areas, the
goal of a small wireless facility deployment is to provide additional capacity in localized areas,
including residential neighborhoods, using smaller antennas and equipment. The intent of this
section is to describe the City's location preferences for small wireless facility deployments and
provide appropriate design standards to ensure that the negative visual impacts of small
wireless facilities are minimized.
A. Permitted locations.
Installation of small wireless facilities on existing buildings could help minimize the negative
visual impact of additional wires, antennas and equipment that may otherwise be placed on
utility poles. However, it is understood that a multi -node deployment may not be able to be
located entirely on buildings as it may not be technically feasible to do so and in addition, some
property owners within the desired small wireless facility deployment area may not want to
participate. A mix of zoned property and right-of-way locations may be used.
1. Small wireless facility attachments to buildings are permitted in any zone and are not
subject to the dispersion requirement below.
2. Fully concealed freestanding small wireless facilities are permitted in any zone (except
Downtown Business) but are still subject to the dispersion requirement below.
3. Dispersion Requirement: No two small wireless facilities shall be located within 300 feet
radially, PROVIDED THAT this dispersion requirement shall not apply to small wireless
facilities that are located pursuant to location preference #1, below, AND FURTHER
PROVIDED THAT this dispersion reauirement shall not aaDly to collocation in a ful
concealed pole.
4. Downtown Business district (BD) zones shall be limited to building attachments or
hollow utility poles. Where a Sternberg street light exists, replacement or new
installation of a decorative street light shall match the style and character of the existing
Sternberg street lights, as determined by the Public Works Director, and shall be
designed to contain a small wireless facility in a fully concealed manner. Small wireless
facilities shall not be attached to Sternberg street lights that were not designed to host
fully concealed small wireless facilities.
5. In areas where utility systems are underground, small cell facility deployment will be
limited to existing buildings, new or replaced street lights and/or installation of
freestanding small cell facilities.
6. Small wireless facilities may not be located on sites identified on official local, state or
federal historic registries.
23
Packet Pg. 589
9.3.b
7. Small wireless facilities may not be located on wood poles that contain a street light.
B. Location preference hierarchy.
When locating small wireless facilities in the right-of-way, wireless providers shall site their
small wireless facilities pursuant to the following siting preferences. These siting preferences
are expressed in descending order, starting with the most preferred. Wireless providers may
not descend to a lower preference in the list below until they have determined that the higher
preferences are not feasible in accordance with ECDC 20.50.070.G. Failure to show lack of
feasibility of a higher preference shall be grounds for denial of an application.
Location Preference #1— Hollow utility pole
Location Preference #2 — Freestanding small wireless facility or new street light
Location Preference #3 — Existing power pole (installation on top of pole)
Location Preference #4 — Existing power pole (installation in communication space)
Location Preference #5 — Strand -mounted
C. General Design Standards. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the following
general design standards apply to all small wireless facilities.
1. Collocation. All new poles must be capable of accepting at least two wireless facilities in
a fully concealed manner, unless accomodation of a second facility is not technically
feasible.
2. Ground mounted equipment in the rights -of -way is prohibited, unless the applicant can
demonstrate that pole mounted or undergrounded equipment is technically infeasible.
If ground mounted equipment is necessary, the equipment must be fully concealed.
Generators located in the rights -of -way are prohibited.
3. No equipment shall be operated so as to produce noise in violation of Chapter 5.30 ECC.
4. Replacement poles, new poles, and all equipment shall comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), city construction and sidewalk clearance standards, and state
and federal regulations in order to provide a clear and safe passage within the rights -of -
way.
5. Replacement poles shall be located as near as possible to the existing pole with the
requirement to remove the abandoned pole.
6. Except for the health warning signage referenced below, kno signage, message, or
identification other than the manufacturer's identification or identification required by
governing law is allowed to be portrayed on any antenna, and any such signage on
equipment enclosures shall be of the minimum amount possible to achieve the intended
purpose; provided, that signs are permitted as concealment techniques where
appropriate. All small wireless facilities shall have affixed to them a health warning sign.
