Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2019-04-23 City Council Packet (2)
o Agenda Edmonds City Council snl. ,nyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 23, 2019, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2019 2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2019 3. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 4. PFD Board Candidate City Council Appointment 5. PRESENTATIONS 1. Betty Lou Gaeng Proclamation (5 min) 2. Arts Commission Annual Report 2018 (20 min) 6. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. ACTION ITEMS 1. Temporary Employment Contract -Court Administrator (15 min) 2. Option for Addressing Nonconformance in Limited Manner (30 min) 3. Land Use Permit Decision -Making and Quasi -Judicial Process (30 min) 9. STUDY ITEMS 1. Fund Balance / Reserve Policy Discussion (20 min) 2. Preliminary December 2018 Quarterly Financial Report (20 min) 3. Discussion of Non -Represented Staff Salary Increases (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). 13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. Edmonds City Council Agenda April 23, 2019 Page 1 ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda April 23, 2019 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/23/2019 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of April 16, 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: 04-16-2019 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 4.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES APRIL 16, 2019 Elected Officials Present Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Mike Nelson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Tom Mesaros, Councilmember Mike Nelson, Councilmember (arrived 6:40 p.m.) Dave Earling, Mayor Elected Officials Absent Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Staff Present Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director 1. CALL TO ORDER/CONVENE IN JURY MEETING ROOM At 6:10 p.m., the City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION The City Council then adjourned to the Jury Meeting Room in closed session to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(l)(i). 3. CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS FOR APPOINTMENT TO A CITY BOARD OR COMMISSION At approximately 6:30 p.m., the executive session concluded and the Council interviewed Maurine Jeude and Bruce Owensby, candidates for appointment to the Architectural Design Board. ADJOURN At 6:53 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/23/2019 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of April 16, 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: 04-16-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 5 4.2.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES April 16, 2019 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Michael Nelson, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Don Anderson, Assistant Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir Scott James, Finance Director Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Mgr. Rob English, City Engineer Maureen Judge, Council Legislative/Exec. Asst. 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. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO ADD STUDY ITEM 9.4, 2018 NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION STUDY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE ITEM 8.1, AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE -2019 CUES SEWER VIDEO INSPECTION TRUCK, TO A FUTURE MEETING. Councilmember Mesaros asked Councilmember Johnson why she wanted to delay this item. Councilmember Johnson said a 1-2 week delay would not be substantial and she wanted an opportunity to discuss the details. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 1 Packet Pg. 6 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 2019 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 3. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES 4. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF CANDIDATE TO A BOARD OR COMMISSION 5. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF CANDIDATE TO A BOARD OR COMMISSION 6. FEBRUARY 2019 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 7. DIVERSITY AND YOUTH COMMISSION COORDINATORS AS TEMPORARY CONTRACT EMPLOYEE POSITIONS 8. FRANCES ANDERSON ROOFING BID REFUSAL 9. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY TRANSIT FOR COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION 2019-2023 10. REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR THE 2019 OVERLAY PROGRAM 11. REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR 174TH ST/71ST AVE STORM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 12. STREET DEDICATION FOR 216TH ST. SW ADJACENT TO EDMONDS WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL 5. PRESENTATIONS 1. YWCA STAND AGAINST RACISM PROCLAMATION Mayor Earling read a proclamation proclaiming April 22-26, 2019 to be Stand Against Racism Week and calling upon all public officials, educators, businesses, community leaders and all people of Edmonds to observe this week and commit, going forward to fight against racism whenever and wherever it may appear. He presented the proclamation to Mary Anne Dillon, Executive Director, YWCA Snohomish County. She relayed the YWCA's gratitude for the proclamation and for the City's partnership and ongoing commitment to eliminate racism in Edmonds. There is still work to be done in Edmonds, in Snohomish County and throughout the United States, focusing on eliminating the enduring disparities that disproportionately affect women and families of color in education, healthcare, employment, housing, and criminal justice in nearly every institution in the country. Each of us stand in a different place on this road and racism impacts everyone in different ways. 2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 2019-2020 WORK PROGRAM Community Services/Economic Development Director Patrick Doherty introduced EDC Chair Mary Monroe. Chair Monroe presented: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 2 Packet Pg. 7 4.2.a Background o The EDC was established pursuant to Chapter 10.75 o Nine -member volunteer board appointed by Mayor and Council ■ Kevin Harris ■ Darrol Haug ■ Nicole Hughes, Vice Chair ■ Kimberly Koenig ■ Scott Merrick ■ Mary Monroe, Chair ■ Aseem Prakash ■ Jamie Reece ■ Margaret Safford EDC Mission o The Commission is empowered to advise and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council, and as appropriate, to other boards and commissions of the City on strategies, programs or activities intended to generate economic development and consequently increase jobs and municipal revenue. o Topics of study may be referred to the Commission by the Mayor or City Council, or independently generated by the commission. EDC 2019-2020 Work Program o The EDC welcomes this opportunity to provide Council and the Mayor with an overview of the activities we are considering undertaking over the next 12 to 18 months. o The EDC is interested in Council and Mayor input regarding these proposed activities. o In addition, we look forward to any ideas or suggestions Council and/or the Mayor may have regarding our proposed activities for the next 12 to 18 months. o The EDC has designated three active work groups. Each work group will focus on key objectives approved by the entire Commission. The work groups and key activities are listed on the following slides. EDC Work Groups and Priorities o Business Attraction ■ The Business Attraction work group attempts to seek out and market to businesses that will enhance the business community and create new living -wage jobs in Edmonds. Key objectives for the next 12-18 months include: - Conducting interviews with new Edmonds businesses to determine what about Edmonds attracted them and learn what the City can do to support their business growth. - Conducting interviews with businesses that have recently left Edmonds to determine the reasons for leaving and what, if anything, the City could have done to better support them. - Investigate development of Community Work Spaces. - Focus on recruiting businesses that complement and spin off from the existing Health Care sector. o Arts/Tourism The Arts and Tourism work group is focused on increasing tourism, and supporting the expanding arts community in Edmonds. The Arts/Tourism work group continuously seeks local, regional and statewide partnerships, including grants, in -kind support and education. Key objectives for the next 12-18 months include: - Feasibility and implementation of a shuttle service from the Edmonds Waterfront to Downtown - Seeking opportunities for hotel development in and near Downtown Edmonds - Informational audio marketing with associated signage along SR104 ferry holding lanes in collaboration with Downtown Alliance Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 3 Packet Pg. 8 4.2.a - Investigating the feasibility of a year-round farmers market o Development Feasibility ■ The Development Feasibility work group aims to ensure Edmonds is attractive to and supportive of incoming development, while respecting the unique Edmonds neighborhoods, landmarks and Downtown look and feel. Key objectives for the next 12- 18 months include: - Permit process improvements - Neighborhood Business District Code review and potential update recommendations. o EDC Past Work Groups ■ There are several work groups which have been active in the past, but are not active at this time. When needed, these work groups may reconvene to address issues and provide support. These include: - Highway 99 planning and development - Civic Field - Parking Councilmember Buckshnis commented this was a very aggressive schedule for nine members. The Council will be meeting with the Planning Board soon and she was unsure sure whether the EDC should get involved in code development and feared it could be dangerous for the EDC to review codes and permitting without Council guidance. She preferred the EDC focus their efforts on tourism, Hwy 99, and Civic Field parking. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked about successes in 2018-2019. Chair Monroe said the EDC researched and brought forward several items, some of which did not get legs. The EDC's mission is to bring forward ideas to be investigated/researched and the decision whether to pursue them is the City Council's. With regard to successes, the EDC has learned a great deal about what is going on within the City's boundaries and some of the challenges. Some of the issues they recommended for further research did not move forward. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked for examples. Chair Monroe recalled the EDC investigated and recommended further research on reducing the first floor height limit in the downtown core from 15 feet to 10-12 feet and moving the City's offices from their current location to Hwy 99 to be a catalyst project on Hwy 99, better utilize the downtown space and repurpose the existing City Hall. Mr. Doherty said the EDC participated in several processes to consider economic development/vitality such as Hwy 99, Civic Park planning, downtown parking, etc. and have submitted memos to the City Council regarding economic vitality related issues to help inform the Council's decision. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was interested in successful projects. Chair Monroe said there has not been anything that the EDC started and finished. The EDC participated in Civic Field, Hwy 99 and downtown parking which are ongoing issues. Councilmember Johnson said one success was the parking tick marks which was Darrol Haug's suggestion. She recalled being the Planning Board's representative on the EDC 10 years ago and one of the first commissioners was Frank Yamamoto, who owned a running store downtown and organized the City's first half marathon, and there were discussions about a 4x4 basketball tournament. One of the reasons she appointed Chair Monroe to the commission was her background in sports promotion for the City of Lynnwood. She asked why that was dropped from the work program. Chair Monroe said she believed sports development can be a huge economic impact for a community. Edmonds has very limited resources to host tournaments; most of the tournaments are held in the Lynnwood and Monroe areas where there are more playfields and facilities available. Edmonds needs to inventory what is available, partner with other nearby communities and package those to recruit sports tournaments. Indoor facilities are preferable but not practicable. It would be necessary to rely on the school district as a partner to provide indoor courts. With regard to baseball or soccer, Edmonds does not have the inventory. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 4 Packet Pg. 9 4.2.a Councilmember Johnson pointed out the City does have petanque courts and tennis courts are being converted to pickleball. Chair Monroe said the United States Tennis Association Senior National Championships were held at Harbor Square. Councilmember Johnson liked that the EDC was working with the new Youth Commission, commenting it was important to find jobs for students who are interested in pursuing jobs in Edmonds. Mr. Doherty said the City is a member of the Snohomish County Tourism Bureau whose staff field regional/national/international inquiries regarding tournaments that play in Snohomish County; they contact the Parks Department regularly about hosting part of Snohomish County events in Edmonds. Councilmember Teitzel commented the current economy is very healthy; one of the major drivers for tax revenue locally is car sales which is great when the economy is good, but bad in an economic downturn. He asked if the EDC was looking at ways to diversity the local economy by attracting other industries such as high tech/software to bridge those downturns. Chair Monroe said the business attraction subcommittee is trying to identify other sectors that could create an environment for those businesses. The challenge now is availability of office space. There is access to a great workforce but there is a shortage of office space; hopefully more office space will be developed on Hwy 99 in the future. The commute to downtown Seattle has become horrendous and more businesses are looking for alternatives. Mr. Doherty said part of the pitch to the board that awarded the City the Creative District Designation was that designation would help diversify the economy and strengthen the creative sector. Other sectors such as healthcare, anchored by Swedish Hospital, have already taken off and the EDC is interested in exploring ways to make connections with other regional businesses that could move to Edmonds, have satellite facilities, etc. Arts and tourism are great for economic development because it evens out economic troughs. Edmonds is a great day trip destination and staycations are more affordable in an economic downturn. As the Council liaison to the EDC, Councilmember Tibbott said heard the development of this plan. He likes how commissioners work together and divide the labors between committees. With regard to development, permit processes and code revisions, he clarified the EDC was interested in understanding what code revisions could potentially be necessary. Chair Monroe assured the EDC was not able to write code; they were interested in learning from people who have gone through it what the process was like, whether there were ways to improve how the City interacts with people going through the process, whether applicants understand the steps in the process, etc. In talking with businesses in town, many people are confused by process. It would be beneficial for the EDC to understand those issues and share any chinks in the process with staff. With regard to neighborhood codes, the intent is to talk with people about how their neighborhoods are growing and what they envision and share that information with staff. Councilmember Tibbott said that would be a valuable source of study and discovery for the EDC and potentially improve the consumer experience. In speaking with a new business today, they mentioned it took weeks to go through the development services process which they found very frustrating. It would be helpful to investigate whether there were ways to improve the consumer experience. Chair Monroe commented it is sometimes helping the customer understand why there is a delay. Councilmember Buckshnis did not mind the EDC looking at streamlining the process and permitting. The administration should already know the process needs to be streamlined and she was amazed a volunteer group needed to look into that. She recalled the Green Resource Center was created to improve that process. She was aware there were permitting issues which is the reason the second floor closes at noon on Wednesdays. She concluded permitting and codes are Planning Board issues; the UW Green Futures Lab already looked at Five Corners and Westgate. She preferred to see focused results rather than the EDC looking at everything. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 5 Packet Pg. 10 4.2.a 6. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES Finance Committee Councilmember Buckshnis reported: • The Edmonds Public Facilities District's quarterly report regarding their financials was delayed to June due to scheduling issues • February 2109 Monthly Financial Report — approved on Consent Agenda • First Quarter 2019 Budget Amendment — on tonight's agenda • Possible Change to Utility Billing Schedule — referred to staff • $235,000 Prior Period Adjustment — referred to staff • Change to Year -End Accruals — referred to staff • Split Utility Funds into Operating and Capital— referred to staff • Create Internal Service Fund for Facilities— referred to staff • Policy Development for Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and Facility Condition Index (FCI) — referred to staff Parks and Public Works Committee Councilmember Teitzel reported: • Authorization to Purchase 2019 Cues Sewer Video Inspection Truck — postponed to future meeting • Authorization for Mayor to Sign Interlocal Agreement with Community Transit for Commute Trip Reduction 2019-2023 — approved on Consent Agenda • Report on Construction Bid for the 2019 Overlay Program — approved on Consent Agenda • Report on Construction Bids for 174th St/71't Ave Storm Improvements Project — approved on Consent Agenda • Street Dedication for 216t1i St SW adjacent to Edmonds-Woodway High School — approved on Consent Agenda • Frances Anderson Roofing Bid Refusal — approved on Consent Agenda Public Safety, Personnel & Planning Committee Councilmember Nelson reported: • Option for Addressing Nonconformance in Limited Manner — on tonight's agenda • Diversity and Youth Commission Coordinator Position Approvals — approved on Consent Agenda 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Jan Trierweiler, Edmonds, explained she is a seller in the midst of the noncompliant code issues. The code was changed after her condominium community was built in the late 1970s. A senior citizen on a fixed income, she made a decision to sell her condo on January 5, 2019. Because the market has been good and other units in the complex have sold in recent years, she decided it was a good time to make a change and move to a smaller community. A buyer was found on February 2' and during the process of applying for financing, this code change was discovered, causing her bank to decline financing due to risk if the building were severely damaged and the code was enforced. No one in the condo complex was aware of the code change and the noncompliance matter was surprisingly not found when other units were sold. The March 18 closing date has been put on hold pending resolution of this issue which has had a significant emotional and financial strain on her and it is unknown how long the interested buyer will wait. She must pay the mortgage and monthly expenses on a condo she no longer lives in as well for her new home. This situation can affect any owner in her complex and the other 25+ complexes in the City. Owners trying to sell units in these affected complexes that know of this noncompliance are legally obligated to disclose it to any Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 6 Packet Pg. 11 4.2.a interested buyer. City officials have known of this situation for some time, yet nothing has been done to change the code. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, thanked the City Council for acknowledging public concern about Edmonds' housing policy and for being willing to create a new commission to involve Edmonds citizens in the process of creating the commission. She is one of more than 55 concerned citizens representing a grassroots movement that submitted a set of proposals to the Council about how to fairly create this new commission. Many of the citizens have been involved in the process since May 2018. Although there has been some misconception about there being a goal driven agenda, the majority of those represented are from other neighborhoods in Edmonds. If fairly and thoughtfully formed, this new commission could help make Edmonds the city that did growth right. Citizens of Edmonds expect a commission that represent the true stakeholders of Edmonds, those who live here now, pay taxes and have Edmonds' best interest at heart, not some predetermined, imagined version of who will live here in the future. Commission members should fully understand that the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is not a legally binding document, but a set of guidelines and recommendation, a document that can be amended to more accurately align with Edmonds citizens' vision for their City while meeting recommended growth plans such as PSRC's Vision 2040 or the Countywide Planning Policies. The commission's mission should accurately define the issue to be addressed by following a set of steps, 1) examine Edmonds' current housing stock, 2) look at future population trends, and 3) make recommendations to address specific housing needs based on actual, verifiable data. The commission should be fully supported and judged to be legitimate by the citizens of Edmonds, averting mistakes of the past; therefore, it is imperative this new commission not be pre -assigned a mission that will yield a pre -determined outcome or inevitable result. Citizens and city officials involved are expected to come to the project with an open mind and be willing to start over as needed in developing our future housing picture. Michelle Goodman, Edmonds, continued the group's requests for a commission made up of citizen representatives who reside in Edmonds' neighborhoods. Homeowners make up 70% of Edmonds residents, and Edmonds homeowners must have a say in the future housing policy and, therefore, a presence on the new commission commensurate with their representation in Edmonds' population. They also encouraged councilmembers to direct the commission to consider the infrastructure implications of a housing policy. Certainly, homeowners would be best suited to assure that all aspects of redevelopment are addressed, including safety, parking, schools, emergency services, transportation access, and neighborhood character. The City Council should give the commission a mandate to serve in an advisory capacity to Edmonds' government, issue reports on a quarterly basis or more, as needed, to the City Council, maintain effective communication with the public, hold regular and well -publicized public meetings, and put updates on the City's housing website. Chosen members should be willing to hold meetings with their neighbors to gather ideas and concerns and report them back to the commission. Commission members should present and champion a variety of views on housing policy, not one comprised in large part of those who clearly support one particular view. It is apparent from public engagement that a majority of Edmonds' citizens have strong concerns about Edmonds utilizing growth strategies that are similar to those used in other Washington cities — Seattle being a prime example. Lynn Chelius, Edmonds, said the commission should be comprised in part of those who feel that a growth plan here should be measured and restrained, allowing for organic growth. This position was clearly supported by Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE), a well -respected citizen group in Edmonds, in its Jan. 25 position paper, "Transparency in City Processes Needs Improvement" which stated, "The appointing people or body should make a concerted effort to select not only those who would clearly be supportive of a result but also to select persons who will represent alternative views." Then, listing steps to help make boards accountable, ACE said, "These steps will significantly improve public trust and eliminate what now has in many instances led to deterioration of the relationship between the City, task forces, boards, commissions and the citizens." Commission members should understand that the character of a community is an essential and meaningful concept and one that can and needs to be clearly defined. Both the PSRC's Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 7 Packet Pg. 12 4.2.a Vision 2040 and the Countywide Planning Policies, which provided the framework for Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, stress protecting the character of a community. It should be a consensus of Edmonds citizens who define what the city's charm and character is, and how best to promote and protect that character and charm. Commission members should clearly understand that nowhere in the growth plans and policies referenced by city planners and the Edmonds Development Services Department is there a requirement or suggestion that a city must either destroy its character or make itself into a copy of what other cities have done. The commission should be comprised of Edmonds residents who have not served on any other committees, boards, commissions, or task forces in the last two years, nor should they have served in any public office in Edmonds or other municipalities to address the appearance of fairness, transparency, and validation of this new commission's work product. She summarized this is an opportunity for the Council to regain the citizens' trust, and they hope the Council will look closely at their points. John Reed, Edmonds, President, ACE, explained ACE was founded in 2004 by Edmonds citizens who wanted responsible development that respected and complimented the character of Edmonds - its small town atmosphere, its generally low level architecture and its natural environment. More information about ACE can be found at ACEEdmonds.org. ACE appreciates the City Council revisiting the 2018 housing discussion and proposing a more open process. He highlighted ACE's recommendations shared with the Council on April 9' ; the complete document is on ACE's website. First, the proposed "charter" from the March Council meeting is somewhat vague. ACE suggests including a list of housing options such as accessory dwelling units, backyard cottages and other multi -family options, and referencing housing needs for seniors, disabled persons, veterans and low-income people. The Housing Commission should have the mandate to focus on all housing issues except homelessness issues that are better evaluated elsewhere by the Mayor and Council. Second, public information and public input will be essential for the Commission's success. This should be regular and ongoing. Third, the proposed Housing Commission could very well be too large and unwieldy. ACE instead recommends each Council member appoint two voting members — one from each assigned district and one at -large member. This will enable a better cross-section of representation and knowledge across the City. The Mayor would appoint two members. Ex-Officio members are not needed. The Council should designate one of its members, not two, to serve as a Council liaison for the Commission and any Councilmember should be able to attend any Housing Commission meeting at any time. Brian Potter, Edmonds, resident of the Maplevine Condos on 4t' Avenue South, said after reading the article in My Edmonds News about the legal, nonconforming condos in the City, he contacted the City to learn whether Maplevine was in that category. He found it is legal and nonconforming in both number of units and height. Were the building to suffer extensive damage and need to be rebuilt, more units would be lost due to the height limit than the square footage restriction, approximately $3 million of the City' tax base. Many of the condominium owners are older; 8 out of 27 owner occupants are in their 80's 3 live on the top floor that involves the height limit, a 9t' older owner moved out recently and is trying to sell her unit and a 10' is expected to do so before the end of 2019. Like the owner of the unit profiled on My Edmonds News, a number of owners rely on the proceeds of their home sales to cover their long term care and medical expenses and are concerned those funds will not be available if they are unable to sell because banks will not finance legal nonconforming properties. Age aide, all homeowners are in a situation where they cannot be sure whether they can sell their units or a disaster could leave them homeless. He and his wife now worry whether they will find themselves homeless if a top floor had to be omitted from a major repair or rebuild of the complex or that their insurance will change dramatically to cover potential replacement. He was unable to determine from the City's website when the zoning change occurred that made their building noncompliant. He appreciated that the buildings were grandfathered but the current form of grandfathering is not adequate when it can leave people homeless and bankrupt. The city is working vigorously to address affordable housing and homelessness; finding a solution to the condo code problem, one that assures housing security, should be an urgent, high priority for the Council. He asked that the Council refer this to the Planning Board and staff for study and recommendation as soon as possible. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 8 Packet Pg. 13 4.2.a Onie Ward, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 8.4, the nonconforming condominium issue, commenting the decision to purchase a home is very personal and one of the biggest and most important. She purchased a condo about ten years ago and was happy to move to Edmonds. She requested the Council consider grandfathering older buildings that are noncompliant. When she called the City, they did not know that her complex was affected and has since been added to the list. People invest their savings into their condominiums and this issue could put them in emotional and financial distress. Kevin Gibson, Edmonds, agreed with the previous comments regarding nonconforming condominiums and addressing how to allow them to move forward with their lives. Diana White, Edmonds, speaking both as the Edmonds School Board President and also an enrolled member of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribe along with her ancestors from the Cherokee Nation, encouraged the Council to read the Edmonds Beacon article regarding the school district honoring tribal land. She asked the City Council to consider adding a land acknowledgement statement of indigenous peoples to Council meetings and other significant public gatherings in the City. Land acknowledgement statements are prompted and encouraged by the federal government Department of Arts and Culture. These statements are a simple and powerful way to honor a culture of people who existed on these lands for thousands of years before cities, counties or the state existed. The indigenous peoples of this specific region are recognized, acknowledged and honored. These statements will help bridge the cultural divide that many indigenous people feel after being forcibly removed from their homelands with attempts to wipe out a culture of people. With Edmonds' designation as the first Creative District in the state, there is no better way to honor the culture of original inhabitants of this land, Coast Salish people. Edmonds has embraced Indigenous People's Day. The Tulalip Tribes, the Edmonds School Board, and the Edmonds Center for the Arts are a few of the local organizations that are opening meeting and events with land acknowledgement statements. She provided sample statements: • "I would like to open this event with a land acknowledgment that we are on the traditional lands to the Coast Salish people." • The ECA's statement includes the passage, "We are committed to working with local tribes to acknowledge their land and are honored to do so today. • The School Board' original statement included "Tribes granted the use of the land to the U.S. via the Point Elliot Treaty of 1855 while retaining the rights to the land." • Her favorite was, "We are on the traditional homelands to the Coast Salish Tribes. We pay our respects to elders past and present." The statement is simple and powerful, costs nothing and goes a long way toward restoring cultural democracy of the indigenous people who have gone before. She encouraged the Council to consider adding this statement to Council meetings, public gatherings and other relevant events in the City. Wendy Kondo, Windermere Real Estate, said she learned about nonconforming condominiums when selling Ms. Trierweiler's condominium. She has been selling condos in Edmonds for the last 35 years; it was a shock when the bank denied the loan. This is a huge problem as appraisers and lenders have gotten stricter about financing. Banks have loaned money for previous condominium sales, apparently unaware of this issue. As a realtor, she is required to share this information with potential purchasers. She expressed support for Option D, the fastest way to solve this problem. 8. ACTION ITEMS AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE -2019 CUES SEWER VIDEO INSPECTION TRUCK This item was postponed to a future agenda via action taken under Agenda Item 3. 2. FIRST QUARTER 2019 BUDGET AMENDMENT Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 9 Packet Pg. 14 4.2.a Finance Director Scott James reviewed: • $372,559 were Previously Discussed by Council • $455,484 are New Items for Council to Consider expenditures • $294,905 in net new revenues • Overall Fund Balance Reduced by $533,138 • 19 Decision Packages Total $828,043 in New Expenditures 1. Judge Salary Increase: $7,530 2. End of Mill Creek DV Coordinator Interlocal: $9,414 3. Police Department Equipment Grants & Reimbursements 4. Building Department Professional Services — $75,000 (self -funded) 5. CTR Incentive Program: $4,250 6. Increase to Assisted Living/Long Term Care Fund: $22,650 7. Snow Storm Recovery: $17,500 (Street Division) 8. 76th Ave/212th Intersection Improvements: $197,650 9. 238th Island and ADA Curb Ramps: $54,370 10. Haines Wharf & Don Feine Memorial Benches: $2,865 11. Snow Storm Recovery: $23,000 (Storm Division) 12. Replace Unit #183-POL 2010 Toyota Prius: $19,000 13. Edmonds Community College Gym rentals for Adult Volleyball program: $3,865 (Carryforward) 14. Fire Panel Replacement: $108,000 (Carryforward) 15. 89th PI Retaining Wall: $7,600 16. Brackett's Landing North Benches: $13,094 17. Water Meter Reader Handheld Upgrade: $15,000 18. Water Division Billing and Meter Analysis: $15,000 19. Three Ford Police Utility Vehicles: $248,000 Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified the Police Department utility vehicles was budgeted in 2018 but was not spent so it was being carried forward. Mr. James agreed. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4148, AMENDING THE 2019 BUDGET. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. COUNCIL HOUSING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Councilmember Teitzel referred to the detailed agenda memo in the packet and read a summary into the record: In 2017 the City of Edmonds began the process of developing a housing strategy geared to expanding the range of housing options for current and future residents. Since that time, there have been 29 public touchpoints regarding this issue including open houses, task force meetings, Planning Board meetings, advisory committee meetings, town hall and City Council meetings. As this process has progressed, Council has clearly heard citizens' desire for significantly more direct public input into the process of developing policies around expanded housing options in Edmonds. The Council is acting on that input. On February 9, 2019, the Council heard citizen testimony about housing policy, discussed next steps toward enhancing public input into the development of diverse housing option and determined a citizens' housing commission should be established. On March 19, 2019, the Council heard additional citizen testimony abut the proposed housing commission process, further refined details around formation of the citizens housing commission and directed the City Attorney to draft a resolution to create the commission. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 10 Packet Pg. 15 4.2.a The Council has clearly heard three primary themes and feedback received from citizens: a process should be established to enable citizens to apply to serve on the housing commission rather than establishing a commission by appointment. Sufficient time should be provided to enable the commission, council and staff to work together to develop a range of housing policy recommendations that serve Edmonds' best long term interests. The commission should consist of balanced representation from throughout Edmonds. The proposed resolution addresses each of themes and is the product of significant public input and reflects direct input and suggestion by each Councilmember. Approval of the proposed resolution will enable the application process to proceed, allow identification of a range of commissioners, and enable the commission to be seated by early summer so it can begin its important work on the City' behalf. Establishment of the citizens housing commission will enable direct and diverse input by citizens from across Edmonds and will help drive toward a range of housing policy options that all can be proud of. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1427, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION. COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND SECTION LB BY REMOVING THE LAST SENTENCE, "EX OFFICIO MEMBERS MAY BE ADDED AT THE COUNCIL'S DISCRETION." Councilmember Teitzel commented other commissions/boards have ex officio members. An argument could be made to keep that sentence but he did not feel strongly about it. Councilmember Buckshnis supported removing that sentence, recognizing the public has an opportunity to speak at board and commission meetings. Councilmember Nelson said his primary concern was he wanted this to be citizen -driven commission and he feared other members could provide undue influence. In light of the history of this process, it was best not to have ex officio members. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented there are some wrap up items to be discussed such as the notification of citizens about applying for the commission and assigning Councilmembers to areas on the map as most Councilmembers lives in one of the areas. 4. OPTION FOR ADDRESSING NONCONFORMANCE IN LIMITED MANNER Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed: • Nonconforming Building o ECDC 17.40.020.A 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. • Restoration o ECDC 17.40.020.F If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 11 Packet Pg. 16 4.2.a reconstructed except in full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Issue o Banks are refusing to finance the purchase of condominiums in buildings that exceed the density of the current zone given the language in ECDC 17.40.0201 o Twenty-four sites have been identified thus far ■ 129 units in excess of what the current zoning would allow ■ 633 units that may be impacted due to financing issues Nonconforming Building Code 0 1964 - 1979 ■ If destroyed in an amount of 50% or greater, must conform with zoning standards 0 1979 - 1980 ■ "Primarily nonresidential" building must meet zoning standards if destroyed more the 50% of its value ■ "Primarily residential building" maybe rebuilt to same density and bulk and dimensional standards regardless of the extent of damage ■ Abatement - Required multi -family developments to come into compliance with density standards - Only one -unit the exceeds density may be granted "innocent purchaser" status; rest of units must be eliminated 0 1980 ■ "Primarily residential building" may be rebuilt to same density and bulk and dimensional standards regardless of the extent of damage ■ "Primarily nonresidential" building must meet zoning standards if destroyed more the 50% of its value 0 1981 ■ Any nonconforming building " maybe rebuilt to same density and bulk and dimensional standards regardless of the extent of damage 0 1982 - 2008 ■ If destroyed in an amount of 50% or more of its replacement cost, must conform with zoning standards if reconstructed 0 2008 - Present ■ If destroyed in an amount of 75% or more of its replacement cost, must conform with zoning standards if reconstructed ■ Residential buildings in commercial zones may be reconstructed regardless of 75% rule in same "footprint" provide footprint shall not be expanded more the 10% and found "to be substantially similar to the original style and construction after complying with current codes" Options A. Take no action at this time. B. Wait for an and applicant to apply for a code amendment ($6,385 application fee). C. Wait for staff to fit this into future code update process (maybe next year). D. Direct the Planning Board and staff to work on solutions for Council consideration to narrowly address this issue in the near term. Councilmember Mesaros expressed support for Option D. He commented on the various iterations of the code over the years and how the minds of Councils change and anticipated there may be future changes. After the Planning Board considers this, he suggest citizens be made whole and rather than 75%, allow 100%. He asked if any of the buildings have been reconstructed since they were built. Mr. Lien answered not that he was aware of. He referred to the list of nonconforming condominiums that was included in the packet, noting they were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. He assumed buildings constructed since 1980 conform to the existing RM zones with the exception of some properties that were annexed. He was not Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 12 Packet Pg. 17 4.2.a aware of any buildings that had burned or were subject to this nonconforming code in the 11 years he has been employed by the City. Councilmember Mesaros commented some buildings have been in place over 50 years and have not experienced any catastrophe but one never know when events like that will happen. He wanted to allow condominiums to be rebuilt 100% if there were a catastrophic event. If someone buys up all the units and tears the building down to redevelop, they would need to conform with the zoning. Mr. Lien pointed out 75% means if the building were damaged to more than 75% of its replacement cost, then it must conform with zoning standards if reconstructed. If the damage is less than 75%, it can be reconstructed more like a maintenance issue. With regard to potential amendments, prior to 1980, multi -family zones allowed buildings to be constructed to 35 feet. Since 1980, that was limited to 30 feet, therefore allowing reconstruction to the existing density is not enough. Councilmember Mesaros commented a person could have purchased a 1500 square foot condominium 25 years ago and following a catastrophe, it could only be rebuilt at 1300 square feet. He clarified his intent, if a building was destroyed 100%, it could be reconstructed to the original. Councilmember Tibbott asked why the replacement cost issue exists in the code. Mr. Lien explained the 50% that was in code up until 2008 was an offshoot of the building code which stated if a building destroyed more than 50% of its value, it was a new building not a remodel. That percentage was removed from the building code except for properties in the floodplain and in 2008 the Planning Board and City Council considered that threshold and chose 75%. Councilmember Tibbott asked the purpose of having a threshold. Mr. Lien said as Development Services Director Shane Hope noted in the agenda memo, generally cities do not want nonconforming uses/structures to continue indefinitely and if they are damaged beyond a certain percentage and have to be reconstructed, it needs to be done in compliance with the code. That may make sense for buildings where people are not losing their homes, but it is different in this situation. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding if the building were allowed to be built to 100% of the density allowed at the time the building was originally constructed, it would still need to be rebuilt to current building code standards such as architectural design, setbacks, etc. Mr. Lien answered if it was limited to density, yes, they would have to comply with setbacks, height, parking requirements, etc. If the building was previously 35 feet and was restricted to 30 feet, that would impact the property owners who once had a 1500 square foot unit and would then have a smaller unit. If a condominium were allowed to be rebuilt to 35 feet, Councilmember Tibbott asked if they would be required to conform to architectural standards. Mr. Lien answered it would need to meet the current building code, design standards, etc. Councilmember Tibbott supported referring this to the Planning Board. He asked if staff had a sample of the language that would be proposed to the Planning Board. Mr. Lien answered it could be as simple as adding an exception to ECDC 17.40.020.17 to include language similar to the 1980 code that allowed residential buildings to be rebuilt to the same density and bulk and dimensional standards regardless of the extent of damage. Councilmember Tibbott inquired about the Planning Board process. Mr. Lien advised this is tentatively scheduled for an introduction to the Planning Board next week, assuming that is the option the Council selects. That would be followed by a public hearing two weeks later and return to the Council with a Planning Board recommendation for a public hearing at the City Council. Councilmember Nelson recalled when Councilmember Tibbott and he first heard about this at the Public Safety, Personnel & Planning (PSPP) Committee, the fastest way to solve the problem was Option D. Since that meeting he tried to determine what could be done in the interim. He distributed an Option F (Fastest), an interim emergency ordinance, "an ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, adopting an interim Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 13 Packet Pg. 18 4.2.a zoning ordinance to amend subsection 17.40.0201 of the Edmonds community development code, entitled "nonconforming building and/or structures," declaring an emergency necessitating immediate adoption and effectiveness of this interim zoning ordinance." He explained the ordinance would be effective for up to six months which would allow the issue to be addressed without feeling rushed during the Planning Board's review, public hearings, Council meetings, etc. Councilmember Nelson highlighted the amendment to Subsection 17.40.020(F): F. Restoration. If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be reconstructed except in full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code, PROVIDED THAT a multifamily residential building may be restored in the same location, and to the same density, height, setbacks and coverage as existed before the destruction or damage occurred if an application for building, permit is submitted within ones of the date the damage occurred..." Councilmember Teitzel expressed concern with the proposed interim ordinance. He supported Option D, recognizing something needs to be done about this issue and fast. It is unfortunate and a shame that the City code puts citizens in a bind when selling their property, particularly when it may be their lifeblood in some instances. He saw the proposed ordinance for the first time 10 seconds ago; it is a fairly complex ordinance that requires more thought. He did not want to engage in a kneejerk vote and would be willing to consider the ordinance next week. He did not support Option F tonight. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for a moratorium that grandfathered existing buildings to allow Option D to occur and allow sales to occur. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said if by moratorium she meant something that would have an immediate effect, that is essentially what this ordinance would do. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Mr. Taraday assisted with the development of the ordinance or if he had had an opportunity to review it. Mr. Taraday said Councilmember Nelson sent it to him this afternoon; he reviewed it and proposed revisions that have been included in the draft distributed to the Council. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was interested in allowing the existing nonconforming buildings to be grandfathered until the code revision was completed. Mr. Taraday said it was up to the Council whether to take action on the ordinance tonight or in the future. If the question was whether it was possible to do something that provides immediate relief of the type being requested by the condo owners who are currently trying to sell units, this ordinance is the best that can be done in the short term. It is an interim ordnance that is only in effect for 180 days. If a bank is reading the fine print, they may think a 30 year loan and a 6 month ordinance leaves them exposed for 29.5 years of the loan. If the Council adopted the ordinance tonight, he was uncertain it would satisfy banks, but it was the best thing that could be done tonight. Until a permanent ordinance is adopted, banks may still express concern over the state of the code. Councilmember Teitzel raised a point of order, commenting this is a bad process. This is a controversial, complex issue, Mr. Taraday saw the ordinance this afternoon, the City Council saw it for the first time a few minutes ago. The Council deserves the courtesy of an opportunity to review the ordinance, think about it and bring it back next week. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was interested in something more simplistic such as grandfathering versus an emergency ordinance. Mr. Taraday said the language in the proposed interim ordinance is as simple and straightforward as it can be and he had no problem with the language. "Grandfather" is a colloquial term that describes what the ordinance does. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about fast tracking this through the Planning Board. Mr. Lien said it is scheduled for the Planning Board's next two meetings for an introduction, public hearing and recommendation to City Council. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern about the height issue, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 14 Packet Pg. 19 4.2.a commenting she did not know where all the buildings were located and which ones were 35 feet tall. Mr. Lien referred to the map of the nonconforming condominiums that had been identified thus far, advising he did not know the height of each but they were all build under the old code that allowed up to 35 feet. Councilmember Johnson thanked the public for speaking to the Council about this important issue and putting a face to the problem. She thanked Mr. Lien for the historic perspective and Councilmembers for seeking a quick solution. She suggested the Council give themselves another week before taking action on the proposed interim ordinance to allow time to review it thoughtfully. She supported moving expeditiously on this subject. Councilmember Nelson said he was responding to the timing of events and trying to act as quickly as humanly possible considering he works full-time and has two young sons. He rejected the issue of process, noting it was unfortunate the ordinance could not to be emailed to Councilmembers ahead of time, but the City Attorney reviewed it as quickly as he could because it was an urgent matter. He pointed out only one sentence in the code was being added, "PROVIDED THAT a multifamily residential building may be restored in the same location, and to the same density, height, setbacks and coverage as existed before the destruction or damage occurred if an application for building permit is submitted within one year of the date the damage occurred." The whereas clauses are the justification for the change and the other sections are related to timing, severability and the effective date. If the Council chooses not to move forward tonight that is their prerogative, but he wanted to provide an option for taking action expeditiously tonight. Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed appreciation for Councilmember Nelson's effort. She will support the ordinance only because it is an urgent issue. Residents are losing money and losing home sales. The Council can adopt the ordinance and move forward as quickly as possible to protect residents' assets. This issue is the City's fault and the Council needs to step up and take a stand. She disagreed with standing on procedure to delay action. The ordinance was drafted quickly and reviewed by the City Attorney. This is an emergency measure and she did not want citizens losing their homes and money over Council's procedural bickering. She supported the ordinance and hoped the matter could move through the process quickly. Councilmember Mesaros pointed out a typo in the first line of the added language, "may be" is included twice. He supported addressing the issue and moving forward. He pointed out the ordinance represents false hope because it does not provide a permanent solution. Even though there is a lot of passion on the dais for developing a solution that can be implemented tonight, that is not how government works. He was happy to hear this issue is already scheduled for the Planning Board; the required public hearing will be held in two weeks where the public can provide comment. That will result in a permanent solution that does not provides false hope. He not support the interim ordinance because he did not want to give people seeking solutions a temporary answer that did not do anything. Councilmember Nelson asked if this ordinance would have any impact if a condominium burned down next week. Mr. Taraday answered if a building permit came into to restore the condominium while the ordinance was in effect, yes, the building could be restored completely. Councilmember Nelson asked if that could currently occur. Mr. Taraday answered not if was nonconforming, located in a multi -family residential zone and damaged more than 75%. Councilmember Tibbott said before this issue came to the PSPP Committee, he spoke with the realtor who brought the issue to the City's attention. Staff began gathering a list of affected condos which provided a case study of the effected condos although there are likely more. The Council owes it to these condominium owners as well as the ones that have yet to be identified to develop a permanent solution. As soon he knew this issue was coming to PSPP Committee, he talked with Ms. Hope about how to proceed expeditiously. He was satisfied it will go to the Planning Board who will ask clarifying questions as part of the public record and he expected in short order an ordinance that was well thought through and would stand the test Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 15 Packet Pg. 20 4.2.a of time and any legal challenges. He was not in favor of passing the interim ordinance tonight and will consider it if it is on next week's agenda. He preferred moving forward toward a permanent solution because it is the only way to protect homeowners. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if passing the interim ordinance would stop the process moving forward to permanently fix the situation. Mr. Taraday answered no, the Planning Board hearings could continue on the anticipated schedule. Whether the Council adopts the ordinance tonight, the schedule for the permanent ordinance would remain unchanged. If the interim ordinance passes tonight, Council President Fraley-Monillas observed it would protect the condominium owners in the event of a tragedy such as an earthquake, fire, etc. Mr. Taraday explained, assuming there was a tragedy and an application to rebuild was submitted while the ordinance was in effect, the building could be rebuilt. He could not say what a banker would think of the ordinance. Council President Fraley-Monillas said if the ordinance isn't passed, the existing building could not be rebuilt. Mr. Taraday answered that was true but it appeared the Planning Board could have a recommendation soon. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed that could be more than a month; the interim ordinance would be a stopgap for citizens. Mr. Taraday said realistically the best argument for adopting the ordinance tonight is the hope that it will have an effect on a banker. If a condo had recently burned to the ground and was about to have an application submitted, this ordinance could help in that situation. Assuming that hasn't happened, the hope would be that the ordinance has an effect on a banker but he could not speak to that. Councilmember Buckshnis said she used to a banker and a regulator; things went out of control in 2008. Although some may call it false hope, she called it a leap of faith. One sentence is being added to grandfather the old buildings. She did not see any harm in approving the ordinance as a leap of faith to help bankers understand that the City is working on this. Councilmember Nelson commented this is not and either or proposition. The intent is to have a temporary interim ordinance while the normal process continues which could produce better an ordinance. The intent is not to rush the process and provide for a more deliberative process. COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADOPT THE INTERIM ORDINANCE, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND SUBSECTION 17.40.020(F) OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, ENTITLED "NONCONFORMING BUILDING AND/OR STRUCTURES," DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE. Mayor Earling said he was troubled by this. The audience and elected officials are terribly concerned about this predicament; however, unless his Planning Department and Planning Director have a chance to read it, think about it, and react to it, he will veto the ordinance. He preferred to bring the ordinance back next week or refer the matter to the Planning Board rather than a kneejerk reaction. He respected the request by the citizens but was troubled the ordinance was distributed to the Council 40 minutes ago and with a request to approve it without an opportunity to read it. If the Council approves the ordinance, he guaranteed it will be vetoed and back to the Council next week. Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating Mayor Earling's threats were not appropriate on the dais toward the Council. This is a Council decision; Mayor Earling can do whatever he wants, but he may not threaten the Council. Mayor Earling said he was not threatening; he was simply informing what he will do. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 16 Packet Pg. 21 4.2.a Councilmember Nelson said tried to bring it to the Planning Department, reaching out to Ms. Hope on Monday regarding his interest in pursuing an interim ordinance and sharing the draft with Mr. Lien this afternoon. Councilmember Teitzel said he continued to be troubled by the process. This issue came to PSPP Committee last Tuesday evening; if Councilmember Nelson had a significant concern, an ordinance could have been drafted Wednesday and included in the Council packet. He concluded voting tonight was not responsible and he will be voting no. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, TEITZEL, MESAROS AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 9. STUDY ITEMS PARKS IMPACT FEE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director Scott James • In 2013, the City began collecting Park Impact Fees to help pay for park projects needed to serve new growth and development • The City began collecting Park Impact Fees in a phased approach, initially collecting 50% in October of 2013 and phasing to 100% in October 2014 • The City collects fees for single family dwellings, multi -family dwellings, and commercial buildings • City Code Section 3.36 states that the Impact Fees "Shall be used for public improvements that will reasonably benefit new development" o Examples Include: ■ Community Garden ■ "Off Leash" parks ■ Increasing waterfront access ■ Increasing connectivity (bike lanes, trails) ■ Civic redevelopment, adding amenities, restrooms, accommodating growth • Park Impact Fee Financial Report Year Beginning Balance Revenue Expenditure Ending Balance 2013 -- $ 2,934 $ -- $ 2,934 2014 $ 2,934 $ 203,503 $ -- $ 206,437 2015 $ 206,437 $ 129,340 $ -- $ 335,777 2016 $ 335,777 $ 396,176 $ -- $ 731,953 2017 $ 731,953 $ 497,622 $ -- $1,229,575 2018 $1,229,575 $ 151,753 $ -- $1,381,328 Total $1,381,328 $ -- 2019 Budget Year Beginning Balance Revenue Ex enditure Ending Balance 2019 $1,381,328 $588,900 $1,970,228 2019 $1,970,228 $1,100,000 Waterfront Redevelopment $870,228 2019 $870,228 $ 500,000 Civic Field $370,228 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 17 Packet Pg. 22 4.2.a Councilmember Buckshnis expressed interest in Council being more involved in the future regarding how these funds are used. She acknowledged they were addressed in the CIP/CFP and during presentations regarding the Waterfront Redevelopment. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained park impact fees are restricted to new growth and development. It is beneficial to collect the fees over multiple years because they are usually used to fund larger capital projects and cannot be used for things like park maintenance. There have not been any park impact fees programmed since 2013 in an effort to save toward larger projects. Fund 332, the Park Construction Fund, includes grant funds and park impact fees. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with using park impact fees for the Waterfront Redevelopment and Civic Park, but was interested in the Council having more input in the future. Ms. Hite agreed, advising park impact fee are presented as part of the CIP. Councilmember Teitzel asked if projects like Bartell that take advantage of Multi -Family Tax Exemption are also exempt from park impact fees. Ms. Hite answered no, there are only certain exceptions in the Park Impact Fee code in Chapter 3.36 related to nonprofits and affordable housing. Councilmember Johnson said traffic impact fees must be used within six years or returned. She asked if there was a similar restriction on park impact fees. Ms. Hite advised park impact fees must be used within 10 years. 2. NEW BUDGET IN BRIEF Finance Director Scott James explained the Budget in Brief was created to provide financial transparency and an awareness of the City's budget. He thanked Dave Rhode, GIS Analyst, and Carolyn Douglas and other staff who reviewed the document. The Budget in Brief summarizes the City's 180 page report which the average person may not read. The hope is by designing a simple, quick overview of the budget, more citizens may read it. Mr. James highlighted sections of the Budget in Brief: • Message from the Mayor • City of Edmonds at a Glance • City Officials • Developing the City's Budget • 2019 Budget Highlights • Where the Money Comes From • Where the Money Goes • The City's General Fund • Capital Projects • Tax and General Fund Comparisons to Neighboring Cities • Economic Impacts. 3. CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE REPORT Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien • Critical area Biannual Report #5 o ECDC 23.40.055 The director will provide a report to the city council during the first and third quarter each year, summarizing critical area decisions that have been made since the previous report. The report will include information such as the number and type of critical area decisions that have been made, including information on buffers and enhancements approved for each applicable decision, a description of each approved restoration project, and other information specifically requested by the council following the previous report. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 18 Packet Pg. 23 4.2.a Critical Area Determinations o Exhibit 1 contains spreadsheet of critical area determinations since September 2018 0 102 applications for critical area determinations since September ■ 62 "Waivers" Determinations ■ 40 "Study Required" Determinations ■ 2 Pending o Study Required ■ 33 — Geo Hazard (erosion, landslide, and seismic) ■ 8 — Stream ■ 9 — Wetland ■ 2 — Frequently Flooded Critical area Development Review o Projects on site with a "Study Required" determination requires review for consistency with critical area regulations o Exhibit 2 contains critical area determinations on projects since the September 2018 report o Far right column contains details on the critical area review 0 41 project reviews associated with a study required since September 2018 o No interrupted buffer, buffer reduction or buffer averaging projects PLN20180071 — Shoreline Variance (17901 Vista Del Mar) o SMP Requires 50-foot setback from top of bluff o CAO does not have a minimum setback (determined by geotech) o Shoreline Variance required to construct new residence 35 feet from top of bluff o Geotechnical report consistent with CAO required o Hearing Examiner forwarded a recommendation of approval to Ecology Councilmember Buckshnis recognized this report was difficult to compile; she appreciated Mr. Lien's effort and found it informative. She inquired about hazardous trees. Mr. Lien reviewed: • Hazardous tree removals o Allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.2 o Hazardous documentation required o Trees must be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 o Replacement trees must be native and indigenous Councilmember Buckshnis referred to a permit, "Top & maintain trees on a steep slope to comply with view easement." Mr. Lien said there were 1-2 tree cutting permits with that wording; they were near the Lynnwood Waste Water Treatment Plant in a development with a view easement from Lynnwood. The trees have been topped numerous times; once a tree has been topped, it is important to maintain it. The tree cutting permit described the maintenance activity. Councilmember Teitzel agreed the report was informative. He referred to Permit 20181348 "Upper and lower deck replacement. Work done prior to permit. Property contains critical areas." He asked if there was any penalty for doing the work done prior to obtaining a permit. Mr. Lien answered there are options open to the building official; the fee schedule allow the building official to choose to apply up to five times the application fee. That is generally only employed if someone knew they were doing something wrong; many times things like this are identified when the building inspector notices it when driving around. If it is an honest mistake, typically an increased fee is not assessed. If it is a repeat offender, the fee may be doubled or tripled. He did not know what fee was applied in this instance. 4. 2018 NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION STUDY Councilmember Mesaros distributed a packet of information that included: • A cover memo originally presented to the PSPP Committee on December 11, 2018 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 19 Packet Pg. 24 4.2.a o Council has not taken action on several of the items in that memo • Existing City policy regarding non -represented employees • Summary of the directors and new recommended ranges • Background information regarding the summary sheet Councilmember Mesaros explained two weeks ago the Council addressed salary issues for Non - Represented employees and approved a 3% COLA for non -represented employees. He reviewed the summary sheet that includes information regarding the Public Works Director, Community Services/Economic Development Director, Development Services Director, Finance Director, Human Services Director, Parks & Recreation Director, and Assistant Police Chiefs including information provided in December 2018 regarding existing and recommended ranges and updated with the 3% COLA. Staffs recommendation is approval of the new ranges. Councilmember Tibbott clarified the 2018 salary range is what the PSPP Committee looked at in December 2018. Councilmember Mesaros agreed and explained the 2019 salary range has been updated to reflect the 3% COLA the Council approved. Councilmember Tibbott observed the current salary ranges reflect the current directors' salaries. Councilmember Mesaros said their current salary compared to the range has not been identified in the past. HR Director Mary Ann Hardie advised the updated 2019 data reflects the actual salary. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the comparables and asked whether they were based on the city's size, the scope of the police force, number of employees, etc. Ms. Hardie said the 5.5 Non -Represented Employees Compensation policy specifies the labor market of Snohomish, King, Pierce and Thurston Counties, cities of population size comparative to Edmonds (approximately 41,960) and 10,000 above and below. That criteria identified the eight agencies that are closest in size. The comparables are solely based on the policy which is derivative of population only. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the comps include vacation, car allowance, uniforms, shoes, etc. Ms. Hardie explained historically the study has included data sheets where the total cost of compensation is condensed. The appendix with the 2018 compensation study includes a comparison of vacation, etc. With regard to any extra items the directors receive, managers and directors receive three days of management leave and vacation as outlined in the ordinance. The Assistant Chief and Police Chief have a greater benefit package than other non -represented staff. Councilmember Buckshnis said Council did not have this as a decision package for consideration by the full Council. She advised $75,000 is not an audit finding for a city this size but if a $750,000 placeholder was included in the non -departmental, there would be issues with the auditor. She reiterated this was not vetted by the Council before it was included in the 2019 budget and therefore she would not support it. Council President Fraley-Monillas said reviewing what was presented has been ongoing for the last three months by a very part-time staff. After the City's presentation, she was prepared to present what she and Council Legislative/Executive Assistant Maureen Judge discovered in their own salary survey although she acknowledged it was not quite finished. Councilmember Teitzel suggested in the future the Non -Represented Employee Compensation Survey Summary include the proposed new salary range to make it easier to review and compare. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was prepared to discuss this next week if the Council wants to review the City's proposal first. Councilmember Teitzel said it would be useful to see Council President Fraley-Monillas' proposal in print in preparation for next week. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 20 Packet Pg. 25 4.2.a Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated in the future salary increases for directors or other non -represented employees needed to be included as a decision package and reviewed by committee and full Council. Council President Fraley-Monillas reviewed: • At the December 11, 2018 PSPP Committee, the HR Department introduced a Non -Represented Compensation Study with the Mayor's recommendation to increase the director's salary band because they are all at the top of their band, increase for two Assistant Police Chiefs and three employees with pay disparities. In addition, provide a one-time $500 per non -represented employee contribution to a health retirement account (HRA-VEBA). • Comparator cities for Edmonds are within 10,000 of Edmonds' population of 41,820 within the four -county Metro area • Positions for salary benchmark comparison o Public Works Director o Finance Director o Human Services Director o Parks & Recreation Director o Development Services Director o Community Services/Economic Development Director o Assistant Police Chiefs Information included in the comparisons o Current salary including the COLA o Current salary range (needs to be adjusted to reflect the 3% COLA) o Mayor's proposal for an additional 5% o Cost o Comparator cities ■ Population ■ Salary range Conclusion: City salaries for the six director positions, Police Chief and two Assistant Police Chiefs are within comparator -city range State and County agency executive salaries for 2018-2019 to highlight positions with greater responsibility and scope of influence: o Governor Jay Inslee: $177,107 ■ Employees: 64,039 o WA State Treasurer: $144,679 o WA State Commissioner of Public Lands: $138,225 o Snohomish County Executive Dave Somers: $183,939 o Employees: Over 2,500 o Snohomish County Treasurer: $136,356 o Snohomish County Sheriff Ty Trenary: $168,021 Council action on April 2, 2019 o Increased salaries for the three employees with pay disparities outlined in the Non -Represented Compensation Study o The Directors, Assistant Police Chiefs, among the 44 non -represented employees receiving a one-time $500 contribution to HRA-VEBA accounts and a 3% COLA • Recommendation o No compensation increases for Directors, Police Chief, or Assistant Police Chiefs at this time based on research on public employees o Reevaluate Director, Police Chief and Assistant Police Chiefs salaries and benefits in the next three year cycle for possible increases in 2022 Council President Fraley-Monillas advised their research has not been completed but was moved forward anticipating the addition of this agenda item. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 21 Packet Pg. 26 4.2.a Councilmember Mesaros said while it is interesting to look at what elected officials in the State are paid, use them as salary comparators for non -represented employees was not within the policy. He was surprised that Lynnwood and Puyallup were not used as comparators since they were among the usual comparators. Council President Fraley-Monillas responded these are the usual comparator cities. She explained these are public employees, the City is not a private business where people can be compensated as one may wish. Councilmember Mesaros commented the data prepared by the Human Resources Department did not compare to the data Council President Fraley-Monillas presented. Council President Fraley-Monillas said that may be although she was not sure what he was referencing. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the recommendation for no compensation increases and asked if that included no COLA increases. Council President Fraley-Monillas said they should receive COLA increases. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the numbers were different and said that was likely because the policy allowed HR to use compensation examples from the private sector. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed the policy states that could be done but was unsure whether the Non -Represented Compensation Study did so. Councilmember Buckshnis said that aspect of the policy needs to be changed because people go into the public sector for public service. Ms. Hardie said the policy allows that but it is difficult to get data and it does not always compare. No private sector data was used as comparisons in the survey. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 6 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling had no comments. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis wished everyone a Happy Easter and advised this Saturday is Earth Day; there will be ivy pulls in City Park and County Park. She urged everyone to celebrate the earth and think about restoring it. Councilmember Tibbott advised the RFQ for the parking study was sent out this week. He was impressed with how comprehensive the RFQ was, going beyond the basic inventory. He asked Mr. Williams the cost to obtain additional information regarding underutilized areas of the City especially around Civic Field and recommendations about parking strategies in those areas and he indicated likely an additional $40,000- $60,000. Mr. James indicated there were funds available from sales tax revenue in the first quarter. Responses to the RFQ are expected by the end of the month and there may be reason to increase the amount originally budgeted for the parking study to study opportunities around the park. Councilmember Teitzel said the parking study is critical and needs to be done right. The City has been struggling with parking for a long time and it will get worse unless something proactive is done. He was supportive of studying parking in a comprehensive way that engaged residents and businesses early in the process and get all the ideas on the table for consideration. Councilmember Mesaros said he was intrigued and interested in the comments by Edmonds School Board Member Diana White about an indigenous peoples statement and asked Council President Fraley-Monillas to follow-up. Council President Fraley-Monillas advised it was already assigned to a committee for review. 12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 22 Packet Pg. 27 4.2.a This item was not needed. 13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 16, 2019 Page 23 Packet Pg. 28 4.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/23/2019 Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of re -issued claim check #236388 dated April 11, 2019 for $3,810.00, claim checks #236389 through #236492 dated April 18, 2019 for $767,464.39 and wire payment of $30,573.36. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #63709 through #63714 for $586,294.09, benefit checks #63715 through #63719 and wire payments of $588,564.94 for the pay period April 1, 2019 through April 15, 2019. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit 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: mlt reissue 04-11-19 claims 04-18-19 wire 04-18-19 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 04-18-19 payroll summary 04-15-19 payroll benefits 04-15-19 Packet Pg. 29 4.3.a vchlist 04/11 /2019 12:40:23PM Bank code: usbank Voucher Date Vendor 236388 4/11/2019 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 1 L 3 c �a .N 0 Q. Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun -0a 3485 E4FD.LAKE BALLINGER BATHYMEI m E4FD.Lake Ballinger Bathymetric Stu `- 422.000.72.594.31.65.41 31810.0( Total: ui 3,810.0( 0 Bank total : 3,810.0( � Total vouchers : 3,810.0( 0 c m c �a 0 L I. 0 i 0 L Q Q Q rn r r 0 N CD L E CD E U Q Page: 1 Packet Pg. 30 4.3.b vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 236389 4/18/2019 076040 911 SUPPLY INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 72814 INV 72814 EDMONDS PD - KERN UI 5.11 PDU CLASS A UNIFORM PANT; 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 72815 INV 72815 EDMONDS PD - BURKLA 5.11 PDU CLASS A PANTS 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 SMITH & WARREN NAMEPLATE 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 72824 INV 72824 EDMONDS PD - DANIEL; RAIN COVER FOR UNIFORM HAT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 72825 INV 72825 EDMONDS PD - COLLAR 20 EP COLLAR BRASS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 72827 INV 72827 EDMONDS PD - KERN Nj SMITH & WARREN NAMEPLATE 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 72831 INV 72831 EDMONDS PD - MITSUI F HAT W/SILVER BAND 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 RAINCOVER FOR HAT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Page: 1 aD L 3 c �a .y Amoun 0 a aD r CU d 164.9 , N 16.5( m v 109.9E c c 12.1E 0 L �a 4.0( E 0.4( 0 260.0( > 0 L 26.0( a El rn 11.5( ao Page: 1 Packet Pg. 31 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 236389 4/18/2019 076040 911 SUPPLY INC 236390 4/18/2019 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 72956 INV 72956 EDMONDS PD - BROWN BLAUER 8567W UNIFORM PANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 72957 INV 72957 EDMONDS PD - BURKLA 5.11 PDU CLASS A UNIFORM PANT; 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 72959 INV 72959 EDMONDS PD - MACHAC NAMETAPE FOR JACKET 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 SEAM SEALER FOR JACKET 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 BLAUER 9820 TAC SHELL JACKET 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 SGT CHEVRONS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 73007 INV 73007 EDMONDS PD - SAUNDE NAMETAPE FOR JACKET 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 BLAUER 4660 SOFTSHELL JACKET 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Total 15-68997 CAMBODIAN INTERPRETER PROBj CAMBODIAN INTERPRETER PROB) 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 Total: 4.3.b Page: 2 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m U m 169.9E 17.0( m 54.9� m c 5.5( c �a 8.0( o L 10.0( a E 229.9� .