The health warning sign shall be sized and oriented in such a manner as to be legible
24
Packet Pg. 590
9.3.b
from the sidewalk. The health warning sign shall not exceed one square foot in area. The
health warning sign shall read as follows: "WARNING: This device transmits radiation.
The long term consequences of exposure to such radiation upon human health are
unknown." The warning language shall be accompanied by the following symbol:
8. 7.Antennas and related equipment may not be illuminated except for security
reasons, required by a federal or state authority, or unless approved as part of a
concealment element such as a streetlight.
9-.9. The director is authorized to approve applications that deviate from the general
design standards, above, and the specific design standards, below, to the extent
necessary to approve an application that is consistent with the applicant's alternative
WCF design, but only where that applicant has already had the proposed alternative
WCF design approved by the city council pursuant to the optional process set forth in
ECDC 20.50.020.C.2.e, above. City council approval of an alternative WCF design does
not necessarily make other design standards inapplicable to that provider. Applicants
shall comply with the other design standards herein as much as their alternative WCF
design allows.
D. Specific Design Standards for Facilities in the Right -of -Way
Location Preference #1— Hollow utility pole. This option applies to any existing pole in
the right-of-way (power pole, street light pole, traffic light pole), that could feasibly be
replaced with a hollow pole designed to host small wireless facilities in a fully concealed
manner. In many, but not all instances, this location preference will involve the
replacement of a wood pole with a hollow pole that serves the same needs as its
predecessor while also hosting small wireless facilities in a fully concealed manner.
a. Combination small wireless facility and power pole must meet the pole owner's
requirements for power distribution. New combination small wireless facility and
power poles must be designed to host small wireless facilities from at least two
carriers in a fully enclosed manner. 5G antennas only may be exposed until such
time that the technology develops to make concealment of 5G antennas feasible.
25
Packet Pg. 591
9.3.b
b. Combination small wireless facility and streetlight pole should be located where an
existing streetlight pole can be utilized or removed and replaced with a pole that
allows for small wireless facility installation in the same location.
c. Pole design shall match or be compatible with the aesthetics of existing streetlights
installed adjacent to the pole.
d. Where a Sternberg street light exists in the
downtown business district (BD) zones,
CANTENNA
replacement or new installation of a
decorative street light shall match the style
and character of the existing Sternberg street LUMINAIRE
lights, as determined by the Public Works LUMINA RE MAST ARM
Director, and shall be designed to contain a UPPER POLE
small wireless facility in a fully concealed
manner.
e. The pole shall have a streamlined appearance
similar to the pole in the embedded diagram,
to the right. For a combination pole to be
considered visually pleasing, the transition
between the equipment cabinet and upper
pole should be considered. A decorative
transition shall be installed over the
FIBER
equipment cabinet upper bolts, or decorative SPLICEIPULL
Box
base cover shall be installed to match the EQUIPMENT CABINET
FINAL
equipment cabinet size. GRADE ❑
ELECTRICAL
f. The diameter of the upper pole shall be CONDUIT STANDARD
•' • -' � FOUNDATION
smaller than the equipment cabinet. All ``�
hardware connections shall be hidden from view. No horizontal flat spaces greater
than 1.5 inches shall exist on the equipment cabinet to prevent cups, trash, and
other objects from being placed on the equipment cabinet.
g. Internal separation of electrical wiring and fiber to be provided, as required by the
pole owner.
h. Weatherproof grommets shall be integrated in the pole design to allow cable to exit
the pole, for external shrouds, without water seeping into the pole.
26
Packet Pg. 592
9.3.b
i. The antenna shall ether be fully concealed within the pole, if technically feasible. If
it is not technically feasible to fully conceal the antenna within the pole, a shrouded
antenna may be flush mounted to either the side or top of the pole er placed en top
of ele, based en +^,."meal f„-,Se";';+,,. The basis for any claim of technical
infeasibility here must be supported by a signed statement from a licensed RF
engineer that provides enough detail to allow for meaningful third -party review
under ECDC 20.50.060.J. Antennas and equipment located within a unified enclosure
may also be flush mounted. as described above. if it is not technicallv feasible to
fully conceal the unified enclosure within the pole, and if the unified enclosure does
not exceed four (4) cubic feet in volume. The following is an example of a compliant
unified enclosure:
jj_A cantenna or canister antenna on top of an existing pole may not extend more than
six (6) feet above the height of the existing pole and the diameter may not exceed
the diameter of the top of the pole by more than two (2) inches. The antennas shall
be integrated into the pole design so that it appears as a continuation of the original
pole, including colored or painted to match the pole. All cabling and mounting
hardware/brackets from the bottom of the antenna to the top of the pole shall be
concealed and integrated with the pole.
tk_Utility poles shall be located as follows:
In a manner that does not impede, obstruct, or hinder pedestrian or
vehicular travel.
In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights.
27
Packet Pg. 593
9.3.b
Fa
iii. Equal distance between trees when possible, with a minimum of 15-foot
separation such that no proposed disturbance shall occur within the critical
root zone of any tree.
iv. With appropriate clearance from existing utilities.
V. In compliance with clear zone requirements.
vi. 10-feet away from the intersection of an alley with a street.
�-.I. All conduit, cables, wires and fiber must be routed internally in the utility pole.
Location Preference #2 - Freestanding small wireless facility or new street light.
a. Freestanding small wireless facility.
The specifications provided in this section are for installations within the right-of-
way only. The accompanying diagram shows a typical pole and its elements.
Dimensional requirements:
a) A freestanding small wireless facility may not exceed 25 feet in height
measured from the top of the foundation to the top of the cantenna.
b) The equipment cabinet must be no greater than 20 inches in diameter
c) The diameter of the upper pole shall be smaller than the equipment
cabinet. The pole shall be tapered to transition from the equipment
cabinet to the upper pole, as shown in the graphic below. The pole
diameter must be scaled so that no flat, horizontal surface larger than 1.5
inches exists between the equipment cabinet and upper pole.
d) The cantenna may not exceed 6-ft in height.
28
Packet Pg. 594
9.3.b
ii. Appearance requirements:
CANTENNA
a) The same pole aesthetic
must be used along
adjacent blocks to maintain
a cohesive appearance. If
UPPER POLE
freestanding small wireless
facilities already exist within
the deployment area, then
the new facility shall be
designed to match the
existing facilities as much as
practicable.
b) All small wireless facility
carrier equipment must be
housed internal to the
FIBER
equipment cabinet or
B4{ICEIPULL
0
EOU IPMENT CAB1N ET
hidden within the cantenna.
FINAL
GRADE�
d
C7
The cantenna, upper pole
ELECTRICAL
and equipment cabinet
CONDUIT
-
STANDARD
must be of the same brown
_
_
FOUNDATION
or green colors, unless otherwise approved by the Director.
c) All hardware connections shall be hidden from view.
d) No equipment may be attached to the outside of the pole.
e) The freestanding small wireless facility must be served by underground
power and fiber, if fiber is to be connected.
iii. Location requirements:
a) Located such that they in no way impede, obstruct, or hinder the usual
pedestrian or vehicular travel, affect public safety, obstruct the legal
access to or use of the public ROW, violate applicable law, violate or fail
to substantially comply with public ROW design standards, specifications,
or design district requirements, violate the Federal Americans with
29
Packet Pg. 595
9.3.b
Disabilities Act of 1990, or in any way create a risk to public health,
safety, or welfare.
b) Outside the downtown business district (BD) zones.
c) So as not to be located along the frontage of a Historic building, deemed
historic on a federal, state, or local level.
d) So as not to significantly create a new obstruction to property sight lines.
e) In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights.
f) Equal distance between trees when possible, with a minimum of 15-foot
separation such that no proposed disturbance shall occur within the
critical root zone of any tree.
g) With appropriate clearance from existing utilities.
h) In compliance with clear zone requirements.
i) 10-feet away from the intersection of an alley with a street.