� 2.9c 0 �a 25.1( o a a Q 8.0( rn o0 119.9c 4 0 12.8( 1,41131 c aD 228.0( E 228.0( u Q Page: 2 Packet Pg. 32 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 236391 4/18/2019 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 236392 4/18/2019 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 236393 4/18/2019 071634 ALLSTREAM 236394 4/18/2019 065568 ALLWATER INC 236395 4/18/2019 074488 ALPHA COURIER INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 19930 WWTP: 4/4/19 PEST CONTROL SEF 4/4/19 Pest Control Service 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Total 10434 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER Cl- MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CF 421.000.74.534.80.33.00 Total 16073906 C/A 768328 PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 Total 022519002 WWTP: 2/15/19 DRINK WATER SER 2/15/19 DRINK WATER SERVICE 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 040219048 WWTP: 4/2/19 DRINK WATER SERb DRINK WATER SERVICE 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total: 19691 WWTP: COURIER SERVICE COURIER SERVICE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 4.3.b Page: 3 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 73.0( u L 7.5� 80.55 m v 107,861.8" 107,861.81 � c �a 989.0, �a a 10.5, 10.3m U 1,009.9E c �a 0 a 17.8E Q 1.8, 0 18.9,1 o E 40.61 u c aD E t 29.7( Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 33 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.b Page: 4 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 236395 4/18/2019 074488 074488 ALPHA COURIER INC (Continued) Total : 29.7( 236396 4/18/2019 070976 AMERESCO INC FD1-c511 WWTP: C511 PH 6 FINAL DESIGN 1 C511 PH 6 FINAL DESIGN WORK F( 423.100.76.594.39.65.41 53,158.8( Total : 53,158.8( 236397 4/18/2019 073573 ANIXTER 23K217485 FAC PUSH BAR FAC Push Bar 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2,531.5z 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 260.7E 23K219374 CITY HALL - LOCK BAR City Hall - Lock Bar 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,571.2.E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 163.4E Total : 4,526.9E 236398 4/18/2019 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 287283883350 WIRELESS SERVICE FOR AlRCARE Mobile Aircards 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 46.7E Total : 46.7E 236399 4/18/2019 001777 AURORA PLUMBING & ELECTRIC INV285120 FS 17 - PLUMBING SUPPLIES FS 17 - Plumbing Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 35.0" 10.1 % Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.5z INV285141 FS 17 - PLUMBING SUPPLIES FS 17 - Plumbing Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 35.5E 10.1 % Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.5� Total: 77.6E 236400 4/18/2019 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 59562 ROUGH BOX-WRIGHT Page: 4 Packet Pg. 34 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 236400 4/18/2019 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO (Continued) 236401 4/18/2019 071174 AXON ENTERPRISE INC SI-1571432 236402 4/18/2019 075217 BASLER, ANTHONY 36680 37397 236403 4/18/2019 073041 BECK & ASSOCIATES PLLC 2019-EDM-03 236404 4/18/2019 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 10851 PO # Description/Account ROUGH BOX - WRIGHT 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 Total : INV SI-1571432 CUST 116409 EDMC NEW TASERS - YEAR 1 PAYMENT 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 Total SPANISH INTERPRETER COURTAl� SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT AIN 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT AIN SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT AIN 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 Total BLD PROF SERV FOR PLAN REVIE' Bld Prof Sery for plan review 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 Total E5JB.SERVICES THRU 3/22/19 E5JB.Services thru 3/22/19 421.000.74.594.34.65.41 E5JB.Services thru 3/22/19 423.000.75.594.35.65.41 E5JB.Services thru 3/22/19 422.000.72.594.31.65.41 E5JB.Services thru 3/22/19 126.000.68.595.33.65.41 Total 4.3.b Page: 5 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 543.0( u 543.0( •` N m 24,043.11 v 2,476.4E 26,519.6: c �a 131.4E �a a 106.4E •E 237.9F U 4- 0 �a 16,149.5E a 16,149.5E Q rn ao 3,590.3E 0 3,590.3E M 3,590.3� c 207.4E E 10,978.6: t U �a Q Page: 5 Packet Pg. 35 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.b Page: 6 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 236405 4/18/2019 066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC 590372 E5JB.SPEC BOOK REPRODUCTIOI` 0 m E5JB.Spec Book Reproduction 421.000.74.594.34.65.41 32.4( u E5JB.Spec Book Reproduction L 422.000.72.594.31.65.41 44.9, E5JB.Spec Book Reproduction 423.000.75.594.35.65.41 32.2£ E5JB.Spec Book Reproduction 126.000.68.595.33.65.41 0.5E 591419 E8DC.SPEC BOOK REPRODUCTIOI c E8DC.Spec Book Reproduction M 112.000.68.542.30.41.00 17.6- E8DC.Spec Book Reproduction 125.000.68.542.30.41.00 4.3£ o Total: L 132.21 a 236406 4/18/2019 003075 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 19-62367 RR PROTECTIVE LIABILITY INSURE RR PROTECTIVE LIABILITY M 125.000.64.594.76.65.00 633.0( Z Total: 633.0( o 236407 4/18/2019 076543 BOB'S HEATING BLD20190299 REFUND: BUILDING - JOB CANCEL �a 0 REFUND: Building - job cancelled. a 001.000.257.620 57.6( Q Total: 57.6( ., rn 236408 4/18/2019 076341 BRK THRU DIGITAL LLC BID-2937 BID/ED/1 DIGITAL ADVERTISING M/ o0 BID/Ed! digital advertising March 201 4 140.000.61.558.70.41.40 1,350.0( Total: 1,350.0( E .ii 236409 4/18/2019 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 7259 YOGA 7259 YOGA INSTRUCTION U 7259 YOGA MON W/KERRY INSTRI 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 770.0( E 7263 7267 YOGA 7263 7267 YOGA INSTRUCTION t 7263 YOGA GENTLE MON INSTRUC Q Page: 6 Packet Pg. 36 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.b Page: 7 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 236409 4/18/2019 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY (Continued) 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 564.3( 7267 YOGA MON W/KERRY INSTRI 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 435.6( Tota I : 1,769.9( 236410 4/18/2019 074776 BUCKSHNIS, DIANE 041119 EXPENSE FORM FOR DIANE B. WF Diane's travel to WRIA 8 meeting 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 39.7 Total : 39.7j 236411 4/18/2019 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY XC31795 WWTP: CYLINDERS Cylinders of nitrogen, oxygen, carbor 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 770.3, 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 80.1- Total : 850.41 236412 4/18/2019 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 451601-1903 ESHA.SERVICES THRU MARCH 201 ESHA.Services thru March 2019 423.100.76.594.39.65.41 342.1 Total : 342.1 236413 4/18/2019 073430 CHUPRINA, LARISSA 7051 EGG DECORATING 7051 UKRANIAN EGG DECORATIN( 7051 UKRANIAN EGG DECORATIN( 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 134.7E Total: 134.7° 236414 4/18/2019 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I19001443 WATER QUALITY LAB ANALYSIS Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 3,256.2( Total : 3,256.2( 236415 4/18/2019 076527 CONSTANT CONTACT INC T5HTMJCAB10119 WOTS CONTACTS WOTS CONTACTS 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 378.0( 10.4% Sales Tax Page: 7 Packet Pg. 37 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 236415 4/18/2019 076527 CONSTANT CONTACT INC (Continued) 236416 4/18/2019 075967 CRONIN, TERESA SUAREZ 38216 236417 4/18/2019 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3345942 236418 4/18/2019 072174 DEMIERO JAZZ FESTIVAL TPA DEMIERO JAZZ 236419 4/18/2019 075160 DIMENSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS 37636 236420 4/18/2019 076172 DK SYSTEMS 22995 PO # Description/Account 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 Total : SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 11 SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 11 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 Total FAC - ROOF REPLACEMENT BID A[ FAC - Roof Replacement Bid Ad 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 Total TPA DEMIERO JAZZ FESTIVAL TPA DEMIERO JAZZ FESTIVAL 3/7 123.000.64.573.20.41.00 Total COUNCIL CHAMBER/COURTAUDIC Council chambers/Courtroom audio 001.000.11.511.60.48.00 Council chambers/Courtroom audio 001.000.23.512.50.48.00 Council chambers/Courtroom audio 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.11.511.60.48.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.23.512.50.48.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 Total CITY PARK STORAGE BLDG - SVC City Park Storage Bldg - Svc 4.3.b Page: 8 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a m 39.3( -0 417.3E m L_ T3 N 106.8E 106.8E m c d 466.2E -a 466.2( 0 L �a 2,600.0( 2,600.0( E �a U 4- 0 109.9� > 0 L 109.9E a Q 110.0, CD ao 11.3< 4 0 11.3< 11.3' u 363.95 W E t U �a Q Page: 8 Packet Pg. 38 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 236420 4/18/2019 076172 DK SYSTEMS 236421 236422 236423 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 4/18/2019 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 5138644101 4/18/2019 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE PO # Description/Account 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 Total : 2019 YEARLY MEMBERSHIP DUES 2018 Yearly membership dues 001.000.39.513.10.49.00 Total 1247 PS - SUPPLIES PS - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1268 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1272 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1297 STREET - SUPPLIES Street - Supplies 111.000.68.542.63.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.63.31.00 4/18/2019 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 7708 R. RALPH Total 7708 R. RALPH YOUTH SCHOLARS 7708 R. RALPH YOUTH SCHOLARS 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 4.3.b Page: 9 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a aD 350.0( 'D r U d 36.0E 386.0° N U m z U 880.0( 880.0( c d c �a 16.5E — 0 1.7- a E 6.7f 0 0.7( 0 0 L a 1.8( Q 0.1E r' ao 4 44.9E N E 4.6E 2 77.4: U c a� E t U 66.0( Q Page: 9 Packet Pg. 39 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 236423 4/18/2019 069523 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARS (Continued) 236424 4/18/2019 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 7651 M. RALPH 236425 4/18/2019 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 236426 4/18/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2019-07 1-00025 1-00575 1-00655 1-00825 1-00875 1-00925 1-01950 1-02125 PO # Description/Account Total ; 7651 M. RALPH YOUTH SCHOLARS 7651 M. RALPH YOUTH SCHOLARS 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 Total 04/19 RECREATION SERVICES COf 04/19 Recreation Services Contract F 001.000.39.569.10.41.00 Total WILLOW CREEK HATCHERY/ METI WILLOW CREEK HATCHERY WATE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / ME- OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / ME- 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROON BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROON 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST / METER 11 SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST / METER 11 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AV LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AV 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE, LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE, 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ M SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 4.3.b Page: 10 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 66.0( 0 U d L_ 75.0( T3 75.0( tf m z v 6,250.0( m 6,250.0( c �a 369.9- o �a a 123.1E E U 55.6' c �a 0 a 835.9, Q rn 51.2, ao 4 0 51.2, M 51.2, aD E t 51.2, Q Page: 10 Packet Pg. 40 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 236426 4/18/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 1-03710 SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST/ METER' SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST/ METER' 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-03900 SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / METE SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / METE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-03950 OLD PUBLIC WORKS (NORTH) 200 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 1-05125 SPRINKLER 101 2ND AVE N / METE SPRINKLER 101 2ND AVE N / METE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-05285 SPRINKLER 102 W DAYTON ST / MI SPRINKLER 102 W DAYTON ST / MI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-05340 SPRINKLER 190 DAYTON ST / METE SPRINKLER 190 DAYTON ST / METE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-05350 OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200 OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 1-05650 CITY PARK SPRINKLER/ METER 71. CITY PARK SPRINKLER/ METER 71. 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-05675 CITY PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP / CITY PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP / 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-05700 SPRINKLER @ 3RD/PINE / METER' SPRINKLER @ 3RD/PINE / METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-05705 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST/ MEl LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 1-09650 SPRINKLER 350 MAIN ST/ METER i SPRINKLER 350 MAIN ST / METER i 4.3.b Page: 11 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m U m 51.2, N 51.2, 801.3' c d M 51.2, 0 L 51.2, a E 51.2, u 4- 0 �a 109.7z 0 a a Q 51.2, 862.9( c E 51.2, u c aD 104.2E E t U �a Q Page: 11 Packet Pg. 41 4.3.b vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 236426 4/18/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 0 m 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 51.2, -0 1-09800 SPRINKLER 390 DAYTON ST / METE U SPRINKLER 390 DAYTON ST / METE L 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 51.2, 1-10778 FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 75' FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 75' d 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 51.2, U 1-10780 SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER! SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER! 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 51.2, 1-13975 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 835.5� p 1-16130 SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METEI L-, SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METEI a 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 51.2, 1-16300 SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / METE SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / METE U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 51.2, 0 1-16420 LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 6' �a LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 6' o L 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 51.2, a 1-16450 CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 1 Q CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 1 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 60.6, 1-16630 SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST/ METER' °r° SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST / METER' c 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 51.2, ,n 1-17475 SPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / METE E SPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / METE f° U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 51.2, }; 1-19950 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER aD PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER E 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 101.4f 1-36255 SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METE Q Page: 12 Packet Pg. 42 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 236426 4/18/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 236427 4/18/2019 077003 EQUIPMENTWATCH 69628330 236428 4/18/2019 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH848407 236429 4/18/2019 009880 FEDEX 6-498-78062 236430 4/18/2019 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0748576 236431 4/18/2019 075988 FIIX 13401 236432 4/18/2019 011900 FRONTIER 253-011-1177 PO # Description/Account SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 Total EQUIPMENT RATE DATABASE - CO Equipment Rate Database - Construc 421.000.74.534.80.49.20 Equipment Rate Database - Construc 422.000.72.531.90.49.20 Equipment Rate Database - Construc 423.000.75.535.80.49.20 Total FAC - ROOF REPLACE INV TO RE-E FAC - Roof Replace Inv to Re -Bid Ad 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 Total DIVERSITY COMMISSION FILM SEF Diversity Commission Film Series "Ju 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 Total WATER - METER REGISTER INSTAI Water - Meter Register installed at 76 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Total WWTP: 4/10/19-4/9/20 CMMS LICEN 15 CMMS Licenses for 4/10/19-4/9/2( 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 Total PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 4.3.b Page: 13 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 51.2, u 5,336.2' N m 1,200.0( 1,200.0( d 1,200.0( 3,600.0( 0 �a a 230.4£ 230.4i •ff 0 �a 23.9- c 23.91 a a Q rn 344.8E ao 35.8E c 380.71 2 U 11,851.2( a0i 11,851.2( t U �a Q Page: 13 Packet Pg. 43 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 236432 4/18/2019 011900 FRONTIER Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC RADIO LINE 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC RADIO LINE 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC RADIO LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC RADIO LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC RADIO LINE 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC RADIO LINE 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC ALARM, FAX, PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC FIRE AND IN' 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC FIRE AND IN' 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC FIRE AND IN' 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC FIRE AND IN' 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC FIRE AND IN' 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 425-745-4313 CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 M CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 425-775-1344 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 4.3.b Page: 14 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 6.4' u L 24.4< - N 24.4< v 24.4< m c 24.4' M c 24.4' f° 0 L �a 35.7z E 35.7< U 4- 0 17.1� > 0 L 85.9' a Q 72.1 £ cn ao 72.1 £ 0 96.2< U 138.8' a� E t 70.9( Q Page: 14 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 236432 4/18/2019 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) 425-775-7865 425-776-2742 236433 4/18/2019 076542 GRANICUS 103970 111287 97979 236434 4/18/2019 012560 HACH COMPANY 11412897 236435 4/18/2019 069689 HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS 879149 PO # Description/Account UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCI LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIALACC 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 Total LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 Total WWTP: EQUITRANSFERRANT PH7 EQUITRANSFERRANT PH7 BUFFEF 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total WWTP: MAGNETIC SWEEPER MAGNETIC SWEEPER 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 Total 4.3.b Page: 15 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m U m 71.3( N 26.4, 851.21 m c d 1,417.5( c �a 0 1,564.9z �a a 1,563.5( 4,545.9z Z 4- 0 Ta 0 150.3E a a Q 18.1f rn 17.5, ao 186.0: 0 E 39.9c v c 4.1E E 44.1 ° t U �a Q Page: 15 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.b Page: 16 a� L 3 Bank code : usbank c �a Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun N 236436 4/18/2019 070437 HARDIE, MARYANN 2398 TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT 0 m TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT FOR LE 001.000.22.518.10.43.00 70.5' u Total: 70.51 •`- 236437 4/18/2019 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC 2018-148 VIDEO SERVICE CREATIVE DISTRIi N Video services: filiming for Creative 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 1,500.0( r Video services: completion of 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 500.0( Total : 2,000.0( 236438 4/18/2019 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 3085233 WWTP: NPL, NIPPLE, SCREWDRIV NPL, NIPPLE, SCREWDRIVER,2" PI — 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 66.6, 10.0% Sales Tax a 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 6.6 , 5091900 WWTP: CLNR/POLISH, WASTE COI CLNR/POLISH, WASTE CONTAINEF U 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 123.3£ c 10.0% Sales Tax Ii 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 12.3, p 7060420 WWTP: STOPS, PAINT, MASK TAPE a STOPS, PAINT, MASK TAPE, STENC Q' Q 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 35.5( " 10.0% Sales Tax r' 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 3.5. 00 Total : 248.11 0 236439 4/18/2019 075966 HULBERT, CARRIE BID-4099a BID/ED! REIMBURSEMENT FOR PR E BID/Ed! reimbursement for prepayme M 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 83.2, Total: 83.2� c a� 236440 4/18/2019 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3228823 UTILITY BILLING - 10RMS PINK NO - Utility Billing - 10Rms Pink Notice U Q Page: 16 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 236440 4/18/2019 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 3233074 236441 4/18/2019 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10055257 236442 4/18/2019 064934 JOHN BARKER LANDSCAPE 4/10/19 EBBTIDE 236443 4/18/2019 073950 KUBWATER RESOURCES PO # Description/Account 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Utility Billing - 10Rms Pink Notice 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Utility Billing - 10Rms Pink Notice 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 DSD - PAPER DSD - paper 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 Total PM SUPPLIES: SAFETY GLASSES, PM SUPPLIES: SAFETY GLASSES, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 4/10/19 EBBTIDE WALKWAY DEPOE 4/10/19 EBBTIDE WALKWAY DEPOE 001.000.64.571.21.41.00 Total 08510 WWTP: POLYMER Polymer 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 Total : 4.3.b Page: 17 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 43.7< 'D U m 43.7< 43.7z 19 m 4.5( u 4.5( c 4.5- �a 0 299.2, `>+ 443.9f m E U 242.2£ o Ta 25.2( o 267.4f a Q rn 2,205.0( 00 2,205.0( 0 E M 11,372.2� c 1,171.3E E 12,543.6z �a Q Page: 17 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 236444 4/18/2019 074417 LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN SMITH 166 i0 236445 4/18/2019 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC Apr-19 236446 4/18/2019 066064 LISTEN AUDIOLOGY SERVICE INC 5309 236447 4/18/2019 068443 MAIL N' STUFF SERVICES 236448 4/18/2019 061900 MARC PO # Description/Account CONFLICT COUNSEL 8Z0734522 CONFLICT COUNSEL 8Z0734522 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 CONFLICT COUNSEL 9Z0259403 CONFLICT COUNSEL 9Z0259403 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 Total 04-19 LEGALS FEES 04-19 Legal fees 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 Total HEARING TESTS 2019 HEARING TESTS 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 HEARING TESTS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 HEARING TESTS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 HEARING TESTS 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 HEARING TESTS 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 HEARING TESTS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 Total ; BID-4099 BID/ED! PRINTING, ADDRESS VERI BID/Ed! printing, address verification 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 Total 0661799-IN WWTP: DE-LIMER DE-LIMER 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 4.3.b Page: 18 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 300.0( u 300.0( 600.0( v m c 47,964.0( 47,964.0( c �a 0 134.E , a 101.0( •� U 33.61 c �a 168.3< p L a 33.6 -, Q 33.6E 505.0( 00 4 0 E 196.0, .m 196.0, c aD E t 520.0( Q Page: 18 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.b Page: 19 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 236448 4/18/2019 061900 MARC (Continued) Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 193.1 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 74.1, Tota I : 787.3E 236449 4/18/2019 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 90828954 WWTP: EMERGENCY USE SIGNS EMERGENCY USE SIGNS 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 55.7z Freight 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 8.4� 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 6.6£ Total: 70.91 236450 4/18/2019 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD 17306 ENG LARGE FORMAT SCANNING Eng Large Format Scanning 421.000.74.534.80.41.10 416.3z Eng Large Format Scanning 422.000.72.531.90.41.20 416.3z Eng Large Format Scanning 423.000.75.535.80.41.30 416.3z Tota I : 1,249.0, 236451 4/18/2019 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 301371 WWTP: PROPANE Propane 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 29.3, 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 3.0E Tota I : 32.3 , 236452 4/18/2019 072746 MURRAYSMITH INC 15-1715-41 ESKA.SERVICES THRU 3/31/19 ESKA.Services thru 3/31/19 421.000.74.594.34.65.41 8,152.5£ Page: 19 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 236452 4/18/2019 072746 072746 MURRAYSMITH INC (Continued) 236453 4/18/2019 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 5336188 236454 4/18/2019 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0538164-IN 236455 4/18/2019 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING 7 236456 4/18/2019 075770 NEOFUNDS BY NEOPOST 12251158 236457 4/18/2019 064006 NORTH WEST INSTRUMENT SERVICES 13887 Description/Account Total PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 Total WATER / SEWER - ROAD SIGNS Water / Sewer - Road Signs 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Water / Sewer - Road Signs 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Total WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PRi Tasks 1 - 4: Parks Project Mgmt and 125.000.64.576.80.41.00 Task 5: Engineering Dept Tasks 422.000.72.594.31.65.41 Total 77900049092347092886167 POSTAL POSTAGE ADDED TO THE MACHIN 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 Total INV 13887 - EDMONDS PD - SCALE PROPERTY SCALE CALIBRATION 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 4.3.b Page: 20 aD L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 8,152.51 0 U d L_ 492.4E N 51.2, y 543.7( m c 236.8E -a c �a 236.8, — 0 24.6z m CL 24.6' •ii 523.0: 0 �a 3,937.5( a a 312.5( Q 4,250.0( r' ao 4 0 4,237.9, 4,237.9:.M v c aD 240.0( E U �a Q Page: 20 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.b Page: 21 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 236457 4/18/2019 064006 NORTH WEST INSTRUMENT SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 24.7, Tota I : 264.7, 236458 4/18/2019 064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 2990085-00 WWTP: AURORA REGENATIVE TUF AURORA REGENATIVE TURBINE PI 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 3,353.0( Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 163.4.E 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 362.2( Total: 3,878.6° 236459 4/18/2019 076902 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTR OF WA 64008300 HEP B VACCINE Hep B Vaccine - Police 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 94.0( Total : 94.0( 236460 4/18/2019 065720 OFFICE DEPOT 298282141001 PW - SUPPLIES PW - Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 110.7, 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 11.5E Total : 122Z 236461 4/18/2019 076857 PERFORMANCE INFO TECHNOLOGIES 1551 WWTP: 2/1-3/31/19 TO 1.2017&2.20 2/1-3/31 /19 TO 1.2017&2.2018 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 5,040.0( Total: 5,040.0( 236462 4/18/2019 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR 422.000.72.531.90.41.50 3,345.3� Total: 3,345.% 236463 4/18/2019 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 19-0648 COURT SECURITY 04/01/2019-04/0, COURT SECURITY 04/01/2019-04/0, Page: 21 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 236463 4/18/2019 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE (Continued) 236464 4/18/2019 030695 PUMPTECH INC 0141844-IN 236465 4/18/2019 076493 BEDSIDE CONSTRUCTION LLC ESKA.Pmt 12 236466 4/18/2019 069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC 42577 236467 4/18/2019 065001 SCHIRMAN, RON 33 236468 4/18/2019 065119 SIRCHIE FINGERPRINT LAB 0394278-IN PO # 4.3.b Page: 22 a� L 3 c �a Description/Account Amoun y 0 a 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 aD 687.5( -0 PROBATION MRT SECURITY 04/03t 001.000.23.523.30.41.00 m 96.2E .L Total : 783.7' N Y WWTP: LOADSURE ELEMENT,TUB m LOADSURE ELEMENT, TUBING, PU 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 5,704.0- 10.3% Sales Tax c 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 587.5- Total : 6,291.5, c ESKA.PMT 12 THRU 3/31/19 �a — E5KA.Pmt 12 thru 3/31/19 421.000.74.594.34.65.10 309,357.7, a Total: 309,357.7: SPRING CRAZE PRINTING: EDMON fd SPRING CRAZE PRINTING: EDMON 4- 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 6,268.2E 0 10.4% Sales Tax > 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 0 651.9( a Total : 6,920.1E Q REIMBURSEMENT c� REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.29.00 5,520.0( Total : 5,520.0( o INV 0394278-IN CUST 00-A98020 E( w E 500 CAPSURE STERILE SWABS 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 463.5( +: Freight 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 29.7, E Total: 493.2, U Q Page: 22 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 236469 4/18/2019 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 2628 236470 4/18/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202554 200650851 200651644 201184538 201383270 201453057 201790003 202114484 202579520 205184385 221732084 PO # Description/Account MARCH CONTRACT COST MARCH PUBLIC DEFENDER COST,' 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 Total WWTP:3/7-4/4/19 FLOWMETER 101 3/7-4/4/19 FLOW METER 2400 HIG 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 CITY PARK RESTROOMS CITY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 HICKMAN PARK HICKMAN PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 CITY PARK GAZEBO CITY PARK GAZEBO 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 WWTP: 3/1-3/31/19 ENERGY MGMT 3/1-3/31/19 ENERGYMANAGEMEI` 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / N LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / N 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597 4.3.b Page: 23 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 26,265.21 u 26,265.2� N v m 16.6( m c 17.6� c �a 707.7< o �a a 25.3, U 16.0 0 �a 0 L 65.8E m Q rn 27.3� Ob 4 104.6( N E 2 9.7, U c a� E 22.2 - Q Page: 23 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.b Page: 24 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 236470 4/18/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 113.0E Tota I : 1,126.1 236471 4/18/2019 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 74576 PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 635.0( Total : 635.0( 236472 4/18/2019 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 104757 WWTP: 3/2019 ROLLOFF ASH DISP 3/2019 Ash disposal & taxes 423.000.76.535.80.47.65 3,331.1 � Total: 3,331.1 S 236473 4/18/2019 076007 STROUTSOS, GARY 4/11/19 STROUTSOS 4/11/2019 PSA: PRESENT FILM AT F 4/11/2019 PSA: PRESENT FILM AT F 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 200.0( Tota I : 200.0( 236474 4/18/2019 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18235845 WWTP: U NUTS, PIPE FITTINGS U NUTS, PIPE FITTINGS 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 15.9£ 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1.6E Total: 17.6' 236475 4/18/2019 072790 TCC PRINTING & IMAGING 1052 EAC: BRACKETT'S BOOK EAC: BRACKETT'S BOOK 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 688.3, 10.4% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 71.5� Total : 759.91 236476 4/18/2019 076781 TELETECHSERV GA LLC 041019001 CITY - SMALL CELL ORDINANCE RI City - Small Cell Ordinance Review / 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 368.7E Page: 24 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 236476 4/18/2019 076781 076781 TELETECHSERV GA LLC (Continued) 236477 4/18/2019 027269 THE PART WORKS INC INV40641 236478 4/18/2019 075587 THE UPS STORE #6392 00025 236479 4/18/2019 074800 TURNSTYLE INC BID-4740 236480 4/18/2019 074494 UK SOCCER ELITE 7302 SOCCER CAMP 236481 4/18/2019 064214 USSSA WASHINGTON STATE 1053 236482 4/18/2019 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 8085733844 PO # Description/Account LIBRARY - SUPPLIES Library - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Total Total : WWTP: 2/28+3/28/19 SHIP CHGS 2/28+3/28/19 SHIP CHGS 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 Total BID/ED! MAINTENANCE OF ED! WE BID/Ed! maintenance of Ed! website 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total 7302 UK ELITE SOCCER SPRING B 7302 UK ELITE SOCCER SPRING B 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 Total SPRING SOFTBALL TEAMS REGISI SPRING SOFTBALL TEAMS REGISI 001.000.64.571.25.49.00 Total WWTP: NEODISHER DETERGENT, NEODISHER DETERGENT, SETTLC 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 WWTP: PIPETTES, NITRILE GLOVE 4.3.b Page: 25 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 368.7° 0 U d L_ 294.6, N 8.2 1 y z U 31.5( 334.35 c c �a 28.21 — 28.2' �a a E 330.0( 330.0( c �a 0 1,683.0( a 1,683.0( Q rn ao 1,320.0( c 1,320.0( 2 U 599.5z a0i E 61.7E Q Page: 25 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 236482 4/18/2019 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC (Continued) 236483 4/18/2019 075155 WALKER MACY LLC P3282.04-11 236484 4/18/2019 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 11137016 236485 4/18/2019 064800 WEHOP 640414 236486 4/18/2019 073137 WELCH-LANG, CAROLE 7338 FUN FACTORY 236487 4/18/2019 074609 WEST COAST ARMORY NORTH 1547723 236488 4/18/2019 069605 WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS 2019-EDM-MAR PO # Description/Account PIPETTES, NITRILE GLOVES, FOR( 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 125.000.64.594.76.65.41 Total PM SUPPLIES: NAPKIN DISPOSAL i PM SUPPLIES: NAPKIN DISPOSAL i 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total FLOWER PROGRAM: FREIGHT FLOWER PROGRAM: FREIGHT 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 7338 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTION 7338 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Total INV 1547723 EDMONDS PD - FEB 2 RANGE LANE FEES - FEB 2019 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 Total PRO SERV-BLDG.: PLAN REVIEW 4.3.b Page: 26 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 376.5z u L 38.7E 1,076.6, m v 10,025.8' 10,025.8: c �a 66.2( �a a 6.8E 7101 •� 0 �a 127.2( o 127.2( a a Q rn 588.3( 588.3( 0 E 2 108.7, U 11.2, a0i 119.95 E U �a Q Page: 26 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 236488 4/18/2019 069605 WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS (Continued) 236489 4/18/2019 061286 WESTERN FLUID COMPONENTS PO # Description/Account Pro Serv-Bldg.: Plan Review 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 B62799-001 UNIT 57 - HYD HOSE Unit 57 - Hyd Hose 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 236490 4/18/2019 075743 WHISTLE WORKWEAR OF SHORELINE SHO-3439 236491 4/18/2019 071104 WIPPEL, TERESA 236492 4/18/2019 075122 YAKIMA CO DEPT OF CORR SHO-3461 SHO-3462 20190407 YAKIMA 4/10/19 Total : Total : WATER - WORK JEANS 5 - K JOHN; Water - Work Jeans 5 - K Johnson 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 10.0% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 SEWER - WORK PANTS 5 - S MATT Sewer - Work Pants 5 - S Matthews 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 WATER - WORK PANTS 5 - P ROCH Water - Work Pants 5 - P Rochford 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 Total VIDEOTAPING OF 2019 STATE OF T videotaping of SOC 001.000.21.513.10.41.00 Total MAR 2019 INMATE HOUSING & ME 62 HOUSING DAYS @a $63.65 4.3.b Page: 27 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a m 14,163.7E u 14,163.7E N m 233.6E r 24.0 1 c 257.7; ID c �a 214.1E �a a 21.4, U 183.9E c Ta 18.4( p L a a Q 214.9E " rn 21.5( 00 674.3 j 0 E M 700.0( 700.0( c aD E t U �a Q Page: 27 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 04/18/2019 8:06:19AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 236492 4/18/2019 075122 YAKIMA CO DEPT OF CORR 104 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 104 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 INMATE MEDS - FEB 2019 001.000.39.523.60.31.00 Total Bank total Total vouchers 4.3.b Page: 28 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a m 3,946.3( 'D U m 18.5( .L 3,964.8( y 767,464.35 t U 767,464.% LP m c d c �a 0 L Q U 4- 0 0 L Q Q Q r r 0 G 2 V a 4) E U Y Q Page: 28 Packet Pg. 58 4.3.c vchlist 04/18/2019 1:18:03PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 4182019 4/18/2019 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 0091 MARCH US BANK STATEMENT - EV1 QFC- ZIPLOCK BAGS FOR SEEDS) 001.000.22.518.10.31.10 NASTURTUM FLOWER SEEDS 001.000.22.518.10.31.10 COFFEE FOR ANTI -HARASSMENT 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 JOB POSTING - WATER MAINTENA 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 JOB POSTING SUBSCRIPTION - CA 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 JOB POSTING SUBSCRIPTION - BA 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 COFFEE FOR ANTI -HARASSMENT 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 IPMAANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEE 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 WELLNESS GIFT CARD RAFFLE 001.000.22.518.10.31.10 0747 AMAZON - PW OFFICE SUPPLIES Amazon - PW Office Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 0846 MARCH US BANK STATEMENT - MA LERA COLLECTIVE BARGAINING C 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 COSTCO - ANTI -HARASSMENT TRF 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 LABOR RELATIONS INSTITUTE RE( 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 1937 VEHICLE MAINT CONFERENCE - C Vehicle Maint Conference - C Rugg 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 Home Depot - Unit 69 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Page: 1 m L 3 c ea Amoun 00 a 0 0 50.6 , m =a 22.0E Y m 56.0� 90.0( aD 12.9E c �a 50.0( o 18.7( a 405.0( 300.0( o �a 0 L 66.2( 0- El 350.0( C& 148.5E c m 320.0( '3 c d 1,395.0( E t 17.6E a Page: 1 Packet Pg. 59 vchlist 04/18/2019 1:18:03PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 4182019 4/18/2019 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) WTD Equip - Unit 139 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 WorkNMore - Work Boots 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 Amazon - Unit 39 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Fisheries - Unit M16 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 AM Equip - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Amazon - Unit 87 - Folding Step 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Amazon - Fleet Shop - Hose Nozzle 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 Amazon - Fleet Shop - Cleaner 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 GoodToGo - Unit 282 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 Amazon - Fleet Shop Batteries 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 WA DOL - Lic Fees Unit E165PO 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Battery Junction - Units E165PO, 169 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 ETrailer - Unit 80 - Trailer Ball 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Battery Junction - Units E165PO, 169 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Amazon - Unit E167WQ - Supplies 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 GoodToGo - Unit 454 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 UPS Store - Training Video - Return 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 4.3.c Page: 2 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a m 43.5 m L 186.6- `a N Y 463.4; t 102.9, w m c 109.2( 124.6, 48.4E �a a 31.5E E 14.2E U 4- 0 27.6E 0 L 49.7E a Q 223.9( M 299.0- 00 4 0 111.9E m L 3 168.0(; c 7.2E E t 10.4E Q Page: 2 Packet Pg. 60 vchlist 04/18/2019 1:18:03PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 4182019 4/18/2019 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 2519 PD 1 -2519 4/8/19 FUEL CITY VEHICLE - TRAINING CJ 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 PKG TO WSP TOX LAB 19-5626, 19- 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 PKG TO WSP TOX LAB 19-6004, 19- 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 FUEL CITY VEH TO DEPUTY FUNEF 001.000.41.521.22.43.00 2985 WWTP: PUMP REPAIR, STUDY GUI Wooster: Pump Repair $3100 + Freig 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Study Guide $69 + 10.3% Sales Tax: 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 Amazon: 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 3048 THOMPSON CREDIT CARD -3048 4, 100 CR123A BATTERIES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 SHREDDING SERVICES FEB 2019 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 PIG FDT GLOVES FOR GAGNER 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 SHOES FOR KERN, BURKLANE 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 MINIMUM MONTHLY FEE - STERIC) 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 SWAT KNEEPADS FOR GAGNER 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 WHEELED DUFFLE FOR GAGNER 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 RAILROAD CHALK - PARKING ENF. 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 3314 3314 4/8/19 LAWLESS CARD 4.3.c Page: 3 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a m 27.2� m =a 17.6, ui Y m 19.3 , 31.1� m c aD 3,291.8( 78.5( �a a 84.1 E U 110.0( o R 14.7� o L a 47.3 m, Q 242.5z rn 00 10.3E 4 0 m 81.1E 3 137.8, E 58.7E �a Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 61 vchlist 04/18/2019 1:18:03PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 4182019 4/18/2019 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) HOLSTERS FOR STREET CRIMES 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 2 FOBUS RH MAG/CUFF POUCHES 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 WA TACTICAL OFFICERS ASSOC D 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 RETURN RIFLE TO VENDOR 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 ZIPLOC BAGS FOR PARKING ENF. 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 GRAPHIC DESIGN PROGRAM CHAI 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 AIRFARETO/FM ARMY WAR COLLE 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 MONTHLY DATA PLAN TRAIL CAM 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 3535 CLICK2MAIL- RECYCLE - MAILINGS Click2Mail- Recycle - Mailings 421.000.74.537.90.49.00 LMI Notary Svc - PW - C Raymond 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 Amazon - PW - Kitchen Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 Amazon - PW Kitchen Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 3915 PARKING: SEATTLE AND SNOHOM Parking: Seattle and Snohomish Coy 001.000.62.524.10.43.00 4171 MCCLURE CC -4171 4/8/19 COMMAND LEADERSHIP - MCCLUF 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 4474 CITY COUNCIL US BANK TRAVEL & Snohomish Co. Cities Dinner for Mike 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 4.3.c Page: 4 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a m 276.7E m L 63.5< `a N Y 100.0( t 14.41 w m c 19.8Z 12.9E 757.9E �a a 9.9E E U 203.91 p R 152.7E o L a 27.5E Q rn 97.5E C& 4 67.1 CD L 3 695.0( E t 15.0( a Page: 4 Packet Pg. 62 vchlist 04/18/2019 1:18:03PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 4182019 4/18/2019 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Office Max Council Office Supplies 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 Office Depot Council Office Supplies 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 AIRBNB housing for Diane Buckshnis 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 Alaska Airlines Ticket to WA DC for 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 4474 CREDIT FROM ASSOC. OF WA CITI Credit from Assoc. of WA Cities for 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 4474 CITY COUNCIL US BANK SNOHOMI Snohomish Co. Cities Dinner for 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 4519 HARBOR FREIGHT - FAC MAINT - S Harbor Freight - Fac Maint - Stool 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Zappos - Work Shoes 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 L&I Permits for City Park Bldg 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 Amazon - MCH - Oven Ignitor 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Home Depot - PD - Cabinet Lift 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Wide Shoes - Work Shoes J Summer 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 Frank Lumber - City Park Bldg, Beacl 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4697 DC TRIP water for State of the City 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 coffee for State of the City 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 4.3.c Page: 5 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a m 42.6E m L 100.3: `a N Y 541.7E t 566.3( m c aD c �a 15.0( o �a a 29.7, .E R U 51.8( o R 3,179.0( o L a 32.2E Q 93.4E T- o& 181.9z 4 0 m 669.0, 3 c 17.5E E t 126.8E a Page: 5 Packet Pg. 63 vchlist 04/18/2019 1:18:03PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 4182019 4/18/2019 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) DC accommodations 001.000.65.518.20.43.00 DC accommodations 001.000.64.571.21.43.00 DC accommodations 001.000.21.513.10.43.00 Hite airfare to DC 001.000.64.571.21.43.00 Williams airfare to DC 001.000.65.518.20.43.00 Earling airfare to DC 001.000.21.513.10.43.00 Amazon Prime annual dues 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 Amazon Prime annual dues 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 Amazon Prime annual dues 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 Amazon Prime annual dues 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 Amazon Prime annual dues 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 Amazon Prime annual dues 001.000.41.521.10.49.00 Amazon Prime annual dues 001.000.64.571.21.49.00 Amazon Prime annual dues 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 Amazon Prime annual dues 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 4929 DSD OFFICE SUPPLIES DSD office supplies 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 Creative Cloud Adobe - Shipley 4.3.c Page: 6 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a m 156.6E m L 156.6E `a N Y 156.7- t 566.3( m c 566.3( 566.3( 61.0E �a a 61.0E E 61.0, U 0 61.0� 0 L 61.0E a Q 61.0E M 61.0E °r° 4 0 61.0� m L 3 61.6E; c E 223.7,1 �a a Page: 6 Packet Pg. 64 vchlist 04/18/2019 1:18:03PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 4182019 4/18/2019 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 Bldg. Permit Technician Spring Conf. 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 Roller mouse/connectivity 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 Engineering: Transoft Solutions - 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 5593 NAGARA, RECORDING, SHREDDIN NAGARA- NICHOLAS FALK WEBIN, 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDINC 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 WAPRO 2019 SPRING TRAINING RI 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDINC 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDINC 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 AMAZON - TAPE BATTERIES PAPEF 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDINC 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 AMAZON - TAPE 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 AMAZON - LARGE CATALOG ENVEI 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 AMAZON - MINUTE BOOK PAGES 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 WASHINGTON MUNICIPAL CLERKS 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 LEMAY SHREDDING - INVOICE#46C 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 LEMAY SHREDDING - INVOICE#46C 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 4.3.c Page: 7 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a 58.4,E 200.0( =a 308.9E ui Y m 1,860.0( w m 19.0( (D 184.0( 175.0( o �a a 95.0( E 95.0( U 0 155.7.E 0 317.0( a a Q 12.5 j rn 29.1 , 00 4 146.3, m L 75.0( 3 c a� 9.8E E t 9.8E a Page: 7 Packet Pg. 65 vchlist 04/18/2019 1:18:03PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 4182019 4/18/2019 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) LEMAY SHREDDING - ONE TIME Pl 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 NOTARY SERVICE - CHELSEA MER 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 IIMC MEMBERSHIP DUES - SCOTT 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 WMCA- MEMBERSHIP NICHOLAS f 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 5923 SNO CO TOURISM BUREAU REG, F Diversity Commission Film Series 001.000.61.557.20.41.40 Enviro Stars Facebook advertising 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 Business recruitment advertising 425 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 Registration for Ellen Hiatt to attend 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 OfficeSpace retail space listing for 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 6254 6254 HITE CREDIT CARD COMFORT INN: WRPA ANNUAL COI 001.000.64.576.80.43.00 W RPA ANNUAL CONFERENCE AWF 001.000.64.576.80.43.00 6254 CREDIT FOR LODGING CANCELLN COMFORT INN: CREDIT FOR LODG 001.000.64.576.80.43.00 7483 LEGISLATIVE VISIT TO OLYMPIA Olympia visit parking 001.000.21.513.10.43.00 8017 ENG CREDIT CARD MARCH 2O19 Griggs - iPad Cover & Space Heater 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 Webinar - Utility Fiscal Mgmt - Rate 4.3.c Page: 8 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a m 357.0( m L 152.0( `a N Y 210.0( t 75.0( m c a� 50.0( c �a 50.0( o 1,275.0( a 20.0( •� U 100.0( o R 0 198.3� a a Q 60.0( M o& -198.3z 4 0 m L 14.0( 3 c a� E 132.0E a Page: 8 Packet Pg. 66 vchlist 04/18/2019 1:18:03PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 4182019 4/18/2019 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 Garlock - Asphalt Workshops & Traini 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 8017 RETURNED DAMAGED IPAD COVEI Returned Damaged iPad Cover 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 g Returned iPad Cover 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 8305 APPLE ITUNES - CITY CELL PHONE APPLE ITunes - City Cell Phone Clou 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 8349 ANDERSON CC -8349 4/8/19 UNIFORM JACKETS - CLERKS 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 AWC LABOR RELAT. INST. - ANDEF 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 HAWLEY WAPRO MEMBERSHIP 001.000.41.521.11.49.00 9821 9821 GREENMUN 4/8/19 FTO CONF REG - 6 ATTENDING 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 K-CUP COFFEE FOR TRAINING 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 K-CUP COFFEE, CUPS FOR TRAINI 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 ALCOHOL SWABS-TASER 1 STAID 1 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 SHIP TASERS FOR WARRANTY 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 1ST RESPONDER HEALTH CONF. 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 EMOTIONAL SURVIVAL FOR LE BO, 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 PHOTO. SUPPLIES FOR CLASS 4.3.c Page: 9 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a 35.0( 160.0( =a N -99.0£ m t m c aD 0.9� c �a 117.8E o �a 395.0( a E 25.0( u 0 R 750.0( o a 112.5( Q 111.0" °) C& 37.9z 4 0 m 81.3E •3 161.3, E 55.7- �a Q Page: 9 Packet Pg. 67 vchlist 04/18/2019 1:18:03PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 4182019 4/18/2019 062693 US BANK 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 TIMER FOR FIREARMS TRAINING 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 SHIPPING TASERS FOR WARRANT 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 WSHNA HOST NEG CONF - 2 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 SPORTS MECHANICS FOR COACH 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 DUST OFF & EYE WASH 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 HOTEL FOR HANDGUN RE-CERT F 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 TLO SEARCHES FOR MARCH 2O19 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 TRAINING SUPPLIES 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 STACTION DUMMY ROUNDS 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 Total Bank total Total vouchers 4.3.c Page: 10 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a 185.1E 259.4, =a 52.9E ui Y m 480.0( 46.3( m c aD 31.3( c �a 522.6£ o 77.0z a 300.1( •� U 43.9, o 30,573.3E 30,573.3E a a 30,573.3E Q M C& 4 0 m L 3 c as E a Page: 10 Packet Pg. 68 4.3.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Enaineerina Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STM 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB STM 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA STIR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STIR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA STIR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4,113 STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC STIR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA STIR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB STIR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6J13 STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA STIR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC STR 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 4/18/2019 Packet Pg. 69 4.3.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Enaineerina Accounting Project Funding Project 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 STIR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB STIR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3JB STIR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STIR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD STIR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 E8DC STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STIR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA STIR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC STIR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STIR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB FAC AN Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA STIR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STIR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB STIR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB STIR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STIR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB STIR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC STIR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5JB STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB 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 STIR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA Revised 4/18/2019 Packet Pg. 70 4.3.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Enaineerina 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 s011 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 i011 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 E41-A 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 s010 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-105th/106th 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 Revised 4/18/2019 Packet Pg. 71 4.3.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Enqineerinq Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title iM Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STIR E1 CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements Sunset Walkway I STM El FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1 FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement AM STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update c392 9th Avenue Improvement Projecdh STIR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E2FA c378 JWrth Talbot Road Drainage Improveme STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System Marsh Feasibility SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation 104 CorridoWansportation Stud STIR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Av STIR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) E3DE Wurb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd "Ave STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FE tream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th 05th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project 4th Waterlin ocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project 14 . STIR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals 1r014 Waterline STIR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project Train Trench - Concepl STIR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E4FA 2014 Drainage Improvemen STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines SWR E4GA 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR E4GC W Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update Revised 4/18/2019 Packet Pg. 72 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) 4.3.d Enqineerinq Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title ic444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STIR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System 2015 Traffic Calming STIR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program 2015 Waterlinq SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Bikelink Prole General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis E5FA 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Reh STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects yton Street Storm Improvements (6th Av STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility E5FE th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects allinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications 16 Waterline Replacement Projects WTR E5J13 c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) FAC E5LA c476 UTILI s010 STIR E6AA s014 STIR i015 STIR E6CA i008 WTR SWR E6CC i010 STIR c485 STIR E6DB s016 STIR i016 STIR E6DD i017 STM i011 STM E6FB c486 STM E6FC i012 STM E6FD s017 STM E61FE c491 SWR E6GA i013 SWR E6GB c488 SWR E6GC c492 UTILITIES E6JA s013 WTR E6J13 i014 Fie Corners Reservoir Re -coating AN UDarades - Council Chambers Standard Detail dates Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion 2016 Overlay Program 2016 Waterline Overlays 2016 Sewerline Overlays 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) ADA Transition Plan 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades Minor Sidewalk Program Northstream Culvert Repair 1Wjj6LPuget Drive 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements 3rd Ave Rain Gardens Stormwater Comp Plan Update 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project Utility Rate Up 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects Revised 4/18/2019 Packet Pg. 73 4.3.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Enqineerinq Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title M2018 Waterline Replacement Project PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza and II Replacement PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa raffic Calming STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals E7AC 28th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays 89th PI W Retaining W STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades E7D6 Minor Sidewalk Progr STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STM E7FA pair & Stabilizati STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW E7FG S (Students Saving Salm WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement yton Street Plaz PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration 2018 Traffic Calming STIR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STIR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program th Ave AWerlay from 220th to 212th WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays 18 SewerlineWerla STR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project E8D DA Curb Ramps Aldb STR E8DC i037 238th St. Island & Misc Ramps E8FA 9w s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements STM E8FC.W1111111g2019 Storm Maintenance Prot SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement UTILITIES E8J13 s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E9CA i036 2019 Overlay Program Revised 4/18/2019 Packet Pg. 74 4.3.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Titie PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STIR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STIR 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 STIR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STIR 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 E3J13 c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STIR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STIR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STIR 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 E41-A 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 STIR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station Revised 4/18/2019 Packet Pg. 75 4.3.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project 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 STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects STIR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave 8th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating STIR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5J13 c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II STM E6FE c491 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays Revised 4/18/2019 Packet Pg. 76 4.3.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project 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 E6J13 i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects STIR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STIR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STIR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays STIR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming STIR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades STIR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program STIR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STIR E7CD i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall STIR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STIR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming STIR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive STIR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STIR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program STIR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th STIR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project STIR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays STIR E9CA i036 2019 Overlay Program STIR E8DC i037 238th St.lsland & Misc. Ramps STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update STIR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization 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 4/18/2019 Packet Pg. 77 4.3.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number Upgrades - Council Chambers FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB ESCO FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysi PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA PRK Waterfront Restoration PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c48 STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB STM 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs c49 STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E41FA STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E81FA STM 2019 Storm MaintenanCWojectft c525 - STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB STM 3rd Ave Ra arde i012 STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 El FM STM yton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E41FE STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Tuw c380 En STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM Wnrinville Creek B 434 En STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E21FA 9W STM MulverlIppair Under Puget= 011 E6FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM DES (Students Saving Salm m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization ml05 E7FA STM rrinville Creek Culvert Replaceme. STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E317C STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194 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 STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF Revised 4/18/2019 Packet Pg. 78 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) 4.3.d Funding Project Title llllrW,Ilo, Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marshtstoration STIR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) TR 2014 Chip Seal STIR 2014 Overlay Program STR 2015 Overlay Program STIR 2015 Traffic Calming STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades STIR 2016 Overlay Program urb Ramp Upgrades STIR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program STR 2017 Overlay Program Project Engineering Accounting Project Number Number c424 E3DC c438 E4CA c463 c471 E5AB 1016 i008 E6CA 1022 i023 E7DB 1018 STIR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA 18 Minor Sidewalk Project 1032 STIR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB STR 2018 Traffic Calmi 1027 STIR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA STR 220th Street Overlay Projectid c462 STIR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425�31DD STIR 238th St. Island & Misc Ramps i037 E8DC STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th c423 STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection ImpW 1029 SEEMb STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA e W Overlay from 220th to 212th 1031 STIR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD Avenue Improvement Projec c392 STIR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE A Curb Ram i033 STIR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB Bible PedestfErSignals i024 �AB STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD qft Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STIR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA Revised 4/18/2019 Packet Pg. 79 4.3.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number in Tren Concept c453 STIR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA i028 SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Projec 'c398 SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overla i010 SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA SWR 2017 Sewerline Overla i020 SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Ph morr c456 SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study soli E5GB ..d SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC� s02o E8J13 UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA UTILITIES Utility Rate pat s013 E6JA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4J13 WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 E8JA WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3J13 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 IME5JBJE WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E51KA LWWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 4/18/2019 Packet Pg. 80 4.3.e Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 919 (04/01/2019 to 04/15/2019) c Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount -ed2 REGULAR HOURS Educational Pav Correction 0.00 -156.28 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 55.02 0.00 120 SICK SICK LEAVE - L & 1 24.00 622.22 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 768.25 28,436.63 122 VACATION VACATION 1,187.33 48,867.16 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 48.00 1,848.29 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 51.00 1,719.31 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 193.50 7,145.16 131 MILITARY MILITARY LEAVE 48.00 1,764.19 135 SICK WASHINGTON STATE SICK LEA 0.50 8.83 149 KELLY DAY KELLY DAYS BUY BACK 14.00 464.42 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Dav Used 136.00 5,759.38 152 COMP HOURS COMPTIME BUY BACK 10.26 340.36 153 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY BUY BACK 48.00 2,014.86 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 209.79 9,671.14 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 36.37 1,332.43 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 101.83 4,694.54 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 32.00 1,980.27 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 17,749.10 682,861.07 205 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME .5 30.00 481.90 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 14.50 529.38 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 36.00 2,072.15 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 15.00 1,376.34 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 385.25 26,920.36 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 6.00 430.82 400 MISCELLANEOUS MISC PAY 0.00 1,100.00 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 404.86 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 1,492.11 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 4,907.06 601 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP .5 12.50 0.00 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 1.0 86.50 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5 173.75 0.00 606 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 2.0 1.00 0.00 04/18/2019 Packet Pg. 81 4.3.e Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 919 (04/01/2019 to 04/15/2019) c Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 78.66 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 172.00 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC II Certification 0.00 91.74 colre MISCELLANEOUS Collision Reconstruction ist 0.00 117.51 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 160.86 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 564.90 ctr MISCELLANEOUS CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM 0.00 130.00 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 111.20 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 1,075.64 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 649.78 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 829.56 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 5,166.66 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 217.06 Iq1 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 816.16 Ig10 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY 5.5% 0.00 148.17 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 958.20 Ig12 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 9% 0.00 5,734.58 Ig13 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 7% 0.00 1,733.25 Ig14 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 5% 0.00 1,322.33 Ig15 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY 7.5% 0.00 381.68 Iq4 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1 % 0.00 405.89 Ig5 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3% 0.00 556.00 Iq6 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv .5% 0.00 273.76 Iq7 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1.5% 0.00 455.27 Iq9 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3.5% 0.00 104.93 mtc MISCELLANEOUS MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 222.40 nds MISCELLANEOUS Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 101.78 phv MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 2,160.46 prof MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 0.00 173.48 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5% 0.00 287.66 sgt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 173.48 slb SICK SICK LEAVE BUY BACK 44.00 1,508.49 sro MISCELLANEOUS School Resource Officer 0.00 111.20 04/18/2019 Packet Pg. 82 4.3.e Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 919 (04/01/2019 to 04/15/2019) c r Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount o a a� str MISCELLANEOUS STREET CRIMES 0.00 462.88 traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 241.31 L 21,517.45 $866,787.89 Y a� Total Net Pay: $586,294.09 a� c a� c 0 a E O T ui r 4 O f4 E E 3 N O L Q I_ U fC a 04/18/2019 Packet Pg. 83 4.3.f Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 919 - 04/01/2019 to 04/15/2019 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 63715 04/19/2019 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 5,827.50 0.00 63716 04/19/2019 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 681.64 0.00 63717 04/19/2019 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 2,337.07 0.00 63718 04/19/2019 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 5,135.00 0.00 63719 04/19/2019 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 4,582.81 0.00 18,564.02 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 2863 04/19/2019 awc AWC 322,334.50 0.00 2868 04/19/2019 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 106,110.92 0.00 2870 04/19/2019 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 6,497.32 0.00 2871 04/19/2019 us US BANK 105,093.19 0.00 2872 04/19/2019 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 29,336.49 0.00 2874 04/19/2019 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 628.50 0.00 570,000.92 0.00 Grand Totals: 588,564.94 0.00 4/18/2019 Packet Pg. 84 4.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/23/2019 PFD Board Candidate City Council Appointment Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Scott James Background/History Per the Interlocal Agreement between Edmonds Public Facilities District (EPFD) and the City of Edmonds, approval of Edmonds City Council is required for appointment to the EPFD Board, and/or renewal of EPFD Board terms. City Council will have conducted a Candidate Interview prior to tonight's Council Meeting. Staff Recommendation The current Members of the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board of Directors respectfully request that the Edmonds City Council appoint Ray Liaw to the EPFD Board, Position #4, and that the appointment be effective immediately. Narrative On Thursday, March 28, 2019, the Board of Directors of Edmonds Public Facilities District voted unanimously to recommend Ray Liaw for appointment to the EPFD Board to fill the open position resulting from the resignation of Larry Ehl as a PFD Board member. If appointed, Ms. Liaw's first term will expire on June 30, 2021, as noted below. The current term for Position #4 is scheduled to expire June 30, 2021. The additional members of the EPFD Board include: Mr. Mike Popke - President Mr. Kevin McKay - Vice President Dr. Kimberlee Armstrong Mr. David Brewster Mr. Scott James, Finance Director, City of Edmonds - Ex Officio - Treasurer* We wish to thank the Edmonds City Council for your continued support of Edmonds Public Facilities District and Edmonds Center for the Arts. *Per the Interlocal Agreement between Edmonds Public Facilities District and the City of Edmonds, the City's Finance Director, by virtue of his/her position, serves as an Ex-Officio Member and Treasurer of the EPFD Board. Attachments: Packet Pg. 85 4.4 Liaw Packet Pg. 86 4.4.a Edmonds Citizen Board and Commission Application (PLEASE PRlMT OR TYPE) NOTE: This form fsapubAc record and maybe subject to dbefosdre Goon requesr Edmonds Public Facilities Dfstrict (Board or Commission) Name: Ray Liaw Date: 2/23/2018 Address: -Day Phone: Edmonds, VITA 98020 Evening Phone: Cell: E-mail. Occupational status and lbackgrdund: I am an attorney of Van Ness Feldman in Seattle. I have practiced an use and municipal law for ten years, including significant experience advising public agencies and nonprofit boards. Prior to becoming an attorney, I administered public housing programs for the YWCA in Snohomish County. Organizational affiliations, I have been a long-time volunteer with Giris Scouts of Western Washington. I recently served on the Board of the nonprofit organization, Construction for Change. I provide pro bona legal services to nonprofit organizations such as Compass Housing, Construction for Change, and the YWCA. Why are you seeking this appointment? As a long-time resident of Edmonds, I have long valued the presence of the ECA as a vital cultural arts center in "my own backyard." Nevertheless, sound governance of the Public Facilities District is critical to ensure continued public honetit given that public finances are still necessary to sustain the ECA. i am confident I could fulfill that role. What skills and knowledge do you have to meet the selection criteria? In addition to my lega I practice in the public sector, I have a Masters Degree in Public Administration and am graduate of the Leadership Tomorrow program. Please list any other Board, Commission, Committee, or official positions you currently hold with the City of Edmonds:. NIA Additional comments: I have been engaged with the ECA as a performer (Barclay Shelton Dance Co.) and patron (too many to 00unt). With my professlonai background. I am well suited to serve as a District Board member ar►d help suMain the vitality of ECA facllltles and campus, Please return this completed form to: Edmonds Public Facilities District Address: 4104th Ave N, Edmonds, WA 99010 C* email: lisah@ec4arts.org phone: 425.275,4485 Signature Re vise d 413a/14 c a� E c 0 a a Q 0 c 0 U U a� �a c 0 U L 0 m U_ d Packet Pg. 87 5.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/23/2019 Betty Lou Gaeng Proclamation Staff Lead: Mayor Earling Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History Betty Lou Gaeng is a lifelong south Snohomish County resident, writer, and historian. Staff Recommendation Narrative Mayor Earling and the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery Board would like to honor Betty Lou for her years of service to the South Snohomish County community. Attachments: 20190418092954 Packet Pg. 88 Orlolrfamaf tan City of Edmonds * Office of the Mayor Honoring Betty Lou Gaeng WHEREAS: Betty Lou Gaeng has been writing wonderful stories and articles since she was in the first grade at Alderwood Elementary School in 1933; and WHEREAS: Betty's story in 7'" grade English at Edmonds Elementary School won a national writing contest; and WHEREAS: Betty has been writing extensively for Lynnwood Today, My Edmonds News, The Daily Herald, and the Edmonds Beacon; and WHEREAS: Betty has researched and written biographical stories of more than a dozen local women for the Snohomish County League of Historical Organizations Women Legacy Project. Her writings include Eva Bailey McFall, appointed the first women superintendent of schools for Snohomish County in 1907; Frances E. Anderson, an Edmonds School District Legend; and Marie Little, advocate for the Preservation of a City's Roots; and WHEREAS: One of Betty's most passionate writings is: "Etched in Stone: Dedicated to the Young Men of Edmonds School District 15" who lost their lives while serving in the military. Through her extensive research she has documented the stories of over 90 servicemen who attended school in the Edmonds School District; and WHEREAS: Betty has served on the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery Board since 2017, and serves as the Vice -President of the Board, and was instrumental in relocating the Memorial Monument to the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery in 2018; and WHEREAS: Betty has been a volunteer and teacher at the Sno-Isle Genealogy library in Lynnwood Heritage Park; and WHEREAS: Betty will be moving to Alaska at the end of this month (and many hope this Proclamation might just prevent Betty from doing this), but alas; NOW, THEREFORE, I, DAVID O. EARLING, Mayor of Edmonds, wish to thank Betty Lou Gaeng for her community involvement and historical writings and research and encourage all residents to join me in extending our gratitude and sincere appreciation to her for her years of service. David O. Earling, Mayor — May 14, 2019 Packet Pg. 89 5.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/23/2019 Arts Commission Annual Report 2018 Staff Lead: Frances Chapin Department: Arts Commission Preparer: Frances Chapin Background/History Annual review of activities of the Edmonds Arts Commission. Staff Recommendation <Type or insert text here> Narrative The Chair of the Arts Commission, Tanya Sharp, will present highlights from the 2018 annual report. The seven member Commission was established by City Council in 1975 and Commissioners serve 4 year terms. The mission of the Edmonds Arts Commission is to ensure that the arts are integral to our community's quality of life, economic vitality, and central identity. Creative and diverse programming fosters involvement in the performing, visual and literary arts in Edmonds. Core programs include summer concerts in the parks, rotating visual art exhibits, the City Public Art collection, the Best Book Poster Contest, and the Write on the Sound writers' conference. Partnerships are key to providing a broad array of arts opportunities in the community, and the EAC works with Lodging Tax to support cultural tourism promotion through local arts and culture organizations. In addition to programs, the Arts Commission is a vital part of cultural planning. In 2018 the Arts Commission partnered with Economic Development to build on the 2017 study of economic impact of arts and culture in Edmonds and apply for a new State Creative District Program. At the end of 2018 the Downtown Edmonds Creative District became the first district to be certified by the State of Washington. Attachments: 2018 annual report Packet Pg. 90 PERFORMING ARTS Presented seven free Summer Concerts in City '-� Park, featuring diverse Sunday afternoon _ performances sponsored by Lynnwood Honda and Acura of Lynnwood. Presented twelve free concerts at Hazel Miller Plaza at noon on Tuesdays and 5 pm Thursdays, sponsored by the Hazel Miller Foundation. Edmonds' Gothard Sisters Approximately 4,000 people perform in City Park of all ages attended the Summer Concerts. Cascade Percussion Ensemble at the Hazel Miller Plaza Partnered with Edmonds Center for the Arts to assist in sponsoring performers for the free Kidstock! event, an outreach event for children with David Gonzalez, and a free community Teen Event pre -show reception with artist Kaki King. Four Shillings Short at Music at the Library Partnered with Sno-Isle Edmonds Library and Friends of the Edmonds Library to present the third season of Music at the Library. The Fall through Spring series offers seven free monthly music related events in the Plaza Room, October through April. The February Wintergrass Preview presentation attracted about 100 people to listen to music by the Downtown Mountain Boys, with an opportunity to join in a jam session after the concert. Downtown Mountain Boys play Bluegrass 2018 COMMISSIONERS Lesly Kaplan, Chair and WOTS Committee Chair; Tanya Sharp, Vice -Chair; Suzy Maloney; Marni Muir; Patricia Oneill; Beverly Shaw- Starkovich; and Rhonda Soikowski 2018 STAFF Frances White Chapin, Arts & Culture Manager Laurie Rose, Arts Program Specialist City of Edmonds Arts Commission Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Dept. Frances Anderson Center 700 Main St I Edmonds WA 98020 425-771-0228 1 eac@edmondswa.gov edmondsartscommission.org Facebook.com/edmondsartscommission Twitter.com/edmondsarts 5.2.a edmonds ARTS COMMISSION Founded in 1974, the mission of the City c Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) is to ensur that the arts are integral to our community' quality of life, economic vitality, and centri identity. LITERARY ARTS00 Two hundred and 0 N seventy-three O registrants attended sold out 33rd annua Write on the Sound 3 Writers' Conference 61 (WOTS). The nation Q recognized event r_ generated about 85 'y overnight stays, wit! .N Winners of 2018 WOTS Writing Contest participants from 12 o states. It featured a full day of preconference writing workshops; over 30 weekend sessions; keynote spec U Cara Black; Writing Contest awards sponsored by t Patricia Thorpe & Heather Krause/RBC Wealth Q Management; reception/hospitality sponsored by Windermere Real Estate/ Q Edmonds; on site bookshop L by Edmonds Bookshop; hospitality sponsored by c Walnut Street Coffee, andcc dine-arounds hosted by EPIC o Group Writers. o Washington State Poet —' N Laureate Claudia Castro Luna ri1� presented at the conference m 1= Claudia Castro Luna & Cara I and also gave a Youth Literary t Workshop at Edmonds-Woodway High School. .-r Q The 21st annual Best Book I Evi `Best GBO``Poster Read Poster Contest for third graders was presented in partnership with Friends of the Edmonds Library and Edmonds School District. Forty winning poster entries were exhibited a the FAC and over 150 students families attended a presentation by Best Book posters best-selling on display illustrator Packet P J• 91 VISUAL ARTS Hekinan collection in Edmonds Arts Festival Gallery and EAC Display Case Four Exhibit Spaces featured work by 27 regional artists in six to eight -week shows. Exhibits in the Library, the EAC Display Case, the Youth Display Case and a joint show in the Edmonds Arts Festival Gallery of selections from the City's Hekinan Collection. Exhibits of student solo shows in the McDevitt Youth Art Display Case included work by Tina Masoum and Nazar Patriy. Display Case exhibits included Write on Calligraphers, Sculptors Workshop, Alice Owen, Pam Harold, Bird Fest Photograpy and Laura Kvasnosky. Library shows included work by Angela Bandurka, Minh Carrico, Janis Graves, Eric Salisbury, Randena Walsh, Painting by Nazar Patriy Susan Lally —Chu, Pam Harold, Cheryl Hufnagel, Jane Mays, and photographs in partnership with Puget Sound Bird Fest. ARTS ASSISTANCE Provided assistance and information services to artists, arts organizations and the community. Awarded $21,000 to local arts organizations through EAC recommended awards for Tourism Promotion to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. Promotion funds to support cultural tourism through promotion outside of Edmonds were awarded to Olympic Ballet Theatre, Cascade Symphony, Driftwood Players, Edmonds Art Studio Tour/EAFF, Frank DeMiero Jazz Fest, Jazz Connection, Art Walk Edmonds, Cascadia Art Museum, Phoenix Theatre, and Sno-King Chorale. Partnered with Artist Trust to present a free half -day workshop for artists on writing artist statements. PUBLIC ART Presented six —�� �j�-- temporary art installations on City fences through the On the Fence program Pollinators by Edmonds-Woodway students for On which provides public the Fence temporary installations art opportunities for emerging and established artists and youth at three different sites. The City collection includes 34 outdoor artworks plus 25 flower pole sculptures. ij Installed a new run of fish on the fishing pier breakwater, Sea Rise Run, by Buster Simpson, Sea Rise Run by Buster Simpson which joins the 1994 Breakwater Run, offspring of the original 1982 installation by the State Arts Commission. Added five new art enhanced flower basket poles. Developed an online tour of public art in Edmonds including the City of --. k ,. Edmonds Public Art Collection as well as private artworks such as murals and sculptures visible from public Book Worm by Roy NcCorchuk space. Printed a new Public Art Walking Tour Brochure. Provided annual maintenance for exterior sculptures. Twenty Years of Community Impact: 1999-2018 In 1999, $6,000 in Lodging Tax funds was awarded for Tourism Promotion to six local organizations. In 2018 EAC awarded $21,000 for Tourism Promotion to 10 organizations. During these 20 years, a total of $199,400 in Lodging Tax funds was awarded through EAC to promote events attracting cultural tourists. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT & PARTNERSHIPS The EAC regularly partners with organizations to support and promote Edmonds arts programs, arts education, and cultural tourism in a variety of ways. Partners include EAFF (visual art exhibits Art Walk Edmonds and public art), ECA (arts education and free Kidstock! Event), the Library and Friends of the Edmonds Library (exhibits, WOTS poetry reading, Best Book, Music at the Library), Hazel Miller Foundation (Hazel Miller Plaza Concert Series); Bird Fest (photo exhibits); EPIC Group Writers (after hour activities at WOTS); and local businesses. Partnered with the Historic Preservation Commission, Edmonds Historical Museum and Parks & Recreation to create two informational panels about the history of logging, one in Yost Park and one on the waterfront. Worked with consultants for master planning process for Civic Park to identify potential art opportunities at the new park. Assisted with organization of Arts & Heritage Day at the state capitol, and organized the Arts & Humanities month proclamation presented at City Council. Email quarterly Arts Bulletin e-newsletter to over 1000 and WOTS e-news to over 2200 and encourage use of the online calendar for Arts, Culture and Events in Edmonds at VisitEdmonds.com. 2018 EAC PROJECTS & PROGRAMS Revenue Expenses 48% Earned Income 50% Events and Programs* 10% Contributed/Donations 6% Supplies and Equipment 11% General fund 26% Lodging Tax Funds 5% Public Art* *Revenue for Public Art varies from year to year, depending on eligible City construction ro'ects and rivate donations 37% Marketing 7% Public Art *Staffing for the Arts Office is through Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Dept. In 1999, Write on the Sound (WOTS) was a p ' p two-day conference with 186 attendees and a net revenue of $4,625. In 2018 the three-day conference sold out with 273 registered participants and the net revenue was $20,235. Revenues from WOTS are used to support other EAC programs, supplementing the annual allocation of $15,000 from the City General Fund for Arts Commission programs that was established in 1985. CREATIVE DISTRICT CERTIFICATION 5.2.a Building on the z f T completion of the Economic Impact of k & Culture Study in ei 2018, the Arts Commission partner, Annette Roth of ArtsWA, Frances Chapin, with the Economic Patrick Doherty, Mayor Earling, and Development Karen Hanah of ArtsWA. Commission and stai submit an application to the State for Creative District certification. In December 2018 the City of Edmonds became the first certified Creative District under the nE State program managed by the Washington State Arts Commission (ArtsWA). The Economic Impact study demonstrated that the art! and culture cluster in Edmonds has a significant positiv impact, generating an estimated $50 million a year anc 440 full-time equivalent positions in the regional economy. The Creative District designation goes a step further to identify a rich array of both arts and culture organizations and businesses and a broad range of oth creative industries such as software development, digit media, graphic design, craft distillery and breweries, ar other craft businesses related to food, recreation and entertainment —all within a walkable area in the core downtown. The Creative District certification supports an F ambitious work plan for Edmoni with goals and milestones to rr over the next five years. The planning process to devel the work plan for the application involved a large grout stakeholders representing many aspects of downtown. Goals outlined by the State guidelines pertain to foster equity and inclusion, affordable work space for creative professions, capital investment in walkable areas, and enhancement of cultural tourism. Next steps include establishing an advisory committee to work with City s Frances Chapin and Patrick Doherty on implementatiol the work plan. a Artist Trust workshop, spring 2018 Packet Pg. 92 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/23/2019 Temporary Employment Contract - Court Administrator Staff Lead: Linda Coburn Department: Municipal Court Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History The Court Administrator manages the clerks and probation officer under the supervision and direction of the presiding judge. In Edmonds, the staff consists of five full-time equivalent clerks and one full-time probation officer. Currently three of the clerk positions are filled by two new hires still on probation and one temporary employee. The Court Administrator is an essential position necessary to ensure that the Court functions properly and efficiently. The current Court Administrator, Sharon Whittaker, has accepted a position as the Everett Municipal Court Administrator. This is not only a growth opportunity for Ms. Whittaker (bigger court and higher pay), she also will be cutting her commute in half. Her last day in Edmonds will be May 3, but her last day physically in the office will be May 1. Everett Municipal Court wanted to have Ms. Whittaker start even earlier, but she was able to delay her start there in hopes that our Court could find at least a temporary fill-in before she left to allow for minimal overlap/training. The Court recently posted the position to begin our search for our next Court Administrator. However, even if we were able to find Ms. Whittaker's successor among the first round of applicants, the process could take a minimum of four weeks. While the Court is set up to have either the lead clerk or probation officer fill in for some of the court administrator's duties when she is absent, that is really for vacation time and when Ms. Whittaker is sick or away at conference. It is not intended for more lengthier absences. Given, the fact that about half the staff is very new and still in training, that the Court is in the midst of transitioning to paperless, and it is soon budget preparation time, the Court is not in the position of simply having existing staff cover selected duties. The Court previously has had a temporary court administrator when Joan Ferebee, the previous Court Administrator had a lengthy medical leave. Court Recommendation We are fortunate that retired Court Administrator Janet Vandiver is available and up for the challenge. Ms. Vandiver, in fact, was the same person who filled in for Joan Ferebee here in Edmonds several years ago. Ms. Vandiver is not only an experienced Court Administrator, she is familiar with our Court. We are fortunate that she is available and interested. I recommend that the Council approve the proposed employment contract for Ms. Vandiver's services. Narrative Packet Pg. 93 8.1 Ms. Vandiver served nine years as the City of Everett Court Administrator. During her 15 years in the Cascade Division of Snohomish County District Court, she held the positions clerk, supervisor and Assistant Court Administrator. She also worked six years at a clerk and supervisor in the Everett Division. Since retirement, Ms. Vandiver has been recruited to be an interim court administrator in Edmonds and Bothell Municipal Court (three times). She has learned through experience that even filling in temporarily impacts her social security and the premiums she must pay for health benefits. Thus, the hourly rate she is requesting is reflective of that. The proposed employment contract is included in your packet for your review. I will be appearing telephonically during the Council meeting from Washington D.C. to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your timely consideration of this matter. Attachments: Proposed vandiver temporary employment agreement 4.17.19 copy Packet Pg. 94 8.1.a TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into by and between Janet Vandiver ("Employee") and the City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City") to describe the terms and conditions of Employee's temporary employment as Court Administrator for the City of Edmonds Municipal Court. WHEREAS, the City desires to employ the services of Employee as the temporary Court Administrator for the City of Edmonds Municipal Court during the period that the City is filling the permanent Court Administrator position, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City to establish certain terms of employment and to set working conditions of Employee; and WHEREAS, the parties acknowledge that Employee's status shall be "at will" and that nothing herein is intended to modify Employee's at -will status; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of Employee to accept temporary employment as Court Administrator for the City of Edmonds Municipal Court under the terms provided herein; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. Term of Employment Employee's employment with the City shall commence on Wednesday, May 1, 2019 and shall be for a minimum of sixty (60) days, with the option to extend for an additional fourteen (14) days upon mutual agreement of the parties hereto, unless the term of this Agreement is modified by mutual agreement of the parties. 2. Qualifications Employee affirms that she possesses the education, training and experience that are an essential condition of Employee's employment in this position. 3. Duties The Court Administrator of the City of Edmonds Municipal Court is a managerial position with responsibility for managing the Municipal Court. As Court Administrator, Employee will devote her full time and attention to faithfully performing the duties of Court Administrator, which include but are not limited to management of all activities related to the Municipal Court; directing, administering and managing the development and oversight of the operations and services of the Court; managing programs, staff and general administrative functions of the court office, including policies, procedures and annual Court budget; overseeing jury utilization, the probation department, case flow Packet Pg. 95 8.1.a management, records management and equipment; researching and preparing necessary detailed reports and statistical analysis; demonstrating application of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP); and performing such other duties as may be assigned. 4. Wages and Hours Employee shall be paid an hourly rate of Sixty Dollars ($60.00) per hour and will be paid in periodic installments consistent with the City's normal payroll procedures. Employee is expected to work no more than forty (40) hours per five-day workweek. Overtime (hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week) shall be paid on a time -and -a -half basis. 5. Benefits As this is a temporary, contract position, the employee will not be eligible for DRS (PERS) or MEBT membership or any regular employee benefits including leaves (vacation, holiday or sick leave pay or accruals) with the exception of paid sick leave accrual under the Washington State Paid Sick Leave law. The City will pay the applicable employer's portion of Medicare, Washington State Paid Family & Medical Leave employee cost share of premiums (the same as for the non -represented employees) and any employer contributions into Social Security, Washington State Industrial Taxes, and any other such benefits as may be required under the provisions of state and federal law based upon the number of hours worked. 6. Termination Employee is employed at -will, and may be removed from the position of Court Administrator of the City of Edmonds Municipal Court and her employment may be terminated at any time, with or without cause. 7. Indemnification Employer shall defend, save harmless and indemnify Employee as set forth in EMC 2.06, or any amendment thereof, with respect to claims and/or litigation resulting from any conduct, acts or omissions arising from the scope or course of Employee's service or employment with the City. 8. Entire Agreement/Modification/Severability This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any other agreements, oral or written. This Agreement may be amended or modified only with the written concurrence of both parties. If any clause, section, sentence or provision of this Agreement is ultimately held invalid by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, such invalidation shall not affect the validity of any other clause, section, sentence or provision. 2 Packet Pg. 96 8.1.a 9. Notices Notices pursuant to this Agreement shall be given, by deposit in the custody of the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: CITY OF EDMONDS Edmonds Municipal Court 250 Fifth Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 EMPLOYEE: Janet Vandiver 1058 Saint Moritz Court Camano Island, WA 98282 10.Opportunity to Confer with Independent Counsel In signing below, Employee expressly represents and affirms that the City Attorney was not acting as Employee's counsel in drafting this Agreement and that Employee had the opportunity to consult with independent counsel in reviewing and deciding to execute this Agreement. DATED this day of April 2019. CITY OF EDMONDS EMPLOYEE David O. Earling, Mayor ATTEST/AUTH ENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Janet Vandiver 3 Packet Pg. 97 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/23/2019 Option for Addressing Nonconformance in Limited Manner Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History In the City of Edmonds, some properties have existing multifamily buildings (including condominium developments) that were built in conformance with prior City codes, whereby the buildings were permitted to have more units or height than are allowed under the City's current development codes. Existing multifamily buildings that have more units or different dimensions than currently allowed are considered "nonconforming". Nonconforming buildings are not allowed to be rebuilt if they are damaged to 75% or more of their value --UNLESS the rebuilding would fully meet the City's current development codes. A significant problem has arisen for condo owners who are in "nonconforming buildings" that have more existing units than are now allowed under current code. When they try to sell their units, banks are refusing to finance the purchase by a new owner. This is becoming a serious problem for those owners that need to sell (for example, a senior who wants to move to an assisted living facility) and for people that want to buy the existing condos. At the April 8 meeting of the City Council's Planning, Public Safety, and Personnel Committee, the Committee reviewed the issue and concurred that the proposal to work on a solution should go to the full City Council for direction at the next available meeting time. On April 16, the City Council discussed and concurred that an amendment to the nonconformance code was the logical way to address the issue. The amendment might include addressing building dimensions and setbacks for existing multifamily buildings, as well as the number of units (density). At the meeting, Councilmember Nelson introduced a draft interim emergency ordinance that would allow such buildings to be permitted for reconstruction up to 180 days from the date of the ordinance's passage. (See attachment.) Adopting the ordinance would mean that if major damage occurred to a multifamily building and an owner submitted a complete building permit prior to circa mid -October, 2019, the building could legally be built to the same size and density as before. Whether such a short- term ordinance would satisfy a financial institution asked to lend money for this purpose is not as certain. The Council discussed the draft interim ordinance and did not move forward with adoption that night but expressed interest in considering adoption at a subsequent meeting after members had time to review it. At the same time, Council members all agreed that the Planning Board should move forward in a timely manner with recommendations for a permanent ordinance. Packet Pg. 98 8.2 Staff Recommendation Authorize a special meeting of the City Council on May 14 to hold a public hearing and consider action on any permanent nonconformance ordinance recommended by the Planning Board. (Note: the public hearing date needs to be known well ahead, as a two -week advance public notice must be published.) Narrative So far, City staff has learned of 25 multifamily sites that are affected by the nonconformance requirement because they have a greater number of units than would be allowed now. Each of these 25 sites has from 1 to 19 more units than would be allowed under the City's current code if the development were to be rebuilt. A total of 633 residential units are affected. (Note: The identification of some sites was based on initial research by interested parties --but the information has been reviewed and independently confirmed by City staff; other sites were found by City staff later.) The buildings identified so far were all built in the 1960s and 70s. (See attached list and map.) Additional condos and apartments are likely also affected, whether by number of units or building dimensions. How could this situation have happened --whereby the City allows less density now than it used to do? The simple answer is that the City's prior development code had different requirements, for example, allowing density bonuses in multifamily zones for doing certain extra things. Condos and other multifamily buildings were then built, using the options allowed by the code at the time. Later, the option for more units was removed from the code. In one case, the multifamily building was built under county code prior to annexation by Edmonds. Why doesn't the code allow such nonconforming buildings to be "grandfathered"? It is not uncommon for cities to want to encourage or require that buildings, when being rebuilt due to fire damage, etc., meet newer codes. Some cities may have an absolute approach similar to Edmonds; other cities have more nuanced code language for what can be built back in case of major damage. Furthermore, finance requirements for condos and other homes were less restrictive in past times and financiers did not raise concerns about the difference between the number of units originally allowed and the number now allowed. This issue has become more important to financiers in recent years. What does the City's code say now about the restoration of nonconforming buildings? The relevant provision is ECDC 17.40.020.F, which states (with underlining added): F. Restoration. If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be reconstructed except in full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Determination of replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be made by the building official and shall be appealable as a Type II staff decision under the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Damage of less than 75 percent of replacement costs may be repaired, and the building returned to its former size, shape and lot location as existed before the damage occurred, if, but only if, such repair is initiated by the filing of an application for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.015 et seq. within one year of the date such damage occurred. This right of restoration shall not apply if: 1. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner's agent; or 2. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or the owner's agents. Packet Pg. 99 8.2 Could the code be amended to narrowly allow the number of units to be "grandfathered" without affecting other requirements? Yes, the nonconformance code could be amended in a very limited manner to apply only to the number of existing multifamily units and/or to the building dimensions that could be rebuilt --without changing other requirements that must be met under the City's codes. Who may initiate the consideration of a code amendment proposal? Code amendment ideas may be initiated by anyone. However, whether an idea actually gets further consideration is not guaranteed unless an applicant steps forward and pays approximately $7000 to begin a formal code amendment process. Other common ways of having code amendments considered are when the City Council requests it and when the Planning Board or staff identify an issue that needs attention, recognizing state laws, the Comprehensive Plan and other factors. Of course, all code amendment proposals are subject to City Council approval. What is the process for amending the development code? A proposed development code amendment must go through the public process, including public notifications, and a public hearing by both the Planning Board and the City Council. City staff would be involved in analysis and procedural support. The City attorney would review or prepare a draft ordinance. A notice must be sent to the State, as well, and the SEPA process would need to be followed. Ultimately, the Planning Board would give a recommendation about the code amendment to the City Council. However, only the City Council can adopt an amendment (whether the same as recommended by the Planning Board or with changes). This process at a bare minimum, with no controversies and no schedule challenges or other complications, generally takes at least two months. More complicated proposals can take much longer. Does the Comprehensive Plan provide any policy guidance on this issue? The City's Comprehensive Plan Housing Goal D states: Maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and rehabilitation of the older housing stock in the community... Policy D.4 calls for the City to: Evaluate City ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation of older buildings. What is an "interim ordinance"? An interim ordinance is a temporary ordinance, which may be adopted under state law, but is in effect no more than 180 days. It may be initially adopted without a public hearing. For the interim ordinance to take place immediately, a "supermajority" of the City Council must adopt it; otherwise a simple majority could adopt it, in which case the interim ordinance becomes effective five days from publication. Issues for a possible long-term ordinance The Planning Board will consider issues and questions related to nonconforming multifamily buildings, including the following: Should an amendment to the nonconformance code address density only? Should an amendment also address building dimensions and setbacks so multifamily buildings can be reconstructed to the same size as before? Packet Pg. 100 8.2 Does one year give sufficient time between when any major damage occurs and a building permit application, with complete plans for reconstruction, is submitted? How can a permanent ordinance be adopted expeditiously? Adoption of a permanent ordinance for development regulations requires a public hearing and consideration by the Planning Board, followed by a public hearing and consideration by the City Council. The Planning Board's key role is to make a recommendation to the City Council; the Council's key role is to decide whether to adopt (with any amendments) the proposed regulations from the Planning Board. In addition, the SEPA process, legal review, and public notice requirements must be satisfied. Staff has prepared (or will shortly) for these administrative steps. Direction is still needed about when the City Council will hold a public hearing. Such public hearings require a minimum 14-day advance published notice. Assuming the Planning Board makes its recommendation on May 8 (very likely), the earliest the City Council can hold a public hearing and make a decision is May 14. However, to do so on that date would require a special meeting of the City Council, given that second Tuesdays typically only have committee meetings. If the Council does not want to have a special meeting for the permanent ordinance, the earliest that a public hearing could be held and a decision made is May 21. Staff would need to know the preferred date more than two weeks ahead in order to get it published. Next Steps The Planning Board will be introduced to the issue at its April 24 public meeting. Notice has been given for a Planning Board public hearing on May 8. At the Planning Board's May 8 meeting (to be held at 7 pm at City Hall), the Board will hold a public hearing on amending the code, then discuss and make recommendations. A draft permanent ordinance could be brought back to the City Council for a public hearing on May 14-though that would require Council to hold a special meeting, given that second Tuesdays are usually reserved for committees. An ordinance adopted on May 14 would go into effect five days after publication (typically about 10 days from adoption night). Attachments: Draft Interim Noncoformance Ordinance Nonconforming Condo Examples Packet Pg. 101 8.2.a AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND SUBSECTION 17.40.020(F) OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, ENTITLED "NONCONFORMING BUILDING AND/OR STRUCTURES," DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, local jurisdictions are free within certain constitutional limitations to establish their own standards for the regulation of nonconforming structures; and WHEREAS, The City's Comprehensive Plan Housing Goal D states our city should maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and rehabilitation of the older housing stock in the community; and WHEREAS, the Housing Goals Policy D.4 also states for our City to evaluate City ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation of older buildings; and WHEREAS, the WA State Supreme Court has held that although found to be detrimental to important public interests, nonconforming uses may be allowed to continue under certain conditions based on the belief that it would be unfair and perhaps unconstitutional to require an immediate cessation of a nonconforming use; and WHEREAS, in the event of a disaster such as a fire or earthquake that destroyed nonconforming condominiums and multi -family structures, the current Edmonds City Development Code does not allow the same number of housing units to be rebuilt, causing undue hardship and leaving residents without a home; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, this interim ordinance may be adopted on an emergency basis without first holding a public hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subsection 17.40.020 (F) of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Restoration," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strikethrough). Packet Pg. 102 8.2.a F. Restoration. If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be reconstructed except in full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code, PROVIDED THAT a multifamily residential building may be restored in the same location, and to the same density, height, setbacks and coverage as existed before the destruction or damage occurred if an application for a building permit is submitted within one year of the date the damage occurred. Determination of replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be made by the building official and shall be appealable as a Type II staff decision under the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Damage of less than 75 percent of replacement costs may be repaired, and the building returned to its former size, shape and lot location as existed before the damage occurred, if, but only if, such repair is initiated by the filing of an application for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC et seq. within one year of the date such damage occurred. This right of restoration shall not apply if: 1. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner's agent; or 2. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or the owner's agents. Section 2. Sunset. This interim ordinance shall remain in effect for 180 days from the effective date or until it is replaced with another ordinance adopting permanent regulations, after which point it shall have no further effect. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. Declaration of Emergency. The City Council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this Ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council, and that the same is not subject to a referendum. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth in Section 3, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is not adopted by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, then the language declaring an emergency shall be disregarded, in which case, this ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative Packet Pg. 103 8.2.a body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. Section 6. Adoption of Findings. The city council hereby adopts as findings of fact in support of the adoption of this ordinance the "whereas" clauses above. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTH ENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 104 8.2.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, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND SUBSECTION 17.40.020(F) OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, ENTITLED "NONCONFORMING BUILDING AND/OR STRUCTURES," DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE.. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 12019. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 105 8.2.b Examples of Nonconforming Condominiums Address Zone Number of Existing Units Number of Units Allowed by Zone Year of Contruction 1110 5th Ave S RM-1.5 20 10 1966 300 2nd Ave S RM-1.5 23 20 1965 960 5th Ave S RM-1.5 29 25 1967 1070 5th Ave S RM-1.5 27 23 1979 8516 196th St SW RM-2.4 50 41 1969 1020 5th Ave S RM-1.5 15 13 1962 1041 5th Ave S RM-1.5 19 14 1962 7924 212th Sr SW RM-2.4 42 23 1968 8503 Bowdoin Way RM-2.4 13 7 1977 7421 212th St SW RM-2.4 17 14 1976 500 Elm Way RM-1.5 74 65 1965 7905 218th St SW RM-2.4 16 12 1978 555 Alder St RM-1.5 18 17 1964 7901 196th St SW RM-2.4 22 18 1976 8015 196th St SW RM-2.4 22 18 1978 20632 76th Ave W RM-2.4 20 17 1968 510 Forsyth Ln RM-1.5 36 26 1967 523 Maple St RM-1.5 10 9 1975 517 4th Ave S RM-2.4 8 7 1976 8410 240th St SW RM-2.4 38 31 1979 900 5th Ave S RM-1.5 11 8 1976 7813 218th St SW RM-2.4 48 47 1968 20714 76th Ave W RM-2.4 20 17 1975 655 Main Street RM-1.5 15 13 1967 233 3rd Ave N RM-1.5 20 9 1964 EI Q Packet Pg. 106 8.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/23/2019 Land Use Permit Decision -Making and Quasi -Judicial Process Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History As part of the overall update of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), staff is reviewing the City's land use processes. This review has included discussions of the Councils role in quasi-judicial decisions as well as other code cleanup matters related to land use decisions and processes. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016 expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that transfers the quasi-judicial decision -making role from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the hearing examiner, to the extent allowed by state law. The adopted resolution requests that city staff and the Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with this resolution. The Planning Board heard an introduction on this matter at its May 23, 2018 meeting and held a public hearing on July 25, 2018, after which the Board adopted a recommendation that was forwarded to the City Council. The City Council heard an introduction on this subject at the September 4, 2018 Council meeting and moved to hold a public hearing to receive public feed on the proposed amendments. The Council's hearing was held on October 2, 2018. On November 20, 2018, the City Council's meeting included consideration of potential amendments detailing a process where the Council would consider a request to file a judicial appeal on the November 20, 2018 Council meeting. The Council continued discussion on the potential amendments with the Council in a judicial appeal role at the March 5, 2019 Council meeting. A decision was tabled until the full Council could be present for a vote. Staff Recommendation Provide direction to staff on the Council's role in quasi-judicial decisions, especially for appeals, and direct staff to bring back for Council consideration an ordinance that is based on Council's guidance. INTRODUCTION As part of the overall update of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), staff is reviewing the City's land use processes. This review has included discussions of the Councils role in quasi-judicial decisions as well as other code cleanup matters related to land use decisions and processes. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Exhibit 1) in 2016 expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that will move quasi-judicial decision -making Packet Pg. 107 8.3 responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards and direct it to the hearing examiner to the extent allowed by state law. The adopted resolution requests that city staff and the Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with this resolution. TYPES OF CITY COUNCIL QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS The city council currently holds quasi-judicial land use hearings on the following applications and appeals (see ECDC 20.01.003): Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities; Design review (where a public hearing by the architectural design board is required); Conditional use permits (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is required); Variances; Home occupation permit (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is required); Preliminary formal plat; and Preliminary planned residential development. Applications (Type IV -A and IV-B): Final formal plats; Final planned residential development; and Site specific rezone. In addition to the Type IV applications and appeals of Type III-B, pursuant to ECDC 17.00.030.C, the City Council also sits in a quasi-judicial role for variance applications from public agencies. POTENTIAL CODE PROCESS AMENDMENTS Most of the discussion around quasi-judicial decisions before City Council has focused on closed record appeals of Type III-B decisions (decisions issued by the Hearing Examiner or Architectural Design Board) to the City Council. The potential code amendments regarding the Council's role in appeals are included in Exhibits 2 and 3. Exhibits 6 - 9 contain potential amendments on other process matters unrelated to closed record appeals to the City Council. Should the City Council ultimately decide to retain its role in closed record appeals, the remaining code amendments should still be considered as these amendments clarify public hearing and appeal proceedings, eliminate provisions that are not consistent with state law, and provides other clean up and clarifications related to decision processes. CITY COUNCIL APPEALS ROLE Type III-B Appeals to City Council The current proposal to modify the City Council's role in quasi-judicial appeal decisions in the Edmonds Community Development Code initially involves eliminating the Type III-B permit process because it would not be needed. Exhibit 2 contains a draft modified ECDC 20.01.003, which includes tables for permit type and decision framework and procedures for development project permit applications. Type III-B has been moved into the Type III -A column and the "-A" and "-B" qualifiers removed. [Note: To reflect this change, staff has also conducted an electronic search of the Edmonds Community Development Code for "Type III" and removed all the "-A" and "-B" qualifiers from the draft text (Exhibit 9). An electronic search for terms such as "appealable to council" was also conducted and references updated.] During discussions on modifying the Council's role in quasi-judicial decisions, it was suggested that the City Council be able to initiate a judicial appeal of a hearing examiner or Architectural Design Board Packet Pg. 108 8.3 decision upon request of a citizen who believe a decision has been issued in error. Following the public hearing on October 2, 2018, the Council directed staff to bring back code amendments that would detail the process for the Council initiating a judicial appeal. At the November 20, 2018 Council meeting, staff presented potential code amendments (Exhibit 3 and outlined below) on the new process that would allow the City Council to initiate judicial appeals. Potential Code Amendments Detailine Process for Council Anneal of a Tvoe III Decision The proposed code amendments contained in Exhibit 3 fall into three categories: 1) providing notice to the City Council on Type III applications, 2) adding language regarding the City's intent for Council judicial appeal, and 3) detailing the process for a citizen to request a Council appeal. Notice The first set of proposed code amendments would require that the City Council be emailed the Notice of Application, Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Final Decision on all Type III permit applications. These amendments would ensure the City Council is aware of a Type III permit application that is moving through the City's process. Staff reports for Type III decisions are posted on the City's agenda page and the City Council will be able to access the staff report one week prior to the public hearing. Another amendment in the notice section includes adding information as to how to inform the City Council of alleged errors in a decision in the Notice of Final Decision. Currently the Notice of Final Decisions contains information on available appeals. The proposed amendment would ensure that Notice of Final Decision also informs parties of record that they may request the Council to file an appeal on a decision that has been issued in error. City Council as Party of Record in Type /// Proceedings The two paragraphs in this new subsection signal it is the City of Edmonds' intent that the City Council may appeal Type III decisions. These paragraphs are primarily intended to signal to the Courts that as trustees of the public interest, the City Council is a party of record, regardless of whether the City Council actively participated in the Type III decision proceedings, and retains the right to commence a judicial review under LUPA (Chapter 36.70C RCW). Informing the City Council of Alleged Errors in Type 111 Decisions This new subsection provides the details on how a citizen may request the City Council file a judicial appeal on behalf of the City. The citizen request must come from a party of record. The request should come after the party of record has already sought reconsideration of the decision and should be made within seven days of the decision on reconsideration; the request may be submitted in writing or verbally at a regular City Council meeting. This section also notes that the City Council may submit a judicial appeal on its own initiative regardless of whether a request for appeal was made to the City Council under this section. OTHER LAND USE PROCESS CODE AMENDMENTS Public Agency Variance Packet Pg. 109 8.3 When a public agency applies for a variance from provisions of the zoning ordinance, pursuant to ECDC 17.00.030.C, the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation on the variance to the City Council. The City Council then holds a closed record hearing to consider the variance request. The recent Edmonds- Woodway High School Playfields Project reviewed by the Council is an example of this process. The criteria for public agency variances is the same criteria for other variance requests (see ECDC 20.85.010). Further review of public agency variances before the City Council seems to only result in additional process since the review criteria is the same. In addition, this seems to conflict with the direction of Resolution No. 1367. Therefore, requiring public agency variances to also be heard by the Council is proposed to be eliminated (Exhibit 9). Final Plat and Planned Residential Developments Final formal plats (subdivision of property into five or more lots) and Final Planned Residential Developments are currently Type IV -A quasi-judicial decisions made by the City Council. Subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments require multiple approvals and by the time the final subdivision or PRD is before the Council much of the construction related to the subdivision has already been completed. This can include the installation of roads, sidewalks, utilities stubs (water, sewer, power, gas, cable), and stormwater facilities. Often the only construction that has not been completed is the residences on the new lots since those permits cannot be issued until the subdivision has been finaled. There is little new input that can be provided by the Council at final subdivision or PRD review as the development has largely been completed. This situation has been recognized by the City Council during recent reviews of some final plats. Review of final plats by the legislative body used to be something that was required by state law (Chapter 58.17 RCW). In 2017, the state legislature passed SB 5674 which allows the legislative authorities to delegate final plat approval to administrative personnel. Exhibit 8 contains amendments to the City's subdivision regulations (Chapter 20.75 ECDC) which would delegate the Council's role in reviewing final formal subdivisions to see if they have met the requirements previously established. Similar amendments to the PRD chapter (Chapter 20.35 ECDC) are included in Exhibit 9. Related Code Amendments In reviewing the code to address quasi-judicial decision making by the City Council, other items were identified that logically should be addressed concurrently with this update. Chapter 20.06 ECDC - Open Record Public Hearing & Chapter 20.07 ECDC Closed Record Appeals The distinction is not clear between these chapters because appeals of Type II staff decisions reference Chapter 20.07 ECDC for the appeal process, but appeals of Type II decision are heard before the Hearing Examiner in an open record public hearing. As part of this amendment, Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC are proposed to be combined into a single chapter to remove this confusion (Exhibit 7). As part of this combination, detail on the appeal format and procedures before the hearing examiner are also being addressed. ECDC 20.100.040 Review of approved permits ECDC 20.100.040 - Review of approved permits is a problematic code section in that it is likely noncompliant with state law. See the City Attorney's memorandum in Exhibit 2 detailing potential legal Packet Pg. 110 8.3 issues with this section. Given these concerns, staff is proposing to delete ECDC 20.100.040 (Exhibit 9). To make clear that the City retains the right to suspend or revoke permits that fail to comply with conditions of approval or misrepresentations made in the application, a new section (ECDC 20.110.045) has been added to Chapter 20.110 ECDC - Civil Violation Enforcement Procedure (Exhibit 9). Development Agreements ECDC 20.01.003, currently identifies the approval process for development agreements (Chapter 20.08 ECDC) as a Type V legislative action. As part of this update, the proposal is to modify the approval process of development agreements to a Type IV process with an open record public hearing before the Planning Board, after which the Planning Board would make a recommendation to the City Council (Exhibit 2 and 9). The City Council would hear the development agreement proposal in a closed record hearing format. This change recognizes that under state law (Chapter 36.70B RCW), development agreements are not legislative and, in fact, must be consistent with the local development code. As a practical matter, the development agreement review process should be generally consistent with the review process for other project permit applications that would likely be processed in conjunction with the development agreement. The site -specific rezone is one type of project permit application that would likely be sought in conjunction with a development agreement. So, it makes sense to use a similar quasi-judicial process. It would only make sense to process development agreements as legislative if they are being processed in conjunction with a comprehensive plan amendment, which seems less likely. NEXT STEPS Tonight, staff is seeking direction from the City Council as to whether the Council wishes to maintain its current role in quasi-judicial decisions, especially appeals, or to move into a role as a potential appellant detailed in the potential code amendments in Exhibit 3. After guidance is provided tonight about the Council's role in quasi-judicial proceedings, an ordinance (consistent with that guidance) would be prepared and presented to the Council at a future meeting. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Resolution No. 1367 Exhibit 2: Potential Amendments to Chapter 20.01 ECDC Exhibit 3: Potential Amendments on Council Judcial Appeal Process Exhibit 4: Quasi-judicial Process Comparision Table Exhibit 5: Type III-B Comparison Flow Chart Exhibit 6: Potential Amendments to Chapter 20.02 ECDC Exhibit 7: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) Exhibit 8: Proposed Amendments to Chapter 20.75 ECDC Exhibit 9: Related Amendments throughout the ECDC Exhibit 10: May 23, 2018 City Attorney Memorandum regarding ECDC 20.100.040 Exhibit 11: May 23, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 12: July 26, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 13: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 14: October 2, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 15: November 20, 20180 City Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 16: March 5, 2019 City Council Minutes Excerpt Packet Pg. 111 8.3.a RESOLUTION NO. 1367 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXPRESSING INTENT TO REMOVE THE CITY COUNCIL AND OTHER VOLUNTEER CITIZEN BOARDS FROM QUASI-JUDICIAL PERMIT PROCESSING TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW UPON ADOPTION OF THE REVISED EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. WHEREAS, the city has undertaken a comprehensive review of the city's land use permit processing regulations; and WHEREAS, the city council has played a quasi-judicial role in certain land use permits for many years; and WHEREAS, the city council has been deliberating whether to continue serving in that role; and WHEREAS, the city council understands that many citizens want the city council to serve in a quasi-judicial role, believing that the council would be more responsive to the desires of the public than a hearing examiner who is not elected; and WHEREAS, that desire of some of the public underscores one of the main difficulties with the council serving in that role, namely, that the council may be pressured to make a decision that may be contrary to the standards that the council has adopted to govern such decision -making; and WHEREAS, that difficulty also increases the legal risk to both city and to the councilmembers themselves; and WHEREAS, council engagement in quasi-judicial decision -making also prevents the city council from being able to freely discuss pending land use matters with constituents and suggests that councilmembers should not testify before the hearing examiner out of concern that they might later need to recuse themselves in the event of an appeal to the city council; and WHEREAS, the city council believes that it can adopt additional procedures that will ensure that the city council stays abreast of pending land use applications and that the public interest in access to justice is adequately addressed; now therefore THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The city council intends to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibility from the city council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by state law. ti to CO) T_ 6 z a 0 0 (n x w a) E z Q Packet Pg. 112 8.3.a Section 2. The city council hereby requests that city staff and the planning board prepare and forward to the city council revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code that are consistent with this resolution. RESOLVED this 9ch day of August, 2016. ATTEST: CITY CLERK, S OTT SSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. F EDMONDS YOR, DAVE EARLING August 5, 2016 August 9, 2016 1367 r a Packet Pg. 113 8.3.b Edmonds Page 1/7 Sections: 20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions. 20.01.001 Types of actions. 20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type. 20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework. 20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted. 20.01.007 Exempt projects. 20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions. A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standard procedures, decision criteria, public notification, and timing for development project permit application decisions made by the city of Edmonds. These procedures are intended to: 1. Promote timely and informed public participation; 2. Eliminate redundancy in the application, permit review, and appeals processes; 3. Process permits equitably and expediently; 4. Balance the needs of permit applicants with neighbors; 5. Ensure that decisions are made consistently and predictably; and 6. Result in development that furthers city goals as set forth in the comprehensive plan. These procedures provide for an integrated and consolidated land use permit process. The procedures integrate the environmental review process with land use procedures, decisions, and consolidated appeal processes. B. The provisions of this title supersede all other procedural requirements that may exist in other sections of the city code. When interpreting and applying the standards of this title, its provisions shall be the minimum requirements. p Where conflicts occur within provisions of this title and/or between this title and other city code provisions and w regulations, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. Where conflict between the text of this title and the zoning map ensue, the text of this title shall prevail. C. Unless otherwise specified, all references to days shall be calendar days. Whenever the last day of a deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, or any day when City Hall or the city's development services department is closed to the public by formal executive or legislative action the deadline shall run until the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday or closed day. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010]. 20.01.001 Types of actions. There are five main types of actions (or permits) that are reviewed under the provisions of this chapter. The types of actions are based on who makes the decision, the amount of discretion exercised by the decision making body, the level of impact associated with the decision, the amount and type of public input sought, and the type of appeal opportunity. A. Administrative Decisions. Type I and II decisions are administrative decisions made by the development services director or his/her designee (hereinafter the "director"). Type I permits are ministerial decisions are based on compliance with specific, nondiscretionary and/or technical standards that are clearly enumerated. Type II permits are administrative decisions where the director makes a decision based on standards and clearly identified criteria, but where public notice is required. Unless otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions shall be initiated as set forth in ECDC 20.97.00406.040.. B. Quasi -Judicial Decisions. Type III, Type IV and appeal of Type II and Type rrr (B only) decisions are quasi- judicial decisions that involve the use of discretionary judgment in the review of each specific application. Quasi- judicial decisions are made by the hearing examiner, the architectural design board, and/or the city council. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 114 8.3.b Edmonds Page 2/7 C. Legislative Decisions. Type V actions are legislative decisions made by the city council under its authority to establish policies and regulations regarding future private and public developments, and management of public lands. 1. Planning Board. The planning board shall hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the city council on Type V actions, except that the city council may hold a public hearing itself on area -wide rezones to implement city policies, or amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map. The public hearing shall be held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC, RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law. 2. City Council. The city council may consider the planning board's recommendation in a public hearing held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC and RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law. If the city council desires to hold a public hearing on area -wide rezones to implement city policies, or amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map, it may do so without forwarding the proposed decision to the planning board for a hearing. 3. Public Notice. Notice of the public hearing or public meeting shall be provided to the public as set forth in Chapter 20.03 ECDC. 4. Implementation. City council Type V decision shall be by ordinance or resolution and shall become effective on the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010]. 20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type. A. Determination by Director. The director shall determine the proper procedure for all project applications. Questions concerning the appropriate procedure shall be resolved in favor of the higher numbered procedure. B. Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves two or more procedures may be processed r_ collectively under the highest numbered procedure required for any part of the application or may be processed individually under each of the application procedures identified in ECDC 20.01.003. The applicant may determine U whether the application will be processed collectively or individually. If the applications are processed individually, C the highest numbered type procedure shall be undertaken first, followed by the other procedures in sequence from w the highest numbered to the lowest. c C. Decisionmaker(s). Applications processed in accordance with subsection (B) of this section which have the same procedure number, but are assigned to different hearing bodies, shall be heard collectively by the highest decisionmaker; the city council being the highest body, followed by the hearing examiner, architectural design board or planning board, as applicable, and then the director. Joint public hearings with other agencies shall be processed according to ECDC 20.06.001020. Concurrent public hearings held with the architectural design board and any other decisionmaker shall proceed with both decisionmakers present. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework. A. Permit Types. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 115 8.3.b Edmonds Page 3/7 TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TVPE HI-B TVPE IAI A- TYPE IV-B TYPE V Zoning compliance Accessory dwelling Contingent critical area Outdoor dining Site specific rezone Development letter unit review €ae-ilities agreements Lot line adjustment Formal interpretation of Shoreline substantial Technological Design review (3y were Final planned Development Zoning text the text of the ECDC by development permit, impracticality waiver publi�T agreements amendment; area -wide the director where public hearing for amateur radio .,..ehiteetural design zoning map not required per ECDC antennas bow amendments 24.80.100 Critical area SEPA determinations Critical area variance Comprehensive plan determinations amendments Shoreline exemptions Preliminary short plat Contingent critical area Annexations review if public hearing requested Minor amendments to Land clearing/grading Shoreline substantial V a fia ees Development planned residential development permit, regulations development where public hearing is required per ECDC 24.80.100 Minor preliminary plat Revisions to shoreline Shoreline conditional Home oeeupation amendment management permits use hearing by hearint- Staff design review, Administrative Shoreline variance Preliminary fofma4-plat including signs variances Final short plat Land use permit Essential public Preliminavy planned - extension requests facilities- Sales office/model Guest house Design review (where public hearing by (ECDC 17.70.005) architectural design board is required - Final formal plats Innocent purchaser Conditional use permits (where public hearing determination by hearing examiner is re wired Final planned Variances residential development Home occupation permit (where public The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. c O .N O r.+ E L 4) a d to C R J V G V W 0 0 N L d rr CL R t V O r.+ N C N E C d E Q M C N O (L N t x W C d E t ra M Q Packet Pg. 116 8.3.b Edmonds Page 4/7 hearing by hearing examiner is required) Preliminary formal plat PreliminM planned residential development The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. c v r.+ E L d a m c �a J G w r O O N L d r.+ Q R �t V O r.+ C d E cd E Q r C d O a N r.+ t x w c d E s M r Q Packet Pg. 117 Edmonds Page 5/7 8.3.b B. Decision Table. U C V W The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 118 8.3.b Edmonds Page 6/7 PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE I — IV) LEGISLATIVE TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE 11-B TYPE 111-A TVPE HI B TVPE A' TYPE IV-B TYPE V Recommendation by: N/A N/A N/A N/A NfA N/A Planning board Planning board Final decision by: Director Director Director Hearing Hearing City e0uneil City council City council examiner/ADB examinerADB Notice of application: No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Open record public No Only if appealed, (1) If director Yes, before hearing Yes, before hearing No Yes, before planning Yes, before planning hearing or open record open record hearing decision is appealed, examiner or board to examiner or board board which makes board which makes appeal of a final before hearing open record hearing render final decision render final decision recommendation to recommendation to decision: examiner before hearing council council or council examiner could hold its own (2) If converted to hearing Type III -A process Closed record review: No No No No Yes, e are the No Yes, before the eaaneil council Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 119 8.3.b Edmonds Page 7/7 C. Any reference to "Type II" in the Edmonds Community Development Code without expressly being modified as "Type II-B" shall be construed to mean Type II -A for the purposes of this section unless the context clearly suggests otherwise. [Ord. 4072 § 7 (Att. G), 2017; Ord. 4026 § 4, 2016; Ord. 3982 § 4, 2014; Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3806 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3787 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted. Nothing in this chapter or the permit processing procedures shall limit the authority of the city council to make changes to the city's comprehensive plan, or the city's development regulations as part of the annual revision process. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.01.007 Exempt projects. A. The following projects are specifically excluded from the procedures set forth in this chapter: historic register designations, building permits, street vacations, street use permits, encroachment permits, and other public works permits issued under ECDC Title 18. B. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.140(2), lot line or boundary adjustments, building and/or other construction permits, or similar administrative approvals categorically exempt from environmental review under SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW and the city's SEPA/environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC), or permits/approvals for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits, are excluded from the requirements of RCW 36.7013.060 and 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130, which includes the following procedures: 1. Notice of application (ECDC 20.03.002) unless an open record hearing is allowed on the permit decision; 2. Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.140, optional consolidated permit review processing (ECDC 20.01.002(B)); 3. Joint public hearings (ECDC 20.06.894020); 4. Single report stating all of the decisions and recommendations made as of the date of the report that do not U require an open public record hearing (ECDC 20.06.98-2060(C)); and V w 5. Notice of decision (ECDC 20.06..00920.02.007). [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 120 8.3.c Potential Amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code detailing the Process for Council Appeal of a Type III Decision ECDC 20.03.002 Notice of Application (NEW SUBSECTION) H. For all Type III permit applications, notice of application shall also be provided to the City Council by email. ECDC 20.03.003 Notice of Public Hearing (NEW SUBSECTION) F. For all Type III applications, notice of public hearing shall also be provided to the City Council by email. 20.02.007 Notice of final decision. (MOVED FROM ECDC 20.06.009) A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided, that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall include the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal, aka description of any available administrative appeals, and for all Type III decisions, information as to how to inform the city council as to alleged errors in the decision. For Type II, III and IV permits, the notice shall contain the requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain that affected property owners may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the applicant, to any person who submitted comments on the application or requested a copy of the decision, and to the Snohomish County assessor. 2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by any means deemed reasonable by the director. 3. For all Type III decisions, notice of final decision shall be provided to the City Council by Pmail_ 20.06.XXX City council as party of record in Type III proceedings. (NEW SUBSECTION) A. Intent. The city council has eliminated its role as the quasi-judicial decision -maker on administrative appeals of Type III decisions in favor of having the ability to participate in such matters as a party of record at both the administrative level and in the courts, through a LUPA action, if necessary. The notice provisions in ECDC 20.03.002, ECDC 20.03.003, and ECDC 20.02.007 reflect the interest of the city council in overseeing the decision -making process on Type III applications. City council oversight is intended to ensure that the City's code is being properly administered and interpreted by the Type III administrative decision -maker. Type III applications are of particular concern to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, and therefore are of particular concern to the city council, because they involve higher levels of discretion and can allow for variances from the Edmonds Community Development Code Packet Pg. 121 8.3.c adopted by the city council. Because of the nature of Type III decisions and its interest in seeing its legislation properly applied, the city council would be prejudiced by an erroneous Type III decision. To ensure that erroneous TVpe III decisions can be corrected swiftly. the citv council shall be an official party of record in all Type III proceedings, whether its members participate in the Type III process or not. B. Exercise of Party of Record Status. As a trustee of the public interest, the city council is not required to participate in the Type III process to satisfy the exhaustion (of administrative remedies) requirement that applies to other would-be parties of record. The city council retains its party of record status throughout the administrative process, even where it does not participate. The city council may ask the Type III decision -maker to reconsider its decision, but not doing so in no way diminishes its party of record status for the purpose of seeking judicial review under LUPA, chapter 36.70C RCW. Any decision by the city council to seek reconsideration or to commence a LUPA proceeding shall be made during an open public meeting. 20.06.XXX. Informing the city council of alleged errors in Type III decisions. (NEW SUBSECTION) A. A party of record, as defined by ECDC 20.06.030, may bring alleged errors to the city council's attention and request that the city council appeal a Type III decision on behalf of the City and the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. To make this request, a Party of record should: 1. Have alreadv sought reconsideration of the decision pursuant to ECDC 20.06.010: 2. Make the request to the city council within seven (7) days of the decision on reconsideration; and 3. Make the request by: i. Submitting it in writing to the Council's legislative/executive assistant and the Development Services Director; or ii. Verbally requesting it at a regular City Council meeting. B. The city council's decision to appeal or not appeal a Type III decision in response to such a request is a legislative decision that is not subject to review under LUPA. Making such a request has no impact on the time within which one would be required to commence a LUPA action. C. Nothing herein shall be construed as preventing the city council from appealing a decision on a Type III application in the absence of an appeal request made pursuant to this section. The provisions of this chapter allowing for City Council appeals of hearing examiner decisions are not intended to confer third -party beneficiary status upon other parties of Packet Pg. 122 8.3.c record; any such appeals brought by the City Council are brought on behalf of the City, not on behalf of a party who might have requires such an appeal. 20.06.160 Judicial appeals. (MOVED FROM 20.07.006) The city's final decision on an application may be appealed by a party of record with standing to file a land use petition in Snohomish County superior court. Such petition must be filed within 21 days after issuance of the decision, as provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. Packet Pg. 123 Quasi-judicial Process Comparison Chart 8.3.d Component of Analysis Considerations for Considerations for Council to act as Judge Council to act as Prospective Appellant Risk to City of Damage WCIA indicates that its Little risk. Claim cities do not lose such cases frequently, but when they do, the damages can be in the millions of dollars. Risk of Personal Liability Little risk due to qualified Almost no risk. to Individual immunity, as long Councilmembers likely Councilmembers conduct is objectively protected by absolute reasonable. legislative immunity. Cost to Citizen Appellant $500 for administrative $0 if City Council decides appeal + subsequent to appeal and citizens possibility of $240 opts not to; $240 if City (LUPA) Council decides not to appeal and citizen appeals instead Accessibility to Pro Se May be perceived as May be perceived as less Litigants more accessible accessible Legal fees incurred by Overall appeal process is Overall appeal process is citizen Appellant longer, which could drive shorter, but moves to up legal fees; depends court faster, which could on whether lawyer be perceived as represents citizen at all increasing likelihood of stages legal fee exposure Ability to Evaluate Council would only be Council would be able to Hearing Examiner's reading decisions after observe and/or Performance the fact participate in hearing examiner hearings Councilmembers' Ability Council take direct action Council would ask to Correct Hearing to reverse the Examiner superior court judge to Examiner Errors reverse the Examiner in LUPA action Page 1 of 4 0 a .2 .y CY 0 0 E L a J .N �L CU CL 0 U 0 a c� x w r a� E w r Q Packet Pg. 124 Quasi-judicial Process Comparison Chart 8.3.d Component of Analysis Considerations for Considerations for Council to act as Judge Council to act as Prospective Appellant Councilmembers' Ability None, except Type 3A Same as any other to Participate in Hearing citizen; can make written Examiner Pre -decision or oral comments to the Hearings Examiner before the Examiner renders decision Councilmembers' Ability No communication Unlimited to Communicate with allowed on subject of communication with constituents pending or potential constituents appeal, except during the quasi-judicial hearing Standards that constrain Council can only rule Council has broad Council's decision- based on evidence in the legislative discretion in making discretion record, and based on the determining whether to previously adopted appeal; OK to vote to decision criteria; Council appeal partially on the may not be able to justify basis of popular support; a vote for the popular Council must still have outcome good faith belief that Examiner erred What if the applicable City council may have City Attorney would city code is truly the leigh way to need to make argument ambiguous? interpret the ambiguous to court in the event that section as it sees fit; Examiner interpreted court would give ambiguous code appropriate level of incorrectly; Examiner deference to the would be entitled to council's interpretation appropriate level of deference Page 2 of 4 0 L a 0 .y aY 0 0 r E L 0 a D J 0 .N �L CU CL 0 U Cn 0 0 L a c� x w r c m E 0 w r Q Packet Pg. 125 Quasi-judicial Process Comparison Chart 8.3.d Component of Analysis Considerations for Considerations for Council to act as Judge Council to act as Prospective Appellant Costs to City Council has historically No additional legal fees retained separate under current City attorney to advise city Attorney flat fee council while City structure unless it is Attorney has necessary to retain represented staff; separate attorney to approximate cost $5,000 represent the Examiner's decision; no separate counsel needed; $240 LUPA filing fee Councilmember comfort- "I am comfortable acting "I would rather limit my zone like a judge sometimes" role to legislative and policy matters" Councilmember's role as "I protect the City's "I protect the City's trustee of City interest best by retaining interest best by reducing my ability to reverse the the City's exposure to Examiner when he errs." the risks associated with improper land use decision ma king." Some constituents ... want you to keep the ... want you to champion might... quasi-judicial role in their concerns in hopes that you will vote superior court the way you are pressured to vote Expertise needed Requires Spock-like Requires no particular analytic skill in the midst expertise; can simply of a sometimes charged express your sense as to political environment; whether an error was legal/judicial training made desirable, but not strictly necessary Page 3 of 4 0 L a .2 .y aY 0 0 r L a J 0 2 CU CL E 0 U 0 L a c� x w r E w r a Packet Pg. 126 Quasi-judicial Process Comparison Chart 8.3.d Component of Analysis Considerations for Council to act as Judge Considerations for Council to act as Prospective Appellant Space taken on council In a complex case with Would likely meet with agenda many issues and/or the City Attorney in many parties of record, executive session to could take a large chunk discuss merits of possible of multiple meetings; LUPA action; short action could end up remanding item in open session to to the Examiner for follow additional fact-finding and then having a second appeal Page 4 of 4 Q Packet Pg. 127 Type III-B Permit Review Process Council Review Staff Review Hearing Examine Review Current Closed Record Review Process * = Council Receives Notice *Council gets email notice at least two weeks before hearing *Council emailed staff report and agenda seven days before hearing Optional Councilmember participation at public hearing. Hearing Examiner decision issued 10 business days after hearing. *Council as party of record receives decision. Party of Record must file request within 10 calendar days (potential code update to 14-days). *Council as party of record receives request for reconsideration. Decision on reconsideration issued 10 business days after request for reconsideration. *Council as party of record receives decision on reconsideration. Potential Council Judicial Appeal Process *Party of record files appeal to City Council within 14 days of decision on reconsideration or original decision if request for reconsideration not filed. Optional. Written arguments, Written Arguements rebuttals, and surrebuttal 12 though 2 days before closed record hearing before City Council. May occur over a number of Council meetings. Council may affirm, modify or reverse Hearing Examiner decision. With agreement from applicant, decision may be remanded. Council Considers Request for Judicial Appeal LO *Party of record makes request f t Council judicial appeal within sev w days of decision on reconsideration. E t c� r r Q Council, City Attorney, and staf discuss merits of decision in _ executive session. Majority of Council decides in open sessior whether or not to file a judicial appeal. City Attorney prepares and file appeal if Council decided to appeal. Must be filed within 21 days after decision on reconsideration (or initial decision if reconsideration not requested). Any party of recor may also file a judicial appeal regardless of Council decision. Applicant or appellant may file judicial appeal. Packet Pg. 128 8.3.f Edmonds Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS Sections: 20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference. 20.02.002 Permit application requirements. 20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application. 20.02.004 Effect of irreconcilable applications on the same property. 20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications. 20.02.006 Resubmission of application after denial. 20.02.007 Notice of Final Decision Page 1/4 20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference. A. Prior to filing applications for Type II actions requiring a preliminary plat and Type III and IV actions, applicants are encouraged to participate in a preapplication conference. Preapplication meetings with staff provide an opportunity to discuss the proposal in general terms, identify the applicable city requirements and the project review process including the permits required by the action, timing of the permits and the approval process. Plans presented at the preapplication meeting are nonbinding and do not "vest" an application. B. The conference shall be held within 28 days of the request, upon payment of applicable fee(s) as set forth in the city's adopted fee resolution. C. The development services director or his/her designee (hereinafter the "director") shall provide the applicant with the following during the conference: 1. A form which lists the requirements for a completed application; 2. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the application; 3. The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards which may apply to approval of the application; and 4. The city's design guidelines. D. Neither the discussions at the conference nor the information on the form provided by the director to the applicant under subsection (C) of this section shall bind the city in any manner or prevent the city's future application or enforcement of all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. E. Requests for preapplication conferences for all other types of applications will be considered on a time -available basis by the director. [Ord. 3817 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.02.002 Permit application requirements. An application shall consist of all materials required by the applicable development regulations and shall include the following general information: A. A completed land use application form; B. A verified statement by the applicant that the property affected by the application is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant, or that the applicant has submitted the application with the consent of all owners of the affected property; C. A property and/or legal description of the site for all applications, as required by the applicable development regulations; D. The applicable fee; and The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. Packet Pg. 129 8.3.f Edmonds Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS Page 2/4 E. Cover letter describing how the proposal satisfies the applicable standards, requirements and criteria in the development regulations. [Ord. 3817 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application. A. Determination of Completeness. Within 28 days after receiving an application, the director shall mail or personally deliver to the applicant a determination which states that either: 1. The application is complete; or 2. The application is incomplete and what is necessary to make the application complete. B. Identification of Other Agencies with Jurisdiction. To the extent known by the city, other agencies with jurisdiction over the project shall be identified in the determination of completeness. C. Additional Information. An application is complete for the purposes of this section when it meets the submission requirements of ECDC 20.02.002 and the submission requirements of the applicable development regulations. The determination of completeness shall be made when the application is sufficiently complete for review, even though additional information may be required or project modifications may be undertaken subsequently. The determination of completeness shall not preclude the director's ability to request additional information or studies whenever new information is required, or when substantial changes are made to the proposed project. D. Incomplete Applications. 1. Whenever the applicant receives a determination from the city pursuant to subsection (A)(2) of this section that the application is incomplete, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary information. Within 14 days after an applicant has submitted the requested additional information, the director shall make a determination of completeness and notify the applicant in the manner provided in subsection (A) of this section. 2. Whenever the applicant receives a notice that the contents of the application, which had been previously determined under subsection (A)(1) of this section to be complete, is insufficient, ambiguous, undecipherable, or otherwise unresponsive of the information being sought, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary information. If circumstances warrant, the applicant may apply in writing to the director requesting a one-time 90-day extension. The extension request must be received by the city prior to the end of the initial 90- day compliance period. 3. If the applicant does not submit the additional information requested within the 90-day period (or within the 90-day extension period, as applicable), the director shall make findings and issue a decision, according to the Type I procedure, that the application has lapsed for lack of information necessary to complete the review. The decision shall state that no further action will be taken on the application, and that if the applicant does not make arrangements to pick up the application materials from the planning and/or public works/engineering departments within 30 days from the date of the decision, the application materials will be destroyed. 4. When the director determines that an application has lapsed because the applicant has failed to submit required information within the necessary time period, the applicant may request a refund of the application fee remaining after the city's determination of completeness. E. Director's Failure to Provide Determination of Completeness. An application shall be deemed complete under this section if the director does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is incomplete as provided in subsection (A) of this section. F. Date of Acceptance of Application. Permit applications shall not be officially accepted until complete. When an application is determined to be complete, the director shall note the date of acceptance for continued processing. G. After acceptance, the city shall begin processing the application. Under no circumstances shall the city place any application on "hold" to be processed at some later date, even if the request for the "hold" is made by the applicant, and regardless of the requested length of the "holding" period. This subsection does not apply to applications placed on "hold" upon determination by the city that additional information is required in order to make a decision. [Ord. 3817 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. Packet Pg. 130 8.3.f Edmonds Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS Page 3/4 20.02.004 Effect of irreconcilable applications on the same property. A. If an applicant submits an application that cannot be reconciled with a previously submitted application on the same property, the previously submitted application shall be deemed withdrawn by the applicant and it shall be rendered null and void. The director shall notify the applicant that the previously submitted application has been deemed withdrawn and will not be processed any further. Withdrawal shall be deemed to occur even when the city has finished processing the previously submitted application. B. Many inconsistencies between applications can be reconciled through corrections that are made during the development review process. This section is not intended to treat all inconsistencies as effecting a withdrawal of the earlier application. C. Without limiting the generality of subsection (A) of this section, the following examples are intended to illustrate whether a subsequent application shall be deemed irreconcilable with an earlier application: 1. Examples of Irreconcilable Applications That Result in Withdrawal. a. Applicant submits an application for a four -lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, another application is submitted for a three -lot short plat on the same property. Assuming there is not enough land area for seven lots, the two applications are irreconcilable because one could not construct both short plats. Hence, the four -lot short plat is deemed withdrawn. b. Applicant submits a design review application for a 20-unit multifamily housing development. Subsequently, another design review application is submitted for a 30-unit multifamily housing development whose footprint would substantially overlap with the footprint of the structure shown for the 20-unit application. Because both structures would occupy substantially the same space they are irreconcilable and the 20-unit application would be deemed withdrawn. 2. Examples of Applications That May Be Inconsistent but Are Not Irreconcilable Resulting in Withdrawal. a. Applicant submits an application for a four -lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, a building permit application is submitted for a single-family home the footprint of which would encroach into the setbacks as measured from the proposed short plat lot lines. Because the building permit application could be corrected to properly locate the footprint, the applications are reconcilable and do not effect a withdrawal of the short plat application. b. Applicant submits a landscaping plan that is inconsistent in an insignificant way with civil site - improvement plans that are submitted for the same property. If the two sets of plans can be reconciled by submitting a corrected version of at least one of the two plans, then city staff would seek corrections and withdrawal would not be deemed to occur. [Ord. 4006 § 1, 2015; Ord. 3992 § 1, 2015]. 