j) On the same side of the street as existing power lines, regardless of
whether power is underground or overhead;
b. New Street Light. The hollow utility pole requirements are also applicable to the
new street light alternative, except that a street light would be incorporated into
the design of the facility. In addition, the following applies:
A new street light shall not be installed unless it has been identified by the
director of public works that a street light is necessary at the location in
which the small wireless facility is proposed. A street light may be required
to be installed instead of a freestanding wireless facility.
c. Location Preference #3 - Existing power pole (installation on top of pole):
A cantenna may not extend more than six (6) feet above the height of the
existing pole and the diameter may not exceed the diameter of the pole by
30
Packet Pg. 596
9.3.b
more than two (2) inches, measured at the top of the pole, unless the
applicant can demonstrate technological infeasibility. The antennas shall be
integrated into the pole design so that it appears as a continuation of the
original pole, including colored or
painted to match the pole. All cabling VARM
NNA
and mounting hardware/brackets from (TOPOUNTED)
the bottom of the antenna to the top of
the pole shall be concealed.
AIRE & MAST
ii. Equipment enclosures and all ancillary
equipment and boxes shall be colored or
EQUIPMENT SHROUD
painted to match the color of the surface WITH ANTENNA (SIDE
MOUNTED)
of the wooden pole in which they are
attached. All related equipment shall not UTILITY POLE
be mounted more than six (6) inches
from the surface of the pole, unless a
further distance is technically required,
and is confirmed in writing by the pole
Owner. EOU IPMENT SHROUD
iii. All cables and wires shall be routed
through conduit along the outside of the
xCELENERGY METER
pole. The outside conduit shall be WITH DISCONNECT
colored or painted to match the color of SMALL CELL
FIBER
the surface of the wooden pole. The
number of conduit shall be minimized to ELECTRICAL
CONDUIT
the number technically necessary to
accommodate a small wireless facility and shall not increase the number of
conduit on an existing pole to more than 3 conduit.
iv. The visual effect of the small wireless facility on all other aspects of the
appearance of the wooden pole shall be minimized to the greatest extent
possible.
V. A wooden pole in a proposed location may be replaced with a taller pole for
the purpose of accommodating a small wireless facility; provided, that the
height of any replacement pole may not exceed fifty (50) feet to the top of
the cantenna.
31
Packet Pg. 597
9.3.b
vi. The use of the pole for the siting of a small wireless facility shall be
considered secondary to the primary function of the pole. If the primary
function of a pole serving as the host site for a small wireless facility becomes
unnecessary, the pole shall not be retained for the sole purpose of
accommodating the small wireless facility and the small wireless -facility and
all associated equipment shall be removed.
d. Location Preference #4 - Existing power pole (installation in communication
space):
i. Antennas should be placed in an
effort to minimize visual clutter and — --
obtrusiveness. Only one antenna
array is permitted on each wooden UTILITY POLE
pole. The inside edge of a side EOUIPMENTSHROUD
mounted canister
antenna/equipment shroud shall
project no more than twelve (12)
inches from the surface of the
wooden pole.
ii. To the extent technically feasible,
antennas and equipment located
within a unified enclosure shall not
exceed four (4) cubic feet. The EQUIPMENT SHROUD
unified enclosure shall be placed so
as to appear as an integrated part
of the pole or behind banners or
signs. The unified enclosure may xCELENERGY METER
WITH DISCONNECT
not be placed more than six (6)
AL
inches from the surface of the pole, FIBEERLCELL
unless a further distance is
technically required and confirmed ELECTRICAL -
in writing by the pole owner.
iii. Equipment enclosures and all ancillary equipment and boxes shall be colored
or painted to match the color of the surface of the wooden pole in which
they are attached. All related equipment shall not be mounted more than six
(6) inches from the surface of the pole, unless a further distance is technically
required, and is confirmed in writing by the pole owner.
32
Packet Pg. 598
9.3.b
iv. All cables and wires shall be routed through conduit along the outside of the
pole. The outside conduit shall be colored or painted to match the color of
the surface of the wooden pole. The number of conduit shall be minimized
to the number technically necessary to accommodate a small wireless facility
and shall not increase the number of conduit on an existing pole to more
than 3 conduit.