20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications. Within 10 days of accepting an application, the director shall transmit a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application, to each affected government agency and city department for review and comment, including those responsible for determining compliance with state and federal requirements. [Ord. 3817 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.02.006 Resubmission of application after denial. Any permit application or other request for approval submitted pursuant to this title that is denied shall not be resubmitted or accepted by the director for review for a period of 12 months from the date of the last action by the city on the application or request unless, in the opinion of the director, there has been a significant change in the application or a significant change in conditions related to the impacts of the proposed project. [Ord. 4006 § 2, 2015; Ord. 3992 § 2, 2015; Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009. Formerly 20.07.007]. 20.02.007 Notice of final decision. (MOVED FROM ECDC 20.06.009) A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided, that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall include The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. Packet Pg. 131 8.3.f Edmonds Page 4/4 Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal and a description of any available administrative appeals. For Type II, III and IV permits, the notice shall contain the requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain N that affected property owners may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 0- IL 1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the applicant, to any person who submitted comments on the application or requested a copy of the decision, and to the Snohomish Counter 2 assessor. 2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by any means deemed reasonable by the director. CI B. In calculating the 120-day period for issuance of the notice of final decision, or other decision period specified in subsection (A) of this section, the following periods shall be excluded: a� 1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the director to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. The period shall be calculated from the date the director notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the dates the director determines c that the additional information provided satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the date the 0 additional information is provided to the city; w m 2. If the director determines that the information submitted is insufficient, the applicant shall be informed of the deficiencies and the procedures set forth in subsection (B)(1) of this section for calculating the exclusion period shall apply; a 3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared pursuant to Chapter 43.21 C RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed by Chapter 20.15A ECDC; J 4. Any period for consideration and issuance of a decision for administrative appeals of development project U permits, which shall be not more than 90 dayspen record appeals and 60 days for closed record appeals, V unless a longer period is agreed to by the director and the applicant; w N 5. Any extension of time mutually agreed to by the director and the applicant in writing c N C. The time limits established in this title do not apply if a permit application: a M 1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation; V 2. Requires siting approval of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or N r C 3. Is a Type IV permit process identified in ECDC 20.01.003.A. 4. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date that a d determination of completeness for the revised application is issued by the director pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003 E and RCW 36.70B.070. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 20091. Q c m 0 a co x w Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. Packet Pg. 132 8.3.g Edmonds Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPEALS Sections: 20.06.000 Genefal. 20.06.000 General 20.06.010 Consolidated appeals 20.06.020 Joint public hearings 20.06.030 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal 20.06.040 Appeals of permit decisions or recommendations 20.06.050 Prehearing conference 20.06.060 Responsibility of director - Open record public hearing 20.06.070 Conflict of interest 20.06.080 Ex parte communications 20.06.090 Disqualification 20.06.100 Burden and nature of proof 20.06.110 Order of proceedings - Predecision open record public hearing 20.06.120 Procedure for an open record appeal hearing 20.06.130 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal 20.06.140 Decisions 20.06.150 Reconsideration of decision 20.06.160 Judicial appeals 20.06.000 General. Page 1115 A. An open record public hearing is a hearing conducted by an authorized body or officer that creates the ems- record_pon which the outcome of a decision or appeal is based through testimony and the submission of documents and other evidence . A public hearing may be held prior to the city's decision on a dev project permit application; this is an "open record predecision hearing." A public hearing may be held on an appeal if no open record predecision hearing was held for tea pefa+4d ision on a project permit application; this is an "open record appeal hearing." B. Open record predecision hearings on all Type III and IV permit applications and open record appeal hearings on all gppeals of Type II decision appeals shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter. Public hearings conducted by the city hearing examiner shall also be subject to the hearing examiner's rules. CA. "Closed record appeal" means an administrative appeal to the city council. Such appeals are decided based on the Dreviouslv created record. i3ermit ^ i3li ation when the While such appeal proceedings g je r ^ra ,�do not allow new testimony, documents or other evidence to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC 20.067-.805130 B).; and a are allowed based upon the record. Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 133 Edmonds Page 2/15 Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS shall be as allowed and described in the matrix set forth in ECDC 20.01.003. E L a) G. Unless other -wise provided, appeals ef Type 11 deeisiens shall be initiated as set fei4h in ECDC 20.07.004. [Ord.- a m N V 3817 § c 2010; Ord. 3 736 c n A), 2009 F,,.....,^,-ly 20 06 001j W (Exh O 20.06.0"020 Joint public hearings. N A. Decision to Hold Joint Hearing. The development serviees aireeter eF his/her- designee (heFe ^afteF the � city may ewe -jointly conduct any public hearing on a project permit application with any hearing that M may be held -conducted by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, on the proposed action, as long as to the requirements of subsection (C) of this section are met. N B. Applicant's Request for a Joint Hearing. The applicant may request that the city conduct a joint public hearing °r with another agency, as described in subsection (A), above, ^n a refrait application be eambinoa as long as the joint R hearing schedule e would allow a decision to be issued within the applicable time periods set forth in this V ehapterTitle 20. in the alte ativeIf the joint hearing schedule would not allow a decision to be issued within the applicable time periods, the applicant may agree in writing to a p -tie '., . sehe ule if additional time is nee an L extension of the applicable time periods in order to ^^mph^'^ the hearin^sallow a joint public hearingto be M conducted. 0 C. Prerequisites to Joint Public Hearing. A joint public hearing may be held with another local, state, regional, c federal or other agency and the city, when: M c 1 The etheF agreeys Doing so is not expressly prohibited by statute r~�; M 0 2. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencyies' applicable notice �? requirements . set forth : st « es ordinances, or rules; t� V 3. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed project from the applicant in enough w time to hold its hearing at the same time as the city hearing; egand c 4. The hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the city. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010]. 0 N `m 2 AGAMM06.030 Standing to initiate an administrative anneal. M A. Standing Limited to Parties of Record. Only parties of record may file an administrative anneal. V 3 B. Definition. The term "parties of record," for the purposes of this chapter, shall mean: a) 1. The applicant: d N 0 2. Any person who testified at thean open record public hearing on the subject application; a 0- IL 3. Any person who ' submitted written comments concerning the subject application -ate ti „blie w^arinT (or to stag ifa a ^a' of a TmvBe rr PROVIDED THAT. P-persons who have only signed a petitions are not "parties of record:" and/or z x w 4. The city of Edmonds. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009_ d 20AGAW06.040 Anneals of project permit decisions intions. E An administrative a gals of a decision on a project permit deeisia gpplication- on a ^fmit a -Blue fie shall be governed by the following: Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 134 8.3.g Edmonds Page 3/15 Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Standine. O i.. nart;es efrecord have st dine to ^ e^l the bear -in . r body's dee;sion[reserved]` B. Time to File. An anneal must be filed within 14 days after the issuance of the heafine bo&'^ written decision on m a project permit application. The anneal period for determinations of nonsignificance, shall be extended for an (L additional seven days, if state or local rules adopted pursuant to Chapter 43.21 C RCW allow public comment on a v0i determination of nonsignificance issued as -9^f' oft e ^-B-)^^'^Mein relation to the applicable project permit � desisieaMplication. Appeals, including fees, must be received by the city's development services department by mail or by personal delivery at or before 4:00 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period. Appeals received by mail after 4:00 p.m. on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when such appeals were mailed or postmarked. V V C. Computation of Time. For the poses of computing the time for filing an appeal, the day the hearing body's w decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day of the appeal is a Saturday. Sunday, legal holiday designated ti by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, or any day when City Hall or the city's development services department N is closed to the public by formal executive or legislative action, then the appeal may be filed on the next day that is not a Saturday. Sunday, holiday or closed day. c M to 0 D. Content of Appeal. Appeals shall be in writing. be accompanied by the required anneal fee as set forth in the N city's adopted fee resolution, and contain the following information: y L d 1. Appellant's name. address, email address, and phone number- Q- 0 2. A statement describing appellant's standing to appeal: V c 3. Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal• d 4. Appellant's statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based p ,-e f .-enees to ♦L.e f ets i the re..e fd; C 0 5. The specific relief sought• c 6. A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the c a pellant's signature. C) V 7. All written submittals should be typed or electronically formatted on letter size paper (eight and one-half by 11 inches), with one -inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller V w than 12mpoint), single sided. o E. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the ecision on the project permit application until 0 N such time as the anneal is eonsl%dedresolved or withdrawn. L a 0 F. Notice of Appeal. The development ser4ces director (hereinafter the "direeter!�)7shall provide niaiWwritten_ V notice of the appeal to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.00306.020. [Ord. 3817 & 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 & 3 4 (Exh. A), 20091. z 13 G. Multiple appeals. More than one appeal maybe filed concerning the same decision on a project N permit application. 0 a 0 L. 20.06.050 Prehearing Conference a ti A. The Hearing Examiner may on his or her own order, or at the request of the city, applicant or appellant, hold cone or more conferences prior to the hearing to consider: 1. Identification, clarification, and simplification of the issues; w 2. Disclosure of witnesses to be called and exhibits to be presented; c E 3. MetieesThe scheduling or hearing of motions that any party would like to have considered; U M Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 135 Edmonds Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS Page 4/15 4. Other matters deemed by the Hearing Examiner appropriate for orderly and expeditious disposition of the proceedings. B. Prehearing conferences may be held by telephone conference all. C. The Hearing Examiner shall ,give notice to all parties of record of any prehearing conference to be held. Notice may be written 9. D. All parties of record shall be FemesenleAparticipate atin any prehearing conference unless they « aive the right - to be presen4 E)r _eigesen* era they are granted permission by the Hearing Examiner not to a#exdparticiapate. Failure to participate without such permission may result in that party's waiver of issues adjudicated during the prehearing conference and/or dismissal of the appeal.- E. Following the prehearing conference, the Hearing Examiner shall issue an order reciting the actions taken or ruline on motions made at the conference. 20.06.003060 Responsibility of director for hearing - Open Record Public Hearing. The director shall: A. Schedule project permit applications for review and public hearing; B. Verify compliance with notice requirements; C. Prepare the staff report on the application, which shall be a single report which sets forth all of the decisions made on the proposal as of the date of the report, including recommendations on project permit applications in the consolidated permit process that do not by themselves require an open record predecision hearing. The report shall also describe any mitigation required or proposed under the city's development regulations or SEPA authority. If the threshold determination, other than a determination of significance, has not been issued previously by the city, the report shall include or append this determination; D. Prepare the notice of decision, if required by the hearing body, and mail a copy of the notice of decision to those entitled by this chapter to receive the decision. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.06.003070 Conflict of interest. The hearing body shall be subject to the code of ethics, prohibitions on conflict of interest and appearance of fairness doctrine as set forth in Chapter 42.23 RCW, and Chapter 42.36 RCW as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.06.004080 Ex parte communications. A. No member of the hearing body may communicate, directly or indirectly, regarding any issue in a proceeding before him or her, other than to participate in communications regarding procedural aspects necessary for maintaining an orderly process, unless he or she provides notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. Nothing herein shall prevent the hearing body from seeking legal advice from its legal counsel on any issue. B. If, before serving as -on the hearing body in a quasi-judicial proceeding, any member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication of a type that could not properly be received while serving, the member of the hearing body, promptly after starting to serve, shall disclose the communication as described in subsection (C) of this section. C. If a member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication in violation of this section, he or she shall place in the record: 1. All written communications received; 2. All written responses to the communications; 3. The substance of all oral communications received, and all responses made; and L a m N c M J The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 136 8.3.g Edmonds Page 5115 Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. The identity of each person from whom the member received any ex parte communication. E The hearing body shall advise all parties that these matters have been placed on the record. Upon request made after `m notice of the ex parte communication, any party desiring to rebut the communication shall be allowed to place a a rebuttal statement on the record. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. M 20.06.005090 Disqualification. c A. Any member who is disqualified shall make full disclosure to the audience of the reason(s) for the disqualification, abstain from voting on the proposal, and physically leave the hearing room. U B. If enough members of the hearing body are disqualified so that a quorum cannot be achieved, then all members V present, after stating their reasons for disqualification, shall be prequalified and deliberations shall proceed. [Ord. w 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. o 20.06.006100 Burden and nature of proof. A. Except for Type V actions and; appeals ^v r.Te rr .,^«:^ns and elesea Fecera .,..peal the burden of proof is on the proponent. The devehTfaer#-project permit application must be supported by convincing pfee gvidence in the record that it conforms to the applicable elements of the city's development regulations and eempf-eheasive plan (review criteria). The proponent must also prove that any significant adverse environmental impacts have been adequately mitigated. B. In an appeal of Type rr actions of elose r^e^r-a appeal, the appellant has the burden of proof with respect to points raised on appeal. r-egar-ding deeisio review within its o pei4ise and con4ained : its deeis ons. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.06.807110 Order of proceedings — Predecision Open Record Public Hearing. The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part on the nature of the hearing. The following shall be supplemented by administrative procedures and/or hearing examiner rules as appropriate. A. Before receiving testimony and other evidence on the issue, the following shall be determined: 1. Any objections on jurisdictional grounds shall be noted on the record and if there is objection, the hearing body may proceed or terminate the proceeding; 2. Any member disqualifications shall be determined. B. The presiding officer may take official notice of commonly known and accepted information, such as: 1. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, officially adopted development standards, and state and federal law; 2. Public records and facts judicially noticeable by law. C. Order of presentation. The order of presentation for predecision open record public hearings shall generally proceed as follows: The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 137 8.3.g Edmonds Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Hearing Examiner's or hearing body's introductory statement; 2. Departme�Staff presentation; 3. Applicant's presentation; 4. Public eewAmentstestimony on proposal; 5. Response from staff (if any); 6. Rebuttal from applicant (if an)); 67. Questions of staff, applicant, or other persons submitting testimony; -78. Deliberation by hearing body if applicable; Page 6/15 D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection C, the order of hearing may be modified or a different order established if the hearing body deems necessary for the clear and fair presentation of evidence. The order of the hearing may also be modified as agreed upon by the parties with the hearing body's approval. E. The order of presentation at hearing shall not alter or shift any burden(s) or presumptions(s) established by applicable law(s). GF. Information officially noticed need not be proved by submission of formal evidence to be considered by the hearing body. Parties requesting official notice of any information shall do so on the record. The hearing body, however, may take notice of matters listed in subsection (B) of this section at any time. Any information given official notice may be rebutted. PG. The hearing body may view the proposed project site or planning area with or without notification to the parties, but shall put into the record a statement setting forth the time, manner and circumstances of the site visit and any relevant observations made during the visit. EH. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and opponents. The presiding officer may, in his or her discretion, permit persons attending -participating in the hearing to ask questions of other participants. Unless the presiding officer specifies otherwise, many such questions will be asked of per-sns submitting to through the presiding officer. EI. When the presiding officer has closed the public ant estimony portion of the hearing, the hearing body may openly discuss the issue and may further question the staff or any person submitting informationtestimony. An opportunity to present rebuttal testimony shall be provided if new information is presented in -through the questioning. When all evidence has been presented and all questioning and rebuttal completed, the presiding officer shall officially close the record and end the hearing. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 138 8.3.g Edmonds Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS 20.06.120 Procedure for open record appeal hearing. Page 7/15 A. Appeal hearings shall have a structured format and shall be conducted in a manner deemed by the Hearing_ Examiner to make the relevant evidence most readily and efficiently available to the Hearing Examiner and to provide the parties a fair opportunity for hearing_ B. Where the code provides that the appellant has the burden of proof to overcome the City decision being_ appealed, the order of hearing is generally as follows: 1. Hearing Examiner's introductory statement; 2. Parties' opening statements (pptienalif allowed by hearing examiner); 3. Appelant's presentation of evidence and argument; 4. Department's presentation of evidence and argument; 5. Applicant's presentation of evidence and argument (if applicant is not the appellant); 6. Appelant's presentation of rebuttal evidence and argument; 7. Closing argument of parties (if allowed by hearing examiner); C. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection B, the order of hearing may be modified or a different order established if the Hearing Examiner deems necessary for the clear and fair presentation of evidence. The order of the hearing may also be modified as agreed upon by the parties with the Hearing Examiner's approval. D. The order of presentation at hearing shall not alter or shift any burden(s) or presl=tions(s) established by applicable law(s). E. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and opponents. The presiding officer may, in his or her discretion, permit persons participating in the hearing to ask questions of other participants. Unless the presiding officer specifies otherwise, appreyed-questions will be asked of per-sens submitting - testa,^.... bythrough the presiding officer. 2M6.1307-.W Procedure for closed record hearings, A. Closed record ap»ealshearinQs shall be argued and decided based on the record established at the open record hearing before the he rine i..o&'oFa^or whose decision ; appealed, which shall include the written deeisioxrecommendation of the hearing bodv/officer. conies of anv exhibits admitted into the record. and official transcript, minutes or tape recording of the proceedings. 1. At his/her own expense, a party of record may have the official tape recording of the open record hearing transcribed; however, to be adw,44ed in4e the r-eeeF considered during the closed record hearing, the transcription must be peffaggoprepared and certified by a court reporter or a transcriber that is Are- a proved by the city. In addition. the ^mod-transc6ption must be received by the city directly from the transcriber at least 16 working days before the date scheduled for the closed record revie hearing. It shall be each party of record's responsibility to obtain a copy of the transcription from the city. 2. The director shall maintain a list of pre -approved transcribers thaA are eetH4 apple ed; and if needed, shall coordinate with parties je4he7appefl4of record so that no more than one official transcription is adin:..oa iin'^'h^ d )laced before the city council. B. No new testimony or other evidence will be accepted by the city council except: (1)new information required to rebut the substance of any written or oral ex parte communicationreyidedthat is placed on the record during an appearance of fairness disclosure: ^^a 2) relev n4 inform ' *he 0itV council. excluded by the ho.,, ine h...7y, q ffi..or L a m N c M J U V w ti 0 0 N c M to 0 0 N L d a 0 V c L 0 c 0 c E 0 V V C V w m 0 6 N L a M z U d z d N O a 0 a` ti Z z x w c d E z U 0 Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 139 Edmonds Page 8/15 Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS .,t the information , xelu e.l h,, the hearing he.i„ o ffleer and the r ,,.h,, the heerine h.,. to ff:eer erre.l in •G ..eh,.line the information. L 2. in determinine whether- the i forma4ion should he admitted. the eity e e;l o si e«t fn r-eattest ether ...,.-ties eF d to h.. se by the e;te ;l ehi s e «ts reh tti „ng the Nn five � submit written f above oespo president within ,..1.,,.s of the initial ,- est that the i f:.Fm lion he fna e ,3ert of the re ,lershalle t;ttr-et:f the wer-kin to � � &wRe. C M C. Parties to4he ippeWof record may present written arguments to the city council. Arguments shall ,leser e- ...J address the applicable decision criteria with specific references to V the administrative record. e th,1 e e r LV eivV � 0 D. While written arguments are not required, app4ja^tparties of record may submit hism�written arguments no N later than 12 working days before the date scheduled for the closed record fev4ewhearing. Parties of recorder fee the appell^„t. may submither-written arguments or respond in writing to ^^HH opening arguments no M later than seven working days before the closed record reiewhearing��tParties may rebut in writing to to 0 responses submitted by parties of record no later than four working days before the closed record rehearing. If- N rn L e ere e tha- two , afki e ,lsys he fete the elese,l r ,1 r � CL E. Written arguments, responses. and rebuttals and s„rreh„ttels must be received by the city's development services M V department by mail or personal delivery at or before 4:30 p.m. of the date due. Late submittals shall not be accepted. Submittals received by mail after 4:30 p.m. on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted. no matter when d such submittals were mailed or postmarked. it shall he the r sib lit,, of the s^rt;e^ ; .el„od to ehtn'n fof their L O F. All written submittals should be typed or electronically formatted on letter size paper (eight and one-half by 11). r- 0 with one -inch margins, using readable font tyre (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than 12). single sided. double spaced and without exceeding 12 pages in length, including exhibits, if any. Exhibits that are not already in the record shall not be allowed. E 0 G. The review shall commence with the resolution of appearance of fairness issues, if any, followed by the V opportunity for oral presentations by the director and other parties of records, including the appellant. After the V presentations, the city council may ask clarifying questions on disputed issues to parties of record, with an V opportunity for the director, appellant and/or applicant, respectively, to rebut to the response. The city council shall w not request information outside the administrative record. If the city council believes that it needs information not m o contained in the record to make a proper decision on the application, it may remand the application to have the co14 record reopened for that limited purpose. a If information outside the administrative record is offered (in written submittals or oral presentation) by a party of z record, it shall be the responsibility of other parties of record opposing the same to timely object and provide V justification in support of the objection. Objections to information outside the administrative record shall be brought before the city council begins deliberations. The party offering the information shall have the opportunity_ to show Z where in the record said information is contained. aa) M O H. The city council shall dete,.,,,;re whether the aereview the 64enrecommendation by the hearing body/officer i-s- c ele^rhv eFfelaeousde novo givenbased on the evidence in the record. The 64V a e;l shall affifffl. adifV of e e e L. (L e .leersion of the he.,rine hs,.i to ff;eer s or-di,eW U-no, written s e„t by the applicant to waive the reauiremen4 for a decision within the time-Deriods set forth in RCW 36.70B.080. as all -wed bv RCW 36 7nB 080( As it deems necessary, tnstructions z to the hearing body to reopen the hearing to obtainfer additional information on a subject that is relevant to the i j decision criteria_ c d 1. Notiee of Final Deeision oft Closed Reeofd A-Bi3eal. The difeetoF shall issue a natiee of final deeision on elesed E r ...-.] ., l ;.. the ,�. t F rth and to e ,. the ;.le«t:f:e.l ;.. L`!'Tll� ')n nti nnnn� nn'7 nr.l 341'7 P. ti In1 n. re mes^ �er ^ee � nr,l Z M r, P. n fV-1, Al II) �0., r Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 140 8.3.g Edmonds Page 9/15 Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS 20.06.008140 Decision. A. Following the hearing procedure described in ECDC 20.06.007110, or-ECDC 20.06.120, or ECDC 20.06.130, the E hearing body shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. If the hearing is an appeal, the hearing `m body shall affirm, reverse or; a prohibition against two open r-eeer-d heafin s � remand the decision for additional information. B. The hearing body's written decision shall be issued within 10 working days after the close of record of the hearing and within 90 days of the opening of the hearing, unless a longer period is agreed to by the parties. Where the record is voluminous, the hearing body inform the parties during the hearing that more than 10 working days will be necessary to render a decision. U U C. The city shall provide a notice of decision as provided in ECDC 20.0602.0096. w ti 0 D. If the city is unable to issue its final decision on an application within the time limits provided for in this section, N it shall provide written notice of this fact to the project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of decision. [Ord. 3817 § 5, la 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. o 0 N 20.06�.009—Notleeo* final deeisien-. [RELOCATE TO ECDC 20.02.0071A. The dir-eetor shall issue a notioe of final decision within 120 days of the issuance of the detefmination of y L d M on a pr-elifainar-y plat shall be 90 days, fer- a final plat 30 days, and a final shoft plat 30 days. The netiee shall inehide- �t the SEPA thfeshold deter-minatien for- the proposal and a deser-iption of any available administfative appeals. For - Type 11, M and 1V pemiits, the notiee shall eantain the r-eqiiir-ements set fafth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain that affeeted property owners may r-eqiiest a change in pr-apeFty tax valuation not -withstanding any program of r-eva y/ L 1, ..ti Ci O The notice of final deeision shall be mailed or other -wise delivered to the to C 'applicant,any per-sonO �+ Cetinty- assesson E 2. Notiee of the deeision shall be provided to the p4lie by an), means deemed reasonable by the . O U B. in calculating the 120 day period for issuance of the notice of final decision, or other decision period specified in - <i subsection (A) of this section the following noriods shall be excluded: � > c.i LU W 1. Any period dtifing w-hiek the appliean4 has been r-eqiiested by the dif:eetar- to eeFFeet plans, perform requir-ed O studies, or provide additional required information. The period shall be calculated from the date the director O N notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the dates the director deter -mines L that the additional information provided satisfies the request for �+ information, or 14 s after the date the Q. additional information i provided to the city- M U ai Z shall apply; $ d M O 3. Any period during w-hieh an environmen4al impaot statement (EIS4 is being prepared ptffsuan4 to Chapter CL 4 3.2 1 G R-GW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed b),- L a permits, which shall be not more than 90 days for open reeor-d appeals and 60 days for- closed r-eeord x - --- - - : =- -- - - - - -- Lu c 5. Any extension of titne nwtually agreed to by the director and the applicant in Vffiting. d E z U C. The time lifnits established in this title do net apply if a per-mit appliemiew M Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 141 Edmonds Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS Page 10115 20.06.040150 Reconsideration of decision. A. General. Any person identified in ECDC 20.07.00306.020 as having standing to file an administrative appeal may request reconsideration of a decision of the hearing examiner which issues immediately after the open record public hearing on a permit application described in this chapter. (There shall be no reconsideration of a decision of the director (staff), ADB or city council.) Reconsideration is not a condition precedent to any appeal. Reconsideration shall be limited to: 1. Error(s) of procedure; 2. Error(s) of law or fact; 3. Error(s) of judgment; and/or 4. The discovery of new evidence that was not known and could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been discovered. B. Time to File. A request for reconsideration, including reconsideration fee, must be filed with the director within 10 calendar days of the issuance of the hearing examiner's written decision. Such requests shall be delivered to the director before 4:00 p.m. on the last business day of the reconsideration period. Requests for reconsideration that are received by mail after 4:00 p.m. on the last day of this reconsideration period will not be accepted, no matter when such requests were sent, mailed or postmarked. C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing a request for reconsideration, the day the hearing examiner's decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day of the reconsideration is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050, or by a city ordinance, then the reconsideration may be filed on the next business day. D. Content of Request for Reconsideration. Requests for reconsideration shall be in writing, be accompanied by the required reconsideration fee, and contain the following information: 1. The name, address, email address, and phone number of the requestor; 2. Identification of the application and final decision which is the subject of the request for reconsideration; 3. Requestor's statement of grounds for reconsideration and the facts upon which the request is based; 4. The specific relief requested; 5. A statement that the requestor believes the contents of the request to be true, followed by his/her signature. 6. All written submittals should be typed or electronically formatted on letter size paper (eight and one-half by 11), with one -inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than 12), single sided. E. Effect. The timely filing of a request for reconsideration shall stay the hearing examiner's decision until such time as the hearing examiner issues a decision on reconsideration. F. Notice of Request for Reconsideration. The director shall provide mailed notice that a request for reconsideration has been filed to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.0036.020. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 142 Edmonds Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS Page 11115 G. Hearing Examiner's Action on Request. The hearing examiner shall consider the request for reconsideration without a hearing, but may solicit written arguments from parties of record. A decision on the request for E reconsideration shall be issued within 10 business days after receipt of the request for reconsideration by the city. `m a 1. The time period for appeal shall recommence and be the same for all parties of record, regardless of whether a party filed a motion for reconsideration. c 2. Only one request for reconsideration may be made by a party of record. Any ground not stated in the initial � motion is waived. _ 3. A decision on reconsideration or a matter that is remanded to the hearing examiner by the city council is not subject to a motion for reconsideration. H. Limitations on Hearing Examiner's Reconsideration. The hearing examiner shall consider the request for reconsideration based on the administrative record compiled on the application up to and including the date of the hearing examiner's decision. The hearing examiner may require or permit corrections of ministerial errors or inadvertent omissions in the preparation of the record and the hearing examiner's decision. The reconsideration decision issued by the hearing examiner may modify, affirm or reverse the hearing examiner's decision. I. Notice of Final Decision on Reconsideration. The director shall issue a notice of final decision on reconsideration in the manner set forth and to the persons identified in ECDC 20.062.009007. �0.8 &"06.160 Judicial apa e T-Having exhausted any available administrative gpl2eals, the cit 's final decision on an application may be a ealed by a ...... v of record with stand r^ 4by fAec ommencing a land use petition in Snohomish County superior court. Such petition must be f4edcommenced .., hif '" a...,-; after- issuance as provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW. [Ord. 3817 & 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. ot1]. r-eeensider-atien was tifnely filed, then anyjudioial appeal must be filed within 21 days after- issuanee of the deeision The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 143 Edmonds Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS Page 12/15 L a m N C M J W 20.07 006 1„dici ,i appeals- 20.07.007 ti O C 20.07.001 Appeals of decisions. co 0 0 N OPC ,and onlyL d ++ Q M �t V [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. d L L V O C O �Oes of V chapter, shaii♦♦ V W , 0 N L hearing (oF to staff if an appeal of a T=5T@ 11 E100ision), Per -SA., O,XLA L.0,x- -fily Signed petitions afe not PaAies of Q. t 3 a) z as N O M O IL ti Z Time to m,-0. A" alpp-oa n-w-1: be filed *Oithia 14 days afte, the ha-a-ing b0dy'S MWittffi xW Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 144 Edmonds Page 13/15 Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 145 Edmonds Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS Page 14/15 Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 146 Edmonds Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS Page 15115 20.07 00 7 Resubmission September 13, 2015). of application (effective until n d t z-rnC 20020n 3(]n2 a 3817 § 6, 2010; OF4. 2736 § n 2009] � ee6hfi [OFd. (Ex ) 20.07.007 Resubmission of application (effective until SeptembeF 13, 2015). n �GDG n n6 x„ 0r n ' [O -a 381 �7 § �6}vcoc��l-vz�vvvy--�T-c���-r� � 20 n. Of 3 736 § n (Ex n � 2009i d rcBE6L�JtB£Z , , , d N C M J The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 147 8.3.h Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Sections: 20.75.010 Citation of chapter. 20.75.020 Purposes. 20.75.025 Scope. 20.75.030 Subdivision defined. 20.75.035 Compliance required. 20.75.040 Application. 20.75.045 Unit lot subdivision. 20.75.050 Lot line adjustment — Application. 20.75.055 Lot combination. 20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats. 20.75.065 Preliminary review. 20.75.070 Formal subdivision — Time limit. 20.75.075 Modifications. 20.75.080 General findings. 20.75.085 Review criteria. 20.75.090 Park land dedication. 20.75.100 Preliminary approval — Time limit. 20.75.105 Repealed. 20.75.107 Preliminary approval — Time limit extension for previously approved short plats. 20.75.110 Changes. 20.75.120 Review of improvement plans. 20.75.130 Installation of improvements. 20.75.135 Preparation of final plat. 20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates. 20.75.145 Final plat — Accompanying material. 20.75.150 Waiver of survey. 20.75.155 Review of final plat. 20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review. 20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record. 20.75.165 Effect of rezones. 20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions. 20.75.175 Court review. 20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter. 20.75.185 Penalties. Page 1/14 20.75.010 Citation of chapter. This chapter may be cited as the City of Edmonds Subdivision Ordinance and shall supplement and implement the state regulations of plats, subdivisions and dedications found in Chapter 58.17 RCW. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. 20.75.020 Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are: A. To regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with state standards to prevent overcrowding of land; B. To lessen congestion in the streets and highways; C. To facilitate adequate provisions for water, utilities, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and recreation areas, sites for schools and playgrounds, and other public requirements; The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 148 Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 2/14 D. To provide for proper ingress and egress, while minimizing impervious surfaces; E. To require uniform monumenting of subdivisions and accurate legal descriptions of subdivided lots; F. To promote the preservation of critical areas and encourage low impact development; G. To encourage site design that can make the best use of renewable energy resources including solar and geothermal; H. To encourage low impact development (LID) practices when providing for streets and sidewalks. [Ord. 4085 § 18 (Exh. A), 2017; Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. 20.75.025 Scope. This chapter shall apply to all divisions of land for any purpose except those set forth in RCW 58.17.040, including but not limited to: A. Divisions for cemetery plots or other burial plots; B. Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or by the laws of descent; C. Divisions for the purpose of lease when no residential structure other than mobile homes or travel trailers are permitted to be placed upon the land and the city of Edmonds has approved a binding site plan for the use of the land in accordance with this chapter. Divisions under subsections (A) and (B) of this section will not be recognized as lots for building purposes unless all applicable requirements of this chapter are met. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. 20.75.030 Subdivision defined. A. "Subdivision" means a division of land into lots of any size for the purpose of sale. The term subdivision includes all resubdivisions of land, short subdivisions, and formal subdivisions. The term "lot" includes tracts, parcels, sites and divisions. The term "sale" includes lease gift or development or any purpose not excepted in this section. When reference to "subdivision" is made in this code, it is intended to refer to both "formal subdivision" and "short subdivision" unless one or the other is specified. B. "Formal subdivision" means a subdivision of five or more lots. C. "Short subdivision" means a subdivision of four or fewer lots. D. "Unit lot subdivision" means a subdivision or short subdivision of land under ECDC 20.75.045 where compliance with the development standards is evaluated with respect to the parent lot, not the unit lot. E. "Parent lot' means the lot with legal lot status which establishes the exterior boundary of a unit lot subdivision. F. "Unit lot' means a portion of a parent lot, the fee of which may be independently transferred upon recording of a unit lot subdivision. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. 20.75.035 Compliance required. Any person wishing to create a subdivision or lot line adjustment must first comply with this chapter. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. 20.75.040 Application. Applications for subdivisions shall be made to the eewwwaity development services director on forms provided by the community development department. A subdivision application will be processed concurrently with any applications for rezones, variances, planned unit developments, site plan approvals and other similar approvals, that relate to the proposed subdivision, unless the applicant expressly requests sequential processing. The application shall contain the following items in addition to those specified in ECDC 20.02.002: The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 149 Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 3/14 A. A reproducible copy of the preliminary plat and the number of prints required by the community development department; B. Title report; C. A survey map, if required by the sty development services director, of the exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option; D. The application fee as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC; E. A proposal for dedication of park land rather than payment of in -lieu fees, if desired by the applicant; F. Source of water supply and name of supplier; G. Method of sewage disposal, and name of municipal system if applicable. Percolation rates and other information required by the public works department shall be submitted if septic tanks are to be used; H. Other information that may be required by the sty development services director in order to properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 62, 2009; Ord. 2379 § 1, 1983]. 20.75.045 Unit lot subdivision. A. Purpose. The unit lot subdivision process provides opportunities for dividing fee simple ownership of land to create townhouses, rowhouses and similar fee -owned dwelling units as an alternative to both condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached subdivision. Unit lot subdivisions determine compliance with the relevant dimensional standards of ECDC Title 16 by analyzing whether the parent lot complies, but not requiring that each newly created lot within the unit lot subdivision (the unit lot) complies, with those dimensional standards. A unit lot subdivision does not permit uses or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which the unit lot subdivision is proposed. B. Applicability. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision of land for single-family dwelling units, townhouse, and rowhouses and may be applied only in the following zones: multiple residential, general commercial, and Westgate mixed -use. A single lot within a unit lot subdivision may contain multiple dwelling units when the unit lot contains all such dwelling units within one building. Flats are permitted as an element of a unit lot subdivision only when a single lot within a unit lot subdivision contains the entire building in which flats are located. C. Association with Site Development — Application Timing. In the case of a vacant lot or a redevelopment site, a preliminary unit lot subdivision can only be submitted in conjunction with or subsequent to a development site plan as required by Chapter 20.10, 20.11, or 20.12 ECDC, or in the case described in ECDC 20.10.020(B)(3) submitted in conjunction with or subsequent to a building permit. D. Conformance with Standards of the Parent Lot. The parent lot must comply with and is vested to the applicable development standards (ECDC 20.75.030(E)) in effect at the time a complete application for preliminary unit lot subdivision is submitted. As a result of the unit lot subdivision, the individual unit lots within the subdivision may be nonconforming with respect to the bulk and dimensional standards required by ECDC Title 16. As with dimensional standards, compliance with access standards, including but not limited to fire lanes, drive aisles, turn-arounds, and access of/to the parent lot from/to the street will be evaluated based on the parent lot's compliance with such requirements, and not based on whether individual unit lots meet such standards. E. Future Additions and Modifications. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parcel lot. Changes requiring permitting that affect only the interior of building units will be evaluated for compliance with the requirements only for that unit. Any exterior changes will be evaluated for compliance by considering whether the parent lot would still comply with applicable development standards. Any application for such external changes will require authorization of all owners of affected unit lots or approval of the HOA where changes to commonly owned tracts are proposed. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 150 8.3.h Edmonds Page 4/14 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS F. Homeowners' Association Ownership of Common Areas. Any commonly used areas or facilities within a unit lot subdivision, including but not limited to common access, garage or parking areas, common open space or recreation space, common courtyards, commonly used stormwater facilities or side sewers and other similar features, must be owned and maintained by a homeowners' association with the right to assess the individual unit lot owners as necessary to properly maintain and repair such areas. Appropriate documentation regarding the rights of the homeowners association must be submitted for recording with the final plat. G. Maintenance Agreements for Building Exteriors. Maintenance agreements must be executed and recorded as an element of the final unit subdivision plat or short plat for maintenance of all building exteriors except in cases where all dwelling units are detached. The maintenance agreement must require equal participation by all owners within any one building and must be recorded on the final unit lot plat. The requirement does not apply to detached single family dwelling units. Common wall construction must meet currently adopted building codes. H. Parking on Different Unit Lots Allowed. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the final plat. I. Notice of Unit Lot on the Final Plat. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot must be noted on the final plat. J. An application for final unit lot plat will not be accepted until all foundations, including common wall foundations, are installed and located on the face of the final plat by the land surveyor of record. K. Review. Unit lot subdivisions of four or fewer lots are processed and reviewed as short subdivisions while five or more lots are formal subdivisions pursuant to Chapter 20.01 ECDC and the requirements of this chapter. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. 20.75.050 Lot line adjustment — Application. A. Lot Line Adjustment Defined. A lot line adjustment is an alteration of lot lines between platted or unplatted lots or both, which does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site or division. B. Lot Line Adjustment Exempt from Subdivision Review. Except as otherwise provided in this section, lot adjustments shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter. C. Lot Line Adjustment Review. All proposals for lot line adjustments shall be submitted to the Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee for approval. The Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee shall approve the proposed lot line adjustment unless the manager or his/her designee certifies in writing that the proposed adjustment will: 1. Create a new lot, tract, parcel, site or division; 2. Reduce the setbacks of existing structures below the minimum required by code or make existing nonconforming setbacks of existing structures more nonconforming than before; 3. Reduce the lot width or lot size below the minimum required for the applicable zone; 4. Transform a nonbuildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division into a buildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division; 5. Would otherwise result in a lot which is in violation of any requirement of the ECDC. D. Application. A lot line adjustment application shall be submitted on forms provided by the city and shall at a minimum contain the following information: 1. One copy of dimensioned plans on the official city of Edmonds lot line adjustment form. The dimensioned plans shall be prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington and shall conform to city of Edmonds survey requirements, as promulgated by the Edmonds planning division. Information on the plans shall include the following: The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 151 Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 5/14 a. Legal descriptions of the existing lots and proposed lot line adjustment(s); b. The location of all existing structures on the subject parcel(s), including dimensioned setback information from all existing and proposed lot lines and ingress/egress easements; c. Locations of all existing ingress/egress and utility easements; d. Gross lot area for the original parcels and the proposed parcels (gross lot area does not include any lot area devoted to vehicular ingress/egress easements); e. The existing zoning of the subject parcel(s); f. Location of all existing driveways on the subject parcel(s); and g. The lot lines of adjoining properties for a distance of at least 50 feet. 2. A title company certification which is not more than 30 calendar days old containing: a. A legal description of the total parcel(s) sought to be adjusted; b. A list of those individuals, corporations, or other entities holding an ownership interest in the parcel(s); c. Any easements or restrictions affecting the property(ies) with a description, purpose and reference by auditor's file number and/or recording number; d. Any encumbrances on the property; and e. Any delinquent taxes or assessments on the property. E. Fee. The application fee shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. F. Expiration. An application for a lot line adjustment shall expire one year after a complete application has been filed with the city. An extension up to an additional year may be granted by the Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee upon a showing by the application of reasonable cause. G. Review. A certified determination of the planning manager or his/her designee may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision as set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 63, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 1, 1998]. 20.75.055 Lot combination. A. Lot Combination Defined. A lot combination is the combination of two or more legal, illegal, or nonconforming lots into one or more lots, all of which comply with the provisions of this code in effect at the time of said combination. B. An application for lot combination shall be signed for by all individuals or entities owning an interest in the property. The application fee shall be the same as the fee established for lot line adjustments. C. Lot combinations shall be approved as a matter of right unless the development services director finds that the combination of lots would: 1. Not result in legal conforming lot; and/or 2. Not be in compliance with the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan. The director shall, as a part of his decision, determine whether or not the lots, as combined, negatively impact compliance with the city's urban density requirements as established pursuant to the State Growth Management Act, comprehensive plan and the Snohomish County planning policies. D. The director's decision shall be issued in writing and shall be mailed to all properties within 300 feet of the site. Appeal may be taken from the director's decision within 10 working days of mailing of the decision and posting The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 152 Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 6/14 thereof in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 64, 2009; Ord. 3296 § 2, 2000]. 20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats. A preliminary plat is a neat and approximate drawing to scale of a proposed division of land, showing the existing conditions and the general proposed layouts of streets, lots and other information needed to properly review the proposal. The preliminary plat of a short subdivision may be referred to as a short plat. A preliminary plat shall be prepared by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. The scale used shall be sufficient to show clearly all details of the proposal. A scale of 50 feet to the inch is preferred; other engineering scales may be used, if necessary. Preliminary plats for formal subdivisions shall not exceed a size of 24 inches by 36 inches. Short plats shall be on an 8-1/2-by- 11 -inch page. The following information shall be shown on the plat: A. The name, if any, of the proposed subdivision; B. Sufficient description to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision; C. Name, address, seal and signature of the land surveyor who prepared the map; D. A vicinity sketch; E. Date prepared or revised, scale, north point, quarter section, section, township and range number; F. Total acreage of the land to be divided, and area in square feet of each proposed lot; G. Existing zoning, and zoning boundaries, if any; H. Lot dimensions and numbers; I. Setback lines required by the existing or proposed zoning, if the proposed lot has an unusual shape, steep topography, or other unusual limitations on its building site; J. Any existing property lines within, or adjacent to, the proposed subdivision, and the names of the owners of adjacent property; K. Contour lines in areas to be developed shall be at five-foot intervals, or as specified by the eommunity development services director. Ten -foot intervals may be used in areas not to be developed. All contour lines shall be extended into adjacent property a sufficient distance to show the topographical relationship of adjacent property to the proposed subdivision; L. The location, name and width of all existing and proposed street rights -of -way, or easements within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision, the grade or proposed streets and the pavement location of existing and proposed streets; M. The location of all existing structures within the proposed subdivision and within 25 feet of the proposed subdivision. Public area or areas to be owned in common by the lot owners, if any; N. The location of tree -covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas as requested by the planning development services director; O. A preliminary grading plan or profile of proposed roads if more than 500 cubic yards of earth is to be removed; P. A preliminary drainage proposal as specified in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, showing existing and proposed drainage facilities for the site and the adjacent areas; Q. A statement of improvements to be installed; R. The location of known or suspected soil or geological hazard areas, water bodies, creeks and areas subject to flooding; The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 153 8.3.h Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS S. Possible future lot lines if any is large enough to allow future division; T. Location of existing underground utility lines, sewer and water mains adjacent to or within the proposed subdivision; Page 7/14 U. Other information that may be required by the community development services director in order to properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3296 § 1, 2000. Formerly 20.75.055.]. 20.75.065 Preliminary review. A. Responsibility for Review. The eawAntmitt, development services director, or a designated planning staff member, is in charge of administering the preliminary review of all subdivisions. The public works director and the fire department, and other departments if needed, shall participate in preliminary review by appropriate recommendations on subjects within their respective areas of expertise. B. Notice of Hearing. 1. When the director of development services has accepted a subdivision for filing, he shall set a date of hearing, and give notice of the hearing as provided in ECDC 20.03.003, and by the following for a formal subdivision: a. One publication in a newspaper of general circulation within Snohomish County pursuant to Chapter 1.03 ECC and posting notice in three conspicuous places within 300 feet of any portion of the boundary of the proposed formal subdivision not less than 10 working days prior to the hearing. b. Mailing to a city if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent or within one mile of the city's boundary, or the proposed subdivision would use the utilities of the city. c. Mailing to the county if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to the city -county boundary. d. Mailing to the State Department of Highways if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to a state highway right-of-way. e. The notice must include a legal description and either a vicinity location sketch or a location description in nonlegal language. C. Time Limits for Staff Review. Staff review shall be completed within 120 days from the date of filing. D. Formal Subdivision Review. The hearing examiner shall review a formal subdivision as a Type III -A decision in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. E. Short Subdivisions — Staff Review. The director of development services shall review a short subdivision as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required). F. Appeal of Staff Decision. Any person may appeal to the hearing examiner a Type II decision of the eemffmaity� development services director on a short subdivision under the procedure set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3817 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 65, 2009; Ord. 3211 §§ 4, 5, 1998; Ord. 3112 §§ 17, 18, 19, 1996; Ord. 2379 § 2, 1983]. 20.75.070 Formal subdivision — Time limit. The city council shall make its final decision on a proposed formal subdivision within 90 days of the date of filing, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. Where applicable, additional time needed to prepare and circulate an environmental impact statement shall not be included within said 90 days. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3783 § 13, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 13, 2010]. 20.75.075 Modifications. A. Request. Request for a modification to a requirement of this chapter shall be made on the regular subdivision application form. The applicant shall state reasons to support the approval of the requested modification. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 154 Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 8/14 B. Notice. The notice of the public hearing at which the applicant's proposed subdivision will be considered shall contain a description of the proposed modification. C. Consideration. The proposed modification shall be considered in the same manner as the proposed subdivision. The modification may be approved, or recommended for approval, only if all of the required findings set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC (Variances) can be made. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3211 § 6, 1998]. 20.75.080 General findings. A proposed subdivision may be approved only if all of the following general findings can be made for the proposal, as approved or as conditionally approved: A. Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter (as listed in ECDC 20.75.020) and meets all requirements of this chapter. B. Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted city policy, and is in the public interest. C. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a modification has been approved as provided for in this chapter. D. Floodplain Management. The proposal meets all requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to floodplain management. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 2466, 1984]. 20.75.085 Review criteria. The following criteria shall be used to review proposed subdivisions: A. Environmental. 1. Where environmental resources exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife habitats, the proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to the resources. Permanent restrictions may be imposed on the proposal to avoid impact. 2. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and by relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography. 3. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the land to be divided, or to nearby residents or property, such as floodplains, steep slopes or unstable soil or geologic conditions, a subdivision of the hazardous land shall be denied unless the condition can be permanently corrected, consistent with subsections (A)(1) and (2) of this section. 4. The proposal shall be designed to minimize off -site impacts on drainage, views and so forth. B. Lot and Street Layout. 1. Lots shall be designed to contain a usable building area. If the building area would be difficult to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special conditions can be imposed on the approval which will ensure that the lot is developed properly. 2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no other feasible access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways, turnarounds or frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards. 3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance. 4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks, public facilities, shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate. C. Dedications. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 155 Edmonds Page 9/14 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS 1. The city eottnei1-may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for public use. 2. Only the city council may approve a dedication of park land to satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.75.090. The council may request a review and written recommendation from the planning advisory board. 3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land for streets, including those on the official street map and the preliminary plat. D. Improvements. 1. Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, pedestrian walks and bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage systems, drainage systems and underground utilities 2. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the requirements of: a. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements; b. Chapter 19.25 ECDC, Fire Code, as to fire hydrants, water supply and access. This determination shall be based on the recommendations of the eommunity development services director, the public works director, and the fire chief. 3. The use of septic systems may be approved if all of the following conditions are met: a. It is more than 200 feet, multiplied by the number of lots in the proposed subdivision, from the nearest public sewer main to the nearest boundary of the land to be divided. b. The land to be divided is zoned RS-20. c. The public works director and city health officer determine that soil, drainage and slope conditions are satisfactory for septic use and that all requirements of WAC 248-96-090 are met. E. Floodplain Management. All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria set forth in the Edmonds Community Development Code for floodplain management. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3211 § 7, 1998; Ord. 2466, 1984]. 20.75.090 Park land dedication. A. Dedication or In -Lieu of Fee Required. Before or concurrent with the approval of the final plat of any subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in -lieu of dedication, or do a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes. B. Proposal of Dedication. Either the applicant or the city may propose dedication of a portion of the land to be divided in order to meet the regulations of this section. Payment of in -lieu fees is required unless dedication is proposed and approved. C. Review of Dedications. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed at the same time as the subdivision proposal. Any short subdivision containing a dedication proposal shall be reviewed as if it were a formal subdivision. D. Factors for Review. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan, and the Recreational Walks Plan. Other factors to be considered include size, usability and accessibility of the land proposed for dedication, and the possibility of coordinating dedication by owners of adjacent land. E. In -Lieu Fee. In -lieu park fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 156 Edmonds Page 10/14 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS 20.75.100 Preliminary approval — Time limit. A. Approval of a preliminary plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of the time period established N under RCW 58.17.140, unless the applicant has acquired final plat approval prior to the expiration date established under RCW 58.17.140. The time period for subdivisions shall commence upon the date of preliminary plat approval by the issuance of a written decision by the Edmonds hearing examiner. In the event that the decision of the hearing a examiner is appealed to the Edmends eitt, ,.,.,,. ei anEWT Snohomish County superior court, the time period shall `° .2 commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary plat decision by the ^i r-judiciary. B. Approval of a short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of seven five years ifpreliminary ? is issued before December 31, 2013, five if is c� short plat approval on or and years prelimi )roval issued on or after Tana^ y' 'n' ^, unless the applicant has acquired final short plat approval within the specified CI time period. The time period for short plats shall commence upon the issuance of a final, written staff decision. In the event that the decision of staff is appealed to the Edmonds hearing examiner and/or Snohomish County superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary short plat decision by c the hearing examiner or judiciary. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3925 § 1, 2013]. 20.75.105 Extensions of time. c Repealed by Ord. 3190. [Ord. 2379 § 4, 1983]. .y m Plats. p date the in this ha-ve their- E effeetive of or-difia-fiee eedified seetion shall pr-elifninar-y appr-evals autema4ieally extead L d a have further the from the date sueh short plats shall expire and no validity at end oftwo years eff-eetive ofthe in this the has final the ordinance codified seetion, unless applicant aequired short plat approval within speeified time Notice the two from the date the in this period. of year extension effective of ordinance eodified seetion shall be to the 4070 1 1), 2017; Ord. 3925 2, provided parties ofreeord of such preliminary short plats. [Ord. § (Exh. § J C 20.75.110 Changes. w A. Preliminary Plats. The �yLdevelopment services director may approve as a Type 1-1-decision LU decision Notice reed) minor changes to an approved preliminary plat, or its conditions of approval. If the n proposal involves additional lots, rearrangements of lots or roads, additional impacts to surrounding property, or cQ•i other major changes, the proposal shall be reviewed in the same manner as the original application. Application fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. cc B. Recorded Final Plats. An application to change a final plat that has been filed for record shall be processed in the V same manner as a new application. This section does not apply to affidavits of correction. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 0 N 2017; Ord. 3736 § 66, 2009]. 20.75.120 Review of improvement plans. d 'a A. Timing. If improvements are required as a condition of preliminary approval of a subdivision, the applicant shall submit the improvement plan to the director of public works for review and approval, allowing sufficient time for E proper review before expiration of the preliminary plat approval. < B. Engineered Design. All improvement plans shall be prepared, dated, signed and sealed by a licensed engineer m 0 registered in the state of Washington, unless the public works director determines that engineer plans are not CL 0 necessary. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. aL 00 20.75.130 Installation of improvements. A. Timing and Inspection Fee. The applicant shall not begin installation of improvements until the public works director has approved the improvement plans, the public works director and the applicant have agreed in writing on i j a time schedule for installation of the improvements, and the applicant has paid an inspection fee, as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. d E B. Completion — Bonding. The applicant shall either complete the improvements before the final plat is submitted for city councikapproval, or the applicant shall post a bond or other suitable surety to guarantee the completion of Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 157 Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 11/14 the improvements within one year of the approval of the final plat. The bond or surety shall be based on the construction cost of the improvement as determined by the director of public works, and shall be processed as provided in Chapter 17.10 ECDC. C. Acceptance — Maintenance Bond. The director of public works shall not accept the improvements for the city of Edmonds until the improvements have been inspected and found satisfactory, and the applicant has posted a bond or surety for 15 percent of the construction cost to guarantee against defects of workmanship and materials for two years from the date of acceptance. D. Short Subdivision — Deferred Installation. If the eamffvdnity development services director determines that installation of improvements will not be needed at the time of the approval of the final plat of the short subdivision, the improvements shall be installed or guaranteed by bond before issuance of any development permit for any lot shown on the preliminary plat. This condition shall be stated on the final plat, and shall be binding on all later owners of lots created by the subdivision. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. 20.75.135 Preparation of final plat. A final plat is a final, precise drawing of a subdivision which conforms to the approved preliminary plat, and meets all conditions of the preliminary approval and all requirements of this chapter. It shall be prepared in accordance with the following: A. Surveyor. A professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington shall prepare, or supervise the preparation of, the final plat. B. Survey. The surveyor shall survey the land to be divided, and as much of the section(s) in which the land is located as is needed to properly orient the land within the section(s). C. Monuments. The surveyor shall set monuments at street intersections, lot and block corners, boundary angle points, points of curbs in streets, controlling corners on the boundaries of the land, and other points as required by the public works director. The type of monuments and the method of setting shall be as specified by the public works director. D. Standards. The public works director shall set standards for the preparation of final plats. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. 20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates. The following certificates shall be shown on the final plat. Subsections (A) through (G) of this section shall be signed by the indicated person before the final plat is submitted for review. Subsection (G) of this section is required for formal subdivision only. A. Surveyor. The surveyor shall place his seal and signature on the plat along with: 1. A statement certifying that the plat was prepared by him, or under his supervision; 2. A statement certifying that the plat is a true and correct representation of the land surveyed; 3. A full and correct description of the land to be divided. B. Owner. The owner shall certify that the subdivision has been made with his free consent and according to his desires. Owners of other interests shown on the title report shall certify that they have notice of the subdivision. C. Dedications. A certificate of dedication by the owner for all areas to be dedicated to the public, acknowledged by a notary. D. Waiver of Claims. A statement by the owner waiving all claims for damages against any governmental authority which may arise from the construction, drainage and maintenance of required improvements. E. Waiver of Access. If required by the conditions of the preliminary approval, a waiver by the owner of direct access to any street from any property. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 158 Edmonds Page 12/14 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS F. Roads Not Dedicated. A statement or other clear indication by the owner if any street is not to be dedicated to the public. G. Health Officer. A statement by the city of Edmonds health officer certifying that the proposed means of sewage disposal and water supply are adequate. H. Director of Public Works. The following statements to be signed by the director of public works: 1. A statement approving the survey date, the layout of streets, alleys and other rights -of -way, design of bridges, sewage and water system and other structures; and approving the final plat or short subdivision. r. .resrzre!eves�� rsre,�e!�crsseesstisrse�n:ees:rsre saw sear�ese rs� I. Development Services Director. The following statements to be signed by the community development director: 1. A statement that the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat and all conditions of the preliminary approval; and approving the final plat or shore subdivision. j. City Approval. A statement to be signed by the mayor and eity clerk that the eity council has approved the final a plat of a formal subdivision or a short subdivision with a dedieation. K. Taxes. A statement to be signed by the county treasurer that all taxes and delinquent assessments for which the r_ land to be divided may be liable as of the date of the signing of the statement have been paid. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. V C 20.75.145 Final plat — Accompanying material. V The following material shall be submitted to the director of public works with the final plat: LO A. Review Fee. A review fee for the final plat as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC shall be paid for each check or recheck N of the final plat. ar B. Survey Notes. Complete field and computation notes of the plat survey showing the original or reestablished a V corners with descriptions and the actual traverse showing error of closure and method of balancing. A sketch o showing all distances, angles and calculations required to determine corners and distances of the plat shall N accompany this data. The allowable error of closure shall not exceed one foot in 5,000 feet. C. Title Report. A title report showing that ownership and other interests in the land described and shown on the d final plat is in the name of the person signing the owner's certificate. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. d E 20.75.150 Waiver of survey. Q The director of public works may waive the requirement of a survey for the final plat in the following circumstances y if there will be no adverse effect on the public interest: if the boundaries of the lot proposed for short subdivision a have sufficient existing monuments to define the proposed lot lines. o a If the director of public works waives the survey requirements, the applicant shall prepare a final plat that meets all other requirements of this chapter and which contains legal descriptions of each proposed lot. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3211 § 9, 1998]. t x w 20.75.155 Review of final plat. A. Submission. The applicant may not file the final plat for review until the required improvement plans have been submitted for approval to the director of public works. E r r Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 159 Edmonds Page 13/14 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS B. Time Limit. A final plat shall be approved, disapproved or returned to the applicant for correction within 30 days of its official filing with the director of public works for review, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time limit. N This time period shall not include required environmental review. 0 L C. Staff Review. The director of public works and the development services director shall conduct an a administrative review the final plat of a formal subdivision and either sign the statements required by ECDC M 20.75.140, if all requirements of this chapter have been met, or disapprove such action, stating their reasons in writing. Such administrative action shall be final subject onlright of appeal to the Snohomish County superior s .N court. statements required by EGDG 20.75.140 or attaching their recommendation for disapproval. M 0 CI D. City couneil Review. if the f4ads that the interest be by the e4y eedHeil p4he use and will setwed proposed 4ia4 the in this have been the f4flal 0 s4divisien and all r-equir-ements of Preliminafy appr-oval ehapter- met, PW shall be the the the the final appr-eved a -ad mayef and eity eler-k shall sign statement of eity e0uneil appfoval en plat. ED. Acceptance of Dedication. Dedication of any interest in property contained in an approval of the formal M subdivision shall be forwarded to the city council for formal acceptance on its consent agent; provided, however, c that such acceptance shall not stay any approval, time period for appeal or the effective date of the formal •y subdivision. City eouneil approval of the final plat constitutes acceptance of all dedication shown on the final plat. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 67, 2009; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994]. p 20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review. E The eonmnunity services director thfo,,g his/her designee , *The director of public works and the community a development services director shall conduct an administrative review of a proposed short subdivision and either sign y the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140, if all requirements of this chapter have been met, or disapprove such action, stating their reasons in writing. Such administrative action shall be final subject only to right of appeal to the Snohomish County superior court heating examiner ^ T25Te 11 deeis en , ade - Chapter- 20.06 ECDC. Dedication of 0 J any interest in property contained in an approval of the short subdivision shall be forwarded to the city council for formal acceptance on its consent agent; provided, however, that such acceptance shall not stay any approval, time V C period for appeal or the effective date of the short subdivision. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 68, 2009; w Ord. 3211 § 10, 1998; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994]. UJ 20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record. N The city clerk shall file the final plat or short plat for record with the county auditor, and arrange for a reproducible copy to be sent to the public works department and the applicant and a paper copy to be sent to the county assessor a and the community development department. The plat or short plat shall not be considered "approved" until so filed z with the county auditor. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. V 0 r 20.75.165 Effect of rezones. The owner of any lot in a final plat filed for record shall be entitled to use the lot for the purposes allowed under the zoning in effect at the time of filing for five years from the date of filing the final plat for record, even if the property E is rezoned; provided, that all requirements of the community development code, other than lot area, are met. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 20171. E Q 20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions. m A further division of any lot created by a short subdivision shall be reviewed as and meet the requirements of this 0 chapter for formal subdivision if the further division is proposed within five years from the date the final plat was 0. 0 filed for record; provided, however, that when a short plat contains fewer than four parcels, nothing in this section a shall be interpreted to prevent the owner who filed the original short plat, from filing a revision thereof within the 66 five-year period in order to create up to a total of four lots within the original short subdivision boundaries. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 2623 § 1, 1987]. x w 20.75.175 Court review. Any decision approving or disapproving any plat or short plat shall be reviewable for unlawful, arbitrary, capricious or corrupt action or nonaction by writ of review before the Superior Court of Snohomish County. The action may be E brought by any property owner in the city, who deems himself or herself aggrieved thereby; provided, that U application for a writ of review shall be made to the court within 30 days from any decision so to be reviewed. The Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 160 Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 14/14 cost of transcription of all records ordered certified by the court for such review shall be borne by the appellant. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. 20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter. No building permit, septic tank permit or other development permit shall be issued for any lot unless: (1) the subject property is a lot of record as defined in ECDC 21.55.015; or (2) the property owner is determined to be an innocent purchaser in accordance with subsection (A) of this section. Where this section authorizes a lot to be developed even though such lot does not meet the definition for "lot of record" in ECDC 21.55.015, any development on said lot shall comply with the city's development regulations, including any applicable development regulations regarding nonconforming lots. A. "Lot of Record" Status for Innocent Purchasers. An owner of property may obtain "lot of record" status for a parcel that does not meet the "lot of record" definition. To obtain this status, the applicant must submit an affidavit with sufficient supporting documentation to demonstrate that: 1. The applicant did not have actual notice regarding the subdivision of the property in question. If the applicant had knowledge of the subdivision (e.g., knowledge that two parcels in question were once part of the same parcel), but not of its illegality, the innocent purchase status may not be granted; 2. The purchase price of the parcel is consistent with an arm's length transaction; 3. The owner did not purchase the property from a relative; 4. At the time of purchase, there was some existing deed, record or survey showing the subject parcel as a separate lot; and 5. The parcel had a separate tax ID parcel number prior to the purchase of the property by the applicant. B. The innocent purchaser status may be approved subject to conditions of approval requiring the applicant to make improvements to the property that would likely have been required by the city had the property been properly subdivided, unless it is determined that such improvements have already been constructed. C. An affirmative determination of innocent purchaser and "lot of record" status shall be recorded with the county auditor. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3982 § 3, 2014]. 20.75.185 Penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter relating to the sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of any lot is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties of ECC 5.50.020. Each sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of each separate lot in violation of any provision of this chapter shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. In addition to these criminal sanctions, the city shall have the right to bring an action to restrain and enjoin any subdivision, sale or transfer, compel compliance with the provisions of this chapter and obtain other injunctive relief. The costs of such action shall be paid by the violator and shall include the city attorney's fees. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 161 Edmonds 8.3.i Page 1/19 16.20.050 Site development standards — Accessory buildings. A. General. Accessory buildings and structures shall meet all of the standards of ECDC 16.20.030 except as specifically provided in this section. B. Height. Height shall be limited to 15 feet, except for amateur radio transmitting antennas and their supporting structures. Garages or other accessory buildings attached by a breezeway, hallway, or other similar connection to the main building which results in a separation exceeding 10 feet in length may not exceed the 15-foot height limit. The separation shall be determined by the minimum distance between the outside walls of the main building and accessory building, exclusive of the connecting structure. C. Rear Setbacks. The normally required rear setback may be reduced to a minimum of five feet for accessory buildings covering less than 600 square feet of the site. D. Satellite Television Antenna. A satellite television antenna which measures greater than one meter or 1.1 yards in diameter shall comply with the following regulations: 1. General. Satellite television antennas must be installed and maintained in compliance with the Uniform Building and Electrical Codes as the same exist or are hereafter amended. A building permit shall be required in order to install any such device. 2. Setbacks. In all zones subject to the provisions contained herein, a satellite television antenna shall be located only in the rear yard of any lot. In the event that no usable satellite signal can be obtained in the rear lot location or in the event that no rear lot exists as in the case of a corner lot, satellite television antennas shall then be located in the side yard. In the event that a usable satellite signal cannot be obtained in either the rear or side yard, then a roof -mounted location may be approved by the staff; provided, however, that any roof - mounted satellite antenna shall be in a color calculated to blend in with existing roof materials and, in the case of a parabolic, spherical or dish antenna, shall not exceed nine feet in diameter unless otherwise provided for by this section. In no event shall any roof -mounted satellite television antenna exceed the maximum height limitations established by this section. 3. Aesthetic. Satellite television antennas shall be finished in a nongarish, nonreflective color and surface which shall blend into their surroundings. In the case of a parabolic, spherical or dish antenna, said antenna shall be of a mesh construction. No commercial advertising of any kind shall be displayed on the satellite television antenna. 4. Size and Height. Maximum size for a ground -mounted parabolic, spherical or dish antenna shall be 12 feet in diameter. No ground -mounted antenna shall be greater than 15 feet in height unless otherwise approved for waiver as herein provided. The height of roof -mounted satellite television antennas shall not exceed the lesser of the height of the antenna when mounted on a standard base provided by the manufacturer or installer for ordinary operation of the antenna or the height limitation provided by the zoning code. 5. Number. Only one satellite television antenna shall be permitted on any residential lot or parcel of land. In no case shall a satellite television antenna be permitted to be placed on wheels or attached to a portable device for the purpose of relocating the entire antenna on the property in order to circumvent the intentions of this section. E. Amateur Radio Antennas. 1. The following applications for the following approvals shall be processed as a Type II development project permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC): a. Requests to utilize an amateur radio antenna dish which measures greater than one meter or 1.1 yards in diameter; b. Requests to utilize an antenna which: i. Would be greater than 12 feet in height above the principal building on a site. The height of the antenna shall be determined by reference to the highest point of the roof of the principal building, The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 162 Edmonds Page 2/19 exclusive of the chimney or other roof -mounted equipment. The request to locate a 12-foot antenna on a building is limited to buildings whose height conforms to the highest limit of the zone in which the building is located. ii. Would exceed the height limit of the zone when mounted on the ground or on any accessory structure (see subsection (E)(2)(d) of this section). 2. The application shall comply with the following regulations: a. Definition. "Amateur radio antenna" means an antenna, or any combination of a mast or tower plus an attached or mounted antenna, which transmits noncommercial communication signals and is utilized by an operator licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. Guy wires for amateur radio antennas are considered part of the structure for the purpose of meeting development standards. b. General. Amateur radio antennas must be installed and maintained in compliance with the Uniform Building and Electrical Codes, as the same exist or are hereafter amended. A building permit shall be required to install an amateur radio antenna. c. Location. Amateur radio antennas may be ground- or roof -mounted, however, these devices shall: i. Be located and constructed in such a manner as to reasonably ensure that, in its fully extended position, it will not fall in or onto adjoining properties; ii. Not be located within any required setback area; and iii. Be retracted in inclement weather posing a hazard to the antenna. d. Height. The height of a ground -mounted tower or roof -top antenna may not exceed the greater of the height limit applicable to the zone or 65 feet when extended by a telescoping or crank -up mechanism unless an applicant obtains a waiver (see subsection (F) of this section). i. Only telescoping towers may exceed the height limits established by subsection (E)(1)(b) of this section. Such towers shall comply with the height limit within the applicable zone and may only exceed the height limit of the applicable zone and/or 65-foot height limit when extended and operating and if a waiver has been granted. ii. An antenna located on a nonconforming building or structure which exceeds the height limit of the zone in which it is located shall be limited to height limit of the zone plus 12 feet. e. Aesthetic. To the extent technically feasible and in compliance with safety regulations, specific paint colors may be required to allow the tower to blend better with its setting. F. Technological Impracticality — Request for Waiver. 1. The owner, licensee or adjacent property owner may apply for a waiver if: a. Strict application of the provisions of this zoning code would make it impossible for the owner of a satellite television antenna to receive a usable satellite signal; b. Strict application of the provisions of this zoning code would make it impossible for the holder of any amateur radio license to enjoy the full benefits of an FCC license or FCC protected right; or c. An adjacent property owner or holder of an FCC license or right believes that alternatives exist which are less burdensome to adjacent property owners. 2. The request for waiver shall be reviewed by the hearing examiner as a Type III -A decision and may be granted upon a finding that one of the following sets of criteria have been met: The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 163 Edmonds Page 3/19 a. Technological Impracticality. i. Actual compliance with the existing provisions of the city's zoning ordinance would prevent the satellite television antenna from receiving a usable satellite signal or prevent an individual from exercising the rights granted to him or her by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by license, law or FCC regulation; or ii. The alternatives proposed by the property owner or licensee constitute the minimum necessary to permit acquisition of a usable satellite signal by a satellite television antenna or to exercise the rights granted pursuant to a valid FCC license, law or FCC regulation. b. Less Burdensome Alternatives. The hearing examiner is also authorized to consider the application of adjacent property owners for a waiver consistent with the provisions of subsection (F)(1)(c) of this section without the requirement of a finding that a usable satellite signal cannot be acquired when the applicant or adjacent property owner(s) establish that the alternatives proposed by the applicant are less burdensome to the adjacent property owners than the requirements which would otherwise be imposed under this section. For example, adjacent property owners may request alternative or additional screening or the relocation of the antenna on the licensee's property. In the interactive process described in subsection (17)(3) of this section, the hearing examiner shall attempt to balance the impact of the tower on the views of adjacent properties, as well as the impacts of alternative screening and relocation in order to equitably distribute any negative impacts among the neighbors while imposing reasonable conditions on the antenna, its location and screening that do not impair the rights granted by the FCC to the licensee. 3. The process shall be an interactive one in which the hearing examiner works with the licensee to craft conditions which place the minimum possible burden on adjacent property owners while permitting the owner of the satellite antenna or holder of an amateur radio license to fully exercise the rights which he or she has been granted by federal law. For example, the number of antennas and size of the array shall be no greater than that necessary to enjoy full use of the FCC license. Conditions may include but are not limited to requirements for screening and landscaping, review of the color, reflectivity and mass of the proposed satellite television antenna or amateur radio facilities, and other reasonable restrictions. Any restriction shall be consistent with the intent of the city council that a waiver to the antenna owner be granted only when necessary to permit the satellite television antenna to acquire usable satellite signal or to allow the licensee to exercise the rights granted by Federal Communications Commission license after consideration of aesthetic harmony of the community. The process employed should involve the interaction of the licensee or owner and the neighborhood. Certain issues have been preempted by federal law and shall not be considered by the hearing examiner. Such issues include, but are not limited to, the impacts of electromagnetic radiation, the potential interference of the amateur radio facility with electronic devices in the neighborhood and any other matter preempted by federal law or regulation. Impact on view and on the values of neighboring properties may be considered in imposing reasonable conditions but shall not be a basis for denial of a permit to construct the antenna. 4. The application fee and notification for consideration of the waiver by an owner of a satellite television antenna shall be the same as that provided for processing a variance. No fee shall be charged to the holder of a valid FCC amateur radio license. 5. In the event that an applicant for waiver is also obligated to undergo architectural design review, the architectural design board shall defer any issues relating to the antenna and/or other amateur radio equipment to the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner may, at his or her discretion, request the architectural design board review and comment regarding required screening and landscaping and its integration into sight and landscaping plans. No additional fee shall be required of the applicant upon such referral. G. The provisions of subsections (D), (E) and (F) of this section shall be interpreted in accordance with the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission including but not limited to PRB-1. In the event of ambiguity or conflict with any of the apparent provisions of this section, the provisions of federal regulations shall control. [Ord. 3736 §§ 8, 9, 2009; Ord. 3728 § 3, 2009; Ord. 3547 § 1, 2005]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 164 Edmonds Page 4/19 17.00.030 Application of regulations. A. Code Compliance Required. All land in the city shall be used, and all buildings shall be built, structurally altered, or moved onto a site, only in compliance with all regulations of this zoning ordinance. B. Setbacks — Density. 1. Any setback, yard, minimum lot size, or open space required by this zoning ordinance for one use may not be used to meet minimum requirements of this zoning ordinance for any other use. 2. When an existing lot is subdivided, or is the subject of a lot line adjustment, the new lot lines will not make any existing improvements nonconforming to the regulations of this zoning ordinance. C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any other public agency shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to build, or alter, a structure or use in a location or in a manner not complying with this zoning ordinance, a variance may be considered. r" this ease the action of the hearing examiner chaff be n ndntion to the e t y i.i..mei 17.40.020 Nonconforming building and/or structure. G. Residential Buildings in Commercial Zones. Existing nonconforming buildings in commercial zones in use solely for residential purposes, or structures attendant to such residential use, may be remodeled or reconstructed without regard to the limitations of subsections (B), (E) and (F) of this section, if, but only if, the following conditions are met: 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„ exeept that any appeal of the staff deeision shall be to the APB m4her than to the heafi — The decision of the APB -hearing examiner shall be final and appealable only as provided in ECDC 20.07.00620.06.160. 17.40.025 Vested nonconforming or illegal accessory dwelling units. A. Illegal or nonconforming accessory dwelling units which registered with the city during the registration period which ended October 16, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. are hereby declared to be legal nonconforming detached and attached accessory dwelling units (ADU). Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is defined in Chapter 20.21 ECDC. B. Once registered, a formerly illegal or nonconforming ADU shall enjoy all the protections and privileges afforded to a nonconforming building under the provisions of ECDC 17.40.020; provided, r, that such ADU shall bo subject to the permit review requiremen4 of ECDC 20.100.040 to the end that the city council reserves the right to impose additional conditions on the eontinued use and occupaney of the formerly illegal ADU if it is fo�d to constitute a * . sent a hazardous condition, or to revoke such registration and permit if a i anee or hazardous condition relating t the ADU r : t abated. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 165 Edmonds Page 5/19 C. Legal nonconforming units which received a permit certificate confirming such status and listing the physical dimensions and other characteristics of the structure may be continued in accordance with such permit certificate, provided, however-, tha4 the fegistfa4iaa and per -Fait of a fefmer-ly illegal ADU may be revoked an&lor- eendifiefled in aee9r-danee A4th theprorisiens of ECDC 20.100.04 0. D. Failure to register a structure within the time period established by the provisions of this section shall be considered to be presumptive proof that such a unit is an illegal unit and subject to abatement. The owner of such structure may overcome such a presumption only by presentation of substantial and competent evidence which establishes the legal nonconforming nature of such building by clear and convincing evidence that the structure was permitted by Snohomish County or the city of Edmonds, was permitted by such agency and was in complete compliance with the applicable provisions of state law and county or city ordinance, at the dates such construction was initiated and was completed. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008]. 17.75.020 Outdoor dining — Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit. Outdoor dining not meeting the requirements of ECDC 17.75.010 shall be a secondary use requiring a conditional use permit within the zones stated in ECDC 17.75.010(A). This use shall be established and maintained only in accordance with the terms of a conditional use permit approved by the hearing examiner as a Type III -A decision under the procedural requirements contained in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. At a minimum, the conditions considered for imposition by the hearing examiner may include a restriction on operating hours, location of the outdoor seating, and/or buffering of the noise and visual impacts related to the outdoor dining seating. All seating permitted pursuant to the conditional use permit shall be located outside of public rights -of -way. If outdoor seating is approved under these provisions, no additional parking stalls shall be required for the outdoor dining. [Ord. 3871 § 1 (Att. A), 2012; Ord. 3783 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 19, 2009; Ord. 3628 § 4, 2007; Ord. 3312 § 1, 2000]. 17.100.030 Conditional use permits (CUP) — Community churches and schools requiring a CUP. A. All new churches and schools and any nonconforming church or school whose review has been triggered pursuant to ECDC 17.40.050 shall register with the staff on a form developed for its use. The staff shall determine which churches qualify as neighborhood churches; churches failing to register shall be presumed to be community churches. B. Decisions to approve, condition, or deny a CUP; to review a CUP; or decline to renew a CUP shall be a Type III - A decision. [Ord. 3783 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 23, 2009; Ord. 3353 § 12, 2001]. 19.00.025 International Building Code section amendments. I. Section 105.5, Permit expiration and extension, is amended to read: 1. Every permit issued under ECDC Title 19 shall expire by limitation 360 days after issuance, except as provided in ECDC 19.00.025I(2). 2. The following permits shall expire by limitation, 180 days after issuance and may not be extended, unless they are associated with a primary building permit for a larger construction project, in which case they may run with the life of the primary permit: Demolition permits; Permits for Moving Buildings required by Chapter 19.60 ECDC; Mechanical permits; Tank removal, tank fill, or tank placement permits; Grading, excavation and fill permits; Water service line permits; The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 166 8.3.i Edmonds Page 6/19 Plumbing permits; Gas piping permits; Deck and dock permits; Fence permits; Re -roof permits; Retaining wall permits; Swimming pool, hot tub and spa permits; Sign permits; Shoring permits; Foundation permits. 3. Prior to expiration of an active permit the applicant may request in writing an extension for an additional year. Provided there has been at least one (1) required progress inspection conducted by the city building inspector prior to the extension, the permit shall be extended. Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building permit fee to extend the permit. 4. If the applicant cannot complete work issued under an extended permit within a total period of two (2) years, the applicant may request in writing, prior to the second year expiration, an extension for a third and final year. Provided there has been at least one (1) required progress inspection conducted by the city building inspector after the previous extension, the permit shall be extended. Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building permit fee to extend the permit. 5. The maximum amount of time any building permit may be extended shall be a total of three (3) years. At the end of any three (3) year period starting from the original date of permit issuance, the permit shall become null and void and a new building permit shall be required, with full permit fees, in order for the applicant to complete work. The voiding of the prior permit shall negate all previous vesting of zoning or Building codes. Whenever an appeal is filed and a necessary development approval is stayed in accordance with ECDC 29.07.00420.06.040 the time limit periods imposed under this section shall also be stayed until final decision. 6. The building official may reject requests for permit extension where he determines that modifications or amendments to the applicable zoning and Building codes have occurred since the original issuance of the permit and/or modifications or amendments would significantly promote public health and safety if applied to the project through the issuance of a new permit. 20.05.020 General requirements. A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review and decide on conditional use permit applications as Type III -A decisions as set forth in ECDC 20.01.003. B. Appeals. Appeals shall be to the Snohomish County superior court in accordance with the Land Use Petition Act. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 167 8.3.i Edmonds Page 7/19 C. Time Limit. Unless the owner obtains a building permit or, if no building permit is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration date. D. Review of Extension Application. An application for any extension of time shall be reviewed by the community development director as a Type II decision. E. Location. A conditional use permit applies only to the property for which it has been approved and may not be transferred to any other property. F. Denial. A conditional use permit application may be denied if the proposal cannot be conditioned so that the required findings can be made. [Ord. 3783 § 7, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 7, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 37, 2009; Ord. 2270 § 1, 1982]. 20.08.040 Approval procedure for development agreements. A development agreement is a Type IV development project permit application and shall be processed in accordance with the procedures established in this title. A development agreement shall be approved by the Edmonds city council after a public hearing. [Ord. 3817 § 7, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.11.010 Review procedure — General design review. A. Review. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments that require a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). All other developments may be approved by staff as a Type I decision. When design review is required by the ADB, proposed development shall be processed as a Type II1-9 decision. The role of the ADB shall be dependent upon the nature of the application as follows: 1. The ADB shall conduct a public hearing for the following types of applications: a. Applications that are not consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B). b. Applications that are consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B) but in which the ADB serves as the sole decision -making authority. c. Applications that are consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B) but in which all decision -making authority is exercised both by staff, pursuant to this chapter and Chapter 20.13 ECDC, and by the ADB. The ADB shall act in the place of the staff for these types of applications. 2. The ADB shall review proposed developments at public meetings without a public hearing and make recommendations to the hearing examiner to approve, conditionally approve, or deny proposals for developments that, although consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B), are not subject to a public hearing by the ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section. The hearing examiner shall subsequently hold a public hearing on the proposal. 3. The ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section and the hearing examiner under subsection (A)(2) of this section shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposal. The ADB or hearing examiner may continue its public hearing on the proposal to allow changes to the proposal, or to obtain information needed to properly review the proposal. See ECC 3.13.090 regarding exemptions from review required by this chapter. 4. Notwithstanding any contrary requirement, for a development in which the city is the applicant, the action of the ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section and the hearing examiner under subsection (A)(2) of this section shall be a recommendation to the city council. B. Notice. Public notice by mail, posting or newspaper publication shall only be required for applications that are subject to environmental review under Chapter 43.21C RCW, in which case notice of the hearing shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 20.03 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 39, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 2, 2007]. 20.12.010 Applicability. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments that require a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 168 Edmonds Page 8/19 developments may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.020, the application shall be processed as a Type IIl-l3 decision. [Ord. 3736 § 42, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.11.040 Appeals. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner or the ADB are appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. appealable to the eity eouneil as idea i GhapteF 2007ECDr [Ord. 3736 § 40, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 2, 2007]. 20.12.080 Appeals. A. Design review decisions by the ADB pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020(B) are appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW.appealable to the eity eatmeil as idea in Chapter- 20.07 ECDC. These are the only decisions by the ADB in this chapter that are appealable. B. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner are appealable appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW Ja the eity eauneil as "de in Chapter- 20.07 ECDC C. Design review decisions by staff under the provisions of ECDC 20.12.030 are only appealable to the extent that the applicable building permit or development approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of the ECDC Design review by staff is not in itself an appealable decision. [Ord. 3736 § 45, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.16.110 Reconsideration and appeal. Reconsideration of the hearing examiner's ruling shall be governed by ECDC 20.06,OW150. The decision of the hearing examiner is appealable to superior court in accordance with Chanter 36.70C RCW.A-Bi3eal of the hear -in^ exafnifter-'s. [Ord. 3736 § 48, 2009; Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003]. 20.16.130 Building permit application. A. Any building permit for an EPF approved under this chapter shall comply with all conditions of approval in the conditional use permit. In the event a building permit for an EPF is denied, suspended or revoked due to a failure to comply, the department shall submit in writing the reasons for denial to the project sponsor. B. No construction permits may be applied for prior to conditional use approval of the EPF unless the applicant signs a written release acknowledging that such approval is neither guaranteed nor implied by the department's acceptance of the construction permit applications. The applicant shall expressly accept all financial risk associated with preparing and submitting construction plans before the final decision is made under this chapter. C. Building permits for an EPF which fail to comply with the conditions of approval shall be suspended and a report made to the director. The director shall institute a proceeding before the hearing examiner to permit the EPF's sponsor a hearing at which to show cause why its conditional use permit should not be revoked or further conditioned. Such hearing shall be conducted as if it were a Type III -A decision in accordance with Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 49, 2009; Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003]. 20.35.080 Review process. A. An application for a PRD has two stages. The first stage, the preliminary PRD, includes the following: 1. Pre -Application Staff Review. The preliminary plans of the proposal shall be submitted to the planning manager for review and comment. This provides an opportunity for the developer to work with the city staff to design a total plan which best meets the goals of the city and the needs of the developer. Such potential problems as drainage, topography, circulation, site design and neighborhood impact should be identified and addressed before the proposal is submitted for formal review. 2. Pre -Application Neighborhood Meeting. The applicant shall host a public pre -application neighborhood meeting to discuss and receive public comment on the conceptual proposal. The applicant shall provide notice of this meeting to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site by depositing written notice in the U.S. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 169 8.3.i Edmonds Page 9/19 Mail postage paid at least 14 calendar days in advance of the meeting to all persons and entities shown as having an ownership interest in the land records of Snohomish County. An affidavit of mailing shall be provided to the city by the applicant attaching its mailing list. While this meeting will allow immediate public response to the proposal in its conceptual form, comments submitted during this meeting are not binding to the applicant or staff. However, staff may make general recommendations to the applicant as part of the formal application based on the input from this meeting to the extent that said comments are consistent with the adopted provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code and the comprehensive plan. As a courtesy, the applicant shall provide summary minutes of the meeting to all of those in attendance within two weeks of the date of the meeting. 3. Review by the Architectural Design Board. The design board will review the project for compliance with the urban design guidelines, landscaping, and/or the single-family design criteria in ECDC 20.35.060 and forward their recommendation of the site and building design on to the hearing examiner for his consideration. Their review will be at one of their regularly scheduled meetings, but will not include a public hearing or the ability for the public to comment on the project. 4. The Public Hearing with the Hearing Examiner. The hearing examiner shall review the proposed PRD for compliance with this section as a Type III-B decision. If, after all appeals are exhausted, the proposal is denied, a similar plan for the site may not be submitted to the development services department for one year. A new plan which varies substantially from the denied proposal, as determined by the development services director, or one that satisfies the objections stated by the final decision -maker may be submitted at any time. An applicant who intends to subdivide the land for sale as part of the project shall obtain subdivision approval in accordance with Chapter 20.75 ECDC before any building permit or authorization to begin construction is issued, and before sale of any portion of the property. The preferred method is for the applicant to process the subdivision application concurrently with the planned residential development proposal. B. The second stage of the PRD process, the final PRD, consists of the city's review of the final plans for consistency with the preliminary PRD as approved. The decision at this stage will be made by city staff final PRD is submitted as a oonsolidated application with a permit that requires city council review, i.e., a for -Mal subdivision iyisio plat. The final PRD will be subject to the following review: 1. The applicant shall submit the final development plan to the development services director, conforming to the preliminary plan as approved, and all applicable conditions of that approval. The planning manager shall review the plan along with the city engineer and make a final decision. The plan shall contain final, precise drawings of all the information required by ECDC 20.35.030. The applicant shall also submit all covenants, homeowners' association papers, maintenance agreements, and other relevant legal documents. 2. If city staff finds that the final development plan conforms to the preliminary approval, and to all applicable conditions, staff shall approve the plan and its accompanying conditions as a covenant which touches and concerns the subject property, incorporating by reference all maps, drawings and exhibits required to specify the precise land use authorized. A file shall be maintained by the development services department containing all maps and other documents or exhibits referred to in the approval. The approval shall also contain a legal description of the boundary of the proposal. The covenant shall be recorded with the county auditor if no subdivision plat is to be recorded. 3. The provisions of approval shall be restrictions on the development of the site. Revocation of approval or abandonment as provided in this chapter shall eliminate all requirements imposed under the planned residential development plan, such as alternative bulk development standards, and shall cause the old underlying bulk development standards to be in full force and effect. [Ord. 3822 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3787 § 3, 2010; Ord. 3465 § 1, 2003]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 170 Edmonds Page 10/19 20.45.050 Review of changes to Edmonds register of historic places properties. A. Review Required. No person shall change the use, construct any new building or structure, or reconstruct, alter, restore, remodel, repair, move or demolish any existing property on the Edmonds register of historic places or within a historic district on the Edmonds register of historic places without review by the commission and without receipt of a certificate of appropriateness, or in the case of demolition, a waiver, as a result of the review. The review shall apply to all features of the property, interior and exterior, that contribute to its designation and are listed on the nomination form. Information required by the commission to review the proposed changes are established in rules. B. Exemptions. The following activities do not require a certificate of appropriateness or review by the commission: ordinary repair and maintenance which includes painting or emergency measures defined in ECDC 20.45.000 (K). C. Review Process 1. Requests for Review and Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness or Waiver. The building or zoning official shall report any application for a permit to work on a designated Edmonds register property or in an Edmonds register historic district to the commission. If the activity is not exempt from review, the commission shall notify the applicant of the review requirements. The building or zoning official shall not issue any such permit until a certificate of appropriateness or a waiver is received from the commission but shall work with the commission in considering building and fire code requirements. 2. Commission Review. The owner or his/her agent (architect, contractor, lessee, etc.) shall apply to the commission for a review of proposed changes on an Edmonds register property and request a certificate of appropriateness or, in the case of demolition, a waiver. Each application for review of proposed changes shall be accompanied by such information as is required by the commission established in its rules for the proper review of the proposed project. The commission shall meet with the applicant and review the proposed work according to the design review criteria established in rules. Unless legally required, there shall be no notice, posting or publication requirements for action on the application, but all such actions shall be made at regular meetings of the commission. The commission shall complete its review and make its recommendations within 30 days of the date of receipt of the application. If the commission is unable to process the request, the commission may ask for an extension of time. The commission's recommendations shall be in writing and shall state the findings of fact and reasons relied upon in reaching its decision. Any conditions agreed to by the applicant in this review process shall become conditions of approval of the permits granted. If the owner agrees to the commission's recommendations, a certificate of appropriateness shall be awarded by the commission according to standards established in the commission's rules. The commission's recommendations and, if awarded, the certificate of appropriateness, shall be transmitted to the building or zoning official. If a certificate of appropriateness is awarded, the building or zoning official may then issue the permit. 3. Demolition. A waiver of the certificate of appropriateness is required before a permit may be issued to allow whole or partial demolition of a designated Edmonds register property or in an Edmonds register historical district. The owner or his/her agent shall apply to the commission for a review of the proposed demolition and request a waiver. The applicant shall meet with the commission in an attempt to find alternatives to demolition. These negotiations may last no longer than 45 days from the initial meeting of the commission, unless either party requests an extension. If no request for an extension is made and no alternative to demolition has been agreed to, the commission shall act and advise the official in charge of issuing a demolition permit of the commission's decision on the waiver of a certificate of appropriateness. Conditions in the case of granting a demolition permit may include allowing the commission up to 45 additional days to develop alternatives to demolition. When issuing a waiver the commission may require the owner to mitigate the loss of the Edmonds register property by means determined by the commission at the meeting. Any conditions agreed to by the applicant in this review process shall become conditions of approval of the permits granted. After the property is demolished, the commission shall initiate removal of the property from the register. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 171 Edmonds Page 11/19 4. Appeal of the Commission's Decision on a Waiver of a Certificate of Appropriateness. The commission's decision regarding a waiver of a certificate of appropriateness shall be appealable to the hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 20.06 ECDC ffhay wo erreate ., rho eiPf ,.eugea within 14 calendar days. The appeal must state the grounds upon which the appeal is based. The appeal shall be Feviewed by the eotmeil only o the or-ds of the e . Appeal of ova ^shearing examiner's decision regarding a waiver of a certificate of appropriateness may be appealed to superior court. [Ord. 3397 § 1, 2002]. 20.50.060 Permit requirements. A. No person may place, construct, reconstruct or modify a wireless communication facility subject to this chapter without first having in place a permit 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. 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 20.50.060(B)(1). 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. The conditional use permit types referenced are described in Chapter 20.01 ECDC. Table 20.50.060(B)(1) — Permit Requirements for Wireless Communication Facilities Permits Required Building Permit Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Right -of -Way Permit Type of Wireless Communication Facility Building -mounted facilities or facilities co -located on an existing X X (as applicable) structure or monopole New structure -mounted facilities involving structure replacement X (as applicable) X (Type II) X (as applicable) to obtain additional height New monopole facilities (pole complies with height requirement X X (as applicable) of the underlying zone in ECDC Title 16) New monopole facilities (pole exceeds maximum height of zone X X (Type 111-13) X (as applicable) in ECDC Title 16) C. 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. D. All applications for wireless communication facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable design standards by the director or his designee. E. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate governing body with jurisdiction (i.e., Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Federal Aviation Administration, etc.) F. 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. G. 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. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 172 Edmonds Page 12/19 H. 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. I. 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. J. No alterations or changes shall be made to plans approved by the director, director of public works, or hearing examiner without the approval of the city. K. Co -location of additional antennas on permitted nonconforming monopoles is not considered to increase the nonconformity of the structure and is therefore allowed; provided, no increase to the height of a nonconforming monopole is allowed. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.080 Review time frames. A. Co -Located Facilities (Building- and Structure -Mounted). 1. For new or replacement wireless antennas mounted on existing structures requiring a building or engineering permit, the city shall issue a final decision on the project within 90 days of the date the application is determined to be complete. The city shall have 30 days from the date of filing to determine whether the application is complete; if deemed incomplete, the city shall inform the applicant in writing of the documentation needed to make the application complete. The city shall have 14 days from the receipt of the additional information to issue a letter of completeness, or request additional information as appropriate. Such decision shall be final and appealable only to superior court under the Land Use Permit Act. 2. The 90-day time period for a decision may be extended by mutual written agreement of the city and the applicant if circumstances warrant. For purposes of this section, "co -located facilities" includes any of the following types of facilities: a. Facilities that are mounted or installed on an existing monopole, building or structure; or b. Facilities that do not involve a substantial increase in the size of a monopole. For purposes of this section, "substantial increase in the size of a monopole" means: The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 173 Edmonds Page 13/19 i. The mounting of the proposed antenna on the monopole would increase the existing height of the monopole by more than 10 percent or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed 20 feet, whichever is greater; provided, however, that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this subsection if necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas; ii. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four, or more than one new equipment shelter; iii. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of the monopole that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than 20 feet, or more than the width of the monopole at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this subsection if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the monopole via cable; or iv. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current monopole site, defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site; or c. Facilities that are a part of a distributed antenna system; provided, that the distributed antenna system connects to an existing tower or antenna. B. New Monopoles. Wireless communication facilities requiring a Type III-B conditional use permit shall meet the requirements of Chapter 20.05 ECDC. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.110 New monopole facility standards. A. New monopoles are not permitted within the city unless the applicant has demonstrated that: 1. Coverage Objective. There exists a gap in service and the proposed wireless communication facility will eliminate such gap in service; and 2. Alternatives. No existing structure, building, or other feasible site or sites, or other alternative technologies not requiring a new monopole in the city, can accommodate the applicant's proposed wireless communication facility; and 3. Least Intrusive. The proposed new wireless communication facility is designed and located to remove the gap in service in a manner that is, in consideration of the values, objectives and regulations set forth in this chapter, this title, and the comprehensive plan, the least intrusive upon the surrounding area. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 174 Edmonds Page 14/19 Acceptable Monopole WCF (Possible Co -Location Opportunity) Acceptable Monopole WCF B. All monopole facilities shall 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(1). 4. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and cables must be painted to closely match the color scheme of the structure which supports the antennas. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 175 Edmonds Page 15/19 C. Review Criteria. The hearing examiner shall review an application for a new monopole exceeding the maximum height of the zone as a Type III-H conditional use permit (per Chapter 20.05 ECDC), and shall determine whether or not each of the above standards is met. Examples of evidence demonstrating the Type III41 conditional use permit requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. That the monopole height is the minimum necessary in order to achieve the coverage objective; 2. That no existing monopoles, structures or alternative site(s) are located within the geographic area that meet the applicant's engineering requirements to fulfill its coverage objective (regardless of the geographical boundaries of the city); 3. That existing monopoles or structures are not of a sufficient height or could not feasibly be extended to a sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements to meet its coverage objective; 4. That existing structures or monopoles do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and ancillary facilities; 5. That the applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with antennas on the existing monopoles or structures, or the antennas on existing structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna; 6. That an alternative technology that does not require the use of a new monopole is unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new monopole or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable; and 7. The applicant demonstrates other limiting factors that render existing monopoles and structures or other sites or alternative technologies unsuitable. Engineering and technological evidence must be provided and certified by a registered professional engineer and clearly demonstrate the evidence required. D. Zoning Setback Exceptions. 1. Generally, wireless communication facilities placed on private property must meet setbacks identified in ECDC Title 16. However, in some circumstances, allowing modifications to setbacks may better achieve the goal of this section of concealing such facilities from view. 2. The director or hearing examiner, depending on the type of application, may approve modifications to be made to setbacks when: a. An applicant for a wireless communication facility can demonstrate that placing the facility on certain portions of a property will provide better screening and aesthetic considerations than provided under the existing setback requirements; or b. The modification will aid in retaining open space and trees on the site; or c. The proposed location allows for the wireless communication facility to be located a greater distance from residentially zoned properties. 3. This zoning setback modification cannot be used to waive/modify any setback required under the State Building Code or Fire Code. 4. A request for a setback exception shall be made at the time the initial application is submitted. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Art. A), 2011]. 20.60.015 Design review procedures. A. Staff Approval. Except as referred to the architectural design board pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section, and except as provided in subsection (B) of this section, the planning manager, or designee, shall review all applications for design review under this chapter, and shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application in accordance with the policies of ECDC 20.10.000 and the standards and requirements of this chapter; provided, that The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 176 Edmonds Page 16/19 for murals and artwork the planning manager or designee shall review the application in accordance with the criteria set forth in subsection (C) of this section. The decision of the planning manager on any sign permit application shall be final except that signs reviewed by the architectural design board are appealable to the hearing examiner. 1. The planning manager or designee may refer design review applications to the architectural design board for the types of signs listed below, where the planning manager determines that the proposed sign has the potential for significant adverse impacts on community aesthetics or traffic safety: a. Any sign application for an identification structure as defined by this chapter; b. Any sign application for a wall graphic as defined by this chapter; c. Any proposed sign that the planning manager determines to be obtrusive, garish or otherwise not consistent with the architectural features of the surrounding neighborhood. B. Review by Architectural Design Board. The architectural design board shall review those signs listed in subsection (B)(1) of this section and any sign permit referred by the planning manager pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section. 1. The ADB shall review any sign permit application that requests a modification to any of the standards prescribed by this chapter. The ADB shall only approve modification requests that arise from one of the following two situations: a. The request is for signage on a site that has a unique configuration, such as frontage on more than two streets, or has an unusual geometric shape or topography; b. The request is for signage on a building that has unique architectural elements or features or details that substantially restrict the placement or size of signage relative to other buildings in the vicinity. 2. The ADB may approve the requested modification only if it meets the following criteria: a. The design of the proposed signage must be compatible in its use of materials, colors, design and proportions with development throughout the site and with similar signage in the vicinity; b. In no event shall the modification result in signage which exceeds the maximum normally allowed by more than 50 percent. C. Staff Review of Murals and Artwork. When a proposed wall graphic is proposed as a mural or artwork, the planning manager or designee shall review and approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application in accordance with the following criteria. While a separate sign permit is required for each wall graphic, the staff may make a single design review decision on wall graphics that consist of related murals or artwork. Related murals or artwork may include multiple proposals for sites within reasonable proximity to each other that are related by theme, style, materials used, and/or context. The decision of the staff on any design review application containing a mural or art as a wall graphic may be appealed to the ^' c4hearing examiner pursuant to the procedure established in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. 1. Art, like other exercises of First Amendment rights, may be limited by reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. In this case, these criteria will be utilized to enhance the aesthetics of the city and to ensure quality and maintenance standards are observed. No recommendation shall be based upon the content or message expressed by an artist or in a work of art. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate their artwork with the design or architectural elements of the building and the historic and pedestrian -oriented character of the downtown area. 2. Specific submission requirements for design review include, but are not limited to: a. Site sketch showing locations of artwork; b. Minimum one -fourth -inch scale color drawings of the art concept or art component; The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 177 8.3.i Edmonds Page 17/19 c. Material/color samples; d. Written Proposal. A written proposal in eight -and -one -half -inch -by- 11 -inch format to include a description and summary of a final design proposal for the artwork; detailed maintenance requirements; a schedule for development, fabrication, and completion; artist's resume; and evidence of assumption of liability by applicant or designee; and e. When required pursuant to ECDC 20.45.050, a certificate of appropriateness shall be obtained from the historic preservation commission for murals on designated historic structures or within a designated historic district. 3. Review Criteria. Review criteria for the design review include: a. Quality of the materials used to create the artwork. Materials should be resistant to fading; no fluorescent paints; b. Durability and permanence, including ability to withstand age, vandalism, and weathering. Consideration should be given to anti -graffiti coating; and c. Compatibility of the artwork with architectural elements, other elements of the street, and adjacent structures. Compatibility shall be determined by relationships of the elements of form, proportion, scale, color, materials, surface treatment, and size and style of lettering. Lettering shall be minimized, but may be considered for inclusion when necessary to the artistic content. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (A), (B), and (C) of this section, sign permit applications shall not be referred to or reviewed by the architectural design board if the proposed sign constitutes a modification to an existing sign and involves no significant alteration or modification to the size, height, design, lighting or color of the existing sign. Sign permit applications for such sign modifications shall be processed and subject to review in the same manner as provided for staff review in subsection (A) of this section. [Ord. 4064 § 1 (Att. A), 2017; Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3800 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 60, 2009; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.85.020 General requirements. A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review variances as Type 111-A decisions in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. B. Appeals. Appeals of hearing examiner decisions on variance shall be to the Snohomish County superior court in accordance with Chanter 36.70C RCW.asi3rovided in ECDC 20.07.0 . C. Time Limit. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration and the city approves the application. D. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension of time shall be reviewed by the community development director as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required). E. Location. A variance applies only to the property for which it has been approved and may not be transferred to any other property. [Ord. 3783 § 14, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 14, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 70, 2009]. 23.40.195 Contingent review procedure for certain types of development. A. Scope. The procedures set forth in this section shall apply to the following types of critical area restoration projects as allowed by ECDC 23.40.215: 1. Restoration projects involving anadromous fish streams; 2. Restoration projects involving Category I or Category II wetlands; The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 178 Edmonds Page 18/19 3. Restoration projects involving Category I or Category II estuarine wetlands. B. Notice of Application. Development activity within the scope of subsection (A) of this section shall be processed as a Type II application, unless the process is altered according to subsection (D) of this section. In addition to the notice provided pursuant to ECDC Title 20, notice of application for all such development shall also be sent to the city council by email. C. Contingent Review Process. Development activity within the scope of subsection (A) of this section shall be escalated to a Type III -A process when: 1. The city receives a request from any person for a public hearing within 14 days of the date of the notice of application; and 2. The public hearing request is accompanied by a hearing fee in the amount of 50 percent of the difference between the Type II and Type III -A application fee. D. Effect of Contingent Review. When the contingent review process is triggered pursuant to subsection (C) of this section, the project applicant shall pay the other 50 percent of the difference between the Type II and Type III -A 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-day period, 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. E. Notice of Decision. Whether development activity within the scope of subsection (A) of this section is processed as a Type II application or escalated to a Type III -A application, notice of decision shall be sent by email to the city council in addition to any other notice that may be required by ECDC Title 20. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 179 Edmonds Page 19/19 3. if the to the defieieneies for the to the for only reasonable ways eorreet are permittee cease permitted aetivity, or N N V 4. The heafing held hearing Chapter- 20.91 ECDC to the O L examiner shall a p4lic under- r-eview permit or- approval ' a requiredusing er-itefia � .2 5. if the he finds that defieieneies that they be by =a exist, and ean reasonably earreeted imposing new orm final, the in that the he Is s unless ofiginal appFovai requifed eity eeuneil approval. ease, aefien shall CI 6. if the he finds that the to the defieieneies is foF the to only Feasonable way correet pefmittee eease- the the heming the The hearing be per-mitted aetivity, examiner- fnay revoke peftnit. examiner's action shall appealable to the city eotmeilundeF ECDC 20.1 n�0. C Y 7. if the is the be by the pefmit revoiced, pefmit shall null and void, and all aetivity allowed pefFait shall cease. . _ N NEW SECTION 20.110.045 Suspension or revocation of permit. p The city shall retain the right to suspend or revoke a permit issued under this development code that fails to comply with any conditions of approval of said permit, or which operates in a manner inconsistent with representation made m in the application. The suspension or revocation of a permit may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner under a Chapter 20.06. ECDC. Upon receipt of a timely appeal under Chapter 20.06 ECDC, suspension or revocation shall N by stadpending decision on the appeal: provided that such a stay shall affect any stop work order issued by the Director. c J U G V W O t .r 7 O z 7 O L t a The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 180 Date: May 23, 2018 To: Edmonds Planning Board Copy: Kernen Lien From: Jeff Taraday Re: Legal basis for repeal of ECDC 20.100.040 This memo sets forth a legal rationale for the repeal of ECDC 20.100.040. The History of this Section This code section was last amended by Ordinance 3112 in 1996. The code does not indicate what ordinance originally adopted this section. We do know that it existed in a 198o version of the code. Based on this date, we know that it significantly predates the state's adoption of the Regulatory Reform Act (chapter 36.7oB RCW) and the Land Use Petition Act (chapter 36.70C RCW), which were both adopted in 1995• This helps explain the inconsistencies between this section and those state laws. Ordinance 3112 adopted significant amendments to the code in 1996. The ordinance contains 44 pages and 40 sections. The whereas clauses mention the Regulatory Reform Act (chapter 36.7oB RCW) generally, but they do not provide any meaningful legislative intent related to the ECDC 20.100.04o amendments. Only subsection C was amended at that time. And due to the lack of strike -through and underlining, we cannot easily discern what changes were made. The drafters of the 1996 ordinance could have identified the inconsistencies between this section and state law at that time. Their review was so broad, however, that the difficulties in harmonizing this section with the recently adopted state laws probably escaped their attention. And, in defense of the drafters, the courts did not make their reading of these new laws, particularly LUPA, clear until several years later. is1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 1 P 206.273.7440 I F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com Packet Pg. 181 Most of chapter 20.10o ECDC was repealed in 2009 with Ordinance 3736. For reasons that are not yet clear, ECDC 20.100.040 was not repealed at that time. Difficulty Harmonizing with the ReMulatory Reform Act The Regulatory Reform Act requires cities to provide a consolidated permit review process. "The review process shall provide for no more than one consolidated open record hearing and one closed record appeal. If an open record predecision hearing is provided prior to the decision on a project permit, the process shall not allow a subsequent open record appeal hearing." RCW 36.7oB.o6o. Any review of an approved permit under ECDC 20.100.04o necessarily involves review of a permit that has already gone through the City's permit review process, including any applicable opportunity for appeals. Where that process already included a hearing, another hearing under ECDC 20.100.040 could violate the hearing number limits set forth in the Regulatory Reform Act. The Act also states that "[e]ach local government shall adopt procedures to monitor and enforce permit decisions and conditions." RCW 36.7oB.16o(3). But that enforcement authority should not necessarily be read as authority to conduct additional hearings, notwithstanding the hearing limits contained in RCW 36.7oB.o6o. The City's enforcement procedures are contained in chapter 20.110 ECDC. Additionally, the City has a process to address nuisances in chapter 6.2o ECC. So, the public interest sought to be protected by ECDC 20.100.040 is largely protected via other provisions of the code, with one notable exception discussed below. Difficulty Harmonizing with the Land Use Petition Act Another problem with ECDC 20.100.040 is that it could suggest to the public that collateral attacks on approved permits are available when they are not. Such collateral attacks conflict with the finality requirement of the Land Use Petition Act. "A land use petition is barred, and the court may not grant review, unless the petition is timely filed with the court and timely served ...." RCW 36.70C.040(2). The strength of this finality requirement was emphasized in Chelan County. v. Nykreim,146 Wn.2d 904, 933, 52 P•3d 1,15 (2002). In that case, Chelan Country tried to argue that "a county cannot be prevented from revoking an improperly issued land use approval under res Packet Pg. 182 judicata or in the interest of administrative finality." Id. The court rejected that argument. Leaving land use decisions open to reconsideration long after the decisions are finalized places property owners in a precarious position and undermines the Legislature's intent to provide expedited appeal procedures in a consistent, predictable and timely manner. As amici curiae point out, if this court allows local government to rescind a previous land use approval without concern of finality, innocent property owners relying on a county's land use decision will be subject to change in policy whenever a new County Planning Director disagrees with a decision of the predecessor director. Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim,146 Wn.2d 904, 933, 52 P•3d 1,15 (2002). We know from the Nykreim case that even an erroneous decision is entitled to finality under LUPA if that decision is not timely challenged. Against this backdrop, one can imagine many situations where application of ECDC 20.100.040 would be impossible to square with LUPA's finality requirement. Whether or not one likes the holding of Nykriem, it is the law of the land and the city's code should be drafted to be consistent with that law. The current code creates unrealistic expectations. There are still situations (where permit conditions are not being met and other means of compliance have failed) where the City would be entitled to revoke a permit. Even so, the revocation language in ECDC 20.100.040 should be revised and relocated to the enforcement chapter. Packet Pg. 183 8.3.k Board Member Lovell pointed out that a public hearing on the draft Housing Strategy is scheduled for June 13"', followed by further Planning Board discussion on June 27. He asked why the hearing is scheduled prior to continued Board discussion. Director Hope responded that staff felt it would be useful for the Board to hear from the public prior to their continued discussion and recommendation to the City Council. In the meantime, the Task Force will also provide input and recommendations. Board Member Lovell pointed out that there are very few opportunities for the development of multifamily housing on either public or private land in Edmonds, particularly given the current zoning and land use regulations. He asked if more work should be done in the strategic planning portion of the strategy to zero in more on areas within City that can be appropriate for these types of development. The narrative in the plan does not speak to the fact that Edmonds is a high -income, single-family, commuting community. The Board is being asked to do something about all of this; and based on his experience, he sees an awful lot of public concern as the action items are implemented moving forward. He expressed his belief that the plan is terrific and covers everything the City could possibly do, but implementation could become mind boggling. Director Hope recalled that the idea was to identify the things the City could reasonably take on, and it does not mean that every action item will lead to implementation. The action items are intended to provide a toolbox of actions the City could consider to address housing issues. Some of the action items will be implemented at a later time via code amendments, and others will be worked out during budget discussions. For example, the City Council set aside money to work on homeless services, and the City is a member of the Alliance for Housing Affordability. By sharing the resources of the jurisdictions that participate in the alliance, they may be able to provide gap financing for a non-profit developer to develop lower -income housing. These developments may not be located in Edmonds but would be nearby. Again, she said these details would be worked out after the draft Housing Strategy has been adopted. Board Member Crank recalled that the City Council set aside $250,000 in 2017 to study homelessness and the potential to partner with non-profit organizations to address the problem. With the budgeting coming up in 2018, there is a possibility that if the City, via the Planning Board, does not come up with some decision on the Housing Strategy, perhaps that money will be taken away and/or reallocated somewhere else. The importance of expediting the homelessness conversation, with involvement by Cohn Consulting, is to get something going so when it is time to talk about homelessness again during the next budget cycle it does not get pulled away because there has been no movement. Director Hope said the City Council had originally intended that the Housing Strategy be done by 2019, but they have since asked staff to speed it up. The goal is to complete the project in 2018. Board Member Robles recalled that one of the Board's suggestions was to stress "aging in place." The solution to aging in place is also the solution to affordable housing for rebound families, separated families, low-income families, etc. He is interested to see what the community input will be towards the draft Housing Strategy given that one solution will help solve both problems. As an example of this concept, Director Hope said the City has heard from some people who are concerned about how ADUs will impact their neighborhoods, but others would really like to promote that option. These concerns could be worked out at the code level. The issue before the Board is whether or not the draft Housing Strategy provides an appropriate toolbox for the City to work from. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that when the draft Housing Strategy is presented at the public hearing, it would be helpful for staff to provide a statement of recommendation for the Board to consider. Director Hope responded that this would probably not be available at the public hearing, where the idea is to listen to the public's concerns and ideas. However, staff could certainly provide a statement of recommendation when the Board continues its discussion on June 27`'. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that having a statement of recommendation from staff helps the Board to focus its discussion. She appreciates when this information is part of the Board's packet. The Board took a short break at 9:25 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 9:32 p.m. Board Member Crank left the meeting and did not return. PERMIT DECISION MAKING — OUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Mr. Lien provided a broad overview of the City's current decision -making processes and referred to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01.003, which lays out the framework for the different types of permit decisions within the City. He explained that legislative decisions establish policies for future application and quasi-judicial and administrative Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 13 Packet Pg. 184 8.3.k decisions are the application of those policies. Quasi-judicial means "court like," which implies that the proceedings must be similar to those followed by a court. If the requirements are not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is challenged. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of due process such as the proper notice of the hearing, providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say, full disclosure of the facts being considered by the decision -making body (no ex-parte contacts), an impartial decision maker free from bias and conflicts of interest (appearance of fairness), and the decisions must be based on the facts of the case and not on political pressure or vocal opposition. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the ECDC that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibilities from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by state law. The resolution requests that the City staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with the resolution. He explained that, as a legislative body, the City Council Members like to be responsive to their constituents. However, when quasi-judicial matters are brought before them, they cannot discuss the issues with their constituents without creating ex-parte communications and violating the Appearance of Fairness rules. In addition, the City Attorney has advised that having the City Council sit in a quasi-judicial capacity on land use matters presents a dilemma if decisions are not made based on code. A City Council Member could be held liable if for making arbitrary and capricious decisions. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council currently holds quasi-judicial land use hearings on the following: • Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities, design review where a public hearing by the Architectural Design Board is required, conditional use permits where a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required, variances, home occupation permits, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential development (PRD). • Applications (Type IV -A and IV-B): Final formal plats, final PRD, site specific rezones, and variance applications from public agencies. Mr. Lien proposed the following amendments: • Remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decisions primarily involves eliminating the Type III-B permit process. Type III-B decisions would be moved to the Type III -A column and the "A" and "B" qualifiers would be removed. Staff has also conducted an electronic search of the code for Type III and removed all of the "A" and `B" qualifiers from the text. • Leave site -specific rezones (Type IV-B) as quasi-judicial decisions that require final approval by the City Council. Site -specific rezones are a mixture of legislative and quasi-judicial. Decisions are based on criteria, but because they require a change to the zoning map, they must be passed by ordinance before the City Council. Modify the subdivision (ECDC 20.75) and PRD (ECDC 20.35) chapters to remove the City Council from the final approval process. Currently, preliminary formal plat and PRD decisions are made by the Hearing Examiner, and the City Council approves final formal subdivisions and PRDs (Type IV -A). Typically, all of the subdivision improvements have been installed prior to application for final approval, and the City Council's final approval is simply based on whether or not all of the requirements of preliminary approval have been met. When the City Council originally adopted Resolution No. 1367, State law required the legislative body to make the final decision on formal plats. However, recently approved Senate Bill 5674 allows this legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel. • Eliminate the sentence from ECDC 17.00.030.0 requiring the City Council to review public agency variance requests. Variances are normally heard by the Hearing Examiner and decisions are based on criteria spelled out in the code for when a variance may be granted. Currently, public agency variances require a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner to the City Council, and the City Council holds a closed record hearing. As proposed, the Hearing Examiner would make the decision on all variance applications. • Remove ECDC 20.100.040, which is in conflict with the Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) but retain a section elsewhere in the code that allows the City to revoke a permit if the conditions of the permit are not Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 14 Packet Pg. 185 8.3.k being met. It appears that ECDC 20.100.040 was established in 1980, which is when the framework of the current ECDC was established. The Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) were passed in about 1995. The Regulatory Reform Act limits the City to one open record hearing on a decision process. Because ECDC 20.100.040 could result in an endless number of public hearings, it is in direct violation of the Regulatory Reform Act. There are also inconsistencies with LUPA and the concept of finality. As per LUPA, once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed. However, ECDC 20.100.040 opens it up to where a permit does not have finality associated with it. ECDC 20.100.040 is also inconsistent with LUPA in that it allows for collateral attack. As per LUPA, projects that were not appealed cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process. Combine ECDC 20.06 (Open Records Public Hearings) and 20.07 (Closed Record Public Hearings) into a single chapter. The titles of these two code sections do not match up with their content. For example, ECDC 20.07 has references regarding appeals, which can be open record appeals, and this tends to confuse people. The City Attorney has also recommended additional details regarding appeal briefings before the Hearing Examiner. Appeals before the Hearing Examiner are similar to a court proceeding in that people present their cases and the Hearing Examiner issues a decision. Currently, when people file appeals to the Hearing Examiner, they are not required to spell out what their arguments will be until they are made before the Hearing Examiner. The City Attorney has recommended that a briefing schedule for appeals should be added to this section to outline the process so that arguments are written out before an appeal goes before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien said his intent is to have the specific code amendment language ready for the Board's review on June 27' with a potential public hearing on July 25' followed by a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Lovell clarified that the revisions are being driven by a specific request from the City Council via Resolution No. 1367. The Board Members have all been briefed in the past about the importance of quasi-judicial proceedings, so he questioned the need to have an additional study session prior to the public hearing. Chair Monroe asked about the original intent for the "review of approved permits" clause. Mr. Lien said he searched legislative history, and it appears it was tied in with larger code updates. There is nothing specific about its history and it is not possible to identify its intent. The City Attorney drafted a memorandum relative to the issue that will be included in the next packet. The clause was adopted prior to the Regulatory Reform Act, which lays out the decision -making process, and the provision has only been used once in the 10 years he has been with the City. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the chart provided by Mr. Lien to illustrate the various decision -making processes. It is clear that many decisions will still take place and the Architectural Design Board will still be involved in quasi-judicial decisions. The only change they are looking at per the City Council's request is to remove them from the quasi-judicial process. Mr. Lien agreed that is the main intent of the proposed amendments, with a few minor cleanup items as described earlier. He confirmed that he is working closely with the City Attorney to create the appropriate code language for the proposed amendments. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the proposed amendments do not represent significant changes. However, she suggested that both charts should identify who is responsible for making the final decisions. Mr. Lien said when the amendments come back to the Board, all of the proposed language, including the updated charts, will be available. However, he explained that the tables are intended to be different. One table describes the types of decisions and the other identifies who makes the final decisions, how decisions are made, and how decisions are appealed. The Board agreed to move forward with a public hearing on June 27' without an additional study session. Following the public hearing, the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA There was no discussion about the extended agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 15 Packet Pg. 186 8.3.1 review resulting in one set of wetland regulations that apply citywide. However, he received an email from the DOE on July 121, announcing new wetland guidance. He has since verified the City Council's intent to update the wetland regulations with the most recent guidance, which requires the Board to consider additional updates. The additional updates will be presented to the Board on August 22nd, and the Board will need to hold another public hearing before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Lien reviewed the four sections of the CAO that were part of the update to be consistent with the 2016 guidance. He explained that the new 2018 guidance pertains primarily to the buffer sections and the wetland ratings would remain nearly the same. The 2016 guidance has four sets of wetland buffers based on habitat scores, and the 2018 guidance only has three sets of buffers and the habitat scores are calculated differently. In the 2016 guidance, the lower Category 5 habitat score was not much different than the Category 3 and 4 habitat scores, so it was combined with Category 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON PERMIT DECISION MAKING -QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Mr. Lien reviewed that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Attachment 1) in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by law. The resolution requests that the staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council code revisions that are consistent with the resolution. Mr. Lien explained that the City currently has 5 decision processes as spelled out in the table in ECDC 20.01.003: • Type I are staff decisions with no notice and include lot line adjustments, critical area determinations, shoreline exemptions minor amendments to planned residential development (PRD), minor preliminary plat amendments and staff administrative design review. • Type II are staff decisions with notice and include accessory dwelling units (ADUs), State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determinations, preliminary short plats, land clearing and grading, revisions to shoreline management permits, administrative variances, and shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is not required. Type III are quasi-judicial decisions. Type III -A decisions include critical area variances, contingent critical area review if a public hearing is required, shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is required, shoreline variances, and shoreline conditional uses. Type III -A decisions are not appealable to the City Council. Type III-B decisions include outdoor dining, contingent critical area review if a public hearing is requested, shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is required and shoreline conditional uses and variances. Type III-B decisions are appealable to the City Council and include essential public facilities, design review where a public hearing by the ADB is required, conditional use permits and home occupation permits where a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required, variances, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential developments (PRDs). • Type IV are quasi-judicial decisions that are appealable to the City Council. They include final formal plats, final PRDs and site -specific rezones. • Type V are legislative decisions that include development agreements, zoning text amendments, area -wide zoning map amendments, Comprehensive Plan amendments, annexations and development regulations. Mr. Lien explained that legislative decisions establish policies for future application and quasi-judicial decisions are the application of those policies. Quasi-judicial decisions have stricter procedural requirements that include proper notice of hearing, providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say, full disclosure of all facts being considered by the decision -making body, impartial decision makers free from bias and conflicts of interest, and decisions that are based on the facts of the case rather than on political pressure or vocal opposition. Mr. Lien reviewed that during the City Council's discussions relative to Resolution No. 1367, Councilmembers voiced frustration with the ex-parte contact prohibitions and concern about potential liability issues. They asked the staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward revisions to the code that would remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decision -making Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 2 Packet Pg. 187 8.3.1 making responsibility. Some code changes have already been implemented since adoption of the resolution. For example, the City Council was removed from the appeal process for decisions related to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Shoreline Master Program (SMP). He reviewed the current proposal as follows: • The Table in ECDC 20.01.003 would be modified by changing all Type III-B decisions that were appealable to the City Council to Type III -A decisions that are appealable to Superior Court and not the City Council. The Type III-B decision process would then be eliminated. • The Table in ECDC 20.01.003 would also be modified to make development agreements, which are currently listed as Type V legislative decisions, Type IV quasi-judicial decisions. As proposed the process for development agreements would be similar to the process for site -specific rezones. • A number of amendments are proposed to update existing code language to be consistent with the changes proposed in Table 20.01.003. These changes were identified via an electronic search of the entire code. • The proposal would move final plat approval for subdivisions and PRDs from being Type IV -A quasi-judicial decisions before the City Council to being Type I administrative decisions. Subdivisions and PRDs require a multi- step process that starts with preliminary plat approval by the Hearing Examiner who may identify a number of conditions. The next step is civil design and infrastructure work. By the time final plats and PRDs get to the City Council for final approval, all of the preliminary requirements have been met and often all of the improvements have been installed and there is very little the City Council can do to affect change. Consistent with recent Senate Bill 5674, which allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel, proposed amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 would remove the City Council from the final approval process. • An additional change would be made to ECDC 20.75 to update the approval time periods. During the recent economic downturn, changes were made to extend the approval period for final and preliminary plats. However, this provision has expired and will be removed. • All references in the code to Community Development Director will be changed to Community Services Director. • ECDC 17.00.030.0 would be amended by eliminating the sentence that requires the City Council to review public agency variance requests. Currently, the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council holds a closed -record hearing and makes the final decision. This amendment would take the City Council out of this quasi-judicial process. • ECDC 20.100.040 is currently a problematic code section that is likely noncompliant with State law. It allows a property owner within a certain distance of a subject property to request that the permit be opened up again once it has been approved. Essentially, the provision could result in endless public hearings and was drafted prior to the Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, which limits the number of open record hearings to just one. The provision also runs counter to the Land Use Petition Act (RCW 36.70A), which states that once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed even if it did not comply with permitting criteria when approved. It also prohibits projects from being collaterally attacked through other administrative permit review processes. Given these legal ramifications, staff is recommending that the provisions be deleted. However, to ensure that the City retains the right to suspend or revoke permits that fail to comply with conditions of approval or misrepresentations made in the application, a new section (ECDC 20.110.045) would be added. • There is confusion between Open Record Public Hearings (ECDC 20.06) versus Closed Record Public Hearings (ECDC 20.07). Currently, appeals of Type II staff decisions reference ECDC 20.07 for the appeal process, but appeals of Type II decisions are heard before the Hearing Examiner in an open record public hearing. The proposal is to combine the two sections into a single chapter and provide additional details about the appeal format and procedures before the Hearing Examiner. Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 3 Packet Pg. 188 8.3.1 ECDC 20.01.003 currently identifies the approval process for development agreements as a Type V legislative action. The City Attorney has recommended that the approval process for development agreements be modified to a Type IV process with an open record public hearing before the Planning Board who would make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would hear the proposal in a closed record hearing format. Development agreements are similar to contract rezones and provide a way for the City to place more restrictive requirements on a project than the underlying zoning would allow. The development agreement review process should be generally consistent with the review process for other project permit applications that would likely be processed in conjunction with the development agreement. For example, a site -specific rezone is one type of project permit application that would likely be sought in conjunction with a development agreement. Therefore, it makes sense to use a similar quasi-judicial process. Board Member Lovell clarified that, as currently proposed, Type III decisions would require an open record public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien said that would be true in most cases, but the ADB would participate in the design review process for applications that require SEPA. He referred back to the Table in ECDC 20.01.003, which outlines the types of actions and their respective review processes. As proposed, all of the permits that are appealable to the City Council now would be changed to be appealable to Superior Court. The only exception would be site -specific rezones and development agreements, which would be appealable to the City Council via a closed record public hearing. Board Member Lovell asked if the City Council would have an opportunity to negotiate with the developer about what the appropriate conditions of a development agreement might be. City Attorney Taraday described how he envisions the development agreement process moving forward, starting with him working with the staff and applicant to craft a draft development agreement to present to the Planning Board in an open record public hearing. The Planning Board would accept testimony from the applicant and public and then forward a recommendation to the City Council as to what the terms of the development agreement should be. Following a closed -record public hearing, the City Council can adopt the development agreement exactly as recommended by the Board or they can modify it based on their discussion. Because the City Council's hearing would be closed record, they would not be able to solicit any new information or ask questions about things that are not already on the record. If the Board doesn't ask the questions and get all of the pertinent information into the record during its hearing, it cannot be added to the record at a later time as part of the Council's review. The Planning Board would be the finders of fact for the City Council. The development agreement process is similar to the process the City currently uses to review site -specific rezones. However, instead of voting on an ordinance to adopt a development agreement, the City Council would vote to accept or modify the terms of the development agreement that is put forward by the Planning Board. Board Member Rosen asked if there is a financial impact associated with sending appeals to Superior Court as opposed to the City Council. City Attorney Taraday answered that judicial appeals typically cost more than administrative appeals. However, it is important to keep in mind that not everything would remain the same. For example, taking the City Council out of the appeal process would liberate them to participate in the hearing process and to appeal decisions made by the Hearing Examiner and ADB to Superior Court. Currently, the City Council does not have the ability to appeal Type III-B decisions because they are the body who hears the appeals. If a judicial appeal is initiated for a Type III-B decision, the appellant would have to move the appeal forward with no help from the City. Under the proposed amendment, if the appellant and the City are aligned and have the same consensus, the City Council can appeal a Hearing Examiner decision on its own, saving the taxpayers and citizens a lot of money and time. Essentially, the City Attorney would be responsible to appeal the decision to Superior Court. He summarized that significant changes take place when you free up the City Council to appeal its own Hearing Examiner decisions. Mr. Lien advised that the fee for appealing decisions to the City Council is currently $500, and City Attorney Taraday added that the fee to appeal a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) decision to Superior Court is $250. The big cost difference is related to attorney fees, as many people do not have the ability to file appeals to Superior Court on their own. He also agreed that appellants are probably less likely to appeal actions to Superior Court than to the City Council. Mr. Lien pointed out that appellants often hire attorneys to present their cases to the City Council, as well. Chair Monroe recognized that Resolution No. 1367 mandates that the City Council be removed from the quasi-judicial decision - making process. He asked if staff believes the proposed amendments are the only way to implement the resolution. Mr. Lien said he does not know of any other way to accomplish the task other than altering the processes. City Attorney Taraday agreed Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 4 Packet Pg. 189 8.3.1 that, from a high-level overview, there is no other way to accomplish the task, but the details of the process could certainly be modified, as well. He expressed his belief that the proposed changes represent what the City Council asked the staff and Planning Board to do. Board Member Lovell asked if the proposed changes would take the City Council completely out of quasi-judicial decisions that are made by the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien responded that would be true unless the City Council opposes a decision made by the Hearing Examiner and decides to appeal to Superior Court. City Attorney Taraday explained that potential liability to the City and individual Councilmembers was a significant factor in the City Council's decision to adopt Resolution No. 1367. City Councilmembers are elected to be legislators and represent their constituents, not to be judges. It is difficult for Councilmembers, who are accustomed to being responsive to their constituents, to play the role of judge and judicially apply the code based on the record in front of them. Some are unable to fill this role, and they end up making arbitrary and capricious decisions that are not consistent with law or the record. When this occurs, the City could be subjected to millions of dollars in damages. These same risks would not be present if the City Council were to appeal a Hearing Examiner decision to Superior Court. While the City may not win the appeal, the risks would be minimized. City Attorney Taraday explained that, under the current process, City Council Members are unable to participate in public hearings for quasi-judicial actions because it would disqualify them from hearing an appeal under the Appearance of Fairness rules. If they no longer have to serve in this capacity, they could feel free to be a party of record and participate in hearings to represent their constituents' viewpoints. Vice Chair Cheung asked about the process the City Council would use to appeal Hearing Examiner decisions to Superior Court. City Attorney Taraday answered that the City Council would probably meet in an executive session with their attorney to discuss the Hearing Examiner decision, as well as the pros and cons of moving forward with an appeal and the likelihood the City would prevail. Ultimately, the City Council would make a legislative decision about whether to appeal or not. No public hearing would be required, but the vote would need to take place in a public meeting. Vice Chair Cheung asked if the City would be responsible to pay additional attorney fees associated with the appeal. City Attorney Taraday answered that the City Attorney's Office is retained on a flat -fee basis. They get paid the same amount every month regardless of whether there is litigation or not. Mr. Lien pointed out that the City has incurred additional attorney fees for closed record appeals to the City Council when an independent attorney must be hired to represent the City's case while the City Attorney represents the City Council. Board Member Lovell asked how other cities have addressed this issue. City Attorney Taraday advised that the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) pleads with cities to do this because it significantly reduces risk. Before the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016, the Executive Director of the WCIA asked them to please consider getting out of the quasi-judicial decision -making process because of the risk it creates to the City and the public. Chair Monroe reminded the Board that the purpose of the hearing is not to debate the merits of Resolution No. 1367, which has already been adopted by the City Council. The purpose of the hearing is to decide if the proposed amendments are the right way to implement the resolution. Gary Nelson, Edmonds, observed that this issue has been debated by many jurisdictions for a number of years. Three months following the City Council's adoption of Resolution No. 1367, Proposition 4 appeared on the ballot to change the charter for Snohomish County. The issue had come before the County Council twice before and was defeated both times. The results of the ballot measure in Edmonds was interesting, as 57.7% of the precincts voted no. It appears that the majority of City residents have strong feelings about what their City Council and appointed officials are responsible to do. He said he is concerned that the proposed amendments would significantly increase the cost of appealing quasi-judicial decisions. In addition to a filing fee, appellants may have to hire an attorney to assist in the appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Nelson commented that staff put a lot of thought into many of the proposed changes, and most appear to be very reasonable. However, it is not likely that the proposed changes to the quasi-judicial appeal process will be acceptable to the residents of Edmonds. While City Attorney Taraday suggests the changes will liberate the City Council and eliminate potential conflicts, most citizens of Edmonds expect their elected officials to carry on their current role and make responsible decisions regardless Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 5 Packet Pg. 190 8.3.1 of their personal opinions. They have been elected to study the facts and make decisions based on law. He is disappointed with Councilmembers who say this responsibility is too difficult, and perhaps they should consider resigning their positions. The appointed officials are very responsible and capable of providing recommendations to the City Council, but the City Council should retain the right to make the final decision. Mr. Nelson expressed his belief that the current approach for appeals is accurate and responsible and the City should simply maintain this process and table the proposed amendments. However, he would like the other proposed amendments to go forward as presented. He referred to written comments (Attachment 8) he submitted prior to the meeting, including a list of LUPA issues. He summarized that although neighbors sometimes quarrel over issues, none of the issues are so difficult that appeals to Superior Court are warranted. He said he supports the current process of a Hearing Examiner decision that is appealable to the City Council. He pointed out that appealing decisions to the Superior Court can be costly and take significantly more time. In most cases, appellants have to hire an attorney to represent their case. He encouraged the Board to consider what is in the best interest of the citizens of Edmonds. They should strive to avoid increasing the financial impacts to citizens and prolonging the process of appeals. Sending appeals to the City Council is a timely approach that works. Board Member Lovell referred to Mr. Nelson's written comments (Attachment 8), which state that RCW 36.70C defines land use decisions as "a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals. " He expressed his belief that the Hearing Examiner meets this criterion. The Hearing Examiner has the background, experience and know how to make decisions based on all the facts and City regulations, and their decisions should stand. If someone wants to appeal, they should have to go to the higher authority, which he believes is the Superior Court. He said he supports the changes as proposed. Vice Chair Cheung asked how often quasi-judicial decisions are appealed. Mr. Chave reviewed that the permit review process was originally set up in 2009 to take the City Council out of closed record appeals, but it was put back into the process in 2010. Since that time, the City Council has only heard a few appeals. Vice Chair Cheung asked if there are any other appeal options the Board could consider other than City Council or Superior Court. Mr. Lien pointed out that appeals to shoreline permits go to the Shoreline Hearings Board rather than to Superior Court, but if the Council is removed from quasi-judicial decision making, Superior Court would be the next step for all other appeals. Chair Monroe expressed his belief that the City Council is in the best position to make decisions for Edmonds. He questioned why the City Council does not want to retain this decision -making ability. He said he is a little leery of giving up the values of Edmonds into the hands of the Snohomish County court. Vice Chair Cheung said he understands that the City Council would prefer not to have to make these decisions, but the same could be said for citizens who are asked to serve on juries. He recognized that there are a lot more opportunities for ex-parte communications to occur with the current process, but these same concerns could be attributed to someone who is asked to serve on a jury. Mr. Lien explained that the amendments would not remove the City Council from the process. The City Council would still be responsible for establishing the policies and regulations that are applied to specific permits. Chair Monroe agreed but pointed out that the proposed amendments would remove the City Council from the role of interpreting the rules and policies. He understands why the City Council supports the change, but he is not sure it will benefit the citizens and the City. Board Member Robles cautioned that a certain balance must be made between risk and inherent risk and decisions should not be made based on monetary aspects alone. He recalled a recent rezone that came before the Planning Board. A lot of work was done by the applicant and staff, but the public was not properly notified of the proposal and were ill prepared to participate in the hearing. The developers seemed to have an advantage over the citizens and the Board was constrained by the facts and couldn't help represent the citizen's concerns based on the constraints of the quasi-judicial process. He asked if that is analogous to what the City Council would be faced with because they would be constrained to talk only about the facts of the proposal. City Attorney Taraday commented that the Board has more latitude in an open record public hearing than the City Council has in a closed record public hearing. The Board should never feel constrained in collecting the facts and information needed to make a recommendation. Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 6 Packet Pg. 191 8.3.1 City Attorney Taraday referred to Vice Chair Cheung's earlier comment comparing the City Council's role to that of a jury. He explained that for site -specific rezone applications and development agreements, the Planning Board would serve as the jury in the sense that the Board would conduct the hearing and collect testimony and evidence from witnesses. The Board gets to make factual findings based on everything they hear and see and then forward a recommendation to the City Council. The Hearing Examiner would play this same role in Hearing Examiner permits. Even with the current process, the City Council does not get to play that role because they are limited to the evidence collected by the Board or Hearing Examiner. He summarized that, in court, juries are not asked to make legal decisions or answer questions of law. The judge hears the legal stuff and the jury hears the factual stuff and they come together to make a decision. Currently, the City Council is frequently asked to make legal decisions when they are sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RELATED TO PUBLIC HEARING PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 25, 2018. Chair Monroe recognized that the City Council has already made the decision to remove themselves from quasi-judicial decisions via Resolution No. 1367, and the proposed amendments are intended to implement this earlier action. However, he suggested that the motion should include a recommendation that the City Council carefully consider the concerns that have been discussed by the Board before taking final action. Mr. Lien commented that the Board can recommend approval or denial of the proposed amendments or recommend changes, regardless of the Council's direction in Resolution No. 1367. Mr. Chave referred to Mr. Lien's earlier comment about how the monetary impact of the proposed amendments would be less if you consider the overall process and risks. The real question is if you want the City Council to be more involved in the legislative role where they are able to represent the interest of their constituents. As pointed out by Mr. Lien and City Attorney Taraday, there are struggles that any City Council will encounter when they try to work both roles because it requires them to step out of one to be in the other. Councilmembers are elected to represent their constituents, and that is difficult to do when they are required to act as judge on quasi-judicial decisions. This conflict of roles is at the heart of the proposed changes. Mr. Chave commented that very few appeals end up before the City Council. If there are few appeals, maybe the risk isn't so high. On the other hand, if there are few appeals, the proposed amendments would not create a significant impact to citizens. As a staff person, he supports wanting the City Council to represent its citizens. They are most effective when they are able to develop and oversee regulations. Citizens are much better off having their voices heard during the legislative processes that establish codes and regulations. It is better for the City Council to make decisions at the rule level rather than at the end of the process trying to figure out how to not follow the rules in order to represent their constituents. Board Member Robles observed that one law of risk management is you want the entity that is best qualified to handle the risk to carry the risk. He asked what type of citizens would end up having to litigate their way back to wholeness if the amendments are adopted as proposed. In other words, he asked who would be impacted the most? Mr. Lien said it could be anyone, from major land owners to single property land owners. Everyone would be treated the same. He advised that in most of the appeals he has heard before the City Council, attorneys have been involved. Sometimes property owners pool their resources to get representation, but it is not a requirement. City Attorney Taraday said he can think of several LUPA actions (not more than 10) that have been appealed to the City Council during his tenure as City Attorney. In at least three cases the appellants were pro say. He explained that a LUPA action is on the record and appeals to Superior Court do not require witnesses or cross examination. The court simply reads the facts from a sheet of paper. The appeal decision is based on the same record that would be sent to the City Council for consideration. Board Member Robles asked how undue influence could play into a Councilmember's decision. City Attorney Taraday explained that anyone sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity is required to disclose relationships that could cause bias. A Councilmember who is strongly anti -development would not necessary be required to disclose this information but basing a decision solely on this strong bias could create liability for the City, and that is where the biggest risk lies. Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 7 Packet Pg. 192 8.3.1 Board Member Rosen said the severity of the situation appears to come from City Councilmembers who cross the line. It would help him to better understand the problems they are trying to solve. Is the problem based on exposure to risk they have encountered over the many years they have been doing quasi-judicial appeals, or were the amendments initiated based on feedback from the WCIA? Mr. Chave answered that in his tenure with the City he has seen things that concerned him in terms of how things play out at the Council level. This is not simply an academic discussion but based on real -life experiences. Board Member Rosen asked, in the scheme of risk, how does the Council's involvement in quasi-judicial appeals compare. City Attorney Taraday said the amendments are intended to manage but not eliminate risk. In his opinion, the amendments represent a very sensible way to manage risk. Divorcing politics from the land use issues, you get a better land use application process and better policies. It is important to understand that, while the City Councilmembers may have a better sense of the values of the City than a Hearing Examiner or judge, those values are not supposed to be expressed when processing land use applications. They are supposed to be expressed when adopting code regulations. Mr. Lien referred to City Attorney Taraday's 2016 memorandum stating that not only is it a risk to the City but individual Councilmembers could also be liable for decisions made in the quasi-judicial process. CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chair Monroe voiced reservations about the proposed amendment to take the Council out of the quasi-judicial decision -making process, recognizing that it is nearly impossible to write codes that developers cannot eventually find loopholes around. He said he is shocked that the City Council wants to give away this power. He believes the proposed changes will eventually be adopted by the City Council but the Board should emphasize the need for the Council to take a hard and careful look at the pros and cons before making a final decision. CHAIR MONROE MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THAT THE BOARD ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE A HARD LOOK BEFORE GIVING AWAY THIS PUBLIC TRUST. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND. Vice Chair Cheung voiced concern about turning over quasi-judicial decisions to a judge who may not be as familiar with the City's codes as the City Council. The City Councilmembers are accountable to their constituents. He understands the potential conflicts of interest but agrees the Council should carefully weigh the pros and cons before making a decision. It is different for petitioners to stand in front of a judge who would expect them to present their appeal in a more legal manner versus speaking before the City Council. On the other hand, it sounds like appeals are not common and most people who appeal are probably more experienced and have their own counsel. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Chair Monroe closed the public hearing. The Board took a 5-minute break at 8:32 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 8:37 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONE AT 9107 AND 9111— 236TH STREET SW FROM RS-8 TO RM-1.5 Chair Monroe reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. He reminded the Board of the appearance of Fairness Doctrine and asked if any member of the Board had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in the rezone application outside of the public hearing process. All Board Members answered no. He also invited Board Members to disclose any ex-parte communications, and none indicated any. He asked if any member of the Board had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner. None indicated a concern. Lastly, he asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Board Member's participation as a decision maker in the hearing. No one in the audience indicated a concern. All those who planned to participate in the hearing were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and affirm that the testimony they give would be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Mr. Shipley presented the Staff Report and Martin Reimers was present to represent the applicant. Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 8 Packet Pg. 193 8.3.m implement the goals with the assumption that the goals were already accepted. The presentation, in addition to presenting the goals as settle, predetermined the audience's objections. The Housing Director and the consultant told the audience that the strategy would not increase crime in Edmonds from low income persons, would not attract homeless people and would not raise taxes. The message the audience heard was that anyone opposing the housing strategy was a selfish bigot which the citizens found quite offensive. In his 30-year career as a business executive, a board director and a non-profit director, he never saw a strategy presented that was devoid of the resources to successfully implement the strategy; for the City, that is the budget. He questioned how attendees could possibly choose among six goals and provide suggested improvements without knowing the cost of the goals and the impact they would have on other City priorities. To do so without understanding the tradeoffs was to live in la -la land. He questioned not having any idea of the cost, impacts and tradeoffs when the City has been working on the housing strategy since 2015. It was not selfishness or bigotry to ask the core question, what can realistically be accomplished with the resources available and what is given up to accomplish those goals. That is the responsibility of the Council, citizens or any steward of the strategy. If the City expected the citizens' support, he asked that they be respected. 7. STUDY ITEMS 1. PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed: • Resolution No. 1367 o Council discussions in 2016 regarding the City Council sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity ■ Frustrations with ex-parte contact prohibitions ■ Liability issues for council members o Resolution No. 1367 ■ Requests city staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC modifying the City Council's role in quasi -decision making processes o Code amendments since adoption of Resolution No. 1367 • Decision processes o Administrative Decisions ■ Type I - Staff decision no notice ■ Type II - Staff decision with notice o Quasi-judicial Decisions ■ Type III - Hearing Examiner/ADB ■ Type IV - Plats/PRDs/Site Specific Rezone ■ Appeals of Type II and Type III-B - Type II appeals to Hearing Examiner at open record public hearing - Type III-B appeals to City Council at closed record hearing o Legislative ■ Type V ECDC 20.01.003 o Table of land use decisions Quasi-judicial Decisions o Legislative vs. Quasi-judicial ■ Legislative decisions establish policies for future application ■ Quasi-judicial are the application of those policies o Strict procedural requirements ■ Property notice of hearing ■ Providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 3 Packet Pg. 194 8.3.m ■ Full disclosure to everyone of the facts being considered by the decision -making body (i.e., no ex-parte contacts) ■ An impartial decision -maker free from bias and conflicts of interest ■ Decisions based on facts of the case, not on political pressure or vocal opposition • ECDC 20.01.003 o Table of land use decisions with revisions ■ Move III-B decisions moved to III -A column, Type becomes III ■ Type IV -A moved to Type I column ■ Development Agreements moved from legislative process to Type IV quasi-judicial ■ Attachment in packet includes related ECDC text amendments • Type IV -A: Subdivisions and PRDs o City Council approves final formal subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments o All requirements of preliminary approval have been met o Often all of the subdivision improvements are installed prior to application for final approval o Senate Bill 5674 allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel o Amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 delegates final approval to staff • ECDC 17.00.030 - Public Agency Variance o C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any other public agency shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to build, or alter, a structure or use in a location or in a manner not complying with this zoning ordinance, a variance may be considered. In this case, the action of the hearing examiner shall be a recommendation to the city council • ECDC 20.100.040 Review of Approved Permits o Conflicts with state law ■ Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW - One open record public hearing - ECDC 20.100.040 could result in endless public hearings if three neighbors within 300 feet of a project keep requesting review of approved permits ■ Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW - "Finality" - Once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer by judicially appealed even if it did not comply with permitting criteria when approved (Chelan County v. Nykreim) - Habitat Watch v. Skagit County - Projects cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process ■ New section ECDC 20.110.045 added to code enforcement chapter that all the City to suspend or revoke a permit that fails to comply with conditions of approval or which operates in a manner inconsistent with the representations made in the application • ECDC 20.06 Open Record Public Hearings and 20.07 Closed Record Public hearings o Confusing cross references regarding appeals o Combine into a single chapter o Added some language for prehearing conferences o Added some details regarding briefing order, rebuttals and questions during hearings • Development Agreements o Change Development Agreement from Type V legislative decision to a Type IV quasi-judicial decision with recommendation from the Planning Board to City Council o Council considers development agreement in closed record review o Consistent with state law (Chapter 36.70B RCW); development agreements are not legislative, but must be consistent with local development code • Next steps o On extended agenda for September 18 but that date does not allow adequate time for noticing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 4 Packet Pg. 195 8.3.m o Suggesting public hearing on September 25 although there are already four public hearings on that agenda Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis requested the PowerPoint be provided to Council. She recalled this change was made immediately after Councilmembers Petso and Bloom left the Council and two new Councilmembers were elected. She urged the new Councilmembers to read and understand the change, explaining it takes citizens' voices away from City Council and all appeals will be to the hearing examiner and on to Superior Court which costs a great deal. She referred to an email from Gary Nelson that said the cost was $240 and attorney fees were $200-500/hour. She recalled the Council hearing approximately ten cases in the past. She suggested this change be reconsidered as the City Council makes serious decisions about housing, land use, the Shoreline Master Program, critical areas, etc. and she did not support having that done by the hearing examiner and Superior Court. Councilmember Johnson said she has experienced both sides of the process. When decisions were appealable to Superior Court in the past, her father protested a neighbor's short subdivision when the hearing examiner made what she and her father felt was a bad decision. Her father hired an attorney and with her help, went through the process. Given the choice to go to Superior Court, they chose not to continue as they did not want to spend the money. As a Councilmember she has experienced this process when the Council has had to hire separate attorneys for the Council and go through elaborate quasi-judicial procedures. That experience convinced her this role was not the best for the City Council. Councilmember Johnson read from a presentation to the City Council from City Attorney Jeff Taraday that explains why this an appropriate role, "In considering whether the Council wants to continue in a quasi- judicial capacity, Mr. Taraday suggested we ask ourselves why. If it's because the City Council can make better decisions than the hearing examiner, that they have more expertise than the hearing examiner, then that's a valid reason to continue this practice so that we can correct the hearing examiner's errors. There was another way to accomplish that, by appealing the hearing examiner's decision under LUPA. For example, when the hearing examiner makes an unpopular decision or the City Council has concerns with the decision, the Council can vote to appeal the decision and direct the City Attorney to file a land use petition action appeal to superior court. As a result, the City Attorney would argue on the Council's behalf to convince the court that the hearing examiner's decision was wrong. He explained that there are benefits to that process from a risk management perspective. If he goes to court and argues the hearing examiner's decision is wrong and the judge upholds the hearing examiner's decision, no damage claim will be filed against the City. Conversely, if an appeal goes before the City Council acting as a decision maker and constituents are clamoring to overturn the hearing examiner decision and the Council does so when it shouldn't, then the City could face a significant damage claim as a result of that action. He summarized that from a risk management standpoint, much of the same thing can be accomplished by directing him to appeal hearing examiner decisions versus having the Council in the position of the decision maker." Councilmember Johnson found this very useful information for the City Council to consider; it is a way for the City Council to respond to constituents, to be able to have open conversations with them without jeopardizing Council decisions. Councilmember Johnson said when ponding how to ensure good decision making, one of the essential issues is the hearing examiner himself. If the City has a good hearing examiner, and she believed Phil Olbrechts was one of the best she has seen, who does not make mistakes and there haven't been decisions overturned, the City rely on him and the Council can act as a check and balance. Upon very careful consideration, that is the direction she was leaning but she was willing to listen to testimony and think about the matter very thoroughly. Councilmember Johnson invited Mr. Taraday to add to what she read. Mr. Taraday said he still agreed with those comments, that was still his opinion in terms of weighing the pros and cons. If Councilmembers Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 5 Packet Pg. 196 8.3.m believe they have more expertise than the hearing examiner and can make better decisions, that is the one valid reason for keeping the Council in quasi-judicial decision making. The significant role the City Council can play on behalf of its citizens should not be discounted, to essentially be the citizens' advocate by taking appeals to Superior Court on behalf of the citizens when the Council feels an error has been made. In that situation, the citizens do not pay any of the costs; and it is essentially a cost-free appeal to the City on behalf of the citizens assuming the City Attorney's flat fee arrangement continues. He noted for the record, there is an assumption being made that Superior Courts are only accessible to those who hire attorneys. However, many LUPA cases brought against City were by pro se litigants on their own behalf; Superior Court does not necessarily require hiring counsel. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the June 10 comments submitted by Gary Nelson to the Planning Board, specifically Snohomish County Superior Court filing fees would be $240. Mr. Taraday said that was about right. Councilmember Teitzel inquired about the fee to appeal a hearing examiner decision to the City Council. Mr. Lien reviewed the City's appeal fees: • Appeal of staff decision to the hearing examiner: $400 • Appeal of Type III-B decision to City Council: $500 • Appeal of a notice of civil violation: $880 Councilmember Teitzel summarized potentially an appeal to Superior Court would be less expensive than an appeal to the City Council. Councilmember Teitzel again referred to Mr. Nelson's comments that state the filed appeal will cause delays in resolving each case. As of August 28, 2017, the waiting time for a LUPA civil appeal is approximately 9 to 10 months. Mr. Taraday answered LUPA cases are heard on a separate schedule, the waiting time quoted was probably true for civil actions generally, but LUPA cases, because they are on the record, they are generally given an expedited schedule that is usually faster. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the $200-$500/hour cost to be represented by an attorney was accurate. Mr. Taraday agreed that was in the ballpark, noting people who have come to the City Council have also hired lawyers; lawyers can be hired for either venue. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it was more likely to see people represented in Superior Court, noting there have been a number of hearings where the appellant was not represented by an attorney. She recalled Councilmember Johnson saying her parent could not afford to take an issue to Superior Court, anticipating appealing to City Council would have been more affordable. She recalled in the past, the City Council upheld most of the hearing examiner's decisions but also overturned some, based on fact, not on personal feelings or emotions. When Councilmembers are sworn in on a quasi-judicial matter, they can recuse themselves if they have any bias, ex-parte communication or conflict of interest. The only time the Council was required to hire a separate attorney was when a Councilmember filed a quasi-judicial appeal on an issue in their neighborhood. With regard to endless public hearings, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said in the six years the Council heard quasi-judicial appeals, there were approximately ten. Mr. Lien clarified the point regarding endless public hearing was not related to quasi-judicial decisions; it was related to amendments to a different code section, reviews of approved permits (a permit that has been approved and construction has started and review of the permit can be opened and sent back to the hearing examiner). Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has faith in the City's Hearing Examiner, Phil Olbrechts but people make mistakes and bringing an appeal to City Council provides the ability to double check his decisions. She recalled there were a couple times the Council reversed the hearing examiner's decisions, not based on emotion or politics, but based on the Council's interpretation versus the interpretation of one person. She urged the Council to think carefully about this, noting there were pitfalls in both processes. She agreed with Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis for the new Councilmembers in particular to read the information carefully because it takes away the rights that citizens used to have. She asked if a public hearing was held when this change was made. Mr. Lien answered the minutes of the three meetings where Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 6 Packet Pg. 197 8.3.m it was discussed are in the packet; the resolution was passed at the third meeting. He was uncertain whether a public hearing was held. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not see a public hearing in the minutes. On behalf of the newer Councilmembers, Mayor Pro Tern Nelson said they are no longer new. Councilmember Mesaros referred to the two key issues discussed in 2016, frustration with ex-parte contact prohibitions and liability issues for Councilmembers, recalling in the 3-4 quasi-judicial issues he has been involved in, avoiding ex-parte contact was difficult. When Councilmembers are approached and have to tell citizens they cannot talk about an issue, there is a sense of frustration on both the citizens' part as well as the Councilmember's. That was a key factor for him in considering this. Mr. Taraday said Councilmembers generally run for office to be responsive to constituents; it is frustration for elected officials in a quasi-judicial context because they cannot be responsive to their constituents when they are unable to talk to them. He suggested that was an issue that Councilmembers should think carefully about; whether they were comfortable with and wanted to be put in a situation whether they could not engage with constituents regarding a project or would they rather be able to engage, and be able to say, I'm concerned too and testify before the hearing examiner. Councilmembers could testify to the hearing examiner if they were liberated from the burden of remaining impartial because of the quasi-judicial aspect. Mr. Taraday said the Council may assume by hearing appeals, they will right a wrong and be on the side of their constituents and be the heroes of the day. However, sometimes the opposite happens, the Council is forced to vote against the will of their constituents such if the application meets the requirements, it must be approved. In that instance, not only can the Council not talk to their constituents, in addition they may end up doing the exact opposite of their constituents want the Council to do which could be uncomfortable and not necessarily the position the Council wants to be placed in. Councilmember Mesaros asked how many Type III-B appeals there have been in the five years. Mr. Lien answered there have been 4 since 2009, the Burnstead plat (upheld), Hillman critical area reasonable use variance (overturned), design review Building 10 (remanded to ADB and then overturned) and a fence height variance (upheld). Mr. Taraday referred to the Building 10 appeal, explaining a LUPA appeal was filed following the City Council's action that was essentially stayed pending a new application and approval of the new application allowed the earlier LUPA to be dismissed. He clarified he did not want the Council to presume the City would have prevailed on the first LUPA; it is entirely possible that had that situation not been worked out, that case may not have gone the City's way. Just because the City has not an adverse judgment recently, he did not want the City Council to be overly bullish on City's chances of always prevailing. Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis said the Hillman critical area was a code problem and the appellant wrote the code change. The Council found an issue with the code and it was good to have someone fact - check the code. She said she has never seen a summary list of appeals or been asked to go with citizens to an appeal since 2016. Mr. Taraday said the code has not been changed to take the Council out of process yet. Mr. Lien said there have been no appeals to the Council since 2016. Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis commented this same quasi-judicial approach went before the Snohomish County voters in November 2016 as Proposition 4 and the majority of voters voted no, 57.7% in Edmonds. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the Hillman example and asked what the process would look like if that had been reviewed by Superior Court instead of the City Council. Mr. Lien explained that was a critical area reasonable use variance. The appellant did not write the code change; the code change was related to the definition of minimal reasonable economic use. The code said a single-family residence was a minimal Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 7 Packet Pg. 198 8.3.m reasonable economic use. The City Council overturned the hearing examiner's decision because the Council determined what was proposed was not the minimal reasonable economic use. After the hearing, that section was removed from the definition of minimal reasonable economic use so that a single-family residence was no longer assumed to be minimal reasonable economic use. Mr. Taraday explained if the appellant had not had the option of coming to the City Council to challenge the hearing examiner's decision, it would have gone to Superior Court and the City Attorney would have argued on the City's behalf to convince the judge that that was the wrong decision and that the residence could have been smaller, etc. With regard to the code change, the need to make changes arises a variety of ways, via an application that does not reach a hearing where an ambiguity is pointed out and flagged for amendment, a hearing examiner decision that flags an issue for later amendment, etc. Ambiguity in the code will continue to arise whether it is the Council or Superior Court reviewing appeals. Councilmember Tibbott summarized the appeal could have happened either of two ways. Mr. Taraday agreed, it just would have been a different body making the decision. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the code amendment was made after the legal process was completed. Mr. Lien answered the code amendment does not necessarily have to wait until the decision is made but it would not apply to a project that is already vested. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the comment about overturning a decision/mistake made by the hearing examiner and asked what the appeal body was overturning. Mr. Taraday explained the hearing examiner makes Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and a decision. The decision has to rest on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It is difficult for a finding of fact to be overturned on a closed record appeal because, by definition, the appeal body is not receiving new evidence and is reviewing the same information the hearing examiner received. It is unlikely in looking at the same exact evidence, the appeal body will reach a different factual finding. There are situations where a finding of fact can be overturned but it is less common. Most of time, if the Council retained this function, the issue was trying to determine whether the hearing examiner made an error in its legal opinion. Those are legal arguments; frequently attorneys on both sides will make argument to the City Council explaining why the code should be interpreted one way or another. That was more likely to be in the realm of the City Council if the Council retained this quasi- judicial function. Councilmember Tibbott observed the Council would be serving as judges as if they had a specialty as lawyers and understanding the proceedings. Mr. Taraday answered essentially, by definition if the Council was ruling on a legal argument, they were playing a legal role. Councilmember Tibbott said he may be new to the Council, but he served four years on the Planning Board where there were also quasi-judicial reviews. He recalled some were handled well and some were handled poorly. Those that were handled poorly was due to the way they came to the Planning Board from staff. The Board was not adequately prepared, did not receive information in enough time to prevent ex-parte interaction and as a result some decisions were skewed by outside information that was beyond the closed record. He found that very distressing now that he understands what the process is supposed to look like. He did not want the Council to be in the position of ferreting that out and potentially at risk of liability due to mishaps. He assumed that could be fixed, but there were significant logistical steps that needed to be taken to protect the quasi-judicial process. His experience in a quasi-judicial role was not positive; it requires specialized training to interpret findings, especially real estate zoning laws which are within the realm of the hearing examiner to review. At this point he still supported Resolution 1367 and the role it outlined for the City Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged Councilmembers who had not been through the process to read the cases so they understand the Council's role, anticipating staff could provide links to the information. She recalled one of the cases was regarding a fence and the point at which the height of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 8 Packet Pg. 199 8.3.m fence was measured. Mr. Lien clarified it was a fence on top of a retaining wall. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas recalled that decision was reversed. Mr. Lien advised it was upheld. With regard to ex-parte contact, in all the years she was on Council and heard appeals, she had only been contacted twice about cases and in both she very professionally said she could not discuss it and that stopped the conversation. She recalled during the process Councilmembers are asked to reveal ex-parte contact and on occasion a Councilmember recused themselves. Councilmember Mesaros recalled visiting City Hall and upon seeing Mr. Lien, asking him about a project and if there were any problems. Mr. Lien responded they should not talk about it because if there were problems and they were appealed, Councilmember Mesaros could be required to make a decision in a quasi- judicial hearing. That was insightful on Mr. Lien's part. As Councilmember Tibbott said, a Councilmember may be talking to citizens about a project in its infancy and unknowingly be tainted by that discussion later in the process. As Mr. Taraday said, Councilmembers pride themselves on their accessibility to citizens; however, citizens may offer input early in the process before an appeal, resulting in a Councilmember being involved in ex-parte contact before the appeal process even begins. Mr. Lien said in reviewing the three meetings in 2016 agendas, none of them were public hearings. This item is on the extended agenda for September 18; the Council could have further discussion prior to a public hearing or schedule a public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Nelson offered to work with Mr. Lien to select a date for the public hearing. Councilmembers were agreeable to that approach. 2. INTRODUCTION TO UPDATING CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS FOR WETLANDS Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien said this is the third time this topic has been presented to the Council. He reviewed: • Background o Completed comprehensive CAO update in May 2016 o June 2016 Department of Ecology Issues updated Wetland Guidance in Publication No. 16-06- 001 o Updated Wetland Guidance Incorporated into Shoreline Management Program o Shoreline Management Act vs. Growth Management Act ■ Shoreline Master Program applies in shoreline jurisdiction ■ CAO applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction o SMP Periodic Review • This updated focuses on SMP Excepted Sections o ECDC 23.50.010.13, Wetland Ratings. o ECDC 23.50.040.F.1, Standard Buffer Widths. o ECDC 23.50.040.F.2, Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands. o ECDC 23.50.040.K, Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands • History repeats itself (almost) o Public Hearing before Planning Board on July 11, 2018 o Ecology issues new wetland guidance on July 12, 2018 ■ "If you are a local planner in the process of updating your CAO, we recommend that you use these modified wetland buffer tables in your update." • Ecology 2018 Wetland Guidance o "We made the changes based on public feedback and our own review of the reference wetland data used to calibrate the Washington State Wetland Rating System. We knew we needed to make modifications in the grouping of habitat scores." Wetland Buffer Requirement Tables 2016 Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 9 Packet Pg. 200 8.3.n Councilmember Buckshnis referred to staff s recommendation, pointing out having the utilities become private was not one of the options. She asked if privatization of water and sewer was common in a city like Edmonds. Ms. McConnell answered it is not common. With a new subdivision with a private road where there is not a need for the City to own and maintain the utility system, a private sewer main may be installed via the development process. The water main would be in the City street and water service lines to individual properties. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for confirmation that staff was not recommending privatization. Ms. McConnell agreed staff was not. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the City needed to protect environment. Councilmember Johnson referred to the applicant's BLA map, relaying her understanding there were two issues, first the lot line adjustment. It would be possible to create the amber and green lots in such a way that they could be built upon by allocating the northern portion of the amber lot to a different lot. If the intent was two building sites, one south of Excelsior Place and another north of Excelsior Place, both would be outside the critical areas and it would be possible build there. The second issue is the vacation of Excelsior Place. Although Excelsior Place serves as a private driveway, it is serving more than what a normal private driveway would serve, especially due to the northern, western and eastern sections. An improvement would be appropriate notwithstanding the current meandering onto private property. Since the Fire Department may require a 20-foot wide right-of-way, she concluded it did not make sense to abandon the public right-of-way so she will vote no. Duane Landsverk, applicant, asked Councilmember Johnson if she felt it was appropriate for the additional lots to the east, for them to suggest that they open the public right-of-way of Excelsior. First it would need to be constructed and then people would be sent to the end of Excelsior where they would trespass across neighboring lots to the east where there is no public access. Excelsior dead -ends and is only 20 feet wide. Councilmember Johnson said testimony has stated one can travel Excelsior Place and exit to the east. Mr. Landsverk said his private driveway meanders in and out of Excelsior; it is marked private and anyone using it is on private property. The public portion of Excelsior is 100% cut off. Councilmember Johnson asked if it was physically possible to drive to the east. Mr. Landsverk answered not without trespassing. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO VACATE WITH THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT IN EXHIBIT 1. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PRnC'F,ggF,C Mayor Earling announced the Council would not discuss Agenda Items 8.1 and 8.2 tonight. Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed: • Resolution No. 1367 o Council discussions in 2016 regarding the City Council sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity ■ Frustrations with ex-parte contact prohibitions ■ Liability issues for councilmembers o Resolution No. 1367 ■ Requests city staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC modifying the City Council's role in quasi -decision making processes o Code amendments since adoption of Resolution No. 1367 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 15 Packet Pg. 201 8.3.n Council Quasi-judicial Decisions o Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities; Design review (where a public hearing by the architectural design board is required); Conditional use permits (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is required); Zoning Variances; Home occupation permit (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is required); Preliminary formal plat; and Preliminary planned residential development. o Applications (Type IV -A and IV-B): Final formal plats; Final planned residential development; and site specific rezone. o ECDC 17.00.030.C: The City Council also sits in a quasi-judicial role for variance applications from public agencies. Potential Code Amendments o Type III-B o Type IV -A o ECDC 17.00.030 - Public agency variances o ECDC 20.100.040 - Review of Approved Permits o ECDC 20.06 (Open Record Public Hearings) and ECDC 20.07 (Closed Record Public Hearings) o Development Agreements ECDC 20.01.003 - Type III-B o Revisions to the table of land use decisions o Removing the City Council from appeal of quasi-judicial decisions could allow the Council to appeal on the behalf of citizens ■ Council would be provided notice of Type III decisions Type IV -A: Subdivisions and PRDS o City Council approves final formal subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments o All requirements of preliminary approval of been met o Often all of the subdivision improvements are installed prior to application for final approval o Senate Bill 5674 allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel o Amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 would delegate City Council's role in review of final formal plats and PRDs to staff ECDC 17.00.030 - Public Agency Variance o C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any other public agency shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to build, or alter, a structure or use in a location or in a manner not complying with this zoning ordinance, a variance may be considered. In this case, the action of the hearing examiner shall be a recommendation to the city council ECDC 20.100.040 Review of Approved Permits o Conflicts with state law ■ Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW - One open record public hearing - ECDC 20.100.040 could result in endless public hearings ■ Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW - "Finality" - Once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer by judicially appealed even if it did not comply with permitting criteria when approved (Chelan County v. Nykreim) - Habitat Watch v. Skagit County - Projects cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process o New section ECDC 20.110.045 added to code enforcement chapter that all the City to suspend or revoke a permit that fails to comply with conditions of approval or which operates in a manner inconsistent with the representations made in the application ECDC 20.06 Open Record Public Hearings and 20.07 Closed Record Public hearings Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 16 Packet Pg. 202 8.3.n o Confusing cross references regarding appeals o Combine into a single chapter o Added some language for prehearing conferences o Added some details regarding briefing order, rebuttals and questions during hearings Development Agreements o Change Development Agreement from Type V legislative decision to a Type IV quasi-judicial decision with recommendation from the Planning Board to City Council o Council considers development agreement in closed record review o Likely process in conjunction with site specific rezone Mr. Lien said staff is seeking direction from Council regarding the proposed code amendments. Councilmember Teitzel commented there has been some incomplete information shared with the City Council from outside sources. There was an assertion that other City Councils have not gotten out of the quasi-judicial process. Mr. Lien displayed a survey of appeals to City Council from Municipal Research Center (MSRC) and City Attorney Jeff Taraday's list serve poll: No appeals to City Council Appeals to City Council • Bainbridge Is • Lynnwood • Bellevue • Bremerton • Marysville • Bellingham • Buckley • MLT o Only premilitary plats and variances related to plats • Clyde Hill • Mukilteo o All other decisions are Court appeals • Duvall • Snohomish • Ellensburg • Everett • Shoreline • Kirkland • Federal Way • Spokane Vly • SeaTac (considering getting out) • Lakewood • • Snoqualmie • Sumner Under review: Renton Councilmember Teitzel recalled there was a point made that Snohomish County Council had ballot measure Prop 4 several years ago that was similar to what the Council is considering. In reading the voters pamphlet and arguments for and against, he saw nothing about the Snohomish County Council having the ability to consider an objection by a citizen and potentially taking appeals to Superior Court on behalf of the citizen which is something the City Council is considering. He asked if Snohomish County Council had the option to appeal on behalf of citizens. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding of 2016 Snohomish County Prop 4 was what he forward to Councilmembers from the voters pamphlet. He did not have any information that the Snohomish County was considering the process staff has suggested where the City Council could appeal the Hearing Examiner decision. There were similarities between this proposal and Prop 4 but they are not identical. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether any of the cities had gone from quasi-judicial to non -quasi- judicial. Mr. Lien said that would have taken a lot of research. Councilmember Buckshnis said this information only identifies cities that have appeals to City Council and cities that do not. It does not address other cities such as Edmonds that have changed. She hoped Edmonds would continue to have appeals to City Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the cities that still have appeals to City Council and believed there were more. With regard to Councilmember Buckshnis' question, Mr. Taraday explained cities have only had Hearing Examiner authority since approximately 1977; most of those cities preexisted that date. One could assume most Council's had quasi-judicial capacity before 1977. Some cities may have abandoned quasi-judicial a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 17 Packet Pg. 203 8.3.n long time ago or more recently, but it would be a time-consuming exercise to determine who abandoned it and when. Councilmember Buckshnis commented politics were way different in 1977. What is going on now is relevant including that some large cities still use a quasi-judicial system. Mr. Lien said Edmonds switched to the Hearing Examiner process in1980 and appeals went to City Council. Prior to that, the City had a Board of Adjustment that heard variances and that was a quasi-judicial decision process. Board of Adjustment decisions were appealable to Superior Court. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Rebecca Anderson, Edmonds, said the quasi-judicial issue is important because, 1) it impacts more residents, 2) the action the Council takes will maintain the path of working together or begin to drive a wedge between certain groups, and 3) people outside Edmonds will make decisions about the community and how it develops instead of local officials. After researching this issue, she was opposed to the effort remove this from the Council. The main reason this issue was being brought up was lability concerns raised by some Councilmembers; by eliminating the quasi-judicial process from the Council, the risk to the City will be greatly reduced. This seems to be a weak reason because the Council has extensive legal representation as well as liability insurance that could be used to defend any decision reached by the Council that ends up in litigation. She pointed out the recent action taken by the Council to pass the safe storage gun ordinance and assumed legal counsel cautioned that passing such an ordinance might result in litigation. The Council did it anyway and now the City is being sued. She asked whether removing this process from the Council would benefit residents today or in the future, make it easier for residents to resolve disagreements or issues or make it more complicated, and whether it will keep the Council directly involved in Edmonds issues. She concluded abdicating this vital function would place a barrier between the elected officials and the citizens and will result in entities outside Edmonds making important decisions for Edmonds instead of local elected officials. She urged the Council to retain the Council in this process. John Reed, Edmonds, explained when making improvements to their home on 6' Avenue South in 1990, an issue arose regarding access to a deck they planned to add on the west side of their home. Their side setback was 5 feet but there was a 3'/2 wide deck stairway that extended part of the length of the house. They applied for a variance to extend the deck to the end of the home and then cut over to the required 5- foot setback. The Hearing Examiner denied their request so they appealed to the City Council under the quasi-judicial process in place at that time. They and their neighbors represented themselves at the City Council. One of the neighbors 25 feet away told the Council they had wild, late night parties and the deck would infringe on their privacy and ability to sleep and the Council denied their request for a variance by a 3-4 vote. They subsequently designed access to their deck from inside the home. They undoubtedly would not have paid a large fee, traveled to Everett and presented their request to Snohomish County Superior Court. Since 1990 the process was changed to require appeals to Superior Court and then in 2009 changed back to appeals to Council. He urged the Council to retain the current process because he believed it was what the citizens who elected them expect. Speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE), Mr. Reed referred to a letter, Exhibit 21 in the packet, highlighting ACE's support for retaining the quasi-judicial process at the City Council level because Edmonds citizens elect Councilmembers to represent them and the existing process retains that representation. It provides a less costly way for citizens to have their voices heard by the local residents they elect. While the basis for this change is the risk involved in quasi-judicial hearings, in fact all City Council decisions carry a degree of risk which is the reason for the City Attorney and why the City carries liability insurance. Very few land use matters are currently appealed beyond the Hearing Examiner and the Council spends little time on appeals. Councilmembers are familiar with Edmonds issues, but Snohomish County Superior Court and land use staff are not. ACE urged the Council to vote to retain the current process for quasi-judicial appeals. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 18 Packet Pg. 204 8.3.n Gary Nelson, Edmonds, referred to his correspondence to the City Council and that Planning Board describing his opposition to moving from a citizen -friend approach to quasi-judicial matters to an unfriendly approach that requires an appeal to Snohomish County Superior Court. When the Council passed Resolution 1367 in 2016, the Charter Review Commission put Prop 4 on the ballot which essentially addressed the same idea of moving to a court appeal. There was little public discussion prior to the election; however, 57.7% of Edmonds voters voted no. His philosophy is the best government is the one closest to the people which is the City Council. The City Council acts as a jury on many of the appeals that would come to the Council under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). It does not require any specialized training; jurists do not have any training when they make a decision. Citizens rely on the City Council's judgment; the Council is presented material on the record and citizens expect the Council to use that judgment in the best interest of the City. He asked the Council to oppose this change and continue the process that has been successful for many years. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he participated in appeals while on the City Council; those decisions are important to people making the appeal. He felt privileged to serve the citizens as a judge and current Councilmembers should feel the same, that they are looking out for the citizens. This system has worked for a long time because the Council follows strict rules of behavior and have not gotten themselves into a lawsuit. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, strongly opposed these changes and feared this was another piecemeal amendment to the code. In March 2015 the City launched a major update of the development code including hiring Makers to assist with that process. He met with Makes and the City to describe his issues with the code; the code has been highly flawed for a long time. He recalled Duane Bowman saying in 2005 that the code needed to be updated. Consideration of this change should be done as part of a comprehensive, major update of the code. The City's webpage regarding the code update has not been updated since March 2016 so he had no idea where that update stands. He did not have faith in the City's Hearing Examiner system and if anything, the City Council should hear more appeals, not less. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of public hearing. Councilmember Tibbott referred to four cases brought to City Council prior to his being on the Council, two related to larger developers, one of which was Building 10. He asked how long it took for the Council to hear that appeal. Mr. Lien answered the Building 10 appeals took place over four Council meetings. There was one closed record review before the Council for the first set of appeals; that was cut short and remanded back to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) to issue findings. The ADB issued findings, it was appealed again and the City considered the appeals over three meetings. Councilmember Tibbott said he was present for one of those and recalled the presentation to Council took over an hour. One of his concerns is the actual process the Council could look forward to. To him, there was a big difference between hearing a review for a neighbor adding on to their deck versus a large project like Building 10 or the Burnstead subdivision. He asked how long the Burnstead appeal took. Mr. Lien recalled it took at least 2-3 Council meetings. Mr. Taraday said Burnstead originated at City Council before he was City Attorney, went to the courts, the Court of Appeals remanded to the Hearing Examiner and then it came to the City Council on another administrative appeal. Councilmember Tibbott said he was sympathetic to the idea of listening to appeals from neighbors on personal issues but those cannot be separated from the larger appeals that take many days, have a great deal of detailed information and require a courtroom -like setting for presenting information. He recalled presentations to the Council from citizen groups and others presenting information with no opportunity to cross-examine and verify facts. The larger and more complex the issue, the greater the need for the Council to have the ability to cross-examine and verify information which requires more than a closed record review. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 19 Packet Pg. 205 8.3.n Councilmember Tibbott explained when the Council is asked to review an appeal, the Council is asked to judge the Hearing Examiner's decision -making process, not the validity of the project. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining the Council does not have any decisions where the Council holds the open record hearing. If the Council were holding the open record hearing, Councilmembers could cross-examine witnesses. The Council is not a jury, juries hear original testimony. The Hearing Examiner hears witnesses speak and has the opportunity to ask questions and play a fact-finding role. When appeals come to the Council, it is on record and the Council only hears what was already provided to the Hearing Examiner and no new information can be provided. Councilmember Tibbott asked what it would be like for a citizen to take a request for an appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Taraday recalled a couple citizens have filed their own LUPA appeals and represented themselves pro se. LUPA appeals are on the record, there are no witnesses, no new evidence, basically the petitioner writes a brief explaining to the court why the decision was erroneous. The City responds to that brief with an explanation of why the decision was correct and the petitioner is provided an opportunity for rebuttal to explain why the City's argument is wrong and there is some time for oral argument in front of the judge. Councilmember Tibbott asked how long reviews in front of a judge usually last. Mr. Taraday answered the oral argument in front of the court includes an initial hearing which is usually 10 minutes and the hearing on the merits lasts 20-60 minutes depending on the generosity of the judge. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether it would possible to retain a review process that is not a quasi- judicial review. For example, a citizen does not agree with a Hearing Examiner decision and wants to appeal it to Superior Court but has an opportunity to bring it to the City Council first. The City Council could hear the arguments and chose to appeal on the citizen behalf. Mr. Taraday said that is one of the ideas he and Mr. Lien are considering; that is the suggestion about providing notice of hearings to the City Council. The City Council would receive a notice of application whenever there was a Type III proposal and would have the opportunity to attend the hearing. Once the decision is issued and there is an aggrieved constituent who feels justice was not done, the system being contemplated would allow the City Council to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision in the name of the City on behalf of a constituent who feel it was unjustly decided. That decision could be discussed with legal counsel in executive session as potential litigation and Council could get a candid sense from the City Attorney on the merits of the Hearing Examiner's decision and the Council would decide in open session whether to appeal. That is a way of representing constituents in a manner that allow Councilmembers to talk to them and in a manner that was truly responsive to their concerns without being bound by the decision criteria when the Council sits in a quasi-judicial capacity. Councilmember Tibbott commented under that scenario, Councilmembers could walk a property, ask questions, etc. Mr. Taraday agreed, there would be no restriction on ex parte communication in that scenario; Councilmembers could talk with constituents, conduct site visits, etc. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the Council could request an open meeting with citizens to address the issue with Council. Mr. Taraday said there are only 21 days to file a LUPA appeal. For example, if the Hearing Examiner's decision is issued on a Friday, constituents could come to the next Council meeting to ask the Council to appeal or one or more Councilmembers could inquire about it offline and/or discuss it in executive session. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the process whereby a citizen who felt aggrieved by a Hearing Decision could ask the Council to consider it and asked how a citizen would know that avenue is available to them. Mr. Taraday said the code language has not yet not finalized. If the City Council directed, staff could to develop that process. Councilmember Teitzel was not interested in forcing citizens to go to Superior Court without having that course available. If there was a less formal process whereby citizens could approach the Council to say the Hearing Examiner erred, the Council could consider it and determine if it had merit and appeal to Superior Court on the citizen's behalf. If that avenue did not exist, he supported retaining Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 20 Packet Pg. 206 8.3.n quasi-judicial authority. If that avenue exists, he was leaning away from the Council retaining quasi-judicial authority as long he was convinced that avenue was available and reasonable for citizens. Mayor Earling advised Agenda Item 9.1 would be moved to a future meeting. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:15 PM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Johnson pointed out staff s research included two appeals that required counsel for the City Council, Carol Morris. She asked how much was spent on the Burnstead and Pt. Edwards projects. Mr. Lien said he could research cost. The City utilized Carol Morris on three appeals; the only one where she was not hired was the fence appeal. Councilmember Johnson recalled there was advice two years ago from WCIA, MSRC and the City Attorney to move away from the quasi-judicial review. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was interested in seeing in writing what has been discussed behind the scenes. She was not seeing much difference between the quasi-judicial process and that process which would still take time, Council involvement, attorneys and staff. She asked staff to return with that process in writing. Councilmember Tibbott raised a point of order that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was insinuating there have been private discussions on these matters. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified her request was for staff to return with a proposal for the Council to appeal decisions to Superior Court on a citizen's behalf. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an email stating the City has had four closed record reviews since 2009. Mr. Lien said there have been four closed record reviews on appeals since 2009, there have been other closed record reviews such as the public agency variance. Councilmember Buckshnis said those closed record review appeals were Pt. Edwards, Willowdale, Hillman and Burnstead. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis said those were part of the normal part of a Councilmember's job. Councilmembers are not scientists, yet they make important decisions about the Shoreline Master Program. She did not see any reason to change the current process. Councilmember Tibbott said one of the things he was trying to understand was changes in state law related to the review process such as only one closed record review and one appeal is allowed. He asked if there was a further process if those two are exhausted. Mr. Taraday answered administratively there is not, administratively the State allows one open record hearing and one closed record review. Councilmember Tibbott asked if a citizen could appeal the Council's decision on a Hearing Examiner's to Superior Court. Mr. Taraday explained the open record hearing takes place at the Hearing Examiner, the closed record review takes place at the City Council which is the end of the administrative work and there is either a final decision that no one appeals or there is a subsequent appeal that goes to Court. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON, TO FORWARD THIS TO A FUTURE AGENDA WITH A LONGER TIME FOR DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Council has been discussing this for a while tonight and there still seems to be a lot of questions. She would like to have time to discuss it so she recommended moving it to another meeting. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO INCLUDE WHEN THIS COMES BACK, DETAILS ABOUT THE PROCESS WHEREBY A CITIZEN COULD COME TO COUNCIL, PRESENT THE FACTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 21 Packet Pg. 207 8.3.n ABOUT THEIR CONCERN ABOUT A HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION AND THE COUNCIL COULD APPEAL ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZEN. Mr. Lien said staff would return with code language regarding how the Council could appeal the Hearing Examiner or ADB decision on the citizen's behalf. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. STUDY ITEMS 1. CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE REPORT Due to the late hour, this item was omitted from the agenda. 2. DISCUSSION ON PROHIBITING EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE (EPS OR "STYROFOAM") IN FOOD PACKAGING Due to the late hour, this item was moved to a future agenda. 3. VIDEO STREAMING OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS Council President Nelson commented this issue has been raised in a variety of ways. Previously all Council meetings were televised. Then the Council changed to a committee structure, committees meet in separate meetings and there is only an audio recording. Anyone wanting a copy of the audio recording must make a submit a request. What is accessible to citizens online with regard to committee meetings is minutes. He wanted the Council to do better job in terms of transparency; as Gary Council President Nelson said, the best government is one that is closest to the people. If the public is unable to attend a meeting, the next best thing is to watch it live. An op ed by Teresa Whipple on September 9t'', Let's Talk about Transparency, relayed her frustration in trying to cover Council committee meetings when she cannot be in three places at the same time. To that end, he invited a subject matter expert, Michelle Earl -Hubbard, Vice President of the Board of Washington Coalition for Open Government, a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring transparency and open government to speak to the Council. She is also a media law attorney. Ms. Earl -Hubbard introduced her daughter, a youth outreach ambassador, also interested in open government. Council President Nelson originally asked Toby Nixon, President of Washington Coalition for Open Government but he is a member of the Kirkland City Council which also meets on Tuesdays. She is an open government and media law attorney representing news organizations through Washington and in five other states and for the past 22+ years she has handled litigation involving open government laws. She urged the City to consider doing in committees what they already do in Council meetings. It is wonderful there are cameras in Council Chambers livestreaming the meeting and that there is downloadable, click on demand video available online. However, because committee meetings are held simultaneously in separate rooms, the public cannot watch them. She recognized the challenge for the press, they cannot be in all the places they need to be. In places like Edmonds that do not have large newspapers, television stations or media outlets, what happens does not get covered unless there are citizens like My Edmonds News. Ms. Earl -Hubbard urged the Council to add what they already do in Council meetings to their committee meetings because seeing is believing. A citizen could record a meeting themselves and put it on You Tube or their Facebook page, but it would be their version and may not be authentic or gavel -to -gavel and may be taken out of context. Therefore, it is always wiser for the government to control the mic and put it all out Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 22 Packet Pg. 208 8.3.0 City Engineer Rob English drainage currently runs down Bell Street to an existing infiltration facility that does not have the capacity to handle the runoff. In working with Public Works operations, the City's stormwater engineer identified a solution to take the line across 1015 Bell Street and connect to an existing storm drain in the alley north of Bell Street. There would be a 10-foot easement on the western side of the parcel to install the pipe. It was the consensus of Council to forward this to the Consent Agenda. 2. LAND USE PERMIT DECISION -MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien recalled the Council has previously discussed the Council's role in the quasi-judicial decision making process. Most of the discussion has been the Council's role in Type III decisions. Following the October 2nd public hearing, Council requested staff return with code language reflecting the Council acting on behalf of citizens by filing a judicial appeal. Mr. Lien reviewed potential amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code detailing the process for Council appeal of a Type III decision: • ECDC 20.03.002 Notice of Application (NEW SUBSECTION) H. For all Type III permit applications, notice of application shall also be provided to the City Council by email. • ECDC 20.03.003 Notice of Public Hearing (NEW SUBSECTION) F. For all Type III applications, notice ofpublic hearing shall also be provided to the City Council by email. • 20.02.007 Notice of final decision. (MOVED FROM ECDC 20.06.009) A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided, that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall include the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal, and a description of any available administrative appeals, and for all Type III decisions, information as to how to inform the city council as to alleged errors in the decision. 3. For all Type III decisions, notice of final decision shall be provided to the City Council by email. • 20. 06.= City council as party of record in Tyke III procee&gs_(NEW SUBSECTION) A. Intent. The city council has eliminated its role as the quasi-judicial decision -maker on administrative appeals of Type III decisions in favor ofhaving the ability to participate in such matters as a party ofrecord at both the administrative level and in the courts, through a LUPA action, if necessary. The notice provisions in ECDC 20.03.002, ECDC 20.03.003, and ECDC 20.02.007 reflect the interest of the city council in overseeing the decision -making process on Type III applications. City council oversight is intended to ensure that the CiU s code is being properly administered and interpreted by the Type III administrative decision -maker. Tyke III applications are ofparticular concern to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, and therefore are of particular concern to the city council, because they involve higher levels of discretion and can allow for variances from the Edmonds Community Development Code adopted by the city council. Because of the nature of Type III decisions and its interest in seeing its legislation properly applied, the city council would be prejudiced by an erroneous Type III decision. To ensure that erroneous Type III decisions can be corrected swiftly. the city council shall be an official party ofrecord in all Type III proceedings, whether its members participate in the Type III process or not. B. Exercise of Party of Record Status. As a trustee of the public interest, the city council is not required to participate in the Type III process to satisfy the exhaustion (of administrative remedies) requirement that applies to other would-be parties ofrecord. The city council retains Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 19 Packet Pg. 209 8.3.0 its party of record status throughout the administrative process, even where it does not participate. The city council may ask the Type III decision -maker to reconsider its decision, but not doing so in no way diminishes its party of record status for the purpose of seeking judicial review under LUPA, chapter 36.70C RCW. Any decision by the city council to seek reconsideration or to commence a LUPA proceeding shall be made during an open public meeting. Mr. Taraday said one of main reasons for the addition of 20.06.XXX.B is to satisfy LUPA standing requirements so if the matter reaches Superior Court, it can stay in Superior Court. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to reference to "the City Council" filing a judicial appeal and asked who is responsible as there are seven members. Mr. Lien said that is addressed in the next section. Mr. Lien continued his review of the potential amendments: • 20. 06.XVC Informingthe he city council ofalleged errors in Type III decisions. (NEW SUBSECTION A. warty ofrecord, as defined by ECDC 20.06.030, may bring alleged errors to the city council's attention and request that the city council appeal a Type III decision on behalf of the citizens and the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. To make this request, a party of record should: L Have already sought reconsideration of the decision pursuant to ECDC 20.06.010; 2. Make the request to the city council within seven (7days of the decision on reconsideration; and 3. Make the request by: i. Submitting it in writing to the Council's legislative%xecutive assistant and the Development Services Director; or ii. Verbally requesting it at a regular City Council meeting B. The city council's decision to appeal or not appeal a Type III decision in response to such a request is a legislative decision that is not subject to review under LUPA. Making such a request has no impact on the time within which one would be required to commence a LUPA action. C. Nothing herein shall be construed as preventingthe he city council from appealing a decision on a Type III application in the absence of an appeal request made pursuant to this section. Mr. Lien advised staff is only seeking input tonight, not a decision. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the statement, "Any decision by the city council to seek reconsideration or to commence a LUPA proceeding shall be made during an open public meeting." and asked if that meant the Council would debate the merits of an appeal at the dais. Mr. Taraday said likely the Council would discuss the merit of a case in executive session under potential litigation and make a decision in open session. The Council could have that discussion in public, but he did not recommend it. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the public will not know the basis of the decision if the Council discussed the matter in executive session. Mr. Taraday said the request from a citizen is the primary basis for the appeal. Even if the Council were sitting in an appellate capacity, he would also not publicly discuss a close question of law. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented as the appellate body, the Council currently has discussions in public. Mr. Taraday said court proceedings would be public, the same as the Council's current appellate decision. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what happened if the Council missed the 7-day appeal timeframe. Mr. Taraday said the 7-days was "should" not "shall." If someone made a request on the 8t1' or 10'1' day, the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 20 Packet Pg. 210 8.3.0 Council has a reasonable basis for saying no, but the Council still has the ability to appeal. He clarified the Council is not restricted to the 7-day timeline but is subject to the same 21-day LUPA deadline. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what currently ensures a case is heard by the Council within 21 days. Mr. Lien explained the appeal to City Council is an administrative appeal. Currently the Council's decision is the final decision and that starts the 21-day period for a LUPA appeal. If the Hearing Examiner's decision is the final decision by the City, that starts the 21-day period. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the Council is informed of an appeal request. Mr. Lien answered in the current process, the Council is informed when an appeal is filed. Under the proposed process, Council will receive notice of the Hearing Examiner's final decision. Mr. Taraday explained it was a "belt and suspenders" approach: the belt is the ability for citizens to come to Council and request an appeal and the suspenders are Councilmembers can raise a concern. Councilmember Buckshnis asked the total cost to a citizen. Mr. Lien said currently if a citizen appeals a Type III decision to the City Council, the fee is $500. Under the proposal, a citizen files a request for reconsideration which costs $250 and the Hearing Examiner issues their decision on reconsideration. The citizen could then ask the Council to file a judicial appeal. Councilmember Buckshnis summarized the City Council was interjecting themselves as a legislative body to appeal to Superior Court on behalf of a citizen. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis asked what happened if some Councilmembers did not agree with filing an appeal. Mr. Lien said it would require a majority of Council to initiate an appeal. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Lien explained the proposed process changes the City Council's role; instead of a quasi-judicial, the Council would essentially become an appellant. Mr. Taraday clarified the phrase, "on behalf of a citizen," the citizen would not be a party to the LUPA appeal unless they fled their own appeal. Filing on behalf of a citizen means the City of Edmonds as directed by the City Council is appealing the Hearing Examiner decision. The citizen may benefit if the City wins and the decision reversed, but he would not be representing the citizen in Superior Court. Councilmember Buckshnis commented fortunately the City currently has a flat rate attorney; if the City returned to an hourly attorney, a lot of money could be spent on this process. Mr. Taraday said the Council could also change the process if they returned to an hourly attorney. Councilmember Teitzel said his interest was not making this harder for citizens and although it sounds very complicated, it actually makes it easier for a citizen to pursue an appeal because they would not have to hire an attorney and the filing fees are less than appealing to the City Council in a quasi-judicial capacity. Mr. Lien said currently, if a citizen files an appeal to City Council, the cost is $500 and the cost to file a judicial appeal at Superior Court is $240. Petitioning the Council to appeal removes a step in the process for the citizen. Councilmember Teitzel commented it also obviates the need for the citizen to hire attorney. Mr. Lien said a citizen can represent themselves pro se in an appeal to Superior Court. Councilmember Teitzel said if the City Council appeals, the City Attorney's office would represent the City. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Teitzel asked if the proposed process was simpler and less costly for a citizen. Mr. Lien answered it takes one step out of the process, the closed record appeal to City Council, and eliminating a step makes it simpler. Mr. Taraday said it eliminates a step if the Council agrees to appeal which should not be presumed. It is possible there will be citizens who request the Council appeal and the Council will decide not to. Mr. Lien said even if the Council does not agreed to appeal, it still eliminates a step before the citizen can appeal to Superior Court. Councilmember Teitzel said under the quasi-judicial process, the Council hears the case and renders a decision and the citizen can appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Taraday advised the judicial appeal never goes away but the administrative appeal goes away on Type III under this proposal. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 21 Packet Pg. 211 8.3.0 COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Tibbott asked how and when a citizen would make their case to the City Council. It appeared it would be in writing for discussion in executive session but if it was at a City Council meeting, how did the citizen get on the agenda. Mr. Lien reviewed the timing, a citizen had seven days following the reconsideration decision. The Hearing Examiner typically issues decisions on Fridays. If a citizen chose, they could come to City Council on the following Tuesday. The request would not be in the packet, but the Council would have received the notice of final decision on reconsideration. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the notice to Council would include all the documentation presented to the Hearing Examiner for reconsideration. Mr. Lien said the notice of application and notice of public hearing, staff report, and all materials associated with the application are included with the Hearing Examiner agenda. The Council could be added to receive the Hearing Examiner and ADB agendas. If a citizen disagreed with the Hearing Examiner's decision, Councilmember Tibbott asked how they would get on the Council's Tuesday agenda. Mr. Lien said they would not have to be on the agenda; they can make their request by, 1) in writing to the Council's legislative assistant and Development Services Director, or 2) verbal request at a regular City Council meeting during audience comments. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the three -minute audience comment would be their only opportunity to request the Council appeal. Mr. Taraday said it would be up to the Council President if he/she wanted to allow more than three minutes. If a citizen requests an appeal during audience comments, the Council has several options including amending the agenda to add more time to hear from the citizen at the same meeting or the next meeting, scheduling an executive session at that meeting or the next meeting, etc. Councilmember Tibbott said one thing that was compelling to him about the proposed process was it offered the Council an opportunity to walk a site, get more information from the parties, etc. which the Council was not able to do in the existing quasi-judicial review. He asked at what point more exploratory analysis could be done. Mr. Taraday said one of the advantages of the notice provisions was they were designed to invite the City Council into the process at the earliest possible stage. For example, after seeing a notice, a Councilmember could decide to attend and/or testify at the Hearing Examiner hearing, talk with the neighbors, etc., because there are no concerns with ex parte communication that exists in the current process. Councilmember Tibbott asked if Councilmembers could attend the reconsideration hearing. Mr. Lien explained there is no hearing for reconsideration. The Council will receive the request for reconsideration and the concerns raised regarding the Hearing Examiner's decision. With regard to the seven days, Councilmember Mesaros said there are four times a year when there is a fifth Tuesday where the Council does not meet for ten days. The citizen could still submit a written request but the opportunity to make a request at a Council meeting could expire during those ten days. He noted that was especially true in December when the Council does not meet for a period of time due to the holidays. Mr. Lien said the Hearing Examiner meets on the second and fourth Thursday of every month and he has 10 business days to issue a decision, typically the Friday following 14 days. He agreed there were instances there would not be an opportunity to make a request in person and the citizen would need to file a written request. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Teitzel said the objection he has he heard to moving away from the quasi-judicial was it may erode the ability of Council to be advocates for their constituents. However, it was his understanding Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 22 Packet Pg. 212 8.3.0 this revised process may actually improve the Council's ability to advocate for their constituents. Mr. Taraday agreed, because as judges the Council cannot advocate on behalf of one of the parties. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling said he has reason to believe the political dynamics in Washington, D.C. are shifting with the knowledge of another party taking over authority within the House of Representatives. Sound Transit has been trying break loose $1.2B in funding to get light rail to Lynnwood and that was recently accomplished. Sound Transit will also be receiving a $650M low interest loan. In speaking with one of Congressman Larsen's aides, he mentioned for the first time in two years they are getting more return emails when asking questions within the administration which the aide viewed as real progress. Mayor Earling was hopeful many things could be moved along. He wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Teitzel said this week is a time to be thankful. He was thankful for the opportunity to live in the most beautify city in the state, for being able to serve on Council and enacting policies to keep Edmonds beautiful, for his family including his wife and daughters and for being a graduate of Washington State University. He said Go Cougs. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was thankful to be Packers' fan, for people who support the environment and for all the help staff provides. She urged everyone to spread kindness. Councilmember Johnson wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving and said go Cougs. Council President Nelson wished a Happy Thanksgiving to all. Councilmember Tibbott wished a Happy Thanksgiving, offered his condolences to Cougs and said go Huskies. Councilmember Mesaros wished a Happy Thanksgiving. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she spent the past week on the hill in Washington, D.C. and she agreed a new-found energy was resurging. She wished everyone a nice Thanksgiving and go Huskies. Mayor Earling said go Cougs. 10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 23 Packet Pg. 213 8.3.p where the homeless went when it was freezing and who helped them. She lives near Lake Ballinger; there is a man named Bob who car camps down the street, there are people camping in the Safeway parking lot and she sees tarps where the homeless are trying to find a safe place to sleep and hide from the police. The response to the homeless community cannot always be move along, you're someone else's problem because that is not a good statement of our values. If the City's budget is not a reflection of the values, she asked how are we showing these people we value their lives. Rebecca Anderson, Edmonds, referred to the presentation on the Edmonds Homeless Assessment and thanked the City for taking the time to look more closely at the issue and spending the resources to do so. Although she was not specifically a homeless advocate or a person who provides direct services to people in need of housing, she was a strong supporter of giving regularly to charitable organizations like St. Vincent de Paul. She also believed in general people will pitch in to help each other when they know what the needs are and when those in need are willing if they are able to participate in helping themselves. There will always be some who need more help than others due to mental illness or disabilities. It wasn't clear to her if the assessment included all the faith -based organizations in Edmonds that serve people in need or just a few. Before the City Council makes any considerable financial commitment to addressing the needs of the homeless, she encouraged them to look for existing programs that are working, where people are moving from crisis to stability in a way that is dignified and allows them to eventually move beyond the need for government assistance. Having tangible metrics can lead to finetuning a plan or even cause it to change course. She urged the Council not to use the model that Seattle adopted where the answer seems to simply be to spend more money. She encouraged the Council to look at the program established in Bourbon County, New Jersey where a regional center -based approach was able to help the chronically homeless move from crisis to permanent housing. Pooling resources can enable dollars to go further and minimize overlap. Regarding the consultant's findings that Edmonds is the only city in the region not funding human services directly, she asked if the cities with dedicated staff are seeing measured success in reducing the number of homeless in their communities. Just because a city has dedicated staff does not mean it is time or money well spent if it is not effective. She urged the Council to look for prudent solutions and not rush into hiring staff or building structures simply to copy what nearby cities are doing before developing a solid and reasonable strategy so Edmonds can be the town that gets helping the homeless right. Dave Guber, Edmonds, referred to a Seattle Times article about a study sponsored by the business community in Seattle who is at their wit's end trying to deal with homelessness issues at their front doors. They tracked 100 homeless people who had been responsible for 3,562 criminal cases that were referred to the courts, approximately 35 per homeless person. Seattle and King County have spent a billion dollars and their response is essentially to de -police the homeless crime problem. Before Edmonds jumps into the Seattle model of how to treat homelessness, he urged them to consider the disastrous results Seattle has gotten, anticipating Edmonds would get the same results if the same approach was used. He spoke as someone who was almost homeless at one time following a stroke; he lost his job and all his savings and was in foreclosure but managed to work his way out which he acknowledged was very, very hard. He was not addicted to drugs and hadn't commit any crimes; he worked 60-70 hours week. If people are enabled to become homeless, become drug addicts, and commit crimes without consequences, they will never take responsibility for their actions. He concluded sometimes it is necessary to make a touch choice, to say your situation is your responsibility, it is not the citizens of Edmonds' responsibility and we're not going to subsidize and enrich the homeless industry with $200,000/year to develop a solution that don't solve the problem and just makes it worse. 8. STUDY ITEMS 1. LAND USE PERMIT DECISION -MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien commented this is the fourth time this has been before the Council. He reviewed: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 5, 2019 Page 12 Packet Pg. 214 8.3.p • Overview o September 4, 2018 Introduction o October 2, 2018 Public Hearing o November 20, 2018 Introduction to Process for requesting Council to File an Appeal Tonight o Looking for consensus on Council Role Mr. Lien reviewed the Type III-B Review Process flowchart • Application received o Staff Review ■ 28-Day Completeness Review ■ Notice of Application and Public Hearing issued - Under new process, Council gets email notice at least two weeks before hearing ■ Staff Report and Agenda Posted/Published - Under new process, Council emailed staff report and agenda seven days before hearing. Begin to understand whether item is controversial and peak Council attention o Hearing Examiner Review ■ Hearing Examiner Public hearing held - Under new process, option for Councilmember participation at public hearing ■ Hearing Examiner Decision Issued 10 days after hearing - Under new process, Council as party of record (POR) receives decision ■ Request for Reconsideration Filed - POR must file request within 10 calendar days (potential code update to 14-days) - Under new process, Council as POR could request reconsideration or receives request for reconsideration ■ Hearing Examiner Decision on reconsideration issued - Decision on reconsideration issued 10 business days after request for reconsideration - Under new process, Council as POR receives decision on reconsideration o Council Review Current Closed Record Review Process Potential Council Judicial Appeal Process Appeal filed to POR files appeal to City Council Request for POR makes request for Council judicial City Council within 14 days of decision on Council appeal within 7 days of decision on reconsideration or original Appeal reconsideration (verbally or at City decision if request for Council meeting) reconsideration not filed. Written Optional. Written arguments, Council Council, City Attorney and staff discuss Arguments rebuttals, and surrebuttal 12 Considers merits of decision in executive session. through 2 days before closed Request for Majority of Council decides in open record hearing before City Judicial session whether or not to file a judicial Council Appeal appeal. City Council May occur over a number of Judicial City Attorney prepares and files appeal if Closed Record Council meetings Appeal Council decided to appeal. Must be fled Hearing within 21 days after decision on reconsideration (or original decision if reconsideration not requested. Any party of record may also file a judicial appeal regardless of Council decision. Council Council may affirm, modify or decision reverse Hearing Examiner decision. With agreement from applicant, decision may be remanded. Judicial Applicant or appellant may file Appeal judicial appeal Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 5, 2019 Page 13 Packet Pg. 215 8.3.p Mr. Lien said the last time this was discussed, he used a phrase that gave the City Attorney pause, that the City Council would appeal on behalf of a citizen. The Council would not actually appeal on behalf of the citizen, the Council would be appealing as the Council's oversight role of implementation of the code that is adopted by the Council. If someone requests an appeal and the Council agrees the Hearing Examiner erred, the Council is appealing on behalf of the City and how the code is being implemented. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed with Mr. Lien's explanation, noting public comment illustrated there was some confusion. The proposal does not involve the City Attorney representing individual citizens. If the City Council decides to appeal a Hearing Examiner decision, it's possible the City's interest is aligned with the interest of citizen who may have requested the appeal but that does not mean that the City Attorney is representing that citizen. The citizen may not participate in the appeal at all. Mr. Lien reviewed: Appeal process o Does the Council wish to main its current rule in quasi-judicial decisions, or continue to pursue the new role as a potential judicial appellant? o Exhibit 2 — Quasi-judicial Process Comparison Table (components of analysis and considerations for Council to act as judge compared to considerations for Council to act as prospective appellant) Next Steps? o Preparation of Draft Ordinance Council Consideration o Other related code amendments o New chapter 20.06 ECDC o Elimination of ECDC 20.100.040 o Final subdivision process o Other cleanup and clarification related to decision process Councilmember Buckshnis commented since only six Councilmembers are present tonight and this is an ordinance, the chair cannot vote to break a tie. Mr. Taraday agreed the Mayor could not vote because although there is no ordinance tonight, it would be adopted in the form of an ordinance and there would be no point in having the Mayor vote on this when he could not vote on the ordinance. Councilmember Buckshnis said she will continue to hold her position. The presentation does not mention the human element; if there was a 4-3 vote with 3 Councilmembers who are adamantly opposed to an appeal, the appeal is "toast." In land use issues, it is a citizen's right to do what they want with regard to an appeal and the Council should stay out of the process. Councilmember Mesaros pointed out regardless of what the City Council decided to do, under the proposed process judicial appeal process, a citizen would still have the right to bring an appeal themselves. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Mesaros emphasized the Council would not be impinging on a citizens' right to do what they wanted to do; it would be positioning the City Council to be an advocate with them if the Council felt it was in the City's best interest. Councilmember Mesaros asked if any other cities were doing the new process. Mr. Taraday said not identical to this process but there are cities and counties that have appealed their own Hearing Examiner decisions. The City of Kirkland recently had an unsuccessful case and the City of Gig Harbor has done it in the past. Councilmember Mesaros was in favor of the new process. He liked it because it puts the City Council in the position of being an advocate with a citizen, provides an opportunity to communicate with them early Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 5, 2019 Page 14 Packet Pg. 216 8.3.p in the process and an opportunity to interact more with citizens. He concluded it was a good direction to take. Councilmember Teitzel said as an elected official, he felt a duty to constituents to be an advocate. He had a concern with the current quasi-judicial process, recalling last year Councilmember Nelson referenced the term "quasi" as meaning sort of but not really. In that role the Council is sort of a judge but not officially a judge; the Council is acting in that capacity interpreting the code. It was more appropriate for the Council to support citizens by appealing a case that was ruled on improperly and not according to code and advocate for citizens rather than acting as a judge and jury which he did not feel was his role as an elected official. He was not concerned about the personal liability or the liability of the City under the current role, but wanted the best quality decisions for citizens which could be better accomplished by being an advocate rather than a judge. He expressed support for the new process. Councilmember Tibbott asked about Kirkland's appeal and who they appealed to. Mr. Taraday explained Kirkland appealed a Hearing Examiner decision to the Shoreline Hearings Board. Mr. Lien said it was an odd case in that the City of Kirkland was the applicant; the Hearing Examiner denied the application and it was appealed. The city lost at the Shoreline Hearings Board because no one took the opposite position; there was only one appellant and no one arguing against it. Mr. Taraday said to combat against that, there would need to be an entity defending the Hearing Examiner's decision. In many instances that might one of the other parties defending the Hearing Examiner's decision, but there could be situations like Kirkland's where the City would need to appoint another attorney to defend the Hearing Examiner's decision. He anticipated that would be rare because typically in a contested situation, there would be someone on the other side. Councilmember Tibbott inquired about changes in State law. Mr. Lien answered Section 2.100.040 is the review of approved permits. Mr. Taraday said that code section dates back to pre-LUPA times before it was clear that land use decisions were final 21 days after the decision. The existing language in Section 2.100.040 is problematic because it suggests permit approvals can be constantly revisited. That concept is not reconcilable under State law which is the reason for the proposing change. Councilmember Tibbott said the part of the new process that appeals to him is understanding when an applicant brings something to the Hearing Examiner, it is fully vetted and a decision is made. If the applicant chooses to appeal, the Council is alerted and has the discretion to visit the site or obtain new information. Conversely, under the current process, the Council cannot obtain an additional information. He recalled participating in quasi-judicial reviews where the Council is restricted to the evidence that has already been presented. Under the proposed process, the Council would have the opportunity to come alongside an applicant at the Hearing Examiner. Under those circumstances, he asked how the Hearing Examiner would obtain additional testimony from a City Councilmember. Mr. Lien explained after the Hearing Examiner holds the public hearing, the hearing is typically closed. Occasionally the Hearing Examiner will keep the hearing open to allow additional information. Once the public hearing is closed, no additional information may be raised. In the closed record review process, there are some exceptions that allow new information to be introduced such as information that was inadvertently left out. Under the current process, the only way the Hearing Examiner would hear additional information is following the closed record review the Council remanded the process back to the Hearing Examiner with the agreement of the applicant. Councilmember Tibbott asked about new information in the new process. Mr. Lien answered it would be the same under the new process. Once the Hearing Examiner closes the public hearing, that's it for the established record. With the new process, instead of a closed record review process at the City Council and potentially remanding to the Hearing Examiner, the City Council can ask for reconsideration. If the Council was not in a quasi-judicial role, once the Hearing Examiner issues his decision, the Council could request reconsideration within the first ten days. The Hearing Examiner considers the request for reconsideration and issues a decision on reconsideration. No new additional information would be provided to the Hearing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 5, 2019 Page 15 Packet Pg. 217 8.3.p Examiner and the next step would be an appeal. Councilmember Tibbott clarified no new information would be introduced but the Council could request reconsideration on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Lien explained the way the code is written, whoever requests the Council file an appeal should have also requested reconsideration. The thought process was the applicant has exhausted all their administrative remedies. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the Council would be requesting reconsideration, not the applicant. Mr. Lien said under the new process, the Council is a POR and any POR can request reconsideration and can appeal. Councilmember Tibbott observed after the decision on reconsideration, it would theoretically go to judicial appeal. Mr. Lien agreed, should a majority of Council choose to do that. Council President Fraley-Monillas appreciated hearing Councilmembers, Mr. Lien and Mr. Taraday's opinions. However, she has a different opinion after doing this for nine years and so far there have been no issues with the Council hearing closed record reviews, no more hiccups than with any other process. She said it was nice to hear that Councilmembers want to get involved in citizen land disputes and disputes in general. However, she was more interested in being an advocate for citizens so they have a place to go if they do not agree with the Hearing Examiner's decision. She understood the proposed process, but she disagreed having lived through it and preferred the Council maintain its current role. Councilmember Nelson said the quasi-judicial hearing process exists in the State of Washington at many levels, probably the most well-known is the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). The GMHB does extensive rulings in land use planning and is required by law to be comprised of at least three elected city or county officials. Although the City's process may be imperfect and frustrating, there is accountability. The Hearing Examiner is not elected; judges are elected, Councilmembers are elected. It is important that the Council be held accountable for its decisions which the Hearing Examiner is not. Citizens should have the best access possible and the existing process works. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO HAVE THE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS REMAIN INTACT WHICH MEANS NOT APPROVING OR EVEN DISCUSSING THESE CHANGES ANY FURTHER. Councilmember Teitzel raised a point of order. The Council is missing one Councilmember tonight. This is a very important issue to the City and has direct bearing on how the Council supports its constituents. He said the absent Councilmember Johnson deserved a say so there was full Council vote on such an important issue. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO TABLE THE ISSUE UNTIL COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON CAN PARTICIPATE IN PERSON OR BY PHONE. Council President Fraley-Monillas questioned whether a motion to table was appropriate. Mr. Taraday advised it was. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TIED (3-3) COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, MESAROS, AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Mr. Taraday advised this was a procedural vote so the Mayor could vote to break a tie. MAYOR EARLING VOTED YES, AND THE MOTION CARRIED (4-3). Council President Fraley-Monillas said she will schedule this on an agenda when the seventh Councilmember is available and has been briefed and updated. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 5, 2019 Page 16 Packet Pg. 218 8.3.p Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, asking whether the vote on a motion to table required a supermajority. Mr. Taraday said a motion to table does not require a super majority vote. The Mayor can vote to break a tie on any non -ordinance and any resolution that not involve the payment of money. A vote on a procedural matter is an appropriate use of the Mayor's tie -breaking power. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 2. PSRC VISION 2050 PLANNING PROCESS Development Services Director Shane Hope Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties part of PSRC. • Vision 2040 4 Vision 2050 o A strong economy and a healthy environment o Preserve waters, farms, recreation and resource lands o Urban Growth Area and centers strategy o Local actions to achieve regional VISION • 2050 Population Forecast o The long-range forecast is for continued growth ■ The region is projected to grow by about 1.8 million people between 2017 and 2050 ■ The region is projected to add about 1.2 million jobs between 2017 and 2050 • Who will be living here? o In 2050, the region's residents will be: ■ Older - 18% of the region's population will be over the age of 65 by 2050, up from 14% today ■ More diverse - Between 2000 and 2016, 81 % of the region's population growth was people of color ■ In smaller households - In 2050 there will be 2.36 people per household on average, down from 2.50 today SEPA Environmental Review o Environmental Process ■ Vision 2050 SEPA Process ■ Final EIS issued for Vision 2040 - Spring 2008 ■ Scoping for Supplemental EIS - Spring 2018 ■ Process to select alternatives - Fall 2018 ■ Issue Draft SEIS, comment period - March 2019 ■ Select preferred alternative - Spring 2019 ■ Issue draft VISION 2050 Plan - Summer 2019 ■ Issue Final SEIS, adopt VISION 2050 - Spring 2050 Scoping: What PSRC Heard o Housing supply and affordability top concerns o Growth strategy should be achievable and reflect known trends o Address climate, access to jobs, equity, and health o Revisit the role of urban unincorporated areas o Perspectives on implementation ■ Need accountability and incentives to implement ■ Strategy should provide local flexibility Growth Alternatives o Stay the Course ■ Compact growth focused in Metropolitan and Core cities with regional growth centers - Maintains current adopted strategy - Largest shares of growth to Metropolitan cities of Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Bremerton and Tacoma Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 5, 2019 Page 17 Packet Pg. 219 9.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/23/2019 Fund Balance / Reserve Policy Discussion Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Scott James Background/History The City Council Finance Committee last reviewed the draft Fund Balance Policy on March 12, 2019. Here are the key takeaways: Finance Committee has the opinion that the Risk Management Reserve can be discontinued and balance of the Risk Management Reserve can be combined with the General Fund. The chart below shows use of Risk Management funds over the past five years. Ultimately, after Council discusses this as a study item, it will need to be brought back to Council for a formal vote to either keep or discontinue the fund. Prior Five Year of Risk Management Fund Expe History % of General Fund Revenue Year Expenditures Description of Use Budget 2018 $0 None Expended 0.0% 2017 581,277 Clans Settlement 0.2% 2016 SO None Expended 0.0% 2015 571,528 Claim Settlement 0.2% 2014 $0 None Expended 0.0% There was consensus we need clearer financial policies to guide us as we move forward, especially with regard to fund balance and reserves. MRSC recommends reserves of at least 16% of operating expenses. There is currently a fairly wide range of reserve levels in nearby cities. Each city needs to consider how much risk they are willing to take as they establish reserve levels. Those that have stable revenue streams are prone to take more risk by maintaining reserve levels below 16% while those with greater revenue volatility have a more conservative approach and maintain reserves higher than that level. Attached to this Agenda Memo is a Fund Balance Reserve Policy Summary From Other Cities. There was agreement we need to keep our policies as simple as possible, recognizing there is a need for at enough detail to inform future administrators and Councilmembers of terminology and the need for certain reserve funds. The Committee agreed our policies should strive to maintain sufficient reserve levels to sustain city operations during economic downturns or natural disasters while not being excessive, as we don't want to create a "dead money" situation. The essential thing here is for Council to come to agree on what we believe is "sufficient" for reserve levels. Packet Pg. 220 9.1 The updated draft policy now calls for a total combined fund reserves not to exceed 20% of the Adopted General Fund Operating Revenue Budget. The 20% fund balance target shall 1) not exceed the limitations set forth by RCW 35A.33.145, which sets the statutory maximum at $0.375 per $1,000 of assessed valuation and 2) when combined with the General Fund Operating Reserve, the two fund balance reserves shall not exceed 20% of the General Fund's Adopted Annual Revenue Operating Budget. In other words, if the General Fund Operating Reserve balance equals 16% of operating budget, then the Contingent Reserve Fund balance cannot exceed 4% of the operating budget The current Fund Balance policy does not incorporate Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Pronouncement No.54. This pronouncement mandates the inclusion of Fund Balance Classifications in the City's Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The attachment includes a summary of this Pronouncement. Please see attachment: GASB 54 Fund Balance Classifications Summary. Staff Recommendation Review Amended policy, provide feedback and recommendations. Narrative <Type or insert text here> Attachments: Which Finance Policies Work Best It Depends GFOA Fund Balance Guidelines for the General Fund GASB 54 Fund Balance Classifications Summary 2019 April 23rd Council Fund Balance Presentation Reserve Policy Packet Pg. 221 MRSC - Which Financial Policies Work Best? 'It Depends.' Page I of 4 9.1.a �MRSC Local Government Success Which Financial Policies Work Best? 'It Depends.' April 26, 2017 by Mike Bailey Category: Finance Advisor, Finance Policies I was preparing a presentation on financial management recently and was reminded of a concept that has been reinforced to me many times over the years. For purposes of this blog post, I'll call it the 'It Depends' concept. I first gave some thought to this idea some time ago when I was involved in a discussion on what the right level of fund balance should be for local governments. This discussion occurred in the Committee on Budgeting and Financial Management for the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). The most common question GFOA regularly got from its 19,000 members was "what is the right level of fund balance for local government?" and the answer, in its entirety, was "it depends." That was all — an "it depends" followed by a "thank you for asking!" Fortunately, we soon realized that while "it depends" was the right answer, it was also totally unsatisfying. Real GFOA members, who worked with real councils / boards seeking to adopt meaningful financial policies, wanted more. So the budget committee went on to provide some additional guidance around the "it depends" answer. The current GFOA best practice has since evolved into different aspects on the fund balance question. There are published best practice documents on Fund Balance in the General Fund and Working Capital in Enterprise Funds. Essentially, the general guidance is to maintain at least two months of fund balance or working capital — but, of course, it depends. Different Strokes for Different Folks So, why do I think that "it depends" is the right answer? As pointed out in the GFOA's best practice documents on the topic, each government's context will be different. Our economies are different, our sources of revenues are different, our habits and practices are different. These differences are what makes local government an interesting and challenging place to work. Packet Pg. 222 http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/May/Best-Financial-Policy-It-Depend... 5/18/2017 MRSC - Which Financial Policies Work Best? 'It Depends.' Page 2 of 4 9.1.a No one set of answers will always (or ever) apply to the challenges and opportunities that we are confronted with. But these differences also need to be taken into account when we determine the best policies for our specific jurisdiction. Have a Conversation I also like this answer because it gets at the heart of what makes for the best policy guidance: Before a meaningful policy can be developed, a good conversation needs to occur. This conversation should be informed by such things as the best practice guidance mentioned above, your own past experiences, a review of the issues and influences that may come into play, and other elements. A discussion of this nature allows participants to interact with data, advice, experience, their own ideas, and the ideas of others. Thoughtful discussion allows best policy guidance to emerge, to be documented, and then, to be adopted by the legislative body. This is a great way to start a budget process. Take a look at the policies you've adopted (or maybe should still adopt) and consider if these continue to provide the best 'guardrails' to guide your local government into the future. Have the conversation! Beyond Fund Balance The "it depends" concept extends beyond fund balance. There are many, many areas where it is important to provide policy guidance for an organization to work effectively together and make progress over time. There is a tension inherent in these discussions that should be recognized as part of the discussion. Too much policy control will limit the flexibility of the staff to function as efficiently as possible. Too little control may enable administrative action that is outside the bounds of what the legislative (policy) body would prefer. Finding that happy medium between efficiency and preferred behavior will only occur through a thoughtful discussion. Potential Discussions Examples of potential discussions resulting in good policy guidance include: Purchasing limits —At what points do procurement of goods and services require council / board approval? Fees and charges —Who has what authority for setting fees in your organization? What are the goals in fee setting: cost recovery, equity, accessibility? Grants —Who can apply for grants? Are there any priorities for which grants to pursue? Where is responsibility for grant compliance? Investments —Who is authorized to invest public funds? What are the goals of the program? What investments are permissible? Balanced budgets —Is cash forward, or fund balance, available as a revenue to balance budgets? Capital expenditures —What is the capitalization threshold? What qualifies for a capital project in the budget: cost and life of the resulting asset? In each of these examples it can be very helpful to know the right answer before confronted with the challenge. The 'right' answer will be different from one local government to another. Therefore some discussion will be necessary to arrive at the best answer for your entity. Packet Pg. 223 http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/May/Best-Financial-Policy-It-Depend... 5/18/2017 MRSC - Which Financial Policies Work Best? 'It Depends.' Page 3 of 4 9.1.a Fortunately, in the public sector we can benefit from each other's experiences. The MRSC website has many good examples of financial policies adopted by various local governments (and is a great place to start). However, at the end of the day, the best financial policies for your jurisdiction can only be determined after a good conversation. That is because the answer to any of these questions is - "It depends." Not sure what the right financial policies are for your jurisdiction? MRSC has just launched a new series of online resources to help you develop policies and procedures that are tailored to your jurisdiction's needs. We've focused on five key areas in particular: • Asset management • Cost allocation • Debt • Fund balance/reserves • Investments For each area, we provide key questions to consider as well as links to best practices and examples from local jurisdictions in Washington. We can't give you the right answer — like Mike says, "it depends" — but we can help you ask the right questions to get there! About Mike Bailey Mike Bailey writes for MRSC as a Finance Advisor. Mike Bailey is currently the Finance Director for the city of Redmond. Previously he worked as Administrator of Finance and Information Services for the city of Renton and as the Director of Finance for the city of Lynnwood. Mr. Bailey also served as president of the Washington Finance Officers Association and is the Vice Chair of the GFOA Budget Committee. An experienced CPA and GFOA budget reviewer, Mr. Bailey co-founded the annual Budget and Fiscal Management Workshops held each summer. Mr. Bailey conducts numerous workshops and has authored various articles on local government finance, including Effective Budgeting in Washington State Cities published by the Association of Washington Cities. The views expressed in Advisor columns represent the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those ofMRSC. VIEW ALL POSTS BY MIKE BAILEY / Leave a Comment - Comments Packet Pg. 224 http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/May/Best-Financial-Policy-It-Depend... 5/18/2017 MRSC - Which Financial Policies Work Best? 'It Depends.' Page 4 of 4 9.1.a 0 comments on Which Financial Policies Work Best? 'It Depends.' Blog post currently doesn't have any comments. © 2015 MRSC of Washington. All rights reserved. Privacy & Terms. Packet Pg. 225 http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/May/Best-Financial-Policy-It-Depend... 5/18/2017 Government Finonce Officers Associotion Fund Balance Guidelines for the General Fund Type: Best Practice Background: In the context of financial reporting, the term fund balance is used to describe the net position of governmental funds calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Budget professionals commonly use this same term to describe the net position of governmental funds calculated on a government's budgetary basis.' While in both cases fund balance is intended to serve as a measure of the financial resources available in a governmental fund; it is essential that differences between GAAP fund balance and budgetary fund balance be fully appreciated. GAAP financial statements report up to five separate categories of fund balance based on the type and source of constraints placed on how resources can be spent (presented in descending order from most constraining to least constraining): nonspendable fund balance, restricted fund balance, committed fund balance, assigned fund balance, and unassigned fund balance.' The total of the amounts in these last three categories (where the only constraint on spending, if any, is imposed by the government itself) is termed unrestricted fund balance. In contrast, budgetary fund balance, while it is subject to the same constraints on spending as GAAP fund balance, typically represents simply the total amount accumulated from prior years at a point in time. The calculation of GAAP fund balance and budgetary fund balance sometimes is complicated by the use of sub -funds within the general fund. In such cases, GAAP fund balance includes amounts from all of the subfunds, whereas budgetary fund balance typically does not. Often the timing of the recognition of revenues and expenditures is different for purposes of GAAP financial reporting and budgeting. For example, encumbrances arising from purchase orders often are recognized as expenditures for budgetary purposes, but never for the preparation of GAAP financial statements. The effect of these and other differences on the amounts reported as GAAP fund balance and budgetary fund balance in the general fund should be clarified, understood, and documented. It is essential that governments maintain adequate levels of fund balance to mitigate current and future risks (e.g., revenue shortfalls and unanticipated expenditures) and to ensure stable tax rates. In most cases, discussions of fund balance will properly focus on a government's general fund. Nonetheless, financial resources available in other funds should also be considered in assessing the adequacy of unrestricted fund balance in the general fund. Recommendation: GFOA recommends that governments establish a formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance that should be maintained in the general fund for GAAP and budgetary purposes.' Such a guideline should be set by the appropriate policy body and articulate a framework and process for how the government would increase or decrease the level of unrestricted fund balance over a specific time Packet Pg. 226 period.' In particular, governments should provide broad guidance in the policy for how resources will be directed to replenish fund balance should the balance fall below the level prescribed. Appropriate Level. The adequacy of unrestricted fund balance in the general fund should take into account each government's own unique circumstances. For example, governments that may be vulnerable to natural disasters, more dependent on a volatile revenue source, or potentially subject to cuts in state aid and/or federal grants may need to maintain a higher level in the unrestricted fund balance. Articulating these risks in a fund balance policy makes it easier to explain to stakeholders the rationale for a seemingly higher than normal level of fund balance that protects taxpayers and employees from unexpected changes in financial condition. Nevertheless, GFOA recommends, at a minimum, that general-purpose governments, regardless of size, maintain unrestricted budgetary fund balance in their general fund of no less than two months of regular general fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures.' The choice of revenues or expenditures as a basis of comparison may be dictated by what is more predictable in a government's particular circumstances.' Furthermore, a government's particular situation often may require a level of unrestricted fund balance in the general fund significantly in excess of this recommended minimum level. In any case, such measures should be applied within the context of long-term forecasting, thereby avoiding the risk of placing too much emphasis upon the level of unrestricted fund balance in the general fund at any one time. In establishing a policy governing the level of unrestricted fund balance in the general fund, a government should consider a variety of factors, including: 1. The predictability of its revenues and the volatility of its expenditures (i.e., higher levels of unrestricted fund balance may be needed if significant revenue sources are subject to unpredictable fluctuations or if operating expenditures are highly volatile); 2. Its perceived exposure to significant one-time outlays (e.g., disasters, immediate capital needs, state budget cuts); 3. The potential drain upon general fund resources from other funds, as well as, the availability of resources in other funds; 4. The potential impact on the entity's bond ratings and the corresponding increased cost of borrowed funds; 5. Commitments and assignments (i.e., governments may wish to maintain higher levels of unrestricted fund balance to compensate for any portion of unrestricted fund balance already committed or assigned by the government for a specific purpose). Governments may deem it appropriate to exclude from consideration resources that have been committed or assigned to some other purpose and focus on unassigned fund balance, rather than on unrestricted fund balance. Use and Replenishment. The fund balance policy should define conditions warranting its use, and if a fund balance falls below the government's policy level, a solid plan to replenish it. In that context, the fund balance policy should: 1. Define the time period within which and contingencies for which fund balances will be used; 2. Describe how the government's expenditure and/or revenue levels will be adjusted to match any new economic realities that are behind the use of fund balance as a financing bridge; 3. Describe the time period over which the components of fund balance will be replenished and the means by which they will be replenished. Generally, governments should seek to replenish their fund balances within one to three years of use. Specifically, factors influencing the replenishment time horizon include: 1. The budgetary reasons behind the fund balance targets; 2. Recovering from an extreme event; 3. Political continuity; 4. Financial planning time horizons; Packet Pg. 227 5. Long-term forecasts and economic conditions; 6. External financing expectations. Revenue sources that would typically be looked to for replenishment of a fund balance include nonrecurring revenues, budget surpluses, and excess resources in other funds (if legally permissible and there is a defensible rationale). Year-end surpluses are an appropriate source for replenishing fund balance. Unrestricted Fund Balance Above Formal Policy Requirement. In some cases, governments can find themselves in a position with an amount of unrestricted fund balance in the general fund over their formal policy reserve requirement even after taking into account potential financial risks in the foreseeable future. Amounts over the formal policy may reflect a structural trend, in which case governments should consider a policy as to how this would be addressed. Additionally, an education or communication strategy, or at a minimum, explanation of large changes in fund balance is encouraged. In all cases, use of those funds should be prohibited as a funding source for ongoing recurring expenditures. Committee: Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting Governmental Budgeting and Fiscal Policy Notes: 1. For the sake of clarity, this recommended practice uses the terms GAAP fund balance and budgetary fund balance to distinguish these two different uses of the same term. 2. These categories are set forth in Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions. 3. Sometimes restricted fund balance includes resources available to finance items that typically would require the use of unrestricted fund balance (e.g., a contingency reserve). In that case, such amounts should be included as part of unrestricted fund balance for purposes of analysis. 4. See Recommended Practice 4.1 of the National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting governments on the need to "maintain a prudent level of financial resources to protect against reducing service levels or raising taxes and fees because of temporary revenue shortfalls or unpredicted one-time expenditures" (Recommended Practice 4.1). 5. In practice, a level of unrestricted fund balance significantly lower than the recommended minimum may be appropriate for states and America's largest governments (e.g., cities, counties, and school districts) because they often are in a better position to predict contingencies (for the same reason that an insurance company can more readily predict the number of accidents for a pool of 500,000 drivers than for a pool of fifty), and because their revenues and expenditures often are more diversified and thus potentially less subject to volatility. 6. In either case, unusual items that would distort trends (e.g., one-time revenues and expenditures) should be excluded, whereas recurring transfers should be included. Once the decision has been made to compare unrestricted fund balance to either revenues and/or expenditures, that decision should be followed consistently from period to period. Packet Pg. 228 9.1.c GASB 54 Fund Balance Classifications Summar The objective of this Statement is to enhance the usefulness of fund balance information by providing clearer fund balance classifications that can be more consistently applied and by clarifying the existing governmental fund type definitions. This Statement establishes fund balance classifications that comprise a hierarchy based primarily on the extent to which a government is bound to observe constraints imposed upon the use of the resources reported in governmental funds. The initial distinction that is made in reporting fund balance information is identifying amounts that are considered nonspendable, such as fund balance associated with inventories. This Statement also provides for additional classification as restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned based on the relative strength of the constraints that control how specific amounts can be spent. The restricted fund balance category includes amounts that can be spent only for the specific purposes stipulated by constitution, external resource providers, or through enabling legislation. The committed fund balance classification includes amounts that can be used only for the specific purposes determined by a formal action of the government's highest level of decision -making authority. Amounts in the assigned fund balance classification are intended to be used by the government for specific purposes but do not meet the criteria to be classified as restricted or committed. In governmental funds other than the general fund, assigned fund balance represents the remaining amount that is not restricted or committed. Unassigned fund balance is the residual classification for the government's general fund and includes all spendable amounts not contained in the other classifications. In other funds, the unassigned classification should be used only to report a deficit balance resulting from overspending for specific purposes for which amounts had been restricted, committed, or assigned. Governments are required to disclose information about the processes through which constraints are imposed on amounts in the committed and assigned classifications. Governments also are required to classify and report amounts in the appropriate fund balance classifications by applying their accounting policies that determine whether restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned amounts are considered to have been spent. Disclosure of the policies in the notes to the financial statements is required. This Statement also provides guidance for classifying stabilization amounts on the face of the balance sheet and requires disclosure of certain information about stabilization arrangements in the notes to the financial statements. How the Changes in This Statement Will Improve Financial Reporting The requirements in this Statement will improve financial reporting by providing fund balance categories and classifications that will be more easily understood. Elimination of the reserved component of fund balance in favor of a restricted classification will enhance the consistency between information reported in the government -wide statements and information in the governmental fund financial statements and avoid confusion about the relationship between reserved fund balance and restricted net assets. The fund balance classification approach in this Statement will require governments to classify amounts consistently, regardless of the fund type or column in which they are presented. As a result, an amount cannot be classified as restricted in one fund but unrestricted in another. The fund balance disclosures will give users information necessary to understand the Packet Pg. 229 9.1.c processes under which constraints are imposed upon the use of resources and how those constraints may be modified or eliminated. The clarifications of the governmental fund type definitions will reduce uncertainty about which resources can or should be reported in the respective fund types. Nonsoendable Fund Balance The nonspendable fund balance classification includes amounts that cannot be spent because they are either (a) not in spendable form or (b) legally or contractually required to be maintained intact. The "not in spendable form" criterion includes items that are not expected to be converted to cash, for example, inventories and prepaid amounts. It also includes the long-term amount of loans and notes receivable, as well as property acquired for resale. However, if the use of the proceeds from the collection of those receivables or from the sale of those properties is restricted, committed, or assigned, then they should be included in the appropriate fund balance classification (restricted, committed, or assigned), rather than nonspendable fund balance. The corpus (or principal) of a permanent fund is an example of an amount that is legally or contractually required to be maintained intact. Restricted Fund Balance Net Assets Restricted by Enabling Legislation, should be reported as restricted fund balance. Fund balance should be reported as restricted when constraints placed on the use of resources are either: a. Externally imposed by creditors (such as through debt covenants), grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments; or Imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation. Enabling legislation, as the term is used in this Statement, authorizes the government to assess, levy, charge, or otherwise mandate payment of resources (from external resource providers) and includes a legally enforceable requirement that those resources be used only for the specific purposes stipulated in the legislation. Legal enforceability means that a government can be compelled by an external party — such as citizens, public interest groups, or the judiciary —to use resources created by enabling legislation only for the purposes specified by the legislation. Committed Fund Balance Amounts that can only be used for specific purposes pursuant to constraints imposed by formal action of the government's highest level of decision -making authority should be reported as committed fund balance. Those committed amounts cannot be used for any other purpose unless the government removes or changes the specified use by taking the same type of action (for example, legislation, resolution, ordinance) it employed to previously commit those amounts. The authorization specifying the purposes for which amounts can be used should have the consent of both the legislative and executive branches of the government, if applicable. Committed fund balance also should incorporate contractual obligations to the extent that existing resources in the fund have been specifically committed for use in satisfying those contractual requirements. In contrast to fund balance that is restricted by enabling legislation, as discussed above, amounts in the committed fund balance classification may be redeployed for other purposes with appropriate due process, as explained below. Constraints imposed on the use of committed amounts are imposed by the government, separate from the authorization to raise the underlying revenue. Packet Pg. 230 9.1.c The formal action of the government's highest level of decision -making authority that commits fund balance to a specific purpose should occur prior to the end of the reporting period, but the amount, if any, which will be subject to the constraint, may be determined in the subsequent period. Assiened Fund Balance Amounts that are constrained by the government's intent to be used for specific purposes, but are neither restricted nor committed, should be reported as assigned fund balance, except for stabilization arrangements, as discussed below. Intent should be expressed by (a) the governing body itself or (b) a body (a budget or finance committee, for example) or official to which the governing body has delegated the authority to assign amounts to be used for specific purposes. Both the committed and assigned fund balance classifications include amounts that have been constrained to being used for specific purposes by actions taken by the government itself. However, the authority for making an assignment is not required to be the government's highest level of decision - making authority. Furthermore, the nature of the actions necessary to remove or modify an assignment is not as prescriptive as it is with regard to the committed fund balance classification. Constraints imposed on the use of assigned amounts are more easily removed or modified than those imposed on amounts that are classified as committed. Some governments may not have both committed and assigned fund balances, as not all governments have multiple levels of decision -making authority. Unassigned Fund Balance Unassigned fund balance is the residual classification for the general fund. This classification represents fund balance that has not been assigned to other funds and that has not been restricted, committed, or assigned to specific purposes within the general fund. The general fund should be the only fund that reports a positive unassigned fund balance amount. Stabilization Arraneements Some governments formally set aside amounts for use in emergency situations or when revenue shortages or budgetary imbalances arise. Those amounts are subject to controls that dictate the circumstances under which they can be spent. Many governments have formal arrangements to maintain amounts for budget or revenue stabilization, working capital needs, contingencies or emergencies, and other similarly titled purposes. The authority to set aside those amounts generally comes from statute, ordinance, resolution, charter, or constitution. Stabilization amounts may be expended only when certain specific circumstances exist. The formal action that imposes the parameters for spending should identify and describe the specific circumstances under which a need for stabilization arises. Those circumstances should be such that they would not be expected to occur routinely. For example, a stabilization amount that can be accessed "in an emergency" would not qualify to be classified within the committed category because the circumstances or conditions that constitute an emergency are not sufficiently detailed, and it is not unlikely that an "emergency" of some nature would routinely occur. Similarly, a stabilization amount that can be accessed to offset an "anticipated revenue shortfall" would not qualify unless the shortfall was quantified and was of a magnitude that would distinguish it from other revenue shortfalls that occur during the normal course of governmental operations. Packet Pg. 231 9.1.c Fund Balance Classification Policies and Procedures Governments should disclose the following about their fund balance classification policies and procedures in the notes to the financial statements: a. For committed fund balance: (1) the government's highest level of decision -making authority and (2) the formal action that is required to be taken to establish (and modify or rescind) a fund balance commitment b. For assigned fund balance: (1) the body or official authorized to assign amounts to a specific purpose and (2) the policy established by the governing body pursuant to which that authorization is given Governments that establish stabilization arrangements, should disclose the following information in the notes to the financial statements: a. The authority for establishing stabilization arrangements (for example, by statute or ordinance) b. The requirements for additions to the stabilization amount C. The conditions under which stabilization amounts may be spent d. The stabilization balance, if not apparent on the face of the financial statements. Minimum Fund Balance Policies If a governing body has formally adopted a minimum fund balance policy (for example, in lieu of separately setting aside stabilization amounts), the government should describe in the notes to its financial statements the policy established by the government that sets forth the minimum amount. Packet Pg. 232 9.1.d Fund Balance / Reserve Policy ; . /1C IS9V ➢ Introduce draft amendments to the City's Fund Balance / Reserve Policy ➢ Quick overview of current policy ➢ Overview of factors considered for draft Fund Balance / Reserve Policy ➢ Council Feedback & Q & A Packet Pg. 233 9.1.d Fund Balance / Reserve Policy a, . /1C IS9V ➢ Current Policy Calls For 2 Reserves: 1) General Fund Reserve — Target 8 — 16% 2) Risk Management — Target 2% ➢ The amended policy calls for a total of 20% with 16% coming from the General fund and the remaining coming from Contingent Reserve ➢ Finance Committee recommends closing the Risk Management Fund into the General Fund Packet Pg. 234 9.1.d Fund Balance / Reserve Policy ; Factors to Consider When Setting Your Fund Balance Level ./1C l s9v m ➢ Incorporate GASB 54 Pronouncement IL Requiring Fund Balance Classifications ➢ RCW 35A.33.145 ➢ We will also review GFOXs Fund Balance Best Practice guidelines ➢ Look at City's Past Experience ➢ Look at a summary of other City's fund balance targets -- 11 Packet Pg. 235 09M ➢ RCW 35A.33.145 Fund Creation. 