V. The visual effect of the small wireless facility on all other aspects of the
appearance of the wooden pole shall be minimized to the greatest extent
possible.
vi. A wooden pole in a proposed location may be replaced with a taller pole for
the purpose of accommodating a small wireless facility; provided, that the
height of any replacement pole may not extend more than ten (10) feet
above the height of the existing pole, unless a further height increase is
required and confirmed in writing by the pole owner and that such height
increase is the minimum extension possible to provide sufficient separation
and/or clearance from electrical and wireline facilities.
vii. The use of the pole for the siting of a small wireless facility shall be
considered secondary to the primary function of the pole. If the primary
function of a pole serving as the host site for a small wireless facility becomes
unnecessary, the pole shall not be retained for the sole purpose of
accommodating the small wireless facility and the small wireless facility and
all associated equipment shall be removed.
33
Packet Pg. 599
9.3.b
e. Location Preference #S - Strand -mounted.
Small wireless facility facilities mounted on cables strung between existing utility
poles shall conform to the following standards:
SMALL CELL
FIBER
ELE
UTILITY POLE
EQUIPMENT SHROUD
EQUIPMENT
SHROUD
This graphic is intended to
represent a strand mount antenna.
EQUIPMENT SHROUD
xCELENERGY METER
WITH DISCONNECT
To the extent technically feasible, antennas shall not exceed one (1) cubic
feet in volume.
ii. Only one strand mounted facility is permitted between any two existing
poles.
iii. The strand mounted devices shall be placed as close as possible to the
nearest utility pole and in no event more than five feet from the pole unless
a greater distance is technically necessary or required for safety clearance
and confirmed in writing by the pole owner.
34
Packet Pg. 600
9.3.b
iv. No strand mounted device shall be located in or above the portion of the
roadway open to vehicular traffic.
V. Ground mounted equipment to accommodate such strand mounted facilities
is not permitted, except when placed in pre-existing equipment cabinets,
underground or on zoned property.
vi. Pole mounted equipment shall meet the requirements of subsections (iii),
(iv) and (v) of subsection (d) above.
vii. Such strand mounted devices must be installed to cause the least visual
impact and with the minimum excess exterior cabling or wires (other than
the original strand) necessary to meet the technological needs of the facility.
E. Specific Design Standards for Facilities Located Outside the Right -of -Way
1. On a Building.
a. Roof -mounted.
Small wireless facilities may be built to the maximum height of the
underlying zone (or use the height exception in Sub (c) below) provided they
are screened consistent with the existing building in terms of color,
architectural style and materials.
ii. Such facilities must be completely concealed and well integrated with the
existing structure or designed and located to look like common rooftop
elements such as chimneys, elevator penthouses or screened HVAC
equipment.
iii. Height exception. The maximum height for a small wireless facility above the
underlying zone maximum is 3 feet with a maximum footprint of 12 sq. ft. in
horizontal section.
b. Fagade-mounted.
Small wireless facility antennas may be mounted to the side of a building if
they do not interrupt and are integrated with the building's architectural
theme.
New architectural features such as columns, pilasters, corbels, or similar
ornamentation that conceals the antennas should be used if it complements
the architecture of the existing building.
35
Packet Pg. 601
9.3.b
iii. If concealment is not possible, the antennas must be camouflaged. The
smallest feasible mounting brackets must be used and the antennas must be
painted and textured to match the adjacent building surfaces.
iv. Facade -mounted antennas may encroach into a required setback or into the
city right-of-way. Antennas may not project into the right-of-way more than
twelve (12) inches and shall provide a minimum clearance height of 20 feet
over any pedestrian or vehicular right-of-way.
V. All other equipment must be located within the building, screened by an
existing parapet, or completely concealed and well integrated with the
existing structure or designed and located to look like common rooftop
elements such as chimneys, elevator penthouses or screened HVAC
equipment. Exposed cabling/wiring is prohibited.
vi. Height exception. Antennas may be located on buildings that are
nonconforming for height provided that they are constructed to be no taller
than the adjacent fagade or an existing parapet. Equipment may be located
on a roof behind a parapet that is nonconforming for height. Vertical
expansion of the height nonconformity is prohibited.
2. Freestanding small wireless facility. The specifications provided in this section are for
installations on zoned property only. Refer to subsection 20.50.130.D.2.a for
dimensional and appearance standards.
a. Placement requirements. Freestanding small wireless facilities shall be located as
follows:
Located such that they in no way impede, obstruct, or hinder the usual
pedestrian or vehicular travel, affect public safety, or violate applicable law.
Within 5 feet of the street property line (right-of-way) and within 5 feet of a
side property line.
iii. So as not to significantly create a new obstruction to property sight lines.
iv. In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights.
V. With appropriate clearance from existing utilities.
36
Packet Pg. 602
9.3.b
vi. In compliance with clear zone requirements.
vii. On the same side of the street as existing power lines, regardless of whether
power is underground or overhead;
20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use.
A. At such time that a licensed carrier plans to abandon or discontinue operation of a wireless
communication facility, such carrier will notify the director by certified U.S. Mail of the
proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations. Such notice shall be given no
less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinuation of operations.
B. In the event that a licensed carrier fails to give such notice, the wireless communication
facility shall be considered abandoned upon the discovery of such discontinuation of
operations.
C. Within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation of use, the carrier shall
physically remove the wireless communication facility. "Physically remove" shall include, but
not be limited to:
1. Removal of antennas, mounts or racks, the equipment enclosure, screening, cabling
and the like from the subject property.
2. Transportation of the materials removed to a repository outside of the city.
3. Restoration of the wireless communication facility site to its pre -permit or better
condition, except that any landscaping provided by the wireless communication facility
operator may remain in place.
4. If a carrier fails to remove a wireless communication facility in accordance with this
section, the city shall have the authority to enter the subject property and physically
remove the facility. Costs for removal of the wireless communication facility shall be
charged to the wireless communication facility owner or operator in the event the city
removes the facility. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.150 Maintenance.
A. The applicant shall maintain the wireless communication facility to standards that may be
imposed by the city by ordinance or through permit condition. Such maintenance shall include,
but not be limited to, repair of damaged shrouds or enclosures, painting, structural integrity,
and landscaping.
B. In the event the applicant fails to maintain the facility, the city of Edmonds may undertake
enforcement action as allowed by existing codes and regulations. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord.
3845 § 2 (Att. A), 20111.
20.50.160 Definitions.
A. Antenna(s). Any apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radiofrequency (RF)
radiation, to be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Commission
37
Packet Pg. 603
9.3.b
authorization, for the provision of personal wireless service and any commingled information
services.
B. "Cell -on -wheels (COW)" are used to provide temporary service, usually for special events,
during repair of a permanent wireless site, or in emergencies.
C. "Collocation" means the mounting or installation of an antenna on an existing tower,
building or structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals
for communications purposes, whether or not there is an existing antenna on the structure.
D. Completely Fully concealed facility. A WCF where: (A) the antennas, mounting apparatus,
and any associated equipment are fully recessed/concealed fr^m _" Sides within a pole or other
structure hat achieves tetal iRte gratiOn With the „ istiR bUildiRg „ structure; and (B) all cable
is routed internally or completely screened from viewto the structure; and (C) the associated
equipment is completely within the building or structure, placed in an underground vault, or is
within another element such as a bench, mail box or kiosk.
E. "Distributed antenna system (DAS)" is a network of spatially separated antenna sites
connected to a common source that provides wireless service within a discrete geographic
area or structure.
F. Equipment. Any equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters or cabinets
associated with an antenna, located at the same fixed location as the antenna, and, when
collocated on a structure, is mounted or installed at the same time as such antenna.
G. "Freestanding small wireless facility" is a freestanding structure which consists of a single
vertical hollow pole, fixed into the ground and/or attached to a foundation built for the sole
purpose of supporting and concealing small wireless antennas and associated equipment.