9.1.d Fund Balance / Reserve Policy Factors to Consider When Setting Your Fund Balance Level N (continued) established authority for Contingency 3 LL ➢ This RCW allows us to create a Contingency Reserve Fund to: ➢ Meet any municipal expense which could not have been foreseen or reasonably ➢ And to provide moneys for those emergencies ➢ The total amount accumulated in such fund shall not exceei the equivalent of thirty-seven and one-half cents per thousand dollars of assessed property valuation ➢ Per this RCW, in 2019, we could have up to 8.6% for a Contingency Reserve 14 Packet Pg. 236 9.1.d Fund Balance / Reserve Policy. Factors to Consider When Setting Your Fund Balance Level y ./1C I s9v ➢ GFONs Fund Balance Guidelines for General Fund (continued) 0 U c the ➢ GFOA recommends that each government needs to consider their own unique circumstances Packet Pg. 237 . /1C I s9v 9.1.d Fund Balance / Reserve Policy Factors to Consider When Setting Your Fund Balance Level y (continued) m U c ➢ GFOA recommends a fund balance reserve of no U- less then two months of regulargeneral fund M operating revenue or operating expenditures a ➢ "The choice of revenues or expenditures as a basis of comparison maybe dictated by what is more predictable" ➢ GFOA recommends that we should consider a variety of factors when establishing a level of unrestricted fund balance Packet Pg. 238 9.1.d Fund Balance / Reserve Policy Factors to Consider When Setting Your Fund Balance Level N (continued) 1. The predictability of our revenues and the volatility of our expenditures. ➢ GFOA states higher levels may be needed if revenues or expenses are unpredictable or volatile 2.Our perceived exposure to significant one-time outlays, e.g., disasters, state budget cuts, or immediate capital needs 3. The potential drain upon the general fund from other funds 4. The potential impact on the entity's bond rating __ 7 Packet Pg. 239 ./1C l s9v 9.1.d Fund Balance / Reserve Policy. Factors to Consider When Setting Your Fund Balance Level y (continued) m U c ➢ Past — experiences Duringlast recession p 1. Lost Revenues - EMS Levy, Sales Tax & Development Related Revenues 2. Impacts to City Services as 21 positions were laid off during the last recession & staff furloughs 3. Stopped Street preservation Packet Pg. 240 9.1.d Fund Balance / Reserve Policy. Factors to Consider When Setting Your Fund Balance Level y ➢ Past experiences — Lost revenues during last recession Yearly Revenues Lost due to Recession $2,500,000 $2,000,000 — $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ■EMS ■ Sales Tax ■Development ■ State Shared Packet Pg. 241 P&I 9.1.d Fund Balance / Reserve Policy Factors to Consider When Setting Your Fund Balance Level N (continued) m c Past experiences — Lost revenues during last recession $14,000,000 $13,000,000 $12,000,000 $11,000,000 $10,000,000 $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 Cumulative Revenues Lost due to Recession 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 in Packet Pg. 242 s11 C. I s9v P02- 9.1.d Fund Balance / Reserve Policy Factors to Consider When Setting Your Fund Balance Level N (continued) m c Past experiences — Lost revenues during last recession RECESSION REVENUE LOSS SUMMARY ITEM 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Totals Revenue (Decreaes) EMS Levy Taxes (376,864) (637,976) (957,283) (1,081,985) (803,399) (466,862) (170,091) (4,494,4, Sales Tax Revenue (690,485) (1,116,862) (1,074,620) (852,614) (535,347) (113,797) (4,383,7: Development Related Revenues (323,945) (883,206) (846,083) (658,734) (835,229) (505,645) (4,052,8, State Shared Revenues 1 1 (59,231) (32,746) (118,580) (106,047) (59,231) (375,8: Total Revenues (Lost) 1 (1,014,429) (2,000,068) (2,297,567) (2,208,555) (2,360,605) (1,820,007) (909,446) (526,093) (170,091) (13,306,81 11 Packet Pg. 243 . /1C 18ym 9.1.d Fund Balance / Reserve Policy Factors to Consider When Setting Your Fund Balance Level y (continued) m U c Past experiences — staff reductions, furloughs, delayed preservation of streets O EXPENDITURE REDUCTION SUMMARY ITEM 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Totals Expenditure Reductions Reductions in Labor 78,701 659,518 659,518 1,542,622 1,515,068 2,539,340 1,752,764 1,176,558 282,778 10,206,E '2011 Furlough Days 430,000 430,C Cut in Supplies 53,362 53,3 Cut in Services 187,335 187,3 Cut in Intergov't 738,025 738,C Cut in Capital 30,000 30,C Cuts in Transfers 268,317 1 400,888 1 1 1 669,2 Total Expenditures Cuts $78,701 $659,518 $659,518 $3,062,326 1 $2,103,291 1 $2,539,340 1 $1,752,764 1 $1,176,558 $282,778 $12,314; ii 19 Packet Pg. 244 ./1C I s9m 9.1.d Fund Balance / Reserve Policy. Factors to Consider When Setting Your Fund Balance Level y Approximate Reserve Policies in Neighboring Cities (continued) m U - c 30% 28% 20% 17% 15% 15% 12% 12% 12% 10% 10% 8% — - 0% - 21% 22% 22% 19% 20% 20% - . . Packet Pg. 245 ./1C IS9V 9.1.d Fund Balance / Reserve Policy Recommendations m U c cc ➢ Current Policy Calls For 2 Reserves: LL 1) General Fund Reserve — Target 8 — 16% ..W d 2) Risk Management — Target 2% a ➢ The amended policy calls for a total of 20% - with 16% coming from the General fund and the remaining coming from Contingent Reserve ➢ Finance Committee recommends closing the Risk Management Fund into the General Fund JA Packet Pg. 246 ./1C IS9V 9.1.d Fund Balance / Reserve Policy Discussing the Right Level of Fund Balance ➢ Analysis / Recommendation Reserve ➢ Committee Recommends closing the Risk Management Fund into the General Fund ➢ Discuss Fund Balance Levels ➢ Questions and Answers 0 c m 3 LL 1 -r; Packet Pg. 247 9.1.e 1.0 2.0 3.0 Subject: Reserve Policy CITY OF EDMONDS RESERVE POLICY Original Policy Date: Originating Department: Finance Division Last Revision Date: PURPOSE: To establish a Reserve Policy for the City which is capable of addressing the various types (categories) of the City's operating and restricted use funds. The objectives of this Policy are to (i) provide a clear understanding of the goals and objectives of reserve establishment, (ii) offer guidance and limitations regarding the establishment, use and replenishment of City reserves, and (iii) establish a process for periodic reporting and review of City reserves. ORANANIZATION AFFECTED: All City funds. REFERENCES: GENERAL FUND RESERVE POLICY: The General Fund is used to account for all general revenues of the City not specifically levied or collected for other City funds, and for expenditures related to providing general services by the City. For the purpose of this policy and as it applies to the General Fund only, the City will establish a Contingency Reserve Fund with a minimum balance of 8% of annual General Fund revenues. At no time, however, shall the balance in the Contingency Reserve Fund fall below 8% unless specifically waived by the City Council because of an unforeseen emergency. The City shall maintain a targeted balance of 16% of annual General Fund revenues. 4.1 If actual expenditures in the General Fund are less than budgeted expenditures, and the General Fund does not end the year at a deficit, at least 5% of the difference between actual revenue and actual expenditures will revert to the Contingency Reserve Fund and may then be re -appropriated at the discretion of the City Council. 4.2 The City will annually direct a minimum of 5% of sales tax receipts from new construction (NAICS Industry Classification Code 23) to the Contingency Reserve Fund, up to $100,000 per year. Packet Pg. 248 9.1.e 4.3 Total annual transfers to the Contingency Reserve Fund shall not be more than 125% of the amounts calculated in Sections 4.0, 4.1 and 4.2 above. Once funded up to the 16% target, there shall be no limitation on the maximum annual contribution to the Contingency Reserve Fund. 4.4 Use of Contingency Reserve Fund — To the extent that there is an imbalance in the General Fund between budgeted revenues and budgeted expenditures, City Council and administration will strive to address the imbalance first with revenue increases, expenditure reductions, or a combination of the two. Use of the Contingency Reserve Fund is a one-time, non -recurring funding source. If an imbalance in the General Fund occurs that cannot be addressed with additional revenues or expenditure reductions, a multiyear plan shall be developed to address the imbalance concurrently with the planned reserve draw down of the Contingency Fund. The implementation of the replenishment plan will be done in accordance with the guidelines below (see "Replenishment of Reserves"). A planned draw down of the fund's reserves should: a) not exceed 50% of the balance in the Contingency Reserve Fund, and b) not reduce the reserve below 4% of annual General Fund revenues. 4.5 Replenishment of Reserves — The following criteria will be used to restore the Contingency Reserve Fund based upon the remaining fund balance compared to the minimum reserve guideline: 1. If the reserves are drawn down by 25-50% of reserve fund balance, then a budgetary plan shall be implemented to return the reserve level to between 75% and 100% of the minimum balance over a 5 to 7 year period. 2. If the reserves are drawn down by 10-25% of reserve fund balance, then the budgetary plan to restore the reserve shall be structured over a 3 to 5 year period. 3. If the reserves are drawn down by 0-10% of reserve fund balance, then a solution to replenish to at least the minimum shall be structured over a 1 to 3 year period. 4.6 Annual Status Reporting and Periodic Review — Annually, after presentation of the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the Finance Director will prepare and present an updated Reserve Level Status report by August 1 st of the following year. 4.7 At least every five years, the Mayor, based on advice from the Finance Director, will ask the City Council to reaffirm or revise this policy, including the percentages established herein. 2 Packet Pg. 249 9.1.e 5.0 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE POLICY: 5.1. The City shall maintain a Risk Management Reserve Fund dedicated to mitigation of the risk of loss arising from potential claims and lawsuits against the City for general liability purposes as well as claims resulting from natural disasters such as earthquakes. Amounts not needed for current or estimated future claims will be made available along with the Contingency Reserve Fund in Section 4 for unanticipated expenditures or significant declines in actual revenue versus budgeted revenue. 5.2. The Risk Management Reserve Fund shall be set at 2% of annual General Fund revenues. The City shall reach the target of 2% no later than fiscal year 2014. 5.3. Legal claims expenses incurred below the City's insurance deductible amounts will be paid for out of the Risk Management Reserve Fund. Uninsured legal claim expenses will also be deducted from the Risk Management Reserve Fund. 5.4. Use of the Risk Management Reserve Fund — A draw down of the fund's reserves should: a) not exceed 50% of the balance in the Risk Management Reserve Fund, and b) not reduce the reserve below 0.5% of annual General Fund revenues. Council may grant exceptions to this limitation on draw down of reserves at its discretion. Any exception granted will be adopted as part of the City's annual budgeting process. 5.5. Replenishment of Reserves — The following criteria will be used to restore the Risk Management Reserve Fund based upon the remaining fund balance compared to the minimum reserve guideline: 1. If the reserves are drawn down by 25-50% of reserve fund balance, then a budgetary plan shall be implemented to return the reserve level to between 75% and 100% of the minimum balance over a 3 to 5 year period. 2. If the reserves are drawn down by 10-25% of reserve fund balance, then the budgetary plan to restore the reserve shall be structured over a 2 to 3 year period. 3. If the reserves are drawn down by 0-10% of reserve fund balance, then a solution to replenish to at least the minimum shall be structured over a 1 to 2 year period. 5.6. The City Council may, at their discretion and as necessary, transfer funds between the Contingency Reserve Fund and the Risk Management Reserve Fund. Once the two reserve funds are fully funded up to the minimum levels as established within this policy, at no time will the combined balances of both funds decline below 8% of annual General Fund revenues without adopting of a replenishment plan. Packet Pg. 250 9.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/23/2019 Preliminary December 2018 Quarterly Financial Report Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Sarah Mager Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation No action needed; informational only. Narrative Preliminary December 2018 Quarterly Financial Report Attachments: Complete Preliminary December 2018 Quarterly Financial Report December 2018 Quarterly Financial Report Packet Pg. 251 9.2.a INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Revenues By Fund Summary Expenditures By Fund Summary General Fund Revenues Expenditures By Fund Detail Gen. Fund Depart- ment Expenditures Investment Portfolio Fund Balance Overview Home prices in the Seattle area dropped faster than in any other area of the country for a three month period in 2018, according to a November 27 story in the Seattle Times. 1 Summary of Operating Funds: Revenues 12 The Financial Management Report is a summary of the City's preliminary operating results for 2018. Revenue Highlights: Overall preliminary City-wide rev- enues are ahead of last year at this time by $2.9 million (a 3.5% in- crease —page 1), and General Fund revenues of $41.5 million are $2.0 million ahead of the budget forecast of $39.5 million (page 17). Overall City-wide Retail Sales & Use Tax Revenues are ahead of last year at this time by $1,011,182 (page 3) and at $8.4 million are 13.7% ahead of the 2018 budget forecast (page 19). Revenues by Category: General Fund revenues for 2018 are higher than 2017 in the categories of Taxes, Intergovernmental, Charges for Goods and Services, Fines and Forfeitures, and other miscellaneous revenues. General Fund revenues are lower than last year only in the cate- gory of Licenses and Permits, which currently is running 3.5% lower ($2.54 million compared to $2.45 million) than last year. • 2018 REET Revenues are $810K or 28.0% ahead of forecast, and actual revenues are 20.3% ahead of actual receipts for 2017. The Senior Center's Thrift Store closed on Decem- ber 14 and moved to Westgate Shopping Center. This marked the first step in preparing to demolish the Senior Center, to be replaced by a new Water- front Center being built in 2019-2020. A more detailed breakdown of infor- mation for General Fund revenues can be found beginning on page 3. Revenues for Special Revenue Funds not including the REET funds are $79K or 1 % behind last year. The two funds whose revenues are significantly be- hind last year are the Street Fund and the Street Construction Fund. Com- bined, these two funds have 3.2% less revenue than last year. These are pre- liminary numbers only; final numbers will change due to Grant accruals made during the year-end closing process. Preliminary Financial Management Report as of December Packet Pg. 252 9.2.a As Summary of Operating Funds: Expenditures ' Although preliminary 2018 Gen- eral Fund expenditures are $1.6 million (4.1 %) higher than 2017, they come in a full $3.9 million Right: The City Council passed the I (8.7%) under the budgeted 2019 City of Ed- amount, demonstrating fiscal re- monds Budget, cap- sponsibility and careful spending ping off a months- I by City staff. By comparison, for long budget process the full 12 months of 2017 Gen - that culminated in eral Fund expenditures also came Council approval on I in at a very respectable $2.0 mil - December 11. lion (6.8%) under budget. Below: On Novem- ber 27, Governor Jay Inslee an- nounced that the downtown area of Edmonds has been designated Wash- ington State's first Certified Creative District. The pro- gram, launched in January 2018 by the Washington State Arts Commission, helps communities throughout the state grow their local economies through the arts and culture. I General Fund expenses by sub - fund and line item categories are on page 6 and expenses by depart- ment are on pages 13-16. These schedules show that every depart- ment in the General Fund finished I the year under budget. This same information can be found in graphical form on pages 23-31. • Compared to last year, Special I Revenue Funds expenditures are $1.29 million lower than last year ($9.26 million compared to I$10.55 million). This decrease is mostly due to a year -over -year spending decrease of $924 thou- sand in the Street Construction Fund, and a $344 thousand de- crease in spending out of the REET funds. WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION Compared to budget, Special Revenue Fund expenditures came in $2.8 million (23.1 %) under budget. The bulk of this was due to putting off REET-funded capital projects; spending in the REET funds came in $2.5 million less than planned. Ad- ditional Special Revenue Fund d'tu ' f Total Fund Balances for the Govern- mental Funds at December 31, 2018 is $30.97 million. This represents an in- crease over reported fund balances of $27.1 million at December 31, 2017; $25.5 million at December 31, 2016; and $23.5 million at December 31, 2015. The largest fund balances in the operating funds are in the General Fund ($18.7 million), the REET 1 and REET 2 Funds ($4.8 million) and the Parks Capital Construction Fund ($2.2 million). Other Highlights During the Year • Edmonds earned the Association of Washington Cities designation as a "Well City" for the second year in a row. expen i rem or- mation can be found on pages 6-8. mill we�'(city Edmonds ' Wellness�� Financial Management Report as of December Packet Pg. 253 9.2.a Page 1 of 1 C ITY O F IDMO NDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2018 Amended 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 Amount No. Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Receives 001 GENERAL FUND $ 39,518,239 $ 39,588,929 $ 41,513,893 $ (1,995,654) 105 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 285,650 283,858 283,093 2,557 99 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 19,180 17,523 23,777 (4,597) 124 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 64,750 81,422 563,502 (498,752) 870 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,170 5,151 5,232 (62) 101 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE - 399,329 - - 0 017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND 300,000 - 309,178 (9,178) 103 018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND 250,000 250,000 - 100 019 EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND 250,000 - 250,000 - 100 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 130,560 45,221 98,518 32,042 75 111 STREET FUND 1,784,270 2,058,566 1,944,675 (160,405) 109 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 3,866,003 4,794,662 4,689,820 (823,817) 121 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 149,808 99,787 106,230 43,578 71 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 400 351 480 (80) 120 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 87,960 90,605 92,231 (4,271) 105 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 25,640 32,705 33,162 (7,522) 129 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 850 1,877 1,528 (678) 180 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 30,520 31,199 37,137 (6,617) 122 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1 1,446,880 1,537,990 1,847,099 (400,219) 128 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 1 1,448,300 1,541,810 1,857,983 (409,683) 128 127 GIFTSCATALOGFUND 53,810 30,603 70,168 (16,358) 130 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND - 753 - - 0 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 180,170 202,585 218,290 (38,120) 121 136 PARKSTRUST FUND 3,150 2,985 4,107 (957) 130 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 33,360 35,589 44,015 (10,655) 132 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,170 7,245 10,517 (347) 103 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 84,238 89,567 (89,567) 0 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL . 14,400 - - 14,400 0 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 708,700 695,321 708,191 509 100 332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 2 1,621,977 684,746 929,947 692,030 57 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - - 148,008 (148,008) 0 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 3 9,660,690 9,032,071 9,525,115 135,575 99 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 3 5,317,996 4,197,209 4,767,811 550,185 90 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 4 11,917,843 13,601,302 11,560,045 357,798 97 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,991,530 1,988,690 1,991,491 39 100 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,624,640 1,890,986 1,724,670 (100,030) 106 512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 1,268,390 960,768 1,275,697 (7,307) 101 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 69,690 69,425 66,413 3,277 95 $ 84,140,696 $ 84,095,499 $ 87,041,591 $ (2,900,895) 103' Differences primarily due to a $418,216 deposit in total for Real Estate Excise Taxin 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 rac,ecei Pg. 254 I 9.2.a I Page 1 of 1 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2018 Amended 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 Amount No. Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent 001 GENERAL FUND $ 44,718,826 $ 39,194,856 $ 40,806,007 $ 3,912,819 91% 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 427,438 410,725 366,799 60,639 86% 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND - 81,277 - - 0% 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 5 49,584 - 544,456 (494,872) 1098% 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,400 5,400 - 5,400 0% 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE - 97,118 - - 0% 018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND 25,000 - 24,557 443 98% 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 103,252 49,458 112,198 (8,946) 109% 111 STREET FUND 1,856,507 1,741,508 1,707,390 149,117 92% 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 3,979,638 4,955,733 4,032,196 (52,558) 101% 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 183,892 58,643 70,774 113,118 38% 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 90,550 102,546 85,330 5,220 94% 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,880 26,728 25,663 1,217 95% 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 2,200 1,375 1,905 295 87% 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 29,700 55,461 26,772 2,928 90% 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2,733,000 1,919,230 1,503,319 1,229,681 55% 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 2,740,436 1,375,418 1,447,164 1,293,272 53% 127 GIFTSCATALOGFUND 70,900 27,938 41,581 29,319 59% 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND - 39,535 - - 0% 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 213,509 160,090 195,091 18,418 91% 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,500 6,023 10,039 461 96% 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 6 - 92,880 106,964 (106,964) 0% 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 16,450 16,450 5,500 10,950 33% 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 708,700 695,321 708,191 509 100% 332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,346,881 305,380 268,790 2,078,091 11% 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 13,490,028 10,301,113 11,732,172 1,757,856 87% 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 7,011,013 4,224,885 4,861,287 2,149,726 69% 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 14,838,853 15,491,661 12,287,644 2,551,209 83% 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,991,520 1,988,684 1,991,484 36 100% 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,670,082 1,859,640 1,131,577 538,505 68% 512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 1,335,413 714,607 1,191,307 144,107 89% 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 75,218 67,641 75,195 23 100% $ 100,751,370 $ 86,067,322 $ 85,361,353 $15,390,017 85% 5 2018 Expenditures includes interfund loans to 104 for $52,006 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. 255 I 9.2.a I Page 1 of 3 CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2018 Amended 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 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 ILITY TAX SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX WATER UTILITY TAX SEWER UTILITY TAX ST ORMW AT ER UTILITY TAX T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX PULLTABSTAX AMUSEMENT GAMES LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX LICENSES AND PERMITS: 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/FRONT IER 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: DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE STATE GRANT FROM OTHER JUDICIAL SOURCES DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT STATE GRANTS- BUDGET ONLY WATERFRONT ANALYSIS GRANT SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DOE 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 INTERLOCAL REVENUE INTERLOCAL GRANTS VERDANT INT ERLOCAL GRANTS FIRST RESPONDERS FLEX FUND POLICE TRAINING CLASSES DISCOVERY PROGRAMS TECHNOLOGY ACQ. $ 10,367,860 $ 10,213,223 $ 10,365,676 $ 2,184 100% 4,027,540 3,956,624 3,973,464 54,076 99% 2,500 15,167 3,094 (594) 124% 7,275,000 7,395,114 8,406,296 (1,131,296) 116% 7,140 9,441 5,191 1,949 73% 730,000 707,862 761,371 (31,371) 104% 1,611,600 1,693,313 1,687,183 (75,583) 105% 620,200 686,531 604,722 15,478 98% 321,600 334,191 352,998 (31,398) 110% 1,201,100 1,228,927 1,144,644 56,456 95% 769,800 694,870 713,256 56,544 93% 406,200 364,927 374,172 32,028 92% 867,200 868,950 810,085 57,115 93% 1,093,200 1,076,870 972,813 120,387 89% 56,600 53,103 52,939 3,661 94% 40 777 - 40 0% 263,600 236,510 277,965 (14,365) 105% 29,621,180 29,536,400 30,505,872 (884,692) 103% 250 335 475 (225) 190% 300 770 870 (570) 290% 330 - - 330 0% 6,330 6,325 5,950 380 94% 50,000 52,964 51,071 (1,071) 102% 721,000 730,530 681,819 39,181 95% 42,600 40,248 41,638 962 98% 105,500 105,604 105,747 (247) 100% 18,600 13,904 7,220 11,380 39% 263,800 323,198 364,174 (100,374) 138% 121,600 99,293 116,364 5,237 96% 64,940 77,667 77,366 (12,426) 119% 69,000 71,500 67,900 1,100 98% 12,000 22,955 101,606 (89,606) 847% 715,600 905,602 722,906 (7,306) 101% 24,500 27,676 26,206 (1,706) 107% 40,000 42,691 57,985 (17,985) 145% 14,500 18,449 22,243 (7,743) 153% 2,270,850 2,539,711 2,451,541 (180,691) 108% 7,930 11,118 4,535 3,395 57% 4,181 1,030 4,181 0 100% 8,602 8,226 8,602 (0) 100% 3,729 3,092 3,729 (0) 100% - - 1,812 (1,812) 0% - - 17,347 (17,347) 0% 3,623 - 3,623 (0) 100% 18,000 - - 18,000 0% - 10,000 - - 0% - - 2,558 (2,558) 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 11,143 74,522 (50,822) 314% 3,000 6,198 6,099 (3,099) 203% 203,000 197,143 208,580 (5,580) 103% 350,600 345,313 341,877 8,723 98% 2,500 - - 2,500 0% - 35,000 35,000 (35,000) 0% 2,000 2,000 5,810 (3,810) 291% 7,114 - 2,844 4,270 40% - 300 - - 0% - - 2,190 (2,190) 0% 909,185 899,288 1,007,874 (98,689) 111% ' 2018 Real Personal/Property Tax Revenues are $152,454 higher than 2017 revenues 2018 Local Retail Sales/Use Tax revenues are $1,011,183 higher than 2017 revenues Please also see pages rac,ecei Pg. 256 I 9.2.a I Page 2 of 3 Title 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 CURREXPEN 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 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/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 LOCKER 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 2018 Amended 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 Amount Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received 2,500 4,019 5,167 (2,667) 207% 400 537 629 (229) 157% 10,000 10,915 12,411 (2,411) 124% - - 43 (43) 0% 579 87 (87) 0% 400 246 157 243 39% - 53 - 0% 775 6,123 (6,123) 0% - 271 1,238 (1,238) 0% 300 238 112 188 37% 100 36 70 30 70% 25,100 25,090 25,090 10 100% 600 559 573 27 95% 1,000 953 1,375 (375) 138% 4,000 2,428 69 3,931 2% 200,000 416,959 249,427 (49,427) 125% - - 1,486 (1,486) 0% 78,000 82,902 92,739 (14,739) 119% 23,000 21,950 21,570 1,430 94% 33,235 32,598 33,235 0 100% 66,280 14,381 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% - - 2,077 (2,077) 0% 48,600 49,585 55,140 (6,540) 113% - - 100 (100) 0% 3,000 2,704 1,908 1,092 64% 15,560 23,139 18,175 (2,615) 117% 4,500 3,779 3,846 654 85% 826,000 828,041 1,051,172 (225,172) 127% 2,500 2,547 3,082 (582) 123% 250 55 45 205 18% 80,250 124,171 134,456 (54,206) 168% 443,000 458,206 366,471 76,529 83% 8,000 12,720 9,785 (1,785) 122% 1,600 1,646 1,017 583 64% 5,000 10,050 8,290 (3,290) 166% 14,000 17,390 17,700 (3,700) 126% 11,460 11,459 12,869 (1,409) 112% 12,000 13,335 12,815 (815) 107% - 30 - - 0% 910,100 825,641 843,742 66,358 93% 1,300 1,504 830 470 64% 6,000 5,100 6,965 (965) 116% 1,250 1,030 845 405 68% 2,043,950 2,386,421 2,639,675 (595,725) 129% 4,994,835 5,507,868 5,790,806 (795,971) 116% 4 Packet Pg. 257 1 9.2.a Page 3 of 3 CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2018 Amended 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received FINES AND PENALTIES: PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 5,000 4,851 5,894 (894) 118% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 215,000 216,333 270,991 (55,991) 126% NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 34,000 33,829 28,616 5,384 84% , CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 20,700 23,015 30,279 (9,579) 146% NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 400 1,000 4,000 (3,600) 1000% OTHERINFRACTIONS'04 3,400 2,544 970 2,430 29% PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 48,000 71,609 160,710 (112,710) 335% PARK/INDDISZONE 2,600 1,954 1,577 1,023 61% DWI PENALTIES 6,000 8,458 7,212 (1,212) 120% DUI - DP ACCT 2,000 1,648 752 1,248 38% CRIM CNV FEE DUI 200 170 142 58 71 % DUI - DP FEE - 176 2,099 (2,099) 0% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 135 260 96 39 71% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 36,000 33,446 32,003 3,997 89% 1 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT 2,600 2,488 3,685 (1,085) 142% CRIM CONV FEE CT 1,600 1,547 899 701 56% OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 100 32 38 62 38% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 9,300 8,729 13,206 (3,906) 142% COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 600 570 960 (360) 160% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN 1,100 1,257 1,408 (308) 128% CRIM CONV FEE CN 500 456 523 (23) 105% CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS - 7,859 - - 0% , PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 18,500 16,787 18,123 377 98% BANK CHARGE FOR CONY. DEFENDANT 6,000 8,996 12,877 (6,877) 215% COURT COST RECOUPMENT 5,000 - 5,688 (688) 114% COURT INTERPRETER COSTS - 246 - - 0% BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 11,000 9,630 12,310 (1,310) 112% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 2,000 2,040 1,725 275 86% 431,735 459,929 616,783 (185,048) 143% MISCELLANEOUS: • INVESTMENT INTEREST 156,840 122,707 163,855 (7,015) 104% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 7,130 11,722 22,228 (15,098) 312% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 6,500 6,187 8,467 (1,967) 130% LOAN INTEREST - - 1,282 (1,282) 0% PARKING 15,600 17,942 4,062 11,538 26% SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS 147,000 128,769 145,177 1,823 99% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 5,000 4,840 2,100 2,900 42% LEASESLONGTERM 185,000 182,969 191,404 (6,404) 103% 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% j 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% PARKS GRANTS- PRIVATE SOURCES - 1,030 - - 0% POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES 13,600 58,428 13,013 587 96% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 300 4,945 408 (108) 136% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 3,000 2,353 2,567 433 86% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 2,000 - - 2,000 0% OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 2,000 31,468 - 2,000 0% POLICE JUDGMENT SiRESTITUTION 200 99 130 70 65% CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES - 276 46 (46) 0% OTHER MISC REVENUES 652,000 21,656 445,266 206,734 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% 1 US BANK REBATE 7,500 7,827 8,708 (1,208) 116% 1,214,570 612,291 1,044,290 170,280 86% 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 FUND 127 26,300 26,300 26,300 - 100% 75,884 33,443 96,727 (20,843) 127% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $ 39,518,239 $ 39,588,929 $ 41,513,893 $ (1,995,654) 105% 5 Packet Pg.258 I 9.2.a I Page 1 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2018 Amended 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 15,519,046 $ 14,233,337 $ 14,606,968 $ 912,078 94% OVERTIME 611,294 576,741 710,559 (99,265) 116% HOLIDAY BUY BACK 243,389 201,476 200,268 43,121 82% BENEFITS 6,173,952 5,586,670 5,749,441 424,511 93% UNIFORMS 88,785 74,707 79,888 8,897 90% SUPPLIES 386,249 371,241 399,340 (13,091) 103% SMALL EQUIPMENT 59,896 75,248 102,721 (42,825) 171% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,999,065 2,967,593 2,978,492 1,020,573 74% COMMUNICATIONS 166,585 147,756 151,403 15,182 91% TRAVEL 55,330 48,511 52,110 3,220 94% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 4,820 5,718 782 88% RENTAL/LEASE 1,988,447 1,701,796 1,980,205 8,242 100% INSURANCE 624,530 616,495 437,253 187,277 70% UTILITIES 457,800 513,093 523,444 (65,644) 114% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 726,713 241,761 359,115 367,598 49% MISCELLANEOUS 518,692 300,842 362,456 156,236 70% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 9 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES LAND BUILDINGS MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL OTHERINTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE(009) BENEFITS PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) MISCELLANEOUS CONTINGENCY RESERVEFUND (012) INTERFUND SUBSIDIES INTERFUND LOAN 10 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 INTEREST ON INTERFUND LOAN 9,901,462 9,911,131 9,581,803 319,659 97% 695,000 70,000 441,873 253,127 64% 1,863,370 1,262,703 1,800,213 63,158 97% 200,000 - 4,884 195,116 2% 83,000 - - 83,000 0% 151,721 90,573 80,159 71,562 53% 176,340 170,160 176,324 16 100% 500 222 218 282 44% 21,160 27,979 21,152 9 100% 44,718,826 39,194,856 40,806,007 3,912,819 91% $ 184,000 $ 148,068 $ 153,044 $ 30,956 83% 236,158 253,428 210,393 25,765 89% 7,000 8,828 2,962 4,038 42% 280 400 400 (120) 143% 427,438 410,725 $ 366,799 60,639 86% $ - $ 81,277 $ - $ - 0% - 81,277 - 0% 49,584 $ - $ 49,584 $ - 100% - - 494,872 (494,872) 0% 49,584 544,456 (494,872) 1098% $ 100 $ - $ $ 100 0% 200 - 200 0% 5,100 5,400 5,100 0% 5,400 5,400 5,400 0% $ - $ 3,931 $ - $ - 0 - 44,132 - - 0% - 27,689 - - 0% 21,367 - - 0% - 97,118 - - 0% $ 25,000 $ - $ 24,557 $ 443 98% 25,000 - 24,557 $ 443 98% $ 3,000 $ 2,001 $ $ 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 41,642 111,902 (39,680) 155% - - 296 (296) 0% 103,252 49,458 112,198 (8,946 109% Short-term loan to the ECA for a roof/equipment project. 10 2018 E-Venditures includes interfund loans to 104 for $52,006 and to 112 for $442,866. 6 Packet Pg. 259 1 9.2.a Page 2 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2018 Amended 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining % Spent S TREEf FUND (111) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 551,495 $ 519,755 $ 497,390 $ 54,105 90% OVERTIME 24,400 29,914 27,582 (3,182) 113% BENEFITS 286,892 270,940 251,354 35,538 88% UNIFORMS 6,000 3,711 3,136 2,864 52% SUPPLIES 310,000 229,749 243,397 66,603 79% SMALL EQUIPMENT 20,000 11,054 5,580 14,420 28% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16,050 19,193 11,791 4,259 73% COMMUNICATIONS 4,500 7,506 7,276 (2,776) 162% TRAVEL 1,000 - - 1,000 0% RENTAL/LEASE 187,150 181,931 188,096 (946) 101% INSURANCE 113,230 110,508 156,645 (43,415) 138% UTILITIES 273,170 272,803 280,483 (7,313) 103% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 28,387 27,887 17,113 62% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 2,697 1,229 6,771 15% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 5,000 5,324 933 4,067 19% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 43,427 - - 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 3,970 3,900 3,968 2 100% INTEREST 650 709 644 7 99% COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE(112) INTERFUND LOAN - PRINCIPAL PAYMENT SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE INTERFUND SUBSIDIES LAND MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST ON INTERFUND LOAN 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 EMPLOYEEPARKING PERMIT FUND (121) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) MISCELLANEOUS TO URIS M PRO MO TIO NAL FUND/ARTS (123) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS $ 1,856,507 $ 1,741,508 $ 1,707,390 $ 149,117 92% $ - $ - $ 415,984 $ (415,984) 0% - 15,383 18,138 (18,138) 0% - 672 - - 0% - 6,409 11,626 (11,626) 0% - 10,222 - - 0% 365,918 1,199,754 426,285 (60,367) 116% 300,000 (20,519) 201,026 98,974 67% 237,910 40,711 128,346 109,564 54% 25,000 - 10,500 14,500 42% - - - - 0% 2,975,900 3,627,865 2,742,491 233,409 92% 72,220 72,201 72,201 19 100% - - 2,925 (2,925) 0% 2,690 3,035 2,674 16 99% $ 3,979,638 $ 4,955,733 $ 4,032,196 $ (52,558) 101% $ 4,900 $ 4,013 $ 4,493 $ 407 92% 1,700 902 1,490 210 88% 168,312 49,567 59,963 108,349 36% 80 35 9 71 11% 2,000 - - 2,000 0% 300 - - 300 0% 6,600 4,127 4,819 1,781 73% $ 183,892 $ 58,643 $ 70,774 $ 113,118 38% $ 86,300 $ 97,846 $ 81,330 $ 4,970 94% 250 700 - 250 0% 4,000 4,000 4,000 - 100% $ 90,550 $ 102,546 $ 85,330 $ 5,220 94% $ 1,790 $ 1,638 $ 573 $ 1,217 32% 25,090 25,090 25,090 - 100% $ 26,880 $ 26,728 $ 25,663 $ 1,217 95% $ 2,200 $ 1,375 $ 1,905 $ 295 87% $ 2,200 $ 1,375 $ 1,905 $ 295 87% $ 28,200 $ 51,806 $ 25,309 $ 2,891 90% 1,500 3,655 1,464 36 98% $ 29,700 $ 55,461 $ 26,772 $ 2,928 90% 7 Packet Pg. 260 I 9.2.a I Page 3 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2018 Amended 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX (125) SUPPLIES $ 21,000 $ 54,963 $ 29,407 $ (8,407) 140% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 65,040 452,586 153,615 (88,575) 236% UTILITIES - 1,649 - - 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 600,000 305,000 391,886 208,114 65% BUILDINGS 150,000 - - 150,000 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 5,074 - - 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,896,960 1,099,959 928,411 968,549 49% $ 2,733,000 $ 1,919,230 $ 1,503,319 $ 1,229,681 55% REAL ESTATEEXCISETAX 1, PARKS ACQ (126) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE INTERFUND SUBSIDIES LAND MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS INTEREST OTHERINTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS GIFPS CATALOG FUND (127) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS INTERFUND SUBSIDIES SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129) 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 IIVIPROVEVIENTDISTRICT FUND (140) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS LID FUND CONTROL (211) INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND INTEREST OT HER INT EREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS $ - $ 18,722 $ - $ - 0% 160,555 237,232 224,635 (64,080) 140% 1,031,762 519,742 733,238 298,524 71% 135,130 142,325 135,125 5 100% - 43,201 - - 0% - 5,074 - - 0% 216,720 - 216,720 - 100% 1,169,419 382,224 110,523 1,058,896 9% 23,100 22,701 23,100 0 100% 3,750 4,125 3,746 4 100% - 72 77 (77) 0% $ 2,740,436 $ 1,375,418 $ 1,447,164 $ 1,293,272 53% $ 37,500 $ 1,638 $ 15,127 $ 22,373 40% 6,500 - - 6,500 0% 600 - 154 446 26% 26,300 26,300 26,300 - 100% $ 70,900 $ 27,938 $ 41,581 $ 29,319 59% $ - $ 39,535 $ - $ 0% $ - $ 39,535 $ - $ - 0% $ 91,711 $ 74,427 $ 84,488 $ 7,223 92% 3,500 3,526 2,998 502 86% 38,253 35,095 38,399 (146) 100% 1,000 - 675 325 67% 22,995 7,037 17,620 5,375 77% 20,000 10,704 24,472 (4,472) 122% 4,200 6,712 1,934 2,266 46% 1,410 1,376 1,562 (152) 111% 500 - - 500 0% 11,640 10,790 11,640 - 100% 3,800 5,208 5,583 (1,783) 147% 500 - - 500 0% 14,000 5,215 5,719 8,281 41% $ 213,509 $ 160,090 $ 195,091 $ 18,418 91% $ 1,500 $ 390 $ 457 $ 1,043 30% 4,500 2,839 805 3,695 18% 4,500 2,794 8,776 (4,276) 195% $ 10,500 $ 6,023 $ 10,039 $ 461 96% $ - $ 6,042 $ 7,578 $ (7,578) 0% - 84,831 94,048 (94,048) 0% - 2,007 5,339 (5,339) 0% - 92,880 106,964 (106,964 0% $ 16,450 $ 16,450 $ 5,500 $ 10,950 33% $ 16,450 $ 16,450 $ 5,500 $ 10,950 33% $ 589,630 $ 565,444 $ 589,623 $ 7 100% 118,580 129,877 118,568 12 100% 490 - - 490 0% $ 708,700 $ 695,321 $ 708,191 $ 509 100% 8 Packet Pg. 261 I 9.2.a I Page 4 of 6 C ITY O F IDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2018 Amended 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (332) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 7,160 $ 89,146 $ 10,329 $ (3,169) 144% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 200,000 3,000 200,000 - 100% CONST RUCT ION PROJECTS 2,139,721 213,234 58,462 2,081,259 3% $ 2,346,881 $ 305,380 $ 268,790 $ 2,078,091 11% WATER FUND (421) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED 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 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 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 TAXES AND OP ERAT ING ASSESSMENT INTERFUND SUBSIDIES MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS $ 828,440 $ 736,913 $ 722,839 $ 105,601 87% 24,000 20,833 23,391 609 97% 392,984 345,434 355,722 37,262 91% 4,000 4,727 2,747 1,253 69% 220,000 140,699 157,416 62,584 72% - - 70 (70) 0% 1,800,000 1,803,521 1,806,142 (6,142) 100% 170,000 206,445 101,894 68,106 60% 11,000 6,115 2,564 8,436 23% 866,647 1,508,027 754,720 111,927 87% 30,000 29,829 28,045 1,955 93% 200 45 - 200 0% 400,000 433,540 467,555 (67,555) 117% 144,907 144,501 142,155 2,752 98% 56,050 58,214 56,738 (688) 101% 35,000 28,582 30,229 4,771 86% 239,500 387,983 160,261 79,239 67% 84,785 94,553 99,800 (15,015) 118% 30,000 38,184 37,799 (7,799) 126% 1,209,700 1,228,927 1,144,644 65,056 95% 644,620 642,016 644,615 5 100% 15,000 - - 15,000 0% 5,673,935 1,831,365 4,383,221 1,290,714 77% 2,670 2,619 2,665 5 100% 344,650 335,504 344,641 10 100% 25,840 25,839 25,839 1 100% 236,100 246,323 236,085 15 100% - 375 375 (375) 0% $ 13,490,028 $ 10,301,113 $ 11,732,172 $ 1,757,856 87% $ 677,138 $ 595,532 $ 651,195 $ 25,943 96% 6,000 12,578 10,838 (4,838) 181% 356,297 312,763 352,797 3,500 99% 6,500 5,689 5,725 775 88% 46,000 39,233 39,997 6,003 87% 4,000 6,873 642 3,358 16% 719,276 1,220,902 763,234 (43,958) 106% 3,200 5,453 4,622 (1,422) 144% 4,300 - 1,682 2,618 39% 55,000 59,416 65,444 (10,444) 119% 250,767 260,398 246,101 4,666 98% 71,540 72,028 178,798 (107,258) 250% 10,500 9,789 10,138 362 97% 15,000 52,858 22,790 (7,790) 152% 88,500 89,379 117,701 (29,201) 133% 150,000 118,354 126,229 23,771 84% 406,100 364,927 374,172 31,928 92% 298,500 279,445 284,667 13,833 95% 315,000 18,630 320,546 (5,546) 102% 3,099,815 272,299 856,266 2,243,549 28% 97,320 95,635 97,315 5 100% 168,360 163,993 168,357 3 100% 32,070 32,063 32,063 8 100% 129,830 136,480 129,803 27 100% - 165 165 (165) 0% $ 7,011,013 $ 4,224,885 $ 4,861,287 $ 2,149,726 69% 9 Packet Pg. 262 I 9.2.a I Page 5 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2018 Amended 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining '%Spent SEWER FUND (423) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 1,793,854 $ 1,676,647 $ 1,683,893 $ 109,961 94% OVERTIME 95,000 99,065 89,942 5,058 95% BENEFITS 821,233 768,089 816,877 4,356 99% UNIFORMS 9,500 7,466 6,759 2,741 71% SUPPLIES 432,200 235,852 338,447 93,753 78% FUEL CONSUMED 80,000 74,580 48,452 31,548 61% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE 4,000 2,989 3,853 147 96% SMALL EQUIPMENT 50,000 38,969 40,677 9,323 81% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,389,747 2,461,285 1,181,083 208,664 85% COMMUNICATIONS 43,000 40,657 61,384 (18,384) 143% TRAVEL 5,000 54 4,012 988 80% EXCISE TAXES 200,000 220,201 213,472 (13,472) 107% RENTAL/LEASE 310,809 302,604 317,377 (6,568) 102% INSURANCE 109,270 116,720 119,178 (9,908) 109% UTILITIES 1,217,860 1,154,616 978,111 239,749 80% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 695,000 469,632 590,141 104,859 85% MISCELLANEOUS 105,450 102,660 78,991 26,459 75% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 168,000 138,256 134,783 33,217 80% INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 763,000 694,870 713,256 49,744 93% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,681,935 2,624,635 1,423,790 258,145 85% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 85,000 148,743 152,491 (67,491) 179% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 4,300,205 3,632,853 2,811,609 1,488,596 65% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 148,140 145,273 148,126 14 100% REVENUE BONDS 77,010 75,503 77,003 7 100% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 171,890 171,230 171,872 18 100% INTEREST 81,750 82,276 76,403 5,347 93% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 5,939 5,662 (5,662) 0% $ 14,838,853 $ 15,491,661 $ 12,287,644 $ 2,551,209 83% BOND RESERVEFUND (424) REVENUE BONDS $ 710,020 $ 680,000 $ 710,000 $ 20 100% INTEREST 1,281,500 1,308,684 1,281,484 16 100% $ 1,991,520 $ 1,988,684 $ 1,991,484 $ 36 100% 10 Packet Pg. 263 I 9.2.a I Page 6 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2018 Amended 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 250,519 $ 235,126 $ 253,615 $ (3,096) 101% OVERTIME 2,000 48 - 2,000 0% BENEFITS 114,956 104,157 113,474 1,482 99% UNIFORMS 1,000 716 965 35 97% SUPPLIES 110,000 79,962 78,546 31,454 71% FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 - - 1,000 0% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 268,000 222,002 198,317 69,683 74% SMALL EQUIPMENT 58,000 69,068 6,184 51,816 11% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 44,000 54,752 3,184 40,816 7% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 2,314 2,289 711 76% TRAVEL 1,000 - 339 661 34% RENTAL/LEASE 9,780 14,995 9,378 402 96% INSURANCE 29,010 26,351 29,464 (454) 102% UTILITIES 14,000 12,886 13,058 942 93% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 60,000 58,471 36,746 23,254 61% MISCELLANEOUS 12,000 8,440 7,684 4,316 64% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 1,765 1,627 873 65% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - 10,450 - - 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 689,317 958,136 376,707 312,610 55% $ 1,670,082 $ 1,859,640 $ 1,131,577 $ 538,505 68% TEC HNO LO GY RENTAL FUND (512) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 283,742 $ 276,098 $ 279,463 $ 4,279 98% OVERTIME 2,000 30 1,632 368 82% BENEFITS 98,101 93,053 93,348 4,753 95% SUPPLIES 5,000 12,737 4,832 168 97% SMALL EQUIPMENT 23,000 57,582 91,572 (68,572) 398% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 203,300 27,163 164,846 38,454 81% COMMUNICATIONS 58,770 42,827 41,737 17,033 71% TRAVEL 1,500 (17) 412 1,088 27% RENTAL/LEASE 6,810 7,868 6,829 (19) 100% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 315,190 179,622 206,919 108,271 66% MISCELLANEOUS 5,000 17,643 9,757 (4,757) 195% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 333,000 - 289,960 43,040 87% $ 1,335,413 $ 714,607 $ 1,191,307 $ 144,107 89% FIRI MEN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFITS $ 23,000 $ 18,357 $ 21,453 $ 1,547 93% PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 51,018 48,062 53,203 (2,185) 104% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200 1,222 538 662 45% $ 75,218 $ 67,641 $ 75,195 $ 23 100% TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS $ 100,751,370 $ 86,067,322 $85,361,353 $15,390,017 85% 11 Packet Pg. 264 9.2.a Page 1 of 1 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY 2018 Amended 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 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 $ 580,919 $ 268,921 $ 431,443 $ 149,476 74% 297,088 273,638 290,735 6,353 98% 477,314 394,259 435,802 41,512 91% 1,105,852 987,572 995,468 110,384 90% 697,748 632,191 668,132 29,616 96% 1,237,786 1,046,698 1,058,030 179,756 85% 847,480 802,103 825,880 21,600 97% 14,267,661 12,721,004 12,987,585 1,280,076 91% 11,419,437 10,488,864 11,143,656 275,781 98% 597,661 549,794 585,222 12,439 98% 3,357,716 2,823,518 2,834,317 523,399 84% 4,411,972 3,884,744 3,914,341 497,631 89% 3,114,829 2,662,199 2,812,530 302,299 90% 2,305,363 1,659,351 1,822,864 482,499 79% $ 44,718,826 $ 39,194,856 $ 40,806,007 $ 3,912,819 91% C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY Title 2018 Amended Budget 12/31/2017 Expenditures 12/31/2018 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent WATER UTILITY FUND $ 13,490,028 $ 10,301,113 $ 11,732,172 $ 1,757,856 87% STORM UTILITY FUND 7,011,013 4,224,885 4,861,287 2,149,726 69% SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 14,838,853 15,491,661 12,287,644 2,551,209 83% BOND RESERVE FUND 1,991,520 1,988,684 1,991,484 36 100% $ 37,331,414 $ 32,006,342 $ 30,872,587 $ 6,458,827 83% w- A 12 Packet Pg. 265 I 9.2.a I Page 1 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title 2018 Amended Budget 12/31/2017 Expenditures 12/31/2018 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL SALARIES $ 169,808 $ 149,178 $ 165,870 $ 3,938 98% OVERTIME 1,000 - - 1,000 0% BENEFITS 119,687 93,903 93,954 25,733 78% SUPPLIES 2,000 1,079 1,216 784 61% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 285 15,773 (15,773) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 237,160 2,172 115,598 121,562 49% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 3,601 3,972 (972) 132% TRAVEL 6,700 1,323 2,347 4,353 35% RENTAL/LEASE 16,064 8,845 16,385 (321) 102% REPAIRSIMAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 25,000 8,535 16,329 8,671 65% $ 580,919 $ 268,921 $ 431,443 $ 149,476 74% OFFICEOFMAYOR SALARIES $ 208,326 $ 202,299 $ 208,986 $ (660) 100% BENEFITS 53,611 49,668 50,033 3,578 93% SUPPLIES 1,500 1,041 829 671 55% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000 1,582 1,943 57 97% COMMUNICATION 1,400 1,346 1,654 (254) 118% TRAVEL 4,000 2,121 1,973 2,027 49% RENTAL/LEASE 21,801 11,041 20,873 928 96% MISCELLANEOUS 4,450 4,539 4,444 6 100% $ 297,088 $ 273,638 $ 290,735 $ 6,353 98% HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES $ 249,577 $ 216,082 $ 230,564 $ 19,013 92% OVERTIME - 369 - - 0% BENEFITS 84,882 77,909 87,411 (2,529) 103% SUPPLIES 12,300 2,600 5,696 6,604 46% SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 1,818 - 300 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68,000 61,233 65,628 2,372 97% COMMUNICATIONS 700 1,223 1,228 (528) 175% TRAVEL 1,000 1,099 2,053 (1,053) 205% RENTAL/LEASE 25,525 22,280 27,516 (1,991) 108% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 7,850 7,056 7,326 524 93% MISCELLANEOUS AL, 27,180 2,590 8,381 18,799 31% $ 477,314 $ 394,259 $ 435,802 $ 41,512 91% MUNIC IPAL C O URT SALARIES $ 587,898 $ 577,923 $ 555,450 $ 32,448 94% OVERTIME 800 455 118 682 15% BENEFITS 245,141 228,482 214,600 30,541 88% SUPPLIES 9,600 22,136 7,414 2,186 77% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 4,098 283 717 28% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 91,925 87,836 100,170 (8,245) 109% COMMUNICATIONS 2,700 2,791 2,612 88 97% TRAVEL 6,500 1,861 3,979 2,521 61% RENTAL/LEASE 71,204 39,812 72,283 (1,079) 102% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 4,263 4,448 550 3,713 13% MISCELLANEOUS 14,000 17,730 38,010 (24,010) 271% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 70,821 - - 70,821 0% $ 1,105,852 $ 987,572 $ 995,468 $ 110,384 90% 13 Packet Pg. 266 1 I 9.2.a I Page 2 of 4 C ITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDTIURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DEr'AIL 2018 Amended 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent CITY C LERK SALARIES AND WAGES $ 345,266 $ 327,277 $ 354,800 $ (9,534) 103% OVERTIME - 180 578 (578) 0% BENEFITS 163,547 148,985 151,747 11,800 93% SUPPLIES 10,240 4,674 5,424 4,816 53% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,310 29,695 23,799 4,511 84% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 30,158 26,391 23,609 53% TRAVEL 1,000 368 522 478 52% RENTAL/LEASE 64,305 51,414 61,207 3,098 95% REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 31,080 31,111 35,292 (4,212) 114% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 8,329 8,372 (4,372) 209% $ 697,748 $ 632,191 $ 668,132 $ 29,616 96% FINANCE SALARIES $ 821,066 $ 686,431 $ 716,328 $ 104,738 87% OVERTIME 4,500 - 146 4,354 3% BENEFITS 284,724 237,293 229,485 55,239 81% SUPPLIES 7,350 5,968 5,367 1,983 1w 73% SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,400 1,612 3,981 1,419 74% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,300 34,266 1,462 7,838 16% COMMUNICATIONS 2,000 1,859 1,374 626 69% TRAVEL 3,100 2,654 4,408 (1,308) 142% RENTAL/LEASE 48,146 31,512 48,932 (786) 102% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 38,500 40,372 41,121 (2,621) 107% MISCELLANEOUS 13,700 4,732 5,425 8,275 40% $ 1,237,786 $ 1,046,698 $ 1,058,030 $ 179,756 85% CITY ATPO RNEY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 847,480 $ 802,103 $ 825,880 $ 21,600 97% $ 847,480 $ 802,103 $ 825,880 $ 21,600 97% NON -DEPARTMENTAL BENEFITS -UNEMPLOYMENT $ - $ 2,975 $ 25,510 $ (25,510) 0% SUPPLIES 5,000 5,127 6,709 (1,709) 134% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 724,544 610,247 497,072 227,472 69% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 4,820 5,718 782 88% RENTAL/LEASE 10,307 10,480 11,486 (1,179) 111% INSURANCE 624,530 616,495 437,253 187,277 70% MISCELLANEOUS 164,070 67,311 67,652 96,418 41% INTERGOVT SERVICES Akk 9,776,340 9,872,485 9,491,522 284,818 97% ECA LOAN PAYMENT 695,000 70,000 441,873 253,127 64% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,863,370 1,262,703 1,800,213 63,158 97% LAND 200,000 - 4,884 195,116 2% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 176,340 170,160 176,324 16 100% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 21,160 27,979 21,152 9 100% FISCAL AGENT FEES 500 222 218 282 44% $ 14,267,661 $ 12,721,004 $ 12,987,585 $ 1,280,076 91% 14 Packet Pg. 267 I 9.2.a I Page 3 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2018 Amended 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PO LIC E SERVIC FS SALARIES $ 6,560,766 $ 6,061,429 $ 6,276,212 $ 284,554 96% OVERTIME 574,194 525,621 661,498 (87,304) 115% HOLIDAY BUYBACK 243,389 201,476 200,268 43,121 82% BENEFITS 2,545,200 2,395,050 2,484,766 60,434 98% UNIFORMS 78,650 65,229 70,164 8,486 89% SUPPLIES 94,169 76,690 94,245 (76) 100% SMALL EQUIPMENT 32,346 29,846 50,283 (17,937) 155% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 123,420 91,026 116,842 6,578 95% COMMUNICATIONS 32,000 37,861 40,476 (8,476) 126% TRAVEL 19,310 22,867 26,002 (6,692) 135% RENTAL/LEASE 984,878 839,264 980,557 4,321 100% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 15,120 7,277 9,725 5,395 64% MISCELLANEOUS 47,545 33,886 62,566 (15,021) 132% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 10,550 10,771 10,770 (220) 102% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 57,900 90,573 59,284 (1,384) 102% $ 11,419,437 $ 10,488,864 $ 11,143,656 $ 275,781 98% COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECON DEV. SALARIES $ 238,449 $ 231,254 $ 235,708 $ 2,741 99% BENEFITS 76,571 71,152 72,795 3,776 95% SUPPLIES 7,000 6,485 6,812 188 97% SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 792 629 171 79% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 247,600 221,952 248,696 (1,096) 100% COMMUNICATIONS 1,490 1,196 1,359 131 91 % TRAVEL 2,000 2,347 1,958 42 98% RENTAL/LEASE 13,751 9,819 12,525 1,226 91% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 9,500 4,797 4,740 4,760 50% $ 597,661 S 549,794 $ 585,222 $ 12,439 98% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING SALARIES $ 1,623,298 $ 1,486,357 $ 1,491,395 $ 131,903 92% OVERTIME 1,300 16,820 21,911 (20,611) 1685% BENEFITS 625,023 544,072 562,782 62,241 90% UNIFORMS 500 - 742 (242) 148% SUPPLIES 16,100 13,482 12,165 3,935 76% SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,100 6,473 8,385 (2,285) 137% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 829,526 535,639 500,911 328,615 60% COMMUNICATIONS 9,000 8,285 8,736 264 97% TRAVEL 4,750 7,190 5,024 (274) 106% RENTAL/LEASE 156,959 148,629 156,410 549 100% REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 31,100 2,489 33,773 (2,673) 109% MISCELLANEOUS 54,060 54,081 32,084 21,976 59% $ 3,357,716 $ 2,823,518 $ 2,834,317 $ 523,399 84% ENGINEERING SALARIES $ 1,657,559 $ 1,437,644 $ 1,490,998 $ 166,561 90% OVERTIME 8,800 760 5,454 3,346 62% BENEFITS 710,496 595,489 609,622 100,874 86% UNIFORMS 360 - - 360 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,200 3,383 3,645 (1,445) 166% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,240 40,186 14,613 13,627 52% COMMUNICATIONS 16,625 13,044 15,120 1,505 91 % TRAVEL 600 45 624 (24) 104% RENTAL/LEASE 120,624 90,033 118,905 1,719 99% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 2,600 587 - 2,600 0% MISCELLANEOUS 52,677 17,733 49,101 3,576 93% $ 2,600,781 $ 2,198,904 $ 2,308,081 $ 292,700 89% 15 Packet Pg. 268 I 9.2.a I Page 4 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2018 Amended 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining % Spent PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES $ 2,048,165 $ 1,868,199 $ 1,883,756 $ 164,409 92% OVERTIME 10,000 23,659 13,978 (3,978) 140% BENEFITS 847,782 744,418 742,777 105,005 88% UNIFORMS 6,275 4,834 3,680 2,595 59% SUPPLIES 125,390 122,075 135,183 (9,793) 108% SMALL EQUIPMENT 7,750 15,464 12,308 (4,558) 159% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 595,160 434,952 415,879 179,281 70% COMMUNICATIONS 30,320 27,737 29,964 356 99% TRAVEL 4,870 5,819 2,417 2,453 50% RENTAL/LEASE 264,378 285,772 266,515 (2,137) 101% PUBLIC UTILITY 175,000 215,664 225,168 (50,168) 129% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 29,700 37,074 17,854 11,846 60% MISCELLANEOUS 92,610 71,202 64,476 28,134 70% 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 $ 3,884,744 $ 3,914,341 $ 497,631 89% PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES $ 279,248 $ 273,428 $ 276,077 $ 3,171 99% OVERTIME 200 - - 200 0% BENEFITS 92,055 87,663 97,893 (5,838) 106% SUPPLIES 8,600 4,432 4,530 4,070 53% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 - - 1,000 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 100 231 (31) 116% COMMUNICATIONS 1,350 702 689 661 51% TRAVEL 500 656 803 (303) 161% RENTAL/LEASE 122,195 92,761 121,028 1,167 99% PUBLIC UTILITY 2,800 2,535 2,668 132 95% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,000 109 - 1,000 0% MISCELLANEOUS 4,900 908 530 4,371 11% S 514,048 $ 463,295 S 504,449 $ 9,599 98% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES 729,620 715,836 720,825 8,795 99% OVERTIME 10,500 8,878 6,875 3,625 65% BENEFITS 325,233 309,610 326,067 (834) 100% UNIFORMS 3,000 4,644 5,302 (2,302) 177% SUPPLIES 87,000 105,453 113,751 (26,751) 131% SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,000 11,478 7,435 (4,435) 248% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 166,200 14,603 49,768 116,432 30% COMMUNICATIONS 16,000 17,953 17,826 (1,826) 111% TRAVEL 1,000 162 - 1,000 0% RENTAL/LEASE 68,310 60,133 65,583 2,727 96% PUBLIC UTILITY 280,000 294,894 295,608 (15,608) 106% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 564,500 111,238 213,475 351,025 38% MISCELLANEOUS 5,000 4,470 349 4,651 7% BUILDINGS 23,000 - - 23,000 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 23,000 - 23,000 0% $ 2,305,363 $ 1,659,351 $ 1,822,864 $ 482,499 79% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 44,718,826 $ 39,194,856 $ 40,806,007 $ 3,912,819 91 % 16 Packet Pg. 269 I 9.2.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund 2018 General Fund Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YrD Actuals Variance % January $ 1,989,457 $ 1,989,457 $ 2,195,035 10.33% February 4,784,202 2,794,745 4,464,993 -6.67% March 7,146,520 2,362,318 7,004,229 -1.99% April 10,858,961 3,712,441 9,270,240 -14.63% May 18,375,241 7,516,280 18,167,955 -1.13% June 20,448,130 2,072,889 21,117,777 3.27% July 22,491,156 2,043,026 23,448,404 4.26% August 24,825,849 2,334,693 26,213,586 5.59% September 26,868,814 2,042,965 28,584,102 6.38% October 29,672,421 2,803,606 30,903,967 4.15% November 37,330,965 7,658,545 39,281,270 5.22% December 39,518,239 2,187,274 41,513,893 5.05% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax 2018 Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 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 3,583,153 27.97% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 17 Packet Pg. 270 SALES TAX SUMMARY I 9.2.a I Sales Tax Analysis By Category Current Period: December 2018 Year -to -Date Total $8,406,296 Construction Trade, $1,804,883 Accommodation, $47,962 Clothing and Accessories, $244,814 Communications, $241,468 Wholesale Trade, $309,738 Misc Retail, $1,168,815 10,000, 000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 2013 287 Automotive Repair, Health & Personal Care, $191,884 Amusement & $235,902 I Recreation, $87,647 Business Services, $690,265 Gasoline, $35,957 Retail Food Stores, i $297,098 Retail Automotive, $1,770,393 Others, $155,487 Eating & Drinking, $1,021,386 Manufacturing, $102,598 Annual Sales Tax Revenue $8,406,296 $7,395,114 $6,741,838 $6,905,122 2016 2017 YTD 2018 18 Packet Pg. 271 I 9.2.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 8,406,296 15.55% City of'Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax 2018 Gas Utility Tax 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 58,785 604,722 -2.50% 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 CurrentYear Budget Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 19 Packet Pg. 272 I 9.2.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 6S2,808 84,766 S92,511 -9.24% August 740,812 88,004 670,052 -9.S5% 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 89,437 972,813 -11.01% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax 2018 Electric Utility Tax Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly 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 1,687,183 4.69% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 20 Packet Pg. 273 I 9.2.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 7,866,957 0.80% 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 3,998,887 -1.54% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. ZZ Packet Pg. 274 I 9.2.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales 2018 Unmeter Sewer Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals 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 7,713,349 1.10% Unmeter Sewer Sales 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 Yeaz Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 22 Packet Pg. 275 I 9.2.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund 2018 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 5,483,404 $ 5,483,404 $ 4,000,420 -27.04% February 8,036,729 2,553,325 7,074,254 -11.98% March 11,856,093 3,819,363 9,997,735 -15.67% April 15,849,509 3,993,416 13,366,102 -15.67% May 18,242,338 2,392,829 16,471,112 -9.71% June 22,173,009 3,930,671 20,515,429 -7.48% July 25,913,887 3,740,878 23,760,976 -8.31% August 29,965,512 4,051,624 26,305,714 -12.21% September 33,456,662 3,491,151 30,144,324 -9.90% October 36,344,762 2,888,100 33,456,258 -7.95% November 40,515,428 4,170,666 36,775,353 -9.23% December 44,718,826 4,203,398 40,806,007 -8.75% 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 12,987,585 -8.97% Non -Departmental 16,000,000 14,000,000 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 —0-- Current Year Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 23 Packet Pg. 276 I 9.2.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 50,646 431,443 -25.73% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Office of Mayor 2018 Office of Mayor Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 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 25,761 290,735 -2.14% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 24 Packet Pg. 277 I 9.2.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 55,554 435,802 -8.70% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court 2018 Municipal Court Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 82,608 $ 175,964 269,619 356,946 446,138 534,494 623,552 718,039 811,352 908,794 1,003,801 1,105,852 82,608 $ 93,357 93,655 87,327 89,192 88,356 89,059 94,486 93,313 97,442 95,007 102,051 80,036 -3.11% 159,028 -9.62% 241,304-10.50% 326,606 -8.50% 413,053 -7.42% 492,913 -7.78% 570,967 -8.43% 663,923 -7.54% 737,873 -9.06% 821,270 -9.63% 894,651-10.87% 995,468 -9.98% 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. 278 I 9.2.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 72,433 585,222 -2.08% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Clerk 2018 City Clerk 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 59,002 668,132 -4.24% 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. 26 Packet Pg. 279 I 9.2.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 1,191,307 -10.79% Prior Year amounts are from the Information Services Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Finance 2018 Finance Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly 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 1,058,030 -14.52% 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. 280 I 9.2.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 70,623 825,880 -2.55% 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 CurrentYear Budget � Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Police 2018 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 898,915 $ 898,915 $ 871,900 -3.01% February 1,804,006 905,092 1,788,816 -0.84% March 2,702,544 898,538 2,677,649 -0.92% April 3,604,743 902,199 3,581,604 -0.64% May 4,500,589 895,847 4,507,241 0.15% June 5,429,498 928,909 5,475,264 0.84% July 6,353,542 924,044 6,356,315 0.04% August 7,262,887 909,345 7,232,795 -0.41% September 8,184,263 921,376 8,146,348 -0.46% October 9,205,655 1,021,392 9,112,432 -1.01% November 10,455,462 1,249,807 10,203,697 -2.41% December 11,419,437 963,975 11,143,656 -2.42% Police 12,000,000 11,000,000 10,000,000 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 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. 281 I 9.2.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 -2S.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 2,834,317 -15.59% 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 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 3,914,341 -11.28% Parks & Recreation 4,500,000 4,000,000 11-0100 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. 282 I 9.2.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 45,042 504,449 -1.87% Facilities Maintenance Public Works 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 -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 559,670 194,771 416,025 -25.67% April 745,373 185,702 558,614 -25.06% 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 1,822,864 -20.93% Facilities Maintenance 2,400,000 2,100,000 1,800,000 1,500,000 1,200,000 900,000 600,000 300,000 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. 30 Packet Pg. 283 I 9.2.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering 2018 Engineering Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance 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 2,308,081 -11.25% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 31 Packet Pg. 284 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY I 9.2.a I City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Detail As of December 31, 2018 Years Agency/ Investment Purchase to Par Market Maturity Coupon Issuer Type Price Maturity Value Value Date Rate First Financial CD 3,000,000 0.07 3,000,000 3,000,000 01/24/19 2.37% FFCB Bonds 2,000,000 0.07 2,000,000 1,998,670 01/25/19 1.23°% FICO Bonds 1,009,725 0.32 1,035,000 1,027,810 04/25/19 1.42% SCIP CD 2,500,000 0.42 2,500,000 2,500,000 06/04/19 2.65% FNMA Bonds 999,750 0.45 1,000,000 994,914 06/13/19 1.40% FHLB Bonds 1,000,400 0.47 1,000,000 994,561 06/20/19 1.40% FNMA Bonds 988,720 0.74 1,000,000 991,595 09/27/19 1.50% FHLMC Bonds 995,970 0.75 1,000,000 989,423 10/02/19 1.25% FNMA Bonds 1,994,310 0.82 2,000,000 1,979,208 10/28/19 1.35% FNMA Bonds 997,300 1.25 1,000,000 985,712 03/30/20 1.38% FHLB Bonds 2,003,780 1.25 2,000,000 1,970,552 03/30/20 1.45% FNMA Bonds 2,000,000 1.25 2,000,000 1,977,858 03/30/20 1.65% FHLMC Bonds 2,003,868 1.33 2,000,000 1,967,604 04/28/20 1.35% FNMA Bonds 1,000,000 1.50 1,000,000 982,822 06/30/20 1.38% FNMA Bonds 1,000,000 1.50 1,000,000 982,822 06/30/20 1.38% FHLB Bonds 3,000,000 1.53 3,000,000 2,937,276 07/13/20 1.20% RFCS Bonds 1,999,698 1.54 2,120,000 2,035,077 07/15/20 1.60% FHLB Bonds 2,000,000 1.58 2,000,000 1,973,430 07/30/20 1.75°% FNMA Bonds 1,000,000 1.66 1,000,000 979,134 08/28/20 1.40% FNMA Bonds 1,000,000 1.66 1,000,000 979,134 08/28/20 1.40% FHLMC Bonds 999,500 2.00 1,000,000 982,526 12/30/20 1.75% FNMA Bonds 2,005,474 2.05 2,000,000 1,957,228 01/19/21 1.50% FM Bonds 2,000,000 2.25 2,000,000 1,971,490 04/01/21 1.87% FHLB Bonds 2,000,000 2.48 2,000,000 1,978,852 06/22/21 2.18% FFCB Bonds 968,940 2.70 1,000,000 976,637 09/13/21 1.73°% FHLMC Bonds 2,000,000 2.91 2,000,000 1,968,482 11/26/21 2.13% FHLMC Bonds 999,400 3.00 1,000,000 982,090 12/30/21 2.00% FHLMC Bonds 1,000,000 3.16 1,000,000 984,302 02/25/22 2.15% First Financial CD 2,803,516 4.88 2,803,516 2,803,516 11/15/23 2.10% TOTAL SECURITIES 47,270,352 1.6 47,458,516 46,852,725 Washington State Local Gov't Investment Pool 10,213,158 10,213,158 Demand 2.37% Snohomish County Local Gov't Investment Pool 2,483,459 2,483,459 Demand 2.04% TOTAL PORTFOLIO $ 60,155,133 $ 59,549,342 SCIP- CD, Issuer Diversification 5% First Financial - CD, 12% FNMA, RFCS, 4% FHLMC, FHLB, 21% 1 FICO, 2% Cash and Investment Balances (in $ Millions) _ Checki ng, $2.6 , 4% State LGIP, $10.2, 16% County LGIP, Bonds, CD's, $8.3 , $2.5 , 4% $39.2, 63% 13% 32 Packet Pg. 285 1 I 9.2.a I INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY Annual Interest Income $1,000,000 $917,754 $800,000 $653,690 $600,000 $400,000 $423 816 6 $200,000 $163,214 $74,830 $- - 2015 2016 2017 YTD 2018 Z.570 2.5 % 2.3 % 2.0 % 1.8 % 1.5 % 1.3 % 1.0 % 0.8 % 0.5 % 0.3 % 0.0 % January $12, 000,000 $10, 000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $ 2,000, 000 Edmonds Rate of Return Compared to Benchmark (Rolling 12 months) — - - 6 Month Treasury Rate (Benchmark) City Blended Rate March May July September November Maturity Distribution and Rate of Return 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00 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 33 Packet Pg. 286 1 9.2.a GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW 0 76 U CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCES 0 & SUBFUNDS u_ ---- ACTUAL ---- >, ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2017 9/30/2018 12/31 /2018 O4 YTD 1= 001-General Fund $ 10,273,342 $ 8,713,120 $ 10,981,228 $ 707,886 $ 707,88( M CY 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 417,154 270,551 333,447 (83,707) (83,70-1 00 011-Risk Management Fund 902,700 919,656 926,477 23,777 23,77- N 012-Contingency Reserve Fund 5,447,144 5,039,559 5,466,190 19,046 19,04E y 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 7,356 10,013 12,588 5,232 5,23, E 016-Building Maintenance 210,221 210,221 210,221 - - 017 - Marsh Restoration & Preservation - 306,860 309,178 309,178 a00i 309,17t 018 -Edmonds Homelessness Response - 250,000 225,443 225,443 225,44, M 019 - Edmonds Opioid Response - 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,00( 'E Total General Fund & Subfunds $ 17,257,917 $ 15,969,981 $ 18,714,773 1 $ 1,456,856 $ 1,456,85( Z d 1= *$2,000,000 of the General Fund Balance has been assigned by management for the development of Civic Field. **Fund 012 made interfund loans to fund 104 for $52,006 and to fund 112 for $442,866 in 2018; preliminary Fund 112 Fa interfund loan balance at the end of December 2018 was $26,882. c ca c ii , L General Fund & Subfunds 0 0 21 00 18 r c N 15 L ■ General Fund m 12 & Subfunds aEi 9 $15.26 $13 97 $16.71 ■ Civic Field a) 6 0 r__ 3 1 $2.00 1 1 $2.00J E a Dec 2017 Sept 2018 Dec 2018 Q. E 0 U c m E t *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. r r a This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 34 Packet Pg. 287 I 9.2.a I GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2017 9/30/2018 12/31 /2018 Q4 c YTD A u General Fund & Subfunds $ 17,257,917 $ 15,969,981 $ 18,714,773 $ 1,456,856 $ 1,456,85( Special Revenue 8,273,865 10,512,975 10,053,005 1,779,140 1,779,14C % c Debt Service 3,812 3,812 (1,688) (5,500) (5,50( Capital Projects 1,544,084 2,145,975 2,205,241 661,157 661,151 OT c 3,891,65: Total Governmental Funds $ 27,079,678 $ 28,632,743 $ 30,971,331 $ 3,891,653 $ 21 18 15 C 12 0 9 6 3 Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group 7.26 $15.97 $18.71 +General Fund & Subfunds t Special Revenue $10.05 Debt Service Capital Projects L,-� $2.15 $2.21 �$0.00 $0.00 Dec 2017 Sept 2018 Dec 2018 35 30 25 NI C 0 20 15 10 5 Governmental Fund Balances - Combined Dec 2017 Sept 2018 Dec 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. 288 1 9.2.a SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW GOVERNMENTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE; ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31/2017 9/30/2018 12/31/2018 ---- ACTUAL ---- Q4 YTD 104 - Drug Enforcement Fund $ 692 $ (12,987) $ (12,987) $ (13,679) $ (13,675 111 - Street Fund 1,102,078 1,021,168 1,339,363 237,285 237,28! 112 - Combined Street Const/Im prove 728,782 1,386,405 1,386,405 657,623 657,62, 117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 533,208 576,297 568,664 35,456 35,45E 118 - Memorial Street Tree 18,349 18,690 18,829 480 48( 120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 82,355 114,900 89,256 6,901 6,90, 121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 69,294 82,501 76,793 7,499 7,495 122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 15,348 14,138 14,971 (377) (377 123 -Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 59,886 78,471 70,251 10,365 10,36! 125 - Real Estate Tax 2 1,901,003 2,529,007 2,244,783 343,780 343,78( 126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 2,165,209 2,991,672 2,576,028 410,819 410,81 f 127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 265,666 314,165 294,253 28,587 28,58" 130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 188,885 209,330 212,084 23,199 23,19f 136 - Parks Trust Fund 155,907 158,836 160,014 4,107 4,10- 137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 938,109 971,862 982,124 44,015 44,01! 138 - Sister City Commission 7,598 12,390 8,076 478 47! 140 -Business Improvement Disrict 41,496 46,130 24,099 (17,397) (17,39- Total Special Revenue $ 8,273,865 $ 10,512,975 $ 10,053,005 $ 1,779,140 $ 1,779,14( *Fund 012 made interfund loans to fund 104 for $52,006 and to fund 112 for $442,866 in 2018; preliminary Fund 112 interfund loan balance at the end of December 2018 was $26,882. 15 12 9 $8.27 6 - 3 Special Revenue Funds $10.51 Pr $10.05 J Dec2017 Sept 2018 Dec 2018 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. Special Revenue This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 36 Packet Pg. 289 1 I 9.2.a I ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND ENTERPRISE ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2017 9/30/2018 12/31 /2018 Q4 YTD 421 -Water Utility Fund $ 19,153,889 $ 18,631,938 $ 16,946,832 $ (2,207,057) $ (2,207,05, 422 -Storm Utility Fund 10,990,767 12,086,425 10,897,292 (93,476) (93,47f 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 44,666,806 45,766,959 43,939,207 (727,599) (727,59f 424 - Bond Reserve Fund 843,960 843,966 843,968 8 t 411 -Combined Utility Operation - 113,814 148,008 148,008 148,00t Total Enterprise Funds $ 75,655,422 $ 77,443,101 $ 72,775,306 $ (2,880,116) $ (2,880,11f 55,000,000 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 December 31, 2018 Combined Utility Water Storm Sewer/WWTP 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. 37 Packet Pg. 290 9.2.a SUMMARY OVERVIEW 0 0. FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND CITY-WIDE BALANCES 2 ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- U 12/31 /2017 9/30/2018 12/31 /2018 Q4 c YTD Governmental Funds $ 27,079,678 $ 28,632,743 $ 30,971,331 $ 3,891,653 $ 3,891,65" Enterprise Funds 75,655,422 77,443,101 72,775,306 (2,880,116) (2,880,11E L Internal Services Fund 9,250,186 9,802,534 9,927,670 677,484 677,48z Agency Funds 226,480 219,144 217,698 (81783) (8,7& CY Total City-wide Total $112,211,766 $116,097,522 $113,892,004 1 $ 1,680,238 $ 1,680,23E 0 N L E 0 U Governmental Fund Balances (Excluding General Fund) as of December 31, 2018 c Drug Enforcement Fund $ (12,987) Street Fund $ ,339,363 m Combined Street Const/Improve Fund $1,386,405 d Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund $568,66 O Memorial Street Fund $18,829 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund $89,25 Employee Parking Permit Fund $76,793 C Youth Scholarship Fund $14,971 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts $70,251 ILL Real Estate Excise Tax 2 $2,2 4,783 L Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq $2,576,C 28 O Gifts Catalog Fund $2 4,253 C0 0 Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement $212 084 0 N Parks Trust Fund $160, 14 L d Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund $982,124 E Sister City Commission $8,076 CID Business Improvement District $24,099 d L.I.D. Fund Control cap C Parks Capital Construction Fund $2,2 5,241 E $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 IL m m a E 0 c� c a� E z *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. r a This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 38 Packet Pg. 291 I 9.2.a I INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES INTERNAL SERVICE ---- ACTUAL ---- - ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2017 9/30/2018 12/31 /2018 Q4 YTD 1 c 511 - Equipment Rental Fund $ 8,996,077 $ 9,408,259 $ 9,589,171 $ 593,094 $ 593,09, ; c 512 -Technology Rental Fund 254,109 394,275 338,500 84,391 84,39 Total Internal Service Funds $ 9,250,186 $ 9,802,534 $ 9,927,670 $ 677,484 $ 677,48, 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000, 000 6,000, 000 4,000, 000 2,000, 000 Internal Service Fund Balances $9,589,171 Dec2017 Sept2018 Dec2018 ■ 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. 292 f 17 C. 1 S9V 4th Quarter 2(R Financial Management Summary Report (Detailed Schedules are included in your Agenda Packet) 0 ➢ A look at our year-to-date Revenues and Expenditures :c L. ➢ 2018 Financial Highlights ➢ General Fund ➢ Special Revenue Funds U- ➢ Proprietary Funds (the Utility Funds) ➢ Some information on our investment activities00 0 N ➢ Time for Questions 0 E a 1 Packet Pg. 293 f 17C. 1 S9V 9.2.b 2018 Financial Highlights m 04 CD ➢ A look at our year-to-date Revenues and Expenditures ➢ 2018 Financial Highlights ➢ General Fund ➢ Special Revenue Funds ➢ Proprietary Funds (the Utility Funds) ➢ Some information on our investment activities ➢ Time for Questions L IL r- 0 E a Packet Pg. 294 " /Ie. l $9Ij 9.2.b 2018 Financial Highlights .0 T_ z Overall City-wide Financial Performance Results Include: L a ➢ Revenues finished $2.9 million ahead of last ear 0. y ➢ Expenses finished $706,000 lower than last year U_ L ➢ Debt was reduced by $2.507 million 0 ➢ Capital expenses totaled $13.1 million E d ➢ Investment income totaled $917 754, an increase E $264M00 Packet Pg. 295 1"?C. 1 D JV 9.2.b 2018 Financial Highlights .0 CD E cc General Fund Financial Performance Results Include: i:-., ➢ Revenues finished $2 million ahead of last year r- - 0 ➢ Sales tax revenues increase by $1 million IL T ➢ Development related revenues decreased $426,000 Q ➢ Expenditures finished the year at 91 % of Budget d 0 ➢ Ending Fund Balance increased $707,886 Packet Pg. 296 09V 9.2.b GENERAL FUND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018* Beginning Fund Balance 6,834,380 6,446,380 9,359,437 9,841,719 10,273,342 00 Revenue o Taxes 27,194,895 28,714,539 29,403,794 29,572,203 30,505,872 N Licenses and permits 2,176,493 2,132,896 2,269,313 2,506,800 2,451,541 E Intergovernmental 766,365 977,585 1,261,998 890,572 1,007,874 0 Charges for services 5,309,297 5,150,816 5,403,786 5,463,913 5,790,806 p Fines and forfeitures 558,427 535,078 522,051 459,929 616,783 Investment earnings 27,446 70,048 (26,714) 154,737 195,832 5 Miscellaneous 385,440 435,414 441,432 471,675 848,458 E Transfer in - 822,175 82,695 26,300 75,884 a` Debt proceeds 2,763,314 - 549,095 - - Sale of fix assets - - 58,451 7,143 5,273 0 a Insurance recoveries - - - - 15,570 Total Revenue 39,181,677 38,838,551 39,965,901 39,553,272 41,513,893 Expenditures Current: ii - General government 8,387,356 8,836,333 9,969,187 9,714,867 10,273,379 Public safety 18,788,070 19,371,912 20,128,896 22,228,871 22,502,837 Transportation 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 4,779 Economic environment 1,286,881 1,353,548 1,313,430 1,551,152 1,422,361 00 Mental and physical health 8,469 69,762 70,814 126,791 184,337 N Culture and recreation 3,615,940 3,591,029 3,773,633 3,959,731 4,335,364 Debt service 321,080 272793 196,663 198,361 197,694 E Capital outlay 161,605 92,202 56,662 90,573 85,043 0 Transfers Out 3,520,377 2,334,315 3,414,141 1,247,703 1,800,213 p Debt refunding 2,720,000 - 556,593 - - Total Fipend itures 38,813,378 35,925,494 39,483,619 39,121,649 40,806,007 E E Prior Period Adjustments (756,299) - - - - z Change in position (388,000) 2,913,057 482,282 431,623 707,886 Q Ending Fund Balance 6,446,380 9,359,437 9,841,719 10,273,342 10,981,228 *Preliminary Packet Pg. 297 09V Retail Food Stores $297,098 Business Services $690,265 Accommodation $47,962 Communications $241,468 Wholesale Trade $309,738 Misc Retail $1,168,815 J 9.2.b Sales Tax by Source Twelve months ended December 31, 201800 2018 Total $8,406,296 Automotive Repair I M1 QQa Amusement &J Recreation U7_647 Clothing and Accessories $244,814 Retail Automotive r $1,770,393 Construction Trade $1,804,883 Manufacturing $102,598 Gasoline $35,957 Eating & Drinking $1,021,386 Health & Personal Care $235,902 Others $155,487 L E d N C E d a 0 a U c M c U- as c� Go T N L as 0 U 0 c c d E z 0 Q Packet Pg. 298 ($9,360) 51,18E—L 9.2.b Sales Tax Change by Source Twelve months ended December 31, 2018 N L a� E m Change in Sales Tax Revenue: o December 2018 compared to December 2017 I Total Construction Trade Misc Retail Others Business Services Eating & Drinking Retail Food Stores Clothing and Accessories Communications Automotive Repair Manufacturing Health & Personal Care Amusement & Recreation Accommodation Gasoline Wholesale Trade Retail Automotive E m L a 0 a c M c ii Lin 0 M a Go T 0 N L d E 0 U d G c d E t ($150,000) $50,000 $250,000 $450,000 $650,000 $850,000 $1,050,000 Q Packet Pg. 299 1 $2,000,000 $1,750,000 $1, 500,000 $1,256,641 $1,250,000 $1,000,000 $724,302 $750,000 $500,000 $677,361 $425,615 $250,000 $0 9.2.b Sales Tax Top Five Categories $1,522,375 $835,645 Top Five Sales Tax Categories $1,630,049 $1,348,832 $1,769,983 $1,819,035 $1,297,738 $1,060,245 $955,035 CD N L 0 $117701393 c E $1,804,883 a 0 Q. as $1,168,815 @ 0 \ c 0 c ii a� $1,021,386 00 o N $690,265 0 U as 0 c a� E 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 a Construction Trade (Retail Automotive —*--Misc Retail —Eating & Drinking -I-Business Services Packet Pg. 300 11 $741,537 $813,560 $430,383 $458,071 $858,108 $499,728 Iz $609,233 9.2.b Investment Annual Interest Income Annual Interest Income $1,000, 000 917,754 $800,000 $653,690 $600,000 $400,000 335,926 $423,816 $200,000 $163,214 $- 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Packet Pg. 301 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 EIM 9.2.b Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues Real Estate Excise Tax Revenue Comparison 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 00 CD L E d :i E L a 0 a m c i� L a� c� Go T 0 N N E 0 U N G C N E M U M Q Packet Pg. 302 9.2.b Recovery On Track to Break Record Source: NEBR 125 120 120 119 115 110 106 105 100 95 3/91 - 3/01 6/09 - ??? 2/61 - 12/69 ➢ Average Recessions Lasted Approximately 14 Months ➢ Average Recovery Lasted Approximately 75 Months ➢ We are now in our 119th Month of Recovery ➢ 39 Days and Counting to Break Record 00 0 N L E 0 E L a O 0. L Go T 0 N E 0 0 a Packet Pg. 303 roc' IQ u9v 9.2.b City Fleet Environmental Improvements City of Edmonds Autogas Savings Report Through November 30, 2018 Fuel Savings Last 3 months $13,193 Fuel Savings Last 12 months $48,503 Total Savings to Date $255,681 Summary Cost Savings Analysis Gasoline Average Price Last 3 months $3.39 Autogas Average Price Last 3 months $1.71 Average Savings per gallon Last 3 months (1) $1.49 Autogas Gallons used Last 3 months 9,849 Fuel Savings Last 3 months $13,193 44°r'o Total Fuel Savinas to Date $255.681 51% Environmental Savings Analysis (to date) Cot Emission Reduction Overall (in pounds) 453,812 Gasoline Gallons Displaced Overall 151,885 00 CD N E d V 0 E L a 0 0 r- 0 U- c� 00 0 N L w E 0 0 0 0 E M 2 a 19 Packet Pg. 304 roc' IQ u9v BLUE STM GAS Propane Sales & Service 9.2.b City Fleet Environmental Improvements Alliance � AutoGas City of Edmonds Autogas Savings Report Through November 30, 2018 Fuel Savings Last 3 months $13,193 Fuel Savings Last 92 months $487503 Total Savings to Date $2557681 Summary Cost Savings Analysis Gasoline Average Price Last 3 months $3.39 Autogas Average Price Last 3 months $1.71 Average Savings per gallon Last 3 months (1) $1.49 Autogas Gallons used Last 3 months 9,849 Fuel Savings Last 3 months $13,193 Total Fuel Savings to Date $255,681 00 CD N E d V N a 0 Q. m ii L L c� 00 0 N L E 0 0 a 44% 11 51% Packet Pg. 305 f nC. 1 09Ij $6X0,000 $5,0 ONO $4,0 00, 00 0 $3 ,0 00100 0 $210 00100 0 $1MONO $0 9.2.b Outstanding Debt coGovernmental Funds N E 0 Outstanding Governmental Debt S all N N N N N N N t a r- 0 Q. m U c 0 LL L L cu 00 0 N N E 0 V N 0 C N N N N N OM a N N N N N Packet Pg. 306 9.2.b Outstanding Debt co Governmental Funds Outstanding Utility Debt $5 0, 0001000 $4 5, 000,0 00 $40001000 $3 510001000 $3 050001000 $2 5, 000,0 00 $2 0100010 00 $1550001000 $100010 00 $5,000M00 $0 L d N R C E L a 0 U- 00 0 N L w 0 - kr) INC r— 00 C� O m "Zt kn `O rl- 00 C*� a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Packet Pg. 307 1 rnC 1 o9"Y Thank you for your time. Questions 9.2.b 00 0 N L E d V N R C L 0 U- L L 00 CD L w E d U w 0 C w E M U 2 Q Packet Pg. 308 9.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/23/2019 Discussion of Non -Represented Staff Salary Increases Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead} Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History At the 4/16/19 City Council meeting, the discussion of the non -represented staff salary increases was added to the agenda. After separate presentations from HR Director Mary Ann Hardie and Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, discussion followed. In an effort to afford adequate review of the handouts provided, it was decided that further discussion and potential action on salary increases for staff Directors, the Police Chief, and two Assistant Police Chiefs would occur at a future Council meeting. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative N/A Packet Pg. 309