H. "Guyed tower" means a monopole or lattice tower that is tied to the ground or other
surface by diagonal cables.
I. "Lattice tower" is a wireless communication support structure which consists of metal
crossed strips or bars to support antennas and related equipment.
J. "Licensed carrier" is a company authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to
build and operate a commercial mobile radio services system.
K. Macro cell facility (macro facility). A large wireless communication facility that provides
radio frequency coverage served by a high power cellular system. Generally, macro cell
antennas are mounted on ground -based towers, rooftops and other existing structures, at a
height that provides a clear view over the surrounding buildings and terrain. Macro cell facilities
typically contain antennas that are greater than three (3) cubic feet per antenna and typically
cover large geographic areas with relatively high capacity and are capable of hosting multiple
wireless service providers.
L. "Monopole" means a freestanding structure which consists of a single vertical pole, fixed
into the ground and/or attached to a foundation with no guy wires built for the sole or primary
purpose of supporting macro antennas and their associated equipment.
38
Packet Pg. 604
9.3.b
M. Poles. Utility poles, light poles or other types of poles, used primarily to support electrical
wires, telephone wires, television cable, lighting, or guide posts; or are constructed for the sole
purpose of supporting a WCF.
N. "Satellite earth station antenna" includes any antenna in any zoning district that:
1. Is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct -to -home
satellite services, and that is one meter or less in diameter;
2. Is two meters or less in diameter in areas where commercial or industrial uses are
generally permitted;
3. Is designed to receive programming services by means of multi -point distribution
services, instructional television fixed services, and local multi -point distribution services,
that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement; and
4. Is designed to receive television broadcast signals.
O. Small wireless facility (or small cell node). A wireless facility that meets each of the
following conditions:
1. The facilities:
a. Are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas, or
b. Are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent
structures, or
c. Do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than
50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;
2. Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding antenna equipment, is not
more than three cubic feet in volume;
3. All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless
equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the
structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume;
4. The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under FCC rule;
5. The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of
the applicable safety standards specified by FCC rule.
P. "Unlicensed wireless services" means the offering of communications services using duly
authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of
direct- to -home satellite services.
Q. "Wireless communication facility (WCF)" means an unstaffed facility for the transmission
and reception of radio or microwave signals used for commercial communications. A WCF
provides services which include cellular phone, personal communication services, other mobile
radio services, and any other service provided by wireless common carriers licensed by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). WCFs are composed of two or more of the
39
Packet Pg. 605
9.3.b
following components:
1. Antenna;
2. Mount;
3. Equipment enclosure;
4. Security barrier.
R. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), building -mounted" means a wireless
communication facility mounted to the roof, wall or chimney of a building. Also, those
antennas mounted on existing monopoles.
S. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), camouflaged" means a wireless communication
facility that is disguised, hidden, or integrated with an existing structure that is not a
monopole, guyed or lattice tower, or placed within an existing or proposed structure.
T. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), equipment enclosure" means a small structure,
shelter, cabinet, or vault used to house and protect the electronic equipment necessary for
processing wireless communication signals. Associated equipment may include air conditioning
and emergency generators.
U. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), monopole" means a wireless communication
facility not attached to a structure or building and not exempted from regulation under ECDC
20.50.030. Does not include collocation of a facility on an existing monopole, utility pole, light
pole, or flag pole.
V. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), related equipment" is all equipment ancillary to a
wireless communication facility such as coaxial cable, GPS receivers, conduit and connectors.
W. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), structure -mounted" means a wireless
communication facility located on structures other than buildings, such as light poles, utility
poles, flag poles, transformers, and/or tanks.
X. "Wireless communication services" means any personal wireless services as defined in the
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, including federally licensed wireless communications
services consisting of cellular services, personal communications services (PCS), specialized
mobile radio services (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio services (ESMR), paging, and
similar services that currently exist or that may be developed in the future. [Ord. 3961 § 1,
2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
40
Packet Pg. 606